Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Elvinis75" data-source="post: 1656201" data-attributes="member: 4379">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.&nbsp; It plainly doesn’t and here is the proof.&nbsp; 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!&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; It also makes sense that they are talking about dropping additional foes and that is why they use the word possibly.&nbsp; Thoughts?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Elvinis75, post: 1656201, member: 4379"] 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? [/QUOTE]

Verification