Power attack and Combat Expertise...


Playtest Reports

101 to 150 of 179 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

Kirth Gersen wrote:
ruemere wrote:
Cap both abilities at penalty level equal to 1/2 BAB.
I agree, and would go a step further and say that combat feats should scale with BAB, just as most spells scale with caster level. What if fireball did a set 5d6 damage, and never increased? Its life span would be even shorter, and no sorcerer would take it. Yet the fighter ends up with things like Dodge (+1 to AC, and insufficient skill points to reach that other +1 for Acrobatics ranks). Dodge should give +1 to AC, +1 per 4 points of BAB.

Having these Feats scale would definitely make them more attractive, but a limit like half-BAB or even full BAB should, IMO, have a minimum +1 caveat, so that a Monk with Power Attack would still be able to do a +1/-1 trade-off, even at 1st level (when his BAB is +0).


Set wrote:
Having these Feats scale would definitely make them more attractive, but a limit like half-BAB or even full BAB should, IMO, have a minimum +1 caveat, so that a Monk with Power Attack would still be able to do a +1/-1 trade-off, even at 1st level (when his BAB is +0).

No disagreement here: start at +1 for all feats (at BAB +0) and scale from there.

Sovereign Court

I wouldn't cap it at half BAB. Too low. Full BAB.


Capping both feats at 1/2 BAB is important for the same reason that also special ability DCs, spell levels used for spell DCs caps at 1/2 character level (or ability):
To preserve somewhat relevance of d20 roll.

The range of d20 roll is between 1 and 20. Therefore each bonus which exceeds 19 and is available to you and not to your opponent, renders the roll meaningless. It's still pretty dangerous for Weapon & Shield user who may get +20 to AC, but the level at which he may such a high AC bonus, it is also the level at which AC is next to meaningless with melee touch/range touch/will save/grapple checks floating around in droves.

This is one of basic assumptions of 3.0 design.

Having said this, why would I cap Power Attack maximum penalty at 1/2 of BAB? To keep the rule standard and similar to Combat Expertise. There is of course a legitimate fear of True Strike Wielders of Scythes of AutoCritical (don't ask, the name should be sufficient to scare any sane GM away).

Regards,
Ruemere

Scarab Sages

As far a this goes, it seems it's mostly the power gamer roll-players who have the most problem with the change...

As a 3.5 DM, I had the problem of the power-gamer in the group taking PA and a 20 STR barbarian, raging and utterly slaughtering everything before others got a chance to do anything. The other players didn't like the character since it was a show-stealer and it made the game a bummer.

I like the idea of the PA being a +TH/+DMG with the offset being the loss to AC instead...a big hit which you better hope kills it...or you might be next. In D&D str affects TH and DMG, so why would swinging as hard as you can with a power attack reduce your chance to hit...Now a feat called wild swing, that would make sense that it would trade accuracy for dmg.

The biggest problem with 3.5PA was the ability of the player to micro-manage exactly how many points he could trade.

These are my opinions of the problem. Combat Expertise I never had a problem with.


The problem with capping Power Attack isn't about the accuracy. It's about the damage. Unlike accuracy, hitpoints are not consistently scalar within a d20 range, or within the CR system. The cases where HD are scalar with CR have so many special abilities that the opponents have the same total hitpoints of half the party, and SLAs and/or full casting which allow them to defeat the party in more creative ways than just melee.

Stacking big, fixed numbers, critical multiplied where applicable, is what PA has been consistently about. Taking away the ability to do massive damage means you will need to go back to 2.0 hitpoints, or be prepared for non-casters to have greatly reduced options.

Variable Power Attack, capped at BAB. Anything else closes down options, and makes every fighter want or need to take UMD at high levels if she wants any kind of self reliance. I'm also all for making better feats, so that the melees have some resource and action allocations to consider, as well.

Sovereign Court

ruemere wrote:

Capping both feats at 1/2 BAB is important for the same reason that also special ability DCs, spell levels used for spell DCs caps at 1/2 character level (or ability):

To preserve somewhat relevance of d20 roll.

The range of d20 roll is between 1 and 20. Therefore each bonus which exceeds 19 and is available to you and not to your opponent, renders the roll meaningless. It's still pretty dangerous for Weapon & Shield user who may get +20 to AC, but the level at which he may such a high AC bonus, it is also the level at which AC is next to meaningless with melee touch/range touch/will save/grapple checks floating around in droves.

This is one of basic assumptions of 3.0 design.

Having said this, why would I cap Power Attack maximum penalty at 1/2 of BAB? To keep the rule standard and similar to Combat Expertise. There is of course a legitimate fear of True Strike Wielders of Scythes of AutoCritical (don't ask, the name should be sufficient to scare any sane GM away).

Regards,
Ruemere

I just wouldn't change the 3.5 version (so, cap at BAB). Or the 3.5 version of Combat Expertise, for that matter. I think that, like a fair number of other people, I'm just going to use the 3.5 versions (indeed, I'd be interested to know how many people aren't going to go back to the 3.5 versions).

Fighters have it hard enough as it is, particularly at higher levels. I also have no idea why PA got nerfed.

Scarab Sages

Fighter's do not have it hard in Pathfinder, and when the full version comes out there will most likely be more fighter only feats that deal lots more damage. (if you watched the Fighter thread during Melee week you know what I'm talking about).

Sovereign Court

I also don't want fighter-only feats. Let the fighter's faster feat progression take care of it.

However, Power Attack wasn't broken. Why was it so badly nerfed?

Sovereign Court

As for "when the full versions comes out...", I hope there will be a lot of melee feats that meleers can take (and the fighter, of course, will be able to take more of them because of having more feat slots). However, I'm talking about the current situation, firstly, and secondly, I want the old Power Attack back. Putting Power Attack back in isn't the most painful house-rule, but nerfing it looked like a combination of solving a non-existent problem (it allegedly being too powerful, as per some) and solving a minor problem DMs could easily solve if if ever came up (some players wasting play time calculating how much to Power Attack for).


ruemere wrote:


Combat Expertise:
- prerequisite: Dexterity 13+.
- if using shield, add double to Armor Class (still subject to maximum penalty of 1/2 BAB)

Beautiful! I'll be using this. Though I'd scale so that shield type mattered. Maybe this as base for Medium Shield, if buckler then 1.5x instead of double.. or something like that. But yeah, great idea.

As with everything else in D&D, PA is much better at increasing dmg than CE is at increasing AC...

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Yet the fighter ends up with things like Dodge (+1 to AC, and insufficient skill points to reach that other +1 for Acrobatics ranks). Dodge should give +1 to AC, +1 per 4 points of BAB.

And don't forget he has to 'activate' the feat by using up his swift action (yeah I know non-casters rarely need that swift action but you know... who knows when that magic item will require a swift action to activate... and the idea of wasting actions to "activate" a feat is ridiculous)

What I do is let dodge be a cumulative feat you can take multiple times. It's not that much of help, but helps a little. Specially for the fighter, getting feat every level, picking up a few dodges along the way helps a little.


Krome wrote:

While I agree that PA anc CE have been totally nerfed I do not think it matters any more. The Beta is out, and the designers did not make changes, even after some very vocal complaints following the Alpha release.

Feel free to re-argue these problems, but I do not believe there will be any changes made in the final version of Pathfinder.

What we see is likely to be 99% of the final product. Some editorial changes will be made, fixing typoes and clarifying rules (CMB VERY poorly explained!).

We can still jump them on it in the feat section, that is coming up next.


Bagpuss wrote:
As for "when the full versions comes out...", I hope there will be a lot of melee feats that meleers can take (and the fighter, of course, will be able to take more of them because of having more feat slots). However, I'm talking about the current situation, firstly, and secondly, I want the old Power Attack back. Putting Power Attack back in isn't the most painful house-rule, but nerfing it looked like a combination of solving a non-existent problem (it allegedly being too powerful, as per some) and solving a minor problem DMs could easily solve if if ever came up (some players wasting play time calculating how much to Power Attack for).

I have to strongly disagree with the assessment that the 'old' Power Attack is not broken.

All throughtout the pre-PF Beta campaigns - especially in the Savage Tide campaign - I saw "dial-a-damage" Power Attack implemented by the players first. Either as a wild gamble, but most often ~95% of the time because some one figured out the baddies' precise AC at the table, then the Power Attacks flew thick and fast. In most cases the Power Attacking characters wielded two-handed weapons.
In almmost all cases the baddies died in ridiculously short amounts of time, directly attributable to melee damage output. I won't get into tactical feats and all the other stuff here, let alone how one can 'in character' communicate a game concept such as AC in 3 or 4 words... In short, as soon as they figured out the critter's AC, the Power Attack characters suddendly gravitated towards the "sweet" minus-to-hit number that permitted even their worst attack an acceptable "whiff" range.

In 3e, "fighter types" (especially/including buff-machine clerics and pre-PF Beta wild-shape+buff-machine druids) have become kings of damage for the party, whereas until then Wizards (and Magic-Users) before them were. Not any more, not by a long shot.

The big balance to Power Attack and its ranged counterpart Deadly Aim is the 'fixed ratio' element of it. This also can benefit the PC's, as the baddies cannot do the same 'fine tuning' of attack bonus based upon their specific target. I have seen several GM's 'metagame' their bad guys' Power Attack bonuses by PC - although not within the same combat round - hewing them down like so much wheat, despite any remotely logical way to having ever discerned that mechanical value. Yes, one can theoretically estimate how easy some one is to hit - in game terms only a Monk should have such precise control of just how hard they hit! - but, one does not truly know how easy some one is to hit until you take that swing! Even then it varies as one's foe attempts to outmaneuver you, such as fighting defensively, implementing a Dodge feat, blocking your blows with - say, a freezer door and so on.

In a way, a Power Attack is a 'telegraphed' move, similar to a haymaker or any similarly high-powered blow, as far as I can tell. Or, in other words, perhaps that is how the developers perceive the feat?


Turin the Mad wrote:
Bagpuss wrote:
As for "when the full versions comes out...", I hope there will be a lot of melee feats that meleers can take (and the fighter, of course, will be able to take more of them because of having more feat slots). However, I'm talking about the current situation, firstly, and secondly, I want the old Power Attack back. Putting Power Attack back in isn't the most painful house-rule, but nerfing it looked like a combination of solving a non-existent problem (it allegedly being too powerful, as per some) and solving a minor problem DMs could easily solve if if ever came up (some players wasting play time calculating how much to Power Attack for).

I have to strongly disagree with the assessment that the 'old' Power Attack is not broken.

All throughtout the pre-PF Beta campaigns - especially in the Savage Tide campaign - I saw "dial-a-damage" Power Attack implemented by the players first. Either as a wild gamble, but most often ~95% of the time because some one figured out the baddies' precise AC at the table, then the Power Attacks flew thick and fast. In most cases the Power Attacking characters wielded two-handed weapons.
In almmost all cases the baddies died in ridiculously short amounts of time, directly attributable to melee damage output. I won't get into tactical feats and all the other stuff here, let alone how one can 'in character' communicate a game concept such as AC in 3 or 4 words... In short, as soon as they figured out the critter's AC, the Power Attack characters suddendly gravitated towards the "sweet" minus-to-hit number that permitted even their worst attack an acceptable "whiff" range.

In 3e, "fighter types" (especially/including buff-machine clerics and pre-PF Beta wild-shape+buff-machine druids) have become kings of damage for the party, whereas until then Wizards (and Magic-Users) before them were. Not any more, not by a long shot.

The big balance to Power Attack and its ranged counterpart Deadly Aim is the...

Power attack a side, combat expertise is useless now to most fighter types, who don't have a good stat, and every stat point they got to increase for the soul purpose of a feat. Also making combat expertise grant double if one uses a light, heavy, or tower shield might be a good way to start.


Turin the Mad wrote:
Yes, one can theoretically estimate how easy some one is to hit - in game terms only a Monk should have such precise control of just how hard they hit! - but, one does not truly know how easy some one is to hit until you take that swing!

Disagree some what on the first part. I do think a well trained meleer could control the degree of power they put into an attack, but not as accurate as a monk. While I will refuse to comment on the limits of the current power attack one way or another, I think that some options should be open to players. I favorite is having them able to power attack for 1, sets of 5, or everything. However you comments on GMs meta gaming does seem to concern me, so I guess in the end I am indifferent, just thought I would put a thought out there.


Pathfinder X wrote:
Fighter's do not have it hard in Pathfinder, and when the full version comes out there will most likely be more fighter only feats that deal lots more damage. (if you watched the Fighter thread during Melee week you know what I'm talking about).

I have read the thread. As for you...

First of all, lack of damage is not a problem here.
Secondly, more fighter-only feats are the worst fix possible.
Thirdly, most importantly, I wish some people tried to provide reasons before they make broad statements like yours.

Lack of damage is not a problem since hitpoints scale differently for players and opponents' Challenge Ratings. It has been mentioned numerous times, it has been addressed in various fix proposals, but in short - damage does not scale properly with levels, PCs' hitpoints growth is linear, opponents' hitpoints growth is at least twice as fast (depends on opponent type).

Adding more damage is the wrong way to solve it since it will hurt PCs most (monsters are disposable, PCs are not, after all).

Fighter-only feats are worst fix possible. It's one of the several rule exceptions in d20 I despise with passion. Here is why.

From mechanical point of view, they are simply a bunch of class features. So, while they may look and smell like feats, they are used the same way class features are. And so, to learn about capabilities of your class, instead of reading it in class entry, you need to look into another section. But that's not all, since spells (similar case) are used by more than one class at the same time. The spell naming conventions also follow certain index canons.
Whereas fighter feats:
- restricted to be used by a single class,
- follow nonstandard naming index rules (harder to find).

Digression and trick question: Why index canon on listing names uses the following syntax <noun>, <adjective>?
The answer is: because if you want to shorten definition by saying that X is like Y with one exception, you can place such entries together. The authors of Spells section got it right with "Teleport", "Teleport, Greater" and "Teleport Object". The authors in charges of Feats section obviously didn't ("Weapon Focus" and "Greater Weapon Focus").

And, though irate, I prefer to end with constructive stuff:

Fix proposals

1. Remove Fighter only feats. Remove feat chains.
Tier feats into types I have proposed earlier (Standard, Heroic, Legendary, Epic, Avatar) basing on the power they grant and then your Fighters will be able to get more of the goodness than other classes (thanks to Bonus feats).

2. Add feats which improve manoeuver chances and deal negative conditions. No need for more "damage+" feats. They break game for player characters.

3. Fix feat listing already!

Regards,
Ruemere


Pathfinder X wrote:

As far a this goes, it seems it's mostly the power gamer roll-players who have the most problem with the change...

As a 3.5 DM, I had the problem of the power-gamer in the group taking PA and a 20 STR barbarian, raging and utterly slaughtering everything before others got a chance to do anything. The other players didn't like the character since it was a show-stealer and it made the game a bummer.

I like the idea of the PA being a +TH/+DMG with the offset being the loss to AC instead...a big hit which you better hope kills it...or you might be next. In D&D str affects TH and DMG, so why would swinging as hard as you can with a power attack reduce your chance to hit...Now a feat called wild swing, that would make sense that it would trade accuracy for dmg.

The biggest problem with 3.5PA was the ability of the player to micro-manage exactly how many points he could trade.

These are my opinions of the problem. Combat Expertise I never had a problem with.

Standard disclaimer (you'll see this a lot now): This is how the game works. Change it or deal with it, but opinions never enter into the equation be they mine or anyone else's.

Incorrect.

1: Powergamers (incorrect definition) will not take a Barbarian. They will take a CoDzilla or Wizard combined with Celerity and whatever other super tricks, because they want the best possible chassis for their best possible build, not a one trick pony they have to fight constantly just to keep relevant, much less be overpowered.

2: Powergamers (correct definition) will play a Barbarian if they want. However, that Barbarian will not have a 20 Strength. It will have a 26 Strength, because it is possible to get 4 Str and 4 Con as racial bonuses on an LA 0 race combined with the obvious 18 base stat, and rage. Not that this is necessary since at the low levels he will kill whatever in one hit anyways, and beyond that that sort of min maxing (his racial stats are +4/-2/+4/-2/-2/-2, which is the correct definition of min max) is just helping him try to keep up with his one trick.

3: Having options as a mundane is not a bad thing. While those options are rather bland in this case, it's still better than nothing.

Speaking as someone who is well versed in optimization fu, getting + to hit and + to damage (stats that matter) and only losing AC (a stat that doesn't really matter) is like Shock Trooper, except far better and cheaper. Now if you don't mind this, that's cool. It will however do very fun things for charger builds. More to the point, if you think a very basic Barbarian (even the newbie can work out to take a 16 Strength, rage, and PA with a greataxe) is over the top I highly doubt this was intended, or that you know what you are doing given the inherently self contradictory nature of those two consecutive paragraphs.

Now on the subject as a whole, PA and CE need to be reverted to 3.5 at an absolute minimum. CE is turtling, and turtling as a concept is invalid regardless of the manner of the execution simply because the definition of the word means if you succeed, the enemy loses interest in you because you are hiding in your shell and goes to eat someone else. Exactly the thing you don't want them doing as the 'tank' and the thing you have to actively prevent them from doing provided the enemy is remotely intelligent. So I will simply focus on PA, as it can be saved and therefore isn't pointless to discuss.

The minimum 1/1 thing is a good idea. If some Monk wants to miss more, let them. It won't hurt anything. Promise. Other ideas include adding the following to PA:

BAB 6: Successful hit with PA renders target shaken (You hit them hard, so you rattled them a bit) for 1 round. Save DC intentionally trivial so as to be natural 1 only unless the enemy is very weak, but it is a free effect on every hit.

BAB 11: Like above, except sickened. (Is it hard to imagine hitting someone enough to make them retch?)

BAB 16: As above, except Confused. (Headshot, anyone? Power Attack is basically Called Shots anyways just without implicit fluff.)

The effects are cumulative. 5% chance to inflict one of up to three different statuses on every hit isn't great, but is helping them a little.


Crusader of Logic wrote:


2: Powergamers (correct definition) will play a Barbarian if they want. However, that Barbarian will not have a 20 Strength. It will have a 26 Strength, because it is possible to get 4 Str and 4 Con as racial bonuses on an LA 0 race combined with the obvious 18 base stat, and rage. Not that this is necessary since at the low levels he will kill whatever in one hit anyways, and beyond that that sort of min maxing (his racial stats are +4/-2/+4/-2/-2/-2, which is the correct definition of min max)...

Wait, what race is that?

Crusader of Logic wrote:


The minimum 1/1 thing is a good idea. If some Monk wants to miss more, let them. It won't hurt anything. Promise. Other ideas include adding the following to PA:

BAB 6: Successful hit with PA renders target shaken (You hit them hard, so you rattled them a bit) for 1 round. Save DC intentionally trivial so as to be natural 1 only unless the enemy is very weak, but it is a free effect on every hit.

BAB 11: Like above, except sickened. (Is it hard to imagine hitting someone enough to make them retch?)

BAB 16: As above, except Confused. (Headshot, anyone? Power Attack is basically Called Shots anyways just without implicit fluff.)

The effects are cumulative. 5% chance to inflict one of up to three different statuses on every hit isn't great, but is helping them a little.

The Pathfinder designers seem to not like the whole scaling and choosing part of it:

Some people say they don't think a Barbarian should have so much control over his attacks (some think Barbarian are supposed to be reckless)
Granted, it is the player who does the accounting; not the character. The character just attacks.

So why not something like:
BAB up to +3: -2 penalty to hit, +2 damage.
Bab after +3 (BAB +4-20, etc): -4 penalty to hit, +4 damage.
The player can choose either option uption reaching BAB +4.

That is less math and still similar benefits.
Also, no relying on Str limit like Pathfinder version.

Yours sound like it should be a decent feat:
Expanded Power Attack:
When using power attack on a foe, you have aditional benefits.
- Upon reaching BAB +6, once, round if successfully hit with a PA readers target shaken for 1 round. Save Fort Negate, DC 10 +1/2 damage dealt (that shouldn't be much usually).
- Upon reaching BAB ++11, you can choose to sicken the foe instead.
Save Fort Negate, DC 10 +1/2 damage dealt.

- Upon reaching BAB +16: you can choose to the Confused the foe instead. Save Fort Negate, DC 10 +1/2 damage dealt.


Standard disclaimer: This is how the game works. Change it or deal with it, but opinions never enter into the equation be they mine or anyone else's.

Dragonborn Water Orc. Dragonborn is Races of the Dragon, Water Orc is a racial variant in the SRD that also gets +2 Con without really losing anything. It's standard fare for optimized melee. You also get to fly as an Ex ability beginning at level 6.

Being 'reckless' means using Power Attack. That is not a counterpoint.

Having to require a bunch of extra feats is exactly the opposite of what is needed as the issue with mundanes is they get too little for their money, aka feats are incredibly weak. The power of feats must be increases if mundanes are to be worth considering, not degenerated further by needing multiple feats to Power Attack.

Anyways, a save of 10 + half damage doesn't qualify as a trivial DC. In fact it's likely to get up into the 20s and 30s, even at mid level. At which point you might as well just say every hit renders the enemy shaken, sickened, and confused as BAB allows. That would be a double fix however. Though you make it one or the other, which brings it back down to meh status (sickened is only marginally better than shaken, but if it's applying as an additional factor there's some real scaling).

Your idea is actually more math. Instead of memorizing a very simple pattern you now need to memorize a short table. It's still all or nothing, negating its viability, and it's still too bland for this purpose as well, not to mention giving mundanes something different to do than 'I attack'.


Crusader of Logic wrote:

[...][Power Attack]BAB 6: Successful hit with PA renders target shaken (You hit them hard, so you rattled them a bit) for 1 round. Save DC intentionally trivial so as to be natural 1 only unless the enemy is very weak, but it is a free effect on every hit.

BAB 11: Like above, except sickened. (Is it hard to imagine hitting someone enough to make them retch?)

BAB 16: As above, except Confused. (Headshot, anyone? Power Attack is basically Called Shots anyways just without implicit fluff.)

The effects are cumulative. 5% chance to inflict one of up to three different statuses on every hit isn't great, but is helping them a little.

Great idea, though adding a new roll to attack resolution is not entirely to my liking, especially when multiple attacks come into question.

Also, confused adds another roll per target affected each turn without a rule how to escape the condition.

Counter suggestion:
- 6+ Shaken / 11+ Sickened / 16+ Stunned
- creatures immune to criticals are immune to this effect
- effect is automatic
- target is allowed to spent an attack of opportunity as an immediate action to make a Fortitude save against DC of 10 + PA (i.e. getting out of the effect is trivial, but it costs an AoO)
- effect lasts until Fortitude save is made
- target is entitled to one free Fortitude save each round at the beginning of target's turn

Regards,
Ruemere

Scarab Sages

Kirth Gersen wrote:
I would go a step further and say that combat feats should scale with BAB, just as most spells scale with caster level. What if fireball did a set 5d6 damage, and never increased? Its life span would be even shorter, and no sorcerer would take it. Yet the fighter ends up with things like Dodge (+1 to AC, and insufficient skill points to reach that other +1 for Acrobatics ranks). Dodge should give +1 to AC, +1 per 4 points of BAB.

Back in the old days, there was a reason spells scaled with caster level, as the casters had so few spells/day (no bonuses for high Int, no specialisation), a limit on spells known, no way to create scrolls/wands/potions, until after retirement level.

Simply put, they needed to scale, as that was all you got, you had to make it count.

Since those debilitating rules were all changed, for a 'quadruple-fix', there's is less need for scaling spells.

Scarab Sages

Set wrote:
Man, the idea of using actions, of any sort, to activate Feats, is exponentially lame. I thought that got left behind in Alpha...
ledgabriel wrote:
God yes, it's ridiculous! Why do they insist in this thing I don't know... If the feat maneuver takes a standard or full or whatever action to complete is one thing, it's part of the action, but wasting an action to "activate" the feat is stupid.

Maybe we should force casters to use up their swift actions, to apply their feats?

"Let's see...hmm...spend swift action to activate Quicken Spell...tum-ti-tum...apply it to spell X...cast spell X as my swift action...bugger!"


ruemere wrote:
Crusader of Logic wrote:

[...][Power Attack]BAB 6: Successful hit with PA renders target shaken (You hit them hard, so you rattled them a bit) for 1 round. Save DC intentionally trivial so as to be natural 1 only unless the enemy is very weak, but it is a free effect on every hit.

BAB 11: Like above, except sickened. (Is it hard to imagine hitting someone enough to make them retch?)

BAB 16: As above, except Confused. (Headshot, anyone? Power Attack is basically Called Shots anyways just without implicit fluff.)

The effects are cumulative. 5% chance to inflict one of up to three different statuses on every hit isn't great, but is helping them a little.

Great idea, though adding a new roll to attack resolution is not entirely to my liking, especially when multiple attacks come into question.

Also, confused adds another roll per target affected each turn without a rule how to escape the condition.

Counter suggestion:
- 6+ Shaken / 11+ Sickened / 16+ Stunned
- creatures immune to criticals are immune to this effect
- effect is automatic
- target is allowed to spent an attack of opportunity as an immediate action to make a Fortitude save against DC of 10 + PA (i.e. getting out of the effect is trivial, but it costs an AoO)
- effect lasts until Fortitude save is made
- target is entitled to one free Fortitude save each round at the beginning of target's turn

Regards,
Ruemere

Rule to escape? All durations are one round. Do something random (which might throw enemies into disarray), then return to normal. Stun aside from shutting them down entirely means you don't get to do the divide and conquer thing which any 16+ mundane should be able to manage at least some of the time.

Making it only work on those susceptible to precision just means the Fighter is a Rogue, without the ability to do something besides fight. He already gets enough of that as it is with the PF stuff, without making it worse.

Simplifying the mechanics is certainly possible though. Roll a D20 for each status at the end of the round. Every time you hit them that round expands the range by 1. So if you hit all 5 times, and you roll a 16-20, you made them Sickened. Only hit once, you need a 20. For simplicity it could be low is good, but that conflicts with the usual precedent. Unless the DM does it, then him rolling low is good from your perspective, and it's still consistent. Since none of these statuses help you on your turn (they lower offensive stats and saves, neither of which you are attacking or create a status that isn't going to interfere on your turn) nothing is really lost in the translation. It is three extra dice, but you could always roll those all at once. Adds about 2 seconds to the 20 seconds it takes to say I full attack for the over 9,000th time and roll hit and damage.


Oh and with few exceptions, caster level mainly just helps blasting which are the ones that need it most due to that little fact that even with it they do trivial damage. Otherwise you get some range, and a counterstat to SR, and that's about it.

Then there's Blasphemy and friends, which use the CL mechanic incredibly well. And by incredibly well I mean get about +10 CL with trivial ease, then proceed to auto kill any non evil creature. For the evil guys, well that's what the rest of the estranged family is for.

Sovereign Court

Turin the Mad wrote:


I have to strongly disagree with the assessment that the 'old' Power Attack is not broken.

*snip*

We shall have to disagree, then. Power Attack, in my experience, merely extends the viability of the fighter a little (and, for example, reduces his ineffectiveness when he has to move before attacking, which is relatively often unless opponents are highly constrained or else are morons).


Turin the Mad wrote:
Bagpuss wrote:
As for "when the full versions comes out...", I hope there will be a lot of melee feats that meleers can take (and the fighter, of course, will be able to take more of them because of having more feat slots). However, I'm talking about the current situation, firstly, and secondly, I want the old Power Attack back. Putting Power Attack back in isn't the most painful house-rule, but nerfing it looked like a combination of solving a non-existent problem (it allegedly being too powerful, as per some) and solving a minor problem DMs could easily solve if if ever came up (some players wasting play time calculating how much to Power Attack for).

I have to strongly disagree with the assessment that the 'old' Power Attack is not broken.

All throughtout the pre-PF Beta campaigns - especially in the Savage Tide campaign - I saw "dial-a-damage" Power Attack implemented by the players first. Either as a wild gamble, but most often ~95% of the time because some one figured out the baddies' precise AC at the table, then the Power Attacks flew thick and fast. In most cases the Power Attacking characters wielded two-handed weapons.
In almmost all cases the baddies died in ridiculously short amounts of time, directly attributable to melee damage output. I won't get into tactical feats and all the other stuff here, let alone how one can 'in character' communicate a game concept such as AC in 3 or 4 words... In short, as soon as they figured out the critter's AC, the Power Attack characters suddendly gravitated towards the "sweet" minus-to-hit number that permitted even their worst attack an acceptable "whiff" range.

In 3e, "fighter types" (especially/including buff-machine clerics and pre-PF Beta wild-shape+buff-machine druids) have become kings of damage for the party, whereas until then Wizards (and Magic-Users) before them were. Not any more, not by a long shot.

The big balance to Power Attack and its ranged counterpart Deadly Aim is the...

Standard disclaimer: This is how the game works. Change it or deal with it, but opinions never enter into the equation be they mine or anyone else's.

First, watch a real fight sometime. The combatants will watch each other and occasionally throw a testing blow. This is feeling out their defenses. Once they both figure it out the real combat begins. This is what adjusting PA is. It is both simulated well and poorly. Poorly because fights don't last more than about twenty seconds, well because while normal combatants take a while to feel each other out, you're a bit better than even a professional UFC fighter or whatever.

Second, melees using a two hander is just standard fare for any melee that wants to be relevant past level 2 (where even a longsword tends to be an auto kill, or a two hit KO just like a two hander).

Third, define ridiculously short. Because if a combat is lasting more than three rounds it's either because you deliberately designed the encounter for stalling purposes such as outsiders with buffed defenses, or because a TPK is inevitable. Waves based combat is actually multiple fights so that doesn't count.

Fourth, Savage Tide is freakin' vicious. Optimize or die. Just like Age of Worms and Shackled City. I'm surprised they still lived. They likely would not have if they were not taking the smart approach available to them.

Fifth, how is having smart melee players a bad thing?

Sixth, no one cares about direct damage. Mostly because you need to do so much of it to actually matter. Wizards auto win battles. That is to say, their attacks remove 1 HP. Except it is the last HP, so they win. Oh and in earlier editions you were comparing 10d6 vs saves, resists/immunes, and magic resistance you couldn't really bypass to about 1d8+6 * 6 or something of that nature that simply needs to hit and that's it. So actually even that much isn't true.


Crusader of Logic wrote:
Rule to escape? All durations are one round. Do something random (which might throw enemies into disarray), then return to normal. Stun aside from shutting them down entirely means you don't get to do the divide and conquer thing which any 16+ mundane should be able to manage at least some of the time.

You were the first to take economy of actions to take into account. While your solution would most certainly serve well for multiple opponents, using 1 round effect on a BBEG which just ate all of available EL, will simply serve to end the encounter.

That's why an emergency exit must be available. Otherwise, first two melee guys will lock any BBEG down.

Crusader of Logic wrote:
Making it only work on those susceptible to precision just means the Fighter is a Rogue, without the ability to do something besides fight. He already gets enough of that as it is with the PF stuff, without making it worse.

On the other hand, making stuff like shaken and so on work on elementals and golems, may seem something of a stretch in the style of infamous 4E. How about choosing effects which are a bit more opponent type independent?

- 6+ Unbalanced 2 / 11+ Flat-footed / 16+ Dazed
- Unbalanced N - penalty of N to attack and skills
- all effects disappear at the beginning of opponent's turn and successful Foritude save is made (DC 10 + 1/2 BAB + Str modifier), or, if the Fortitude check is failed, one round later.

Crusader of Logic wrote:
Simplifying the mechanics is certainly possible though. Roll a D20 for each status at the end of the round. [...] Adds about 2 seconds to the 20 seconds it takes to say I full attack for the over 9,000th time and roll hit and damage.

Three problems: 4E was there before and it is still problematic for greater number of opponents (keeping track of special conditions for specific opponents out of larger group). It adds another subsystem to 3.5. It is not necessary to be this complicated (see above).

Regards,
Ruemere

PS. For the sake of ease of play:
- binary conditions expiring at already presented stages of combat resolutions are fine (for large scale fun, just drop markerks on minis),
- adding condition tracks to already limping mechanics are not (keeping a booklet for each opponent? Oh <obligatory deity reference>, please no!).


It has a 25% chance of getting applied if PAing, and hitting with all 5 attacks. Including the one at -15. That's not locking down anything. It's applying minor to moderate penalties along with hurting it. Any amount of PA will do, however the higher you PA for the more you get damage instead of effects due to missing and vice versa. So PA 1 means max status probability, whereas harder PAs mean more damage. It gives mundanes options.

Also, what self respecting BBEG is all alone? Action Economy auto negates him anyways. It just gets to be the mundane that takes the gold medal this time, and not a caster. Maybe. Also, your statuses are out of line. Flat footed is too conditional, and is inferior to taking attack penalties and such. It's also not a trivial DC so you risk double fixing.


Crusader of Logic wrote:
It has a 25% chance of getting applied if PAing, and hitting with all 5 attacks. [...] It gives mundanes options.

Fine. I'm sold if you forget about "Roll a D20 for each status at the end..." of yours. I have GMed several systems where similar mechanic (i.e. condition track with upkeep) were employed, and while it worked for shootouts among small number of people, it failed when scores were employed.

Crusader of Logic wrote:
Also, what self respecting BBEG is all alone? Action Economy auto negates him anyways. It just gets to be the mundane that takes the gold medal this time, and not a caster. Maybe. Also, your statuses are out of line. Flat footed is too conditional, and is inferior to taking attack penalties and such. It's also not a trivial DC so you risk double fixing.

The suprised one. SH&T combo (Scry, Haste & Teleport) made it really easy for intermediate levels to kick hindquarters of BBEGs. Later, when stuff to protect from such nasty surprises, becomes more readily available, it loses its importance, but still proves to be painful.

That's why I advocate binary (i.e. either ON or OFF) and relative (no auto-win, escape is possible) conditions.

Getting back on track:

Power Attack
POWER ATTACK [GENERAL]
Prerequisite: Str 13. Base Attack Bonus 1+.
Benefit: Before you make a first melee attack this round with a non-light weapon (remember that natural weapons are considered light weapons, also, any weapon of the same size type as your character, is considered non-light), you may choose to take a penalty to attack which does not exceed your Base Attack Bonus. The penalty persists until the beginning of your next turn. In exchange for the penalty, you gain bonus to your damage rolls equal to the number of points deducted from your attack bonus until the beginning of your next turn.
If you wield your weapon in two hands, apply double damage bonus.
If you damage your target and if you meet additional prerequisite of Base Attack Bonus, your opponent becomes a subject to:
- Base Attack Bonus 6+ - Shaken condition,
- Base Attack Bonus 11+ - Sickened condition,
- Base Attack Bonus 16+ - Dazed condition.
The condition persists for one round. The target may, as an immediate action, spend one of Attacks of Opportunity to make Fortitude check (DC equal to your Attack bonus including Power Attack penalty) to negate the condition at any time.

----

Good enough? You get to pound some respect into your enemies, while they can still escape. Meanwhile, tentacled and multiarmed guys with numerous AoOs get to pay so that your friend can flank them without incurring reach-related attacks.
And the Mooks and Mages are not subjected to a trivial save.

Regards,
Ruemere


The thing you are doing is counterproductive to the aims you are claiming to have. This is not the first time this has been pointed out.


Crusader of Logic wrote:
The thing you are doing is counterproductive to the aims you are claiming to have. This is not the first time this has been pointed out.

There is no point to any criticism unless you can come up with a suggestion worth playtesting.

The solution I have originally put forth was 3.5 Power Attack capped with BAB/2 (exception: for BAB=1, the cap is 1). To expand on that, I have also proposed to add similar version of Combat Expertise (i.e. cap of BAB/2).
You have suggested improving on PA by adding additional effects to attack.
After short exchange I have attempted to turn the product of the exchange into tentative feat write-up.

You have the following options:
- bash it and leave it at this stage (implying that scattered suggestions are sufficient for a designer possibly reading this thread)
- provide your write-up, to allow people here to draw their own conclusions and possibly make designers choose between the two
- other (for example, admit that my proposal is more suitable :P)

Personally, I would prefer that you choose the middle option and then we can quit the talking letting other testers (and possible designers) take over.

Of course, I realize that my proposal is a bit too cluttered to be ready for final version, however that's the part to be improved at later stage. For now, I would be content to reach a working agreement and produce something meaningful.
Kindly note that most replies in this thread contained positive opinions on both retaining and improving 3.5 Power Attack. Therefore, any decent fix stands a chance to be implemented.

Regards,
Ruemere


I have already provided my write up. And as stated before, if you are writing from the perspective of 'melee should not be able to prevent enemies from retreating' the fact your example actually makes it harder for them to run away than my write up is counterproductive to your own goals. After all, confusion immunity is more common than dazing immunity, a save based on damage is not trivial, and confusion means do random stuff while daze means do nothing.


Crusader of Logic wrote:
I have already provided my write up. And as stated before, if you are writing from the perspective of 'melee should not be able to prevent enemies from retreating' the fact your example actually makes it harder for them to run away than my write up is counterproductive to your own goals. After all, confusion immunity is more common than dazing immunity, a save based on damage is not trivial, and confusion means do random stuff while daze means do nothing.

Yet, I do present trvially easy to use "escape clause", that is spending AoO in exchange for a Fortitude saving throw. In other words, while it's easy to inflict a nasty condition, it is also easy to clean it up, albeit at the cost. It's a win-win for everyone - you get to do cool stuff, and even if they throw it off, they still get to pay for it.

Also, note that:
- confusion immunity is more common only if your campaign features more opponents of that kind. The reason for escape clause is to provide suitably opponent type independent mechanic.
- "Fortitude vs DC equal to your Attack bonus including Power Attack penalty" - no mention of damage here, the scaling is non-trivial, I admit, however according to BAB scaling, it is quite possible to succeed at the save if you're a melee oriented type, while wizardly types being in less than favourable position, should be a little more wary of casting in vicinity of melee brutes.
- confusion is both a bit random and problematic - you may, by accident attack your friend. This is not good and... how many times did you see someone THAT confused?

However, as a compromise, how about making the effects cumulative, i.e.
6+ Shaken (penalty total: -2)
11+ Shaken and Sickened (penalty total: -2 and -4)
16+ Shaken and Sickened and Staggered (penalty total: -2 and -4, also may take only standard or move action on their turn, take swift and immediate actions as normal)

And removing Fortitude save altogether, while making the effects last for one round?

Pathfinder BETA wrote:

Shaken: A shaken character takes a -2 penalty on attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks, and ability checks. Shaken is a less severe state of fear than frightened or panicked.

Sickened: The character takes a -2 penalty on all attack rolls, weapon damage rolls, saving throws, skill checks, and ability checks.
Staggered: A staggered creature may take a single move action or standard action each round (but not both, nor can he take full-round actions).

Regards,

Ruemere


Confusion is Compulsion and Mind Affecting. Immunities left, right, and center. Including on those mages. Dazing... Is there even anything in core that is immune to that? I don't even know of any ways to get immunity that doesn't involve random templates, or non core spells, or whatever.

An attack roll based save DC still pushes most enemies off the RNG entirely. By most enemies, I mean all but the most heavily buffed casters (even melee needs a 20).

Hitting an enemy hard enough to make them not see well for a moment, and stab a friend (rolled 81 on confusion chart) because he thought it was you... how is this hard to envision for someone who is to the Spartans what the Spartans are to normal soldiers? Divide and conquer is a hell of a lot more thematic than making them stand around drooling for 6 seconds.

Dark Archive

Bagpuss wrote:
I wouldn't cap it at half BAB. Too low. Full BAB.

You could have Combat Expertise cap at full BAB in 3E, if you took 'Superior Expertise'. I have taken Power Attack and Combat Expertise for many of my PCs in 3E, but at higher levels it was rarely a good trade-off to use them, at least in my experience -- usually only one of your attacks connected, if you took a penalty greater than 4 or 5 to your attack rolls. With 2-handed weapons it was occasionally perhaps worth it.

And most monsters hit you anyway, unless you took something like -10 to hit and +10 to AC (which meant that you usually didn't connect with any of your attacks).

Having said that, I think the Beta version is even worse, because you can't even modulate the penalties and bonuses. And the cap depending on your INT for Combat Expertise? Even if I did invest in INT, the maximum would be -2/+2 (i.e. INT 14) even with the Epic point-buy. I hope Jason will reconsider this, because at the moment it's not worth it, unless you're a Rogue or an elven Fighter/Wizard.


Crusader of Logic wrote:

[...]

Hitting an enemy hard enough to make them not see well for a moment, and stab a friend (rolled 81 on confusion chart) because he thought it was you... how is this hard to envision for someone who is to the Spartans what the Spartans are to normal soldiers? Divide and conquer is a hell of a lot more thematic than making them stand around drooling for 6 seconds.

Ok, let's change the save.

1 round effect. Fortitude check DC 10 + Level/2 + Str bonus.

Is Blindness for one round fine for you? Again, I am not comfortable with characters losing control over their characters (25% chance to act normally) just because their opponent won initiative and whacked them. Being hindered by negative effects is ok, but losing control of character? Definitely so.

By the laws of probability, introducing critical hits and special effects, makes PCs much more susceptible to them than opponents (as I said previously, mobs are disposable, characters are not).

Regards,
Ruemere


Asgetrion wrote:
And the cap depending on your INT for Combat Expertise?

As I've often said before, combat feats that scale with things other than BAB are a clear message that combat-oriented characters are not meant to benefit from them. Let me start with Combat Expertise, and alter it to make an example of a feat that's potentially useful to martial characters:

Defensive Fighting, Improved (Combat)
Prerequisite: BAB +1
Benefit: Instead of the normal bonuses and penalties for fighting defensively, you may instead choose to subtract 1 from your attack rolls and add 1 as a dodge bonus to your AC. If you are holding a light, heavy, or tower shield -- but not a buckler -- your dodge bonus to AC is +2 instead of +1; this bonus does not apply for animated shields.
For every 3 points of your BAB, you may choose to take an additional -1 penalty to attack rolls in exchange for an additional +1 dodge bonus to AC (+2 with a shield), to a maximum -7 to attack and +7 (or +14) AC at BAB +18.
Normal: Fighting defensively applies a static -4 penalty to attacks in exchange for a +2 dodge bonus to AC.

This rewrite of Combat Expertise has the following features:

  • Elimination of fighter-punative Int prerequisite;
  • References existing similar mechanic instead of creating a bizarre new rules subset;
  • Scales with BAB, so the greatest benefits go to the better combatants, and so that it stays relevant at higher levels;
  • Mirrors Power Attack's +1/+2 bonus, as Epic Meepo points out; in this case, it's of greater benefit to "real" (as opposed to animated) sword-and-shield combatants instead of THW combatants.


  • ruemere wrote:
    Crusader of Logic wrote:

    [...]

    Hitting an enemy hard enough to make them not see well for a moment, and stab a friend (rolled 81 on confusion chart) because he thought it was you... how is this hard to envision for someone who is to the Spartans what the Spartans are to normal soldiers? Divide and conquer is a hell of a lot more thematic than making them stand around drooling for 6 seconds.

    Ok, let's change the save.

    1 round effect. Fortitude check DC 10 + Level/2 + Str bonus.

    Is Blindness for one round fine for you? Again, I am not comfortable with characters losing control over their characters (25% chance to act normally) just because their opponent won initiative and whacked them. Being hindered by negative effects is ok, but losing control of character? Definitely so.

    By the laws of probability, introducing critical hits and special effects, makes PCs much more susceptible to them than opponents (as I said previously, mobs are disposable, characters are not).

    Regards,
    Ruemere

    Enemy wins init, attacks once. The target has a 5% chance to get Confused for 1 round if the attack hits, then random actions during that round, then they're fine. Compare to your way, where the DC is roughly on par with Supernatural abilities except tied to Str instead of Cha. And it's still every hit. Would you allow someone to cast up to 5 save or sucks in a round every round? No? Why or why not? Whereas if the maximum chance is 25% assuming you hit with all 5 attacks which includes the one at -15... More likely it's like 15%. Very minor, and intentionally so because if PA is unnerfed it's pretty damn close to a real baseline for making feats matter.

    Most importantly, it's far tamer than what any caster can do in a surprise round they can easily create, or by winning initiative which they can easily do. You don't see mundanes as sometimes being able to ambush enemies and screw them up good before they can act? Because right now, they don't get that. They get one attack (maybe) that scratches them a bit. And that's it. So they annoy the enemy, but it is still fine, and still fights as well.

    CE again cannot be salvaged, as the entire concept of hiding in your shell so the enemy will eat someone else is invalid when the sole purpose in your existence is to ensure the enemy does not eat anyone else and instead tries and fails to eat you.


    Crusader of Logic wrote:

    CE again cannot be salvaged, as the entire concept of hiding in your shell so the enemy will eat someone else is invalid when the sole purpose in your existence is to ensure the enemy does not eat anyone else and instead tries and fails to eat you.

    Unless otherwise specified, I'm operating under the assumption that interception abilities for melees will be implemented either officially or by universal houserule. Without them, we might was well pack it in, because ANY discussion of melee feats and capabilities is hamstrung right out the gate.


    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    Crusader of Logic wrote:

    CE again cannot be salvaged, as the entire concept of hiding in your shell so the enemy will eat someone else is invalid when the sole purpose in your existence is to ensure the enemy does not eat anyone else and instead tries and fails to eat you.

    Unless otherwise specified, I'm operating under the assumption that interception abilities for melees will be implemented either officially or by universal houserule. Without them, we might was well pack it in, because ANY discussion of melee feats and capabilities is hamstrung right out the gate.

    Right now (yesterday), I have decided to playtest the following idea:

    Combat Maneuver: Intercept
    Immediate action. Cost: 1 Attack of Opportunity.
    May be used whenever prerequisites for making Attack of Opportunity are met.

    Success: You deal damage as per standard melee attack though you automatically fail to confirm any criticals. Target of your maneuver ends their move action immediately, if any, and any leftover speed allotment is lost.

    Feat: Intercept, Improved
    Prerequisite: BAB 6+.
    Benefit: Gain +4 bonus to Intercept maneuver. You may confirm criticals as normal, however upon successful critical instead of dealing damage, your opponent is knocked prone.

    Regards,
    Ruemere


    Crusader of Logic wrote:
    [...]Most importantly, it's far tamer than what any caster can do in a surprise round they can easily create, or by winning initiative which they can easily do. You don't see mundanes as sometimes being able to ambush enemies and screw them up good before they can act? Because right now, they don't get that. They get one attack...

    You have my apologies for not explaining my position: The 5% here is not reliable, and so it is not much of an improvement to actual feat.

    Also, due to number of rolls involved and disassociation of success probability from actual character competence, your solution favors NPCs and monsters (they make more rolls than players).

    So, that was the reason for improved probability and stronger DC mechanic.

    Regards,
    Ruemere

    Scarab Sages

    Kirth Gersen wrote:

    ...an example of a feat that's potentially useful to martial characters:

    Defensive Fighting, Improved (Combat)
    Prerequisite: BAB +1
    Benefit: Instead of the normal bonuses and penalties for fighting defensively, you may instead choose to subtract 1 from your attack rolls and add 1 as a dodge bonus to your AC. If you are holding a light, heavy, or tower shield -- but not a buckler -- your dodge bonus to AC is +2 instead of +1; this bonus does not apply for animated shields.
    For every 3 points of your BAB, you may choose to take an additional -1 penalty to attack rolls in exchange for an additional +1 dodge bonus to AC (+2 with a shield), to a maximum -7 to attack and +7 (or +14) AC at BAB +18.
    Normal: Fighting defensively applies a static -4 penalty to attacks in exchange for a +2 dodge bonus to AC.

    This rewrite of Combat Expertise has the following features:

  • Elimination of fighter-punative Int prerequisite;
  • References existing similar mechanic instead of creating a bizarre new rules subset;
  • Scales with BAB, so the greatest benefits go to the better combatants, and so that it stays relevant at higher levels;
  • Mirrors Power Attack's +1/+2 bonus, as Epic Meepo points out; in this case, it's of greater benefit to "real" (as opposed to animated) sword-and-shield combatants instead of THW combatants.
  • Very nice.

    I like how this allows potentially larger bonuses when they matter, at higher levels, without overdoing it at low levels to make the character unhittable by enemies of their own level.


    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    Asgetrion wrote:
    And the cap depending on your INT for Combat Expertise?

    As I've often said before, combat feats that scale with things other than BAB are a clear message that combat-oriented characters are not meant to benefit from them. Let me start with Combat Expertise, and alter it to make an example of a feat that's potentially useful to martial characters:

    Defensive Fighting, Improved (Combat)
    Prerequisite: BAB +1
    Benefit: Instead of the normal bonuses and penalties for fighting defensively, you may instead choose to subtract 1 from your attack rolls and add 1 as a dodge bonus to your AC. If you are holding a light, heavy, or tower shield -- but not a buckler -- your dodge bonus to AC is +2 instead of +1; this bonus does not apply for animated shields.
    For every 3 points of your BAB, you may choose to take an additional -1 penalty to attack rolls in exchange for an additional +1 dodge bonus to AC (+2 with a shield), to a maximum -7 to attack and +7 (or +14) AC at BAB +18.
    Normal: Fighting defensively applies a static -4 penalty to attacks in exchange for a +2 dodge bonus to AC.

    This rewrite of Combat Expertise has the following features:

  • Elimination of fighter-punative Int prerequisite;
  • References existing similar mechanic instead of creating a bizarre new rules subset;
  • Scales with BAB, so the greatest benefits go to the better combatants, and so that it stays relevant at higher levels;
  • Mirrors Power Attack's +1/+2 bonus, as Epic Meepo points out; in this case, it's of greater benefit to "real" (as opposed to animated) sword-and-shield combatants instead of THW combatants.
  • This is a very good idea, but PLEASE make it -1 for ever 2 Base Attack! The same with Power Attack too. Even at the worst right now with the current power attack you are getting better than half if you put a good deal of points into it.


    ruemere wrote:
    Crusader of Logic wrote:
    [...]Most importantly, it's far tamer than what any caster can do in a surprise round they can easily create, or by winning initiative which they can easily do. You don't see mundanes as sometimes being able to ambush enemies and screw them up good before they can act? Because right now, they don't get that. They get one attack...

    You have my apologies for not explaining my position: The 5% here is not reliable, and so it is not much of an improvement to actual feat.

    Also, due to number of rolls involved and disassociation of success probability from actual character competence, your solution favors NPCs and monsters (they make more rolls than players).

    So, that was the reason for improved probability and stronger DC mechanic.

    Regards,
    Ruemere

    That's the point. I could have instead went with some really low DC you'd pass on any non 1. But that'd mean an extra roll per hit. This results in the same end effect but is only one roll after the entire attack sequence. As stated before it is intentionally weak because PA is one of the better feats and thus pretty damn close to the baseline feats should be at to make them relevant.

    It's not disassociated with competence either. Each hit raises the end roll by 5%. Thus you must be able to attack (BAB, Haste) and be able to hit (lots and lots of attack bonus). You technically can get more than 5 attacks in a round, but light weapons don't work with PA so TWFing is right out.

    If monsters are doing it, they're likely encountering PC immunity a lot more. Remember, Shaken is fear, Confusion is Compulsion and Mind Affecting and Sickened... well poison doesn't make sense, so I dunno. In any case those are not hard to get immunities. Which is again intentional because PA doesn't need much help.


    Crusader of Logic wrote:
    [...]That's the point. I could have instead went with some really low DC you'd pass on any non 1. But that'd mean an extra roll per hit. This results in the same end effect but is only one roll after the entire attack sequence. As stated before it is intentionally weak because PA is one of the better feats and thus pretty damn close to the baseline feats should be at to make them relevant.

    Maybe it would be a good idea to skip 5% DC in favor of natural 20 by Power Attack User? One trivial roll less.

    Crusader of Logic wrote:
    It's not disassociated with competence either. Each hit raises the end roll by 5%. Thus you must be able to attack (BAB, Haste) and be able to hit (lots and lots of attack bonus). You technically can get more than 5 attacks in a round, but light weapons don't work with PA so TWFing is right out.

    According to my estimates, opponents usually throw more melee attacks by a factor of 4. And in case of parties like the one you mentioned in your examples, PCs melee attack ratio to NPCs ratio should fall even lower.

    So, even hyperspecialized melee character is likely to receive much more attacks than he or she will be able to deal.
    And so the rule would favor NPC side.

    Continuing...

    Crusader of Logic wrote:
    If monsters are doing it, they're likely encountering PC immunity a lot more. Remember, Shaken is fear, Confusion is Compulsion and Mind Affecting and Sickened... well poison doesn't make sense, so I dunno. In any case those are not hard to get immunities. Which is again intentional because PA doesn't need much help.

    Are you sure about the descriptors? Pathfinder BETA and SRD 3.5 merely state what the conditions are about. There are no restrictions as to their application.

    Shaken, Sickened and Confused are effects, not to be confused with spells/special abilities which apply them to targets. And the descriptors are used on in spell/special ability descriptions.

    Technically, your Power Attack write up should contain something like:
    "This is a Mind-Affecting/Fear/Compulsion effect."

    By the way, that's why a complete write-up of a feat is important - miss a detail like a descriptor, and you'll get a question about whether Golems can be Confused.

    regards,
    Ruemere


    Natural 20 works, but another part of the original idea was to make it an option. Even PAing for 1 does the statuses just as well. PAing for higher numbers means more damage, but less chance of hitting (and thereby inflicting statuses). 20s always hit, so it invalidates the option element.

    As for the tags, I just referenced spells that inflicted them. Shaken is a state of fear. This is implicit. Confusion is only caused by Compulsion and Mind Affecting stuff. Sickened can be a poison effect but is not necessarily so. A shot to the gut wouldn't make much sense in this context.

    I didn't put that in because I assumed it was common knowledge, and if I were on the wrong track it was a lot of wasted effort. Not that I think I was or am, just as a just in case thing.

    As for NPCs vs PCs... my party has two guys full attacking, one charging or full attacking, one being a minor pest with about 30 damage a round but can cast if need be (and is far better when so) and two focused casters. It's actually fairly attack heavy. Now scratch off everyone that doesn't have Power Attack and you just get the beatstick and the charger (not a good charger, just someone that uses the move a lot) since the annoyer didn't have enough Strength for PA, and the other beatstick is TWFing. Before you ask, this was an intentionally suboptimal choice since this is a cohort.

    Throw them into a fight like the last one and you get one enemy that has a pretty good chance to hit them and is getting 11 attacks, 7 of which are at full bonus and another 2 that are at that bonus -5 and can do all three statuses, the next biggest with four pretty accurate attacks that are actually more accurate than the first ones and gets to shaken and sickened it up, then 8 mooks who have to hits around 16-21 and the shaken condition (their BAB is 1 too low for the next step) when the lowest in the party is a caster with 35 that didn't bother pouring much resources into AC because she was smart. They won't all attack though. Instead some of the mooks will trip with TK to give whatever can melee it a +4 on all their attacks. So actually in that example the PCs would benefit more. Though the main two enemies would become more threatening. Remember again, it's easier to get immunities as a PC. One Heroes' Feast means immune to Shaken (Fear) and Confusion (Complusion) is blocked by just hanging out near the unicorn cohort. Or Mind Blank. Or Protection from whatever.


    ruemere wrote:
    Combat Maneuver: Intercept

    I had worked elsewhere on a similar feat. I like the idea of static interception as a combat maneuver, but the thing is, if interception is an attack of opportunity, you can't move and intercept... which means people just need to walk past you a bit further away and there's nothing you can really do about it. A feat allowing active (mobile) interception would therefore be needed. I'd posted this elsewhere; many of you have probably already seen it.

    Intercepting Step (Combat)
    Prerequisites: Combat Reflexes, Dodge, Improved Bull Rush, Mobility
    Benefit: You may choose to move up to your normal movement speed as an immediate action in response to an enemy's movement. This movement counts as one of your attacks of opportunity for the round (but does not count against your normal movement), and must place you in a square along the enemy's line of movement (if you cannot reach such a square, you cannot use this feat). This movement forces the moving enemy to stop in the square in front of the one you now occupy. Alternatively, the enemy can attempt to bull rush or overrun you (at +2 to the normal DC) to continue movement, but this provokes an attack of opportunity from you.

    Continuing your idea, ruemere, the descriptive text in the feat regarding bull rushing, etc. could simply be replaced with, "at the end of this movement, you immediately perform an Intercept maneuver."

    Scarab Sages

    Could we bypass the need for intercepting feats (and hence, the high probability that many characters won't have the feats to spend on them), by simply amending the combat rules in general?

    'That's your movement rate for the round, use it as you see fit.'

    If it's already been established that your guy can move (say) 30' in a round, and still have time to take a hack, then why does he have to take it all in one lump? Let him move, attack, move up to another enemy, threaten an AoO, enemy moves back, your guy follows making AoO, and so on, until one runs out of movement?

    (Of course the enemy may have some stored movement, in which case it becomes more of a bluffing game 'have I used all my move?')

    Track it how you like, coins, beads, poker chips, or a paperclip along a track on top of your character sheet.

    Of course, an enemy caster may still outrun the Fighter, but at least he's had to make a proper move, which reduces some of the actions he can make (no full-round casting), and may have provoked AoO from other combatants, in order to keep his distance. And it prevents a hasted Fighter being stopped dead in his tracks by a kobold, that took him a tenth of a second to reduce to paste.

    Anything to be more interesting than the old '5-foot step and cast'.


    Only way to interrupt in this system is Immediate actions. If you can't move as an Immediate action, too bad.


    Crusader of Logic wrote:
    Only way to interrupt in this system is Immediate actions. If you can't move as an Immediate action, too bad.

    Sadly true. The way the combat rules are written (in strict turn-sequence, assuming all actions in one turn are fully resolved before the next person's turn begins) makes it impossible to intercept movement except by the mechanism of an immediate action, which is the only thing allowing any interruption of the normal rigid order of events.

    101 to 150 of 179 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / Playtest Reports / Power attack and Combat Expertise... All Messageboards