Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Genestealer 01-18-07, 08:52 AM	Hello, I’m here to express a concern I have with attacks of opportunity(hence forth known as AoOs) and seek advice what I should do. If there is something in the rules that I have overlooked, PLEASE feel free to correct me! The issue is as follows: Situation: A fighter with cleave is in combat opponents A and B. Opponent B does something to provoke an AoO (e.g., moving through a threatened square, drinking a potion, etc.), so the fighter gets an AoO. This attacks drops opponent B, and because of the cleave feat, he gets an immediate attack on another opponent he threatens; namely, opponent A. This extra attack from cleave does not seem to count against the fighter’s number of AoOs per round. Problem: In the above scenario, opponent A did nothing wrong, but still got attacked. Where I have the problem is when the fighter has great cleave, combat reflexes, and gets someone to cast cheap low level summoning spells to have several “one shot-able” creatures move through his threatened squares, provoking attacks of opportunity, getting killed in one hit, and using the cleave to get several extra attacks on his primary target. It seems unfair to opponent A. Potential solution: I could house rule that cleave does not work on AoOs, or I could rule that the extra cleave attack counts one of his AoOs for that round. I’m mixed on my feelings about those rules and am open to other suggestions.
The_Ditto 01-18-07, 09:05 AM	Hello, I’m here to express a concern I have with attacks of opportunity(hence forth known as AoOs) and seek advice what I should do. If there is something in the rules that I have overlooked, PLEASE feel free to correct me! The issue is as follows: Situation: A fighter with cleave is in combat opponents A and B. Opponent B does something to provoke an AoO (e.g., moving through a threatened square, drinking a potion, etc.), so the fighter gets an AoO. This attacks drops opponent B, and because of the cleave feat, he gets an immediate attack on another opponent he threatens; namely, opponent A. This extra attack from cleave does not seem to count against the fighter’s number of AoOs per round. Correct so far ... Problem: In the above scenario, opponent A did nothing wrong, Irrelevant ... I'm firing an Uzi at Target A ... he's trying to avoid me, so runs for cover and runs in front of Target B ... who happens to be dealing with a shopping cart and trying to find her keys ... Target B did nothing wrong, and yet, still got hit ... Yeah? And? but still got attacked. Where I have the problem is when the fighter has great cleave, combat reflexes, and gets someone to cast cheap low level summoning spells to have several “one shot-able” creatures move through his threatened squares, provoking attacks of opportunity, getting killed in one hit, and using the cleave to get several extra attacks on his primary target. It seems unfair to opponent A. This is a long-running issue .. it started off as the "bag-o-rats" trick with Whirlwind, but they "fixed" that ... You are correct, however, they "could" do that ... but then again, they're wasting resources to do that by casting summon spells ... when the wizard could have just cast a big fireball or something, and done a heck of a lot more damage to everyone ... Personally, if the PCs want to waste their time doing this .. that's just find with me ... now that the wizard has wasted his action .. and the fighter has used up all his AoOs ... Now, I'll bring in the Dire Lion, run past the fighter (no AoO - he's out) and take out the wizard ... (read: Charge/Pounce/Rake) ... It's not necessarily a "broken" or "superior" tactic ... a cheesy one? Sure .. but easily remedied ... ;) Potential solution: I could house rule that cleave does not work on AoOs, or I could rule that the extra cleave attack counts one of his AoOs for that round. I’m mixed on my feelings about those rules and am open to other suggestions. I wouldn't do anything except use smart tactics on the opponent's side and mop the floor with them when they provide the opening ... Fighting a hoard of orcs? Kewl, now that they know the fighter has no AoO .. they rush the casters ... :eek:
starfire311 01-18-07, 09:39 AM	Irrelevant ... I'm firing an Uzi at Target A ... he's trying to avoid me, so runs for cover and runs in front of Target B ... who happens to be dealing with a shopping cart and trying to find her keys ... Target B did nothing wrong, and yet, still got hit ... irrelevant, you do not threaten with ranged weapons, and even if you did you would only get one attack, not a spray. Target B did not provoke an AoO, and should not be subject to an attack from one. This is a long-running issue .. it started off as the "bag-o-rats" trick with Whirlwind, but they "fixed" that ... Yes it is, and most people realize that it was wring and houseruled to fix it, long before 3.5 You are correct, however, they "could" do that ... but then again, they're wasting resources to do that by casting summon spells ... when the wizard could have just cast a big fireball or something, and done a heck of a lot more damage to everyone ... Personally, if the PCs want to waste their time doing this .. that's just find with me ... now that the wizard has wasted his action .. and the fighter has used up all his AoOs ... Now, I'll bring in the Dire Lion, run past the fighter (no AoO - he's out) and take out the wizard ... (read: Charge/Pounce/Rake) ... So, is this how you always play your monsters? once 1 provokes from the fighter, have the rest charge past at the wizard? and did they not see this dire lion before hand, or did he suddenly materialize when the fighter got 4 extra attacks from a summon monster spell. It's not necessarily a "broken" or "superior" tactic ... a cheesy one? Sure .. but easily remedied ... ;) yes easily remedied by metagaming. I wouldn't do anything except use smart tactics on the opponent's side and mop the floor with them when they provide the opening ... you should always use tactics that are what the enemy should use, in general dire lions should not be using great tactics. Fighting a hoard of orcs? Kewl, now that they know the fighter has no AoO .. they rush the casters ... :eek: yeah because he wasted all of his AoOs killing orcs, that somehow doesn't seem like a bad use of them, if there were that many more orcs than the fighter ahd AoOs, they could charge past him and rush the casters regardless of what he did, using this tactic has no effect one way or the other, except now there are less orcs to get to the casters. With this tactic it would almost be worth it for the fighter to get UMD, and summon his own monsters to kill, if he can get 4 extra attacks from Great cleave, at his highest BAB, then that is far better than using his 1-3 attacks with iterative BAB.
Millennium 01-18-07, 09:41 AM	Problem: In the above scenario, opponent A did nothing wrong, but still got attacked. Opponent A did the same thing wrong that everyone on the wrong end of a Cleave attack does: he was standing too close to the person who received the attack. The flavor of Cleave is that you basically go right through the opponent you dropped. Where I have the problem is when the fighter has great cleave, combat reflexes, and gets someone to cast cheap low level summoning spells to have several “one shot-able” creatures move through his threatened squares, provoking attacks of opportunity, getting killed in one hit, and using the cleave to get several extra attacks on his primary target. It seems unfair to opponent A. Ah; the bag of rats. This was discovered in 3.0. It's named for the idea that a fighter could drop a big bag of rats, AoO them when they scattered, and Cleave off of them against another nearby opponent. This requires the following: Power Attack (prerequisite for Cleave) Cleave (the basic mechanic) Great Cleave (to make more than one Cleave attack per round) Combat Reflexes (to make more than one AoO per round) STR 13 and BAB +4 (prerequisites involved in the Great Cleave feat chain) This is not a small set of prerequisites, nor is it easy to hide. It takes a little discretion, since many perfectly reasonable players might go for Great Cleave and Combat Reflexes, but it's a major enough red flag that you can usually spot a bag-of-rats munchkin from a mile away. The fixes generally don't require hourserules. The classic fix for an actual bag of rats is to have the rats cower or hide rather than flee. They don't move, so they don't provoke AoOs, and it's a perfectly reasonable tactic for rats to take. In the case of summoned creatures, it's worth noting that a summoned creature fights "to the best of its ability"; it's capable of independent thought and has its own discretion in how it carries out its orders. After one such creature gets instant-killed by the fighter, the others are going to realize that getting close to that guy is suicidal, and that they can do better by giving him a wide berth, going around the fighter, and attacking the actual enemy from another angle. If the players still insist on this absurd technique, then fight absurdity with absurdity: the summoned creatures unionize and demand hazard pay, or else they'll go on strike and refuse to answer his summons. If the players object -and they probably will- point them at the article about Eludecia the Succubus Paladin for precedent: she can still technically summon vrocks, but as long as she retains her LG alignment the vrocks will refuse to answer her summons.
Genestealer 01-18-07, 09:47 AM	Ditto, your comments are appreciated and understood, so please don’t think me ungrateful that someone is trying to help, but I do take issue with a couple of your examples: I'm firing an Uzi at Target A ... he's trying to avoid me, so runs for cover and runs in front of Target B ... who happens to be dealing with a shopping cart and trying to find her keys ... I understand what you’re getting at, but could you use an example more in the D&D flavor (AKA, without firearms), and without a ranged attack, which cannot be used as an AoO? Fighting a hoard of orcs? Kewl, now that they know the fighter has no AoO .. they rush the casters ... :eek: I sort of have a problem taking a stereotypically “dumb” race like orc and giving them the intelligence to count AoOs as they happen and coordinate this hive-mind sudden rush on rear casters. I don’t like countering cheese with cheese. My apologies for not being strait forward; my worry was not letting PCs have this tactic, it was a BBEG in a crowded area. As he fights the PCs, he could take AoOs (imagine fires and battle all around as a town is attacked by his minions) on peasants running around or his own troops for that matter. He would lay waste to people left and right, while getting extra attacks on the PCs. While I liked this idea to begin with to get the really macabre CE nature of the bad guy across to the PCs, I quickly realized cruel reality of this broken game mechanic. It’s the right flavor, it’s just the wrong execution.
Eightbitmage 01-18-07, 10:08 AM	Oops didn't see the bit about this being for the BBEG. Oh well no sense in deleting all this. Look at it this way, if they don't abuse the issue it ends up being just a little glitch in the system that gives the fighter or barbarian or whatever one extra attack once in a while. Not really game breaking but it will probably make your players happy to use cleave (I know that mine always get excited at a cleave opportunity). Cleave attempts happen rarely enough and this situation is even more rare. So it isn't really a balance issue it can be enjoyable and shouldn't come up that often. On the other hand if they abuse it my reccomendation is to simply ask them not to. Explain that it is total cheese and you hate the impact on the game both mechanically and flavor wise. If they are your friends they will probably concede, if they choose the "but its in the rules so you should allow it" route tell them that you are house ruling that you cannot cleave off AoOs. The latter isn't the best solution, but it beats kicking them out of the game or countering cheese with cheese.
starfire311 01-18-07, 10:17 AM	On the other hand if they abuse it my reccomendation is to simply ask them not to. Explain that it is total cheese and you hate the impact on the game both mechanically and flavor wise. If they are your friends they will probably concede, if they choose the "but its in the rules so you should allow it" route tell them that you are house ruling that you cannot cleave off AoOs. The latter isn't the best solution, but it beats kicking them out of the game or countering cheese with cheese. I second this approach, this is really not an issue at all, unless your players are really trying to abuse the rules, just ask them not to be such munchkins.
olshanski_home 01-18-07, 10:22 AM	I have a simple house rule that cleave only applies during your attack actions, not during AoO. It pretty much gets rid of the whole bag-of-rats problem.
Genestealer 01-18-07, 10:27 AM	Thanks eightbit and starfire. I think I might go ahead with my BBEG doing this one or two times during the fight as opposed to as frequently as possible and simply ask the players not to mimic. Normally I HATE using abilities with my NPCs while discouraging PCs from using them. If they question it, I'll simply explain it was for game flavor and I'd rather them not exploit it regularly. Thanks again!
starfire311 01-18-07, 10:56 AM	Thanks eightbit and starfire. I think I might go ahead with my BBEG doing this one or two times during the fight as opposed to as frequently as possible and simply ask the players not to mimic. Normally I HATE using abilities with my NPCs while discouraging PCs from using them. If they question it, I'll simply explain it was for game flavor and I'd rather them not exploit it regularly. Thanks again! once again, talking to the players seems to be the best solution... It is an interesting flavor for the BBEG, and unless the players already have a similar build for using great cleave and combat reflexes, odds are it won't be a problem anyway.
Wopple 01-18-07, 11:31 AM	To be honest, this is one of those way unrealistic things. If I can attack someone for leaving an opening, and I can be so strong and badass that this attack goes THROUGH them into someone else, can't I just attack that someone else because I feel like it? The technical rule is that you can make Cleave attacks on AoO's, even supported by the Ask Wizards page. Q: If an opponent provokes an attack of opportunity from a character with the Cleave feat which kills that opponent, can that character then attack another opponent within 5 feet with his Cleave feat? --Matthew A: Assuming that the character possessing the Cleave feat has not taken advantage of this feat already this round, they most certainly can take the extra attack on an opponent they threaten, after dropping the opponent that provoked an attack of opportunity. --Chris Lindsay But I still think it makes no sense. Granted, I don't think AoO's make much sense either, but hell. I would do one of the following, if this ever became a problem: 1. Rule that you can only cleave, with great cleave, a number of times per round equal to your STR bonus. 2. Rule that you cannot cleave on more than one AoO a round, or you can't cleave off AoO's at all. 3. Rule that you can only cleave when you defeat a foe, defined as someone who is either opposing your party, or someone introduced by your opponents. IE, you cannot attack friendly summoned monsters, animals you bring in a bag, etc.
mvincent 01-18-07, 12:33 PM	From the FAQ: "If an attack of opportunity drops a foe, can the attacker then make a follow-up Cleave attack? Yes. The Cleave feat doesn’t say anything about the attack that triggers it having to be made on the attacker’s turn." ... this wasn't in dispute, I just thought I'd give any relevant FAQ information. That said, not allowing this is a perfectly reasonable house rule. For my games, I don't worry about it unless a player purposefully tries to do cheesy things with it (which they wouldn't, as I can out-cheese them). Otherwise, I'm ok if they get an occasional unwarranted extra hit out of it. They're heros. It'll probably be fixed in 4.0. Until then, my BBEG's will try to keep control of their minions' movements during battles. It's not realistic, but it is tactical... and D&D combat is somewhat abstract anyway.
Murrdox 01-18-07, 01:35 PM	Potential solution: I could house rule that cleave does not work on AoOs, or I could rule that the extra cleave attack counts one of his AoOs for that round. I’m mixed on my feelings about those rules and am open to other suggestions. If you actually had to "House Rule" this, it would be sad. Just tell your players to stop being idiots and exploiting a rule-loophole with the "Bag of Rats" or "Bucket of Slugs" trick. If they won't stop doing it, throw them up against an opponent who uses it, and see what they say.
JerBar 01-18-07, 01:54 PM	3. Rule that you can only cleave when you defeat a foe, defined as someone who is either opposing your party, or someone introduced by your opponents. IE, you cannot attack friendly summoned monsters, animals you bring in a bag, etc. So far, this would have to be the idea I would go with personaly. It's much better then taking a really good cleave tactic away.
Firestar27 01-18-07, 04:23 PM	Just remember that Combat Relexes it limited by your Dexterity score. Also, You only get a second attack if the first one is a one-shot kill (read kill as drops/knocks unconcious or dead). You only get a third attack if the second attack is a one-shot kill. If he one-shot kills a peasant, then attacks a PC, he can't attack a second PC unless he kills the first PC. If he can one-shot kill the first PC, then don't too worried about free attacks. He's already too powerful.
StevenO 01-18-07, 04:55 PM	The Rule I use with Cleave (and Great Cleave) is that you effectively gain the attack used back. AoO triggers a cleave - you retain the use of that AoO for use at the next opportunity. Charge triggers cleave - you may use cleave now as an attack, with charging bonuses if the target would be legal otherwise a standard attack..
Sildatorak 01-18-07, 06:13 PM	It’s the right flavor, it’s just the wrong execution. If you're looking for the right execution, I recommend just having the guy use normal attacks on these commoners running around. I assume he only misses them on a 1 and will automatically drop them, yes? It probably won't have any effect on the BBEG's power level and it sticks with the CE flavor very well.
pedro2112 01-19-07, 12:33 AM	Why would any DM allow the "bag-o-rats" or the summoned monsters ploy? Just say, "no, you can't take a cleave off of that." Why houserule out cleave's on AoOs when they are used legitimately? Use common sense people.
ShadowDragon8685 01-19-07, 01:38 AM	I thought the problem with the original Bag o' Rats was that the Fighter in question pursued both the Great Cleave and Whirlwind trees to their fullest, to basically increase their attacks on the enemies around them by the number of rats. IE: Surrounded by a bunch of tough orcs. Fightercrazy drops bag of rats as free action, and thus there are now rats in his square. Fightercrazy attacks all five orcs, and kills none of them. Fightercrazy attacks rat 1, kills rat 1, Great Cleaves to Orc 1. Fightercrazy attacks Rat 2, kills rat 2, Great Cleaves to Orc 1, kills Orc 1, Great Cleaves to Orc 2. Fightercrazy attacks Rat 3, kills rat 3, Great Cleaves to Orc 2, kills Orc 2, Great Cleaves to Orc 3. Fightercrazy attacks Rat 3, kills rat 3, Great Cleaves to Orc 3, kills Orc 3, Great Cleaves to Orc 4. Fightercrazy attacks Rat 4, kills Rat 4, Great Cleaves to Orc 4, kills Orc 4, Great Cleaves to Orc 5. Fightercrazy attacks Rat 5, kills Rat 5, Great Cleaves to Orc 5, kills Orc 5. Fightercrazy willingly forgoes his attacks on Rats 6-10. Fight now being over, Fightercrazy gathers up Rats 6-10 on his pouch and goes back to work.
Sildatorak 01-19-07, 08:18 AM	Why would any DM allow the "bag-o-rats" or the summoned monsters ploy? Just say, "no, you can't take a cleave off of that." Why houserule out cleave's on AoOs when they are used legitimately? Use common sense people. I think the basic argument is that cleaving on AoO's never have a legitimate use since the person you attack second will not have done anything to provoke that AoO. I think StevenO's rule is the cleanest solution suggested so far since it addresses that problem without significantly nerfing Cleave.
Marcus Majarra 01-19-07, 05:34 PM	I think the basic argument is that cleaving on AoO's never have a legitimate use since the person you attack second will not have done anything to provoke that AoO. I think StevenO's rule is the cleanest solution suggested so far since it addresses that problem without significantly nerfing Cleave. Except that Cleave doesn't care for what the secondary target did. It only cares for what you do. Basically, it's the extension of the momentum of your initial attack. The cleanest solution to address the issue of the "bag-o'-rats" is to simply disallow the bags themselves. Personally, I'm surprised the rats haven't chewed their way out of the bag, unless they're unconscious to begin with (which makes it so that they do no trigger AoOs).
starfire311 01-19-07, 06:28 PM	Except that Cleave doesn't care for what the secondary target did. It only cares for what you do. Basically, it's the extension of the momentum of your initial attack. The question is though why can you get an attack on someone easier, when you have to swing through a person than when you don't... e.g. why do you get mroe attacks on the BBEG just because he has a goblin lacky there, than if the lacky wasnt there at all. It makes absolutly no sense. Why should you get a free attack on the BBEG, because someone else ran past you, if you could attack him by swinging through someone, it should be easier to get the attack if you didnt have to swing your sword through them.
Marcus Majarra 01-19-07, 06:44 PM	You get the free attack because you saw an opening in an opponent's defenses and chose to take it. The fact that you've just slain an opponent grants you the sufficient momentum to attempt to land an attack that you otherwise couldn't. Ganging up on an enemy with Cleave is a dangerous venue.
calvinNhobbes 01-19-07, 06:49 PM	You get the free attack because you saw an opening in an opponent's defenses and chose to take it. The fact that you've just slain an opponent grants you the sufficient momentum to attempt to land an attack that you otherwise couldn't. Ganging up on an enemy with Cleave is a dangerous venue. So how is that any different than saying you are attacking the air next to the BBEG and cleaving into him. In fact you would have even more momentum because you are just cleaving through air instead a creature.
starfire311 01-19-07, 06:51 PM	So how is that any different than saying you are attacking the air next to the BBEG and cleaving into him. In fact you would have even more momentum because you are just cleaving through air instead a creature. exactly, just attck the air next to him and cleave into him, this could get very deadly if you have combat reflexes, and infact would be much easier to pull of if you didn't have to cleave through an actual person.
pedro2112 01-19-07, 10:32 PM	I think the basic argument is that cleaving on AoO's never have a legitimate use since the person you attack second will not have done anything to provoke that AoO. I think StevenO's rule is the cleanest solution suggested so far since it addresses that problem without significantly nerfing Cleave. I am aware of this "basic" argument, but there are many rules in D&D that don't make sense (actually, the entire combat round doesn't make sense). I wasn't responding to that. I was responding to the preposterous idea that any rational DM would allow cleaves off of a PC dumping a bag of rats or summoning a creature and hacking at it.
Nom 01-20-07, 01:11 AM	The cleanest solution to address the issue of the "bag-o'-rats" is to simply disallow the bags themselves.No, that's exactly the wrong solution, since it relies on ad-hoc fixes to symptoms. Except that Cleave doesn't care for what the secondary target did. It only cares for what you do. Basically, it's the extension of the momentum of your initial attack.And this is the problem. In most cases, Cleave is a mook-killer. Under a normal attack or full attack situation, Cleave grants a "free" attack to kill a weak(ened) target. The problem is that it is mechanically written as a bonus attack as a reward for killing a target. In a standard attack or full attack, there's no practical difference. However, in situations where your target selection is normally restricted, there's a world of difference between "free attack on any target that would have been legal for your original attack" and "free attack on any target". To put it another way, consider that you can normally use a single attack against A or B but not C. "Normal" Cleave grants the option of attacking A and B. "Problem" Cleave occurs when it grants the option of attacking C. In the simple case, C may feel hard done by where a feat that does not seem explicitly intended to allow attacks against invalid targets is used to do so. Gratuitous abuse occurs when the attacker synthesises targets A for the express purpose of generating extra attacks against C. This is what led to the WWA abuse and to Cleave/AoO problems (and incidentally Cleave/charge). Altering cleave such that it only grants the ability to attack someone who was a legal option for the original attack immediately and permanently fixes the entire family of abuses. At the expense of an intuitive but harder to quantify rule. ... Basically, it's the extension of the momentum of your initial attack.Except that it's not. There are many situations where a "cleave" attack cannot possibly be modelled as a continuation of momentum, such as a piercing attack on two targets in completely different directions. In contrast, the mechanical rationale of "drops so easily that it doesn't really count as an attack" models all Cleave situations, plus is consistent with the idea that one "attack" is not necessarily a single roll. Finally, note that "Cleave" merely means "cut in two"; "follow through" is not inherent in the term, although it may be assumed by some readers. A similar confusion occurs with "Whirlwind", which means "very fast" or "spinning all about at once"; the connotation of a scything attack is not required reading and the feat makes a lot more sense without it.
Sildatorak 01-20-07, 11:05 PM	However, in situations where your target selection is normally restricted, there's a world of difference between "free attack on any target that would have been legal for your original attack" and "free attack on any target" Well said Nom. I think that changing this from the latter to the former is probably the simplest fix, though I do favor StevenO's fix slightly because it helps with the idea that if 2 orcs run past you it isn't possible to cleave from one into the other because of the turn structure. I was responding to the preposterous idea that any rational DM would allow cleaves off of a PC dumping a bag of rats or summoning a creature and hacking at it. What is so preposterous about the rules being applied uniformly? Where do you draw the line between "this is ok" and "this is not ok"? At 1 AoO cleave per round? 2? 30? Why go with an arbitrary ruling when a fairly simple fix to the base rule kills all the symptoms?
pedro2112 01-22-07, 01:12 AM	What is so preposterous about the rules being applied uniformly? Where do you draw the line between "this is ok" and "this is not ok"? At 1 AoO cleave per round? 2? 30? Why go with an arbitrary ruling when a fairly simple fix to the base rule kills all the symptoms? Because the cleave feat was designed so that PC's can get an extra attack in after dropping one of their foes in combat. Not so that a character can bring with him some rodents in a bag to get extra attacks at an opponent. We are playing D&D, not a computer game in which someone can find a "glitch" and "win." I do not feel that cleave needs a "fix" because some people use the feat in a way in which no rational human being would allow it, or think that's the way it should be used.
Sildatorak 01-22-07, 07:43 AM	Because the cleave feat was designed so that PC's can get an extra attack in after dropping one of their foes in combat. Not so that a character can bring with him some rodents in a bag to get extra attacks at an opponent. We are playing D&D, not a computer game in which someone can find a "glitch" and "win." I do not feel that cleave needs a "fix" because some people use the feat in a way in which no rational human being would allow it, or think that's the way it should be used. There are 2 ways to fix the glitch. 1) Say, "Sorry, I only allow you to take X cleaves off of AoO's per round." 2) Say, "No cleaving off of AoO's." One of these requires setting an arbitrary number that is based purely on the particular DM's opinion of game balance. The other is based on an attempt to figure out the intention of cleave. I guess my argument boils down to this. The glitch isn't letting people bring their own things to cleave, but instead allowing people to become the target of an attack when the pre-cleave attack couldn't have targetted them. Within the game, having your own cleave-fodder makes sense, but using the idiot running past your with his guard down to attack the enemy who is still defending himself normally does not.
starfire311 01-22-07, 08:32 AM	Because the cleave feat was designed so that PC's can get an extra attack in after dropping one of their foes in combat. Not so that a character can bring with him some rodents in a bag to get extra attacks at an opponent. We are playing D&D, not a computer game in which someone can find a "glitch" and "win." I do not feel that cleave needs a "fix" because some people use the feat in a way in which no rational human being would allow it, or think that's the way it should be used. I believe this would be called the oberoni fallacy.
AquaticSpaceChicken 01-22-07, 10:08 AM	The cleave thing kind of bugs me too, but you could look at it like this: Fighter A and Fighter B are allies. They are fighting near each other, and are expecting to watch each other's back, and fight in concert. If fighter A suddenly drops-- from having provoked an attack of opportunity-- Fighter B's guard is down momentarily because he was expecting Fighter A to still be helping out on that side. So I'd rule that if you drop someone in battle, you can cleave an ally of that person/creature. If a group of peasants suddenly ran through the battle, you couldn't kill one on an AoO and then cleave Fighter B, because the peasants aren't his allies and their presents or absense has no effect on whether he would drop his guard.
The_Ditto 01-22-07, 10:13 AM	irrelevant, you do not threaten with ranged weapons, You are incorrect - as my example has nothing to do with AoOs ... please don't mix and match ... and please don't put words in my mouth .. :tiphat: Yes it is, and most people realize that it was wring and houseruled to fix it, long before 3.5 Whirlwind - agreed Cleave - not true ... there is absolutely no facts to support this statement in relation to Cleave. So, is this how you always play your monsters? No, this is how I always play intelligent monsters ... once 1 provokes from the fighter, have the rest charge past at the wizard? Correct ... it's a standard bait and lure tactic ... I use it both as a DM (when/where appropriate) and as a PC ... works wonders ... and did they not see this dire lion before hand, or did he suddenly materialize when the fighter got 4 extra attacks from a summon monster spell. Nope - could have been hiding, could have been summoned ... maybe they did see it, but it was farther back ... doesn't really matter ... it's called an example ... yes easily remedied by metagaming. Is it metagaming for two people to work together - 1 to distract the target, and the other to slip by un-hindered? Nope ... the AoO mechanic is just how the D&D abstract system works it out ... you should always use tactics that are what the enemy should use, in general dire lions should not be using great tactics. normally, agreed .. unless controlled by a druid ... again, it was an example ... it's too bad you're trying to take things too literally in order to poke holes in my argument .. :rolleyes: yeah because he wasted all of his AoOs killing orcs, that somehow doesn't seem like a bad use of them, if there were that many more orcs than the fighter ahd AoOs, they could charge past him and rush the casters regardless of what he did, using this tactic has no effect one way or the other, except now there are less orcs to get to the casters. Yep .. agreed ... do you have a point? With this tactic it would almost be worth it for the fighter to get UMD, and summon his own monsters to kill, if he can get 4 extra attacks from Great cleave, at his highest BAB, then that is far better than using his 1-3 attacks with iterative BAB. This is where you are grossly misinterpreting things .... he's not getting extra attacks ... he was already entitled to those attacks ... it's just a matter of creating the opportunity to use them. Some fighters rely on Enlarge Person (or Expansion) .. some rely on Reach weapons .. some rely on both ... There are also feats that help utilize those AoOs ... Cleave and Great Cleave are just some of those .... Is it a bad/broken thing for a character to leverage some resources to get an edge in a combat? Nope ... and niether is it bad for the opponent's to use tactics ... and no .. although it may sound like it ... I don't condone the use of "bag-o-rats" nor of summoning 1d4+1 level 1 summons than cleaving into them ... however, again, if they wanted to use a 3rd level spell to summon 1d4+1 summons ... yeah, I'd probably let them ... there's alot more dangerous things they could have done with a 3rd level spell after all ... Tactics are not metagaming ... I understand what you’re getting at, but could you use an example more in the D&D flavor (AKA, without firearms), and without a ranged attack, which cannot be used as an AoO? not really .. that's the idea of an example like this ... as you said: "You understand what I'm getting at" .. good .. that was my goal ... thank-you for understanding. No, I don't think I can use a "closer example" to D&D or such ... the point being made was: "What did A do wrong?" ... is a "red herring" ... it has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Has nothing to do with AoOs, D&D, or anything else ... In a combat, A can get hurt and not do anything wrong ... it's the nature of combat ... chaotic, messy, dangerous ... I sort of have a problem taking a stereotypically “dumb” race like orc and giving them the intelligence to count AoOs as they happen and coordinate this hive-mind sudden rush on rear casters. I don’t like countering cheese with cheese. It's not cheese ... orcs aren't "that" dumb ... and if they realize they need to get to the caster, then they should be capable of putting together a tactic to accomplish this. Agreed, it may be more likely to occur if they are being "herded" by somebody else (say a high priest, or some other BBEG) ... but it's not that the orcs are "counting" AoOs ... they have no idea if somebody has Combat Reflexes or not ... but they can try to distract the fighter with 1 or 2 orcs while 4 others rush past. That's the descriptive "real-life" tactics. D&D - mechanically - handles this by the first couple orcs moving up and being "spanked" ... the others then move past, and likely not being hit. (Combat reflexes tends to kill this tactic pretty quick ... unless you have a lot of orcs, and they have a good reason to be near-suicidal ... :D ) Again .. example only .. obviously some opponents will be better at this then others ... but it is not "cheese" nor "metagaming" .. Yes, it is "cheese" or "metagaming" if your pack of wolves that is encountered in the woods consistently pulls this "tactic" off ... But intelligent foes? Yeah, this is a pretty basic tactics ... 1 or 2 distract, while the others rush around to other targets .. Another tactic is to overwhelm a single target. That relies on a about 20-30 goblins piling on the front fighter ... Ok, the first 4 or 5 get spanked with AoOs ... but then the rest pile on and eventually somebody makes a grapple check ... and the fighter goes down. Is that metagaming? No .. it's tactics. Some opponent's will use them, some won't .. as the DM you're the one that must decide when they can and cannot be used ... My apologies for not being strait forward; my worry was not letting PCs have this tactic, it was a BBEG in a crowded area. As he fights the PCs, he could take AoOs (imagine fires and battle all around as a town is attacked by his minions) on peasants running around or his own troops for that matter. He would lay waste to people left and right, while getting extra attacks on the PCs. While I liked this idea to begin with to get the really macabre CE nature of the bad guy across to the PCs, I quickly realized cruel reality of this broken game mechanic. not broken .. just an excellent tactics for a BBEG who is evil and doesn't care about his own minions ... Note that even a panicking crowd (who is panicking mainly due to the presence of said BBEG) is unlikely to wander too close - very often - of said BBEG ... he might get 1 or two .. occassionally ... but it's not going to be a multiple event per round occurance ... ;) It’s the right flavor, it’s just the wrong execution. I disagree ... I actually think the mechanic is just fine .. you just have to realize D&D is not a complex recreation of real-life ... it's a simplified abstract system to make combats and such go easier and quicker. No worries, though ... it's your game ... you are the DM .. and you have the rights to say: "I don't like the way this functions, I want to change it." That said, not allowing this is a perfectly reasonable house rule. For my games, I don't worry about it unless a player purposefully tries to do cheesy things with it (which they wouldn't, as I can out-cheese them). Excellent point ... I agree ... So how is that any different than saying you are attacking the air next to the BBEG and cleaving into him. In fact you would have even more momentum because you are just cleaving through air instead a creature. That would be called a "Feint" .. and there are mechanics for it ... The Cleave mechanic, however, allows you to take advantage of the fact it took you very little effort to drop the little goblin standing next to you ... and then redirect onto the next target before he realizes you are striking at him .. =========== I won't waste space quoting him .. by I agree with what Nom said earlier ... :tiphat:
KingMarl 01-22-07, 10:30 AM	I dunno, as soon as you try to make real world analogies for virtually any of the rules in D&D it gets pretty silly. And as for any of the munchkin bag-o-rats type stuff, I am never really concerned about it. As DM, I have essentially an infinite bag of tricks I can use. I don't use most of them because they are heinous. But if I see cheese on the part of the players, then they'll get cheese in return. Simple :) I have yet to pull the "Three fifth-level Wizards with Fell Drain Magic Missiles drain 18 levels in 2 rounds and then the Barbarian wipes everyone out" trick, but I'm sure I'll use it one of these days. I know they didn't like it when my Atropal Scion used Fell Drain Magic Missiles on them (and then dropped their Death Ward with a Dispel Magic and did it again). And that was versus a party with an EL of 19 or so.
starfire311 01-22-07, 10:35 AM	That would be called a "Feint" .. and there are mechanics for it ... The Cleave mechanic, however, allows you to take advantage of the fact it took you very little effort to drop the little goblin standing next to you ... and then redirect onto the next target before he realizes you are striking at him .. His point was that it would take even less effort to pull this off if no one was standing there at all, what if someone creted an illusion, of an enemy, and this illusion provoked an AoO, would you be able to cleave of the illusion into someone else, if you were able to drop the illusion in one hit? I suppose it would only happen if you thought the illusion to be absolutly real. what if I created an insane fighter that saw enemies all the time, but when ever he attacked them he could kill them in one, hit, now what if these enemies were always just running around him in circles, so as to be open to AoO? and I use the Cleave from dropping my imaginary creatures to cleave into real enemies. What if the person that provoked the initial AoO was invisible, but the attacker could see him and then used his cleave attack to hit someone that couldn't see the person that just got dropped from his perspective, the attacker just attacked air, and used the "free" attack from cleave to attack him.
calvinNhobbes 01-22-07, 11:04 AM	That would be called a "Feint" .. and there are mechanics for it ... The Cleave mechanic, however, allows you to take advantage of the fact it took you very little effort to drop the little goblin standing next to you ... and then redirect onto the next target before he realizes you are striking at him .. starfire311 pretty much pointed out everything I was going to reply with. Thanks! :) In addition, feinting is definitely not attacking the air in the square adjacent to your target.
mvincent 01-22-07, 12:14 PM	I do not feel that cleave needs a "fix" because some people use the feat in a way in which no rational human being would allow it, or think that's the way it should be used.Lets take a more reasonable example then: During the middle of a battle with a powerful orc warlord, a wizard (while hiding) used his hat of disguise to look like a standard orc (in order to step out and cause confusion with the warlord's henchmen). However, the wizard's barbarian ally was also confused. Since the wizard also had mirror image going on, the great-cleaving barbarian started taking swings at this "new horde of orc mooks" that just appeared. In fact, the wizard noticed that by allowing his images to turn their backs or drop their guard occasionally, the barbarian became much more effective in the battling the warlord. The wizard never revealed the illusion to his gullible barbarian ally, but instead started using this as a common tactic, and created all sorts of stories as to why his "opponents" tended to be destroyed (and/or vanish) so easily. It's a glitch, and I'm of the opinion that this will be fixed one day in 4.0 (which it should be). I have no desire to make house-rules on it though for 3.5. If the glitch was abused, I would instead just talk to the player.
The_Ditto 01-22-07, 08:23 PM	His point was that it would take even less effort to pull this off if no one was standing there at all, what if someone creted an illusion, of an enemy, and this illusion provoked an AoO, would you be able to cleave of the illusion into someone else, if you were able to drop the illusion in one hit? I suppose it would only happen if you thought the illusion to be absolutly real. Probably ... I never said it's easy making some of these calls ... but it's definitely something that can be "tweaked" as the DM sees it .. what if I created an insane fighter that saw enemies all the time, but when ever he attacked them he could kill them in one, hit, now what if these enemies were always just running around him in circles, so as to be open to AoO? and I use the Cleave from dropping my imaginary creatures to cleave into real enemies. I think the better question is: where are these "enemies" coming from? Hired mercs? Hope not ... or I hope you're paying them (and their families) pretty good! ;) What if the person that provoked the initial AoO was invisible, but the attacker could see him and then used his cleave attack to hit someone that couldn't see the person that just got dropped from his perspective, the attacker just attacked air, and used the "free" attack from cleave to attack him. Yep .. perfectly fine ... again, I see it as: A is invisible B is our "Fighter/Cleaver" C is our hapless target ... :D C sees B attack the square next to him ... slightly confused but not hesitating, he tries to take advantage of the opening ... and is quickly hit by a change in momentum and direction of B's attack. Was that a Feint? or a cleave off an invisible foe? Not sure .. Either way .. it cost the Fighter (B) - either a Feat, or a Move action + Bluff check .. (and probably a feat as well: Imp Feint?) Either way, it's back to "Abstract system" used to define something much much more complex ... *shrug* I can live with it ... if you can't, rule it away .. no sweat, no foul ... :tiphat: feinting is definitely not attacking the air in the square adjacent to your target. Why not? If it's not .. than just what is it?? I see it as a wide variety of things ... (again .. abstract system describing a complex one). - fake/simple/incomplete attack - begining of a move in one direction - a "Hey look!" moment ... .. etc. I have no desire to make house-rules on it though for 3.5. If the glitch was abused, I would instead just talk to the player. :cheer:
calvinNhobbes 01-22-07, 10:27 PM	I think the better question is: where are these "enemies" coming from? Hired mercs? Hope not ... or I hope you're paying them (and their families) pretty good! Once again you misread the post. Notice starfire311 says an "insane fighter" implying the fighter is schizo and seeing things. The "enemies" are only in his head. Why not? If it's not .. than just what is it?? Because a feint is not an attack. You apparently know what it is because you describe it here: I see it as a wide variety of things ... (again .. abstract system describing a complex one). - fake/simple/incomplete attack - begining of a move in one direction - a "Hey look!" moment ... .. etc. At no point during a feint do you make an attack roll. It is a standard action or move action. It is a Bluff check. Swinging your weapon at the air 5+ feet away from your target is NOT a feint. It is a miss and will make your opponent laugh at you.
pedro2112 01-23-07, 01:32 AM	There are 2 ways to fix the glitch. 1) Say, "Sorry, I only allow you to take X cleaves off of AoO's per round." 2) Say, "No cleaving off of AoO's." One of these requires setting an arbitrary number that is based purely on the particular DM's opinion of game balance. The other is based on an attempt to figure out the intention of cleave. I guess my argument boils down to this. The glitch isn't letting people bring their own things to cleave, but instead allowing people to become the target of an attack when the pre-cleave attack couldn't have targetted them. Within the game, having your own cleave-fodder makes sense, but using the idiot running past your with his guard down to attack the enemy who is still defending himself normally does not. I don't think we are communicating well, and for that I apologize. I do not think that the "glitch" is the cleaves off the AoOs. Far from it, I have no problem with them. The "glitch" I am talking about is someone who believes that a DM would allow them to dump a bag of rats or summon a monster, just for the purpose of getting AoOs from them and cleaving the real enemies. In such a case, the way to fix that "glitch" is to say, "no, you cant do that. That is idiotic." Sorry for the confusion, Silda.
pedro2112 01-23-07, 01:33 AM	I believe this would be called the oberoni fallacy. Then you would believe wrong. There is nothing wrong with the rule. Only the extreme twisting of the rule by immature gamers.
pedro2112 01-23-07, 01:41 AM	Lets take a more reasonable example then: During the middle of a battle with a powerful orc warlord, a wizard (while hiding) used his hat of disguise to look like a standard orc (in order to step out and cause confusion with the warlord's henchmen). However, the wizard's barbarian ally was also confused. Since the wizard also had mirror image going on, the great-cleaving barbarian started taking swings at this "new horde of orc mooks" that just appeared. In fact, the wizard noticed that by allowing his images to turn their backs or drop their guard occasionally, the barbarian became much more effective in the battling the warlord. The wizard never revealed the illusion to his gullible barbarian ally, but instead started using this as a common tactic, and created all sorts of stories as to why his "opponents" tended to be destroyed (and/or vanish) so easily. It's a glitch, and I'm of the opinion that this will be fixed one day in 4.0 (which it should be). I have no desire to make house-rules on it though for 3.5. If the glitch was abused, I would instead just talk to the player. That is an extreme example that, frankly, would be hard to reproduce in an actual game. In addition, by RAW, you haven't dropped a creature, so the DM could disallow a cleave. I do give you kudos for coming up with that example. Very clever.
starfire311 01-23-07, 08:34 AM	Then you would believe wrong. There is nothing wrong with the rule. Only the extreme twisting of the rule by immature gamers. actually it is your argument is pretty much classic oberoni... The rule is broken, but can be fixed by a DM that doesn't allow it.
The_Ditto 01-23-07, 08:49 AM	Swinging your weapon at the air 5+ feet away from your target is NOT a feint. It is a miss and will make your opponent laugh at you. .. unless of course you have the cleave feat AND you just dropped an (invisible) opponent ... :tiphat:
calvinNhobbes 01-23-07, 09:28 AM	.. unless of course you have the cleave feat AND you just dropped an (invisible) opponent ... We weren't talking about cleave, we were talking about feint. In addition, air does not equal invisible opponent. I wish you would read the posts a little more carefully.
starfire311 01-23-07, 09:42 AM	.. unless of course you have the cleave feat AND you just dropped an (invisible) opponent ... :tiphat: it still wouldn't be a feint it would be a cleave, and it just illustrates why cleave is broken.
Bob Loblaw 01-23-07, 10:40 AM	I say don't change a thing. There really isn't a problem. It appears that the rules are meant to allow things such as this. One of things I have noticed is that fighters are often nerfed unintentionally. The fighter needs the combat edge he deserves to stay competitive against the rest of the classes. I know that all the classes have the option to take the same feats, but the fighter can truly exploit the conditions during the battle by taking more feats to make them more dangerous. If you don't have a problem with chain lightning and monster summoning (both have the ability to target opponents in some way), then allow the fighter his option as well. You may have to use your opponents more strategically, but I think in the end it may make for a more interesting combat. Also note that people become famous for their actions. A fighter that continuously uses the same maneuvers may find his opponents not wanting to get into the situation where they can be destroyed like this. People fan out when a dragon attacks, why not when the seasoned warrior attacks as well?
calvinNhobbes 01-23-07, 11:24 AM	One of things I have noticed is that fighters are often nerfed unintentionally. Agreed. The reason for this is that the fighter is defined by realistic combat and is therefore limited by it. Magic and special abilites allow for a greater suspension of disbelief.
starfire311 01-23-07, 12:04 PM	Agreed. The reason for this is that the fighter is defined by realistic combat and is therefore limited by it. Magic and special abilites allow for a greater suspension of disbelief. not at all IMO, if a fighter had a feat that let him shoot fireballs I wouldn't mind if it did what it was intended to do, but if the feat was poorly worded and someone found a way to exploit the feat to do things it shouldn't do then I would have a problem with the feat.
mvincent 01-23-07, 12:24 PM	by RAW, you haven't dropped a creatureFrom the 3.5 FAQ: "For all intents and purposes, the figments from a foe’s mirror image spell are your foes."... "If you have the Cleave or Great Cleave feat, destroying an image with a melee attack triggers the feat" There is nothing wrong with the rule.Most players I've talked to about this feel otherwise. That would be a good indication that (subjectively) something is wrong with the rule. I feel the case has already been proven objectively.
calvinNhobbes 01-23-07, 12:30 PM	not at all IMO, if a fighter had a feat that let him shoot fireballs I wouldn't mind if it did what it was intended to do, but if the feat was poorly worded and someone found a way to exploit the feat to do things it shouldn't do then I would have a problem with the feat. Err... shooting fireballs is magic. Note how I made an exclusion for magic and special abilities. Cleave works exactly how it is worded and the official FAQ has supported the current wording. The reason why some people (myself included) do not like how Cleave works is because it defies logic. The fighter class as it currently stands is limited by reality. WOTC has made attempts to make melee classes that are not restricted in this way by giving them magical special abilites (paladin, monk, Tome of Battle manuevers, etc.). If Cleave was instead a supernatural ability called Whirling Force Blades that had the exact same wording and exploits, no one would really care, because it would be magical and not limited by reality.
Marcus Majarra 01-23-07, 02:00 PM	Heck, I doubt this would be an issue if the feat had a name like Bloodlust. As it is, both Cleave and Great Cleave are barely described, except for their mechanic. We need to stick to the idea that Cleave's purpose is to grant you a free attack whenever you drop someone in melee. That's all. If this doesn't make sense to you, odds are you're not visualizing the feat in the correct fashion.
mvincent 01-23-07, 02:18 PM	If this doesn't make sense to you, odds are you're not visualizing the feat in the correct fashion.If by "correct fashion" you mean "your fashion", then certainly. However, I'm guessing that the original designers visualized it differently. If they fix this in 4.0, then it will indicate in what fashion it was likely intended to be visualized. Do you believe it will not be fixed in 4.0?
calvinNhobbes 01-23-07, 04:21 PM	As it is, both Cleave and Great Cleave are barely described, except for their mechanic. We need to stick to the idea that Cleave's purpose is to grant you a free attack whenever you drop someone in melee. That's all. If this doesn't make sense to you, odds are you're not visualizing the feat in the correct fashion. mvincent already said most of my rebuttal. But I'm curious, what is the "correct" way to visualize cleave. Don't forget that cleave is a real word that actually means something, and is a staple in fantasy games and literature that usually describes a specific combat result. Feats are suppose to represent flavor just as much as mechanics.
Shatteredtower 01-23-07, 09:58 PM	But I'm curious, what is the "correct" way to visualize cleave.You take a shot at an enemy, apparently leaving an opening for others around you, then WHAM! From seemingly out of nowhere, you're smacking them straight between the eyes, in the gut, through the shoulder... whatever. That's "correct" enough for anyone. It's not the only option, but it works. The weapon doesn't necessarily have to go "straight through" a fallen foe. Sometimes you might spin in the opposite direction. On other occasions, you get that attack because you've dragged your fallen foe into the path of another enemy, effectively creating another form of AoO equivalent. (It's not an AoO, but that's neither here nor there.) Or knocking someone down gives you enough of a rush to seem almost unstoppable for an instant. However it works, it works. Don't attach too much meaning to a feat's name. Deflect Arrows will stop sling stones and shuriken. The mirror image trick is a bit of a gambit, as an image can't draw an AoO unless the caster does. Usually, that means the caster trying to set up the trick is taking the risk that his ally will accidentally hit him. Combat Reflexes won't let you attack more than one image, because a target can't draw more than one AoO for you for a given action, which limits your ability to exploit this with a Great Cleave. The images may all be your enemies, but they're also the same enemy. The situation is not exactly like that with a swarm of mob, but the idea that several forms are one form for this purpose pretty much still applies. Granted, this is a different argument than the one about whether or not Great Cleave could cut down all of the images one by one to get to the chewy wizard centre. It's just not that much help when you're trying this against your own wizard in an effort to smack other people around more. On the other hand, if you've got Great Cleave and enemies are all around -- and your wizard buddy isn't drawing AoOs in the process from enemies who can get to him first, especially if said enemies also have the Cleave feat -- it might be worth the gamble. And hey, if you drop the wizard, at least you have the satisfaction of knowing you're just about to avenge him. ;)
mvincent 01-23-07, 10:07 PM	it might be worth the gamble.After noticing the the added effectiveness (despite the hazard), maybe the wizard suggests that the barbarian switch to a non-lethal (merciful) weapon... then takes the leadership feat to employ a hoard of low level wizards (also with mirror image spells and hats of disguise) to join in during battles.
Shatteredtower 01-23-07, 11:21 PM	After noticing the the added effectiveness (despite the hazard), maybe the wizard suggests that the barbarian switch to a non-lethal (merciful) weapon... then takes the leadership feat to employ a hoard of low level wizards (also with mirror image spells and hats of disguise) to join in during battles.Interesting, though not necessarily cheap, and that's assuming you allow Leadership to attract members of PC classes, rather than NPC classes. A lot do, but even then, you're looking at a pretty impressive Leadership score as a requirement (19 will get you four wizards capable of casting the spell). Even assuming that the leader is a sorcerer with a base of operations, you're looking at putting them within melee range of CR 10-11 encounters. Great reknown and a reputation for fairness and generosity can take that down to a more reasonable 7th level, but whether or not a character of that level is eligible for great reknown is a DM's call. It's still a neat trick, as long as the wizards remember to draw those attacks of opportunity while keeping out of the enemy's way. If they get too close, it limits the number of targets the barbarian can cleave. (A reach weapon might be in order.) It also relies on a generous Dexterity score combined with Combat Reflexes. Considering what you have to pay for it and the forces you're putting at risk, I'm not convinced it's abusive, but I will admit that it's an intriguing idea. The merciful weapon is also a very nice touch.
Marcus Majarra 01-24-07, 12:01 AM	The correct way to visualize Cleave and Great Cleave is any way that satisfies the mechanics of these feats: you get a free melee attack when you drop an opponent (or what seems to be an opponent) in melee. This is not an issue of how I or anyone else visualizes the feat in action; it's a matter of respecting the mechanic of the feat before arguing that it doesn't make sense with semantics. What some people don't seem to realize is that you're trying to modify a mechanic based on what you interpret the intention behind the feat was. It's like claiming that the spell magic missile should only be unleashing a single projectile since the spell's name denotes a singular missile. In any case, the semantic of the word "cleave" doesn't help conceive the idea behind the feat, since to cleave means to cut, split, or pierce through (as opposed to "follow through", which is the expression used in the PHB). The Warmind's Sweeping Strike ability is more related to the term "cleave" in terms of semantics than the description of what the feat does, as he gets to attack two adjacent opponents with every attack (his attacks pierce through the first opponent to attack the second). This is why I used the term "bloodlust" as an alternative name for Cleave that has a better semantic connotation to the mechanic of the feat.
Lord Nedd 01-24-07, 01:38 AM	The correct way to visualize Cleave and Great Cleave is any way that satisfies the mechanics of these feats: you get a free melee attack when you drop an opponent (or what seems to be an opponent) in melee. This is not an issue of how I or anyone else visualizes the feat in action; it's a matter of respecting the mechanic of the feat before arguing that it doesn't make sense with semantics. What some people don't seem to realize is that you're trying to modify a mechanic based on what you interpret the intention behind the feat was. It's like claiming that the spell magic missile should only be unleashing a single projectile since the spell's name denotes a singular missile. In any case, the semantic of the word "cleave" doesn't help conceive the idea behind the feat, since to cleave means to cut, split, or pierce through (as opposed to "follow through", which is the expression used in the PHB). The Warmind's Sweeping Strike ability is more related to the term "cleave" in terms of semantics than the description of what the feat does, as he gets to attack two adjacent opponents with every attack (his attacks pierce through the first opponent to attack the second). This is why I used the term "bloodlust" as an alternative name for Cleave that has a better semantic connotation to the mechanic of the feat. As a light hearted aside, cleave has many more meanings than just that. In the traditional sense, cleave has definition 1: cleave1 /kliv/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kleev] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –verb (used without object), cleaved or (Archaic) clave; cleaved; cleav·ing. 1. to adhere closely; stick; cling (usually fol. by to). 2. to remain faithful (usually fol. by to): to cleave to one's principles in spite of persecution. Later on it took another, definition 2: cleave2 /kliv/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kleev] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, cleft or cleaved or clove, cleft or cleaved or clo·ven, cleav·ing. –verb (used with object) 1. to split or divide by or as if by a cutting blow, esp. along a natural line of division, as the grain of wood. 2. to make by or as if by cutting: to cleave a path through the wilderness. 3. to penetrate or pass through (air, water, etc.): The bow of the boat cleaved the water cleanly. 4. to cut off; sever: to cleave a branch from a tree. –verb (used without object) 5. to part or split, esp. along a natural line of division. 6. to penetrate or advance by or as if by cutting (usually fol. by through). Isn't it interesting that the word depending on its context is its own antonym? Cleave means to split, divide as shown by defintion 2, points 1-2 as mentioned by Marcus Marjarra. Cleave definition 2, point 6 defines cleave as to penetrate or advance by (when using the term cleave through) when taken in conjunction with definition 2, point 4 (to pass or penetrate through something). It is enimently arguable that to advance (or penetrate/pass) through one target into another is what this feat was meant to refer to. YMMV, -LN
calvinNhobbes 01-24-07, 10:30 AM	You take a shot at an enemy, apparently leaving an opening for others around you, then WHAM! From seemingly out of nowhere, you're smacking them straight between the eyes, in the gut, through the shoulder... whatever. Sounds more like a feat called Opportunistic Attack or something as opposed to Cleave. That's "correct" enough for anyone. It's not the only option, but it works. It is not correct enough for me. Don't attach too much meaning to a feat's name. I disagree. The name is very important. It determines how we think about the object or situation. What if WOTC decided to switch the names of the fighter and wizard classes. Would you be arguing to just ignore it and focus on only the mechanics? Who cares if wizards wear full plate, swing greatswords, and can't cast spells. No, you would change the names.
calvinNhobbes 01-24-07, 11:12 AM	The correct way to visualize Cleave and Great Cleave is any way that satisfies the mechanics of these feats: That isn't an anwser. That is like saying the best way to visualize a sphere is to think of a sphere. This is not an issue of how I or anyone else visualizes the feat in action; it's a matter of respecting the mechanic of the feat before arguing that it doesn't make sense with semantics. I have no problem with the feat mechanically, but saying the mechanic does not reflect the name is not semantics. Proper description is very important in communication. See my wizard/fighter example above. Another example, what if fireball had the [electrical] descriptor instead. You could just say who cares and play it as written, but wouldn't that be confusing? I mean, if feat names really mean nothing at all, then why have them? Just give them flavorless numbers, but then that isn't much fun. Even games as simple as checkers does this. You get "kinged" not "peasanted" to reflect an increase in power. Names are very important, and names that correctly reflect the intent enhance communication and reduce confusion, both critical to a successful role-playing experience. What some people don't seem to realize is that you're trying to modify a mechanic based on what you interpret the intention behind the feat was. You can do it this way, or like you suggested you can rename the feat ( I very much like that Bloodlust suggestion) and design a new feat that better represents the idea of cleaving. It's like claiming that the spell magic missile should only be unleashing a single projectile since the spell's name denotes a singular missile. Who's talking semantics now? If feat had as much description as spells we would better know the intent of the feat. Magic missile does in fact only shoot a single projectile. Variation from this are specified in the spell. In addition, magic is not as limited due to the fact it does not exist. In any case, the semantic of the word "cleave" doesn't help conceive the idea behind the feat, since to cleave means to cut, split, or pierce through (as opposed to "follow through", which is the expression used in the PHB). Lord Nedd already touched on this, but to add... I disagree, the word cleave does indeed help conceive the idea behind the feat, so much so that it actually confuses people when unrealistic game situations come up. It seems very simple to me. You cut or pierce through an object or creature with so much force that you can maintain the momentum to strike another nearby target. The feats prereqs support this interpretation. If the feat simple gave actual extra swings then DEX would be a better prereq. The Warmind's Sweeping Strike ability is more related to the term "cleave" in terms of semantics than the description of what the feat does, as he gets to attack two adjacent opponents with every attack (his attacks pierce through the first opponent to attack the second). I'm not familiar with the Warmind, but giving your description I agree a better name for the ability should have been Cleaving Strike. This is why I used the term "bloodlust" as an alternative name for Cleave that has a better semantic connotation to the mechanic of the feat. I like that name, but I do not think that was the intention of the feat, nor do I think the feat as written completely encompasses a "bloodlust". I would think a feat called bloodlust would have rage as a prereq.
strange_person 01-24-07, 12:19 PM	The extra attack is with the same weapon and at the same bonus as the attack that dropped the previous creature. I would interpret that to mean that if you have cleave (or great cleave) and drop a foe with an AoO, then it doesn't count against your limit of AoOs per round. Thus, a fighter with Combat Reflexes, Great Cleave, and Hold the Line is just as dangerous when orcs are charging at him as he would be when they're already standing nearby. Only the orcs that survive the AoOs count against his per-turn AoO limit, just like how only the survivors count against his attacks during a full attack. I would definitely not impose any further limit on Great Cleave. Combat Reflexes is limited by how fast you can move, but Great Cleave is only limited by how many enemies you can reach, and that's as it should be. When a player takes Great Cleave, they're saying "I don't want to waste all my 30+ damage attacks on a horde of minions who've got 3 HP each. I want to get them out of the way and aim most or all of my attacks at the real threats" and this lets them do that. Somebody who's really strong and really fast, and has the training to take full advantage of both, should be dangerous to melee against. That's what ranged attacks are for. Nerfing something just because it might be abused actually increases the potential for abuse, because whoever takes the nerfed version is forced to find and use the abuse just to get what they paid for.
Marcus Majarra 01-24-07, 06:23 PM	That isn't an anwser. That is like saying the best way to visualize a sphere is to think of a sphere. Not quite. It's like saying that the correct way to visualize a sphere is to think of something that follows all the mechanical rules that a sphere must follow (for example, it's volume should be equal to 4*PI*r^3/3). I could be imagining a red sphere, a polka dot sphere, a transparent sphere, but as long as it maintains the same shape, it'll still be a sphere. Shakespeare put it best: a rose by any other name would smell just as sweet. I have no problem with the feat mechanically, but saying the mechanic does not reflect the name is not semantics. Proper description is very important in communication. See my wizard/fighter example above. Another example, what if fireball had the [electrical] descriptor instead. You could just say who cares and play it as written, but wouldn't that be confusing? I mean, if feat names really mean nothing at all, then why have them? Just give them flavorless numbers, but then that isn't much fun. Even games as simple as checkers does this. You get "kinged" not "peasanted" to reflect an increase in power. Names are very important, and names that correctly reflect the intent enhance communication and reduce confusion, both critical to a successful role-playing experience. I'm not saying that feat names are meaningless. They help us make otherwise abstract concepts concrete. However, a name is not always appropriate and it's far more coherent with the rules system to rename something rather than redefine it. Who's talking semantics now? If feat had as much description as spells we would better know the intent of the feat. Magic missile does in fact only shoot a single projectile. Variation from this are specified in the spell. In addition, magic is not as limited due to the fact it does not exist. Variation from this are specified in the spell? The spell denotes the possibility of launching multiple missiles. Going by its name alone, it shouldn't be able to do so. As for it not being limited, I can argue that "cleave" doesn't exist either. From a logical point of view, downing an opponent requires both energy and time. The very idea that doing so allows you to recover both energy and time is anathema to logic. You cut or pierce through an object or creature with so much force that you can maintain the momentum to strike another nearby target. The feats prereqs support this interpretation. If the feat simple gave actual extra swings then DEX would be a better prereq. This doesn't make any sense, from a logical point of view. Any kind of resistance (such as that of an opponent falling to your blows) reduces your momentum, physically speaking.
strange_person 01-24-07, 06:34 PM	From a logical point of view, downing an opponent requires both energy and time. The very idea that doing so allows you to recover both energy and time is anathema to logic. This doesn't make any sense, from a logical point of view. Any kind of resistance (such as that of an opponent falling to your blows) reduces your momentum, physically speaking. Many other feats (two-weapon fighting, precise shot, exotic weapon proficiency) exist to reduce penalties. Improved TWF even reduces the "penalty" to the point that it grants an extra attack. Could Cleave / Great Cleave be the same thing?
starfire311 01-24-07, 07:35 PM	This doesn't make any sense, from a logical point of view. Any kind of resistance (such as that of an opponent falling to your blows) reduces your momentum, physically speaking. I agree with this BTW, from a flavor perspective, I have never much cared for cleave, because of how it worked, just seemed way to video gamish, and it really didnt make much sense with how it would be applied in a RL sitataion, I have always let it go, but the simulationist in me dislikes it. One thing I have always been tempted to do was change the feat to just let them continue the attack into the next target if their original attack roll was high enough to hit the next target, and allow any extra damage that was unused on the dropped target to carry over into the next target, this I have never done, and will never do, because it would nerf the feat too much IMO. Although it could save you from "wasting" a gret crit on an almost dead creeature.
calvinNhobbes 01-24-07, 09:34 PM	Not quite. snip. Not quite. Your definition basically stated that the feat was defined by its definition. Well...duh! You can not define something using it as the definition. I'm not saying that feat names are meaningless. You implied it by saying that names should be ignored in favor of mechanics. They help us make otherwise abstract concepts concrete. Thanks for agreeing with my point. However, a name is not always appropriate and it's far more coherent with the rules system to rename something rather than redefine it. Sure, but that does not stop someone from designing a new feat that models what they want it to and calling it Cleave. Variation from this are specified in the spell? The spell denotes the possibility of launching multiple missiles. Going by its name alone, it shouldn't be able to do so. Perhaps you should read the spell. To help you out I'll quote the SRD: A missile of magical energy darts forth from your fingertip and strikes its target, dealing 1d4+1 points of force damage. Hmmm.... how odd....it IS singular. The missile strikes unerringly, even if the target is in melee combat or has less than total cover or total concealment. Specific parts of a creature can’t be singled out. Inanimate objects are not damaged by the spell. Wow... also singular... amazingly consistent. For every two caster levels beyond 1st, you gain an additional missile Oh looky there... its the variation I was talking about... how nifty. If we use your logic that variations should not exist then AOOs should never be allowed to be made since by definition an attack roll is: An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. An AOO is a variation or exception to this rule. Magic missle only fires a single missle unless you met the requirements for the exception, and this exception is clearly defined in the spells description. As for it not being limited, I can argue that "cleave" doesn't exist either. From a logical point of view, downing an opponent requires both energy and time. The very idea that doing so allows you to recover both energy and time is anathema to logic. I don't like how the feat it written. It is not logical. Never said it was. It is a poor modeling of a real world combat manuveur. This doesn't make any sense, from a logical point of view. Any kind of resistance (such as that of an opponent falling to your blows) reduces your momentum, physically speaking. Yes your momentum would be reduced BUT still enough to make an effective strike. The idea behind cleave is like the cutting contests, ie. having 2+ objects lined up (I think usually some kind of rolled bamboo mats that is supposed to simulate the resistance bone would give) and trying to cut through them with one swing. You need to produce a lot of power to do it effectively (power attack) and special training (say a feat).
calvinNhobbes 01-24-07, 09:53 PM	I agree with this BTW, from a flavor perspective, I have never much cared for cleave, because of how it worked, just seemed way to video gamish, and it really didnt make much sense with how it would be applied in a RL sitataion, I have always let it go, but the simulationist in me dislikes it. I disagree. I vision the intent of cleave being something like three opponents standing in front of you, weapons ready. They take a step forward to close in on you. You take a quick step to get the range perfect, whip your blade around in a perfect arc, the blade slicing through each of their throats, cutting the jugular veins, carotid arteries, sternomastoid muscles, and the tracheal cartilage. All soft tissue, very little resistance, very lethal, definitely possible. EDIT: However, trying to model this in a grid based, turn based system would be difficult. When you start adding magical enhanced weapons that are harder and sharper into the simulation, the idea of slicing through steel armor and bone like butter seems completely reasonable.
Nom 01-24-07, 11:00 PM	On semantics: Note that the connotation of "Cleave" (the word, not the feat) is "cut through", not "follow-through". Semantically, it makes more sense to view cleave as cutting through a weak target into a more substantial one, or alternatively a mighty swing that cuts through a number of weak targets. The only support one can gain from the name for using a Cleave attack against an otherwise invalid target is if the target being Cleaved through was providing the second target with cover. Of course, the connotation of Cleave is inappropriate for non-slashing weapons. One shouldn't put too much ephasis on the name and instead concetrate on the mechanics and modeling. It's also worth noting that the PH encourages players to rename feats and skills if an alternative name better fits how the PC thinks of or uses the feat (PH pg 110).
Shatteredtower 01-25-07, 12:02 AM	Sounds more like a feat called Opportunistic Attack or something as opposed to Cleave.No such feat. Cleave is what it says it is. How it becomes that within game is entirely irrelevant. Or does burning hands cripple the spellcaster without fire protection? It is not correct enough for me.That would matter if it was more than opinion running contrary to the rules. I disagree. The name is very important.Deflect Arrows will stop a throwing axe as easily as an arrow. No, apparently it is not as important as you think. Either that, or you call the feat Deflect Ranged Weapon Attack. Edit: Of course, Nom makes the point much more concisely and thoroughly than I have.
Marcus Majarra 01-25-07, 03:32 PM	Not quite. Your definition basically stated that the feat was defined by its definition. Well...duh! You can not define something using it as the definition. Which was my point entirely: a feat is not defined by its name. You implied it by saying that names should be ignored in favor of mechanics. Wait, now you're assuming you know what I was implying? What I was implying was that you shouldn't change a mechanic because of a name, not that names should be ignored. Oh looky there... its the variation I was talking about... how nifty. If we use your logic that variations should not exist then AOOs should never be allowed to be made since by definition an attack roll is: An AOO is a variation or exception to this rule. Magic missle only fires a single missle unless you met the requirements for the exception, and this exception is clearly defined in the spells description. You're missing the point: I was arguing that a name should reflect a mechanic, not the other way around. I used magic missile as evidence of this not always being the case within the current ruleset. As such, the only appropriate way to define any sort of game effect is by its mechanic, not its name. Yes your momentum would be reduced BUT still enough to make an effective strike. The idea behind cleave is like the cutting contests, ie. having 2+ objects lined up (I think usually some kind of rolled bamboo mats that is supposed to simulate the resistance bone would give) and trying to cut through them with one swing. You need to produce a lot of power to do it effectively (power attack) and special training (say a feat). Except that you lost part of your momentum by the time you're about to strike the second target. Cleave, by definition, conserves the entire momentum used for the attack (hence using the same attack bonus). From the point of view of physics, Cleave makes no sense, no matter how you choose to view it. The only way that you can be just as effective striking a second target as you would the first one is if both targets occupied the same space and the first target was essentially nothing.
calvinNhobbes 01-25-07, 05:18 PM	No such feat. Never said there was. I said it sounded more like a feat that would be called Opportunistic Attack, ie. the way it was described it sounded more like the Opportunist special ability of the Rogue than a cleaving attack. Cleave is what it says it is. How it becomes that within game is entirely irrelevant. I disagree. That is like saying it doesn't matter if a spellcasting dude wearing long robes and a pointy hat is called a fighter and the buff, armor-clad, sword twirling dunce is called a wizard. Words mean things. Saying the meanings are irrelevant is preposterous, especially in a game based on communication. Or does burning hands cripple the spellcaster without fire protection? Well, let's check the text book on magical physics. Oh wait... what's that... magic isn't real! Give me a break. Spells do what spells do because magic doesn't exist. Could you make a magic spell called burning hands that damaged the caster? Absolutely. Nothing is stopping you. That would matter if it was more than opinion running contrary to the rules. No one is discussing rules here. The rules are very obvious. The entire discussion is opinion based. I feel sorry for you if you don't realize this. Deflect Arrows will stop a throwing axe as easily as an arrow. So? I think we've already established that WOTC is horrible at naming feats. I would have called it Deflect Missile. HOWEVER, notice in the feat description that it further clarifies what can and can not be deflected. Further clarification on numerous rules would have avoided significant confusion in many cases of rules interpretation. No, apparently it is not as important as you think. Either that, or you call the feat Deflect Ranged Weapon Attack. I prefer Deflect Missile.
strange_person 01-25-07, 05:35 PM	But it can't deflect the one thing in the game that's actually called a "missile"! Namely, Magic Missile. Deflect Missile is what the Sheild spell is for. Athough, of course, it doesn't provide a Deflection bonus… Names are stupid. Everyone please read the full text, acknowledge that other people have also read the the text, and stop trying to use sarcasm or exaggeration without appropriate smilies.
calvinNhobbes 01-25-07, 06:05 PM	Which was my point entirely: a feat is not defined by its name. I disagree. Honestly, do you think WOTC came up with the mechanics for cleave feat and then the name, or do you think they came up with the name and then the feat? My vote is the name then the mechanic to try and model what they envisioned. Certain feats (mostly magic related) were probably designed mechanic first (spell focus for example) since magic does not exist in reality and therefore they are not trying model of real life manuveur. Wait, now you're assuming you know what I was implying? What I was implying was that you shouldn't change a mechanic because of a name, not that names should be ignored. I disagree, I see no problem changing the mechanic to better represent the intent of the feat. Believe it or not but there are people out there that are better modelers than WOTC. You're missing the point: I was arguing that a name should reflect a mechanic, not the other way around. And like I said, in many cases the mechanics were probably designed to try and reflect the name. I get your point, I just don't agree. I used magic missile as evidence of this not always being the case within the current ruleset. As such, the only appropriate way to define any sort of game effect is by its mechanic, not its name. And as I showed, magic missile was a bad example. I think a better example is something like mind fog. Man, I hate the flavor of that spell, just because you use the term "foggy" to describe when your not thinking sharp doesn't mean an enchantment spell should summon a stupid fog cloud. Back to magic missile, the name perfectly reflects the mechanic. Any exceptions are clearly spelled out in the spell. In addition, it is a very easy logical step to go from "missile" to "missiles". However, going from "cleave" to "has nothing to do with cutting through something" is not very logical at all. Except that you lost part of your momentum by the time you're about to strike the second target. Not necessarily. Depending on where the first target was in your swing and where the second one was, you could have actually gained momentum due to additional rotational torque provided after the initial contact. Its called pulling through the strike I believe. Muscles act mechanically as both springs and dampers, providing energy as well as restricting the maximum velocity of contraction. However, if an outside force provides resistance (say someones neck), additional power can be generate (since the full power was not being utilized due to the damping effect) to overcome it and maintain the same maximum contraction velocity, and therefore torque, and therefore momentum. Cleave, by definition, conserves the entire momentum used for the attack (hence using the same attack bonus). Err... where in the feat does it say you conserve the entire momentum used for the attack. The reason you use the same attack bonus is because it is still the same attack, it just went through someone first, but so easily the effect on the attack was miniscule and not worth penalizing (see my triple throat cut example above). In addition, as noted above, you could even generate more momentum between the first and second strike. From the point of view of physics, Cleave makes no sense, no matter how you choose to view it. I disagree, I already gave one example that is completely biologically and mechanically feasible. Start throwing in magically enhanced weapons, super strong warriors, adamantine, etc., and physics is no longer required. The only way that you can be just as effective striking a second target as you would the first one is if both targets occupied the same space and the first target was essentially nothing. Why would they have to occupy the same space? Take a baseball bat and put a two dummies exactly opposite each other 10 feet apart. Can you hit both dummies with one swing without moving more than 5 feet? I sure can (my swing has a 6 foot radius, 10ft < 12ft), but then again I have STR 15, so I qualify for Cleave! :D The target does not have to be nothing, but where you cleave through might provide minimal resistance while still being lethal. You don't have to slice through a steel breastplate and bisect the poor bastard through the spine to get a cleave. Nothing saying it can't just be a clean slice across the face, neck, chop off an arm, etc. Anything that drops them. And I want to address Nom's point because he brings up a good point that I have been assuming without specifying. Of course, the connotation of Cleave is inappropriate for non-slashing weapons. Most of my examples have been restricted to slashing because that makes the most sense. My guess is that WOTC original came up with cleave, realized it didn't make much sense for non-slashing weapons, and figured who cares, it was cool. Additional supplements have added weapon type damage specific feats to fill this illogical gap. I actually attempted a feat tree based off power attack that restricted cleave to slashing weapons, but then added additional feats for bludgeoning and piercing weapons. However, I got stuck trying to come up with something good for piercing attacks that had power attack for a prereq. However, this discussion has got my creative juices flowing again and I have some new ideas. I'll try to finish up the tree and post it later. I'm sure everyone will have plenty of criticism of it, hopefully mostly constructive. ;)
calvinNhobbes 01-25-07, 06:14 PM	But it can't deflect the one thing in the game that's actually called a "missile"! Namely, Magic Missile. Deflect Missile is what the Sheild spell is for. Athough, of course, it doesn't provide a Deflection bonus… You realize a missile is just another term for a projectile, right? They could have called it magic bolt, magic arrow, magic projectile, magic blob of force, etc. Magic missile just rolls off the tongue better. ;)
strange_person 01-25-07, 06:19 PM	So, you agree with my point that the names are stupid?
calvinNhobbes 01-25-07, 06:32 PM	So, you agree with my point that the names are stupid? Nope. I think WOTC chose some names badly, but the names a very important. How lame would the game be if it was like this: Player: I shoot my energy type A ray at the creature. DM: The creature is a Monster 106 and has resistance 10 to energy type A, so no damage. Ugh!!!
Marcus Majarra 01-25-07, 07:32 PM	calvinNhobbes, your examples are not physically possible. Every effort requires energy, and every form of resistance reduces the net effort after applying said resistance. While you can make a swing to strike two dummies that are 10 feet apart without moving from your spot, your swing will necessarily be weaker after striking one dummy, regardless of the total effort you put into making the swing in the first place. By definition, your second swing has to be weaker. This is why Cleave makes no sense from a physical point of view. To be able to be just as effective after a reduction in your effort suggests that you're investing more energy into the effort, because you cannot conserve your actual momentum to produce an identical effort to that which you had just performed. As it is, Cleave actually allows you to produce an even larger effort, since you might roll an even better attack roll on the second attack. If Cleave were a mechanic that lets you extend the effort you just invested, then the second attack should be hitting the same AC as the first one with an additional penalty for the loss of momentum. Where does this bring us? It brings us to a point where the name of the feat makes no sense with respect to what it does. Now, instead of adjusting your perspective to accommodate the mechanic, you're instead proposing to second-guess the authors' intent when they came up with the feat. In doing so, you're not only house ruling, but you're also changing the game according to your perspective of what it should be. This is fine with respect to your own games, but I don't feel it's appropriate for a rule counseling forum. We should stay within the scope of the rules as written and how they can be implemented. Simply put: the Cleave feat allows a character to gain free attacks for downing opponents in melee. This can occur both during a character's turn and as a result of an attack of opportunity. And that's all there is.
DivineDragoonXD 01-26-07, 12:01 AM	Alright I hate when people moan and groan just because a PC is doing what? Playing an effective character? It is not broken. Since this was out in 3.0 and I'm sure Wizards would have noticed the crappy threads moaning about it, they would have fixed it in 3.5 if they deemed necessary. What everyone doesnt seem to get (within DnD or other games) is that everything is a STRATEGY. It happens. That is how wars are won. If there is no STRATEGY (which you take away with a stupid house-rule) then no one is gonna have fun. Please just run a DnD game without being a girl dog and be a good DM.
Moon-Lancer 01-26-07, 12:18 AM	nm
strange_person 01-26-07, 09:30 AM	To be able to be just as effective after a reduction in your effort suggests that you're investing more energy into the effort, because you cannot conserve your actual momentum to produce an identical effort to that which you had just performed. As it is, Cleave actually allows you to produce an even larger effort, since you might roll an even better attack roll on the second attack. I agree with the point you're trying to make, but I gotta contest the physics. You're assuming that a sword (or a rapier or a club or whatever) works like a bullet, with all the energy put in at the beginning and reduced as it undergoes successive elastic and inelastic collisions. That's not how it works. Melee weapons are held by their weilders, and continuous force is exerted upon them over the course of a swing. That's what "follow-through" is; the technique of continuing to apply force after the impact. Samurai don't use follow-through; they learn to stop the katana after it's landed a fatal blow but before it gets stuck, so as to more easily pull it free and ready to attack the next target. That technique could still justifiably called "cleave," since it involves splitting an opponent wide open, but the Str 13+ comes in when you try to stop the blade and withdraw it for the next strike.
calvinNhobbes 01-26-07, 10:00 AM	calvinNhobbes, your examples are not physically possible. Have to disagree with you there sport, yes they are. Every effort requires energy, and every form of resistance reduces the net effort after applying said resistance. Not quite. Resistance reduces the energy, but in this particular system, you can have an additional input of energy. In addition, the resistance can be minimal compared to the total energy allowing you to neglect the resistance term entirely. While you can make a swing to strike two dummies that are 10 feet apart without moving from your spot, your swing will necessarily be weaker after striking one dummy, regardless of the total effort you put into making the swing in the first place. By definition, your second swing has to be weaker. This is why Cleave makes no sense from a physical point of view. This is wrong, it is obvious you didn't understand my explanation of muscle physiology and biomechanics. Hopefully strange_person's explanation helps you understand it better. To be able to be just as effective after a reduction in your effort suggests that you're investing more energy into the effort, because you cannot conserve your actual momentum to produce an identical effort to that which you had just performed. Err... that is exactly what I said. So you do understand my example but you are just choosing to ignore it. See strange_person's example, the energy invested is not static. As it is, Cleave actually allows you to produce an even larger effort, since you might roll an even better attack roll on the second attack. The attack bonus is the SAME. The roll represents random chance, you know like the target actually moving, you miss judging the distance, etc. If Cleave were a mechanic that lets you extend the effort you just invested, then the second attack should be hitting the same AC as the first one with an additional penalty for the loss of momentum. Once again, there is not necessarily a loss of momentum. In addition, on average you will hit the exact same AC with the second attack as the first. Where does this bring us? It brings us to a point where the name of the feat makes no sense with respect to what it does. We've always been there. Where have you been? ;) Now, instead of adjusting your perspective to accommodate the mechanic, you're instead proposing to second-guess the authors' intent when they came up with the feat. Sounds like I'm doing exactly what you are doing. You are assuming a bottom-up approach to design just as much as I am a top-down. I think I'm right. I think they wanted a feat that represented the idea of cleaving through one enemy into another and the mechancis are their attempt at modeling that. In doing so, you're not only house ruling, but you're also changing the game according to your perspective of what it should be. Well, we have had this discussion before that you for some reason are incapable of thinking outside the RAW. Houseruling is has much a part of D&D as the d20. Houseruling is why the game has lasted as long as it has. The ability to change the game to fit what you want it to be is what makes D&D so great. I'm sorry you have not realized this yet. This is fine with respect to your own games, but I don't feel it's appropriate for a rule counseling forum. The ruling on Cleave are very clear. That discussion was over a LONG time ago. The FAQ are very very clear on the matter. We should stay within the scope of the rules as written and how they can be implemented. Why? If we followed that advice there would be no forums. Just a page that says, "refer to the rule books and FAQ". If you feel discussing possible houserules for Cleave in the rule counseling forum is inappropriate, then report it to the moderators so they can close the thread and start a new thread in the house rules forum. Simply put: the Cleave feat allows a character to gain free attacks for downing opponents in melee. This can occur both during a character's turn and as a result of an attack of opportunity. And? No ever said that is not the RAW. HOWEVER, notice the orginal post: Potential solution: I could house rule that cleave does not work on AoOs, or I could rule that the extra cleave attack counts one of his AoOs for that round. I’m mixed on my feelings about those rules and am open to other suggestions. Notice the OP asked for houserule suggestions! If you are so upset that houserule discussion is being done in the rules counseling forum, then perhaps you can request the moderators move the entire thread to the houserule forum.
Genestealer 01-26-07, 10:04 AM	Please just run a DnD game without being a girl dog and be a good DM. I beg your pardon, but if you noticed later posts, I was concerned with preventing myself more than the PCs from doing this, and I resolved not to need a house ruling for the problem. Since starting this post, I’ve read everyone’s comments carefully each day and tried decide if it merited a real house ruling. I greatly appreciate everyone’s input. In the end, I decided it does not need a house rule, because it wasn’t going to be a problem at the table as long as I told people not to cheese the method of generating the attacks (e.g., cheap summoned monsters, the recently discussed bag ‘o rats). After reading all the posts, I think I can better articulate one of my problems with the mechanics. Please point out if there is something I have missed in counter example: An AoO is provoked when an opponent in threat range does something that essentially drops their guard for a moment. That act gives someone a chance to act against that particular foe in the form of an attack, or a 5ft. step with the appropriate feat. Either way, the attack of opportunity only ‘concerns’(I use the word concerns loosely here) those two people, with the glaring exception of the extra cleave attack. By the RAW, the extra attack from cleave is permitted; that is most definitely not what is in question here. My concern is that the extra attack is going to someone that was not a valid target for an attack at that time. I’m going to go off on a tangent that almost deserves its own thread, but can feed in well to this topic: Two people of equal combat prowess and strength are going to race. One is going to try to break open a wooden chest, another is going to try to kill a sitting goblin. The person attacks the chest, it does some damage. The chest sits bravely in defiance! The other person attacks the goblin, and does some damage. The goblin opts not to sit brave like the chest, and instead stands up (AoO) with the intention of running away. The AoO kill the goblin sadly, and the goblin-slayer wins the race. PLEASE NOTE: you can replace that means of provoking an attack of opportunity with any ones of your favorites, such as drinking a potion or getting something out of your bag. I question the fairness of that contest. The goblin-slayer got an extra attack for the goblin turning tail and running. Why didn’t the chest provoke any attacks of opportunity? Surely sitting perfectly still with your eyes closed(does not provoke an AoO) is more deadly than digging through your bag looking for a pen to write your epitaph(does provoke an AoO). The above example was not to suggest that chests should provoke attacks of opportunity, but instead illustrate that sitting peacefully makes you an invalid target for such attacks. Now, if my memory serves me right, cleave only allows you to cleave to another opponent, not an inanimate object. So, in the above example, when killing the goblin, another sleeping goblin would likely be subject to a cleave, but not the chest. Why can’t I cleave to the chest according to the RAW? Now, there are probably people that would say the sleeping goblin is not valid target for the cleave, but to people I ask why not? Is it because it is not a threatening opponent? Is it because it is sleeping and thus denied dex? It is because he is prone? Exactly what “trait” makes that sleeping goblin immune to the cleave like the chest? You’re running a risk if you answer that question, as a real opponent might adopt that “trait” to make themselves immune to cleaves, so be careful with your answer. I actually greatly enjoy this topic of debate, and appreciate everyone’s feed bad. It helps the work day go by quicker!
calvinNhobbes 01-26-07, 10:20 AM	That technique could still justifiably called "cleave," since it involves splitting an opponent wide open, but the Str 13+ comes in when you try to stop the blade and withdraw it for the next strike. You don't need the strength to stop the blade (in fact you should not be trying to stop the blade before it strikes), swords are not heavy, especially since the center of mass is closer to the grip. Most of the techniques I've seen for katanas do not involve generating large amounts of angular momentum. The idea is to draw the weapon across the flesh to create long cuts, not chop at it like an axe. I would not call that cleaving (like a meat cleaver), I'd called that flaying (like butterflying a fillet). There is a feat called flaying but I do not recall what it does, but I think your opponent has to be unarmored.
DivineDragoonXD 01-26-07, 11:05 AM	I beg your pardon, but if you noticed later posts, I was concerned with preventing myself more than the PCs from doing this, and I resolved not to need a house ruling for the problem. Since starting this post, I’ve read everyone’s comments carefully each day and tried decide if it merited a real house ruling. I greatly appreciate everyone’s input. In the end, I decided it does not need a house rule, because it wasn’t going to be a problem at the table as long as I told people not to cheese the method of generating the attacks (e.g., cheap summoned monsters, the recently discussed bag ‘o rats). After reading all the posts, I think I can better articulate one of my problems with the mechanics. Please point out if there is something I have missed in counter example: An AoO is provoked when an opponent in threat range does something that essentially drops their guard for a moment. That act gives someone a chance to act against that particular foe in the form of an attack, or a 5ft. step with the appropriate feat. Either way, the attack of opportunity only ‘concerns’(I use the word concerns loosely here) those two people, with the glaring exception of the extra cleave attack. By the RAW, the extra attack from cleave is permitted; that is most definitely not what is in question here. My concern is that the extra attack is going to someone that was not a valid target for an attack at that time. I’m going to go off on a tangent that almost deserves its own thread, but can feed in well to this topic: Two people of equal combat prowess and strength are going to race. One is going to try to break open a wooden chest, another is going to try to kill a sitting goblin. The person attacks the chest, it does some damage. The chest sits bravely in defiance! The other person attacks the goblin, and does some damage. The goblin opts not to sit brave like the chest, and instead stands up (AoO) with the intention of running away. The AoO kill the goblin sadly, and the goblin-slayer wins the race. PLEASE NOTE: you can replace that means of provoking an attack of opportunity with any ones of your favorites, such as drinking a potion or getting something out of your bag. I question the fairness of that contest. The goblin-slayer got an extra attack for the goblin turning tail and running. Why didn’t the chest provoke any attacks of opportunity? Surely sitting perfectly still with your eyes closed(does not provoke an AoO) is more deadly than digging through your bag looking for a pen to write your epitaph(does provoke an AoO). The above example was not to suggest that chests should provoke attacks of opportunity, but instead illustrate that sitting peacefully makes you an invalid target for such attacks. Now, if my memory serves me right, cleave only allows you to cleave to another opponent, not an inanimate object. So, in the above example, when killing the goblin, another sleeping goblin would likely be subject to a cleave, but not the chest. Why can’t I cleave to the chest according to the RAW? Now, there are probably people that would say the sleeping goblin is not valid target for the cleave, but to people I ask why not? Is it because it is not a threatening opponent? Is it because it is sleeping and thus denied dex? It is because he is prone? Exactly what “trait” makes that sleeping goblin immune to the cleave like the chest? You’re running a risk if you answer that question, as a real opponent might adopt that “trait” to make themselves immune to cleaves, so be careful with your answer. I actually greatly enjoy this topic of debate, and appreciate everyone’s feed bad. It helps the work day go by quicker! You have a couple of flaws in your last post. I told people not to cheese the method of generating the attacks (e.g., cheap summoned monsters, the recently discussed bag ‘o rats). A DM does not TELL his PC's what to do he merely asks in kindness. Look if your PC's want to use such cheese, LET THEM. But what is stopping you from doing it back against them? I'm pretty sure a Elder Dragon, with Cleave; Great Cleave; Whirlwind Attack is gonna be pretty nasty when he drops HIS Bag o Rats. You cannot limit your PC's, it will no longer be fun for them if they are following RAW and you say no and your excuse would be "cheese". In that case EVERYTHING in DnD can be considered "cheese"; visit the Char OP Boards, I think you should be more worried about Pun-Pun than a simple Cleave STRATEGY. You also mention My concern is that the extra attack is going to someone that was not a valid target for an attack at that time. Yes, anyone who is within range of the Cleave IS A VALID TARGET. That creature would not be a Vaild target for the AoO but IS a Valid target for the Cleave. Tell me, what do you consider a VALID target? Two people of equal combat prowess and strength are going to race. One is going to try to break open a wooden chest, another is going to try to kill a sitting goblin. The person attacks the chest, it does some damage. The chest sits bravely in defiance! The other person attacks the goblin, and does some damage. The goblin opts not to sit brave like the chest, and instead stands up (AoO) with the intention of running away. The AoO kill the goblin sadly, and the goblin-slayer wins the race. No, there is no AoO against a sleeping or inanimate opponent. An AoO is a rule designed to have the effect "Uh O you dropped your guard for a second; free attack". A sleeping being RAW is not "dropping his guard" he is effectivly "helpless" as defined under the rules. Inanimate objects DO NOT and in no way provoke an AoO. Use your common sense in this. Maybe if the chest did run away or drank a potion LOL ya then it would provoke an AoO. You are right that the Goblin-Slayer did have an advantage, OK. Goblin dropped his "guard" where the chest CANNOT drop his "guard". You should be happy they are not using Superior Cleave, gives you a 5ft step in between each Cleave :P
calvinNhobbes 01-26-07, 11:16 AM	OK. Goblin dropped his "guard" where the chest CANNOT drop his "guard". That is exactly his point DivineDragonXD. The chest has no "guard" and therefore should be provoking infinite AOO, although the PC can only take advantage of one unless he also has combat reflexes. Genestealer, a simple solution to your proposed chest/goblin problem is to allow extra attacks per round equal to your available AOO against objects or helpless creatures. This is not going to break anything since you could just coup de grace the helpless creature anyway. In addition, also note that if you take a full round action to line up a shot you automatically hit an object with a melee weapon. So the houserule simple trades an automatic hit for several attacks that may or may not hit since you are swinging like a wild man.
DivineDragoonXD 01-26-07, 11:23 AM	That is exactly his point DivineDragonXD. The chest has no "guard" and therefore should be provoking infinite AOO, although the PC can only take advantage of one unless he also has combat reflexes. Genestealer, a simple solution to your proposed chest/goblin problem is to allow extra attacks per round equal to your available AOO against objects or helpless creatures. This is not going to break anything since you could just coup de grace the helpless creature anyway. In addition, also note that if you take a full round action to line up a shot you automatically hit an object with a melee weapon. So the houserule simple trades an automatic hit for several attacks that may or may not hit since you are swinging like a wild man. An AoO is a kink in someone guard. A Chest DOES NOT and CANNOT have a kink. I dont figure how someone could say a chest would warrent an AoO. Please READ about AoO on page 137. PHB 3.5. It clearly states why something or something would get an AoO and the conditions. Lemme e-mail WoTc about this. AoO also dont work on sleeping creatures, THAT IS WHY they have the HELPLESS rule.
calvinNhobbes 01-26-07, 11:46 AM	Marcus Majarra, I did a quick google search and found this webpage with a bunch of videos of cutting contests using the bamboo mats I mentioned before. A single mat is "supposed" to represent the same resistance as slicing through an arm or leg. http://www.angelsword.com/Resources/cutting_competition_results.php I'm guessing your thinking cleave more like this video (except for the very last part): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xD45msoECv8 EDIT: Also check out this wikipedia entry on Tameshigiri. Back in the day they also used criminals and cadavers in place of the mats. Ugh! Note the "5 bodies" and "3 bodies" examples. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tameshigiri An AoO is a kink in someone guard. A Chest DOES NOT and CANNOT have a kink. I dont figure how someone could say a chest would warrent an AoO. Please READ about AoO on page 137. PHB 3.5. It clearly states why something or something would get an AoO and the conditions. Lemme e-mail WoTc about this. AoO also dont work on sleeping creatures, THAT IS WHY they have the HELPLESS rule. I'm sorry you don't seem to really understand the problem as presented. We all know the rules. The problem as presented was simply to illustrate that the rules in this particular case are a poor model. If you honestly think it makes sense that a person attacking an inanimate object can swing then has to count to 6 before they can swing again, while the person attacking a creature gets more attacks because the creature decided to move, well I guess your idea of common sense is not the same as mine. You should be happy they are not using Superior Cleave, gives you a 5ft step in between each Cleave In addition, this is not correct. You may take a 5ft step before a cleave attack, but you still only get a single 5ft step each turn.
Sildatorak 01-26-07, 01:07 PM	Surely sitting perfectly still with your eyes closed(does not provoke an AoO) is more deadly than digging through your bag looking for a pen to write your epitaph(does provoke an AoO).I'd say the person who is offering no guard has voluntarily become helpless. Time for a CdG. Now, if my memory serves me right, cleave only allows you to cleave to another opponent, not an inanimate object.I don't have my books but I recall it being legal to cleave to an inanimate object, but that you cannot cleave by breaking an inanimate object. Even if this isn't the RAW case, that is how I play it in my campaign, and I've had no problems with it.
strange_person 01-26-07, 03:27 PM	Under the circumstances described, the goblin would almost certainly use Total Defense, and/or take a full-round action to Withdraw so as to avoid provoking. The guy up against the chest can use full power attack and still hit automatically. You don't need the strength to stop the blade (in fact you should not be trying to stop the blade before it strikes), swords are not heavy, especially since the center of mass is closer to the grip. Most of the techniques I've seen for katanas do not involve generating large amounts of angular momentum. The idea is to draw the weapon across the flesh to create long cuts, not chop at it like an axe. I would not call that cleaving (like a meat cleaver), I'd called that flaying (like butterflying a fillet). There is a feat called flaying but I do not recall what it does, but I think your opponent has to be unarmored. I do not claim to be an expert in fighting with a katana. Everything useful that I know about it, I learned from Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson. That being said, I was referring to stopping the blade after it has struck (in fact, after is has mortally wounded) the first opponent, rather than attempting to force the blade all the way through at the risk of damaging it or getting it stuck between bones. Immediately after the blade has come to a complete stop inside opponent 1's vital organs, it is withdrawn in such a way as to flow into a strike against opponent 2. "Flay" is a feat in the PHB 2 that allows one attack per round to inflict additional pain against a target without armor (or with only natural armor), causing a temporary attack penalty for the target. "Flensing Strike" from ECS has a simmilar effect, but is more powerful (double the penalty, and it applies to all attacks, saves, and checks, and works against armor) but it requires a full-round action for just one attack, and it only works with the Kama.
calvinNhobbes 01-26-07, 06:11 PM	That being said, I was referring to stopping the blade after it has struck (in fact, after is has mortally wounded) the first opponent, rather than attempting to force the blade all the way through at the risk of damaging it or getting it stuck between bones. Ah gotcha. This kind of manuveur is what I was referring to as a draw cut. You are not swinging the blade as hard as use can to avoid the exact situation you describe. It is a quick controlled movement, once you make contact, you draw the blade across to deepen and lengthen the cut (like when you are cutting meat with a carving knife as opposed to hacking it with a meat cleaver). This type of attack is not really strength based (unless you have a very dull blade), so in my opinion that is not what cleave represents. Immediately after the blade has come to a complete stop inside opponent 1's vital organs, it is withdrawn in such a way as to flow into a strike against opponent 2. What you are describing sounds more like what BAB represents. Experience allowing the flow of one manuveur into another, gaining extra iterative attacks. To me power attack represents sacrificing precision to increase power, in other words swinging the weapon as hard as you can (hence the STR prereq). Cleave requires power attack as a prereq. So I view cleave as being an attack powerful enough to go through one opponent into another. Rapid, quick, individual attacks at numerous targets requiring complex manuveur techniques and timing is how I envision the Whirlwind feat which requires both Dex and Int as prereqs. "Flay"...snip Cool, thanks for the feat info! Did not know about Flensing Strike.
Marcus Majarra 01-26-07, 06:54 PM	A few things: For starters, that's some interesting info you supplied. Good articles and good videos. Nice catch. Second, I'm not assuming any approach to design simply because I can't prove that the game was designed up-down or bottom-up. Unless we start reverse-engineering the game, even trying to assume what approach was used serves little purpose, IMHO. We have to look to the information we have and stick to it. The way the game is presented, the flavor aspect of an ability (or feat, or skill, or spell, etc.) describes what the ability does and what it looks like, generally speaking. Its mechanical aspect is how this is done. I see no divergence between both of these aspects when it comes to Cleave, which is why I'm strongly sticking to the RAW. Third, I'm not upset about suggesting to house rule. I simply feel it's more appropriate to counsel on how the rules work and how to adjudicate them; not how to repair them. In this particular instance, this is the problem brought up by the OP: Problem: In the above scenario, opponent A did nothing wrong, but still got attacked. Where I have the problem is when the fighter has great cleave, combat reflexes, and gets someone to cast cheap low level summoning spells to have several “one shot-able” creatures move through his threatened squares, provoking attacks of opportunity, getting killed in one hit, and using the cleave to get several extra attacks on his primary target. It seems unfair to opponent A. The way I see it, the interpretation of the problem here is flawed for the following reasons: 1) Cleave and Great Cleave never take into account what the second victim did wrong. Even during a cleaving character's own turn, the secondary victim is litterally put: collateral damage. It did nothing to deserve the attack except being in the wrong place at the wrong time. For attacks of opportunity, this is the same case, with the difference that you couldn't have otherwise targetted the second opponent for that particular opportunity. The final effect is the same: a cleaving character is rewarded for slaying his opponents with a free attack. This is what the purpose of Cleave is. 2) There's something most people tend to conveniently disregard with respect to AoOs: they are triggered by opponents (evidence of this can be found in the SRD, under Attacks of Opportunity). The OP mentions that a friendly spellcaster could have fairly weak summoned creatures go through his melee ally's threatened squares in order to provide him with free attacks of opportunity that will lead to cleaving attacks on the main opponent. The summoned creatures, in this scenario, are allied creatures, and as such, they do not trigger attacks of opportunity. And even if they were opponents, they would instead choose to attack the cleaving character and try to move without drawing AoOs. Summoned creatures are not mindless minions under the mental control of the summoner (unless otherwise mentioned). Even the bag of rats is poorly adjudicated in similar scenarios, as the rats would've most likely already chewed their way out of the bag before combat, if they were conscious. And if they're not conscious, they can't leave your threatened square when you drop them.
StevenO 01-26-07, 07:50 PM	... 1) Cleave and Great Cleave never take into account what the second victim did wrong. Even during a cleaving character's own turn, the secondary victim is litterally put: collateral damage. It did nothing to deserve the attack except being in the wrong place at the wrong time. For attacks of opportunity, this is the same case, with the difference that you couldn't have otherwise targetted the second opponent for that particular opportunity. The final effect is the same: a cleaving character is rewarded for slaying his opponents with a free attack. This is what the purpose of Cleave is. Wow, what a heated thread. Now if only some of those posts were short enough to read clearly. A character cleaving on his own turn is easily the simplest case of cleave. I disagree with the quote about the cleave target however; the second "victim" may have done nothing wrong but in the majority of cases it could have been the intended target instead of the target dropped. Hopefully all agree that cleave can grant extra attacks but the problem is should we be able to use an attack with a restricted target (AoO) to attack anyone else freely? Shouldn't using the same attack bonus also imply using the same targeting restriction because without them there is no attack to begin with. Interperting that too tightly restricts cleave a little more than I like but allowing cleave to convert a restricted attack into a free attack is a little too liberal for my taste.
calvinNhobbes 01-26-07, 08:03 PM	For starters, that's some interesting info you supplied. Good articles and good videos. Nice catch. Glad you enjoyed it! I thought it was pretty cool myself. :D Second, I'm not assuming any approach to design simply because I can't prove that the game was designed up-down or bottom-up. I agree, you can't prove it either way unless you talk to the designers themselves. However, your previous posts gave the impression that you knew. I'm glad to see you have admitted you are simple guessing. However, I think it is much more likely to have been a top-down design in the case of Cleave. Which do you think more likely: Designer 1: We are still missing the get-an-extra-attack-when-you-kill-a-foe mechanic. Desinger 2: Hmm... how about we make it feat called Cleave OR Designer 1: Hey wouldn't a feat that let you cut through multiple targets like in the movies be cool. Designer 2: Ya! Ok how should we design the mechanics for it? We have to look to the information we have and stick to it. This is where we disagree (and have on other threads as well). You have a great understanding of the RAW, and I appreciate that, but D&D is not a perfectly designed game, nor was it designed to be static. The designers themselves have written dozens of articles providing further clarification of poorly written rules (see grapple) and even provided their own houserules. The game is meant to be dynamic. That to me is why it is so fun. Not because I get to do the same thing over and over again like a video game. The way the game is presented, the flavor aspect of an ability (or feat, or skill, or spell, etc.) describes what the ability does and what it looks like, generally speaking. Its mechanical aspect is how this is done. I agree that is the desired outcome, but sometimes the designers fall short. I see no divergence between both of these aspects when it comes to Cleave, which is why I'm strongly sticking to the RAW. I disagree, I think the mechanics are indequate for Cleave. I would say I'm in the majority given the number of posts and FAQ related to clarifying cleave loopholes. Third, I'm not upset about suggesting to house rule. I simply feel it's more appropriate to counsel on how the rules work and how to adjudicate them; not how to repair them. Yes, I know you do. ;) But the OP knew the rules and found them lacking and wanted to know if there were any solutions to his problems besides cheesy rules lawyering. In this particular instance, this is the problem brought up by the OP: Yes he brought up a problem and asked for solutions. Potential solution: I could house rule that cleave does not work on AoOs, or I could rule that the extra cleave attack counts one of his AoOs for that round. I’m mixed on my feelings about those rules and am open to other suggestions.Not a lecture on why he should just leave it alone and follow the RAW. Perhaps he should have posted in the Houserule forum instead, but I see nothign wrong with helping him out. You could have simply quoted the FAQ and left the discussion, but you felt the need to argue against everyone else's solutions, even though the OP asked for them. 1)Snip...This is what the purpose of Cleave is. I disagree. The purpose of Cleave is to have a cool flavorful feat that models the combat manuveur of hitting multiple opponents with one attack. The mechanics you describe are the designers attempt to model that within the scope of the game. 2) Snip Yes, those are a indeed valid rules lawyering methods to stop some abuses of cleave. However, they defy logic, which is what the OP was after, not a lecture on how to out cheese his players using rules loopholes and twisted interpretations.
DivineDragoonXD 01-27-07, 11:31 AM	Discussion Thread Response (Support Agent) 01/26/2007 08:59 AM Christopher, The rules for Attacks of Opportunity are pretty specific as to what does and does not provoke an AoO. Since provoking depends on you doing an action that provokes, a sleeping person can not physically provoke an attack as they are not taking any actions. The definition of AoO states that the one whom provokes does so when they take an action that does so, it is not that you are dropping your guard, it is that you are creating a situation where an opponent can take advantage. Please let me know if you need anymore help! We would appreciate your feedback on the service we are providing you. Please click here to fill out a short questionnaire. To login to your account, or update your question please click here. Zephreum. Customer Service Representative Wizards of the Coast 1-800-324-6496 (US and Canada) 425-204-8069 (From all other countries) Monday-Friday 9am-6pm PST / 12pm-9pm EST This is the ruling as explained by a CSR.
calvinNhobbes 01-27-07, 12:08 PM	This is the ruling as explained by a CSR. Once again, the point of the discussion goes flying right over DivineDragoonXD's head. :rolleyes:
Marcus Majarra 01-27-07, 02:44 PM	I disagree. The purpose of Cleave is to have a cool flavorful feat that models the combat manuveur of hitting multiple opponents with one attack. Is that really the purpose of it? And where is the evidence of your claim? Let's look to our PHB to see what it says on Cleave and Greater Cleave: You can follow through with powerful blows. Prerequisites: Str 13, Power Attack. 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 the same bonus as the attack that dropped the previous creature. You can use this ability once per round. Special: A fighter may select Cleave as one of his fighter bonus feats (see page 38).TWEET, J., COOK, M., WILLIAMS, S. (July 2003). Player's Handbook Core Rulebook 1 v.3.5. Wizards of the Coast. Page 92. You can wield a melee weapon with such power that you can strike multiple times when you fell your foes. Prerequisites: Str 13, Cleave, Power Attack, base attack bonus +4. Benefits: This feat works like Cleave, except that there is no limit to the number of times you can use it per round. Special: A fighter may select Great Cleave as one of his fighter bonus feats (see page 38).TWEET, J., COOK, M., WILLIAMS, S. (July 2003). Player's Handbook Core Rulebook 1 v.3.5. Wizards of the Coast. Page 94. As a helpful exercise in order to establish the purpose of Cleave, let's look at it from both the bottom-up and the top-down approaches. Looking at it bottom-up, there's no doubt that the feat's purpose is to grant free attacks when you drop a creature in melee combat. From a top-down approach, things aren't quite so clear, mostly because of the description for Cleave: "You can follow through with powerful blows." Definitions for "follow through" don't seem to be conclusive on their own either (as taken from Reference.com): "Carry an object, project, or intention to completion; pursue fully." "The completion of a motion, as in the stroke of a tennis racket." "The portion of such a motion after the ball has been hit." I purposefully omitted repetitive definitions. What we can conclude from these definitions is that, essentially, to follow through is to bring completion to an effort, in the context of the Cleave feat. The feat's flavor describes how you follow through: "with powerful blows" That much is clear. What the flavor doesn't provide for us is what you're following through when you use the feat. To get our answer, we have no choice, at this point, but to look at the mechanics/benefits of the feat (as the name certainly doesn't indicate what you're following through either): "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" Here, we can observe that what you're following through, when you use the feat, is the act of making a creature drop. Even the flavor for Great Cleave corroborates this observation: "you can strike multiple times when you fell your foes" If we take this into context, we can rephrase the flavor for Cleave without affecting its purpose as follows: "You can follow through [the act of dropping a foe] with powerful blows [against another creature within reach]." This is why it's perfectly legal and logical to allow a character to cleave off attacks of opportunity: because he can follow through his dropping a foe with a powerful blow against another creature within reach. While you may be inclined to believe that the purpose of the feat is to model a combat maneuver for hitting multiple opponents with one attack, there is no evidence of this anywhere in the book. A better model for such a combat maneuver can be found in the Expanded Psionics Handbook: At 5th level, a war mind gains the ability to make great sweeping swings with a melee weapon. On each melee attack a war mind makes, he can choose squares he threatens that are adjacent to each other, and his attacks apply to creatures in those two squares equally. A war mind can use this ability on any attack, even an attack of opportunity or a cleave attempt. A war mind cannot use this ability if he has moved more than 10 feet since the end of his last turn. If a war mind drops one or both of his foes with a sweeping strike, he can attempt a cleave normally; however, he makes only one cleave attempt per sweeping strike, even if he drops more than one foe.CORDELL, B. R. (April 2004). Expanded Psionics Handbook. Wizards of the Coast. Page 156. In conclusion, I have to remind people that the purpose of cleave is to provide free attacks for dropping opponents, which is why cleaving off attacks of opportunity should not pose a problem. Any victims of the cleave attempts are simply collateral damage in any and every instance. P.S.: Just so you know, calvinNhobbes, the War Mind is right there in the SRD.
calvinNhobbes 01-27-07, 06:07 PM	Let's look to our PHB to see what it says on Cleave and Greater Cleave: Snip... This is why it's perfectly legal and logical to allow a character to cleave off attacks of opportunity: because he can follow through his dropping a foe with a powerful blow against another creature within reach. I already knew you were an incredible rules lawyer. No need to tell me again. ;) I mean using dictionary quotes for "follow through" is a little sad even for you. (As an aside, the little one sentence descriptions of the feats are not part of SRD. Therefore, the whole "follow through" thing is total fluff and has the least to do with the feat. When using the SRD, the only flavor you have for the feat is name. So, the real question, does Cleave sound more like it should give one powerful attack, or several quick attacks. Given its prereqs of STR and Power Attack, I think the former is more probable than the later.) No one is arguing what the RAW are. That is not the point of the discussion at this point. That discussion was complete as soon as the FAQ was quoted. The current discussion is how Cleave and Great Cleave do not appropriately reflect real combat and how we can change the mechanics to better model it. It is apparent you have no interest in the discussion, so you can either continue to post the RAW (which everyone knows and doesn't real care about) or leave the thread. If the idea of discussing houserules in the rules counseling forum is too upseting for you, request the moderators move it. While you may be inclined to believe that the purpose of the feat is to model a combat maneuver for hitting multiple opponents with one attack, there is no evidence of this anywhere in the book. You mean besides the feat named Cleave (which means to cut/slice/pierce through something). Yep no evidence at all. :rolleyes: If all Cleave did was give an extra attack, why is the attack so restricted (no 5-foot step, must be immediate)? It is almost like they are trying to model something. What could it possibly be? I think I've already answered that. You don't have to agree with it, but that is just your opinion and you have no proof otherwise. A better model for such a combat maneuver can be found in the Expanded Psionics Handbook: I don't use Psionics. Not because I think there is anything wrong with them, but because I do not like the flavor of psionics. However, I will address your comments. I agree that is a better model. However, note how the PHB and EPH were not designed by the same people. After reading Sweeping Strike, it appears to me that Mr. Cordell (like so many of us here) found the modeling of Cleave to be inadequate for what he thought it should be. However, he could not simply rewrite the Cleave feat, so instead designed an ability that better modeled it. Unless you can show that the person who designed Cleave and Sweeping Strike are the same person you have proved nothing. All you have shown is that two different people had a similar idea and modeled it two different ways. In addition, even if it was the same person, Sweeping Strike could be a further attempt to model what they were trying to do with Cleave. The only way to know for sure is have the designers of both mechanics write an article explaining their design process. It is still my opinion that Cleave was top-down, not bottom-up, and you have not proved otherwise. In conclusion, I have to remind people that the purpose of cleave is to provide free attacks for dropping opponents, which is why cleaving off attacks of opportunity should not pose a problem. But that is the problem. It DOES pose a problem. If it did not these types of posts would not exist nor would the several FAQ entries regarding Cleave. Any victims of the cleave attempts are simply collateral damage in any and every instance. Which they logically shouldn't be, and there is the problem. Note: when I say logically, I mean real life, go pick up a weapon, swing it and see what happens, not whether you can pervert the RAW to make them do what you want.
Marcus Majarra 01-27-07, 07:00 PM	Ok, then going only by the flavor of the word "Cleave" which means to cut through something, why are the mechanics restricted to being able to do so only when you drop an opponent? And why can it be done with any weapon (as opposed to only a slashing weapon)? If the only flavor that you have in order to assign judgment is the name of the feat, then it's obvious that its mechanics have absolutely nothing to do with what it's allegedly intended to do. Which brings me to the very important point: how are we supposed to guess the intent based on the printed evidence? Are we supposed to make ad hoc modifications on rules because we feel the intent is different? Look at the Spell Focus feat. Just looking at the name, you'd guess they made a mechanic that gives you either a focused ability for a single spell or for all your spells in general. Instead, it gives you a focused ability for only spells of a given school. Shouldn't Spell School Focus or even School Focus be more appropriate? And yet, there's no argument anywhere concerning this feat. Why should Cleave be any different?
strange_person 01-27-07, 08:28 PM	I already knew you were an incredible rules lawyer. No need to tell me again. ;) I mean using dictionary quotes for "follow through" is a little sad even for you. (As an aside, the little one sentence descriptions of the feats are not part of SRD. Therefore, the whole "follow through" thing is total fluff and has the least to do with the feat. When using the SRD, the only flavor you have for the feat is name. (snip) that is just your opinion and you have no proof otherwise. Have you got some kind of serious brain disorder or something? Using the SRD and nothing else is not the default assumption for playing D&D. In fact, it's impossible, because the SRD omits the critical information about how to gain levels. You base your entire evaluation of a feat on one word, dismiss any counter-argument as rules-lawyering, and then you say there's no proof? Did you even finish reading what Marcus Majarra posted before you started pulled out your private fallacy stash? I don't use Psionics. Not because I think there is anything wrong with them, but because I do not like the flavor of psionics. However, I will address your comments. I agree that is a better model. However, note how the PHB and EPH were not designed by the same people. After reading Sweeping Strike, it appears to me that Mr. Cordell (like so many of us here) found the modeling of Cleave to be inadequate for what he thought it should be. However, he could not simply rewrite the Cleave feat, so instead designed an ability that better modeled it. Unless you can show that the person who designed Cleave and Sweeping Strike are the same person you have proved nothing. All you have shown is that two different people had a similar idea and modeled it two different ways. In addition, even if it was the same person, Sweeping Strike could be a further attempt to model what they were trying to do with Cleave. The only way to know for sure is have the designers of both mechanics write an article explaining their design process. It is still my opinion that Cleave was top-down, not bottom-up, and you have not proved otherwise. A feat that can be taken at 1st level and an ability from the 5th level of a prestige class are not the same thing. If Mr. Cordell wanted to change the Cleave feat, he could have suggested it for the 3.5 PHB, or included it as a feat in the XPH. You can only cleave through something that you've reduced to -1 hp or below because anyone with positive HP isn't taking any penalty for injuries, while someone who's been slashed/peirced/bludgeoned to the point that there's a whole through them probably should be at least slowed down somewhat. Note: when I say logically, I mean real life, go pick up a weapon, swing it and see what happens, not whether you can pervert the RAW to make them do what you want. Most people don't have Str 13+, let alone the Cleave feat, in the game world. The same is probably true in real life. I mean, when's the last time you, personally, in real life, beat someone unconscious with a sword? A spear? A morningstar? Given that most nonfelons have relatively little experience with melee weapons, you probably don't have the Cleave feat. Cleave itself is strength-based because it involves hitting someone hard enough that there's a useful amount of momentum left after it's killed them, and then using that momentum to hit someone else. That requires a lot of force. Cleaving on attacks of opportunity would require high dexterity, for the Combat Reflexes part of the equation. The strength requirement is comparatively trivial. Finally, it's a fantasy game. Just because you can't do it doesn't mean Tordek can't. You're no more justified complaining that you can't Cleave than you would be complaining that you can't Craft Rings.
calvinNhobbes 01-27-07, 09:09 PM	Ok, then going only by the flavor of the word "Cleave" which means to cut through something, why are the mechanics restricted to being able to do so only when you drop an opponent? That is very simple. If you cut through a person, I would consider that a lethal blow. Maybe you think it makes sense someone can run around and attack if bisected, but I don't. And why can it be done with any weapon (as opposed to only a slashing weapon)? Reverse engineering. I wouldn't be surprised if the feat was original designed to only work with slashing weapons, but then they realized it restricted the feat too much, and decided to make it work with all weapons and used the ambiguous description as a half-ass attempt to have it make sense. If the only flavor that you have in order to assign judgment is the name of the feat, then it's obvious that its mechanics have absolutely nothing to do with what it's allegedly intended to do. I disagree, the mechanics of Cleave have alot to do with its intent, as do the prereqs, but are still inadequate. In my opinion of course. Which brings me to the very important point: how are we supposed to guess the intent based on the printed evidence? Are we supposed to make ad hoc modifications on rules because we feel the intent is different? Absolutely! That is what D&D is about. Interpreting the rules to fit your game. Blindly following them is for the weak minded. Look at the Spell Focus feat. Just looking at the name, you'd guess they made a mechanic that gives you either a focused ability for a single spell or for all your spells in general. Instead, it gives you a focused ability for only spells of a given school. Shouldn't Spell School Focus or even School Focus be more appropriate? Yep, horrible name as well. However, my guess in this case is that it was a bottom-up approach, but they couldn't call it School Focus because that might get confused with school specialization. And yet, there's no argument anywhere concerning this feat. Why should Cleave be any different? There are no arguments on what the RAW of Cleave are either, only it's flavor. Why? Because cleaving is something we can all envision. It is real. Learning to focus on a school of magic is not. No real world comparison.
calvinNhobbes 01-27-07, 09:29 PM	Using the SRD and nothing else is not the default assumption for playing D&D. In fact, it's impossible, because the SRD omits the critical information about how to gain levels. Obviously you missed the point. The SRD contains all the mechanics of the game (minus character creation and level advancement). Marcus Majarra wants to focus solely on the mechanics. The SRD does this and omits the fluff about Cleave leaving only the name of the feat to give flavor You base your entire evaluation of a feat on one word, dismiss any counter-argument as rules-lawyering, and then you say there's no proof? Err... no I haven't. If that is how you interpreted it then perhaps you need to read it more carefully. Notice my evaluation of the feat involved its name, prereqs and its mechanics. Marcus Majarra wants to focus purely on the mechanics. He even ignores the prereqs. Did you even finish reading what Marcus Majarra posted before you started pulled out your private fallacy stash? Of course, did you? A feat that can be taken at 1st level and an ability from the 5th level of a prestige class are not the same thing. Really? Wow aren't you clever. Here's a cookie for figuring that one out. :rolleyes: If Mr. Cordell wanted to change the Cleave feat, he could have suggested it for the 3.5 PHB, or included it as a feat in the XPH. Who is say if he even worked on Cleave for the PHB, or even playtested? The first time he was exposed to it could have been when the rest of us were. In addition, there is no way of knowing if he designed Sweeping Strike. You and Marcus Majarra seem to think you know everything when you really are completely ignorant. All along I have stated these are my opinions, you don't have to agree, but you can't tell me I'm wrong. However, when you apply the mechanics of Cleave as written you result in situations that realistically illogical. Period. Some of us like to make modifications to correct this, others like you and Marcus Majarra prefer to rules lawyer. To each their own. You can only cleave through something that you've reduced to -1 hp or below because anyone with positive HP isn't taking any penalty for injuries, while someone who's been slashed/peirced/bludgeoned to the point that there's a whole through them probably should be at least slowed down somewhat. So what's your point? That you think there should be a rule that gives combat conditions for HP damage? Most people don't have Str 13+, let alone the Cleave feat, in the game world. The same is probably true in real life. Once again, so? I mean, when's the last time you, personally, in real life, beat someone unconscious with a sword? A spear? A morningstar? If I knew you, probably everyday. :P Given that most nonfelons have relatively little experience with melee weapons, you probably don't have the Cleave feat. Actually, lots of people have experience with melee weapons. Perhaps you have heard of law enforcement, soldiers, martial artists. Once again your assumptions are grossly incorrect. Cleave itself is strength-based because it involves hitting someone hard enough that there's a useful amount of momentum left after it's killed them, and then using that momentum to hit someone else. That requires a lot of force. Thank you, you just proved why my interpretation of cleave is correct and Marcus Majarra's is not. Cleaving on attacks of opportunity would require high dexterity, for the Combat Reflexes part of the equation. The strength requirement is comparatively trivial. Wrong. Cleaving on AOO does not require Combat Reflexes but still requires the strength requirement. That entire statement is so completely false it makes me cry. :weep: Finally, it's a fantasy game. Just because you can't do it doesn't mean Tordek can't. You're no more justified complaining that you can't Cleave than you would be complaining that you can't Craft Rings. I'm not complaining. I've already changed the feats in my game as I see fit. You and Marcus Majarra are the ones upset that anyone would dare change your holy books.
Marcus Majarra 01-28-07, 12:19 PM	Wow, I'm surprised you're being so condescendent about it. The truth of the matter is: you're not evidencing your ideas by anything other than your opinion on an interpretation that has little if no basis: 1) The word Cleave means to cut through something. If anything, the name suggests you should be able to perform more lethal blows with a slashing weapon, not that you can strike multiple creatures with one attack. It would be far more reasonable to allow a feat with that name to ignore a certain amount of armor or natural armor bonus to AC when using a slashing weapon. As a matter of fact, this would fall hand in hand with its prerequisites as you gather the Strength to break through armor and make your attacks more powerful. 2) You state that Cleave should be engineering the mechanic of cutting through a creature to strike another. If that's the case, then the initial attack should be killing the first target (or at least severely damaging the creature, such as destroying a limb) as opposed to merely dropping it. Otherwise, there's no reason to allow each and every attack to be cleaved off. I mean, why should you be more enabled to cut through a creature when it's near-death? 3) You're making a lot of recommendations based on your interpretation of the intent of the authors. Do you realize that you have very little backing in doing so without quoting text provided by the authors? You state that you're using evidence of the name and requirements of the feat, but they don't address the issue of why it doesn't make sense to allow the feat for an attack of opportunity (which is the issue at hand). Just how much can you conclude from the feat's name and its requirements? Cleave - to cut through something Requirements - Str 13, Power Attack Basically, in order to cut through something, you need to be strong and you must be effficiently able to sacrifice accuracy for power when you make melee attacks. That's about the extent of what you can conclude from this information alone. How does this address the issue of why it only works on felling blows or why it should or shouldn't take place during an attack of opportunity? It's not a matter about chaging the "holy books" as you call them. I'm merely arguing that the OP's problem here is not a matter of an error in the mechanics; it's an error in the interpretation, and how he deals with it depends on where he thinks the shortcomings of the feat lie: a) The mechanic doesn't reflect the name and requirements of the feat. This means that you have to build an entirely new mechanic based on the name and requirements. Here's a valid example of a mechanic drawn from this info: When using Power Attack and attacking with a piercing or slashing weapon, you can ignore up to 1 point of armor bonus or natural armor bonus to AC per 2-point penalty taken on the attack roll. Great Cleave could work in the same way, except that you could ignore an amount of armor/natural armor equal to your penalty. b) The name doesn't reflect the mechanic. The solution here is to simply rename the feat for it to seem more appropriate. This is, by far, the simplest solution, as it requires little effort on the DM's side. You stated yourself that Bloodlust is a far better name for the mechanic of the feat. Nothing about the feat changes, except your preconceptions about it (this is called taking things into perspective). In no way is there a matter of adjudicating the feat's interaction with attacks of opportunity, which is why I find your argument of the lack of convergence between name and mechanic to be useless when addressing the issue brought up by the OP. The question that you need to ask yourself is: why does the OP have an issue with cleaving off an attack of opportunity?
The_Ditto 01-28-07, 03:49 PM	Honestly, do you think WOTC came up with the mechanics for cleave feat and then the name, or do you think they came up with the name and then the feat? My vote is the name then the mechanic to try and model what they envisioned. Actually, I think they modelled the mechanics after the 1st edition "mechanic" I believe was called: "sweep". Which was something like a 7th level fighter could attack 7 targets of <1HD that he threatens ... (understanding that the term: "threatened" didn't exist then .. but it's good to explain the old mechanic to people now ..) For those who actually still have their 1st edition hardcovers: Page 25, left side, bottom. referring to the multiple attacks for fighters ... Note: This excludes melee combat with monsters of less than one hit die and non-exceptional humans and semi-humans. All of these creatures entitle a fighter to attack once for each of his or her experience levels. That mechanic allowed a 7th level fighter to attack 7 nearby goblins or kobolds (for example) .. It was an obscure rule and a bit "clumsy" ... The mechanic seemed to be left out from 2nd edition ... but I think they tried to bring it back with a more sensible mechanic in 3rd ... (ie Cleave). Just goes to show, I guess, it's impossible to please everyone all of the time ... :tiphat:
calvinNhobbes 01-28-07, 05:11 PM	Wow, I'm surprised you're being so condescendent about it. Back at ya babe. ;) The truth of the matter is: you're not evidencing your ideas by anything other than your opinion on an interpretation that has little if no basis: I've already stated that it is my opinion and provided substantial basis. I can't help it if you choose to ignore it. They do say ignorance is bliss. 1) The word Cleave means to cut through something. If anything, the name suggests you should be able to perform more lethal blows with a slashing weapon, not that you can strike multiple creatures with one attack. Some could argue (myself included) that cleaving through someone into another target would be considered a more lethal blow. I mean bisecting someone is usually fatal. In addition, so you are admitting that the flavor of the feat has nothing to do with the mechanic. As I said, the modeling is inadequate. It would be far more reasonable to allow a feat with that name to ignore a certain amount of armor or natural armor bonus to AC when using a slashing weapon. No, that would not be reasonable at all. More reasonable would be something like the Brutal Strike feat. You could take a standard action and Power Attack, if you hit, the target must make a fortitude save or suffer some effect (extra damage and combat conditions) As a matter of fact, this would fall hand in hand with its prerequisites as you gather the Strength to break through armor and make your attacks more powerful. Strength is not just about breaking through armor. Strength still applies to targets with no armor at all. In addition, it is not the prereqs as "I gather". The prereqs are STR and Power Attack. For a rules lawyer I'd think you would know that. ;) 2) You state that Cleave should be engineering the mechanic of cutting through a creature to strike another. If that's the case, then the initial attack should be killing the first target (or at least severely damaging the creature, such as destroying a limb) as opposed to merely dropping it. So you are trying to disprove my interpretation by making a distinction between disabled and dying (-1 HP or less) and dead (-10)? That is weak. You can slice through someone into another target with one swing without bisecting them. See my triple throat cut example from previous posts. The victims would bleed to death rapidly, but they would not necessarily be instantly dead. Same with abdominal slashes, femoral or popliteal artery hits, even cuts along the rib cage that did not enter the thorax but injured the arteries along the ribs would be enough to drop a person without killing them. Otherwise, there's no reason to allow each and every attack to be cleaved off. I mean, why should you be more enabled to cut through a creature when it's near-death? You are now talking about an entirely different mechanic. HPs are very abstract. I prefer the WP/VP from Unearthed Arcana where everyone is one strike from death. 3) You're making a lot of recommendations based on your interpretation of the intent of the authors. So? That is what houserules are supposed to do. Like I said, we all know the RAW, so what's your problem? The OP already thanked me for all my help and left the discussion. Like I said before if you don't like houserules being discussed then don't discuss them. Do you realize that you have very little backing in doing so without quoting text provided by the authors? I don't need to quote them, you've already done it for me half-a-dozen times! :P You state that you're using evidence of the name and requirements of the feat, but they don't address the issue of why it doesn't make sense to allow the feat for an attack of opportunity (which is the issue at hand). Actually there are two different discussions: 1) Whether the mechanics of Cleave represent the the flavor. I say no. You say yes. Neither one of us can be proven correct, we are both just arguing for the sake of it because we are both arrogants asses. ;) 2) Whether is makes realistic logical sense (not RAW sense) that you should be able to hit a creature with a cleave from an AOO that it was not a legal target for to begin with. The anwser to that is, no it does not make realistic logical sense. The modeling is inadequate in this case producing numerous abusive loopholes in the rules. Just how much can you conclude from the feat's name and its requirements? About the same that you can conclude from a class name and its main ability stat (Fighter: STR, Wizard: INT, Cleric: WIS, Rogue: DEX). In otherwords, an incredible amount. Basically, in order to cut through something, you need to be strong and you must be effficiently able to sacrifice accuracy for power when you make melee attacks. That's about the extent of what you can conclude from this information alone. Perhaps that's all you can conclude. Others of extrapolate beyond that. How does this address the issue of why it only works on felling blows Because if you hit a target and the blade gets stuck in his armor, then it makes it difficult to continue the swing, doesn't it? There are numerous ways it could have been modeled. It could have required a standard action, but every attack cleaves, it could have required a critical hit, it could have required a Fort save. There are numerous ways to model it. The chose one way. It is pretty good, but not good enough for some of us. or why it should or shouldn't take place during an attack of opportunity? As already explained, because it allows you to attack targets that were untargetable before. This is not logical. Example, if two creature are standing on opposite sides of you, why does creature 1 digging in his bag allow you to hit creature 2, but if creature 1 just stands there you can not hit creature 2 at all? If you can hit creature 2 in the first situation, why can you not just target him to begin with? These are artificial limitations set by the mechanics of a game and do not accurately reflect a realistic model. Personally, I require you to be using Power Attack on an attack in order to gain cleave attacks, in addition Power Attack only applies to attacks on your turn, and therefore you cannot Power Attack during an AOO and cannot cleave with an AOO, but those are my houserules. There are very logical reasons for these changes, but I won't bother to share them with you since you are only interested in the RAW. It's not a matter about chaging the "holy books" as you call them. I'm merely arguing that the OP's problem here is not a matter of an error in the mechanics; Actually, it is an error in mechanics, as evidenced by the numerous AOO generating tricks. it's an error in the interpretation, No, it is not. You have just created houserules to close the loopholes and convinced yourself they are RAW, even thought they are not. a) The mechanic doesn't reflect the name and requirements of the feat. This means that you have to build an entirely new mechanic based on the name and requirements. Here's a valid example of a mechanic drawn from this info: When using Power Attack and attacking with a piercing or slashing weapon, you can ignore up to 1 point of armor bonus or natural armor bonus to AC per 2-point penalty taken on the attack roll. I think that mechanics has nothing to do with cleave. That sounds more like the feat called "Find the Gap" or something. In fact I believe there already is a feat very similar to that. Great Cleave could work in the same way, except that you could ignore an amount of armor/natural armor equal to your penalty. Strength is not just about armor penetration. b) The name doesn't reflect the mechanic. The solution here is to simply rename the feat for it to seem more appropriate. This is, by far, the simplest solution, as it requires little effort on the DM's side. You stated yourself that Bloodlust is a far better name for the mechanic of the feat. Yep, agreed. Nothing about the feat changes, except your preconceptions about it (this is called taking things into perspective). Actually, I would change the Prereqs to DEX 13 and Combat Reflexes. With the name of Bloodlust and the flavor of several quick attacks it should require quickness (DEX) instead of power (STR). In no way is there a matter of adjudicating the feat's interaction with attacks of opportunity, which is why I find your argument of the lack of convergence between name and mechanic to be useless when addressing the issue brought up by the OP. The question that you need to ask yourself is: why does the OP have an issue with cleaving off an attack of opportunity? Because, as written, the feat produces abusive loopholes that are COMPLETELY legal by RAW. In addition, the fact that cleave can hit untargetable opponents is illogical and reflects the inadequacies of the mechanics.
calvinNhobbes 01-28-07, 05:20 PM	The mechanic seemed to be left out from 2nd edition ... but I think they tried to bring it back with a more sensible mechanic in 3rd ... (ie Cleave). Very interesting history Ditto! I never played first edition. Started with Classic, played some 2nd, then started again with 3.5. Just goes to show, I guess, it's impossible to please everyone all of the time And why even try. If would make more sense to make a game that the players could change themselves to fit their play style. Oh wait! D&D does! ;)
Marcus Majarra 01-28-07, 06:44 PM	You're not reading. Perhaps you should read through my entire post before making your own replies. As it is, you're taking single sentences out of context in order to form a rebuttal. As already explained, because it allows you to attack targets that were untargetable before. This is not logical. Example, if two creature are standing on opposite sides of you, why does creature 1 digging in his bag allow you to hit creature 2, but if creature 1 just stands there you can not hit creature 2 at all? If you can hit creature 2 in the first situation, why can you not just target him to begin with? These are artificial limitations set by the mechanics of a game and do not accurately reflect a realistic model. Since when is being able to allow otherwise untargetable opponents illogical, within the scope of a special ability? This assumption is based on a preconception that has no support in any written form: Cleave's intent is to gain a benefit off the momentum of a felling blow. I have to admit that, for a while, I fell subject to the same faulty preconception. However, after going through the PHB, I can't seem to find any sort of indication that this is the purpose of the feat. It's not creature 1's digging in his bag that allows you to attack creature 2. It's your felling creature 1 that allows you to attack creature 2. It never is a matter of momentum. Heck, even if you take Cleave's definition into consideration when adjudicating the effect, the only undeniable flavor there exists is that you're evidently cutting through something. If you look at the feat in its entirety, you'll realize that "cutting through something" (this is a metaphor for felling an opponent) is merely a trigger for the feat's ability. And that's it. This is why I find your argument to be misplaced here: you're not looking at the feat entirely. You're strongly sticking to certain parts of the feat (notably its name and requirements) and then deciding on what it should do. The thing is: this kind of vision is too narrow to ever consider any kind of rule element as being pertinent unless it exactly coincides on your vision of what the name and requirements mean, and it arbitrarily omits parts of what is written in the books in the goal of justifying your intentions. Have you ever considered that the act of cleaving through a creature might just be a trigger in this case? Not all feat names describe what you can do. Some do, such as Spirited Charge and Whirlwind Attack. Others don't, such as Toughness or Martial Weapon Proficiency. In Cleave's case, the name doesn't describe what you can do. If that were the case, the description for what you can do with the feat would coincide with its name.
calvinNhobbes 01-28-07, 08:06 PM	You're not reading. Perhaps you should read through my entire post before making your own replies. As it is, you're taking single sentences out of context in order to form a rebuttal. Actually, I read through it all once, and then make rebuttals against the points I disagree with. If the replies appear to be out of context it is because your original statement didn't have much context to begin with. ;) Since when is being able to allow otherwise untargetable opponents illogical, within the scope of a special ability? Once again you are isolating yourself within the scope of the game rules. Trying thinking about a real physical world. We are not talking about special abilities. We are talking about you, two targets, and a sword. This assumption is based on a preconception that has no support in any written form: BINGO! Exactly! Just like preconceptions of dwarves, wizards, dragons, etc. There are certain preconceived ideas in a fantasy setting. I have to admit that, for a while, I fell subject to the same faulty preconception. It is not faulty. Do you tell someone who's preconception of an elf as a fairy type creature that they are wrong? Because in many cultures that is what elves represent. Your own statement shows that your preconceptions were different that what you believe now. You expected Cleave to be something different! Your preconceptions were not faulty. There were what they were. The mechanics of Cleave do not represent what the majority of people believe they should. That is the problem. You decided you must be wrong and believed in your holy books. Others of us decided to trust our preconceptions and change them. However, after going through the PHB, I can't seem to find any sort of indication that this is the purpose of the feat. It's not in the PHB. It's in real life. Perhaps you should get outside more. It's not creature 1's digging in his bag that allows you to attack creature 2. It's your felling creature 1 that allows you to attack creature 2. Wrong. Apparently you've never had cause and effect explained to you. It never is a matter of momentum. Really, I'd love to see you swing a sword without producing momentum. Oh, that's right, you can't. :rolleyes: Heck, even if you take Cleave's definition into consideration when adjudicating the effect, the only undeniable flavor there exists is that you're evidently cutting through something. So right there the mechanics fall short. Cleave should be restricted to slashing weapons. You yourself have already said the name and mechanics do not match. However, ONCE AGAIN you glance right over the prereqs: STR and Power Attack! Of course I know why you do because they disprove your entire point. If you look at the feat in its entirety, Perhaps you should follow your own advice. you'll realize that "cutting through something" (this is a metaphor for felling an opponent) is merely a trigger for the feat's ability. I feel sorry for you if all you see when you read that sentence is a trigger. How can someone with so little imagination play D&D? This is why I find your argument to be misplaced here: you're not looking at the feat entirely. No actually you are not. You have decided to focus on the name OR mechanic WHILE ignoring the requirements. You're strongly sticking to certain parts of the feat (notably its name and requirements) and then deciding on what it should do. No I am sticking to all components of the feat equally, you are the one ignoring key elements. The thing is: this kind of vision is too narrow to ever consider any kind of rule element as being pertinent unless it exactly coincides on your vision of what the name and requirements mean, and it arbitrarily omits parts of what is written in the books in the goal of justifying your intentions. Hello kettle it is pot. :P Have you ever considered that the act of cleaving through a creature might just be a trigger in this case? No because that is a lame and boring way to play a game based on imagination and fantasy. I pity you. :( Not all feat names describe what you can do. Some do, such as Spirited Charge and Whirlwind Attack. Top-down design results in good feats. :D Others don't, such as Toughness or Martial Weapon Proficiency. Bottom-up results in lame feats. :eek: In Cleave's case, the name doesn't describe what you can do. If that were the case, the description for what you can do with the feat would coincide with its name. Let me turn it back on you. If the feat was not supposed to represent what its name and prereqs represent, why did they not change the name afterwards? That would have been easy as you pointed out. Perhaps it is because the mechanics are supposed to represent the name and prereqs like I have argued, and you are in fact wrong. That would seem most logical.
strange_person 01-28-07, 08:42 PM	The mechanics of Cleave do not represent what the majority of people believe they should. The mechanics of cleave do not represent what YOU think they should. You are not the representative of some invisible, silent majority until you can present evidence that you are. The rest of your post is just unsupported contradictions and relentless sarcasm, so I'm not even going to touch it.
calvinNhobbes 01-29-07, 12:28 AM	The mechanics of cleave do not represent what YOU think they should. You are not the representative of some invisible, silent majority until you can present evidence that you are. Well let's use this thread as an example: Those who posted that they have changed Cleave in some way (15):Genestealer, Ditto, starfire311, Millenium, Eightbitmage, olshanki home, Wopple, mvincent, Murrdox, Jerbar, StevenO, Sildatorak, calvinNhobbes, Nom, and AquaticSpaceChicken. Those who thought nothing was wrong with the feat as written (5): Marcus Majarra, Bob Loblaw, Shattered Tower, strange person, and DivineDragoonXD Those who didn't really post an opinion either way, or thought the feat had exploits but simple tell their players not to exploit it instead of changing it (3): Firestar27, pedro2112, and King Marl. It would appear I am in the not so silent majority. :P The rest of your post is just unsupported contradictions and relentless sarcasm, so I'm not even going to touch it. Have a nice day. :)
Bob Loblaw 01-29-07, 09:24 AM	While not a very statistically relevant sample, you certainly can't be accused of not paying attention to the thread. I think the biggest problem with the feat is probably it's name and lack of flavor text to show exactly what the designers meant. Perhaps the biggest reason many of us haven't had any real problems with it is that we aren't trying to make it 100% (or even 80%) compatible with the real-world. We just accept it the way it is and move on. Neither way is better. I have found that if I analyze the rules too much, they don't hold up to real-world combat simulation or physics as well as I would like. I also don't really feel like going through and making them fit any better than they do now. I like to keep things simple and the game moving.
The_Ditto 01-29-07, 10:05 AM	Those who posted that they have changed Cleave in some way (15):Genestealer, Ditto, starfire311, Millenium, Eightbitmage, olshanki home, Wopple, mvincent, Murrdox, Jerbar, StevenO, Sildatorak, calvinNhobbes, Nom, and AquaticSpaceChicken. Beg pardon? Did I? If I gave that impression, my apologies for falsifying records! :D If I implied I had changed it, is probably a case of my poor grammar at work again, and it was probably only a recommendation that one could change it ... I have not changed cleave, nor do I see any need. (I also had the impression Nom didn't change it either .. but again, that could be just me misreading things .. hehe ;) )
calvinNhobbes 01-29-07, 10:57 AM	While not a very statistically relevant sample, you certainly can't be accused of not paying attention to the thread. The sample is probably statistically significant, however, it is not known whether the sample reflects the entire gaming population. I think the biggest problem with the feat is probably it's name and lack of flavor text to show exactly what the designers meant. Perhaps the designers left it vague on purpose so each group of gamers could interpret it how they saw fit, and if they decided, change it as well. Perhaps the biggest reason many of us haven't had any real problems with it is that we aren't trying to make it 100% (or even 80%) compatible with the real-world. We just accept it the way it is and move on. Neither way is better. I agree, both ways are fine. However, Marcus Majarra seems to think anything but RAW is incorrect. There are many things I leave alone even though they are poor models of reality, for example falling damage. I have found that if I analyze the rules too much, they don't hold up to real-world combat simulation or physics as well as I would like. Me either. I also don't really feel like going through and making them fit any better than they do now. I like to keep things simple and the game moving. While some of us do. Like you said, either way is fine. My disagreement with Marcus Majarra is that he refuses to acknowledge this. The Ditto, Sorry if I misread your intent. I was just going by those who gave advice on how to change Cleave. I assumed it was from their own experiences. That makes it 14 to 5 (I'd move Bob Loblaw into the neutral category, ie. there are problems with Cleave but ignores them for ease of gameplay). I think I still hold the majority on the thread. ;) My inclusion of Nom was not based on what he thought the flavor of Cleave was, but on his discussion of why allowing cleaves on AOO was a problem (See post #27).
DivineDragoonXD 01-29-07, 11:33 AM	Once again, the point of the discussion goes flying right over DivineDragoonXD's head. :rolleyes: No I understand the whole topic. I just dont see why everyone is complaining about a few rules. I am sure you complain about certain things you can and cant do in Video Games; and can you change them. No. Those are rules. That and the reply I did get from the CSR did clarifiy WHY a chest or sleeping goblin doesnt provoke an AoO. If you cant deal with the rules that are given do not play the game.
KingMarl 01-29-07, 12:01 PM	Okay, my opinion: I have absolutely no issue with the Cleave/Great Cleave feats as written - if Supreme Cleave still existed (it doesn't in 3.5e) I might have an issue with that one, as the 5 ft. step between cleaves is plain nuts. But I still wouldn't change it - as far as I'm concerned any cheese the players pull out of the bag becomes fair game for me. And if your read the Book of Nine Swords carefully, they have slipped Supreme Cleave in there as one of the maneuvers. Basically, if the players cheese, then I'll cheese them right back. I've never had an issue with this, however. If someday I do run into an issue with one player massively cheesing everything he does, I suspect he'll be really unhappy very soon after. But as for arguing what any of these things 'mean', especially using anything resembling actual physics to back them up - leave me right out of that. It's a game, and such discussions are far too much like work for me. If a correctly interpreted feat says you can do X, then as far as I'm concerned you can do X, regardless of how absurd that might be in real life. You want truly absurd, read the section on Epic Skills. Alll are specifically stated to be non-magical, yet you can do things like walk on clouds, slip through a Wall of Force, swim up waterfalls, etc. I'd say falling 3000 feet onto a slab of granite and taking no damage (DC 100 Tumble check, that) is a lot more unrealistic than dropping all opponents that approach within range of your sword.
calvinNhobbes 01-29-07, 12:39 PM	No I understand the whole topic. No, once again, you do not, as proven by your most recent post. I just dont see why everyone is complaining about a few rules. I don't imagine you do. That is why you don't understand the whole topic. I am sure you complain about certain things you can and cant do in Video Games; and can you change them. No. Those are rules. No it is called computer code. In some games you can in fact alter the code, and I have in some cases when the coding is very easy or the game has built in software to do so. That and the reply I did get from the CSR did clarifiy WHY a chest or sleeping goblin doesnt provoke an AoO. That was never the point of the discussion. Like I said, the point has flown over your head. If you cant deal with the rules that are given do not play the game. I pity you. :weep: Perhaps you should try reading your DMG sometime.
calvinNhobbes 01-29-07, 12:46 PM	Okay, my opinion: I have absolutely no issue with the Cleave/Great Cleave feats as written Actually, yes you do, and you say so right here: Basically, if the players cheese, then I'll cheese them right back. I've never had an issue with this, however. If someday I do run into an issue with one player massively cheesing everything he does, I suspect he'll be really unhappy very soon after. Instead of making a houserule, you instead threaten your players that if they exploit the loophole in Cleave you will punish them. I would call having to threaten players over the RAW to be an issue, wouldn't you? But as for arguing what any of these things 'mean', especially using anything resembling actual physics to back them up - leave me right out of that. It's a game, and such discussions are far too much like work for me. If a correctly interpreted feat says you can do X, then as far as I'm concerned you can do X, regardless of how absurd that might be in real life. Which is totally fine. I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is when someone comes along and says changing the rules is wrong. It is not wrong. It is an integral part of D&D. Always has been and still is. You want truly absurd, read the section on Epic Skills. Alll are specifically stated to be non-magical, yet you can do things like walk on clouds, slip through a Wall of Force, swim up waterfalls, etc. I'd say falling 3000 feet onto a slab of granite and taking no damage (DC 100 Tumble check, that) is a lot more unrealistic than dropping all opponents that approach within range of your sword. Which is why some of us do not use the Epic rules. I personally find them too cartoonish.
KingMarl 01-29-07, 05:25 PM	Actually, yes you do, and you say so right here: Instead of making a houserule, you instead threaten your players that if they exploit the loophole in Cleave you will punish them. I would call having to threaten players over the RAW to be an issue, wouldn't you? Who said I threatened my players? I said at the outset that I've never had an issue with it. But I guess that could be interpreted as "because I threaten the players." What I did say was that if my players did something like the bag o' rats (which pretty much everyone will admit is cheese), then I would feel free to cheese right back at them. In fact, I've let them know that all materials from all standard WoTC books are fair game, so long at they're up to 3.5. Which is why some of the older class-specific sourcebooks are out - they've been superceded by newer stuff. Anyways, maybe I'm just lucky, but I have never really had anyone trying to massively cheese in any of my games. Maybe it's because of peer pressure, since we've known each other for years and most of us have been playing since 1st edition.
DivineDragoonXD 01-29-07, 11:46 PM	[QUOTE=calvinNhobbes;11322909]No, once again, you do not, as proven by your most recent post. I don't imagine you do. That is why you don't understand the whole topic. No it is called computer code. In some games you can in fact alter the code, and I have in some cases when the coding is very easy or the game has built in software to do so. That was never the point of the discussion. Like I said, the point has flown over your head. I pity you. :weep: Perhaps you should try reading your DMG sometime.[/QUOTE OK, enlighten ol wise one, what do you believe the thread is about. Hmmm to me it seems like a certain DM doesnt know real life from fantasy, trying to figure out why a goblin running away would provoke n AoO and an inanimate object would not. I do understand his/her reasoning for that issue but as I said before, real world v fantasy. KUDOS on your attempt to bring down my analogy. Maybe it wasnt the best but people get the general idea. Also why should I reread my DMG? Let me clarify my above
DivineDragoonXD 01-29-07, 11:55 PM	statement. It is the responcibility of the DM to make sure the game runs smoothly. If he/she is posting this thread (which is a waste of bandwith on WoTc) I would hate to see what his/her REAL problems are. Everything could be considered cheese, just visit the Character OP Forums. The reason I had to double post is that I am using my Wii which for some odd reason doesnt do long posts. Sorry for you inconvinience!
Azmodeus 01-30-07, 12:06 AM	If you actually had to "House Rule" this, it would be sad. Just tell your players to stop being idiots and exploiting a rule-loophole with the "Bag of Rats" or "Bucket of Slugs" trick. If they won't stop doing it, throw them up against an opponent who uses it, and see what they say. Or just get different players who don't metagame and abuse the rules. It is called roleplaying.
Bob Loblaw 01-30-07, 01:14 AM	I think that the rules are meant to be tinkered with, changed, thrown out, and outright abused by the gamers who spent their money on the products. Personally, I think leaving this feat the way it is may require some fudging of reality to make it work all the time (you simply aren't going to be cleaving through the enemy with a long spear, spiked chain, or whip). The DM and players will have to get more creative with describing how Cleave looks in their games. I feel leaving it the way it is gives fighters an edge that they should have in combat. The casters have their area of effect or chain spells, the fighter can have his as well.
Wopple 01-30-07, 09:55 AM	Just remember that Combat Relexes it limited by your Dexterity score. Also, You only get a second attack if the first one is a one-shot kill (read kill as drops/knocks unconcious or dead). You only get a third attack if the second attack is a one-shot kill. If he one-shot kills a peasant, then attacks a PC, he can't attack a second PC unless he kills the first PC. If he can one-shot kill the first PC, then don't too worried about free attacks. He's already too powerful. Well, they don't have to one-shot kill. They just have to kill. There could be wounded opponents. Not sure which splat book it is in, but there IS a way to get unlimited AoO's a turn. Also, it's not a chain like that (although it could be, but then you would run out of foes in your threatened range rather quickly) it is rat A moves, kill rat, attack other guy, rat B moves, kill rat, attack other guy... etc.
DivineDragoonXD 01-30-07, 01:52 PM	I think that the rules are meant to be tinkered with, changed, thrown out, and outright abused by the gamers who spent their money on the products. Personally, I think leaving this feat the way it is may require some fudging of reality to make it work all the time (you simply aren't going to be cleaving through the enemy with a long spear, spiked chain, or whip). The DM and players will have to get more creative with describing how Cleave looks in their games. I feel leaving it the way it is gives fighters an edge that they should have in combat. The casters have their area of effect or chain spells, the fighter can have his as well. I can sort of agree with you. Concerning the tinkering and changing of rules, I would agree if it absolutely needed it. Those are the rules of Dungeons & Dragons and the developers keep in mind those rules when creating new material so you must really have a good reason to change it because once you change it you would possibly ruin either current/future material. I see no edge with the Cleave AoO Bag O' Rats combo. It's no more cheese than Pun-Pun or H.I.V.E. Why couldnt you "cleave" an enemy with a long spear? It would require a diffrent name (if desired) but what is wrong with piercing through 2 enemies? Every weapon has a way to essentially "cleave", it is all in how you describe it (if your DM requires it)
Bob Loblaw 01-31-07, 01:55 AM	I can sort of agree with you. Concerning the tinkering and changing of rules, I would agree if it absolutely needed it. Those are the rules of Dungeons & Dragons and the developers keep in mind those rules when creating new material so you must really have a good reason to change it because once you change it you would possibly ruin either current/future material. I see no edge with the Cleave AoO Bag O' Rats combo. It's no more cheese than Pun-Pun or H.I.V.E. Why couldnt you "cleave" an enemy with a long spear? It would require a diffrent name (if desired) but what is wrong with piercing through 2 enemies? Every weapon has a way to essentially "cleave", it is all in how you describe it (if your DM requires it) That's the issue some people are having. The name "Cleave" doesn't work for weapons that aren't slashing. Personally, I don't have an issue with it at all. I think picking at the minutae only makes the game less fun. However, some people enjoy that sort of thing and they should run with it. It's all in the fun. I also don't play with people who try to exploit the loopholes in the game. We see them, but those loopholes are often ignored in favor of fun.
DivineDragoonXD 01-31-07, 11:21 AM	That's the issue some people are having. The name "Cleave" doesn't work for weapons that aren't slashing. Personally, I don't have an issue with it at all. I think picking at the minutae only makes the game less fun. However, some people enjoy that sort of thing and they should run with it. It's all in the fun. I also don't play with people who try to exploit the loopholes in the game. We see them, but those loopholes are often ignored in favor of fun. Well I believe picking at the minutae will take away time from playing the game and take away the funess (I know that word doesnt exsist). It's possbile that WoTc could not think of a name that encompasses all weapons and thats why in the PHB or DMG (not sure which one) they tell you to change the names of feats or spells or anything that would not fit the situation of the game. Hehe I also disagree with your loop-hole opinion. To me, exploiting loop-holes is fun and when the DM or other PC's see what you have done, they think "Oh wow, why didnt I think of that, good job {insert name here}". I dont think you should ignore loop-holes, maybe just look down upon them instead. Remeber, anything they can do you can do better, LOL your DM. Also the name "Cleave" is most likely meant for slashing. Take a sword for example, a PC charges at an enemy Gnoll and rolls a critcal dealing enough damage to kill it, because the force of the PC and weapon were so great it not only sliced through the Gnoll but also came down upon an Gnoll behind him. That situation works better when you are slashing vertical. Piercing also has the effect of going through one killing him and piercing the guy behind him. I think bludgeon weapons also fall under the Cleave effect (change name if neccessary), you attack an opponent and the force that the PC generated also made the Warhammer or {insert bludgeon weapon here} follow through to another opponent. Just some thoughts.
Bob Loblaw 02-01-07, 01:09 AM	Well I believe picking at the minutae will take away time from playing the game and take away the funess (I know that word doesnt exsist). It's possbile that WoTc could not think of a name that encompasses all weapons and thats why in the PHB or DMG (not sure which one) they tell you to change the names of feats or spells or anything that would not fit the situation of the game. You may be right. Who knows other than the designers? To me, I just let it be. It's all about the fun. Hehe I also disagree with your loop-hole opinion. To me, exploiting loop-holes is fun and when the DM or other PC's see what you have done, they think "Oh wow, why didnt I think of that, good job {insert name here}". I dont think you should ignore loop-holes, maybe just look down upon them instead. Remeber, anything they can do you can do better, LOL your DM. To each their own. Personally, expoiting loopholes isn't all that much fun for me. Now, if we're playing a game that can be won, such as M:tG, loopholes are fun as all get out. The game has to be winnable. Also the name "Cleave" is most likely meant for slashing. Take a sword for example, a PC charges at an enemy Gnoll and rolls a critcal dealing enough damage to kill it, because the force of the PC and weapon were so great it not only sliced through the Gnoll but also came down upon an Gnoll behind him. That situation works better when you are slashing vertical. Piercing also has the effect of going through one killing him and piercing the guy behind him. I think bludgeon weapons also fall under the Cleave effect (change name if neccessary), you attack an opponent and the force that the PC generated also made the Warhammer or {insert bludgeon weapon here} follow through to another opponent. Just some thoughts. There are tons of ways to deal with it. Whatever works for your game is the best solution. For us, we simply let things stay the way they are.
Marcus Majarra 02-01-07, 12:17 PM	Also the name "Cleave" is most likely meant for slashing. I'll admit it's a possible interpretation, but "most likely" is dubious, as there's no correlation with a slashing weapon in anything but the name of the feat. I'm with the interpretation that cleaving is a metaphor for felling your opponent (or "cutting through" your opponent), and that acts as a trigger for extra attacks. It's coherent with the entire feat as written.
Caligula 02-01-07, 12:45 PM	Hello, I’m here to express a concern I have with attacks of opportunity(hence forth known as AoOs) and seek advice what I should do. If there is something in the rules that I have overlooked, PLEASE feel free to correct me! The issue is as follows: Situation: A fighter with cleave is in combat opponents A and B. Opponent B does something to provoke an AoO (e.g., moving through a threatened square, drinking a potion, etc.), so the fighter gets an AoO. This attacks drops opponent B, and because of the cleave feat, he gets an immediate attack on another opponent he threatens; namely, opponent A. This extra attack from cleave does not seem to count against the fighter’s number of AoOs per round. Problem: In the above scenario, opponent A did nothing wrong, but still got attacked. Where I have the problem is when the fighter has great cleave, combat reflexes, and gets someone to cast cheap low level summoning spells to have several “one shot-able” creatures move through his threatened squares, provoking attacks of opportunity, getting killed in one hit, and using the cleave to get several extra attacks on his primary target. It seems unfair to opponent A. Potential solution: I could house rule that cleave does not work on AoOs, or I could rule that the extra cleave attack counts one of his AoOs for that round. I’m mixed on my feelings about those rules and am open to other suggestions. This feat has nothing to do with whether opponent A has "done something wrong" or not. Cleave will be activated regardless. As long as the conditions are met. I agree with you in that it may prove a powerful feat. Especially Great Cleave. But that feat has prereqs that you need to fulfill so it will take you some levels to be able to slect it. By then your enemies will prove deadlier and tougher, thus balancing the character out. In fact you will probably need powerful abilities and feats like this to be able to survive even!;) I may have misunderstood you, but don't forget that AoO only lets you attack once per provoked occasion. Even with Combat Reflexes. So this limits the possible attacks. Cleave has nothing to do with which type of weapon you weild, in despite of the suggestive name. The feat doesnt actually mean that you cut people in half, but is rather a fighting technique. You can cleave with any weapon.
Tony Vargas 02-02-07, 03:55 PM	Potential solution: I could house rule that cleave does not work on AoOs, or I could rule that the extra cleave attack counts one of his AoOs for that round. I’m mixed on my feelings about those rules and am open to other suggestions.I agree that Cleave off AoO is an issue. The fix I prefer is to consider the extra attack to also be an AoO. That is, when you Cleave off an AoO, you can only Cleave into someone else who is also provoking an AoO. Since the initiative system doesn't account for simultaneous actions (except by DM fiat), that would amount to a ban, but, I also rule that the 'immediate' extra attack from Cleave, when granted between your actions, can be taken vs the /very next/ opponent to provoke. Thus, characters can Cleave off AoOs, but only when facing multiple AoO-provoking foes. That solves the provlem of effectively taking an AoO vs a non-provoking character, but still makes Cleave useful in conjunction with AoOs. In fact, it makes Great Cleave a very powerful way for a strong fighter-type to hold back a horde of lesser foes - since, as long as he can keep hitting/killing them, he can keep cleaving through them as they try to move past. Of course, as with all AoOs, that's contingent upon the enemy being sufficiently suicidal to keep coming, so it's a problem that the DM can always 'solve' by having them aproach more cautiously.
Sildatorak 02-02-07, 07:33 PM	Tony Vargas has spoken with the voice of true reason. This simulataneously keeps cleave useful in AoO situations while eliminating any sort of bag of rats/summoned minions/commoners suspended from ropes swinging around the room BS.
strange_person 02-02-07, 08:26 PM	Tony Vargas has spoken with the voice of true reason. This simulataneously keeps cleave useful in AoO situations while eliminating any sort of bag of rats/summoned minions/commoners suspended from ropes swinging around the room BS. I concur. It even fits with the "intent." When you Cleave as part of a full attack, the attack that dropped a creature doesn't count against your attack progresion (that's what the "at the same attack bonus" thing is for). With the Vargas rule, the same concept applies to Combat Reflexes.
Marcus Majarra 02-03-07, 10:34 AM	It even fits with the "intent." Really? I thought the intent was to reward a character for felling opponents with free attacks. I still believe the real issue is in the visualization of Cleave, not its mechanic. And what I find more an important as an issue worth discussing are AoO abuses (the fact that we use the term abuse is reason enough). Bags of rats, commoners and summoned creatures do not work, per RAW.
DivineDragoonXD 02-03-07, 10:59 AM	Really? I thought the intent was to reward a character for felling opponents with free attacks. I still believe the real issue is in the visualization of Cleave, not its mechanic. And what I find more an important as an issue worth discussing are AoO abuses (the fact that we use the term abuse is reason enough). Bags of rats, commoners and summoned creatures do not work, per RAW. Unforunatly Bag of Rats does work. The rats scatter leaving your threat range thus provoking an AoO. You in effect get the free attack, fell the rat and thus Cleave. Dun dun dun. I dont see any reason on why Commoners would not count. I dont see anywhere in the PHB 3.5 or DMG 3.5 that says Commoners are immune to AoO. Summoned creatures "could" work. Summoners cannot force a summoned creature to do something it ordinarily do. But walking through someones threat range that it thinks as an "ally" is not something it would not ordinarily do. Thus the summoner says "Go over there" as the Summoner point over yonder through the Barbarian ally. The creature would then take the quickest route which is only through or passing by slighly the Barbarian.
strange_person 02-03-07, 11:01 AM	Really? I thought the intent was to reward a character for felling opponents with free attacks. I still believe the real issue is in the visualization of Cleave, not its mechanic. And what I find more an important as an issue worth discussing are AoO abuses (the fact that we use the term abuse is reason enough). Bags of rats, commoners and summoned creatures do not work, per RAW. Okay- so how does a bonus AoO not count as a free attack? Visualize it as finishing off someone so easily that it doesn't impede your ability to take advantage of more openings. With that interpretation, slaughtering a bag of rats or a crowd of commoners couldn't possibly help; the best-case scenario is that it wouldn't count against your attacks of opportunity, so you could slaughter some bystanders without reducing your ability to participate in the real fight.
Marcus Majarra 02-03-07, 11:41 AM	Unforunatly Bag of Rats does work. The rats scatter leaving your threat range thus provoking an AoO. You in effect get the free attack, fell the rat and thus Cleave. Dun dun dun. Really? For the rats to scatter, they have to be alive and conscious. I don't know about you, but a live rat can very well chew its way out of a bag. And if there are lots of rats, the chewing out is done even more quickly. The bag won't last long. This means one of two things: 1) The rats chewed their way out before combat. Bye-bye bag-o'-rats. 2) The rats were knocked unconscious before combat. Unconscious rats don't scatter much. I dont see any reason on why Commoners would not count. I dont see anywhere in the PHB 3.5 or DMG 3.5 that says Commoners are immune to AoO. Summoned creatures "could" work. Summoners cannot force a summoned creature to do something it ordinarily do. But walking through someones threat range that it thinks as an "ally" is not something it would not ordinarily do. Thus the summoner says "Go over there" as the Summoner point over yonder through the Barbarian ally. The creature would then take the quickest route which is only through or passing by slighly the Barbarian. The reason why AoOs won't work on commoners or summoned creatures is because they aren't typically considered opponents. Only opponents provoke attacks of opportunity. From the SRD: An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. I very much doubt that a commoner will come near you unless it thinks you consider it an ally or thinks itself capable of taking you out. The former will mean the commoner will not provoke an AoO from you (unless it's really your enemy, which means it was an opponent right from the start), and the latter suggests that the commoner will not do something foolish like pointlessly provoking an attack of opportunity from you. As for summoned creatures, if they are summoned by an allied spellcaster, they will be considered your allies too. And if you attack them, you might gain one free AoO off the first target who makes the mistake of provoking an AoO from you, but the rest of the summoned creatures will not foolishly repeat the same steps. Unlike dominated creatures, summoned creatures are only compelled to the caster's opponents and they are more likely to attack you after you attack them. They can choose to move in any way they like, in the hopes of attacking the caster's opponents, but they are not mindless automatons. Okay- so how does a bonus AoO not count as a free attack? The way Tony Vargas describes it, you're not getting a bonus attack of opportunity. You're gaining the potential to make an attack of opportunity. Simply put: there is no such thing as two simultaneous opportunities because two creatures cannot act at the exact same time and no two opportunities can be provoked by the same action. As such, you're never actually gaining a free attack. Visualize it as finishing off someone so easily that it doesn't impede your ability to take advantage of more openings. Except that this is based on pure speculation. Cleave isn't based on compensating for any impeded ability to attack opponents. Cleave is a rewarding mechanic that favors killing opponents. The act of cleaving through an opponent is merely a trigger for the extra attack; not a part of the same motion.
strange_person 02-03-07, 12:08 PM	If you take a full attack, with two light weapons at +11/+11/+6/+1, and your second attack drops someone, you get a "bonus second attack" (at +11) and then proceed with your iterative attacks. As I interpret it, if you've got Combat Reflexes and 3 AoO per round, at +11/+11/+11, and your second attack drops someone, you get a "bonus second AoO" (at +11) to be used at the next opportunity, and then (assuming sufficient opportunities) you continue with your iterative attacks.
Sildatorak 02-03-07, 05:10 PM	Really? I thought the intent was to reward a character for felling opponents with free attacks. I still believe the real issue is in the visualization of Cleave, not its mechanic.And this is where we differ. We can argue intent until we're blue in the face and not sway each other significantly. I find it unconvincing that the authors of the feat intended it generate extra attacks when compared to facing a single foe, and I am unlikely to be swayed. And what I find more an important as an issue worth discussing are AoO abuses (the fact that we use the term abuse is reason enough).With this I agree. 1) The rats chewed their way out before combat. Bye-bye bag-o'-rats. 2) The rats were knocked unconscious before combat. Unconscious rats don't scatter much. Replace rats with toads, then. The reason why AoOs won't work on commoners or summoned creatures is because they aren't typically considered opponents. Only opponents provoke attacks of opportunity.Without a hard and fast definition of ally/enemy we don't really have much to go on. Is it some objective force that decides who the character considers an ally and who is considered an enemy or is it a subjective thing? Either case allows for problems. When the polymorphed succubus who you consider an ally walks away, the objective determiner allows you an AoO. And the subjective determiner allows us the options of attacking summoned creatures and innocent bystanders. I very much doubt that a commoner will come near you unless it thinks you consider it an ally or thinks itself capable of taking you out.Or a more immediate threat makes flight past you the best option, or you've dangled them from ropes that your goons in the wings swing back and forth across your throne room pendulum-style. Cleaving off of AoO provoking commoners is definitely BBEG stuff, and they have this nasty tendancy to engineer situations that favor them. As for summoned creatures, if they are summoned by an allied spellcaster, they will be considered your allies too.Why? Are the undead that a neutral party cleric animates in an act of desperation allied with the groups paladin? And if you attack them, you might gain one free AoO off the first target who makes the mistake of provoking an AoO from you, but the rest of the summoned creatures will not foolishly repeat the same steps. Unlike dominated creatures, summoned creatures are only compelled to the caster's opponents and they are more likely to attack you after you attack them.Attacking one will not necessarily render you the enemy of the caster, especially if that aided in the fight. They can choose to move in any way they like, in the hopes of attacking the caster's opponents, but they are not mindless automatons.Replace summon monster with summon undead then. I'm not trying to be dismissive of your attempts to eliminate the obvious exploits to AoO Cleaves; I'm simply trying to show that fixing the problem scenarios only forces the person who would use that type of trick to work a little bit harder to get around your patches by modifying the scenario or ruleslawyering. A better fix, IMO, is that instead of treating the symptoms that are problematic is to treat the cause. In this case the cause is that Cleave works off of AoO's by RAW. A reasonable houserule needs to address this if you want to eliminate the possibility of unforseen abuses. Completely banning Cleave on AoO's seems like overkill to me. Tony Vargas's rule allows Cleave functionality on AoO's, but the functionality is limited to getting back out what you put in. AoO in --> AoO out.
Marcus Majarra 02-04-07, 04:03 PM	And this is where we differ. We can argue intent until we're blue in the face and not sway each other significantly. I find it unconvincing that the authors of the feat intended it generate extra attacks when compared to facing a single foe, and I am unlikely to be swayed. Except that I don't need to argue about the intent. It's written in the book in every instance of Cleave: the purpose of the feat is to allow you to attack a threatened creature after felling another one in melee. The only problem is that the name Cleave is counterintuitive as to its purpose: it doesn't help you understand how the feat works. Replace rats with toads, then. Well, toads don't flee as a general rule (as opposed to rats, which do). So they'd be in the character's square and most likely remain there. There's also one other failing in the trick: your opponent moving away. What happens after you empty your bag in your square and your opponent takes a 5-foot step away? Without a hard and fast definition of ally/enemy we don't really have much to go on. Is it some objective force that decides who the character considers an ally and who is considered an enemy or is it a subjective thing? Either case allows for problems. When the polymorphed succubus who you consider an ally walks away, the objective determiner allows you an AoO. And the subjective determiner allows us the options of attacking summoned creatures and innocent bystanders. It is subjective, but I fail to see how this will net the character more than one freebie attack. Will the summoned creatures or bystanders still view the cleaving character as an ally after he ruthlessly attacks and kills one? I highly doubt so, and this is sufficient for a creature not to take a foolish chance by provoking an AoO from an enemy. Or a more immediate threat makes flight past you the best option, or you've dangled them from ropes that your goons in the wings swing back and forth across your throne room pendulum-style. Cleaving off of AoO provoking commoners is definitely BBEG stuff, and they have this nasty tendancy to engineer situations that favor them. Wait. Your BBEG has winged goons strong enough to bull rush commoners across the room to provoke attacks of opportunity... and those goons aren't used to attack the party? In any case, the commoners aren't stupid and they will not approach the BBEG unless compelled to do so (and even then, why would they knowingly provoke a free attack from the BBEG in the first place?) Why? Are the undead that a neutral party cleric animates in an act of desperation allied with the groups paladin? I could argue about the ethical implication involving such a paladin with such a cleric, but that would be pointless if the cleaving character weren't a paladin, so I won't. Undead would work, but animate dead seems like an expensive way to provide freebie attacks: 1) You're coughing up 25 gp per freebie attack (assuming the attack destroys the undead) 2) The cleric is wasting actions animating and directing the undead, which makes the cleric mostly useless 3) Animating the dead is done at a range of touch, which means you have to be next to each corpse that will provide a free attack 4) You need corpses to make this work. Doing so in an ongoing combat is not easy to arrange, and odds are that, as the characters become stronger, so will the other creatures faced in combat, and their bodies will prove far more resilient than a humanoid's skeleton (which, in turn, will destroy the intent of providing free attacks). Attacking one will not necessarily render you the enemy of the caster, especially if that aided in the fight. No, but it will make you an enemy of the summoned creatures. In any case, the fact that the cleaving character unexpectedly attacks one of the summoned creatures is enough to warrant caution from the summoned creatures. Replace summon monster with summon undead then. A nice catch, but it still has a failing: the undead are not under the mental control of the caster. Read the summon undead spell: it works like summon monster. I'm not trying to be dismissive of your attempts to eliminate the obvious exploits to AoO Cleaves; I'm simply trying to show that fixing the problem scenarios only forces the person who would use that type of trick to work a little bit harder to get around your patches by modifying the scenario or ruleslawyering. A better fix, IMO, is that instead of treating the symptoms that are problematic is to treat the cause. In this case the cause is that Cleave works off of AoO's by RAW. A reasonable houserule needs to address this if you want to eliminate the possibility of unforseen abuses. Completely banning Cleave on AoO's seems like overkill to me. Tony Vargas's rule allows Cleave functionality on AoO's, but the functionality is limited to getting back out what you put in. AoO in --> AoO out. Except that the problematic symptoms are not cleavng off an AoO; it's trying to abuse AoO generating tricks. Changing Cleave won't stop abusing possible loopholes in order to provide other benefits. For example, the War Mind's Sweeping Strike ability states explicitly that you can make a sweeping strike as an attack of opportunity. Will changing Cleave stop a War Mind from abusing AoO-generating tricks to attack opponents more often? Certainly not. The truth of the matter is: there is no way to gain so many free AoOs unless you can get a steady stream of weak and foolish opponents to plow through. There is no reason for a creature to provoke attacks of opportunity by default, and if there are ways that a creature can avoid this, it will.
Sildatorak 02-04-07, 07:09 PM	Except that I don't need to argue about the intent. It's written in the book in every instance of Cleave: the purpose of the feat is to allow you to attack a threatened creature after felling another one in melee.Whether the intent is to generate additional # of attacks isn't questionable. Saying that the feat is intended to allow more attacks against a specific individual than you would normally be entitled to is a stretch. Well, toads don't flee as a general rule (as opposed to rats, which do). So they'd be in the character's square and most likely remain there. Frogs, toads, rats, squirrels, cockroaches, it doesn't really matter what the specific animal is. The fact is that within the rules some version of this trick works barring DM intervention. There's also one other failing in the trick: your opponent moving away. What happens after you empty your bag in your square and your opponent takes a 5-foot step away?Hold action until after the opponent attacks. Drop the bag. The animals will have their turn before the oppoent has a chance to move. Wait. Your BBEG has winged goons strong enough to bull rush commoners across the room to provoke attacks of opportunity He has goons in the wings, that is to say off to the sides. And I do literally mean swinging them pendulum style. Not bullrushing, but actually having them suspended by ropes so that they can be swung back and forth across the room. 1) You're coughing up 25 gp per freebie attack (assuming the attack destroys the undead) Not if you get low hit die undead. Skeletal cats are 4 for 25 gp. 3) Animating the dead is done at a range of touch, which means you have to be next to each corpse that will provide a free attack 4) You need corpses to make this work. Doing so in an ongoing combat is not easy to arrange, and odds are that, as the characters become stronger, so will the other creatures faced in combat, and their bodies will prove far more resilient than a humanoid's skeleton (which, in turn, will destroy the intent of providing free attacks).Prep ahead of time. Cats, rats, etc. should all prove easily acquired in a city of any size. No, but it will make you an enemy of the summoned creatures. In any case, the fact that the cleaving character unexpectedly attacks one of the summoned creatures is enough to warrant caution from the summoned creatures.In the case of summoned intelligent creatures you have a point here. A nice catch, but it still has a failing: the undead are not under the mental control of the caster. Read the summon undead spell: it works like summon monster.Undead however are mindless. If the DM plays them as avoiding AoO's then he is playing them smarter than their listed intelligence (or complete lack thereof). For example, the War Mind's Sweeping Strike ability states explicitly that you can make a sweeping strike as an attack of opportunity. Will changing Cleave stop a War Mind from abusing AoO-generating tricks to attack opponents more often? Certainly not.Uhg. Just read about sweeping strike in the SRD and it seems to me that it was designed to be abused. Killing AoO generating tricks would help reduce that, but it is still pretty abusable with Great Cleave. Sweeping strike vs. enemy and an adjacent self-provided mook (summoned or bag o' toads), getting the attack on the true enemy and dropping the pseudo-enemy to gain an attack on the enemy and the adjacent pseudo-enemy on the other side. Again I think that the problem lies not in the AoO's, but in the ability itself.
strange_person 02-04-07, 10:30 PM	Actually, if you Sweeping Strike on a bag of toads, it's a bit of a waste, since the same attack applies to all of them and you can only get one cleave per sweeping strike. Some abuses are actually prevented by a close reading of the rules.
Tony Vargas 02-06-07, 07:57 PM	Sildorak & strange_person: I'm glad you liked my take on it. And, thanks for the zealous defense. I'll drop by this forum more often from now on...
The_Ditto 02-07-07, 08:32 AM	Personally I think the issue is the "bag-o-rats" .. not cleave, not whirlwind, etc .. yadda yadda yadda .. "Fix" the bag-o-rats ... .. that's easy .. as a DM, I'd just rule it as a swarm of rats ... and be done with it .. Go ahead, take your AoO ... go ahead, whirlwind - you get 1 shot at the swarm ... :tiphat: There, with that out of the way, what other "exploits" are there - that are truly a problem ??
strange_person 02-07-07, 09:05 AM	you get 1 shot at the swarm ... :tiphat: If that. Aren't rat swarms immune to weapon damage?
Millennium 02-07-07, 10:40 AM	"Fix" the bag-o-rats ... .. that's easy .. as a DM, I'd just rule it as a swarm of rats ... and be done with it .. Go ahead, take your AoO ... go ahead, whirlwind - you get 1 shot at the swarm ... :tiphat: Ooh; I hadn't thought of using the swarm rules. That's a neat idea. My preferred method is to have the rats all use the Withdraw action to get as far away as they safely can without any thought to attacking (just as a rat would, you know, do). Withdrawing doesn't provoke AoOs for the first square of moving, so this takes care of Bag-O-Rats in most cases. Reach weapons are tougher to deal with, but there are still options. Frightened rats can cower in place, not moving and therefore not provoking AoOs. The point is that it's possible to patch the bag-of-rats issue without altering the rules. This has the nifty advantage that there are no side effects to creep up elsewhere, and no changes for rules-lawyers to whine about.
Elderich 02-07-07, 03:10 PM	Ooh; I hadn't thought of using the swarm rules. That's a neat idea.Question the premise. Are the rats opponents? The fighter has been carrying them around and feeding/watering/walking them, so probably they are "allies" (of some sort) of the fighter. Perhaps the fighters "bag of rats" is used by the BBEG to provoke AoO's and cleave the the fighter? They should provoke from the BBEG, not just the fighter? If the rats are opponents, they why do they not swarm the fighter? Why would they leave? So perhaps there is not problem, we just need to think about it a little more?
Tony Vargas 02-08-07, 04:41 PM	"Fix" the bag-o-rats ... .. that's easy .. as a DM, I'd just rule it as a swarm of rats ... and be done with it ..That'd require a bag of 300 rats. The least populous kind of swarm is one of tiny, non-flying creatures (which rats happen to be), other swarms have even more members. I suppose you could theoretically have a house-ruled single-square swarm of only 75 tiny non-flyers. I wouldn't expect an AoO-Great-Cleave exploit ratbag to have quite that many, though. The number of rats that could normally fit in a single square, BTW, is 4 - 16, I think it'd be, could 'squeeze' into a square. So you might limit it in that way. They're tiny, so they can occupy and move through squares occupied by medium creatures. I understand the temptation to foil a rules exploit by somehow disallowing the action itself, but IMX, it's much more efficient to close the loophole. Trying to block the action just encourages certain types of players to try something else to exploit the same loophole, and, worse, incites others to become argumentative.
JustinA 02-08-07, 04:54 PM	Situation: A fighter with cleave is in combat opponents A and B. Opponent B does something to provoke an AoO (e.g., moving through a threatened square, drinking a potion, etc.), so the fighter gets an AoO. This attacks drops opponent B, and because of the cleave feat, he gets an immediate attack on another opponent he threatens; namely, opponent A. This extra attack from cleave does not seem to count against the fighter’s number of AoOs per round. Problem: In the above scenario, opponent A did nothing wrong, but still got attacked. Possible explanations of what happened: Opponent A was not expecting the fighter's axe to attack him from the direction of Opponent B's skull. Opponent A got blood sprayed into his eyes from Opponent B's gruesome death. Opponent A blanched when he saw his friend and ally, Opponent B, cut down in the prime of his life. The fighter angled the blow which cut down Opponent B so that B's corpse fell across Opponent A and momentarily interfered with his defense. What explanation you go with isn't really all that important. Here's the other thing to remember: There's nothing special about attacks of opportunity as opposed to other attacks during the round. Opponent B's distraction didn't magically let the fighter swing his axe faster. What actually happened is something like this: Opponent B's distraction lowered Opponent B's defenses, so that one of the many swings Opponent A made during this round was more effective than it otherwise would have been. Maybe a swing which would have been feint if Opponent B was paying attention was instead followed through on. Once Opponent B drops, the fighter's Cleave ability allows him to take advantage of having dropped Opponent B to launch an attack against somebody else. There are plenty of descriptive explanations of why this happens, but none of them have anything do with the second target doing something "wrong". By way of further explication, expand the example a bit: Opponent B runs up to the fighter, who has reach. The fighter takes his AoO and hits opponent B, doing damage. Later in the round, the same fighter takes a normal attack against Opponent B and hits him again. If it hadn't been for the AoO, this second attack wouldn't kill Opponent B -- but with the extra damage delivered earlier from the AoO, the attack drops Opponent B and the fighter cleaves through to Opponent A. In this example, the fighter is still getting a "free" attack on Opponent A even though Opponent A did nothing "wrong". If it hadn't been for Opponent B, that extra attack never would have happened. And if it hadn't been for Opponent B provoking an AoO, that extra attack STILL wouldn't have happened. And you can expand this as far as you want: Once Opponent B provokes an AoO which deals damage, he's going to drop sooner and Opponent A is going to have a "free" cleave attack come his way sooner than it would have if the AoO hadn't happened. This just gets to the root of the Cleave ability: It lets you attack Opponent A because Opponent B dropped. This has absolutely nothing to do with Opponent A having done something "wrong". The only thing which determines the cleave is Opponent B dropping. For some reason, the character with Cleave can take advantage of Opponent B dropping to attack Opponent A (and this has absolutely nothing to do with anything Opponent A has or hasn't done). Where I have the problem is when the fighter has great cleave, combat reflexes, and gets someone to cast cheap low level summoning spells to have several “one shot-able” creatures move through his threatened squares, provoking attacks of opportunity, getting killed in one hit, and using the cleave to get several extra attacks on his primary target. It seems unfair to opponent A. It might help to imagine Opponent A's thoughts: "What's with all the cute kittens? This doesn't... Oh my god! What is he doing to those kittens?! Argh!" "Oh my god, I've got kitten blood in my eyes!" "I can honestly say I never thought I would die with kitten entrails wrapped around my wrist." "I never realized how slippery cat brains could be underfoot." My apologies for not being strait forward; my worry was not letting PCs have this tactic, it was a BBEG in a crowded area. As he fights the PCs, he could take AoOs (imagine fires and battle all around as a town is attacked by his minions) on peasants running around or his own troops for that matter. He would lay waste to people left and right, while getting extra attacks on the PCs. While I liked this idea to begin with to get the really macabre CE nature of the bad guy across to the PCs, I quickly realized cruel reality of this broken game mechanic. From a game balance perspective, it's one extra attack per round from a chain of 3 feats or a small number of extra attacks per round from 4 feats. And you've got to expend spells and/or other resources in order to pull it off. In the case of the BBEG, he's taking advantage of feats which are essentially never used by villains (since they rarely drop heroes in order to cleave, I almost never stat them up with such "wasted" feats). And he still needs to position himself around fleeing peasants -- who are probably going to start avoiding him if they see what's happening. And if he's got to move to position himself near peasants in order to set the trick up, then he's foregoing a full attack sequence and possibly opening himself up to an AoO to do the Cleave trick. For the BBEG, it's probably a nice trick for a round or two -- then the peasants start avoiding him. The pay-off is that the PCs are, in fact, horrified and outraged by what he's done. And ****** that he's covering them in the blood of innocents and cackling all the while. The question is though why can you get an attack on someone easier, when you have to swing through a person than when you don't... Because you took the Cleave feat. That's what the Cleave feat does: When you drop an opponent, it lets you take advantage of that to make a free attack against another opponent. That's what the feat does. Some people get caught up on the name of the feat. Some people forget that, although rounds broken down into turns, everything is actually happening simultaneously. But the feat is straight-forward and consistent: Drop someone with an attack, take advantage of that to attack somebody else. Visualize it as finishing off someone so easily that it doesn't impede your ability to take advantage of more openings. With that interpretation, slaughtering a bag of rats or a crowd of commoners couldn't possibly help; If your visualization doesn't match the mechanic, then your visualization is wrong. It's like saying, "Visualize shooting an arrow as if you throwing it like an axe. With that interpretation, you couldn't possibly need a bow to shoot an arrow." Final thought on the "bag 'o rats" trick: Retrieving a stored item provokes an AoO. I don't see any reason why grabbing a bag, opening it, and turning it upside down to drop the rats out shouldn't provoke an AoO from anyone within reach (like the guy you're trying to use this trick on). And maybe the rats don't scattrer. Maybe they cower. Or maybe they angrily attack the guy who dropped them. If the rats do scatter, it's perfectly appropriate to model that as a Withdraw action. I suppose you could then invoke some kind of fear effect to force them to run, but now you're investing even more resources into this trick. Similarly, methods involving summoning spells or mind-control spells have their own snag areas, but most particularly you've got the wizard casting a spell in order to give the fighter the extra attack(s). That might be unbalanced compared to casting comparable spells, but I doubt it. Sure, it might be a better option in some situations. But all situations (or even a vast majority of them)? Probably not. And all of these methods can backfire: For example, if the guy you're trying to target with this trick ALSO has Great Cleave and Combat Reflexes, and starts nailing the rats at the same time you do. (I don't think there's any method for determining the order in which AoOs from multiple attakers are taken. I'd default to initiative.) Or maybe the guy is familiar with the old "dump the rats on the ground and then fling their dead corpses into your opponents' eyes" trick. So when he sees that squirming bag pulled out, he uses his AoO to disarm the bag from you. Justin Alexander http://www.thealexandrian.net
strange_person 02-08-07, 05:30 PM	It might help to imagine Opponent A's thoughts: "What's with all the cute kittens? This doesn't... Oh my god! What is he doing to those kittens?! Argh!" "Oh my god, I've got kitten blood in my eyes!" "I can honestly say I never thought I would die with kitten entrails wrapped around my wrist." "I never realized how slippery cat brains could be underfoot." Your explanation is way better than mine. I can totally picture a CE Urban Ranger feinting by flipping a rat up off the ground with the blade in his off-hand, then stepping forward and skewering the poor bastard who's distracted by being covered in injured rat.
Tony Vargas 02-08-07, 06:38 PM	Here's the other thing to remember: There's nothing special about attacks of opportunity as opposed to other attacks during the round. Actually, there are a number of things that are special about AoOs: 1) You can take AoOs when it's not your turn 2) You only get to take AoOs when someone provokes them - though you can decline an AoO, whether you have that option or not is in the hands of the character acting, not yours. 3) AoOs use your full BAB, even if you've made itterative attacks already durring the turn. 4) AoOs allow you to take more than one attack in a round without using the Full Attack Action. 5) AoOs interrupt another character's action The key difference, when considering Cleave, is that AoOs aren't made by the character taking them - they're provoked by the character risking them - and either taken or declined. That is: the one who decides whether an AoO will be possible at a given moment is the one who's gonna get hit by it.
JustinA 02-08-07, 08:03 PM	The key difference, when considering Cleave, is that AoOs aren't made by the character taking them - they're provoked by the character risking them - and either taken or declined. Your creative attempt to snip my post and change the meaning of what I said by removing context notwithstanding, you're still wrong. As far as Cleave is concerned there is absolutely no difference. Cleave is not unique in this regard. Power Attack, Combat Expertise, and Improved Critical -- to name three off the top of my head -- don't care, either. I'm repeating myself, but it's important to remember that the D&D combat system is abstract. Everything that happens during a combat round is happening simultaneously. It's being abstracted into different characters taking separate turns only because that's make it easier to adjudicate. For example, imagine the following mechanical situation 1. Character X: Resolves attacks against Opponent A at +15/+10/+5. The first deals 4 points of damage (Hit 1). The second misses. The third deals 16 points of damage (Hit 2). 2. Some other people take their turns. 3. Opponent B runs past Character X. Character X takes an attack of opportunity against Character B, kills him, and then cleaves Opponent A for 10 points of damage. There's all kinds of ways in which you could describe this simple sequence of events: 1. Character X launches himself at Opponent A. His blade strikes true, but Opponent A twists to the side so that it's only a scratch (Hit 1). He takes another swing, but Opponent A parries it easily (the miss). He counters low and rakes his blade across Opponent A's stomach (Hit 2). Then Opponent B runs by. Character X turns and skewers him, before turning back and slicing into Opponent A (the AoO and Cleave). 2. Character X eases himself towards Opponent A, his weapons weaving a dance of death. Opponent A parries furiously (the miss and countless other feints rolled into the abstract mechanic), but Character X's blade seems just a little faster -- a trickle of blood suddenly begins running down Opponent A's face (hit 1). Then it happens: Opponent B suddenly rushes past, oblivious to Character X's dangerous blades. With a flickering smile, Character X steps gently to one side, his outstretched blade brings Opponent B to a sudden halt. Opponent B instinctively tries to throw himself backwards, but it's too late: Character X's blade slices neatly across his throat (AoO). Opponent B collapses backwards, his corpse landing awkwardly against Opponent A's swordarm. Character X seizes the opportunity and cuts deep into Opponent A's leg (cleave). Opponent A tries to stumble backwards and free his swordarm from the corpse, but Character X pushes the attack and runs Opponent A through the shoulder (Hit 2). Or maybe Character X literally lifts Opponent B with his axe and hurls him into the path of Opponent A's sword. Or spatters blood into Opponent A's eyes. Or just takes advantage of the sudden distraction of Opponent A's friend and comrade dying before his eyes. There are some descriptions which CAN'T be true based on the mechanics of what happened. But there are literally an infinite number of explanations of what did happen. That's the beauty (and flexibility) of an abstract system. Here's what we do know: Cleave is a feat which explicitly allows you to take advantage of dropping one opponent in such a way that you can take a free attack against another opponent. And, to repeat myself one more time, there are a huge number of ways in which you can explain that: Follow-through. Thrusting a lance through one character and hitting the character directly behind them. Spattering blood. Maneuvering corpses as they fall. Using falling corpses as cover to launch an unexpected attack. And on and on and on. Let me go back to another example from my earlier post that you ignored. Imagine this sequence: 1. Opponent B (hp 25) takes an action which provokes an AoO while standing next to Character X. 2. Character X takes his AoO and deals 15 points of damage. 3. Character X takes his turn. With his attack he hits Opponent B and deals another 15 points of damage. 4. Opponent B drops and Character X cleaves Opponent A. 5. Opponent A takes his turn. Now, in this example, the only reason that Character X got to cleave Opponent A is because Opponent B provoked an AoO. Opponent A hasn't done anything "wrong", and yet here he is getting hit with a free Cleave attack from Character X because Opponent B provoked an AoO! You'll probably complain that since the Cleave happened on Character X's turn, that's OK. But from Opponent A's POV this entire sequence is completely indistinguishable from: 1. Character X takes his turn and deals 15 points of damage to Opponent B. 2. Opponent B provokes an AoO. 3. Character X takes the AoO and kills Opponent B. 4. Character X cleaves Opponent A. 5. Opponent A takes his turn. And yet, in that essentially identical scenario, you claim that it's not OK for Character X to get his cleave attack because it's Character B's fault for provoking the AoO. Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense. And the only way to "fix" this so-called "problem" is to nonsensically track whether combatants are dying "because" of AoOs which were taken against them and (if they are) disallowing the resulting Cleave attacks. Justin Alexander http://www.thealexandrian.net
Marcus Majarra 02-08-07, 11:57 PM	A good perspective, Justin. I agree with your points.
Tony Vargas 02-10-07, 06:25 PM	Your creative attempt to snip my post and change the meaning of what I said by removing context notwithstanding, you're still wrong.It's poor net etiquette to quote entire posts, but, since that's how you feel, I wouldn't want to be accused of prejudicial quoting again... As far as Cleave is concerned there is absolutely no difference. Cleave is not unique in this regard. Power Attack, Combat Expertise, and Improved Critical -- to name three off the top of my head -- don't care, either. I'm repeating myself, but it's important to remember that the D&D combat system is abstract. Everything that happens during a combat round is happening simultaneously. It's being abstracted into different characters taking separate turns only because that's make it easier to adjudicate. For example, imagine the following mechanical situation 1. Character X: Resolves attacks against Opponent A at +15/+10/+5. The first deals 4 points of damage (Hit 1). The second misses. The third deals 16 points of damage (Hit 2). 2. Some other people take their turns. 3. Opponent B runs past Character X. Character X takes an attack of opportunity against Character B, kills him, and then cleaves Opponent A for 10 points of damage. There's all kinds of ways in which you could describe this simple sequence of events: 1. Character X launches himself at Opponent A. His blade strikes true, but Opponent A twists to the side so that it's only a scratch (Hit 1). He takes another swing, but Opponent A parries it easily (the miss). He counters low and rakes his blade across Opponent A's stomach (Hit 2). Then Opponent B runs by. Character X turns and skewers him, before turning back and slicing into Opponent A (the AoO and Cleave).That'd describe it, yes, but describing six seconds of swordfighting as three swings is a bit improbable. 2. Character X eases himself towards Opponent A, his weapons weaving a dance of death. Opponent A parries furiously (the miss and countless other feints rolled into the abstract mechanic), but Character X's blade seems just a little faster -- a trickle of blood suddenly begins running down Opponent A's face (hit 1).Much better. Then it happens: Opponent B suddenly rushes past, oblivious to Character X's dangerous blades. With a flickering smile, Character X steps gently to one side, his outstretched blade brings Opponent B to a sudden halt. Opponent B instinctively tries to throw himself backwards, but it's too late: Character X's blade slices neatly across his throat (AoO). Opponent B collapses backwards, his corpse landing awkwardly against Opponent A's swordarm. Character X seizes the opportunity and cuts deep into Opponent A's leg (cleave). Opponent A tries to stumble backwards and free his swordarm from the corpse, but Character X pushes the attack and runs Opponent A through the shoulder (Hit 2).But, here, you screw up. The order in which attacks resolve still has to follow the initiative sequence. B might well be moving towards X while he's making his attacks against A, but his move won't be completed, nor the AoO provoked, until after that second successful attack by X. Or maybe Character X literally lifts Opponent B with his axe and hurls him into the path of Opponent A's sword. Or spatters blood into Opponent A's eyes. Or just takes advantage of the sudden distraction of Opponent A's friend and comrade dying before his eyes.Or maybe X just likes killing so much that he gets an adrenal surge that allows him to press his attack on A with greater ferocity. Or, maybe he gets all sparckly and accellerates to double normal speed for a second, like a video-game power-up. You can litterally describe the results of a mechanic however you want. X could be fighting with a Mr. Potatohead Doll that just happens to have the stats of a greataxe. As you pointed out, the system is abstract... There are some descriptions which CAN'T be true based on the mechanics of what happened. But there are literally an infinite number of explanations of what did happen. That's the beauty (and flexibility) of an abstract system. ...but, 'abstract' doesn't mean immune from criticism, nor without flaws. Here's what we do know: Cleave is a feat which explicitly allows you to take advantage of dropping one opponent in such a way that you can take a free attack against another opponent.Nod. And, in combination with AoOs, that's a bad mechanic. It allows you to take an AoO against a non-provoking character. Since the game also provides ways to place figures under suicideally complete control, it is possible to manufacture fake opponents, cause them to provoke AoOs, and use that to generate unjustifiable (in a game balance & mechanical sense) extra attacks against non-provoking characters. Net of the exploit, it is possible, but pointless, to set up situations in which you will get AoOs against trivial opponents. It's pointless because all you accomplish by doing that is killing trivial 'opponents.' By exploiting the flawed interaction of Great Cleave and AoO, however, you can set up such a situation, and grant yourself DEX+1 extra Full-BAB attacks, that take no action, and occur outside normal initiative order. A flurry of full BAB attacks like that, directed against a single foe, can be overwhelming, and is certainly far beyond what the same character might accomplish /without/ the AoO-provoking trivial 'opponents.' And, to repeat myself one more time, there are a huge number of ways in which you can explain that: Follow-through. Thrusting a lance through one character and hitting the character directly behind them. Spattering blood. Maneuvering corpses as they fall. Using falling corpses as cover to launch an unexpected attack. And on and on and on.You may repeat yourself as often as you like, I'm qouting all of it... Let me go back to another example from my earlier post that you ignored. Imagine this sequence: 1. Opponent B (hp 25) takes an action which provokes an AoO while standing next to Character X. 2. Character X takes his AoO and deals 15 points of damage. 3. Character X takes his turn. With his attack he hits Opponent B and deals another 15 points of damage. 4. Opponent B drops and Character X cleaves Opponent A. 5. Opponent A takes his turn. Now, in this example, the only reason that Character X got to cleave Opponent A is because Opponent B provoked an AoO. Opponent A hasn't done anything "wrong", and yet here he is getting hit with a free Cleave attack from Character X because Opponent B provoked an AoO! You'll probably complain that since the Cleave happened on Character X's turn, that's OK.Not exactly: since the Cleave happend off an actual attack, it's OK. X could have chosen to hit A, anyway, regardless of how carefully A was defending himself at the time. Conversely, in the next scenario, X attacks first, then B provokes. If A also provoked on his next action, X getting the Cleave into A would also be reasonable: But from Opponent A's POV this entire sequence is completely indistinguishable from: 1. Character X takes his turn and deals 15 points of damage to Opponent B. 2. Opponent B provokes an AoO. 3. Character X takes the AoO and kills Opponent B. 4. Character X cleaves Opponent A. 5. Opponent A takes his turn.The main difference here is initiative order. X is going before B instead of vice-versa. In both cases 'B' does 'something stupid' that puts him in greater danger. In this case, he does it /after/ being badly wounded... And yet, in that essentially identical scenario, you claim that it's not OK for Character X to get his cleave attack because it's Character B's fault for provoking the AoO. Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense. Actually, it does make sense, because it's not an identical scenario. In the second scenario, at the point that X attacks B, B is still a threat, and A should be 'safe' from X until after his (A's) next action, unless he provoked. In the first scenario, X could have chosen to attack A instead of B, after wounding B with the AoO - A was not 'safe' at that point, his destiny was in X's hands. And the only way to "fix" this so-called "problem" is to nonsensically track whether combatants are dying "because" of AoOs which were taken against them and (if they are) disallowing the resulting Cleave attacks.Not that there's anything nonsensical or problematic about noting what sort of attack /just/ killed someone, but clearly, since I already proposed a different fix to close the loophole, that's not the only way to do it. Since I'm forced to quote you wholesale, I might as well qoute myself: The fix I prefer is to consider the extra attack to also be an AoO. That is, when you Cleave off an AoO, you can only Cleave into someone else who is also provoking an AoO. Since the initiative system doesn't account for simultaneous actions (except by DM fiat), that would amount to a ban, but, I also rule that the 'immediate' extra attack from Cleave, when granted between your actions, can be taken vs the /very next/ opponent to provoke. Thus, characters can Cleave off AoOs, but only when facing multiple AoO-provoking foes. That solves the provlem of effectively taking an AoO vs a non-provoking character, but still makes Cleave useful in conjunction with AoOs. In fact, it makes Great Cleave a very powerful way for a strong fighter-type to hold back a horde of lesser foes - since, as long as he can keep hitting/killing them, he can keep cleaving through them as they try to move past. Of course, as with all AoOs, that's contingent upon the enemy being sufficiently suicidal to keep coming, so it's a problem that the DM can always 'solve' by having them aproach more cautiously. As you may be able to see, this fix does not simply disallow Cleaving off an AoO, it just limits the target selection to enemies you could have used that AoO on /instead/ of the one you did. Just as, under non-AoO circumstances, you can only Cleave into someone you could have attacked instead of the one you dropped (just by the nature of Cleave - since you can't 5' step or switch weapons between the attack that drops and the Cleave attempt). That aspect of Cleave is actually what keeps Cleave & Great Cleave balanced. It lets you whipe out more opponents, but /not/ heap any more damage on a single one than you could've without others being present. That's why cleaving off an AoO into a non-provoking character is a flaw, a loophole, in the rulee. That is why taking advantge of it is rightly termed and exploit or 'cheese.' And that's why a fix, like the one above, that closes the loophole without impacting the legitimate effectiveness of the feats involved, is desireable. Justin Alexander http://www.thealexandrian.netJust in case failing to quote the sig would somehow distort your message.
JustinA 02-10-07, 08:24 PM	It's poor net etiquette to quote entire posts, but, since that's how you feel, I wouldn't want to be accused of prejudicial quoting again... There's a happy medium between excessive quoting and snipping which changes the meaning of what was said. Try to find it in the future. It's really not that hard. But, here, you screw up. The order in which attacks resolve still has to follow the initiative sequence. That's just silly. Under this interpretation of the combat round, everyone takes turns swinging their weapons around. For example, given the following initiative order: 1. Character A 2. Character B 3. Character C You're claiming that in each and every round, Character A swings his weapon a bunch. Then Character A stops swinging his weapon and lets Character B swing his weapon for awhile. Then Character B stops swinging his weapon and lets Character C swing his weapon for awhile. Utterly ridiculous. Once again, you're apparently forgetting that the combat system is an abstract representation of what's actually happening. It's convenient for the sake of discrete action resolution, but to suggest that everyone stops and takes turns on the battlefield is just silly. It's a cute conceit for a comic strip (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0001.html), but it's not particularly relevant for any serious discussion of discussing what a mechanic means in terms of the world being simulated. Or maybe X just likes killing so much that he gets an adrenal surge that allows him to press his attack on A with greater ferocity. Or, maybe he gets all sparckly and accellerates to double normal speed for a second, like a video-game power-up. Now you're getting it. Although my gameworld isn't a place of "sparkly power-ups", you're right: Power Attack would be an interesting mechanic to represent a chaos warrior feeding upon the moment of a life's ending to fuel a surge of combat puissance. And, in combination with AoOs, that's a bad mechanic. It allows you to take an AoO against a non-provoking character. Please read the rulebook and then get back to us. Cleave does not allow you to take an AoO against a non-provoking character. Ever. You'll probably complain that since the Cleave happened on Character X's turn, that's OK. Not exactly: since the Cleave happend off an actual attack, it's OK. Not exactly, except exactly? You're a wacky guy, Tony. Or are you trying to claim that AoOs aren't "actual attacks"? What does that mean, exactly? Since they're aren't "actual attacks", should Power Attack not affect them? :rolleyes: The main difference here is initiative order. X is going before B instead of vice-versa. In both cases 'B' does 'something stupid' that puts him in greater danger. In this case, he does it /after/ being badly wounded... I can understand why you'd find this distinction meaningful, since you honestly thought that Character X swung his sword for a bit, and then stopped so that B can take his turn. But since we're now established that this isn't the way it works, I'm sure you'll see why you're completely wrong and there is no meaningful distinction at all. Right? Not that there's anything nonsensical or problematic about noting what sort of attack /just/ killed someone, but clearly, since I already proposed a different fix to close the loophole, that's not the only way to do it. Oddly your proposed "solution" to a nonexistent "problem" said absolutely nothing about tracking or accounting for characters who are dying because of AoOs taken at some point during the previous round. Perhaps you failed to read for comprehension before hitting the "Reply" button? Just in case failing to quote the sig would somehow distort your message. Or maybe you're just a jackass who likes distorting what other people say and then gets haughty when you're called on it. Hard to say. Justin Alexander http://www.thealexandrian.net
Marcus Majarra 02-11-07, 02:47 AM	Since the game also provides ways to place figures under suicideally complete control, it is possible to manufacture fake opponents, cause them to provoke AoOs, and use that to generate unjustifiable (in a game balance & mechanical sense) extra attacks against non-provoking characters. The game providing such exploits is a hasty claim, IMHO. So far, the only suicidal complete control that would allow this isn't anything short of pure mental control. I don't know about you, but mass dominating creatures is a very high-level effect, at which point the exploit is already balanced with everything else on that scale. The only other "common" exception seems to lie with commanding undead via turn and rebuke undead (the Command Undead spell only allows for simple telepathic commands, and the Control Undead spell is both a high-level spell and requires verbal commands, which tend to give the opponent a chance to run for it). Anything else that is viewed as an exploit is a bad call on the DM's part. This includes the bag of <insert diminutive animal>, summoned creatures, and innocent bystanders. How can you feasibly manufacture fake opponents?
Sildatorak 02-11-07, 12:44 PM	Here is the heart of the argument, without any snideness. It is based on the assumption that cleave is not intended to generate additional damage to a single foe relative to a 1-on-1 fight between you and the foe. If you don't buy that assumption, then you're not going to buy this argument. As you may be able to see, this fix [allowing a bonus AoO against the next foe who provokes after dropping a foe with an AoO] does not simply disallow Cleaving off an AoO, it just limits the target selection to enemies you could have used that AoO on /instead/ of the one you did. Just as, under non-AoO circumstances, you can only Cleave into someone you could have attacked instead of the one you dropped (just by the nature of Cleave - since you can't 5' step or switch weapons between the attack that drops and the Cleave attempt). That aspect of Cleave is actually what keeps Cleave & Great Cleave balanced. It lets you whipe out more opponents, but /not/ heap any more damage on a single one than you could've without others being present.The underlined part is my re-insertion of Tony Vargas's fix. The fix allows for additional attacks (which is the stated intent of cleave), but prevents the generation of exploitative AoO's. Simple yet effective.
Tony Vargas 02-12-07, 07:54 PM	That's just silly. Under this interpretation of the combat round, everyone takes turns swinging their weapons around.Not at all - it's the order of resolution that's critical. Characters can conceptually begin movement, or be making attacks, throughout the round but, the point when you reach a significant point in your movement (setting off a trap, provoking an AoO, or whatever) or the success or failure of attacking an opponent has to come in initiative order. They don't "take turns swinging," but if you kill someone on your initiative of 17, they do not get to act on thier initiative of 14. Now you're getting it. Although my gameworld isn't a place of "sparkly power-ups", you're right: Power Attack would be an interesting mechanic to represent a chaos warrior feeding upon the moment of a life's ending to fuel a surge of combat puissance.It'd be a tenuous one, though: afterall Cleave functions when you drop undead or constructs, who have no such life to end. Please read the rulebook and then get back to us. Cleave does not allow you to take an AoO against a non-provoking character. Ever.Litterally correct, but not the point. When you Cleave off an AoO, you are making an attack outside of initiative order, at your Full BAB. You are doing so because someone took an action that provoked. You are, however, making the attack against someone other than the one who provoked. Or are you trying to claim that AoOs aren't "actual attacks"? What does that mean, exactly? An attack initiated by the attacker, is what I was getting at. An AoO is provoked by the defender - though it can be declined by the attacker, it cannot be used to attack someone else. Cleaving off a regular attack is fine, because the extra attack, by definition, will be directed against someone you could have chosen to attack /instead/ of the one you dropped. AoOs, though 'Attacks,' obviously, are not useable against just anyone - only against the provoking opponent. That's why I characterize the interaction of the two mechanics as a 'loophole' - it opens up the possibility of getting imbalanced results, through what apears to be an unintended synergy. Oddly your proposed "solution" to a nonexistent "problem" said absolutely nothing about tracking or accounting for characters who are dying because of AoOs taken at some point during the previous round.There's no need to track the source of damage prior to the attack that activates the cleave feat. Closing the loophole just requires noting whether the attack in question is an AoO, and tracking when the next AoO is provoked against that character. It is little bit extra to keep track of in combat, but nowhere near as onerous as what you proposed. Or maybe you're just a jackass who likes distorting what other people say and then gets haughty when you're called on it. Hard to say.It is hard to say what the motive or state of mind of someone else is when communicating in this medium. The game providing such exploits is a hasty claim, IMHO.The game does contain the loophole - how successful PCs might be at exploiting it would depend on the DM. There are technically legal ways to do so, though, many DMs, sensing that there's something wrong, but not quite grasping the nature of the problem - or simply not wanting to bother with a house-rule fix - would simply deny them by fiat. So far, the only suicidal complete control that would allow this isn't anything short of pure mental control.Or, as you point out, turning undead. In addition, other compulsions could be used to cause victims to provoke AoOs - the 'Aproach' option of the 1st level Command, spell, for instance. Anything else that is viewed as an exploit is a bad call on the DM's part. This includes the bag of <insert diminutive animal>, summoned creatures, and innocent bystanders. How can you feasibly manufacture fake opponents?I'd agree that allowing an exploit is a bad call. IMHO, though, closing the underlying loophole is a better solution than ad-hoc rulings each time the exploit comes up. Be they legitimate or prejudiced rulings, the very fact that the incentive to try exists within the rules is indicative of a problem that'd be better fixed at the source.
JustinA 02-13-07, 12:00 AM	They don't "take turns swinging," but if you kill someone on your initiative of 17, they do not get to act on thier initiative of 14. Nope. Sorry. The rules are explicit: The "you go, then I go" mechanics are an abstraction of a combat round in which everyone is going at the same time. This doesn't mean that the guy on initiative 14 gets to take his action after dying, but it does mean that the turn-based combat mechanics are an abstraction of the reality in which everyone is going at the same time. If you can't figure out the difference between an abstract game mechanic and what the abstract game mechanic represents in the game world, then you will find it impossible to meaningfully contribute to any discussion which attempts to describe what an abstract game mechanic means in terms of the game world. By definition. It'd be a tenuous one, though: afterall Cleave functions when you drop undead or constructs, who have no such life to end. Harness escaping negative energy. Litterally correct, but not the point. When you Cleave off an AoO, you are making an attack outside of initiative order, at your Full BAB. You are doing so because someone took an action that provoked. You are, however, making the attack against someone other than the one who provoked. An apt description. Thanks for admitting your earlier description was incorrect. An attack initiated by the attacker, is what I was getting at. The person making an AoO doesn't initiate the attack? Pure poppycock. through what apears to be an unintended synergy. If it was actually an unintended synergy, they would have fixed in 3.5 at the same time they were fixing the Whirlwind Attack loophole. The so-called "problem" was known about and could have been trivially "fixed", as you demonstrate. There's no need to track the source of damage prior to the attack that activates the cleave feat. Closing the loophole just requires noting whether the attack in question is an AoO, You need to stop arguing that you're doing this because it isn't "fair" for the target of the cleave, then. Because, as far as the target of the cleave is concerned, he's still getting screwed by someone else's mistake no matter which way you flip-flop the abstract resolution order. Or, as you point out, turning undead. These so-called "exploits" always seem to require great contrivances. In this case you've got to be fighting in a situation were the undead can't flee in any direction that wouldn't take them through the fighter's threatened area. It's not an impossible situation, but it's hardly an exploit that can be taken advantage of in every single combat. And these exploits always seem to involve either the fighter or another character expending even more resources to accomplish the "exploit", without any consideration of whether these resources actually represent anything particularly unbalanced. I certainly haven't seen any indication that this is a problem which actually needs fixing. Justin Alexander http://www.thealexandrian.net
Marcus Majarra 02-13-07, 01:45 PM	Why is Cleaving off an attack of opportunity a loophole? I believe your claim seems to be drawn from the following false conclusion: You are doing so because someone took an action that provoked. This is incorrect. You are not cleaving because an opponent provoked an attack; you're cleaving because you felled your opponent. How this happened is of no concern to Cleave, because the feat rewards your actions, as opposed to penalize weak opponents. Giving one extra AoO attempt for successfully felling an opponent as a result of one isn't granting a free attack. It is merely the potential to do so, and this diverts from the purpose of Cleave, which is to grant extra attacks. As a fair compromise that would reduce the potential for "abuse," you could rule that any cleave attempt you make as a result of felling an opponent through an attack of opportunity be considered one of your attacks of opportunity for that round. This would make cleaving off an AoO impossible without Combat Reflexes and a sufficiently high Dex. I'll point out, however, that this is not necessary, IMHO.
Shatteredtower 02-13-07, 07:06 PM	Going back a bit. That is like saying it doesn't matter if a spellcasting dude wearing long robes and a pointy hat is called a fighter and the buff, armor-clad, sword twirling dunce is called a wizard. Words mean things.True. However, game terms, even when they do not match the standard definition given for a word, also mean things. We're discussing game terms. Well, let's check the text book on magical physics. Oh wait... what's that... magic isn't real!It is in game. So's Cleave. IGive me a break.I've refrained from laughing. How's that? INo one is discussing rules here. The rules are very obvious. The entire discussion is opinion based.Wrong. We've discussed whether or Cleave should be allowed off of attacks of opportunity, which is a rules discussion. II feel sorry for you if you don't realize this.No, you don't. It would be awfully daft if you did though, even if your previous claim wasn't wrong.
Tony Vargas 02-13-07, 09:01 PM	This doesn't mean that the guy on initiative 14 gets to take his action after dying, but it does mean that the turn-based combat mechanics are an abstraction of the reality in which everyone is going at the same time.A distinction that borders on irrellevancy. Yes, the rules are abstract, no they don't model blows on a 1-for-1 basis, but, any action that affects later actions in initiative order is completed before those later actions. Were it not so, you could argue that the abstractness of the system that you note would allow a deceased character to act on his iniative, on the round he is killed. Harness escaping negative energy.And escaping magical energy from the construct? The person making an AoO doesn't initiate the attack? Pure poppycock.If you initiated the AoOs you take, you could take them at any time. AoOs are initiated by the provoking character. They are taken or declined by the attacker. If it was actually an unintended synergy, they would have fixed in 3.5 at the same time they were fixing the Whirlwind Attack loophole. The so-called "problem" was known about and could have been trivially "fixed", as you demonstrate.Actually, it was quite obscure compared to the 'bag o rats' at the time. You need to stop arguing that you're doing this because it isn't "fair" for the target of the cleave, then. Because, as far as the target of the cleave is concerned, he's still getting screwed by someone else's mistake no matter which way you flip-flop the abstract resolution order.Perhaps you're mistaking 'fairness' in the abstract rules set for IC fairness. No there's nothing 'fair' from an adventurer's point of view about being gutted by an enemy, regardless of the abstract mechanics modeling his eviceration. That was never the point. Though they might model terribly unfair sitatutions, the rules themselves can be fair - or 'balanced,' it's nearly the same thing, really - or flawed. These so-called "exploits" always seem to require great contrivances. Often they do. That's one reason that it's so desireable to eliminate them: said 'contrivances' damage the verisimilitude of the campaign. I certainly haven't seen any indication that this is a problem which actually needs fixing.If it's a non-issue for you, don't worry about it. Giving one extra AoO attempt for successfully felling an opponent as a result of one isn't granting a free attack. It is merely the potential to do so, and this diverts from the purpose of Cleave, which is to grant extra attacks.Every 'extra attack' granted by Cleave, is, indeed, only a potential extra attack - in order to fulfill that potential, you need to have an enemy that you can use the attack against. That's all that's going on in the fix - you still get the extra attack, you just need a legitimate target, which, when dealing with AoOs, means a target that provokes. As a fair compromise that would reduce the potential for "abuse," you could rule that any cleave attempt you make as a result of felling an opponent through an attack of opportunity be considered one of your attacks of opportunity for that round. This would make cleaving off an AoO impossible without Combat Reflexes and a sufficiently high Dex.That would halve the number of extra attacks you could cheese up against a single opponent via Great Cleave & Combat Reflexes. But, it would also effectively ban cleaving off an AoO in a more legitimate sense - when cleaving from one provoking character into another. In fact, when dealing with multiple provoking enemies, it would make Great Cleave superfluous compared to Combat Reflexes.
Shatteredtower 02-14-07, 05:21 PM	A few more points from catching up: Bloodlust as a proposed alternative name is worse than Cleave, since it will work against targets that don't have blood. If we're going to be literal, we're going to be consistent. ;) A bag of toads (or rats) trick is extremely unreliable for two reasons: 1. Dropping a bag does not empty it. Removing the frog costs you a move action, as you are retrieving a stored item. Well, you're retrieving more than one, but it's still retrieving a stored item. 2. A creature does not take attacks of opportunity if all it does is move in its turn. Maybe you'll be lucky and the little buggers will run. Maybe they won't, and you've used two move actions while standing adjacent to an opponent. And don't forget to make sure you're not facing an opponent with Cleave and Combat Reflexes before you try this trick. The pendulum commoners is a bit more interesting, but it's not a given. Are they creatures or ranged weapons for rules purposes? I say that's the DM's call, but let's assume you decide to treat them as creatures moving through the BBEG's threatened area. Let's say it works perfectly, that there are no concerns with inaccuracy (as should be the case even without trying to hurl bound people down into combat on a rope) or with the BBEG moving around. I find all this a dubious scenario, but it's your call and you say it goes. How does your BBEG earn that extra attack? The same way he earns it from a standard Cleave result. Suddenly there's this extra body on the field and the Boss is swatting it away and... wham! You just didn't expect him to come around that quickly. That's pretty much what occurs with a normal cleave result anyway; you earn an extra opportunity to work past someone else's defenses. How? Why limit what the feat grants you to one means of operating?
Marcus Majarra 02-15-07, 10:35 AM	Every 'extra attack' granted by Cleave, is, indeed, only a potential extra attack - in order to fulfill that potential, you need to have an enemy that you can use the attack against. That's all that's going on in the fix - you still get the extra attack, you just need a legitimate target, which, when dealing with AoOs, means a target that provokes. This is where you're missing one important factor: the only thing you need to make that attack is to have an enemy within reach (as per the description for Cleave). The fact that the enemy is within reach makes the target legitimate. Again, remember that Cleave rewards felling opponents regardless of what your opponents do. Whether you would normally be able to attack the opponent is irrelevant, and here's an example of it: A character with a BAB of +5 attacking only with a single weapon could not attack two characters using the attack standard action. And yet, Cleave allows. And this is the same best-case scenario with respect to the attack bonus. You're gaining an extra attack at your full BAB when you normally would not be entitled one. Cleave bypasses the normal rules on limits on attacks. That would halve the number of extra attacks you could cheese up against a single opponent via Great Cleave & Combat Reflexes. But, it would also effectively ban cleaving off an AoO in a more legitimate sense - when cleaving from one provoking character into another. In fact, when dealing with multiple provoking enemies, it would make Great Cleave superfluous compared to Combat Reflexes. There's only one logic problem here: there is no such thing as two opponents provoking at the same time. In order to provoke an attack of opportunity, you need to be taking an action, and no two creatures act at the same time. They may act in response to one another with respect to a single action, but their reactions are not simultaneous. What you can do is provoke an attack of opportunity from multiple opponents, not the other way around.
JustinA 02-15-07, 12:35 PM	A distinction that borders on irrellevancy. Yes, the rules are abstract, no they don't model blows on a 1-for-1 basis, but, any action that affects later actions in initiative order is completed before those later actions. And you're back to arguing that Character B stands around doing nothing while waiting for Character A finishes doing all of their actions for a turn. It doesn't really matter how many times you claim that's the way people in a D&D game world fight, Tony, it doesn't become any more believable. It is, in fact, possible to have an abstract game system without insisting that the characters in the game world be aware of the abstraction. If you initiated the AoOs you take, you could take them at any time. AoOs are initiated by the provoking character. They are taken or declined by the attacker. Part of the problem is that you're just making up rules and then basing your argument on your imaginary distinctions. There are no rules for "initiating an AoO" in D&D, Tony. You can "provoke an AoO" and you can "take an AoO". You're attempting to draw a distinction between provoking an AoO, taking an AoO, and "initiating an AoO" -- and you're apparently defining this last in such a way that it "proves" your argument. But that's circular reasoning, one of the most basic fallacies. Nice try, though. Often they do. That's one reason that it's so desireable to eliminate them: said 'contrivances' damage the verisimilitude of the campaign. Really? Flipping rats into the eyes of your opponent and distracting them so that you can attack them more easily damages the versimilitude of your campaign? So, to sum up: 1. You haven't established that this "exploit" actually unbalances the game (given that every scenario proposed either (a) doesn't use the rules properly; (b) requires burning additional resources which have not been established as being more or less useful than the extra attack; or (c) fall apart completely if they guy you're trying to target also has Cleave). 2. You haven't established that this "exploit" is actually unrealistic in terms of what the character is doing in the game world. Until you do one or the other, you haven't established that this "problem" actually needs to be "fixed" by adding more complicated special case rules to the game system.
Nom 02-19-07, 11:29 PM	Technically, Marcus, you're begging the question. You're assuming the rules are desirable, and then using this starting point to prove that they can't have undesirable consequences. Tony's contention, and I happen to agree with him, is that the ability to use Cleave to generate a free attack on an AoO against a non-provoking target is a stylistic and mechanical flaw, and it is this flaw that allows the various Cleave / AoO "abuses". These "abuses" are entirely consistent with the Cleave rule as written. If you believe the rule is supposed to grant bonus attacks for killing foes, then it is hard to argue that generating extra foes to grant bonus attacks is "abusive" any more than reach-trip-AoO or setting up flanking with sneak attack is abusive. If you believe it is abusive then it - IMO - makes more sense to deal with (possible) flaw in the source rules than to ad-hoc ban certain instances.
starfire311 02-20-07, 12:06 AM	That's just silly. Under this interpretation of the combat round, everyone takes turns swinging their weapons around. For example, given the following initiative order: 1. Character A 2. Character B 3. Character C You're claiming that in each and every round, Character A swings his weapon a bunch. Then Character A stops swinging his weapon and lets Character B swing his weapon for awhile. Then Character B stops swinging his weapon and lets Character C swing his weapon for awhile. Utterly ridiculous. Once again, you're apparently forgetting that the combat system is an abstract representation of what's actually happening. It's convenient for the sake of discrete action resolution, but to suggest that everyone stops and takes turns on the battlefield is just silly. Just wanted to say, while as rediculous as it seems, this is indeed exactly what happens. take the example of Character A = grappler Character B = greatsword fighter Character C = archer It is very important the order in which these attacks are resoolved, and it is not trivial that they are are resolved in a bunch. lets say B and C are on the same team and are fighter A... and A and B are in melee range. The round is resolved completly differently if initiative is A>B>C Vs C>B>A if A gets the grapple 1st, but say it doesnt succeed until his 3rd or 4th attack(but still succeeeds before Bs or As 1st, then likely B will never get to swing his greatsword, and C will not fire his Bow. But it will not matter if A succeeds on his grapple with his 1st attack of the round if we take the second order, because C will get to fire all his arrows, and B will get to make all his greatsword attacks before A even gets his 1st chance to grapple.
Marcus Majarra 02-20-07, 11:58 AM	Technically, Marcus, you're begging the question. You're assuming the rules are desirable, and then using this starting point to prove that they can't have undesirable consequences. Tony's contention, and I happen to agree with him, is that the ability to use Cleave to generate a free attack on an AoO against a non-provoking target is a stylistic and mechanical flaw, and it is this flaw that allows the various Cleave / AoO "abuses". These "abuses" are entirely consistent with the Cleave rule as written. If you believe the rule is supposed to grant bonus attacks for killing foes, then it is hard to argue that generating extra foes to grant bonus attacks is "abusive" any more than reach-trip-AoO or setting up flanking with sneak attack is abusive. If you believe it is abusive then it - IMO - makes more sense to deal with (possible) flaw in the source rules than to ad-hoc ban certain instances. You're quite right: it isn't any more abusive than having any sort of tactical ability that requires a careful setup to work. And I do not believe that the said exploits/instances are abusive. I believe they are highly unrealistic/unfeasible. A more feasible "exploit" would be to use summoned creatures with whom you can communicate to bull rush weak opponents by your Cleaving warrior so that he can use his AoO cleave attempts on the BBEG. It's more feasible, but highly unlikely. Now, as to whether Cleave working on AoOs being a stylistic and/or mechanical flaw is a highly debatable issue that could be easily resolved in one or two ways: 1) You house rule against the RAW because you feel the feat works inappropriately. This is fine by me, as long as people don't claim that this is in the RAW. This is the individual choice. 2) We receive an extensive explanation from the designers as to the intent and mechanics of the feat. As it is, everything points to Cleave working normally on attacks of opportunity. This is the general choice.
Elderich 02-20-07, 03:05 PM	And I do not believe that the said exploits/instances are abusive.Said "exploits/instances" do not even work. As noted, the Bag o' rats" a swarm, so does not work, An allies summoned creatures are allies, so do not provoke. I have yet to see a WAY for a player to exploit this.
Bob Loblaw 02-20-07, 03:39 PM	Said "exploits/instances" do not even work. As noted, the Bag o' rats" a swarm, so does not work, An allies summoned creatures are allies, so do not provoke. I have yet to see a WAY for a player to exploit this. What if you're playing an evil character? Could you do this off of summoned creatures if someone else summoned them? What about summoning creatures and then finding a way to make sure that they provoke attacks of opportunity in some other way (grease can provide some help)? While I don't really see it as a problem, I can see how to make it work. You may have to get really creative.
Tony Vargas 02-20-07, 10:56 PM	This is where you're missing one important factor: the only thing you need to make that attack is to have an enemy within reach (as per the description for Cleave).That's as far as Cleave goes, yes. But, there could be other circumstances that'd change that. If, for instance, you've already failed your save vs an enemy's Sanctuary spell, you are unable to attack him. If you drop another enemy while the Sanctuary-protected one is within reach, you can't use your Cleave attack against him, even though he is within reach, is an enemy, and you did just drop another enemy. So I don't think it's at all unreasonable or inconsistent to create a variant that would limit or alter how cleave might aply. There's only one logic problem here: there is no such thing as two opponents provoking at the same time. In order to provoke an attack of opportunity, you need to be taking an action, and no two creatures act at the same time. True, and it's addressed in the fix: the 'immediate' clause in Cleave is re-interpreted, in the case of AoOs, to aply to the /very next/ AoO provoked. Thus, Cleave can effectively allow you to take an extra AoO, and Great Cleave could concievably allow you to take a very large number of AoOs, if your luck holds out, and a sufficiently suicideal stream of enemies were present. In that sense, it's not even a 'nerf' - you could actually dish out more total carnage under the fix than under the RAW (since the RAW interpretation of 'immediate' requires the Cleave be resolved before any other actions are taken, you could never AoO-Great-Cleave more enemies than you could reach at a given instant). But, you could never dish out said hurt to a non-suicidal (non-AoO-provoking) foe, which is, of course, the point. Said "exploits/instances" do not even work. As noted, the Bag o' rats" a swarm, so does not work, An allies summoned creatures are allies, so do not provoke. A swarm of rats (tiny creatures), consists of 300 rats. Even a theoretical 1-square rat swarm would presumably have 75 rats in it. A bag is unlikely to contain so many. Similarly, the 'allies' dodge is not exactly airtight. If something attacks you, isn't it acting as an enemy? For instance, if an ally is dominated into attacking you, and, in closing provokes an AoO, would you be unable to trip it because it's an ally, and thus didn't provoke? If a summoned creature is commanded to attack you, and, to do so, must enter your square, thus provoking an AoO, would you be enjoined from taking that AoO if the caster that summoned the creature is your ally? What if you don't /know/ who summoned the critter? And, ultimately, it's worse than that - if the DM starts ruling on who's an ally vs an enemy, he's actually taking away some of the PCs 'free will,' which isn't exactly a great idea. That a flaw in the rules might entice players to try tricks that the DM could halt only by such a measure is one reason it's better to fix the flaw upfront, than to circumvent it later, if it comes up. 1. You haven't established that this "exploit" actually unbalances the game Well, I'm sorry I haven't been able to establish that idea to your satisfaction, JustinA. I'm comfortable with the idea that not everyone will see things my way, though. (given that every scenario proposed either(a) doesn't use the rules properly; (b) requires burning additional resources which have not been established as being more or less useful than the extra attack; or (c) fall apart completely if they guy you're trying to target also has Cleave).(c) can happen - it requires that the area threatened by the target of your AoO-Great-Cleave exploit completely overlapp your own threatened area, and a character trying to abuse the exploit might very well have maximized his threatened area, but the DM can always bring in something with longer arms than any PC can achieve. (b) is a good point when it comes to the specific summon exploit. A high-level melee type's full-BAB attacks can be devestating, and a mid-level summoning spell can seem pretty trivial, but the /action/ of the caster may well be even more valuable, depending on the circumstance (and just how broken an exploit he can pull off with other spells, for that matter). In other cases, though, it can be a side benefit, as with turning undead, or a fairly trivial use of resources - as with the difficult-to-adjudicate variations on the old bag-o-rats. (a)is debateable (for instance, there's a WotC ruling that you can Cleave off Mirror Images, that's pretty hotly contested by some) - and forestalling that debate, which can be pretty disruptive in some cases, is a good reason to come up with a fairly clean and fair way of closing the loophole. 2. You haven't established that this "exploit" is actually unrealistic in terms of what the character is doing in the game world.I haven't really tried to, but, here's another possible example: Two characters are fighting in a corridor, one (with Combat Reflexes & Great Cleave) has his back to a 'T' intersection and also happens to have a See Invisible effect active on him. The other, facing him, does not have see invisible up, and happens to have a poor listen check. While they're fighting, a small band of 1st-level rogues who have been turned invisible try to sneak down the adjoining corridor (though the two combatants in the adjoining corridor are deadly enemies of the rogues, as well as eachother, said rogues are trying to escape an even greater danger, and are unaware one of thier foes can see invisible, so they have every reason to keep trying, even after the first of them dies, since they can still hope thier concealment might save them). Horrendously contrived, I know. The upshot of it, though, is that the presence of the rogues makes one of the combatants suddenly much deadlier, even though the other remains completely unaffected by the presence of the rogues, themselves. Now, I know you've put forth rationales, such as blood getting in someone's eyes or other distractions, so, here's an alternate version of the same scenario. Instead of invisible rogue enemies, the characters in the adjoining corridors are allies of the character who can see invisble. And, instead of sneaking by invisibly, they - using Greater Invisibilty and Shot on the Run - quickly, one after the other, move through the corridor and lob vials of holy water, acid, and alchemist's fire at thier common foe. That foe happens not to be an evil creature harmed by holy water, and has ER (acid) 10 and ER (fire) 15 - so, he is completely unharmed by thier attacks. Still, he has viscous flaming liquid clinging to him. And the distraction caused by that - by having mulitple new foes unexpectedly enter combat, attack him, and splash him with a variety of liquids by the pint - in no way degrades his combat performance against the foe he's concentrating on, nor gives that foe any extra opportunities to attack him. Now, maybe both of those scenarios are wildly unrealistic - and, indeed, I'd judge they are, D&D is not a game notable for it's realism - but, they're also rather inconsistent. In one, some sort of distraction caused by an enemy taking his attention off his fight with you to kill foes you never actually see or hear (they might as well be imaginary from your point of view), allows that enemy to suddenly land a flurry of blows against you that he could not normally have managed. In the second, major distractions heaped upon you be enemies intent on distracting you from your duel give your foe no advantage at all. I'd like to offer an alternate rationale for cleave that might be a little more realistic, or, at least, consistent. The idea is simply that a character with Cleave can sometimes dispatch a weak (or weakened) foe very easily, perhaps with his initial blow, leaving him free to press his attack upon any other foe he is fighting at the same time. This puts the impetus for cleave entirely upon the possessor of the feat - it does not matter what sorts of foes he faces, or what might distract those foes, he simply has the skill (or perhaps ruthelessness) to down vulnerable foes with a quick, decisive attack, then concentrate on the next foe. Great Cleave represents the ability to do so multiple times in rapid succession, like a samurai in a chambarra flick. Now, this is consistent with D&D's abstract combat system, which models six seconds of furious swordplay with a single attack, or a brief attack sequence, resolved in initiative order. If you Cleave through one foe into another, it represents fighting both of them, killing one with a quick ('decisive' or 'contemptuous,' perhaps) blow, then pressing your attack upon another. If you Great Cleave through two foes, but fail to kill the third (and thus don't get to attack a fourth), that represents two successful such 'decisive' attack, and a third that isn't so successful, but still leaves the character able to conduct himself to his full ability against both his remaining foes for the whole six seconds of combat modeled by the abstract round. It's also consistent with the 'fix' for an AoO-Cleave. If you get a chance to make one of your quick decisive attacks when a foe drops his gaurd, you're still ready to take advantage of another such lapse by another foe, but still fighting other foes at only your full potential, not at an even greater potential. It's also consistent with the way D&D /doesn't/ give you any extra attacks for outside 'distractions' forced upon an enemy - like having a flask of burning oil thrown in his face. And, it's about the level of realism you'd expect from D&D. A low level, but a relatively consistent one.
strange_person 02-20-07, 11:52 PM	A swarm of rats can consist of as many or as few rats as the DM deems appropriate, as long as it's less than could be physically crammed into the given volume and more than could normally fight effectively in the given space. The Depravity rules in Heroes of Horror clearly established that allies still provoke AoOs, it's just that sane people don't normally take cheap shots at their friends. That foe happens not to be an evil creature harmed by holy water, and has ER (acid) 10 and ER (fire) 15 - so, he is completely unharmed by thier attacks. Still, he has viscous flaming liquid clinging to him. And the distraction caused by that - by having mulitple new foes unexpectedly enter combat, attack him, and splash him with a variety of liquids by the pint - in no way degrades his combat performance against the foe he's concentrating on, nor gives that foe any extra opportunities to attack him. I for one would consider getting hit upside the head with an invisible corpse signifigantly more distracting than some bits of glass and greasy stuff (alchemist's fire) that sort-of tickles. In that circumstance, I would either rule that the foe is Dazed (like the nondamaging thrown-object attack application of Move Object from SWRPG), or that the allies are effectively using Aid Another.
JustinA 02-21-07, 12:29 AM	Just wanted to say, while as rediculous as it seems, this is indeed exactly what happens. take the example of Character A = grappler Character B = greatsword fighter Character C = archer It is very important the order in which these attacks are resoolved, and it is not trivial that they are are resolved in a bunch. ... which is why the rules are abstracted, to make resolving this type of situation clear-cut for easy gameplay. But that STILL doesn't mean that characters in D&D "freeze" in mid-action and wait for their next "turn". Like I mentioned before, this overly-literal interpretation of the abstract system is a cute conceit for a comic strip (see Erfworld) -- but it's not what we should assume the system is actually trying to model. Take, for example, a character running during combat. In the abstract game system, they move 4x their speed and then have to wait for their next turn. Everyone else then takes their turn and then they continue running. Now, according to you, the character in the game literallly FREEZES IN PLACE, waits six seconds, then starts running again. ********. You can keep claiming that this is what "really" happens in Faerun or Eberron or Krynn: Everyone moves herky-jerky and politely waits for the other guys to take their turns. But I suspect that even you know that it's ********. And that there is a difference between the abstract nature of the system and the world the system is modeling. But since the only people who seem to believe that there is a problem with Cleave are people who believe that people in D&D worlds run herky-jerky and freeze in place when their turn comes to an end, I don't really see much more being accomplished in this thread. There is a fundamental gap between those who understand what the game is attempting to accomplish and those who have a wacky and bizarre interpretation of what the game is attempting to accomplish. If you still hold the wacky belief that people run herky-jerky and freeze in place in a D&D world, then I doubt there's anything which is going to cure you of your bizarre interpretation of the rules.
Marcus Majarra 02-21-07, 03:06 AM	That's as far as Cleave goes, yes. But, there could be other circumstances that'd change that. If, for instance, you've already failed your save vs an enemy's Sanctuary spell, you are unable to attack him. If you drop another enemy while the Sanctuary-protected one is within reach, you can't use your Cleave attack against him, even though he is within reach, is an enemy, and you did just drop another enemy. This example is inconclusive in this instance for a simple reason: sanctuary actively prevents a character from attacking the subject of the spell. The target is within reach, but you cannot attack him because something is keeping you from doing it. AoOs are not an inhibiting concept; they enable the character to make additional attacks. By the logic you're presenting, you're suggesting that a character under the effect of sanctuary would provoke attacks of opportunity from opponents that failed their save against the spell, which is clearly not the case. True, and it's addressed in the fix: the 'immediate' clause in Cleave is re-interpreted, in the case of AoOs, to aply to the /very next/ AoO provoked. Thus, Cleave can effectively allow you to take an extra AoO, and Great Cleave could concievably allow you to take a very large number of AoOs, if your luck holds out, and a sufficiently suicideal stream of enemies were present. In that sense, it's not even a 'nerf' - you could actually dish out more total carnage under the fix than under the RAW (since the RAW interpretation of 'immediate' requires the Cleave be resolved before any other actions are taken, you could never AoO-Great-Cleave more enemies than you could reach at a given instant). But, you could never dish out said hurt to a non-suicidal (non-AoO-provoking) foe, which is, of course, the point. You're not looking clearly at your own argument. You're not gaining an attack of opportunity, only the potential to make one. Having the potential to make it doesn't mean you will. In order to gain the extra AoO, you need to have another opponent provoke an attack in the first place, and this goes against the purpose of Cleave which rewards the cleaving character with an immediate attack. This is supposed to be a concrete benefit.
Nom 02-21-07, 06:54 AM	and this goes against the purpose of Cleave which rewards the cleaving character with an immediate attack. This is supposed to be a concrete benefit.You're begging the question again, in this case by presupposing the purpose of Cleave from only the rules text and using it to justify the rules text. The rules text for Cleave doesn't describe its purpose, only its effects. The "purpose" is a metagame design decision that AFAIK neither you, I, Tony or Justin are privy to, though we might speculate on it. You're well within your rights to claim that the implementation of Cleave fits the purpose you suppose for it, but that in no way counters Tony's claim that Cleave could also be a subtle misimplementation of a different purpose and if modified to be properly in line with that purpose results in a "better" feat. It's coherent to maintain that the various CR-GC tricks and the ability to gain free attacks against an otherwise unattackable opponent are features, not abuses. It's also coherent to maintain that they are flaws and to propose ways to fix the problem, not merely the symptoms. However, if you agree that the CR-GC tricks are abuses or flaws, it seems foolish to me to expect the DM to deal with these on an ad-hoc basis when an elegant fix to the source is readily available.
Marcus Majarra 02-21-07, 01:40 PM	Actually, I think it is Tony (and anyone else suggesting a modification to Cleave) who is begging the question by presupposing that Cleave does not fit its intent. As far as anyone knows, Wizards is sticking with Cleave as printed, and presuming the content doesn't fit the intent has no basis in fact. Not only that, but Wizards has even provided clarifications on the system, with respect to this particular case (Cleave on AoOs), such as in the following Ask Wizards segment: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20060804a
Sildatorak 02-21-07, 04:25 PM	But since the only people who seem to believe that there is a problem with Cleave are people who believe that people in D&D worlds run herky-jerky and freeze in place when their turn comes to an end, I don't really see much more being accomplished in this thread.I saw not much more was being accomplished long ago, so that was why I have been long silent in this thread. I don't care to be told what I believe, though. There is a fundamental gap between those who understand what the game is attempting to accomplish and those who have a wacky and bizarre interpretation of what the game is attempting to accomplish.Indeed. You seem to have the idea that D&D is attempting to emulate reality. This is very clearly not the case. Balance trumps realism when we are talking about a game, especially a game where heroic feats of might and magic are possible. If you want to disagree about whether there is a balance issue or not, feel free. If you want to try to justify the workings of a combat mechanic using reality, I'm willing to listen once you've retooled the combat system into something that is internally consistent with the reality you are describing.
Elderich 02-21-07, 04:41 PM	What if you're playing an evil character? Could you do this off of summoned creatures if someone else summoned them? What about summoning creatures and then finding a way to make sure that they provoke attacks of opportunity in some other way (grease can provide some help)? While I don't really see it as a problem, I can see how to make it work. You may have to get really creative.I cannot see any. Again any such abuse would require a complicit DM. While one may choose to attack an ally, the ally does not provoke AoO's, (by RAW) are allowed a withdrawal action, and anything small enough to possibly provoke the number desired would be a swarm. And whatever else I missed. Now do not get me wrong. If the players and DM are having fun with it go full bore! It just seems there are so many REAL holes in this game than NEED fixing that arguing about a "Bag of Rats", especially when it does not work, is silly.
JustinA 02-21-07, 05:56 PM	If you want to disagree about whether there is a balance issue or not, feel free. Actually, I don't have to. No one has successfully pointed to any legitimate abuse of the Cleave feats using the rules-as-written. Until someone actually describes an abuse which doesn't break the rules, there's nothing to defend. If you want to try to justify the workings of a combat mechanic using reality, Actually, if you had bothered to read the thread, you would see that the people defending the Cleave feats weren't the ones to insert "this doesn't make sense when you think about it" into the discussion: The idea that the Cleave feats don't "make sense" as a model of reality was first used by the people critiquing the Cleave feats. Get back to us when you've read the thread. I have a fairly low tolerance for people throwing non sequiturs around because they can't be bothered to read the thread they're contributing to. I'm willing to listen once you've retooled the combat system into something that is internally consistent with the reality you are describing. This is just complete nonsense. The idea that you can't model reality with an abstract system is ludicrous. There's a difference between modeling something and trying to create a perfect simulation. This reveals, again, the fundamental misunderstanding of the game system by the people criticizing the Cleave feats. Until some basic grasp of the concepts of "abstraction" and "game balance" are achieved, you're going to find it impossible to make any kind of sensible case for change.
Elderich 02-21-07, 06:53 PM	Until some basic grasp of the concepts of "abstraction" and "game balance" are achieved, you're going to find it impossible to make any kind of sensible case for change.This is probably the best point in the thread. I might change the order to 1) "game balance" ... 2+X) "abstraction" Cleave is just not an unbalanced feat. Even IF it is accepted that one could argue that the description of the mechanic is silly, it is still a pretty plain and balanced game mechanism.
Sildatorak 02-21-07, 07:42 PM	Actually, I don't have to. No one has successfully pointed to any legitimate abuse of the Cleave feats using the rules-as-written. Until someone actually describes an abuse which doesn't break the rules, there's nothing to defend.Bag o' squirrels is solidly within the rules. I'm not even talking about a bunch of squirrels, let's just say 4 or 5 squirrels per bag in a Handy Haversack. Move action to retrieve them, perhaps a standard action to dump them into your own square. The AoO+Cleave trick gives the character who does this much more for one round's actions than the guy who just full attacks. Actually, if you had bothered to read the thread, you would see that the people defending the Cleave feats weren't the ones to insert "this doesn't make sense when you think about it" into the discussion: The idea that the Cleave feats don't "make sense" as a model of reality was first used by the people critiquing the Cleave feats.It doesn't matter who started it, the matter is that you keep bringing up the "reality" that the turns of combat are not cleanly divided. I did give you the benefit of the doubt, though, and skimmed back through the thread to make sure I didn't miss anything key. My re-read of my own posts and Tony Vargas's show that we've been pretty focused on the rules/balance aspect of it, as has Marcas Majarra (on the "Cleave is fine" side). This is just complete nonsense. The idea that you can't model reality with an abstract system is ludicrous. There's a difference between modeling something and trying to create a perfect simulation.Indeed there is, and I never said otherwise. You've come up with a lot of in game descriptions for why someone might be allowed to cleave on an AoO. That doesn't make them consistent with the rest of the combat system. If we are going to use a turn-based system, most aspects of simultaneity will be lost. Invoking simultaneity as a justification for a corner case doesn't mean that game balance should be tossed aside.
Sildatorak 02-21-07, 07:45 PM	Cleave is just not an unbalanced feat. Even IF it is accepted that one could argue that the description of the mechanic is silly, it is still a pretty plain and balanced game mechanism. Cleave is fine, great cleave is probably a bit weak. It is the pairing of great cleave with many AoO's that is in question. That's why I like Tony Vargas's fix. It prevents lumping additional damage on a single foe (which is the only point in contention regarding balance), but does nothing to the majority of Cleave's functionality.
Nom 02-21-07, 08:22 PM	Actually, I think it is Tony (and anyone else suggesting a modification to Cleave) who is begging the question by presupposing that Cleave does not fit its intent.We're not presupposing anything about the intent, merely stating that we don't like how it plays out. We then present a combination of intent, model and rules change that is both stylistically satisfying to us and removes all the "abusive" cases. I have no idea whether how Cleave works is coherent with the intent of the designers who wrote it. But even knowing that the bag-of-rats family was intentional wouldn't change my opinion that it's stylistically broken.
strange_person 02-21-07, 08:51 PM	I dunno, going toe-to-toe with a master swordfighter and having him throw a bag of angry squirrels at you might be distracting and unexpected enough to give the rat-bagger an advantage. Doesn't anyone remember the drow from 8-bit whose ultimate attack was flipping a camel spider into Fighter's hair? If the squirrels were undead animated by someone with the Corpsecrafter and Destruction Retribution feats, it would make even more sense. Zombie squirrels wouldn't even be expensive to make; Fell Animate Burning Hands works wonders for minion-accumulation.
Finarin Panjoro 02-23-07, 01:37 PM	The entire argument is based around this point. Cleaving from a foe who was dropped with an AoO allows one to attack a foe out of turn who did nothing to provoke said attack. It allows you to transfer the penalty for a mistake or misfortune from the one responsible for it to a person who had no choice in the matter. If you believe, as I do, that the mistakes/misfortunes or an ally/witness present at the battle can cause harm to others through no fault of their own then you won't see a need to revise the cleave/AoO rules. If you believe that no one should be penalized in this fashion then you're likely to support the rules change. Niether position is inherently right or wrong, it just depends on how you like your game rules to be resolved. WotC apparently agrees with those of us who like cleaving from AoOs. The 'manufactured opponent' issue does infact require a complicit DM or a party who metagames to the extent that they would try to manufacture such a thing which the DM can forbid on the grounds that it is metagaming. If it happens naturally in the course of the game, such as taking AoOs on fleeing undead turned by your party cleric and cleaving off the dropped undead into the BBEG that you're fighting then that's just good fortune. This particular example still requires a complicit DM since the rules for turning do not require the undead to run into a direct threat (the area through which the cleaving fighter is swinging his weapon). It is debatable that if running through a threatened area is the only way to escape that this would constitute an inability to escape (the fighter is effectively blocking their path) and that the undead would cower instead of passing through the fighter's threatened area. For every such instance there is a way to prevent it from being used in a fashion that destroys the balance of the game. There's frequently an argument made that this situation also makes it a disadvantage to have many weak minions on the battlefield if you're the BBEG. This is erroneous however since the allies are in the control of the DM and he can keep them from taking actions that result in AoOs. He can also keep them out of direct proximity with the BBEG. If you're fighting an enlarged spike chain wielder every minion in his range knows that if they take more than a 5 foot step they will probably get hit with that whirling chain. I have found that when a player gets a cleave of an AoO that is often the high point of the entire battle for them. They really feel like their feats and melee skill paid off at that very moment. I'm just not inclined to take that away in the name of an exploit that I as DM can easily prevent.
Nom 02-24-07, 08:55 AM	I'm going to leave aside the value judgements (which are quite valid) and concentrate on the "metagaming" issues. Do characters within the game know that letting their guard down in combat can result not only in them getting killed but that it can result in injury to allies also? If they do not know this, then for a DM to manage things so that a BBEG's allies do not present this risk is metagaming - the BBEG is acting based on information that is only available to him because his controller knows about the game. If the PCs do know this, then it is not unreasonable (even if it is complicated) for them to attempt to arrange "distractions" that they can then use to their advantage. It can't work both ways. If AoO-Cleave is not an abuse or metagaming, then using in-game mechanics to manufacture situations that allow it is not an abuse or metagaming. Note that "not abusive" is not the same as "not unbalancing". Unbalancing can be a numerical judgement; something can be not unbalancing in quantity X but unbalancing in quantify Y. But for a flaw to be exploited in an "abusive" manner, it must already exist. Bag-o-rats merely exploits the "flaw" that is already present in the Cleave rule. If doing it 20 times is abusive, then so is doing it once; only the magnitude differs.
Finarin Panjoro 02-24-07, 09:52 PM	I'm of the opinion that all creatures are instinctively aware of what will and will not provoke an AoO. Even a mindless undead will recognize the threat it faces by running through an area in which a weapon is being actively swung. I've often heard people complain about a room full of commoners running from a spiked chain wielder and this being used to manufacture attacks against a single opponent. The commoners are still under DM control and it is reasonable from the commoner's perspective not to run from the whirling chain, but to take cover or drop prone, niether of which provokes an AoO. It is not metagaming to have beings under the DMs control recognize the danger that they are in and take actions to avoid that danger. Whether they know that provoking an AoO could concievably lead to the injury of another party is certainly debatable, but also virtually always irrelevant since it certainly leads to injury or death for themselves, which regardless of the risk to others, they are very likely to try and avoid. Essentially this abuse requires such an unusual confluence of occurences to ever even occur and there are so many reasonable non-metagame avenues for the DM to take to avoid it, I just don't believe that closing this potential abuse off justifies the amount of fun and enjoyment the player sacrifices by giving up the occasional legitmate (non-manufactured) AoO/cleave. It can't work both ways. If AoO-Cleave is not an abuse or metagaming, then using in-game mechanics to manufacture situations that allow it is not an abuse or metagaming. This is an absolutist position, not one that recognizes that there is a spirit to the rules which may be acknowledged and applied by the DM. If this were a computer game then you'd be right it cannot be both ways because the game mechanics must be applied mathematically. But D&D is not limited in this fashion. We can judge for ourselves that gaining a cleave off an AoO that is provoked by an enemy that the DM is controlling is within the spirit of the rules and that gaining a cleave off a manufactured bag-of-rats trick is not. I actually believe that this is the reason WotC has never decided to close this hole off or even comment on it in a FAQ or Sage Advice despite the constant debate over it. The balance between the spirit of the rules and the consistency of the rules is one that each group must determine for themselves. In my groups the spirit and fun have always trumped consistency.
Bengal 02-25-07, 02:51 AM	what if someone creted an illusion, of an enemy, and this illusion provoked an AoO, would you be able to cleave of the illusion into someone else, if you were able to drop the illusion in one hit? This has been ruled to be the case, specifically in the case of mirror image, you can use great cleave to destroy all of them until you hit the right one.
Finarin Panjoro 02-26-07, 09:45 AM	However that is arguably only the case with Mirror Image and not with any other illusion since striking a mirror image destroys it while striking any other illusion merely reveals it to be an illusion without destroying it. Once someone interacts directly with an illusion they get a save to disbelieve but the effect is to leave a translucent outline of the illusion not to destroy it, so I doubt cleave would apply to any other illusion.
Elderich 02-26-07, 11:14 AM	I think a VERY IMPORTANT point has been missed. Bag o' squirrels is solidly within the rules. I'm not even talking about a bunch of squirrels, let's just say 4 or 5 squirrels per bag in a Handy Haversack. Move action to retrieve them, perhaps a standard action to dump them into your own square. The AoO+Cleave trick gives the character who does this much more for one round's actions than the guy who just full attacks.This is simply false. 1) Allies DO not provoke AoO's. The animals ONE BRINGS to a fight are your allies. They are not your enemies.
strange_person 02-26-07, 12:53 PM	No, allies do provoke. In Heroes of Horror, one of the Depravity symptoms compels you to take every attack of opportunity available, including those provoked by your allies.
strange_person 02-26-07, 12:55 PM	You could also argue that a bunch of squirrels that had been locked up in a bag for an extended period of time and otherwise abused would have a hostile attitude toward the person who did that to them.
JustinA 02-26-07, 01:08 PM	Bag o' squirrels is solidly within the rules. I'm not even talking about a bunch of squirrels, let's just say 4 or 5 squirrels per bag in a Handy Haversack. Move action to retrieve them, perhaps a standard action to dump them into your own square. The AoO+Cleave trick gives the character who does this much more for one round's actions than the guy who just full attacks. As has already been pointed out in this thread: 1. The move action to retrieve the squirrels provokes an AoO. 2. Not to mention the resources spent by the character in order to capture the squirrels in the first place. 3. This assumes that the squirrels, after being dumped out, do anything which provokes an attack of opportunity. They don't cower in terror (if they're not moving, they don't provoke); they don't attack the character in panicked anger (if they're already in his square, they can attack without provoking); they don't scurry away by performing the withdraw action. 4. And it only works if the opposing character doesn't have Cleave himself. (Unless you dump them out in a square which isn't your own... in which case you're back to the squirrels being able to use the withdraw action with impunity.) So you've got the character getting targeted with at least one free attack (multiple attacks if there are multiple enemies threatening him) and burning additional resources in order to do something which only allows them extra attacks IF the DM rules that the squirrels behave in a way which provokes an attack of opportunity. This isn't a busted rule. This is, at worst, poor DMing. It doesn't matter who started it, the matter is that you keep bringing up the "reality" that the turns of combat are not cleanly divided. I don't know why you feel a need to lie like this. I've only responded to other people discussing this topic. Much like I'm responding to you because you're still discussing it, even while professing that you've never discussed it. :rolleyes: I did give you the benefit of the doubt, though, and skimmed back through the thread to make sure I didn't miss anything key. My re-read of my own posts and Tony Vargas's show that we've been pretty focused on the rules/balance aspect of it, as has Marcas Majarra (on the "Cleave is fine" side). Which would perhaps be relevant if: (a) You and Tony were the only people in this thread. You aren't. The first person to bring this up in the thread was Wopple: "To be honest, this is one of those way unrealistic things." The next person to bring it up was mvincent: "It's not realistic, but it is tactical..." In fact, all told, more than half a dozen people discuss this issue before I ever show up in the thread. Most notably the people I was replying to when I first posted. (b) You didn't keep replying to it and then wondering why it remains a part of the conversation. If you want to simply concede that the Cleave feat is perfectly realistic and that the only thing left to discuss is whether we should nerf the feat for game balance even though that doesn't make sense when you consider what the feat is modeling in the game world, I'm perfectly fine with that. Why wouldn't I accept your concession of the point? It doesn't mean that everyone else is going to concede the point, of course. So you might still have to endure the discussion. I'm sure you'll cope somehow. Indeed there is, and I never said otherwise. You've come up with a lot of in game descriptions for why someone might be allowed to cleave on an AoO. That doesn't make them consistent with the rest of the combat system. If we are going to use a turn-based system, most aspects of simultaneity will be lost. Since we're talking about attacks of opportunity -- which are SPECIFICALLY in the system to re-introduce aspects of simultaneity into a turn-based system -- you're simply demonstrating (again) that you don't have a firm grasp of what the rules do or why they do it. Justin Alexander http://www.thealexandrian.net
Sildatorak 02-26-07, 03:17 PM	As has already been pointed out in this thread: 1. The move action to retrieve the squirrels provokes an AoO.If you are going to attack other people for their failure to read clearly, please read the portion of my post where I specifically mention a Handy Haversack. 2. Not to mention the resources spent by the character in order to capture the squirrels in the first place.If it is taking significant resources to capture the squirrels, your DM is intentionally stifling this tactic and may as well negate the problem at the source. 3. This assumes that the squirrels, after being dumped out, do anything which provokes an attack of opportunity. They don't cower in terror (if they're not moving, they don't provoke); they don't attack the character in panicked anger (if they're already in his square, they can attack without provoking); they don't scurry away by performing the withdraw action.Withdraw will only prevent an AoO being drawn for their first 5' of movement. Regarding the other two, I suggest you approach the next squirrel you see and judge them by its reaction. 4. And it only works if the opposing character doesn't have Cleave himself. (Unless you dump them out in a square which isn't your own... in which case you're back to the squirrels being able to use the withdraw action with impunity.)This requires the opposed character to have both Great Cleave and Combat Reflexes under the RAW (cleave, too, as a prereq). Generally my fighter types are willing to Roshambo with an enemy fighter type if it means they've basically wasted 3 feats that they could have spent on things that will be useful outside of what is an exploitative situation. This isn't a busted rule. This is, at worst, poor DMing.What, having squirrels react in a manner that is typical of squirrels while avoiding specific metagame nerfs to the tactic is poor DMing? I don't know why you feel a need to lie like this. I've only responded to other people discussing this topic. Much like I'm responding to you because you're still discussing it, even while professing that you've never discussed it. :rolleyes:Where is the lie again? Is the matter of who started it trivial? Most likely, yes.Additionally, "long silent" does not mean "never discussed." It means that for the past several pages I had not contributed. For someone who is as opinionated and vocal as me, that is definitely a long silence. If you want to simply concede that the Cleave feat is perfectly realistic and that the only thing left to discuss is whether we should nerf the feat for game balance even though that doesn't make sense when you consider what the feat is modeling in the game world, I'm perfectly fine with that. Why wouldn't I accept your concession of the point?I'd concede that it is arguably realistic, though its realism is far less important than its balance. Since we're talking about attacks of opportunity -- which are SPECIFICALLY in the system to re-introduce aspects of simultaneity into a turn-based system -- you're simply demonstrating (again) that you don't have a firm grasp of what the rules do or why they do it.Oh, are you referring to the rules about attacks of opportunity that cause the person who moves away from you to get attacked, and then attacked again when you move in and attack, though you do not get attacked by that person at all? I'd say that AoO's are more about discouraging certain actions rather than being about re-introducing simultaneity, based on the evidence I've seen. Until you demonstrate some ability to do more than make unsubstantiated claims, please refrain from belittling the abilities of others to interpret the rules and their intent.
JustinA 02-26-07, 06:04 PM	If you are going to attack other people for their failure to read clearly, please read the portion of my post where I specifically mention a Handy Haversack. So now you're investing in a magic item, as well. And relying on a misreading of the description of that item. From the SRD: "Retrieving any specific item from a haversack is a move action, but it does not provoke the attacks of opportunity that retrieving a stored item usually does." So you could retrieve one squirrel as a move action with the sack. So even if the rest of the trick worked, you'd only be gaining one bonus attack. And the squirrel can only survive for 10 minutes without suffocating, since the handy haversack works just like a bag of holding and that's how a bag of holding works. If it is taking significant resources to capture the squirrels, your DM is intentionally stifling this tactic and may as well negate the problem at the source. At the very least it's going to take a Survival check, and only can only be attempted if you're in an environment where you can capture appropriate creatures (or take the time to travel to that environment). Time is a resource. Withdraw will only prevent an AoO being drawn for their first 5' of movement. We're presuming reach now? Regarding the other two, I suggest you approach the next squirrel you see and judge them by its reaction. I don't keep squirrels in bags which may suffocate them and then dump them out in the middle of a battle. The situation doesn't seem particularly analogous to simply approaching a squirrel by the side of the road. This requires the opposed character to have both Great Cleave and Combat Reflexes under the RAW (cleave, too, as a prereq). Just Cleave to get one extra attack. Where is the lie again? Is the matter of who started it trivial? Most likely, yes. Then why the heck are you still arguing about it? :rolleyes: Additionally, "long silent" does not mean "never discussed." It means that for the past several pages I had not contributed. For someone who is as opinionated and vocal as me, that is definitely a long silence. What I was actually replying to: "I did give you the benefit of the doubt, though, and skimmed back through the thread to make sure I didn't miss anything key. My re-read of my own posts and Tony Vargas's show that we've been pretty focused on the rules/balance aspect of it, as has Marcas Majarra (on the "Cleave is fine" side)." Notice the complete absence of the phrase "long silence" from what I was actually describing as a lie. Here's a tip: Lying about what you said and when you said it is just not that effective in a medium where your words are preserved for everyone to see. If you lie again in order to attack me, I'll be reporting your posts to the moderators. I'm tolerant, but only up to a certain point. I'd concede that it is arguably realistic, Great. I'm glad to see you concede the point. Perhaps you'll stop talking about it now. Oh, are you referring to the rules about attacks of opportunity that cause the person who moves away from you to get attacked, and then attacked again when you move in and attack, though you do not get attacked by that person at all? Am I referring to the rules which make it a bad idea to turn your back and walk away from someone who can hit you with a big sword? Yup. Those are the rules I'm talking about. See, in a purely turn-based system you could do that with impunity: It's not the turn of the guy you're turning your back on, so he can't do anything about it. But in reality, of course, things are happening simultaneously and he can whack you with his big sword when you turn your back on him. So the attack of opportunity rules reintroduce that simultaneity back into the system. You understand that, right? I'd say that AoO's are more about discouraging certain actions rather than being about re-introducing simultaneity, based on the evidence I've seen. Oh, right. I forgot. You don't have a firm grasp of what the rules do or why they do it... And you insist on demonstrating this over and over and over again.
strange_person 02-26-07, 06:22 PM	A Heward's Handy Haversack is only 2000 GP, which is a small investment compared to the necessary feats. It's also useful for many other things. The "specific object" being retreived could be an entirely nonmagical sack, pre-filled with squirrels and carried around outside the Heward's Handy Haversack most of the time. Burlap is sufficiently porous to allow the squirrels to breathe; the sack would be placed inside the Heward's for periods of less than 10 minutes at a time, as a preparation for combat. If the squirrel-sack is retrieved and dropped in the retrieving charachter's own space, in such a way that it falls open (or could be opened with an Open/Close cantrip from an otherwise useless hireling), the squirrels would have to move through at least 2 squares of the charachter's threatened area in any direction: the one they start in, and the one they move into on the way out. They could begin by taking a 5-foot step and then withdraw, but in that case they still linger in the charachter's threatened area for a round, opening up the possibility of a Whirlwind Attack. Yes, it uses resources, but that's a good thing. Extra attacks for free is just crazy, and the fighters have to do something while the casters are researching new spells or crafting items.
Lord Nedd 02-26-07, 07:11 PM	A Heward's Handy Haversack is only 2000 GP, which is a small investment compared to the necessary feats. It's also useful for many other things. The "specific object" being retreived could be an entirely nonmagical sack, pre-filled with squirrels and carried around outside the Heward's Handy Haversack most of the time. Burlap is sufficiently porous to allow the squirrels to breathe; the sack would be placed inside the Heward's for periods of less than 10 minutes at a time, as a preparation for combat. If the squirrel-sack is retrieved and dropped in the retrieving charachter's own space, in such a way that it falls open (or could be opened with an Open/Close cantrip from an otherwise useless hireling), the squirrels would have to move through at least 2 squares of the charachter's threatened area in any direction: the one they start in, and the one they move into on the way out. They could begin by taking a 5-foot step and then withdraw, but in that case they still linger in the charachter's threatened area for a round, opening up the possibility of a Whirlwind Attack. Yes, it uses resources, but that's a good thing. Extra attacks for free is just crazy, and the fighters have to do something while the casters are researching new spells or crafting items. The only problem is that said squirrels would have died from asphyxiation (sp?), as there is only a finite amount of air in said Haversack. Dead squirrel's are no fun, not even for hackie-sack. -LN
strange_person 02-26-07, 07:45 PM	No, asphyxiation would not be an issue. Most of the time, the squirrels are carried in a normal burlap sack (it's part of the standard adventurer's kit for a reason) which does not have a limited supply of air. When the figher is expecting a fight, he puts the burlap sack inside the Heward's Handy Haversack as part of the pre-combat buffing process. Less than 10 minutes pass. The fight begins. The fighter moves into position, retreives the sack, and drops it on the ground, releasing the squirrels. The squirrels die horrible, stabbity deaths, granting the fighter a few extra attacks against the main enemy in the process. Surviving squirrels are resucitated and returned to the burlap sack. The (nonmagical, regular-dimensional) burlap squirrel-sack is slung over the fighter's shoulder, or tied to the pack-mule, or whatever. If there's time, and the terrain is appropriate, the squirrel sack is restocked. At no point does the squirrel-sack spend 10 or more consecutive minutes inside a nondimensional space; thus, the squrrels are never in danger of suffocation. Dehydration, starvation, disease, crushing, yes; but not suffocation.
Lord Nedd 02-26-07, 08:01 PM	No, asphyxiation would not be an issue. Most of the time, the squirrels are carried in a normal burlap sack (it's part of the standard adventurer's kit for a reason) which does not have a limited supply of air. When the figher is expecting a fight, he puts the burlap sack inside the Heward's Handy Haversack as part of the pre-combat buffing process. Less than 10 minutes pass. The fight begins. The fighter moves into position, retreives the sack, and drops it on the ground, releasing the squirrels. The squirrels die horrible, stabbity deaths, granting the fighter a few extra attacks against the main enemy in the process. Surviving squirrels are resucitated and returned to the burlap sack. The (nonmagical, regular-dimensional) burlap squirrel-sack is slung over the fighter's shoulder, or tied to the pack-mule, or whatever. If there's time, and the terrain is appropriate, the squirrel sack is restocked. At no point does the squirrel-sack spend 10 or more consecutive minutes inside a nondimensional space; thus, the squrrels are never in danger of suffocation. Dehydration, starvation, disease, crushing, yes; but not suffocation. HAHAHA! Wow. You must not adventure in the games I have been involved with. I relish the moment that the party have enough forsight and time to get all buffed and *squirreled* out. Most of the time, the parties I have been involved with stumble upon the villains and we just have to do our best given the situation. We try and use spot and listen effectively. It just happens that the intelligent villains do as well. We mostly fight intelligent ones, so ... no bag of squirrels for the cleave-meisters, most of the time that is.
Sildatorak 02-27-07, 01:20 AM	So now you're investing in a magic item, as well.A relatively inexpensive magical item that pretty much every party should acquire early in their adventuring career. And relying on a misreading of the description of that item. From the SRD: "Retrieving any specific item from a haversack is a move action, but it does not provoke the attacks of opportunity that retrieving a stored item usually does." So you could retrieve one squirrel as a move action with the sack. So even if the rest of the trick worked, you'd only be gaining one bonus attack.I feel sorry for the person who puts a sack with 1000 gp in it into H's HH in your game. He'll spend almost an hour getting it back out. We're presuming reach now?No. We're presuming that you dump 4 squirrels in your own space. In this case withdrawing is a benefit to the squirrel-cleaving maniac. If his opponent is also a cleave machine then that may enable the dropper to get the AoO's when they leave the squirrels leave an adjacent square without allowing his opponent that opportunity. I don't keep squirrels in bags which may suffocate them and then dump them out in the middle of a battle. The situation doesn't seem particularly analogous to simply approaching a squirrel by the side of the road.Medium sized creatures putting squirrels within their reach can pretty much be assured that those squirrels will flee unless cornered. Then why the heck are you still arguing about it? :rolleyes:Because you called me a liar regarding it. What I was actually replying to: "I did give you the benefit of the doubt, though, and skimmed back through the thread to make sure I didn't miss anything key. My re-read of my own posts and Tony Vargas's show that we've been pretty focused on the rules/balance aspect of it, as has Marcas Majarra (on the "Cleave is fine" side)." Notice the complete absence of the phrase "long silence" from what I was actually describing as a lie.I assumed that you had missed the part that even came close to me saying I'd "never discussed" it. Here's a tip: Lying about what you said and when you said it is just not that effective in a medium where your words are preserved for everyone to see.This is advice you would do well to heed. If you lie again in order to attack me, I'll be reporting your posts to the moderators. I'm tolerant, but only up to a certain point."Again" necessitates a first instance. Go back through this thread and dig up a single lie on my part. Great. I'm glad to see you concede the point. Perhaps you'll stop talking about it now.I did not concede the point you asked me to concede. Arguably != Perfectly. Am I referring to the rules which make it a bad idea to turn your back and walk away from someone who can hit you with a big sword?I'm actually referring to the rules that make it difficult to have a running battle that travels more than 5' per round without favoring the person who has slower reactions (i.e. lower initiative). Perhaps my example would have been more clear if character one had attacked before he moved. Attacks of opportunity do allow for greater simultaneity in that they allow characters out of turn action, but their punitive nature for certain actions is much more clear than their reinstatement of a limited degree of simultaneity. Oh, right. I forgot. You don't have a firm grasp of what the rules do or why they do it... And you insist on demonstrating this over and over and over again.For someone who threatens to report me for ad hominem attacks, you sure have a lot of them yourself.
strange_person 02-27-07, 01:44 AM	HAHAHA! Wow. You must not adventure in the games I have been involved with. I relish the moment that the party have enough forsight and time to get all buffed and *squirreled* out. Most of the time, the parties I have been involved with stumble upon the villains and we just have to do our best given the situation. We try and use spot and listen effectively. It just happens that the intelligent villains do as well. We mostly fight intelligent ones, so ... no bag of squirrels for the cleave-meisters, most of the time that is. The assumption in D&D seems to be that the charachters are, at least occasionally, invading a monster's home and provoking a fight. In a situation like that, they can cast a variety of spells beforehand to improve their chances of success. "Stow Squirrel Reserve" would effectively become such a spell. That your group doesn't typically have the time to prepare, or doesn't think to do so when they get the chance, is irrelevant. This is a highly specialized tactic, and it isn't going to be used every time, any more than Tenser's Transformation would be. Most of the time, someone with Combat Reflexes and Great Cleave would be hoping for an ambush by overwhelming numbers of low-hp mooks, a situation where they could really shine by getting themselves surrounded and taking the heat off the rest of the party, and then slaughtering the mooks in a combination of cleaving full attacks and AoOs against trip/grapple attempts. Using this tactic in a situation like that, where no durable "boss-monster" is present, would be a waste of time and squirrels.
Elderich 02-27-07, 03:39 PM	The squirrel's would still be a swarm. Not individual animals.
Sildatorak 02-27-07, 03:43 PM	The squirrel's would still be a swarm. Not individual animals.For 4 of them? 4 full BAB attacks per round is still clearly exploitative even if it isn't quite the Win Button that a sac of 30+ is.
Elderich 02-27-07, 03:47 PM	For 4 of them? 4 full BAB attacks per round is still clearly exploitative even if it isn't quite the Win Button that a sac of 30+ is.I do not understand your post?
strange_person 02-27-07, 04:20 PM	4 Tiny animals does not a swarm make. They could all occupy the charachter's space normally, since they're two sizes smaller. Look up the rules for swarms, and check the numbers. A swarm is hundreds or thousands of individual creatures, depending on size; even Large creatures need 12 individuals to make a Mob (dmg II).
Elderich 02-27-07, 04:38 PM	No, allies do provoke. In Heroes of Horror, one of the Depravity symptoms compels you to take every attack of opportunity available, including those provoked by your allies.No they do not. The melee combat rules assume that combatants are actively avoiding attacks. A player doesn’t have to declare anything special for her character to be on the defensive. Even if a character’s miniature figure is just standing there on the battle grid, you can be sure that if some orc with a falchion attacks the character, she is weaving, dodging, and even threatening the orc with a weapon to keep the orc a little worried for his own hide. Sometimes, however, 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 (see the diagram on the next page). Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you’re unarmed, you don’t normally threaten any squares and thus can’t make attacks of opportunity (but see Unarmed Attacks, page 139).Specifically only "An enemy" provokes. There may be exceptions under specific cases, but they are exceptions. The bag of rats is not an enemy. At best it is a neutral party.
strange_person 02-27-07, 04:54 PM	Treacherous: Any time the chance to make an attack of opportunity presents itself, whether against an opponent or an ally, make a DC 20 Will save. If you fail the save, you must make the attack of opportunity, even if the target is you closest ally. If presented with multiple targets, determine randomly which you attack. Before the descriptions for spells in Tome of Magic, there is a note that "enemy" just refers to the target of a damaging or hindering spell, on the assumption that you would target such a spell on an enemy. There is nothing about the squirrels' neutrality or indifference to the conflict that makes them immune to AoOs. Just so we're clear, I agree with you in thinking that the bag-o'-rats isn't a particularly appropriate tactic, but I won't tolerate people attacking it with bad logic, or twisting the RAW just so it won't work.
Sildatorak 02-27-07, 07:02 PM	I do not understand your post?Sorry, I'll be a little more clear. 4 squirrels is not a swarm. The exploit is more pronounced if you used a lot of squirrels, but then the DM might call it a swarm with justification. Just using 4 squirrels per bag is still an exploit, even though it isn't as devastating as using a bag with many, many squirrels in it.
Elderich 02-28-07, 12:44 PM	Before the descriptions for spells in Tome of Magic, there is a note that "enemy" just refers to the target of a damaging or hindering spell, on the assumption that you would target such a spell on an enemy.So for a spell, in the TOMB of MAGIC, one may substitute "enemy" for target. This does not errata the PHB, or modify the rules for AoO's.There is nothing about the squirrels' neutrality or indifference to the conflict that makes them immune to AoOs.Strawman. They are not immune to AoO's (which you are implying), they do not create AoO's. Just so we're clear, I agree with you in thinking that the bag-o'-rats isn't a particularly appropriate tactic, but I won't tolerate people attacking it with bad logic, or twisting the RAW just so it won't work. It does not work. Your quote for the feat "Treacherous" is, like all feats, a very specific exception to the rules. It does not apply generally. The rats in the Bag o' Rats do not provoke.
catsclaw 02-28-07, 12:54 PM	The rats in the Bag o' Rats do not provoke.What if you only choose rats who personally dislike you? Seriously, the "the rats are allied to you" argument is just silly. Suppose you knocked out a bunch of Kobolds, reduced them to tiny, and carried them around in a sack? Would they provoke attacks of opportunity as they ran away?
strange_person 02-28-07, 01:03 PM	The ToM reference was just there to prove that the designers use "enemy" to mean "target of a damaging effect" rather than it referring exclusively to creatures which are actively trying to harm you. The Treacherous symptom is, as you state, an exception to the normal rules; but it also helps to explain how the normal rules work. It shows that allies "present opportunities" too, but it's normally assumed that you don't take those opportunities.
Elderich 02-28-07, 01:09 PM	What if you only choose rats who personally dislike you? Seriously, the "the rats are allied to you" argument is just silly. Suppose you knocked out a bunch of Kobolds, reduced them to tiny, and carried them around in a sack? Would they provoke attacks of opportunity as they ran away?They would take the full defense action and stay in your square? When the spell expired they would take a withdrawal action and not provoke? What they will not do is allow a silly and unreasonable attempt to exploit the rules. Remember they are under the DM's control.
Elderich 02-28-07, 01:12 PM	The ToM reference was just there to prove that the designers use "enemy" to mean "target of a damaging effect" rather than it referring exclusively to creatures which are actively trying to harm you.Again, it refers to spells. Not general combat.The Treacherous symptom is, as you state, an exception to the normal rules; but it also helps to explain how the normal rules work. It shows that allies "present opportunities" too, but it's normally assumed that you don't take those opportunities.It does no such thing. Feats are exceptions, and cannot be taken in the general case. Nothing about them can be taken in the general case. Ever. Never Ever. Understand?
Sildatorak 02-28-07, 01:28 PM	It looks like we're back to defining enemy again. OK, either enemy is defined subjectively or objectively. If it is objective, then get yourself combat reflexes and improved unarmed strike and you are now a mystery solving machine. Just have every suspect stand next to you. The one that you can attack as they walk away is the one who is your enemy. I think it is safe to say that this way is not correct. If it is subjective, then the character in question is defining their enemy. This could be applied in a couple of ways. One allows them to switch who is their enemy at will, the other makes them be fairly consistent with who their enemies are. Neither of these prohibits you from taking care of hostages/prisoners that you eventually intend to execute while still considering them your enemies. Of course, there is another possibility. Perhaps, just perhaps, the authors of the game intended for the rules to be worthwile generalizations rather than explicit and exact instructions for every single possibility in the game. In this scenario, they didn't consider that sometimes you may want to attack your friends or chose to gloss over it. This is the way I run it in my games. If you are the standing next to your buddy who is performing a CDG on a fallen foe, I like to give you the option of knocking his blade away if you want that downed enemy alive for some reason.
Sildatorak 02-28-07, 01:33 PM	Again, it refers to spells. Not general combat.It does no such thing. Feats are exceptions, and cannot be taken in the general case. Nothing about them can be taken in the general case. Ever. Never Ever. Understand?Your allies would have to provoke attacks of opportunity for the symptom to work as written. It doesn't say "your allies now provoke attacks of opportunity." It says that you have a chance of taking the attacks of opportunity that your allies provoke whether you want to or not. Of course this could just be an author's flub in HoH.
Elderich 02-28-07, 01:50 PM	It looks like we're back to defining enemy again. OK, either enemy is defined subjectively or objectively.STRAWMAN "Enemy" is only defined for the SPELLS in TOM. Only. Nothing else.
Elderich 02-28-07, 01:53 PM	Of course this could just be an author's flub in HoH.Use whatever excuse lets you sleep. Remember HoH cannot Errata the combat section of the PHB. Ever. Never ever.
catsclaw 02-28-07, 05:09 PM	What they will not do is allow a silly and unreasonable attempt to exploit the rules. Remember they are under the DM's control.Isn't it just easier to tell your player "Yes, the rules don't model this situation particularly well at all, and don't try it or you're not going to get invited back to the next game"? Once you start doing stupid things in response to a player doing stupid things, you're in an arms race you really don't want to win.
malignor 02-28-07, 05:41 PM	A few points to bring up here summoned AoO-magnets: Summoned creatures attack the caster's enemy, not his allies (read Summon Monster). Thus summoning a bunch of dire rats and commanding them to grapple the allied fighter is unlikely to work, unless you have some way of communicating with the rats. bag-o-rats: Rats that flee would be fleeing as a full withdrawal, and thus provoke no AoOs. Chances are pretty good they'd just stand around for a bit, or scuttle away, essentially doing nothing to provoke an AoO. The requirements: This tactic soaks up a bit of MAD (strength and dexterity), enough to qualify for the PA chain, and enough dexterity to get enough AoOs per round to take full advantage of this. It also soaks up 4 feats. Thus it's most likely to be used by a fighter or a high level melee class. This is a benefit that's thus mechanically expensive to set up. Why pull the rug out from underneath them, now that they've built up their little trick? Melee Classes Cheese: Is there really such a thing? How many threads exist right now that are talking about how weak the fighter is? The Barbarian, Ranger and Paladin are all considered pitiful when stood next to CoDzilla, a wizard or even a Sorcerer. Why cry "nerf" on a character who finally found a way to shine, despite being so mechanically weak from their choice of class? The trick is indeed cheesy: Taking advantage of this setup in legitimate combat is incredible when it's done right. The chance for a single warrior to tally up a nice body count (instead of the spellcasters, who can do it every day) is always good. However, if the PCs are using metagaming to take advantage of game mechanics when none of the characters own a PHB (even if the player who's running the character does), understand what's going on: pure metagaming. Ask the players if they really want to open the Pandora's box known as "metagaming allowed", since it gives NPCs far more power than the PCs. You don't have to ask nicely, you just have to call a spade a spade, and make sure everyone knows what happens when you're consistent: every trick they can do, you can do better. In short, I think the mechanics are great. They provide a rare chance to shine for those warrior classes. But abusing it with summons, bags-o-rats and other tactics which can only exist in a metagame mind is a no-no in my games. Not because it's cheesy, but because it's metagaming which, if allowed, results in a more childish and munchiknized game all around. Some folks like those munchy games. I'm not a fan, personally. But if the players get munchy and insist that it's in-game thinking, I won't waste my breath arguing with kids. Instead, I'll just prove myself a far more successful childish muchkin than they, so they better bring a stack of extra character sheets.
Merestil Haye 02-28-07, 06:20 PM	About one of your points.bag-o-rats: Rats that flee would be fleeing as a full withdrawal, and thus provoke no AoOs. Chances are pretty good they'd just stand around for a bit, or scuttle away, essentially doing nothing to provoke an AoO.This is not a soundly based objection, I'm afraid. The fighter drops the contents of the bag. Where do they land? Do they land in his square or an adjacent one? The answer is, in general, that the item lands in his square. Thus that is where the rats land. If they then Withdraw they leave his square, which he threatens, and then leave the adjacent square, which he also threatens. But the Withdraw action only allows the retreating creature to leave the square in which it started movement without attracting AoOs. Therefore when it leaves the second square, the rat provokes an AoO whether it is Withdrawing or not. If the contents of the bag are thrown into an adjacent square, then they are (by definition) moving. This movement provokes AoOs. However, any attempt by the fighter to take those AoOs would be met with a check that he's not trying to wield a 2-handed weapon in one hand. After all it's an action to retrieve the bag and an action to empty it (whether into his own space or another) so he can be taking these AoOs only with a one-handed weapon, thus greatly reducing the potential for devastation. The fighter can indeed drop the bag as a free action after retrieving it, but if he does so the rats will still be in the bag, not scurrying about to provoke the AoOs that the fighter is actually after.
strange_person 02-28-07, 06:23 PM	Again, it refers to spells. Not general combat.It does no such thing. Feats are exceptions, and cannot be taken in the general case. Nothing about them can be taken in the general case. Ever. Never Ever. Understand? Okay. First of all, Tome is spelled with an E. it's hard to take you completely seriously when you don't know the difference between a book full of spells and a box full of dead people. Second, a definitinon is a definition. Nowhere does it say that the given definition of "enemy" refers only to the fluff in the spells in that one book, and that every other occurence of the word in every other WotC book uses a completely different definition, which is what you seem to think. Third, "treacherous" isn't a feat. Please read the book in question before you start assuming you understand it better than I do. Fourth, even if it was a feat, the information I used would be the equivalent of the "Normal:" section of a feat description, where the exact benefit is clarified by contrasting it with the default condition. The information in the "Normal:" section most certainly can be taken in "the general case." Fifith, the Summon spells clearly state that the caster can direct the creatures to attack specific enemies, or do things other than attack. Having a group of small, low-speed creatures grab onto a barbarian might in itself be a legitimate tactic to, for example, allow the barbarian to jump across a gap and bring them along as flankers. If the barbarian instead decides to take the AoOs and splat the rats, well, that's her decision, and the combination of surprise and flying rat-bits might be enough to distract nearby enemies and allow extra attacks.
Sildatorak 02-28-07, 07:12 PM	"Enemy" is only defined for the SPELLS in TOM. Only. Nothing else.Exactly. "Enemy" is not a defined game term. Even if it was, who would decide what qualifies as an enemy? Either a character can (subjective) or an outside force can (objective). In either case, it is not difficult for those squirrels to be an enemy. If it is subjective and the character decides his enemies, then the character can pick the squirrels as hostile. If it is subjective and the squirrels pick their enemies or if it is objective, then the character simply needs to resort to the bag o' abused squirrels. The creatures in the bag must meet three criteria for this trick to work: 2) Will scatter. 3) Can fit in your space in multiples. 4) Are your enemy. Unless the DM is specifically countering this tactic, creatures exist that will meet all of those criteria. What they will not do is allow a silly and unreasonable attempt to exploit the rules. Remember they are under the DM's control.If a character can cleave off of an orc who runs past, how is it silly to try to set yourself up so that similar situations will present themselves? What is an exploit in multiples is an exploit in single, as well, even if it isn't abusive. If you desire a consistent rule set and creatures that act consistently, cleaving into non-provoking foes has to go to nerf the abusive exploits. Tony Vargas's houserule on this does a superb job of eliminating the exploits while still maintaining the possibility of cleaving into others who have dropped their guard.
Elderich 03-01-07, 03:47 PM	Nowhere does it say that the given definition of "enemy" refers only to the fluff in the spells in that one book, and that every other occurence of the word in every other WotC book uses a completely different definition, which is what you seem to think.And humans nowhere have only two hands, so they can have 100? No. Unless the rule is specifically expansive, we assume it is narrowly defined. Under no circumstance may a secondary source errata the core rule. The beginning of every FAQ says so. It is never allowed. Ever. Never ever. If a character can cleave off of an orc who runs past, how is it silly to try to set yourself up so that similar situations will present themselves? What is an exploit in multiples is an exploit in single, as well, even if it isn't abusive. If you desire a consistent rule set and creatures that act consistently, cleaving into non-provoking foes has to go to nerf the abusive exploits.If you cannot except that an enemy is an opponent than there is no basis for discussion. Again, you are talking a clarification for spell targets in one book and extending the definition generally. The creatures in the bag must be enemy's. If the definition of an enemy is in doubt, it is the role of the DM to make a ruling.
strange_person 03-01-07, 05:00 PM	And humans nowhere have only two hands, so they can have 100? Bad example. Humans are creatures of the type "humanoid," and humanoid is defined in the MM as having two arms and two legs. Also, the PHB contains numerous pictures of humans and other humanoids, and none of them apear to have more than two hands. There's a picture in the XPH of a humanoid (dwarf) with only one hand, but that's because his other hand is being replaced, using the Graft Weapon power. If you're going to strawman, think it through before you post. The creatures in the bag must be enemy's. If the definition of an enemy is in doubt, it is the role of the DM to make a ruling. On this, I agree with you. The decision is ultimately with the DM. However, I think the definition of "enemy" (and, while you dispute the universality of the definition in the ToM, you have yet to show a definition from any WotC book that supports your point) isn't in serious doubt.
Sildatorak 03-01-07, 06:24 PM	Under no circumstance may a secondary source errata the core rule.I never said it did. I have intentionally avoided using the HoH as a universal case. The creatures in the bag must be enemy's. If the definition of an enemy is in doubt, it is the role of the DM to make a ruling.If the DM is applying rulings consistently, I can easily have a bag of enemies. If you go with the opponent definition, then I will simply play a game of "you try to run away and I try to kill you" with the squirrels as my opponents. If it is based on their hostility towards me, I can abuse them until they hate me. If it is based on my hostility toward them, it is simply a matter of picking the squirrels that I hate the most and can't wait to skewer. The only way for bag o' abused squirrels to be unworkable within the RAW is for the DM to specifically nerf it. Since the DM nerfed it, it is safe to assume that he found it to be exploitative. If it is exploitative, the problem lies within the rules and should be corrected (assuming you want a consistent rule set). In this case, the exploit lies with aiming cleaves at non-provoking targets.
Elderich 03-02-07, 01:01 PM	As I see it this is just repetition. I am done if you got nothing new. And the MM says "Humanoid: A humanoid usually has two arms, two legs, and one head, or a humanlike torso, arms, and a head. Humanoids have few or no supernatural or extraordinary abilities, but most can speak and usually have well-developed societies. They usually are Small or Medium. Every humanoid creature also has a subtype, such as elf, goblinoid, or reptilian." And that only means USUALLY, so they can have 100?
calvinNhobbes 03-02-07, 05:40 PM	Wrong. We've discussed whether or Cleave should be allowed off of attacks of opportunity, which is a rules discussion. Actually you are wrong. Discussing whether Cleave should be allowed on AOOs is NOT a rules discussion. The rules are very clear, AOO are allowed with Cleave (See the FAQ). The discussion is whether you think that is balanced or reflects what you think Cleave should represent. That is all personal opinion. If all we were doing was discussing the RAW the thread would have been over on page 1.
strange_person 03-02-07, 06:02 PM	As I see it this is just repetition. I am done if you got nothing new. And the MM says "Humanoid: A humanoid usually has two arms, two legs, and one head, or a humanlike torso, arms, and a head. Humanoids have few or no supernatural or extraordinary abilities, but most can speak and usually have well-developed societies. They usually are Small or Medium. Every humanoid creature also has a subtype, such as elf, goblinoid, or reptilian." And that only means USUALLY, so they can have 100? You're not even trying to make a coherent point. You're just babbling. As far as I can tell, the definition of humanoid in the MM has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. Please either clarify the relevance of your comments or shut up.
Elderich 03-02-07, 06:07 PM	The discussion is whether you think that is balanced or reflects what you think Cleave should represent. That is all personal opinion. If all we were doing was discussing the RAW the thread would have been over on page 1. Perhaps I am wrong but quite a few still think this trick works by RAW, which is dubious.
calvinNhobbes 03-02-07, 07:36 PM	Perhaps I am wrong but quite a few still think this trick works by RAW, which is dubious. Ah, but they are not arguing whether you get to Cleave off AOOs, they are arguing what situations provoke an AOO. You can try to DM hand-wave all you want to close the bag-o-X tricks, but if you allow the AOOs then they get to Cleave. Either way is not 100% supported by the RAW, so both are dubious, hence the multitude of opinions and the numerous pages of discussions. If it was crystal clear then there would be nothing to discuss.
Elderich 03-03-07, 02:42 PM	Ah, but they are not arguing whether you get to Cleave off AOOs, they are arguing what situations provoke an AOO. You can try to DM hand-wave all you want to close the bag-o-X tricks, but if you allow the AOOs then they get to Cleave. Either way is not 100% supported by the RAW, so both are dubious, hence the multitude of opinions and the numerous pages of discussions. If it was crystal clear then there would be nothing to discuss.I think most think it is "crystal clear", but not everyone sees the same crystal. The vast majority of this discussion, as I see it, has been "this is how I think these feats should be house ruled." I do not see anyone saying that the rules say you cannot cleave of AoO's. But perhaps I missed a post or 20. My point is one does not need to wave anything but the RAW at the "Bag o' X" It just does not work by RAW, as I have pointed out.
calvinNhobbes 03-04-07, 11:17 PM	I think most think it is "crystal clear", but not everyone sees the same crystal. Actually, I do not think most is accurate. Obviously the most vocal think it is clear. The majority of posters just state their opinion (and why it is just their opinion due to the ambiguious nature of Cleave) and move on. The vast majority of this discussion, as I see it, has been "this is how I think these feats should be house ruled." Exactly, that is NOT a rules discussion. That is people stating their opinions on how the rule could be changed. I do not see anyone saying that the rules say you cannot cleave of AoO's. But perhaps I missed a post or 20. Yes, you missed a few posts. People have not stated the official rules disallow this. People have given their opinion for making such a house rule for Cleave. My point is one does not need to wave anything but the RAW at the "Bag o' X" It just does not work by RAW, as I have pointed out. I would disagree. I've read your posts. The "rules" you have presented to negate the bag-o-X loopholes are merely your personal interpretations and manipulations of the rules. Other interpretations are definitely possible. I've read your posts, so I know you will disagree with me and insist your interpretation is absolute law. I have no interest arguing over such pettiness, so I will just leave it at that. Have a good day.
Shatteredtower 03-05-07, 11:33 PM	Actually you are wrong.False from the first sentence. Discussing whether Cleave should be allowed on AOOs is NOT a rules discussion.Any discussion of whether the rules should be changed is a rules discussion.
calvinNhobbes 03-06-07, 09:32 AM	False from the first sentence. Nope, you are wrong again. Any discussion of whether the rules should be changed is a rules discussion. No, it is not. If you want a new law you do not go to court to discuss it (even the Supreme Court can only interpret the laws and Constitution and cannot make new laws). You go to Congress. It is obvious you do not understand the difference. Let me help you. Rules as written = fact House rules = opinion WOTC has even given us two different forums to discuss it. This thread happens to be on the wrong forum but that still does not mean we are discussing the rules. In the future I would suggest not telling someone they are wrong when it is obvious you do not grasp the finer points of the discussion.