Question on true strike and cleave ...

[Feliks]

Well, if he's going to allow all that; I think he'll see very quickly why he shouldn't

I think it will come to him, he is an experienced GM with a great grasp of the game balance. I may have to use it once though just to see it work before I point out that the errata states that it isnt allowed. OK. Maybe twice

 

[Hypersmurf]

Has the wording changed from 3.0 to 3.5 for either of these?

Not substantially for True Strike or Cleave, so the 3E FAQ answer still applies.

But something that has changed in 3.5 is Whirlwind Attack - you can't combine Whirlwind Attack and Great Cleave in 3.5. I got the impression you were suggesting that earlier?

Reread Whirlwind Attack - it precludes extra attacks from feats etc.

-Hyp.

 

[Feliks]

Not substantially for True Strike or Cleave, so the 3E FAQ answer still applies.

But something that has changed in 3.5 is Whirlwind Attack - you can't combine Whirlwind Attack and Great Cleave in 3.5. I got the impression you were suggesting that earlier?

Reread Whirlwind Attack - it precludes extra attacks from feats etc.

-Hyp.

I had not re-read that feat for 3.5, thanks for the heads up.

 

[Li Shenron]

What about True Strike + Improved Trip?

If you trip an opponent in melee combat, you immediately get a melee attack against that opponent as if you hadn’t used your attack for the trip attempt.

 

[Feliks]

Interesting point and clearly as valid as the cleave wording, but ... also as clearly stipulated in the errata in my opinion.

 

[Hypersmurf]

What about True Strike + Improved Trip?

It's badly written, because it can be read in two ways.

The "as if" could be either describing or explaining the melee attack.

If it's describing, then True Strike would apply. If it's explaining, it wouldn't.

Precedent and balance suggests the latter

-Hyp.

 

[Li Shenron]

Precedent and balance suggests the latter

I agree of course

Sometimes I think that "flavor text" could have been more useful that trying to get the perfect wording.

 

[Tilla the Hun (work)]

Let me just say that I agree that this should be house ruled for balance sake...

But as for what the technical 'rules' are saying, I'd believe they'd stack...

FYI - This issue extends beyond just TS + Cleave, as both Guidance at 0th and Moment of Prescience at 8th both confer an 'insight' bonus to the next attack...

From the 3E Main 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.

Unfortunately, I must disagree. I finally located the main source of this quote. It's from the same 3.0 faq that states quite clearly that Cleave stacks with Whirlwind... as 3.5 has changed that, there is some changes now in the stacking of feats and spells that could affect the TS + Cleave issue...

Regardless, using this outdated faq does not lend credence to this issue as it would lend the same credence to whirlwind + cleave, which is obviously invalidated under 3.5.

I.E. This is what they said in 3.0 and I believe they were both right and wrong... They were right - True strike only applies to the first attack you make in a round, and not to any other... However, it confers a bonus to that attack. Cleave states specifically that it makes a second attack at the same bonus as the first one. A True Striked 1st level Fighter with a +4 Strength Mod has a +25 bonus to hit, total. Cleave uses the -same- bonus to hit the second creature.

In the Cleave feat, the phrase "at the same bonus" distinguishes it from other feats which grant an extra attack "at your highest base attack bonus".

If you have a BAB of +6/+1, and you drop an opponent with your first attack, then the Cleave is calculated using the +6 and any applicable modifiers. If you drop an opponent with your second attack, then the Cleave is calculated using the +1 and any applicable modifiers.

Indeed - it distinguishes it from other feats alright - it states that you use the -same bonus-. It does not say at the same -base- attack bonus, it doesn't even specify attack bonus, it just says the same bonus.

Here I must disagree again in that Cleave does not require a recalculation of it's attack bonus - since it specifically states it uses 'the same bonus'... Thus, you would not re-calculate your 'to hit' bonuses, you'd simply use the same one.

Since True Strike discharges on your first attack, it is not an applicable modifier to the Cleave attack.

The feat text, to remove ambiguity, should say "at the same base attack bonus". It doesn't, but that's how it works.

-Hyp.

There's the clincher of where we disagree. You're interpreting the rules, which I, in turn, lump into a house rule (I use the same ruling in a specific house rule in my campaign - I'm actually considering removing True Strike entirely from my game)

However, the rules state 'the same bonus' to your attack roll.

Elsewhere, these same rules show you how to calculate your total attack bonus, and refer to it as your bonus to attack.

There's less interpretation if you assume 'the same bonus' to mean the same total, not recalcing.


Oh, and FYI: On your charge, the modifiers should carry through, even your charge modifier, or don't you think a charging knight with a lance can use his charge momentum against more than one opponent, provided they lined up right? Bullets sure do - pass right through the one and hit the second guy in line. It gets even more possible if you consider the nature of an 'insight' bonus.

But again - I'm just discussing this from an academic viewpoint as I believe you have the right though on it from a balancing house rule perspective

 

[Hypersmurf]

Unfortunately, I must disagree. I finally located the main source of this quote. It's from the same 3.0 faq that states quite clearly that Cleave stacks with Whirlwind... as 3.5 has changed that, there is some changes now in the stacking of feats and spells that could affect the TS + Cleave issue...

The 3E FAQ answer on Whirlwind Attack and Cleave doesn't apply because Whirlwind Attack has changed.

Neither True Strike nor Cleave have changed.

Regardless, using this outdated faq does not lend credence to this issue as it would lend the same credence to whirlwind + cleave, which is obviously invalidated under 3.5.

See above.

Oh, and FYI: On your charge, the modifiers should carry through, even your charge modifier, or don't you think a charging knight with a lance can use his charge momentum against more than one opponent, provided they lined up right?

You can Charge someone with your lance, and if you drop him, Cleave someone ten feet behind your horse (relative to the line of the Charge).

But the charge bonus is one of the more hotly-debated conditional modifiers in this case. What about the Bane weapon, the Smite Evil, the Higher Ground modifier, or the Flanking bonus?

Does an Orcbane weapon retain its +2 bonus if you Cleave from an orc into an elf? Does a Paladin retain his bonus if he Smite Evils a demon and Cleaves into a celestial? Can you gain a Higher Ground bonus against someone who's on higher ground than you are? Can you gain a flanking bonus against someone you aren't flanking?

If you're invisible, and you drop someone (with a +2 bonus for being invisible) - and the attack terminates the spell, making you visible - do you get that +2 invisible attacker bonus on your Cleave attack? If so, do you also deny them their Dex bonus, since that's an effect of being an invisible attacker? And if so, are they subject to sneak attack?

-Hyp.

 

[Tilla the Hun (work)]

The 3E FAQ answer on Whirlwind Attack and Cleave doesn't apply because Whirlwind Attack has changed.

Neither True Strike nor Cleave have changed.



See above.



You can Charge someone with your lance, and if you drop him, Cleave someone ten feet behind your horse (relative to the line of the Charge).

But the charge bonus is one of the more hotly-debated conditional modifiers in this case. What about the Bane weapon, the Smite Evil, the Higher Ground modifier, or the Flanking bonus?

Does an Orcbane weapon retain its +2 bonus if you Cleave from an orc into an elf? Does a Paladin retain his bonus if he Smite Evils a demon and Cleaves into a celestial? Can you gain a Higher Ground bonus against someone who's on higher ground than you are? Can you gain a flanking bonus against someone you aren't flanking?

If you're invisible, and you drop someone (with a +2 bonus for being invisible) - and the attack terminates the spell, making you visible - do you get that +2 invisible attacker bonus on your Cleave attack? If so, do you also deny them their Dex bonus, since that's an effect of being an invisible attacker? And if so, are they subject to sneak attack?

-Hyp.

And these questions (and others) were once hotly debated.

I was eventually proved wrong regarding the rules stance vis-a-vis invisibility + sneak attack + multiple attacks, but I still use it in a house rule.

Regardless, by the strictest, simplest intepretation of the rules - the same bonus should apply to each cleave attack.

Unfortunately this is unbalanced and hence requires the house ruling and the wise GM adjudications.

I personally think that the problem arises from the rules inability to distinguish the two types of cleave. There is the cleave of smashing straight through someone so easily that there is little resistance, and you plow straight into the next target without even changing your blow. Then there is the cleave where you hit someone so hard, that you can immediately follow it with a second blow.

The rules bounce back and forth, with some confusion as to what they intended... For balance sake, most wise (and/or sane) GM's assume the latter to be true and remove any 'single attack' bonuses the attack had, then have the player reroll an attack.

However, the least interpretation of 'the same bonus' means the fighter I used as an example (human fighter 1, str=18, wielding great sword, with Cleave as a chosen feat and operating under a true strike spell) would still hit at at the same +25 bonus when cleaving into the second opponent after dropping the first under the effects of TS. If he happens to be invisible, then he gets the same +2 to both attacks (presumably his opponent has no time to react before he is being cleaved, thus keeping the bonuses)

That said, if I was in a game where I was or saw the fighter pulling this stunt, I'd have a private chat with the GM to try and make him or her see the light and house rule it right out of there as it is rather extremely unbalanced.

So Guidance (0th) level should follow this same pattern, and moment of prescience (8th level) should as well? I'd think the 8th level version of True Strike would last past the first attack - but now I'm just being petty