Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
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.
This is an artifact of the CR system: if you want a challenge (i.e. an outcome in question), you don't want to use CR = party level, you want to use Cr = party level + 3 or 4. A CR equal to the party level is supposed to be a win, pretty much every time.
Intuitively, it might seem like a CR 4 creature should beat a party of 4 4th levels half the time, but the system wasn't built that way - it was built to have CR 4 be the "safe fight" for said party.
|
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.
What resources are you speaking of exactly? I mean down to the nitty gritty?
The fact that a Sorcerer has 42 spells to throw and is almost always some distance from combat means he has 42 rounds to stay in the fight. That is a LOT of resources.
The fact that you assume the Fighter is expected to last 42 rounds with at most 150 HP assumes the monsters can only do an average of 3 points of damage. With Clerical help it assumes the monsters only do about 6-10 points of damage per round. His HP is his resources. And why a max of 150 HP? Because in the example above he has pumped all his Ability Score Bonuses into Strength, not Constitution. You can't have it both ways.
Now, I know the monster will not focus every single attack on the Fighter, but then the Sorcerer also will spend every single round casting major damaging spells.
But the fact is, and the point is, that casters are not the only ones with "limited" resources. Claiming that only casters have limited resources is the same as claiming Fighters have unlimited HP. WHich is obviously not true.
Again, I have no problem with casters being the uncontested uber damage dealers in the game, IF the Fighter has a role of its own to fulfill and not be a lackey. Unfortunately, the Fighter in 3.x is not like a WOW Warrior- which can actually tank and fulfill its role.
But then you must also remember that this is NOT 4E, which has defined roles of every class. People on this board don't want defined class roles, they want classes to fulfill a variety of roles based upon player desires- the ultimate utility of 3.x
So there is no reason to assume the caster is supposed to be the ultimate damage dealer. They have no less resources than a fighter. Just different resources. THAT is what people fail to understand.
So, ultimately PA is the defining moment of the Fighter. Do people want the Fighter to be able to deal damage and hang with high level casters, do little damage and be a lackey to high level casters, or create new abilities all together and make a new role for the Fighter?
It has to be one of those three options.
|
|
PA having a fixed minus that scales with BAB like that is just giving the meleer the experience of being a monk but with extra damage.
But I'll shut up now, honest.
Then the Monk needs to be tweaked...
It seems that most people want to nerf the fighter in order to keep other classes cool, instead of fixing that other class to begin with.
Honestly based upon the casters need to be uber powerful damage dealers and the monks need to be the uber melee dealer, I say we drop the Fighter all together and just use NPC warrior class NPCs. That way all the otehr classes get to be cool, and after all, every one wants the Fighter to be the weakest of the classes any way.
|
|
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.This is an artifact of the CR system: if you want a challenge (i.e. an outcome in question), you don't want to use CR = party level, you want to use Cr = party level + 3 or 4. A CR equal to the party level is supposed to be a win, pretty much every time.
Intuitively, it might seem like a CR 4 creature should beat a party of 4 4th levels half the time, but the system wasn't built that way - it was built to have CR 4 be the "safe fight" for said party.
Very very true. However, most designers make most encounters CR= Level. Which, let's face it after a few times gets real boring.
When the PCs know almost for a fact that they are guaranteed to win, why bother playing at all?
I know I have played in games where 4 PCs face a party level appropriate fight and during the fight I check what is new online, read up on a rule or spell, or go get a drink, because let's face it, we are going to win, it was NEVER in doubt, it was never even a challenge. It was a bump on the road to adventuring- and ultimately it was boring.
In another thread about why 3.x fails at horror, the PC comments were something along the lines of "Why would you even put in a monster we can't beat?"
Fantasy gaming has become lazy, afraid to challenge players and GMs. Or is it that players just want to be lazy and not have to work to win a fight?
|
|
See, ultimately this is what I am looking for.
A game that challenges players to win. Where defeat has a very real possibility. A game where caster spells create amazing effects and damage and melee fighters can emulate Conan or Lancelot.
I want a game where there are risks and adventure. I want to do wild and crazy fun maneuvers like I read about or see in movies.
If the game cannot keep up with my imagination then either I have to reel in my imagination or we need to tweak the game to keep up.
Right now, the game is NOT keeping up.
I say instead of requiring players to reel in their imaginations we make the game keep up with us. Take off the kid gloves and play with the big boys.
We have that opportunity now.
So, do we say to players "Your if you can imagine it, you cannot do it. If it inspires you, you cannot do it. You must come down to our level if you want to play."
Or do we want to say "This is the ultimate game for roleplaying. Stretch your imagination and dare to dream of adventure. You want to be a hero and Heroes play this game!"
|
PA having a fixed minus that scales with BAB like that is just giving the meleer the experience of being a monk but with extra damage.
But I'll shut up now, honest.
Then the Monk needs to be tweaked...
It seems that most people want to nerf the fighter in order to keep other classes cool, instead of fixing that other class to begin with.
Honestly based upon the casters need to be uber powerful damage dealers and the monks need to be the uber melee dealer, I say we drop the Fighter all together and just use NPC warrior class NPCs. That way all the otehr classes get to be cool, and after all, every one wants the Fighter to be the weakest of the classes any way.
Oh, no, not I. I want all sorts of goodies for the meleers and the old Power Attack and Combat Expertise are part of it. Also, yes, the monk needs fixing.
|
|
OK, an addendum to all my comments above...
I was stupid and missed the new feats for combat...
A Fighter CAN be a tank now!
So, take everything I said above with a HUGE grain of salt, because te Fighter CAN fulfill another role.
In fact I, personally, believe this is the role a Fighter SHOULD fulfill.
So, I apologize, but on the design side I still stand by that. The game has gotten lazy. It has failed to keep up with imagination.
For all of you who are obviously smarter than me, think outside the box.
Just because something was always done that way, does NOT mean it should continue to be that way. Just because a mechanic was used for one thing before, does not mean it cannot be used for something else as well in the future.
So, to be on topic... I like PA and CE being scalable (I would prefer all such feats be scalable) and have a specific ratio of penalty to bonus. How and what, don't matter as long as they provide a real incentive to use them. If there is no real reason to use a feat across the levels and at all levels then don't bother with it at all.
|
|
If there is no real reason to use a feat across the levels and at all levels then don't bother with it at all.
This may be an unfair feat test. I'm ALL for scaling feats, but all feats are not created equal - and this is fair as long as the better feats are really better and the worse feats aren't "traps" for inexperienced players.
Example: Spring Attack is better than Dodge. This is fair - Dodge should scale better, imho, but Spring Attack should remain more useful at higher levels than Dodge - simply because it's a gate feat. A feat doesn't have to remain equally useful across levels. It should retain relevence for at least a half a character's carreer.
As a comparison, most first second and third level spells retain usefulness up to caster level 9 or 10. Their lives can be extended to some extent with metamagic feats. A few spells are very powerful at 1st level, but worthless past 5-6th level. Starter feats, as there are fewer of them and they are less changable than spells, should go for thetypical low level spell model - good relevence at least for half the martial character's career. Feats that require prerequisites shoudl probably remain useful throughout the character's career, as they require a more significant investment.
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
To be honest, I'd actually implement it more like 4e's model: you take a -2 penalty and do +X damage. My personal suggestion would be that you would do an extra 2 damage, +1 damage for every two points of BAB that you have. While this would be significantly less damage on a single attack, I would hope that the greater increase in to-hit chances on iterative attacks would compensate for this.
I would also think a static penalty with an bonus to damage that increases as you level would work better.
If the penalty grows as you level then I think it might come to the point where that -5 or -6 to attacks would just make Power Attack very ineffective in most situations, when you would still be doing well in most situations just power attacking for 2.
I suggest damage might increase since, while at low levels, your average damage is lets say 10 damage per hit, then +2 damage from power attack would make a good contribution, but at higher levels when you deal 30 points of damage per hit then it would mean that you would deal more damage overall not power attacking for 2.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Regardless of how the final Power Attack feat works, I hope it's designed with Overhand Chop in mind as well. At low levels (before an interative attack is granted), the combination of these can dish out a lot of damage. Also, neither should be clearly superior to the other at that level range.
Krome, I really, REALLY like your changes to Power Attack and Combat Expertise. Can I use them in my game? You will be credited fully.
To be honest, I'd actually implement it more like 4e's model: you take a -2 penalty and do +X damage. My personal suggestion would be that you would do an extra 2 damage, +1 damage for every two points of BAB that you have. While this would be significantly less damage on a single attack, I would hope that the greater increase in to-hit chances on iterative attacks would compensate for this.
This would be a better KISS solution, I think. But if the penalty to hit is fixed, it should be substantial enough to cause a decision. I think it should be fixed at -4 to hit. This could be very significant at low level I know, but will become more trivial at higher levels. A fixed -2 to hit is an almost "automatic Power Attack in almost all situations" at mid to high levels. In fact, maybe anyone should be able to power attack: you take a -4 to hit and add +2 to damage. See a similarity with fighting defensively?
Power Attack's initial benefit could then be: -4 to hit +4 damage, and then scale from there: for every 5 points of BAB you have the damage increases by +2 (for a total of -4 to hit, +12 damage at level 20).
Combat Expertise can follow a similar fashion, initially granting -4 to hit for +4 AC? I think the progression should be lower: you get +1 AC for every 5 points of BAB you have (for a total of -4 to hit, +8 AC at level 20).
BTW, I think I can see the argument that the penalty to hit should increase with level, but not sure I agree with it.
|
|
If there is no real reason to use a feat across the levels and at all levels then don't bother with it at all.This may be an unfair feat test. I'm ALL for scaling feats, but all feats are not created equal - and this is fair as long as the better feats are really better and the worse feats aren't "traps" for inexperienced players.
Example: Spring Attack is better than Dodge. This is fair - Dodge should scale better, imho, but Spring Attack should remain more useful at higher levels than Dodge - simply because it's a gate feat. A feat doesn't have to remain equally useful across levels. It should retain relevence for at least a half a character's carreer.
As a comparison, most first second and third level spells retain usefulness up to caster level 9 or 10. Their lives can be extended to some extent with metamagic feats. A few spells are very powerful at 1st level, but worthless past 5-6th level. Starter feats, as there are fewer of them and they are less changable than spells, should go for thetypical low level spell model - good relevence at least for half the martial character's career. Feats that require prerequisites shoudl probably remain useful throughout the character's career, as they require a more significant investment.
Umm yeah, exactly. I didn't go into it much, but guess I should have. ANd ou are exactly right. I just didn't feel like writing a lot on it. :)
Feats should be relevant for quite a while, and I don't mind them being made relatively obsolete by a better feat at higher levels at all. That is just a part of progressing up. Just like Dodge and Spring Attack. That kind of obsolescence is fine.
What I seriously dislike is a feat that gives you +2 at 3rd level and then is never, ever enhanced upon. You never get a chance to take another feat later to get another +2. It never improves as you level. Eventually it becomes obsolete just because you have leveled enough to get so many other modifiers that you find yourself wishing you had that feat back.
Oh, and to build upon this I suppose, I really don't mind a lot of lower level feats as starter feats with higher level ones that enhance or replace the lower ones. Feat Chains, in other words. In fact I think they are a wonderful way to progress a character.
And it makes higher level play a lot easier...
For example, my level 22 fighter has so many feats I can never remember them all. I have a handful I use ALL the time. Some are used rarely and some have never been used. It sure would be easier if I had some feat chains I focused on and in essence worked on two major combat styles that matured in complexity and quality as I leveled. It also allows the Fighter (that Jack-of-all-Feats) to become extremely customizable and unique.
So, umm, yeah what Jess said :)
|
|
Krome, I really, REALLY like your changes to Power Attack and Combat Expertise. Can I use them in my game? You will be credited fully.
lol
Any feats I post on here are fully available subject to Paizo rules for their Forum.
For example, can I take ideas and feats, classes, spells, etc., suggested here and make my own book or game or whatever?
I believe that on WOTC, anything posted becomes the property of WOTC.
I have no idea if Paizo does that or not. I can't find anything regarding property rights of ideas on the forums. So, until it becomes accessible, I assume anything here is fair game.
In fact I have been working on a little project of my own for a while. It will NEVER compete with Paizo or WOTC and probably never see anything beyond my local group and community. But I am working on converting the SRD to a 3d6 bell curve system, with an emphasis on skills and feats and abilities. There are still classes and leveling. But feats become feat trees, and spells become spell trees.
The 3d6 system puts more emphasis on what the player does with skill points and modifiers than it does with d20.
In my head I call it d20 meets GURPS. :)
This is the major reason I stopped posting in the design forums for a while. I didn't want to loose access to ideas I had.
In retrospect if I had thought about it I would not have posted those feats at all.
|
|
To be honest, I'd actually implement it more like 4e's model: you take a -2 penalty and do +X damage. My personal suggestion would be that you would do an extra 2 damage, +1 damage for every two points of BAB that you have. While this would be significantly less damage on a single attack, I would hope that the greater increase in to-hit chances on iterative attacks would compensate for this.This would be a better KISS solution, I think. But if the penalty to hit is fixed, it should be substantial enough to cause a decision. I think it should be fixed at -4 to hit. This could be very significant at low level I know, but will become more trivial at higher levels. A fixed -2 to hit is an almost "automatic Power Attack in almost all situations" at mid to high levels. In fact, maybe anyone should be able to power attack: you take a -4 to hit and add +2 to damage. See a similarity with fighting defensively?
Power Attack's initial benefit could then be: -4 to hit +4 damage, and then scale from there: for every 5 points of BAB you have the damage increases by +2 (for a total of -4 to hit, +12 damage at level 20).
Combat Expertise can follow a similar fashion, initially granting -4 to hit for +4 AC? I think the progression should be lower: you get +1 AC for every 5 points of BAB you have (for a total of -4 to hit, +8 AC at level 20).
BTW, I think I can see the argument that the penalty to hit should increase with level, but not sure I agree with it.
I like starting with a smaller penalty and progressing that penalty and thus the benefits as the BAB goes up. Namely because -4 at lower levels is devastating. Sure you get some good damage, but you are going to miss most of the time, so it doesn't make it worth using.
By starting with a -2 it makes the low level guy think twice, but it is still doable. As the character advances, so should his option to deal more damage, but at a higher cost. In essence it still has a similar penalty to benefit ratio across all levels.
Does that make sense?
While a static set of modifiers is easier to use it presents a problem. Either it is too expensive to use at lower levels, or becomes too minor a contributor to worry about at higher levels.
I am a huge fan of scaling feats and abilities.
I think it should be fixed at -4 to hit. This could be very significant at low level I know, but will become more trivial at higher levels. A fixed -2 to hit is an almost "automatic Power Attack in almost all situations" at mid to high levels.
I don't think that this is the case. In most cases I think it would be the same situation, a -2 would mean that on two number where you would have hit, you instead miss. So if you had a 50% chance of hitting, you would instead have a 40% chance of hitting.
At both sets of levels it would reduce your chance of hitting by 10% and I'm not sure how that would become insignificant at higher levels.
As an extreme example if it grew to a -10 penalty at higher levels that would turn a 60% chance of hitting (hit on a roll of 9 or more) into a 10% chance of hitting (hit on a roll of 19 or 20). I think that this sort of drop of accuracy would matter just as much to the high-level character as it would to the low-level character.
While a static set of modifiers is easier to use it presents a problem. Either it is too expensive to use at lower levels, or becomes too minor a contributor to worry about at higher levels.
Yeah, I'm not sure how this works.
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?
Glabrezu
Size/Type: Huge Outsider (Chaotic, Extraplanar, Evil)Hit Dice: 12d8+120 (174 hp)
Speed: 40 ft. (8 squares)
Armor Class: 27 (-2 size, +19 natural), touch 8, flat-footed 27
Attack: Pincers +20 melee (2d8+10)
Full Attack: 2 pincers +20 melee (2d8+10) and 2 claws +18 melee (1d6+5) and bite +18 melee (1d8+5)
Space/Reach: 15 ft./15 ft.
Feats: Cleave, Great Cleave, Multiattack, Persuasive, Power Attack
Challenge Rating: 13
Under 3.5 this creatures Full Attack at -4 PA would be:
Full Attack: 2 pincers +16 melee (2d8+14) and 2 claws +14 melee (1d6+9) and bite +14 melee (1d8+9) = 55 bonus damage
If you changed PA to allow 2X damage across the board, you've now changed it's Full Attack at -4 PA to:
Full Attack: 2 pincers +16 melee (2d8+18) and 2 claws +14 melee (1d6+13) and bite +14 melee (1d8+13) = 75 bonus damage
A nice +20 to damage for an already dangerous opponent considering it's sp abilities, improved grab, DR, SR, etc.
What Jason's fix does is skew effectiveness of Power Attack towards large number of attacks. Two-Weapon Fighting and/or Multiple Natural Attacks > Two-Handed Fighting. I suspect that the reason the Two-Handed Power Attack rule was invented for 3.5 was in reaction to this sort of issue. Jason's fix merely brings it back.
In the end, though... as I've explained, Power Attack is what makes AC work. Thus, in order for AC to work, the game must include a mechanism for making larger margins of to-hit vs. AC mean something over hitting AC exactly. Else, there's little reason to invest in AC anyways; that money/spell slot is even better off going towards a miss chance.
If AC's functionality is to be preserved, then, the best way to do it is install a mechanism in the combat rules themselves that allows high margins of to-hit rolls vs. AC mean something, like +1 damage for every +1 the attacker hits by. Once we've got AC working, then Power Attack can be anything we want it to be.
-Matt
Except you STILL end up with the martial people just super-stacking attack bonuses in order to do damage, which is what he said they were trying to avoid. Only worse, because instead of making any sort of choice, it would be automatic.. and we already know AC scales far, far slower than attack bonuses.. And it's not tied to bab, or anything, but merely "how high you roll" vs their static number.
-S
Except you STILL end up with the martial people just super-stacking attack bonuses in order to do damage, which is what he said they were trying to avoid.
Well, let's back up a second, then... why is stacking attack bonuses a bad thing? Isn't that what the d20 system is all about? Maxing out X in d20+X?
Also, we have yet to actually establish that AC scales "far, far slower" than attack bonuses. I currently play a 15th-level Bard with AC 43, 47 if he receives a Shield of Faith, and he gets missed pretty often. So I'm contributing evidence contrary to that belief.
Remember, in order for AC to work, there has to be a reason to boost AC. Damage Reduction, because the opponent cannot (by virtue of statistics) Power Attack for as much, is how 3.5 makes AC work.
-Confused Matt
There's an easy fix for that. Keep Jason's scaling PA fix, and declare that the bonus damage only applies on attacks with your primary weapon.
Actually, that's not so simple. Because then you're screwing over creatures with multiple natural attacks. Remember, a PC/monster does not receive additional attacks due to BAB.
So your fix would have a Dragon getting Power Attack once, but an Elemental getting Power Attack twice (due to two slam attacks), but a manufactured weapon-user getting Power Attack up to four times. (excluding Haste)
-Matt
|
|
Power Attack, KISSing all the way...
Here are a few proposals for Power Attack KISS version.
----
#1
Feat: Power Attack (Combat)
Prerequisite: Strength 13+, natural melee weapon used or non-light melee weapon wielded.
Benefit: Announce use of this feat on your turn before you attack. By taking -2 penalty to your attacks until the beginning of your next turn, you inflict additional amount of damage equal to your attack roll total less opponent's armor class. Additional damage is applied by GM and it is not subject to damage multipliers.Note: this is behind the screen type of solution. While the multpliers are not applied (to prevent ultra silliness), you gain steady benefits from each successful attack.
#2
Feat: Power Attack (Combat)
Prerequisite: Strength 13+, BAB 6+, natural melee weapon used or non-light melee weapon wielded.
Benefit: Announce use of this feat on your turn before you attack. You may sacrifice any number of attacks beyond the first. For each attack sacrificed that way, you gain additional damage equal to attack bonus of sacrificed attacks. The damage bonus applies only to attacks perfomed on your turn and it is not subject to any multipliers.Note: Works only for full-attack or for creatures with multiple attacks usable during standard actions. While the multpliers are not applied (to prevent ultra silliness), you are not penalized for use of the feat and the damage gain may be pretty significant with good buffs to attack bonus.
#3
Feat: Power Attack (Combat)
Prerequisite: Strength 13+, natural melee weapon used or non-light melee weapon wielded.
Benefit: Announce use of this feat on your turn before you perform any actions. For the rest of your turn you gain damage bonus equal one half of your Base Attack Bonus. However, once your turn ends, your Base Attack Bonus and all Base Attack Bonus dependent abilities (like Combat Maneuver Bonus) are subject to penalty equal to your Base Attack Bonus. The penalty lasts until the...
Yeah.... great... thanks a lot now I have Detroit Rock City in my head... off to the net to find some KISS
I didn't say it was bad- the designer did.. unless I misread him.. Which is more than possible.
I love the old PA myself. give the fighter/barb some math to do, no problem there.. Why not give him a moment or two? not like the wizard doesn't take a minute or two on his turn, even if he *has* the spell open it takes a few moments to figure out.
But, they are trying to keep PA from being a 'crutch the fighter uses to compete' and if you just change it from super-attack-rating mechanic to another, especially one that is more constant and would likely grant more damage over time (depending on the on-the-fly math of the player), i'm not sure that's where he wanted to go.
*We want* a very effective PA. I don't think they do. I think they want the warrior classes to be effective *without it*. Which is the general picture I get from the Dev's posts. If I have misinterpreted, please someone lemme know- i'm not tryin to put words into anyone's mouths.
-S
"Personally I've never understood why power attack did 2 x dmg. two-handed."
My feelings exactly. I think the 2X damage 2-handed was the real problem with PA. It makes 2-handed weapons blow other fighting styles out of the water. It also has the effect of making the other players feel like the sidekicks of the fighter.
If you remove the 2x 2 handed, Power Attack is fixed either regardless of if is variable or not.
Krome, I really, REALLY like your changes to Power Attack and Combat Expertise. Can I use them in my game? You will be credited fully.lol
Any feats I post on here are fully available subject to Paizo rules for their Forum.
For example, can I take ideas and feats, classes, spells, etc., suggested here and make my own book or game or whatever?
I believe that on WOTC, anything posted becomes the property of WOTC.
I have no idea if Paizo does that or not. I can't find anything regarding property rights of ideas on the forums. So, until it becomes accessible, I assume anything here is fair game.
In fact I have been working on a little project of my own for a while. It will NEVER compete with Paizo or WOTC and probably never see anything beyond my local group and community. But I am working on converting the SRD to a 3d6 bell curve system, with an emphasis on skills and feats and abilities. There are still classes and leveling. But feats become feat trees, and spells become spell trees.
The 3d6 system puts more emphasis on what the player does with skill points and modifiers than it does with d20.
In my head I call it d20 meets GURPS. :)
This is the major reason I stopped posting in the design forums for a while. I didn't want to loose access to ideas I had.
In retrospect if I had thought about it I would not have posted those feats at all.I like your protogame- I'd love to playtest it when it's further along. I say call it DURPS!
If I use your idea, it will still be YOUR idea- you will be credited fully. All will know it came from you, not from me. I just wanted to be courteous and ask instead of just quietly filing the serial numbers off of it.
|
|
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.
Looking at Matt's post that you're responding to here, as well as some of his other system analysis posts in this thread: http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/general/highLevelInSearchOfTheTrueProblem
I would seriously like to urge you to reconsider the situation. In fact, Power Attack, Combat Expertise, and maybe other similar feats may be the perfect solution to save martial characters and high level game system breakdown.
Earlier you explained the thought process behind the changes to Power Attack:
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.
The issue, if you look at Matt's post, isn't actually about the fighter not being able to do his job at high levels without it (this is true, but it's not the ultimate cause of the problem). It's the underlying system of d20+{X}.
As {X} gets arbitrarily large, the variability of results in comparison to the bonus {X} decreases (as {X} approaches or even surpasses the 20 on a d20). As the difference between {X} and {Y} in two characters' results (d20+{X} vs. d20+{Y}) gets larger, the system gets out of balance to the point where the characters can't balance against each other.
Concrete examples would be helpful:
Level 1
- Frank the fighter is a simple enough fellow. At level 1, he has an AC of 16, an attack bonus with his favorite weapon, the greatsword, of +5, and the skills Intimidate +4, Perception +2 and Ride +6. His saves are Fort +4, Ref +2, Will +1.
- Rachel the rogue is a simple girl with a desire for the finer things in life and the gift of gab. At level 1, she has an AC of 16, an attack bonus of +4 (with weapon finesse) with light and ranged weapons, and some of her key skills are Acrobatics +7, Diplomacy +6, Intimidate +6, Linguistics +4 and Perception +5. Her saves are Fort +2, Ref +5, Will +1.
- William the wizard is a studious young man with a taste for adventure and discovery. At level 1, he has an AC of 12, an attack bonus with his trusty staff of +0, and some of his key skills are Linguistics +7, Ride +3 and Spellcraft +7. His saves are Fort +2, Ref +2, Will +2.
- Clara the cleric is a sincere girl out to take care of the people around her. At level 1, she has an AC of 14, an attack bonus with her mace of +2, and her skills are Diplomacy +5, Knowledge(religion) +4 and Spellcraft +4. Her saves are Fort +4, Ref +0, Will +5.
As they set out, everyone makes a perception check. Rachel has a 55% chance to make the DC 15 Perception check. Frank has a 40% chance. Due to her wisdom, Clara has a 45% chance. William will only detect this hazard 30% of the time.
This merry band faces a wolf skeleton. Frank has the easiest time hitting the creature's AC of 15. He needs to roll a 10 or higher, so he has a 55% chance to hit it. Rachel doesn't do as much damage unless her placement is right, but she has nearly as much chance to hit it with a roll of 11 or better - 50% chance. Poor William has little chance to connect with his staff - a 30% chance to hit. Clara has a 40% chance to connect. Total range from most to least skilled - 55% chance to hit at best, to 30% chance to hit at the worst - is 25%.
If the wolf attacks them, he has a 40% chance to hit Frank or Rachel, a 50% chance to successfully strike Clara, and a 60% chance of successfully striking William.
As the group leaves the scene of the battle they run into a batch of poison nettles. Everyone rolls a Fortitude save, DC 12. Frank has a 65% chance of success, along with Clara. William and Rachel have only a 55% chance of succeeding.
At level one, there are weaknesses and strengths in the different characters' rolls, but the range is manageable. This seems like a fun and relevent simulation.
Level 10
- Frank has and AC of 27 with armor training, a small boost in dex, and +4 full plate. He has an attack bonus of +22 and his skills are: Intimidate +13, Perception +11, Ride +15. His saves are Fort +10, Ref +6, Will +4.
- Rachel has an AC of 23, an attack bonus of +16, some of her skills include Acrobatics +19, Diplomacy +15, Intimidate +15, Linguistics +13 and Perception +14. Her saves are +5, +13 and +4.
- William has an AC of 16 with bracers of armor +4 (or mage armor, really), an attack bonus of +5, skills Linguistics +19, Ride +5 (he just wanted to ride without worry), Knowledge (religion) +13 (with the "ride" points) and Spellcraft +19. His saves are Fort +5, Reflex +5, Will +7.
- Clara has an AC of 21 with +3 full plate, an attack bonus of +12, skills Diplomacy +14, Knowledge(religion) +13, and Spellcraft +13. Her saves are +9, +3, +13.
As they're walking along, a pit trap opens beneath them! The clever design makes it relatively difficult to escape - a DC 18 Reflex save is rolled by all! Rachel has an 80% success rate. Frank has a 45% success rate. William has a 40% success rate. Clara has a paltry 30% success rate. By level 10, with very vanilla characters, the spread is already 50%!
As everyone helps those that fell into the pit onto solid ground again, a cloud giant arrives (simple melee CR 11). Frank has a 90% and 65% chance to hit with his iterative attacks. Rachel has a 60% and 35% chance to hit with her attacks. Clara has a 40% and 15% chance. William, who is intelligent enough that he won't even attempt it, would have a 5% chance of hitting the cloud giant.
The giant has a 75%, 50% and 25% chance of striking Frank, a 95%, 70% and 45% chance of hitting Rachel, a 95%, 80% and 55% chance of striking Clara, and a 95%, 95% and 85% chance of successfully striking William.
The spread is much wider now. The attack spread between the best and worst attackers is now 85%! If I gave William an expensive magic staff to even things up(foolish as that may seem for a wizard), the spread would still be 70%. The d20+{X} mechanic is already beginning to break down.
Level 18
Just because 20's capstone abilities might be cause for arguement, I'm stopping a little short.
- Frank has AC 31, attack bonus +39, Intimidate +21, Perception +19, Ride +23. Fort +15, Ref +9, Will +7.
- Rachel has AC 31, attack bonus +30, Acrobatics +31, Diplomacy +23, Intimidate +23, Linguistics +21, Perception +22 and saves Fort +10, Ref +21, Will +7.
- William has AC 20, attack +10, Linguistics +31, Ride +5, Knowledge(Religion) +24, Spellcraft +31 and saves Fort +9, Reflex +8, Will +11.
- Clara has AC 23, Attack +20, Diplomacy +24, Knowledge(religion) +21, Spellcraft +21 and saves Fort +14, Ref +6, Will +21
Rachel misses a Symbol of Insanity trap, and everyone must make a Will save DC 22 (minimum) or go insane. Clara has a 5% chance of failure. William has a 50% chance of failure. Frank and Rachel have a 70% chance of failure.
Once Clara and William stop Frank and Rachel from drooling, they're ready to cross a tightrope to the other side of a deep chasm. Rachel can walk this blindfolded and handcuffed. Frank has a 10% chance in armor, and a 20% chance without armor. William has a 15% chance of success. And Clara cannot succeed without taking her armor off - if she takes her armor off, she has a 5% chance of success.
William discards his now useless scrolls of Fly and they stumble across a Balor! Frank has a 95%, 95%, 70% and 45% chance of hitting the Balor. Rachel has an 80%, 55% and 30% chance to hit the Balor. Clara has a 30%, 5% and 5% chance to hit the Balor. And William, while he can warp the laws of nature with a few arcane words, has a 5% and 5% chance to strike the creature with his staff.
The balor has a 95% to strike everyone in the party with his strongest attack.
So...what is this long winded and silly example supposed to prove?
Look at how the bonuses (the {X}s in the d20 + {X}) grow larger - and how they invalidate the "randomness" introduced by the d20. Not only that, but examine the growing disparity between the "haves" and "have nots" in each stat. As the game approaches high level, the arbitrary growth of bonuses reduces randomness and forces level appropriate challenges for characters made to handle a certain challenge impossible for those not built to handle said challenge.
Sometimes, this is okay. Sometimes you only need one character to have the skill to meet a challenge - this seems to be the case especially with skill checks. Usually you only need one skilled diplomancer or acrobat or lockpicker or scout. But there are places where the disparity makes the game a binary win/lose for a given challenge - saves and attack bonuses fall here.
This is a core issue with high level play. When the difference between a high and low roll is +-5 points, a d20 can represent the randomness of the world. When the difference is +- 10, there's a great amount of skill modifying the randomness. +-15 and it's not even a contest. +- 20, and we're to "You always fail, he always wins" territory.
To bring this full circle back to Power Attack / Combat Expertise -
These can level the playing field vis a vis Attack Bonuses / AC!!!
Frank doesn't care if he rolls an 18 and beats the balor's AC by 17, or he rolls a 2 and beats the balor's AC by 1. He does the same damage. But add in Power Attack, and the fighter is able to get "leverage" from his high attack bonus by sucking it into extra damage. This voluntary lowering of his attack bonus to get better damage brings him back in line with the middle tier's attack bonus. He's getting a benefit from higher damage on a hit - but Power Attack allows a monster's AC to be relevent for a wider range of character builds by bringing the bonus of martial character's attacks down closer to a middle tier level. Suddenly, rather than having such disparate power levels that never the thrice shall meet after level 10, youhave the top two tiers drawing closer in attack bonus simply because of the presence of one feat that allows the leverage of one resource (attack bonus) to purchase another (damage).
This still doesn't address the problem of saves, but it's a good start. If Power Attack and Combat Expertise aren't feats, but are base combat options, players are voluntarily doing the balancing for you.
One other suggestion was Matt's suggestion that after a certain point, additional bonuses should actually be additional die rolls, and you take the best of the multiple die rolls. What if at 20th level fighters only have a +10 bonus, but they roll 4d20 for each attack, and pick the best die roll? Or for every current +4 you get to a save, you roll an additional d20?
Maybe this is too big a change for PRPG - but if we remove other effective balancing mechanics like Power Attack and Combat Expertise, I don't see any other robust options.
::Clamps::
ENCORE!
Great analyzes JessDoor! Have a cookie!
::cookie::
|
|
It is my opinion that the above quoted section supports Sir Hexen's suggestion of limiting the options of limiting Power Attack to increments of 5. This is based on the gap of BAB between classes at 20th level is in increments of 5 and Power Attack being a balancing factor for the difference in BAB.
The Beta version of Power Attack overly limits the potential bonus damage which is needed by melee characters at higher level due to the amount of HP. I do however agree with Jason that the 3.x Power Attack was either too much of a guessing game or an exercise in advanced math to optimize.
The one aspect of the Beta version that I feel should be maintained is removing the fiddliness of 1 point increments. This is why I like the option of 1 point, 5 point increments, or all of BAB for Power Attack.
As for Combat Expertise, based on the above quoted analysis I can see how it can work in a similar manner. Personally, I still prefer to see it go off in a different...
By limiting the PA to increments of five, you are limiting the ability to guess right more than you are limiting the 'guessing game', I'd say. And I guess we have very different opinions as to what comprises 'advanced math', but I can live with options (as you say, 1 point, 5 point and all BAB) as enthusiasm for the PA and CE calculations/guesses will vary from table to table (and perhaps that's my most significant objection to the change to PA, because it seems like someone's table issues becoming everyone's table rules; of course, this is always a problem with fixes going into a new game variant, but options let us pick our table rules).
|
|
The changed Power Attack seems to be working well in our group. (FWIW, we are not hyper-optimizers.) There are two PCs who use it: a paladin with a 16 Strength and a War Hulk with a 32 Strength (and only a +11 BAB).
The paladin uses it most often when he smites, but against low-AC opponents, he keeps it on. It is particularly a boon in his case, because the player is horribly slow about making on-the-fly calculations at the table, and knowing that his Power Attack is -3/+6 all the time speeds things up.
I play the War Hulk, and I use Power Attack when I've built up enough bonuses that I can have a reasonable chance of hitting ... but for ridiculous amounts of damage. (By "reasonable," BTW, I typically shoot for a 14+ needed on the d20, as best as I can estimate it.) This is not optimal play, but it's fun play. (In 3.5, some players used APAATT for the same reason.)
I think the new Power Attack feels like power-attacking to me, whereas 3.5 Power Attack felt much more tactical and cautious, which strikes me as antithetical to the intent of the feat.
Again, let me emphasize that this opinion isn't based on perceived game balance ... we never really had any abuses of 3.5 Power Attack. It's based more on feel and on the playtest experience of Power Attack being enjoyable to use for the two players who've taken it.
I will say, though, that as a DM I find Pathfinder's Power Attack to be pretty useless. While monsters sometimes have low ACs, making a player's use of Power Attack an option, PCs very rarely have low ACs, and a monster that uses Power Attack against a PC is rarely going to hit.
(The exceptions can be fun. Running a Power Attacking barbarian ogre a couple of sessions ago, I needed 16+ to hit the shugenja, who has the lowest AC in my group. Two rolls, two hits, and the shugenja goes from 75 HP to 5 HP, just like that. Kinda fun to watch the player pick his jaw up off the table.)
You know, if power attack is changed from 3.5 version, I will miss the times when I "get mad" with Beragon the fighter and go for broke (a full BAB power attack) to really whack a foe that's aggravating! Yeah, I missed more often when I did, ohh, but when I hit...
In the end, I wish this feat didn't get so much attention. Were there really issues at the gaming table with 3.5's power attack? I've never had any at my gaming table, or at another group of which I am a player.
Good points made Jess. And you know what? Having a set to hit penalty that scales with level, won't eliminate the auto hit/miss with all attacks scenario. It would mitigate it somewhat, but it takes all the fun out of power attack.
This is a little off topic:
In the end, I wish this feat didn't get so much attention. Were there really issues at the gaming table with 3.5's power attack? I've never had any at my gaming table, or at another group of which I am a player.
It's also important to keep in mind that setting a Power Attack amount is one of the very few challenges, one of the very few tests of skill, a non-caster player faces.
-Players of casters are challenged to prepare/cast the right spell.
-Players of non-casters are challenged to Power Attack for a desirable amount.
Take the guesswork out, and playing a non-caster becomes more boring.
What Jess and I are establishing, though, is that not only should Power Attack and Combat Expertise be variable, but that they're very important to the game as a whole, and in reality, are so important that their functions should be combat options available to everyone instead of feats chosen by few.
-Matt
|
|
What Jess and I are establishing, though, is that not only should Power Attack and Combat Expertise be variable, but that they're very important to the game as a whole, and in reality, are so important that their functions should be combat options available to everyone instead of feats chosen by few.-Matt
This might be the most important, easily remediable matter to have arisen yet. I hated the changes (partly because, as you said earlier in your post, the 'guesswork' is fun) before you two explained the other stuff...
My question is: what happens to fighting defensively/offensively in light of any changes made to power attack/combat expertise? Do these mechanics get dropped or altered?
I'm surprised nobody has thought of this yet (maybe someone has but it's in another thread), but a compromise could be this:
Power Attack (Combat)
You can make exceptionally deadly melee attacks by sacrificing accuracy for strength.
Prerequisite: Str 13, BAB +1
Benefit: On your action, before making attack rolls for a round, you may choose to subtract a number from all melee attack rolls, and add the same number to all melee damage rolls. This number may not exceed your Strength bonus. The penalty on attacks and bonus on damage apply until your next turn.
Special: If you attack with a 2-handed weapon, or with a 1-handed 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 unarmed strikes or natural weapon attacks), even though the attack penalty still applies.
It keeps the variability, but uses Str as the cap instead of BAB.
Another alternative could also be subtracting up to 1/2 BAB (for a total of -10 hit/+20 dmg at 20th level)
I still like the 3.5 version better though:) This compromise would nerf martial characters who didn't invest a lot in Str... a paladin comes to mind.
|
|
I still like the 3.5 version better though:) This compromise would nerf martial characters who didn't invest a lot in Str... a paladin comes to mind.
Yes, the purpose of power attack is to give characters with high bonuses a way to leverage said bonus. The suggestion you had would only allow such leverage if a second bonus was high. It removes the balancing mechanic that is necessary to limit high level bonuses in order to allow ACs that match mid-tier characters to be relevent.
I am very much in line with Matt and Jess here. I especially like the idea of makign Power Attack and Combat Expertise in to standard combat maneuvers. Sure, it would get rid of the Fighting Defensively option, but who really needs that?
As a player, my favorite type of character is teh BDF. Over the years I have played shock trooper barbarians, half-orc clerics with the war domain (and Power Attack), half-orc two-weapon unarmed power attackers, etc. I don't play these character types because Power ATtack is a "broken" mechanic; I pick Power Attack as a feat because it is the only way to make a melee character feel like a contributor at high levels.
We've already seen the numbers on why Power Attack is useful (see the above example versus the Balor). A lot of people still seem to have the misconception that two-handed PA is overwhelmingly powerful compared to one-handed PA. Let me set that straight.
Gurt the 12th-level barbarian has 28 Strength while Greater Raging and he wields a +1 greataxe. Gurt deals 1d12+14 (9 STR * 1.5, +1 for magic weapon). If he manages to hit with all three attacks in a round, he deals 31d12+42.
Chukka the 12th-level half-orc Fighter uses Oversized Two-Weapon Fighting and has two +1 battle axes. He also has Greater TWF so he gets 6 attacks per round. We'll say he also has 1 level of barbarian (like any good fighter) and rages up to the same amount of Strength for a +28. He manages to land all 6 attacks (maybe they're fighting an ooze?) and deals 1d8+10 and 1d8+5 (off-hand), for a total of 6d8+45. So far, Chukka is ahead of Gurt for damage.
But wait, Gurt is a two-handed power attacker! He goes crazy against the ooze and blows all of his BAB, but since the ooze has AC 3 he still hits! Gurt rolls a Natural 20 on one of them, but is sad to find out that the ooze pays noa ttention to his critical hti. He still only deals his normal 2x Power Attack damage. Gurt now deals 3d12+42+72, or 3d12+114 damage. The ooze collapses in to a pool of... ooze.
Chukka attacks the same ooze. No, wait, Chukka attacks the other ooze, since Gurt just obliterated the first one. Even with Chukka's penalties for TWF, he throws in all of his BAB to power attack agains the AC 3 ooze and hits it 6 times. Chukka only gets a one-for-one damage bonus with his Power Attack, but he hits twice as many times so that makes up for the penalties. Chukka deals 6d8+48+72, or 6d8+120 damage. The ooze dies, but Gurt owes Chukka a drink because Chukka still ended up dealing more damaeg than Gurt.
Chukka and Gurt both gloat over the fact that they each kiled an ooze single-handedly and dealt well over 100 damage to it.
Meanwhile, Fud the Magician drops a 12d6 Cone of Cold on 4 creatures at once. They all fail their Reflex saves and none of them have ER, so they take 42 damage. Each. Fud may not have obliterated them in a single hit, but he did hefty damage to all of the critters and totaled 168 damage for the four of them.
Fud the Magician realizes he is a valuable contributor to the party even though his damage output against a single foe may not be as high as the Power Attackers of the group. He also knows that he has more tactical options when it coems to facing multiple enemies. Also, he can fly. What now, Chukka?
----
Okay, the point is that Power Attack isn't the be-all/end-all of combat. The above examples are for ideal conditions; when an enemy has a fair AC the Power Attack mechanic requires a lot more tactical decision-making (as Matt and Jess have pointed out). Power Attack also doesn't exclude anyone who wishes to use it as a viable combat mechanic; chances are if you're not always getting two-for-one damage output, you're using other combat options that make your character viable and PA is just for some added effect, because 1d8+6 isn't a very exciting amount of damage at 18th level even if you DO get 6 or 7 attacks.
Finally, comparing Power Attacking fighters to Meteor Swarming Wizards is pointless. Sure, the BDF can put out a ton of damage each round, and sure, so can the Wizard. Maybe the Wizard can't Meteor Swarm indefinitely, but he can fly, polymorph, turn invisible, teleport, and Power Word: Kill. BDF can attack, attack, and attack. Why not let them be good at the one job they have?
Any designer updates on this, as has been demonstrated, very very important element of the game?
-Matt