Patryn of Elvenshae
First Post
Thanee said:
I did no such thing!
In fact, I challenge you to go back and look at my post. I dare you!
Would you allow this feat?
- Thread starter Philip
- Start date
I did no such thing!
In fact, I challenge you to go back and look at my post. I dare you!
wingsandsword
Legend
I wouldn't allow the feat, but I do allow Cleave on AoO's.
It's not a contradiction, its Roleplaying. D&D isn't just about game balance and mechanics. It's more than reducing a game to efficient character builds and mathematically sound feats, it is about having fun and sharing a story amongst friends. Just because an ability is balanced and mathematically sound doesn't mean it belongs in game if it makes no in-game sense, and if something makes perfect in-game sense it should be allowed (especially if it isn't game-breaking), even if the rules don't explicitly allow it. If DMs become slaves to the Rules As Written and refuse to do anything because there isn't a rule for it, why bother playing D&D, you can just sit at a computer and play EverQuest or Neverwinter Nights.
Look at it this way:
"Sir Nicholas was swarmed by the little goblins, they were running all around as he stood his ground trying to hold them off. One of them tried to run by him with his guard down, sensing a chance to strike Sir Nicholas takes a swing at the goblin, and takes his head off in one fell strike. With the momentum from the hit his sword arcs around and slices deeply into the goblin who had been trying in vain to get through his armor"
As opposed to. . .
"Sir Nicholas was swarmed by the little goblins, they were running all around as he stood his ground trying to hold them off. One of them tried to run by him with his guard down, Sir Nicholas sees the vulnerable goblin and thus takes an extra swipe at the goblin standing right in front of him trying in vain to get through his armor"
Which one actually makes sense?
It's not a contradiction, its Roleplaying. D&D isn't just about game balance and mechanics. It's more than reducing a game to efficient character builds and mathematically sound feats, it is about having fun and sharing a story amongst friends. Just because an ability is balanced and mathematically sound doesn't mean it belongs in game if it makes no in-game sense, and if something makes perfect in-game sense it should be allowed (especially if it isn't game-breaking), even if the rules don't explicitly allow it. If DMs become slaves to the Rules As Written and refuse to do anything because there isn't a rule for it, why bother playing D&D, you can just sit at a computer and play EverQuest or Neverwinter Nights.
Look at it this way:
"Sir Nicholas was swarmed by the little goblins, they were running all around as he stood his ground trying to hold them off. One of them tried to run by him with his guard down, sensing a chance to strike Sir Nicholas takes a swing at the goblin, and takes his head off in one fell strike. With the momentum from the hit his sword arcs around and slices deeply into the goblin who had been trying in vain to get through his armor"
As opposed to. . .
"Sir Nicholas was swarmed by the little goblins, they were running all around as he stood his ground trying to hold them off. One of them tried to run by him with his guard down, Sir Nicholas sees the vulnerable goblin and thus takes an extra swipe at the goblin standing right in front of him trying in vain to get through his armor"
Which one actually makes sense?
ARandomGod
First Post
Those are some very interesting and well put points, Patryn. I've gone from a definite "no" on cleaving from AoO's to a definite "maybe".
O_O
O_O
Chasmodai
First Post
Let's look at it this way - the Cleave attack you get off an AoO is not an AoO. It's a free attack you get, the same kind of free attack you get from, say, Improved Trip.
Besides, Cleave of an AoO doesn't happen all the time (you have to drop the opponent first). The feat, however, can happen without any added circumstances - Fred provokes an AoO, Charley gets hit instead. As opposed to, Fred provokes an AoO, Fred gets killed and Charley gets smacked from the momentum/flourish/whatever of the attack that killed Fred.
Besides, Cleave of an AoO isn't as bad as tripping on an AoO, getting a free attack from Improved Trip, Cleaving off that attack, tripping the guy next to him, then getting another free attack from Improved Trip.
Fun.
Besides, Cleave of an AoO doesn't happen all the time (you have to drop the opponent first). The feat, however, can happen without any added circumstances - Fred provokes an AoO, Charley gets hit instead. As opposed to, Fred provokes an AoO, Fred gets killed and Charley gets smacked from the momentum/flourish/whatever of the attack that killed Fred.
Besides, Cleave of an AoO isn't as bad as tripping on an AoO, getting a free attack from Improved Trip, Cleaving off that attack, tripping the guy next to him, then getting another free attack from Improved Trip.
Fun.
Li Shenron
Legend
I think there was a rationale behind AoOs, that you can do one of them because the target is "opening up his defenses" and not because the attacker is doing anything more than he's normally doing. That alone doesn't match with cleaving during an AoO, since the secondary target isn't opening up his defenses at any rate.
