Flying Kick and druids

[Hypersmurf]

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...

That imagery tends to fall apart a little when you start looking at Piercing weapons, though.

Describe an attack with a longspear against an opponent ten feet to the north that Cleaves into an opponent ten feet to the south in terms of "cleft in twain"... especially if there are allies ("soft cover") to the east and west.

-Hyp.

 

[Artoomis]

That imagery tends to fall apart a little when you start looking at Piercing weapons, though.

Describe an attack with a longspear against an opponent ten feet to the north that Cleaves into an opponent ten feet to the south in terms of "cleft in twain"... especially if there are allies ("soft cover") to the east and west.

-Hyp.

But that imagery is just as invalid for a normal cleave as for one made when charing.

Which is back to my point that if you are using "logic," rather than "rules," to disallow tha charge bonus, then you shoud also be applying some sort of penalty to the Cleave attack as well. That's why real-world "logic" does not apply here.

 

[Elvinis75]

"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.
-Hyp.

I'm assuming that this is from the book and not from the SRD.
The SRD doesn't mention any of this.
Thinking about this though I tend to believe that this is the base rule and the way that it works unless something else above the base rules says that overrules the base ruleset I agree. However it become clear that the Pounce ability overrules the single attack portion of the rule why not a feat like cleave that states that the attack get another attack at the “same bonus” as the first attack.
Personally I think that cleave would follow though to opponents beyond the first opponent that are within range when they enter the threatening square. I know this would be a house rule.
By the rules it is clear that same bonus doesn’t = same BAB. It could but isn’t necessarily true. Thus I would be forced to rule that it is the same total attack bonus and here is why.
The attack roll is defined as:
D20 + attack modifier (or bonus)
Attack modifiers include the character's base attack bonus, size adjustment, strength adjustment, and any other bonuses that apply to the attack roll.

If we use the same bonus then it include all of those things even if they don’t make sense. I like the middle ground. Apply all situation bonuses as you see fit. I think that unless there was a big difference in the situational bonuses that would be applied I would, in hopes of a fluid gaming session, apply them all.

Has anyone mailed the sage about this???

 

[HeavyG]

That imagery tends to fall apart a little when you start looking at Piercing weapons, though.

It also falls apart any time you down someone by bringing them from -1 to -9 hit points. An enemy at -1 hit points has not been cleft in twain !

But Artoomis is right, this problem is not exclusive to cleaving while charging.

 

[Tellerve]

Grrr, annoying boards. For some reason it hadn't updated for me so I tried to rewrite my post and then see that it is indeed there...so, sorry for the quasi-double post.

Tellerve

 

[two]

This actually is a very simple question with a simple answer

It's rare any issue is so cut-and-dry, but this one REALLy is.

Without ANY "common sense" or house rules involved, it boils down to this.

Cleave feat SRD text, partial, but the juicy bits:

"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."

That's it. If you are charging with true strike active and +99 due to other bonuses, and you total attack is +119,

and IF you kill monster X you get an immediate attack "with the same weapon and at the same bonus as the attack that dropped the previous creature" vs. some monster within reach. That would be +119. Period. Done.

That's crystal clear. True strike bonus applies to cleave, as does height, monster, favored enemy, etc. even if these conditions change (only applied to X not another monster). It's a simple feat, simply written, and does not take into account a LOT of stuff. "Realism" takes a back seat to simplicity of game play in this case. Most people don't really mind.

No recalculation. Just pick another bad guy within reach and cleave. Same "to hit" bonuses.

However, it's also obvious that Frank is (dare I say "as usual") wrong about the damage from cleaving off a charge. Nothing would lead us to assume an extra cleave attack somehow gains the same "type" of attack as the attack that caused the cleave (charging, etc.) which might double/triple damage. The feat says nothing of this, and it's somewhat batty to imply it does. You get an extra attack at a stated "bnous". If you hit, great, do your "normal" damage. If cleave supplied double damage on a charge, it would say so. (along the lines of "if your cleave attack is due to a charge, your cleave attack damage is doubled as the charge was, or tripled in the case of SC...etc.etc. blah blah blah").

To sum: cleave, a simple and clearly-written feat, gives the SAME "to hit" as the attack that "dropped" an enemy, but in no way increases damage dealt.

Now, of course, as is true with a lot of simply-defined rules (such as threatening/flanking), things break down realism-wise rather quickly, causing people to (sensibly) house rule things. But changing the "bonus" to hit on a cleave is a house rule.

Cleave is clear: this is a feat in which "realism" is less important than speed and gameplay.

 

[Pielorinho]

two, your statement disagrees with the FAQ. Given the text of "bonus" in the glossary, I'm persuaded that you and Artoomis are technically correct; however, I'm also convinced this will be errata'ed soon to bring the game into conformity with the FAQ and with common sense.

Daniel

 

[two]

two, your statement disagrees with the FAQ. Given the text of "bonus" in the glossary, I'm persuaded that you and Artoomis are technically correct; however, I'm also convinced this will be errata'ed soon to bring the game into conformity with the FAQ and with common sense.

Daniel

That's cool. I hope they do. It does seem pretty dumb, the situations you can get into with a literal reading of "cleave."

However, the current rule IS blisteringly fast to play!

 

[Artoomis]

That's cool. I hope they do. It does seem pretty dumb, the situations you can get into with a literal reading of "cleave."

However, the current rule IS blisteringly fast to play!

It's also worth noting that, despite the FAQ, the rule was NOT re-written for 3.5. I expect no further errata on this.

As written, plus the FAQ, the bonus is the same EXCEPT for True Strike. That's if you want to play with the rules as written AND use the FAQ as if it were the rules also.

 

[Elvinis75]

It's also worth noting that, despite the FAQ, the rule was NOT re-written for 3.5. I expect no further errata on this.

As written, plus the FAQ, the bonus is the same EXCEPT for True Strike. That's if you want to play with the rules as written AND use the FAQ as if it were the rules also.

Can you tell me whether cleave is the same strike continued or two strikes?