|
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
I wonder if Power Attack in PF RPG could in fact lower your *AC* instead of your attack bonuses? I think that could be tactically more sensible for most combatants, and not "gimp" your attacks, although it might result in "reckless" combatants getting floored by monsters with multiple attacks?
Also, I'm in favor of (1/2*BAB)+1 as a scaling formula for PA cap.
|
What about trading up to half your BAB for damage as a standard combat option and then the Power Attack feat allowing you trade up to full BAB? Or some other variety where the standard combat option isn't as good as the feat but still allows for getting some use out of AC even where the to-hits are easy (maybe current Power Attack is an option and the feat allows more trade-off or else a damage multiplier of some sort, which would be a more powerful version).
What about trading up to half your BAB for damage as a standard combat option and then the Power Attack feat allowing you trade up to full BAB?
I've been kicking this issue around quite a bit lately.
As shown, yes, both of them really need to be combat options, and yes, both of them need to be variable. Non-spellcasters need to have some decisions to make.
Expertise requires more regulation than Power Attack, because Expertise works when you miss, while Power Attack only works when you hit.
I'll put forth as a suggestion that we cap the combat options at -5, then allow the feats to break that limit, to a maximum of BAB. Also, the combat option version of Power Attack would yield 1:1, while the feat would unlock 2:1 for two-handed weapons.
-Matt
|
|
I don't mind a cap in the case of the combat option; I guess I'd probably plump for BAB/2 rather than a fixed 5, but I'm not fanatical about it (however, the feat, as we both agree, should scale with BAB).
Combat Expertise does at least require the character to be making an attack, so it's not auto-AC for people doing other stuff, and the combat option version should also maintain that.
The INT cap from Combat expertise needs to be canceled. Why? There only 2 classes this feat would be effective: The Wizard and the Rogue. These are the only 2 classes I know Intelligence is important. No Fighter focuses on INT just for 1 feat!
PA: Well, I don't see the point in condemning the gamble that is 3.5 Power Attack. That's exactly how combat works. You find out how reckless you can swing your sword *and* hit your opponent. As a side note I used PA mostly to ease the math, making the attack bonus an even number to make calculation easier (2:00 am and 5 attacks per round did this to me...)
I do see the point in condemning the 3.5 PA as being the only option in martial combat. But that's not the problem with PA. It's the problem with the other fighter options. They're too weak or too costly in comparison too PA. Whirlwind Attack? 4 feat prerequesite, mildly strong ability. PA? no real Prerequesite, average ability.
Result: I´m playing PnP for 7 years now. Never seen a fighter with Whirlwind. PA? Sure bet.
So for the rules: cap of 1/3 BAB plus STR. Full variability. The gamble is totally what makes PA interesting.
Or vary the fighter options like 4E did. PRPG set a beginning in adding many combat feats. But they have to divide to 4 (!) different fighting styles: one-handed weapon + shield, two-handed weapon, two-weapon fighting, ranged combat. Reduces the options available to everyone to combat maneuver feats (all melee only), the spring attack/shot on the run feat trees, Weapon specific Feats (3 for everyone, 5 for Fighters).
Well 6 and a half options for martials. Same as for schools for wizards you could say. But they are mostly not limited to one school (4 and two halves in the worst case I'd rather say), martial characters are. With 1 or 2, maybe 3 different maneuvers to pull.
Spellcasters? I'm not starting on the indefinite number of combinations possible.
When there must be a cap make it a fraction of BAB + STR. Don't mess with variability until there are enough feat-induced variations available.
Seconded. Please. Pretty please. With sugar on top.
I see no point altogether in making a feat that used to be late-game warriors' meat and drink (Combat Expertise) into a Wizard-only feat. Furthermore, nerfing power attack the way you did make warriors even more chronically dependant on magic items if they want to be of any use in the second half of the game.
if it takes so much experience with how much to add or take from the 3.5 Power Attack, why not add a hint to the "best" value to the monster description s and give it to the fighter via a Knowledge check?
can't be that hard to make a table with Attack-Bonus vs Armour-Classs to determine the desired hit chance percentages
actually, since the monsters AC is known only one tabe or graphic is required somwhere in the GM section of the handbook
[...]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
[...]
First: When I read your posts and I'd say I like most of it.
But this? This is just so unbalenced.And second: Do fighter - of all classes - really need more AC?
I also believe that power attack should be restored -- anything that helps the melee attackers compete with the spellslingers is more than welcome. It was not overbalanced.
The only change that I would recommend would be to remove the 2 for 1 for two-handed weapons when power attacking -- so whether using a shortsword 1-handed or a greataxe 2-handed, your power attack damage would be the same. Two-handed weapons already have some nifty feats that help out their damage (i.e.: overhand chop and it's chain of feats). This would also help to keep the damaged balanced when weighing the option of whether to use sword and board for better AC, or to two-hander attack for more damage.