Having a higher Strength just makes Power Attack *even better,* it shouldn't also be a requirement to get your foot in the door.
This line is not true. A better strength score doesn't improve power attack. What power attack does stays the same regardless of what your strength score is past 13.
A fighter with a strength of 20 and a BAB of +4 is still going to take a -2 to hit and get +4 (+6 with a two handed weapon) damage.
Another fighter with a strength of 13 and a BAB of +4 is still going to take a -2 to hit and get +4 (+6 with a two handed weapon) damage.
Strength doesn't matter beyond meeting the prerequisites.
Nothing necessitates it at all lol, it just happens.Which necessitates the 7 Cha Fighter having to be the face or give a speech in what way?
Force them into something they shouldn't be participating in? How is it my fault if they slay the dragon and get invited to a banquet with the King and his Companions before they've had a chance to rest and one of them botches something because of their stats?
Actually, it doesn't unless the DM, ie you, forces it to occur like that.
Having a higher Strength just makes Power Attack *even better,* it shouldn't also be a requirement to get your foot in the door.
This line is not true. A better strength score doesn't improve power attack. What power attack does stays the same regardless of what your strength score is past 13.
A fighter with a strength of 20 and a BAB of +4 is still going to take a -2 to hit and get +4 (+6 with a two handed weapon) damage.
Another fighter with a strength of 13 and a BAB of +4 is still going to take a -2 to hit and get +4 (+6 with a two handed weapon) damage.
Strength doesn't matter beyond meeting the prerequisites.
Strength also increases your chance of hitting with power attack, and supplements the bonus with strength. and having more base damage to work with is also better. especially with a 2handed weapon. so one should pump strength with power attack. along with using a 2handed weapon. if they wish to get the most out of it. this is an example of mechanical optimization at it's simplest.
|
I am curious. If the 15 point buy the "standard" PF method then the difficulty of the encounter system and challenge must use this assumption for determing how well the PC's do. Aren't you just either, (i) making the adventure too easy or (ii) forcing the DM to adjust all the encounters, by using methods that give better stats?
What's the point? Sort of like playing Monopoly and deciding everyone gets twice the starting cash, really why would it make Monopoly a better game?
Would it kill a player to perhaps have to wait until a level where they get a stat point to spend to get a certain feat, or the 7 heavens forbid not be ever able to get? I would think that PF provides enough options that you can always end up with something to spend that feat on. The only thing I can see as a huge hurdle is the "build" - i.e. but I've mapped out the ULTIMATE WARRIOR (see WWF of old...) until level 20 and without Feat X the character isn't "viable".
The main fun (in my opinion) should be in the game play and not the rule book off table...
2 cents,
S.
Strength also increases your chance of hitting with power attack, and supplements the bonus with strength. and having more base damage to work with is also better. especially with a 2handed weapon. so one should pump strength with power attack. along with using a 2handed weapon. if they wish to get the most out of it. this is an example of optimization.
That doesn't change the fact that it has no effect on power attack.
Extra strength would have the exact same effect without power attack.
Indeed if they are using an elven curved blade or spiked chain with weapon finesse power attack will still have the exact same effect it was already having.
Net effect: Power attack is unaffected by higher strength scores.
I am curious. If the 15 point buy the "standard" PF method then the difficulty of the encounter system and challenge must use this assumption for determing how well the PC's do. Aren't you just either, (i) making the adventure too easy or (ii) forcing the DM to adjust all the encounters, by using methods that give better stats?
S.
Starting with a higher point buy doesn't make the game any easier or harder since you can't exceed the extremes that are already set by the 15 point buy.
In effect the extra 5 points have next to no effect on power level of the game.
We covered this in the first 5 pages of this thread.
Strength also increases your chance of hitting with power attack, and supplements the bonus with strength. and having more base damage to work with is also better. especially with a 2handed weapon. so one should pump strength with power attack. along with using a 2handed weapon. if they wish to get the most out of it. this is an example of optimization.That doesn't change the fact that it has no effect on power attack.
Extra strength would have the exact same effect without power attack.
Indeed if they are using an elven curved blade or spiked chain with weapon finesse power attack will still have the exact same effect it was already having.
Net effect: Power attack is unaffected by higher strength scores.
no direct effect on power attack itself, but the higher strength will tempt you to use it more. as you will have a higher to hit with 20 str than 13. a potential +4 more to hit and +4-6 more to damage. the to hit bonus will tempt you to use it more as you will actually have a higher chance of hitting. tis an indirect effect on the frequency of use of the feat gets, and it's viability as well. i beleive that is effect enough on the feat.
Designing characters is how D&D/PF appeals to the 'solo play' market.
Indeed, designing characters and planning out their feat progressions is often more fun than actually *playing them at the table*.
Particularly when your play style doesn't match that of the other players...
"OK, we're at initiative 15. What does the Sorcerer do?"
"Tirhan steps back and moves his arms in a mystic sweep...."
"No, what does the Sorcerer do?"
"I cast sleep."
"OK, I'll roll for saving throws next turn. Initiative 11. OK, what does the Fighter do?"
*player looks up* "Oh, right." *die roll* "I hit an AC of 22. 14 points." *goes back to reading*
"OK, that orc is dead."
(Yeah, there's a reason why I say "not carrying their weight" about players who can't be bothered to name their characters, let alone describe anything about them other than "6'1", 230 lbs. A fighter.". There's a reason I ask them to leave, too.)
I enjoy tactical wargames (indeed, I write them for a living).
I don't play RPGs to have a tactical wargame or minis game. To quote AMC - "Story Matters Here."
no direct effect on power attack itself, but the higher strength will tempt you to use it more. as you will have a higher to hit with 20 str than 13. a potential +4 more to hit and +4-6 more to damage. the to hit bonus will tempt you to use it more as you will actually have a higher chance of hitting. tis an indirect effect on the frequency of use of the feat gets, and it's viability as well.
All of which is irrelevent. The statement was that a higher strength score makes power attack better. It does not do so. A higher BAB does that. A higher chance to hit does that. There are multiple ways of getting both but neither of which is solely dependent on strength.
Again, a higher strength score doesn't make power attack better.
Taking the higher strength out of it has no effect on power attack by itself.
You might as well say, "Having a better attack bonus makes power attack better."
It has more accuracy that way.
no direct effect on power attack itself, but the higher strength will tempt you to use it more. as you will have a higher to hit with 20 str than 13. a potential +4 more to hit and +4-6 more to damage. the to hit bonus will tempt you to use it more as you will actually have a higher chance of hitting. tis an indirect effect on the frequency of use of the feat gets, and it's viability as well.All of which is irrelevent. The statement was that a higher strength score makes power attack better. It does not do so. A higher BAB does that. A higher chance to hit does that. There are multiple ways of getting both but neither of which is solely dependent on strength.
Again, a higher strength score doesn't make power attack better.
Taking the higher strength out of it has no effect on power attack by itself.
You might as well say, "Having a better attack bonus makes power attack better."
It has more accuracy that way.
but strength is one of the easiest, most reliable, easily augmentable ways to get a higher attack bonus.
|
|
I am curious. If the 15 point buy the "standard" PF method then the difficulty of the encounter system and challenge must use this assumption for determing how well the PC's do. Aren't you just either, (i) making the adventure too easy or (ii) forcing the DM to adjust all the encounters, by using methods that give better stats?
S.
Starting with a higher point buy doesn't make the game any easier or harder since you can't exceed the extremes that are already set by the 15 point buy.
In effect the extra 5 points have next to no effect on power level of the game.
We covered this in the first 5 pages of this thread.
If it doesn't change the power level (which I can see), and doesn't overly effect the game play in terms of bonuses added from feats then...
in essense the only reason for having a 20+ point buy is to side-step those annoying prerequisites for feats?
S.
That and for fluff stats. Like a wizard that wants some CHA, or a monk that wants skills.
You can't be both a charismatic gnomish fop and a whirlwind fighter.Gnome (+2 Con, +2 Cha, -2 Str) 15-point buy:
13 Str (7 pts for 15 -2 race), 13 Dex (3 pts), 14 Con (2 pts for 12 +2 race), 13 Int (3 pts), 8 Wis (-2 pts), 14 Cha (2 pts for 12 +2 race)Charismatic, check. Low Wis for a fop, good match of mechanics with role-playing. Still qualifies for Combat Expertise chain, Dodge/Mobility/Spring Attack, and Power Attack.
Ok, ok fine. I was wrong about not being able to make the gnome fop.
But I still think the options are limited enough with the reduced point values of a 15 point start. And that's the whole point of all these arguments. A normal start is actually close to a 20 point buy as the math ninjas have showed us. Which means the game is supposed to work best at that value. Using a 15 point start means you will have more min/maxing in order to stay effective. Is that what you want? More min/maxing? Maybe it is.
Actually, as Chris says, the game was playtested all the way back to 3.0 using 15 point buy characters (using the so-called 'elite array' of 15 14 13 12 10 8), although I'm not terribly sure why this was so.
@Chris--I think a lot of point buy characters do purchase a high odd stat, the elite array for instance. It's not particularly optimised for first level (compared to 14 14 14 12 10 8 or 16 14 12 12 8 8 or such), but I think the idea is to use stat raises to make it even by level 4. I definitely bought a 17 in a 3.5 PbP game for my Psion[Shaper]. I would say that when rolling, you are unlikely to receive more than 2 point buy worth of odd stats that you wouldn't want to raise with a stat raise unless you are very Single Ability Dependent.
@Everyone--I just checked the Pathfinder Core Rulebook and I don't see the rules for rerolling hopeless characters carried over from the 3.0/3.5 Player's Handbooks. It can't have been removed, can it?
(Yeah, there's a reason why I say "not carrying their weight" about players who can't be bothered to name their characters, let alone describe anything about them other than "6'1", 230 lbs. A fighter.". There's a reason I ask them to leave, too.)
I think that might be a -wee- bit too extreme.
Speaking for myself, I often try to create characters off the seat of my pants. That means I don't know much about the character during the first couple of campaign sessions - then I drop a stack of pages of back story in front of the GM once I figure out who the character is and what the campaign is like.
The point being that my character might not have a name at all, if I can help it, for the first couple of game sessions.
I can accept "Hey, I'll fill in some details later."
I also walk people through the Minimus character creation process, which generates a backstory organically.
However, I've seen players on session four of a game who haven't come up with a name (in roughly 2 months of play). I've sent out to do dialog with them in character - about things that they wrote on their character sheet as being important - and gotten "Huh? What?"
And I've had people never bother to describe what they're doing in combat - even when, as a fighter, that's when you should be showing off your amazing fightery coolness.
I make it very clear what kind of table I run.
1) "The Fighter" is not acceptable. "The sellsword named Markus from (I don't know) but who has a a troubled past...(to be filled in later)" is fine.
2) 2/3 of the story's plot will be non-combat in anything I run. You will be expected to pay attention to things that don't have initiative numbers. If this doesn't interest you, play with another table.
3) I can and do reward description, both with combat bonuses, and with experience points.
Those, with explanations and examples, are laid out for everyone before I start a game.
I also tell people that I run games in plot arcs - I will run for six to eight sessions and then take a break. Those plot arcs will focus more on how your character grows and changes as a person with interactions with other people than they will on leveling up.
And have you ever noticed that the most common example of a player not being invested in the game is of a player playing a fighter? I think there's a reason for that. And I think the reason is that, outside of combat, the fighter class really doesn't have much to do. This is a failing of the game system.
I see it with Wizards, Sorcerers, Druids, Rangers and Barbarians. Basically, all of the character classes that offer kewl powerz but can either be asocial dorks (Wizards), or get their kewl powerz without having to indicate who they're learning them from.
(Heaven forfend that you actually have an old mentor defined; he might ask you to go do something plot related! That would so cramp your freedom to read manga at the table.)
I find that Rogues, Bards, Paladins, Cleric and Monks tend to come with character background hooks as part of the class writeup.
I am currently running games biweekly on Tuesday night, Saturday during the day, and weekly on most Sundays. This is about 6-7 sessions a month.
My Saturday game is at a game store, and I post the campaign log there the following Sunday before starting the Sunday game. I include teasers for "We have an opening for X, Y or Z. If this campaign log sounds fun, email (address) by (date) and we'll do character generation before the next session.
I have, between my three games, thirteen players (including one person who's in all three games.)
|
Eh, speaking for myself, whenever my players are involved in social interactions, they roleplay their sides, and if they want anything out of it they roll an appropriate check (generally diplomacy or bluff). Based on the RP they'll get a negative or positive modifier, but even the best RP can't prevent the 7 Cha fighter without any ranks in the given skill from unintentionally insulting the host or some such at least half the time.Only if the DM is actively trying to screw over the party to make a point.
The Fighter who has to dump charisma or intelligence is going be running into many, many situations where he's getting the party in trouble because he's not able to communicate with any sort of grace at all, or because he fails to bring enough skill points to the table.
Or the fighter should just aid the party face with a nice easy DC 10 check instead of trying to do his own roll.
|
|
*about the script*
Okay so I was tweaking the outputs and I ran into some issues. Stats that are below 7 for instance gets -4. I know this is the max negative value for point buy, buy I don't think giving a 5 stat the same point value as a 7 quite works for this purpose. At the very least each point below 7 should be an extra negative. More likely, -1 to get to even and -2 to get to odd. Values below 7 show up in enough numbers where this isn't quite negligable. But then again it wasn't common enough to drop the median by 5 points either...maybe a 1-2 point drop. 18-19 average stat roll vs 15 point buy seems about right. There should be a slight penalty for being able to place your evens and odd how you like after all.
Actually, as Chris says, the game was playtested all the way back to 3.0 using 15 point buy characters (using the so-called 'elite array' of 15 14 13 12 10 8), although I'm not terribly sure why this was so.
I believe that this was an effort to minimize variables. This, in theory, allowed them to focus on the aspect that they were attempting to test (the balance of the classes).
|
|
Okay so playing with the no re-rolls and lower point values under 7, 19 seems to be the half way point. 25+ point happens about 30% of the time. 30+ point buy 17%, 4% for 40+...50+ monstrosities happen .6%. This assumes no "lucky" dice being involved.
On the bad side end, you have a 35% chance of less then 15 point buy. 20% of less then 10 points. About 9% of less then 5. And finally 3% to be worse then a commoner at 0 points.
Using a 15 point start means you will have more min/maxing in order to stay effective. Is that what you want? More min/maxing? Maybe it is.No what we've shown is that the 15 point build is viable, even for builds that are a little creative. Min-maxers will do it regardless of the PC creation method they're given. Being "effective" must be measured against the DM's challenges. It's up to the DM to provide an appropriate challenge for the group of players at the table. It's a compromise and balancing act on both sides of the screen. Without knowing your target, it's meaningless to discuss effectiveness.
Finalle someone who says that.
Yeah I checked too...no re-roll rules anymore. Hah, I'm eating away at your median value :) .
@Everyone--I just checked the Pathfinder Core Rulebook and I don't see the rules for rerolling hopeless characters carried over from the 3.0/3.5 Player's Handbooks. It can't have been removed, can it?
I honestly can't imagine they intended to not have reroll rules for hopeless characters. I'd imagine it's just an oversight. In any case, we do know, at least, that the 15 point buy in pathfinder is a carryover from the 25 point buy in 3.5, which was chosen back when rerolls did definitely still exist.
Okay so I was tweaking the outputs and I ran into some issues. Stats that are below 7 for instance gets -4. I know this is the max negative value for point buy, buy I don't think giving a 5 stat the same point value as a 7 quite works for this purpose. At the very least each point below 7 should be an extra negative. More likely, -1 to get to even and -2 to get to odd. Values below 7 show up in enough numbers where this isn't quite negligable.
I found it to be reasonably negligible, and also, in my mind, once you have a 7 in a stat, it's so low already that you almost aren't penalised as much for lowering it more. At least, if a player in my game (if I used point buy) asked for a lower than 7, I'd say it was fine for RP reasons, but they weren't getting more points. That said, your adjustment is still quite fair.
18-19 average stat roll vs 15 point buy seems about right. There should be a slight penalty for being able to place your evens and odd how you like after all.
For SAD classes certainly--for others, I've found that a 2 point penalty is about right.
If I was a Fighter, I would definitely be willing to put a stat raise into an odd Strength, Dexterity, or Constitution. Let's say those are also my 3 highest rolls with 19 point buy. On average, we'll get three odd stats out of six. Let's say that they were optimally badly distributed here and given to all three of the lowest stats instead. By virtue of our construction, none of the low three stats can be a 15 (or else we would have more than 19 point buy), so we've only wasted 3 points on the odds (or even only 2 points if one of those three odds is a 13 and we put it in Int for Combat Expertise). And that's the optimally bad case.
Granted, if you don't expect to continue with the character until at least level 4, my analysis changes a lot. I will completely agree that in one shots or one-off adventures that don't plan to continue, 15 would be better for optimising. I still like the dice because they help inspire me in which class to choose for my new character and give me roleplaying ideas.
Again, a higher strength score doesn't make power attack better.
14 Strength + Power Attack on a level 4 fighter:
To hit = +4 (BAB) -2 (Power Attack) +2 (Strength) = +4 (with +6 damage)20 Strength + Power Attack on a level 4 fighter:
To hit = +4 (BAB) -2 (Power Attack) +5 (Strength) = +7 (with +9 damage)
Power Attack itself isn't delivering any more damage, but the higher strength makes it much more usable for the higher chance to hit even if you use it. If you can use a feat more frequently (ie in more circumstances, such as facing a higher AC opponent), then in my book that makes the feat 'better'.
Again, a higher strength score doesn't make power attack better.14 Strength + Power Attack on a level 4 fighter:
To hit = +4 (BAB) -2 (Power Attack) +2 (Strength) = +4 (with +6 damage)20 Strength + Power Attack on a level 4 fighter:
To hit = +4 (BAB) -2 (Power Attack) +5 (Strength) = +7 (with +9 damage)Power Attack itself isn't delivering any more damage, but the higher strength makes it much more usable for the higher chance to hit even if you use it. If you can use a feat more frequently (ie in more circumstances, such as facing a higher AC opponent), then in my book that makes the feat 'better'.
Ok. Now take power attack away -- what happens? The exact same thing.
So in fact power attack didn't change anything. In fact the power attack does the exact same thing regardless of strength score it is in fact no better or worse based on the strength of the user.
You could leave power attack out of the sentence and say, "A higher strength means you hit more often and for more damage therefore higher strength makes attacking better."
The difference is that statement would be true -- the statement that power attack becomes better with a higher strength is not true.
I think it would be more correct to say that power attack makes higher strength better, rather then the other way around.
I think it would be more correct to say that power attack makes higher strength better, rather then the other way around.
It galls less but is still wrong. Power attack does what it does regardless of the user's strength score.
Strength doesn't get a bonus from power attack and power attack doesn't get a bonus from strength score. Either way power attack does exactly what it does, and strength does exactly what it does with no interaction on what the other does.
A character with a 13 strength doesn't lack a bonus from or to power attack that someone with a strength of 18 gets. Power attack functions the same for both characters, and their strength scores don't gain an additional advantage from using power attack.
Power attack is basically dependent only on weapon type and BAB.
Power attack is basically dependent only on weapon type and BAB.
...Both of which being directly guided by your strength :\
I get why you disagree, honestly. I'd say that both strength and power attack work and synergize together perfectly, but that neither is dependent or built on the other.
I think it would be more correct to say that power attack makes higher strength better, rather then the other way around.It galls less but is still wrong. Power attack does what it does regardless of the user's strength score.
Strength doesn't get a bonus from power attack and power attack doesn't get a bonus from strength score. Either way power attack does exactly what it does, and strength does exactly what it does with no interaction on what the other does.
A character with a 13 strength doesn't lack a bonus from or to power attack that someone with a strength of 18 gets. Power attack functions the same for both characters, and their strength scores don't gain an additional advantage from using power attack.
Power attack is basically dependent only on weapon type and BAB.
I think the point being made is that the more you hit with it the more useful it is, and the higher your strength score is the more you will hit on average. Power attack itself does not do more damage per hit based on strength, but the average damage over the course of a meleer's career will be higher if he hits more.
I think it would be more correct to say that power attack makes higher strength better, rather then the other way around.It galls less but is still wrong. Power attack does what it does regardless of the user's strength score.
Strength doesn't get a bonus from power attack and power attack doesn't get a bonus from strength score. Either way power attack does exactly what it does, and strength does exactly what it does with no interaction on what the other does.
A character with a 13 strength doesn't lack a bonus from or to power attack that someone with a strength of 18 gets. Power attack functions the same for both characters, and their strength scores don't gain an additional advantage from using power attack.
Power attack is basically dependent only on weapon type and BAB.
By the way, Abraham Spalding, I want to preface this by saying that I've really liked a lot of the arguments you've made so far and am always interested to read your posts in this thread. However, I don't think you're correct this time (please point out if I messed up--I'm certainly the first to admit I make tons of errors):
VS AC 21, two otherwise equivalent level 4 Fighters with Focus, Training, and MW. One has 18 Strength, the other 13. One has +11 to hit for , the other +8. Let's talk a longsword just for demonstration purposes.
Mr. 18 can do 5.225 average damage by not Power Attacking (+11 to hit, 1d8+5 damage). If he power attacks, this becomes 6.075 (+9 to hit 1d8+9 damage).
Mr. 13 can do 2.6 average damage by not Power Attacking (+8 to hit 1d8+2 damage). If he power attacks, this becomes 2.125 (+6 to hit for 1d8+6 damage).
Power Attack makes Mr. 13 worse and Mr. 18 better, and I think this is a reasonable AC to be fighting at that level.
Here is the problem.
The statement was, "High strength makes power attack better."
This is easily proven false -- Power attack does the same thing regardless of strength score. Since it does the same thing it is not improved by a higher strength score. Since it isn't improved it isn't better with a higher strength score.
The other statement was, "Power attack makes a high strength score better."
This too is false. The strength score does the same thing with or without power attack. If you have power attack strength adds to attack and damage. If you don't have power attack that same strength still adds the same amount to strength and damage. The power attack is irrelevant to the strength score for what it does. Regardless of using power attack strength does the same thing.
SO what's going on here?
Simple: High strength makes attacking a better option.
Mr. 13 strength is going to hit less often and for less damage than Mr. 18 strength due to the strength score bonus -- NOT because of power attack.
Power attack (independent of strength) does the same thing for both characters -- it subtracts 2 from the attack roll and adds 4 to the damage roll.
The high strength makes attacking in general a better option since it adds to the attack roll and damage roll.
This has no effect on how power attack works or what it does. Power attack does the same thing for both characters -- it's their strength score that affects their attack and damage rolls that makes attacking better for a high strength character.
This happens in both cases (with and without power attack). The simple fact is that attacking with strength is a better option for Mr. 18 then it is for Mr. 13 -- power attack doesn't change this. Attacking will always be a better option for Mr. 18 than it is for Mr. 13.
That's the true statement, and can be proven.
|
|
Here is the problem.
The statement was, "High strength makes power attack better."
This is easily proven false -- Power attack does the same thing regardless of strength score. Since it does the same thing it is not improved by a higher strength score. Since it isn't improved it isn't better with a higher strength score.
The other statement was, "Power attack makes a high strength score better."
This too is false. The strength score does the same thing with or without power attack. If you have power attack strength adds to attack and damage. If you don't have power attack that same strength still adds the same amount to strength and damage. The power attack is irrelevant to the strength score for what it does. Regardless of using power attack strength does the same thing.
SO what's going on here?
Simple: High strength makes attacking a better option.
Mr. 13 strength is going to hit less often and for less damage than Mr. 18 strength due to the strength score bonus -- NOT because of power attack.
Power attack (independent of strength) does the same thing for both characters -- it subtracts 2 from the attack roll and adds 4 to the damage roll.
The high strength makes attacking in general a better option since it adds to the attack roll and damage roll.
This has no effect on how power attack works or what it does. Power attack does the same thing for both characters -- it's their strength score that affects their attack and damage rolls that makes attacking better for a high strength character.
This happens in both cases (with and without power attack). The simple fact is that attacking with strength is a better option for Mr. 18 then it is for Mr. 13 -- power attack doesn't change this. Attacking will always be a better option for Mr. 18 than it is for Mr. 13.
That's the true statement, and can be proven.
I agree with you...but I think what people are getting mixed up with is that situationally, PA gets used more often with higher strength.
Here is the problem.
The statement was, "High strength makes power attack better."
This is easily proven false -- Power attack does the same thing regardless of strength score. Since it does the same thing it is not improved by a higher strength score. Since it isn't improved it isn't better with a higher strength score.
The other statement was, "Power attack makes a high strength score better."
This too is false. The strength score does the same thing with or without power attack. If you have power attack strength adds to attack and damage. If you don't have power attack that same strength still adds the same amount to strength and damage. The power attack is irrelevant to the strength score for what it does. Regardless of using power attack strength does the same thing.
SO what's going on here?
Simple: High strength makes attacking a better option.
Mr. 13 strength is going to hit less often and for less damage than Mr. 18 strength due to the strength score bonus -- NOT because of power attack.
Power attack (independent of strength) does the same thing for both characters -- it subtracts 2 from the attack roll and adds 4 to the damage roll.
The high strength makes attacking in general a better option since it adds to the attack roll and damage roll.
This has no effect on how power attack works or what it does. Power attack does the same thing for both characters -- it's their strength score that affects their attack and damage rolls that makes attacking better for a high strength character.
This happens in both cases (with and without power attack). The simple fact is that attacking with strength is a better option for Mr. 18 then it is for Mr. 13 -- power attack doesn't change this. Attacking will always be a better option for Mr. 18 than it is for Mr. 13.
That's the true statement, and can be proven.
Abraham--I think I showed that the lower Strength (and hence lower attack bonus) actually made the choice of choosing to Power Attack hinder the character's expected damage. So Mr. 13 couldn't get an advantage out of his feat as often as Mr. 18. I'm not talking about the fact that Mr. 18's 5.225 and 6.075 are higher than Mr. 13's 2.6 and 2.125--of course that will be true, and of course Mr. 18 has higher numbers. The ones we need to look at are to compare the 5.225 to the 6.075 (the latter is higher) and conmpare the 2.6 to the 2.125 (the former is higher) I'm just talking about the fact that Mr. 18's Power Attack number is better than his non-Power Attack number and Mr. 13's is worse.
I would say being able to get larger bonuses to expected damage either arimthmetically or geometrically out of your feat (or in this case, getting a bonus instead of a penalty) means that the feat's power is being made better.
Consider also (though this is by no means the only case where it matters) the case of the player who almost always has their character power attack (I know a lot of these). In my scenario there, if he's Mr. 13, he's actually making his expected damage lower by doing this and would be better off with no feat at all.
But what if Mr. Str 13 has Dex 18, has Weapon Finesse, and is attacking with a finessable weapon?
He will then succeed on an attack as often as Mr 18. And then get the same damage to Power Attack (double the penalty taken). The additional Str damage will of course vary. (And of course a Dex build is probably more likely to try to get extra damage in other ways, like sneak attack and critical hits, but I digress)
I see what's being said here but there's always variables and other options.
But what if Mr. Str 13 has Dex 18, has Weapon Finesse, and is attacking with a finessable weapon?
He will then attack as often if not more than Mr 18. And then get the same damage to Power Attack (double the penalty taken). The additional Str damage will of course vary.
I see what's being said here but there's always variables and other options.
Definitely true and you are completely correct in the case of Rapier and Spiked Chain--I had thought that it was already assumed the characters were both otherwise equivalent and going for Str fighting. I don't want to speak for whoever I was backing up here, but I assume they also agree with you and are only trying to explain the point I tried to illustrate, which is for non-finessing instances (And I don't think there's any other possible variables except for Finesse).
In your example the reason Mr. 13 does less is because he has a lower to hit number -- not directly because his strength is lower.
Strength has no direct impact on power attack.
Power attack has no direct impact on strength.
Both are independent of each other.
The statement I claimed was false was to the contrary of what I just stated.
Power attack damage is reliant on to hit, bab, and handiness of the weapon.
NOW strength can cause the things that power attack is dependent on to vary but that doesn't mean that power attack is better by strength -- it's better by hitting more often.
Since this can be accomplished by means other than increasing strength power attack is not improved by a higher strength -- it is improved by increases in attack roll.
In your example the reason Mr. 13 does less is because he has a lower to hit number -- not directly because his strength is lower.
Strength has no direct impact on power attack.
Power attack has no direct impact on strength.
Both are independent of each other.
The statement I claimed was false was to the contrary of what I just stated.
Power attack damage is reliant on to hit, bab, and handiness of the weapon.
NOW strength can cause the things that power attack is dependent on to vary but that doesn't mean that power attack is better by strength -- it's better by hitting more often.
Since this can be accomplished by means other than increasing strength power attack is not improved by a higher strength -- it is improved by increases in attack roll.
I see, I knew I should have read more carefully before commenting.
You are of course correct, and it's a legitimate distinction to make. However, many people consider the two to be fundamentally equivalent because you can't, without finessing, raise your strength without raising your melee to-hit. I have lots of egg on my face if you explained this well somewhere and I can't find it, but your posts seemed to me like they could also be made by someone who believed that there is no effect on Power Attack's utility, whereas you actually meant that there was no direct effect (the first post I quoted has a few lines that confused me).
So apologies--I believe we actually agree.
~RE
No problem it's a subtle difference but an important one in my opinion.
One reason it's so important is there are things that lower or raise your attack roll without doing anything to your strength.
No problem it's a subtle difference but an important one in my opinion.
One reason it's so important is there are things that lower or raise your attack roll without doing anything to your strength.
Completely understood (my girlfriend always tells me I go way too far into drawing small distinctions, so it's easy for me to agree when someone points one out to me, heh). And in fact, someone who raises to-hit without raising Strength will get more use out of Power Attack than someone who achieved the same bonus to-hit by raising Strength.
Okay so this came up in the EK thread...seems PFS characters are 20 and not 15...so that may hurt the 15 as "standard".
As a player (though admittedly small-time) of PFS, I had known this coming in, and while as you know I'm of the opinion that 20 PB *should* be the standard, I don't think it hurts your argument that 15 PB *is* the standard in many quantifiable senses. It is true that the playtest characters were 15 PB. However, as others have said, it seems that they were created to be unoptimised and at the low end so that parties that couldn't optimise well would still be OK against the many challenges they would face. Helping the game be more newbie friendly is always a worthy cause in my opinion, so if that's the case, I'm all for 15 PB being the standard for playtesting as long as our group always lets me roll my characters and take what I get for good or bad and if using point buy, to use closer to the average of rolled stats.
|
Extra strength would have the exact same effect without power attack.
It's a semantic quibble, and I apologize for leaving you room for such an argument with my imprecise language.
The person conducting the power attack will be more likely to hit and inflict more damage if he has a higher strength score than if he did not have a higher strength score, and this is indeed true whether he chose to take the power attack action or not.
My bad. The action ends up being more likely to hit and will inflict more damage if it does, but the mechanic of power attack remains unchanged.
I concede the verbiage, not the point. Fifteen love, your serve.
|
|
Okay so this came up in the EK thread...seems PFS characters are 20 and not 15...so that may hurt the 15 as "standard".
This is like in Living Greyhawk, it used a 28-point buy instead of the standard 25 presented in the player's handbook. Most organized play uses slightly higher than average ability generation, it seems.
I concede the verbiage, not the point. Fifteen love, your serve.
Oh I do my best to not serve -- too easy to make mistakes that way! Much more easier to analyze, predict, and overcome after you know what's in the air -- and just as importantly to know when to not be there!
|
|
Most organized play uses slightly higher than average ability generation, it seems.
Possibly to partially offset the disadvantages of being unable to coordinate your builds with others, as you quite often would end up with a table full of random people, whose character tactics not only don't synergize well, but might even negate each other, like some bloody and explosive Three Stooges sketch. (Not that I haven't seen these spectacular, and, in retrospect, hilarious, debacles in home games...)
Similarly, the GM running the mod doesn't have the luxury of 'tweaking' things as much, which can also make 'accidental' TPKs even more common than they would be in home games.
I concede the verbiage, not the point. Fifteen love, your serve.Oh I do my best to not serve -- too easy to make mistakes that way! Much more easier to analyze, predict, and overcome after you know what's in the air -- and just as importantly to know when to not be there!
Keep dodging, let him wear himself out. Internet rope-a-dope, I know it well. :)
Ooh, is that a windmill? Charge!
It also helps offset the limits on feat choices and the like too, while allowing more room to have those other stats people like to have.
|
|
Most organized play uses slightly higher than average ability generation, it seems.Possibly to partially offset the disadvantages of being unable to coordinate your builds with others, as you quite often would end up with a table full of random people, whose character tactics not only don't synergize well, but might even negate each other, like some bloody and explosive Three Stooges sketch. (Not that I haven't seen these spectacular, and, in retrospect, hilarious, debacles in home games...)
Similarly, the GM running the mod doesn't have the luxury of 'tweaking' things as much, which can also make 'accidental' TPKs even more common than they would be in home games.
I think it was also to avoid so many odd numbers in a given build, as most organized play seemed pretty low level (though I don't have any actual numbers to verify that). I don't remember seeing much higher than 5th level during event registrations at the Cons I've been to.
|
|
I think it was also to avoid so many odd numbers in a given build, as most organized play seemed pretty low level (though I don't have any actual numbers to verify that). I don't remember seeing much higher than 5th level during event registrations at the Cons I've been to.Most organized play uses slightly higher than average ability generation, it seems.Possibly to partially offset the disadvantages of being unable to coordinate your builds with others, as you quite often would end up with a table full of random people, whose character tactics not only don't synergize well, but might even negate each other, like some bloody and explosive Three Stooges sketch. (Not that I haven't seen these spectacular, and, in retrospect, hilarious, debacles in home games...)
Similarly, the GM running the mod doesn't have the luxury of 'tweaking' things as much, which can also make 'accidental' TPKs even more common than they would be in home games.
That is true...it is hard to find organized play beyond level 5. And didn't the FR organized play use 32 point buy?