Replacement for Cleave

[Tatsukun]

Hi all, I am thinking of redefining the cleave feat. I just don't like the "cutting through one person and hitting another" thing. It seems silly to me that just because you attacked the goblin next to me, and killed it, you get to attack me too.

So, here is my proposal…

---------
Quick Select [General]
You can choose a new opponent in battle if you drop your current opponent in your round. This second attack represents the time you have remaining in your round after defeating your first opponent. Since it takes place in only this remaining time, it must be a normal attack (not a trip attack, disarm attempt or the like). Also, your attack on your new opponent is not as accurate as normal because it is rushed.
Benefit: If you kill your opponent, or reduce him/her to unconsciousness, in your round you can make an immediate single melee attack against another foe you currently threaten. This attack suffers a -2 penalty to attack and damage. You can only benefit from this feat once a round.
Normal: Even if you kill your opponent, you have to wait until your next round to attack a new one.

-------
Then, add "Greater Quick Select" (Prerequisites: Quick Select, Improved Initiative, Fighter level 4) and allow you to benefit from the feat a number of times equal to your Dex bonus per round and allows a 5' step.

Finally, add "Crowd fighter", which lets you do it an unlimited number of times and removes the -2 penalty.

So, is there something silly I did here? Am I missing something obvious?

Thanks for the help

-Tatsu

 

[Vrecknidj]

I see this as an acceptable house rule alternative. I don't think you'll convince very many people to do away with the Power Attack, Cleave, Great Cleave chain--it seems very popular.

Dave

 

[LazerPointer]

I love my Cleave, but this flavor text makes a lot more sense, as does a penalty to hit. I'd drop the -2 to damage, tho. doesn't seem neccessary, and makes the feat much less attractive.

 

[Jarrod]

Ummm... hate to be the fly in the ointment, but do you houserule a full attack to only target one creature? Normally you can change targets in the middle of the attack for free. From the SRD:

You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones.

 

[jaker2003]

That makes sense, if i'm wading through an army of Kobolds, it doesn't matter who I decided to hit If I change my mind after the first swing.

 

[sfedi]

I don't like it.

You're essentially giving the same benefit as Cleave (i.e. your last blow is "free") but with a lot of bookkeeping, exceptions and such.
To make matters worse, this feat is worse than Cleave, so Players will feel cheated, and the Fighter class will be crippled as well.

I do like the idea of not allowing a Cleave in an AoO, though

 

[Li Shenron]

It seems silly to me that just because you attacked the goblin next to me, and killed it, you get to attack me too.

...

Normal: Even if you kill your opponent, you have to wait until your next round to attack a new one.

...

So, is there something silly I did here? Am I missing something obvious?

As another pointed out, maybe you're missing that "normally" you can target a different opponent with each attack in a round? Unless of course, your house rule here includes to change that in the first place, so that now it's only possible with this feat [a house rule which may be fine, except that it takes something away from multiple attacks in general].

Also I don't get if you're referring to cleave during AoOs or cleave during any attack when you say that it's "silly" that the guy killing the goblin get to attack you too. He could have just attack you in the first place of course, and there is no advantage on his cleave attack vs you compared to attacking you with the regular attack. His advantage is of course that it's like he never had to "spend" the attack vs goblin in the first place.

OTOH cleaving often makes me frown as well, not just when used in AoOs (which I anyway disallow) but also anytime the two creatures are quite far. E.g. someone with a reach piercing weapon can cleave on a target 15ft and 360degrees away from the first one and it takes a good effort to explain that visually.

 

[Altamont Ravenard]

OTOH cleaving often makes me frown as well, not just when used in AoOs (which I anyway disallow) but also anytime the two creatures are quite far. E.g. someone with a reach piercing weapon can cleave on a target 15ft and 360degrees away from the first one and it takes a good effort to explain that visually.

You mean directly behind or in front of the original creature?

AR

 

[Corlon]

hmmm, these feats do add the "moving in between" thing, but they seem to be almost like cleave but just a bit different, and in most casese worse.

Cleave doesn't really get much action in any game I've played in, so I figure just leave it the same.

 

[Angel Tarragon]

I honestly think this is a waste of a feat. I aleady allow the player's in my campaign to do this w/o having to burn a feat.