Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Biliruben 04-16-04, 12:29 PM	I DM a group of friends who all seem to have a fair grasp on the rules, some much better than others. But we've come on a disagreement that maybe y'all could help out with: The PC has been polymorphed into an Annis Hag. He attacks a baddie and lands both claws on him. The NPC took the damage from the two claw attacks and remained standing. So the Annis Hag is granted a Rend for the extra 2d6+Str damage. Well that did him in. So now the PC wants to Cleave. CLEAVE [GENERAL] Prerequisites: Str 13, Power Attack. Benefit: 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. Rend (Ex): An annis that hits with both claw attacks latches onto the opponent’s body and tears the flesh. This attack automatically deals an extra 2d6+10 points of damage. I ruled against it and didn't allow him to Cleave. Primarily because Rend is listed as a Special Attack and has no BAB associated with it. In addition, Rend requires both claws to land so it seem further impossible for the Annis Hag to Cleave with both claws on a single attack. How would you rule?
Kronk LaSworda 04-16-04, 12:47 PM	No, a rend is an attack that you pull off when your claw attacks are successful (as you have already pointed out). A cleave uses the same attack that you just used [The extra attack is with the same weapon and at the same bonus as the attack that dropped the previous creature]. How can you rend a second person when you still have bits of the first guy in your hands/claws? That would be like saying that the claw attacks were automatically successful on the second guy. As you have fully demonstrated, sometimes you have to use common sense and adjudicate these issues. Good GMing! :thumbsup:
danielinthewolvesden 04-16-04, 12:49 PM	Yep, you can Cleave from a Rend. Never try to bring reality into a fantasy game. Esp ignore the cute names WotC made for the Feats. You can "cleave" with a spear. However, I could see that you can't get another Rend from a Cleave follow through.
Nyvinyd 04-16-04, 01:08 PM	Rend is just extra damage, NOT an extra attack. It means that if you hit with both claws, then you get to add this extra damage to the second attack. Cleave just says that you do an extra attack with the same weapon at the same attack bonus. This is NOT a full attack, and therefore you CANNOT get to rend on a cleave. Ruling: If you drop someone because of Rend, it's because the second weapon hit. Cleave with the second weapon, with the second weapon's attack bonus. If your attacks are +10/+5, then your cleave attack off of rend will be at a +5 attack bonus, and since you won't be hitting with both attacks, you cannot rend on a cleave. Think of it like this- A werewolf plunges his right claw deep into your fighter's chest. He digs his left claw in, rips out a few ribs, and while the body slide off of his right claw, he swipes again with his left claw at the next opponent.
wdarkk 04-16-04, 02:13 PM	Note that you can cleave off a rake, since they generally have attack bonuses listed.
havoclad 04-16-04, 02:16 PM	Fair Disclosure: I'm in BiliRuben's group and the major dissenter After pondering this a bit more, I may be changing my mind. I'm with Daniel that reading too much into the description of the feats/abilities will only lead to trouble. I guess the question is whether cleave should work after EX abilities. Some other EX abilities to ponder as to whether they get cleave Trample Constrict Pounce - says take a full attack, so I think cleave is ok Rake Crush (mimic grappling) Poison: say you drop someone by bringing their CON to 0, the description of cleave says "typically by dropping it below 0 HP" implies there are atypical ways. In short, I prefer my rules simple with no special cases. So I'd prefer if cleave either worked after all EX abilities nomatter how illogical it sounds (cleave after constrict for one), or to work for none of them. Can anyone find a clear cut rule that supports either viewpoint? Thoughts?
wdarkk 04-16-04, 02:20 PM	If it's not an attack, you shouldn't cleave off it. No attack roll - no cleave. If you killed with rend damage right after hitting, I suppose you could. But if you constricted at the beginning of the round because you already had a hold on the guy and he dies, no attack roll means no cleave.
igronimus 04-16-04, 02:22 PM	Originally posted by danielinthewolvesden Yep, you can Cleave from a Rend. Never try to bring reality into a fantasy game. Esp ignore the cute names WotC made for the Feats. You can "cleave" with a spear. However, I could see that you can't get another Rend from a Cleave follow through. You can't cleave with piercing weapons, it's stated right in the rules (in 3.5 anyway). Cleave is a perfect name for the attack. You hit something and smash/cut right through it to the next guy. How else would you possibly describe it? You slay someone with your weapon and thus gain special enlightenment that allows you to attack again? I agree with the orginal post that jamming two swords or claws into someone, and then wrenching them out, would not allow one to cleave.
havoclad 04-16-04, 02:31 PM	Originally posted by igronimus You can't cleave with piercing weapons, it's stated right in the rules (in 3.5 anyway). Can you cite your source for this? I don't see it in the SRD (which is all I can access from work).
Biliruben 04-16-04, 02:53 PM	Originally posted by Nyvinyd Rend is just extra damage, NOT an extra attack. It means that if you hit with both claws, then you get to add this extra damage to the second attack. I think that's where I'd disagree most. Rend is listed as a Special Attack and the description describes it as an "extra attack". So it simply can't be lumped in as extra damage. In addition, as Rend describes the damage is dealt from both claws, not just because the second claw hit. This isn't damage tacked on to claw swing #2, it's damage as a result of both claws. It's just convinient that it immidiately follows the second claw attack. -Biliruben
Nyvinyd 04-16-04, 03:37 PM	The entire entry from the PHB- CLEAVE [GENERAL] You can follow through with powerful blows. Prerequisites: Str 13, Power Attack. Benefit: 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. Special: A fighter may select Cleave as one of his fighter bonus feats (see page 38). Nowhere in there does it say that you can't use piercing weapons.
Autosponge 04-16-04, 04:24 PM	This also does not say it excludes damage from special attacks like Rend or special abilities like Smite. If you deal a creature enough damage to make it drop ... It makes NO qualifications about the type of damage, where the damage comes from other than it's with a weapon (natural weapons included) The extra attack is with the same weapon and at the same bonus as the attack that dropped the previous creature. So ask yourself these questions: 1. Did he attack? (not cast a spell) 2. Did he use a weapon? (not a touch attack) 3. Did he do enough damage to drop the target? (0 or kill) If yes to all three, you must grant the Cleave as these are the only restrictions. In the above case, he did attack, he used natural weapons, and dropped the target--therefore, he gets to cleave. Also, the person who said you can't cleave with pierce weapons is on crack. No such rule. You ruled incorrectly. The player was right to challenge you.
danielinthewolvesden 04-17-04, 04:30 AM	Originally posted by havoclad Poison: say you drop someone by bringing their CON to 0, the description of cleave says "typically by dropping it below 0 HP" implies there are atypical ways. Nope, here we can stay within the letter and intent of the rules, both. You must drop them below 0 HP. Not to 0HP. Otherwise I have no problem with the rest. If you damage in melee, and you drop them below 0, then you can cleave. If you woudl say "no" to Rend, then how about Sneak Attack?:rolleyes:
Vaalingrade Ashland 04-17-04, 04:35 AM	A rend occurs after you're done attacking, if your claw attacks hit. No attack, no cleave. Besides that, its common sense that if you're tearing into someone with your claws, you have no momentum to carry the attack over. That's like saying you can cleave off of stomping a bug.
UZI 04-17-04, 08:19 AM	I'd have to say no cleave off of a rend, though I can see other DMs going the other way. My rationality is that there is no attack role for the rend damage, it is automatic. You won't be able to make an attack role at the same attack bonus as "automatic".
Draco_Whitewind 04-17-04, 01:50 PM	well, here is how i feel about it Rend is not an attack. rend is PART of an attack, extra damage from special circumstances from an attack. it's EXACTLY like getting damage from a burst weapon from a critical. except this one requires previous hits to be activated. rend is PART of an attack, just like extra dice damage. if EITHER drops then (base damage or extra), then a cleave is generated. in fact, if you had great cleave, and haste, you could pull off an interesting combo. if you hit with all 4 attacks, you'll get a nice combo. great for being surrounded. full attack action claw one, hit claw two, hit, gives rend cleave from either claw two or rend (cleave becomes claw two) haste attack: claw one, gives rend. if claw one or rend drops, then cleave with claw one. I'm positive that works as far as I know. can't see a reason why it shouldn't. that's from 3 normal attacks, 5, plus two rends. ~Draco
Dragonteuthis 04-17-04, 04:28 PM	Originally posted by danielinthewolvesden Nope, here we can stay within the letter and intent of the rules, both. You must drop them below 0 HP. Not to 0HP. Actually, bringing to someone to a zero Con through poison brings you to -10 hit points (the definition of death). It's right there in the DMG, so by your wierd logic, you can cleave with the Poison Spell. Back on topic: According to Wizards of the Coast hotline (which isn't always correct, I know), you need to be able to use the prerequisite for the feat to use it. Makes sense, right? If you can't Power Attack with the weapon/attack form, you can't cleave with it either. Sure, it means you can't cleave with a light weapon, but that kinda makes sense anyway. It also makes sense since if you lose access to Power Attack (say, by a ray of enfeeblement spell), you can't cleave either. Anyways, other implications are no cleaving when grappling, when trampling, through poison damage alone (though if you drop them with a poisoned wweapon, that's different). However, you can cleave when pouncing and/or raking. Please note that the WotC hotline advice isn't necessarily official. I've e-mailed the Sage on this, and I'll post when I get a reply. Edit: Just realized that you COULD cleave with a light weapon. Technically, you can Power Attack with a light weapon, though you gain no benefit for doing so.
zodiki 04-17-04, 11:57 PM	It can go either way really. I would rule that you can Cleave if the Rend damage is actually what dropped the creature. The extra attack would be with one of the claws. Actually, I would have said the Cleave attack was with the dead body of the NPC with the equivalent damage of a Huge club improvised as a weapon (-4 to hit).
meabolex 04-18-04, 12:40 AM	While worded very poorly, I imagine the Rend attack is conceptually an extra flourish of damage that comes with hitting with both attacks. It is added damage on the final claw attack, thus it is not really a separate attack at all -- it's still the final claw attack. The cleave should activate based on the final claw.
Autosponge 04-18-04, 12:48 AM	First let's get away from the idea that you have to have the action "make sense" in a realistic way because this is a fantasy tabletop game. Second, you're wrong if you think there is no momentum from a Rend--a rend is the tearing of something. I want you to pick up a piece of paper and hold it at each end long ways, then REND it as fast and furiously as you can. At the time of RENDING, turn your hands (claws) out. Now if there was someone on either side of you, you'd hit them both in the process of your follow through (CLEAVE). Ok, I've given you 2 reasons to stop that line of thinking and drop that argument, you're wrong. Next, dropping someone to 0 does DROP them and they are unconcious although they are auto-stabilized, so you can cleave off of that. Last, no one has disputed the fact that I numerated all the requirements for a cleave: 1. Did he attack? 2. Did he use a weapon? 3. Did he do enough damage to drop the target? The case we're talking about the correct answer to each is YES therefore you must grant the REND unless there is a SPECIFIC ruling elsewhere that would deny it.
Nyvinyd 04-18-04, 12:52 AM	The way I think of Rend is that on the second attack, enough power was generated by sheer momentum of the attack that you rip through the flesh of the opponent. As far as Cleave is concerned, do NOT think that it means you just cut through your opponent entirely. I would think that something like that would mean you've KILLED your opponent, not just dropped them. Also, if it meant you just rip right through to the next guy, how are you supposed to do something like that with a freaking claw?
tiggrhoo 04-18-04, 01:04 AM	Originally posted by Autosponge Last, no one has disputed the fact that I numerated all the requirements for a cleave: 1. Did he attack? 2. Did he use a weapon? 3. Did he do enough damage to drop the target? Autosponge's use of the rules is convincing. A rend is an attack; it even says so in the description of the Annis' rend attack. The only question I see is what attack bonus to use for the cleave. Well, the description of Cleave says to use the same attack bonus as the attack that dropped the previous creature, which was the Rend. But what attack bonus did the Rend have? Once you've hit with the two claws, the Rend is an attack that automatically does damage (sort of like sneak attack damage, as someone pointed out). The roll you used to do that damage was the roll by which the second claw hit. Conclusion: Yes, you can Cleave off a Rend. Use the same attack bonus as you used to hit with the second claw.
Biliruben 04-18-04, 01:12 AM	Originally posted by Nyvinyd Also, if it meant you just rip right through to the next guy, how are you supposed to do something like that with a freaking claw? I'd also like to avoid the "what's realistic" arguments. This is a game governed by rules. Instead of interpreting rules by what's realistic, let's let the rules determine what's realistic. So let's answer Autospoonge's questions: 1. Did he attack? Yes, Rend is an attack (READ: not "added damage". It's listed as a Special Attack and described as an extra attack. If you're treating Rend as added damage, you're boneing the PC's with DR the attacker cannot overcome) 2. Did he use a weapon? Yes, two claws. 3. Did he do enough damage to drop the target? Sure Ok, so the prereqs are met. What I can't reconcile is the follow-thru: The extra attack is with the same weapon and at the same bonus as the attack that dropped the previous creature. Well, Rend is an attack with weapons being both claws acting simultaneously. Cleave only grants one extra melee attack. It seems counterintuitive to give a single melee attack with two claws. And then what's the base attack? Rend has no base attack, it just automatically hits. DM's could read this as +0 or auto-hit. By the letter of the rule, you must grant the player an extra melee attack using both claws at either a +0 or autohit base attack. I don't believe this result is in the spirit of what Cleave is meant to do.
tiggrhoo 04-18-04, 01:22 AM	Originally posted by Biliruben By the letter of the rule, you must grant the player an extra melee attack using both claws at either a +0 or autohit base attack. I don't believe this result is in the spirit of what Cleave is meant to do. I don't either. I think the Cleave is meant to give an extra attack with one claw. (Though I can see how a literal reading would give those results you mentioned.)
Autosponge 04-18-04, 02:03 PM	I think it's pretty obvious at this point, since the Rend is dependant on both claws hitting, you have to grant the Cleave with a claw attack. Rend = claw + claw. Look at these possibilities: (assume 2 claw attacks with cleave feat for each scenario) 1. Claw1 hit, drops target, cleave with claw1, claw2, Rend 2. Claw1 miss, claw2 hit, drops target, cleave with claw2 3. Claw1 hit, claw2 hit, drops target, cleave with claw2 4. Claw 1 hit, claw2 hit, rend, drop target, cleave with claw2 The first three are not in question by the rules, it's pretty clear. However, the 4th (your problem case) seems to have the same natural flow to it when you see the Rend as something other than an attack--they're right, it's more like sneak attack damage than a real attack.
CrippleMrOnion 04-18-04, 02:44 PM	You cannot cleave off a rend. The 3.5 PH states (I don't know if I'm actually allowed to quote or not...) "The outcome of an attack is determined by an attack roll." This proves that despite Wiz's misnomer of calling rend an attack, it is not an attack, and, thus, does not allow a cleave. Sorry. Think of it this way. If a spellsword channeled Acid Arrow through his sword and dealt ALMOST enough damage to drop his opponent, then, when the acid arrow went of next round, his opponent died, would he get a cleave? No. They're both extra damage, not attacks, despite the poor use of word choice on the writer's parts. The PH clearly states otherwise. No attack roll, no attack.
danielinthewolvesden 04-18-04, 03:48 PM	Would not a Rogues sneak attack or the 1d6 extra damage provided by a flaming sword both count? Of course. Rend is extra damage brought on by a melee attack- it is also listed specifically as an Attack. In CMO's idea of a "Melf's"- if in the original attack, the MAA extra damage dropped the foe- then yes, there'd be a cleave. But the damge the NEXT round isn't brought on directly by a melee attack, so no. A Cleav brought in by a Rend would allow one extra claw attack at the attack bonus that claw had.
tiggrhoo 04-18-04, 03:54 PM	Originally posted by CrippleMrOnion "The outcome of an attack is determined by an attack roll." This proves that despite Wiz's misnomer of calling rend an attack, it is not an attack, and, thus, does not allow a cleave. Sorry. You make a good point. If there's no attack roll, there's no attack. Situation: Clearly, even though the description refers to Rend as an attack, there's something different going on here; it doesn't get its own separate attack roll the way the claw attack does. It could be argued (and you do a good job of it) that this means the rules are inconsistent here and that the Rend is not an attack at all. (Focus on the words "doesn't get" above.) However, I consider the Rend to be an attack, and in fact part of the claw attack. That's what is different, IMO; the outcome of a Rend is determined by the attack roll of the claw used to deliver it. (Focus on the word "separate" above.) This interpretation does not require any inconsistency in the rules, and I think it matches the spirit of what was intended. For one thing, it accepts the specific case (Rend) as having at least as much importance as the general rule (Attack). But it's still just an opinion. (Is anyone else starting to feel like a lawyer? :D)
meabolex 04-18-04, 04:59 PM	OK, if a contest of semantics is what it is, fine. from the Rend description of the annis hag This attack automatically deals an extra 2d6+10 points of damage. The entire argument of those who say that Rend DOES NOT yield a Cleave is based on this sentence. Thus, we have effectively reduced all arguments down to a minor, poorly worded sentence. We can eliminate the wording of cleave from consideration because it specifically mentions: The extra attack is with the same weapon and at the same bonus as the attack that dropped the previous creature. So, we must define whether Rend is an attack in the classic sense of the word or not. The key word here is "extra" -- is it possible for an attack to simply add damage to another attack? No, the game specifically states in example after example that two separate attacks have two separate damage rolls. There is no attack in the game that adds extra damage to *another* attack without actually dealing damage itself. There is also no attack in the game that can be made without an attack roll (as others have pointed out). So we're forced to make either one of two mutually exclusive choices: a) The Rend special attack is an attack without an attack roll and adds "extra damage" (as in "extra damage" from a smite evil attack) but does not actually deal damage itself. It only deals "extra" damage to another attack. b) The Rend special attack is not an attack but rather *extra* damage added to another attack (similar to smite evil). It adds *extra* damage to what would be a normally a claw attack. If select choice a, you are creating a major exception to the rules based on one poorly chosen word in the description of Rend (the word "attack") that differs from every other attack in the game. You may choose to base the entire argument around one word. But I think its pretty clear that the designers *meant* to have rend work like other damage enhancing powers based on the prerequisite conditions (the two claws hitting). It's your call. . . if you take it's meaning literally and verbatim, then you have your validation in the text. Ultimately though, the spirit of the rule suggests that choice b is the valid based on it's mechanical relations to other abilities (namely the smite attacks).
tiggrhoo 04-18-04, 05:05 PM	Originally posted by meabolex b) The Rend special attack is not an attack but rather *extra* damage added to another attack (similar to smite evil). It adds *extra* damage to what would be a normally a claw attack. But doesn't that mean the claw attack, with its extra damage, dropped the opponent? That's why I think you get a cleave. In fact, if an attack drops an opponent through the use of smite evil, I would allow a cleave attack for that, too. I'm not trying for a semantic argument, I really think this is the intent of the rules. Obviously that's just my opinion.
meabolex 04-18-04, 05:07 PM	tiggrhoo: We're not arguing (:
tiggrhoo 04-18-04, 05:17 PM	Originally posted by meabolex tiggrhoo: We're not arguing (: Sorry if I seemed that way; I'm not feeling at my fastest today. No sleep, you understand.
CrippleMrOnion 04-18-04, 06:38 PM	The Melf was a bad example, and not well thought out, really. However, the wording of what is an attack stands. Looking at some other arguements, I think what's really being debated is whether the rend is a separate "action" (not in DnD terms, just in the general, everyday meaning) from the attack. If the rend is separate from the attack, then I can't see cleave being justified. If it's actually just extra damage, like sneak attack and energy, then I wouldn't have argued in the first place. But the wording of rend suggests that it's not simultaneous, just automatic. Metagaming accusations aside, could a cleric say, "I'm going to ready a heal spell to heal the fighter if the annis tries to rend him." If he could, then it's not simultaneous, it just happens afterward without any choice on the annis's part. In which case it's a separate action (in everyday terms) and shouldn't get a cleave. By the way, the comparison with smite evil, I believe, isn't totally appropriate for four reasons; one, it's prerequiste is that a creature being smited must be evil. There is no such prerequiste for rend. Two, the Paladin decides when to smite evil; a hag has no choice over her rend. It happens automatically. Thirdly, you'd multiply smite evil damage if you criticaled (I think), but not rend damage. Lastly, Smite evil is a Supernatural ability, and rend is extraordinary. For that reason, I'd suggest that Sneak attack is a better comparison; it's prereq is a combat oriented one, and it's extraordinary. Also, it doesn't get multiplied in a critical. It still is a choice, but one difference is better than three. Now look at the langauge or sneak attack; From the SRD, "The rogue’s attack deals extra damage." Rend doesn't state that the damage is added to any particular attack; it's just dealt. In fact, the description specifically says that the annis "tears the flesh." That sounds totally separate from the latching on (the attacks). I'm willing to admit that I may be wrong. However, I submit that this may, also, be a case of someone trying to intentionally abuse the rules. Without claiming to know the designers mind (like some), I believe the point of rend is to reward for hitting with both attacks. The point of cleave is to reward for dropping a creature with an attack. Does a player really need a double reward for a single action? I'm not saying the rules strictly prohibit it, but the case can obviously be carefully made for both sides. In the end, it's going to be DM's judgement. I think the wording makes rend sound like a separate motion, and, thus, not part of the attack. With just the cleave feat, can you cleave from a cleave? No, because it's an extra--a bonus. This isn't any different. Oh... and Tigerhoo, don't sweat meabolex. I called him and argued with him for about 45 minutes about this, so he's a little edgy (: and I mean that in the nicest of ways.
Biliruben 04-19-04, 10:58 PM	So we're forced to make either one of two mutually exclusive choices: a) The Rend special attack is an attack without an attack roll and adds "extra damage" (as in "extra damage" from a smite evil attack) but does not actually deal damage itself. It only deals "extra" damage to another attack. b) The Rend special attack is not an attack but rather *extra* damage added to another attack (similar to smite evil). It adds *extra* damage to what would be a normally a claw attack. Looks like there's a third choice: It's an ability that simply deals damage witout an attack roll. I'm trying to avoid the word 'action' as it may cause confusion. My case in point is a nearly identitcal ability: Trample. As Rend, it requires the aggressor to accomplish an action successfully. In the case of Trample, the attacker must move over the opponent's space. Once the condition's met, both "Special Attacks" (being careful not to call it just an 'attack' as it's been pointed out that it does not meet the D&D's definition of 'attack'), the aggressor can deal automatic damage. Trample is as close to Rend as it gets, and you'd be hard pressed to call Trample damage "extra damage" as it doesn't involve any original damage. So why would you categorize Rend that way? I'd say it's merely convinience as Rend requires a successful attack to happen. The requirement to land two claws is clouding what Rend really is: an ability seperate from an attack action that just deals damage. So now I must recant my orignal answers to Autospoonge: Is it an attack? As Trample, it is not an attack as defined by the SRD/PHB. Does it use a weapon? As Trample, it does use the natural weapons of the attacker. Assuming the required damage is dealt, we're still short the first requirement. As Trample, you cannot Cleave from a Rend.
meabolex 04-19-04, 11:09 PM	Now we're adding another exception to the rules (: Trample is the only "melee" attack in the game that allows for a reflex save for lowered damage. It also doesn't use melee weapons. Cleave uses the wording an "extra" melee attack, meaning that at some point in the round, you have taken a melee attack. Trample is not a melee attack and it is a full-round action, so you could not have possibly made a melee attack in the same round. Rend specifically works in conjunction with melee attacks. It is impossible without melee attacks. Both the melee attacks are at the same bonus. To deny the cleave is quite frankly silly. The trample example that you have provide is inconclusive. Sorry Biliruben, pick a or b.
havoclad 04-20-04, 02:01 AM	I believe trample is a melee attack, from the PHB "Melee: Melee combat consists of physical blows exchanged by opponents close enough to threaten one another's space as opposed to ranged combat." Special attacks seem to be all over the place and making a blanket "cleave/no cleave" call seems to be difficult. I think it need to be done on a case by case basis. For me, the intent of cleave is: If you are in melee AND you drop your opponent, take an extra attack. The sage has ruled that cleave works on mirror images which indicates (I think) a willingness to use a liberal interpretation of what is cleavable. Barring a new ruling, IMC cleaving will be allowed after rend, trample, poision (initial), pounce, powerful charge, energy drain, ability drain (CON). However ATM, I am DM without a campaign :)
meabolex 04-20-04, 10:34 AM	Originally posted by havoclad I believe trample is a melee attack, from the PHB "Melee: Melee combat consists of physical blows exchanged by opponents close enough to threaten one another's space as opposed to ranged combat." Special attacks seem to be all over the place and making a blanket "cleave/no cleave" call seems to be difficult. I think it need to be done on a case by case basis. I agree with your analysis of when you should use cleave. It should on a case by case basis. My interpretation of cleave is that it specifically must involve melee weapons. When you make the extra attack, it must be with the same weapon and the same bonus as the weapon that caused the creature to "go down." Many on this thread will fight to the bitter end to uphold the idea that if it doesn't have an attack roll, you can't cleave -- regardless of the fact that the rend was only accomplished through melee attacks with attack rolls. But in the case of trample, I can see you not getting a cleave there because you didn't use a melee weapon. You technically ran/walked over someone; there was no melee attack in the sense of what the game consistently regards as melee attacks. I regard the weapon as the important aspect of cleave. Rend is simply bonus damage you get for making two successful melee attacks with melee weapons. I can see that happening a lot easier than I can see someone get another melee attack through fury and momentum by walking/running over someone. Technically, that requires no skill or extra effort by the creature, which is why there's no attack roll.
jtgalt 04-20-04, 10:58 AM	C'mon guys (and gals). READ the Cleave feat. It doesn't say you have to attack. It doesn't say only regular iterative attacks. It says: if you deal damage sufficient to bring a mob to below ZERO, you get an immediate melee attack. Period. End of story. No weapon type listed, no qualifiers.
tiggrhoo 04-20-04, 11:11 AM	Originally posted by jtgalt C'mon guys (and gals). READ the Cleave feat. It doesn't say you have to attack. It does say "The extra attack is with the same weapon and at the same bonus as the attack that dropped the previous creature." I think that's why people conclude that you have to attack.
Kinger 04-20-04, 01:41 PM	While I've seen perfectly reasonable arguments for either option in this thread (we've some master debators here ;) ), I'd personally side with the "No cleave from rend" side. I view Rend as something different than Sneak Attack, in that Rend has a different sort of prerequisite. Take note that I'm in no way a good debator, so this could get rather unconvincing. *cough* Sneak Attack's prerequisites are all independant of other attacks made by the sneaker. If the prerequisites are met, any attack made by the sneaker is a Sneak Attack. If the rogue has 18 attacks per round (SOMEHOW), each would be a sneak attack if the opponent is denied it's dexterity bonus, etc. I view the attacks made by a sneaker are Sneak Attacks right from the beginning, dealing that additional damage on the initial attack (which, on an off-hand note, would be considered the same lot of damage versus DR). Rend, on the other hand, is an additional effect, not attack, that just, well, happens, in my view. Yes, that is in complete defiance of the word "attack" in the Rend description, I know. I view it as a free action on the part of the Render, similar to Improved Grab. Same with the Mindflayer's Extract. Hit with a tentacle? Grapple for free. Hit with both claws? Rip him for free. Got him in your tentacles at the start of the round? Pop goes the cranium. The Rending occurs after the attack has finished and been resolved, while Cleave (in my view) extends the attack to allow a second attack roll against another foe. Essentially, that makes Rend not an attack (it's a special ability that's prerequisites are filled if you hit with both claws) and thus not entitled to a cleave. When you attack with your rending claws, you AREN'T guarenteed to make the Rend, unlike a Sneak Attack. To me, then, Rending would be another block of damage, much like a spell effect (the continual acid from Melf's), which would bypass damage reduction (but that's another topic entirely :D ). That's how I'd rule it, though I think disagree-ers are fully justified in ruling it the other way, seeing the evidence here.
igronimus 04-20-04, 02:46 PM	Originally posted by Nyvinyd The entire entry from the PHB- CLEAVE [GENERAL] You can follow through with powerful blows. Prerequisites: Str 13, Power Attack. Benefit: 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. Special: A fighter may select Cleave as one of his fighter bonus feats (see page 38). Nowhere in there does it say that you can't use piercing weapons. I must've been thinking of sunder. At any rate, that's dumb. How can you possibly cleave through someone into the next guy with a piercing weapon?
Autosponge 04-20-04, 03:25 PM	A Luger 9mm is a piercing weapon, it can go through at least 5 human bodies as demontrated during WW2.
Kinger 04-20-04, 04:51 PM	Ah, but a Luger is a ranged weapon. It cannot cleave! I discount your statement as paradoxical!! OMG! Nerf the luger!
Biliruben 04-20-04, 05:41 PM	Originally posted by Kinger Ah, but a Luger is a ranged weapon. It cannot cleave! I discount your statement as paradoxical!! OMG! Nerf the luger! What about the Bayonette? Shoot somebody, they drop, take your melee attack. :D
Kinger 04-20-04, 06:03 PM	You have to make a cleave with the same weapon and you know it!
Biliruben 04-20-04, 06:14 PM	Originally posted by Kinger You have to make a cleave with the same weapon and you know it! It is the same weapon: With a bayonette you can shoot 'n stab. Naturally IMC I don't think I'd let this fly if such a weapon existed. But if you'll notice in the SRD, Cleave doesn't say the original attack has to be a melee attack. It just specifies that to make the extra attack, it must be done as a melee attack with the same weapon. Shooting a dope in the head and then pokeing another dope in the eye would all be done with the same weapon. I think I'd feel a little dirty trying to pull that one off though. :-) Edit: :fight!: Now before I get trounced on how wrong that is, I would imagine a bayonette would likely wind up as a two headed weapon and thus each "head" treated as a seperate weapon. But it was fun to scrutinize it for a while.
Autosponge 04-20-04, 09:34 PM	Neat... under the rules, you can throw a returning weapon then cleave with it :D Never thought of that before (muahahahaha - evil DM laugh)
Ehelonna 04-20-04, 10:50 PM	Originally posted by Autosponge Neat... under the rules, you can throw a returning weapon then cleave with it :D Never thought of that before (muahahahaha - evil DM laugh) Unfortunately that won't work. :teach: From the SRD "A returning weapon flies through the air back to the creature that threw it. It returns to the thrower just before the creature’s next turn." So you can't cleave since the weapon has not returned yet.
jtgalt 04-21-04, 02:03 PM	Rend states that it is an attack that "automatically" succeeds. I look at "automatically" as being a natural 20 rolled - it's a successful hit.