Post/Author/DateTime	Post
danisheraser 04-11-07, 04:54 AM	Hi. Me and my group of players is in doubt when it comes to Attack of opportunity and cleave. Is it possible to make a cleave/greatcleave as part of an attack of opportunity? And where in the rules can I find it? Another question. Does damage reduction stack? I know this doesn't have much to do with skills and feats. But I have a dwarven defender in my group. He wears dwarven plate, which gives damage reduction. Does that stack with his defenders damagereduction? And where in the rules can I find it? Thanks a lot for any help.
Leilond 04-11-07, 06:26 AM	Cleave The only prerequisite to use the bonus attack from cleave is to drop the opponent with an attack. An attack of opportunity IS an attack and perfect qualify for the cleave Remember that cleave can be used ONCE each round. If you use it during your round, you cannot use it until your next round; but if during your round you didn't used the bonus attack from cleave (because you dropped noone or there wasn't anyone to attack with your bonus attack) you can still use that bonus attack during enemy turns with Attacks of Opportunity Damage reduction (DR) don't stack... only the best work. Having two DIFFERENT damage reduction is usefull if the "best" is overcomed Example You have: 1- DR 10/silver 2- DR 5/magic If you're attacked with a non-silver weapon (magical or not) you'll have DR 10 If you're attacked with a silver weapon (not magical) you'll have DR 5 If you're attacked with a silver and magical weapon you won't have DR at all
tarkin 04-11-07, 11:24 AM	1. Technically Cleave on an AoO is legal. It is also TREMDOUSLY abusive. The 1/round thing is not a real limit, as people just take Combat Reflexes and can do it a LOT more than 1/round. The lists of abuses include things such as: Insane Sheppard (herd animals, kill them Cleave to enemey) Bar room Brawl (follow enemey into a bar. Start a brawl, kill civilians, cleave into enemey) Suicidal Mirror Images (Cast Mirror Image, walk 10 ft, kill one - officially negating the illusion entitels you to a cleave, then cleave into enemey.) Thrown Gerbil (hire first level guy to throw 1/4 hd creatures at you, kill them and cleave into real enemey) There are many others. If you wish to play by the official rules and let people Cleave on AoOs, fine. But generally people either: 1. House Rule to prevent all the obvious, major abuses (but let people get away with the less obvious and minor abuses) Disadvantage: Players won't know what you will allow or not. 2. House Rule Cleaves off AoOs are only allowed on a creature that is also AoOing right that minute. ----------- Damage Reduction OVERLAPS, it does not stack. This does mean that if you are a lycanthrope (DR/Silver) and cast StoneSkin (DR/Adamantine), it is pretty hard to beat your DR (requires a wierd spell/ability)
ajb47 04-11-07, 01:10 PM	1. Technically Cleave on an AoO is legal. It is also TREMDOUSLY abusive. The 1/round thing is not a real limit, as people just take Combat Reflexes and can do it a LOT more than 1/round. Maybe I misunderstood you, but: 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. This says the benefits of the feat can be used once per round. Not the using it on AoO, yes? The lists of abuses include things such as: Insane Sheppard (herd animals, kill them Cleave to enemey) Bar room Brawl (follow enemey into a bar. Start a brawl, kill civilians, cleave into enemey) Suicidal Mirror Images (Cast Mirror Image, walk 10 ft, kill one - officially negating the illusion entitels you to a cleave, then cleave into enemey.) Thrown Gerbil (hire first level guy to throw 1/4 hd creatures at you, kill them and cleave into real enemey) Now I am not a great tactician, so it may need to be explained to me slowly, but (even allowing for Great Cleave instead of Cleave) these seem like counterintuitive uses for attacks to me. Just having easily killed animals around does not mean they necessarily provoke from the Cleaver to allow a Cleave. And wasting your attacks on your turn against a gerbil just so you can use your Cleave to also attack the enemy? Why not just attack the enemy? It's not like the enemy's AC goes down because it's a Cleave, or an AoO, or something. AJ
Droma 04-11-07, 01:17 PM	My understand of the gerbil thing.... 1. Hit enemy on your turn 2. partner sends gerbal running through your threatend square you AoO killing it and then cleaving enemy Basically make other things besides your enemy provoke so you get a free extra attack every round.
Selgard 04-11-07, 01:24 PM	Answer to Cleave on AoO: Yes. Answer to Cheeze: No. Cheeze does not require a special particular rule to delete it. It just requires one small word from the DM. "NO."
ajb47 04-11-07, 01:28 PM	My understand of the gerbil thing.... 1. Hit enemy on your turn 2. partner sends gerbal running through your threatend square you AoO killing it and then cleaving enemy Basically make other things besides your enemy provoke so you get a free extra attack every round. OK, I get that. I can even see where if you are Heracles and you have this mortal follower tagging along, it might even be useful. But I think in my D&D party, my partner better be doing something better than gerbil-flinging. AJ
Merestil Haye 04-11-07, 01:38 PM	The idea is that when the easily killed animals provoke AoOs that the fighter take them, kill the animal then Cleave into the enemy, three, four or more times a round. All these attacks are at the attackers highest BAB because they are AoOs, and commensurately more effective. The FAQ is unequivocal in stating that a character may Cleave off an AoO. I'm sure there are reasons why most of the scenarios won't work, if you look for them.
ajb47 04-11-07, 01:55 PM	The idea is that when the easily killed animals provoke AoOs that the fighter take them, kill the animal then Cleave into the enemy, three, four or more times a round. All these attacks are at the attackers highest BAB because they are AoOs, and commensurately more effective.[QUOTE] Ah, yes. So they would be "better" attacks in that regard. [QUOTE=Merestil Haye;12059263] The FAQ is unequivocal in stating that a character may Cleave off an AoO. And the rules of Cleave are pretty clear when they state "you can use this ability once per round". If you used it once on your turn, you can't use it for your AoO. If you use it once on your first flung gerbil, there is no more need to fling gerbils because you are done Cleaving until your next round starts. "Put that thing away, Bob. I'm spent." Great Cleave, however, is usable for these scenarios. AJ
Tichondrus 04-11-07, 01:58 PM	About cleave and walking to the enemy (as tarkin stated and we finally agree in a rule abuse :D) Put it this way: The enemy has a spellcaster. Your group has none. So, you walk into a bar, and when the fight begins, your enemy is 15 feet away from you, so you can't make a full atack action against it. What do you do? You hit a civilan, kill it and advance 5 feet. Kill another and advance 5 more feet. Now you are at enough range to massacre the enemy with the full atack action you started against a poor civilan. Good game enemy caster. Now do the same with the little summoned thingies. see? Not hard, just incredibly glitchtastic.
Merestil Haye 04-11-07, 02:17 PM	And the rules of Cleave are pretty clear when they state "you can use this ability once per round". If you used it once on your turn, you can't use it for your AoO. If you use it once on your first flung gerbil, there is no more need to fling gerbils because you are done Cleaving until your next round starts.No, the attacker will have Great Cleave (and Combat Reflexes). He'll be able to cleave off every AoO thus generated. But in truth Thrown Rodent is the easiest of the abuses to knock on the head. There are rules for throwing creatures, whether those creatures are enemies or allies. These rules (Fling Ally and Fling Enemy feats in Races of Stone) both state that the thrown creature provokes no AoOs for the movement. I would rule that this is true of any thrown creature - they become a missile, and missiles do not provoke AoOs.
ajb47 04-11-07, 03:49 PM	No, the attacker will have Great Cleave (and Combat Reflexes). He'll be able to cleave off every AoO thus generated. Yes, I admitted that Great Cleave would work. Obviously, these tactics are not for those piddly lower than +4 BAB people.:noway: And thanks to all for clearing up the tactics ideas for someone who has been reading about them for 5 years and never totally understood them. AJ
Tony Vargas 04-11-07, 06:50 PM	Me and my group of players is in doubt when it comes to Attack of opportunity and cleave. Is it possible to make a cleave/greatcleave as part of an attack of opportunity? And where in the rules can I find it?It's not spelled out in the rules. So, if you're of the school of thought that "If the rule's don't say I can't, I can" vs "If the rules don't say you can, you can't" then it'd be possible. In practice it comes up very rarely - few critters like to provoke AoOs against the kinds of foes that have Great Cleave (typically, Great Cleave types have very high damage potential - giants, barbarians, two-handed-weapon-specialist fighters - /not/ the kind of people you want to give free attacks to). It only becomes problematic in one sense: by definition, whatever you cleave into after that AoO will not have provoked an AoO. That could be exploited to 'generate' extra attacks in ways that would be imbalancing (as has been mentioned). If you were concerned with that becoming an issue, and still wanted to allow cleave off an AoO, you could rule that the extra attack from Cleave could only be used as an AoO - and, since the cleave attack must be taken 'immediately' could only be used for the very next AoO provoked against you (if you decline that AoO, you'd lose the extra attack).
Ryll 04-11-07, 08:04 PM	But I think in my D&D party, my partner better be doing something better than gerbil-flinging. I think if used quotes in my sig...this would be one of them :)
Leilond 04-12-07, 03:51 AM	The critters "trick" won't be permitted by a DM with an intelligence of 8 or more! It isn't a matter of "rule" it is a matter of "playing for what"? The rules, and the official FAQ, clear that you can cleave during AoO (if you didn't cleaved during you main turn).
tarkin 04-12-07, 10:41 AM	You are using what I call the bad DM ruling. Look, the problem is NOT that the player is acutally going to try the cheesy crap. We are using these builds as examples to show you how the rule itself is cheesy. 1. Ask yourself WHY is the cheesy crap cheesy? 2. Ask yourself why those same reasons do not apply to the things you think are NOT cheesy? The builds we listed are examples, not isolated incidents. You can tell, because there is not one of them, there are like 10 of them. It is like me saying "Taxing the poor is stupid", then showing you ten cases where the homeless could never pay and ended up on jail, wasting our money. You can't attack my examples as obviously cheezy and then claim the rule itself is fine. You have to show that my examples are NOT evidence that the rule is bad. Here, let me explain it to you in terms you can understand. There is a law on the books in this city that says It is legal to go up and hit any person that says the N word, as hard as you can. Fine, you say. You like that law. Then you go to a comedy club and you see this black guy on stage. He says the N word. You go up and hit him. You get arrested. You claim he said the N word, so it is legal for you to hit him. The Judge laughs at you and says "No way, that is so cheesy, that is not what the law meant". You complain that that is what the law says and there is no possible way anyone can read it as having an exception, and no way that you could have known. Fine the Judge says. The judge lets you off this time with a warning and then publicizes a ruling throught the land that a black man, when making a joke, can use the N word. Next week, you see a tan man in the streets, who is joking to his friend, and uses the N word. You hit him. Again you end up in jail. The tan man claims to be black, and you argue he is not black,he looks tan. In this trial, one of the lawyers makes a mistake and says the N word, you hit him. He is clearly not black and clearly not making a joke. The Judge now makes ANOTHER rule, saying that it is legal to say it when doing a law case about it. Then a man in a white hood face tries to say the word, while making a joke about how stupid black men are. People hit him. He succesfully claims in court that he is 1/8 black on his mother's side, and it was a joke. etc. etc. etc. The problem is the basic rule ITSELF is cheesy. This is NOT one isolated case. There are TONS of obviously cheesy builds. There is NO non-cheesy way to take a Cleave on an AoO. You disagree? Fine. Then it is up to YOU to conclusively show us HOW all of the cheesy builds are cheesy but the crap you are trying to pass of is not cheesy. If you can't do that, then the rest of us laugh at you for trying to pass off the chessy stuff. No one has ever done that. (Note, unlike some of the other posters here there are many cases where I admit I was wrong - but not the Cleave on AoO abuse. I hereby admit that the builds also require Great Cleave. It is not a problem, just a single more feat)
Frugal 04-12-07, 11:21 AM	It is also TREMDOUSLY abusive. The 1/round thing is not a real limit, as people just take Combat Reflexes and can do it a LOT more than 1/round. He was talking about cleave being limited to 1/round, not the AoO, yes with combat reflexes and great cleave you can get more cleaves on AoO's. The lists of abuses include things such as: Insane Sheppard (herd animals, kill them Cleave to enemey) Bar room Brawl (follow enemey into a bar. Start a brawl, kill civilians, cleave into enemey) Suicidal Mirror Images (Cast Mirror Image, walk 10 ft, kill one - officially negating the illusion entitels you to a cleave, then cleave into enemey.) Thrown Gerbil (hire first level guy to throw 1/4 hd creatures at you, kill them and cleave into real enemey) Geeze Tarkin! I posted responses to the suicidal mirror images and thrown gerbil "abuses" months ago (maybe close to a year now) and you never found a way to show that it actually did provoke an AoO yet you persist in pulling out those abuses? Oh wait, I see you're now going for another variation on mirror image. Quick version, Mirror Images, negating a mirror image doesn't provoke a cleave, RAW cleave says, "if you deal a creature enough damage to make it drop...." So an illusion not being a creature and being negated without dealing any damage rules that one out. And if you're going to claim that the mirror image provokes an AoO from moving with you I'll remind you that I already refuted that and you didn't provide any counter argument. Gerbils, as I've stated many times before, thrown creatures don't provoke AoO's, look at the Fling Ally and Fling Enemy feats in Races of Stone for the only applicable rules reference you can find on thrown creatures, the "movement" from being thrown doesn't provoke.
Frugal 04-12-07, 11:28 AM	About cleave and walking to the enemy (as tarkin stated and we finally agree in a rule abuse :D) Put it this way: The enemy has a spellcaster. Your group has none. So, you walk into a bar, and when the fight begins, your enemy is 15 feet away from you, so you can't make a full atack action against it. What do you do? You hit a civilan, kill it and advance 5 feet. Kill another and advance 5 more feet. Now you are at enough range to massacre the enemy with the full atack action you started against a poor civilan. Good game enemy caster. Cheat much? You can't take any movement between cleaves. So yeah, I can hit that civilian, I can take a 5' step, great now I've wasted my attack action and can't take any more movement because I took a 5' step (although I am allowed a move equivalent action), and I'm still 10' away from the caster and now it's his turn. Even with supreme cleave (given out by the frenzied berserker and I believe at least 1 other class) you're only allowed 1 5' step at some point during your cleaves.
tarkin 04-12-07, 12:56 PM	Geeze Tarkin! I posted responses to the suicidal mirror images and thrown gerbil "abuses" months ago (maybe close to a year now) and you never found a way to show that it actually did provoke an AoO yet you persist in pulling out those abuses? Oh wait, I see you're now going for another variation on mirror image. Quick version, Mirror Images, negating a mirror image doesn't provoke a cleave, RAW cleave says, "if you deal a creature enough damage to make it drop...." So an illusion not being a creature and being negated without dealing any damage rules that one out. And if you're going to claim that the mirror image provokes an AoO from moving with you I'll remind you that I already refuted that and you didn't provide any counter argument. Gerbils, as I've stated many times before, thrown creatures don't provoke AoO's, look at the Fling Ally and Fling Enemy feats in Races of Stone for the only applicable rules reference you can find on thrown creatures, the "movement" from being thrown doesn't provoke. I never bothered to respond cause they were lost among other bad arguments. You can not use rules from a special feat to apply to other places. It is like saying Fly-By-Attack gets no AoO because Spring Attack does not. You ignore the heart of the matter, and concentrate on side issues that are irrelevant. The Heart of the Matter is that it is wrong to let me take AoOs on you because of something someone else did, which is what Cleave off an AoO is trying to do. The Mirror Image thing is not a new one, I discoved it two years ago or so. I agree that Mirror Image should not provoke an AoO. But if you bother to read the FAQ you see it does do that. Just as the FAQ says Cleave works on AoO, it also says Cleave works on Mirror Image. The Fling Ally/Enemey crap is blantaly bad logic. We are not using those feats. The feats mention negating AoO's because if you throw someone without the feats, then you DO get AoOs. If you check the Bull Rush rules forcing someone to move clearly causes an AoO. The negating of the AoOs is clearly something that is special about the FEATS, not the general act of throwing. If you are so foolish as to insist that your House Rules about throwing a creature have the same benefits that you get from the feats, fine. Your arguement still does not work. All you have done is forced me to change Thrown Gerbil to something more complicated. Replace the words "Thrown Gerbil" with "Bull Rush Gerbil". Arrange it so that the person bullrushing is immune/has DR against whatever attack kills the gerbil. The Abuse is still there. Stop concentrating on the meaningless stuff and pay attention to what matters. What matters is that Cleave on AoO lets you conver an AoO against a third person into an attack against someone that did NOT do an AoO. This is the heart of the abuse. Anything that claims it is legal some of the time but not all of the time, and does not tellyou WHY is nonsensical ramblings of a poor DM.
ajb47 04-12-07, 01:42 PM	What matters is that Cleave on AoO lets you conver an AoO against a third person into an attack against someone that did NOT do an AoO Ah, now I get your objection. And it is an interesting one. I have never thought about it in those terms. Just because gerbil flinging (sorry, dude, I just like that term and it's easier than Suicidal Mirror Image) might provoke an AoO does not mean that your enemy did anything to deserve suffering a free or extra attack or more every round. I will have to think about this rule for my next and future campaigns. AJ
Frugal 04-12-07, 01:51 PM	You ignore the heart of the matter, and concentrate on side issues that are irrelevant. The Heart of the Matter is that it is wrong to let me take AoOs on you because of something someone else did, which is what Cleave off an AoO is trying to do. The Mirror Image thing is not a new one, I discoved it two years ago or so. I think you've changed your wording of it though since I last saw it. I agree that Mirror Image should not provoke an AoO. But if you bother to read the FAQ you see it does do that. Just as the FAQ says Cleave works on AoO, it also says Cleave works on Mirror Image. Where does it say that mirror image provokes AoO's from the person its mirroring? As I've mentioned since the beginning of you using this "abuse", the movement is simultaneous to the caster's movement so I would argue that they can't provoke AoO's from the caster. I also don't see anything in the FAQ about images provoking AoO's. So if you bothered to read the FAQ you'd see that it doesn't say that. Now I'd argue that if the caster does an action which provokes an AoO then opponents get the AoO against them but if you claimed that images provoke AoO's then an opponent with combat reflexes would get multiple AoO's from that single provoking action, which causes a whole host of problems. The Fling Ally/Enemey crap is blantaly bad logic. We are not using those feats. The feats mention negating AoO's because if you throw someone without the feats, then you DO get AoOs. If you check the Bull Rush rules forcing someone to move clearly causes an AoO. The negating of the AoOs is clearly something that is special about the FEATS, not the general act of throwing. No, the benefit you gain from fling ally/enemy is being able to do it. By RAW there's no way to throw any creature without these feats. Forcing someone to move by a bull rush does provoke AoO's but cite me any rules in any rulebook that cover throwing a creature aside from those feats. You can't do it because they don't exist. And why would I bother taking a feat to throw an enemy and have them not provoke an AoO if (as you're saying) I could have just picked them up and tossed them without the feat and had them provoke? If you are so foolish as to insist that your House Rules about throwing a creature have the same benefits that you get from the feats, fine. Your arguement still does not work. All you have done is forced me to change Thrown Gerbil to something more complicated. Replace the words "Thrown Gerbil" with "Bull Rush Gerbil". Arrange it so that the person bullrushing is immune/has DR against whatever attack kills the gerbil. The Abuse is still there. No, the benefit from fling ally/enemy is what size creature you can throw. There are absolutely no rules for thrown creatures outside of those feats so I'd argue that in the absence of other rules on throwing creatures we should use the mechanics from these feats. Namely, that a thrown creature does not provoke AoO's from that "movement". What matters is that Cleave on AoO lets you conver an AoO against a third person into an attack against someone that did NOT do an AoO. Right, but by that logic cleave shouldn't work at all, I mean that guy next to the guy I just killed was just standing there right? I mean why should he get hit if I was attacking his friend? Anything that claims it is legal some of the time but not all of the time, and does not tellyou WHY is nonsensical ramblings of a poor DM. Oh, so claiming that cleave and great cleave obey a completely different set of rules under some circumstances, without telling you WHY [I}isn't[/I] nonsensical ramblings of a poor DM? Personally, I'd rather see cleave and great cleave work the same way all the time.
Tsuul 04-12-07, 02:19 PM	The Heart of the Matter is that it is wrong to let me take AoOs on you because of something someone else did, which is what Cleave off an AoO is trying to do.In that context, correct. But, you are doing something as well. And that changes the context completely. It is not unreasonable to assume that the body of a buddy in armor would stop a swing. It would be quite shocking to see a weapon swing continue through it's motion and then onto me.
Frugal 04-12-07, 02:23 PM	In that context, correct. But, you are doing something as well. And that changes the context completely. It is not unreasonable to assume that the body of a buddy in armor would stop a swing. It would be quite shocking to see a weapon swing continue through it's motion and then onto me. Exactly, it's not about whether the opponent did anything, it's about you applying a particular combat technique, which is just as valid on an AoO as it is in a normal combat round.
ajb47 04-12-07, 02:44 PM	Right, but by that logic cleave shouldn't work at all, I mean that guy next to the guy I just killed was just standing there right? I mean why should he get hit if I was attacking his friend? Eh, not exactly the same thing. On the Cleave-r's turn, he has the ability to attack either enemy. In fact, if he has enough attacks, he can attack both enemies. Cleave just gives you a bonus attack so that you can attack both enemies with the proviso that you dropped one of the guys with your (non-bonus)attack. At least, that's the way I see it. YMMV. AJ
Frugal 04-12-07, 02:59 PM	Eh, not exactly the same thing. On the Cleave-r's turn, he has the ability to attack either enemy. In fact, if he has enough attacks, he can attack both enemies. Cleave just gives you a bonus attack so that you can attack both enemies with the proviso that you dropped one of the guys with your (non-bonus)attack. At least, that's the way I see it. YMMV. AJ Right, but my point is why should you lose the ability to use that technique when it's an AoO? What's changed in the situation to make it that attacking (and dropping) one foe no longer allows you a bonus attack on someone else you threaten?
Keenath 04-12-07, 03:28 PM	Right, but my point is why should you lose the ability to use that technique when it's an AoO? What's changed in the situation to make it that attacking (and dropping) one foe no longer allows you a bonus attack on someone else you threaten? That's not unique in game-balancing rules that don't make a ton of logical sense.
Shadowhowler 04-12-07, 05:38 PM	Answer to Cleave on AoO: Yes. Answer to Cheeze: No. Cheeze does not require a special particular rule to delete it. It just requires one small word from the DM. "NO." Your my new hero... I've been trying to make that point many, many times. :)
Shlohloh 04-12-07, 05:53 PM	ok Aside from the RAW. and FAQ As i understand the basic concept of cleave is that you deliveer such and incredably powerful blow to your oppnent that not only do you kill them but the inertia of the blow carries threw and is able to be directed towards an additional oppenent. IN our group we have allowed AoO cleaves but we have limited cleave wiht a house ruling that ( we use mini's) the secondary target must be in your forward 90 degree arc and adjacent to the now dead opponent. By those rules the number of times you have an appropriate target off of an AoO is very limited. NOW like i said though we use minis and we house ruled cleave. OK let the bashing of my post begin
Nom 04-12-07, 08:53 PM	What matters is that Cleave on AoO lets you conver an AoO against a third person into an attack against someone that did NOT do an AoO.More generally, what matters it that Cleave (in general) allows you to convert a successful attack against one target into a free full-BAB attack against another target that was not legal for your original attack. Thus, it can be trivially abused by any mechanism that allows a character to generate multiple easy kills. Which was the real problem with GC/WWA. WWA wasn't the problem, which is why 'fixing' WWA by invalidating bonus attacks only alleviates a single symptom and incidentally nerfs a bunch of other non-abusive abilities (such as Improved Trip). All of this is probably irrelevant to the OP. Yes, AoO-cleave is legal. Design-broken, but legal.
Tony Vargas 04-12-07, 09:02 PM	More generally, what matters it that Cleave (in general) allows you to convert a successful attack against one target into a free full-BAB attack against another target that was not legal for your original attack. Actually, the stipulations that the extra attack be immediate (no movement first), that it be the same weapon, and at the same BAB, mean that, in every case /except/ AoO (or WWA in 3.0), you would be attacking a target that was legal for the original attack. And, the free attack isn't at full BAB, but at the BAB of the original attack. I like the idea of ruling that the cleavee must have been a possible legal target for the original attack, though. It would have been a better WWA/GC fix than the one they went for.
Frugal 04-12-07, 09:12 PM	I like the idea of ruling that the cleavee must have been a possible legal target for the original attack, though. It would have been a better WWA/GC fix than the one they went for. How does that fix WWA abuse? Suppose I'm surrounded by 1 weaker guy and 7 guys who are tougher but could be dropped with 2 hits. I start WWA and go after the 1st guy and drop him, cleave into the 2nd tougher guy, then my WWA attack on him and drop him, cleave into the next guy, and so on. I thought that was the issue with combining WWA and GC or am I misunderstanding the abuse or your proposed fix?
ajb47 04-12-07, 10:51 PM	Right, but my point is why should you lose the ability to use that technique when it's an AoO? What's changed in the situation to make it that attacking (and dropping) one foe no longer allows you a bonus attack on someone else you threaten? Usually, I find myself squarely on one side of these arg^H^H^Hdebates, but I confess that this one has me waffling. If I am understanding this correctly... 1) If enemy A provokes an AoO and gets hisself killed/dropped because of it, why should enemy B have to suffer? If I read Frugal right, because a bonus attack is a bonus attack, and it cost me a feat to get it. and 2) Why should hero 1 lose a bonus attack? If I read tarkin correctly, because in extremis it can lead to gerbil flinging (a term I have adopted for all the suggested cheesey manipulations because...well, just picture it in your mind). Mostly, I am trying to figure out how I will (house)rule it for all my future campaigns because I won't be changing it in the middle of my current one -- it's not that big a deal for me because I have pretty tame players. Maybe I waffle because it doesn't matter to me and my group which way I go. AJ
ajb47 04-12-07, 10:54 PM	How does that fix WWA abuse? Suppose I'm surrounded by 1 weaker guy and 7 guys who are tougher but could be dropped with 2 hits. I start WWA and go after the 1st guy and drop him, cleave into the 2nd tougher guy, then my WWA attack on him and drop him, cleave into the next guy, and so on. I thought that was the issue with combining WWA and GC or am I misunderstanding the abuse or your proposed fix? I'm not sure I would rule that as an abuse. That seems a valid use for two feats that cost...what 7? feats to get? Granted, I have 6 players, so it is a little difficult to realistically surround a player for very long. AJ
ajb47 04-12-07, 10:56 PM	I think if used quotes in my sig...this would be one of them :) Not to derail the thread, but the quote in question (partner gerbil flinging) just popped into my head and I had to get it out. Once I did, I realized it might be seen as .sig worthy, but that wasn't my original intention. I now return you to your regularly scheduled rules debate. AJ
ajb47 04-12-07, 11:08 PM	More generally, what matters it that Cleave (in general) allows you to convert a successful attack against one target into a free full-BAB attack against another target that was not legal for your original attack. Thus, it can be trivially abused by any mechanism that allows a character to generate multiple easy kills. Having been on the forums awhile, I have found your interpretations of the rules to be inline with my own, Nom, but unless you mistyped, I disagree here. Cleave and Great Cleave do not allow movement, so any enemy you attack using either one, must be in your threatened area. Now if instead of "in general", you meant "on an AoO", then I kind of agree. It is also only full BAB on an AoO, which is why I think you may have mistyped. AJ
Nom 04-13-07, 01:38 AM	Amean that, in every case /except/ AoO (or WWA in 3.0), you would be attacking a target that was legal for the original attack.Not necessarily. It's possible to - for example - use charge and cleave to attack a target that you could not have legally charged. There might be other obscure situations. And, the free attack isn't at full BAB, but at the BAB of the original attack.True. Although the two obvious problem cases (AoO and WWA) are both at full BAB. Addendum: Yes, my original statement wasn't very clear; I mixed up the general case (Cleave grants extra attack) with the specific problem cases (grants extra (often full BAB) attack against otherwise invalid target). No problem cases exist for Cleave when the "free" attack is used against a target that the original attack could have been applied to.
Frugal 04-13-07, 08:25 AM	Mostly, I am trying to figure out how I will (house)rule it for all my future campaigns because I won't be changing it in the middle of my current one -- it's not that big a deal for me because I have pretty tame players. Maybe I waffle because it doesn't matter to me and my group which way I go. I'd say it's a question about how likely your group is to cheese out on this. I know with my group I've never seen any of the cheese that Tarkin mentions (and I'm not sure I've even ever seen a cleave off an AoO either) so for my group it's just not an issue.
Moribund 04-13-07, 06:39 PM	Such intentional player cheeze as throwing gerbils isn't even necessary for Cleaves on AoOs to lead to ridiculous situations. Example Fighter with Great Cleave and Combat Reflexes breaks through enemy ranks and stands next to a tough opponent. Allied spellcaster casts fear on mooks. Mooks run past fighter provoking AoO all of which result in Cleaves and attacks on tough. Tough dies in one round because his allies are cowards. Or Character has above feats. Other character bull rushes mirror imaged BBEG past first character. Cleave-tastic fun ensues.
Lucas Blackstone 04-13-07, 07:11 PM	I don't consider the animal abuse cheesy, cruel perhaps but not cheesy. This is why. If your fighter is in melee with a vampire for instance and after the vampire and fighter both go, a wolf or bat minion of the vampire moves in to attack the fighter but the fighter kills it with an AoO, he could cleave into the vampire. Instead the party is supplying the animal. Would it be better if the dog/snake/whatever was being commanded to attack the fighter? That shouldn't make a difference really. On a side note, I think it would be funny to have a fighter engaged in a fight with something 10 feet away, and have an ally of the fighter move between the two of them as part of his move, and use the Elusive Target feat, to make the fighter attack the enemy with the AoO. This isn't a cleave related deal but an AoO one.
Frugal 04-13-07, 07:25 PM	Character has above feats. Other character bull rushes mirror imaged BBEG past first character. Cleave-tastic fun ensues. Well the other character still needs to hit the BBEG and not one of the images. And I'm still trying to find a reference that images provoke AoO's. If they did then any time someone with mirror image cast provoked an AoO they'd lose all their images (assuming the person they threaten has combat reflexes). Or considered another way, the movement of the images is simultaneous so you can only take one AoO against the group of images and actual person; taking that AoO means you lost the opportunity that the other images opened up.
Moribund 04-13-07, 07:49 PM	Well the other character still needs to hit the BBEG and not one of the images. That's easy he's the one actually being pushed by your friend. You won't lose track of him until he able to merge with one of his images.
Frugal 04-13-07, 09:50 PM	That's easy he's the one actually being pushed by your friend. You won't lose track of him until he able to merge with one of his images. No, I meant that the person performing the bull rush has to actually hit the BBEG and not one of the images.
Moribund 04-13-07, 10:49 PM	Oh, well for that all he apparently needs to do is close his eyes and stumble around blindly since closing your eyes makes you immune to mirror image and bull rush doesn't require any sort of attack roll.
Frugal 04-13-07, 11:09 PM	Oh, well for that all he apparently needs to do is close his eyes and stumble around blindly since closing your eyes makes you immune to mirror image and bull rush doesn't require any sort of attack roll. Yeah, not quite. I also don't see the argument about them not being able to merge while he's moving due to bull rush. And given that they react in the same manner as the BBEG I'd say there's the miss chance on the bull rush (plus a 2nd miss chance if he closes his eyes) and then the (single) AoO it provokes has the miss chance too. So yeah, you get one AoO from the whole deal, the same as if he didn't have mirror image, wow that's abuse!
Moribund 04-13-07, 11:33 PM	Yeah, not quite. I also don't see the argument about them not being able to merge while he's moving due to bull rush. And given that they react in the same manner as the BBEG I'd say there's the miss chance on the bull rush (plus a 2nd miss chance if he closes his eyes) and then the (single) AoO it provokes has the miss chance too. So yeah, you get one AoO from the whole deal, the same as if he didn't have mirror image, wow that's abuse! There is no miss chance from the images (they effectively don't exist for someone with their eyes closed according to the mirror image spell description). Bull rush requires no attack roll so it is unaffected by concealment from blindness (the bull rush would begin whenever the conditions for it were met, i.e. the bull rusher entering the BBEG's space). All images react in the same way (presumably moving if the caster moves or is moved) which would likely have them be valid and separate targets for AoOs. They are valid Cleave targets according to the FAQ. I would think that the merging would only occur during voluntary movement, but a DM would be free to rule it otherwise. In fact the whole thing is something a DM could call shenanigans on (which I would encourage), but that doesn't prevent it from being supported and arguable under the rules. I feel obligated to point out that AoO on a bull rushee suffer a 25% chance of hitting the bull rusher, so as to dissuade any readers from this tactic (unless they just REALLY like getting into arguments with their DMs or Frugal here). My point is that Cleaves on AoOs lead to ridiculous situations, the henchmen running in circles around combat while carrying a bunch of chickens notwithstanding.
Frugal 04-14-07, 09:45 AM	There is no miss chance from the images (they effectively don't exist for someone with their eyes closed according to the mirror image spell description). Bull rush requires no attack roll so it is unaffected by concealment from blindness (the bull rush would begin whenever the conditions for it were met, i.e. the bull rusher entering the BBEG's space). All images react in the same way (presumably moving if the caster moves or is moved) which would likely have them be valid and separate targets for AoOs. They are valid Cleave targets according to the FAQ. True, had to reread the spell description. However, as I pointed out, there's nothing in the rules or FAQ to indicate that images provoke individual AoO's. And, as I also pointed out, even if they did I think it's reasonable to rule that since the provoking actions are all simultaneous (by definition of the way mirror image works) that it's only possible to take advantage of one AoO, because by the time you've taken that AoO the other provoking actions have already happened. This ruling is not only line with the spell's description but also prevents the nonsensical "abuse" you're talking about.
Moribund 04-14-07, 04:06 PM	So the synchronized look-alike goblin dancers' troop is also resistant to AoOs? Just because they move past at the same time? If the mirror images are separate targets (which they are), they have to provoke separate AoOs, simultaneous or not. Otherwise it opens up loopholes in how AoOs work. Opponents could just ready to all run past at the time, or ready to sunder your weapon at the same time, or ready to cast spells at the same time. You have to keep in mind that simultaneity is a tricky subject in D&D, because of the abstraction that is the initiative system. Every time a bunch of people run past an opponent, they would in reality all do so at the same time. The only reason they don't is because they all act on their individual turns. Yes, of course you could rule that you only get one AoO. I'm just saying that, as a player, I would argue. I think the problem stems from the Cleave off the AoO rather than the multiple AoOs, which I still don't know wether you agree or disagree with. The last several posts have been about one of the hypothetical situations (which I just came up with on the fly, btw) I presented where Cleaves on AoOs lead to implausible results. Not that implausible things never happen in D&D :)
Frugal 04-14-07, 04:22 PM	So the synchronized look-alike goblin dancers' troop is also resistant to AoOs? Just because they move past at the same time? I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about here. If the mirror images are separate targets (which they are), they have to provoke separate AoOs, simultaneous or not. Otherwise it opens up loopholes in how AoOs work. Opponents could just ready to all run past at the time, or ready to sunder your weapon at the same time, or ready to cast spells at the same time. Ready doesn't work that way, it interrupts the triggering action and is considered to take place before the triggering action (at least in terms of resolution) so it's impossible to ready actions to happen simultaneously. You have to keep in mind that simultaneity is a tricky subject in D&D, because of the abstraction that is the initiative system. Every time a bunch of people run past an opponent, they would in reality all do so at the same time. The only reason they don't is because they all act on their individual turns. Yes, but mirror image acts simultaneously even within the initiative order, which I think is a unique situation in the rules. Everything else maybe considered to be happening simultaneously but is resolved sequentially, mirror image doesn't work that way. Yes, of course you could rule that you only get one AoO. I'm just saying that, as a player, I would argue. I think the problem stems from the Cleave off the AoO rather than the multiple AoOs, which I still don't know wether you agree or disagree with. The last several posts have been about one of the hypothetical situations (which I just came up with on the fly, btw) I presented where Cleaves on AoOs lead to implausible results. Not that implausible things never happen in D&D :) I've said I don't have a problem with it. If we're going to say that it's open to abuse then we have to look at the "abuses" mentioned. A large number of them rely on breaking another rule or "creatively interpreting" another rule in such a way to allow the abuse and personally I think there's more issues with allowing those other interpretations to slide in. For instance, if every figment in a mirror image uniquely provokes an AoO then mirror image becomes useless if you ever provoke an AoO against someone with combat expertise. I think it make far more sense, and is far more consistent to the way mirror image works and the way AoO's work, to rule that you only get 1 AoO against the group. I also prefer the consistency of saying that cleave always works the same way. Especially when more of the "fixes" propose that you "hold" the cleave attack until someone else provokes an AoO and allow the cleave to be applied to them. Personally, I think that's just clunky.
WolfHati 04-14-07, 04:49 PM	How exactly is using great cleave with a whirlwhind attack abusive? And what rule prohibits it? If a fighter is that darn well trained and fast that he can attack everyone nearby him in the span of time that they can attack him once, and is strong enough to hack through one and into the other, there had better darn well be some carnage going on.
Moribund 04-14-07, 05:41 PM	How exactly is using great cleave with a whirlwhind attack abusive? And what rule prohibits it? If a fighter is that darn well trained and fast that he can attack everyone nearby him in the span of time that they can attack him once, and is strong enough to hack through one and into the other, there had better darn well be some carnage going on. The feat Whirlwind Attack's description, when using it you forfeit extra or bonus attacks. Cleave is specifically mentioned. Yes, but mirror image acts simultaneously even within the initiative order, which I think is a unique situation in the rules. Everything else maybe considered to be happening simultaneously but is resolved sequentially, mirror image doesn't work that way. ::exasperated:: It is not unique. It actually happens frequently. It happens whenever a mounted combatant provokes an attack of opportunity by moving. The movement of mount and rider is every bit as simultaneous as a bunch of mirror images. A large number of them rely on breaking another rule or "creatively interpreting" another rule in such a way to allow the abuse and personally I think there's more issues with allowing those other interpretations to slide in My fear example in the same post as the mirror imaged BBEG is actually the stronger case. It seems you've chosen to focus on a potentially weaker example. Still, I don't think it is in any way a "creative interpreting" of the AoO rules. I suggest you read the section on Simultaneous Activity in the DMG (p. 24). You seem to be putting way too much faith in the sequential nature of the initiative system. You might just be arguing for the sake of argument, which probably means I've offended you in some way. If that's the case, I'm deeply sorry. I can see how some of my comments can be viewed as personal attacks, but I really did mean no offense. Humor is tricky on boards such as these. Edit: I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about here. It was meant to be a humorous example. The goblin dancers are all moving at the same time (like synchronized swimmers) and look the same. Their activity and appearance would be virtually identical to a mirror image. My own character frequently taunts with mirror images by being his own can-can group or conga line.
Frugal 04-14-07, 07:31 PM	::exasperated:: It is not unique. It actually happens frequently. It happens whenever a mounted combatant provokes an attack of opportunity by moving. The movement of mount and rider is every bit as simultaneous as a bunch of mirror images. True enough, and I hadn't considered it. However, I still see no problem with limiting you to a single AoO in that situation, you can attack the mount or the rider but you don't have enough time to attack both. And using cleave with that situation actually ties in nicely with legends of various weapons being able to slice through the mount and rider with a single swing. My fear example in the same post as the mirror imaged BBEG is actually the stronger case. It seems you've chosen to focus on a potentially weaker example. Still, I don't think it is in any way a "creative interpreting" of the AoO rules. No it's not, but panicked creatures flee in a random direction, and away from other threats, so you're looking at a limited number of cases when they might actually happen. Plus fear is a cone effect so you need to find some way to have that melee fighter (with a poor will save) in the middle of all those bad guys not get hit with the spell. I suggest you read the section on Simultaneous Activity in the DMG (p. 24). You seem to be putting way too much faith in the sequential nature of the initiative system. Wait a minute? I've been arguing that certain things happen simultaneously and thus the character doesn't have time to act on more than one provoked AoO and somehow I'm clinging too much to the sequential nature of the initiative system? BBEG and mirror images are bull rushed past me (the images mimic the movement), I swing at one (and roll to determine which it is) and maybe I destroy the image and cleave (as part of the same swing) into another (which I also have to roll to figure out which one it is), if I hit another figment and have great cleave I can keep going like this but once I hit the BBEG I stop (either I don't drop him or I do and the figments vanish) but I don't have time to say, swing at 1 figment, cleave into BBEG, swing at another figment, cleave into BBEG and so on. Similarly, a mounted opponent rides by, I have enough time to swing at them but I have to choose which to swing at. Personally, I think this is reinforcing the concept of the action being simultaneous and to argue otherwise is clinging too much to the sequential nature of the initiative system. You might just be arguing for the sake of argument, which probably means I've offended you in some way. If that's the case, I'm deeply sorry. I can see how some of my comments can be viewed as personal attacks, but I really did mean no offense. Humor is tricky on boards such as these. No, you haven't offended me. I just don't see the cleave on AoO as being that big of an issue. The more typical one is that the BBEG has several goons around him and they all provoke AoO's and the BBEG is subjected to 7 full BAB cleave attacks. But, if you read the section on combat actions on p. 25 of the DMG you'll see that it talks about how you need to run your NPCs intelligently if they're intelligent, and here's the crucial quote: A combat-savvy fighter with a fair Intelligence score isn't going to allow his opponents to get attacks of opportunity unless he has to, but a stupid goblin might. I think we can extend that to say that a combat-savvy BBEG with a fair INT is going to know better than to set himself up for cleave attacks by surrounding himself with weak goons.
Moribund 04-14-07, 09:11 PM	Oh, good. I haven't offended you. In that case I'll keep arguing. Panicked creatures run away from the source of the fear, in that case the caster. They will avoid other dangers if possible, but I don't think they would start cowering because one opponent blocks their egress. And there are plenty of reasons why you wouldn't worry about hitting your fighter with fear, he could have eaten a hero's feast for example or he could simply be out of range (30 ft isn't that big a cone). My point about simultaneity is that ALL actions in combat occur more or less simultaneously. It is an artifact of the system to say that only those things that occur as part of the same action happen at the same time, like the movement of mirror images. If a bunch of bad guys run past a character with Combat Reflexes, they are really all doing so AT THE SAME TIME. Not on their individual actions. It is artificially sequential to say each one waits for the other to go before he tries to run past. If you told a character with Combat Reflexes that they only get to swing at one of them, you are going to have one very angry player. If you think it is unreasonable for a character to get multiple attacks of opportunity, you should consider banning Combat Reflexes. My point about both mount and rider provoking is supported by the Rules of the Game Article: All About Mounts (Part Two). When you and our mount move, you both are subject to attacks of opportunity from your foes (your mount might be the one actually doing the moving, but you're moving as well). For example, when you and your mount leave a threatened space, you both provoke attacks of opportunity from foes that threaten that space. A foe who can make multiple attacks of opportunity in a round (for example, a foe with a high Dexterity score and the Combat Reflexes feat) can make an attack of opportunity against you and one against your mount. I think we can extend that to say that a combat-savvy BBEG with a fair INT is going to know better than to set himself up for cleave attacks by surrounding himself with weak goons. Having several weak goons is not generally an unintelligent thing to do. They block ease of movement and serve as threats to the less melee-capable characters in a party. It is only really because of Cleaves on AoO that they become a liability. Stronger goons become more of a target for character's mind-control magic.
Frugal 04-14-07, 09:39 PM	Panicked creatures run away from the source of the fear, in that case the caster. They will avoid other dangers if possible, but I don't think they would start cowering because one opponent blocks their egress. And there are plenty of reasons why you wouldn't worry about hitting your fighter with fear, he could have eaten a hero's feast for example or he could simply be out of range (30 ft isn't that big a cone). Yes, my point was simply that it could be dangerous to target it effectively, and they do flee in a random direction. I'd certainly be inclined to argue that they'll avoid entering a threatened area if they can. Now if they were already in the threatened area then they'd provoke from leaving it but then you have the issues of hitting your friend with the spell. My point about simultaneity is that ALL actions in combat occur more or less simultaneously. It is an artifact of the system to say that only those things that occur as part of the same action happen at the same time, like the movement of mirror images. Yes, but the abstraction is a necessity. Otherwise, for instance, you'd be able to move out of the way of a charge. While things might officially be simultaneous you have to accept that the turn sequence is abstracted to be sequential. Mirror image is one of a very small number of circumstances where something does actually happen simultaneously and is resolved simultaneously (otherwise the figments would have their own initiative scores). There are other examples where things clearly happen sequentially and make no sense if you say that the action is simultaneous. For instance, opponents move down a hallway, open the door and enter the room, then my PC charges one of them. Clearly, the entirety of my action took place after the door was opened and makes no sense if we say that it happens simultaneously. There's a host of other situations. If a bunch of bad guys run past a character with Combat Reflexes, they are really all doing so AT THE SAME TIME. Not on their individual actions. It is artificially sequential to say each one waits for the other to go before he tries to run past. If you told a character with Combat Reflexes that they only get to swing at one of them, you are going to have one very angry player. Yes and no, you still have to allow for some to pass before more can get by. If you think it is unreasonable for a character to get multiple attacks of opportunity, you should consider banning Combat Reflexes. I didn't say it's unreasonable for a character to get multiple AoO's, I said it's unreasonable for him to get multiple AoO's off a single provoking action. For instance, an opponent with mirror image is only making a single move action, the figments aren't even making an action at all because they're incapable of making actions (in the rules sense), a single provoking action. Similarly, a rider's mount moves through a threatened area, a single provoking action (the mount's movement). I think it's unreasonable to provoke multiple AoO's from a single action. My point about both mount and rider provoking is supported by the Rules of the Game Article: All About Mounts (Part Two). Fair enough, I have no problem with calling it a house rule. It's certainly in line with that article but I'm fine with that. I'm not sure it goes against RAW as by RAW the rider didn't take an action so he can't provoke, his mount took one. But if we're going to argue RAW then you don't have a case either as RAW allows for cleave on an AoO so we're clearly already into the realm of house rules here. Having several weak goons is not generally an unintelligent thing to do. They block ease of movement and serve as threats to the less melee-capable characters in a party. It is only really because of Cleaves on AoO that they become a liability. Stronger goons become more of a target for character's mind-control magic. Yes, but my point is that an intelligent BBEG should know about this issue and not put himself in that type of situation. For that matter, it's entirely possible that he knows the technique himself (has the feats) in which case it's 100% reasonable to assume that he'd be smart enough to not leave himself open to such a situation.
Moribund 04-15-07, 01:40 AM	Yes, my point was simply that it could be dangerous to target it effectively, and they do flee in a random direction. A panicked creature becomes shaken and must drop anything it holds and flee at top speed from the source of its fear, as well as any other dangers it encounters, along a random path. Path =/= direction Yes, but the abstraction is a necessity. Otherwise, for instance, you'd be able to move out of the way of a charge. While things might officially be simultaneous you have to accept that the turn sequence is abstracted to be sequential. Mirror image is one of a very small number of circumstances where something does actually happen simultaneously and is resolved simultaneously (otherwise the figments would have their own initiative scores). Of course the abstraction is necessary, but you are willfully extending the abstraction. Which I don't believe you should do without good reason. Those circumstances are only rare because of the abstraction. Many other times multiple provoking actions occur, they would in actuality occur simultaneously. There are other examples where things clearly happen sequentially and make no sense if you say that the action is simultaneous. For instance, opponents move down a hallway, open the door and enter the room, then my PC charges one of them. Clearly, the entirety of my action took place after the door was opened and makes no sense if we say that it happens simultaneously. There's a host of other situations. You are attempting to create a false dichotomy here. Of course sequentiality occurs. That doesn't mean simultaneity does not occur. Yes and no, you still have to allow for some to pass before more can get by. And you have to allow that some will pass at the same time (especially if they are running to either side of the character). I didn't say it's unreasonable for a character to get multiple AoO's, I said it's unreasonable for him to get multiple AoO's off a single provoking action. For instance, an opponent with mirror image is only making a single move action, the figments aren't even making an action at all because they're incapable of making actions (in the rules sense), a single provoking action. Similarly, a rider's mount moves through a threatened area, a single provoking action (the mount's movement). I think it's unreasonable to provoke multiple AoO's from a single action. No that's not what you've been saying. You've said that the actions occurred simultaneously, and that's why they wouldn't provoke multiple AoOs. You have not until now used the phrase "single action" in our discussion. Yes, but my point is that an intelligent BBEG should know about this issue and not put himself in that type of situation. For that matter, it's entirely possible that he knows the technique himself (has the feats) in which case it's 100% reasonable to assume that he'd be smart enough to not leave himself open to such a situation. The BBEG should be aware of flaws in the combat system? How silly does it sound to you to say to your henchmen "Don't move in to guard me from the enemy, because he might, in hitting you, get the chance to hit me" or "Run circles around the enemy because it makes him more vulnerable"? It simply isn't realistic. Fix the flaw and you don't have to have the BBEG acting irrationally (unless he's Chaotic Evil).
Frugal 04-15-07, 10:26 AM	Path =/= direction Yes, but if there are multiple directions they could take to get away from the source of the fear then it could mean different directions entirely. Either way, it's certainly no guarantee that they'll run by the combat reflexes guy unless it's in a confined area and then that's going to limit the number of bad guys being hit by it and raise the chances of the combat reflexes guy being hit by the spell too. No that's not what you've been saying. You've said that the actions occurred simultaneously, and that's why they wouldn't provoke multiple AoOs. You have not until now used the phrase "single action" in our discussion. No I haven't, call it a refinement of what I've been saying. I think that's the main thing that bugs me about multiple AoO's being provoked from mirror image (and with mounted combat, despite what the article may say), what I've been meaning (but I will grant, not clearly been saying) by a simultaneous action is that it all of the provoking has been due to a single action. As we already know from the AoO rules, you don't get multiple AoO's from a single provoking action. I think that should be extended to include cases where that single action creates more than one valid target for an AoO, and I think that the circumstances that happens in are limited enough that this doesn't create a major issue. So far we have mirror image and mounted combat, both of which I have absolutely no problem with saying that you have to pick 1 target for your AoO and in doing so forfeit any AoO's against the rest. The BBEG should be aware of flaws in the combat system? How silly does it sound to you to say to your henchmen "Don't move in to guard me from the enemy, because he might, in hitting you, get the chance to hit me" or "Run circles around the enemy because it makes him more vulnerable"? It simply isn't realistic. Fix the flaw and you don't have to have the BBEG acting irrationally (unless he's Chaotic Evil). I'm saying that if he can be considered to be aware of metagame concepts such as AoO's (in an in-game sense at least) then he can just as well be aware of the metagame concept of cleave, especially if he has cleave himself.
kalstrand 04-15-07, 02:54 PM	The BBEG should be aware of flaws in the combat system? How silly does it sound to you to say to your henchmen "Don't move in to guard me from the enemy, because he might, in hitting you, get the chance to hit me" or "Run circles around the enemy because it makes him more vulnerable"? It simply isn't realistic. Fix the flaw and you don't have to have the BBEG acting irrationally (unless he's Chaotic Evil). Its not a flaw in the combat sytsem he is aware of. Not all BBEGs will be aware of this but most meleers and many casters that have seen combat before are aware that some "fighters" are very good at pressing an attack in the momentary distraction caused by killing someone (Cleave). So he should realize that if he is surrounded by anyone, be it a worthwhile opponent or a mook, that if he meets one of these people there is a chance that if he is fighting close enough to anyone that he could be at risk of being the recipient of this technique.
Tony Vargas 04-16-07, 02:30 PM	I think we can extend that to say that a combat-savvy BBEG with a fair INT is going to know better than to set himself up for cleave attacks by surrounding himself with weak goons.You could. But doing sell also illustrates a failing of the rules. Not on the balance side, but in terms of modeling. Having weaker allies to cover your flanks, flank your enemies, aid another, and so forth shouldn't be a suicideal tactic...
Frugal 04-16-07, 02:48 PM	You could. But doing sell also illustrates a failing of the rules. Not on the balance side, but in terms of modeling. Having weaker allies to cover your flanks, flank your enemies, aid another, and so forth shouldn't be a suicideal tactic... But it isn't suicidal. Let's look at the listed "abuses": Suicidal shepherd has plenty of in-game logistical problems to make in impractical. The big ones are getting all those animals into typical dungeon environment, getting them to approach combat, and getting them to survive long enough to actually use the tactic. Plus, unless you're bringing a lot of animals, you're not going to get to use this too often. Bar room brawl assumes NPC actions triggering AoO's to work, which is entirely likely to not happen (for instance, if you try this and all the NPCs just withdraw you wasted a bunch of effort). Plus there are plenty of in-game consequences to killing innocents in a bar. Gerbil flinging has no rules precedence and the only rules reference available (fling ally/enemy) specifically state that they don't provoke AoO's. Mirror image abuses also rely on a dubious interpretation of the rules and is easily handled by some common sense judgements. So in most situations, surrounding, or aiding another and flanking are perfectly viable tactics for a BBEG to employ and work as intended. Unless the BBEG orders his goons to do something stupid like attempt to grapple when they don't have improved grapple (which doesn't require metagame knowledge, are his goons trained in grappling or not? Any reasonably competent fighter would know that attempting to grapple when you're not trained in it is a dangerous prospect).
Tony Vargas 04-16-07, 07:51 PM	Unless the BBEG orders his goons to do something stupid like attempt to grapple when they don't have improved grapple (which doesn't require metagame knowledge, are his goons trained in grappling or not? Any reasonably competent fighter would know that attempting to grapple when you're not trained in it is a dangerous prospect).A good example. Normally, six or eight same-size creatures trying to start a grapple will seriously inconvenience you - even if you have combat reflexes, you'd need a superhuman dex to get all of them, they only need a touch attack to to start the grapple, and they could start helping eachother with grapple checks. If it succeeds, you loose your DEX bonus vs anyone outside the grapple, which'd be pretty fun for a BBEG with SA (like a Blackgaurd or Assissin). But, if the target happens to have GC as well as CR, suddenly that classic cry of "Sieze him!" becomes your death warrant.