Hello, Guest! | Sign In | My Account | Shopping Cart | Help/FAQ Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games
 About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ

Paizo
Community
Store

# why are the cleave feats a trap?

### Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

 101 to 150 of 224 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

_Ozy_ wrote:

How could you make that determination only using absolute values?

Easily. You just multiple the chance to hit by the damage before and after the improvements and look at the difference.

For the case of missing only on a 1 and doing 4 hp damage, you get:

+1 to hit case: .95*4 before adding +1 and after since the 1 always misses
+2 damage case: .95*4 before, .95*6 after

It's pretty obvious the only place you'll see improvement is the +2 damage since with the +1 to hit, there's no difference.

For the 5+ to hit (an 80% chance) and 30 damage character:
+1 to hit: .8*30 before and .85*30 after - gives us 24 vs 25.5
+2 damage: .8*30 before and .8*32 after - gives us 24 vs 25.6

So, you so sure the +1 is better with the 5+ to hit and 30 damage?

Well, that's kind of my point. You're using the actual to hit percentages, not just the absolute value of the increase.

a 5% increase to hit vs. a +2 damage doesn't mean anything unless you factor in how much it actually increases the characters DPR, which is dependent on their actual hit percentage.

Edit: Yeah, sorry, was supposed to be the converse situation, low 'to hit chance, high damage, so hit on a 16 or higher, 20% chance.

so:

+1 to hit: .2 * 30 before, .25 *30 after: 6 vs. 7.5
+2 damage: .2 * 30 before, .2 * 32 after: 6 vs. 6.4

The breakeven point between which is better is:

hit percentage = 0.025 * damage dealt, so for 30 damage, that's a hit percentage of 75%

Cleave is by no means a "trap".

It is very useful- situationally. For a fighter, who has all those extra feats, it is worth considering.

Now sure, compared to the 3.5 version, which was a "must get required" it's not as good.

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber

I never saw 3.5 Cleave as must get. It has the same problem: most fights are against single targets.

The few times I have seen multiple mooks in a fight, it has turned out very nice.

3.5 Cleave was... Not bad. PF Cleave is little more than a wasted feat slot...

Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber

Cleaving finish is 3.5 cleave. You just have to take the current cleave to get it.

Imbicatus wrote:
Cleaving finish is 3.5 cleave. You just have to take the current cleave to get it.

3.5. Cleave was definitely not worth 2 feats, though.

TriOmegaZero wrote:

I never saw 3.5 Cleave as must get. It has the same problem: most fights are against single targets.

The few times I have seen multiple mooks in a fight, it has turned out very nice.

That's another notch on the "depends who's running" belt. In all the years I've run D&D, I only had solo encounters when a) the solo target is overwhelmingly powerful -such as a living weapon modeled on the Terrasque against a lv 12 party- or b) the terrain made the fight significantly more difficult -such as a fight against a white Dragon in a fog filled chamber on a 10' wide railess bridge over a chasm-. Otherwise a solo encounter is pretty much a joke.

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber

That just builds into the typical problem of basic combats being lowballed to avoid crushing inexperienced players.

TriOmegaZero wrote:
That just builds into the typical problem of basic combats being lowballed to avoid crushing inexperienced players.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

I have no horse in this race, but I can say: you're all repeating the exact same points made earlier in this thread. I think the pro-con case is well-established :)

Serisan wrote:

I honestly question whether Cleave is worth more than Skill Focus: Craft (Underwater Basketweaving) since the latter will increase your downtime wealth generation.

I never see opportunities to use Cleave on either side of the table.

Unless the characters are by nature underwater only, that is highly unlikely.

M1k31 wrote:
Serisan wrote:

I honestly question whether Cleave is worth more than Skill Focus: Craft (Underwater Basketweaving) since the latter will increase your downtime wealth generation.

I never see opportunities to use Cleave on either side of the table.

Unless the characters are by nature underwater only, that is highly unlikely.

Merfolk, gillmen, undines and aquatic elves for starters! And some lizardfolk... ;)

Jhaeman wrote:
I think the pro-con case is well-established :)

You shouldn't say something like that around here, you might get cleaved! ;)

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
M1k31 wrote:
Serisan wrote:

I honestly question whether Cleave is worth more than Skill Focus: Craft (Underwater Basketweaving) since the latter will increase your downtime wealth generation.

I never see opportunities to use Cleave on either side of the table.

Unless the characters are by nature underwater only, that is highly unlikely.

To be fair, underwater basket weaving the basket is under water, not you.

You put the reeds in a container of water and weave under water. I used a 5 gallon bucket when I got the basketry merit badge in scouts.

Cleave in best case when you for sure get 100% damage increase, if it happens once evert 20 attacks it's a 5% increase. Weapon focus is a 5% increase. Now if Cleave is less frequently possible or if you might miss either target then the boost is less. If Cleave situations are more frequent then it's value increases.

And since as you level up you'll make far more normal attacks than you did in early levels it's really hard for cleave to keep up

Envall wrote:
Nothing wrong with Cleave unless your GM goes out of his way to avoid positioning npcs so they can be cleaved.

Interesting - I just took Cleave for the first time, and got to use it half a dozen times in two battles.

It certainly IS a minion clearer, but it's main use is after you have moved - and won't get a full attack regardless.
I.e. move next to poorly armoured minion next to minor boss (in our battle we had 4 bosses / 16 minions)
Resulting in lots of cleave capable positions - aim for minion (easier to hit so more likely to cleave for 2nd hit) then cleave into boss.
With a double dwarven war axe - the 2nd attack has an added +1 bonus.

So - not a trap feat, but one that does require a bit of strategy - placing yourself to encourage the bad guys to "pair up", etc.

Fabian Stretton wrote:
Envall wrote:
Nothing wrong with Cleave unless your GM goes out of his way to avoid positioning npcs so they can be cleaved.

Interesting - I just took Cleave for the first time, and got to use it half a dozen times in two battles.

It certainly IS a minion clearer, but it's main use is after you have moved - and won't get a full attack regardless.
I.e. move next to poorly armoured minion next to minor boss (in our battle we had 4 bosses / 16 minions)
Resulting in lots of cleave capable positions - aim for minion (easier to hit so more likely to cleave for 2nd hit) then cleave into boss.
With a double dwarven war axe - the 2nd attack has an added +1 bonus.

So - not a trap feat, but one that does require a bit of strategy - placing yourself to encourage the bad guys to "pair up", etc.

I'd argue the PC's strategy is usually irrelevant after the enemies have moved for the first time; there is no mechanical reason besides the Shield Wall teamwork feat or a Bodyguard/In Harm's Way combo for your enemies to remain adjacent to each other rather than try to flank you. As I've said before, Pathfinder actually tends to abound with ways that grouped up enemies are punished while spread out and surrounding enemies are trickier to fight against.

So either your GM deliberately positions enemies to enable Cleave or he doesn't. That's on the GM, not the player that takes Cleave.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Blackwaltzomega wrote:

I'd argue the PC's strategy is usually irrelevant after the enemies have moved for the first time; there is no mechanical reason besides the Shield Wall teamwork feat or a Bodyguard/In Harm's Way combo for your enemies to remain adjacent to each other rather than try to flank you. As I've said before, Pathfinder actually tends to abound with ways that grouped up enemies are punished while spread out and surrounding enemies are trickier to fight against.

So either your GM deliberately positions enemies to enable Cleave or he doesn't. That's on the GM, not the player that takes Cleave.

Or, possibly, there just aren't that many 5ft squares in the combat environment so there isn't all that much room to maneuver.

Bill Dunn wrote:
Blackwaltzomega wrote:

I'd argue the PC's strategy is usually irrelevant after the enemies have moved for the first time; there is no mechanical reason besides the Shield Wall teamwork feat or a Bodyguard/In Harm's Way combo for your enemies to remain adjacent to each other rather than try to flank you. As I've said before, Pathfinder actually tends to abound with ways that grouped up enemies are punished while spread out and surrounding enemies are trickier to fight against.

So either your GM deliberately positions enemies to enable Cleave or he doesn't. That's on the GM, not the player that takes Cleave.

Or, possibly, there just aren't that many 5ft squares in the combat environment so there isn't all that much room to maneuver.

Considering the GM sets the environment, that's on him too, no?

Gisher wrote:
Gymkata pommel horse scene. It is truly awful filmmaking.

I didn't even have to click the link to start laughing wildly. But I did anyway.

Blackwaltzomega wrote:

As I've said before, Pathfinder actually tends to abound with ways that grouped up enemies are punished while spread out and surrounding enemies are trickier to fight against.

But should that really drive how monster behave?

I do not like the train of thought that the people inside the imaginary world are aware of the ruleset. To me it culminates into the "flying invisible wizards in the sky raining empowered fireballs on the party" scenario.

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber
Envall wrote:
But should that really drive how monster behave?

Yes. Monsters should react to how the game world actually treats them. The fact that the game world does not have the same consequences as the real world is your issue.

Eh, there are a lot of good reasons to stay clumped too, though. Especially if you've got a cleric or other touch-range buffer in the party. And getting flanked can be pretty deadly at low levels.

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Envall wrote:
But should that really drive how monster behave?
Yes. Monsters should react to how the game world actually treats them. The fact that the game world does not have the same consequences as the real world is your issue.

No.

Rulesets do not actually exists for the people inside the fantasy world.
I mean I cannot even think how you could say otherwise. It would imply we would need RULES to think like a goblin for example.

Envall wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Envall wrote:
But should that really drive how monster behave?
Yes. Monsters should react to how the game world actually treats them. The fact that the game world does not have the same consequences as the real world is your issue.

No.

Rulesets do not actually exists for the people inside the fantasy world.
I mean I cannot even think how you could say otherwise. It would imply we would need RULES to think like a goblin for example.

The rules governing existence can be determined empirically. I see no reason why (meta)physics can't exist ingame, or that nobody's done it yet.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.

I prefer to think the rules shape the gameworld.

Abstract concepts shouldn't have hard numbers that NPCs are aware of, but they should know wizards exist and can attack with AoE attacks. They should know they can be flanked by enemies on both sides of them.

Playing NPCs as completely ignorant of the rules is simply unfair in my opinion.

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber
Envall wrote:

No.

Rulesets do not actually exists for the people inside the fantasy world.

I didn't say they did. I said that the characters should react to the reality they face.

You are the one saying they should act in a manner that does not match what they see. (e.g. Staying in a tight cluster when a fireball is imminent.)

If you have the characters react as if they were in the real world, you are running an unrealistic game.

Envall wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Envall wrote:
But should that really drive how monster behave?
Yes. Monsters should react to how the game world actually treats them. The fact that the game world does not have the same consequences as the real world is your issue.

No.

Rulesets do not actually exists for the people inside the fantasy world.
I mean I cannot even think how you could say otherwise. It would imply we would need RULES to think like a goblin for example.

Do rulesets exist for this world?

A normal person probably has a fairly decent idea of how somewhat-common things work. Someone is pointing a strange device at you? Probably a weapon; get behind cover. Someone is holding a sharp blade? He'll probably be trying to stab you with it. Approaching a wall with angry guys up top? They'll probably drop things on you. Elephant charging? It's too big for that alleyway, if you think you can run.

If "guy wiggles his fingers and explosions happen" was a somewhat-common thing, people would understand the basics. Yes, a particular finger-waggler might be casting something else, but they would certainly grasp the existance of AoE spells.

Now, if battle magic is treated as rare in your world (or when fighting animals), the common tactics might not bother taking it into account.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.

The way I see it, back in the days of AD&D you would encounter far more enemies than you do now, balancing was less of an idea presented by the system, which went for more of a, "there are 30-300 goblins in a tribe, put them on the ground, determine their habits, weaponry etc... and let your players tackle the problem, and play the enemy as dumb goblins." Which would have made the cleave feat amazingly more helpful back in those days, or when a GM today GMs like that. Another thing is the power curve was a little less extreme, and the pre packaged modules supported more minion type enemies to wear down the group, and to make it where not every enemy you fought at a certain level was your equal.

The issue I see is that 3.X changed these assumptions, and led to a shift in play to a certain extend, that leads to cleave being less helpful overall, than it could have been. So for cleave to be helpful you need to have a GM that doesn't look at a part, and select close to their level varied threats for high tactics relatively equal numbers on each side play, you need a GM that throws weak enemies at you when it makes sense, and has the ability to handle initiative and multiple foes, so that you can use the Cleave feat against things like goblins, orc, bugbears and wild animals.

Cleave should be helpful all the time in my opinion, but a fair few GMs on top of their default GMing style not favoring large amounts of weaker enemies instead of a few stronger ones, also may not adapt to make your feat helpful. You have to go with your best judgement on whether the feat is worth it, but I don't think it is a trap, merely a situational thing like the ranger's favored enemy ability.

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Envall wrote:

No.

Rulesets do not actually exists for the people inside the fantasy world.

I didn't say they did. I said that the characters should react to the reality they face.

You are the one saying they should act in a manner that does not match what they see. (e.g. Staying in a tight cluster when a fireball is imminent.)

What kind of assumptions are you taking for granted?

If we are talking about creatures that know nothing about spellcraft, have no arcane knowledge, never seen heard or tasted a wizard, how can they even know fireballs are going to come from that human with a funny hat and long robe?

Hell, fireballs have an identity in Pathfinder atleast os we can somewhat make a "by experience" claim for it, but cleave is even MORE abstract. The idea that your goblin is going to think "we better not be adjacent to each other or he can hit us both" feels like total metagaming.

Hell, after the barbarian with his 20 feet long sword cleaves through half of them, they might start thinking "oh it can do that, better not get near that", but they should not start with the thought "ah yes this party has these abilities, we better do the delta split and focus the wizard".

Or the worst, although this is my own example, focus your will save spells only on that one guy on the party who happens to have weakest will saves. As if you could smell weak will saves.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.

OK, so the trap is because a GM can chose tactics to make the feat unviable as a successful strategy. So magic use is a trap because any decent GM can shut down spell recovery, or choke off its use in quite a lot of ways. ANY strategy or method can, and at least occasionally, WILL be countered. If it is a strategy that a GM chooses to always counter, in all fairness the GM should make that clear and discourage or outright ban the feat/tactic in his game. It is only a trap if the GM has no intention of letting it be viable but does not discourage its acquisition.

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber
Envall wrote:
What kind of assumptions are you taking for granted?

A living, breathing world of real people with varying levels of experience and education.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Daw wrote:
OK, so the trap is because a GM can chose tactics to make the feat unviable as a successful strategy. So magic use is a trap because any decent GM can shut down spell recovery, or choke off its use in quite a lot of ways. ANY strategy or method can, and at least occasionally, WILL be countered. If it is a strategy that a GM chooses to always counter, in all fairness the GM should make that clear and discourage or outright ban the feat/tactic in his game. It is only a trap if the GM has no intention of letting it be viable but does not discourage its acquisition.

To be fair, you can do a lot more things with magic than with Cleave.

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Envall wrote:
What kind of assumptions are you taking for granted?
A living, breathing world of real people with varying levels of experience and education.

Yes, varying.

Very varying. And not just education, but also savagery and utter ignorance.

Sometimes a pack of ghouls is really, just, a stupid pack of ghouls.

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber

Never said otherwise. If you play them like Sun Tzu when they have an 8 Int, you are playing them unrealistically.

Do you not understand that I have been saying the creatures should react to the world in a realistic manner? And that this manner is determined by what effect the rules have on the world? And that this does not mean the characters know the ruleset?

Blackwaltzomega wrote:
As I've said before, Pathfinder actually tends to abound with ways that grouped up enemies are punished while spread out and surrounding enemies are trickier to fight against.
Envall wrote:
But should that really drive how monster behave?

Are you NOT saying that monsters should not avoid things that punish them?

Ventnor,
Of course you can, but if the GM sets up the game to make magic effectively unviable, or even significantly less viable, and doesn't let the players know this, focusing on Magic Use is a trap.

Justification is easy. Magic has been around forever, and is undeniably powerful. There are many time tested methods to neutralize magic users. Considering the risks involved, why wouldn't everyone, everywhere, Always use them?

Because this is a game, and being constantly shut down wouldn't be fun.

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Are you NOT saying that monsters should not avoid things that punish them?

You said "Yes" to my doubts that monsters of Pathfinder should behave like they knew the rules. And blackwaltzomega to be implied the rules in total, not just the abstract of them.

I mean, is not the ignorance of monsters realistic?

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber
Envall wrote:
You said "Yes" to my doubts that monsters of Pathfinder should behave like they knew the rules. And blackwaltzomega to be implied the rules in total, not just the abstract of them.

Then I was unclear, and my understanding of blackwaltzomega's point was different from yours.

Envall wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:

Are you NOT saying that monsters should not avoid things that punish them?

You said "Yes" to my doubts that monsters of Pathfinder should behave like they knew the rules. And blackwaltzomega to be implied the rules in total, not just the abstract of them.

I mean, is not the ignorance of monsters realistic?

...No. No, not even a little.

Again, wolves, feral dogs, big cats, and any social predator knows to flank anything they're fighting rather than bunch up in front of it.

Something with an intelligence score of 2 and no concept of armor can figure this out. What's the ogre's excuse?

Zombies are dumb enough to stay bunched up and not bother trying to move to surround you, but in my book if a pack of feral dogs know to flank dangerous enemies kobolds sure as hell aren't going to be too dumb to do so.

Daw wrote:
OK, so the trap is because a GM can chose tactics to make the feat unviable as a successful strategy. So magic use is a trap because any decent GM can shut down spell recovery, or choke off its use in quite a lot of ways. ANY strategy or method can, and at least occasionally, WILL be countered. If it is a strategy that a GM chooses to always counter, in all fairness the GM should make that clear and discourage or outright ban the feat/tactic in his game. It is only a trap if the GM has no intention of letting it be viable but does not discourage its acquisition.

It's a question of experience.

How many times does your magic missile get countered by a shield spell?

How many times does your cleave get countered by enemies not being positioned adjacent?

I'll warrant the 1st happens a heck of a lot less than the 2nd, and the 2nd cost a whole feat!

Are the monsters fighting a single adventurer or a group? Is the advantage of flanking worth putting yourself in the middle of a group of adventurers?

Knight who says Meh wrote:
Are the monsters fighting a single adventurer or a group? Is the advantage of flanking worth putting yourself in the middle of a group of adventurers?

As opposed to...putting yourself IN FRONT of a group of adventurers?

I'm not really seeing the upsides of formation "stand shoulder-to-shoulder to get cleaved and fireballed" here.

Daw wrote:
OK, so the trap is because a GM can chose tactics to make the feat unviable as a successful strategy. So magic use is a trap because any decent GM can shut down spell recovery, or choke off its use in quite a lot of ways. ANY strategy or method can, and at least occasionally, WILL be countered. If it is a strategy that a GM chooses to always counter, in all fairness the GM should make that clear and discourage or outright ban the feat/tactic in his game. It is only a trap if the GM has no intention of letting it be viable but does not discourage its acquisition.

I feel like this is a slightly unfair assessment.

It takes a lot more effort to deny spell casters the ability to rest and recover spells than it does to accidentally deny cleave by not having enemies stand next to one another.

As has already been mentioned, there are a large number of scenarios from APs that only involve a single enemy. Under such circumstances cleave is literally impossible to use.

A large number of fights also involve enemies coming from opposite sides, which is also likely to not end up with them standing adjacent.

The level of effort to disrupt cleave is significantly lower (and probably accidental) compared to disrupting the ability to prepare spells.

Blackwaltzomega wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Are the monsters fighting a single adventurer or a group? Is the advantage of flanking worth putting yourself in the middle of a group of adventurers?

As opposed to...putting yourself IN FRONT of a group of adventurers?

I'm not really seeing the upsides of formation "stand shoulder-to-shoulder to get cleaved and fireballed" here.

Um...yes? I'd rather be in front of the enemy than in the middle.

Knight who says Meh wrote:
Blackwaltzomega wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Are the monsters fighting a single adventurer or a group? Is the advantage of flanking worth putting yourself in the middle of a group of adventurers?

As opposed to...putting yourself IN FRONT of a group of adventurers?

I'm not really seeing the upsides of formation "stand shoulder-to-shoulder to get cleaved and fireballed" here.

Um...yes? I'd rather be in front of the enemy than in the middle.

Early levels:

"Gather up in front of the enemy, men! Shoulder to shoulder, like we practiced!"

"COLOR SPRAY!"

"CLEAVE!"

"LITERALLY ANY SPLASH WEAPON!"

"AAAAAH!"

Mid Levels:

"Gather up in front of the enemy, men! Shoulder to shoulder, like we practiced!"

"GLITTERDUST!"

"FIREBALL!"

"ALCHEMIST BOMBS!"

"STILL CLEAVE!"

"AAAAAAAAH!"

And at high levels you start getting things like chain lightning, and so on, you get the drift.

Bunched up in front of the enemy isn't much of an advantage in a pathfinder fight. Being in a generalized melee and going for flanks indicates to me that you have similar or greater numbers than the PCs, in which case yes, it does make sense to keep them separated while you gang up on them. Flank EVERYBODY, and the PCs can't do jack to gang up on you in response and don't dare use any of the things I mentioned without risk of hurting their teammates as well.

Knight who says Meh wrote:
Blackwaltzomega wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Are the monsters fighting a single adventurer or a group? Is the advantage of flanking worth putting yourself in the middle of a group of adventurers?

As opposed to...putting yourself IN FRONT of a group of adventurers?

I'm not really seeing the upsides of formation "stand shoulder-to-shoulder to get cleaved and fireballed" here.

Um...yes? I'd rather be in front of the enemy than in the middle.

You would rather be in front of the fighter, who's guarding the spellcasters, rather than in between the fighter and the spellcasters?

Not me, not by a long shot.

"Hey, Monster Steve. We don't want to get color sprayed so why don't you move into the middle of that heavily armed and armored group so that I can get a slight bonus to hit one!"

Claxon,
The comparison isn't unfair, the issue isn't the "difficulty" it takes to shut down a tactic/feat. The GM has effectively unlimited resources. If he wants something shut down, it will be shut down.

The issue is whether shutting down the tactic/feat... (possibly because you think it is stupid for anyone to put themselves into a position to be affected by it) ...is a trap (unfair) if you don't make it clear that the tactic/feat is never going to be viable in a game you run.

It is perfectly valid to decide something isn't going to fly in your games. You as a GM are required to set the scenes. It is not valid or fair to allow the players to choose options that you aren't going to let be effective, at least without warning the players.

_Ozy_ wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Blackwaltzomega wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Are the monsters fighting a single adventurer or a group? Is the advantage of flanking worth putting yourself in the middle of a group of adventurers?

As opposed to...putting yourself IN FRONT of a group of adventurers?

I'm not really seeing the upsides of formation "stand shoulder-to-shoulder to get cleaved and fireballed" here.

Um...yes? I'd rather be in front of the enemy than in the middle.

You would rather be in front of the fighter, who's guarding the spellcasters, rather than in between the fighter and the spellcasters?

Not me, not by a long shot.

Between the fighter and spellcaster... You mean flanked?

Knight who says Meh wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Blackwaltzomega wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Are the monsters fighting a single adventurer or a group? Is the advantage of flanking worth putting yourself in the middle of a group of adventurers?

As opposed to...putting yourself IN FRONT of a group of adventurers?

I'm not really seeing the upsides of formation "stand shoulder-to-shoulder to get cleaved and fireballed" here.

Um...yes? I'd rather be in front of the enemy than in the middle.

You would rather be in front of the fighter, who's guarding the spellcasters, rather than in between the fighter and the spellcasters?

Not me, not by a long shot.

Between the fighter and spellcaster... You mean flanked?

You're not flanked if the caster doesn't threaten. (A good reason for all wizards to carry a dagger, quarterstaff, or something else pitiful)

 101 to 150 of 224 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>