Cleave: Give me room to work, my minions!

[Sir Sebastian Hardin]

Unless my brain works very differently than most people's, I think ainatan's was a valid concern: It is actually too simple and doesn't acomplish much. 3.5 cleave was very simple an elegant. It grants another action, but it only does when you drop something. You could nerf it by dealing half damage it you hit the second target too, or something.

And he never said ALL 4e rules were too simple and too boring. Only some of them. And one of them is Cleave. I believe he IS switching, as I am.

I know ainatan's 'fate' in this thread is beyond my 'power'. I just want to point out that some of his reasons might be worth considering.

 

[D'karr]

I understand the concern of some people, hitting lower armored enemies to get some damage in against the high armored enemies, but I guess we need to wait for the full description of the power. Maybe the predefined encounter balance doesn't leave much room for this "exploit", like, all enemies in a group having similar AC.

The problem with the hypothetical situation where a lower AC opponent sits next to a higher AC one is not the AC.

The problem is that if that is how the fighter plans to whittle the HP of a high AC creature then he has much bigger problems. While he sits there doing STR damage to the higher AC creature I'm pretty sure both of the creatures are doing their best to kill him and are not wasting their time with piddly damage attacks. These corner cases always rely on an absurdity of combat that is hardly ever seen in an actual game.

 

[Gargazon]

I don't see how this ability is 'ultra-simple and ultra-boring'. I actually think it's quite flavourful - the Fighter takes a great swing with his weapon, slicing his foe and cutting the guy next to him, who wasn't expecting the attack. It certainly opens tactical choices, where the player will position himself to deal the most damage he can to the enemies he faces, and it also reinforces that the Fighter should be at the front of the party, distracting multiple enemies at once.

It's also incredibly unfair to compare it to a 3.5 feat which, to be honest, sucked. In most of my group's games it is the wizard or our incredibly over-itemed soulknife (she had Gloves that added +2d6 energy damage to any of her attacks, at will, until I told the DM it was perhaps too much) who finishes an enemy off, leaving the Fighter types to just stumble about, swinging, and hoping they kill the enemy so that feat slot they used wasn't wasted.

I also wonder if people would be complaining so much if this power had a different name?

Edit: And on the topic of it hitting invisible foes, I would rule that if you don't know it's their, you don't automatically hit it.

 

[wherwrthal]

Edit: And on the topic of it hitting invisible foes, I would rule that if you don't know it's their, you don't automatically hit it.

I don't know, I can see if the fighter gives a mighty swing and cuts through the opponent he is attacking and there happens to be an invisible bad guy there. That might be interesting. Besides, you can choose to move before you attack. I think.

Sample Dialogue:
DM: The creature in front of you yells as you chop at him. You also hear an unexpected yelp to the right and feel your sword stop with a crunch.
Player: Oh, great! More./Bring it on!/Get the ______ to safety, they're turning invisible!!!

 

[Wolfspider]

The way that Cleave works in v3.5 makes sense to me. The momentum from a killing strike allows you to attempt an attack at a nearby foe.

The way that Cleave works in 4e doesn't make sense to me. Merely hitting an enemy (or maybe not actually connecting with a blow, since a hit is an abstract concept) means that you can automatically hit (or not) an adjacent enemy.

Unfortunately, this has been my reaction to many of the new rules: making things easier at the expense of sense.

 

[Gargazon]

The way that Cleave works in v3.5 makes sense to me. The momentum from a killing strike allows you to attempt an attack at a nearby foe.

The way that Cleave works in 4e doesn't make sense to me. Merely hitting an enemy (or maybe not actually connecting with a blow, since a hit is an abstract concept) means that you can automatically hit (or not) an adjacent enemy.

Unfortunately, this has been my reaction to many of the new rules: making things easier at the expense of sense.

What's so different from a killing blow and a normal blow? Both make contact with the enemy, who will invariably halt your weapon's progress through him to some extend. Unless your final blow slices your enemy apart with the greatest of ease, everytime, that doesn't make much sense. Especially as you've been slicing away at him beforehand and he hasn't given way so easily then.

 

[wherwrthal]

Even if it not a killing blow, I can see the enemy you are attacking as attempting to get out of the way of a strike. Your cleave may just fleshwound the opponent, but the swipe of the sword/flail/axe whatever still continues to the next opponent.

Edit: Just as a guess I think a "hit" would be actually doing damage to an opponent. (Please don't turn this into a hit point thing. I don't want that arguement.)

 

[DandD]

By the same justification that hits are an abstract concept together with hit points, there is nothing wrong then with the 4th edition Cleave, as this power is abstractingly draining the vigor of your nearby enemy target down, forcing him to evade, as he nearly gets caught unexpectingly by the powerful blow. Hitpoints aren't physical life energy blood units, after all, but rather something really abstract and 'gamey'...

 

[wherwrthal]

Darn it, DandD beat me

 

[Wolfspider]

*shrugs*

I don't expect everyone to share my opinion, and I certainly won't try to force it on anyone else.

It's a personal thing. The old Cleave clicks with me, the new Cleave leaves me shaking my head.

Incidentally, I have always imagined that Cleave actually does involve literally smashing/piercing/slashing through the fallen enemy's body. I love cinematic images like that--which makes my reaction to many 4e rules rather puzzling considering that the designers seem to be going for a more cinematic feel....