| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| #1DvoolJul 23, 2009 14:45:24 | The fighter in our group has the deft hurler feat from one of the Dragon articles. You have to use a javelin (or whatever) and it changes the EXTRA cleave damage into an extra ranged attack that doesn't provoke. I think the feat is really strong, but that's not the part that upset me. The part the upsets me is that the feat specifically says turning your cleave into two seperate attacks only works if you have two adjacent enemies next to you - just like how cleave normally works. Except our fighter doesn't follow this limitation, he just makes two attacks whenever there's one enemy adjacent to him. On solo fights like dragons, he'll villians menace the dragon and then at-will double attack it doing about 40 damage a round. I emailed our DM pointing out the specific wording on CLEAVE and the feat he took... showing that it is only supposed to work if you have two adjacent enemies next to you. But my DM didn't even email me back any response and the next gaming session the fighter was playing the same way. It really annoys me... that feat is already a nice powerful feat, and then he's just ignoring the limitation to the power that is supposed to make it more balanced and not constantly useable and an at-will solo killer. |
| #2zackblackJul 23, 2009 15:22:19 | I emailed our DM pointing out the specific wording on CLEAVE and the feat he took... showing that it is only supposed to work if you have two adjacent enemies next to you. But my DM didn't even email me back any response and the next gaming session the fighter was playing the same way. Ok so you pulled a rules-lawyer and tried to point out something that was done "wrong" in the game by a fellow player and you have been ignored by the DM. Time to suck it up sunshine or leave the group. Those are your two options. |
| #3keytapJul 23, 2009 15:41:36 | Ok so you pulled a rules-lawyer and tried to point out something that was done "wrong" in the game by a fellow player and you have been ignored by the DM. Bring it up with the DM in-person, and see if he's okay with this. If he's purposely letting the fighter use it in this manner, ask why. Other than that, you can explain why it's overpowered and why you're concerned, but you've gotta make the decision to stick around or find a new group. |
| #4ace_of_timeJul 23, 2009 15:41:53 | You could just talk to the DM in person and find out if there was a reason why he lets the player do this or if he thinks you are being a R.L. It could be that he just hasn't checked his email. I know I don't check mine but once a week. Or it could have went to junk by mistake in which case he didn't even read it. Note: You could point out the The update. Cleave [Revision] although I don't see how it is not possible. Does there have to be another enemy beside you to for go that damage? Where does it say that? And the other feat just says a Basic ranged attack? |
| #5Vilnias_NastavnikJul 23, 2009 16:16:25 | Almost sounds like the DM is a bit sore they changed cleave from 3E to 4E and is ruling it wrong to compensate. What do the other player's at the table feel about this? Is it only you, or do they all feel it's wrong? The answers to those questions should help you to decide to either confront the DM as an (almost) united front, or for you to leave the group. |
| #6ace_of_timeJul 23, 2009 16:22:36 | or He may just not know that they updated it from the 4e fight class power! |
| #7DvoolJul 23, 2009 16:34:02 | I think I'll mention it to the DM in person and see if he did read my email and/or get his perspective as to why he's not changing how the fighter uses the power. I did quote the erratta on cleave in my email to the DM. Cleave already implied that it works with two adjacent enemies, the erratta clarifies this / spells it out. The feat says you can replace the extra str mod damage from cleave with a ranged basic attack. The other players are kind of more casual. They noticed that the fighter owns solos, but they didn't wonder (like me) if he was using the feat correctly. My boyfriend plays with us, and it kind of bothers him as well, but mainly because I pointed it out to him in the first place that the fighter is using the power wrong to his own benefit. I don't believe it is considered rules lawyering to point out how the game is supposed to work according to the rules. Rules lawyering is interrupting the rules in a way that benefits you the most. Thanks to everyone for the input. |
| #8ace_of_timeJul 23, 2009 16:42:20 | I believe that is the point. It doesn't say you have to have 2 targets next to you to give up the damage. And the other feat says that you get a basic ranged attack that doesn't provoke OAs. You'll have to find some where that it says you have to have 2 enemies next to you to give up the damage. maybe Customer Serve could help? You could check to see if someone has asked it already. Couldn't hurt to see what they think about it. |
| #9ZherogJul 23, 2009 17:05:26 | I don't believe it is considered rules lawyering to point out how the game is supposed to work according to the rules. No, interpreting the rules in your favor is being a munchkin. Chiming in when somebody misremembers how a rule works is definitely being a rules lawyer. Contrary to what some people will tell you, if done politely there's nothing wrong with it. I like my players to tell me when I'm wrong. |
| #10DvoolJul 23, 2009 17:25:32 | No, interpreting the rules in your favor is being a munchkin. Chiming in when somebody misremembers how a rule works is definitely being a rules lawyer. Contrary to what some people will tell you, if done politely there's nothing wrong with it. I like my players to tell me when I'm wrong. Oh? Then yes, I'm definitely a rules laywer. lol I like to make sure everyone is playing correctly, or at least is aware of the original rules in the case of a house rule. |
| #11DvoolJul 23, 2009 17:27:52 | I believe that is the point. It doesn't say you have to have 2 targets next to you to give up the damage. And the other feat says that you get a basic ranged attack that doesn't provoke OAs. You'll have to find some where that it says you have to have 2 enemies next to you to give up the damage. maybe Customer Serve could help? You could check to see if someone has asked it already. Couldn't hurt to see what they think about it. CLEAVE WITH THE ERRATA: Cleave Fighter Attack 1 You hit one enemy, then cleave into another. At-Will ✦ Martial, Weapon Standard Action Melee weapon Target: One creature Attack: Strength vs. AC Hit: 1[W] + Strength modifier damage, and an enemy adjacent to you other than the target takes damage equal to your Strength modifier. The extra damage specifically requires ONE ORIGINAL TARGET and ONE NON-ORIGINAL TARGET to go into effect. So 2 or more adjacent enemies. |
| #12Vilnias_NastavnikJul 23, 2009 17:32:55 | CLEAVE WITH THE ERRATA: Actually, as I read it the target is one creature, it only adds extra damage to another adjacent enemy, if there was none, that damage would be lost. Simply because the power would work best with 2 targets, doesn't mean is needs 2 targets. |
| #13DvoolJul 23, 2009 17:37:17 | Actually, as I read it the target is one creature, it only adds extra damage to another adjacent enemy, if there was none, that damage would be lost. Simply because the power would work best with 2 targets, doesn't mean is needs 2 targets. Yes, I agree 100%. The extra damage is dependent on having 2 adjacent enemies. You could still use cleave (which would basically be the same as a melee basic attack, str vs AC for 1[w] + str) vs one enemy. The deft hurler feat says you can replace the extra damage portion of cleave with a ranged basic attack. The extra damage is dependent on having 2 adjacent enemies, therefore, the extra ranged basic attack is dependent on having 2 adjacent enemies. |
| #14ace_of_timeJul 23, 2009 17:39:31 | CLEAVE WITH THE ERRATA: The Hit: entry tells you what happens when the attack hits. In this case the power hits you damage to the target and damage = to your str mod to another adjacent target. If there is one. The other feat doesn't say there has to be a 2nd enemy to for go the extra damage. There is no special part of the power that says you has to be a 2nd enemy to give up the damage. Just that the damage has to go on another enemy other then the target. I'm not saying you are wrong or that your DM is wrong. I'm saying he has made his call and if you want to change his mind you need something that says what you are saying. |
| #15Vilnias_NastavnikJul 23, 2009 17:43:33 | Yes, I agree 100%. But if you make a basic, ranged attack and there are adjacent enemies, don't they get OA's? And, under the "target" entry for the power, does it say "two adjacent enemies"? |
| #16DvoolJul 23, 2009 17:45:45 | The Hit: entry tells you what happens when the attack hits. In this case the power hits you damage to the target and damage = to your str mod to another adjacent target. If there is one. The other feat doesn't say there has to be a 2nd enemy to for go the extra damage. There is no special part of the power that says you has to be a 2nd enemy to give up the damage. Just that the damage has to go on another enemy other then the target. I'm not saying you are wrong or that your DM is wrong. I'm saying he has made his call and if you want to change his mind you need something that says what you are saying. I see your point. My point is the feat says: "You can forgo dealing damage to the adjacent enemy to instead make a ranged basic attack with a heavy thrown weapon." When does the damage to the adjacent enemy take place? ONLY when you have two adjacent enemies. So how can you "forgo" this damage and make a ranged basic attack when there's only one enemy next to you and the requirement for the extra damage is NOT fulfilled? |
| #17DvoolJul 23, 2009 17:48:36 | But if you make a basic, ranged attack and there are adjacent enemies, don't they get OA's? And, under the "target" entry for the power, does it say "two adjacent enemies"? I don't understand your first question. The second question, is no, cleave does not say two adjacent enemies. As you said (and I agree with), you could use cleave on one enemy... but there's no extra str mod damage involved in that case. |
| #18ace_of_timeJul 23, 2009 17:50:34 | Yes, I agree 100%. No it doesn't. It says you for go dealing extra damage to instead make a basic ranged attack with a heavy thrown weapon. It basically says you can skip dealing extra damage to make a basic ranged attack. It doesn't say there has to be two enemies. It doesn't say has to deal that damage just so that you can forgo it. I understand the way you are thinking. But it doesn't say that. You should write CS for an answer to be on the safe side. If they say you are right then you can take that to your DM and he might change his mind. |
| #19Vilnias_NastavnikJul 23, 2009 17:55:29 | I don't understand your first question. 1st question is in relation to the rule that if you make a ranged attack and there is an adjacent enemy, they are allowed an Opportunity Attack against you. The 2nd question was in reference to the original rule that allowed the secondary damage to be replaced, not the cleave rule itself. |
| #20DvoolJul 23, 2009 17:57:53 | No it doesn't. It says you for go dealing extra damage to instead make a basic ranged attack with a heavy thrown weapon. It basically says you can skip dealing extra damage to make a basic ranged attack. It doesn't say there has to be two enemies. It doesn't deal that damage just that you can forgo. I understand the way you are thinking. But it doesn't say that. You should write CS for an answer to be on the safe side. If they say you are right then you can take that two your DM and he might change his mind. Aw, I get it now. My way of understanding the feat is that the extra ranged basic attack REPLACES the extra mod damage of cleave. This would require two adjacent enemies. And your way of understanding the feat is that you SKIP the extra mod damage and you get to make a ranged basic attack. This would not have any requirement, other than the original one adjacent enemy. I guess I assumed that since cleave already had that requirement for extra damage that it would stay that way with the feat. But I think you are right... the word "forgo" is is more like "skip." Thanks for the help. The fighter seems to be using the power correctly. Damn that's really strong for a feat. lol |
| #21ace_of_timeJul 23, 2009 18:07:22 | It may just be some thing that needs addressed. That is the only reason I said ask WotC. |
| #22Hibiki54Jul 23, 2009 22:53:42 | Why complain about something the DM is allowing? Stop being a snitch. Cleave has a general rule that deals damage to an adjacent enemy who is not the original target (Meaning you can Cleave at reach and kill a minion adjacent to you). Deft Hurler Style feat is a specific rule that overrides the Str Mod damage in favor of a basic ranged attack. Stop complaining about a good thing. |
| #23nomJul 23, 2009 22:58:46 | Damn that's really strong for a feat. lol It's a nice feat, yes. But don't forget: (1) You have to have the weapon in-hand, or have a hand free to quick-draw it into. This means either one handed weapon and no shield or you're throwing your melee weapon (which must be throwable and thus deals lower than normal damage). (2) Making a ranged basic attack provokes OAs (since it's a ranged attack). Net result: you're giving up either a shield, weapon damage, or both, and you're trading an RBA for an MBA whenever you make the attack. If the fighter is either getting a free draw without hand issues or not provoking am OA, then it will appear a lot more powerful than it actually is. |
| #24Hibiki54Jul 23, 2009 23:00:26 | (2) Making a ranged basic attack provokes OAs (since it's a ranged attack). Not with the Deft Hurler feat. |
| #25nomJul 24, 2009 0:43:16 | Not with the Deft Hurler feat. Point about the OA. Issues of weapon availability still apply. That said, I can sympathise with Dvool in that the feat is confusingly written. "You can forgo dealing damage to the adjacent enemy to instead make a ranged basic attack with a heavy thrown weapon. This ranged basic attack does not provoke opportunity attacks.". "the adjacent enemy": does that mean that such a target must exist? If so, must you attack them? If not, who may you attack? They've tweaked the Cleave power into something that bears almost no resemblance to the original power. It would have been less confusing to simply replace the "hit" text. It also upgrades Cleave to something that's potentially more powerful than either Twin Strike or Dual Strike. |
| #26DvoolJul 24, 2009 1:46:07 | They've tweaked the Cleave power into something that bears almost no resemblance to the original power. It would have been less confusing to simply replace the "hit" text. It also upgrades Cleave to something that's potentially more powerful than either Twin Strike or Dual Strike. Yes. lol |
| #27prince_of_parknessJul 24, 2009 5:58:56 | Why complain about something the DM is allowing? Stop being a snitch. So if you had an assault swordsage who was using reaper's touch to outdamage even the strikers in the party, you wouldn't complain about it because it was good? |
| #28NerpherderJul 24, 2009 10:38:30 | Why complain about something the DM is allowing? Stop being a snitch. Its not "Snitching" to want a fair and ballanced game, where the rules are followed, yes I know if the DM allows it, it is now in the rules that it works that way. Of course that is assumeing the DM knows the wording of the RAW. Simetimes DMs dont know how the players abilties work, there are alot to remember. The OPer was questioning how the feat and At-Will worked together. The player is doing it one way and the OP thinks it plays a diffrent way, and based on the posts in this thread there is alot of disscussion on the point. On topic: I think the feat was intended to allow the fighter to make a second attack against another target, allowing them to mark two enemies. If the feat was intended to allow you to make 2 attacks against the same target it goes about it in the most confusing way possable. Im cool with the fighter ranged attacking someone not adjacent with the second attack, but not the primeary target. CLEAVE WITH THE ERRATA AND FEAT: Cleave Fighter Attack 1 You hit one enemy, then cleave into another. At-Will ✦ Martial, Weapon Standard Action Melee weapon Target: One creature Attack: Strength vs. AC Hit: 1[W] + Strength modifier damage, you may make a ranged basic attack against a secondary target, or deal your Str mod damage against an adjacent enemy. |
| #29mccowenJul 24, 2009 10:51:19 | It's a nice feat, yes. But don't forget: Actually, it's worse than that. There's no reason you get an action between Cleave and the free ranged basic attack, so you must already be holding a ranged weapon in order to get the benefit of the feat. That means the quick-draw option is out, so you're limited to either holding a one-handed melee weapon and a one-handed ranged weapon, or wielding a single throwable weapon. (And don't forget that Deft Hurler Style already requires the fighter to invest a 13 in what would otherwise be a dump stat.) |
| #30nixyJul 24, 2009 10:57:22 | (And don't forget that Deft Hurler Style already requires the fighter to invest a 13 in what would otherwise be a dump stat.) If you're wielding a spear or heavy blade (which is fairly likely if you're carrying a heavy thrown melee weapon) Dexterity is a prerequisite for your epic-tier Mastery feat and certainly not a dump stat. |
| #31pskoughtJul 24, 2009 11:15:50 | If you're wielding a spear or heavy blade (which is fairly likely if you're carrying a heavy thrown melee weapon) Dexterity is a prerequisite for your epic-tier Mastery feat and certainly not a dump stat. Exactly. In my opinion, this is a pretty clearly a bug, and not the rules as intended. Toe-to-toe with a Bad Guy, the point of Cleave isn't to poke it with a spear and then throw the exact same spear at it. Which, as written, is apparently legal. [One feat = potential double damage output] Has anyone gone to CS with this yet? |
| #32nixyJul 24, 2009 11:31:23 | In my opinion, this is a pretty clearly a bug, and not the rules as intended. Toe-to-toe with a Bad Guy, the point of Cleave isn't to poke it with a spear and then throw the exact same spear at it. Which, as written, is apparently legal. [One feat = potential double damage output] I don't think it's a bug, and I don't see what's wrong with stabbing a BBEG and then throwing the spear in its face. If you're uncomfortable with the fighter's damage output approaching striker level, then just say so, but keep in mind the following:
|
| #33mccowenJul 24, 2009 11:36:45 | If you're wielding a spear or heavy blade (which is fairly likely if you're carrying a heavy thrown melee weapon) Dexterity is a prerequisite for your epic-tier Mastery feat and certainly not a dump stat. At least where spears are concerned, you have a point: a starting Dex of 13-15 is reasonable there. However, Deft Hurler still means that you're using a tratnyr or trident instead of a greatspear, which takes away reach and 5% chance to hit. The only heavy blade with the heavy thrown property is the drow long knife, which is only 1d6/+3 and, depending on the DM, may or may not be available. |
| #34nightwalker450Jul 24, 2009 14:17:48 | If you were to take Cruel Cut Style, and there's nobody adjacent to the target, would they take Wisdom ongoing damage (Save Ends) and you get a ranged attack? Oh wait... we're trying to fix it, not make it worse. :D |
| #35ace_of_timeJul 24, 2009 15:10:24 | I think it would depend on whether you can apply both to that power. I would house rule no until I found out for sure if you could. Then I would talk with my group as a whole to decide which way they wanted it. Of course they mostly choose fair over extra benefits. Thank BOB. Note: That other feat requires a Heavy Thrown weapon to gain the benefit of it. If you are not using that weapon type then you wouldn't get the extra attack. Thrown weapons are made so that you can attack in melee and then thrown into ranged. |
| #36cthulhucultistJul 24, 2009 15:11:27 | Actually, it's worse than that. There's no reason you get an action between Cleave and the free ranged basic attack, so you must already be holding a ranged weapon in order to get the benefit of the feat. That means the quick-draw option is out, so you're limited to either holding a one-handed melee weapon and a one-handed ranged weapon, or wielding a single throwable weapon. Quick Draw Prerequisite: Dex 13 Benefit: You can draw a weapon (or an object stored in a belt pouch, bandolier, or similar container, such as a potion) as part of the same action used to attack with the weapon or use the object. You also gain a +2 feat bonus to initiative checks. You draw the weapon as part of the free action. Its not a separate action with Quickdraw, at least in my understanding, but it is rather part of the action in which the object is used. Which is part of a free action, which is pretty fast. Dunno implications of dropping a weapon (free action), but would assume since its free its allowed too. @ OP: Sounds fairly overpowered--using it on a single enemy is probably an oversight the may be corrected... that's why i personally don't like the contributions found in the magazines, but i realize that is entirely my own personal bias. I play with a group, a couple of which love to utilize those nitty gritty details that stack up in bizarrely powerful ways. I enjoy a sense of balance to the game as well as following the rules, which leads to conundrums in scenerios like this one. It doesn't feel right, but the text of cleave and the feat are vague enough with the "forgo" that I'd find hard to convince my DM of utilizing the nerfed version (at least if it was a player he liked... which is almost all of us). For me, its sometimes difficult to prioritize your pleasure in the game, that of your companions, and (hopefully not unthought of) that of your DM. I think everyone enjoys a game that is governed by consistent rules: that is why we play D&D rather than pretend with our Lego Knights. I've never thought about it this way, but i guess i'm certainly a Rules Lawyer, but i am not an ass about it--i admit when i have made a mistake or misinterpreted an ability, and i try to be *gentle* when questioning rules impacting other players. Our DM is awesome, and encourages questioning his rules interpretations, which can bog down the game a bit as 3 ppl begin flipping through separate books... in the end, its a game you play for enjoyment, and if you don't enjoy playing with a certain player, then you must consider whether your attachment to your companions, dm, or the game itself is enough to persuade you to put up with those you find less enjoyable. Or get your boyfriend to beat him up. |
| #37ace_of_timeJul 24, 2009 15:38:26 | Sorry mind went blank there. If you look at it this way. There is no way the he can keep this up at higher levels. It may look good now but he is never going to get the same hit chance he will have if he keeps a magic weapon in his hand. I'm saying the the player will have to throw a weapon meaning that the player will have to pick it back up or use a different weapon the next time. At higher levels you need magic to hit the enemy better. How does the player plan to overcome this? |
| #38LFKJul 24, 2009 17:25:27 | If you were to take Cruel Cut Style, and there's nobody adjacent to the target, would they take Wisdom ongoing damage (Save Ends) and you get a ranged attack? No, you can only apply one at-will modification feat at a time. |
| #39nixyJul 24, 2009 17:43:57 | /snip All of this is true. In fact, I stated as much in my post directly above yours :P I'm saying the the player will have to throw a weapon meaning that the player will have to pick it back up or use a different weapon the next time. At higher levels you need magic to hit the enemy better. How does the player plan to overcome this? PHB p. 232: Thrown Weapons: Any magic light thrown or heavy thrown weapon, from the lowly +1 shuriken to a +6 perfect hunter's spear, automatically returns to the wielder's hand after a ranged attack with the weapon is resolved. |
| #40ace_of_timeJul 24, 2009 19:28:43 | Well you learn something new every day. My players will be happy about that. |
| #41vannocteegJul 27, 2009 8:41:52 | When you're talking about how an errated ability interacts with an addon from Dragon published before the errata came out, well, the RAW aren't much help. If the group doesn't want to go by the intent that Cleave can't double-dip damage on a single target (which is pretty darn clear), then hey, guess the Fighter is going to be doing a ton of damage. It's not balanced, really, but there are worse things to happen. |
| #42FlashbackJonJul 27, 2009 13:23:32 | Exactly. In my opinion, this is a pretty clearly a bug, and not the rules as intended. Toe-to-toe with a Bad Guy, the point of Cleave isn't to poke it with a spear and then throw the exact same spear at it. Which, as written, is apparently legal. [One feat = potential double damage output] Actually, I'm pretty sure that's exactly the intent of the feat. Use your weapon and then throw it at a second opponent. It might be overpowered, but I believe that is the stylistic design of the feat. I think what isn't intended is to attack, retain your weapon, and throw a second weapon at some other opponent off in the distance. |
| #43thellarenJul 27, 2009 20:00:18 | Yes, I agree 100%. I disagree with this. The extra damage is depending on having a second target to apply it to; without the target, there is no damage, and without the damage, there is nothing to convert to a ranged basic attack. The whole point of cleave is that you attack monster A, then hurt monster B a little bit. The deft hurler feat allows you to turn the hurt for monster B into a ranged basic attack ON MONSTER B. |
| #44Stafir_OrtnevJul 27, 2009 20:34:08 | You misread him Flashback. Lets put it this way. A is you, B is enemy, C is enemy..and D is enemy. d c A b What is being said is that someone attacks c.....then throws the same weapon at c (instead of throwing it at d..or melee smacking b around). As for the retain weapon....bwuh? No..thats exactly what the cleave feat is about..you wield two weapons..smack them with one..and throw the other weapon in someones face..thats the whole idea of it. Although re-reading the feat..yeah..looks like you could throw it at the origional target of cleave..bleh thats wierd....and no attack of opportunity..mm yummy cheese. |