Cleave Wording

[Mr Tumnus]

If you deal a creature enough damage to make it drop (typically by dropping it to below 0 hit points or killing it), you get an immediate, extra melee attack against another creature within reach. You cannot take a 5-foot step before making this extra attack. The extra attack is with the same weapon and at the same bonus as the attack that dropped the previous creature. You can use this ability once per round.

I'm wondering if the wording on the cleave feat supersedes the wording of other abilities. Say for instance you have an ability from somewhere that grants you a +2 to hit but only for your next attack, do you get +2 on the cleave as well because "...the same bonus as the attack that dropped the previous creature."

For example True Strike, it's for a single attack before the end of your next turn granting you a +20 to hit. Does this mean that if you drop that creature your cleave will also be at +20 to hit because it's "...the same bonus as the attack that dropped the previous creature."

I ask this question because the general interpretation I've come across is that it really means a normal attack kind of like an attack of opportunity but the feat doesn't say "Full Base Attack Bonus" like haste or "Normal Attack Bonus" like the wording from attack of opportunity, it says "the same bonus".

[Kelb_Panthera]

A DM could rule either way without definitively going against the apparent intent of the rules, but I'm inclined to say that a strict reading of the clause would, indeed, mean that any miscelaneous, temporary, and circumstantial bonuses applied to the attack that generates the cleave would apply equally to the cleave attack.

[hymer]

The wording of True Strike goes to some length to make it clear it only goes once per casting. So it seems in that particular case, at least, you can't get the +20 on your cleave.
Maybe it can be said that the bonuses remain the same, but some effects (such as True Strike) don't linger beyond what they normally do.
But this is pretty off the cuff. Let's see what the real experts on precedents say.

[ahenobarbi]

A DM could rule either way without definitively going against the apparent intent of the rules, but I'm inclined to say that a strict reading of the clause would, indeed, mean that any miscelaneous, temporary, and circumstantial bonuses applied to the attack that generates the cleave would apply equally to the cleave attack.

Hmm Great Cleave + bag of hamsters + Favored Enemy (Animal) = full favored enemy bonus on everything :smallbiggrin:

Forgot favored enemy gives damage bonus not to-hit bonus :(

Well you could carry around a bag of prone hamsters to +4 to-hit bonus.
If you are a paladin make those hamsters, smite them and use +Cha to hit on your enemies (+damage will be lost).
If only you could make hamsters count as orcs you could use them to get +1 racial to hit bonus from being dwarf.

[Andezzar]

The wording of True Strike goes to some length to make it clear it only goes once per casting.True, but cleave explicitly says that you use the same attack bonus as the attack that dropped an opponent.

Maybe it can be said that the bonuses remain the same, but some effects (such as True Strike) don't linger beyond what they normally do.Attack Bonus is the entire bonus you add to the d20 on the attack roll. It does not matter how this number is composed. A cleave following an attack augmented by True strike uses the AB of the Attack augmented by true strike.

Whether that was the intention of the writers I don't know but the RAW is clear:

The extra attack is with the same weapon and at the same bonus as the attack that dropped the previous creature.
Unless of course you want to argue the meaning of the word same.

Knowledge devotion+lots of hamsters or other low AC low HP creature+(great) cleave should also work. It stops though if you ever roll a 1.

[hymer]

I don't want to argue about the word same any more than I want to argue over the word single.


Your next single (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/trueStrike.htm) attack roll (if it is made before the end of the next round) gains a +20 insight bonus.

Maybe someone can tell us of the rule (beyond rule 0) that applies when two bits of mechanic flatly contradict each other.

[TuggyNE]

Hmm Great Cleave + bag of hamsters + Favored Enemy (Animal) = full favored enemy bonus on everything :smallbiggrin:

Forgot favored enemy gives damage bonus not to-hit bonus :(

Well you could carry around a bag of prone hamsters to +4 to-hit bonus.
If you are a paladin make those hamsters, smite them and use +Cha to hit on your enemies (+damage will be lost).
If only you could make hamsters count as orcs you could use them to get +1 racial to hit bonus from being dwarf.

Somewhere down this path is a very amusing paladin fall story.

[Andezzar]

Maybe someone can tell us of the metarule (beyond rule 0) that applies when two bits of mechanic flatly contradict each other.There is no contradiction. The True Strike spell gives you +20 on the next attack roll, Cleave give you an additional attack at the same bonus as the previous one. So if the true strike augmented attack is at +30, the cleave attack is at the same bonus (+30).

[hymer]

Except that's where the word 'single' comes in, and contradicts 'same'. Obviously we don't agree on this, though.

[Andezzar]

One more try: "single" refers to the attack to be augmented by True Strike. "same" refers to the bonus on the attack that dropped the opponent. True Strike never gives a bonus to more than one attack, and Cleave gives an additonal attack at a fixed bonus (the one from the previous attack).

[Mr Tumnus]

Maybe someone can tell us of the rule (beyond rule 0) that applies when two bits of mechanic flatly contradict each other.

+1

Since the asking of this question I have a ruling on how this works but still wish the writing were a bit more clear.

[Acanous]

as far as I understand it, the Cleave attack is *Considered to be* the same attack that dropped the previous creature, carrying on through to hit another creature.

So it still is the same single attack. It just counts against multiple opponents.

[Fouredged Sword]

In general specific overrides general.

In this case both readings are no more specific than the other.

The next general rules is that players can pick the order effects are applied.

Thus you can apply the truestrike (+20 to your next single attack roll) as a being resolved before the cleave (same attack bonus as your last attack) effect.

Thus you would maintain the bonus, but not as a bonus from truestrike, but as an bonus provided by the cleave feat = to the bonus on the last attack

Now the final rule is rule zero that the DM is allowed to make the rules make sense.

So, I would not allow bonuses that are target specific, like racial hatred or prone initial target as that make little or no sense regardless of the way the rules read.

[Lonely Tylenol]

I'm the one who gave the ruling, and I'd like clearer wording. Mostly because:


as far as I understand it, the Cleave attack is *Considered to be* the same attack that dropped the previous creature, carrying on through to hit another creature.

So it still is the same single attack. It just counts against multiple opponents.

Is what I've always assumed, except that True Strike, et al. specify attack rolls--and Cleave requires a unique attack roll.

Further, if that is the correct reading, what happens if you Cleave off a ToB strike (assuming you can)? Can I Cleave-chain Strike of Perfect Clarity?

EDIT:


In general specific overrides general.

In this case both readings are no more specific than the other.

The next general rules is that players can pick the order effects are applied.

Thus you can apply the truestrike (+20 to your next single attack roll) as a being resolved before the cleave (same attack bonus as your last attack) effect.

Thus you would maintain the bonus, but not as a bonus from truestrike, but as an bonus provided by the cleave feat = to the bonus on the last attack

Now the final rule is rule zero that the DM is allowed to make the rules make sense.

So, I would not allow bonuses that are target specific, like racial hatred or prone initial target as that make little or no sense regardless of the way the rules read.

We pretty much agree on all of the standard cases where it would obviously apply (a Fiery weapon deals the extra d6 damage on both targets, assuming neither is fire-immune; Power Attack penalties would apply equally to the Cleave attack; and so on), as well as those where it obviously wouldn't (Cleaving from a flanked enemy to a non-flanked enemy carries neither the flanking bonus, nor any precision damage dice; an Animal Bane weapon cleaved from an animal companion into its Ranger owner would not confer the Bane bonus to the Ranger; cleaving from a prone enemy into a non-prone one does not confer the prone bonus). In general, all bonuses on the side of the person cleaving (the Fiery weapon, Power Attack penalties) apply equally, whereas all bonuses and penalties dependent on the person being cleaved into (is this person flat-footed? Are these creatures of the right type?) are not.

The distinction that we really are having trouble making is what happens when the Cleave is chained off of something that happens "on a single attack", or, to get even more granular about it, the difference between "a single attack" and "a single attack roll".

[Valdor]

as far as I understand it, the Cleave attack is *Considered to be* the same attack that dropped the previous creature, carrying on through to hit another creature.

So it still is the same single attack. It just counts against multiple opponents.

So much this. I believe this is pretty much the explanation we are looking for.

[Andezzar]

Another nice combo is True strike maxed power attack+heedless charge+cleave. You get another attack with +20 from true strike, +2 from charging, no AB reduction due to heedless charge and all the extra damage from power attack.

[nedz]

For reference: This is the FAQ entry, which seems to clear this up nicely.


The Cleave feat states that the extra attack is “at the same bonus as the attack that dropped the previous creature.” Does this really mean that all bonuses and penalties on the first attack roll — aid another, smite evil, flanking, true strike, and so on — apply to the second?
The “bonus” referred to by Cleave means “base attack bonus,” not “total bonus.” If a 6th-level fighter drops a foe with his second attack, he makes the extra attack using his base attack bonus –5 (the same “bonus” as he used for his second attack).
If you aren’t flanking the new foe, it’s absurd to claim that you’d get a +2 bonus on the attack roll just because you were flanking the dropped foe. Any lasting bonuses or penalties — such as from the bless spell, a high or low Strength score, being fatigued, or the like — apply to the extra attack just as they would to any other attack you make.

[Andezzar]

FAQs can't change rules, that's what errata do. The rules say nothing about BAB. While you may judge getting the +2 flanking bonus when you are not flanking the new target is ludicrous, that is exactly what the rules say.

[hymer]

They don't change the rule, but they do interpret and clarify them. For those of us in doubt, at least, this makes it a lot easier to make up one's mind. To those who had already decided on an intepretation it may seem different, of course.

[Andezzar]

Changing AB to BAB is not a clarification, it is a change of the rules.

[hymer]

True, but not particularly relevant.

[Andezzar]

True, but not particularly relevant.Yes it is. The OP was about the rules of combining True Strike and Cleave. Since this part of the FAQ postulates something that is against the rules, in a discussion of the rules it is irrelevant.

Everyone of course is free to make up a houserule that reflects what is written in the FAQ.

[hymer]

The rules take interpreting to put into practice, and who better to do it than those who wrote them?
The matter here is, what does 'attack bonus' mean? Do note that the term isn't so specific that you'll find it in the PHB glossary, unlike 'base attack bonus'. The FAQ interprets the term as used in this case. It might be explained by the one who wrote the 'cleave' text; I'd be surprised if it wasn't written at least in consultation with the responsible writer.
The FAQ interprets the text. It says so itself - it explains what's meant by 'bonus'. It only alters the rule if you've already decided that another different interpretation is the correct way to understand the text.

With this, I think I've stated my case as clearly as I need to be understood by other readers. I don't expect to convince you specifically, Andezzar. Happy gaming! :smallsmile:

[Pandiano]

If a power attack -10 dropped the foe, do you cleave with the -10, but without the power attack damage?

[Andezzar]

If a power attack -10 dropped the foe, do you cleave with the -10, but without the power attack damage?No, power attack is pretty explicit on that. All attacks until your next turn suffer the penalty and get the damage bonus.

[Ravens_cry]

Eh, I would file this under DM call, Specific beats general, but both are pretty specific. Personally, I would say magic, being, well, magic, beats a feat's specificity, but that's me.

[Person_Man]

I'm not a RAW expert, and I think Lonely Tylenol's RAW interpretation was probably correct.

But I personally would give the Cleave attack the +20 True Strike bonus (and any other similar bonuses) because it's a cruddy Feat. Plenty of other Feats multiply damage (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7165087) or give you an extra attack (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7066595) with far less onerous restrictions. Leap Attack, Spirited Charge, Headlong Rush, Karmic Strike, Robilar's Gambit, Deformity (claws or bite), Shape Soulmeld (various), etc. Cleave is just too highly conditional.

[Gwendol]

The FAQ text doesn't clarify much IMO. The wording of the feat doesn't say "attack bonus" or BAB. Just bonus. It's totally valid to apply any and all bonuses of the first roll to the cleave attack, but expect a DM to make his own calls depending on the specifics of the situation.