Can you Quickdraw in the middle of an Attack?

[Coredump]

If you don't believe us, ask WotC. I'm sure they'll clarify that you're wrong and that you do NOT get two attacks extra if you have both Cleave and Great Cleave. I didn't think anyone was dumb enough to interpret that SO wrong.

So bottom line is, YOU'RE WRONG. You get ONE extra attack. That's the bottom line.

Do you have to be such a jackass about this? He is asking a valid question, putting forth a decent interpretation. True, I and others think he is mistaken, but only you deemed it necessary to be moronicly rude about it.

.

 

[dcollins]

Complete Warrior, page 100.

I'm core rules only, baby.

 

[Camarath]

If you don't believe us, ask WotC. I'm sure they'll clarify that you're wrong and that you do NOT get two attacks extra if you have both Cleave and Great Cleave. I didn't think anyone was dumb enough to interpret that SO wrong.

We shall indeed see what WotC Customer Service has to say about this topic. I will post their responce when I receive it.

I didn't see any conflict between the feat description and the summary table. What I saw was a clarification of the feat description. It did not negate or supercede anything said in the feat description, it just explained things in a nice, concise way.

The Great Cleave feat text states that it works like Cleave the table entry just says there is "No limit to the cleave attacks each round" this could mean either that Great Cleave alters Cleave to remove it's limit or that Great Cleave is a separate ability which grants unlimited cleave attacks IMO the text of the feat (primary source) supports the latter not the former.

Except that it would break the use of the "Normal" line, which describes how a rule would work for someone with no feats at all. You can't find an existing example of the "Normal" entry that talks about what happens when someone uses another feat without the one under discussion.

Then remove the Normal entry if you want. There sacrosanct about my working House Rules and I just put that line in for convenience since the feat directly alters another feat.

He is asking a valid question, putting forth a decent interpretation. True, I and others think he is mistaken, but only you deemed it necessary to be moronicly rude about it.

I am pursuing this line of argument not because I believe anyone should play this way but because it seems to me that the rules as written might actually give you two parallel abilities. If hearing me say "I am wrong and no one should ever play this way" will assuage peoples' psyches I will say that now (although I think I kind of already said this in post #4). I am debating this point because I like to debate about literal meaning of rules. I am not trying to offened or disturb anyone and I am sorry if I have done so. (see disclaimer below)

 

[THEBIGLOU]

In a literal interpretation of the rules I can see how it can be interpreted as enhancing cleave to allow an unlimited number of attacks after a foe is felled instead of removing the Cleave limitation of only cleaving after the first foe is dropped. But have you given consideration that according to that strict interpretation of the text you would then be able to take an unlimited number of attacks on a single adjacent foe after you drop any foe? This was obviously not intended and no where does it say that you can only take on attack against one foe. It would be far and away the best feat ever printer for a melee fighter.

This makes the bucket of snail's obsolete....all it takes is one now.


Hypersmurf,

Where is it mentioned about Cleave, and Great Cleave being an immediate action? If you can point it out I am sure that the question is answered despite the vague text.

BIGLOU

 

[Sejs]

Heh, not quite, Lou - you still need to qualify for the extra attack - so you could take an unlimited number of extra attacks as long as the attack that immediatly preceeded it dropped its target. Attack A, A drops, cleave into B, B drops, cleave into C, C doesn't drop, string ends. Rather than Attack A, A drops, cleave into B, C, D, E, F, and G each seperatly for dropping just A.


As for cleave, etc being an immediate action:

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.

 

[tenkar]

As for cleave, etc being an immediate action:

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 mean I can't take 2 immediate attacks at the exact same moment with the exact same weapon if I have great cleave? Damn, nerfed again!

 

[Sejs]

That's right. No more monkeying about with Space-Time, young man! Now go to your room!


Edit: And you have better cross the intervening distance on your way there, or so help me you'll be in such trouble when your father gets home!

 

[Hypersmurf]

Where is it mentioned about Cleave, and Great Cleave being an immediate action?

Ooh, careful - 'Immediate Action' is a defined game term now, in the XPH.

Cleave isn't an Immediate Action, but it allows an immediate extra melee attack.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

You mean I can't take 2 immediate attacks at the exact same moment with the exact same weapon if I have great cleave?

No, that's what Karmic Strike duels are for

-Hyp.

 

[Camarath]

Hypersmurf, what would happen if a character wielding a Flaming Whip gains an immediate extra melee attack via Cleave which he uses against a creature who threatens him?