Flying Kick and druids

[Hypersmurf]

The rule is "the same bonus." You have three choices (maybe more):

1. Add new situational meaning to the term "bonus" by stating they meant to state "the same base attack bonus plus all applicable bonuses, noting that this is a separate attack from the attack that dropped the creature."

2. Apply the rule as written, noting that feats often change the base rules. Thus ALL modifiers used in the attack that dropped the creature would apply, since together they add up to the "bonus" applied to the attack roll.

3. Modify the feat slightly to allow the bonus as written, but disallow all bonuses that cannot possibly apply (like bane, etc.)

Numbver 1 and number 3 are the same

1. Cleave does NOT say you get the same damage bonus, only attack bonus, so Spirited Charge + Cleave is not much of a power combination, really. It could prove beneficial in the right circumstances, though, but I don't think anyone here is arguing that extra charge damage should still apply.

Well, Frank certainly is.

And I'm arguing that if you allow the attack bonus, you must allow the damage modifier; if you disallow the damage modifier, you must disallow the attack bonus, unless you allow a single True Strike to apply to both attacks.

-Hyp.

 

[Artoomis]

And I'm arguing that if you allow the attack bonus, you must allow the damage modifier; if you disallow the damage modifier, you must disallow the attack bonus, unless you allow a single True Strike to apply to both attacks.

-Hyp.

Not at all.

1. The feat states same bonus for the attack, not for damage. This a special feat-specific rule, so that you could appropriately apply the charge (or bane, or whatever) attack bonus but not the damage bonus that normally goes with that action or weapon property (or whatever).

2. The FAQ creates a special exception for "True Strike." The rule is actually quite clear as written. Any non-allowance of the "same bonus" would be a house rule, but that's really be rather anal and hyper-technical.

I do think that they probably meant to mean the same BAB as the attack that dropped the creature, but that's not what they wrote. Of course, as written it is easier and helps speed up combat.

 

[Zhure]

So I guess the strategy would be to charge the blind, prone kobold from higher ground to get a to-hit bonus when you cleave into the main target?

That's the reason I don't allow "same total bonus." Each to-hit is calculated separately.

Greg

 

[Artoomis]

So I guess the strategy would be to charge the blind, prone kobold from higher ground to get a to-hit bonus when you cleave into the main target?

That's the reason I don't allow "same total bonus." Each to-hit is calculated separately.

Greg

Well, I am not sure I would actually do it as written. My main point is to recognize what the rules actually state, then go ahead and figure out what you'll really do as DM.

As far as your example goes, that is definately not a real problem.

 

[anon]

My interpretation

The intent as I see it (and this is, of course, my opinion) of the "with the same bonus" phrase in the Cleave description is to make it clear that it is not an iterative attack, nor does it suffer any penalty for being an 'extra' attack.

I would therefore take the same BAB as the initial attack then add any additional modifiers that might apply (higher ground, relevant weapon qualities ie bane, the charge bonus, etc...).

As to whether the +2 charge bonus would be applicable, I would say generally it would be. The force of the charge carries through. If it seems implausible in a specific situation I might disallow it.

 

[Zhure]

Well, I am not sure I would actually do it as written. My main point is to recognize what the rules actually state, then go ahead and figure out what you'll really do as DM.

As far as your example goes, that is definately not a real problem.

Sure it was a hyperbolic example, but it's useful seeing what the outcome might be in extreme example. Maybe (using a reach weapon to avoid an AoO), command a summoned Dire Weasel go prone and hold really still with it's eyes covered and become "helpless" so the main tank fighter could coup de grace it.

A coup de grace auto-hits; I think we can all agree a cleave off a coup de grace shouldn't be an auto-hit.

Greg

 

[Tellerve]

Pielorihno-

I'd you have a horse hand and a lance I can show you. Something sharp and pointy with lots of force and hit the shoulder of a human and it could quite easily go through shoulder, possibly tearing the flesh as the diameter increases and shear itself from the person. Obviously if you hit in the ribs and it goes through then that's fine to. My example really just as said sharp pointy object go through high on the first body and low into the next which as we know from physics works.

Reality and dnd just don't work well at all together. I think you should play dnd either as written, for all its odd quirks and annoyances or break your head in trying to work physics into it. Or heck, make up a weird combination, but then people will just sorta wonder again which gets into these, "nya nya nya - rules pissing matches".

Tellerve

p.s. thanks for the bolding of my name, I feel special

 

[Pielorinho]

Tellerve, one of us is misunderstanding the other. When rider R charges goblin A with a lance and kills goblin A, how can the force of his charge carry over into his cleave onto goblin B?

--------B
---------R
----------A

This isn't complicated physics. Generally I think the rules ought to be subservient to cinema -- if I can't picture how the effect occurs, it ought not be able to occur. In this case, I can't picture the lance bonus transferring through the cleave.

Since the rules are (admittedly) a bit unclear on this subject, with an apparent contradiction between the FAQ and the text of the feat combined with the glossary definition of bonus, I think cinematic rule has to apply. Ruling that cleave works off BAB instead of off total modified AB is a simple rule that doesn't create any cinematic incongruities.

Daniel

 

[Saeviomagy]

Tellerve, one of us is misunderstanding the other. When rider R charges goblin A with a lance and kills goblin A, how can the force of his charge carry over into his cleave onto goblin B?

--------B
---------R
----------A

This isn't complicated physics. Generally I think the rules ought to be subservient to cinema -- if I can't picture how the effect occurs, it ought not be able to occur. In this case, I can't picture the lance bonus transferring through the cleave.

Since the rules are (admittedly) a bit unclear on this subject, with an apparent contradiction between the FAQ and the text of the feat combined with the glossary definition of bonus, I think cinematic rule has to apply. Ruling that cleave works off BAB instead of off total modified AB is a simple rule that doesn't create any cinematic incongruities.

Daniel

From the looks of things, it carries through because he already trampled through B. Wangling the timing so that the attack and damage for B applies after A isn't really much of a stretch.

 

[Tellerve]

Yeah, my example was more towards hypersmurf and showing an example where I think the +2 charge bonus should still be applying with two enemies, one then the other, during a cleave.

But saeviomagy brings up something else I was trying to get to, and that is the game has flaws when trying to bring physics and reality and our vision into how things work. We already accept that we get 1 "attack" in 6 seconds, because we accept there are minor feints, positioning, etc etc. We do this because otherwise the physics of it is just silly. Cleave the feat allows the person with it to use the weapon to continue attack with said weapon. I believe they intended it to mean that the force of the first attack was so great that the enemy was cleft, cleaved, in twain and because the force of the blow was so great it continued on without a reduction in force, which is why some argue the +2 from charging should continue. The charge for example is very odd if you take it how the reality of the game mechanics makes it as nobody in real life in charging would end up right next to the person, well especially on a horse, as that would be too much momentum. But in dnd the rules have the person stop right there and not continue on...cinema/reality/physics don't work well with the rules as written.

Tellerve