|
I honestly don't know. My players hate it, but it is more because the old one was so abusable and becuase the old one was so easy to use and they are used to it. Same with Cleave. I think, in the end, we will likely go back to the old version, almost definetly for Cleave. But i really want to test it out more. I do think that power Attack should have some sort of cap on it. I have just never been a fan of it being tied to an Ability score or so level dependant.
I once ran into a GM that was apparently meta gaming, so I came up with this idea.
Use the PRPG rules for power attack, but have it so they take -1, or in sets of -5. That way they have a some what limited cap on how much exactly they can power attack for, and instead of having 20 options, they have only at most 6, and that is only at level 20.
I'm gonna wait and see. It works pretty well for 2-handers, and gives one more minor benefit to sticking with your melee class for 20 levels.
I'm gonna wait and see. It works pretty well for 2-handers, and gives one more minor benefit to sticking with your melee class for 20 levels.
That and the extra 20 hp.
I'll be running the new pathfinder next week and I'll be running it from the book, I like the new powerattack, its not pointless anymore as it was only really used after stacking modifers or fighting high level monsters with low AC, alot of the high end stuff has really high AC so Power Attack was never used, it was just seen as a gate-way feat to bigger and better feats.
Uh, actually, I hated the old Power Attack, and I even used it in a game.
Someone did some pretty crazy math, and found there was a sweet spot to using Power Attack if you knew your own attack bonus and what your opponent's AC was. It's not hard to find that AC number for a monster over a few rounds, and once you do, you could set your Power Attack value to _just_ the right amount to maximize hitting and damage. And yeah, using that made a gigantic difference.
Trouble was, you basically had to carry around a little spreadsheet of crib notes with you, and I hated the fact that my 'doesn't care to bathe, or to think too hard' barbarian really had to do a lot of math in his head if he was going to be effective.
The new Power Attack preserves the spirit of what the feat is supposed to do, and makes choosing to use it rather simpler. I'm in favor.
hear, hear!
I basically found Power Attack to be pointless until you reached mid-levels, as you have few auto-hits at 1st level. Why so many characters start with that feat, I'll never know.
Uh, actually, I hated the old Power Attack, and I even used it in a game.
Someone did some pretty crazy math, and found there was a sweet spot to using Power Attack if you knew your own attack bonus and what your opponent's AC was. It's not hard to find that AC number for a monster over a few rounds, and once you do, you could set your Power Attack value to _just_ the right amount to maximize hitting and damage. And yeah, using that made a gigantic difference.
Uh, that's that whole point. Power Attack was never meant to be "Turn on" and "Turn off", it's supposed to be something the warrior can change based on his combat with whatever he's fighting. If he gets the right swing in without missing, good for him!
This new power attack is okay, but the old one was way better, and I don't mean that in a mathematic or munchkin way.
Uh, that's that whole point. Power Attack was never meant to be "Turn on" and "Turn off", it's supposed to be something the warrior can change based on his combat with whatever he's fighting. If he gets the right swing in without missing, good for him!
This new power attack is okay, but the old one was way better, and I don't mean that in a mathematic or munchkin way.
I prefer the new way. The old Power Attack interrupted the flow of the game, with those using it having to work out the math for each attack. And it was so easily abused.
I am not sure what the problem some are having with Cleave. Now, it is part of a standard attack, and you only have to hit (not kill) and you get an extra attack against another opponent. How is that worse?
I am not sure what the problem some are having with Cleave. Now, it is part of a standard attack, and you only have to hit (not kill) and you get an extra attack against another opponent. How is that worse?
It's not worse, it's just different. The fact that you have to choose to use the feat is the bad part (as they have done with many of these feats). It wasn't broken, and didn't need to be fixed.
Cleave was a minion killer, now it's not.
Now in order to cleave both opponents must be adjacent to each other and within reach or you cannot use it. Before it seemed you could cleave the opponents that had you flanked if you dropped one, but not now.
I am not sure what the problem some are having with Cleave. Now, it is part of a standard attack, and you only have to hit (not kill) and you get an extra attack against another opponent. How is that worse?It's not worse, it's just different. The fact that you have to choose to use the feat is the bad part (as they have done with many of these feats). It wasn't broken, and didn't need to be fixed.
Cleave was a minion killer, now it's not.
I must be missing something here. I still see it as a minion killer, as you will be using it much more often than before, as you only have to hit, not kill the minion to get an extra attack. To me it seems that it is much more useful now as you will be able to use it against higher level minions, rather than just 1st level one. As well, Greater Cleave is also more useful now.
I am not sure what the problem some are having with Cleave. Now, it is part of a standard attack, and you only have to hit (not kill) and you get an extra attack against another opponent. How is that worse?It's not worse, it's just different. The fact that you have to choose to use the feat is the bad part (as they have done with many of these feats). It wasn't broken, and didn't need to be fixed.
Cleave was a minion killer, now it's not.
Now in order to cleave both opponents must be adjacent to each other and within reach or you cannot use it. Before it seemed you could cleave the opponents that had you flanked if you dropped one, but not now.
+1
I am not sure what the problem some are having with Cleave. Now, it is part of a standard attack, and you only have to hit (not kill) and you get an extra attack against another opponent. How is that worse?It's not worse, it's just different. The fact that you have to choose to use the feat is the bad part (as they have done with many of these feats). It wasn't broken, and didn't need to be fixed.
Cleave was a minion killer, now it's not.
Apparently you never played in a campaign where someone used cleave to destroy powerful monsters in one hit using a bag full of slugs.
Mechanically it's much less breakable now.
-Campbell
That actually was Great Cleave in coordination with an additional ability that added more damage and/or attack bonus for each hit landed.
Plus the fact that the GM really should have counted it as a swarm, rather than individuals.
I totally keep with my idea that the olde power attack was better because it was more useful for the melee. You know, they needed all the help they could get to keep on the power level. Now casters gained some more things, and non-caster didn't gain enough. While I think it makes the game easier for the begginers, I'll always keep the old power attack, even if the Pope asks me to use the new one.
Not to mention that I go even foward and give power attack and combat expertise to EVERYONE for free (they are in my game simple combat options)...
The old one had much better potential.
|
I like the new power attack, it is much more beneficial for sword and board, and TWF, something it didnt do in 3.5. it was what made two handed fighting broken.
and it is much more simple to figure for npc's and monsters, this can greatly speed up combat (which can get too bogged down at higher levels)
"I plan to keep the numbers as they are for now, but allow players to choose how much to sac."
This is something sweet, that should be in the core book, I believe.
"I plan to keep the numbers as they are for now, but allow players to choose how much to sac."
This is something sweet, that should be in the core book, I believe.
Agreed. it doesn't explicitly say you can choose how much PA you want to use, but it makes sense that you should be able to. It's YOUR attack, after all.
|
I like the new power attack, it is much more beneficial for sword and board, and TWF, something it didnt do in 3.5. it was what made two handed fighting broken.
and it is much more simple to figure for npc's and monsters, this can greatly speed up combat (which can get too bogged down at higher levels)
The new power attack makes more than one fighting style viable and that is a big bonus in my eyes.
Much love for the new power attack here. It's simple and useful to all fighting styles not just the two handers
Much love for the new power attack here. It's simple and useful to all fighting styles not just the two handers
I have no problems with the ratio, so would the best of both be too powerful?
They get to chose up to their base attack in minus to hit, and get the ratio 1:1 light, 1:2 one handed, 1:3 two handed.
I'm going to try the new version, but at later levels I'll let them scale back if they want (i.e you can still take -1 for +2 damage, or -2 for +4 damage, even if your BAB is 20).
This is part of a sort of meta-houserule which says "if you could do it at 1st level, you can do it at 20th, period". (except, of course, for swapped spells or retrained feats). I also let people voluntarily cast their spells at a lower caster level if they want, or even "hold back" on attacks in order to deal less damage.
I like the Power Attack, and I abused the old one A LOT! Still I prefer this one, it makes much more sense to have a bigger ratio. The one with this feat knows how to fight, he would not sacrifice it all for a crappy ratio. And in fact it makes Average AC monsters much more killable than before, since u sacrifice the same amount and deal more damage than before.
Cleave... MUCH better, it makes MUCH more sense. It made no sense AT ALL you having to down one opponent to get another attack now, did it?
And the great cleave is the answer of the Strong Arm Warrior for Whirlwind attack... Thanks Paizo ;-)
Much love for the new power attack here. It's simple and useful to all fighting styles not just the two handersI have no problems with the ratio, so would the best of both be too powerful?
They get to chose up to their base attack in minus to hit, and get the ratio 1:1 light, 1:2 one handed, 1:3 two handed.
The point of the change was to speed up combat. You have 2 attack blocks written, power attacking and not power attacking. You dont have to do a whole bunch of new arithmatic every time you attack. It saves a HUGE amount of time at my table where players would try to find the 'best' amount to power attack for. I really like this particular change.
My players didn't like Power Attack at first but after using it they aren't as opposed to it. Cleave on the other hand my players love that. It gives the fighter mobility as it's a standard action while giving them 2 attacks. On top of that it gives you two attacks at 1st level for fighter if you aren't going two weapon fighting.
New power attack is in the vein that most of PF is simplified 3.5e. Now I know exactly what you mean when you declare power attack and we don't have to have graphing calculators.
As for cleave, a friend of mine once declared that new cleave is inferior to old cleave because of the amount of minions you could kill. I thought about it and told him that I'd never seen a DM throw a party up against fifty monsters they could one-shot-kill, and he ceded that point. Has anyone ever fought like sixty unedited goblins at level twelve? If so, did the wizard just cone of cold them all to kill them or did you actually get to attack? :P
As for cleave, a friend of mine once declared that new cleave is inferior to old cleave because of the amount of minions you could kill. I thought about it and told him that I'd never seen a DM throw a party up against fifty monsters they could one-shot-kill, and he ceded that point. Has anyone ever fought like sixty unedited goblins at level twelve? If so, did the wizard just cone of cold them all to kill them or did you actually get to attack? :P
Yes and both. It was a part of a larger battle where the party was helping to hold off a horde. The party was mixed in with friendly soldiers so the wizard couldnt nuke all of them, but the great cleave fighter had alot of fun getting surrounded.
After having played with the new Power Attack and Cleave I have to say I love them compared to the old.
Cleave has become a ton more useful, since you no longer have to kill something to get the second attack, just hit something.
Power attack has also become usefull more often as the damage to inaccuracy ratio has improved immensly at all levels. While power attack is not longer the howitzer it used to be at high levels, it is far more usable with most builds, and not just amazing on purely optimized builds.
So while those who used to optimized 2H damage in 3.5 will definately see a loss of burst DPS, most people should see an overall damage increase since it is far less innacurate to use power attack now.
My group definatley likes the change. Same with Multishot. While our archers miss the mobility the old multishot used to give they love the overall rate of fire increase with no accuracy loss that it now gives. Especially since it can be combined with Quick Shot now as well.
Loved the 3.5 Power Attack, its simplicity and power. Can anyone show me how this new feat is integrated with other feats potentially? I am considering canning the new one in favor of the old...what do others think?
Well ... I don't think it interacts/integrates with any other feats beyond being a pre-req at times.
As far as old vs. new:
old = unlimited -1/+1 exchange dependent upon/limited to BAB. You could go up to a +20 to damage (base), but did so at a -20 to hit. A very fair, and easily intuited exchange.
new = -1/+2 to damage, but limited by BAB. Only able to increase -1/+2 for every +4 bab points you have as you progress, to a maximum of -5/+10 by 20th level. The penalty/progression is highly regulated, but the bonus is doubled by comparison to the old version.
My problems with the new version is that it's NOT scaling nicely (or as nicely) as the old version. It's still just 1 feat, though, and getting a x2 in exchange is rather nice.
IMO, the *real* easy way to fix/mod it will be like so: Create a new feat that improves power attacks' default progression.
Improved Power Attack: {prereq = str 15+ and power attack}
This improved version of power attack will change the progression of the power attack's improvement markers. Now for every +2 bab points a character has, he can take an -1 on his to hit and exchange that for the +2 to damage. This raises the maximum trade off at level 20 to -10/+20 to damage.
It'll keep the same ratio, but improves the gain in progression much closer to the old version w/out giving up SO much variance (ie: -5 max, and ONLY when you hit level 20 at that). It's not as fully open, and requires 2 feats, but there are more feats open in PF anyway.
new = -1/+2 to damage, but limited by BAB. Only able to increase -1/+2 for every +4 bab points you have as you progress, to a maximum of -5/+10 by 20th level.
Actually, it would be -6/+12 at 20th level.
Power Attack starts with -1/+2 and at 4th level (and every 4 levels) adds another -1/+2.
Cleave has become a ton more useful, since you no longer have to kill something to get the second attack, just hit something.
But with the condition of needing the second target adjacent to the first, its' usefulness is just as situational. (That is because, if possible, no two enemies should be adjacent. It is bad tactics.)
I'll admit that change to Cleave eliminates the weirdness of attacking a target in front and cleaving to the back... And it makes a certain amount of sense. But it clips the new Cleave at least as much as the old Cleave did with needing to drop an opponent.
The new Power Attack is not mediocre, it is exactly in line with other feats.
The old Power Attack was ridiculously broken, way more powerful than most other combat feats (as was evidenced by the sheer volume of players who always selected it).
The old feat caused lots of confusion and slowed the game down with new players, while old players were tempted to abuse the hell out of it.
With the new feat, all I gotta do is write...
Melee greatsword +5 (2d6+6) or
Melee greatsword +4 (2d6+9) with Power Attack
...onto the character sheet and I'm done! No confusion, no slowing the game down, no big abuse, nothing! It is a perfectly balanced and easy-to-use combat option now.
A feat should not cause the game to screech to a halt while the player figures out how to maximize his hit and damage potential by selecting exactly the right value to PA. A wizard casting a 10-die fireball takes less time than figuring out the sweet spot in the old PA.
Does anyone know of a spreadsheet where I can input my mean damage (or damage range), critical hit multipliers, attack bonus and it can spit out the optimal amount of power attack to maximize mean damage for a 2H pathfinder weapon for an array of different ACs? If so, can you post the link? I found one online that was very comprehensive, but not Pathfinder, and I'm not sure it is factoring in the -1 attack for +3 damage as it is for pathfinder 2H weapons.
I don't know of any.
But with the condition of needing the second target adjacent to the first, its' usefulness is just as situational. (That is because, if possible, no two enemies should be adjacent. It is bad tactics.)
That's depends entirely on the enemies. Only well lead or highly experienced opponents should be able to both maximize their own effectiveness AND minimize their opponents abilities. Not to mention that leaving holes in your line is a great way to lose a battle.
new = -1/+2 to damage, but limited by BAB. Only able to increase -1/+2 for every +4 bab points you have as you progress, to a maximum of -5/+10 by 20th level.Actually, it would be -6/+12 at 20th level.
Power Attack starts with -1/+2 and at 4th level (and every 4 levels) adds another -1/+2.
Ok, I stand corrected, but it has no impact on my suggestion. ;-)