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.
Close but also slightly misrepresenting the argument, there is no secret thing happening. Action, Bonus Action or Reaction are definitions of resources of the action economy while making an attack roll is something you do. These are not the same concepts. Many of the things you can do uses the Action, Bonus Action or Reaction resources but not all do, some things simply happens at a specified time ("when you roll Initiative", "at the start of you turn", "at the end of your turn", "when you hit with an attack roll" and so on).
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]).
Also close but not really. Cleave is never triggered by the Attack Action (or any Action, Bonus Action or Reaction). It is triggered by hitting with an attack roll however that attack roll comes about.
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.
Close but also slightly misrepresenting the argument, there is no secret thing happening. Action, Bonus Action or Reaction are definitions of resources of the action economy while making an attack roll is something you do. These are not the same concepts.
An unstated thing, a non-action without being called out as such.
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]).
Also close but not really. Cleave is never triggered by the Attack Action (or any Action, Bonus Action or Reaction). It is triggered by hitting with an attack roll however that attack roll comes about.
It is not triggered by the Attack Action, but it is triggered during an Action (Attack or otherwise), Bonus Action, or Reaction. At least, I can't think of another way to trigger it. It's fair distinction to call out though.
It is not triggered by the Attack Action, but it is triggered during an Action (Attack or otherwise), Bonus Action, or Reaction. At least, I can't think of another way to trigger it. It's fair distinction to call out though.
The thing is, Great Weapon Master doesn't take effect when you hit during the Attack action but as part of it.
Which the extra attack of Cleave doesn't specifically say it does as opposed to Nick Mastery for example.
Great Weapon Master: When you hit a creature with a weapon that has the Heavy property during as part ofthe Attack action on your turn, you can cause the weapon to deal extra damage to the target.
It is not triggered by the Attack Action, but it is triggered during an Action (Attack or otherwise), Bonus Action, or Reaction. At least, I can't think of another way to trigger it. It's fair distinction to call out though.
The thing is, Great Weapon Master doesn't take effect when you hit during the Attack action but as part of it.
Which the extra attack of Cleave doesn't specifically say it does as opposed to Nick Mastery for example.
Great Weapon Master: When you hit a creature with a weapon that has the Heavy property during as part ofthe Attack action on your turn, you can cause the weapon to deal extra damage to the target.
If you attack during as part of the Attack action, Cleave happens during as part of the Attack action because there is nothing changing it to outside of the Attack action.
Nick is an invalid counter example because Lightexplicitly says that the extra attack is made as a Bonus Action later in the turn. Nick has to then explicitly change the Bonus Action. If anything, it supports that the extra attack is always part of an Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction because they did not say "this is now just an extra attack during your turn and doesn't use your Bonus Action anymore". They kept it within an Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction. They kept it part of the action economy.
Spells do what they say they do. Weapon properties do what they say they do. Rules say what they do. Cleave does not say that it is outside of the Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction so it isn't. It doesn't say "... as a non-action, you can make a melee attack roll with the weapon ..." That would define that it was outside of the original Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction and outside of the action economy.
Spells do what they say they do. Weapon properties do what they say they do. Rules say what they do. Cleave does not say that it is outside of the Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction so it isn't. It doesn't say "... as a non-action, you can make a melee attack roll with the weapon ..." That would define that it was outside of the original Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction and outside of the action economy.
Exactly, Mastery do what they say they do, Cleave Mastery say "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", so you do it without specifically being part of an Action, Bonus Action or Reaction since it doesn't say it is like Nick Mastery does.
Nick is an invalid counter example because Lightexplicitly says that the extra attack is made as a Bonus Action later in the turn. Nick has to then explicitly change the Bonus Action. If anything, it supports that the extra attack is always part of an Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction because they did not say "this is now just an extra attack during your turn and doesn't use your Bonus Action anymore". They kept it within an Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction. They kept it part of the action economy.
If the extra attack of the Light property was by default part of the Attack action when no longer using a Bonus Action, Nick Mastery wouldn't need to specifically say it's made as part of the Attack action.
Spells do what they say they do. Weapon properties do what they say they do. Rules say what they do. Cleave does not say that it is outside of the Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction so it isn't. It doesn't say "... as a non-action, you can make a melee attack roll with the weapon ..." That would define that it was outside of the original Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction and outside of the action economy.
Exactly, Mastery do what they say they do, Cleave Mastery say "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", so you do it without specifically being part of an Action, Bonus Action or Reaction since it doesn't say it is like Nick Mastery does.
That is one interpretation. It's as valid as the other, because nowhere do we have a definition as to what makes something a "part of the attack action". "Must say so" is not inherently wrong, though it leads to some weirdness.* "Happens during" is also not inherently wrong.
* By the strictest possible reading, it can be argued that extra attacks are not part of the attack action.
Nick is an invalid counter example because Lightexplicitly says that the extra attack is made as a Bonus Action later in the turn. Nick has to then explicitly change the Bonus Action. If anything, it supports that the extra attack is always part of an Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction because they did not say "this is now just an extra attack during your turn and doesn't use your Bonus Action anymore". They kept it within an Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction. They kept it part of the action economy.
If the extra attack of the Light property was by default part of the Attack action when no longer using a Bonus Action, Nick Mastery wouldn't need to specifically say it's made as part of the Attack action.
Light removed it from part of the Attack action. Nick needs to address that, even if for no other reason, for clarity.
Exactly, Mastery do what they say they do, Cleave Mastery say "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", so you do it without specifically being part of an Action, Bonus Action or Reaction since it doesn't say it is like Nick Mastery does.
The bold part is not what the mastery says it does.
The rules say you make another attack. You are saying the rules say you make another attack and it is not part of the Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction. However, the rules never say that. The rules never say to separate it from the original Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction like Light does which Nick modifies.
If Nickon its own gave you an extra attack explicitly as part of the Attack action without any interaction with Light, you would have a valid counter example, but it doesn't do that; it moves an extra attack from a Bonus Action to part of the Attack action. Whether it modifies the "later this turn" requirement is debatable.
What it does do is provide a concrete example of not leaving an extra attack outside of the action economy. If extra attacks occur outside of an Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction by default, why does Nick need to move the extra attack to the Attack action? Why is it necessary and what does it accomplish? Why not just remove the Bonus Action requirement from the Light extra attack? One is obviously a low sample size to build an argument for a trend, but I think it supports that side of the argument rather than "cleave is outside of the action economy because it doesn't say it is within it".
Move (this is explicitly separate from your action, but certain actions allow movement during it)
Take one Action (this is intended to also include potentially taking a Bonus Actions and/or a Reaction, as detailed in the Actions section earlier)
Briefly communicate (this explicitly does not consume an action or movement unless it is an extended interaction)
one free object interaction (this is explicitly allowed during your action or movement so the explicit call out call out supports both positions)
So, everything during your turn is by default restricted to movement or Action, Bonus Actions, or Reactions, unless explicitly stated otherwise. Now, we have a trend.
When you take an Attack action (for example) and make an attack where Cleave is triggered, Cleave gives you another attack but never says explicitly that it is no longer part of the action or that it is part of movement, a Bonus Action, a Reaction, or something else. It was triggered as part of resolving an Attack that was part of an Attack action (in this example) and nothing removes it from that Attack action, so it is still part of that Attack action.
The way they're written Cleave & Horde Breaker can even trigger one another.
Yes, which is, IMO, appropriate. I like the idea of an attack triggering Cleave and then Horde Breaker thematically, but if you resolve Horde Breaker and then Cleave, you can potentially Hit the first target a second time (Horde Breaker prevents this if you use it last). You would, of course, would have to hit with the initial and Horde Breaker attacks.
When you hit a creature with a melee attack roll using a weapon or an Unarmed Strike, you can expend one Superiority Die to attempt to damage another creature. Choose another creature within 5 feet of the original target and within your reach. If the original attack roll would hit the second creature, it takes damage equal to the number you roll on your Superiority Die. The damage is of the same type dealt by the original attack.
Since Sweeping Attack doesn't hit or miss, it either deals damage or doesn't based on the original roll, you can't trigger Horde Breaker or Cleave off of Sweeping Attack, but could trigger Sweeping Attack off of Cleave, Horde Breaker, or the Original Attack.
So, I guess there is no consensus on whether the additional damage from GWM applies to damage from Cleave attacks?
My question is, f it's not a attack action, then what kind of action is it?
Since you don't get to add your ability modifier, I would be inclined to allow the GWM damage, but I suppose it's going to be up to each DM, unless there's errata or something on it.
So, I guess there is no consensus on whether the additional damage from GWM applies to damage from Cleave attacks?
I think we're at "the preponderance of people say yes, but it's not close to universal".
(We can't get universal agreement on everything that's written in the actual rules, much less points of interpretation like this.)
My question is, f it's not a attack action, then what kind of action is it?
The argument (which I don't agree with) is that it's not part of any action.
Since you don't get to add your ability modifier, I would be inclined to allow the GWM damage, but I suppose it's going to be up to each DM, unless there's errata or something on it.
Yeah, it's in the ask your DM department. I expect most DM's response will be "Huh? Of course it's part of the attack action."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Close but also slightly misrepresenting the argument, there is no secret thing happening. Action, Bonus Action or Reaction are definitions of resources of the action economy while making an attack roll is something you do. These are not the same concepts.
Many of the things you can do uses the Action, Bonus Action or Reaction resources but not all do, some things simply happens at a specified time ("when you roll Initiative", "at the start of you turn", "at the end of your turn", "when you hit with an attack roll" and so on).
Also close but not really. Cleave is never triggered by the Attack Action (or any Action, Bonus Action or Reaction). It is triggered by hitting with an attack roll however that attack roll comes about.
An unstated thing, a non-action without being called out as such.
It is not triggered by the Attack Action, but it is triggered during an Action (Attack or otherwise), Bonus Action, or Reaction. At least, I can't think of another way to trigger it. It's fair distinction to call out though.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
The thing is, Great Weapon Master doesn't take effect when you hit during the Attack action but as part of it.
Which the extra attack of Cleave doesn't specifically say it does as opposed to Nick Mastery for example.
If you attack
duringas part of the Attack action, Cleave happensduringas part of the Attack action because there is nothing changing it to outside of the Attack action.Nick is an invalid counter example because Light explicitly says that the extra attack is made as a Bonus Action later in the turn. Nick has to then explicitly change the Bonus Action. If anything, it supports that the extra attack is always part of an Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction because they did not say "this is now just an extra attack during your turn and doesn't use your Bonus Action anymore". They kept it within an Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction. They kept it part of the action economy.
Spells do what they say they do. Weapon properties do what they say they do. Rules say what they do. Cleave does not say that it is outside of the Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction so it isn't. It doesn't say "... as a non-action, you can make a melee attack roll with the weapon ..." That would define that it was outside of the original Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction and outside of the action economy.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
Exactly, Mastery do what they say they do, Cleave Mastery say "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", so you do it without specifically being part of an Action, Bonus Action or Reaction since it doesn't say it is like Nick Mastery does.
If the extra attack of the Light property was by default part of the Attack action when no longer using a Bonus Action, Nick Mastery wouldn't need to specifically say it's made as part of the Attack action.
That is one interpretation. It's as valid as the other, because nowhere do we have a definition as to what makes something a "part of the attack action". "Must say so" is not inherently wrong, though it leads to some weirdness.* "Happens during" is also not inherently wrong.
* By the strictest possible reading, it can be argued that extra attacks are not part of the attack action.
Light removed it from part of the Attack action. Nick needs to address that, even if for no other reason, for clarity.
The bold part is not what the mastery says it does.
The rules say you make another attack. You are saying the rules say you make another attack and it is not part of the Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction. However, the rules never say that. The rules never say to separate it from the original Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction like Light does which Nick modifies.
If Nick on its own gave you an extra attack explicitly as part of the Attack action without any interaction with Light, you would have a valid counter example, but it doesn't do that; it moves an extra attack from a Bonus Action to part of the Attack action. Whether it modifies the "later this turn" requirement is debatable.
What it does do is provide a concrete example of not leaving an extra attack outside of the action economy. If extra attacks occur outside of an Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction by default, why does Nick need to move the extra attack to the Attack action? Why is it necessary and what does it accomplish? Why not just remove the Bonus Action requirement from the Light extra attack? One is obviously a low sample size to build an argument for a trend, but I think it supports that side of the argument rather than "cleave is outside of the action economy because it doesn't say it is within it".
The Combat rules for Your Turn say that you can
So, everything during your turn is by default restricted to movement or Action, Bonus Actions, or Reactions, unless explicitly stated otherwise. Now, we have a trend.
When you take an Attack action (for example) and make an attack where Cleave is triggered, Cleave gives you another attack but never says explicitly that it is no longer part of the action or that it is part of movement, a Bonus Action, a Reaction, or something else. It was triggered as part of resolving an Attack that was part of an Attack action (in this example) and nothing removes it from that Attack action, so it is still part of that Attack action.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
The way they're written Cleave & Horde Breaker can even trigger one another.
Yes, which is, IMO, appropriate. I like the idea of an attack triggering Cleave and then Horde Breaker thematically, but if you resolve Horde Breaker and then Cleave, you can potentially Hit the first target a second time (Horde Breaker prevents this if you use it last). You would, of course, would have to hit with the initial and Horde Breaker attacks.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
How about adding Sweeping Attack to the mix? (related thread: Cleave and Sweeping Attack)
Copied from that thread for reference.
Since Sweeping Attack doesn't hit or miss, it either deals damage or doesn't based on the original roll, you can't trigger Horde Breaker or Cleave off of Sweeping Attack, but could trigger Sweeping Attack off of Cleave, Horde Breaker, or the Original Attack.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
So, I guess there is no consensus on whether the additional damage from GWM applies to damage from Cleave attacks?
My question is, f it's not a attack action, then what kind of action is it?
Since you don't get to add your ability modifier, I would be inclined to allow the GWM damage, but I suppose it's going to be up to each DM, unless there's errata or something on it.
I think we're at "the preponderance of people say yes, but it's not close to universal".
(We can't get universal agreement on everything that's written in the actual rules, much less points of interpretation like this.)
The argument (which I don't agree with) is that it's not part of any action.
Yeah, it's in the ask your DM department. I expect most DM's response will be "Huh? Of course it's part of the attack action."