|
So, this is in part a crossover with the feats section but it's directly aimed at PFRPG combat rules.
In this thread, Mattastrophic and Jess Door made the case that you need Power Attack back as in 3.5 -- ie, capped at full BAB and the player can pick how many points of to-hit to trade for damage -- for AC to function properly. You can see exemplar posts here and here but basically the argument is that regarding hitting, what AC does other than its "saving throw" role is to reduce the amount by which the opponent can Power Attack because at some stage the miss chance becomes too high. In that way, AC has a purpose even when it's not stopping the wearer getting hit, because it reduces the damage they take. This reduces the swingyness of combat, particularly at high levels, and is particularly important when to-hit chances are very good (as is the case for some level-appropriate monsters) and some characters find that AC is otherwise a bad investment.
So, in part that's an argument for reverting Power Attack to its 3.5 state (and I hope Jason does it) but also it's an argument for some weaker version being available as a standard combat option, where players can give up some to-hit for some extra damage. I'd be OKish with each two points of Attack Bonus traded, up to BAB, being worth one point of damage or, better, much happier wth it being one-for-one but capped at BAB or 5, whichever is lower (I like this as it makes Power Attack a feat that can wait for a few levels). Then the Power Attack feat would give tha standard 3.5 Power Attack-ness.
A similar argument can be applied to Combar Expertise (and I'm not sure about the 3.5 cap of +5; I'd like to increase it at higher BABs, although not to BAB all the way through).
Yes, there's something of an iteration when you meet a new enemy, but that's part of the fun (and illustrates the advantage of knowing your enemy from experience of fighting them before). Apparently some players (from reports; I've not seen it in my games, but play styles obviously vary) do obsess over by how much to Power Attack, but dealing with that is a DM issue at the table, I think (it hardly seems a necessary result of the rules and the DM can easily insist on a quick decision, given how short combat round are). As a pay-off, we get some more interest in combat but also AC stops being a saving throw and actually serves another purpose, damage limitation...
|
I second (fourth?) the need for an untrained version of Power Attack, preferably under another name (Wild Swing was mentioned above), which can be declared as an option during a normal attack, granting a 2:1 swap of attack bonus:damage.
This is essential, for;
1)realism (it can easily be imagined, so needs a mechanic)
2)dynamic combat (options are good)
3)necessity (PCs with few feats need a means to breach DR, without relying on crits, but at the risk of hitting less often)
Power Attack proper can then be the more effective, efficient, trained use of that ability, for a 1:1 swap.
This has a precedent, in Fighting Defensively, which is open to all, starts as a 2:1 swap, and improves to a 1:1 swap, when upgraded via the Combat Expertise feat.
It also hearks back to the 'called shots' of previous editions, where any attacker, of any class, could apply a penalty to his attack roll (usually -4, but could be higher for higher risk/gain) to gain the chance to try for a benefit like extra damage/trips/bullrushes/stuns, etc.
The untrained version can have more limits, to both the cap, and the free choice of penalty. The important point is that it exists as an option.
Proper Power Attack, as well as moving to the BAB cap, needs to allow the full freedom to choose the modifier. It is, after all, a feat, ie a trained maneuver, for an experienced warrior, practiced over and over and over...
"...option that gives -4 to your attack roll for +2 damage (+3 with a 2 handed weapon)."
I really like that.
Is fighting defensively a full round action? This should be the same type of action.
Just a quick post to agree with you all, here. Good mechanic, although I think it needs a new name. No suggestions from me yet, though. Even if this doesn't make it into Pathfinder, it'll be easy to houserule it in.
Peace,
tfad
|
No; the improved versions (ie the 3.5 versions) need to be available from level 1, to allow dedicated melee-types to pick them, and start on the relevant feat-chains, since they are pre-requisites for so many feats and prestige-classes.
I'm talking about the improved ones that allow you to exceed the +5 cap, although I may just be thinking of Improved CE. I guess there was never a cap on PA.
I'm just saying that CE and PA should be standard options that everyone has at level 1, but caps at +5, then you can buy the improved versions to remove the cap. This of course means you can move right along to Cleave and Improved Trip and the like at 1st.
Yeah, this one's... pretty given, drawing from my posts on the matter.
We already have the mechanics (-1 for +1); all we have to do is use them.
-Matt
Don't they do this in True20?
Offensive Stance and Defensive Stance, where Defensive Stance is fighting defensively from 3.5...
I thought the offensive version of Fighting Defensively was the Charge. Just a point.
A good name for a static (-4 to hit, +2 Damage) would be Fighting Offensively or Offensive Fighting. Wild Swing or other similar language diminish the possible narrative uses, such as using it to account of more directly aimed(called-shot) blows.
|
|
I thought the offensive version of Fighting Defensively was the Charge. Just a point.
That only works if you actually charge, though. In face-to-face combat, it won't work.
A good name for a static (-4 to hit, +2 Damage) would be Fighting Offensively or Offensive Fighting. Wild Swing or other similar language diminish the possible narrative uses, such as using it to account of more directly aimed(called-shot) blows.
I agree with you about the undesirability of 'wild swing' (although I'd prefer for it not to be static but rather selectable up to some limit). There's probably some fencing term for this sort of stuff...
I thought this would go hand in hand with derevised PA and CE feats which would provide the better 1:1 and choice of commitment. The non-feat attack options being static and the feats dynamic.
|
|
I thought this would go hand in hand with derevised PA and CE feats which would provide the better 1:1 and choice of commitment. The non-feat attack options being static and the feats dynamic.
Yeah, I'd certainly prefer that to the current situation. I'd just prefer the option to be dynamic if possible, and the feats to also be dynamic, but better.