Cleave and Full Attack

[0-hr]

I think that cleave's are considered all part of the initial attack, just like the second and third shuriken. It's this same thing that allows the cleave attacks to share in the True Strike bonuses of the first swing. Remember, every time you roll the d20 to hit is not necessarily a new "attack".

And I agree with you Ice Bear, someone is on an anti-Sage campaign and is letting their tantrum spill across multiple threads...

 

[0-hr]

Of course, a possible problem with the "one attack" theory is that you then wouldn't get to add sneak attack damage to any of the cleaves (assuming the victims were flatfooted etc.). Ah well, I still think you can cleave on a partial action.

 

[Bonedagger]

Of course, a possible problem with the "one attack" theory is that you then wouldn't get to add sneak attack damage to any of the cleaves (assuming the victims were flatfooted etc.).

I don't see why not.

(We can assume that the second target of the attack is just as easy to hit as the first (Are using the same attack bonus). I can easily picture a rogue sneaking up and slicing two people across the neck (Or throat) in one slice with a rapier or dagger (clawing his way through).)

 

[Magic Rub]

From past postings, I think S'mon has an issue with Skip, so I think he's letting his feelings for him come into play on this.

Feats are designed to allow you to do things that you normally can't - I see them as sometimes being exceptions to the rules. For example, you can't normally attack four opponents with a +12 BAB, but WWA allows that AND even allows you to attack at +12 against all of them.

IceBear

I agree with Ice Bear, & hong. It just happens, not as a full attack action. It's sweet you could conceivably get 7 extra attacks with great cleave. Of course they'd probably need to be near invalidic kobolds with AC of 3 in order to realistically accomplish such a goal. My dice hate me!!!!! natural 20's as a DM & 1's as a player. Stupid dice will kill me one day, sneak in to my pizza and choke me to death. Which would be quite the feat as my d20 is about 2" across.

 

[thalmin]

Of course, a possible problem with the "one attack" theory is that you then wouldn't get to add sneak attack damage to any of the cleaves (assuming the victims were flatfooted etc.). Ah well, I still think you can cleave on a partial action.

You would only add sneak attack damage if the next foe was also susceptable to the sneak attack in the first place.

 

[Bonedagger]

Originally posted by Tom Cashel
The assumption that Skip is determined to hijack the d20 philosophy with his rulings is a bit of a stretch, don't you think? I'd wager he knows the rules far better than any of us...

Maybe not hijacking but I have often seen people on this thread who refere to a ruling by the sage that soon turns out to be contradictionary to what the book says (And/or didn't make much sense). Never bothered to read any of his rulings myself though so it could be that people just abuse his name.

 

[0-hr]

I was just saying that if the cleaves count as part of one big attack in the same way that throwing three shurikens counts as one big attack, then you could only apply Sneak Attack damage to the first hit and not the cleaves (like with shurikens). I don't believe that is the case so I was pointing out a possible flaw in my own logic. In other words:

I know you can cleave even with a partial action.

I believe that you could apply sneak attack damage to the cleaves if the victims were suceptible.

I cannot provide an official quote to support these claims, so I was hoping someone else would.


Not a big deal either way. This isn't a grey area for me, I just wanted to put out some solid evidence for the dubious.

 

[Bonedagger]

Sorry Ki Ryn. I queted you by mistake. Changed it.

 

[S'mon]

From past postings, I think S'mon has an issue with Skip, so I think he's letting his feelings for him come into play on this.

Well, I'd seen a lot of negative comments previously on the arbitrary inconsistent and rationaleness nature of the Sage's advice, but normally I just read the errata, I haven't read Dragon for a good while, and until I was prompted to read the FAQ yesterday by the discussion about stacking Empower metamagic ("x2/x3/x4 Empower" I had no idea how appallingly bad it was.

I said something about the mediocrity of the Monster Manual - that's a bit unfair, in any other context it would seem a pretty good rules book, despite lacking an entry for humans or any sample encounter tables. But IMO the 3e PHB is probably the best single RPG rules book ever written - something I've slowly come to realise after GMing 3e since late '2000 - and by comparison the MM is a let down. Admittedly even Monte's DMG isn't quite as good either, but it's still very very good. The MM is a bit average.

I guess my problem is that based on the quality of his advice, Skip Williams doesn't deserve to be the primary authoritative source on the 'true meaning' of the PHB. But many people seem happy with his rulings. As long as none of my players ever tries to enforce the FAQ on me, I'm happy.

 

[S'mon]

Maybe not hijacking but I have often seen people on this thread who refere to a ruling by the sage that soon turns out to be contradictionary to what the book says (And/or didn't make much sense). Never bothered to read any of his rulings myself though so it could be that people just abuse his name.

Thanks for the support.
A lot of people seem to regard the Sage or the SRD as more authoritative sources than the core rulebooks themselves, even though the rulebooks have been playtested & edited, the Sage and much of the pre-release SRD presumably haven't. I remember a lot of people a while back insisting that Charge was a full-round action that provoked attacks of opportunity, because the SRD said so. That the PHB calls it a standard action which does not provoke AoOs, they ignored. It almost makes me wonder if some people are too cheap to actually buy a PHB.

Re Feats - the PHB says that to get multiple attacks, whether iterative, off-hand, or from Feats, you need to take the Full Attack action. Disappointing to powergamers perhaps (When I'm playing I'd love to Cleave off a charge!) but hardly ambiguous.