how do you feel about my ruling on Cleaving Finish

[Misunderstood Monk]

OK, so there was a Wall of Fire. There were some baddies on the other side. A PC shoves his weapon through the Wall of Fire to strike at a square that held a baddie in the last round in the hopes he was still in the same square. The PC rolls percentile for his miss chance and hits because the baddie was still there. The PC does enough damage to kill the baddie. The PC goes to attack another baddie within range, using his Cleaving Finish feat. I said no because the Wall of Fire would have prevented the PC from seeing the baddie die and without that knowledge the Cleaving Finish feat is not inspired.
I understand that this is not RAW but our group generally plays RAI which often leads to bending rules on both sides of the screen to better fit the rules into the context and spirit of the game.

[Lifat]

Misunderstood Monk wrote:

OK, so there was a Wall of Fire. There were some baddies on the other side. A PC shoves his weapon through the Wall of Fire to strike at a square that held a baddie in the last round in the hopes he was still in the same square. The PC rolls percentile for his miss chance and hits because the baddie was still there. The PC does enough damage to kill the baddie. The PC goes to attack another baddie within range, using his Cleaving Finish feat. I said no because the Wall of Fire would have prevented the PC from seeing the baddie die and without that knowledge the Cleaving Finish feat is not inspired.

I understand that this is not RAW but our group generally plays RAI which often leads to bending rules on both sides of the screen to better fit the rules into the context and spirit of the game.

If it is a slashing or bludgeoning weapon, then the swing should continue because the object (the guy you hit) is no longer there (fell prone). If you are using other kinds of weapons then your weapon will probably still be connected to the body when it goes down and that movement would certainly alert you to your targets status.

That said, rule as you see fit if going by RAI.

[Samasboy1]

I wouldn't do it that way. I can totally see that the badguy had concealment, but it shouldn't be total concealment, so the PC does see him go down. He is blurry, but still visible.

Even if he didn't see him go down, I would still have given him the attack because, as Lifat said, the badguy dropping could let him continue the swing.

But, even disagreeing with you, I don't feel you were unreasonable. You read the rule, and went with how you interpreted it. Pretty much what all DMs have to do.

[Stome]

I am also in the "disagree but do not think you are bad/evil for your ruling." boat.

The way I see it cleaving finish has nothing to do with what the PC knows. It is them cutting/bashing right through a enemy and continuing on to the next.

But its not my table and its not a big thing one way or the other.

[Lifat]

I'd like to return and state for clarity's sake that I as Stome do not think you are bad/evil for ruling the way you did. I would have ruled differently even when going by RAI, but we all play the game in a slightly different manner and who am I to mock your houserules?

[Misunderstood Monk]

Thanks all. I can see the slashing approach now as well. Good point

[Quantum Steve]

Samasboy1 wrote:

I wouldn't do it that way. I can totally see that the badguy had concealment, but it shouldn't be total concealment, so the PC does see him go down. He is blurry, but still visible.

No dice. Wall of Fire is explicitly opaque, which means total concealment. "Blurry, but still visible" is called translucent, and is definitely not opaque.

[Samasboy1]

Huh, I didn't notice the word opaque in the effect line, it isn't mentioned in the spell description. That seems strange, since it made of fire.

[Lifat]

Samasboy1 wrote:

Huh, I didn't notice the word opaque in the effect line, it isn't mentioned in the spell description. That seems strange, since it made of fire.

Might be strange, but as it is part of the spell, that is how it works. Feel free to houserule differently, just as long as you are clear that it is a houserule.

[Gherrick]

I didn't know that wall of fire is opaque as well. I guess perhaps the light it sheds is so bright it obscures what is behind it? Cleaving Finish would still require a valid target, which doesn't need to be adjacent to the freshly fallen foe (while related, it doesn't have the same targeting requirements as cleave).

I would have allowed the character to get the free attack, but it would still have the 50% miss chance from the total concealment. It isn't like the bad guys are super quiet on the far side of the wall, and there is no indication from the spell description that it produces any significant amount of noise, so they could still be located via a perception check or similar.