Well, let's see... Even CR 9 creatures run around 200 HP in some cases. Enemy HP goes up into the 800s and since they come stock with Toughness * 6 which was improved that's now well over a thousand. PA Shock Troopers are barely keeping up at best. PA Wraithstrikers, see above.
Damage is linear. HP are quadratic. As long as this is so, you must either be able to make damage scale better than linear (ST chargers) or forget about damage. Simple as that.
My melee brutes use PA, because it's there and they're supposed to. There is no need to nerf melee enemies. Caster enemies are still better for their CR, just this way you might consider the giant with a two handed weapon.
Enemy HP goes up into the 800s and since they come stock with Toughness * 6 which was improved that's now well over a thousand.
My impression is that you can only take the new Pathfinder Toughness once -- it no longer stacks with itself.
|
Well, let's see... Even CR 9 creatures run around 200 HP in some cases. Enemy HP goes up into the 800s and since they come stock with Toughness * 6 which was improved that's now well over a thousand. PA Shock Troopers are barely keeping up at best. PA Wraithstrikers, see above.
Damage is linear. HP are quadratic. As long as this is so, you must either be able to make damage scale better than linear (ST chargers) or forget about damage. Simple as that.
My melee brutes use PA, because it's there and they're supposed to. There is no need to nerf melee enemies. Caster enemies are still better for their CR, just this way you might consider the giant with a two handed weapon.
Is this in response to this?
A feat should not be required to make the game function properly.
If melee types cannot do enough damage to be effective they need something added to them. PA should not be "the" feat that allows them to be competitive in damage. It can easily be thrown out of wack and made to do way too much damage. Wraithstrike, quickened True strike, several psionic powers, a couple Bo9S powers, shock trooper feat, and others all allow for ways to min-max PA.
From the other end of the argument. How many DMs actually use PA against the PCs? When using really strong things like giants and dragons. They often have more HD (BAB) than their CR would indicate. Do you knowing add an extra +10 to +15 damage from that giants attack every round? I never did. Two reasons, I would wind up with a TPK, and I didn't want the extra calculation when attacking with each monster against each PCs AC. They already did enough damage.
From the DM's chair I would like to see PA be something you turn on or turn off.
I would prefer to see -5 to hit, +2 damage with a light weapon, +5 damage with a one handed weapon and +7 damage with a two handed weapon. Simple and straight forward.
I really don't think that PA should be "the" way that characters up their damage and are able to deal with quadratic HP. I believe toughness can only be selected once now so you dont have to worry about CR9s having over 1000 HP. I would prefer PA as a set penalty for a set gain. Again for sitting in the DMs chair.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A feat should not be required to make the game function properly. If melee types cannot do enough damage to be effective they need something added to them. PA should not be "the" feat that allows them to be competitive in damage.
Agreed 100%. If Power Attack is indeed absolutely required to deal with appropriate threats, as has been attested, then it should be part of the core mechanics, not a feat. Otherwise, we're dealing with logic similar to
New Feat:
ALIVE [General]
Benefit: Your character begins the game alive.
Normal: Your character begins the game dead; roll up a new character.
Feats, by definition, are options, not requirements for play. They may be prerequisites for other feats, or for prestige classes, but should not be prerequisites for game play.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I personally believe that PA should also be more functional for dual-wielders as well. I'd like to see a slight alteration that permits light weapons to benefit from PA so that TWFers who wield a light weapon in the off-hand can still get some benefit when using PA instead of taking the to-hit penalty and not getting any benefit from it on their off-hand attacks.
Really, I never quite understood what the reasoning behind denying PA to light weapons. There may be a few cases in which such a thing would be slightly unrealistic (like PA with a whip or rapier) but plenty of other options (handaxe, dagger, unarmed strike) seem perfectly reasonable.
In my perfect world, TWF and 2HF would be equals in the damage-dealing department, though each should certainly have quirks that make it shine (such as 2HF dealing out larger individual hits that shred through DR). I think it would be cool as hell if TWF also gave a 10% miss chance against melee attacks (due to parrying) to reflect the fact that you've got a pair of blades whipping around you as you move and attack. Or something like that. But that's for another thread, methinks.
If Power Attack is indeed absolutely required to deal with appropriate threats, as has been attested, then it should be part of the core mechanics, not a feat.
If that's the case, perhaps what would solve that is setting everything up so that the more one hits by, the more damage one deals.
Power Attack is necessary to make the game function for another reason. Why? Because Power Attack makes AC work. Why does a Wizard continue to cast, say, Mage Armor, putting him from AC 13 to AC 17, even though he runs into things with +15 to hit? Power Attack.
It's what makes AC continue to function even in the face of massive attack bonuses, since every increase of 1 AC is 1 less the enemy can Power Attack for. Thus, it's also what makes AC function like damage reduction. Every increase of 1 AC translates into 1(or 2) less damage taken per hit.
However, the game only works this way when Power Attack is in the picture. So maybe what we need is a core mechanic that increases damage based on how well one hits by. Instead of reducing attack bonus and seeing if the attack roll still hits, perhaps we should keep the attack bonus the same, and instead put the math into the damage result.
An easy way to do it would be to say that by every unit of 1 the AC is beaten by, that's an extra +1 damage. Ex: If I roll a 31 against AC 25, that's +6 damage.
The only problem with this simple method is that it takes the risk of using Power Attack away. There's no chance of missing if one Power Attacks for too much. Also, it takes away the tactical decision-making from the Power Attacking player, and with spellcasters around, the players need something to do.
-Matt
Enemy HP goes up into the 800s and since they come stock with Toughness * 6 which was improved that's now well over a thousand.My impression is that you can only take the new Pathfinder Toughness once -- it no longer stacks with itself.
Ok. Tarrasque (CR 20) gets 5 new feats. No loss. He needs better feats anyways. I just used the stock one and not one that I dunno... is made halfway decently. He has over 900 HP instead.
I'm fine with Power Attack, Combat Expertise etc just being standard attacking options. Saves feat slots that way and is the first step towards giving them half decent stuff to do via making feats do real stuff, not things you should be able to do anyways. It needs to work as it did before, as it is one of the very few things that give the melees some variance in what they do round after round after round, such that a basic script could completely replace you in combat and do the job as good or better. See also: MMOs, 4.0 D&D. (isn't this like saying ATM Machine?)
|
|
An easy way to do it would be to say that by every unit of 1 the AC is beaten by, that's an extra +1 damage. Ex: If I roll a 31 against AC 25, that's +6 damage.
For my first attack, I roll a 15 plus my 12, the bard is singing right plus 3 plus 1 for bless, lets see so that is 15 + 12 + 3 + 1 = 30 wait no 31 minus his AC or what, 20, oh 22, ok so 31 minus 22 is 9. Let me roll damage now so I don't forget my bonus 9. Lets see great axe is d12 +d6 for flaming, 9 + 2 cool, +10 for strength and magic and specialization, +9 bonus damage and of course the bard gives me +3. So that is 9 + 2 + 10 + 9 + 3 = 33. Damn, I should have power attacked. Ok, for my second attack...
The only problem with this simple method is that it takes the risk of using Power Attack away.
Coming from someone who tried this very same house rule, it has another disadvantage: it slows down game play dramatically. It doesn't take too long to figure the excess and then apply the additional damage, but all that has to take place after the attack roll has been made and evaluated. Currently, you can throw the attack and damage dice simultaneously, and just disregard the latter if the attack misses.
Your suggestion is totally logical and makes perfect sense. But for big combats in which everyone has multiple attacks, it also creates a noticeable drag on play.
|
|
I'm not very good optimizing high level characters, but I have a question.
How much effect has in all Power Attack issues the new warrior class feature of Weapon training?
Both, with old PA and with new.
Does it compensate the damage reduction of new PA?
Does it help to TWF?
Does it give more power to old PA? How much?
That's the +4 to hit +4 damage one isn't it? Lower at lower levels. It doesn't make that much of a difference. Before, you could at least PA for 4 and use it as +8/12 damage which is decent at that point. Now? Not so much. It's not significant enough to have a big effect either way, though it would be better if PA were fixed.
For my first attack, I roll a 15 plus my 12, the bard is singing right plus 3 plus 1 for bless, lets see so that is 15 + 12 + 3 + 1 = 30 wait no 31 minus his AC or what, 20, oh 22, ok so 31 minus 22 is 9. Let me roll damage now so I don't forget my bonus 9. Lets see great axe is d12 +d6 for flaming, 9 + 2 cool, +10 for strength and magic and specialization, +9 bonus damage and of course the bard gives me +3. So that is 9 + 2 + 10 + 9 + 3 = 33. Damn, I should have power attacked. Ok, for my second attack...
D&D's already like that. Nothing I suggested was going to make it any worse. You forgot that Bless and Inspire Courage don't stack, by the way.
Your suggestion is totally logical and makes perfect sense. But for big combats in which everyone has multiple attacks, it also creates a noticeable drag on play.
It's quicker than watching the Fighter player bumble around figuring out his to-hit bonus for all four of his attacks.
What it really comes down to is whether our collective heads can come up with anything faster. Now, what I've put forth solves the issues of both making AC meaningful in the face of very high attack bonuses and maintaining AC as damage reduction. Is there any faster way to do it? For guidance, I would like to suggest that the target area to streamline would be the massive amounts of on-the-spot calculations necessary to figure out attack bonuses and damage modifiers. It's easy to look down at one's character sheet and see "Rapier: +17, 1d6+1d6+8, 18-20/x2". It's harder when one has to apply Inspire Courage + Recitation + flanking + Haste on-the-spot.
-Matt
|
|
What it really comes down to is whether our collective heads can come up with anything faster.
I think we should identify the requirements of the fix so everyone is on the same page before we start throwing out solutions.
Is it:
A. PA should not be the damage maestro it is and should be a smaller bonus but instead BAB should somehow contribute to damage.
B. PA should remain as a "requirement" to be competitive in the damage dealing department at upper levels by giving the ability to lower BAB to deal additional damage.
You know this discussion is really going into the heart of what a difficult time it is to play and roll for high level melee types. I can easily see where the discussion could also look at iterative and additional attacks from level, two weapon fighting, rapid shot and others.
Precision means binary, same as sneak attack. This is bad. Do I really need to give the precision damage immunity speech again? If you're that concerned about the Fighter being able to fight his way out of a metal box, say it is normal damage that does not apply against objects. Then it still works against everything it needs to. Except animated objects of course.
Though PA as a built in attack option for everyone works better.
Dmg inflicted increases much faster then linear.
Fighters average about +1 dmg/level, be it from str, buffs, skill, weapons, or whatnot. That's a linear increase.
Everytime they get another attack, this goes up. It generally ends up an average of about 250% dmg once you get all 4 atacks. That's not a linear progression. It's not a clean multiplier, but that's fine. The opponents you fight as you go up in level tend to decrease in number and increase in quality. There's nothing wrong with this. If it bothers you, double the number of attackers and halve their hitpoints, and see if that saves you much as you go more minion-esque.
I find the idea of adding excess TH directly to dmg to be very interesting. I've seen feats and manuvers where excess TH, or half of it, is added to the next attack, rolling on and on and making it more likely all attacks succeed. Directly turning excess TH into Dmg, however...that would simply take the need to make any additional math calculation minimal, and also reduce the abuse situation.
the more I think about it, the more I like it for simplicity and ease. It's 'always on', it's 'always working', and its perfectly controllable at +1 dmg per extra TH. It also shifts emphasis back to hitting to power it, and not having to find some min-max number. having a high default AC becomes important, as there will almost ALWAYS be bonus dmg if you hit.
Nice, elegant fix. I'll post this on the BG board.
What's his AC?
35.
Rolled a 40.
Kewl, +5 dmg. How much?
35 total.
Next attack?
Etc...
---------
That example with the level 1 fighter and level 20 fighter in a cage was extremely poor, btw.
Power ATtack is the process of converting weapon skill into weapon Power. For boxing, you'd call it a haymaker. In martial arts, you'd call it an "Iajitsu" focus strike or board-breaking or brick-breaking or somesuch.
Power Attack is no different in being able to inflict additional dmg in this regard as UA is in improving open hand dmg over levels. Instead of letting loose a blow of superhuman accuracy and speed that can cleave between the foot thick armored, steel hard scales of a dragon and rend the flesh beneath, or cut the wings off a mosquito in flight, you are simply going to Bring It. If you don't think a 20th level Melee boy doesn't deserve the ability to punch through a brick wall, then you don't have any respect for character levels.
The brick character is an icon in all fighting genres. They can bring the brute force like no one else...and they are supposed to be able to do it. It isn't about muscle power...it's about converting a lifetime of skill into pure force. Your skill is already superhuman...now look what you can do when you really, really want to...
==Aelryinth
|
A feat should not be required to make the game function properly. If melee types cannot do enough damage to be effective they need something added to them. PA should not be "the" feat that allows them to be competitive in damage.Agreed 100%. If Power Attack is indeed absolutely required to deal with appropriate threats, as has been attested, then it should be part of the core mechanics, not a feat. Otherwise, we're dealing with logic similar to
New Feat:
ALIVE [General]
Benefit: Your character begins the game alive.
Normal: Your character begins the game dead; roll up a new character.Feats, by definition, are options, not requirements for play. They may be prerequisites for other feats, or for prestige classes, but should not be prerequisites for game play.
You know, I used to think about that when 3.0 came out. You can do pretty much everything by taking some sort of penalty, whether to your attack roll or by accepting an attack of opportunity. In other words, maybe Power Attack should be a basic general combat "maneuver"? Same would go for Combat Expertise. Now, if you made the Improved Versions into something like a 1.5 for 1 or 2 for 1 deal (or remove the Str cap on the mechanics), that could begin to justify them as feats again.
From a real world perspective, I can power attack. I pick up a baseball bat, and instead of swinging to hit the ball I swing with all my power, likely missing. The warrior classes are better at it by virtue of better Strength scores and higher BAB - even going all out they have a better chance to hit than the average mage.
From a real world perspective, I can power attack. I pick up a baseball bat, and instead of swinging to hit the ball I swing with all my power, likely missing.
The thing is, if you're swinging the bat at a person, a wild swing will never be more effective than a well-placed shot, even if the latter doesn't spin you around in a circle afterwards. "Power Attack" is inherently a game idea, with little to recommend it in terms of realistic analogies.
|
|
From a real world perspective, I can power attack. I pick up a baseball bat, and instead of swinging to hit the ball I swing with all my power, likely missing.The thing is, if you're swinging the bat at a person, a wild swing will never be more effective than a well-placed shot, even if the latter doesn't spin you around in a circle afterwards. "Power Attack" is inherently a game idea, with little to recommend it in terms of realistic analogies.
What if we look at it the reverse way?
Instead of sacrificing accuracy, you are trying to gain accuracy. You are basically attempting a called shot: a well-placed swing at a vulnerable part of the target. It is a more difficult blow to land, so you are less likely to hit (the penalty) but if you do you will deal more damage to the target (the bonus).
Now that I put it that way, Power Attack makes a heck of a lot more sense. Now if a player demands a Called Shot, I will just tell them to Power Attack.
Incidentally, this revises, but doesn't invalidate, my previous assertion that everyone can try to Power Attack.
EDIT: Kind of ninja'd by ubernoob.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
By the way, why hasn't anyone pointed out daggers are light weapons and therefore invalid targets for Power Attacking? The build is illegal.Good catch. Would need power throw feat. Not too difficult to work in.
Also AT, you can't drink a potion of Divine Favor as it is a Personal only spell...
Actually, I don't mind parts of the Pathfinder version.
I actually like the BaB or STR whichever is lower part, but I don't like the all or nothing. Keep the restrictions on the range perhaps, but allow the variable of what a person wants to modify it with.
Now that I put it that way, Power Attack makes a heck of a lot more sense. Now if a player demands a Called Shot, I will just tell them to Power Attack. Incidentally, this revises, but doesn't invalidate, my previous assertion that everyone can try to Power Attack.
I like your fluff, Jal. If we go that route, then light weapons should get full benefit: a called shot with a dagger to the throat should do just as much extra damage as a called shot with a greatclub to the head. Maybe eliminate Power Attack, make a Called Shot combat option open to everyone (subtract 1/2 BAB from attack roll and add same to damage), and create an Improved Called Shot feat (2x damage). It should work with missiles as well as with melee weapons.
The common conclusion we're heading towards is that since Power Attack is so vital to making the game function, it should be part of the combat rules, not a feat.
The next step is to figure out which works better: an active option (the player elects to trade attack bonus for damage) or a passive quality (the more the attack hits by, the more damage it deals).
I personally would prefer to make it passive, as it reduces the amount of math the player has to go through for every attack. We're digging into the bowels of the d20 system for this issue, as that X in d20+X is the whole point of the system. Also, a player can see if his attack hits, roll damage, then the DM can add extra damage, instead of having to do it all before the attack is rolled. It splits the work and means the player will probably mess up less often.
-Matt
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
I'm all for a simpler method, even though Power attack wasn't so bad, it's offspring however (leap attack and knockback I'm looking at you).
But it should be an active I choose to do this and it should be a feat. Lots of people can swing the weapon hard, but only a real brute can dish out the proverberial *HASSAN CHOP! with Power Attack.
*ironically this was the earliest depiction of the Rope Trick spell that I know of... Ali Baba Bunny
I personally would prefer to make it passive, as it reduces the amount of math the player has to go through for every attack. We're digging into the bowels of the d20 system for this issue, as that X in d20+X is the whole point of the system. Also, a player can see if his attack hits, roll damage, then the DM can add extra damage, instead of having to do it all before the attack is rolled. It splits the work and means the player will probably mess up less often.
-Matt
I dont think that this solves the issues with PA, but I REALLY like the idea of it in game mechanics. The quality of your attack should play a role in the damage that you do. Now I understand that this theory is somewhat covered with a critical hit but not exactly. If someone is SOOOOO easy to hit that it is near effortless then you should be able to add more damage by your SKILL....a critical is just luck.
This should simply be added to the game as a standard part of how damage is figured. If this was done then I would in turn see no reason that the current version of power attack be left the way it is. Possibly making it scale (like ALL feats should) or making an improved version.
|
|
Now that I put it that way, Power Attack makes a heck of a lot more sense. Now if a player demands a Called Shot, I will just tell them to Power Attack. Incidentally, this revises, but doesn't invalidate, my previous assertion that everyone can try to Power Attack.I like your fluff, Jal. If we go that route, then light weapons should get full benefit: a called shot with a dagger to the throat should do just as much extra damage as a called shot with a greatclub to the head. Maybe eliminate Power Attack, make a Called Shot combat option open to everyone (subtract 1/2 BAB from attack roll and add same to damage), and create an Improved Called Shot feat (2x damage). It should work with missiles as well as with melee weapons.
Kirth, you have just helped me make a new Houserule! Thank you, sit.
Called Shot (3.5 Version)
Special Attack
Before making an attack roll to deal damage, a character may declare the roll to be a Called Shot. The character takes a penalty on the attack roll equal to one-half their base attack bonus (rounded up) and gains a bonus the damage roll equal to that amount. This extra damage is not multiplied on a critical hit. Called Shot can be attempted on any attack roll to deal damage, including spells. When using Called Shot with a ranged weapon, your range increment is halved (rounded down).
Improved Called Shot
Prerequisite: Str 13.
Benefit: When making a called shot attack you gain a multiple of the penalty to your attack roll as bonus damage on the attack. The amount of the multiple depends on your weapons critical hit multiplier.
Special: This feat is a fighter bonus feat. This feat substitutes for Power Attack.
Called Shot (PRPG Version)
Combat Maneuver
A Called Shot is an attempt to overcome the targets normal defences and score a hit. Before making an attack roll to deal damage, a character may declare the roll to be a Called Shot. The attack is made against the target's CMB defense instead of AC. The character takes a penalty on the attack roll equal to one-half their base attack bonus (rounded up) and gains a bonus to damage on the damage roll equal to that amount. When using Called Shot with a ranged weapon, your range increment is halved (rounded down).
Improved Called Shot (Combat Feat)
Prerequisite: Str 13.
Benefit: When making a called shot attack you instead gain a bonus to damage equal to the penalty to your attack roll multiplied by your weapon's critical hit multiplier. You gain a +2 bonus on all Called Shot rolls.
I'm still tinkering with the PRPG version. The ability to target CMB to deal damage makes it very different from Power Attack, and also a bit harder to hit with, hence the multiplied damage.
Active. It is both simpler, and more engaging. It is simpler because it is easier to subtract one number from all of your attack rolls and add one number to all of your damage rolls than it is to roll each attack roll, back and forth with the DM to get the amount you beat it by, add a variable number... then repeat. One becomes rote pretty fast. The other requires an annoying back and forth every time. It is more engaging because it at least provides a little variety from 'I attack and move' and 'I full attack' repeated ad nauseum 1-20. This is especially true since tripping got borked, removing the only other bit of variety they had.
Also, the passive method seems to be assuming a 1:1 ratio which just won't cut it.
And by active I mean you pick a number between 1 and your BAB and PA for that number. No preset stuff, you can adapt it to your needs. It's very basic arithmetic on classes that are already very simple. There is no need to dumb it down further. That just encourages BSF syndrome. That's Big Stupid Fighter, an archetype that is only viable at low levels. Unless the point is to make all non casters five levels long... They must have something meaningful other than I hit the thing with the other thing. Again.
Not to open a whole new debate, but my problem with power attack is not how the feat operates (although I do like some of the changes suggested, like basing the bonus on how much strength is applied and making it a core mechanic.)
I dislike that bonuses to damage from feats/abilities are applied with damage multipliers. I think that damage from critical hits or other multipliers should only multiply weapon damage + strength/enhancement damage, and all other damage bonuses (sneak attack, power attack, warblade powers, etc) are constant. It also evens out the way some other feats and powers are balanced.
Power Attack as a -5 to hit for +10 damage seems fine. -5 to hit for +30 damage while charging with a lance on horseback seems too powerful. Many of the power builds I've seen are based on getting a high power attack and being able to multiply it greatly.
Critical hits do not multiply sneak attack and other bonus dice. Only straight bonuses. Also, unless you are a Druid or a Paladin you can forget about mounted combat entirely as your mount will die from one hit from anything, leaving you unable to do your trick. Even if you are one of the above you aren't too much better off because mounted combat manages to be even more situational than sneak attack (and unlike SA, you can't eventually get around many of the issues). Let the guy have his Lance charge. He needs it.
Called Shot (PRPG Version)
[spoiler]
Careful; by using CMB, you make giants better at precision attacks than halflings. Also, the x crit multiplier doesn't sit well with me: a called shot to the heart with a rapier should be just as fatal as a called shot to the head with an axe.
---
To be "realistic," weapons would scale so that a comparatively feeble hit with a bludgeoning or cleaving weapon would deal decent damage, but it would increase more slowly thereafter. A feeble hit with a piercing weapon like a rapier or arrow should deal close to no damage, but it would scale very quickly thereafter. This assumes living opponents -- if you look at hospital trauma cases, a minor puncture is less pressing than a minor slashing wound, but a major puncture is far more often life-threatening than major lacerations. This could be worked into a passive system like the one proposed: I've done so, and it's very good for gritty combat, and it's also an incredible pain in the butt unless your campaign is very "combat-lite."
I'm forced to agree with Crusader here, that a freely scaling system that's faster to resolve is better for fighter-types, and hence better for the game -- even if it's far less realistic. I'd make the option available to anyone, but have it scale based on BAB, and I'd have it not so unbalanced in favor of the 2HW crowd -- or if it is, then viable "sword-and-board" and 2WF options need to be provided.
For sword and board to be viable, first the defense gains must be relevant and second they must be able to utilize those defenses. Otherwise you get one or more of the following:
1: SAB is still hit on a 2, but does considerably lower damage. Net loss.
2: SAB has more AC. He gets attacked with something that doesn't care about AC. He's just as vulnerable, while still having lower offense. Net loss.
3: SAB has better defenses. Still has weaker offenses. Enemies ignore high defense low offense guy and eat everyone else. Net loss.
In other words, AC must become a numerical stat and not a yes/no stat. The fact it scales only by gear and doesn't even keep up ensures yes/no status. The fact follow up attacks look like 20/15/10/5 and not 20/15/15/15 also ensures yes/no status. Further, SAB must be able to get enemies to fight them, even though their intelligence is telling them to get the real threat, or the small and weak guy, or otherwise have a solid reason to ignore him. Without all of the above, only way you can call a SAB viable is if it is a (great) sword and (animated) shield which probably isn't the intended use of the term. Even then, no reach means you lose.
TWF... the offhand weapon parries. Making it pure damage based just ensures it is in direct competition with THF which means it almost always loses. I say almost because per hit effects such as sneak attack, wounding weapons, Life-Drinking weapons and so forth obviously work better if you are getting more attacks. Life-Drinking isn't even viable if you are anything other than an undead, a construct, or otherwise immune to energy drain as it has a nasty backlash of that kind. There is also nothing stopping you from TWFing with say... a spiked chain and armor spikes, which also likely defeats the point. Instead make it so the offhand weapon gives you a miss chance, improves your accuracy with the primary weapon attacks (which you can then PA away if you want), can render enemies' flat footed against your mainhand attack... Many possibilities to reflect how TWF actually worked.
Actually, 2WF/S&B works pretty well with the Imp/Greater 2WF & Vital Strike Feats (Even Shield Bashes benefit from V. Strike).
I think it'd make sense to see Shield Feats that introduced miss chances on top of AC... Actually, I wonder if the Fighter's Armor Training applies BOTH to Armor AND the Shield...? That would be GREAT, actually.
Like people mention, if there were Feats allowing you to "shelter" adjacent allies (including those miss chances I mentioned above), that WOULD force enemies to deal with you, if they want to get that caster right next to you, that is...
The other versions of that just means you're spending more resources (feats = resources) to be less efficient (efficient = doing your job aka damage here) which means it is lose lose. TWF should have never been multiple feats. Even being one feat is dubious as you're burning a feat just to get basic competency with an inferior style. But if that one feat scaled your offhand attacks based on BAB...
Also, why is the caster adjacent to you when you're fighting stuff? Shouldn't they be away from the front lines? Unless they're a gish of course, in which case they can defend themselves at least as well as you by default (or they messed up their gish build, and are dead regardless).
I am in agreement that PA needs to be repaired from 3.5. I always thought the x2 modifier for 2HW was overpowering. If we keep it this style, make it equal across the board for all weapons (+1 per -1 or +2 per -1).
I like the idea of making PA and CE standard combat options. From there, you can make feats of "Improved Power Attack" and "Improved Combat Expertise", similar to sunder, bull rush, etc.
CE rules can replace the defensive fighting, which always stacked confusingly IMO.
My thoughts:
1) Keep it simple!! The PF description for PA is awful - "Add an amount equal to your Strength modifier (or your base attack bonus, whichever is lower)" Aaaaah!! Or/Whichever statements = thrash.
2) I prefer letting the player decide when and how much PA to use - it can depend attack to attack based on the enemy.
3) If you cap PA at 1-for-1, I don't think its overpowered from a BAB cap. Honestly, I think BAB makes more sense than STR cap, and makes it more usable to all classes. Trading accuracy for damage is the idea.
My Basic Idea
Power Attack: [basic combat option] trade -1 penalty to hit for +1 damage, maximum of 1/2 BAB.
Improved PA: [feat] trade -1 penalty to hit for +1 damage, maximum of BAB.
Greater PA: [feat] trade -1 penalty to hit for +2 damage, maximum of BAB. Probably a +13 BAB requirement?
A Possible Option?
Power Attack - PC can elect to take a penalty on their attack roll to gain extra damage on a successful hit, per the table below. The PC can choose any penalty/damage option of their level or lower. These dice are not multiplied by critical hits.
Level / Penalty / Bonus Damage
1st / -2 / +1d6
5th / -5 / +2d6
10th / -10 / +3d6
15th / -15 / +4d6
20th / -20 / +5d6
Damage dice do not scale well enough. Flat bonuses do.
Also the basic maneuvers you should be able to do with basic competency without any feat. In other words, none of that 'if you don't have the right feat, doing this means you take an AoO which makes you auto fail if it hits, and you probably won't succeed on what you were trying to do anyways so just forget these exist'.
Improved versions keep their +4 (why were these reduced, again?) and their other benefits such as Improved Trip giving you a follow up attack (again, why was this removed?).
Course, that brings us to the next part. Making the maneuvers (other than tripping) actually worth considering.
After all, a plain old non magical cheap item renders you either extremely resistant or immune to disarm attempts so good luck getting that to work.
Bull rushing is only worth considering with non OGL stuff such as the Dungeoncrasher variant, knockback weapons, etc.
And breaking your own treasure is just an outright bad idea because at best you are wasting your combat actions accomplishing nothing and at worst... well you're breaking your own treasure. This will never even be worth considering until you can repair items as if repairing a non magical version of whatever.
Example: Fighter Boy is up against The Big Bad Ass. The Big Bad Ass has a uber weapon. Breaking your own treasure is bad, but if he can just reforge it for a token fee and a bit of time there might actually be a reason to consider it. Of course, he could still probably Sunder TBBA's face with about the same degree of difficulty as the weapon and save himself the time and trouble, but he's at least not a complete moron for smashing the weapon as it's not a permanent loss.
Example: Fighter Boy is up against The Big Bad Ass. The Big Bad Ass has a uber weapon. Breaking your own treasure is bad, but if he can just reforge it for a token fee and a bit of time there might actually be a reason to consider it. Of course, he could still probably Sunder TBBA's face with about the same degree of difficulty as the weapon and save himself the time and trouble, but he's at least not a complete moron for smashing the weapon as it's not a permanent loss.
See, this is where people start to have issues. You see the BBEG's treasure as a game icon to which you're automatically entitled. Others might see an interesting RP choice: "do I sunder the cool weapon and defeat the BBEG, or do I run a much higher risk of not living through this battle at all, on the off chance that I might be able to use that sword?"
The other versions of that just means you're spending more resources (feats = resources) to be less efficient (efficient = doing your job aka damage here) which means it is lose lose. TWF should have never been multiple feats. Even being one feat is dubious as you're burning a feat just to get basic competency with an inferior style. But if that one feat scaled your offhand attacks based on BAB...
Well, you don't have to spend more than one Feat on 2WF, and I'm not sure what you meant with that last bit, all your attacks, including the off-hand scale with BAB, just @ -2 to hit...??? The Imp/Greater 2WF mainly seem worth taking because they give you more attacks at substantial attack penalties, perfect for sacrificing for Vital Strike Damage on all your attacks (or just to make a Crit+/Round more likely).
Also, why is the caster adjacent to you when you're fighting stuff? Shouldn't they be away from the front lines? Unless they're a gish of course, in which case they can defend themselves at least as well as you by default (or they messed up their gish build, and are dead regardless).
Hey, if you're in an enclosed space, that caster is probably pretty close to you. Are you seriously always in perfect tactical formation? What a boring game!
But I mentioned that only as a Feat, which nobody has to take. That was mainly something I've seen mentioned a bunch around here, and seems a reasonable ability for a Feat, though it's certainly not everyone's "optimal" choice. Applying the Armor Training to the Shield on top of Armor seems quite called for, and stuff like miss chances would help with the AC not keeping up with BAB problem... What actual solution would you like to see, anyways?
Instead of the scaling damage coming form Power Attack, give a bonus to weapon damage equal to 1/2 BAB (inspired by SW Saga Edition). This would apply to all classes and would scale to both BAB and Level. It also has the added bonus of not favoring any one weapon type (same for 2Hand, Sword and Board, TWF, and even ranged weapons so archers don't get left out as usual). It is stat independent, so both STR and DEX characters benefit equally.
I'd be all for that, except that high-HD magical beasts will rip up parties like there's no tomorrow.
Instead of the scaling damage coming form Power Attack, give a bonus to weapon damage equal to 1/2 BAB (inspired by SW Saga Edition). This would apply to all classes and would scale to both BAB and Level. It also has the added bonus of not favoring any one weapon type (same for 2Hand, Sword and Board, TWF, and even ranged weapons so archers don't get left out as usual). It is stat independent, so both STR and DEX characters benefit equally.I'd be all for that, except that high-HD magical beasts will rip up parties like there's no tomorrow.Yes, creatures whose HD exceed their CR (sometimes greatly) are problematic. Not to mention the minor detail that PC BAB is capped at 20th level (after 20th you get an epic bonus instead of BAB increase) while monster HD continue to give BAB indefinitely (at least according to the stat blocks). Outside of re-writing numerous creatures I haven't gotten the balancing factor for that figured out yet. I will accept suggestions. I could see limiting it to manufactured weapons, but that leaves the Monk's unarmed strike in an awkward spot. Excluding natural weapons but not unarmed strikes somehow. I will work on it.
Not to mention this would GIMP melee types even MORE than they are already when compared to casters! I am sorry but I am just going to have to leave this conversation as it seems that everyone here who is for this PDnD change, or its like, just is starting to look like they hate melee characters. Power Attack worked fine, add-ons causes the most problems, something needs to be done about that. Other combat styles need to be brought up to the level of power attack.
Wow,
Just wow.
I swear I've never seen a mountain made out of such a mole hill as this. It's power attack people. We should keep it simple not bog it down with endless rules. Is it really so bad that we can't just keep it as it was in 3.5? Does it really need all of this? It's a simple feat, easy to use, and anyone who spends more than a minute calculating it should have pewter dice thrown at them by the DM. It's a point for point trade off unless you're wielding a weapon two handed.
Maybe I'm just blind to the problem here but I seriously think this thread has gone into the realm of the ridiculous. So whatever is decided I'm keeping it 3.5 in my game. You people have fun. You'd think you were trying to top the HERO system for complexity with some of the stuff I'm seeing here.
EDIT: Correction, I've seen all too many mountains made out of mole hills like this. Gods I remember people actually thought the 2 point spell focus feat was too powerful. Apparently those people never played in sessions higher than hmmm... 8th level? Oi.
Probably will get ignored, but anyway...
The main issue with 3.5 power attack is that some powergamers will bring out their tables and figure the most optimum number to declare before they make their attacks. This could take a long time. Even worse are those who try to access their laptops to input all the required values... especially when up against BBEG fights, where they take forever to discuss what movement to do too.. -_-;;
Neverwinternights "fixed" power attack to a static number. Which I think is good. I'll support a static fixed number for power attack(e.g. -3 to hit for +3 for 1h /+6 for 2h like Neverwinter Nights), it simplifies the maths needed for the powergamers.
Then let that be house ruled for the groups that have that problem. It seems to me it's a problem of bad players and bad GM's rather than a rules mechanic and people are too lazy to do anything about it so they try to nerf the rule itself. Tables and charts? I've yet to meet a single person who did that let alone a single DM worth his dice who would let someone delay game for something like that. Spell casters are bad enough, people shouldn't be delayed by the fighters of the group and I've yet to meet a fighter who took longer than a spellcaster to figure out what he's going to do at any level.
It just strikes me as a rule change that punishes a lot of gamers for the idiocy of a few.
Example: Fighter Boy is up against The Big Bad Ass. The Big Bad Ass has a uber weapon. Breaking your own treasure is bad, but if he can just reforge it for a token fee and a bit of time there might actually be a reason to consider it. Of course, he could still probably Sunder TBBA's face with about the same degree of difficulty as the weapon and save himself the time and trouble, but he's at least not a complete moron for smashing the weapon as it's not a permanent loss.See, this is where people start to have issues. You see the BBEG's treasure as a game icon to which you're automatically entitled. Others might see an interesting RP choice: "do I sunder the cool weapon and defeat the BBEG, or do I run a much higher risk of not living through this battle at all, on the off chance that I might be able to use that sword?"
Stormwind Fallacy. Also, there is nothing in the game worse than losing an expensive magic item. Even your own life is worth less. If you want it away from him there are multiple ways of doing that that do not involve you Wraith Strike Power Attack punching yourself in the crotch.
Regardless, I presented a means to where it might actually be worth considering instead of always being an incredibly stupid tactic.
Quandary: The reason why it doesn't work is because being adjacent to the melee is bad tactical sense. Anything with 10' reach or better can happily full attack you which means either your defenses are great (and you don't need the beatstick protecting you) or they aren't and... you die. List of things with 10' or greater reach comprises... almost everything you care about. Even the 5' reach stuff might be able to get you with a 5' step. Unless you absolutely have no choice (as in, literally NO room to move which begs the obvious question of how the hell did you get in there) the best defense is never giving the enemy a chance to hit you aka stay the hell back.
Now, if his ability had more than a 5' range, then it could work.