True Strike and Avalanche of Blades

[RNightstalker]

Avalanche of Blades is a Tiger Claw maneuver that allows a character to continue attacking a singular opponent at additional -4 penalties until missing the first time and the maneuver ends.

The catch is in the description of the maneuver, it says you repeat the same attack again and again until you miss, which makes me think if you activate True Strike before this maneuver, the bonus would help counteract the successive attack penalties. Unfortunately when describing the mechanics of the maneuver, the word used is "another" attack.

Is this legit or just stinky cheese?

[Saintheart]

True Strike applies to your next single attack roll, not your next attack. Avalanche of Blades just says you get another attack if you hit on the first one, so your DM is perfectly within his rights to rule your next attack roll is at a -4 and without the benefit of True Strike.

[Darg]

If you want to cheese true strike, it works on mithral tornado and adamantine hurricane (for the first attack).

[Anthrowhale]

If you want to cheese true strike, it works on mithral tornado and adamantine hurricane (for the first attack).

Great Flyby Attack is particularly good here as well, and potentially available much earlier.

[Darg]

Great Flyby Attack is particularly good here as well, and potentially available much earlier.

The Paimon vestige's Dance of Death ability is another good one (also grants whirlwind attack). 3 levels of binder + improved binding feat and you're there.

[Chronos]

On the other hand, the maneuver says that, aside from the stacking -4 penalties, it's "the same attack bonus". So you could rule that True Strike itself only gives the +20 to the first attack, but then the subsequent attacks inherit the bonus, too, because that was part of your bonus on the first attack.

[Darg]

On the other hand, the maneuver says that, aside from the stacking -4 penalties, it's "the same attack bonus". So you could rule that True Strike itself only gives the +20 to the first attack, but then the subsequent attacks inherit the bonus, too, because that was part of your bonus on the first attack.

Cleave works that way too.

[RNightstalker]

On the other hand, the maneuver says that, aside from the stacking -4 penalties, it's "the same attack bonus". So you could rule that True Strike itself only gives the +20 to the first attack, but then the subsequent attacks inherit the bonus, too, because that was part of your bonus on the first attack.

It's also the the wording in the beginning part about repeating the same attack that isn't necessarily confusing, just kinda gets a player's hopes and a DM's frustrations up lol.

[rel]

My reading is it doesn't work, you only get the truestrike on the first roll. I'd use Wraithstrike instead.

[Gruftzwerg]

On the other hand, the maneuver says that, aside from the stacking -4 penalties, it's "the same attack bonus". So you could rule that True Strike itself only gives the +20 to the first attack, but then the subsequent attacks inherit the bonus, too, because that was part of your bonus on the first attack.
&

Cleave works that way too.


"the same attack bonus" is referring to potential penalties for iterative attacks on your BAB and not to your total attack bonus imho.

[Chronos]

Yes, that's certainly a reasonable interpretation, and I'm not sure which interpretation I prefer. But it's certainly not the only interpretation.

[Crake]

&



"the same attack bonus" is referring to potential penalties for iterative attacks on your BAB and not to your total attack bonus imho.

I personally see it as, for cleave anyway, "this is technically just a follow through of the same in-universe swing, so all bonuses and penalties applied to the first attack also apply equally to the follow through".

[Darg]

That was my interpretation as well. It's like Improved Trip. It's not like the game shies away from allowing such a thing to work. Base Attack Bonus is also a defined term so not saying it makes "attack bonus" more deliberate. The only time it gets weird is when you cleave someone on the high ground after dropping one on the low ground. I can live with that though.

[Gruftzwerg]

I personally see it as, for cleave anyway, "this is technically just a follow through of the same in-universe swing, so all bonuses and penalties applied to the first attack also apply equally to the follow through".
While I was fully supporting this side for a long while, I tend to to see limits now that I didn't see before..

While both "True Strike" & "Avalanche of Blades" are more specific then the general rules, this ain't enough..

To have working combo, Avalanche of Blades would need to be more specific then True Strike. But it is sole more specific towards the general attack rules.

It's actually the other way around: True Strike is more specific than AoB
Because TS specifies a single attack roll, while AoB sole specifies your full attack.
True Strike's target is more precise/specific/limiting.


And regarding: Cleave & "all bonuses"
While "all bonuses" is a very polarizing statement, it still has its limits imho.
To give an example what I mean with this, think about the Combat Brute feat and its maneuver to "cleave" through shields. What happens with the +4 bonus from Improved Sunder (a prerequisite)? Does it carry over to the creature?
Imho it does not, simply because it's not a valid target for the bonus.
Again, while cleave is more specific than the general rules for attacking, it's not more specific regarding the legal targets for "sunder". The intention of the maneuver is not to let you sunder creatures. It did never lose a word about that. It sole allows you to cleave after a successful sunder attempt that did manage to deal enough dmg to break the entire item.
Imho the use of "all bonuses" here ain't a free pass for everything. Other "specific" limitations may still apply.

[Crake]

To give an example what I mean with this, think about the Combat Brute feat and its maneuver to "cleave" through shields. What happens with the +4 bonus from Improved Sunder (a prerequisite)? Does it carry over to the creature?
Imho it does not, simply because it's not a valid target for the bonus.
Again, while cleave is more specific than the general rules for attacking, it's not more specific regarding the legal targets for "sunder". The intention of the maneuver is not to let you sunder creatures. It did never lose a word about that. It sole allows you to cleave after a successful sunder attempt that did manage to deal enough dmg to break the entire item.
Imho the use of "all bonuses" here ain't a free pass for everything. Other "specific" limitations may still apply.

I don't think it's out of the question to allow the +4 bonus to carry over, for a feat who's synergy is literally following through a sunder into a cleave attack. "You cleave through the enemy's shield, and in doing so gain a bonus to hit as they tried to block/parry your attack, but instead now your axe is chopping through their arm", sounds perfectly in line with the feat.

You're trying to definitively determine which rule supercedes the other using logic, but the two are written in such a way that either could equally be right. You won't find your answer in rules logic, you'll find it in "how does this translate into the game world, and what makes sense from that perspective?"

Personally, the notion that true strike acts as a single instance of perfect battle clarity, as it is both an insight bonus, and a divination spell, seems like it could quite easily be better utilized by a warrior who has the strength and know-how to cleave through 3 opponents in one swing.

However, it could be equally considered as truestrike giving you the direction to land a strike with your axe, but beyond that instant, everything is back to the chaotic mess of batter.

It can literally work either way, don't try and rules lawyer it, just decide which interpretation you think fits better with your idea of how true strike works in universe.

[Gruftzwerg]

(Note that I changes the order of the quotes since it fitted my response more)

You're trying to definitively determine which rule supercedes the other using logic, but the two are written in such a way that either could equally be right.

Ain't that the purpose of rule lawyering? :smallbiggrin:


You won't find your answer in rules logic, you'll find it in "how does this translate into the game world, and what makes sense from that perspective?"
There is RAW, RAI and Common Sense. You are describing the latter. While many DM use that as a decision tool, it's not something everyone does. (imho most people still decide these things on their intended power lvl for the table/campaign).



I don't think it's out of the question to allow the +4 bonus to carry over, for a feat who's synergy is literally following through a sunder into a cleave attack. "You cleave through the enemy's shield, and in doing so gain a bonus to hit as they tried to block/parry your attack, but instead now your axe is chopping through their arm", sounds perfectly in line with the feat.

While I get from where you are coming from, I still kinda disagree with that point of view here.

Improved Sunder allows you to better sunder objects.
While Combat Brute allows you to carry that bonus over to the attack against a creature, it's still a creature and not an object. The maneuver doesn't change that.
Imagine a spell that improves your sunder attempts while making a regular attack against a creature. While you have access to the bonus, it doesn't do anything for you.
Same with Combat Brute. It never says anything that your sunder bonus behave differently regarding creatures. But such an explicit statement would be needed to trump the general rules for the "Improved Sunder" feat.

Where is your common sense now? ;) (just joking here)


Personally, the notion that true strike acts as a single instance of perfect battle clarity, as it is both an insight bonus, and a divination spell, seems like it could quite easily be better utilized by a warrior who has the strength and know-how to cleave through 3 opponents in one swing.

However, it could be equally considered as truestrike giving you the direction to land a strike with your axe, but beyond that instant, everything is back to the chaotic mess of batter.

It can literally work either way, don't try and rules lawyer it, just decide which interpretation you think fits better with your idea of how true strike works in universe.

While cleave is depicted as a single strike, mechanically you are still doing separate Attack Rolls. If Cleave would rely on a single Attack Roll, you would be completely right about this. But sadly this ain't the case here.

True Strike is explicit about sole affecting a single attack role. And Cleave does nothing to change that. While Cleave allows TS to carry over, TS doesn't want to affect more than a single Attack Roll by default. And imho that doesn't change.

[Darg]

I don't think anyone agrees that Avalanche of Blades actually combos with True Strike. It doesn't have the "same attack bonus" language other effects have.

[Crake]

There is RAW, RAI and Common Sense. You are describing the latter. While many DM use that as a decision tool, it's not something everyone does. (imho most people still decide these things on their intended power lvl for the table/campaign).

Correct, and when RAW are written in such a way that it could be read in either manner, and RAI is equally not clear, you have to default to Common Sense, that's my point. When RAW and/or RAI are less ambiguous, then they become the default, but in cases like this where they are not clear, then you revert to personal rulings and common sense.



While I get from where you are coming from, I still kinda disagree with that point of view here.

Improved Sunder allows you to better sunder objects.
While Combat Brute allows you to carry that bonus over to the attack against a creature, it's still a creature and not an object. The maneuver doesn't change that.
Imagine a spell that improves your sunder attempts while making a regular attack against a creature. While you have access to the bonus, it doesn't do anything for you.
Same with Combat Brute. It never says anything that your sunder bonus behave differently regarding creatures. But such an explicit statement would be needed to trump the general rules for the "Improved Sunder" feat.

Where is your common sense now? ;) (just joking here)

Right, that ruling makes sense, if you intepret combat brute as allowing the same bonuses to apply from the first attack to the second attack, so you view it as "First attack = A+B+C, therefore second attack = A+B+C", and if the value of A, B, or C changes based on conditions, then the value of the second attack will change. However, if you instead view it as "First attack = A+B+C = phi, therefore second attack = phi", then the change of conditions suddenly does not alter the value of the attack bonus.

Another, perhaps better example of where this could be questionable, is the case of cleave and a bane weapon (i almost suggested favoured enemy, however that doesn't apply a bonus to attack rolls in 3.5, only in pf, where cleave works differently anyway). If you cleave a gnoll with a gnollbane weapon, and then cleave into an orc, does the second attack benefit from bonus? That can also, however, be thought of as, the impetus of the bane weapon's swing carrying over to the next creature, since you get to keep the attack bonus, but the weapon's magic not discharging into the second creature, because it's not the weapon's bane type, hence no extra damage.

But it could equally be viewed the other way, again, the bane magic's effects start and end with the gnoll, and provide no bonus to an orc.


True Strike is explicit about sole affecting a single attack role. And Cleave does nothing to change that. While Cleave allows TS to carry over, TS doesn't want to affect more than a single Attack Roll by default. And imho that doesn't change.

I mean, the bolded part is just factually not true, cleave states "The extra attack is with the same weapon and at the same bonus as the attack that dropped the previous creature." Not "the same base attack bonus", not "with the same bonuses applied based on new conditions", simply "the same bonus".

To me that reads as trumping true strike, because based on the wording, the second attack is not actually receiving the true strike bonus, it's simply "Bonus of attack equals bonus of previous attack". Your intepretation is adding extra inference, and reading it as "All bonuses that applied to the previous attack, apply to this attack". This goes back to my A+B+C = A+B+C, vs A+B+C = phi argument above.

So, technically, if there was some sort of strength-sapping retaliatory ability, and you hit a creature, and lost strength, that reduction in strength wouldn't reduce the bonus of your attack roll against the next creature you cleave, though it would reduce your damage, since cleave makes no mention of using the same damage roll.

End of the day though, for everything I've said about using common sense ruling in the absense of RAW or RAI, I actually think the RAW is pretty clear here. Cleave says you use the same attack bonus, so true strike isn't carrying over, as much as cleave is just applying another effect, which is akin to "Bonus of this attack equals bonus of last attack". In a sense, you're right, in that true strike is not applying to the cleave attack, but rather the cleave attack is "stealing" the attack bonus from your previous attack and applying it to itself.