The extra attack on the first round is definitely worth something, and that's also when the enemy is most likely to be clustered.
I don't see cleaving rogues working unless they win initiative, though (how often do you position yourself beside two adjacent opponents and get a flank on both of them? Rogues are all about positioning; "swing your ax all over the place" feats generally don't work out for them).
Also, do two enemies who are corner-to-corner count as "adjacent"? That's close enough for them to attack eachother, but I don't know if "5 feet away" and "adjacent" count as the same thing.
All 8 squares are adjecent to the one you are standing on, so corner to corner still works. And I really don't mind taking two attacks at full BAB and moving, rather than standing still and taking three at full/-5/-10.
Nuff said. cleave stays in my book :D
The new cleave has its place. Heck, how often did you drop someone in 3.5 and even earn that 2nd attack?
Quite often. Mind you, old Cleave still was a poor choice. The new one is simply inexcusable.
All 8 squares are adjecent to the one you are standing on, so corner to corner still works.The extra attack on the first round is definitely worth something, and that's also when the enemy is most likely to be clustered.
I don't see cleaving rogues working unless they win initiative, though (how often do you position yourself beside two adjacent opponents and get a flank on both of them? Rogues are all about positioning; "swing your ax all over the place" feats generally don't work out for them).
Also, do two enemies who are corner-to-corner count as "adjacent"? That's close enough for them to attack eachother, but I don't know if "5 feet away" and "adjacent" count as the same thing.
Not quite.
The foes need to be adjacent to each other, not to you.
Okay, I'm actually convinced now that Cleave is fine (especially at the levels you get it), but I think I'll loosen the "adjacent" clause for Great Cleave somehow.
Thanks!
...
All 8 squares are adjecent to the one you are standing on, so corner to corner still works.
Not quite.
The foes need to be adjacent to each other, not to you.
Yes, but hydro wanted to know whether the enemies can just be corner to corner to each other.
Personally I think the enemies adjecent to each other is imposed because of the realism and the same goes for the -2 to AC. Just imagine a wild swing with a weapon. Reliably hitting anything in 360 degree arc probably isn't exactly easy and you certainly expose yourself...
Personally I'd make it within your weapon's reach and within one square from each other.
No, it was imposed for balance. They are believable ("realistic" if you must) penalties, but if the writers felt that the technique wasn't powerful enough, they wouldn't be there.
I prefer "believable" to "realistic", because if you want a realistic game you're going to find that most of these things become abstractions (someone with Cleave isn't making one simple, wide attack. That wouldn't work in real life unless they were both practice dummies. Instead he's boldly menacing two foes, and when he punches through one's defenses he uses the opening to strike at his buddy, who was relying on the first guy to cover his back. Of course, even "Hit" is an abstraction here, because in real life one hit will usually drop you. When someone loses hitpoints, what really happens is that they . . . ).
Well. I think that they just didn't want it used more often than basic attack whenever there are two foes within reach ;)
I think that it will certainly get used more often than the old cleave and cause more damage to foes where it actually counts, not just against ordinary mooks.