Can you Cleave after a Cup De' Grassey?

[dcollins]

I would also rule that you would not get a Cleave after a CDG, on the grounds that CDG is not actually a regular attack action, and so fails to make sense combined with Cleave's "extra attack" language.

 

[MerakSpielman]

Maybe you can use cleave to get an "extra" CDG on an adjacent, helpless foe?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Maybe you can use cleave to get an "extra" CDG on an adjacent, helpless foe?

Definitely not - it specifies a single melee attack.

-Hyp.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Yes, but that does not infer that a CDG is an attack action with an attack bonus. Cleave explicitly states that the previous attack had to have an attack bonus in order for the new attack to have an attack bonus.

You keep using that word - I do not think it means what you think it means.

To explicitly state that "the previous attack had to have an attack bonus in order for the new attack to have an attack bonus", cleave would need to paraphrase what you said exactly. It doesn't.

It certainly implies it though.

You cannot cleave with your staff just because you just shot a Lightning Bolt out of your staff and dropped a foe.

Interestingly enough - you probably could. Dunno what the attack bonus would be though. Probably zero. The wording of cleave in the SRD doesn't include anything about needing to drop the original opponent with a melee attack, it just talks about dealing damage.

What seems strange to me is that if you'd been using a staff of fireball, and declared that you wanted to put the fire bead in your opponents ear (thus requiring an attack roll to put the bead through a small opening), then you'd be able to attack a creature within reach using your ranged attack bonus...

And if you had great cleave, wow...

 

[KarinsDad]

The Cleave attack is with the same weapon - longsword, say - and at the same bonus as the attack that dropped the opponent. What bonus did that attack have? It didn't have a bonus.

So, one immediate melee attack, with your longsword, that doesn't have a bonus.

Simple

Almost simple.

If a low BAB character was prone on the ground and had the Cleave feat, he could cleave opponent #2 after downing opponent #1, even though his bonus to hit is a negative number.

This same character would actually have a bonus of zero (i.e. no bonus) if we used your "simple" interpretation. He would actually be better at doing a CDG/Cleave combo than he would a normal Attack/Cleave combo if it were allowed.

In order to get "the same bonus as the attack that dropped the previous creature", the previous attack had to have a bonus (even a negative one).

This is kind of like string fields in a database. You could have an empty string in the database, but the field has an actual value: Empty. If you have a null value, however, there is no data. It is not that the data is empty, it is that the data does not exist. Ditto for an integer field in a database. If it is null, it is not zero.

In this case, the attack bonus does not exist. Hence, you cannot make the attack bonus of an existing attack be the same as something that does not exist. It is not that the previous attack bonus is zero, it is that it does not exist.

This is no different than firing a Lightning Bolt out of your staff. Because a Lightning Bolt does not have a melee attack bonus, you do not get to cleave. You still attacked, you just did not do an attack action with a melee weapon where you had a melee attack bonus.

 

[KarinsDad]

Definitely not - it specifies a single melee attack.

I guess you missed the .

 

[KarinsDad]

To explicitly state that "the previous attack had to have an attack bonus in order for the new attack to have an attack bonus", cleave would need to paraphrase what you said exactly. It doesn't.

It certainly implies it though.

How can you have the "same attack bonus" if the previous attack did not have one. If you read the definition of attack roll, it indicates that you have to add in the modifiers. If modifiers do not exist, how do you add them in?

Interestingly enough - you probably could. Dunno what the attack bonus would be though. Probably zero. The wording of cleave in the SRD doesn't include anything about needing to drop the original opponent with a melee attack, it just talks about dealing damage.

No, but it does state that you use the same bonus. No possible bonus, no possible cleave.

What seems strange to me is that if you'd been using a staff of fireball, and declared that you wanted to put the fire bead in your opponents ear (thus requiring an attack roll to put the bead through a small opening), then you'd be able to attack a creature within reach using your ranged attack bonus...

You cannot put the bead into someones ear since it does not follow the line of effect rules (i.e. it has to be one square foot opening in a solid object).

Additionally, even if you had a large enough opening, say the mouth of a dragon, there is no rule that you have to make an attack roll. The line of effect rules are that you either do it, or you do not. No roll required.

 

[Hypersmurf]

In order to get "the same bonus as the attack that dropped the previous creature", the previous attack had to have a bonus (even a negative one).

There's no such thing as a negative bonus in D&D.

A bonus is "a positive modifier to a die roll".

A negative modifier is not a negative bonus; it is a penalty.

The low BAB, prone character did not have a bonus on the attack that downed the previous opponent. He had a penalty.

However - this is where one needs to be careful with one's reading of the Cleave feat.

"at the same bonus" doesn't, in fact, mean "exactly the same total modifier as was applied to the last attack".

There are a whole lot of situational modifiers that may not apply to the Cleave attack, or that may apply to the Cleave attack where they did not to the initial attack.

Higher Ground bonus. Invisibility bonus. Smite Evil bonus. True Strike bonus. Bane weapon bonus. Racial enemy bonus. Charge bonus.

All of these are situational. If you used a True Strike, Smite Evil, Goblin-Bane attack on the Medium evil hobgoblin from your Large horse, you get a bunch of modifiers on that attack roll that are inapplicable when you Cleave into the Large, neutral Dire Wolf standing next to him.

"At the same bonus" serves to distinguish the feat from those that give an extra attack "at your highest BAB". Use the same iterative bonus from BAB as the attack that dropped the opponent, and add applicable modifiers.

So your low BAB prone guy makes his Cleave attack at the same low BAB, and adds the same prone modifier.

The CDG guy uses no BAB, and adds applicable modifiers.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Additionally, even if you had a large enough opening, say the mouth of a dragon, there is no rule that you have to make an attack roll. The line of effect rules are that you either do it, or you do not. No roll required.

Now go read Fireball again

-Hyp.

 

[KarinsDad]

Now go read Fireball again

Opps! Forgot about the exception to the rule.

Doesn't matter though. Fireball still uses a ranged touch attack and Cleave only works if your previous attack was a melee attack.

Although Cleave does not explicitly state that, it heavily implies it and that is the most reasonable interpretation of Cleave.

It does this in several ways:

1) The short description of Great Cleave states: "No limit to cleave attacks each round".

2) The text description of Great Cleave states: "You can wield a melee weapon with such power that you can strike multiple times when you fell your foes".

3) The text description of Cleave states: "You can follow through with powerful blows".

Taking all of these rules into account (how can you do things with Cleave that you cannot do with Great Cleave since Great Cleave is merely multiple Cleaves?), it is apparent that the intent of the designers was for Cleave to deal solely with melee attacks and not spell attacks or ranged attacks.