Can you Cleave after a Cup De' Grassey?

[Altamont Ravenard]

One thing that wasn'T considered, and that MIGHT have some bearing on the discussion (pushing it deeper into the meanders of madness) it the following phrase, from the Cleave feat:

If you deal a creature enough damage to make it drop (typically by dropping it to below 0 hit points or killing it)

What would be the definition of making someone drop? Typically, it's reducing your opponent to 0 hit points or less, but that isn't all-inclusive.

Would knocking someone (subdual damage) out permit a Cleave? Would hitting someone who Feigns death permit a Cleave? Would killing an unconscious creature give you a Cleave attempt (assuming you delivered a normal attack in the first place, and not a CDG)? Would killing someone by poisoning him with a Dagger of Venom induce a Cleave attempt?

IMO, someone who's helpless has already been "dropped", and can't be "dropped" once more (that's why, as much as I hate not agreeing with Hyp, I can't in this particular matter). Of course, I can't prove by the rules what being "dropped" means, because it simply doesn't appear in them (I'm assuming that no FAQ entry has given a clear definition of what "dropping" someone means).

There is a clear problem with the definition of Cleave. First of all, it doesn't mention that you need to cause damage by a melee attack in order to initiate the free, extra melee attack that the feat grants. Then, there is the problem of the definition of "dropping" someone. Moreover, it could be argued (since it appears in the feat) that you get an extra attack when you reduce an opponent below 0 hit points AND when you actually kill your opponent (is the "or" inclusive or exclusive?).

IMHO, the intent of the feat was that when you make an actual melee attack and reduce your opponent to 0 hp (for undead and constructs) or less (other living creatures), you get an immediate, extra attack, using the same modifiers that came into play when you made your "killing blow".

AR

 

[Hypersmurf]

(I'm assuming that no FAQ entry has given a clear definition of what "dropping" someone means).

About the only consistent clarification is that "Tripping doesn't count".

As far as I'm aware, everything else is still up for debate

-Hyp.

 

[Saeviomagy]

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.

Literal book answer #1 isn't literal - it's the exact opposite. To be literal, it would have to take the meanings of words into account and apply those meanings. It doesn't.

Your new answer however perhaps makes a bit more sense.

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.

Once again, literal book answer #2 is, by no means, literal. Furthermore, CDG is most definately a literal "melee attack". Perhaps you mean "using the mechanics of the game, CDG is not a melee attack", which is highly debateable.

Finally - your assertation that CDG's can be done in combat while melee attacks cannot be is... rubbish. There's absolutely nothing to stop someone from doing a regular melee attack (or multiple such attacks) on a single, helpless opponent instead of a CDG. Whether initiative is worth running at that point is entirely up to the GM - I'd say that if the opponent has a chance of fighting back, he was never helpless in the first place.

I'd agree with your points on concentration rolls being required for CDG's.

 

[KarinsDad]

Finally - your assertation that CDG's can be done in combat while melee attacks cannot be is... rubbish. There's absolutely nothing to stop someone from doing a regular melee attack (or multiple such attacks) on a single, helpless opponent instead of a CDG. Whether initiative is worth running at that point is entirely up to the GM - I'd say that if the opponent has a chance of fighting back, he was never helpless in the first place.

Actually, I'll change my assertion here.

All attacks are done in combat. However, there are some special considerations.

Let's take the situation of a Fighter sneaking up on a sleeping guard. The guard does not make a Listen Roll and the Fighter gets right next to him. The Fighter wants to do one of three choices: a normal attack, a full attack, or a coup de grace attack.

1) The Fighter decides on a normal melee attack. The DM could house rule that you are not in combat yet, however, DMG page 23 specifically handles this case: "When only one side of a combat is aware of the other, the DM runs the first round of combat as a surprise round." PHB page 133 handles it in the exact same way.

DMG page 6 "A good DM knows to not change or overturn a published rule without a good, logical justification"

There is no reason for a house rule or adjudication that the Fighter is not in combat since he is attempting a normal melee attack. His foe is unaware of him. He is attacking his foe. He gets one standard action in the surprise round to do that and then we are into initiatives. The rules tell us exactly how to handle this situation.

No special DM adjudication needed. In fact, if you adjudicate that this can be done out of combat, you are setting a bad precedent for other situations (e.g. "why can I not do a full round attack before the surprise round???").

2) The Fighter decides on a full attack. He cannot do a full attack because he only gets a single standard action during a surprise round. Again, there is no reason to adjudicate a different rule because the normal rule handles this.

However, the Fighter gets around this by Readying an Action to attack if the guard wakes up in round one. In the first round, he then does a full attack. Even if the guard wins initiative, only a dick of a DM would give him a second Listen roll to wake up (IMO).

3) The Fighter decides on a coup de grace.

He does what he did in case #2. He readies for an instant and then does the CDG on round one.


However, this does not change my assertion that a CDG is not a "melee attack". It is more like the Open Locks skill (which also requires a concentration roll and will result in an AoO and takes a full round) then it is a "melee attack" since it does not follow any of the normal melee attack rules except damage and is not listed as a melee or special attack (although we agree that it is an attack). It can even be done with a bow, but it is not a "ranged attack" either. It is a miscellaneous action that just happens to result in damage.

There is actually more difference in the rules between CDG and a normal melee attack than there is between a melee attack and a ranged attack.

And, the table on page 141 calls it out as a totally separate type of action:

Standard Action
Attack (melee)
Attack (ranged)
Attack (unarmed)

Full-Round Action
Full attack
Deliver coup de grace

The real difference here is that "Attack (melee)" (directly) and "Full Attack" (indirectly by stating that you can do either an attack or a full attack) indicate that they are melee attacks within their descriptions. Coup De Grace does not. It is a miscellaneous action which requires concentration. The game mechanics for it are different.

Power Attack states (in the descriptive text) that it works with melee attacks. CDG is not a melee attack since you are not in close combat (i.e. a one sided combat is not a combat as per the definition of melee in the glossary). You are not "meleeing".

Cleave states that you get the same attack bonus. CDG does not have an attack bonus, hence, Cleave cannot be done (it cannot be assigned an attack bonus not even one of zero, hence, it cannot be done). Additionally, a helpless creature is already dropped.

From a literal word and rules perspective (including the descriptive text and the glossary definitions), this is how it works.

If you want to ignore the descriptive text and the glossary, and equate dropping only with killing (or going below zero) for Cleave and not with actually dropping the opponent, and if you want to add to any damage roll with a melee weapon for Power Attack, even though you cannot subtract from the attack bonus for a CDG, you can.

That, however, is not a 100% literal perspective. It is one where some of the text in the book (Power Attack works with melee attacks, cleave occurs when an opponent is downed, CDG requires concentration, melee combat consists of blows exchanged by opponents close enough to threaten one another's space, etc.) is ignored.

To me, the descriptive text and the glossary are still part of the rules because they explains what we are doing as opposed to how. Your position is ignoring the what and focusing totally on the how.

You are also coming up with new concepts like a CDG is a melee attack (when melee is defined as opponents exchanging blows), just because it uses a melee weapon.

You cannot exchange a CDG with an opponent who can exchange blows back. You can do that with melee attacks.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Power Attack states (in the descriptive text) that it works with melee attacks. CDG is not a melee attack since you are not in close combat (i.e. a one sided combat is not a combat as per the definition of melee in the glossary). You are not "meleeing".

You're doing it again

You're looking for the definition of the flavour text in the glossary.

The glossary defines game terms. The flavour text uses plain language, remember?

-Hyp.

 

[Trainz]

No, really Hyp, I think he has a point:

============================================
Cleave states that you get the same attack bonus. CDG does not have an attack bonus, hence, Cleave cannot be done (it cannot be assigned an attack bonus not even one of zero, hence, it cannot be done). Additionally, a helpless creature is already dropped.
============================================

You have to drop a creature to cleave. That's clearly in the rules. How can you drop a creature if it is already dropped ? And most of the time, a helpless creature is dropped unless it is held. At this point, this debate would only be purposeful into considering if a held creature which receives a CDG can be followed by a cleave on another creature.

Which is mooth, IMHO. Like I said earlier, this situation is so rare that whatever you decide, in the long run it doesn't really affect the game one way or another.

Heh ! I made this thread go to page four ! What a bunch of geeks we are !

 

[KarinsDad]

You're doing it again

You're looking for the definition of the flavour text in the glossary.

The glossary defines game terms. The flavour text uses plain language, remember?

If you'll recall, the only place in 3E core where it stated that if you are stunned, you dropped any carried weapon was in the glossary. And, that was the rule because it was in the book (and it was eventually listed in the FAQ). The glossary is just as valid to find out rules as elsewhere. Other rules may supercede the glossary since it deals more in general rules, but that does not mean that it is invalid.

Yes, I'm doing it again.

I am explaining that melee is not the same as coup de grace. I am using multiple places in the book to do that.

Not just the coup de grace section.

Explain to me again how this is somehow incorrect or wrong. Why do we not use the entire books, not just bits and pieces?


I am NOT making the assumption (like you) that just because you are using a melee weapon and following the normal critical damage rules that you are making a melee attack with CDG.

The table does not illustrate that it is a melee attack.
The text of CDG does not illustrate that it is a melee attack.
The mechanics of CDG does not illustrate that it is a melee attack.
The glossary definitions of melee and melee attack do not illustrate that it is a melee attack.
Unlike melee attacks, CDGs can be done with some ranged weapons.
Unlike melee attacks, CDGs will provoke AoOs.
Unlike melee attacks, CDGs attackers require concentration rolls if damaged.
Unlike melee attacks, CDGs have a fort save.

Explain to the rest of us why CDG is a melee attack when there are many more differences than similarities between the two please. And, use the sentences in the book to do so.

I agree that CDG is an attack. Ranged attacks are attacks. Spell attacks are attacks. CDG is just not a melee attack and does not follow most of the rules of melee attacks.

 

[Hypersmurf]

If you'll recall, the only place in 3E core where it stated that if you are stunned, you dropped any carried weapon was in the glossary. And, that was the rule because it was in the book (and it was eventually listed in the FAQ). The glossary is just as valid to find out rules as elsewhere. Other rules may supercede the glossary since it deals more in general rules, but that does not mean that it is invalid.

The glossary is perfectly valid as a source of rules.

I have never disputed that.

One more time: You are using the glossary definitions to explain flavour text. The flavour text is not using rulespeak. It is not using technical terms. When flavour text says "threat", it doesn't mean "an attack roll that falls within the critical threat range of a weapon". When flavour text says "tiny", it doesn't mean "the size category between diminutive and small". When flavour text says "evade", it doesn't mean "To make use of the special quality Evasion". Flavour text uses plain language.

The glossary definition of "melee attack" is relevant when a rule uses the term "melee attack". It is not relevant when the same term appears in flavour text.

I am not saying glossary definitions are not rules. I'm just saying you don't use the glossary definition to interpret flavour text.

Explain to the rest of us why CDG is a melee attack when there are many more differences than similarities between the two please. And, use the sentences in the book to do so.

I'm not claiming CDG is a melee attack. I'm simply stating that the dmaage roll for a CDG with a melee weapon is a melee damage roll.

-Hyp.

 

[Thanee]

I wouldn't allow it, from the "it makes no sense" viewpoint alone.

Technically, it might work like this. You can cleave, since you dropped someone to 0 or less hit points, but since you have no attack bonus, your attack automatically fails.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Hypersmurf]

Technically, it might work like this. You can cleave, since you dropped someone to 0 or less hit points, but since you have no attack bonus, your attack automatically fails.

A bonus is defined - in the Glossary, even! - as "a positive modifier to a die roll".

Neither Power Attack nor Cleave have a BAB prerequisite.

Therefore, someone with a BAB of +0 could have the Cleave feat.

So, someone could make an attack without a positive modifier to their die roll. By the glossary definition, they have no bonus.

Yet, this is a valid attack for use with Cleave.

How is one attack with no bonus different to another attack with no bonus?

-Hyp.