The moment you begin the action you need to be absolutely clear as to what that action isWhere does it say that you have to do this? That is "I spend a standard action to do X" rather than "I do X".
When you 'declare movement' do you spell out where you are going to move?
That is a strawman. Those are not the same. Saying you are going to move is declaring. No need to say exactly where. When you take an action to attack stating how you will do so is important because there are several ways to attack.
Where exactly does it say that you 'declare' actions rather than saying what your character is going to do?
Saying what you will do, cleave for example, is saying what your character will do.
I'm going to have my PC make an attack against foe X and I'll take a -2 to hit (for the action) and -2 to AC (for the round) when doing so, there's nothing wrong with that.
You can not take arbitrary penalties. Penalties are the result of something else. The something else is not a result of the penalty.
Once again:
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.
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.
I'm failing to find where it says that the full attack has been declared. Where is that?
What I see is:
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.I don't see 'downgrading a full attack to a standard attack' rather I see 'deciding between' them.
Now my way of reading 3.5 (and now PF) is not most people's first read of the rules....
Your way is different because your way is wrong. The rules may be able to be interpreted in different ways, but they were only meant to be interpreted one way. If your interpretation does match the intent you are houseruling. I am not against houserules, but I am against trying to say they are the official rules.
|
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 like chasing my tail. Sometimes tho, I end up chasing other peoples tail.
I am happy to be put back on track. I run cleave as per the books states. My players are happy with it and so long as I am consistant, no problems.
|
I am happy to be put back on track. I run cleave as per the books states. My players are happy with it and so long as I am consistant, no problems.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 like chasing my tail. Sometimes tho, I end up chasing other peoples tail.
Indeed! I have no problem with James idea, but I just know that RAW does not work like that. I even rewrote the feat to fit more in line with the idea he had. I might actually use it over the printed version myself.
stuff directed towards James..
Since there is no tone of voice online I will say I am not upset at you. I just have no idea how you are coming to your conclusions.
|
|
Well let's start with 'deciding between a full attack and a standard attack'.When does this happen?
You claim it happens at the start and that it can be converted later. In other words you can go back in time and change a decision that had to be made at the start.
I claim that it gets decided after the first attack by the PC's next decision.
Look at the wording involved and say which has support.
Likewise find where it says you 'declare' actions as in 'standard action attack' rather than 'my PC makes an attack' and then I decide next what he is to do and the result of that choice determines what the action was.
-James
If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Classes), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks.
I don't think the wording supports you.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
May I suggest a different read?
A single attack is a standard action, the converse is not true.
Cleave (and vital strike) are feats. Feats are extrodinary (EX) abilities (at least in 3.x) I can't find the text in PFRPG.
it does define (EX) abilities as:
Extraordinary Abilities (Ex): Extraordinary abilities are nonmagical. They are, however, not something that just anyone can do or even learn to do without extensive training. Effects or areas that suppress or negate magic have no effect on extraordinary abilities.
There is an action I've not seen mentioned, a standard action, Use special ability
Using a special ability is usually a standard action, but whether it is a standard action, a full-round action, or not an action at all is defined by the ability.[emphasis mine]
Under full attacks, as has been quoted to death:
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.
So you can change your full attack action into a single attack + move. Not a standard action + move. Not even an 'attack action' + move (it says first attack not attack action) Since the rule is specific, you can't go from full attack to vital strike or cleave.
All it takes is assuming that Cleave/Vital Strike are 'use special ability' actions. Problem solved.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
You are assuming that a full attack action has been 'declared' when it has not.
-James
I disagree. You are declaring a full attack action. After the first attack, you can choose to trade in your remaining attacks for a move action. Full attack is a specific kind of action. It doesn't get 'traded in' for a standard action and a move action. It is a full round action with specific options.
Edit: To quote the related section
Full-Round Actions
A full-round action requires an entire round to complete. Thus, it can’t be coupled with a standard or a move action, though if it does not involve moving any distance, you can take a 5-foot step.Full attack:
If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Chapter 3), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks.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
The section on 'Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack' is a subsection of Full attack. So for that decision to be made, you've already commited to the full round action of a full attack, there's just a specific exception that allows you to 'trade out' for a move. In either case, you don't have a standard action to use Cleave.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
In either case, you don't have a standard action to use Cleave.That makes no difference.
You make an attack and after the result of attack #1 you decide
a course of action.
Those possibilities include
1. falling prone
2. moving (assuming you have not already)
3. dropping your weapon
4. continuing iterative attacks (assuming you have iterative attacks)
5. making a cleave attempt (assuming there is a target and you have the feat).
6. Ending your action (nothing)
7. readying an action
8. Open mouth & insert foot
Except you've commited to a full round action. With specific exceptions. A standard action is not one of them.
I can show you where it says you take a full round action to make a full attack. I can (and have shown you) where you can abort that action after the first attack to move. Please show me where it states you can stop a full attack action to Cleave. (or ready an action for that matter)
Readying is a standard action
You are allowing actions to be taken that the rules aren't.
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!!!
I don't think anybody (but you) is saying that you "must" take your second attack. Even the feat says you "can" take a second attack. No "must".
But whether or not you swing at the second illusioned rock, you still take the -2 penalty to AC because it was your intent to cleave, because you positioned your body differently, you swung your weapon differently, and left yourself a little vulnerable. Pulling up and canceling your second strike doesn't undo the fact that you executed a Cleave standard action.
|
|
I'm sorry this is in support of what?That a cleave attack is a single attack rather than a pair of attacks as is double slice, bounding assault and the like? (Forgive if I get the names wrong on some of those feats, I'm doing it off the top of my head).
Does that mean if I have a bonus to my next attack that it applies to all those attack rolls, say when my PC great cleaves?
Is that where you were going?
Or are you somehow seeing a 'declare' in there that I'm not?
Perhaps you want to read the part following where it talks about deciding between a full attack and a standard action attack rather than 'converting' one to the other as has been claimed in this thread?
-James
I'm sorry, I didn't think I needed to bold it.
If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Classes), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks.
To have the option to make additional attacks, you must use a Full Round Action.
To have the option to make a second attack at your full BAB while taking a -2 to AC, you must use a Standard Action.
See what Matthew said as well.
THAT is my point here, and something that has not been grasped or accepted by the others in this thread. They insist that one action type or the other has been declared, yet not only does it NOT say this- it says quite the opposite- that the decision between them doesn't come until after the first attack where the PC gets to decide between legal options.
You are assuming that a full attack action has been 'declared' when it has not.
I do not accept it because it is wrong. You have to use a Standard Action to Cleave. You have to use a Full Round Action to Full Attack. Full Attack allows you to take a Move Action instead of your other attacks. Cleave does not allow you to take a Full Attack after using it. If you say 'I take an attack' without qualifiers, you are in essence limiting yourself to a Standard Action attack action or Full Round Action full attack action.
|
|
I keep hearing you take a -2 to AC by using cleave, yes the DM gives you a -2 to AC as soon as you cleave, but the -2 to AC does not affect neither your attack roll nor your damage roll. The -2 only applies to an attack made against the PC (so it doesn't matter until)....
The PC attempts to cleave opponent #2.........
I don't know how you come to that conclusion (that the AC penalty doesn't matter until during the bonus attack).
There are any number of situations, in which the Cleaver could be targetted, by either opponent #1, opponent #2, or any number of bystanders. With melee attacks, with missile attacks, or with magical attacks. Between attacks, during the first attack, or even before the first attack is rolled for. And that -2 AC matters.It's a specific type of reckless attack, in which the attacker forgoes their default defensive stance, to gamble on an increased number of attacks. Just like charging, or raging, are reckless attacks that gamble on an increased chance of a hit.
And just like charging, or raging, sometimes it doesn't pay off. You wade in and miss, and the opposition then take advantage of your lowered guard.
That's part of the gamble, and that's part of the balancing of the feat. Because it is a rather effective feat, when all is considered. For a character with BAB +1-+5, and/or who's moved 10+ feet, it potentially increases their no of attacks/round by +100%.
Allowing it to be claimed retrospectively takes all the gamble out of it. You're happy taking the AC penalty, since you know the feat already paid off.
It's the equivalent of zig-zagging across a courtyard, claiming to take evasive maneuvres vs the archers, reaching your opponent, rolling to hit, missing by 2, then asking "Oh, did I mention, I was charging straight at him? That makes it a hit!".
Or, rolling to hit, seeing you made it by a comfortable margin, then asking "Oh, did I mention, that was a Power Attack? That'll be +3 damage, if you please."
I know what my reply would be, in all three of those cases, and it isn't pretty.
There's a reason why you aren't allowed to watch the lottery results, then run out to the shop and buy a ticket with those numbers on for the draw you just watched. See how far you get with that, while you're at it.
May I suggest a different read?
A single attack is a standard action, the converse is not true.
Cleave (and vital strike) are feats. Feats are extrodinary (EX) abilities (at least in 3.x) I can't find the text in PFRPG.
I've read through the entire thread, and I think this comes the closest to the correct answer. However, it's not quite there yet.
The correct answer for this whole mess is hiding in plain sight in the combat section.
In the combat section, there's a table called "Table: Actions in Combat". In this big table, there's a section called "Action Type Varies". There is an entry in this section called "Use Feat".
If you look farther down in the "Use Feat" section, it reads:
Use Feat
Certain feats let you take special actions in combat. Other feats do not require actions themselves, but they give you a bonus when attempting something you can already do. Some feats are not meant to be used within the framework of combat. The individual feat descriptions tell you what you need to know about them.
What this is saying is that when you use the Cleave feat, you are effectively taking a "Use Feat" action. The "Use Feat" action means you choose to use a specific feat and follow its directions. There are a number of feats that work this way: Dazzling Display, Whirlwind Attack, Gorgon's Fist, etc.
When you pick the "Use Feat" action, you can't "undo" the consequences of that choice. You don't make the "Attack (melee)" action and then decide to do a "Use Feat" action. If you pick a feat using the Use Feat action, you must use that feat.
@meabolex: Thank you, truly!
Now if this thread would just die already =P
|
|
So you're saying that Cleave requires a full round action?
No, it requires a standard, which excludes you from taking a full round action in the same round.
And you don't need to use a full round action to have the option for additional attacks, you need to have a full round action available in order to take those additional attacks.
Please read carefully where it says 'deciding' rather than 'converting'.
No, you have to use the Full Attack action to have the ability to make additional attacks. Which is a Full Round action.
Also please address where you believe it says that action types must be 'declared' rather than, say, imposed based upon PC actions.
-James
Okay, I will admit nothing in the rules says 'you must declare your action'. Probably because they thought it obvious. I doubt any DM will go with your interpretation, but that's opinion.
Now, as meabolex pointed out, things use actions. A normal attack is a standard action. You cannot take two standard actions in a turn. Thus, you saying 'I make an attack' means you have used an attack standard action. You cannot then say 'I make a Cleave' because that is also a standard action and you have already used your standard action. Any DM will ask you 'why didn't you declare it was a Cleave before you rolled?' If your answer is 'because I wanted to keep my options open' he will tell you 'okay, your option is a move action because you used your standard action'. Just because some DMs are nice and say 'you started your full attack, so go ahead and make your other attacks or move' does not equal 'okay you can make a Cleave attack since you hit'. Nor does full attack having a 'you can move instead of make the rest of your attacks' clause allow you to change your Cleave action into a Full Attack action.
|
|
No, I still maintain that 'keeping your options open' and 'my choices determine what actions I take' are just subterfuge to allow players to get around having to deal with a missed Cleave attempt. I just admitted that I don't know of a rule that explicitly says 'you must declare your action' because it's pretty bloody obvious that the DM needs to know what you're doing so he can referee properly.
In either case, you don't have a standard action to use Cleave.That makes no difference.
You make an attack and after the result of attack #1 you decide
a course of action.
Those possibilities include
1. falling prone
2. moving (assuming you have not already)
3. dropping your weapon
4. continuing iterative attacks (assuming you have iterative attacks)
5. making a cleave attempt (assuming there is a target and you have the feat).
6. Ending your action (nothing)
7. readying an action
8. Open mouth & insert footExcept you've commited to a full round action. With specific exceptions. A standard action is not one of them.
I can show you where it says you take a full round action to make a full attack. I can (and have shown you) where you can abort that action after the first attack to move. Please show me where it states you can stop a full attack action to Cleave. (or ready an action for that matter)
Readying is a standard actionYou are allowing actions to be taken that the rules aren't.
my bad on the readying an action that was wrong......
I have only said it makes no sense and is not required by the rules to "declare" cleave. Someone got the idea that cleave must be declared and I see no reason for that to be other than "I want PCs to have to declare cleave".
None of my arguments have anything to do with quoting this rule or that rule just the cleave feat itself....
Which is about options and Players controling the actions of the characters.....It is boring and stupid to "declare cleave" for several reasons
1. Unlimited uses per day
2. Unnecessary to do so
3. Mechanically not needed
4. forcing a decision before it needs to be madeI keep hearing you take a -2 to AC by using cleave, yes the DM gives you a -2 to AC as soon as you cleave, but the -2 to AC does not affect neither your attack roll nor your damage roll. The -2...
The -2 not affecting the attack roll has nothing to do with it. I will ask again why can I cleave but not vital strike in the same situation(by the rules). Even if there was no penalty to AC you still could not do it because the only thing the book gives you is a regular/plain/vanilla attack if you decide to stop at the first attack.
The section on 'Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack' is a subsection of Full attack. So for that decision to be made, you've already commited to the full round action of a full attack, there's just a specific exception that allows you to 'trade out' for a move.It's not trading anything out, rather it is saying at what point you decide whether what you've done so far (a standard attack) will be a standard action attack (leaving you a move action) or a full round action full attack (leaving you a 5' step). You decide this after the 1st attack is resolved by your PC's subsequent acts.
You're not committed to anything if you aren't locked into it! Or are you claiming that a single attack and a move is a full round attack?
Please guys, the English here is telling you what's going on...
And yes it's located in Full Attack, but then Full Attack comes after Attack so it wouldn't really be appropriate to put it there.
To repeat, you're not trading something that you have (because you haven't taken it and don't have it) for something else. Rather you are deciding between the two at that point. You are making the choice THEN.
That's what the rules are saying, that's what the English means.
Is there a place where the rules say that you 'declare' actions, or do you just assume that it is the case?
-James
A lot of things are not in the rules as far as what you can or can not do. Sometimes you just have to be able to infer it. The only thing RaW gives you is the option to attack and move, not take any similar standard action you want.
No, I still maintain that 'keeping your options open' and 'my choices determine what actions I take' are just subterfuge to allow players to get around having to deal with a missed Cleave attempt. I just admitted that I don't know of a rule that explicitly says 'you must declare your action' because it's pretty bloody obvious that the DM needs to know what you're doing so he can referee properly.
You telling me I can't wait to decide on Vital Strike until after I see the attack roll? Surely I should be allowed to see the attack roll before I commit.
<readies an action to duck the heavy core book>
|
|
Also please address where you believe it says that action types must be 'declared' rather than, say, imposed based upon PC actions.
-James
It doesn't need to set out in black and white; it's basic manners, and respect for the other people sat round the table, that you don't waste half an hour of their time on every one of your turns, claiming endless retcons.
Player 1: "I lightning bolt the bugbears in the right passage!"
DM: "The illusory bugbears flicker..."
"Oh, did I say the right passage, I meant the left passage"
<sigh> "The bugbears in the left passage stand their ground; the shaman laughs and taunts you that they are protected from your magic..."
"Oh, did I say Lightning Bolt? I meant Fireball."
<sigh> "They make their saves and avoid all the damage, leaping nimbly aside, Evading the flames..."
"Oh, did I say Fireball? I meant Scorching Ray."
......O_o
"Does that hurt him?"
....>:(
"Does it hurt him?"
"Are you finished now? Have you stopped ****ing around? Is that ACTUALLY what you're doing? Can you actually pick an action and stick with it?
"Yes, I'm fine. I fire Scorching Ray. Does it hurt him?"
Yes, it hurts him. Roll your damage.
"Right; in that case, it was a split ray, and I used the Empower rod, so I get the guy behind him as well"
Player 2: "I run down the right passage, past the illusions, to head off the shaman, drawing my frost arrows as I go."
Player 3: "Now we know they're rogues, I feel confident hitting the rest with some Fort saves."
DM: "I hate you all."
So you're saying that Cleave requires a full round action?No, it requires a standard, which excludes you from taking a full round action in the same round.
But from what you quoted and bolded it would would require a full round action to cleave.
Also you haven't commented on the 'decide' language rather than convert.
You are assuming that action types have to be declared based simply on assumption. Stop just reacting to what I'm saying and think about it.
-James
No it doesn't
If I take a standard action to cleave, and I move "cleave" is only taking a standard action. D&D/Pathfinder has always made people decide. This is not new. Where are you getting this full round thing from?
You are assuming that action types have to be declared based simply on assumption.
Declaring the actions is how it works at the table. In the game itself, the actions are simply incompatible regarding what you do in a turn.
A Cleave action is neither an attack action nor a full attack action. It's something else. Nor are there any rules to convert from one to another. So, sorry; if you do a Cleave action, that's the action you're doing. No backsies.
Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack: After your first attack[refer to the * before reading on],
you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks.......{go to *2}
*After the first attack means the action is complete/done/over. Once the attack is completed which is after the dice are rolled you can't go back in time and change the action. [go back to the above paragraph and continue reading]
*2 You do have the option to move or make the rest of your attacks, however you sir need to provide a rule that states you can do anything more than finish those attacks or move. By the book, those are your only options.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Now I will put the book quote just above my interpretation
Book:you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks
me:You do have the option to move or make the rest of your attacks
----------------------------------------------------------------
The book only gives you an attack. An attack is a standard action. You have no more standard actions to cleave with.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
From the PRD:Attack
Making an attack is a standard action.
Basically after the first dice roll you can decide to continue the full round attack by taking all of your attacks as a full round attack, or take a move action. The book does not however at any point give you the option to do anything else.
Once again I will ask if I can cleave why can I not vital strike. I will probably keep asking until you answer it, just wanted to put that out there.
|
|
You are assuming that action types have to be declared based simply on assumption.
Yeeeeah; cos that would make a rivetting game, wouldn't it?
DM: "So, initiative...21? 20? Ah, that's you. What you doing?"
Player 1: "Not telling."
0_o? "Riiight, okaaay, so you're...readying? For...something?"
"Not telling"
"OK. Initiative 19, 18, 17, that's you. What you doing?"
Player 2: "None of your damn business."
"Oh. Kay. 16, 15, 14, that's you. Are you doing anything? Anything at all?"
0_o?
"Aaaand, on 11...<roll>...<roll>...<roll>...the enemy kill you all.
The End. Maybe your next PCs would like to actually take part in the game, instead of standing around, flat-footed, gawping like morons?"
"Oh, Em, Gee, like you are so, like, totally trampling all over my creativity."
"That is so totally bogus? I had a cunning plan? You totally did not take into account my cunning plan?"
Though I'd wished this horse to be left alone a long time ago, I do enjoy Snorter's contribution. And, I am sorry James, but I've never EVER experienced a GM who plays the style you apparently do. I've run into Snorter's previous scenario (my own brother!), and I called him out on it, telling him to make his decision before the dice were rolled. Every GM I've encountered would've done the same. I'm not trying to be sarcastic, and I'm not saying that your style is wrong or anything. I'm just saying most, if not all, other GM's wouldn't allow you to decide if you were cleaving after your first attack. Most, if not all, would have you say what you were doing before you rolled your first attack.
I wonder how long this thread is going to keep going ad nauseam..
You are assuming that action types have to be declared based simply on assumption.Yeeeeah; cos that would make a rivetting game, wouldn't it?
DM: "So, initiative...21? 20? Ah, that's you. What you doing?"
Player 1: "Not telling."
Umm.. try reading my posts, rather than just spewing out this stuff as it's not even addressing what I'm saying.
So I'm not sure what point you have to make, if any, but it's wasted so far cause you're not dealing with what I'm talking about in the least.
-James
I thought his point was pretty clear, really. He's trying to say (if i'm not mistaken): if you don't have to declare your action, what's the point in playing the game?
|
|
Actually, I've had a situation like this come up before. My player ran up to, and attacked a bad guy, but missed on a terribad roll.
On the enemies action, a few more ran up to the fighter and started attacking him.
On his turn, he said "I'm attacking the one in front of me."
He ends up hitting and deals damage.
Then he says "Ok, I cleave the one on the right."
To which I reply "You didn't say you were making a cleave attack. You can attack the one on the right if you want, but you're using your regular attack series."
He calls out when he cleaves now, like he's supposed to :p
Heck, you say you're attacking. Fine, I'll let you have an attack action or a full attack action. But I'm not giving you that standard action feat unless you specifically mention it :D
The way I think about it, you're not attacking the first guy then cleaving the second. You're cleaving into them both. Thus, any time I'm playing a character with that feat, and wish to use it, I say so before I attack anyone. Anyone I've ever played with plays the same way (now).
|
This is just ridiculous.....
It is a big fat game of semantics. The whole argument seems to be around "Declaring an action". I don't know if this is fear of commitment or what...
You NEED to tell the DM what you are doing BEFORE you roll. Once you decide what you are doing, you see what type of action is needed Scroll down to "Table: Actions in Combat".
In the case of trying to Cleave, you use the Feat Action.
The table tells you to refer to the feat description. The feat description tells you it uses a standard action.
If you have a standard action available, you will tell you DM that you are cleaving, Your -2 AC will trigger now, then you roll the attack roll. Lets say you hit, you now roll again for the adjacent enemy and hit him too. Your -2 AC stays in effect until it hits your initiative on the next round. You now have a move action left available to do with as you please.
I don't understand how this is being misunderstood. I think it is most likely folks not liking how the rules work and arguing how it SHOULD work in their eyes. This is not a rules problem. The rules are clear. The common sense is clear. It has been spelled out by several folks so it's not the explanations that are the problem, it's someone not liking the way it works. This thread will never reach a point of resolution.
This is just ridiculous.....
It is a big fat game of semantics. The whole argument seems to be around "Declaring an action". I don't know if this is fear of commitment or what...
You NEED to tell the DM what you are doing BEFORE you roll. Once you decide what you are doing, you see what type of action is needed Scroll down to "Table: Actions in Combat".
In the case of trying to Cleave, you use the Feat Action.
The table tells you to refer to the feat description. The feat description tells you it uses a standard action.
If you have a standard action available, you will tell you DM that you are cleaving, Your -2 AC will trigger now, then you roll the attack roll. Lets say you hit, you now roll again for the adjacent enemy and hit him too. Your -2 AC stays in effect until it hits your initiative on the next round. You now have a move action left available to do with as you please.
I don't understand how this is being misunderstood. I think it is most likely folks not liking how the rules work and arguing how it SHOULD work in their eyes. This is not a rules problem. The rules are clear. The common sense is clear. It has been spelled out by several folks so it's not the explanations that are the problem, it's someone not liking the way it works. This thread will never reach a point of resolution.
QFT
And with that, I'm done with this thread. (for good this time)
|
|
claiming endless retcons.
It's not claiming any such thing.
Of course it is.
It's exactly what it is.Waiting to see the attack roll, then going either
a) "Ooh, I hit him! Well, in that case, I was actually performing the tricky and difficult, trained-only, not-available-at-first-level-unless-you're-a-human-or-a-Fighter, super-special Cleaving one-two, thwackety-thwack, twirling backhand maneuver!"
b) "Rats! Missed! Good job it was a regular meat and potatoes attack. I was totally making a normal attack, and no-one can prove I wasn't, so there! I'm not taking an AC penalty! Can't make me!"