How could you make that determination only using absolute values?
Easily. You just multiple the chance to hit by the damage before and after the improvements and look at the difference.
For the case of missing only on a 1 and doing 4 hp damage, you get:+1 to hit case: .95*4 before adding +1 and after since the 1 always misses
+2 damage case: .95*4 before, .95*6 after
It's pretty obvious the only place you'll see improvement is the +2 damage since with the +1 to hit, there's no difference.
For the 5+ to hit (an 80% chance) and 30 damage character:
+1 to hit: .8*30 before and .85*30 after - gives us 24 vs 25.5
+2 damage: .8*30 before and .8*32 after - gives us 24 vs 25.6
So, you so sure the +1 is better with the 5+ to hit and 30 damage?
Cleave is by no means a "trap".
It is very useful- situationally. For a fighter, who has all those extra feats, it is worth considering.
Now sure, compared to the 3.5 version, which was a "must get required" it's not as good.
3.5 Cleave was... Not bad. PF Cleave is little more than a wasted feat slot...
Cleaving finish is 3.5 cleave. You just have to take the current cleave to get it.
3.5. Cleave was definitely not worth 2 feats, though.
I never saw 3.5 Cleave as must get. It has the same problem: most fights are against single targets.
The few times I have seen multiple mooks in a fight, it has turned out very nice.
That's another notch on the "depends who's running" belt. In all the years I've run D&D, I only had solo encounters when a) the solo target is overwhelmingly powerful -such as a living weapon modeled on the Terrasque against a lv 12 party- or b) the terrain made the fight significantly more difficult -such as a fight against a white Dragon in a fog filled chamber on a 10' wide railess bridge over a chasm-. Otherwise a solo encounter is pretty much a joke.
That just builds into the typical problem of basic combats being lowballed to avoid crushing inexperienced players.
I'm not sure what you mean here.
I have no horse in this race, but I can say: you're all repeating the exact same points made earlier in this thread. I think the pro-con case is well-established :)
I honestly question whether Cleave is worth more than Skill Focus: Craft (Underwater Basketweaving) since the latter will increase your downtime wealth generation.
I never see opportunities to use Cleave on either side of the table.
Lets be fair about this now... who spends significant downtime immersed underwater?
Unless the characters are by nature underwater only, that is highly unlikely.
Merfolk, gillmen, undines and aquatic elves for starters! And some lizardfolk... ;)
I think the pro-con case is well-established :)
You shouldn't say something like that around here, you might get cleaved! ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly question whether Cleave is worth more than Skill Focus: Craft (Underwater Basketweaving) since the latter will increase your downtime wealth generation.
I never see opportunities to use Cleave on either side of the table.
Lets be fair about this now... who spends significant downtime immersed underwater?
Unless the characters are by nature underwater only, that is highly unlikely.
To be fair, underwater basket weaving the basket is under water, not you.
You put the reeds in a container of water and weave under water. I used a 5 gallon bucket when I got the basketry merit badge in scouts.
Cleave in best case when you for sure get 100% damage increase, if it happens once evert 20 attacks it's a 5% increase. Weapon focus is a 5% increase. Now if Cleave is less frequently possible or if you might miss either target then the boost is less. If Cleave situations are more frequent then it's value increases.
And since as you level up you'll make far more normal attacks than you did in early levels it's really hard for cleave to keep up
I'd argue the PC's strategy is usually irrelevant after the enemies have moved for the first time; there is no mechanical reason besides the Shield Wall teamwork feat or a Bodyguard/In Harm's Way combo for your enemies to remain adjacent to each other rather than try to flank you. As I've said before, Pathfinder actually tends to abound with ways that grouped up enemies are punished while spread out and surrounding enemies are trickier to fight against.So either your GM deliberately positions enemies to enable Cleave or he doesn't. That's on the GM, not the player that takes Cleave.
Or, possibly, there just aren't that many 5ft squares in the combat environment so there isn't all that much room to maneuver.
Gymkata pommel horse scene. It is truly awful filmmaking.
I didn't even have to click the link to start laughing wildly. But I did anyway.
As I've said before, Pathfinder actually tends to abound with ways that grouped up enemies are punished while spread out and surrounding enemies are trickier to fight against.
But should that really drive how monster behave?
I do not like the train of thought that the people inside the imaginary world are aware of the ruleset. To me it culminates into the "flying invisible wizards in the sky raining empowered fireballs on the party" scenario.
But should that really drive how monster behave?Yes. Monsters should react to how the game world actually treats them. The fact that the game world does not have the same consequences as the real world is your issue.
No.
Rulesets do not actually exists for the people inside the fantasy world.I mean I cannot even think how you could say otherwise. It would imply we would need RULES to think like a goblin for example.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I prefer to think the rules shape the gameworld.
Abstract concepts shouldn't have hard numbers that NPCs are aware of, but they should know wizards exist and can attack with AoE attacks. They should know they can be flanked by enemies on both sides of them.
Playing NPCs as completely ignorant of the rules is simply unfair in my opinion.
|
No.
Rulesets do not actually exists for the people inside the fantasy world.
I didn't say they did. I said that the characters should react to the reality they face.
You are the one saying they should act in a manner that does not match what they see. (e.g. Staying in a tight cluster when a fireball is imminent.)
If you have the characters react as if they were in the real world, you are running an unrealistic game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The way I see it, back in the days of AD&D you would encounter far more enemies than you do now, balancing was less of an idea presented by the system, which went for more of a, "there are 30-300 goblins in a tribe, put them on the ground, determine their habits, weaponry etc... and let your players tackle the problem, and play the enemy as dumb goblins." Which would have made the cleave feat amazingly more helpful back in those days, or when a GM today GMs like that. Another thing is the power curve was a little less extreme, and the pre packaged modules supported more minion type enemies to wear down the group, and to make it where not every enemy you fought at a certain level was your equal.
The issue I see is that 3.X changed these assumptions, and led to a shift in play to a certain extend, that leads to cleave being less helpful overall, than it could have been. So for cleave to be helpful you need to have a GM that doesn't look at a part, and select close to their level varied threats for high tactics relatively equal numbers on each side play, you need a GM that throws weak enemies at you when it makes sense, and has the ability to handle initiative and multiple foes, so that you can use the Cleave feat against things like goblins, orc, bugbears and wild animals.
Cleave should be helpful all the time in my opinion, but a fair few GMs on top of their default GMing style not favoring large amounts of weaker enemies instead of a few stronger ones, also may not adapt to make your feat helpful. You have to go with your best judgement on whether the feat is worth it, but I don't think it is a trap, merely a situational thing like the ranger's favored enemy ability.
No.
Rulesets do not actually exists for the people inside the fantasy world.I didn't say they did. I said that the characters should react to the reality they face.
You are the one saying they should act in a manner that does not match what they see. (e.g. Staying in a tight cluster when a fireball is imminent.)
What kind of assumptions are you taking for granted?
If we are talking about creatures that know nothing about spellcraft, have no arcane knowledge, never seen heard or tasted a wizard, how can they even know fireballs are going to come from that human with a funny hat and long robe?Hell, fireballs have an identity in Pathfinder atleast os we can somewhat make a "by experience" claim for it, but cleave is even MORE abstract. The idea that your goblin is going to think "we better not be adjacent to each other or he can hit us both" feels like total metagaming.
Hell, after the barbarian with his 20 feet long sword cleaves through half of them, they might start thinking "oh it can do that, better not get near that", but they should not start with the thought "ah yes this party has these abilities, we better do the delta split and focus the wizard".
Or the worst, although this is my own example, focus your will save spells only on that one guy on the party who happens to have weakest will saves. As if you could smell weak will saves.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OK, so the trap is because a GM can chose tactics to make the feat unviable as a successful strategy. So magic use is a trap because any decent GM can shut down spell recovery, or choke off its use in quite a lot of ways. ANY strategy or method can, and at least occasionally, WILL be countered. If it is a strategy that a GM chooses to always counter, in all fairness the GM should make that clear and discourage or outright ban the feat/tactic in his game. It is only a trap if the GM has no intention of letting it be viable but does not discourage its acquisition.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OK, so the trap is because a GM can chose tactics to make the feat unviable as a successful strategy. So magic use is a trap because any decent GM can shut down spell recovery, or choke off its use in quite a lot of ways. ANY strategy or method can, and at least occasionally, WILL be countered. If it is a strategy that a GM chooses to always counter, in all fairness the GM should make that clear and discourage or outright ban the feat/tactic in his game. It is only a trap if the GM has no intention of letting it be viable but does not discourage its acquisition.
To be fair, you can do a lot more things with magic than with Cleave.
What kind of assumptions are you taking for granted?A living, breathing world of real people with varying levels of experience and education.
Yes, varying.
Very varying. And not just education, but also savagery and utter ignorance.Sometimes a pack of ghouls is really, just, a stupid pack of ghouls.
|
|
Never said otherwise. If you play them like Sun Tzu when they have an 8 Int, you are playing them unrealistically.
Do you not understand that I have been saying the creatures should react to the world in a realistic manner? And that this manner is determined by what effect the rules have on the world? And that this does not mean the characters know the ruleset?
As I've said before, Pathfinder actually tends to abound with ways that grouped up enemies are punished while spread out and surrounding enemies are trickier to fight against.
But should that really drive how monster behave?
Are you NOT saying that monsters should not avoid things that punish them?
Ventnor,
Of course you can, but if the GM sets up the game to make magic effectively unviable, or even significantly less viable, and doesn't let the players know this, focusing on Magic Use is a trap.
Justification is easy. Magic has been around forever, and is undeniably powerful. There are many time tested methods to neutralize magic users. Considering the risks involved, why wouldn't everyone, everywhere, Always use them?
Because this is a game, and being constantly shut down wouldn't be fun.
Are you NOT saying that monsters should not avoid things that punish them?
You said "Yes" to my doubts that monsters of Pathfinder should behave like they knew the rules. And blackwaltzomega to be implied the rules in total, not just the abstract of them.
I mean, is not the ignorance of monsters realistic?
OK, so the trap is because a GM can chose tactics to make the feat unviable as a successful strategy. So magic use is a trap because any decent GM can shut down spell recovery, or choke off its use in quite a lot of ways. ANY strategy or method can, and at least occasionally, WILL be countered. If it is a strategy that a GM chooses to always counter, in all fairness the GM should make that clear and discourage or outright ban the feat/tactic in his game. It is only a trap if the GM has no intention of letting it be viable but does not discourage its acquisition.
I feel like this is a slightly unfair assessment.
It takes a lot more effort to deny spell casters the ability to rest and recover spells than it does to accidentally deny cleave by not having enemies stand next to one another.
As has already been mentioned, there are a large number of scenarios from APs that only involve a single enemy. Under such circumstances cleave is literally impossible to use.
A large number of fights also involve enemies coming from opposite sides, which is also likely to not end up with them standing adjacent.
The level of effort to disrupt cleave is significantly lower (and probably accidental) compared to disrupting the ability to prepare spells.
Claxon,
The comparison isn't unfair, the issue isn't the "difficulty" it takes to shut down a tactic/feat. The GM has effectively unlimited resources. If he wants something shut down, it will be shut down.
The issue is whether shutting down the tactic/feat... (possibly because you think it is stupid for anyone to put themselves into a position to be affected by it) ...is a trap (unfair) if you don't make it clear that the tactic/feat is never going to be viable in a game you run.
It is perfectly valid to decide something isn't going to fly in your games. You as a GM are required to set the scenes. It is not valid or fair to allow the players to choose options that you aren't going to let be effective, at least without warning the players.