Opinion: Power Attack


General Discussion (Prerelease)

151 to 179 of 179 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Crusader of Logic wrote:
Stormwind Fallacy.

Which, like any cliche, is sometimes correct. Being a powergaming does not automatically mean being a bad role-player. But by the same token, it doesn't automatically mean being a good role-player, either. In this instance, you've subverted the entire ongoing story into a mechanical token. Which is probably OK for you. That might be the way you enjoy playing. Others might find immersion in the story more important than the temporary disadvantage of breaking that item.

One style of play is not "better" than another except mechanically, but the point for many people isn't being mechanically superior; it's to have fun with their friends.

Liberty's Edge

What is the Stormwind fallacy? Is it intentionally gimping your P.C.? That's all I can gather.


Heathansson wrote:
What is the Stormwind fallacy? Is it intentionally gimping your P.C.? That's all I can gather.

If I understand correctly, it's the claim that powergaming prevents good role-playing. It's not actually a fallacy so much as it is a cliche with exceptions.


So the story is about... you screwing yourself. That is the Stormwind Fallacy - you have to screw up intentionally to be a good roleplayer or alternately, the only way to be a good roleplayer is to suck at everything else. That falsehood started around 3d6 in order by the way to make people feel better about their utterly crappy characters. Anyways. I don't know about you, but if it were me fighting vampires and liches and whatever else, and someone said it built character for me to **** up intentionally while fighting these unholy abominations, I'd stare at them like they were crazy until they wet themselves and ran away.

Stormwind Fallacy: Being good at roleplaying or optimizing means you are bad at the other due to drawing a false and inverse correlation between the two.

Liberty's Edge

I try to do that, to anti-karma Murphy's law into making my dice roll good.


Crusader of Logic wrote:
So the story is about... you screwing yourself.

It's about picking the lesser of two evils. You lose the sword, but avoid a TPK. That kind of scenario is a lot of fun for some people. Obviously, you would feel "gypped" by it, and that's fine. Play in campaigns where the DM makes sure you always get your wealth by level. Just don't tell the people who DO enjoy that kind of story that they're "wrong."


If the damn thing is that dangerous so as to be the difference between a TPK and walking away unharmed... What the hell is the DM doing? Giving level 5s +10 weapons? Even if he actually is pulling a stunt like that... Bet the BBEG has less than Hardness 20, 70 HP.

Hell, the DM has to break NPC WBL just for NPC stuff to be an improvement over whatever you have (which means breaking it is just a waste of actions).

Scarab Sages

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Jal Dorak wrote:

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."

CMB and Crit multiplier noted, Kirth. I was going for "over-the-top, tone down later" with the crit multiplier.

I think what we are really looking at here is an inaccuracy in weapon damage dice. For example, a normall very deadly weapon like a Greataxe or Greatclub should deal 3d4 damage, but only have a x2 crit. A Rapier should deal 1d6 damage (less damage, more variance) but have a x3 or x4 crit. Part of this is ingrained in D&D as "bigger dice means better damage" when really it should be "more but smaller dice means better damage".

Here are a few classic weapons retooled (some not) to this thinking:
Light Crossbow: 1d8/x3
Longbow: 1d8/x4
Short Sword: 1d6/x3
Club: 1d6/x2
Longsword: 2d4/19-20x2
Greatsword: 3d4/19-20x2
Greataxe: 3d4/x3
Ranseur: 1d8/x3

Really it comes down to giving piercing weapons only one damage die but a better critical multiplier. Slashing weapons should get multiple damage dice. Bludgeoning weapons get multiple damage dice but otherwise unchanged.

Another method would be to also add the critical hit multiplier as a damage bonus. A x4 piercing weapon would get +4 damage, giving it added deadliness even on a poor damage roll.


Crusader of Logic wrote:
If the damn thing is that dangerous so as to be the difference between a TPK and walking away unharmed... What the hell is the DM doing?

He's designing adventures for his players, rather than for you personally? OK, this is totally off-topic now, but seriously, not everyone is that hung up about the CR and wealth by level rules when they play. Some people have to be keen and analytical and precise all day at work, and want to play a game where they can relax all that and just have a fun story.

There's a need for analysis of rules; Power Attack is a good example. I don't want to discourage you from continuing to look at that mechanic. But when role-playing asides come up, just be aware that people's style of play may differ wildly from yours. You might not enjoy it personally, and you might consider it "wrong," but just let it go.

Liberty's Edge

Tangential; I feel that when I have 6 p.c.'s I can break WBL a little bit, because the party is ecl'd higher in a sense, but an appropriate CR critcher can almost be too powerful for them to go toe-to-toe with; it's mainline weapon will be an instikill oftentimes, or there will be one partymember with the hoodoo to even affect it; even if it's a blastermeister wizard type, they're hosed. I have no actual quantifications of this, but it's just an instinctual feeling I'm getting/noticing.

Scarab Sages

Heathansson wrote:
Tangential; I feel that when I have 6 p.c.'s I can break WBL a little bit, because the party is ecl'd higher in a sense, but an appropriate CR critcher can almost be too powerful for them to go toe-to-toe with; it's mainline weapon will be an instikill oftentimes, or there will be one partymember with the hoodoo to even affect it; even if it's a blastermeister wizard type, they're hosed. I have no actual quantifications of this, but it's just an instinctual feeling I'm getting/noticing.

I've also noted the reverse - I can reduce Wealth by Level, and rather than having to throw EL=APL+2 challenges to threaten death, I can do so with EL=APL and have challenging encounters. Have to be extra careful with APL+1 or higher, but it makes lower level opponents more of a threat for longer.


It's not about being hung up on the rules in a game defined by rules. It's about avoiding getting screwed with. If the ref arbitrarily decides to award the Lakers 3 points, people are going to have issues with that. Especially the other team. If the Lakers want three points, they need to shoot from behind the line. Simple as that.

In other words, don't make enemies cheat.


Crusader of Logic wrote:
It's not about being hung up on the rules in a game defined by rules. It's about avoiding getting screwed with. If the ref arbitrarily decides to award the Lakers 3 points, people are going to have issues with that. Especially the other team. If the Lakers want three points, they need to shoot from behind the line. Simple as that.

Except that some people are just shooting hoops with a bunch of people and a bunch of balls; they haven't organized it into league play or anything, and might not want to.


Ok. You and your buddies are shooting hoops. They're 3 points away from winning. Without even shooting the ball again, they say they won. You just going to take that? Or you gonna call them on it, say it ain't over yet?

Liberty's Edge

Jal Dorak wrote:
Heathansson wrote:
Tangential; I feel that when I have 6 p.c.'s I can break WBL a little bit, because the party is ecl'd higher in a sense, but an appropriate CR critcher can almost be too powerful for them to go toe-to-toe with; it's mainline weapon will be an instikill oftentimes, or there will be one partymember with the hoodoo to even affect it; even if it's a blastermeister wizard type, they're hosed. I have no actual quantifications of this, but it's just an instinctual feeling I'm getting/noticing.
I've also noted the reverse - I can reduce Wealth by Level, and rather than having to throw EL=APL+2 challenges to threaten death, I can do so with EL=APL and have challenging encounters. Have to be extra careful with APL+1 or higher, but it makes lower level opponents more of a threat for longer.

Eeeenteresting...

Liberty's Edge

Crusader of Logic wrote:
Ok. You and your buddies are shooting hoops. They're 3 points away from winning. Without even shooting the ball again, they say they won. You just going to take that? Or you gonna call them on it, say it ain't over yet?

You assume we're keeping score.


Krensky wrote:
You assume we're keeping score.

Bingo. You hit the nail on the head there, Krensky.


Freesword wrote:
Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:


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.

And how exactly does adding to weapon damage gimp melee types? It is a clear across the board increase. For the record, I prefer to play non-casters and like low magic games. My problem with the 3.x version of power attack wasn't with the amount of damage. It was with the fiddly nature and waiting for a player to calculate optimum power attack and then adjust all their numbers. It can and for some more than others does slow down combat. Adding 1/2 BAB to weapon damage would bring up all weapon styles and allow power attack to be a yes or no fixed amount.

I would be willing to consider power attack at a fixed amount based on BAB, along the lines of -2 to hit for every 5 points of BAB, but as it scales it favors 2handed weapons more than anything else unless the ratios for 1hand vs 2hand change.

1/2 base attack bonus is still a power down from 3.5 and maybe even a power down from PDnD as you might one day get higher than a 10 to power attack for some. Melee in 3.5 always had a problem trying to compete with a crafty spell caster for usefullness while the caster got it with ease. Power attack was fine due to its conditional progression feats, where if you were in a situation you could pull off more damage.

Sense power attack was the only reasonably powered feat tree's, and that in general melee was under powered with any other fighting style, unless they were a specific class, that instead of powering down melee fighters as a howl to bring the fighting styles into equality upping the other styles is needed.

Obviously if you bring down power attack, the only useful powered fighting style, you instead bring melee classes into a greater problem as being next to useless other than a meat shield, and might as well not even wield a weapon other than the obvious question as why one wouldn't in a battle.

Liberty's Edge

I don't think there's anything fundamentally wrong with 3.5 Power Attack. The broken builds discussed earlier in this thread weren't broke based on PA alone.

It also seems like most of the objection is based on high level characters. If the only major complaint is PC's loading up at +10 or higher on the PA, just make it a feat progression.

Leave Power Attack as it is in 3.5, but limit it to BAB OR +5, whichever is less. Then introduce the rest of a tree like Improved Power Attack that allows use of up to +10 and then Greater PA which steps up the max to +15 (or go for +20 at that point).

Fighters wielding a 2 handed weapon SHOULD do significantly more damage than those who are doing Sword and Board. The "shield is weak" arguments don't work because even without using non-core feats, at the sort of levels we're talking here, the shield isn't just +1 or +2... it's an easy way to stack on another +7 (+5 enhancement) to your AC that stacks with virtually everything else. At lower levels, a +1 heavy shield is a BARGAIN for 3 pts of AC. IMO, that's all the balance sword and board guys need against the x2 PA guys.

As for the variable bonus, I completely agree with previous posters that getting to make a decision each round is part of what makes the feat cool and what can make playing the meat shield interesting compared to casters.

Leave it as is in 3.5 please!


Krensky wrote:
Crusader of Logic wrote:
Ok. You and your buddies are shooting hoops. They're 3 points away from winning. Without even shooting the ball again, they say they won. You just going to take that? Or you gonna call them on it, say it ain't over yet?
You assume we're keeping score.

So in other words your players are cool with you cheating against them. Which means either they have no backbone, or they don't know any better. Sounds like a bad case of herd mentality.

And to the post above me: I assumed +7. It's still weak, because you're still off the random number generator AC wise and you lose out on quite a bit of offense which means enemies get to beat on you more anyways. Assuming of course their attacks are even AC based, otherwise it doesn't even do that much. The THF parts are accurate though.


Crusader of Logic wrote:
Krensky wrote:
You assume we're keeping score.
So in other words your players are cool with you cheating against them. Which means either they have no backbone, or they don't know any better. Sounds like a bad case of herd mentality.

No; I think his point is that you're not divided into teams and that no one is keeping score, because scoring baskets isn't the focus. You're just talking and throwing the ball around. Really, it's not an organized game of basketball at all; it's an excuse to be with friends, and a basketball happens to be present. Some people are apparently uncomfortable with that possibility, but that doesn't mean that no one is allowed to follow it, if that's what they want to do.


Which means you aren't adventuring and fighting things. You're shooting the breeze in the fictional tavern. Which is fine, but sooner or later you have to go save the world and ya know, getting cheated against ruins that.

Liberty's Edge

Crusader of Logic wrote:
Which means you aren't adventuring and fighting things. You're shooting the breeze in the fictional tavern. Which is fine, but sooner or later you have to go save the world and ya know, getting cheated against ruins that.

False dilemma.

The whole wealth by level concept and the utterly worthless CR system, combined with players, who whatever else the claim or do, believe that a central element of game play for everyone is the need to amass the largest pile of character power they possibly can is the issue.

You accused me of cheating my players because they don't get all the shiny Christmas tree crap that the book says they should, and then you accused them of being milksop sheep for putting up with it. They are not cheated by me not following some tool that was designed for mainly for building NPCs and characters with a starting level higher then 1. Especially considering that if I was following the rules they'd have piles and piles of crap they can't or won't use. In fact, in my two current games the PCs don't get anything. The fancy weapons? The shiny armor? The cool healing gadget? It all goes to Area 51, and they'll start their next mission with pretty much exactly the same gear they had for this one. The last D&D game I ran no one looted the bodies because they and their characters weren't that sort of group of people. I found other ways to put cool toys and cash in their hands.

The game is not necessarily, and for a large portion of people (and everyone I play with), about having the highest numbers or the most crap. For a very, very, large number of people it's about sitting around a table and having fun while telling a good story. Your whole argument implicitly says that we're all wrong and cowards and fools. I reject your view of the game and am even more convinced that the game my friends, my associates, and I play is entirely different then the one you do despite the name on the book being the same.


Krensky wrote:
Crusader of Logic wrote:
Which means you aren't adventuring and fighting things. You're shooting the breeze in the fictional tavern. Which is fine, but sooner or later you have to go save the world and ya know, getting cheated against ruins that.

False dilemma.

The whole wealth by level concept and the utterly worthless CR system, combined with players, who whatever else the claim or do, believe that a central element of game play for everyone is the need to amass the largest pile of character power they possibly can is the issue.

You accused me of cheating my players because they don't get all the shiny Christmas tree crap that the book says they should, and then you accused them of being milksop sheep for putting up with it. They are not cheated by me not following some tool that was designed for mainly for building NPCs and characters with a starting level higher then 1. Especially considering that if I was following the rules they'd have piles and piles of crap they can't or won't use. In fact, in my two current games the PCs don't get anything. The fancy weapons? The shiny armor? The cool healing gadget? It all goes to Area 51, and they'll start their next mission with pretty much exactly the same gear they had for this one. The last D&D game I ran no one looted the bodies because they and their characters weren't that sort of group of people. I found other ways to put cool toys and cash in their hands.

The game is not necessarily, and for a large portion of people (and everyone I play with), about having the highest numbers or the most crap. For a very, very, large number of people it's about sitting around a table and having fun while telling a good story. Your whole argument implicitly says that we're all wrong and cowards and fools. I reject your view of the game and am even more convinced that the game my friends, my associates, and I play is entirely different then the one you do despite the name on the book being the same.

The problem is the game was designed with the WBL and Cr systems in mind and so if you aren't playing with them are are in fact NOT PLAYING THE SAME GAME. And this is fine but this should be about the rules as written, not as you choose to play them. Of course your experience is different when you change the rules. You're using different rules. this is a venue to discuss the RAW.


No, I accused you of cheating for putting such a weapon in the BBEG's hand. For it to be that good, you'd need to be giving your enemies stuff far beyond their level which means you are out to get your players, and if they're just taking that they're either cowards or don't know better.

If the weapon is not that great, breaking it would at worst just be a waste of time.


Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The more I've thought about this, the more I've added/changed some opinions. I think the 3.5 version of PA is pretty much fine as written, thought I don't see the reason for the 1-for-2 bonus given to 2-handed weapons. They already have larger base dice, and gain 1.5 STR bonus, why double up the PA benefit? This is my only primary gripe with the 3.5 version.

Now, on a small opinion tangent: dice rolling = fun, math = work. Rolling d20s when its pretty much auto-hit or auto-miss isn't fun, its boring (auto-hit) and frustrating (auto-miss). This is a problem with the scaling ACs and BABs for encounters. Its annoying as a player also - whats the point of having a sweet 30 AC when the mobs have +16 to +20 attack bonuses?

Similarly, wizards have more fun b/c they roll more dice. What's better than saying "okay, give me all your d6s" when dropping a disintegrate or whatever for the first time? The fighter rolling d8+42, where the dice roll is nearly meaningless? Umm, no.

This is one of the reasons Bo9S works well, even with its kinks. It gives the fighter-types the chance to drop some dice (and damage)! I think the "penalty for extra dice" PA version would be more fun, less math.

Thoughts?


ckafrica wrote:
The problem is the game was designed with the WBL and Cr systems in mind and so if you aren't playing with them are are in fact NOT PLAYING THE SAME GAME. And this is fine but this should be about the rules as written, not as you choose to play them. Of course your experience is different when you change the rules. You're using different rules. this is a venue to discuss the RAW.

Everyone seems to read, interpret, and play the same rules differently -- largely because the bulk of people who play view the rules as a means to an end -- that end being to have fun imagining your character is a person in fantasy-land, doing heroic things that involve a bit of risk.

Some people choose to view the rules as being an end in themselves. That's OK, but it doesn't represent the majority, or we'd all still be playing by the Chainmail rules. To maintain any profitable discussion, we need to agree that (1) it's OK to want the rules to work as well as possible, and, equally, (2) people who run a slightly less rigid game are equally valid as players, are not "playing wrong," and in fact seem to represent a majority here on the Paizo boards.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
ckafrica wrote:
The problem is the game was designed with the WBL and Cr systems in mind and so if you aren't playing with them are are in fact NOT PLAYING THE SAME GAME.

....

2) people who run a slightly less rigid game are equally valid as players, are not "playing wrong," and in fact seem to represent a majority here on the Paizo boards.

The point here is that if you say you are not following major guidelines for how the game is meant to be played this is more than "slightly less rigid", YOU ARE NOT PLAYING THE SAME GAME.

I mean i could say "Jeez my group has no problem with imbalance between melee and spellcasters, but then I don't allow SODs because I feel they unbalance the game" Sure it might be true but I'm not talking about the same game as everyone anymore. I can argue that removing SODs has been a good fix and so I recommend that change for the sake of balance but that is different than arguing against the RAW when you are no longer using them.

I'm not denying a groups right to customize the ruleset, I would be shocked if you didn't. But you can't look back at the RAW through those tinted glasses and pretend you are seeing the same thing as the rest of us. IT's delusional.

Finally you can use majority opinion as a foundation of fact, the majority is often wrong (certainly in the minds of the minority) and as such it carries no weight with most people.

Scarab Sages

Could everyone please stop telling people who ignore rules that they are playing the game wrong?


Jal Dorak wrote:
Could everyone please stop telling people who ignore rules that they are playing the game wrong?

What I believe is being said (and what I'm trying to convey) is not that people are playing wrong but that it is inappropriate to make arguments regarding a common set of facts (the RAW) when you are basing said arguments on variations which are unique to your experience. I can't know, unless you meticulously indicate all the alterations you've made, how thier interaction might have affected your experience. Therefore it's impossible to effectively dialogue about a persons experiences if they are all from different vantage points.

That is why the discussion must stick to the RAW. It gives everyone a common experience foundation which can be variefied and cited so we all know we are on the same page


ckafrica wrote:
Jal Dorak wrote:
Could everyone please stop telling people who ignore rules that they are playing the game wrong?

What I believe is being said (and what I'm trying to convey) is not that people are playing wrong but that it is inappropriate to make arguments regarding a common set of facts (the RAW) when you are basing said arguments on variations which are unique to your experience. I can't know, unless you meticulously indicate all the alterations you've made, how thier interaction might have affected your experience. Therefore it's impossible to effectively dialogue about a persons experiences if they are all from different vantage points.

That is why the discussion must stick to the RAW. It gives everyone a common experience foundation which can be variefied and cited so we all know we are on the same page

Yes. That, and Paizo does not profit from free form.


ckafrica wrote:
I mean i could say "Jeez my group has no problem with imbalance between melee and spellcasters, but then I don't allow SODs because I feel they unbalance the game"

They're already gone. Or are you still playing 3.5 instead of playtesting Pathfinder?

ckafrica wrote:
Finally you can use majority opinion as a foundation of fact, the majority is often wrong (certainly in the minds of the minority) and as such it carries no weight with most people.

Not as a foundation of fact; as a foundation of what's acceptable. Someone might personally enjoy running nude through malls. It might be a fact that no would be emotionally scarred for life if that person did so. But majority consensus says that he or she can't do that. "Fact" is irrelevant. It's a matter of opinion.

Majority opinion here is that, while having glossy chrome rules with minimal "brokenness" is good, it's not the be-all and end-all of gaming, or even of this particular game.

Liberty's Edge

Crusader of Logic wrote:

No, I accused you of cheating for putting such a weapon in the BBEG's hand. For it to be that good, you'd need to be giving your enemies stuff far beyond their level which means you are out to get your players, and if they're just taking that they're either cowards or don't know better.

If the weapon is not that great, breaking it would at worst just be a waste of time.

You seem to have me confused with someone else, but how is that cheating?


Kirth Gersen wrote:
ckafrica wrote:
I mean i could say "Jeez my group has no problem with imbalance between melee and spellcasters, but then I don't allow SODs because I feel they unbalance the game"
They're already gone. Or are you still playing 3.5 instead of playtesting Pathfinder?

You're not addressing the point. You can't change the ruleset for yourself and then pontificate on said ruleset based on your altered exprience. That would be like me taking a lot of acid and saying that my resulting exprience should affect the way you examine reality.

removed snarky comment


Krensky wrote:
Crusader of Logic wrote:

No, I accused you of cheating for putting such a weapon in the BBEG's hand. For it to be that good, you'd need to be giving your enemies stuff far beyond their level which means you are out to get your players, and if they're just taking that they're either cowards or don't know better.

If the weapon is not that great, breaking it would at worst just be a waste of time.

You seem to have me confused with someone else, but how is that cheating?

I don't think I was talking to you (though at this point I'm confused, so I dunno). Anyways, it's cheating because for the weapon to make that big of a difference so that you have to break it or everyone will die it'd have to be roughly on par with a level 5 having a 200k weapon. Would you let a level 5 PC have a 200k weapon? Why or why not? NPCs get less. You'd also have to cheat so that the hardness and HP such items naturally get don't mean they wouldn't just have an easier time sundering the BBEG's face (and subsequently take the overpowered sword, provided it doesn't predictably disappear or something similarly power trippy).

Liberty's Edge

Crusader of Logic wrote:
Krensky wrote:
Crusader of Logic wrote:

No, I accused you of cheating for putting such a weapon in the BBEG's hand. For it to be that good, you'd need to be giving your enemies stuff far beyond their level which means you are out to get your players, and if they're just taking that they're either cowards or don't know better.

If the weapon is not that great, breaking it would at worst just be a waste of time.

You seem to have me confused with someone else, but how is that cheating?
I don't think I was talking to you (though at this point I'm confused, so I dunno). Anyways, it's cheating because for the weapon to make that big of a difference so that you have to break it or everyone will die it'd have to be roughly on par with a level 5 having a 200k weapon. Would you let a level 5 PC have a 200k weapon? Why or why not? NPCs get less. You'd also have to cheat so that the hardness and HP such items naturally get don't mean they wouldn't just have an easier time sundering the BBEG's face (and subsequently take the overpowered sword, provided it doesn't predictably disappear or something similarly power trippy).

Since you didn't actually answer the question:

How is any of that cheating?


ckafrica wrote:
You're not addressing the point. You can't change the ruleset for yourself and then pontificate on said ruleset based on your altered exprience.

Paizo is changing them for us, nor are their rules set in stone yet. So all of this discussion is purely theoretical.

In the meantime, it's quite possible to discuss the Beta as if it were a final rules set... but no matter what the topic of discussion, it's important to bear in mind that play styles and even interpretations of ambiguiously-worded rules will vary. That's a strength of the game system, not a weakness. Telling everyone who doesn't view the game in the same way that they're "made of fail" or any other such nonsense isn't productive, it's just annoying. Also, a great many people like to hear about unofficial variants, even if you personally might find them to be repellent.


I really have to say that I'm disappointed with the new Power Attack as well. Honestly, I feel that the usefulness of Power Attack in the first place was questionable, especially if you regularly face opponents with appropriate ACs. If people want me to get into number crunching, I can, but it turns out that your optimal power attack is generally very low. As a consequence, I've always thought of Power Attack as being a way to punish low AC opponents, like undead and constructs, or as a way to bash your way through a wall.

The new power attack makes very little sense mechanically to me, because the higher your strength is, the less useful Power Attack will be. Take a high strength, low BAB monster that has a slightly higher than balanced bonus to hit (I believe the old 3.5 PHB said it should be around CRx1.5). Taking Power Attack is effectively a feat dump, because he'll almost never hit when Power Attacking for 16 (Str 42) when its attack bonus is only +35. Against AC 40 characters, you'd hit only 5% of the time, and it gets significantly worse if the baddie has iterative attacks.

What was mentioned before, that Power Attack should work as it does in 3.5, except you use your strength as your scale instead of BAB would do the trick. Generally, the time you see Power Attack being extremely powerful is when "Mr. Greatsword" is able to do upwards of 80 damage a swing against an AC 9 monster. Other than situations like that, I would seriously call into question the usefulness of 3.5 Power Attack, and claim that the PF Power Attack is on par with Alertness.

Liberty's Edge

ckafrica wrote:


The problem is the game was designed with the WBL and Cr systems in mind and so if you aren't playing with them are are in fact NOT PLAYING THE SAME GAME. And this is fine but this should be about the rules as written, not as you choose to play them. Of course your experience is different when you change the rules. You're using different rules. this is a venue to discuss the RAW.

This is a bit of a strawman.

Even if we were using the exact same rules, we would be playing a different game. Whatever changes I have or have not made to the rules are immaterial. The reason we're playing different games is we have different base assumptions and goals in the game. My friends and I want to have an enjoyable time, direct our characters through an entertaining yarn, and eat cheetos.

Much of how you (a non-specific you) play sounds more like a board game or a war game with a plot and characterization where the rules are paramount and everyone is constantly tweaking and scheming for the least amount of mechanical advantage.

Liberty's Edge

As to the original point...

I see no real problem with a fixed value equal to strength and I see to appeal of simplifying the calculations. I personally like the slider effect, however.

As for tying it to strength, I actually like that for what it's worth, although I like the Spycraft 2 variant better, where it's a sliding penalty up to STR + 2 for twice that in damage. If you miss, you're flat-footed. This probably wouldn't work for Pathfinder, however, due to a number of different assumptions in the combat chapter and general system structure.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
. Telling everyone who doesn't view the game in the same way that they're "made of fail" or any other such nonsense isn't productive, it's just annoying. Also, a great many people like to hear about unofficial variants, even if you personally might find them to be repellent.

Really, can you not put words in my mouth? I have never said something was made of fail nor suggested variants were repellent. Insult me, fine, but you have no right to claim I said what i have not.

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Paizo is changing them for us, nor are their rules set in stone yet. So all of this discussion is purely theoretical.

In the meantime, it's quite possible to discuss the Beta as if it were a final rules set...

Yes and we should. I'll even state that there is potentially too much discussion of things that are strictly 3.5, a lot of discussions over things which at this point shouldn't even be considered. That is the whole point of a playtest to debug the RAW.

Kirth Gersen wrote:
it's important to bear in mind that play styles and even interpretations of ambiguiously-worded rules will vary. That's a strength of the game system, not a weakness.

While it will happen, I fill not concede that this is a good thing. The rules have to be clear so a group of strangers can meet and play without having to go over a list of houserules that each expects to play under.

Again, this is not a condemnation of houserules, but IMHO, the less houseruling that people might feel necessary, the better. It will be the sign of a better product


I really hope this thread doesn't turn into a discussion of who plays the game right or wrong. The Power Attack issue is something I would very much like to see resolved, and really couldn't care less if someone doesn't follow WBL rules straight from the book.

So please, let's get back to subject matter. Most developers probably stopped reading this thread two pages ago because of this nonsense.


Krensky wrote:
ckafrica wrote:


The problem is the game was designed with the WBL and Cr systems in mind and so if you aren't playing with them are are in fact NOT PLAYING THE SAME GAME. And this is fine but this should be about the rules as written, not as you choose to play them. Of course your experience is different when you change the rules. You're using different rules. this is a venue to discuss the RAW.

This is a bit of a strawman.

Even if we were using the exact same rules, we would be playing a different game. Whatever changes I have or have not made to the rules are immaterial. The reason we're playing different games is we have different base assumptions and goals in the game. My friends and I want to have an enjoyable time, direct our characters through an entertaining yarn, and eat cheetos.

Much of how you (a non-specific you) play sounds more like a board game or a war game with a plot and characterization where the rules are paramount and everyone is constantly tweaking and scheming for the least amount of mechanical advantage.

I love how people make assumptions of how I(non specific we) play. Wait, are you Mike from Halifax?

I in fact want exactly what you are looking for, I just want the published rules to support that. I don't want to have to urge another player to tone down his spellcaster so my fighter doesn't feel like a wimp.

Honestly, if you've never noticed the imbalances we're talking about why would even care if they were addressed?


Crusader of Logic wrote:


Stormwind Fallacy: Being good at roleplaying or optimizing means you are bad at the other due to drawing a false and inverse correlation between the two.

Admittedly ths getting more and more OT, but:

The Stormwind Fallacy is not really a fallacy. There actually is an inverse correlation between certain aspects of optimization and certain aspects of roleplaying.

The greater the priority you place upon mechanical optimization, the narrower the range of possible characters you can play. The more options you rule out as unacceptably sub-optimal, the greater the similarity between the fewer acceptable character 'builds' becomes, and the less room you leave yourself to explore flaws and vulnerabilities. And those are a part of good roleplaying.

Now, within the shrinking subset of character builds you give yourself as your prioritization of mechanics increases, you can still portray characters reasonably well, its just that these characters become increasingly uniform and cliche. Range is definitely an important factor in being "good" in roleplaying, even though in any given game you may only play one role.

If you compare pen and paper roleplaying to movie actor role playing, an extreme character optimizer would be akin to Arnold Schwarzenneger. Arnold only played two types of roles: quasi-superhuman action-hero badasses and funny roles that played off his unusual physique. And he knew it; that was pretty much the entire point of "The Last Action Hero."

Now, Arnold played those two types of roles really well, and he was one of the greatest box-office draws of all time. I enjoyed the bejeezus out of his performances. But no way in hell would I call him a great actor, because that was all he could do.

Contrast Arnold with, say, John Malkovich or Liam Neeson, who are comparable to roleplay gamers who are willing to trade-off mechanical superiority for interesting and fun roleplaying. They've played semi-superhuman action-movie badasses well also, but they've also played weak and flawed performances that Schwarzenneger could never hope to pull off. Because, bottom line, they are just plain better actors. They may never have been the box-office draw that Schwarzenneger in his prime was, but few would argue that they were worse actors than he was. They have depth and range Arnold could never approach. Schwarzenegger was ovr-specialized into a very narrow niche, and simply wasn't up to the challenge of playing anything outside of it.

Liberty's Edge

ckafrica wrote:
Krensky wrote:
ckafrica wrote:


The problem is the game was designed with the WBL and Cr systems in mind and so if you aren't playing with them are are in fact NOT PLAYING THE SAME GAME. And this is fine but this should be about the rules as written, not as you choose to play them. Of course your experience is different when you change the rules. You're using different rules. this is a venue to discuss the RAW.

This is a bit of a strawman.

Even if we were using the exact same rules, we would be playing a different game. Whatever changes I have or have not made to the rules are immaterial. The reason we're playing different games is we have different base assumptions and goals in the game. My friends and I want to have an enjoyable time, direct our characters through an entertaining yarn, and eat cheetos.

Much of how you (a non-specific you) play sounds more like a board game or a war game with a plot and characterization where the rules are paramount and everyone is constantly tweaking and scheming for the least amount of mechanical advantage.

I love how people make assumptions of how I(non specific we) play. Wait, are you Mike from Halifax?

I in fact want exactly what you are looking for, I just want the published rules to support that. I don't want to have to urge another player to tone down his spellcaster so my fighter doesn't feel like a wimp.

Honestly, if you've never noticed the imbalances we're talking about why would even care if they were addressed?

Because I'd prefer the developers spend their time addressing meaningful issues rather then weird corner cases. People who want to break the game will always break the game. Nothing a game designer can do will stop this.


Krensky wrote:
ckafrica wrote:


Honestly, if you've never noticed the imbalances we're talking about why would even care if they were addressed?
Because I'd prefer the developers spend their time addressing meaningful issues rather then weird corner cases. People who want to break the game will always break the game. Nothing a game designer can do will stop this.

I really don't see what could be more meaningful than a major class imbalance but hey, I guess we each have our own priorities.

And to bring this back to Topic, this is why the new PA is no good, it reduces a fighters effectiveness rather then helping bring it in line with casters


Krensky wrote:
Crusader of Logic wrote:
Krensky wrote:
Crusader of Logic wrote:

No, I accused you of cheating for putting such a weapon in the BBEG's hand. For it to be that good, you'd need to be giving your enemies stuff far beyond their level which means you are out to get your players, and if they're just taking that they're either cowards or don't know better.

If the weapon is not that great, breaking it would at worst just be a waste of time.

You seem to have me confused with someone else, but how is that cheating?
I don't think I was talking to you (though at this point I'm confused, so I dunno). Anyways, it's cheating because for the weapon to make that big of a difference so that you have to break it or everyone will die it'd have to be roughly on par with a level 5 having a 200k weapon. Would you let a level 5 PC have a 200k weapon? Why or why not? NPCs get less. You'd also have to cheat so that the hardness and HP such items naturally get don't mean they wouldn't just have an easier time sundering the BBEG's face (and subsequently take the overpowered sword, provided it doesn't predictably disappear or something similarly power trippy).

Since you didn't actually answer the question:

How is any of that cheating?

Did you actually read my post? There are two very solid reasons there.

1: You must give the NPC far more (we're talking 20-40 times more here) wealth than the rules allow just for that one item.

2: You must then say it is much easier to break than it actually is, again cheating the rules. Otherwise either the weapon isn't a problem, or it is but killing the wielder and stealing the overpowered weapon of DM self pleasuring is easier than breaking it.

Edit to Vexer: There are multiple ways of representing the same concept. Which means the basis of comparison? You guessed it, mechanical effectiveness.

"I want a Holy Warrior. What can I use to represent that?"

Valid options include Clerics, Paladins, Knights, and several others. Some of these work far better than others, Cleric being the obvious strongest. Maybe you just want something middle of the road and go the Crusader route. Unless you're affixed on metagame names, there aren't a whole lot of things to recommend the Paladin. Obviously if you are fixed on metagame stuff you aren't such a great roleplayer now are you?

Character flaws are things like 'is absentminded' or 'is reckless' or 'condescending towards non elves'. These have what to do with optimization or the lack thereof again?


Vexer wrote:
Crusader of Logic wrote:


Stormwind Fallacy: Being good at roleplaying or optimizing means you are bad at the other due to drawing a false and inverse correlation between the two.

Admittedly ths getting more and more OT, but:

The Stormwind Fallacy is not really a fallacy. There actually is an inverse correlation between certain aspects of optimization and certain aspects of roleplaying.

The greater the priority you place upon mechanical optimization, the narrower the range of possible characters you can play. The more options you rule out as unacceptably sub-optimal, the greater the similarity between the fewer acceptable character 'builds' becomes, and the less room you leave yourself to explore flaws and vulnerabilities. And those are a part of good roleplaying.

Now, within the shrinking subset of character builds you give yourself as your prioritization of mechanics increases, you can still portray characters reasonably well, its just that these characters become increasingly uniform and cliche. Range is definitely an important factor in being "good" in roleplaying, even though in any given game you may only play one role.

If you compare pen and paper roleplaying to movie actor role playing, an extreme character optimizer would be akin to Arnold Schwarzenneger. Arnold only played two types of roles: quasi-superhuman action-hero badasses and funny roles that played off his unusual physique. And he knew it; that was pretty much the entire point of "The Last Action Hero."

Now, Arnold played those two types of roles really well, and he was one of the greatest box-office draws of all time. I enjoyed the bejeezus out of his performances. But no way in hell would I call him a great actor, because that was all he could do.

Contrast Arnold with, say, John Malkovich or Liam Neeson, who are comparable to roleplay gamers who are willing to trade-off mechanical superiority for interesting and fun roleplaying. They've played semi-superhuman action-movie badasses well also, but...

The Stormwind Fallacy is a specific application of the Formal Logical Fallacy of "False Dilemma."

A false dilemma is when two option are considered to be the only two possibilities- in this case, either you're a "powergamer/optimizer/rollplayer" or a "roleplayer"* (a 1-dimensional scale of position). Obviously, this is not the case, because one can in fact be a good optimizer and a good roleplayer (a 2-dimensional scale of position). Thus, the Stormwind Fallacy

*: I find it interesting how there are so many ways to refer to someone who attempts to make a mechanically powerful/viable character, and yet only one way (that I could think of) to refer to a player who prefers the roleplaying aspect of the game. Note also that 2 of the 3 I used here carry a negative connotation in the gaming community.

Liberty's Edge

Giving an NPC 2x, 4x, 10x or 100x the wealth by level guideline is not 'cheating'. They are 'guidelines' and not 'rules'. Moreover, there are many good 'in game reasons' why a character would have more wealth than their level would normally indicate.

For example, a 5th level aristocrat who is also King of a small nation is likely to have 'inherited wealth' far in excess of what is appropriate for an NPC of his level. To say that is cheating is patently ridiculous.

However, that has nothing to do with Power Attack. I do think that Power Attack was better in 3.5 but it wasn't perfect. I'd like to keep the topic of conversation focused on power attack so a solution can be discovered.

Personally, I'm most inclined to make it a straight -1/+2 for all characters (1 handed, light weapons, 2-handed weapons). If it is consistent I don't think it is too bad an imbalance, because even while it does make some melee characters 'more powerful', it is true that their contributions are often overshadowed by casters.

Liberty's Edge

Fatespinner wrote:

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.

Pathfinder Power Attack makes no distinction between one-handed and light weapon use for PA. Light weapons, even in off-hands, can benefits from the full effects of PA.

151 to 179 of 179 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / General Discussion (Prerelease) / Opinion: Power Attack All Messageboards
Recent threads in General Discussion (Prerelease)
Druid / Monk?