Would you allow this feat?

[Philip]

COMBAT INSIGHT [GENERAL]
Benefit: When you receive an attack of opportunity, you may make the attack of opportunity on any opponent within the area you threaten.

Normal: A character without this feat can only make attacks of opportunity against the target that provoked it.

A fighter may select Combat Insight as one of his fighter bonus feats.

--------

Note: if you normally disallow feat because they are non-Core or non-WOTC, consider this a Core WOTC feat for purposes of the poll.

 

[sfedi]

Philip, VERY smart poll.

 

[Thanee]

No, it's totally stupid and has nothing to do with the idea of AoO.

Answered 4, altho the part in parantheses has nothing to do with it... If I would allow AoO+Cleave I'd have answered 3.

I doubt answer 2 will get any serious votes...

Bye
Thanee

 

[Li Shenron]

Just no

 

[kmdietri]

I would allow it, but I'd make Combat Reflexes a Prereq...

 

[pbd]

I wouldn't allow it and also say no to Cleave after an AoO.

An attack of opportunity arises when an opponent lets their guard down to do something else; move, cast a spell, etc. The attack of opportunity is against the one whose guard is down, not someone standing next to them. I can't see any mechanistic way in which someone would be able to attack someone else just because someone near them let their guard down.

Also, an AoO is just that, an attack of ooportunity; not a planned, well thought-out attack. You get to make a single attack attack against the opponent that incurred the AoO and should not get a cleave attempt if you bring them down.

Personall I think cleave, and especially great cleave, is one of the more broken/unrealistic feats.

pbd

 

[DungeonmasterCal]

I'm about ready to chuck AoO's out in order to save my game. Half my players utterly revolt against them. At the very least, I'm gonna tinker the hell out of them.

 

[atom crash]

ok, so through the use of this feat, if goblin #1 bends over to tie his shoe in the middle of combat, you can use this momentary opening to instead attack goblin #2?

no, i wouldn't allow it because a) it doesn't make much sense, b) it totally corrupts the concept of attacks of opportunity and c) it's way too powerful with no pre-requisites.

even if hefty (or at least logical) pre-requisites were added, i'd probably still disallow it based on the first two points.

a) it doesn't make much sense: consider in particular the case of a disarm, trip, grapple or bull-rush attempt. where is the sense in being able to take an additional (free) attack on a foe because a different foe attempts these specific actions?

b) it totally corrupts the concept of attacks of opportunity. the AoO is a risk vs. gain tactical decision between the person taking the action and the person threatening him. i want to take a certain action, so i'll take the risk. how can you weigh the risk of an action vs the AoO when potentially you won't be the one taking the attack?

the AoO is not a penalty for taking certain actions, but this concept turns it into one. however, this feat would reinforce party cohesion, since it would make every character responsible for every other character during combat.

if the wording of the feat were such that it explicitly allowed the use of Cleave on an AoO rather than allowing a person to attack any foe in range when one foe attempted a bull rush, it would make more sense, but it would also be superfluous, as Cleave on an AoO is already allowed by the letter of the rules.

 

[was]

No.

 

[JimAde]

Atom Crash: I think Philip is just trying to make a point here, it's not a serious feat proposal. He's pointing out that allowing a cleave after an AoO is basically the same as this feat. And as you say, the feat is not reasonable.