Why Does Nobody Use the Cleave Rules???

[strangebloke]

So the DMG has a lot of variant rules, some of which are basically standard (magic items, feats) and others which are controversial ('gritty realism') and others which are never used because they're bad (chase rules)

But one variant I've never seen used or discussed outside my own games is the "Cleaving Through Enemies" rule

DMG 272:

When a melee attack reduces an undamaged creature to 0 hit points, any excess damage from that attack might carry over to another creatures nearby. The attacker targets another creature within reach and - if the original attack roll can hit it - deals any remaining damage to it. If that creature was undamaged and is likewise reduced to zero hit points, repeat this process, carrying over the remaining damage until there are no valid targets, or until the damage carried over fails to reduce a creature to zero hit points
So you're a paladin with GWM and a glaive fighting a horde of goblins. You hit a goblin, you smite. 1d10+3d8+10+4=33. You kill 4 goblins and injure a 5th goblin, then because you have GWM, you get to make a BA attack and move to a new area, potentially killing 4-5 more goblins. And if you have extra attack you can kill 4-5 more again.

Generally, people talk a lot about "buffing martials" and also about how martials are really only useful at single target damage, and also how ranged characters are almost always better at this than melee characters because melee has too few advantages to justify the risk....

Doesn't this variant rule at least partially address ALL those issues? Casters are still better at dealing with hordes ofc (they're better at most things) but this at least makes the barbarian not be totally useless against a cluster of foes.

More to the point, isn't it cool, and flavorful? Cleave was a classic martial feature back in the day, and something that 5e doesn't really have. The idea of a big strong guy cutting through a wall of infantry is iconic, and I'm sure you can think of a variety of examples of this from media. Personally I'd think of Guts here.

[Mastikator]

BRB adding this to my game.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I like it, and as you say, it helps out martials in an area where they can use it.

In terms of my current character, I'm not sure how I feel about my Assassin 'cleaving' through with his rapier though. Sure it would help make my 1 attack more useful vs. hordes, but I'm not picturing it as well as with a fighter with a greatsword.

[Damon_Tor]

I like it, and as you say, it helps out martials in an area where they can use it.

In terms of my current character, I'm not sure how I feel about my Assassin 'cleaving' through with his rapier though. Sure it would help make my 1 attack more useful vs. hordes, but I'm not picturing it as well as with a fighter with a greatsword.

Sneak attack explicitly applies to "one creature you hit with an attack" while smite applies bonus damage to "the target" without the explicit one-target or once-per-turn limitations.

[Keltest]

Personally, it never comes up in my games because I just dont drown my melee martials in single digit HP enemies. If they do show up, youll have a frontline to stop them from moving forward, and then a bunch of archers or something.


Its a fairly niche situation.

[JackPhoenix]

I did, in my latest game, but nobody was interested. It does slow down the game, because not only you need to make more attacks, but also calculate leftover damage instead of just going "yep, that's enough to kill it."

[strangebloke]

BRB adding this to my game.
nice!

I like it, and as you say, it helps out martials in an area where they can use it.

In terms of my current character, I'm not sure how I feel about my Assassin 'cleaving' through with his rapier though. Sure it would help make my 1 attack more useful vs. hordes, but I'm not picturing it as well as with a fighter with a greatsword.

Sneak attack explicitly applies to "one creature you hit with an attack" while smite applies bonus damage to "the target" without the explicit one-target or once-per-turn limitations.
Yeah, I don't know. I think I agree with you here Damon_Tor, that's how its run in my game.

But either way a rogue isn't going to be amazing at cleaving through enemies. Most of their weapons have limited reach after all, and even though they have high damage they only get one chance to apply it.

Personally, it never comes up in my games because I just dont drown my melee martials in single digit HP enemies. If they do show up, youll have a frontline to stop them from moving forward, and then a bunch of archers or something.


Its a fairly niche situation.
I mean anything with less than 20 HP is possible to cleave pretty easily, and speaking for me personally I send large numbers of low-tier enemies at my guys pretty often. Action economy is king and even something like a bunch of hobgoblins can give mid-to-high level PCs a lot of trouble.

I did, in my latest game, but nobody was interested. It does slow down the game, because not only you need to make more attacks, but also calculate leftover damage instead of just going "yep, that's enough to kill it."

You don't need to make extra attacks, you carry over the roll from the first attack. So generally when this comes up you're fighting a horde of smaller creatures who probably share a statblock and thus have the same AC and HP. Say its a bunch of wolves. They're all going to have the same AC and HP, so its pretty trivial to say, "You got 15 to hit? Okay, that hits. 30 damage? Okay, two of the wolves next to you are dead, third one is grievously injured."

It does get a little more complex if you kill a minion and cleave into a boss monster but overall I don't find that it slows down the game much.

[DomesticHausCat]

Yo this is badass I'm adding it to my game. Instantly thought of Guts like you said. I wouldn't necessarily implement this to ranged weapons either. Seeing as arrows, bolts and the like tend to stick in the target they hit. But you could make it so that the arrow flies right through the target and continues to hit any foes in the flight path of the arrow until the damage runs out. It would be a straight line cleave if you will. This also adds more options to martials and since ranged attacks don't do as much damage as the high tier melee attackers it still is balanced imo. Using bullets and guns really would make this believable as written.

In terms of a rapier doing this, I would flavor it as a quick finishing poke to one enemy and then a fast second strike to another foe. Or if the sword is more flavored as a thick edged rapier it could still be described as a slashing attack imo. Also spears could be used to slash depending on the head.

[Sandeman]

Im looking at the DMG on DnD Beyond but I cant find that rule.
Tried searching for "Cleaving Through Enemies" but found nothing.
Anyone know if its there?

[Damon_Tor]

I did, in my latest game, but nobody was interested. It does slow down the game, because not only you need to make more attacks, but also calculate leftover damage instead of just going "yep, that's enough to kill it."

In general it seems like it should be pretty simple head math, no extra rolls or anything like that, just basic subtraction. It's not even really any book keeping because it explicitly only works on enemies that are undamaged. It seems like a lot less of a table slowdown than a casting of burning hands on a cluster of mooks, with an aoe spell you've got every target rolling a save.

[Keltest]

Im looking at the DMG on DnD Beyond but I cant find that rule.
Tried searching for "Cleaving Through Enemies" but found nothing.
Anyone know if its there?

I can find it on 272, the page listed, along with several other optional rules.

[Dienekes]

Tried them, they're ok. As written, the "undamaged" rider is kinda annoying. It very explicitly favors Paladins using Smite and Rogues of all classes when it comes to dealing with hordes. Of which, Paladin is about the only martial that doesn't really need to buff. Rogues are fair enough, but it is amusing visualizing the rogue sneaking around someone's back, lining up their precise strike with their knife which then works on everyone nearby even the ones they wouldn't have been able to sneak attack in the first place.

[Sandeman]

I can find it on 272, the page listed, along with several other optional rules.

You can see the page numbers on DnD Beyond??
I see no such thing in either the browser version or on the app.

[Keltest]

You can see the page numbers on DnD Beyond??
I see no such thing in either the browser version or on the app.

Oh, no. I just pulled out my physical DMG. I didnt realize you meant on DDB specifically.

[Sandeman]

Oh, no. I just pulled out my physical DMG. I didnt realize you meant on DDB specifically.
Aha.
Anyway, I finally found it on DnD Beyond.

[sithlordnergal]

I can see reasons why its not used more often:

1) People just don't know the rule exists

2) It provides a massive buff to all the wrong classes, while being niche or useless to most of the martial classes


Honestly, I think reason 1 is why its not more common. People likely don't know about it because its slipped into the back of the DMG, along side Lingering Injuries, Hitting Cover, the Tumble Action, and Massive Damage. Most people typically aren't looking that far back in the DMG, and if they do they're after the guidance on making a custom Monster, which is right after all that.


That said, I think reason number 2 is the more interesting one. At least, for those of us that know the rule, cause read that rule carefully. "When a melee attack reduces an undamaged creature to 0 hit points". This rule requires you to instantly kill a creature at full HP with one strike, and nowhere in the paragraph does it state you need to make a "melee weapon attack" or "a melee attack with a weapon", only that it has to be a melee attack.

This is kind of important, cause you wanna know what else counts as a melee attack? Melee spell attacks. Know who this rule actually buffs? Spellcasters, Paladins, and Rogues. This rule doesn't actually do a lot for Fighters, Monks, Rangers, or Barbarians, which are the classes that would love this buff, because none of those classes really specialize in nuking things with a single attack. Fighters, Monks, and Rangers do a ton of damage by making a ton of attack rolls, Barbarians are more Tank than DPS. Out of all the Martial Classes, the only ones really able to benefit from this are Paladins, thanks to Smite, and Rogues, thanks to Sneak Attack. Neither of which really need a damage buff.

Meanwhile, it grants a massive buff to spellcasters. A Cleric casting Inflict Wounds deals a base damage of 3d10 for an average of 16.5. A single Goblin has 7 Hit Points, so a level 1 Cleric could kill two Goblins with a single Inflict Wounds, and leave the last one with 4 to 5 HP. At higher levels, you have spells like Steel Wind Strike. Now, it is a 5th level spell, so you won't be casting that till level 9 at the earliest, but if it crits that's still dealing 12d10 damage, and due to the wording of the spell and Cleave, I suspect you finish the spell effects first. So you'd be able to teleport to a spot where whatever damage is remaining can be the most effective.

And that's without going into builds made around nuking things. A great example is actually a build I'm currently using, Tempest Cleric/Scribe Wizard. I can maximize the damage of any spell I cast, thanks to the Scribe Wizard letting me change the damage type of any spell I cast and the Tempest Cleric's Channel Divinity. Heck, I'm only level 10, and at one point I was in a party with a Divination Wizard that had stored a Crit. They graciously gave it to me so I could deal 112 Thunder Damage from a 5th level Chromatic Orb. If I had Steel Wind Strike available, I could have dealt 120 damage to the boss, and at least 60 damage to 4 other creatures, since Destructive Wrath applies to ALL Lightning or Thunder damage dealt on my turn.

[KorvinStarmast]

I did, in my latest game, but nobody was interested. I do it occasionally, on the fly. If the fighter and / or the barbarian inflict a load of damage on an enemy, I'll sometimes have it carry over if it's a full die of damage or more.

[Skrum]

This is a great rule, and I'd like to give it a shot in my games.

One proposed change though: change it to trigger when the damage you deal exceeds a creature's full hp. Them being damage shouldn't block you from cleaving, that's silly.

And I'd also probably change it to apply to melee weapon attacks. Spells have enough ways to hit multiple people; inflict wounds doesn't need to be added to the list.

[sithlordnergal]

This is a great rule, and I'd like to give it a shot in my games.

One proposed change though: change it to trigger when the damage you deal exceeds a creature's full hp. Them being damage shouldn't block you from cleaving, that's silly.

And I'd also probably change it to apply to melee weapon attacks. Spells have enough ways to hit multiple people; inflict wounds doesn't need to be added to the list.

100% make the second change, be careful with the first, cause that could be a bit risky with Paladin Smites.


EDIT: Thinking of spells...could a Divine Soul Sorcerer crit with Inflict Wounds, Twin it, and Cleave through two separate creatures via the base rule? I'm thinking they could...

[Ulsan Krow]

Personally, it never comes up in my games because I just dont drown my melee martials in single digit HP enemies. If they do show up, youll have a frontline to stop them from moving forward, and then a bunch of archers or something.


Its a fairly niche situation.


And one of those reasons for it might be the absence of cleave rules

Swathes of low HP mobs could be a nice idea in the future, very cinematic

[Keltest]

And one of those reasons for it might be the absence of cleave rules

Swathes of low HP mobs could be a nice idea in the future, very cinematic

I guess. But waiting 10 minutes for the DM to resolve every creature's turn is not all that more exciting than waiting 10 minutes for a summonmancer to resolve every zombie's turn.

[Schwann145]

The DMG is actually full of great alternative rules that would make the game better in a myriad of ways...
And no one knows they exist.

People can't be bothered to even know what their own class does. You didn't think they'd be reading an entirely different book, did you? :smalltongue:

[KorvinStarmast]

I guess. But waiting 10 minutes for the DM to resolve every creature's turn is not all that more exciting than waiting 10 minutes for a summonmancer to resolve every zombie's turn. True that.

The DMG is actually full of great alternative rules that would make the game better in a myriad of ways... And no one knows they exist. I know they exist. The flanking rule stinks to high heaven, since it doesn't bring with it the zone of control theme. The lingering wounds rule, which we have played, is a jarring difference to the base game that it takes a total agreement at the table to make work. Very few of the optional rules are in play at the tables where I play for a good reason: they are, in the main, not necessary to enjoy the game.

People can't be bothered to even know what their own class does. Unfortunately to true too often, but each players investment varies.

The few times we have used the DMG disarming rules, it went well enough.

[Skrum]

Obviously, paladins would benefit from this cause they can smite and do a ton of damage in a single hit - but that also means they have yet another situation where smites are good. Well they don't have endless smites. Know what is endless though? GWM. And this would give a barb a good reason to use it against weak enemies. I think this is a great rule that would benefit barbs and a paladins alike. Less so for PAM fighters, but hey, not everything can be for everyone.

[LudicSavant]

So the DMG has a lot of variant rules, some of which are basically standard (magic items, feats) and others which are controversial ('gritty realism') and others which are never used because they're bad (chase rules)

But one variant I've never seen used or discussed outside my own games is the "Cleaving Through Enemies" rule

DMG 272:

So you're a paladin with GWM and a glaive fighting a horde of goblins. You hit a goblin, you smite. 1d10+3d8+10+4=33. You kill 4 goblins and injure a 5th goblin, then because you have GWM, you get to make a BA attack and move to a new area, potentially killing 4-5 more goblins. And if you have extra attack you can kill 4-5 more again.

Generally, people talk a lot about "buffing martials" and also about how martials are really only useful at single target damage, and also how ranged characters are almost always better at this than melee characters because melee has too few advantages to justify the risk....

Doesn't this variant rule at least partially address ALL those issues? Casters are still better at dealing with hordes ofc (they're better at most things) but this at least makes the barbarian not be totally useless against a cluster of foes.

More to the point, isn't it cool, and flavorful? Cleave was a classic martial feature back in the day, and something that 5e doesn't really have. The idea of a big strong guy cutting through a wall of infantry is iconic, and I'm sure you can think of a variety of examples of this from media. Personally I'd think of Guts here.

The weirdest thing about that rule is that it requires the target to be undamaged. If the goblin is injured, you can't cleave through it anymore.

Other than that, seems like a reasonable way to buff melee attacks. However, it would buff characters with greater overflow damage more than characters with lots of small attacks (like many Fighters).

[sithlordnergal]

The DMG is actually full of great alternative rules that would make the game better in a myriad of ways...
And no one knows they exist.


I think its because a lot of the alternative rules that aren't used don't tend to make it better. I mean, take a look at them:

- Flanking is basically at-will advantage. I've only seen a single DM use it, and it broke things more than multiclassing, feasts, and magic items combined. The game just isn't built for the characters to always have advantage in combat. I just count that DM lucky cause no-one took Elven Accuracy.

- Cleaving is a great idea but poor execution. As it is currently written, it benefits Paladins, Rogues, and Spellcasters, because those are the only classes that can realistically nuke a creature after level 5. And yes, it 100% applies to Melee Spell Attacks with the current wording. And because it works with Melee Spell Attacks, you get weird interactions with things like Spiritual Weapon and Blade of Disaster. Though...it could make Blade of Disaster worth casting if you were playing a Tempest Cleric/Scribe Wizard and had a guaranteed crit...144 Lightning damage, split that among a mook or two. XD

- Lingering Injuries are another example of a great idea with a poor executions. First is the simplest to get past, the extra book keeping for when they happen. The second issue is that the RAW Lingering Injuries table either do nothing, or completely screw you over. There are really only two ways to cure a Lingering Injury, Regenerate or 1 point of Magical Healing. Yes, I get that there are mundane ways to heal the stuff magical healing cures, but lets be honest. Are you gonna spend 10 days resting and doing nothing, or are you going to have Cure Wounds cast on you, or drink a 50gp Potion of Healing? Or heck, just carry around Goodberries. Meanwhile the injuries that require Regenerate are as simple as some scaring, or losing a body part. And losing a body part can ruin a character. You're a person using Two-Handed weapons? Sorry, no greatsword for you, you lost a hand.

You would need to make changes to each of those rules to make them reasonable. The changes could be as easy as "Melee attack with a weapon" to as complicated as "fixing the flanking rules". But still, its typically easier to just not use them.

[strangebloke]

I can see reasons why its not used more often:

1) People just don't know the rule exists

2) It provides a massive buff to all the wrong classes, while being niche or useless to most of the martial classes


Honestly, I think reason 1 is why its not more common. People likely don't know about it because its slipped into the back of the DMG, along side Lingering Injuries, Hitting Cover, the Tumble Action, and Massive Damage. Most people typically aren't looking that far back in the DMG, and if they do they're after the guidance on making a custom Monster, which is right after all that.


That said, I think reason number 2 is the more interesting one. At least, for those of us that know the rule, cause read that rule carefully. "When a melee attack reduces an undamaged creature to 0 hit points". This rule requires you to instantly kill a creature at full HP with one strike, and nowhere in the paragraph does it state you need to make a "melee weapon attack" or "a melee attack with a weapon", only that it has to be a melee attack.

This is kind of important, cause you wanna know what else counts as a melee attack? Melee spell attacks. Know who this rule actually buffs? Spellcasters, Paladins, and Rogues. This rule doesn't actually do a lot for Fighters, Monks, Rangers, or Barbarians, which are the classes that would love this buff, because none of those classes really specialize in nuking things with a single attack. Fighters, Monks, and Rangers do a ton of damage by making a ton of attack rolls, Barbarians are more Tank than DPS. Out of all the Martial Classes, the only ones really able to benefit from this are Paladins, thanks to Smite, and Rogues, thanks to Sneak Attack. Neither of which really need a damage buff.

Meanwhile, it grants a massive buff to spellcasters. A Cleric casting Inflict Wounds deals a base damage of 3d10 for an average of 16.5. A single Goblin has 7 Hit Points, so a level 1 Cleric could kill two Goblins with a single Inflict Wounds, and leave the last one with 4 to 5 HP. At higher levels, you have spells like Steel Wind Strike. Now, it is a 5th level spell, so you won't be casting that till level 9 at the earliest, but if it crits that's still dealing 12d10 damage, and due to the wording of the spell and Cleave, I suspect you finish the spell effects first. So you'd be able to teleport to a spot where whatever damage is remaining can be the most effective.

And that's without going into builds made around nuking things. A great example is actually a build I'm currently using, Tempest Cleric/Scribe Wizard. I can maximize the damage of any spell I cast, thanks to the Scribe Wizard letting me change the damage type of any spell I cast and the Tempest Cleric's Channel Divinity. Heck, I'm only level 10, and at one point I was in a party with a Divination Wizard that had stored a Crit. They graciously gave it to me so I could deal 112 Thunder Damage from a 5th level Chromatic Orb. If I had Steel Wind Strike available, I could have dealt 120 damage to the boss, and at least 60 damage to 4 other creatures, since Destructive Wrath applies to ALL Lightning or Thunder damage dealt on my turn.
It really isn't a buff to spellcasters. It's maybe a buff to specific spells like inflict wounds, or various other features like path to the grave but by and large casters have way better ways of dealing with large groups. Like your "OP" steel wind strike example really isn't much better than destructive wave + destructive wrath aside from the (admittedly very good) crit to the main boss. But the last thing you're thinking about when pulling off a combo like this is "Boy I hope I can use some of the leftover damage from one-shotting the boss to kill a minion or two."

Though there is an edge case where you could cleave into the boss multiple times, if they're surrounded by minions. But I'm not even sure this works with SWS anyway, because of the weirdness of the 'in reach' requirement.

Not saying that restricting this from applying to melee spell attacks is a bad idea, just that I don't think its really a problem that it does.

The thematic problems of rapier cleaves are a bigger one, IMO.


This is a great rule, and I'd like to give it a shot in my games.

One proposed change though: change it to trigger when the damage you deal exceeds a creature's full hp. Them being damage shouldn't block you from cleaving, that's silly.

And I'd also probably change it to apply to melee weapon attacks. Spells have enough ways to hit multiple people; inflict wounds doesn't need to be added to the list.
Both of these are fine changes, particularly the first.

I guess. But waiting 10 minutes for the DM to resolve every creature's turn is not all that more exciting than waiting 10 minutes for a summonmancer to resolve every zombie's turn.
Meh, DM turns inherently take longer to arbitrate anyway, and usually its not the mobs that slow things down for them. They're juggling at least 3-5 enemies most of the time anyway, adding a group of 5+ weaklings isn't much.

The real problem are things with "legendary action: cast a spell" or recharge abilities, or abilities that require the whole party to make saving throws.

Obviously, paladins would benefit from this cause they can smite and do a ton of damage in a single hit - but that also means they have yet another situation where smites are good. Well they don't have endless smites. Know what is endless though? GWM. And this would give a barb a good reason to use it against weak enemies. I think this is a great rule that would benefit barbs and a paladins alike. Less so for PAM fighters, but hey, not everything can be for everyone.
yeah this is more or less my feeling. Paladins are strong, and this makes them stronger in some cases, but mostly its going to benefit basic GWM archetypes, and melee rogues, both of which are suboptimal IMO.

Actually a huge winner here is crit-fishers. A big problem for crit builds is that they tend to do loads of overflow damage, but this lets them just convert that to scything through 4+ enemies at once.

Another weird case: Whirlwind attack. Normally this is strictly inferior to Volley for hunters, but Cleave rules create a weird edge case where you are fighting a boss surrounded by minions, and you can cleave their minions and deal overflow damage to the boss multiple times a turn.

The weirdest thing about that rule is that it requires the target to be undamaged. If the goblin is injured, you can't cleave through it anymore.

Other than that, seems like a reasonable way to buff melee attacks.
yeah agreed. The "undamaged" bit is really annoying. "Oh man you can't cleave that goblin, they stepped over a caltrop!"

Frankly I think you could just waive all requirements and allow a cleave ANY time you reduce a creature to zero. I am doubtful it would be in any way overpowered.


- Cleaving is a great idea but poor execution. As it is currently written, it benefits Paladins, Rogues, and Spellcasters, because those are the only classes that can realistically nuke a creature after level 5. And yes, it 100% applies to Melee Spell Attacks with the current wording. And because it works with Melee Spell Attacks, you get weird interactions with things like Spiritual Weapon and Blade of Disaster. Though...it could make Blade of Disaster worth casting if you were playing a Tempest Cleric/Scribe Wizard and had a guaranteed crit...144 Lightning damage, split that among a mook or two. XD
I really disagree with this. Tempest Cleric/Scribe Wizard MC aside (its just one build, and higher combos exist that don't use melee attacks and can be split easily anyway) most melee spell attacks are terrible. Steel Wind Strike is the only reasonable one.

And as to not being able to cleave enemies after level 5... I just disagree? A level five zealot barbarian with flametongue greatsword and GWM is dealing 2d6+2d6+1d6+2+3+10+2=31 per hit, and that's enough to drop anything under CR 1 pretty reliably.

Do people just not use more than 3-5 enemies per encounter?

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Sneak attack explicitly applies to "one creature you hit with an attack" while smite applies bonus damage to "the target" without the explicit one-target or once-per-turn limitations.

Hmm, so from that I suppose there are 2 possible rulings. One being that any time you are sneak attacking or smiting that Cleave does not apply. The other being that Cleave can apply, but no sneak attack or smite damage can carry over.

In terms of balance the Rogue is the martial class that gets hammered the hardest by a horde, so it would be nice if this rule was implimented and at least some of the benefit applied to Rogues.

[sithlordnergal]

I really disagree with this. Tempest Cleric/Scribe Wizard MC aside (its just one build, and higher combos exist that don't use melee attacks and can be split easily anyway) most melee spell attacks are terrible. Steel Wind Strike is the only reasonable one.

And as to not being able to cleave enemies after level 5... I just disagree? A level five zealot barbarian with flametongue greatsword and GWM is dealing 2d6+2d6+1d6+2+3+10+2=31 per hit, and that's enough to drop anything under CR 1 pretty reliably.

Do people just not use more than 3-5 enemies per encounter?

There aren't many melee spells, but the high damage ones are really good. Inflict Wounds can be done from level 1 as a Cleric or Divine Soul Sorcerer, Steel Wind Strike is excellent for damage, and Shadow Blade can be used to deal a lot of damage with Bladesinger.

Maybe its just me and AL, but I don't tend to see a lot of enemies with less than 31 max HP after level 5, this includes mooks. Usually they have enough HP to survive two hits, as long as its not a crit.

[Hytheter]

I've used it without the 'undamaged' stipulation and found it to be well-received. It wouldn't come up much, otherwise.

[Rukelnikov]

We've used since day 1, but not strictly RAW.

If someone kills an enemy with a high damage crit, usually rolling close to max damage, or an especially damaging attack, like rolling 50 damage in 6d10, the DM will sometimes just say "damn, that a lot of damage, you cleave thru and deal the remaining damage to the minion next to/behind it".

Its nice when it happens, and I guess it may happen a bit more often if we used it RAW, but I'm not really sure since "the creature being at full HP" is generally not part of the arbitrary criteria and more often than not we are playing in the T2 - Low T3 range, so oneshotting stuff isn't very common (we very rarely do hordes since its a slog to run, and treating a "horde of orcs" as a "swarm of orcs" doesn't feel like fighting a horde at all).

On the other Alternate rules mentioned, we changed the magical healing needed to remove lingering injuries from a single point of magical healing to healing from a magical spell of level 6 or higher. It works for us since we like combat having consequences and 5e's rest system pretty much eliminates them.

And on that note, my Sorlock lost an eye, which was pretty hard for a couple levels until I could regenerate it, in that same party our Ftr Dual Wielder lost an arm (twice!). As a DM a Bard/Bladesinger lost both legs, and a cleric lost an eye (which wasn't that hard on them as the other ones) and I thought that was great, those are the motivations that make the players take initiative, which in sandbox games like we play are always welcome.

[Jerrykhor]

I think because it sounds like a special ability. Cleave attacks are very common in action RPGs for melee-focused classes, hitting a bunch of mooks with a swing of a weapon is very satisfying, and is a standard trope for Fighters/Barbarian types with big weapons. The lack of cleave abilities also kind of contributes to the 'weak martials' at higher levels. At that tier, Strength based martials should play like a Dynasty Warrior guy.

IMO cleave should also be built in to creatures who are 2 sizes larger when attacking. Its so weird that despite being that big, you can only attack one ant at at time.

[strangebloke]

There aren't many melee spells, but the high damage ones are really good. Inflict Wounds can be done from level 1 as a Cleric or Divine Soul Sorcerer, Steel Wind Strike is excellent for damage, and Shadow Blade can be used to deal a lot of damage with Bladesinger.

Maybe its just me and AL, but I don't tend to see a lot of enemies with less than 31 max HP after level 5, this includes mooks. Usually they have enough HP to survive two hits, as long as its not a crit.
Well, shadow blade creates a melee weapon so none of the rulings proposed would nerf that.

But really I'm just shocked to hear anyone say a single good thing about inflict wounds. It's marginally more damage than guiding bolt with a load of drawbacks, and the odds of wiffing and doing nothing with a spell that could have been bless or shield of faith is pretty high.

I'm also genuinely surprised to hear people discount the idea of there being multiple low-hp mooks. I don't think an encounter is complete unless there are some chaffe in the way. A swarm of hobgoblins is great at adding a threat to low-AC characters, especially if they're supported by something like a yeti. Large mobs also make for relatively quick encounters, since they tend to have overtuned offensive potential compared to how quickly they can be killed/CCed.

I think because it sounds like a special ability. Cleave attacks are very common in action RPGs for melee-focused classes, hitting a bunch of mooks with a swing of a weapon is very satisfying, and is a standard trope for Fighters/Barbarian types with big weapons. The lack of cleave abilities also kind of contributes to the 'weak martials' at higher levels. At that tier, Strength based martials should play like a Dynasty Warrior guy.

IMO cleave should also be built in to creatures who are 2 sizes larger when attacking. Its so weird that despite being that big, you can only attack one ant at at time.
Well, this is why IMO its good as a base rule. A hill giant should be able to cleave through a pack of skeletons or summoned raptors or whatever.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Well, shadow blade creates a melee weapon so none of the rulings proposed would nerf that.

But really I'm just shocked to hear anyone say a single good thing about inflict wounds. It's marginally more damage than guiding bolt with a load of drawbacks, and the odds of wiffing and doing nothing with a spell that could have been bless or shield of faith is pretty high.

I'm also genuinely surprised to hear people discount the idea of there being multiple low-hp mooks. I don't think an encounter is complete unless there are some chaffe in the way. A swarm of hobgoblins is great at adding a threat to low-AC characters, especially if they're supported by something like a yeti. Large mobs also make for relatively quick encounters, since they tend to have overtuned offensive potential compared to how quickly they can be killed/CCed.

Well, this is why IMO its good as a base rule. A hill giant should be able to cleave through a pack of skeletons or summoned raptors or whatever.

One of the issues I have in 5e with mooks is that there are a lot of potential 'bosses' that can't really use them well. Many fiends don't have anything useful they can do even if they get cover for a couple of rounds. I remember my disappointment when taking my group through the first mod I DMed in 5e, OotA, and decided to throw a Marilith at the characters with 10 something or other Demons. Well, she can Teleport or attack with 1 of her 7 attacks, the tail with a 10' reach, if she has a bit of cover. Wow. That's just great for a CR 16 creature.
You have to modify a lot of monsters to make them useful if they have some cannon fodder, and I wonder if that's why some newer players and DMs don't even think it's reasonable to have mooks.

[sithlordnergal]

Well, shadow blade creates a melee weapon so none of the rulings proposed would nerf that.

But really I'm just shocked to hear anyone say a single good thing about inflict wounds. It's marginally more damage than guiding bolt with a load of drawbacks, and the odds of wiffing and doing nothing with a spell that could have been bless or shield of faith is pretty high.

I'm also genuinely surprised to hear people discount the idea of there being multiple low-hp mooks. I don't think an encounter is complete unless there are some chaffe in the way. A swarm of hobgoblins is great at adding a threat to low-AC characters, especially if they're supported by something like a yeti. Large mobs also make for relatively quick encounters, since they tend to have overtuned offensive potential compared to how quickly they can be killed/CCed.


Oh, I add plenty of mooks to a fight when I create encounters. But those mooks tend to have higher HP. Case in point, had a level 9 or 10 party face off against a Boneclaw with a pair of Vampire Spawn and Bodaks as the backup mooks. The vampire spawn had the least amount of HP...and there is no possible way for a level 9 martial to cut through a vampire spawn in a single hit without them being a Paladin with some heavy buffs, or a specialized build meant to nuke things into oblivion.

Now, I will admit, that was not one of my balanced encounters. The party survived the fight by the skin of their teeth of course, but no-one was dealing enough damage to just instantly deal with a vampire spawn. That said, even when I craft precise and balanced encounters meant to drain a specific amount of resources from the party, I prefer to use mooks that can survive a round or two. Once players gain access to fireball, I make sure all of the creatures in the encounter can survive the average damage of a 3rd level Fireball. To and including the mooks. The second Fireball is in play, the Hobgoblins go out and the Hobgoblin Iron Shadows are in. If a single fireball can wipe them out, then there is no point in having them be a part of the encounter, and no point in using them as mooks.

That said, when I played a Cleric, Inflict Wounds and Guiding Bolt tended to be my two biggest damaging combat spells.

[Angelalex242]

As I recall, Cleave used to work when a creature hit 0 hp, and it doesn't matter what percentage of its HP it had beforehand.

If it were 3.5 Great Cleave (and you can do this as many times as you drop something to 0)...

I do think it'd be nice if the damage 'followed through', so sneak attack and smite can hit multiple enemies...in the Paladin's case, without spending more resources. It might encourage paladins to not wait for the big bad before smiting, if he's using a Greatsword to begin with.

[stoutstien]

I use a cleave rule just not the one in the DMG. Too clunky for me

[Catullus64]

Had no idea this existed. It's a pretty neat concept, and all my players absolutely loved the Deathblow mechanic from Warhammer Quest. We'll definitely be trying this out at my table soon.

I think I'm going to present it as 'overkill' rather than using the word 'cleave', simply because I don't want people's imagination confined to slashing attacks.

[RSP]

In the game world it only makes sense if you cleave the next creature in line: hitting the goblin then skipping two goblins to “cleave” the enemy cleric doesn’t have the same in game feel, as least to me.

I’d personally take away the “full hit point” requirement, and either go off of total HPs for it, or just allow splash damage if using this rule.

Personally, I go with the idea that the “Attack Action” is the mechanic behind someone trying to harm someone (or something) else, over the course of ~6 seconds, and isn’t necessarily strictly “one attack”, but incorporates sizing up your opponent, parries, feints, blocks, misses, etc (essentially, one attack roll shows how effective at attacking a character is during those 6 seconds, as opposed to showing the character just making 1 attack then standing around for 5 seconds).

So Cleave could incorporate into that, assuming you’re fine with the resulting damage not actually being a “cleave”. Though, I imagine there’s other issues if you just assume it has to be a Cleve anyway.

You’d probably want to figure out something for magical effects, specifically with weapons: why is someone better at “cleaving” with a Shadow Blade or a Frost Brand, Flame Tongue, etc?

If the idea is to buff martials (which the rule RAW isn’t necessarily doing), that should be figured out.

It also seems like this could be a good fighting style: Cleave. It essentially acts like GFB and allows a d6 (maybe d6+mod, but that might be distinctly better than other FSs) when another enemy is within 5’ of the first?

Edit: also, as it pertains specifically to lower level monsters being used against higher level PCs in swarming encounters: it may just be that DMs use that for a specific reason, limiting PCs that function on “big hits” (usually effective against BBEG single opponents), and taking advantage of action economy to create an effective encounter for PCs.

Adding in a specific element designed to make that specific encounter less effective, goes against why that encounter was chosen in the first place. Essentially, 200 HP of BBEG is the same as 200 HP of swarming goblins, if all we look at is total damage rolled by PCs (whereas you’d lose a lot of effective damage hitting goblins without Cleave - anything over 6HPs is wasted).

[Chronos]

Not only is it only useful if there are enemies with HP lower than your damage, it's only useful if the enemies have significantly lower HP than your damage. If you deal 20 damage to an enemy with 19 HP, then all the cleave rule does is put a single point of damage on the next enemy. The only practical implication of that is that... now you can't use cleave on that enemy.

And enemies that are so weak that they die to one attack aren't very interesting, precisely because they die so fast. They're going to last, at most, one round. If, in one round, they do an insignificant amount of damage, then you shouldn't have bothered including them at all. And if they're glass cannons that do do significant damage in one round, then suddenly it makes a very big difference whether the wizard with Fireball wins initiative or not, which makes it much harder to balance encounters, which means you still shouldn't include them.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Not only is it only useful if there are enemies with HP lower than your damage, it's only useful if the enemies have significantly lower HP than your damage. If you deal 20 damage to an enemy with 19 HP, then all the cleave rule does is put a single point of damage on the next enemy. The only practical implication of that is that... now you can't use cleave on that enemy.

And enemies that are so weak that they die to one attack aren't very interesting, precisely because they die so fast. They're going to last, at most, one round. If, in one round, they do an insignificant amount of damage, then you shouldn't have bothered including them at all. And if they're glass cannons that do do significant damage in one round, then suddenly it makes a very big difference whether the wizard with Fireball wins initiative or not, which makes it much harder to balance encounters, which means you still shouldn't include them.

That seems too broad to me. The difference between Rogue damage, particularly if the Rogue has a blade cantrip and 1 swing from a S+B fighter is massive by mid game. And that's just one example.
Also, consider support casters and the concentration mechanic: Acolytes, for example, have only 9 hp. It would be quite reasonable to include a number of these in an encounter at lower levels, and a single point of damage is all that's required to trigger a Con check.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think that these rules are too fiddly. Too many conditions and restrictions.

I'd rather say something like
* Barbarians can cleave (as GWM) with any weapon starting at level 7 or so (no feat needed).
* Fighters can choose (among other things) to learn to cleave with heavy weapons starting at level 7 (no feat needed).
* Anyone else needs the feat.

OR
Anyone can choose to take a Weapon Talent (something gained at specific class levels depending inversely on your spellcasting) that, at a certain rank, lets you do splash damage once per turn with axes[0] or heavy blades[1] (ie "Once per turn when you hit an enemy with an axe or a heavy blade, you can deal damage equal to X to an adjacent enemy")

[0] including halberds, the chopping-like weapons
[1] longsword, greatsword, scimitar, glaive, the slicing sword-likes.

[strangebloke]

Not only is it only useful if there are enemies with HP lower than your damage, it's only useful if the enemies have significantly lower HP than your damage. If you deal 20 damage to an enemy with 19 HP, then all the cleave rule does is put a single point of damage on the next enemy. The only practical implication of that is that... now you can't use cleave on that enemy.
I'll agree that the "undamaged" requirement is silly, but dealing 30+ on a single hit isn't at all out of the norm.

And no, I don't think this "fixes" the various problems felt by melee builds. I acknowledge this is going to be a niche feature, and I've written elsewhere about what further improvements I think need to be made. But the idea of cleaving seems to be a fun one, and one that mostly strengthens weaker playstyles.

And enemies that are so weak that they die to one attack aren't very interesting, precisely because they die so fast. They're going to last, at most, one round. If, in one round, they do an insignificant amount of damage, then you shouldn't have bothered including them at all. And if they're glass cannons that do do significant damage in one round, then suddenly it makes a very big difference whether the wizard with Fireball wins initiative or not, which makes it much harder to balance encounters, which means you still shouldn't include them.
Yeah, this isn't reflective of my experience at all.

In the first place, in the interest of verisimilitude, sometimes there simply will be a large number of enemies present. If the players want to attack a column of an advancing army, there are going to be hundreds of enemies present, some weaker and some stronger. Swarms of monsters are threatening AND hard to kill, and can remain an annoyance on the field if they keep coming into the encounter in small groups of 3-5. It also serves as a benchmark as sorts, since the PCs can feel themselves grow stronger relative to average joes. (as opposed to a treadmill of ever-tougher monsters)

I think that these rules are too fiddly. Too many conditions and restrictions.

I'd rather say something like
* Barbarians can cleave (as GWM) with any weapon starting at level 7 or so (no feat needed).
* Fighters can choose (among other things) to learn to cleave with heavy weapons starting at level 7 (no feat needed).
* Anyone else needs the feat.

OR
Anyone can choose to take a Weapon Talent (something gained at specific class levels depending inversely on your spellcasting) that, at a certain rank, lets you do splash damage once per turn with axes[0] or heavy blades[1] (ie "Once per turn when you hit an enemy with an axe or a heavy blade, you can deal damage equal to X to an adjacent enemy")

[0] including halberds, the chopping-like weapons
[1] longsword, greatsword, scimitar, glaive, the slicing sword-likes.

This really feels like this is just giving way too much competition for BA attacks. There's already a lot of competition for those.

[Kane0]

Ive allowed it as DM for years but my players never seem to take it up no matter how often I remind them. Maybe they just like overkill.

[sithlordnergal]

In the first place, in the interest of verisimilitude, sometimes there simply will be a large number of enemies present. If the players want to attack a column of an advancing army, there are going to be hundreds of enemies present, some weaker and some stronger. Swarms of monsters are threatening AND hard to kill, and can remain an annoyance on the field if they keep coming into the encounter in small groups of 3-5. It also serves as a benchmark as sorts, since the PCs can feel themselves grow stronger relative to average joes. (as opposed to a treadmill of ever-tougher monsters)


See...I don't really agree with that. They're not really that threatening, and they typically don't do much of anything. I actually have an example of a game that tries to use a large swarm of low CR enemies to act as just a wall. In Turn Back the Endless Night you eventually face a room with 20 zombies or more, depending on party level, that act as a wall to protect the actual threats, some archmages and high CR knights. They were clearly added to be a dangerous road block that were meant to slow players down.

Last time I played it, a Druid wiped out every single zombie in the room with a single Sunburst. The druid wasn't even trying to hit the Zombies, they were aiming to blind all the enemy casters and the zombies happened to be collateral. All 20 zombies died instantly, they were never a threat, never a wall, they were nothing. And it wouldn't have mattered how many zombies were added. The room itself was smaller than the area of Sunburst, so you could have filled every open space with a zombie and nothing would have changed.

EDIT: The only two times low HP swarps are a threat are if:

A) You have no AoE spells or abilities, which is very rare since every single caster has access to some kind of decent AoE

or

B) There are literally so many in such a large area that it is literally an army vs army situation...but that's just as rare as having no AoEs. And if a party is facing a literal army, they're typically not fighting the army face to face.

[Angelalex242]

Side note...a D&D Wiki I found with a cursory google search yielded this...

Source: Player's Handbook

You’ve learned to put the weight of a weapon to your advantage, letting its momentum empower your strikes. You gain the following benefits:

On your turn, when you score a critical hit with a melee weapon or reduce a creature to 0 hit points with one, you can make one melee weapon attack as a bonus action.

Before you make a melee attack with a heavy weapon that you are proficient with, you can choose to take a -5 penalty to the attack roll. If the attack hits, you add +10 to the attack’s damage.

[stoutstien]

I think that these rules are too fiddly. Too many conditions and restrictions.

I'd rather say something like
* Barbarians can cleave (as GWM) with any weapon starting at level 7 or so (no feat needed).
* Fighters can choose (among other things) to learn to cleave with heavy weapons starting at level 7 (no feat needed).
* Anyone else needs the feat.

OR
Anyone can choose to take a Weapon Talent (something gained at specific class levels depending inversely on your spellcasting) that, at a certain rank, lets you do splash damage once per turn with axes[0] or heavy blades[1] (ie "Once per turn when you hit an enemy with an axe or a heavy blade, you can deal damage equal to X to an adjacent enemy")

[0] including halberds, the chopping-like weapons
[1] longsword, greatsword, scimitar, glaive, the slicing sword-likes.

I just attached it to the governing ability modifier with the rest of the weapon/armor/martial feats. Cleave is strength (15) and it replaces a single melee weapon attack made with the attack action with a special option(dex save/ fail is weapon damage+mod/ no damage on success) that can hit a number of targets equal to Prof bonus within reach. Targets can benefit from cover and such.

I'm playing around with adding new class features that can supplement the special attacks like barbarians adding mod/rage bonus to damage even on a passed save.

I have a modified weapon table that's about halfway done as well that determines the type of "cleave" or special attack that can be used at each modifier threshold.

[Xihirli]

Side note...a D&D Wiki I found with a cursory google search yielded this...

Source: Player's Handbook

You’ve learned to put the weight of a weapon to your advantage, letting its momentum empower your strikes. You gain the following benefits:

On your turn, when you score a critical hit with a melee weapon or reduce a creature to 0 hit points with one, you can make one melee weapon attack as a bonus action.

Before you make a melee attack with a heavy weapon that you are proficient with, you can choose to take a -5 penalty to the attack roll. If the attack hits, you add +10 to the attack’s damage.

That's Great Weapon Master, not cleave.

[Angelalex242]

Great Weapon Master does let you cleave properly after all.

[BRC]

I use it all the time, I have specific enemies I declare "Mooks" as my PC's level up, and the Cleave rules apply to Mook enemies, which tend to move in packs.

I even have some custom magic items that specifically interact with this, giving bonuses when attacking swarms of mooks.

[rel]

It's a slightly clunky way of implementing mook rules. Serviceable, but not really what I like in my game.

If I want to buff melee fighters I hand out cool custom moves to the muggles directly instead of modifying the combat system.

[H_H_F_F]

I implemented it as a Champion Fighter subclass feature. It's very mechanically simple, doesn't include any decision points or resource allocation, and it fits the theme.

[Witty Username]

All I can really say is this hasn't come up at my table, we have a bunch of casters alot, so groups of enemies would be solved by spells. The martials we have had were content to obliterate single large foes.

[Skrum]

See...I don't really agree with that. They're not really that threatening, and they typically don't do much of anything. I actually have an example of a game that tries to use a large swarm of low CR enemies to act as just a wall. In Turn Back the Endless Night you eventually face a room with 20 zombies or more, depending on party level, that act as a wall to protect the actual threats, some archmages and high CR knights. They were clearly added to be a dangerous road block that were meant to slow players down.

Last time I played it, a Druid wiped out every single zombie in the room with a single Sunburst. The druid wasn't even trying to hit the Zombies, they were aiming to blind all the enemy casters and the zombies happened to be collateral. All 20 zombies died instantly, they were never a threat, never a wall, they were nothing. And it wouldn't have mattered how many zombies were added. The room itself was smaller than the area of Sunburst, so you could have filled every open space with a zombie and nothing would have changed.

EDIT: The only two times low HP swarps are a threat are if:

A) You have no AoE spells or abilities, which is very rare since every single caster has access to some kind of decent AoE

or

B) There are literally so many in such a large area that it is literally an army vs army situation...but that's just as rare as having no AoEs. And if a party is facing a literal army, they're typically not fighting the army face to face.

This has largely been my experience as well. The only time I felt large packs of weak enemies used effectively was in an arena battle I made where the players started in the middle and were attacked on three sides by waves of very weak mechazombies (they had 5 hp). The battle ended when they either all dropped or gave up, and they had to survive as long as possible.

They were level 4, survived 4 rounds, and then gave up before they took too much damage. It was a cool fight that worked just the way I wanted it to.....but if a single character had spiked growth, it would've trivialized the entire thing. If they were level 5's and someone had spirit guardians, same deal.

For this reason, I'm swinging more in the direction of using swarms not as actual threats, but as opportunities for the players to style on some bad guys and feel really cool. And if that's the goal, letting the melee characters cleave through hordes is perfect.

[Chronos]

For this reason, I'm swinging more in the direction of using swarms not as actual threats, but as opportunities for the players to style on some bad guys and feel really cool. And if that's the goal, letting the melee characters cleave through hordes is perfect.
Even there, it still depends on the fighter winning initiative over the wizard, so he can cleave before the wizard fireballs.