....
What I am saying is that you say 'my PC does this' then 'he does that' and if it's consistent with what he's done up to then rulewise then he's allowed to do it.......
-James
So why can't I turn that first hit into a vital stike again? I already hit the target AC.
You are right in that you don't necessarily have to declare an action type. However, most actions have an action type associated with them. Therefore, when you say "I'm using my Cleave feat" everyone knows you just used your standard action.
(And just so we are clear, you should make it known that you are using the cleave feat as you make your FIRST attack, not the second.)
Let's talk about the difference between a full attack and a single attack and move first.
When do I need to 'make that known'?
-James
When do you need to make what known?
Before you can make an attack at all, you have to start an action that includes an attack in it.
|
Then how is it a 'retcon' if the same occurs with a PC making a single attack and then, per the rules, deciding whether or not to continue with iterative attacks as a full attack action or take a move action (thus making the single attack a standard action)?
The whole issue with full attack is irrelevant to the subject of Cleave.
Full Attack is a specific fighting stance, where the attacker makes several blows in quick succession, at the cost of diminishing power (either iterative attacks, at +0/-5/-10/-15, or with two weapons, at -2/-2 on each, worse if the weapons aren't designed to be used that way).
The fact that the designers magnanimously do not force an attacker to keep whacking a corpse, but allow him to step over it, and be on his way, has absolutely nothing to do with Cleave.
I'm willing to offer you an olive branch here; I've taken a look at your profile, and while it doesn't say when you joined, the fact that you have no avatar, and 575 posts to your name does suggest that you may not have been here that long.
I don't say this to pull rank, or imply that first one in, wins the thread, but I do wonder, if you were around throughout the whole of the initial brainstorming, the Alpha Test, the Beta, etc.
Because if you weren't, it would explain why there's a difference in perspective.
The current rules are a direct response to the issues raised in late 2007/early 2008, when the staff started fishing for interest in a revised 3.5, long before the official announcement they would be producing PF.
Common themes were:
Melee PCs don't get to make any meaningful tactical decisions.
Their alleged tactical decisions are not decisions, since they are no-brainers; move and have one sucky attack, or stand still for full attack.
Casters get to move, and still perform at full power.
Even things melee are supposed to be good at, like clearing a room of goons, still take far too long.
Some feats, like Cleave, become obsolete at higher level.
PF Cleave was designed to address all five of those issues.
3.5 Cleave was a bonus attack, that the PC gained, completely by accident, with no input from the player. Often they were as surprised as everyone else. And as the PCs levelled up, it paid off less and less, as the opposition got harder.
PF Cleave was designed to give the melee PC something to choose, a deliberate decision to be weighed up, with costs, risks and benefits.
So the player can feel as though he had a say in the fate of his PC, rather than plodding after the others making single attack-move-single attack-move, or planting his feet to the floor and watching the enemy walk past and ignore him.
And THAT is why Cleave is declared at the start of an attack. It's no longer an accidental freebie, doled out by the DM, sometimes with no way to capitalise on it.
It's a decision made by the PC, to adopt a specific fighting style, an overly aggressive attack that sacrifices defence, in favour of taking on two foes at once. It's a decision, made by the PC, who comes out swinging, but at the risk of overreaching, and leaving himself open.
If you've followed the developers notes, it's all there, the mechanical reasons, the flavour reasons, the discussion on how this feat and others fix the problems, and how they open up the battlefield, and put some fear back in the casters, who can no longer rely on '5'-step, cast', or being able to dish out more pain while Tumbling about, than a Fighter could, using 'move-single attack' every round.
The people arguing that Cleave is a combat style, that is deliberately chosen BY THE PLAYER, not a bonus attack that is retroactively awarded BY THE DM, are doing so in the full knowledge that they are following the rules as designed, and as fully intended.
Just sayin..For someone who keeps saying that people shouldn't be posting here, you seem to be posting here an awful lot.
It's like a car wreck.. though it's horrifying, you just can't look away.. lol. I have an addiction, what can I say lol
Some feats, like Cleave, become obsolete at higher level.
A small note here.
Cleave in 3.5 doesn't have to obsolete itself. Rather builds need to specialize towards it rather than dabble.
In LG I had a 13th level PC that would regularly use his great cleave to decent effect in modules designed for an Average Party Level of 16. I think the kind of build got coined as 'nuke' fighter, which I guess is nicer than 'barbarian fireball' that I was using until I heard that term. But as you can guess, he was specialized in dealing a lot of damage.
This PF cleave is a different creature. And I welcome the change in that I always purported that 3.x Cleave was the single worst written feat in the PhB. RAW one could cleave with a sling.
That said I do believe that one can indeed decide your PC's acts as you go as long as they are consistent with what you've done up to that point. The rules do bear that out, have done so in 3.x and haven't changed in PF in that regard.
You certainly can do so in regards to deciding between a round with a full attack action and one with a standard attack and move in such a manor.
-James
One last time. Standard attack!=standard action. Cleave is a specific attack, like Vital Strike or a partial charge or a Bull Rush, etc. It is incompatable with a full attack. Period. You have ignored, misrepresented, and refused to respond to every single cogent argument put to you in this thread. You are wrong and have been proven wrong time and again but refuse to admit defeat. Working Cleave the way you suggest is against the word and the spirit of the rules, is counter to the entire reason the feat was changed from 3.5 to PF, and is probably making the developers cry.
|
|
So when a PC makes a single melee attack and that is resolved, and they've yet to decide whether they are going to continue iterative attacks as in a full attack action, or if they are going to instead move.You're saying that they have to decide between the two beforehand?
The rules say that they can decide THEN rather than before.
-James
Do you agree or disagree that once an event has happened in game that it can't be changed?
In your example, a smart player will choose to take a full attack action, since the full attack action allows you to sacrifice your iterative attacks in order to take a move action.
Under the Full attack entry:
"After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks..."
If they're less clever, or if there are multiple enemies around and the player still wants to move, the player will use a standard action to either cleave or to make a regular attack action, and then use their move action to go wherever they want to go.
As for moving in combat, once a player declares their move action, they make position adjustments in 5 ft increments until they reach the limit of their movement, or until something happens that causes them to halt their movement.
As for deciding, I'm reminded of a certain president and a blue dress. You keep implying that you don't have to decide on an action type when you make an attack, when in fact each attack you can take requires a specific action type to use.
The ways you can make an attack in combat:
Full attack action, which is a full round action.
Attack action, which is a standard action.
Use feat to make a specially modified attack not an attack action, which is a standard action.
You decide to move. You move your character one square at a time until you choose to stop or run out of movement.
You decide to make a full-attack action. You make your first attack. You then decide to make your iterative attacks, or sacrifice them for a move action.
You decide to make a cleave action. You make your cleave attack. If you hit, you make your additional attack as specified in the feat text.
Again, you decide to attack. That decision requires an action type to happen. You can't attack without using an action type, since there is no way specified in the rules in which you can make an attack without using an action. The game specifies in which manner you can attack.
|
In summary, you must declare the Cleave attempt before you roll the dice. You cannot after the fact say it was a Cleave attempt. The reason being that Cleave requires a standard action and has the consequence of a -2 to AC for the round. Taking that standard action precludes you from other actions, so rolling the dice with the intent of declaring a Cleave attempt if you hit is not using the feat by the rules. The rules require you to take a standard action at the risk of not getting the extra attack if you miss. This is the same requirement that Vital Strike has.
The full attack action has a caveat that you can decide after your first attack to make a move action. This does not mean that you can take a standard attack action and then decide to make a full attack. The similarity between the standard attack action and the first attack of a full attack action does not change this. It would be best for all groups to make it clear that stating 'I make an attack' means the player is performing a full attack action, except when specifically stated otherwise. There is no reason to use the standard attack action when a full attack action is available, since the standard attack action followed by a move action is virtually identical to making the first attack of a full attack and deciding to take a move action instead of the other attacks. This does not, however, mean that they have the same action cost. The standard attack action should only be used after a regular move action or when a character can only take one action, such as slowed or during a surprise round.
Thus, a standard attack action precludes you from using your standard action for a Cleave action, and so a Cleave attempt must be declared before rolling the dice.
That being said, I believe I will be changing Cleave in my own PF games to the following.
Anytime you hit a foe, you deal damage normally and can make an additional attack (at the same base attack bonus of the successful hit) against a foe that is adjacent to the first and also within reach. You can only make one additional attack per round with this feat. When you make this extra attack, you take a –2 penalty to your Armor Class until your next turn.
Anytime you hit a foe, you deal damage normally and can make an additional attack (at the same base attack bonus of the successful hit) against a foe that is adjacent to the previous foe and also within reach. If you hit on this second attack, you can continue to make attacks against foes adjacent to the previous foe, so long as they are within your reach. You cannot attack an individual foe more than once during this attack action. When you use this feat, you take a –2 penalty to your Armor Class until your next turn.
This reverts Cleave back closer to the 3.5 version and does not interfere with actions. It allows melees more chances to Cleave in a round, but still limits them to one extra attack per enemy.
Thanks to James for the opportunity to review the rules indepth and come away with something new.
With that, I believe I have said all there is for me to say.
So why can't I turn that first hit into a vital stike again? I already hit the target AC.....
What I am saying is that you say 'my PC does this' then 'he does that' and if it's consistent with what he's done up to then rulewise then he's allowed to do it.......
-James
How many times do I need to tell you?
I linked, I copied it, I posted it in the first place.
So let's have our PC with a longsword in one hand, spiked gauntlets on each hand, wearing armor spikes who's just attacked normally with his longsword.
The answer you're asking would be: the same reason one cannot elect to change that attack into a stunning fist attack, a disarm, or to change that attack with a longsword to be one with armor spikes.
That attack is done now. Your PCs subsequent acts have to be in line with what you've done.
You've made a normal attack with a longsword.
Now if you had taken a -2 to hit with it, as you have a light weapon in your offhand, if you have the TWF feat and hadn't used a move prior to the attack then you could continue this with the rest of a full attack including an extra TWF offhand attack.
Meanwhile if all the above were true except you didn't take a -2 to hit with that attack then you could continue with your remaining attacks in a full attack but you couldn't get the extra TWF offhand attack.
-James
...but your ruling is not consistent with the cleave ruling. Cleave is one action. The game is action based. If you do a vanilla attack that action is done. You can't retro it into a cleave based on whether you hit or miss. You might not see it that way, but that is what you are doing.
The penalty does not create the action. The action(cleave as an example) creates the penalty.
When do you need to make what known?Whether your PC is making a full attack action or is making a standard attack action and is making a move action afterwards.
Many in this thread have stated that you have to declare action type ahead of time. I think that they are either confusing things, don't read too well, or are just having fun.
-James
You tell the DM up front what you will do, and that determines what action it takes up. I don't say I am taking a standard action. I would tell the DM I am going to cleave. He knows cleave is a standard action. Now I have my move action, and free actions left if I choose to use them.
If I am in melee range it is assumed, that I will full attack since that deals the most damage most of the time, but full attacking allows the option of only taking the first attack and moving away. This means that if I take the first attack, and I happen to notice the DM is setting something up I can disengage from the attack and move if needed. My options going exactly by what the book says are basically keep swinging or move if I choose the full round attack option. RAW that is all you get, and RAI(correctly interpreted) is all you get.
You make your intentions known before you do anything. Now in my group we know each other well enough that most of the time nothing has to be said, but if I were playing with a new group I would say what I intend to do.
Before you can make an attack at all, you have to start an action that includes an attack in it.So when a PC makes a single melee attack and that is resolved, and they've yet to decide whether they are going to continue iterative attacks as in a full attack action, or if they are going to instead move.
You're saying that they have to decide between the two beforehand?
The rules say that they can decide THEN rather than before.
-James
They have to decide basically what they will do. You dont do the something, and then determine what type of action you want it to be. You are reading the book wrong. You get the option to continue attacking or move after the first attack if you choose to do a full attack option.
The way you are looking at it is that you get to swing, and then decide if you want to do a standard action or something else. That swing however is either part of a full attack action or its a standard action.
That said I do believe that one can indeed decide your PC's acts as you go as long as they are consistent with what you've done up to that point. The rules do bear that out, have done so in 3.x and haven't changed in PF in that regard.
You certainly can do so in regards to deciding between a round with a full attack action and one with a standard attack and move in such a manor.
-James
The rules say no such thing, and you cant quote it. The thing you keep quoting is under the full round attack heading, meaning you have to agree to the full round attack to get those options, but since you can't to a full round attack, and a standard action in the same round there is no cleave.
So when a PC makes a single melee attack and that is resolved, and they've yet to decide whether they are going to continue iterative attacks as in a full attack action, or if they are going to instead move.
You missed the first thing that happened.
On your turn, you can take a number of different actions. Before the PC can make a melee attack, they need to choose an action that they can make a melee attack with.Which action did the PC choose? Did they choose a full attack action? Did they choose an attack action? Did they choose the "use a feat" action? What did they choose?
If they didn't choose anything, then they can't make an attack -- the rules only allow you to make an attack when you have the opportunity to take an action that allows one, not just whenever you want.
So, again, what action is the player using that allows him to make an attack at all?
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
So when a PC makes a single melee attack and that is resolved, and they've yet to decide whether they are going to continue iterative attacks as in a full attack action, or if they are going to instead move.You missed the first thing that happened.
On your turn, you can take a number of different actions. Before the PC can make a melee attack, they need to choose an action that they can make a melee attack with.
Which action did the PC choose? Did they choose a full attack action? Did they choose an attack action? Did they choose the "use a feat" action? What did they choose?
If they didn't choose anything, then they can't make an attack -- the rules only allow you to make an attack when you have the opportunity to take an action that allows one, not just whenever you want.
So, again, what action is the player using that allows him to make an attack at all?
Avalon,
Apparently in james' game, you can roll to hit, then decide what kidn of action that was, except for vital strike, which you can't declare after you've started the action.
Again, stop trying to confuse him with facts. Quoting the RAW isn't having any effect, so logic doesn't either.
|
|
There you go.
As per the book... well roughly ;) :)
In summary, you must declare the Cleave attempt before you roll the dice. You cannot after the fact say it was a Cleave attempt. The reason being that Cleave requires a standard action and has the consequence of a -2 to AC for the round. Taking that standard action precludes you from other actions, so rolling the dice with the intent of declaring a Cleave attempt if you hit is not using the feat by the rules. The rules require you to take a standard action at the risk of not getting the extra attack if you miss. This is the same requirement that Vital Strike has.
The full attack action has a caveat that you can decide after your first attack to make a move action. This does not mean that you can take a standard attack action and then decide to make a full attack. The similarity between the standard attack action and the first attack of a full attack action does not change this. It would be best for all groups to make it clear that stating 'I make an attack' means the player is performing a full attack action, except when specifically stated otherwise. There is no reason to use the standard attack action when a full attack action is available, since the standard attack action followed by a move action is virtually identical to making the first attack of a full attack and deciding to take a move action instead of the other attacks. This does not, however, mean that they have the same action cost. The standard attack action should only be used after a regular move action or when a character can only take one action, such as slowed or during a surprise round.
Thus, a standard attack action precludes you from using your standard action for a Cleave action, and so a Cleave attempt must be declared before rolling the dice.
That being said, I believe I will be changing Cleave in my own PF games to the following.
Anytime you hit a foe, you deal damage normally and can make an additional attack (at the same base attack bonus of the successful hit) against a foe that is adjacent to the first and...
So you believe that you have to decide to full attack before you need to decide between a full attack and a standard attack and move?
There is no option in the rules to decide between a full attack or a standard attack and move. There's an option to decide between taking all attacks of a full attack or taking only the first attack of a full attack and then taking a move action instead of the remaining attacks.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Apparently in james' game, you can roll to hit, then decide what kidn of action that was, except for vital strike, which you can't declare after you've started the action.Again, stop trying to confuse him with facts. Quoting the RAW isn't having any effect, so logic doesn't either.
When all you can do is insult and misrepresent, that just degrades yourself and your position.
It's actually below coming into a thread to post 'why doesn't this thread die' but above doing so in an overly rude manor. YMMV
-James
What am I misrepresenting?
"What action type it eats up hasn't been determined as yet."
So yes, you are saying, you can attack, roll to hit, then determine what kind of action it was.
Your only argument is that you are misquoting a section of the rules out of context to argue that combat is a matter of schrodenger's actions. "That might be a cleave or it might not be... did I hit??"
Cleave is 'using a feat' not making part of a full attack, then aborting the secondary and subsequent attacks to claim a move action.
Please quote in the rules, in context, to support your argument.
Again, in the subsection of Full attack.
Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack: After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round.
Again, this is in the section describing the full attack action Using Cleave (or vital strike) is a standard action. Nowhere does it say you can change that first attack into a standard action. Simply after making the first attack, you can then abort the remaining attacks and move. You're using the full attack action in either case, but you can forfit the remaining attacks and make a move action as part of your full attack action.
Pointing out that you are impervious to facts isn't insulting in this case. It is accurate.
What action type it eats up hasn't been determined as yet.
I'm sorry, but the rules state how the turn proceeds. When it's your turn, there's a list of actions you can take. You need to choose an action on that list; that's the only way under the rules of Pathfinder that your character can do anything.
So, it's your initiative count. What action are you taking? "Melee attack" isn't an action; it's one of the options you have for the "attack action". So is it the attack action you're taking? Or are you taking a full attack? Or are you using a feat, or casting a spell, or moving?It's your turn, and under the rules, if you want to do something, tell me which of the listed actions you're taking.
Doing anything else is a houserule.
|
|
We interrupt this thread, to bring you breaking news, from the world of gaming:
It has been revealed, using papyrus unearthed from Queen Nefertiti's tomb, that we have all been doing it wrong for centuries.
Apparently, in 'Snakes and Ladders', the choice of whether to go 'up' a snake, or 'down' a snake, is totally at the discretion of each player, and can be different each time, being declared retroactively, after seeing the results of the die roll.
The precedent this sets, and the implications for our modern gaming industry, particularly the table-top roleplaying community, are revolutionary.
Stay tuned as more developments arise.
|
|
Feats specifically do not all fit into the action sequence laid out....
I am thinking that some beleive the feat take presidence and allows a benefit beyond the normal rules.
Deflect arrows
can occur when it is not your turn
and you do not have to "declare deflect"
Attempting to deflect a ranged attack doesn't count as an action.
It fits just fine into the action sequence. And yes you do have to declare it. The player in your example is trying to declare it and the DM is going against the RAW to screw him.
Edit: Wopah!
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Feats specifically do not all fit into the action sequence laid out....
I am thinking that some beleive the feat take presidence and allows a benefit beyond the normal rules.
Deflect arrows
can occur when it is not your turn
and you do not have to "declare deflect"
Except deflect arrows states...
Attempting to deflect a ranged attack doesn’t count as an action.
Cleave states...
As a standard action, you can make a single attack at your full base attack bonus against a foe within reach.
[Emphasis mine]
Edit, ninja'd
I would have no problem with allowing a player to do the following:
, you might say. I'm willing to live with that though.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I would have no problem with allowing a player to do the following:
Declare an "attack" on someone, who has someone adjacent (w/in 5') of them.
Take a -2 penalty to their AC until the next round.
Give up all further attacks should the first attack miss.
Make the attack roll.
If it hits, they can then choose whether to Cleave to another target, or take the rest of their full attack. , you might say. I'm willing to live with that though.
And I understand (and don't have a problem with) that. But it's not how the rules are written :-) I'm going to keep it with the action declared for my games though.
Seriously? I thought he was proposing just:
|
|
Seriously? I thought he was proposing just:
Declare an "attack" on someone, who has someone adjacent (w/in 5') of them.
Make the attack roll.
Choose whether to Cleave to another target (if attack hit), or take the rest of a full attack (whether it hit or not).
He is. The problem is Cleave takes a standard action and runs the risk of missing the first attack. Leaving you with no extra attacks and a -2 to AC.
He wants to be able to try to Cleave, and if he misses, still take a full attack. You can't do that under the rules. I've shown that over and over, and given houserules that come more in line with what he wants, but he still insists you can try to Cleave and make a full attack in the same round.
Feats specifically do not all fit into the action sequence laid out....
That's correct. And the rules explicitly make allowances for this, by explaining that some feats are used as part of other actions, while other feats specify what action they are to use.
The Use a Feat action, in this case a standard action, is needed to use Cleave. Cleave says so, and the combat rules support this.With other feats, other actions (or no action at all) are needed; the feats themselves make this clear, with the combat rules supporting it.
|
|
Seriously? I thought he was proposing just:
Declare an "attack" on someone, who has someone adjacent (w/in 5') of them.
Make the attack roll.
Choose whether to Cleave to another target (if attack hit), or take the rest of a full attack (whether it hit or not).
He is. The problem is Cleave takes a standard action and runs the risk of missing the first attack. Leaving you with no extra attacks and a -2 to AC.
He wants to be able to try to Cleave, and if he misses, still take a full attack.
It's worse even than that.
Not only is he ignoring even the possibility of failing to claim a second attack (meaning he makes more attacks per combat than he's due), but he's attempting to swing it that some of those attacks get an untyped +5 bonus to hit on the second attack whenever possible.Full Attack: guaranteed two attacks/round at (normal bonus +0/-5)
Cleave: potential two attacks at (normal bonus +0/+0)
Cleave is supposed to be a calculated risk.
Not only is he removing the risk, but he expects jam on top.
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You must declare a Cleave attempt. It's a standard action. To use it, on your turn you say, "I'm using Cleave," and then you do it. You can't backtrack out of a full-attack to use Cleave unless your GM is lenient and lets you change your decisions after you've taken your action (this is the same scenario as "I cast fireball" only to find out the target is immune to fire and then you beg the GM to let you take that back so you can do something else).
Cleave is a standard action. And as with any other standard action, you have to announce it to the GM to use it.
If you declare a Cleave when there's obviously no secondary target in range to make your second attack granted by a cleave against, well, that's just bad tactics.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
You must declare a Cleave attempt. It's a standard action. To use it, on your turn you say, "I'm using Cleave," and then you do it. You can't backtrack out of a full-attack to use Cleave unless your GM is lenient and lets you change your decisions after you've taken your action (this is the same scenario as "I cast fireball" only to find out the target is immune to fire and then you beg the GM to let you take that back so you can do something else).
Cleave is a standard action. And as with any other standard action, you have to announce it to the GM to use it.
If you declare a Cleave when there's obviously no secondary target in range to make your second attack granted by a cleave against, well, that's just bad tactics.
Thus spake the master. Thank you James.
Yay!
So is the war over? :)
LOL, no. People will still disagree, after all it was clear to start out with and just because James said it was clear does not mean folks will stop disagreeing just because he gave them an answer.
