Can you Quickdraw in the middle of an Attack?

[Doctor Bomb]

Uh, Great Cleave does.

"This feat works like Cleave, except..."

-Hyp.

... because that's just as impossible as it is think about attacking two different targets immediately with a single weapon. (Even as fast as the brain is, the instant you think about attacking, it's on only one target at a time.) .

OK....
So, in the example below

1__2
_X
___3

I am a super-buff character X, as in the original post. Instead of the armory of swords, axes, and daggers he carries, I wield only a double-bladed sword (with which I am proficient, Focused, etc). I drop #1 off my first attack, then whirl around and whack #2 and #3 with my Cleave and Great Cleave, respectively.
Even though MOST of us (including me) use Great Cleave as a replacement/upgrade for Cleave, in the spirit of the discussion and in a bit of agreement with Camaranth, I am only making ONE SWING with ONE OBJECT, which just happens to count as two weapons for most purposes.

And yet, there are two enemies in my path....

 

[Hypersmurf]

I am only making ONE SWING with ONE OBJECT, which just happens to count as two weapons for most purposes.

It does indeed count as two weapons for most purposes.

So only one end is "the same weapon that dropped the first opponent".

The other end is "not-the-same weapon that dropped the first opponent", and so you can't Cleave with it.

-Hyp.

 

[Camarath]

Here is the response I got from WotC Customer Service.

Dear ----,

Great Cleave is an enhanced version of Cleave. As such, any time you can take a Cleave attack, you are only allowed a single Cleave for that attempt. Good Gaming!

*Please quote this email in any reply.*
*******************************************
Chris
Customer Service Department
Wizards of the Coast
1-800-324-6496
*******************************************


-----Original Message-----
From: ----
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2004 8:58 AM
To: Wizards Customer Service
Subject: Game rules question - Dungeons & Dragons/Forgotten Realms
Feedback


Game rules question - Dungeons & Dragons/Forgotten Realms Feedback
From: ----

Since Great Cleave states that "This feat works like Cleave, except that
there is no limit to the number of times you can use it per round." does
this mean that Great Cleave is a separate ability from Cleave for the
purposes of gaining extra attacks from dropping creatures?

And if so does this mean that the first creature dropped in a round grants
a character with both Cleave and Great Cleave two extra attacks, one from
each feat that grants such attacks?
Sent to: custserv@wizards.com

 

[Jhulae]

Here is the response I got from WotC Customer Service.

Well, there you go. Looks like most of us were pretty much right about the only one attack.

Go figure.

 

[Kaleon Moonshae]

You went to Mirriam-Webster online and took the first definition of the word you found. Cute. However, that's not the definition we're using here. Your definition means "not mediate," which could also be said "not mediated...by another object, cause, or agency."

The definition we're using is definition #4 (a), "occurring, acting, or accomplished without loss or interval of time." In other words, right now. (listed synonym: Instant)

Next time you try to make an argument by quoting verbatim from the dictionary, please try to read the entire listing and choose the definition that makes sense. This is just ridiculous.

Let's try not to be rude. His point was that by one definition it is one thing and by another it is something else, which happens to be what this entire thread seems to be about. I may not agree that you can use the two at once but the rules *can be* interpreted both ways

 

[tenkar]

Does this mean the naysayers will follow this interpretation, or still insist if it wasn't properly and fully explained in the Core Books the official clarification doesn't count?

 

[Camarath]

Well, there you go. Looks like most of us were pretty much right about the only one attack.

Go figure.

It looks like everyone was right doesn't it? The immedaite impetus for me to ask WotC those questions was Anubis and his comments and the possiblity I might be able to get a muddled and confused responce from WotC CS that stated that one should get two extra attacks. And thus WotC might have suggested what I have not that one should play as I am asserting the rules are written.

My point was that the phrase "This feat works like Cleave" means that Great Cleave works as a spearate ability rather than by altering Cleave which means that you have two feats that have the same fuction except for the stated diferance. No one has as of yet proven that this is not so. Hypersmurf has stated that you can not take two immedate extra attacks because you if take one the other ceases to be immedate and thus can not be used and that you may not make immedate attack at the same time but I have not seen rule support for either opinion.

Let's try not to be rude. His point was that by one definition it is one thing and by another it is something else, which happens to be what this entire thread seems to be about. I may not agree that you can use the two at once but the rules *can be* interpreted both ways

I think I can make very much the same point with definition 4a. The only deference is it would then be base on time rather than position or causative factor. That means they we would have to argee on if two actions can happen at the same time ingame and if AoO takes up time ingame. Here is a rewrite of my previous post using the more appropriate definition (the definition I was using might work it you of the game as a command queue or string) and assuming that both immediate extra attacks and AoO take up ingame time.

Immediate means "occurring, acting, or accomplished without loss or interval of time ". If an AoO interposes itself between the action which triggers an immediate attack and the immediate attack itself the immediate attack ceases to be immediate because it is not happening with out without loss of time. As far as I can see the source of the loss not seem to be factor in whether or not something is to be considered immediate or not.

Does this mean the naysayers will follow this interpretation, or still insist if it wasn't properly and fully explained in the Core Books the official clarification doesn't count?

This will not affect the way I play the game one bit. And I will still argue about what the PHB actually says with people if they want but I have known and stated all along that this is what WotC meant (and the way I play). My point has been that they failed to state what they meant in the feat and what they stated actually means something else.

 

[Black Knight Irios]

Immediate means "occurring, acting, or accomplished without loss or interval of time ". If an AoO interposes itself between the action which triggers an immediate attack and the immediate attack itself the immediate attack ceases to be immediate because it is not happening with out without loss of time. As far as I can see the source of the loss not seem to be factor in whether or not something is to be considered immediate or not.

I will argue with you about that immediate thingy:
Try this: Immediate means simply the character carrying out the action that is stated as immediate tries to do that as quick as possible. An AoO that interferes, does make the imediateness a bit longer, but the character is doing his stuff still as fast as possible for him.
But if you make that immediate cleave attack and try to save up that second attack from great cleave after your first downed opponent, the second so called immediate attack is delayed by you, so you did not carry it out as fast as possible for you and so it is lost.
This is how I interpret this imediateness!

Good that customer service made it clear, always only one attack for a downed opponent wether you have cleave or cleave and great cleave.

 

[Camarath]

I will argue with you about that immediate thingy:
Try this: Immediate means simply the character carrying out the action that is stated as immediate tries to do that as quick as possible. An AoO that interferes, does make the imediateness a bit longer, but the character is doing his stuff still as fast as possible for him.
But if you make that immediate cleave attack and try to save up that second attack from great cleave after your first downed opponent, the second so called immediate attack is delayed by you, so you did not carry it out as fast as possible for you and so it is lost.
This is how I interpret this imediateness!

That is a reasonable point of view but I have two questions. First is there anything in the rules about a character losing any immediate game effect because it is interrupted by another immediate game effect? And second why can't the character make both immediate extra attacks at the same time?

 

[Hypersmurf]

And second why can't the character make both immediate extra attacks at the same time?

With the same weapon?

-Hyp.