# Cleaving after an AoO



## Vlos (Dec 2, 2004)

This came up last night in session and caught me a bit off guard. We ruled in game that it was ok, but wanted outside opinion just to confirm for future reference.

A character had the ability to make an Attack of Opportunity, where in the process he downed the attacker, he then used his Cleave feat to attack another attacker (which had not provoked an attack of opportunity).

Was this legal? Does anyone house rule this different if it is? And why?

Thanks


----------



## Scion (Dec 2, 2004)

By the raw it works, although there are people who dissallow it for various reasons.

Personally, I have no issue with it, seems pretty cinematic to me and allows a little more use into a feat that generally looses power pretty rapidly as levels increase.

Others feel it shouldnt be allowed because they cannot picture it (although many in this boat have a hard time pictureing cleave to begin with so it is understandable that a further wrinkle might push them over the edge) or feel that it makes it too powerful.

Either way though, raw yes, after that you can figure out what makes the most sense for your game


----------



## LokiDR (Dec 2, 2004)

Three words: bag of puppies.


----------



## Scion (Dec 2, 2004)

Three more words: not an enemy

or two words: impossible setup

Even if that did work, which is unlikely from many, many angles, it would still take a pile of feats to set up and a pretty hefty list of conditions. Next, we'll have all of the air particles define the character as an enemy and they will all rush away, that'll teach the character to abuse puppies. There are other rules in place that will help to prevent such occurances.


----------



## Gaiden (Dec 3, 2004)

Vlos said:
			
		

> This came up last night in session and caught me a bit off guard. We ruled in game that it was ok, but wanted outside opinion just to confirm for future reference.
> 
> A character had the ability to make an Attack of Opportunity, where in the process he downed the attacker, he then used his Cleave feat to attack another attacker (which had not provoked an attack of opportunity).
> 
> ...




I have a houserule that cleaving is possible with AoO but that each cleave attempt eats up another AoO.  So unless you have CR, you are not getting any cleaves at all, and even with GC, you only get at most a handful of extras.  This solves the bucket of snails problem (or bag of puppies for the more rules-savy munchkiners) grants you a nice synergy with feats that don't see that much use, but provides some balance.  Also, it encourages taking CR which I think is a descriptively very cool feat but one that I don't see alot of fighters take.


----------



## Thanee (Dec 3, 2004)

I do not allow it for various reasons (mostly because an attack, which is limited to one specific target (AoO), is then "carried over" (Cleave) to another target, which could not have been attacked with it in the first place, thus it penalizes a character for another character's provoking of an AoO), but as Scion said, officially it's possible to Cleave from an AoO.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Dec 3, 2004)

Allowed by the rules as written, but I am against it.

In a nutshell, I would say provoking AoOs should be encouraged and allowing the Cleave discourages AoOs.

As I play in campaigns where PCs are often running around the battlefied one hit from unconsciousness, preventing cascades of PC death seems like a good idea.


----------



## qstor (Dec 3, 2004)

If it works for the bad guys let it work for the PC's. 

I have a 3rd level human fighter PC that has Hold the Line and Cleave. His primary weapon is a longsword so if 2 orcs charge him side by side, odds are he'll down one and Cleave the other. Cinematic and works by the rules, IMHO...

Mike


----------



## Anabstercorian (Dec 3, 2004)

By the rules, it's allowed.  But in my opinion, it's completely retarded.


----------



## NPC (Dec 3, 2004)

I love it, especially when combined with reach weapons!


----------



## Li Shenron (Dec 3, 2004)

Another vote for disallowing it.


----------



## 0-hr (Dec 3, 2004)

Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> By the rules, it's allowed.  But in my opinion, it's completely retarded.



I'll second that. It just doesn't make sense that Enemy A can be killed just because Enemy B drunk a potion.


----------



## robberbaron (Dec 3, 2004)

If it works for the PCs let it work for the Bad Guys.

Once the PCs are on the receiving end of an AoO Cleave Chain (tm) they might think twice about it.


----------



## Scion (Dec 3, 2004)

Ki Ryn said:
			
		

> I'll second that. It just doesn't make sense that Enemy A can be killed just because Enemy B drunk a potion.




To me it makes perfect sense that actions of others will have a direct consequence on you.

If you are invisible and walking next to your buddy, who is not invisible, and some enemy pops up and fireballs him, what happens to you? The enemy doesnt even know you are there, but through your friend you are taking damage anyway.

In combat you are effected by everyone and everything there to some degree. Sometimes people will make good choices, sometimes bad, and it very well may be that their bad choices do bad things to you, even if they were your teammates before.

It isnt a penalty to the one who got hit through cleave, it is a bonus allowed to the guy with cleave. He spent his feat on being able to do something extra impressive.


----------



## Abstraction (Dec 3, 2004)

The "bag of puppies" with Cleave is a problem with Whirlwind Attack, which never comes into play with an Attack of Oppportunity.

Cinematic:
_Orc A drinks a potion. Seeing the opportunity, you grab his arm, pull him in front of you and stab through him into Orc B who didn't see it coming._


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 3, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> To me it makes perfect sense that actions of others will have a direct consequence on you.




Within reason.

This is not within reason.

I am suddenly more vulnerable because my buddy walked past my enemy is not reasonable.

Or thought of another way, what if my enemy PRETENDED that he had a character standing next to him, PRETENDED that he killed that imaginary character when he drank his non-existent potion, and now in REALITY (of the game) gets an extra attack at me?

The point is that sometimes, the mechanics do not make sense. When they do not make sense, WotC should errata a special rule about it.

The Cleave rule should be: "If on your normal sequence of attacks, ..."

That solves the reasonableness issue. Granted, we do not want too many special rules from WotC, but this one screams of stupidity and should have been fixed in 3.5.

Part of the point of playing the game is so that 4 to 8 people can sit in a room and imagine together what is happening. When some game mechanic shatters the believability of that group imagination and "kicks people out of the game", then that game mechanic should be adjusted to no longer do that. IMO.


----------



## Gaiden (Dec 3, 2004)

If you've ever watched Kenshin and seen the stunt Shishio pulls on Kenshin when Shishio's woman (sorry I forget the name) attempts to interrupt the fight between them, you know that cleave can work on an AoO.


----------



## Scion (Dec 3, 2004)

now we are pretending things? I think I see why it does not make sense to you then 

I'll just pretend that you let your guard down in a number of ways and get a full spectrum of aoo's on you then. Why not?

Your buddy moved and put you in a bad position, but only because the other guy was able to take advantage of it because of his specific training.

Just like the fireball example. Just like someone useing terrain to their advantage and your disadvantage. Just like useing a cleave normally. And just like useing any other feat to gain a benefit normally not allowed.

Still makes sense to me that someone else could put you in a position where yet another person could draw upon their training to take advantage of it. It happens all of the time.


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 3, 2004)

Abstraction said:
			
		

> Cinematic:
> _Orc A drinks a potion. Seeing the opportunity, you grab his arm, pull him in front of you and stab through him into Orc B who didn't see it coming._




How exactly do you stab through him with a mace?

Or grab his arm with a shield in one hand and a sword in the other?

Or stab through his plate armor?

And why doesn't your opponent get time to step back while you are playing Errol Flynn here?

The point is that it is a nonsensical side effect of AoOs and it wasn't fixed and people are trying to come up with extreme cinematic attempts to justify a bad rule.

Why bother? Just fix it.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Dec 3, 2004)

Allowed by Rules as Written, and allowed in any campaign I or my DMs have run.

Consider Cleave - and Great Cleave - a special case of AoOs, in which you have trained to use the fact that an enemy has ceased fighting to alter the battlespace to benefit yourself.

In other words, "Opponent has dropped" becomes an "action" that provokes an AoO, but only for the person who dropped him, which he can apply to any other creature he is fighting.


----------



## Scion (Dec 3, 2004)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> How exactly do you stab through him with a mace?




Now you are having trouble with cleave itself, not with aoo + cleave.


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 3, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> now we are pretending things? I think I see why it does not make sense to you then
> 
> I'll just pretend that you let your guard down in a number of ways and get a full spectrum of aoo's on you then. Why not?




Precisely.

It is exactly like this.

Why should person A let down his guard because person B imagines that he does?

Why should person A let down his guard because person B kills person C?

No difference.


The fireball example is irrelevant to the topic at hand and just a smokescreen.

Yes, other people's actions affect ours in combat.

But, saying that Cleave works on AoOs is like saying that you can get hit by an arrow because an archer was able to bounce it off your buddy standing 300 feet away from you and he damaged both of you with it.


You are trying to justify a GAME MECHANIC.

You are not trying to justify something that really makes sense in real combat.

Cleave makes very little sense as is in real combat. It's just a mechanics driven silly little feat that someone thought "Hey, wouldn't this be cool?"


It's like Power Attack. The additional damage of Power Attack should be subdual damage, not real damage.

That way, you cannot Power Attack and slash apart an Adamantine Door with your dinky little iron longsword. A feat should not really be able to give you the ability to do 2x or 3x the amount of damage that your strength and weapon allows. IMO.

In my last campaign, it was a little bothersome when PCs could Power Attack through a stone wall in a matter of moments. Some rules just do not make sense and shouldn't be justified.

PS. While hijacking this thread to Power Attack, it is also stupid that it cannot be used for light weapons. They tried to fix the nonsensical portion of this in 3.5 in a nonsensical manner.


----------



## Philip (Dec 3, 2004)

The BIG difference between a regular Cleave and an one on a AoO is that I considered the first one deliberate. 

Someone with the Cleave feat knows how to set up his attacks so that they have the possibility of hitting more than one opponent.

AoO are not deliberate. They are unexpected opportunities in the normal flow of combat. Therefore I disallow any and all special attack actions on AoO's, including cleave.

Person A drinks a potion, Fighter B hits A, kill him, and proceeds to with a sunder attack on the shield of Person C, destroys it, gets an extra attack on person C due to his Combat Brute feat, makes a trip attack and trips person C, and then gets another attack due to his Improved Trip, and uses it to disarm person C. I think that's just plain weird. Having person C sitting on the ground, without a shield and a weapon, just because person A dropped his guard.....


----------



## Abstraction (Dec 3, 2004)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> How exactly do you stab through him with a mace?
> 
> Or grab his arm with a shield in one hand and a sword in the other?
> 
> ...




Now you're just being silly. Of course the cinematics are different for each situation. Why does Cleave not make sense to you on an AoO, when all those things you mention still wouldn't make sense on your turn? For that matter, it sounds like you want to houserule that plate armor cannot be stabbed through. Ever.

The feat works well mechanically. The feat works well stylistically. Just watch any sword and sorcery movie.


----------



## jodyjohnson (Dec 3, 2004)

We disallow it.

Primarily on the grounds that AoO exists as a mechanic to give a negative consequence to doing stupid things in melee.

Whenever it evolves into a way to increase melee damage I get warry.  Any feats which use the AoO as a offensive means to increase damage goes against this.

I'll exempt Combat Reflexes because it doesn't actually force anyone to draw an AoO - it's more of a disincentive to meta-game AoO (he used his AoO therefore I can do whatever).

Cleave off AoO, Bull-rushing/moving opponents to force them to draw AoO, feats which specifically force opponents to draw AoO, etc. all go against my personal sensibility regarding AoO as a means to punish doing stupid things in combat.


----------



## Scion (Dec 3, 2004)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Precisely.
> It is exactly like this.
> Why should person A let down his guard because person B imagines that he does?
> Why should person A let down his guard because person B kills person C?
> No difference.




I am afraid that you are simply making up silly situations which make no sense in order to prove that something you do not like makes no sense.

It isnt working.

If you wish to break the rules of the game (by pretending to be able to make an aoo and thereby do so) then go right ahead, but this is bad.

This is not about letting ones guard down, this isnt about someone having something bad happen to them for no fault of their own.

It is about one person having the skill to perform an unusual action and doing it. That is all.

The fireball example counters your arguement perfectly, it illustrates that sometimes bad things can happen to you without it being your fault. But, it doesnt really matter for the main point for this thread.


I think that your entire gripe is simply with Cleave itself. It is a difficult feat to really think about, it works in very odd ways. However, the point is not that it is hard to think about, the point is how it works and what it does.

By the raw it is definately allowable. By common sense it is also allowable. I have given reasons why this is so, you have given reasons why your common sense dictates otherwise. Obviously one can come to either conclusion with common sense so we then have to fall to is, 'is it unbalanced?'. In my opinion it is not, the list of things that have to go just right is pretty high for just a single extra attack.


I will agree though that not being able to power attack with a light weapon is silly, but that is also neither here nor there for this thread.



			
				Philip said:
			
		

> AoO are not deliberate.




Yes they are. You get to choose whether or not to take the opportunity. You get to choose which weapon to use. You get to choose what other feats you might want to apply to this action and how to go about enacting them.

Also, there are feats such as karmic strike which center completely around useing the aoo in a very deliberate manner.

You can say that you cannot plan for it directly in most cases sure, but then you cant plan for cleave either so that point doesnt really help your case. If one has a situation where they get to make a strike why can they suddenly not plan that attack just as much as any other? Especially when they could have used any number of other feats in its place?


----------



## atom crash (Dec 3, 2004)

From the www.wizards.com glossary definition of attack of opportunity:


> A single extra melee attack per round that a combatant can make when an opponent within reach takes an action that provokes attacks of opportunity. Cover prevents attacks of opportunity.




Wow! What a horrible definition. They use the term itself to define the term.

From the SRD:


> Sometimes a combatant in a melee lets her guard down. In this case, combatants near her can take advantage of her lapse in defense to attack her for free. These free attacks are called attacks of opportunity.




In abstract terms, an attack of opportunity is the result of a character's actions making him or her more vulnerable to attack during battle. You should not be able to damage someone who did not let their guard down during an attack of opportunity.

Sure, as the fireball example illustrates, sometimes bad things can happen to you without it being your fault. But keep in mind that we're not talking about fireballs (or any other area effect). You can't use a fireball during an attack of opportunity, so that point is moot.

But I'm not interested in a justification either way. I'd like to settle this according to the rules. Let's look at the rules a bit further.

From the combat section of the SRD:


> Making an Attack of Opportunity: An attack of opportunity is *a single melee attack, and you can only make one per round.* You don’t have to make an attack of opportunity if you don’t want to.
> 
> An experienced character gets additional regular melee attacks (by using the full attack action), but at a lower attack bonus. You make your attack of opportunity, however, at your normal attack bonus—even if you’ve already attacked in the round.
> 
> ...




The added emphasis is mine. One attack of opportunity per round. Ok, now *Cleave*:



> Benefit: If you deal a creature enough damage to make it drop (typically by dropping it to below 0 hit points or killing it), you get an immediate, extra melee attack against another creature within reach. You cannot take a 5-foot step before making this extra attack. The extra attack is with the same weapon and at the same bonus as the attack that dropped the previous creature. You can use this ability once per round.




Ok, so Cleave gives you an extra melee attack, but an attack of opportunity only allows you *one melee attack*. By a strict reading of the rules, Cleave won't give you an extra melee attack during an attack of opportunity because you only get one attack during an attack of opportunity. Combat Reflexes is the only exception that gives you more attacks of opportunity, but even Combat Reflexes doesn't give you more than one attack for a given opportunity.


----------



## Scion (Dec 3, 2004)

By that same reasoning you could not cleave at the end of a charge even if you took down your opponent.


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 3, 2004)

atom crash said:
			
		

> Ok, so Cleave gives you an extra melee attack, but an attack of opportunity only allows you *one melee attack*. By a strict reading of the rules, Cleave won't give you an extra melee attack during an attack of opportunity because you only get one attack during an attack of opportunity. Combat Reflexes is the only exception that gives you more attacks of opportunity, but even Combat Reflexes doesn't give you more than one attack for a given opportunity.




Wow!

Nicely done atom. What a concept! Use the rules to show what the rule is. 

Ok, the answer to the original post is that it cannot be done.

Next.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Dec 3, 2004)

Hell, BAB <= +5 only allows "*one melee attack*."

Can you Cleave then?


----------



## Scion (Dec 3, 2004)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Wow!
> Nicely done atom. What a concept! Use the rules to show what the rule is.
> Ok, the answer to the original post is that it cannot be done.
> Next.




If of course it actually worked that way, but even by what he just quoted it does not.

The aoo allows you an attack against an opponent. Fine. Then cleave, if its conditions are met, grant an 'extra' attack. That would make an attack that is in addition because the correct conditions were met. Just like a normal full attack action only allows for your normal amount of attacks but haste can add an extra attack in there, same thing.

So, one aoo, if conditions are met then cleave. Going directly by what he just quoted it works just fine.


----------



## Lamoni (Dec 3, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> I think that your entire gripe is simply with Cleave itself. It is a difficult feat to really think about, it works in very odd ways. However, the point is not that it is hard to think about, the point is how it works and what it does.



Sorry, I had to step in here.  I hate being told what I am saying when it isn't true.  In the last thread on this topic that went on for several pages it was a recurring theme to say that people who didn't like it just didn't like cleave in general.

Here is a situation.  one fighter with great cleave, 8 orcs surrounding the fighter.  On the fighters turn he kills orc1, cleaves, kills orc 2, cleaves, kills orc 3, cleaves.  Even if he kills all 8 orcs on his turn he is still limited by his BAB for his number of attacks against any one orc.

Let's say his BAB is +5.  If he ever misses an orc, his attacks stop.  He can never get a second attack against an orc in one round without that orc doing something stupid and provoking an attack of opportunity.  Now let's say his BAB is +16.  He can never get more than 4 attacks against a single opponent unless that opponent provokes an attack of opportunity.

Okay, I have ignored Cleaving off of AoO's until now.  But as you can see by the above, I have no problem with Cleave working to make extra attacks when you kill an enemy.  How it works above is how I feel it should work.

Now let's allow cleaving off of AoO's.  Fighter (level 3) attacks on his turn and hits Orc1 (level 5).  Orc 2 drinks potion, fighter makes AoO, kills him and attacks Orc1 again.  Orc3 drinks potion, fighter makes AoO, kills him and attacks Orc1 again.  Orc 4 does the same thing and fighter is finally able to kill off Orc1 after 4 attacks in one round.  Granted, this is a hypothetical situation and would never come up in actual play.

I know people doing stupid things can make it harder for you.  Without giving one of your wild examples of someone casting a fireball, explain the following example.  Fighter with spiked chain is fighting a mummy who is within 5'.  10' away on the other side of a fighter there is a goblin who gets scared and runs away from the fight.  Explain how that goblin really made it disadvantageous for the mummy so it makes sense to use the Cleave on AoO mechanic.  If you can do that, you've earned yourself a cookie... and you might just convince me to want to use it too.  If you can't come up with a convincing explanation, maybe at least you will have more respect for those that don't bother allowing it in their games.


----------



## Scion (Dec 3, 2004)

Lamoni said:
			
		

> Sorry, I had to step in here.  I hate being told what I am saying when it isn't true.  In the last thread on this topic that went on for several pages it was a recurring theme to say that people who didn't like it just didn't like cleave in general.




So.. you are saying that I was not interpreting him correctly? Lets see here..



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Cleave makes very little sense as is in real combat. It's just a mechanics driven silly little feat that someone thought "Hey, wouldn't this be cool?"





			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> How exactly do you stab through him with a mace?




How else would one interpret this? There are a few other not quite so blatant examples, but they still imply the same thing.



			
				Lamoni said:
			
		

> Explain how that goblin really made it disadvantageous for the mummy so it makes sense to use the Cleave on AoO mechanic.




The person fighting the goblin saw an opportunity, he reached over with his weapon and lopped off its head. Following through with the same motion he brought his weapon around directly with a flourish which stabbed into the mummy.

It works exactly the same way if it was instead one of his normal attacks, or an attack gained through some spell, or an attack that happened because of some other special feat/situation/whatever that was going on.

If it is difficult to picture the motion going from one to the next then the problem is more with picturing cleave itself then whatever made the attack that cleave worked off of. If you like cleave then there shouldnt be any problem useing cleave off of anytime that its conditions are met (down a foe with a melee attack). It doesnt matter whether the attack came from a normal attack, from some spell (by this I mean things like haste or snakes swiftness), or from an aoo. The condition was met and that is what matters for the mechanic. After that the player can describe it in just about any way they like, that is part of the fun.


----------



## Felonious Ntent (Dec 3, 2004)

Vlos said:
			
		

> This came up last night in session and caught me a bit off guard. We ruled in game that it was ok, but wanted outside opinion just to confirm for future reference.
> 
> A character had the ability to make an Attack of Opportunity, where in the process he downed the attacker, he then used his Cleave feat to attack another attacker (which had not provoked an attack of opportunity).
> 
> ...







> Benefit: If you deal a creature enough damage to make it drop (typically by dropping it to below 0 hit points or killing it), you get an immediate, extra melee attack against another creature within reach. You cannot take a 5-foot step before making this extra attack. The extra attack is with the same weapon and at the same bonus as the attack that dropped the previous creature. You can use this ability once per round.




I would say it depends. Has the Character used cleave yet this round? If so I'd say no. If not I'd allow it.


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 3, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> By that same reasoning you could not cleave at the end of a charge even if you took down your opponent.




Thanks for pointing this out Scion. 



> Attacking on a Charge: After moving, you may make a single melee attack.
> 
> ...
> 
> Even if you have extra attacks, such as from having a high enough base attack bonus or from using multiple weapons, you only get to make one attack during a charge.


----------



## Thanee (Dec 3, 2004)

Even though I am against it for reasons mentioned above, this here is in no way relevant for the actual question.



			
				atom crash said:
			
		

> Ok, so Cleave gives you an extra melee attack, but an attack of opportunity only allows you *one melee attack*. By a strict reading of the rules, Cleave won't give you an extra melee attack during an attack of opportunity because you only get one attack during an attack of opportunity.




AoO is a single melee attack. Once this single melee attack is done (and the opponened dropped), Cleave kicks in and another immediate single melee attack is spawned, which is completely seperate from the single AoO attack. You still got only one attack from the AoO. The other attack you got is from Cleave.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Scion (Dec 3, 2004)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Thanks for pointing this out Scion.




np of course, but it doesnt prove what I think you are trying to say that it proves.

You cannot make the cleave as 'part' of the charge, but you still get the cleave if your charge took out the opponent. It simply comes as an immediate action just after. Just like the cleave after the aoo


----------



## Thanee (Dec 3, 2004)

Yep, it's pretty much the same. The only difference is the situation, which creates the original attack in the first place, which is why I have no problem with cleaving after a charge, but with cleaving after an AoO.

But technically both work just fine.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 3, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> The person fighting the goblin saw an opportunity, he reached over with his weapon and lopped off its head. Following through with the same motion he brought his weapon around directly with a flourish which stabbed into the mummy.




The problem with your examples are that they are nonsensical for the following reason: All of your examples could be replaced with a non-existent character, the same moves could be made, and then Fighters could get AoOs against imaginary foes at any time, just to get the real follow up Cleave against the real foe.

For example, your example here. The person pretends there is a goblin behind the mummy and does the exact same actions and gets a free attack on the mummy.

Why wouldn't this work from a real combat perspective (as opposed to a game mechanic perspective)?

Well, it doesn't make sense that it should.

Precisely for the EXACT SAME reason that it doesn't make sense that it should if a Goblin was really there and really running away.

And so far, all of your "explanations of how it could work" are that way.

You are trying to justify a game mechanic which is non-justifiable in common sense (otherwise, the imaginary character replacement would work).


Bottom line: If you cannot get this free attack against A if B is not there, why should you get it if B is there?

This is an unanswerable question outside of purely game mechanics answers. It is unanswerable in real world combat terms and hence, the concept of Cleaves on AoOs is silly outside a purely game mechanics point of view.

You cannot justify it for real world combat.
You can justify it for game mechanics.


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 3, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> np of course, but it doesnt prove what I think you are trying to say that it proves.
> 
> You cannot make the cleave as 'part' of the charge, but you still get the cleave if your charge took out the opponent. It simply comes as an immediate action just after. Just like the cleave after the aoo




I wasn't actually trying to prove it.

I was trying to be facetious (and humorous).

Evidently, I was unsuccessful because even you didn't get it.


----------



## Abstraction (Dec 3, 2004)

Lamoni said:
			
		

> Now let's allow cleaving off of AoO's.  Fighter (level 3) attacks on his turn and hits Orc1 (level 5).  Orc 2 drinks potion, fighter makes AoO, kills him and attacks Orc1 again.  Orc3 drinks potion, fighter makes AoO, kills him and attacks Orc1 again.  Orc 4 does the same thing and fighter is finally able to kill off Orc1 after 4 attacks in one round.  Granted, this is a hypothetical situation and would never come up in actual play.




Note that this fighter has Cleave and Combat Reflexes and a high Dex. Looked at it through that light, it sounds fine to me. Especially considering how rarely somebody is surrounded by 8 orcs and lives.


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 3, 2004)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Yep, it's pretty much the same. The only difference is the situation, which creates the original attack in the first place, which is why I have no problem with cleaving after a charge, but with cleaving after an AoO.
> 
> But technically both work just fine.




Precisely.

From a game mechanics point of view, they both work.

From a fairness / common sense point of view, one works and one doesn't.


----------



## Scion (Dec 3, 2004)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> All of your examples could be replaced with a non-existent character




You are saying that my examples have problems because you can make up a completely ridiculous example which goes against the rules of the game and come up with a situation in which it is overpowered?

Ok. Then, going by your example of making up things, every single aspect of the game is broken and overpowered because someone could make up something that breaks it.

If, however, we go by the actual rules of the game where one cannot simply make up random foes which are then defeated in some virtual space allowing various combat actions to just happen for no reason then there isnt any problem.

My way, going by the rules and there arent any problems in this situation. Except that people have issues with the flavor or cant picture it, that is for their games if they wish to change it.

Or, there is the way it seems you are touting, which is to make up an impossible scenario (impossible because it goes against the rules) to prove that things dont work logically. At that point however there is no useful logic being used.


As for your bottom line however, the same could be said for any target, enemy, foe, friend, ally, peice of terrain, bottle cap, weapon, or anything else that is in existance at the same time. Why does it change things? Because that is the way things work in that world. Those who can take advantage of specific circumstances can get those advantages when those circumstances are in play.

How come a player behind a wall gains a benefit? If that wall wasnt there they wouldnt get it. How come this guy gets an attack? if he didnt have that feat he wouldnt get it. Etc etc etc etc adnauseum.

A situation happens that a character is specifically trained to use to his advantage and he gets an advantage. Good for him.


----------



## Scion (Dec 3, 2004)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> From a fairness / common sense point of view, one works and one doesn't.




But why?

They both work in the same way. It is someone who has spent the resources to gain a benefit. The benefit isnt exactly huge, but it is nice on occasion.

Fair? why would it not be fair? not fair to who? I could use the wall example again, it works in exactly the same way. If that wall wasnt there then he wouldnt get a benefit, so why should he get a benefit if the wall is there? That arguement is just as illogical as the one you are trying to present.

So why? why is it against fairness? why is it against common sense? The arguments about someone being 'punished' just dont hold water, what else is there?


----------



## Veritas (Dec 3, 2004)

I've allowed cleave attempts whenever a character who has the feat kills an opponent (or drops it below 0 hit points), no matter what. Well, okay, with a melee weapon.

Cleave to me isn't truly another attack, it's just the character following through on his swing. So, he slashes an orc, for example, and if he doesn't kill it, his attack stops there since the orc's body effectively stops his weapon, and he must withdraw the weapon and attack again. If he kills the orc with that hit, he slices through (at least part of it) and continues on with his swing into the cleave, which uses the same attack bonus as the attack that just killed the previous opponent, but a new attack roll is needed because of the potential for the new opponent to dodge out of the way or for his armor to turn aside the follow-through.

I see nothing wrong with this same thing working for an attack of opportunity. Someone in front of him tries to cast a spell without taking a 5' step, or by drinking a potion or whatever, he slashes them, kills them, and follows through on the swing, having a change to hit the guy standing right next to him too. It's all the same to me. *shrug*


----------



## atom crash (Dec 3, 2004)

> AoO is a single melee attack. Once this single melee attack is done (and the opponent dropped), Cleave kicks in and another immediate single melee attack is spawned, which is completely seperate from the single AoO attack. You still got only one attack from the AoO. The other attack you got is from Cleave.




Excellent point.

But what about this?



> If an attack of opportunity is provoked, immediately resolve the attack of opportunity, then continue with the next character’s turn (or complete the current turn, if the attack of opportunity was provoked in the midst of a character’s turn).




By my reading, this doesn't leave much room for Cleave to kick in. Get your attack of opportunity, then you're done. The option to "complete the current turn, if the attack of opportunity was provoked in the midst of a character’s turn" might open the door for Cleave, but I read that as meaning to continue on to your other iterative attacks or actions you haven't yet done because combat was interrupted by an AoO.

Resolve your AoO, then get back to the combat at hand. Do not pass go, do not collect $200, do not get an additional attack.

We've seen in the FAQ that if an attack during an AoO provokes an AoO, then you should immediately resolve it in order -- though I find the example in the FAQ extremely silly, I won't refute it. But we've seen no example in which an AoO grants an additional attack. I'll freely admit that the lack of an example isn't proof that none exists. And I'll also freely admit that my interpretation of the intent of the designers could be wrong. 

The crux of my argument -- and I guess I didn't do a good enough job of explicitly spelling it out before -- is that attacks of opportunity exist outside the realm of normal combat. That's how they are presented in the rules. The SRD says that "an attack of opportunity 'interrupts' the normal flow of actions in the round." 

Therefore, I maintain that the normal rules (and the exceptions to the rules, such as those allowed by Cleave) do not necessarily apply during an AoO.


----------



## Scion (Dec 3, 2004)

SRD:
If you deal a creature enough damage to make it drop (typically by dropping it to below 0 hit points or killing it), *you get an immediate *, extra melee attack against another creature within reach. 


There you are, there is the rule you are looking for. Cleave says so and so it is.


----------



## Veritas (Dec 3, 2004)

Whoops...   should have hit "preview"... oh well, it just supports you anyways, Scion. *thumbs up* 



> Cleave:
> *If you deal a creature enough damage to make it drop (typically by dropping it to below 0 hit points or killing it), you get an immediate, extra melee attack against another creature within reach.* You cannot take a 5-foot step before making this extra attack. The extra attack is with the same weapon and at the same bonus as the attack that dropped the previous creature. You can use this ability once per round.




The bolded part seems to be fairly universal... all you have to do is drop the opponent and you get an immediate extra melee attack.

Normally, you just resolve your melee attacks and then continue on with the next turn or finish the turn your in, but if you drop an opponent on any of those attacks, you get a cleave attempt. This seems to apply to the AoO text you quoted above... you make your AoO, if you drop your opponent you get the extra melee attack for the cleave, and then you continue on with the next round or finish the current round.


----------



## Thanee (Dec 3, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> But why?
> 
> They both work in the same way. It is someone who has spent the resources to gain a benefit. The benefit isnt exactly huge, but it is nice on occasion.




The benefit might not be huge for the character with Cleave, it's just one more attack, but the penalty surely is, for the character that gets hit from an attack of opportunity, essentially, without provoking it.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Thanee (Dec 3, 2004)

atom crash said:
			
		

> By my reading, this doesn't leave much room for Cleave to kick in.




Well, _immediate_ is pretty fast after all. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## R-Hero (Dec 3, 2004)

atom crash said:
			
		

> Ok, so Cleave gives you an extra melee attack, but an attack of opportunity only allows you *one melee attack*. By a strict reading of the rules, Cleave won't give you an extra melee attack during an attack of opportunity because you only get one attack during an attack of opportunity. Combat Reflexes is the only exception that gives you more attacks of opportunity, but even Combat Reflexes doesn't give you more than one attack for a given opportunity.




($0.02) 

I aggree with this interpritation of the rules. An A.O.O. is a quick reflex to an opening in your opponents defenses.  (A boxer sneaking in a short jab to his opponents ribs, for example) Relying on Reflex (Dexterity)

Cleave is a full blown attack that has so much force in it that momentum carries through the dropped opponent and a well trained fighter is able to harness some of that power and re-direct to another opponent.
(The same boxer, planing his foot, shifting weight and bringing his focused power in the form of a brain rattling upper-cut) Relying on Muscle (Strength)

Without the feat, the attack is over while the character is trying to maintain balance and focus in on the next target.

Personally, I think cleave should be at the Lowest attack for realism, but in the game it wouldn't be very fun because so many would miss. (Maybe a -4 to attack would be more balanced)

This has been my two cents


----------



## Lasher Dragon (Dec 3, 2004)

This whole issue of cleaves on AoO being broken can be resolved rather easily - as the DM, don't rush in stupidly with lots of low HD enemies. Don't drink a freakin potion when you are a weak-ass goblin within smacking distance of the huge half-orc in full plate with the greataxe. If you as the DM mess up and give away an AoO, be prepared to suffer the consequences, just as the PCs always must be on their guard against provoking AoO. ESPECIALLY when you have the huge cleavemaster staring you down waiting for his chance to strike.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Dec 3, 2004)

Well, one _try_ at a justification for a Cleave following up an Attack of Opportunity would be that any single attack that drops it's target with one strike is distracting enough to make the allies of the dropped target be dumbstruck for just a second, and be a target for the Cleave. This is not written in the rules, I know, but it easily gives a nice explanation and leaves Cleave as follow-up option for an Attack of Opportunity.  

What Karinsdad is trying to say with his example of a non-existant opponent is, in my opinion, that an Attack of Opportunity on somebody who isn't of any consequence to your potential Cleave target shouldn't make that target vulnerable to your Cleave attempt in the first place. Here I'd like to argue that somebody who has learned to turn an immediate kill into an advantage for his own battle timing might very well do so with a "lucky opening strike", which is represented by the Attack of Opportunity. I haven't been in any real fights yet, and I'm damn grateful for it, too, but I've always had the impression that a lot of combat training goes into making your mind recognize an opportunity in a split-second and apply your training to take the best advantag of it. That's what Cleave following an AoO represents. In my opinion, of course.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Dec 3, 2004)

Lamoni said:
			
		

> I know people doing stupid things can make it harder for you.  Without giving one of your wild examples of someone casting a fireball, explain the following example.  Fighter with spiked chain is fighting a mummy who is within 5'.  10' away on the other side of a fighter there is a goblin who gets scared and runs away from the fight.  Explain how that goblin really made it disadvantageous for the mummy so it makes sense to use the Cleave on AoO mechanic.  If you can do that, you've earned yourself a cookie... and you might just convince me to want to use it too.  If you can't come up with a convincing explanation, maybe at least you will have more respect for those that don't bother allowing it in their games.




A continuation of momentum, same as with a standard Cleave (IMHO).  The fighter took left over power from a previous strike and diverted it to another target. the concept is similar to European and Japanese battlefield techniques. Basic idea, go with the flow of combat, and take shots when they become available.  i've actually been in this situation in a dojo. It was 2 against 1, the instructor being the 1. My partner stumbles and falls. The instructor nails him with an overhead strike, then pulls a 180 on the balls of his feet as I come in from the rear. Gets me with another overhead strike (his fastest option, since attacks to the side would be telegraphed and blocked). Bamboo sword or not, my head rang for the rest of the day...

somewhat off the wall, but maybe a better example. Japanese swordmanship teaches to deflect, not block, most incoming attacks. When you deflect, you can redirect the energy back into an attack (yep, the target kills himself). This is effective because attacking creates an opening (an AoO mightmare, so its good that no one has agrued for THAT concept).

also remeber efficiency in momentum. If I take a shot at the inside of a targets thigh (going for arteries), you can bet its because I can carry that momentum into another attack or parry. ie: if I strike, I've got the next strike planned (Aikido principle of controlling the fight). Why would I attack the thigh? He made it a target (AoO). Whether it was because he stepped back or drank a potion is academic.

Another good example is Aikido. the whole idea is to create AoO's and use them against everyone. Opponent 1 steps back (defensive, potion, etc), so he gets opponent 2 thrown into him. Or if Opponent one freezes (it happens) or stops to focus on something , he gets thrown into opponent two. Either way, you capitalize on the mistakes of one to nail them both.


So...wheres my cookie??


----------



## Storyteller01 (Dec 3, 2004)

R-Hero said:
			
		

> ($0.02)
> 
> Cleave is a full blown attack that has so much force in it that momentum carries through the dropped opponent and a well trained fighter is able to harness some of that power and re-direct to another opponent.
> (The same boxer, planing his foot, shifting weight and bringing his focused power in the form of a brain rattling upper-cut) Relying on Muscle (Strength)
> ...




you could also argue that Cleave is the abstract for the concept of the fighter controlling the battle (All right, I'm in position. If I drop this guy, I'll get a shot at that guy).

The concept is taught in many combat styles that deal with multiple opponents.


----------



## R-Hero (Dec 3, 2004)

Storyteller01 said:
			
		

> you could also argue that Cleave is the abstract for the concept of the fighter controlling the battle (All right, I'm in position. If I drop this guy, I'll get a shot at that guy).
> 
> The concept is taught in many combat styles that deal with multiple opponents.




I still think that cleave in this instance falls under full attack action. The natural ebb and flow of combat.  An A of O is a quick opening that falls _anywhere_ within combat because of the opponents lack of defense or focus. 

Wizard Aay mucking around with a spell does not make Fighter Zee behind shield and slashing sword any more smackable. (My past english teachers are rolling in their graves for that sentance structure.)

I look at it as Strength vs Dexterity, Feats vs combat actions. Never the twain shall meet. I.M.O. (Did I quote that right?) They be too different from each others. (Take that undead-schoolmarm!)

Whatever house rule any game uses, it should be FUN for all.  Its a game.


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 3, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> Fair? why would it not be fair? not fair to who?




It is not fair to the character who did not provoke the AoO. 


Example:

My 15th level mage uses Monster Summoning I to summon a wimpy little creature.

He orders it to move past the party 15th level Fighter.

This is a group tactic. The Fighter does an AoO on the wimpy creature and kills it. He then Cleaves his 15th level opponent.

The overall result is magnitudes greater than just casting a Monster Summons I and using the creature to attack the enemy.


Or worse yet, the mage uses Monster Summoning III or higher to summon multiple first level creatures.

The Fighter (with Combat Reflexes) AoOs each of them and uses Great Cleave to whale on his opponent.


The tactic is nonsensical from a real world combat point of view.

The only reason we are discussing it is because of the game mechanics way in with Cleave was implemented.

If Cleave was implemented in another way (like Whirlwind where you use your full attack to achieve an attack on a second creature after an attack on a first), you wouldn't be trying to justify it as a "possible cinematic effect".


----------



## Storyteller01 (Dec 3, 2004)

R-Hero said:
			
		

> I still think that cleave in this instance falls under full attack action. The natural ebb and flow of combat.  An A of O is a quick opening that falls _anywhere_ within combat because of the opponents lack of defense or focus.
> 
> I look at it as Strength vs Dexterity, Feats vs combat actions. Never the twain shall meet. I.M.O. (Did I quote that right?) They be too different from each others. (Take that undead-schoolmarm!)




If you want to get picky, Dex can actually add to strength (even boxers are told to relax, to gain precision and power.) Strong Arming actually has a lesser effect, especially if the other guy is stronger than you (someone always is...)  

Also remember that ALL true combat strikes are taking advantage of an opening. Your not going to pound away without placing your shots (not unless you like to lose). The best times to attack are during your opponents attack, when they are most open and vulnerable. By this account, nearly every attack is an AoO, and Cleave is allowed. 

even if you don't use that example, just think about real mass combat. When your fighting, you can (and do) get hit. No reason as to why or how, if so and so did this or that. Seemingly innocent or unrelated events conspired against you. You get hit and you are or are not dead. Fairness has little to do with it...

Sorry if I'm highjacking the thread folks.


----------



## Cyberzombie (Dec 3, 2004)

Wow.  Now I remember why I never come in this forum any more.  Sheesh!  Good place to come up with people to add to my "Ignore" list, though.  

Clearly, nothing in the AoO or the Cleave rules disallows them being used together.  I see no case that can be made *from the rules* that they can't work together.

Oh, wait.  Yes I do!  It's the old Rule 0.  You don't like something, you change it for your campaign.  As long as everyone in your gaming group is cool with it, you're right!  If they're not all okay with it, you're wrong.  And what a bunch of... darling people... on the internet think about it doesn't enter into it.

You don't want to use the two together, fine.  Don't.  But y'all who are saying that the you can't Cleave out of an AoO are going by your preference, rather than the rules.


----------



## Scion (Dec 3, 2004)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> It is not fair to the character who did not provoke the AoO.




He can deal. It is the benefit of the other guy, not a penalty to the original.

Unless of course his penalty is the need for better allies. Choose your friends wisely.

As for your summon example the problem is with who is an enemy and such.

But still, your great abuse effectively works as a specialized tactic and requires quite a bit of resources and planning and hope that the opponent cannot also take advantage of it.

Take a spellcaster who gives up their full round to use a spell in hopes that the fighter type who has spent some feats can get some extra use out of them.

I see no problem here, group tactics and not exactly incredible ones either, there are still better options that dont require as many resources to pull off.

Have a good one.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Dec 4, 2004)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> It is not fair to the character who did not provoke the AoO.
> 
> ...
> 
> If Cleave was implemented in another way (like Whirlwind where you use your full attack to achieve an attack on a second creature after an attack on a first), you wouldn't be trying to justify it as a "possible cinematic effect".




But something like Whirlwind Attack is _fair_?  The thing is, both feats grant a character a significant advantage in combat, and both would be nonsensical from a "real combat" point of view...if you ever try to attack 6 guys standing around you with a mace or a longsword by "rotating" around your axis or whatever, you'd see it will stop after the second guy. In D&D, you take a feat to signify special training in something, or a talent. Cleave enables you to control your attacks so that an instant kill gives you the opportunity to use the remaining swing to go against another one..nothing says you get advantages to hit, or the other loses AC boni, or anything else. Whirlwindd Attack means you give up your usual combat timing to take a swing at everybody close around you.
Of *course* we're talking cinematic reasons..most feats are nothing but trying to insert some cinematic flair into D&D. Arguing a feat from "real combat" point of view simply is counterproductive?


----------



## Philip (Dec 4, 2004)

If the rule invites tactics that are totally nonsensical are a fair target for rule 0.

I think the summon monster example is excellent in demonstrating this for the AoO - Cleave combo.

As BBEG I would send away my mooks prior to combat, because a fear spell would send them all running, and invite several cleave attacks on myself. Or worse, order my mooks to run away, and AoO them myself so that I can use the Cleave's from my spiked chain to kill the enemy's wizard before he gets his next spell off.

The fact that you even need to define some group as 'enemies' to make an argument against these tactics is stupid. An 'ally' running past me is just as eligble for AoO's (maybe even more so) as an enemy, normally you are just assumed not to make use of such 'opportunities'.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Dec 4, 2004)

Or get better mooks?


----------



## Philip (Dec 4, 2004)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> The thing is, both feats grant a character a significant advantage in combat, and both would be nonsensical from a "real combat" point of view...




You seem to confuse nonsensical with unrealistic. Sure, there are a lot of abilities which are over-the-top unrealistic from a "real combat" point of view. The thing is, the AoO-Cleave is unrealistic from a DnD point of view. The tactics that it invites are in no way representative of the heroic combat. Whirlwind attack is. If i see people sending summoned monsters running past the BBEG to use the AoO-Cleave combo, I know I am watching weird tactical simulation game, and not a FRPG. Whirlwind Attack and Cleave I can imagine easily. The uses of AoO-Cleave I have seen less so. I think the tactic is often not cinematic at all.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Dec 4, 2004)

So, how do people who are arguing "fairness*" accept Cleave to begin with, anyway?

"The hero killed *him* - why do *I* get hit, too?  That's not fair."

It really seems to me (total agreement with Scion here), that your problem is really with Cleave, and not with Cleave-on-AoO.

* Fairness as in, "My ally didn't 5' step before drinking a potion and got killed.  How come *I* have to suffer?"


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Dec 4, 2004)

Philip said:
			
		

> If the rule invites tactics that are totally nonsensical are a fair target for rule 0.
> 
> I think the summon monster example is excellent in demonstrating this for the AoO - Cleave combo.
> 
> ...





I believe a group of players (and characters) that starts attacking an ally in combat to gain the advantage of one additional attack has different, and worse, problems than the AoO+Cleave combo being a bit too cinematic for some tastes.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Dec 4, 2004)

Philip said:
			
		

> If the rule invites tactics that are totally nonsensical are a fair target for rule 0.
> 
> I think the summon monster example is excellent in demonstrating this for the AoO - Cleave combo.
> 
> ...




If you can cast all those spells, how is the fighter getting anywhere near you? Why is a wizard trying to control monsters when he should be running for his life anyway?

If I'm within melee range, hitting the Mage on an AoO is irrelevant. On my next turn, swing on the mage. Summoned monsters disappear.

It's similar to using an M2 .50 cal machine gun at melee range. Lots of power, if you have time to aim it. Good luck. 


Seriously, I think we can all agree that  rule 0 applies, if for no other reason than to maintain sanity. If we really have to determine what is realistic (we can agrue fair, but let's face it... real fights [escpecially to the death] are never fair), we need to talk to someone who's been in the situation. Otherwise,  this is all in the realm of theory and conjecture. No winner without proof.


----------



## Philip (Dec 4, 2004)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> I believe a group of players (and characters) that starts attacking an ally in combat to gain the advantage of one additional attack has different, and worse, problems than the AoO+Cleave combo being a bit too cinematic for some tastes.




So true, so true.   

I just don't like it when a player delays turning the undead until the ghouls are in a position that when they run away, they run past the BBEG and the others attack said BBEG will get AoO and Cleaves.

I also like it when a cohort comes charging at the giant, trying to save his master by taking the AoO and giving the master the opportunity to run away. I don't like it if the cohort is taken down by an AoO, and the giant kills the master with the resulting cleave. Which would result in the player wanting to tell the Cohort not to charge in, but not being able to do so without metagaming.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Dec 4, 2004)

Philip said:
			
		

> You seem to confuse nonsensical with unrealistic. Sure, there are a lot of abilities which are over-the-top unrealistic from a "real combat" point of view. The thing is, the AoO-Cleave is unrealistic from a DnD point of view. The tactics that it invites are in no way representative of the heroic combat. Whirlwind attack is. If i see people sending summoned monsters running past the BBEG to use the AoO-Cleave combo, I know I am watching weird tactical simulation game, and not a FRPG. Whirlwind Attack and Cleave I can imagine easily. The uses of AoO-Cleave I have seen less so. I think the tactic is often not cinematic at all.




Let me just summarize a few of the argumentative ways that have been taken here, and voice my opinion on them, okay?  

From a rules point of view, a Cleave following an AoO doesn't seem to be forbidden, so not much of an argument here.

From a "realistic" point of view, claiming a warrior who is trained to use the remaining swing from an instant kill to attack the next guy can't do so on one specialized attack sounds a bit weird to my ears, too...just because I used this special opportunity to kill one opponent means I cannot use my training to carry over the attack to my next opponent? Hmmmm.
 

To argue from a "heroic fight" point of view opens a lot of questions about what's to be considered heroic in a D&D fight in the first place. Sneak attack? Attacking a flat-footed opponent? Attacking invisibly? Heroic fighting is a nice concept, but as far as I can see, D&D goes more for cinematic, flashy combat, not so much heroic.

And fairness? Sorry, but if somebody tells me I can't use a trained tactic in a fight because it's not "fair" to my opponent...then I'm either playing my character completely against his alignment, or I have to ask back where the ring judge is standing in that fight.


----------



## Philip (Dec 4, 2004)

Storyteller01 said:
			
		

> If I'm within melee range, hitting the Mage on an AoO is irrelevant. On my next turn, swing on the mage. Summoned monsters disappear.
> .




On the contrary, you just have moved into melee range on your turn. The mage will get his turn before you get yours and beat him down. But if someone else that acts before the mage turn invites AoO's, you can Cleave the mage to death before he can disable you with the Hold Monster.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Dec 4, 2004)

Philip said:
			
		

> On the contrary, you just have moved into melee range on your turn. The mage will get his turn before you get yours and beat him down. But if someone else that acts before the mage turn invites AoO's, you can Cleave the mage to death before he can disable you with the Hold Monster.





Still begs the question "how did he get that close?".

I know, I'm being argumentative. Can't help myself.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Dec 4, 2004)

Philip said:
			
		

> So true, so true.
> 
> I just don't like it when a player delays turning the undead until the ghouls are in a position that when they run away, they run past the BBEG and the others attack said BBEG will get AoO and Cleaves.
> 
> I also like it when a cohort comes charging at the giant, trying to save his master by taking the AoO and giving the master the opportunity to run away. I don't like it if the cohort is taken down by an AoO, and the giant kills the master with the resulting cleave. Which would result in the player wanting to tell the Cohort not to charge in, but not being able to do so without metagaming.




I hope I don't sound patronizing here, btw...if I do, I apologize in forehand. The thing is, with nearly every rule in the books I can construct a scene that makes that rule look overpowered, underpowered, unfair or broken. The question is if something like that ever comes up in-game. If it did in yours, I'd suggest taking away the miniatures and rely more on describing the scene. Will keep the more strategic-minded players from exploring every nook and cranny of the rules for silly advantages on the battlemap.
As a counter to your scene, I like scenes where the fighter wades through a horde of onrushing skeletons, breaking three of them left and right and serving up a hard wallop to their master as a finishing touch...can be done with lots of rules mechanics, by the way.

For the second scenario...hey, if that Giant actually has Cleave, then the cohort still has acted heroically, and the hero will notice that his opponent is an even greater challenge than he though, right?


----------



## Philip (Dec 4, 2004)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> I hope I don't sound patronizing here, btw...if I do, I apologize in forehand. The thing is, with nearly every rule in the books I can construct a scene that makes that rule look overpowered, underpowered, unfair or broken. The question is if something like that ever comes up in-game. If it did in yours, I'd suggest taking away the miniatures and rely more on describing the scene. Will keep the more strategic-minded players from exploring every nook and cranny of the rules for silly advantages on the battlemap.




No apology neccessary. IMO most 3.5 combat rules actually create quite good scenes. Flanking rules cause the battlefield to flow, opponents to circle each other and a lone opponent trying to defend from a corner so as not to get surrounded. Great cleave causes good fighters to jump right in the middle of a bunch of mooks and swing their weapon with abandon. Power attack and Combat Expertise sees fighting alternate between offensive and defensive strategies. All in all, good tactical use of the rules and abilities also makes quite a pleasant scene. A big advantage over previous editions where combatants just stood toe to toe hacking at each other.

There are just a few rules that jar my suspension of disbelief, that cause tactically sound decisions and metagaming to result in nonsensical scenes, and the AoO-Cleave combo is one of them.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Dec 4, 2004)

Philip said:
			
		

> There are just a few rules that jar my suspension of disbelief, that cause tactically sound decisions and metagaming to result in nonsensical scenes, and the AoO-Cleave combo is one of them.




Oh, I'm with you there. AoO are one of those points where I'm having a hard time, sometimes, to keep my imagination up...like people getting an AoO _before_ a disarming attempt, and not after you tried it and failed, and the rules trying to tell me I let my defense down because I try to disarm my opponent.  
I'm at a point where I ponder to have an AoO that is used from somebody who is in melee already with another provoke an immediate AoO from _his_ opponent, because, to me, somebody  who is in melee with somebody cannot simply attack someone elsewho's running past him without giving his real opponent an opening, too...but that's all Rule 0 context


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 4, 2004)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> But something like Whirlwind Attack is _fair_?  The thing is, both feats grant a character a significant advantage in combat, and both would be nonsensical from a "real combat" point of view...if you ever try to attack 6 guys standing around you with a mace or a longsword by "rotating" around your axis or whatever, you'd see it will stop after the second guy.




Actually, Spanish Staff fighting is performed PRECISELY like this.

So:

Whirlwind: 1
Cleave: 0


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 4, 2004)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> I hope I don't sound patronizing here, btw...if I do, I apologize in forehand. The thing is, with nearly every rule in the books I can construct a scene that makes that rule look overpowered, underpowered, unfair or broken.




Ok, I'll take you up on your claim.

Post 30 "broken rules" (out of the thousands of rules and you must post real broken ones, not ticky tac stuff).


----------



## Thanee (Dec 4, 2004)

Fighters having a better BAB than wizards is broken, if the whole world is covered by an antimagic field.

Stuff like that? 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Abraxas (Dec 4, 2004)

> _Originally posted by *Patryn of Elvenshae*_
> So, how do people who are arguing "fairness*" accept Cleave to begin with, anyway?
> 
> "The hero killed *him* - why do *I* get hit, too? That's not fair."



The difference is the "cleaver" did it on the "cleaver's" turn not on the "cleavee's" turn.


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 4, 2004)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Fighters having a better BAB than wizards is broken, if the whole world is covered by an antimagic field.
> 
> Stuff like that?




Yeah, stuff like that.


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 4, 2004)

Abraxas said:
			
		

> The difference is the "cleaver" did it on the "cleaver's" turn not on the "cleavee's" turn.




This is such an easy concept. I just don't understand why people don't understand it?

The Cleave rule is broken (and yes, I will use the 'b' word). It should only be on your turn. Then it wouldn't be broken.

Fred opens a vial and provokes an AoO.
Killer wipes Fred out.
Killer sunders Barney's shield (Cleave and Improved Sunder)
Killer trips Barney (Combat Brute and Improved Trip)
Killer rages, attacks the prone Barney at +6 to hit and hits him (or sunders his weapon or whatever) (Instantaneous Rage)
Killer Shakens another (or the same) opponent within 30 feet (Intimidating Rage)

All because Fred opened a vial?

And what if all of this happened because Killer's spell casting ally cast Monster Summoning III and Killer has Great Cleave and did all of this 3 or 4 times outside of his turn? That's more powerful in some ways than Time Stop.


Cleave with AoO has the (very easy) potential to be STRONGER than a feat for a spell caster that allowed him to cast spells outside of his turn. Would you allow casting outside the character's turn in your game? If not, why would you allow a boatload of combat feats outside the character's turn in your game?

It is all about balance.

People generally do not have a problem with this being done on a character's turn. We just have a problem with it being done outside his turn.

If a feat gives an additional attack (for whatever reason), it should not be allowed during an AoO. Period.

The only attack you should get during an AoO is the AoO itself.


----------



## Scion (Dec 4, 2004)

This is such an unbroken concept I dont understand why people dont understand 

Come on, in the examples just provided I am guessing you mean he could do any one of those things. They take a pile of feats and just the right conditions to happen.

First, someone has to do something dumb within range. Likely a 5' step would have negated this anyway. Anyone with tumble would ignore you. Anyone who can get some cover would also ignore it.

Second, the attack might miss. Sure, this actually does happen sometimes strangely enough.

Third, the attack has to do sufficient damage to take out the opponent. This happens less and less often at higher levels, people tend to get a lot of hp.

Fourth, the guy has to have cleave. This is not exactly a common occurance even for fighter builds. The feat is useful at low levels but drops off in usefulness rapidly.

Fifth, he has to have an aoo remaining. If people are being this dumb often then he probably wont. And combat reflexes is even less common.

Sixth, there has to be another guy within range to attack with his new attack. This can also be a problem. Strangely enough not everyone just stands around in small groups as that can bring dissaster from numerous sources. Also, there is always just something about sending all the mooks in and then the big bad coming all by himself, happens all the time in movies 

Seventh, the attack against the new target has to hit. Yet again, sometimes these things miss.

If instead one wishes to use some other combat option instead then that will take even more feats.

Effectively, all of this for an attack that might happen in very rare cases making a fairly lack luster feat just a little better sometimes.

Once again though, it is one guy taking advantage of the situation, not another guy being punished. While it is a situation that would not have happened if someone hadnt been dumb it is also something that most people would not be able to do anything about. It is only the guy with this specific feat who can even try anything at all. It is a bonus associated with this feat, a bonus that it gives directly.

As for now allowing combat feats outside of ones turn then I guess you also dissallow things like trip on an aoo. That is fine, it is your game, but I think it is a serious flaw in your reasoning.


While turns are very organized and such it is emulating something where everything is happening at roughly the same time. This means that things happening 'outside of your turn' merely mean 'outside of your sequence in initiative', they arent just standing there like idiots and drooling, they are constantly moving and shifting and doing whatever it is that they do. In this case it makes even more sense because the outside observer simply cannot tell whether it was one of your 'iterative' attacks or an 'aoo', they are both swings looking for openings. To instil even more artificialness into the system all in hopes of stopping an incredibly rare event from happening that isnt exactly incredibly powerful to begin with.. well.. that just seems wrong. Horribly, horribly wrong.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Dec 4, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> This is such an unbroken concept I dont understand why people dont understand
> 
> Come on, in the examples just provided I am guessing you mean he could do any one of those things. They take a pile of feats and just the right conditions to happen.
> 
> ...




Exactly!!! Besides, mass combat (heck, combat of any type. People just get lucky) is all about circumstance and opportunity (hence the saying "all strategies disintegrate after the first 30 seconds of conflict").


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 4, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> Come on, in the examples just provided I am guessing you mean he could do any one of those things. They take a pile of feats and just the right conditions to happen.




Except that it is extremely EASY to set up those conditions.



			
				Scion said:
			
		

> First, someone has to do something dumb within range. Likely a 5' step would have negated this anyway. Anyone with tumble would ignore you. Anyone who can get some cover would also ignore it.




Are you saying that AoOs are RARE in DND?

Not in our games.

It is not a matter of doing something dumb.

It is especially not a matter of someone doing something dumb in the Summon Monster tactic.

It is 100% there if the caster gets the spell off (which is what usually happens in the game).



			
				Scion said:
			
		

> Second, the attack might miss. Sure, this actually does happen sometimes strangely enough.




In the Summon Monster tactic, the mid to high level fighter only misses on a 1. 95%.

Next.



			
				Scion said:
			
		

> Third, the attack has to do sufficient damage to take out the opponent. This happens less and less often at higher levels, people tend to get a lot of hp.




In the Summon Monster tactic, the mid to high level fighter always takes out the 6 hit point Celestial Dog. 100%.

Next.



			
				Scion said:
			
		

> Fourth, the guy has to have cleave. This is not exactly a common occurance even for fighter builds. The feat is useful at low levels but drops off in usefulness rapidly.




The ENTIRE point of this thread. Additionally, at least 75% of the melee fighters in our campaigns took this feat without setting up the Summon Monster tactic. If you want to set up that tactic though, it is 100%.

Next.



			
				Scion said:
			
		

> Fifth, he has to have an aoo remaining. If people are being this dumb often then he probably wont. And combat reflexes is even less common.




Oh, first you CLAIMED that AoOs are rare. Now you are claiming that having your AoO opportunity left is rare.

Make up your mind.

If your Wizard and Fighter are setting up the Summon Monster tactic, Combat Reflexes and Great Cleave are taken by the Fighter to make the broken tactic even MORE uber. 100%.

Next.



			
				Scion said:
			
		

> Sixth, there has to be another guy within range to attack with his new attack. This can also be a problem. Strangely enough not everyone just stands around in small groups as that can bring dissaster from numerous sources. Also, there is always just something about sending all the mooks in and then the big bad coming all by himself, happens all the time in movies




With the Summon Monster tactic, the Wizard casts the spell once the Fighter starts fighting the big bad guy. If they get separated, he does not send in the Celestial Dogs until after the Fighter is fighting the big bad guy again. Again, nearly 100%.

Next.



			
				Scion said:
			
		

> Seventh, the attack against the new target has to hit. Yet again, sometimes these things miss.




Let's take a generous 60% chance to miss the big bad guy. With 3 extra attacks, that would average 120% of a normal attack damage (not even counting criticals).

With a 50% miss chance, that jumps to 150% average damage.

Next.



			
				Scion said:
			
		

> If instead one wishes to use some other combat option instead then that will take even more feats.




However, the point of this is to set up this tactic which makes many other feat options seem very weak.

Plus, the Cleave feat is strong just on it's own without the tactic.

Next.



			
				Scion said:
			
		

> Effectively, all of this for an attack that might happen in very rare cases making a fairly lack luster feat just a little better sometimes.




I just illustrated that with a single third level spell, a Wizard or Sorcerer can practically guarantee that the Fighter hits the big bad opponent and he can do it multiple times in a combat and multiple times in a day.

95% * 120% damage on a 40% hit chance (higher with a higher hit chance) = 114% average damage and 300% max damage of a normal hit. Effectively a free swing that usually hits on average whenever the Wizard wants with a single low level spell (for a high level Wizard).

Setting up the tactic takes it from rare to common.

Plus, the Fighter can do this tactic ANY TIME an opponent falls from an AoO, not just when the Wizard sends in the mooks.



			
				Scion said:
			
		

> As for now allowing combat feats outside of ones turn then I guess you also dissallow things like trip on an aoo. That is fine, it is your game, but I think it is a serious flaw in your reasoning.




Bringing this up is a serious flaw in YOUR reasoning.

Nobody said this. I only said to disallow feats that allow for an additional attack.

If you start claiming that people are saying things that they did not say, then you start decreasing your own credibility.



			
				Scion said:
			
		

> To instil even more artificialness into the system all in hopes of stopping an incredibly rare event from happening that isnt exactly incredibly powerful to begin with.. well.. that just seems wrong. Horribly, horribly wrong.




It is not instilling artificialness into the game system, it is fixing a broken mechanic. Anyone who says that any given mechanic is REQUIRED is the one instilling artificialness into the game system.

No game mechanic is required and the fact that you cannot see that illustrates that you are more of a rules lawyer than a rules balance observer.

Any time a game mechanic can easily be abused within the normal rules, then it is broken. And, we are not talking about really watering down Cleave as a feat. You have just pointed out that without the tactic, dropping an opponent with AoO Cleave should be rare. If it is rare, then taking it away SHOULDN'T be a big deal. But for you, it still is. Hmmmm.

Make up your mind. Either AoO Cleave is rare and hence, it is no big deal to take it away. Or, AoO Cleave is common and it is more of a balance issue.

But as is, you are sounding like a rules lawyer, more worried about what is written in the book as opposed to what has the potential for extreme unbalance.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Dec 4, 2004)

First off, let's not start calling each other names. Everyone has a different style and/or interpretation of how to play. It's human nature. Let's deal with it.

Second, if a wizard is deliberately sending summoned critters in so a fighter can get an AoO, the problem is with the wizard/player, not the mechanic (that whole meta-gaming issue in another thread). 

Simple solution (from the role player in me, anyway): Demon/celestial, per the command of some higher power, arrives and asks the group, "so... what's this I hear about you using my friends/minions for target practice...".
The demon might be impressed, but that has it's own dangers 

Rememeber rule .5: Common sense prevails (no insult intended)


WotC cannot(and should not)attempt to account for every situation, plausible or not. We can't hold them accountable if someone trys to use a loophole. That's what DM's are for.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Dec 4, 2004)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Actually, Spanish Staff fighting is performed PRECISELY like this.
> 
> So:
> 
> ...




Iaido also has several techniques designed to take out opponents in 4 to 6 different directions while staying at the center. And they do it kneeling . 

realistically, you can't get more than 4 against 1 without getting in each others way, but thats a different thread...


----------



## Corlon (Dec 4, 2004)

Oh yeah, it's evil to kill that bag of puppies  .


But on a serious note, I'd allow it.  If it works by the RAW and isn't completely ludicrous it's fine.  Cleave definitely effects DM's more than the players anyways, and a simple way to imagine it without cinematic crazy battle scenes is:  "Orc A moves up and attacks Character-with-cleave and misses.  Orc B sets up a defense against a counter attack from the character (of course this is all imagined with the DND I hit you you hit me system.  It works but it's already requires imagination.)  Orc B walks up and for some reason (who knows with orcs anyways) drinks a potion.  Character-with-cleave takes advantage of the orc drinking a potion and makes a large arc with his sword.  The sword carries through the orcs torso (or the mace knocks him back...okay for piercing this doesn't quite work, but it's kind of hard to imagine piercing working with cleave ANYWAY) and carries through to hit Orc A.  If you can imagine cleave normally I don't see how imagining it in an AoO is that hard.

And if the characters pull any bag of puppies stuff, be a good DM and just say "no."


----------



## Abraxas (Dec 4, 2004)

At middlin levels its slightly easier to pull off the AoO cleave trick because of the massive damage rule.  You don't have to do enough damage to kill the target, just 50 points and a failed save.



> Second, if a wizard is deliberately sending summoned critters in so a fighter can get an AoO, the problem is with the wizard/player, not the mechanic (that whole meta-gaming issue in another thread).



Hmm.  If the wizard (or sorcerer or druid or cleric) is summoning creatures they (the summoned critters) often aren't the smartest.  They do try to immediately try to attack the summoners enemies and if he/she/it doesn't happen to be able to speak the summoned creatures language they could very well set themselves up for AoOs - with no input from the summoner at all.



> Demon/celestial, per the command of some higher power, arrives and asks the group, "so... what's this I hear about you using my friends/minions for target practice...".



So, its OK to summon them for target practice by the BBEG but not some ally?  Considering they don't really die and their primary purpose is to be cannon fodder, I don't see any higher ups caring much.



> As for now allowing combat feats outside of ones turn then I guess you also dissallow things like trip on an aoo. That is fine, it is your game, but I think it is a serious flaw in your reasoning.



Different situation - the idiot provoking the AoO is being attacked, not the idiot next to him.


----------



## Felonious Ntent (Dec 4, 2004)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Plus, the Fighter can do this tactic ANY TIME an opponent falls from an AoO, not just when the Wizard sends in the mooks.




One huge thing. You can only get 1 cleave attack in a round. Period. 1 or one string if have great cleave. You can't attack and kill then cleave/great cleave and then latter in the round get an AoO and get another cleave.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Dec 4, 2004)

Abraxas said:
			
		

> Hmm.  If the wizard (or sorcerer or druid or cleric) is summoning creatures they (the summoned critters) often aren't the smartest.  They do try to immediately try to attack the summoners enemies and if he/she/it doesn't happen to be able to speak the summoned creatures language they could very well set themselves up for AoOs - with no input from the summoner at all.
> 
> 
> So, its OK to summon them for target practice by the BBEG but not some ally?  Considering they don't really die and their primary purpose is to be cannon fodder, I don't see any higher ups caring much.




The first situation smacks of trying to explain away metagaming. The wizard (or other spellcaster) knows what to expect from the summoned critters, whether he can control them or not. That's why said wizard summoned them to begin with. The fact that the creatures 'just happened to attack' or 'aren't that smart' doesn't make the spellcaster any less responsible 

For the second quote, that really depends on the DM and the higher ups involved. Also depends on why you're summoning them (defense, letting their demonic nature out for some fun, whatever...). You sommon good creatures to kill an evil creature (or vice versa), then take shots at them yourselves? Seem like a waste of resources (especially if they all attack. You get flanking bonuses, and the attacks don't stop if you miss) and just insulting (biting the hand that feeds you). Again, it's the RP in me.

It's the same as the old 2e arguement of summoning creatures 'so I can kill them for the exp'. All three examples boil down to the same arguement: What was the intent of the caster/player? 

regardless, it's still a problem for the DM, not a reason for a new or more complicated mechanic.

Besides, as mentioned earlier (getting back to the cleave thing). Fights aren't fair, and the Cleave rule in conjunction with AoO's is not a tragic abuse. If someone's actions got you hurt or killed, well... welcome to life. Sh** happens. You've learned your lesson. Now fight smarter, not harder. 

If you use ranged weapons, Cleave is no longer an issue. If you have a group of opponents, USE GROUP TACTICS! Get Spring Attack for hit and run maneuvers. Come in one at a time so no one is in range for a cleave if the fighter does succedd on an AoO. If you can't do that, then hit him 2 at a time, and let him waste his time chasing you. Let the opponents get AoO's on the character. Wizards, STAY OUT OF COMBAT RANGE!! If you want to slice and dice with the big boys, it's your own fault for getting clocked or killed.

If your players are using loopholes, patch them. WotC can't, unless you want a new edition with more complicated rules every year or so.

Again, common sense applies...


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Dec 4, 2004)

Storyteller01 said:
			
		

> Second, if a wizard is deliberately sending summoned critters in so a fighter can get an AoO, the problem is with the wizard/player, not the mechanic (that whole meta-gaming issue in another thread).




I could not agree less.  If Cleave represents special skills for fighting multiple opponents simultaneous then setting up this situation is not metagaming.  Quite the opposite.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Dec 4, 2004)

Storyteller01 said:
			
		

> If your players are using loopholes, patch them. WotC can't, unless you want a new edition with more complicated rules every year or so.




And the logical patch is to disallow AoO + Cleave.  If you believe there is a problem.


----------



## Abraxas (Dec 5, 2004)

> One huge thing. You can only get 1 cleave attack in a round. Period. 1 or one string if have great cleave. You can't attack and kill then cleave/great cleave and then latter in the round get an AoO and get another cleave.



From the description of Great Cleave . . .

*"Benefit:* This feat works like Cleave, except that there is no limit to the number of times you can use it per round."
 



> The first situation smacks of trying to explain away metagaming.



No, it explains why AoOs might occur that could result in multiple AoO/Cleave combos - not just by the caster's fighter ally but by the BBEG.



> The fact that the creatures 'just happened to attack' or 'aren't that smart' doesn't make the spellcaster any less responsible



Thats not the point - the summoned creatures aren't under the caster's complete control unless he can communicate with them in some way - and creatures with animal intelligence aren't going to avoid AoOs.



> Seem like a waste of resources



Not if your summoning multiple weak creatures that are going to die in one hit regardless, and need a 20 to even hit the BBEG - seems like a pretty good use of a low level spell slot.

Unless they are intelligent the summoned creatures may never even get into a position to provide a flanking bonus.  It is OK to sacrifice them in an attempt to get into a flanking position, but its not OK to sacrifice them to provide your great cleaving fighter ally more attacks at the BBEG at his full attack bonus (which has a better chance to hit than iterative attacks with a flanking bonus)?  How I sacrifice them should be my choice as the caster.  If you think them dying in combat is a bad thing don't summon them for combat - but that seems to be the express purpose of the summoning spells, considering they immediately attack your enemies even if you can't communicate with them.

The intent of the caster is to stop the BBEG with the resources at hand.



> Fights aren't fair



Never said they were.  Disagreement with the AoO/Cleave routine has nothing to do with fair.



> Now fight smarter, not harder.



So remember to have your wizard summon a bunch of 1 hit die mooks to run past your fighter (who has Combat Reflexes and Great Cleave) so he gets the most (and smartest) use out of those feats. 

As Ridley's Cohort said, disallowing AoO/Cleave is a reasonable patch to this loophole for those of us that find AoO/Cleaves unreasonable.

Its a heck of a lot more reasonable than disallowing Improved Crit and Keen to stack. 

YMMV


----------



## Thanee (Dec 5, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> This is such an unbroken concept I dont understand why people dont understand




Well, I for one do not really think it's broken or anything, it just feels totally wrong to me. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Dec 5, 2004)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Ok, I'll take you up on your claim.
> 
> Post 30 "broken rules" (out of the thousands of rules and you must post real broken ones, not ticky tac stuff).




Which would kinda defeat the purpose of my demonstration of showing that each rule can be set up in a way that it looks overpowered, underpowered or broken, huh, if I only use "real broken" ones, especially as a "broken rule" still is a matter of interpretation, at least in my eyes, as every rule is applied by people with different points of view to different gaming styles.  
This whole discussion is actually a pretty neat example of it, because you're constructing a situation that shows that a rule a lot of others don't interpret as broken at all can be exploitet with the help of a Summon Monster spell and the slightly loose definition of who may be victim to an Attack of Opportunity. I can only answer to your example that, in the unlikely case anybody ever trying to explain to me that he gets an Attack of Opportunity on an ally running past him in a battle and that, if he kills that ally, he gets an AoO on the bad guy standing right beside him watching the whole thing, I'm going to have a very good laugh out of it, probably even allow it once because the bad guy is simply flabbergasted by this, see that his alignment switches to something more resembling his actual behavior, and get on with the game. And yeah, it might just turn out that next time the wizard summons his creatures to serve as "cannon fodder" for that tactic, they might choose to attack the fighter for real, to at least give him "viable" targets for his AoO+Cleave combo.   

And about those 30 examples...please excuse me, but my time is more needed elsewhere than in designing overspecific examples for generally working rules. *shrugs*


----------



## nhl_1997 (Dec 5, 2004)

First:
The easiest solution if AOO + cleave is causing a problem, as noted numerous times previously, is to rule 0 it.  It is my opinion that people should follow the spirit of the rules rather than the letter of the rules.  If players are abusing the AOO + cleave, then it should be disallowed.  However, if it just comes up in the natural flow of combat, then I would allow it whether or not it's realistic.


Second:
For those of you who like to "precisely" follow the rules, the "friendly" summoned monsters + AOO + cleave does not work.  The attacks of opportunity section states "An *enemy* that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you."

If a summoned critter is attacking the BBEG, then it is not your enemy.  Therefore, there is no attack of opportunity.  If the wizard ordered the critter to attack the party fighter, then there are some serious alignment issues occuring.  I think they had better duke it out after finishing the BBEG.  If the wizard ordered the critter to attack the fighter in order to set up the cleave, then it's not really an enemy.

As mentioned earlier, that line of logic is a bit ridiculous since AOOs "should" not rely upon friend or foe.  Afterall, either the creature "let its guard down" or it didn't.  However, following the rules to the letter, either the summoned critter is not an enemy, or there are at least three distinct groups in this combat (true, the fighter and wizard might team up for a bit, but let them duke it out afterwords.)


Third:
Other than the friendly summoned monster abuse (and the ignorant mook tactics) arguments, I get the feeling that the main problem with AOO + cleave is the realism.  


con: "Why should I get hit because my idiot goblin friend drank a potion"

pro: "Well, the fighter was able to follow through with attack against the idiot goblin"

con: "You mean the fighter would not have been able to take that exact same swing to hit me if the goblin were not there and about to die?"

pro: "Your goblin friend momentairily distracted you through his complete idiocy."

con: "But my goblin friend was invisible."

pro: "So?  I drank a potion of See Invisibility five minutes ago.  I could see him."

con: "Yeah, but I could not see him, so how could he have distracted me???"

pro: "The blood appearing on my blade from thin air is what distracted you."

con: "But I failed my spot check."

(etc.)


This whole situation arises due to the fundamental nature of D&D combat: turns.  The rules are based on people taking their actions one at a time.  Unfortunately, no matter how much window dressing the authors provide (such as people constantly defending themselves and looking for oppotunities to strike....  an AOO represents such an oppotunity), 3.5D&D combat is simply not going to be "realistic."  Either accept that fact or make adjustments as you see fit to make the game more enjoyable.


In answer to the original question, yes cleaving off of an AOO is legal within the rules.  That issue was only momentairly in doubt back somewhere on p.2 or p.3 of this thread.

The real answer: do whatever is most fun.


----------



## Scion (Dec 5, 2004)

certain parts of this thread are becomming pretty ridiculous really 

Lets see if we cant put a few of these dogs into a better light.

First of all, as I stated earlier aoo's are not incredibly common. As levels increase the number of ways to avoid them entirely increase dramatically. Even at low levels though they arent terribly common.

A way around this is the summoning trick. Even though the rules actually go against this I have no problem with it. In effect you have one party member burning a full round action plus a spell slot in order to give another character who has spent several feats a few extra attacks, assuming of course that some other factor does not interfere (such as the enemy having the same combo and useing it against you, one or both of the two characters being incapacitated in some way, or any number of other things). It simply sounds like good tactics to me but only useful to an extremely small subset of characters who are specialized to do just this.

Once again, this is a combo where you need two characters who both have a nice amount of resources dumped into it and all it does is give a few extra attacks. Going by useing a 3rd level spell (for d4+1 weak critters) this could grant up to a maximum of 5 bonus attacks for the fighter guy. If the mage gets his spell off, if he rolls maximum, if the fighter type gets a chance to attack these things with the aoo's, if the fighter has a pile of feats, if the fighter has a high dex, and if the fighter hits all of the guys (pretty likely for the summons). The third level spell could have instead been some other third level spell though and possibly done just as much, or summoned a 3rd level beasty who could provide flanking and some other abilities, take hits away from the party (psuedo healing), not require the fighter type guy to have the pile of feats, and it might wind up getting more than those 5 attacks anyway and it has a much lower chance of backfiring.


So, for that tactic if the characters are built in just the right way then sure, it might be useful when they are working together. Team work and tactics. But, even then, it is easier and sometimes better to simply use the spell in another way. Early on this is actually a sink in power, not a boost. Later on one can trade a lower level spell for a big effect, but it still takes quite a bit to get it going and working. That is still a big drawback.

There really isnt any problem here from a power perspective, it can be nice but other things tend to be much better.


Cleave works less and less as levels increase (creatures tend to take more and more hits to take down and have other evasive abilities along with needing to be within range of someone else to attack, not always easy) this is just a minor ability which hardly ever happens, but even when it does all it means is that this feat still grants some sort of a benefit. It is a sad day when people try to hinder a feat that already loses power so rapidly 

Cleave is a strange feat, it is one of the few that work better for pcs than npcs. Still though, I havent seen many people take it, it is just too situational. Most of the time it is nicer to simply get another ability that will come up more often or can be better planned for. Which is better, the ability you can depend on to work and plan for it, or one which occasionally might give you a bonus but generally cannot be planned for (even the summon tactic can be very situational, sometimes even available space negates this tactic).


----------



## Abraxas (Dec 5, 2004)

Power & balance really aren't the sticking points with me.

I don't think its reasonable that an advantage obtained because one opponent let his guard down should be avaiable against one who didn't.

The RAW say yes, I rule 0 No - its that simple.

We have a druid in the party - so we see a lot of summoned creatures, lots and lots of them.  An annoyingly huge number of them.  To the point where the party fighters want to smack them because they get in the way.  More than once, even using his highest level summon nature's ally spell, the BBEG has killed and cleaved before the summoned creature has done anything. I must say however that has a lot to do with the person playing the Druid. 

As for tons of feats - well fighters have tons of feats.  In our campaigns, combat reflexes is taken by every fighter that can in order to get those flat footed AoOs in against those pesky high initiative rogues.  Cleave and great cleave are taken because we often face lots of mooks so the feats are perhaps more valuable in our campaign.


----------



## Philip (Dec 5, 2004)

I don't think AoO+Cleave is broken, I do think can lead to weird and uncinematic scenes, and I also think it is "unfair". I will try to explain what I feel is unfair about (more so than other feats, insta-kill spells etc.):

Joe the Fighter is facing three goblins, Arg, Bork and Chell. Joe has the initiative and attacks and kills Arg. He then takes a Cleave attack at Bork. Bork goes down without yelling "unfair"! Why? Because Bork was glad Joe the Fighter attacked Arg first, because Joe could just a easily attacked him. Joe improved Bork's chances of survival by attacking Arg first. And certainly Chell is not protesting, happy as he is with Joe's order of attacks!

Same setup only now the goblins have initiative. Bork realizes Joe the Fighter can kill them without breaking a sweat and plans to use a Withdraw action and move back into the goblin warrens. Unfortunately the foolish Arg loses his composure and runs away, inviting an AoO. What could have been an easy getaway turns into death as Joe attacks, kills Arg and Cleaves into Bork. Now Bork dies with the yell "unfair" on his lips. Why? Because Joe wasn't able to hit him, shouldn't be able to hit him, and now just because Ark lets down his guard, he's dead as well.

With a regular Cleave, the danger to Bork was already there, and being Cleaved is actually fortunate, because the originating attack could just as well be aimed at you. Cleave on AoO creates a danger to Bork where there was none, and there is nothing he can do about it.

Unfairness of AoO+Cleave:
1. A risk created 'out of thin air'
2. No way to avoid it


----------



## Philip (Dec 5, 2004)

nhl_1997 said:
			
		

> Second:
> For those of you who like to "precisely" follow the rules, the "friendly" summoned monsters + AOO + cleave does not work.  The attacks of opportunity section states "An *enemy* that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you."




People who are following the rules that precisely might even stoop to using AoO's as traitor detection. Is suspect A walking past me? Do I get an AoO? No, then it can't be an *enemy*.


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 6, 2004)

nhl_1997 said:
			
		

> First:
> Second:
> For those of you who like to "precisely" follow the rules, the "friendly" summoned monsters + AOO + cleave does not work.  The attacks of opportunity section states "An *enemy* that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you."




Sorry, you are totally incorrect here.

I am the player of the Fighter.

I decide who is my enemy. The game system does not decide. The DM does not decide. My fellow players do not decide.

I do.

My fellow PC party members could become my enemies at a moments notice if I decide that.

If a DM ruled that I could not AoO the summoned mooks running past me because they are not my enemy, I would politely explain that he does not decide who my enemies are, I do.

If he did not change his ruling and continued to push such blatant stupidity into my face, I would leave the game. It is as simple as that.

I am the only one who decides the thoughts, opinions, and attempted actions of my PC (unless magic is involved or something). It is my PC, not anyone else's.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 6, 2004)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I decide who is my enemy.




What if you're a Cleric casting Bane?

It's an area effect spell - you could cast it while blind, and it would have no effect on who is affected (unlike a targeted spell, where you must see or touch and select who is affected).

But it affects all enemies in the area.

If the gnoll who killed your father in front of your eyes is present in the area, but invisible - and you don't know he's there - is he affected?

If the elf who killed your mother - so secretly that nobody ever knew about his obsession with wiping your family off the face of the earth - is present in the area, smiling politely while, unbeknowst to you, he gets ready to stab you in the back... is he affected?

Can you also decide who is an 'opponent' and who is not?

If you're a druid summoning a Dire Boar, it will immediately attack your opponents to the best of its ability.  You can only direct it to attack (or not) _particular_ enemies if you can communicate with it... and in this example, you haven't cast Speak With Animals.

If you want it to avoid the goblin bodyguards and go straight for the hobgoblin adept, can you just decide that the goblins are not opponents, but the adept is?  Since the boar automatically attacks your opponents, does this mean it will go straight for the hobgoblin, even though the goblins are closer?

Or is 'opponent' something you can't decide, the way 'enemy' is?

-Hyp.


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 6, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> Cleave works less and less as levels increase (creatures tend to take more and more hits to take down and have other evasive abilities along with needing to be within range of someone else to attack, not always easy) this is just a minor ability which hardly ever happens, but even when it does all it means is that this feat still grants some sort of a benefit. It is a sad day when people try to hinder a feat that already loses power so rapidly




Before you said that AoO Cleave is rare.

Now you are saying that AoO Cleave becomes even rarer as you go up levels.

So, how does taking a minor rare element out of the game in order to prevent some abusive tactics hinder the feat if the AoO Cleave combination with it is so rare (and becomes rarer)?

You keep avoiding that question.



			
				Scion said:
			
		

> Cleave is a strange feat, it is one of the few that work better for pcs than npcs. Still though, I havent seen many people take it, it is just too situational.




I think your campaigns are different than ours.

Nearly every melee fighter (barbarian, etc.) in our games has taken Cleave. Virtually every one (in fact, I cannot think of one who has not). Non-melee fighter (e.g. bowmen), sure. They do not take it. But melee fighters almost always take it (at least in our games).

At low level, about one successful attack in two will result in it occuring. This typically happens every three to four rounds.

At high level, that drops to about one successful attack in six (and even more often if the spell casters soften up the opposition first), but even so, that is often an extra attack every two to four rounds (if you consider full round attacks once fighters get into range). In fact, it tends to happen more at higher level than lower level due to more versatility of party tactics (more options, more opportunities which offsets somewhat the greater number of hit points for enemies).

And, fighters go out of their way to get it to work. I have often seen them attack the wounded guy first, even if he has a higher AC, just to get the chance to get in the extra free attack.

I think you must not have actually seen Cleave / Great Cleave in action. The practice really does not match the theory.

It is extremely useful, even at high level.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 6, 2004)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> And, fighters go out of their way to get it to work. I have often seen them attack the wounded guy first, even if he has a higher AC, just to get the chance to get in the extra free attack.




Attacking the wounded guy is standard D&D combat tactics, even without Cleave.

Given that two opponents on 5% hit points can still deal twice as much damage per round as one opponent on 100% hit points, it's almost always a good idea to take out one opponent fast, rather than spreading your attacks to whittle down two at once...

-Hyp.


----------



## nhl_1997 (Dec 6, 2004)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> If he did not change his ruling and continued to push such blatant stupidity into my face, I would leave the game. It is as simple as that.




This was my point, or at least it was my (poorly phrased) point.  The second example is a ridiculous interprutation of "by-the-book" interprutation of the rules.  (The third example was simply pointing out how realistic interprutations can also be ridiculous.)  As such (my first point), players and GMs should instead go with the spirit of the rules, whatever their interprutations may be.

My personal opinion is that aoo+cleave is okay.  The creature who provoked the aoo in the first place should have realized the potential disasterous results.  However, using the party's own summoned critters to setup these additional attacks breaks the spirit of the rules (my opinion.)  Thus, I would not allow an aoo against a party summoned critter plus cleave against the real enemy.

Other people think that it's a ridiculous interprutation of the rules to use cleave off of an aoo.  Other people think it's okay for the following, reasonable scenario:

level 7 party
encounter a flesh golem
only the fighter has an adamantine weapon
the wizard has no spells with entry Spell Resistance: No
the fighter has the cleave feat

What should the wizard do?  Summoning small critters so that the party fighter can get extra attacks against the golem seems like an excellent choice.


It's up to each group to decide how to adjucate aoo+cleave since by-the-book interprutation can lead to completely ridiculous interprutations.


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 6, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> What if you're a Cleric casting Bane?
> 
> It's an area effect spell - you could cast it while blind, and it would have no effect on who is affected (unlike a targeted spell, where you must see or touch and select who is affected).
> 
> ...




Simple.

Enemy is listed in the PHB as "a creature unfriendly to you".

1) It does not state "a creature hostile to you". This does not mean that hostile creatures are not considered enemies though. No DM would take this enemy definition (i.e. unfriendly) literally.

2) What if you are invisible in your example and the "enemies" do not know you are there? They cannot be "unfriendly to you" if they do not know you are there or even know that you exist at all, can they? I do not know of any DM who would say that the Bane spell of the invisible cleric would not affect the nearby Orcs though.

So, you have to adjudicate this with common sense. An enemy is anyone who is unfriendly (or worse) to you or that you are unfriendly to (or worse). Otherwise, it becomes an adjudication nightmare.

"What do you mean that my spell will not affect the enemy I want it to because he is thinking about flowers instead of murder?"

I decide who I have ill will towards (i.e. who I want my enemies to be). Other characters (PC or NPC) decide if they want to have ill will towards me (i.e. who their enemies are).

I do not control the NPCs, the DM does. So, he decides which of those are my enemies because they are unfriendly to me. I decide which of those are my enemies becaues I am unfriendly to them.

Like I said, simple.


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 6, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Attacking the wounded guy is standard D&D combat tactics, even without Cleave.
> 
> Given that two opponents on 5% hit points can still deal twice as much damage per round as one opponent on 100% hit points, it's almost always a good idea to take out one opponent fast, rather than spreading your attacks to whittle down two at once...




Sorry, I should have been more clear.

I have seen them attack a powerful heavily wounded guy (possibly more resistant to their attacks, possibly with a higher AC, etc.) before attacking weaker non-wounded or slightly wounded guys.

Without Cleave, it is sometimes quicker and easier to take out the cannon fodder to reduce numbers (reduce enemy flank, reduce enemy tactics, reduce enemy attacks per round, etc.). In fact, the non-melee PCs (in our groups) often do this anyway.

But if you have Cleave and cannot take out the cannon fodder with a single attack and there is a slim chance that you can do that against the harder to hit guy (especially if you have multiple attacks at higher level and hence multiple opportunities), sometimes they still attempt the harder to hit guy BECAUSE they have Cleave (and might still get an extra attack against the cannon fodder).

If you have a 40% chance to hit and Cleave, a successful killing of an opponent averages 40% more (average hit) damage in the round (if you have other opponents around you) than not doing so.

Without Cleave, there is sometimes less of an incentive to take out the big bad wounded guy and more of an incentive to take out that pesky flanker cannon fodder. This is especially true if the big bad guy is really hard to hit.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 6, 2004)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Like I said, simple.




And 'ally'?

-Hyp.


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 6, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> And 'ally'?
> 
> -Hyp.




I stand corrected:

There are only 9 basic possibilities (including indifferents):

A - ally
I - indifferent
E - enemy

AA AI AE IA II IE EA EI EE

AA and EE are easy. If someone is friendly to you and you are friendly to them, then they are an ally. If someone is unfriendly to you and you are unfriendly to them, they are an enemy.

The other seven cases are less clear, but you have to come up with some consistent ruling.

The system as implied by the book is (first column other character, second column my character):

AA - A
AI - A
AE - A
IA - N
II - N
IE - N
EA - E
EI - E
EE - E

A more reasonable definition is what you consider to be true:

AA - A
AI - N
AE - E
IA - A
II - N
IE - E
EA - A
EI - N
EE - E

The former solution here is way off (even though it is implied by the book and might be considered "the rule") because someone I consider an enemy should not get assisted by my Ally spell (the AE case) and someone I consider an ally should not get harmed by my Enemy spell (the AE case). My attitude towards them should take precedence than their attitude towards me (since it is my enemy or ally spell). The spells should not be omnipotent and impossible to defend against (with regard to that omnipotence). Plus, what if it is not a spell and some other form or attack or assistance? The book doesn't make sense in that case.

The latter solution here is more reasonable and often easy to adjudicate as well. Anyone I think is my enemy is my enemy (at least in my mind). Anyone I think is my ally is my ally (at least in my mind). But, it is DM dependent on whether it handles the weird blind cleric casting Bane case (if I cannot see them or perceive that they are there, can I really harm or help them?).


----------



## Scion (Dec 6, 2004)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Before you said that AoO Cleave is rare.




And it is, glad you can see that. Why take away something that merely adds a bit more useability to a feat that loses power more and more as levels increase, that is overly harsh. Taking away things that are fine balance wise just because some find it hard to deal with cleave is bad play. Very unfortunate.



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> You keep avoiding that question.




just as soon as you ask a useful/relevant question it will be easier to put an answer to.



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Nearly every melee fighter (barbarian, etc.) in our games has taken Cleave.




That is their own problem. At lower levels it can indeed be useful, but as levels increase it will become less and less so for a variety of reasons (strangely I have already gone over many of these in this very thread). When it is first taken it can increase the amount of attacks one gets by a pretty good number and the ratio of normal attacks to it is pretty good. At higher levels this ratio turns into a very bad one indeed. Still useful now and then, but worth a feat? Hard to say, not all feats keep up at every level. Toughness is great very early on, as is cleave, they both lose out later though.

Which is more useful: cleave or improved trip? Depends on the character sure, but in overall general usefulness improved trip is simply hands down better. One can plan for it, it is useful in a variety of situations, and it doesnt really lose much as time goes on.

Pretty much the same can be said for nearly every other combat feat out there, especially with higher order feat chains which require other feats to get into, if you need to spend 4 feats to get somewhere chances are good you wont be dropping another feat on this guy unless there is a really good reason to do so.

::shrugs:: but we've been over this. There isnt any overpowering balance issue. It is allowable by the raw. It can be very cinematic and interesting. Not everyone will feel so of course, but that is the nature of the game.

If there is a way it is overpowered then someone should say it, but it seems most agree that it is not.

So, without any overpoweredness, and the ability to explain it cinematically (which most anyone should be able to do), I see no reason to take away from a feat that loses out so much later on anyway. In fact it seems pretty silly to limit even further an already pretty limited feat.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 6, 2004)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> My attitude towards them should take precedence than their attitude towards me (since it is my enemy or ally spell).




But surely you can only decide whether or not you are Bob's friend; you have no control over whether or not _he_ is _yours_...?

-Hyp.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Dec 6, 2004)

Sorry, but reading through your posts, this strikes me as a little odd, because when I combine this post here...



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Sorry, you are totally incorrect here.
> 
> I am the player of the Fighter.
> 
> ...




...where you basically say that nobody except you decides who your enemies are, and that the DM doesn't have any say in it...

...with this post here...


			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Simple.
> 
> Enemy is listed in the PHB as "a creature unfriendly to you".
> 
> ...




...where you get a little confusing about who actually determines who your enemy is, but basically say that the DM as well as you decide who your enemies are...

...I get a headache  

Basically, and I'm sorry to have to point that out to you, who your enemy is and who isn't is still up to the DM. If you don't like that fact, you can of course pack your fighter and take him to another game, or simply open up your own game, where you can define what makes an enemy. In all those _Summon Monster_ examples people bring up to vilify that combo, every DM with a little common sense and the ability not to let himself get flattened by an overactive rules-lawyer with a sense for hairsplitting will rule the creatures that the wizard summoned to attack the fighter's opponent as *allies*, as long as the wizard does not command them to attack the fighter instead, and as such won't allow an attack of opportunity on them. An AoO was inserted to give a combatant an edge when an opposing combatant lets down his guard, not to adjudicate attacks on allied or indifferent bystanders.

As for how "fair" or "unfair" the use of a feat is in a given situation is of course subject to group taste and style, and should be discussed individually. Nothing world-shattering there, right?


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 6, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> But surely you can only decide whether or not you are Bob's friend; you have no control over whether or not _he_ is _yours_...?
> 
> -Hyp.




Precisely.

If I have a spell that affects "MY enemies", it should affect anyone I consider an enemy.

Just because someone consider me to be "HIS enemy" does not mean that I consider him to be my enemy. Hence, my enemy spell should not affect him if I do not consider him to be an enemy (as per my corrected post) simply because it is my spell based on my enemies, not his spell based on his enemies.

I could consider him an ally and my ally spell would help him. He could consider me an enemy and his enemy spell would harm me (assuming failed save or whatever). But until I consider him an enemy, he is not, regardless of how he feels towards me.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Dec 6, 2004)

If AoO + Cleave is not broken only if you use a metagame definition of enemy/ally, then AoO + Cleave is indeed broken.

Surely the _character_ should decide whom he attacks and threatens.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Dec 6, 2004)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> If AoO + Cleave is not broken only if you use a metagame definition of enemy/ally, then AoO + Cleave is indeed broken.
> 
> Surely the _character_ should decide whom he attacks and threatens.




They are not "not broken only if", but because the in-game definition of certain concepts is used to explain them, and those definitions are used because they were used to build the rules we're discussing about here. If you want to discuss a rule based on defined terms, you should use the terms as they were defined to build the rule. If you discuss outside of those definitions, the rule as written might already be useless.

If you want a discussion based on the common understanding of enemies and allies, then allow me as DM to ask a fighter who out of the blue attacks the creatures that were summoned by the wizard, who presumably is his ally, to help said figher to overcome an enemy, what reason he has to view those creatures as his enemies? If there's any good reason beside the "I want to get an AoO so I can cleave the big bad guy out of initiative turn", I might even let it stand? We're talking roleplaying here, not 100% strict tabletop gaming.
The tactic to use an AoO on one of those creatures to follow it up with a Cleave on the "real" enemy stems from nothing but metagame thinking, and only is served here to show how a pretty normal combo can be abused. As with everything, abuse only happens if the DM allows it to happen.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Dec 6, 2004)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Precisely.
> 
> If I have a spell that affects "MY enemies", it should affect anyone I consider an enemy.
> 
> ...




I just want to add here that a comparison with a magic spell is only of limited value in context with an attack of opportunity on an enemy. After all, with a spell, you could always claim that it might be *the spell* that considers somebody your enemy, or your ally, and that the magic of the spell doesn't care about what the caster is thinking about somebody specific.


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 6, 2004)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> I just want to add here that a comparison with a magic spell is only of limited value in context with an attack of opportunity on an enemy. After all, with a spell, you could always claim that it might be *the spell* that considers somebody your enemy, or your ally, and that the magic of the spell doesn't care about what the caster is thinking about somebody specific.




You could claim that, but it is real nebulous to do so.

The book states that an enemy is someone unfriendly to you.
The book states that someone unfriendly to you is someone who wishes you ill.

A zombie might be your enemy. But, it does not wish you ill. It does not think about you at all. It does not think. It merely does what it was instructed to do. And the PC or NPC that instructed it might not wish you ill. (S)He might just wanted to protect an area.

So, claiming that the spell "considers somebody your enemy, or your ally" opens up a can of worms with regard to adjudication. Spells suddenly become somewhat omnipotent (and that omnipotence becomes impossible to defend against) with regard to who is friend and who is foe.

Claiming that the caster of the spell makes that determination does not open up that can of worms. The caster decides. Period.

Hence, it is totally applicable to the AoO question with regards to who is friend and who is foe.


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 6, 2004)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> If you want a discussion based on the common understanding of enemies and allies, then allow me as DM to ask a fighter who out of the blue attacks the creatures that were summoned by the wizard, who presumably is his ally, to help said figher to overcome an enemy, what reason he has to view those creatures as his enemies? If there's any good reason beside the "I want to get an AoO so I can cleave the big bad guy out of initiative turn", I might even let it stand? We're talking roleplaying here, not 100% strict tabletop gaming.
> The tactic to use an AoO on one of those creatures to follow it up with a Cleave on the "real" enemy stems from nothing but metagame thinking, and only is served here to show how a pretty normal combo can be abused. As with everything, abuse only happens if the DM allows it to happen.




You could take this point of view. But realize that when you do so, you are being a bit of a hypocrit (not intended for you personally or in a bad way, just an observation).

When players design their characters, they are almost always using metagame thinking. A 13 means that you can acquire feats that require 13, otherwise, 12 is better, etc.

When players play their characters, they are almost always using metagame thinking. My 14 hit, so I will up my Power Attack by 2 and see if it hits. That is NOT "in character" thinking, that is game mechanics thinking.

Hence, preventing metagame thinking is a very subjective thing. As DM, you really cannot do it completely or even a lot. Nor should you even try. Instead, prevent the abuse by modifying the rule (e.g. Cleaves only work on the characters turn).


My answer to your question as DM is "It is irrelevant. I consider them my enemy both because I want to and because the Wizard and I have set up this tactic that according to the rules should work".

My "in character" response "Because I can sweep my weapon through them and take my main opponent by surprise.".

The second answer here is mostly a smokescreen and basically nonsensical, but as DM, do you allow it or not? That is dependent on whether you see the tactic as abuse or not, not really whether you see this as metagaming or not. Metagaming occurs like spades in most games, regardless of any protests to the contrary.


----------



## atom crash (Dec 6, 2004)

I disagree completely with the assumption that an AoO represents someone "messing up." The AoO is a tactical decision. Sometimes it is worth the risk to allow your opponent the AoO, in order for you to gain something as well. Sometimes, I'd rather take the AoO to drink a potion and still be able to threaten my opponent, rather than take a 5' step and drink safely but allow them to freely leave their position, because next round I intend to full attack them. 

But I feel that turning that risk I freely take upon myself into a chance to harm my comrades is a low and sneaky tactic. Like paying someone the ransom for the safe return of a loved one only to have them harm your loved one anyway.

Play it how you like it.

If it took such in-depth dissection of game terms in order to play Monopoly or Solitaire, I bet only 4 people play those games.

Anyway, let's face it, we here users of this board apparently attempt to figure out what the rules say and mean waaaaay more than the game's designers. Did they really attempt to write dissertations on the definition of game terms like "ally" and "enemy?" I doubt it. If they did, we might have clearer rules. Or we might have more convoluted rules that only a lawyer could decipher.

The rules of the game require some basic assumptions, and that always requires interpretation. And I've chosen that my game doesn't include the combo of AoO+Cleave. Why? For the same reason that in chess you're not allowed to slip up and place yourself in check. My players are in complete agreement with my interpretation. If I have to implement a *gasp* house rule, then so be it.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 6, 2004)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Precisely.
> 
> If I have a spell that affects "MY enemies", it should affect anyone I consider an enemy.




I'd say it's exactly the opposite.

You cannot declare someone to be your enemy.  You can only declare that _you_ are _their_ enemy.

Just like you cannot decide that someone is your friend, only that you are theirs.

-Hyp.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Dec 6, 2004)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> You could claim that, but it is real nebulous to do so.
> 
> The book states that an enemy is someone unfriendly to you.
> The book states that someone unfriendly to you is someone who wishes you ill.
> ...




There isn't really a can of worms with this spell effect, as it's up to the DM to decide who actually wishes you ill, actively or just in case that they notice you, or if that ill-wish is part of their order they are bound to fulfill...which is actually how the spell effect works, too, as no cleric stands in a circle of opponents declaring who should be affected by his _Bane_ and who not. He prays, and it works on everybody who harbors the will to threaten and harm him.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Dec 6, 2004)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> You could take this point of view. But realize that when you do so, you are being a bit of a hypocrit (not intended for you personally or in a bad way, just an observation).
> 
> When players design their characters, they are almost always using metagame thinking. A 13 means that you can acquire feats that require 13, otherwise, 12 is better, etc.
> 
> ...





I have to say, there's a difference betwen comparing a simple maneuver that already has a "roleplaying" description, like Power attack, to cover for the metagaming aspect of the feat with a combination of spell and feat that, apart from it's metagaming aspect, can't really be explained by a roleplaying point of view.  

Your answer as a fighter also includes a metagame argument, namely that this tactic was prepared between him and the wizard because it "according to the rules should work." That's not really the answer I'm looking for when I'm asking why your fighter all of a sudden views allies as enemies, but hey, you gave me a second...

...which sounds more like an in-game answer to me. And yeah, as I stated before already, I'd probably let it stand...and see how often your fighter would slay celestial creatures who want to aid him to get one free swing at the bad guy, and when his alignment starts shifting. And how long it takes until some celestial might take offense at some wizard specifically abusing that summoning spell to create cannon fodder for a fighter who doesn't mind slaying his allies.

Still think I need to house rule the feat? Rule abuse only happens if the player characters alone get an unfair advantage, which usually doesn't happen anyway, because every decision goes both ways.

And of course everybody plays it their own way, there's no disagreement about that here.


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 6, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I'd say it's exactly the opposite.
> 
> You cannot declare someone to be your enemy.




I think President Bush would disagree with you. 



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> You can only declare that _you_ are _their_ enemy.




You can declare both. It is not an either/or situation.



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Just like you cannot decide that someone is your friend, only that you are theirs.




It is not a matter of friends. You can declare who you will consider an ally, just like who you will consider an enemy.


You are viewing this as "I hate you, therefore I am your enemy" as opposed to "I hate you, therefore you are my enemy".

Both can be declared, but the difference in game terms is that you (and your spells) have to be omnipotent in order to understand who all of your enemies are if the definition of enemy is "who wishes you harm" as opposed to "who you wish harmed".

One is easy to determine and the other is not.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 6, 2004)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> You are viewing this as "I hate you, therefore I am your enemy" as opposed to "I hate you, therefore you are my enemy".




Absolutely.

I hate you, but it's up to you to decide if you're my enemy.



> Both can be declared, but the difference in game terms is that you (and your spells) have to be omnipotent in order to understand who all of your enemies are if the definition of enemy is "who wishes you harm" as opposed to "who you wish harmed".
> 
> One is easy to determine and the other is not.




But again, Bane is an area spell - it affects creatures that fit the description even if the caster is not aware of them.

-Hyp.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Dec 7, 2004)

*Opinion only...*

My 2 cents on the issues.. take them or leave them:

 Bane, et al.. this is why I use aligned spells, where a Bless spell grants a bonus to any being of the correct alignment within range instead of going from the relatively vague 'enemy'/'ally'.  In most cases, the benefit scales down to half for those within 1 step. This house rule also tends to assist in party cohesion, as most players want to be within 1 alignment step of the Cleric 

Cleave and AoO.. it depends.
  The way I see it working is having an intelligent opponent who are expecting thier partners to be covering thier flank.. partner draws an AoO and gets dropped.. the good guy gets to Cleave as the remaining opponent suddenly has an unexpected open flank.
  However, the bad guy won't be expecting your wizards summoned creatures to cover his flank.. so downing them will not get you the Cleave on him.
 Also, unintelligent beings dont expect their partner to cover for them, so no Cleave there either.

 These three scenario's cover the question pretty well, IMHO. The PC still gets the advantage of the Cleave Feat while not opening any meta-gaming sillyness


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Dec 7, 2004)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> If you want a discussion based on the common understanding of enemies and allies, then allow me as DM to ask a fighter who out of the blue attacks the creatures that were summoned by the wizard, who presumably is his ally, to help said figher to overcome an enemy, what reason he has to view those creatures as his enemies?




Nothing 'out of the blue' about it.  Quite the opposite.

If the Cleave feat represents special techniques for fighting multiple opponents, than it is an _in game_ fact that the Fighter is more effective in unruly crowds.  Why shouldn't the Wizard give his buddy more "friends" to play with?

If you find this way of thinking about Cleave to be bizarre, you should take the argument with Scion, not me.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Dec 7, 2004)

Primitive Screwhead said:
			
		

> Cleave and AoO.. it depends.
> The way I see it working is having an intelligent opponent who are expecting thier partners to be covering thier flank.. partner draws an AoO and gets dropped.. the good guy gets to Cleave as the remaining opponent suddenly has an unexpected open flank.
> However, the bad guy won't be expecting your wizards summoned creatures to cover his flank.. so downing them will not get you the Cleave on him.
> Also, unintelligent beings dont expect their partner to cover for them, so no Cleave there either.




All these arguments are irrelevant to D&D, because D&D has no concept of "cover his flank" in the way that you mean.  In D&D terms covering a flank would mean a bonus to AC for standing near an ally.

Furthermore, a lot of the abusive examples of AoO + Cleave involve Reach.  The two targets could easily be standing 15 or 25 feet apart.  (Heck, they could be standing in different rooms.)  What does "cover his flank" mean then?


----------



## Storyteller01 (Dec 7, 2004)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> I could not agree less.  If Cleave represents special skills for fighting multiple opponents simultaneous then setting up this situation is not metagaming.  Quite the opposite.




It is if the arguement is realism.

Using real world examples, a police officer is fighting some mugger. Other officers from a K-9 unit sends in the dogs. Does the first officer attack friendly dogs to gain an AoO advantage?

japanese riot police are trained in hand-to-hand methods when dealing with mobs and multiple opponents. I've never heard of one of them attacking another officer to gain an advantage. Usually does the opposite.

If I understand correctly, the new versions were designed to promote realism. Is it realistic to attack your allies to gain an advantage (unless your evil, which has its own consequences...).

If you don't want realism, go for the kill. Just remember that the tactic is taking advantage D&D mechanics, not simulating a fighting tactic, style, or specialized training (unless killing celestial/infernal critters counts as a fighting style)..


----------



## Storyteller01 (Dec 7, 2004)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> And the logical patch is to disallow AoO + Cleave.  If you believe there is a problem.




Agreed, if you beleive that it is a problem.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Dec 7, 2004)

I apologize ahead of time. Having trouble with the 'quote options'.


"No, it explains why AoOs might occur that could result in 
multiple AoO/Cleave combos - not just by the caster's fighter ally but by the BBEG."

But the given example implied the deliberate summons by a friendly mage. Using summoned creatures to provide deliberate targets for an AoO seems like metagaming, especially if other creative options can be used (thinking beyond the numeberS) .

I would still question why a BBEG is summoning uncontrollable creatures so close to himself, knowing the disadvantage. It's similar to calling a pack of wolves or hunting dogs to fight, then getting caught in the mob. Then I can see a fighter gaining an advantage, if he trained for mass combat. The problem here would be the DM, and hopefully they learned from it. 



"Thats not the point - the summoned creatures aren't under the caster's complete control unless he can communicate with them in some way - and creatures with animal intelligence aren't going to avoid AoOs." 

So why summon them if this is the case? Either a player is using D&D logic to gain an advantage, or the BBEG is making a big mistake. The problem still is not the mechanic, but whether it's metagaming or a huge error in judgement, especially if the BBEG knew the fighter can Cleave.

(off topic)
I'd also argue that animals don't avoid AoO's.Ever see a cat or dog fight (I just have to look outside, so no jokes about going to pit fights!!). They generally go for side or flank shot, to avoid claws/teeth. They also tend to run around each other, not getting close enough to hit unless they are also hitting (cats cover about half a block at times!!). Given the many examples of humans learning hunting tactics from observing wild animals, I'd imagine that creatures encountered in the D&D settings are no different (if they are successful enough at hunting to live to adulthood).Avoiding getting hit doesn't require training to understand, just training to improve your chances.



"Not if your summoning multiple weak creatures that are going to die in one hit regardless, and need a 20 to even hit the BBEG - seems like a pretty good use of a low level spell slot."

Not if the idea is to sacrifice them for a loophole. A better option (IMHO) would be to ajudicate some AC penalty due to the distraction, similar to the swarm effect.


"Unless they are intelligent the summoned creatures may never even get into a position to provide a flanking bonus.  It is OK to sacrifice them in an attempt to get into a flanking position, but its not OK to sacrifice them to provide your great cleaving fighter ally more attacks at the BBEG at his full attack bonus (which has a better chance to hit than iterative attacks with a flanking bonus)?"

Again, this is the intent of the player. Are you using tactics, or using a loophole (hitting friendlies gives an AoO). Even if they don't get close, that's one action that doesn't focus on the players.


"How I sacrifice them should be my choice as the caster.  If you think them dying in combat is a bad thing don't summon them for combat - but that seems to be the express purpose of the summoning spells, considering they immediately attack your enemies even if you can't communicate with them."

Again, this goes to the intent of the caster. Are you using the creatures as an attack, or to gain some nonsensical advantage (see the police dog example above). Aid in attacking is one thing, but bending D&D rules for an easily negated advantage in the long run (if a DM sees abuse, they plan to negate it ahead of time)is some thing else. It may also call the attention of higher powers, but that's for later...


"The intent of the caster is to stop the BBEG with the resources at hand." 

Agreed. If you think outside the box (outside or around D&D rules), you have plenty of advantages. Use the terrain, pay attention to the details. I can't give anything else without knowing all the details of the conflict, but using a numbers game could not have been the only option.



"Never said they were.  Disagreement with the AoO/Cleave routine has nothing to do with fair."

Sorry, I had been answering another post. The arguement had been that it was an unfair advantage to fighters (yet spellcasters can call lightning.) I think the arguement would be better worded as 'the advantage is implausable.'. I disagree, but...



"So remember to have your wizard summon a bunch of 1 hit die mooks to run past your fighter (who has Combat Reflexes and Great Cleave) so he gets the most (and smartest) use out of those feats. " 

Again, this can be considered metagaming. Can you gain AoO for friendlies? If so, what does this say about the players? What consequenses are there for these actions? And saying that higher powers do not care for their subjects is not a valid arguement. It would be the same as kingdoms on earth. Some kings do, some kings don't. DM adjuicates what fits.



"As Ridley's Cohort said, disallowing AoO/Cleave is a reasonable patch to this loophole for those of us that find AoO/Cleaves unreasonable."

Agreed, if you find it unreasonable. Not to be totally nonconstructive, but I base my view from fights or conflicts I have personally witnessed. In these conflicts, people get far more than 4 to 5 attacks a round, and they aren't 20th level. In mass combat (simulated or not) folks get hit for actions of others around them, not nesseccarily from the sheer poower of the attack (THAT concept I would tend to argue).



"Its a heck of a lot more reasonable than disallowing Improved Crit and Keen to stack. "

Again, I agree. I hated that change, and several 3.5 OGL books have negated it as part of the campaign world. 


IMHO, the AoO+cleave combo makes sense, and I believe I have seen multiple real world uses of said tactic in the past. The DM has to keep it in check


----------



## Storyteller01 (Dec 7, 2004)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Sorry, you are totally incorrect here.
> 
> I am the player of the Fighter.
> 
> ...




But the question remanis: Are you hitting summoned mooks because they are truely enemies (meaning to do you harm) or to gain a D&D numerical advantage?

I agree that the combatant decides enemies/targets. I would question the intent of those decisions though.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Dec 7, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I'd say it's exactly the opposite.
> 
> You cannot declare someone to be your enemy.  You can only declare that _you_ are _their_ enemy.
> 
> ...




Got to agree here. You can only control you intentions, not those of others. Your thinking that someone is an enemy does not mean that they mean you harm (heck, they could be an enemy because YOU mean to do them harm.) The DM (and the gods who power those bane spells  ) are the only ones who can say who is an is not your true enemy.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Dec 7, 2004)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> All these arguments are irrelevant to D&D, because D&D has no concept of "cover his flank" in the way that you mean.  In D&D terms covering a flank would mean a bonus to AC for standing near an ally.




It could also mean having an ally beside you, making sure one side is occupied. Occupied space=one less area available for flanking. May not provide an AC bonus, but is tactically sound (unless you run into a fighter with Cleave  )


----------



## R-Hero (Dec 7, 2004)

atom crash said:
			
		

> Anyway, let's face it, we here users of this board apparently attempt to figure out what the rules say and mean waaaaay more than the game's designers. QUOTE]
> 
> Wow, this thread is still running??
> 
> ...


----------



## Storyteller01 (Dec 7, 2004)

I CAN"T (debate genes kicking in...) MUST...ARGUE...MOOORRREEEE!!!!


----------



## R-Hero (Dec 7, 2004)

Storyteller01 said:
			
		

> I CAN"T (debate genes kicking in...) MUST...ARGUE...MOOORRREEEE!!!!




If you are having fun, keep chasin' your tail devildog.  This circular logic will never die.

There are good arguments on both sides.  There is no right answer. (Untill Core Rulebook 1 version 4.0 comes out, anyway!)  

I can play it either way and not loose any sleep. (As long as the enemy/opponent/DM does the same)


----------



## Storyteller01 (Dec 7, 2004)

R-Hero said:
			
		

> If you are having fun, keep chasin' your tail devildog.




More interested in the arguement than the result  I like to see who says what.


Devil dog, huh? You in the Marines R-Hero?

I had been in 1st bat/ 3rd Mar. MOS 0341. Saw no action though [mixed emotions on that].


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 7, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> But again, Bane is an area spell - it affects creatures that fit the description even if the caster is not aware of them.




This is true according to the rules of the book.

But, this is not true solely according to the description of the Bane spell. Only when you add the concept that "enemies are ones that are unfriendly to you" does this apply.


Btw, according to a LITERAL reading of the Bane spell, the enemy description, and the unfriendly description, Bane does not affect "opponent zombies". Why?

Because Bane affects enemies.
Enemies are unfriendlies.
Unfriendlies wish you ill.
Zombies cannot think, hence, zombies cannot wish you ill, hence, zombies are not enemies.

Now, I do not know of a DM who would rule literally like this, but that IS the literal rule.


Also, you are USED to Bane working this way, so you might have a harder time agreeing that Bane NOT working that way is ok as well. We tend to be more comfortable with what we are used to and new concepts are quickly rejected because of that, not because of the merit of the new concept.

This is illustrated here by the fact that you are very resistant to the concept of me picking my own enemies. However, this is a natural thing for people to do, just not the definition of enemy in DND. Like I said early, both is correct conceptually and I think this is just a poor decision in the DND system. I pick my enemies. My enemies pick themselves. Both, not just one.


As for who is an enemy, I was going to suggest the following yesterday:

AA - A
AI - N
AE - E
IA - N
II - N
IE - E
EA - E
EI - E
EE - E

This is a model of either definition of enemy taking precedence over a definition of ally. In other words, if I think you are my enemy or you think I am your enemy, then you are my enemy (for purposes of spells, etc.). The only time you are my ally is if both of us think you are my ally. This is more complex, but it allows for the Bane spell to affect anyone I want it to AND anyone who really wishes me harm. The reason AI and IA are not allies is because an Ally spell should not be intrusive like an enemy spell is (although Aiding a neutral character is intrusive, so I could also see a case for AI - A, IA - A).

So with this, enemies is "either case true". Allies is "both cases true".

I doubt many DMs would go with this though.


Btw, I'd like your careful consideration of the following scenario.

NPC A is PC B's brother. NPC A likes PC B, but PC B hates NPC A because NPC A is an assassin.

NPC A is hired to kill PC C who is a friend of PC B.

PC B casts the Bane spell. Does it affect NPC A who is at the moment, trying to kill PC C?


According to the literal book, it does not. NPC A is not unfriendly to PC B, in fact he likes him because he is his brother. So, NPC A is not the enemy of PC B. PC B's feelings on the matter are irrelevant.

Is this how you rule as a GM?


----------



## Storyteller01 (Dec 7, 2004)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> This is true according to the rules of the book.
> 
> But, this is not true solely according to the description of the Bane spell. Only when you add the concept that "enemies are ones that are unfriendly to you" does this apply.
> 
> ...




Seems incredibly complicated, on par to a Civil War scale dilemma..

I thought we were discussing cleaving on an AoO??


----------



## Abraxas (Dec 7, 2004)

> But the given example implied the deliberate summons by a friendly mage. Using summoned creatures to provide deliberate targets for an AoO seems like metagaming, especially if other creative options can be used (thinking beyond the numeberS)



Choosing to use any feat could be seen as meta gaming - The character knows exactly what his abilities do in the game world.  How is developing a useful strategy based on those abilities somehow unacceptable meta gaming compared to things like having your character jump off a 100 foot cliff because you know it won't kill him unless you suffer 50 or more points damage and fail a massive damage save? (I don't think jumping off the cliff is unacceptable - its part of the game world).  My opposition to the AoO/Cleave bit has nothing to do with metagaming either.



> I would still question why a BBEG is summoning uncontrollable creatures so close to himself, knowing the disadvantage. It's similar to calling a pack of wolves or hunting dogs to fight, then getting caught in the mob. Then I can see a fighter gaining an advantage, if he trained for mass combat. The problem here would be the DM, and hopefully they learned from it.



But it wouldn't be a disadvantage to the BBEG.  He summons them to a point behind himself and as they move past him he AoOs them before our stalwart fighter ally gets a shot at them and uses his great cleave feat to smack the fighter, immediately after which he gets his full attack action.



> So why summon them if this is the case? Either a player is using D&D logic to gain an advantage, or the BBEG is making a big mistake. The problem still is not the mechanic, but whether it's metagaming or a huge error in judgement, especially if the BBEG knew the fighter can Cleave.



So no one summons creatures unless they have one hundred percent control over them?  They still serve a purpose - attack the BBEG.  The fact that the summoned creatures behavior is completely predictable (if not controllable) is a fact of the spell, something the caster would definitely know.  The fact that this presents a useful strategy isn't (and shouldn't be) beyond the comprehension of the caster.   As shown above - the BBEG is going to kill his own summoned creature before our fighter ally gets a shot at them.



> Not if the idea is to sacrifice them for a loophole. A better option (IMHO) would be to ajudicate some AC penalty due to the distraction, similar to the swarm effect.



Except that your AC penalty is a more complicated house rule that will have greater repercussions.  What type of creatures can cause this AC penalty? What happens when the party gangs up on a lone opponent? Do they cause an AC penalty because of the distraction? etc, etc.  No AoO/Cleave is a simpler solution.



> Again, this is the intent of the player. Are you using tactics, or using a loophole (hitting friendlies gives an AoO). Even if they don't get close, that's one action that doesn't focus on the players.



From a character perspective its definitely using tactics - the characters don't know its a loophole, they just know this is how things work.  As for actions that aren't focused on the players, well most players avoid taking AoOs like the plague, so those actions aren't focused on the players anyways.



> Again, this goes to the intent of the caster. Are you using the creatures as an attack, or to gain some nonsensical advantage (see the police dog example above). Aid in attacking is one thing, but bending D&D rules for an easily negated advantage in the long run (if a DM sees abuse, they plan to negate it ahead of time)is some thing else.



In game terms it isn't a nonsensical advantage and could definitely be a sound tactic.  As for your real world examples - well they're just silly.  Your police officer isn't going to attack the k-9 cause 1) he doesn't have cleave, not to mention 2)probably can't drop it with one shot, 3)it probably has a better chance of incapacitating the mugger than he does and 4)doesn't just go poof because it isn't really dead.  The same with your riot police - they aren't going to off a fellow officer.  Actually this is the only thing that isn't silly - the fighter isn't going to off another PC cause that has real consequences - if he drops his ally he actually kills him.  Summoned creatures aren't really killed - they're just gone.



> Agreed. If you think outside the box (outside or around D&D rules), you have plenty of advantages. Use the terrain, pay attention to the details. I can't give anything else without knowing all the details of the conflict, but using a numbers game could not have been the only option.



Using this tactic is thinking outside the box - what are you trying to say here?



> Again, this can be considered metagaming. Can you gain AoO for friendlies? If so, what does this say about the players? What consequenses are there for these actions? And saying that higher powers do not care for their subjects is not a valid arguement. It would be the same as kingdoms on earth. Some kings do, some kings don't. DM adjuicates what fits.



It doesn't say anything about the players other than they have figured out a tactic that may or may not be useful.  Unless you are going to dictate consequences for every condition under which creatures are summoned then there are going to be none.  Are you going to have your higher ups whip the players for using summoned creatures to trigger traps?  How about fighting creatures they have no chance of defeating?  The summon Monster spells summon cannon fodder, thats it - they willingly throw themselves to their death for you with absolutely no regard for themselves.  How that death occurs doesn't enter into the equation.  Hell, if your fighter ally is a psychotic nut that likes fighting and has you summon critters to attack him so he can get in some between adventure practice I'm fine with that.  He doesn't actually kill them and they are doing exactly what the spell summons them for.

You know what though?  None of this really matters.
As I said before I don't think an advantage obtained because one opponent let his guard down should be available against one who didn't.  Its that simple.  None of the commentary above changes that in any way.

Oh, and I would have had a bunch of smileys throughout this post but none of the drop down menus work anymore in the window where I compose my posts - if anyone has an idea why this is I would really like to know.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 7, 2004)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Btw, according to a LITERAL reading of the Bane spell, the enemy description, and the unfriendly description, Bane does not affect "opponent zombies". Why?
> 
> Because Bane affects enemies.
> Enemies are unfriendlies.
> ...




I absolutely rule that Bane doesn't affect zombies.

They're immune to mind-affecting spells.

-Hyp.


----------



## R-Hero (Dec 7, 2004)

Storyteller01 said:
			
		

> Devil dog, huh? You in the Marines R-Hero?




8 years U.S. Army, but every where I went, I couldn't get away from either ex or active duty Marines.

Each unit I was assigned to had at least 1 ex-Marine
One of earliest training assignments was at Little Creek Naval Amphibious base in Virginia. (Salors, Soliders and Marines.)
Several overseas assignments, including an extended stay at Gitmo, Cuba.

...and one of my favorite actors is R. Lee Ermy.


----------



## Lasher Dragon (Dec 7, 2004)

Every DM I've ever had in my 16 years of gaming would laugh in the party's face if we tried to pull some BS like summoning in monsters for the sole purpose of giving the tank extra attacks. I mean seriously, do people really play like this? Absurd, immature, and so completely broken it makes me wonder why anyone who does so even plays the game. Go play video games if you want cheat codes and glitches.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Dec 7, 2004)

no not summoning monsters for AoO/cleaves in a world that this is possible is absurd.  If my friend is backed into a corner down to 1hp and desides to try and drink a potion gets hit by an AoO drops and I get hit by the cleave I'd think to myself geez with my combat reflexes and great cleave I can use this.  And if I wasn't allowed to work it to my advantage like this I would be pissed when it worked against me in the "honest" AoO/cleave situation.  Either it works or it doesn't.  If it works I will develp ways to use it to the best of my advantage.  My characters generally aren't morons and if that is how the world works they deal with it.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Dec 7, 2004)

Storyteller01 said:
			
		

> It is if the arguement is realism.
> 
> Using real world examples, a police officer is fighting some mugger. Other officers from a K-9 unit sends in the dogs. Does the first officer attack friendly dogs to gain an AoO advantage?




First of all, since when is D&D supposed to be realistic?

Second of all, if realism is an important criterion to you, it is easy enough to set up examples where AoO + Cleave causes extremely bizarre and totally unbelieveable results. e.g. two targets, completely unaware of each other, standing standing 25' away from each other.

Thirdly, if you expand your list of what is an "attack", yes, allies might well attack each other.  I am thinking shoves and grapples, not sword or club swings, but the point is still valid.  BTW, American football used to allow such tactics about a hundred years ago but they were outlawed because they were both too effective and resulted in too many injuries.  The fact that D&D is sword-centric and does not bother to model the subtleties of grappling is a (purposefully designed) failing of D&D.


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 7, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I absolutely rule that Bane doesn't affect zombies.
> 
> They're immune to mind-affecting spells.
> 
> -Hyp.




Good point. 

However, you avoided my real question:


Btw, I'd like your careful consideration of the following scenario.

NPC A is PC B's brother. NPC A likes PC B, but PC B hates NPC A because NPC A is an assassin.

NPC A is hired to kill PC C who is a friend of PC B.

PC B casts the Bane spell. Does it affect NPC A who is at the moment, trying to kill PC C?


According to the literal book, it does not. NPC A is not unfriendly to PC B, in fact he likes him because he is his brother. So, NPC A is not the enemy of PC B. PC B's feelings on the matter are irrelevant.

Is this how you rule as a GM?


Bane is a unique spell in the core rules. It is the only one with "enemies" specified not as part of flavor text, but as part of the rules. There are other spells that discuss enemies as flavor text, but they tend to then talk about foes or opponents in the rules text.


So, I am not sure you can actually justify spell rules off the Bane spell too much.


----------



## strongbow (Dec 7, 2004)

OT here but since some people mentioned "I don't like people getting penalizaed from another character's actions.", I had to speak up.

Consider that Mage Slayer does not just let you take an AoO if someone casts defensively, thus benefitting only the person that takes the feat, but that it prevents a caster from casting defensively at at all.  Thus, the feat tacitly benefits all of the Mage Slayer's allies who threaten the enemy caster.  A good example of legal by the rules, but a bad idea.  (Even beyond the other problems with Mage Slayer)


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 7, 2004)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> So, NPC A is not the enemy of PC B.




Isn't that the relevant point, then?

PC B's Bane spell affects the enemies of PC B.

NPC A is not the enemy of PC B.

Looks pretty unambiguous.

-Hyp.


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 7, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Isn't that the relevant point, then?
> 
> PC B's Bane spell affects the enemies of PC B.
> 
> ...




Well, if you go with NPC A is not PC B's enemy because he does not wish to be. Not if you go with anybody PC B hates is his enemy.

However, Bane is the ONLY core rule spell like that. All of the rest of the core rule enemy spells talk about foes and opponents. This implies that a literal ruling is invalid in this case.

Hence, it can hardly be used as an example for AoO Cleave.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 8, 2004)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> This implies that a literal ruling is invalid in this case.




... how?

-Hyp.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Dec 8, 2004)

Abraxas said:
			
		

> In game terms it isn't a nonsensical advantage and could definitely be a sound tactic.  As for your real world examples - well they're just silly.  Your police officer isn't going to attack the k-9 cause 1) he doesn't have cleave, not to mention 2)probably can't drop it with one shot, 3)it probably has a better chance of incapacitating the mugger than he does and 4)doesn't just go poof because it isn't really dead.  The same with your riot police - they aren't going to off a fellow officer.  Actually this is the only thing that isn't silly - the fighter isn't going to off another PC cause that has real consequences - if he drops his ally he actually kills him.  Summoned creatures aren't really killed - they're just gone.




So dropping summoned creatures for an AoO advantage is acceptable because there are no consequences?


----------



## Storyteller01 (Dec 8, 2004)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> First of all, since when is D&D supposed to be realistic?
> 
> Second of all, if realism is an important criterion to you, it is easy enough to set up examples where AoO + Cleave causes extremely bizarre and totally unbelieveable results. e.g. two targets, completely unaware of each other, standing standing 25' away from each other.
> 
> Thirdly, if you expand your list of what is an "attack", yes, allies might well attack each other.  I am thinking shoves and grapples, not sword or club swings, but the point is still valid.  BTW, American football used to allow such tactics about a hundred years ago but they were outlawed because they were both too effective and resulted in too many injuries.  The fact that D&D is sword-centric and does not bother to model the subtleties of grappling is a (purposefully designed) failing of D&D.




Swords can actually be just as subtle as grappling. More so even (you have to control striking surface less than 1mm across from 5 ft away) 

If you want to use the rule that D&D is not designed to be realist, that's fine. But if this is the case, why argue? If we don't base it on some model, then all this arguement is about is how to/not to tweak a mathematical equation.

As for the examples for breaking AoO+CLeave, ignore the math and use common sense/some model as a basis


----------



## Wrathamon (Dec 8, 2004)

One thing I learned from this thread...

What type of player I want in a game I am running/playing in and what type I don't.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Dec 8, 2004)

R-Hero said:
			
		

> 8 years U.S. Army, but every where I went, I couldn't get away from either ex or active duty Marines.
> 
> Each unit I was assigned to had at least 1 ex-Marine
> One of earliest training assignments was at Little Creek Naval Amphibious base in Virginia. (Salors, Soliders and Marines.)
> ...





Yea...

I guess we are taking over the world...


----------



## Abraxas (Dec 8, 2004)

> So dropping summoned creatures for an AoO advantage is acceptable because there are no consequences?



Just as acceptable and as lacking in consequences as sending summoned creatures to their death because your character needs a distraction.



> What type of player I want in a game I am running/playing in and what type I don't.



Yeah, I want to game with the ones clever enough to think this up and reasonable enough to accept a simple fix for it.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Dec 8, 2004)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> First of all, since when is D&D supposed to be realistic?
> 
> Second of all, if realism is an important criterion to you, it is easy enough to set up examples where AoO + Cleave causes extremely bizarre and totally unbelieveable results. e.g. two targets, completely unaware of each other, standing standing 25' away from each other.




I'm assuming you mean 5' away from each other, given how cleave functions.

You can also do the same thing with math equations, inserting 0's or pi or any other abstract figure. The supposed result still cannot be replicated in real life. And claiming that magic cannot be replicated in real time is not truely valid, since we can use tech to replicate many of the effects (a flamethrower, grenade, or fuel-air bomb for fireball, cellphones for sending, etc.)and several more are on the way. so, where does attacking a friend give extra attacks in real time, without repercussions, even in football over one hundred years prior?

Also remember, just because I'm unaware of my buddies actions, doesn't mean I'm anyless vulnerable. It's dependant on what the attacker with cleave perceives. If he sees an opening that takes both targets, he takes it. 

If a blocker in football leaves an opening, the QB gets sacked after said blocker gets knocked out of the way. The QB doesn't need to know the opening is there. He gets hit regardless. I use this example because a QB may be focused on making a pass than where his defense is. His blockers may be effectively invisible to him for that split second, as he is unaware where the blocker is or what he is doing. 

Again, if you don't want to base the game on some realist model then this debate is on whether can/cannot tweak the math in some fashion.

Gives me a headache just thinking about it!!


----------



## Abraxas (Dec 8, 2004)

The characters can be 30 feet away from each other and you can still AoO/Cleave.

...............A 
X X X X X
X O O OX
X O F O X
X O O OX
B X X X X

A - first opponent
B - second opponent
F - fighter with a guisarme and the combat reflexes and cleave feats. F threatens all the spots marked with an X and the spot marked B.

A has initiative, and closes on F provoking an AoO. F's AoO drops A, Cleave kicks in and he smacks B.  B is 30 feet away from A


----------



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

As Abraxas astutely pointed out, yes, I meant _25'_ away.  30' if you put me on a horse.

BTW, the 30' away is not the best example.  How about two people who have never met and are unaware of each other, both in different rooms, one around a corner and the other through a door being the targets?  I face off against an ogre with a longspear and mysteriously there is an _opening_ in my defenses because a goblin 35' away that I have not even seen attempts to flee.

I do not particularly have a problem those who just want to use the RAW.  I do not agree that is the best way to play, but it is not really that big a deal either way for most game groups.  

I just think that crying 'metagming' when I point out the consequences of the RAW is not very convincing.  It only makes me wonder if you have thought through the logical consequences of the very rules you are defending.

Ultimately you are just making post hoc rationalizations.  Your QB sack is a perfect example of muddying actions on initiative and AoOs as a desperate attempt to make a weak argument sound plausible.


----------



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

Abraxas said:
			
		

> Yeah, I want to game with the ones clever enough to think this up and reasonable enough to accept a simple fix for it.




On the nose.  Why settle for less?


----------



## Randal_Dundragon (Dec 8, 2004)

After reading through all the posts and as a player who actually likes to play fighters i must say why pick on the fughter.  Cleave is normally only taken by a fighter due to most other classes having better feats to take.  So why nurf the fighter by disallowing his feat to work.  At higher levels this feats normaaly becomes usless so let us fighters have our fun at low levels before we nearly become a mobile shield and hit point sink.


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 8, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> ... how?




Out of several hundred core spells, only one has this unique targeting capability, even though about a dozen other spells using the same word to depict enemies use a different meaning of the word.

DND Core - Enemies are unfriendlies

Bane Spell - Enemies are unfriendlies (by default)

All Other Core Enemy Spells - The definition of enemies changes and they become foes or opponents and their attitude towards you is irrelevant. The definition of enemies explicitly changes to one of someone you are fighting as opposed to someone who wishes you ill.

Why?

If the definition of enemies is unfriendlies, why would about a dozen spells EXPLICTLY change that definition in their description whereas only one spell still uses it (and then, only by default)?

Why wouldn't they only use the word foes or opponents in their text if that is what they really meant?

This is a HUGE dichotomy (even though we hadn't really noticed it previously).

It seems a lot more likely that the designers weren't even thinking seriously about this at all. The reason is probably due to the fact that two of the nine cases occur the majority of the time: AA and EE.

On top of that, the Bane spell does not EXPLICTLY keep that definition. The description does not go into a lot of detail, it is just three sentences (rather short for a DND spell) and the spell defaults to that definition of enemies (by literal reading), it does not explicitly reinforce that definition.

But a DM reading the Bane spell (without looking up the glossary term enemy in the PHB) could easily change that to foes in a game. It is only the "rules lawyer" DM who might allow Bane to target "the elf who appears to be a friend, but is really the guy who has been killing off the PCs family".


So, we have a one liner glossary definition in the PHB and about a dozen spells that explicitly do not use that definition. Also, that definition is only one out of two that people normally use for the word. It appears that the designers used the attitude game mechanic for enemies because it was convenient, not necessarily because they wanted to restrict the game in that manner.


The game itself has more examples where the definition of the word changes than examples where it does not, hence, a literal reading of that word shouldn't be used since the game designers themselves do not appear to be using it as a game mechanic for rules.


The attitude of most Americans before 9/11 was that they did NOT have ill will towards Al Qaida. But, that did not stop Al Qaida from deciding that all Americans were their enemies.

Both uses of the word are valid.

I pick my enemies (by my attitude towards them). My enemies pick themselves (by their attitude towards me).


If the designers want the game to be restricted to the literal meaning of the word, they should not have put in a dozen examples where it does NOT mean that. IMO. That makes the game confusing.

Player: "What do you mean enemies does not mean foes?"
DM: "It says it in the glossary."
Player: "Then how come enemies means foes in all of these other spells."
DM: "Never mind those, they are anomalies."
Player: "Huh?"


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 8, 2004)

Randal_Dundragon said:
			
		

> After reading through all the posts and as a player who actually likes to play fighters i must say why pick on the fughter.  Cleave is normally only taken by a fighter due to most other classes having better feats to take.  So why nurf the fighter by disallowing his feat to work.  At higher levels this feats normaaly becomes usless so let us fighters have our fun at low levels before we nearly become a mobile shield and hit point sink.




Do you REALLY consider this a significant nerf, even at low level?


----------



## Joker (Dec 8, 2004)

This has been a very comical thread sofar.  Personally I would let the AoO+Cleave work.  It comes up so little that it really doesn't destroy a game.

What about someone with improved trip and cleave who gets an AoO?  He trips Enemy 1, gets an attack, kills Enemy 1, cleaves through to the next.

Just posting out loud.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 8, 2004)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> The problem with your examples are that they are nonsensical for the following reason: All of your examples could be replaced with a non-existent character, the same moves could be made, and then Fighters could get AoOs against imaginary foes at any time, just to get the real follow up Cleave against the real foe.




Here's your real problem: you cannot take AoOs against a non-existent character. If you stop trying to make up silly examples, then the feat combinations make more sense.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 8, 2004)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> If a DM ruled that I could not AoO the summoned mooks running past me because they are not my enemy, I would politely explain that he does not decide who my enemies are, I do.




And the DM can politely reply that by your actions, you have diverged to an evil alignment, by attacking the summoned creatures of your allies. Enjoy your new alignment and the attendant headaches, especially when the good cleric's healing spells fizzle when he tries to cast them on you as a result of divine intervention.


----------



## Thanee (Dec 8, 2004)

Joker said:
			
		

> This has been a very comical thread sofar. Personally I would let the AoO+Cleave work. It comes up so little that it really doesn't destroy a game.



 I don't think, that many people here consider it "destroying the game", but rather something, which - even though it certainly does not come up often - just doesn't feel right. This has nothing to do with being overpowered, disruptive or anything. It's just "unfair". 



> What about someone with improved trip and cleave who gets an AoO? He trips Enemy 1, gets an attack, kills Enemy 1, cleaves through to the next.



 No problem up to the point where Cleave enters the Stage. Enemy 1 provoked an AoO, so that's what he gets. Enemy 2 (the next), however, has not provoked an AoO, so cannot be attacked outside of that someones turn.

 Bye
 Thanee


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 8, 2004)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Here's your real problem: you cannot take AoOs against a non-existent character. If you stop trying to make up silly examples, then the feat combinations make more sense.




Of course you cannot take AoOs against a non-existent character. That was not the point of that, but I guess you didn't understand that if you thought that was the point of it. Otherwise you wouldn't have posted this reply.

If do not understand the point of it, you really shouldn't talk about it. It makes what you write sound kind of silly.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 8, 2004)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Of course you cannot take AoOs against a non-existent character. That was not the point of that, but I guess you didn't understand that if you thought that was the point of it. Otherwise you wouldn't have posted this reply.




No, I understood the point of it, but your point doesn't make sense. You invented a problem: if you could take AoOs against someone not there, you could gain extra attacks using Cleave, and tried to use that to analogize inm an effort to show the "silliness" of the idea of taking an AoO against a real opponent to gain extra attacks using Cleave.

It is an entirely contrived example, and one that is patently silly. It attempts to circumvent the rules of the game to "illustrate" that the rules of the game look silly. And it didn't work. It just looks like you made a silly argument. Inventing a nonsensical (and impossible) option doesn't make your argument stronger, it makes your argument look empty.


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 8, 2004)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> And the DM can politely reply that by your actions, you have diverged to an evil alignment, by attacking the summoned creatures of your allies. Enjoy your new alignment and the attendant headaches, especially when the good cleric's healing spells fizzle when he tries to cast them on you as a result of divine intervention.




I would tell such a DM to go take a hike and easily convince my fellow intelligent gamers that we need a new DM.

The entire point of Summoning spells is to put the summoned creatures into harms way in order to assist the party.

If that requires wiping out the summoned creatures with Combat Reflexes AoO Cleave in order to get more powerful attacks against the foe, or having the summoned creatures attack the foe directly, or having the summoned creatures walk over a bridge in order to set off any traps (or to set off a trap we know about), that's what it means.

A DM who didn't understand this and tried to play the alignment card when we are talking about summoned creatures doesn't deserve to be DM and would get replaced in our group.

What drivel!

DMs can do what they want, but even they are sanctioned by the group. That does not mean that the players always (or even often) get their way, but it does mean that a DM had better put such strange summon creature restrictions up front in his house rules, or he won't stay DM for long.

Next you'll be saying that the ectoplasmic constructs from Astral Construct will result in alignment changes if they are abused as well.


----------



## Thanee (Dec 8, 2004)

All psionics should have the [EVIL] tag, anyways... 

 Bye
 Thanee


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 8, 2004)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> No, I understood the point of it, but your point doesn't make sense. You invented a problem: if you could take AoOs against someone not there, you could gain extra attacks using Cleave, and tried to use that to analogize inm an effort to show the "silliness" of the idea of taking an AoO against a real opponent to gain extra attacks using Cleave.
> 
> It is an entirely contrived example, and one that is patently silly. It attempts to circumvent the rules of the game to "illustrate" that the rules of the game look silly. And it didn't work. It just looks like you made a silly argument. Inventing a nonsensical (and impossible) option doesn't make your argument stronger, it makes your argument look empty.




No, you did not understand the point from your response here.

The point was that in "real combat", a combat sequence that could be done with a "cleave manuever through an opponent" should also be possible without an opponent standing there. You should be able to make the exact same set of combat moves, regardless of whether someone is standing there or not to "cleave through".

Since that attack is not possible with a cleave maneuver if nobody is there, it shouldn't be possible with a cleave maneuver if somebody is there, specifically in the AoO case where an attack on the primary character is possible or not dependent on the actions of a secondary character.

In simpler terms, if an asteroid is heading towards the Earth, you can fire a missile at it. If an asteroid is not heading towards the Earth, in real life, you could still fire a missile at that same location. In the game, if the asteroid is not there, you cannot fire the missile (i.e. if you do not get an AoO, you cannot get the Cleave from it).

The game rules prevent you from getting Cleave attacks without a trigger, they should prevent it with a trigger (because the trigger should not change the circumstances of combat).

I hope this made it clearer for you, but I suspect not.


----------



## Jarrod (Dec 8, 2004)

Here's the rationale we came up with: (BTW, we allow AoO/cleave).

Cleave is the result of an enemy (Alice) letting their guard down because they assume you are tied up with a different enemy (Bob). However, with Cleave, you can destroy Bob faster than Alice can get prepared; effectively, you get a free attack because Alice had her guard down.

It's a perception, enemy/ally thing, but from the point of view of the _cleavee_. Two situations:

Two orcs: cleave attack, since the orcs considered themselves allies. 
Bag 'o puppies and an orc: no cleave attack, since the orc did not consider the bag 'o puppies an ally. 

This has some interesting side-effects on a three person combat; if you are a target for a Cleave only if an ally is killed, what about if a (non-ally of Cleave-ee, enemy of Cleave-r) gets dropped?


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 8, 2004)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I would tell such a DM to go take a hike and easily convince my fellow intelligent gamers that we need a new DM.




I suspect you would lose that argument, since it is based on a specious premise.



> The entire point of Summoning spells is to put the summoned creatures into harms way in order to assist the party.




But there is a difference between summoning allies to aid you, and summoning allies with the express purpose of killing them yourself. In that one is evil and the other is not. Just as, for example, a general sending his soliders into harm's way and, as a side effect some of them getting killed is not evil, but his taking a handgun and shooting them in the head would be.



> A DM who didn't understand this and tried to play the alignment card when we are talking about summoned creatures doesn't deserve to be DM and would get replaced in our group.




Or, he is simply someone who understands the difference between "evil" and "not-evil", and that sometimes avoiding evil acts means that you cannot simply do things that are convenient.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 8, 2004)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> No, you did not understand the point from your response here.




No, I understood it, your problem with my response appears to be that I reject it as a viable argument of any kind, as it is based upon a patently silly premise.



> The point was that in "real combat", a combat sequence that could be done with a "cleave manuever through an opponent" should also be possible without an opponent standing there. You should be able to make the exact same set of combat moves, regardless of whether someone is standing there or not to "cleave through".




And we aren't talking about "real combat", which makes your attempts to analogize to it even sillier. The ideas that you can show a game mnechanic is broken by inventing actions outsied of the scope of the game rules and "prove" that a rule is silly, because you could break that rule if you invented a new one is, quite simply, an empty argument.



> Since that attack is not possible with a cleave maneuver if nobody is there, it shouldn't be possible with a cleave maneuver if somebody is there, specifically in the AoO case where an attack on the primary character is possible or not dependent on the actions of a secondary character.




But the question is why not? If you accept the existence of the Cleave maneuver to _begin with_, then why should this special maneuver and training not applicable in that situation, even when it is not applicable when you fake an attack against an imaginary opponent?



> I hope this made it clearer for you, but I suspect not.




Your examples are entirely nonsensical. As is your argument.


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 8, 2004)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> I suspect you would lose that argument, since it is based on a specious premise.




Doubtful. It wouldn't be the first time that we ran a DM out on a rail for being a moron.

However, it is rare because most of our DMs tend to be fairly intelligent and understand the reason for Summon spells in a game.



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> But there is a difference between summoning allies to aid you, and summoning allies with the express purpose of killing them yourself. In that one is evil and the other is not. Just as, for example, a general sending his soliders into harm's way and, as a side effect some of them getting killed is not evil, but his taking a handgun and shooting them in the head would be.




Summon Monster creatures are extraplanar. If they are "killed", they are not harmed, they merely go back to their plane of existance. No evil in killing them.

Arcane Construct creatures are not living in the traditional sense. If they are killed, they merely evaporate back into the ectoplasm from which they were crafted. No evil in killing them.

The only core spells that acquire allies that could possibly be used for evil are the Summon Nature's Ally and Giant Vermin type spells.

However, since the discussion so far has been about the Summon Monster spell, your alignment argument is invalid.

Now, if the extraplanar creatures in your campaign can be actually hurt or killed, you are basically going outside the reason WotC made the creatures from Summon Monster extraplanar in the first place (i.e. to get beyond the alignment/evil issue).



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Or, he is simply someone who understands the difference between "evil" and "not-evil", and that sometimes avoiding evil acts means that you cannot simply do things that are convenient.




No, you are someone who does not understand the difference between evil acts and non-evil ones.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Dec 8, 2004)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> The point was that in "real combat", a combat sequence that could be done with a "cleave manuever through an opponent" should also be possible without an opponent standing there. You should be able to make the exact same set of combat moves, regardless of whether someone is standing there or not to "cleave through".




Only if you subscribe to a particularly limited cinematic view of what "Cleave" means.

You perpetually insist, in your examples, that Cleave means "I hit you so hard my sword goes all the way through you and into him."

If such is the case, why can't I take an AoO against an imaginary opponent who is running away, have my sword go through him (which would be pretty easy, considering that he isn't there!), and into you?

Obviously, this doesn't make sense.

The problem, however, is *not* with the rules, but rather with your very, very, obscenely limited cinematic view of Cleave.  In other words, you have a problem with the mechanics of Cleave based on your own non-mechanical explanation of the feat (after all, the rules text of the feat does *not* specify that you must hack through someone to attack someone else).



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> If you deal a creature enough damage to make it drop (typically by dropping it to below 0 hit points or killing it), you get an immediate, extra melee attack against another creature within reach.




In other words, you read the feat as:



			
				Dad said:
			
		

> If you deal a creature enough damage to make it drop (typically by dropping it to below 0 hit points or killing it), *you are able to continue the same swing that killed it, and so* you get an immediate, extra melee attack against another creature within reach.




Now, replace the flavor text you have added (bolded, hack through someone into someone else)with the following flavor text (equally as valid, given the above rules):



			
				PoE said:
			
		

> *You are particularly adept at seizing momentum changes and controlling your battlespace when in combat with more than one potential enemy.*  If you deal a creature enough damage to make it drop (typically by dropping it to below 0 hit points or killing it), *you are able to make effective use of the opportunity thus provided.  Y*ou get an immediate, extra melee attack against another creature within reach.




There.  Now you don't have the swinging at imaginary creatures problem.

Moreover, the DM has greater flexibility in describing the cinematic results of the Cleave - whether it's on an AoO or not.  In your case, every Cleave is a mighty single swing that cuts off Bobby's head and ends up in Steve.

In my case, that's *one* possible interpretation, but it need not be the only one.  Joe the Cleaver grabs Bobby's shoulder with his left hand and runs him through with his rapier; Bobby drops his blade from nerveless fingers and, as his life fades, feels himself being tossed sideways, interfering with Steve's blade.  Joe seizes the opening thus provided and manages to draw a red line along Steve's arm.

Alternatively:  Jak fumbles in his pouch for the healing draught he knows is in there - _somewhere_.  Unfortunately for him, that moment's distraction is all Hrogar needs, and the dwarf's axe shears through Jak's buckler and the arm beneath it.  Jak screams in pain, blood spraying from the grisly wound and covering the face of Derik, partially blinding him.  Derik quickly shifts his grip and wipes the blood from his eyes, but in that instant, Hrogar is on him, and the first and last thing he sees through his newly-cleared eyes is a descending axe blade.

Cleave and Cleave on AoO.

Allowed in RAW, and Allowed Cinematically, as well.


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 8, 2004)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> The problem, however, is *not* with the rules, but rather with your very, very, obscenely limited cinematic view of Cleave.




Who says the game has to be cinematic?

Why is it WRONG to have a game that is less cinematic and more plausible?


Also, nobody has yet illustrated that AoO Cleave is necessarily cinematic whereas not having it is not? The cinematic aspect of it is moot. AoO Cleave is just a game mechanic which is allowed, or not allowed.

The cinematic aspect of it is merely a rationale for wanting it or not.

Just like the unfairness aspect of it is merely a rationale for wanting it or not.


But, the only balance reason for having it or not having so far is the one of allowing the Summoned Monster AoO Cleave tactic. If you find this tactic unbalancing, you can limit it by not allowing it (which is more subjective because it allows AoO Cleave at some times and not at other times), or you can limit the tactic by not allowing additional attacks with an AoO (which is more objective and consistent).


----------



## Lasher Dragon (Dec 8, 2004)

Nicely put Patryn.... thank the gods this argument is over.  LOL Yeah right, I'm sure someone else has some nonexistent-combatant argument simmering... or the "It's not fair, it's not fair" crowd will jump back in hehehe


----------



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

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> I suspect you would lose that argument, since it is based on a specious premise.




DMs who are so quick to wield the Anarchic Sledgehammer of Arbitrariness are not ones to judge whether an argument is specious.


----------



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

Randal_Dundragon said:
			
		

> After reading through all the posts and as a player who actually likes to play fighters i must say why pick on the fughter.  Cleave is normally only taken by a fighter due to most other classes having better feats to take.  So why nurf the fighter by disallowing his feat to work.  At higher levels this feats normaaly becomes usless so let us fighters have our fun at low levels before we nearly become a mobile shield and hit point sink.




It is a fair point, but my personal experience is disallowing AoO + Cleave would help the fighter by not getting him killed in odd desperate situations.  I have seen this come up a couple times, in actual play.  That my be a peculiarity of my gaming group.

Your mileage is likely to vary if you have a Reach + Combat Reflexes build.


----------



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

Agreed, Lasher.  Getting bent out of shape when a PC is rude to a summoned creature seems a little over the top.  Who cares about fairness to a summoned creature?

I think Patryn's argument is fine and logical.  But there seem to be a number in the AoO + Cleave camp who would disagree.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 8, 2004)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> DMs who are so quick to wield the Anarchic Sledgehammer of Arbitrariness are not ones to judge whether an argument is specious.




So, you think it is perfectly okay to summon a creature for the express purpose of killing it? I'm left to wonder where your code of morality finds its roots, and to marvel at the depravity that must exist at its core.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Dec 8, 2004)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Who says the game has to be cinematic?
> 
> Why is it WRONG to have a game that is less cinematic and more plausible?




It doesn't, and it isn't.

However, you are basing your opposition to "Cleaving on an AoO" on a particular, non-rule-based, cinematic (as in, "flavor text the DM says when my character does something") reading of the feat.  You then claim that, because this particular point of view leads to undesirable results, the combination itself is undesirable.

Therefore, the problem is not necessarily with the rules itself, but rather with the cinematic reading you have added to the rules.

In other words:

1. A + B = Allowed by RAW
2. A + B + C = Stupid

Therefore, A + B = Stupid

where A is Cleave, B is AoO, and C is your particular cinematic formulation.

It's pretty easy to see, however, that this sort of logic doesn't really hold water.

Get rid of C, because it's C that's causing you problems, not A or B.

I don't expect a position switch at this late date, however.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 8, 2004)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Doubtful. It wouldn't be the first time that we ran a DM out on a rail for being a moron.
> 
> However, it is rare because most of our DMs tend to be fairly intelligent and understand the reason for Summon spells in a game.




In other words, your DMs seem to have ruled that "whatever is convenient for the players is not evil". Which seems to be the only ruling you will accept on an alignment issue.



> Summon Monster creatures are extraplanar. If they are "killed", they are not harmed, they merely go back to their plane of existance. No evil in killing them.




Other than the fact that you have summoned a creature for the express purpose of killing it. The ends don't justify the means is a basic tenet of a good alignment. Summoning a celestial creature is not evil, intentionally killing a celestial creature is. Summoning a fiendish creature is an evil act, summoning it just to kill it further compounds the evil nature of the act. In other words, summoning a creature, for the express purpose of killing it, is always an evil act, no matter what the eventual consequences to the creature are.

Turn it around: suppose someone from another plane summoned you, simply to kill you. Would that be okay just because you would reform a day later? Or would the pain and suffering caused you while you were being hacked apart be wrong?

Further, would you expect a benevolent deity to be perfectly okay with such a use for his celestial charges?



> Now, if the extraplanar creatures in your campaign can be actually hurt or killed, you are basically going outside the reason WotC made the creatures from Summon Monster extraplanar in the first place (i.e. to get beyond the alignment/evil issue).




Except that they clearly can be hurt by the rules as written: during the process when they are killed you are hurting them, intentionally, for your own convenience. I'm not sure if you can come up with a more clear definition of "evil" than intentionally inflicting pain upon creatures solely for your own convenience.



> No, you are someone who does not understand the difference between evil acts and non-evil ones.




I am left to wonder at the depraved system of morality used in your games where intentionally summoning creatures solely for the purpose of inflicting pain and death (even if that death is temporary) upon them is considered to be AOK.


----------



## Philip (Dec 8, 2004)

Lasher Dragon said:
			
		

> Nicely put Patryn.... thank the gods this argument is over.  LOL Yeah right, I'm sure someone else has some nonexistent-combatant argument simmering... or the "It's not fair, it's not fair" crowd will jump back in hehehe




Well, since the thread is still running, and this is surely a challenge.  

How about the wizard using an illusion instead of summoning an actual creature?  Make the illusion one that looks like your opponents and yell at your (stupid) fighter. Watch out Bob, more of them coming up from behind!

Then make your illusion draw an AoO, react by letting it drop and thus creating a Cleave!

There you have it, you own actual non-existant creature, and since its not actually alive, you have no more problems with alignments, killing summoned creatures etc. Besides the illusion does not think and therefore does not have enemies or friends, but your allies think of them as enemies, and your enemies will think of them as allies. At least it should make the enemy vs. friends vs. neutral charts a lot easier to read. Hopefully.   

Alternately, just create an illusion of a clown who keeps on tripping and standing up next to the fighter, and let him enjoy al that AoO and Cleaving goodness, while you have a laught at the nice cinematic effect it produces.


----------



## Lasher Dragon (Dec 8, 2004)

That's an interesting idea Philip... certainly much more feasible to me than summoning in astral/celestial creatures to be put to slaughter. At least there won't be any deities pissed off in the process of destroying an illusion. I wonder if that would work? The clown idea would have to be cast over & over though, as soon as the fighter chops it down it's done.


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 8, 2004)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Other than the fact that you have summoned a creature for the express purpose of killing it. The ends don't justify the means is a basic tenet of a good alignment. Summoning a celestial creature is not evil, intentionally killing a celestial creature is. Summoning a fiendish creature is an evil act, summoning it just to kill it further compounds the evil nature of the act. In other words, summoning a creature, for the express purpose of killing it, is always an evil act, no matter what the eventual consequences to the creature are.
> 
> Turn it around: suppose someone from another plane summoned you, simply to kill you. Would that be okay just because you would reform a day later? Or would the pain and suffering caused you while you were being hacked apart be wrong?
> 
> Further, would you expect a benevolent deity to be perfectly okay with such a use for his celestial charges?




You just don't get it, do you?

WotC PURPOSELY made Summon Monster spells extraplanar to avoid the very morality issue that you are making.

It CAN be immoral to do this in a game based on campaign, but they designed the spell so that it doesn't have to be. That is the default.


Also, you are arguing game morality over summoned creatures in a game where a party of characters wipe out a tribe of Orcs and then steal their stuff.

Are you saying that the good PCs in YOUR campaigns never did this type of thing?

Are you saying that every time they did, YOUR DM hit them with an alignment violation?

This is called MURDER and THEFT.

Are you saying that the characters that you have played have never killed a neutral creature and have never taken its stuff?

Cut the rest of us a break.

Get off your high moral horse because you sound silly on it.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Dec 8, 2004)

That might work, Phillip, but only if the illusion is partially real.  Otherwise, you're back to swinging at imaginary foes again.  

Also, most illusions don't allow for that powerful a degree of interaction, so you'd likely need a custom-researched spell.


----------



## Vlos (Dec 8, 2004)

Ok, Philip hit a point.

Ok, now take a fighter with Cleave, Improved Cleave, Combat Reflexes. All SRD feats. (assuming high dex for CR +4)

Now summon 4 illusioned minions. Have then charge and attack (using bare hands) the fighter who is standing next to the big bad guy.

Ok all charge at same time. # = illusion, P1 = Player, BBEG = Bigbadevilguy
#1 Charge, P1 AoO, #1 die, P1 Cleave (BBEG), 
#2 Charge, P1 AoO, #2 die, P1 Cleave (BBEG), 
#3 Charge, P1 AoO, #3 die, P1 Cleave (BBEG), 
#4 Charge, P1 AoO, #4 die, P1 Cleave (BBEG), 

And even if they don't charge, attacking unarmed would also provoke AoO.

Or take an illusion of a swarm of evil kobolds (unarmed) that charge out and attack the fighter around the guy, how many small creatures can surround a medium, with a BBEG taking up one side? Illusion is very believeable because a high level fighter can easily kill kobolds in a single strike.


For the Gms that have players who argue for this, have a large/huge creature use the same tactic. How many kobolds can surround a dragon? With its reach included...


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 8, 2004)

Vlos said:
			
		

> Ok, Philip hit a point.
> 
> Ok, now take a fighter with Cleave, Improved Cleave, Combat Reflexes. All SRD feats. (assuming high dex for CR +4)
> 
> Now summon 4 illusioned minions. Have then charge and attack (using bare hands) the fighter who is standing next to the big bad guy.




Which would be interesting if destroying an illusion triggered the Cleave feat. The "official" ruling (for what its worth) is that it doesn't.


----------



## Lasher Dragon (Dec 8, 2004)

Personally I would say that if the fighter failed his will save (yeah, I know, hard to do LOL) and believed in the illusion, then I don't see why he wouldn't get his cleave.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 8, 2004)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> The attitude of most Americans before 9/11 was that they did NOT have ill will towards Al Qaida. But, that did not stop Al Qaida from deciding that all Americans were their enemies.




They were incorrect at the time, though.  The only decision they could make was that _they_ would be the enemies of all Americans.  They couldn't simply decide that all Americans were their enemies.  Only all Americans can decide that.

Whether they believed it or not doesn't make it true.  

-Hyp.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 8, 2004)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Which would be interesting if destroying an illusion triggered the Cleave feat. The "official" ruling (for what its worth) is that it doesn't.




Now, while I disagree with and do not use this ruling, this is the text from the current Main FAQ:

*Are the multiple figments from a mirror image spell
legal targets for cleaving? That is, if you have the Cleave
feat and you hit an image and destroy it, can you then
attack another target within reach (such as another figment
from the spell or perhaps the spell user)? What about
Whirlwind Attack? Can you use this feat to attack all the
images around the spell user? What about spells that allow
multiple targets, such as magic missile? Can you aim magic
missiles at different images?*

_For all intents and purposes, the figments from a foe’s
mirror image spell are your foes. You aim your spells and your
attacks at the figments just as though they were real creatures.
Any spell you can aim at a creature you can aim at an image.
When you use a spell that allows you to select multiple
creatures as targets, such as magic missile, you can choose
multiple images as targets.

If you have the Cleave or Great Cleave feat, destroying an
image with a melee attack triggers the feat (and your cleaving
attack might well strike the spell user instead of another
image). Likewise, you can use Whirlwind Attack to strike at
any image you can reach. A Whirlwind Attack almost certainly
will allow you to strike once at the spell user._

So the FAQ rules that destroying an Illusion (Figment) is a valid trigger for Cleave.

-Hyp.


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 8, 2004)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> However, you are basing your opposition to "Cleaving on an AoO" on a particular, non-rule-based, cinematic (as in, "flavor text the DM says when my character does something") reading of the feat.  You then claim that, because this particular point of view leads to undesirable results, the combination itself is undesirable.




Actually, you are mistaken about my opposition.

I could really care less about the cinematic issue. I just brought up the fact in this thread that the cinematic issue doesn't make sense to me and I tried to explain why.


The real issues for me are:

1) This can be abused with the Summon Monster tactic. Just look at what people are discussing now: how to do the tactic with illusions to avoid any alignment issue (which btw, they can do with Astral Constructs anyway).

2) It is inherently unfair that a character can get attacked when an ally is within 25 feet and foobars whereas he cannot get attacked if an ally is not in the area at all. This sounds totally nonsensical and unfair. To me.

Also, in real life, I am heavily motivated by fairness, so concepts in the game that do not seem fair are automatically suspect for me.

As Thanee stated:

"I don't think, that many people here consider it "destroying the game", but rather something, which - even though it certainly does not come up often - just doesn't feel right"


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Dec 8, 2004)

DaDad said:
			
		

> Actually, you are mistaken about my opposition.




If you say so ...



			
				DaDad said:
			
		

> 1) This can be abused with the Summon Monster tactic.




I don't really see it as "abuse" ...



			
				DaDad said:
			
		

> 2) It is inherently unfair that a character can get attacked when an ally is within 25 feet and foobars whereas he cannot get attacked if an ally is not in the area at all.




Yep, it's damned unfair that your ally lost his arm and sprayed blood in your eyes, momentarily distracting you.

Yep, it's damned unfair that your opponent, who's spent a great deal of time and training in order to take advantage of such situations, was able to get some free whacks on you. 

Yep, it's damned unfair that, *had your ally not been there at all*, you'd never have gotten that particular spray of blood in your eyes, would not have had to take your concentration off your foe for just the moment required to wipe them clean, would not have been thusly distracted, and would not have recieved an axe to the head for another couple seconds.

On the other hand, it's also damned unfair that you aren't a Grand Wizard, able to destroy your enemies with a thought and a gesture.

I don't buy the "Fairness" argument, as you can see.

Can the PCs do it?  Yes.

Can the NPCs do it?  Yes.

It is, therefore, "Fair," by any definition of the word that matters.


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 8, 2004)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Yep, it's damned unfair that your ally lost his arm and sprayed blood in your eyes, momentarily distracting you.




But that is not what is happening here. I am not distracted enough to lower my guard. If I were, anyone in combat could take advantage of it (i.e. get an AoO on me). So your "cinematic" example here is moot.

Additionally, I have a problem that the disappating Astral Construct 20 feet away is distracting you when it is around the corner and not even visible to you, but it disappating does not distract anyone else on the battlefield.

There is a bit of unfairness about that, regardless of your opinion on it. YMMV.



			
				Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> I don't buy the "Fairness" argument, as you can see.
> 
> Can the PCs do it?  Yes.
> 
> ...




And that's fine for you.

It doesn't make it fair to everyone, it just makes it fair for you.

That doesn't make you right and us wrong, it just means we disagree on the concept of fairness.


----------



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

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> So, you think it is perfectly okay to summon a creature for the express purpose of killing it? I'm left to wonder where your code of morality finds its roots, and to marvel at the depravity that must exist at its core.




That is worth a laugh!

With a views regarding animal sacrifice that are clearly so wildly out of the mainstream for typical ancient/quasi-medieval/fantasy worlds, I'm left to wonder if, in your campaign world, the paladin organizations known as PETA and ALF hunt down those "depraved" Zeus worshippers and YHWH cultists who kill animals in their blashphemous religious rituals.

I would suggest you actually sit down and read the PHB section on summonings.  With respect to the rules, a summoned creature and a normal, live & kicking critter are very different things.

And read the section on alignments while you have your book in hand.

Glad to be of help.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Dec 8, 2004)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> But that is not what is happening here. I am not distracted enough to lower my guard. If I were, anyone in combat could take advantage of it (i.e. get an AoO on me). So your "cinematic" example here is moot.




Incorrect.

*IF* you were really, really distracted by the blood in your eyes, then yes, you'd provoke an AoO from everyone (say, distracted enough to need a Heal check).  But you're not really distracted all that much.

Instead, only someone who has *specifically trained* to take advantage of such small gaps in defense can benefit.

As in, only someone who's picked up the Cleave feat can benefit from this momentary lapse.

Or, to put it another way, you *are* provoking a special kind of AoO, one which only a person with a special version of Combat Reflexes can respond to.



> Additionally, I have a problem that the disappating Astral Construct 20 feet away is distracting you when it is around the corner and not even visible to you, but it disappating does not distract anyone else on the battlefield.




You are both threatening the same spearman, therefore his spear point is whirling about, parrying both your swings and those of the astral construct on the other side of the wall.  

Suddenly, he doesn't have to worry about the astral construct any more, allowing him to redouble his efforts against you.  

Suddenly, that spear point - which, following his normal pattern, should have been about to swing away a poke at something else - is instead _coming right back at your face_.  

There's been a momentum shift in the battle, caused by the fact that the spearman is not only no longer actively engaged with the construct, but that he no longer even needs to keep an eye on it, and can instead focus his attention solely on *you*.



> There is a bit of unfairness about that, regardless of your opinion on it. YMMV.




So, if there's a "bit of unfairness" there, regardless of my opinion, how can MMV?

That's a contradictory statement, sir.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Dec 9, 2004)

Abraxas said:
			
		

> Just as acceptable and as lacking in consequences as sending summoned creatures to their death because your character needs a distraction.




Summoned creatures don't have to die to be a distraction


----------



## Storyteller01 (Dec 9, 2004)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I would tell such a DM to go take a hike and easily convince my fellow intelligent gamers that we need a new DM.




WOW!! Lot's of hostility over a message board debate!! 

Let's not get insultng here (sorry if this was misinterpretted).

It's just a debate!!


----------



## Abraxas (Dec 9, 2004)

> *IF* you were really, really distracted by the blood in your eyes, then yes, you'd provoke an AoO from everyone (say, distracted enough to need a Heal check). But you're not really distracted all that much.
> 
> Instead, only someone who has *specifically trained* to take advantage of such small gaps in defense can benefit.
> 
> ...



So anyone next to the guy with blood in his eyes that has combat refelxes and one or both cleave feats should be able to attack him also.




> Summoned creatures don't have to die to be a distraction.



They don't have to die to get an AoO cleave attack either.



> So, you think it is perfectly okay to summon a creature for the express purpose of killing it? I'm left to wonder where your code of morality finds its roots, and to marvel at the depravity that must exist at its core.



ROTFLMAO


----------



## Storyteller01 (Dec 9, 2004)

Abraxas said:
			
		

> The characters can be 30 feet away from each other and you can still AoO/Cleave.
> 
> ...............A
> X X X X X
> ...




F attacks A. B closes on F, seeing an exposed back and presumably easy target. F pivots on the balls of his/her feet, thumping b in the head with the butt end of said guisarme. Won't warrant the same damage (would actaully be something closer to a club) but it is a good example, and often used as a martial tactic. 

This may cause problems with Two weapons fighting rulings, but that's another thread. 


As for CLeaving on horseback, I would tend to agree that guisarme could not be used to cleave (to unwieldy, since it was probably used as a lance, unless the fighter wasn't using his hands to control the horse. Even then, the fighter lacks stability). Swords are another matter


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Dec 9, 2004)

Abraxas said:
			
		

> So anyone next to the guy with blood in his eyes that has combat refelxes and one or both cleave feats should be able to attack him also.




No, you can only take advantage of the "momentum change" if you caused it, for the same reason that no one - including the "No AoO on Cleave" people - gets to make a Cleave attempt if someone else kills something you're threatening.  It's one of those split second things.

However, I can see a potentially interesting new feat coming out of this, granting someone the ability to make an AoO whenever an enemy they're threatening is dropped ... Prereqs: Cleave and Combat Reflexes, usable once per round, etc ...  _Reactive Cleave_, maybe?  Mechanically similar to the Rogue's Opportunist ability?

Also, don't deliberately stretch an illustrative analogy too far, mmkay?  I swear, the truest words ever not spoken were when someone posted, "Using an analogy on the internet is like saying, 'Deliberately misinterpret me.'"


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Dec 9, 2004)

_I enjoy double posting.  _


----------



## Storyteller01 (Dec 9, 2004)

Okay... 

So far as I can tell, this arguement revolves around the nerfing of CLeave in specific situations...

1) the summoning creatures/bag o' puppies tactic: 
    Looks like that is pretty much up in the air. By the RAW, it is technically legal (dependant on your DM's definition of 'enemy'). From the higher powers stand point, it is dependant on the views of your deity (which goes back to the DM). I do have some questions on this, and please think beyond the RAW (since I have be given and fulfilled requests on making cinematic/real world sense of a written rule interpretation).

a) if a creature comes to your aid, is it really an enemy?
b) if a wizard attacks you with summoned creatures to gain the advantage, are you realy better off, especially if they DO hit (natural 20's are still out there).
c) if yur deity allows for such sacrifices or uses of their minions, can you give me an example of hitting an ally personally (with your own melee weapon) to gain some advantage?
Please be as specific as possible.

2) The targets did not know about the other.
Again, this is dependant on the DM, but IMHO, the question should be 'what did the fighter perceive, and how are they controlling the situation?'. 

3) Reach weapons
Again, up in the air. I've seen (as have many of you out there) martail arts expos where practitioners used 10' Bo staves and chain whips to striking effect (yea, I know, by the RAW you can't Cleave with a whip, but a spiked chain works in a similar manner).

4)It doesn't seem fair
That's between the DM and the players. Personally, I'd much rather deal with the fighter being able to CLeave my party to heck and back, than worry about fair. More of a challenge that way 

5) It doesn't make sense, cinematically, realistically, or visually.

For this, I would ask those with real experience of some kind (none of us have the experience to be 20th level fighters, but still...) to give us a situation that they have been in, and whether this tactic did or did not work. Granted, these accounts will be biased by perspective, but it should give an a decent overall view as to what works on average.

if such an example is given, please don't rebuttal with 'said person does not have the CLeave feat' or some other mechanical arguement. Given the abstract nature of game we really don't know if they do or don't. My point is to gain a series of examples, then use said info to see if the above examples (I'm behind a door, yet someone tripping behind the wall gets me killed) are or are not possible.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Dec 9, 2004)

Heh, I wonder if this thing here can get even more funny by the addition of the words "Great Cleave"


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 9, 2004)

Storyteller01 said:
			
		

> 3) Ranged weapons




Reach weapons, not ranged weapons.  A Cleave is a melee attack.



> (yea, I know, by the RAW you can't Cleave with a whip...)




In 3E, you couldn't, since an attack with a whip was a ranged attack, not a melee attack.

But in 3.5, Cleaving with a whip is perfectly legal.

-Hyp.


----------



## Scion (Dec 9, 2004)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> However, I can see a potentially interesting new feat coming out of this, granting someone the ability to make an AoO whenever an enemy they're threatening is dropped ... Prereqs: Cleave and Combat Reflexes, usable once per round, etc ...  _Reactive Cleave_, maybe?  Mechanically similar to the Rogue's Opportunist ability?




Check out the prc Tactical Soldier in the minis handbook. Delayed cleave allows him to take a cleave if someone knocks down the guy he last hit as an aoo.


----------



## Abraxas (Dec 9, 2004)

> Also, don't deliberately stretch an illustrative analogy too far, mmkay? I swear, the truest words ever not spoken were when someone posted, "Using an analogy on the internet is like saying, 'Deliberately misinterpret me.'"



I didn't, mmkay?
Your momentum comments came after the second quote, mmkay?
You seemed to be saying that the distraction should allow a special kind of AoO, mmkay?
I was noting that it should then help another combatant with the same feats, mmkay?

Sorry about the sarcasm, but the condescending "mmkay" just irks me.
We disagree, I'm cool with that, no need to be condescending.

The problem with your analogy is that the distration of a second opponent can end for numerous reasons other than that opponent being dropped by our AoO/cleaving buddy.  Why doesn't he suddenly get to double his efforts against his remaining opponent and get a free attack then?

In addition you're creating an ingame effect that doesn't normally occur.  One character can be attacked by numerous opponents and as long as they don't flank him they cause no distraction in game terms.  He fights equally well against all of them, why wouldn't they fight equally well against him regardless of the number of other opponents?

You can come up with as many scenarios as you like to describe why the AoO/cleave should occur - I don't think they're very reasonable, given they would apply in so many other situations also.




> So far as I can tell, this arguement revolves around the nerfing of CLeave in specific situations...



Actually it is only in one situation - when one would get an extra attack against a foe that didn't provoke an AoO.  Everything else was just examples showing a possible abuse.  Plus, given the FAQ answer about figments, you don't even have to tread the "Is it morally right" path.

As for the attacking someone on your side to get an advantage - an analogous event happens all the time in games I have played in.  The specific situation usually revolves around someone having immunity, or a high resistance, to a specific energy type grappling and pinning an opponent.  The two are then blasted by the casters with that energy type knowing it won't do much if anything to our buddy, but the bad guy doesn't get his reflex save and gets hammered.  Heck, my rogues have often let themselves be blasted while I keep opponents bottled up because I know I probably won't fail my reflex save and have evasion.

There is a problem with asking for real experience - no one I know of has any experience with allies that can't really die.



> Heh, I wonder if this thing here can get even more funny by the addition of the words "Great Cleave"



No but if you bring up Supreme Cleave it'll become a laugh riot.

OK, now I'm gonna go over to meta and ask why I can't access any of the drop down menus that control formatting and the addition of smilies n stuff.  Those little buggers really help set a posts tone.


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 9, 2004)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Incorrect.
> 
> *IF* you were really, really distracted by the blood in your eyes, then yes, you'd provoke an AoO from everyone (say, distracted enough to need a Heal check).  But you're not really distracted all that much.
> 
> ...




Except that in a cinematic explanation like yours, someone with Cleave "throws blood into the eyes" of whomever he wants to within 5 feet because he can pick who to cleave, regardless of the situation (them having a Shield spell to stop it, them being incorporeal, them being part of a Mirror Image spell, etc.).

Not only that, he throws blood in the eyes of whomever he wants to in a 10 foot radius if he is using a Spiked Chain, even if they have cover from someone else.

Plus, if someone else is trained in Cleave, they CANNOT take advantage of those momentary lapses.

Are you starting to comprehend how ludicrous cinematic explanations of game mechanics are? They lend nothing to a reasonable discussion.


Another problem with the people who try to justify game mechanics with cinematics is that they tend to be "rules cheerleaders", regardless of what rule we are talking about.

For example, if the Cleave rule was "You can only use Cleave on your turn", chances are good that YOU would be using DIFFERENT cinematic explanations for why NOT being able to Cleave with AoO is a good thing.

This is a pointless exercise on your part. It proves nothing and in fact, illustrates that balance and fun are the ultimate measuring sticks for the quality of rules and game mechanics, not cinematics.

Cinematic explanations of any rule are a waste of bandwidth.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Dec 9, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Reach weapons, not ranged weapons.  A Cleave is a melee attack.




Sorry. Tend to type faster than I think...


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Dec 9, 2004)

DaDad said:
			
		

> Cinematic explanations of any rule are a waste of bandwidth.




Then cinematic objections to any rule - and "It's not fair!" is a cinematic objection, at heart - are equally a waste of bandwidth.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Dec 9, 2004)

Abraxas said:
			
		

> There is a problem with asking for real experience - no one I know of has any experience with allies that can't really die.




Nope, but everyone here can think of a situation where a buddy can be taken out of the fight (crippled, maimed, etc.). An abstract way of looking at reaching 0 hp, but it is an abstract system 

It's not how the allie is incapacitated so much as why? If it's okay to kill a summoned creature for an AoO, why not a fellow player? You can always resurrect them later (depending on the campaign, of course).


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 9, 2004)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Then cinematic objections to any rule - and "It's not fair!" is a cinematic objection, at heart - are equally a waste of bandwidth.




True, but balance explanations are not.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Dec 9, 2004)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Cinematic explanations of any rule are a waste of bandwidth.




So give a real time explaination, either for or against. Help solve the dilemma (if it can be)


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 9, 2004)

Storyteller01 said:
			
		

> So give a real time explaination, either for or against. Help solve the dilemma (if it can be)




There is no solution to the dilemma.

Some people are pro AoO Cleave.

Some people are against.

I do quite firmly believe that if the rule was that AoO Cleave was not allowed, some of the people for it would be against it and nearly none of the people against it would change their minds (merely because some people like to follow the rules, regardless of what those rules are).

But, that does not resolve the issue.

For me, it is a balance and fairness issue.

For others, it is not.

We have basically beaten this horse about as much as we can.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Dec 9, 2004)

Abraxas said:
			
		

> ?
> 
> As for the attacking someone on your side to get an advantage - an analogous event happens all the time in games I have played in.  The specific situation usually revolves around someone having immunity, or a high resistance, to a specific energy type grappling and pinning an opponent.  The two are then blasted by the casters with that energy type knowing it won't do much if anything to our buddy, but the bad guy doesn't get his reflex save and gets hammered.  Heck, my rogues have often let themselves be blasted while I keep opponents bottled up because I know I probably won't fail my reflex save and have evasion.




but you attacked knowing your ally has a good chance of living through the experience. When have any of your fellow players ever said "hit me, kill me (bring me down to 0 hp), and get that sucker with an AoO!"

It's a different situation when the target has little or no chance of surviving/remaning a viable combatant.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Dec 9, 2004)

Abraxas said:
			
		

> You can come up with as many scenarios as you like to describe why the AoO/cleave should occur - I don't think they're very reasonable, given they would apply in so many other situations also.




But that is the basis of combat training, taking what you know and applying it to as many situiations as possible. Sucks being a one trick pony 

Even so, give examples anyway. Everyone here is intelligent enough to decide what does or does not apply to the conversation.


----------



## Abraxas (Dec 9, 2004)

> But that is the basis of combat training, taking what you know and applying it to as many situiations as possible.



But are you going to give the character an advantage in those other situations because the scenarios you have created apply to situations other than AoO/cleave. If not, why? 



> but you attacked knowing your ally has a good chance of living through the experience. When have any of your fellow players ever said "hit me, kill me (bring me down to 0 hp), and get that sucker with an AoO!"
> 
> It's a different situation when the target has little or no chance of surviving/remaning a viable combatant.



Correct, it is different.  However, In my rouge character's case there was a real chance of the character actually dying and suffering all the negative effects that entails.  Summoned creatures on the other hand do, ultimately, survive.

If I knew for certain my character would come back with no detrimental effect in 24 hours, this tactic would probably be used in a pinch.  But thats simply not the case with a PC.  When PCs die they lose levels unless you have access to true ressurection.

Why would I do this when I have a spell that summons creatures perfectly happy to sacrifice themselves to do my bidding? I'd actually be interested in finding out how many of the people who think its so horrendous that your fighter buddy might off a summoned creature even worried about the fate of those creatures when thrown against the BBEG before getting into this discussion.

But that would be another thread.

No AoO/Cleave.

I'm outta here.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Dec 9, 2004)

Abraxas said:
			
		

> But are you going to give the character an advantage in those other situations because the scenarios you have created apply to situations other than AoO/cleave. If not, why?
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## Abraxas (Dec 9, 2004)

First a question for everyone who thinks you should be able to cleave off an AoO, do you allow fighters to make AoOs against characters who fail their save vs the Hold Person Spell. Given that the AoO/Cleave is always described as "the guy who didn't provoke the AoO was taken off guard for the briefest instant when his buddy was dropped allowing an opening in his otherwise competent defenses", wouldn't suddenly becoming helpless provoke an AoO also?

Now back to the strangely skewed topic at hand.

The odds of my failing the save was 3 out of 20.
The odds of me dying if I failed that save, well what're the odds of rolling 47 points or more on 12d6. Heck average damage would've made me a one shot drop.



> If you want to get picky (we all seem to), your players don't really die. They go (wait for it) to their deities respective planes! Those that don't have a deity still find their way to some outer plane. Heck, a creative spellcaster could try to use a summoning spell to summon a fallen comrad (hey, that rogue only had 5 HD. Can he come back with the fiendish template?)



Except summoned creatures go home, your PC friends leave home.
The summoned creatures are none the worse when they get home, your PC buddies lose a level if the come back home.
You don't have to agree that its all hunky dory but you do see the difference don't you?

In 1st edition you could summon NPCs, however since you can't summon specific creatures with the summoning spells now you'd have to research your own unique spell. At that point I'd say go for it - Assuming your dead PC had a celestial/fiendish template before he died or you institute a house rule that you gain said template after you died. The character isn't a PC anymore so no worries. Have at them.




> What's the difference? If it can't be done within normal combat, why allow it for this set of spells?



It can. However,
1) The other PCs usually have too many hit points to drop and make the tactic viable.
2) Players are attached to their characters.
3) Unlike summoned creatures, offing the PC sets the PC back.

There is a difference between whacking your friends character and whacking a fiendish weasel summoned to fight and die any ways.

There isn't a difference between your buddy whacking the summoned creatures to take down the BBEG and the BBEG whacking them while they try to take him down.

Either you're worried about the summoned creatures dying or you're not. You can't have it both ways.

Your turn - Would you send a group of 3rd graders to attack a psychotic axe murderer so the police can get close without getting hurt?  If not, how can your character summon a bunch of piddly 1 HD critters to attack a 9th level ogre barbarian?

Its a game, things work differently in a game.

C'ya


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Dec 9, 2004)

Abraxas said:
			
		

> First a question for everyone who thinks you should be able to cleave off an AoO, do you allow fighters to make AoOs against characters who fail their save vs the Hold Person Spell.




Generally, no, because the rules don't say that you provoke an AoO when you become helpless.

But then, I *do* think that "becoming helpless" *should* provoke an AoO.

So, if I had my druthers, I'd put that into the system.  However, I've found that this doesn't happen enough to warrant house ruling.

So, do you?  If not, why not?


----------



## billd91 (Dec 9, 2004)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> Agreed, Lasher.  Getting bent out of shape when a PC is rude to a summoned creature seems a little over the top.  Who cares about fairness to a summoned creature?




Who cares about fairness to summoned creatures? You see, that's the problem. Good characters tend to care about a lot of stuff including the infliction of unnecessary pain and suffering. If any good PC in my game were to regularly do this metagamey garbage of making main attacks against weak summoned critters in order to get an extra attack against the BBEG, they'd suffer an alignment shift even if the creatures are from the standard version of the spell. (It would also be a sure way to get me to Rule 0 the problem so that AoO + Cleave was out of bounds due to excessive abuse.) 
Good has certain responsibilities. If you can't live up to them, then you aren't good.


----------



## Joker (Dec 9, 2004)

It just won't stop.  It just won't freakin stop.

AAAAAAAH.

*head pops*

pop!


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 9, 2004)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> That is worth a laugh!




Only for those who have not actually looked up the definition of "good" and "evil" as those terms are used in the core rules.



> With a views regarding animal sacrifice that are clearly so wildly out of the mainstream for typical ancient/quasi-medieval/fantasy worlds, I'm left to wonder if, in your campaign world, the paladin organizations known as PETA and ALF hunt down those "depraved" Zeus worshippers and YHWH cultists who kill animals in their blashphemous religious rituals.




Except that we aren't talking about the morality of realistic Zeus worshippers and YHWH cultists, most of whom would not be classified as "good" using the D&D alignment system. We are talking about the D&D versions of morality as they apply to the alignments "good" and "evil". So, for example, we have this quote (from the SRD):



> _“Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others._





Exactly what is altruistic about summoning creatures to kill them? What part of summoning creatures to kill them displays a "respect for life"? What part indicates a "concern for the dignity of sentient beings" (which most summoned creatures qualify as). How is summoning something so you can kill it for your personal convenience a "personal sacrifice"?



> I would suggest you actually sit down and read the PHB section on summonings.  With respect to the rules, a summoned creature and a normal, live & kicking critter are very different things.




Yes, insofar as most creatures summoned by typ[ical D&D PCs are celestial in nature, making the intentional killing of them (even if it is a temporary condition) an inherently evil act. Or they are fiendish, which makes summoning them in the first place an inherently evil act. You aren't helping your case here.



> And read the section on alignments while you have your book in hand.




Yeah, I did. I think you need to brush up a bit there.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 9, 2004)

Abraxas said:
			
		

> There is a difference between whacking your friends character and whacking a fiendish weasel summoned to fight and die any ways.
> 
> There isn't a difference between your buddy whacking the summoned creatures to take down the BBEG and the BBEG whacking them while they try to take him down.
> 
> Either you're worried about the summoned creatures dying or you're not. You can't have it both ways.




Actually you can, since moral codes make this sort of distinction all the time.

You see, just as there is a difference between sending a soldier into battle where he might die, and shooting him in the head yourself, there is a difference between sending a summoned creature into battle where it might die and hacking it apart yourself.

Seeing the difference between the two elements of each of these hypotheticals is essentially one of the defining distinctions between "good" and "evil".


----------



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

Storm Raven,

Here is the important piece you seem to have missed from your readings of the PHB...



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Summoning: A summoning spell instantly brings a creature or object to a place you designate. When the spell ends or is dispelled, a summoned creature is instantly sent back to where it came from, but a summoned object is not sent back unless the spell description specifically indicates this. A summoned creature also goes away if it is killed or if its hit points drop to 0 or lower. *It is not really dead.* It takes 24 hours for the creature to reform, during which time it can’t be summoned again.[emphasis added]


----------



## Storyteller01 (Dec 9, 2004)

Abraxas said:
			
		

> Your turn - Would you send a group of 3rd graders to attack a psychotic axe murderer so the police can get close without getting hurt?  If not, how can your character summon a bunch of piddly 1 HD critters to attack a 9th level ogre barbarian?




Wouldn't summon 1 HD creatures, especially against said barbarian. Better uses for the spell slot


----------



## Abraxas (Dec 9, 2004)

> Wouldn't summon 1 HD creatures, especially against said barbarian. Better uses for the spell slot




LOL

Glad you always have the optimal spell prepared and ready   


Off the top of my head, Movie/TV shows/Books where someone attacks ally to gain advantage.

Speed - Keanu's character shoots his partner in the leg to take him out of a hostage situation.

Angel - police chick spikes through Angel to get the vampire behind him.

Elric - Moonglum lets Elric kill him to rejuvenate/restore/power up Elric.

See ya, gonna let everyone else play with this deceased equine.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 9, 2004)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> Here is the important piece you seem to have missed from your readings of the PHB...




A quote that doesn't impact the evil or non-evil nature of the situation. Summoning creatures simply to kill them yourself _even temporarily_ is an assault on the dignity of sentient beings. Summoning creatures simply to kill them yourself _even temporarily_ doesn't change the fact that you are willfully inflicting pain and suffering upon them for your personal convenience. 

Further, summoning a celestial creature to intentionally kill it _even temporarily_ is an evil act, since killing a celestial creature _even temporarily_ is an attack upon a holy thing, and hence, an inherently evil act. Summoning a fiendish creature is an evil act in and of itself, whether or not you kill it yourself.

By focusing on the "its not really dead" element, you miss the important element: intentionally inflicting pain and suffering _even temporarily_ for personal convenience is not a good act, and is, in fact, an evil act.


----------



## azmodean (Dec 9, 2004)

*just my 2 bits*

Cleave based on an AoO, sure
AoO provoked by friendly summoned creature, nope

But what if the magic user summons a creature and tells it to attack the fighter-type in question?  I think the spell says something about summoned creatures automatically attacking your enemies, so they know who the "good guys" are, therefore they won't attack friendly PCs even if ordered to do so, therefore they cannot provoke an AoO from the fighter type. *whew*

On the other hand, some of these "morality" arguments could be applied to other situations (using summoned creatures to set off traps, grapple enemies while you shoot them with Area spells), so I'll put in another 2 bits for that.  As quoted by Ridley's cohort, the summoned creatures are not "killed" by any action you take, they reform 24 hrs later on their home plane, none the worse for wear.  Effectively, if you "kill" a summoned creature, all you are killing is a spell, which carries no moral stigma.  Therefore I have no problem letting good clerics use summoned creatures in any way they desire(except attacking the party, see above).  Specifically addressing storm raven's argument:  If a good creature isn't allowed to cause the death of a summoned creature for their own convienience, then they wouldn't be allowed to summon a creature into any situation where said creature is likely to be killed, which is nearly all situations in which the spell will be used. (note, btw, that I'm not talking about the party directly attacking the summoned creature, but putting it in harm's way.  The rest of my argument shows why a good party would have no need to directly attack an allied summoned creature)

As far as wether cleave-on-AoO should be allowed or not, there seem to be two arguments: cenematic and game balance.
Cenematic: " it just doesn't make sense for X situation to occur." 
ok, this is a game, the activities portrayed therin take place in a fictional realm not necessarily subject to the same conditions as are present in our reality.  We're talking magic here people and that applies no less to the "mundane" classes of fighters and rogues than it does to the spellcasters.

game balance:  err. actually I haven't seen any game balance arguments, all I've see is people saying that it isn't "fair" that, in some situations an individual can become subject to an attack due to another individual provoking an AoO.  I don't see how this is any less fair than someone triggering a trap which ends up hurting someone else, or someone making too much noise and giving away the presence or location of the party.  If someone screws up and ends up hurting the rest of the party you need to chew them out for being stupid and/or plan around their inadequacies in the future.  Oh, and I hold evil groups to the same reasoning which prevents "sack of puppies" attack as I do good groups.  Namely allies don't provoke AoOs, therefore it never gets to the AoO/cleave point.

And just to be a hypocrite, here's some cenematic reasoning for cleave:  You are relying on your allies to cover you and/or to take up some of the attention of your enemy.  When one of them drops, there is a moment of opportunity while you are shifting your defense to adapt to the new tactical situation that an individual with cleave can take advantage of if they dropped the ally in question.  Why just that person?  because as the individual who delivered the blow, they are the first to realise that the target is going to drop, so they have an edge on everyone else.  This also addresses the situation where the dropped individual is nowhere near the target of the cleave attack.  The relationship between the two targets (AoO provoker and guy that gets cleaved to) is the individual performing the attack, now that the attacker has one less thing to worry about, they can make an unexpected move and catch anyone they threaten with a follow-up to the first attack.  Lastly, this also illustrates why an attacker cannot perform an AoO on an ally in order to gain a cleave attack on an enemy.  The ally does not threaten the attacker, so elliminating them does not change the combat situation in the favor of the attacker.

An important thing to remember here is that one attack does not necessarily correspond to one physical swing or thrust of a weapon.  A single attack may correspond to a number of feints, shifts of weight, stance changes, parray attempts, psudo-magical combat techniques, etc... which culminates in a single potential hit.  Therefore the AoO/cleave combo does not necessarily consist of a killing blow followed by a single strike at a different opponent (though I'll allow the player to describe it as such if they want to), it might be a subtle opening in a target's defenses which allows the combatant who is cleaving to make a series of actions which culminate in a potential hit.

Yea I'm long-winded, I know it.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 9, 2004)

Abraxas said:
			
		

> Elric - Moonglum lets Elric kill him to rejuvenate/restore/power up Elric.




Are you arguing that Elric is an example of a good aligned character?


----------



## Abraxas (Dec 9, 2004)

> Are you arguing that Elric is an example of a good aligned character?




Nope.  Was referring to Storyteller01's question about characters attacking allies to gain an advantage.

The Elric example has nothing to do with your morality arguments - As far as the game I play in goes you are wrong.  Doubly so if you aren't enforcing the unnecessary pain and suffering argument on uses of the spell such as setting off traps or using them to provide flanking when they can't actually injure the opponent.  Even more so when your neutral PC summoner can summon fiendish critters who are evil.  But you have fun playing your way and I'll have fun playing my way, cause we will never have to game together



> I think the spell says something about summoned creatures automatically attacking your enemies, so they know who the "good guys" are, therefore they won't attack friendly PCs even if ordered to do so




The spells say they automatically attack your enemies unless you can communicate with them, then you can command them to do other things - so you can have them attack your allies.


----------



## atom crash (Dec 9, 2004)

I do feel that allowing AoO+Cleave is a game balance issue, as well as a fairness issue. If I make a tactical decision and risk an extra attack (attack of opportunity) in order to perfrom some action that will benefit me, I don't expect that risk taken on my part to transfer to someone else as well. 

When I play chess and sacrifice a pawn to set up some tactical play, I don't expect my opponent to take an additional pawn as well.

An attack of opportunity, as put forth in the rules, is a special situation outside of the parameters of normal combat. It is, in effect, giving your opponent an extra attack in order to gain a benefit. To allow that opponent to Cleave after the AoO is in effect to give him an additional attack on someone who didn't pay the price (AoO), who didn't take the risk.

The game balance issue is that this fighter has received an extra attack outside of his normal turn.

If this combination was ever used against my character in a game, I'd be highly upset. I'd feel as if the player-DM contract had been breached by allowing an additional attack on me when I did nothing to place myself at risk.

The best mitigating factor is that this is not going to happen very often. In my campaign, the only character who has Cleave has only actually used it twice. Ever. And the PCs are more likely than the NPCs to draw attacks of opportunity. But I do often use the AoO as a tactical maneuver, weighing risk against reward (they probably won't hit my AC), in order to set up battlefield advantages.

By the way, I am likey to ignore any response that includes the word "cinematic." That word has now been so overused (and misused) that it means absolutely nothing. It's a description added as a marketing tool to sell me a concept or product.


----------



## azmodean (Dec 9, 2004)

Abraxas said:
			
		

> The spells say they automatically attack your enemies unless you can communicate with them, then you can command them to do other things - so you can have them attack your allies.




Ah, in that case I guess you could command a summoned creature to attack an ally, in which case the summoned creature isn't going to provoke any attacks of opportunity from them 

Sure they could order the creature to attack an ally, but also to sacrifice themselves to it, but the complexity of the command has now far exceeded the bounds of a free action.  In fact, I'd probably kick into wish-interpretation mode, in which case the caster would need to spend most of the spell duration explaining what they want the summoned creature to do exactly.  Make a diplomacy check to get the creature to understand what you're asking for... 

In other words, I'm not going to make doing this impossible, but I'm not going to make such an unconventional tactic easy to perform either.


----------



## Scion (Dec 9, 2004)

atom crash said:
			
		

> I don't expect that risk taken on my part to transfer to someone else as well




I am afraid that this is completely unimportant. Sometimes actions that someone else takes will effect you negatively. Especially if someone else has the ability to take advantage of special cituations.

That is what their training does.

It not being fair sounds like the same person who would complain about getting hit by the fireball when he was invis, or someone stepping on a trap which hits him as well, or someone easedropping on your conversation and hearing whatever secret plan is being discussed.

In the last case it is someone elses skill being able to do something special in a cituation that developed that they are trained to handle. Same with cleave in this case.


----------



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

Scion said:
			
		

> I am afraid that this is completely unimportant. Sometimes actions that someone else takes will effect you negatively. Especially if someone else has the ability to take advantage of special cituations.




You are quite correct from a realism POV.

However the D&D designers have very purposefully avoided making the game realistic in the manner of which you speak.  For example, the tactical modifiers for being in a hostile crowd are virtually non-existent.  +2 for flanking -- that is all.

AoO+Cleave is a stylistic break from the rest of the D&D mechanics.  That is a subjective argument, but one which I believe has a lot to support it.


----------



## Scion (Dec 9, 2004)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> the D&D designers have very purposefully avoided making the game realistic in the manner of which you speak.




Since all of the examples I gave are things that happen in game then I dont think you have a leg to stand on here


----------



## Lamoni (Dec 9, 2004)

Wow, still going.

I'd just like to add one more thing that I thought of as I was reading through the last few pages.

There has been arguments about cleaving off of invisible or imaginary opponents.  In a game that didn't allow Cleave off of an AoO, I would let the fighter with great cleave slay as many imaginary opponents as he wanted.  Each time he slayed an imaginary opponent, great cleave would let him get another attack at the same bonus.

I like this.  I like to imagine cleave as "if you drop a creature, you get to act as if that attack didn't happen (with regards to the actions you can make, the creature is still dead or dying)"

Obviously, that is not how the feat was written.  If it was written this way it would also allow the fighter to attack, move, attack and therefore also be useful in campaigns with smaller groups of enemies that aren't all grouped together.  So, it appears I am not advocating the change to nerf Cleave since my change would make it stronger, not weaker.  Anyway I wish it was written that way, but I am happy to play the game according to however the DM wants to with regard to this issue.

Happy gaming everyone!


----------



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

Scion said:
			
		

> Since all of the examples I gave are things that happen in game then I dont think you have a leg to stand on here




Sorry, but you are going to have to be more specific.  I already cited one example, the paltry situational mods for fighting in a hostile crowd.  Did you miss that part?


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 9, 2004)

Abraxas said:
			
		

> Doubly so if you aren't enforcing the unnecessary pain and suffering argument on uses of the spell such as setting off traps or using them to provide flanking when they can't actually injure the opponent.




Using summoned creatures to set off traps - an evil act.
Using summoned creatures as part of a battle in which they _might_ get killed - not necessarily an evil act.



> Even more so when your neutral PC summoner can summon fiendish critters who are evil.




Which is in and of itself an inherently evil act, so I don't think you are gaining much ground here. If your ostensibly neutral caster routinely summons fiendish creatures, he's going to see an alignment shift (as alignment follows actions).


----------



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

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Generally, no, because the rules don't say that you provoke an AoO when you become helpless.
> 
> But then, I *do* think that "becoming helpless" *should* provoke an AoO.
> 
> ...




Not rare at all if you are fighting creatures with a paralyzing attack, e.g. ghouls.

Provoking an AoO when you become helpless is very obviously at least as realistic as AoO+Cleave.  Drinking a potion provokes an AoO but becoming unconscious does not?  Bizarre.

Bad idea for the one of the reasons I dislike AoO+Cleave: it may (or may not) be realistic to kick a man when he is down, but it makes the game less fun IMO.


----------



## Philip (Dec 9, 2004)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Using summoned creatures to set off traps - an evil act.
> Using summoned creatures as part of a battle in which they _might_ get killed - not necessarily an evil act.




What is this about the summoned creatures thing? I already tried to introduce the illusionary creatures in an attempt to stave of this tangent of the AoO+Cleave discussion.

Summoned creatures are just as magical as illusionary creatures or shadow creatures. You can dispel them with dispel magic, they wink out in an anti-magic shell, and they cannot truly die: they disappear when brought to 0 hit points. Killing them is like destroying an illusion or astral form: it was never truly there.

Wizards sending summoned creatures to their slaughter is no more evil then me sending digital hordes to their slaughter in the newest RTS game. The summoner has a creatures made of magic, I have creatures made of bits and bytes.

The only morality issue here is empathy for the droves virtual creatures dying.


----------



## Lamoni (Dec 9, 2004)

Philip said:
			
		

> The only morality issue here is empathy for the droves virtual creatures dying.



True, and does that mean if you summon a group of low level creatures who will certainly meet their "death," that it is evil?  Is it only not evil if the summoned creatures have a good chance of surviving until the spell expires?  You shouldn't treat summon monster spells the same as planar ally spells.

I am probably more loose with alignment than most people.  I feel like the PC's should do what they want and are responsible themselves for choosing an alignment that their actions coincide with... and changing it if they choose to play their PC differently.  Obviously, Paladins need to be played more strictly, but if the PC thinks they are being lawful good that is good enough for me.  If the PC needs an atonement spell it will be for something that they did knowingly.


----------



## Philip (Dec 9, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> It not being fair sounds like the same person who would complain about getting hit by the fireball when he was invis, or someone stepping on a trap which hits him as well, or someone easedropping on your conversation and hearing whatever secret plan is being discussed.




I still think the fairness issue is unclear.

Fairness is if someone gets what he feels that he or she deserves. Unfairness is if someone gets what he or she doesn’t deserve or does not get he or she feels that she does deserve.

Cleave+AoO is not truly unfair from a character's point-of-view, but from a player's point of view. As said, a rogue PC may inadvertently set off a trap which damages another character, which the other character may think of as unfair, but it is not unfair to the player. Why, you ask?

It is unfair from a game-rules point of view. As atom crash pointed out, the rules form a framework, a kind of player-DM contract. It is like playing Risk with the additional rule that you lose an army whenever the player sitting on your left hand loses two. Maybe such a new rule is not unbalancing, it just feels unfair, because it breaks with the general premise of the Risk ruleset. If you ever played Magic and Magic Unglued, you know they try to be fair in Magic, but they are not fair in the Unglued variant. In Unglued you can lose because you wear jeans.

Thw whole DnD rule framework is built on the premise that you can only place yourself in danger. An unfair spell would be a spell that kills a enemy if it fails his save, but kills your closest ally instead if it makes its save. (Note this is not a comparison to AoO+Cleave, its an illustration of the unfairness of the rules).

Actually, unjust would be a better word than unfair, since injustice is unfairness according to a certain set of norms, in this case the 3.5 ruleset.


----------



## Philip (Dec 9, 2004)

Lamoni said:
			
		

> True, and does that mean if you summon a group of low level creatures who will certainly meet their "death," that it is evil?  Is it only not evil if the summoned creatures have a good chance of surviving until the spell expires?  You shouldn't treat summon monster spells the same as planar ally spells.




Nope, it is not. It is evil if you enjoy the sight of the creatures dying, knowing they don't stand a chance. It is evil if you summon those creatures and torture them to their virtual death yourself, gloating at their pain-filled expression.

If you're neutral you couldn't care less one way or the other. You wouldn't feel much empathy (they are not your friends after all), but you wouldn't enjoy it as well.

Good characters should feel some sympathy for the dying creatures, but not as much that it would stop using them, they would just not use the summons frivolously.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 9, 2004)

Philip said:
			
		

> Summoned creatures are just as magical as illusionary creatures or shadow creatures. You can dispel them with dispel magic, they wink out in an anti-magic shell, and they cannot truly die: they disappear when brought to 0 hit points. Killing them is like destroying an illusion or astral form: it was never truly there.




Except that summoned creatures are not "virtual creatures". They are real, as real as anything else in the setting, they just happen to have the side effect of the magic that compels them to service that they don't _permanently_ die if they are killed during their service.

Yet they do exist. They suffer pain when wounded. They experience fear when frightened. They do die, although only temporarily. Equating them with RTS game constructs doesn't work: they have real existence.

Suppose, for example, you were subject to a summoning spell. Does the fact that you would reform 24 hours later make it _not_ an evil act to summon you and carve your body into small pieces? Would your suffering be any less real just because it was not permanent?


----------



## Scion (Dec 9, 2004)

Philip said:
			
		

> I still think the fairness issue is unclear.




Very unclear. Even unjust isnt terribly helpful. Those lines are placed at different places by anyone, just like the cinematic issue.

One could say it is unfair that the enemy gets to use magic, or unjust that he has access to some feat that the player didnt know about, or any number of things.

In the end this comes down to: is is allowable by the raw? is it abusive?

the answer to the first is definately yes, and the second is a definate no. An extra attack every now and then at the cost of a feat and only with other conditions just isnt huge.

Ahh well


----------



## Philip (Dec 9, 2004)

azmodean said:
			
		

> Cenematic: " it just doesn't make sense for X situation to occur."
> ok, this is a game, the activities portrayed therin take place in a fictional realm not necessarily subject to the same conditions as are present in our reality.  We're talking magic here people and that applies no less to the "mundane" classes of fighters and rogues than it does to the spellcasters.




The cinematic component has nothing to do with fictional realms and or the use of magic. I think a world, even one with magic, needs internal consistency. Why? It helps the suspension of disbelief. (I think it even says so somewhere in the DMG)

What AoO+Cleave does to me, as a player, is make abundantly clear that I am playing some tactical miniatures game, instead of feeling immersed in a live and death struggle against the forces of evil with my stout companions at my side. It is like inserting Jar-Jar Binks or midi-chlorians into your favorite SF movie. Sure, there you can have loads of fully logical explanations to do so, it does not change the fact that doing so takes away some of the magic, the experience, the immersion, the suspension of disbelief. It 'jars' with the rest.

We had AoO+Cleave situations coming up in almost every battle. The two front-line fighters move next to the BBEG en the Cleric circles so that he is in exactly the right position that when the lesser undead are subject to his turning, they end up running right past the BBEG and the two fighters, and thus setting up the fighters for some AoO+Cleave goodness. I have extreme difficulty (although I don't contend it is impossible) to conjure up some believable reason why the cleric should circle the lesser undead so that when they flee they do so past the fighters. Such situations jar my suspension of disbelief, although they are tactically sound from a gamist POV.


----------



## Philip (Dec 9, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> Very unclear. Even unjust isnt terribly helpful. Those lines are placed at different places by anyone, just like the cinematic issue.
> 
> One could say it is unfair that the enemy gets to use magic, or unjust that he has access to some feat that the player didnt know about, or any number of things.
> 
> In the end this comes down to: is is allowable by the raw? is it abusive?




I don't think it comes down to that. My argument is that some people may be banning it even though it is allowed by the RAW and it is not abusive/broken besides. I am just trying to explain why I (and maybe some others) feel that way.

A spell that kills human clerics named 'Al'Qadir' without the benefit of a save or SR and can only be cast by dragons may not be abusive and be allowed by the RAW, but is sure as hell is unfair to the player of said cleric. Unjust even.

I propose that such a spell goes against the basic premise of the game, the unwritten contract, the norms between players-DM's.

What is unfair and fair, and just and unjust is always in dispute, of course. That is why we are having this discussion. I only know that I, and the friends I play D&D with, either find the AoO+Cleave unfair, or don't care much you can or can't do it. Thus AoO+Cleave is banned from our game.


----------



## Philip (Dec 9, 2004)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Yet they do exist. They suffer pain when wounded. They experience fear when frightened. They do die, although only temporarily. Equating them with RTS game constructs doesn't work: they have real existence.




My characters think the same about summoned monsters as I do about digital creatures. They might seem real, but they're really not. Switch of the ccomputer's power or activate the anti-magic field, and both disappear instantly. They might seem to die gruesomely, but when you restart the game/recast the spell, they just re-appear as if nothing has happened.

They don't leave behind pools of blood, they don't have graves where you can grieve for their heroic deaths. They don't have a real existence.

Maybe in your game they do, and that would pose all kinds of interesting moral dillema's. In my game they don't, so the same dilemma's don't exist.


----------



## atom crash (Dec 9, 2004)

> It not being fair sounds like the same person who would complain about getting hit by the fireball when he was invis, or someone stepping on a trap which hits him as well, or someone easedropping on your conversation and hearing whatever secret plan is being discussed.




Not at all. 

Getting blasted by a fireball because I was in the area of effect would be fine and dandy, even if I was invisible. What would be unfair is if I got hit by a _second_ fireball, which the caster was only allowed to cast because my buddy decided to drink a potion in a threatened space.

Or if that trap hit me a second time because someone else ran away from it.

Risks are a normal part of the game, and I gladly accept them. But I have a reasonable expectation that for every risk I take, I stand to gain some benefit as well. And that if I do not take a risk, I won't get hurt. but I also won't gain anything.

A reasonable expectation is that an AoO is going to give me a benefit weighed against a risk.

A reasonable expectation is that I will get a turn for every turn my opponent gets. On his turn, he might get more attacks, or more powerful attacks, than I do, but we will get an equal number of turns.

In the normal flow of battle, everyone gets a turn -- unless something else comes up and they are either denied by spell (which would allow me a saving throw) or by attack (which would have to succeed against my AC) or by choice their rightful turn. If I am playing a fighter and my buddy is playing a rogue, and we are flanking an enemy fighter, I have a reasonable expectation within the framework of the rules to get one turn for every one that my opponent gets.

Now, suppose the opponent just attacked me. I have no reason to believe that he'll get another shot at me until after I get another turn. If he cuts down the rogue and Cleaves into me on his turn, then that's the risk I have to take. But I have every reason to believe I'll get a chance to act before he gets another chance.

Now the rogue isn't doing so well, being a rogue going toe-to-toe with a fighter. He could back off and drink a potion, but he also knows I need the flanking bonus. So he decides to take the risk and drink a potion, giving the opponent an AoO. After all, the fighter has a decent chance of missing his attack roll. And he really needs the HP (or the buff in a bottle, or whatever). 

Lo and behold, the opponent gets lucky and lands a blow. It drops my buddy, and now my opponent Cleaves into me. My opponent has now gotten a second attack against me -- before I get a chance to act again -- without me having to put myself in a position of danger or having the opportunity to gain some benefit. I didn't get to drink that potion. I was just standing there. 

Maybe some blood splashed into my eyes, but I'm not buying it. I didn't open myself up for that extra attack out of turn, so I don't see why I should have to take the penalty. Maybe it is some sort of special training, but it seems really fricking powerful for two feats (Power Attack, Cleave). Show me another feat that allows my opponent to attack me out of turn.

In my opinion, the AoO+Cleave combo upsets both reasonable expectations above, thus breaking the player-DM contract of the game; that's why I claim it is "unfair" or "unjust." That's why I won't be allowing it.


----------



## atom crash (Dec 9, 2004)

La la la la, double post.


----------



## Scion (Dec 9, 2004)

your rogue buddy should've readied an action. All of the benefit, none of the drawback. Looks like someone took advantage of the situation of him not doing the smart thing.

if you are not ok with being hit by a trap twice if someone runs across it twice then I dont know what to say, dont let people into your party who are going to do bad things to you.

cleave doesnt have any one set, 'this is exactly what happens every time' sort of deal, it is all about the situation.

This is simply one of those situations where it can work. Someone was dropped, by whatever means, and now they get to make that extra attack. That is what the feat does. Just like combat reflexes says you get to make aoo's even while flatfooted this feat allows you to make an attack whenever you down someone. Same deal.

Some people have some major issues with cleave, but if they just think about it in a more dynamic sense that should go away. Some dms I know have a major issue with the aoo allowed from combat reflexes, but that can be viewed in the same manner. Or they can simply ignore it, but then the same could be said for every single aspect of the game so that isnt terribly helpful, especially in the rules forum


----------



## reiella (Dec 9, 2004)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> True, but balance explanations are not.




Except it's not a balance explanation either.

It's simply an inherent disagreement with the design decision.

After all, if your sole gripe in this situation is "A Person making a Tactical Mistakes Gets Me Hurt Isn't Fair" as the balance consideration, wouldn't it also be equally 'unbalanced' to let the aforementioned person cast fireball so that it includes 'Me' in the area of effect when it is avoidable?  [For this sillines assume they can Cast it defensively ]

Sure casting a fireball suboptimally aimed is different than drinking a potion, but both can arguably be situations that would 'save their life'...

Anycase, I'm fine with it, I can match the concept to some entertaining fight scenes so I'm good, even if it isn't realistic.  Nor do I feel it particularly makes Cleave significantly better than another feat.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Dec 10, 2004)

Abraxas said:
			
		

> Off the top of my head, Movie/TV shows/Books where someone attacks ally to gain advantage.
> 
> Speed - Keanu's character shoots his partner in the leg to take him out of a hostage situation.
> 
> ...




YYEESSS!!! Finally, a direct answer!!! 

Of these examples, the Angel sample seems the most fitting, as melee combat was actually involved. An attack on one was used to gain an attack on the other. Now, how do we apply this to the AoO/Cleave from a summons tactic?


----------



## Storyteller01 (Dec 10, 2004)

atom crash said:
			
		

> In my opinion, the AoO+Cleave combo upsets both reasonable expectations above, thus breaking the player-DM contract of the game; that's why I claim it is "unfair" or "unjust." That's why I won't be allowing it.




Just a sticking point in my thought process. I'm having a hard time dealing with the fairness of the situation, or rather the need for fairness in said fight. Then again, I prefer to inject what I believe is a element a realism, based on may own perspective (that being that fights generally aren't fair).

If I understand correctly, fairness between the DM and the players, rather than the situation, holds the most importance...


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Dec 10, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> In the end this comes down to: is is allowable by the raw? is it abusive?
> 
> the answer to the first is definately yes, and the second is a definate no. An extra attack every now and then at the cost of a feat and only with other conditions just isnt huge.




No.  Those are actually secondary issues.  The most important question is: is the game more fun played one way or the other?

IMO and IME the AoO + Cleave: 

(1) Discourages weird desperate tactics that provoke AoOs, and I _love_ weird desperate tactics.

(2) Looks suspect because it breaks the normal pacing and cause & effect dynamic of the game, and therefore interferes with my SOD.

(3) Causes confusion and slows the game down, and therefore also yanks the players out of SOD.  Something about discussion that begins with "Huh? Do the rules _really_ say that?" with lots of followup questions tend to do that to me.

(4) Works against the protagonists of our story because we do not ultimately care when NPCs die by odd rules quirks.  We are biased and unfair thay way.

All your arguments about realism, what the rules say, and fairness are ultimately tangential to my mind, because in this case they are trumped by the fun factor.

I recognize that it is entirely possible that you would have more fun just leaving things as they are.  I recognize that this probably does not come up all that often in some campaigns.  But that is not my experience.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Dec 10, 2004)

atom crash said:
			
		

> Risks are a normal part of the game, and I gladly accept them. But I have a reasonable expectation that for every risk I take, I stand to gain some benefit as well. And that if I do not take a risk, I won't get hurt. but I also won't gain anything.




But remember, you CAN get hurt by doing nothing. History has thousands of examples to prove this. More over, the risks or actions you take can effect others who have nothing to do with you (millions of examples exist throughout history!).

Admittedly, this is a game. You can play with any level of consequnces you desire. If you lose nothing for doing nothing, then that is the way you play. But in my experience, the reward is much greater when I have to worry the risks I and my players take, and about what my fellow players do.


----------



## Abraxas (Dec 10, 2004)

> originally posted by *Storyteller01*
> Of these examples, the Angel sample seems the most fitting, as melee combat was actually involved. An attack on one was used to gain an attack on the other. Now, how do we apply this to the AoO/Cleave from a summons tactic?



We can't.  It was a regular attack/cleave event.  As such I have no problem with it.  Ultimately its a stylistic disagreement with the out of turn nature of the AoO/Cleave event that I find unacceptable.  The AoO allows one attack against the moron who screwed up or daring hero trying something desparate.

It probably has to do with the games I play in where cleave comes up very often.  The guards in the BBEGs tower aren't all 11th level fighters.  The goblin vampire is surrounded by dozens of regular goblins we have to chop our way through.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Dec 10, 2004)

Abraxas said:
			
		

> Ultimately its a stylistic disagreement with the out of turn nature of the AoO/Cleave event that I find unacceptable.  The AoO allows one attack against the moron who screwed up or daring hero trying something desparate.




Which is probably why I like it. I don't want to go through an adventure where everything is relatively predictable (no insult intended). I like the idea that the groups actions can harm each other, or that an attack can come from some completely unexpected angle. It also forces me (when acting as a DM) to really think about what the enemies will do, how well are they prepared, etc.

I must be doing something right. My players keep coming back !


----------



## FireLance (Dec 10, 2004)

Cleaving off an AOO doesn't feel right for me, and I wouldn't allow it in my campaigns.

But in campaigns of DMs who do, I'd love to play an _improved invisible_ rogue with Cleave and the Opportunist ability.


----------



## Scion (Dec 10, 2004)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> IMO and IME the AoO + Cleave:
> 
> (1) Discourages weird desperate tactics that provoke AoOs, and I _love_ weird desperate tactics.
> 
> ...





1) wha..? So, the fact that someone 'might' have cleave and an aoo remaining for the round and have another one of your teamates and you might be very low on hp and the 'weird' action might be one with an aoo that you cannot prevent (most are preventable in one way or another) somehow limits you this desperately? I highly doubt that. It just doesnt come up often enough for that to matter.

2) I dont see how this is true either, especially if you allow things like tripping with aoos. Same deal.

3) of course, from my point of view it would be the opposite, 'what do you mean I cant cleave? he got knocked out yes? so it qualifies for my special condition. What next, my fireball will actually not do damage unless it is a tuesday?' Changing the rules midgame or making things different just because someone thinks it would be difficult to perform such an action in the real world is just a bad way to go.

4) as I stated before, this is actually one of the few things that really works well for the pc's but very poorly for the npc's against the pcs. As such it is very nice. Anything that can help the pc's more than the npc's is a boon to that aspect of the game, especially as it is so very easy for it to be in reverse with a great number of other things.


All in all, it just seems like people dislike cleave or like taking things away from the players that might somehow help them. The first type of people shouldnt even be in this thread as they already dont want cleave to work period, the second just confuse me


----------



## Abraxas (Dec 10, 2004)

> I must be doing something right. My players keep coming back !



So do mine.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 10, 2004)

Philip said:
			
		

> My characters think the same about summoned monsters as I do about digital creatures.




Only because the game environment in which they exist treats them as such, even though the rules as written don't. The fact that you may have a DM who doesn't bother with dealing with alignment implications of slaughtering friendly summoned creatures doesn't mean the rules that lead one to the conclusion that doing so is evil don't exist.



> They don't leave behind pools of blood, they don't have graves where you can grieve for their heroic deaths. They don't have a real existence.




They don't leave behind pools of blood, but by the rules as written they do have real existence. The fact that you have edited that part out of your brain (or simply out of the setting) doesn't change the rules as written. It just means you are playing a house rule variant, and as such, the implications of that have no place in _this_ particular discussion.


----------



## Lamoni (Dec 10, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> All in all, it just seems like people dislike cleave or like taking things away from the players that might somehow help them. The first type of people shouldnt even be in this thread as they already dont want cleave to work period, the second just confuse me



All in all, it just seems like people want to classify people into specific groups.  Your assertion is similar to saying that people that dislike broccoli either dislike vegetables, or dislike the color green.  Of course, maybe they dislike the smell, the flavor, the texture, they dislike the farmer down the road that grows broccoli, they dislike how much the stores charge for it, they hate all the references to broccoli by nutritionists, they dislike how it looks, or any number of other reasons.

You can go ahead and continue to put people into your invented categories if you want to, but just realize that it is just an oversimplification and acts as a stumbling block rather than an aid to your really understanding people's opinions.


----------



## Scion (Dec 10, 2004)

Lamoni said:
			
		

> All in all, it just seems like people want to classify people into specific groups.  Your assertion is similar to saying that people that dislike broccoli either dislike vegetables, or dislike the color green.  Of course, maybe they dislike the smell, the flavor, the texture, they dislike the farmer down the road that grows broccoli, they dislike how much the stores charge for it, they hate all the references to broccoli by nutritionists, they dislike how it looks, or any number of other reasons.




Have you even read the thread? do you have any clue what you are talking about?

People have come out and said that they simply do not like cleave, in this very thread strangly enough.

Saying that people who dislike cleave should not complain about aoo + cleave because they are coming from a position where it doesnt matter what happens, they are still against it. The same goes for people who dislike aoo's. If you think that half of the whole topic is either 'silly' or 'stupid' or a 'waste of time' then there really isnt any place to discuss the ins and outs of the combo.

So, if people dislike cleave (and no, your anology about vegetables means nothing, as the closest I can see coming with that is someone not likeing feats in general, or someone claiming that just because a person dislikes cleave that they dislike feats, which is not what is going on here) then they will pretty much automatically dislike aoo's plus cleave. Their opinions on how well balanced it is will generally not be helpful.

My assertion was merely that people who dislike one of the two parts will not be able to discuss it properly. Not catagorizing everyone here.

If you disagree with my assertion then feel free, but come up with something much more solid than, 'oh, you are just putting people in some category'. Especially when they put themselves in that category and I merely pointed it out in addition to their own comments.


----------



## Lamoni (Dec 10, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> Have you even read the thread? do you have any clue what you are talking about?



Yes, I have read the entire thread.  I'm sorry you couldn't understand my post


> My assertion was merely that people who dislike one of the two parts will not be able to discuss it properly. Not catagorizing everyone here.



I'm sorry, but I read the following from your post.  *"All in all, it just seems like people dislike cleave or like taking things away from the players that might somehow help them."*
I apologize if you didn't mean what you posted, but in your post you didn't leave room for any other type of person.  If you said 'some' people, or I don't understand why the people who think A or B post in this thread it would have been much more clear.

I am sorry you didn't like my example.  My example was only there to state how categorizing people into two groups is not very worthwhile.  Since this wasn't your intent you could have simply said that you were trying to say something different.  In my reading through this thread, I would say that I don't recall any posts that fit into either of the categories you mentioned.  I'm not saying that there aren't any, because this thread is quite long.  However, the most vocal people in this thread against AoO + Cleave don't belong in either of your categories and I don't understand the point of your post if you weren't referring to any of them.


----------



## Scion (Dec 10, 2004)

Remember, 'people' does not equal 'all people', just that there are people who fit the category I was talking about (who strangely enough have admitted to it, but I bet there are others who have not).

It is unfortunate that you read it a completely different way than what it says, but these things do happen, especially online. Inflection of voice assumed to be one way when it is another can completely change the meaning of what was said.


----------



## Wrathamon (Dec 11, 2004)

Karin'sdad

if AoO Cleave is so unfair? How is cleave/great cleave by itself fair?

You dont like the fact that he is getting an extra attack and hiting you. So why would cleave be okay?

"The orc dropped the fighter on his attack and then killed me!! If the fighter didnt die he wouldnt have been able to hit me... this sucks. I hate you cleave!!" - Player Y

It sounds like your problem is with cleave and not really Aoo and cleave.

Your only arguements that I have seen are that your character didnt provoke an AoO, so why can he get hit and that summon monsters can be abused.

Well you can abuse the summon monsters w/out an AoO and your character still got hit because your ally couldnt take a punch and you are okay with that?

If you dont have a problem with Cleave please explain why Cleave is okay on its own? 

just curious


----------



## FireLance (Dec 11, 2004)

Well, I'm a person who has no problems with Cleave or Great Cleave, and no problems with AOOs, but I do have a problem with Cleaving off an AOO.

I suppose my problem is this: To me, an AOO is an extra chance to attack a combatant that occurs because he lowered his defences. A combatant who does not lower his defences should not be subject to any extra attacks that are only possible because of lowered defences.

Similarly, to me, Cleave and Great Cleave are feats that make weak opponents irrelevant. A high-level fighter with four iterative attacks per round who is fighting a powerful opponent and several weak ones could aim all his four attacks at the powerful opponent. However, Cleave and Great Cleave allow him to cut down the weak opponents and Cleave off them to attack others, including the powerful one. However, used in this way, Cleave and Great Cleave don't give the fighter any more attacks against any single opponent than if he had focused all his attention on him. The powerful opponent is no worse off no matter how many minions he surrounds himself with. They are at worst irrelevant, and at best, they could soak up some of the attacks that would have been directed at him.

The difference between a normal Cleave and Cleaving off an AOO is the difference between being irrelevant and being a liability. Cleaving off an AOO means that some of the weaker opponents could actually become liabilities, if they provoke AOOs from the fighter. The powerful opponent could be attacked one or more additional times per round at the fighter's best attack bonus, even though he has not lowered his defences, simply because his minions have. As a DM, I could avoid the issue entirely by making sure that nobody provokes AOOs, but I feel that I shouldn't have to.

At the end of the day, Cleaving off an AOO just doesn't gel with my sense of internal logic, so I wouldn't allow it. It does with others, and so they do. That's all there is to it.


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 11, 2004)

Wrathamon said:
			
		

> Karin'sdad
> 
> if AoO Cleave is so unfair? How is cleave/great cleave by itself fair?
> 
> ...




Read FireLance's well thought out post.

The bottom line of the fairness issue is:

Cleave during your turn does not give you any more additional attacks against any single opponent than you could normally have had in your turn. If you get 3 attacks per round during a full round attack, you will not get more than 3 attacks against a single opponent (assuming no other feat combination that gets past this like Whirlwind Great Cleave) no matter how you choose to attack.

Cleave during AoO gives you an additional attack against any single opponent which you could normally not have had.


So in one case, you get no additional attacks against one single opponent (e.g. the BBEG).

In the other case, you do get an additional attack against an opponent and you also get this additional attack when the opponent you are doing it against did not do anything to warrant it.

That is basically the definition of fairness and equity. If someone gets something that they did not deserve (either positively or negatively). The purpose of Cleave is to not waste one of your full round attacks on an opponent who is almost dead anyway, not to get a free unjustified attack against the BBEG because someone else on the battlefield was a moron.


The real problem with AoO Cleave is that you get a free attack (free attacks in the Combat Reflexes AoO Great Cleave case) against someone who did not provoke that free attack and it is (IMO) a game loophole that allows you to do this. Any feat that allows for an additional attack could just have easily been written that it only occurs on the characters turn and we would not have had this 14 page discussion at all. Nobody would have even thought about this and it would be a non-issue.


----------



## Philip (Dec 11, 2004)

Wrathamon said:
			
		

> Karin'sdad
> 
> if AoO Cleave is so unfair? How is cleave/great cleave by itself fair?




I did try to explain this in one of my earlier posts (in my own imperfect way):

http://www.enworld.org/forums/showpost.php?p=1890895&postcount=98

And in some other responses later.


----------



## Abraxas (Dec 11, 2004)

Firelance's post is pretty much sums up my opposition to AoO/Cleave also.

As an aside, and something that I just realized.

In 3.0 the whirlwind attack feat read

_*"Benefit:* When you perform the full attack action, you can give up your regular attacks and instead make one melee attack at your full base attack bonus against each opponent within 5 feet."_

This allowed a character with this feat and Great Cleave to effectively do the same things as the AoO/Combat Reflexes/Great Cleave routine does by the 3.5 RAW.  The character could get multiple attacks on the BBEG's mooks and multiple  attacks on the BBEG.

In 3.5 the feat now reads

_*"Benefit:* When you use the full attack action, you can give up your regular attacks and instead make one melee attack at your full base attack bonus against each opponent within reach._
_When you use the Whirlwind Attack feat, you also forfeit any bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities (such as the Cleave feat or the haste spell)."_

So it would appear that someone at WoTC doesn't like the idea of making the BBEG's mooks a liability.
If getting multiple attacks, at your highest BAB, against the BBEG on your turn via Whirlwind/Great Cleave (a tactic that has an even higher feat requirement) is unacceptable why would getting them when its not your turn via AoOs/Great Cleave be acceptable?

I'm off to write the sage with this one.


----------



## Wrathamon (Dec 11, 2004)

Thanks for the explanations 

Firelance that was really well thought out and well presented.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Dec 12, 2004)

FireLance said:
			
		

> Well, I'm a person who has no problems with Cleave or Great Cleave, and no problems with AOOs, but I do have a problem with Cleaving off an AOO.
> 
> I suppose my problem is this: To me, an AOO is an extra chance to attack a combatant that occurs because he lowered his defences. A combatant who does not lower his defences should not be subject to any extra attacks that are only possible because of lowered defences.
> 
> ...




Well put Firelance (being of the opposite camp)


----------



## Storyteller01 (Dec 12, 2004)

Abraxas said:
			
		

> Firelance's post is pretty much sums up my opposition to AoO/Cleave also.
> 
> As an aside, and something that I just realized.
> 
> ...




But cleaving on an AoO in far different from cleaving with thw Whirlwind Attack feat. 

In that combo, the player would gain multiple cleave in one round, and I would agree that you do not get Cleaves from Whirlwind attacks (all your energy is focused on the mass attack, and cannot be diverted, or the attacks will be stopped).

 In the AoO example, you get one cleave (or great cleave) for one attack. 

(Not an attack here) if WotC thought that the Cleave from an AoO is bad, why didn't they make the same direct addendum statement for the Cleave feat? (again, not an attack, just a logical question)


----------



## Abraxas (Dec 12, 2004)

> In that combo, the player would gain multiple cleave in one round, and I would agree that you do not get Cleaves from Whirlwind attacks (all your energy is focused on the mass attack, and cannot be diverted, or the attacks will be stopped).



In 3.0, with Great Cleave and Whirlwind attack you could get 1 cleave attack for every opponent you dropped with the whirlwind attack.  Nothing in the feats descriptions precluded this.  Your visualization of how it would work is irrelevant. Your comments in parenthesis are your interpretation.  They have nothing to do with the rules.  By your logic you can't whirlwind attack with a longspear.




> In the AoO example, you get one cleave (or great cleave) for one attack.



At your highest attack value - just like whirlwind attack.  Only one difference, AoOs happen on someone elses turn and have to be provoked.  The only time you would get more attacks from the 3.0 Whirlwinf/Great Cleave combo is if there were more creatures surrounding you than you could take advantage of with the Combat Reflexes/AoO/Great Cleave combo.



> (Not an attack here) if WotC thought that the Cleave from an AoO is bad, why didn't they make the same direct addendum statement for the Cleave feat? (again, not an attack, just a logical question)



Are you defending their editing?  Perhaps they thought it was evident from the description of AoOs - one attack per provoked AoO directed at the provoker.

Do you really believe it is more reasonable to allow this to occur on someone elses turn and still get a full round of attacks when it wasn't considered reasonable for it to occur on your turn when you have an investment of 6 feats and have to face multiple opponents for the whirlwind/Great Cleave thing to work?

If you do I have nothing more to say.

Ciao


----------



## Storyteller01 (Dec 12, 2004)

Abraxas said:
			
		

> Do you really believe it is more reasonable to allow this to occur on someone elses turn and still get a full round of attacks when it wasn't considered reasonable for it to occur on your turn when you have an investment of 6 feats and have to face multiple opponents for the whirlwind/Great Cleave thing to work?
> 
> If you do I have nothing more to say.
> 
> Ciao




Yea, pretty much defending this one. 

Just going off of experience here, and yae, it is my intrepretation .

If your concentrating on hitting 6 to 8 guys at the same time, taking AoO's are nearly impossible, given the amount of concentration involved making sure you don't leave an opening they can take advangtage of (by the way, can someone take an AoO on you if you use the Whirlwind Attack feat, or only when you move into position to use it? Actually question, and I would love an answer. Hopefully I haven't hijacked this thread). you just have to let it go and hope it doesn't bite you later.

(by the way, in my experience [anecdotal as it is] the Whirlwind attack is generally used to create space by forcing everyone to back away from you. Since your focus is on the need for space, and not taking advantage of openings, they tend to go by the wayside. If opponents DO get hit get hit, well...guess they know better  ). 

However, If someone leaves an opening that that you can utilize to hit someone else, theh go for it. It is an opprotunity that circumstances have allowed you took take advantage of.

By the way, If I am guilty of highjacking, feel free to bean me with fuzzy dice!


----------



## Abraxas (Dec 12, 2004)

> However, If someone leaves an opening that that you can utilize to hit someone else, theh go for it. It is an opprotunity that circumstances have allowed you took take advantage of.



So when four guys provoke AoOs its still fine?  even though the DM may move these 4 individually they are all acting about at the same time.  How can you be so concentrated as to take advantage of four separate openings but can't concentrate enough to do exactly the same thing when trying to hit those same 4 guys on your turn?

That to me is meta gaming.


----------



## Abraxas (Dec 12, 2004)

Storyteller01 - we have beat this poor equine into its component molecules - how bout we agree to disagree and lets these threads slip away quietly?


----------



## Storyteller01 (Dec 12, 2004)

Abraxas said:
			
		

> So when four guys provoke AoOs its still fine?  even though the DM may move these 4 individually they are all acting about at the same time.  How can you be so concentrated as to take advantage of four separate openings but can't concentrate enough to do exactly the same thing when trying to hit those same 4 guys on your turn?
> 
> That to me is meta gaming.




You'd be surprised, friend! 

In the first example, all four (while moving relatively simultaeously) move at their own rythm or momentum. You catch the breaks or pauses, and use those opportunities against them. There are attacks where the sword is places under the armpit, thrusting backwards as an enemy comes up from behind (you actually step and settle back, using the your body weight to power the thrust. Arm strength is used tyo stabilize the blade, keeping it is position relative to you). Makes for an interesting surprise for the guy behind you, thinking he has the advantage. 

In the second example, you are attacking all within range, using a single beat of your own rythm or momentum, if you will. Making that kind of mass attack without getting hit yourself is not an easy task...


----------



## Squire James (Dec 12, 2004)

I don't allow Cleaves as a result of AoO's.  I can see how some would, but I don't agree with them.  Many of the reasons have already been mentioned.

The primary one is that taking a de-facto AoO on someone who didn't provoke one seems unfair, no matter what feat causes this to happen.  This whole thing seems more like an exploitable loophole in the Cleave rules, not the intended result of the Cleave rules.  If someone can still make the "bucket of snails" nonesense work, there's still something wrong!

Cleave is the most badly-worded feat in the PHB.  If it were worded like this (not the only possible wording, but how I would reword it if I could)...

"When you reduce an opponent to 0 or fewer HP on a regular melee attack, you gain an extra attack on another target within reach at the same attack bonus.  Only one such extra attack is allowed each round."

(Great Cleave essentially removes the last sentence)

...this 11-page thread would be arguing over what a "regular melee attack" is.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 12, 2004)

Squire James said:
			
		

> "When you reduce an opponent to 0 or fewer HP on a regular melee attack, you gain an extra attack on another target within reach at the same attack bonus.  Only one such extra attack is allowed each round."
> 
> (Great Cleave essentially removes the last sentence)
> 
> ...this 11-page thread would be arguing over what a "regular melee attack" is.




[shrug]  If you want a simple change to the wording of Cleave to prevent it working on an AoO, just add the phrase 'as a free action'.

"... you get an immediate, extra melee attack _as a free action_..."

-Hyp.


----------



## Thanee (Dec 12, 2004)

Squire James said:
			
		

> "When you reduce an opponent to 0 or fewer HP on a regular melee attack, you gain an extra attack on another target within reach at the same attack bonus.  Only one such extra attack is allowed each round."




And what happens, if the target has the Diehard feat or another ability to not fall over when dying?

Besides, reducing it to 0 hp does not drop a creature. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Storyteller01 (Dec 13, 2004)

Squire James said:
			
		

> The primary one is that taking a de-facto AoO on someone who didn't provoke one seems unfair, no matter what feat causes this to happen.  This whole thing seems more like an exploitable loophole in the Cleave rules, not the intended result of the Cleave rules.  If someone can still make the "bucket of snails" nonesense work, there's still something wrong!




Going back to my "can you explain the action plausibly, without relying soley on the rules" theory (bash freely. Others already have  ), I can see in real time how the AoO/Cleave action works. IMHO, it explains to me how professional fighters who are nowhere near 20th level (maybe 13th tops. A 20th level fighter effectively would never miss against normal odds) can make more than 4 attacks in 6 seconds (remembering boxing matches or maui Thai kickboxing matches in their last rounds. Also kenpo karate, whose whole philosophy [I think] is hit{creates an opening}, hit opening {creates another opening}, etc).

Also, as mentioned earlier, people get hit for anothers actions, regardless of what is or is not fair. I tend to prefer the AoO/cleave option. Creates a greater challenge, forces myself and my fellow players to think before we act...


----------



## Thanee (Dec 13, 2004)

For some reason, I do not think Cleave has been invented with the idea of multiple quick strikes in mind. 

 Bye
 Thanee


----------



## Joker (Dec 13, 2004)

Squire James said:
			
		

> The primary one is that taking a de-facto AoO on someone who didn't provoke one seems unfair




Nobody ever intentionally provokes a Cleave attack, it just happens.  You (the target of the Cleave) have no control over whether you get attacked by a Cleave attempt or not.  That's a matter of the attacker and the dropped creature.  It has nothing to do with fairness.

Bob (with Cleave) is fighting two opponents.  It's the opponents' turn and they decide to attack Bob.  Bob lives and when it's his turn he drops opponent 1 with his attack and cleaves through to opponent 2.

Rewind:  Opponents' turn.  Nr 1 decides that he has better things to do and runs away provoking an AoO.  He gets dropped by Bob and Bob Cleaves through to nr 2.

How is it any less fair if it happens during an AoO than during a normal attack?


----------



## FireLance (Dec 13, 2004)

Joker said:
			
		

> How is it any less fair if it happens during an AoO than during a normal attack?



To reiterate (and rephrase slightly): To me, an AOO is an extra chance to attack a combatant that occurs because he lowered his defences. A combatant who does not lower his defences should not be subject to any extra attacks that are only possible because of lowered defences.

Similarly, to me, Cleave and Great Cleave are feats that make weak opponents irrelevant. A high-level fighter with four iterative attacks per round who is fighting a powerful opponent and several weak ones could aim all his four attacks at the powerful opponent. However, Cleave and Great Cleave allow him to cut down the weak opponents and Cleave off them to attack others, including the powerful one. Used in this way, Cleave and Great Cleave don't give the fighter any more attacks against any single opponent than if he had focused all his attention on him. The powerful opponent is no worse off no matter how many minions he surrounds himself with. They are at worst irrelevant, and at best, they could soak up some of the attacks that would have been directed at him.

The difference between a normal Cleave and Cleaving off an AOO is the difference between being irrelevant and being a liability. Cleaving off an AOO means that some of the weaker opponents could actually become liabilities, if they provoke AOOs from the fighter. 

The issue of fairness arises because a powerful opponent could be attacked one or more additional times per round at the fighter's best attack bonus, even though he has not lowered his defences, simply because his minions have.

Cleaving off an AOO just doesn't seem fair to me, so I wouldn't allow it. It does to others, and so they do. That's all there is to it.


----------



## Joker (Dec 13, 2004)

I don't see an AoO as an opponent lowering his defenses.  The fact that he keeps his full AC bonus reflects that.  I see AoO as a game mechanic to stop people from being able to do all sorts of crazy things in melee as someone previously said.

If weak opponents are going to die off of an AoO than they're gonna die of regular attacks aswel and are still (as u put them) liabilities.



			
				FireLance said:
			
		

> Cleaving off an AOO just doesn't seem fair to me, so I wouldn't allow it. It does to others, and so they do. That's all there is to it.




Right you are.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Dec 13, 2004)

Well spoken, Firelance.

I think you nailed it with the qualitative distinction between becoming irrelevant and becoming a liability.


----------



## Scion (Dec 13, 2004)

Remember everyone, cleave isnt about mowing through 'weak' opponents, it is only about getting some benefit out of a finishing blow. One could even cleave off of the bbeg into his minions in the right circumstance. It could also be said that it is 'unfair' that they were attacked after the person already used their attack on the guy next to them.

Still, it isnt about 'weak' opponents, it is about getting a benefit out of the finishing blow (a twohanded pickaxe crit from a rageing, powerattacking barbarian and a bursting xxx weapon could take down a full hp massive creature, but it would still allow for a cleave). Much like getting an extra attack in after a trip or your opponent being unarmed after a successful disarm.


----------



## sfedi (Dec 13, 2004)

It's funny how all these guys say that they would allow Cleave in an AoO, but then they create absurd rulings to prevent abuse from it.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Dec 13, 2004)

Joker said:
			
		

> If weak opponents are going to die off of an AoO than they're gonna die of regular attacks aswel and are still (as u put them) liabilities.




There is an important qualitative difference here.  An irrelevant creature is one that is neither an asset nor liability.  The peculiar thing about AoO+Cleave is that it turns something irrelevant into a huge liability under certain conditions.  I find that distastefully gamey, whether it is done on purpose or not.


----------



## Scion (Dec 13, 2004)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> it turns something irrelevant into a huge liability under certain conditions.




Sortof like not being able to breathe water?  It is largely irrelevant, until certain very specific conditions arise.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Dec 13, 2004)

And under what special conditions is being able to breathe water a liability?


----------



## Joker (Dec 13, 2004)

But how are the creatures any less of a liability during "regular" combat if the chance that the stronger fighter gets cleaved is the same as during an AoO attack?


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Dec 13, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> Still, it isnt about 'weak' opponents, it is about getting a benefit out of the finishing blow (a twohanded pickaxe crit from a rageing, powerattacking barbarian and a bursting xxx weapon could take down a full hp massive creature, but it would still allow for a cleave). Much like getting an extra attack in after a trip or your opponent being unarmed after a successful disarm.




No, my criticism regarding AoO+Cleave is "about" whatever I say it is, even if my judgement may or may not be in error.  The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate arguments against hypothetical criticisms no one has actually made are relevant (e.g. it would be "unfair" to cleave into a minion after killing the bbeg).


----------



## Scion (Dec 13, 2004)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate arguments against hypothetical criticisms no one has actually made are relevant.






			
				FireLance said:
			
		

> Similarly, to me, Cleave and Great Cleave are feats that make weak opponents irrelevant.






			
				Scion said:
			
		

> Still, it isnt about 'weak' opponents, it is about getting a benefit out of the finishing blow




Care to rephrase ridley? As at least one person has said exactly what I was refering to. Strangely, I was responding to it just after they said it, only your post popped up while I was typing it. But since it was still very close to it, and you were talking to the same person, it should have worked out all right anyway.


----------



## Scion (Dec 13, 2004)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> And under what special conditions is being able to breathe water a liability?




I believe that you have misread what I said.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Dec 13, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> Care to rephrase ridley? As at least one person has said exactly what I was refering to. Strangely, I was responding to it just after they said it, only your post popped up while I was typing it. But since it was still very close to it, and you were talking to the same person, it should have worked out all right anyway.




Insofar as you appear to be responding to Firelance, it appears to me you do not understand his arguments at all.

Perhaps you are responding to a post I missed?


----------



## Scion (Dec 13, 2004)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> Insofar as you appear to be responding to Firelance, it appears to me you do not understand his arguments at all.
> 
> Perhaps you are responding to a post I missed?




I understand him just fine, I just disagree with several of his main points and so I made mention of one.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Dec 14, 2004)

Thanee said:
			
		

> For some reason, I do not think Cleave has been invented with the idea of multiple quick strikes in mind.
> 
> Bye
> Thanee




True. Guess it depends on how its applied 

Still, got me on that one.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Dec 14, 2004)

sfedi said:
			
		

> It's funny how all these guys say that they would allow Cleave in an AoO, but then they create absurd rulings to prevent abuse from it.




How so?

This is not an arguement, I'm just lost at the moment. What has been given as examples?

Personally, as long as an ally is not the initial target, I'm fine with its use. If the player learns something new,  I get to learn a new tactic to stop it (Spring attack, two at a time, is always a good choice).


----------



## Storyteller01 (Dec 14, 2004)

FireLance said:
			
		

> To reiterate (and rephrase slightly): To me, an AOO is an extra chance to attack a combatant that occurs because he lowered his defences. A combatant who does not lower his defences should not be subject to any extra attacks that are only possible because of lowered defences.




But you have to remember being on the defensive, or even having a defense, does not mean having a perfect defense. Unless your standing behind a wall, you have an opening. This is the reason all martial styles, including european styles such as Fencing or Savat (I think I spelled that right) teach multiple types of guards. 

Granted boxing does not teach low blocks (or at least blocks to defend the legs), but then again they can't target shots below the belt (in competition anyway)


----------



## Storyteller01 (Dec 14, 2004)

FireLance said:
			
		

> Similarly, to me, Cleave and Great Cleave are feats that make weak opponents irrelevant. A high-level fighter with four iterative attacks per round who is fighting a powerful opponent and several weak ones could aim all his four attacks at the powerful opponent. However, Cleave and Great Cleave allow him to cut down the weak opponents and Cleave off them to attack others, including the powerful one. Used in this way, Cleave and Great Cleave don't give the fighter any more attacks against any single opponent than if he had focused all his attention on him. The powerful opponent is no worse off no matter how many minions he surrounds himself with. They are at worst irrelevant, and at best, they could soak up some of the attacks that would have been directed at him.




But the concept makes sense (at least to me). A pretty common rule of thumb (for cinema and real life) is to let the little guys wear down the opponents. I would wonder why the BBEG is so close (spatially, not moraly) or so involved with such minor players. If it had been two or three lieutenants who have taken multiple shots from players, get dropped to about 3 hp, then get AoO/Cleaved with the BBEG getting caught in the middle, I could see the situation. The BBEG brought the fight to a close a nd personal level, and accepted the risk thinking the three buddies would save him. 

Why is the BBEG so close in combat to folks who will die in one hit anyway?

Just ranting...


----------



## Wrathamon (Dec 14, 2004)

I sort a agree with your assertion



> I do quite firmly believe that if the rule was that AoO Cleave was not allowed, some of the people for it would be against it and nearly none of the people against it would change their minds (merely because some people like to follow the rules, regardless of what those rules are).




I agree that people would follow the rules and defend them if the rules were changed, but there is nothing wrong with that, just as there is nothing wrong with saying a rule is wrong and you go about trying to find a reasonable change to fix it.

In this instance, some people feel there is no reason to fix what isn't broken in their minds and those of the design team, while in the anti cleave aoo camp it doesn’t matter what people think, they feel its wrong and no one is going to change your mind.

I do disagree with the for balance and fairness argument, not that you aren’t for that... Because, I think most people "should" be.

My disagreement is that I don’t believe Cleave and AoO is not balanced. You get one free attack if you drop someone from your attack. So whether you got this free attack on your turn or off an AoO doesn’t matter, you would have still received it. Now, is getting a free attack from dropping someone Fair? 

Fair is very subjective, more so than the term balanced.

I also don’t think it's NOT balance to house rule that you CANT Cleave off AoO. I don’t really see it hurting anything that much considering AoO and dropping someone from that attack is a rare occurrence. This would weaken certain builds and make them obsolete (combat reflex, reach, great cleave fighters) who specialize in the AoO cleave tactic.

So, if you HR that you can't, sure I am not going to argue it if I was in your game. You had your reasons, but I won't be changing it for my games because I dont see it as being an unfair or unbalanced.



> We have basically beaten this horse about as much as we can.




I will agree with you here, but it seems that people haven’t beaten the horse enough... is that an evil act? Beating a dead horse? 

I really only have one more question and then I am done with this topic unless a post perks my interest.



> WotC PURPOSELY made Summon Monster spells extraplanar to avoid the very morality issue that you are making.




have you read anywhere that they did this on purpose? Can you show a designer interview or faq or anything supporting this claim or is this your opinion of the matter? If it is your opinion then you really should state that this is your opinion and not make it sound as if it’s RAW. But, if you did read this someone please show this because I would be VERY interested in that because that is a very conscious design choice and I am curious about what goes into choices like that. I can see your interpretation of this and it does make sense.

By no means am I trying to put you on the spot, I would just like clarification, and if there are specifics from wotc supporting this, that would be nice reading.


----------



## Abraxas (Dec 14, 2004)

> But the concept makes sense (at least to me). A pretty common rule of thumb (for cinema and real life) is to let the little guys wear down the opponents. I would wonder why the BBEG is so close (spatially, not moraly) or so involved with such minor players. If it had been two or three lieutenants who have taken multiple shots from players, get dropped to about 3 hp, then get AoO/Cleaved with the BBEG getting caught in the middle, I could see the situation. The BBEG brought the fight to a close a nd personal level, and accepted the risk thinking the three buddies would save him.
> 
> Why is the BBEG so close in combat to folks who will die in one hit anyway?
> 
> Just ranting...



The BBEG is in close to take advantage of your now limited mobility.
Or (specific example from a game I play in)
The BBEG happens to be a goblin vampire and all his minions are goblins.  So even when they are trying to defend him they become a liability.
Or (from a different game)
The 6th level fighters are averaging 27 points damage per hit which takes out a lot of 4 HD mooks with one hit.  So even mooks that on the surface seem reasonable, aren't.
Or
The BBEG doesn't want to let all the party concentrate on just him.

The problem with the BBEG not using numbers is that then the DM is metagaming.




> My disagreement is that I don’t believe Cleave and AoO is not balanced. You get one free attack if you drop someone from your attack. So whether you got this free attack on your turn or off an AoO doesn’t matter, you would have still received it.



The difference is that an AoO/Cleave attack is an attack in addition to the characters normal attacks.  And is at the characters highest attack value.  An attack that drops a foe and results in a cleave doesn't provide an additional attack against the BBEG - the character could have, instead just attacked the BBEG.  And each such attack is at a reduced attack value.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Dec 14, 2004)

Abraxas said:
			
		

> The problem with the BBEG not using numbers is that then the DM is metagaming.




How so? (not an attack, just fisshing for examples)


----------



## FireLance (Dec 14, 2004)

Storyteller01 said:
			
		

> But you have to remember being on the defensive, or even having a defense, does not mean having a perfect defense. Unless your standing behind a wall, you have an opening. This is the reason all martial styles, including european styles such as Fencing or Savat (I think I spelled that right) teach multiple types of guards.



Agreed, not dropping your defense does not mean having a perfect defence. This is represented by attack rolls. In any round of combat, each opponent that attacks you in melee has a number of chances to injure you based on his BAB and other melee attack modifiers. Say, you are in combat with a 12th-level fighter with whose melee attacks are at +25/+20/+15. If your AC is 31, he has a 75% chance to hit and damage you on his first attack, a 50% chance to do so on his second attack, and a 25% chance to do so on his third. Unless you lower your defences (provoke an AOO), that will be all his chances to hit and damage you in any 1-round period.

Now, suppose it is possible to Cleave off an AOO. Your ally provokes an AOO and your opponent drops him. He then attacks you, gaining a fourth attack against you in this 1-round period. Where does this extra attack come from? The loss of an ally in itself does not normally create any additional gaps in your defence. Your opponent does not get an AOO against you if an ally dies from a spell. Over the course of a 1-round period, your opponent is assumed to be continually testing your defences. Your opponent cannot claim an extra attack against you even if he ignores your ally and focuses all his attention on you. Paradoxically, he has to shift his attention to your ally for the split second that he needs to attack and down him before he can send an extra attack your way.

So, if you have not lowered your defences, and your opponent gets an extra attack against you, it can only be concluded that he has somehow increased his offensive capability by dropping your ally. Perhaps he gets an adrenaline surge after doing so and this translates into an additional attack. If I was playing in a campaign where Cleaving off an AOO is allowed, this is how I would justify it. However, this is not how I see Cleave working, so I wouldn't allow it. It is not a question of rules, or balance, or plausibility, or logic. It's just personal preference.


----------



## Scion (Dec 14, 2004)

FireLance said:
			
		

> In any round of combat, each opponent that attacks you in melee has a number of chances to injure you based on his BAB and other melee attack modifiers.




And feats, spells, special abilities, etc.



			
				FireLance said:
			
		

> Where does this extra attack come from?




In this case? from a feat. But it could've been from a number of other sources as well depending on the exact circumstances.

His feat allows him an extra attack under specific circumstances. Just like a guy with rapid shot gets extra attacks under specific circumstances. It just so happens that rapid shot happens much more often and can be planned for directly where as cleave happens from the vagarity of the combat world. It is inherantly taking advantage of a situation that only someone specially trained can do.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 14, 2004)

FireLance said:
			
		

> Now, suppose it is possible to Cleave off an AOO. Your ally provokes an AOO and your opponent drops him. He then attacks you, gaining a fourth attack against you in this 1-round period. Where does this extra attack come from? The loss of an ally in itself does not normally create any additional gaps in your defence.




So how do you explain Cleave working on a _normal_ attack?

He gets a fourth attack in a 1-round period... without Cleave, he's limited to three attacks total, with Cleave he gains a fourth attack.  The loss of an ally in itself does not normally create any additional gaps in your defence... where does this extra attack come from?

-Hyp.


----------



## FireLance (Dec 14, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> So how do you explain Cleave working on a _normal_ attack?
> 
> He gets a fourth attack in a 1-round period... without Cleave, he's limited to three attacks total, with Cleave he gains a fourth attack.  The loss of an ally in itself does not normally create any additional gaps in your defence... where does this extra attack come from?
> 
> -Hyp.



The extra attack is only from the attacker's perspective. From the defender's perspective, if the attacker had attacked only him, he would have got at most three attacks. If the attacker attacked three of the defender's allies on his turn and Cleaved off them onto the defender, the attacker still gets at most three attacks against the defender in that 1-round period. The defender's allies may have been irrelevant, but they do not create additional holes in the defender's defence for the attacker to exploit.


----------



## FireLance (Dec 14, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> His feat allows him an extra attack under specific circumstances. Just like a guy with rapid shot gets extra attacks under specific circumstances. It just so happens that rapid shot happens much more often and can be planned for directly where as cleave happens from the vagarity of the combat world. It is inherantly taking advantage of a situation that only someone specially trained can do.



Fair enough, but what is he taking advantage _of_? If dropping an ally does not create extra gaps in a defender's defence, then dropping the ally must somehow enhance the attacker's offensive capability, perhaps, as I mentioned above, by giving the attacker an adrenaline boost that translates into an additional attack. I'm not arguing whether it's legal, or balanced, or plausible, or logical. I'm just saying that I don't like the idea.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 14, 2004)

FireLance said:
			
		

> The extra attack is only from the attacker's perspective.




What difference does that make?

He could make three attacks; with Cleave he can make four.

The defender sees fighters like that chop down three of his minions each round all the time, but _this_ one can chop down four!  Where dfoes the extra attack come from?

However you explain Cleave, you can explain Cleave from an AoO.

-Hyp.


----------



## Vlos (Dec 14, 2004)

Ok, got an offical answer from WoTC



> Yes, you can make a cleave attack after dropping somebody with an attack of opportunity as long as you haven't made a previous cleave attack that round. Have fun and good gaming!
> 
> Trevor
> Customer Service Department
> Wizards of the Coast


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Dec 14, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> What difference does that make?
> 
> He could make three attacks; with Cleave he can make four.
> 
> ...




A wild exageration.  There are many, many plausible explanations for Cleave, some of which allow for the logical possibility of AoO + Cleave, some of which do not.

I would explain it as three attacks, one of which hits two targets.  Not four.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Dec 14, 2004)

FireLance said:
			
		

> Now, suppose it is possible to Cleave off an AOO. Your ally provokes an AOO and your opponent drops him. He then attacks you, gaining a fourth attack against you in this 1-round period. Where does this extra attack come from? The loss of an ally in itself does not normally create any additional gaps in your defence.





I beg to differ on this comment. 

Having an ally gives several advantages, one of which is have someone else cover a hole in your defense. This allows you to focus your own defense and attacks to other circumstances. 

If your ally is taken down, and he was 'covering your back', a huge hole in your defense has just been opened. 

The attack roll from the Cleave can signify how exposed you are to this new situation (being an attack at the opponents highest attack value). The attack roll can also be used to signify how quickly you adapt to the new situation.

NOTE: In IMC, defenders roll for defense, instead of just adding 10 to the relivant modifiers. This could be why my point of view diverges so greatly from yours. I have to explain to players what happened in combat, and why they achieved high or low scores on attack OR defense.


Now suppose this is not the case, that your ally is on the opposite side of said opponent. This would a case of 'guile and trickery will beat enthusiasm every time...). 

You approach the opponents rear, seeing him taking an AoO on the ally on tyhe other side (say 10 feet away). Now IMHO, an attack from an AoO will look like most other attacks...

Anyway, he attacks your bud on one side as you approach his rear from the other. Lo ane behold, he knew you were there!! Not only did he get your friend, he got you to walk into the strike path as well...


----------



## Storyteller01 (Dec 14, 2004)

*If you think the AoO/Cleave option is wicked...*

Check out this feat from the OGL source book 'Blight Magic':

"Furious Blow (general)

Prereq: Cleave, Power Attack

Benenfits: In combat, if a character drops another foe to 0 or less hit points in one attack, they may apply any remaining damage to any adjacent foe within their reach.

For example, (character name) strikes a telling blow on a goblin that has only 4 hit points, doing 14 hit points of damage. When the goblin drops to 0 hit points, (character name) may then apply the remaining damage (in this case 10 hit points) to any adjacent foe within 5 feet of him (he is a Medium creature with a 5 foot reach).

The targeted foe receives a Reflex Save to avoid this damage all together (DC: 10 + base base attack bonus of attacker). If the save fails, the damage is applied automatically. If the save is successful, the intended target takes no damage."

Not only do I get a Cleave from dropping a foe, but I can nail another target with the first hit as well (the first target will easily stabilize, but hey...)


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 14, 2004)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> I would explain it as three attacks, one of which hits two targets.  Not four.




And when he drops on opponent ten feet down the north corridor with his longspear, and uses Cleave to attack a second opponent ten feet down the east corridor?

-Hyp.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Dec 14, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> And when he drops on opponent ten feet down the north corridor with his longspear, and uses Cleave to attack a second opponent ten feet down the east corridor?




Some actions are more effective than others.  As are some attack combinations.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 15, 2004)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> Some actions are more effective than others.  As are some attack combinations.




No, I mean how can you consider that one attack that hits two targets?

It's an immediate extra melee attack, but it doesn't work as 'the same attack'.

-Hyp.


----------



## FireLance (Dec 15, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> What difference does that make?
> 
> He could make three attacks; with Cleave he can make four.
> 
> ...



Okay, this is going into the abstract philosophical question of "What does an attack roll represent?"

To me, an attack roll does not always represent a single strike with a weapon, although it can, as in the case of thrown weapons, projectile weapons, and perhaps Spring Attack, Ride-by Attack and Whirlwind Attack.

Rather, an attack roll represents the chance that the attacker will be able to hit and damage the defender over the course of a round. In melee combat, the attacker is assumed to swing his weapon several times. Individual swings may be parried, blocked, dodged, etc., but the attack roll represents the net effect of all the strikes instead of any specific one. (The issue of "What do hit points represent?" is a tangentially related point - in the "hp = vitality points" system, a "hit" that reduces hit points might represent a weapon swing that does not actually injure the defender, but tires him slightly as he dodges or parries the blow).

If a defender drops his defences momentarily, this creates an opening that an attacker can exploit. This is represented by giving the attacker an additional attack roll - an AOO.

So what does Cleave represent in this system? Perhaps the ability to press the attack on two (or more, with Great Cleave) opponents at a time, so that if one can be dispatched easily, the quality of the attack against the other does not suffer (the attacker still gets to make the same number of attack rolls against him).

So, an attacker with Cleave presses the attack on two opponents simultaneously, and one drops his guard momentarily. He gets an AOO against that opponent, and is still able to press the attack against the other. However, since the other defender has not dropped his guard, the attacker gets no additional advantage against him. He continues to press the attack against him, just as he would if the other defender was not there, but that does not translate into an "extra" attack roll.

Of course, you can also explain Cleave in other ways, e.g. an adrenaline surge that increases the attacker's offensive capabaility, that would allow for an "extra" attack roll.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 15, 2004)

FireLance said:
			
		

> He continues to press the attack against him, just as he would if the other defender was not there, but that does not translate into an "extra" attack roll.
> 
> Of course, you can also explain Cleave in other ways, e.g. an adrenaline surge that increases the attacker's offensive capabaility, that would allow for an "extra" attack roll.




And since the Cleave feat _does_ translate into an extra attack roll, the 'pressing attack' explanation is insufficient by itself to explain the feat 

-Hyp.


----------



## FireLance (Dec 15, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> And since the Cleave feat _does_ translate into an extra attack roll, the 'pressing attack' explanation is insufficient by itself to explain the feat
> 
> -Hyp.



That was the bit about the quality of the attack against one defender not suffering if the other can be dispatched easily. Essentially, the attacker attacks him as if the other defender was not there. And if the other defender provokes an AOO, the attacker still attacks the first defender as if the other defender was not there, i.e. no additional attack.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 15, 2004)

FireLance said:
			
		

> And if the other defender provokes an AOO, the attacker still attacks the first defender as if the other defender was not there, i.e. no additional attack.




So again, that flavour doesn't suffice to handle the rules... more flavour required 

-Hyp.


----------



## FireLance (Dec 15, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> So again, that flavour doesn't suffice to handle the rules... more flavour required
> 
> -Hyp.



No ally:
Well, if the attacker gets three iterative attacks, he makes three attack rolls against the defender in a round. 

Cleave on attacker's turn:
If he's attacking a defender with a weak ally, he presses the attack against them both and the effort he needs to make an attack roll against the weak ally is so negligible that he is still able to make three attack rolls against the defender in a round, as if the ally was not present.

Ally provokes AOO:
If the weak ally provokes an AOO, the attacker is able to dispatch him with negligible effort and continue attacking the defender as if the ally was not there. Which means, he still makes three attack rolls in a round. 

Allowing Cleave off an AOO would mean that the attacker gets four attack rolls against the defender, but that's not what I'm supposed to describe, right?


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Dec 15, 2004)

I allow a Cleave on an AoO.  As FireLance stated, I see the attacker as simultaneously exchanging blows with any and all attackers within his threat range.  An AoO is a momentary opening that allows what was otherwise a negligible swing to become a serious threat (and therefore get an attack roll.)

I use a variety of different descriptions of Cleave.  In the case of enemies standing beside each other, I like the ol' "cut through one guy, follow through to the other" description.  For Cleaves where the opponents are not adjacent, I tend to describe it as one foe's death causing a momentary drop of the other foe's guard.  Perhaps the foes were good friends.  Perhaps the remaining foe was shaken by seeing his buddy's guts spilt out over the dungeon floor.  Perhaps (as someone else described) you swing the downed foe into the standing one.  Whatever the reason, it gives the attacker a chance to have one of his thrusts become a serious threat (and thus gain an attack.)

In a way, Cleave basically allows you to gain an AoO on another foe in range, if you manage to drop one.  It _creates_ an AoO, similar to the way Hold The Line creates an AoO for moving into a threatened space.  The only difference is that Cleave's granted attack doesn't count toward your limit of AoOs.  It has its own restriction, which can be expanded by picking up Great Cleave.

Ah, well.  Works for me.


----------



## Thanee (Dec 15, 2004)

So you have something else to discuss...

 Attacks of Opportunity and the Special Initiative Actions (as well as Immediate Actions) are the only exceptions to the general rule, that you can only act during your own turn.

 So, a Cleave attack cannot be made outside of your own turn. 

 Of course, it is immediate, and so you gain it right after the AoO, but since it is not your turn, you cannot use it and have to forfeit it.

 Bye
 Thanee


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 15, 2004)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Attacks of Opportunity and the Special Initiative Actions (as well as Immediate Actions) are the only exceptions to the general rule, that you can only act during your own turn.




Well, no... the rule seems to be that you can only take _actions_ during your turn.

The attack from Cleave is not an action.  It's not a free action, or a movwe action, or a standard action, or a full round action.  Like an AoO, it's no sort of action at all.  It's just an attack.

-Hyp.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Dec 15, 2004)

Thanee said:
			
		

> So you have something else to discuss...
> 
> Attacks of Opportunity and the Special Initiative Actions (as well as Immediate Actions) are the only exceptions to the general rule, that you can only act during your own turn.
> 
> ...




No offense, but can you show me where the RAW states that only the actions you mentioned are the only actions you can take out of turn? I agree, these are exceptions, but I haven't seen anything that says Cleave is not an exception to this rule...

Again, no offense, but anything beuond "Cleave cannot be taken out of turn" or some such direct statement would seem to be inferred information. Remember, Salem witch trials were based almost completely on inferred evidence (she was on my property a year ago, and my cow died. SHE'S A WITCH!!!)

An oddball example, but adequete for showing what can happen if direct evidence is not presented...


----------



## Storyteller01 (Dec 15, 2004)

FireLance said:
			
		

> Essentially, the attacker attacks him as if the other defender was not there. And if the other defender provokes an AOO, the attacker still attacks the first defender as if the other defender was not there, i.e. no additional attack.




neh....

Have to disagree. Most likely, it had been a redirection of the attack. Maybe not a proper attack, per say, but it still requires effort to control and target properly.


----------



## FireLance (Dec 17, 2004)

Storyteller01 said:
			
		

> neh....
> 
> Have to disagree. Most likely, it had been a redirection of the attack. Maybe not a proper attack, per say, but it still requires effort to control and target properly.



Redirection works, too. If the weak ally had not been there, the attacker would still have swung his weapon at the defender, and it would have been dodged, parried, blocked or whatever. He doesn't get an additional attack roll in that round.

The presence of the weak ally shouldn't change anything (in my view). The attacker drops the weak ally with minimal effort and still manages to swing his weapon at the defender, and it would still be dodged, parried, blocked or whatever. He still doesn't get an additional attack roll in that round.

One final nitpick about Cleave creating an AOO by causing one combatant to stumble against another or the death of one foe causing the other to drop his guard: Cleave even works even when you're fighting two Colossal mindless animated skeletons or iron golems. I suppose it's possible for an attacker to destroy one in such a way that it interferes with the other, but it would really require him to work that 13+ Strength!


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 17, 2004)

FireLance said:
			
		

> The attacker drops the weak ally with minimal effort and still manages to swing his weapon at the defender, and it would still be dodged, parried, blocked or whatever. He still doesn't get an additional attack roll in that round.




Unless he has Cleave.



> One final nitpick about Cleave creating an AOO...




It doesn't.  It creates an immediate extra melee attack.

-Hyp.


----------



## hazardjsimpson (Dec 17, 2004)

*Cleave on AoO, etc -*

In my group, we've debated a few times over the Cleave on AoO or not, and we feel that it's not appropriate. Even though by the definition in the SRD it *would* be allowed on an AoO, it's not really logical.

First off, the whole "Cleave" effect can be looked at lots of ways. It's easy to imagine anyone wielding any bladed type weapon cutting thru and then into an adjacent opponent, and it's also relatively easy to imagine a skilled warrior being able to make an attack, down the target, and then continue the momentum into another foe. Someone earlier posted about how you could do that with a mace, etc -- but they obviously haven't been smacked around in combat by someone proficient with their weapon, either.

We don't allow Cleave on an AoO because of the nature of the AoO, not just the nature of Cleave. An Attack of Opportunity is exactly that: an opportunity. By interpreting the AoO as a "swipe at someone as they pass" or a quick jab while an opponent is wide open, etc., then there's really no logical place for the Cleave. AoO is limited to 1 per round (unless you have Combat Reflexes) for a reason, and to me that precludes Cleaving on an AoO as well.

Now, on the player's turn, when they can concentrate on a foe or two and begin leaving swaths of dead goblins behind them, Cleave makes much better sense, and is killer fun. Arms, legs, and heads a flyin'...

On a related note, we've also cheesed Great Cleave a little bit as well, for anyone who's interested in GC but afraid to use it:

_____________
HAZARD'S HOUSE RULE GREAT CLEAVE [GENERAL]
Prerequisites: Str 16, Cleave, Power Attack, base attack bonus +4.

Benefit: This feat works like Cleave, except you gain an additional number of attacks equal to your Strength score bonus. For example, if your fighter has a Strength of 16 (+3 bonus), you could conceiveably Great Cleave up to 3 times.

Normal: Cleave grants an additional melee attack when downing or killing a foe in combat.

Special: A fighter may select Great Cleave as one of his fighter bonus feats.
______________

Main changes are the STR requirement, and basing additional attacks off your STR bonus... The stronger you are, etc etc etc...


----------



## Nail (Dec 17, 2004)

ooh, oooh, oohhh!   Can I post on page 17 too?!   On a *way* over-argued topic?

Great!

As per RAW, and IMHO, you can cleave off an AoO.  There's no reason not to, frankly.  Use your imagination.


----------



## hazardjsimpson (Dec 18, 2004)

*We could all imagine...*

...monkeys shooting out of our butts as bludgeoning ranged weapons too, but there are places for discretion, and a little bit of logic, I think.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Dec 19, 2004)

hazardjsimpson said:
			
		

> ...monkeys shooting out of our butts as bludgeoning ranged weapons too, but there are places for discretion, and a little bit of logic, I think.




I dunno....

maces may not follow through a target, but they bounce rather well, especially on armored targets. Don't be;ieve me, watch any film where cops are using batons! 

Redirect the rebound into another target. This fits with the 'following the flow of combat' theory.  You actually exert more strength forcing a weapon onto a proscribed vector than letting the resulting rebound do the work for you. Just follow through after the hit.

You could also go with the 'controlling the fight' tact. Killing so and so left an opening in so and so's flank. Your mace just happened to be there at that time!


----------



## hazardjsimpson (Dec 20, 2004)

Storyteller01 said:
			
		

> I dunno....
> 
> maces may not follow through a target, but they bounce rather well, especially on armored targets. Don't be;ieve me, watch any film where cops are using batons!
> 
> ...





I agree completely, this is partially the point I was trying to make in my other post. Having used blunt fighting weapons, I know all too well how rebounding makes for a wonderful followup or additional attack, especially against adjacent foes.


----------

