Cleaving after an AoO

[Scion]

Insofar as you appear to be responding to Firelance, it appears to me you do not understand his arguments at all.

Perhaps you are responding to a post I missed?

I understand him just fine, I just disagree with several of his main points and so I made mention of one.

 

[Storyteller01]

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

Bye
Thanee

True. Guess it depends on how its applied

Still, got me on that one.

 

[Storyteller01]

It's funny how all these guys say that they would allow Cleave in an AoO, but then they create absurd rulings to prevent abuse from it.

How so?

This is not an arguement, I'm just lost at the moment. What has been given as examples?

Personally, as long as an ally is not the initial target, I'm fine with its use. If the player learns something new, I get to learn a new tactic to stop it (Spring attack, two at a time, is always a good choice).

 

[Storyteller01]

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.

But you have to remember being on the defensive, or even having a defense, does not mean having a perfect defense. Unless your standing behind a wall, you have an opening. This is the reason all martial styles, including european styles such as Fencing or Savat (I think I spelled that right) teach multiple types of guards.

Granted boxing does not teach low blocks (or at least blocks to defend the legs), but then again they can't target shots below the belt (in competition anyway)

 

[Storyteller01]

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.

But the concept makes sense (at least to me). A pretty common rule of thumb (for cinema and real life) is to let the little guys wear down the opponents. I would wonder why the BBEG is so close (spatially, not moraly) or so involved with such minor players. If it had been two or three lieutenants who have taken multiple shots from players, get dropped to about 3 hp, then get AoO/Cleaved with the BBEG getting caught in the middle, I could see the situation. The BBEG brought the fight to a close a nd personal level, and accepted the risk thinking the three buddies would save him.

Why is the BBEG so close in combat to folks who will die in one hit anyway?

Just ranting...

 

[Wrathamon]

I sort a agree with your assertion

I do quite firmly believe that if the rule was that AoO Cleave was not allowed, some of the people for it would be against it and nearly none of the people against it would change their minds (merely because some people like to follow the rules, regardless of what those rules are).

I agree that people would follow the rules and defend them if the rules were changed, but there is nothing wrong with that, just as there is nothing wrong with saying a rule is wrong and you go about trying to find a reasonable change to fix it.

In this instance, some people feel there is no reason to fix what isn't broken in their minds and those of the design team, while in the anti cleave aoo camp it doesn’t matter what people think, they feel its wrong and no one is going to change your mind.

I do disagree with the for balance and fairness argument, not that you aren’t for that... Because, I think most people "should" be.

My disagreement is that I don’t believe Cleave and AoO is not balanced. You get one free attack if you drop someone from your attack. So whether you got this free attack on your turn or off an AoO doesn’t matter, you would have still received it. Now, is getting a free attack from dropping someone Fair?

Fair is very subjective, more so than the term balanced.

I also don’t think it's NOT balance to house rule that you CANT Cleave off AoO. I don’t really see it hurting anything that much considering AoO and dropping someone from that attack is a rare occurrence. This would weaken certain builds and make them obsolete (combat reflex, reach, great cleave fighters) who specialize in the AoO cleave tactic.

So, if you HR that you can't, sure I am not going to argue it if I was in your game. You had your reasons, but I won't be changing it for my games because I dont see it as being an unfair or unbalanced.

We have basically beaten this horse about as much as we can.

I will agree with you here, but it seems that people haven’t beaten the horse enough... is that an evil act? Beating a dead horse?

I really only have one more question and then I am done with this topic unless a post perks my interest.

WotC PURPOSELY made Summon Monster spells extraplanar to avoid the very morality issue that you are making.

have you read anywhere that they did this on purpose? Can you show a designer interview or faq or anything supporting this claim or is this your opinion of the matter? If it is your opinion then you really should state that this is your opinion and not make it sound as if it’s RAW. But, if you did read this someone please show this because I would be VERY interested in that because that is a very conscious design choice and I am curious about what goes into choices like that. I can see your interpretation of this and it does make sense.

By no means am I trying to put you on the spot, I would just like clarification, and if there are specifics from wotc supporting this, that would be nice reading.

 

[Abraxas]

But the concept makes sense (at least to me). A pretty common rule of thumb (for cinema and real life) is to let the little guys wear down the opponents. I would wonder why the BBEG is so close (spatially, not moraly) or so involved with such minor players. If it had been two or three lieutenants who have taken multiple shots from players, get dropped to about 3 hp, then get AoO/Cleaved with the BBEG getting caught in the middle, I could see the situation. The BBEG brought the fight to a close a nd personal level, and accepted the risk thinking the three buddies would save him.

Why is the BBEG so close in combat to folks who will die in one hit anyway?

Just ranting...

The BBEG is in close to take advantage of your now limited mobility.
Or (specific example from a game I play in)
The BBEG happens to be a goblin vampire and all his minions are goblins. So even when they are trying to defend him they become a liability.
Or (from a different game)
The 6th level fighters are averaging 27 points damage per hit which takes out a lot of 4 HD mooks with one hit. So even mooks that on the surface seem reasonable, aren't.
Or
The BBEG doesn't want to let all the party concentrate on just him.

The problem with the BBEG not using numbers is that then the DM is metagaming.

My disagreement is that I don’t believe Cleave and AoO is not balanced. You get one free attack if you drop someone from your attack. So whether you got this free attack on your turn or off an AoO doesn’t matter, you would have still received it.

The difference is that an AoO/Cleave attack is an attack in addition to the characters normal attacks. And is at the characters highest attack value. An attack that drops a foe and results in a cleave doesn't provide an additional attack against the BBEG - the character could have, instead just attacked the BBEG. And each such attack is at a reduced attack value.

 

[Storyteller01]

The problem with the BBEG not using numbers is that then the DM is metagaming.

How so? (not an attack, just fisshing for examples)

 

[FireLance]

But you have to remember being on the defensive, or even having a defense, does not mean having a perfect defense. Unless your standing behind a wall, you have an opening. This is the reason all martial styles, including european styles such as Fencing or Savat (I think I spelled that right) teach multiple types of guards.

Agreed, not dropping your defense does not mean having a perfect defence. This is represented by attack rolls. In any round of combat, each opponent that attacks you in melee has a number of chances to injure you based on his BAB and other melee attack modifiers. Say, you are in combat with a 12th-level fighter with whose melee attacks are at +25/+20/+15. If your AC is 31, he has a 75% chance to hit and damage you on his first attack, a 50% chance to do so on his second attack, and a 25% chance to do so on his third. Unless you lower your defences (provoke an AOO), that will be all his chances to hit and damage you in any 1-round period.

Now, suppose it is possible to Cleave off an AOO. Your ally provokes an AOO and your opponent drops him. He then attacks you, gaining a fourth attack against you in this 1-round period. Where does this extra attack come from? The loss of an ally in itself does not normally create any additional gaps in your defence. Your opponent does not get an AOO against you if an ally dies from a spell. Over the course of a 1-round period, your opponent is assumed to be continually testing your defences. Your opponent cannot claim an extra attack against you even if he ignores your ally and focuses all his attention on you. Paradoxically, he has to shift his attention to your ally for the split second that he needs to attack and down him before he can send an extra attack your way.

So, if you have not lowered your defences, and your opponent gets an extra attack against you, it can only be concluded that he has somehow increased his offensive capability by dropping your ally. Perhaps he gets an adrenaline surge after doing so and this translates into an additional attack. If I was playing in a campaign where Cleaving off an AOO is allowed, this is how I would justify it. However, this is not how I see Cleave working, so I wouldn't allow it. It is not a question of rules, or balance, or plausibility, or logic. It's just personal preference.

 

[Scion]

In any round of combat, each opponent that attacks you in melee has a number of chances to injure you based on his BAB and other melee attack modifiers.

And feats, spells, special abilities, etc.

Where does this extra attack come from?

In this case? from a feat. But it could've been from a number of other sources as well depending on the exact circumstances.

His feat allows him an extra attack under specific circumstances. Just like a guy with rapid shot gets extra attacks under specific circumstances. It just so happens that rapid shot happens much more often and can be planned for directly where as cleave happens from the vagarity of the combat world. It is inherantly taking advantage of a situation that only someone specially trained can do.