Cleaving after an AoO

[Storyteller01]

So when four guys provoke AoOs its still fine? even though the DM may move these 4 individually they are all acting about at the same time. How can you be so concentrated as to take advantage of four separate openings but can't concentrate enough to do exactly the same thing when trying to hit those same 4 guys on your turn?

That to me is meta gaming.

You'd be surprised, friend!

In the first example, all four (while moving relatively simultaeously) move at their own rythm or momentum. You catch the breaks or pauses, and use those opportunities against them. There are attacks where the sword is places under the armpit, thrusting backwards as an enemy comes up from behind (you actually step and settle back, using the your body weight to power the thrust. Arm strength is used tyo stabilize the blade, keeping it is position relative to you). Makes for an interesting surprise for the guy behind you, thinking he has the advantage.

In the second example, you are attacking all within range, using a single beat of your own rythm or momentum, if you will. Making that kind of mass attack without getting hit yourself is not an easy task...

 

[Squire James]

I don't allow Cleaves as a result of AoO's. I can see how some would, but I don't agree with them. Many of the reasons have already been mentioned.

The primary one is that taking a de-facto AoO on someone who didn't provoke one seems unfair, no matter what feat causes this to happen. This whole thing seems more like an exploitable loophole in the Cleave rules, not the intended result of the Cleave rules. If someone can still make the "bucket of snails" nonesense work, there's still something wrong!

Cleave is the most badly-worded feat in the PHB. If it were worded like this (not the only possible wording, but how I would reword it if I could)...

"When you reduce an opponent to 0 or fewer HP on a regular melee attack, you gain an extra attack on another target within reach at the same attack bonus. Only one such extra attack is allowed each round."

(Great Cleave essentially removes the last sentence)

...this 11-page thread would be arguing over what a "regular melee attack" is.

 

[Hypersmurf]

"When you reduce an opponent to 0 or fewer HP on a regular melee attack, you gain an extra attack on another target within reach at the same attack bonus. Only one such extra attack is allowed each round."

(Great Cleave essentially removes the last sentence)

...this 11-page thread would be arguing over what a "regular melee attack" is.

[shrug] If you want a simple change to the wording of Cleave to prevent it working on an AoO, just add the phrase 'as a free action'.

"... you get an immediate, extra melee attack as a free action..."

-Hyp.

 

[Thanee]

"When you reduce an opponent to 0 or fewer HP on a regular melee attack, you gain an extra attack on another target within reach at the same attack bonus. Only one such extra attack is allowed each round."

And what happens, if the target has the Diehard feat or another ability to not fall over when dying?

Besides, reducing it to 0 hp does not drop a creature.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Storyteller01]

The primary one is that taking a de-facto AoO on someone who didn't provoke one seems unfair, no matter what feat causes this to happen. This whole thing seems more like an exploitable loophole in the Cleave rules, not the intended result of the Cleave rules. If someone can still make the "bucket of snails" nonesense work, there's still something wrong!

Going back to my "can you explain the action plausibly, without relying soley on the rules" theory (bash freely. Others already have ), I can see in real time how the AoO/Cleave action works. IMHO, it explains to me how professional fighters who are nowhere near 20th level (maybe 13th tops. A 20th level fighter effectively would never miss against normal odds) can make more than 4 attacks in 6 seconds (remembering boxing matches or maui Thai kickboxing matches in their last rounds. Also kenpo karate, whose whole philosophy [I think] is hit{creates an opening}, hit opening {creates another opening}, etc).

Also, as mentioned earlier, people get hit for anothers actions, regardless of what is or is not fair. I tend to prefer the AoO/cleave option. Creates a greater challenge, forces myself and my fellow players to think before we act...

 

[Thanee]

For some reason, I do not think Cleave has been invented with the idea of multiple quick strikes in mind.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Joker]

The primary one is that taking a de-facto AoO on someone who didn't provoke one seems unfair

Nobody ever intentionally provokes a Cleave attack, it just happens. You (the target of the Cleave) have no control over whether you get attacked by a Cleave attempt or not. That's a matter of the attacker and the dropped creature. It has nothing to do with fairness.

Bob (with Cleave) is fighting two opponents. It's the opponents' turn and they decide to attack Bob. Bob lives and when it's his turn he drops opponent 1 with his attack and cleaves through to opponent 2.

Rewind: Opponents' turn. Nr 1 decides that he has better things to do and runs away provoking an AoO. He gets dropped by Bob and Bob Cleaves through to nr 2.

How is it any less fair if it happens during an AoO than during a normal attack?

 

[FireLance]

How is it any less fair if it happens during an AoO than during a normal attack?

To reiterate (and rephrase slightly): To me, an AOO is an extra chance to attack a combatant that occurs because he lowered his defences. A combatant who does not lower his defences should not be subject to any extra attacks that are only possible because of lowered defences.

Similarly, to me, Cleave and Great Cleave are feats that make weak opponents irrelevant. A high-level fighter with four iterative attacks per round who is fighting a powerful opponent and several weak ones could aim all his four attacks at the powerful opponent. However, Cleave and Great Cleave allow him to cut down the weak opponents and Cleave off them to attack others, including the powerful one. Used in this way, Cleave and Great Cleave don't give the fighter any more attacks against any single opponent than if he had focused all his attention on him. The powerful opponent is no worse off no matter how many minions he surrounds himself with. They are at worst irrelevant, and at best, they could soak up some of the attacks that would have been directed at him.

The difference between a normal Cleave and Cleaving off an AOO is the difference between being irrelevant and being a liability. Cleaving off an AOO means that some of the weaker opponents could actually become liabilities, if they provoke AOOs from the fighter.

The issue of fairness arises because a powerful opponent could be attacked one or more additional times per round at the fighter's best attack bonus, even though he has not lowered his defences, simply because his minions have.

Cleaving off an AOO just doesn't seem fair to me, so I wouldn't allow it. It does to others, and so they do. That's all there is to it.

 

[Joker]

I don't see an AoO as an opponent lowering his defenses. The fact that he keeps his full AC bonus reflects that. I see AoO as a game mechanic to stop people from being able to do all sorts of crazy things in melee as someone previously said.

If weak opponents are going to die off of an AoO than they're gonna die of regular attacks aswel and are still (as u put them) liabilities.

Cleaving off an AOO just doesn't seem fair to me, so I wouldn't allow it. It does to others, and so they do. That's all there is to it.

Right you are.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Well spoken, Firelance.

I think you nailed it with the qualitative distinction between becoming irrelevant and becoming a liability.