Using Cleave is Munchkinesque?

[S'mon]

Still rabbiting on about this topic, S'mon? How quaint.

Yes, oh evil one.

Now if only I had a 'Turn/Destroy Hong' power... *sigh*

 

[mikebr99]

If you allow great cleave to stack with whirlwind attack, the dire rat tactic follows logically. Which is probably one reason why the PHB as written requires the whirlwind attacker to give up all their other attacks (and, yes, a cleave is an attack!).

Well... when would you allow a cleave to be inserted?

During a std. attack? Nope... you can only attack once there... it says so!

During a full attack action? Nope.. I've already used my 3 attacks this turn killing the guy... I don't have anything left!



Mind if I do some quoting???

From DnDFAQv06132002

Do you have to use the full attack action to get the benefits of the Cleave or Great Cleave feats? I'd say so,
since you have to use the full attack action to get more than
one attack.
No, you don't have to use the full attack action to get the benefit of either one of these feats. If you have either or both of the feats, you get an extra attack (or possibly extra attacks with Great Cleave) whenever you drop a foe, no matter what type of action you used to drop the foe.

That seems appropriate...



WAIT... Here's another!!!

Do the Whirlwind Attack and Cleave feats stack? For
example, can I use Cleave to get extra attacks if a
Whirlwind Attack kills one of my targets?
You can use Cleave only once a round. If you have the Great
Cleave feat, however, you can cleave each time you drop an opponent, even when the opponent drops in a Whirlwind
Attack. (When a foe drops, resolve the extra cleave attack
before finishing the rest of the attack rolls in the Whirlwind
Attacks.)

Is any of this stuff getting through???

 

[Vaxalon]

It makes PLENTY of sense to whack the little guys first.

Imagine you're in a naval war, and you're fighting a patrol boat and a battleship. You can knock out the patrol boat in one shot, but the battleship is going to take a while. The battleship can pound you, but the patrol boat could possibly get a lucky hit in.

You can reduce your risk more by taking out the patrol boat first, because it decreases the amount of risk you're in immediately, whereas sinking the battleship first subjects you to the patrol boat's attacks for the entire time.

 

[Oogar]

I can actually think of one reason NOT to use cleave in this way (To clear the small pests and get an attack on the big guy), if you have bad luck. Say the pests have any ac over 13, If you miss the pest, you get no cleave. You automatically have a 5% chance to get no cleave, and every AC over 13 adds 5%. AND if the pests have even 2 hit dice, there is a chance that the Fighter won't be able to chop it in one hit, so no cleave. It comes down (for munchkiny purposes) the chances of a clear kill and 2nd attack chance. If the fighter was using a 2 handed weapon (10 damage min.) and the pests were Lemures (13ac 9hp) then cleave is the right bet. If they are Gian't Fire Beetles (16ac 4hp) that pops him with a 20% chance to miss the little guy, but if he does, it is dead and he gets to cleave. Is it worth the risk? Maybe not, but that is up to the character at the time.

I know that players don't (or should not) know all these pieces of information, but after a round to test the odds in one attempt, you might be able to guess. If there is no time (the big bad is just too bad) then I would say your fighter may have made the right choice.

--- the above stats were used because of the information provided in the 1st post, +12 attack bonus, 22 str. Min damage would only be 7 with a one handed weapon, and even Lemures would not be a sure thing to cleave through on a hit.

 

[S'mon]

Well... when would you allow a cleave to be inserted?

During a std. attack? Nope... you can only attack once there... it says so!

During a full attack action? Nope.. I've already used my 3 attacks this turn killing the guy... I don't have anything left!

During a full attack action, of course, just like it says in the PHB. A full attack action doesn't limit you to your iterative attacks, of course. If you take a full attack action you can attack as many times as your BAB, feats, off-hand weapons etc will allow. Of course the feat itself may limit this, like whirlwind attack or dirty fighting.

If you want more than 1 attack, you take a full attack action, according to the PHB. I know the FAQ says different, I disagree with it and I don't think the author thought it through properly, never mind playtested it.

 

[hong]

Yes, oh evil one.

Now if only I had a 'Turn/Destroy Hong' power... *sigh*

Life's a b*tch, and then you die.

Or in your case, life is b*tching, and then you die.

 

[mikebr99]

During a full attack action, of course, just like it says in the PHB. A full attack action doesn't limit you to your iterative attacks, of course. If you take a full attack action you can attack as many times as your BAB, feats, off-hand weapons etc will allow. Of course the feat itself may limit this, like whirlwind attack or dirty fighting.

If you want more than 1 attack, you take a full attack action, according to the PHB. I know the FAQ says different, I disagree with it and I don't think the author thought it through properly, never mind playtested it.

Ok...

So, you wouldn't allow a cleave off of:

1) A standard attack.
2) An AoO.
3) A Spring attack.
4) a Whirlwind.

Are there any characters in your party taking this feat at all?

 

[hong]

Ok...

So, you wouldn't allow a cleave off of:

1) A standard attack.
2) An AoO.
3) A Spring attack.
4) a Whirlwind.

Are there any characters in your party taking this feat at all?

Probably not.

Some background: S'mon wandered into the Rules forum one day, and declared that cleaving off anything except a full attack was "munchkin". It was pointed out that the Sage had said it was okay, whereupon the Sage was declared to be munchkin. Various people chimed in to say that it hadn't caused any problems, whereupon these people were declared to be pandering to munchkins.

The discussion deteriorated a bit from there.

http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15112
http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14839

 

[mikebr99]

Probably not.

Some background: S'mon wandered into the Rules forum one day, and declared that cleaving off anything except a full attack was "munchkin". It was pointed out that the Sage had said it was okay, whereupon the Sage was declared to be munchkin. Various people chimed in to say that it hadn't caused any problems, whereupon these people were declared to be pandering to munchkins.

The discussion deteriorated a bit from there.

http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15112
http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14839

Thanks Hong.
I know he is trolling... I'm just in that kind of mood.

 

[S'mon]

Ok...

So, you wouldn't allow a cleave off of:

1) A standard attack.
2) An AoO.
3) A Spring attack.
4) a Whirlwind.

Are there any characters in your party taking this feat at all?

When I play, my PCs always take it, and tend to dominate battles as a result. The others in my group tend to play Monk type PCs who rely on mobility and don't take cleave, they prefer whirlwind attack.