As a player I love the power attack feat! Add into the equation 2-handed weapon and a whole heck of a lot of damage is going to be delivered. Since the damage dealing capabilities are so great with a 2-handed weapon, it nearly makes little to no sense to use a shield.
Although shields can help to provide a little better AC, I generally find that the greater damage dealing capability of a power attacking 2-handed weapon is a better trade off.
Although not a huge reduction I propose dropping the extra damage from power attacking to 1.5 times the amount of BAB subtracted, rather than 2 times.
Perhaps now the extra damage that is caused is in a bit better balance with the AC gained from fighting with sword & shield?
It would be nice to see a different option from the standard 2-handed wielding, power attacking fighing spike chair fighter / barbarian which seems to have become a standard staple in many D&D groups.
Power Attack has already been powered down in the Alpha rules : you can't PA more than the lowest of your BAB or your Strength modifier.
|
While I hope Power Attack works more like 3.5 (you choose the amount to subtract), we've been using the x1.5 Strength modifier for about 2 years in our gaming groups. Even at 1.5 the feat is frequently used, and more often with two-handed weapons. But at x1.5 my players may opt to power attack with a 1-handed weapon as well.
If everyone makes the same decision, I consider that decision to lack a meaningful choice. If you ask anyone 'would you like me to give you a million dollars or a bullet in the brain', it isn't a choice because everyone will choose the same answer. I feel like Power Attack (with x2) is doing the same thing.
Though to make the math easy, I wouldn't mind it being -1/+1 to all weapons (including light). I think we've had more trouble figuring out if you can power attack with a fist (a light natural weapon) than calculating the adjusted damage in every round of combat we've ever played.
There is one overriding reason that this would be a very reasonable choice to do now. Since Power Attack is now based (eventually) on Strength bonus, weapons wielded two-handed would do triple strength damage (1.5 + 1.5 instead of 1.5 + 2 = 3.5). Previously (and currently if Base Attack Bonus is the limiter) you would have to worry about round-down effects.
Unfortunately, for the base rules, I'm going to have to agree with the poster above that Power attack has been sufficiently "powered down", and backwards compatibility outweighs the slight seamlessness advantage of making this change. But a total of triple strength damage is an easy optional rule.
At least light weapons can be power attacked now.
|
The new Power Attack has been so dumbed down (it is like they want to slip some 4E into PfRPG) that it is almost useless in play. It is a great feat for levels 1-5. You trade a -2 to attack for +2 to damage. But at level 6-20 you start wishing you had used that feat for something with more bite.
All of the "Improved X" feats are also weakened. Instead of +4s it is reduced to +2s. Later levels will find these feats to be useless. Improved Trip lost the free attack that made it an amazing feat for a fighter.
In fact ALL of the fighter feats were castrated. While the Fighter gets an amazing quantity of feats, thy are all so watered down the Fighter becomes the weakest class by far.
|
|
at level 20 I do not think a +4 is too much :) maybe for level 1.
and yes I know most people do not play to level 20, but if you are not going to design it to be playable at level 20 then just make all characters levels 5-15 only.
Maybe scale the feat by levels.
And I did not see where they said combat feats would not be in Beta. If not, then what mechanic are they going to use? It's useless discussing the Alpa feats at all if we already know they are changed. We should instead be discussing the changed mechanic.
|
|
The combat feats being removed from the Beta was discussed in Jason's Blog. Someone else will have to provide the link. Essentially, the extra 'mechanic' involved in the class combat feats is too much work for too little benefit. Now, combat feats will remain a 'designation' for feat like 'general' or 'metamagic'. If I understand it correctly, the 'combat' designation will work something like the 'fighter' designation.
It has also been indicated that some of the new feats in the 'Combat Feat' section will be included in as regular feats in the general section.
It is unclear whether feats in the combat section now will go back to being the 3.5 version or if they'll remain 'altered'.
|
|
Unfortunately, for the base rules, I'm going to have to agree with the poster above that Power attack has been sufficiently "powered down", and backwards compatibility outweighs the slight seamlessness advantage of making this change. But a total of triple strength damage is an easy optional rule.
well the 1.5 for two-hands vs 2x is something that I've been using; and it's more balancing and also makes two-hands not the obvious choice.
And i have to disagree that such a change breaks backward compatibility. I can read any 3.5 module and the fact that a creature's power attack now does 1.5 vs 2x does not force me to change anything in the module anymore than the fact that elves are now as tall (if not taller) than humans.
Its just a math issue at the time of the combat, or a descriptive issue at the time your PCs first meet the elven NPC.
Removing the rogue as a class is an example that breaks backward compatibility - cuz now when I read a module and there's a rogue with all it's mechanics, I have no easy solution or replacement.
Robert
|
|
Well let me give an example of why I dislike the new Power Attack so very much. I will use a modified version of my own lvl 20 fighter.
BAB 20/15/10/5
Str 22 for +6 attack/damage
Weapon +1 Brilliant Energy Dwarven Waraxe for damage of 1d10+7
Power Attack
In 3.5 I can pull out 15 points of BAB for example. For an attack array of 12/7/2/-7 touch attacks (just so you know how I do the real numbers I also flank, trip and have greater weapon specialization which add another +6 and since in game we are lvl 23 my real weapon is a +6 Brilliant energy dwarven waraxe, and a belt of giant strength +6 all totaling an additional +14 to the above, not counting buff spells) . Assume, for arguments sake, I hit all four times. My damage rolls will be 4d10+88 for an average of 110.
In PfRPG I can pull out 6 points for Power attack. My attack array is 21/16/11/6 touch. Say I hit all four times. My maximum damage is now 4d10+52. For an average damage of 74.
In this case PfRPG has reduced my damage output by 32.3%
How would anyone feel about their primary attacks being reduced by a third? How would wizards feel if all of their 20d6 spells suddenly maxed out at 15d6 instead?
That is assuming I use the weapon one-handed the change is even more dramatic if I use the weapon two-handed. 170 average points vs 98 which is a 42.4% reduction
Yes I know the example is extreme, but it does scale down as well.
Well let me give an example of why I dislike the new Power Attack so very much. I will use a modified version of my own lvl 20 fighter.
...
That is assuming I use the weapon one-handed the change is even more dramatic if I use the weapon two-handed. 170 average points vs 98 which is a 42.4% reduction
Yes I know the example is extreme, but it does scale down as well.
Krome, and I say this with 100% respect, I think you've just given a perfect example of why Power Attack was changed. A bit too much damage, and a bit too much calculating (as in plotting, not working the math). And I say that as someone who wrote up a program to maximize the damage for a friend's character.
Great example of the change - though I do think you should factor in the increased chance of missing. Even touch attacks miss on the later swings when you power attack that much. The exception would be against Gargantuan and Colossal creatures, but brilliant energy isn't actually a touch attack and doesn't work well against such creatures because their natural armor stays fully in place.
|
|
Brilliant energy actually is a touch attack, as it ignores all armor (not natural armor though-you are correct there).
The point is that Power Attack is a staple of the FIghter. In another topic I compared the Power Attack used above to a Rogue. The Rogue does even more damage, and in PfRPG the rogue is even more impressive than 3.5
By dumbing down Power Attack, Improved Trip and a host of other Combat feats, the FIghter is reduced to a minor role behind the rogue. In no way shape or form can a PfRPG even come close to a rogue's damage out put.
Then a FIghter can be compared to a Paladin for tanking. Again the Fighter becomes a distant minor character.
So if the goal is to reduce damage output then the rogues 10d6 sneak attack damage needs to be reduced and that STR damage needs to go away and the Save or die needs to go away. :) Let's not forget the pesky 20d6 damage from many caster spells, they need to be reduced as well.
So my question is this, why reduce the FIghter's damage output and no one else's? Why increase the lethality of all other classes but reduce that of the fighter? The fighter takes no more time in combat than a spell caster, especially at high levels. The fighter has a simple choice, hit or not. Make a few quick calculations and it is done. The wizard has to pour over dozens of spells and so does the cleric. I have spent more time waiting on casters to decide what they are going to do than on fighters. So if the goal is instead to speed up play, then perhaps we need to reduce the number of spells the casters get.
and I do not understand the whole idea of too much plotting. I take improved trip for a combat advantage, and power attack. I use flanking to my advantage as well. I know how to have my particular fighter fight. Are saying that instead fighter's should be unable to use their feats or they have too many feats that give them usable abilities?
If that is too much plotting then perhaps we should have spells be random for casters as they must sit and plot out what they feel will be best for them to prepare each day. Then during combat they must plot their spell resources for the current combat vs future combats.
I am sorry but I just do not understand what you mean by too much plotting. Can you explain Because I just might be able to agree with you :)
I think you are missing the Op's point ( or I am). The point is that power attack with a 1 handed weapon adds 1x the penalty, but with a 2 handed adds 2 x the penalty to hit.
IMO this is too great an advantage for a 2 handed weapon over a 1 handed. I completely agree. Our groups have used 1.5 for a while and 2 handeds are still better just not by so much.
|
|
I can't exactly calculate miss chances as the math becomes far too cumbersome then as irt based upon variable ACs- the calculations would be several pages long and who wants to read that. Rather it is simpler to compare maximum damages.
And sorry, but having played this guy for 23 levels, with all my buffs, and items and feats, I can regularly pull out 15 points and still hit nearly every time with the exception of the usual just plain bad die roll that plagues everyone (from spells, items and such I regularly add an additional about +20 or so to my above scores for about +30ish to my base attack-welcome to epic levels). By level 23, most of your enemies are larger and many have huge armor bonuses. Against ones that Brilliant energy does not work on I switch to the Holy sword and use different tactics. However, the majority of baddies can be hit with the brilliant energy axe. I do hate the ones that cannot though. Ohhh I hate them. I actually have to work much harder to hit them. And yes the calculations do change quite a bit then. :)
But ya see my damage would go down a lot so even if I were doing 107 but it was reduced to say 87, the rogue is still doing her usual 108 (as from the other topic).
So again, why exactly reduce the damage from the fighter only?
|
|
I think you are missing the Op's point ( or I am). The point is that power attack with a 1 handed weapon adds 1x the penalty, but with a 2 handed adds 2 x the penalty to hit.
IMO this is too great an advantage for a 2 handed weapon over a 1 handed. I completely agree. Our groups have used 1.5 for a while and 2 handeds are still better just not by so much.
ummm I suppose I did not express myself clearly at all on my opinion of the OPs opinion. My opinion is that it has already been dumbed down to the point of being useless. To reduce it any further would mean no one will ever even try to take the feat.
I do not play 2-handed because I like the extra AC from a shield. I prefer the "style" or look or whatever, of the sword and board. Purely a personal choice. The extra damage is not worth the extra damage I will take. I can shield bash and go total defensive behind my shield (variable shield that can become a tower shield) and chug a potion or three or six. And lord knows I have had to do that before.
So, I do not think that it makes everyone go straight to 2-handed. It is a matter of choices.
To say that some people choose a certain style does not mean everyone does. And since the feat has already been dumbed down to 4E standards, why ruin it even worse?
See you guys were supposed to have read all of that in between the lines... sheesh what is wrong with you guys... :)
ummm I suppose I did not express myself clearly at all on my opinion of the OPs opinion. My opinion is that it has already been dumbed down to the point of being useless. To reduce it any further would mean no one will ever even try to take the feat.
They didn't dumb it down as you put it (which implies they made it a simpler mechanic because we aren't smart enough to know how to use it).
What they did is prevent you from metagame thinking and figuring out the DPS of every AC and so choosing the most appropiate minus to use for the situation. Your character isn't suppose to be doing math computations while swinging his sword (though i guess you can argue that many tinker gnomes are do calculations during combat, but that's another story).
It appears I missed the wording under the feat which limits the bonus to the max of the BAB or STR mod. Given that, I feel that this is fairly balanced now. I still think its going to encourage people to build 2-handed-weapon fighters over sword & shield though... as its still a better benefit. (Although 12 STR fighters might not agree... :)
Its nice to see that Improved Trip took away the free attack... now every fighter likely won't be weilding a spiked chain :)
|
|
It appears I missed the wording under the feat which limits the bonus to the max of the BAB or STR mod. Given that, I feel that this is fairly balanced now. I still think its going to encourage people to build 2-handed-weapon fighters over sword & shield though... as its still a better benefit. (Although 12 STR fighters might not agree... :)
Its nice to see that Improved Trip took away the free attack... now every fighter likely won't be weilding a spiked chain :)
I agree that Power Attack has been "dumbed" down or "nerfed" to the point that it no longer allows the fighter (or barbarian) to do the damage that they need to be able to do - especially when trying to get over the DR of some creatures.
I also agree the the 2-hander has too big of an advantage over the single weapon counterpart - however, I'm torn because I would hate to nerf it further - as Krome indicated.
That being said - I think the mechanics ARE better now - for the purpose of metagaming and easier math.
What I have been playtesting in my games is:
single handed weapons are getting 1.5 x the damage and 2 handed are getting 2x damage.
That makes the weapons more closer together, it still removes the meta-gaming aspect that the new Feat does, AND it allows a little boost to damage that was taken away and is SORELY needed for warrior types (in succinct comparison to spells and sneak attack as Krome suggested.).
Any thoughts of this? or thoughts to push/champion this idea?
Robert
|
While I agree that a reduction in the metagame calculations RE Power Attack is a worthy goal, the problem is the current change punishes players who aren't taking a close look at the feat.
I don't have a huge problem with capping Power Attack at -STR to hit (although that does reduce the overall damage capabilities of fighters, which I think is the wrong direction) the bigger issue is taking away the sliding capability of the feat. Power Attacking for the max you can is almost always a bad idea (except in extreme cases such as using a brilliant energy weapon). Canny players will realize that, and bypass the feat, but others will unwittingly be punished by taking a feat that actually reduces their damage per round.
That's bad design, and a place where several of the supposedly fighter-oriented feats in the Alpha could use some improvement. I've been doing some calculations and Vital Strike (and the improved version), for example, almost 100 percent of the time REDUCES a fighter's average damage output. It's actually a really good (but not too good) feat for a monk, whose damage relies far more on rolled dice, which get doubled. But it's a s@!!ty[i][/i] trick to play on fighter players, who may not realize that the feat is actually bad for them.
As we transition into Beta playtesting, I really hope some of the posters (and Paizo crew) will sit down and crunch the math on some of the fighter feats. In many cases, something that looks good on paper is actually no good at all, and feats that may look overpowered actually supply a reasonable -- and needed -- boost.
What I'd really like to see is a discussion about what kind of average-damage-per-round people think the high-level warrior types should be doing. Supplying the feats needed to do that is going to be one of the challenges of balancing the warrior classes as we move on.
After looking it over in alpha 2 and now 3 I still don't like it. Not only does it complicate the mechanics, such as various spells upping their strength, but reduce the maximum. Was this feat broken before? I know their are a lot of nice things that increase this damage, but compared to casters they hardly competed for single target damage dealing with save or die spells existing. And did nothing to compare with the area of effect spells that dealt massive more amounts of damage total. I've see a single well placed fireball take out an entire small encounter.
So again, Jason Bulmahn (or the other writers), why did you think this was broken?
|
|
After looking it over in alpha 2 and now 3 I still don't like it. Not only does it complicate the mechanics, such as various spells upping their strength, but reduce the maximum. Was this feat broken before? I know their are a lot of nice things that increase this damage, but compared to casters they hardly competed for single target damage dealing with save or die spells existing. And did nothing to compare with the area of effect spells that dealt massive more amounts of damage total. I've see a single well placed fireball take out an entire small encounter.
So again, Jason Bulmahn (or the other writers), why did you think this was broken?
I was dumbed down because the way it worked caused much meta-gaming with many people doing math to figure out just how much the perfect amount to power attack without risking missing. It also was simplified for the sliding scale of math that changed round to round based on the players decision. The meta-gaming and confusing math reached its peak with people bring graphs and charts of all sorts of calculated math to help figure out the best bang for the buck based on any given scenario. Graphs or no graph, the meta-gaming and the ever-changing mathc simply slowed down game play - at a lot of tables. Not every table. I'm sure your testimony will be that this was never a problem that you faced or encountered at your table.
But many others were not so fortunate.
Some computer games (like Neverwinter Nights) simply make Power Attack a set amount regardless of Str Mod, or BAB. I think NWN1 it was increments of 5 and NWN2 switched it 3. Thats not a bad solution for this, either. We've tried increments of 3 and 4 at my table. We like the 4/8/12. (Which we use 6/12/18 damage for 2 handed style 1.5)
Robert
I was dumbed down because the way it worked caused much meta-gaming with many people doing math to figure out just how much the perfect amount to power attack without risking missing. It also was simplified for the sliding scale of math that changed round to round based on the players decision. The meta-gaming and confusing math reached its peak with people bring graphs and charts of all sorts of calculated math to help figure out the best bang for the buck based on any given scenario. Graphs or no graph, the meta-gaming and the ever-changing mathc simply slowed down game play - at a lot of tables. Not every table. I'm sure your testimony will be that this was never a problem that you faced or encountered at your table.After looking it over in alpha 2 and now 3 I still don't like it. Not only does it complicate the mechanics, such as various spells upping their strength, but reduce the maximum. Was this feat broken before? I know their are a lot of nice things that increase this damage, but compared to casters they hardly competed for single target damage dealing with save or die spells existing. And did nothing to compare with the area of effect spells that dealt massive more amounts of damage total. I've see a single well placed fireball take out an entire small encounter.
So again, Jason Bulmahn (or the other writers), why did you think this was broken?
It was hardly dumbed down really. As I said, the increase of strength from spells made it much more complicated as a re-adjustment due to changing maximums is by far more complicated than before. Now this double restriction, BAB or strength mod, not only makes it even more complicated but drastically reduce the effectiveness of damage dealing builds, which is unjustified even if the GM forgets to combat meta gaming. If anything, maybe what you could do as a GM, or suggest to the GM to have a system of writing the rolls down instead of saying them out loud. In any case, I at least don't true to do the numbers. If I hear a very high roll still miss, which would be obvious to the character, my character would know that doing a lot, if any power attack would be a bad idea. Now after a number of my own swings it should give my a very good idea how hard it is to hit the target.
But many others were not so fortunate.
Some computer games (like Neverwinter Nights) simply make Power Attack a set amount regardless of Str Mod, or BAB. I think NWN1 it was increments of 5 and NWN2 switched it 3. Thats not a bad solution for this, either. We've tried increments of 3 and 4 at my table. We like the 4/8/12. (Which we use 6/12/18 damage for 2 handed style 1.5)
Robert
I wouldn't mind that too much, so long as they eliminated this other restrictions that have been added.
Sir Hexen Ineptus
|
|
Metagaming... really?
Any more so than finding ways to push up the DC to resist spells cast by the wizard, or for the cleric to sit tehre and figure out just how to buff the fighter to max potential for this battle?
Or is it not metagaming for the rogue to calculate how many spaces she needs to move to get the flank while avoiding the AoO so she can use her Sneak Attack?
See that is just good planning. But for a fighter it is metagaming.
I would not oppose this rule, were it not that the fighter was reduced in effectiveness when compared to all other classes. Yeah he got some boosts, but the other classes got so many higher boosts that this is just another way to nerf the fighter.
Metagaming... really?
Any more so than finding ways to push up the DC to resist spells cast by the wizard, or for the cleric to sit there and figure out just how to buff the fighter to max potential for this battle?
Or is it not metagaming for the rogue to calculate how many spaces she needs to move to get the flank while avoiding the AoO so she can use her Sneak Attack?
See that is just good planning. But for a fighter it is metagaming.
I would not oppose this rule, were it not that the fighter was reduced in effectiveness when compared to all other classes. Yeah he got some boosts, but the other classes got so many higher boosts that this is just another way to nerf the fighter.
Sorry for the late reply :)
The "too much plotting"/"metagaming" is when you get things from 'Oh, my 3rd swing hit on a 4, so I can power attack a minimum of 8' to 'Okay the Paladin had +17 to hit and hit on an 8, but missed on a 6, so AC probably 24. Vs. AC 24 my maximum damage output is at Power attack 7, so that's what I'll do." I realize this *isn't* any sort of constant thing, but it does happen. (Heck, I'll even do it, on the fly, *for* the players when I DM).
I heartily disagree that Fighters got weaker in Pathfinder - I find Weapon Training to be almost obscenely powerful actually, but that's a different topic. Save or Die's have also been quite a bit neutered. Also - the 20d6 damage from spells is only 70 points, typically save for half (often on multiple targets of course) or occasionally none. 35 to 70 points is well in the range of what a Fighter can do.
Casting buff spells isn't metagaming.
Moving through combat and not getting hit isn't metagaming.
Watching everyone else fight the critter during their Init counts and figuring out what the critter's AC is so you can hit it for that perfect amount? That is metagaming. It's using your ability to see the numbers "behind the scenes" to impact how you interact with the game on the scene.
And wizards (and clerics.. and druids) *did* get hit with the nerf bat. About two dozen of them. Each. At least.
Go read through the spells. Every spell in the Alpha 3 is there because they changed it from the way it worked in 3.5. Very few, if any, were made more powerful. Paizo picked up the cosmic nerf stick and beat the [bleep] outta the full casters.
PA's nerf is that same stick hitting the melee bunch.
I would be very interested however in seeing how all your math works out with the new fighter and his weapon bonuses.
-S