Power attack and Combat Expertise...


Playtest Reports

151 to 179 of 179 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

BrokenShade wrote:
I've never ever seen anyone use the Combat Expertise feat under any rule set, nor have I ever seriously considered taking it. It's just not that powerful anyway.

I've used it once. With my Beguiler who dipped two levels into Fighter at the start of his career. And I did it only to get access to Improved Feint.


And on that subject, trippers take it. Because they need Improved Trip, not because they want or care about CE. That doesn't apply anymore though.


hmmm.. yes, indeed a thoughtful idea to break the "My turn. Your turn" combat and introduce a little more dynamism into the game. Immediate actions and using AOO for things other than just attack but some combat maneuvers.

This all look very good, I'm not an expert into the gazillions of supplements out there, so, are there books on this issue?


ledgabriel wrote:
This all look very good, I'm not an expert into the gazillions of supplements out there, so, are there books on this issue?

Even if there were, Pathfinder can't use them unless they're open game content. So we're more or less reduced to re-inventing the wheel.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
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.

(addressing text in bold)

This is not the case here. The reason I created the maneuver was to provide a solid foundation for building specialized feats which definitely could include movement.

Regarding your feat:

Kirth Gersen wrote:

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.

Sound idea, however it should be a bit polished with regard to effect. Specifically:

1. Too many prerequisites. You're, as Crusader of Logic is fond of saying, turtling the character in exchange for something which should be basic ability of a tank character.
2. Too wordy with regard to effects.

Compare to this (self-quote first):

ruemere (previous post) wrote:

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 (Combat)
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.

And this:

Feat: Intercepting step (Combat)
Prerequisite: BAB 6+. Two or more Attacks of Opportunity per round.
Benefit: Spent Attack of Opportunity (this is in addition to base maneuver cost). As a part of Intercept maneuver, you may move up to your speed total.

Notes: A little less demanding (requires only one feat to gain more Attacks of opportunity), a bit more versatile (we do not build a feat chain since additional AoOs may come from another source) and, best of all, it will not be easy to use the feat more than once or twice per round. Finally, no free Bull Rush, i.e. no reactions to reactions - this may result in unpredictable arms race in the style of Magic of Gathering of stacked interrupts.

Kirth Gersen wrote:
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."

Nah, it's your idea actually. I read these boards pretty thoroughly, just comment only if I feel I have something to contribute. I have merely attempted to clean it up a bit.

Regards,
Ruemere


Crusader of Logic wrote:
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.

Design rule of 3.5 as opposed to 3.0 was to simplify resolution to single roll (either active attack or active resist). I heartily applaud this assumption since the fewer steps, the cleaner and faster system becomes.

That's why, while I understand your reasoning, I would be willing to sacrifice option bit (since it's also, as you have put, trivial).

Crusader of Logic wrote:

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.

Terms of "spell", "condition" and "effect" are separate in the context of d20 ruleset. You may use them interchangeably, however, the moment we begin to create a new standard, we must adhere to logic and avoid ambiguity.

Your assumption is therefore acceptable in discussion, however it should not be used as basis for a formal proposal - "Confused", "Shaken" and "Stirred"... er, "Sickened" are explicitly defined in Glossary.
Since there are different campaigns, there are people who will dissect the system eventually and put the terms to shape new rules.

Crusader of Logic wrote:
[nice setup skipped]

Allow me to counter your example with 66 Shadowspawn Zombies, or 12 Giants or 40 Barbarians. Also valid examples, and in my case there are 3-4 first line characters out of 6-7 total.

They still get Power Attacked more often.

Regards,
Ruemere


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Even if there were, Pathfinder can't use them unless they're open game content. So we're more or less reduced to re-inventing the wheel.

Oh yeah, absolutely. I meant as sources for us (and Jason) to get ideas from... ya know..


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.

You could ready your movement, couldn't you? Though, you'd have to anticipate the enemie's action and hope they do it.


Starbuck_II wrote:
You could ready your movement, couldn't you? Though, you'd have to anticipate the enemie's action and hope they do it.

Yeah, that's a lost cause. And even then, you move and they just continue their movement around/past you; no interception occurs unless you somehow trip them -- but you can't ready a move AND a simultaneous combat maneuver. And with the DC set at 15 + CMB, and Improved feats giving only +2, tripping is a lot more difficult now.


Vult wrote:

Has there been any recent discussion over the obvious nerf to these two feats?

I was hoping that they would revert back to the old form with the Beta but that was not the case.

Power attack now tops out very low, and Combat expertise is useless unless you are a pure caster who has a very high INT.

I play a paladin right now in 3.5 and my two starting feats were Power attack and Combat expertise. I did this because I like the control it gives me over my character for a given combat. With these new rules for these two feats my character is going to see some drastic changes. I am not saying that it ruins me, but it will completely change the way he runs...and honestly I liked the way it was.

I like how power attack works in Pathfinder. I don't find it nerfed entirely just for some builds. Sure it's not as powerful as it was in 3.5 but it makes more sense now. You basically take you Strength to hit modifier and change it to damage. So instead of using strength to power past defenses you use it inflict damage. basically doubling up you strength damage modifier. I like how they split the strength out of skill.

The problem I have with Power Attack now is used be only feat that showed how you BAB can be used to inflict damage. That isn't reflected now at all in the way Power Attack is since now it's based on Strength and not skill in fighting. So I think something has to be done to bring fighting skill (BAB) back to damage.

Now one might argue Fighter's weapon training does that but it's fighter only and it's still not basic fighting skill but weapon group oriented. I think something needs be done.

Here's one idea I have:

Maybe another feat, since you get more feats an additional feat might not be bad. Now have an feat that allows you to covert BAB into damage. I'm thinking a feat that allow you to convert 1 BAB to damage. So you take -1 and gain +1 to damage. Now this would increase as you skill in fighting increased Say every 5 BAB so at 6 it goes to +2, 11 +3, 16 +4 and so on. Or maybe it should be every 4 level. That's up for debate. This type of attack is not stat base bonus to attack but purely skill in fighting. You just know how to hit in more damaging way but it by sacrificing accuracy. This feat would work in conjunction with Power attack and it would work with weapon finesse so dex based fighter could also do more damage. As the new Power Attack does nerf dex based fighters this would be a good compromise.

Thoughts?


CE - add 2 points AC, when fighting defensively or going full defense.

PA - take a penalty to attack equal or less than BAB and deal an equal ammount of additional damage until the start of your next turn. two-handed weapons deal 1.5 times the normal damage. you can not use PA against inanimate objects or helpless targets.

FEAT: Shield Expert

prerequiste: Combat Expertise, shield proficiency

While fighting defensive or going full defense with a shield and weapon in hand get an additional + 2 AC or + 2 AB stacking with the normal attack penalty for fighting defensively.


Power attack defies logic, in either version.

On the one hand, we have a rule that says you add your STR modifier to your attack and damage rolls. This means that the stronger you are, the more powerful your attack is, the easier it is to hit and damage your target.

On the other hand, PA says that your attack is so powerful that it makes it harder to hit but easier to damage your opponent, if you hit.

Why are these two rules in opposition.

If high strength, which can be reworded to "lots of muscle power", uses a mechanic that increases your chance to hit and your damage, then why does PA, which can be reworded to "using lots of muscle power" reverse the strength mechanic regarding your chance to hit?

This seems counterintuitive to me.

I am much in favor of PA reducing your own AC instead of your chance to hit.

That would fit very logically.

A strong fighter stands with his feet planted (well, he plants them momentarily when he lands his blow) and delivers powerful blows without over extending himself, thus his high strength contributes to his attack roll (blasting through his foe's defenses) and his damage (cutting deeply).

But when he uses PA, he is swinging for the bleachers, over extending himself, swinging so hard that he sacrifices his own balance and recovery time. The result is he still blasts through his foe's defenses about the same as always, but cuts even deeper than he usually would, but in return he is off-balance and therefore it's much easier for his enemies to hit him.

But, as was stated elsewhere in this thread, AC is a more important feature than Attack Mod, since melee characters generally receive more attacks against them in most fights, and over their careers, than the number of attacks they actually make.

This means a one-for-one ratio might underpower the feat if we base the penalty on AC rather than Attack Modifier. Therefore I propose a 3-for-4 compromise.

I also propose capping the amount, probably based on BAB, so low-level fighters can only gain a few points of damage and high level fighters can gain lots of damage.

Ergo, I would support changing PA as follows:

Power Attack
You swing so hard that you deliver devastating attacks to your enemies, but at the cost of your own defense.
Prerequisite: Base Attack Bonus 1+
Benefit: You may add any multiplier of 4 to your melee damage rolls for one full or standard melee attack. In return, you must subtract the same multiplier of 3 from your AC until the beginning of your next turn. However, your Base Attack Bonus must be equal to or higher than the amount you subtract from your AC, unless your BAB is less than 3, in which case you may still add +4 to your damage at the cost of -3 to your AC.
Special: If you are using a two-handed weapon, or a one-handed weapon with both hands, then the multiplier to your melee damage rolls is increased to +5 instead of +4.

That wording might be a little awkward, but basically it means that anyone who has a BAB of 1 to 5 can get +4 damage to all attacks during their round at the cost of -3 AC until their next round. BAB 6 to 8 can go +4 DMG/-3 AC or +8 DMG/-6 AC. BAB 9 to 11 can go +4 DMG/-3 AC or +8 DMG/-6 AC or +12 DMG/ -9 AC. And BAB 18-20 can go as high as +24 DMG/ -18 AC if they want to be so suicidal. And if he's using a two handed sword, he would be able to do +30 damage at the cost of -18 AC.

This rewrite puts the feat back up into the realm of damage that could be inflicted in 3.5, but keeps the benefit of the Pathfinder version that it's much better at very low levels, while limiting the user's choices at the game table, and it solves the counterintuitive logic flaw I described above.

The only downside is that I see overzealous players, especially lightly-armored barbarians, getting chopped to pieces because they destroy their own AC to use PA on one enemy and the rest of the enemies then proceed to carve out their liver.


DM_Blake wrote:

Power attack defies logic, in either version.

On the one hand, we have a rule that says you add your STR modifier to your attack and damage rolls. This means that the stronger you are, the more powerful your attack is, the easier it is to hit and damage your target.

On the other hand, PA says that your attack is so powerful that it makes it harder to hit but easier to damage your opponent, if you hit.

Why are these two rules in opposition.

If high strength, which can be reworded to "lots of muscle power", uses a mechanic that increases your chance to hit and your damage, then why does PA, which can be reworded to "using lots of muscle power" reverse the strength mechanic regarding your chance to hit?

This seems counterintuitive to me.

I am much in favor of PA reducing your own AC instead of your chance to hit.

That would fit very logically.

A strong fighter stands with his feet planted (well, he plants them momentarily when he lands his blow) and delivers powerful blows without over extending himself, thus his high strength contributes to his attack roll (blasting through his foe's defenses) and his damage (cutting deeply).

But when he uses PA, he is swinging for the bleachers, over extending himself, swinging so hard that he sacrifices his own balance and recovery time. The result is he still blasts through his foe's defenses about the same as always, but cuts even deeper than he usually would, but in return he is off-balance and therefore it's much easier for his enemies to hit him.

But, as was stated elsewhere in this thread, AC is a more important feature than Attack Mod, since melee characters generally receive more attacks against them in most fights, and over their careers, than the number of attacks they actually make.

This means a one-for-one ratio might underpower the feat if we base the penalty on AC rather than Attack Modifier. Therefore I propose a 3-for-4 compromise.

I also propose capping the amount, probably based on BAB, so low-level...

I really do like the flavor and mechanic of your PA feat. However i do not see it replacing PA. I would like having the option you proposed in the game (through some other feat or combat option). In Iron Heroes, they had a "Combat Challenge" that gave everyone the option to do something similar to what you proposed.

I do agree with you that logically STR shouldn't be used in calculating + to hit. Logically, a higher DEX should make you better at hitting things (but doing that would make DEX a must have ability score ..as in GURPS) However, this is D&D and there's many many many of those inconsistencies throughout the system. Those inconsistencies are so ingrained in the system that they're not going to change any time soon.

Mighty Musk


the problem with PA reducing your AC is that it is not consequential in many situations.

If your opponent can not attack you due to being dazed or stunned it is too easy to use PA, when you are vastly outnumbering your opponent likewise, when you have superior reach, when fighting a magic-using opponent or when you yourself are relying on concealment more than AC.

it all represents situations without a good trade-off, the PA as is balances itself out somewhat.


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!).

Does CE and PA work as written under PF? That's the key thing. If they really do not work and are broken you have problems. If they do work they you can use them or house rule in the 3.5 version. In the end I think as long as the rules work and they are consistent then you shouldn't have a problem.

From what I see they do work. A person might not like it as much as the other version though. Me I'm 6 one half dozen the other. I could take it it or leave it.

Liberty's Edge

DM_Blake wrote:

Power Attack

You swing so hard that you deliver devastating attacks to your enemies, but at the cost of your own defense.
Prerequisite: Base Attack Bonus 1+
Benefit: You may add any multiplier of 4 to your melee damage rolls for one full or standard melee attack. In return, you must subtract the same multiplier of 3 from your AC until the beginning of your next turn. However, your Base Attack Bonus must be equal to or higher than the amount you subtract from your AC, unless your BAB is less than 3, in which case you may still add +4 to your damage at the cost of -3 to your AC.
Special: If you are using a two-handed weapon, or a one-handed weapon with both hands, then the multiplier to your melee damage rolls is increased to +5 instead of +4.

I like the theme of your power attack.

What I do like about the Pathfinder's version is the removal of spontaneous math for the most part. If you have an 18 STR, you're always going to remove 4 and add 4 to damage - no more "this round I'll PA 3, next round I'll PA 2, oh now I'm flanking I'll PA 6 etc.

I would like to see a combination of your idea, but with the rule stipulating more of an always finite amount.

You add 4 to damge (6 with a two-handed weapon), and you subtract 4 from your AC. It's simple, easy to implement, math never changes, the player can have two total to damage on his character that never changes (W/ PA or W/O PA).

The only area that I would be concerned with is with big ugh monsters. DMs currently have a trade-off with them, if they really want to hurt a PC with an attack, he has to really lower his attack roll - missing more often than not. With your suggestion of lower AC, a DM doesnt' really care about the creature's longevity usually - it was an obstacle/encounter MEANT to be killed anyway. Thus my belief is that it would all DMs to hurt PCs far more often without lower their attack rolls, using creatures that the DM doesn't really care if they get hit more often.

I'm not saying this will ALWAYS be the case - just seeing it from that perspective.

Other than that - I really like the theme of your feat proposal.

Robert


I see too many ways to exploit by trading AC for damage, despite it making sense it won't make for a better game imo.


DM_Blake wrote:

Power attack defies logic, in either version.

On the one hand, we have a rule that says you add your STR modifier to your attack and damage rolls. This means that the stronger you are, the more powerful your attack is, the easier it is to hit and damage your target.

On the other hand, PA says that your attack is so powerful that it makes it harder to hit but easier to damage your opponent, if you hit.

I don't see the contradiction. Consider this example:

Assume Arnold Schwarzenneger and Wil Wheaton are both equally skilled with the longsword. They both move just as fast, they both know the same moves and counters, and they are both just as precise as each other with their attacks.

However, consider how difficult it would be to fight either one of them. If you parry a slash from Wil, no big deal, you recover and move on. If you parry a slash from Arnold, you are probably knocked backward and off balance, revealing an opening that Arnold uses to spill your entrails on the ground.

Hence, Arnold's strength makes it easier for him to hit his opponent.

Now consider how Power Attack applies. Instead of fighting with all of his skill and training, Arnold just decides to start hammering with all of his might. He forgoes skill for raw power and telegraphs his blows, which are now easier to avoid. But if one of those blows should connect, well, game over man, game over.


Remco Sommeling wrote:

the problem with PA reducing your AC is that it is not consequential in many situations.

If your opponent can not attack you due to being dazed or stunned it is too easy to use PA, when you are vastly outnumbering your opponent likewise, when you have superior reach, when fighting a magic-using opponent or when you yourself are relying on concealment more than AC.

it all represents situations without a good trade-off, the PA as is balances itself out somewhat.

This is a valid point, and one that I had considered.

I also considered that smart players would always go for PA at the end of the combat, when they feel that one really good hit with PA would kill the last enemy (but a normal hit might not) so who cares about their AC penalty.

Then I dismissed most of these notions.

If the enemy is dazed or stunned, you can currently PA hardcore because his AC is reduced and you risk very little. Also, what if he's not the only enemy? If you're down to one enemy who is dazed or stunned, the fight is essentially over anyway, at least in most situatinos this happens.

If you vastly outnumber your opponent, and you use my version of PA, you can bet that whatever of those opponents will focus fire on you if they have any intelligence or combat savvy at all - even animals can sense weakness in their foes and will usually attack the one who is moste exposed and easiest to reach. And if you are the only fighter in the group, even against a single foe, YOU don't outnumber him.

When you have superior reach and use PA, it only applies to your attacks on your round (not your AoOs if your reach gives you any), and then they 5' move to reach you, or shoot you with bows, or use ranged touch spells/abilities against your weakened AC and you still feel the sting of the penalty.

Magic users are rarely allone. They have fighter-ish friends and minions, and they summon stuff to fight for them. And when they don't, watch out for those deadly ranged touch spells. But otherwise, yes, going full bore on a mage with my version of PA is not much different than the 3.x version, because mages have notoriously low ACs, so why worry about whether yuo can hit them if you drop your attack bonus to gain more damage? At least my version makes you worry about their round, and those ranged touch spells.

Now, you might have gotten me with concealment. I would consider ammending the feat to indicate that PA negates all concealment and you wildly and loudly swing a furious blow, delivered with a roar/grunt that causes you to step out of concealment. That's thinking off the cuff (I'll put more thought into it later - I'm planning to try my version as a house rule).

Yes, PA as is balances itself out somewhat, but PA monkeys find all kinds of ways to buff up their attack bonuses anyways, and high attack is easier to achieve than high AC. And finally, the consequences of missing because of PA means the fight lasts an extra round, and your enemy might damage you a little more. But the consequences of dropping your AC by 12 points can be catastrophic.

I'd say that's balanced too. Time will tell as I play test it.


Remco Sommeling wrote:
I see too many ways to exploit by trading AC for damage, despite it making sense it won't make for a better game imo.

I would love to hear some examples.

So far, I concede that there is a problem with concealment, and I don't know off-hand a good answer.

I don't see any other ways to exploit it that strike me as any more annoying than the exploits to the 3.x version.

So please enlighten me, before I start playtesting this and get exploited by my players.


Robert Brambley wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:

Power Attack

You swing so hard that you deliver devastating attacks to your enemies, but at the cost of your own defense.
Prerequisite: Base Attack Bonus 1+
Benefit: You may add any multiplier of 4 to your melee damage rolls for one full or standard melee attack. In return, you must subtract the same multiplier of 3 from your AC until the beginning of your next turn. However, your Base Attack Bonus must be equal to or higher than the amount you subtract from your AC, unless your BAB is less than 3, in which case you may still add +4 to your damage at the cost of -3 to your AC.
Special: If you are using a two-handed weapon, or a one-handed weapon with both hands, then the multiplier to your melee damage rolls is increased to +5 instead of +4.

I like the theme of your power attack.

What I do like about the Pathfinder's version is the removal of spontaneous math for the most part. If you have an 18 STR, you're always going to remove 4 and add 4 to damage - no more "this round I'll PA 3, next round I'll PA 2, oh now I'm flanking I'll PA 6 etc.

I would like to see a combination of your idea, but with the rule stipulating more of an always finite amount.

You add 4 to damge (6 with a two-handed weapon), and you subtract 4 from your AC. It's simple, easy to implement, math never changes, the player can have two total to damage on his character that never changes (W/ PA or W/O PA).

The only area that I would be concerned with is with big ugh monsters. DMs currently have a trade-off with them, if they really want to hurt a PC with an attack, he has to really lower his attack roll - missing more often than not. With your suggestion of lower AC, a DM doesnt' really care about the creature's longevity usually - it was an obstacle/encounter MEANT to be killed anyway. Thus my belief is that it would all DMs to hurt PCs far more often without lower their attack rolls, using creatures that the DM doesn't really care if they get hit more often.

I'm not saying this will...

As to your first point, the flaw I see with Pathfinder's current version is that it "nerfs" high level fighters. In 3.x, they faced dragons with hundreds of HP, but had an option to add 10 or 12 or 20 (or whatever) to their damage rolls. In Pathfinder, they fight the same dragons with the same hundreds of HP, but they have lost that option to vastly increase their damage.

Massive damage output is what let the 3.x fighter try to stay useful without being greatly overshadowed by the mages, moreso than in earlier versions of D&D. Pathfinder has robbed them of a little of that manliness with the weakened PA feat.

Many people here on the Paizo boards are complaining about that, and asking for the 3.x version to be reinstated in Pathfinder. I tend to agree with that side of the argument - I would like to restore high-level fighters to their former glory (with the -attack or -AC version, either way).

My version of PA does this. So does the 3.x version. They scale, so as the combatant goes up in levels/HD, he can learn to hit harder.

For your other point, consider that any monster, "big ugh" or otherwise, can dish out more damage if they live more rounds. Dropping their AC can be a quick way to ensure they only do one round of good damage instead of 4 or 5 rounds of average damage. It wouldn't always be a good idea for the monsters, any more than it is for the players.


DM_Blake wrote:
Remco Sommeling wrote:

the problem with PA reducing your AC is that it is not consequential in many situations.

If your opponent can not attack you due to being dazed or stunned it is too easy to use PA, when you are vastly outnumbering your opponent likewise, when you have superior reach, when fighting a magic-using opponent or when you yourself are relying on concealment more than AC.

it all represents situations without a good trade-off, the PA as is balances itself out somewhat.

This is a valid point, and one that I had considered.

I also considered that smart players would always go for PA at the end of the combat, when they feel that one really good hit with PA would kill the last enemy (but a normal hit might not) so who cares about their AC penalty.

[b] let me say that you are putting all this in a players perspective, but it all goes equally or more so for creatures you use, a big problem is still that it makes for a more explosive combat, by reducing AC you get more damage and at the same time deal more damage because you dont take a penalty on attacks, crits become easier and the combat has more room to swing either way [b]

Then I dismissed most of these notions.

If the enemy is dazed or stunned, you can currently PA hardcore because his AC is reduced and you risk very little. Also, what if he's not the only enemy? If you're down to one enemy who is dazed or stunned, the fight is essentially over anyway, at least in most situatinos this happens.

[b] that does not take away you still have more miss chance with a penalty to hit and as such actually reduces damage output, so it would make PA more powerful which was my point [p]

If you vastly outnumber your opponent, and you use my version of PA, you can bet that whatever of those opponents will focus fire on you if they have any intelligence or combat savvy at all - even animals can sense weakness in their foes and will usually attack the one who is moste exposed and easiest to reach. And if you are the only fighter in the group, even against a single foe, YOU don't outnumber him.

[b]turning it around, players can't always tell when creatures are PA'ing and with multiple foes they might not actually get any benefit at all, especially since many players try to take them out in a joint effort and then proceed to the next, leaving the other to PA freely with little consequence [b]

When you have superior reach and use PA, it only applies to your attacks on your round (not your AoOs if your reach gives you any), and then they 5' move to reach you, or shoot you with bows, or use ranged touch spells/abilities against your weakened AC and you still feel the sting of the penalty.

[b] I assumed the penalties and bonus remained till the start of your next turn, it used to work like that and still does I think so AoO are free game, sometimes a creature is just hard to engage because he is on higher ground or behind enemy lines, it can attack freely with PA without consequence mostly [b]

Magic users are rarely allone. They have fighter-ish friends and minions, and they summon stuff to fight for them. And when they don't, watch out for those deadly ranged touch spells. But otherwise,...

[b] disclaiming PA attack penalty because your AB is high anyway and at the same time worrying about touch attacks, because your AC suffers... that argument seems to better fit touch spells than melee attacks, in many cases that ray will hit you anyway without much trouble, the low AC of casters is bad enough on it's own but negating the attack penalty does not make it better because their AC is so low already anyway [b]


I seriously messed up my [b]bold[b]sections, but I am sure you get it anyway :p


on a sidenote I do not fully agree with the pathfinder version of PA, I actually think the original 3.x version is better if still far from perfect.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
BrokenShade wrote:
I've never ever seen anyone use the Combat Expertise feat under any rule set, nor have I ever seriously considered taking it. It's just not that powerful anyway.

I've taken Combat Expertise.

I liked the ability to increase my AC. I used it a lot vs high level foes. Nothing like adding 5 to my AC to keep from dying.
But now... forget it. Int is at best the third stat to look at (Str and Con being 1 & 2). The new rules make CE worthless.
As an example, lets make a feat for spellcasters, based on the lowest of their casting level or Str bonus. Oh, and make it a base feat for some metamagic feats too. Would any spellcaster put up with that BS?

And the whole "fighters take too long to figure out what they want to do with PA and CE"? whine? They don't take half as long as spellcasters trying to figure out what spell and metamagic combo would be best.


Having play tested Power attack in my game where one of 2 fighters has it, I've found it works great so far. I have one fighter with +5 Strength bonus who is 4th level. He takes -4 to get +4 damage. It works quite well for him. With Weapon Training coming up for him the combo of +1 for to hit and damage makes power attack even better. The other fighter is ranged fighter so isn't taking Power Attack.

For Combat Expertise no one has taken it yet but my other fighter is planning on it as he has a 17 Intelligence and it would be useful since he's an elven fighter planning on becoming a wizard after 5th level. So if anyone closes the range with him it would be useful for +3 AC. The rogue in my group is also interested in Combat Expertise but has feat wish list that's too long to allow him to take it.

So yes Power Attack is weaker but offset by the fighters weapon training. Combat effectiveness is also weaker but offset by armor training and weapon training. Though I think Combat Effectiveness would be better based off Dexterity than Intelligence. As it is Combat Effectiveness is still handy even if it's only +1 to your AC though it might be feat I'd take quite a bit later on unless I needed to as prerequisite for other feats I wanted.


"As to your first point, the flaw I see with Pathfinder's current version is that it "nerfs" high level fighters. In 3.x, they faced dragons with hundreds of HP, but had an option to add 10 or 12 or 20 (or whatever) to their damage rolls. In Pathfinder, they fight the same dragons with the same hundreds of HP, but they have lost that option to vastly increase their damage."

I don't think that's an issue with a fighter.

Consider this. Say fighter starts with 20 Strength and by level 20 has added 12 (5 for level advancement, +6 for magical enhancements) to it for +11 Strength bonus using a great axe. Add +4 to and damage for weapon training and mastery changes that great axe to X4 critical auto confirming along with improved critical for crit 19-20. Greater weapon focus and specialization for +2 to hit and +4 damage. By 20th they should have +5 great axe too.

That means they have a to hit bonus of 20+11+4+2+5. That's +42 to hit where they can power attack for +31 to hit doing 1D12 +44 (+20+11+4+4+5) and should they critical multiply that by 4. That sure ain't bad. I don't see many dragons lasting long against this when you consider the fighter could be buffed by potions and friendly spells to increase that damage and to hit even further like adding battle smite +10 damage from 20 the cleric of the war domain.


voska66 wrote:

"As to your first point, the flaw I see with Pathfinder's current version is that it "nerfs" high level fighters. In 3.x, they faced dragons with hundreds of HP, but had an option to add 10 or 12 or 20 (or whatever) to their damage rolls. In Pathfinder, they fight the same dragons with the same hundreds of HP, but they have lost that option to vastly increase their damage."

I don't think that's an issue with a fighter.

Consider this. Say fighter starts with 20 Strength and by level 20 has added 12 (5 for level advancement, +6 for magical enhancements) to it for +11 Strength bonus using a great axe. Add +4 to and damage for weapon training and mastery changes that great axe to X4 critical auto confirming along with improved critical for crit 19-20. Greater weapon focus and specialization for +2 to hit and +4 damage. By 20th they should have +5 great axe too.

That means they have a to hit bonus of 20+11+4+2+5. That's +42 to hit where they can power attack for +31 to hit doing 1D12 +44 (+20+11+4+4+5) and should they critical multiply that by 4. That sure ain't bad. I don't see many dragons lasting long against this when you consider the fighter could be buffed by potions and friendly spells to increase that damage and to hit even further like adding battle smite +10 damage from 20 the cleric of the war domain.

I agree with that, I have a problem with power attack as is because it forces fighters to be strength based, with power attack in it's old 3.5 form a dex fighter could still do a decent ammount of damage. I'm not so sure there is a good alterantive for a swashbuckling/dexterity fighter.

Also I like to have some control over the 'power' of a power attack, do you need to lose your entire strength bonus to hit ?

for these reasons I am happier with a steady - 4 AB + 4 damage, possibly allowing for improvement at higher levels (preferably not by attaching it to 'improved' feats)

151 to 179 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
Recent threads in Playtest Reports
Rangers