The principles of the Scarlet Throne teach its disciples that every swing must be made with precision and excellence; no movement is wasted and no attack should be fruitless. The disciple may make a single attack against two adjacent enemies using the same attack roll and applying it to each target.
Does this work like cleave, where both targets must be adjacent to each other and in your reach, or does it mean that both targets must be adjacent to you?
It's obviously ambiguous, so it can mean whatever you or the GM decide.
That said, given the name of the strike and the mental image it conjures, I see a guy making one sweeping slash that hits two enemies, which would work best if those two enemies were near (adjacent to) each other.
Furthermore, I see no reason why the name or fluff of this strike would not be applicable with a reach weapon. It makes no sense to apply this to only short weapons, unless we'd already established that it only works with daggers or some such.
Based on those two assumptions, I think the RAI here is that the enemies must be adjacent to each other but not necessarily adjacent to you, though you need to be able to reach both of them.
I like the interpretation that lets you nail 2 flankers.
I'm with DM_Blake. The language parses best if you view that the enemies need to be adjacent, like "three aligned planets". You make your attack against two adjacent enemies, like two blue enemies, or two flat-footed enemies, or two orc enemies. Unfortunately, when referring to targets "adjacent to you", the game rules usually condense that to just "adjacent", so I do see the confusion. Still. Read literally, it's the targets that need be adjacent and there's no mention of "you", so they'd need to be adjacent to each other.
It's obviously ambiguous, so it can mean whatever you or the GM decide.
That said, given the name of the strike and the mental image it conjures, I see a guy making one sweeping slash that hits two enemies, which would work best if those two enemies were near (adjacent to) each other.
Furthermore, I see no reason why the name or fluff of this strike would not be applicable with a reach weapon. It makes no sense to apply this to only short weapons, unless we'd already established that it only works with daggers or some such.
Based on those two assumptions, I think the RAI here is that the enemies must be adjacent to each other but not necessarily adjacent to you, though you need to be able to reach both of them.
Scarlet Throne isn't really meant for reach weapons though; tons of things about it only work with one handed weapons. It's the "royal fencer" discipline.
Personally, I dig Insain Dragoon's reading, but I could see going against it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You should look at the whole text of the maneuver. Its range is listed as "melee attack", so adjacent can't be referring to its range. The two enemies you attack must be adjacent to each other, but they can be anywhere in your reach.