Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="atom crash" data-source="post: 1898963" data-attributes="member: 22162">I do feel that allowing AoO+Cleave is a game balance issue, as well as a fairness issue. If I make a tactical decision and risk an extra attack (attack of opportunity) in order to perfrom some action that will benefit me, I don't expect that risk taken on my part to transfer to someone else as well. When I play chess and sacrifice a pawn to set up some tactical play, I don't expect my opponent to take an additional pawn as well.An attack of opportunity, as put forth in the rules, is a special situation outside of the parameters of normal combat. It is, in effect, giving your opponent an extra attack in order to gain a benefit. To allow that opponent to Cleave after the AoO is in effect to give him an additional attack on someone who didn't pay the price (AoO), who didn't take the risk.The game balance issue is that this fighter has received an extra attack outside of his normal turn.If this combination was ever used against my character in a game, I'd be highly upset. I'd feel as if the player-DM contract had been breached by allowing an additional attack on me when I did nothing to place myself at risk.The best mitigating factor is that this is not going to happen very often. In my campaign, the only character who has Cleave has only actually used it twice. Ever. And the PCs are more likely than the NPCs to draw attacks of opportunity. But I do often use the AoO as a tactical maneuver, weighing risk against reward (they probably won't hit my AC), in order to set up battlefield advantages.By the way, I am likey to ignore any response that includes the word &quot;cinematic.&quot; That word has now been so overused (and misused) that it means absolutely nothing. It's a description added as a marketing tool to sell me a concept or product.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="atom crash, post: 1898963, member: 22162"] I do feel that allowing AoO+Cleave is a game balance issue, as well as a fairness issue. If I make a tactical decision and risk an extra attack (attack of opportunity) in order to perfrom some action that will benefit me, I don't expect that risk taken on my part to transfer to someone else as well. When I play chess and sacrifice a pawn to set up some tactical play, I don't expect my opponent to take an additional pawn as well. An attack of opportunity, as put forth in the rules, is a special situation outside of the parameters of normal combat. It is, in effect, giving your opponent an extra attack in order to gain a benefit. To allow that opponent to Cleave after the AoO is in effect to give him an additional attack on someone who didn't pay the price (AoO), who didn't take the risk. The game balance issue is that this fighter has received an extra attack outside of his normal turn. If this combination was ever used against my character in a game, I'd be highly upset. I'd feel as if the player-DM contract had been breached by allowing an additional attack on me when I did nothing to place myself at risk. The best mitigating factor is that this is not going to happen very often. In my campaign, the only character who has Cleave has only actually used it twice. Ever. And the PCs are more likely than the NPCs to draw attacks of opportunity. But I do often use the AoO as a tactical maneuver, weighing risk against reward (they probably won't hit my AC), in order to set up battlefield advantages. By the way, I am likey to ignore any response that includes the word "cinematic." That word has now been so overused (and misused) that it means absolutely nothing. It's a description added as a marketing tool to sell me a concept or product. [/QUOTE]

Verification