Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Uller" data-source="post: 276959" data-attributes="member: 413">While I agree that you can't use a different weapon on a cleave, I don't agree with the notion that a cleave attack is necessarily a &quot;follow through&quot; of the initial attack.&nbsp; The rules simple do not support this.&nbsp;&nbsp; For instance, you could be fighting two orcs in a 5' wide corridor with one orc on each side of you.&nbsp; You attack Orc 1 with your great sword and fell him.&nbsp; There is simply no reasonable way that the momentum of your swing carries your attack through Orc 1, through the stone wall and into orc 2.&nbsp; Yet this is a completely allowable and reasonable use of cleave.&nbsp;&nbsp; So in this case, it seems the felling of Orc 1 allows you to suddenly shift your focus and catch Orc 2 off guard or something.&nbsp; Basically, there is no default explanation flavor wise of exactly a cleave is.&nbsp; It is simly an extra attack.&nbsp; The DM should mold the explanation to fit the situation and if no reasonable explanation can be found (and that bothers you) then don't allow it.&nbsp; For a mounted charge w/ a lance...sure I'd allow it.&nbsp; The target must be within reach and probably on the same side of the attacker as the original target.&nbsp;&nbsp; First target get's mowed down and the attacker is strong enough and skilled enough to move his lance onto a second target...This might work in a situation like this:312XXXXAXA = attacker.&nbsp; 1 = Target 1. 2 = Target 2. 3 = Unavailable targetAttacker is charging Target 1 from the bottom of the page and has 10' reach.&nbsp; He must attack from the square he is in.&nbsp; 1 falls.&nbsp; So he is able to somehow shift his attack to 2 as well.&nbsp; He could probably not attack 3 (assuming he is right handed and attacking with his lance on the right side).Realistic?&nbsp; Probably not.&nbsp; Do I care?&nbsp; No.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Uller, post: 276959, member: 413"] While I agree that you can't use a different weapon on a cleave, I don't agree with the notion that a cleave attack is necessarily a "follow through" of the initial attack. The rules simple do not support this. For instance, you could be fighting two orcs in a 5' wide corridor with one orc on each side of you. You attack Orc 1 with your great sword and fell him. There is simply no reasonable way that the momentum of your swing carries your attack through Orc 1, through the stone wall and into orc 2. Yet this is a completely allowable and reasonable use of cleave. So in this case, it seems the felling of Orc 1 allows you to suddenly shift your focus and catch Orc 2 off guard or something. Basically, there is no default explanation flavor wise of exactly a cleave is. It is simly an extra attack. The DM should mold the explanation to fit the situation and if no reasonable explanation can be found (and that bothers you) then don't allow it. For a mounted charge w/ a lance...sure I'd allow it. The target must be within reach and probably on the same side of the attacker as the original target. First target get's mowed down and the attacker is strong enough and skilled enough to move his lance onto a second target... This might work in a situation like this: 312 XXX XAX A = attacker. 1 = Target 1. 2 = Target 2. 3 = Unavailable target Attacker is charging Target 1 from the bottom of the page and has 10' reach. He must attack from the square he is in. 1 falls. So he is able to somehow shift his attack to 2 as well. He could probably not attack 3 (assuming he is right handed and attacking with his lance on the right side). Realistic? Probably not. Do I care? No. [/QUOTE]

Verification