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 tooYes, 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....You know you can point and poke and prod all you want, but even the pure fighters that I have seen played never took those feats to be in favor of others. Now as the the weapon focus, yeah that should be +1 sense anyone can take it, but other than that, they really should have doubled the core book bonuses, it would have never had broke the game, and make fighters a little more playable, and playable with two weapon fighting.
This discussion is getting a bit emotional. Just keep calm, you can´t force your opinion on the developers anyway.
To add a little bit to the discussion.
First, it is true that melee characters with power attack ( and probable upgrades like spring attack ) have the ability to dish out huge amounts of damage if the conditions are right. It is also true that these numbers exceed the single target damage potential of most unoptimized casters.
What you have to consider is this:
Melee classes have to deal with lots of unfavorable circumstances: Damage reduction was mentioned before and though there are ways to overcome them. nobody guarantees you that you can. This is one of the major examples of the necessity of power attack. The only way for a melee charakter to punch through 10 or 20 points of DR. But theres more. Flying creatures, unfavorable terrain, spells and effects that give a flat miss chance, quick enemies and so on. The list is nearly endless.
The casters on the other hand tend to have the all the tools they need to hit an enemys weak spot build in their class. They can pick the save they want to target. Melee characters can´t circumvent the AC. And to those who state that there are alway creatures who make the save: so what, your spell is seldom wasted. You just dont deal as much damage. A miss with a melee weapon is a miss. If a crature has resistances they simply can choose another element to harm it with. there are practicaly only 2 things that screw up casters really bad. SR and antimagic fields, both of them very uncommon. Last but not least: being in melee means being the first in line for the beating. ANd some mosters are just to dangerous to stay in reach so you can full attack every round.
Long story short: power attack like it uesed to be was the only method of melee characters to inflict enough damage with single attack when this strike has to count. And if your DM likes monsters with a lot of special abilitys this situation occurs pretty often. All the while the caster can strike from a safe position and doesent have to cope with most of the problems listed above.
But thats just my take on things. Be it as it may it ist no reason to leap at each others throat, whatever the final outcome you can always houserule it without any problems
Cheers
Jassin
Edit: Sorry for all the mistakes and bad spelling, english is not my native language.
In my experience I've never played with /anyone/ who uses power-attack the way that it was supposedly used to slow down play: That is, with probability calculations and spread-sheets.
I /liked/ power attack the way it was.
Everyone I've ever played with generally just used it as a method to A. Take a small penalty of 1-2 to hit with a two-hander to gain 2-4 extra damage against foes like goblins orcs or kobolds so they could cleave.
B. Take a larger penalty to beat damage reduction.
That's it, I've never, ever seen optimum damage output per round calculations and if anyone ever did that I'd kick them from my table.
|
To add a little bit to the discussion.
Cheers
JassinEdit: Sorry for all the mistakes and bad spelling, english is not my native language.
Well, English may not be your native language - but I believe your post was one of the most succinctly made points this thread has offered.
Well said, Jassin.
Robert
|
Hey, marc - 2 questions: 1) Are you the same Marc Bower that I see post frequently on the D&D Contacts Yahoo Messagegroup?
Yup :)
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.
Just sent it to you. I'd be interested in seeing what you do as well, since I think the one my group uses is too powerful for general consumption (as noted in my email to you).
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.
Good point... except that it's a single feat for the two-handed-weapon fighter. It's a feat tree that continues on requiring more and more feats (and an ever-increasing Dex stat requirement) in order to get the full advantage of using two weapons. If Power Attack were split into half a dozen feats that all had to be taken along the way, and scaled into each other, then sure I could see that being equivalent then.
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
Definitely agree there, about trying to balance core against the power creep that splat books tend to represent. I honestly don't even consider ToB in the group of 3.5 books because it added so much that was non-standard and they didn't even *try* to balance it against core - it was a 4e playtest, Rich Baker said as much.
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.
Agreed, if you're only using core material then perhaps Power Attack wouldn't stand out as something that needs fixing so much - I still think that it is far too useful for a single feat, though, when compared with similar feats.
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.
I have to admit, even though I've said that I like the static, and that's what I think it should be, I only think this because of the constant complaints I hear about the metagaming and time it takes at the table to figure this stuff out. In my group, we haven't had that problem as it tends to be a "hm... I wonder what this thing's AC is... ah well, I'll power attack for 5 (or 2, or 8, or whatever) and find out, so I can adjust if needed." Takes a couple of seconds of assessing the beastie and then that amount gets tweaked each round. However, I can definitely see that getting taken to extremes and really slowing down the game and requiring drawing a lot of information out of the DM that the players really shouldn't have until they've figured it out for themselves (ie. "OK, 32 hits... it's AC is 32 or less... [round 2] Ooo... 22 missed... so it's somewhere between 23 and 32..." etc). This, while being pure metagame knowledge, could easily be seen to mirror the character learning the strengths and weaknesses in the creature's defences as the battle is carried out.
|
|
You know you can point and poke and prod all you want, but even the pure fighters that I have seen played never took those feats to be in favor of others. Now as the the weapon focus, yeah that should be +1 sense anyone can take it, but other than that, they really should have doubled the core book bonuses, it would have never had broke the game, and make fighters a little more playable, and playable with two weapon fighting.
I am sorry, I did get a bit carried away with my bewilderment at your statements. However, I think that there are others here who read your assessment of the utility of Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization and said "What?" (verbatim, actually).
The idea that we game in two different universes isn't an insult - it's becoming a clear matter of fact. You have much different experiences than I seem to have had with playing D&D - and that's fine, but I think it's time to recognize that and determine maybe who has experienced a more typical set of occurrences. I don't know if I'm out-to-lunch or something, but what you describe as having seen in your experience tends to be quite different from my own experience. That could be the basis for our clear disagreement on the issue of Power Attack.
Suffice to say that I don't have a problem with the Pathfinder PA. You do. That's cool. No matter which one makes it into the rules, one of us can eventually house-rule it to be whatever we want. However, I think it's safer for them to err on the weaker side of balance and let people ignore it and use the 3.5 version if they want to than to not touch a feat that has drawn some criticism in the past.
This is one of those instances (one of many dozens) where it would be nice to have Jason pop in and actually explain what he's thinking about with adjusting Power Attack. It could be that there is a core philosophical disagreement between those who like the 3.5 power attack and what Jason wants and has planned for Pathfinder. If that's the case, everyone could just accept it and move on, knowing that they either need or don't need a house rule once the beta (and final) rules appear.
However, Ineptus, I really am interested in what you think are the "power-downs" for fighting classes in Pathfinder. Perhaps if I understood some of what else you're seeing (I haven't playtested other than the core fighter with Pathfinder rules yet) I would better understand your thoughts as they relate to Power Attack.
[feat writeups]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.
Two-handed weapon users will never take any of them.
Like I explained earlier, the more damage you deal, the worse power attack is. If it's 1-for-1 then a gnome with a dagger would love power attack, but few real fighters would want to use it after they crunched the numbers, and someone who's already dealing 2d6+10 is just shooting themselves in the face.
For these reasons, 3.5 powerattack may scale, but it doesn't actually get better. It actually gets weaker and weaker as you go (but makes up for it as to-hit-overkill starts happening more often, particularly for characters who give up iteratives).
Having a second feat to go above 10 is a nice idea, but for the "honest" users it isn't worth the feat (just how often to you need to power attack for more than 10, anyway?), and for the cheesebringers it isn't enough of a deterent.
It's a tangent, but as for weapon/armor training, well.. I can't agree that they're underwhelming. Each is better than a feat, and he gets one or the other at every odd level (to go with his bonus feat at even levels).
The power of the fighter class just doubled.
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).
The advantage of two-handed-weapon use is that it doesn't take any feats to get into. All you need is an ax and a strength score. If you have something else worthwhile to spend those feats on you're in business. The problem is that there are so few options in core.
Two-handed weapon use is pretty popular in, say, Iron Heroes (which gives warrior-types a lot more options, seeing as they're the only ones around. Someone with a two-handed weapon has their damage output already set and paid for and is then free to spend their feats in a variaty of nasty ways).
It should also be noted that any ability which grants a free attack is nearly twice as powerful for a two-handed weapon wielder as for a deul wielder. TWF already has a lot of attacks and wants to maximize the damage per attack; THW already has a lot of damage per attack and wants to maximize the number of attacks made. 3.5 Cleave, for example, was most effective coupled with a greatsword. Likewise, damage multipliers (Power Crit) or "make one attack" abilities (Whirlwind) are best for two-handed weapon users, because they keep all their eggs in one basket so to speak.
And one thing I've noticed in Alpha 3 is that there are a lot of ways to get a free attack.
I'm not sure where Doug got that True Strike is a free or swift action. Perhaps I missed it somewhere, though.
He's quickening it.
If you're a high-level mage/fighter, or even just a high-level mage who likes rays, there are certianly worse things you could do with a 5th level spell slot.It's also worth noting that True Strike is a good spell to cast (possibly silenced) the round before combat begins.
This discussion is getting a bit emotional. Just keep calm, you can´t force your opinion on the developers anyway.
Signed.
Long story short: power attack like it uesed to be was the only method of melee characters to inflict enough damage with single attack when this strike has to count. And if your DM likes monsters with a lot of special abilitys this situation occurs pretty often. All the while the caster can strike from a safe position and doesent have to cope with most of the problems listed above.
Tangent, but that fighters draw fire is not a class disadvantage. If they weren't being attacked someone else would be, probably someone less equiped to take the heat. An oft-ignored disadvantage of playing a caster is that your character simply does not function when under fire; your spells fizzle. Casters NEED meatshields or they can't do their thing
Back on topic, check out the Alpha3 feat section. There's a feat that lets you auto-crit as a full round action; if you want a haymaker, you've got it.
I think we can agree that 3.5 warrior-types get the short end of the stick, but giving them one great feat is a horrible way to compensate for that. Fighters should be able to take whatever feats suit their build and use whatever build suits their playstyle, while still being awesome.
Ideally, this will be the case in Pathfinder, as we have a lot more core fighter-oriented feats than we used to and a ton of power built right into the class. Maybe this won't be enough to bridge the gap, but if not, you can't say it wasn't a worthy effort.
.....This is one of those instances (one of many dozens) where it would be nice to have Jason pop in and actually explain what he's thinking about with adjusting Power Attack. It could be that there is a core philosophical disagreement between those who like the 3.5 power attack and what Jason wants and has planned for Pathfinder. If that's the case, everyone could just accept it and move on, knowing that they either need or don't need a house rule once the beta (and final) rules appear.
Agreed here.
However, Ineptus, I really am interested in what you think are the "power-downs" for fighting classes in Pathfinder. Perhaps if I understood some of what else you're seeing (I haven't playtested other than the core fighter with Pathfinder rules yet) I would better understand your thoughts as they relate to Power Attack.
OK, but I will have to get back to you on that tomorrow though.
|
|
A feat that lets you take a -5 to attack and allows you to add +5 to damage is fine, but having an improved version that allows you to do 10, and another for 15, that's silly.
Every time a feat provides the same benefit as a feat you have already taken, it is poor design. Even in Pathfinder, Feats are precious. If a feat doesn't give you a 'new trick' or expand your options in some way, it is a poor feat. If that feat has a tough pre-req, that's fine.
Non-core, but take Prone Fighting for example. The feat is a great feat. It gives you a new ability if you take it, and it isn't like any other ability you can get without a feat (though it is similar to a skill trick). It requires Lightning Reflexes, which isn't such a good feat (simple mechanical bonus can be important, but isn't fun).
I think that Prone Fighting is a good example of what a feat should do. It should give you a brand new option. If a feat builds off of another feat, it shouldn't just do the same thing.
For an example of a feat that I think fails utterly, consider two-weapon fighting and improved two-weapon fighting. ITWF doesn't give the character a new ability. While the first feat in the chain gives an extra attack, the second feat gives a 2nd attack with a -5 penalty, making it and each subsequent feat progressively worse. Doing that with Power Attack would be horrible.
I don't have a problem with power attack at all. It is a gamble you take. I really want to hit this thing hard, do I feel lucky...punk. If you don't like it use overhand chop or something... I have been reading about how itisunderpowered because a mages attack can do more damage. Yup true...unless the fighter takes devastating blow or one of the many similar feats and guarantees a critical if he hits. Also a fighter doesn't need to worry about concentration or dispell magic or silence 15 radius. The fighter will usually have more than one trick he can pull out of his bag as well. Tactical situations often limit a mage as well.
By this I mean your party is dungeon crawling...ambush! The fighter charges (thanks to improved initiative another feat that "everyone has" because it is so useful). Now the mage can't use area effect spells because his party is in there and struggles because he doesn't want to hit the fighters. At low levels he fires off his magic missile and hopes the fighter can finish off the job when he runs out of spells.
I think a lot of people are ignoring the flexibility that alot of feats can give you.
At the end of the day I think people should be enjoying playing their character and put the maths aside. If you are unhappy with what has beendone to your favourite character class don't play it..
|
By itself, Power Attack is not broken. A lot of what makes it broken isn't core (wraithstrike, leap attack, frenzied berserkers...), but at least one of the key abuses of power attack is, two-handed lance attacks while charging. I'd like to see either power attack or spirited charge reigned in (heehee) in PF RPG.Even with leap attack it still was not as powerful as spells. In the end, unless you get some crazy reach I don't think power attack with all the addition feats is not as powerful as spells. Now as to the frenzy berserker... I have yet to be in a game that is allowed for more than 2 game sessions... so I don't think about them.
Melee attacks should not be as powerful as spells. They are "free," and they don't have to be prepared. They don't provoke AoO's, and you don't have to worry about concentrating on them. Further, spells are finite. If your goal is to make every axe swing a meteor swarm ... well, I'm sure you can see the problem.
Melee attacks should not be as powerful as spells. They are "free," and they don't have to be prepared. They don't provoke AoO's, and you don't have to worry about concentrating on them. Further, spells are finite. If your goal is to make every axe swing a meteor swarm ... well, I'm sure you can see the problem.By itself, Power Attack is not broken. A lot of what makes it broken isn't core (wraithstrike, leap attack, frenzied berserkers...), but at least one of the key abuses of power attack is, two-handed lance attacks while charging. I'd like to see either power attack or spirited charge reigned in (heehee) in PF RPG.Even with leap attack it still was not as powerful as spells. In the end, unless you get some crazy reach I don't think power attack with all the addition feats is not as powerful as spells. Now as to the frenzy berserker... I have yet to be in a game that is allowed for more than 2 game sessions... so I don't think about them.
I have to disagree, melee attacks should be more powerful so long as they pertain to 1 attack. While it is your opinion to the contrary, it is mine that melee is supposed to out damage anyone else. They don't have the utility (which seems to be highly underrated), area effect, and powerful (such as limited wish, and wish). A spell can be made to do about anything a melee type feat can do, even in mass area effects. Even if they can out damage a spell caster on a single target, GOOD, that gives them a role, because it can not compare to spells which can swiftly end a fight.
I have to disagree, melee attacks should be more powerful so long as they pertain to 1 attack. While it is your opinion to the contrary, it is mine that melee is supposed to out damage anyone else. They don't have the utility (which seems to be highly underrated), area effect, and powerful (such as limited wish, and wish). A spell can be made to do about anything a melee type feat can do, even in mass area effects. Even if they can out damage a spell caster on a single target, GOOD, that gives them a role, because it can not compare to spells which can swiftly end a fight.
I see why you're championing power attack. PA-dependant combos produced damage levels which we considered broken but you consider adequate.
As you can tell, I disagree. I won't waste much time trying to convince you. Suffice to say, the fighter has some of the best inherent defenses in the game (the monk is his equal (albet in different ways) and the paladin is the most rugged dude around with the melee toughness of one and the immunities of the other), while the wizard has the worst. His attack spells have to be the best offense in the game. And, for when his attack spells don't work (or the character wants to play a different niche), his other spells have to be just as good at shutting down enemies. With a wizard's flexability, the fighter's offense can be just as good in select circumstances, but it can't be better.
I say that I won't waste too much time on that arguement, though, because the fighter looks like it might be your favorite class.
And arguements on those terms aren't winnable. I've seen them play out many, many times.
I have to disagree, melee attacks should be more powerful so long as they pertain to 1 attack. While it is your opinion to the contrary, it is mine that melee is supposed to out damage anyone else. They don't have the utility (which seems to be highly underrated), area effect, and powerful (such as limited wish, and wish). A spell can be made to do about anything a melee type feat can do, even in mass area effects. Even if they can out damage a spell caster on a single target, GOOD, that gives them a role, because it can not compare to spells which can swiftly end a fight.I see why you're championing power attack. PA-dependant combos produced damage levels which we considered broken but you consider adequate.
As you can tell, I disagree. I won't waste much time trying to convince you. Suffice to say, the fighter has some of the best inherent defenses in the game (the monk is his equal (albet in different ways) and the paladin is the most rugged dude around with the melee toughness of one and the immunities of the other), while the wizard has the worst. His attack spells have to be the best offense in the game. And, for when his attack spells don't work (or the character wants to play a different niche), his other spells have to be just as good at shutting down enemies. With a wizard's flexability, the fighter's offense can be just as good in select circumstances, but it can't be better.
I say that I won't waste too much time on that arguement, though, because the fighter looks like it might be your favorite class.
And arguements on those terms aren't winnable. I've seen them play out many, many times.
OK, however a monk, or any class that takes a 1 level dip into monk, such as a cleric can get a much higher AC when compared to a fighter with enough money, even in PDnD.
Power Attack was broken? What? Huh? Why wasn't I informed, where was the memo? SIMMONS!!!!!!
*ahem* I, as a DM never saw Power Attack as being over powered. Even for a Scythe wielder with improved crit and keen. This made for one hell of a scary priest of Kelemvor in one of my Realms games and the guy only occasionally used buff spells. Hell, at higher levels Fighters need all the help they can get to keep up with spell casters, not even higher levels but more mid level situations as well.
However I, as a DM, never found the 3.0 Spell Focus and Improved Spell Focus feat to be over powered, especially at higher levels where enemies and monsters could sneeze and make saving throws for things you were only thinking about casting at them. If anything I think the trade off of not having a shield balances out the two handed version as well. Limiting it to +5 is nice too.
My 2cp... keep it as it was in 3.5, if it ain't broke...
well, depends on what you consider broke. As mentioned above I've disagreed with that definition numerous times.
Other thoughts....
I'm probably regurgitating other comments from these boards but I liked the flexibility of Power Attack and the fact that it was limited to a +5 bonus which seemed more than acceptable. The all-or-nothing mentality of the feat seems more like a step backwards in the fun department for me forcing one to take such a penalty rather than scaling it to whatever they feel is better. Power attack has never slowed my game down, especially not as much as spellcasters trying to pick a spell for their action has, and the most damage one can get from it (without a feat modifying that) is 7 points with 1 1/2 x str mod for a two handed wielder. Even with Improved Power attack boosting that to +10 never seemed overly powerful to me. Tack on a prereq like BaB +8 and you're set.
I'd love to see Jason Bulmahns response to this but I can't seem to find a Power Attack thread where he's commented on the issue. Anyone know of any or did I just mis it?
|
I have to disagree, melee attacks should be more powerful so long as they pertain to 1 attack. While it is your opinion to the contrary, it is mine that melee is supposed to out damage anyone else. They don't have the utility (which seems to be highly underrated), area effect, and powerful (such as limited wish, and wish). A spell can be made to do about anything a melee type feat can do, even in mass area effects. Even if they can out damage a spell caster on a single target, GOOD, that gives them a role, because it can not compare to spells which can swiftly end a fight.Melee attacks should not be as powerful as spells. They are "free," and they don't have to be prepared. They don't provoke AoO's, and you don't have to worry about concentrating on them. Further, spells are finite. If your goal is to make every axe swing a meteor swarm ... well, I'm sure you can see the problem.By itself, Power Attack is not broken. A lot of what makes it broken isn't core (wraithstrike, leap attack, frenzied berserkers...), but at least one of the key abuses of power attack is, two-handed lance attacks while charging. I'd like to see either power attack or spirited charge reigned in (heehee) in PF RPG.Even with leap attack it still was not as powerful as spells. In the end, unless you get some crazy reach I don't think power attack with all the addition feats is not as powerful as spells. Now as to the frenzy berserker... I have yet to be in a game that is allowed for more than 2 game sessions... so I don't think about them.
The fighters attacks have to be MORE powerful than the Wizards spells????? How does that make any sense. The fighters attacks are more reliable, inexpendable, and only reducable by DR. Wizard spells must bypass SR, saving throws, immunities, resistances, and on and on. So you are advocating giving a fighter an attack that is stronger than any given offensive Wizard spell at any given level, letting him use it over and over again, and on top of it all having his feats work better at what they do than the Wizards? How do these suggestions make any sense? Even if a Wizard does everything they can to max the save DC of their spells, at high levels saving throws are almost automatic for virtually every creature with a high CR.
It sounds like you want the fighter to be the best character in the game. That makes it hard to see your suggestions as ideas on how to balance the fighter with everything else. It sounds more like you want the fighter to be better than everything else, and the Wizard is your personal pet peeve in that regard. Did some player lightning bolt an Ogre you were about to kill once with your sword?
If you look at 4e, they have envisioned a role for the fighter very similar to what you suggest. They are the kings of damage output. Why a sword should do as much damage as a 80 ft diameter gout of fire makes no sense to me, but it does seem to be what you want in PFRPG. I suggest looking at 4e as it seems to envision a role for the fighter like what you want. I just don't see PFRPG making the fighter that much better than every other class. Fighter in 3P has recieved among the most power ups of any class. The only thing resembling a nerf is the change to Power Attack, which isn't really that much worse than it was before. They simply are not going to make the fighters attacks stronger than comparable spells because spells are an expended resource. Fighter attacks aren't. I'm sure you can house rule things into what you want them to be, but the degree of power you want for the fighter sounds like you want your favorite class to outshine everything else. That isn't the goal of Pathfinder RPG.
The fighters attacks have to be MORE powerful than the Wizards spells????? How does that make any sense. The fighters attacks are more reliable, inexpendable, and only reducable by DR. Wizard spells must bypass SR, saving throws, immunities, resistances, and on and on. So you are advocating giving a fighter an attack that is stronger than any given offensive Wizard spell at any given level, letting him use it over and over again, and on top of it all having his feats work better at what they do than the Wizards? How do these suggestions make any sense? Even if a Wizard does everything they can to max the save DC of their spells, at high levels saving throws are almost automatic for virtually every creature with a high CR.
DR, Displacement, Cover, Ethereal, I am sure there are more. With power attack as it was in the PHB that was a total at level 20 of 40 points of damage per hit with a -20 to each attack. Which was not all that great, especially if each attack you made after the first got an accumulative -5 to hit. You throw in other feats from splat books and you got what you paid for. You usually had to charge, restricting to one attack, two at most with out being broken, but you still took the minus to hit, but with a +2 to hit and -2 to AC. So you basically traded all your attacks and met the special movement requirements, which you couldn't always perform or perform safely and you got a better ratio for damage. Now don't get me wrong, I do agree with you that melee types have been given too much power in splat books and need to be eliminated or nerfed! Pounce for barbarians just makes thing no longer fun for anyone, as well as the massive damage bonus from frenzy berserker. These are game breaking, but to make power attack take the hit for these bad moves just seems unjustified.
It sounds like you want the fighter to be the best character in the game. That makes it hard to see your suggestions as ideas on how to balance the fighter with everything else. It sounds more like you want the fighter to be better than everything else, and the Wizard is your personal pet peeve in that regard. Did some player lightning bolt an Ogre you were about to kill once with your sword?
No I don't want the melee types to be the best, just have the best options for doing the most damage to a single target after they take at least 3 or 4 feats in a tree. Again, I think it is a very distinct role on damage should be applied here, Melee types should work the best on single targets, casters mass targets, its just that simple. A caster, such as an arch mage, could easily out damage any single melee fighter with a single area effect spell doing total damage 4 times over the total damage of a melee fighter. I have no problem with casters, it is just that it has been clear sense the fist splat book that the roles for melee types was to do massive damage to a single target, and casters to multiple.
If you look at 4e, they have envisioned a role for the fighter very similar to what you suggest. They are the kings of damage output. Why a sword should do as much damage as a 80 ft diameter gout of fire makes no sense to me, but it does seem to be what you want in PFRPG. I suggest looking at 4e as it seems to envision a role for the fighter like what you want. I just don't see PFRPG making the fighter that much better than every other class. Fighter in 3P has recieved among the most power ups of any class. The only thing resembling a nerf is the change to Power Attack, which isn't really that much worse than it was before. They simply are not going to make the fighters attacks stronger than comparable spells because spells are an expended resource. Fighter attacks aren't. I'm sure you can house rule things into what you want them to be, but the degree of power you want for the fighter sounds like you want your favorite class to outshine everything else. That isn't the goal of Pathfinder RPG.
You can make this as personal all you want, but its not. My favorite class is the hexblade and Ninja. Both didn't tend to use all that much power attack or be all that powerful. I am currently playing a barbarian, but they were only dropped to about 3/4ths the normal power, and that is IF they put every gold peace and level point into their starting strength of 20. Min/maxing you could say. While a fighter or other melee class caps at just over 1/2 power while also minimaxing.
I am not going to talk to you about other types of nerfing here, because this thread is about power attack, but there are other nerfings out there.|
|
I am currently playing a barbarian, but they were only dropped to about 3/4ths the normal power, and that is IF they put every gold peace and level point into their starting strength of 20. Min/maxing you could say. While a fighter or other melee class caps at just over 1/2 power while also minimaxing.
This simple quote makes it obvious that you're just not on the same page as most of the people who have been keeping up with the alpha stuff.
The Barbarian is less powerful? by 25%?
The Fighter is less powerful by 50%?!
Just because you keep saying these classes are less powerful now in Alpha doesn't make it true. I think that most people would say that the changes to Fighter have, indeed, made it a *more* powerful class, but that maybe not enough changes occurred (not necessarily in power level - I'm not sure most people want Fighter to be more powerful still, but just flavour changes). I definitely got the impression (haven't played one yet, nor has anyone in my group) that the Barbarian changes were very favourably received.
If you attribute this 25% and 50% change downward in "power" entirely to Power Attack, then either your overall assessment of the classes in Pathfinder is horribly flawed or you've absolutely proven that the feat was so broken to begin with that anyone should be ashamed to even use it that it was so powerful. I don't think it's the latter in this case.
I am currently playing a barbarian, but they were only dropped to about 3/4ths the normal power, and that is IF they put every gold peace and level point into their starting strength of 20. Min/maxing you could say. While a fighter or other melee class caps at just over 1/2 power while also minimaxing.This simple quote makes it obvious that you're just not on the same page as most of the people who have been keeping up with the alpha stuff.
The Barbarian is less powerful? by 25%?
The Fighter is less powerful by 50%?!
Just because you keep saying these classes are less powerful now in Alpha doesn't make it true. I think that most people would say that the changes to Fighter have, indeed, made it a *more* powerful class, but that maybe not enough changes occurred (not necessarily in power level - I'm not sure most people want Fighter to be more powerful still, but just flavour changes). I definitely got the impression (haven't played one yet, nor has anyone in my group) that the Barbarian changes were very favourably received.
If you attribute this 25% and 50% change downward in "power" entirely to Power Attack, then either your overall assessment of the classes in Pathfinder is horribly flawed or you've absolutely proven that the feat was so broken to begin with that anyone should be ashamed to even use it that it was so powerful. I don't think it's the latter in this case.
It was in reference % to power attack. Sorry but that IS the subject of the thread... Your are sounding more an more like a troll so please stop. You are taking things completely out of context.
I guess I'm confused, as to why some people automatically label the act of stepping up your power attack with each round as "metagaming."
Let's look at it IC. I'm a fighter, 10th level, with Power Attack (the OLD way). I look over the creature I'm facing, (Let's say it's a giant space smurf) and think, hm, I need to put a little extra OOMPH into this one:
power attack -2/+2
My blows hit the creature alright, but it's still standing after round 1, okay, I'm gonna need to hit it harder
power attack -4/+4
Well, my blows are hitting it harder... WHEN I'm hitting the thing, but now I'm swinging so recklessly I'm missing my mark half the time, so, I need to pull back a little and focus on landing my blows
power attack -3/+3
Why, pray, is this metagaming, when it has a perfectly IC rationale and perspective?
I guess I'm confused, as to why some people automatically label the act of stepping up your power attack with each round as "metagaming."
Let's look at it IC. I'm a fighter, 10th level, with Power Attack (the OLD way). I look over the creature I'm facing, (Let's say it's a giant space smurf) and think, hm, I need to put a little extra OOMPH into this one:
power attack -2/+2
My blows hit the creature alright, but it's still standing after round 1, okay, I'm gonna need to hit it harder
power attack -4/+4
Well, my blows are hitting it harder... WHEN I'm hitting the thing, but now I'm swinging so recklessly I'm missing my mark half the time, so, I need to pull back a little and focus on landing my blows
power attack -3/+3
Why, pray, is this metagaming, when it has a perfectly IC rationale and perspective?
The main problem is when you start looking at other peoples to hit bonuses. That way you figure out their AC and can calculate exactly what you can put ot power attack with out risking too much on your chance of to hit.
P.S. why is my avatar a smurf?
I guess I should take this change in avatar as some sort of hint?... Haha.
|
|
Your are sounding more an more like a troll so please stop. You are taking things completely out of context.
Just because I call you on it when you make assertions that are wildly inaccurate doesn't make me a troll. It makes me a responsible messageboard member that doesn't let such things go by without challenging them. Keep in mind - I'm not saying you're wrong. We have different opinions. What works in your game might not work in mine, and vice versa. However, I think it's definitely clear that Power Attack was too good of a feat the way it was *for the style of game that Pathfinder is to become* and thus it needed to be adjusted *for Pathfinder*. If you and your group want to continue on with Power Attack from the 3.5 rules, then go for it. There's nothing stopping you, really. Or tweak it however you want to. They are trying to balance out the core rules and this was part of that balance.
If your Power Attack damage is all that makes the fighting characters worth playing, then, I reiterate, you've provided an excellent example of why it needed to be changed.
|
|
I guess I'm confused, as to why some people automatically label the act of stepping up your power attack with each round as "metagaming."
<insert good example>
Why, pray, is this metagaming, when it has a perfectly IC rationale and perspective?
I don't think most have a problem rationalizing it, to be honest. The problem comes, as Ineptus said, when people start calculating. And, I guess at some tables, that can be very disruptive to game flow and take an inordinate amount of time as the player works away at the abacus trying to figure out the optimal power attack numbers to provide the best chance to hit while maximizing damage, calculating for the probability of scoring a hit versus the damage, then calculating it for one lower, and one higher, to see where it comes to doing the most damage by probability.......
Personally I've never seen that in my group - it's more along the lines of what your example described, and it takes less than a second for the player to say "I'm power attacking for x" and then roll the die. However, there are lots of reports of it bogging down play.
I think, for core, I'm fine with them doing it as an all-or-nothing, as they've done. If that makes sense to the way they want to write Pathfinder, then that's cool by me. We're already using a combination of the two - max out at str (or BAB, whichever is less) but you can pick anything between nothing and everything to power attack for.
Your are sounding more an more like a troll so please stop. You are taking things completely out of context.Just because I call you on it when you make assertions that are wildly inaccurate doesn't make me a troll. It makes me a responsible messageboard member that doesn't let such things go by without challenging them. Keep in mind - I'm not saying you're wrong. We have different opinions. What works in your game might not work in mine, and vice versa. However, I think it's definitely clear that Power Attack was too good of a feat the way it was *for the style of game that Pathfinder is to become* and thus it needed to be adjusted *for Pathfinder*. If you and your group want to continue on with Power Attack from the 3.5 rules, then go for it. There's nothing stopping you, really. Or tweak it however you want to. They are trying to balance out the core rules and this was part of that balance.
If your Power Attack damage is all that makes the fighting characters worth playing, then, I reiterate, you've provided an excellent example of why it needed to be changed.
You took something out of context to try and "call" me on it. I am done discussing this with you.
I figure I'll toss in my two coppers...
-Class Roles-
I too believe that warriors SHOULD be able to deal out strong, solid, mind-blowing damage in melee combat. Sure, a gout of fire that's 20x20 feet wide, could kill you, but so can an ax to your throat, or a sword through your heart, or a mace to your skull. In fact, I'd say those things are more likely to kill you faster (even in real life, people have survived hellishly horrible fires, but it's hard to survive your skull being crushed in - however, I will attempt to keep any semblance of "realism" out of our collective fantasies. ^_^).
-- In addition, as discussed on the WotC board many times, warriors are heralded as tanks and "meat shields" which is pretty degrading to many players who want to engage in epic duels and what-not. In fact, in core, warrior-types are actually very poor meat shields because unless you're talking about a 10ft corridor, most enemies can simply go around them, or stand to ignore the warrior's damage while they deal with "the real threat" IE - Spellcasters.
Power Attack as per the core 3.5 was useful for many reasons already mentioned. For one, it allowed you to convert excess attack bonus into damage, which at high levels with enemies walking around with sky high hit points (the pathfinder pdf suggests creatures between CR 10 and 20 should have between 130-370hp).
I believe a dragon SHOULD fear a barbarian or fighter as much as they should fear a spell-caster (but that will probably never happen). I believe they should be wary of stepping into the meat-grinder that is a high level fighter or barbarian, just as much as they should fear the fact the wizard can throw up a huge stone wall in front of the dragon's flight path, block passages, limit movement, or cause issues for the dragon as the cleric throws up walls of blades, and the druid summons huge air elementals to drive the dragon from the sky.
That dragon shouldn't look at the guy who's going to climb his scaly *** to dig a longsword into the soft part of his throat, or put a hook-hammer in his eye. That dragon should KNOW that stepping into the ring with this living legend of flesh and steel would be like waking up a family of angry wolverines. Odds are, the dragon would obviously crush the warrior in melee (having more attacks, more strength, more size, more hp, magic, breath weapon, and just simply MORE), but he shouldn't take it lightly by any means.
--
The warriors should in fact be impressive damage dealers. It's very true that they have to put up with a lot of problems; cover, concealment, etherealness, random miss-chances such as mirror image, damage reductions, high hit points on enemies, and the fact enemies tend to dish out far more punishment than PCs do, all make a warrior's life difficult. I think the original power attack did well with that.
I also feel the original power attack was better for more roles. For example, a fencer-style character could use power attack to represent what amounts to a called shot (a high risk attack for more damage) with a rapier, without having a strength score that rivals Godzilla's.
-Slow Down-
Finally, I have never seen in ANY game I've ran or played in since 3E came out, anyone whip out some sort of chart & diagram and start trying to figure out some sort of perfect PA formula in any fight. Never.
In fact, another player nailed the #1 show stopper in games I've seen, and that is spell-casters trying to decide what to do during their turns, usually involving which spell to cast (or which spell NOT to cast, or "Do I need to cast this now?"). I've actually had to tell spell-casters to either pick something or forfeit their turn in the round, 'cause all the other players (the barbarian, fighter, rogue, monk, ranger, etcetera) were all getting really bored as the *insert spellcaster here* decided to try and debuff, battlefield control, or simply deal obscene damage to the critter.
And obscene damage spell-casters can in fact do. Single target damage or death-dealing spells deal incredible amounts of damage or out-right kill an opponent, and in the case of damage, is usually a touch attack.
However, spell-casters dominate not solely due to their damage spells (which are often considered sub-optimal), but because they have massive battlefield control. They can drive airborne enemies to the ground, take to the skies, they can create huge 10ft thick stone walls from thin air (had a group of very strong corporeal undead suddenly trapped by a cleverly used Stonewall spell, one round, one spell, 5 enemies down).
It's not cool to see the warriors pidgeon-holed into only being good at dying (yes, if you're constantly taking a huge beating, and only functioning as a walking meat shield, then you are a professional "dier" - you die, so others don't have to)!
--
One last thing. If the warriors are given more feat options that do stuff like ability damage, stunning, fear, and ways to add various status ailments to their attacks and such (similar to many of the ToB maneuvers) then the warriors could try and do something more than just deal damage. As it is, maximum damage vs 1 foe is what they do, and power attack always helped that.
--
Peace out, Game on.
I figure I'll toss in my two coppers...
-Class Roles-
I too believe that warriors SHOULD be able to deal out strong, solid, mind-blowing damage in melee combat. Sure, a gout of fire that's 20x20 feet wide, could kill you, but so can an ax to your throat, or a sword through your heart, or a mace to your skull. In fact, I'd say those things are more likely to kill you faster (even in real life, people have survived hellishly horrible fires, but it's hard to survive your skull being crushed in - however, I will attempt to keep any semblance of "realism" out of our collective fantasies. ^_^).-- In addition, as discussed on the WotC board many times, warriors are heralded as tanks and "meat shields" which is pretty degrading to many players who want to engage in epic duels and what-not. In fact, in core, warrior-types are actually very poor meat shields because unless you're talking about a 10ft corridor, most enemies can simply go around them, or stand to ignore the warrior's damage while they deal with "the real threat" IE - Spellcasters.
Power Attack as per the core 3.5 was useful for many reasons already mentioned. For one, it allowed you to convert excess attack bonus into damage, which at high levels with enemies walking around with sky high hit points (the pathfinder pdf suggests creatures between CR 10 and 20 should have between 130-370hp).
I believe a dragon SHOULD fear a barbarian or fighter as much as they should fear a spell-caster (but that will probably never happen). I believe they should be wary of stepping into the meat-grinder that is a high level fighter or barbarian, just as much as they should fear the fact the wizard can throw up a huge stone wall in front of the dragon's flight path, block passages, limit movement, or cause issues for the dragon as the cleric throws up walls of blades, and the druid summons huge air elementals to drive the dragon from the sky.
That dragon shouldn't look at the guy who's going to climb his scaly *** to dig a longsword into the soft part of his...
Thank you for your insight, I agree with you a great deal here and I thank you also for putting it in such clear statment. I just need to point out one thing, save or die spells have been for the most part nerfed.
|
|
Hey Ashiel, you make some good points. I'll respond to a few...
-Class Roles-
I too believe that warriors SHOULD be able to deal out strong, solid, mind-blowing damage in melee combat. Sure, a gout of fire that's 20x20 feet wide, could kill you, but so can an ax to your throat, or a sword through your heart, or a mace to your skull. In fact, I'd say those things are more likely to kill you faster (even in real life, people have survived hellishly horrible fires, but it's hard to survive your skull being crushed in - however, I will attempt to keep any semblance of "realism" out of our collective fantasies. ^_^).
Yes indeed, an axe to the throat could kill you. Are you trying to equate a single attack by a fighter with the damage potential of a single spell from a wizard? That's not entirely fair then, is it? It's the same kind of comparison Ineptus has been trying to push throughout this thread. An axe-wielding barbarian/fighter/whatever can stand there and swing his axe all day. The system doesn't even really assess fatigue for fighting (unless you rage, I guess). If a single swing of an axe could equal the damage potential of a high-level wizard's spell (which tends to be the level range we've been talking about) then how is that fair? The fighter gets 3 or 4 attacks a round (two-handed weapon fighter, mid-high level) or up to double that if you're using two-weapon fighting. If each of those attacks rivalled a fireball or jumpgout or something, then I think that's an unreasonable expectation to have for damage output from a fighting class.
I appreciate your attempt to keep realism out of the picture as it really has very little place in discussing d20 combat. :)
-- In addition, as discussed on the WotC board many times, warriors are heralded as tanks and "meat shields" which is pretty degrading to many players who want to engage in epic duels and what-not. In fact, in core, warrior-types are actually very poor meat shields because unless you're talking about a 10ft corridor, most enemies can simply go around them, or stand to ignore the warrior's damage while they deal with "the real threat" IE - Spellcasters.
This has been a game, since the very beginning, which relied on teamwork. If you're going to solo a dungeon or something then I suspect you're looking at the wrong ruleset. Even in 3.x each class tends to have a role, even though that is much more loosely defined than they've decided to make it in 4e. For instance, the wizard is not a front-line meleeist. Neither should the front-line meleeist be good at dealing damage over large areas to multiple opponents.
Power Attack as per the core 3.5 was useful for many reasons already mentioned. For one, it allowed you to convert excess attack bonus into damage, which at high levels with enemies walking around with sky high hit points (the pathfinder pdf suggests creatures between CR 10 and 20 should have between 130-370hp).
I am definitely finding the Paizo monsters annoyingly resistant to being killed. That's a totally different beef for me, though. You put something in that does anywhere from 20 to 50 points of damage with one swing, which it is almost guaranteed to hit with and which it can do 2 or 3 times per round, then give it 200 hp. That doesn't really seem like a fair fight at 11th level... especially when there are half a dozen of those things (oh, with reach) in the combat. Anyway.... that said, it's not just a drag for the fighters. :)
However, as specifically relates to Power Attack - both our Fighter and our Ranger (two-weapon style) have Power attack (we're using a hybrid Paizo/3.5 where it caps at Str mod or BAB, whichever is lower, but you can modify your to-hit anywhere in that range), and neither maxes it out except in situations where they're only getting one attack - because the likelihood of later attacks hitting is already low, and if you take 5 or 6 or whatever off your to-hit then you're going to miss. Unless you're a highly optimized two-handed-weapon fighter then it's most likely better to hit three times with no power attack than it is to hit once with full power attack.
I believe a dragon SHOULD fear a barbarian or fighter as much as they should fear a spell-caster (but that will probably never happen). I believe they should be wary of stepping into the meat-grinder that is a high level fighter or barbarian, just as much as they should fear the fact the wizard can throw up a huge stone wall in front of the dragon's flight path, block passages, limit movement, or cause issues for the dragon as the cleric throws up walls of blades, and the druid summons huge air elementals to drive the dragon from the sky.
We fought (and killed) a juvenile dragon at my last gaming session. We had a wizard (me), the ranger, and a cleric (the fighter had fallen asleep because he works crazy hours, not because it wasn't an exciting event :). By the time the ranger and I had arrived, the cleric was down to 23 HP. The ranger and I had just finished off some ridiculous named giant with a high AC, fast move, and lots of HP. The ranger was at 9HP. We teleported in, the ranger charged (and used Lion's Pounce or some Ranger spell) and did something around 6 attacks, doing WAY more damage than my maximized scintillating sphere I cast the following round. The dragon was hurting, so it breathed on the cleric, taking him down, then flew away. I had already done my measly 30 points of damage that round (because the dragon had about a 50/50 to save vs my spell, and he made it), but fortunately the ranger had his bow at the ready and was able to do enough damage to bring the dragon to -1.
No attacks in here used Power Attack. Note that carefully, as we were able to take down a dragon from pretty much full using special abilities and some good non-wizard spell use (the cleric actually managed to use Intimidating strike on the dragon to stop it from killing him the previous round... an extra round of life helped, as he was able to help with damage before he went unconscious; and the ranger using his 2nd-level spell to get in and do lots of damage - I forget how much, but it was more than my spell did the following round, that's for sure). Power Attack was not required and would likely have only hampered the situation because fewer attacks would have actually hit.
That dragon shouldn't look at the guy who's going to climb his scaly *** to dig a longsword into the soft part of his throat, or put a hook-hammer in his eye. That dragon should KNOW that stepping into the ring with this living legend of flesh and steel would be like waking up a family of angry wolverines. Odds are, the dragon would obviously crush the warrior in melee (having more attacks, more strength, more size, more hp, magic, breath weapon, and just simply MORE), but he shouldn't take it lightly by any means.
And this is something I've been saying to Ineptus all along - if Power Attack is the only thing that makes this possible, then you're just not trying. If the entire "living legend of flesh and steel" is based on a single feat that he took at first level.... then don't you think there's a problem there?
The warriors should in fact be impressive damage dealers. It's very true that they have to put up with a lot of problems; cover, concealment, etherealness, random miss-chances such as mirror image, damage reductions, high hit points on enemies, and the fact enemies tend to dish out far more punishment than PCs do, all make a warrior's life difficult. I think the original power attack did well with that.
Power attack has no effect on cover, concealment, etherealness, random-miss chances, or the amount of damage output from the bad guys (although I'll grant that if they're dead faster they can't do as much damage). The only thing Power Attack addresses in your list above is overcoming DR and enemies with lots of hit points.
I also feel the original power attack was better for more roles. For example, a fencer-style character could use power attack to represent what amounts to a called shot (a high risk attack for more damage) with a rapier, without having a strength score that rivals Godzilla's.
The concept behind Power Attack is that it's a strong attack, not a precise attack. That's why you can't power attack with light weapons (the rapier is an anomaly - IMO it should be a light weapon as well, but they put it in one-handed for some reason).
-Slow Down-
Finally, I have never seen in ANY game I've ran or played in since 3E came out, anyone whip out some sort of chart & diagram and start trying to figure out some sort of perfect PA formula in any fight. Never.
Just because you've never seen it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I've had to accept that as well, because my group doesn't do it either - but there are enough reports of it that it's obviously a problem at some places. I seem to recall someone saying that it was especially bad at RPGA events (though I'm not sure where I saw that... just a vague memory I have of reading about it).
<stuff about spellcasters slowing down the game>
Interesting, but off-topic. You're presenting something of a straw-man argument. Just because you've witnessed something else slow down the game doesn't mean that Power Attack (in 3.5) *doesn't* slow down the game.
And obscene damage spell-casters can in fact do. Single target damage or death-dealing spells deal incredible amounts of damage or out-right kill an opponent, and in the case of damage, is usually a touch attack.
Obscene damage? Perhaps, through the use of very high-level spells and investment in several feats and taking prestige classes. Compare this to Power Attack - something a fighter can take at first level and never needs to bolster or improve. Again, though, I think you're working from the odd position of "a fighter must be able to do as much damage as a wizard at all times in all situations." That's obviously not a position that any game designers have taken since the inception of D&D... why would that change now?
Ineptus also mentioned that save-or-die spells are basically gone.
However, spell-casters dominate not solely due to their damage spells (which are often considered sub-optimal), but because they have massive battlefield control. They can drive airborne enemies to the ground, take to the skies, they can create huge 10ft thick stone walls from thin air (had a group of very strong corporeal undead suddenly trapped by a cleverly used Stonewall spell, one round, one spell, 5 enemies down).
Wizards tend to, in my experience, control the battlefield so that the fighters can get in and do the real single-target damage and finish off the bad guy. Wizards just delay the enemies (doing moderate damage each round is possible as well) until the fighting classes are free to actually kill them.
Again... this entire section has nothing to do with Power Attack - unless you're saying that Power Attack is the equializer... that it makes fighting classes on-par with wizards who are able to "drive airborne enemies to the ground, take to the skies, create stone walls from thin air", etc.... which would, again, show how ridiculously overpowered it was for a first-level feat that never has any further cost or reduction in utility throughout the career of the character.
It's not cool to see the warriors pidgeon-holed into only being good at dying (yes, if you're constantly taking a huge beating, and only functioning as a walking meat shield, then you are a professional "dier" - you die, so others don't have to)!
Then don't play a fighter is all I can say... because the wizard and rogue sure as hell can't suck up the damage. That's part of the fighter's (and barbarian's) role - it's one of the major features of the class - being able to take a beating. That's like me saying "I don't like it that the wizards are pigeon-holed into only being walking spell factories... why can't I get in there and dish out the melee damage like a fighter?"
One last thing. If the warriors are given more feat options that do stuff like ability damage, stunning, fear, and ways to add various status ailments to their attacks and such (similar to many of the ToB maneuvers) then the warriors could try and do something more than just deal damage. As it is, maximum damage vs 1 foe is what they do, and power attack always helped that.
That's what fighters do. Rangers have different abilities, so do Barbarians, and rogues are really quite good on the battlefield as well (they're actually one of the primary fighting classes in 4e as I understand it). A cleric with some spells up can do some impressive things on the battlefield, too.
You're making a similar argument to Ineptus, and my question is "do you want the fighter/barbarian/any class to be able to do *everything*?" Each class has its strengths, roles, and weaknesses. That's the nature of class-based roleplaying games.
Again, that argument has NOTHING to do with Power Attack.
I think folks are taking this *way* beyond where it needs to be as a discussion about Power Attack.
Yeah, I know save or dies are now save or take 10 x CL Damage (which is pretty big damage I might say, but yes, much nerfed). However, when I say save or die, I equally meant save or suck spells too, like Sleep, Colorspray, Deep Slumber, a variety of enchantment spells, Entangle (yeah, entangle is nasty against any ground-based enemy), and so forth.
I can also happily say my last wizard in one of our tabletop campaigns could have happily started a petting zoo and garden, filled with small furry animals, and decorated with incredibly life-like statues of her former adversaries.
^_______^
---
Interesting side-note: The fact save or die spells have been nerfed and instead deal lots of damage means I'm going to need to try and run some solid playtests before I comment further, but my initial concern (having DM & Played since 3E's release) is that enemies will have upwards to 370hp on average (possibly double that for some creatures), and even CR 10 creatures will have around 130hp, which means the party will need to be able to put down some very tough creatures in a short amount of time (unless everyone wants to limit their encounters to one or two creatures, and have really long 5 combats). There are fewer and fewer "kill" spells, so it falls to the realm of dealing damage to overcome enemies (both singular and groupings), which would suggest the party needs to deal very high amounts of damage to "compete".
I'll need to test this, but my initial thought on the matter is for once, warrior actually has a chance to be almost as much of a threat to a single enemy as the wizard, but it looks like this chance is denied to him/her.
--
Finally, I figured I'd share an interesting story with the boards. I once had a player running a 20th level fighter in a high level game (started at 1st level), and the group was traveling through a portion of the BBEG's dungeon which was flooded with water (but thanks to water breathing and some spiffy movement spells the party had, the water didn't bother them), but it allowed for a variety of fun critters to be used as flavor. The party encounters a kraken, and a fight begins...
Now, a kraken is only CR 12, and a single kraken should be nothing more than a speed bump to a party of 20-22nd level characters. Unfortunately, the fighter functioned well as the "meat shield" for about one round, as the kraken ripped his scrawny body into pieces with a full attack, killing him without effort. The wizard proceeds to utterly destroy the kraken on her turn. Then the other wizard Wished the fighter hadn't died just a round ago, and he returned to life. The sad thing was, it was in fact a CR 12 critter, and it slaughtered a 20th level fighter - while the fighter was doing what apparently everyone things warriors are for "(leaky)meat shielding".
Enemies deal a lot of damage. In fact, a CR 10 creature should deal around 40dmg per round with its attacks (assuming all are hits, which could come in the form of a single +18 attack, or multiple smaller hits).
That's a lot of damage for anyone, including a warrior to just shrug off in the name of meat shielding. A CR 20 creature can easily deal 125 average damage, which is pretty beefy for a single creature.
Just thinking about it. I'll need to do some playtesting on Sunday before I can give more input.
Peace out, Game on.
Wow, I didn't even realize it but I was ninja'd by hmarcbower, and just noticed it tonight re-checking some of the posts. So I figure I'll address his post, 'cause I don't want to seem like I'm ignoring him.
---
Ok first...
You are correct.
Seriously. I was mostly trying to point out that warriors (being any barbarian, fighter, paladin, ranger, or other warrior type) should have something to do other than "meat shield", and dealing large amounts of damage to a SINGLE enemy was their primary shtick along with being a meat-shield (never did I say to multiple enemies).
I'm currently playtesting the pathfinder stuff with my group (just got done with a very long game tonight with my friends), and I believe that warriors may have enough abilities to make up for their lack of damage output from the loss of power attack.
And yes, Power Attack was a feat that everyone and their neighbor took if they wanted to deal damage in melee combat. It's because you just couldn't compete at higher levels without it, and so it was a must-have for melee characters. Truth be told, there wasn't much better for melee characters to take (Power Attack opens - Cleave & Great Cleave? Pfft. Improved Sunder? Breaking loot? Nah. Improved Bull Rush? Pretty worthless against the many BIG enemies you see all over the game.) to be effective.
So while I will miss power attack, I think the answer is in supplying warriors with other special abilities (the barbarian's rage points and clever tactical abilities would be a good example) that work on a variety of foes would be good. For example, if warriors could do more things like stun, nauseate, or daze, they wouldn't need to deal huge amounts of damage. It's one of the reasons I loved the Tome of Battle so much - because warriors did things besides deal damage, and did stuff without full attacking.
In one of my favorite campaigns, one of my players was playing a warblade with a variety of spiffy maneuvers (which function very much like feats in their effects most of the time), and he usually had something he could try to do. For example, he could effectively force enemies into tactical positions, stun enemies to set them up for their next move (or vice versa with the monk using stunning fist), or make a single attack that gave all the other members +4 to hit that target for 1 round (so the rogue was happy, the monk was happy, the wizard with the ray spell was REALLY happy :P). He never out-damaged anyone (especially compared to the party's barbarian), but he was assuredly a strong and worthy members of the party.
I'm definitely looking to see more like the "Deadly Stroke" feat in the pathfinder pdf, which uses a standard action to deal double damage and inflict a constitution bleed effect on an opponent. Not a huge amount of sudden damage, but it inflicts a debilitating effect which contributes heavily.
I look forward to more playing (and testing) with the new rules, and I hope your all enjoy your playing and such as well.
---
Peace out, Game on.
Please change back please change back please change back...
If they think it's too powerful why not make a couple smaller alterations, i.e. two handed weapons get only 1.5 str bonus or the max one can use is +5 or +6 (if using the 1.5 str bonus option) If the 3.5 version is seen as too powerful try something simple instead of a confusingly worded feat that makes my melee players cringe just to look at. Ah well, no use mentioning it now, hopefully something was done in the Beta though I'd love to hear what Jason has to say on this matter. I'm a DM and looking at the feat as it is in Alpha 3 makes me cry acidic tears of evil. :-(
And then I cut my self and remind myself I can house rule.
(emo devil :-P )
I don't think Power Attack was broken so much as it bogged down play.
Put people on the clock. Problem solved.
And if they ignore the clock, take out the Glock. ;-)
Anyway, I find that power attack can actually help. If you have, say, +23/+18/+13, you can go and make it +20/+15/+10 and have an easier time calculating your attack.
I guess this just boggled me. By the time init gets to our fighters they have figured out how much they want to subtract and how much they want to add and that's that. It's never bogged down the game as much as say... the cleric, druid, wizard or trying to figure out which spell to use. If anyone bogs down out game it's them, maybe I'm a special little snowflake but I've yet to have an issue where calculating power attack actually slowed us down, simple subtraction and addition and all of our players graduated highschool so I think we're in the clear.
Well hopefully they've done something with the Beta.
maybe I'm a special little snowflake but I've yet to have an issue where calculating power attack actually slowed us down, simple subtraction and addition and all of our players graduated highschool so I think we're in the clear.
I can't comment on the snowflake thing (you could be a clone for all I know), but I know that power attack only becomes a problem if you let people waste time on it. If you just do a couple of points, by ear (or long-honed instinct), it hardly slows anything down at all (as you said, a lot less than spellcasters and their stuff), but if you let them call the Federal Statistical Office to give them the best value to maximise damage each round, things will grind to a halt.
I really think that people who have problems with simple addition with things like +3/-3 will probably also have problems with attack rolls in the first place, and I can't see them being discouraged from playing by power attack if they're not plenty discouraged already. We're not even talking highschool here, I guess even some of the smarter elemental school dropouts can manage this.
Indeed. Though I have to say the wording in the PRPG for the new one was a touch confusing, it seemed like a lot to say so little, the lack of being able to pull ones punches is irksome as well. Come to think of it alot of changes to staple combat feats seem unnecessary. Power attacks lesser used, red headed half brother Combat Expertise for instance, or spring attack, am I going nutty or am I the only one who thought that these abilities were fine the way they were. Now it's like they added complication or forced you into a static number as opposed to letting one alter it themselves. I love a lot of the changes pathfinder is making but these seemed... out of place.
I mean, so if one wanted to be a combat trick monkey you think a spiked chain is also broken?It is......very!
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."
Both examples are essentially the paragon ideal feat for that style of combatant.
For my part - I like the new PA more than the old in that it's more streamlined and isn't as likely to get "out of control" YMMV, but I still don't think it's an ideal fix. Furthermore, I still think there's too big of a disparity between single handed combatants and 2handed weapons in regards to PA.
My idea after weeks of Alpha Playtesting.
PA: You suffer a -4 to your attack rolls. You receive +6 to your damage. (2-handed warriors receive +8) (1.5 times as much - just like strength Dmage.)
At BAB +10 Pre-Req:
Improved PA. You suffer a -10 to your attack rolls.
You receive a +15 to damage. (+20 for 2-handed weapons)This is still doing no more damage for 2handed weapons than the feat already did. It gives a little boost for single-handed weapons, and it closes the gap of disparity. no more math - for several levels it'll always be the same bonus.
At -10 for Imp Power Attack, you're essentially only going to use it on rounds that you're only getting one attack (since iterative attacks will most likely miss at -10) and so you're just getting a big dmg boost to one attack if you hit.
Meanwhile you just do the -4 PA until the opportunity presents itself to use Imp PA.
I typically dont like the idea of one feat replacing the functionality of a less feat - so 1) I reduced the sting by not removing the option of PA-4, and 2) Pathfinder has...
Generally the power attack that is in Pathfinder should be a standard combat feat and the Power Attack feat should do what it specifies in the standard 3.5 but renamed to Improved Power Attack. To be able to do Power attack (as a standard attack technique rather than a feat) the PC should meet the prerequisites however and any feat with a prerequisite of Power attack should drop that Prerequisite.
The Improved Power Attack feat should have a prerequisite of BAB+5.
|
|
Incidentally, I don't feel that either metagaming or use by low-strength characters could be termed a "problem". A fighter feeling out his foe's defense makes sense, as does a character who normally doesn't hit very hard learning to sacrefice accuracy for more hitting power.
But that's neither here nor there.It was broken because one feat for such a huge damage bonus isn't balanced, no matter how situational it is. And, being so adjustable, it was the perfect feat for every situation.
Every fighter took the old Power Attack and every gamer knows it. That's proof enough that it wasn't balanced and needs some limitations.
The new Power Attack is still really, really good. For strong two-handed weapon wielders, you could probably argue that it's still overpowered, though I can't say much having never seen it in play. I know that I still wouldn't build a barbarian without it.
Wouldn't feeling out a foe's defenses be more akin to a conditional ability like sneak attack? Clearly, sneak attack has the wrong flavor, but the description of what actually occurs during a sneak attack sounds very much like finding a foe's weak spot and hitting them there. Power Attack has always sounded to me like holding up the He-Man-esque sword of power and bringing it crashing down with all of your might.
Fighters are the ultimate custom class, with infinite options. Power Attack should be as least as balanced as spell DC, which has always been the limiting factor for casters with their insanely powerful spells. Even now a similar argument rages about "fixing" the injustice of spell DC's that are too low. Whatever side of that debate a person falls on, they're likely to see Power Attack in a completely different light (i.e. Spell DC's are fine, and Power Attack needs to be on a sliding scale with BAB again).
I'd like to see what a true playtest of the new Power Attack rules would be like. No splat books, no Leap Attack craziness. Just fighters with basic SRD feats using Power Attack when they're desperate for more damage or they know their foes are weak. I think it might be dynamically different than the calculating Power Attack of old. A good Power Attack might become as exciting as a critical hit as a result.
On a final note, melee fighters, aside from risking bodily harm, don't suffer nearly as many penalties as ranged fighters. In order to be effective, archers need to take Point Blank and Precise just to negate that -4 penalty, while a fighter's favored feats just amp up his damage and kill ratio (Power Attack and Cleave). Having to sacrifice a little more from their attack to splatter the enemy and not letting that number get ridiculously high (+30 to damage with a two-handed weapon on a 15th level fighter of Str 13, without any other feats), might not be such a bad thing on the balance.
|
|
While I agree that the Pathfinder fix of Power Attack is not terribly elegant, it is something that needs to be fixed. I have personally houseruled it for my campaigns just like Combat Expertise; a maximum of a -5 penalty can be taken to attack rolls in exchange for a +5 (or +10) to damage rolls.
I've run campaigns with that rule, and it works pretty well. It caps the high end of damage PCs can do with power attack, which does get pretty sick.
Another solution is to use the power attack calculator I wrote:
www.distanceeducationconsultants.com/ddcalc.php
Which gives you a little index card you can print out that has the optimal power attack numbers calculated for you against a range of ACs.
Power Attack; Was it really that over powered???
Yes, yes it was. And really, it still is very powerful.
Here are just a couple quick examples of just how nice it still is.
I'm going to use standard starting gold at each level.
I'm using standard fantasy point buy (15) with a +2 racial modifier to str (orc, human, half-elf, etc.), and just building this guy for straight combat so 18 Str, 15 Dex, 16 Con, 7 Wis, 7 Int, 7 Cha. Yeah they're cheezy min-maxed stats, but the point is to show what it's capable of after all.
All damage totals include crits/misses in the average.
Barbarian 4 (5400 gp)
Str 19, Dex 15, Con 16
Rage (26): Animal Fury (2), Surprise Accuracy (4)
Power Attack, Weapon Focus (Falchion), Improved Init
+1 Falchion(4k)
vs. Harpy (CR 4) 31 hp, 13 AC
Opening, charge + power attack + rage, animal fury, and accuracy (7 rage)
+14 Falchion for 2d4+9(str)+8(power)+1(enhance) for an average damage of 25.3
and +6 Bite 1d6+6(str)+4(power) for an average damage of 9.45
No real change from standard at this level, caps at BAB.
-Kills opponent on average damage.
-Kills opponent in first round 74.275% of the time. (crit on first or both hit)
-If Opponent lives, they have less than 1/4 hp 95% of the time.
Barbarian 8 (27,000 gp)
Str 20+2, Dex 15, Con 16+2
Rage (50): Animal Fury (2), Surprise Accuracy (4), Powerful Blow (4), Strength Surge (2)
Power Attack, Weapon Focus (Falchion), Overhand Chop, Backswing, Improved Crit (Falchion)
Belt of Physical Might (Str and Con) +2 (10k)
Boots of Speed (12k)
+1 Falchion (4k)
vs. Gynosphinx (CR 8) 52 hp, 21 AC
Opening, charge + power attack + rage, animal fury, accuracy (x2), and powerful blow(x2) (17 rage)
+20 Falchion 2d4+12(str)+16(power)+8(powerful)+1(enhance) for an average damage of 50.6
and +18 Bite 1d6+8(str)+8(power)+8(powerful) for an average damage of 24.75
No change again, Str mod while raging == BAB.
-Kills opponent on average damage.
-Kills opponent on in first round 92.85% of the time. (crit on first or both hit)
-If opponent survives, they have less than 1/4 life 95% of the time.
Full Attack, Power attack + Haste + rage, animal fury, accuracy (x4), powerful blow (x4) (35 rage)
+21/+21/+20 Falchion 2d4+12(str)+16(power)+8(powerful)+1(enhance) for an average damage of 165.
and +19 Bite 1d6+8(str)+8(power)+8(powerful) for an average damage of 24.75
On a full attack using all abilities, the barbarian would kill, with average damage, 3.65 even cR opponents (Assuming they were within reach)
Just for fun, Barbarian 20 (850k gp)
STR 34/+12 (16 Base, +2 Racial, +5 Level, +5 Inherent, +6 Enhancement)
DEX 26/+8 (15 Base, +5 Inherent, +6 Enhancement)
CON 26/+8 (16 Base, +4 Inherent, +6 Enhancement)
Rage: (202)
Belt of Physical Perfection +6 (144k)
Boots of Haste (12k)
Manual of Bodily Health +5 (137k)
Manual of Gainful Exercise +4 (110k)
Manual of Quickness of Action +5 (137k)
+5 Flame, Shock, Frost, and Vicious Greataxe 1d12+5+5d6 (162k)
Opening, Devastating Blow + power attack + mighty rage, animal fury, accuracy (x2), powerful blow(x2), and elemental rage (8) (30 rage)
+50 Greataxe 1d12+6d6(enchantments and elemental)+16(str)+32(power)+20(powerful)+5(enhance), auto crit on a hit, average damage against anything lower than AC 52, 243.2 (Which will kill almost anything, except a dragon)
and +44 Bite 1d6+1d6(elemental)+12(str)+16(power)+20(powerful), average damage 52.25
The full attack breaks 500 damage on average, if you're wondering.
If you used Power Attack how it was meant to be, it was OK. Just if you connected it with other Feats or Prestige-classes like the Berserker,it bekame broken. But if you generate the crazy Berserker with Pathfinder-Rules, it ist still a God-killing combination. For a Berserker, a high Strength is still no Problem. So you punish the good old Fighter and help the crazy Berserker. So, what about this:
Power Attack:
As described in the 3.5 PHB, but you can only use the half of your BAB.
new Feats:
Improved Power Attack:
Prequisite: Power Attack, BAB +6
For every -1 on your Attackroll you get +1.5 on Damage or +3 if you use it with both Hands.
Supreme Power Attack:
Prequisite: Improved Power Attack, BAB +16
For every -1 on your Attackroll you get +2 on Damage or +4 if you use it with both Hands.
In the End, the Berserker would just get these two Feats for free, but a Fighter can get them, too. But a Bonusdamage of +40 would be the most a Berserker or Fighter can do, not +80! Appart from that the High Strength of the Berserker does not help him that much, because a Fighter, whose Strenght is much lower, could now get much Bonusdamage for low Attack-Penalty.
However, as great as that was, Power Attack has always been broken. Not game-breaking, but still broken, as evidenced by the fact that every fighter took it. And please don't compare it to a wizard spell, that's classic apple-to-orange thinking. Fighting-types can't cast wizard spells, therefor they aren't a choice, therefor they aren't relevant to the balance of a fighter-type's choices.
Pardon my intrusion on your unlearned speech, Hydro, but allow me to propose three questions to you:
1. Let us pretend that there is an arctic expedition you and your fellow adventurers are going on. Obviously, the temperatures will be frigid and you will need the best equipment that you can muster to survive. Now, will you and your group take snowshoes with you so that you can move unimpeded by the snow? Undoubtedly. Answer me this: are snowshoes thus "broken" in an arctic environment?
2. Let us suppose that we are playing an RPG called Daggers and Dragons. In this so-called "role-playing game," there are two classes: the fighter and the wizard. At his best, the fighter manages to do 1d6+5 damage per round. At the worst, the wizard manages to do 758d12+329 damage per round. Are these classes balanced? Or is this a case of that silly "apples-to-oranges" thinking you were railing against?
3. Let us then suppose that you, my good lad, are leveling in your Daggers and Dragons game up and you are choosing your feats. One feat gives you a +1 to hit. Another feat gives you +1 to your Fortitude saves. A third feat gives you a +2 bonus to damage. A fourth feat, however, gives you +10 to hit and damage, and it boosts your Fortitude saves by +5. The wizard is still dishing out thousands of damage per round. Tell me: is this feat overpowered? Or is it perhaps that the other feats are so severely underpowered that this feat looks appetizing?
(I will give you a hint: a starving man sees dinner even in worms.)
Opening, Devastating Blow + power attack + mighty rage, animal fury, accuracy (x2), powerful blow(x2), and elemental rage (8) (30 rage)
+50 Greataxe 1d12+6d6(enchantments and elemental)+16(str)+32(power)+20(powerful)+5(enhance), auto crit on a hit, average damage against anything lower than AC 52, 243.2 (Which will kill almost anything, except a dragon)
and +44 Bite 1d6+1d6(elemental)+12(str)+16(power)+20(powerful), average damage 52.25
Yes, Brodiggan, Power Attack is completely abusable when you break the rules.
Unless otherwise noted, these abilities are swift
actions that must be performed on the barbarian’s turn.
Aside from that nonsense, the fact is that anything with any sort of elemental resistance is going to laugh off your pathetic +1d6s.