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.
What you believe doesn't change that RAW you make an attack with Cleave Mastery meaning it isn't either way, but you're making both an attack with an attack roll.
As currently written, you could rule it either way I suppose.
No you can't. There is no other way to rule it but as an attack.
Except, of course, for the one other way to rule it -- as an attack roll.
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.
The feature contradicts itself by using both terms. You can pick one or the other for now until errata is issued that corrects the error.
If you’ll be wading into the thick of battle, you’ll want to consider grabbing a weapon with the Cleave property.
These heavy weapons can slash through opponents. If you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack, you can make a second attack against a creature within 5 feet that is also within your reach. When you hit with the second attack, you can roll your weapon’s damage, but you don’t add your ability modifier unless it’s negative.
This is excellent in combination with the Halberd, which has Reach and Cleave, allowing you to Cleave into enemies in an extended range
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.
Yes. The rules say on your turn, you move, take an action, and maybe a Bonus Action. Sometimes you have a Reaction available to you. There are some free activities as well, one limited object interaction and simple communication. That is the extent of your activity per combat turn. Now, you have defined what happens during your turn. Your proposition is that Cleave creates an attack outside of the action economy without declaring it explicitly? Each spell and rule only does what it says it does. And Cleave does not say that it is outside of the Attack action, Bonus Action, or Reaction where the original attack occurred. There is not even a hint with "later during your turn" or anything. There is zero indicator that it is separate other than up2ng feels like it.
Then you look at other similar abilities officially published, not maybe one day they'll publish an ability to let monks spend 10 focus points to take 3 actions, and ask is this consistent with other abilities? Does it make sense? If there are multiple interpretations, is there one that is more consistent than the alternatives?
"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.
You are inventing terms to make a distinction that isn't actual present in the rules.
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.
If Cleave represents the follow through of one swing, why would it mechanically be a separate action?
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.
The only time attack roll versus attack is significant is when discussing rerolls or if a single roll is used for multiple purposes. In this case, it is clear and explicit that the original roll is not compared against the second target's AC. This is unnecessary in the final printing but may have been a change from a play test version of property. Who knows?
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.
Yes, Push happens during the Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction where the original attack occurred. It is a bit comical to think that in your games a creature gets hit with a Warhammer and there is a slight processing delay before they realize that need to move back 10 feet. Of course, it's the result of taking an Action (or Reaction or Bonus Action). Something caused that attack. If there was no attack, there was no Push.
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.
If you’ll be wading into the thick of battle, you’ll want to consider grabbing a weapon with the Cleave property.
These heavy weapons can slash through opponents. If you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack, you can make a second attack against a creature within 5 feet that is also within your reach. When you hit with the second attack, you can roll your weapon’s damage, but you don’t add your ability modifier unless it’s negative.
This is excellent in combination with the Halberd, which has Reach and Cleave, allowing you to Cleave into enemies in an extended range.
Yes. The rules say on your turn, you move, take an action, and maybe a Bonus Action. Sometimes you have a Reaction available to you. There are some free activities as well, one limited object interaction and simple communication. That is the extent of your activity per combat turn. Now, you have defined what happens during your turn. Your proposition is that Cleave creates an attack outside of the action economy without declaring it explicitly? Each spell and rule only does what it says it does. And Cleave does not say that it is outside of the Attack action, Bonus Action, or Reaction where the original attack occurred. There is not even a hint with "later during your turn" or anything. There is zero indicator that it is separate other than up2ng feels like it.
That's not how the rules work at all. Those general rules that you are referring to are telling you what you can do, not what you can't do. They are establishing a certain type of resource that is refreshed every round on your turn which you can use in specifically defined ways.
But if you have access to some other feature that lets you do something, then you can do it.
This is easy to see with spellcasting. Typical spellcasting classes have a base feature which provides that character with spell slots. The spell slots are a resource that the rules establish as a way that you can cast spells in a certain way. There is no rule which says that you cannot cast spells if you are not using your spell slots. And, of course, as we know, there are tons of features in the game which lets the character cast a spell without a spell slot. Since those features say that you can do that, then you can do that.
Then you look at other similar abilities officially published, not maybe one day they'll publish an ability to let monks spend 10 focus points to take 3 actions, and ask is this consistent with other abilities? Does it make sense? If there are multiple interpretations, is there one that is more consistent than the alternatives?
Unfortunately, I have no idea what you are asking here. Can you rephrase your question perhaps?
"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.
You are inventing terms to make a distinction that isn't actual present in the rules.
This is an absolute falsehood. No one has invented any terms.
Furthermore, there are many dozens of examples of this "distinction" in the game. I closed my eyes, flipped to a random page in the book and immediately found an ability in the Monk class which has this same structure of being able to do something when specific conditions are met. It's really not hard to find examples of this type of mechanic absolutely everywhere.
If Cleave represents the follow through of one swing, why would it mechanically be a separate action?
Under the interpretation that we are actually talking about being able to make a new attack roll against a new target, which is what I am now leaning towards, then my stance on this changes -- in that case it would all be happening as part of the same attack, and by extension, part of the same action. In other words, we would be making a single attack against two targets.
If instead we are using an interpretation that the feature grants a separate attack, then that new attack is not caused by that action at all -- it happens in response to a specific condition being met as per the text for the feature.
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.
Yes, Push happens during the Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction where the original attack occurred. It is a bit comical to think that in your games a creature gets hit with a Warhammer and there is a slight processing delay before they realize that need to move back 10 feet. Of course, it's the result of taking an Action (or Reaction or Bonus Action). Something caused that attack. If there was no attack, there was no Push.
To be more precise the argument would be: If you did not hit a creature with a melee attack roll using this weapon, there was no Push. But that doesn't mean that the Push is part of that attack. The creature being hit is the triggering condition for being allowed to Push the creature, not the fact that you took some sort of action to initiate the attack that hit the creature.
And sure, there could be a short delay. For flavor purposes it's fine to describe the striking of the Warhammer as the thing that moves the creature back 10 feet. But mechanically, what happens is that the creature is struck by the Warhammer and that allows you (optionally) to Push that creature if you want. So, by the time you are doing the pushing, the action which initiated that triggering attack isn't really relevant anymore. You are pushing the creature because it was hit by your weapon, not because you took an Attack action. The Attack action itself tells you what it includes -- it allows you to make an attack. That's all. Some other feature would have to explicitly say otherwise. Extra Attack is an example of a feature which explicitly modifies what the Attack action does.
That's not how the rules work at all. Those general rules that you are referring to are telling you what you can do, not what you can't do. They are establishing a certain type of resource that is refreshed every round on your turn which you can use in specifically defined ways.
That's not how the rules work at all. The rules, when discussing topics governed by the rules tell you what you can do and sometimes put restrictions on what you can't do. You need a rule to tell you can do something. You can't say you are going to do something because there is no rule saying you can't.
There are areas outside of topics covered by the rules and that is for DMs and Players to adjudicate together.
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.
Your example does not clarify. It obfuscates. You invented a hypothetical ability that is unmoored from the action economy, in order to support your argument that Cleave is mechanically unmoored from the action that permits it.
"Triggered attack" is not an actual term of the rules.
No, it's not. So what? Nobody has made that claim.
You said:
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.
This presents a "triggered attack" as something inherently distinct from the regular attack action. You are using it as a term of art.
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.
Nor does there need to be. Cleave is inherently bound to the action economy. To errata it to require a reaction in order to resolve this argument would be extremely silly. (Especially since they could easily do so without weakening Cleave in the slightest, and it's really unnecessary to do even that.)
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 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.
Your example does not clarify. It obfuscates. You invented a hypothetical ability that is unmoored from the action economy, in order to support your argument that Cleave is mechanically unmoored from the action that permits it.
Wait, how is that obfuscating? If I create an example that has an identical sentence structure to the rule in question which indicates that the mechanics work in the identical way, that sounds like clarification to me. If such an example is unmoored from the action economy, then why wouldn't the rule in question also be unmoored from the action economy? That's the whole point. The action economy is one resource that we can use if desired. But if a feature gives us another way to do something, then we can do it. For example, we can use our spell slots to cast spells. But if another feature allows us to cast a spell without using our spell slots, then we can do that. Features do what they say. Cleave says that "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". Since the Cleave feature says that we can do that, then we can do that. No action or any other resource required.
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.
This presents a "triggered attack" as something inherently distinct from the regular attack action. You are using it as a term of art.
This is just 100% false. I've used an adjective followed by a noun to describe a concept. I've made no representation that the book uses this terminology in any specific manner. I chose to use fewer words in that particular case. I could have written it as "The Cleave attack is an attack that is triggered by the satisfaction of the specified condition." But I had already written that longer version in a couple of places, so I was using a briefer version of that description here.
This concept of activities that are triggered is really just another way of saying that rules and features do what they say. If a feature says that if something specific happens then I can do a particular thing, then when that specific thing happens, I can do that particular thing.
This is totally false. The main text for the rules have a huge chuck of rules text that appears under the heading "Attack Rolls" which is one type of a D20 test which is an actual die roll. There is another huge chunk of rules text that appears under the heading "Making an Attack" which refers to a combat activity and establishes one of the core rules of combat.
An attack roll is made when you need to determine if your attack hits your target.
As a result of this discussion, I now interpret the Cleave Weapon Mastery as providing an additional attack roll for the current attack. The purpose is to see if the current attack hits an additional target. As such, most of this discussion in this thread is moot. The answer to the OP's question is yes, the Great Weapon Master damage does apply because the attack roll that is granted is actually part of the same attack and therefore is part of the action that initiated that attack. I consider the bit about "this extra attack" to be an error in terminology in a "but I know what you mean" sort of way and would apply that restriction in the obvious manner.
That's not how the rules work at all. Those general rules that you are referring to are telling you what you can do, not what you can't do. They are establishing a certain type of resource that is refreshed every round on your turn which you can use in specifically defined ways.
That's not how the rules work at all. The rules, when discussing topics governed by the rules tell you what you can do and sometimes put restrictions on what you can't do. You need a rule to tell you can do something. You can't say you are going to do something because there is no rule saying you can't.
Wait, what? That's exactly my point. You've been saying the opposite.
When you bring up the general rule that on your turn you can take an action, you are trying to draw a conclusion from that where every activity that you can ever do on your turn must be part of an action. That is wrong. The general rule is saying that you can take an action. That's not restrictive in any way. If I have access to a specific feature that says that on my turn, I can perform a particular activity without using the action economy resource, then I can do that. For example, consider spellcasting. As a general rule many characters can cast spells by using their spell slots. Such a general rule is providing a resource so that I can cast a spell. Such a general rule is NOT insinuating that that is the only way that I can cast a spell. On the contrary, there are many specific features which allow a character to cast a spell without a spell slot.
That's not how the rules work at all. Those general rules that you are referring to are telling you what you can do, not what you can't do. They are establishing a certain type of resource that is refreshed every round on your turn which you can use in specifically defined ways.
That's not how the rules work at all. The rules, when discussing topics governed by the rules tell you what you can do and sometimes put restrictions on what you can't do. You need a rule to tell you can do something. You can't say you are going to do something because there is no rule saying you can't.
Wait, what? That's exactly my point. You've been saying the opposite.
You are saying that Cleave allows you to make an attack outside of the original Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction. I am saying that because there is no rule moving the Cleave attack outside of the Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction, it remains part of it.
Your argument has actually been Cleave is outside of the action economy because the rules don't say it isn't.
For example, consider spellcasting. As a general rule many characters can cast spells by using their spell slots. Such a general rule is providing a resource so that I can cast a spell. Such a general rule is NOT insinuating that that is the only way that I can cast a spell. On the contrary, there are many specific features which allow a character to cast a spell without a spell slot.
Let's say the quiet part out loud, shall we? All of those specific features explicitly say when you can cast a spell without a spell slot. Your example supports my stance, not yours.
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.
Your example does not clarify. It obfuscates. You invented a hypothetical ability that is unmoored from the action economy, in order to support your argument that Cleave is mechanically unmoored from the action that permits it.
Wait, how is that obfuscating? If I create an example that has an identical sentence structure to the rule in question which indicates that the mechanics work in the identical way, that sounds like clarification to me.
The question is not whether such an attack can exist, but whether Cleave is one. Your hypothetical has nothing to say on that question. The fact that it's phrased as a trigger has nothing to do with that question -- "When X, you may do Y" and the equivalent "You may do Y when you do X" are bog-standard templating, and happen all over the rules.
You are saying that Cleave allows you to make an attack outside of the original Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction. I am saying that because there is no rule moving the Cleave attack outside of the Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction, it remains part of it.
Your argument has actually been Cleave is outside of the action economy because the rules don't say it isn't.
That's never been my argument at all. I am saying that the specific rules that are provided by the Cleave feature make no mention of the action economy. They say that when a certain event occurs, you are allowed to do a thing. Therefore, if that event occurs, you are allowed to do a thing. That has nothing to do with any action.
It's the same structure as the Monk's Uncanny Metabolism feature that I mentioned before. In that case, when you roll initiative (a certain event occurs), you are allowed to regain Focus Points, and you can heal some Hit Points (you are allowed to do a thing). Now, typically in this game healing yourself or healing another creature would require some sort of action. You might use an action to cast a healing spell. Or, if you are a Paladin, you might use a Bonus Action to use the Lay on Hands feature. And so on. In this particular case, the Monk is healing effortlessly -- no action is required or mentioned at all.
Anyway, as mentioned earlier, it has become clear to me that the intent of the Cleave feature is to actually just target a second creature with the same attack by providing an additional attack roll for that attack, so none of this discussion applies to this situation anymore. It has become more of a theoretical exercise and as such it might not be worth continuing.
For example, consider spellcasting. As a general rule many characters can cast spells by using their spell slots. Such a general rule is providing a resource so that I can cast a spell. Such a general rule is NOT insinuating that that is the only way that I can cast a spell. On the contrary, there are many specific features which allow a character to cast a spell without a spell slot.
Let's say the quiet part out loud, shall we? All of those specific features explicitly say when you can cast a spell without a spell slot. Your example supports my stance, not yours.
That's incorrect. When a feature allows you to cast a spell without using the typical resource, that's equivalent to a feature which simply states that you can do a thing. If a feature says that you can do a thing, then you can do it, which is what I've been saying all along.
The question is not whether such an attack can exist, but whether Cleave is one . . . The fact that it's phrased as a trigger has nothing to do with that question -- "When X, you may do Y" and the equivalent "You may do Y when you do X" are bog-standard templating, and happen all over the rules.
Why would it have nothing to do with the question? It has everything to do with it. And I agree, this templating does happen all over the place. I've made that point several times.
Rules do what they say. When a rule says "When X, you may do Y" then when X, you really and truly may do Y because the feature says so. If instead the feature is phrased as "When X, as a Reaction you may do Y" or "When X, as a Bonus Action you may do Y" which also appears all over the place then in those cases a resource expenditure is required to do the thing because the feature says so.
Again, I do now believe that the reason why Cleave was written this way is because they are intending to allow a second target for the same attack which obviously shouldn't require any resource expenditure if that's the case. So, this discussion about a theoretical action-less attack is no longer very pertinent to the mechanics of the Cleave feature.
You are saying that Cleave allows you to make an attack outside of the original Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction. I am saying that because there is no rule moving the Cleave attack outside of the Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction, it remains part of it.
Your argument has actually been Cleave is outside of the action economy because the rules don't say it isn't.
That's never been my argument at all. I am saying that the specific rules that are provided by the Cleave feature make no mention of the action economy. They say that when a certain event occurs, you are allowed to do a thing. Therefore, if that event occurs, you are allowed to do a thing. That has nothing to do with any action.
Yes, exactly. You are saying that it doesn't say it is within the Action economy, so it must be outside of it. In other words, "your argument has actually been Cleave is outside of the action economy because the rules don't say it isn't."
It's the same structure as the Monk's Uncanny Metabolism feature that I mentioned before. In that case, when you roll initiative (a certain event occurs), you are allowed to regain Focus Points, and you can heal some Hit Points (you are allowed to do a thing). Now, typically in this game healing yourself or healing another creature would require some sort of action. You might use an action to cast a healing spell. Or, if you are a Paladin, you might use a Bonus Action to use the Lay on Hands feature. And so on. In this particular case, the Monk is healing effortlessly -- no action is required or mentioned at all.
Anyway, as mentioned earlier, it has become clear to me that the intent of the Cleave feature is to actually just target a second creature with the same attack by providing an additional attack roll for that attack, so none of this discussion applies to this situation anymore. It has become more of a theoretical exercise and as such it might not be worth continuing.
Again, you are using an example outside of combat turns to defend a position on the resolution of a mechanic that occurs during combat turns. Uncanny Metabolism occurs before Combat Turns occur.
You can argue RAI if you have actual evidence for it, but if you do, I don't think you have shared it. You have shared fabricated hypotheticals, examples that are outside of combat and therefore not subject to combat turns, and quotes of features with the sections that conflict with your interpretation missing. Maybe I missed something.
For example, consider spellcasting. As a general rule many characters can cast spells by using their spell slots. Such a general rule is providing a resource so that I can cast a spell. Such a general rule is NOT insinuating that that is the only way that I can cast a spell. On the contrary, there are many specific features which allow a character to cast a spell without a spell slot.
Let's say the quiet part out loud, shall we? All of those specific features explicitly say when you can cast a spell without a spell slot. Your example supports my stance, not yours.
That's incorrect. When a feature allows you to cast a spell without using the typical resource, that's equivalent to a feature which simply states that you can do a thing. If a feature says that you can do a thing, then you can do it, which is what I've been saying all along.
And when a feature says that you can do a thing with using the typical resource, that's spelled out explicitly, so the equivalent statement is actually "If a feature says that you can do a thing, then it says so explicitly." Cleave allows you to make an attack after an attack you have already made hits and does not explicitly separate it from the Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction that included the original. If there was some hypothetical feature that said explicitly that you got to make an attack as a non-action, and you made your Cleave off of that, it would be part of the same non-action.
The question is not whether such an attack can exist, but whether Cleave is one . . . The fact that it's phrased as a trigger has nothing to do with that question -- "When X, you may do Y" and the equivalent "You may do Y when you do X" are bog-standard templating, and happen all over the rules.
Why would it have nothing to do with the question? It has everything to do with it. And I agree, this templating does happen all over the place. I've made that point several times.
Since the question is "is this ability that's activated during an attack action considered to be part of the attack action?", I believe that most people would agree that "Here's a hypothetical ability that causes attacks to happen entirely unlinked to the action economy" is irrelevant. I believe your argument was that, because it's templated similarly, that demonstrated that Cleave wasn't part of an attack, ignoring that you had to invent the example that demonstrated it.
Again, I do now believe that the reason why Cleave was written this way is because they are intending to allow a second target for the same attack which obviously shouldn't require any resource expenditure if that's the case. So, this discussion about a theoretical action-less attack is no longer very pertinent to the mechanics of the Cleave feature.
Which is a fascinating conclusion with absolutely no weird knock-on effects.
With Cleave, you've managed, through a mechanistic approach, to agree with the "mechanics must match flavor" people. Which is downright impressive.
I want to make sure I'm understanding the two basic arguments.
Argument 1: Great Weapon Master doesn't work with Cleave because GWM says it occurs from an attack using the Attack action. Cleave doesn't say it is part of the Attack action. It also doesn't say it is a Bonus Action. It's neither part of an Action nor a Bonus Action, but a secret third thing.
Argument 2: Great Weapon Master does work with Cleave because GWM says it occurs from an attack using the Attack action, and Cleave can be triggered by the Attack action (I say "can be" because it appears it can also be triggered from a bonus action attack or an Attack of Opportunity [please correct me if I'm wrong there]).
Is that kind of the gist, or am I missing something?
I want to make sure I'm understanding the two basic arguments.
Argument 1: Great Weapon Master doesn't work with Cleave because GWM says it occurs from an attack using the Attack action. Cleave doesn't say it is part of the Attack action. It also doesn't say it is a Bonus Action. It's neither part of an Action nor a Bonus Action, but a secret third thing.
Argument 2: Great Weapon Master does work with Cleave because GWM says it occurs from an attack using the Attack action, and Cleave can be triggered by the Attack action (I say "can be" because it appears it can also be triggered from a bonus action attack or an Attack of Opportunity [please correct me if I'm wrong there]).
Is that kind of the gist, or am I missing something?
You've got it.
The one other thing is that, according to a strict reading of the text of the rules, both are possible interpretations.
Argument 2 has better vibes -- you don't get three attacks, where the first and last are part of the attack, while the one in the middle somehow isn't. But it's not actually required.
I want to make sure I'm understanding the two basic arguments.
Argument 1: Great Weapon Master doesn't work with Cleave because GWM says it occurs from an attack using the Attack action. Cleave doesn't say it is part of the Attack action. It also doesn't say it is a Bonus Action. It's neither part of an Action nor a Bonus Action, but a secret third thing.
Argument 2: Great Weapon Master does work with Cleave because GWM says it occurs from an attack using the Attack action, and Cleave can be triggered by the Attack action (I say "can be" because it appears it can also be triggered from a bonus action attack or an Attack of Opportunity [please correct me if I'm wrong there]).
Is that kind of the gist, or am I missing something?
SmiteMakesRight_3_5 and jl8e already answered, so yeah, you have two different ways of ruling how Cleave interacts with Great Weapon Master.
No you can't. There is no other way to rule it but as an attack.
What you believe doesn't change that RAW you make an attack with Cleave Mastery meaning it isn't either way, but you're making both an attack with an attack roll.
Except, of course, for the one other way to rule it -- as an attack roll.
The feature contradicts itself by using both terms. You can pick one or the other for now until errata is issued that corrects the error.
There's no error needing errata to correct; Cleave let you make an attack period.
As you can read in Your Guide to Weapon Mastery in the 2024 Player's Handbook it clearly identify it as an attack.
Yes. The rules say on your turn, you move, take an action, and maybe a Bonus Action. Sometimes you have a Reaction available to you. There are some free activities as well, one limited object interaction and simple communication. That is the extent of your activity per combat turn. Now, you have defined what happens during your turn. Your proposition is that Cleave creates an attack outside of the action economy without declaring it explicitly? Each spell and rule only does what it says it does. And Cleave does not say that it is outside of the Attack action, Bonus Action, or Reaction where the original attack occurred. There is not even a hint with "later during your turn" or anything. There is zero indicator that it is separate other than up2ng feels like it.
Then you look at other similar abilities officially published, not maybe one day they'll publish an ability to let monks spend 10 focus points to take 3 actions, and ask is this consistent with other abilities? Does it make sense? If there are multiple interpretations, is there one that is more consistent than the alternatives?
You are inventing terms to make a distinction that isn't actual present in the rules.
If Cleave represents the follow through of one swing, why would it mechanically be a separate action?
The only time attack roll versus attack is significant is when discussing rerolls or if a single roll is used for multiple purposes. In this case, it is clear and explicit that the original roll is not compared against the second target's AC. This is unnecessary in the final printing but may have been a change from a play test version of property. Who knows?
Yes, Push happens during the Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction where the original attack occurred. It is a bit comical to think that in your games a creature gets hit with a Warhammer and there is a slight processing delay before they realize that need to move back 10 feet. Of course, it's the result of taking an Action (or Reaction or Bonus Action). Something caused that attack. If there was no attack, there was no Push.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
It was explained as making a new attack in Your Guide to Weapon Mastery in the 2024 Player's Handbook:
EDIT: sorry, I didn't see this Plaguescarred's post. Same thoughts.
That's not how the rules work at all. Those general rules that you are referring to are telling you what you can do, not what you can't do. They are establishing a certain type of resource that is refreshed every round on your turn which you can use in specifically defined ways.
But if you have access to some other feature that lets you do something, then you can do it.
This is easy to see with spellcasting. Typical spellcasting classes have a base feature which provides that character with spell slots. The spell slots are a resource that the rules establish as a way that you can cast spells in a certain way. There is no rule which says that you cannot cast spells if you are not using your spell slots. And, of course, as we know, there are tons of features in the game which lets the character cast a spell without a spell slot. Since those features say that you can do that, then you can do that.
Unfortunately, I have no idea what you are asking here. Can you rephrase your question perhaps?
This is an absolute falsehood. No one has invented any terms.
Furthermore, there are many dozens of examples of this "distinction" in the game. I closed my eyes, flipped to a random page in the book and immediately found an ability in the Monk class which has this same structure of being able to do something when specific conditions are met. It's really not hard to find examples of this type of mechanic absolutely everywhere.
Under the interpretation that we are actually talking about being able to make a new attack roll against a new target, which is what I am now leaning towards, then my stance on this changes -- in that case it would all be happening as part of the same attack, and by extension, part of the same action. In other words, we would be making a single attack against two targets.
If instead we are using an interpretation that the feature grants a separate attack, then that new attack is not caused by that action at all -- it happens in response to a specific condition being met as per the text for the feature.
To be more precise the argument would be: If you did not hit a creature with a melee attack roll using this weapon, there was no Push. But that doesn't mean that the Push is part of that attack. The creature being hit is the triggering condition for being allowed to Push the creature, not the fact that you took some sort of action to initiate the attack that hit the creature.
And sure, there could be a short delay. For flavor purposes it's fine to describe the striking of the Warhammer as the thing that moves the creature back 10 feet. But mechanically, what happens is that the creature is struck by the Warhammer and that allows you (optionally) to Push that creature if you want. So, by the time you are doing the pushing, the action which initiated that triggering attack isn't really relevant anymore. You are pushing the creature because it was hit by your weapon, not because you took an Attack action. The Attack action itself tells you what it includes -- it allows you to make an attack. That's all. Some other feature would have to explicitly say otherwise. Extra Attack is an example of a feature which explicitly modifies what the Attack action does.
That's not how the rules work at all. The rules, when discussing topics governed by the rules tell you what you can do and sometimes put restrictions on what you can't do. You need a rule to tell you can do something. You can't say you are going to do something because there is no rule saying you can't.
There are areas outside of topics covered by the rules and that is for DMs and Players to adjudicate together.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
Your example does not clarify. It obfuscates. You invented a hypothetical ability that is unmoored from the action economy, in order to support your argument that Cleave is mechanically unmoored from the action that permits it.
You said:
This presents a "triggered attack" as something inherently distinct from the regular attack action. You are using it as a term of art.
Nor does there need to be. Cleave is inherently bound to the action economy. To errata it to require a reaction in order to resolve this argument would be extremely silly. (Especially since they could easily do so without weakening Cleave in the slightest, and it's really unnecessary to do even that.)
No. There is no distinction between an "attack" and an "attack roll" in fact, if you go into the glossary, if anything, there's no such thing as an "attack". In practice, they use the terms interchangeably.
You are splitting hairs that don't exist.
Wait, how is that obfuscating? If I create an example that has an identical sentence structure to the rule in question which indicates that the mechanics work in the identical way, that sounds like clarification to me. If such an example is unmoored from the action economy, then why wouldn't the rule in question also be unmoored from the action economy? That's the whole point. The action economy is one resource that we can use if desired. But if a feature gives us another way to do something, then we can do it. For example, we can use our spell slots to cast spells. But if another feature allows us to cast a spell without using our spell slots, then we can do that. Features do what they say. Cleave says that "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". Since the Cleave feature says that we can do that, then we can do that. No action or any other resource required.
This is just 100% false. I've used an adjective followed by a noun to describe a concept. I've made no representation that the book uses this terminology in any specific manner. I chose to use fewer words in that particular case. I could have written it as "The Cleave attack is an attack that is triggered by the satisfaction of the specified condition." But I had already written that longer version in a couple of places, so I was using a briefer version of that description here.
This concept of activities that are triggered is really just another way of saying that rules and features do what they say. If a feature says that if something specific happens then I can do a particular thing, then when that specific thing happens, I can do that particular thing.
This is totally false. The main text for the rules have a huge chuck of rules text that appears under the heading "Attack Rolls" which is one type of a D20 test which is an actual die roll. There is another huge chunk of rules text that appears under the heading "Making an Attack" which refers to a combat activity and establishes one of the core rules of combat.
An attack roll is made when you need to determine if your attack hits your target.
As a result of this discussion, I now interpret the Cleave Weapon Mastery as providing an additional attack roll for the current attack. The purpose is to see if the current attack hits an additional target. As such, most of this discussion in this thread is moot. The answer to the OP's question is yes, the Great Weapon Master damage does apply because the attack roll that is granted is actually part of the same attack and therefore is part of the action that initiated that attack. I consider the bit about "this extra attack" to be an error in terminology in a "but I know what you mean" sort of way and would apply that restriction in the obvious manner.
Wait, what? That's exactly my point. You've been saying the opposite.
When you bring up the general rule that on your turn you can take an action, you are trying to draw a conclusion from that where every activity that you can ever do on your turn must be part of an action. That is wrong. The general rule is saying that you can take an action. That's not restrictive in any way. If I have access to a specific feature that says that on my turn, I can perform a particular activity without using the action economy resource, then I can do that. For example, consider spellcasting. As a general rule many characters can cast spells by using their spell slots. Such a general rule is providing a resource so that I can cast a spell. Such a general rule is NOT insinuating that that is the only way that I can cast a spell. On the contrary, there are many specific features which allow a character to cast a spell without a spell slot.
You are saying that Cleave allows you to make an attack outside of the original Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction. I am saying that because there is no rule moving the Cleave attack outside of the Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction, it remains part of it.
Your argument has actually been Cleave is outside of the action economy because the rules don't say it isn't.
Let's say the quiet part out loud, shall we? All of those specific features explicitly say when you can cast a spell without a spell slot. Your example supports my stance, not yours.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
The question is not whether such an attack can exist, but whether Cleave is one. Your hypothetical has nothing to say on that question. The fact that it's phrased as a trigger has nothing to do with that question -- "When X, you may do Y" and the equivalent "You may do Y when you do X" are bog-standard templating, and happen all over the rules.
That's never been my argument at all. I am saying that the specific rules that are provided by the Cleave feature make no mention of the action economy. They say that when a certain event occurs, you are allowed to do a thing. Therefore, if that event occurs, you are allowed to do a thing. That has nothing to do with any action.
It's the same structure as the Monk's Uncanny Metabolism feature that I mentioned before. In that case, when you roll initiative (a certain event occurs), you are allowed to regain Focus Points, and you can heal some Hit Points (you are allowed to do a thing). Now, typically in this game healing yourself or healing another creature would require some sort of action. You might use an action to cast a healing spell. Or, if you are a Paladin, you might use a Bonus Action to use the Lay on Hands feature. And so on. In this particular case, the Monk is healing effortlessly -- no action is required or mentioned at all.
Anyway, as mentioned earlier, it has become clear to me that the intent of the Cleave feature is to actually just target a second creature with the same attack by providing an additional attack roll for that attack, so none of this discussion applies to this situation anymore. It has become more of a theoretical exercise and as such it might not be worth continuing.
That's incorrect. When a feature allows you to cast a spell without using the typical resource, that's equivalent to a feature which simply states that you can do a thing. If a feature says that you can do a thing, then you can do it, which is what I've been saying all along.
Why would it have nothing to do with the question? It has everything to do with it. And I agree, this templating does happen all over the place. I've made that point several times.
Rules do what they say. When a rule says "When X, you may do Y" then when X, you really and truly may do Y because the feature says so. If instead the feature is phrased as "When X, as a Reaction you may do Y" or "When X, as a Bonus Action you may do Y" which also appears all over the place then in those cases a resource expenditure is required to do the thing because the feature says so.
Again, I do now believe that the reason why Cleave was written this way is because they are intending to allow a second target for the same attack which obviously shouldn't require any resource expenditure if that's the case. So, this discussion about a theoretical action-less attack is no longer very pertinent to the mechanics of the Cleave feature.
Yes, exactly. You are saying that it doesn't say it is within the Action economy, so it must be outside of it. In other words, "your argument has actually been Cleave is outside of the action economy because the rules don't say it isn't."
Again, you are using an example outside of combat turns to defend a position on the resolution of a mechanic that occurs during combat turns. Uncanny Metabolism occurs before Combat Turns occur.
You can argue RAI if you have actual evidence for it, but if you do, I don't think you have shared it. You have shared fabricated hypotheticals, examples that are outside of combat and therefore not subject to combat turns, and quotes of features with the sections that conflict with your interpretation missing. Maybe I missed something.
And when a feature says that you can do a thing with using the typical resource, that's spelled out explicitly, so the equivalent statement is actually "If a feature says that you can do a thing, then it says so explicitly." Cleave allows you to make an attack after an attack you have already made hits and does not explicitly separate it from the Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction that included the original. If there was some hypothetical feature that said explicitly that you got to make an attack as a non-action, and you made your Cleave off of that, it would be part of the same non-action.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
Since the question is "is this ability that's activated during an attack action considered to be part of the attack action?", I believe that most people would agree that "Here's a hypothetical ability that causes attacks to happen entirely unlinked to the action economy" is irrelevant. I believe your argument was that, because it's templated similarly, that demonstrated that Cleave wasn't part of an attack, ignoring that you had to invent the example that demonstrated it.
Which is a fascinating conclusion with absolutely no weird knock-on effects.
With Cleave, you've managed, through a mechanistic approach, to agree with the "mechanics must match flavor" people. Which is downright impressive.
There's a lot going on in this thread.
I want to make sure I'm understanding the two basic arguments.
Argument 1: Great Weapon Master doesn't work with Cleave because GWM says it occurs from an attack using the Attack action. Cleave doesn't say it is part of the Attack action. It also doesn't say it is a Bonus Action. It's neither part of an Action nor a Bonus Action, but a secret third thing.
Argument 2: Great Weapon Master does work with Cleave because GWM says it occurs from an attack using the Attack action, and Cleave can be triggered by the Attack action (I say "can be" because it appears it can also be triggered from a bonus action attack or an Attack of Opportunity [please correct me if I'm wrong there]).
Is that kind of the gist, or am I missing something?
You're spot on. There may be other impacts as well, but count me in with the Argument 2 folk.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
You've got it.
The one other thing is that, according to a strict reading of the text of the rules, both are possible interpretations.
Argument 2 has better vibes -- you don't get three attacks, where the first and last are part of the attack, while the one in the middle somehow isn't. But it's not actually required.
SmiteMakesRight_3_5 and jl8e already answered, so yeah, you have two different ways of ruling how Cleave interacts with Great Weapon Master.
And if you choose path #1, then:
- Equipping and Unequipping Weapons, or Moving between Attacks, won't apply.
- Horde Breaker and Stalker's Flurry should be ruled accordingly.
But additionally, both paths allow this: