I didn't much like the beta version of cleave. If you're denying the user a full-attack, AND you are requiring that their first attack hits in order for them to get any benefit, then the requirement for enemies to be adjacent seemed very prohibitive. It very uncommon in my experience for anyone to cluster together like that unless tight quarters force them to.
But I figured, what the heck. Bodyguards stand beside spellcasters, and large groups of enemies have no choice but to cluster. And 10-foot corridors are pretty common. Maybe I'd wait and see it in play.
Then I read the final version. -2 AC?
Really?
Was that necessary?
I've read the old thread in archives, and the fact that cleave doesn't stack with any other "attack action" powers (effectively being a standard action of its own) doesn't help my opinion. Honestly, I would like to believe that this is balanced because I'm trying to trim down my houserules document, but it looks pretty crappy on paper. I just can't see why they wasted 18 words tacking an extra, awkward penalty onto a mediocre feat.
Any thoughts? Anyone who's gotten a chance to use it in play yet?
When I first saw the Great Cleave description in beta, my first thought was "Strictly worse than Whirlwind Attack".
Cleave is dead to me unless I use DnD version. This is my least favorite change in the book. No point to it really.
Sorry Jason, I know you tried your best.
I didn't much like the beta version of cleave. If you're denying the user a full-attack, AND you are requiring that their first attack hits in order for them to get any benefit, then the requirement for enemies to be adjacent seemed very prohibitive.
Then I read the final version. -2 AC?
Really?Was that necessary?
I feel as you do.
But that doesn't so you any good.
Just kill both of them, and you won't have to worry about the -2 to your armor class. ;)
Just kill both of them, and you won't have to worry about the -2 to your armor class. ;)
Kyle for the WIN.
It didn't ruin it for me; I think AC is kind of overrated in general when you have things like Displacement or Mirror Image available. (I should note that I almost always play casters of some kind, so my experience may not be typical.)
I have a sneaking suspicion that the only reason he changed cleave the way he did was so he could get the vital strike feat to not be broken.
Well, if they normally hit you on an 11, and after you use cleave they can hit you on a 9, the damage you're going to take in that round increases by 20%.
That's an average, though, and makes it seem a lot more predictable than it is. In reality those things are hit or miss (hurr, hurr).
|
Uh multiple attacks with one standard action? Yes please. I like having that kind of option for a melee character. Not quite sure why -2 AC would *not* be worth it. You do it for the charge action do you not and that just nets a +2 to one attack, certainly not the possibility of *multiple* attacks. But to each their own as they say.
My final statement here is that this cleave just seems like a dumbed down cleave that everyone can use easily. I find that the 3.5 cleave to be much more versatile and allowed for some interesting positioning and judging in combat. Great cleave was next to worthless, that needed a power increase more than anything.
-2 to AC for +2 to attacks is a good deal most of the time. +2 to your attack roll is really nice (though you definitely shouldn't charge if you anticipate a lot of counter-attacks, you should just move and attack, shield raised).
However, a charge is something everyone can do. If cleaving were also something everyone would do I would agree, it would be well worth doing much of the time.
Would you rather have -2 AC or -2 to both the attacks (a la Rapid Shot)?
I'd take the -2 to both attacks if they weren't dependent on eachother (i.e. I get to roll both no matter what).
|
umm... you do all realize that you can move and cleave now. As far as I know, there was no way to do this old system. So, cleave is subpar when you are no longer moving, but when you can use your 30+ move to stop next to enemies & set your cleave up, IMO its far superior to a charge. Then, once you're in melee, go full attack.
The new cleave has its place. Heck, how often did you drop someone in 3.5 and even earn that 2nd attack?
|
No, but it might kill my barbarian :).
It's REALLY great when she's raging too (taking her down to AC 10 total)...at least she has a truckload of hit points and a big cushion in the negative range before death!
In all seriousness, the -2 to AC doesn't bug me at all. It was still an easy choice to go Power Attack and Cleave for my first two feats. I just trust that she'll take anyone adjacent to her down quickly enough that her AC won't matter.
umm... you do all realize that you can move and cleave now. As far as I know, there was no way to do this old system.
I don't know what you're talking about. The old Cleave required no special action to use, it kicked in whenever you killed someone.
That said, this Cleave is its own mechanic, and shouldn't be compared to the old Cleave. What it does and how it works is completely different.
Edit: Oh, Beta cleave, right. Thanks Jabar.
The new cleave has its place. Heck, how often did you drop someone in 3.5 and even earn that 2nd attack?
In my experience -- lots of times at low levels, not so much at high levels.
Actually, Cleave really sucked back in Beta, and I think that's what the comparison being made is.
As a full round action, it was kind of pointless once you got to multiple attacks normally.
I find the new Cleave feat to be fantastic. I think it will be useful a good bit more than even the 3.5 version, and the -2 AC is a small price to pay. Combined with the new Power Attack's minimal to-hit penalty, you'll be doubling a lot of damage most of the time (hitting with a fighter's primary attack? - that's not hard).
Great Cleave.. about as useful as 3.5. Seriously - when did you use this other than with a horde of tiny minions around you? Still a standard action for up to many many attacks.
Also, both of these combined with Lunge or a reach weapon allows quite a few additional hits that you might not expect off the bat. [More AC penalty for Lunge of course.]
It's a little like standard action whirlwind, where you can maneuver into position for it, as long as some enemies are adjacent.
I think this is one feat that you really have to *try* before deciding - it's heavily based on mini positions, etc., and very dynamic with movement.
Is it as automatic a feat as before? Hardly, but still rock-solid awesome IMHO.
...and Cleave and Vital Strike appears to be stacking now... :)
No they do not. Vital strike is a standard action, as clarified by Jason. So if you have two standard actions you can use them both, but separately still then
I thought it was the other way around, actually (cleave was its own standard action and didn't stack with anything, but vital strike was an "attack action" (as in the standard option for attacking with a standard action) and thus did).
Edit: here's the post.
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
I thought it was the other way around, actually (cleave was its own standard action and didn't stack with anything, but vital strike was an "attack action" (as in the standard option for attacking with a standard action) and thus didn't).
Edit: here's the post.
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
Considering how much they nerfed melee combat damage, you think they would throw us a bone here. Oh well.
I types that wrong, actually: vital strike is an attack action and thus DOES stack with other effects (post edited accordingly).
In otherwords, you can use Spring Attack to make a vital strike but not a cleave attack.
Myself, I would be houseruling that implicitly, because I simply refuse to explain to my players the difference between an "attack action" standard action and a "standard action that lets you attack".
Yeah the sneaky change was the change to standard action. Beta Cleave was fine in my playtest, but I only playtested Cleave through just before level 4. Between level 1-3, a fighter with Cleave was pretty strong -- it was used almost constantly. I imagine later on it was assumed Great Cleave would replace Cleave and it would function as the "I don't feel like stacking Int 13 and Dex 13" lesser alternative to Whirlwind Attack.
The new Cleave/Great Cleave is definitely a different animal than Whirlwind Attack. Standard action abilities that grant additional attacks are pretty powerful. The -2 AC penalty is something most players don't think twice about when charging. True, the movement benefits of charging are fairly important, but taking possibly several extra attacks generally kicks the crap out of +2 to hit on one attack.
True, the movement benefits of charging are fairly important, but taking possibly several extra attacks generally kicks the crap out of +2 to hit on one attack.
In the event that two enemies are side-by-side and I'm not within reach of them yet, I totally agree. If I already have Cleave (if, for example, I picked it out of a public wastebin on my way to the dungeon), the -2 penalty isn't nearly enough to keep me from using it.
The question is, is it worth a feat for that option, considering that even when the chance does come up you will be penalized for taking advantage of it?
I types that wrong, actually: vital strike is an attack action and thus DOES stack with other effects (post edited accordingly).
In otherwords, you can use Spring Attack to make a vital strike but not a cleave attack.
Myself, I would be houseruling that implicitly, because I simply refuse to explain to my players the difference between an "attack action" standard action and a "standard action that lets you attack".
Yeah Vital Strike is still kind of confusing.
I assume you can't use it on Attacks of Opportunity because they're not attack actions (you didn't take a standard action to make an Attack of Opportunity).
I assume you can't use it for "use" feats like Pinpoint Targeting and Deadly Stroke (you didn't use the attack action standard action, you used a feat's standard action).
The question is, is it worth a feat for that option, considering that even when the chance does come up you will be penalized for taking advantage of it?
I'd say the ability to grant multiple attacks -- even the possibility of multiple attacks -- has always been featworthy. Greater Two Weapon Fighting grants an additional attack. . . at a -10 penalty. That's a fairly weighty penalty for something virtually no one would say is underpowered.
Deadly Stroke and Pinpoint Targeting all use the same "as a standard action" language that Cleave does (in other words, they all create their own action type and are thus mutually exclusive).
That's a fairly weighty penalty for something virtually no one would say is underpowered.
I guess I'm virtually no one, then. I've always said that that was underpowered, ever since 3.0. The improved two-weapon fighting feats are awfully designed because they get progressively weaker rather than progressively stronger.
The advantage of Cleave isn't that it lets you make "extra attacks", because you could make extra attacks just as accurately (overall) and far more reliably by full-attacking. The advantage is that it lets you move.
Of course, there are times when there are no enemies nearby and you have to move anyway, and then Cleave is awesome, but that's very circumstantial. Most fights in my experience quickly turn into clusterfrigs because everyone rushes at everyone else, and if you find that you aren't surrounded it's because they've broken and retreated. Enemies will come at you from different angles because they want the flank and they don't want to get fireballed.
You can move just to use cleave (i.e, move even though you already have an enemy adjacent to you), but then you give up your full-attack.
I see this being used most often when you need to tumble into a new position to give a flank.
Of course, there are times when there are no enemies nearby and you have to move anyway, and then Cleave is awesome, but that's very circumstantial. Most fights in my experience quickly turn into clusterfrigs because everyone rushes at everyone else, and if you find that you aren't surrounded it's because they've broken and retreated. Enemies will come at you from different angles because they want the flank and they don't want to get fireballed.You can move just to use cleave (i.e, move even though you already have an enemy adjacent to you), but then you give up your full-attack.
I see this being used most often when you need to tumble into a new position to give a flank.
I like the use with tumble -- it would work well for a rogue, since it could give the rogue multiple flanking sneak attacks.
Most combats tend to be in phases:
1) get there
2) break enemy forces
3) mop up
Traditionally, the "get there" phase doesn't smash the enemy -- it might soften him up, but damage really isn't done. For ranged/casters, this is mostly "get in range". This is the phase Cleave excels at, since that phase is typically not where melee shines. Ranged classes can full attack or open up a maximized fireball at the same time a fighter gets a charge or "run up and hit" in. That's both boring and potentially weak for the melee class, especially if you hit a weak target. Cleave moves phase 1 and 2 closer together, and that's a good thing since phase 2 is the melee character's specialty.
That's a fairly weighty penalty for something virtually no one would say is underpowered.I guess I'm virtually no one, then. I've always said that that was underpowered, ever since 3.0.
The improved two-weapon fighting feats are awfully designed because they get progressively weaker rather than progressively stronger.
The advantage of Cleave isn't that it lets you make "extra attacks", because you could make extra attacks more reliably just by full-attacking. The advantage is that it lets you move.
Of course, there are times when there are no enemies nearby and you have to move anyway, and then Cleave is awesome, but that's very circumstantial. Most fights in my experience quickly turn into clusterfrigs because everyone rushes at everyone else, and if you find that you aren't surrounded it's because they've broken and retreated. Enemies will come at you from different angles because they want the flank and they don't want to get fireballed.
You can move just to use cleave (i.e, move even though you already have an enemy adjacent to you), but then you give up your full-attack.
I see this being used most often when you need to tumble into a new position to give a flank.
I'm curious as to your logic about the TWF feats. They don't get weaker, they actually expand the TWF feat, allowing it to be used on more of your attacks. How is this, getting weaker?
But...as to Cleave, yes, I think it could use some improvements. I don't have a problem with the -2 AC, and while I think the targeting restriction is a little much (I'd much rather it say something along the lines of any opponent you threaten within a certain arc (like 120, or even 180 maybe) but...RAW doesn't use set facing and arcs), I think the biggest improvement I'd like to see happen to it is some kind of level scaleability for attack or damage output. I don't think allowing it to stack with the Vital Strike feat chain is the right way to go, as that would render another feat chain entirely pointless, and indeed, make the cleave/vital strike combo a 'must have' feat thing for melee characters.
The extra attack on the first round is definitely worth something, and that's also when the enemy is most likely to be clustered.
I don't see cleaving rogues working unless they win initiative, though (how often do you position yourself beside two adjacent opponents and get a flank on both of them? Rogues are all about positioning; "swing your ax all over the place" feats generally don't work out for them).
Also, do two enemies who are corner-to-corner count as "adjacent"? That's close enough for them to attack eachother, but I don't know if "5 feet away" and "adjacent" count as the same thing.
I'm curious as to your logic about the TWF feats. They don't get weaker, they actually expand the TWF feat, allowing it to be used on more of your attacks. How is this, getting weaker?
The second feat gives you another attack at -5.
The third feat gives you another attack at -10.
Greater Two-weapon Fighting is substantially weaker than Improved Two-weapon Fighting.
The extra attack on the first round is definitely worth something, and that's also when the enemy is most likely to be clustered.
I don't see cleaving rogues working unless they win initiative, though (how often do you position yourself beside two adjacent opponents and get a flank on both of them? Rogues are all about positioning; "swing your ax all over the place" feats generally don't work out for them).
Also, do two enemies who are corner-to-corner count as "adjacent"? That's close enough for them to attack eachother, but I don't know if "5 feet away" and "adjacent" count as the same thing.
Cleaving rogues can work, you might not get sneak attack on both without some good teamwork going on, but the extra attack is an extra attack I suppose. With some good teamwork (or a largish party, 6 or 7 people) could be raher devestating.
And yes, corner to corner is adjacent...at least to me =)
does anyone know the official reason why cleave was changed from the 3.5 version?
does anyone know the official reason why cleave was changed from the 3.5 version?
I don't, but I can guess...
It was great at low levels, but at higher levels, it rarely kicked in without some rather abusive damage dealing builds. So, they removed one restriction and added some others.
Presumably someone felt that it was too reactive, too circumstantial, and too powerful within those circumstances.
I loved the old cleave but I think that this is a cool feat too, or at least a cool idea for a feat. It would have been nice if Cleave was still a "reward you for kill'in dudes" feat, and if this new "broad swings at tightly packed enemies" feat had a different name, but it's not the end of the world.
does anyone know the official reason why cleave was changed from the 3.5 version?
IDK, not enough people could figure out how to use it properly?
I had though the old cleave was a great candidate for a scaleable feat, especially as it got less useful at higher level and great cleave was pretty poor
old cleave abilities when taken, +great cleave at BA +6, +supreme cleave (the one where you can take a 5'step to cleave an opponent if you havent moved that round) at BA +11.
Then I read the final version. -2 AC?
Really?Was that necessary?
This penalty was not necessary, especially to a feat so nerf'd that it is only useful in the first few levels. (Which isn't a bad thing for a fighter, since he can swap this feat out later at higher levels.)
I do miss the 3.5 version, which I prefer. But that is in the past.
The change from full-round action (Beta) to standard action really didn't change the decision of whether to use this, nor did it justify assessing a -2 to AC.
The feat is useful only at lower levels. As you advance in levels this feat become pointless (especially for Good BAB progression classes). A feat's usefulness should not be reduced as you advance in levels. Instead, the only way to compensate now, is then to add on Great cleave.
I'm not saying that this feat chain, isn't useful. I am saying that the Cleave feat is only of limited use, and becomes redundant -- which is fine for the fighters that can swap out the feat at later levels, but all other classes will just get stuck with this useless feat at higher levels. The 3.5 Cleave, would always provide a useful benefit, regardless of your level.
So now, not only are you giving us a feat that has built in redundancy, but now you are going to assess a penalty for using it during the period it is not redundant. Wow! Add this to the bottom of my list for "worse rule change" in the PFRPG. (Thankfully, the list is not long).
Assuming a 10ft. corridor. Two enemies that a rogue and his buddy want to kill.
If the enemies are standing abreast in the corridor, then a rogue standing against one wall, and his buddy standing against the other wall on the opposite side, will end up flanking them both.
I would draw a diagram, but I don't have [code] tags, nor do I have [font] tags to get something monospaced.
I had though the old cleave was a great candidate for a scaleable feat, especially as it got less useful at higher level and great cleave was pretty poor
old cleave abilities when taken, +great cleave at BA +6, +supreme cleave (the one where you can take a 5'step to cleave an opponent if you havent moved that round) at BA +11.
Agreed.
Assuming a 10ft. corridor. Two enemies that a rogue and his buddy want to kill.
If the enemies are standing abreast in the corridor, then a rogue standing against one wall, and his buddy standing against the other wall on the opposite side, will end up flanking them both.
I would draw a diagram, but I don't have [code] tags, nor do I have [font] tags to get something monospaced.
You know that 10ft corridor... Everyone always brings it up.
Since I posted about what I feel is a problem with this feat, I thought I should also post a suggestion of how it could have been fixed:
Cleave
As a swift action, you can activate this feat to gain one extra attack on a foe adjacent to a foe you are attacking. You must activate this feat prior to making any attack rolls for the round. You suffer a -2 penalty on all attacks for the round. If you hit on any of your attacks on a foe within your reach, you may make an additional attack 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.
Notes: As this benefit will always be useful (and could be useful every round), it only seemed appropriate now to have a penalty. Since a character is more focused on making a wild carving attack to glance off two foes, it seemed more appropriate that an attack penalty be assessed, rather than an AC penalty.
How about this?
Cleave [General]
Prerequisites
Str 13, Power Attack.
Benefit
If you deal a creature enough damage to make it drop (typically by dropping it to below 0 hit points or killing it), you get an immediate, extra melee attack against another creature within reach. You cannot take a 5-foot step before making this extra attack. The extra attack is with the same weapon and at the same bonus as the attack that dropped the previous creature. You can use this ability once per round.
Special
A fighter may select Cleave as one of his fighter bonus feats.
________________________________
Great Cleave [General]
Prerequisites
Str 13, Cleave, Power Attack, base attack bonus +4.
Benefit
This feat works like Cleave, except that there is no limit to the number of times you can use it per round and you may take a 5ft step while cleaving through to another opponent.
Special
A fighter may select Great Cleave as one of his fighter bonus feats.
How does that interact with Vital Strike?
Since I posted about what I feel is a problem with this feat, I thought I should also post a suggestion of how it could have been fixed:
Cleave
As a swift action, you can activate this feat to gain one extra attack on a foe adjacent to a foe you are attacking. You must activate this feat prior to making any attack rolls for the round. You suffer a -2 penalty on all attacks for the round. If you hit on any of your attacks on a foe within your reach, you may make an additional attack 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.Notes: As this benefit will always be useful (and could be useful every round), it only seemed appropriate now to have a penalty. Since a character is more focused on making a wild carving attack to glance off two foes, it seemed more appropriate that an attack penalty be assessed, rather than an AC penalty.
I wonder if the swift action cost + the AC penalty really would balance that alongside a full attack? I was about to say "too good", then I remember that "swift action" in Pathfinder doesn't mean "free" (though some classes use it more than others).
The fix brewing in my head was to remove the "adjacent" requirement for great cleave, and just require that you attack either clockwise or counter-clockwise from the enemy you started with.