Post/Author/DateTime	Post
DrakePD 04-26-07, 05:39 PM	I am sure this has been asked a few times before, but I could not find a thread anywhere. If someone provokes an AOO and you drop them with your melee attack, can you cleave another target that you threaten? I looked at the "Rules of the Game" section and could not find anything that actually said this plainly. Can any of you point me in the right direction. I recall reading that this is correct, but cannot seem to find it now. Thanks in advance.
bobothechimp 04-26-07, 05:46 PM	Yes.
jaelis 04-26-07, 07:38 PM	There have been raging arguments about this in the past. My own preferred solution is that if you have Cleave and drop an opponent with an AoO, you "get your AoO" back... in other words, you can make another AoO that round, even if you don't have Combat Reflexes. The notion being that actions are all supposed to be sort of simultaneous, so you can "cleave" into another character that provokes an AoO this round, but not into a character that doesn't provoke. However, the Sage or FAQ has recently ruled that you can Cleave off an AoO. So the "official" answer is now "yes."
StevenO 04-26-07, 07:51 PM	As far as the written rules are concerned it is legal to use a Cleave situation generated by an AoO to attack ANY target you threaten. I believe that is a little unfair to someone who wouldn't normally have to suffer that attack and recommend using the varient jaelis suggests. "Giving back" the attack that triggers the cleave is probably the fairest way to run the situation and also can help abjucate situations like cleaving after a charge. (Cleave on a charge: may use cleave attack as a charge if another legal target exsists or treat as move plus attack if possible.) So people believe the situation is so unfair as to ban cleaves except for your normal attacks.
Nom 04-26-07, 09:12 PM	However, the Sage or FAQ has recently ruled that you can Cleave off an AoO. So the "official" answer is now "yes."Stating StevenO's answer slightly more strongly: that Cleaving on an AoO is mechanically legal has never been in serious contention in 3.5. What has been contended (at length) is whether this is a good rule, and the FAQ answer has no impact on that discussion.
jaelis 04-26-07, 09:31 PM	Stating StevenO's answer slightly more strongly: that Cleaving on an AoO is mechanically legal has never been in serious contention in 3.5. Hmm, I've always felt that the opponents have a reasonable case with the argument that you can only use Cleave to attack a legal target, and someone who hasn't provoked an AoO is not a legal target. Its true of course that how people see the rules are probably colored by their ideas of what seems fair, but I would say that there were legitimate arguments about the rules interpretations themselves.
ShinAkuma2 04-26-07, 10:13 PM	Hmm, I've always felt that the opponents have a reasonable case with the argument that you can only use Cleave to attack a legal target, and someone who hasn't provoked an AoO is not a legal target. Who said anything about it being a "legal target"? Your Cleave target needs only to be "in reach". It shouldn't matter when you drop somebody. There's no reason to deny a Cleave just because the Cleaved guy didn't provoke...When done on your turn, the Cleaved wasn't getting attacked at all, but there he is, getting Cleaved.
mugguod 04-26-07, 10:15 PM	Hmm, I've always felt that the opponents have a reasonable case with the argument that you can only use Cleave to attack a legal target, and someone who hasn't provoked an AoO is not a legal target. Its true of course that how people see the rules are probably colored by their ideas of what seems fair, but I would say that there were legitimate arguments about the rules interpretations themselves. I've notice that people's perception of it depands heavily on their own favorite PC class. Fighter/Barbarian Players (who would use both AoOs and Cleave) think that it is only fair that they should be able to use the cleave with AoOs, cause it cost them a feat, so they should be able to use as much as possible. Spellcasters/Ranged Weapon Users (who would have AoOs and/or Cleave used against them) think that such things are too dangerous when in the hands of the enemy. My feeling is: If your argument against allowing Cleave in combo with AoO comes down to "It not fair that I get hit when he provoked the AoO!", then: 1) 'He' was dumb to provoke an AoO from something that could take him out in one blow! 2) Neither 'he' nor 'you' are working as a team!
kalstrand 04-26-07, 10:50 PM	When I describe a Cleave attack I describe it as a fighter using a momentary opening caused by someone being killed in combat to exploit an attack on someone else, which also works well to explain how a piercing weapon can cleave. Using that explanation it doesn't matter if someone was dropped when being pressed by the fighter or if he is killed by an opening left for dropping his guard. It would also stand to reason that anyone living in a world where this type of attack is practiced by melee types that they would know if someone is dropped near them that they could be the target of such attack so a smart enemy is going to try keep that from happening as much as possible.
jaelis 04-26-07, 11:26 PM	Fighter/Barbarian Players (who would use both AoOs and Cleave) think that it is only fair that they should be able to use the cleave with AoOs, cause it cost them a feat, so they should be able to use as much as possible. Well, fighters are my favorite class, and I think it is fair to rule either way.
runestar 04-27-07, 12:46 AM	Cleave simply gives you an extra attack when you kill someone in melee. How that killing blow came about(be it a normal hit, from an AoO or CDG or whatever) should be irrelevant. You meet the triggering event, you get the benefit. You are free to try and rationalize how it works to fit the flavour of your character, but that should not ultimately change the way it works. What's the confusion?:confused:
jaelis 04-27-07, 12:58 AM	So could you cleave into a creature protected by a sanctuary spell (without making a save)? The feat says you get an immediate attack against a creature in reach. There's nothing there restricting the target to one that is not protected by sanctuary. I would hope everyone would say no to that question. The specific effect of sanctuary overrides the ability to make an attack granted by cleave. In this case, it is obvious. In the AoO case, it's not clear whether the general inability to attack a creature when it's not your turn should override the ability to make an attack granted by cleave. The FAQ has clarified that it does not, and I'm fine with that. But it doesn't mean there was no question to clarify. A similar question: can you cleave with a spell, like shocking grasp? That's another case where the rule priority is ambiguous. Does the extra attack from cleave take precedence, or does the normal limit of the spell to one target?
runestar 04-27-07, 01:09 AM	I would hope everyone would say no to that question. The specific effect of sanctuary overrides the ability to make an attack granted by cleave. In this case, it is obvious. In the AoO case, it's not clear whether the general inability to attack a creature when it's not your turn should override the ability to make an attack granted by cleave. The FAQ has clarified that it does not, and I'm fine with that. But it doesn't mean there was no question to clarify. Not a very apt example, I am afraid. There is nothing in the cleave description which stipulates that the extra attack may only be carried out during your round. The feat simple states "...extra attack", and that is what you get. An extra attack to make when you qualify for it, regardless of when it is accrued to you. This does not mean that cleave allows you to bypass other restrictions of course, like aforementioned sanctuary effect. They are 2 completely different scenarios and should as such be resolved separately:)
jaelis 04-27-07, 08:10 AM	Here are two rules that I believe are generally accurate: A - You cannot attack the subject of a sanctuary spell unless you succeed on a Will save first. B - You cannot attack a creature when it is not your turn unless that creature provokes an AoO. Why is it so clear that the extra attack from Cleave must obey rule A but not rule B? Your answer above seems to be that rule B does not apply because it is the nature of extra attacks to not obey B, but that is obviously begging the question. Can you provide an actual argument? I'm happy to help... here is what I would consider a strong, but not decisive, argument for it: In general, when two rules or abilities conflict, the more specific rule should take precedence over the more general one. It's not hard to argue that the effect of the sanctuary spell is more specific than the Cleave ability, and so rule A takes precedence. But the cleave ability is more specific than the general combat rules, so rule B does not take precedence. However, the rules don't say anywhere that this "specific trumps general" idea holds. It's a pretty commonplace notion that I think most people accept in most situations, but there's room to argue that it might not hold here.
runestar 04-27-07, 08:26 AM	I do not find B to be particularly true. I concur that in general, actions can only be taken during my round. However, that is just a general rule, not a blanket one. If something allows me to attack outside of my turn, then I would be able to do so, as a special exception to the normal rules. Cleave would be one such exception.:) CLEAVE [GENERAL] Prerequisites: Str 13, Power Attack. Benefit: If you deal a creature enough damage to make it drop (typically by dropping it to below 0 hit points or killing it), you get an immediate, extra melee attack against another creature within reach. You cannot take a 5-foot step before making this extra attack. The extra attack is with the same weapon and at the same bonus as the attack that dropped the previous creature. You can use this ability once per round. Special: A fighter may select Cleave as one of his fighter bonus feats. The answer to your question should be quite apparent from the feat desc of cleave itself. I will concede your point B for purposes of this discussion only(this does not mean that I believe your point B to be accurate, but to further the debate, I will assume that it is so for now). Even if I normally cannot make a typical attack outside of my turn, the cleave feat has a provision which clearly allows me to bypass this limitation, as stated in the bolded text. I can make an extra immediate attack. I do not really feel there is a conflict of rules. Cleave merely grants you an extra attack at that certain point in time - it does not allow you to overcome any sort of inherent limitations on those attacks, such as attacking someone in sanctuary, or protected by repulsion, simply because the feat itself does not say you can. :)
jaelis 04-27-07, 09:01 AM	Taking in your acceptance of rule B in the spirit given, I still don't understand the distinction you're making. The essential line in Cleave: "you get an immediate, extra melee attack against another creature within reach" has only three qualifications: - your extra attack must happen immediately - your extra attack must be a melee attack (later restricted to be with the same weapon) - your target must be within reach None of those things provide an exemption from either rule A or rule B. Just because you must take the attack immediately doesn't mean you can attack when it is not your turn, any more than the fact that you must attack a target within reach means that you can attack an opponent protected by sanctuary. They are all limitations on the type of attack you can make, not relaxations of other rules. I guess that part of what you are saying is that, due to the immediate clause, the only possible way to interpret the extra attack in the case of an AoO is for it to violate rule B. But that's not true, another interpretation is that you simply can't cleave off an AoO. Just like you can't cleave off a normal attack if you are surrounded by enemies with sanctuary up.
Suzaku455 04-27-07, 09:17 AM	Here are two rules that I believe are generally accurate: A - You cannot attack the subject of a sanctuary spell unless you succeed on a Will save first. B - You cannot attack a creature when it is not your turn unless that creature provokes an AoO. Why is it so clear that the extra attack from Cleave must obey rule A but not rule B? Your answer above seems to be that rule B does not apply because it is the nature of extra attacks to not obey B, but that is obviously begging the question. Can you provide an actual argument? I'm happy to help... here is what I would consider a strong, but not decisive, argument for it: In general, when two rules or abilities conflict, the more specific rule should take precedence over the more general one. It's not hard to argue that the effect of the sanctuary spell is more specific than the Cleave ability, and so rule A takes precedence. But the cleave ability is more specific than the general combat rules, so rule B does not take precedence. However, the rules don't say anywhere that this "specific trumps general" idea holds. It's a pretty commonplace notion that I think most people accept in most situations, but there's room to argue that it might not hold here. By that interpretation of the rules a character with BAB of 6 is only allowed 2 attacks because to cleave into someone would mean you had attack more then twice.
jaelis 04-27-07, 09:29 AM	By that interpretation of the rules a character with BAB of 6 is only allowed 2 attacks because to cleave into someone would mean you had attack more then twice. I think it is fair and correct to interpret the word "extra" in the Cleave ability as granting an additional attack beyond those you are normally allowed. Thus it specifically circumvents the general rule that you can't attack more times than your BAB allows (or more than once if you used a standard action). I can't think of anything else "extra" could mean here.
CantripN 04-27-07, 09:30 AM	By that interpretation of the rules a character with BAB of 6 is only allowed 2 attacks because to cleave into someone would mean you had attack more then twice. He said nothing about how many attacks you make. Just that you make them during your turn. I still disagree with him, though.
TunFiskeMad 04-27-07, 09:43 AM	And what it seems you are saying is that you cant break the rule that you can only attack in you own round - unless you are allowed to by the rules that is, eg AoO. But it seems pretty clear that cleave is also an exception to those rules. For the sanctuary arguement, cleave all you want, as long as you take that will save pr sanctuary rules wich cleave have nothing to do with.
jaelis 04-27-07, 09:55 AM	But it seems pretty clear that cleave is also an exception to those rules. You may feel that this is a conclusive argument, and I will respect your opinion. But I'd ask you to respect mine that it is not.
DrakePD 04-27-07, 10:08 AM	http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a If an attack of opportunity drops a foe, can the attacker then make a follow-up Cleave attack? Yes. The Cleave feat doesn’t say anything about the attack that triggers it having to be made on the attacker’s turn. I found it on the FAQ. Thanks guys!
runestar 04-27-07, 10:27 AM	Taking in your acceptance of rule B in the spirit given, I still don't understand the distinction you're making. The essential line in Cleave: "you get an immediate, extra melee attack against another creature within reach" has only three qualifications: You missed out the 4th point. 4) The extra attack must still be legal. In short, the attack is still subject to all the same limitations as the character's other attacks, barring the exception that it can be made at any time after felling a foe, as per the allowance made by the cleave feat. The distinction I am making is this: 1) I concede that you can normally attack only during your turn, barring special provisions like AoOs or reading attacks. 2) Cleave lets you bypass this limitation under special circumstances. And this limitation only. 3) It still does not let you bypass other limitations, such as illegal attacks and the like. Thus, if the only targets in range are sanctuaried foes, than that extra attack is wasted.
jaelis 04-27-07, 10:38 AM	The distinction I am making is this: 1) I concede that you can normally attack only during your turn, barring special provisions like AoOs or reading attacks. 2) Cleave lets you bypass this limitation under special circumstances. And this limitation only. 3) It still does not let you bypass other limitations, such as illegal attacks and the like. Thus, if the only targets in range are sanctuaried foes, than that extra attack is wasted. But my question is, from what do you conclude point 2? Nowhere in the cleave feat does it actually say that you can make an attack when it is not your turn. It does say that you can make the attack "immediately," but I contend that it is perfectly reasonable to read this restrictively, as meaning only that you cannot take the attack after performing some other action like moving, as opposed to the permissive sense that you can take the attack right now, even if you otherwise couldn't. My point about the sanctuary spell is that if you feel the feat implies point 2, then you need to spell out how that implication works and show how it is different from the case with sanctuary. And DrakePD, to be clear, I'm not trying to argue with the FAQ here. I think the FAQ response is perfectly acceptable. I'm just disputing the claim that the FAQ response was unnecessary.
Karla 04-27-07, 10:57 AM	Here are two rules that I believe are generally accurate: A - You cannot attack the subject of a sanctuary spell unless you succeed on a Will save first. B - You cannot attack a creature when it is not your turn unless that creature provokes an AoO. Why is it so clear that the extra attack from Cleave must obey rule A but not rule B? Your "general" is not general enough! Try instead writing B as "You cannot attack when it is not your turn unless an attack of opportunity has been provoked." That is "generally accurate" but now free of the specific extra words which make it incompatible with this cleave interpretation.
runestar 04-27-07, 11:03 AM	I could quote the FAQ in reply, but then that would make me sound like a hypocrite. If I say that the cleave feat does not mention that the bonus attack has to be made during my turn, Jaelis can just as readily rebut by claiming that the feat does not say that the attack must be legal either, merely that the target be within reach. I cannot reliably claim RAI, since that can be construed either way, since there is no way we can second guess just what the designers were thinking. Nor am I a big fan of using RAI either. I will need to retreat for 10 years to ponder over this conundrum. Or until my short attention span gives out.:P Curse you all for sucking me into lengthy rules debates when I should be studying for my upcoming exams!!!:mad: Or was it the other way round???:embarrass
Merestil Haye 04-27-07, 11:12 AM	I don't see why a Cleave attack off an AoO can't be made against a character hiding in a Sanctuary, provided that the cleaving creature hasn't already made a saving throw vs the Sanctuary.That creature makes an immediate saving throw. I don't think that Sanctuary actually requires the attack to be taken as part of the creature's turn, it's just telling you what happens to the attacker's action when it is his turn.
Selgard 04-27-07, 11:22 AM	An AoO is an attack out of turn as well. The rules though Specifically allow for it- just as do the rules for Cleave. If you drop a foe on AoO then Cleave rules give you yet another attack during your "not your turn." You can't say "no cleave on AoO" because it's not your turn, unless you also deny the AoO due to it being not your turn.
runestar 04-27-07, 11:28 AM	In all fairness, AoOs do state that they can be made even when it is not your turn. And cleave does lack such a exemption clause. :P
Ian0311 04-27-07, 11:38 AM	I stand by the word immediate in Cleave's description. That means right now, my turn or not. Of course, against a character under the effect of Sanctuary, unless you make the save, such an attack is null and void.
TunFiskeMad 04-27-07, 11:43 AM	Your "general" is not general enough! Try instead writing B as "You cannot attack when it is not your turn unless an attack of opportunity has been provoked." That is "generally accurate" but now free of the specific extra words which make it incompatible with this cleave interpretation. Now you are doing the same as him. You are making a interpretation or generalization about the rules to support your theory about cleave. Also it seems rather futile to keep going on here - even though it is more fun than work :)
Selgard 04-27-07, 12:06 PM	I guess i just can't seem to grasp how you can read "extra immediate" and interpret that as something other than "extra immediate".
Ian0311 04-27-07, 12:09 PM	..."extra immediate". And...the simplicity of the situation is revealed by one post.
jaelis 04-27-07, 12:21 PM	Runestar is a pretty sharp poster, if I've made the case to him that the rules aren't cut and dried, then I'm satisfied. The whole thing is academic anyway, since whether the rules are clear or not, the FAQ has provided an official response.
Frugal 04-27-07, 12:46 PM	I don't see how the not normally being able to attack during your turn enters into it. The benefit of cleave is perfectly clear: Benefit If you deal a creature enough damage to make it drop (typically by dropping it to below 0 hit points or killing it), you get an immediate, extra melee attack against another creature within reach. You cannot take a 5-foot step before making this extra attack. The extra attack is with the same weapon and at the same bonus as the attack that dropped the previous creature. You can use this ability once per round. Now, what are we getting? An extra attack. When do we get it? Immediately. How do we get it? By dropping a foe. The rules on when you can normally make an attack don't enter into it, if you have made a legal attack, during your round, as an AoO, or a readied action, or any other method that gives you a legal attack, and deal enough damage to drop the creature, then you get the benefit of cleave. What does cleave give you? Already answered above, an extra attack, with all the terms outlined by the feat.
G_Mancer 04-27-07, 01:12 PM	cleave feat makes not notes or exceptions for AoO. as long as someone is dropped, a second attack roll can be made against a target you threaten. that is RAW. should it be that way? yes, i dont see why not. if a guy is in your threatened are, and you cleave past someone and into him...he's there, able to be attacked anyways. i mean, if you go with "he's not an intendeed target" or w/e then cleave feat is. as a whole, comepletely useless because it targets unintended target.( having only one intened target per attack-the guy your attacking)
mugguod 04-27-07, 01:18 PM	Here are two rules that I believe are generally accurate: A - You cannot attack the subject of a sanctuary spell unless you succeed on a Will save first. B - You cannot attack a creature when it is not your turn unless that creature provokes an AoO. A seems to be true (although I've not thoroughly researched the sancuary spell). However B is not true. AoO is one but not the only instance when you can attack out of turn. There is at least one other: a Readied Action. And Yes, I would assume that if a readied-melee attack dropped an opponent, it would activate a Cleave.
jaelis 04-27-07, 01:40 PM	It was never my intention that those rules be taken as absolutes, without exception. That's why I called them "general rules." The question is whether or not Cleave presents a valid exception. I hope that most people would agree that both do generally hold, and that any exceptions need to be considered as such. I can't attack out of turn unless I have some ability allowing me to do so. As far as ready, I would tend to interpret that as delaying (part of) your turn to occur at a later time. You are still acting on your turn, just moving where your turn occurs. If you prefer another interpretation, that's fine too.
Frugal 04-27-07, 02:05 PM	It was never my intention that those rules be taken as absolutes, without exception. That's why I called them "general rules." The question is whether or not Cleave presents a valid exception. I hope that most people would agree that both do generally hold, and that any exceptions need to be considered as such. I can't attack out of turn unless I have some ability allowing me to do so. I'd say that it does constitute an exception. Cleave simply activates when the criteria are met, the criteria for when the extra attack is granted are clearly spelled out, as are the criteria for who is a valid target.
Armendil 04-27-07, 06:08 PM	To answer Jaelis' question, you can, in certain circumstances, cleave with a melee touch attack spell. You could not cleave with shocking grasp because once you hit the first target the "charge" would be expended and you no longer have a weapon with which to make your follow-up attack. There are, however, some spells which allow you to make multiple touch attacks before the spell expires. In that case you could cleave, and each taget hit by the spell would count as a seperate expenditure of the touch attack. Alternatively, if you had improved unarmed strike, you could cast a touch attack spell and then make a normal attack. If the melee attack hit and dropped your opponent, you could then cleave into the next opponent and hit with a normal melee attack, because you would still be considered "armed", and you would then deal normal unarmed strike damage even if the spell had been used up.
Frugal 04-27-07, 07:32 PM	To answer Jaelis' question, you can, in certain circumstances, cleave with a melee touch attack spell. You could not cleave with shocking grasp because once you hit the first target the "charge" would be expended and you no longer have a weapon with which to make your follow-up attack. There are, however, some spells which allow you to make multiple touch attacks before the spell expires. In that case you could cleave, and each taget hit by the spell would count as a seperate expenditure of the touch attack. Alternatively, if you had improved unarmed strike, you could cast a touch attack spell and then make a normal attack. If the melee attack hit and dropped your opponent, you could then cleave into the next opponent and hit with a normal melee attack, because you would still be considered "armed", and you would then deal normal unarmed strike damage even if the spell had been used up. I suppose it's a question of whether that unarmed strike counts as "the same weapon". Now a better example might be a duskblade channelling a spell through his sword, he can drop 1 creature with that and definitely cleave (although the spell won't keep going unless it works for more than 1 attack).
Ages_Defiance 04-27-07, 08:44 PM	why would the spell for a duskblade not keep going. it says it isnt exspended until the end of the round. plus you can make more than one attack with the spell once you hit level 13 anyway. its the same principal. i look at it like majik the gathering. when it says in melee(to me) that means on your turn when you are attacking. all other forms of attack are not during your attack phase so to speak. cleave says nothing like. it states you get an immediate, extra melee attack against another creature within reach. so a duskblade channells his spells through melee attacks thats what that is. to me so long as it makes since it works. i think of things as real life scenarios. its possible to argue things in any direction and people can agree with you regardless.
Frugal 04-27-07, 09:02 PM	why would the spell for a duskblade not keep going. it says it isnt exspended until the end of the round. plus you can make more than one attack with the spell once you hit level 13 anyway. its the same principal. I'm not up enough on the Duskblade rules to say for sure, I thought it was just delivering a touch spell through the weapon.
somogyi 04-28-07, 03:56 PM	when i come up with questions that i or my friends cant answer i always email wizards. this is one of those questions. and the reply i got was "Yes, if you have the Cleave feat, and have yet to cleave in that round you may. Additionally, if you have the Great Cleave feat you always may.". i had an enlarged barb get swarmed by kobolds and orcs. i killed about 44 or them just off of an aoo.
Frugal 04-28-07, 04:14 PM	when i come up with questions that i or my friends cant answer i always email wizards. this is one of those questions. and the reply i got was "Yes, if you have the Cleave feat, and have yet to cleave in that round you may. Additionally, if you have the Great Cleave feat you always may.". i had an enlarged barb get swarmed by kobolds and orcs. i killed about 44 or them just off of an aoo. Um, how did you kill 44? Even enlarged you've got a 10' reach so you're threatening 24 squares, assuming 1 provokes an AoO and you keep going with cleaves you'll stop after you've killed 24, then if 1 more moves in and provokes (and you take the AoO) you can only kill him and there's nothing else within reach.
Nom 04-28-07, 06:21 PM	Um, how did you kill 44? Even enlarged you've got a 10' reach so you're threatening 24 squares32, actually. An enlarged creature has a 6x6 reach (special diagonal rule applies), less 2x2 for the squares he occupies is 36 - 4 = 32. That said, this is still less than 44. The other issue is that statistically you have well over 50% chance of rolling a 1 during those 32/44 attack rolls, which stops the Great Cleave instantly.
Frugal 04-28-07, 06:35 PM	32, actually. An enlarged creature has a 6x6 reach (special diagonal rule applies), less 2x2 for the squares he occupies is 36 - 4 = 32. That said, this is still less than 44. The other issue is that statistically you have well over 50% chance of rolling a 1 during those 32/44 attack rolls, which stops the Great Cleave instantly. Right, the mistake I made was forgetting the 2x2 space so I just did it as 5x5 minus 1 square, brain fart.
MADGator 04-28-07, 10:53 PM	When I describe a Cleave attack I describe it as a fighter using a momentary opening caused by someone being killed in combat to exploit an attack on someone else, which also works well to explain how a piercing weapon can cleave. I've always thought of cleave as being more like what what the name implies: you hit somone so hard that not only to you slice/pierce through them, but you hit the guy next to them as well! How can blunt weapons cleave then? One word: gibbed! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibs)
runestar 04-28-07, 11:23 PM	Now, how do you cleave with piercing weapons?:P
MADGator 04-29-07, 03:57 AM	Now, how do you cleave with piercing weapons?:P Easy: The weapon either exists at an angle and goes on through to the next target (i.e. a spear), or skips out and your momentum carries it on into another target (i.e. short sword).