|
I would like to suggest re-evaluting the mechanics of power attack. As currently written, I think it would become a seldom chosen feat, not to mention one that hurts high BAB or high STR characters. In all my games I *rarely* see anyone full power attack. The option to choose the amount pulled from Attack and put into Damage is, I think, essential to the feat. I also havent seen this abused in the past so i dont necessarily know why it was changed. Anyways, thats my opinion. Thanks for reading! :)
This also changes the whole Armor Class mechanic. Under 3.5 and under Alpha 2 base attack bonuses advance at a much faster rate than Armor Class bonuses. Under 3.5, the only incentive to have a high Armor Class at high levels is to avoid being power attacked for one bazillion points of damage. Under Alpha 2, AC becomes somewhat meaningless at high levels, as the attack bonuses are so high that you will be hit regardless.
|
|
The new power attack mechanic is one I instituted into my currently running RoTRL game and its one that is up for a bit of debate in my group as well. Personally, I like it, I think that power attack becomes way over powered with time, there are very few feats that give you an ability that essentially endlessly scales with your character, especially not one that you are going to be able to make use of nearly every attack(no less every battle).
However, my players feel that this tends to favor monsters a great deal, because monsters both tend to have higher strengths then players can manage, and also often have DR, which power attacking by large quantities is a good way to compensate for.
I can see their arguments in this regard, but I can also see from behind the screen some of the ways this change has saved them a few times, which may not have been noticeable to them in the last couple sessions we have played.
They are a low level party and were fighting a powerful outsider(one it might have been advisable for them to deal with at a later level, but they went for it anyway). This outsider, having a good attack progression, had a +10 attack bonus, and a +7 strength mod. With a couple of buffs on, he could have power attacked for all 10 points, and still had a better than 50/50 shot of hitting on all three of his attacks around for most of the party. With the new rule, he was only power attacking for 7, meaning he was doing somewhere in the neighborhood of 9 less damage a round(about 1/2-1/3 most the parties health) and several attacks that dropped a member to unconsciousness could have been fatal. As an additional note, a shot with a ray of enfeeblement early in the battle not only lowered his strength based damage, it also lowered the amount he could power attack for which helped a great deal.
I can see a lot of reasons to limit power attack and that using the strength mod works well for that. But I can also see how some characters want to be able to make characters who use their skill even more then pure power to strike down enemies. I think that some sort of balance could be found looking towards combat expertise in that regard. Perhaps letting power attack go up to 5 points, or your BaB, whichever is better, then making an improved version which lets it go even higher. It requires an extra feat this way, and is thus somewhat limiting, but allows players to build the bruiser types if thats their focus.
-Tarlane
I agree that this should be changed back to the way that it was in 3.5.
Please change it back to the 3.5 Power attack
I disagree... I like the 'new' Power Attack, but I feel like the entire system completely overshadows PCs (and human/oids in general) with monsters.
As a PC, your opponents will always be increasing their attack bonus, damage, AC and HP faster than you.
I'm GMing a character who's a fighter/wizard using a +2 flaming burst greatsword (as his bonded item) and frequently using Power Attack and cleave or Backswing. He's dropping 4 points off his attack (5 if he's using Enlarge Person) and getting +8 (+10) to damage. Conversely, the stone giants we're fighting are dropping 8 points off their (already impressive) +17/+12 attack mod, and bumping their greatclub damage up by 16 points a hit... ridiculous.
I don't know how this can be fixed... 2e was more... even, to me. Everyone had (and caused) lower hp, etc. 3e has scaled upwards, but not geometrically, exponentially. It's a bit smashed.
The new Power Attack discourages a 1-level sorcerer dip: give up BAB +1 and gain a feat and true strike 3/day, which of course you combine with a maxed-out Power Attack with a 2-handed weapon at your full BAB. At 20th level, you're +1 to attack (back up to what you would have been at Ftr 20) and +38 damage with that trick.
Power Attack still seems pretty important for getting past Damage Reduction to me.
It is, but I prefer the version that gives players more control.
First I fully believe power attack needed to be tonned down significantly. It really was an absolute must have feat for just about any fighter worth his salt.
Second, I think having players coming to the table with a power attack chart vs. AC was a bit much. Reducing it to an on/off stage seems reasonable.
That said, I would not mind seeing an 'improved power attack' feat, allowing you to reduce your attack bonus by twice your strength for the same amount in extra damage.
I also feel it should become a 'combat feat.' Stacking it with Devasting blow is just too much, even in its current itteration.
It was a must because fighters were just the bad in 3e.
|
|
I like the new Power Attack and the new Combat Expertise. I've never thought that "FIGHTER SMASH!" screamed "micromanagement" to me, and that's what typically happens with Power Attack. While Combat Expertise has a little more finesse worked into it, it and Power Attack should work the same way, whatever that way winds up being, since they're complementary feats. And honestly, making it work the Pathfinder way cuts down on math, and that can only be good.
See, what always happened with Power Attack before (in my games anyway) was that every round, the fighter would watch to see who was hitting the bad guys, then fine-tune his Power Attack to get the best margins for his expenditure. By the time combat got around to his turn, though, he would never be ready, and still doing the math to figure out the optimum amount to subtract from his attack rolls. This isn't just one guy either, this is pretty much everyone who took Power Attack in my games. The other end of that was the guy that always Power Attacked for the same amount every time, so that he never had to do math. The new version cuts out the first guy's strategy - but it's a strategy that's annoying for everyone else at the table and really doesn't make much sense from an in-game point of view anyway.
In short, I like Power Attack being a binary option: it's either on all the way, or it's off. It's simple, easy to keep track of, and makes more sense than micromanaging the numbers every round.
Jeremy Puckett
also put me in the hat for keep the new power attack. Its a simple change that makes sence its easy to use and not over powered . A heartfelt 10 here
Iam not happy that they're keeping the 2:1 exchange rate for Two Handed Weapons. The way I see it, no general feat like this should so strongly favour one type of weapon over another.
I like the fact that it is limited both by Strength Bonus and Base attack bonus, but I do think that Players should be able to decide how much of it to apply. One option would be to allow Two Handed Weapons to use their modified Strength Bonus as the upper limit, i.e.
Level 6 Fighter
Attributes: Strength 18Long Sword and Shield Power Attack = up to -4 AB for up to +4 DB [i.e. BAB 6, Strength Bonus 4]
Great Sword Power Attack = up o -6 AB for up to +6 DB [i.e. BAB 6, Strength Bonus 6]
what?
ok that made sence. anyhow I am fine with 2 but would be good with 1.5 as well
I actually liked the 1.1 version best of them all, the 1st level raging barbarian compromising his attack to pound the Goblin had a certain nice feel about it (not for the Goblin mind you).
My parties base attack is now greater than their strength bonus, so this feat is unchanged for them from 1.1.
It operates the same at low levels as 3.5.
So I'll wait for some feed back from some lower level groups.
I would have to say I like the 1.1 straight STR mod alot better then the 3.5 or alpha 2 versions
The idea behind the change in Pathfinder is very good - get rid of the variable bonus. I've scratched at least 2 mm of wood from our game table while the fighter's player pondered the pros and cons of a Power Attack+3 versus a Power Attack+8, then struggled (and failed over and over again) to correctly calculate his new attack bonus and damage. Appears easy enough, but hey, even easier is even better.
However...
Why take strength bonus as the limit? Why not a fixed amount, e. g. 5?
Strength can change during the adventuring day, a combat, even a single round. Enlarge Person, strength damage, Dispel on the Belt of Giant Strength, Bull's Strength - each time, you don't only have to re-calculate attack and damage, but also the effect of Power Attack.
With a fixed number, it's always (e. g.) -5 to hit, +5 to damage (+10 for two-handed), regardless what happens to your strength score.
I'd prefer that. And our game table, too, if it can feel pain. ;-)
I'm not at all convinced by the changes to Power Attack.
Power Attack is kind of crucial for melee fighters since it is about the only thing they can do at higher levels to compete with spellcasters is ramp their damage output - or use Tome of Battle. Especially when high DR (e.g. golems) comes into play; and Iron Golems's 15/Adamantine DR is relatively easy to get through for a CR-equivilent (for the sake or argument) 3.5 Power Attacker (-13 attack, +13/26 to damage), meaning you probably are going to switch to two-handed and use about -8 PA to punch through.
A Fighter in Pathfinder, on the other hand - assuming a Str of, what, let's be generous and say base 18+3 level +2 racial (say human) +4 enhancement = 27, which means he's only capable of the average of 3.5 assuming he's put most of his resources into strength. Whereas an average (say) 3.5 Paladin is not going to be rendered largely ineffective because he's only got a Str 17 of something.
AC generally scales less than attack bonus in my experience, so melee types do need something to do with their extra attack bonus or it's wasted.
Comparison time, then. We'll assume a 20th level fighter human, with a +6 Str item. Str 18 +5 level, +6 item (+2 racial for Pathfinder) = 29(31)(+9/+10) I'll assume a 2H weapon, since that's where PA gains most.
3.5 Attack: +20 (BAB), +2 Greater Weapon Focus, (+2 Melee Weapon Mastery with PHBII), +9 Str, +5 weapon = +36 (+38)
PRPG: 20 (BAB), +2 Greater Weapon Focus, (+2 Melee Weapon Mastery with PHBII), +10 Str, +5 weapon, +4 Weapon Training = +41 (+43)
3.5 Damage: Dice + 4 Greater Weapon Spec, (+2 Melee Weapon Mastery with PHBII), +13 Str, +5 Weapon = dice + 22 (+24)
PRPG Damage: Dice + 4 Greater Weapon Spec, (+2 Melee Weapon Mastery with PHBII), +15 Str, +5 Weapon, +4 Weapon training = dice + 28 (+30)
Factoring in PA ('cos there's not much with an average AC of 44-50 at CR 20 and that's you average attack roll) and counting Melee Weapon Mastery for the sake of arguement:
3.5 Full attack: +38/+33/+28/+23 (dice +24)
PRPG Full attack: +43/+38/+33/+28 (dice +30)
PRPG has a max of -9/+18, giving you: +34/+29/+24/+19 (dice +48)
3.5 Core(same PA) is +29/+24/+19/+14 (dice +42)
3.5 Core (max PA) is +18/+13/+8/+3 (dice +64)
By comparion, the ACs of CR 20+ creatures are as follows:
Balor: 35, DR 15/Cold Iron and Good
Pit Fiend: 40 DR 15/Silver and Good
Tarresque: 35. DR 15/Epic
20th level sword-and-board Fighter, +5 Ring of Protection, +13 Plate Armour, +7 Large Shield, +5 Amulet of Natural Armour Dex 13+: 41
Titan: 38 DR 15/Lawful
Solar: 35 DR 15/Epic and evil
Dragon: 33-42 DR irrelevant since it's /Magic
(Average very approximately 37, since I didn't bother to calc the average of all the dragon ACs).
So, chance to hit AC 37 with regular full attacks:
3.5: 95%/85%/60%/35% -> 22.8 +20.4 +14.4 +8.4 = 66 average damage/full attack
PRPG: 95%/95%/85%/60% -> 28.5 +28.5 +25.5 +18 = 100.5 averge damage/full attack
3.5 PA -9/+18: 65%/40%/15%/5% -> 27.3 +16.8 +6.3 +2.1 = 52.5
PRPG PA -9/+18: 90%/65%/40%/15% -> 43.2 +31.2 +19.2 +7.2 = 100.8
3.5 max PA: 10%/5%/5%/5% -> 6.4 +3.2 +3.2 +3.2 = 16
So, against these high AC targets, Pathfinder damage is higher (because of Weapon Training and higher stats) and actually, there's not really any point in using PA anyway (interestingly).
Against lower AC targets (around AC 25-30, say 25)
PRPG PA: 95%/95%/95%/75% -> 172.8
3.5 -9/+18 PA: 95%/95%/75%/50% ->132.3
3.5 max PA: 70%/45%/20%/5% -> 89.6
Okay, interesting. A maxed-out Str RPRG Fighter is way better than a 3.5 in terms of damage output - but only because of Weapon Training's bonus to attack rolls. And PA actually factors little into it. A Barbarian in a rage, though (assuming same kit and Str) is only going to be the same as a 3.5 core Fighter (and Paladins are going to be quite far behind).
So I think then PA will be no more or less use to Fighter or Barbarians in the new rules (provided they're Str-based), but will be much less use to other melee characters who won't have the Str to play with.
On the other hand, maybe PA only needs to be capped out at -10/+10(20), since a full -20/+20(40) PA is not really worth doing except on very low AC targets (or you use Shock Trooper, then all bets are off!)
I think my assessment of this, then is that Weapon Training might be a bit too much of an attack bonus, combined with existing chains (I say might; it's certainly why a lot of the Fighter fixes on the WotC boards mostly don't add more numbers to the fighter, instead mostly adding more customisability.)
(It's worth noting in passing that the parties I have been playing recently are about mid-level (10-11ish) and the melee -types use a fair amount of PA to deal damage (usually about 5-max); we've not run into many high AC targets though. The melee types are actually doing the bulk of the damage with it and winning the fights; without them we'd be long dead. (We don't have a full caster in my current group; my Pale Master is closest (dropping 1 caster level) but I have a tendancy to roll really bad on the spell damage and out divine caster is a party-buffing Cleric/Druid.))
Another option is to simply remove PA as a feat altogether and just let everyone use it as a option on their attacks (I know a number of folks over on the WotC boards who do that). I think in a lot of ways, that's almost better. You milage may vary.
|
|
i'm on the fence with Power Attack. I like the no-math routine; I like that its all or nothing; but I still think its a bit limiting - in that you really have to have a high strength in order to make good use of it; its not going to really help people get over damage reduction or do extra damage if their strength is in the 14-17 range. Plus - I have always considered those who complained about the 2 for 1 damage output with two-handed weapons to have merrit.
What I would do is to keep things simple (all or nothing)
Power Attack: -4 to attack rolls. +4 to damage. (+6 w/ 2 handed weapon) 1.5 damage as it is with stregnth makes sense.
Then with BAB +6 pre req:
Imprvd Power Attack: -8 / +8 (+12 w/ 2 handed weapon).
Simple, precise, math can already be calculated out - not too much with two handed weapon, and allows for enough damage to be done to warrant taking it with those 14-17 strength characters.
Robert
*points to post above*
I like that.
i'm on the fence with Power Attack. I like the no-math routine; I like that its all or nothing; but I still think its a bit limiting - in that you really have to have a high strength in order to make good use of it; its not going to really help people get over damage reduction or do extra damage if their strength is in the 14-17 range. Plus - I have always considered those who complained about the 2 for 1 damage output with two-handed weapons to have merrit.
What I would do is to keep things simple (all or nothing)
Power Attack: -4 to attack rolls. +4 to damage. (+6 w/ 2 handed weapon) 1.5 damage as it is with stregnth makes sense.
Then with BAB +6 pre req:
Imprvd Power Attack: -8 / +8 (+12 w/ 2 handed weapon).Simple, precise, math can already be calculated out - not too much with two handed weapon, and allows for enough damage to be done to warrant taking it with those 14-17 strength characters.
Robert
I like it.
I have to say, I'm in the 'change it back' camp. Fighters don't need to be nerfed anymore, and that was one of the few ways in which those players controlled their characters.
The compromises I've seen here look unneccessarily complicated, and no one has really given a valid reason for the change.
|
|
I have to say, I'm in the 'change it back' camp. Fighters don't need to be nerfed anymore, and that was one of the few ways in which those players controlled their characters.
The compromises I've seen here look unneccessarily complicated, and no one has really given a valid reason for the change.
Fighters have NOT been nerfed. They receive a feat at each character level now. Try making a few under the PF Alpha 2 rules.....they're fantastic!
That being said I agree that PA and CE have been nerfed a little too much; my above suggestion I feel is no where near as complicated or convoluted as you suggest, nor is it as mathematically complicated as the 3.5 system
Robert
i'm on the fence with Power Attack. I like the no-math routine; I like that its all or nothing; but I still think its a bit limiting - in that you really have to have a high strength in order to make good use of it; its not going to really help people get over damage reduction or do extra damage if their strength is in the 14-17 range. Plus - I have always considered those who complained about the 2 for 1 damage output with two-handed weapons to have merrit.
What I would do is to keep things simple (all or nothing)
Power Attack: -4 to attack rolls. +4 to damage. (+6 w/ 2 handed weapon) 1.5 damage as it is with stregnth makes sense.
Then with BAB +6 pre req:
Imprvd Power Attack: -8 / +8 (+12 w/ 2 handed weapon).Simple, precise, math can already be calculated out - not too much with two handed weapon, and allows for enough damage to be done to warrant taking it with those 14-17 strength characters.
Robert
I'd like to see something similar, but with a bit of a better trade-off. Something like:
Power Attack
Prerequisites: BAB +1, Str 13
Benefits:You can choose to take a -2 penalty on your next attack roll to deal an additional +4 damage to the corresponding damage roll. If you're wielding a two-handed weapon, this bonus becomes +6.
Then add on a few feats to boost the power level later on:
Improved Power Attack
Prerequisites: BAB +6, Str 15, Power Attack
Benefits:You can choose to take a -4 penalty on your next attack roll to deal an additional +8 damage to the corresponding damage roll. If you're wielding a two-handed weapon, this bonus becomes +12.
Greater Power Attack
Prerequisites: BAB +11, Str 17, Power Attack, Improved Power Attack
Benefits:You can choose to take a -6 penalty on your next attack roll to deal an additional +15 damage to the corresponding damage roll. If you're wielding a two-handed weapon, this bonus becomes +24.
Ultimate Power Attack
Prerequisites: BAB +16, Str 19, Power Attack, Improved Power Attack, Greater Power Attack
Benefits:You can choose to take a -8 penalty on your next attack roll to deal an additional +30 damage to the corresponding damage roll. If you're wielding a two-handed weapon, this bonus becomes +45.
Power Smash
Prerequisites: BAB +3, Str 15, Power Attack
Benefits:When you choose to use Power Attack, Improved Power Attack, Greater Power Attack or Ultimate Power attack, you can choose to subtract a number equal to your Strength Modifier and add it to the corresponding damage roll.
Power Attack Mastery
Prerequisites: BAB +6, Str 15, Power Attack
Benefits:When you use a Power Attack feat, the penalty you take to your attack rolls is reduced by 2. This penalty cannot be reduced to less than 0.
That would allow for some measure of control and fiddling around, without doing a bunch of calculations. Also, maybe require that Power Attack be a full or Standard action, so that the fighter-type wouldn't be running around with 5 attacks at +45 damage each.
Just a couple thoughts.
i'm on the fence with Power Attack. I like the no-math routine; I like that its all or nothing; but I still think its a bit limiting - in that you really have to have a high strength in order to make good use of it; its not going to really help people get over damage reduction or do extra damage if their strength is in the 14-17 range. Plus - I have always considered those who complained about the 2 for 1 damage output with two-handed weapons to have merrit.
Agreed. Further, my problem with the 3.5 PA, as a DM, wasn't with fighters, but rather with barbarians, or certain other melee based classes, who use the uncapped nature of the "investment" in PA along with other feats to gain increasingly higher returns on actual damage. Granted, I control this as a DM by limiting sources (usually SRD-only with each player allowed to bring 1 splat book to the table to create a splat pool) but there are several numerically impressive charger builds that rely on this uncapped power attack mechanism to fuel 300+ damage attacks.
The end result is an arms race where the DM needs to optimize to keep encounters meaningful, rather than just speed bump, while avoiding DM fiat , which kills any sense of fair play.
I believe that Power Attack (and Combat Expertise) should be changed back to the 3.5 versions.
