| 6 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can you trip or disarm (Both attack actions) in place of an attack during a cleave?
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Can you trip or disarm (Both attack actions) in place of an attack during a cleave?
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.
Your first attack must deal damage, but you might be able to use a combat manoeuvre that takes the place of an attack for the second.
You can't use Sunder because it must be done as part of an attack action.
Can you trip or disarm (Both attack actions) in place of an attack during a cleave?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.Your first attack must deal damage, but you might be able to use a combat manoeuvre that takes the place of an attack for the second.
You can't use Sunder because it must be done as part of an attack action.
Dealing damage is not a requirement of cleave. It just says you do normal damage, which if using a combat maneuver, would be 0.
That being said, I'm not sure combat maneuvers work with cleave. I'd like to think you would be able to use disarm, sunder, and trip, but the former two don't target your foe directly (which DOES seem to be a requirement of cleave).
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
As the quoted Cleave description states, you only get the extra attack if you "hit". Attacks "hit" or "miss". Combat maneuvers "succeed" or "fail". Therefore, it is impossible to "hit" with a combat maneuver, and by extension, it is therefore impossible to trigger your extra attack if you use a CM the first time.
Even so, nothing's preventing you from replacing the second attack with a Disarm or Trip.
|
As the quoted Cleave description states, you only get the extra attack if you "hit". Attacks "hit" or "miss". Combat maneuvers "succeed" or "fail". Therefore, it is impossible to "hit" with a combat maneuver, and by extension, it is therefore impossible to trigger your extra attack if you use a CM the first time.
Even so, nothing's preventing you from replacing the second attack with a Disarm or Trip.
Meh, I can see where you're going with this, and I think RAI suggests that Cleave is intended to be a sweeping blow which strikes and does damage. However, RAW doesn't seem to prevent the cleave attacks from being substituted with combat maneuvers such as Trip or Disarm, since they can be used "in place of a melee attack." A cleave is still a melee attack.
EDIT: Since the combat maneuvers replace one consequence of the attack with another (an "effect" instead of damage) and since these consequences don't stack, I can't see any reason not to allow it (and rules seem to support it). In fact, I'd even allow the character with cleave to "mix" the results - perhaps attempting to trip, disarm, or sunder one opponent while simply damaging the next. These options can make for some fun and interesting twists in combat.
I would also like to add that combat maneuvers are still attack rolls and thus can still "hit" or "miss."
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Meh, I can see where you're going with this, and I think RAI suggests that Cleave is intended to be a sweeping blow which strikes and does damage. However, RAW doesn't seem to prevent the cleave attacks from being substituted with combat maneuvers such as Trip or Disarm, since they can be used "in place of a melee attack." A cleave is still a melee attack.As the quoted Cleave description states, you only get the extra attack if you "hit". Attacks "hit" or "miss". Combat maneuvers "succeed" or "fail". Therefore, it is impossible to "hit" with a combat maneuver, and by extension, it is therefore impossible to trigger your extra attack if you use a CM the first time.
Even so, nothing's preventing you from replacing the second attack with a Disarm or Trip.
When you say "the cleave attacks" can be substituted, do you mean "the attack that triggers cleave", "the attack produced by cleave", or both?
|
|
When you say "the cleave attacks" can be substituted, do you mean "the attack that triggers cleave", "the attack produced by cleave", or both?Meh, I can see where you're going with this, and I think RAI suggests that Cleave is intended to be a sweeping blow which strikes and does damage. However, RAW doesn't seem to prevent the cleave attacks from being substituted with combat maneuvers such as Trip or Disarm, since they can be used "in place of a melee attack." A cleave is still a melee attack.As the quoted Cleave description states, you only get the extra attack if you "hit". Attacks "hit" or "miss". Combat maneuvers "succeed" or "fail". Therefore, it is impossible to "hit" with a combat maneuver, and by extension, it is therefore impossible to trigger your extra attack if you use a CM the first time.
Even so, nothing's preventing you from replacing the second attack with a Disarm or Trip.
See my edit above: I'd allow the character to substitute 1 or more of the simple "to hit" attack rolls of the cleave with a combat maneuver that can be used in place of a melee attack (trip, sunder, disarm).
EDIT to my EDIT: These combat maneuvers can also trigger attacks of opportunity, if un-feated, which could make things even MORE interesting.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
When you say "the cleave attacks" can be substituted, do you mean "the attack that triggers cleave", "the attack produced by cleave", or both?Meh, I can see where you're going with this, and I think RAI suggests that Cleave is intended to be a sweeping blow which strikes and does damage. However, RAW doesn't seem to prevent the cleave attacks from being substituted with combat maneuvers such as Trip or Disarm, since they can be used "in place of a melee attack." A cleave is still a melee attack.As the quoted Cleave description states, you only get the extra attack if you "hit". Attacks "hit" or "miss". Combat maneuvers "succeed" or "fail". Therefore, it is impossible to "hit" with a combat maneuver, and by extension, it is therefore impossible to trigger your extra attack if you use a CM the first time.
Even so, nothing's preventing you from replacing the second attack with a Disarm or Trip.
See my edit above: I'd allow the character to substitute 1 or more of the simple "to hit" attack rolls of the cleave with a combat maneuver that can be used in place of a melee attack (trip, sunder, disarm).
EDIT to my EDIT: These combat maneuvers can also trigger attacks of opportunity, if un-feated, which could make things even MORE interesting.
To be clear, I don't think the ability to use Trip/Disarm in place of the first attack was in question; rather, the real issue is whether or not you could do so and then still get your extra attack. Speaking of...
@Ravingdork - Can you offer rules text to support your assertion that CMs "hit"? You are correct in pointing out that a CM check is a type of attack roll, but that does not inherently mean that it "hits", especially since the rules always use succeed/fail language rather than hit/miss language.
|
|
To be clear, I don't think the ability to use Trip/Disarm in place of the first attack was in question; rather, the real issue is whether or not you could do so and then still get your extra attack. Speaking of...
If we don't get hung up on the semantics of "hit" vs. "success" then I can't see why the character can't get the follow-up attack. If the character "hits/succeeds" on the first attack, he or she should get the 2nd attack against an adjacent target. The character paid for the feat, and rules seem to allow it, unless you take as gospel that cleave reads "hit" and you don't feel trip/sunder/disarm is something that can "hit" a target.
If "hit" is a RAW term in the GM's eyes, and the special attacks don't specify that they "hit" a target, then I guess the GM can rule that special attacks aren't allowed as part of a cleave.
If "hit" is a relative concept and is synonymous with "success" when making a melee attack in the GM's eyes (such as mine), then a special attack which can be used "in place of a melee attack" is a reasonable substitute, and they can be applied to 1 or more of the cleave attacks.
@Ravingdork - Can you offer rules text to support your assertion that CMs "hit"? You are correct in pointing out that a CM check is a type of attack roll, but that does not inherently mean that it "hits", especially since the rules always use succeed/fail language rather than hit/miss language.
Can you trip, sunder, or disarm an opponent without hitting them or their objects? You're making contact, one way or another. /shrug
EDIT: And this, from pg. 199 of the core rule book, "Combat maneuvers are attack rolls, so you must roll for concealment and take any other penalties that would normally apply to an attack roll." It's pretty clear that CMs are just another "type" of attack, and it's pretty clear that trip/sunder/disarm specifically state they can be used in place of a melee attack, and it's pretty clear that a Cleave makes melee attacks. The rest is just semantics and opinion.
|
Can you trip or disarm (Both attack actions) in place of an attack during a cleave?
For what its worth, I'd say no.
Rationale: Player is either cleaving or using CM but not both.I'll be interested to hear what other say, I'm open to reason, and would like to learn if I am roughly mistaken per RAW.
Quick Edit: "Paying for" something doesn't necessarily equal an entitlement.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@Red Wullf: I was merely trying to focus discussion onto what the real crux of the issue is; I've noticed many rules threads involve people listing reasons for their views when only a fraction of those reasons are actually relevant to the issue at hand, so I think I've started to develop a habit of pre-empting that with "here's the real issue" statements.
For myself, I'm honestly not sure how I would rule (if I were GMing and it came up) on Hit vs. Succeed. The arguments for synonymy of hit and succeed do not seem unreasonable, yet at the same time I can't ignore the consistent use of different wording in the actual rules (being an RA in MtG has trained me to pay close attention to wording). I feel torn, and I don't think the answer is entirely spelled out.
If I were GMing and had to make a decision for my player right this second, I would probably resort to deciding based on a judgment call of whether I thought the player in question was trying to be "interesting" or "cheesy". :P
|
|
@Red Wullf: I was merely trying to focus discussion onto what the real crux of the issue is; I've noticed many rules threads involve people listing reasons for their views when only a fraction of those reasons are actually relevant to the issue at hand, so I think I've started to develop a habit of pre-empting that with "here's the real issue" statements.
For myself, I'm honestly not sure how I would rule (if I were GMing and it came up) on Hit vs. Succeed. The arguments for synonymy of hit and succeed do not seem unreasonable, yet at the same time I can't ignore the consistent use of different wording in the actual rules (being an RA in MtG has trained me to pay close attention to wording). I feel torn, and I don't think the answer is entirely spelled out.
If I were GMing and had to make a decision for my player right this second, I would probably resort to deciding based on a judgment call of whether I thought the player in question was trying to be "interesting" or "cheesy". :P
I hear you. Having played through a number of CM scenarios (my players are always trying to do something outside of the box), the results are always interesting and memorable, and rarely "cheesy." In the spirit of these results, I tend to not read into the semantics too much. I can't really see a good reason why a character can't utilize a feated combat attack and mix it with some combat maneuvers where the rules more or less allow them to do so. Like I said, the results are almost always "fun" and "memorable" - which is the whole point.
Maybe this will help, pg. 179 of the core rulebook:
Damage
If your attack succeeds, you deal damage. The type of weapon used determines the amount of damage you deal. Damage reduces a target’s current hit points.
There is a direct example (emphasis mine) of where the word "succeed" is used to describe an attack "hitting" and doing damage. Thus, "hit" and "succeed" can be argued to be synonymous.
Combat Maneuvers are directly stated to be attack rolls.
Attack rolls say: ¨If your result equals or beats the target's Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.¨
...With CMs replacing CMD for the AC/DC. How complicated is this?
Some maneuvers require specific actions, others happen in place of a melee attack however that may occur. (e.g. Trip and Disarm)
Cleave is a specific Standard Action that allows melee attacks. Doing damage is not a requirement, you just do damage as per normal (various Feats or abilities could plausibly allow Trip or Disarm to also do damage, I have no idea if such abilities are already printed somewhere). = You can clearly use Trip /Disarm in combo with Cleave, either for all attacks, the first one, the last one, or any other combination.
Likewise, creatures with Trip or Grab abilities can use those in combo with Cleave,
though they make ´normal´ melee attacks before their ´free´ maneuver checks (for each Cleave target).
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Maybe this will help, pg. 179 of the core rulebook:
There is a direct example (emphasis mine) of where the word "succeed" is used to describe an attack "hitting" and doing damage. Thus, "hit" and "succeed" can be argued to be synonymous.Damage
If your attack succeeds, you deal damage. The type of weapon used determines the amount of damage you deal. Damage reduces a target’s current hit points.
Aha! Yeah, when the best evidence in favor of allowing it was the "CMs use attack rolls" bit, I still leaned a little to not allowing it, but when paired with that, I think I have to lean more toward allowing a CM to trigger a Cleave.
Though I still recommend everyone check with your GMs before investing in doing this, as it's obviously not explicit enough for near-universal interpretation. ;) In fact, we should probably all mark the OP for FAQ status.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Yar.
I believe that “hit” and “success” are synonymous and not defined rules terms. If they were, then the Combat section does not make any sense at all.
If your result equals or beats the target's Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.
If your attack succeeds, you deal damage.
Attack rolls never deal damage unless you also do something that can "succeed" instead of just "hit". Sure, you "hit" it, but you didn't "succeed" against it, therefore you "hit", and you can deal damage, but only if you also "succeed" at something, as you only deal damage when your attack “succeeds”.
Furthermore:
the aggressor needs only touch a foe for the attack to take full effect.
Now we have a 3rd category: Full Effect. Touch attacks neither "hit" nor "succeed", they "touch and have full effect". So because Touch Attacks cannot "hit" or "succeed" they can never hit or do damage, they can only do special effects? What is a "Full Effect", and how does it do it?
And it goes on. Many things don't make ANY reference to anything (Hit, Succeed, Full Effect, etc), but instead say "attack" or "attack roll". Do these "hit' or "succeed"?
~~~
Personally, I would allow it with Sunder (cleave through his sword and smack into an adjacent guys armor, for example) EVEN THOUGH Sunder is an "attack action" instead of in place of an attack. This is a personal call (house rule), as it is technically illegal.
I would also allow it to work with Trip, but only if you were using a Trip weapon (literally sweeping out the legs).
I would even allow Disarm (swinging so hard you knock the weapons out of several guys hands). However, (following the flavor of cleave) I would not allow you to grab weapons disarmed if you did so via Cleave Unarmed.
(NOTE: this is a personal/GM call, as the rules do not spell out how Cleave and Combat Maneuvers interact. Just that one is an attack and one is in place of an attack).
Why (based only on rules and not personal opinion of how the flavor of the combination works)? Because I put more weight on whether an action is an "Attack" and works "in place on an attack", than on whether an action "hits" or "succeeds".
Edit: that's what I get for doing several things at once. NINJA'ED.
Edit 2: modified/clarified my opinion on Sunder + Cleave.
~P
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
If we wanted, we could also explore this:
• A combat maneuver is a type of attack.
• A disarm is a type of combat maneuver.
• A disarm can be made in place of an attack.
Therefore:
• A disarm is an instance of an attack replacing an attack.
Therefore:
• Performing a disarm causes an attack self-replacement recursion loop paradox.
Therefore:
• The universe implodes.
Therefore:
• Rocks fall. Everyone dies.
As already mentioned up-thread, Sunder is not compatable with Cleave, as Sunder uses the Attack Action while Cleave is it´s own Standard Action. Vital Strike applies to Sunder damage but not Cleave. People get confused because Sunder has the ´in place of melee attack´ wording, but overlook that it also specifies the Attack Action, i.e. it is in place of the melee attack of the Attack Action only*. OTHER than in terms of actions, Sunder works similarly to Trip/Disarm in terms of using weapon bonuses, etc.
The current RAW doesn´t remotely match the FAQ, but the latest FAQ is clear that any weapon can Trip, but weapon specific bonuses (enhancement, weapon focus) only apply to Trip Quality weapons.
* Monks can also use Sunder in place of Flurry attacks with UAS. But not with other actions, e.g. AoO´s or Cleave.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The current RAW doesn´t remotely match the FAQ, but the latest FAQ is clear that any weapon can Trip, but weapon specific bonuses (enhancement, weapon focus) only apply to Trip Quality weapons.
Dragging your rules beefs into unrelated threads, eh? Tsk tsk. ;)
|
|
Personally, I would allow it with Sunder (cleave through his sword and smack into an adjacent guys armor, for example) EVEN THOUGH Sunder is an "attack action" instead of in place of an attack. This is a personal call (house rule), as it is technically illegal.
Sure it's legal. A Cleave is a standard action (an "attack" standard action) and Sunder reads (pg. 201):
You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack.
The cleave is the attack action that the sunder is a "part of" and the melee attack is the actual strike performed with the cleave. Seems legal to me.
I´m just warning people so they don´t get confused when they go read the rules and don´t see anything about weapon specific bonuses and Trip Weapon Quality, i.e. a distinction beyond what ´in place of melee attack´ means for other maneuvers. And I´m half-way expecting that when they fix the rules to address the issue/ match the FAQ, other maneuvers may also be affected.
If I was dragging other rules issue into this thread, I would have mentioned the open issue of do ALL maneuvers have their own weapon focus feat like weapon focus: grapple, and in that case do multiple applicable weapon focus feats stack (e.g. weapon focus: kopesh and weapon focus: trip). Or mancatcher and grapple to use an example directly suggested by the core rules. ;-)
AFAIK, on SOME FAQs Paizo has included a note ´this will be clarified in future Errata´, which is a good idea when RAW doesn´t match their FAQ (RAI), but they don´t seem to do that very consistently. It seems like there isn´t a very rigorous process for when somebody at Paizo has a good idea that is broadly applicable, that it is added to the ´checklist´ for whatever processes it applies to.
Honestly, I think the "attack action" wording in sunder is simply a mistake that hasn't been caught yet. I believe the intent was for it to work more like disarm and trip.
|
|
As already mentioned up-thread, Sunder is not compatable with Cleave, as Sunder uses the Attack Action while Cleave is it´s own Standard Action. Vital Strike applies to Sunder damage but not Cleave. People get confused because Sunder has the ´in place of melee attack´ wording, but overlook that it also specifies the Attack Action, i.e. it is in place of the melee attack of the Attack Action only*. OTHER than in terms of actions, Sunder works similarly to Trip/Disarm in terms of using weapon bonuses, etc.
The current RAW doesn´t remotely match the FAQ, but the latest FAQ is clear that any weapon can Trip, but weapon specific bonuses (enhancement, weapon focus) only apply to Trip Quality weapons.
* Monks can also use Sunder in place of Flurry attacks with UAS. But not with other actions, e.g. AoO´s or Cleave.
Here we go with the delicate wording again, eh? It doesn't actually say that Sunder is its own action, it specifically reads "as part of an attack action" not "as an attack action" or (what would be most accurate) "as a standard action." It specifically reads "as part of" which signals the fact that it is not its own action, but used in conjunction with another...such as, say, a Cleave standard (attack) action...
Sure it's legal. A Cleave is a standard action (an "attack" standard action)
Except it´s NOT called an attack action is it? There´s plenty of Standard Actions, Casting a Spell or Drinking a Potion amongst them, just because you use them in the same circumstances / time requirement (Standard Action) doesn´t mean they´re the same. Cleave uses a different kind of Standard Action (it´s own unique one, essentially), while Sunder uses the Attack action (unless you´re a Monk Flurrying). Vital Strike doesn´t apply to Cleave, because it´s not the Attack Action.
Don´t try and confuse yourself by reading the Attack Action too literally though, i.e. that´s the only thing that Crits, Ranged Weapon increments, Shooting into Melee, Unarmed Strike, and Natural Weapon rules apply to if you look where those are detailed. 8-|
Honestly, I think the "attack action" wording in sunder is simply a mistake that hasn't been caught yet. I believe the intent was for it to work more like disarm and trip.
Could be. But it´s been mentioned on the boards here for long enough,
I´d expect it to have been Errata´d if that weren´t the intent though. Not that lack of Errata is proof of anything. Try digging yourself or your allies out of a snow avalanche. You will wish you were in a cave-in of rock :-)|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Honestly, I think the "attack action" wording in sunder is simply a mistake that hasn't been caught yet. I believe the intent was for it to work more like disarm and trip.
Or it could be that they wanted it to be used only during normal attacking conditions on your own turn, as opposed to during an OppAttack like you can with Disarm and Trip? Maybe? Yeah, you might be right. Just trying to look at all the options. I'd probably rule your way if it was my own game, though. :P
And I´m half-way expecting that when they fix the rules to address the issue...
Oh, I remember you now. You're the one who's anticipating the rules and FAQ to be eratta'd to match your existing interpretation. Hehe, you're fun. :)
Even so, you bring up a good point about WF: Grapple implying the possibility of WF: Disarm or whatever. Though it seems like a silly idea, I agree that it would be nice for rules and/or FAQ to address that possibility directly. Good catch.
As already mentioned up-thread, Sunder is not compatable with Cleave, as Sunder uses the Attack Action while Cleave is it´s own Standard Action. Vital Strike applies to Sunder damage but not Cleave. People get confused because Sunder has the ´in place of melee attack´ wording, but overlook that it also specifies the Attack Action, i.e. it is in place of the melee attack of the Attack Action only*. OTHER than in terms of actions, Sunder works similarly to Trip/Disarm in terms of using weapon bonuses, etc.Here we go with the delicate wording again, eh? It doesn't actually say that Sunder is its own action, it specifically reads "as part of an attack action" not "as an attack action" or (what would be most accurate) "as a standard action." It specifically reads "as part of" which signals the fact that it is not its own action, but used in conjunction with another...such as, say, a Cleave standard (attack) action...
Where am I saying that Sunder is a unique action? NOWHERE.
I specifically point out it is compatable with Vital Strike, which is applicable to the attack action ONLY.Saying ´as a Standard Action´ would NOT be the most accurate if it´s meant to be compatable with Vital Strike.
(which makes sense for a damaging maneuver)
CLEAVE is the one that is it´s own ´unique´ action, because when it says ´as a standard action´ that is not connected to any other action while consuming a standard action.
Here we go with the delicate wording again, eh? It doesn't actually say that Sunder is its own action, it specifically reads "as part of an attack action" not "as an attack action" or (what would be most accurate) "as a standard action." It specifically reads "as part of" which signals the fact that it is not its own action, but used in conjunction with another...such as, say, a Cleave standard (attack) action...As already mentioned up-thread, Sunder is not compatable with Cleave, as Sunder uses the Attack Action while Cleave is it´s own Standard Action. Vital Strike applies to Sunder damage but not Cleave. People get confused because Sunder has the ´in place of melee attack´ wording, but overlook that it also specifies the Attack Action, i.e. it is in place of the melee attack of the Attack Action only*. OTHER than in terms of actions, Sunder works similarly to Trip/Disarm in terms of using weapon bonuses, etc.
The current RAW doesn´t remotely match the FAQ, but the latest FAQ is clear that any weapon can Trip, but weapon specific bonuses (enhancement, weapon focus) only apply to Trip Quality weapons.
* Monks can also use Sunder in place of Flurry attacks with UAS. But not with other actions, e.g. AoO´s or Cleave.
The problem is an "attack action" is a specific thing in the system, and is a standard action. Sunder says it must be used as part of an attack action, and therefore it cannot be combined with cleave, whirlwind attack, AoO, or full attacks in the same way that Trip and Disarm, which do not have that wording, can be.
Oh, I remember you now. You're the one who's anticipating the rules and FAQ to be eratta'd to match your existing interpretation. Hehe, you're fun. :)
Anything but.
You can compare the FAQ to the rules yourself. Nothing in the rules remotely suggests a possible interpretation as what the FAQ says, nothing in Trip Weapons discusses uniquely applying weapon-specific enhancements, nothing in Trip Maneuver discusses NOT applying weapon-specific enhancements (as are applicable to other maneuvers which use a weapon to deliver, e.g. Disarm and Sunder). There were many debates on how the Trip Weapon Quality and the Trip Manuever RAW interacted and what the RAI was, nobody but Paizo could really know what RAI was, so the only non-controversial bit was that the rules were badly written. Nobody ever suggested that what is in the FAQ now was suggested or intended by the RAW. And as I have mentioned in other threads, the FAQ brings up the possibility that this ´rule´ would be applicable to other situations, e.g. Barbarians using Knock Back to Bullrush with their +5 Longspear. Will it remain a Trip-only rule (e.g. applicable to Knock Down but non Knock Back) or will it be generalized? I HAVE NO IDEA...To be clear, changing their rules to be consistent is exactly what I think they should be doing, it´s just confusing right now because their Errata is only issued with new printing... thus why I pointed out the situation so people wouldn´t be surprised/confused by the discrepancy. That has nothing to do with MY preferences on how the rules work, it´s just a matter of the rules working by their own logic, rather than NOT coherently expressing ANY RAI. Coincidentally I think SKR´s solution is a good one, though I never suggested that idea before simply because it´s a completely new mechanic to strip weapon-specific enhancements from attack-substitutable maneuvers, and when bringing up Errata I´ve always felt that it´s most productive to stick to RAW or clear RAI rather than inject ´personal favorite´ mechanics not suggested by the RAW itself. Similar thing for Paladin Double Smite in fact, I amongst others expressed that the 1st printing version was TOO overpowering, and Paizo came up with the very specific change that was a pretty good fix in fact.
I guess you can say I was one of the many who helped develop the current CMD system though.
|
|
As already mentioned up-thread, Sunder is not compatable with Cleave, as Sunder uses the Attack Action while Cleave is it´s own Standard Action. Vital Strike applies to Sunder damage but not Cleave. People get confused because Sunder has the ´in place of melee attack´ wording, but overlook that it also specifies the Attack Action, i.e. it is in place of the melee attack of the Attack Action only*. OTHER than in terms of actions, Sunder works similarly to Trip/Disarm in terms of using weapon bonuses, etc.Here we go with the delicate wording again, eh? It doesn't actually say that Sunder is its own action, it specifically reads "as part of an attack action" not "as an attack action" or (what would be most accurate) "as a standard action." It specifically reads "as part of" which signals the fact that it is not its own action, but used in conjunction with another...such as, say, a Cleave standard (attack) action...Where am I saying that Sunder is a unique action? NOWHERE.
I specifically point out it is compatable with Vital Strike, which is applicable to the attack action ONLY.
Saying ´as a Standard Action´ would NOT be the most accurate if it´s meant to be compatable with Vital Strike.
(which makes sense for a damaging maneuver)
CLEAVE is the one that is it´s own ´unique´ action, because when it says ´as a standard action´ that is not connected to any other action while consuming a standard action.
Take a deep breath, you misunderstood what I was attempting to say. I meant to say that if sunder were defined as its own action, it should (to BE most accurate) read, "You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as a standard action..." But, it doesn't read that. It explicitly states that it is part of another action - an "attack action" which is Pathfinder's confusing way of saying "a standard action (that is an attack)." By Paizo staff's own admission in other threads, there's no such thing as an "attack action." It is a standard action that is an attack.
Where am I saying that Sunder is a unique action? NOWHERE.
You said it right here:
As already mentioned up-thread, Sunder is not compatable with Cleave, as Sunder uses the Attack Action while Cleave is it´s own Standard Action.
You're implying Sunder is an Attack Action (which I've just established is a standard action) when if fact the description for sunder reads that is a part of an attack action.
Cleave specifically states that is a Standard Action. Sunder is a part of a Standard Action. Sunder can be the part of the Cleave Standard Action. Vital Strike muddies the waters because it specifically states "Attack Action" rather than "Standard Action." The key is keeping in mind that an "Attack Action" is actually: Standard Action: Attack (melee).
CLEAVE is the one that is it´s own ´unique´ action, because when it says ´as a standard action´ that is not connected to any other action while consuming a standard action.
Both Cleave and Vital Strike are "Standard Actions" while Sunder is a part of a standard action that is an attack.
Let me be clear, I DO understand what you're trying to say. I just think we interpret the differences (if any) between "standard action" and "attack action" differently. In my mind, even though Cleave is a "stand alone" standard action (for lack of a better way to make the distinction), I still read Sunder as being "a part of an attack action" which I see Cleave being: a Standard Action that is an attack. However, as I said, I get where you're coming from: "Attack" is a unique "Standard Action" and "Cleave" is a unique "Standard Action" and Sunder can be used with an "Attack" "Standard Action." Loud and clear.
EDIT: As a matter of fact, as the lights come on more, I also actually agree with what you're saying, having had some more time to ponder it. Treating the Cleave standard action as an attack standard action would be the same as allowing the, say, Channel energy standard action to utilize Sunder. Neither of them are "Attack" standard actions, they are their own. The distinction is now clear in my sluggish brain. ;)
So, having cleared that up, I still think Trip and Disarm can be used with Cleave, by RAW, as those CMs do not specifically state as part of an "attack action" - just "in place of a melee attack." One would have to *assume* that a "melee attack" means a Standard Action: Attack (melee), and these abilities do not specifically call out an "action." Thoughts?
Man. A lot of this confusion can be outright erased if they simply fixed the wording in sunder and did away with that new FAQ entry on trip.
EDIT: As a matter of fact, as the lights come on more, I also actually agree with what you're saying, having had some more time to ponder it. Treating the Cleave standard action as an attack standard action would be the same as allowing the, say, Channel energy standard action to utilize Sunder. Neither of them are "Attack" standard actions, they are their own. The distinction is now clear in my sluggish brain. ;)
Great... I´m glad I just savored the hand-on-face burn and didn´t reply to your post pre-Edit :-)
So, having cleared that up, I still think Trip and Disarm can be used with Cleave, by RAW, as those CMs do not specifically state as part of an "attack action" - just "in place of a melee attack." One would have to *assume* that a "melee attack" means a Standard Action: Attack (melee), and these abilities do not specifically call out an "action." Thoughts?
Exactly :-)
Man. A lot of this confusion can be outright erased if they simply fixed the wording in sunder and did away with that new FAQ entry on trip.
I don´t see any problem with the Sunder wording...
The wording around Attack Action is what could be cleared up, put Paizo has known that shortly after the first printing and hasn´t done anything with 3 or 4 re-print Errata´s....Like I said, we will have to see the actual Errata changes stemming from the Trip FAQ.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Man. A lot of this confusion can be outright erased if they simply fixed the wording in sunder and did away with that new FAQ entry on trip.
If Pathfinder rules were anywhere close to, say, Magic: the Gathering's level of standardized wording then probably 99% of rules questions (aside from newbies looking for guidance) would probably disappear.
Personally, I'd love it, but I imagine it'd be a lot of work.
The wording around Attack Action is what could be cleared up, put Paizo has known that shortly after the first printing and hasn´t done anything with 3 or 4 re-print Errata´s.
...Like I said, we will have to see the actual Errata changes stemming from the Trip FAQ.
Agreed. It's not even a real term, but it seems that Paizo is trying to shoe horn it into one. Problem is, they're not using errata to do it as they should, and that's what's generating confusion. All we have right now are unofficial forum posts stating what an attack action is supposed to be.
Right, Paizo´s position/reading would ALMOST be fine as-is,
except for all the bits that are shoved in under the attack action, i.e. Crits and Ranged attack info,
which would result in a very strange game if you strictly read them as applying only to the Attack Action. So the RAW itself is promoting people to read ´attack action´ in a broader sense than Paizo intends (as evidenced by Vital Strike FAQ, etc).
Paizo didn´t actually change anything about Attack Action from 3.5 so they kept the same wording... The issue was formally problematic in 3.5 as well, it just happened that back then other abilities didn´t crucially depend on the distinct Attack Action (even though the Attack action did exist for them to possibly depend on like Vital Strike does).
(all that info on Crits, Ranged Attacks, etc, should just be under where Attack Rolls are defined at the beginning of the Chapter, not in the Standard Actions: Attack Action section)
Right, Paizo´s position/reading would ALMOST be fine as-is,
except for all the bits that are shoved in under the attack action, i.e. Crits and Ranged attack info,
which would result in a very strange game if you strictly read them as applying only to the Attack Action. So the RAW itself is promoting people to read ´attack action´ in a broader sense than Paizo intends (as evidenced by Vital Strike FAQ, etc).Paizo didn´t actually change anything about Attack Action from 3.5 so they kept the same wording... The issue was formally problematic in 3.5 as well, it just happened that back then other abilities didn´t crucially depend on the distinct Attack Action (even though the Attack action did exist for them to possibly depend on like Vital Strike does).
(all that info on Crits, Ranged Attacks, etc, should just be under where Attack Rolls are defined at the beginning of the Chapter, not in the Standard Actions: Attack Action section)
As written, an attack action is an action that is also an attack. It was pretty clearly understood until Paizo muddied the waters with the whole "it has to be a standard action" thing.
Instead of "inventing" new unofficial definitions, it would have been more clear if they simply removed instances of the term "attack action" and replaced them with "standard action" which IS an officially defined term.
Take a deep breath, you misunderstood what I was attempting to say. I meant to say that if sunder were defined as its own action, it should (to BE most accurate) read, "You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as a standard action..." But, it doesn't read that. It explicitly states that it is part of another action - an "attack action" which is Pathfinder's confusing way of saying "a standard action (that is an attack)." By Paizo staff's own admission in other threads, there's no such thing as an...
I'm fairly certain that it's worded this way so that you can use it as part of an Attack Action (Standard Action), or Full Attack (Full Round Combat).
It's not listed as a Standard Action because then you couldn't do a Full Attack that involved 1+ attacks combined with Combat Maneuvers.
Uh... Yeah, I think I`ll leave this topic to Paizo to FAQ more clearly :-)