Cleave - Automatic hits on 2nd target?

[cangrejoide]

I wanted it to be more Naruto like. I want people to be running across water and up walls basically at will. I want people to have maneuvers that are much more powerful than what is currently presented and be able to re-use the powers over and over if they want to. I want people to start knocking down walls with a single blow.

Basically I wanted a bigger leap in power between tiers and moves to be reusable as a default.

Just give it a few months, already there are Exalted/4E brews in the works.

 

[Mistwell]

That seems really stupid to me. You have an impossible to hit creature, so you place a weakling next to it and suddenly you can damage it? Despite the fact you weren't really aiming for it, your concentration is on the weakling?

How is that not a problem?

There is no impossible to damage creature unless you want to give that creature such an ability, nor is this a hit (it's specifically not a "hit" in fact).

Hit points are not strictly your ability to sustain physical damage in 4e. They are a combination of things including luck, endurance, morale, etc..

Automatically reducing something's hit points by a relatively small amount makes sense when you grok what hit points mean in 4e. If a really tough creature loses it's minion, and your sword suddenly swings at the big creature in an unexpectedly efficient and powerful manner after passing through the skull of the minion, the big guy is liable to lose a bit of morale, instinctively duck to lose a bit of endurance, and perhaps you disrupted however luck functions.

So, it's not a problem, unless you insist on house ruling the definition of hit points to mean just physical damage, in which case you've created your own problem.

 

[shadowguidex]

Why exactly would either of the following happen?

1) The DM puts minions with another monster with vastly different AC? This is unlikely to happen unless the minions was way lower in level than the other monster, and likely way lower in level than the fighter. Either way, the minions do not warrant the primary attack since they are clearly inferior foes to the other.

2) The fight chooses to do 1[W]+Str against a 1hp minion, and only Str to the non-minion? This seems like a poor tactical choice.

 

[Mort_Q]

Why exactly would either of the following happen?

The player doesn't know or isn't told who is or is not a minion.

 

[James McMurray]

I wanted it to be more Naruto like. I want people to be running across water and up walls basically at will. I want people to have maneuvers that are much more powerful than what is currently presented and be able to re-use the powers over and over if they want to. I want people to start knocking down walls with a single blow.

Basically I wanted a bigger leap in power between tiers and moves to be reusable as a default.

Check out Exalted or Scion. They're not d20, but both would fit. Exalted is kitchen sink fantasy with a heavy Wire-Fu feel. Scion is modern fantasy where you play the children of Gods, and eventually a god yourself.

 

[IceFractal]

The only place I can see this being an issue is if for some reason you use Minions which are much higher level than the PCs - and that's something you shouldn't do anyway, because there are lots of powers that deal minor damage without an attack (Flaming Sphere, for instance).

And the fact that a given monster might have 200+ health, while a minion of the same level has ~1 hp, should demonstrate the abstractness of hit points anyway.

 

[Mistwell]

By the way, just in case the infamous "bag of rats" comes up in this thread, that tactic is now banned by the DMG. A target is only valid for a power if it presents an actual threat.

 

[Ahglock]

Check out Exalted or Scion. They're not d20, but both would fit. Exalted is kitchen sink fantasy with a heavy Wire-Fu feel. Scion is modern fantasy where you play the children of Gods, and eventually a god yourself.

Thank you and thanks cangrejoide, I will check these out and maybe a cool 4e hybrid will be out that I will like.

 

[Ninja-to]

Why exactly would either of the following happen?

1) The DM puts minions with another monster with vastly different AC? This is unlikely to happen unless the minions was way lower in level than the other monster, and likely way lower in level than the fighter. Either way, the minions do not warrant the primary attack since they are clearly inferior foes to the other.

2) The fight chooses to do 1[W]+Str against a 1hp minion, and only Str to the non-minion? This seems like a poor tactical choice.

Wow how much time was wasted on my example instead of the real problem that was posed? I guess I'll have to spell it out a bit more simply...

Forget the example, my only point was this:

Why does aiming for a secondary target give you an automatic chance to strike the first? Especially since it may be harder to aim for the primary target. This is what doesn't make sense to me. It's harder to hit the main NPC so I'll just aim for the minion is what I have a problem with. It could be that the NPC is low on HP's so all the players with cleave and auto damaging powers start aiming for minions instead of the NPC, with their main aim to take the NPC down. That's what doesn't make sense to me and that's what I don't like.

No, I don't expect D&D to be believable and be scientific, but like any fantasy or science fiction it just needs to be 'believable'. 'Just because' doesn't cut it. 'Because it's easier this way' has an argument going for it, but when it start messes with basic common sense it gets harder to cover up. Remember that D&D is based on telling a story, at least for most players, and telling a believable story is important. Combat is still part of that overall story.

Don't get distracted on anything above, we could start threads all over the place with that can of beans, just keep in mind my main point: Aiming at a weaker creature so you can hit the stronger seems silly to me and doesn't seem to fit.

Yes, for the vast majority of combat situations, it won't make much difference. But in some odd situations, I can see this situation as problematic and even game breaking if overlooked.

 

[DracoSuave]

Wow how much time was wasted on my example instead of the real problem that was posed? I guess I'll have to spell it out a bit more simply...

Forget the example, my only point was this:

Why does aiming for a secondary target give you an automatic chance to strike the first? Especially since it may be harder to aim for the primary target. This is what doesn't make sense to me. It's harder to hit the main NPC so I'll just aim for the minion is what I have a problem with. It could be that the NPC is low on HP's so all the players with cleave and auto damaging powers start aiming for minions instead of the NPC, with their main aim to take the NPC down. That's what doesn't make sense to me and that's what I don't like.

No, I don't expect D&D to be believable and be scientific, but like any fantasy or science fiction it just needs to be 'believable'. 'Just because' doesn't cut it. 'Because it's easier this way' has an argument going for it, but when it start messes with basic common sense it gets harder to cover up. Remember that D&D is based on telling a story, at least for most players, and telling a believable story is important. Combat is still part of that overall story.

Don't get distracted on anything above, we could start threads all over the place with that can of beans, just keep in mind my main point: Aiming at a weaker creature so you can hit the stronger seems silly to me and doesn't seem to fit.

Yes, for the vast majority of combat situations, it won't make much difference. But in some odd situations, I can see this situation as problematic and even game breaking if overlooked.

Take this to extremes. You're level 30.

You have maxed out strength to it's extreme. That's 30 strength for the people at home. (+10 str mod) You've got +6 from weapon focus, +2 from some other feat, +6 from its enhancement, and what the hell, let's say the DM gave you a bonus +10 damage because of some quest you did and he really likes you and your mom makes tasty cookies that he enjoys.

That's +34 damage bonus, on top of the 4d6 damage you do from the cleave power.

And you're up against a red dragon, and he hates you. He hates you so hard he brought in some minions, LOTS of minions. A bag of rats amount of the little rotters.

Now, you're up against this thing with over a thousand hit points... and about 16 rotter-bag-of-rats types.... and for some reason the dragon's AC is incredibly high. Some Deus-ex-mechina, perhaps. A McGuffin. It doesn't matter.

So you decide the best bet to damage this dragon is to attack minions and cleave into it with your mighty +6 weapon, with +20 damage from awesomeness, and +6 damage from coolness, and +2 damage from some feat I didn't even bother to remember the name of....

You hit a minion. You do... MASSIVE... damage. The minion has 1 hp, dies, no surprise there.

Then the cleave hits the dragon....
....

...for 10 damage. Out of approx 1.5 THOUSAND hit points, your game breaking plan does....

10 damage.

But my +6 to damage from my weapon?

Only applies to damage rolls.

And my +6 to damage from my feat?

Only applies to damage rolls.

And the +10 awesomeness bonus for the cookies?

Only to damage rolls.

And the +2 of feat-that-cannot-be-named?

Only to damage rolls.


So... altho you have all these damage buffs... because you're not rolling dice for damage, you're not bumping up your rolls with your bonuses, and if your bonuses aren't applying, this 'sick' 'exploitable' damage never actually happens.

Oh, and the dragon?

He eats you.

And burns you with fire.

And then eats a minion to be evil.

And burns you again.