# Cleave and Attacks of Opportunity



## pdmiller (Jan 8, 2004)

Help save a paladin...
a paladin fighting a giant was on his last hit point, when a summoned badger (brought in by an allied sorcerer) scrambled to his aid.  The giant AOOed the badger, smashing it to pieces, and then cleaved the paladin, with the same result.
The question is: do you get to cleave after dropping an opponent with an attack of opportunity?  As the DM reading the feat description, there seemed to be no reason why not; however, it seems unfair that someone who hasn't themselves generated an AOO should suffer because of someone else's mistake?

What say you?

Captain Carnage.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 8, 2004)

pdmiller said:
			
		

> What say you?




By the rules as written, it's completely legal.

A lot of people hate it, consider it illogical, and house rule it, but by the rules, the paladin is dead.

-Hyp.


----------



## Thanee (Jan 8, 2004)

I say, logic is above the rules and so he should live! 

But as the smurfster said, by the rules it's completely legal...

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Ottergame (Jan 8, 2004)

Cleave is using the momentum of one attack and continuing the same swing to another target.  Valid and it makes sense.


----------



## dcollins (Jan 8, 2004)

pdmiller said:
			
		

> ...a paladin fighting a giant was on his last hit point, when a summoned badger (brought in by an allied sorcerer) scrambled to his aid...




Exactly who was the sorcerer allied with? 

While Cleaves off AOOs are definitely allowed, this sounds suspiciously like the "blind kobolds" argument. If the sorcerer/badger were allied with the giant, the proper ruling would be no AOO against an ally.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 8, 2004)

Thanee said:
			
		

> But as the smurfster said...




"Smurfster"?

Good grief 



			
				Ottergame said:
			
		

> Cleave is using the momentum of one attack and continuing the same swing to another target.




Well, that's one interpretation, but it's certainly not the only valid one.



			
				dcollins said:
			
		

> Exactly who was the sorcerer allied with?




If it was coming to the aid of the paladin on his last hit point, I'd say it was inimical to the giant. 

-Hyp.


----------



## Ottergame (Jan 8, 2004)

The giant chooses who his enemies are.  There's no reason why he shouldn't be able to hit all of his enemies, regardless of who's group each enemy may be in.


----------



## Pax (Jan 8, 2004)

[house rule]

The way I, personally, would handle the interaction between Cleave and an AoO that drops it's target, is, I wouldn't count that attack against the characters AoO limit for the round.  That gives a benefit clearly in the spirit of Cleave, but, doesn't open up the BBEG to free extra attacks just because his FLUNKIES act like careless fools. ^_^

[/house rule]


----------



## shilsen (Jan 8, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> "Smurfster"?
> 
> Good grief




Would you prefer Smurfinator ?



			
				Pax said:
			
		

> [house rule]
> 
> The way I, personally, would handle the interaction between Cleave and an AoO that drops it's target, is, I wouldn't count that attack against the characters AoO limit for the round. That gives a benefit clearly in the spirit of Cleave, but, doesn't open up the BBEG to free extra attacks just because his FLUNKIES act like careless fools. ^_^
> 
> [/house rule]




Hey, if you're not a good enough evil overlord to hire good (sorry, evil...er, make that efficient) help, you deserve to suffer!


----------



## youspoonybard (Jan 8, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> By the rules as written, it's completely legal.
> 
> A lot of people hate it, consider it illogical, and house rule it, but by the rules, the paladin is dead.
> 
> -Hyp.




Are you one of those people?

I've never seen why it's illogical, nor do I hate it...


----------



## Darklone (Jan 8, 2004)

Me neither. But it's the old problem that a BBEG with mooks is easier to beat than without mooks


----------



## Elric (Jan 8, 2004)

Blind Kobolds forever!  Seriously, there is nothing in the rules that prevents you from abusing Great Cleave/Combat Reflexes/lots of blind kobolds (or badgers summoned by a sorceror friend), but it is rather silly.  Pax's house rule looks good to me.


----------



## Pielorinho (Jan 8, 2004)

Pax said:
			
		

> [house rule]
> 
> The way I, personally, would handle the interaction between Cleave and an AoO that drops it's target, is, I wouldn't count that attack against the characters AoO limit for the round. That gives a benefit clearly in the spirit of Cleave, but, doesn't open up the BBEG to free extra attacks just because his FLUNKIES act like careless fools. ^_^
> 
> [/house rule]



I like it!
Daniel


----------



## jgsugden (Jan 8, 2004)

youspoonybard said:
			
		

> Are you one of those people?
> 
> I've never seen why it's illogical, nor do I hate it...



This subject has been handled many times. For a thorough discussion, search these boards or the WotC boards if you don't have search access here.

My *house rule* to cover the situation: You may not cleave off an AoO, but you gain an extra AoO that round (as if you had combat reflexes or your dexterity were 2 higher for combat reflexes purposes) if you fell an opponent on an AoO. This effectively allows you to 'cleave' into someone else that provokes an AoO, but not into someone that has not dropped their defenses.


----------



## mikebr99 (Jan 8, 2004)

Don't be getting mad at your DM from killing you (via a Giant's cleave)... get mad at the Sorcerer! 

YMMV


Mike


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 8, 2004)

youspoonybard said:
			
		

> Are you one of those people?




Not me - I have no problem with AoO->Cleave.

-Hyp.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jan 8, 2004)

dcollins said:
			
		

> While Cleaves off AOOs are definitely allowed, this sounds suspiciously like the "blind kobolds" argument. If the sorcerer/badger were allied with the giant, the proper ruling would be no AOO against an ally.




I can understand prefering either position with regard AoO+Cleave, but I believe rather strongly if you feel the need to bandaid it in this manner you should disallow it in the first place.  After all, you are not preventing it from happening, just arbitrarily discouraging anyone from doing it on purpose.



How about 'Little Blue Moderator'?


----------



## borc killer (Jan 8, 2004)

One of the only house rules we have is that you can not use any 'special' attacks during an AoO.  'Special' would mean something other than the standard listed attack for the monster or PC... so a dragon's standard attack is his bite (I think) so the only thing we let him do is bite... no cleaving, no grabs, no trips, no sunders, no nothing unless it is listed as the normal single attack.

The main reason we started this was because of improved trip and the fact that standing up from prone provokes AoO so the whole party took tripping weapons and proceeded to make a slightly over powered ability into a massive pain in the arse.  So we all set down and came up with a fix… and we decided AoO only allowed for a single normal attack.  Which makes a lot of since when you think about AoO as brief moments of variability because then the person making the attack should only have a split second to do it and would use their most basic attack for that.

I have to say that this has really made things run much smother and keeps everything balanced because it effect PCs just as much as monsters.

Anyway it works great for us… 

Borc Killer


----------



## ASH (Jan 8, 2004)

All house rules aside, its perfectly legal. The whole momentum idea is the one that I tend to believe....


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 8, 2004)

ASH said:
			
		

> All house rules aside, its perfectly legal. The whole momentum idea is the one that I tend to believe....




Now describe stabbing an opponent ten feet to the north, and Cleaving into an opponent ten feet to the south, with a longspear, using the "whole momentum idea" 

-Hyp.


----------



## dcollins (Jan 8, 2004)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> ...but I believe rather strongly if you feel the need to bandaid it in this manner you should disallow it in the first place...




I don't see "no AOO against allies" as a band-aid, but rather my honest reading of the intent and flavor of the Cleave and AOO rules. The AOO language is in fact pretty consistent about using the word "enemies", as in "An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened area provokes an attack of opportunity against you." (3.0 PHB p. 122)


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 8, 2004)

dcollins said:
			
		

> The AOO language is in fact pretty consistent about using the word "enemies"...




Ah, but who determines who is an enemy and who is an ally?

If you think we're friends, but I secretly want to kill you, am I your enemy?  Your ally?  Both?  Neither?

If you cast Bless, am I affected?  If you cast Bane, am I affected?

What if I cast Bless, or Bane - which affects you?

-Hyp.


----------



## Crothian (Jan 8, 2004)

So, the only reason people have a problem with AoO and Cleave is becasue there might be an encounter in which the bad guy kills his own people to attack the party?  Seems like a weak reason to dicount something in the rules.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 8, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> So, the only reason people have a problem with AoO and Cleave is becasue there might be an encounter in which the bad guy kills his own people to attack the party?




It's the lynchpin of the "Bag of Rats" trick (which still works in 3.5, even though the Bucket o' Snails has been stymied) - the theory is that a bag of rats dumped on the floor will result in said rats all running away and thus provoking AoOs.  Combat Reflexes lets you drop each rat, and Great Cleave means each rat dropped results in an attack at full bonus against your opponent.

-Hyp.


----------



## jgsugden (Jan 8, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Ah, but who determines who is an enemy and who is an ally?
> 
> If you think we're friends, but I secretly want to kill you, am I your enemy?  Your ally?  Both?  Neither?
> 
> -Hyp.



We're all mature here. You don't have to throw in the word 'if' when you know you don't need it.


----------



## Crothian (Jan 8, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> It's the lynchpin of the "Bag of Rats" trick (which still works in 3.5, even though the Bucket o' Snails has been stymied) - the theory is that a bag of rats dumped on the floor will result in said rats all running away and thus provoking AoOs.  Combat Reflexes lets you drop each rat, and Great Cleave means each rat dropped results in an attack at full bonus against your opponent.
> .




I'm familiar with the it.  But it's an interesting thing in theory, but in practice I've never heard of a DM not laughing at anyone who tried this.  It's abusing the system, and I don't even know any gamers who would even try that at a serious game.  Is there a rash of gamers across the world creating PCs with the full intention of doing this trick?


----------



## Pielorinho (Jan 8, 2004)

What about rewording cleave this way (or something like this)?

*Cleave*: When your melee attack leaves an opponent unconscious, you may consider yourself not to have made that attack, for the purposes of figuring out how many attacks you have remaining. If the melee attack was made as an attack of opportunity, you may consider yourself to have chosen not to make an attack of opportunity against that opponent.  Once you use this ability, you may not use it again until your next action.

Daniel


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 8, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> I'm familiar with the it.  But it's an interesting thing in theory, but in practice I've never heard of a DM not laughing at anyone who tried this.  It's abusing the system, and I don't even know any gamers who would even try that at a serious game.




That's right.  But it's used as an illustration of what some people consider to be a problem.

An Ogre barbarian is tough.  An Ogre barbarian backed by half a dozen goblin lackeys should, theoretically, be tougher.

But if those goblins all provoke AoOs - particularly if they're under the influence of something like a Greater Command, but there are other ways it could happen - then suddenly the Ogre's life expectancy is much shorter.  His allies, rather than increasing the challenge, decreased it.

Alternatively, the Ogre might, as you noted above, take the AoOs himself, and repeatedly Cleave into the PC tank, which the players will likely cry "Foul!" on.

-Hyp.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jan 8, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> So, the only reason people have a problem with AoO and Cleave is becasue there might be an encounter in which the bad guy kills his own people to attack the party?  Seems like a weak reason to dicount something in the rules.




You missed three out of four logical possibilities.  The full array is:
  (1) BBEG kills evil mooks to attack party.
  (2) BBEG kills good mooks to attack party.
  (3) Hero kills evil mooks to attack BBEG.
  (4) Hero kills good mooks to attack party.  

With the use of summonings a hero may kill good mooks without alignment problems.  (It gets even more exciting if we add in third parties, e.g. neutral mooks, innocent bystanders, co-allies, co-enemies.)

The idea of distinguishing between "allies" and "enemies" is purely artificial and illogical.  Mechanically speaking the relavant question is who do you _choose_ to threaten or affect with Bless/Bane.  It seems to me that the DM dictating who is or is not my enemy/ally is as extreme as railroading can get.

As far as the aboves reasons being weak, I am sure a lot of people agree with you.  I am fine with that although my personal opinion differs.  IMNSHO it is positively foolish to house rule case #4 while leaving #1, #2, #3 as is.


----------



## Crothian (Jan 8, 2004)

But why would the ogre and orcs be that close together in the first place?  It's not like fireball is this rarely used spell.  

Sure it can happen, but I'm not willing to change something for a situation that rarely comes up in game.


----------



## Crothian (Jan 8, 2004)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> You missed three out of four logical possibilities.  The full array is:
> (1) BBEG kills evil mooks to attack party.
> (2) BBEG kills good mooks to attack party.
> (3) Hero kills evil mooks to attack BBEG.
> (4) Hero kills good mooks to attack party.




And after it happens once, the mooks all run away.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 8, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> But why would the ogre and orcs be that close together in the first place?




Orcs?  I said goblins.  This isn't the Hobbit, man, they're different!

Anyway - the goblins _weren't_ that close.  They were hanging back with bows.  But when they got hit with the Greater Command: Approach, they all had to run past the Tank fighting the Ogre to get to the Cleric, provoking AoOs as they went.

-Hyp.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jan 8, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> And after it happens once, the mooks all run away.




Provoking AoOs each one of them...


----------



## dcollins (Jan 8, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Ah, but who determines who is an enemy and who is an ally?




The DM does. In general, it makes sense to base it on the perception of the actor, with the DM disallowing absurd declarations made just to cheese the language of the rules. That's what a DM's there for.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jan 8, 2004)

dcollins said:
			
		

> The DM does. In general, it makes sense to base it on the perception of the actor, with the DM disallowing absurd declarations made just to cheese the language of the rules. That's what a DM's there for.




I am not sure what you mean by "cheese" in this context.  You will have to be more precise.  I spelled out four equivalently logical cases for AoO+Cleave.  They are all correct according to the rules.  Where is the problem?


----------



## Crothian (Jan 8, 2004)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> Provoking AoOs each one of them...




They can easily move aout of the way without provocking AoO.  But that still doesn't asnswer the question: Does this situation come up so many times that it really needs to be altered?


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jan 9, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> They can easily move aout of the way without provocking AoO.  But that still doesn't asnswer the question: Does this situation come up so many times that it really needs to be altered?




Not necessarily.  Characters who would use these tactics on purpose almost certainly have reach weapons.

_Needs_ to be altered?  For most campaigns, probably not.  _Should_ be altered?  Depends on how tolerant you are on these that are, um, you know, too cheesy...


----------



## Crothian (Jan 9, 2004)

If a player sets himself to use this as his main tactic, I'd see no problem in it.  It is very easy to neutralize and a good many encounters this doesn't apply to.


----------



## dcollins (Jan 9, 2004)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> I am not sure what you mean by "cheese" in this context.  You will have to be more precise.  I spelled out four equivalently logical cases for AoO+Cleave.  They are all correct according to the rules.  Where is the problem?




The problem is #1 and #4, in which the same character is directing mooks to act stupidly in combat, in a way that is suicidal, to gain extra free attacks. That's cheese and makes no sense in a roleplaying context.

I disagree that they are correct according to the rules. AOOs are only indicated as being allowed against "enemies".


----------



## anon (Jan 9, 2004)

The basis for allowing a character to get an attack outside of the normal initiative sequence (an AOO) is that a threatened opponent has dropped their guard.  

I can see no logical reason why if someone near me drops their guard that I should then be subject to an extra out-of-initiative attack.

I am not challenging the premise of Cleave--momentum/theatrics can explain it as much as I need, but rather the idea of an extra attack with no basis.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 9, 2004)

anon said:
			
		

> I can see no logical reason why if someone near me drops their guard that I should then be subject to an extra out-of-initiative attack.




You're not subject to an extra out-of-initiative attack because someone drops their guard.

You're subject to an extra out-of-initiative attack because someone with Cleave drops an opponent.

That's what Cleave does.  It doesn't matter what provoked the attack; what matters is that he dropped.

-Hyp.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jan 9, 2004)

anon said:
			
		

> The basis for allowing a character to get an attack outside of the normal initiative sequence (an AOO) is that a threatened opponent has dropped their guard.




I personally prefer this interpretation; it seems to cover a wide range of AoOs in an understandable manner.  It is hardly the only possible explanation though.

As for cleave, there is the "momentum" explanation which is a pretty good first cut.  Another explanation for cleave is the "multiple opponent expert", someone who uses the confusion many combatants to find otherwise impossible to exploit openings.  This second model has its perculiarities, but it is a reasonable basis for justifying AoO+Cleave.


----------



## anon (Jan 9, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> You're not subject to an extra out-of-initiative attack because someone drops their guard.
> 
> You're subject to an extra out-of-initiative attack because someone with Cleave drops an opponent.
> 
> ...



Within the initiative order you are correct (IMHO).  The Cleaver already threatened me, but chose to attack someone else, dropped them, then swung into me (with their theatrical momentum).  When it is an opponent's iniative I expect that they will try to attack me.  This is logical and fine.

On the other hand, out-of-initiative attacks are restricted fairly tightly.  If I have done nothing to provoke an extra attack then there should not be one, and certainly not because someone in proximity to me dropped their guard.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 9, 2004)

anon said:
			
		

> If I have done nothing to provoke an extra attack then there should not be one, and certainly not because someone in proximity to me dropped their guard.




... except that Cleave says "whenever".

We're in the Rules forum, after all.  "Should" is for House Rules 

-Hyp.


----------



## Elvinis75 (Jan 9, 2004)

The problem with this arguement is the same as it was in the last thread.  The word enemy has a definition.  It is based on two person view point and even then it leans more to the other persons intent.  If I attack some and they never try to fight back I do not believe that they are my enemy.  They might be my victim or even sacrific but the word enemy involves them trying to cause harm to me.  

Websters(Again!?!):
1: one that is antagonistic to another; especially : one seeking to injure, overthrow, or confound an opponent
2 : something harmful or deadly
3 a : a military adversary b : a hostile unit or force 

1: Nope, they boss in a evil group might at some point be challenged to a fight with one or more of the lackies but I doubt that is happening at the time of the BBEG's attack.

2: possibly but again view point is important, to the character nope.

3: Definitely not.  You can't be both at the same time.  At some point forces change between ally or adversary.  At the point that they run by the BBEG they are allies and thus do not draw AOOs.

The enemies lackies do not fit those definitions IMNSHO.  I think that we could run this by customer service but I'm pretty sure that they would say that you can't cut down allies and call them enemies for the purpose of AOOs and cleave.

Looking at your situations I feel that there is no advantage to #1 or #4        (as they should not draw AOOs), there is nothing wrong with #2 or #3 that is the way that they defined to work within the rules.  

Ally and enemy terms are not arbitary or illogical, they go to the heart of the rules.


----------



## Elvinis75 (Jan 9, 2004)

One more thing the extra attack on the secondary character after an AOO doesn't have anything to do with that secondary character rather the skill of the person taking the attack of opportunity.  Without the feat cleave he cannot attack you but he is skilled beyond the normal rules and thus if he kills the stupid person he can combo attack that person and another.  That is the heart of cleave.  The second person is no more open for an cleave attack during the enemies turn than if he is attacked by that enemy off an AOO cleave.  The AOO part of it isn't what is causing him to be attacked it is the feat.


----------



## hong (Jan 9, 2004)

Elvinis75 said:
			
		

> One more thing the extra attack on the secondary character after an AOO doesn't have anything to do with that secondary character rather the skill of the person taking the attack of opportunity.  Without the feat cleave he cannot attack you but he is skilled beyond the normal rules and thus if he kills the stupid person he can combo attack that person and another.  That is the heart of cleave.  The second person is no more open for an cleave attack during the enemies turn than if he is attacked by that enemy off an AOO cleave.  The AOO part of it isn't what is causing him to be attacked it is the feat.



 This is correct. Even if you take AoOs out of the equation, you can still end up in the situation where the BBEG takes more damage if he's accompanied by his minions, than if he's not. The problem is with Great Cleave itself; AoOs just make it obvious.

What I'd rule is that you can only make one cleave attack per target per round. So you can knock over as many mooks as you want, but you'll still only get one swing at the BBEG.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 9, 2004)

Darklone said:
			
		

> Me neither. But it's the old problem that a BBEG with mooks is easier to beat than without mooks




In this case, it's actually "the old problem that a BBEG with mooks _who draw AoOs_ is easier to beat than without mooks _who draw AoOs_."


----------



## Elvinis75 (Jan 9, 2004)

hong said:
			
		

> This is correct. Even if you take AoOs out of the equation, you can still end up in the situation where the BBEG takes more damage if he's accompanied by his minions, than if he's not. The problem is with Great Cleave itself; AoOs just make it obvious.
> 
> What I'd rule is that you can only make one cleave attack per target per round. So you can knock over as many mooks as you want, but you'll still only get one swing at the BBEG.




That situation isn’t necessary.  The BBEG is relatively smart right?  He has witnessed a little bit of combat right.  His more than likely have seen a person with cleave.  Thus he sends in the clown and doesn’t follow them in.  He is smarter than that.  He hangs back and let the mooks do their jobs.  They die but they weaken the PCs.  Then the BBEG moves in with the advantage.  The only way that the PCs get to attack the BBEG a bunch o time is if they use the whirlwind with GC.  Something that I don’t like but it is allowed I think.  I think that mid-high level characters are going to be facing mooks that are less likely to fall in one blow.  9th level fighter facing a giant plus 6 ogres is not likely IMC to kill the ogres in a single blow.  29 Hit points is a lot to put down in a single blow.  A BBEG at CR isn’t going to bother sending goblins or orcs to fighter renouned fighter. IMHO


----------



## Elric (Jan 9, 2004)

hong is right.  Great Cleave is what causes problems, no Whirlwind Attack or Attacks of Opportunity.  Way back when, Supreme Cleave (Samurai ability) let you take a 5-foot step when you got a cleave attack (or at least it could be interpreted this way), which meant that you could duplicate the "Pounce" ability by killing a whole bunch of blind kobolds while moving up to the true enemy.

This also had some funny implications with endless rows of blind kobolds, effectively allowing you to teleport.  I must say that I find it completely silly that a DM would have to make a bunch of "enemy/ally distinctions" or that this scenario could even come up due to the paladin's rabbit friend, or that DMs would have to specifically modify villains to beat this tactic.  

Pax's house rule is very good and solves the entire great cleave/AoO problem.  To me, it seems like the best way to preserve the spirit of cleave and fix this problem (and if you have to make a million distinctions and change tactics to prevent players from doing AoO cleaving, I would say that it is definitely a problem).  Let the war of attrition continue... I have Great Cleave


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jan 9, 2004)

You know, it's threads like this that make me wonder whether it would be worth just ditching cleave and great cleave altogether... (I already dislike the way that cleave and especially great cleave let you break the basic "only one attack on a standard action" rule which is so rigorously protected against magic (haste) and magic items (weapons of speed)).

It started off as an ability for higher level fighters to slaughter mooks as per earlier editions, but it opened up a can of interpretive worms which we'd probably be better without!

Regards,


----------



## borc killer (Jan 9, 2004)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> You know, it's threads like this that make me wonder whether it would be worth just ditching cleave and great cleave altogether... (I already dislike the way that cleave and especially great cleave let you break the basic "only one attack on a standard action" rule which is so rigorously protected against magic (haste) and magic items (weapons of speed)).QUOTE]
> 
> Just nurf AoO and don't let Cleave go off in it.  Simple and easy and solves all the problems listed in this post and does not cause more... *shurg*
> 
> Borc Killer


----------



## mikebr99 (Jan 9, 2004)

borc killer said:
			
		

> Just nurf AoO and don't let Cleave go off in it. Simple and easy and solves all the problems listed in this post and does not cause more... *shurg*
> 
> Borc Killer



well... other then breaking the rules... I guess you're right.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 9, 2004)

Elvinis75 said:
			
		

> Ally and enemy terms are not arbitary or illogical, they go to the heart of the rules.




So how do you rule Bless and Bane?

If the person I think is my best buddy Fred the Fighter is really a doppelganger assassin sent to kill me, is he my enemy or my ally?

Is he affected when I cast Bless?

Is he affected when I cast Bane?

As far as _I_ know, he's my friend... but _he_ knows he's going to stick a knife in me at first opportunity.



> The only way that the PCs get to attack the BBEG a bunch o time is if they use the whirlwind with GC. Something that I don’t like but it is allowed I think.




Allowed in 3E; not allowed in 3.5.



			
				Elric said:
			
		

> Way back when, Supreme Cleave (Samurai ability) let you take a 5-foot step when you got a cleave attack (or at least it could be interpreted this way), which meant that you could duplicate the "Pounce" ability by killing a whole bunch of blind kobolds while moving up to the true enemy.




Fortunately, Supreme Cleave specifies only one 5' step per round...



			
				hong said:
			
		

> This is correct. Even if you take AoOs out of the equation, you can still end up in the situation where the BBEG takes more damage if he's accompanied by his minions, than if he's not.




How?  Without AoOs, the fighter has 4 attacks.  If every one drops a mook, he gets 4 attacks on the BBEG.  If the BBEG had no minions, he'd get 4 attacks on the BBEG.

Without AoOs, how do the minions cause the BBEG to take _more_ damage?

-Hyp.


----------



## Aristotle (Jan 9, 2004)

I don't like the use of the BBEG + Mooks as an argument against Cleave + AoO. It is still going to happen, but if the DM is playing the BBEG appropriately it should be happening less. This is of course all in my opinion, but let me explain...

If the BBEG is a total idiot he may attack with his incompetent mooks, and the scene will play out like you are describing. The mooks will fall and AoAs will be scored against the BBEG. But if the BBEG allowed that to transpire, he deserves the swift end he gets.

If the BBEG is smart, and he feels that his mooks actually stand a fighting chance against the PCs he might attack with the mooks, and take his chances. Of course he has a little information on the PCs and he has hired more competent mooks, so he truly does believe that if he stands with them they can defeat the PCs. Maybe the scene will play out like you describe, or maybe you'll just get a real cool fight scene that the players are talking about for weeks to come.

If that same BBEG does not feel his mooks can take the PCs, he is going to separate himself from the mooks. He understands tactics, and he knows that by getting caught up in the rush he stands a better chance of getting hurt... so he stands back, points at the PCs with an evil snear, and screams "Get Them!". All of his mooks charge the PCs, putting more than enough space between him and the mooks so that he will be out of harms way. Should a mook start backing into him, he can easily counter to keep himself free of the melee.

At least that is how I see it. Cleave + AoO doesn't break the game, but it does require some tactics to avoid. I think that's how combat should work...


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 10, 2004)

Aristotle said:
			
		

> If that same BBEG does not feel his mooks can take the PCs, he is going to separate himself from the mooks. He understands tactics, and he knows that by getting caught up in the rush he stands a better chance of getting hurt... so he stands back, points at the PCs with an evil snear, and screams "Get Them!". All of his mooks charge the PCs, putting more than enough space between him and the mooks so that he will be out of harms way. Should a mook start backing into him, he can easily counter to keep himself free of the melee.




Ah - I see you've been to the Xena Villain school of BBEGing...

When are you guys going to figure out that if the last dozen hordes of minions who were told to "Get them!" were crushed mercilessly, that exactly the same thing is going to happen to us _this time_, hmm?

-Hyp.


----------



## Crothian (Jan 10, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> So how do you rule Bless and Bane?
> 
> If the person I think is my best buddy Fred the Fighter is really a doppelganger assassin sent to kill me, is he my enemy or my ally?




That's why the DM gets paid the big bucks.  Some things the rules don't need to cover becasue the DM can do it depending on their world.  The source of magic is a god, so the magic could recognize an enemy that has decivied the PC.  Of course that's outside the scope of the rules, but it creates an interesting situation where magic knows more or precieves better then the PC.

But in this case the answer is simple, the doppelganger is an ally because the the person thinks he's an ally.  Characters get to choose who they want to be an ally and who they want to be an enemy.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 10, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> But in this case the answer is simple, the doppelganger is an ally because the the person thinks he's an ally.  Characters get to choose who they want to be an ally and who they want to be an enemy.




But the spell isn't of type Target: X creatures, it's of type Area: X creatures.  So it affects all creatures that fit the criteria of the spell even if the caster is blind, or unaware of their presence, or whatever.  And he can't select them individually, like he can with a spell of type Target: X creatures.

A blind cleric casting Bless will affect all of his allies within range.  A blind cleric casting Bane will affect all of his enemies within range.

How can that work if the character has to choose who he wants to be an enemy?  That would be more suited to a Targeted spell, not an Area spell.

Next question - if a character can choose who he wants to be an ally, how does that interact with the 3E ruling on flanking?  You are flanking if you are making a melee attack, and an ally directly opposite threatens the opponent.

If I'm attacking the BBEG, and one of his minions is behind him holding a dagger, and I get to choose who I want to be an ally, then technically, if I choose the minion as an ally, I fulfil the requirements of flanking...

-Hyp.


----------



## Crothian (Jan 10, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> How can that work if the character has to choose who he wants to be an enemy?  That would be more suited to a Targeted spell, not an Area spell.




I don't see it as Bob the cleric going "Frank is a f=riend, so bless him, but that orc is bad so no bless for him.  The villagers we are trying to save so I'll have bless them"

I see it as the spell uses Bob's perception of the people and based on that decides whom to effect.  And how does the spell use Bob's perceptions?  Magic of course.  



> Next question - if a character can choose who he wants to be an ally, how does that interact with the 3E ruling on flanking?  You are flanking if you are making a melee attack, and an ally directly opposite threatens the opponent.
> 
> If I'm attacking the BBEG, and one of his minions is behind him holding a dagger, and I get to choose who I want to be an ally, then technically, if I choose the minion as an ally, I fulfil the requirements of flanking...




Because the DM isn't stupid enough to allow that to happen.  In that case its obvious the bad guy is a bad guy.  The only reason a person would try that is to take advantage of the rules.  The choice on ally an enemy does not have to be conscious one.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 10, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> I see it as the spell uses Bob's perception of the people and based on that decides whom to effect.  And how does the spell use Bob's perceptions?  Magic of course.




So what if Bob's friend Wally the Wizard teleported in last round... but he's invisible, so Bob doesn't know he's there?  Bob considers Wally an ally, but he's unaware of his presence... but still, Wally's in range of an Area spell that affects Bob's allies?

Next question... what if an evil doppelganger _disguised_ as Bob's friend Wally the Wizard teleported in last round, _also_ invisible?  Bob hasn't seen the doppelganger, so he doesn't know it looks like Wally.

And what if the third person who teleported in last round, invisible, has been sent by Bob's high priest to offer Bob whatever aid he can?  Bob's never met him, but a minute's conversation would assure Bob he's an ally.

-Hyp.


----------



## Crothian (Jan 10, 2004)

All of that is up to the DM and how he wants to do it.  In all instances since Bob doesn't know they are there , they are not effected, IMO of course.  

DM's are allowed to make judgement calls, that's why being a DM is not near as easy as so many people think.  

Sometimes we don't need clear cut answers to everything.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 10, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> In all instances since Bob doesn't know they are there , they are not effected, IMO of course.




Area spell.

"A spell with this kind of area affects creatures directly (like a targeted spell), but it *affects all creatures in an area of some kind* rather than individual creatures you select."

His knowledge of their presence is unnecessary.  Like a Sleep spell - you don't need to know there's something there, and the spell will still affect it.

-Hyp.


----------



## Crothian (Jan 10, 2004)

Okay, then I hearbye reverse my position!!


----------



## hong (Jan 10, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> How?  Without AoOs, the fighter has 4 attacks.  If every one drops a mook, he gets 4 attacks on the BBEG.  If the BBEG had no minions, he'd get 4 attacks on the BBEG.
> 
> Without AoOs, how do the minions cause the BBEG to take _more_ damage?




Ah, never mind. I was posting at 2 in the morning, after all.


----------



## Aristotle (Jan 10, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Ah - I see you've been to the Xena Villain school of BBEGing...
> 
> When are you guys going to figure out that if the last dozen hordes of minions who were told to "Get them!" were crushed mercilessly, that exactly the same thing is going to happen to us _this time_, hmm?
> 
> -Hyp.




I never said the BBEG can't help... just that he would keep from getting caught up in the chaos of melee if he could help it. If he is a spellcaster or ranged fighter he might just do his thing from afar. If he is a melee character he may try to circle around and pick off party members who aren't in the middle of the chaos.

I think you get my point. Things like the mook + AoO issue can be lessened by the use of tactics. Perhaps the examples I gave weren't amazing, but they were only examples.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Jan 11, 2004)

Hello everyone,

Two points:

a) I play the Paladin involved in this tragic endeavour and
b) I think that all of you have possibly missed something in the rules

Unfortunately, I have not been at work and so have had no computer from which to correspond on until now.

Attack of Opportunity
p137 of the Players Handbook 3.5

"This feat does not let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity"

This is referring to Combat Reflexes and its effect on Attacks of Opportunity. However, it should equally and I believe is expected to equally apply to characters without the Combat Reflexes Feat.

Cleave
p92 of the Players Handbook 3.5
"...you get an immediate, extra melee attack against..."

Combining the two would seem to equate to Cleave not being allowed to be used as only one attack is allowed for a given opportunity and any cleave attempt would be considered a second attack. While technically, this would seem to cover only those with the Combat Reflexes feat, I'm sure it is meant to be a feature of Attacks of Opportunity in general.

There again, maybe I'm trying to stretch the rules. I would certainly be curious as to the board's perspective on this point.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 11, 2004)

Herremann the Wise said:
			
		

> Combining the two would seem to equate to Cleave not being allowed to be used as only one attack is allowed for a given opportunity and any cleave attempt would be considered a second attack. While technically, this would seem to cover only those with the Combat Reflexes feat, I'm sure it is meant to be a feature of Attacks of Opportunity in general.




From the description of the Attack Action, a standard action:
"Multiple Attacks: A character who can make more than one attack per round must use the full attack action (see Full-Round Actions, below) in order to get more than one attack."

So, using the Attack Action, rather than the full attack action, you cannot get more than one attack.

However, Cleave allows you to gain an extra attack _whenever_ you drop an opponent.  This includes if you drop an opponent with an Attack Action... despite the fact that ordinarily, you must use the full attack action in order to get more than one attack.

Cleave provides an exception to this rule, just as it provides an exception to the Combat Reflexes rule.

-Hyp.


----------



## dcollins (Jan 11, 2004)

Herremann, you are incorrect. While Combat Reflexes has a limit on AOOs, a Cleave attack is not itself an AOO. It is triggered by a "drop", which is different from a lower-your-guard "opportunity". All official WOTC sources have confirmed this quite consistently.

Edit: Hyp beat me. And refining my argument. Watch out, Hyp.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 11, 2004)

dcollins said:
			
		

> As you quote, Combat Reflexes says it "does not let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity." The Cleave triggered off an AOO is not an AOO, and not restricted by this language in any way.




Actually, I'm going to disagree with your logic chain there.

The Cleave is not an AoO, but it is an attack.  Therefore, with the original AoO and the Cleave, you are making more than one attack for a given opportunity.

It's legal because the Cleave text overrides the Combat Reflexes text, not because the Combat Reflexes text doesn't prohibit it...

-Hyp.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Jan 11, 2004)

Hello again,

Interesting. I suppose I was working in wotc's MTG mode where if something says you can do something and another thing says you can't, the thing that says you can't holds and takes precedence.

Hypersmurf, if the above was the case, then Cleave would still work with a standard attack action as the standard action does not not say that you cannot or does not let you make more than one attack - just that to do so requires a full attack action. The Cleave exception fits neatly into this where as with an AoO, it leaves a foul taste in the mouth - at least to this Paladin anyway  .

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Elvinis75 (Jan 12, 2004)

“So how do you rule Bless and Bane?
If the person I think is my best buddy Fred the Fighter is really a doppelganger assassin sent to kill me, is he my enemy or my ally?
Is he affected when I cast Bless?
Is he affected when I cast Bane?
As far as I know, he's my friend... but he knows he's going to stick a knife in me at first opportunity.” - Hyp

*Wow for me looking at the spells it is quite clear.  The spell doesn’t talk about opinion of the character.  It is whether or not in reality they are an ally.  Therefore the doppleganger is not affected by bless and is affected by bane.  This follows the pattern that the opinion of the character isn’t the only thing taken when looking at the friends or foe question.  For clerics whose power is devine I say that the diety knows friend from foe.  The priest might not but he doesn’t have to for the spell to work.  So in short my answer is that the diety knows and bane targets him and the bless doesn’t.  Are their examples of wizard spells that follow this pattern.*

“Allowed in 3E; not allowed in 3.5.” - Hyp

*Agreed!*


“How? Without AoOs, the fighter has 4 attacks. If every one drops a mook, he gets 4 attacks on the BBEG. If the BBEG had no minions, he'd get 4 attacks on the BBEG.
Without AoOs, how do the minions cause the BBEG to take more damage?” -Hyp.

*I totally agree with hyper on this one.  Without the instant changing the status of mooks to enemies there is no extra attacks.  That is the heart of this issue.  I think that the other person is an ally until you attack him.  Ally don’t draw AOOs IMHO.*


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 12, 2004)

Elvinis75 said:
			
		

> Wow for me looking at the spells it is quite clear.  The spell doesn’t talk about opinion of the character.  It is whether or not in reality they are an ally.  Therefore the doppleganger is not affected by bless and is affected by bane.




So if I cast Detect Magic, then Bless, then Detect Magic again, anyone who doesn't show a new Enchantment aura is not really my ally?

So if I cast Detect Magic, then Bane, then Detect Magic again, anyone who _does_ show a new Enchantment aura is actually an enemy?

-Hyp.


----------



## Pielorinho (Jan 12, 2004)

*Hyp's* little "Bless to discover your allies" trick is the reason why I base the spell entirely off the perception of the caster.  Sure, it's an area effect, not a targeted effect; I therefore base it off the caster's perception of that person _whether or not the caster knows they're there_.  Essentially, folks more or less categorize folks they know into the "enemy" and the "ally" category.  If the caster, when asked, would call you an ally, the spell affects you.  Even if you're invisible, that doesn't matter.

That's different from flanking.  The _reason_ that flanking works is because allies are presumed to be threatening their enemies, and the enemy is dividing their attention.  If the enemy doesn't need to (or doesn't know to) divide their attention, the enemy isn't flanked.

For example, Bob likes Mary, and Bob also like Agmar the Destroyer.  Mary likes Bob, but Mary hates Agmar.  While standing in line at the movie theater, Mary decides to launch an attack on Agmar, who's standing in between her and Bob.

Bob and Mary are allies standing on opposite sides of Agmar.  Nonetheless, Agmar isn't flanked; because Bob's not attacking him, he's not dividing his attention between two opponents.

This may not be strictly according to the rules, but it's clearly within the spirit of the rules.

Daniel


----------



## Pielorinho (Jan 12, 2004)

To forestall an obvious question:  imagine, later, that Mary is attacking Vlad the Impolite.  Bob's with her on this:  he can't abide a boor, and Vlad is a dire boor.  However, Bob's the sneaky type, and so he's disguised himself as Vlad's favorite dinner guest:  _Agmar the Destroyer_.

Mary, seeing Vlad and (apparently) Agmar together in a room, casts _Bless_.  Is Bob affected?

I'd say no, although I'm changing my post -- I'd originally written yes.  Bob is basically combining contradictory impressions:  Mary generally likes Bob, which would make the spell affect him, but she specifically hates the person standing in front of her (whom she thinks is Agmar), and would at the moment consider that specific person to be an enemy.  If only she hadn't seen Bob dressed as Agmar -- if he'd been standing behind Vlad, for example -- then he'd be affected.

One more example:  Bob isn't Bob at all.  He's actually Krypto the Annoying-o Prest-o Change-o Doppleganger-o.  Which explains his friendship with Agmar.  At long last, his trick is complete:  he sneaks away from Mary, goes back to her boudoir, reverts to his normal shape, and awaits her.  When she show up and casts bless, does it affect KtAPCD?

No:  although she generally thinks of "Bob" as an ally, she thinks of that specific rubbery grey monstrosity in front of her as an enemy, and that overrides her general feelings toward Bob.  If she knew it was Bob standing in front of her, whether he was affected would depend on just how stupid Mary was.

Daniel


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 12, 2004)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> I therefore base it off the caster's perception of that person _whether or not the caster knows they're there_.  Essentially, folks more or less categorize folks they know into the "enemy" and the "ally" category.  If the caster, when asked, would call you an ally, the spell affects you.  Even if you're invisible, that doesn't matter.




How would you handle the situation I proposed above, where the evil doppelganger is disguised as the cleric's friend, but the cleric hasn't actually seen the disguise, since the doppelganger is invisible?

He doesn't _know_ the doppelganger's disguised as his friend.  If he could see the doppelganger, he might think it's his friend and consider it an ally, or he might see through the disguise and consider it an enemy.  But we won't know what his perception is until he actually sees it.

Affected or not?  

-Hyp.


----------



## Pielorinho (Jan 12, 2004)

Forestalled, *Hyp*, forestalled. 

Daniel


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 12, 2004)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> If only she hadn't seen Bob dressed as Agmar -- if he'd been standing behind Vlad, for example -- then he'd be affected.




Ahh... so the invisible doppelganger disguised as a friend in my example would be considered an enemy, because the caster can't see the disguise, and would therefore be Baned?

-Hyp.


----------



## Pielorinho (Jan 12, 2004)

To make sure I'm clear:  the doppelganger in your example would be affected by bane, since the cleric has no specific information to alter the general attitude of "doppelgangers are naughty."  If the cleric had seen that particular doppelganger in his friend's disguise before, that'd be information more specific; he' be thinking, "Frank is nice," and even though he was wrong in the critter's identity, he'd thought fuzzy thoughts about that doppelganger before, reordering his enemy/ally taxonomy enough that the invisible doppelganger would be affected.

In other words, general perceptions are consistently outweighed by specific perceptions.

As an aside, I would of course give the cocked-eyebrow treatment to any player that asked me these sorts of questions mid-game; if they persisted, instead of ruling the way I'm describing here, I'd probably rule in the fashion least favorable to the player, in order to discourage them from bogging down play like this.    Discussing it in a rules forum is just a way of killing time.

Daniel


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 12, 2004)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> If the cleric had seen that particular doppelganger in his friend's disguise before, that'd be information more specific; he' be thinking, "Frank is nice," and even though he was wrong in the critter's identity, he'd thought fuzzy thoughts about that doppelganger before, reordering his enemy/ally taxonomy enough that the invisible doppelganger would be affected.




The caster's seen the doppelganger disguised as Frank before.  He's also seen the doppelganger disguised as Agmar the Destroyer.  The doppelganger is currently invisible, and while the caster can't see it, it's disguised as Frank.

But Frank is also in the room, standing beside the caster, and has been for the last hour.

Does the spell consider an invisible creature who would look like Frank if he were visible an ally, despite evidence that it's probably not the real Frank?



> As an aside, I would of course give the cocked-eyebrow treatment to any player that asked me these sorts of questions mid-game; if they persisted, instead of ruling the way I'm describing here, I'd probably rule in the fashion least favorable to the player, in order to discourage them from bogging down play like this.    Discussing it in a rules forum is just a way of killing time.




Well, of course   You don't think I'd argue this with a DM mid-game, do you?

-Hyp.


----------



## Pielorinho (Jan 12, 2004)

If the doppelganger is invisible, then neither it nor its disguise is relevant:  only Mary's general impressions of it.  Has she more recently seen it as Agmar or as Frank?  In most cases, that'd be the deciding factor for me.  However, if she'd adventured with it for two years as Frank, and seen it once as Agmar, I might rule that she had a balance of fuzzy feelings toward it.

Lacking a specific conclusion on the spot, I'd say that you go by the balance of feelings toward an entity, whether or not those feelings are merited.

For example, if Frank and Mary are married, and Mary believes her husband has been cheating on her, she may have feelings just as conflicted toward Frank as she has toward Prest-o (I TOLD you he was annoying-o!)  I'd take the balance of her feelings in this case as well:  does she still consider him an ally, or does she think he's scum in boots?  If the former, he's blessed; if the latter, he's baned.

Daniel


----------



## frankthedm (Jan 12, 2004)

I only allow cleave on an aoo's agaists foes who were drawing aoo's. 

two orcs run by, drawing an aoo, if you kill the first one, you cleave into the second.

This is not magic the gathering, this is why you have DM's


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 12, 2004)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> Lacking a specific conclusion on the spot, I'd say that you go by the balance of feelings toward an entity, whether or not those feelings are merited.




Let's say Mary's gotten herself into a sticky situation - she's managed to wind up in a three-way melee (no, Hong) with a demon and a devil.

Both will cheerfully gut her, but they're also interested in killing each other.

At present, the demon is caught between Mary on one side and the devil on the other.

1. If both are trying to kill the demon, do they grant each other flanking bonuses?  In 3E, it required "an ally" who threatened the opponent; in 3.5, it requires "a creature friendly to you".

2. If Mary casts Bless, does it affect the devil, who is attacking the creature that's currently taking a swipe at her with poisoned claws?

3. If Mary casts Bane, does it affect the devil _and_ the demon, who would both be more than happy to carve Mary into a decorative chess set as soon as they're the last one standing?

-Hyp.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 12, 2004)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> I only allow cleave on an aoo's agaists foes who were drawing aoo's.
> 
> two orcs run by, drawing an aoo, if you kill the first one, you cleave into the second.




But creatures act in initiative order.

When the first orc provokes an AoO, the second orc is thirty feet away!

-Hyp.


----------



## jgsugden (Jan 12, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> But the spell isn't of type Target: X creatures, it's of type Area: X creatures.  So it affects all creatures that fit the criteria of the spell even if the caster is blind, or unaware of their presence, or whatever.  And he can't select them individually, like he can with a spell of type Target: X creatures.
> 
> -Hyp.



 I see your argument, but I see a way around it as well. I think you're looking at the words ally and enemy too narrowly. 

Area spells can not be used selectively. If something inside the area of effect is a valid target, it is effected. The caster may not pick and choose which valid targets are allowed.

The valid targets for a bless spell are allies.

D&D does not have a specific definition for the term ally, so we must turn to a dictionary version (from dicitionary.com) which states "One in helpful association with another." 

That definition turns on the term helpful: Providing assistance.

To assist someone, that someone must have a goal in mind. Otherwise your efforts may aid them, but they do not assist them towards their goals.

So, bless should have an effect on any creature in the area of effect that is actively providing assistance to help the caster reach a goal. The type of assistance does not matter ... it could be actively helping the caster fight a monster or actively helping the caster to rememeber the names of his high school teachers. 

I used the word 'actively' because planning is not enough. Planning to help is not helping. What matters is what has already occured.

So, if an evil Doppelganger is fighting side by side with the caster against an army of orcs (but intends to cut the caster down in a round), it is an ally because it is helping the caster fight off the orcs, even though he will no longer be an ally once he gives up his attack on the orcs and starts whacking at the caster. The spell does not recheck to see if you remain a valid ally under the official rules, but a DM would be well within his rights to rule 0 this and have the spell end when the doppelganger turned ont he cleric.

If a friendly invisible wizard appears right before the bless is cast, he will not receive the benefit from the spell unless he is actively engaged in helpful actions that further a goal of the caster. If he teleported in to bring something requested by the cleric, he is helping the caster, so he gains the benefit. If he teleported in to ask the caster to clean out the local stables, he is not being helpful, so he gains no benefit.

Bane, on the other hand turns on the word enemy which turns upon the word opposition. Bane finds anyone that is actively opposing you and gives them the penalty. The nature of that opposition does not matter. Only that it is active opposition to one of your active goals.

The key to the word ally in bless (or enemy in bane) is the active role that is being played when the spell is cast. If someone in the area of effect is helping the caster, he is considered an ally. If he is opposing the caster, he is an enemy. 

Some entities might qualify as both: If the cleric is fighting an enemy, but then joins forces with that enemy, temporarily, to deal with a bigger threat, the initial enemy might be both an ally and an enemy. All we look for is active assistance and/or interference. 

Some entities might qualify as neither: Any neutral parties in the spell or parties that have yet to take an active roll on one side or the other will not be affected.

So, if you cast detect magic, bless and then detect magic again, you'd detect those that are trying to help you do something. They might be planning to kill you soon, but they are trying to help you do something right now.

Casting detect magic, then bane, then detect magic will tell you who is opposing you. They might be in the process of trying to kill you. They might be running against you in a local election. They might be edging towards you so that they can steal your candy. All you know is that they are opposing you ... not how they are opposing you.

How does that grab you?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 12, 2004)

jgsugden said:
			
		

> The key to the word ally in bless (or enemy in bane) is the active role that is being played when the spell is cast. If someone in the area of effect is helping the caster, he is considered an ally. If he is opposing the caster, he is an enemy.
> 
> How does that grab you?




What happens if the cleric wins initiative and casts Bane on the group of orcs whose stronghold the party have just invaded?

Being flat-footed, the orcs are not actively opposing him... but as soon as their initiative comes up, they're going to start waving greataxes (oops - falchions, in 3.5).

For the moment, however, they're still looking up from their halfling stew trying to figure out who just kicked in their door...

-Hyp.


----------



## jgsugden (Jan 12, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> What happens if the cleric wins initiative and casts Bane on the group of orcs whose stronghold the party have just invaded?
> 
> Being flat-footed, the orcs are not actively opposing him... but as soon as their initiative comes up, they're going to start waving greataxes (oops - falchions, in 3.5).
> 
> ...



 Have the orcs done anything to oppose the PCs? Probably not. Then nothing happens.

There might be surrounding circumstances that put these orcs into opposition with the cleric. For instance, if the orcs are eating the halfling stew that the cleric was sent in to recover, the orcs are actively opposing his goal.


----------



## Pielorinho (Jan 13, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Let's say Mary's gotten herself into a sticky situation - she's managed to wind up in a three-way melee (no, Hong) with a demon and a devil.
> 
> Both will cheerfully gut her, but they're also interested in killing each other.
> 
> ...



In cases at the extreme fringes of the rules, I'm going to look at the _intent_, rather than the _letter_, of the rules.  (And I'm perfectly fine doing this in the rules forum; the intent of the rules is a valid subject of conversation here).  Near as I can tell, the intent of flanking rules is to demonstrate what happens when your attention is divided between two enemies.  It doesn't imply that the enemies are working as a cohesive team; otherwise, you couldn't be flanked by unintelligent creatures.

Given that, in the example above, the demon is flanked:  it's having to divide its time between enemies on either side.  This is technically not what the letter of the rules say, but it's exactly what the intent of the rules provides.


> 2. If Mary casts Bless, does it affect the devil, who is attacking the creature that's currently taking a swipe at her with poisoned claws?
> 
> 3. If Mary casts Bane, does it affect the devil _and_ the demon, who would both be more than happy to carve Mary into a decorative chess set as soon as they're the last one standing?



In both cases, that's up to Mary.  Specifically, has she in her mind decided that the devil is a temporary ally whom she wants to be affected?

Daniel


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jan 13, 2004)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> This is not magic the gathering, this is why you have DM's




I agree Frank. While it might be fun to play around with frank, mary, dopplegangers and angmar etc. when it comes to the game it is up to the DM to make a decision that seems sensible to him and the players.

I was amused a while ago to see someone commenting that it was "important to get official answers from WotC". Why, I wonder? It isn't as if everyone is competing in a tournament with an uber-referee or something!

Cheers


----------



## jgsugden (Jan 14, 2004)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> In both cases, that's up to Mary.  Specifically, has she in her mind decided that the devil is a temporary ally whom she wants to be affected?
> 
> Daniel



I disagree. Mary gets no choices. The question is not whether Mary *thinks* the creature is an ally. The question is whether the creature is an ally. 

Is the creature allied with Mary in an active goal? If so, it is blessed. If not, it is not. We're looking for active assistance (or in the case of bane, active opposition).


----------



## jgsugden (Jan 14, 2004)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I was amused a while ago to see someone commenting that it was "important to get official answers from WotC". Why, I wonder? It isn't as if everyone is competing in a tournament with an uber-referee or something!
> 
> Cheers



No, but we do play with each other. Inconsistent answers lead to troubles down the road.

A few examples relating to polymorph (no need to argue polymorph rules here ... they've been done to death in different threads - these are just examples):

I play in multiple groups with multiple DMs. I play a druid in one group, a sorcerer in another group and a monk that is often polymorphed by the party mage in another. Each of the different DMs has different interpretations of how polymorph works. It is a hassle to keep the different polymorph rulings in mind in the different games. 

I ran a game for a few young people. They all wanted to play druids. When they all reach 5th level, the wildshape/polymorph problems began. These intelligent youths had figured out ways to exploite wildshape to make their characters strong. Unfortunately, their exploites turned on different interpretations of how polymorph worked. One druid had a 20 con so that he'd be a hit point machine when wildshaped (assuming that hit point totals were fixed when polymorphed and did not change with a change in constitution). Another druid had a very low con because he thought it wouldn't matter while wildshaped (because he thought he would gain the hit point benefit of a change in con). Regardless of how I ruled it, one of these two would have their character 'ruined' by my call. Had this issue been clear in the rules, in the first place, this problem would never have existed. This was only one of many problems that were created by differing interpretations of how polymorph worked. In the end, I ended the campaign instead of trying to continue with players unhappy with their characters.

I've seen PCs die because the DM did polymorph differentyly than they thought it would be. In one instance, the character assumed he could see 40' in his animal form because he had low-light vision (gained as a trait for animal types). The DM ruled he didn't have low-light vision and decided that the player couldn't see the corner of the room where the enemy was hidden. The PC walked right past the enemy and ended up being slughtered when he ended up flanked.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jan 14, 2004)

jgsugden said:
			
		

> No, but we do play with each other. Inconsistent answers lead to troubles down the road.




True for online games, I grant you... but I'd imagine that most of us play with a fairly stable gaming group (or groups) and resolve issues on a case by case basis to suit themselves, and it is merely a matter for the DM to make sure that any grey areas are made clear to the players. I play with multiple DM's within the same group and some of them will make a different call to me when it comes to adjudicating an issue, but that's fine.

I should add that I agree entirely with you that the ideal is nice clear rules, and that 3/3.5e is generally great at having clear and consistent rules. Unfortunately a side effect of specifying rules very closely is that little language loopholes appear which cause the very bless/bane issue above to be discussed, especially when attention is focused on the letter of the rules rather than coming to a (probably locally) agreed decision on what the intent of the rules are.

Cheers


----------



## Pielorinho (Jan 14, 2004)

jgsugden said:
			
		

> I disagree. Mary gets no choices. The question is not whether Mary *thinks* the creature is an ally. The question is whether the creature is an ally.
> 
> Is the creature allied with Mary in an active goal? If so, it is blessed. If not, it is not. We're looking for active assistance (or in the case of bane, active opposition).



As I said before, this ruling makes espionage and mysteries extremely difficult to run, inasmuch as it creates an undefeatable way to read someone's intentions.  Mysteries, especially political mysteries, are my favorite sort of adventure; before I used this ruling, I'd do away with _bless_ and _bane_ entirely.

Incidentally, your ruling also becomes complicated in relationships where people have multiple goals.  In a recent game, the PCs came across a fight between the deposed vizier's bodyguard and the druidic nomads who had helped the vizier overthrow the rightful queen.  The PCs joined in the fight.  Were they allied with the druids, since they shared the active goal of killing the bodyguard?  Were they allied with the bodyguard, since they shared the active goal of killing the druids?  Had one of them cast _bless_ or _bane_, how would you have ruled it?

It would've been simple with my ruling: I would've asked the player who they considered an ally.  At some point during the battle, they decided to focus their attentions on the druids; at that point, the player might have considered the bodyguard to be an ally.  BUt only the player could know that.

Daniel


----------



## Elvinis75 (Jan 14, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> So if I cast Detect Magic, then Bless, then Detect Magic again, anyone who doesn't show a new Enchantment aura is not really my ally?
> 
> So if I cast Detect Magic, then Bane, then Detect Magic again, anyone who _does_ show a new Enchantment aura is actually an enemy?
> 
> -Hyp.




This is still nothing special!?!  You can put them in a zone of truth and find out the same thing.

This also forces you to use up your spells to check this.  

Does DM show you new enchantments over old enchantments?
Seems that you would have to sit there consentrating on the person for three rounds(twice).  

Assuming that you are doing this outside of combat I would think that it would tip off the dop. that you are attempting to see if there is a rouse here.  In a campaign that allows it, I would say that dop. would know that this is there weakness and so they get in and out of the group quickly.


----------



## Pielorinho (Jan 14, 2004)

Elvinis75 said:
			
		

> This is still nothing special!?! You can put them in a zone of truth and find out the same thing.
> 
> This also forces you to use up your spells to check this.
> 
> ...



Zone of truth has at least three weaknesses over this effect:
1) It's a higher level spell (the least of its weaknesses);
2) It allows its subjects a will save and spell resistance; and
3) It can be countered with a spell such as (depending on DM ruling) protection from good.  Similarly, _Detect Lies_ can be countered with _Mind Blank_ or _Misdirection_.

This trick, on the other hand, has no defenses against it.

Another example of why this is important:  in one early scene in my campaign, the players reported a particular nobleman to the guards as a leader of a revolutionary, demon-worshipping cult.  Unfortunately, they also managed to tip off the nobleman that he was about to be investigated, and so the nobleman obtained a _potion of glibness_ and a scroll of _misdirection_, drank the former, and had his house sorcerer cast the latter on him.  When the town guard showed up, even though they brought a judicial priest with him for the investigation (complete with _detect evil_ and _zone of truth_), they were unable to find out anything about his schemes.  

If we'd used your interpretation of bless, they could've cast bless, gotten everyone except for the nobleman to stand behind the cleric, and cast _detect magic_ to see whether he was allied with the city.

Sometimes you're not worried about tipping someone off that you're investigating them.  There have been plenty of times in a game where I've suspected a party member of having been replaced by a doppelganger (not that I'm paranoid or anything) and have grilled the party member explicitly to verify that they've not been replaced.  Such grillings aren't foolproof; your ruling would replace the grillings with an inexpensive and foolproof way to check.

Daniel


----------



## jgsugden (Jan 14, 2004)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> As I said before, this ruling makes espionage and mysteries extremely difficult to run, inasmuch as it creates an undefeatable way to read someone's intentions.  Mysteries, especially political mysteries, are my favorite sort of adventure; before I used this ruling, I'd do away with _bless_ and _bane_ entirely.



No, my ruling would have no effect on these types of issues. Secret motivations are not really important in my ruling. Go back and read my answers again. 







			
				Pielorinho said:
			
		

> Incidentally, your ruling also becomes complicated in relationships where people have multiple goals.  In a recent game, the PCs came across a fight between the deposed vizier's bodyguard and the druidic nomads who had helped the vizier overthrow the rightful queen.  The PCs joined in the fight.  Were they allied with the druids, since they shared the active goal of killing the bodyguard?  Were they allied with the bodyguard, since they shared the active goal of killing the druids?  Had one of them cast _bless_ or _bane_, how would you have ruled it?



In that situation, both spells would have worked on the PCs. They were helping and opposing both sides.







			
				Pielorinho said:
			
		

> It would've been simple with my ruling: I would've asked the player who they considered an ally.  At some point during the battle, they decided to focus their attentions on the druids; at that point, the player might have considered the bodyguard to be an ally.  BUt only the player could know that.
> 
> Daniel



Actually, I consider my ruling easier to make than yours because I don't have to ask the cleric anything. I just check to see if the targets are opposing or helping the catser in an active role. Your view also wouldn't follow the rules as closely as mine. Area of effect spells offer no choices unless they involve a targetted (ie; X targets in y area) aspect. 

You don't seem to grasp my approach. It follows the rules and works very well. I strongly suggest people use it if they find problems with their interpretations.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Jan 14, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> From the description of the Attack Action, a standard action:
> "Multiple Attacks: A character who can make more than one attack per round must use the full attack action (see Full-Round Actions, below) in order to get more than one attack."
> 
> So, using the Attack Action, rather than the full attack action, you cannot get more than one attack.
> ...




I took a little look at the 3.5 Srd and I'm with herman in thinking the "aoo=cleave" decision isn't as airtight as has been assumed. The section says "Making an Attack of Opportunity: An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack..." I don't think that the "whenever" in cleave has to overrule any and all other rules. If an attack of opportunity is defined as a single melee attack, AND a person feels personally that allowing followup attacks on AoO is a bad idea, I see the text as supporting that interpretation, and we are not in the realm of houserules here. The "This feat does not let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity..." only backs up the line of thought that an attack of opportunity is a single blow, which cannot be expanded by use of improved trip, cleave, various insane lasher abilities or whathaveyou...

Has there been an official or even semi official ruling on this question, or is it just assumed that the cleave wording trumps other rules? (note that in the cleave/truestrike thread, the sage was quoted as specificly saying that the cleave "same attack bonus" wording is subordinate to the spell "one attack" wording)

Once we are in the realm of houserules, its worth noting that in the Stargate book (and I assume the spycraft rules its based on) they went to the bother of defining a "Single Attack" as what is given by various feats and special abilities (though they remove AoOs entirely) and specificly stating that you cannot use any ability to turn it into more than one attack. I found this very gratifying and refreshing, as I have seen certain feat/class combos used to practicly take full attack actions from one AoO, and not only the potential for abuse but simple logic has me restricting it IMC to "quick hits, no follow through".

Kahuna Burger


----------



## jgsugden (Jan 14, 2004)

Elvinis75 said:
			
		

> This is still nothing special!?!  You can put them in a zone of truth and find out the same thing.



Zone of truth has a save. If you run bless/bane as Hypersmurf is arguing against, you get no save. Of course, you could achieve the same goals with a good sense motive skill ...


----------



## Elvinis75 (Jan 14, 2004)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> Zone of truth has at least three weaknesses over this effect:
> 1) It's a higher level spell (the least of its weaknesses);
> 2) It allows its subjects a will save and spell resistance; and
> 3) It can be countered with a spell such as (depending on DM ruling) protection from good.  Similarly, _Detect Lies_ can be countered with _Mind Blank_ or _Misdirection_.
> ...




Though you are right there are ways to avoid a ZOT it was also be risky for the imposter to agree to be chain and helpless and then pulled in knowing if they failed the save they were dead.  If I were the imposter I would at that point call no joy and run.  

Casting spells for a full minute and looking is a slow though fool proof process it doesn’t guarantee success.  Any ally player can resist the bless spell.  Is he not willing to accept the favor of kord(pick any) or a enemy replacement?  The player could just decline to go through your little test every day for the rest of his life.  It doesn’t stop a persistant foes from sneaking in.  He watches the group and figures out when you go through this process for the day and then replaces someone finding info and or attempts to kill one of the party.  Further proof that it is good to follow a diety and that it gives you better clarity on who is your friend and who is your foe.

I would not call this situation a deal breaker on the ally enemy situtation.  I say that what works for 98% of situations is good enough.

Further looking at the wider issue of a king ordering the clergy to put people to the test there is the issue of would a god continue to grant wasteful prayers.  The bless isn’t going to be the end all tell all in the what type of foe are they.  Say that a person is angry and wishes another person ill but yet hasn’t done a thing.  What about the case where one of the PC is a god hatin self made type of man and spits on your holy symbol.  You think that your diety is going to bless that person?  As a DM I can think of other situations like character races and the dieties contempt for them.  Is Grumsh going to grant favor to elves?  NIMC! Or a priest that follows an opposing diety?  To many loopholes in my campaign to call that spell sequence a lock.


----------



## anon (Jan 14, 2004)

*Customer Service Responds*

I emailed Wizards Customer Service the other day.  Here is the predictable response:



> Subject: 	RE: Cleave and AoO
> From: 	  Wizards Customer Service <custserv@wizards.com>
> Date: 	January 12, 2004 5:28:36 PM CST
> 
> ...




I strongly dislike this ruling (though I do think it's supported by the rules as written).


----------



## Pielorinho (Jan 14, 2004)

jgsugden said:
			
		

> No, my ruling would have no effect on these types of issues. Secret motivations are not really important in my ruling. Go back and read my answers again.
> You don't seem to grasp my approach. It follows the rules and works very well. I strongly suggest people use it if they find problems with their interpretations.



I reread it, and you're right:  I don't grasp it.  Please define "active assistance" and "active opposition."  Be aware I'll pick apart any definition as much as Hypersmurf has picked apart my method .

Daniel


----------



## Gaiden (Jan 14, 2004)

hong said:
			
		

> This is correct. Even if you take AoOs out of the equation, you can still end up in the situation where the BBEG takes more damage if he's accompanied by his minions, than if he's not. The problem is with Great Cleave itself; AoOs just make it obvious.
> 
> What I'd rule is that you can only make one cleave attack per target per round. So you can knock over as many mooks as you want, but you'll still only get one swing at the BBEG.




Actually, this is not correct.  While Great Cleave could grant you far more attacks than normal, you would still get a maximum numberof attacks against the BBEG equal to your total number of attacks/round (barring of course AoO).  The reason for this is that presumably the cleaving attack sequence will end when you hit the BBEG.  So the problem is not at all with Great Cleave, but with AoO and cleaving in general.

Moreover, I forget who said that because this was a "should" debate, it belongs in the house rules forum.  I move to disagree.  This is precisely a rules argument because in this case, the rules make no sense - or at least in the spirit of the rules, allowing cleave to work unqualified with AoO makes no sense.  As it has been stated, restated, and restated again, it simply does not make sense that a BBEG with mooks would be easier to defeat than a BBEG without mooks.  It goes against the entire CR and EL system (even as defunct as that system is).  For this reason it is a rules argument.  As a player, sure, I'd love to see a broken tactic such as allowing cleaves to be used with AoO especially since it would rarely be able to be used against me (I know, irony at its best).  However, as a DM, I would never allow this.  The bucket of snails, or bag of rats shows how this mechanic is a slippery slope leading to nonsense.  As with most slippery slope antagonists, there is always the argument to have the DM just arbitrarily block the descent.  The problem with this is that it is arbitrary because the reason it is a slippery slope in the first place is that it is founded on a nonsensical premise - one that contradicts the CR/EL system.

The clearist way to make cleaving with AoO consistent with all of the other rules and with the CR system is to rule as an early poster suggested that you may not cleave into another foe with an AoO unqualified.  That qualification can be any number of things.  It could be that you could only cleave into another who also provokes an AoO.  It could be that the provocation of that AoO has to occur during the same initiative count, etc.  You could even rule that the cleave works on the same target that provoked the AoO, kind of like that demon ability (possibly devil, IDHMBWM) that allows a cleave attempt against the fallen opponent virtually guaranteeing death.


----------



## Pielorinho (Jan 14, 2004)

Elvinis75 said:
			
		

> Though you are right there are ways to avoid a ZOT it was also be risky for the imposter to agree to be chain and helpless and then pulled in knowing if they failed the save they were dead. If I were the imposter I would at that point call no joy and run.



I'm having trouble following you; would you mind proofreading posts before submitting them?  I think there must be suffixes or whole words missing or misplaced.

That said, who mentioned a chained or helpless impostor?  That's not what I was talking about.



> Casting spells for a full minute and looking is a slow though fool proof process it doesn’t guarantee success. Any ally player can resist the bless spell. Is he not willing to accept the favor of kord(pick any) or a enemy replacement? The player could just decline to go through your little test every day for the rest of his life. It doesn’t stop a persistant foes from sneaking in. He watches the group and figures out when you go through this process for the day and then replaces someone finding info and or attempts to kill one of the party.



Aside:  a "slow though fool proof method it doesn't guarantee success"?  The whole point of a foolproof method is that it guarantees success.  This is an example of where your post really confused me.

It doesn't take a full minute to do this trick:  it takes two, not necessarily consecutive rounds.  Round 1:  cast bless.  Round 2:  cast detect magic.  As long as the rest of the group is out of your detection arc, and as long as the subject isn't under other spells, you've got your answer immediately on casting detect magic.  This is not a trick to use in combat, sure, but my point isn't about combat: it's about resolving allegiances in a mystery-heavy, intrigue-laden adventure, in which combats are rarer than average.

A persistant foe might watch the group to figure out when the spell is cast, but that only works if it's cast on a regular basis. Again, that's not the situation I'm talking about:  I'm talking about casting it to deal with specific suspicions.  I don't want a foolproof method to deal with such suspicions.



> Further looking at the wider issue of a king ordering the clergy to put people to the test there is the issue of would a god continue to grant wasteful prayers.



Hardly wasteful, if an orison and a first level spell enable the priests to detect any infiltrators with absolute success; on the contrary, a sensible god would *demand *the use of this spell combo by the faithful.



> What about the case where one of the PC is a god hatin self made type of man and spits on your holy symbol. You think that your diety is going to bless that person?



According to the rules, yes.  Gods don't micromanage; they delegate.  That's what clerics are for.  They're the middle managers of the holy hierarchy.  If a cleric decides that the god hatin man is an ally and should be subject to bless, then that god hatin man is subject to bless.  Maybe at some point the cleric's boss will have words with her, but there's nothing in the rules to suggest that the gods are second-guessing every single spell choice their clerics make.

Daniel


----------



## Pax (Jan 14, 2004)

anon said:
			
		

> I emailed Wizards Customer Service the other day.  Here is the predictable response:




  CustServ rulings are worth exactly twice as much as the paper they're written on.  (Think about it ...)


----------



## Pielorinho (Jan 14, 2004)

Given the confusion their rulings cause, I think you're overvaluing them, *Pax*.

Daniel


----------



## Elvinis75 (Jan 16, 2004)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> I'm having trouble following you; would you mind proofreading posts before submitting them?  I think there must be suffixes or whole words missing or misplaced.
> 
> That said, who mentioned a chained or helpless impostor?  That's not what I was talking about.
> 
> ...




I didn't know that the book says that gods don't grant prayers?  Give me the text that you are basing this off.  I would think that is tailored to each campaign?


----------



## Pielorinho (Jan 16, 2004)

Elvinis75 said:
			
		

> I didn't know that the book says that gods don't grant prayers? Give me the text that you are basing this off. I would think that is tailored to each campaign?



I won't give you the text, because that's not what I said.  If you think I said this, please quote the _specific passage_ that gave you that impression, and I'll explain what I actually meant.

Daniel


----------



## jgsugden (Jan 16, 2004)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> I reread it, and you're right:  I don't grasp it.  Please define "active assistance" and "active opposition."  Be aware I'll pick apart any definition as much as Hypersmurf has picked apart my method .
> 
> Daniel



These are terms that relate to the caster. More specifically, they relate to the goals of the caster. If the caster has a goal that he is actively working towards, and you are performing actions to further that goal, your are giving active assistance. If you are performing actions to hamper the caster in reaching his goal, you're engaged in active opposition. For the most part, motivation is irrelevant. You look at what the caster is actively trying to do and see which beings in range are trying to help the caster reach that goal (or otherwise trying to make that goal happen) or are trying to stop the caster from reaching his goal (or oterwise prvent the caster's goal from being reached). 

I'm just using the definitions of the words without reading motivations into the discussion. An ally is a person giving assistance. Anyone assisting the caster in reaching a goal is an ally. Plain and simple.


----------



## Pielorinho (Jan 16, 2004)

jgsugden said:
			
		

> These are terms that relate to the caster. More specifically, they relate to the goals of the caster. If the caster has a goal that he is actively working towards, and you are performing actions to further that goal, your are giving active assistance.



No good.  Mary is trying to kill the demon that Peter summoned.  Her friend Mike is meanwhile trying to kill Peter himself.  Does Mike not count as an ally, since Mary isn't trying to kill Peter?

What if both Mike and Peter are invisible, and Mary doesn't know they're fighting?

How broad is this "active assistance" and this "active goal" you're talking about?

Jill has been trying to kil the demon, but unfortunately, it stunned her last round.  She's no longer actively trying to assist in the goal, because she can't.  Is she an ally?

What about Bill, who would be trying to kill the demon if he wasn't under the effect of a Fear spell?

What about Lou, Peter's henchman who has decided in the heat of battle to run away?  Since Peter was counting on Lou's help to defend the temple, does his running away count as actively assisting Mary in defeating the temple, inasmuch as it removes one of the temple's guardians?  Would this change if he had actively surrendered?

If he doesn't get the blessing for removing himself from battle, does Guadelupe get the blessing for chopping Lou down before Lou gets a chance to skeedaddle?

What about the flatfooted, those who haven't had a chance to do anything yet?

I don't like your guidelines.
Daniel


----------



## jgsugden (Jan 16, 2004)

You're looking at isolated incidents instead of looking at entire pictures. My system works because you look through the forest (all actions being taken by all creatures) for a particular kind of tree (giving assistance) and apply the effect if you see it. You're looking at one individual part of the forest and ignoring the rest of it. 

The point of the system I mentioned is that it doesn't get bogged down by one aspect of motivation or conflicts in motivation.







			
				Pielorinho said:
			
		

> No good.  Mary is trying to kill the demon that Peter summoned.  Her friend Mike is meanwhile trying to kill Peter himself.  Does Mike not count as an ally, since Mary isn't trying to kill Peter?



 What else is Mary trying to do? She probably has more than 1 goal. If she does *not* want Peter dead and killing the summoned creature is her only goal, then, no, Mike is not an ally. This type of vacuum never comes up. There are always multiple goals going on at a time.







			
				Pielorinho said:
			
		

> What if both Mike and Peter are invisible, and Mary doesn't know they're fighting?



Are they trying to aid her? She doesn't need to know of their effeorts. She is not targetting them.







			
				Pielorinho said:
			
		

> How broad is this "active assistance" and this "active goal" you're talking about?



As broad as the DM sees them being. It will, of course, be a judgement call. However, they are very easy standards to apply.







			
				Pielorinho said:
			
		

> Jill has been trying to kil the demon, but unfortunately, it stunned her last round.  She's no longer actively trying to assist in the goal, because she can't.  Is she an ally?



Taking the word active too literally is a bit of a lame duck argument. If she is doing all she can in furtherance of the goal, she is an ally. Stunned could still be an ally. Unconcious probably wouldn't be.







			
				Pielorinho said:
			
		

> What about Bill, who would be trying to kill the demon if he wasn't under the effect of a Fear spell?



Is he trying to assist the caster? You'll have to look at all the caster's goals and see if he is trying to help. It is entirely possible that just by fleeing due to a spell he is no longer trying to help the caster.


			
				Pielorinho said:
			
		

> What about Lou, Peter's henchman who has decided in the heat of battle to run away?  Since Peter was counting on Lou's help to defend the temple, does his running away count as actively assisting Mary in defeating the temple, inasmuch as it removes one of the temple's guardians?  Would this change if he had actively surrendered?



Lou is not actively assisting or opposing the caster in your example (unless we have other surrounding circumstances), so he would be unaffected by bless or bane. 







			
				Pielorinho said:
			
		

> If he doesn't get the blessing for removing himself from battle, does Guadelupe get the blessing for chopping Lou down before Lou gets a chance to skeedaddle?



Is Guadelupe trying to help the caster reach a goal? 







			
				Pielorinho said:
			
		

> What about the flatfooted, those who haven't had a chance to do anything yet?



Are they doing something to help any goal that the caster is actively working towards?


			
				Pielorinho said:
			
		

> I don't like your guidelines.
> Daniel



They work really well. You're trying to look at them in isolated instances instead of how they'd come up in a real game. If you apply it to game situations, you'll see that it is really easy to use and covers all the bases.

Bless works on anyone that is actively working towards any of the goals that the caster is actively working towards.

Bane works on anyone that is actively working against any of the goals that the caster is actively working towards.

Very simple.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 17, 2004)

jgsugden said:
			
		

> Bless works on anyone that is actively working towards any of the goals that the caster is actively working towards.
> 
> Bane works on anyone that is actively working against any of the goals that the caster is actively working towards.




Wait, I'm confused.  Earlier you said that the flat-footed orcs weren't "enemies" because they weren't actively opposing... even though they were about to be.

But if Jill's stunned, she's still an ally, because if she weren't stunned, she _would_ be actively helping?

-Hyp.


----------



## anon (Jan 17, 2004)

Remind me again what's wrong with just letting the caster's general outlook towards creatures in the area of effect determine "ally" or "enemy"?


----------



## jgsugden (Jan 17, 2004)

Folks - You're trying to look at the small scale. Open up to the bigger picture. 
Snapping off one aspect of an encounter and trying to analyze it reagarding bless or bane is like trying to grade a term paper after reading one word in it. You must look at the total situation to make a ruling. You need to know about the various goals that the caster is presently working towards. 

I shot off some 'easy' answers to your earlier questions. I should have refused to answer until you fully described the situation. And I do mean fully. By giving me as much information as we would have if we sat down and played in the game. Full history. Full understanding of the character. Etc ...

Try this: In your next session, in the second round of a combat, during the cleric's turn (or another character if there is no cleric), ask yourself this: Who (within the range of bless) is actively helping one of the cleric's goals to be reached? It is very easy to answer. Very.

If you can't figure out how to use my advice, I'm sorry I failed to make it clear enough. It is too bad, because I've used this system for a LONG time. It has NEVER failed to grant a clear answer. If you stop trying to look for cracks and give it an honest try, you'll see that it is really easy and very effective.


----------



## jgsugden (Jan 17, 2004)

anon said:
			
		

> Remind me again what's wrong with just letting the caster's general outlook towards creatures in the area of effect determine "ally" or "enemy"?



 Because then you run into Hypersmurf's questions: How can the cleric have an outlook if he is unaware of the presence of an individual? What if the cleric is under a false impression with regards to the intent of the potential recipient of the spell?


----------



## dcollins (Jan 17, 2004)

Those questions are easily answered. (a) He doesn't. (b) He gets screwed.


----------



## Caliban (Jan 17, 2004)

Regarding Bane/Bless - here's my opinion:

The caster doesn't make any decisions, the creature being hit by spell is the one who determines if they are an enemy or an ally. 

All creatures (enemy or ally) in the area are hit by the spell, so all of them will show the aura. If you are casting bless, only creatures that consider themselves your allies get the bonus. Enemies will still have the spell aura on them, but will not benefit from it.

I know the spell area says "The caster and all allies within a 50'-ft burst", but this prevents what is supposed to be a combat spell from being a no-save enemy detector in investigative situations.


----------



## Pielorinho (Jan 19, 2004)

jgsugden said:
			
		

> If you can't figure out how to use my advice, I'm sorry I failed to make it clear enough. It is too bad, because I've used this system for a LONG time. It has NEVER failed to grant a clear answer. If you stop trying to look for cracks and give it an honest try, you'll see that it is really easy and very effective.



The subtext of my questions was, of course, that my system works perfectly well, too, and that you haven't given my system an honest try, either.  Ultimately I see no problem with your system except that there may be times where the caster and the DM disagree over what constitutes an "ally"; in such cases, I think it increases the fun to give the decision to the player.

But if you find your system more fun and more consistent for yourself, good on ya.  Just don't assume that it's obtuseness on my part if I fail to heed your wisdom.

Daniel


----------



## Pielorinho (Jan 19, 2004)

[edit:  double post]


----------



## Pielorinho (Jan 19, 2004)

Now, on reading Caliban's post, I've changed my mind:  this is a lovely way to adjudicate it.  Consider the spell's aesthetic.  The priest is saying, "Tremble before my god, all who oppose me!" (or, "Feel my god's happy fuzzies, all who assist me!")  It's a mind-affecting spell.

If you oppose the priest, no matter how secretively you do so, YOU know you oppose the priest, and you'll tremble.  Similarly, if you're on the priest's side, YOU'LL know that, and you'll feel all fuzzy inside.

Having the magic actually affect everyone (but only have a noticeable effect on those who consider themselves allies/enemies) is both logical and elegant, inasmuch as it removes the failsafe-detection trick.

I'd even go so far as to allow a character with Use Magic Device to make a roll -- DC 30, maybe? -- to fake being an ally for the spell's purpose.  But that gets wayyy houseruly.

Thanks, Caliban!

Daniel


----------



## glass (Jan 19, 2004)

As far as I can see, however you rule the 'who gets the bonus to hit' question, the bless'n'detect routine does not work. When you cast detect magic, you discover that a nice spherical area in enchanted.

Am I missing something? Or are you?

glass.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 19, 2004)

glass said:
			
		

> As far as I can see, however you rule the 'who gets the bonus to hit' question, the bless'n'detect routine does not work. When you cast detect magic, you discover that a nice spherical area in enchanted.
> 
> Am I missing something? Or are you?




The area is not "50' radius emanation"; it's "Allies in a 50' burst".  The area _is_ the allies, not the actual volume of space.  It's only allies who are affected.

That's the problem I have with Caliban's ruling - it doesn't actually follow the wording.  He's giving the spell an area of "Creatures in a 50' burst", and having allies gain a bonus.  Whereas the area is strictly "Allies in a 50' burst".  Only allies are affected, and _everyone_ who is affected gains the bonus.

By the wording of the stat block, the 50' sphere does not radiate enchantment, and non-allies do not radiate enchantment.  Only allies do.

-Hyp.


----------



## Pielorinho (Jan 19, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> That's the problem I have with Caliban's ruling - it doesn't actually follow the wording.



Oh, clearly it doesn't -- but that's not a problem for me. The spirit of the rules is way more important than the words themselves; since his description is simple, unambiguous, logical, and non-game-breaking, it's closer to the spirit than anything else I've seen in this thread, including my own ideas.

Daniel


----------



## Elvinis75 (Jan 19, 2004)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> I won't give you the text, because that's not what I said.  If you think I said this, please quote the _specific passage_ that gave you that impression, and I'll explain what I actually meant.
> 
> Daniel




In response to:
_What about the case where one of the PC is a god hatin self made type of man and spits on your holy symbol. You think that your diety is going to bless that person?_
You said
*According to the rules, yes. Gods don't micromanage; they delegate. That's what clerics are for. They're the middle managers of the holy hierarchy. If a cleric decides that the god hatin man is an ally and should be subject to bless, then that god hatin man is subject to bless. Maybe at some point the cleric's boss will have words with her, but there's nothing in the rules to suggest that the gods are second-guessing every single spell choice their clerics make.*

That made me believe that you were saying that somewhere in the rules it says that dieties don't have the power to deny prayers at the time they are cast.  I can't find anything that that says that they don't or couldn't micromanage the way that the priest use their powers.  I believe that this would be an important skill and precaution for a god to take to avoid people forcing followers to do great harm in that dieties name. In the second part of your quote you says that there is nothing in the rules saying that they can do this and I say that there is nothing the other direction so it looks like a DM call. It makes it hard to use in this situation then as we believe quite different ways in which prayers work.

This whole discussion though is not as important as whether or not to adjudicate a prayer differently because of one scenerio that rarely happens.  So what if they could use low level prayers to find a interloper?  If the king does use this method as someone suggested it would show a alot of people are not his allies.  Nobility more often than not are "a nest of sceeming ba5tards"  most of them are allies and enemies at the same time.  Are you going to kill them all?  I haven't seen a good reason presented here yet to change the basic knowledge of the DM approach.  The diety, and the DM for the bardic powers, knows who is and who is not an ally to that character and makes saves as appropriate.


----------

