On the subject of whether a readied action happens right before the triggering action, or interrupts it after it begins:
I am using the rules for attacks of opportunity as my guide, here. As you can see, attacks of opportunity also refers to "interrupting":
An attack of opportunity "interrupts" the normal flow of actions in the round. If an attack of opportunity is provoked, immediately resolve the attack of opportunity, then continue with the next character's turn (or complete the current turn, if the attack of opportunity was provoked in the midst of a character's turn).
Now, it has been well established that an attack of opportunity does in fact happen immediately before the action that provokes it. This is the "tripping a prone person" arguement. It's been hashed out in several places on this message board, but briefly, the argument goes like this:
When a prone character stands up, he provokes an attack of opportunity. Couldn't a standing character use that attack of opportunity to trip the prone character again, keeping him prone round after round without ever having to spend an action?
The answer is no, because the attack of opportunity happens immediately before the action that provokes it is resolved. The prone character may be "in the process" of getting up, but prone is a binary condition -- you either are or you aren't. Thus, at the time the AoO occurs, the target is still prone, and you cannot trip a prone person.
I think this same logic must apply to the readied action as well, and we must interpret the word "interrupts" as essentially meaning "occurs immediately before". If we insist that an action cannot be both "interrupting" and "before" at the same time, then the rules for both Attacks of Opportunity and Readied Actions are complete gibberish. We have to throw both paragraphs out, and this whole conversation has been pointless.
On the subject of whether a readied action happens right before the triggering action, vs. interrupting it:
I am using the rules for attacks of opportunity as my guide, here. As you can see, attacks of opportunity also refers "interrupting":
An attack of opportunity "interrupts" the normal flow of actions in the round. If an attack of opportunity is provoked, immediately resolve the attack of opportunity, then continue with the next character's turn (or complete the current turn, if the attack of opportunity was provoked in the midst of a character's turn).Now, it has been well established that an attack of opportunity does in fact happen immediately before the action that provokes it. This is the "tripping a prone person" arguement. It's been hashed out in several places on this message board, but briefly, the argument goes like this:
That is normally the case but you can interrupt an action after it begins. Spells are an example.
----------From the PRD
You can ready an attack against a spellcaster with the trigger “if she starts casting a spell.” If you damage the spellcaster, she may lose the spell she was trying to cast (as determined by her Spellcraft check result).
--------------
If you don't attack until the casting starts then that means your attack takes place after the casting begins.
Any action can be treated like that. It just depends on how you word your ready action.
That is normally the case but you can interrupt an action after it begins. Spells are an example.
----------
From the PRD
You can ready an attack against a spellcaster with the trigger “if she starts casting a spell.” If you damage the spellcaster, she may lose the spell she was trying to cast (as determined by her Spellcraft check result).
--------------
If you don't attack until the casting starts then that means your attack takes place after the casting begins.Any action can be treated like that. It just depends on how you word your ready action.
I would argue that with spell disruption, the crucial issue is whether the spell takes effect, not how far into the process caster got. Whether a spell has been successfully cast is a binary, either-or state, and your interruption happens before that moment. You cannot wait until the caster starts benefitting from the effects of the spell before you interrupt it.
Similarly, you cannot wait until the prone target starts benefitting from the effects of not being prone before interrupting him with an AoO, and you cannot wait until the cleaving character starts suffering the penalties from already having started the cleave before interrupting him with a readied action.
That is normally the case but you can interrupt an action after it begins. Spells are an example.
----------
From the PRD
You can ready an attack against a spellcaster with the trigger “if she starts casting a spell.” If you damage the spellcaster, she may lose the spell she was trying to cast (as determined by her Spellcraft check result).
--------------
If you don't attack until the casting starts then that means your attack takes place after the casting begins.Any action can be treated like that. It just depends on how you word your ready action.
I would argue that with spell disruption, the crucial issue is whether the spell takes effect, not how far into the process caster got. Whether a spell has been successfully cast is a binary, either-or state, and your interruption happens before that moment. You cannot wait until the caster starts benefitting from the effects of the spell before you interrupt it.
Similarly, you cannot wait until the prone target starts benefitting from the effects of not being prone before interrupting him with an AoO, and you cannot wait until the cleaving character starts suffering the penalties from already having started the cleave before interrupting him with a readied action.
AoO, and readied actions are different
With the prone condition I can wait until he stands up to knock him back down if I use a ready action.The cleave thing is not worth arguing because we see it so differently
|
A few earlier posts mentioned being able to convert a full-round attack into a standard attack. I can't seem to find this rule in the book anywhere.
The closest thing I can find is a rule that says once you've started your full-attack action, you can find out the results of each attack before making the next one.
It doesn't say that you can then change your full-attack action into a standard attack action.
Is there a line I'm missing somewhere?
|
pg 187.
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. If you’ve
already taken a 5-foot step, you can’t use your move action
to move any distance, but you could still use a different
kind of move action.
A few earlier posts mentioned being able to convert a full-round attack into a standard attack. I can't seem to find this rule in the book anywhere.
The closest thing I can find is a rule that says once you've started your full-attack action, you can find out the results of each attack before making the next one.
It doesn't say that you can then change your full-attack action into a standard attack action.
Is there a line I'm missing somewhere?
Mike took the quote ToZ posted to mean he could change actions just because the attack from cleave and the first attack have the same modifiers.
His defense is that if something does not say it has to be declared ahead of time you dont have to declare it, which means you can retro actions back to another action.
Below was my response to that thought.
Here is what is going on. If you declare a full attack, and then decide to move. Your first attack is defaulted to an attack action which happens to be a standard action. You don't get to change the attack action to any other standard action you want it to be even, if its a remotely similar one.
For what it's worth,
I'd like to compliment most parties involved in this thread --particularly Michael-- for consistent civility, courtesy, and patience.
Just because I threatened to trap a few souls I don't get a mention. You guys are rough around here.
|
|
Just because I threatened to trap a few souls I don't get a mention. You guys are rough around here.For what it's worth,
I'd like to compliment most parties involved in this thread --particularly Michael-- for consistent civility, courtesy, and patience.
Well, they made undead Evil in PF, so I think the assessment is fair.
Well, they made undead Evil in PF, so I think the assessment is fair.Just because I threatened to trap a few souls I don't get a mention. You guys are rough around here.For what it's worth,
I'd like to compliment most parties involved in this thread --particularly Michael-- for consistent civility, courtesy, and patience.
I guess that can be taken into consideration.
|
|
Ahh, thanks for the clarification :)
Yeah, that seems to me to be a specific function built into a full-attack action.
You still need to declare you're making a full attack action though. After all, if you don't say you're doing something, then you're not doing it. :p
To quote a great movie, "A master thief would always..." :p
Some perfectly reasonable rebuttals...
This example is straw man...the first attack doesnt effect anything about the iterative ones from cleave or not.
Oooh, whipping out the "straw man" label. Also known as the last resort of the nay-sayer with nothing valid to contribute.
So if someone makes an attack, do you let them declare that they are Fighting Defensively after they roll? So if it's a good high roll or an obvious miss they can get a free +2 AC for it, but if it's probably a hit, but only barely a hit, they won't choose to Fight Defensively.
That's no "straw man"; Fighting Defensively and Cleave are both Standard Actions that modify some of your combat values (they both modify AC).
What if a player with a low CMB but a high Attack Modifier is thinking about tripping an enemy, can he roll his d20 and if it's really high declare that he's tripping the enemy but if it's too low for Trip to work he can simply state he's hitting him with his sword?
The list goes on and on.
Edit: wow, totally ninja'd on the Trip example by Wraithsrike. Great minds and all...
A player MUST declare his action before he rolls the dice, otherwise he can say he was rolling for whatever he wants, whatever will cause him the least repurcussion. True, some actions/abilities specifically state that they are an exception to this and the player can decide after rolling, but aside from those exceptions, everything else must be declared before rolling.
Blake you obviously are incapable of not being insulting when discusing things of this nature. I am done participating in threads you are involved in.
You still need to declare you're making a full attack action though. After all, if you don't say you're doing something, then you're not doing it. :p
Actually I argue against this.
You only have to say that you're attacking and be able to do so.
After the first attack you can make any decision based upon the result that is consistent with what you've done so far.
So if you haven't moved and started with a full round action available, after the first attack you have the following options for your PC:
1. Make an iterative attack. Now you are locked into a full round action.
2. Make a 5' step. Now you cannot take a move action but that's it.
3. Take a move action. If you move you can no longer 5' step.
4. Take a free action. No restrictions on what you can do next.
5. Make a non-action. No restrictions on what you can do next.There are others, but the idea is that conditions are constantly checked rather than 'I play X card' that does it all.
-James
James, this is probably the most cogent and concise summary of my argument on this thread. I couldn't have put it better myself. This, exactly this, is what I'm saying, except that I would also add:
1. Make an iterative attack. Now you are locked into a full round action.
2. Make a 5' step. Now you cannot take a move action but that's it.
3. Take a move action. If you move you can no longer 5' step.
4. Take a free action. No restrictions on what you can do next.
5. Make a non-action. No restrictions on what you can do next.
6. IF you have the cleave feat and IF your first attack hit and IF there is a valid target within reach, make your 2nd cleave attack (and take a -2 penalty to AC). Now you have completed your standard action for the round.
You still need to declare you're making a full attack action though. After all, if you don't say you're doing something, then you're not doing it. :p
Actually I argue against this.
You only have to say that you're attacking and be able to do so.
After the first attack you can make any decision based upon the result that is consistent with what you've done so far.
So if you haven't moved and started with a full round action available, after the first attack you have the following options for your PC:
1. Make an iterative attack. Now you are locked into a full round action.
2. Make a 5' step. Now you cannot take a move action but that's it.
3. Take a move action. If you move you can no longer 5' step.
4. Take a free action. No restrictions on what you can do next.
5. Make a non-action. No restrictions on what you can do next.There are others, but the idea is that conditions are constantly checked rather than 'I play X card' that does it all.
-James
This is how I see it as well. And this is why I believe you can't cleave. You attack...it's just an attack. If you choose to move then it was just a standard attack, but you didn't say "I cleave" because you can't retroactively convert a past action into a similar action.
This flow shows that you can turn a standard attack into a full attack, not vice versa.
|
|
I think I'm going to have to fall on the 'declare' side of the debate. If you miss, you still have that -2 for trying to cleave.
But I prefer 3.5 Cleave to PF Cleave anyway.
I would allow the non-declare rule if my players wanted it, so long as they understood the NPCs would have the exact same option.
6. IF you have the cleave feat and IF your first attack hit and IF there is a valid target within reach, make your 2nd cleave attack (and take a -2 penalty to AC). Now you have completed your standard action for the round.
One small thing here: you would need to take the -2 to AC when you make the first attack rather than the cleaving attack.
Just like a TWF would have to take a -2 to hit with the first attack, even if it's the hasted attack (depending upon your rules on when that can be taken).
To Meatrace: read what you wrote, you're arguing both sides in the same sentences. If you attack once at that point is it a standard action attack or a full round attack?
My point is that it need not be declared at that point, only consistent with options taken up to that point and with the caveat that further options taken must also be consistent.
You certainly can change your mind between a full attack and a single attack- up until the point where your choices are not consistent with one of them.
-James
I'm not arguing both sides. I am arguing that because you start out with a standard attack and then convert it into a full attack you cannot retroactively turn that standard attack into a cleave. The first attack you make is a standard action, then you decide to turn it into a full attack. I am saying that the conversion is proactive, not retroactive. You turn a standard into a full, not vice versa.
Cleaving, regardless of whether Cleave requires the same action type-standard, is a different action than a standard attack. Just as a spell is different than a standard attack. I can't retroactively change my first attack into a spell, or a partial charge, or a bull rush attempt, or a grapple attemmpt, or any other action that requires a standard action to perform. A standard attack requires a standard action. A cleave requires a standard action. One can be converted into a full attack, the other cannot. You have to say what you're doing before you do it.
Let me put to you another example. Vital Strike. Could you attack, and if you hit say "oh btw that was a vital strike" and if you miss just continue on with a full attack? Why?
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I think meatrace's last question is illuminating.
This one?
"Let me put to you another example. Vital Strike. Could you attack, and if you hit say 'oh btw that was a vital strike' and if you miss just continue on with a full attack? Why?"
The why is b/c the vital stike is the attack that already occured, not the one that is happening next.
Thank you.
Either way you don't need to declare cleave to use it!
(grin) You do at my table. Including PFS. Fair warning.
Blake you obviously are incapable of not being insulting when discusing things of this nature. I am done participating in threads you are involved in.Some perfectly reasonable rebuttals...
This example is straw man...the first attack doesnt effect anything about the iterative ones from cleave or not.
Oooh, whipping out the "straw man" label. Also known as the last resort of the nay-sayer with nothing valid to contribute.
So if someone makes an attack, do you let them declare that they are Fighting Defensively after they roll? So if it's a good high roll or an obvious miss they can get a free +2 AC for it, but if it's probably a hit, but only barely a hit, they won't choose to Fight Defensively.
That's no "straw man"; Fighting Defensively and Cleave are both Standard Actions that modify some of your combat values (they both modify AC).
What if a player with a low CMB but a high Attack Modifier is thinking about tripping an enemy, can he roll his d20 and if it's really high declare that he's tripping the enemy but if it's too low for Trip to work he can simply state he's hitting him with his sword?
The list goes on and on.
Edit: wow, totally ninja'd on the Trip example by Wraithsrike. Great minds and all...
A player MUST declare his action before he rolls the dice, otherwise he can say he was rolling for whatever he wants, whatever will cause him the least repurcussion. True, some actions/abilities specifically state that they are an exception to this and the player can decide after rolling, but aside from those exceptions, everything else must be declared before rolling.
Hmmmm, and I thought you were the one being insulting, calling "straw man!" as soon as you ran out of salient rejoinders. Apparently it's rude of me to offer a rebuttle against your accusation? A rebuttal that included a demonstration of what I am saying, a demonstration salient to the thread?
I think you are mistaken about which of us was insulting, and since you've run out of contribution to this thread, your departure from it is unlikely to be regretted.
FWIW, I do apoligize if somehow my refusal to lay down and be steamrolled by your "straw man!" accusation was taken as rudeness. It was only meant to be a rebuttal. And yes, this apology is a sincere one.
|
|
Hmmmm, and I thought you were the one being insulting, calling "straw man!" as soon as you ran out of salient rejoinders. Apparently it's rude of me to offer a rebuttle against your accusation? A rebuttal that included a demonstration of what I am saying, a demonstration salient to...
I think he was irritated that you seemed to think he and Micheal were the same poster.
Let me put to you another example. Vital Strike. Could you attack, and if you hit say "oh btw that was a vital strike" and if you miss just continue on with a full attack? Why?
Good example. Now I have to keep reading to see the counter to it.
Also a good DM would either understand or ask how the opponent #2 was going to be attacked....
Why would the DM need to ask if similar actions with the same modifiers are interchangeable.
Note: I don't really believe the above statement, but that has been a crucial part of the opposing argument.
Hmmmm, and I thought you were the one being insulting, calling "straw man!" as soon as you ran out of salient rejoinders. Apparently it's rude of me to offer a rebuttle against your accusation? A rebuttal that included a demonstration of what I am saying, a demonstration salient to...Blake you obviously are incapable of not being insulting when discusing things of this nature. I am done participating in threads you are involved in.Some perfectly reasonable rebuttals...
This example is straw man...the first attack doesnt effect anything about the iterative ones from cleave or not.
Oooh, whipping out the "straw man" label. Also known as the last resort of the nay-sayer with nothing valid to contribute.
So if someone makes an attack, do you let them declare that they are Fighting Defensively after they roll? So if it's a good high roll or an obvious miss they can get a free +2 AC for it, but if it's probably a hit, but only barely a hit, they won't choose to Fight Defensively.
That's no "straw man"; Fighting Defensively and Cleave are both Standard Actions that modify some of your combat values (they both modify AC).
What if a player with a low CMB but a high Attack Modifier is thinking about tripping an enemy, can he roll his d20 and if it's really high declare that he's tripping the enemy but if it's too low for Trip to work he can simply state he's hitting him with his sword?
The list goes on and on.
Edit: wow, totally ninja'd on the Trip example by Wraithsrike. Great minds and all...
A player MUST declare his action before he rolls the dice, otherwise he can say he was rolling for whatever he wants, whatever will cause him the least repurcussion. True, some actions/abilities specifically state that they are an exception to this and the player can decide after rolling, but aside from those exceptions, everything else must be declared before rolling.
I accept your appology and offer my own. It was that you called my opinions invalid just because of the term straw man that made me believe you were being intentionally snarky. My fault. The straw man however was in reference to the arguement that rolling the dice and then deciding on an action is an exageration of the reality Which is to say there is a sucessful attack and at that point someone decides to cleave. The results of the cleave have not been rolled already successful of no...so its not the same thing.
I accept your appology and offer my own. It was that you called my opinions invalid just because of the term straw man that made me believe you were being intentionally snarky. My fault. The straw man however was in reference to the arguement that rolling the dice and then deciding on an action is an exageration of the reality Which is to say there is a sucessful attack and at that point someone decides to cleave. The results of the cleave have not been rolled already successful of no...so its not the same thing.
I really dont see much difference.
----------------------------Example 1A (fighting a monster(s) who's AC is high enough that most likely only the first attack hits.
PC: I roll a 20. That first attack was really a cleave
Example 1B
PC: I roll a 4 so I will now take the rest of my attacks.
Example 2A(fighting a monster(s) who's AC is high enough that most likely only the first attack hits.
PC: I roll a 20. That first attack was vital strike.
Example 2B
PC: I roll a 4 so I will now take the rest of my attacks.
Example 3A(It just so happens that the CMB for tripping is equal to the attack roll bonus, and the monster
PC: I roll a 20. That first attack was a trip.
Example 3B
PC: I roll a 4 so I will now take the rest of my attacks.
Example 4A
PC: I roll a 20. That was my acrobatics check to jump safely across the chasm.
Example 4B
PC: I roll a 4 so I will now take the rest of my attacks. That was an intelligence to see if I can gauge my chances of making this 20 foot leap in heavy armor.
-------------------------
Under the notion that actions don't have to be declared I don't see how this is not possible.
James has stated my point, far more clearly than I did.
Under the notion that actions don't have to be declared I don't see how this is not possible.
Either I'm not making myself clear, or you're being intentionally obtuse about it.
Have I advocated rolling then saying what the roll is attached to? I haven't that I recall.
No. Mike did indirectly, but I did not hear anyone on with his viewpoint disagree with him so I assumed you were all on the same page.
Your PC does things. There are rules for what he's allowed to do. He doesn't have to 'play full attack card' or the like. He does not, for example have to commit to a double movement as he starts to move. But when he does something, then he has to continue with consistent things beyond that. So if he took the benefit of, say, a withdraw then he would not have the option to make an attack after a single move that he would if he simply moved away provoking.
I agree with this.
You seem to want to read into this as rolling dice then deciding what they apply towards.. sorry no. This was the 'straw man' put forth by another poster (and the friction that the moniker caused we're seeing still in this thread). You don't get to use it without getting the same attached, this time far more valid for its repetition.-James
Do you get to change one standard action into another one just because they have the same attack modifiers?
|
|
The main point is that not declaring you are using Cleave, and then declaring it is a Cleave after you hit, is removing a possible consequence to using it.
Your possible outcomes are these:
A. You hit and make a Cleave attack, taking a -2 to AC for the round.
B. You miss and don't get a Cleave attack, taking a -2 to AC for the round.
If you allow declaring after the fact, you have added a third outcome.
A. You hit and make a Cleave attack, taking a -2 to AC for the round.
B. You miss and don't get a Cleave attack, taking a -2 to AC for the round.
C. You miss and don't get a Cleave attack.
Thus, everyone takes outcome A or C, never B. If the feat were intended to be used with only outcomes A or C, it would not say you take a -2 to AC when using the feat. It would say you take a -2 to AC if you hit.
So, like Vital Strike, Smite, Stunning Fist, Charge, and other things that are wasted on a miss and have consequences, you have to declare you are making a Cleave attempt before you roll.
Either way you don't need to declare cleave to use it!(grin) You do at my table. Including PFS. Fair warning.
There it is =)
This is how I roll. In any of the games I've been in, I (and my GM's) have required to declare that you are using it before you roll your first attack.
If you take the -2 to AC and make a normal attack against one foe, you could be cleaving, or starting a full attack action- both are consistent with that and your options are open.
If you take the -2, then that means you've decided to use the Cleave feat. You can't declare that you'll take the penalty then "see what pans out".
Here's a question: are you allowed to 'do a cleave' if your first target is not adjacent to anyone else? When does that get checked?-James
Anyone with the Cleave feat can declare that they're using it, not that it'd make sense, but it's not strictly prohibited.
Well, technically I'm not sure you're even allowed to voluntarily lower your AC. But, for the sake of argument, let's say you can, and do. You still have to determine what actions you're going to use, and what you'll use them for. If you decide that you're going to want to use the Cleave feat, you then make your Cleave attack (standard action) and take an additional -2 to your AC. As you can't take the -2 before, and say it was for the Cleave after the fact. Even if you take the -2 and only used a standard action to make a single attack (not cleave), you're just gimping yourself, and that's not cool. NOBODY is going to take a -2 penalty "for the fun of it". You're either cleaving, or you're not.
|
|
So like a full attack action, when you've taken the first attack and find that the monster is impervious to your weapon you've 'declared' you played 'full attack action card'.
You've given up your move action for this, how can you take it back?
It's looking at it the wrong way.
Not at all. You declare your full attack. The rules for a full attack say that after your first attack, you can take a move action instead of finishing the full attack. Cleave does not have that option.
If you've made a vital strike, then that's done. I'm not saying that you get to roll and say what the roll is for after you see what the dice read.
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.
Cleave requires that you take a -2 to AC and make a normal attack against one foe. When you hit you can then elect to take an attack against an adjacent target.
If you take the -2 to AC and make a normal attack against one foe, you could be cleaving, or starting a full attack action- both are consistent with that and your options are open.
But if you decide to full attack, what is the -2 penalty for? Your Cleave attempt? If you made a Cleave attempt, that means you took a Standard Action, and can no longer make a Full Attack.
Just as open as if you start to move, and based upon what happens as you move, you elect to move elsewhere. To whit: you move 10' of 30' move rate, see a bad guy, then move 20' in response to that all as one move action. Or: you plan to move 30' forward and make a standard action attack, but after moving 20' you see something, move 10' more and do a different standard action (or second move action).
I must admit I don't see the relevance to the discussion. Yes you can redirect movement in the middle of the action. You can certainly redirect attacks in a standard action, but making a Cleave attempt is taking a standard action, not starting a Full Attack action. You only get one attack as a standard action unless you're using Cleave. Redirecting that one attack is meaningless, as is redirecting the extra Cleave attack, since it can't target the same person as the first. You only have the ability to choose one target in any event.
Here's a question: are you allowed to 'do a cleave' if your first target is not adjacent to anyone else? When does that get checked?
-James
Like Slatz said, you are perfectly able to use the Cleave action against a lone opponent. But you'd be unable to make a second attack and would be taking a -2 to AC for no benefit.
First, why not?
Can't I elect to take the -2 penalty if I want? I mean just for fun?
Likewise can't I elect to take a -2 penalty to hit, then decide after that one whether or not I wish to a> full attack, b> full attack TWF, or c> single attack then move.
Besides I'm not 'declaring' actions, rather I'm saying my PC takes a -2 to AC, makes a melee attack against a foe within reach. Based upon the result of that attack I'll decide what else my PC will be doing.
-James
The problem is that it is not covered by the rules, and thus in the realm of DM discretion. I would allow you to 'take a -2' as part of your action and continue as you say. But if you decided to take a Full Attack action or single attack and move instead of TWF Full Attack, I would still enforce the -2. The same for the -2 to AC, if you made a Standard Action attack and missed and then moved or full attacked.
|
This whole thread has gone crazy.
If you don't want declared Cleaves, it can be house ruled to passive like 3.5 or whatever craziness was being suggested here about take backs and pretend I didn't try to get a cleave in.
Strictly by the core rules, it is a declared standard action. One attack that may hit between zero and two targets (depending how nice the dice are)
This whole thread has gone crazy.
If you don't want declared Cleaves, it can be house ruled to passive like 3.5 or whatever craziness was being suggested here about take backs and pretend I didn't try to get a cleave in.
Strictly by the core rules, it is a declared standard action. One attack that may hit between zero and two targets (depending how nice the dice are)
+1
Don't know why folks need something to be RAW to use it in their games. Houserule it and move on.
Zo