Flying Kick and druids

[Hypersmurf]

"Normal" fighters get multiple attacks every round, the mounted character only gets a single basic attack every round.

Only if he moves.

He can sit on his horse and full attack as much as he likes, or he can charge for one mega-hit (plus Cleave, Expert Tactician, and whatever other bonuses he qualifies for that aren't charges).

There are always trade-offs to be made.

But just as when he drops the dwarf with his Charge and Cleaves into the ogre, he gets a +1 "higher ground" bonus against the dwarf but not against the ogre, since the ogre is the same size category as his mount - the bonus is no longer applicable - I maintain that he does not receive the +2 Charge bonus (or Charge-related effects) against the ogre, since he is no longer Charging.

In the case of Cleave, I don't consider that to be a house rule.

In the case of Pounce, I'd only allow the Charge bonus (etc) on the first attack. If that's a house rule, I'm fine with that. I'm not going to claim that one's rules-as-written.

The way the Lion's Charge spell is worded - "When the subject charges, he can make a full attack in the same round" - the bonuses would apply to the charge attack, but not to the full attack. Lion's Charge differs from Pounce in that with a Pounce, you make a full attack as part of a charge, where with Lion's Charge, as written, you're effectively getting two full-round actions: a charge, followed by a full attack action. (I'm not sure that's what they intended, but it's what they wrote.)

'course, that makes the Wildshaped Tiger-druid with Lion's Charge very nasty, since when he charges (which lets him use Pounce for bite/claw/claw/rake/rake), he can make a full attack in the same round (bite/claw/claw).

So, to summarise once more - I admit, I'm 'nerfing' Pounce with a house-rule. I won't admit the same about Cleave - the Clevae is an extra attack, not part of the Charge.

-Hyp.

 

[DM2]

If you don't also give the player back their 2 AC points because they aren't charging anymore when they cleave - this is the sinlge most inane and arbitrary thing I have heard come out of a DM since "You can only sneak atack once per turn".

Wow. So, would you give them charge bonuses on attacks of opportunities they get against foes before their next turn as well?

I can't imagine a player walking out of a game because I didn't buy the "your charge benefits extend past the first attack" argument.

I've never heard anyone argue it was possible until you entered this thread, and wouldn't have drawn that conclusion from the rules.

I mean, wow. I guess I'd be pretty happy to see a new player leave if they left for that alone...a good sign they are someone we wouldn't want around.

DM2

 

[FrankTrollman]

No. I'd follow the damn rules and allow the character to get the +2 bonus on every attack made during that action. When you get the Cleave Attack, it's the same action, and you get every bonus you would get from that action.

Similarly, on a pounce attack you would get an attack bonus on every single attack you make. Of course, the pounce attacks is where the game has the potential to become unbalanced - not the cleaves.

There is no valid argument for denying cleaves charge bonuses - not from a thematic standpoint (go watch any of a dozen hollywood movies), not from a rules standpoint (same action), and not from a gamebalance standpoint (qv.: Mass Charm). Therefore, any DM who pulled this, is a Vindictive DM (TM).

I can't believe this is even still being discussed.

-Frank

 

[Artoomis]

I've never heard anyone argue it was possible until you entered this thread, and wouldn't have drawn that conclusion from the rules.

DM2

I suspect it must have never come up for you.

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.

You retain the +2 from charging. I don't know how "at the same bonus as the attack that dropped the previous creature" could be much clearer.

NOTE: It does not say the same DAMAGE, and I would not allow any extra charging multipliers on more than one target.

 

[Hypersmurf]

You retain the +2 from charging. I don't know how "at the same bonus as the attack that dropped the previous creature" could be much clearer.

It's to distinguish it from "at your highest attack bonus".

If I have three attacks due to BAB +11/+6/+1, and I drop someone with my second attack, the Cleave uses the +6 BAB, not the +11.

Let's say there's a hobgoblin with a dire wolf buddy. My ally is on the opposite side of the hobgoblin.

I Charge (+2) the hobgoblin on my warhorse (+1, higher ground) while invisible (+2) with my +1 Goblinbane sword (+3) smiting evil (+4) from a flanking position (+2). And let's not forget my Strength bonus (+2) and my BAB (+4), and the True Strike spell (+20) I activated last round from my Ioun Stone.

Total bonus: +40.

The hobgoblin drops, and I Cleave into the Dire Wolf.

Well, the wolf is size Large, so no higher ground bonus. My invisibility ended when I attacked, so no invisible attacker bonus. The wolf isn't a Goblin, so the Bane property of my sword isn't applicable, and it isn't evil, so no Smite bonus. My ally isn't in the right place for flanking, so no flanking bonus. My True Strike discharged on my first attack, so that's gone too. And I'm not charging any more - in fact, since the wolf was less than 10 feet away when I started my Charge, and I had to ride past it to get to the hobgoblin, I couldn't have charged him even if I'd wanted to.

So my total bonus? +1 enhancement, +2 Strength, +4 BAB.

Total: +7. "At the same bonus" doesn't mean +40. It means use the same iterative BAB, and add applicable modifiers.

Charge isn't one of them.

-Hyp.

 

[Nail]

Good point, Pielorinho.

Hmmmm. How does that work?

 

[Pielorinho]

Nail, I'm not really sure how it works. Last session, I ended up getting a pre-statted companion for my druid; courtesy of a new feat "Improved Companion," it's a half-earth-elemental dire ape, with improved natural weapon instead of improved grapple.

I ain't complaining .

Hypersmurf, I was getting ready to make the same point you just made, only using a ranger's favored enemy bonus as the sole changing modifier. Thanks for blowing my flimsy example out of the water!

Daniel

 

[Nail]

No. I'd follow the damn rules .....

FrankT, please be civil. Thanks.

 

[Snipehunt]

If the DM is hand waving and shutting that sort of thing down he's arbitrarily keeping perfectly legitimate characters from being made. If he's shutting this sort of thing down after the characters are made he's just screwing over players for no reason.

Or the DM is realizing something he allowed earlier is unbalancing in that campaign, and properly keeping some sort of balance by retroactively changing a character, probably at the same time allowing the player to swap something else in. In every campaign I've ever played in, this happens all the time as somebody finds some interesting new combo that is overpowering. We call it "revisionist history." It's the reason my cleric doesn't have persistent spell.

 

[Artoomis]

...

Total: +7. "At the same bonus" doesn't mean +40. It means use the same iterative BAB, and add applicable modifiers.

Charge isn't one of them.

-Hyp.

Some of what you stated is true, such as Bane not applying to creatures not affected by that particular property, but I see not reason not to include charge.

If a charge and swing mightily (extra +2) and drop someone, why should I not get the same bonus when cleaving into the next person? The momentum is the same (else the attack bonus would change, getting a penalty for the second person).

I think "at the same attack bonus" (not BAB, that's not what it says) means "at the same attack bonus" less any that cannot apply, like, say, higher ground if you are only on higher ground relative to one defender. There is no real reason that the charge attack bonus should not apply, really.

It's no big deal anyway as it is only +2. That might make the difference, but damage will likely not be so severe since it won't be charging damage. If I was DM'ing this, I'd allow it. I could see a legitimate rules argument to not allow it, though.

DM's call. Either way is within the rules.