Can you Quickdraw in the middle of an Attack?

[Caliban]

Basically, the extra attacks the Cleave feats give you represent the follow-through on your first attack, as more guys get caught in the swing-arc of your weapon. If it's a piercing weapon like a spear or a rapier, it means that not only did you skewer one guy, but you also got several more guys who were directly behind him.

Hope that clears up any confusion.

Not really, since it's not true. You usually can't hit target's behind the one you dropped when you cleave (unless using a reach weapon). You have to hit adjacent targets.

Not that it matters, this is a silly debate anyway.

 

[MerakSpielman]

Not that it matters, this is a silly debate anyway.

That's never stopped us before.

Camarath][/b]
Yes, two immediate extra attacks with the same weapon at the same time.

Why do you think this is even possible?

It would seem to require the weapon to be in two different places at the same time.

In strictly rules affairs, common sense, being able to visualize such a thing really happening, etc... doesn't really enter into it.

We can all agree that by killing a kobold with a dagger, you can immediately make a Cleave attack on a second kobold on the opposite side of you. Then, if you have Great Cleave, you could keep cleaving kobolds for as long as you keep killing them, even if you alternate killing ones that are on opposite sides of your character using a piercing weapon.

In fact, you can cleave with an arrow, if you're wielding it in your hand and you happen to kill something with it.

Or even with a spiked shield.

So attacking two different creatures in two different areas simultaniously with the same weapon (and not opposite ends of a two-ended weapon) might be absurd, but only if you're thinking in terms of "what makes any sort of sense."

Rules-wise, I see nothing preventing it.

 

[Elvinis75]

Try this again

Let me put for an alternate reading of the sentece upon which you argument hinges (a tenuous reading one but perhaps a valid one none the less).

The sentence says you get an extra attack or possibly extra attacks with Great Cleave when you whenever you drop a foe. You assume the "or possibly extra attacks with Great Cleave" referes to subsequent droppings of other foes but the sentence does not address such later happening only what happens when you drop one foe. Thus the sentence could be read to say that both abilities grant you an extra attack whenever you drop a foe and further more that you might gain more than one attack if you have Great Cleave on this dropping of the one foe (based on I assume if you had used Cleave before in that round).

“If you have either or both of the feats, you get an extra attack (or possibly extra attacks with Great Cleave) whenever you drop a foe, no matter what type of action you used to drop the foe.”
Break the sentence down. If condition A, then result, when condition B, clearification.
So if Condition A and B are met then result.
I don’t make the assumption that that you are stating. I’m trying the sentence with your hypothesis and it fails to hold water. The sentence says “an” attack and “possibly extra attacks with Great Cleave”. If we go with the idea that both C and GC provide an extra attack with a single foe dropping then “possibly” is not valid as the second attack is guarenteed by GC. Do you understand what I’m getting at?

 

[Camarath]

I’m trying the sentence with your hypothesis and it fails to hold water. The sentence says “an” attack and “possibly extra attacks with Great Cleave”. If we go with the idea that both C and GC provide an extra attack with a single foe dropping then “possibly” is not valid as the second attack is guarenteed by GC. Do you understand what I’m getting at?

Yes, but the second attack would not be guarenteed because the sentence does not specify if the foe dropped is the first foe dropped in the round and Cleave's once per round limit means that any foes dropped after the first would only trigger Great Cleave not Cleave so if you have both feats on dropping a foe one always get an attack but might possibly gain two extra attacks if it is the first foe dropped in a round.

Break the sentence down. If condition A, then result, when condition B, clearification.
So if Condition A and B are met then result.

If you have either or both of the feats [conditional clause], you [subject] get [action] an extra attack (or possibly extra attacks with Great Cleave) [target of action]whenever you drop a foe [trigger for action], no matter what type of action you used to drop the foe [qualifying statement].

"no matter what type of action you used to drop the foe" is the answer to the rule question but does not influnce the meaning of the rest of the sentence which is what concerns us here. Thus it can be removed. "If you have either or both of the feats" is used to set the condition in which the sentence is true but other wise has no influnce on the rest of the sentence. So the core of the sentence is "You get an extra attack (or possibly extra attacks with Great Cleave) whenever you drop a foe." This sentence deals with only one instance of dropping a foe but states that one might possibly get attacks (plural) with Great Cleave. The use of the conjunction "or" means that the "extra attacks with Great Cleave" are something that might alternatively be gotten instead of "an extra attack". The "attacks" can not be the result of dropping more than one foe because the trigger is drooping one foe.

I don’t make the assumption that that you are stating.

Are you saying that you think the extra attacks talked about in the sentence are not from subsequent droppings of other foes but rather from the dropping of one foe?

 

[rbingham2000]

The sentence says “an” attack and “possibly extra attacks with Great Cleave”. If we go with the idea that both C and GC provide an extra attack with a single foe dropping then “possibly” is not valid as the second attack is guarenteed by GC. Do you understand what I’m getting at?

If you're talking about the second EXTRA attack, then I'm inclined to agree with you, but that second extra attack is only granted if you drop the second guy in one blow with the attack granted you by Cleave. Otherwise, you're done for that round.

 

[Camarath]

If you're talking about the second EXTRA attack, then I'm inclined to agree with you, but that second extra attack is only granted if you drop the second guy in one blow with the attack granted you by Cleave. Otherwise, you're done for that round.

The sentence in question only talks about dropping one foe.

 

[tensen]

Let's say I had the following "set up":

Human Fighter 6
Feats: Power Attack, Cleave, Great Cleave, TWF, PBS, Rapid Shot, Precise Shot, Quickdraw
BAB: +6/+1

Can I do the following:

1) Attack enemy with Great Axe, killing him. (1st iterrative attack)
2) Cleave into adjacent_enemy_001 with Great Axe (not killing him)
3) Great Cleave into adjacent_enemy_001 with Great Axe (killing him)
4) Great Cleave into a adjacent_enemy_002
5) Free Action drop Great Axe
6) Free Action Quickdraw Longsword, Free Action Quickdraw Shortsword
7) Attack adjacent_enemy_002 with Longsword (2nd iterattive attack)
8) Attack adjacent_enemy_002 with Shortsword (1st off-hand attack), killing enemy
9) Free Action drop Longsword
10) Free Action Quickdraw Dagger
11) Throw dagger via Rapid Shot at a new_enemy_001

What would my attacks look like? I calculate +2/-3/-3/-2 which breaks down like so (not counting Cleaves of course):
+2 (primary with Great Axe)
-3 (primary with Longsword, using TWF)
-3 (off-hand with Shortsword, using TWF)
-2 (primary with Dagger, using Rapid Shot & PBS)

Since I think some of this discussion broke down with the Cleave,. great cleave... I'd like to go back to the beginning.

This issue is why actions need to be declared first.
There is no question in my mind (although slightly unverifiable under the rule system) that you must utilize the two weapon fighting penalties across all the attack. Otherwise there is no reason in the system not to use your long sword, drop it... and then during your move, draw your short sword and attack... thereby bypassing the two-weapon penalty because you only had one out at a time. (This being done even without the Quickdraw feat.)

1) Attack enemy with Great Axe, killing him. (1st iterrative attack)
2) Cleave into adjacent_enemy_001 with Great Axe (not killing him)
3) Free Action drop Great Axe
4) Free Action Quickdraw Longsword, Free Action Quickdraw Shortsword
5) Attack adjacent_enemy_002 with Longsword (2nd iterattive attack)
6) Attack adjacent_enemy_002 with Shortsword (1st off-hand attack), killing enemy
7) Cleave into adjacent_enemy_003 with Shortsword

+2 (primary with Great Axe) used for #1 and #2
-3 (primary with Longsword, using TWF) used for #5
-3 (off-hand with Shortsword, using TWF) #6

You don't get to use the dagger because you weren't using it to begin with.
However you might have considered using dagger as your off-hand weapon to make that more questionable.

 

[rbingham2000]

The sentence in question only talks about dropping one foe.

I see I'm gonna have to spell things out here...

1. Initial attack drops the first foe with one blow. This activates Cleave.
2. Cleave gives you an extra attack against another foe.
3. If you drop the second foe with one blow, Great Cleave gives you another attack against another foe.
4. And if THAT foe drops in one blow, you get another attack against another foe.
5. And so on and so on until you either take out everyone in your face or your last attack fails to drop someone.

Do you get me now? I'm getting kinda sick of this debate and am willing to concur with tensen's request to get the hell back on topic.

 

[Elvinis75]

Yes, but the second attack would not be guarenteed because the sentence does not specify if the foe dropped is the first foe dropped in the round and Cleave's once per round limit means that any foes dropped after the first would only trigger Great Cleave not Cleave so if you have both feats on dropping a foe one always get an attack but might possibly gain two extra attacks if it is the first foe dropped in a round.
If you have either or both of the feats [conditional clause], you [subject] get [action] an extra attack (or possibly extra attacks with Great Cleave) [target of action]whenever you drop a foe [trigger for action], no matter what type of action you used to drop the foe [qualifying statement].

"no matter what type of action you used to drop the foe" is the answer to the rule question but does not influnce the meaning of the rest of the sentence which is what concerns us here. Thus it can be removed. "If you have either or both of the feats" is used to set the condition in which the sentence is true but other wise has no influnce on the rest of the sentence. So the core of the sentence is "You get an extra attack (or possibly extra attacks with Great Cleave) whenever you drop a foe." This sentence deals with only one instance of dropping a foe but states that one might possibly get attacks (plural) with Great Cleave. The use of the conjunction "or" means that the "extra attacks with Great Cleave" are something that might alternatively be gotten instead of "an extra attack". The "attacks" can not be the result of dropping more than one foe because the trigger is drooping one foe.
Are you saying that you think the extra attacks talked about in the sentence are not from subsequent droppings of other foes but rather from the dropping of one foe?

Here is the point of the whole statement though:
It is written from the first foe dropped and the proof is in the wording.

If one assumes that the statement isn’t written from the perspective of the first foe dropped and then moving forward, try to see if the second foe dropped scenario makes sense. It plainly doesn’t and here is the proof. If the person only has Cleave which would be one of the two “either” conditions in the phase “If you have either or both of the feats” then when I drop that second foe then I do not “get an extra attack” because cleave only grants one per round! Therefore the statement can only be read as starting with the first foe dropped and still be true.

If one assumes that it is the first foe dropped that round then with both feats (by your thoughts) would kick in and person would get 2 attacks and not “an attack” with the possibility of more. Therefor the additional attacks are possibly because there is a chance that it might happen but it not guarenteed.

It is clear to me that they wrote the ruling based on the first foe dropped and moving forward which makes more sense than writing it from the middle. It also makes sense that they are talking about dropping additional foes and that is why they use the word possibly.
Thoughts?

 

[Camarath]

If one assumes that the statement isn’t written from the perspective of the first foe dropped and then moving forward, try to see if the second foe dropped scenario makes sense. It plainly doesn’t and here is the proof. If the person only has Cleave which would be one of the two “either” conditions in the phase “If you have either or both of the feats” then when I drop that second foe then I do not “get an extra attack” because cleave only grants one per round! Therefore the statement can only be read as starting with the first foe dropped and still be true.

You are assuming that the sentence cover all exclusions and limitations it clearly does not as it states that you can have either of the two feats but Cleave is a perquisite for Great Cleave meaning that normally to gain one of the feats one must gain the other. This means the either can not really means either it must normally mean "If you have Cleave or both Cleave and Great Cleave". I attribute the inconstancies of the sentence to the vagaries of its phrasing.

If one assumes that it is the first foe dropped that round then with both feats (by your thoughts) would kick in and person would get 2 attacks and not “an attack” with the possibility of more. Therefor the additional attacks are possibly because there is a chance that it might happen but it not guarenteed.

The sentence does not specify if one has Cleave or both Cleave and Great Cleave so the possibly attacks could be for if one has Great Cleave and it is the first attack (which also is not specified).

It is clear to me that they wrote the ruling based on the first foe dropped and moving forward which makes more sense than writing it from the middle. It also makes sense that they are talking about dropping additional foes and that is why they use the word possibly.

If they wrote the sentence based on the first foe dropped and moving foward why did they make no mention of the foe being dropped being the first foe dropped or of subsequent droppings of other foes. The sentence only talks about dropping one foe and does not say if that foe is the first foe dropped. I think the used to word possibly because two conditions must be met for you to gain two attacks one that you have both Cleave and Great Cleave and two that it is the first foe dropped in a round neither of these conditions are required by the sentence so they may or may not be the case (a possibility).

Here is the point of the whole statement though:
It is written from the first foe dropped and the proof is in the wording.

Thoughts?

Assuming that the sentence assumes (but does not state) that the foe dropped is the first foe dropped in a round to is IMO too much assumption to base a definitive conclussion on. The sentence does not specify if the dropped foe is the first dropped foe of the round and thus does not require it to be. You may think it make sense for it to be so but the sentence does not mandate that it is the first foe dropped. Thus this sentence can mean different things based on the preconceptions you feed into it. It more than likely is meant to mean what you believe it to mean but it does not stated that unambiguously. IMO that means that it can't be used as a definitive proof that cleave works in the way you believe that it is meant to. Once we start adding to the sentence so that it fits our interpretation the sentence losses any ability to differentiate between our two interpretations.