Great Cleave question

[Serisan]

PRD wrote:

Great Cleave (Combat)

You can strike many adjacent foes with a single blow.

Prerequisites: Str 13, Cleave, Power Attack, base attack bonus +4.

Benefit: As a standard action, you can make a single attack at your full base attack bonus against a foe within reach. If you hit, you deal damage normally and can make an additional attack (using your full base attack bonus) against a foe that is adjacent to the previous foe and also within reach. If you hit, you can continue to make attacks against foes adjacent to the previous foe, so long as they are within your reach. You cannot attack an individual foe more than once during this attack action. When you use this feat, you take a –2 penalty to your Armor Class until your next turn.

Situation: A character is using a 2h reach weapon and has Improved Unarmed Strike. The character declares a Great Cleave and attacks a target at 10 ft using the 2h reach weapon and hits. Would an adjacent target at 5 ft be an eligible target for the Great Cleave utilizing an Unarmed Strike attack?

PFS legal answers requested if possible.

[blackbloodtroll]

You are not required to make additional attacks with the same weapon.

[Serisan]

That was my interpretation, as well. I am certainly looking forward to Enlarge Person now.

[NobodysHome]

I have never GM'ed PFS, so take this as you will: As soon as I see the words, "Great Cleave" and "with a single blow", I have the mental image of a PC slashing across multiple opponents with *a single weapon* in a sweeping attack.

So in my home game, I would absolutely disallow using a different weapon. I feel the wording "single blow" so strongly implies "single weapon" that I would not entertain arguments to the contrary. I'd just highlight the word "single" and say, "That's it. That's my ruling. We're done here."

However, as I said, I'm not a PFS GM, so I'd love to hear a different take.

[blackbloodtroll]

PFS take is RAW, with little room for interpretation.

[Shar Tahl]

I, too, would houserule single weapon because of the very definition of "cleaving" something. But, as a PFS and RAW issue, it only says "a single attack" with no mention of weapons, so you can use whatever attack is best for the current target.

[NobodysHome]

Thank you for clarifying.

After two days of reading RAW arguments, I must say it reminds me of my lawyer friend: "The intent of the law is completely irrelevant. The only thing the court cares about is what the law actually says!"

Ah, well, live and learn!