Fighter Cleave vs Minions?

[Sir Brennen]

I think the usage of exploit as a verb is fine: "use or manipulate to one's advantage"

Isn't that exactly what the martial classes are doing on the battlefield?

 

[themilkman]

In both of the DDXP games I played, cleave damage killed minions outright. In one game, there were four minions around the Fighter. He cleaved and killed two, popped an Action Point, then cleaved again and killed the other two.

Word around the watercooler was that minions at higher levels would have actual HP, but it would be much less than regular monsters of higher levels. So they might not have 1 HP, but unless you rolled very poorly, you would probably be able to kill them in one hit. Cleave probably wouldn't be as effective against them, though.

 

[Stalker0]

Cleave probably wouldn't be as effective against them, though.

Hopefully cleave will scale with level.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

It seems to me that Cleave should probably destroy minions but based on differing reports, the rules are probably unclear about whether or not it does. (For that matter, the same rulings might indicate that a power that does half damage on a miss might not kill them).

However, I detest the idea of a "minion" rule on general principle anyway. If creatures are tough, they shouldn't be tough unless you want to use lots of them in which case they have 1 hp. "Oh no, this kobold has a minion tag so it only has 1 hp. It will die if it steps on a caltrop. That kobold who is otherwise indistinguishable from these ones has 27 hp and can get hit with a warhammer three times before going down." With kobolds it may not sound so bad, but when you start getting death knight minions and such at higher levels, it will be "we just fought these guys last week and they were all tough, why are they now wimpy?"

That's not kicking suspension of disbelief in the nuts--it's holding it down and cutting off its gonads without anaesthesia.

 

[Lord Sessadore]

I thought that the "killed by an attack that does damage" was to prevent, say, the paladin's challenge killing them, so the paladin can't just go around challenging minions and having them drop like flies. Of course, that scenario could be avoided by just having the marked minion attacking the paladin.

In other words, so that the PCs have to actively attack a minion in order to kill it.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I doubt though that it will be the case for everything. Hell, isn't Death Knight a template anyways?

But I digress, I imagine minions will be distinct when it comes to more powerful creatures/more distinct. Well hell, look at the Tiefling and Gnome cartoon, he is a Gnome but his minion is a badger.

I imagine for the death knight example it be something like, "as you crest the hill you see the death knight on his black steed, surrounded by his undead soldiers. You charge through them, slaying the soldiers left and right as they try to pull you down before you reach their master."

But then with something like zombies where you can't really tell right away what is what, you can have soldier level zombies wandering around in a sea of minions. So with the Cleave example, "the fight beheads one zombie, and cleaves straight through another. (Uses action point), he shatters the bones of another, he lifts his sword and swings down it stops; the hard bone of the zombie has stopped his blade. The fighter begins to notice the long bone claws this zombie has..."

 

[themilkman]

However, I detest the idea of a "minion" rule on general principle anyway. If creatures are tough, they shouldn't be tough unless you want to use lots of them in which case they have 1 hp. "Oh no, this kobold has a minion tag so it only has 1 hp. It will die if it steps on a caltrop. That kobold who is otherwise indistinguishable from these ones has 27 hp and can get hit with a warhammer three times before going down."

This problem was easily cleared up by our DM. The key is the "otherwise indistinguishable" part. If the DM tells you that the minions look the same as the other kobolds, then I agree that there is something wrong. Ours was pretty straightforward about saying, "These guys over here, with the slings, look a lot scrawnier than the other ones. Their armor is in bad shape and it looks like they haven't eaten in a while." Whereas the soldiers were more along the lines of, "These kobold is burly, for a kobold, with thick armor, a sharp spear. Each kobold soldier has a collection of small kobold skulls hanging from their belt." So when the little guys go down in one hit, and the bigger guys need more attention, it makes sense.

With kobolds it may not sound so bad, but when you start getting death knight minions and such at higher levels, it will be "we just fought these guys last week and they were all tough, why are they now wimpy?"

I don't know how it will work with higher levels. I'm sure the DM can explain or indicate the differences between minions and other enemies in a way that makes sense and lets everyone know what's happening.

 

[Sphyre]

Kinda. But only because some people are reading it "exploit" (verb) rather than "exploit" (noun).

I agree. From all the words in my vast vocabulary, it's the best word I know that explains my vision of what martial powers are.

I think it'll take time to sink in for people to learn the lesser used noun definition of the word exploit much like many other games introduce other terminology that otherwise isn't mainstream in our culture, yet still exists. A good example is actually the word "feat." It was introduced, and how often would someone use the word feat? A great feat of strength. It's rarely used in every day speech and is usually only used in novels or stories or by people who have a higher retention for scarcely used words; yet third edition introduced them and people became more comfortable with the word.

As such, I think in time people will accept the word exploit as much as they have accepted the word feat.

 

[shadowguidex]

Hopefully cleave will scale with level.

It does. The example character has all the numbers filled into the formulas to make them playable immediately. The formula is fairly easy to determine:

1d10+5 and additional adjacent target takes 3 damage....

means:

1[W] + Strength Modifier and additional adjacent target takes Strength Modifier damage

The weapon does 1d10

The Strength Modifier is +3

Also, Dwarven Weapon Training grants an additional +2 to weapon attack and weapon damage rolls (which is already figured into the attack for the primary target but not the secondary who only receives Strength Modifier damage because it is not a weapon damage roll).

Note also, that because your Atrribute Modifiers will increase every even level, that your cleave damage WILL scale with your level. At level 20, your strength modifier will be 10 higher than at level 1, therefore your cleave will do 10 more damage. Thats pretty much the entire explanation.

 

[Incenjucar]

Huh.

That makes cleave feel more like a punch or a hilt-smack.