Flying Kick and druids

[Hypersmurf]

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.

But then, for consistency, you must allow the Goblin-Bane bonus and the higher ground bonus and the Smite Evil bonus and the True Strike bonus to apply to the attack on the wolf, since the feat creates a "weird new rule".

Either A: All the original modifiers apply, despite changes in the situation for the second attack...

Or B: Only applicable modifiers apply.

In case A, then yes, you could apply the Charge bonus to the attack and no modifier to the damage, but you'd also have to apply all the other weird attack modifiers and ignore any that would normally apply to the second opponent.

In case B, then either the Charge attack and damage modifiers apply (because you consider him to be still charging) or neither do (because he's not charging any more).

IMO, case A is ludicrous, and case B is perfectly sensible.

But you can't disallow the Bane modifier, allow the Charge attack bonus, and disallow the Charge damage bonus, all at the same time, and call it consistent. It doesn't fit either reading of "same attack bonus".

-Hyp.

 

[Artoomis]

But you can't disallow the Bane modifier, allow the Charge attack bonus, and disallow the Charge damage bonus, all at the same time, and call it consistent. It doesn't fit either reading of "same attack bonus".

-Hyp.

Actually, I favor the simplest rule - use the same attack bonus no matter what. I know it would not be a bit odd sometimes, but it's so much simpler. I would not allow damage bonuses in the same way, though, because that's how the "Cleave" feat works.

That would be the strictest following of the rules. "Same attack bonus," but no mention of damage bonus, so that follows normal rules.

It may seem a bit silly on the surface, but it will help speed up combat without making the feat overly deadly by allowing charging damage multipliers to be used several times in a round.

 

[Tellerve]

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, 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.

I don't like the thought of +2 once and -2 ac for tons of attacks. As for Pielorihno's example, the "cinematic" idea of it would have the guy charging slash through 1 and as his swing comes around he continues it into 2.

What I think really hurts each others ideas and makes for the inability to compromise is that some people see the rules as less cinematic. Hyp's idea is that a charge grinds to a halt right at the end of the movement. However, someone with a more cinematic mind would easily see how the rules as presented work into the image of a horse and rider not stopping on a dime so that after he slashes the neck of the first orc he cleaves into the second.

Tellerve

 

[Hypersmurf]

As for Pielorihno's example, the "cinematic" idea of it would have the guy charging slash through 1 and as his swing comes around he continues it into 2.

And with a lance?

-Hyp.

 

[Tellerve]

The lance tears across/through the shoulder of orc 1 and into the stomach of orc 2.

Anything else?

I think if you were to say that you didn't get your +2 charge bonus to extra attacks then the -2 ac should only occur on any AoO that you may get while moving in. But you don't do that do you?

Tellerve

 

[Hypersmurf]

I think if you were to say that you didn't get your +2 charge bonus to extra attacks then the -2 ac should only occur on any AoO that you may get while moving in. But you don't do that do you?

Of course not, because the +2 specifically applies to the attack made while charging, while the AC penalty specifically lasts until the next round. The two are defined entirely differently, so trying to equate them is pointless.

If you get a bonus attack from Expert Tactician that occurs after your charge, you don't get the +2 bonus, even though the AC penalty remains.

If you take an AoO before your next turn, you don't get the +2 bonus, even though the AC penalty remains.

If you're a choker, or using 3E Haste, and you use the extra action to make another attack, you don't get the +2 bonus, even though the AC penalty remains.

The attack bonus and the AC penalty are not "linked" in any way. Just because one has "expired" in no way affects the other.

-Hyp.

 

[FrankTrollman]

Of course not, because the +2 specifically applies to the attack made while charging, while the AC penalty specifically lasts until the next round. The two are defined entirely differently, so trying to equate them is pointless.

But your charge action hasn't ended yet. If you were performing a Ride-by-Attack charge, enemies along your path could get the "readied against a charge" bonus because you are still charging.

Your charge isn't over until your action is. The cleave takes place before the action terminates. So you get your charge bonus on your cleave attacks - if any.

So the equating of the +2 to attack and -2 to ac is valid. You are saying that the charge bonus should terminate early - that is only fair if the charge penalty also terminates early.

-Frank

 

[anon]

Of course not, because the +2 specifically applies to the attack made while charging, while the AC penalty specifically lasts until the next round. The two are defined entirely differently, so trying to equate them is pointless.

If you get a bonus attack from Expert Tactician that occurs after your charge, you don't get the +2 bonus, even though the AC penalty remains.

If you take an AoO before your next turn, you don't get the +2 bonus, even though the AC penalty remains.

If you're a choker, or using 3E Haste, and you use the extra action to make another attack, you don't get the +2 bonus, even though the AC penalty remains.

The attack bonus and the AC penalty are not "linked" in any way. Just because one has "expired" in no way affects the other.

-Hyp.

Your examples are not valid comparisons because none of those actions have the specific statement "with the same attack bonus" attached to them.

 

[Hypersmurf]

"Attacking on a Charge: After moving, you may make a single melee attack. You get a +2 bonus on the attack roll, and take a –2 penalty to your AC until the start of your next turn."

There are three effects of the charge.

1. You may make a single melee attack.
2. You get a +2 bonus on the attack roll.
3. You take a –2 penalty to your AC until the start of your next turn.

From the 3E FAQ:
If you use the true strike spell and you get a threat, does
the +20 bonus from the apply to the critical confirmation
roll? Would the +20 bonus apply to the extra attacks you
get from the Cleave, Great Cleave, or Whirlwind attack
feats?
When you roll to confirm a critical, you use whatever
bonuses applied to the attack roll that made the threat, no
matter where those bonuses came from.
True strike affects only one attack. (Rolling to confirm a
critical is not a separate attack for this purpose.) If you make
multiple attacks in a round, your bonus from true strike applies
only to the first attack you make, no matter how you managed
to get multiple attacks.

As with True Strike, the bonus from a Charge applies to a single attack. Through a Pounce effect, you might alter effect 1: "you may make a single melee attack", and make more than one attack. But that doesn't change effect 2: "You get a +2 bonus on the attack roll". Not on "all attacks made in a charge", but a bonus on the single melee attack that the Charge action allows.

As with True Strike, a bonus that applies to "a single attack" is not carried over on a Cleave.

-Hyp.

 

[Pielorinho]

Tellerve, how does a lance tear through the goblin in front of you, and THEN tear through the goblin behind you?

Even with a sword-blow, you're not going to be able to convert the forward momentum of your charge into an attack on someone behind you, unless you've got a special dispensation from Sir Isaac Newton.

You say that the problem is folks not seeing combat cinematically. I agree, but I think the folks who aren't visualizing it properly are the ones disagreeing with me .

It's perfectly fine to charge someone, kill them, and attack the person behind you with a continuation of your swing. You just no longer have the charge's momentum behind you, and therefore you don't attack the person behind you as hard. Nothing prevents you from trying it, if you have the feat.

Artoomis, when you talk about only applying bonuses if there's no compelling reason NOT to apply them, you're doing exactly what I think we don't want to do. You're talking about adding a new descriptor onto every single bonus: "Applies on a cleave?" The far simpler alternative is to rule that the "same attack bonus" refers to the attack bonus before modifiers are applied.

Daniel