Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FireLance" data-source="post: 1907334" data-attributes="member: 3424">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.</blockquote>

Verification