Bye Bye Power Attack


4th Edition

51 to 100 of 289 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Stebehil wrote:
ArchLich wrote:
Are puns and off key singing disciplines?
If you plague Toreador with it, that might qualify.

I always liked what one of our local Malkies called them. 'Torrid Whores.'

Though I think revenants rocked myself.

Dark Archive

Getting back to the original topic. This seems to standard WotC 4E propaganda.
1) Exaggerate the complexity or uselessness of a feat, rule, etc. so you can get people to think "Yeah, that rule really does slow my game down. It bites!"
2) Say you are getting rid of or simplifying the offending piece of 3.5 so everyone will go "Yay, 4.0 all the way!"

I'm getting a bit tired of this. These people are bashing the rules that they created, and supposedly "playtested" because of a profit driven edition change. Sometimes, it even sound like they are trying to convince themselves as much us that 3.5 sucks and 4.0 is sorely needed. Does anyone else get this feeling from the designers?

Dark Archive

Yeah, like we need to be told again (by the people that created and "playtested" the 3.5 rules) how horrible 3.5 truly is. Sometimes, I think they are trying to convince themselves as much as us that 3.5 is a blight upon D&D, and we desperately need 4.0 to fix it. It's just sad.


So... Tweet isn't allowed to change his mind? Or have a sense of humour?

I laughed at the opener to his blog post.

But then, I realise that I'm in a minority. :D


People on some boards refuse to believe me when I say "4E is being dumbed down for some really, goofy morons they want to attract to D&D that stick around the MMORPGs like FFXI and WoW." It's turning into a real idiots game...God forbid D&D requires you to use some basic MATH and remember the differences between DEVILS, DEMONS, and YUGOLOTHS, and use your imagination instead of relying on die rolls all the time...oh, and to actually spend some TIME devising your sessions.

Funny thing is, someone at my hobby shop spent a boat load on Star Wars d20...only to get reamed really hard from behind by WotC when they released Star Wars Saga.

Now he did check it out, all of it, and what was his impression?

"There was nothing wrong with Star Wars d20, Saga is almost for toddlers. I don't recommended Saga if you ever want to get into a Star Wars game, stick with d20."

He was really ticked. Luckily, I got to share with him my hatred of 4th Edition and what it is doing to D&D as a whole. He got even more angry when he realized Saga was just "4E previews".

Does anyone here really trust WotC knows what they're doing anymore?

To get back on topic, Power Attack makes sense "fluff-wise" and is very strategic for players. If I hit you with my full combat prowess, experienced, and aim for a particularly lethal spot using all my strength and skill...it's going to hurt (-10 attack penalty). If I aim at an easier spot (mechanics-wise, -7 attack penalty) with less force, a twist of my arm a specific way, and just try to blow through your defense, I'll hit you hard, just not at my full potential. If I just want to smack you better than normal, I grunt loudly as I swing with desperate force towards your chest (-2 attack penalty), and I can go on and on.

That's my fluff explanation.

Game mechanics explanation, no one EVER had a problem with Power Attack. Ever. It comes down to WotC either spewing crap out their mouth, or talking to the wrong people about the feat (or, for profit-making purposes, the "right" people).

It never slowed the game down. It was pretty quick actually: "I Power Attack for 3, modifiers included I hit a 17."

Done. That's it. What was so hard?


The basics of it are simple, but think about when your character is sitting at 11+ level and on a full attack you get at least 3 attacks in a round. If you dip into power attack too much your first attack may still hit, but you might miss with the second couple of attacks, so you need to think about how much power attack to use to get the optimal damage output. You don't want to ramp up your power attack too much and then hit only with your first attack otherwise you sacrifice all the damage from the second two attacks that ended up missing just to do a lot of damage with your first hit. This is when power attack becomes finicky.

If you are moving and only making a single attack then it's more of a no brainer. Furthermore, offering +2 to damage for every -1 with two handed weapons vastly increases the incentive to wield two handed weapons. Soon every warrior you see in the game has a two handed weapon and an magic animated shield. What about the guy who fights with a quick weapon like a rapier that doesn't take an hour to recover from a swing from? There isn't much in the game mechanics to help a guy like that. So yes I think there are some problems with the relatively straight foward power attack feat.

Furthermore, although it is basic adding and subtracting, it can be a pain to have to calculate attack and damage bonuses during battle when your character is powered up with mulitple spells that offer mulitple effects. I end up doing a combat sheet that shows his attack and damage bonuses with different combinations of spells that he would commonly have active on him in a fight, just so I have it quick and easy, and even then it doesn't account for every combination that occurs. 1st and 2nd edition didn't have nearly the ammount of penalities and bonuses you had to worry about. I think most players would agree that all that stuff does tend to slow down 3E combat especially in high level play (even if you are good at math), and combat isn't fun if it isn't fast and furious.

John Robey wrote:

...

But Power Attack is painfully simple. 0.o

-The Gneech

Dark Archive

FabesMinis wrote:

So... Tweet isn't allowed to change his mind? Or have a sense of humour?

I laughed at the opener to his blog post.

But then, I realise that I'm in a minority. :D

He should have had plenty of time to change his mind when they were playtesting 3.5. If it was that big of an issue, it would have come up and they could have fixed it. So either they didn't playtest extensively enough (which I believe to be true) or it's just another piece of anti-3.5 pro-4.0 propaganda from a very biased source.

Dark Archive

FabesMinis wrote:

So... Tweet isn't allowed to change his mind? Or have a sense of humour?

I laughed at the opener to his blog post.

But then, I realise that I'm in a minority. :D

If it truly was as horrible as he says it is, then it should have come up in playtesting (assuming there was any significant amount of playtesting for 3.5). That was the time to change his mind. The timing of his revelation about the brokeness of power attack is just a bit too convenient. Right now, it just sounds like another bit of anti-3.5, pro-4.0 propaganda spewing forth from another WotC corporate drone.


I’ve Got Reach wrote:

Here goes my unpopular opinion on Power Attack and D&D math complexities in general:

1) Power Attack is too good in 3.5, and even better in Star Wars Saga Edition. Thats not to say its game breaking, just that any fighter worth their salt has to wield their weapon two-handed to do any real appreciable damage. This can be fixed via house rule obviously, but is beyond the scope of the thread.

2) D&D math IS overly complex. If you don’t believe me, you haven’t played in our power-gaming munchkinizing gaming group. Take my 12th level paladin for example:
Power Attack
Combat Expertise
Bulls Strength
Bears Endurance
Divine Favor
Magic Weapon
Smite Evil

Somewhat agree with point 1 - I've always thought a 1.5 mod would be better, but mean to the fighter with +3 strength who power attacks for 3.

Point 2: +35 to damage assuming +4 charisma, combat expertise to full, and power attack to net +0 to attack.

I've Got Reach wrote:

... abilities like Persist Spell (which by the way is broken as hell).

Utter agreement - will never ever allow it.


While I am not onboard with 4.0, I don't have a problem with a either/or style Power Attack as opposed to the sliding scale. Nevertheless, I will admit that the Power Attack mechanics are not the hardest to use. Try tracking bonuses when Haste, Righteous Wrath of the Faithful, and Good Hope are all in play.

Likewise, I do have the Star Wars saga rules and I like them. Star Wars d20 works great, but as a GM, the pacing sucked. I could never match the pace of the movies that I couls with the older West End system. Saga allows me to do that, so I am cool.

That said, a lot of things that work in saga I don't want to see in D&D. The settings and pace SHOULD be different. I am not sure that incoporating some of the saga mechanics will make D&D better.


FabesMinis wrote:

So... Tweet isn't allowed to change his mind? Or have a sense of humour?

I laughed at the opener to his blog post.

But then, I realise that I'm in a minority. :D

I was fine with his post. I would have like a preview as to what they were replacing it with, but that is a problem I have with all of their recent "previews."


I didn't read his post. I can't. I'm locked out as usual.

Grr...

But as to saying bye bye to Power Attack. Yeah, goodbye and good riddance. Never has there been a feat in the game so gamebreaking and nonsensical as that one. Everything else that works on a -5/+5 slider gets a cieling of 5. It's just ridiculous to me that Power Attack doesn't. Yuck.

Of course I modded it, like I do with everything--but I'm certainly not going to shed a tear if they dump it in the shredder. Hate.

Though there's an interesting point that comes from this--an alternate rule that might be fun for some folks.

What if it was assumed everyone had Power Attack? You just assume that anyone can telegraph an attack to make it easier to avoid, but also much more damaging. That might be cool. Especially what if the same was true of magic. The more you "charge it up" before you let it go lets people prepare for it more (giving them an easier save) but makes it +1 caster level in effect.

It might also be fun to experiment with the opposite. I want to attack as quickly and unexpectedly as possible. It does less damage, because I'm not carefully waiting and lining up as good a shot, but it's much harder to react to. That way you can add to your base to hit, but subtract from damage, minimum 1. With magic it would raise their save number but reduce the level of the effect.


If power attack doesn't work for the new rules set, it doesn't work. I'm not saying that power attack is something intrinsic to D&D the way I have felt that other elements have been, and yet were removed. Its a mechanic to facilitate combat, so if the combat rules change, so will power attack.

What I don't like, and what I suspect in many ways is what might be rubbing some others the wrong way, is that its another article telling us that 3.5 is bad, and that we should all now realize how difficult it was to use power attack and that it must be changed.

If you come up with a better mechanic that works better, great. If its simpler, so be it. But quit spinning every change you make WOTC. It feels very much like the designers may be worried that 4th edition won't wow us with how much of an improvement it is, so the "groundwork" has to be laid down to convince us that 3.5 is bad.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying that 4th edition will be bad. What I'm saying is, perhaps a lot of things that are being changed will end up evoking a response of "well, rule X in 4th edition doesn't strike me as better or worse than rule X in 3.5 edition," thus obviating the need to actually change editions.

I guess what I feel from time to time is that they aren't really simplifying the game so much as spreading the complexity around. In that regard, its kind of like a shell game. Look under the "monster shell" and its not as complex any more. Look under the "fighter shell" and you see a lot of shifted complexity, for example.

As for humor, I've had enough of humor and casual conversation about the game. Honestly, I want the designers to sound like professionals, not like (as I've said before) guys that hang out at the hobby shop when I go there. There is a place for humor and candor, but honestly, all we have really gotten so far has been casual observation and jokes. Seriously, I think everyone working on 4th edition, from this point out, should be enjoined from ever using the word cool again.

Scarab Sages

KnightErrantJR wrote:
As for humor, I've had enough of humor and casual conversation about the game. Honestly, I want the designers to sound like professionals, not like (as I've said before) guys that hang out at the hobby shop when I go there. There is a place for humor and candor, but honestly, all we have really gotten so far has been casual observation and jokes. Seriously, I think everyone working on 4th edition, from this point out, should be enjoined from ever using the word cool again.

We're only seeing that because of blogs (or whatever the hell they call Gleemax, other than a stinking pile of feces... worst online blog/whatever system I have ever had the misfortune of using - alpha, beta, or otherwise). We wouldn't normally get to hear the inane ramblings of the designers, who clearly don't understand that when they speak people attribute it to "Wizards of the Coast" rather than "Game Designer X". If anything, WotC should instruct them in that matter - "when you speak, people assume you are speaking on behalf of the company. Comport yourselves appropriately."

Anyway, I do agree with you, though. These people are being told (presumably) to trash the very system they created so that people think it's so broken that 4e is the only logical alternative. They are really very much banking on people just converting because it's the same company. Honestly, if the system is so different, and someone actually wants to bother changing from 3.5, then this is a good opportunity to look at some of the other systems that are out there - because 4e isn't the child of 3.x... WotC keep telling us it's so entirely different that you can't even convert stuff.

Bringing it back to the topic, though, I couldn't care less about a single feat. So far, the entire justification for making 4e seems to be to fix grappling and to fix the Power Attack feat.

::blink:: Really?

Grand Lodge

The 8th Pagan wrote:
DMcCoy1693 wrote:
OMG!!! Power Attack Sucks too!!! How dare I do basic addition at the gaming table!?!

Don't forget there is subtraction too! You need to reduce the attack bonus.

Odd really that such complex concepts as basic maths requires comment at Gleemax. Does this mean that kids today require a calculator to add and subtract?

I am now tempted to invent an RPG that uses 'Log Tables', just to freak the kids out.

actually we used to play with a guy (GM's younger brother-in-law) who would roll the dice and just look at the rest of us. We had to add the dice for him. Then he would smile and repeat the number for the GM. He was about 14 at the time (rest of us were mid 20's to late 30's). He also could not do the math for his to hit modifiers or anything else.

So yes, kids today need a calculator to add dice, as long as they are numerals and not pips. They will have no idea what those are!

The Exchange

DMcCoy1693 wrote:

OMG!!! Grapple Sucks!!! We Need a New Edition to fix Grapple!!!!

OMG!!! Power Attack Sucks too!!! How dare I do basic addition at the gaming table!?! We desperately need a new edition right this very second to fix this blight on our game!!!

link

No. YAY!

I am sick and tired of the BDFs sitting their taking off their shoes to figure out just how much they should power.

It slows my group down all the time.

This is a good one to get rid of.


crosswiredmind wrote:

It slows my group down all the time.

This is a good one to get rid of.

So...

You would rather it get removed from the game, rather than remove/"fix" it at your table?

How considerate.

[Note: It is usually much easier for a group to remove a rule, than to have a group add one in.]


When does math become plural?
Like, I'm seeing "maths" all the time. Isn't math just one big method of using numbers or has that changed?
Honest question. They've changed the vowels since I've been to school too, so anything is possible.

I know why they are getting rid of power attack. Because people hated having to wait around with it until they could pick something really neat, like Sunder!!!
sunder ...
Sunder ...
SUNDERCATS!
Hooo ...


Disenchanter wrote:


[Note: It is usually much easier for a group to remove a rule, than to have a group add one in.]

I can see a problem there for some people. There are a lot of players out there that will argue until they're blue in the face that "it's in the book, it's in the game!". Yes, the GM is the final judge on such matters, though a consensus with the players is always the more desirable outcome, but such arguments can cause a lot of time sink/irritation at the table.

That said, I really don't see a problem with Power Attack. When you choose such feats, you accept the responsibility of being able to manage them at the table, in the same way that players accept responsibility for managing spells when they choose to play a spellcaster. At least thats how I see it; if you can't handle the rules for your character, then you should probably try a different character. If you're new to the rules or you've never actually used the feat before, I can understand taking a little time to make sure you've got it right but it shouldn't be an ongoing time-sucking struggle with the damn thing week after week. Most of the people I know who make regular use of Power Attack will decide on a number, make a little notation on their sheet, and stick with that number. No different than druids who pick a favorite summon and stick with it, or wizards who prefer a certain spell, or groups that prefer a certain tactic. Repetition leads to memorization leads to quicker play for everyone.


'Maths' is what we call it in the UK, as opposed to 'Math'.

I think I might just do a Heathanson now, and avoid 4E threads. Preserve the mystery and also my sanity. :D


FabesMinis wrote:
'Maths' is what we call it in the UK, as opposed to 'Math'.

Well, now I know. Thanks =)

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

CharlieRock wrote:
FabesMinis wrote:
'Maths' is what we call it in the UK, as opposed to 'Math'.
Well, now I know. Thanks =)

And knowing is half the battle... GI Joe!

Dark Archive

crosswiredmind wrote:
DMcCoy1693 wrote:

OMG!!! Grapple Sucks!!! We Need a New Edition to fix Grapple!!!!

OMG!!! Power Attack Sucks too!!! How dare I do basic addition at the gaming table!?! We desperately need a new edition right this very second to fix this blight on our game!!!

link

No. YAY!

I am sick and tired of the BDFs sitting their taking off their shoes to figure out just how much they should power.

It slows my group down all the time.

This is a good one to get rid of.

If using power attack is such a time-waster for a group, then you ask players using it to write a separate entry on their character sheet for power attack. Have them pick a standard power attack number (5 or full BAB are good choices for this) and put all of the modifiers for a regular attack and a power attack already calculated on the sheet on different lines. Easy peasy.


Stebehil wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:
Stebehil wrote:

Threadjack alert!

Sebastian wrote:
The language of the law should be incomprehensible and riddled with obsfucation!

I knew it! Lawyers and bureaucrats producing laws are Malkavians! Incomprehensible and riddled with obfuscation! Now it finally makes no sense to me!

Ahem. Back to your regular WotC-bashing thread.

Stefan

And don't forget the Dementation
Well, implying that lawyers are sabbat on top of being malkavians is not nice...

True, it's not nice... Those Malkavian and Sabbat vampires might just be offended.

At least you didn't lump POLITICIANS in there too... :D

Thraxus wrote:

While I am not onboard with 4.0, I don't have a problem with a either/or style Power Attack as opposed to the sliding scale. Nevertheless, I will admit that the Power Attack mechanics are not the hardest to use. Try tracking bonuses when Haste, Righteous Wrath of the Faithful, and Good Hope are all in play.

Likewise, I do have the Star Wars saga rules and I like them. Star Wars d20 works great, but as a GM, the pacing sucked. I could never match the pace of the movies that I couls with the older West End system. Saga allows me to do that, so I am cool.

That said, a lot of things that work in saga I don't want to see in D&D. The settings and pace SHOULD be different. I am not sure that incoporating some of the saga mechanics will make D&D better.

I found Star Wars d20 WONDERFUL for emulating the material Lucas cited as the source of Star Wars (Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon, etc. - the old Sci Fi Serials, not the TV series), but mediocre for Star Wars itself... Haven't played SAGA Edition yet.

The Exchange

Disenchanter wrote:
crosswiredmind wrote:

It slows my group down all the time.

This is a good one to get rid of.

So...

You would rather it get removed from the game, rather than remove/"fix" it at your table?

How considerate.

[Note: It is usually much easier for a group to remove a rule, than to have a group add one in.]

1) We play a LOT of Living Greyhawk - no rules are optional.

2) 3.5 works as a system of rules. Once you start twiddling with it it can be easy to break.

3) Yes, I have no desire to piss off my friends and limit their enjoyment of the game.

Scarab Sages

FabesMinis wrote:
'Maths' is what we call it in the UK, as opposed to 'Math'.

It's an abbreviated version of mathematics.

"The mathematics are simple" becomes "The maths are simple"

"She has a mathematic approach to biology" becomes "She has a math approach to biology"

/endhijack

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Disenchanter wrote:


So...

You would rather it get removed from the game, rather than remove/"fix" it at your table?

How considerate.

[Note: It is usually much easier for a group to remove a rule, than to have a group add one in.]

Yes. If it makes the game better, I want power attack out of the game. Consideration has nothing to do with it. I am inconvenienced by having to remove the rule; I'm not sure why I should discount my inconvenience or even try to weigh it against yours given that the utility that you receive from the product is not part of my purchasing decision.

But let me know which tv shows you like too. I'll watch those so they don't get cancelled. After all, it's much easier for me to knit and not really pay attention to the show and increase the ratings (I'm on Neilsons) than it is for you to not be able to watch it.

Also, I purchase Japanese cars. Let me know if you are a worker at an American auto factory. I could get basically the same car from an American car company, and I wouldn't want to inconvenience you by causing you to lose your job. Particularly when my preference for Japanese cars over American cars isn't that great.

I don't want to be inconsiderate by not factoring your preferences and convenience into my decisions.


Orcwart wrote:
They're dumbing down the game to widen the audience.

But this is going to drive the "smart" gammers out of DND and stay with 3.5

Why are you going to dumb a game down it is so sad

They are going to destroy DND and its sad for me and my game group

Is power attack really that hard to figure out?


Joey Virtue wrote:
Orcwart wrote:
They're dumbing down the game to widen the audience.

But this is going to drive the "smart" gammers out of DND and stay with 3.5

Why are you going to dumb a game down it is so sad

They are going to destroy DND and its sad for me and my game group

Is power attack really that hard to figure out?

A lot of people seem to think "Simplify = Dumb Down"; 3.0 proved the opposite isn't true - some stuff they tried to "dumb down" wound up overcomplicated, leading to a "need" for 3.5...

There is a RELATIONSHIP between "simplicity" and "dumbing down" but it's not 1:1.

They are hoping to simplify things, to speed up play and attract the ADD generation to D&D. In some cases this requires increasing the complexity, in some decreasing it.
It isn't all just "dumbing down" though. Some is, true - as MIGHT be the case here. Some isn't.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

CEBrown wrote:


A lot of people seem to think "Simplify = Dumb Down"; 3.0 proved the opposite isn't true - some stuff they tried to "dumb down" wound up overcomplicated, leading to a "need" for 3.5...

There is a RELATIONSHIP between "simplicity" and "dumbing down" but it's not 1:1.

They are hoping to simplify things, to speed up play and attract the ADD generation to D&D. In some cases this requires increasing the complexity, in some decreasing it.
It isn't all just "dumbing down" though. Some is, true - as MIGHT be the case here. Some isn't.

Agreed. The assumption seems to be that Power Attack is being removed and therefore fighters will have fewer tactical decisions to make each round. However, most of the other information about 4e suggests that each class will have resources to manage and more tactical options, particularly fighters who's options appear to be based on their weapons. Removing Power Attack and replacing it with a whole raft of other options and a resource to manage other than BAB will allow for more thought in the game, not less, even if each individual option is less complex than Power Attack.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Sebastian,

I'm addressing this to you, not for hostility, but you make an easy target. :-)

I'm of the opinion, and hope my posts have not conveyed otherwise, that they can do whatever they do with 4th, since I'm not playing it.

It's the justification that was given that bothers me. To point out that Power attack slows the game and, albiet later, thay they don't feel the feat matched the flavour they were looking for, is disingenious. Our fighter who could grow large or huge depending on the item he activated, would power attack and could handle all the variables faster than our druid and cleric could pick what spell they wanted and where to place it. Every round.

(I was the exception, with my battle sorcerer, but even I slowed down when I started throwing shadow evocations)

If Mr. Tweet has changed his mind, and he is entitled to, then attacking the feat was the wrong way to go. Explaining how he found Power attack (and his little brother, Combat Expertise) flawed and then addressing how 4.x will change those would have been a better way to get his message across. As the article stands, it is a reasonable reading to take his words as "Math is hard, and we're getting rid of the math intensive stuff! How? We can't tell you, but trust us, it's cool!"

Are we going to see the end of conjurer mass monsters? I'm betting so, since the Astral Construct nerf in the complete (waste of) psionic. If we don't, I'd like to know how "Ok, now I'll wait for the wizard, his 20 celstial badgers, his familiar, his cohort, and her 3 celestial black bears, to go." is any less complez and time consuming than "Wow, I hit last round, how much do I gamble in power attack?"

Again, it's not the removing/replacing of the PA mechanic that bothers me. It's the 'This is one of the things in 3.x that suxx, and we've a super secret method of fixing it, one you may not be able to turn off!"


Matthew Morris wrote:


Again, it's not the removing/replacing of the PA mechanic that bothers me. It's the 'This is one of the things in 3.x that suxx, and we've a super secret method of fixing it, one you may not be able to turn off!"

To be fair they would tell us all the details on the new mechanics but the Department of Homeland Security has ruled it would be a breach of national security due to the fact that they settle official negotiations with those same rules.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Matthew Morris wrote:


I'm addressing this to you, not for hostility, but you make an easy target. :-)

Well you sure picked the wrong target. Not because of hostility, but because I completely agree with everything you said. :-)

I made this comment on the Doomspore thread about WotC's announcement that combat will occur in much larger environments, and I think it is the same thing you are saying:

Seabstian wrote:

And, if I may b%#~~ for the sake of b%#~~ing, it still goes to show that WotC has no idea how to market this thing. I just don't see why they can't say "pre-4e, combat encounters were almost hermetically sealed by design. This had pros and cons. 4e changes this system by doing X. This change addresses these cons and has these additional pros. While it does introduce a new con, this is mitigated by the new pro."

Instead of: "10x10 rooms are for morons. There won't be any more 10x10 rooms. Except there will be. Only they'll be part of a larger room. Which will ROCK!!!!"

So, I completely agree. WotC needs to quit framing the 4e changes as "OMG! The old way of playing was dumb and broken. The new way will ROCK!!! Can you feel it? Oh yeah, I know you can!!!" Power attack had some pros, it had some cons, but all they've done is highlight some cons and then given us no other information whatsoever. It's obnoxious and useless - they haven't really told us anything.

But, at the same time, even if WotC is failing at marketing, that doesn't really excuse lazy and illogical thinking such as "Power Attack was complicated; they removed Power Attack; therefore the game is for idiots and dumbed down." It may well be proven to be true that the game is dumbed down, but that's not something that can be determined from our current vantage point (just as we can't determine if it will be better from our current vantage point).


Sebastian wrote:
I'm not sure why I should discount my inconvenience or even try to weigh it against yours given that the utility that you receive from the product is not part of my purchasing decision.

But why should we give a damn about your purchase decisions? It isn't like they effect us at all...

The Exchange

I’ve Got Reach wrote:

Here goes my unpopular opinion on Power Attack and D&D math complexities in general:

...
2) D&D math IS overly complex. If you don’t believe me, you haven’t played in our power-gaming munchkinizing gaming group. Take my 12th level paladin for example:
Power Attack
Combat Expertise
Bulls Strength
Bears Endurance
Divine Favor
Magic Weapon
Smite Evil

These are just a few of the characters combat options/abilities; there are others I’m sure I’m forgetting. Add these up in your head during the course of a battle. Now get poisoned, level-drained, ability drained, penalties, and outside bonuses and figure out your abilities. At 2:00 a.m.

Playing this character without the benefit of Excel is not impossible, just impractical, and not fun at all.
...

I think the word TEDIOUS is better than COMPLEX for describing the 3.5 system. I would have respected the article better if they said, 'Toggling Power Attack (and similar feats/spell effects) 'ON-OFF' will speed play and allow us to supplement table-top gaming and computer added gaming effects better.'

I think this article is an example of why 4.0 was not necessary. This is a small improvement for edition 3.75 that could have been backwords compatible with 3.5. Instead I am getting a non-compatible edition.

I respect (and want) improvement and digitalization. Instead, I am getting a 'better' Power Attack at the cost of my prior investment. I wish I could agree with Sebastian, but I do not like the way WotC is doing this.


Sebastian wrote:
Agreed. The assumption seems to be that Power Attack is being removed and therefore fighters will have fewer tactical decisions to make each round.

Actually, there is more to that assumption.

1) Power Attack is (probably) being removed. (What other abilities are likely being removed? Expertise seams like a potential candidate. And that makes me wonder about the option of fighting defensively...)
2) Full Attack is being removed. (To "encourage" battlefield movement.) (Which, makes me wonder about the usefulness/existence of Cleave and others in the new system)
3) Some/Most/All current tactical choices are being removed from an "everybody can" status, to a "only certain classes that take certain options can" status.

The only reason that I don't feel Fighters are being dumbed down, is that they are being given spell-like abilities to make them "cool." Although, I am betting it is just to make them somewhat useful.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
The 8th Pagan wrote:


Odd really that such complex concepts as basic maths requires comment at Gleemax. Does this mean that kids today require a calculator to add and subtract?

Apparently dumbing down is Hasbro Policy- look at the newest edition of Monopoly.

It looks like kids don't need numeracy, next on the list is imagination- 4th Ed. so far oozes of pandering in an attempt to steal crumbs from the MMORPG market.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Disenchanter wrote:
Sebastian wrote:
I'm not sure why I should discount my inconvenience or even try to weigh it against yours given that the utility that you receive from the product is not part of my purchasing decision.
But why should we give a damn about your purchase decisions? It isn't like they effect us at all...

Exactly. And it's not inconsiderate to not give a damn about my purchase decisions. The fact that I prefer a product in one format is not somehow inconsiderate to others who would prefer it in a different format. Your post seemed to say that it was inconsiderate to want D&D w/o power attack because it was easier to remove the feat than to add it back in. I fail to see what that is inconsiderate given the above.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

firbolg wrote:

Apparently dumbing down is Hasbro Policy- look at the newest edition of Monopoly.
It looks like kids don't need numeracy, next on the list is imagination- 4th Ed. so far oozes of pandering in an attempt to steal crumbs from the MMORPG market.

Uh....Monopoly is a s&~*ty game. It could use some retooling. I'm sure it was cutting edge back in 1901 or whenever it was originally produced, and the cards are cute and it's got some fun elements, but if you actually play the game by the rules, there's exactly one dominant strategy, luck plays a stronger role than anything else, and the end-game is a dreadfully boring exercise in number crunching and dice rolling. Removing the needlessly complex elements ("dumbing down" if you will) could well make it a better game, particularly if such complexity is replaced with additional meaningful strategic decisions.

I suppose if complexity = fun, we should probably quit playing D&D and move on to Heroes, or, better yet, advanced calculus. Maybe power attack should add +.34 to each roll per 1.2 points of strength, unless that number is not evenly divisible by the sum of its digits, in which case power attack should add +.45 to each roll per 1.76 points of strength divided by the character's weight. That way only the smartest of the smart will understand the game sufficiently to be able to play it.


Sebastian wrote:
Disenchanter wrote:
Sebastian wrote:
I'm not sure why I should discount my inconvenience or even try to weigh it against yours given that the utility that you receive from the product is not part of my purchasing decision.
But why should we give a damn about your purchase decisions? It isn't like they effect us at all...
Exactly.

Wrong.

I was being sarcastic (no points taken away from not noticing in the text).

Your purchase decisions do affect us. Not by themselves, of course. But if enough people feel as you do - and let's face it, the consumer mantra of "I want it my way, I don't care about anyone else, and I want it now damnit" is becoming very prevalent - then 4th Edition is needed to sustain D&D, and possibly the hobby.

And we all know that inconvenience is such a terrible thing to have to suffer... Just look at the Visa Check Card commercials for proof. (More sarcasm, by the way.)

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Disenchanter wrote:


Your purchase decisions do affect us. Not by themselves, of course. But if enough people feel as you do - and let's face it, the consumer mantra of "I want it my way, I don't care about anyone else, and I want it now damnit" is becoming very prevalent - then 4th Edition is needed to sustain D&D, and possibly the hobby.

And we all know that inconvenience is such a terrible thing to have to suffer... Just look at the Visa Check Card commercials for proof. (More sarcasm, by the way.)

My head hurts from the nonsense of this argument. So, in the primordial days prior to 4e, you believe that consumers purchased products based on what other people found pleasing? Uh...okay... Not only that, it's apparently your duty when you purchase a product to consider whether the features you like will somehow inconvenience other purchasers who do not like those features and would prefer the product with or without them? And then weigh the utility you receive against the utilty they may receive, and if your utility is less than their utility, you are inconsiderate? Does that mean that auto makers should only produce convertibles because it's easier to have a removable roof built in than to have to add it on later?

In the meantime, I patiently await a description of the products that you like so that I may take into consideration your preferences when I make my purchasing decisions. I'm basically indifferent between Pepsi and Coke, but I guess if you strongly prefer Coke, it would be inconsiderate of me to purchase Pepsi, because in doing so, it may be harder for you to find Coke. I desperately want to be considerate, so if you can just tell me which one you like better, I'd really appreciate it.

R.I.P. the invisible hand.

Edit: Come to think of it, I guess this is the definition of inconsiderate - failing to consider others. I guess I just don't see how that is a bad thing in the context of making a purchasing decsion or expressing a preference. Plus, I'm unsure as to how I should behave in a way that would be considerate absent learning all of your preferences and comparing my utility against your utility for those preferences.


crosswiredmind wrote:

2) 3.5 works as a system of rules. Once you start twiddling with it it can be easy to break.

Easy to break?! That implies the game isn't broken. I don't know much about Living Greyhawk - it might be smooth running system - but I assure you that 3.5 in its entirety is completely broken and easily abusable. Its up to the DM to selectively disallow feats, spells and abilities to restore play balance.

Liberty's Edge

I clicked the link and read his blog entry about spellcasting as the reason he does not run 3E any more, and all it made me think is:
Why would I have consumer confidence in anything this person writes for D&D any more?

He obviously feels the core system is completely incompatible with fun, and he admits making severe errors in game system balance. So why should I have confidence in R&D this time?
Well, I guess if they are creating a completely new system I can have some confidence - unless of course I actually like the current one, or do not feel like learning a new one. But even then, how confident can I be when confronted with "On reflection, my last game was rather awful. Try my new one!"

Never mind the vagaries of strategy with power attack and combat expertise, I want to understand how that is a good marketing strategy.


Sebastian wrote:
My head hurts from the nonesense [sic] of this argument.

Wow, you certainly are full of s+*%, aren't you Sebastian?

Speaking of nonsense, I have had to read your post three times to try and figure out where you drew all of those conclusions from....

I still fail.

I guess you are just too superior for me.

Let me know when you are willing to come down to my peon level to actually have a conversation.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Hmm, just read that post on spellcasting here

It seems to be more of the same to me.

Prepping spells is hard! (Really? I call it strategy)

Who wants to use Magic Missile on the mooks, saving meteor swarm for the BBEG? (Yeah, all my low level spells are good for is cooking)

Tracking buffs is hard! (Yeah, because keeping those tics on my sheet sure took a lot of work.)

Warlock's cool because he can do the same thing all day and can't buff anyone. See it's easy!

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Sebastian wrote:
Maybe power attack should add +.34 to each roll per 1.2 points of strength, unless that number is not evenly divisible by the sum of its digits, in which case power attack should add +.45 to each roll per 1.76 points of strength divided by the character's weight. That way only the smartest of the smart will understand the game sufficiently to be able to play it.

So you've played GURPS!

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Disenchanter wrote:


Wow, you certainly are full of s@*@, aren't you Sebastian?

Speaking of nonsense, I have had to read your post three times to try and figure out where you drew all of those conclusions from....

I still fail.

I guess you are just too superior for me.

Let me know when you are willing to come down to my peon level to actually have a conversation.

...

Uh...okay...

Dark Archive

DMcCoy1693 wrote:

OMG!!! Grapple Sucks!!! We Need a New Edition to fix Grapple!!!!

OMG!!! Power Attack Sucks too!!! How dare I do basic addition at the gaming table!?! We desperately need a new edition right this very second to fix this blight on our game!!!

link

I never had any problem with Power Attack. I've never seen a player saying that Power Attack was too complicated, or bogged down the game.

I just don't understand where these "fixes" come from.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Sebastian wrote:
firbolg wrote:

Apparently dumbing down is Hasbro Policy- look at the newest edition of Monopoly.
It looks like kids don't need numeracy, next on the list is imagination- 4th Ed. so far oozes of pandering in an attempt to steal crumbs from the MMORPG market.

Uh....Monopoly is a s&&%ty game. It could use some retooling. I'm sure it was cutting edge back in 1901 or whenever it was originally produced, and the cards are cute and it's got some fun elements, but if you actually play the game by the rules, there's exactly one dominant strategy, luck plays a stronger role than anything else, and the end-game is a dreadfully boring exercise in number crunching and dice rolling. Removing the needlessly complex elements ("dumbing down" if you will) could well make it a better game, particularly if such complexity is replaced with additional meaningful strategic decisions.

What worries me about things like monopoly, is when I was a kid we learned to play it. It actually taught colours, math, addition, subtraction, don't feed the baby the top hat, etc.

Now it teaches how to use an ATM card.

I am a luddite apparently

Dark Archive

firbolg wrote:

Apparently dumbing down is Hasbro Policy- look at the newest edition of Monopoly.

It looks like kids don't need numeracy, next on the list is imagination- 4th Ed. so far oozes of pandering in an attempt to steal crumbs from the MMORPG market.

WOW. I find this completely and utterly APPALLING.

51 to 100 of 289 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / Bye Bye Power Attack All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.