I have seen some joy on the forums that power attack has been reduced.
I personally don't like this at all, power attack is a useful tool in dealing with DR, by reducing its limit to the characters strength bonus you are putting emphasise on the "golf bag" of weapons to deal with different types of DR. while I agree it needs improving at low levels, I think you have made it a pointless choice in low ability score campaigns. My current party of 7 characters built on the 25 point system has a highest strength of 14. this is the barbarian, at 4th level he is not entitled to his 2nd rage, so power attack is useful to him in real terms 2 per day.
Combat expertise is now almost completely useless, a bonus of +1 to your AC is the best most fighters will get out of this.
What do I suggest?
I suggest allowing characters to transfer attack bonus, Armour Class or Damage about as they wish as long as they have the correct feat (or ability). I would suggest giving the correct ability to a class as part of its level advancement.
Attack bonus converted to Damage = power attack
Attack bonus converted to AC = comabt expertise
AC converted to damage = ??? does this make sense to any one?
AC converted to hit = reckless strike
Damage bonus converted to Attack bonus = precise attack
Damage Bonus to AC = ??? Some sort of parry?
What are your thoughts on this?
DM my whole group agrees with you was power attack and expertise that good?
They went from feats that the fighter would take and use (and get to other feats) to now as is only way I could see most players taking these feats
I want to go back to the old ones
I like the power attack fix, that feat has dominated campaigns inmy world. now I'm concerned that it may be too swingy, like giving NPCs a x4 crit weapon. A 1st level half orc barbarian will do 1d12+17 (or more) damage on a hit, or totally miss. Usually this works out to a single PC getting slaughtered, and the others being unharmed. I'm less certain about it at high levels, where a dragon (or what have you) has a higher str bonus than BAB. Might still be swingy, but a little less so.
In my last planescape campaign, the barbarian used Power Attack quite often with his great axe. However, he rarely put more than 5 point into the attack. The simple fact is that some monsters at the high have a AC that prevents a huge power attack dump.
Power Attack is most useful against low AC creatures with DR.
The problem with Power Attack is more often with monsters that have power attack, a high BAB/Strength, and a low CR. Look at the hill giant.
I like the Power Attack fix. I don't see it penalizing high strength characters greatly, as it is going to keep them in line with their BAB. There are other feats and abilities that can add to their attacks. Maybe if they could choose a range between 1 and their Strength modifier, but I see their chosen fix as possibly being a great idea.
Expertise gets knocked down a bit, but it makes more sense. Also, remember that characters are going to get more attribute points than previously, so it will be easier to play a smart fighter.
I have seen some joy on the forums that power attack has been reduced.
I personally don't like this at all, power attack is a useful tool in dealing with DR, by reducing its limit to the characters strength bonus you are putting emphasise on the "golf bag" of weapons to deal with different types of DR. while I agree it needs improving at low levels, I think you have made it a pointless choice in low ability score campaigns. My current party of 7 characters built on the 25 point system has a highest strength of 14. this is the barbarian, at 4th level he is not entitled to his 2nd rage, so power attack is useful to him in real terms 2 per day.
Well, for me, the biggest problem with a power attack bigger than a character's strength is where all that power is coming from. I've seen this feat abused pretty frequently on both sides. Anyone remember the giant snake in Savage Tide that still had +25 to hit after a power attack of like 20 points? Or the T-Rex that was also power attacking for a huge number. They probably had high enough strength for it, but could I have power attacked for more and still hit my players? Definitely. Would it have slaughtered them to power attack for 30 points on iterative attacks? Probably.
I think adjusting power attack in this way is fine, if only because it helps balance the insanely low CR on advanced monsters who gain huge boosts to BAB when they gain +4 HD per +1 CR, just because they have no special attacks.
For players who depend on full power attack just to overcome DR, it's hard to imagine them actually hitting the monster if they lose more than their strength bonus in BAB. I'd rather hit more often and do less damage. It balances out if you're not leap attacking with a two-handed keen sickle. Of course, there are totally different balance issues with that last scenario.
I think the new Power Attack's flavor is interesting, but I still hate it. Just think about a whole fort full of really strong Power Attacking ogres with heavy weapons. Bad juju, mon.
I like the change it makes alot of scene to me that being said we could always add greater power attack to add even greater pluses for high level
|
I like the change it makes alot of scene to me that being said we could always add greater power attack to add even greater pluses for high level
That sounds a good idea to me. I like the idea that Power Attack is now linked to Strength rather than BAB. I always had a problem in 3.5 with finesse-type fighters being able to put 10-15 points onto Power Attack when they just didn't have the Strength to back it up.
I think the problem with the new feat chains is that Power Attack is a prerequisite to Cleave (presumably for 3.5 historical reasons) whereas it seems to have more synergy with the Overhand Chop/Backswing/Devastating Blow chain now.
Maybe the answer is to put Power Attack into a new chain specifically for 1-handed weapons (as the Overhand Chop... chain is for 2-handed).
Regarding Power Attack
I like how it now doesn't require a ton of calculation, the choice is only whether to use it or not. It is such a basic feat that may slow down players and dms as they figure out on the fly how much to use.
I have some concerns more on the Monster side than the PC side. I liked being able to do tons of damage on single attacks with the big nasty monsters by taking large amounts of power attack. If a character is helpless, flatfooted, etc, they might go "all-out". Maybe the strength bonus is high enough to have the same effect.
Would adding a size modifier to hit and damage (like the one used for grapple) be appropriate? That way the ogre example has the potential to be a lot more dangerous.
Anyhow, not something I've tried, just something that came to mind right now.
I think I may try this one out in my next game and see how it goes.
I've changed my opinion.
Power Attack, Combat Expertise, and Deadly Aim need to be modified.
Power Attack and Deadly Aim should be able to be selected in a range from 1 to your Str/Dex modifier.
Combat Expertise should be able to be selected in a range from 1 to your Int modifier +2.
After thinking about it for a few days, the new Combat Expertise totally hoses fighters, even with the extra attributes. It was already kind of a subpar feat before - pretty much only taken by anyone in my campaigns to make an Uber AC tank or as a gateway feat to better feats or prestige classes.
High Dex and high Str creatures/PC's are screwed by the changes to Power Attack and Deadly Aim. However, I do like the limit, as it keeps a fighter with a 14 Str from going crazy on Power Attack to get damage that seems impossible, as in how does he swing so hard when he is so weak?
I have been saying the same thing. It is really bad. They need to change combat expertise back.
Power attack is bad, but you can get bonuses from other things like divine spells. There are other bonuses you can get than points, item, books, and spells as well. So it isn't too bad, you just need to get more help. It IS however MUCH more complicated to deal with when compared to normal power attack. You have to adjust your max every time you get a spell cast on you.
I prefer the original versions.
Well, my favourites are different, but more like the other direction than Alpha versions are going.
I like the variable modifier, because I think it actually makes things easier - we often use an amount that makes the attack bonuses easier to work with, or just use up whatever bonus you got from a spell or other temporary thing.
For the record, the stuff I use (consider them a suggestion).
Combat Exptertise: Accept an attack penalty up to your BAB (no +5 max) and add it to your AC. You have to actually attack (or waste a standard action) to do it, as normal.
Power Attack: 1:1 trade attack for damage. With two-handed attacks, it's 1:2 and (this is new) with light weapons, it's 2:1.
I also have a Called Shot, which is Power Attack for ranged attacks. Got that from somewhere I think. Makes sense for called shots: Specific effects would circumvent HP (which should not be easy to do), but archers should get something.
As a sidenote: All three feats are not enablers, but improvers: Everyone can use power attacks, called shots and defensive fighting, but only at half capacity (2:1 attack:damage for attacks, or 1:1 two-handed and 4:1 for light, or 2:1 attack:AC).
I think it makes sense - everyone should be able to go on the defensive or be brutal and unsubtle, but unless you train it, you won't be terribly effective.
|
|
I like the new versions.
As well, it makes DMing creatures with Power Attack easier, and such. Either they get +X to hit and Y to damage, or +Q to hit and Z to damage. Simple.
If you compare Power Attack of any version to other feats out there (Dodge, Toughness, Skill Focus, Weapon Focus), it's still a good feat, even in its new, limited form. I'm okay with the change.
One of my players was playing a different game with the Pathfinder RPG rules. He was a 1st level fighter with power attack wielding a quarterstaff and he said that the feat was a little powerful at that low level.
His character had a 18 strength so when swinging his staff two handed and power attacking his damage went from 1d6+6 to 1d6+14 leading to him killing nearly anything that he hit with one shot.
He suggested using the strength bonus or the base attack bonus, whichever was lower, to determine the power attack limit.
Stay with the old ones. My players rarely used them, but when they did, they needed the extra damage they could produce at the risk of a miss.
Same with the AC bonus on combat expertise. Rarely used, but when the risk was great, they attempted to maximise the AC bonus and take the hit on attack. Since when does a fighter or fighter class have a decent INT bonus to use your proposal for the change to Combat Expertise??
Sorry, even though this isn't used much in my group, I think the original write-up are fine.
I like the new power attack and think it's solid, given the new bonuses abilities for fighters. I really don't think making a fighter that dished out 200-300 damage a round at the high end per level will change much.
Combat Expertise on the other hand...eh, it's not very good. Intelligence just isn't ever going to be that useful for fighters and while they may throw a 13 on there, it really isn't worth taking the feat. I simply would never use this, even if I had the int requirement, there are so many better feats.
Now, lets say you make Improved Combat Expertise this bonus to AC, Fort, Rflx, and Will...and put a +11 BaB requirement on it along with combat expertise as a prereq. NOW I have a reason to take the first feat, seeing it's a prereq. To get a +2 or 3 on these makes INT worth it along with the skills you get at first level.
|
I was pretty keen on the system fix of power attack until reading this thread. Then I thought of the monster attacks. The ogre barbarian (CR7)from the monster manual has a +8 strength bonus, so it either power attacks for +8/ +3 (2d8+29) or sticks with the still fairly awesome +16/ +11 (2d8+13). The Hill Giant is very similar. Both however could still have power attacked up to +5 in the old system, and the DM, with his knowledge of the PC's armour class would have had to do the maths.
Combat Expertise has always been considered week by my group. We use point buy so it's rare to find a fighter with a 13 int anyway. If they do it's probably because they want combat expertise. One idear I toyed with was doubleing the bonus if you were using a shield, like the 2 handed rule for power attack. This could make some insane AC's when linked to Base Attack, but might make combat expertise viable for a fighter with the current link to Int.
I have been saying the same thing. It is really bad. They need to change combat expertise back.
Power attack is bad, but you can get bonuses from other things like divine spells. There are other bonuses you can get than points, item, books, and spells as well. So it isn't too bad, you just need to get more help. It IS however MUCH more complicated to deal with when compared to normal power attack. You have to adjust your max every time you get a spell cast on you.
Frankly, I would hybrid-ize both of these feats.
Power Attack should be capped by BAB and your STR modifier, whichever is lower. As 3.5 stands, one or two tactical feats (Shock Trooper comes readily to mind with its heedless charge) and all of a sudden you're dealing out truly monstrous amounts of damage, the idea being to utterly destroy whatever you whack before the favor is returned. There is only so much power one can put into such wild swings (STR modifier), so I do not mind Power Attack in the least.
Combat Expertise should be useful to more characters - which the change seems to accomplish save for the melee attack requirement. I agree however that it should not require an attack action at all to use. It should have a cap, as Power Attack now does. The trade-off is the risk - you either dodge more blows at the expense of accuracy with your own, or you do not. This is also a good way to permit melee types to close with ranged weapon foes if they do not have to commit to melee attacks in the first place. The opening scene in Troy is an excellent example of Combat Expertise used in this fashion, with Achilles dodging Boagrius' thrown spears as he moved into charging range. Smarter fighters are always more dangerous than dumb ones - Combat Expertise in game terms (and its follow-on feats) reflect this to a degree.
|
Pathfinder Alpha Power Attack is certainly a limitation. It is an all or nothing, so you have only a binary choice.
It certainly does not work well for a high strength monster. Giants are certainly appropriate. While a 13th level fighter might see a -8 on his attack roll (if he has a high strength and a powerful strength enhancing item) a Storm Giant takes a -14 to his attack rolls.
He either attacks at +12 for 4d6+49 or +26 for 4d6+21. At 13th level, even the wizard has an AC of 30. I just don't see this as working well.
I don't think there was too much of a problem with Powerattack in 3.5. We usually houserule it to +1.5x damage with a 2-handed weapon, but that is the only change. Certainly speeding up the math for people could be a good thing, but for most of my players it has never been a problem (I encourage them to write down a couple of 'popular' Power Attack options.
One of my players was playing a different game with the Pathfinder RPG rules. He was a 1st level fighter with power attack wielding a quarterstaff and he said that the feat was a little powerful at that low level.
His character had a 18 strength so when swinging his staff two handed and power attacking his damage went from 1d6+6 to 1d6+14 leading to him killing nearly anything that he hit with one shot.
He suggested using the strength bonus or the base attack bonus, whichever was lower, to determine the power attack limit.
The way I read the Power Attack feat the fighter in this example would also have an attack that read:
-3 1d6+14
With weapon focus it's only -2 1d6+14. A monster or NPC would only need a chain mail + large shield to effectively nullify that warrior's ability to hit anything.
I believe it was a +2 ( +4 Str - 4 Power Attack + 1 Base Attack Bonus + 1 Weapon Focus ). He apparently missed a good number of times describing it as *miss* *miss* *hit and dead*. Something with good armor would be unlikely to be hit by the power attack, but anything that had a lower armor class would be killed quickly.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16
|
I may be in the minority but for the most part I like the limitations put on the feats in question. I would however like to suggest that perhaps Combat Expertise be Wisdom based rather than Intelligence based. It seems to me that much of the benefits of the feats would be based on a characters ability to quickly percieve and react to threats. To me that is more Wisdom (perception skill) than Intelligence.
I hate the changes to these two feats. I agree that power attack can be a problem at high levels, but I would simply give it the same limitation as combat expertise: BAB with a max of +5 (so +10 damage with a two-hander).
The problem with the fixed values is that they make the feats ineffective. Both of these are feats most often used by melee characters. Combat expertise loses value because they don't usually have high intelligence, so it becomes less valuable than dodge to a fighter (since dodge doesn't require a penalty). Power attack becomes less valuable because the higher their strength gets the less likely they are to hit when power attacking.
Limit power attack to subtracting a max of +5, but otherwise they don't need a change IMO.
I don't know whether I like the new Power Attack, Combat Expertise and Deadly Aim. I'd have to see them in play at both high and low levels to really judge.
One fix that I've seen other people suggest before (and I'm surprise Paizo didn't use), is to apply the Combat Expertise/Improved Combat Expertise logic, resulting in chains like this:
Combat Expertise: can put up to 5 pts BAB from attacks into AC.
Improved Combat Expertise: can put up to 10 pts BAB from attacks into AC.
Greater Combat Expertise: can put up to 15 pts BAB from attacks into AC.
Ultimate Combat Expertise: can put any amount of BAB from attacks into AC.
Power Attack: can put up to 5 pts BAB from melee attacks into damage (I would delete the x2 for a two-handed weapon, but that's entirely debatable).
Improved Power Attack: can put up to 10 pts BAB from melee attacks into damage.
Greater Power Attack: can put up to 15 pts BAB from melee attacks into damage.
Ultimate Power Attack: can put any amount of BAB from melee attacks into damage.
Deadly Aim: can put up to 5 pts BAB from ranged attacks into damage.
Improved Deadly Aim: can put up to 10 pts BAB from ranged attacks into damage.
Greater Deadly Aim: can put up to 15 pts BAB from ranged attacks into damage.
Ultimate Deadly Aim: can put any amount of BAB from ranged attacks into damage.
I think I actually like the simplicity of the binary system in the Alpha rules: you either turn off or turn on this feat. I know that it would make the game quicker, but at a trade-off of tactical precision. With some friends, I worked out what we call "The Formula," or the maximum amount you should power attack based on your average damage, your to-hit, and the AC of your opponent. But I digress; the feat chains can keep the simplicity of the binary application but allow for some tactical options by using multiples of 5. With this change, the feat chains I propose would work like this instead:
Combat Expertise: can put 5 pts BAB from attacks into AC.
Improved Combat Expertise: can put 5 or 10 pts BAB from attacks into AC.
Greater Combat Expertise: can put 5, 10, or 15 pts BAB from attacks into AC.
Ultimate Combat Expertise: can put 5, 10, 15 or 20 pts BAB from attacks into AC.
Power Attack: can put 5 pts BAB from melee attacks into damage.
Improved Power Attack: can put 5 or 10 pts BAB from melee attacks into damage.
Greater Power Attack: can put 5, 10 or 15 pts BAB from melee attacks into damage.
Ultimate Power Attack: can put 5, 10, 15 or 20 pts BAB from melee attacks into damage.
Deadly Aim: can put 5 pts BAB from ranged attacks into damage.
Improved Deadly Aim: can put 5 or 10 pts BAB from ranged attacks into damage.
Greater Deadly Aim: can put 5, 10 or 15 pts BAB from ranged attacks into damage.
Ultimate Deadly Aim: can put 5, 10, 15 or 20 pts of BAB from ranged attacks into damage.
Thoughts?
As a sidenote: All three feats are not enablers, but improvers: Everyone can use power attacks, called shots and defensive fighting, but only at half capacity (2:1 attack:damage for attacks, or 1:1 two-handed and 4:1 for light, or 2:1 attack:AC).
I think it makes sense - everyone should be able to go on the defensive or be brutal and unsubtle, but unless you train it, you won't be terribly effective.
I like this concept a lot, but I recognize it adds a lot of tactical options to every character with every attack; this seems to be the opposite direction that the Alpha rules are going.
WelbyBumpus,
I like your feat trees but if we go too far down this road we get into the realm of Iron Heroes and its Feat Mastery system where each feat is acutally a tree of 10 feats.
Doug
I like this concept a lot, but I recognize it adds a lot of tactical options to every character with every attack; this seems to be the opposite direction that the Alpha rules are going.
Not quite: They're turning all the manoeuvres into one mechanic, which is commendable. Instead of one being an opposed strength thing, the next requiring a touch and then some roll, some involve attack rolls, some have their own modifier.... Needlessly complicated, but the new system took care of that, and easily.
This wouldn't exactly be a manoeuvre, just a neat option. And quite optional to boot.
|
|
Thoughts?
I don't like this. I hate feats that you keep buying to do the same thing you already do. I think the two weapon fighting feats are a great example. Even if two-weapon fighting was that great (it's not), you always spend your feats for the same ability you had before, only slightly 'improved'. Do you think it is worth a feat to be able to make one attack at a -17 penalty? That is what the penultimate two-weapon fighting feat does.
I like feats that grant options, and new options. If you take a feat, the ability should scale, that way you learn some new tricks...
Yesterday, I played my barbarian using both the PF version of the feats Power Attack and Combat Expertese. His attributes are Str 17 (15 + gloves of ogre power) and Int 14. While using PA while raging I was not limited at all in using PA. Limiting him to a +2 Dodge bonus while using CE was not a handicap at all. Next time I plan on using the Pf version of Cleave and try it out.
Jason, do not change either Power Attack or Combat Expertise. They both work well as written in play. I supect the same will be true for Deadly Aim. Being limited by a particular attribute is both reasonable and encourages balanced characters.
Doug
|
|
Yesterday, I played my barbarian using both the PF version of the feats Power Attack and Combat Expertese. His attributes are Str 17 (15 + gloves of ogre power) and Int 14. While using PA while raging I was not limited at all in using PA. Limiting him to a +2 Dodge bonus while using CE was not a handicap at all. Next time I plan on using the Pf version of Cleave and try it out.
Jason, do not change either Power Attack or Combat Expertise. They both work well as written in play. I supect the same will be true for Deadly Aim. Being limited by a particular attribute is both reasonable and encourages balanced characters.
Doug
Hey Doug.
Do you ever DM?
Try using the new Power Attack with a giant. Tell me what you think.
I have been a DM since 1977. In the last game my barbarian used Power Attack very effectively against a couple of hill giants. The fact the giants can use it also doesn't really change my opinion of limiting PA or CE to an attribute. Giants are suppossed to be nasty combatants.
Doug
|
|
Since the new Power Attack allows the bonus to apply to light weapons as well as larger ones, I'd like to petition for a modification as follows:
Special: A character with Weapon Finesse may substitute his Dexterity modifier for his Strength modifier for calculating the attack penalty and damage bonus when using a weapon with which he can use Weapon Finesse.
To address people that seem to think people are complaining the new PA is too powerful - that is not the issue.
The problem is that it makes it nigh impossible for creatures with very high strength to hit anything if they turn on Power Attack, meaning it becomes useless for high strength monsters who usually have it as part of their stat block in 3.5, and causes another compatibility issue.
I believe J.B.'s heart is in the right place in this one though - PA was one of the most abusable and annoying feats in 3.5, and it made all other melee fighting styles sub-optimal by comparison. The guy who originally designed the feat has said he should have made it a static bonus.
I also think the double-duty from Str. bonus should be removed. Two-handed weapons already receive extra damage from strength, and one-handed weapons really need a comeback - almost no one uses the humble longsword or battleaxe anymore, because the two-handed weapons are that much better.
My solution is similar to those listed above, but I think it should remain static so that you don't have as much hemming and hawing over how much to dump into it. Just leave it based on Str. bonus (and Deadly Aim based on dex), but cap it at your BAB (so no monster could lose more than their BAB, but characters would still gain max. benefit from high Strength as they level).
As far as Combat Expertise goes, yeah, this one needs help. I would like to keep a unified mechanic with PA/DA, but it just doesn't work in practice. Maybe Combat Expertise could be re-worked entirely, and just provide additional benefit for fighting defensively? I never liked the split between fighting defensively and using Expertise anyways, it was a fuzzy point in the rules. Leave the Int requirement, but just have it add +2 to AC and Reflex saves and when fighting defensively or using total defense.
Edit: Or, if we wanted Combat Expertise to scale better with level, have it add +1 to AC and Reflex saves per 3 or 4 points of BAB when fighting defensively or using total defense. Per 3 points makes it work out evenly for 3/4 BAB to +5, per 4 makes it work out to +5 for full BAB chars but reduces it's effectiveness for the other 2 scales.
With the old version of Power Attack, even with two-handed weapons, it was statistically unfavorable to take more than a -4 penalty under virtually any circumstances. The only thing it does is make your actions more binary, in that you either miss horribly, or you hit like a freight train. Even with a heavy PA approach, that single hit won't take down any real opponent (and you're certainly not confirming the critical), so it doesn't even have a SoD quality about it.
I'm all for making Power Attack a static combat option with a 1:2 ratio.
I too am against Combat Expertise in its current incarnation, as it supports a level of MAD that is simply too inefficient. If you're looking to reduce mid-game math, why not just have the feat improve the Fighting Defensively and Total Defense combat options?
In regards to Combat Expertise, I never found it abused really, nor a problem. And in fact, after reading over the new Combat Expertise I find this very underpowered and not as useful.
As for Power Attack, I found that often abused and overpowered, especially when you compared it to the old combat expertise. Someone with Power Attack could choose to translate the entirety of their BAB into damage whereas someone with Combat Expertise could only translate upto 5 of their BAB into AC. It just didn't match up.
But tying it to ability scores seems to severely weaken them. I mean it makes Combat Expertise even less useful then it was. ^^; Especially when you compare it to the prime examples of whom is most likely going to take the feats. Barbarians and Fighters are going to be the primetakers of Power Attack and in general their strength is going to be pumped up as high as they can get it. Whereas the primetakers for Combat Expertise are going to be lightly armoured melees such as the rogue, ranger, and monk who aren't going to have that high of Intelligence scores. Now Combat Expertise is only going to really benefit wizards a class that isn't very likely to take it, as Intelligence is their primary ability score.
Once again Combat Expertise usefulness is shafted when compared to Power Attack.
(smurf)
Just throwing an idea out there, who knows if it's any good but...
For Combat Expertise make it a flat number bonus, based off of your Reflex Base Saving Throw Bonus, adding that number on to AC. Benefits to Bards, Monks, Rangers and Rogues at lower levels and can even give something to other Classes at later levels. Keep the intelligence prerequisite as it is a 'tactical' feat. Maybe make it a 'combat' feat allowing for 1 round of use only.
Edit: Gotta try the Smurf.
Yesterday, I played my barbarian using both the PF version of the feats Power Attack and Combat Expertese. His attributes are Str 17 (15 + gloves of ogre power) and Int 14. While using PA while raging I was not limited at all in using PA. Limiting him to a +2 Dodge bonus while using CE was not a handicap at all. Next time I plan on using the Pf version of Cleave and try it out.
Jason, do not change either Power Attack or Combat Expertise. They both work well as written in play. I supect the same will be true for Deadly Aim. Being limited by a particular attribute is both reasonable and encourages balanced characters.
Doug
Sounds great if your character has high enough abilities to benefit from this, but 14 intelligence for a warrior type is going to be very rare.
The campaign we are running has characters built on 25 point buy system, one of the fighters went for 13 intelligence so he could go down the combat expertise route to get improved disarm, as it is now, he is wanting to change the feat he has chosen when changed over to Alpha 1.1, as a +1 to his AC is of very little use to him, he would of been better off (from a min/max route), having 9 intelligence and buying a higher dexterity score of 16 with the 4 points saved.
At 4th level he would use combat expertise for his full allotment every round. It is not even a prerequisite for his other choices of feats any more.
After more thought I am inclined to agree that power attack works as written, but combat expertise should be changed, the ideas on linking it to fighting defensively seems a sound options, maybe having it double the bonus to AC, although tumble would have to be looked at then.
The long and the short of it is the new Power Attack shafts the PCs who need it and grants extras to the monsters who don't. The new Combat Expertise boosts the PCs who don't need it and shafts the monsters (and PCs) who do. The old versions were actually well-written and did the jobs they needed to without doing jobs they didn't. Why are they being changed?
Hey, smurf! I've got an avatar! For once!
*chuckles* Yeah that's why I keep putting smurf in my post too. ^^
You don't have to say [url=smurf][/url] the s word to get the s avatar. What are you guys talking about?