I looked but I did not see these discussed anywhere. I also looked to see if the issues with them had been resolved anywhere else. I could not find anything so I figured this would be the place to talk about them.
I feel that the way they are written now would be find as core abilities that anyone could use. While taking a feat for them should allow them to work like they did in 3.5.
Of course we should add that the bonus gained from CE is double if you are using a shield.
And we should also make sure that we add in the line from the 3.5 PA that says. "or a one handed weapon wielded with two hands". This was in important part of 3.5 PA.
To be totally honest you could even limit each of them to half BAB and I would still be very happy.
So with a BAB of 3, you could gain +3 damage from PA +6 if you were wielding a two handed weapon "or a one handed weapon wielded with two hands."
And with a BAB of 3 you could gain +3 AC from CE or +6 if using a shield.
This makes these feats worth the effort, IMHO.
Personally don't like the new systems for these feats ether. They are a clear nerf, but I am willing to accept that as it might have been needed for power attack; however I can't accept the massive all or nothing limits on use.
As for this restriction, I think it is far to allow the players to chose from a set selectin of settings for these feats. My suggestions are:
-1, sets of -5, or all base attack.
Combat Expertese.
1. Double bonus for shield use!
2. Needs to be changed to work off dex. If it also works off int that is fine, just have the feat say which ever is higher. It is simple, power attack runs of strength, strength gives you damage, the feat also gives you more damage capability.
3. Also, having the working off of Int makes the feat super specialized for wizards and rogues.
I totally loathe the new Power Attack. For flavor reasons I can see why it would be based off of Strength rather than BAB. But to make it into an all or nothing haymaker is ridiculous. Bleah.
Personally, I really, really liked the two feats I saw proposed earlier:
Power Attack
Up to -5
Improved Power Attack
Up to -10
...if memory served, those are what they were. I wouldn't mind the 10 cap. Thoughts on these?
Personally, I really, really liked the two feats I saw proposed earlier:
Power Attack
Up to -5Improved Power Attack
Up to -10...if memory served, those are what they were. I wouldn't mind the 10 cap. Thoughts on these?
2 things, yes I would mind the cap. Even as is, if one really wanted to and they had an 18 stat to start they could get to +13 strength mod. A barbarian could probably get to +17 for power attack as well. If I had to chose, I would chose the exsisting feats over yours any day because of this, and that even the other meleers don't have all the feats in the world.
I totally loathe the new Power Attack. For flavor reasons I can see why it would be based off of Strength rather than BAB. But to make it into an all or nothing haymaker is ridiculous. Bleah.
I agree with you on all points here. I don't even really mind the power reduction any more.
Personally, I really, really liked the two feats I saw proposed earlier:
Power Attack
Up to -5Improved Power Attack
Up to -10...if memory served, those are what they were. I wouldn't mind the 10 cap. Thoughts on these?
Sounds about right to me... And doing the same for Combat Expertise and Deadly Aim.
So our summary is:
- Chuck out the limit based on stat bonus, and return to BAB only
- up to - 5 for the standard feat
- up to -10 for the improved feat
- 2 times the bonus for power attacking with two-handed and one-handed weilded with two hands
- 2 times the bonus for combat expertise with shields (possibly excepting bucklers)
That would increase the amount of feats they would have to take by 3 fold each! Only fighters could afford that sort of change, and it would be an even worse feat as it is. I wouldn't take it by any means as overhand chop would be by far superior, it already is by my measurements.
That would increase the amount of feats they would have to take by 3 fold each! Only fighters could afford that sort of change, and it would be an even worse feat as it is. I wouldn't take it by any means as overhand chop would be by far superior, it already is by my measurements.You don't have to take them all.
I suspect my sword and board fighter would take power attack and combat expertise only. While my two-handed axe weilding barbarian would take power attack and improved power attack.
Do you create a lot of characters currently with power attack, combat expertise, and deadly aim, all with stat bonuses greater than 5?
It is still more feats than they already have to spar IMHO.
P.S. I would also have to say that Combat Expertiese should be a Dex based feat as well, so yeah I can see a character having both.
I've play tested the PF Power Attack with a Str optimized Fighter and Barbarian at 6th, 12th and 16th. I ran three combats for each level, 1 against a high AL critter, 1 against a avg AL + high DR critter and 1 against a low AL + high HP critter.
At 6th level, the Fighter is restricted by their Str bonus to +5 PA, while the Barb goes up to +7 PA. Giving up 5 points to attack is somewhat painful (Barb +4 Str from rage makes up for the -7 PA), but doable most of the time.
However, after 12th level the Fighter starts to pull ahead, as the Barbarian has gained Greater Rage (+6 Str) which means the Fighter hits more often, as his Str bonus is still around +7, while the Barbarian is up to +12. The fighter also has Weapon Spec, etc to help with attack scores.
I've found that after 12th level, the only time PA is used is for mooks (low AL), super high AL critters (where a 20 is required to hit anyway) or high DR critters, as taking -9 to -12 to attacks is just not worth it. I doubled all the critters HP to make each combat longer and smooth out the "lucky die rolls" effect.
High AL critter: PA combat took 3-4 rounds longer
Avg AL + DR: PA combat came out the same
Low AL + High HP: PA combat took 1-2 rounds less
I was kinda supprised by the avg AL + DR critters, as I though that PA would cut through the DR and end the combat sooner. Turns out that +24 damage just doesn't make up for all those misses, especially considering the 12th level fighter already has +16 to damage for each hit without any PA.
Play testing the same builds with 3.5, I found that after 12th level both Fighter and Barbarian would usually take between -5 to -7 for PA. Using PA shorted the fight by 2 rounds on average in every single case!
I think the problem is that normal damage bonuses from Str, GWSpec, buffs and magic make the 2nd and 3rd iterative attacks worth having. When you PA for -9 it turns a +24/+17/+12 down to +15/+8/+3 which means you are missing on 2nd and 3rd attacks almost always.
For example against:
AC 28 you have a 75%/50%/25% (PA -5) vs 40%/5%/5% (PA -9)
AC 20 it's better at 95%/70%/45% (PA -5) vs 75%/50%/25% (PA -9)
Almost every group I've played, people would limit themselves to -5 PA, as it just doesn't pay off with much bigger bonuses.
IMO, the PF version of all or nothing makes the feat unusable after level 15 or so.
|
First, I like a "fixed" amount for PA - as opposed to the scaled by players whim each round - which seems to cause less confusion, math, and headaches.
I prefer the new PA over the 3.5. But I'm not a huge fan of it because I can't "cap" it lower than my STR or BAB - which means each level I advanced I would still not be increasing my ability to hit targets as it just meant I had more removed from my attack rolls (until I got to +7 BAB which was finally 1 higher than the STR Mod).
Furthermore, although I think a 2 handed version of PA should do more damage, I think the current gap between 1 and 2 handed weapons are two much. I think 150% makes more sense of an increase (like Str Mod is multiplied).
Here is what I had house-ruled a long time ago and have been using for quite some time with great success:
POWER ATTACK: Prereq STR 13
BENEFIT: You take a -4 on all melee attacks for this round. You add 6 points of damage to each successful attack. If you are using a 2 handed weapon, you add +9 damage. Off-hand weapons also suffer this penalty to their attack roll, but only gain +3 to damage if they hit.
What this does:
1) has a cap always in place - no scaling, or spontaneous math
2) closes the gap of 1 handed and 2 handed weapons to the 150%.
3) +6 damage with a 1 handed is a fair tradeoff - since ability to hit a target is more important than damage bonus (hence Weapon focus is +1 to hit and weapon specialialization is +2)
4) historically, most people cap out 5 for power attack for most attack routines - this is in that vicinity.
5) off hand weapons doing half a main hand like the strength mod mechanic - so were using mechanics that already have applied groundwork within the structure of the rules.
GREATER POWER ATTACK: Prereq STR: 17 BAB: +8
BENEFIT: You take a -10 on your melee attack rolls for one round. You add 15 points of damage with each successful hit. If you wield a 2 handed weapon, you add +20 points of damage. Off-hand weapons also suffer this penalty to their attack roll, but only gain +5 to damage if they hit.
(2 handed weapon is still 150% of one-handed.)
I feel the few extra point of damage vs the 1 for 1 that PA currently was done with is not a game breaker considering the emphasis with PF to have more hit points etc - based on higher dice for certain classes, bonus hit points for favored class, and bonus hit points at first level. For me that impact for the penalty trade off just feels right; and +20 points of damage is no more than you'd get with a -10 to hit anyways (with a two handed weapon); all the +15 does is close the gap and not leave such a disparity for the sword and boarders vs the greatswords.
Robert
|
|
Combat Expertise is something that has completely lost its luster. it Use to be too much I agree, but now it's almost completely unuseable exept by a wizard (maybe a bard).
Here is what we have been doing with Combat Expertise that has been working well. CE is just a "BETTER" way of fighting Defensively.
COMBAT EXPERTISE Prereq: INT 13
BENEFIT: You fight and defend yourself with your wits. When fighting defesively, you gain a +4 to your AC instead of +2. When using the Total Defense option, your AC is increased to +6 instead of +4
(Combat Expertise use to get stoopid when someone combined it with fighting defensively - this fixed that stacking power creep issue).
NOTE this stacks well with my other rules on Shields:
Bucklers AC +1
Light AC +2
Heavy AC +3
Tower AC +5
SHIELDS: When using the Fighting Defensively option, the shield bonus is increased by 50% (round up). Light increases to +3, Heavy to +5, Tower to +8. Combine that with Combat Expertise as written above, it carries with it the shield-based increase that some of you were talking about when using Combat Expertise.
That being said: since PF is not necessarily going to change their shield bonuses: I would adapt my version of Combat Expert use to state:
Benefit: +6 to AC when used with a shield while fighting defensive, and +8 when going full defense with a shield.
Robert
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
I love Combat Expertise improving with shields. I would like to see either that or getting rid of the Intelligence limit on CE. I'd like to see Power Attack returned to the old way of working, although I think a cap of 5 and an Improved Power Attack feat sounds grand. But the PF-RPG way of doing Power Attack does not appeal to me.
|
I've noticed a growing level of dissatisfaction at my gaming table with the Beta version of Power Attack. The primary complaint is the lack of variability - having to use a static amount every time has severely reduced the feat's usefulness. If it weren't a prerequisite for Cleave, I don't think the Fighter or Barbarian playing at my table would have taken it in its current form.
I know there was a school of thought that Power Attack was too powerful a feat in 3.5, particularly when compared to other "gateway" feats like Dodge and Point Blank Shot. If that's the philosophy we're using, that's quite understandable. However, would it be too much to ask for a second feat in the chain, say Improved Power Attack, which returns the variability to Power Attack and returns the cap to BAB as opposed to STR.
I think we have a precedent here in Greater Trip, which returns the AoO lost in the Beta version of Improved Trip.
My apologies, as I cannot comment on Combat Expertise. No one at my table uses or has used either version.
Thanks for reading.
I've noticed a growing level of dissatisfaction at my gaming table with the Beta version of Power Attack. The primary complaint is the lack of variability - having to use a static amount every time has severely reduced the feat's usefulness. If it weren't a prerequisite for Cleave, I don't think the Fighter or Barbarian playing at my table would have taken it in its current form.
I know there was a school of thought that Power Attack was too powerful a feat in 3.5, particularly when compared to other "gateway" feats like Dodge and Point Blank Shot. If that's the philosophy we're using, that's quite understandable. However, would it be too much to ask for a second feat in the chain, say Improved Power Attack, which returns the variability to Power Attack and returns the cap to BAB as opposed to STR.
I think we have a precedent here in Greater Trip, which returns the AoO lost in the Beta version of Improved Trip.
My apologies, as I cannot comment on Combat Expertise. No one at my table uses or has used either version.
Thanks for reading.
I think the real problem was less with Power Attack than with some of those other feats being substandard. Instead of nerfing Power Attack a better solution would've been to raise the bar of those other feats. Dodge should be a flat +1 dodge bonus to AC period instead of single target.
|
First, I like a "fixed" amount for PA - as opposed to the scaled by players whim each round - which seems to cause less confusion, math, and headaches.
I prefer the new PA over the 3.5. But I'm not a huge fan of it because I can't "cap" it lower than my STR or BAB - which means each level I advanced I would still not be increasing my ability to hit targets as it just meant I had more removed from my attack rolls (until I got to +7 BAB which was finally 1 higher than the STR Mod).
Furthermore, although I think a 2 handed version of PA should do more damage, I think the current gap between 1 and 2 handed weapons are two much. I think 150% makes more sense of an increase (like Str Mod is multiplied).
Here is what I had house-ruled a long time ago and have been using for quite some time with great success:
POWER ATTACK: Prereq STR 13
BENEFIT: You take a -4 on all melee attacks for this round. You add 6 points of damage to each successful attack. If you are using a 2 handed weapon, you add +9 damage. Off-hand weapons also suffer this penalty to their attack roll, but only gain +3 to damage if they hit.What this does:
1) has a cap always in place - no scaling, or spontaneous math
2) closes the gap of 1 handed and 2 handed weapons to the 150%.
3) +6 damage with a 1 handed is a fair tradeoff - since ability to hit a target is more important than damage bonus (hence Weapon focus is +1 to hit and weapon specialialization is +2)
4) historically, most people cap out 5 for power attack for most attack routines - this is in that vicinity.
5) off hand weapons doing half a main hand like the strength mod mechanic - so were using mechanics that already have applied groundwork within the structure of the rules.GREATER POWER ATTACK: Prereq STR: 17 BAB: +8
BENEFIT: You take a -10 on your melee attack rolls for one round. You add 15 points of damage with each successful hit. If you wield a 2 handed weapon, you add +20 points of damage. Off-hand weapons also suffer this penalty to their...
Wouldn't it be more reasonable to make the greater power attack +12/+18/+6 instead of +15/+20/+10. A doubling of the lesser feat instead of doubling and then more.
I'm actually not opposed to the new power attack, but I'd like to see 2 things, a return of the variability, so that you can power attack up-to your Str mod, instead of at your str mod. I'd also like to see a greater version that allows you to go up to double your str mod. Forcing scaling with your Strength is a reasonable power cap. Also the greater or improved feat should be at BAB +11, +8 is too soon.
|
|
I think the real problem was less with Power Attack than with some of those other feats being substandard. Instead of nerfing Power Attack a better solution would've been to raise the bar of those other feats. Dodge should be a flat +1 dodge bonus to AC period instead of single target.
Not to derail the thread, but that's exactly what I did with Dodge at my table. The +1 AC vs. one opponent was far too clunky of a mechanic, and simply not worth a feat. It was a "gateway" feat you took to work up to Spring Attack. Of course, even with the revision to a standing +1 AC, people haven't been jumping all over the feat. Maybe now it's in line with other feats, and not superior or inferior choice.
Back to power attack: Do we have a consensus on what should be done? Or is everyone looking at ignoring the Pathfinder version of Power Attack regardless of what the final version is? Not to sound negative, but we've had several good ideas posted over several threads, but many seem to be coming back to the same conclusion: the 3.5 version of Power Attack wasn't broken, so it didn't need to be fixed.
Thoughts? Agree? Disagree? Don't care?
I think it's worth throwing out there: it can be said that Power Attack and Combat Expertise are really the two most solid feats for fighters to take and to nerf them does damage to a class that already has problems.
More simply put: Power Attack and Combat Expertise are the bedrock feats of a vast majority of fighter builds. Power Attack for the heavys and Combat Expertise for the tricky fighter types.
By comparison spellcasters have gotten lots of really great boosts. Power Attack as is in Alpha/Beta is comparable to capping fireball at 5d6. Even worse, the stronger an attacker is the more a liability using Power Attack becomes because you can't scale it.
I am unapologetically in favor of a reversion to the 3.5 mechanic for these feats.
And we should also make sure that we add in the line from the 3.5 PA that says. "or a one handed weapon wielded with two hands". This was in important part of 3.5 PA.
You are right, but since I'm not sure if this was an intentional choice or a typo, I will signal this on the Errata post (giving you credit for finding it... I looked briefly, and I didn't noticed this part)
|
|
Wouldn't it be more reasonable to make the greater power attack +12/+18/+6 instead of +15/+20/+10. A doubling of the lesser feat instead of doubling and then more.
GREATER POWER ATTACK: Prereq STR: 17 BAB: +8
BENEFIT: You take a -10 on your melee attack rolls for one round. You add 15 points of damage with each successful hit. If you wield a 2 handed weapon, you add +20 points of damage. Off-hand weapons also...
Not really - because you're subtracting 10 from the attack rolls; where as the original feat was only subtracting 4. So the penalty is 150% more; so I made the dmg reflect that.
Now - I acknowledge that the damge (+15) for that penalty of (-10) is 50% more than the 3.5; but I will again defend that notion that a result of the PF system so far has show a significant increase in hit points. D4 and D6 hit point classes moved up, racial bonus hit point, favored class hit points, toughness feat, etc.
I don't see it as a problem for that large of a penalty. Furthermore, it closes the gap to the 2-handed wielders - instead of a 100% more damage from 1-handed to 2-handed, it's increased 50% - like the strength modifier-based damage (which gives a little more incentive to play a one-hand wielder with that feat).
Robert
|
I just wanted to add my comments on Power attack as well
Power Attack though not quite as nerfed as cleave still has some use as it's not conditional, but when used up to 4th or 5th level you are making a commitment that you weren't before (losing all you BAB that helps you hit in the first place). So while not useful at lower levels much more useful at higher levels.
I understand limiting power attack to Strength Bonus, that keeps fighters from being gross but actually limiting the commitment to the most it should be? I guess this simplifies the game true, but it prevents some ability for fighters to make some choice on what they do from time to time.
Compared to the choices that the other class makes during combat and the simplification of the combat system with CMB there's just too much going into the simplification bucket and I don't feel that power attack needs it.
-Joshua O'Connor-Rose
-all is good
The following rewrite of Combat Expertise, reposted from elsewhere, has the following features:
Defensive Fighting, Improved (Combat)
Prerequisite: BAB +1
Benefit: Instead of the normal bonuses and penalties for fighting defensively, you may instead choose to subtract 1 from your attack rolls and add 1 as a dodge bonus to your AC. If you are holding a light, heavy, or tower shield -- but not a buckler -- your dodge bonus to AC is +2 instead of +1; this bonus does not apply for animated shields, shield spells, rings of force shield or other shield effects.
For every 2 points of your BAB, you may choose to take an additional -1 penalty to attack rolls in exchange for an additional +1 dodge bonus to AC (+2 with a shield), to a maximum -11 to attack and +11 (or +22) AC at BAB +20.
Normal: Fighting defensively applies a static -4 penalty to attacks in exchange for a +2 dodge bonus to AC.
|
|
Back to power attack: Do we have a consensus on what should be done? Or is everyone looking at ignoring the Pathfinder version of Power Attack regardless of what the final version is? Not to sound negative, but we've had several good ideas posted over several threads, but many seem to be coming back to the same conclusion: the 3.5 version of Power Attack wasn't broken, so it didn't need to be fixed.Thoughts? Agree? Disagree? Don't care?
For the record, I will not be using the PA as written in the Beta.
That being said, I don't think 3.5 had a good grasp of it either. I thought it became too powerful. I was frustrated with the spontaneous math, and I LOATHED the meta-gaming it promoted with players trying to figure out exactly to the point how much to PA and still hit almost automatically.
I think PF's version is BETTER than 3.5 because it fixed those aspects that really needed to be addressed.
However, playtesting has shown me that as my fighter/warrior type advances, I have to wait SEVERAL levels before my attack rolls actually improve when using the PA. I think I was fifth level before my attack rolls approved, and then I got gauntlets of Str +2 by the time I was 6th, and so it didn't improve that level either. So a lot of times I never used the feat - having a -6 to hit at 6th level is a major hindrance. MOST of the time, in 3.5 by that level I'm usually power attacking only 2 or 3.
Barbarians have it worse - once they rage they gain nothing to hit with the feat from their increased strength and raging, and the more powerful rage, the more they subtract to hit!
So in short - I dont like 3.5, PF fixed the things I didn't like about it, but created a problem that I dont like in doing so - but I still like it better than 3.5.
In the end, I dont intend to adhere to it in my own games, and would be able to learn to live with it in games that I am a player. (which is not nearly as often).
Robert
|
|
How were Power Attack and Combat Expertise really broken? The apparent delays caused on some tables are surely within DM power to address and the decision to sacrifice to-hit for damage or defense doesn't seem to have be metagamey (any more than rolling dice and adding and subtracting numbers already is, anyhow), so what was the problem that required the change in PFRPG?
And as I have said elsewhere, add me to the list of people that won't use the PFRPG versions of these feats (and put me in the subset of those that had no real idea why they were changed anyhow).
COMBAT EXPERTISE Prereq: INT 13
BENEFIT: You fight and defend yourself with your wits. When fighting defesively, you gain a +4 to your AC instead of +2. When using the Total Defense option, your AC is increased to +6 instead of +4
What about characters who already have +3/+6 for possessing ranks in Acrobatics? Do they get an extra?
SHIELDS: When using the Fighting Defensively option, the shield bonus is increased by 50% (round up). Light increases to +3, Heavy to +5, Tower to +8.
Are enhancement bonuses multiplied too? Would a Light Shield +2 provide a +6 to AC?
I didn't like CE being turned "mage only" when it was suposed to be a warrior feat. I like your version, using fixed values means any class can brave jumping into the fray as long as they undertake the required combat training, while the extra to shields makes sure the hard-core warriors get the edge they well deserve.
|
|
COMBAT EXPERTISE Prereq: INT 13
BENEFIT: You fight and defend yourself with your wits. When fighting defesively, you gain a +4 to your AC instead of +2. When using the Total Defense option, your AC is increased to +6 instead of +4What about characters who already have +3/+6 for possessing ranks in Acrobatics? Do they get an extra?
No. I removed the relationship of Fighting Defensively to Acrobatics Skill. The combination of: Paizo makes it much easier to take cross-class skills, Acrobatics combines three usefull skills and is probably THE second most useful and taken skill in the game (behind Perception), and the fact that the DODGE feat is also granting bonuses to AC based on Acrobatics merely do wonders to perpetuate the too-often complained about super-agile non-armor wearing AC monster that is far better than the guy wearing heavy armor! It's something I've tried to curtail as the rogues and swashbucklers of the world are always better AC wise than the paladin and cleric tanks (Fighters now have the advantage of Armor training - but that helps light armor wearing fighters, too).
SHIELDS: When using the Fighting Defensively option, the shield bonus is increased by 50% (round up). Light increases to +3, Heavy to +5, Tower to +8.
Are enhancement bonuses multiplied too? Would a Light Shield +2 provide a +6 to AC?
No; just the SHIELD bonus. With the added feats that grant an INCREASES to shield bonus IS multiplied, however. Essentially its the total SHIELD bonus (only) that's multiplied; not dodge or enhancement added to it.
I didn't like CE being turned "mage only" when it was suposed to be a warrior feat. I like your version, using fixed values means any class can brave jumping into the fray as long as they undertake the required combat training, while the extra to shields makes sure the hard-core warriors get the edge they well deserve.Thank you. Plus it solves the spontaneous math issue w/ CE that plagues some people - "Should I CE 3 or 4? DID I subtract 3 or 4 on my roll....?" having the same benefit for everyone all the time seems streamlined and easy. Its already built into the mechanic, since Fighting Defensively seems to do the same thing - just not as effective (without the feat). Finally another problem I have experienced in the past, ACs getting stoopid high when people Combat Expertise Full, combined with Tumble ranks, and Fighting Defensively all at the same time. By limiting it to merely makie Fighting Defensively BETTER instead of allowed them to work concurrently and stacking the benefits, it cuts down on the power creep.
Robert