Cleave, Trip, and please tell me I'm sane.

[Kemrain]

I heard someone argue this, and I need to have my faith in humankind reaffirmed...

"I get a cleave attack whenever I drop an opponent, right?"
"Yeah, of course."
"I trip him, then. And Cleave into that other guy."
"...What?"
"I tripped him. Dropped him. Gimme my Cleave!"

The book says "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..." I've honestly heard someone make the case for dropping someone with a trip triggering a cleave. I note the "enough damage to" part, but the person went on to site the knockdown feat, or somesuch... Ten or more damage forcing a trip attempt atuomatically, I believe.

Please tell me that they're on crack. I know that isn't the purpose of this feat, but, it's not really within the rules, is it?

- Kemrain the Very, Very Afraid.

 

[jgsugden]

This is slightly unclear, but any DM that would allow it is probably on crack. Drop is not a defined term in D&D, so the DM has to decide on a reasonable definition. Drop should probably be interpreted to mean that you are bringing that foe to a helpless state via your attack. If you knock them unconcious, kill them, drop them to negative hit points, put them asleep, paralyse them, etc ... it should (IMHO) provoke a cleave attack. If you only knock them off their feet, it should not.

 

[Otterscrubber]

Not only should he not get a cleave, I'd give him an invitation to leave my campaign if such silliness continued. Yes the wording is poor but it would seem to indicate at the very least incapacitating your opponent to make use of this feat.

 

[The Hanged Man]

Per the SRD, you get a cleave attack:

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

It's not even unclear, as applied to a trip attack. You must deal damage that somehow makes somebody drop. Trip attacks never deal damage, they just let you make a trip check. You get an additional attack if you trip them, which might do damage, but arguably even if that damage kills them you don't get a cleave, b/c that damage didn't "drop" them.

 

[Camarath]

I would like to say that the view that tripping is a from of dropping is perfectly reasonable. The effect this view has in game may not be reasonable but it is clear that your foe does actualy "drop" when you trip him.

But trip attacks do not normaly do damage as The Hanged Man point out so unless the traget was tripped do to damage some how you would not get to cleave of a trip.

edit: to reflect The Hanged Man's very good point

 

[Hardhead]

He loves the crack.

 

[Endur]

Well, I have always viewed clave as the Conan-style blow that is so powerful that it knocks multiple opponents over or cuts through one opponent and hits the next.

If someone was tripping with a weapon, I could easily see them swinging the weapon in such a way to knock two or more people over. Or to knock one foe into another and knock them both down.

Now, having said that, I'm of the opinion that the rules weren't intended to allow a knockdown to generate a cleave, so I probably wouldn't allow it.

 

[MerakSpielman]

He didn't drop him. How could he, when he didn't even pick him up first?

 

[BSF]

Well, your player is on crack. As I see it, you can take a few stands on this.

1. That's silly and I won't allow it. Nice trip though.

2. Sure, you can try to trip the next person. Since you are cleaving with a trip, you only get to use a trip for the cleave.

3. Hmm, interesting idea. Sure, do it. I think I have some NPC concepts I want to explore in the future. After all, whatever is legal for the PC's is legal for the NPC's as well.

Number 1 is the best option. If I bring up number 3, my player's tend to get a little frightened. Sometimes, if a rule is unclear, I will give them the option of whether it should be allowed/disallowed. I am proud to say that my players are often able to choose the best decision.

 

[Arc]

Try the rule of thumb:
If the player's apparent intent is to do something cinematic or cool, then give him the benifit of the doubt.
If the player's apparent intent is to gain an unfair advantage in combat, simply be exploiting an inconsistency in the rules, then veto.

The tough bit is determining which is the case