Cleave: Give me room to work, my minions!

[Kaisoku]

I think the problem is that a lot of people are stuck with the 3e Fighter damage concept of a miss = 0 damage dealt.

Since they are making more abilities (at will abilities, useable every round) more like the wizard of 3e, there's going to be plenty of abilities that do damage even when you miss. However, people with evasion (rogues and shield wielding fighters) will still be able to avoid that "on a miss" damage.


So Cleave really doesn't break anything in this case. A fighter can choose to have the options of doing at least some damage on a miss on his target, or risk missing and doing no damage on his target, but guaranteed damage on an adjacent target. Basically, you are just moving where that "auto damage" is going to.. the primary target but only if you miss, vs secondary target but only if you hit the first.


The only problem I can see with the wording is the potential for reach/invisibility abuse. However, since the wording also says "3 damage" instead of some scaling thing... it's likely the full wording in the books will be something more like the following:


Hit: [W] damage, and an adjacent opponent to the target within your reach and that you can perceive takes damage equal to your Str bonus. (Or maybe 1/2 level + Str bonus).


Honestly, I cannot see a problem with an ability like that. In a game where wizards can force damage even on a successful save... giving this to Fighters really doesn't break any new ground or anything.

 

[Wolfspider]

"Okay, Bob, you dump your bag of rats out and the terrified rodents instantly scatter in all directions. Now, which way do you want to chase them?"

That's why enterprising players will have their characters snip the legs off the rats first....

 

[Aservan]

That's why enterprising players will have their characters snip the legs off the rats first....

Ok now that really stretches the idea that the rats are opponents. A helpless sack of meat is just that... a helpless sack of meat. Not a thing you can cleave through.

Honestly I think people will just have to get used to the idea that hit points do not equate to flesh wounds. They are that most black box of things. We don't really know what they are, but when you run out of them you are probably gonna die.

The alternative is not to play 4th, which is cool too.

To me it is this: If the wizard can burn you but not really why can't the fighter slash you but not really?

 

[FitzTheRuke]

T(BTW, I do hope that those DMs denigrating the infamous bag-of-rats never plan on using normal rats under minion rules in 4e... Let us be consistent here )

Why would I ever use a normal rat?

A swarm of rabid rats
A giant mutant rat
Several dire rats
Maybe

But a single rat? Nope. A single rat is a PET not an opponent.

Fitz

 

[kennew142]

So here's another weird situation: You strike the opponent in front of you with your dagger, hit, and follow through with a cleave on the boss standing behind him, at least 5 feet away from you. Thus, Cleave grants you reach.

And if you need reach without an intervening opponent, toss a rat in front of you.

Again, I don't think this is a big deal in terms of game effect, and I can personally make the visualization work, but it could be a hit to verisimilitude for some.

I guess you could read it that way. I had assumed that the term adjacent opponent meant an opponent adjacent to you. That interpretation would probably make sense, so it has no place in a bag of rats argument.

 

[Lacyon]

I guess you could read it that way. I had assumed that the term adjacent opponent meant an opponent adjacent to you. That interpretation would probably make sense, so it has no place in a bag of rats argument.

It doesn't say adjacent opponent. It says "an enemy adjacent to the target". Which is pretty clear I feel (though there may be a flat rule that says powers with the Melee keyword can only damage enemies within reach of the weapon, which would make that aspect a nonissue).

 

[Stalker0]

I actually really agree with you. The power will also be worthless at high levels....who cares about 3 points of damage at 20th level. The old cleave was at least still useful.

Likely in 4e, your strength modifier for damage purposes may increase with the 1/2 level bonus.

So cleave does your strength modifier to an adjacent target. A 1st level fighter with 16 strength does 3 damage, a 20th level fighter with 16 strength does 13 damage, etc.

 

[Balgus]

I like the idea. In a real world explanation, you have a great fighter going into battle, He is fully armored and swings a greatsword.

being a great fighter, he will catch his main target as well as inadvertantly catch the people peripheral to the main target as well.
Also - in a real fight, why would you ignore the high level target to go for his minstrel instead. Sounds like a metagame decision to me...

In game mechanics - it seems balanced to me. You spend your round attacker a peon while the BBEG takes just 3 pts of damage - but you are close enough to take his attack full on. Ok - he loses a peon and takes 3 points... but what will you take this round? Fair trade IMO

 

[Primal]

The idea that you need to have immersion in order for something to be a role-playing game makes me sad.

Well, I, for one, like to think that immersion is practically a requirement for role-playing your character. If you are not able to immerse yourself in the game and your character, you'd be better off playing CCGs, boardgames or CRPGs.

 

[kennew142]

It doesn't say adjacent opponent. It says "an enemy adjacent to the target". Which is pretty clear I feel (though there may be a flat rule that says powers with the Melee keyword can only damage enemies within reach of the weapon, which would make that aspect a nonissue).

I'll buy that. I don't have the playtest characters on me, so I'm going off of memory. Maybe I read it that way because I was in a hurry and it seemed like how the power should work.

In any event, it would be strange to assume that using a bag of rats to enable a cleave would allow a character to strike an opponent who isn't a valid target for an attack (in this case, out of reach).