Power attack as "is" is in 3.5 is pretty much broken, especially in connction with combat buffs and huge Str boni.
I had players (not even maxed out fighters) doing whooping 100+ - 180 points of damage with full attack routines and a greatsword at level 11+ easily, and that was with only straight PA... I don't see casters' doing that amount of damage versus single targets until six or more levels later, and most certainly not with the potential of doing so every round. ( This was a straight barb 2/ bard 9 combo with a str of 16...)
Hence - melee damage in my book is vastly overblown with the application of PA, and I will look forward to a nerf applied to it.
which does not mean I find the "straight modifier" solution in the Alpha relase thrilling or elegeant.
but something needs to be done about the 2x modifier on twohanded weapons - especially in combinations with touch-attacks
Power attack as "is" is in 3.5 is pretty much broken, especially in connction with combat buffs and huge Str boni.
I had players (not even maxed out fighters) doing whooping 100+ - 180 points of damage with full attack routines and a greatsword at level 11+ easily, and that was with only straight PA... I don't see casters' doing that amount of damage versus single targets until six or more levels later, and most certainly not with the potential of doing so every round. ( This was a straight barb 2/ bard 9 combo with a str of 16...)
Hence - melee damage in my book is vastly overblown with the application of PA, and I will look forward to a nerf applied to it.
which does not mean I find the "straight modifier" solution in the Alpha relase thrilling or elegeant.
but something needs to be done about the 2x modifier on twohanded weapons - especially in combinations with touch-attacks
Buttkuss
Cloud Kill; which is still legal in pathfinder.
" This spell generates a bank of fog, similar to a fog cloud, except that its vapors are yellowish green and poisonous. These vapors automatically kill any living creature with 3 or fewer HD (no save). A living creature with 4 to 6 HD is slain unless it succeeds on a Fortitude save (in which case it takes 1d4 points of Constitution damage on your turn each round while in the cloud).
A living creature with 6 or more HD takes 1d4 points of Constitution damage on your turn each round while in the cloud (a successful Fortitude save halves this damage). Holding one’s breath doesn’t help, but creatures immune to poison are unaffected by the spell.
Unlike a fog cloud, the cloudkill moves away from you at 10 feet per round, rolling along the surface of the ground.
Figure out the cloud’s new spread each round based on its new point of origin, which is 10 feet farther away from the point of origin where you cast the spell.
Because the vapors are heavier than air, they sink to the lowest level of the land, even pouring down den or sinkhole openings. It cannot penetrate liquids, nor can it be cast underwater. "
Can do a vast more amount of damage than that power attack, lets see.. 4 or 5 3rd level barbarians would easally die instantly and effectively do more than 100 damage. Also not to mention the fact of the secondary effects. God forbid they use a maximize meta magic rod.
At 11th level a wizard can cast Cone of Cold
Which at the level it can cast it, it can perform an average of 38.5 damage to each victim in it's effect. That means all it would take is 3 victims to fail their saving throw, or 6 to make it to equate to more than 100 points of damage total, which is easy with a 60ft range and a 10 foot wide area of effect.
P.S. Factor in meta magic rods and things get really harry really fast.
So while yeah they can do all that damage to 1 target, casters can deal much more damage, and even handle multiple targets VERY well.
|
At 11th level a wizard can cast Cone of Cold
Which at the level it can cast it, it can perform an average of 38.5 damage to each victim in it's effect. That means all it would take is 3 victims to fail their saving throw, or 6 to make it to equate to more than 100 points of damage total, which is easy with a 60ft range and a 10 foot wide area of effect.
P.S. Factor in meta magic rods and things get really harry really fast.
So while yeah they can do all that damage to 1 target, casters can deal much more damage, and even handle multiple targets VERY well.
This is True. But, how often can the 11th level Wizard cast Cone of Cold? 5,Maybe 6 times? The warrior is not limited by uses per day.
I have another Question for you on this. If Power Attack were to work the way you like. Would Deadly Aim and Combat Expertise work the same way, or would they still have a cap?
IMO, If you have a cap on one or two of these feats that work off BAB, then way not on others?
|
At 11th level a wizard can cast Cone of Cold
Which at the level it can cast it, it can perform an average of 38.5 damage to each victim in it's effect. That means all it would take is 3 victims to fail their saving throw, or 6 to make it to equate to more than 100 points of damage total, which is easy with a 60ft range and a 10 foot wide area of effect.
P.S. Factor in meta magic rods and things get really harry really fast.
So while yeah they can do all that damage to 1 target, casters can deal much more damage, and even handle multiple targets VERY well.
Saying that a wizards most powerful spells can kill a whole bunch of low level mooks is not a good argument that Wizards are overpowered or that power attack is underpowered. So Cloudkill can kill 3-4 4th level Barbarians. So what. At that point the Wizard is 11th level and the 4th level Barbarians are just cannon fodder for the real BBEG anyway. Even with a Rod of Empowering a Cone of Cold at 11th level does 16d6 damage with a reflex save for half damage. The average damage on 16d6 is 56pts of damage. Assuming our hypothetical Wizard has an Int of 22 (about equal to what a melee type at that level would have in strength) then the saving throw on that cone of cold is going to be DC 21 to DC 23 tops. If the opponent has Evasion or Improved Evasion it gets worse. That doesn't even account for Spell Resistance.
You are WAY overestimating the relative effectiveness of the Wizard and WAY underestimating the relative effectiveness of the Melee character with power attack. Just having a spell that CAN do a lot of damage isn't the same as having a reliable attack that ALWAYS does a lot of damage. If your 11th level Barbarian has a 22 Str and uses rage then he would power attack at -8/+16 (assuming a two handed weapon) making his damage output like 2d6+25 before any other bonuses beyond strength and power attack are calculated. That is pretty darn awesome as your bonus on 3 iterative attacks not counting any haste type effects from stuff like boots of speed. The Barbarian likely will hit with his first two attacks against most opponents making his damage output very good.
I just don't see how melee characters are getting the shaft on this. I guess we will see what they do with it in the beta and final release, but I really don't see power attack as a problem. Continuously pointing to the Wizards spells as evidence of your argument is not helping make it stronger. Even on a save or die effect, the opponent gets the save. If the Barbarian hits (which he will often do) there is no way for the target to reduce the damage with a saving throw. Further, an 11th level Wizard will have 3-5 5th level spell slots total for the day. He won't put all of that into damage spells. So he has the big guns maybe twice in a day if he uses the metamagic rod, whereas the melee type can power attack over and over and over and over. I didn't have a problem with power attack in 3.5 beyond my players taking forever to decide how much power attack they were going to do. I have said from the beginning the change was for streamlining not nerfing. That said, the change they made still leaves all primary melee types with plenty of oomph in their melee attacks.
If you are complaining for casters like Clerics, then you are barking at the wrong tree. They have so many buffs in melee that they have historically been better melee fighters than melee classes are. Gish's can do the same thing with buffs. Power Attack just isn't a problem no matter how many times you say it is.
At 11th level a wizard can cast Cone of Cold
Which at the level it can cast it, it can perform an average of 38.5 damage to each victim in it's effect. That means all it would take is 3 victims to fail their saving throw, or 6 to make it to equate to more than 100 points of damage total, which is easy with a 60ft range and a 10 foot wide area of effect.
P.S. Factor in meta magic rods and things get really harry really fast.
So while yeah they can do all that damage to 1 target, casters can deal much more damage, and even handle multiple targets VERY well.
This is True. But, how often can the 11th level Wizard cast Cone of Cold? 5,Maybe 6 times? The warrior is not limited by uses per day.
I have another Question for you on this. If Power Attack were to work the way you like. Would Deadly Aim and Combat Expertise work the same way, or would they still have a cap?
IMO, If you have a cap on one or two of these feats that work off BAB, then way not on others?
1. 5 or 6 times is usually the most you will need in a 3 day encounter scenario.
2. I am staying on topic and tackling one feat at a time.
At 11th level a wizard can cast Cone of Cold
Which at the level it can cast it, it can perform an average of 38.5 damage to each victim in it's effect. That means all it would take is 3 victims to fail their saving throw, or 6 to make it to equate to more than 100 points of damage total, which is easy with a 60ft range and a 10 foot wide area of effect.
P.S. Factor in meta magic rods and things get really harry really fast.
So while yeah they can do all that damage to 1 target, casters can deal much more damage, and even handle multiple targets VERY well.
Saying that a wizards most powerful spells can kill a whole bunch of low level mooks is not a good argument that Wizards are overpowered or that power attack is underpowered. So Cloudkill can kill 3-4 4th level Barbarians. So what. At that point the Wizard is 11th level and the 4th level Barbarians are just cannon fodder for the real BBEG anyway. Even with a Rod of Empowering a Cone of Cold at 11th level does 16d6 damage with a reflex save for half damage. The average damage on 16d6 is 56pts of damage. Assuming our hypothetical Wizard has an Int of 22 (about equal to what a melee type at that level would have in strength) then the saving throw on that cone of cold is going to be DC 21 to DC 23 tops. If the opponent has Evasion or Improved Evasion it gets worse. That doesn't even account for Spell Resistance.
You are WAY overestimating the relative effectiveness of the Wizard and WAY underestimating the relative effectiveness of the Melee character with power attack. Just having a spell that CAN do a lot of damage isn't the same as having a reliable attack that ALWAYS does a lot of damage. If your 11th level Barbarian has a 22 Str and uses rage then he would power attack at -8/+16 (assuming a two handed weapon) making his damage output like 2d6+25 before any other bonuses beyond strength and power attack are calculated. That is...
I didn't exactly say that a wizard can kill low level mooks, but rather they can do more damage with a lot of spells over a number of targets. I see that you are vastly overestimating the placement of evasion or improved evasion. Unless they are dealing with a bunch of rogues, I don't see many rings of evasion at that level showing up. While most damage dealing casters will do their best to get a rod maximize, or a rod of empowerment, yeah 1 in 4 could possibly get an evasion ring being able to avoid these attacks well, it is very likely for them to have a rod of enlarge spell making it much more likely to do vast amount of damage to multiple targets, which seems to be more their niche, while melee is more of single target damager.
Yes I see it as melee fighters getting drastically reduced in power as they hardly kept up with casters versatility and damage dealing. The only thing that kept them up was the splat book feat tree feats such as leap attack. While all the classes have been given additional ways of dealing damage, this comes at the drastic cost of the multiplied damage with power attack and related feats, while these feats do nothing to the new form of damage. So on one end his is a computability issue, so while people add other spells from other books, The other power attackers get knee caped.
So while yeah they can do massive amounts of damage to a SINGLE target, all their capability to deal damage to a second, or in rare cases a 3rd target, has become to an almost "none event" in pathfinder, and the removal of the compatibility to a charge allowing to use great cleave, it has been made clear that they have been restricted to a single target effects, but to top it off they have vastly restricted it. So while yeah a 20th level fighter makes up for this, that is still only at 20th level, and yeah a barbarian can keep most of the way up and has other ways of damaging things, the other melee types (Monk, Paladin, Ranger) are left useless damage wise.
P.S. I think what I am trying to say here is that in the end what is wrong with giving the melee types damaging capability to hit 1 target harder than a spell caster?
|
5 or 6 times is usually the most you will need in a 3 day encounter scenario.
An 11th level wizard gets 2 5th level spells per day. Add one for intelligence, presumably, and that's 3. Specialization sucks various body parts now and doesn't provide any bonus spells anymore. So at best the wizard gets cone of cold 3 times a day. And if he can't find a better 5th level spell than Cone of Cold he needs help.
Not to mention that your dumb Barbarian is probably making it impossible to actually USE the Cone of Cold by standing in the middle of a sea of the insignificant opponents who would be wiped out by the Cone of Cold. :)
Not to mention that your dumb Barbarian is probably making it impossible to actually USE the Cone of Cold by standing in the middle of a sea of the insignificant opponents who would be wiped out by the Cone of Cold. :)
As to a barbarian, get improved initiative, even if they have it too you as a caster probably still have a higher dex for the ranged attack spells.
P.S. Nvm
|
|
So while yeah a 20th level fighter makes up for this, that is still only at 20th level, and yeah a barbarian can keep most of the way up and has other ways of damaging things, the other melee types (Monk, Paladin, Ranger) are left useless damage wise.
Yah! My wizard can't do crap for melee damage... who do I complain to about that? I don't get flurry, either.... geez, they gimped the wizard badly.
OK, jesting aside.... I think they're trying to make a distinction. The fighter is the king of doing damage. It's the FIGHTER. The Monk, Ranger, Paladin, Rogue, and Barbarian all have really cool things their classes can do that don't revolve around combat. The FIGHTER revolves around combat... thus he is best at it. To continue to complain that classes which get lots of other neat abilities that aren't dedicated to damage output can't keep up with the FIGHTER damage output is silly, to be honest. It's not their thing. If you want to do lots of damage and compensate for the lower limit on Power Attack, be a FIGHTER. I totally understand your points, I just think you're not being fair to the fighter in all of this by saying that all of the other fighting classes should be able to have all the same damage output benefits as the fighter (and, for some reason, the wizard....) and STILL get all of their spiffy stuff. Each class is good at something... fighters are good at damage output. All other classes *should* fall behind the fighter, IMO, in that department. Correcting Power Attack (as your math demonstrated earlier) helps with that.
I can't believe this single feat has generated such a long thread, to be honest. If your entire Barbarian build (which seems to be your primary focus, though you have mentioned other classes in passing as well) revolves around Power Attack, well... I guess that speaks for itself regarding the "brokenness" of Power Attack in its original form.
At 11th level a wizard can cast up to 2 chain lighting spells.
This deals 38.5 damage to its main target, but can effect 11 other targets with adv this is 19 damage to each other target for a total possible average damage of 250 damage, but this is optimistic with 11 other targets near by, but even at half that, 134 points of damage, which is to par with your melee power attacker. Again you do always have the option of getting standard meta magic rods.
So while yeah a 20th level fighter makes up for this, that is still only at 20th level, and yeah a barbarian can keep most of the way up and has other ways of damaging things, the other melee types (Monk, Paladin, Ranger) are left useless damage wise.Yah! My wizard can't do crap for melee damage... who do I complain to about that? I don't get flurry, either.... geez, they gimped the wizard badly.
OK, jesting aside.... I think they're trying to make a distinction. The fighter is the king of doing damage. It's the FIGHTER. The Monk, Ranger, Paladin, Rogue, and Barbarian all have really cool things their classes can do that don't revolve around combat. The FIGHTER revolves around combat... thus he is best at it. To continue to complain that classes which get lots of other neat abilities that aren't dedicated to damage output can't keep up with the FIGHTER damage output is silly, to be honest. It's not their thing. If you want to do lots of damage and compensate for the lower limit on Power Attack, be a FIGHTER. I totally understand your points, I just think you're not being fair to the fighter in all of this by saying that all of the other fighting classes should be able to have all the same damage output benefits as the fighter (and, for some reason, the wizard....) and STILL get all of their spiffy stuff. Each class is good at something... fighters are good at damage output. All other classes *should* fall behind the fighter, IMO, in that department. Correcting Power Attack (as your math demonstrated earlier) helps with that.
I can't believe this single feat has generated such a long thread, to be honest. If your entire Barbarian build (which seems to be your primary focus, though you have mentioned other classes in passing as well) revolves around Power Attack, well... I guess that speaks for itself regarding the "brokenness" of Power Attack in its original form.
I don't see this as being a matter of "my character build" but more as to the fact that this does not correct anything except removing the damaging niche melee types had, unless they were both a fighter and 20TH LEVEL! A fighter even takes this same hit with this nerfing till they reach 20th level. So a barbarian actually makes it out alright in actual game play as most parties don't go much past level 20.
As to your comment about dependent on a single feat.. Sorry but as stated earlier in the thread, is completely irrational as you could say the same thing with point blank shot and ranged fighters.
|
|
I don't see this as being a matter of "my character build" but more as to the fact that this does not correct anything except removing the damaging niche melee types had, unless they were both a fighter and 20TH LEVEL! A fighter even takes this same hit with this nerfing till they reach 20th level. So a barbarian actually makes it out alright in actual game play as most parties don't go much past level 20.
As to your comment about dependent on a single feat.. Sorry but as stated earlier in the thread, is completely irrational as you could say the same thing with point blank shot and ranged fighters.
And maybe, just maybe (and the extreme examples kind of bear this out) Power Attack was just too good for being a feat you could take at 1st level, with no prereq (other than Str, and that's not generally a concern for those who would take the feat), and which scaled way out of control all the way through your career. Perhaps it was decided that yes, this total advantage could occur, but it wouldn't peak until your character actually did. That makes good design sense to me.
Regarding being dependent upon a single feat, I certainly don't think I'm the one spewing irrational arguments here.... I didn't say that "just because every fighter takes it means it's broken" - I don't agree with that statement for the very reasons others have pointed out - it's a base feat that you can get at first level and is, as the examples you and others provided, a staple of the character type. HOWEVER, since that's not the point I was making, I think you're way off calling it an irrational comment.
The point I was making is that you're making such a huge issue out of a change to a single feat (which is generally compensated for in the classes where it has the most effect - fighter and Barbarian). THIS is what tells me the feat is broken. Not that everyone takes it... that's often a good indicator if it's a feat higher up a chain where some work has to be done to get there - but Power Attack can be taken at 1st level. The fact that you are so up-in-arms about it being corrected is what really points to its brokenness, and each time you reiterate the same arguments you've been making through this whole thread it just makes it seem more desperate, honestly.
I can appreciate your passion for squeezing every last point of damage out of the game, but I think you're really being greedy with this one. Obviously your opinion differs, and it's just as valid an opinion as mine - I just think that mine is more consistent with the design concepts that are coming through in Pathfinder RPG: balanced power. Everyone is a bit more powerful (and some classes got a lot bigger boosts than others), and in doing that it provided the opportunity to take things that were TOO powerful (as is obviously the perception from Paizo's viewpoint) and make them manageable and sensible when used within the entirety of the rules. (Note that this doesn't mean I agree with all the changes he's making, either - I don't think anyone will agree with all the changes, it's just not possible.)
I think you've made your points, I've made mine, and others have made theirs.... Nobody needs to be convinced of anything other than the fact that we're not all on the same page. :) I do appreciate your arguments, and they are generally well-founded (except the comparisons to wizards... I have some issues with that which I've stated before), I just think that it's going to have to be something you house-rule into your own game (if Power Attack does, in fact, make it to the Beta and Final rules as it is in the Alpha) because you play a slightly different style than PathfinderRPG is being designed for. Just like I'll have to house-rule in some things that the group I play with thinks should be different. I do understand your desire to have things right in the core rules the way you would like them - I feel the same way about the things I don't necessarily agree with so far. We just happen to be talking about Power Attack in this thread, and it's been a good and useful discussion. On that note, though, I think I will go into lurk mode for this thread as I don't see any new points that either camp could make to forward it. Perhaps someone will have a stroke of genius that solves all the problems, though... who knows? :)
At 11th level a wizard can cast Cone of Cold
Which at the level it can cast it, it can perform an average of 38.5 damage to each victim in it's effect. That means all it would take is 3 victims to fail their saving throw, or 6 to make it to equate to more than 100 points of damage total, which is easy with a 60ft range and a 10 foot wide area of effect.
P.S. Factor in meta magic rods and things get really harry really fast.
So while yeah they can do all that damage to 1 target, casters can deal much more damage, and even handle multiple targets VERY well.
^^ really ?
I agree, casters may (possibly, very much dependent on the opposition's placement ) do damage to multiple opponents at once - and possibly one's own group as well, once sides have met and are intermingled. If there even IS more than one opponent, that is....
Opponents which do have saves for half damage or even no damage at all (nothing like that mechanic is available for melee damage)... lowering the total damage dealt. Plus even many "half damage effects" are reduced to "no-damage-at-all " through abilitiies like mettle or evasion. Or are undone by creature type...
Possibly a spell also has to bypass spell-resistance - a common all-or-nothing-obstacle on high-end opposition, and then loosing additional punch through resistance to some elemental damage types, which is deducted after halving the damage due to a save. All this with attacks which are actually capped as to a maximum damage-while melee attacks experience nothing like that.
Magic damage on the other hand is rather easily countered and degraded in 3.5 - while damage-reduction and AC can easily be overcome or negated by very low level magics (like True Strike,Wraithstrike, Align Weapon, "Metallurgic" or shadowed weapon-enchantments, augmentation crystals.. ), softened up (bardic music, group buffs like prayer, recitation etc. ), aided and with twin-action buffs to Str ( better to hit and additional damage from the same spell ), Haste, extra attacks ("Snake's Swiftness") and extending even to attaks potetially only caused therugh an opponent's actions like A(ttack)o(f)O(pportunity)s for example.... have you ever cast a fireball as an AoO ? I think not...
There is no problem throwing a dart with 1D3 +20 damage... whatever its actual mass... (using the "power attack" equivalent for thrown weaponry ), and yes, I actually have seen a dart delivered with this damage in a balanced higher mid-level campaign.
Never mind the possibilities of mass-carnage offered through the Cleave and Great Cleave feats - especially in combination with large size and/or a reach weapon, as well as the possibility of 20-30% chances for critical strikes through "keen" weapons.... and various possibilities of using full-attack actions after charging or otherwise approaching one's opponent.
EVERY round...
... and that is without even consulting some obscure builds from the WotC optimization boards. Or touching the "Book of Nine Swords"
My heart does actually go out to the poor and unloved melee-characters which have their shortcoings, although definitely not in the area of damage-potential and "power attack", but in all honesty I sorely miss equivalent means for casters to inflate damage and the ability to actually deliver it past a villain's defences.
IMHO, the judging of "does a class deliver enough/too much damage" requires examaination of the BBEG-fights to create an accurate comparison of damage-balancing, but not the ability to wipe up the mooks and goblin infantry accompanying him embraced in your post
Your view of the situation on the other hand is far too simplistic and does definitely not yield an accurate picture - besides not even taking into account the viability of delivering this damage repeatedly
And yes, capping power attack in the way used for combat expertise would be the easiest way to ease some of the troubles caused by it without the sacrifice of some flexibility
|
Our house rule on power attack and feats that folow the sam formula is as follows.
You can use up to 1/2 your BAB and 2 handed weapons do 1.5 per point used.
This came into effect after a very strong 16th level fighter was destroying foes very quickly, it seems to balance things with out the strict limits imposed in Pathfinder.
And maybe, just maybe (and the extreme examples kind of bear this out) Power Attack was just too good for being a feat you could take at 1st level, with no prereq (other than Str, and that's not generally a concern for those who would take the feat), and which scaled way out of control all the way through your career. Perhaps it was decided that yes, this total advantage could occur, but it wouldn't peak until your character actually did. That makes good design sense to me.
As I stated in previous posts, I am willing to concede that this is possible. As I designed a 2nd teer feat that isn't so restrictive. However I still think they problems with it could have been dealt with better as instead my my feat being 2nd tear but rather more a 1st tear with a base attack of +1, and a strength requirement of 15 or 17.
Regarding being dependent upon a single feat, I certainly don't think I'm the one spewing irrational arguments here.... I didn't say that "just because every fighter takes it means it's broken" - I don't agree with that statement for the very reasons others have pointed out - it's a base feat that you can get at first level and is, as the examples you and others provided, a staple of the character type. HOWEVER, since that's not the point I was making, I think you're way off calling it an irrational comment.
I can't believe this single feat has generated such a long thread, to be honest. If your entire Barbarian build (which seems to be your primary focus, though you have mentioned other classes in passing as well) revolves around Power Attack, well... I guess that speaks for itself regarding the "brokenness" of Power Attack in its original form.
The point I was making is that you're making such a huge issue out of a change to a single feat (which is generally compensated for in the classes where it has the most effect - fighter and Barbarian). THIS is what tells me the feat is broken. Not that everyone takes it... that's often a good indicator if it's a feat higher up a chain where some work has to be done to get there - but Power Attack can be taken at 1st level. The fact that you are so up-in-arms about it being corrected is what really points to its brokenness, and each time you reiterate the same arguments you've been making through this whole thread it just makes it seem more desperate, honestly.
You continue to try and make this personal to try and undermine my arguments, please stop. I would make the same argument with point blank and precise shot, which got fixed, had a similar nerfing. Your statment sounded/looked a lot like a previous statment, sorry if I was wrong.
I can appreciate your passion for squeezing every last point of damage out of the game, but I think you're really being greedy with this one. Obviously your opinion differs, and it's just as valid an opinion as mine - I just think that mine is more consistent with the design concepts that are coming through in Pathfinder RPG: balanced power. Everyone is a bit more powerful (and some classes got a lot bigger boosts than others), and in doing that it provided the opportunity to take things that were TOO powerful (as is obviously the perception from Paizo's viewpoint) and make them manageable and sensible when used within the entirety of the rules. (Note that this doesn't mean I agree with all the changes he's making, either - I don't think anyone will agree with all the changes, it's just not possible.)
Again you try and make this personal... I don't mind it getting restricted to what it was meant for fluff wise and purpose wise, but this was too much.
I think you've made your points, I've made mine, and others have made theirs.... Nobody needs to be convinced of anything other than the fact that we're not all on the same page. :) I do appreciate your arguments, and they are generally well-founded (except the comparisons to wizards... I have some issues with that which I've stated before), I just think that it's going to have to be something you house-rule into your own game (if Power Attack does, in fact, make it to the Beta and Final rules as it is in the Alpha) because you play a slightly different style than PathfinderRPG is being designed for. Just like I'll have to house-rule in some things that the group I play with thinks should be different. I do understand your desire to have things right in the core rules the way you would like them - I feel the same way about the things I don't necessarily agree with so far. We just happen to be talking about Power Attack in this thread, and it's been a good and useful discussion. On that note, though, I think I will go into lurk mode for this thread as I don't see any new points that either camp could make to forward it. Perhaps someone will have a stroke of genius that solves all the problems, though... who knows? :)
I was not the only one here who thought the old feat worked better, so this isn't just about my opinion here, that was one of the main reasons why I started this thread. I actually was willing to concede that it is better the way it is now. I was not convinced but I was brought to the attention of a number of problems with the old feat and I am willing to even concede, after this thread, that it might have been too powerful for a single 1st level feat.
OK thanks for your input.
There is no problem throwing a dart with 1D3 +20 damage... whatever its actual mass... (using the "power attack" equivalent for thrown weaponry ), and yes, I actually have seen a dart delivered with this damage in a balanced higher mid-level campaign.
Just a note, they need the +20 to damage to get past the DR, which was always a major problem with ranged attacks as they never did enough damage in a single shot, and were often negated entirely in the higher level games.
Never mind the possibilities of mass-carnage offered through the Cleave and Great Cleave feats - especially in combination with large size and/or a reach weapon, as well as the possibility of 20-30% chances for critical strikes through "keen" weapons.... and various possibilities of using full-attack actions after charging or otherwise approaching one's opponent.
Well the issue with cleave and great cleave are by no means even worthy of taking any more. Cleave was, but not any more really.
|
|
There is no problem throwing a dart with 1D3 +20 damage... whatever its actual mass... (using the "power attack" equivalent for thrown weaponry ), and yes, I actually have seen a dart delivered with this damage in a balanced higher mid-level campaign.Just a note, they need the +20 to damage to get past the DR, which was always a major problem with ranged attacks as they never did enough damage in a single shot, and were often negated entirely in the higher level games.
Never mind the possibilities of mass-carnage offered through the Cleave and Great Cleave feats - especially in combination with large size and/or a reach weapon, as well as the possibility of 20-30% chances for critical strikes through "keen" weapons.... and various possibilities of using full-attack actions after charging or otherwise approaching one's opponent.Well the issue with cleave and great cleave are by no means even worthy of taking any more. Cleave was, but not any more really.
This is just patently false. Since 3.5 was written the rules for overcoming damage reduction ALWAYS have something that bypass it. There is a weapon property that lets it morph into any metal, and another that lets it carry any alignment property, and yet another that lets it morph into any type of damage from bludgeoning to slashing to piercing. That weapon is at a cost of no higher than +4 or so. You won't even run into really difficult to bypass DR until very high levels. At that point there are other options in play to bypass things.
What you want is a fighter that is unparalleled in damage dealing output, reliability, and better able to deal with large numbers of weak opponents than a wizard. Heck why don't you ask for healing powers and buffs as well? Then you could change the name of the class to "God" and just solo everything. You don't want a balanced feat. You want your melee character to be better than everyone else's characters. No worries there. I understand your position now and won't waste any more time trying to reason with you. I will however provide a link as a courtesy to a game that will be far more up your alley I think...
http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/index.xml
Now you can go and solo twink to your hearts content. Good gaming!!!
That being said - to say that "every fighter took power attack" as justification for it being too powerful is just ridiculous. It was taken primarily because it was the a) the best choice for a melee fighter, and b) it was the prereq for many other good feats.Saying this is like saying "All archers take Point Blank Shot - it must be too powerful."
Point Blank Shot wasn't broken (though it was pretty good).
Point Blank Shot was a prerequisite for Rappid Shot and Precise Shot, both of which were essentially must-have options. Rappid Shot, in particular, WAS clearly overpowered (Monte Cook has been quoted stating as such).
It's not just the absence of other options. Even after tons of non-core feats came out, Power Attack (for one-weapon melee, and Rappid Shot for ranged) was still omnipresent.
To clarify, I'm considering unconditional +2 to damage to be the upper end of power for feats (once upon a time, this was considered way too good and thus reserved for one class, but I'm pretty sure power creep has caught up with it).
Power Attack regularly granted that, plus much larger bonuses in certian situations.
I'm using "broken" as synonymous for "must have", here (as you said PA was- "the ((clear-cut)) best choice for a melee fighter" is prettymuch admitting that it's overpowered). Your definition may vary.
On another note, whether or not the fighter is better than the wizard is a 90-degree sidetrack. It has nothing to do with whether one combat feat used to be more powerful than the rest. I'm not complaining, sidetracks happen, but please don't confuse the two discussions.
First level wizards suck. That doesn't mean Magic Missile suddenly isn't broken as a 1st-level spell. It is.
|
I'm using "broken" as synonymous for "must have", here (as you said PA was- "the ((clear-cut)) best choice for a melee fighter" is prettymuch admitting that it's overpowered). Your definition may vary.
Our definitions definitely vary.
There are no other feats (in the PHB) for a fighter to take that is relevant to strength and doing damage.
A dextrous one may take two weapon fighting, or Dodge/Mobility/Spring Attack route. An intelligent one would probably take the Combat Expert and Imp Trip/Disarm route.
But a Strong fighter has no other choices for combat feats other than Power Attack at 1st level, and weapon focus for a little better attack roll.
PLUS - its the prereq for Cleave and Imp Bullrush/Sunder/Overrun.
If any of those feats were NOT in the PA tree - then PA may have been skipped over at 1st level in lieu of one of these other ones.
Feats are omnipresent because they fit the build that one is making. Rapid shot will always be present for someone who wants to be a bad-ass archer. You wont see many wizards take it - why? they aren't typically going to be archers. You wont see many take power attack either. Why? they aren't melee fighters. So those feats will be omnipresent for archers and melee fighter respectively; just as rogues will typically take weapon finesse. Its simply ideal to the character.
And even with 'non-core' feats, Power Attack was still vital to many of their prereqs - even divine feats like Divine Power; tactical feats like ShockTrooper and Combat Brute, and other fighter/barbarian type feats like Leap Attack.
I will agree that Power Attack induced much metagaming. I will agree that it was time consuming at times in the math it caused; I'll agree that there was too big of a disparity between single-handed and two-handed combatants; but I do not agree that the feat was broken simply because there was no other option as lucrative for the ideal of a damage dealing fighter. To say so is an unfair evaluation.
If I wanted to play a two-weapon fighter - whats the most ideal feat? Is two-weapon fighting then broken because it's the most lucrative feat for that build? If I wanted to play an archer, is Point Blank shot broken because it is the most ideal? If i wanted to play a character that disarmed, is improved disarm broken simply because its the best option for making someone disarm better?
Power Attack - aside from opening up lucrative feat chains, did what it was designed to do - help do more damage. Considering most people who took it were playing melee combatants wanting to do more damage - which is a large percentage of what fighters are meant to do - took that feat because it was the best at aiding THAT idea and build - no different that Two-Weapon Fighting was the best and ideal fit for someone who wielded two weapons.
It's ridiculous to think that someone who wants to do more damage should take Dodge as their first feat, someone who wanted to attack with two weapons well should start off with Alertness feat, and someone who wants to trip should start off with Skill Focus Basketweaving! You take the feat that makes the most sense for what you're trying to accomplish - to say a feat is broken because it does just that is unfair evaluation. Feats (and other aspects of D&D) may be broken - but not simply because it is the only choice for a particular style or build. Two Weapon Fighting Feat is THE only feat for wielding two weapons well. Power Attack is THE only feat at first level to allow you to do more damage with a melee weapon - AND it helped open the door for cool feats like Cleave.
Robert
|
|
IMO, charging attacks should even get the bonus for power attack anyway. They are a different sort of melee attack which relies on the charge, rather than any sort of weapon wielding strength on behalf of the attacker.
I'm thinking you meant to say should NOT even get the bonus....?
Meh....i can count the number of characters I have ever seen take spirited charge on the tip of my nose - and that was a halfling outrider.
Of course by some people's rationale since I haven't seen too many people take it, it isn't broken.
Robert
If any of those feats were NOT in the PA tree - then PA may have been skipped over at 1st level in lieu of one of these other ones.
I don't think so. I think they would have still taken it because it is a very good feat. I made the case above that the reason for it being such a common prereq. was that it was a no-brainer feat.
You make it sound like it was comparible to TWF or the Expertise tree, but I dind't see those builds nearly as often, and when I did they weren't nearly as effective unless the duel-wielder had sneak-attack or the Trip/disarm monkey had a constant influx of medium-sized humanoids to show off against.
Combat Expertise was a good feat, not a great feat. It was balanced; you took it if you wanted it (or anything further down the chain), and you didn't if you didn't. And you could do okay with TWF if you already had some great damage bonuses to multiply in with an extra attack; half the time, those came from SA, and the other half.. well, they came from Power Attack.
Most of the time in 3.5, if you want to play in melee, you put at least a 13 in strength and (once you have two points of BAB to rub together) take Power Attack, then weigh your options from there. That was my experience; yours may vary.
I don't think you can excuse it due to a lack of other options, though. There weren't a lot of options for increasing your melee offense, yea, but of those there were PA was the best one.
I've been thinking about this a bit, and really, the plus-two-or-three-point-something to average damage just isn't a huge issue. I don't mind it being used as intended. I think I like the change just because it feels so much cleaner and harder to abuse.
The ability to turn excess to-hit into raw damage virtually without limit is a huge loophole. People always blame the combos that result on the other party, on anyting that gives you a guaranteed hit, but those things would be balanced if we just tighten up Power Attack. What especially strikes me about the change is how self-balancing it is; the higher someone's strength score, the higher their average damage is ALREADY, and the more they stand to lose on a miss. PA loses its luster when you already deal a lot of damage; having the rewards also scale up with strength strikes me as very elegant.
I will agree that Power Attack induced much metagaming. I will agree that it was time consuming at times in the math it caused; I'll agree that there was too big of a disparity between single-handed and two-handed combatants; but I do not agree that the feat was broken simply because there was no other option as lucrative for the ideal of a damage dealing fighter. To say so is an unfair evaluation.
QFT
Meh....i can count the number of characters I have ever seen take spirited charge on the tip of my nose - and that was a halfling outrider.Of course by some people's rationale since I haven't seen too many people take it, it isn't broken.
Horses become a liability at mid levels. Even a paladin's mount can't always be counted on to survive the fight at higher levels.
Furthermore, charging requires you to give up a full attack, which again becomes a greater and greater drawback the higher your level (ride-by attack helps here, but only defensively). Any top-tier feat that requires you to bring a horse and give up your full attack needs to be awesome.
Spirited charge is broken, but (like the lance itself) only at low levels. And most people smart enough to twink are also smart enough to avoid power-now-pay-later (assuming the DM didn't just houserule the Ride rank requirement to around 9 or 10; I assumed that was a common houserule).
Popularity doesn't necessarially correlate to power. Monks are great, for example, but in my experience they haven't been played often because they're lawful and weird. However, the biggest and most common mistake of a game designer is to disregard what actual players actually do in actual games because it contradicts your reasoning.
If a lot of players are making the same choice there's usually a reason. Look for it.
Yay, first post on these boards.
I started playing D&D right when 3rd edition first came out, and I've never thought that Power Attack was overpowered in any campaign I've played in or DMed. I play in a campaign with Kilthing the Half-Orc Barbarian/Fighter, and I would think that if any character was capable of "breaking" Power Attack it would be him(I believe his STR is 34 when raging). Even Kilthing can't abuse Power Attack because of the BAB limitation, so I believe it's a well balanced feat.
Don't get me wrong, it's a very good feat. I like it because it's one of the few feats that scales as you level. The fact that everyone takes it doesn't mean that it's an overpowered feat. It merely means that there aren't many good melee feats and that a lot feats have it as a prerequisite.
Personally I wouldn't change it all from it's 3.5ed wording(except maybe to add a "You may not gain the benefits of Power Attack on any roll in which you need a natural 20 to hit" clause), so obviously I think the new Pathfinder version of it is horrible. If you feel it must "nerfed" some, just say that you can't take more than a -10 penalty with Power Attack no matter how high your BAB is and leave it at that.
The final thing people should keep in mind is that Pathfinder is supposed to be "D&D 3.75 edition," so to help with backwards compatibility the fewer changes made to 3.5 core feats the better in my opinion.
|
|
I think some people are ignoring those who have said "this isn't broken just because everyone takes it" - that's been said by a few people. It's broken because it causes such an uproar as this when it gets reined in to an appropriate power level for a 1st-level feat.
It should be static, as far as I'm concerned. It should be similar to Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization. Those are good to a point, then after a while the bonuses are less useful. Then you have Greater Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Specialization. And I'm sure somewhere there are splatbook feats which provide a third level of improvement on those. So... you spend 6 feats to get +3/+6 to hit/damage. Or you can take Power Attack - a single feat - and end up with something in a likely range from +6 (the maximum from those previous 6 feats) anywhere up to and beyond +40 to damage. Sure, you take a hit on your to-hit number, but it obviously doesn't matter in the cases its being used because if you miss you do 0. That's why there is always so much algebra being performed at the table to figure out the sweet spot.
So, comparing Power Attack to the *6* feats listed before it (the last of which you can't even get until you're a fairly high level and you have to be a fighter - the class dedicated to damage output almost exclusive of any other "talent")... do you really think it's a balanced feat?
Power attack raised damage and reduces attack bonus, that's something quite different to me than raising damage and attack bonus.
I like the idea to limit the amount for power attack to the strength modifier. Any damage-focused fighter or barbarian will most likely have a strength score of 18 to 22, so we're still talking about -5 to attack and +10 to damage, which doesn't seem too overpowered to me. On the other hand, lowering by -12 and adding damage of +24 is very powerfull, provided you attack something unarmored.
I think I'll add that limitation to my 3.5e houserules.
The final thing people should keep in mind is that Pathfinder is supposed to be "D&D 3.75 edition," so to help with backwards compatibility the fewer changes made to 3.5 core feats the better in my opinion.
Was. It's pretty obvious to me, that this plan hasn't been implemented.
I think some people are ignoring those who have said "this isn't broken just because everyone takes it" - that's been said by a few people. It's broken because it causes such an uproar as this when it gets reined in to an appropriate power level for a 1st-level feat.
It should be static, as far as I'm concerned. It should be similar to Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization. Those are good to a point, then after a while the bonuses are less useful. Then you have Greater Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Specialization. And I'm sure somewhere there are splatbook feats which provide a third level of improvement on those. So... you spend 6 feats to get +3/+6 to hit/damage. Or you can take Power Attack - a single feat - and end up with something in a likely range from +6 (the maximum from those previous 6 feats) anywhere up to and beyond +40 to damage. Sure, you take a hit on your to-hit number, but it obviously doesn't matter in the cases its being used because if you miss you do 0. That's why there is always so much algebra being performed at the table to figure out the sweet spot.
So, comparing Power Attack to the *6* feats listed before it (the last of which you can't even get until you're a fairly high level and you have to be a fighter - the class dedicated to damage output almost exclusive of any other "talent")... do you really think it's a balanced feat?
So your a spell caster that loves being in the main light, and look to debunk every good feat a melee type gets to keep it that way with the power downs they have received. Its soOo obvious now. [/being person]
But really, you see weapon focus and weapon specialization as being good feats? People almost never took that unless they were a two weapon fighting style fighter. Other than that no one ever really took it past weapon focus because they were such horrible feats. I do think power attack is a good feat, as your taking a -1 to hit and probably getting +2 to damage. Fair trade, but as stated before, I see that it was not with out its problems and thus why I suggested a 2nd teer feat improving it to more of its original maximum.
P.S. Also, if they like doubled the bonuses the weapon focus and specialization feats in the core book, maybe people might actually play a two weapon fighter.
|
|
I feel your pain on those power-attacking monsters, though. High HD means excess to-hit, and that one feat tends to make dragons, giants, and similar beasties a lot meaner than they would be without it.
I don't think the "problem" is power attack, though, it's monsters with a ton of hit die.
Or, one could see it as making them 'as mean as they ought to be'.
I played 'Against the Giants' back in the day, in First and Second Editions, and I recall the pitiful damage those creatures dealt, which just strained my disbelief. Even the increased HD in 2nd Ed failed to make much of a difference. I haven't played these specific scenarios in 3E, but if our experiences of giants in general remains true to form, then even a 3.5 update could still see a bunch of PCs run through with nary a scratch.
When a humanoid twice human height swings his weapon, then the increased volume and mass (of the giant and the weapon) should be in the region of (2*2*2)=8 times the damage dealt by a human of similar build. Yet if you were to pick up 16D6, you'd have a riot on your hands. So, they make the weapon do rather poor damage, and assume the creatures are ramping up the damage some other way, like Power Attack.
|
|
Power attack raised damage and reduces attack bonus, that's something quite different to me than raising damage and attack bonus.
I like the idea to limit the amount for power attack to the strength modifier. Any damage-focused fighter or barbarian will most likely have a strength score of 18 to 22, so we're still talking about -5 to attack and +10 to damage, which doesn't seem too overpowered to me. On the other hand, lowering by -12 and adding damage of +24 is very powerfull, provided you attack something unarmored.
I think I'll add that limitation to my 3.5e houserules.
You're right about one thing - the feat helps being balanced by the fact that you're sacrificing your ability to hit for the extra damage - it's not just 'free damage'.
Capping at 10, as village pointed out, does sound like pragmatic logic; in fact it was something I mentioned a while back.
Was. It's pretty obvious to me, that this plan hasn't been implemented.
The final thing people should keep in mind is that Pathfinder is supposed to be "D&D 3.75 edition," so to help with backwards compatibility the fewer changes made to 3.5 core feats the better in my opinion.
Just because Power Attack (or any other feat) is being altered/tweaked etc, doesn't mean it's not "backwards compatible."
I see this Backwards Compatible moniker thrown out here way too loosely and too often. People, the notion of Backwards Compatible doesn't mean you can't change the specifics of certain things; if I can pick up a 3.5 module and run it pretty much "as is" w/ pathfinder rules, then it's backwards compatible. Changing the Power Attack to allow a maximum so Str Mod, or +10 or whatever, doesn't change the module or encounter - just the math you do when you roll the dice.
Or slay-living being changed to do damage instead of instant death does not break compatibility. If the creature in the enounter of the mod has "Slay Living" as a spell - nothing has changed - except the way it's resolved once you use it. Changing Turning to do damage and healing your party - doesn't break the compatibility. It just changes the adjudication of the action at the time you use it.
Removing the spell system and replacing it with mana: That would break backwards compatibility. Removing Dwarves as a playable race. Changing hit points to represent fatigue points and you only get 5 per round to spend and get replenished each round..yada yada - or going back to old THAC0 system instead of AC higher is better: these break backwards compatibility - because when you pick up a module to run it - nothing works the same way anymore, and you have to change a lot of material. But adding an extra Smite Evil to Paladins, or changing cleave to work as a full round action doesn't change the module at all.
At this point - all we really need to change is for the purpose of NPC with PC classes - we have to add a few extra hit points, and some extra feats. And as for the skill system - heck it's even easier now as a DM to add PC classes to creatures when figuring out skills, or advancing a creature. Look - creature has 4 trained skills. These four are trained. This is his HD - so this is his bonus. No more math per level and point distribution. I've been playtesting as a DM - I have to see, I'm thrilled with the ease of which to add skills to creatures.
Robert
|
|
I played 'Against the Giants' back in the day, in First and Second Editions, and I recall the pitiful damage those creatures dealt, which just strained my disbelief. Even the increased HD in 2nd Ed failed to make much of a difference. I haven't played these specific scenarios in 3E, but if our experiences of giants in general remains true to form, then even a 3.5 update could still see a bunch of PCs run through with nary a scratch.
A good test for this concept using current rules would be Rise of the Rune Lords; don't remember which issue - but one of em has lots of giants.
Robert
|
|
The problem I have seen with the 3.5 Power Attack is not with pure warriors using it but the fighter-mage types. The combination of True Strike (free or swift action), Power Attack and Leaping Attack with a rapier should not make a dexterity based fighter-mage able to generate as much or more damage than a pure warrior using a two handed weapon. The TS/PA/LA combination allows the fighter-mage to dump all of their BAB into the PA/LA and with no loss of ability to hit or prehaps a gain to hit.
Doesn't that actually address how silly True Strike is?
Seriously, a first-level spell that grants +20 attack bonus?+20?
Plus.
Twenty.
Two.
Zero.
<deep breath>
<exhale>
The problem I have seen with the 3.5 Power Attack is not with pure warriors using it but the fighter-mage types. The combination of True Strike (free or swift action), Power Attack and Leaping Attack with a rapier should not make a dexterity based fighter-mage able to generate as much or more damage than a pure warrior using a two handed weapon. The TS/PA/LA combination allows the fighter-mage to dump all of their BAB into the PA/LA and with no loss of ability to hit or prehaps a gain to hit.Doesn't that actually address how silly True Strike is?
Seriously, a first-level spell that grants +20 attack bonus?
+20?
Plus.
Twenty.Two.
Zero.<deep breath>
<exhale>
Yes your problem with the mere 13 strength and a feat to do such a tactic does seem to be a fluff problem. The current feat alone might not be such a problem if they add a 2nd feat with a much higher strength as the requirement would get us the best of both worlds.
|
|
I'm really not too fussed what the cap is on the attack penalty; I simply dislike the all-or-nothing nature of the options. If you are a high-Str character, you either fight normally with a wasted attack bonus, or you make a cack-handed swing.
Very often, it's nice to just shave a -1, or -2, to gain an edge, especially when you are hitting reliably. Give it a nudge, and see how you do. Still hitting reliably? Nudge it to -3, or -4, see how that goes.
This is all part of the 'dance of death', or 'playing with your prey' in the case of a predator. And really, it's something that adds a degree of tactics to the melee types, and a touch of personality. Are you the type who assumes his opponents are inferior, goes in hard, and hopes for the quick kill, only to realise your error, when the enemy side-steps? Or do you treat your foes with grudging respect, and wear them down, with increasing damage, as you get them on the ropes?
Similarly with Expertise, if you don't know how good your opponent is, a cautious duellist may start at full defence, and if no blow comes near him, he'll adjust his stance.
It's also useful if you receive a buff to attack rolls; "Hey, guys, I've just blessed you for +1 to hit!".
"Cheers, I'll just convert it to damage".
Leave your attack bonuses alone, no recalculation needed.
If people are having trouble with the math, then the other players should help them, with a cheat-sheet, or they can simply have an on/off attack mode. I'm sympathetic to these players.
I'm not sympathetic at all to the ones who simply waste everyone's time trying to wheedle the DM into declaring an opponent's stats, so they can crack open their Excel Sheet Of Optimised Probability. If some people are holding up the game, with their indecision, then they should be declared to be delaying in-game, and suffer the consequences. Why should other players, who act in-character, and make decisions by the seat of their pants, living in the moment, have to suffer because of them?
|
|
If some people are holding up the game, with their indecision, then they should be declared to be delaying in-game, and suffer the consequences. Why should other players, who act in-character, and make decisions by the seat of their pants, living in the moment, have to suffer because of them?
For the record - that's what I do as DM. I give like a count of 5, if you aren't able to declare your action, or you have to look up the range of a spell, or look up the effectiveness of your grapple if you don't know your grapple check, then you are delaying until you are ready.
Robert
I think some people are ignoring those who have said "this isn't broken just because everyone takes it" - that's been said by a few people. It's broken because it causes such an uproar as this when it gets reined in to an appropriate power level for a 1st-level feat.
It should be static, as far as I'm concerned. It should be similar to Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization. Those are good to a point, then after a while the bonuses are less useful. Then you have Greater Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Specialization. And I'm sure somewhere there are splatbook feats which provide a third level of improvement on those. So... you spend 6 feats to get +3/+6 to hit/damage. Or you can take Power Attack - a single feat - and end up with something in a likely range from +6 (the maximum from those previous 6 feats) anywhere up to and beyond +40 to damage. Sure, you take a hit on your to-hit number, but it obviously doesn't matter in the cases its being used because if you miss you do 0. That's why there is always so much algebra being performed at the table to figure out the sweet spot.
So, comparing Power Attack to the *6* feats listed before it (the last of which you can't even get until you're a fairly high level and you have to be a fighter - the class dedicated to damage output almost exclusive of any other "talent")... do you really think it's a balanced feat?
It's more complicated than that.
Power Attack actually scales down with level. It requires you to take a penalty on your attack roll, and the higher your average damage, the less wise this becomes.
If your average damage is 10 per hit, then reducing your chances of hitting by 5% (-1) only decreases your average damage by .5.
Granted, this assumes you always hit. More frequently, if your chances of hitting are only 50/50, it decreases your average damage by 1, or 10% [5% is 10% of 50%. Still with me?].
In either case it's well worth +2 to damage.
However, if your average damage is more like 40, then taking a humble -1 to attack rolls is effectively reducing your average damage by 2-4 points. In return for +2 damage.
At this point, PA isn't even VIABLE (much less worth the feat you paid for it) unless your attack bonus exceeds their AC (meaning the penalty doesn't matter). The good news is, at the levels we're talking about here, that happens more often than you think, so PA still sees some use (it just becomes more specialized and less of an every-round thing).
But really, you see weapon focus and weapon specialization as being good feats? People almost never took that unless they were a two weapon fighting style fighter. Other than that no one ever really took it past weapon focus because they were such horrible feats.
. . .
What?
I feel your pain on those power-attacking monsters, though. High HD means excess to-hit, and that one feat tends to make dragons, giants, and similar beasties a lot meaner than they would be without it.
I don't think the "problem" is power attack, though, it's monsters with a ton of hit die.Or, one could see it as making them 'as mean as they ought to be'.
...
When a humanoid twice human height swings his weapon, then the increased volume and mass (of the giant and the weapon) should be in the region of (2*2*2)=8 times the damage dealt by a human of similar build. Yet if you were to pick up 16D6, you'd have a riot on your hands. So, they make the weapon do rather poor damage, and assume the creatures are ramping up the damage some other way, like Power Attack.
Point.
I don't agree with your math (if force directly equates to damage, then a 14 strength should deal twice as much as a 12 strength), but I have no problem with the idea of a 32 foot man with a club really being able to clobber you.
And Power Attack makes that happen, but it's an odd way of going about it. It would make sense for them to deal more damage (and have lower attack bonuses) innately.
Doesn't that actually address how silly True Strike is?
Seriously, a first-level spell that grants +20 attack bonus?
+20?
Plus.
Twenty.Two.
Zero.<deep breath>
<exhale>
Well, for a spell that makes a wizard or sorcerer (and no one else) more likely to hit with his or her next attack roll, but takes a standard action by default to cast on its own, what do you think a fair bonus would be?
20 seems about right to me.
I think it would work better to have a moderate attack bonus plus a per-level damage bonus (making it more useful without the cheese, and less useful with the cheese), but I'm not sure if that would be a good change to make at this point. True Strike is just such an iconic power.
Going back to Power Attack. Suppose we have something like or akin to the Alpha 3 version (not very flexible, rewards muscle) for tough guys, then have a "Canny Strike" feat for everyone else?
Canny Strike wouldn't represent brute strength, it would represent taking gambles and striking for weak spots, which in my experience is how a lot of fighters actually think of Power Attack. It would be just like 3.0 Power Attack, highly adjustable on a round-by-round basis, but with some reasonable cap (-5 or -10).
Part of what I like about the new PA is that it represents a brute-strength smash very well- you sacrefice your Str bonus to attacks and gain twice that to damage. But a lot of people like the old scalable-bonus/penalty dynamic a lot, and I can't blame them. It is a lot of fun, even if (I think) it represents deadly accuracy more than recklessness.
Is nobody concerned that these changes make this feats a Two handed Fighter strength maxed character only feat?
They're the only ones that benefit from it now. With these changes, a high INT fighter will be as likely to take Power Attack as a monk is to take rapid shot. It just doesn't make sense.
Sure, the INT fighter has combat expertise but just based on his stats his feat choices have been made for him? What was the point of feats? OPTIONS. UNIQUENESS. Now we're stripping this feat of its versatility and tossing it toward the barbarians.
Screw this, my wizard's taking mounted combat. :P
I hear you! I completely agree with you on this, but there were some issues that needed to be addressed. The meta gaming was an issues that could be fixed, and some don't think that a person with only 13 strength should have the full feat, however you are correct that this feat is too geared to barbarians. Also the feat was too powerful for a single dip.
Precisioned Power Attack
Your greater strength, abilities, and experience in combat has given you better control over dealing damage.
Prerequisite: Base Attack of +5, Strength of 17 (or 19), and Power Attack.
Benefit: From now on your power attack damage is not effected by your strength but purely on your base attack bonus. You also gain the ability to apply your power attack minus to hit, as well as bonus to damage in sets of 5; however you may still apply a full power attack if you so wish.
Normal: Normally you would be restricted to the lower of ether your strength or base attack bonus for power attack. You also could only apply your full bonus to attacks.
_________________________
So what do you think about this? This could also make for a good standing point to bring back the old cleave and great cleave.
|
|
So what do you think about this? This could also make for a good standing point to bring back the old cleave and great cleave.
For my money: if you're going to require two feats, as I said before, make the first feat a flat penalty (all the time) to your attacks, and a flat amount to damage. (-4 is a good start). And then an imp. version allowing up to 10 - at say prereq min BAB +8. (the person can choose which of the two to use at any one time).
In my mind, though the damage should be 1.5 for single handed weapon and dbl dmg for two-handed. -4 to attacks +6 to damge, (+8 for two-hander)
Imp Power Attk: -10 to attacks: +15 dmg / +20 two-hander.
The 2 hnd damage is no more than the old power attack would do if subtracting that much from the to-hit rolls. I've closed the gap on the two-styles of weapon by upping the single handed.
AND we haven't robbed the fighter from being able to do good damage, we've removed the variable math, we've removed the metagaming - it's either on or off - all or nothing, and we've allowed flat amount that affected everyone equaly - those with better ability to hit will still outshine in that both combatants are taking an equal amount off of the attack rolls - so statistically, the one with the better attack bonus will hit more often.
Robert
So what do you think about this? This could also make for a good standing point to bring back the old cleave and great cleave.
For my money: if you're going to require two feats, as I said before, make the first feat a flat penalty (all the time) to your attacks, and a flat amount to damage. (-4 is a good start). And then an imp. version allowing up to 10 - at say prereq min BAB +8. (the person can choose which of the two to use at any one time).
In my mind, though the damage should be 1.5 for single handed weapon and dbl dmg for two-handed. -4 to attacks +6 to damge, (+8 for two-hander)
Imp Power Attk: -10 to attacks: +15 dmg / +20 two-hander.
The 2 hnd damage is no more than the old power attack would do if subtracting that much from the to-hit rolls. I've closed the gap on the two-styles of weapon by upping the single handed.
AND we haven't robbed the fighter from being able to do good damage, we've removed the variable math, we've removed the metagaming - it's either on or off - all or nothing, and we've allowed flat amount that affected everyone equaly - those with better ability to hit will still outshine in that both combatants are taking an equal amount off of the attack rolls - so statistically, the one with the better attack bonus will hit more often.
Robert
As stated before the versatility factor has been abused by the meta gamers, having set to increments of 5s limits meta gaming a little. Plus a DM shouldn't be allowing this to a point. A good fighter can judge other melee fighter type's approx. average bonus to hit, so by observing them countless times in combat. So to combat the meta gaming in combat, maybe he should ask for a peace of paper with their bonus written down and ask them to just give them their total roll, the dice roll with other modifiers such as power attack etc. In our game this has never been all that much of a problem though. I am sorry but the all or nothing rules will mean you will never hit with this feat unless your a caster with true strike spell cast before hand, I am sorry, but I tried playing that before when I starting playing 3.5 to simplify things, YOU WILL NOT NOT HIT ANYTHING!!! That is unless you have shock trooper, and then unless you kill it, your dead after words.
However I agree with you. Power attack should be 1.5 for one handed weapons! That is a great idea. I tried playing a dual power attacker and I was pissed after we figured out that in the end I get the same amount if BOTH attacks hit at the minus 2 to attack, and I was like WTF am I getting all these feats for then? So I feel your pain. I will add this to the improved feat.
____________________________________
Precisioned Power Attack
Your greater strength, abilities, and experience in combat has given you better control over dealing damage.
Prerequisite: Base Attack of +5, Strength of 17 (or 19), and Power Attack.
Benefit: From now on your power attack damage is not effected by your strength but purely on your base attack bonus. You also gain the ability to apply your power attack minus to hit, as well as bonus to damage in sets of 5; however you may still apply a full power attack if you so wish. If you are wielding a one handed weapon you now gain 3 points of damage for ever -2 you take to hit (effectivly 1.5 value for your power attack, you must round down.)
Normal: Normally you would be restricted to the lower of ether your strength or base attack bonus for power attack. You also could only apply your full bonus to attacks.
____________________________________
Please help me with this language.
The big reason I don't want Power Attack to give a “flat” bonus is because it's basically the only feat that actually scales with level that a Fighter may take in 3.5ed. All the other classes either have spells or powerful class abilities(Rage, Smite Evil, Sneak Attack, etc) that scale with level in some way, but a Fighter's “class abilities” are feats and the somewhat underwhelming Armor/Weapon Training abilities.
It seems to me that the problem a lot of people have with Power Attack is the fact that it is so good for someone using a 2 handed weapon but requires so little of an investment. So why not split it into 2-3 feats? Not every melee Fighter would want or need all the Power Attack feats, and this way you could keep the feat compatible with it's 3.5 incarnation. This would allow easier compatibility with the many 3.5 non-core feats and class abilities that interact/work with Power Attack while still limiting it's overall power. Finally, this would give Fighters a somewhat unique ability to call their own.
Power Attack
On your action, before making attack rolls for the round, you may choose to subtract a number from all melee attack rolls and add the same number to all melee damage rolls. This number may not exceed your base attack bonus or 10. This penalty on attacks and bonus to damage apply until your next turn
Improved Power Attack
Prerequisites: Power Attack, Base Attack Bonus 10+
You may now choose to subtract a number from all melee attack rolls up to your base attack bonus or 20, whichever is lower.
Hewing Blow
Prerequisites: Power Attack, Weapon Specialization
As a standard action if you attack with a weapon wielded in two hands that you have Weapon Specialization in, you may choose to subtract a number from all melee attack rolls and add twice the number subtracted from your attack rolls to all melee damage rolls. This number may not exceed your base attack bonus or 10. This penalty on attacks and bonus to damage apply until your next turn.
Special: This ability may also be used with a non-mounted Charge.
What do you all think? The math and metagaming are still minor problems, but those are things that a DM should be able to find a way of dealing with appropriately for his particular group.
|
|
So your a spell caster that loves being in the main light, and look to debunk every good feat a melee type gets to keep it that way with the power downs they have received. Its soOo obvious now. [/being person]
see I can do it too
Yes, if only it actually had something to do with the post to which you were replying. ;)
Power Downs? have you finished reading the alpha document, or did you just flip to the feats section and read Power Attack, then were so incensed that you had to come here and try to unfix it? What else do you consider a power-down for fighting classes, instead of a power-up (which seems to be *everything* else except Power Attack)?
And in actuality, I end up playing a fighting class more than anything. I have only played one wizard in the entire time 3.0 - 3.5 has existed (because I hate spell slots... we modified it to use spell points and that I can deal with... so house rule made a wizard worth playing for me), and I have played a cleric once, and a sorcerer once. My other dozens of characters have all been non-casters (oh, I played a druid once, very briefly). HOWEVER, I have DM'd for a not insignificant amount of time and I see the troubles that casters have, and how their very few powerful abilities are almost always cut in half or negated. Power Attack always works, no matter what. You might miss, but then you get to spend another 10 minutes with the abacus to try to better balance your to-hit penalty with your maximum damage output with a 52.8% chance to hit 2 or more times in a round as long as someone helps to flank and .... etc.
But really, you see weapon focus and weapon specialization as being good feats? People almost never took that unless they were a two weapon fighting style fighter. Other than that no one ever really took it past weapon focus because they were such horrible feats. I do think power attack is a good feat, as your taking a -1 to hit and probably getting +2 to damage. Fair trade, but as stated before, I see that it was not with out its problems and thus why I suggested a 2nd teer feat improving it to more of its original maximum.
P.S. Also, if they like doubled the bonuses the weapon focus and specialization feats in the core book, maybe people might actually play a two weapon fighter.
Wow... alright, that clears things up. You and I play in totally different universes. :) I think this *also* shows you how non-balanced Power Attack is. The only thing that makes a two-handed weapon fighting class worth playing is Power Attack (I've seen that sentiment in many, many places... and I think it bears itself out to be true if you peruse the CO boards). And that only since 3.5 adjusted it for double damage. I see *way* more two-weapon fighters than I do two-handed-weapon fighters, and I think, in the absence of Power Attack, that would be the most potent fighter around. So a two-handed-weapon optimized fighting class *needs* Power Attack (3.5 edition) in order to actually be considered optimised. Don't you think that, in itself, points to the brokenness of the feat?
|
|
The problem I have seen with the 3.5 Power Attack is not with pure warriors using it but the fighter-mage types. The combination of True Strike (free or swift action), Power Attack and Leaping Attack with a rapier should not make a dexterity based fighter-mage able to generate as much or more damage than a pure warrior using a two handed weapon. The TS/PA/LA combination allows the fighter-mage to dump all of their BAB into the PA/LA and with no loss of ability to hit or prehaps a gain to hit.
Doesn't that actually address how silly True Strike is?
Seriously, a first-level spell that grants +20 attack bonus?
+20?
Plus.
Twenty.Two.
Zero.<deep breath>
<exhale>
Heheh. Yep, it's a big bonus. Basically it's a spell that takes away your actions for the round you are casting, and the next round you get one attack with +20. Not a full round of attacks, just one attack. I seriously doubt (and I'm not going to bother doing the math, but in my brain it's telling me this) that over the course of 5 or 6 rounds it's worth wasting a round to cast True Strike just so you can use Power Attack, on a SINGLE ATTACK at +20 (you can finish your full attack, but no other attacks benefit from the +20), the next round.
I'm not sure where Doug got that True Strike is a free or swift action. Perhaps I missed it somewhere, though. The PHB 3.5 lists it as a 1 Standard Action casting time. If you're going to cast it quickened, making it a 5th level spell, then this really is a silly use of time and effort (not to mention needing to be a 9th level wizard, 10th level sorcerer to do it) unless the +20 is absolutely needed to even hit - in which case the combination of feats isn't going to work anyway....
|
|
And in actuality, I end up playing a fighting class more than anything. I have only played one wizard in the entire time 3.0 - 3.5 has existed (because I hate spell slots... we modified it to use spell points and that I can deal with... so house rule made a wizard worth playing for me),
Hey, marc - 2 questions: 1) Are you the same Marc Bower that I see post frequently on the D&D Contacts Yahoo Messagegroup? 2) would you mind sharing with me your system of spell energy that your DM uses? I, too, have been using a spell energy system for many years now - and has bee playtested quite extensively. It seems to be quite balanced and fair, and everyone likes it; but I'm always interested in seeing anothers' take on the concept and how they do it. You can email me: SirKicley(at)yahoo(dot)com. I'd be happy to swap and share my mechanics with you as well of course for a different perspective if you're interested.
And that only since 3.5 adjusted it for double damage. I see *way* more two-weapon fighters than I do two-handed-weapon fighters, and I think, in the absence of Power Attack, that would be the most potent fighter around. So a two-handed-weapon optimized fighting class *needs* Power Attack (3.5 edition) in order to actually be considered optimised. Don't you think that, in itself, points to the brokenness of the feat?
Well, it could be evidence that the two-weapon fighter is broken. Or it could be evidence that the two-handed fighter is broken if it NEEDS a particular feat in order to be viable in comparison.
I don't think the feat is broken - I think that people find ways to break it when combining it with a lot of other aspects of the game. DMs allwoing more and more splat books are opening themselves up for more and more frustration - that is the sad unfortunate truth. The further you move away from the core released original rules, the more and more broken things become - because the original rules as written were not done so with the precongnizance of how exactly anything that hadn't been written yet would coexist with it. Thus you wind up with Book of Nine Swords, Magic Incarnum, and the Factotum class. They aren't broken or unbalanced in and of themselves - but when trying to insert them into an otherwise standard game an system, suddenly the balance and powercurve goes haywire.
That all being said - although I dont think that Power Attack in and of itself is broken, I do think that as written in the Players Handbook, players find way to break it, abuse it, and certainly meta-game with it, a whole lot more than other feats.
I agree on Hexen on only one account - in that without the power-up of power attack, it does make 2-hander style far less viable since you're already sacrificing the use of shield and AC - and simply makes the two-weapon wielder the better option as you pointed out.
I like what Paizo did with PA - specifically because it removes the meta-gaming, and in playtesting, it has sped up individual actions since it removed the variable math.
Robert