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?
That isn't the best argument tbh, several things can happen during an Attack Action that isn't part of the Attack Action. Movement for example is its own thing, a Palading casting a smite spell is a Bonus Action taken during the Attack Action, there are Battle Master Maneuvers that can allow you or an ally to take a Reaction (to do stuff) during your Attack Action and so on. None of these things make them be a part of the Attack Action but rather they stay being their own things spending their own resources.
And other things does explicitly become a part of the Attack Action (the Nick attack for example).
The Cleave attack doesn't specify either way which means that it isn't a part of the action.
And I agree that it is bad writing that leads to an uncertainty that shouldn't be there. And I would certainly add a "as a part of the same action" line to Cleave in any game where I get to decide to better make it work within the existing action economy. But that isn't necessary for Cleave to do what it says, it is only needed to make it combo with other things (like GWM) one might want it to combo with.
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?
That isn't the best argument tbh, several things can happen during an Attack Action that isn't part of the Attack Action. Movement for example is its own thing, a Palading casting a smite spell is a Bonus Action taken during the Attack Action, there are Battle Master Maneuvers that can allow you or an ally to take a Reaction (to do stuff) during your Attack Action and so on. None of these things make them be a part of the Attack Action but rather they stay being their own things spending their own resources.
And other things does explicitly become a part of the Attack Action (the Nick attack for example).
The Cleave attack doesn't specify either way which means that it isn't a part of the action.
And I agree that it is bad writing that leads to an uncertainty that shouldn't be there. And I would certainly add a "as a part of the same action" line to Cleave in any game where I get to decide to better make it work within the existing action economy. But that isn't necessary for Cleave to do what it says, it is only needed to make it combo with other things (like GWM) one might want it to combo with.
Those are good examples, but of actions actually specified as "Bonus Actions" or "Reactions," which are inserted into your Action attacks. Cleave lacks that specification. Again bad writing, we all agree. But Cleave is simply attached to a given attack, so the inference is different. Still unclear. But it does seem understandable to default a non-specified action as being part of the action in which it takes place.
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?
That isn't the best argument tbh, several things can happen during an Attack Action that isn't part of the Attack Action. Movement for example is its own thing, a Palading casting a smite spell is a Bonus Action taken during the Attack Action, there are Battle Master Maneuvers that can allow you or an ally to take a Reaction (to do stuff) during your Attack Action and so on. None of these things make them be a part of the Attack Action but rather they stay being their own things spending their own resources.
And other things does explicitly become a part of the Attack Action (the Nick attack for example).
The Cleave attack doesn't specify either way which means that it isn't a part of the action.
Where is it defined what it means for thing Y to be part of an action?
I could go on quite a bit on that subject, but instead, I'll ask a highly-related question:
And I agree that it is bad writing that leads to an uncertainty that shouldn't be there. And I would certainly add a "as a part of the same action" line to Cleave in any game where I get to decide to better make it work within the existing action economy.
I guarantee you that, with that wording, we'd see people arguing here that you can't cleave on a bonus action or reaction attack, because it isn't an action.
To me Cleave shouldn't be limited by Haste, and can be used following any Action, Bonus Action, Reaction that let you make a melee attack roll that hit.
i know this is quite old, but i just took gwm on my barbarian
i would think its part of the same action, if it was a different action you would roll to see if it hits
You do roll to hit separately for the Cleave attack. Which doesn't mean it isn't part of the Attack action. (Also doesn't mean it is. As said above, it's ambiguous, but I still think it should be ruled that it is.)
i know this is quite old, but i just took gwm on my barbarian
i would think its part of the same action, if it was a different action you would roll to see if it hits
The Cleave Mastery specifically let you make a melee attack roll with the weapon against a second creature without ever saying the attack is part of the same action.
oh yes, you are correct, level 5 Extra Attack is also part of the same action, so you if attack, cleave, attack again in the same action, cleave would logically be part of the action since it is in the chain. thats how i would read it. doesnt make sense for the cleave not to be part of the action
so you if attack, cleave, attack again in the same action
You need to make three different to hit rolls so is it actually the same or is it allowing a 3rd attack?
In this situation you are making two attacks with your Attack action, and you are making another attack with the Cleave weapon mastery that is not part of any action. The Cleave attack is a triggered attack.
It's sort of like if you had a class feature that said something like: "When you gain temporary hit points, you can make a melee attack against a creature within 5 feet of you." There would be no "action" required or involved in the process of making this attack. It would just be an attack that is triggered when certain specific conditions are met, which is the same as how the Cleave weapon mastery attack works.
so you if attack, cleave, attack again in the same action
You need to make three different to hit rolls so is it actually the same or is it allowing a 3rd attack?
In this situation you are making two attacks with your Attack action, and you are making another attack with the Cleave weapon mastery that is not part of any action. The Cleave attack is a triggered attack.
It's sort of like if you had a class feature that said something like: "When you gain temporary hit points, you can make a melee attack against a creature within 5 feet of you." There would be no "action" required or involved in the process of making this attack. It would just be an attack that is triggered when certain specific conditions are met, which is the same as how the Cleave weapon mastery attack works.
There is nothing separating it from the Attack action, Bonus Action, or Reaction, so it is part of that action. That sort of hypothetical attack would be worded as "When you gain temporary hit points, you can make a melee attack against a creature within 5 feet of you as a Reaction." There are abilities that work that way and a Reaction is required. Cleave is not an attack triggered by an unrelated activity with the potential to be triggered by another character. It is not outside of the action economy because it does not explicitly say it is.
That sort of hypothetical attack would be worded as "When you gain temporary hit points, you can make a melee attack against a creature within 5 feet of you as a Reaction."
No, it wouldn't be. I know, because I'm the one that just wrote it and so I know exactly how it was written. It was not written as a Reaction ability. It was written as a triggered ability.
Yes, there are plenty of abilities in the game that require a Reaction. Cleave is not one of them. Cleave is triggered by specific conditions being met.
There are tons of things in the game that are triggered by specific conditions being met.
As a somewhat random example: Monk, Level 2: Uncanny Metabolism: "When you roll Initiative, you can regain all expended Focus Points. When you do so, roll your Martial Arts die, and regain a number of Hit Points equal to your Monk level plus the number rolled."
Note that this ability does NOT say: "When you roll initiative, as a Reaction you can regain all expended Focus Points . . ." Your Reaction is not required. Only the triggering condition being met is required.
That sort of hypothetical attack would be worded as "When you gain temporary hit points, you can make a melee attack against a creature within 5 feet of you as a Reaction."
No, it wouldn't be. I know, because I'm the one that just wrote it and so I know exactly how it was written. It was not written as a Reaction ability. It was written as a triggered ability.
Yes, I revised it to follow the trend of officially published content.
As a somewhat random example: Monk, Level 2: Uncanny Metabolism: "When you roll Initiative, you can regain all expended Focus Points. When you do so, roll your Martial Arts die, and regain a number of Hit Points equal to your Monk level plus the number rolled."
Note that this ability does NOT say: "When you roll initiative, as a Reaction you can regain all expended Focus Points . . ." Your Reaction is not required. Only the triggering condition being met is required.
Rolling for Initiative happens before you are acting by combat turns.
By contrast, dropping concentration is explicitly not an action.
Cleric, Order Domain (TCE), Voice of Authority: "Starting at 1st level, you can invoke the power of law to drive an ally to attack. If you cast a spell with a spell slot of 1st level or higher and target an ally with the spell, that ally can use their reaction immediately after the spell to make one weapon attack against a creature of your choice that you can see."
Fighter, Battle Master, Maneuvering Attack: "When you hit a creature with an attack roll, you can expend one Superiority Die to maneuver one of your comrades into another position. Add the Superiority Die roll to the attack's damage roll, and choose a willing creature who can see or hear you. That creature can use its Reaction to move up to half its Speed without provoking an Opportunity Attack from the target of your attack."
Light: "When you take the Attack action on your turn and attack with a Light weapon, you can make one extra attack as a Bonus Action later on the same turn."
When it's separate from the initial event, it tells you. An effect like the one you made up, in an official product, would require the character to use its Reaction, like Voice of Authority and Battle Master.
so you if attack, cleave, attack again in the same action
You need to make three different to hit rolls so is it actually the same or is it allowing a 3rd attack?
In this situation you are making two attacks with your Attack action, and you are making another attack with the Cleave weapon mastery that is not part of any action. The Cleave attack is a triggered attack.
The question of whether or not it's part of an action is debated. Mostly by people arguing with you. "Triggered attack" is not an actual term of the rules.
It's sort of like if you had a class feature that said something like: "When you gain temporary hit points, you can make a melee attack against a creature within 5 feet of you." There would be no "action" required or involved in the process of making this attack. It would just be an attack that is triggered when certain specific conditions are met, which is the same as how the Cleave weapon mastery attack works.
That hypothetical feature would, in fact, cause an attack to occur that isn't connected to any action.
It also would not occur in the game we're actually discussing. There are, to the best of my knowledge, zero features that allow a player to attack without it being moored to the action economy. This makes sure that players cannot wrangle their abilities in order to attack an arbitrary number of times, which is a real possibility with your hypothetical.
The theoretical possibility of an attack not being part of any action does not mean that this particular one is.
An effect like the one you made up, in an official product, would require the character to use its Reaction, like Voice of Authority and Battle Master.
Maybe. But not necessarily. The requirements would be whatever is written by the author. It does seem to be a general design philosophy that activities such as making an attack would typically require action economy expenditure such as an Action, Bonus Action or Reaction. But that's not an actual rule or restriction or requirement that is imposed by the game. That's just how it has commonly been done so far. When it comes to rules discussions, we need to look at what the text of the rule actually says, not what the general trends are regarding how other rules might be written.
The point of my example, which seems to be going over a few heads, is to show the structure of the statement that was used within the Cleave Weapon Mastery feature. The structure of my example uses a parallel structure in the hopes that the underlying mechanic becomes more obvious to people. In addition, the Monk example that I provided also uses that same structure. The structure of the statement is:
"If [something specific] happens, you can [do a certain activity]."
Most notably, the structure is NOT:
"If [something specific] happens, you can use your Reaction to [do a certain activity]."
It's really important to note the difference. That informs us about how the mechanic actually functions.
"Triggered attack" is not an actual term of the rules.
No, it's not. So what? Nobody has made that claim. I have used the phrase to describe the mechanic. If an attack is being triggered, then it makes sense to refer to it as a triggered attack. If you'd like to use a different phrase to describe that sequence of events, then do that.
There are, to the best of my knowledge, zero features that allow a player to attack without it being moored to the action economy.
Perhaps it would be better if the authors issued an erratum to insert a clause into the Cleave Weapon Mastery feature such that it requires the use of a Reaction. But as currently written, there is no such requirement.
Furthermore, such a change is not needed -- that's not the fantasy that they were going for with this feature. It is not meant to be that something happens and then you react to it by doing something in response. The idea behind a Cleave is that your sword (or whatever weapon) is cleaving straight through one creature and that weapon swing was so powerful that it continues its arc and slices into another creature with no actual additional effort expended. It wouldn't surprise me if we eventually see a similar published feature for archers if there isn't one already whereby the fantasy is that the arrow punctures straight through a creature and out the other side of it, continuing its path and possibly striking an additional creature.
Note that the triggered effect within the Cleave feature is actually that you can make an attack roll -- you are not actually making another attack. I chose not to use that terminology in my own example because I was trying to keep things simple -- just trying to demonstrate the structure of the statement. I thought that going into the weeds on the detail of an attack roll vs making an attack would confuse the issue (it's too late for that now I guess). Perhaps I should have also just said "attack roll" in my example. Anyway, by doing it that way the authors appear to be attempting to remain within the pattern of the design philosophy that you have observed -- that features generally do not allow a player to actually make an attack without it being moored to the action economy. By allowing for an attack roll instead of an attack, it's sort of checking to see if that previous attack also hits something additional. In that way, it's just an effect that is happening that is triggered when certain conditions are met. It's similar to how many of the other Weapon Mastery features work in that regard.
For example, the Push Weapon Mastery has a similar structure for its mechanic: "If you hit a creature with this weapon, you can push the creature up to 10 feet . . .". The fact that you are pushing the creature -- is that somehow "part of" an Attack action? Is this activity even a result of taking any action? How do we know? I just don't see it that way. This is a feature of the weapon. The effect triggers when certain conditions are met. It doesn't really care HOW those conditions are met. It's just . . . did this thing happen? Then this effect occurs.
Note that the triggered effect within the Cleave feature is actually that you can make an attack roll -- you are not actually making another attack.
Seriously? You roll a d20 to hit (give damage if you do) and yet you are not making another attack? My english is so bad, your comment is completely foreign to me.
Note that the triggered effect within the Cleave feature is actually that you can make an attack roll -- you are not actually making another attack.
The Cleave Mastery clearly say you can make this extra attack only once per turn, so you are indeed, making another attack with a seperate attack roll.
Cleave
If you hit a creature with a melee attack roll using this weapon, you can make a melee attack roll with the weapon against a second creature within 5 feet of the first that is also within your reach. On a hit, the second creature takes the weapon’s damage, but don’t add your ability modifier to that damage unless that modifier is negative. You can make this extra attack only once per turn.
Note that the triggered effect within the Cleave feature is actually that you can make an attack roll -- you are not actually making another attack.
The Cleave Mastery clearly say you can make this extra attack only once per turn, so you are indeed, making another attack with a seperate attack roll.
Cleave
If you hit a creature with a melee attack roll using this weapon, you can make a melee attack roll with the weapon against a second creature within 5 feet of the first that is also within your reach. On a hit, the second creature takes the weapon’s damage, but don’t add your ability modifier to that damage unless that modifier is negative. You can make this extra attack only once per turn.
I agree that that restriction is badly written. It is inconsistent. One or the other of those two statements should be changed. Again, based on the fantasy of what the term "cleave" has always meant in this game, I believe that the term "attack roll" in the first statement is intentional and the term "attack" in the last statement is a mistake. As currently written, you could rule it either way I suppose.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That isn't the best argument tbh, several things can happen during an Attack Action that isn't part of the Attack Action. Movement for example is its own thing, a Palading casting a smite spell is a Bonus Action taken during the Attack Action, there are Battle Master Maneuvers that can allow you or an ally to take a Reaction (to do stuff) during your Attack Action and so on. None of these things make them be a part of the Attack Action but rather they stay being their own things spending their own resources.
And other things does explicitly become a part of the Attack Action (the Nick attack for example).
The Cleave attack doesn't specify either way which means that it isn't a part of the action.
And I agree that it is bad writing that leads to an uncertainty that shouldn't be there. And I would certainly add a "as a part of the same action" line to Cleave in any game where I get to decide to better make it work within the existing action economy. But that isn't necessary for Cleave to do what it says, it is only needed to make it combo with other things (like GWM) one might want it to combo with.
Those are good examples, but of actions actually specified as "Bonus Actions" or "Reactions," which are inserted into your Action attacks. Cleave lacks that specification. Again bad writing, we all agree. But Cleave is simply attached to a given attack, so the inference is different. Still unclear. But it does seem understandable to default a non-specified action as being part of the action in which it takes place.
Where is it defined what it means for thing Y to be part of an action?
I could go on quite a bit on that subject, but instead, I'll ask a highly-related question:
Haste says:
Can one Cleave on the Haste attack?
I guarantee you that, with that wording, we'd see people arguing here that you can't cleave on a bonus action or reaction attack, because it isn't an action.
To me Cleave shouldn't be limited by Haste, and can be used following any Action, Bonus Action, Reaction that let you make a melee attack roll that hit.
We allow it on the basis that it’s not a huge deal and it’s more bookkeeping than its worth. Also, faster and more fun for the players.
i know this is quite old, but i just took gwm on my barbarian
i would think its part of the same action, if it was a different action you would roll to see if it hits
You do roll to hit separately for the Cleave attack. Which doesn't mean it isn't part of the Attack action. (Also doesn't mean it is. As said above, it's ambiguous, but I still think it should be ruled that it is.)
The Cleave Mastery specifically let you make a melee attack roll with the weapon against a second creature without ever saying the attack is part of the same action.
oh yes, you are correct, level 5 Extra Attack is also part of the same action, so you if attack, cleave, attack again in the same action, cleave would logically be part of the action since it is in the chain. thats how i would read it. doesnt make sense for the cleave not to be part of the action
You need to make three different to hit rolls so is it actually the same or is it allowing a 3rd attack?
It's three attacks, one has extra restrictions, all under the same Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction because nothing says it is a separate action.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
In this situation you are making two attacks with your Attack action, and you are making another attack with the Cleave weapon mastery that is not part of any action. The Cleave attack is a triggered attack.
It's sort of like if you had a class feature that said something like: "When you gain temporary hit points, you can make a melee attack against a creature within 5 feet of you." There would be no "action" required or involved in the process of making this attack. It would just be an attack that is triggered when certain specific conditions are met, which is the same as how the Cleave weapon mastery attack works.
There is nothing separating it from the Attack action, Bonus Action, or Reaction, so it is part of that action. That sort of hypothetical attack would be worded as "When you gain temporary hit points, you can make a melee attack against a creature within 5 feet of you as a Reaction." There are abilities that work that way and a Reaction is required. Cleave is not an attack triggered by an unrelated activity with the potential to be triggered by another character. It is not outside of the action economy because it does not explicitly say it is.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
No, it wouldn't be. I know, because I'm the one that just wrote it and so I know exactly how it was written. It was not written as a Reaction ability. It was written as a triggered ability.
Yes, there are plenty of abilities in the game that require a Reaction. Cleave is not one of them. Cleave is triggered by specific conditions being met.
There are tons of things in the game that are triggered by specific conditions being met.
As a somewhat random example: Monk, Level 2: Uncanny Metabolism: "When you roll Initiative, you can regain all expended Focus Points. When you do so, roll your Martial Arts die, and regain a number of Hit Points equal to your Monk level plus the number rolled."
Note that this ability does NOT say: "When you roll initiative, as a Reaction you can regain all expended Focus Points . . ." Your Reaction is not required. Only the triggering condition being met is required.
Yes, I revised it to follow the trend of officially published content.
Rolling for Initiative happens before you are acting by combat turns.
By contrast, dropping concentration is explicitly not an action.
Cleric, Order Domain (TCE), Voice of Authority: "Starting at 1st level, you can invoke the power of law to drive an ally to attack. If you cast a spell with a spell slot of 1st level or higher and target an ally with the spell, that ally can use their reaction immediately after the spell to make one weapon attack against a creature of your choice that you can see."
Fighter, Battle Master, Maneuvering Attack: "When you hit a creature with an attack roll, you can expend one Superiority Die to maneuver one of your comrades into another position. Add the Superiority Die roll to the attack's damage roll, and choose a willing creature who can see or hear you. That creature can use its Reaction to move up to half its Speed without provoking an Opportunity Attack from the target of your attack."
Light: "When you take the Attack action on your turn and attack with a Light weapon, you can make one extra attack as a Bonus Action later on the same turn."
When it's separate from the initial event, it tells you. An effect like the one you made up, in an official product, would require the character to use its Reaction, like Voice of Authority and Battle Master.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
The question of whether or not it's part of an action is debated. Mostly by people arguing with you. "Triggered attack" is not an actual term of the rules.
That hypothetical feature would, in fact, cause an attack to occur that isn't connected to any action.
It also would not occur in the game we're actually discussing. There are, to the best of my knowledge, zero features that allow a player to attack without it being moored to the action economy. This makes sure that players cannot wrangle their abilities in order to attack an arbitrary number of times, which is a real possibility with your hypothetical.
The theoretical possibility of an attack not being part of any action does not mean that this particular one is.
Maybe. But not necessarily. The requirements would be whatever is written by the author. It does seem to be a general design philosophy that activities such as making an attack would typically require action economy expenditure such as an Action, Bonus Action or Reaction. But that's not an actual rule or restriction or requirement that is imposed by the game. That's just how it has commonly been done so far. When it comes to rules discussions, we need to look at what the text of the rule actually says, not what the general trends are regarding how other rules might be written.
The point of my example, which seems to be going over a few heads, is to show the structure of the statement that was used within the Cleave Weapon Mastery feature. The structure of my example uses a parallel structure in the hopes that the underlying mechanic becomes more obvious to people. In addition, the Monk example that I provided also uses that same structure. The structure of the statement is:
"If [something specific] happens, you can [do a certain activity]."
Most notably, the structure is NOT:
"If [something specific] happens, you can use your Reaction to [do a certain activity]."
It's really important to note the difference. That informs us about how the mechanic actually functions.
No, it's not. So what? Nobody has made that claim. I have used the phrase to describe the mechanic. If an attack is being triggered, then it makes sense to refer to it as a triggered attack. If you'd like to use a different phrase to describe that sequence of events, then do that.
Perhaps it would be better if the authors issued an erratum to insert a clause into the Cleave Weapon Mastery feature such that it requires the use of a Reaction. But as currently written, there is no such requirement.
Furthermore, such a change is not needed -- that's not the fantasy that they were going for with this feature. It is not meant to be that something happens and then you react to it by doing something in response. The idea behind a Cleave is that your sword (or whatever weapon) is cleaving straight through one creature and that weapon swing was so powerful that it continues its arc and slices into another creature with no actual additional effort expended. It wouldn't surprise me if we eventually see a similar published feature for archers if there isn't one already whereby the fantasy is that the arrow punctures straight through a creature and out the other side of it, continuing its path and possibly striking an additional creature.
Note that the triggered effect within the Cleave feature is actually that you can make an attack roll -- you are not actually making another attack. I chose not to use that terminology in my own example because I was trying to keep things simple -- just trying to demonstrate the structure of the statement. I thought that going into the weeds on the detail of an attack roll vs making an attack would confuse the issue (it's too late for that now I guess). Perhaps I should have also just said "attack roll" in my example. Anyway, by doing it that way the authors appear to be attempting to remain within the pattern of the design philosophy that you have observed -- that features generally do not allow a player to actually make an attack without it being moored to the action economy. By allowing for an attack roll instead of an attack, it's sort of checking to see if that previous attack also hits something additional. In that way, it's just an effect that is happening that is triggered when certain conditions are met. It's similar to how many of the other Weapon Mastery features work in that regard.
For example, the Push Weapon Mastery has a similar structure for its mechanic: "If you hit a creature with this weapon, you can push the creature up to 10 feet . . .". The fact that you are pushing the creature -- is that somehow "part of" an Attack action? Is this activity even a result of taking any action? How do we know? I just don't see it that way. This is a feature of the weapon. The effect triggers when certain conditions are met. It doesn't really care HOW those conditions are met. It's just . . . did this thing happen? Then this effect occurs.
Seriously? You roll a d20 to hit (give damage if you do) and yet you are not making another attack? My english is so bad, your comment is completely foreign to me.
The Cleave Mastery clearly say you can make this extra attack only once per turn, so you are indeed, making another attack with a seperate attack roll.
I agree that that restriction is badly written. It is inconsistent. One or the other of those two statements should be changed. Again, based on the fantasy of what the term "cleave" has always meant in this game, I believe that the term "attack roll" in the first statement is intentional and the term "attack" in the last statement is a mistake. As currently written, you could rule it either way I suppose.