Changing Mechanic: Cleaving

[blueruby]

Once again, experimenting with some play testing on some current mechanics that may need some attention. This thread is going to focus on potential changes to the Cleave mechanic. None of these ideas are set in stone, so we actively welcome any and all input (as long as it is relevant to the conversation).

• One of the first changes we tested was the idea of a one-handed cleave. The required role-play was much more exaggerated, which slowed down the attacks. We also implemented the rule where you could not Cleave on consecutive attacks: there had to be at least one normal swing in between cleaves. We are not yet sure if/how we will implement such a mechanic, but the potential is there, and that is why we play test these things.
• Number two on the list also slowed Cleavers down slightly, requiring them to announce the word "CLEAVE" BEFORE they began the attack. This would give the defenders another split second of reaction time to respond to the attack.
• We added in a rule to make shields harder to defend, where if the cleaver was able to follow through with their attack and push the defender's weapon into their shield, the shield still took damage.
• Finally, the last major change we tried came on the part of the defenders: When they would block with a weapon, rather than with a shield, they would be STAGGERED instead of pushed back five feet. This was done to help the cleavers discourage opponents from rushing in blindly to close the gap between the combatants, and to give the defenders a slightly more prominent detriment when absorbing such a massive blow with a weapon.

Again, none of these are official rules at the moment, just ideas which we are testing out, and will most likely continue to do so in the coming weeks. Feel free to post any comments, questions or concerns you may have regarding these so we can address them as they arise.

[Mischelle]

I would use some of these sparingly (one hand cleave)- cleave is already a step up from normal fighting with the ability to break shields. So any improving on it might make it pretty lethal.
Saying cleave BEFORE the attack- I am all for. It makes the attacker think about it before just jumping into it, so it replicates a better wind up.
I agree with the follow through. If it can still hit the shield, then I think the damage should still be counted. In Bel they call it anvil-ing. We talked about this in practice, it does NOT mean you hit harder, you just have follow through. I like this because it replicates real life. When someone is going to commit to the cleave (in real life) They would not be able to hit a sword then rapidly change direction with a 5-7 pound sword very easily. It is also a balancer of power (IMHO).
Staggering... I personally am not a fan. After coming off of surgery and only being able to go down on 1 knee it kicked my butt. So this is not a realistic based opinion- this is just my personal one. I know and it has been talked about that when people wear plate or have bad knees, backs it will be a lot harder for them to get down on one knee and get back up a few times in a fight. If I were to base it on realism, I like the rule we have now that it knocks you back. There was also talk about if you could not go back (due to walls, people, trees...) then you would take a point of damage. I would be more in favor of that.

[CPotter]

Though I enjoyed using one-handed cleave I can see how it breaks the idea of skill based idea behind our fighting. Also, the stagger though probably more realistic it is much harder to comeback from but it gives the same result as the knock back rule we have now. People do complain that it seems like people just bounce right back and that's because sometimes people only take a step or two back and all that would require is enforcement from the people cleaving that people need to step back as our rules state. As for the saying CLEAVE before you attack is in my opinion actually much better for realism because you take time to wind up and it does slow down the reset time to show the weight of the weapon.

[blueruby]

I'm not trying to say that the follow-through is going to result in people hitting harder, I'm just concerned that it might get there in the heat of battle. Not that we shouldn't be policing it, just that to me, it seems like an accident waiting to happen.

I see I'm pretty much alone on my stance with the Stagger Cleave, which is fine, I'm glad we got to play test it. I personally liked that it would slow down attackers, and made me think twice about rushing in against a cleaver (an issue I feel I've never had before). I understand that people are worried about knees or backs and whatnot, and for people in heavy armor (Although that's more their own fault). Like I said, I'm just glad we got to give it a chance.

I also do like the part where you take damage if you can't back up. It will help us keep players from turtling up in a corner somewhere and waiting for the game to be done, because that's really not realistic. If you're sitting there just hiding behind a shield, you're going to get picked apart.

[Jopper13]

We have been doing some great playtesting of Cleave and how to creatively use it and it has been great.

I do like the change from "announce cleave while swinging" to "wind up, announce cleave, then swing". It seems so minor but it changes the way Cleave plays out. It slows it down just a bit but not enough to really put a negative effect on the mechanic.

One handed cleave was not nearly as powerful as I expected, which I like because I think it will be a nice way to add a "magic affect" to a weapon either my temporary enchantment or introducing permanent magic items (for example, the MayKar blade) into the game. As for a skill that allows you to Cleave one handed, I am opposed to it so it keeps the two handed cleavers more unique.

More emphasis on the "push through" cleave seems very successful so far and I have seen no issues at all from the playtest. I do agree that people could hit harder but in all honesty, the new "wind up, announce, then swing" has more commitment and role play in it that it almost controls the situation better. It is harder to "reactionary cleave" with less control under the new system. Damaging an opponent if they can't knockback or cleaving into the shield if they don't stop the attack makes it seem like the "oomph" of the cleave is maintained even if it slows it down a bit. I also noticed that an opponent that is blocking a cleave with a weapon is more likely to be "locked down" if the cleaver presses into the attack which can allow their allies to hit them. I see more guaranteed damage with this new system which is good.

The stagger VS knockback thing was far more interesting than I expected. At first I never thought staggering after a cleave would work and actually, it worked very well. I am going to have to disagree with Mischelle on this one... if you are not physically able to stagger when blocking a cleave then I don't see that as a bad mechanic, I see that from a more technical side. If a player is unable to stagger when blocking a cleave then they really should reconsider placing themselves in the front of combat and blocking cleavers repeatedly, they should take those attacks on their shield instead or be less aggressive. I know my stance on this is more harsh than others, because I don't care if a player has full plate or not, if they are staggered then they must stagger or if they are pushed then they must fall down as per the rules. Either learn how to do it in your armor or don't wear it, in my opinion. I am not saying this view is irrelevant, I am just stating that I look at it differently.
For the mechanic itself, it worked real well and seemed to make fighters think twice about engaging cleavers. With knockback, it allows you to bounce away and keep moving and can really shut down a cleavers ability to fight (since you just keep moving). Engaging a cleaver is riskier as a parried cleave results in your stopping and staggering, meaning you could be killed or damaged easier. I was surprised at how it influenced the battle, especially in a shield wall situation.
Although I liked what the stagger mechanic did, I am still in favor of the knockback as I believe it represents the mechanic a bit better. With the push-through emphasized more and the cleave damaging the player if they can't back up then I think it balances it to where we want it to be.

Good discussion, everyone!

[lz129]

One-handed-cleave is super annoying in the other system that I have played in that has it. It is broken enough in that system that if you were to introduce it here I would caution you strongly. I have personally seen a twenty person shield-wall completely crumble just because of three people with that ability. Basically, the two units met, the Dwarves with that ability had huge shields and were in the front rank. In a matter of seconds, they had created a three person wide hole in our ranks and just pushed themselves in, splitting our unit like a piece of firewood. Can you imagine how one-handed cleave would have affected the clashes on the center landbridge at the combat event? I have also, in that same system, personally lost an honor duel because of that ability. A tower shield is really awesome and gives you a huge advantage. Cleave is really awesome and can take away your opponent's defense, which gives you a huge advantage. This guy got to use BOTH of those things simultaneously against me. I couldn't hit him because he had an annoyingly large shield. In a matter of seconds with his one-handed cleave ability, he destroyed my shield. There wasn't really anything I could do, then. I had a short hammer and no shield. He had an axe and a tower shield.

If it is used as a special limited ability like with an enchantment or a blessing, that's one thing, but I would not make it an actual skill.

Lycon Graytide doesn't count, by the way. He only has one arm, so it really didn't give him an advantage so much as it just helped even the playing field a little...

[ungrim123]

I can post again, horray!

I'm with LZ on this one, and I was one of people he was talking about. One handed cleave, as anything other then a artifact lvl magic weapon, is not fair for PC's to have.

Imagine someone duel wielding with that skill?

I do think cleave needs a boost though. Perhaps a lesser version of stunned that lasts for 1-3 seconds? Personally when I've faced a two handed weapon I either dodge the attacks or just take them on my armor, saving my shield for later. The current rules place a severe disadvantage on a two handed weapon vs an armored opponent with a shield.

[blueruby]

That is one of the reasons we play tested the stagger cleave, as it would hopefully give attackers slightly more pause when confronting a cleaver and make blocking with a weapon or a shield both look somewhat unappealing. It worked better than expected, but was still deemed less preferable to the 5-foot knockback, which is what the mechanic currently is.

[Jopper13]

The updated cleave rules have been in place for most of 2014. So far, the feedback on the upgrade (enforcing the role played swing and announcement more but allowing it to stagger someone hit by the cleave to their person) has been positive.

My question is this... does this change work well or should it be altered a bit?

This was the previous rulings in Version 1.2 and prior:
Cleave hits your...
- Weapon/Block = No damage, Knockback 5' to target
- Shield = Point of damage on shield, Announce "Shield", no additional effect
- You = Point of damage

This is the current ruling:
Cleave hits your...
- Weapon/Block = No damage, Knockback 5' to target
- Shield = Point of damage on shield, Announce "Shield", no additional effect
- You = Point of damage and Staggers target

This is the possible change after getting a full season of feedback in:

Cleave hits your...
- Weapon/Block = No damage, Knockback 5' to target
- Shield = Point of damage on shield, Announce "Shield", no additional effect
- You = Point of damage and Knockback 5' (similar to blocking)

Currently the stagger effect works well, but there are 3 different ways cleave affects a target and I have seen the looks of confusion on a lot of player's faces when they try to remember this. The last idea would streamline it; the effect on the target would be the same so it is easier to remember but the presence of a secondary effect is still present, giving Cleaver's an advantage.

This will be the final possible change to cleave... either it stays as is and will forever be this way or it will change to knockback and then its done, no more tweaking.

Thoughts?

[Archmage Vazra]

Strongly against a change to the cleave rule, changing it again isn't going to ease up any confusion and quite frankly, the proposed change would severely hamper it's usefulness. If I managed to position myself where I can successfully cleave an opponent, the last thing I would want to do is send them flying outside my range. Cleaves are already horrifyingly telegraphed, seems like taking away their stagger would just cripple two handed weapons.

[Jopper13]

True, but keep in mind a simplified rule for Cleave that players follow easily may be a better option than a complicated rule for Cleave that only half the players follow.

For example, it sucks when I line up a good cleave on a player and hit them with it, expecting them to stagger and role play being hit, and they just call armor or hit and walk off. As with any rule, players should know them but the more simplified the better.

I am in favor of keeping the stagger rule but I have seen enough misunderstandings or confusion with it that changing it to knockback might be worth it.