Cleaving after an AoO

[atom crash]

It not being fair sounds like the same person who would complain about getting hit by the fireball when he was invis, or someone stepping on a trap which hits him as well, or someone easedropping on your conversation and hearing whatever secret plan is being discussed.

Not at all.

Getting blasted by a fireball because I was in the area of effect would be fine and dandy, even if I was invisible. What would be unfair is if I got hit by a second fireball, which the caster was only allowed to cast because my buddy decided to drink a potion in a threatened space.

Or if that trap hit me a second time because someone else ran away from it.

Risks are a normal part of the game, and I gladly accept them. But I have a reasonable expectation that for every risk I take, I stand to gain some benefit as well. And that if I do not take a risk, I won't get hurt. but I also won't gain anything.

A reasonable expectation is that an AoO is going to give me a benefit weighed against a risk.

A reasonable expectation is that I will get a turn for every turn my opponent gets. On his turn, he might get more attacks, or more powerful attacks, than I do, but we will get an equal number of turns.

In the normal flow of battle, everyone gets a turn -- unless something else comes up and they are either denied by spell (which would allow me a saving throw) or by attack (which would have to succeed against my AC) or by choice their rightful turn. If I am playing a fighter and my buddy is playing a rogue, and we are flanking an enemy fighter, I have a reasonable expectation within the framework of the rules to get one turn for every one that my opponent gets.

Now, suppose the opponent just attacked me. I have no reason to believe that he'll get another shot at me until after I get another turn. If he cuts down the rogue and Cleaves into me on his turn, then that's the risk I have to take. But I have every reason to believe I'll get a chance to act before he gets another chance.

Now the rogue isn't doing so well, being a rogue going toe-to-toe with a fighter. He could back off and drink a potion, but he also knows I need the flanking bonus. So he decides to take the risk and drink a potion, giving the opponent an AoO. After all, the fighter has a decent chance of missing his attack roll. And he really needs the HP (or the buff in a bottle, or whatever).

Lo and behold, the opponent gets lucky and lands a blow. It drops my buddy, and now my opponent Cleaves into me. My opponent has now gotten a second attack against me -- before I get a chance to act again -- without me having to put myself in a position of danger or having the opportunity to gain some benefit. I didn't get to drink that potion. I was just standing there.

Maybe some blood splashed into my eyes, but I'm not buying it. I didn't open myself up for that extra attack out of turn, so I don't see why I should have to take the penalty. Maybe it is some sort of special training, but it seems really fricking powerful for two feats (Power Attack, Cleave). Show me another feat that allows my opponent to attack me out of turn.

In my opinion, the AoO+Cleave combo upsets both reasonable expectations above, thus breaking the player-DM contract of the game; that's why I claim it is "unfair" or "unjust." That's why I won't be allowing it.

 

[atom crash]

La la la la, double post.

 

[Scion]

your rogue buddy should've readied an action. All of the benefit, none of the drawback. Looks like someone took advantage of the situation of him not doing the smart thing.

if you are not ok with being hit by a trap twice if someone runs across it twice then I dont know what to say, dont let people into your party who are going to do bad things to you.

cleave doesnt have any one set, 'this is exactly what happens every time' sort of deal, it is all about the situation.

This is simply one of those situations where it can work. Someone was dropped, by whatever means, and now they get to make that extra attack. That is what the feat does. Just like combat reflexes says you get to make aoo's even while flatfooted this feat allows you to make an attack whenever you down someone. Same deal.

Some people have some major issues with cleave, but if they just think about it in a more dynamic sense that should go away. Some dms I know have a major issue with the aoo allowed from combat reflexes, but that can be viewed in the same manner. Or they can simply ignore it, but then the same could be said for every single aspect of the game so that isnt terribly helpful, especially in the rules forum

 

[reiella]

True, but balance explanations are not.

Except it's not a balance explanation either.

It's simply an inherent disagreement with the design decision.

After all, if your sole gripe in this situation is "A Person making a Tactical Mistakes Gets Me Hurt Isn't Fair" as the balance consideration, wouldn't it also be equally 'unbalanced' to let the aforementioned person cast fireball so that it includes 'Me' in the area of effect when it is avoidable? [For this sillines assume they can Cast it defensively ]

Sure casting a fireball suboptimally aimed is different than drinking a potion, but both can arguably be situations that would 'save their life'...

Anycase, I'm fine with it, I can match the concept to some entertaining fight scenes so I'm good, even if it isn't realistic. Nor do I feel it particularly makes Cleave significantly better than another feat.

 

[Storyteller01]

Off the top of my head, Movie/TV shows/Books where someone attacks ally to gain advantage.

Speed - Keanu's character shoots his partner in the leg to take him out of a hostage situation.

Angel - police chick spikes through Angel to get the vampire behind him.

Elric - Moonglum lets Elric kill him to rejuvenate/restore/power up Elric.

See ya, gonna let everyone else play with this deceased equine.

YYEESSS!!! Finally, a direct answer!!!

Of these examples, the Angel sample seems the most fitting, as melee combat was actually involved. An attack on one was used to gain an attack on the other. Now, how do we apply this to the AoO/Cleave from a summons tactic?

 

[Storyteller01]

In my opinion, the AoO+Cleave combo upsets both reasonable expectations above, thus breaking the player-DM contract of the game; that's why I claim it is "unfair" or "unjust." That's why I won't be allowing it.

Just a sticking point in my thought process. I'm having a hard time dealing with the fairness of the situation, or rather the need for fairness in said fight. Then again, I prefer to inject what I believe is a element a realism, based on may own perspective (that being that fights generally aren't fair).

If I understand correctly, fairness between the DM and the players, rather than the situation, holds the most importance...

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

In the end this comes down to: is is allowable by the raw? is it abusive?

the answer to the first is definately yes, and the second is a definate no. An extra attack every now and then at the cost of a feat and only with other conditions just isnt huge.

No. Those are actually secondary issues. The most important question is: is the game more fun played one way or the other?

IMO and IME the AoO + Cleave:

(1) Discourages weird desperate tactics that provoke AoOs, and I love weird desperate tactics.

(2) Looks suspect because it breaks the normal pacing and cause & effect dynamic of the game, and therefore interferes with my SOD.

(3) Causes confusion and slows the game down, and therefore also yanks the players out of SOD. Something about discussion that begins with "Huh? Do the rules really say that?" with lots of followup questions tend to do that to me.

(4) Works against the protagonists of our story because we do not ultimately care when NPCs die by odd rules quirks. We are biased and unfair thay way.

All your arguments about realism, what the rules say, and fairness are ultimately tangential to my mind, because in this case they are trumped by the fun factor.

I recognize that it is entirely possible that you would have more fun just leaving things as they are. I recognize that this probably does not come up all that often in some campaigns. But that is not my experience.

 

[Storyteller01]

Risks are a normal part of the game, and I gladly accept them. But I have a reasonable expectation that for every risk I take, I stand to gain some benefit as well. And that if I do not take a risk, I won't get hurt. but I also won't gain anything.

But remember, you CAN get hurt by doing nothing. History has thousands of examples to prove this. More over, the risks or actions you take can effect others who have nothing to do with you (millions of examples exist throughout history!).

Admittedly, this is a game. You can play with any level of consequnces you desire. If you lose nothing for doing nothing, then that is the way you play. But in my experience, the reward is much greater when I have to worry the risks I and my players take, and about what my fellow players do.

 

[Abraxas]

originally posted by Storyteller01
Of these examples, the Angel sample seems the most fitting, as melee combat was actually involved. An attack on one was used to gain an attack on the other. Now, how do we apply this to the AoO/Cleave from a summons tactic?

We can't. It was a regular attack/cleave event. As such I have no problem with it. Ultimately its a stylistic disagreement with the out of turn nature of the AoO/Cleave event that I find unacceptable. The AoO allows one attack against the moron who screwed up or daring hero trying something desparate.

It probably has to do with the games I play in where cleave comes up very often. The guards in the BBEGs tower aren't all 11th level fighters. The goblin vampire is surrounded by dozens of regular goblins we have to chop our way through.

 

[Storyteller01]

Ultimately its a stylistic disagreement with the out of turn nature of the AoO/Cleave event that I find unacceptable. The AoO allows one attack against the moron who screwed up or daring hero trying something desparate.

Which is probably why I like it. I don't want to go through an adventure where everything is relatively predictable (no insult intended). I like the idea that the groups actions can harm each other, or that an attack can come from some completely unexpected angle. It also forces me (when acting as a DM) to really think about what the enemies will do, how well are they prepared, etc.

I must be doing something right. My players keep coming back !