Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="SpikeyFreak" data-source="post: 224308" data-attributes="member: 705">Honestly, there has only been one time when the sage has made a totally backwards ruling, that was his, &quot;Without a weapon you don't threaten an area.&quot; ruling.All the other times it was obviously because the person asking the question hadn't gone to the trouble of explaining WHY they are having the question, and the sage, who likely answers dozens of email a day, and he says the obvious thing.If you give him the reasons that the rules are in question, 99% of the time he gives a good responce.IMO cleave deviates from the normal &quot;only one attack on a partial action&quot; for 2 reasons.1.) Its really one attack.&nbsp; According to the rules, its treated like 2 attacks, but In Game(tm) it is one attack.2.) The rule says &quot;you get an immediate, extra melee attack&quot; which sounds to me like the designers meant for it to over-ride that rule.--Pro-Sage Spikey</blockquote>

[QUOTE="SpikeyFreak, post: 224308, member: 705"] Honestly, there has only been one time when the sage has made a totally backwards ruling, that was his, "Without a weapon you don't threaten an area." ruling. All the other times it was obviously because the person asking the question hadn't gone to the trouble of explaining WHY they are having the question, and the sage, who likely answers dozens of email a day, and he says the obvious thing. If you give him the reasons that the rules are in question, 99% of the time he gives a good responce. IMO cleave deviates from the normal "only one attack on a partial action" for 2 reasons. 1.) Its really one attack. According to the rules, its treated like 2 attacks, but In Game(tm) it is one attack. 2.) The rule says "you get an immediate, extra melee attack" which sounds to me like the designers meant for it to over-ride that rule. --Pro-Sage Spikey [/QUOTE]

Verification