Using Summoned Creatures to gain an AoO

[KarinsDad]

Yeah, probably, but in every quote we have either "enemy" or "opponent", both words that describe those in a combat who are fighting against you...so where's the problem right now?

In DND-speak, an "enemy" is a specific type of creature. It is a creature that wishes you ill as per the literal definition of enemy in the game. It is based off the reaction of that creature to you, not your reaction to it. Now, this is the literal rules definition. Please feel free to ignore it because I do.

Enemies and opponents would be two sets that intersect, but they also have areas where one is true or the other is not true.

For example, an unthinking Zombie can be an opponent, but it cannot be an enemy because it does not wish you ill (by the literal definition).

The man would killed your parents, wants to kill you, and who you do not know killed your parents is an enemy. Literally, you would not consider him an opponent because you do not know he is your enemy. And about the only spell in the PHB which would affect him (unexpectedly) is Bane because Bane is the only spell (tmk) that targets enemies as opposed to targeting opponents or foes.


Personally, I have no problem with Enemies meaning Opponents (since is a simpler rule) and Bane targeting who you want it to, but that is not the literal interpretation.


Hence, people attempt to use the literal definition of enemy to mean that AoOs cannot target non-enemies. But, to me this is ludicrous. Anyone who does certain actions in the area that your character threatens can be AoOed as far as I am concerned. Plus, as per the rules I quoted, opponents can be AoOed.

Since I DEFINITELY can declare who my opponents are, AoOs are fair game for anyone my character wants them to.

 

[Storyteller01]

Since I DEFINITELY can declare who my opponents are, AoOs are fair game for anyone my character wants them to.

Agreed.

Now (and I'm not bashing you. I just want clarification), what is the difference between AoO'ing a summoned critter, and AoO'ing a fellow player character? If your the kind of person who would AoO an ally, great, good story, my congrats. But to whack summoned creatures because 'they don't die. they're fair game' and not have at least an 'in my country, they as slaves. We kill them all the time' as an excuse?...

I don't like it as a tactic, but ignoring morality for a second. If not one then why the other?

Now, getting back to morality: I've heard, "It's okay to beat them. They don't feel it. If they die, we can get more later."

Sounds a lot like justification others used for slavery, back in the day.

Matter of fact, one such justification was 'Moses sold his son into slavery, at God's will. It must be god will that they are in the state that there in.'. Not a direct qute, but it is a published one!

 

[Geron Raveneye]

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.

Okay, I think I know now where my problems lie...you're mixing up D&D combat and real-life combat experiences a bit, or ar doing so for the answers you're expecting.

The problem is that it's already pretty hard to justify an "out of turn" AoO from somebody who is in melee combat with somebody else. Why can I whip my blade around to take a swing at somebody running by when I was just readying my defenses against the blow my opponent was about to deliver? Especially as I can do so against opponents running by behind my back! Without my opponent gaining even an advantage from me being distracted for a second or two myself.

The point is that, in D&D, Cleave simply means a sort of special training that enables a character to either continue a swing that went clear through one opponent, thus killing it, and end it against a second enemy, or it means a special fighting technique that gives a fighter the right rhythm to strike twice if he manages to drop his first opponent with one blow. It's a feat that goes well with scenes like
- Gimli running along the siege wall of Helm's Deep, chopping off one Orc after the next at each point that he stops
- Bruce Lee going through a heap of beginner karate pupils in the japanese Dojo to get at their sensei
- the Three Musketeers standing back to back, defending against 10 of Richelieu's guards
As for how "realistic" it is, as I said...I don't have any combat training, and never needed it either, so I can't say for sure.

The point is, if you can "justify" how a melee combatant who is in a defensive stance in his own fighting rhythm can suddenly take a pot shot against somebody else in the vincinity without opening himself up to an attack from his opponent, you can start justifying the AoO+Cleave combo, too. Just keep in mind that D&D combat was never meant to simulate "real" combat, not to a 100% and not to a 75% either, in my opinion.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

@Storyteller
I think he's already answered your question with this line here:

Since I DEFINITELY can declare who my opponents are, AoOs are fair game for anyone my character wants them to.

He's effectively saying that the only difference betwen another player character and a summoned creature as target for an AoO is the fact that his fighter wants to use an AoO against the summoned creatures, whereas he doesn't want to use one against the other player character. If he saw a reason to do so, though, he would use an AoO against another player character, too.

About the whole opponent/enemy "problem"...it's actually not too hard. As far as I see it, an enemy is a creature or a character who would try to do me harm in some way if he got hold of me, saw me or got the opportunity to do so indirectly, e.g. by hurting someone I love. That includes a Zombie if it has the orders to harm me. It may not be thinking by itself, but it's orders will place it among my enemies, as it would try to harm me if it got hold of me. An opponent is somebody who opposes me on an action I'm trying to accomplish. That could well be that Zombie, too, an enemy and opponent in combat, it could also be the paladin from my group trying to stop me from delivering the coup-de-grace on the evil high priest we managed to tangle up in a net.

My take on the morality of the situation is that, as soon as a character has no problems switching his perceptions to see his allies as moving target practice, he probably is on his way to become an evil character if he isn't so already. And yes, there's heaps of factors to keep track of in that adjustment, I know. As KarinsDad already pointed out, if a character wants to, he can attack anybody, even his friends and allies...the question is simply what repercussions does it have on his alignment.

 

[Storyteller01]

Okay, I think I know now where my problems lie...you're mixing up D&D combat and real-life combat experiences a bit, or ar doing so for the answers you're expecting.

The problem is that it's already pretty hard to justify an "out of turn" AoO from somebody who is in melee combat with somebody else. Why can I whip my blade around to take a swing at somebody running by when I was just readying my defenses against the blow my opponent was about to deliver? Especially as I can do so against opponents running by behind my back! Without my opponent gaining even an advantage from me being distracted for a second or two myself.

The point is that, in D&D, Cleave simply means a sort of special training that enables a character to either continue a swing that went clear through one opponent, thus killing it, and end it against a second enemy, or it means a special fighting technique that gives a fighter the right rhythm to strike twice if he manages to drop his first opponent with one blow. It's a feat that goes well with scenes like
- Gimli running along the siege wall of Helm's Deep, chopping off one Orc after the next at each point that he stops
- Bruce Lee going through a heap of beginner karate pupils in the japanese Dojo to get at their sensei
- the Three Musketeers standing back to back, defending against 10 of Richelieu's guards
As for how "realistic" it is, as I said...I don't have any combat training, and never needed it either, so I can't say for sure.

The point is, if you can "justify" how a melee combatant who is in a defensive stance in his own fighting rhythm can suddenly take a pot shot against somebody else in the vincinity without opening himself up to an attack from his opponent, you can start justifying the AoO+Cleave combo, too. Just keep in mind that D&D combat was never meant to simulate "real" combat, not to a 100% and not to a 75% either, in my opinion.

Almost, but not quite.

I'm using the 'real life' examples to find a justification for striking an ALLY (sorry about the caps)for this same reason, and it not be evil or without consequence.

I have no problem with the Cleave or the AoO/Cleave combo, and I'm willing to accept some pretty outlandish reasons or examples for their use, if only for the sake of fun.

But when I've asked for justification on using an ally or summoned critter (if it is summoned, then assume it's an ally), all I've received is some variations of 'I'm an evil psychopath' or 'it's in (or not in) the rules'.

There is the 'celestial' critter is just a construct powered by a celestial consciousness'. However, this seems very complicated and overpowered for a first level spell, and this still doesn't explain why you can gain an AoO from them.


All I'm asking is that those who use this tactic to justify it beyond 'it's in the game world'. Unless you and your DM have agreed on something before play, this translates to 'it's in the rules'. In IMHO, this constitutes a method of metagaming (why in a lawful good paladin allowed to strike celestial allies?)

Hey, if your playing an evil character, go for it. Accepting that mantle means you know the possible consequences ahead of time (dodging them is half the fun!). But what about everyone else?

 

[Storyteller01]

@Storyteller
I think he's already answered your question with this line here:



He's effectively saying that the only difference betwen another player character and a summoned creature as target for an AoO is the fact that his fighter wants to use an AoO against the summoned creatures, whereas he doesn't want to use one against the other player character. If he saw a reason to do so, though, he would use an AoO against another player character, too.

About the whole opponent/enemy "problem"...it's actually not too hard. As far as I see it, an enemy is a creature or a character who would try to do me harm in some way if he got hold of me, saw me or got the opportunity to do so indirectly, e.g. by hurting someone I love. That includes a Zombie if it has the orders to harm me. It may not be thinking by itself, but it's orders will place it among my enemies, as it would try to harm me if it got hold of me. An opponent is somebody who opposes me on an action I'm trying to accomplish. That could well be that Zombie, too, an enemy and opponent in combat, it could also be the paladin from my group trying to stop me from delivering the coup-de-grace on the evil high priest we managed to tangle up in a net.

My take on the morality of the situation is that, as soon as a character has no problems switching his perceptions to see his allies as moving target practice, he probably is on his way to become an evil character if he isn't so already. And yes, there's heaps of factors to keep track of in that adjustment, I know. As KarinsDad already pointed out, if a character wants to, he can attack anybody, even his friends and allies...the question is simply what repercussions does it have on his alignment.

EXACTLY!!! Thanks Raveneye!!

This is exactly my point. If your evil, you knew the risks of said actions (or will learn them soon enough).

(To other members)
So why is it acceptable for good characters to slay summoned creatures on their own to gain an AoO, without repercussions?

 

[Geron Raveneye]

AH! NOW I've got you...heh, okay, but be aware that those situations might sound constructed/artificial, as they are trying to portray a very rare situation, at least in my opinion.

It was the final meeting, the battle to end 5 years of conflict. Time and time again, the heroes had crossed the carefully laid plans of Nemoras the Black, just an annoyance at first, then getting more and more devastating, until this moment, piercing his defenses with force of blade and magic, a young boy in their midst whose features, if looked at properly, mirrored those of the blackhearted general who had terrorized the kingdoms for a decade now.
Blades were clashing for the last 5 minutes, with the fighter in his adamantite plate trading blows with Nemoras himself, his friends keeping the undead lieutnants at bay with spells and prayers. The elven bard who had come to them with the boy and a prophecy about the Fall of Nemoras had been the first to fall under the black, whining twin axes the general wielded as if they were made of wood. Thrice the fighter's blade had already scored, thrice with no trace of blood. The rumors about Nemoras' invulnerability were true. Nothing hurt him.
The boy stared at the hulking brute clad in black and silver, with his two axes shearing away the fighter's adamantine like paper. he had alrady tried, but the slim blades of his dagger had as little success of hurting their opponent as the flashing blade of his comrade. Like a whisper, the elven voice repeated the prophecy in his head:"...undone by his own blood, the blood of his kin...". It hadn't worked...his attacks had shown no effect...he was useless in this battle, they all would die...
Then it struck him. "My blood! Sereph! MY BLOOD! You need my BLOOD ON YOUR BLADE!"
Like lighning, both combatants turned their heads, their deadly dance paused for a mere second. Understanding flashed in the fighter's eyes. Changing his stance enough to quickly stab his sword through the young boy's heart, his voice ringing with sorrow as he shouted the boy's name in a valiant strike at his foe's neck, plunging the bloodied blade deep into the rotten flesh, severing the spine, and ending the threat once and for ever.
-------------------------------------------
It was over. The remaining troops of Nemoras were scattered. Standing around a burial mound where the general's tent had stood, four friends mourned. The fighter, kneeling on his sword, gave a quick prayer to the brave young man who had sacrificed his life to fell his ancestor. "Undone by his blood, by the blood of his kin. I wish it would have been different." A small hand gripped his shoulder, and elven eyes caught his. "He knew it Sereph, and he gave it willingly. If he had wanted, he'd be with us, but his soul gained it's just reward. It's out of our hands now." "Out of our hands, yes...but never out of our memory."

I apologize for (maybe) too much flavour text. Hope that's finally what you were after.

 

[Storyteller01]

AH! NOW I've got you...heh, okay, but be aware that those situations might sound constructed/artificial, as they are trying to portray a very rare situation, at least in my opinion.

[)

Exactly my point!! (good storytelling, by the way)

Such an action is allowable (usually) for non-evil characters at very specific times or circumstances.

So, if these circumstances are not met, and creatures are summoned and slaughtered to gain an AoO, then why should there not be consequences. Why is this an allowable tactic simply because the fighter needs to move a bit faster?

 

[Wrathamon]

Okay, I understand you HR the term "Enemy" but you are trying to state that you can AoO it in the rules... but you can't by the rules.

You are trying to use a "literal" explanation for an "abstract" game mechanic....

That is the problem you are having... or should I say "did" have since you have changed it for your game, but you really should have disclaimers going in your posts about rules when you are "changing" the rules.

You can't AoO summoned critters from an ally (someone in your party) because they aren’t enemies by the rules.

You can interpret those rules and change those rules, and by all means do so as you see fit, they aren’t WotC rules, they are everyone’s rules!!

But, make sure other people understand that you are basing your arguments on your belief in how the rules should be instead of the RAW. I must admit it seemed to me you were trying to say the rule is this, when clearly it is not, but if you made it clear that this was your definitions and how you play them, then we could make a strong case that this was an okay HR or rule change and we could move on.

I think your house rule on declaring enemies to be fine, it does break certain fundamentals in the game, but it seems that you fix those as they come up or you use them to your advantage (bag of puppies). By doing this you add another layer of complexity that better reflects real life.

Undead are your enemy by nature of you being alive... in "most" literature and games... the ranger has a Favored Enemy in Undead for a D&D example.

But, I understand your point

Okay, about that dead horse? Can we beat it some more? I think I am about to level... It's amazing how much XP you get from beating a dead horse.

 

[Abraxas]

So why is it acceptable for good characters to slay summoned creatures on their own to gain an AoO, without repercussions?

Because, based on our (some of us anyways) reading of the rules, the summoned creatures have already agreed to be killed in just that fashion (among many others).

Before your re-request for examples I had a counter post to Geron Raveneye explaining exactly why this tactic is not evil by the rules plus other comments. I deleted it and merely posted an example.

Basically a key part of that post went something like this - when Geron wrote "Was the killing agreed upon by the slain creatures?" The answer, based on my reading of the rules, was (and is) Yes. The fact that in the spell description there is no mention of the summoned creature(s) having any regard for their own well being makes it clear to me that they are completely willing to sacrifice themselves in any way necessary for "the cause". So, as Geron also wrote "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."