I total understand what everyone is saying and I don't disagree with all of it. The point I wanted to make was that the wording in the book does not coincide with intent of James. When choosing feats you go by what the books says not by what the intent was. I totally accept the decision made of course. I also appreciate every ones input.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ksca&page=8?Declaring-Cleave#393 . This Is James Jacobs response to the cleave question. I still believe that the way it is worded is contradictory to his statement here. That being said he is the writer so I guess we have to go with that. I don't know how to source so I apologize.
I know this has been brought up before but I disagree with many people's opinions. The feat clearly states that the standard action is a single attack at full bab. It does not say cleave is your standard action. It also states that " if you hit you do normal damage and CAN make an additional attack against an adjacent foe within reach. The word can makes it an option at that point so you do not have to declare at the start of your turn. This is all basic English learned through out grade school and high school. I would like to hear from any Paizo team member on this topic. |