paizo.com Recent Posts in Opinion: Power Attackpaizo.com Recent Posts in Opinion: Power Attack2012-11-15T20:34:13Z2012-11-15T20:34:13ZRe: Forums: General Discussion (Prerelease): Opinion: Power AttackShisumohttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2iqjk&page=4?Opinion-Power-Attack#2002008-09-10T22:29:32Z2008-09-10T22:29:31Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Fatespinner wrote:</div><blockquote><p> 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.</p>
<p>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.</blockquote><p>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.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...Shisumo2008-09-10T22:29:31ZRe: Forums: General Discussion (Prerelease): Opinion: Power AttackDeadDMWalkinghttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2iqjk&page=4?Opinion-Power-Attack#1992008-09-10T22:24:23Z2008-09-10T22:24:22Z<p>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. </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>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...DeadDMWalking2008-09-10T22:24:22ZRe: Forums: General Discussion (Prerelease): Opinion: Power AttackBig Bhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2iqjk&page=4?Opinion-Power-Attack#1982008-09-10T22:12:20Z2008-09-10T22:12:16Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Vexer wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Crusader of Logic wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
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. </blockquote><p>Admittedly ths getting more and more OT, but:
<p>The Stormwind Fallacy is not really a fallacy. There actually is an inverse correlation between certain aspects of optimization and certain aspects of roleplaying. </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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."</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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... </blockquote><p>The Stormwind Fallacy is a specific application of the Formal Logical Fallacy of "False Dilemma."
<p>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</p>
<p>•: 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.</p>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...Big B2008-09-10T22:12:16ZRe: Forums: General Discussion (Prerelease): Opinion: Power AttackCrusader of Logic (alias of CrusaderofLogic)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2iqjk&page=4?Opinion-Power-Attack#1972008-09-10T22:01:00Z2008-09-10T21:53:28Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Krensky wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Crusader of Logic wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Krensky wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Crusader of Logic wrote:</div><blockquote><p> 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.</p>
<p>If the weapon is not that great, breaking it would at worst just be a waste of time. </blockquote>You seem to have me confused with someone else, but how is that cheating? </blockquote>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). </blockquote><p>Since you didn't actually answer the question:
<p>How is any of that cheating? </blockquote><p>Did you actually read my post? There are two very solid reasons there.
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Edit to Vexer: There are multiple ways of representing the same concept. Which means the basis of comparison? You guessed it, mechanical effectiveness.</p>
<p>"I want a Holy Warrior. What can I use to represent that?"</p>
<p>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?</p>
<p>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?</p>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...Crusader of Logic (alias of CrusaderofLogic)2008-09-10T21:53:28ZRe: Forums: General Discussion (Prerelease): Opinion: Power Attackckafricahttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2iqjk&page=4?Opinion-Power-Attack#1962008-09-10T21:46:48Z2008-09-10T21:46:47Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Krensky wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">ckafrica wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
Honestly, if you've never noticed the imbalances we're talking about why would even care if they were addressed? </blockquote>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. </blockquote><p>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.
<p>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</p>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...ckafrica2008-09-10T21:46:47ZRe: Forums: General Discussion (Prerelease): Opinion: Power AttackKrenskyhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2iqjk&page=4?Opinion-Power-Attack#1952008-09-10T21:30:31Z2008-09-10T21:30:30Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">ckafrica wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Krensky wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">ckafrica wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
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.</blockquote><p>This is a bit of a strawman.
<p>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.</p>
<p>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. </blockquote><p>I love how people make assumptions of how I(non specific we) play. Wait, are you Mike from Halifax?
<p>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. </p>
<p>Honestly, if you've never noticed the imbalances we're talking about why would even care if they were addressed? </blockquote><p>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.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...Krensky2008-09-10T21:30:30ZRe: Forums: General Discussion (Prerelease): Opinion: Power AttackVexerhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2iqjk&page=4?Opinion-Power-Attack#1942008-09-10T21:28:49Z2008-09-10T21:28:47Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Crusader of Logic wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
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. </blockquote><p>Admittedly ths getting more and more OT, but:
<p>The Stormwind Fallacy is not really a fallacy. There actually is an inverse correlation between certain aspects of optimization and certain aspects of roleplaying. </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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."</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>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...Vexer2008-09-10T21:28:47ZRe: Forums: General Discussion (Prerelease): Opinion: Power Attackckafricahttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2iqjk&page=4?Opinion-Power-Attack#1932008-09-10T21:08:16Z2008-09-10T21:08:14Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Krensky wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">ckafrica wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
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.</blockquote><p>This is a bit of a strawman.
<p>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.</p>
<p>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. </blockquote><p>I love how people make assumptions of how I(non specific we) play. Wait, are you Mike from Halifax?
<p>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. </p>
<p>Honestly, if you've never noticed the imbalances we're talking about why would even care if they were addressed?</p>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...ckafrica2008-09-10T21:08:14ZRe: Forums: General Discussion (Prerelease): Opinion: Power AttackDaron Farinahttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2iqjk&page=4?Opinion-Power-Attack#1922008-09-10T21:06:48Z2008-09-10T21:06:48Z<p>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.</p>
<p>So please, let's get back to subject matter. Most developers probably stopped reading this thread two pages ago because of this nonsense.</p>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.Daron Farina2008-09-10T21:06:48ZRe: Forums: General Discussion (Prerelease): Opinion: Power Attackckafricahttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2iqjk&page=4?Opinion-Power-Attack#1912008-09-10T21:01:22Z2008-09-10T20:58:56Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Kirth Gersen wrote:</div><blockquote> . 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. </blockquote><p>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.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Kirth Gersen wrote:</div><blockquote><p>Paizo is changing them for us, nor are their rules set in stone yet. So all of this discussion is purely theoretical.
</p>
In the meantime, it's quite possible to discuss the Beta as if it were a final rules set...</blockquote><p>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.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Kirth Gersen wrote:</div><blockquote>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.</blockquote><p>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.
</p>
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</p>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....ckafrica2008-09-10T20:58:56ZRe: Forums: General Discussion (Prerelease): Opinion: Power AttackKrenskyhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2iqjk&page=4?Opinion-Power-Attack#1902008-09-10T20:51:53Z2008-09-10T20:51:52Z<p>As to the original point...</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>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...Krensky2008-09-10T20:51:52ZRe: Forums: General Discussion (Prerelease): Opinion: Power AttackKrenskyhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2iqjk&page=4?Opinion-Power-Attack#1892008-09-10T20:43:50Z2008-09-10T20:42:59Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">ckafrica wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
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.</blockquote><p>This is a bit of a strawman.
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>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...Krensky2008-09-10T20:42:59ZRe: Forums: General Discussion (Prerelease): Opinion: Power AttackDaron Farinahttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2iqjk&page=4?Opinion-Power-Attack#1882008-09-10T20:42:56Z2008-09-10T20:39:59Z<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>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...Daron Farina2008-09-10T20:39:59ZRe: Forums: General Discussion (Prerelease): Opinion: Power AttackKirth Gersenhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2iqjk&page=4?Opinion-Power-Attack#1872008-09-10T20:44:06Z2008-09-10T20:38:47Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">ckafrica wrote:</div><blockquote> 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. </blockquote><p>Paizo is changing them for us, nor are their rules set in stone yet. So all of this discussion is purely theoretical.
</p>
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.</p>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...Kirth Gersen2008-09-10T20:38:47ZRe: Forums: General Discussion (Prerelease): Opinion: Power AttackKrenskyhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2iqjk&page=4?Opinion-Power-Attack#1862008-09-10T20:35:10Z2008-09-10T20:34:25Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Crusader of Logic wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Krensky wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Crusader of Logic wrote:</div><blockquote><p> 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.</p>
<p>If the weapon is not that great, breaking it would at worst just be a waste of time. </blockquote>You seem to have me confused with someone else, but how is that cheating? </blockquote>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). </blockquote><p>Since you didn't actually answer the question:
<p>How is any of that cheating?</p>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...Krensky2008-09-10T20:34:25ZRe: Forums: General Discussion (Prerelease): Opinion: Power AttackCrusader of Logic (alias of CrusaderofLogic)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2iqjk&page=4?Opinion-Power-Attack#1852008-09-10T20:18:35Z2008-09-10T20:18:34Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Krensky wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Crusader of Logic wrote:</div><blockquote><p> 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.</p>
<p>If the weapon is not that great, breaking it would at worst just be a waste of time. </blockquote>You seem to have me confused with someone else, but how is that cheating? </blockquote><p>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).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...Crusader of Logic (alias of CrusaderofLogic)2008-09-10T20:18:34ZRe: Forums: General Discussion (Prerelease): Opinion: Power Attackckafricahttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2iqjk&page=4?Opinion-Power-Attack#1842008-09-10T20:18:24Z2008-09-10T20:17:23Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Kirth Gersen wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">ckafrica wrote:</div><blockquote> 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" </blockquote>They're already gone. Or are you still playing 3.5 instead of playtesting Pathfinder?</blockquote><p>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.
<p>removed snarky comment</p>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...ckafrica2008-09-10T20:17:23ZRe: Forums: General Discussion (Prerelease): Opinion: Power AttackKrenskyhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2iqjk&page=4?Opinion-Power-Attack#1832008-09-10T20:12:42Z2008-09-10T20:12:42Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Crusader of Logic wrote:</div><blockquote><p> 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.</p>
<p>If the weapon is not that great, breaking it would at worst just be a waste of time. </blockquote><p>You seem to have me confused with someone else, but how is that cheating?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?Krensky2008-09-10T20:12:42ZRe: Forums: General Discussion (Prerelease): Opinion: Power AttackKirth Gersenhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2iqjk&page=4?Opinion-Power-Attack#1822008-09-10T20:14:07Z2008-09-10T20:11:23Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">ckafrica wrote:</div><blockquote> 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" </blockquote><p>They're already gone. Or are you still playing 3.5 instead of playtesting Pathfinder?
<div class="messageboard-quotee">ckafrica wrote:</div><blockquote>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. </blockquote><p>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.
<p>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.</p>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...Kirth Gersen2008-09-10T20:11:23ZRe: Forums: General Discussion (Prerelease): Opinion: Power AttackCrusader of Logic (alias of CrusaderofLogic)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2iqjk&page=4?Opinion-Power-Attack#1812008-09-10T20:10:18Z2008-09-10T20:10:18Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">ckafrica wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Jal Dorak wrote:</div><blockquote> Could everyone please stop telling people who ignore rules that they are playing the game wrong? </blockquote><p>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.
<p>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 </blockquote><p>Yes. That, and Paizo does not profit from free form.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...Crusader of Logic (alias of CrusaderofLogic)2008-09-10T20:10:18ZRe: Forums: General Discussion (Prerelease): Opinion: Power Attackckafricahttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2iqjk&page=4?Opinion-Power-Attack#1802008-09-10T20:09:29Z2008-09-10T20:09:28Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Jal Dorak wrote:</div><blockquote> Could everyone please stop telling people who ignore rules that they are playing the game wrong? </blockquote><p>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.
<p>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</p>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...ckafrica2008-09-10T20:09:28ZRe: Forums: General Discussion (Prerelease): Opinion: Power AttackJal Dorakhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2iqjk&page=4?Opinion-Power-Attack#1792008-09-10T20:00:27Z2008-09-10T20:00:27Z<p>Could everyone please stop telling people who ignore rules that they are playing the game wrong?</p>Could everyone please stop telling people who ignore rules that they are playing the game wrong?Jal Dorak2008-09-10T20:00:27ZRe: Forums: General Discussion (Prerelease): Opinion: Power Attackckafricahttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2iqjk&page=4?Opinion-Power-Attack#1782008-09-10T19:57:17Z2008-09-10T19:57:16Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Kirth Gersen wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">ckafrica wrote:</div><blockquote> 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.</blockquote><p>....
</p>
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. </blockquote><p>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.
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>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...ckafrica2008-09-10T19:57:16ZRe: Forums: General Discussion (Prerelease): Opinion: Power AttackKirth Gersenhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2iqjk&page=4?Opinion-Power-Attack#1772008-09-10T19:38:21Z2008-09-10T19:38:20Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">ckafrica wrote:</div><blockquote> 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.</blockquote><p>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.
<p>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.</p>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...Kirth Gersen2008-09-10T19:38:20ZRe: Forums: General Discussion (Prerelease): Opinion: Power Attacknomadicchttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2iqjk&page=4?Opinion-Power-Attack#1762008-09-10T19:15:49Z2008-09-10T19:15:48Z<p>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.</p>
<p>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?</p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Thoughts?</p>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,...nomadicc2008-09-10T19:15:48Z