Cleave and the full attack action

[Nicodemos]

I know this subject has been discussed several times before in several places, and that it has been stated numerous times that the cleave feat cannot be part of a full attack action and can be used only as a standard action. But I have a player who raises what I think is a valid argument against this rule and I'm wondering if anyone out there can offer a valid counter-point (or two) to his argument as opposed to simply quoting the rules or their interpretation of the rules.

The argument is this: If a character with multiple attacks is allowed to make a move (say of 30 feet) after or before making a cleave, why can't he instead swing his weapon one more time in the time it would take to make that move? Frankly, I don't have a good answer for this. One would think that in the time it takes for a character to move 30 feet during combat (i.e. not running), that same character would have more than enough time to swing his weapon again.

[Kiinyan]

Because a cleave is a standard action? It doesn't take as long as a full attack, but you can't wind up and have these massive cleaves in a full attack.

[Strannik]

Well, typically a character would be able to swing his sword more times (full attack), but in the case of Cleave, it might help to think of how much more power the character would have to put in the swing to not only make it through the first enemy, but do an approximate amount of damage to a second enemy.

Have you ever chopped fire wood? Consider how it's more effective to lift the axe high over your head and get alot of oompf behind the swing. That's what Cleave is. The character is taking more time to get a really hard swing.

Of course, this is also a question as to if standard and movement actions should be separate things (ie, why is moving 30" ft not equal to another swing?), but that's pure game mechanics so I don't think you really want to discuss that.

[wraithstrike]

You can not do a full round action, and a standard action in the same round.

Therefore,if you do a full attack or cleave you automatically make the other one into a non-option.

Since this is the rules section the rules are all we need to prove him wrong. Now if you are asking us to tell you why it may or may not be broken, or why it may not be realistic that is an entirely different argument.

So my question to you is this: Do you want a rules based answer to shut him down, or do you want a non-rules based answer to which I will reply many things are in place for the sake of balance, and because the designers of the game said so.

To be quiet honest many of the rules don't make a lot of sense, but they are the rules.

[Xaratherus]

The answer is basically, "For balance purposes, the rules\mechanics of the game don't allow it." Game theory and philosophy aside, 'realism' is sometimes sacrificed to try and make a functional system of combat mechanics.

I've read\played a few systems that are based on action points rather than a time-based turn system, and those generally will allow for the sorts of 'mix and match' actions during a round that you're describing.

[Nicodemos]

Keep in mind, that a cleave is still just one swing, albeit a long swing, of a weapon. And a character with multiple swings who doesn't cleave takes the same amount of time to perform his standard action.

Regardless, it doesn't explain why a character can't take a swing with his weapon in the same amount of time it takes him to move 30 feet.

[Xaratherus]

Nicodemos wrote:

Regardless, it doesn't explain why a character can't take a swing with his weapon in the same amount of time it takes him to move 30 feet.

Again, I think if you're looking for a reality-based argument, you probably aren't going to find one. The 'action' system attempts to artificially emulate and balance various attack types and numbers of attacks, and in some cases it sacrifices realism for a system that functions consistently.

[Majuba]

I think you've got good answers above - the move action allows for time to wind-up and let loose through two or more foes, assuming your aim isn't thrown off by a miss. Whether you move before, after, or not at all, a full-attack action is more of truly engaging the enemy, and taking every opening you can get (i.e. iterative attacks, multi-weapon attacks), instead of a large broad swing.

[Jiggy]

Nicodemos wrote:

If a character with multiple attacks is allowed to make a move (say of 30 feet) after or before making a cleave, why can't he instead swing his weapon one more time in the time it would take to make that move?

Because what you can accomplish in a single turn is based on what action types, not time spent.

A standard action is a standard action, whether it's a hefty greataxe cleave or a quick jab with a rapier.

A move action is a move action, whether you're moving 30ft or choosing to use only 10ft of your movement or drawing your sword or opening a door.

The reason you can't use Cleave and then make another attack is because Cleave is a standard action and getting more than one attack requires a full-round action and you can't have both a standard and a full-round action in the same turn. This is explicit in the rules; no "interpretation" necessary.

[Kazaan]

It's a matter of cinematics and action economy. Each round is 6s and each person's "turn" is actually occurring in parallel with those who have higher initiative rolls getting "priority". You have a move action and a standard action, both of which can take up the full 6s of time available because even these are happening "in parallel". When you take a move action, you're spending "up to" 6s moving; this could be slowly sauntering forward over the full 6s or it could be zipping 30' over just 3 seconds and then holding your position there. Likewise, your Attack action to make a single melee or ranged attack is happening "in parallel" to that move action; just adjudicating in "turn order" for the sake of gameplay. The 6s standard Attack action involves entering your offensive stance, spotting an opening, delivering the attack, and recovering to the ready position (or defensive stance) for another strike (to happen on your next turn or during an AoO). By contrast, when you make a Full-Attack action, it also takes 6s to perform, but instead of a single "ready>opening>strike>ready" routine, it's "ready>opening>combo-strike>ready" and you have no opportunity to "move" more than a tactical shift (which, itself, is an abstraction of "I wasn't even there, I was over here the whole time and you misjudged where I'd stop moving").

In other words, you have to break the paradigm of looking at it as only turn-based combat because that's only what we, the players, see. From the perspective of the characters, it's still an intense, real-time slobberknocker with heavy GFX. From "down there", if you "condensed" all the turns to reflect what happened "in real time", it looks more like these:
Example 1
Example 2
Example 3
Example 4
Example 5

[Strannik]

+1 everything Kazaan said.

[Nicodemos]

Thanks for the input guys. I realize, of course, that games have rules which must be balanced and playable and this doesn't always equate to being logical or to a hard set system of keeping track of every detail. Still, I wanted to see what others had to say about it.

Now, at least, I can hopefully put this monkey to bed and focus on other areas of my game. Thanks again.

[HangarFlying]

Aren't there a couple of feats in Ultimate Combat that act similar to the 3.5 cleave feats—cleaving finish or something like that. Would that be more in line with what the player is looking for?