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.
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.