Can a vanguard make an entropic strike on one enemy and then cleave into another next to him with a different weapon?
I guess this also brings in to question if you can cleave with a different weapon since the text of the description says.
"You can strike two adjacent foes with a single swing."
I mean, Cleave says this:
Cleave (Combat)
Source Starfinder Core Rulebook pg. 155
You can strike two adjacent foes with a single swing.Prerequisites: Str 13, base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: As a standard action, you can make a single melee attack against a foe within reach. If you hit, you deal damage normally and can make an additional melee attack (using your full base attack bonus) against a foe that is adjacent to the first and also within reach. You can make only one additional attack per round with this feat. When you use this feat, you take a –2 penalty to your Armor Class until your next turn.
It's pretty clear you're not using a second weapon or even swinging twice. I'd be surprised at a GM allowing a second weapon to be involved.
While I agree it's unlikely to be allowed, the feat just says 'an additional melee attack', there's no mention of the same weapon except in the short description.
I wouldn't allow it, but I don't think wording of the rule is actually on my side here.
Even though it doesn't technically say that you have to make the second attack with the same weapon, I have always read that Cleave would behave that way.
It feels like you are trying to get Multi-weapon Fighting but as a standard action and without the limitation to only small arms or operative melee weapons.
So yeah, using cleave with two separate weapons feels like a homebrewed feat that is a bit too powerful in comparison to multi-weapon fighting. Though it doesn't seem all that much more powerful than cleave itself is.
So I am not sure whether I (as GM) would allow it or not. On one hand, it would allow different damage types to the two targets. On the other hand, how many high-end melee weapons can you afford to carry around?
I would probably allow it as a second feat. So you could either have cleave as written, but with the additional restriction of only using one weapon for both attacks, or you could get the dual-weapon cleave. Getting both would be two separate feats.
Devil's Advocate: what advantage would someone actually gain for making the followup attack with a different weapon? They still need to meet the same criteria to trigger it ( hitting a foe with a melee attack as part of a standard action ), and still suffer the same limits ( second target must be adjacent, character suffers penalty to AC for a turn ). It only is similar to Two Weapon Fighting in the same way Cleave already is ( a feat that facilitates making two attacks ).
The only advantage I can discern to doing this with two different weapons rather than the same weapon twice is to swap around damage types for different foes, which is a really marginal advantage.
When the first weapon is a xenolash that entangles on hit, and the 2nd weapon deals higher damage.
Devil's Advocate: what advantage would someone actually gain for making the followup attack with a different weapon?
Not very much additional advantage. None for a character that only has one weapon. Ruling that Cleave can be used with two separate weapons isn't going to be an actual problem to game balance in my opinion.
The benefit is for a character that has two primary weapons that they are using. Cleave(single-weapon ruling) only allows them to use one of them when making the two attacks. Having the option of using the two weapons separately is strictly more powerful than limiting it to only one. Even if it is only in very niche or even contrived scenarios.
Which is why I propose it as a separate feat. Single-weapon fighters would just use Cleave. Two weapon fighters could just take the new Twinstrike feat and would likely not think it a great difference the vast majority of the time. But it has better flavor for a two-weapon fighter.
Devil's Advocate: what advantage would someone actually gain for making the followup attack with a different weapon? They still need to meet the same criteria to trigger it ( hitting a foe with a melee attack as part of a standard action ), and still suffer the same limits ( second target must be adjacent, character suffers penalty to AC for a turn ). It only is similar to Two Weapon Fighting in the same way Cleave already is ( a feat that facilitates making two attacks ).
The only advantage I can discern to doing this with two different weapons rather than the same weapon twice is to swap around damage types for different foes, which is a really marginal advantage.
My first thought was hit the guy in front of you, then 'cleave' the guy behind him with a reach weapon.
Note, though, that this is comparing Cleave, a feat that you have to buy, against a Full Attack that everyone can do for free.
That is a good point.
If you compare it against Two Weapon Fighting, it probably looks kind of underpowered.
That is debatable.
It would be more clear-cut if Multi-weapon Fighting didn't have the restriction to only operative melee or small-arm weapons. But comparing Multi-weapon full attack with a pair of daggers vs cleave with a two-handed advanced weapon...
But yeah. Doing the math for expected value of each of the options is a bit daunting for me too.
That comparison does get closer for a soldier using Multi Weapon fighting with real weapons, through the magic of feat boosts. Or for anyone using a weapon with the double property, like an icestar staff.
There are also the fuzzier factors: standard vs full action and the ability to focus attacks on one target, to increase the odds of taking them out of the action.
My first thought was hit the guy in front of you, then 'cleave' the guy behind him with a reach weapon.
Since starfinder reach weapons don't have the no adjacent restrictions, why not just hit the guy with the reach weapon and then hit the guy behind him with the reach weapon?
My first thought was hit the guy in front of you, then 'cleave' the guy behind him with a reach weapon.Since starfinder reach weapons don't have the no adjacent restrictions, why not just hit the guy with the reach weapon and then hit the guy behind him with the reach weapon?
Mostly it's a damage die with the first hit, special property with the second hit... probably not that overpowered really.