Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Elvinis75" data-source="post: 1664181" data-attributes="member: 4379">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.</blockquote>

Verification