NOOOOOO Cleave has changed! Hmmmmm, but is it better?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 82 of 82 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies, Representative - D20 Hobbies

Weylin wrote:
times I miss the "taking goblin road" jokes from 3.0

I never did and I never will miss any jokes of that type. That is the part of the game I have always hated. The ridiculous interpretations and the insane "by RAW" broken trash.

Pazio has done a lot (in my mind) to correct many of these issues.


With thanks and respect to the designers for their replies (so cool to have ongoing boards input from them!), I think there is a range of attack action terminology which it would be useful to have clarified here, and which Vital Strike highlights:

Issue 1: Vital Strike runs off 'attack action'. I'm not sure this is used anywhere else in Pathfinder. In 3.5 I recall divergent readings of grapple re what you could do with 'an attack' if you had multiples, but Pathfinder has cleaned that up. It has introduced Vital Strike as an 'attack action', though. Simplest thing? If you want it to be a standard action, reword it as standard action. Lose 'attack action' altogether. It's confusing.

(nb: personally I'm allowing VS 'once each round'. Want to use it once on a full attack, charge, spring attack? Fine, not overpowered if you lose 1+ iteratives, as per the Beta. Want to use it on an AoO? Go for it - but it's still only once per round. Also simple, I reckon.)

Issue 2: Full Round Attacks: charge, full attack, spring attack, shot on the run: what kind of attack is carried out within each of these? If it isn't a standard (and I don't think it is), then it would be great to have that spelt out. Even better would be to have a definition of what kind of attack it then is...more on which below.

Issue 3: Standard Attacks: can you use more than one 'standard attack' feat on a single standard attack? I know not, but it isn't clear. As a separate point, in a complete definition of attack types, it would become clearer that standard attacks aren't the defeault. They only normally occur when you move and attack. Attacks of Opportunity, Full Attacks, charges, spring attacks and shots on the run are using other kinds of attack action...which it would be excellent to have defined.

Issue 4: Attacks of Opportunity: clearly these aren't standard action attacks (otherwise you would lose your standard elsewhere). So by the PF RAI you can't use standard action feats (including VS, since that's basically how you've got it), or combat maneuevers. That's fine, but again, it's not entirely clear. It would be clear if the type of attack action involved in an AoO was defined.

The upshot is that it would be marvellous to have clear definitions of three types of attack action: (1) the standard attack; this is clear, in fact, if the VS reference to 'attack action' is changed to 'standard'; (2) the much quicker attack involved in an AoO; (3) the attack action, also rapid, involved in a full attack, charge, spring attack or shot on the run.

Does that make sense? Hope so.

I don't have a precise definition for (3). I would suggest something like this for (2):

* Immediate Attack Action:

"An Attack of Opportunity is an Immediate Attack Action. This is a special type of Immediate Action. Like an Immediate Action, an Immediate Attack can be taken out of turn and takes up less time than a Move Action or Standard Action. Like an Immediate Action, an Immediate Attack cannot be made more than once per round unless a feat, spell or other special ability allows you to do otherwise. By default, you can make one Immediate Action and one Immediate Attack each round. You cannot take a non-attack action during an Immediate Attack, nor can you use any attack option that requires a Standard Action."

By this logic, the definition for (3) might be a special type of Swift attack action, one which the Full Attack option allows to be executed more than once per round.

Anyway, point is, the Vital Strike unclarity is actually part of a larger muddiness with attack actions. Clear it all up and we'll all love ya. :)


James Risner wrote:
Weylin wrote:
times I miss the "taking goblin road" jokes from 3.0

I never did and I never will miss any jokes of that type. That is the part of the game I have always hated. The ridiculous interpretations and the insane "by RAW" broken trash.

Pazio has done a lot (in my mind) to correct many of these issues.

I miss the jokes not the reasons for them. Honestly, I think in large that Paizo has corrected most of the problems in D&D 3.0/3.5. I like the changes to races, classes, monsters, monsters as pc, spells (especially the spells), magic item creation.

BUt humor around rules errors and rules loopholes has alwys been part of gaming to me...now I need to find those all over again in Pathfinder RPG :)

-Weylin


Addendum:

Alternatively, charge, Spring Attack and Shot on the Run could contain standard attack actions. I quite like this, but given Jason's recent comments on Vital Strike that isn't the intention.

(ie Vital Strike is an attack action, which equals a standard action, and this can't be used on a charge, which is a special full round attack action. If a charge doesn't contain a standard attack, then other special full round attacks, like spring and shot-on-the-run, probably don't either - though this isn't clear, because the attack action types in many of these cases have never been clearly defined).

Personally, I'd be all for charge/spring/shot on the run containing standard attacks. I think the more dynamic and movement-rich combat becomes the more exciting it is, and so the more decent alternatives there are to full attacking the better.


James Risner wrote:
voska66 wrote:
We've been playing that an "attack action" is any action that allows you to attack. To us that's what we though it meant. Simple as that.
"Attack Action" is a Standard Action and not "any action that provides an attack."

I know that. Just saying it wasn't that clear at the start and we took it as any attack. It worked well so we so no reason to change it. But again that's house rule in our game.


Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Hey there everybody,

Let me see if I can clean this up a bit.

Cleave is a standard action, which means you can use it anytime you can take a standard action. It cannot be used as part of a full-attack action, which is a full round action. You cannot use Cleave as part of a charge, since that is a special full-round action (partial charge not withstanding). The same applies to Great Cleave.

Vital Strike can be used in place of an attack action. This means that whenever you take an attack action, you can use Vital Strike instead. An attack action is a type of standard action. While this is nearly identical to Cleave, there are a few subtle differences. Anything that applies to an attack action would apply to a Vital Strike attack, whereas it would not, necessarily, apply to Cleave. The two feats cannot be used in conjunction.

I am not sure that answers all the questions here.. but I will check back later to see if there is anything I have missed.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

I have a request that may clear some of the confusion up. Could you give us some examples of things that would apply with vital strike but wouldn't apply to cleave? Maybe seeing it from a different perspective will make it more clear.


Until further errata, I'm going to interpret Spring Attack as allowing you to take a melee Attack Action at any point during your Move Action. So, no cleaves or deadly strokes that are their own type of Standard Action, but okay on vital strikes or sunders or other abilities that modify an Attack Action or an attack.

I'm thinking about house ruling the Spring Attack feat further. As modified above, but adding that if the character also has Point Blank Shot, they can choose to take a ranged Attack Action instead (I'm okay with skirmishing archers being able to VS on the run), and/or if they also have Combat Casting to take a Cast A Spell Action instead. Only one feat for the 3 mobility options makes sense to me.


Christopher Vrysen wrote:

Until further errata, I'm going to interpret Spring Attack as allowing you to take a melee Attack Action at any point during your Move Action. So, no cleaves or deadly strokes that are their own type of Standard Action, but okay on vital strikes or sunders or other abilities that modify an Attack Action or an attack.

I'm thinking about house ruling the Spring Attack feat further. As modified above, but adding that if the character also has Point Blank Shot, they can choose to take a ranged Attack Action instead (I'm okay with skirmishing archers being able to VS on the run), and/or if they also have Combat Casting to take a Cast A Spell Action instead. Only one feat for the 3 mobility options makes sense to me.

Instead of letting them get double duty out of one feat (spring attack) I would probably just houserule that shot on the run could be combined with VS if that's what you want to do. That's probably what I'll be doing. It's a single attack, getting an extra d8 isn't game breaking and it makes the feat option useful for something other than heavy crossbow sniper.


That works too, thanks.


I like the flavor of Cleave in 3.5 because of the concept of the word "cleave." The word means to sever, like a cleaver. So, in 3.5, if you can picture it: you attack and you happen to put so much force in, that you split the nazi in twain and hit the next guy: such imagery. Greater Cleave lets you, in one blow, slice through a line of d-bags. However, if you don't do enough damage to drop one of them your weapon gots stuck in the next one and you can't continue. Now that's worth closing your eyes and picturing. I prefer Pathfinder, don't get me wrong, but the new Cleave is just a tactical version of it, with a balance of -2 to AC. Since you have to declare it, it's giving up one aspect to hit harder in another. There is a feat for that: Power Attack. They are different, tactically, but story wise they are the same. With the mook splitting flavor of 3.5 cleave, it is very different.

When I was considering taking cleave (up till this point I assumed it was going to be the same) I read it and was surprised of the change since it didn't fit its name. So I checked two of the Pathfinder forums on it and they both talked about the tactical aspects of it. I am surprised that so many people only care about the tactical side and not the storytelling side of it. I love a good, balanced fight as much as the next guy, but if you are playing for tactics only D&D 4 is focused on it.

What do you guys think would be the ramification if I kept it the same as 3.5?


Drako "The Merciful" wrote:
What do you guys think would be the ramification if I kept it the same as 3.5?

Probably not a whole lot


3 people marked this as a favorite.

If anyone disagree's with you you, simply destroy them with your army of skeletons..... See what I did there hehe.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Holy Cow, four years necro? Now thats what I call true ressurection!

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's a Miracle!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dieben wrote:
It's a Miracle!

Maybe a Wish.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Maybe both.
BTW, I like necro threads.

@Drako "The Merciful": Kudos :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

By the way, how much experience does he get for ressurecting this? I mean, finding it and using a 9th level spell to bring it back to life must have been a heck of a challenge, dont ya agree?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Razh wrote:
By the way, how much experience does he get for ressurecting this? I mean, finding it and using a 9th level spell to bring it back to life must have been a heck of a challenge, dont ya agree?

Not really. If just using a spell nets XP I think my Sorcerer will just sit in his room all day spamming Arcane Mark until he's a god.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's interesting to see how far back this discussion started.


Since we have the long view now, what have been peoples' experiences with the new cleave? I have yet to have a player take it, and I can't think of a reason to suggest it, except as a prereq for cleaving finish (which is cleave classic, from Ultimate Combat).


I see it being used mostly by fighters at the first few levels and then getting retrained for something else later on.


Scythia wrote:
Since we have the long view now, what have been peoples' experiences with the new cleave? I have yet to have a player take it, and I can't think of a reason to suggest it, except as a prereq for cleaving finish (which is cleave classic, from Ultimate Combat).

Its a great feat... for a fighter... who will eventually trade it out...

So. I dunno. Do with that as you will. Its actually not that bad as a feat. Great Cleave is rarely usable, but its also not that bad... the problem is that neither feat really fits well into many decent builds, and its one of those areas where you need to rely on enemies positioning themselves properly.

You can get a decent number of attacks with a reach weapon, lunge and the dwarven Goblin/Orc/Giant killer feats... but then you are seriously looking at 6 feats to make this work, and you are basically just using a whirlwind attack that stops as soon as you miss.

The only really good usage I can think of is to use the Rogue Scout archtype, move into a position where you can cleave, smack a guy with a big two-hander sneak attack, and then cleave another sneak attack with surprise follow-through.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Cleave? I have seen it used to good effect, for sure. Not just for access to the chain, and not just by fighters who eventually retrain it away either.

I especially like it for 3/4 BAB frontliners.

I feel like it's one of those things my group liked at first when we didn't know the game very well, then we had a phase where we accepted everything we read on the boards as gospel, so we frowned on it for a while, and now we are starting to trust our actually experience again and it's looking pretty decent after all.


GAH! UNDEAD THREAD! SMITE EVIL, SMITE EVIL!!!

SMITE: 1d20 + 100 ⇒ (13) + 100 = 113
SMITE: 1d8 + 100 + 1000 ⇒ (2) + 100 + 1000 = 1102

...Whew. As for Cleaving, it's semi-useful for taking on large hordes, which is a very paladin-y thing to do, but not that useful. I wouldn't take it, personally.

Tally-ho!
*Sets off in search of more necro threads to clea--er, slice*


Razh wrote:
I see it being used mostly by fighters at the first few levels and then getting retrained for something else later on.

That's about what I'd expect, it seems like it's almost useless once iteratives kick in. A fighter could swap it out, but other classes don't have that luxury.


its not useless.... just situational.
Two attacks at full BAB are better than two iterative attacks if you want to hit two targets.

The issue is that many players don't want to gamble that their opponents will be properly lined up. In practice, though, it happens a lot more than you might think.

Besides, if you are moving, or if you only have one attack (like a druid who shapes into a form with just one big attack) then it is still a decent feat.


Yup, in my experience adjacent enemies within reach happens quite often, and on the flip side of that, the need to move before you attack happens quite often too.

But, then we have been playing a lot of FGG stuff mostly and I get the feeling Paizo AP's have very different encounters as a baseline.


Moving into position is cool, moving away after is cooler!


Plus iteratives come online for fighters/paladins/rangers at 6th, but say I'm playing a melee inquisitor or battle cleric. No iteratives 'til 8 so I'm loving cleave for those few levels. That might seem like a small sweet-spot but my to-hit is probably a little behind those full BAB classes as well, making my second iterative attack more likely to be a throwaway. My damage might be a little less too, but let's say it's enough to one-shot the mooks. If I can remove two enemies from the battlefield, moving and cleaving starts to look like a bigger contribution then whacking more of a boss-type less reliably and for less damage then my full martial buddy can. That's what I'm seeing lately anyway.

Party inquisitor just hit 8, he's been getting great use out of cleave, I don't expect he will bemoan the choice now that his iteratives have come online.


Okay, I can see the added utility for a 3/4 bab melee type.

We don't use minis or a combat map or anything like that, and the houserule set we use makes the move and attack part less relevant, but at last I can see where it could be useful.


Could end up being a particularly useful feat for the brawler. If they're lined up for it, great. If not, no big loss.


If only Cleave worked with Vital Strike.... Then the stupid Cave Druid Crystaline Ooze monstrosity wouldbe even funnier! :)

51 to 82 of 82 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / NOOOOOO Cleave has changed! Hmmmmm, but is it better? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.