# Cleave at the end of a charge....



## DarkJester (Jan 17, 2003)

I assume the cleave attack would not get the +2 bonus to hit from the charge, but cleave does state that it uses the same attack bonuses.

If it does grant the +2 bonus to hit from charging, would it deal the improved charge damage if a character were charging from horseback with a lance?


----------



## LokiDR (Jan 17, 2003)

Yes.  IIRC, the charge modifieres last for a round.  Any person who hits a person after their charge find that their AC is 2 lower.

The same is true of the mounted lance charge.


----------



## Maitre Du Donjon (Jan 17, 2003)

Actually, the charge description is:

"After moving, the combatant may make a single melee attack or a bull rush. The combatant gets a +2 bonus on the attack roll. The combatant also suffers a -2 penalty to AC for 1 round. "

Its specifically states that the AC malus lasts a round, but not the attack bonus.

Of course, its probably written this way to imply that the attack bonus is not used should the charging character get to make AoO's. Add to that the Cleave description that clearly states that the cleave attempt is made at the same attack bonus that was used for the dropping attack...

Ah the fun with rules...

Maitre D.


----------



## LokiDR (Jan 17, 2003)

Ok.  Then default to "use the same attack bonus as the orriginal attack."  Nothing in charge contradicts this.  A "single melee attack" is a standard action which is used to attack.  If you could whirlwind as a standard action, you would get the bonus to all those attacks.


----------



## MThibault (Jan 17, 2003)

As far as I know, even if you could WWA as a standard action you couldn't Charge/WWA.  

Charge is a different action from a normal Attack action.  Charge is a full round action that allows you to move and attack (with bonuses and penalties) -- if you could substitute a WWA for that single attack then it wouldn't really matter whether WWA was a full-round or a standard action.  You still can't take a full round (charge) and a standard action (WWA, hypothetically) at the same time.

Cleave is allowed because the conditions for Cleave have nothing to do with actions.

Cheers


----------



## LokiDR (Jan 17, 2003)

By that reasoning, a monk can't charge and do a stunning blow.


----------



## Dr_Rictus (Jan 17, 2003)

LokiDR said:
			
		

> *By that reasoning, a monk can't charge and do a stunning blow. *




No, that is not implied by the same reasoning at all.  Nowhere does it say that the monk must take the attack action to execute a stunning blow.


----------



## Gaiden (Jan 17, 2003)

MThibault - oh yes you could.

Weapon master 9 with prereq's, need I say more.


----------



## IceBear (Jan 17, 2003)

Crap, misread what was said 

IceBear


----------



## Wippit Guud (Jan 17, 2003)

Quick hi-jack... you can't great cleave at the end of a charge, cause you can't move (even a 5ft step) after a charge)

We return you back to the monk question.


----------



## Wippit Guud (Jan 17, 2003)

Stunning Attack: The monk can use this ability once per round, but no more than once per level per day. The monk must declare she is using a stun attack before making the attack roll (thus, a missed attack roll ruins the attempt). 

Going by the letter, any time an attack roll is made, he could stun, he just has to announce it beforehand


----------



## SpikeyFreak (Jan 17, 2003)

WWA is not an attack action.

Its a special action that you can with a feat that requires a full attack action.

You can charge and trip, disarm, or sunder, but you couldn't charge and WWA.

--Unclear Spikey


----------



## SpikeyFreak (Jan 17, 2003)

Great Cleave [General]

Prerequisites: Str 13+, Power Attack, Cleave, base attack bonus +4 or higher. 

Benefit: As Cleave, except that the character has no limit to the number of times the character can use it per round. 




			
				Wippit Guud said:
			
		

> *Quick hi-jack... you can't great cleave at the end of a charge, cause you can't move (even a 5ft step) after a charge)*




What does moving 5 feet have to do with great cleave?

--Curious Spikey


----------



## Wippit Guud (Jan 17, 2003)

Ooops... wrong cleave... meant Superior Cleave (or it's actual name) in S&F... my bad... me = option 2 in sig


----------



## SpikeyFreak (Jan 17, 2003)

That's what I thought - just wanted to see you say it. 

--Torturer Spikey


----------



## Pielorinho (Jan 17, 2003)

I'm assuming you could do a partial charge followed by a whirlwind attack if you're hasted, though, right?

Daniel


----------



## Wippit Guud (Jan 17, 2003)

Don't see a problem with that... unless, of course, you're the target


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 17, 2003)

My interpretation of "at the same bonus" is that you don't treat it as an iterative attack and subtract 5.  I wouldn't allow the Charge modifier to be used on the Cleave attack.

For more extreme examples, I offer you _True Strike_ and _Smite Evil_.

-Hyp.


----------



## Pielorinho (Jan 17, 2003)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> *My interpretation of "at the same bonus" is that you don't treat it as an iterative attack and subtract 5.  I wouldn't allow the Charge modifier to be used on the Cleave attack.
> 
> For more extreme examples, I offer you True Strike and Smite Evil.
> *




I don't think this is in keeping with the combat section.  An attack roll is an opposed roll of "d20 + Attack modifiers vs. AC of target."  Those attack modifiers include:



> Attack modifiers consist of the combatant's base attack bonus, size adjustment, strength adjustment, *and any other bonuses that apply to the attack roll.*




It looks as if it considers size adjustment, strength adjustment, etc. to be bonuses that apply to the attack roll.  I'd think all of these would apply to a cleave attack.

However, the way you describe it does make more sense, and I think they ought to errata cleave so that the character uses the same base-attack bonus, not the same bonus, as the original attack.

Daniel


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 17, 2003)

> *It looks as if it considers size adjustment, strength adjustment, etc. to be bonuses that apply to the attack roll.  I'd think all of these would apply to a cleave attack.*




Yup, but this is where Smite Evil causes a problem.

A first level Paladin with 14 Str and 16 Cha Smites a goblin.  The goblin is evil, so the Smite takes effect.  Tha Paladin's attack bonus is +1 (BAB) +2 (Str) +3 (Cha bonus from Smite) for a total of +6.

He drops the goblin, and Cleaves into the neutral dire rat... _at the same bonus_.  The fact that the rat is neutral doesn't matter - the Smite checks for evil when it's declared.  It found evil, so the bonus occurred, and Cleave uses the same bonus.

In my opinion, any modifiers that apply "for a single attack roll" do not get carried over into the Cleave attack.

-Hyp.


----------



## LokiDR (Jan 17, 2003)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> *My interpretation of "at the same bonus" is that you don't treat it as an iterative attack and subtract 5.  I wouldn't allow the Charge modifier to be used on the Cleave attack.
> 
> For more extreme examples, I offer you True Strike and Smite Evil.
> 
> -Hyp. *



True strike and smite evil aren't the best examples, because they are magic and don't have to make any sort of sense.  But here is my charging stab at making sense of this.

In the FAQ, true stike does not modify cleave attacks.  True strike affects "the character's next single attack roll (within the duration of the spell)".  Charge says "the combatant may make a single melee attack or a bull rush. The combatant gets a +2 bonus on the attack roll."  

Charge does not say "the next single attack roll", it assumes that your attack action only includes one roll, so it says "the attack roll".  Three suriken are one attack, albeit missle weapons.  The question then is if cleave is part of "the attack" or an extra action you get.

Since they mention bull rush, but not other attacks, you could say charge can only be use for a simple attack or a bull rush.  No charging grapples or trips.  Since that doesn't make much sense to me, I think I will use an extended definition of "attack" to include any sort of roll to hit in melee.  

It is a similar question to "can I cleave off of an AoO?"  Since WWA as a standard action is a miscelanous standard action, I am pretty sure you *can't* AoO with it.  Damn, and I was thinking about making a melee charging whirlwind character.  My mistake.

edit: change sense of WWA as an AoO.  I should preview these things.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 17, 2003)

> *It is a similar question to "can I cleave off of an AoO?"  Since WWA as a standard action is a miscelanous standard action, I am pretty sure you can AoO with it.*




Huh?  You can Cleave off an AoO, but WWA requires a Full Attack Action.  No Whirlwinding as an AoO!

edit: Oh - do you mean a _Ki Whirlwind_?  Even so, can't do it as an AoO.

-Hyp.


----------



## CRGreathouse (Jan 17, 2003)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> *In my opinion, any modifiers that apply "for a single attack roll" do not get carried over into the Cleave attack.*




"What he said"


----------



## melkoriii (Jan 18, 2003)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Yup, but this is where Smite Evil causes a problem.
> 
> ...




The concept of Cleave and Great Cleave is that you are making one single Swing/Stab with your weapon.  IE two guys standing next to each other and you swing so hard that you cut though one and hit the next all in one blow.  

This is why all modifiers are applied to the Cleave attack.   If you used True Strike to kill one foe the attack was so precise that you hit the next foe with the same great force. Same with Smite. The Smite gives you more strength and accuracy that carry over to the next blow.


----------



## maddman75 (Jan 18, 2003)

melkoriii said:
			
		

> *
> 
> The concept of Cleave and Great Cleave is that you are making one single Swing/Stab with your weapon.  IE two guys standing next to each other and you swing so hard that you cut though one and hit the next all in one blow.
> 
> This is why all modifiers are applied to the Cleave attack.   If you used True Strike to kill one foe the attack was so precise that you hit the next foe with the same great force. Same with Smite. The Smite gives you more strength and accuracy that carry over to the next blow. *




You are confusing rules with flavor text.  Find me something in the rules that suggest the second attack from cleave is not a seperate attack.  The fact that you roll another die indicates that it is another attack.  

In any case, how you do justify a character C completely surrounded by goblins G.  He hits and drops goblin A and decides to cleave into goblin B.

GAG
GCG
GBG

How does he in a single swing manage to hit goblin A, then hit goblin B without hitting the goblins in between?  And how would he do this with a dagger or rapier?


----------



## MThibault (Jan 18, 2003)

LokiDR said:
			
		

> *It is a similar question to "can I cleave off of an AoO?"  Since WWA as a standard action is a miscelanous standard action, I am pretty sure you can AoO with it. *




But standard action and attack are not synonymous.  Anything that you can do with a single attack, you can do as an AoO.  You Trip as a single attack.  You Disarm as a single attack.  But you Whirlwind Attack as a Standard Action (hypothetically, outside the core-rules).

By your logic you could drink a potion or feint as an AoO because you can drink a potion or feint as a miscelaneous Standard Action.

In the SRD most (I wasn't too rigorous about checking this) of the actions that can be used in place of an attack roll are listed with a [Varies] action type because they can be used as part of a Standard, Partial, or Full Round Action, or as an AoO (which isn't an action-type at all).

Cheers


----------



## LokiDR (Jan 18, 2003)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Huh?  You can Cleave off an AoO, but WWA requires a Full Attack Action.  No Whirlwinding as an AoO!
> 
> ...




it should have been "can't" and has been changed

I have been convinced that Ki WWA is not an "attack" the way trip or grapple are "attacks" and as such would not work with AoO or charge.

I still think charge bonuses apply to cleaves.  It is ambiguous either way.


----------



## noretoc (Jan 19, 2003)

maddman75 said:
			
		

> *
> 
> You are confusing rules with flavor text.  Find me something in the rules that suggest the second attack from cleave is not a seperate attack.  The fact that you roll another die indicates that it is another attack.
> 
> ...




I think this is a case where the DM shuold step in and say that the PC cannot attack b, instead he has to hit the goblin adjacent to a.  I know the rules don;t sirectly say that, but it make much more sense for the concept and the spirit of the cleave.  If the PC were charging with a lance, I would also only allow the cleave if the opponents were in line with eachother, otherwise it would not make sense.  I know that this isn't stated, but in my opinion it fits much more.


----------



## mo (Jan 20, 2003)

*Cleave and Flying Kick*

What would happen if a character has the flying kick feat from OA (double damage on a charge attack) and cleave? Would one do double damage on the cleave attack (or attacks if has great cleave). It seems to be that this might be a tad overpowered.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 20, 2003)

*Re: Cleave and Flying Kick*



> *What would happen if a character has the flying kick feat from OA (double damage on a charge attack) and cleave? Would one do double damage on the cleave attack (or attacks if has great cleave). It seems to be that this might be a tad overpowered. *




You use the same attack bonus, not the same damage modifiers.  Even the people who think the charge bonus should apply to the Cleave attack are unlikely to argue that the double damage should apply as well 

-Hyp.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 20, 2003)

> *I think this is a case where the DM shuold step in and say that the PC cannot attack b, instead he has to hit the goblin adjacent to a.  I know the rules don;t sirectly say that, but it make much more sense for the concept and the spirit of the cleave.*




What about the following?

PA_
_C_
_BP

C is the Cleaving character, A and B are goblins, and the Ps are the Cleaver's PC allies.  By your 'concept and spirit' ruling, C is unable to use Cleave?



> *If the PC were charging with a lance, I would also only allow the cleave if the opponents were in line with eachother, otherwise it would not make sense.  I know that this isn't stated, but in my opinion it fits much more. *




And the rapier/dagger question?  If the opponents are lined up : 

CAB 

... the Cleaver can't _reach_ B with a rapier.  If they're adjacent :

AB
_C

... then by your 'concept and spirit' ruling, it 'would not make sense' for the rapier to stab through one and into the next.

Is Cleave, then, worthless in your game for people with non-reach piercing weapons?

-Hyp.


----------



## noretoc (Jan 20, 2003)

No, as I said it would be a decision where the dm steps in.  In your first example, I would say that the pcs aren't close enough to get in the way.  In the second, I would thing the pcs moved enough in his square and judged the right time where he can line up the opponents.  I am not out to make it worthless, just to give it a semblance of sense.  If I were to pierce the person in front of me, I don't see how killing him allows me to suddenly get an extra attack and stab the person behind me.  If I didn't kill the first opponent, some how I am unable to make the same move.  If I wanted to play a game, where only the rules written count, and I could do something like I would not play an RPG.  That seems more like a computer game.  In my Role-playing game, I want things to make sense.  None of my players have a problem with it, and three have cleave.  Not a single one thinks t is useless.  They just try to put themselves in a better position to use it  The is the kind of game I like to promote.  Not one where I could run my lance through the man in front, and simply because he died, shift my momentum, and angle and stab the person to my rear right.  That seems like a video game thing to me.


----------



## reapersaurus (Jan 20, 2003)

*Re: Re: Cleave and Flying Kick*



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> *You use the same attack bonus, not the same damage modifiers.  Even the people who think the charge bonus should apply to the Cleave attack are unlikely to argue that the double damage should apply as well  *



If you consider the Cleave "part of a charge attack", than it certainly would get double damage...


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 20, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Cleave and Flying Kick*



> *If you consider the Cleave "part of a charge attack"... *




Why on earth would you do that?

-Hyp.


----------



## Archer (Jan 20, 2003)

If the attacker had the pounce ability and could full attack after a charge wouldn't you give the +2 on every attack and double damage if power lunge was applied? Why are the extra attacks granted by cleave different than attacks granted by pounce?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 20, 2003)

> *If the attacker had the pounce ability and could full attack after a charge wouldn't you give the +2 on every attack and double damage if power lunge was applied? Why are the extra attacks granted by cleave different than attacks granted by pounce? *




Well, by my reading, pounce allows a full attack after a move action, not a full attack with a charge.  So it's not an issue.

-Hyp.


----------



## melkoriii (Jan 20, 2003)

> From SRD
> 
> Cleave [General]
> Prerequisites: Str 13+, Power Attack.
> Benefit: If the character deals a creature enough damage to make it drop (typically by dropping it to below 0 hit points, killing it, etc.), the character gets an immediate, extra melee attack against another creature in the immediate vicinity. The character 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. The character can use this ability once per round.




interesting.

By this text, all bonuses are added.  Even ones to Damage as it says “at the same bonus as the attack that dropped the previous creature”.

Now double damage may not be a bonus but Smite damage would.

The feat does not come up in use that often so I see no problem letting this happen.


Nothing in this text says it can not be used at the end of a charge or off a AoO.   Its just like Sneak Attack.  If the condition is met, then the cleave happens.

Does not say it takes a standard action or an attack action or a partial action like other feats that restricted were they can be used.


----------



## Stalker0 (Jan 20, 2003)

I think you guys are debating the wrong issue here. I don't think cleaving is allowed on a charge at all.

PHP: pg 124 charge section: "After moving, you may make a single melee attack....Even if you have extra attacks, such as from having a high enough base attack bonus or from using multiple weapons, you only get to make one attack during a charge."

And as has already been pointed out, cleave allows an EXTRA melee attack. This would count as an extra attack for above, and wouldn't be allowed.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 20, 2003)

> *By this text, all bonuses are added.*





All bonuses to the _attack_.  Not bonuses to damage.

-Hyp.


----------



## melkoriii (Jan 20, 2003)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> All bonuses to the attack.  Not bonuses to damage.
> ...





No

At the same bonus *as* the attack that dropped the previous creature.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 20, 2003)

> *At the same bonus as the attack that dropped the previous creature. *




Let's find a random quote from the SRD.

_*Two Weapon Fighting*

If a combatant wields a second weapon in the off hand, that combatant can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. Fighting in this way is very hard, however, and a combatant suffers a -6 penalty for regular attacks with a combatant's primary hand and a -10 penalty to the attack with a combatant's off hand._

A -10 penalty to the attack.  I trust you don't subtract that penalty from the damage roll as well?

"Same bonus as the attack" is "same attack bonus".  The two terms are equivalent.

-Hyp.


----------



## Endur (Jan 20, 2003)

*Cleave and FAQ*

For what's it worth (and you might not care),

the FAQ takes the approach that a cleave attack is an additional attack.  So, smite bonuses, true strike, etc. only apply to the original attack and not to the cleave attack.

The FAQ also takes the approach that you always get a cleave, no matter how you dropped the enemy.  So, yes, you can cleave on a charge, no matter how unrealistic it is.

The FAQ doesn't say anything about whether charge bonuses apply on the cleave attack.

Tom


----------



## mikebr99 (Jan 20, 2003)

*Re: Cleave and FAQ*



			
				Endur said:
			
		

> *The FAQ doesn't say anything about whether charge bonuses apply on the cleave attack.
> 
> Tom *



But... charge bonuses (and penalties) are with you from when you charge until the beginning of your next round. So anything that you do until the beginning of your next round has those bonuses and penalties applied.

Mike


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 20, 2003)

*Re: Re: Cleave and FAQ*



> *But... charge bonuses (and penalties) are with you from when you charge until the beginning of your next round. So anything that you do until the beginning of your next round has those bonuses and penalties applied.*




Read it again.

The bonus applies to the charge attack.  The penalty lasts until the beginning of your next round.  The two intervals are not identical.

-Hyp.


----------



## LokiDR (Jan 20, 2003)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> *I think you guys are debating the wrong issue here. I don't think cleaving is allowed on a charge at all.
> 
> PHP: pg 124 charge section: "After moving, you may make a single melee attack....Even if you have extra attacks, such as from having a high enough base attack bonus or from using multiple weapons, you only get to make one attack during a charge."
> 
> And as has already been pointed out, cleave allows an EXTRA melee attack. This would count as an extra attack for above, and wouldn't be allowed. *



As discussed earlier, you can cleave off of an AoO.  AoOs don't allow extra attacks from high BAB or multiple weapons.  Therefore, you should be able to cleave off of a charge.


----------



## mikebr99 (Jan 20, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Cleave and FAQ*



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Read it again.
> 
> ...



You are correct smurfy........


----------



## melkoriii (Jan 20, 2003)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Let's find a random quote from the SRD.
> 
> ...




“Same bonuses AS the attack” and “same attack bonuses” are two different things. 

Same AS = All things the same.

Same attack bonuses = refers to the To Hit bonuses of the attack. This wording is more precise to what it is referring to.

"Same bonuses as the attack" refers to all bonuse of that attack.
(To Hit, Damage, etc.)
"Same attack bonus" refores to the bonus to attack.
(To Hit only)


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 20, 2003)

> *Same attack bonuses = refers to the To Hit bonuses of the attack. This wording is more precise to what it is referring to.
> 
> "Same bonuses as the attack" refers to all bonuse of that attack.
> (To Hit, Damage, etc.)
> ...




"To Hit" is not a term that exists any more - the 3E term is "attack bonus".  The "bonus of the attack" is the "attack bonus"!

A bonus to damage is a "damage bonus", not a bonus of an attack!

The SRD reference I quoted uses "penalty to the attack".  It is referring to the attack roll, not the attack _and_ damage rolls.

By your reasoning, if I confirm a critical with an attack, and double the damage, then a Cleave from that attack should also get doubled damage.

-Hyp.


----------



## melkoriii (Jan 20, 2003)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> *
> 
> "To Hit" is not a term that exists any more - the 3E term is "attack bonus".  The "bonus of the attack" is the "attack bonus"!
> 
> ...




I look at this like when programming.

An attack is class object (or template with basic properties.)  Attack bonus, Damage bonus, are properties of that class object and are set at defaults when an instance is created.

Each attack is an instance of the class and then has situational modifications to its properties (Smite adds Things to Attack and Damage, Charge adds things to Attack and AC, etc.)

When they say “same bonuses as the attack” “attack” is referred to as the object (its parent object, the attack that gives the Cleave) not the property attack.  So then you copy all properties of that object to create a new instance as it is referring to the bonus properties (all of them) of that object.  

If you say “same attack bonus” You are referring specifically to the property “Attack bonus” of the parent object and so only copy that bonus to the child object.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 20, 2003)

Then I ask again - in the case of a "-10 penalty to the attack", given that "the attack" is a class object, should you not apply that penalty to every property of the object?

If not, then how do you know which property to apply it to?

-Hyp.


----------



## melkoriii (Jan 20, 2003)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> *Then I ask again - in the case of a "-10 penalty to the attack", given that "the attack" is a class object, should you not apply that penalty to every property of the object?
> 
> If not, then how do you know which property to apply it to?
> 
> -Hyp. *





With the TWF and a Cleave or AoO.  It is not subject to the TWF penalties as it is one attack and it says regular attacks referring to the full attack action.  Both Cleave and AoO are not regular attacks.

Also in this case it is refering to the "attack" property.  As the program is smart in knowing if it refers to the object attack or the property attack.  the object it self can not be -10 but the attack property of the object can and so applies it there.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 20, 2003)

> *With the TWF and a Cleave or AoO.  It is not subject to the TWF penalties as it is one attack and it says regular attacks referring to the full attack action.  Both Cleave and AoO are not regular attacks.*




Wait, what?  This is not the question I was asking, but I'm going to jump on your answer anyway... you're saying now that the Cleave attack is made at the same bonus as initial attack, _except that TWF penalties don't apply_?  You think a Charge bonus or a Smite Evil bonus carries into the Cleave, but TWF doesn't?  

You make no sense.



> *Also in this case it is refering to the "attack" property.  As the program is smart in knowing if it refers to the object attack or the property attack.  the object it self can not be -10 but the attack property of the object can and so applies it there. *




But your argument is that when Cleave references "the same bonuses as the attack", that it refers to _every_ property of the attack object.  I'm asking why the "-10 penalty to the attack[/i] doesn't apply to _every_ property - including Damage bonus - as well.

-Hyp.


----------



## melkoriii (Jan 20, 2003)

> But your argument is that when Cleave references "the same bonuses as the attack", that it refers to every property of the attack object. I'm asking why the "-10 penalty to the attack[/i] doesn't apply to every property - including Damage bonus - as well.




When calling the bonuses of a object as in "same bonuses(properties) as the attack(object)", You get all bonuses.

When appling bonuses to the object "-10 penalty(amount) to the attack(Property)", You get a -10 attack roll and thats it.



> Wait, what? This is not the question I was asking, but I'm going to jump on your answer anyway... you're saying now that the Cleave attack is made at the same bonus as initial attack, except that TWF penalties don't apply? You think a Charge bonus or a Smite Evil bonus carries into the Cleave, but TWF doesn't?




Actauly looking at this situation,  The Cleave would have the same bonuses as its parent attack. (if it was the second attack in a Full attack action it would have a the -5, if it was a TWF it would have the -2, if it was the off hand it would have .5x Str added to damage and so on.)

Granted this add a lot of thinking added to useing Cleave but Im just saying how it is worded this is the way it should be (not nessisarly what they intended but thats not my place I just read the rules and it make sence to me.)


----------



## RigaMortus (Jan 21, 2003)

> Benefit: If the character deals a creature enough damage to make it *drop* (_*typically*_ by dropping it to below 0 hit points, killing it, etc.), the character gets an immediate, extra melee attack against another creature in the immediate vicinity




If I have the Knockdown feat, do 10 points of damage, and make my "free" Trip attack (which is successful), do I get to Cleave?  I have effectively dealt enough damage to make the creature "drop".


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 21, 2003)

*Re: Re: Cleave at the end of a charge....*



> *If I have the Knockdown feat, do 10 points of damage, and make my "free" Trip attack (which is successful), do I get to Cleave?  I have effectively dealt enough damage to make the creature "drop". *




The second printing of Sword and Fist specifically forbids it in the description of Knockdown, from memory.  You should be able to find it in the S&F errata if you have a first printing.

-Hyp.


----------



## RigaMortus (Jan 21, 2003)

What about other instances where you would deal someone damage and effectivelt "drop" them (but not necessarily knock them out, kill them, drop them below 0 hp)?  I can't think of anything specific at this time, but I am sure there are other ways to "drop" your opponent in a non-fatal manner and squeeze a Cleave out of it.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 21, 2003)

> *What about other instances where you would deal someone damage and effectivelt "drop" them (but not necessarily knock them out, kill them, drop them below 0 hp)?*




As you say - knocking them out.  Bringing their subdual total above their current hit points is a way of dealing damage and dropping them that isn't "dropping it to below 0 hit points" or "killing it".

If you look for Cleave loopholes too hard, DMs will growl at you.

-Hyp.


----------



## LokiDR (Jan 21, 2003)

A word on when you can cleave: any time you knock them unconcious, or to 0 effective HP.  So you could cleave if you knock them to 0 hp, negative hp, subdual=remaining hp, or subdual over hp.  In the case of being at 0, they aren't even dead or even out of the fight, but you did knock them down.

On bonuses of the cleave attack: the semantic arguement of "same bonuses as the previous attack" vs "same attack bonuses" is rather silly.  I think it is clear that the damage bonus was not intended to be confered to the cleave strike.  Melkoriii, I like programing.  But OO methodology, like physics, have little use in D&D.  I would be far too scared of a UML diagram of the system *shudder*

On what bonuses you get, the sage ruled true strike and, by extention, smiting attack bonuses to attack don't continue to the cleave attack.  True strike and smite don't work because they are magic, and state they only work on one attack.  Charge does not contain language that clear.


----------

