I would like to hear the reasoning behind this. To me, they were fine the way they were, but I'd like to hear the devs' reasoning behind these changes.
I would like to hear the reasoning behind this. To me, they were fine the way they were, but I'd like to hear the devs' reasoning behind these changes.
Well, now you use the ability or you don't. No more waiting on a player as he does the math to determine what is the optimal number to use or worse yet consulting his prewritten table for 5 minutes.
What kind of player takes a long time to calculate -1 to-hit, +2 to damage?
What kind of player takes a long time to calculate -1 to-hit, +2 to damage?
One of mine does, I like the changes to power attack (even though I criticised them when I first read them).
I still dislike the changes to combat expertise, only solution I can come up with is that it doubles the bonus to fighting defensively or totally defensively, even then I am not sure if that makes tumble too useful (although, I can't remember if the rule to a bonus on AC when tumbling and fighting defensively apply if you tumble in medium or heavy armour).
What kind of player takes a long time to calculate -1 to-hit, +2 to damage?
The answer to your question is: power gamers who are not calculating -1,+2 but rather something like this:
Assume +5BAB STR10 using Longsword vs AC15
No Power attack: 55% hit chance equates to 2.475 avg dmg (.55*4.5)
-1: 50%, 3.25 (.5*6.5)
-2: 45%, 3.825 (.45*8.5)
-3: 40%, 4.2 (.4*10.5)
-4: 35%, 4.375 (.35*12.5)
-5: 30%, 4.35 (.3*14.5)
In the above example, taking a negative 4 to hit and adding 8 to dmg gives the best average per swing so is the proper choice if your sitting doing the calculations.
Really, this is suppose to be roleplaying... not math101.
Yes, I know you need more than 10STR for power attack...just simplying the process for ease of understanding (normally you'ld have a STR bonus and magic items to figure into the equation).
Good Lord. Maybe the change is better, then.
The problem with both are that they are useless to low attribute characters. I would prefer is both funtioned like the 3.5 Combate Expertise with a 1-5 sliding scale based on BAB.
If that is not possible, place a set benefit (such as -3 BAB and +3 dodge bonus) so that a low attribute character might still get some use out of it.
|
I'm somewhat torn about this change. I tend to be somewhat in favor of it, especially for power attack, mostly because I've run a campaign with a player who ran a fighter and was able to way over use it, power attacking for near his full BaB just because he'd often get lucky and just dust whatever he was swinging at with his two handed weapon. I often thought that it should be more like old combat expertise, where it was 1-5 and if you took an improved version it would scale up to 10. I figure the strength modifier helps balance that out pretty well because since the players who are taking power attack are going to be those who focus on their strength anyway, so that will scale as they level and put points in it or gain items for it, however it won't scale near as fast as BaB would.
However, in setting this as a house rule to test in my current campaign, one of my players brought up a pretty valid point, that it can hurt players more then monsters, because sometimes there are those points when the group is fighting something with high enough DR that the fighter is willing to risk those desperate swings since if he doesn't power attack for all he is worth he's probably not going to get through anyway. On the other hand, they claim, monsters are much more likely to have a high strength if they power attack, so they could strike out for 8+ when the parties bruiser is only able to add 4 to his.
My counter to this was just that it still likely lowers the creatures as well, and they saw a hint of that in a fight with a powerful outsider. He was pretty reliably hitting every time, and I pointed out to them that without this feat change he could have been power attacking for 4 more then he was(they are only level 4 as well so thats a pretty big deal), and when their caster hit him with a ray of enfeeblement it not only brought down his normal damage, but took his power attack to almost nothing.
Changing something like this looks ruinous I know, on first glance. But we need to play test it more to see what other effects it can have, whether to DR or to the power of spells that do ability damage/penalty or the like.
-Tarlane
|
|
The problem with both are that they are useless to low attribute characters. I would prefer is both funtioned like the 3.5 Combate Expertise with a 1-5 sliding scale based on BAB.
If that is not possible, place a set benefit (such as -3 BAB and +3 dodge bonus) so that a low attribute character might still get some use out of it.
I wonder if you saw my playtesting suggestion for PA and CE?
To give -4 for a +4
and an Improved Version of -8 for +8 (or you go to 10)
Finally, PA with a 2-handed weapon do 1.5 x damage instead of the 2xdamage in 3.5. (which dbl dmg is too much - but single damage in lieu of a shield is not much of a benefit - 1.5 brings it in line with the strength and half for such a weapon)
So -4 for +6 and then -8 for +12 (or -10 for +15) with the improved versions.
Prereq for Improved is +6 BAB (or +8 if improved is going the -10 route).
Another Option for Combat Expertise would be to just make "Fighting Defensively" more beneficial. For instance instead of -4 for +2 AC, you get -5 for +5. All the time. (That way you can't stack it with Fighting Defensively anymore - something that allowed the feat to become misused and overpowered).
Robert
|
I have less problem with the Power Attack change that the Combat Expertise change. A Power Attack-type of fighter is going to have a relatively high Strength, and it keeps it from getting way out of hand at higher levels. But I just don't see many fighters, even the cagey, defensive types, with an Int high enough to get much out of Combat Expertise. At 13-15 Int they're better off taking Dodge. Anything higher than that, they'd be better off pumping Str or Dex (boosting their attack bonus) instead of Int and just eating the to-hit penalty from fighting defensively.
|
|
My take on the new power attack rules is this; two fighters at the same level and the same feats but with different STR scores would have the same to-hit chance, just do different damages. For example, a 1st level dwarven fighter w/ STR 16 and a 1st level half-orc fighter w/ STR 20 both take power attack and weapon focus(longsword). The dwarf has a +5 to-hit with a longsword and the orc has a +7, but if they both power attack, they both have a +2 to-hit. Sure, the half-orc gets to do more damage, but thats the point of a high STR score.
Combat expertise is a little different, and I think its meant for rogues and wizards, since they're the one with the high INT scores and don't see much in the way of toe-to-toe combat.
The problem with both are that they are useless to low attribute characters.
Yes, when I ran a combat focus quick game last weekend with normal gaming group two of them almost took my head off over the changes in Combat Expertise and Power Attack. There arguments cover both the low attribute characters suffering, as well as high level Warrior type damage output suffering.
I was find with the changes just looking at them, however there seems to be some serious hostility and problems that need to be looked at.
One player wanted to argue the flavor interoperation of Power Attack as well. He contented that Power Attack was not about applying brute strength but rather a character's expertise and skill. I countered with the fact that the general assumption is that Power Attack is the application of raw strength and not skill. Thats when he brought up the fact the new feat does diminishes a warrior type's ability to do large amounts of damage a higher levels. This was also linked to anti-mage tactics, that power attack was important to doing more damage then a Wizard could make a Concentration (Spellcraft) for and interrupt a spell.
*Those were my player's observations, not mine.
That said perhaps some suggestion that were brought up before in other threads could be looked at. First is to cap Power Attack at +5 and insinuate an Improved/Greater Power Attack tree for the +10/+15. The second is use the same cap but make it a flat -5 to hit for +5 damage, Improved -10/+10, Greater -15/+15.
As for combat expertise it should be a good option for a Fighter an not just High Int based character. A random thought there is to switch Combat Expertise from AC to a DR. Just a random thought.
I'd probably houserule the feats this way:
Power Attack
Prerequisite: Str 13.
Benefit: On your action, before making attack rolls for a round, you may choose to take a -4 penalty to all melee attack rolls and add a bonus to all melee damage rolls.
This bonus is 2+1/4 your BAB, rounding down.
Double this bonus if you're using a two handed weapon.
Combat Expertise
Prerequisite: Int 13.
Benefit: When using the Fight Defensively or Total Defense maneuver, you gain an additional dodge bonus to your AC.
This bonus is equal to 1/4 your BAB, rounding down, minimum 1.
Both are useful to characters with 13 strength or intelligence, both scale with level and are better for martial characters, the players don't have to spend half a session deciding how high a penalty they should take to take the most out of the feats.
What do you think?
I wonder if you saw my playtesting suggestion for PA and CE?To give -4 for a +4
and an Improved Version of -8 for +8 (or you go to 10)Finally, PA with a 2-handed weapon do 1.5 x damage instead of the 2xdamage in 3.5. (which dbl dmg is too much - but single damage in lieu of a shield is not much of a benefit - 1.5 brings it in line with the strength and half for such a weapon)
So -4 for +6 and then -8 for +12 (or -10 for +15) with the improved versions.
Prereq for Improved is +6 BAB (or +8 if improved is going the -10 route).
Another Option for Combat Expertise would be to just make "Fighting Defensively" more beneficial. For instance instead of -4 for +2 AC, you get -5 for +5. All the time. (That way you can't stack it with Fighting Defensively anymore - something that allowed the feat to become misused and overpowered).
Robert
I like this idea. I am fine with fixed amounts and favor the 1.5 for two handed weapons myself. I don't like having PA and CE based on attributes as it makes the feats worthless for low attribute characters. Additionally both improve just by adding stat boosing magical items.
Combat expertise is a little different, and I think its meant for rogues and wizards, since they're the one with the high INT scores and don't see much in the way of toe-to-toe combat.
Except that Combat Expertise specifically reqires the use of a melee weapon in the new write-up. This means a Wizard can only use it with melee touch spells (maybe). The 3.5 version was not tied to a class of weapons, allowing a wizard to use it with ranged touch spells as well.
By the RAW, Combat Expertise could not be used by a Druid wildshaped into animal form either. Rogues get the most use out of it, but it hurts their BAB more. At least the 3.5 version allowed high level fighters (or Barbarians, Paladins, and Rangers) to boost their AC with only a slight penalty to BAB (compared to other classes).
So, maybe I'm the odd one but I like not only the original expertise but also the Superior Expertise feat as well that allowed you to go as high as your BAB in adjustment, as well as the same idea for Power Attack. This allowed for some very exciting combat scenes. Its the only way to sufficiently accomodate the swashbuckling style of lightly or un-armored combatants, especially at high level. It also makes the feats the most worthwhile.
Power Attack, - 4 to hit for an additional + 4 damage seems good to me, also 1.5x strength for 2-handed weapons has always seemed to make more sense, only reason I can think of why it has been implemented at 2x is because it makes calculating slightly more difficult..
this should not be a problem with a steady attack penalty and damage modifier.
maybe -8 to hit and + 8 damage is an option to add to the basic power attack feat (+ 8 BAB required) rather than make players burn another feat for it ?
Combat Expertise, I honestly can't think of a reason why it has been changed, except to nerf the higher AC's. I prefer to make CE increase fighting defensively, I am not sure, but it seems they can be combined in 3.5, which is indeed a bit much imo.
I am going to make it improve fighting defensive giving either
- 2 to AB and + 2 AC or - 4 to AB and + 4 to AC, acrobatics adds to this as normal.
effectively you have the option to take either + 2 to hit or + 2 AC when using the fighting defensively option.
maybe expertise should be able to scale up as well to -6 AB + 6 AC