Example of not working 2ss1s
s1ss
sYss
ssss
It should be noted that if you haven't taken a move action so far this turn, you could take a 5-ft step after striking the closer foe and continue the cleave into the further foe, since you can take a 5-ft step at any time including during another action.
It should be noted that if you haven't taken a move action so far this turn, you could take a 5-ft step after striking the closer foe and continue the cleave into the further foe, since you can take a 5-ft step at any time including during another action.
Example of not working 2ss1s
s1ss
sYss
ssss
I'll be honest, I've never seen anyone allow that. While you can take a 5-foot step during actions, do you really qualify for the extra attack because cleave allows you get the extra attack "against a foe that is adjacent to the first and also within reach." If the second target is not within reach when you use cleave then you wouldn't gain the benefit of a second attack. Simple solution is to take the five-foot step first.
|
I'll be honest, I've never seen anyone allow that. While you can take a 5-foot step during actions, do you really qualify for the extra attack because cleave allows you get the extra attack "against a foe that is adjacent to the first and also within reach." If the second target is not within reach when you use cleave then you wouldn't gain the benefit of a second attack. Simple solution is to take the five-foot step first.It should be noted that if you haven't taken a move action so far this turn, you could take a 5-ft step after striking the closer foe and continue the cleave into the further foe, since you can take a 5-ft step at any time including during another action.
Example of not working 2ss1s
s1ss
sYss
ssss
But a five foot step between attacks might allow you to set up a flanking position on target 2 (who was adjacant before the step but now you are in better position).
But a five foot step between attacks might allow you to set up a flanking position on target 2 (who was adjacant before the step but now you are in better position).
I'd say if both target 1 & 2 were adjacent to each other and both within reach then, yes, you can take a five-foot step during a cleave.
I just question that if only target 1 is within reach when you 'cleave' do you really qualify for the additional attack, it does not seem to meet the requirements in the feat that the foe be "adjacent to the first and also within reach."
I'd allow it. PF cleave is weak enough that it's not an issue. Besides, it's rather cool to strike a foe down and stride over his falling body to kill the one behind.
I'll be honest, I've never seen anyone allow that. While you can take a 5-foot step during actions, do you really qualify for the extra attack because cleave allows you get the extra attack "against a foe that is adjacent to the first and also within reach." If the second target is not within reach when you use cleave then you wouldn't gain the benefit of a second attack. Simple solution is to take the five-foot step first.It should be noted that if you haven't taken a move action so far this turn, you could take a 5-ft step after striking the closer foe and continue the cleave into the further foe, since you can take a 5-ft step at any time including during another action.
Example of not working 2ss1s
s1ss
sYss
ssss
Or use a reach weapon.
Or use a reach weapon.I'll be honest, I've never seen anyone allow that. While you can take a 5-foot step during actions, do you really qualify for the extra attack because cleave allows you get the extra attack "against a foe that is adjacent to the first and also within reach." If the second target is not within reach when you use cleave then you wouldn't gain the benefit of a second attack. Simple solution is to take the five-foot step first.It should be noted that if you haven't taken a move action so far this turn, you could take a 5-ft step after striking the closer foe and continue the cleave into the further foe, since you can take a 5-ft step at any time including during another action.
Example of not working 2ss1s
s1ss
sYss
ssss
Most reach weapons specifically note that they threaten at reach but do not threaten the squares immediately adjacent to the wielder. Of course, lots of people overlook that in play, but there is a feat (Short Haft) that allows a reach-weapon-wielder to shift from adjacent threatening to reach threatening (or vice-versa) as a swift action, but that brings us back to the question of swift/free/other actions during the standard action that is Cleave (remember, Cleave starts with "As a Standard Action...").
Swift actions are identified as being able to be taken "whenever you can take a free action" but are limited to one Swift action per round. An indication of when Free action(s) can be executed is not explicitly defined anywhere (that I can find), except that speaking briefly is identified as a free action that can be taken even when it is not your turn. Thus, the ability to use Short Haft in between Cleave attacks is up to each individual GM as a case-by-case determination.
However, in the definitions for a 5-foot step, the rules explicitly identify that "You can take a 5-foot step before, during, or after your other actions in the round." Thus, the 5-foot step in the middle of a Cleave attack is a legitimate way to address the listed example, RAW. (To address the question of "is the farther target within reach?" raised by Tim, since the 5-foot step can be taken during the standard action, and the feat makes no mention of both targets needing to be within reach at all times, the conditions that both targets be adjacent and that both targets be within reach are both satisfied - at some point - during the standard action.)
Most reach weapons specifically note that they threaten at reach but do not threaten the squares immediately adjacent to the wielder.
Other options are improved unarmed strike, armor spikes, spiked gauntlet (depending on free hands/wielding) barbazu beard, boot blade, or natural attacks.
there is a feat (Short Haft) that allows a reach-weapon-wielder to shift from adjacent threatening to reach threatening (or vice-versa) as a swift action
Where is this feat from? It doesn't sound very balanced, considering the Pole Fighting (Ex) ability of the Polearm Master fighter archetype.
An indication of when Free action(s) can be executed is not explicitly defined anywhere (that I can find)
Free Action: "You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally."
Thus, the 5-foot step in the middle of a Cleave attack is a legitimate way to address the listed example, RAW.
While you can certainly take a 5-foot step during the action to cleave, that's not really what is in question.
To address the question of "is the farther target within reach?" raised by Tim, since the 5-foot step can be taken during the standard action, and the feat makes no mention of both targets needing to be within reach at all times, the conditions that both targets be adjacent and that both targets be within reach are both satisfied - at some point - during the standard action.
"can make an additional attack against a foe that is adjacent to the first and also within reach"
I don't think that necessarily means they must be both adjacent AND within reach at the start of the action, but rather at the time of that second attack.
So while you could cleave an adjacent goblin on your diagonal, then 5' step into his (former) space to then hit another goblin one diagonal further (who was adjacent to the first, but outside your reach until you moved), this also means if that second goblin had a readied action to 5' step back if his friend died, you won't be able to hit him, even if you can reach him, because he's no longer adjacent to the first.
Attack 1: like normal
(5' step here)
Attack 2:
A) Is target within reach? Yes/No.
B) Is target adjacent to first? Yes/No.
If A and B are both Yes, then you can make attack 2.
You can take a free action anytime on your turn within the round. This is explicitly defined in the game. (I paraphrased). Speaking is a free action that can be made at anytime, even NOT on your round.
I would rule you can NOT take a 5 foot step as part of cleave. If you do not threaten the second target at the beginning of the attack, then you cannot cleave them. Flavor text indicates it is one strike even though the mechanic is two strikes. I would also rule that you can NOT switch to a reach weapon, say with quick draw, and attack a foe that was not within reach at the beginning of the attack.
All that being said, just take the 5 foot step first, then cleave and you should be good to go.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would rule you can NOT take a 5 foot step as part of cleave. If you do not threaten the second target at the beginning of the attack, then you cannot cleave them.
These are two different issues.
First, taking a 5' step during another action.
Take 5-Foot Step: "You can take a 5-foot step before, during, or after your other actions in the round."
It's pretty clear you can.
Second, if the text of cleave applies both conditions at the start of the action, or at the time of the second attack.
I addressed this one up a post, but it's certainly not cut and dry. A ruling either way is reasonable.
All that being said, just take the 5 foot step first, then cleave and you should be good to go.
There are times that the 5' step only works after the first strike. Killing guys in a 5' wide hallway, for example.
##############################
[Fighter] [Goblin] [Orc]
##############################
With your cleave ruling, he can't kill the goblin, step into it's space, then hit the orc.
With mine, he can, because at the time of the 2nd attack, the orc is both adjacent to the first target, and within reach.
(Again, both are totally reasonable interpretations)
Grick, I agree with your assessment that you can make the 5-foot step during actions. I still stand by not being able to during cleave.
I feel this way because of the description of cleave (the flavor text) and what I have determined is the RAI.
I agree with your take if the flavor text is ignored and one follows the mechanic RAW.
And I also agree both are reasonable, depending on your point of view.
| 24 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
FAQ Time!
During a Cleave, do the two targets need to be both adjacent to each other and within reach at the start of the cleave action, or at the start of the second attack?
Meaning, in this example, could the fighter declare a cleave standard action against Goblin 1 (blue), and assuming he hit and killed it, then take a 5-foot step into that square, and take his second attack against Goblin 2 (red) because at the time of that attack, Goblin 2 is both adjacent to the first target and within reach?
You can take a 5 foot step between attacks during a full attack action. However, because the idea behind cleave is a single stroke that hits two foes I don't think this would be allowed - however the current state is unclear.
In addition
Cleave (Combat)
Spoiler: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.
I don't think that the power level of cleave should really be entering the discussion, as that's not really relevant to the "does it work this way?" discussion.
Here's a topic that no one has covered: Do you need to use the same weapon while cleaving? RAW is no, you are not locked into a particular weapon to deliver the subsequent cleave attack.
You could use an unarmed strike and then a reach weapon (theoretically).
I would also rule that you can NOT switch to a reach weapon, say with quick draw, and attack a foe that was not within reach at the beginning of the attack.
Yeah, I would still say no.
Here's a topic that no one has covered: Do you need to use the same weapon while cleaving? RAW is no, you are not locked into a particular weapon to deliver the subsequent cleave attack.
You could use an unarmed strike and then a reach weapon (theoretically).
The short description of cleave would seem to indicate you would need to use 1 weapon, although it is not specified in the mechanics.
You can strike two adjacent foes with a single swing.
While the mechanics are not specific, I would rule that it is pretty clear they mean for the player to use only one weapon to make a "single swing".
I would also rule that you can NOT switch to a reach weapon, say with quick draw, and attack a foe that was not within reach at the beginning of the attack.Yeah, I would still say no.
My apologies, didn't see you had broached the topic before, but I think the mechanics portion of Cleave still does not "lock you in" to a specific weapon.
A similar (but not the same) example is Whirlwind Attack - singular not plural. I take this to mean a spinning attack with a single weapon, linguistically, but I know that many folks believe that it's ok to use multiple weapons during this full round action (and I do too).
The mechanical wording on cleave is very much the same.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This again? After 12 years, still? The feat says:
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.
The feat does not mince words and does not break this up into separate actions. Both foes must be within reach of you AND adjacent to one-another at the beginning of your attack. The question as to whether you need to take a five-foot-step to get to the second one, or even if you can take one, is moot, since BOTH of them need to be within reach of you AND adjacent to one-another at the time of the initial attack.
Cleave does not need to be a FAQ candidate. It has been being broken intentionally by players since 2000. Shouting it and its brother, Great Cleave, out for FAQ is just a distraction to allow its continued breaking until an official ruling (which has never come) is made.
Though I personally think Paizo did a much better job at clarifying the feats, Cleave and Great Cleave have always been the easiest of feats to take advantage of, since they can never be worded clearly enough to explain the mechanism without breaking the abstract. Well, not with any brevity. And brevity is necessary in a book full of complicated feats.
But you all KNOW (with three !!!) what the real ruling should be. It is the LEAST of your overpowered interpretations. The one that performs the least amount of ridiculous stuff. A tree of three feats should not allow you to wipe out 21+ opponents in a single round at mid levels. Most (bad) interpretations of Cleave/Great Cleave allow it. You all know that's wrong, so just admit you all want to break it. It's your table, and you can break it there in happy comfort. But don't advise others to. Doing so has caused enough grief at my own table.
I would also rule that you can NOT switch to a reach weapon, say with quick draw, and attack a foe that was not within reach at the beginning of the attack.Yeah, I would still say no.My apologies, didn't see you had broached the topic before, but I think the mechanics portion of Cleave still does not "lock you in" to a specific weapon.
A similar (but not the same) example is Whirlwind Attack - singular not plural. I take this to mean a spinning attack with a single weapon, linguistically, but I know that many folks believe that it's ok to use multiple weapons during this full round action (and I do too).
The mechanical wording on cleave is very much the same.
This is encroaching on "shouldn't have to tell you" territory. That's where while the thing doesn't tell you specifically everything you CANNOT do, that does not translate to you being able to do ANYTHING you want.
You have to envision what the feat is accomplishing. What is the real-life equivalent of this? Well, it's something akin to continuing a swing THROUGH an opponent into another. That would imply that you cannot switch weapons.
You have to envision what the feat is accomplishing. What is the real-life equivalent of this? Well, it's something akin to continuing a swing THROUGH an opponent into another. That would imply that you cannot switch weapons.And could not be done with piercing or bludgeoning weapons...
However you might wish to complain about the current wording, it is MUCH better than 3e/3.5 cleave where one could cleave with a sling.
-James
Real life equivalent is not a great way to interpret abstract rules. While I agree that cleave still has issues (even if brunwald doesnt) I'm glad that James brought up piercing weapons. Cleave says "swing" not thrust, it says "swing" not slam. Are we supposed to infer that you can't cleave with a mace or spear? Cleave is only employed by characters with slashing weapons? Obviously not.
Until there is more guidance you may use any of your armed melee weapons to fulfil the attack portion of cleave or whirlwind attack - again because of the lack of prohibitive or restrictive language that would lock you into a weapon.
Cleave Through (Combat)
You are ferocious at hewing smaller opponents.Prerequisites: Str 13, Cleave, Power Attack, base attack bonus +11, dwarf.
Benefit: When using Cleave or Great Cleave, if your initial attack hits, you may take a single 5-foot step as a free action before making your additional attacks. If doing so places a creature within your threatened area, that creature becomes a legal target for your additional Cleave attack(s) as long as it meets all the other prerequisites.
Normal: You may only make additional attacks with Cleave against creatures you threaten when you make your initial attack.
So at last a ruling on the 5ft in cleave,great now got to tell my party about it, the ranger (two handed weapon style) is not going to be happy
So at last a ruling on the 5ft in cleave,great now got to tell my party about it, the ranger (two handed weapon style) is not going to be happyCleave Through (Combat)
You are ferocious at hewing smaller opponents.Prerequisites: Str 13, Cleave, Power Attack, base attack bonus +11, dwarf.
Benefit: When using Cleave or Great Cleave, if your initial attack hits, you may take a single 5-foot step as a free action before making your additional attacks. If doing so places a creature within your threatened area, that creature becomes a legal target for your additional Cleave attack(s) as long as it meets all the other prerequisites.
Normal: You may only make additional attacks with Cleave against creatures you threaten when you make your initial attack.
It's worth noting that even without this feat, there's nothing preventing you from taking a 5' step between swings of a cleave... but based on it, you'd still only be able to attack something you were able to attack before the 5' step.
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I would also rule that you can NOT switch to a reach weapon, say with quick draw, and attack a foe that was not within reach at the beginning of the attack.Yeah, I would still say no.My apologies, didn't see you had broached the topic before, but I think the mechanics portion of Cleave still does not "lock you in" to a specific weapon.
A similar (but not the same) example is Whirlwind Attack - singular not plural. I take this to mean a spinning attack with a single weapon, linguistically, but I know that many folks believe that it's ok to use multiple weapons during this full round action (and I do too).
The mechanical wording on cleave is very much the same.
Whirlwind attack actually does lock you into a single weapon.
"Whirlwind Attack (Combat)You can strike out at every foe within reach.
Prerequisites: Dex 13, Int 13, Combat Expertise, Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, base attack bonus +4.
Benefit: When you use the full-attack action, you can give up your regular attacks and instead make one melee attack at your highest base attack bonus against each opponent within reach. You must make a separate attack roll against each opponent.
When you use the Whirlwind Attack feat, you also forfeit any bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities."
It specifies that you are making a single attack that is targeted at every creature in reach. If that was not the case, it would not need to tell you to make separate attack rolls against each opponent.
It specifies that you are making a single attack that is targeted at every creature in reach.
One attack against each opponent.
One opponent, one attack.
Two opponents, two attacks (one each).
If you eat one apple for each finger you have, how many apples do you eat? (Presuming you have more than one finger)
I was wondering about that new feat.
does that mean that you were never supposed to get a 5 foot step between cleave hits? or does it mean you get an EXTRA 5 foot step.
in other words... could i 5 foot up to my opponent, swing with cleave, take an additional 5 foot step due to the new feat, and hit the guy behind him?
does that mean that you were never supposed to get a 5 foot step between cleave hits?
No, only that you must threaten both creatures (which are adjacent to each other) when you make your first attack.
*summons example*
[elf1]
[orc1] [orc2]
[xxxx] [elf2]
Elf1 threatens both orcs, and they are adjacent to each other. Elf1 could cleave, hit orc1, take a 5-foot step left, then make his second attack against orc2 while flanking.
or does it mean you get an EXTRA 5 foot step.
Unlikely. It's not very clear, but I would assume that if it allowed to an extra 5' step it would specifically say so.
Though, without the extra step, it's doesn't seem to be a very good feat.
Anyone know who wrote it?
|
|
It specifies that you are making a single attack that is targeted at every creature in reach.One attack against each opponent.
One opponent, one attack.
Two opponents, two attacks (one each).If you eat one apple for each finger you have, how many apples do you eat? (Presuming you have more than one finger)
Nope, Whirlwind Attack is one attack, targeting multiple foes. The feat would not need to specify the need for separate attack rolls if it were multiple attacks. If that were the case, it would simply read, "Make a (separate) melee attack against every opponent within reach" and end right there. One attack, multiple targets, thus multiple attack rolls.
It is written the way that it is to try and make it as clear as possible that it is one attack, that in some ways acts as a spell since it is targeting multiple opponents. Where against a fireball they would all get separate saves, instead he has to actually hit their individual AC's.To put it another way, I'm surrounded by five apples, and I, being the awesome fellow that I am, am going to spin around in a circle cutting each apple in half. The entire spin is a single attack, but I still have to hit all the apples.
|
The need to specify comes from the limitation of: only one attack against Bob, only one attack against Steve, etc.
Since it doesn't address the issue within the feat (and it shouldn't, that's way too much wasted space), using Quick Draw seems to be left to DM opinion. I'd allow him to switch weapons with Quick Draw during a Whirlwind Attack (within reason) because that PC is going to be dropping weapons; not always a good idea.
|
|
The need to specify comes from the limitation of: only one attack against Bob, only one attack against Steve, etc.
Since it doesn't address the issue within the feat (and it shouldn't, that's way too much wasted space), using Quick Draw seems to be left to DM opinion. I'd allow him to switch weapons with Quick Draw during a Whirlwind Attack (within reason) because that PC is going to be dropping weapons; not always a good idea.
I still disagree, the note about "one attack against Steve, bob, etc" is covered by the text "When you use the Whirlwind Attack feat, you also forfeit any bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities"
I still disagree, the note about "one attack against Steve, bob, etc" is covered by the text "When you use the Whirlwind Attack feat, you also forfeit any bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities"The need to specify comes from the limitation of: only one attack against Bob, only one attack against Steve, etc.
Since it doesn't address the issue within the feat (and it shouldn't, that's way too much wasted space), using Quick Draw seems to be left to DM opinion. I'd allow him to switch weapons with Quick Draw during a Whirlwind Attack (within reason) because that PC is going to be dropping weapons; not always a good idea.
I don't see the connection there. The feat itself says
[M]ake one melee attack ... against each opponent within reach. You must make a separate attack roll against each opponent.
This is pretty clearly saying you make separate attacks against each creature in reach. The line you quoted is just saying that you don't get extra attacks from haste, TWF, multiple natural attacks, and so on. It doesn't change the nature of the attacks you are making with the feat.
I would say that you only get to make attacks against creatures that are in reach when you start making attacks - you can't switch to a reach weapon mid-whirlwind and suddenly be able to continue it against farther creatures. But since you can switch weapons mid-full attack, I don't see any reason you couldn't mid-whirlwind.