Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

RPG Superstar 2015

APG Cleave & Overhand Chop?


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 55 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

28 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

I have a fighter using the two handed fighter archetype from the advanced players guide.
I am curious if it is possible to use Overhand Chop ability with the Cleave feat? Overhand Chop says when you take a single attack but cleave kicks in when you hit with an attack. I imagined that you would get the Overhand Chop bonus on the original attack but not on the extra attack from Cleave.
Similarly, does Vital Strike work with Cleave

Much thanks ahead of time!


starchildren3317 wrote:

I have a fighter using the two handed fighter archetype from the advanced players guide.

I am curious if it is possible to use Overhand Chop ability with the Cleave feat? Overhand Chop says when you take a single attack but cleave kicks in when you hit with an attack. I imagined that you would get the Overhand Chop bonus on the original attack but not on the extra attack from Cleave.
Similarly, does Vital Strike work with Cleave

Much thanks ahead of time!

Gonna FAQ this one...


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
starchildren3317 wrote:

I have a fighter using the two handed fighter archetype from the advanced players guide.

I am curious if it is possible to use Overhand Chop ability with the Cleave feat? Overhand Chop says when you take a single attack but cleave kicks in when you hit with an attack. I imagined that you would get the Overhand Chop bonus on the original attack but not on the extra attack from Cleave.
Similarly, does Vital Strike work with Cleave

Much thanks ahead of time!

On Overhand Chop and Cleave, I'd allow it in my game on both attacks. Officially that's question I'll leave for the FAQ.

As for Vital Strike and Cleave, that's a no as Jason ruled in a huge thread on the topic here. Not sure if it's in the FAQ though.

Liberty's Edge

The common consensus around here seems to be "no, you can't use these kinds of feats together because each one is a special attack". But it's vague enough that a GM can rule either way, I think, and there's no official statement on it.


Overhand Chop and Cleave won't work together for the same reason Vital Strike and Cleaave don't work together.

Cleave is a SPECIAL attack action. Overhand Chop only works with the general attack action (that requires the standard action) and charge.

Overhand Chop and Vital Strike will not work together either.

Scarab Sages Owner - D20 Hobbies , Marathon Voter 2014

Kryzbyn wrote:

Overhand Chop ability with the Cleave feat?

Vital Strike work with Cleave

...

Gonna FAQ this one...

This has already been answered in the FAQ.

Overhand Chop is a standard action (see "attack action") so it can not be combined with other Standard Actions even if you could take more than one in a round (you can't.)

Cleave and Vital are both standard actions and can not be combined.


James Risner wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

Overhand Chop ability with the Cleave feat?

Vital Strike work with Cleave

...

Gonna FAQ this one...

This has already been answered in the FAQ.

Overhand Chop is a standard action (see "attack action") so it can not be combined with other Standard Actions even if you could take more than one in a round (you can't.)

Cleave and Vital are both standard actions and can not be combined.

Actually it has not been answered in the FAQ. Unless you can link it because I cannot find it.

Two-Handed Fighter archetype wrote:

At 3rd level, when a two-handed fighter makes a single attack (with the attack action or a charge) with a two-handed weapon, he adds double his Strength bonus on damage rolls.

This ability replaces Armor Training 1.

As long as you are only making a single attack you automatically add the extra damage. You do not have to announce that you are making an overhand chop as long as you are only making a single attack. In addition it makes no reference to the type of action you are making whether it be a standard action or Full Attack option.

Cleave (Combat) wrote:
As a standard action, you can make a single attack at your full base attack bonus against a foe within reach. If you hit, you deal damage normally and can make an additional attack (using your full base attack bonus) 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 use this feat, you take a –2 penalty to your Armor Class until your next turn.

With cleave you do not have to announce that your are cleaving until the first hit lands so it happens after the fact.

Backswing (Ex) wrote:

At 7th level, when a two-handed fighter makes a full-attack with a two-handed weapon, he adds double his Strength bonus on damage rolls for all attacks after the first.

This ability replaces Armor Training 2.

This is very similar to Overhand chop but it is an after first hit. This would apply to cleave by it's very wording. This suggests that it is possible to overhand chop and cleave. Why would your initial attack be weaker than your second?

However, this is how I see it working. At 3rd level you make a single attack which then the extra damage from Overhand chop then applies and you can then cleave but you do not apply the overhand chop damage to the cleave attack. It is simply an order of operations.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
ItoSaithWebb wrote:


(Overhand Chop) In addition it makes no reference to the type of action you are making whether it be a standard action or Full Attack option.

Er, yes it does. You even quoted it. Attack action or charge.

Since Vital Strike also works with the attack action, you can combine Overhand Chop and Vital Strike.

Overhand Chop: "when a two-handed fighter makes a single attack (with the attack action..."

Vital Strike: "When you use the attack action..."

ItoSaithWebb wrote:
With cleave you do not have to announce that your are cleaving until the first hit lands so it happens after the fact.

I disagree. It's a standard action to use Cleave. Cleave does not happen when you use a standard action to do anything else.

Cleave: "As a standard action..."

ItoSaithWebb wrote:
(Backswing) This would apply to cleave by it's very wording.

Not at all. Cleave is a standard action, Backswing only applies to a full attack.

Backswing: "when a two-handed fighter makes a full attack..."

If you full attack you cannot cleave, vital strike, or benefit from overhand chop.

If you use the attack action, you cannot cleave or benefit from Backswing.

If you use the standard action to cleave, you are not using the attack action, so you cannot overhand chop or vital strike.


A single attack does not mean a standard action. At most it is an attack action which can mean different things because from my experience they have been worded as different terms.

Like I said before it is any order of operations.


"Using the attack action" specifically means taking a standard action to make a single attack. It's an action type that all characters with some sort of melee or ranged attack can take.

If you have Vital Strike, you get extra damage when using the attack action.
If you have Overhand Chop, you get extra damage when using the attack action or charging.

Using the Cleave feat is a standard action. It is its own action (specifically the "using a feat" action) which is a different action from the attack action. Therefore, when you take a standard action to use Cleave, you do not get the extra damage from Vital Strike or Overhand Chop, because you are not using the attack action.

Because using Cleave to make one or more attacks is a different standard action than using the attack action to make a single attack, the only way to benefit from both in the same turn is if you somehow have two standard actions. Even so, the two actions will occur separately and the benefits will not merge.


OK reading both of these

Cleave: As a standard action, you can make a single attack at your full base attack bonus against a foe within reach.

Overhand Chop:At 3rd level, when a two-handed fighter makes a single attack (with the attack action or a charge) with a two-handed weapon, he adds double his Strength bonus on damage rolls.

Overhand Chop would work with Cleave, on 2 points
Cleave is using a Standard Action and Under Standard action, it would classified as an Attack action... Other Standard actions are out there so that point is voided by using the phrasing of Standard action. the reason Standard action is listed, is merely to remove the use of A Full ATTACK option from someone using cleave.

The Second Point is Overhand chop is automatically applied when making a Single Attack. Cleave specifically states it is a Single attack action not a full Attack Action.

In the end, it is purely GM discretion...

Scarab Sages RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4; Contributor; Publisher, Legendary Games

2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 4 people marked this as a favorite.

I am not the official FAQ-giver, though I did write the fighter section of the APG, so I can give you my unofficial interpretation. If your question is for PFS or some other RAW scenario, you'll need to wait for an official answer if you feel the rules are unclear.

1. Overhand Chop can be used when you make a single attack using the attack action (which is a specific type of standard action) or the charge action (which is a specific type of full-round action).

Cleave is neither of those things. It is its own specific standard action; that it is a specific action that results in taking a single attack (and, if that hits, a second attack) does not mean that it is the same thing as the attack action. Cleave is actually an example of the "use feat" action, defined in the feat description for Cleave as a standard action, not an attack action. Therefore, it can't be combined with Overhand Chop.

2. Backswing can be used as part of a full attack action.

Cleave is not a full attack action (neither, for that matter, is Great Cleave, even though you could in theory get lots of attacks while using it). They are standard actions. Therefore, they can't be combined with Backswing.

3. Vital Strike and Cleave are both standard actions. Therefore, they can't be combined with each other.

Now, all of the above said, if you were to argue that fighting characters can use the extra boost and you think they SHOULD be able to use things like this together, I wouldn't necessarily disagree as a philosophical point, but if you're asking about the rules, then the above is how I understand why they do not work together.


Jason Nelson wrote:
3. Vital Strike and Cleave are both standard actions.

Nitpick: Vital Strike is not a standard action. It activates when using the attack action (which is itself a standard action).

As writer, was it your intent that Vital Strike and Overhand Chop should not be allowed to stack?

Star Voter 2013

Bumped this one for FAQ but my opinion is that since cleave triggers on a hit then no overhand chop since if cleave hits your making the extra attack therefore making more than one attack in the round


Overhand chop and Cleave do not even function together.

Standard Action is only listed to keep you from using a Full round Attack.

It Flat out gives you an example of Charge which is also a standard action.

If you overhand chop and choose to cleave rather than make an additional attack, the results are the same...

Overhand chop only works on the First attack. So if someone cleaves it doesn't even matter.


Reecy wrote:
Overhand chop and Cleave do not even function together.

Correct.

Reecy wrote:
It Flat out gives you an example of Charge which is also a standard action.

Charge is a special full-round action. Only in special circumstances when you can take only a standard action on your turn, can you use a limited charge.

Reecy wrote:
If you overhand chop and choose to cleave rather than make an additional attack, the results are the same...

Overhand Chop is not an action. You can take an attack action, or you can cleave. Not both.

Reecy wrote:
Overhand chop only works on the First attack. So if someone cleaves it doesn't even matter.

Not first attack, ONLY attack. In order to use Overhand Chop, you can only make one attack, using the attack action or a charge.


Jason Nelson wrote:
...1. Overhand Chop can be used when you make a single attack using the attack action (which is a specific type of standard action) or the charge action (which is a specific type of full-round action).

First of all, thanks for the great feedback here, hopefully it can help alot of people.

I DO have one question, since you apparently wrote Overhand Chop yourself:
What is the intent in putting Attack action and Charge action in PARENTHESES?
It seems that if you intended Attack/Charge to be the ONLY possible uses of Overhand Chop, those parentheses wouldn´t be needed at all.

On the other hand, I had ´understood´/´read´ that Overhand Chop is meant to apply to any of your own ACTIONS (not AoO´s, etc) which can ONLY accomplish 1 attack (i.e. Cleave is disqualified, since there is a possibility of 2nd attack), in other words... the stuff in parentheses are EXAMPLES (though the exact wording appropriate to convey that is missing).
That allows Overhand Chop to apply to Spring Attack, for example, another Full Round action that accomplishes only 1 attack, like Charge. That reading would also ensure that Pounce Charges DOESN´T qualify (which appear OK by current RAW), since it can effect multiple attacks. Possibly there should also be a further caveat of applying only once per round, so it doesn´t apply to multiple actions if people gain Swift Action attacks somehow, or multiple Standard Actions, though that is also allowed by the current RAW (if you can make multiple Attack or Charge actions somehow).

Grick wrote:
Jason Nelson wrote:
3. Vital Strike and Cleave are both standard actions.

Nitpick: Vital Strike is not a standard action.

It activates when using the attack action (which is itself a standard action).
As writer, was it your intent that Vital Strike and Overhand Chop should not be allowed to stack?

Technicaly, he probably could have written ´Attack Action (the only thing Vital Strike applies to) and Cleave are both standard actions. Therefore, they can´t be combined with each other.´ Saying Vital Strike is it´s own action may not technically be true, but it is EFFECTIVELY true... Or another way to put it, is that Vital Strike could really have been named ´Improved Attack Action´ (+Greater, etc) to more consisely express how it works (if in a more boring way). (or vice versa, Attack Action could have been called Vital Strike Action, which would certainly have prevented alot of confusion of what Attack Action is vs. any old attack roll)


OK i am going to state this one more time and pull the exact wording for everyone see here... Grick, I see what you are saying, BUT look at the key words here.

Here is Cleave
As a standard action, you can make a single attack at your full base attack bonus against a foe within reach. If you hit, you deal damage normally and can make an additional attack (using your full base attack bonus) 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 use this feat, you take a –2 penalty to your Armor Class until your next turn.

OverHand Chop
At 3rd level, when a two-handed fighter makes a single attack (with the attack action or a charge) with a two-handed weapon, he adds double his Strength bonus on damage rolls.

Cleave is a Single Attack Action... Regardless of the after affect of getting another Strike, you still only receive a Single Attack.

While Over Hand Chop, does require an action... It activates Based on using a Single Attack Action.

The wording alone states that it, there is only one action needed.


Reecy: You´re misunderstanding what Attack Action means.
It´s a specific action, not just any attack roll, or any standard action that effects an attack. Thus, when Cleave says it´s used as a standard action, that is a unique Standard Action that is not the Casting a Spell Action, Drinking a Potion Action, or Attack Action. Please read the Core Rules FAQ on this site, and on d20pfsrd.com (focusing on vital strike) to understand this difference, because continually posting stuff that is against the rules doesn´t help anybody else.
So when Overhand Chop is specifying the Attack Action and Charge Action, it doesn´t mean ´special´ Standard Actions like Cleave. Basically, you need to understand that there is a difference when the rules reference ´attack action´ and ´attack´ or ´attack roll´, they aren´t one and the same thing (though attack action does accomplish an attack roll, all attacks aren´t an attack action).

In any case, your claim that ´you only receive a single attack´ from using Cleave is absurd... If that were true, why do people take the Feat? The fact remains that the 2nd attack (or 3rd or 4th with Great Cleave) ARE PART OF THE STANDARD ACTION THAT CLEAVE USES, they are not even ´bonus Free actions´ (as a delivering a Touch Spell´s attack is). Obviously if the first attack misses, the whole action fails, but if you meet the Cleave action´s internal conditions, it does in fact accomplsh multiple attacks.

Scarab Sages RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4; Contributor; Publisher, Legendary Games

Grick wrote:
Jason Nelson wrote:
3. Vital Strike and Cleave are both standard actions.

Nitpick: Vital Strike is not a standard action. It activates when using the attack action (which is itself a standard action).

As writer, was it your intent that Vital Strike and Overhand Chop should not be allowed to stack?

Sorry, I misspoke in the technical sense: Vital Strike is not, in and of itself, a standard action. It is a feat that boosts the effect of a specific standard action (i.e., the attack action), which is why it is incompatible with a different specific standard action (i.e., the use feat action, in this case, Cleave). I've just gotten in the habit of using the "VS is a standard action" shorthand for explaining why it doesn't work with things like Cleave and charge and such.

VS does not require its own unique standard action as a type of "use feat," as it specifically modifies the attack action.

IOW, VS (which modifies the attack action) *IS* compatible with OC (which also modifies the attack action). Neither requires its own independent action; both modify the existing attack action.


I wish they would edit the rules to create the term "single-attack action" (instead of the confusing "attack action"), clearly define exactly what that term means in the Combat chapter, and reference that term whenever feats like Vital Strike come up.


Quandary, I understand what an Attack Action is... If you read each ability, they totally open to how any GM wants to view it... Overhand chop, Really doesn't require just an Attack action if you compare the 2, it needs action where you are doing a Single Attack, the 2 in parenthesis, i would think are just examples of Single Attack Actions.

I am not trying to debate, I am just viewing everything and giving what I see from a GM perspective. If they clarify these more later then ok, but as of this point. It is open to use, and I think they made it that way after play testing so it does not affect other feats in that manner on on purpose.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Reecy wrote:

Quandary, I understand what an Attack Action is... If you read each ability, they totally open to how any GM wants to view it... Overhand chop, Really doesn't require just an Attack action if you compare the 2, it needs action where you are doing a Single Attack, the 2 in parenthesis, i would think are just examples of Single Attack Actions.

I am not trying to debate, I am just viewing everything and giving what I see from a GM perspective. If they clarify these more later then ok, but as of this point. It is open to use, and I think they made it that way after play testing so it does not affect other feats in that manner on on purpose.

This is the real question. Is the actions listed in the parenthesis examples or not. In my game there are examples.

Liberty's Edge

The key IS the 'Attack Action'. It took me a while to get the nuances of the 'Attack Action' too. Jason Bulman clarifies an 'Attack Action' as one of the types of action listed under Standard Actions List. In the case of the Overhand Chop, the only action that applies is the Standard Melee Attack.
.
.
.
A Standard Attack is a Standard Action.
Cleave is a Standard Action.
Vital Strike is an 'Attack Action', so it is a Standard Action.
Overhand Chop is an 'Attack Action', so it is a Standard Action (or a Full Action when used with a Charge).
A character cannot take more than one Standard Action in a round, so each are incompatible with the other.

These are the links I was able to find for 'Attack Action':
LINK: http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/rules/archives/chargingWithAVitalStrike&page=1#22
LINK: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/extras/pathfinder-faq#TOC-Vital-Strike-11-6-09-


Reecy wrote:

Quandary, I understand what an Attack Action is... If you read each ability, they totally open to how any GM wants to view it... Overhand chop, Really doesn't require just an Attack action if you compare the 2, it needs action where you are doing a Single Attack, the 2 in parenthesis, i would think are just examples of Single Attack Actions.

I am not trying to debate, I am just viewing everything and giving what I see from a GM perspective. If they clarify these more later then ok, but as of this point. It is open to use, and I think they made it that way after play testing so it does not affect other feats in that manner on on purpose.

OK, I will quote you to show exactly what I´m talking about as being dead wrong:

Reecy wrote:

Cleave is a Single Attack Action...

While Over Hand Chop, does require an action... It activates Based on using a Single Attack Action.

Right there, you are exactly negating the difference between the Attack Action and Cleave´s unique Standard Action.

Reecy wrote:
Cleave is a Single Attack Action... Regardless of the after affect of getting another Strike, you still only receive a Single Attack.

And here you are inventing distinctions between the effects of Cleave, calling some ´after effects´, when they are ALL direct results of the Cleave action itself, and ´are part of´ that action... even if there are internal conditions to use all these parts of the Cleave action. You can try to Grapple somebody, provoking an AoO, and they Bullrush you back with Knockback, preventing your Grapple... but that doesn´t mean the action you started didn´t count as being able to accomplish a Grapple. Same thing with Cleave´s multiple attacks. To repeat myself, Why would anybody take Cleave if it DIDN´T allow multiple attacks with the same action?

As I already wrote, the actual RAW DOESN´T conform to considering the actions in parentheses as examples, there is specific grammatic wording used to support a non-exhaustive list of examples, but that is missing... Thus it is NOT ´open to GMs how to rule´ (any more than a GM can ignore any rule they want, e.g. Full Attacks need a Full Round Action), the RAW clearly only allows Overhand Chop to work with the Attack Action and Charge (even if there is superfluous punctuation when saying so). I have SPECULATED (not RAW) that the RAI is for a ´attacks accomplishing only a single attack´ to apply to Overhand Chop, but Cleave would still not qualify because it CAN accomplish multiple attacks... Just because it requires 2 successful attack rolls to successfully hit a 2nd target doesn´t change that.

Obviously, you´re free to run your games however you want, which is 110% a-ok.
But don´t conflate that with stating how the RAW works.


RedDogMT wrote:


Vital Strike is an 'Attack Action', so it is a Standard Action.
Overhand Chop is an 'Attack Action', so it is a Standard Action

Once again, those are not attack actions, they are abilities that can be used WITH an attack action. (The attack action itself is a standard action)

You can use Overhand Chop and Vital Strike on the same attack action.

Star Voter 2013

Its easier than people are making it. It's not about actions its about results. If I am in a situation where i can cleave and use it either I hit therefore getting a second attack(No overhand chop since i have more than one attack). Or i miss and do no damage anyways.

Scarab Sages RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4; Contributor; Publisher, Legendary Games

voska66 wrote:
Reecy wrote:

Quandary, I understand what an Attack Action is... If you read each ability, they totally open to how any GM wants to view it... Overhand chop, Really doesn't require just an Attack action if you compare the 2, it needs action where you are doing a Single Attack, the 2 in parenthesis, i would think are just examples of Single Attack Actions.

I am not trying to debate, I am just viewing everything and giving what I see from a GM perspective. If they clarify these more later then ok, but as of this point. It is open to use, and I think they made it that way after play testing so it does not affect other feats in that manner on on purpose.

This is the real question. Is the actions listed in the parenthesis examples or not. In my game there are examples.

Every GM is free to play them any way they like in their home game. That's the beauty of RPGs. It's a rational expansion of the rules, especially if you feel fighters need a little pick me up.

However, from a RAW and RAI perspective, the two examples listed for Overhand Chop are not open-ended examples, they are specific and exhaustive examples. That is to say, that list of examples is the full, explicit, and complete list of examples to which the ability applies. Attack action and charge action are the sole and only examples of where OC may be used when making a single attack.

If they had been meant merely as representative examples, it would have been phrased ("such as with the attack action or a charge"; or
"with the attack action, a charge, or other actions that result in a single attack per round); that would have left the case open to include other situations in which a single attack can occur. It is intentionally not phrased that way to avoid the kind of ambiguity that some seem to want to read into it.

At the risk of sounding abrupt, it says what it does and it does what it says. It affects a single attack (with the attack action or a charge). Period. End of sentence. That's it. That's all. Nothing else.

As I said above, if you and your group change it to be open-ended and work with other things and you're having fun doing that way, high fives all around! That is what the game is really about - having fun! If your question is about how is the ability phrased in a strict rules sense, though, I don't think I can be any more clear.


THUD must read the RAW... where is that anyway???

>.>
<.<


Reecy wrote:
must read the RAW... where is that anyway???

The rules for Cleave are in the Feats section of the Core Rulebook (or PRD).

The rules for Overhand Chop are in the two-handed fighter section of the Advanced Player's Guide (or PRD).

The rules for actions in combat, including the attack action, are in the Combat section of the Core Rulebook (or PRD).

The Most Important Rule (AKA: Rule Zero) is in the Getting Started section of the Core Rulebook (or PRD).


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Jason you make a strong point but you can make the exact opposite point just as easily. You argument that if the were example there should be text saying "such as" or "for example". Well you can just easily just insert text to "only for" in those brackets as well. So to me it's 100% ambiguous what the text in brackets means. My guess is they are examples because I like it that way. It leaves that ability open to any changes we might see in the Ultimate Combat book for example, makes the class feature expandable with new books and that's good thing. Still could be just the opposite and those are the only two action Overhand chop applies too.

Scarab Sages RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4; Contributor; Publisher, Legendary Games

voska66 wrote:
Jason you make a strong point but you can make the exact opposite point just as easily. You argument that if the were example there should be text saying "such as" or "for example". Well you can just easily just insert text to "only for" in those brackets as well. So to me it's 100% ambiguous what the text in brackets means. My guess is they are examples because I like it that way. It leaves that ability open to any changes we might see in the Ultimate Combat book for example, makes the class feature expandable with new books and that's good thing. Still could be just the opposite and those are the only two action Overhand chop applies too.

I can provide you only RAI and my best efforts at a plain English expression of in the RAW. I looked back at my original turnover text, and it was not changed in editing so they have conveyed the rules text to you as I wrote it.

To me, the most literal interpretation is that the text means precisely what it says and nothing more. It says what it includes. It does not say what it does not include, because the inclusions are already stated; therefore, anything not stated is not included, because if it were intended to be included it would have been included. I don't think a reading of it as "allowing all that is not expressly forbidden" is an aliteral eisegesis of the text.

But, play it the way you like. If you are looking for an official RAW that explicitly disallows what is not written, continue to flag for FAQ and at some point Sean, Stephen, or Jason B may give their formal statement on the subject. I am merely a contributor to the great machine of Paizo, and I can offer naught but advice and insight into the process, not official rulings.

Scarab Sages

Guys this is what it says

At 3rd level, when a two-handed fighter makes a single attack (with the attack action or a charge) with a two-handed weapon, he adds double his Strength bonus on damage rolls. This ability replaces armor training 1

So it is only useable with
1: The attack action standard action
2: A charge

Cleave is a standard action. The attack action standard action is also a standard action. Charge is a Full round action

Sorry but no by RAW it does not stack.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Grick wrote:
Reecy wrote:
must read the RAW... where is that anyway???

The rules for Cleave are in the Feats section of the Core Rulebook (or PRD).

The rules for Overhand Chop are in the two-handed fighter section of the Advanced Player's Guide (or PRD).

The rules for actions in combat, including the attack action, are in the Combat section of the Core Rulebook (or PRD).

The Most Important Rule (AKA: Rule Zero) is in the Getting Started section of the Core Rulebook (or PRD).

I just love that all your links lead to the definitions of things, except for the attack action, which does not have a definition at all but for what the developers have unofficially given it here on the forums.

Scarab Sages

Anyone who has read the rules and look to see what it says on the feats knows clearly just what an attack action is even without the the developers giving an official explanation.

Well anyone not trying to twist the rules sees it clear enough anyhow.


This is the definition:

Quote:

Standard Actions

Attack
Making an attack is a standard action.

What other definition does it need? It doesn´t do anything else that´s special.

As I´ve pointed out multiple times, everything else underneath the title of the Attack action doesn´t really belong there (rather, it should be under the sub-section describing attack rolls in general), and confuses the issue by it´s presense, but the above is the basic definition of the Attack action, besides as it is presented on the Table of Actions in Combat (i.e. melee, unarmed, and ranged variants, although I´m not sure why those necessitate sub-actions of the Attack action while the Full Attack or Charge actions aren´t similarly treated).


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Quandary wrote:

This is the definition:

Quote:

Standard Actions

Attack
Making an attack is a standard action.

What other definition does it need? It doesn´t do anything else that´s special.

So attacks of opportunity are impossible then? What are they classified as? Surely they are not standard actions as well?


The rules describing Attacks of Opportunity seem to cover all that quite well. As I´m sure you´re aware.
But in sympathy with your obviously genuine anguish about this issue,
I also will shed a tear because the rules for the Standard Action ´Attack´ do not explain Attacks of Oppportunity. 8°O
BTW, a little fairy told me that unless something is listed on the table of Standard Actions,
or otherwise described as a Standard Action, then it isn´t a Standard Action. Them crazy fairies, imagine...

I would say that the rules in this case make infinitely more sense than your own assertation that:
´the attack action, which does not have a definition at all but for what the developers have unofficially given it here on the forums.´
The fact remains that Paizo didn´t change ONE thing about the Attack action from 3.5,
3.5 just never really used other abilities which keyed off of the attack action vs. any old attack roll,
but that isn´t a problem with the attack action itself, it´s just the game developing aspects that were always latent.

...Though I´d agree that they could have changed the action name to be clearer while they were at it...
I´m SURE they simply thought that since they weren´t functionally changing anything (the same general attack info, i.e. Crits, etc, is poorly placed in the same location in 3.5), why change the name? i.e.. BW-compatability or whatever, even though as mentioned no 3.5 material really used that action specifically, and it would have been simplistic to include a note ´attack action is now called vital strike action´ in the 3.5-PRPG migration document.

Scarab Sages

Nope making an AoO is covered in a different section. An attack action is a standard action as has been shown.

It is clear and has even been clarified when asked.

Liberty's Edge

Grick wrote:
RedDogMT wrote:

Vital Strike is an 'Attack Action', so it is a Standard Action.

Overhand Chop is an 'Attack Action', so it is a Standard Action

Once again, those are not attack actions, they are abilities that can be used WITH an attack action. (The attack action itself is a standard action)

You can use Overhand Chop and Vital Strike on the same attack action

I am sorry my friend. You are incorrect on both counts.

As stated before, it has already been clarified by Paizo that Vital Strike IS an 'Attack Action'.

Overhand Chop says that "when a two-handed fighter makes a single attack (with the attack action or a charge) with a two-handed weapon, he adds double his Strength bonus on damage rolls.". It states 'with THE attack action', not 'with AN attack action'.


RedDogMT wrote:

As stated before, it has already been clarified by Paizo that Vital Strike IS an 'Attack Action'.

(Overhand Chop) states 'with THE attack action', not 'with AN attack action'.

Vital Strike: "When you use the attack action..."

Overhand Chop: "a single attack (with the attack action..."

Both state they can be used with the attack action. There is no errata or FAQ about it. The guy who wrote the ability has stated it was intended to work as written. In this thread. Multiple times.

If you can find a messageboard post where a developer says VS "is an attack action" instead of "as part of the attack action" then it's probably just a simple mistake in the post.

You are free to rule otherwise in your games, though.


I agree. In my PFS group we have a ridiculous fighter who tried to maximize a single attack. As such he has cleave, vital strike, and overhand chop. We ended up pouring through the rules to get it right. This is what we came up with:

Overhand chop will work with vital strike because they both key off of making an "attack action" (which has been clearly said to be its own type of standard action made up of one attack).

Overhand chop will work with a charge because it says it does.

Overhand chop will not stack with cleave because it is its own standard action and NOT an "attack action". If they wanted cleave to be an attack action they would have said that and not clarified it as it's own standard action.

Finally, you get to use none of this stuff on an AoO. An attack of opportunity gives you "a single melee attack" and as such very few things can be used in conjunction with and AoO (see barbarian rage power "knockback" for an example of one such thing).

My 2 cents.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The only real confusion is Attack Action isn't spelled out clearly as Attack Action. It's under Standard Actions, Attack. I think it would be more clear if they changed "Attack" to "Attack Actions"

"Standard Actions

Most of the common actions characters take, aside from movement, fall into the realm of standard actions.
Attack

Making an attack is a standard action."

Changed to:

"Standard Actions

Most of the common actions characters take, aside from movement, fall into the realm of standard actions.
Attack Actions

Making an attack is a standard action."

Then the listed Melee attack, Ranged Attack, Unarmed Attack and Natural Attack follows unchanged.

This simple change would clear a lot of things up. As it is you have to make leap of logic to determine what an Attack Action is. Attack is a Standard Action since that is an action then Attack is an Attack Action. By changing it you could search a PDF for Attack Action and find it or scan the books headings looking for Attack Action quickly finding it.


Better would be:

"Attack Action

The attack action allows a player to take a single attack during her turn. The attack action is a standard action.

When using an attack action, a player makes only a single attack, and does not get extra attacks due to wielding multiple weapons, having a high base attack bonus, the Haste spell, or any other ability unless that ability specifically works with the attack action. To gain extra attacks, a player normally must use the full-attack action rather than the attack action."


2 people marked this as a favorite.

And, honestly, I personally would rather see THIS:

"Single-Attack Action

The single-attack action allows a player to take a single attack during her turn. The single-attack action is a standard action.

When using a single-attack action, a player makes only a single attack, and does not get extra attacks due to wielding multiple weapons, having a high base attack bonus, the Haste spell, or any other ability unless that ability specifically works with the single-attack action. To gain extra attacks, a player normally must use the full-attack action rather than the single-attack action."

The term "single-attack action" is abundantly clear and would not be confused with "an attack", the way "attack action" so often is. It also contrasts logically with "full-attack action".


voska66 wrote:
It's under Standard Actions, Attack. I think it would be more clear if they changed "Attack" to "Attack Actions"

First off, most of this text is straight from 3.5, Paizo mainly just changed things where there were actual rules changes.

Secondly, NONE of the other actions have ´X Action´ listed as their title, each action has a name, in the case of the action being discussed, it is the ´attack´ action, not the ´attack action´ action. If they were going to change anything, they should have dropped the name ´attack´ from the title, and changed it something that doesn´t overlap with other rules terms, such as the ´strike´ action, which the ´vital strike´ feat chain would directly and obviously feed into. Only problem with that is that ´strike´ connotes melee while the action is applicable to ranged as well... although that applies to the Vital Strike Feats which are also applicable to Ranged.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
AvalonXQ wrote:

And, honestly, I personally would rather see THIS:

"Single-Attack Action

The single-attack action allows a player to take a single attack during her turn. The single-attack action is a standard action.

When using a single-attack action, a player makes only a single attack, and does not get extra attacks due to wielding multiple weapons, having a high base attack bonus, the Haste spell, or any other ability unless that ability specifically works with the single-attack action. To gain extra attacks, a player normally must use the full-attack action rather than the single-attack action."

The term "single-attack action" is abundantly clear and would not be confused with "an attack", the way "attack action" so often is. It also contrasts logically with "full-attack action".

I wholeheartedly agree.


Single-Attack Action would be great, and analagous to Full-Attack.
I also think the Move Action CATEGORY should have been reverted to ´Move-Equivalent Action´ as it used to be before 3.5.

Honestly, the game also needs some more effective category names to indicate attack ´type´, i.e. ´melee attack´ could simply indicate range and apply both to ´normal´ attacks and maneuvers, or it could be used to refer solely to ´melee range normal damaging attacks´. There should be a clearer term to using for ´normal damaging attacks´, which can be modified by melee or ranged as appropriate.


what about cleaving finish?


Firstly, note the timestamps on the thread. This is a 2 year necro. It would have been better to start a new thread.

Second, regarding the new question at hand; how does Cleaving Finish interact with Overhand Chop. Well, Overhand Chop specifies making a "single attack (with the attack action or charge)". This essentially expands out to A) A single attack with the attack action or B) a single attack with the Charge action. If you have any ability that permits you to make additional attacks with either action, it's no longer a "single" attack. So, in essence, first you make an Attack action and determine whether you want to apply the bonus damage from Overhand Chop but forego the extra attack from Cleaving Finish even if you kill the enemy or you forego the bonus damage and, if you kill them anyway, you get the bonus attack from Cleaving Finish.

However, if the bonus attack from Cleaving Finish is considered a "bare attack" on its own, not associated with the Attack action but more of a "non-action" attack, then you're still technically making a "single attack" with Attack and, even if you use Overhand Chop, you can follow through using Cleaving Finish.

So it comes down to whether the extra attack from Cleaving Finish is considered a stand-alone attack as a non-action or if it's actually adding a second attack as part of the Attack action.

1 to 50 of 55 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / APG Cleave & Overhand Chop? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.