|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I have seen various posts about this already so my forward apologies if I am just not understanding the interpretation.
Question #1:
Can you use Power Attack w/Overhand Chop?
Question #2:
Can you use Power Attack w/Overhand Chop while Charging?
Question #3:
Can you use Cleave w/Overhand Chop?
Question #4:
Can you use Cleave w/Overhand Chop while Charging?
Any clarification on this would be greatly appreciated.
Forgive me if I am confused on some of the rules, I have just recently began a new game and have to have a refresher course on the rules before we play our first game.
Yar!
1: Yes.
2: Yes.
3: No.
4: No.
Explanations:
Power Attack is something that modifies your attacks. It does not require a specific action to use (and by specific action, I mean Standard action, Full-Attack Action, Move Action, Swift Action, Immediate Action, and Free Action)
Thus, Power Attack CAN be used with action that do require a specific action.
Cleave, Overhand Chop, and Charge DO require a specific action to use, as described in the ability.
Cleave requires that you use a Standard Action. It CANNOT be combined with other standard actions because you can only have ONE standard action per turn.
Charging used a Full round action. It cannot be combined with any other action UNLESS it has a specific instance that says otherwise.
Overhand Chop used a Standard Action (the attack action) AND has the stipulation that it can also be used as the one attack at the end of a Charge.
~P
First, a clarification. You mean the Overhand Chop extra-ordinary ability from the Advanced Players Guide page 108, not the Beta Playtest feat of the same name, correct ?
The reason I ask is the feat requires a standard action, but the extra-ordinary ability requires only a single attack with the attack action OR a charge.
Assuming you mean the extra-ordinary ability;
#1) Yes
#2) Yes
#3) Possibly. Cleave is a standard action. Is this standard action ALSO an attack action, and thus able to use Overhand Chop(Ex) ? Probably. GM call.
#4) Probably not. Charge is a full-round action (except when it's a partial charge special case). It is not a special move action followed by a special standard action, so no cleave.
edit: blasted ninjas
Yar!
I'm more definitive in my no for #3 because of the many, many threads and posts about Vital Strike and the eventual clarification made there by the creators of the game that an Attack Action is a Standard Action. Therefore, Cleave is a Standard Action, and making a Single Attack (the Attack Action) is a Standard Action as well. The two are separate entities even though they are both called "attacks".
Overhand Chop states "...when a two-handed fighter makes a single attack (with the attack action or a charge) with a two-handed weapon..."
It does not say "as in with the attack action or on a charge". If it did then I would say that any single attack would benefit. But instead it lists in brackets the two actions that it applies to (the attack action and a single attack at the end of a charge). This is a very strict and literal reading of the ability, but I believe it to be accurate RAW.
~P
I have a question about Overhand chop, could it be used with VItal Strike?
That question has led me to to create this post in the first place...
Overhand Chop does not cost a standard Action on it's own. It is a special ability which modifies certain types of standard actions. Vital Strike does cost a standard action.
You should be able to use Overhand Chop with any attack action including Vital Strike. The ability does not say it COSTS a standard action or 'as a standard action you may...'. It says if your already doing X then Overhand Chop gives your Y while doing it.
Much like Power Attack, Overhand Chops is a 'special ability' that does not in and of itself have any action cost. It is a modifier to other actions with some restrictions on use.
Cleave is tricky. It is something that has come up in my games as well. If you cleave and hit you are making multiple attacks, therefore overhand chop does not apply. However if you cleave and miss it's a moot point. Regardless of whether it is RAW or RAW I'd suggest splitting the difference and getting overhand chop on the initial attack, but not on any subsequent attacks that may result from a Cleave attempt.
my $0.02
|
|
Then what's to stop one from just using Cleave all the time (with Overhand Chop and Vital Strike "plugged in") and hoping for the best?
Visually I see the fighter having two choices, Overhand Chop for a nasty vertical strike doing high single target damage, OR using Cleave as an area-of-effect horizontal attack.
Yar.
Bolding is simply for emphasis.
Cleave is a Standard Action that gives you additional attacks if your first one hits. Cleave is not an Attack Action (standard action) but a Cleave (standard action).
Overhand Chop is an addition to the Attack Action and Charges provided only a single attack is made (no pouncing).
Vital Strike is an addition to the single attack Attack Action only.
From this, I say that you CAN use Vital Strike and Overhand Chop on the same Attack Action. Cleave is not an Attack Action but a Standard Action. You still cannot use Vital Strike on a Charge, nor can you use Cleave on a charge, nor can you use Vital Strike on a Cleave, nor can you use Overhand Chop on a Cleave.
yeah.
~P
Yar.
Bolding is simply for emphasis.
Cleave is a Standard Action that gives you additional attacks if your first one hits. Cleave is not an Attack Action (standard action) but a Cleave (standard action).
Overhand Chop is an addition to the Attack Action and Charges provided only a single attack is made (no pouncing).
Vital Strike is an addition to the single attack Attack Action only.
From this, I say that you CAN use Vital Strike and Overhand Chop on the same Attack Action. Cleave is not an Attack Action but a Standard Action. You still cannot use Vital Strike on a Charge, nor can you use Cleave on a charge, nor can you use Vital Strike on a Cleave, nor can you use Overhand Chop on a Cleave.
yeah.
~P
Vital Strike is a spcific type of attack action. Attack actions are standard actions.
This does not change the correctness of your post, but it is a small nitpick that matters.
I completely disagree. There is no "feat action". As referenced in the combat section: THESE are the acceptable "standard actions", and not once is 'feat action' mentioned; a feat might make you use a standard action, but that standard action your using will be 'attack'.
------------------------
Attack (melee) No
Attack (ranged) Yes
Attack (unarmed) Yes
Activate a magic item other than a potion or oil No
Aid another Maybe2
Cast a spell (1 standard action casting time) Yes
Channel energy No
Concentrate to maintain an active spell No
Dismiss a spell No
Draw a hidden weapon (see Sleight of Hand skill) No
Drink a potion or apply an oil Yes
Escape a grapple No
Feint No
Light a torch with a tindertwig Yes
Lower spell resistance No
Read a scroll Yes
Ready (triggers a standard action) No
Stabilize a dying friend (see Heal skill) Yes
Total defense No
Use extraordinary ability No
Use skill that takes 1 action Usually
Use spell-like ability Yes
Use supernatural ability No
I completely disagree. There is no "feat action". As referenced in the combat section: THESE are the acceptable "standard actions", and not once is 'feat action' mentioned; a feat might make you use a standard action, but that standard action your using will be 'attack'.
Look in the Combat chapter, in Table: Actions in Combat, under the "Action Type Varies" header. "Use feat"
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."
Cleave (Combat): "As a standard action, you can...."
Use feat (Cleave) is a standard action.
The attack action is a completely different standard action.
Also, this was an old thread.
Wraithstrike's old link no longer works, but here's Jason Bulmahn's response to this question.