|
I am checking to make sure about the rule on cleaving.
When you want to cleave or great cleave as a standard action you must say you are doing it. So if i want to as a full round action say attack 3 times on 1 enemy and on the first attack can i use cleave (great cleave) to attack other surrounding enemies or i have to say I am using 1 attack to Cleave/Great cleave?
We have been doing it as part of your normal attack as until now it had not mattered as most everyone had 1 attack. With that said does it apply to trip, bull rush (well that is different i guess) and so on?
With them as a standard action you have to declare it, and you do so at the expense of your regular iterative attacks.
so its
"i cleave mob A" and if you hit, then you get to choose another target.
if you have greater cleave then you just continue on until you miss or run out of targets
or
"I full attack" and then deciare your targets as you wish.
You can't do both.
-S
Nor use Combat maneuvers with it.
Cleave is basically useful when you only have a standard attack, like at the end of a move, or when you're shaken and can only take a standard action, or when you are low enough a level you don't get iterative attacks.
Once you get to the level where you have iterative attacks, you're better off using them. Cleave then comes in handy for when you can't.
Greater cleave, of course, can be more useful if you are completely surrounded by low AC enemies.
Cleave is basically useful when you only have a standard attack, like at the end of a move, or when you're shaken and can only take a standard action, or when you are low enough a level you don't get iterative attacks.
Once you get to the level where you have iterative attacks, you're better off using them. Cleave then comes in handy for when you can't.
Greater cleave, of course, can be more useful if you are completely surrounded by low AC enemies.
Low AC is not completelly necessary since it is on the Higher BAB.
Great Cleave became the strong guy Whirlwind, and I like it.
Cleave is basically useful when you only have a standard attack, like at the end of a move, or when you're shaken and can only take a standard action, or when you are low enough a level you don't get iterative attacks.
Once you get to the level where you have iterative attacks, you're better off using them. Cleave then comes in handy for when you can't.
Greater cleave, of course, can be more useful if you are completely surrounded by low AC enemies.
Cleave can also be better than iterative attacks if you know you iterative attacks are going to miss.
So if you hit on 15/20 and have 2 adjacent targets then Cleave is better.
Using power attack with Cleave could be better in the right circumstances too but not so much when you get 3 attacks.
Once you get to the level where you have iterative attacks, you're better off using them.
Actually, that depends on how easy it is to hit the opponents. If they are easy enough to hit, the increased chance to hit on the second attack with your full bonus outweighs the risk of not hitting on the first attack.
Assume that the probability you hit with your first attack is p and you can make two attacks with a full attack. On a full attack, you expect to hit p + (p-0.25) = 2p - 0.25 times. (For the moment, I'm ignoring the cases where a natural 1 or natural 20 matter.)
With cleave, your expected number of hits is 0*(1-p) + 1*p*(1-p) + 2*p*p. (The first term is the chance to miss on the first attack. The second term is the chance to hit on the first attack and miss on the second. The third term is the change to hit on both attacks.) That adds up to p*p + p expected hits.
Cleave is better when p*p+p > 2p-0.25. Some simple algebra leads to (p-0.5)^2 > 0, which has solutions of p > 0.5 and p < 0.5. So if you hit exactly half the time, cleave or a full attack will give you the same number of hits. Otherwise, cleave gives you more hits.
Actually, when you get to low to-hit values, full attacking is better because a natural 20 will hit even when the above analysis assumes it would miss. If p is 20% or less (hit on a natural 17 or better), the effects of a natural 20 make full attacking a better option.
Once you get three attacks, cleave is always inferior, although for p<0.5, it's only because of the effects of a natural 20. Great cleave might be better, but I haven't done the math on that. Actually, if ignore natural ones and assume 3 targets, when the AC is one more than your attack bonus, great cleave will hit three times (any roll hits), while a full attack only hits 2.25 times (1 + .75 + .5), so great cleave will sometimes be better than a full attack.
Of course, all of this ignores the tactical advantages of being able to concentrate all of your attacks on a single opponent.
Of course, all of this ignores the tactical advantages of being able to concentrate all of your attacks on...
I guess that's where we differ. To me, tactically, it's always better to concentrate on A and take A out fast as possible. Otherwise, you're taking two attacks per round (or more, if they have iterative attacks). The faster you get it down to 1 to 1 the better.
or when you're shaken and can only take a standard action.
You meant to say 'staggered', not 'shaken', right?
or when you're shaken and can only take a standard action.You meant to say 'staggered', not 'shaken', right?
Yeah
I am checking to make sure about the rule on cleaving.
When you want to cleave or great cleave as a standard action you must say you are doing it. So if i want to as a full round action say attack 3 times on 1 enemy and on the first attack can i use cleave (great cleave) to attack other surrounding enemies or i have to say I am using 1 attack to Cleave/Great cleave?
We have been doing it as part of your normal attack as until now it had not mattered as most everyone had 1 attack. With that said does it apply to trip, bull rush (well that is different i guess) and so on?
It's a little unclear what you're asking in the bolded portion. Cleave and great cleave do not interact with special combat maneuvers. Unlike cleave, tho, things like trip and disarm can be used to replace normal attacks in a full attack routine. If you are supposed to get two attacks, say from two weapon fighting or iterative attacks, you could choose to trip with one and attack normally with the other, use two special combat maneuvers instead of trying to deal damage, etc.
You meant to say 'shaken', not 'stirred', right?Yeahor when you're shaken and can only take a standard action.You meant to say 'staggered', not 'shaken', right?
Something I learned about martinis:
The reason a martini is stirred (with a special spoon) is so that the ice doesn't become chipped. This is important because chipped ice melts faster which waters down your drink. When James Bond asks for a shaken martini, he's actually asking for a watered down drink. And being condescending about it.
He commits a second faux pas by asking for a shaken martini. I have been told (by a career bartender), that gin drinks are never supposed to be shaken, since this "bruises" the gin. (I have no clue how "bruised " gin differs from non-bruised)
He commits a second faux pas by asking for a shaken martini. I have been told (by a career bartender), that gin drinks are never supposed to be shaken, since this "bruises" the gin. (I have no clue how "bruised " gin differs from non-bruised)
It changes the rate of oxygenation of the drink and that changes how the drink tastes... how I'm not so sure... possibly something to do with evaporation rates?
He commits a second faux pas by asking for a shaken martini. I have been told (by a career bartender), that gin drinks are never supposed to be shaken, since this "bruises" the gin. (I have no clue how "bruised " gin differs from non-bruised)
Never let it be said I can't dig up obscure lore on the internet.
The concept of "bruising the gin" as a result of shaking a martini is an oft-debated topic. The term comes from an older argument over whether or not to bruise the mint in preparing a mint julep, and with gin refers to a certain bitterness developed by shaking. A shaken martini is different from stirred for a few reasons. The shaking action breaks up the ice and adds more water, slightly weakening the drink but also altering the taste. Some would say the shaken martini has a "more rounded" taste.[citation needed] Others, usually citing obscure scientific studies, say that shaking causes more of a certain class of molecules (aldehydes) to bond with oxygen, resulting in a "sharper" taste.[citation needed] Shaking also adds tiny air bubbles and ice particles, which can lead to a cloudy drink instead of a clear one. If the drink is used as an aperitif, to cleanse the mouth before eating, the tiny air bubbles restrict the gin (or vodka) from reaching all tastebuds.[citation needed] This is why purists would claim that a martini should always be stirred. Some martini devotees believe the vermouth is more evenly distributed by shaking, which can alter the flavor and texture of the beverage as well. Recent medical research has shown that shaken martinis have a slightly higher antioxidant level than those stirred, though the exact mechanism for this was not derived.[7]. In reality, the true reasoning behind the preference for shaken over stirred is that most cocktails are meant to be served at an exact 28 degrees temperature so that ice crystals remain intact and floating on the surface of the cocktail. This precise temperature boldly enhances the alcoholic content and inherent flavors as well. Shaking, in lieu of stirring, is meant to retain the ice crystals whilst pouring, while introducing a tepid metal stirrer, or spoon, lowers the overall temperature, warms the drink, flattens the taste and basically lessens the overall libation experience. Hence, for the epicurean, "shaken" is the only way to imbibe. Of course, this information is so rarified, not many bartenders know about it, let alone adhere to it, and thus only contribute to further mediocritization of the cocktail tradition.
It looks like Wikipedia equates what I said, with what Mynameisjake said. Learn something new every day.
|
James Bond and his condescending remarks notwithstanding......
Can you use cleave with vital strike?
To clarify what may possibly sound like a foolish question let me explain.
Cleave says:
As a standard action, you can make a single attack at your full base attack bonus against a foe within reach. If you hit, you deal damage normally and can make an additional attack (using your full base attack bonus) against a foe that is adjacent to the first and also within reach. You can only make one additional attack per round with this feat. When you use this feat, you take a –2 penalty to your Armor Class until your next turn.
Vital Strike says:
When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage. Roll the damage dice for the attack twice and add the results together, but do not multiply damage bonuses from Strength, weapon abilities (such as flaming), or precision-based damage (such as sneak attack). This bonus damage is not multiplied on a critical hit (although other damage bonuses are multiplied normally).
Now I hope we can all agree that an 'attack action' is definable as the "attack" sub-action under the "Standard Action" section in the core rulebook (p.182).
So with this in mind, could I use the "Standard Action" to make a "Single Attack" with the "Attack Action" to Vital Strike the first Foe of my Cleave attack?
No. I'm pretty sure one of the Paizo folks addressed this on a previous thread. It's one or the other.
Edit: It's also covered here.
No. I'm pretty sure one of the Paizo folks addressed this on a previous thread. It's one or the other.
I thought I remembered that thread also, but my search-fu is failing.
No problem. Love your forum name.
Once you get three attacks, cleave is always inferior, although for p<0.5, it's only because of the effects of a natural 20.
There are some corner cases where Cleave could be worth it even if you have three attacks.
For example, suppose you have three iterative attacks and you have a 100% (*) chance to hit opponent A with your best attack, and a 30% chance to hit opponent B. Further suppose that a successful hit on A is guaranteed to kill him. What is your best tactic?
Attack A and cleave to B => 100% + 100%*30% = 130%
Best attack against A and other attacks to B => 100% + 5% + 5% = 110%
Second best attack against A and other attacks to B => 30% + 75% + 5% = 110%
Worst attack against A and other attacks to B => 30% + 5% + 50% = 85%
(*) - I know that you can't have a 100% chance to hit a target, but bear with me.