| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rules as written, no, one head is adjacent to the next one perhaps, but it's not several "foes" adjacent to each other.
Rule of cool: yes! As a GM I would of course allow it, it's one monster and one feat, it's not like it will happen all that often.
|
Just to get the rules up here:
Cleave (Combat)
You can strike two adjacent foes with a single swing.
Prerequisites: Str 13, Power Attack, base attack bonus +1.
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.
And the hydra heads:
Hydra Traits (Ex) A hydra can be killed by severing all of its heads or slaying its body. Any attack that is not an attempt to sever a head affects the body, including area attacks or attacks that cause piercing or bludgeoning damage. To sever a head, an opponent must make a sunder attempt with a slashing weapon targeting a head. A head is considered a separate weapon with hardness 0 and hit points equal to the hydra's HD. To sever a head, an opponent must inflict enough damage to reduce the head's hit points to 0 or less. Severing a head deals damage to the hydra's body equal to the hydra's current HD. A hydra can't attack with a severed head, but takes no other penalties.
since each head is another weapon wielded by the same monster, personally, I would say no. If you would allow this, then you would also have to allow a cleave/sunder attempt versus both weapons of a two-weapon fighting character.
I say no.
1) You can not sunder as part of a cleave by RAW.
2) The hydra is still only one foe with the heads acting as weapons that the foe wields.
I say no.
1) You can not sunder as part of a cleave by RAW.
2) The hydra is still only one foe with the heads acting as weapons that the foe wields.
QFT.
That said, I *might* allow it for the cinematic benefit... of course, if we're treating these heads as "adjacent foes" for purposes of cleave, the attacker can't complain when each head gets an Attack of Opportunity as he advances through the hydra's reach :)
DCH
|
I say no.
A sunder attempt is a Combat Maneuver not an attack thus Cleave doesn't apply.
If the Hydra were built(by bestiary or GM) so that each head had its own HP and can be killed with normal attacks OR if sundering were something that could happen during an attack it would be a different story.
I agree that cinematographically(new word!)speaking it would be frigging awesome.
disarm strips weapons right? monk could flurry of manuevers the "weapons" right?
Disarms replace any attack, sunder only replaces an Attack Action (standard action attack)
|
|
disarm strips weapons right? monk could flurry of manuevers the "weapons" right?Disarms replace any attack, sunder only replaces an Attack Action (standard action attack)
I believe a both a disarm and sunder replace the attack action.
RAW:Sunder "as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack"
Disarm "You can attempt to disarm your opponent in place of a melee attack"
I would interpret that as you attack and deal damage or you sunder/disarm can't do both. though I'm sure there are exceptions al la BAB, Two-Weapons fighting. Maybe as a full-round action a PC could try two Sunder checks on a hydra?
The Archer has Trick Shot(ex) that allows him/her to preform a sunder check with a bow or crossbow. But that tidbit is a bit off topic
I believe a both a disarm and sunder replace the attack action.
RAW:
Sunder "as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack"
Disarm "You can attempt to disarm your opponent in place of a melee attack"
This issue is up in the air, but they are clearly worded differently - which is the point I was making. Disarm is worded so you can replace any melee attack (including AoO) while sunder clearly carries the "as part of an attack action" clause.
The Attack Action is a clearly defined Standard Action.
I hate the hydra so much. The whole system is based around the idea that you do not get to make "called shots" against particular body parts, but the hydra is the one exception, and an otherwise nonsensical use of the sunder combat maneuver is used to stand in place of a mechanic that does not exist in the system. I vote that the hydra be removed from pathfinder entirely, and retroactively wiped from the memories of all characters who have ever seen one.
I hate the hydra so much. The whole system is based around the idea that you do not get to make "called shots" against particular body parts, but the hydra is the one exception,
Well.. and the Roper.
Strands (Ex) A roper can extend up to six thin, sticky strands from its body at a time, launching them to a maximum range of 50 feet. A roper's attacks with its strands resolve as ranged touch attacks. These strands are quite strong, but can be severed by any amount of slashing damage (a strand is AC 20). A creature struck by a strand is numbed and weakened by the strange material, and must make a DC 25 Fortitude save or take 1d6 points of Strength damage. The save DC is Constitution-based.
Do Roper Strands provoke AoOs? How does one target them in pathfinder?
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/additionalRules.html#smashing-an-object
That's how you break ropes, roper strands, doors and the like.