Cleave, Free Actions with Threat Funkyness

[DubiousYak]

If using 'funky' in the in the title does not get you guys to read this, you guys need help.

Let's say I'm playing with a fighter with the Cleave feat and using a pole-arm, and wearing cestus.

Enemy A is adjacent and enemy B is 10' away. Both are threatened - A by the cestus and B by the pole-arm.

I understand that you can use a free action during another action, and grabbing or letting go with one hand of a two handed weapon is a free action.

Does Cleave activate in the both following scenarios?

1. Smack A with the cestus activate cleave, then with your free hand grab the polearm and hit B.
2. Smack B with the pole-arm activate cleave, with one hand let go of the pole-arm and hit A with the cestus.

[MurphysParadox]

I believe this is allowed, but I'm not 100% sure of it. I know of no rule, FAQ, or errata preventing it, but I've never had to do research into this specific scenario either.

[DubiousYak]

MurphysParadox wrote:

I believe this is allowed, but I'm not 100% sure of it. I know of no rule, FAQ, or errata preventing it, but I've never had to do research into this specific scenario either.

The potential problems I saw were:

If the fighter is holding the pole-arm in both hands he technically can't reach A, right?

It is the true the reverse also, if he is holding the pole-arm in one hand and smacks somebody with the cestus he technically cannot reach B.

Since they can't reach at the time of the initiation of the Cleave, can Cleave activate?

[DmRrostarr]

Unless fighter is a Polearm Master which gives him short-heft, which allows him to attack foes 5 ft away as well as with reach.

Per RAW, I don't see anything wrong with it but when I see the FAQ about not being able to take a 5 ft step while using Cleave, it makes me kind of question the validity of your example being legal.

Plus the fluff under Cleave says "You can strike two adjacent foes with a single swing."

I'm curious to see others thoughts on this, but personally as a DM, I would say no you can't switch weapons because it is a special standard action attack that doesn't allow an opportunity to do what you described.

[Ghufufin]

edit: forgot what a cestus was.

As long as you can attack with a cestus without taking your hands off the polearm it should work

[Kletus Bob]

Well, if I read armor spikes, seems you can't use them if the off-hand was used to make another attack. I'd say Blade boot also fall under that scenario due to the offhand description. Thoses are attacks that do not even use the off-hand itself so for a cestus attack, seems even more unlikely.

The only things I could see working is an unarmed strike like a kick. Maybe being mounted, using a lance one handed to free the off-hand, like shield bashing?

[Broadhand]

As a DM, I wouldn't allow it. But I don't know how an official interpretation would slide.

[Rodinia]

Many people seem to consistently misinterpret the recent FAQ about 'hands', hands, and weapons. That stuff doesn't apply to this situation. It's incorrect to say that one can't attack with Armor Spikes if another 'hand' has already attacked. It's correct that you can't use Armor Spikes if it would give you extra attacks beyond what you are normally due, based on your BaB. This error comes from conflating TWF with other situations that are not TWF.

The mention of 'cestus' was a distraction. Replace cestus with Armor Spikes and repeat the question. This because a cestus wielder can never simultaneously threaten with both cestus and polearm. An Armor Spike wielder can and does threaten with both Armor Spikes and Polearm.

@OP: The rules are not explicit on this point, but I'd never allow a cleave to use two different weapons at different reach . No way. I'd interpret Cleave to only allow two attacks against foes threatened by the same weapon. One could argue it doesn't explicitly say that, but it's pretty clearly the intention.

Answer is the same: No! Your cleave needs to be with a single weapon based on any reasonable RAI.

[NikolaiJuno]

I don't think it would work, because the extra attack would trigger before you had a chance to free the other hand. Not having a weapon ready to attack at the moment the option becomes available you loos the chance.
The 5' step thing is strong evidence that it wont work.

[fretgod99]

DubiousYak wrote:

If using 'funky' in the in the title does not get you guys to read this, you guys need help.

It got me to read it, but mostly because you spelled 'funkiness' wrong. ;P

Would you allow your fighter with a glaive to make a cleave attack by dropping the glaive and quickdrawing a greatsword? Those are also free actions, but I'm willing to bet people are a lot more skittish about allowing that sort of thing.

I don't know that the rules specifically cover it, but I wouldn't allow it. It seems most sensible to me that you're limited to using the weapons you have out and available at the moment of the attack. Based on the wording of the feat, it reads like the intent is to continue making attacks with the weapon used in the first attack (a foe within reach, etc.). Obviously, that could be parsed to simply make it clear that you can't take a 5' step. Regardless, I wouldn't allow grip-swapping were I the person making the ruling.

I might be convinced to allow maybe an US or natural weapon attack, since those are out and available at the time of the attack. But honestly probably not.