Look at this thing I found in Pathfinder! The bad feats/spells/etc thread

[Power]

New feat found:

CLEAVE THROUGH (COMBAT)
Source Advanced Race Guide
You are ferocious at hewing smaller opponents.

Prerequisites: Str 13, Cleave, Power Attack, base attack bonus +11, dwarf.

Benefit: When using Cleave or Great Cleave, if your initial attack hits, you may take a single 5-foot step as a free action before making your additional attacks. If doing so places a creature within your threatened area, that creature becomes a legal target for your additional Cleave attack(s) as long as it meets all the other prerequisites.

Normal: You may only make additional attacks with Cleave against creatures you threaten when you make your initial attack.

So, here's a feat so bad it doesn't make your character worse for taking it. It makes the game worse for existing.

Not only are the 11 BAB and dwarf prerequisites completely obnoxious, but it nerfs Cleave just by existing and has you pay an extra feat just to get a half-assed version of the unnerfed cleave. You can now only take the 5-foot step after the initial attack and it also has another restriction in case you somehow happen to get more than one five foot step.

[Raineh Daze]

You are ferocious at hewing smaller opponents.

Also the fluff text is inexplicable because it's about dwarves. 2/3 of their major opponents (3/4 including dragons) are bigger than them.

[Frogman55]

New feat found:

CLEAVE THROUGH (COMBAT)
Source Advanced Race Guide
You are ferocious at hewing smaller opponents.

Prerequisites: Str 13, Cleave, Power Attack, base attack bonus +11, dwarf.

Benefit: When using Cleave or Great Cleave, if your initial attack hits, you may take a single 5-foot step as a free action before making your additional attacks. If doing so places a creature within your threatened area, that creature becomes a legal target for your additional Cleave attack(s) as long as it meets all the other prerequisites.

Normal: You may only make additional attacks with Cleave against creatures you threaten when you make your initial attack.

So, here's a feat so bad it doesn't make your character worse for taking it. It makes the game worse for existing.

Not only are the 11 BAB and dwarf prerequisites completely obnoxious, but it nerfs Cleave just by existing and has you pay an extra feat just to get a half-assed version of the unnerfed cleave. You can now only take the 5-foot step after the initial attack and it also has another restriction in case you somehow happen to get more than one five foot step.

I dunno - I've never thought about this, as I almost never play dwarfs (little buggers bug me). But this looks to me like a way to get an additional 5' step, either a second one in the round, or a 5' step available even with a move action or charge.

If that's the case, then it isn't all that bad. Even with the strict reading, you can still take a 5' step before you use cleave, so long as you were threatening your target both before and after.

[kitep]

It might be useful if you cleave while doing an attack of opportunity ???

[Frogman55]

It might be useful if you cleave while doing an attack of opportunity ???

Unfortunately, Cleave requires a standard action. It's not the same as 3.5 cleave - instead of a free attack when you drop something, it's just a free attack against two enemies that you threaten.

So the only utility I see is if you can successfully argue that this could let you take two 5' steps, or a 5' step after a move.

[linklord231]

PF Cleave would almost be good, if you could combine it with Vital Strike and have both of them or on a charge.

[Power]

Woohoo, this one has not been posted yet:

STRIKE BACK
Source Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook pg. 135
You can strike at foes that attack you using their superior reach, by targeting their limbs or weapons as they come at you.

Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +11.

Benefit: You can ready an action to make a melee attack against any foe that attacks you in melee, even if the foe is outside of your reach.

Another one of those brilliant feats that effectively nerfs characters by implying they shouldn't be allowed to do that without investing in the feat.

[snakeman830]

Woohoo, this one has not been posted yet:

STRIKE BACK
Source Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook pg. 135
You can strike at foes that attack you using their superior reach, by targeting their limbs or weapons as they come at you.

Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +11.

Benefit: You can ready an action to make a melee attack against any foe that attacks you in melee, even if the foe is outside of your reach.

Another one of those brilliant feats that effectively nerfs characters by implying they shouldn't be allowed to do that without investing in the feat.

Bolded what may be the important part.  I don't think you can strike a foe 20 feet away with a greatsword using a readied action.

[Power]

Now let me bold what I consider the important part: You can strike at foes that attack you using their superior reach, by targeting their limbs or weapons as they come at you. I'm pretty sure you didn't need a feat to do this.

I guess the part where you can target the weapon to damage the wielder and not the weapon itself is a perk, assuming they are attacking you with a reach weapon.

[Unbeliever]

Actually, I'm pretty sure that Snakeman830 is right.  If you're 20 ft. from a Dragon who is attacking you with its tail, I never thought you got to attack just at its tail.  You'd have to move in, eating the attack of opportunity, etc., to be able to harm it. 

The feat is still blisteringly crappy, but it does give you something you couldn't do otherwise.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Attacking any part of a creature deals hp damage to it.  That is part of the massive abstraction of the hp system, and hardly the most strange aspect of it.  I think you're confusing attacking limbs with SNEAK ATTACKing limbs.  It's sneak attack that says you must strike vital areas and extremities may not count.  General melee smacking has no such restriction.

So yes, the feat is awful, one of the worst in PF.  Not only does it lock behind a feat something most considered a thing you could freaking do already... it locked it behind a feat with a goddamned BAB +11 requirement, because fuck martials.  Why should they get to ready to hit a giant's arm before the wizard can cast True Seeing, Contingency, or Flesh to Stone?  The former is totally more powerful than the latter.

EDIT: We're not talking about on your own turn, full attacking from some arbitrary distance and ignoring the rules of reach completely.  We're talking about specifically readying an action, which might never pay off, to strike the dragon's tail the exact moment it has placed it within your threatened reach.  Should be obvious, but I'll state it just to be sure everyone is following along.

[Kethrian]

I'm pretty sure I read a Sage Advice article or rules clarification somewhere (possibly back in 3.0 era) that expressly pointed out that readying an action like this is permitted.  I can't for the life of me remember where or when I read it, though, so I cannot provide you with a source.  So yeah, PF screws up the rules yet again ...

[Unbeliever]

Attacking any part of a creature deals hp damage to it.  That is part of the massive abstraction of the hp system, and hardly the most strange aspect of it.  I think you're confusing attacking limbs with SNEAK ATTACKing limbs.  It's sneak attack that says you must strike vital areas and extremities may not count.  General melee smacking has no such restriction.

I'm not confusing any such thing at all.  I'm saying that I'm not going to be shocked if a DM doesn't say you need to have reach on an enemy to actually hit it.  D&D doesn't let you declare that you're attacking a "part" of the creature.  That's not a combat option in the base rules.  You attack "the target."  And, on a "straight" read of the rules, the "target" is that blob that occupies a bunch of squares all the way over there, to wit, out of your reach.  It's not the target's arm/tentacle/spiked chain that's coming at your face. 

I happen to think this "straight" read of the rules is overly hidebound and silly.  Hence the scare quotes.  I'd, obviously, let someone do such a thing without a feat. 

I imagine the Sage Advice article that Kethrian refers to says exactly this as well.  But, it's not immediately obvious from the rules.  That is, of course, why we have DMs and brains. 

[ErikF]

This is my first time posting outside of the intro forum, so hopefully this works! 

I'm pretty sure I read a Sage Advice article or rules clarification somewhere (possibly back in 3.0 era) that expressly pointed out that readying an action like this is permitted.  I can't for the life of me remember where or when I read it, though, so I cannot provide you with a source.  So yeah, PF screws up the rules yet again ...

I think that the D&D 3.5 FAQ 6/30/08 (pp.66-67) has this information (it refers to attacks of opportunity, but I feel that a readied attack trigger would use essentially the same rules):

If an enemy makes an attack against me that would provoke an attack of opportunity (such as a disarm or grapple attempt), do I get the attack of opportunity if I can’t reach him? Would the Close-Quarters Fighting feat help at all?

Strictly speaking, if you don’t threaten an enemy, you can’t make attacks of opportunity against that enemy. Thus, if an ogre tried to sunder your elf’s longsword from 10 feet away, you wouldn’t get an attack of opportunity against the ogre (since an elf wielding a longsword doesn’t threaten an enemy 10 feet away). This is true even if the ogre is reaching out with his hand, such as when trying to grapple you.
Even the Close-Quarters Fighting feat doesn’t help, since that feat applies only when the attack of opportunity against a grappling foe normally would be denied by “a feat or special ability that would normally bypass the attack” and lists Improved Grapple and improved grab as examples.
If, as DM, this bothers your sensibilities and you and your players are willing to bend the letter of the rules a bit, consider the following house rule that the Sage has used in his games in the past: If a foe would provoke an attack of opportunity with any action that brings him (or something he holds) into contact with you or your space, you can make an attack of opportunity against the foe (or the object he holds, if that’s what’s contacting you). This means that an ogre trying to initiate a grapple would provoke an attack of opportunity that you could make against the ogre (since his hand and arm are clearly coming within your reach to grab you), while the same ogre trying to sunder your weapon with his greatclub would provoke an attack of opportunity that you could make only against the greatclub (that is, with a disarm or sunder attempt).

How does this affect the feat in question? From my reading of the ruling, technically there probably is a place for it. Does that make the feat "good"? Not a chance. It seems like a dumb feat tax for something that should have always been allowed IMO.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Attacking any part of a creature deals hp damage to it.  That is part of the massive abstraction of the hp system, and hardly the most strange aspect of it.  I think you're confusing attacking limbs with SNEAK ATTACKing limbs.  It's sneak attack that says you must strike vital areas and extremities may not count.  General melee smacking has no such restriction.

I'm not confusing any such thing at all.  I'm saying that I'm not going to be shocked if a DM doesn't say you need to have reach on an enemy to actually hit it.  D&D doesn't let you declare that you're attacking a "part" of the creature.  That's not a combat option in the base rules.  You attack "the target."  And, on a "straight" read of the rules, the "target" is that blob that occupies a bunch of squares all the way over there, to wit, out of your reach.  It's not the target's arm/tentacle/spiked chain that's coming at your face. 

I happen to think this "straight" read of the rules is overly hidebound and silly.  Hence the scare quotes.  I'd, obviously, let someone do such a thing without a feat. 

I imagine the Sage Advice article that Kethrian refers to says exactly this as well.  But, it's not immediately obvious from the rules.  That is, of course, why we have DMs and brains.

That's what I mean.  This isn't called shots.  Attacking any part of the creature's body deals hp damage, that's the abstraction.  Treating the attack of limbs and extremities as a special case  is called shots.
Allowing readied actions to hit a foe as part of his body enters your reach to harm you relies upon logic and common sense, which I realize are unpopular resources to many on D&D boards.

(click to show/hide)

DM: "The enemy has a claw attack with 15 ft reach."
Player: "I want to ready to strike its limb as it's attacking me."
DM: "You can't do that, you wouldn't be threatening it."
Player: "Is it swiping the air and causing some sort of magical wind slash?"
DM: "No...it slashes you physically with its claws."
Player: "Without those claws ever getting closer to me than 15 feet?"
DM: "Of course not, that'd be silly."
Player: "So...is its limb invincible to damage and does not bleed or take wounds?"
DM: "Well, no...."
Player: "So then, I'll ready to strike its limb when the limb is close enough."

[Raineh Daze]

Attacking any part of a creature deals hp damage to it.  That is part of the massive abstraction of the hp system, and hardly the most strange aspect of it.  I think you're confusing attacking limbs with SNEAK ATTACKing limbs.  It's sneak attack that says you must strike vital areas and extremities may not count.  General melee smacking has no such restriction.

I'm not confusing any such thing at all.  I'm saying that I'm not going to be shocked if a DM doesn't say you need to have reach on an enemy to actually hit it.  D&D doesn't let you declare that you're attacking a "part" of the creature.  That's not a combat option in the base rules.  You attack "the target."  And, on a "straight" read of the rules, the "target" is that blob that occupies a bunch of squares all the way over there, to wit, out of your reach.  It's not the target's arm/tentacle/spiked chain that's coming at your face. 

I happen to think this "straight" read of the rules is overly hidebound and silly.  Hence the scare quotes.  I'd, obviously, let someone do such a thing without a feat. 

I imagine the Sage Advice article that Kethrian refers to says exactly this as well.  But, it's not immediately obvious from the rules.  That is, of course, why we have DMs and brains.

That's what I mean.  This isn't called shots.  Attacking any part of the creature's body deals hp damage, that's the abstraction.  Treating the attack of limbs and extremities as a special case  is called shots.
Allowing readied actions to hit a foe as part of his body enters your reach to harm you relies upon logic and common sense, which I realize are unpopular resources to many on D&D boards.

(click to show/hide)

DM: "The enemy has a claw attack with 15 ft reach."
Player: "I want to ready to strike its limb as it's attacking me."
DM: "You can't do that, you wouldn't be threatening it."
Player: "Is it swiping the air and causing some sort of magical wind slash?"
DM: "No...it slashes you physically with its claws."
Player: "Without those claws ever getting closer to me than 15 feet?"
DM: "Of course not, that'd be silly."
Player: "So...is its limb invincible to damage and does not bleed or take wounds?"
DM: "Well, no...."
Player: "So then, I'll ready to strike its limb when the limb is close enough."

Lets you whack giants using giant spears, though.

[snakeman830]

Yeah, the feat does let you do something (for example, smack that Balor using it's whip against you), but what it lets you do is both extremely situational and very weak.

[Fadier]

Take a look at the Fearmonger Anti-Paladin archetype. It replaces Touch of Corruption ability and then forces you to to take specific Cruelties, that you cannot use because you do not have your Touch of Corruption ability.

[Keldar]

Its worse than that.

Each cruelty adds an effect to the antipaladin’s touch of corruption ability.

Removing Touch of Corruption busts all Cruelties.   They are all out of fucks to give.

[zook1shoe]

obviously in need of a fix.