Great cleave

[Mingus]

Does Great cleave complement hitall? Or rather with great cleave improve hitall at the end of each attrack if you manage to hit all the opponents? And does using hitall before the battle engage the benefits of great cleave and cleave so to give a better chance for hitall to succeed?

[Tempus]

Cleave and Great Cleave are feats that give an extra attack if you fell an opponent with one of your normal attacks. They will function as normal when you use the hitall command, if one of your strikes using the hitall kills an opponent. I don't see why either of these feats would increase the likelihood of hitall succeeding.

The feats are automatically used in the event that an attack kills an opponent.

[Selveem]

I took this feat a long time ago and have never seen it work as described in the help file. Perhaps I am reading it wrong, but I have tested it multiple times in many different areas to no avail. The description reads as follows:

>Great cleave feat
>=================
>This feat allows you to wield a melee weapon with such power that you >can strike at more than one foe after killing a foe.
>
>This feat has the pre-requisite of great strength and the knowledge of the
>feats power attack and cleave.

From reading this, it sounds like the old hitall command (except only works one time per kill). I'm not sure if this is something I have to find a way to toggle? The regular cleave seems to function as per normal. I thought this feat was bugged, but I just chalked it up to my own ignorance on how to 'use' the feat (like combatmode +aggressive and the like).

Is this feat bugged?

[Hviti]

As far as I know, great cleave gives one an attack on the next enemy ala cleave, then if and only if that next enemy is killed by the cleave, continues on the attack onto another enemy. It is able to do this several times, whereas cleave only confers an extra attack in that round of combat.

Example:

You are fighting 3 rats all of which have little health

If you have cleave:
You swing at the first rat, kill it, continue cleave onto the second, kill it, then finish your round. The last rat attacks you, then the next round begins and you can engage and kill it.

If you have great cleave:
You swing at the first rat, kill it, cleave the second, kill it, then, because you have great cleave, attack the third, killing it. This takes one round.

This may be hard to notice because 'rounds' aren't specially marked; one just continues exchanging attacks with a creature.

[Raona]

Thanks for the clarification, Hviti! The helpfiles did not make this very clear, but have now been updated to reflect your example.

Anyone else seeing places where the helpfiles can be improved, please don't be shy about saying so! Suggesting new text is even better than just pointing out that a given helpfile needs work. Thanks!

[Selveem]

So... basically this feat is worthless past level 10? With the apparent damage reduction in melee, I can't see fighting something level 20 and killing multiple things with one blow.

[Raona]

So... basically this feat is worthless past level 10? With the apparent damage reduction in melee, I can't see fighting something level 20 and killing multiple things with one blow.

What did you think this feat was going to/supposed to do, as opposed to what it actually does?

[Hviti]

From the text in the former helpfile, I think he believed (as I did when looking over the file for the first time) that great cleave would hit every enemy in the room after an enemy was killed (like the former skill hitall, but not a skill and only upon killing an enemy.

To reuse the example:

You are fighting 3 rats etc.

If you have cleave:
You swing at the first rat, kill it, continue cleave onto the second, kill it, then finish your round. The last rat attacks you, then the next round begins and you can engage and kill it.

If you have great cleave (the way the helpfile sounded):
You swing at the first rat, kill it, then great cleave to hit the second and the third at the same time. If there were ten enemies in the room and you killed one, you would hit all the other nine at the same time, with 1 attack.

It would be more powerful if it were in that hypothetical state, but then again, since the situations in which you run into a huge number of enemies all at tone time aren't very common, and it would only confer extra attacks at each death, imo it wouldn't be overpowered, especially for a feat that takes 2 other preliminary feats to gain.

Also, as Selveem mentioned, in the current state of affairs cleave and great cleave do about the same thing.

[Selveem]

What did you think this feat was going to/supposed to do, as opposed to what it actually does?

Exactly as Hviti said - I thought it would perform a hitall when you kill one enemy in the room. That would be useful. As Hviti pointed out, with the way it currently works, greater cleave is no better than the regular cleave as your chance of actually _killing_ a mob above level 10 with a single blow is next to nil.

If maybe there was a room with 200 rats in it with 2 hp each, I can see where it would be useful but.. realistically - I'd rather have the mage with me fireball.

[Amalia]

In classic D&D, Great Cleave is meant for exactly that-- killing large numbers of enemies of far lower level than yourself. The heroic staving-off of an army of mooks. I'll grant, there's not too much opportunity to do this in FK-- but that's what the feat is meant to do in pretty much every game where it exists.

[Selveem]

In classic D&D, Great Cleave is meant for exactly that-- killing large numbers of enemies of far lower level than yourself. The heroic staving-off of an army of mooks. I'll grant, there's not too much opportunity to do this in FK-- but that's what the feat is meant to do in pretty much every game where it exists.

Perhaps, yes, but also in D&D damage from weapons can hurt just as much as that of a mage. The chance to kill someone instantly is an ever-present danger in melee whereas here in FK it is extremely hard to score said hit. If not, impossible. I'm not even sure a coup-de-grace is even a possibility here.

Further, yes, it is very nice for fighting a horde of really low level things. However, here in FK that has absolutely no benefit (or, rather, has even negative response from Imms as I have found out in the past - razing towns or even 'farming' "lower level" areas are very much frowned upon. *innocent*).

[Selveem]

Just curious, since hitall was removed (possibly permanently?) and the way FK is really set up (rules/expected conduct), what would the chances be of actually having it perform a 'hitall' to any other mobs attacking you in the room after a killing blow? As Hviti mentioned, it does require 2 other feats as well as a stat base requirement.

[Kregor]

That is not the point of the feat.

The feat actually performs as designed in D&D, so I see no reason to change it.

The fact that you end up fighting higher level mobs, should not be a justification of changing the way the feat works. It is designed to give you an up when facing much lower level mobs. Not for training, because yes, you will get in trouble for training regularly on much lower level mobs or razing. But for ROLEPLAYS it is a nice feat to have.

Hitall, for the record, was taken out because it was 1) bugged and allowed people to get up to 12 extra attacks a round on everyone in the room, as fast as you could spam the command. and 2) it was unbalancing, as even whirlwind attack in D&D takes somewhere along the lines of 4 feats as prerequisites, and even then, it only fires off once per round, and replaces ALL other attacks that round, AND can only hit all opponents within reach of your weapon in a circle, which means up to 9 opponents surrounding you.

Hitall, wasn't even close to that, and it would just put another non-D&D unbalancing feature into the game, to bring it back under the christening of a recoded great cleave.

[Selveem]

Just out of curiousity... How in the world would it be 'better in RP?' I don't mean to be offensive, but like - seriously.

Otell newbie1 Okay, I can tell you are low level because you are still wearing cloths from the newbie training grounds - when I hit you, you have to RP dying instantly so I can use my great cleave feat on your friend? Kkthx.

Otell newbie2 Okay, so your friend newbie1 just said it was cool to RP being able to use my great cleave feat. I know you're wearing some leathers, but I think you're a lowbie too so if you don't mind, when I 'kill' your friend, I need you to RP being struck down in the same round too so my great cleave feat looks cool, K?

It's not good in RP, IMHO, it's not worth spending 2 feats to get when it does the same exact thing code-wise as the first feat due to damage output of melee (for fighters). I'm not complaining, I'm suggesting something to make it do something other than what cleave already does.

[Kregor]

I mean roleplay, as in, an imm-run RP where the monsters are set up.

Now, as far as great cleave doing nothing more than cleave. I have aided young ones in the peaks quest, or the shadowlands, or in other areas with lower level mass mobs, and I've had no trouble getting more than one extra kill on occasion. It's not meant to happen all the time, it never has been, it happens on occasion, and if you don't think that's worth the feat point, then, by all means, don't train it.

Now, to digress on the topic of fighters not being able to deal as much damage as a high level wizard. I'll paraphrase one of Dalvyn's best statements regarding class vs. class balance. It has never been the design of D&D that all classes should have the same damage capacity, or even be able to stand toe to toe with each other. I would be hard pressed to see a NON-munchkin game of D&D where a fighter would do as much damage in a round as a high level wizard with a well-used spell. In fact there are some inconsistencies in the FK code that would tend to allow a warrior in FK to cause MORE damage per hit than in D&D. I fail to see any merit in a complaint of "fighters don't do enough damage in the game," when they are, in fact, sword slingers, plain and simple, meatshields, living armour for the party they're with. They can take the damage more, and longer than any other class in the game. That's what they're there for.

[Selveem]

I'm not certain which version of D&D you have played, but I happen to have a particular fighter who is very capable of dealing a high volume of damage per hit. If you understand the mechanics of D&D and know how to properly build a damage-dealing warrior, I assure you that it is more than possible to deal the same amount. Now, that's not even taking into account some of the special spells that can be purchased onto weapons - things that do +2d6 per strike. Couple that with monkey grip, your five attacks per round, 1 large fullblade (3d8+enhancement bonus and strength strength bonus). Let's go ahead and do some math here. Let's say we're fighting one person for a single round. Any level 20 fighter worth his grain of salt will have at least a +4 bonus to strength. Let's just be silly and give that special weapon a +5 magical enhancement and a +2d6 sonic damage enhancement:

3d8x5
4x5
2d6x5
5x5

If we take maximum damage with each hit and for the sake of arguement say each strike lands (though very improbable) that gives us a total of 120+20+60+25 = 225 damage. That is a single round. Now, that's not even taking into account massive damage rule nor critical strikes. Much less coup-de-graces.

I think for you to say that "all fighters are really is just a meatshield who is handy with a weapon" is rather silly. Let's be serious here.

[Raona]

Selveem, it is my impression that you are severely toeing the line on abusive with your tone, whether you intend it or not. Please, if you want to have this discussion, focus your comments on what you think, and avoid derogatory comments about what other people think, even if you don't agree with them.

I trust that in Kregor you are talking to a fellow fighter, who has also taken the great cleave feat, and who does indeed see his role in combat as "a meatshield who is handy with a weapon."

Frankly, I concur, in this respect: left to their own devices long enough to get off a spell, high-level spellcasters should be right deadly, at least until they tire and need to rest. Without fighterpower in front of them, though, they should never get the opportunity to get off a spell, unless they are facing a set of similarly fighterless foes. The large amount of damage a spellcaster can do is offset by how little they can take themselves, their need to concentrate in order to do so, and the limited duration of their offensive capability. Against a continuing onslaught of foes, they tire in a way that fighters do not. Their growth is also a far greater challenge, I believe - which is to say that it is harder for them to train and gain levels, especially in the early goings. Well over half the corpses I find in the Font, who never come to collect their things, are (well, were) spellcasters, heavily weighted on wizards.

[Amalia]

In addition, Selveem, the "poper building" to which you refer is, as far as I'm aware, called "twinking"-- where instead of taking something less powerful mechanically that might be ICly appropriate you create your character purely for numbers. Yes, D&D is a mathematical game and there's nothing wrong with doing that-- in D&D. There's something wrong with doing it in FK, because FK is RP-enforced.

As Raona noted, wizards have a much tougher time becoming powerful-- and I agree that it's fair, at that point, for them to have an extra edge in the situations they do. It's also true that they tire and need to rest to a greater degree than fighters, definitely a mitigating factor; they are also as powerful as they are because they are versatile IF they can prepare for the enemy. If an illusionist whose main killing staple is phantasmal killer finds himself unexpectedly facing creatures immune to fear or illusions, he's in a load of trouble. Fighters don't really face that issue, either.

As Kregor said, it's tough to find a non-munchkin D&D game where fighters do more damage-- and a game in which the characters are twinked to the max, while it may not have an official "You're dating the DM" reroll, is pretty close to Munchkin.

[Selveem]

I was trying to explain, based on raw numbers, how I feel he is incorrect. A fighter is called a fighter for a reason. I apologize for the rather curt and perhaps even abrasive tone, but as one who has always enjoyed fighters more than any other class in any roleplaying game, I found his comment rather offensive towards the class. I'm not saying wizards are not powerful. Rogues are powerful too. Any class, in D&D, is powerful in their own way. And I would even go as far as to say they are balanced in power, in that way. A bard is often underestimated in D&D - until you realize the little trickster has a posse of people behind him waiting for you.

Now, getting to the post at hand, I was explaining that how Great Cleave is not really any more useful than the actual base feat and was attempting to offer something to make it more useful. It's a fighting feat. It's for dealing damage.

Yes, I understand it may work in Howling Peaks - an area designed specifically for players around level 10 to be able to work with a group, not a high level player walking a low level through and mauling everything in sight. However, what my intention was to (after finding out it is not bugged and simply didn't work as I interpereted it to in the help file) suggest something to make the feat more useful instead of only cleaning out lowbie areas. Something that you spent two feat points on should at least have some use in playing your character responsibly.

If it's not acceptable and the feat is 'fine as it is' - alright. Either way, I have expressed suggestion and defended my view as I see it.

Also, one other thing - you stated warriors don't run into 'immunities' like wizards and other casters do. Actually, you are wrong in that account. There are many monsters that are 'immune' to slashing, piercing, etc-type of weapons.

[Rhytania]

Its disturbing to me how quickly the word twink, munchkin, meta/powergaming comes out so quickly in these discussions. I can see from Selveems point how he is instantly forced to be on the defensive becuase he is merely questioning the mechanics of a game he has been on a lot longer than most of the playerbase. He knows the RP policy, he understands that this is a RP-E/I mud, however he is adressing a point he felt needed addressing. I dont know I m not trying to play forum police, but cant this discussion be had over the mechanics of a possibly broken feat rather than digressing to poking each other in the eye of who can be the most self sacrificing minimalistic RPer out there?

I believe that you build your character has your character is played. If I was inclined to play a fighter, why would I gimp him for the sake of roleplay if it isnt in my RP to do so? Would I take a feat I know I would have no obvious use for? Or take one that would better prepare me for combat, which is my specialty. Not all fighters are twinks just as much as someone who is concerned with the mechanics of a certain skill or feat, that, may be misleading to the gen pop of the mud or possibly might either need a second look at or more clarification, is a munchkin. I played tabletop long before FK, and I severly doubt anyone could say that the majority of those games we played with my main group where munchkin by any stretch of the means, however when it came time to put the petal to the metal either you where prepared for what the DM threw at you or you werent. Plain and simple. We build our character sheets and imporove them OOCLY to back up their RP ICLY.

Im not trying to swing this discussion one way or another, but I beleive its rude and demeaning to throw that at someone for merely asking a question. If he was a newbie player I doubt he would have gotten the response he did.