While I am not an official, I believe I might have an answer for you. This is what it says in the PRD, "Benefit: 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."
Now with that being said, if during your Full Attack action you hit and the other requirements of the feat are met I do not see why you shouldn't be allowed to use Cleave. Remember this is different from what Cleave was in 3.5. There you had to put them down, here you just have to hit.
Hopefully, someone with more rank than I will come along and possibly give you an official answer.
Just my 2 cp.
|
Tom is right. Cleave is a declared action in PFRPG. This is distinctly different than 3.5, which it was an 'always on' feat that took effect on dropping a foe. If you declare you are using a full attack, you have forfeited a cleave attempt. You will have no chance to meet the conditions of the feat since you are not USING the feat.
First thing: Aramus and I are in the same game group and were on opposite sides of this equation last Saturday night. :) I'm glad he's asking some folks who may have more XP with PFRPG than me and my gang.
Funny thing about rules (and laws) is that you have three aspects: Letter, Intent, and Spirit.
I must admit that if we look at the Letter of the law on this one, I am wrong and Aramus, Tom, and Shar are right. You must declare a Full Attack Action or a Standard Attack Action before you roll the die.
As for the Intent of the rules here: we'd have to ask the game creators directly.
But then there's the Spirit. As we were playing the other night it just felt to me that looking at the Letter of the law nerfs-down Cleave and Great Cleave a little too much. I chose to go with my gut and work it like silverhair2008's assessment (above). If that makes a PC scary to the monsters, that's fine. These Feats go both ways. *LOL*
It's good to be the DM. ;)
The major change was from 3.5 that cleave became a standard attack giving fighter types to do something on the turn they move. This also gives more room for tactical thinking, when you really have to consider what action is the best for a certain situation. Before it was pretty much "full-attack-rinse-repeat". But if you want to go back to that in your game, go a head, it's your game after all.
|
I'd actually have to say that it was poor writing for the feat from the original book. As others have said, as written, it is a standard action to use cleave. However, why would the following statement be included if they didn't intend for you to be able to use it in a full attack?
You can only make one additional attack per round with this feat.
I think this would need an errata to fix officially, but at least in my games... players will be able to use with a full attack.
|
|
Also to add: I see this as not too different than Rapid Shot. You get -2 to AC (somewhat similar/equal to -2 to attack), and get an extra attack only if you hit, whereas with rapid shot you would get an extra attack regardless (however it would hit less often).
Personally, Rapid Shot is better so I don't see any problem with interpreting Cleave this way.
I'd actually have to say that it was poor writing for the feat from the original book. As others have said, as written, it is a standard action to use cleave. However, why would the following statement be included if they didn't intend for you to be able to use it in a full attack?
You can only make one additional attack per round with this feat.I think this would need an errata to fix officially, but at least in my games... players will be able to use with a full attack.
You get an additional attack as quoted because you do!
First level Fighter with cleave fighting two goblins standing next to each other gets to smack at both goblins (with a -2 AC).Same fighter without cleave gets to chop just one goblin.
6th Fighter gets two attacks as a full action BAB +6/+1 without cleave.
With cleave he gets two attacks at his full BAB as a standard action against adjacent foes.
I'd actually have to say that it was poor writing for the feat from the original book. As others have said, as written, it is a standard action to use cleave. However, why would the following statement be included if they didn't intend for you to be able to use it in a full attack?
You can only make one additional attack per round with this feat.
Full attack or normal attack isn't relevant to that bit of text. That text says that, whereas you would normally get N attacks, you now get N+1 attacks (but not N+2).
The fact that using the feat is a standard action means that N can only be 1.
I'd actually have to say that it was poor writing for the feat from the original book. As others have said, as written, it is a standard action to use cleave. However, why would the following statement be included if they didn't intend for you to be able to use it in a full attack?
You can only make one additional attack per round with this feat.I think this would need an errata to fix officially, but at least in my games... players will be able to use with a full attack.6th Fighter gets two attacks as a full action BAB +6/+1 without cleave.
With cleave he gets two attacks at his full BAB as a standard action against adjacent foes.
But only if he hits with the first attack. It becomes kind of an "all-or-nothing" choice. As mentioned above by Jonne Karila, this forces some more tactical thinking, but I'd submit it also forces some more Vegas-style gambling. ;) If it were up to me in the case of the 6th level fighter I'd take the full attack and get my two swings for sure rather than take one attack and bet my stack of chips that I might get two.
|
But only if he hits with the first attack. It becomes kind of an "all-or-nothing" choice. As mentioned above by Jonne Karila, this forces some more tactical thinking, but I'd submit it also forces some more Vegas-style gambling. ;) If it were up to me in the case of the 6th level fighter I'd take the full attack and get my two swings for sure rather than take one attack and bet my stack of chips that I might get two.I'd actually have to say that it was poor writing for the feat from the original book. As others have said, as written, it is a standard action to use cleave. However, why would the following statement be included if they didn't intend for you to be able to use it in a full attack?
You can only make one additional attack per round with this feat.I think this would need an errata to fix officially, but at least in my games... players will be able to use with a full attack.6th Fighter gets two attacks as a full action BAB +6/+1 without cleave.
With cleave he gets two attacks at his full BAB as a standard action against adjacent foes.
So, you would take your chance of hitting with a +6/1 and not a +6/possible +6 ? If there is much of a chance for you to fail the first +6 bab hit, that +1 is almost never going to go through. Seems to me to be more of a gamble to hope that the +1 hits.
I am also part of ObiDaveKenobi and Chadlee's gaming group. I was thinking of ObiDave's post of Rule/Spirit/Intent. What is a cleave? It is one big swing, chopping through 1 opponent into the others. I believe that is why Wizards made it a full attack, it is full effort. But I have to say I agree with the mechanic in Pathfinder. You take your one big swing, then it gives you the ability to move, or you can move, say with a charge, and call the cleave.
After reading the discussion here, I really believe that is what they meant to have happen.
Now what about Vital Strike? It could be the initial cleave attack, correct?
The power gamer in my says Cleave or Great Cleave is mathematically superior, to full attacking, but not as dynamic. You can pick any target in range with the full attack, they have to be adjacent for cleave.
Cleave cannot be combined with Vital Strike or Charge. Charge is a full round action. Vital Strike works with Attack Actions, and therefore is only good on a standard attack. Cleave is a seprate type of standard action, and is not considered an attack action. If my interpretation is correct, Cleave can be combined with Trip or Disarm (in place of a melee attack), but not Sunder (as part of an attack action). It is vague if you can combine it with Spring Attack, as the wording on that feat is poor.
I'm honestly not sure why there is so much confusion on this issue.
In 3.5, if you had Cleave and Great Cleave, whenever you dropped an enemy (below 0 HP) you got a free extra attack against anything in reach.
In PF you must declare that you are Cleave-ing, which requires a standard action. This means you can move and cleave, but not charge, and it cannot be combined with a full round action such as a full attack. The balance to this is that you only have to HIT, not drop, an enemy to get a free attack. Before this question gets asked, Power Attack is not any specific action just on any melee attack, so yes you can Power Attack and Cleave, but remember the penalty to attack is going to also follow you on every subsequent attack.
The problem with Cleave in 3.5 is it made for a game called Bowling for Mooks wherein the massive damage dealing, munchkinized Bbn2/Ftr8 would charge in to a group of enemies, power attacking for full, and they'd all fall down in the first round of combat.
Cleave is still a very solid feat for a melee combatant, especially if you are using a reach weapon, but it isn't an absolute must have like it was in 3.5.
So, you would take your chance of hitting with a +6/1 and not a +6/possible +6 ? If there is much of a chance for you to fail the first +6 bab hit, that +1 is almost never going to go through. Seems to me to be more of a gamble to hope that the +1 hits.
Yes. I would always prefer to hedge my bet with a second die roll than take one die roll and hope it hits in order to get the second die roll.
That being said, like you said above, it may also depend on what the AC is of the creatures you are attacking. If it's really low, go for Cleave. If it's high, go for Full Attack, as you may need another shot at hitting (ergo, "C'mon 20!").
But how far do we want to go with that at the game table? Do we always know the monster's AC? If not, our calculations are best guesses, and I'd rather stick with another shot at a crit/hit than to put all my eggs in one basket. Like my friend Rudimus said (above) it may also depend on what feat trees you have active on your PC.
Of course, this much forethought into whether or not you go for Cleave or Full Attack really (IMHO) takes away from flavor in a game and turns it from RPG into a purely tactical exercise. I try to run my game more on "Original Recipie" than "Extra Crispy," but that's just a preference. I'll take my second d20 every time. :) If I want to play more tactically with miniatures I'll break out my WH40K army. ;)
|
|
To the statement: The letter of the feat nerfs it...
I do not believe this is so. This attack is a specialized attack that has a clear intent rather than general swinging of a weapon. You are basically calling an arcing shot that has the ability to strike two foes. That seems clear to be the intent, spirit and letter of the feat. "You can strike two adjacent foes with a single swing." a form of called shot, that is swung in such a way it leaves you partially open to attack (-2 AC). The penalty itself is indicative of this being it's own separate action from normal attacks.
This feat is still very useful for a primary fighter in a group. This ability is especially useful when closing in on a group of foes, giving you an extra potential attack at full bonus the round before you really let loose. It's upgrade, Great Cleave, give you even more power, charging into the front lines of the foes and slapping them all around the first round. (Like Sauron in the flashback sequence in Fellowship of the Ring!)