Can you Quickdraw in the middle of an Attack?

[Stormrunner]

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?

Well, considering they've continued to go on and on about it for a page and a half, I think that's a definite yes. :\

 

[Elvinis75]

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.

The problem with your argument here is that you are claiming to know better than the person that wrote the sentence. It also assumes that the only way to attain Great Cleave is through normal feat progression. There are many examples in the game where a character as part of a class or prestige class gains a feat without meeting the prerequistes or looking beyond that there are magic weapons(might not be a standard one but it isn’t impossible to create one). If you assume, as the author of the statement, that it is possibly to have G.C. without the Cleave then the sentence is true. I think that I read it as written without trying to change what he is saying. Say an weapon provided Great Cleave and not Cleave.

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).

The problem is that you want to read the “or possibly extra attacks with G.C.” differently depending on which foe was dropped.
e.g.
First reading:
It is the first foe dropped that round:
You want the “or possibly extra attacks with G.C.” to mean if the person has GC then he gets extra attacks and the word “possibily” to be a qualifer of the “either or both”.

Yet it you look at the second reading(this is the nth foe that has been dropped):
At this point there is no way to read the “or possibly extra attacks with G.C.” other than if a person was to drop additional foes then he gets additional attacks. I’ll walk through it.

2nd foe dropped during a round He gets “an extra attack” from GC (or possibly extra attacks with GC). If he is getting the first attack from GC where do the other attacks come from?

It makes little sense to me that he would write a sentence that means different things depending on which foe is dropped especially when he uses the phase “whenever you drop a foe” which sets the condition as for all foes dropped whether they are the first or second or …etc.


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).

Because the statement cannot be true otherwise. It doesn’t need to be stated because if you assume the second or beyond foe dropped and the character only having Cleave then the statement is false. Why would the author write it as a false statement? I don’t think that he would have written “or possibly extra attacks …” meaning different things based on which foe is dropped (explained above). Are you saying that the “possibly” clause could not mean that the extra attacks come from dropping additional foes(another possibility)? I know that it don’t explicitly say so but it works for all cases assuming that the person reads the statement from the first foe dropped moving forward.

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.

The sentence is flat out false using any assumption other than the 1st foe dropped condition! I’m sorry that you can’t see that with any statement that can be read in multiple ways that it goes without saying that you have to use the only one that happens to be true. Thanks for the good debate. I think that WOTC has clearified that Great Cleave is just an upgrade to Cleave and thus we both know how the sentence is supposed to read.

 

[Camarath]

Thanks for the good debate. I think that WOTC has clearified that Great Cleave is just an upgrade to Cleave and thus we both know how the sentence is supposed to read.

Of course I know how the sentence is suppose to read and how the ability is suppose to work. This whole debate has been about me stating the the ability was not written such that it actually means what it is supposed to mean.

The sentence is flat out false using any assumption other than the 1st foe dropped condition!

I do not believe that is correct. And if that is true why does the sentence not limit itself to the first foe dropped?

I’m sorry that you can’t see that with any statement that can be read in multiple ways that it goes without saying that you have to use the only one that happens to be true.

I think you are basing your reading of this sentence on what you assume to be true and are thus limiting the possible meanings of the sentence. I believe that other things are true and thus I support a reading of the which you exclude based on how you believe that ability should work.

Because the statement cannot be true otherwise. It doesn’t need to be stated because if you assume the second or beyond foe dropped and the character only having Cleave then the statement is false. Why would the author write it as a false statement?

In some possible circumstances the sentence is false. A character with only cleave and the second dropped foe in a round is a possiblity that triggers the sentence but that the sentence does not exclude.

I don’t think that he would have written “or possibly extra attacks …” meaning different things based on which foe is dropped (explained above).

I think that "or possibly" alternative only applies based on which foe is dropped and which feats the character has.

Are you saying that the “possibly” clause could not mean that the extra attacks come from dropping additional foes(another possibility)? I know that it don’t explicitly say so but it works for all cases assuming that the person reads the statement from the first foe dropped moving forward.

It is a possibility but not the only one or IMO the one the best fits the sentence as written.

The problem is that you want to read the “or possibly extra attacks with G.C.” differently depending on which foe was dropped.

Possibly means that one may or may not gain the extra attacks based one the circumstances.

It is the first foe dropped that round:
You want the “or possibly extra attacks with G.C.” to mean if the person has GC then he gets extra attacks and the word “possibily” to be a qualifer of the “either or both”.

The "or possibily" alternative only applies is it is both.

Yet it you look at the second reading(this is the nth foe that has been dropped):
At this point there is no way to read the “or possibly extra attacks with G.C.” other than if a person was to drop additional foes then he gets additional attacks. I’ll walk through it.

IMO the "or possibily" alternative would not apply since it would not be possible to gain multiple attacks from dropping one foe in those circumstances.

2nd foe dropped during a round He gets “an extra attack” from GC (or possibly extra attacks with GC). If he is getting the first attack from GC where do the other attacks come from?

Nowhere since one could not in that case gain multiple attacks.

It makes little sense to me that he would write a sentence that means different things depending on which foe is dropped especially when he uses the phase “whenever you drop a foe” which sets the condition as for all foes dropped whether they are the first or second or …etc.

I am not really concerned with why he wrote what he wrote or if it makes sense for him to have done so. I am intrested in what was written and what it means. There is no point to this whole debate if I start accept that things mean what the author meant to write rather author actually wrote.

The problem with your argument here is that you are claiming to know better than the person that wrote the sentence.

I am claiming that the sentence can mean what I am asserting that it mean. This sentence was not meant to deal with the issue we are addressing so some unclarity on this issue is IMO prefectly understandable and excusable.

It also assumes that the only way to attain Great Cleave is through normal feat progression. There are many examples in the game where a character as part of a class or prestige class gains a feat without meeting the prerequistes or looking beyond that there are magic weapons(might not be a standard one but it isn’t impossible to create one).

I have not seen any case where a character can gain Great Cleave with out Cleave. Do you know of one?

If you assume, as the author of the statement, that it is possibly to have G.C. without the Cleave then the sentence is true. I think that I read it as written without trying to change what he is saying. Say an weapon provided Great Cleave and not Cleave.

The sentence does allow for one to have Great Cleave without Cleave but in that case the "or possibily" alternative would not apply.