I have been looking over the new power attack rules, and I don't like them.
1. They complicate things on the battlefield as you now not only have to keep track of your base attack bonus, but your ever fluxuating strength. Having it based on strength is bad for a lot of players as I don't know a lot of players that have a 50 strength score (20 modifier). Was this amount of power really all that bad compared to the area effect spell casters? How about an improved power attack feat? One that allows at least barbarians to get the older style feat. Due to the fighter abilities I can understand why you wouldn't want it to have it.
2. This isn't that much of an issue but, I understand the need to set it to maximum all the time, as it simplifies things, and apparently stops meta gaming... which I doubt really happens all that often, and if it does it should be dealt with by the GM. But to give a little more verity, but keeping it from being broken too badly, why not have it at max, or in segments of 5s.
|
I to am unhappy with the new Power Attack/Combat Exp./etc.
I am hoping they will be unchanged from 3.5 in the beta.
I agree with your reasoning, although I had thought Power Attack was too powerful but after speaking with my players they brought up the same point about high level caster damage outout and Power Attack allowing melee types to keep up.
I have house ruled the 3.0 Power Attack/Improved Power Attack feat chain with little complaint.
|
I to am unhappy with the new Power Attack/Combat Exp./etc.
I am hoping they will be unchanged from 3.5 in the beta.
I agree with your reasoning, although I had thought Power Attack was too powerful but after speaking with my players they brought up the same point about high level caster damage outout and Power Attack allowing melee types to keep up.
I have house ruled the 3.0 Power Attack/Improved Power Attack feat chain with little complaint.
I use the versions of these in Book of Experimental Might II: Bloody, Bold and Resolute. Melee combatants need all the help they can get.
|
I don't think Power Attack was broken so much as it bogged down play. Players at our table would spend 15 minutes trying to figure out the optimum combination of attack bonus and damage for a given fight. The Pathfinder version sets the Power Attack to a single number. It's either your base attack bonus or you strength modifier, whichever is lower. That way no calculation time. Either you are swinging harder for more damage or you aren't.
I think they modified power attack to streamline play, not because they wanted to make it weaker. Its also worth pointing out that the changes made to the fighter in the alpha all increase its relative power and I don't think the power attack modification nerfs fighters very much.
But, without power attack, we would have missed out on this joke . . . <eg>
I don't think Power Attack was broken so much as it bogged down play. Players at our table would spend 15 minutes trying to figure out the optimum combination of attack bonus and damage for a given fight. The Pathfinder version sets the Power Attack to a single number. It's either your base attack bonus or you strength modifier, whichever is lower. That way no calculation time. Either you are swinging harder for more damage or you aren't.
I think they modified power attack to streamline play, not because they wanted to make it weaker. Its also worth pointing out that the changes made to the fighter in the alpha all increase its relative power and I don't think the power attack modification nerfs fighters very much.
And how does drastically limiting the max to the lower strength or base attack help that?
Again I understand the limiting the options on the number they use for power attack though, but maybe not so much.
Power attack isn't broken.
The feats that stem from it, that aren't OGL, are what actually tends to "break melee" (in the opinions of those who don't like melee folks to do damage).
Paizo can't nerf non OGL but they can nerf PA.
And the "15 minute PA" routine is easily solved by the DM saying "You have 5 seconds to pick a number, or you don't PA this round".
Problem solved. No nerf needed.
-S
|
|
I don't think Power Attack was broken so much as it bogged down play. Players at our table would spend 15 minutes trying to figure out the optimum combination of attack bonus and damage for a given fight. The Pathfinder version sets the Power Attack to a single number. It's either your base attack bonus or you strength modifier, whichever is lower. That way no calculation time. Either you are swinging harder for more damage or you aren't.
I think they modified power attack to streamline play, not because they wanted to make it weaker. Its also worth pointing out that the changes made to the fighter in the alpha all increase its relative power and I don't think the power attack modification nerfs fighters very much.
And how does drastically limiting the max to the lower strength or base attack help that?
Again I understand the limiting the options on the number they use for power attack though, but maybe not so much.
It helps it because it isn't just a limit. It fixes the number. You either subtract your base attack bonus, or you subtract your strength modifier, whichever is lower. Unless I read the PFRPG version wrong.
Further, its not a drastic limit. Even in 3.5 D&D it was always limited by BAB. In game it was limited by the player trying to find the right amount to give up for bonus damage. Almost noone actually gave up their full BAB. Looking at it from the ability modifier side, at 16th level if you started with a Str 20 (very easy to do with racial mods and point buy), put all 4 level bumps into it, and have a +6 item you have a Str of 30. That means your limit by ability modifier is -10. That -10 is probably pretty close to the level the average player would tinker at because they don't want to start off swinging too low to hit the AC of creatures at their level. The Pathfinder method takes all the "tweaking" out of it. Now consider that in addition to that, you have the Weapon Mastery class feature that adds like a +4 or +5 at that level (don't remember exactly how much) to attacks and damage. The extra damage is there, but is just in there a different way.
Try playtesting a fighter using 3.5 and PFRPG with identical builds but only change the way the power attack mechanic works. How does the 3.5 fighter compare to the 3P fighter in damage output? Does it feel like the 3P fighter is nerfed when playing him? Just eyeballing the change isn't a very accurate representation of how it actually plays out at the table IMHO. After testing both fighters together do you still think it is that drastically weaker? I have playtested it and found there was little difference in how things ultimately played out. The only real difference is that in 3.5 my players would take longer to figure out the sweet spot than theyd did in 3P because 3P made it a single calculation instead of several. Your result may be different. Give it a shot and tells us how it works out.
|
Arrg...it ate my post.
I think that putting a cap on Power Attack isn't a bad thing. Because no matter HOW wildly someone swings their sword, there is only so much force they can get from that swing. I just don't like the "All-or-Not" way of working. I understand that it speeds up game play, but I would like My warriors to have some variety in their Power Attacks. My Idea is for Power attack to have two tiers:
Power Attack for Half: Add an amount equal to half your Strength modifier rounded down to your melee damage rolls for one round. Subtract the same amount from your melee attack rolls
for 1 round.
Power Attack for Full: Add an amount equal to your Strength modifier to your melee damage rolls for one round.Subtract the same amount from your melee attack rolls
for 1 round.
this would give some variety, with bogging down game play.
p.s. This just one feat.
I don't think Power Attack was broken so much as it bogged down play. Players at our table would spend 15 minutes trying to figure out the optimum combination of attack bonus and damage for a given fight. The Pathfinder version sets the Power Attack to a single number. It's either your base attack bonus or you strength modifier, whichever is lower. That way no calculation time. Either you are swinging harder for more damage or you aren't.
I think they modified power attack to streamline play, not because they wanted to make it weaker. Its also worth pointing out that the changes made to the fighter in the alpha all increase its relative power and I don't think the power attack modification nerfs fighters very much.
And how does drastically limiting the max to the lower strength or base attack help that?
Again I understand the limiting the options on the number they use for power attack though, but maybe not so much.
It helps it because it isn't just a limit. It fixes the number. You either subtract your base attack bonus, or you subtract your strength modifier, whichever is lower. Unless I read the PFRPG version wrong.
Further, its not a drastic limit. Even in 3.5 D&D it was always limited by BAB. In game it was limited by the player trying to find the right amount to give up for bonus damage. Almost noone actually gave up their full BAB. Looking at it from the ability modifier side, at 16th level if you started with a Str 20 (very easy to do with racial mods and point buy), put all 4 level bumps into it, and have a +6 item you have a Str of 30. That means your limit by ability modifier is -10. That -10 is probably pretty close to the level the average player would tinker at because they don't want to start off swinging too low to hit the AC of creatures at their level. The Pathfinder method takes all the "tweaking" out of it. Now consider that in addition to that, you have the Weapon Mastery class feature that...
First, I said nothing about the fighter. I am talking about the other classes as a fighter has no problem. You would have known this if you bothered to read my OP.
Now you are also assuming we use the point buy system and don't roll them up the old fashion style.
So strenght of 18, +2 racial = 20 +5 mod
By level 5 you would be most likely have a +2 stat item so a 21 with +5 mod
By level 6 you would start to lose out unless your able to afford a +4 stat item, which is doubtful till 12th.
Things go down hill from there, unless your a barbarian.
A barbarian would at level 6 have access to, if mini maxed as above, a strength of 25 while raging only, with a mod of 7.
A non barbarian would have at best a strength of 21 till 8th, which will make it 22, a mod of +6 already losing 2 points of power attack.
A barbarian would have a strength of 26 with a mod of 8, barely keeping up with their base attack bonus. They will lose out from here till they get a +4 stat item.
A barbarian gains a better rage at level 11, and would now possibly gain a +4 stat item. This brings it to 30, a mod of 10, now losing 1 point. A non barbarian would at best have a strength of 24 down by 4 points of power attack already.
A barbarian will continue to lose out. Eventually they will get the +2 from leveling at 12, and 16, and a +6 stat item (most likely around level 15), So at 15 a barbarian will have a strength of 32 with a +11 mod losing out on 4 points and a non barbarian would have a 28 losing out by 6 points. Now books will most likely become a factor as the cheaper means of getting a strength bonus has run out. Seeing as they don't stack a smart and patient character/player will wait till they can by a +5 book, assuming this is their main perches that they save up for,
I would guess it at level 19 at the earliest, unless they get like really lucky with a deck of cards item, AND happen to a wish spell there ready to be used by a caster, AND they happen to be able to make the wish spell off.
So at 19, this will be 37 strength for a barbarian with a 13 mod. losing out at 6 points, this improves as they hit level 20 and get their last 1 point from leveling and the better rage for a lose of 5 points with a strength of 40 with a mod of +15. A non barbarian would have only a strength of 32 with a mod of +11 losing out on 9 points of power attack damage. So with the exception of the barbarian, still losing out on 1/4th their power attack damage capability, or a non barbarian with full base attack bonus would lose out on almost 1/2 their base attack bonus, and rather quickly too.
Arrg...it ate my post.
I think that putting a cap on Power Attack isn't a bad thing. Because no matter HOW wildly someone swings their sword, there is only so much force they can get from that swing. I just don't like the "All-or-Not" way of working. I understand that it speeds up game play, but I would like My warriors to have some variety in their Power Attacks. My Idea is for Power attack to have two tiers:
Power Attack for Half: Add an amount equal to half your Strength modifier rounded down to your melee damage rolls for one round. Subtract the same amount from your melee attack rolls
for 1 round.
Power Attack for Full: Add an amount equal to your Strength modifier to your melee damage rolls for one round.Subtract the same amount from your melee attack rolls
for 1 round.this would give some variety, with bogging down game play.
p.s. This just one feat.
First...http://www.badongo.com/pic/3620500
Check that out please.|
|
Was this amount of power really all that bad compared to the area effect spell casters? Due to the fighter abilities I can understand why you wouldn't want it to have it.
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. The feat is only really powerful when applied to the two-handed weapon rules; doubling the damage bonus is far too powerful to allow unchecked, especially when combined with all the effects and spells that can give a large bonus on an attack roll, allowing a combatant to sacrifice their entire base attack bonus in exchange for double that amount on each damage roll.
Now, obviously, that's just my opinion, but Power Attack does need some fixing, and limiting the penalty somehow is a viable method of doing so. Like you point out in your post, the Combat Expertise limit (which was already established by WotC in the PHB) might be a more elegant and simple solution, but the feat needs a solution nonetheless.
Was this amount of power really all that bad compared to the area effect spell casters? Due to the fighter abilities I can understand why you wouldn't want it to have it.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. The feat is only really powerful when applied to the two-handed weapon rules; doubling the damage bonus is far too powerful to allow unchecked, especially when combined with all the effects and spells that can give a large bonus on an attack roll, allowing a combatant to sacrifice their entire base attack bonus in exchange for double that amount on each damage roll.
Now, obviously, that's just my opinion, but Power Attack does need some fixing, and limiting the penalty somehow is a viable method of doing so. Like you point out in your post, the Combat Expertise limit (which was already established by WotC in the PHB) might be a more elegant and simple solution, but the feat needs a solution nonetheless.
I still woefully disagree. It is still underpowered when compared to a spell access at the same level from MY experance. As more splat books came out this remained the same because as their power attack improved so did the spells. It is harder to compare power attack to spells, as spells can effect multiple targets.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
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.
Please do not dismiss my opinion, just because you disagree with it.
Nah, I will get to your post later, I just thought that would be funny.
I gtg now. Time for some sleep. I'll be back later. Thanks.
|
|
I guess I am just confused about what you are complaining about then. Barbarians get their bonus damage from their Rage class feature and the abilities they can use with Rage points, several of which boost melee damage output. Fighters get the Weapons Mastery features that boost their melee damage output. Rangers have their favored enemy bonuses Quarry bonuses and Hunter's bond to help them increase their melee damage output as well as their animal companion. Clerics have all the various buff spells that add to melee attacks and damage through multiple type bonuses stacking (Like Divine Favor, Righteous Might etc.). Rogues get sneak attack to boost their melee damage output and aren't generally strength based fighters anyway.
So who is left that is getting hurt by the new version of power attack? All the primary melee types have class features that add to their melee attack damage that have nothing to do with power attack. The only ones I can see not benefiting from the PFRPG power attack at the same level as the melee types (all of which are pretty equal given class features other than this feat), would be non melee types. If that is the case it is absurd because casters and the like have spells to do damage and don't need power attack anyway.
I did read your post. You are making assumptions because you are irritated anyone challenged your view point. That isn't my problem. Calm down, look at the class features other melee types have that help melee damage outside of power attack. Once all of it is added in all the primary melee types have something that makes them just as effective as having 20 variations on power attack to use. You still have not given anything resembling a playtest. All you have done is list characters at high levels with how you think it will play out instead of actually playing it out. Until you are willing to actually demonstrate a runned battle with supporting data from a playtest your complaint falls squarely in the category of "more complaining about something I read that I don't like and need to whine about."
Finally, in your examples above you constantly assume that the Barbarian would take their full BAB in power attack. That is where your discrepancy comes from. In actual games, no melee type maxes out their damage by taking their full BAB as power attack. Usually they try to find just the right amount so they do as much damage as possible while hitting fairly frequently. In our playtests the number PC's arrive at to achieve that balance is right around where PFRPG is setting the static power attack number. At 20th level a Barbarian isn't losing out on 6 points of power attack, because they wouldn't use those points anyway. They would leave something in BAB so that they actually hit with their high damage output attack. Making a design assumption on the idea that players will use every ounce of bonus they have on every power attack is absurd. Players virtually never do that.
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.
|
|
Please do not dismiss my opinion, just because you disagree with it.
I see that a lot here of late. The reason a lot of these folks dismiss an opinion is because they don't want to discuss their problem. They want to complain about it until everyone agrees with them. Actually considering what you have to say might take their soap box away and that would defeat their purpose.
I swear there should be some sort of requirement on playtest data before these sorts of "you changed it and now it sucks" posts happen. As near as I can tell our friend Ineptus is upset that a 19th level non Barbarian non fighter won't get as much benefit now from power attack as those two melee classes will.
Now wait for a bit and he will come back and say I haven't read his post again and that it still sucks no matter what anyone says.
|
|
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.
Why should a melee attack be as powerful as a spell? A high level fighter will get anywhere from 4-10 attacks around compared to at most 2 spells in a round for a caster. The attacks are available every round and never use up resources for the fighter. Casters have to expend spell slots. Even with iterative attacks a well built fighter will hit at least 4-6 times in a round at high levels. Add all the damage from those attacks and then compare it to a spell. If you want the fighter to be able to do in one attack what a Wizard does in a single spell, then look at the Book of Nine Swords Supplement. That essentially lets the melee types do what you want.
As long as melee attacks are iterative and undepleatable, they have to be weaker than spells or the fighter becomes overly powerful. I have never understood the complaint that Wizards or Clerics are so much better than the Fighter. The Fighter is awesome at what he does and it is a role vital to any parties success.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
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.
Fighter tricks tend to work every round or at least every other round, whereas casters, even at high level, run out of their best attacks fairly quickly with most high-damage strategies - note that doesn't mean no spells left in the tank, but you can't lay out empowered, maximized orbs backed by quickened orbs round after round, even as a sorcerer. So it doesn't bother me that a caster's alpha strike can do more than a fighter's at-will attacks (and I called them at-will attacks before 4th edition used the term).
I left out Heedless Charge and Inspire Recklessness from the list o' non-core things that break power attack, whoops...
|
It is still underpowered when compared to a spell access at the same level from MY experance. As more splat books came out this remained the same because as their power attack improved so did the spells. It is harder to compare power attack to spells, as spells can effect multiple targets.
And how many of your attacks allow a save for half, or save negates, or are nullified by a resistance held by the target? I'd say.... none. Spells can be more potent - in specific situations - because they are effective less frequently. Your Barbarian can stand there and swing away while the wizard tosses spell after saved-against or nullified spell for a short time after which he's left with nothing (or something cute from the School Powers list which is likely ineffective anyway).
Arrg...it ate my post.
I think that putting a cap on Power Attack isn't a bad thing. Because no matter HOW wildly someone swings their sword, there is only so much force they can get from that swing. I just don't like the "All-or-Not" way of working. I understand that it speeds up game play, but I would like My warriors to have some variety in their Power Attacks. My Idea is for Power attack to have two tiers:
Power Attack for Half: Add an amount equal to half your Strength modifier rounded down to your melee damage rolls for one round. Subtract the same amount from your melee attack rolls
for 1 round.
Power Attack for Full: Add an amount equal to your Strength modifier to your melee damage rolls for one round.Subtract the same amount from your melee attack rolls
for 1 round.this would give some variety, with bogging down game play.
p.s. This just one feat.
I believe you too my joke as too much of an attack, when it is supposed to be more of a point. You really shouldn't start putting real life concepts into a fantasy role playing game.
But as to your concept on two different teers, that is fine by me. Any verity other than all or nothing on power attack seems great to me.
Lots of stuff about the BarbarianFor rebuttal, I have three words: Barbarian Rage Powers.
If you're maxing for damage output, play a fighter. Situation resolved.
Your comments do not contribute to what is being discussed. I spoke about Two things, not just barbarian, but also classes with full base attack bonus. My point is that unless they are a barbarian, or a full 20th level fighter, your screwed on power attack damage. Even more so if your playing a game with smaller stats.
Lots of changes are good, but THIS is just too MUCH!
Why should a melee attack be as powerful as a spell? A high level fighter will get anywhere from 4-10 attacks around compared to at most 2 spells in a round for a caster. The attacks are available every round and never use up resources for the fighter. Casters have to expend spell slots. Even with iterative attacks a well built fighter will hit at least 4-6 times in a round at high levels. Add all the damage from those attacks and then compare it to a spell. If you want the fighter to be able to do in one attack what a Wizard does in a single spell, then look at the Book of Nine Swords Supplement. That essentially lets the melee types do what you want.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.
First It never was and never will be due to the utility, area effect, and area effect utility spells a caster has. The only nich in damage that melee types did have was with the single target damage, 2 if they got lucky, and 3+ if they were surrounded by extremely weak targets. But never as effective as a beefed up chain lighting or similar spell. Also you should only be looking at pathfinder alpha or everything except the altered core. Alpha or everything, because if you start saying things like, power attack was never a problem on its own, you can equally say, x spell caster's spells was alright on, and then you open things up probably to a number of other save or die spells.
As long as melee attacks are iterative and undepleatable, they have to be weaker than spells or the fighter becomes overly powerful. I have never understood the complaint that Wizards or Clerics are so much better than the Fighter. The Fighter is awesome at what he does and it is a role vital to any parties success.
This argument I need to think about, as I gtg now.
|
|
Lots of stuff about the BarbarianFor rebuttal, I have three words: Barbarian Rage Powers.
If you're maxing for damage output, play a fighter. Situation resolved.
Your comments do not contribute to what is being discussed. I spoke about Two things, not just barbarian, but also classes with full base attack bonus. My point is that unless they are a barbarian, or a full 20th level fighter, your screwed on power attack damage. Even more so if your playing a game with smaller stats.
Lots of changes are good, but THIS is just too MUCH!
I think my comments do contribute, just not in support of your complaint. :) They say, in a very shortened way, "the Barbarian is compensated in other ways such that the impact of reducing the maximum Power Attack modifier is minimized or not even missed - or should not be in a case where the overall effect of the changes to the class are considered."
Other classes with full BAB also fall under my above statement... they get things which, while perhaps not directly compensating for doing less damage using Power Attack, do improve the class overall and help to focus its abilities and make the fighter stand out a little better. If all the classes can do just as much damage as the fighter under all conditions, AND get all sorts of spiffy special abilities the fighter doesn't.... well, why play a fighter? If you want what the fighter is good at, then play the fighter. If you're finding that the Barbarian (or Ranger, etc) have special abilities you want that the fighter doesn't get.... then don't expect to get that PLUS what the fighter gets as his special things.
In playtesting we have found this to work just fine. We're in chapter four of Rise of the Runelords and we're applying the Power Attack feat changes to the GIANTS as well. So instead of power attacking for everything, which they could do and still easily hit our characters with the first attack, at least, and have a pretty good shot at hitting with the second attack, they are still hitting even more easily but doing less damage. That's important when three or four hits will effectively KILL a character, even with the modified Power Attack rules. We've found that this feat change actually ends up as a benefit to the players - at least in this instance where we are fighting creatures with extreme strength scores that do lots of damage already. We're level 11 at the moment.
I like the new mechanic for PA. It makes it Strengh-dependent. The old rules had relatively low-STR fighters doing terrible amounts of damage via PA, with little concern for their weapon type or STR add. The PF rules change this so that PA really doesn't work well unless you have a decent STR to back it up.
As for the argument about scaling it - I don't agree. I think it should be a binary switch that you activate, not a scaling thing. You're either hitting hard and less accurately, or your swinging normally. This isn't so critical for time reasons, but because it can cause a huge amount of confusion during combat. The user needs to very specifically declare how much PA is being applied, and there is almost always a "how much PA?" or "did he delcare PA?" question that arises.
For PA options, here is my other suggestion:
Take a flat -5 to hit, gaining a +5/+10 bonus to damage.
PA is part of a single attack action, and can only be used for one attack per round.
If your BAB is +11 or greater, you may instead choose to take -10 to hit, gaining a +10/+20 bonus to damage.
This would actually benefit fighting characters by letting them hit hard once, then taking no penalty on iteratives and AoOs for the next round.
Low-level fighters would be able to PA for more damage than they currently can, and high-level fighters would gain the flexibility to increase their damage output.
-Scott
People raise a lot of good points about this making Power Attack simpler, less cheesy, and overall a lot more realistic. However, there are two things I'm really going to miss.
One is using Power Attack with characters who have low strength scores. This is something I did a lot (as anyone who played with my greatsword-wielding gnome on the Necromancer Games forums can attest). It's the characters with low strength who really need the extra damage, and since they often have excess to-hit anyway, Power Attack is a lifesaver. As long as you have the 13+ strength and the feat to burn (both of which actually require a bit of investment if you're a gnome cleric), you can do some fairly impressive things in melee.
The other thing I'm going to miss is throwing caution to the wind to max power-attack and splatter a random mook. I don't care who you ask, that was fun. Even when you miss you still get to see the poor mook wet himself.
More seriously, this also goes for when some powerful but soft-skinned enemy is stunned, flat-footed or prone and you really want to let him have it.
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.
Did it break the fighter? No. Was it a broken option? Yes. It was a "broken option" because it wasn't an option at all- every two-handed weapon user (and a lot of duel-wielders) took it, period. Other feats don't compare, especially once you hit mid level. That's broken.
The reason no one ever complained about Power Attack, though, was that A.) Warrior-types were underpowered in core and needed all the cheese they could scrounge to compete and B.) Power Attack was freaking fun and we loved it.
One unsatistfying element of the change is that it makes a too-high strength bonus a bad thing. It essentially makes you give up your strength bonus to attack; granted, it gives it back in damage, but it makes it a more serious (and risky) decision the more strength you have. It makes sense but I'm not sure if I like it.
I basically support this change because it is so clean and balanced, but the weird thing is that I'm not sure if anyone -wanted- it. Like I said before, I never heard anyone complain about the old power attack, even though it was clearly overpowered.
Still thinking over alternatives, will post again.
OK, there are some good arguments here about some problems with low strength characters having power attack and doing a lot of damage, as well as meta gaming, but I still don't see how having it caped at nearly half for non barbarians, and taking a cap of approx. 15 for barbarians was needed please convince me?
P.S. Also please keep in mind that unless an extreme case comes by a melee type will have a very hard time pulling off a powerful great cleave. So Area of effect spells are vastly more powerful when in comparison.
OK, there are some good arguments here about some problems with low strength characters having power attack and doing a lot of damage, as well as meta gaming, but I still don't see how having it caped at nearly half for non barbarians, and taking a cap of approx. 15 for barbarians was needed please convince me?
P.S. Also please keep in mind that unless an extreme case comes by a melee type will have a very hard time pulling off a powerful great cleave. So Area of effect spells are vastly more powerful when in comparison.
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.
|
|
OK, there are some good arguments here about some problems with low strength characters having power attack and doing a lot of damage, as well as meta gaming, but I still don't see how having it caped at nearly half for non barbarians, and taking a cap of approx. 15 for barbarians was needed please convince me?
P.S. Also please keep in mind that unless an extreme case comes by a melee type will have a very hard time pulling off a powerful great cleave. So Area of effect spells are vastly more powerful when in comparison.
We're not here to convince you. You're clearly not open to any solution but your own, so there is no way we ever could convince you (either of you... why do you post with two aliases in the same thread? :).
Why do you think that a fighter's ability that he can use over and over and over and for free, and then use it some more, and some more, and oh, once more just for the fun of it, should be compared to a wizard's area of effect spell? Are you trying to say that the only way you'd consider a fighting class balanced is if it could do as much damage in one round as a wizard's area effect spell at the same level? I think you need to adjust your thinking if that's the case. It's like me whining because the Wizard can't rage. I think it's patently unfair that my wizard can't rage and get all the bonuses of that, because the Barbarian can do it. WHy can't the wizard? How is that balanced or fair? My wizard does nowhere near as much damage with his dagger as the foolishly overpowered fighter of the same level.... the wizard is underpowered, clearly, by this form of logic....
With some level of seriousness, I don't think you're making a rational argument anymore with comparisons like that.
We're not here to convince you. You're clearly not open to any solution but your own, so there is no way we ever could convince you (either of you... why do you post with two aliases in the same thread? :).
I think that was a little uncalled for.
If you've dismissed him as incapable of reasonable discussion, why are you still throwing your arguements in his face?
And more importantly, even if he WAS posting under a sockpuppet account, what would anyone possible have to gain from calling him on it, other than a lot of unnecessary flaming?
This is an important and interesting topic. Please try to keep it on track.
|
|
I'm just thinking.
Power Attack may have been abused in the past. I can see that.
Why not completely change the nature of the feat. It could grant you a bonus of +1 1/2 your strength bonus on a one handed weapon, and +2x your strength bonus on a 2-handed weapon (for 2.5x Str and 3.0x Str, respectively).
There would be no penalty affecting your attack roll. You just get more damage if you take the feat. There would be no calculations, since unless your Str changes, the numbers are static. The benefit is good for the feat, but it doesn't allow you to put everything into Power Attack. After having used a Blue Dragon power-attacking for 20 I can tell you - it causes problems very quickly under the current rules.
I love hearing everyone say "Every Fighter took it." Thats just funny to me. We might as well say Weapon Focus was broken because "Every Fighter took it" and they were still using it at level 11+ also.
First off: Every fighter took it because WOTC basically said "We need a base feat for a feat tree. which should it be?" and someone said "Power Attack!" Perhaps weapon focus makes more sense. Why not make Power attack just like improved sunder and make weapon focus the new base feat.
Okay, good point, being a common prerequisite has a lot to do with it.
But the reason it was so common a prereq. is that it was an easy one to meet; i.e, if you used one melee weapon, there was a really good chance you already had it (particularly in 3.5).
Anyone who did any of that mid-session PA math that everyone is quite rightfully complaining about (or the less time consuming table-on-the-back-of-your-character-sheet) knows that it usually had a greater effect on average damage than Weapon Specialization (which was a must-have in itself).
Once your to-hit is only 50/50 (or better once average damage gets higher; the more damage you deal without PA the more you have to lose on a miss) the damage bonus drops down to around +1. But you make up for this when you start getting into never-miss situations with soft/disabled enemies or big magical bonuses (in which case the improvement can be pretty substantial); and, to counter the incentive of rising average damage, you will come into these situations a lot more frequently as your get into high level play.
To be honest, I just cracked open some of my old number-geekery wordpad docs, and PA doesn't look as great as I seemed to remember it. You're usually looking at around +3 average damage in good conditions, less when hitting becomes less certian.
And I never ment to say it was game-breaking, but it is a really good feat.
I'm just thinking.
Power Attack may have been abused in the past. I can see that.
Why not completely change the nature of the feat. It could grant you a bonus of +1 1/2 your strength bonus on a one handed weapon, and +2x your strength bonus on a 2-handed weapon (for 2.5x Str and 3.0x Str, respectively).
There would be no penalty affecting your attack roll. You just get more damage if you take the feat. There would be no calculations, since unless your Str changes, the numbers are static. The benefit is good for the feat, but it doesn't allow you to put everything into Power Attack. After having used a Blue Dragon power-attacking for 20 I can tell you - it causes problems very quickly under the current rules.
I find this a little bland, if balanced.
More importantly, the point of power attack is to sacrefice accuracy for hitting power, and throwing that out while retaining the "power attack" label would be too drastic for a system that markets itself as 3e D&D.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.
A cap on Power Attack would help a lot here too. The current fix does this to an extent, but most of the beasties we're talking about have so much strength bonus that it isn't a harsh limitation. A jouvanile red (ostensibly CR 10, though we all know it's higher) can still get +9/-9 (which would amount to +18 on the tail slap unless I'm mistaken), and with +24 to-hit that's just about perfect for it.
|
|
We're not here to convince you. You're clearly not open to any solution but your own, so there is no way we ever could convince you (either of you... why do you post with two aliases in the same thread? :).
I think that was a little uncalled for.
If you've dismissed him as incapable of reasonable discussion, why are you still throwing your arguements in his face?
And more importantly, even if he WAS posting under a sockpuppet account, what would anyone possible have to gain from calling him on it, other than a lot of unnecessary flaming?
This is an important and interesting topic. Please try to keep it on track.
I haven't necessarily dismissed him as being incapable of reasonable discussion, just saying that taking the position of "convince me" implies that he no longer feels the need to justify his own position as he considers it unassailable. You can't discuss the situation with someone who takes such a stance. I fully understand his position, and don't dismiss it... but I think it's important that both sides of the discussion get posted... not one position assumed to be the correct one and others trying to tear it apart. There are some good points that have been made on both sides... but discussions like this aren't intended to make converts (or "convince" people), just to hash out why something might have been done and to make sure that all the repercussions are examined. Ineptus did a good job in demonstrating the effects of the PRPG Power Attack for barbarians and other non-fighter classes. He doesn't seem to want to hear the counterpoints to that, though.
As for the two aliases, I didn't mean to imply that he was posting in a hidden way - he's using two of his board aliases (the only difference being that one has "Captain" in front of it. I just thought it was funny, not deceptive in any way. :)
And I never ment to say it was game-breaking, but it is a really good feat.
I am sorry but can you clarify? When you say "is" do you mean WotC or PF?
As for the two aliases, I didn't mean to imply that he was posting in a hidden way - he's using two of his board aliases (the only difference being that one has "Captain" in front of it. I just thought it was funny, not deceptive in any way. :)
Ung, I'm sorry. I didn't even notice that, which lead me to think you were implying that he was posting under one of the other names in here.
My mistake, carry on.
|
|
All of the following can be considered opinion, so I don't have to keep reiterating 'imo'.
Changing the nature of PA in the way you suggest would make it too good. Damage bonuses of those numbers for a single feat are unbalanced without a corresponding penalty(on the attack roll, for example).
As for barbarians: When a barbarian PC rages he generally has a higher strength than other classes. His strength modifier can easily exceed his attack bonus, especially in lower levels. This is not unique to the barbarian, but the limitation on the new PA affects the barbarian more than other classes, by this line of reason. The question then is, is this fair and acceptable?
Certainly it is fair. Every PC with STR 13+ can opt to take or not to take PA. Is the limitation acceptable? I think so, but opinions will vary.
There is nothing keeping a PC from having incredible strength, and the more strength he piles on the more damage he can do. The only limit here is how much benefit can be squeezed from a single easy-entry feat. The change to PA brings its worth more in-line with other melee feats, and that is fine by me.
I am sorry but can you clarify? When you say "is" do you mean WotC or PF?And I never ment to say it was game-breaking, but it is a really good feat.
That wasn't very clear, but I ment 3.5
The Alpha 3 version is quite a bit weaker due to the loss of flexability (neither allowing you to squeeze out just a few points against hard-to-hit foes nor to pulvarize soft/disabled enemies like you used to). As other's have pointed out though, at any given level the sweet-spot for PA does often happen to be right around the same as a warrior's strength bonus.
I can't say for sure just how balanced it would be.
Why change it at all though?
We are giving every class some sort of major bump in Paizo's RPG. Why are we then turning around and slapping Melee down?
Mages get bumped.
Clerics get bumped.
Druids.. eh, they got nerfed- but they deserved it.
Rangers
Paladin
Monks
Fighters
Barbarians
Bards
Everyone is getting a bump!
and now with PA, they are taking the bump back from the pure melee folks. Why? If anything- shouldn't they get bumped a lil more and beat the full casters a little harder with the nerf bat?
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.
Without the PFRPG limit to Power Attack I want to play a rogue with Major Magic (True Strike) and Power Attack. For one attack per day I will make the warriors green with envy.
Doug
Why change it at all though?
We are giving every class some sort of major bump in Paizo's RPG. Why are we then turning around and slapping Melee down?
Melee is getting bumped. A lot. Even if it were taken out of the system completely, one or two iterations at most of Weapons Training would be all it took to make up for it.
That you consider Power Attack inseparable from "melee" is proof enough that something is (or was) wrong.
Ideally, Power Attack should be a balanced choice. A two-handed weapon wielder should be just as likely to pursue Cleave or Overhand Chop.
... At least, in theory.
As I've said before, no one really seemed to mind that Power Attack was such a good feat, they just got used to always taking it. But I can at least see the logic behind fixing it.
Why change it at all though?
We are giving every class some sort of major bump in Paizo's RPG. Why are we then turning around and slapping Melee down?
Melee is getting bumped. A lot. Even if it were taken out of the system completely, one or two iterations at most of Weapons Training would be all it took to make up for it.
That you consider Power Attack inseparable from "melee" is proof enough that something is (or was) wrong.
Ideally, Power Attack should be a balanced choice. A two-handed weapon wielder should be just as likely to pursue Cleave or Overhand Chop.
... At least, in theory.
As I've said before, no one really seemed to mind that Power Attack was such a good feat, they just got used to always taking it. But I can at least see the logic behind fixing it.
I get that there were problems with meta gameing, and people with only 13 strength getting it, but I still feel the limit should have been left alone.
Finally, in your examples above you constantly assume that the Barbarian would take their full BAB in power attack. That is where your discrepancy comes from. In actual games, no melee type maxes out their damage by taking their full BAB as power attack. Usually they try to find just the right amount so they do as much damage as possible while hitting fairly frequently. In our playtests the number PC's arrive at to achieve that balance is right around where PFRPG is setting the static power attack number. At 20th level a Barbarian isn't losing out on 6 points of power attack, because they wouldn't use those points anyway. They would leave something in BAB so that they actually hit with their high damage output attack. Making a design assumption on the idea that players will use every ounce of bonus they have on every power attack is absurd. Players virtually never do that.
Yes a fighter type can swing over and over again, but a caster has utility spells even abilities that can end a fight instantly. You are facing a purely ground opponent mass fly, fight about over. Undead, turn undead, the list probably could go on, even with save or die spells gone.
Why change it at all though?
We are giving every class some sort of major bump in Paizo's RPG. Why are we then turning around and slapping Melee down?
Melee is getting bumped. A lot. Even if it were taken out of the system completely, one or two iterations at most of Weapons Training would be all it took to make up for it.
That you consider Power Attack inseparable from "melee" is proof enough that something is (or was) wrong.
Ideally, Power Attack should be a balanced choice. A two-handed weapon wielder should be just as likely to pursue Cleave or Overhand Chop.
... At least, in theory.
As I've said before, no one really seemed to mind that Power Attack was such a good feat, they just got used to always taking it. But I can at least see the logic behind fixing it.
So your saying that just because everyone who wanted a specific fighting style took this one feat it proves it is broken. I mean, so if one wanted to be a combat trick monkey you think a spiked chain is also broken? Of if they wanted to bull rush, improved bull rush was broken? I think it is just that doing damage is more popular than most other roles for a melee type.
|
|
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 already found it wise to add a number of extra feats over a characters advancement than the core rules supports - so it's not nearly as frustrating to do so.
I believe this is how I'm going to use it in my games going foward.
EDIT: I forgot to mention Prereq for Imp PA is STR 17+
Robert
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 already found it wise to...
Hmm, I think there is already an improved power attack. Seeing as enough people may think that power attack was too powerful, how about this.
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 21, 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.
___________________________________
This solves things greatly in both your concerns. It adds another feat to grant more power. The improved version also ensures that they have a very strong character devoted to combat so it is not out of fluff were a high dex character merely picks it up to get a great ability. It also gives us a better verity in the amount of power attack they can use giving it back its usability, but not full control to mitigate meta gaming. What do you think? I know my write up isn't the best though.
P.S. I would also like to add that this could make for a good standing point to return to the old cleave and great cleave. I miss them too, but if people still think their over powered, I don't know how the %$#% they thought great cleave was, then this feat above can be added to the list or prerequisites for cleave and great cleave.