|
Change is hard. Did anyone else get that resistant feeling to the change on Cleave? And at first I couldn't figure out what made it different from Whirlwind Attack but it's a matter of adjacent foes only (great cleave) vs. foes within reach (whirlwind).
It's fairly useless against flankers though... blah!
--Caught between a Vrock and hard place!
|
Cleave would be too overpowered if you didn't have to drop the foe but could attack anyone around you as the 3.5 version of cleave. I'm anxious to see how it works in practice, if I can convince anyone in my gaming group that its worthwhile. They all thought it was a worthless feat both because you had to declare it as its own action as well as have opponents adjacent to you and within reach. Adding the -2 AC penalty seems to seal its fate - I fear it will never be used. And alas, cleave was such a great feat . . .
It would be nice to get a ruling from the Paizo staff if you can combine cleave with the vital strike path. Vital strike refers to when you use an 'attack action' and cleave seems to be its own unique standard action. Still, it might be worthwhile to take cleave if it does combine with the Vital Strike Path.
Change is hard. Did anyone else get that resistant feeling to the change on Cleave? And at first I couldn't figure out what made it different from Whirlwind Attack but it's a matter of adjacent foes only (great cleave) vs. foes within reach (whirlwind).
Keep in mind--Cleave is a standard action now (not a full-attack), meaning it gets its money's worth in mobile combats. This is likely a nice response to one of the chief complaints in the beta --melee could only attack once after moving.
In particular, I see it as most useful for builds that already expect to get hit--barbarians, for instance, are already probably taking hit anyways: a -2 to AC while raging and frequently supbar armor scream high-con-only...this is no different than a charge, but has the potential to inflict some bonus hurt. If the attack actions can be combined with other booster feats, all the better.
Thumbs up, regardless.
|
What are peoples thoughts on using a series of trip attacks (or disarm, etc) with Great Cleave?
Whirlwind specifically says your are making one melee attack against each opponent and combat maneuvers can replace melee attacks, but I'm not so sure with Cleave's wording (but if I to chose I'd think its possible).
I assume Whirlwinds position in the feat tree (with improve, greater trip, feint, disarm) is partly because it can be used with them.
Thoughts?
|
Change is hard. Did anyone else get that resistant feeling to the change on Cleave? And at first I couldn't figure out what made it different from Whirlwind Attack but it's a matter of adjacent foes only (great cleave) vs. foes within reach (whirlwind).Keep in mind--Cleave is a standard action now (not a full-attack), meaning it gets its money's worth in mobile combats. This is likely a nice response to one of the chief complaints in the beta --melee could only attack once after moving.
In particular, I see it as most useful for builds that already expect to get hit--barbarians, for instance, are already probably taking hit anyways: a -2 to AC while raging and frequently supbar armor scream high-con-only...this is no different than a charge, but has the potential to inflict some bonus hurt. If the attack actions can be combined with other booster feats, all the better.
Thumbs up, regardless.
YEP!
Cleave lets you move and attack multiple targets all at your base BAB. Not for support fighters, but a frontline combatant will love it.
|
What do you mean by move and attack all combatants? You mean a 5' step? It sounds like if there are dudes in front of me, they have to be "adjacent" to one another - the only difference between whirlwind and great cleave since with whirlwind they just need to be "within reach."
I think I am missing something here.
What do you mean by move and attack all combatants? You mean a 5' step? It sounds like if there are dudes in front of me, they have to be "adjacent" to one another - the only difference between whirlwind and great cleave since with whirlwind they just need to be "within reach."
I think I am missing something here.
Whirlwind is a full-round action. With cleave, you can move yourself in the right position to get as many opponents near you as you can, and then attack them with cleave (it's a standard action).
What do you mean by move and attack all combatants? You mean a 5' step? It sounds like if there are dudes in front of me, they have to be "adjacent" to one another - the only difference between whirlwind and great cleave since with whirlwind they just need to be "within reach."
I think I am missing something here.
With Cleave and Great Cleave, the foes must all be adjacent to each other. With Whirlwind Attack, they just have to be within reach. As mentioned above, Cleave no longer allows attacks against two flankers. Also as has been pointed out above, the Cleaves are standard actions -- the character using them still gets a move action. Whirlwind is a full-attack action which leaves only a 5-foot step.
AJ
Don't forget another difference between the two: Whirlwind Attack gives you an attack against every foe within reach regardless of hits & misses. Cleave & Great Cleave give you an extra attack against an adjacent foe, but only if you hit the 1st (or previous) foe.
|
|
What do you mean by move and attack all combatants? You mean a 5' step? It sounds like if there are dudes in front of me, they have to be "adjacent" to one another - the only difference between whirlwind and great cleave since with whirlwind they just need to be "within reach."
I think I am missing something here.
Say my Fighter has a 30 foot movement, I can move 30 feet to get into position for the fight, say a group of warriors. I can then whack the first guy, the at my full base attack, hit another one.
So, I can move my movement, because Cleave is a Standard Attack, hit a bad guy, then hit ANOTHER bad guy with my FULL BASE ATTACK. And with Great Cleave I keep hitting and hitting.
Had a combat a few weeks ago where that would have been spectacular. Took me a couple of rounds to finally get into position where I was surrounded by five bad guys, all of them adjacent to one another (they thought they had me surrounded and beat... little did they know!).
With the new Great Cleave I could have moved up into position in one round and then hit one, then followed up on the other four. Essentially letting me move my full movement (not a lousy 5 foot step), and get 5 attacks at my full base attack.
That is FREAKING AWESOME any day of the week!
I'll take a -2 AC for that opportunity Anytime.
|
|
Don't forget another difference between the two: Whirlwind Attack gives you an attack against every foe within reach regardless of hits & misses. Cleave & Great Cleave give you an extra attack against an adjacent foe, but only if you hit the 1st (or previous) foe.
Whirlwind is okay. It has four feat prerequisites, where as Great Cleave has two.
Whirlwind is a full attack so you are limited to a 5 foot step of movement.
Great Cleave is a standard attack so you get your entire movement. And you can use other feats with it (such as Vital Strike, or any of the Critical Feats)
Whirlwind certainly has its advantages, but for an extra two feats, no other feats usable and limited movement, it has its drawbacks as well.
Great Cleave has its advantages as well, but its drawback is the battlefield has to be just right to be useful.
If you are specifically looking for a feat to take on flankers, or maximize the potential of a reach weapon, then Whirlwind is the best choice.
If you are looking to do a lot of damage to a cluster of combatants and maintain your offensive options, then Great Cleave is the way to go.
[
Great Cleave is a standard attack so you get your entire movement. And you can use other feats with it (such as Vital Strike, or any of the Critical Feats)
Actually, Cleave is a standard action called cleave, you can't use vital strike as a part of it, 'cause cleave is not a normal attack action. Critical feats apply though (as do in whirlwind attack).
Actually, Cleave is a standard action called cleave, you can't use vital strike as a part of it, 'cause cleave is not a normal attack action. Critical feats apply though (as do in whirlwind attack).[
Great Cleave is a standard attack so you get your entire movement. And you can use other feats with it (such as Vital Strike, or any of the Critical Feats)
Charge is a full round action called "Charge" and yet Jason indicated that you can Vital Strike on a charge.
I think the problem is that "attack action" isn't explicitly defined. Is it only the standard action described as "Attack (melee)" or "Attack (ranged)"? Or is it any action that allows one or more attacks?
Actually, Cleave is a standard action called cleave, you can't use vital strike as a part of it, 'cause cleave is not a normal attack action. Critical feats apply though (as do in whirlwind attack).[
Great Cleave is a standard attack so you get your entire movement. And you can use other feats with it (such as Vital Strike, or any of the Critical Feats)
I invoke Oscom's rule of rules. If a normal person wouldn't immediately realize something on first reading (that cleave is it's own special standard action) and the rules don't expressly bring it to your attention, then the game designers didn't intend it.
Also, while I know that the explanation might be tracking 3.5, if cleave didn't allow vital strike, whirlwind wouldn't need to specifically rule is out, inclusio uno es exclusio alto.
Between the revised cleave and great cleave feats along with the vital strike chain of feats, I think the Pathfinder RPG has done a good job of making it worthwhile for fighters to move on a battlefield rather than standing in one place and dishing out a full attack every round. Cleave as a standard action allows a fighter to move a across a battlefield and still strike multiple foes. If you're hankering to attack only one foe, then vital strike and its group allow a character to dish out major damage, effectively replacing a full attack.
Of course, this is all based on a read through rather than seeing how it works in play, but I like the way it looks right now.
Actually, Cleave is a standard action called cleave, you can't use vital strike as a part of it, 'cause cleave is not a normal attack action. Critical feats apply though (as do in whirlwind attack).[
Great Cleave is a standard attack so you get your entire movement. And you can use other feats with it (such as Vital Strike, or any of the Critical Feats)Charge is a full round action called "Charge" and yet Jason indicated that you can Vital Strike on a charge.
I think the problem is that "attack action" isn't explicitly defined. Is it only the standard action described as "Attack (melee)" or "Attack (ranged)"? Or is it any action that allows one or more attacks?
You're right, the wording could be better. However, this is how I see it:
Charge is a special full-round action, which allows you to make an single attack action after moving. Now Vital strike says you can use it when using an attack action. So you can combine it to charge. However, charge doesn't say you can make a standard action after moving, and Cleave is a standard action. Heh, I think I'm not making myself any clearer, maybe I should just wait for Jason to clear this up =).
I'm confident that Vital Strike can be combined with Cleave. It may be worth clarifying what an "attack action" is, but it sounds like it refers to anytime you actually make an attack roll during your turn.
What I'd like to know:
If you used Vital Strike on your turn, will you also get its benefit if you perform an attack of opportunity before the start of your next turn?
With Cleave, it says you can only make one additional attack per round with this feat. Does that forfeit any attacks of opportunity you may be entitled to? I think not, but…
Use common sense. Make rulings of your own.
Don't wait for "official" answers. You know your own gaming group better than any game designer ever could.
Use that knowledge to your advantage, so that everyone ends up having fun around the table.
You're welcome.
Sorry, but I want to play the game like the designer meant it. I know I can play it however I want to, but the way of the designer is the way I want to play it. I'm waiting for the official answer =)
|
|
Actually, Cleave is a standard action called cleave, you can't use vital strike as a part of it, 'cause cleave is not a normal attack action. Critical feats apply though (as do in whirlwind attack).[
Great Cleave is a standard attack so you get your entire movement. And you can use other feats with it (such as Vital Strike, or any of the Critical Feats)
In the PRD there is nothing under the description for Cleave or Great Cleave calling it a Cleave Action.
As a standard action, you can make a single attack at your full base attack bonus against a foe within reach.
As a standard action, you can make a single attack at your full base attack bonus against a foe within reach.
When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage.
Now while Vital Strike says attack action and the others say standard action, my interpretation of an attack action is a standard action that is an attack, since there is also references to full-attack actions, which seems to be a full-round action that uses the full-attack option.
However, you can't use Whirlwind Attack with the Cleaves, because Whirlwind requires a full-attack action.
I know people are desperate for a definition of these two actions, but it seems pretty clear that was the intent.
|
|
Use common sense. Make rulings of your own. Don't wait for "official" answers. You know your own gaming group better than any game designer ever could. Use that knowledge to your advantage, so that everyone ends up having fun around the table. You're welcome.Sorry, but I want to play the game like the designer meant it. I know I can play it however I want to, but the way of the designer is the way I want to play it. I'm waiting for the official answer =)
They clearly define the actions in the game: Move, Standard, Full-Round, Free, Swift, Immediate and Not An Action. Now in the Chart for Actions they give three Attack Actions: Attack (Melee), Attack (Ranged), Attack (Unarmed). Then under Full-Round Actions, it lists the action called Full Attack.
So an attack action is a Standard Action using one of those three actions unless clarified as (Melee), (Ranged), or (Unarmed). A full attack action is clearly a Full-Round Action.
I know people are waiting for them to be defined, but there are about 60 descriptions there. People should get on with playing the game and not waiting for the "Speak Action" to be defined. Seriously, do GMs not let PCs speak because the "Speack Action" has not been fully defined? Or do people not allow PCs to Charge in combat because the Charge Action has not been defined? What about the "Escape a Net Action?" Do GMs not allow PCs to try and escape from a net because that action has not been defined?
[
They clearly define the actions in the game: Move, Standard, Full-Round, Free, Swift, Immediate and Not An Action. Now in the Chart for Actions they give three Attack Actions: Attack (Melee), Attack (Ranged), Attack (Unarmed). Then under Full-Round Actions, it lists the action called Full Attack.So an attack action is a Standard Action using one of those three actions unless clarified as (Melee), (Ranged), or (Unarmed). A full attack action is clearly a Full-Round Action.
I know people are waiting for them to be defined, but there are about 60 descriptions there. People should get on with playing the game and not waiting for the "Speak Action" to be defined. Seriously, do GMs not let PCs speak because the "Speack Action" has not been fully defined? Or do people not allow PCs to Charge in combat because the Charge Action has not been defined? What about the "Escape a Net Action?" Do GMs not allow PCs to try and escape from a net because that action has not been defined?
Oh, don't worry, I'm playing the game. I meant I should probably wait for official word instead of debating how the rule goes. My opinion still stands, I don't believe you can use Vital strike with cleave. I just didn't have any more words on the matter, thus I wanted to hear the official response. There's nothing in the rules that stops me from gaming =).
|
|
The real question about Vital Strike and Cleave, in my opinion. Is not to as if they work together, but does Vital Strike grant extra damage dice to all attacks granted from cleave after a move action or just the first attack in the "standard action"?
Vital Strike states that you add the dice to the damage dealt on the attack (action?). Logically interpreted, I would rule that Vital Strike deals extra damage on all damage dealt from the Cleave feat since it occurs all during a single attack action. However, from the way Vital Strike was written it is not clear as to if the designers were even considering Vital Strike when this feat was re-written.
This would mean that a high dex fighter with dodge, mobility, spring attack, vital strike, and Cleave. (ie 7th level fighter)can either charge a pair of targets and take a single attack action at one of them on round 1 and add a second damage die on that attack from vital strike. Or, they can walk up 15 feet, make some acrobatics checks to avoid AOO's, use the cleave and vital strike feat, making 2 attacks with an extra damage die on each (provided the first attack hits) and then move back 15' with spring attack getting out of melee. Now given the options, why would said fighter ever bother staying in melee? Especially considering if the fighter stays in melee, on the next round he will get two attacks as part of a full attack action, but no vital strike damage.
Now there are several contingencies here. Obviously the fighter will be triggering AOO's every round from his opponents, but if he has a high dex, has taken acrobatics as a cross class skill, and use of the mobility feat: most could be easily avoided.
Because of the above, In my game, I would rule that Vital Strike and Cleave do stack but Vital Strike only provides extra damage dice to the first attack in a Cleave sequence.
Not sure how it plays out, but if my player is rolling dice using his BAB and hitting with a weapon, I'd say it's fair game to consider it an attack action.
Jason's response to Gen Con GM's on Vital Strike and charge:
Two questions based on the previews:
Valeros' statblock says that he can use Vital Strike during a charge, but since a charge is a full-round action and Vital Strike can only be used as an attack action, that doesn't seem to be possible.
So I guess my question(s) is/are: am I missing something?
The Valeros bit was actually in error. I did not notice it until weeks later.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Director of Game Design
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey there everybody,
Let me see if I can clean this up a bit.
Cleave is a standard action, which means you can use it anytime you can take a standard action. It cannot be used as part of a full-attack action, which is a full round action. You cannot use Cleave as part of a charge, since that is a special full-round action (partial charge not withstanding). The same applies to Great Cleave.
Vital Strike can be used in place of an attack action. This means that whenever you take an attack action, you can use Vital Strike instead. An attack action is a type of standard action. While this is nearly identical to Cleave, there are a few subtle differences. Anything that applies to an attack action would apply to a Vital Strike attack, whereas it would not, necessarily, apply to Cleave. The two feats cannot be used in conjunction.
I am not sure that answers all the questions here.. but I will check back later to see if there is anything I have missed.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
|
|
Hey there everybody,
Let me see if I can clean this up a bit.
Cleave is a standard action, which means you can use it anytime you can take a standard action. It cannot be used as part of a full-attack action, which is a full round action. You cannot use Cleave as part of a charge, since that is a special full-round action (partial charge not withstanding). The same applies to Great Cleave.
Vital Strike can be used in place of an attack action. This means that whenever you take an attack action, you can use Vital Strike instead. An attack action is a type of standard action. While this is nearly identical to Cleave, there are a few subtle differences. Anything that applies to an attack action would apply to a Vital Strike attack, whereas it would not, necessarily, apply to Cleave. The two feats cannot be used in conjunction.
I am not sure that answers all the questions here.. but I will check back later to see if there is anything I have missed.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
So in other words, we can use Vital Strike with Spring Attack or Charge, correct?
Hey there everybody,
Let me see if I can clean this up a bit.
Cleave is a standard action, which means you can use it anytime you can take a standard action. It cannot be used as part of a full-attack action, which is a full round action. You cannot use Cleave as part of a charge, since that is a special full-round action (partial charge not withstanding). The same applies to Great Cleave.
Vital Strike can be used in place of an attack action. This means that whenever you take an attack action, you can use Vital Strike instead. An attack action is a type of standard action. While this is nearly identical to Cleave, there are a few subtle differences. Anything that applies to an attack action would apply to a Vital Strike attack, whereas it would not, necessarily, apply to Cleave. The two feats cannot be used in conjunction.
I am not sure that answers all the questions here.. but I will check back later to see if there is anything I have missed.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Thanks Jason, that clears everything for me.
Thanks to Jason and Paizo for keeping D&D alive, but I'm pretty sure everyone I know is keeping the feats as they were. This is a general statement, though, and I'm sure we'll shine up to the new feats in the future... maybe.
It would be nice if you guys explained your changes one day, though. It seems like most of the feat changes were arbitrary.
Thanks.
|
|
I'm pretty sure everyone I know is keeping the feats as they were. This is a general statement, though, and I'm sure we'll shine up to the new feats in the future... maybe.
It would be nice if you guys explained your changes one day, though. It seems like most of the feat changes were arbitrary.
To the first, I'm a bit surprised, what part of PFRPG will your group be adopting? And what rational do you apply to the part you are adopting that can't be applied to the feat section?
As to the rationality, I think there are 6-12 months of Alpha and Beta public testing of the rules, and discussion therein that really explain 85% of the changes.
The gap between Beta and Final largely seems to be a slight step back to 3.5, or some fixes to big problems that came up at the end of beta.
To the first, I'm a bit surprised, what part of PFRPG will your group be adopting? And what rational do you apply to the part you are adopting that can't be applied to the feat section?
As to the rationality, I think there are 6-12 months of Alpha and Beta public testing of the rules, and discussion therein that really explain 85% of the changes.
The gap between Beta and Final largely seems to be a slight step back to 3.5, or some fixes to big problems that came up at the end of beta.
During Beta we just never used the feats due to the beta flag. We just liked the normal feats more, they were more fluid.
We adopt everything else of the PFRPG: Classes, races, skills, spells, etc.
I didn't read the millions of posts because most of them were, how to say, not worth reading. The loudest minority is usually the hardest to ignore.
I like options. I don't like things taking standard actions because4 they voids a big part of 3.5 -- a part of D&D that 4th ed erased entirely: BAB. BAB is hard enough to rationalize as is without dulling the benefits that used to come with it: the feats that apply to attacks.
Take cleave for instance: I liked it more when it was just something that happened naturally, instead of having to be forced in use.
Time is the most important resource in D&D: That is the one aspect of a character and game that is the hardest to change and takes the most to alter. Reducing that ability to change, while more balancing perhaps, seems like a step backwards.
In terms of rationale, I would guess that Cleave got changed to allow for more mobility in a fight. Previously, the mid- to high-level fighter had two options: stand still and full attack, or move and lost half or more of your attack potential for the round.
With the revised Cleave, a fighter now has the option of standing still and making a full attack or moving and cleaving two opponents, still gaining an extra attack. With Great Cleave, that can potentially give you your full attack potential. On the other hand, if you're facing only one opponent or your potential targets aren't adjacent, the fighter can still move and get some significant damage output with Vital Strike and its feat chain.
My first reaction when I saw the change to Cleave was that it was unnecessary. After thinking about it for a bit, I think that change along with Vital Strike play an important role in making the fighter more mobile. For that matter, it also gives the monk a reason to do something more than stand still and use flurry of blows every round.
|
|
Also, and I'm sure this is part of the reason, the old Cleave happened when it happened without player control. The new Cleave is under the players control of when to use their ability rather than just hoping it works, if they're lucky. The old Cleave saw a lot of use against mooks but that's about it, as you couldn't drop your foes fast enough otherwise.
Hey there everybody,
Let me see if I can clean this up a bit.
Cleave is a standard action, which means you can use it anytime you can take a standard action. It cannot be used as part of a full-attack action, which is a full round action. You cannot use Cleave as part of a charge, since that is a special full-round action (partial charge not withstanding). The same applies to Great Cleave.
Vital Strike can be used in place of an attack action. This means that whenever you take an attack action, you can use Vital Strike instead. An attack action is a type of standard action. While this is nearly identical to Cleave, there are a few subtle differences. Anything that applies to an attack action would apply to a Vital Strike attack, whereas it would not, necessarily, apply to Cleave. The two feats cannot be used in conjunction.
I am not sure that answers all the questions here.. but I will check back later to see if there is anything I have missed.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
You are contradicting yourself. Here is what you said in another thread.
"Vital Strike is an attack action, btw, which is a standard action. You cannot use it as part of a full-attack action."
My bold.
I don't what to sound rude, but if you are not sure about the rules how can we be?What attacks can be used with Vital Strike?
What attacks can be used with Cleave?
what about partial charge and spring attack? Can they be used with Vital Strike or Cleave or both?
Can Vital Strike be used as an attacks of Opportunity?
There are something like 20 threads with questions about charge, vital strike, Cleave, spring attack, Attacks of Opportunity, Deadly Stroke, Great cleave, Spirited Charge and Power attack and how these feats work in conjunction with eachother.
Please release a FAQ even if it's just a micro-FAQ. Start with these questions and the Vital Strike damage.
So in other words, we can use Vital Strike with Spring Attack or Charge, correct?
With charge: No
With Spring attack: unclear, but probably not.|
|
Heres another twist on cleave...
Does Cleave use the same weapon?
Heres my situation
|_|
|X|
|X|
|M|
|_|
M= Monk X = Orc
The Monk standing in a 5 foot corridor with 2 orcs infront of him.
The Monk has a Longspear in hand (Reach weapon).
Declairing the Cleave action can he kick the orc infront of him with improved unarmed strike, then attack the Orc behind him with his second attack using the longspear?
Does the monk need to actually kill the first to be able to reach the second?
We've been playing that an "attack action" is any action that allows you to attack. To us that's what we though it meant. Simple as that.
Basically the second you roll a D20 for an attack you can apply vital strike or anything that say applies to an attack action. Works well enough for us. No real issues. So that included charges, Cleaves, Standard Melee attacks and such.
Another thing we did was change that full round action is Standard action followed up by move action used to make iterative attacks. So you can Cleave in a Full Attack action but only on the first attack as the first attack is a standard action. Since a Cleave is not a move equivalent action you can't use it for your remaining attacks. But your remaining attacks are attack actions meaning you can use vital strike.
The reasoning for this change in our group was that it just seemed logical. Since you can start a full round attack and make one attack then decide to use you move action why not the other way around. So basically a full attack action only happens if you decide to use you move action to attack with you remaining attacks. We found that really cleared up things for our game. So question like can I use X when do Y have been greatly reduced.
|
|
Does Cleave use the same weapon?Yes
Any other interpretation is going down the "do I really lose my actions when dead?" way of thinking.
Given the introduction of the feat that says "You can strike two adjacent foes with a single swing." I'm inclined to rule the same even though the benefit of cleave doesnt state it.
I wonder though, if the "Cleave" feat was actually called "Double-hit" feat would we come to the same conclusion?
either way I think the benefit could do with a little more emphasis on the same weapon being used aspect. *Bold Addition mine*
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, with the same weapon (using your full base attack bonus), against a foe that is adjacent to the first and also within reach. You can only make 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.
However you could attack a target behind another with the lunge feat.