Flying Kick and druids

[Pielorinho]

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.

I don't think this is the right way to look at it: instead, I think there's no real reason why it would apply.

Unless you want to add a new descriptor onto every single attack modifier, "Applies also to cleave attacks," it looks to me like the only sensible way to figure the cleave attack bonus is to recalculate the attack at the same BAB as the one that dropped the enemy. So sure: weapon focus applies, as do pluses on the weapon. Everything else you re-evaluate: are you on higher ground versus the second opponent? Are you flanking the second opponent? Is the second opponent blind? Are you charging the second opponent?

Two notes: first, the answer to the last question above will always be no, so the charge bonus never adheres to a cleave attack. Second, your cleave attack can actually have a higher attack bonus than your initial attack: if you're cleaving into a blind, flanked, lower-ground opponent, that can make your cleave +5 higher than your initial attack.

Daniel

 

[Artoomis]

I don't think this is the right way to look at it: instead, I think there's no real reason why it would apply.
Daniel

Okay, why would it apply? Because you have charge willy-nilly into combat, forgoing you defenses in order to strike with more deadly force. You struck with such deadly force that you went right through opponent #1 and into #2. Charge bonus applies. This is supported by the fact that Cleave applies no penalty to the second attack, thus it comes in at the the force and accuracy as the first one.

I am not discounting you argument though. I am, however, stating that logic will let you run it either way very easily.

Analysis since my first opinion on this makes it quite clear that this is pure DM's choice.

There simply is no reasonable way to say it should be one way more than the other that is in any way compelling compared to the other side of the argument.

 

[Pielorinho]

Okay, why would it apply? Because you have charge willy-nilly into combat, forgoing you defenses in order to strike with more deadly force. You struck with such deadly force that you went right through opponent #1 and into #2. Charge bonus applies. This is supported by the fact that Cleave applies no penalty to the second attack, thus it comes in at the the force and accuracy as the first one.

Actually, I was asking for a rules-based reason why it would apply, when every other attack modifier is calculated anew on a cleave. Your description is fine in some cases, but what about the case where your charge target is person 1, your cleave target is person 2, you started at point A, and ended at point B?
----------2
A----------B1

In such a case, there's neither a plausible rules-based reason for applying the charge bonus, nor is there a plausible description-based reason.

Daniel

 

[Hypersmurf]

Second, your cleave attack can actually have a higher attack bonus than your initial attack: if you're cleaving into a blind, flanked, lower-ground opponent, that can make your cleave +5 higher than your initial attack.

As an irrelevant aside, in 3.5 your Cleave would be +3 higher than your initial attack, but the opponent would have a -2 AC penalty.

"Defender blind" is no longer an attack bonus in 3.5, but an AC penalty.

-Hyp.

 

[Pielorinho]

Thanks for the correction, Hypersmurf! My point, natch, stands.

Daniel

 

[Artoomis]

Actually, I was asking for a rules-based reason why it would apply, when every other attack modifier is calculated anew on a cleave. Your description is fine in some cases, but what about the case where your charge target is person 1, your cleave target is person 2, you started at point A, and ended at point B?
----------2
A----------B1

In such a case, there's neither a plausible rules-based reason for applying the charge bonus, nor is there a plausible description-based reason.

Daniel

Okay, a rules-based reason:

Cleave states you use the same attack bonus, not the same base attack bonus. Technically, this would mean that variations in situational modifers (higher ground, etc.) would not apply. I agree, however, that they should apply, but, as the rule is quite clear, I'd restrict it to only those who unquestionably do not apply, like higher ground or the "Bane" property of a magic weapon.

My position is that because the Cleave feat actually states that you DO get to keep ALL attack modifiers, any modifers that would not apply (like "Bane") would be by exception to the Cleave rule, and, therefore, I would allow any modifer unless it had a compelling reason to deny it. Charge does not present a compelling reason to deny the +2 bonus when Cleaving at the end of a Charge.

Again, I would point out that this ONLY applies to the Charge attack bonus, any damage bonuses would not apply as Cleave does NOT give you the same damage bonuses as the blow that activated the feat.

Also, again, I would like to point out that both sides have a good, strong rules-based argument, so it's strictly a DM's decision.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I agree, however, that they should apply, but, as the rule is quite clear, I'd restrict it to only those who unquestionably do not apply, like higher ground or the "Bane" property of a magic weapon.

That's being inconsistent. Either you keep the same total bonus, or you keep the same base bonus, but you can't say "It clearly states total bonus, so I'll use the total bonus... except for that modifier... and that modifier... and that modifier."

Again, I would point out that this ONLY applies to the Charge attack bonus, any damage bonuses would not apply as Cleave does NOT give you the same damage bonuses as the blow that activated the feat.

Again, you're being inconsistent. If you're disallowing Goblin-Bane because it doesn't apply to a non-goblinoid, then the only reason the Charge bonus would apply is if you consider the character to still be charging. In which case, he'd retain all Charge-related effects, including damage.

-Hyp.

 

[Artoomis]

That's being inconsistent. Either you keep the same total bonus, or you keep the same base bonus, but you can't say "It clearly states total bonus, so I'll use the total bonus... except for that modifier... and that modifier... and that modifier."

No, it's not inconsistent. I recognize that the rule states "same attack modifier." I also recognize that it would be absurd to allow Bane to affect a creature it shouldn't. I simply reconciled the two conflicting rules by stating that bonuses that have a compelling reason to be disallowed are the only ones to be disallowed.

Again, you're being inconsistent. If you're disallowing Goblin-Bane because it doesn't apply to a non-goblinoid, then the only reason the Charge bonus would apply is if you consider the character to still be charging. In which case, he'd retain all Charge-related effects, including damage.

-Hyp.

No, the rule states "same attack bonus," but not "same damage bonus." I see no compelling reason to disallow the +2 charge attack bonus, but no particularly compelling reason to allow the charge damage bonus. It may seem odd logically, but it's not necessarily. The extra damage could have been dissipated somehow in the initial strike, perhaps.

Once AGAIN my point is that there is a very good argument on either side of allowing or disallowing the +2 charge bonus. A good DM should understand both sides and make up his own mind, knowing that he's justified by the rules in choosing either way.

 

[Hypersmurf]

No, the rule states "same attack bonus," but not "same damage bonus." I see no compelling reason to disallow the +2 charge attack bonus, but no particularly compelling reason to allow the charge damage bonus.

The compelling reason to disallow the +2 Charge attack bonus is "They aren't charging any more".

If you don't consider that to be true, then the only alternative is "They are still charging"... in which case the damage modifiers apply, because they apply when you're charging.

Either you're charging or you aren't. If you aren't - there's your compelling reason to disallow the attack bonus.

"I get a bonus against goblins - he's not a goblin - no bonus."
"I get a bonus when I'm charging - I'm not charging - no bonus."

The logic is identical.

If you are - there's no justification for disallowing the damage modifier.

"I get an attack bonus when I'm charging - I'm charging - bonus."
"I deal double damage when I'm charging - I'm charging - double damage."

You can't separate the two and claim consistency. Either both apply, or neither.

-Hyp.

 

[Artoomis]

You can't separate the two and claim consistency. Either both apply, or neither.

-Hyp.

Of course I can "claim" consistency.

What do the rules say? "Use the same attack modifier." Not "use the same damage modifier." This is very diferent from a normal attack, but, then, it's a feat that creates a weird new rule. I can deal with that.