Well I'm failing to see the problem. I took a look in the thread but seemed more people arguing on how they do it not what the rules are.
Clearly you have to declare actions. Cleave is an action so you declare it. Simple as that.
I mean you don't just grab a bunch of dice toss the them on the table and say ooh look here's a critical that would start a cleave on nicely. Oh that 10 I rolled would work for the second hit but would miss as secondary attack on Full attack as well the 3 just misses reguardless. That's just silly.
So Cleave is a Standard action. You have to declare your actions. Simple as that.
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not that I expect this to resolve any "heated internet argument," but just to divert its topics and arguments into a "James is right/James is crazy" territory...
But when you use the Cleave ability, you tell the GM, "I'm going to use Cleave on the monster."
This is a standard action. You roll your attack. If you hit, you damage the foe as normal and then get to attack an adjacent foe in reach. That done, you have a move action left for you to use if you haven't used that round's move action before the Cleave.
The whole POINT of Cleave is to give the fighter who usually relies on his iterative attacks the ability to make more than one attack if he's forced to move up to a foe. This and Vital Strike (and a few other abilities) are Pathfinder's method of solving the fact that at high level, fighter types lose out a lot of damage potential in battles where they have to move around a lot, since you can't move and take a full attack.
Anyway, it seems pretty clear to me in the description of the feat that using Cleave is a standard action. It says so right in the first four words of the "Benefit" paragraph, after all.
In other words: Yes, you DO have to declare the use of Cleave as you make your attack, since making a Cleave attack is a standard action and NOT part of a full attack or any other type of attack.
|
Declaring ahead makes no sense at all.
Even with a Full Attack you still have the option to make your first attack and THEN decide to use a standard attack and move (or whatever you want to use your Move action on) rather than continue with the Full Attack.
It is extremely clear in the description of Cleave that the action is a Standard Action (it uses those very words so how is this not clear). It describes very clearly the mechanics of using this feat. Make an attack. IF you hit you MAY make another attack against an adjacent foe (you are NOT obligated to make the extra attack). When you actually attempt to hit the second target (that is you USE the feat) you incur a -2 penalty to AC.
The key is WHEN YOU USE THIS FEAT. If I swing and miss the first target the conditions are never in place to be eligible for the feat to begin with. How can I declare I am using a feat if I am not eligible to even use the feat? It's like a Fighter declaring he is casting a Fireball when he cannot cast any spell at all.
In fact, a player can start his round with the intent of (declared) making a Full Attack. He swings and hits. At this point he still has the option to change his attack to a Standard Attack and decides to do so. He may now use Cleave if he wishes to and use his Move action.
Answer a simple question and you know whether you have to declare ahead of time. Can you use a feat or ability at the beginning of the round (before your combat actions even begin) if you are not currently eligible to even use the feat or ability?
If you answer yes please explain how you can use a feat/ability if you are not eligible to use it.
|
|
think of it this way
in order to swing and hit 2 people (flavor wise cleave is 1 attack, even if it requires 2 rolls) you need a certain stance(giving thew -2ac), you cant do it as an after thought. you have to intentionally be attempting to hit 2 people when you cleave,
Please refer to RAW that describes this. :)
If a Full Attack, which allows you to place your attacks upon multiple targets (not just on one target) allows you to change your intent from hitting multiple targets to instead only hit one once, allows you to switch from multiple to a single attack with no "stance" change, then why does Cleave require that since it has always been a standard action from the beginning?
:)
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Well we have James' opinion on the matter.
I was unaware that using a Standard Action requires a player to declare all of his intentions for the round before the action is made.
So how does this work with changing from Full Attack to Standard Attack? Does that mean that in essence you can no longer make the change? Will this option be removed via errata? :)
and no James, I am NOT saying you are wrong. :) I am saying that your opinion works for your game, but perhaps consider it again looking at the concerns I raised.
Again, how do you declare you are using a feat that you currently are not eligible to use?
Krome,
The Full attack option is specifically "After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks" It is not "You may change it to a standard action." or "You may start a standard action then go into full attack mode." choosing to move is part of the full attack action.
Whatever you declare as your action/attack/etc, once you have stated what you are doing AND rolled the dice, then you cannot change what you are doing.
|
Creative Director
|
Well we have James' opinion on the matter.
But let me rephrase the question completely and then I can accept whatever answer you guys give. Was it the INTENTION of the game designers to have cleave be a feat that requires it be declared?
It's not an opinion in this case, though. It's the way Cleave works. And the way it was INTENDED to work.
It specifically says "as a standard action." That means "You declare this to be your standard action," like any other standard action.
It's a different feat entirely from the 3.5 incarnation of Cleave.
|
|
I think people are getting confused between the 3.5 Cleave and the PF Cleave:
The PF Cleave is a declared Standard Action.
The 3.5 cleave is a "freebie" extra attack if you drop a creature.
I am wondering if people are mixing in 1st and 2nd editions with their Pathfinder :) I remember in those editions you rolled initiative, declared your actions and then once everyone declared actions they resolved the declared actions. 3.x does not use that method.
I just made a scan of the PRD, and no where in the combat section does the word Declare appear.
please, point to the rule that states that your action must be declared.
|
|
Well we have James' opinion on the matter.
But let me rephrase the question completely and then I can accept whatever answer you guys give. Was it the INTENTION of the game designers to have cleave be a feat that requires it be declared?
It's not an opinion in this case, though. It's the way Cleave works. And the way it was INTENDED to work.
It specifically says "as a standard action." That means "You declare this to be your standard action," like any other standard action.
It's a different feat entirely from the 3.5 incarnation of Cleave.
See I can accept that it was INTENDED to be used that way. If that is the case I can indeed use it that way. :)
For me that ends the debate. :)
See simple :) and thank you very much you just made gaming easier for us all :)
|
Creative Director
|
I think people are getting confused between the 3.5 Cleave and the PF Cleave:
The PF Cleave is a declared Standard Action.
The 3.5 cleave is a "freebie" extra attack if you drop a creature.
I am wondering if people are mixing in 1st and 2nd editions with their Pathfinder :) I remember in those editions you rolled initiative, declared your actions and then once everyone declared actions they resolved the declared actions. 3.x does not use that method.
I just made a scan of the PRD, and no where in the combat section does the word Declare appear.
please, point to the rule that states that your action must be declared.
It's common sense. If you don't declare an action, the GM and players, who aren't telepathic and can't read the future, can't interact with your choice.
|
|
Well we have James' opinion on the matter.
I was unaware that using a Standard Action requires a player to declare all of his intentions for the round before the action is made.
So how does this work with changing from Full Attack to Standard Attack? Does that mean that in essence you can no longer make the change? Will this option be removed via errata? :)
and no James, I am NOT saying you are wrong. :) I am saying that your opinion works for your game, but perhaps consider it again looking at the concerns I raised.
Again, how do you declare you are using a feat that you currently are not eligible to use?
Krome,
The Full attack option is specifically "After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks" It is not "You may change it to a standard action." or "You may start a standard action then go into full attack mode." choosing to move is part of the full attack action.
mmmm very true...
|
|
I think people are getting confused between the 3.5 Cleave and the PF Cleave:
The PF Cleave is a declared Standard Action.
The 3.5 cleave is a "freebie" extra attack if you drop a creature.
I am wondering if people are mixing in 1st and 2nd editions with their Pathfinder :) I remember in those editions you rolled initiative, declared your actions and then once everyone declared actions they resolved the declared actions. 3.x does not use that method.
I just made a scan of the PRD, and no where in the combat section does the word Declare appear.
please, point to the rule that states that your action must be declared.
It's common sense. If you don't declare an action, the GM and players, who aren't telepathic and can't read the future, can't interact with your choice.
lol yes, but that then means that you must declare every aspect of your action ahead of time, such as:
"I declare I am going to use a Full Attack to attack target 1 with two hits, target 2 with one hit and target 3 with one hit and then five foot step to space X"
Then the Full attack begins, so I assume when the player changes his mind he then redeclares "After that first attack hit I am changing my declaration to instead use a Full Attack to hit target 1 and then move my 30 feet movement to one space forward, diagonal north 1 space, forward one space, diagonal again one space (which counts as two spaces bringing my movement to 25 feet) and then move the last 5 feet forward again."
Or rather in actual play do you just DO it and count your movement as you go and your iterative attacks as you go... or do you really declare every aspect of your action before you do anything at all?
That is what I mean :) I have never seen a game require you to declare all possible variations of your action before you actually do anything at all.
I mean really it changes the way the game is played to do so. So I am seeking clarification here. I suspect I have been doing it wrong all along!
|
|
lol No James I am not trying to "Trap" you or anything like that.
I am just trying to illustrate that the game doesn't work in reality with declaring every aspect of your intention ahead of time. There is no need for mind reading or anything, and people can still interact easily.
Let's just say that I have never played in a game where people declare their actions. Not at any home game, society game, or convention. Not since the early days when everyone declared before any action is resolved (back when rolling low in initiative was a GOOD thing!)
|
Creative Director
|
[lol yes, but that then means that you must declare every aspect of your action ahead of time, such as:
"I declare I am going to use a Full Attack to attack target 1 with two hits, target 2 with one hit and target 3 with one hit and then five foot step to space X"Then the Full attack begins, so I assume when the player changes his mind he then redeclares "After that first attack hit I am changing my declaration to instead use a Full Attack to hit target 1 and then move my 30 feet movement to one space forward, diagonal north 1 space, forward one space, diagonal again one space (which counts as two spaces bringing my movement to 25 feet) and then move the last 5 feet forward again."
Or rather in actual play do you just DO it and count your movement as you go and your iterative attacks as you go... or do you really declare every aspect of your action before you do anything at all?
That is what I mean :) I have never seen a game require you to declare all possible variations of your action before you actually do anything at all.
I mean really it changes the way the game is played to do so. So I am seeking clarification here. I suspect I have been doing it wrong all along!
You obviously don't have to be super formal about it. The general assumption is that if you're standing next to a target and you say "I attack" then that's what you're doing; attacking.
Cleave causes SPECIFIC things to happen, though; if you don't say you're cleaving before your first attack, you can't decide to cleave after your first attack resolves unless your GM is particularly easy-going.
Cleave, just like other unusual combat maneuvers, like bull rush or trample or Gorgon's Fist or Stunning Attack requires you to communicate your action to the GM. And in the case of Cleave, you have to take a standard action to do it, so other actions you may have already taken in the round might just prevent you from doing what you want. It's not a matter of declaring everything before hand as much as it is everything you do during your turn simply narrows the options for what you can do during the remainder of your turn until there's just no more time in your turn to do anything.
I think it should just be pointed out that being able to choose whether to stop the Iterative Full Attack and take a Move Action after the first attack is a SPECIFIC FEATURE of Full Attack, not a general rule applicable to any and all actions/ attack types:
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.
My only question: This first attack after abandoning your Full Attack would appear to be a Standard Action. The default (and possibly only) way to make a single attack with a Standard Action is via the Attack Action. If you choose to abandon the Full Attack after the first hit, is your first attack then classed as an Attack Action for all that is relevant for (Vital Strike, etc)?
I don't think it would be the worst thing in the world to allow deciding between a Full Attack and a Cleave after the first attack roll, but it must be recognized 1) that the 'decide between full and single attack' is a specific feature of full attack which doesn't suggest that 'special' standard actions are a valid decision, and 2) that the vast majority of players are not at all familiar with a play style where actions don't necessarily NEED to be declared, i.e. they only become 'fixed' when you pass an exclusive theshold ruling out other actions.
That play-style also suggests that you may (momentarilly) suffer 'conditions' that you may technically not need to if you don't choose to declare that you are closing off your options, i.e. though you maintain the OPTION of using a Standard Action if interrupted at or below your Move distance, you still must suffer the Flat-Footed penalty for Running if you want the OPTION of continuing that into a Full-Round Run (at least until you choose to abandon the OPTION to take the action associated with said condition), even though you may not actually use the Full-Round Run action. Generally I think this approach is better realized by the GM interceding and telling player's that they can modify their actions if new information comes up.
|
Creative Director
|
My only question: This first attack after abandoning your Full Attack would appear to be a Standard Action. The default (and possibly only) way to make a single attack with a Standard Action is via the Attack Action. If you choose to abandon the Full Attack after the first hit, is your first attack then classed as an Attack Action for all that is relevant for (Vital Strike, etc)?
If your GM is cool with you playing fast and loose with things, sure! If I were GMing, I certainly wouldn't mind.
|
James I need to apologize profusely.
Apparently my simple question has broken the intertubes and caused the question to start spilling into other threads. Really, I never intended to have it become this heated of a debate.
The other thread hit almost 400 posts, here's to hoping you're able to stick your finger in the hole before the leak makes this thread 400 posts too.
My only question: This first attack after abandoning your Full Attack would appear to be a Standard Action. The default (and possibly only) way to make a single attack with a Standard Action is via the Attack Action. If you choose to abandon the Full Attack after the first hit, is your first attack then classed as an Attack Action for all that is relevant for (Vital Strike, etc)?If your GM is cool with you playing fast and loose with things, sure! If I were GMing, I certainly wouldn't mind.
OK, just to be clear on this, by the RAW that first attack ISN'T actually a Standard Action (with which the only generally-available way to make a single attack is the Attack Action), it still is a Full Round Action and you are just getting a 'bonus' Move Action?
I think if the single attack if you decide to give up Full Attack (to take another Move Action) is recognized as NOT being a Standard Action at all, that it may help clarify the issue re: deciding about Cleave after the first hit for posters like Krome.
The only thing I see that would SUPPORT the 'single attack from abandoned Full Attack' being an Attack Action is that in the bolded header of that section, "Attack" is capitalized which is only seen in the context of the Attack Action, not general 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, 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.
The way I see it, Cleave and Vital Strike are the 'swing for the fence' options. You're putting EVERYTHING you've got into one intense swing with very specific goals in mind. In the case of cleave, that goal is 'I'm gonna hit you so hard I'll cut right through you and into your buddy'. It's a much more concentrated effort than what you would commit to in a 'normal' iterative attack. It's not something that 'just happens' anymore. You need to make a conscious decision to use such an attack before hand and then you need to 'set up' for it.
|
Creative Director
|
]OK, just to be clear on this, by the RAW that first attack ISN'T actually a Standard Action (with which the only generally-available way to make a single attack is the Attack Action), it still is a Full Round Action and you are just getting a 'bonus' Move Action?
That makes things fantastically overcomplicated to achieve the same end result.
If you make only a single attack, whether or not you started that round planning on making a full attack action, the fact that you only made one single attack turns it into a standard action.
If you make only a single attack, whether or not you started that round planning on making a full attack action, the fact that you only made one single attack turns it into a standard action.
OK, but what Standard Action is it? The only one available to everybody which does a single attack is the Attack Action, which is obliquely suggested by the capitalization of Attack in the sub-section heading. Perhaps (despite the heading) it could be some undefined Standard Action which does the same thing as Attack Action but doesn't qualify for Vital Strike, but it seems for coherency that it should just BE an Attack Action (and ideally, the wording slightly clarified to actualy use the phrase Attack Action, i.e. "Deciding between an Attack Action or a Full Attack").
|
I am wondering if people are mixing in 1st and 2nd editions with their Pathfinder :) I remember in those editions you rolled initiative, declared your actions and then once everyone declared actions they resolved the declared actions. 3.x does not use that method.I just made a scan of the PRD, and no where in the combat section does the word Declare appear.
please, point to the rule that states that your action must be declared.
1st ed = declare action, applied weapon speed only if appropriate (matched init, etc)
2nd ed = declare action, action has init mod, apply action init mods and resolve how actions go for the round, check every round. BEST DAMN SYSTEM EVER.And yeah, there is no declare statement for Cleave in the PFRPG full pdf. It does say that it is a Standard action which results in a attack and then a second attack if you hit with first. That being said I would assume it is a declared action since it's replacing the attack with something that includes an attack and possibly a bonus attack to an adjacent foe.
|
|
I have absolutely no problem with using Cleave as a declared action at all and incurring the -2 AC penalty the entire round regardless of whether you hit the first target at all and actually get to use the Cleave.
I think my real confusion is the whole "declaring" thing. And yes the old system rocked!
Let me describe a "normal" person's action the way I usually see it in play. Then maybe you will see why I find it confusing.
Okay, it is my turn. I'm looking at the map and there are just dozens of options I have. I don't know exactly what I want to do, but I have a vague idea that I want to go over to that Hobgoblin and hit it. It would be nice to Cleave the goblin next to it if I hit. Heck I would LIKE to Trip the Hobgoblin and then Cleave the goblin, but I am not sure I can do that. So while thinking about it I go ahead and move towards the Hobgoblin. Since I am preoccupied about what I am going to do once I actually get there I move through a threatened space and provoke an Attack of Opportunity that misses.
Okay I continue my move and decide I want to Cleave. I attack the Hobgoblin and miss. I can't make the attack on the goblin after all.
BUT THEN the GM points out that since I used Cleave my AC was in fact two points lower and the AoO actually did hit. I take retro damage.
Well Crud Bucket!
See that is the problem I can see easily happening with requiring declarations. It is either play that way, and have stuff applied in retro to you, or declare everything before you do anything and it locks you in absolutely with no chance to alter your choices (except a few rare circumstances).
NOW before anyone gets all huffy at me, I think I would actually prefer everything be declared ahead of time. It eliminates confusion and clearly expresses intent. However, the rules do not say you are supposed to actually declare your intent.
IF I had my way! lol I would require the initiative loser declare his actions, and move up the initiative until everyone has declared and screwed with each other and THEN resolve all of the actions. the last guy acting is hosed... but then we get to roll initiative again...oh wait darn no we don't! UGGGGGGGGGGGGG lol
Look I really am not trying to be a jerk about this and I know you guys think I am. I am just trying to wrap my head around this whole declaration idea that I thought was long abandoned but seems to have resurfaced (though there are no rules for it) :)
EDIT: "normal" person being people I have played 3.x with... sorry didn't want anyone else playing a different style to think I thought they were weird or anything... you know as if ANYONE sitting around playing in an imaginary world is weird! :)
|
|
I am wondering if people are mixing in 1st and 2nd editions with their Pathfinder :) I remember in those editions you rolled initiative, declared your actions and then once everyone declared actions they resolved the declared actions. 3.x does not use that method.I just made a scan of the PRD, and no where in the combat section does the word Declare appear.
please, point to the rule that states that your action must be declared.
1st ed = declare action, applied weapon speed only if appropriate (matched init, etc)
2nd ed = declare action, action has init mod, apply action init mods and resolve how actions go for the round, check every round. BEST DAMN SYSTEM EVER.
Yep best system ever!
And yeah, there is no declare statement for Cleave in the PFRPG full pdf. It does say that it is a Standard action which results in a attack and then a second attack if you hit with first. That being said I would assume it is a declared action since it's replacing the attack with something that includes an attack and possibly a bonus attack to an adjacent foe.
You know what the say when you Ass-u-me!
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
BUT THEN the GM points out that since I used Cleave my AC was in fact two points lower and the AoO actually did hit. I take retro damage.
I don't think I agree with that ruling. You wouldn't take the AC penalty until you used Cleave, which could not have happened until after you completed your Move (which is when the AoO was provoked).
That said, I find the declaration/resolution problem crops up most often with double move retreat - even having played 3.x for over 10 years, my players will still screw up and try to take an action after doing a move and complain about that triggering an AoO.
I think people are getting confused between the 3.5 Cleave and the PF Cleave:
The PF Cleave is a declared Standard Action.
The 3.5 cleave is a "freebie" extra attack if you drop a creature.
I am wondering if people are mixing in 1st and 2nd editions with their Pathfinder :) I remember in those editions you rolled initiative, declared your actions and then once everyone declared actions they resolved the declared actions. 3.x does not use that method.
I just made a scan of the PRD, and no where in the combat section does the word Declare appear.
please, point to the rule that states that your action must be declared.
It's common sense. Your initiative is 17, your turn comes up and what do you? There is when you tell the DM what you are doing. It's called declaring your actions or telling the DM what you are doing. If you don't tell the DM you are using Cleave then you aren't using Cleave. It's that simple. It's not like you can keep it secret, we DM's aren't mind readers.
I mean what does I attack mean. Is it a just a standard action melee attack, are you using trip, disarm, Cleave, whirlwind, or something else. Are you applying vital strike, arcane strike, power attack. I need to know as DM. That's declaring you actions.
Also to not tell allow for cheating. For example faced with two adjacent enemies. You have 2 attacks and you have cleave. You need to hit AC 18 for either enemy to hit and have +8/+3. You roll 19 and 10. Since you didn't tell the DM do you get to choose at this time that since you miss with that 10 if you use a Full Attack but you hit twice if you use Cleave which you are using. That to me is cheating. Before you roll you decide is it Cleave or a Full Attack then live with the results of the die roll. You don't get to roll first then say oh cleave work better here. Sure Cleave hitting 2 enemies once is better than hitting one enemy once but hitting one enemy twice is the best.
|
|
You know what the say when you Ass-u-me!
LOL
And yeah, I am with you with intent on this one Krome, the replacement action which equals or results in a variant attack can create weirdness because it can shut down alternate attacks if the new standard action effect (attack) doesn't work or go through.
I guess that is why I went back and modified the 2nd ed initiative for my PF games.
Casters know fear, no locked action cycles, melee doesn't suck - each round is a contest on who can get the upper hand and win. Each action has a speed consequence and changing actions round-by-round can determine if you win initiative and thus the fight.
THUSLY!
|
|
BUT THEN the GM points out that since I used Cleave my AC was in fact two points lower and the AoO actually did hit. I take retro damage.I don't think I agree with that ruling. You wouldn't take the AC penalty until you used Cleave, which could not have happened until after you completed your Move (which is when the AoO was provoked).
I agree... BUT If the first attack misses, then there is no opportunity to Cleave, but since we must declare we are Cleaving whether we have an opportunity to do so or not, we still incur the penalty.
It makes sense then that if the penalty is the result of intention and not the ability to actually perform the action then the movement phase should suffer the same penalty... You are supposed to declare your intent before your action, so movement was part of the action so it too should incur the penalty.
BUT THEN the GM points out that since I used Cleave my AC was in fact two points lower and the AoO actually did hit. I take retro damage.I don't think I agree with that ruling. You wouldn't take the AC penalty until you used Cleave, which could not have happened until after you completed your Move (which is when the AoO was provoked).I agree... BUT If the first attack misses, then there is no opportunity to Cleave, but since we must declare we are Cleaving whether we have an opportunity to do so or not, we still incur the penalty.
It makes sense then that if the penalty is the result of intention and not the ability to actually perform the action then the movement phase should suffer the same penalty... You are supposed to declare your intent before your action, so movement was part of the action so it too should incur the penalty.
Cleave is an extraordinary ability that allows you to use an a standard action to potentially hit two foes. Without the feat you only get to attack one person with a standard action.
edit: I did not know you had been convinced. Ignore my post on the issue. :)
You get to A: do the vanilla attack.
B: Do the special attack but with the risk of lowering AC.
Read the OP's post with my description of it.
In a discussion of cleave most people think you must declare you are cleaving before the first attack. That when you cleave you are taking the risk of not hitting on the first attempt and the act of cleaving at the start of attacking the first enemy with the intent of following through to another brings the negative 2.
To quote wraithstrike:
"Cleaving is not the action of hitting and taking negative two. Cleaving is the intent of hitting one person with a follow through into the 2nd person. That is why you have to declare it ahead of time, so that if you hit or miss you still take the AC penalty."A few other people think that a player can take his first attack and if it hits then decide to cleave or continue on with normal full round attack.
To quote james madison:
"What action type it eats up hasn't been determined as yet.
It could be anything that's consistent with that melee attack.It could be a full attack action.
It could be a standard attack action, leaving the PC with a move.
After the PC resolves that attack they can decide which they want to do, as both are consistent with what they've done up to that point."
It is becoming a heated thread and a final this is what the feat does comment would be nice to resolve it with.
[pointless self promotion and bragging] Yeah yeah he mentioned me yeah
[/pointless self promotion and bragging]
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
BUT THEN the GM points out that since I used Cleave my AC was in fact two points lower and the AoO actually did hit. I take retro damage.I don't think I agree with that ruling. You wouldn't take the AC penalty until you used Cleave, which could not have happened until after you completed your Move (which is when the AoO was provoked).I agree... BUT If the first attack misses, then there is no opportunity to Cleave, but since we must declare we are Cleaving whether we have an opportunity to do so or not, we still incur the penalty.
It makes sense then that if the penalty is the result of intention and not the ability to actually perform the action then the movement phase should suffer the same penalty... You are supposed to declare your intent before your action, so movement was part of the action so it too should incur the penalty.
I guess I'm confused as to what was provoking the AoO. Here's what I think you said:
Move Action: Moved into position, provoked AoO.
Standard Action: Made a cleave attack, took a -2 penalty to AC.
DM: -2 penalty applies to AC earlier in the round.
I don't think that's the case. The -2 penalty would only apply once you took the standard action - that's what (and when) you are declaring it.
|
|
It's common sense. Your initiative is 17, your turn comes up and what do you? There is when you tell the DM what you are doing. It's called declaring your actions or telling the DM what you are doing. If you don't tell the DM you are using Cleave then you aren't using Cleave. It's that simple. It's not like you can keep it secret, we DM's aren't mind readers.
Actually not common sense at all. :) Just an assumption. Declaration of intent has not been part of the rules since 2nd edition. A GM does not need to be a mind reader at all to not use declaration. In the case of Cleave, I can declare I am making a Cleave, or I can roll to attack (stating which target I am attacking), and once the condition for Cleave becomes evident I can then say I am now Cleaving this other valid target. No mind reading needed. The GM now knows my action and can do whatever needs to be done.
I mean what does I attack mean. Is it a just a standard action melee attack, are you using trip, disarm, Cleave, whirlwind, or something else. Are you applying vital strike, arcane strike, power attack. I need to know as DM. That's declaring you actions.
I attack means I attack. Pretty simple to me. I trip means I trip. Interestingly a cleave cannot happen until an attack has happened yet it needs to be declared before it CAN happen.
I assume that in your games, you have your players declare their entire action before they actually execute any part of it. I also assume that they use a series of If/And statements to clarify their options, turning the game into a flow chart of options. That sounds rather dull.
I also assume that as GM you fully declare the entirety of your intended actions before you actually execute any portion of action.
Don't get me wrong I think that is awesome, but ummmm no where in the rules since pre 3rd edition is either the GM or player required to fully declare the entirety of their intent prior to executing any portion of the action.
Also to not tell allow for cheating. For example faced with two adjacent enemies. You have 2 attacks and you have cleave. You need to hit AC 18 for either enemy to hit and have +8/+3. You roll 19 and 10. Since you didn't tell the DM do you get to choose at this time that since you miss with that 10 if you use a Full Attack but you hit twice if you use Cleave which you are using. That to me is cheating. Before you roll you decide is it Cleave or a Full Attack then live with the results of the die roll. You don't get to roll first then say oh cleave work better here. Sure Cleave hitting 2 enemies once is better than hitting one enemy once but hitting one enemy twice is the best.
I try not to associate with people who lie and cheat. My friends make mistakes, sure, but I hang out with a better class of people I suppose.
In the situation you describe above, did you move before you made the attack, if so, full attack is not even an option so no chance of cheating. If not, you are faced with a problem... do you actually trust the person you are playing with? Let me ask you this... if the player declares a Full Attack and rolls all of the attacks at once do you trust that person to properly assign the dice the appropriate modifier or do you worry that they will cheat and add the lowest modifiers to the lowest rolls ensuring the most hits? If so, first find better friends, then second require all dice rolls to be made one at a time.
Regardless I suggest finding new friends. It is not good to associate with liars and cheaters and while you may want to influence them to the good side, they are just as likely to influence you to the dark. Yep better to not associate with those kinds of people.
(and yes, long ago we had a friend who cheated. Once we caught him and explained the situation he continued to cheat. We stopped associating with him at all. Even outside the game we had nothing to do with him.)
|
|
I don't want to have the same argument here that we are having on the other thread, so I will direct you to the other thread where other posters beside myself have stated why you can't cleave during a full attack action. I know there are a lot of posts to read, but I feel it is worth your time to do so.think of it this way
in order to swing and hit 2 people (flavor wise cleave is 1 attack, even if it requires 2 rolls) you need a certain stance(giving thew -2ac), you cant do it as an after thought. you have to intentionally be attempting to hit 2 people when you cleave,
Please refer to RAW that describes this. :)
If a Full Attack, which allows you to place your attacks upon multiple targets (not just on one target) allows you to change your intent from hitting multiple targets to instead only hit one once, allows you to switch from multiple to a single attack with no "stance" change, then why does Cleave require that since it has always been a standard action from the beginning?
:)
Personally no longer worried about Cleave at all.
trying to find where in the rules you are required to declare intentions in full to begin with. :) This is a rule that 3.x abandoned long ago.
Yes please it was not my intention to have people discuss the same matter in this thread, just to get some staff feedback.
stuff about my last post.
I saw where you agreed, and I tried to delete the post you quoted, but I was to late.
|
|
BUT THEN the GM points out that since I used Cleave my AC was in fact two points lower and the AoO actually did hit. I take retro damage.I don't think I agree with that ruling. You wouldn't take the AC penalty until you used Cleave, which could not have happened until after you completed your Move (which is when the AoO was provoked).I agree... BUT If the first attack misses, then there is no opportunity to Cleave, but since we must declare we are Cleaving whether we have an opportunity to do so or not, we still incur the penalty.
It makes sense then that if the penalty is the result of intention and not the ability to actually perform the action then the movement phase should suffer the same penalty... You are supposed to declare your intent before your action, so movement was part of the action so it too should incur the penalty.
I guess I'm confused as to what was provoking the AoO. Here's what I think you said:
Move Action: Moved into position, provoked AoO.
Standard Action: Made a cleave attack, took a -2 penalty to AC.
DM: -2 penalty applies to AC earlier in the round.I don't think that's the case. The -2 penalty would only apply once you took the standard action - that's what (and when) you are declaring it.
EXACTLY my point.
and yet it seems others require your intentions be declared before any action at all in your turn is executed.
The way I see it, you "declare" you action as it becomes relevant to the moment at hand. Others want you to declare your action in advance, failing to do so results in retro results.
here is my logic as to why you do not declare cleave (or other similar actions)
I am facing a hobgoblin and a goblin. I want to attack the hobgoblin and cleave the goblin. But I CANNOT cleave the goblin unless I hit the Hobgoblin first. It is just not possible. In fact I do not even qualify to attempt to cleave the goblin until I do hit the hobgoblin.
If I miss the hobgoblin I NEVER qualify to cleave the goblin. Yet I am expected to suffer the penalties for an action I never qualified to execute.
In essence I must declare my intentions before I am even qualified to consider that possible option. Logically then if I must declare my intention to cleave something for which I am not qualified to cleave, I must also declare my intention to attack the hobgoblin before I move and qualify to hit it, therefore I must declare the entirety of my action before I can execute any portion of it. Therefore I must declare I am moving to a position to attack the hobgoblin and cleave the goblin before I make any action at all, even my move. My declaration has been made, I now suffer the -2 AC at the beginning of my movement...
So if you want declaring it must be done at the beginning of your round before any action takes place. Therefore incurring all penalties from the beginning regardless of outcome.
See now my question becomes what happens when your declaration is interrupted? I must declare my movement to the Hobgoblin so I can make the attack, and make the declared Cleave. Then someone interrupts my movement with Stand Still. Now what? I had a -2 AC because of the Cleave, but am no longer to actually Cleave anything. My actions have been declared so I can continue with my action per Stand Still, yet have no target to execute against. Now I am just screwed. I suffer the -2 AC penalty, lose my movement, and am unable to make my attacks at all because had to declare my intentions before executing any of them.
BTW I think this just plain rocks! My tank would LOVE for this to be the norm! Seriously as a tank that just rocks!