They've experienced a huge nerf with the current changes. Why take the control away from the player? I realize that some players take twenty minutes calculating what penalty they should take, but that's when the DM should step in and tell him to hurry up.
I wish the power level was closer for them back the way it was in 3.5.
However I just don't care that much to demand it.
1 thing that needed to be addressed was the people dialing and meta gaming, GM and player alike. So here is my suggestion on what should have been done/should be done.
They should be able to take from one of the following minuses.
-1, sets of -5, or all they have.
So this way they would not have before epic more than 5 options open to them. 5 is a lot easier than 20, or more in epic levels.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I like the change to Power attack. I feel that with a 2-handed weapon in particular, at high levels, it could lead to abusive damage amounts. The issue about combat expertise being tied to Int is more of a change, and I think some sort of a change to it is needed, but I don't think the two feats should both be reverted to 3.5.
"Abusive to damage amounts"? That's the only way that melee characters could function. The problem came with things that multiplied this damage (such as Leap Attack).
"Abusive to damage amounts"? That's the only way that melee characters could function. The problem came with things that multiplied this damage (such as Leap Attack).
Which does not change with the existing PF version of Power Attack.
The only thing the PF version does is take away PC choices.
"Abusive to damage amounts"? That's the only way that melee characters could function. The problem came with things that multiplied this damage (such as Leap Attack).Which does not change with the existing PF version of Power Attack.
The only thing the PF version does is take away PC choices.
There is no way for anyone other than a barbarian to get above a power attack of 14 I think, so there is a power down.
Please, for the love of all that is good, revert power attack to it's previous form. This all or nothing stuff is annoying. Granted I can just as easily house rule it but it just irks me that they took out what flexibility existed with the thing. The poor fighters and fighter dippers need all the help they can get.
I just can't post this in enought threads: Power Attack was just fine as is in 3.5. You fixed something that didn't need the fix. Please put it back. Please.
After all...Power Attack is the fighter's fireball.
It was a perfect feat: it scales with level and you can moderate how much or little you wanted to use. Now it's just a big clumsy all or nothing haymaker and mostly useful for monsters like giants.
After I introduced then 10 second to decide how much your using rule, 3.5 power attack worked fine.
|
Erm... personally, I like the new power attack. It's easy to remember, it's not overpowering, and it is pretty balanced. I think the nerf, while not necessarily "needed", forces players to play more dynamically, as they have to use other tricks besides just "I Power Attack the crap out of an enemy." Of course, if it is changed back, I wouldn't grumble much, but I might houserule the new version.
The new version isn't a huge issue with me, I am good either or on this issue.
"Abusive to damage amounts"? That's the only way that melee characters could function. The problem came with things that multiplied this damage (such as Leap Attack).
And that only was anywhere near a problem for DMs who allowed non-core stuff for PCs, but kept the monsters exactly as written and weren't cherry picking best options from MMs. Otherwise, ability to do extra damage on charge was a very important part of "not sucking" for many meleers.
In other words, I strongly believe that old Power Attack and Combat Expertise were perfectly fine. And that old PA was an integral part of game balance.
Erm... personally, I like the new power attack. It's easy to remember, it's not overpowering, and it is pretty balanced. I think the nerf, while not necessarily "needed", forces players to play more dynamically, as they have to use other tricks besides just "I Power Attack the crap out of an enemy."
Problem is, they haven't any. Triplock tactics are invalidated in PBeta. That was the only alternative to damage-dealing for core melees. Also note, that in PBeta you have exactly one option for adequate damage-dealing, particularly with new feats.
Oh please gods yes! The new version of power attack stinks. return the 3.5 method to us. Variable power attack.
If it's that big an issue, have the "running the game" part contain some problem solving advice: "If someone takes three minutes to decide on his power attack level, hit him over the head with a ten-foot pole and let him skip his turn."
|
I'm all for reverting power attack and combat expertise. I've never had a problem with them in any of my games. If anything I think combat expertise needs a tree of feats (improved, etc.) to crank up the amount to dodge bonus.
If it's that big an issue, have the "running the game" part contain some problem solving advice: "If someone takes three minutes to decide on his power attack level, hit him over the head with a ten-foot pole and let him skip his turn."
Ten-foot pole? I always found the sharp edge of the DMG worked better. That or a hammer to the face.
Power attack was one of the only ways a noncasters could spice up their combat actions. It's boring to just declare one makes a full attack round after round. Please revert power attack to the way it was in 3.5e, so noncasters get to have at least some choices in combat.
|
|
If Power Attack and Combat Expertise don't get made as they were, I'm just going to use the old versions and I suspect a lot of other people will, too (so it's not the end of the world, but it seems a fairly perverse state of affairs). There was just nothing wrong with them and the new Power Attack, in particular, just doesn't make any sense. Why on earth couldn't the meleer judge how much chance to hit to trade off for increased damage if he or she does? In my opinion, it's the single most inexplicable change from 3.5 made in the PFRPG game. If some players were wasting too much table time figuring out how much to Power Attack for (which has never happened in my experience, but apparently has for some people) then that's up to the DM, the player and the other players to sort out, as is any other example of player decision paralysis or timewasting.
And the new one doesn't scale, either. What is up with that?
Also, Combat Expertise needs to get back what it had and also get some additional improvement.
Oh please gods yes! The new version of power attack stinks. return the 3.5 method to us. Variable power attack.
If it's that big an issue, have the "running the game" part contain some problem solving advice: "If someone takes three minutes to decide on his power attack level, hit him over the head with a ten-foot pole and let him skip his turn."
+1
Count me in as wanting it changed back to the 3.5 version.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.:) The old version of power attack wasn't broke. The old version of combat expertise was. But it hasn't been fixed yet.
Yes! Keep it going!
|
While I agree with the group that claims Power Attack could put out too much damage at higher levels of play, I am not pleased with the Beta re-write for Power attack as it comes off as too limiting. I would propose a nod towards the 3.5 Combat Expertise (abbr. CE) feat, adding a limiting cap to the penalty/damage bonus. (This could then open up for an improved version, just like the one CE got in the splat books.)
Power Attack (Combat) {proposed revision}
You can make exceptionally powerful melee attacks.
Prerequisite: Str 13.
Benefit: On your action, before making attack rolls for a round,
you may choose to take a penalty of as much as –5 from all melee
attack rolls and add the same number (+1 to +5) to all melee damage
rolls. This number may not exceed your base attack bonus. The
penalty on attacks and bonus on damage apply until your next turn.
Special: If you attack with a two-handed weapon, or with a onehanded
weapon wielded in two hands, instead add twice the number
subtracted from your attack rolls. You can’t add the bonus from
Power Attack to the damage dealt with a light weapon (except with
unarmed strikes or natural weapon attacks), even though the
penalty on attack rolls still applies. (Normally, you treat a double
weapon as a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. If you choose
to use a double weapon like a two-handed weapon, attacking with
only one end of it in a round, you treat it as a two-handed weapon.)
Power attack can only deal that much damage against critters with low AC, and, frankly, they had it coming.
If you fight against some armoured monstrousity, you can't afford to put 10 points of your attack bonus into damage, much less 20.
Exactly--no fix is thus needed. At higher levels the Pathfinder Power Haymaker totally hoses the one using it since you have to go all in. Bleah.
|
|
I'm not much for voting for proposals, believing that debate is more valuable to the forum than consensus is, however, in this circumstance I have to agree with the OP (and many others on this board).
Please put PA back to the 3.5 rules. I also agree that it should max at +5 and let an improved PA expand that to +10. Also, please leave the doubling for 2-handed weapons. The pulling of attack is its own limitting factor. If you have a High AC opponent you won't pull much or any for extra whoomp. Most things with low AC tend to have enhanced hp's anyway.
For Combat Expertise, I would like to see the Int cap removed. If it must have int then just leave the 13 prereq and call it good. (I would rather see a +1 BAB Prerequisite and no mention of int) Let Shields double the AC bump.
I never saw either of these feats get abused, the nature of lessening the Attack bonus was self limiting. The biggest problem I ever saw was how often CE was taken and never used. I don't neccessarily want it removed, I just want it improved so more people use it.
I like the old rule for power attack too.
But I won't cry if they don't change it back. I'll just houserule it for my game.
My own experience with high-level 3.5 shows that Power Attack only becomes overpowered when a PC or monster finds a way to circumvent the normal status of applying a to-hit penalty for a damage bonus.
For example, when a PC uses Shock Trooper, or has a Warchanter cohort, that PC no longer sacrifices attack bonus.
Or, with the case of Wraithstrike, the PC often circumvents many points of AC, thus being able to safely Power Attack for full and still hit on a 2.
Without methods of overcoming Power Attack's risk factors, I've learned that Power Attack becomes less and less viable at high levels, because it's more important to hit with all the iterative attacks. Thus, the goal is to be able to hit with that last attack at -15 BAB from the primary.
Large Power Attack damage instead comes from points where the fighter only gets one attack, such as when he has to move and attack, since he doesn't have to suck up that -15 penalty.
A viable solution would be to cap Power Attack at -5/+5(+10), thus limiting even "perfect" Power Attack situations, as well as exploits like Warchanter and Shock Trooper w/ Pounce.
-Matt
|
|
I want it back exactly as it was, no cap other than BAB. If you're playing without the edge cases and aren't getting that many attacks for some reason, you need to be able to do some serious damage with what you do get (and as it applies to AoOs too, you may need it in order to just not get ignored by opponents bypassing you to get to the baddies).
A +5 cap murders the scaling. Whilst it would be nice for some broken combos not to be broken, I don't think that screwing the core players is a good solution to exploits nearer the edges.
A +5 cap murders the scaling.
Upon second thought, yeah, you're right. Limit the exploits, not the feat itself.
Side-point: you set your Power Attack value during your turn; you can't re-set it when you get to take an AoO.
However, by that same coin, Combat Expertise should not have a limit of +5, then. I'll have to think on this.
-Matt
|
|
Side-point: you set your Power Attack value during your turn; you can't re-set it when you get to take an AoO.
Yeah, so it's something that they have to consider when they set it (although at least AoO is made at full AB). I'm OK with it, though; the meleer has to decide to themselves what they're doing, but that's a level of tactical consideration that's OK with me.
However, by that same coin, Combat Expertise should not have a limit of +5, then. I'll have to think on this.
I am also, personally, in favour of that limit going, too...
Director of Games
|
The change to Power Attack was a quite intentional choice to scale back on certain abuses. The team here has found that Power Attack in particular shifts combat into an unbalanced arena. Allow me to explain.
With the Power Attack feat as it was in 3.5, Power Attack was the crutch that allowed the fighter to compete. By collecting every to hit bonus they could find, they could shift more and more into PA and still be effective. This lead to one of two situations, either too much got shifted, in which case the fighter rarely hit and felt useless, or too little got shifted, in which case the fighter dealt too little damage and felt useless. You could sometimes get it juuusssst right, but that required some knowledge of the monsters AC and a math degree (or a lot of trial and error). In either case, this was unacceptable and as we are trying to fix fighters from other directions, leaving this feat as it was just seemed like a poor idea. We wanted evaluation without PA's interference.
So... here are some thoughts. We are considering changing PA to a set scale, where you subtract X and add 2X to damage, regardless of your weapon or other factors (following KISS). X might slide up as you gain levels, but it would not be a variable, which causes too many issues. Here is my question... what should X be. My current thought is to start it out at 2 and have it increase by 1 for every 5 of your BAB. Thoughts?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
|
|
I have to say that if it's not variable so that the fighter can pick it, I don't care what it is (because I won't use it)...
If I went with the KISS version you mention, of -X to-hit to give +2X damage with variable, though, I'd have X up to BAB at player choice (but then, you knew I'd say that! I admit, not a helpful opinion, but I just can't buy into what you're suggesting). For me, the variability/player choice is actually more important than the damage effects, for some range of damage effects.
|
|
But is there really no chance of player choice being there as an option, or something? It just seems absurd to me that you can only sacrifice a fixed amount of to-hit chance (and it would, as I never saw any of the issues you allude to). The trial and error, etc, was far from 'unacceptable' in my games (it was entirely OK); you spend some time gauging your opponent or you rely on experience of similar opponents (not so different to real combat, perhaps). 'Unacceptable' would be giving the player no choice as to how much accuracy to sacrifice...
With the Power Attack feat as it was in 3.5, Power Attack was the crutch that allowed the fighter to compete.
In order to fix Power Attack, we must first understand what it does, and its true role in the game. Simply:
Power Attack is what makes Armor Class function.
Think about it. When facing a monster with +35 to hit, Power Attack is what makes the difference between having AC 20 and AC 36. Without Power Attack, there's no difference; you're going to get hit either way. But with Power Attack, that +16 points of AC translates into 16 points less damage you'll take, as it's 16 points the monster cannot safely Power Attack for.
Thus, Power Attack is what makes Armor Class function as Damage Reduction.
So, what's wrong with Power Attack? Anything that prevents Power Attack from doing its job, which is to make AC equal Damage Reduction. That's what's wrong with it. Reducing its ability to translate into +1 to hit into +1 damage (or +2, since apparently in 3.0, 1-to-1 wasn't enough of an encouragement to invest in AC)
So... looking at it from that perspective, since Power Attack is so vital to the game, why not give it to everybody? Make it an attack option rather than a feat. Keep the customizability, as that's fun!
Or, we could embrace what Power Attack actually does. Remove it entirely and impose a system where hitting a target by a larger margin yields a larger damage result. Off the top of my head, perhaps making every increment of +1 yielding +1 greater damage, thus preserving Power Attack's purpose, but embracing it by making it a core feature of the combat rules. If backwards compatibility is desired, one can convert Power Attack into something different, like trading AC for damage.
But don't limit it. You'd be defeating the purpose of Power Attack, and have a cascading effect on Armor Class as well.
-Matt
|
|
The change to Power Attack was a quite intentional choice to scale back on certain abuses. The team here has found that Power Attack in particular shifts combat into an unbalanced arena. Allow me to explain.
With the Power Attack feat as it was in 3.5, Power Attack was the crutch that allowed the fighter to compete. By collecting every to hit bonus they could find, they could shift more and more into PA and still be effective. This lead to one of two situations, either too much got shifted, in which case the fighter rarely hit and felt useless, or too little got shifted, in which case the fighter dealt too little damage and felt useless. You could sometimes get it juuusssst right, but that required some knowledge of the monsters AC and a math degree (or a lot of trial and error). In either case, this was unacceptable and as we are trying to fix fighters from other directions, leaving this feat as it was just seemed like a poor idea. We wanted evaluation without PA's interference.
So... here are some thoughts. We are considering changing PA to a set scale, where you subtract X and add 2X to damage, regardless of your weapon or other factors (following KISS). X might slide up as you gain levels, but it would not be a variable, which causes too many issues. Here is my question... what should X be. My current thought is to start it out at 2 and have it increase by 1 for every 5 of your BAB. Thoughts?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Do it, do it with CE as well. The starting number should be 3(equalling an 16 str) two would be too to low to ever be effective for a meleer. Also the scale needs to be faster than 1 per 5 levels, str tended to grow. I think the best compromise is 1 every 4 levels that way it suedo-reflects the every for level stat increase, and in the end only nets a +1 increase over every 5 BAB. so At 20th level you would subtract 8 and add 16, the same would be true for CE. In this system does that mean two handed weapons no longer get an advantage?
|
Director of Games
|
Matt, this is exactly why PA needs to be changed. It should not be a function of making AC work. AC should not be altered to give melee characters an extra damage bump thought PA, monsters should have a reasonable AC, with a managed number of hit points that the melee characters can reasonably affect.
I can see your logic here, but I am looking at it from a different perspective.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
|
|
With the Power Attack feat as it was in 3.5, Power Attack was the crutch that allowed the fighter to compete. By collecting every to hit bonus they could find, they could shift more and more into PA and still be effective.
Thank you for providing an explanation! I've been wracking my brain since the change came out trying to understand this one!
I'm going to come at this from the perspective of one of my favorite classes: the Paladin.
the paladin sacrifices a significant portion of his martial ability to be effective as a holy warrior - investing in his charisma instead of dexterity, intelligence or strength. Given the horrible damage of smites and the low number of them available per day, the only way I could make a paladin at all useful was to use attack bonuses, smite attack bonuses to convert my attack bonuses to damage.
With the changes to Power Attack, this option has been entirely removed from the paladin's arsenel. The only way he can increase his damage is to sacrifice his ability to access his class abilities through Charisma for pure Strength. At which point, he's a warrior with a little healing, who can recognize the bad guys, and tickle them occasionally with a smite.
The removal of Power Attack as a way to convert martial skill into damage has far reaching effects of the viability of Paladins in combat. I was able to build a unmounted Paladin that mattered in 3.5. I have been unable to do so in PRPG.
I come down in favor of player choice on penalties and bonuses as well.
Was the same thing going on with Combat Expertise as well? Was it driving up AC too high or driving down attack bonuses too low in your experience? Because in 5 years of gaming, I've only seen it used in combat 3 times. I've seen it taken to get at later feats, but only seen it used 3 times.
|
|
Matt, this is exactly why PA needs to be changed. It should not be a function of making AC work. AC should not be altered to give melee characters an extra damage bump thought PA, monsters should have a reasonable AC, with a managed number of hit points that the melee characters can reasonably affect.
I can see your logic here, but I am looking at it from a different perspective.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
He's talking about the benefit to the player of having higher AC, though, surely? Which is to say, he takes less damage because the opponent can't power attack for so much (rather than talking about monster hit points). Of course, that does turn about to monsters, but didn't James Jacobs say yesterday or so (in one of Matt's threads) that there's not going to be a large-scale fixing of monsters across the board, so monsters having a 'reasonable AC, with a managed number of hit points that the melee character can reasonable affect' effectively would require a large-scale overhaul, which is sort of what JJ was saying wouldn't happen. In any case, that would be down the track so in the short term you'd have only done part of the job, that part being the part that reduced meleer efficacy... Also, this isn't just a problem with monster advancement, it's a problem with the game monsters as written.
In any case, how logically can someone in a melee not trade accuracy for damage to a variable extent, but instead go all-in or not at all? It doesn't make any sense to me, even aside from the way that the AC system works. I agree with Matt that it shouldn't even be a feat but rather a combat option (of course, I like Rolemaster, where you get to trade to-hit, damage and your ability to avoid damage in your attack-roll decision, but I'm not calling for that here...). But I guess that battle is lost and I'll just have to use the 3.5 feats (as will others, I guess, of like mind).
|
I like the change to Power attack. I feel that with a 2-handed weapon in particular, at high levels, it could lead to abusive damage amounts. The issue about combat expertise being tied to Int is more of a change, and I think some sort of a change to it is needed, but I don't think the two feats should both be reverted to 3.5.
What is wrong with higher damage? Other than this how is a melee player supposed to compete with 20d6? I mean talk about abusive damage amounts!
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
So... here are some thoughts. We are considering changing PA to a set scale, where you subtract X and add 2X to damage, regardless of your weapon or other factors (following KISS). X might slide up as you gain levels, but it would not be a variable, which causes too many issues. Here is my question... what should X be. My current thought is to start it out at 2 and have it increase by 1 for every 5 of your BAB. Thoughts?
I'd be happy with a fixed power attack that was really fixed (at least for a given level). One problem with the current PF RPG PA is that you have to redo it when your Strength changes, at least much of the time. I'd probably opt for 1/2 BAB (round down, minimum 1) if it were up to me.
As far as adding 2X to damage, this would benefit monsters with more attacks to a fairly frightening degree...I would suggest keeping the current structure over that approach.
|
|
The change to Power Attack was a quite intentional choice to scale back on certain abuses. The team here has found that Power Attack in particular shifts combat into an unbalanced arena. Allow me to explain.
With the Power Attack feat as it was in 3.5, Power Attack was the crutch that allowed the fighter to compete. By collecting every to hit bonus they could find, they could shift more and more into PA and still be effective. This lead to one of two situations, either too much got shifted, in which case the fighter rarely hit and felt useless, or too little got shifted, in which case the fighter dealt too little damage and felt useless. You could sometimes get it juuusssst right, but that required some knowledge of the monsters AC and a math degree (or a lot of trial and error). In either case, this was unacceptable and as we are trying to fix fighters from other directions, leaving this feat as it was just seemed like a poor idea. We wanted evaluation without PA's interference.
So... here are some thoughts. We are considering changing PA to a set scale, where you subtract X and add 2X to damage, regardless of your weapon or other factors (following KISS). X might slide up as you gain levels, but it would not be a variable, which causes too many issues. Here is my question... what should X be. My current thought is to start it out at 2 and have it increase by 1 for every 5 of your BAB. Thoughts?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Having played a fighter up through level 22 so far, I can definitely see this as a problem. Many a time I shifted too much and missed all attacks, or shifted too little and dealt too little damage. After an eternity I learned a good balance.
This also fixes a basic problem in the premise of Power Attack. The bonus from Power Attack has no business going to the Attack Roll and the penalty has no business coming from AC. It makes FAR more sense for the penalty to come from the Attack Roll and the bonus to go to the Damage. The name of the feat implies you are applying more strength- more POWER to the attack- and the logical penalty would come at the expense of accuracy.
Now looking at a progression scale for the proposed PA
Level> Attack Penalty> Bonus Damage> Total Bonus Damage
1> -2> +4> +4
6> -3/-3> +6/+6> +12
11> -4/-4/-4> +8/+8/+8> +24
16> -5/-5/-5/-5> +10/+10/+10/+10> +40
I can certainly accept those numbers! At higher levels the Fighter has the potential to actually contribute some damage to a combat. At higher levels would it be acceptable to scale down? For example, a level 18 Fighter normally has +18/+13/+8/+3 but chooses to apply -3s and has +15/+10/+8/+3 as his attack array and receives a damage bonus of +6/+6 on the first two hits only.
-------------------Combat Expertise-------------------
Now, I would propose to change the current Combat Expertise from using Intelligence (a dump stat for fighters) to again using the Attack Roll. Now, you can make the two feats mutually exclusive, that is, you cannot use both Power Attack and Combat Expertise in the same round. Or can allow the player to make that decision and suffer the consequences of a tremendously low Attack Roll.
I would propose that Combat Expertise scale along the same rate of improvement as Power Attack. I think I would allow the player the option to use an added progression to tailor optimize his AC bonus and Attack Penalty.
Level> Attack Penalty> AC Bonus
1> -2> +2
6> -2/-2> +2 to +4
11> -2/-2/-2> +2 to +6
16> -2/-2/-2/-2> +2 to +8
At higher levels it often times is beneficial to have a higher AC against some monsters that have very high bonuses to hit. Again could a higher level fighter apply scaled down versions of the CE, as per the above example in PA.
Both of these are a trade off though. CE also you to avoid being hit, but you just might never hit the monster either.
At higher levels PA allows you to deal tremendous amounts of damage, assuming you can HIT the thing. Higher level monsters have a tendency to have ridiculously high ACs.
But that is up to the player to decide what is best at that level.
-------- dang didn't keep the formatting.... sorry it looked real good on my screen -------------
|
|
What is wrong with higher damage? Other than this how is a melee player supposed to compete with 20d6? I mean talk about abusive damage amounts!By doing it every round, and over multiple attacks. The caster damage argument has ever been a man of straw.
The average monster is designed to be "on stage" 3-10 rounds. I think most combats are shorter than 10 rounds.
A level 20 wizard has good damaging spells from 3rd level spells up and can bring up to 28 spells to bear in the combat. That is up to 28 rounds doing 10d6 to 20d6, or spells with comparable effects.
A level 20 Sorcerer also has damaging spells from 3rd level up and can bring 42! spells to bear in combat. That is up to 42 rounds doing 10d6 to 20d6, or spells with comparable effects.
In 28 rounds, the melee fighter is likely to have been chopped to pieces by then. Even with Clerical help- who often has more than one victim needing medical attention (though area healing helps now).
No, the casters are not straw men at all. They are the ultimate damage dealers in the game- even across a score of rounds.
Now that being said, I am not opposed to them keeping that status, but to do so, the Fighter must have a new role. If we want a Fighter to be a tank, then he must have abilities that allow him to keep monsters focused on him during combat (similar to the Knight). However, that has proven unpopular on the boards. So, in order to keep fighter from becoming more than a lackey at high levels he must be able to deal damage.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I like the change to Power attack. I feel that with a 2-handed weapon in particular, at high levels, it could lead to abusive damage amounts. The issue about combat expertise being tied to Int is more of a change, and I think some sort of a change to it is needed, but I don't think the two feats should both be reverted to 3.5.What is wrong with higher damage? Other than this how is a melee player supposed to compete with 20d6? I mean talk about abusive damage amounts!
This is the same old argument which comes down to the fighter doing their damage with every attack that hits, vs. the spellcaster who uses a resource to do that damage, and then it's gone. I don't see why a fighter should expect to do the same damage every round as a spellcaster can, when the fighter gets to do their damage each round with no expenditure of resources.
A higher level fighter can easily have a strength of 24 or more, and when using a 2 handed weapon with power attack as currently written, this provides a +14 damage to each hit, on top of the +10 from strength, and likely +5 from other sources (magic, specialization, etc). With 2-3 attacks per round likely to hit, that's 72.5 damage, not counting the actual base weapon damage. Compared to 70 average damage from 20d6, I don't see the problem with a damage disparity.
It seems clear to me that we have a difference of opinion on this matter, and I don't think it's likely that we'll sway the other to their point of view.
|
|
So... here are some thoughts. We are considering changing PA to a set scale, where you subtract X and add 2X to damage, regardless of your weapon or other factors (following KISS). X might slide up as you gain levels, but it would not be a variable, which causes too many issues. Here is my question... what should X be. My current thought is to start it out at 2 and have it increase by 1 for every 5 of your BAB. Thoughts?
I'd be happy with a fixed power attack that was really fixed (at least for a given level). One problem with the current PF RPG PA is that you have to redo it when your Strength changes, at least much of the time. I'd probably opt for 1/2 BAB (round down, minimum 1) if it were up to me.
As far as adding 2X to damage, this would benefit monsters with more attacks to a fairly frightening degree...I would suggest keeping the current structure over that approach.
I would be happy to have monsters that can actually challenge a party for a change. Face it, almost all monsters are a pushover for a similar level party (except higher level ones- which often times have too many HP and too high an AC). Most monsters come on stage, go "Boo" then drop dead. The party moves on. Only occasionally can the GM find a single monster to challenge a party, and usually one with a much higher CR. To bring terror to a party usually requires several monsters contrived to be a challenge.
Personally I've never understood why power attack did 2 x dmg. two-handed. I've house-ruled it to scale the same as your strength bonus to damage; whatever you take off your base attack bonus, you add half the number as damage to off-hand weapons, the same number to one-handed weapons, and 1.5 times the number to two-handed weapons.
Jason,
I think that works reasonably well for both Power Attack and Combat Expertise. It preserves some of the scaling, and restores some parity between weapons from the existing Power Attack. I know in my testing, it was difficult to use the PFRPG beta Power Attack with a high strength character.