In 2024 rules, does extra damage from Great Weapon Master apply to a Cleave attack (if triggered from an attack in your Attack action)?
GWM: "When you hit a creature with a weapon that has the Heavy property as part of the Attack action on your turn, you can cause the weapon to deal extra damage to the target."
GWM: "When you hit a creature with a weapon that has the Heavy property as part of the Attack action on your turn, you can cause the weapon to deal extra damage to the target."
Graze applies if you miss as part of an Attack action.
I'll be interested to see other opinions on this, but my take is that the Cleave attack should not be assumed to be part of the Attack action when the triggering attack is part of the Attack action. The Cleave Mastery property doesn't specify that that is the case and there is no general rule that would support this either, even though it seems like a reasonable assumption.
For example, in the case of the Light property, the extra attack of the Light property is explicitly part of a Bonus Action instead of the same action. But in the case of the Nick Mastery property, that rule explicitly makes the extra attack part of the same Attack action. So, triggered extra attacks are sometimes explicitly part of the same action and sometimes explicitly part of some other action. In the case of Cleave, there is nothing explicitly stated on that matter.
Since it's not explicitly stated that the triggered attack is part of a particular action, it's probably best to rule that that attack is actually not part of any action. This would be similar to the mechanics of an Opportunity Attack -- in that case, an opportunity to make an attack is triggered by a specific event. You can typically choose to use your Reaction to make this attack, but that attack is not part of any action such as an Attack action. In this case, there is also a specific trigger which gives you an opportunity to make an attack.
Technically, Cleave is not part of any Action (Attack, Magic, etc.), Bonus Action, or Reaction, so it won't interact with the Great Weapon Master feat.
For fairness' sake, I must admit it was not my first interpretation, and not everybody agrees with it:
I'll be interested to see other opinions on this, but my take is that the Cleave attack should not be assumed to be part of the Attack action when the triggering attack is part of the Attack action. The Cleave Mastery property doesn't specify that that is the case and there is no general rule that would support this either, even though it seems like a reasonable assumption.
For example, in the case of the Light property, the extra attack of the Light property is explicitly part of a Bonus Action instead of the same action. But in the case of the Nick Mastery property, that rule explicitly makes the extra attack part of the same Attack action. So, triggered extra attacks are sometimes explicitly part of the same action and sometimes explicitly part of some other action. In the case of Cleave, there is nothing explicitly stated on that matter.
Since it's not explicitly stated that the triggered attack is part of a particular action, it's probably best to rule that that attack is actually not part of any action. This would be similar to the mechanics of an Opportunity Attack -- in that case, an opportunity to make an attack is triggered by a specific event. You can typically choose to use your Reaction to make this attack, but that attack is not part of any action such as an Attack action. In this case, there is also a specific trigger which gives you an opportunity to make an attack.
Very reasonable inference. Feels kinda thin though to reach for another description. I wish it were plainer, cuz I can see it both ways.
Yes, Cleave's description does not list it as part of any particular action, so it can apply to any attack. But it does have to fit into some existing action economy. So when a Cleave happens on an attack action, it seems reasonable that GWM damage could apply then.
Seems it kinda comes down to how to conceive of the "attack action." Just a single attack during your action? Or part of your action as a whole, since you have multiple attacks. GWM's phrasing is a bit odd "as part of the Attack action on your turn." You get multiple attacks in your one action, not an Attack action. Could be read as referring to the attacks in your turn's action. It's the "the" that's confusing.
Technically, Cleave is not part of any Action (Attack, Magic, etc.), Bonus Action, or Reaction, so it won't interact with the Great Weapon Master feat.
For fairness' sake, I must admit it was not my first interpretation, and not everybody agrees with it:
So my answer is that yes, I would say that GWN does apply to attacks made with Cleave on your turn, because the cleave-triggering action in your turn is an attack action. However, GWM does not apply to any reaction attacks (including Cleave, which can be added to a reaction if circumstances are met) because GWM only applies on your turn.
Technically, Cleave is not part of any Action (Attack, Magic, etc.), Bonus Action, or Reaction, so it won't interact with the Great Weapon Master feat.
I certainly get what people are saying, but imo they are taking it too far in parsing the words and end up creating some kind of schrodeinger’s attack. It both part of an action and not an action at the same time. I say let the GWM folks have their fun and do a trivial amount of extra damage.
While there's an argument to be made that the Cleave attack is just floating out there, unanchored to any action, it's at least as plausible a reading that it's part of whatever action the initial attack was made with, and so if you cleave as part of your attack action, GWM applies. (And that second version is my reading.)
It's an ambiguous point, and your DM will ultimately have to make the call.
I say let the GWM folks have their fun and do a trivial amount of extra damage.
I think that's another reason to let it apply. Martials need all the help they can get still. And this isn't exactly game-breaking. Cleave would only trigger so often, and the idea here is just on Cleaves during your main action. So really that's just 2 chances a turn for most builds, if it procs and hits.
Technically, Cleave is not part of any Action (Attack, Magic, etc.), Bonus Action, or Reaction, so it won't interact with the Great Weapon Master feat.
I certainly get what people are saying, but imo they are taking it too far in parsing the words and end up creating some kind of schrodeinger’s attack. It both part of an action and not an action at the same time. I say let the GWM folks have their fun and do a trivial amount of extra damage.
The Great Weapon Master feat is usable when you hit a creature with a weapon that has the Heavy property as part of the Attack action on your turn, but Cleave doesn't specifically make the extra attack against a second creature as part of the Attack action so they don't work, presumably they left the action out for it to be usable anytime you can, following attacks even made as Bonus Action or Reaction for example.
Yea it's kind of a poor writing tbh. They should have had an "as part of the same action" in there somewhere, having things you do be unattached to the action economy is problematic from a rules perspective.
Yea it's kind of a poor writing tbh. They should have had an "as part of the same action" in there somewhere, having things you do be unattached to the action economy is problematic from a rules perspective.
Agree. I think clearest is that RAW are unclear on this. They just don't specify one way or the other on plain reading. I've only been playing 5e under a year, so maybe there are some deeper action economy rules I am missing. Any chance we'll get a Sage Advice ruling on this?
Also, Cleave can only be attempted once per turn, so we're really talking about what an extra 4-ish damage, one time? Only if the first attack hits AND the Cleave hits on your turn's action only.
TBH 99% of the time Cleaveextra attack is used changes nothing that it's not considered part of any action in and of itelf, you just take another swing.
Where it can is in moments when it may interact with another rule or feature.
The Great Weapon Master feat is usable when you hit a creature with a weapon that has the Heavy property as part of the Attack action on your turn, but Cleave doesn't specifically make the extra attack against a second creature as part of the Attack action so they don't work, presumably they left the action out for it to be usable anytime you can, following attacks even made as Bonus Action or Reaction for example.
There's a consistent attitude I see on these boards, which I think is best summed up as:
"The RAW interpretation of ambiguous points is the most restrictive reading possible."
And that just doesn't come from anywhere, except, perhaps people's dislike of the existence of ambiguity.
(And yes, I'd prefer less ambiguity in the rules, mostly to reduce discussions like these. And I'd also like a pony. I have neither.)
This is a perfect example. If you take the attack action, take your first attack, cleave, and then take your extra attack, you've made three attacks between the start and end of the attack action. How is the cleave attack not part of the attack action?
Yes, it doesn't explicitly say it is, I agree.
But it also doesn't say it isn't.
It's ambiguous if you're getting down to the picky detail of what the rules explicitly say.
And one resolution of the ambiguity requires a new concept -- an attack that isn't part of any action. Now, there's no reason you can't have such an attack in the D&D rules, but we don't. (AFAIK) So there's a certain bar to climb to say with certainty that this is the RAW reading.
But the other resolution of the ambiguity lets people use an ability that they might not be allowed to.
There's nothing wrong with the second one. It's the way the majority of DMs and players are going to read it -- "this attack is happening during the attack action, so it's part of it". They probably won't even notice the question exists. It may not technically be RAW, but neither is the first, so why not let it happen?
The TLDR version:
There's more ambiguity and less RAW in the rules than people try to argue.
Cleave exists in some mystical wonderland where it's unclear if it should be considered as part of the same action or a different action. Most things declare when they are apart of an action but then on the flip side most things declare when there is no action required, it does not seem this question has been addressed in SAC as yet but really is what is needed since there is legitimacy to both sides of the argument. Since it's unclear I would say it's up to DM at table to determine if GWM apples to a cleave attack or not.
When I first sort clarification on this issue (as TarodNet points out here), it was due to how ambiguous this answer is. I can see more people tend to err on the side that it is not part of the same action but there is simply no definite answer either way.
In 2024 rules, does extra damage from Great Weapon Master apply to a Cleave attack (if triggered from an attack in your Attack action)?
GWM: "When you hit a creature with a weapon that has the Heavy property as part of the Attack action on your turn, you can cause the weapon to deal extra damage to the target."
Seems like it should.
No.GWM: "When you hit a creature with a weapon that has the Heavy property as part of the Attack action on your turn, you can cause the weapon to deal extra damage to the target."Graze applies if you miss as part of an Attack action.EDIT: I misread the question.
I’m asking about Cleave.
But that is good to know about Graze.
I'll be interested to see other opinions on this, but my take is that the Cleave attack should not be assumed to be part of the Attack action when the triggering attack is part of the Attack action. The Cleave Mastery property doesn't specify that that is the case and there is no general rule that would support this either, even though it seems like a reasonable assumption.
For example, in the case of the Light property, the extra attack of the Light property is explicitly part of a Bonus Action instead of the same action. But in the case of the Nick Mastery property, that rule explicitly makes the extra attack part of the same Attack action. So, triggered extra attacks are sometimes explicitly part of the same action and sometimes explicitly part of some other action. In the case of Cleave, there is nothing explicitly stated on that matter.
Since it's not explicitly stated that the triggered attack is part of a particular action, it's probably best to rule that that attack is actually not part of any action. This would be similar to the mechanics of an Opportunity Attack -- in that case, an opportunity to make an attack is triggered by a specific event. You can typically choose to use your Reaction to make this attack, but that attack is not part of any action such as an Attack action. In this case, there is also a specific trigger which gives you an opportunity to make an attack.
I’d let it work. It’s all still happening as part of your attack action — it’s not a BA, it’s not a reaction/OA.
And we’re talking about, what 2-6 points of damage once per turn. It hardly seems game breaking.
Technically, Cleave is not part of any Action (Attack, Magic, etc.), Bonus Action, or Reaction, so it won't interact with the Great Weapon Master feat.
For fairness' sake, I must admit it was not my first interpretation, and not everybody agrees with it:
And this thread is almost a year old. The 2024 PHB is getting old: PH 2024 Q on Cleave and GWM feat. - Rules & Game Mechanics.
Very reasonable inference. Feels kinda thin though to reach for another description. I wish it were plainer, cuz I can see it both ways.
Yes, Cleave's description does not list it as part of any particular action, so it can apply to any attack. But it does have to fit into some existing action economy. So when a Cleave happens on an attack action, it seems reasonable that GWM damage could apply then.
Seems it kinda comes down to how to conceive of the "attack action." Just a single attack during your action? Or part of your action as a whole, since you have multiple attacks. GWM's phrasing is a bit odd "as part of the Attack action on your turn." You get multiple attacks in your one action, not an Attack action. Could be read as referring to the attacks in your turn's action. It's the "the" that's confusing.
Helpful threads. Wish I could find a resolution. Many good points.
One quote articulates better what I tried to say directly above:
"An attack is part of the Attack action if it happens during the Attack action
If you have Extra Attack and hit with your first attack with a Cleave weapon, you don't suspend the Attack action to make the extra Cleave attack"
I misread the question.
So my answer is that yes, I would say that GWN does apply to attacks made with Cleave on your turn, because the cleave-triggering action in your turn is an attack action. However, GWM does not apply to any reaction attacks (including Cleave, which can be added to a reaction if circumstances are met) because GWM only applies on your turn.
I certainly get what people are saying, but imo they are taking it too far in parsing the words and end up creating some kind of schrodeinger’s attack. It both part of an action and not an action at the same time.
I say let the GWM folks have their fun and do a trivial amount of extra damage.
While there's an argument to be made that the Cleave attack is just floating out there, unanchored to any action, it's at least as plausible a reading that it's part of whatever action the initial attack was made with, and so if you cleave as part of your attack action, GWM applies. (And that second version is my reading.)
It's an ambiguous point, and your DM will ultimately have to make the call.
I think that's another reason to let it apply. Martials need all the help they can get still. And this isn't exactly game-breaking. Cleave would only trigger so often, and the idea here is just on Cleaves during your main action. So really that's just 2 chances a turn for most builds, if it procs and hits.
Sure, and I agree with what you said before:
So, I also don't see a problem allowing it, but RAW, it seems it wouldn't follow.
The Great Weapon Master feat is usable when you hit a creature with a weapon that has the Heavy property as part of the Attack action on your turn, but Cleave doesn't specifically make the extra attack against a second creature as part of the Attack action so they don't work, presumably they left the action out for it to be usable anytime you can, following attacks even made as Bonus Action or Reaction for example.
Yea it's kind of a poor writing tbh. They should have had an "as part of the same action" in there somewhere, having things you do be unattached to the action economy is problematic from a rules perspective.
Agree. I think clearest is that RAW are unclear on this. They just don't specify one way or the other on plain reading. I've only been playing 5e under a year, so maybe there are some deeper action economy rules I am missing. Any chance we'll get a Sage Advice ruling on this?
Also, Cleave can only be attempted once per turn, so we're really talking about what an extra 4-ish damage, one time? Only if the first attack hits AND the Cleave hits on your turn's action only.
TBH 99% of the time Cleave extra attack is used changes nothing that it's not considered part of any action in and of itelf, you just take another swing.
Where it can is in moments when it may interact with another rule or feature.
As usual, DM can make ruling however they want.
There's a consistent attitude I see on these boards, which I think is best summed up as:
"The RAW interpretation of ambiguous points is the most restrictive reading possible."
And that just doesn't come from anywhere, except, perhaps people's dislike of the existence of ambiguity.
(And yes, I'd prefer less ambiguity in the rules, mostly to reduce discussions like these. And I'd also like a pony. I have neither.)
This is a perfect example. If you take the attack action, take your first attack, cleave, and then take your extra attack, you've made three attacks between the start and end of the attack action. How is the cleave attack not part of the attack action?
Yes, it doesn't explicitly say it is, I agree.
But it also doesn't say it isn't.
It's ambiguous if you're getting down to the picky detail of what the rules explicitly say.
And one resolution of the ambiguity requires a new concept -- an attack that isn't part of any action. Now, there's no reason you can't have such an attack in the D&D rules, but we don't. (AFAIK) So there's a certain bar to climb to say with certainty that this is the RAW reading.
But the other resolution of the ambiguity lets people use an ability that they might not be allowed to.
There's nothing wrong with the second one. It's the way the majority of DMs and players are going to read it -- "this attack is happening during the attack action, so it's part of it". They probably won't even notice the question exists. It may not technically be RAW, but neither is the first, so why not let it happen?
The TLDR version:
Cleave exists in some mystical wonderland where it's unclear if it should be considered as part of the same action or a different action. Most things declare when they are apart of an action but then on the flip side most things declare when there is no action required, it does not seem this question has been addressed in SAC as yet but really is what is needed since there is legitimacy to both sides of the argument. Since it's unclear I would say it's up to DM at table to determine if GWM apples to a cleave attack or not.
When I first sort clarification on this issue (as TarodNet points out here), it was due to how ambiguous this answer is. I can see more people tend to err on the side that it is not part of the same action but there is simply no definite answer either way.