-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Lance Charge and Cleave.
- Thread starter Ysgarran
- Start date
Tony Vargas
Legend
mikebr99 said:
I don't know, but, FWIW, in the Song of Roland they were spitting half a dozen moors at a time on thier lances...
not to mention slicing riders in half lengthwise and killing the horse with the same blow.
Heroic fantasy and legend gives you a lot of room to work with...
mikebr99 said:
Seing how feats are expensive, sure, I do not see why not to allow him to use Cleave in conjunction with quick draw.
Really it is no different (imho) from the pole arm weilding fighters from dropping the mage 10 feet away and then quick whipping out his dagger and slicing the rogue behind him.
However, there is a hidden cost to such a maneuver. He has to drop the lance...
g!
Respectfully... I don't think you understand the author's intent on how the Cleave mechanic is supposed to work.apsuman said:
As you can see by the prereq.'s (a higher then average STR and the Power Attack feat), a POWERFUL swing is required to do enough damage to CLEAVE right through the first opponent and that the SAME swing continues into the next (in the immediate vicinity).
If this is different from your view (and I'm sure it is...) on how Cleave works, please post your thoughts on the mechanic.
mikebr99 said:
No, I think that you might be surprized that I am with you (more rather than less) on your explanation.
Short Circuit. The SRD ( I do not have the PHB with me) says this has to be with the same weapon so I am completely out of it.
That said (I am wrong often) for my opinion to work, the player would need Power Attack, Cleave, and Quick Draw and then have the following happen:
1. He would have to charge an opponent
2. Hit him
3. Fell him
4. Have opponent number 2 be in place at the end of the charge.
5. Have opponent number 2 unavailable to be hit by the lance.
6. Drop the lance, quick draw the sword (or whatever)
7. Attack from the cleave.
Now I think this chain of events would happen very very rarely, even if the player tried to set it up otherwise.
If the chain of events happened, I think number 5 is the stopper here. How can you end a charge be able to hit opponent number 1 and not be albe to hit number 2 with the lance. The only way I can see it is if you end the charge with opponent number 2 on the opposite side of the mount.
Now, the wording of the feat makes me wrong, but the situation I described is so reare I hardly think it game breaking.
g!
Cleave
http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/srdfeats.rtf
1) "The character cannot take a 5-foot step before making this extra attack."
You can't take a 5' step if you have charged anyway.
2) "The extra attack is with the same weapon and at the same bonus as the attack that dropped the previous creature. "
No quickdraw or off hand weapon.
Charge
http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/srd/srdcombatactions.html
3) "The charge stops as soon as the combatant threatens the target."
Your movement for the round ends in the spot that you made the attack. With a 10' reach though, you should be able to find something to take that cleave attack at.
Astlin
http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/srdfeats.rtf
1) "The character cannot take a 5-foot step before making this extra attack."
You can't take a 5' step if you have charged anyway.
2) "The extra attack is with the same weapon and at the same bonus as the attack that dropped the previous creature. "
No quickdraw or off hand weapon.
Charge
http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/srd/srdcombatactions.html
3) "The charge stops as soon as the combatant threatens the target."
Your movement for the round ends in the spot that you made the attack. With a 10' reach though, you should be able to find something to take that cleave attack at.
Astlin
Thanks for the rules quotes, Astlin. Of course, they were painfully obvious already to everyone (except, perhaps, to the maroon who wanted to Cleave with a different weapon).
The problem is that By The Rules, you *can* cleave with a lance . . . which is dumb. I think it makes much more sense to allow a Cleave "forward" than a Cleave "around" when you're talking about lance charges . . . sure, maybe make the fighter in question must have Ride-by-Attack as well.
Yes, it's a Rule 0. But it makes sense.
The problem is that By The Rules, you *can* cleave with a lance . . . which is dumb. I think it makes much more sense to allow a Cleave "forward" than a Cleave "around" when you're talking about lance charges . . . sure, maybe make the fighter in question must have Ride-by-Attack as well.
Yes, it's a Rule 0. But it makes sense.
Uller
Adventurer
mikebr99 said:
While I agree that you can't use a different weapon on a cleave, I don't agree with the notion that a cleave attack is necessarily a "follow through" of the initial attack. The rules simple do not support this. For instance, you could be fighting two orcs in a 5' wide corridor with one orc on each side of you. You attack Orc 1 with your great sword and fell him. There is simply no reasonable way that the momentum of your swing carries your attack through Orc 1, through the stone wall and into orc 2. Yet this is a completely allowable and reasonable use of cleave. So in this case, it seems the felling of Orc 1 allows you to suddenly shift your focus and catch Orc 2 off guard or something.
Basically, there is no default explanation flavor wise of exactly a cleave is. It is simly an extra attack. The DM should mold the explanation to fit the situation and if no reasonable explanation can be found (and that bothers you) then don't allow it.
For a mounted charge w/ a lance...sure I'd allow it. The target must be within reach and probably on the same side of the attacker as the original target. First target get's mowed down and the attacker is strong enough and skilled enough to move his lance onto a second target...
This might work in a situation like this:
312
XXX
XAX
A = attacker. 1 = Target 1. 2 = Target 2. 3 = Unavailable target
Attacker is charging Target 1 from the bottom of the page and has 10' reach. He must attack from the square he is in. 1 falls. So he is able to somehow shift his attack to 2 as well. He could probably not attack 3 (assuming he is right handed and attacking with his lance on the right side).
Realistic? Probably not. Do I care? No.
Similar Threads
