Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Fromost the Grimm 10-12-04, 05:45 PM	Okay, in reading that-there other thread about Bag o' Ratsin' and the likes, it's very obvious that being able to cleave off of an AoO is a given. This is somewhat frustrating when, in the campaign I'm playing in, we can't do this . . . not because the DM has house-ruled so, but because he interprets the RAW as such. So I've searched these boards, and out-side of these boards . . . and whilst there are many threads/posts/references to this, there's nothing official. A lot of people say "yes, of course you can . . . " but give no reference for such. And I can't just say to my DM " . . . well, this guy on the web says you can, so . . . " . . . and thus I ask, could some Lawful Good, altruistic samaritan please be so kind as to refer me to an official-type ruling/posting that states one can cleave off of an AoO, so that I may then present this to my DM whence next I doth cleave, with a self-satisfied smirk 'pon my 11 Charisma face . . ? Please please please pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease . . ? .
Valkrist 10-12-04, 05:57 PM	CLEAVE [GENERAL] 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 at 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. Note that it says NOTHING about under what circumstances you have to drop the creature. It does NOT say it must be your turn, only that you can only do this once (and then you layer Great Cleave, etc). Making an Attack of Opportunity: An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack, and you can only make one per round. You don’t have to make an attack of opportunity if you don’t want to. Does not say you cannot use any feat that normally applies to a single melee attack on it. If you wanted to restrict this, you might claim that the Cleave was behaving as an AoO, and thus required you to have Combat Reflexes, but that's a pretty weak arguement.
Tony Vargas 10-12-04, 07:08 PM	"Doesn't say you can't" is not proof that you can. (Nor is "doesn't say you can" proof that you can't.) There isn't an official ruling, and the PH is open to interpretation - it becomes a value judgement. Your DM has ruled that you can't cleave off an AoO, and it's a reasonable ruling: it prevents potential abuse, eliminating an incentive for players to do silly things (eg the old bag'o'rats in a new guise). It's a little overly conservative, IMHO, since it also closes the door on other uses of great cleave that fit the genre well, but, that's just a matter of opinion.
q'afuu 10-12-04, 07:31 PM	Your DM has ruled that you can't cleave off an AoO, and it's a reasonable ruling: it prevents potential abuse, eliminating an incentive for players to do silly things (eg the old bag'o'rats in a new guise). While it's certainly reasonable, there's really no logical argument for the decision. It's not a matter of 'doesn't say you can't' - the book says you can: "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." That should be pretty clear, IMO.
Timori 10-12-04, 07:36 PM	While it's certainly reasonable, there's really no logical argument for the decision. It's not a matter of 'doesn't say you can't' - the book says you can: "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." That should be pretty clear, IMO. There's a perfectly logical reason - it was an AoO against someone who DROPPED THEIR GUARD, hence the AoO. The other victim did not drop their guard, therefore did not provoke an AoO and is therefore not a valid target. Assume that the cleave was parried, dodged or otherwise avoided by the other combatant because that's what he would be doing.
Tony Vargas 10-12-04, 08:03 PM	While it's certainly reasonable, there's really no logical argument for the decision. Oh, you can craft a logical argument for almost any position. As DM, you shouldn't need to craft a logical litteral-rules-minutiae argument, a reasonable ruling based on balance and playability should suffice, and, it seems to have in the above case. If you want a rationale, you can start with the AB of the cleave attack: What is it? It's the same bonus as the attack that dropped the foe. OK, when you drop someone with an AoO, what's the AB? Well, it's your full BAB. Why? Why not the reduced BAB from the last itterative attack you made in the prior round? Obviously /because it's an AoO/. Well, you can't hit an enemy with an AoO who didn't provoke one. The only valid target, therefor, when cleaving off an AoO is another provoking enemy - and, since simultaneous actions are not possible in 3E, there will never be another provoking enemy, therefore, you can never take a cleave attack off an AoO. :rolleyes: Now, I could stick with the above, and still come up with a rationale for /allowing/ cleave off an AoO, if you like... Remember, these are just the rules of a game - exacting logical analysis of the rules of a game, is, itself, just a game. Don't take it too seriously. ;)
Egres 10-12-04, 08:47 PM	While it's certainly reasonable, there's really no logical argument for the decision. It's not a matter of 'doesn't say you can't' - the book says you can: "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." That should be pretty clear, IMO. Agreed. In fact Negativa non sunt probanda
Someone 10-13-04, 02:34 AM	I disagree with the "you can only cleave into another AoO eligble target" bit. The ability to attack more than one provoker is covered by combat reflexes, not cleave. When you cleave under more normal circumstances, the recipient of your cleave attack is no more deserving than the one you attacked in the first place. So if your attack got through because his buddy was dumb and let his guard down, and that attack dropped him, it should be no different than if you had dropped him on your turn. That said, this situation shouldn't really happen that often. The most likely event is one opponent you are threatening runs away, and you whack them, drop them, and then carry over to their buddy. And if they turn to run, and you have combat reflexes, you would get an AoO on them too, and if you dropped them as well and had great cleave, you could carry over to a third, and so on.
Zelphi 10-13-04, 07:13 AM	I don't get this, you make an AOO - it kills them you get a cleave attempt. Where's the question? If you're asking about BAB, then there's no issue - it works at the attack that dropped the foe - which is the AOO's attack rating. It says nothing about valid targets. The ability to direct G.Cleaves is worse and probably dumb, could be changed to a target within 5ft of the person you dropped who is still in range of your attacks.
tarkin 10-13-04, 09:11 AM	1) Cleave is the single most powerfull feat out there. Yes, it is legal to cleave off an AoO. There is NO doubt about that. 2) The majority of intelligent DM's fairly quickly see that Cleaving off an AoO is incredibally abusive. 3) AoO's are situations where someone let's down their guard, thereby letting you turn what would have been a jab/fake attack into a real attack. If you then Cleave on it, you get to get a real extra attack against a third party. But the reason you could not take that extra attack on the third party was that they NEVER did anything let down their guard. So now what you are stating is that the fact that your ally threw a gerbil at you (who you then took an AoO on it, killing it) somehow distracted the third party to let you get an extra attack. Or the fact that you trained sheep to come to you when you call them, which you then AoO'd and killeed somehow distracted..... Or the fact that you entered a bar and started a bar fight (where you killed commoners somehow distracted.... Or the fact that your ally arranged to let you kill one or more of his Mirror Images somehow distracted.... Can you say UNREALISTIC, UNBALANCED, MUNCHKIN? Your third party is in a battle he should not be distracted by such trivilities. Yes techincally it is legal to Cleave off an AoO. WoTC made a mistake. A bad one. They made a stupid, munchkin rule. That does not mean that smart DM's are forced to folllow it.
Zelphi 10-13-04, 09:29 AM	"My sword cleaves through the gerbil and stabs him in the face". Ignoring that he'd get an AOO for using a ranged weapon in a space that you threatened. What the hell are you talking about? The AOO comes from someone letting their guard down The cleave attempt comes from an attack that felled someone You fell someone with an AOO and it moves onto a cleave onto another target. "I cut down the sheep and my thrust moves onto my aggressor". You're using some shody examples of AOO. If you're walking down the street and someone walks past you - you don't get an AOO. To get an AOO someone has to be agressive to you, you might get an AOO against a sheep if you were attacking it before hand, which is a stupid situation. I'm in the middle of a battle, and rather than try to kill the badguy - I have a go at some sheep? Cleave is perhaps poorly defined as it should only be part of a reasonable attack, if you're in range to take advantage of such a situation then the opponent would get Aoo's off the sheep as well. If all they do is move, then you're not threatening them, if you are threatening them then what? This is the most ridiculous overblown idocrascy since bag o'rats and whirlwind attack - and I can show how that never even worked. Stop gibbering on about these stupid scenarios and try reading the rules. Mirror images don't threaten, it doesn't work this is all hokey crap. You get AOO's off of a cleave and its perfectly reasonable because its an attack that payed off and you follow through with it. --One more thing. AOO's come from people dodging your blows and then not - generating an AOO. Many things aren't actively trying to avoid you or attack you so wouldn't generate AOO's anyway. Cleaves come through as one attack, not an extra independant attack, just a follow up to an attack - its not like an extra itterative attack its more of an extension of an attack.
Count Arioch the 28th 10-13-04, 09:40 AM	I object to you wording, Tarkin. I allow cleave off an AoO. So, you called me stupid, and munchkin, and whatever other ad hominem attacks you threw in there. Because you said "those who allow ___", that means you are insulting me as personally as if you rang my doorbell and called me those things to my face. I strongly suggest you drop the haughty attitude, it's not appreciated.
Timori 10-13-04, 10:14 AM	I just can't see the logic in allowing it. So one kobold stops to cast a spell, or bends down to pick up a dropped weapon. You make a quick stab to take advantage. That's an AoO. His pals don't all also stop. They continue weaving and dodging and attacking. Under a normal attack you get a cleave because you beat both kobold's defences. On an AoO the 2nd kobold is not doing anything to provoke one, so you don't get a chance to cleave BECAUSE HIS DEFENCES ARE NOT DOWN. It's probably legal by the letter of the book. But then I don't recall seeing that d20s need to be numbered 1 to 20, does that make one with just 20s legal? :) IMC it's disallowed. It's broken and doesn't make sense.
Shadowsouled 10-13-04, 10:34 AM	It really doesn't matter if the kobolds allies didn't stop dodging and weaving. The AoO came because one person let their guard down. The cleave then follows because the character selected a feat that says......... "If you deal a creature enough damage to make it drop (typically by dropping it to below 0 hit points or killing it), you get an immediate, extra melee attack against another creature within reach. You cannot take a 5-foot step before making this extra attack. The extra attack is with the same weapon and at the same bonus as the attack that dropped the previous creature." Lets take the argument that "because one opponent let his guard down doesn't mean his allies did". Okay, apply it to a normal melee round. On my action I move to my opponent and attack him. My attack drops him below 0 and I then cleave his ally. Why would his ally have "let his guard down"? The cleave attack is NOT an AoO, but it absolutely can follow an AoO. I really do not understand how this can be contested with the wording of the feat. So people abuse it with rats, gerbils, sheep, or whatever. That's when the DM gives an XP penalty for bad role-playing. The feat is not broken, you just have crappy role-players when this happens.
Count Arioch the 28th 10-13-04, 10:35 AM	If you think cleaving off an AoO is broken, you don't know what broken is. It's far from broken. I object to this, because this gives a small power up to melee classes, who desperately need it. A rare situational extra attack is not broken, because: 1. AoO's are rarely provoked except by players (Most DMs are too smart for that.) 2. It's rare when you kill something 3. You're not likely to kill the second mob with one attack anyway. (And if you did, unless you're at 1st level or so, you probably didn't get EXP from it anyway.)
Finarin Panjoro 10-13-04, 11:22 AM	Wow, finally a AoO/cleave thread with people who feel like I do! There is nothing inherently wrong or abusive about cleaves taken from AoOs. The only abuse comes when characters with great cleave and combat reflexes attempt to manufacture opponents to gain free attacks. This has never happened in one of my games. Legitimate AoO/cleaves have occured only rarely, but they've been tremendously enjoyable for the players when they did happen. Eliminating AoO/cleaves to close a rare-to-never occuring loophole is unjustly punishing the players for something that they may never even attempt to do.
q'afuu 10-13-04, 11:52 AM	There's a perfectly logical reason - it was an AoO against someone who DROPPED THEIR GUARD, hence the AoO. The other victim did not drop their guard, therefore did not provoke an AoO and is therefore not a valid target. No, that's not a logical reason: it's not based on what we can assume to be true, as set out by the rules. The rules don't say anything about someone not provoking not being a valid target for a cleave attack off an AoO, so that's not a logical argument. It's a sensible argument, but for an objective, purely intellectual rationale it doesn't count. Well, you can't hit an enemy with an AoO who didn't provoke one. The only valid target, therefor, when cleaving off an AoO is another provoking enemy - and, since simultaneous actions are not possible in 3E, there will never be another provoking enemy, therefore, you can never take a cleave attack off an AoO. Nuh-uh. You just equated a cleave attack off an AoO to another AoO. That's your houserule, but it's not what the rules say - as such, your rationale is wrong when it comes to the RAW.
q'afuu 10-13-04, 11:57 AM	1) Cleave is the single most powerfull feat out there.No, it's not. It's powerful when abused, but even then it's not as bad as say, Natural Attack, Improved Sunder, Improved Critical, Leadership and a number of others when they're being abused. If not abused, it's actually rather weak.
Elendur 10-13-04, 12:11 PM	I've always viewed cleave under the following definition2 : to penetrate or pass through something by or as if by cutting While it's represented by a separate attack, it's really not, it's just your mighty swing passing through one foe and on to another. So while the second enemy didn't provoke the attack of opportunity, he did make the mistake of standing next to the fighter swinging his axe around in a giant arc.
Tony Vargas 10-13-04, 02:27 PM	Lets take the argument that "because one opponent let his guard down doesn't mean his allies did". Okay, apply it to a normal melee round. On my action I move to my opponent and attack him. My attack drops him below 0 and I then cleave his ally. Why would his ally have "let his guard down"? He doesn't need to with a regular cleave. Cleave is not about the guy who's suffering the extra attack, it's about you & the enemy you dropped. You cut down one enemy and have time to press a normal, full-effect attack on another. In effect the attack that activated the Cleave was 'free' - you're committed to attacking, but aside from that, it's as if that attack never happened. No vulnerability of the guy you dropped, though, carries over to the one you're cleaving into - if you drop one guy with a sneak attack, but the other guy knew you were there, you don't get to SA him; if you cut down an orc with an orc-bane weapon, you don't get to do the extra orc-bane damage to the ogre you cleave into - the same should reasonably go for AoOs: you got the AoO because one enemy dropped his guard, you're not entitled to attack anyone else, even if you do drop him and have Cleave. And, as I outlined above, there is a rationale for disallowing cleave off an AoO - or, rather, for ruling that, though you might well activate cleave by dropping someone with an AoO, you can't actually ever use that attack on anyone else. Frankly, though, I don't think that sounds right, either. And, if you interpret 'immediate' a little broadly, there's no reason you couldn't make it work. Allow a Cleave off an AoO - but /only/ into the next enemy who provokes an AoO from you. Because the extra attack from cleaving must be immediate, you have to take it with the very next opportunity you're presented, or you lose it. Simple, consistent, fair, & closses the loophole Tarkin was ranting about...
Tony Vargas 10-13-04, 02:38 PM	I've always viewed cleave under the following definition While it's represented by a separate attack, it's really not, it's just your mighty swing passing through one foe and on to another. So while the second enemy didn't provoke the attack of opportunity, he did make the mistake of standing next to the fighter swinging his axe around in a giant arc. Well, aside from the fact that really doesn't work with rapiers (or a lot of other weapons), the conclusion doesn't follow. If the 'extra' attack from Cleave is the same attack (the same swing, even), then it's patently obvious that a Cleave off an AoO /is/ still an AoO, and anyone not provoking will be assumed to evade it, just like they do the regular play of attack/defense/counter-attack that's assumed to be happening between your actions... Visually: Gronch the Ogre is taking mighty swings at the pair of adventurers facing him. He cocks back his axe just as one of the adventurers begins casting a spell. Taking advantage of a rare spell-casting adventurer even dumber than an ogre, Gronch swings with all his considerable might in a broad arc, as low as he can easily reach (about chest height for the two adventurers). Normally the high, telegraphed blow would be easily ducked by both seasoned (they walked through Gronch's herb garden) adventurers, but one of them is distracted with his spell and gets cut in half....
Tony Vargas 10-13-04, 02:41 PM	You just equated a cleave attack off an AoO to another AoO. That's right - and the rules imply just that. They can also easily be read the other way. Pesky english language. And, like I said, you can further interpret another bit of the Cleave description to imply that the 'immediate' extra attack can wait until the next enemy provokes... afterall, between your actions, the most 'immediately' you can do something is on your next initiative... unless someone provokes an AoO...
Krelios 10-13-04, 02:45 PM	Unfortunately for the brighter adventurer, his companion's body did not stop the blow and now the axe head continues swinging into him...
Tony Vargas 10-13-04, 03:10 PM	And he ducks - he was, afterall, expecting his companion to duck, as well, but the idiot cast a spell... There's just no rationale for making an attack that /isn't/ an AoO between your actions. And, allowing non-AoOs between actions is just whacked-broken (as Tarkin pointed out). 'House Rule' or 'Interpretation,' Fromost's DM's call is hardly an unacceptable one.
Aurum 10-13-04, 03:13 PM	You can cleave off an AoO. Read the description: Cleave never uses the word 'attack' to describe how that damage is dealt, only that the attack has to come from the same weapon. 'Weapon' is a pretty generic term, since it basically means any object that can do damage. So, a Sorceror could conceivably Cleave with an Unarmed Strike after casting a Burning Hands spell, as long as one of the targets hit was dropped. AoO's do have to be melee attacks. There's an obvious counter to the AoO Cleave: don't provoke the AoO, especially if you're low on HP. Cast defensively, double-move or 5-foot step away, avoid the overly fancy that your character isn't good at. Don't hand the man getting ready to open another can of whoopass your pocket knife. This makes tactical sense, as only trained, prepared, or the overly daring should be able to stand up to an enemy capable of Cleaving _and_ be doing things fancy. It's called 'fighting in formation': suddenly breaking that formation might give the enemy a second's advantage that could do a lot of damage. And he ducks - he was, afterall, expecting his companion to duck The above would be consistent with someone who misses taking the hit from the AoO Cleave. In terms of strategy, this all seems fair. While the target after the Cleave might not be off their guard, I doubt they would expect the attack that just hit the person next to them to then continue into them, especially if they are suddenly distracted by an ally dropping. Cleave, in itself, is sortof a surprise action: it is an attack not aimed immediately at you that suddenly changes.
Tony Vargas 10-13-04, 03:50 PM	Cleave never uses the word 'attack' to describe how that damage is dealt, only that the attack has to come from the same weapon. Same weapon and same bonus, yes. That's the basis for counting a Cleave off an AoO as being an AoO. If it weren't an AoO, it wouldn't have the same bonus as the AoO. (For that matter, if it weren't an AoO, it wouldn't be happening between your actions). So, a Sorceror could conceivably Cleave with an Unarmed Strike after casting a Burning Hands spell, as long as one of the targets hit was dropped. I really don't think so. There's an obvious counter to the AoO Cleave: don't provoke the AoO, especially if you're low on HP. See Tarkin's post above. It is easy enough to manufacture AoOs for yourself, allowing you to get in extra attacks by cleaving off those AoOs. It's abusive. It's silly. It's a good reason not to allow Cleave off an AoO.
q'afuu 10-13-04, 04:16 PM	1) That's right - and the rules imply just that. 2) And, like I said, you can further interpret another bit of the Cleave description to imply that the 'immediate' extra attack can wait until the next enemy provokes... afterall, between your actions, the most 'immediately' you can do something is on your next initiative... unless someone provokes an AoO...1) Please elaborate. I don't see how the rules imply that a cleave off an AoO is another AoO. 2) Nope, sorry. The 'most immediately' is straight away, before anything else is resolved - all turns in one round happen simultaneously (or as simultaneously as possible in a turn-based system). The AoO, while resolved out of turn (for the one taking it), still happens sometime during the actions taking on that character's (and in fact, every character's) turn.
Tony Vargas 10-13-04, 05:04 PM	1) post #6, above. Like I said, the DM doesn't /need/ to provide a rationale for his rulings, but if you want to, you can rationalize just about anything. 2) Depends on if you take 'immediate' from the PoV of the overall initiative sequence, or from the PoV of the actions taken by the character with Cleave. I'll readily admit that the latter is a tad tenous, but, in this case, it retains some of the desireable aspects of Cleaving off an AoO, while leaving the loophole closed by (1), closed. The OP's DM's ruling is simple, and closes the undersirable loophole - I just pointed out that, if he wanted to, he could even find a rationale for it within the rules. Obviously, it's better to make a good ruling and call it a 'house rule' than make a bad one because it seems better supported by the letter of the rules. Rule 0 and all that. Since there isn't an official ruling on it, the decision comes down to what's best for the game. I suspect that preventing abuses like the ones Tarkin mentioned would be good for most games. But, I also believe that doing so while allowing some reasonble use of (Great)Cleave when you drop someone with an AoO would be even more desireable in many games - for instance, those wanting to include PC-warrior-vs-horde heroics along the lines of holding back waves of attacker from a gate or breach and the like...
CruelDM 10-13-04, 05:09 PM	See Tarkin's post above. It is easy enough to manufacture AoOs for yourself, allowing you to get in extra attacks by cleaving off those AoOs. This is a lame argument, its actually impossible to create an AoO for yourself, an AoO only occurs when your melee opponant opens himself due to bad combat tactics in areas you threaten, or by fleeing. You cant manufacture AoOs by having party members throw chipmunks at you, or by calling trained sheep to you, or by crushing an ant under your booted heel. Firstly, to gain an AoO it has to be against a combatant (enemy is used interchangebly) according to pg. 137 of the Players Handbook. A chipmunk, sheep or ant is not a combatant or an enemy, nor does it threaten you, therefore you cannot gain an AoO against it,. Secondly any player that would attempt to take the above actions and any DM that would allow them should turn in their RPGA cards and go play a video game, they obviously dont get the idea of role playing. If anyone in a group I played with even suggested some of the tactics I read in this post and others, I would be looking for a new group fast. That being said, a character with cleave can use the feat if an AoO drops the opponant, but the recipient of the cleave must be in a threatened area without the cleaving character having to move to any other square. I say this with conviction because there is nothing under the Attack of Opportunity rules that negates what is written under the cleave feat. Cleaving has nothing to do with any other enemy on the battlefield, there is no counter to the cleave feat, and nothing that can stop it from happening. It is solely based on the character having the feat, and the feat itself is very clearly written, leaving little room for interpretation. CLEAVE [GENERAL] 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 at 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. If the character has not used cleave in the round he drops an enemy using an AoO, he gets a cleave, period. Its all spelled out in black and white, if he made a cleave attempt that round already he does not get the chance to cleave (unless he has great cleave). Any ruling to the contrary is a house rule as the core books are explicitly clear and concise. Cleave itself is an attack of opportunity based from its wording, granted when you drop an opponant, an "immediate, extra melee attack". The only word in the whole Cleave feat description open to interpretation is "creature", but its pretty obvious that the intent was enemy or opponant, not gerbil, hamster, ant, sheep, or some other such nonsense.
Tony Vargas 10-13-04, 06:03 PM	The only word in the whole Cleave feat description open to interpretation is "creature", but its pretty obvious that the intent was enemy or opponant, not gerbil, hamster, ant, sheep, or some other such nonsense. So the only word in the whole description open to interpretation is the one you need to interpret more narrowly to make your argument work? I understand. That's, OK, for the balance of this reply, I'll just go with that... Any ruling to the contrary is a house rule as the core books are explicitly clear and concise. Fine, let's just accept that. Sometimes, a house rule is better than the rule you find in the book. This is probably such a case. Even given the interpretation that 'creature' means 'enemy' and even given the interpretation you gave above about what an 'enemy' must do to provoke an AoO is absolutely correct, Cleaving off an AoO is still whacked. It's begging for that 'house rule.' Here's an example. Fighter 4 with Combat Reflexes & Great Cleave, vs that classic BBEG, the Evil High Priest (EHP) and his skeleton minions: The fighter, EHP, and 7 skeletons are in melee (the undead and thier master surrounding the fighter) in a (ever popular ) 10'x10' stone corridor. Beyond them, is a Cleric 1, an ally of the fighter. (Now, as an aside, in 3.0, if the Fighter also put 4 feats into getting WWA (now he's at least 6th or so), he could have (theoretically, if his DM didn't 'house rule' it) made a WWA, hitting the EHP once, and hitting and destroying each of the 7 skelletons - and cleaving into the EHP /seven more times/. This was rightly deemed just crazy-imbalanced and 'nerfed' in the 3.5 version of WWA. Compare and contrast that to what we have now...) Cleric's initiative, he successfully turns all 7 skeletons (not hard, even for a 1st level cleric). Next up, the skeletons - they flee, away from the cleric. Maybe the two on either side of the EHP can withdraw, rather than run, I forget, but, at minimum, the other 5, in moving away from the Cleric, will provoke AoOs. In any case, the fighter (Combat Reflexes, 18 DEX) can make 5 AoOs against fleeing skelletons, hitting and destorying each skelleton in turn and Cleaving into the EHP /five times/. Interesting variation: The EHP never commands the skelletons to atack, instead meleeing the fighter alone. The fighter gains no advantage. Interesting variation2: Make that a Cleric 4. He turns the skelletons, and they're /destroyed/. The fighter gain no benefit. It's the same sort of abuse as the "Bag 'o Rats" which got a lot of attention on the boards a few years ago, and was 'nerfed' in 3.5 (the AoO/Cleave issue was barely mentioned at the time, or we might not even be having this discussion). As you can see, the exploit isn't just similar in kind, but is about as over-powered (it may give fewer unwarranted extra attacks, but it's easier to get the feats together for). So, we have a rule that makes it an /advantage/ to face more foes rather than just one, and an /advantage/ to have a weaker ally backing you instead of a stronger one. Conversely, it makes the perfectly reasonable tactic of using popcorn allies to give you a flanking bonus into potential suicide. ....Hmmm... might a 'house rule' to eliminate that be desireable?
ganda1f 10-13-04, 06:07 PM	This is a lame argument, its actually impossible to create an AoO for yourself, an AoO only occurs when your melee opponant opens himself due to bad combat tactics in areas you threaten, or by fleeing. You cant manufacture AoOs by having party members throw chipmunks at you, or by calling trained sheep to you, or by crushing an ant under your booted heel. Exactly! And you only get one cleave per round anyway - so if the enemy you strike is in a threatened square, and then you cleave, all you are doing is using the Cleave feat at that moment rather than at any other moment in the round. You aren't getting a *free* - or extra - Cleave, you're just using it at that moment. Not to mention that half the time the PC would have *already* used the Cleave feat in the round, so it becomes a moot point. Cleave is a very powerful feat - but no more powerful than a mage with half a dozen Sleep spells up his sleeve, or a Rogue who is in an enemies flanks and receiving Sneak Attacks every round.
q'afuu 10-13-04, 06:28 PM	1) post #6, above. Like I said, the DM doesn't /need/ to provide a rationale for his rulings, but if you want to, you can rationalize just about anything. Sorry, but that's hardly an implication. 'The cleave attack uses the same (full) AB as the AoO and not, for instance, the AB of the last iterative attack so it must also be an AoO' is rather spurious as an argument, especially since (back to the all-turns-in-a-round-happen-simultaneously argument again) the AoO and consequently the cleave attack can happen at pretty much any point in the round. Whether that's before or after the last iterative attack is unspecified. A cleave off an AoO doesn't count against your number of AoOs for the round - that pretty clearly prves such a cleave is not an AoO. The OP's DM's ruling is simple, and closes the undersirable loophole - I just pointed out that, if he wanted to, he could even find a rationale for it within the rules. And I just pointed out that your rationale has no real ground in the rules. It's certainly a good spin on things, but the rules don't back it up in any way.
Tony Vargas 10-13-04, 06:54 PM	'The cleave attack uses the same (full) AB as the AoO and not, for instance, the AB of the last iterative attack so it must also be an AoO' ... Sorry, but that's hardly an implication. Sure it is, tenuous, perhaps, but the implication that the 'extra' attack from Cleave is the same sort of attack as the one that dropped the original enemy is there. It's sensible. And it does lead to some desireable conclusions - closing both the current AoO and the original WWA loopholes, for instance. especially since (back to the all-turns-in-a-round-happen-simultaneously argument again) the AoO and consequently the cleave attack can happen at pretty much any point in the round. Whether that's before or after the last iterative attack is unspecified. I think the cyclical initiative system puts actions that happen on an action /before/ those that happen on the next guy's action. Simultenaiety might be nice, conceptually, but the initiative system is a far cry from it. AoO's happen on someone else's initiative, regular attacks don't. It's OK for your Cleave to happen on someone else's initiative, but it's very not-OK for that 'extra' attack to be treated like a regular one... A cleave off an AoO doesn't count against your number of AoOs for the round - that pretty clearly prves such a cleave is not an AoO. Ih, it's an 'immediate, extra' AoO. And I just pointed out that your rationale has no real ground in the rules. It's certainly a good spin on things, but the rules don't back it up in any way. It /is/ a good spin on things, isn't it? I think it's usually a lot better to pick the interpretation that's best for the game, not the one that might, by the tennets of logic, 'best' fit the letter of the rules. Sometimes, it's worth it to present a rationale for that ruling, and sometimes, it's OK to just say 'No,' and leave it at that. Seriously, it seems like the objective of many posts in these forums is to 'prove' that someone else's interpretation is a 'house rule.' A 'house rule' that closes a stupid loophole is better than an 'official' rule that leaves it open. In the absence of even an stupid official ruling, though, we're free to go with whatever interpretation we want - maybe it'll be a 'house rule,' but, at this point either every interpretation of the issue is a 'house rule' (because there's no official ruling to support them) or none of them are (because there's no official ruling to contradict them). Not that an official ruling has ever been enough to convince everyone...
CruelDM 10-13-04, 07:27 PM	So, we have a rule that makes it an /advantage/ to face more foes rather than just one, and an /advantage/ to have a weaker ally backing you instead of a stronger one. Conversely, it makes the perfectly reasonable tactic of using popcorn allies to give you a flanking bonus into potential suicide. ....Hmmm... might a 'house rule' to eliminate that be desireable? What we actually have is a feat that gives an advantage to a character when facing multiple enemies. Nowhere did anyone imply that a weaker ally was an advantage, but I can see your point of view. Consider this though, for the fight to play out the way you state, the fighter has to be 6th level to compete with the abilities of a 1st level cleric (handling 7 skeletons in one round) Also, your example is pretty specific, almost any other encounter wouldnt play out that way at all. If any of the EHP's minions/companions were not undead, or higher level undead for instance. So the only word in the whole description open to interpretation is the one you need to interpret more narrowly to make your argument work? By stating that "creature" was the only word open to interpretation I only meant that the feat description is pretty cut and dry, plainly stated, and that theres not much room to argue what it does. Even given the interpretation that 'creature' means 'enemy' and even given the interpretation you gave above about what an 'enemy' must do to provoke an AoO is absolutely correct, Cleaving off an AoO is still whacked. I admit it is my interpretation that creature means enemy or opponant, but if you left it to include any "creature" lets play it out, assuming a character has cleave and multiple attacks, he sacrifices one regular attack against a true opponant to attack any other "creature" he threatens (bag o rats concept here), lets say a groundhog, lets also assume he kills it, what has he gained? Absolutely nothing, he gained a cleave attack at his last BAB with the weapon used to kill the "creature". Thats exactly what he had before he wasted everyones time attacking a frivolous target. Assuming he has Great Cleave he could go on and on killing sheep, groundhogs, birds, ants, chipmunks, etc. and still have gained nothing. I am leaning to the belief that you believe the entire feat "Cleave" is "Whacked" My interpretation of what an enemy must do to provoke an AoO was straight from the PH pg. 137, read it, it states opponant, enemy and combatants, never does it state sheep, or any other nonsense, nor would these mundane animals or "creatures" ever be combatants with the characters, at least not in my campaign. I again state that if anyone in your gaming group, DM or Player, would attempt to justify using any of these lame arguments to manipulate the AoO system, its time to find a new group.
Tony Vargas 10-13-04, 08:04 PM	What we actually have is a feat that gives an advantage to a character when facing multiple enemies. There is a world of difference between Great Cleave giving a distinct advantage when facing a small horde of lesser enemies, and it giving an overwhelming advantage against a single powerful foe - but only when that foe has whimpy allies. The former is the whole point of cleave, the latter is an abuseable loophole. Nowhere did anyone imply that a weaker ally was an advantage, but I can see your point of view. Yeah, it's kinda weird. In the example, the combination of weaker allies on both sides gives one side a bizarre advantage. That's the point, though. Consider this though, for the fight to play out the way you state, the fighter has to be 6th level to compete with the abilities of a 1st level cleric (handling 7 skeletons in one round) Actually, the fighter in the example is 4th, and can pretty easily destroy all 7 skelletons on his round - as could a 4th (or 2nd) level cleric - the 1st level cleric can just make them run away... the fighter could do the same to goblins, orcs, giant centipedes, or whatever, while the Cleric couldn't. Also, your example is pretty specific, almost any other encounter wouldnt play out that way at all. If any of the EHP's minions/companions were not undead, or higher level undead for instance.Well, sure, it's just one example. Non-undead popcorn could get tagged by a fear spell, instead, for instance. And, once it does happen, it'd hardly be surprising to see players trying to set it up in the future, to whatever extent they can manage... but if you left it to include any "creature" lets play it out, assuming a character has cleave and multiple attacks, he sacrifices one regular attack against a true opponant to attack any other "creature" he threatens... Thats exactly what he had before he wasted everyones time attacking a frivolous target. Sure, that's rather the point of *(Great)Cleave. If you face lesser enemies, you can cut them down more-or-less 'for free.' What the bag-o-rats style exploits do is turn that into extra attacks against /real/ opponents. You narrowed 'creature' to 'enemy' to avoid the gerbil-throwing silliness, when, really, it was the AoO loophole that needs to be closed to remove the incentive... I again state that if anyone in your gaming group, DM or Player, would attempt to justify using any of these lame arguments to manipulate the AoO system, its time to find a new group. Sure. But, it is a pretty simple matter to eliminate the loophole in the AoO system - and, thus, the incentive to trot out the 'lame arguments' to manipulate it.
StevenO 10-13-04, 09:27 PM	First off I haven't read all the previous posts so I'm offering a fresh opinion. I'd look at any potential cleave situation as not counting the attack you just made. Using this idea, dropping an opponent with an AoO doesn't give you a free attack against someone you just threaten (but who hasn't provoked you) but does allow you to use the AoO later in the round if needed. I'm not sure if I would fully apply this idea with a charge but for AoO it should work well.
Someone 10-14-04, 01:30 AM	As for the fleeing-enemies-who-open-up-more-attacks-on-the-boss thing, there are several ways to prevent that- the simplest being don't be in range! What kind of self-respecting BBEG would engage the PCs before all of their hired goons and trusted lieutenants were defeated? And don't forget its still an attack roll. You could miss, after all. It doesn't matter much if you've gotten an extra 6 attack rolls twoards the big nasty if you couldn't beat its AC (or DR) in the first place.
CruelDM 10-14-04, 07:38 AM	As for the fleeing-enemies-who-open-up-more-attacks-on-the-boss thing, there are several ways to prevent that- the simplest being don't be in range! What kind of self-respecting BBEG would engage the PCs before all of their hired goons and trusted lieutenants were defeated? This is so true, most BBEG's are smarter than your popcorn, thats why the popcorn follow/obey him. If the Leader has any sense and is a caster as in the example, he would hang back and cast spells to his advantage. The exception being if he was a fighter type, and even then he should be able to withstand some of the attacks granted by Great Cleave and AoO, or he would use range weapons initially. Can players abuse the rules? You bet, just as much as a DM can. Most of the abusive ones are Power players, min/maxers who have long ago forgotton what role-playing was for the more modern idea of roll-playing. In these situations it is up to the DM to adjust the encounters, min/max the enemies, introduce the recurring baddie that is min/maxed to the hilt and two or so levels higher than the average party level. Lay the smackdown to the fighter that is so used to dominating the battlefield and force the expenditure of those 10s of thousands of gold these min/maxed parties are sure to have horded on raise dead and resurrections. The beauty of a recurring baddie is that they know the parties tactics and can modify theirs accordingly. Personally I find min/maxing to be boring, far to often I have grown bored with campaigns that spin off in these directions. Gone are the days of death lurking around every corner and defeat skulking just beyond the next hill rise. That is, until I learned to handle it as a DM. There is nothing more boring than for a role-player to find out hes at a table full of roll-players. The fun is gone as soon as it happens, and isnt the whole point to have a good time?
Zelphi 10-14-04, 09:09 AM	Surely this is more to do with the targeting of Cleave than anything else, or it being possible with piercing weapons that you don't swing? Not cleaving with a weapon you finesse, would be a good step, but the rest is just hokey rubbish. Sheep walking away from you don't draw AOO's, the gerbil doesn't draw an AOO when thrown because its not using its move action or doing anything that would generate an AOO. Those are completely stupid ideas. The easiest way for a DM to deal with those examples is for a sensible DM to say no, nothing needs to be nerfed, just people who need to be ignored.
Nom 10-14-04, 10:25 AM	Lets turn the situation around completely. Buza the Wizard is fighting Grog the Ogre. Buza is accompanied by Herman and Twimble, two grunts he hired from town. Buza hammers Grog with a spread of magic missiles, but Grog then runs up and (using reach) swings at Buza. Next, Herman runs in and attempts to hit Grog with his sword, but is dropped by Grog's AoO. Having Cleave, Grog now takes his free attack against Buza, dropping him also. "Hang on! That's not fair." Buza's player is understandably upset. He didn't do anything to provoke Grog, but on someone else's turn, Grog gains a free attack against Buza. The house rule I use is similar to StevenO's. If an AoO drops an opponent, a character with Cleave does not count that AoO against his per-turn limit. Cleave still gains an extra attack, but uninvolved parties remain uninvolved. This house rule has another beneficial side effect. Against a pack of moving opponents, the benefit of Cleave is lessened, since each pack member moves individually. This house rule allows Cleave to be used as if the whole pack were moving past at once.
CruelDM 10-14-04, 11:23 AM	"Hang on! That's not fair." Buza's player is understandably upset. He didn't do anything to provoke Grog, but on someone else's turn, Grog gains a free attack against Buza. Ok, heres a counter argument: Same situation, but lets say Grog runs up and swings at the henchman, killing him with superior damage, and uses his cleave as before to drop Buza. Were right back to: "Hang on! That's not fair." Buza's player is understandably upset. He didn't do anything to provoke Grog. Just being in combat with Grog is enough to provoke him, Buza should have made sure his low HP mage was pretty far away from the tank of an Ogre they were facing, and rather than casting magic missle he should have run. But alas, these are aspects of role playing and not simply roll playing. The fact is the feat, cleave, grants a free, immediate attack anytime a melee attack from a character (or creature) with the feat drops a foe. No mention of exclusion anywhere in the feat, and no rule within the AoO combat guidelines to exclude the feat. Its a rare occurance that an AoO will drop an opponant, but when it happens you should not punish the possesor of the cleave feat by not allowing his feat to work as stated in the description. EDIT: If it makes more sense, think of it like this: A cleave attack is an attack of opportunity, not an AoO granted because of the actions of others as in the traditional sense, but a free attack (not counted as an AoO) granted because of the Cleave feat possesors actions. If he meets the requirements for the free attack as detailed in the feats description, he gets the free attack.
zudbash 10-14-04, 12:21 PM	Ok, heres a counter argument: Same situation, but lets say Grog runs up and swings at the henchman, killing him with superior damage, and uses his cleave as before to drop Buza. Your 'counter argument' is just an example of why the cleave feat is useful. Cleave simply allows the ogre to drop both opponents in a single round. Buza has no reason to complain in this situation, because if the henchman were not present, the ogre simply would have moved up and smacked Buza. In Nom's example, however, the ogre got a free attack on Buza because of the AoO provoked by the henchman. If the henchman were not there, then there is no AoO, and Buza does not get hit. So what is Buza suppose to do? Tell the henchman: "Don't attack it! It's got reach and if it kills you it will get a free shot at me as well!"
CruelDM 10-14-04, 12:41 PM	True, but in Noms example the feat worked exactly as it was designed to work also, therefore Buza never really had an argument to begin with. Buza's real complaint should be directed at the henchman for provoking the ogre into the AoO which then led to a feat the monster had to activate. Also at himself for being severly overmatched and not realizing he should have fled the action. My point is that should the Ogre (or any character with the cleave feat) be denied the use of the feat because the attack came at an inopportune time for the recipient, even though the feat description clearly states the required actions to activate it, and those requirements have been met? My answer is no, though its clear that opinions do vary wildly. Edit: The main problem with the house rule you proposed is this: What if no other AoO's present themselves that round? The character (or monster) is then cheated out of the cleave feat, unless you give him an immediate free attack at his highest BAB at the beginning of his next turn, but Im pretty sure you dont do that (but I could be mistaken).
Someone 10-14-04, 12:52 PM	Which is why I hate the "move closer AoO". :rant: :headexplo :banghead: Though in the wizard/ goon/ ogre example, its mostly a matter of initiative. If the warrior went before the wizard and ogre, the ogre wouldn't have been in range to cleave. If the wizard went before the warrior (whether before or after the ogre), he could have stepped back and been out of range again. Though even with a large creature's reach, its dubious how the ogre got to swing at the wizard without the warrior being a 5ft. step away.
CruelDM 10-14-04, 01:14 PM	Its also worth noting in the "Buza" example, his party made a multitude of tactical errors. A reach weapon would have avoided the example altogether, Buza should have retreated, the henchman could have stopped in the first threatened square he entered, taking a 5' step the next round to engage thus avoiding the AoO. Even after making all these mistakes its the Ogre that should get the short end of the combat stick because he did everything an Ogre should do? Something just doesnt sit right with me about that decision....... I should also note that I judge a living campaign and dont have the option of creating and using house rules when/if I think the core books are in error.
Tony Vargas 10-14-04, 03:05 PM	I should also note that I judge a living campaign and dont have the option of creating and using house rules when/if I think the core books are in error. Don't you guys have a common set of rulings on what's allowable and how controversial bits of the rule work that you all use, though? I mean, as should be obvious, you can't always get people to agree on exactly what the rules mean...
Tony Vargas 10-14-04, 03:08 PM	In Nom's example, however, the ogre got a free attack on Buza because of the AoO provoked by the henchman. If the henchman were not there, then there is no AoO, and Buza does not get hit. That's the crux of the absurdity. It makes no sense - and is undersireable from a game balance PoV - for an attacker to become more effective against a single foe, because that foe has allies...
tiluvias99 10-14-04, 03:46 PM	Ya know, I have to say, I think the main difference between views is whether or not cleave is an AoO. If we can determine that, then I think the question is answered. I personally do not think cleave is an AoO or is even like an AoO, but if someone can show evidence using the RAW (not house rules/common sense... and yes I know how stupid that is) then I'll agree with them.
Tony Vargas 10-14-04, 04:22 PM	Well, this /is/ a thread about a DM's ruling, so common sense and game balance really should come into it. Really, the main thrust here should be to help players understand that there is not some august Rules Interpretation Board that they can lodge greivances against thier DM with, and have the DM's rulings overturned in thier favor. As far as the 'RAW' is concerned, well, the rules can be read in different ways - completely different interpretations can both be valid. If you've read the whole thread, you've seen that there are rationales consistent with the rules for ruling either way (which virtually gaurantees a long and fruitles argument). It comes down to a value judgement as to which interpretation is more desireable. Aside from all that, though, you are right. A key difference in interpretation is whether to run with the implication that the extra attack from a Cleave is of the same sort as the original. Is a Cleave made from a charge still a charge, is a cleave made from an AoO still an AoO? Other areas open to interpretation are what is intended by the use of the word 'creature' (it's a combat feat, doesn't that imply 'enemy'?), and how to aply an attack 'immediately' between a character's actions. Personally, I find the interpretation of extra Cleave attacks being of the same sort (AoO, Charge, Itterative, whatever) a worthwhile one. It means that you couldn't make such an attack against any character you couldn't have attacked /instead/ of the one you dropped, which, by itself, closes any potential loopholes that would allow you to use (Great)Cleave to cheese up extra attacks agains a single opponent. It also severely curtails the use of cleave in some questionable circumstances - as with a Charge, for instance. The only problem with it is that it completely shuts down AoO Cleaves, which is both a little unfair, and fails to model some things (like holding off a horde of goblins) which strike me as desireable in a fantasy RPG. So, I also like to interpret 'immediately' rather broadly, allowing the extra attack to be saved until the next opportunity. Interpreting 'creature' as 'opponent' or 'enemy' or 'target' or somesuch also doesn't bother me much - in general, if a character is making a melee attack, it's against something that fits any of those labels...
DragonsArt 10-14-04, 05:08 PM	I just can't see the logic in allowing it. So one kobold stops to cast a spell, or bends down to pick up a dropped weapon. You make a quick stab to take advantage. That's an AoO. His pals don't all also stop. They continue weaving and dodging and attacking. Under a normal attack you get a cleave because you beat both kobold's defences. On an AoO the 2nd kobold is not doing anything to provoke one, so you don't get a chance to cleave BECAUSE HIS DEFENCES ARE NOT DOWN. Actually, your argument makes no sense. None. Cleave. The name of the feat itself signifies that the power you used to drop the foe doesn't end at that foe and allows you to attack someone else nearby. If you drop someone during an AoO, do you get an automatic hit on a creature next to them? Nope. You get to make an attack roll. It's not garunteed to hit... maybe because the others haven't stopped "weaving and dodging"... but you still make the attack roll. Cleave doesn't give an AoO against someone else. It gives a free attack, so your argument that the other kobolds' defenses are down is irrelevenat. So, let's summarize. Creature creates AoO. Player with Cleave attacks. Creature dies. Player uses extra attack from Cleave to attack next person in line. That's the way the rules are written. Suck it up. Players can do it... yes. Monsters can do it. Nothing like a dragon with Power attack and cleave...
CruelDM 10-14-04, 05:19 PM	Simply put,regarding the RAW, there is a rule that allows a Cleave attack during an AoO attack that drops the foe, and no RAW that denies the feat to work during an AoO. CLEAVE [GENERAL] 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 at 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. Read the cleave feat, by the RAW, anytime a character/creature drops an opponant and has this feat he gets an "immediate, extra melee attack against another creature within reach.....You can use this ability once per round". The RAW does not state once during your turn, it says once per round. The RAW for an AoO are more intricate in that there are specific conditions that grant an AoO, but nowhere in the section covering AoO's does it ever deny the ability of any feat to function, including Cleave or Great Cleave. Therefore, by the RAW, a cleave is usuable after an AoO if the AoO drops the opponant, their is another creature within range without taking a 5' step and the character with the feat has not used it yet this round. Don't you guys have a common set of rulings on what's allowable and how controversial bits of the rule work that you all use, though? A living campaign judge must use the core rules, eratta and FAQ (in that order) to make a ruling, when these do not provide a concise ruling he must use his best judgement to fairly arbitrate the discrepencies. His ruling can be protested by anyone (thankfully) but it usually requires an email or formal complaint and isnt resolved at that session, and until overruled his judgement stands. EDIT:That's the crux of the absurdity. It makes no sense - and is undersireable from a game balance PoV - for an attacker to become more effective against a single foe, because that foe has allies... I wanted to add one more thing here, there is a misconception that someone is gaining an advantage because an opponant has henchmen, this is totally untrue, the advantage is gained because someone has a combat feat that allows him a limited extra attack.
Tony Vargas 10-14-04, 05:37 PM	A living campaign judge must use the core rules, eratta and FAQ (in that order) to make a ruling, when these do not provide a concise ruling he must use his best judgement to fairly arbitrate the discrepencies. His ruling can be protested by anyone (thankfully) but it usually requires an email or formal complaint and isnt resolved at that session, and until overruled his judgement stands. That's interesting. Does that result in a sort of 'case law' of past rulings on such formal complaints? Anyway, I can see how running that environment would make the letter of the rules a stronger component of any interpretation - since a superior, but more tenuous rationale could be 'apealed.' I don't know if that's the case with the OP, though... ?
CruelDM 10-14-04, 05:46 PM	That's interesting. Does that result in a sort of 'case law' of past rulings on such formal complaints? Not to my knowledge, but it rarely goes that far unless character death is involved. I assume the most common overrulings are added in the next FAQ. I think its set up that strictly because of the environment of the session, many times none of the players have ever played together as a group or with the Judge for that matter, the exception being home games. I know I am supporting the belief that a cleave is allowed after an AoO that drops an opponant, but if it doesnt work in your home campaign I support anyone who changes it to fit. I am merely trying to point out that, as written, it is allowed, or rather, that it isnt disallowed.
Vaelan 10-14-04, 06:31 PM	The only real point that has been made about disallowing AoO Cleaves is a situation when players fabricate opponents. Tell your players not to fabricate opponents. They know they're trying something stupid and irrational, so they should understand when you do not let them. As for those of you crying, "It isn't fair!": It is perfectly fair. Both sides have access to the Cleave feat. This makes it a matter of intellgence. Heaven forbid you fight intelligently! Better nerf that right away!
Seraphae 10-14-04, 06:44 PM	. . . and thus I ask, could some Lawful Good, altruistic samaritan please be so kind as to refer me to an official-type ruling/posting that states one can cleave off of an AoO, so that I may then present this to my DM whence next I doth cleave, with a self-satisfied smirk 'pon my 11 Charisma face . . ? Please please please pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease . . ? Dear Mr. Grimm, In looking through your original post it seems to me that you aren't asking for a ruling on whether cleaving off an AoO is fair, right, munchkin or otherwise. Your GM has already made his judgement on that. What you want is some sort of officially-looking paper you can shove in his face so he at least understands that what he is doing is a house rule when he next forbids you to do it, and not 'official' yes? Sadly, I can't help you. I did look through all the errata, and all the faqs, and I couldn't find anything specifically talking about AoOs and cleave, sage advice or otherwise. Perhaps some older member of these forums will know something. (*HINT*)
DragonsArt 10-14-04, 07:20 PM	Dear Mr. Grimm, In looking through your original post it seems to me that you aren't asking for a ruling on whether cleaving off an AoO is fair, right, munchkin or otherwise. Your GM has already made his judgement on that. What you want is some sort of officially-looking paper you can shove in his face so he at least understands that what he is doing is a house rule when he next forbids you to do it, and not 'official' yes? Sadly, I can't help you. I did look through all the errata, and all the faqs, and I couldn't find anything specifically talking about AoOs and cleave, sage advice or otherwise. Perhaps some older member of these forums will know something. (*HINT*) Nothing wrong with showing a GM official rules. If he is anything remotely close to a good GM, he will reverse his judgement call in favor of offical ruling - and do it with good grace. Is he is an overbearing, controlling megomaniac whose uncreativeness forces him to nerf official rules... then, well... it won't do any good anyway... and I would go find a GM with less self-esteem issues.
Seraphae 10-14-04, 07:31 PM	I quite agree, but it seemed that in the debate over whether or not this combo was broken, balanced or any of the rest, the fact that all he's asking for is "does an official ruling exist that I can show my GM?" was lost...
CruelDM 10-14-04, 07:56 PM	Unfortunately that seems to be correct, once a DM has ruled over his own campaign hes pretty set in his ways, he is the master of all that he sees. This isnt always true, but reading these boards you tend to think that its the norm. I personally believe all the "official" ruling you need are right there in the players handbook as attested in my earlier post regarding the RAW of the issue at hand. Your DM apparently didnt like the rules as written in the core books so he made a ruling and decided to greatly limit the intent of a combat feat (IMO). All thats left is to work within the confines and constraints he has put to you, possibly asking for him to let you change your feat choice should you desire. Combat reflexes may be more suitable now, but I strongly suggest you shy away from great cleave later unless your DM tends to pit you against grossly inferior opponants.
Timori 10-14-04, 09:10 PM	I quite agree, but it seemed that in the debate over whether or not this combo was broken, balanced or any of the rest, the fact that all he's asking for is "does an official ruling exist that I can show my GM?" was lost... Not true. I believe almost everyone has agreed that it is legal according to the rules. See page PHB143 for a really killer quote if you want to rules lawyer a DM into submission. Personally I still houserule it that on an AoO you can only attack the enemy provoking it. Actually, your argument makes no sense. None. Cleave. The name of the feat itself signifies that the power you used to drop the foe doesn't end at that foe and allows you to attack someone else nearby. If you drop someone during an AoO, do you get an automatic hit on a creature next to them? Nope. You get to make an attack roll. It's not garunteed to hit... maybe because the others haven't stopped "weaving and dodging"... but you still make the attack roll. Cleave doesn't give an AoO against someone else. It gives a free attack, so your argument that the other kobolds' defenses are down is irrelevenat. If that were true the AoO on the provoker would be an automatic hit. Think about it, you are saying under a cleave in an AoO: Standing still reading a scroll - needs a successful attack roll Actively dodging - needs a successful attack roll How is that accounting for the dodging? It's not. That's why on an AoO you should only be able to hit the provoker.
Tony Vargas 10-14-04, 09:21 PM	Nothing wrong with showing a GM official rules. If he is anything remotely close to a good GM, he will reverse his judgement call in favor of offical ruling - and do it with good grace. Most good DMs use some house rules. I have been in a few (very few) good games that, for convenience, used 'no house rules' - even they had a lot of what I'd've considered 'house rules' since they were different from what I was pretty darn sure the rules said. ;) There is, indeed, nothing wrong with pointing out a rule to your DM, nor with pointing out an 'official' source, like the Sage, with a ruling different from his. Expecting him to change his ruling may be wishful thinking, though - as rulings are often made specifically for the individual campaign...
CruelDM 10-14-04, 10:04 PM	How is that accounting for the dodging? It's not. That's why on an AoO you should only be able to hit the provoker. The fact that the defender gets his full AC (Dex included) accounts for him still "dodging", the opponant that provoked the AoO is still "dodging" for that matter, as he still gets full benefits to his AC from Dex. I must assume that all these house rules are stemming from the fact that the DM in these house games has deemed that the cleave feat is simply too powerful for their campaign, what I fail to understand is why they keep it in at all. Its like saying, OK, you can use the feat if its your turn in the round, but if, after your turn, anything happens that gives you another attack that round, and you happen to take out an opponant from that gained attack, you forget how to cleave till its your turn again. If this is the case it just seems more sensable to outlaw the entire feat altogether, rather than cripple it, or rather, cripple the character that chose it as his own.
Timori 10-14-04, 10:19 PM	The fact that the defender gets his full AC (Dex included) accounts for him still "dodging", the opponant that provoked the AoO is still "dodging" for that matter, as he still gets full benefits to his AC from Dex. Yep. So how is he at an advantage compared to the provoker? He's not. Therefore he's being penalised for no reason and that is why I consider it broken. I must assume that all these house rules are stemming from the fact that the DM in these house games has deemed that the cleave feat is simply too powerful for their campaign, what I fail to understand is why they keep it in at all. Not at all. Cleave is a great feat. It's what heroic fantasy is all about. Just because I rule it's not available when it doesn't make sense to be available doesn't mean I don't like it.
Genghis Don70 10-15-04, 12:46 AM	While i personally have not had problems with (great)cleave abuse, I can see that some DM's might have to set players right about bags of rats...It does seem illogical(even for fantasy) that one "fool" can doom all his comrades however. Without trying to nerf great cleave ( a feat I admit I rarely see because of limited use ) I suggest a limit to great cleaves,perhaps equal to AOO or even str bonus. The rules state that you can cleave of AOO, but all DM's have good ole rule 0. As a side note, all feats,ect that allow unlimited anything can be problematic. It is better design to allow a finite(albeit perhaps large) number of uses. Examples can be Great Cleave,Epic Infinite Deflections, Epic Combat Reflexes.
StevenO 10-15-04, 01:45 AM	Given the discussion on cleave and AoO, how should they work in this situation. A dwarf ftr4 (with the cleave feat) stops in the 10' wide exit to a room containing 3 goblins. There are no other exits to the room and the goblins can't all be reached at a single point so the dwarf readies an attack against the first goblin to come into range. All three goblins know important information that they need to escape with so they all will try to run past the dwarf in the doorway and escape. It is apparent that the first goblin will get attacked. If it survives it will also draw the AoO, if not then the second one goblin does. Assuming that the first goblin is dropped by the readied attack and the second by the AoO then does the third get by unhampered inspite of the dwarf having had 2 unused opportunities to cleave? Sinces the goblins only go by one at a time only one is threatened at any given time so cleave doesn't work. If instead cleave gives you back the attack you just made then it would be possible for the dwarf to take a swing at the third goblin both the first two are dropped.
Timori 10-15-04, 01:52 AM	If the goblins were not threatened by the dwarf at the beginning, the others will be out of reach as each passes through the threatened squares, so cleave wouldn't be of use anyway. That situation calls for Combat Reflexes, not Cleave.
CruelDM 10-15-04, 03:31 AM	Yep. So how is he at an advantage compared to the provoker? He's not. Therefore he's being penalised for no reason and that is why I consider it broken. I submit to you that its not the feat thats broken, but your logic. The recipient of cleave is not being penalised at all, rather, the possesor of a combat feat is being rewarded. For this reason, with the house rules denying the possesor of the combat feat his cleave, it is actually the feat holder that is being penalised for no reason, and the would be target of the feat is rewarded.
mattmurdock 10-15-04, 05:36 AM	I'm fully in support of the Cleave off an AoO, and just thought I'd point out that the Tactical Warrior PrC in the Mini Handbook has a class feature called Delayed Cleave that allows you to Cleave as an AoO against any opponent you threaten when your friend drops an opponent you threaten and have struck already that round. So to paraphrase the examples given above, say I threaten Buza's henchman and strike him, Buza then moves into my threat range, my associate drops the henchman, I then get a free attack against Buza. In this example Buza has done nothing to provoke an AoO from me, but I still got a free attack on him based on something my associate did. The implication of this is that Cleave (and all its derivatives) are not based around the opponents actions but around the PC being specially skilled and using that skill to gain an attack on an opponent based on specific circumstances. Nowhere do the rules indicate that those specific circumstances include the target of your attack having to provoke an AoO from you. Therefore anyone you threaten is a valid target for Cleave, provided the circumstances outlined in the feat are met.
Nom 10-15-04, 09:08 AM	True, but in Noms example the feat worked exactly as it was designed to work alsoI disagree with this assertion. From what I can tell, Cleave is "designed" to all a warrior to take out mooks without reducing the number of attacks he can launch at real targets (or other mooks). Allowing a bonus attack at full attack bonus at a real target after taking out a mook is a completely legal but not well thought out side effect. The correct interpretation of the rules is that a character can Cleave from an AoO at any legal target. I just happen to think that this is a bad rule, and thus house rule it otherwise and encourage others I am playing with to do so.
CruelDM 10-15-04, 09:32 AM	The only way to really balance it with the house rule so far presented (IMO) is to have the AoO that the cleave occurs not count towards the total AoO's that can be taken by the cleave feat possesor, and if no AoO presents itself again that round the feat possesor gets his free attack from the feat at the start of his next turn at full BAB in addition to his regular attacks, in which case all thats really happened is his cleave attempt was delayed. At least the feat possesor is not denied his feat alltogether, the feat functions very closely to the RAW, and no one has been greatly penalised (if you subscribe to the view that someone is indeed being penalised rather than rewarded). The only true drawback here is if the Cleave possesor had Combat Reflexes also, in which case he would have had more than one AoO opportunity anyway, so even if another AoO presented itself that round his Cleave has still done nothing for him (so, if at the end of the round the Cleave occurs, if possesor has not used ALL his AoO's +1 then at the start of his next turn he gets his free attack. This house rule falls apart should the Feat possesor have Combat Reflexes and Great Cleave. I should note that in scenarios I run, many characters have cleave, and this issue has rarely occured. Perhaps the real issue here is the parties that possess Cleave are not being challenged properly if they are getting so many free attacks from the feat that its unbalancing game play.
Tony Vargas 10-15-04, 01:01 PM	I submit to you that its not the feat thats broken, but your logic. The recipient of cleave is not being penalised at all, rather, the possesor of a combat feat is being rewarded. Well, in a sense, you're both right. If you allow Cleave off an AoO, then, sure, the Cleaver is being rewarded for taking that feat - if you don't put some longical limits on that, though, he potentially recieves a bit more than he should (and has the potential to become radically abusive if he takes Great Cleave & Combat Reflexes). Likewise, the Cleavee is being penalized - he's being hit by an attack between the attacker's actions, the purpose of which is to represent the increased vulnerability of the AoO-provoking target of that attack - since the Cleavee has not provoked an AoO, he is being /unfairly/ penalized, and, penalized in a way that fails to model what's supposed to be going on. Now, the alternative interpretation that allows Cleave off an AoO - but /only/ into the next enemy who provokes - does take away that benefit, but, it also gives the possessor of Cleave an advantage he wouldn't ordinarily have, per Timori's example: Sinces the goblins only go by one at a time only one is threatened at any given time so cleave doesn't work. If instead cleave gives you back the attack you just made then it would be possible for the dwarf to take a swing at the third goblin both the first two are dropped. Of course, Timori's version goes a little farther, in making Cleave work almost like a limitted form of combat reflexes, but the basic idea is workable...
Tony Vargas 10-15-04, 01:10 PM	The only way to really balance it with the house rule so far presented (IMO) is to have the AoO that the cleave occurs not count towards the total AoO's that can be taken by the cleave feat possesor, and if no AoO presents itself again that round the feat possesor gets his free attack from the feat at the start of his next turn at full BAB in addition to his regular attacks, in which case all thats really happened is his cleave attempt was delayed. Thing is, a Cleave is supposed to be 'immediate' - and, while you might argue that waiting for the next opportunity is 'immediate,' your next action really isn't. Remember that Cleave in no way gaurantees that you get to /use/ your extra attack - if, for instance, there's no one you can attack, the Cleave is just wasted. In the case of the Cleave off an AoO, the extra attack can be interpreted as also being an AoO, and therefor only useable against other provoking characters - if no one provokes before your next turn, it's wasted, just like a Cleave when there's no one in reach to cleave into. That is in no way unfair to the possessor of the feat. The only true drawback here is if the Cleave possesor had Combat Reflexes also, in which case he would have had more than one AoO opportunity anyway, so even if another AoO presented itself that round his Cleave has still done nothing for him More accurately, his Combat Reflexes would've been obviated by Cleave. There are some feats that overlapp in some aplications - for instance Great Cleave and WWA don't mix in 3.5, but, it's still worth it to have both, since you can GC on a standard attack, and WWA against creatures you can't drop - so that's not grounds for rejecting the interpretation out of hand. It is an issue, though, and by limitting the extra attack to the /very next/ opportunity provoked, rather than outright 'giving back' the AoO, you give some functionality back to Combat Reflexes. The combination of Great Cleave and Combat Reflexes is actually desireable, under this interpretation, as it allows a fighter to hold back a veritable tide of lesser foes trying to move past him - even if your GC chain 'breaks' with a '1' on your attack roll, you still get to take the next opportunity thanks to your CR... I should note that in scenarios I run, many characters have cleave, and this issue has rarely occured. The group I played 3.0 with /never/ abused Haste, either, but haste still got nerfed - 'cause it needed nerf'n. Just because some groups show restraint doesn't mean an abuseable rule is /good/.
Verkon 10-15-04, 04:25 PM	really i see little way this could be abused great cleave is nearly a wasted feat how many times are u going to be in a situation where you kill more than one enemy in a turn. Like so many have said if you players are using summon monster or something to get free atks AoO and cleaving to BBEG then the then the God's who's portfolio is Role-Playing should smite them then and there where they stand. As far as the fear goes it unlikely that all will fail there save, and even if they do you would have to have 4 feat it do power atk, cleave, combate reflexes and great cleave so for anyone but a fighter they are using there rare feats for something that could have been more widely usefull like uping a save up inis or anything like it. The problem would present itself so few times that i would be more than willing to let them do it because it would water that charactor down so it would easier to challenge them. but one of this answers the orginal question on where to find an offical ruleing. sorry for typoes and mispellings out..... a much more abusive use is with improved trip and expert tactician. but that is for another post entirely.
Mercurius 10-15-04, 06:34 PM	I don't see how you can say that the RAW allows is open to the interpretation that cleaving from an AoO would yield an AoO. CLEAVE [GENERAL] 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 at 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. (emphasis mine, obviously) It doesn't say that the extra attack is the same as the prior attack. It says it has to be with the same weapon and at the same bonus. So it's not going to be an AoO just because the prior attack was an AoO. It's just going to be at the same attack bonus (more than likely a full one, unless either Combat Expertise or Power Attack was involved in the last action of the character). Personally, I'm fine with cleaving from an AoO. I don't suspect it'd come up that often, and honestly, I've only had one player who actually took cleave in my old campaign. I rarely used weenie monsters, since most of the time they just failed to hit and would take longer for combat to resolve, never resulting in much of a challenge. *shrugs*
CruelDM 10-15-04, 07:03 PM	In the case of the Cleave off an AoO, the extra attack can be interpreted as also being an AoO, and therefor only useable against other provoking characters - if no one provokes before your next turn, it's wasted, just like a Cleave when there's no one in reach to cleave into. That is in no way unfair to the possessor of the feat. Except that there are enemies for the feat possesor to attack. Hes dropped an enemy, another is in range, he doesnt have to take a step to reach them and he hasnt used his feat this round. In short, he has met every single requirement to use the feat he chose, but because of some distorted idea of fairness to a foe who happens to be in the wrong place and put in danger by the tactical mistakes of his allies, someone decides to punish the feat possesor and deny him the use of his feat. And then claim its fixed a problem? The fix is nowhere near fair, and its nowhere near a fix. In fact, there isnt really a problem that needs fixing. I know that some will continue to think its unfair to the foe "that never provoked an AoO", but in reality, was it fair if he got cleaved on the feat possesors regular attack round? After all, the feat possesor did get all his regular attacks, but alas, his very last hit took out an ally and then BAM, on a free attack, he took out one more. Did the recipient that got hit by the free attack deserve it? Was it fair? The next fix I expect to see on the boards is to deny any feat to function during an AoO, after all, thats exactly what most of these house rules do to cleave. I mean really, it wouldnt be fair to let a guy with mobilty actually recieve his +4 dodge bonus when he provokes an AoO, thats unfair to the guy that gets the AoO afterall...../end rant I know I have made my point, I know I have quoted straight from the Core rules and fully proven that a cleave is granted off an AoO (provided the requirements for feat have been met) as per the RAW. I know that most have agreed (even some that still support a fix) so at this point I will digress.
Elendur 10-15-04, 07:59 PM	I know that some will continue to think its unfair to the foe "that never provoked an AoO", but in reality, was it fair if he got cleaved on the feat possesors regular attack round? After all, the feat possesor did get all his regular attacks, but alas, his very last hit took out an ally and then BAM, on a free attack, he took out one more. Did the recipient that got hit by the free attack deserve it? Was it fair?This is a very good point. I also disagree with the idea that the cleave off an AOO should wait around for someone else to provoke it. That just doesn't fit with the idea of what cleave is. It's better to think of cleave as a sort of area effect damage that goes off when someone gets killed.
Nom 10-16-04, 04:38 AM	It's better to think of cleave as a sort of area effect damage that goes off when someone gets killed.I realise this is all opinion, but IMO that's so ridiculous it's amusing. You could think of cleave as cutting through one target into another, but that doesn't work overly well with spears, nor non-adjacent targets. Or you could think of it as being skilled enough to take a weak (weak = low hp or almost dead) opponent out of the fight with negligible effort, which works with everything. On the main topic, I think just about everything has been said. In summary: (1) As written, cleave allows a free attack against any legal threatened target if your AoO drops the target. (2) Some groups see this as problematic and houserule to fix it. The most "balanced" of these house-rules allow the AoO to be "saved" in some manner. (3) With much effort, players can come up with stupid abuses of Cleave and AoOs. The two easiest ways to fix this are to adopt houserules listed in #2 (only if you were going to do it anyway) or to tell players not to be stupid.
zudbash 10-16-04, 02:18 PM	You could think of cleave as cutting through one target into another, but that doesn't work overly well with spears, nor non-adjacent targets. Or you could think of it as being skilled enough to take a weak (weak = low hp or almost dead) opponent out of the fight with negligible effort, which works with everything. Except that using negligible effort on an AoO should not (logically) allow an extra attack against a different creature that did not provoke an AoO. That leads me to believe that Cleave is not really about negliglible effort against a vulnerable (low HP) foe, as attractive as that explanation is for Cleave when used as part of an normal attack action. All we have is the terse PHB description that says cleavers can follow through with powerful blows. What has always bothered me about Cleave is not the clarity of the rules, but almost lack of so-called flavor text. Although flavor text sometimes gets a bad rap on these boards, I find the non-mechanical aspects of the rules to be very important to the DM. Flavor text helps the DM to describe the action and also helps the DM to make proper interpretations of the rules when the mechanical rules are not comprehensive enough or are simply too vague. To me, the biggest problem with Cleave is that the PHB only describes what it does, not what it is. This allows us to answer the originally poster's question, but it probably does not really help the poster's DM.