Cleave: Give me room to work, my minions!

[Dr. Confoundo]

This whole 'bag of rats' thing has me boggled. Is there really a player out there who has tried this? And even more unbelievably, is there really a DM out there who let him?

If one of my players came at me with this idea, there's an easy way to fix it. Face them with an opponent with Whirlwind Attack - if the bag of rats are close at hand enough for the PC to use them to get extra attacks, a single Whirlwind Attack should kill the whole bag of them.

 

[F5]

It strikes me that the intent of this ability was probably to allow the Fighter to focus on the BBEG, and ignore the minions, while still doing damage to them. The Fighter's attack is best used against the biggest opponent, and the +3 damage from cleave applies to the minion flanking you...you're wasting your main damage on the Kobold you would have killed in one attack anyway, in order to do 3 damage to the Dragon.

Cinematically, I see Cleave like the classic Kung Fu fight, where Bruce Lee lands a series of intense punches on the main bad guy, strikes a pose as Bad Guy staggers back, and screams "WAAAAAAAAA!" as he backhands the lackey running up behind him without turning around. Looking at it from that point of view...it works for me.

 

[Primal]

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.

I hope that this won't be the final wording in PHB, because they've practically gloated over how cleverly they've fit the descriptions into a much shorter space than any previous edition. Which is actually an empty boast, because unless the wording and terminology is very exact and explicit, a shorter description leaves more room for interpretation. In this case, it would be perfectly valid to adjudicate that you can cleave into an opponent two squares away, because it is a valid interpretation of the text.

 

[jackston2]

Regarding cleaving through an enemy: remember, HP loss can be fatigue or morale or being thrown off balance. Any of these can easily be visualized happening in combat.

And by that logic, you can almost justify the "bag of rats". Nothing will mess up your strategy quite like charging at your enemy only to discover that he's maniacally banging away at a squirming bag of rats.

 

[kennew142]

This whole 'bag of rats' thing has me boggled. Is there really a player out there who has tried this? And even more unbelievably, is there really a DM out there who let him?

If one of my players came at me with this idea, there's an easy way to fix it. Face them with an opponent with Whirlwind Attack - if the bag of rats are close at hand enough for the PC to use them to get extra attacks, a single Whirlwind Attack should kill the whole bag of them.

I've never known of any player who ever actually tried something like the bag of rats in a game. It's just a weak critical device that creates an absurd situation around a corner case in the game in an attempt to make a game rule seem bad. IMO any player who would try to use such a tactic would be guilty of the worst sort of metagaming. Also IMO, anyone falling back on the bag of rats scenario is making an argument that shouldn't be taken seriously.

 

[Lacyon]

I hope that this won't be the final wording in PHB, because they've practically gloated over how cleverly they've fit the descriptions into a much shorter space than any previous edition. Which is actually an empty boast, because unless the wording and terminology is very exact and explicit, a shorter description leaves more room for interpretation.

Unless your terminology is sloppy and inconsistent, a shorter description leaves less room for interpretation.

In this case, it would be perfectly valid to adjudicate that you can cleave into an opponent two squares away, because it is a valid interpretation of the text.

Unless they just make a flat rule. Melee powers can only damage enemies within reach. A short description without much room for interpretation.

Printing this kind of thing in every power is a waste of space, and leads to problems where either a developer forgets to put it in the power when he's supposed to, or ends up phrasing it differently which causes players to read a difference in where none was intended (or ignore a difference because they think the "standard" text was intended).

If the basic rules are consistent, the developer can then call out exceptions (like specifically making a power that increases your effective reach) as needed, but nobody needs to worry about accidentally making a power that grants additional reach.

 

[rob626]

Primal- No, it isn't a valid interpretation of the rule. It is AN interpretation. A wrong interpretation sustained by a crunch-monkey and flying in the face of the spirit of the rule.

Seriously, I despise the gamers that attempt these types of rules-mangling just so they can achieve some advantage not otherwise allowed.

Attempting a cleave so that a non-reach weapon can attack a foe at range? Cheesy and should not be allowed even if the rules don't prohibit it. And the player that tried it should be thumped about the head and shoulders for being bad.

Bob: So I attack the huge dragon with my sword. My cleave will hit the kobold that is on the back side, roughly 15' away because he's next to the dragon.
DM: Go away, Bob. I reject you.

 

[keterys]

'With a mighty slash, Thogdor batters the dragon. In pain, it lashes out accidentally killing a kobold cowering behind it.' (or is knocked into it, etc)

 

[Ciaran]

How often did 3E Cleave deliver anything at all? Because it was pretty situational.

I've been playing a 3.5e fighter from 2nd to 4th level, and in about 20 long fights (coming to maybe 200 combat rounds, if not more), I've successfully cleaved through and damaged a second target exactly once. And that was against a handful of muckdwellers that we were annihilating anyway.

So far it's been a waste of a feat slot. 4e Cleave would be a thousand times better.

 

[occam]

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).

Good call! (Speculatively, that is.)

being a great fighter, he will catch his main target as well as inadvertently catch the people peripheral to the main target as well.

Actually, he would be doing that advertently.

This whole 'bag of rats' thing has me boggled. Is there really a player out there who has tried this? And even more unbelievably, is there really a DM out there who let him?

Doubtful. The BoR is a theoretical construct used to highlight the consequences of rules that produce side effects upon attacking a foe.

Regarding cleaving through an enemy: remember, HP loss can be fatigue or morale or being thrown off balance. Any of these can easily be visualized happening in combat.

And by that logic, you can almost justify the "bag of rats". Nothing will mess up your strategy quite like charging at your enemy only to discover that he's maniacally banging away at a squirming bag of rats.

Attack vs. Will defense for 2d6 damage.