Cleave feat

[jdragnar]

I know this has been brought up before but I disagree with many people's opinions. The feat clearly states that the standard action is a single attack at full bab. It does not say cleave is your standard action. It also states that " if you hit you do normal damage and CAN make an additional attack against an adjacent foe within reach. The word can makes it an option at that point so you do not have to declare at the start of your turn. This is all basic English learned through out grade school and high school. I would like to hear from any Paizo team member on this topic.

[Ravingdork]

Seeing as it starts with "As a standard action," and penalizes your AC, I'm inclined to think that you must declare it in advance.

You can't say you're going to make a single attack as a standard action then, once you hit, retroactively declare that it was a cleave attempt. You also can't say you're going to make a single cleave attempt as a standard action then, when you miss, say you're going to make a full attack instead.

Though you can choose to make a single attack as a standard action, then choose to turn it into a full attack action after your first attack is done, that option is wholly incompatible with the Cleave feat.

[jdragnar]

It states that your single attack at your full bab is the standard action not cleave. It states that if you hit you CAN make another attack

[CampinCarl9127]

FAQ wrote:

Can I take a 5-foot step in the middle of my attempt to use the Cleave feat, to bring another foe within reach?

No. Cleave is a special action and the conditions for that action are checked at the moment you begin your action. At that moment, all of the available targets are checked to make sure they adjacent to each other and within reach. You cannot take a 5-foot step in the middle of the action and check conditions again. If you do not have two targets within reach, adjacent to each other at the start of the attack, you could not even attempt to make an attack using Cleave.

Source

Emphasis mine.

[jdragnar]

What does that have to do with the original post?

[CampinCarl9127]

jdragnar wrote:

The word can makes it an option at that point so you do not have to declare at the start of your turn.

I answered this point, which was incorrect. You do have to declare it at the start of your action.

That is also an official response from Paizo on the matter, so there is zero ambiguity.

[jdragnar]

What thread is that official response from or are you from Paizo. Not being rude just curious so I can find it.

[jdragnar]

Also the word CAN does make it an option. If it wasn't an option it would state " have to" or "must". The wording for power attack says you have to announce it at the start of your turn cleave does not

[jdragnar]

Sorry I didn't know that the source word brought me to a post. A friend just explained that to me.

[CampinCarl9127]

To be perfectly clear, I am not a representative of Paizo. Simply a friendly poster trying to provide some clarity.

I'm glad you figured out the link. I like to source my claims whenever possible.

The reason it says "can" is because the feat does not disable you from making any other sort of attack. When you decide to attack, you can decide to cleave. Or you can decide not to cleave, making a normal attack. Cleave gives you another option, it does not permanently change your fighting style. For instance, if you are against two enemies, you may want to cleave so that you can try to hit both of them at your full BaB. But if you're facing a single opponent, cleave is useless because there are no other targets, and the cleave feat does not force you to use it every single time you attack.

[jdragnar]

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ksca&page=8?Declaring-Cleave#393 . This Is James Jacobs response to the cleave question. I still believe that the way it is worded is contradictory to his statement here. That being said he is the writer so I guess we have to go with that. I don't know how to source so I apologize.

[CampinCarl9127]

The link is fine, it just means I have to not be lazy and actually copy and past it haha.

Well it doesn't get much more official than James Jacobs himself. Hope that helps.

[Gauss]

jdragnar,

Here are some basics regarding the forum hierarchy of 'sources'.
1) The "source" link that CampinCarl9127 provided is a link to the FAQ. The FAQ are official rulings/comments from Paizo.

2) Comments from Paizo Devs may have weight but are not official.

3) Different Paizo employees have a different levels of say in the rules. Generally speaking, the designers are over other devs when it comes to rules interpretations (but see #2).

Thus we usually have the following: FAQ trumps Designer comment trumps other Dev comment (such as James Jacobs).

In this case, the FAQ makes it clear that this is a special standard action that must be declared before using it.

[Baumfluch]

The Problem appears many times.
You will find many feats, class-skills etc that use the mechanic of an attack Action. like overhead-chop from the two-handed-fighter archetype.
The fact that while performing e.g. an overhead-chop, you use the same mechanics as the Standard Action "attack(melee)" from the combat section, doesnt make it the same Action.
You could say cleave is a Standard Action, that includes one to two attack Actions.

imagine you hit your first attack using cleave, then you will attempt your second attack. if you say attacking in a cleave is really the Standard Action "attack(melee)" from the combat section (core rule book), you would result in performing two "attack(melee)" Actions, wich would be two Standard Actions. but you have only one.

so as the the FAQ (quoted by campincarl) says: cleave is an own Standard Action.

the "can" doesnt mean you can decide not to cleave after you did the attack. It has another function:
it gives you the Option to stop your cleave, after succesfully hitting your first attack. but you still did a cleave. why would that be usefull:

there are many cases. E.g. Monsters that have some sort of passive after dying (like "exploding sekeletons" that explode after they die).

what could happen:
you face 2 skelettons (you dont know them, so you dont know they can explode).
you move in contact to both of them (move Action).
you call your cleave attempt (Standard Action).
you kill the first skelleton, it explodes and you drop to like 2 HP.
you decide not to continue your cleave, because you dont want to risk dying by the second Explosion.
your turn Ends.

if there was no "can" you would have been forced to perform the attack and eventually die. There could also be NPC interaction that stops you, like somebody telling you not to kill the second one, because he wants to examine him.

[jdragnar]

I total understand what everyone is saying and I don't disagree with all of it. The point I wanted to make was that the wording in the book does not coincide with intent of James. When choosing feats you go by what the books says not by what the intent was. I totally accept the decision made of course. I also appreciate every ones input.

[jdragnar]

I also would like to question the -2 at the start of your turn. I understand that once you cleave you take the -2 but why would you take it while you are moving into position? Once you are in position I agree that you leave yourself vulnerable but before you get there you don't. Again just my view on the topic.

[Gauss]

jdragnar, the wording in the book does coincide with the FAQ and what James stated. It is your mis-reading of the wording in the book that does not coincide.

[Link-Bot]

jdragnar wrote:

This Is James Jacobs' response to the cleave question. I still believe that the way it is worded is contradictory to his statement here. That being said he is the writer so I guess we have to go with that. I don't know how to source so I apologize.

>LINK SERVICE PERFORMED

[Jeraa]

jdragnar wrote:

I also would like to question the -2 at the start of your turn. I understand that once you cleave you take the -2 but why would you take it while you are moving into position? Once you are in position I agree that you leave yourself vulnerable but before you get there you don't. Again just my view on the topic.

As far as I can see, no one has said that (or even implied it). The penalty starts as soon as you use your standard action to use the Cleave feat.

[Casual Viking]

jdragnar wrote:

I also would like to question the -2 at the start of your turn. I understand that once you cleave you take the -2 but why would you take it while you are moving into position? Once you are in position I agree that you leave yourself vulnerable but before you get there you don't. Again just my view on the topic.

Nobody (here) is saying that you take the -2 from the start of the turn. Because you don't declare the Cleave until after your move action.