Can you Cleave after a Cup De' Grassey?

[Hypersmurf]

The point you are missing is that this CDG not a melee attack whatsoever. It is a CDG action.

... which includes a melee damage roll.

If you want to attack someone out of the blue, you get a surprise round (maybe) and can do a standard action melee attack against them. You cannot do a full attack against them. The moment you attempt to attack someone in "melee", you immediately go into combat.

No - the moment one combatant is aware of the other, while the other is unaware, you get a surprise round. If everyone is aware, there is no surprise round.

The action I intend to take in the surprise round has no bearing on whether or not it occurs.

You cannot add Power Attack melee damage bonuses to an action which is not a melee attack because Power Attack states that it affects melee attacks. Not spell attacks. Not dropping boulders from the roof attacks. Not missile attacks. Not alchemy fire attacks. Not CDGs.

It affects melee attack rolls. It also affects melee damage rolls.

The reason I am doing that is because it is unfair (IMO) to lower a non-existent to hit roll and add to a damage roll. I do completely understand your POV, I just think that it should not be allowed and an extremely literal reading of the text disallows it, hence, that is the position I am taking.

When you take a full round action to line up on an inanimate object, you automatically hit.

This explicitly uses the Sunder action, which explicitly uses "a melee attack".

Therefore, it is unquestionably a melee attack, and the damage you deal is unquestionably "a melee damage roll". And yet there's no attack roll.

Would you disallow Power Attack in this case?

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

So a person doesn’t have to take any attack to use power attack?

Certainly.

The part after the first comma implies that the character is going to make attack rolls that round.

No, it doesn't. It means that if he has already made any attack rolls this round, he can't use Power Attack, because it's no longer "before making attack rolls".

This is to me is clear that to use power attack you must make a attack roll, to clarify the feats text should be changed to match that of expertise.

Exactly my point - Power Attack does not use the same text as Expertise. Expertise behaves as you describe; Power Attack does not.

If I declare that I am using Power Attack for four points at the start of my round, then any melee attack rolls I make in that round suffer a -4 penalty, and any melee damage rolls I make gain a +4 (or +8) bonus. As long as I declare that before making any attack rolls for the round, it's legal.

There is no requirement for me to actually make any. The requirement is that the declaration is made prior to any that I do make.

-Hyp.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Ahhhh.

The plain language of the book is not allowed.

The glossary definition is not a technical term.

hehehe

This just keeps getting better.

We will throw out those sentences that do not match our point of view and only keep the ones that do.

Well, no. What we're doing is consistantly throwing out a specific type of text - that which is not a 'rules text'. Which would seem to be a perfectly valid method of doing things, especially since a) we're debating rules, and b) the flavour text often has some really odd stuff in it (like the aforementioned restriction of familiars to being 'small animals' when not one of the suggested familiars is size small).

 

[Trainz]

Well I'll be damned.

As you guys are aware, I'm in the "no cleave after coup-de-grace" camp.

However, I discussed this with my DM/Player (we alternatively DM every week two different campaigns), and he feels, aven after I explained with complete facial expressions and hand gestures (something not possible when posting on a board) my point of view, that Hyp. is right.

Just goes to show, another aspect of the rules that could DEFINITELY be more clear. I guess the Sage could be useful for this question (although I'm not in the camp of those following the Sage's rules without question). I just think this issue is so clearly divided that it couldn't hurt...

 

[Saeviomagy]

Power Attack only affects melee attacks as per its description.

Its flavour text description, which doesn't necessarily use game terms. Remember that bit - we're using the plain language of melee attack if you want to include that as part of your argument.

The point you are missing is that this CDG not a melee attack whatsoever. It is a CDG action.

In game terms it is.

Well... actually it's a miscellaneous full round action which provokes attacks of opportunity, but I'll let that slide.

In plain language, however:

Melee
A battle or engagement at close quarters, a hand-to-hand fight; a skirmish; a confused struggle or scuffle, esp. one involving many people. Also hist.: a tournament involving two groups of combatants.

Attack
To set upon with hostile action or words, so as to overthrow, injure, or bring into disrepute.

Now admittedly these are not the only possibilities, but they ARE the ones which make sense in our context (ie - melee also describes a general brawl, attack also includes descriptions of large scale military operations)

So - We're at close quarters, in hand to hand, in a skirmish, certainly in a scuffle, and because we want to cleave, we also qualify for the 'especially involving many people'.

We're also setting upon someone with a hostile action, specifically to injure your opponent.

Sounds to me like we qualify for a plain language melee attack.

If you want to attack someone out of the blue, you get a surprise round (maybe) and can do a standard action melee attack against them.

snip
But, if it is just you and the target, there is no combat. CDG is not a combat melee action, even though it can be used in combat.

Which is all garbage - like our esteemed small blue friend said, once you've got two opponents aware of each other, initiative and the surprise round starts. A particularly flexible GM might not bother in the case of a lone helpless opponent (like the only possible target of a CDG attack)

You cannot add Power Attack melee damage bonuses to an action which is not a melee attack because Power Attack states that it affects melee attacks. Not spell attacks. Not dropping boulders from the roof attacks. Not missile attacks. Not alchemy fire attacks. Not CDGs.

BZZT. Power attack never states melee attack in the mechanics of the feat. And if you're going for plain language, I think I've just got you beat...

Power attack requires a melee damage roll. Coup de grace simply states "You automatically hit and score a critical hit." with no other information on how to resolve the attack. If you REALLY want to say that a CDG with a melee weapon doesn't use the rules for melee attacks on resolving damage, then there IS NO WAY TO RESOLVE IT.

If your DM states that you threaten the squares around you while doing a CDG and you get an AoO, you can Power Attack that AoO. But, you cannot Power Attack a CDG, regardless of whether you are using a melee weapon to perform that action. It is the wrong type of action. It is a concentration action as specified in its own description.

What on earth is a concentration action?? Now you're just making stuff up.

It is an attack, but it is not a melee attack. It can be done out of combat. You are not "meleeing" when you CDG (i.e. you are not swinging your sword and hoping to hit a vital spot), you are performing surgery (i.e. carefully placing your sword in an appropriate location and thrusting it in).

Unfortunately swinging wildly isn't part of the definiation of melee attack. Furthermore CDG does make use of the rules for resolving melee attacks, specifically those for resolving melee damage. Power attack increases melee damage. CDG does melee damage. What on earth is the problem here?

Now granted, I am taking an extremely literal definition of how Power Attack is described and how Coup De Grace is described. The reason I am doing that is because it is unfair (IMO) to lower a non-existent to hit roll and add to a damage roll. I do completely understand your POV, I just think that it should not be allowed and an extremely literal reading of the text disallows it, hence, that is the position I am taking.

I think you'll find that you're taking anything BUT the literal definition. You're taking a very subjective view of things - you're running on 'fairness', and your own imagination of things. A literal reading doesn't support your view in any way, unless you make the assumption that flavour text makes use of rules terms and doesn't use normal real world language, something which I would have to say is patently untrue and counterintuitive to boot.

 

[Trainz]

On second thought though, how often will someone coup-de-grace with a cleave situation possible ?

Exactly. Not really worth the pain. IMC's, since the advent of D&D 3.0, and in my DM's campaign, and we played D&D, Star Wars and d20 Modern AT LEAST once per week, we only used coup-de-grace ONCE. So what if I allow my PC's to cleave, even though I don't think it makes sense.

Yeah.

*blargh*...

 

[TuDogz]

Wow. Who woulda thought this question could build this many posts. Hyp, while I frequently agree with you, today you are whacked outta your mind.



Exhibit A
___________________
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.
___________________

The criteria for activation is "to make it drop".
The reward an "extra melee attack".

Exhibit B

______________________
SPECIAL ATTACKS
Table: Special Attacks

Special Attack Brief Description
Aid another Grant an ally a +2 bonus on attacks or AC
Bull rush Push an opponent back 5 feet or more
Charge Move up to twice your speed and attack with +2 bonus
Disarm Knock a weapon from your opponent’s hands
Feint Negate your opponent’s Dex bonus to AC
Grapple Wrestle with an opponent
Overrun Plow past or over an opponent as you move
Sunder Strike an opponent’s weapon or shield
Throw splash weapon Throw container of dangerous liquid at target
Trip Trip an opponent
Turn (rebuke) undead Channel positive (or negative) energy to turn away (or awe) undead
Two-weapon fighting Fight with a weapon in each hand
___________________

Note that Coup de Grace is not on the list of special attacks.


Exhibit C

________________________
HELPLESS DEFENDERS

A helpless opponent is someone who is bound, sleeping, paralyzed, unconscious, or otherwise at your mercy.

Regular Attack: A helpless character takes a –4 penalty to AC against melee attacks, but no penalty to AC against ranged attacks.
A helpless defender can’t use any Dexterity bonus to AC. In fact, his Dexterity score is treated as if it were 0 and his Dexterity modifier to AC as if it were –5 (and a rogue can sneak attack him).

Coup de Grace: As a full-round action, you can use a melee weapon to deliver a coup de grace to a helpless opponent. You can also use a bow or crossbow, provided you are adjacent to the target.
You automatically hit and score a critical hit. If the defender survives the damage, he must make a Fortitude save (DC 10 + damage dealt) or die. A rogue also gets her extra sneak attack damage against a helpless opponent when delivering a coup de grace.
Delivering a coup de grace provokes attacks of opportunity from threatening opponents.
You can’t deliver a coup de grace against a creature that is immune to critical hits. You can deliver a coup de grace against a creature with total concealment, but doing this requires two consecutive full-round actions (one to “find” the creature once you’ve determined what square it’s in, and one to deliver the coup de grace).
_________________________

Coup de Grace is not an attack but a full round action that automatically deals damage.



Therefore, whether or not the opponent drops, there was no initial melee attack to which the extra attack can be awarded.

The player in this case was trying to get the guaranteed kill and the extra swing. If he wanted to cleave, he should have opted for the "regular attack" on a helpless opponent which should have dropped him (since he was held and unable to maintain balance) and taken the cleave.

While I understand the cinematic capacity to justify the manuver as it was played, it is not in the spirit or the letter of the rules under which coup de grace apply. It would also be a very bad precedent to set for long term game play. The rules surrounding coup de grace intentially make it difficult and time consuming to accomplish. Game balance requires it or TPKs would run rampant and players would use the "hold-CGD" gambit in mid combat unceasingly. At least mine would.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The player in this case was trying to get the guaranteed kill and the extra swing. If he wanted to cleave, he should have opted for the "regular attack" on a helpless opponent which should have dropped him (since he was held and unable to maintain balance) and taken the cleave.

"Off-balance" doesn't qualify as dropping. It's why you can't Cleave off a successful Trip.

Unconscious, dead, or destroyed is required.

The rules surrounding coup de grace intentially make it difficult and time consuming to accomplish. Game balance requires it or TPKs would run rampant and players would use the "hold-CGD" gambit in mid combat unceasingly. At least mine would.

Hmm? A Full Round action isn't difficult or time-consuming. It's the same as loading a heavy crossbow, or a sorcerer casting a metamagicked spell. It's a sight faster than someone casting Sleep, Enlarge Person, or Summon Monster IV.

And if you have someone Held - especially in 3.5, where it could wear off at any time - you're damned right you CDG in mid-combat!

You'd be foolish not to, in many cases.

-Hyp.

 

[TuDogz]

____________
And if you have someone Held - especially in 3.5, where it could wear off at any time - you're damned right you CDG in mid-combat!

You'd be foolish not to, in many cases.
_____________

I completely agree Hyp. But the player should be made to choose between the CDG and and continuing normal melee. Otherwise every held player/creature is nothing but a CDG tee-off for the fighter's next attack.

 

[KarinsDad]

This thread has basically come down to several different issues, most of which are inconclusive in the book:

1) Can you Cleave after a CDG?

Literal book answer #1: No, if you rule that a helpless character is already down or if you take the Cleave/Great Cleave flavor text and the CDG text, and use it to indicate that cleave is a "in melee" type of action and CDG is not.
Literal book answer #2: Yes, if you do not rule this way.
My answer: No, helpless characters are already downed.

2) Can you Power Attack into a CDG?

Literal book answer #1: Yes.
Literal book answer #2: No, if you use the Power Attack descriptive text to indicate that an actual melee attack is required and you use the lack of CDG being indicated as a special attack or even a melee attack in the text.
My answer: No, you shouldn't get anything for free, normal Power Attack has a disadvantage, CDG/Power Attack does not, and CDG is not a literal "melee attack". Also, CDG can be done out of combat and melee attacks cannot.

3) Do you threaten the spaces around you while doing a CDG?

Book answer: Yes, nothing indicates that you lose your threat.
My answer: No, CDG is concentrating as per the CDG paragraph and you should always lose your threat while concentrating, not just those times where the book clearly calls it out.

4) Do you have to make a concentration roll to succeed if you take damage during a CDG?

Literal book answer #1: Yes if you do not rule solely by what is included in the Concentration "includes statement" and take the previous sentence in the Concentration paragraph and the CDG paragraph into account.
Literal book answer #2: No, if you rule solely by what is included in the Concentration "includes statement".
My answer: Yes, CDG is concentrating as per the CDG paragraph.