Using Summoned Creatures to gain an AoO

[Storyteller01]

Mad psycho has finger on trigger of an atomic bomb and you are in a crowded city.
Your buddy is standing between you and mad psycho.
You have a pistol in your hand.
You can choose to try to move your buddy and get a clear shot, but mad psycho can probably react faster.
You shoot through your buddy and kill mad psycho.

So, does the summoned creature running past you fit into this senario? Also, did you intend to kill said friend, or just took the risk that he could die (bullets don't need to kill to pass through targets)?

 

[Storyteller01]

A battle rages, on the brink of being lost against the enemy. The figher is already bracing himself for the unavoidable counterattack when he spots a chance. The apprentice of the group's "locksmith", as he calls himself all the time, is sneaking up on the main enemy from the side, yet unnoticed, with a simple dagger in his hand. Fully aware that the young boy doesn't stand a chance of penetrating the enemy's armor, the figher uses this chance at distraction, slashing at the boy with all his might, sending him reeling back in a bloodied heap. The enemy, taken by surprise from such a cold and decisive blow against an ally (especially if we talk "bad" enemy and more or less "good" heroes here), doesn't notice that the swing's arc that started at the boy's abdomen will finish at this neck.

You mean something like this?

I've already asked once, but a second time is always good:
How deos a summoned creature running past you fit with this senario?

How can the summoned creature take the place of that little apprentice? Remember, you didn't order the apprentice to join the fight, or place themselves in that situation (or assume that it would do just that, if you can't communicate with them). Also remember that sneaking and unnoticed apprentice stand a good chance of being out of your reach, and is definitely not standing next to you. Neither is he runnig past you or next to you.

Trying to stay away from morality. I just want justification to the tactics

 

[Wrathamon]

Was the killing agreed upon by the slain creatures? If yes, we're dealing with a different set of dice, because then ALL parties were in agreement on the maneuver, and it can be seen as a self-sacrifice, which was willingly given and properly used.

then they aren't "enemies" or "opponents" at this point, so the AoO is moot.

 

[Storyteller01]

Question for all of you: Can you use a Cleave if you use subual damage to drop an opponent to zero or less (for those making the morality arguement).

 

[Geron Raveneye]

I've already asked once, but a second time is always good:
How deos a summoned creature running past you fit with this senario?

How can the summoned creature take the place of that little apprentice? Remember, you didn't order the apprentice to join the fight, or place themselves in that situation (or assume that it would do just that, if you can't communicate with them).

Trying to stay away from morality. I just want justification to the tactics

Well, the easiest answer to that would be the following tactic:
The fighter is in direct toe-to-toe melee with the enemy. The wizard summons a fiendish weasel in the proximity of both combatants. As the battle proceeds, the weasel attacks the wizard's enemy (which happens to be the fighter's enemy, too), and as it moves in to attack, it leaves it's back open for an AoO by the fighter. The fighter, having had his regular attack already, quickly swings his sword through the weasel, killing it on the way out of the other side and finishes the blow on his real enemy.

The main problem I have with your question is the last part about assuming it'd do it in case communication isn't possible. What exactly are you after with that one? The situation above is pretty much the same, except for the rogue's apprentice being exchanged by the wizard's weasel. Bot attack the enemy out of their own motivation, and both place themselves so the fighter gains an AoO and uses it to Cleave his opponent.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Question for all of you: Can you use a Cleave if you use subual damage to drop an opponent to zero or less (for those making the morality arguement).

Good question, as that's not clearly defined. The feat is talking about "dropping" an opponent with one single blow, stating "below 0 hit points" and "killing" as appropriate prerequesites that have to be fulfilled. subdual damage is tallied up, it doesn't reduce your hit points, as such it can't bring you below 0 hit points, and it can't kill you either, so i'd say no, you can't use Cleave after knocking your opponent out with subdual damage...at least not per the RAW.

 

[Storyteller01]

Well, the easiest answer to that would be the following tactic:
The fighter is in direct toe-to-toe melee with the enemy. The wizard summons a fiendish weasel in the proximity of both combatants. As the battle proceeds, the weasel attacks the wizard's enemy (which happens to be the fighter's enemy, too), and as it moves in to attack, it leaves it's back open for an AoO by the fighter. The fighter, having had his regular attack already, quickly swings his sword through the weasel, killing it on the way out of the other side and finishes the blow on his real enemy.

The main problem I have with your question is the last part about assuming it'd do it in case communication isn't possible. What exactly are you after with that one? The situation above is pretty much the same, except for the rogue's apprentice being exchanged by the wizard's weasel. Bot attack the enemy out of their own motivation, and both place themselves so the fighter gains an AoO and uses it to Cleave his opponent.

But the weasel situation justifies killing someone in the way, not how you gained an extra attack (you took a shot that was already lind up). It still does not justify an extra attack, or one out of turn.


The communication line was for CYA, in case someone said "I didn't know it would do that". As far as I can tell, the only reason the spell would be cast is because you know what it will do, whether you can communicate with it or not.

Also, (much as I object to it) the apprentice example shows you taking advantage of the situation, not ordering the apprentice to sneak attack the BBEG knowing he would fail.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Okay, now you've managed to completely confound me, to be honest. What exactly do you want a justification for, and from what angle?

And I can already tell you, if you want one from the angle of "real life combat", I'm the worst person to give it, because I never had any close combat training, and never was in any serious close combat in my 32 years on this planet.

So..what exactly are you asking for? You're clearly not asking for a moral justification, as in "when is it okay to kill an ally to gain an advantage". If you're going for a "what exact maneuver enables me to kill somebody close and thus get a shot at the enemy", I think I've tried to provide something in that area...maybe not the best, though. The Cleave feat allows for an extra melee attack, it doesn't specify exactly how it has to look, so if I "finish" my killing stroke against the rogue's apprentice by attacking my opponent, that's an AoO+Cleave maneuver if I do it "out of turn". And the shot wasn't necessarily lined up. The poor boy could have simply crossed my threatened area while sneaking up on my opponent. The same goes for the summoned creature.
As for any other points, I really have to ask you to specify a little more on what you are looking for.

 

[Storyteller01]

Double post

 

[Storyteller01]

Okay, now you've managed to completely confound me, to be honest. What exactly do you want a justification for, and from what angle?

And I can already tell you, if you want one from the angle of "real life combat", I'm the worst person to give it, because I never had any close combat training, and never was in any serious close combat in my 32 years on this planet.

So..what exactly are you asking for? You're clearly not asking for a moral justification, as in "when is it okay to kill an ally to gain an advantage". If you're going for a "what exact maneuver enables me to kill somebody close and thus get a shot at the enemy", I think I've tried to provide something in that area...maybe not the best, though. The Cleave feat allows for an extra melee attack, it doesn't specify exactly how it has to look, so if I "finish" my killing stroke against the rogue's apprentice by attacking my opponent, that's an AoO+Cleave maneuver if I do it "out of turn". And the shot wasn't necessarily lined up. The poor boy could have simply crossed my threatened area while sneaking up on my opponent. The same goes for the summoned creature.
As for any other points, I really have to ask you to specify a little more on what you are looking for.

Sorry, I should clarify.

I would like an example of how intentionally killing an ally will give you an extra attack against an enemy, out of turn. In my example of hitting an enemy to get one on another enemy via an AoO(roughly out of turn), I used:

*Fighter hits opponent in the leg (inner thigh), dropping him.
*He goes into an upper defense (or what ever you choose to call it), since the upper body was exposed in the low strike.
*While going into a defense, the blade lines up into a thrust against opponent #2.
*seeing an opening, he thrusts in...

Something along this line...

Then I'll try to apply it to the 'Summoned Creature to gain the AoO/Cleave' model and see how it stands up. 'Does the tactic you present justify or explain this action' type of thing.

In you weasel example: 1) did it actually give an extra attack, since you attacked on that vector anyway? 2) Was it really in the way, since you attacked it on an AoO (as it got within your reach, not the enemies)

As for your apprentice model, it hold up. Don't like it morally, but it does hold up as a 'hit off turn' tactic. How it applies to the Summoned critter model: Critters are ordered to make the attack (or it is assumed that they will) and generally aren't that close when you attack them(you attack as they pass within your reqch, not when they are attacking the enemy). The player is capitalizing on it, and knows what to expect (yes, you can argue that the character does not know, but the player still does. that is way the player had said 'character' act the way that it did). The apprentice happened to be an available target. This is doable.


In my experience, striking an ally to gain an extra, faster attack is generally impossible since, if attacking the ally gave a extra attack, then you had a clear shot anyway (and the direct path would be the fastest). Then again, this doesn't account for initiative rolls.

Guess that's where the '...seeing his friend sundered in such a manner, just a hair's breathe from completeing his own blow..." type storyline come into play.