You take the -2 penalty to AC as a result of using TWF or Cleave. Not the other way around.
|
No. It's not declaring what future attacks will be nor what action type I must be in.
Yes, actually it does. There is only one action by the rules where you take a -2 to AC and make a single attack. And that is Cleave. There are no actions where you take a -2 to AC and Full Attack to my knowledge. There is Charge, but that requires moving before, not after. Unless you can find me another option that lets you take a -2 to AC and attack, Cleave is the only option. And as a standard action, you take that attack and get a -2 to AC. Regardless of if you hit or not, you take that -2 to AC. Thus, it requires a Standard Action to complete regardless of if you hit or not. You can't turn it into a Full Attack. You can only turn a Full Attack into a Standard Action.
First, I didn't intend to type "TWF or".. that was my typing fail. Fumble-fingers really.
Second, RAW you cannot "elect" to take a penalty to your AC. You can use actions that, as a side effect of their use, reduce your AC.
I'll restate my previous statement: You take the -2 penalty to AC as a result of using Cleave. Not the other way around.
I'm done with this. This circular arguing is getting boring. How 'bout we just play however we're used to playing, and be done with this thread already?
lol.. have fun then =)
First, I didn't intend to type "TWF or".. that was my typing fail. Fumble-fingers really.
Second, RAW you cannot "elect" to take a penalty to your AC. You can use actions that, as a side effect of their use, reduce your AC.
I'll restate my previous statement: You take the -2 penalty to AC as a result of using Cleave. Not the other way around.
This is correct. The -2 is a result of cleave. Cleave does not come from voluntarily taking a -2 to AC.
|
cleave says "If you hit, you deal damage normally and CAN make an additional attack..."
Not *must*, but *can*. Meaning you can make your first attack, drop the baddie, and either take your cleave attack or end your standard action used for cleave.
Or you can continue on with a full attack action.
So is this arguement over yet?
|
cleave says "If you hit, you deal damage normally and CAN make an additional attack..."
Not *must*, but *can*. Meaning you can make your first attack, drop the baddie, and either take your cleave attack or end your standard action used for cleave.
Or you can continue on with a full attack action.
So is this arguement over yet?
This seems like trying to keep it going....
|
|
cleave says "If you hit, you deal damage normally and CAN make an additional attack..."
Not *must*, but *can*. Meaning you can make your first attack, drop the baddie, and either take your cleave attack or end your standard action used for cleave.
Or you can continue on with a full attack action.
So is this arguement over yet?
Nope.
You can't continue to take a full attack if you took a cleave.
cleave says "If you hit, you deal damage normally and CAN make an additional attack..."
Not *must*, but *can*. Meaning you can make your first attack, drop the baddie, and either take your cleave attack or end your standard action used for cleave.
Or you can continue on with a full attack action.
So is this arguement over yet?
Nope.
You can't continue to take a full attack if you took a cleave.
To build upon this further when you elected to cleave you took a standard, so now you only have a move action, and a free action left.
|
|
In other words, if you take a voluntary -2 in case you TWF:
A) You use TWF and the penalty is handled normally as per RAW.
B) You decide after your first attack not to TWF - the voluntary penalty would stand till your next action.
This is how I would rule your voluntary penalty as a DM.As long as you mean next action rather than next round I can see it.
-James
I think it would be fair for the DM to rule that you take the -2 to hit until your next turn. After all, that's what happens when you TWF. Just because you elected to not take the rest of your attacks doesn't make the -2 go away.
|
|
By next action I mean next turn. If you want to hedge your bets like that at my table it won't come cheap.
That is what I thought, and what I've been claiming all along. I am guessing that James thinks the -2 should go away if he does not actually complete the action.
A strict DM could say 'you may take a -2 to hit', and then then the player said he was going to continue a TWF full attack, respond 'okay, you now take a -4 on all your attacks'. When the player protests, the DM will explain 'TWF suffers a -2 on all attacks. That stacks with the -2 to hit you took earlier'. Because the player didn't state the -2 was for TWF, there are two separate penalties.
Me, I'm not that strict, but once you take a penalty to something, it stays until the next round. Thus, there are no options where you miss a Cleave attempt but do not take a -2 to AC.
|
|
I think it would be fair for the DM to rule that you take the -2 to hit until your next turn. After all, that's what happens when you TWF.You are incorrect. You probably should look up TWF.
-James
Ahem. You take a -2 to hit for using TWF while using a light weapon in your offhand and have the TWF feat. Better?
|
|
Nope. You're still wrong on TWF from what you've been saying.
Okay, I had to go to the Rules of the Game articles on Wizards to make sure. I was making the mistake of equating the TWF with the Fighting Defensively/Combat Expertise rules. I see that TWF penalties only last for your full attack action. Mea culpa. This is good to know for my future games.
However, as the Cleave feat states the -2 to AC lasts the round, it does not function in the same way. Taking a -2 to AC is synonymous with making a Cleave attempt.
|
|
The PC took the feat to use it not to go arounnd saying "cleave attempt" or other such nonsense......
My point is that the -2 penalty and the standard action is the cost for using the feat. What I have seen in this thread is 'you don't have to declare you're using the cleave, so if you miss your cleave attack you can just full attack'.
The price you pay for using the feat is not being able to full attack. If you miss your Cleave attempt, you don't get to try a full attack instead. The feat does not work that way.
To build upon this further when you elected to cleave you took a standard, so now you only have a move action, and a free action left.
...And now we've come full circle.
Once more with feeling....
You have two baddies lined up where cleave might be useful...
PC attacks baddie#1 rolls hit
PC attacks baddie#2 (this is via cleave no reason to declare it!)The PC took the feat to use it not to go arounnd saying "cleave attempt" or other such nonsense......
Same situation but say that illusion magic is involved and you are having players must "declare cleave".
PC Cleaves rock #1 and must now cleave rock #2
No choice no option you declared it!!!
That's fine. After all you wouldn't want to cleave into guy #2 if he had, say, put up a fire shield with a prepared action for when he got attacked.
That still doesn't mean you can forgo the attack on the second guy for the sole purpose of being able to make a full attack after having started the cleave process (that's against the rules).
|
|
I'm sorry, what's the 'cleave process' and how does it begin?
That still doesn't mean you can forgo the attack on the second guy for the sole purpose of being able to make a full attack after having started the cleave process (that's against the rules).
You take a Standard Action to Cleave and gain a -2 penalty to AC.
I don't believe that you need to declare any more than what you've done up to the point that you're at.
You don't need to say you are full attacking with a longsword for example, but rather you make one attack with the longsword then can decide to continue with it, or to drop it & quickdraw a different weapon with which to continue, or to move away even.
-James
I agree. You don't have to declare anything more than what you've done up to the point that you're at--though I can see some groups playing it differently in order to speed things up (such as declaring all actions at the start of the turn). Neither play style is wrong, as both are perfectly within the rules of the game.
As for not declaring a full attack in advance? Of course you don't have to do so. The rules specifically allow for that. That doesn't mean that, that rule applies anywhere else, however. That seems to be where people are messing up rules-wise--they are trying to apply a rule (not declaring a full attack until after the first attack) in the wrong place (cleave).
I'd answer your question, but Tri beat me to the answer (and said what I would have).
|
|
Don't be obtuse.
I believe, as I've said numerous times, that one can have their PC make a normal attack and elect to take a -2 to their AC.
Afterwards they can decide if that was part of a full attack action, a cleave action or a standard attack action by their subsequent choices.
-James
Thank you for clarifying your opaque statement. Thus I can state that your proposition of taking a -2 to AC is not covered by the rules, and is a houserule.
The problem I see with allowing players to take this action is, as I stated earlier, removing the risk of a character missing his Cleave and losing his ability to full attack. In every case he will either hit and Cleave, or miss and full attack. Never miss and have to take a move action.
This is against the letter of the rules on Cleave. A better writing of the feat to accomplish what you want would be this.
As a part of a full attack action, you can take a –2 penalty to your Armor Class until your next turn. If you hit with any of your normal attacks, you 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.
Or just remove the -2 to AC, since that seems to be what you are trying to accomplish from my reading of your posts.
|
|
I disagree again.
Apply your same logic to the -2 to attack from a TWF routine that gets turned into a standard action single attack.
In retrospect it is a single attack that shouldn't have the -2 to hit attached to it.
This should be problematic to your viewpoint if you stare at it long enough.
-James
I state that the -2 to AC is a houserule because the only other way to take a -2 to AC willingly is from the Charge action.
In either event, to take that -2 to AC requires a Standard Action, and lasts for the round.
TWF is different in that the penalty only occurs during the action. It and the Full Attack action have specific rules allowing you to change the action into another one. Cleave does not.
What I see you trying to say is that according to the rules, you can try to Cleave, and if you fail, take a Full Attack action. However, the rules say that you can either Cleave, or Full Attack.
You cannot Cleave and then Full Attack because the first is a Standard Action, and the second a Full Attack Action, which cannot be combined.
You can turn a Full Attack action into a Standard, but you cannot turn a Standard into a Full Attack.
Tri is correct. If I can elect to take that -2 penalty after I have made my initial attack (which, for example, was something that provokes) then suddenly I am getting away with a higher armor class against the attack of opportunity despite the fact that I'll still have the option of using cleave (under your interpretation at least).
That's not the way the rules work. The moment you begin the action you need to be absolutely clear as to what that action is (and then benefit/suffer from whatever said action entails). The only exception to this is deciding not to take a full attack and instead do something else. Even then, the rules are strict and clear--you cannot change your mind after making more than one attack.
You disagree that you must take a Standard Action to use Cleave?
Don't be obtuse.
I believe, as I've said numerous times, that one can have their PC make a normal attack and elect to take a -2 to their AC.
Afterwards they can decide if that was part of a full attack action, a cleave action or a standard attack action by their subsequent choices.
-James
The cleave causes the -2 to AC. The penalty to AC does not cause cleave. The book even says the penalty is a result of cleave. When you agree to use the feat the -2 comes into play at that time.
From 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.
There is nothing in the rules that states you can elect to take an arbitrary penalty to an arbitrary statistic at an arbitrary time. It's certainly a viable house rule, but it is a house rule. Doing things that aren't allowed by the rules are generally called that. And yes, that means going to the bathroom is a house rule. Thank God.
Therefore, the only way you can take a -2 AC penalty and make a standard action attack is by using the Cleave feat. Therefore, you have already declared Cleave; there's no option to say "psyche! I was just taking the penalty for no good reason, I totally wasn't Cleaving". You have taken a -2 penalty to AC for making a standard action attack == you are Cleaving.
---
BTW, I think certain people really need to read the Full Attack rules just a liiiiiittle more closely. The option to downgrade a full attack from a full-round action to a standard action is just that: the option to downgrade a Full Attack, which has already been declared, to a standard action. Actually, to be even more technical, it's the option to take an extra move action even though you've used a full-round action already by forgoing your attacks beyond the first (but that's very pedantic). You do not have the option to upgrade a standard action to a full attack. It's a one-way street.
|
|
cleave says "If you hit, you deal damage normally and CAN make an additional attack..."
Not *must*, but *can*. Meaning you can make your first attack, drop the baddie, and either take your cleave attack or end your standard action used for cleave.
Or you can continue on with a full attack action.
So is this arguement over yet?
Nope.
You can't continue to take a full attack if you took a cleave.
Yeap that is correct. I took the comment I was reading out of context... I lost track of this thread as it goes around and around - confusing.
|
|
I'm failing to find where it says that the full attack has been declared. Where is that?What I see is:
I don't see 'downgrading a full attack to a standard attack' rather I see 'deciding between' them.
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.
Because you're deciding between 'your remaining attacks' and 'a move action'.
You can only HAVE 'remaining attacks' if you are using a full attack action. If you make a standard action attack, you cannot make a full attack, because you cannot take a standard action and a full round action in the same round.