Flying Kick and druids

[Snipehunt]

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

Actually, cleave doesn't even say "attack bonus," it says "[t]he extra attack is with the same weapon and with the same bonus as the attack that dropped the creature." Whatever they meant by that, "bonus" in the glossary is the positive modifier to a die roll. There isn't any language linking it to BAB. This implies that the whole stinking bonus applies to the cleave - true strike, favored enemy, charge, you name it. If it adds to the modifier used to hit the dropped guy, it gets added to the cleave attack.

So what wins - the "bonus" language in cleave, or the "on the attack roll" language in charge (and the other one-shot bonuses)? The rules contradict each other. IMO, we're close to a "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" argument.

 

[Artoomis]

...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.

Don't bring physics into this, because then a Cleave should have a negative modifier of both damage and attack, for some momentum and force MUST be lost in making the first kill. The non-rules-based logical arguments on why the Charge bonus should not apply pretty much end up at the logical point of stating that Cleave itself should impose a penalty on the extra attack.

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

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.)

Number 2 is actually the easiest way to go, though each of these choices has some basis in the rules.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

No, because Tigers don't kick. They rake, and bite. This falls under the "common sense" rules. To take advantage of this feat, I would say you have to be able to perform a kick in a manner similar to the way a human would.

 

[Pielorinho]

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."

Actually, I think that #1 is best: assume that by bonus, they're talking about BAB. Otherwise, things just get very silly, and they start contradicting the FAQ (as with True Strike). I do agree that this feat is poorly worded; however, I think any interpretation beyond BAB gets weird quick, and the FAQ makes it clear that your #2 doesn't apply.

Daniel

 

[LuYangShih]

Frank and Artoomis are correct. Furthermore, I just want to say it is great to have posters arguing based on the rules for once. Most people here just argue for what they want in their own games, and try to twist the rules to fit with their own interpetations.

PS

Nail, give me a break. Frank puts a slight emphasis on one line by saying "damn" and you chastise him for being offensive? The only reason you found offense is because you were looking for it.

 

[Artoomis]

...Spirited Charge + Cleave is part of the game - an important part for players who want to play mounted warriors..-Frank

I missed this earlier:

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. Certainly the Cleave feat's language does not state that.

2. I'd imagine few Spirited Charging warriors would also have Cleave anyway. I mounted warrior will likely have, at a minimum:

Mounted Combat
Ride-By Attack
Spirited Charge
(Mounted Archery and Trample would be nice, too)

There might be a supplement with another mounted feat or two as well.

No add in
Power Attack and
Cleave

That's quite a few feats. Not many fighters would do this because normal mounts are simply not survivable in combat with mythical creatures, and characters with unusual mounts don't have feats to spare to take Cleave.

This won't come up often in most games.

3. You only avoid the movement-generated AoO from the "victim" of your charge - so most often you will charge a defendant who stands alone, if at all possible. Thus no Cleave.

 

[Nail]

Nail, give me a break. Frank puts a slight emphasis on one line by saying "damn" and you chastise him for being offensive? The only reason you found offense is because you were looking for it.

I said "be civil". That's all. If you found offense [it]s because you were looking for it.

 

[Nail]

Double post. Man, are the boards at a crawl today.....

 

[Nail]

3. You only avoid the movement-generated AoO from the "victim" of your charge - so most often you will charge a defendant who stands alone, if at all possible. Thus no Cleave.

This is pretty key, although it can be avoided (in part) by the reach status of the lance. If you have reach an your group of opponents does not, no AoOs, right?

 

[LuYangShih]

I simply am getting tired of people asking others to modify the way they post when nothing is wrong with the post in the first place. No offense.