Hello,
well, I've been going through Pathfinder RPG for a few weeks now, and I have not found this topic covered:
It seems that the Cleave and Great Cleave feats now require a hit against one foe, versus the requisite of felling the foe (in 3.5). I cannot see the rationale of this change. The old feats were quite a good method for depicting tank-like warriors being able to mow through rank after rank of cannon-fodder enemies. Recently I have run a couple scenarios with mass battle scenes (MGP Drow War) and the barbarian with Greater Cleave just cut down the ranks of Lvl1 drow warriors which spellcasting officers sent to delay the PCs. That seems to work fine and without game balance issues (Lvl 8 or so warriors should be able to do that, plus it's quite fun and cinematic). The Pathfinder feats seem to be watered down in cinematics and slightly overpowered in game balance. If you're locked hand-to-hand with another powerful foe who keeps fighting back, I don't see any cleaving likely to happen; you're too busy with the first melee to deal a random blow around. On the other hand, the Whirlwind Attack feat did just that, allowed a nimble warrior (as opposed to a tank warrior)to hit any foe in unexpected ways. Against cannon fodder, both feats seem to be equally effective (in my sessions I have a ranger/fighter with Whirlwind At. and a barbarian with Great Cleave); against tougher enemies, Whirlwind gives some tactical advantage. That is ok, as its progression tree and minimum ability scores are more demanding. I wonder why that feat is absent from Pathfinder; these two sets of progression trees were quite good since the beginning of d20 and a good way of adding diversity to melee tactics.
Sorry to begin with criticism, I am really enjoying Pathfinder as a whole!
Whirlwind Attack is in Pathfinder - if a feat hasn't changed from 3.5 then it's not in the book during the Alpha.
I thought so, but if the previous feats in the tree have been included (because of adaptation), should it be indicated on the top of the feat tree to avoid ambiguity? Besides, with the cleaves as they are in Alpha2, it seems that there would be duplication/overlap with Whirlw. and Great Cleave. I just don't like it personally
|
Whirlwind Attack is in Pathfinder - if a feat hasn't changed from 3.5 then it's not in the book during the Alpha.
That doesn't mean it isn't being changed. This is a progressive test. Update and play a little. Update and play a little more. Update and play a little more.
As for why the changes to cleave and great cleave, they're combat feats. In order to use them you can't use any of the other combat feats. You have no way of knowing when a creature is about to die, so making it a if you hit ability seems a bit more balanced.
And yes, Whirlwind Attack and it are similar.. but remember, Whirlwind Attack allows you to attack against everyone, hit/miss and it's part of a different feat tree.
You cannot know when a creature is about to die, but you can know that the opposition before you is no match for your blows. An 8th lvl barbarian with Str 20 and a magical 2-handed axe can make an educated guess about how he can Great Cleave his way through a unit of rank-and-file troops.
I know Whirlwind is another tree, what I see is that the new Pathfinder Cleaves make the distinction blurry... The original Cleave was based upon the damaging capacity of a character, not only in attack chances. Even if you are a finesse fighter, it seems easier to cleave your way around with a greatsword than with a rapier. I would personally keep Cleaves outside Combat Feats. In my campaigns, they have never felt like a "maneuver", but like the result of a warrior's savage onslaught, and also highly dependent on opponents' resistance (or rather lack thereof).
Don't know about you, but I believe the new feat seems to work just as well for mowing down lvl 1 enemies?
I greatly prefer the new versions.
The problem is that it works too well... You can use the new Great Cleave to strike a powerful foe; then another powerful foe next to it (if distance permits). I don't see what does have to do with cleaving. Thinking of the cinematics behind the abstract roll system, the enemy you just hit took your strike, did not give ground and is "on guard" to keep on the fight. It's a free giveaway and purely mechanics-based, unless somebody explains to me the rationale behind it. Other new combat feats, such as Rend, have produced a neat rationale for the extra punch they give... But the Cleaves seem to have been refurbished just for pure game mechanics options. The original feat had a cinematic combat rationale behind it, the new ones seem to have been based around metagaming.
Cleave and Great Cleave are indeed a bit better against powerful foes - which is kind of nice since they were almost useless before (particularly Great Cleave).
The disadvantage of them now is that they are not just free extra attacks. You have to use a full-round action to use either feat. That means you are giving up all your lower iterative attacks (if any), can only take a 5' step, and must declare it beforehand.
|
I must confess that i like the old cleave better. In yesterday;s game we tried to use both versions, and the old one suited the fighter armed with greatsword much better. It really helped the party to have a "free" attacks against the goblin horde. Great cleave was devastating, used by level 6 quaggoth fighter, with strength 26 and racial ability to rage. Although the goblins were 2nd level barbarians and not common goblins, the great cleave tactics (and quaggoth's huge bonus to initiative) annihilated them - and, in fact, allowed the PC's to survive the encounter. With new rules, that just would not happen.
I like this way better. I look at cleaving as having so much extra momentum from your attack that it merely continues through to the next target. Now granted this makes the most sense with things like great-axes and great-swords, but there is some points that can be made with lighter weapons.
And that's why there is a new Combat Feat, Backswing, which does a very good job at portraying the "extra inertia blow" and is specific for 2-handed weapons. I still cannot see somebody cleaving a troll with a dagger. Also your description makes sense, but then, you can possibly Cleave enemies which are flanking or rear attacking you and that does not follow from a mere momentum issue.
If combat feats are going to go into more detail (such as Backswing), I would be happier with Cleaves replaced altogether by weapon type-specific feats (I could imagine a "Piercing Blow" similar to Backswing but applicable to spear-like weapons) rather than having a feat with little combat rationale behind it, as in "Great Cleave 3 ogres using a dagger or a light mace".
It seems that the Cleave and Great Cleave feats now require a hit against one foe, versus the requisite of felling the foe (in 3.5).
I agree with reverting to the 3.5 rules. Cleave et. al. have always been important advantages to reward 2-handed weapon use, which gives up options like second weapon or shield. Whirlwind attack is good compensation, with a longer feat tree which is appropriate.
We've had warrior-types take both approaches, and there was nothing broken about that system. Disadvantaging the 2-handed fighter by watering down Cleave this way would have a balance effect, though. If you gave Great Cleave to our whirling blades fighter Jenis with just 2 feat selections, it would be very, very unbalancing.
Bad idea.
I like the new cleave a lot better myself. I absolutely think it's more cinematic than the old cleave. I don't imagine a character like Conan having issues smacking a big bad and carrying through to attack the baddie next to him who was trying to move in with a cowardly sneak attack.
We tested it this weekend, and our fighter LOVED LOVED LOVED it.
I like the new cleave a lot better myself. I absolutely think it's more cinematic than the old cleave. I don't imagine a character like Conan having issues smacking a big bad and carrying through to attack the baddie next to him who was trying to move in with a cowardly sneak attack.Agreed.
That's probably because Conan had both Great Cleave and Whirlwind attack ;-)
Even if he missed the big bad, he would probably be able to pull a sideswing to that treacherous crony.Would Conan (or any mid-level warrior at that) give up his full attack with 3 or so strikes (more if using 2 weapons)? Cleave is a full-round action (and hence incompatible with multiple attacks). May make a difference in levels 1-5, but then it becomes quite obsolete. I still don't see it working well as a Combat Maneuver.
And yep, should playtest it, but until my party gets to levels 6+ the playtest info can be slanted, as it is quite obvious.
May make a difference in levels 1-5, but then it becomes quite obsolete.
I'm not so sure it will be that obvious at level 6 or even level 10. For me getting that second attack at the same bonus if I hit is better than getting that second attack at a -5 penalty.
That's probably because Conan had both Great Cleave and Whirlwind attack ;-)
Well, sure, OLDER Conan did ;)
But with the new cleave, I think the thing that makes it stick out is not having to actually drop the opponent before being able to continue with the attack. Heck, Indiana Jones does it all the time with his bare fists! Well, ok, maybe a bad example since he does drop them... but there are many examples in movies and novels where the hero smacks more than one villian/thug/meat shield with one attack. Realistic? Not really, but it sure makes for good imagery. :)
|
|
One of the advantages for using this at higher level that I think is missed is that because the second attack is at the highest attack bonus, you can power attack(which is not a combat feat, and thus still usable with cleave) and have a good chance to hit on both attacks.
When using your iterative attacks you were always limited to either power attacking hard and assuming you were going to miss all your further back attacks, or holding back on it to give yourself a small chance for the second(and maybe third one).
Now you can drop down a fair amount and still have a good chance to hit on both strikes and deal all that extra damage. This certainly gives two hand fighters a boost for using it since they get the most damage out of every point of power attack.
This does somewhat approach whirlwind attack, but I think that it is a good lower level version of it. If you want to be the fighter chopping down foes on all sides of you, then whirlwind attack is still the way to go.
-Tarlane
So, the new Cleave gets extra attacks at the same (max.) attack bonus. That could be seen as an advantage over multiple attacks for characters with BAB 6+...
I would like to think of it in two different situations:
1) warrior against a bunch of goons/rabble. They will probably have a quite low AC (18 or so with good armor, not a big deal against a 6th+ level fighter with some brawn). It is quite unlikely to miss your first attack; your second one has also a good chance of hitting. Why giving up your attack series and all combat maneuvers for the new cleave?
Also,why cannot you cleave two evil orcs after using, for instance,Devastating Blow on the first one?
2) a couple enemies with quite good AC (well armored and magicked villains, for instance). If your first hit has a substantial chance of missing, it is folly to use the new Cleave, as you give up any chances (no matter how low) of trying again (with second and or third attacks). The old (and non-combat maneuver) Cleave did not make you choose and just took into account the tactical advantage won by felling an enemy.
Situations like this, again, in my opinion, seem to indicate that the new Cleaves are going to become more about metagaming and probability calculations (at mid levels) than about combat cinematics. Also, they are going to be almost useless at levels with BAB 11+, where the average warrior either faces an ultra-armored foe (try all your strikes) or enemies which he is only likely to miss with a really low roll. The 3.5 versions kept giving an edge regardless of character level, just as the Whirlwind attack tree does.
|
|
It all depends upon the philosphy used.
-If you want the 3.5 Cleave you want to be able to drop a lot of Mooks in one round.
-If you want the PFRPG Cleave you want your best Attack bonus against Big Baddies.
As DM i have not (yet) seen PFRPG Cleave used or used it myself.
But I have seen the 3.5 Cleave and Great Cleave used by a 13th level barbarian with a Greataxe in a Temple filled with Wererats (the Curse of the Moon version from SK Reynolds). Boy was this a carnage!
So even in the upper levels cleave can be usefull. The DM just has to design some encounters that can make use of this feat.
At first glance I liked the new Cleave, but thinking about it more I'd have to say that it draws a little too close to Whirlwind Attack. If I was playing a fighter and I had to choose between the 3 feat chain for Great Cleave and the 4 feat chain for Whirlwind, I'd pick Whirlwind without a doubt. Dodge, Mobility, and Spring Attack are all useful feats on their own, while Cleave is pretty much useless once you have Great Cleave, and you don't need to hit anyone to make multiple attacks with Whirlwind Attack.
If the intention was to make Cleave matter at higher levels, well, its kinda there. The chances of dropping something in a single round gets slimmer and slimmer the higher you get, but so does the average number of foes in a combat, at least in the games I've played in. If you find yourself fighting a good number of foes in a higher level encounter, than yes, this new Cleave would be nice to have. However, if you spend most of your time locked in single combat with a big bad nasty mofo, then its just as useless as the old Cleave.
I guess, for me, it really hinges on what, if anything, is done with Whirlwind Attack. If Whirlwind Attack gets a nice overhaul, then the new Cleave is fine with me. If Whirlwind Attack is left as-is, then leave Cleave as it was or try something different.
.. and the 4 feat chain for Whirlwind, I'd pick Whirlwind without a doubt. Dodge, Mobility, and Spring Attack are all useful feats on their own,
Whirlwind actually requires Combat Expertise as well....so it's a 5 feat chain. Additionally, whirlwind requires a 13+ dex and a 13+ int (to qualify for its prereqs). The cleave line only requires strength. Dex is a semi dump stat for fighters and int certainly is a dump stat for them. Str, on the other hand is their main stat. A fighter can *certainly* still get it...but these are significant considerations.
I'd say that the Cleave line is getting a nice boost at high levels and an appropriate nerf at low levels. It will make a fine "whirlwind substitute" for the classes with less bonus feats than the fighter (I'm looking at you barbarian) and for classes with more rigorous stat requirements (paladin).
With Great Cleave, you can strike every foe within reach then move on to other foes on down the line.
Maybe I've missed something, but I believe you're still limited to foes within reach with Great Cleave. You don't get to move and keep attacking, at least thats how I read it.
Whirlwind actually requires Combat Expertise as well....
Right you are, I've totaled failed my roll there! The requirement of Combat Expertise certainly makes the new Cleave more attractive. The stat requirements never really bothered me, but thats just how I make most of my fighters and isn't any indication of what other players will go for.
I liked the old Cleave which was based on dropping an opponent. I just like the cinematic nature of it. Granted, it didn't actually get used very often. Great cleave was even more cinematic, if even less often employed. But, it was an awesome cinematic effect.
My guess is the designers wanted to make these feats actually get used more often, but, the problem is, in the process, they took away that fun cinematic scope.
So, a couple of suggestions. One option would be to keep Cleave and Great Cleave as they were and call these new feats something else.
The second option would be to ADD the new effects onto the existing feats. The cleave effect didn't happen all that often, and the great cleave almost never, so I don't see this too overbalancing, but I haven't REALLY thought it out. Just popping off ideas.
I would like to ask something - am I misreading, or is it possible to hold off on declaring a combat feat until well into your turn? Thus, if I make an Attack of Op and drop a creature, and haven't used a combat feat this round, could I then declare that I'm using Cleave and drop another one gratis?
I believe, at least in the case of Cleave, you have to declare it before making an attack roll. You might not even be able to use Cleave as it requires a full round action, which I don't think you'd be able to pull on an AoO. Even in normal combat, you would need to declare your Cleave before making any rolls.
|
|
I would like to ask something - am I misreading, or is it possible to hold off on declaring a combat feat until well into your turn? Thus, if I make an Attack of Op and drop a creature, and haven't used a combat feat this round, could I then declare that I'm using Cleave and drop another one gratis?
You woulnd't be able to use to Cleave in conjunction with an AoO as it's a full-attack action to use it.
I will say that IF during your turn, one is expected to declare that he/she is using CLEAVE this round BEFORE making an attack roll, I find that very limiting.
Given a BAB of +6 or more, you should be able to decide to use CLEAVE IF/AFTER you hit with your first attack. Otherwise, if you have to declare at the start of your turn, and then miss the first foe with your first attack, do you still have the option of then making your second attack (or subsequent attack) that round?
Robert
|
I would like to ask something - am I misreading, or is it possible to hold off on declaring a combat feat until well into your turn? Thus, if I make an Attack of Op and drop a creature, and haven't used a combat feat this round, could I then declare that I'm using Cleave and drop another one gratis?Please, move away any possibility to mix AoO and Cleave.
It's horrible to be the barbarian fighting with the fighter against a giant (or any monster with reach) and that the rogue fail his tumble check. AoO and rogue out. Who is the next to die? The barbarian or the fighter that was quietly smashing the big monsters because a cleave.
No, thanks.
Use a cleave in your action is OK, using it in other's action is broken.
Given a BAB of +6 or more, you should be able to decide to use CLEAVE IF/AFTER you hit with your first attack. Otherwise, if you have to declare at the start of your turn, and then miss the first foe with your first attack, do you still have the option of then making your second attack (or subsequent attack) that round?
Not as written, no. You must make a single attack as a full round action. Like Power Attack, its something you'll have to decide on before rolling the dice.
|
|
Given a BAB of +6 or more, you should be able to decide to use CLEAVE IF/AFTER you hit with your first attack. Otherwise, if you have to declare at the start of your turn, and then miss the first foe with your first attack, do you still have the option of then making your second attack (or subsequent attack) that round?Not as written, no. You must make a single attack as a full round action. Like Power Attack, its something you'll have to decide on before rolling the dice.
Then I suddenly take umbrage witht he feat (as written). I feel that is very limiting. Cleave used to work automatically without declaration and without the fear of losing iterative attacks.
I do very much like the concept of being able to simply attack the guy standing next to your first target (if you hit the first one) as an option to end your series of attacks in lieu of the 3.5 of having to actually drop the foe first; I think they came up with something cool here - but I really dont like it if you have to make such a declaration that could cost you your extra attacks (or movement after one attack) if you happen to miss.
Its the same beef I take with the shield style feat that you still lose the AC from your shield if you miss with your attack. (after spending two feats including a 15 DEX prereq of 2weapon fighting just to be able to try it).
Robert
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
Actually I don't mind giving up your iterative attacks for another at your Highest BAB, however what no one has brought up is that the second target must be adjacent to the first target. The old Cleave/Great Cleave allowed you to attack any other creatre you could reach. Now Cleave is useless against flankers.
That is not cool.
I'm not keen on the new Cleave being a full round action. It would really fall off at higher levels of play against anything you'll be hitting with your 2nd or 3rd iteratives anyway. Great cleave is harder to determine and gets more use if you've gotten surrounded.
I think a better revision might be something like:
Cleave: As a standard action make a melee attack against two adjacent foes at -2 to hit.
Great Cleave: As a standard action make a melee attack against two foes in reach that you have clear line of sight to (no cleaving through cover to hit the guy in back when you have reach)
This gives you a clear upgrade, a lot more usability at high levels, preserves mobility, and doesn't step on whirlwind attack.
I prefer the old Cleave/Great Cleave. I think the fact that it happens when an enemy is felled makes it more interesting. Perhaps there needs to be a new feat that allows hitting two enemies on demand but I think Cleave/Great Cleave is worth keeping.
|
|
The Fighter in my group is planning to take Cleave as his 3rd level feat, so we've been putting some serious thought into it.
I like the idea of changing Cleave and Great Cleave. I have a serious problem with the way Cleave works as written (in the SRD), which is basically this: If I use a swarm of small creatures to surround and attack a character, those small creatures will provoke AOOs. That's fine. The problem comes in when the player has Great Cleave and 1 AOO, and holds off on making their 1 AOO until they are more or less completely surrounded, and then cleave the whole lot of them. This just drives me nuts, as it's a very meta-gamey tactic. So I like the idea of a cleave that doesn't work on AOOs.
I also like the idea of a Cleave that works regardless of whether you kill the foe or not, but the wording of Cleave in Alpha 3 doesn't work for me. The Fighter in my party already invested a feat in Two Weapon Fighting, and I don't think he should be punished by having to lose his off-hand attack to use his new cleave feat! I also don't think a fighter with iterative should lose those attacks.
I'd change the wording of Cleave as follows:
CLEAVE
You can strike two adjacent foes with a single swing.
Prerequisites: Str 13, Power Attack, base attack bonus +1
Benefit: When making a full attack with a melee weapon you may make one additional attack against a foe that is adjacent to the first foe you attack and also within reach. This additional attack is made at your highest attack bonus and must be made immediately after your first attack.