Cleave, Great Cleave, CMB and Expertise


Skills & Feats


Well... I like 99% of Pathfinder, but I think the changes to Cleave and Great Cleave were not needed.

I really didn't understand the idea behind making Cleave and Great Cleave weaker. They are feats that see a lot of use at the early levels, and gradually lose their usefulness as you go up. Now great cleave is very much useless, unless you happen to be facing lots of weak enemies (which honestly isn't the case very often) lined up. In order for Great Cleave to be worth using as it, you need to be facing (at high levels of fighters) at LEAST 5 enemies, all close together, since as a 16th level fighter you have 4 attacks per round.

How often does that happen? Not very often. I think they shoud be brought back to the way things were before.

Ah, also CMB... Well. I understand wanting to simply the mechanics, and I definitely salute the effort, but did they playtest it?

I did a quick check... Tried to pitch a plain fire giant (CR 10) against a human level 10 fighter (who started with 18 strength, put two points in strength at level ups, and owns a +4 to strength item, and has one of the improved xxx feats).
CMB of the fighter: 19.
DC to do anything to the giant: 37 (15 base + 11 BAB + 10 strength + 1 size)

Now, only being able to do anything to the giant on a 18+ I think is rather extreme. Either you lower the base of the CMB check to 10, or put the improved xxx feats back to granting a +4 bonus. I understand they are getting rid of the combat feats (thank god - it's useless trying to strengthen the fighters, and granting them tons of feats, if you then make their most interesting abilities usable once per round), but the CMB mechanic is a good idea. Just not the way it is right now.

Oh, and although I salute the fix to Power Attack, by the gods, the Expertise one is probably one of the worst mistakes of the edition. Even if you do not take into account the fact the suggested point buy system is murder, even with the 25 points suggested for epic play, do you know many fighters of any kind that have high intelligence?

Not every feat needs to have paralellism... Limiting PA to Strength or BAB is fine, but Expertise shouldn't be limited this way. If there really MUST be a limit (I personally don't see why...), it ought to be at most 1/2 the BAB of the character using it.

Thoughts?


I am sorry, but what is this CBM everyone keeps talking about.

Now about great cleave. It actually is a rather nice feat with the new write up. It works exactly like the old great cleave, but the eliminated the requirement of dropping the opponent to -1 or few hit points. How often did you actually drop more than 1 opponent from great cleave with the way it was before? In actuality it is like a more powerful whirlwind attack. As you can move or even charge before hand allowing you to use all sort of things like leap attack and shock trooper.

So it actually is more powerful, and more useful. I would almost say that this makes whirlwind attack useless other than the fact one might not have the feats to get power attack, cleave, and great cleave after getting the Combat Expertise, Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, feats.

As for power attack and combat expertise, I think that they should have both been left alone. Yeah a fighter type can do a lot of damage with power attack, but that is usually to, at tops 2 targets, and nothing compared to save or die spells in comparison.


No. Cleave and Great Cleave have been greatly weakened.

Before, you got a bonus attack if you dropped somebody. And that meant also if you had moved and attacked - you were not required to have done a full attack. Now, with Cleave, you get tops two attacks, with a full round action. Before, if you were a high level fighter, you would get five (or more, depending on what weapons/items you had).

Now for great cleave. It has become a poor man's whirlwind attack. But there was already a whirlwind attack. Honestly - how often does a high level fighter NOT focus his attacks on a monster? And by that I mean, letting the monster get all his full attack? Not very often. Basically, Great Cleave is a big advantage to adversaries - instead of killing the enemies one by one, the fighter has his fun with everybody in range.

Knowing fighters can do that, would you, as an enemy, ever fight in such a formation? Don't think so. Great cleave before was much better. You could take a 5 foot step when you were granted a bonus attack.

And save or die spells have been weakened - it was only normal PA would be as well. But expertise right now is close to useless.


I am sorry I miss the fact that it is now a full round action. You are correct this does suck now.

This is what I thought it said, and think how it should work, but that might be a bit too much to ask power wise.

Great Cleave (Combat)
You can strike a number of adjacent foes with a single
swing.
Prerequisites: Str 13, Cleave, Power Attack, base attack
bonus +4.
Benefit: When you make a melee attack against a foe within reach. If you hit, you deal damage normally and can make an additional attack (at the same bonus) against a foe that is adjacent to the previous foe and within reach. If you hit, you can continue to make attacks against foes adjacent to the previous foe, so long as they are within your reach. You cannot attack an individual foe more than once in a round with this feat.


The *point* is so that your hit mods for the attacks that you do get are going to be rediculously high, since you'll use your primary attack bonus for both attacks. That lets you power attack for a bit and jack up your damage, where before if you power attacked for any more than 1 or 2, the penalty to your iterative attacks was so damning as to make it so that your average damage was actually lower. Back to the other point, sure a high level fighter has like 4 attacks a round say BAB= 16/11/6/1. That's great, but how often does your BAB 6 and BAB 1 attack actually hit anything? Not very often, so cleave lets you sacrifice those to make two attacks at BAB +16, essentially, giving you a better chance to hit with your first two attacks, and an oppurtunity to power attack if you dont need the bonuses quite so high. Cleave is *meant* to be used with power attack/expertise. I think it's actually *better*, because you dont actually have to drop anyone to use it.

I guess in the case that a fighter could charge the enemy that was right next to another enemy and drop it in one hit, sure cleave was better the old way. But how often does that happen? And even if it does... you probably dont need the extra help Cleave is getting you, so pick a different feat.


I'd add Power Attack to the list of unnecessary feat changes.

I'm on board with most of the Pathfinder changes/additions but Cleave, Great Cleave, Power Attack, and Combat Expertise simply weren't needed.

Again, while Pathfinder is looking to be very good so far, it treads a fine line between change for changes sake and actual improvements.

Liberty's Edge

Personally, i'm a big fan of the changes to Cleave and Great Cleave. I think Power Attack was a needed change - though still not perfect - but better than it was.

Combat Expertise however, is quite useless. Thankfully, it's no longer the prereq for so many cool feats.

What I have changed Combat Expertise to in my games is: that it simply adds 2 pts to your AC when you fight defensively or full defense. By adding +2 to "fighting Defensive" you're not essentially getting a -4 to your attacks and a +4 to your AC.

Which is no different than using Combat Expert the way it use to be and using +/- 4

Furthermore, since 3.5 has the ability to stack CE feat and Fighting Defensively - it used to get stoopid powerful AC numbers when doing that.

This way - prevents that stacking. It works really well in the games.

Robert

Liberty's Edge

Robert Brambley wrote:

Personally, i'm a big fan of the changes to Cleave and Great Cleave. I think Power Attack was a needed change - though still not perfect - but better than it was.

I meant to indicate 'why' I'm a fan of the new Cleave and GC. Rarely have I seen GC get used - as it's nigh impossible by that point to drop many creatures with just one hit. Sure you could drop one and attack his buddy - but to then be able to drop him on that hit and attack a third was very rare.

Since iterative attacks are done with a lower BAB, they often fail. Cleave and GC now allow for you to use your highest BAB to attack adjacent foes - and hitting each of them once, instead of a diminished chance of hitting with the second attack. Fruthermore, since it IS your highest BAB, you then have more of a viable option of Power Attacking or using Combat Expert.

On a side note: some compared the new GC to Whirlwind. The difference was in Alpha rules that Whirlwind was NOT a combat feat - thus you could still use it along with some of the other feats - like say Dodge. GC was a combat feat so it did not allow for these types of things.

However, with the Beta rules changing Combat Feats, it would seem that you no longer are restricted to using only ONE feat in a round - so then the new GC is actually no different than Whirlwind in it use.

So i sure something will have to change. The easiest thing would be to get rid of Whirlwind - but then GC is too powerful in that it doesn't have nearly the prereqs that Whirlwind has.

Robert

Liberty's Edge

Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:

I am sorry, but what is this CBM everyone keeps talking about.

you mean CMB. Combat Manuever Bonus.

Alpha 3 Rules - Pgs 76-79

CMB is the core mechanic for PF rules in resolving many of the game's mechanics including trip, grapple, bullrush etc.

Its a more streamlined mechanic than opposed rolls, and minimized the amount of math and the amount of rolls needed.

Unless you understand the use of CMB completely, it will be hard to validate/invalidate playtesting suggestions and references; as most combat manuevers etc other than just hack & slash are resolved using this mechanic.

To sum it up: CMB = BAB + size mod + Str Mod. To perform a manuever agaist someone you must roll against a DC = 15 + targest CMB. You roll a D20 + your CMB. If you equal or beat his DC, your manuever is successful. (see official rules for exceptions, feat-related enhancements, size mods, etc).

Robert


I don't think everyone seems to know what whirlwind attack really does.

"Whirlwind Attack [General]
Prerequisites

Dex 13, Int 13, Combat Expertise, Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, base attack bonus +4.
Benefit

When you use the full attack action, you can give up your regular attacks and instead make one melee attack at your full base attack bonus against each opponent within reach.

When you use the Whirlwind Attack feat, you also forfeit any bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities.
Special

A fighter may select Whirlwind Attack as one of his fighter bonus feats.
Widen Spell [Metamagic]
Benefit

You can alter a burst, emanation, line, or spread shaped spell to increase its area. Any numeric measurements of the spell’s area increase by 100%.A widened spell uses up a spell slot three levels higher than the spell’s actual level.

Spells that do not have an area of one of these four sorts are not affected by this feat."

___________________________________

"Great Cleave (Combat)
You can strike a number of adjacent foes with a single
swing.
Prerequisites: Str 13, Cleave, Power Attack, base attack
bonus +4.
Benefit: As a full-round action, make a single melee
attack against a foe within reach. If you hit, you deal
damage normally and can make an additional attack
(at the same bonus) against a foe that is adjacent to
the previous foe and within reach. If you hit, you can
continue to make attacks against foes adjacent to the
previous foe, so long as they are within your reach.
You
cannot attack an individual foe more than once in a
round with this feat."
___________________________________

The two feats are nearly identical but I highlighted the points that make great cleave weaker than whirlwind attack. The feat was already a weak one because you hardly ever get a 3rd target within reach, little alone drop a 2nd target with only 1 hit. If you can't see it this way then sorry but here.

I will put this in point form.
1. They don't only need to be within reach but adjacent to the foe you just hit.
2. You need to continue to hit that target as well to continue the attacks while in whirlwind attack it doesn't matter you just make attack at all of them even if you miss one.
3. The 3rd+ foe also need to be standing RIGHT next to each other.

With great cleave like this, I would go dodge, mobility, whirlwind attack, and then get power attack and be much better fighter.

Liberty's Edge

Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:


I will put this in point form.
1. They don't...

I won't argue with you that Great Cleave is definitely weaker by comparison. But to get whirlwind you need a 13 in both INT and DEX (not all fighters can afford this luxury), which Great Cleave need no such prerequs - just 4th level and Cleave feat. This is ideal for the big dumb tank fighter or barbarian without a lot of other attributes.

Robert


Whereas I might actually, somehow, agree with the changes of Great Cleave, I really hope they change cleave to the way it was before. It was much more useful. You could use it without spending a full round action, and it was always handy to get a bonus attack on another close enemy once you were finished with one foe.

The fact now cleave and great cleave let you use your iterative attack with the highest BAB doesn't really make them any better. Sure, you might be able to use PA on every enemy you hit - but is that really practical? Whenever I fight, I modulate my PA use depending on the enemy. And you can only pick how much you PA once per round. Let's say the first enemy you hit with your great cleave is someone unarmored... And you go through the roof with PA. And yet the next one is more heavily armored. And you miss.
And now you wasted your round doing one attack. Or you need to modulate your PA to include all the enemies you are going to hit, which in the end forces you to deal less damage to some.

No, sorry. Much better to have a single enemy have it.

And yes, the CMB needs to be looked at. I would simply put the DC of the check to 10+enemy's CMB, instead of 15+enemy's CMB. In the example I mentioned the fighter would then succeed on a 13+, which is a reasonable 40% of the time.
Or failing that, simply bring back the +4 bonuses instead of the +2. The fighter would then succeed on a 16+, 25% of the time. That is, if you really want it to be very hard to disarm/sunder somebody (as it should be, but I think one chance in four is reasonable, whereas 15% is so paltry I doubt many people would give it a try).


I hate to insist, but if you think about it, my examples are sound. And I actually took a fighter with 18 strength - something that isn't going to happen that often if you use the point buy system, which is murder. Which reinforces my point: I agree that having an overwhelming chance to drip/disarm/sunder is unbalanced. But making it almost impossible, or very hard, to do any of these against a monster of a CR corresponding to your fighter level isn't such a good thing either.

I think either the DC goes down to 10+CMB, or the feats go back to granting +4, and it should be ok.


Estrothiath; your example of a heavily armored guy and an unarmored guy together, well first of all that doesnt tend to happen much. The unarmored guy probably isn't in the front lines next to the armored guy. Even if it does happen, you've simply come up with a situation in which it's a bad time to power attack. What the figher should do, is power attack a little (or not at all, depending on how high of an AC we're talking about), so he can still hit the armored guys AC pretty well, and do some extra damage on the side do mr. unarmored. Or you could take your full attack on Mr. Unarmored and beat him into the ground. I never said Cleave was always the best thing to do in every situation, just that it's still useful to be a viable feat.

I'm not so impressed with Great Cleave, by the way, mostly for the reasons you mentioned. However, if you're a fighter who already has power attack and cleave, it's just one more feat for you, and hey, it could come up (shrugs). Not a choice I'd personally recommend, but then again, Great Cleave never was.

Liberty's Edge

Estrosiath wrote:


Whenever I fight, I modulate my PA use depending on the enemy. And you can only pick how much you PA once per round. Let's say the first enemy you hit with your great cleave is someone unarmored... And you go through the roof with PA. And yet the next one is more heavily armored. And you miss.
And now you wasted your round doing one attack. Or you need to modulate your PA to include all the enemies you are going to hit, which in the end forces you to deal less damage to some.

awp832 wrote:

Estrothiath; What the figher should do, is power attack a little (or not at all, depending on how high of an AC we're talking about), so he can still hit the armored guys AC pretty well, and do some extra damage on the side do mr. unarmored.

It seems the two of you have either forgotten or didn't realize there is no 'modulating' PA anymore. Its all or nothing.

Thus my reasoning that Cleave and GC are a good synergized feat to use in conjunction with PA - in that both attacks are at your highest BAB, and you're PA is on at full - with no round to round modulating.

Robert


I didn't ever really see any need for a change to Power Attack, Cleave, or Great Cleave, but then again I don't have any problem with the Rogue's Sneak Attack either.

To me they seem to work fine, but I don't use spreadsheets or anything scientific, I just like what's fun.


I am getting very disturbed with what i have been seeing. It apears that there is a rise in gimping the armored guy in this system rather than making wearing armor worth it. Things were already bad enough for those who wore armor not even getting access to the highest AC possible, and now the gimping in their normal damage output, and the field control, which was already was nothing compared to casters. I guess if I run I will just have to house rule a lot.

Liberty's Edge

Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:
It apears that there is a rise in gimping the armored guy in this system rather than making wearing armor worth it. Things were already bad enough for those who wore armor not even getting access to the highest AC possible,

have you noticed the increase in Armor bonuses that the fighter gets? By 11 level, a fighter's FullPlate is worth 11 points of AC. Regardless of Dex, shield, or magic. That's certainly worth it, don't you think? And certainly high ACs are possible.

Robert


Robert Brambley wrote:
Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:
It apears that there is a rise in gimping the armored guy in this system rather than making wearing armor worth it. Things were already bad enough for those who wore armor not even getting access to the highest AC possible,

have you noticed the increase in Armor bonuses that the fighter gets? By 11 level, a fighter's FullPlate is worth 11 points of AC. Regardless of Dex, shield, or magic. That's certainly worth it, don't you think? And certainly high ACs are possible.

Robert

1st level monk, X level cleric

can continue to put in wisdom points, great if they have a good dex, and then cast a number of spells to increase their ac by increasing dex, in different ways, untyped bonuses, and sacred bonuses. In fact it is a lot easier to get a better AC by playing a caster, and choseing a 1 level dip into any class that grants dodge bonus AC from another stat.

Armor is only soo good too because it is by no means as good as dodge bonus to AC.

Things get even worse when they not only get their 2nd stat bonus by also can wear armor as well. This is horrific, as they get to wear medium armor then, via mithral, or even heavy, half weight armor effect, depending on the games rules. A monk can wear light armor with the sacred fist PrC, and there is a base class in the ToB that grants this with out a PrC.

So in the end, might as well play a caster for damage, or field control, and a 1st level monk dip/cleric for AC. Melee types have no use other than simple HP shield, but even that can be countered properly with enough buff spells. Damage WAS the only thing they had, even remotely, and only against a single target. That is only if they don't have access to limited wish. A mystic theurge could, on their own, cast a spell that lets them cast any spell via an illusion, with out getting hurt, quick cast limited wish to reduce a target's saves and then walk up and do a slave living, or similar spell and take down a target no matter their hit points.

Liberty's Edge

Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:


Things get even worse when they not only get their 2nd stat bonus by also can wear armor as well. This is horrific, as they get to wear medium armor then, via mithral, or even heavy, half weight armor effect, depending on the games rules. A monk can wear light armor with the sacred fist PrC, and there is a base class in the ToB that grants this with out a PrC.

Its easier to make valid comparisons to the core rules when we're not trying to splat-splash from non-core books.

This is not meant to dismiss your concern; I do see validity to some degree in what you're saying.

But to bring into bear some other splat book optional rule system (such as ToB) and expect it to make an impact on game design is not a fair tactic.

The further you remove yourself from the Core Rules, the more broken the rules become. This is because when the original 3rd edition rules were written, there was no way to have the precognition of future splat books, and how they would affect the rules that were currently being designed. Thus allowing for breakdowns in continuity, and loopholes for min/maxers etc.

If you bring into question a PrC from ToB, then someone else is inclined to add the dwarven armors from the Races of Stone, and the Shield specialization and Armor Specializations feats in the PHB2 that all increase AC, etc.

It's simply easier to use the core rules (and alpha designed PF rules) for the purposes of comparing.

The flaw in the logic that its just better to play a spellcaster for AC is that spells and their durations are finite. Sure they can buff themselves a lot for a while, and a cleric can actually be the best fighter on the battlefield for a time.

But most of the enhancements will expire. Right now I'm playing a 3rd level paladin in a Curse of Crimson Throne adventure path - I have banded Armor and a tower shield - I have a 22 AC and am leagues above any one else in the party. Not even with spells can the other hope to compare at this point. The Wizard with a 14 DEX casts Mage Armor and gets a 16 AC for 3 hrs a day (back to 12 after that), (he can actually get a 20 if he spends two rounds casting Mage Armor and then Shield - where-as my 22 is from the get-go) the rogue with her 20 DEX right now has a 18, and the cleric with his ChainMail and hvy shield has 17, or 19 when he casts Shield of Faith for three whole minutes! and the Ranger (archer) with his chain shirt and 18 DEX has a 18. Even if I swap out to a hvy shield to remove the burden of my -2 to hit, I still have better than everyone else. If I were a fighter instead of Paladin, my armor would progressively get even better AC, and I'd have even more feats to synergize with my AC, to boot.

So at this point, I fail to see the disparity you do. I'm not saying you're wrong - just that I don't see it (yet).

Robert


Wow, I hadn't noticed that in Power Attack... all the more reason to put it back the way it was. All or nothing is definitely a bad idea, in my book. You really gimp the fighting types by taking that choice away from them. It becomes a feat that will see very little use, as soon as the character gets several iterative attacks. And I don't think forcing the character to use Great Cleave if he wants to hit several targets with PA is such a bright idea, either.

I hope they change it back. I'd rather not have to house rule much, or anything. And honestly, a little playtesting would go a long way. It's obviously unpractical to ALWAYS need to subtract as much as you can from your roll to hit if you choose to use PA, or Deadly Aim. It means you ensure they will get used very seldom, if ever.

But back to the CMD question (which was really the crux of this post) - what do you guys think? I think bringing the DC down to 10+CMD of the adversary would suffice.


Robert Brambley wrote:
Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:


Things get even worse when they not only get their 2nd stat bonus by also can wear armor as well. This is horrific, as they get to wear medium armor then, via mithral, or even heavy, half weight armor effect, depending on the games rules. A monk can wear light armor with the sacred fist PrC, and there is a base class in the ToB that grants this with out a PrC.

Its easier to make valid comparisons to the core rules when we're not trying to splat-splash from non-core books.

This is not meant to dismiss your concern; I do see validity to some degree in what you're saying.

But to bring into bear some other splat book optional rule system (such as ToB) and expect it to make an impact on game design is not a fair tactic.

The further you remove yourself from the Core Rules, the more broken the rules become. This is because when the original 3rd edition rules were written, there was no way to have the precognition of future splat books, and how they would affect the rules that were currently being designed. Thus allowing for breakdowns in continuity, and loopholes for min/maxers etc.

If you bring into question a PrC from ToB, then someone else is inclined to add the dwarven armors from the Races of Stone, and the Shield specialization and Armor Specializations feats in the PHB2 that all increase AC, etc.

It's simply easier to use the core rules (and alpha designed PF rules) for the purposes of comparing.

Yes I agree. But I would like to note that I was talking about a base class in the book, not so much a PrC.

Robert Brambley wrote:


The flaw in the logic that its just better to play a spellcaster for AC is that spells and their durations are finite. Sure they can buff themselves a lot for a while, and a cleric can actually be the best fighter on the battlefield for a time.

But most of the enhancements will expire. Right now I'm playing a 3rd level paladin in a Curse of Crimson Throne adventure path - I have banded Armor and a tower shield - I have a 22 AC and am leagues above any one else in the party. Not even with spells can the other hope to compare at this point....

My point still stands as a 1st level monk/x level cleric will always have a higher AC so long as they have a decent dexterity. As I stated, the spells just make it worse.

Liberty's Edge

Estrosiath wrote:

Wow, I hadn't noticed that in Power Attack... all the more reason to put it back the way it was. All or nothing is definitely a bad idea, in my book. You really gimp the fighting types by taking that choice away from them. It becomes a feat that will see very little use, as soon as the character gets several iterative attacks. And I don't think forcing the character to use Great Cleave if he wants to hit several targets with PA is such a bright idea, either.

There's been a lot of discussion threads on the topic of PA here. There are two camps; many like the change; many dont.

I'm 50/50. I like it MORE than original version in 3.5; but I'm not completely happy with it. I like that it removes the sliding scale math that changes every round. Some people need to make graphs and charts to be able to figure it out each round. I like that it removes the meta-gaming that went into it that players use to figure out exactly the extent they can PA and still not have a chance of missing to the exact point.

For me - it's just easier now. It's all or nothing. Math done ahead of time. It speeds up combat from my playtesting experience.

As for CMB - I've posted before that I think DC 15 is too high. I've done a lot of playtesting and number-crunching on various creatures vs PCs, and I see a glaring issue of it being too high quite often.

Another problem is that there are certain aspects of the Improved Feats and some of the combat manuevers that I'm just not sure how certain nuances as they were in 3.5 still affect them or not - and as of yet, I have not gotten official answers on any of them - thus making my playtesting a little hard to be 100% accurate. But from what I can see (barring that unknown info), 15 is too high - and I suggested 10 a long time ago.

Robert


Robert Brambley wrote:
Estrosiath wrote:

Wow, I hadn't noticed that in Power Attack... all the more reason to put it back the way it was. All or nothing is definitely a bad idea, in my book. You really gimp the fighting types by taking that choice away from them. It becomes a feat that will see very little use, as soon as the character gets several iterative attacks. And I don't think forcing the character to use Great Cleave if he wants to hit several targets with PA is such a bright idea, either.

I like that it removes the meta-gaming that went into it that players use to figure out exactly the extent they can PA and still not have a chance of missing to the exact point.

What is it with you and this meta gaming thing with power attack? I haven't noticed a single person here who agrees with you about this. Maybe it is your groups problem?

Liberty's Edge

Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:
My point still stands as a 1st level monk/x level cleric will always have a higher AC so long as they have a decent dexterity. As I stated, the spells just make it worse.

I think it's a closer comparison than you're giving it.

A 10th level fighter w/ shield and full plate and a mere 12DEX would have 23 AC (counting the +2 armor bonus to AC that fighters get). (not taking into account magic items or feats)

A 1st monk / 9th cleric with an 18 DEX and a 18 WIS would have 18AC; not taking into account magic items or feats. (and this is with a 18 in TWO stats! Not a common occurence - so I'm being quite generous in my scenario - chances are, at best, you're likely to have a 16 in both sans magical items - dropping that to 16 AC - but i'll give the major benefit of the doubt for sake of arguement). Sure, as a cleric he would have temporary boosts from spells. The monk/cleric by 10th level would probably have bracers armor AC 4; giving him a 22 AC. With about the same money, the fighter could have a +3 enhancement on his armor AND his shield, bumping his AC to 29. (31 if he went tower shield). And he hasn't received any buffs from his party at this point either! Sure the monk may have a +2 Wis and a +2 Dex item by this point, giving him a 24 AC; but for the same 8k gold the fighter could have a +2 Str item and use the other 4k for a +1 Nat Armor amulet and a +1 ring of prot giving him a 31 or 33 with tower shield.

Again, I know the cleric can cast some spells to give him temporary advantages, but they need to be in place, need to spend rounds prepping them, whereas the fighter is always ready to dance; and there's nothing stopping from party members from buffing the party's fighter either. I'm sure there are some instances and some combinations of feats, PrCs, spell-combos of min/maxing that would allow the monk/cleric to be higher in AC - but I fail to see a glaring disparity as you seem to indicate; and I'm not trying account for cheese factor or min/maxing in he fighter's example, either.

Robert

Liberty's Edge

Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:


What is it with you and this meta gaming thing with power attack? I haven't noticed a single person here who agrees with you about this. Maybe it is your groups problem?

It is not a problem that I have alot with my own players - but RPGA games were full of them. Trust me - I'm not making this up. Obviously my comments carry merit - the change speaks for itself.

I'll give you an example: You find out that the AC of the creature you're fighting allows you to hit so long as you don't roll a one. You have a +23 to your attack roll, and the AC is a 17, So you decide to Power Attack 8 knowing that if you roll a 2 you still hit! Not the 10 that would max out your PA that would allow you miss with the roll of a 2 or 3; but exactly 8 so you have no chance of missing (barring a roll of a 1).

Are you telling me you dont know anyone who plays that doesn't make these kinds of decisions?

Trust me - it happens. And the change eliminates that thinking, and says that you're giving the attack your all - regardless of the exact numerations in the equation.

Regardless, meta-gaming aside - I still like the speed of combat the change provokes - as some who play are challenged in math and take a while to figure out the damage each round cuz they keep changing how much they want to power attack. Personally, a perfect change for me would be for the feat to give an in inrement of X amount of penalty to your attacks, and an increment Y amount of damage. Those numbers are fixed and never chages; that way you can write down two or three amounts on your character sheet and be done with it.

Robert

Liberty's Edge

Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:

What is it with you and this meta gaming thing with power attack? I haven't noticed a single person here who agrees with you about this. Maybe it is your groups problem?

In case you're not willing to take my word for it:

Posted 6/9/08 Alpha 3

Praetor Gradivus wrote:

They didn't dumb it down as you put it (which implies they made it a simpler mechanic because we aren't smart enough to know how to use it).

What they did is prevent you from metagame thinking and figuring out the DPS of every AC and so choosing the most appropiate minus to use for the situation. Your character isn't suppose to be doing math computations while swinging his sword (though i guess you can argue that many tinker gnomes are do calculations during combat, but that's another story).

Posted 4/24/08 Alpha 2

Kirth Gersen wrote:
The new Power Attack discourages a 1-level sorcerer dip: give up BAB +1 and gain a feat and true strike 3/day, which of course you combine with a maxed-out Power Attack with a 2-handed weapon at your full BAB. At 20th level, you're +1 to attack (back up to what you would have been at Ftr 20) and +38 damage with that trick.

Posted 4/24/08 Alpha 2

Maezer wrote:


First I fully believe power attack needed to be tonned down significantly. It really was an absolute must have feat for just about any fighter worth his salt.

Second, I think having players coming to the table with a power attack chart vs. AC was a bit much. Reducing it to an on/off stage seems reasonable.

Posted 4/25/08 Alpha 2

hida_jiremi wrote:


See, what always happened with Power Attack before (in my games anyway) was that every round, the fighter would watch to see who was hitting the bad guys, then fine-tune his Power Attack to get the best margins for his expenditure. By the time combat got around to his turn, though, he would never be ready, and still doing the math to figure out the optimum amount to subtract from his attack rolls. This isn't just one guy either, this is pretty much everyone who took Power Attack in my games. The other end of that was the guy that always Power Attacked for the same amount every time, so that he never had to do math. The new version cuts out the first guy's strategy - but it's a strategy that's annoying for everyone else at the table and really doesn't make much sense from an in-game point of view anyway.

In short, I like Power Attack being a binary option: it's either on all the way, or it's off. It's simple, easy to keep track of, and makes more sense than micromanaging the numbers every round.

Jeremy Puckett

Posted 4/24/08 Alpha 2

Evil-Wizards wrote:

The idea behind the change in Pathfinder is very good - get rid of the variable bonus. I've scratched at least 2 mm of wood from our game table while the fighter's player pondered the pros and cons of a Power Attack+3 versus a Power Attack+8, then struggled (and failed over and over again) to correctly calculate his new attack bonus and damage. Appears easy enough, but hey, even easier is even better.

Posted 6/1/08 Alpha 1

nippurdelagash wrote:

Power attack, if only with "20" can hit the enemy, then use full Power attack, thats a problem.

Expertise, the limit of five is a good rule, not cause problem, then I think to use that limit in the feat Power attack is a solution to previous problem.
Please excuse my english, isn't my native languash

Posted 4/15/08 Alpha 1

Praetor Gradivus wrote:


Well, now you use the ability or you don't. No more waiting on a player as he does the math to determine what is the optimal number to use or worse yet consulting his prewritten table for 5 minutes.

Posted 4/15/08 Alpha 1

Praetor Gradivus wrote:


The answer to your question is: power gamers who are not calculating -1,+2 but rather something like this:

Assume +5BAB STR10 using Longsword vs AC15

No Power attack: 55% hit chance equates to 2.475 avg dmg (.55*4.5)
-1: 50%, 3.25 (.5*6.5)
-2: 45%, 3.825 (.45*8.5)
-3: 40%, 4.2 (.4*10.5)
-4: 35%, 4.375 (.35*12.5)
-5: 30%, 4.35 (.3*14.5)

In the above example, taking a negative 4 to hit and adding 8 to dmg gives the best average per swing so is the proper choice if your sitting doing the calculations.

Really, this is suppose to be roleplaying... not math101.
Yes, I know you need more than 10STR for power attack...just simplying the process for ease of understanding (normally you'ld have a STR bonus and magic items to figure into the equation).

I hope this helps clarify.

Robert


OK so as I said before, the fighter damage dealing, or even usefulness in any role, little along niche other than meet shield is over. OOH WELL.

So what if they meta gamed.

1. That is the GMs falt for not keeping the rolls secret.

2. Even with this full meta gaming, it is nothing compared to spells.

Liberty's Edge

Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:

OK so as I said before, the fighter damage dealing, or even usefulness in any role, little along niche other than meet shield is over. OOH WELL.

So what if they meta gamed.

1. That is the GMs falt for not keeping the rolls secret.

2. Even with this full meta gaming, it is nothing compared to spells.

Well, we've continued to go back and forth on this for a long time now - and with every attempt I make to illustrate that there are flaws in your logic when you deal with absolutes and supurlatives on each of the issues you cite, you simply transition the fault and blame to another aspect of the rules in the game. Eventually I suppose we could leaf through the entire PHB with picking apart and counter-measuring the viability of every rule present - but it's an endless cycle - if your point no longer shows valid, you just shift your arugment to accept it, but then compare it to another problem. This type of defense mechanism debating will never end.

I think at this point it's obvious you're never going to be pursuaded to think otherwise, and will simply continue to find fault with something as soon as another theory is debunked. Whether if great cleave being the problem, or monk/cleric combos being the problem, or power attack is the problem, you not agreeing that meta-gaming is an existing problem, and then meta-gaming shown that it IS existing but now its okay if it does, and now spells are the problem (though for the record, spells have been nerfed, too - save or die spells for instance have been changed to not necessarily instantly killing - just damage).

At this point I'll concede that I understand you think fighters and useless now. While I don't agree, I will agree that you feel that way. I do feel that fighters are not as "cool" as other classes in a lot of ways - something I'm working on correcting in the Think Tank Fighter thread - to at least change them for my own campaigns. But I don't think that Power Attack is necessarily the problem; though I understand you think that. When all is said and done, that one feat is not enough one way or the other to make the fighter dominant or useless as written. I feel the problem lies with the class design - not that one feat. Again, the class is what I'm working on trying to rework. But as for feats, I like the new way of Cleave/GC, and Power Attack more than the old way. Are they perfect? no. But IMO, better.

Robert


Robert Brambley wrote:
Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:

OK so as I said before, the fighter damage dealing, or even usefulness in any role, little along niche other than meet shield is over. OOH WELL.

So what if they meta gamed.

1. That is the GMs falt for not keeping the rolls secret.

2. Even with this full meta gaming, it is nothing compared to spells.

Well, we've continued to go back and forth on this for a long time now - and with every attempt I make to illustrate that there are flaws in your logic when you deal with absolutes and supurlatives on each of the issues you cite, you simply transition the fault and blame to another aspect of the rules in the game. Eventually I suppose we could leaf through the entire PHB with picking apart and counter-measuring the viability of every rule present - but it's an endless cycle - if your point no longer shows valid, you just shift your arugment to accept it, but then compare it to another problem. This type of defense mechanism debating will never end.

I think at this point it's obvious you're never going to be pursuaded to think otherwise, and will simply continue to find fault with something as soon as another theory is debunked. Whether if great cleave being the problem, or monk/cleric combos being the problem, or power attack is the problem, you not agreeing that meta-gaming is an existing problem, and then meta-gaming shown that it IS existing but now its okay if it does, and now spells are the problem (though for the record, spells have been nerfed, too - save or die spells for instance have been changed to not necessarily instantly killing - just damage).

At this point I'll concede that I understand you think fighters and useless now. While I don't agree, I will agree that you feel that way. I do feel that fighters are not as "cool" as other classes in a lot of ways - something I'm working on correcting in the Think Tank Fighter thread - to at least change them for my own campaigns. But I don't think that Power Attack is necessarily the problem; though I...

OK I will try and talk about this again.

You can not eliminate magic items, because in a lot of high level games all items are possible. Magic items are as much a part of the game as the next.

A monk 1/Cleric 19
Str 10
Dex 14 +6 gloves + 4 book = 24: mod +7 AC
Con 12
Int 14
Wis 16 +5 leveling +6 Periapt +5 books = 32: mod 11
Cha 10

AC 10 base
Dex: +7
Monk (wis): +11
Bracers of Armor: +8 Armor & +5 armor enhancement
Robe, Monk’s +1
Total possible AC: 42

A Fighter 20
Str 12
Dex 16 +5 leveling +5 book, +6 gloves = 32: mod 11
Con 14
Int 14
Wis 10
Cha 10

AC Base 10
Dex: 11
Class: +4 AC
Mithral Breast Plate Armor: +5 enhancment +5, nimblness +1
Heavy Shield: +2 enhancment +5
Total possible AC: 42

So yes after everything is over a fighter wins out on items due to cost, but then you add in the spells, which a lot only apply to the caster... the lonely fighter loses. Feats are a moot factor to the best of my knowledge as not only can they apply to both, but those that I have found do very little comparied to spells, and are not core for the ones that only apply to fighters/heavy armor use.

Please tell me if I missed anything.

Now I will try my best to listen. OK?

Liberty's Edge

Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:

A monk 1/Cleric 19

Str 10
Dex 14 +6 gloves + 4 book = 24: mod +7 AC
Con 12
Int 14
Wis 16 +5 leveling +6 Periapt +5 books = 32: mod 11
Cha 10

AC 10 base
Dex: +7
Monk (wis): +11
Bracers of Armor: +8 Armor & +5 armor enhancement
defending sword +5
Total possible AC: 46

So yes after everything is over a fighter wins out on items due to cost, but then you add in the spells, which a lot only apply to the caster... the lonely fighter loses. Feats are a moot factor to the best of my knowledge as not only can they apply to both, but those that I have found do very little comparied to spells, and are not core.

Where's the monk getting the +5 armor enhancement - monks can't wear armor.

Lets go Mithril Full Plate, and only a 16 Dex - no sense in creating a nearly never played version of a fighter with a 32 DEX (rogue I can understand).
Mithril Full +5 (13) Tower Shield +5 (9); Defending Weapon +5, Nat Armor +5, Ring of Prot +5, Class Adj, +4 DEX: +3 AC: 54

I noticed you had no natural armor bonus or ring of protection - both could benefit from that at +5 a piece. we'll say for arguement sake that since the cleric in your example already spent more money than that fighter - we'll leave the natural armor bonus at only +4 for the cleric to even things up., giving your cleric 42 - 5 for the erroneous armor enhancement bonus, + 9 for amulet and ring - total: 46!

Fighter with an 8 pt advantage.

But after that - what spell can a cleric cast to increase his armor class?

Shield of faith, Prot from evil both give deflection bonus, already have that with the ring of protection,
Magical Vestment only affect armor or shields - monks can't wear either. Righteous Might gives enhancement to natural armor and wont stack with the necklace, Cloak of Chaos/Shield of Law doesn't stack with ring of protection,

I just went through every spell in the PHB that offers bonuses to AC and none of them helps this character. With the removal of the erroneous +5 armor enhancement, and the ability to spend more on natural armor, that swings the Fighters way at +8. Plus the 20th fighter has a DR of 5, and every attack made with his weapon is considered a critical hit! Try making a concentration check with a x3 critical damage greataxe with power attack applied!

How can you say feats are not core? They are the essential core aspect of character building in 3rd edition mechanics and are as core it gets. If you're going to use spells in your illustration (which are the clerics main class feature), then feats are definitely applicable - as they are the fighters main class feature!

After all is said and done - the fighter now has a significant advantage on his attack rolls, in the neighborhood of about +12 (BAB plus higher str, plus +4 weapon training) allowing him to fight defensively, and/or use combat expertise and jack his AC up by another 4-6 points and STILL have a better to hit adjustment to his attacks (not to mention one extra attack each round). And because he has a bunch of extra feats that the cleric cant to diversify his enough, the fighter most like likely has Dodge giving him a +9 advantage now before combat expertise or fighting defensive is even figured into it- now the AC difference is about +15 in the fighters favor.

Finally i want to point out that this is a SINGLE class fighter vs a min/max suped up version of a cleric who took a level of Monk ONLY for AC purposes from Wisdom! I'm sure if I were so inclined I could find a min/maxed version of a fighter to trump this even more, but i'm happy with a +15 advantage at this point.

Once again, I'm not saying a fighter is more powerful, nor the cat's meow - but I fail to see the degree of disparity you do.

Robert


Robert Brambley wrote:
Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:

A monk 1/Cleric 19

Str 10
Dex 14 +6 gloves + 4 book = 24: mod +7 AC
Con 12
Int 14
Wis 16 +5 leveling +6 Periapt +5 books = 32: mod 11
Cha 10

AC 10 base
Dex: +7
Monk (wis): +11
Bracers of Armor: +8 Armor & +5 armor enhancement
defending sword +5
Total possible AC: 46

So yes after everything is over a fighter wins out on items due to cost, but then you add in the spells, which a lot only apply to the caster... the lonely fighter loses. Feats are a moot factor to the best of my knowledge as not only can they apply to both, but those that I have found do very little comparied to spells, and are not core.

Where's the monk getting the +5 armor enhancement - monks can't wear armor.

Lets go Mithril Full Plate, and only a 16 Dex - no sense in creating a nearly never played version of a fighter with a 32 DEX (rogue I can understand).
Mithril Full +5 (13) Tower Shield +5 (9); Defending Weapon +5, Nat Armor +5, Ring of Prot +5, Class Adj, +4 DEX: +3 AC: 54

I noticed you had no natural armor bonus or ring of protection - both could benefit from that at +5 a piece. we'll say for arguement sake that since the cleric in your example already spent more money than that fighter - we'll leave the natural armor bonus at only +4 for the cleric to even things up., giving your cleric 42 - 5 for the erroneous armor enhancement bonus, + 9 for amulet and ring - total: 46!

Fighter with an 8 pt advantage.

But after that - what spell can a cleric cast to increase his armor class?

Shield of faith, Prot from evil both give deflection bonus, already have that with the ring of protection,
Magical Vestment only affect armor or shields - monks can't wear either. Righteous Might gives enhancement to natural armor and wont stack with the necklace, Cloak of Chaos/Shield of Law doesn't stack with ring of protection,

I just went through every spell in the PHB that offers bonuses to AC and none of them helps this character. With the removal of the...

Sorry I noticed a lot of mistakes, and have recently corrected them.


Robert Brambley wrote:


Where's the monk getting the +5 armor enhancement - monks can't wear armor.

Lets go Mithril Full Plate, and only a 16 Dex - no sense in creating a nearly never played version of a fighter with a 32 DEX (rogue I can understand).
Mithril Full +5 (13) Tower Shield +5 (9); Defending Weapon +5, Nat Armor +5, Ring of Prot +5, Class Adj, +4 DEX: +3 AC: 54

I am trying to look at maximum bonuses, trying to not deal with min/max diverges from the point of this discussion.

SO only dealing with the bonuses that a monk and fighter can get will simplify things.

(using the stats I used above)
Fighter Only
+5 Mithral Full pate: 8, +4 (class), Dex (26) +8 mod max
+5 Shield Heavy: 2
About everything else if I am not mistake that a fighter can get, so can a monk/cleric.
Total: 25

Monk/cleric Only
Bracers of armor 8
Monk's Robe +1
Wis: 11
Dex: 7
+5 Defending blade (they have an extra hand comparied to only having 1, and can make it dancing)

Enhancement bonuses have not been counted, and Bracers of armor could count as armor so they could get +5 enhancement bonus, but this is debatable, ether way there is magic vestments, I will explane below.

Robert Brambley wrote:

I noticed you had no natural armor bonus or ring of protection - both could benefit from that at +5 a piece. we'll say for arguement sake that since the cleric in your example already spent more money than that fighter - we'll leave the natural armor bonus at only +4 for the cleric to even things up., giving your cleric 42 - 5 for the erroneous armor enhancement bonus, + 9 for amulet and ring - total: 46!

Fighter with an 8 pt advantage.

Again, we are min/maxing to get the full feel of the limits here. I tried and failed above to only list the bonus that only 1 could get to make things simple, and easy to compare.

Also you spoke about some point buy system? Did I miss this some where?

Robert Brambley wrote:

But after that - what spell can a cleric cast to increase his armor class?

Shield of faith, Prot from evil both give deflection bonus, already have that with the ring of protection,
Magical Vestment only affect armor or shields - monks can't wear either. Righteous Might gives enhancement to natural armor and wont stack with the necklace, Cloak of Chaos/Shield of Law doesn't stack with ring of protection,

I just went through every spell in the PHB that offers bonuses to AC and none of them helps this character. With the removal of the erroneous +5 armor enhancement, and the ability to spend more on natural armor, that swings the Fighters way at +8. Plus the 20th fighter has a DR of 5, and every attack made with his weapon is considered a critical hit! Try making a concentration check with a x3 critical damage greataxe with power attack applied!

Magic Vestments can be applied to clothing

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/magicVestment.htm

"An outfit of regular clothing counts as armor that grants no AC bonus for the purpose of this spell."

Robert Brambley wrote:
How can you say feats are not core? They are the essential core aspect of character building in 3rd edition mechanics and are as core it gets. If you're going to use spells in your illustration (which are the clerics main class feature), then feats are definitely applicable - as they are the fighters main class feature!

I had misspoken, I meant that only the ones that helped heavy armor were non core, my mistake sorry.

Robert Brambley wrote:

After all is said and done - the fighter now has a significant advantage on his attack rolls, in the neighborhood of about +12 (BAB plus higher str, plus +4 weapon training) allowing him to fight defensively, and/or use combat expertise and jack his AC up by another 4-6 points and STILL have a better to hit adjustment to his attacks (not to mention one extra attack each round). And because he has a bunch of extra feats that the cleric cant to diversify his enough, the fighter most like likely has Dodge giving him a +9 advantage now before combat expertise or fighting defensive is even figured into it- now the AC difference is about +15 in the fighters favor.

Finally i want to point out that this is a SINGLE class fighter vs a min/max suped up version of a cleric who took a level of Monk ONLY for AC purposes from Wisdom! I'm sure if I were so inclined I could find a min/maxed version of a fighter to trump this even more, but i'm happy with a +15 advantage at this point.

Once again, I'm not saying a fighter is more powerful, nor the cat's meow - but I fail to see the degree of disparity you do.

Robert

Yes the fighter at high levels is much better than it was. I have learned a lot about the new fighter here, that I had over looked. As for the 15DR/-, there are probably a number of spell, as I don't know cleric spells all that well, that give other types of defense, but we are talking about AC here.

Liberty's Edge

Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:
Yes the fighter at high levels is much better than it was. I have learned a lot about the new fighter here, that I had over looked. As for the 15DR/-, there are probably a number of spell, as I don't know cleric spells all that well, that give other types of defense, but we are talking about AC here.

I think in summation - after all these pages of text we can both agree that both classes have their strengths and when done well, they are both quite capable.

I'll admit that power attack is nerfed.

But wizard spells were nerfed (save or dies removed).

Cleric spells were nerfed - in that they no longer get an extra spell slot to memorize each level for domain spells.

So all in all, the classes are quite balanced.

All I have been doing is adding more flavor to the fighters and adding more technique diversity and unique abilities that only fighters can have.

The talents are for the most part no more powerful than the feats they'd be replacing - they're just more specific to a type of fighter and thus allows someone with a particular fighter build in mind to be able to add the abilities such a fighter could do.

I think ultimately the fighter was just the most blah and needed some pep - and was behind the curve a little in tricks and abilities - but I have illustrated that from a sheer mechanics standpoint, they can still be hard to handle in a straight up numbers to numbers fight.

Take a look at the Think Tank Fighters thread for what I'm talking about.

Robert


Robert Brambley wrote:
Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:
Yes the fighter at high levels is much better than it was. I have learned a lot about the new fighter here, that I had over looked. As for the 15DR/-, there are probably a number of spell, as I don't know cleric spells all that well, that give other types of defense, but we are talking about AC here.

I think in summation - after all these pages of text we can both agree that both classes have their strengths and when done well, they are both quite capable.

I'll admit that power attack is nerfed.

But wizard spells were nerfed (save or dies removed).

Cleric spells were nerfed - in that they no longer get an extra spell slot to memorize each level for domain spells.

So all in all, the classes are quite balanced.

All I have been doing is adding more flavor to the fighters and adding more technique diversity and unique abilities that only fighters can have.

The talents are for the most part no more powerful than the feats they'd be replacing - they're just more specific to a type of fighter and thus allows someone with a particular fighter build in mind to be able to add the abilities such a fighter could do.

I think ultimately the fighter was just the most blah and needed some pep - and was behind the curve a little in tricks and abilities - but I have illustrated that from a sheer mechanics standpoint, they can still be hard to handle in a straight up numbers to numbers fight.

Take a look at the Think Tank Fighters thread for what I'm talking about.

Robert

What about the barbarian, yeah they got a few new tricks, but the collectavly get a reduction in amount of rage they can do, and now they don't have their sacred feat, power attack to get them what they need to do, and kill things. Grant it their new abilities look neet, but why can't they kill things as effectively any more.


hmmmm... I think that a high level mage or cleric with preparation can be hellishly difficult to deal with. As was always the case, even a lowly command spell or hold person could be the fighters bane.I think however that fighters make up for it by being able to have more tricks up their sleeves than classes not so blessed in feats can have. A few examples.
1. Improved trip. Monks may have it but fighters are still stronger usually and have a better to hit roll.
2. Improved initiative. Lots of people have it I know but that is their one trick, fighters can combine it with run and improved bullrush or overun by 2nd level if they are human.
3. Spring attack and mobility and run. "Oh look the fighter just thumped our cleric or mage like you wouldn't believe."
Hell, pick any four combat feats you like. For a fighter they represent 3 or 4 levels. For any other class they represent 12 levels and that is only if they don't want any cool class-specific feats.

Fighters are a little dull by comparison but I think it is a lot in the way that you play them.

My only other questions are why bother with backswing or overhand blow? Surely you achieve the same thing with cleave or great cleave for better damage?
Is whirlwind attack really that much better than cleave?


Patrick Moody wrote:

hmmmm... I think that a high level mage or cleric with preparation can be hellishly difficult to deal with. As was always the case, even a lowly command spell or hold person could be the fighters bane.I think however that fighters make up for it by being able to have more tricks up their sleeves than classes not so blessed in feats can have. A few examples.

1. Improved trip. Monks may have it but fighters are still stronger usually and have a better to hit roll.
2. Improved initiative. Lots of people have it I know but that is their one trick, fighters can combine it with run and improved bullrush or overun by 2nd level if they are human.
3. Spring attack and mobility and run. "Oh look the fighter just thumped our cleric or mage like you wouldn't believe."
Hell, pick any four combat feats you like. For a fighter they represent 3 or 4 levels. For any other class they represent 12 levels and that is only if they don't want any cool class-specific feats.

Fighters are a little dull by comparison but I think it is a lot in the way that you play them.

My only other questions are why bother with backswing or overhand blow? Surely you achieve the same thing with cleave or great cleave for better damage?
Is whirlwind attack really that much better than cleave?

Have you read the new cleave and great cleave, while I remain natural on cleave, great cleave was beat ugly with the nerf stick! It is an under powered whirlwind attack. It was hardly taken in almost every game I have been in, but not it is useless.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Cleave used to be balanced. It kicked in whenever you killed someone and gave you a free attack, no strings attached.

Great Cleave was never balanced. Occassionally, some magical or class-based bonus makes your attack essentially an auto-kill, and with Great Cleave you could use that to ax everyone within sight. That didn't happen often enough to make it worthwhile though (even if it was pretty fun).

Alpha 3 Cleave is okay, except that the requirement that your enemies stand side by side is way way too harsh. One 5-foot step from a canny enemy and your tactic goes out the window.
IF they fixed that Alpha 3 Cleave would be balanced. I would still like the old Cleave a lot better. 3.5 Cleave does something different and interesting rather than mimicing Whirlwind.

Alpha 3 Cleave is a joke.

Whirlwind would be balanced if its prerequisites weren't so harsh. But the fact that it doesn't even stack with two of them (Mobility and Spring Attack- since you can't move while whirlwinding anyway) essentially makes them wasted feats, meaning you pay more than one feat slot to get Whirlwind. And it isn't worth that much.
If it stacked with its prerequisites (i.e. you could whirlwind durring a spring attack) then we'd be in business. Likewise, if it didn't require Spring Attack (perhaps just imposing a harsh BAB requirement), it would see more use among high level fighters.
In otherwords, good and balanced feat, but too hard to get into.

CMB-wise, I am of a mind that a fighter SHOULDN'T be able to bullrush a giant very easily. The +25% defender's advantage still seems very unnecessary to me though, especially considering that the defender still gets an AoO (unless the attacker has paid his feat to negate it).

My two cents.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:
What about the barbarian, yeah they got a few new tricks, but the collectavly get a reduction in amount of rage they can do...

Where did you get that idea?

My friend and I were goofing off talking about the new rules the other day and figured out that a 20th level barbarian with a half-decent con can rage for 20 minutes straight.

If they run out of rage at all, it is because they spent all their rage points doing awesome things like auto-confirming crits, making free attacks, charging their ax to deal fire damage or gnawing on their enemies.


Hydro wrote:
Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:
What about the barbarian, yeah they got a few new tricks, but the collectavly get a reduction in amount of rage they can do...

Where did you get that idea?

My friend and I were goofing off talking about the new rules the other day and figured out that a 20th level barbarian with a half-decent con can rage for 20 minutes straight.

If they run out of rage at all, it is because they spent all their rage points doing awesome things like auto-confirming crits, making free attacks, charging their ax to deal fire damage or gnawing on their enemies.

Comparing Alpha Barbarian to 3.5 Barbarian

That is where I got the idea.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:
Hydro wrote:
Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:
What about the barbarian, yeah they got a few new tricks, but the collectavly get a reduction in amount of rage they can do...

Where did you get that idea?

My friend and I were goofing off talking about the new rules the other day and figured out that a 20th level barbarian with a half-decent con can rage for 20 minutes straight.

If they run out of rage at all, it is because they spent all their rage points doing awesome things like auto-confirming crits, making free attacks, charging their ax to deal fire damage or gnawing on their enemies.

Comparing Alpha Barbarian to 3.5 Barbarian

That is where I got the idea.

Ahh yes, I see now. Because the Alpha 3 barbarian doesn't get Mighty Rage for free; 1 round of it is equivilent to 4 rounds of normal rage.

But that's only at level 20, when he gets Mighty Rage.

Question. Have you ever seen a level 20 barbarian with a 16 constitution?
I've seen a 26 (16 base, belt +6, tome +4), but even that's a little wimpy. And that point, the Alpha 3 barbarian is raging for 50 rounds, even with Mighty Rage.

Furthermore, many of the 3.5's rounds of rage will be wasted, because the fight ends before his rage runs out. The 3.5 barbarian is only good for "the whole fight, 6 fights a day", whereas the Alpha 3 barbarian could easily stretch his rage over 10 or more encounters and still be raging every round of every one of them. Again, without droping out of the (very costly) mighty rage.
Conversely, if we're talking about one long encounter... well, the 3.5 barb can't rage consecutively, so he still loses.

To say that the 3.5 barbarian "can do more rage" is... a little inaccurate.


Hydro wrote:
Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:
Hydro wrote:
Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:
What about the barbarian, yeah they got a few new tricks, but the collectavly get a reduction in amount of rage they can do...

Where did you get that idea?

My friend and I were goofing off talking about the new rules the other day and figured out that a 20th level barbarian with a half-decent con can rage for 20 minutes straight.

If they run out of rage at all, it is because they spent all their rage points doing awesome things like auto-confirming crits, making free attacks, charging their ax to deal fire damage or gnawing on their enemies.

Comparing Alpha Barbarian to 3.5 Barbarian

That is where I got the idea.

Ahh yes, I see now. Because the Alpha 3 barbarian doesn't get Mighty Rage for free; 1 round of it is equivilent to 4 rounds of normal rage.

But that's only at level 20, when he gets Mighty Rage.

Question. Have you ever seen a level 20 barbarian with a 16 constitution?
I've seen a 26 (16 base, belt +6, tome +4), but even that's a little wimpy. And that point, the Alpha 3 barbarian is raging for 50 rounds, even with Mighty Rage.

Furthermore, many of the 3.5's rounds of rage will be wasted, because the fight ends before his rage runs out. The 3.5 barbarian is only good for "the whole fight, 6 fights a day", whereas the Alpha 3 barbarian could easily stretch his rage over 10 or more encounters and still be raging every round of every one of them. Again, without droping out of the (very costly) mighty rage.
Conversely, if we're talking about one long encounter... well, the 3.5 barb can't rage consecutively, so he still loses.

To say that the 3.5 barbarian "can do more rage" is... a little inaccurate.

Wouldn't it be perpetual to both and the actual con be irrelevant? So as one would get a longer rage, so would the other get more rage points, still keeping that same gap?

P.S. However I see your point about the non wasted rounds, which is a nice balancing factor.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Almost, not quite. The 3.5 barbarian adds his Con score 6 times, the Alpha 3 barbarian adds it 20 times (once at every level).

More importantly, an Alpha 3 barb can just 'idle' in Greater Rage mode (2 point/round, +6), only entering Mighty Rage (4 points for +8) when it really counts.

Yea, it's a lot of math, but playing in Iron Heroes and slightly complex homebrew setups I've gotten used to this. I consider the rage bonuses a round-by-round bonus; they get written in in pencil, or even just added up on the fly, just like flanking bonuses, aid another bonuses, bonuses from Smite Evil or similar elective powers, etc.

Scarab Sages

Estrosiath wrote:


Ah, also CMB... Well. I understand wanting to simply the mechanics, and I definitely salute the effort, but did they playtest it?

I did a quick check... Tried to pitch a plain fire giant (CR 10) against a human level 10 fighter (who started with 18 strength, put two points in strength at level ups, and owns a +4 to strength item, and has one of the improved xxx feats).
CMB of the fighter: 19.
DC to do anything to the giant: 37 (15 base + 11 BAB + 10 strength + 1 size)

i was about to post on this so will make my case here.

Yep you got it no one would ever use any CMB in my game, i been using this in my 3.5 game and what we did was simple. Made it a opp rolls. So there is a random element to it, so each combatant rolls 1d20+str+bab, higher wins. We also changed trip to use dex not str(yes i know there are cases where str is better but we liked dex for trips cause even a 90 lbs women can throw a 200 lbs men with right training.) Works GREAT, can even use it for things like jumpping from horses to tack guys, trying to trip someone over table, i use it for any trick PCs try to use in combat.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Steven Hume wrote:
Estrosiath wrote:


Ah, also CMB... Well. I understand wanting to simply the mechanics, and I definitely salute the effort, but did they playtest it?

I did a quick check... Tried to pitch a plain fire giant (CR 10) against a human level 10 fighter (who started with 18 strength, put two points in strength at level ups, and owns a +4 to strength item, and has one of the improved xxx feats).
CMB of the fighter: 19.
DC to do anything to the giant: 37 (15 base + 11 BAB + 10 strength + 1 size)

i was about to post on this so will make my case here.

Yep you got it no one would ever use any CMB in my game, i been using this in my 3.5 game and what we did was simple. Made it a opp rolls. So there is a random element to it, so each combatant rolls 1d20+str+bab, higher wins. We also changed trip to use dex not str(yes i know there are cases where str is better but we liked dex for trips cause even a 90 lbs women can throw a 200 lbs men with right training.) Works GREAT, can even use it for things like jumpping from horses to tack guys, trying to trip someone over table, i use it for any trick PCs try to use in combat.

I said it above, but using the ogre is a horrible example.

A fighter of appropriate level should have only a marginal chance of tripping, grappling or bullrushing a freaking fire giant. Calculate the fighter's chances of tripping (and prison beating) a 10th level wizard, then come back.

I think the new rules are unnecessarially slanted towards the defender but they're by no means unusable.

Scarab Sages

Hydro wrote:
Steven Hume wrote:
Estrosiath wrote:


Ah, also CMB... Well. I understand wanting to simply the mechanics, and I definitely salute the effort, but did they playtest it?

I did a quick check... Tried to pitch a plain fire giant (CR 10) against a human level 10 fighter (who started with 18 strength, put two points in strength at level ups, and owns a +4 to strength item, and has one of the improved xxx feats).
CMB of the fighter: 19.
DC to do anything to the giant: 37 (15 base + 11 BAB + 10 strength + 1 size)

i was about to post on this so will make my case here.

Yep you got it no one would ever use any CMB in my game, i been using this in my 3.5 game and what we did was simple. Made it a opp rolls. So there is a random element to it, so each combatant rolls 1d20+str+bab, higher wins. We also changed trip to use dex not str(yes i know there are cases where str is better but we liked dex for trips cause even a 90 lbs women can throw a 200 lbs men with right training.) Works GREAT, can even use it for things like jumpping from horses to tack guys, trying to trip someone over table, i use it for any trick PCs try to use in combat.

I said it above, but using the ogre is a horrible example.

A fighter of appropriate level should have only a marginal chance of tripping, grappling or bullrushing a freaking fire giant. Calculate the fighter's chances of tripping (and prison beating) a 10th level wizard, then come back.

I think the new rules are unnecessarially slanted towards the defender but they're by no means unusable.

it does mean that 2 fighters square off and start to use CMBs, the defended automatic rolls a 15 always while the attacker has to roll a 1d20 and will only win 1 in 4 times, so why not just attack u got a better chance? changing it to each rolls a d20 gives the chance that a lowly fighter can beat a higher lvl one, but not that often.


I think some people just don't get how much more vast the new language and rules in cleave and great cleave make them.

Both worked more uniquely with how they were.

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't they make cleave and great cleave into a full round action? Does this not eliminate your ability to charge to get use out of them? How does that make sense?

Second, now both/all targets have to be right flipping next to each other; making the likely of using them even less possible.


Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't they make cleave and great cleave into a full round action? Does this not eliminate your ability to charge to get use out of them? How does that make sense?

Second, now both/all targets have to be right flipping next to each other; making the likely of using them even less possible.

I do think some of the feats in a feat tree should overlap. It would make things work well for the fighter.e.g. dodge, and mobility as one example. With only dodge you have a +1 to armour class, when you get better at it theoretically by advancing up the skill tree then although you are immune to attacks of opportunity you are worse at dodging!!! I suppose it is to avoid being able to charge into the middle of a combat with your spring attack, +1 to AC and no attacks of opportunity and then launching your whirlwind attack. Although perhaps as I fighter you should be able to do that.

Another example is dazzling display and stunning defence. YOu can do this terrific display that intimidates everyone but by the time you can do stunning defence they have all recovered from their intimidation and are no longer intimidated if you didn't win initiative.

I don't think it would overpower the game too much depending on what skill trees you layered.


Robert Brambley wrote:
Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:

What is it with you and this meta gaming thing with power attack? I haven't noticed a single person here who agrees with you about this. Maybe it is your groups problem?

In case you're not willing to take my word for it:

Posted 6/9/08 Alpha 3

Praetor Gradivus wrote:

They didn't dumb it down as you put it (which implies they made it a simpler mechanic because we aren't smart enough to know how to use it).

What they did is prevent you from metagame thinking and figuring out the DPS of every AC and so choosing the most appropiate minus to use for the situation. Your character isn't suppose to be doing math computations while swinging his sword (though i guess you can argue that many tinker gnomes are do calculations during combat, but that's another story).

Posted 4/24/08 Alpha 2

Kirth Gersen wrote:
The new Power Attack discourages a 1-level sorcerer dip: give up BAB +1 and gain a feat and true strike 3/day, which of course you combine with a maxed-out Power Attack with a 2-handed weapon at your full BAB. At 20th level, you're +1 to attack (back up to what you would have been at Ftr 20) and +38 damage with that trick.

Posted 4/24/08 Alpha 2

Maezer wrote:


First I fully believe power attack needed to be tonned down significantly. It really was an absolute must have feat for just about any fighter worth his salt.

Second, I think having players coming to the table with a power attack chart vs. AC was a bit much. Reducing it to an on/off stage seems reasonable.

Posted 4/25/08 Alpha 2

hida_jiremi wrote:


See, what always happened with Power Attack before (in my games anyway) was that every round, the fighter would watch to see who was hitting the bad guys, then fine-tune his Power Attack to get the best margins for his expenditure. By the time combat got around to his turn, though, he would never be ready, and still doing the math to figure out the optimum amount to subtract from his...

You mean fighters are sizing up thier oponents in your game and strategicly considering how much accuracy to trade for damage rather then going "Ugh.. i are am hav a tuu handy swords.. Me are the killiest.. " Well damn them right to hades..

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / Alpha Playtest Feedback / Alpha Release 3 / Skills & Feats / Cleave, Great Cleave, CMB and Expertise All Messageboards
Recent threads in Skills & Feats