When I use True Strike with a [wprop]Cleave[/spells] weapon and hit, how do I use to resolve the additional attack from Cleave?
I don't see how True Strike would interact with Cleave at all apart from allowing Cleave to trigger (as long as your attack uses a melee attack roll that is).
When I use True Strike with a [wprop]Cleave[/spells] weapon and hit, how do I use to resolve the additional attack from Cleave?
I don't see how True Strike would interact with Cleave at all apart from allowing Cleave to trigger (as long as your attack uses a melee attack roll that is).
I don't feel like it is clear cut whether Cleave would use the normal attack bonus or the True Strike attack bonus. The same is true for the weapon damage. True Strike is an exception modifying the normal attack rules and Cleave is an exception to the number of attacks. If Cleave turns True Strike's one attack with a weapon used in the spell's casting into two attacks, why would the second attack have a different attack and damage (apart from not applying the attribute bonus to the damage)?
...why would the second attack have a different attack and damage
Can you answer why it would have the same? Doesn't true strike only work once? Isn't Cleave a 2nd attack? You have to roll to hit, so this is not "one attack" but a second one.
True Strike allows you to make one attack and applies to that. The cleave attack could be proc'ed from the True Strike attack, but would not benefit from the benefits of True Strike.
. . . Cleave is an exception to the number of attacks. If Cleave turns True Strike's one attack with a weapon used in the spell's casting into two attacks . . .
It's best not to think of it like that. Cleave does not turn one attack into two attacks. Cleave is its own thing that is triggered when certain prerequisites are met and you follow the rules that are listed in its description.
If your character has a feature that allows him to use the Cleave weapon mastery property and you wield a Cleave weapon during your True Strike (an instantaneous duration spell which provides one attack), then you have a chance of triggering the Cleave feature as a result of that first attack. That first attack must hit a creature with a melee attack roll using that Cleave weapon.
If all of those above prerequisites are met, then you follow the rules of the Cleave weapon mastery. By then, True Strike has already fully resolved. The next thing that happens is:
". . . 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."
This is just a regular attack with a regular weapon with slightly reduced regular damage.
True Strike allows you to make one attack and applies to that. The cleave attack could be proc'ed from the True Strike attack, but would not benefit from the benefits of True Strike.
This. True strike has nothing to say about any extra attacks you might get because you made the TS attack, so they default to the normal rules.
In practice, it's not really a big deal, and simplifies your rolling, if the DM lets you use your caster stat for hit and damage on the cleave attack, but the TS damage shouldn't be re-applied, and that's firmly a house rule.
. . . Cleave is an exception to the number of attacks. If Cleave turns True Strike's one attack with a weapon used in the spell's casting into two attacks . . .
It's best not to think of it like that. Cleave does not turn one attack into two attacks. Cleave is its own thing that is triggered when certain prerequisites are met and you follow the rules that are listed in its description.
If your character has a feature that allows him to use the Cleave weapon mastery property and you wield a Cleave weapon during your True Strike (an instantaneous duration spell which provides one attack), then you have a chance of triggering the Cleave feature as a result of that first attack. That first attack must hit a creature with a melee attack roll using that Cleave weapon.
If all of those above prerequisites are met, then you follow the rules of the Cleave weapon mastery. By then, True Strike has already fully resolved. The next thing that happens is:
". . . 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."
This is just a regular attack with a regular weapon with slightly reduced regular damage.
Since Cleave is not called out as a separate action, it is part of the same action and you are still under the effects of the True Strike spell. It might still be that the triggered melee attack is a standard weapon attack, but I feel like it is worded to explicitly support carrying over a melee spell attack with a weapon (which is not what True Strike does) triggering an extra melee spell attack.
Being part of the action doesn't have to mean carrying over the special properties of the action but should it in this case?
Since Cleave is not called out as a separate action, it is part of the same action and you are still under the effects of the True Strike spell. It might still be that the triggered melee attack is a standard weapon attack, but I feel like it is worded to explicitly support carrying over a melee spell attack with a weapon (which is not what True Strike does) triggering an extra melee spell attack.
Being part of the action doesn't have to mean carrying over the special properties of the action but should it in this case?
Nah, none of this works like that. Cleave is its own thing, it's not part of any previous action. Generally, a feature would have to explicitly declare that it becomes part of another action for it to function that way. The Nick mastery is an example of that -- it explicitly declares that the attack that it's describing can be made as part of the Attack action (which is when the possibility of being able to make a Nick attack is triggered). Cleave is a triggered attack, sort of like an Opportunity Attack, but it doesn't cost you any action economy such as a Reaction or anything. It's just a Feature that has its own rules and does exactly what it says and no more.
True Strike is an Instantaneous Duration spell. Once the effects that are described within its spell description are fully resolved that spell ends. Sequentially, the attack from True Strike might trigger a Cleave attack if the requirements within the Cleave Feature are met, but that has nothing to do with True Strike at that point. It's just a trigger for Cleave.
EDIT: Note that even if the True Strike spell had a longer duration where it allowed you to make an attack every round, for example, these attacks still would not interact in the way that you are thinking. Even if the spell was ongoing, the result of any individual attack within that spell is just a trigger for the Cleave feature. Nothing about the spell "carries over" to what the Cleave feature says that it does. An attack happens however it happens. If certain prerequisites are met, Cleave is triggered and you do what the Cleave feature says.
There is nothing about the True Strike spell or the Cleave Feature which will "support carrying over a melee spell attack with a weapon . . . triggering an extra melee spell attack". Cleave is never a spell attack.
In 2014, the game used to use a term called "melee weapon attack" which was mutually exclusive with "melee spell attack". Each category referred to pretty much what you would expect. In 2024, the term "melee weapon attack" isn't really used any more, but that category of attacks still exists -- the game mostly just refers to those as a "melee attack with a weapon" now.
The Cleave feature states: " you can make a melee attack roll with the weapon against a second creature . . ." That's never a spell attack. That's literally just wielding an actual weapon to make an attack with it. You also can't satisfy this by casting a spell that results in a weapon attack -- the Cleave feature doesn't say that you can cast a spell in response to the trigger, it just says that you can make the attack roll.
As commented in a recent thread, I'm ruling that Cleave isn't part of any main Action (e.g. Attack, Dash, Magic, or others), Bonus Action, or Reaction, basically because it's not explicitly stated.
Nah, none of this works like that. Cleave is its own thing, it's not part of any previous action. Generally, a feature would have to explicitly declare that it becomes part of another action for it to function that way. The Nick mastery is an example of that -- it explicitly declares that the attack that it's describing can be made as part of the Attack action (which is when the possibility of being able to make a Nick attack is triggered). Cleave is a triggered attack, sort of like an Opportunity Attack, but it doesn't cost you any action economy such as a Reaction or anything. It's just a Feature that has its own rules and does exactly what it says and no more.
No, none of that works that way.
Light gives you an attack later in the turn as a Bonus Action. Nick modifies Light to remove the Bonus Action, change "later in the turn" to during the Attack action, and restrict the attack to once per turn. Nick is an invalid comparison. Opportunity attacks explicitly are part of a Reaction. Divine Smite is a Bonus Action. Anything that is the result of an action and not part of that action is explicitly stated as such.
Anything triggered by something during an action that is not part of the action is called as part of a Bonus Action or Reaction. Assuming you have two attacks, it doesn't matter if you Attack action attack, Cleave attack, and Attack action attack or if you Attack action attack, Attack action attack, and then Cleave attack, it is all part of the same Attack action. There is no rule saying that it outside of the action, but it is part of resolving the attack you just made with a Cleave weapon.
When we are dealing with True Strike, it is part of the same Magic action (unless certain classes are casting it as part another action).
EDIT: Note that even if the True Strike spell had a longer duration where it allowed you to make an attack every round, for example, these attacks still would not interact in the way that you are thinking. Even if the spell was ongoing, the result of any individual attack within that spell is just a trigger for the Cleave feature. Nothing about the spell "carries over" to what the Cleave feature says that it does. An attack happens however it happens. If certain prerequisites are met, Cleave is triggered and you do what the Cleave feature says.
To change the spell for argument's sake, this sounds like you are saying that if we could cast Shillelagh on a Cleave weapon, Shillelagh's effects wouldn't apply to the Cleave attack but maybe you are envisioning an ongoing True Strike differently.
The Cleave feature states: " you can make a melee attack roll with the weapon against a second creature . . ." That's never a spell attack. That's literally just wielding an actual weapon to make an attack with it. You also can't satisfy this by casting a spell that results in a weapon attack -- the Cleave feature doesn't say that you can cast a spell in response to the trigger, it just says that you can make the attack roll.
That's fair but I was off on a tangent. True Strike is never a spell attack. TarodNet will probably chime in about how that's debated, but it's a spell that affects the caster and they make an attack with the weapon used in the casting. Logically, it makes sense as a follow through attack to carry over the attack properties of the first attack, but mechanically is it supported? As a GM, I can always say yea or nay, but I do want to give it proper consideration first.
[...] True Strike is never a spell attack. TarodNet will probably chime in about how that's debated, but it's a spell that affects the caster and they make an attack with the weapon used in the casting. [...]
Sure, fellow adventurer! Unfortunately, there's still no consensus about the attack type (weapon, spell, both?) or its range (you, your weapon, a creature?)
To change the spell for argument's sake, this sounds like you are saying that if we could cast Shillelagh on a Cleave weapon, Shillelagh's effects wouldn't apply to the Cleave attack but maybe you are envisioning an ongoing True Strike differently.
I'm quite certain that he isn't saying that at all. The two spells are quite different, True Strike is a spell that gives and enhances a single attack while Shillelagh is a spell that enhances a single weapon. So even if we somehow extended True Strike to be ongoing it would still only grant its effect to that single attack the spell gives us each round while Shillelagh grants its effects to all attacks made with the enhanced weapon.
Logically, it makes sense as a follow through attack to carry over the attack properties of the first attack, but mechanically is it supported? As a GM, I can always say yea or nay, but I do want to give it proper consideration first.
I guess this is a question of narrative v mechanics. Narratively it would seem that Cleave is a continuation of the original attack where the same swing of the weapon just does further damage to one more creature. And if so it would make sense that any damage dealt would be the same as the damage of the original attack. However mechanically Cleave just allows you to make a new attack roll against a new creature and then it makes no logical sense that it carries over any effects of the triggering attack.
The Battle Master has a Sweeping Attack feature that works more like the narrative you are looking for. It uses no new attack roll but specifies that the damage is of the same type as the original attack.
Yeah. Looking at it, definitely have to agree. True Strike applies to "an attack". Cleave is its own attack, using its own modifiers, not the modifiers of True Strike.
To change the spell for argument's sake, this sounds like you are saying that if we could cast Shillelagh on a Cleave weapon, Shillelagh's effects wouldn't apply to the Cleave attack but maybe you are envisioning an ongoing True Strike differently.
I'm quite certain that he isn't saying that at all. The two spells are quite different, True Strike is a spell that gives and enhances a single attack while Shillelagh is a spell that enhances a single weapon. So even if we somehow extended True Strike to be ongoing it would still only grant its effect to that single attack the spell gives us each round while Shillelagh grants its effects to all attacks made with the enhanced weapon.
All attacks except Polearm Master attacks because Jeremy Crawford thinks Quarterstaffs are large clubs. up2ng did not provide an example ongoing True Strike so I took the closest existing example.
To change the spell for argument's sake, this sounds like you are saying that if we could cast Shillelagh on a Cleave weapon, Shillelagh's effects wouldn't apply to the Cleave attack but maybe you are envisioning an ongoing True Strike differently.
I'm quite certain that he isn't saying that at all. The two spells are quite different, True Strike is a spell that gives and enhances a single attack while Shillelagh is a spell that enhances a single weapon. So even if we somehow extended True Strike to be ongoing it would still only grant its effect to that single attack the spell gives us each round while Shillelagh grants its effects to all attacks made with the enhanced weapon.
Logically, it makes sense as a follow through attack to carry over the attack properties of the first attack, but mechanically is it supported? As a GM, I can always say yea or nay, but I do want to give it proper consideration first.
I guess this is a question of narrative v mechanics. Narratively it would seem that Cleave is a continuation of the original attack where the same swing of the weapon just does further damage to one more creature. And if so it would make sense that any damage dealt would be the same as the damage of the original attack. However mechanically Cleave just allows you to make a new attack roll against a new creature and then it makes no logical sense that it carries over any effects of the triggering attack.
The Battle Master has a Sweeping Attack feature that works more like the narrative you are looking for. It uses no new attack roll but specifies that the damage is of the same type as the original attack.
Yes, narratively, the follow through of the Cleave would carry over the same properties. The mechanics of Cleave, I feel at least support the potential of mimicking the narrative as well. Sweeping Attack is a different beast since it is a completely different resolution method and needs to specify the damage. However, in this case, True Strike would definitely carry over. Whether or not Cleave has the requisite wording to do so, it is possible to extend the effects of True Strike to a second enemy (Sweeping Attack isn't a separate attack).
If looking at narratives, Cleave can equally be seen as not applying. The magic of the spell discharges after the first hit. Sweeping Attack can even be reasoned this way, as the damage type carries over but extra damage doesn't, so a well-trained fighter with specialized experience can carry a bit of magic over.
. . . Cleave is its own thing, it's not part of any previous action. Generally, a feature would have to explicitly declare that it becomes part of another action for it to function that way. . . . Cleave is a triggered attack, sort of like an Opportunity Attack, but it doesn't cost you any action economy such as a Reaction or anything. It's just a Feature that has its own rules and does exactly what it says and no more.
Anything triggered by something during an action that is not part of the action is called as part of a Bonus Action or Reaction. Assuming you have two attacks, it doesn't matter if you Attack action attack, Cleave attack, and Attack action attack or if you Attack action attack, Attack action attack, and then Cleave attack, it is all part of the same Attack action. There is no rule saying that it outside of the action, but it is part of resolving the attack you just made with a Cleave weapon.
I kept meaning to come back to this as it's a common misconception about how the rules work that seems to pop up in a lot of threads, but I just haven't had the chance.
There is not actually any support in the rules for the notion that every creature activity has to be done within the action economy or that an attack defaults to being part of whatever the most recent action was or anything like that. There are no general rules that require this.
The best way to interpret the rules is to begin with a few rules of thumb:
-- Rules and features do what they say.
-- Rules tell you what you can do, not what you can't do.
So, we begin with a game state where nobody can do anything ever. Then, there are some general rules to which all creatures automatically have access. For example, there is a general rule which states that on your turn you can move a distance up to your Speed and take one action. So now, creatures can do something because of this rule. At this point, creatures still cannot take an action when it is not their turn, for example. That's not because there is a rule which states that they can't do that -- it's because there is not a rule which states that they can do that.
Ok, next there are specific rules and features which typically have prerequisites in order for a creature to have access to them. In addition, that particular rule or feature will contain its own prerequisites and restrictions regarding when and how to actually use that feature. For example, in order to have access to the rules for the Cleave Weapon Mastery, a character must have a feature, such as Weapon Mastery, which unlocks the property for the character. Once that is achieved, the Cleave Weapon Mastery feature itself specifies the rules and restrictions for when and how to apply this feature -- "once per turn . . . If you hit a creature with a melee attack roll using this weapon, you can make a melee attack roll . . .". So, those are the prerequisites and restrictions. There is nothing there about requiring any action economy action resource expenditure in order to make this attack. You just make it if the triggering prerequisites are met.
The point that I'm getting at is that the rules are set up such that they provide the action economy mechanics as a resource that can be expended or not. This is an option that is given by the rules. A resource can be expended in order to perform certain activities. But that's not a requirement. If you have access to another rule or feature which allows you to perform that activity in some other manner, then you can do that. For example, most spellcasters have access to spell slots as a resource that they can expend when casting a spell. However, they might also have access to some other rule or feature which allows them to cast a spell without expending any spell slots. The resource is there if you want to use it, but you are not required to use it. Activities which would typically require an action to perform follow a similar pattern. If you have access to a rule or feature that allows you to perform that same activity without expending any action economy resources, then you can do that. The Cleave Weapon Mastery property is an example of that -- under particular circumstances, that Feature allows you to make an attack without expending any action economy resources. It is simply triggered by a predefined situation. If and when that trigger is met, the Feature can be used in the manner described. None of that means that the attack from that Feature "becomes part of" any other action or anything like that. The Feature itself doesn't say that and there is no general rule which requires that. The general rules provide the action economy as a resource which allows for one method to generate an attack. But that's not the only way.
As stated earlier, Cleave is its own thing, it's not part of any previous action. Cleave is a triggered attack, but it doesn't cost you any action economy. You must have access to the Feature and the Feature itself provides the conditions for the trigger which must be met in order to use it. It's just a Feature that has its own rules and does exactly what it says and no more.
I kept meaning to come back to this as it's a common misconception about how the rules work that seems to pop up in a lot of threads, but I just haven't had the chance.
There is not actually any support in the rules for the notion that every creature activity has to be done within the action economy or that an attack defaults to being part of whatever the most recent action was or anything like that. There are no general rules that require this.
There is no support that an event triggered by action happens outside of the action, unless it is explicitly specified. Some events are non-actions (such as movement performed outside of the Attack action) and are not relevant to the discussion because the triggered event happening during a non-action has no real meaning.
The best way to interpret the rules is to begin with a few rules of thumb:
-- Rules and features do what they say.
-- Rules tell you what you can do, not what you can't do.
The rules tell you what can and can't do. Sometimes, the rules do one, sometimes the rules do the other, and of course, sometimes they do both. They aren't all encompassing, leaving gaps on either end for DM ruling, if a ruling is needed.
Actions: "When you describe an action not detailed elsewhere in the rules, the Dungeon Master tells you whether that action is possible and what kind of D20 Test you need to make, if any." Anything not defined by the rules as possible is not, per RAW, inherently impossible. The foundation of your argument is false.
"When you do something other than moving or communicating, you typically take an action. The Action table lists the game’s main actions, which are defined in more detail in the Rules Glossary."
Bonus Actions: "You can take a Bonus Action only when a special ability, a spell, or another feature of the game states that you can do something as a Bonus Action. You otherwise don’t have a Bonus Action to take." Cleave is not a Bonus Action.
Reactions: "In terms of timing, a Reaction takes place immediately after its trigger unless the Reaction’s description says otherwise." Cleave is not a Reaction, but the definition of Reaction explicitly supports Actions, Bonus Actions, and Reactions being inherently tied to timing and not simply a resource.
Making the Attack: "3. Resolve the Attack. Make the attack roll, as detailed earlier in this chapter. On a hit, you roll damage unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage." Cleave is a special rule of the attack therefore is part of resolving the attack and not a separate activity.
Ok, next there are specific rules and features which typically have prerequisites in order for a creature to have access to them. In addition, that particular rule or feature will contain its own prerequisites and restrictions regarding when and how to actually use that feature. For example, in order to have access to the rules for the Cleave Weapon Mastery, a character must have a feature, such as Weapon Mastery, which unlocks the property for the character. Once that is achieved, the Cleave Weapon Mastery feature itself specifies the rules and restrictions for when and how to apply this feature -- "once per turn . . . If you hit a creature with a melee attack roll using this weapon, you can make a melee attack roll . . .". So, those are the prerequisites and restrictions. There is nothing there about requiring any action economy action resource expenditure in order to make this attack. You just make it if the triggering prerequisites are met.
There is nothing saying it happens outside of the Attack action. "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." In order to be outside of the triggering action, you need something saying that it is so. If it is not there, it is part of the Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction.
Compare it to 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 Actionlater on the same turn. That extra attack must be made with a different Light weapon, and you don’t add your ability modifier to the extra attack’s damage unless that modifier is negative. For example, you can attack with a Shortsword in one hand and a Dagger in the other using the Attack action and a Bonus Action, but you don’t add your Strength or Dexterity modifier to the damage roll of the Bonus Action unless that modifier is negative."
Even with Nick: "When you make the extra attack of the Light property, you can make it as part of the Attack action instead of as a Bonus Action. You can make this extra attack only once per turn." This removes the Bonus Action, but keeps the later on the same turn timing (the Nick attack can't be the first attack of the Attack action sequence).
The point that I'm getting at is that the rules are set up such that they provide the action economy mechanics as a resource that can be expended or not. This is an option that is given by the rules. A resource can be expended in order to perform certain activities. But that's not a requirement. If you have access to another rule or feature which allows you to perform that activity in some other manner, then you can do that. For example, most spellcasters have access to spell slots as a resource that they can expend when casting a spell. However, they might also have access to some other rule or feature which allows them to cast a spell without expending any spell slots. The resource is there if you want to use it, but you are not required to use it.
This is an apples to oranges comparison. If I have a feature where it expends a spell slot, it will be as an Action (probably a Magic action), Bonus Action, Reaction, or non-action, but it will be specified by the feature. If that feature is in response to a trigger, it will be part of that trigger unless stated otherwise. Divine Smite states that it is as a Bonus Action so it is not part of the Attack action, for example.
As stated earlier, Cleave is its own thing, it's not part of any previous action. Cleave is a triggered attack, but it doesn't cost you any action economy. You must have access to the Feature and the Feature itself provides the conditions for the trigger which must be met in order to use it. It's just a Feature that has its own rules and does exactly what it says and no more.
You haven't actually provided anything but assertions to support your position. House rules are fine but understand what is a house rule versus what is RAW before making a RAW argument.
When I use True Strike with a Cleave weapon and hit, how do I use to resolve the additional attack from Cleave?
Is the spellcasting attribute to hit with either the normal weapon damage or radiant damage?
Edited to correct tooltip.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
I don't see how True Strike would interact with Cleave at all apart from allowing Cleave to trigger (as long as your attack uses a melee attack roll that is).
I don't feel like it is clear cut whether Cleave would use the normal attack bonus or the True Strike attack bonus. The same is true for the weapon damage. True Strike is an exception modifying the normal attack rules and Cleave is an exception to the number of attacks. If Cleave turns True Strike's one attack with a weapon used in the spell's casting into two attacks, why would the second attack have a different attack and damage (apart from not applying the attribute bonus to the damage)?
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
Can you answer why it would have the same? Doesn't true strike only work once? Isn't Cleave a 2nd attack? You have to roll to hit, so this is not "one attack" but a second one.
True Strike allows you to make one attack and applies to that. The cleave attack could be proc'ed from the True Strike attack, but would not benefit from the benefits of True Strike.
It's best not to think of it like that. Cleave does not turn one attack into two attacks. Cleave is its own thing that is triggered when certain prerequisites are met and you follow the rules that are listed in its description.
If your character has a feature that allows him to use the Cleave weapon mastery property and you wield a Cleave weapon during your True Strike (an instantaneous duration spell which provides one attack), then you have a chance of triggering the Cleave feature as a result of that first attack. That first attack must hit a creature with a melee attack roll using that Cleave weapon.
If all of those above prerequisites are met, then you follow the rules of the Cleave weapon mastery. By then, True Strike has already fully resolved. The next thing that happens is:
". . . 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."
This is just a regular attack with a regular weapon with slightly reduced regular damage.
This. True strike has nothing to say about any extra attacks you might get because you made the TS attack, so they default to the normal rules.
In practice, it's not really a big deal, and simplifies your rolling, if the DM lets you use your caster stat for hit and damage on the cleave attack, but the TS damage shouldn't be re-applied, and that's firmly a house rule.
First, thanks for going down this thought exercise with me. I lean towards using the standard weapon properties, but I am not certain it is correct.
Since Cleave is not called out as a separate action, it is part of the same action and you are still under the effects of the True Strike spell. It might still be that the triggered melee attack is a standard weapon attack, but I feel like it is worded to explicitly support carrying over a melee spell attack with a weapon (which is not what True Strike does) triggering an extra melee spell attack.
Being part of the action doesn't have to mean carrying over the special properties of the action but should it in this case?
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
Nah, none of this works like that. Cleave is its own thing, it's not part of any previous action. Generally, a feature would have to explicitly declare that it becomes part of another action for it to function that way. The Nick mastery is an example of that -- it explicitly declares that the attack that it's describing can be made as part of the Attack action (which is when the possibility of being able to make a Nick attack is triggered). Cleave is a triggered attack, sort of like an Opportunity Attack, but it doesn't cost you any action economy such as a Reaction or anything. It's just a Feature that has its own rules and does exactly what it says and no more.
True Strike is an Instantaneous Duration spell. Once the effects that are described within its spell description are fully resolved that spell ends. Sequentially, the attack from True Strike might trigger a Cleave attack if the requirements within the Cleave Feature are met, but that has nothing to do with True Strike at that point. It's just a trigger for Cleave.
EDIT: Note that even if the True Strike spell had a longer duration where it allowed you to make an attack every round, for example, these attacks still would not interact in the way that you are thinking. Even if the spell was ongoing, the result of any individual attack within that spell is just a trigger for the Cleave feature. Nothing about the spell "carries over" to what the Cleave feature says that it does. An attack happens however it happens. If certain prerequisites are met, Cleave is triggered and you do what the Cleave feature says.
There is nothing about the True Strike spell or the Cleave Feature which will "support carrying over a melee spell attack with a weapon . . . triggering an extra melee spell attack". Cleave is never a spell attack.
In 2014, the game used to use a term called "melee weapon attack" which was mutually exclusive with "melee spell attack". Each category referred to pretty much what you would expect. In 2024, the term "melee weapon attack" isn't really used any more, but that category of attacks still exists -- the game mostly just refers to those as a "melee attack with a weapon" now.
The Cleave feature states: " you can make a melee attack roll with the weapon against a second creature . . ." That's never a spell attack. That's literally just wielding an actual weapon to make an attack with it. You also can't satisfy this by casting a spell that results in a weapon attack -- the Cleave feature doesn't say that you can cast a spell in response to the trigger, it just says that you can make the attack roll.
As commented in a recent thread, I'm ruling that Cleave isn't part of any main Action (e.g. Attack, Dash, Magic, or others), Bonus Action, or Reaction, basically because it's not explicitly stated.
Not everyone agrees with this:
No, none of that works that way.
Light gives you an attack later in the turn as a Bonus Action. Nick modifies Light to remove the Bonus Action, change "later in the turn" to during the Attack action, and restrict the attack to once per turn. Nick is an invalid comparison. Opportunity attacks explicitly are part of a Reaction. Divine Smite is a Bonus Action. Anything that is the result of an action and not part of that action is explicitly stated as such.
Anything triggered by something during an action that is not part of the action is called as part of a Bonus Action or Reaction. Assuming you have two attacks, it doesn't matter if you Attack action attack, Cleave attack, and Attack action attack or if you Attack action attack, Attack action attack, and then Cleave attack, it is all part of the same Attack action. There is no rule saying that it outside of the action, but it is part of resolving the attack you just made with a Cleave weapon.
When we are dealing with True Strike, it is part of the same Magic action (unless certain classes are casting it as part another action).
To change the spell for argument's sake, this sounds like you are saying that if we could cast Shillelagh on a Cleave weapon, Shillelagh's effects wouldn't apply to the Cleave attack but maybe you are envisioning an ongoing True Strike differently.
That's fair but I was off on a tangent. True Strike is never a spell attack. TarodNet will probably chime in about how that's debated, but it's a spell that affects the caster and they make an attack with the weapon used in the casting. Logically, it makes sense as a follow through attack to carry over the attack properties of the first attack, but mechanically is it supported? As a GM, I can always say yea or nay, but I do want to give it proper consideration first.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
Sure, fellow adventurer! Unfortunately, there's still no consensus about the attack type (weapon, spell, both?) or its range (you, your weapon, a creature?)
I'm quite certain that he isn't saying that at all. The two spells are quite different, True Strike is a spell that gives and enhances a single attack while Shillelagh is a spell that enhances a single weapon. So even if we somehow extended True Strike to be ongoing it would still only grant its effect to that single attack the spell gives us each round while Shillelagh grants its effects to all attacks made with the enhanced weapon.
I guess this is a question of narrative v mechanics. Narratively it would seem that Cleave is a continuation of the original attack where the same swing of the weapon just does further damage to one more creature. And if so it would make sense that any damage dealt would be the same as the damage of the original attack. However mechanically Cleave just allows you to make a new attack roll against a new creature and then it makes no logical sense that it carries over any effects of the triggering attack.
The Battle Master has a Sweeping Attack feature that works more like the narrative you are looking for. It uses no new attack roll but specifies that the damage is of the same type as the original attack.
The effect of True Strike only apply to the attack from the spell. The extra attack of Cleave follow the rules on making Melee Attack Rolls ;
Yeah. Looking at it, definitely have to agree. True Strike applies to "an attack". Cleave is its own attack, using its own modifiers, not the modifiers of True Strike.
All attacks except Polearm Master attacks because Jeremy Crawford thinks Quarterstaffs are large clubs. up2ng did not provide an example ongoing True Strike so I took the closest existing example.
Yes, narratively, the follow through of the Cleave would carry over the same properties. The mechanics of Cleave, I feel at least support the potential of mimicking the narrative as well. Sweeping Attack is a different beast since it is a completely different resolution method and needs to specify the damage. However, in this case, True Strike would definitely carry over. Whether or not Cleave has the requisite wording to do so, it is possible to extend the effects of True Strike to a second enemy (Sweeping Attack isn't a separate attack).
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
If looking at narratives, Cleave can equally be seen as not applying. The magic of the spell discharges after the first hit. Sweeping Attack can even be reasoned this way, as the damage type carries over but extra damage doesn't, so a well-trained fighter with specialized experience can carry a bit of magic over.
Doesn't the true strike verbiage talk about one attack? Doesn't cleave say you have to roll again aka do a second attack?
I kept meaning to come back to this as it's a common misconception about how the rules work that seems to pop up in a lot of threads, but I just haven't had the chance.
There is not actually any support in the rules for the notion that every creature activity has to be done within the action economy or that an attack defaults to being part of whatever the most recent action was or anything like that. There are no general rules that require this.
The best way to interpret the rules is to begin with a few rules of thumb:
-- Rules and features do what they say.
-- Rules tell you what you can do, not what you can't do.
So, we begin with a game state where nobody can do anything ever. Then, there are some general rules to which all creatures automatically have access. For example, there is a general rule which states that on your turn you can move a distance up to your Speed and take one action. So now, creatures can do something because of this rule. At this point, creatures still cannot take an action when it is not their turn, for example. That's not because there is a rule which states that they can't do that -- it's because there is not a rule which states that they can do that.
Ok, next there are specific rules and features which typically have prerequisites in order for a creature to have access to them. In addition, that particular rule or feature will contain its own prerequisites and restrictions regarding when and how to actually use that feature. For example, in order to have access to the rules for the Cleave Weapon Mastery, a character must have a feature, such as Weapon Mastery, which unlocks the property for the character. Once that is achieved, the Cleave Weapon Mastery feature itself specifies the rules and restrictions for when and how to apply this feature -- "once per turn . . . If you hit a creature with a melee attack roll using this weapon, you can make a melee attack roll . . .". So, those are the prerequisites and restrictions. There is nothing there about requiring any action economy action resource expenditure in order to make this attack. You just make it if the triggering prerequisites are met.
The point that I'm getting at is that the rules are set up such that they provide the action economy mechanics as a resource that can be expended or not. This is an option that is given by the rules. A resource can be expended in order to perform certain activities. But that's not a requirement. If you have access to another rule or feature which allows you to perform that activity in some other manner, then you can do that. For example, most spellcasters have access to spell slots as a resource that they can expend when casting a spell. However, they might also have access to some other rule or feature which allows them to cast a spell without expending any spell slots. The resource is there if you want to use it, but you are not required to use it. Activities which would typically require an action to perform follow a similar pattern. If you have access to a rule or feature that allows you to perform that same activity without expending any action economy resources, then you can do that. The Cleave Weapon Mastery property is an example of that -- under particular circumstances, that Feature allows you to make an attack without expending any action economy resources. It is simply triggered by a predefined situation. If and when that trigger is met, the Feature can be used in the manner described. None of that means that the attack from that Feature "becomes part of" any other action or anything like that. The Feature itself doesn't say that and there is no general rule which requires that. The general rules provide the action economy as a resource which allows for one method to generate an attack. But that's not the only way.
As stated earlier, Cleave is its own thing, it's not part of any previous action. Cleave is a triggered attack, but it doesn't cost you any action economy. You must have access to the Feature and the Feature itself provides the conditions for the trigger which must be met in order to use it. It's just a Feature that has its own rules and does exactly what it says and no more.
There is no support that an event triggered by action happens outside of the action, unless it is explicitly specified. Some events are non-actions (such as movement performed outside of the Attack action) and are not relevant to the discussion because the triggered event happening during a non-action has no real meaning.
The rules tell you what can and can't do. Sometimes, the rules do one, sometimes the rules do the other, and of course, sometimes they do both. They aren't all encompassing, leaving gaps on either end for DM ruling, if a ruling is needed.
Actions: "When you describe an action not detailed elsewhere in the rules, the Dungeon Master tells you whether that action is possible and what kind of D20 Test you need to make, if any." Anything not defined by the rules as possible is not, per RAW, inherently impossible. The foundation of your argument is false.
"When you do something other than moving or communicating, you typically take an action. The Action table lists the game’s main actions, which are defined in more detail in the Rules Glossary."
Bonus Actions: "You can take a Bonus Action only when a special ability, a spell, or another feature of the game states that you can do something as a Bonus Action. You otherwise don’t have a Bonus Action to take." Cleave is not a Bonus Action.
Reactions: "In terms of timing, a Reaction takes place immediately after its trigger unless the Reaction’s description says otherwise." Cleave is not a Reaction, but the definition of Reaction explicitly supports Actions, Bonus Actions, and Reactions being inherently tied to timing and not simply a resource.
Making the Attack: "3. Resolve the Attack. Make the attack roll, as detailed earlier in this chapter. On a hit, you roll damage unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage." Cleave is a special rule of the attack therefore is part of resolving the attack and not a separate activity.
There is nothing saying it happens outside of the Attack action. "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." In order to be outside of the triggering action, you need something saying that it is so. If it is not there, it is part of the Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction.
Compare it to 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. That extra attack must be made with a different Light weapon, and you don’t add your ability modifier to the extra attack’s damage unless that modifier is negative. For example, you can attack with a Shortsword in one hand and a Dagger in the other using the Attack action and a Bonus Action, but you don’t add your Strength or Dexterity modifier to the damage roll of the Bonus Action unless that modifier is negative."
Even with Nick: "When you make the extra attack of the Light property, you can make it as part of the Attack action instead of as a Bonus Action. You can make this extra attack only once per turn." This removes the Bonus Action, but keeps the later on the same turn timing (the Nick attack can't be the first attack of the Attack action sequence).
This is an apples to oranges comparison. If I have a feature where it expends a spell slot, it will be as an Action (probably a Magic action), Bonus Action, Reaction, or non-action, but it will be specified by the feature. If that feature is in response to a trigger, it will be part of that trigger unless stated otherwise. Divine Smite states that it is as a Bonus Action so it is not part of the Attack action, for example.
You haven't actually provided anything but assertions to support your position. House rules are fine but understand what is a house rule versus what is RAW before making a RAW argument.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.