Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Evicmar 05-16-07, 01:31 PM	I was wanting clarification on this one. A fighter with the following feats makes an AOO vs an oncoming monster. exotic weapon prof:spiked chain, power attack, cleave, great cleave, combat reflexes. The attack kills the monster and as per the cleave feat he then gets to make an immediate attack at the same attack bonus. He then kills that monster and continues into great cleave to clean up all around him leaving his dex mod in extra AOOs still to go before his next action. Is my understanding of the rules and the wording correct here? Other than he could have cleaved on his action and still have been able to great cleave on the AOO.
jaelis 05-16-07, 01:34 PM	Per the FAQ (or Sage Advice anyway), yes, you can cleave off an AoO.
Evicmar 05-16-07, 01:35 PM	Thanks for the quick response. :cool:
El_Machinae 05-16-07, 01:51 PM	It seems really powerful, but I've found that it only comes into play once in awhile. It's mad fun when it happens, though, because you'll be cleaving through a horde of some type of weakened monster. The wording on special class abilities, like the Warhulk's attack, leads me to believe that it can be used also on AoOs
StevenO 05-16-07, 02:21 PM	Great Cleave just removes Cleaves "once per turn" restriction such that it can be used anytime. By the rules your actions are legal. Some, myself included, believe that your "free" attack from cleave should be as restricted as the attack that triggered it; in short you may only use a cleave gained during an AoO for another AoO. Others just completely dislike the concept of getting free attacks at nonprovoking characters based on an AoO cleave and therefore ban cleave outside of your turn; I don't go quite that far but do believe inorder to get hit by a cleave you have to be a legal target for the original attack.
runestar 05-16-07, 10:55 PM	in short you may only use a cleave gained during an AoO for another AoO Hi, we meet again...:D Anyways, the problem with this interpretation of yours is that said bonus AoO can never come up in turn based combat. At least, I can think of no scenario where this extra AoO can be utilized at all. Perhaps you have some specific scenario to share with us?:)
Evicmar 05-16-07, 11:02 PM	I have one thing to say about your though on an AoO cleave only against an other legal target for an AoO. Wrong place....wrong time. It happens. Just because you were standing next to the jet engine before it started, doesn't keep you from getting sucked in.
jaelis 05-16-07, 11:09 PM	I have one thing to say about your though on an AoO cleave only against an other legal target for an AoO. Wrong place....wrong time. It happens. Just because you were standing next to the jet engine before it started, doesn't keep you from getting sucked in. That's a weak argument. You provoke an AoO when you drop your guard... in your analogy, maybe you let go of the safety rope when you're near the jet engine. If your friend standing next to you didn't let go, why would he be sucked in? The right argument is to say the feat itself doesn't clearly specify what happens, and the FAQ says it works. Anything else will fill up pages of drivel.
StevenO 05-17-07, 12:27 AM	Hi, we meet again...:D Anyways, the problem with this interpretation of yours is that said bonus AoO can never come up in turn based combat. At least, I can think of no scenario where this extra AoO can be utilized at all. Perhaps you have some specific scenario to share with us?:) Don't these threads always bring out the same arguements? My intent is that if an AoO would normally present a cleave opportunity it just gives back that AoO to be used the next time one is provoked. It may act a little like combat reflexes except that this requires you to get kills for more AoO instead of just having a high Dex. It actually would be possible to get multiple AoO during another creature's turn but generally dropping that creature would make those situations difficult. I hope I don't need to say why using an AoO based cleave on a creature that doesn't provoke isn't right but here is one of the possible examples. Two opponents are locked in melee. Now a third party opposed to both of our original combatants performs an action that provokes an AoO from each. Assuming either AoO will drop the third party should they be allowed to cleave into the opponent who would normally be expecting an attack from the party just dropped and if so which one gets this "free" attack on its engaged foe? jaelis is right about one thing, the example of getting sucked into a jet engine is very poor for saying why a character can cleave off of someone provoking an AoO into someone who doesn't. That example is just an opponent (the engine in this case) making its attack.
Caspain 05-17-07, 02:16 AM	In the above example, it cinematically makes sense. The two are fighting, and one of them takes a long swipe at both the new comer and the already existing opponent. Via the imaginative description of cleave, I beleive it is supposed to be that you made one attack so powerful that it continued through the creature you dropped. Therefore, if Guy A drops his safety rope and gets sucked in by the engine, perhaps he knocked Guy B's feet from under him on his flight?
tarkin 05-17-07, 09:53 PM	That is wrong. And foolish, even cinematically. Cleave is not "one long strike through one person into another." If it were, then there would be more restrictions about where the enemey was. For example if you and your allies were in a line and you killed a bad guy to the left, you could not cleave into a bad guy to the right without killing your ally in front or behind you. ----------------- Cleave on AoO is both stupid and has multiple abuses (Bar Room Brawl, Suicidal Mirror Images, Psychotic Sheppard, Thrown Gerbil) The basic error is that AoO's are a 'restricted' attack. If you allow cleave off of them they MUST retain the original restriction. Otherwise Cleave simply becomes a way to 'remove' the original restriction. There are 4 ways to deal with this issue. Strict: House Rule no cleaves on AoOs. Loose: House Rule that a cleave attack must retain any of the original restrictions of the killing blow (so a cleave on an AoO can only be used to take attack another person that incures an AoO) Power: House Rule against specific obvious abuses as they arise, but allow all the non-obvious abuses (i.e. let people cleave off AoO's as long as they don't do things like Bar Room Brawl, Suicidal Mirror Images, Psychotic Sheppard, Thrown Gerbil) Anything Goes: Play by the rules as written, even letting people do the abuses mentioned above. -------------------- The RAW people usually go with the Power Gamer intepretation. Sometimes they go to ridiculous lengths to claim they are not House Ruling, but Suicidal Mirror Image Cast Mirror Images, move 10ft, kill your own image then cleave into enemey) has been confirmed by the Sage as legal, and I have never heard anyone come close to a reasonable way to outlaw Bar Room Brawl (Great Cleave, Combat Reflexes, Spiked Chain, follow victim into bar, start a brawl, start killing the commoners, cleave into victim) using RAW
runestar 05-17-07, 11:00 PM	That is wrong. And foolish, even cinematically. Cleave is not "one long strike through one person into another." And the rules never said it was. It simply gave you an extra attack contingent on a specific scenario occuring. The "momentum causes your blow to shift to the next foe" theory was merely one of many interpretations by players trying to justify it aesthetics wise. Some failed, some succeeded, some succeeded more than others...:)
StevenO 05-18-07, 01:53 AM	... I hope I don't need to say why using an AoO based cleave on a creature that doesn't provoke isn't right but here is one of the possible examples. Two opponents are locked in melee. Now a third party opposed to both of our original combatants performs an action that provokes an AoO from each. Assuming either AoO will drop the third party should they be allowed to cleave into the opponent who would normally be expecting an attack from the party just dropped and if so which one gets this "free" attack on its engaged foe? . In the above example, it cinematically makes sense. The two are fighting, and one of them takes a long swipe at both the new comer and the already existing opponent. Via the imaginative description of cleave, I beleive it is supposed to be that you made one attack so powerful that it continued through the creature you dropped. So lets see if I get this straight. Both engaged warriors get an AoO against the third party and because the newcomer is dropped both would also get to cleave into the other; all happening simultateously of course. That seems a little far fetched. All theatrics aside the best way to view cleave is as giving back the attack just used to drop your opponent. For whatever reason that killing blow was really insignificant to the rest of your attack routine. Another example of why I prefer to have cleave "give back" the attack that triggered it. The situation: three goblins are in a room and our hero (who has cleave) enters. Our hero needs to stop all the goblins from leaving but can't reach them all so he decides to ready an action while standing in the entry to attack the next goblin to come into range. The goblins know one needs to escape with the important information all know so they will attempt to rush past our defending hero. Now because of how initiative works each goblin acts one at a time. The first tries to run by and triggers the readied attack which slays it for our purpose but no one is in range for cleave, now the second attempts to rush past trigging an AoO which for our purpose again kills it but once again no cleave chance. The third goblin now freely runs by our hapless hero (no combat reflexes so no second AoO as usual) who has wasted two cleave opportunities. Now if you decide that cleave "gives back" the attack that triggered it dropping the first goblin would have left the readied action for the second and the AoO for the third. If the first goblin survives the readied action it would then trigger the AoO which could get it killed and then preserve the AoO for the second. The Great Cleave version of this may echo of Combat Reflexes (and actually works very well with it) but you have to continue to drop the provoking targets to keep you AoO alive.
jaelis 05-18-07, 09:11 AM	Suicidal Mirror Image (Cast Mirror Images, move 10ft, kill your own image then cleave into enemey) has been confirmed by the Sage as legal, The sage says you can attack your own images? Where? Also, remind me how this is better than just attacking your enemy directly?
Ian0311 05-18-07, 12:08 PM	I believe that you should be allowed to take the extra attack, but if you pull off some of those fancy, insane, gamebreaking maneuvers, the DM will probably remove your right to take cleave strikes off of AOO kills...if he doesn't penalize you outright for it. It's the DM's call, really, and I'd allow it until one of the mentioned cases of abuse occurs.
Finarin Panjoro 05-18-07, 02:18 PM	The RAW people usually go with the Power Gamer intepretation. Sometimes they go to ridiculous lengths to claim they are not House Ruling, but Suicidal Mirror Image Cast Mirror Images, move 10ft, kill your own image then cleave into enemey) has been confirmed by the Sage as legal, and I have never heard anyone come close to a reasonable way to outlaw Bar Room Brawl (Great Cleave, Combat Reflexes, Spiked Chain, follow victim into bar, start a brawl, start killing the commoners, cleave into victim) using RAW Allow me to be the first. Suicidal Mirror Image cleave does not work and has never been expresslly allowed by the Sage. He allows cleaving off of a dropped image, nowhere does he indicate that an image is capable of provoking an AoO. That would therefore be a house rule. Even if it could provoke an AoO, the caster would also have to take an action that provoked, so if he doesn't, they won't. Bar Room Brawl Cleaves are very easily prevented within the RAW, the DM who is controlling all of the commoners simply has them take actions which do not provoke AoOs. Such as dropping prone (which most people would do if someone were swinging a chain around their heads), taking a 5 foot step to cover (under any of the numerous tables or the bar for example, the second most likely reaction), carefully moving 5 feet away at a time, plus if the bar is crowded everyone more than 5 feet away from the chain swinger has cover from other bar patrons and cannot provoke AoOs (since cover prohibits AoOs and reach weapons figure cover as ranged weapons and people provide soft cover from ranged weapons). And finally there's a very good chance that if there's enough people in the bar (48+) the DM may decide that they constitute a mob (a swarm like group of creatures) and do not provoke AoOs individually, but move as a single gargantuan creature. This isn't outlawing it perse' as in saying 'under no circumstances will this work' but it does make it a pretty ineffective tactic.
Millennium 05-18-07, 02:30 PM	By RAW, you can cleave off of an AoO, because an AoO is just a regular attack that happens to be taken at an unusual time. This is not as game-breaking as it may seem. It doesn't come up often, it makes sense most of the time it comes up, and when it doesn't make sense (such as the Bag-Of-Rats trick) there are ways to prevent abuse without altering the rules.
Frugal 05-18-07, 02:54 PM	Cleave on AoO is both stupid and has multiple abuses (Bar Room Brawl, Suicidal Mirror Images, Psychotic Sheppard, Thrown Gerbil) The basic error is that AoO's are a 'restricted' attack. If you allow cleave off of them they MUST retain the original restriction. Otherwise Cleave simply becomes a way to 'remove' the original restriction. Tarkin, didn't we have this exact same discussion about a month ago? Can you please either show some references supporting that suicidal mirror image or throw gerbils actually work the way you keep saying they do or for the love of god stop confusing people with them?
Frugal 05-18-07, 03:01 PM	Allow me to be the first. Suicidal Mirror Image cleave does not work and has never been expresslly allowed by the Sage. He allows cleaving off of a dropped image, nowhere does he indicate that an image is capable of provoking an AoO. That would therefore be a house rule. Even if it could provoke an AoO, the caster would also have to take an action that provoked, so if he doesn't, they won't. I think that Tarkin is taking a very generous reading of the ruling that mirror images do in fact provoke AoO's (they're treated like any other creature). However, that doesn't mean that the caster moving causes the mirror images to provoke AoO's from him as they move. Bar room brawl leaves out the commoners provoking AoO's, which is a huge assumption. Throwing gerbils has been refuted by me on several occasions and Tarkin hasn't posted a single rules reference to show that it would work the way he says. The quick summary is that the only rules you can find on throwing any creature are in Races of Stone and with the Fling Ally and Fling Enemy feats, both feats explicitly state that the flung creature doesn't provoke AoO's from that "movement".
Evicmar 05-18-07, 07:09 PM	Guys, the rules state that it can happen. If you want to run house rules stating otherwise go for it. If you want to publish a 3000 page book of "insert name here"'s house rules then go for it. No one will buy it because everyone plays a little different. I do not play by house rules. I run the rules as they were meant to be. You all need to remember this is an abstract game system. If you try and apply physics to this game you will not survive a sword hit at 20th level from a commoner. Quit trying to make this game into what it's not and just have fun. :cool:
kalstrand 05-18-07, 07:27 PM	All it takes is different fluff on cleave to make sense. If you describe a cleave attack almost as an AoO it works. A fighter with cleave is trained at exploiting the momentary distraction caused by someone falling in combat. Using this description allows it to work with all weapons, and explains how the a non-provoking person can still get hit with a cleave on an AoO.
Gorbeck 05-18-07, 07:34 PM	Just thought I'd throw in my two cents. Personally, as others have mentioned, I've always seen cleave as a follow-through attack from another attack. A character takes a swing and their sword passes through the first enemy and into the next. If that's not the case, why would it be called cleave? From Merriam-Webster's dictionary Cleave: to penetrate or pass through something by or as if by cutting Makes sense to me...
jaelis 05-19-07, 01:05 AM	I do not play by house rules. I run the rules as they were meant to be. Don't say silly things like that. If you're playing the rules as they were meant to be, then you are certainly houseruling. Unless you think monks weren't meant to be proficient with their unarmed strikes and various other nonsensical things. And the FAQ is full of clarifications of vague rules... before those issues were addressed, it was generally impossible to know how they were "meant" to be interpreted. Plenty more such ambiguities remain.