People complaining about the change made to Power Attack. (Specifically, in regards to 3.5 feats Shock Trooper and Leap Attack).
Power Attack, in 3.5, was meant as a method of sacrificing accuracy for damage. Pretty reasonable! Pathfinder's power attack works the same way, but it streamlines it a bit - you can't vary the amount you sacrifice, but to make up for that, you get bigger returns.
The reason people complain about it is that you can't give up your entire attack bonus to get a huge damage bonus. The thing is, under normal use of Power Attack, most people wouldn't do that anyway - you'd be highly unlikely to hit anything.
But here's the rub - combining two different feats, Shock Trooper (which lets you sacrifice AC instead of attack bonus when you Power Attack) and Leap Attack (which lets you double or even triple your power attack bonus damage if you.. jump at the end of your charge, which is trivially easy to do), players were able to sacrifice their entire AC for attacks that do absurd amounts of damage. Now, I'm no master game theorist, but I'm pretty sure that's never how Power Attack was intended to be used.
Pathfinder doesn't even invalidate this feat combination - if you take the fixed (rather than variable) penalty to AC and take both feats, you can still get a nice dollop of extra damage - especially considering that Pathfinder gives you bigger returns. You just don't get ABSURD amounts.
Pathfinder rewards the use of power attack as originally intended, and reins in blatant abuse of its original variable nature. And that's why I think people who complain about the Shock Trooper / Leap Attack combo being "nerfed" (read: fixed) are being a bit unreasonable.
(And no, I don't care that spellcasters get nicer things.)
The character building/optimization aspect of 3.5 has generated an attitude in tabletop gaming that just rubs me the wrong way. I love character customization in tabletop games - indeed, it's the primary reason I don't just exclusively play AD&D - but I don't believe the game was designed to be primarily about making effective characters.
Sorry, just had to vent about that. I know there's no "right" or "wrong" way to play the game, but people get so heated and personal about it that it infuriates me.
Not only does Pathfinder Power Attack limit what can be sacrificed, you aren't allowed to choose what is sacrificed. At a given level, if you use power attack, you always lose a specific amount from your to-hit. Then there is the significant loss in its power. You are maxing out at -5 to-hit/+10 damage at level 20. Sure, that's nice, but you could do that at level 10 previously. The reduction in penalty to to-hit and increase in damage does not make up for the total loss in power and the loss of control over the feat.
Edit to match Rixx's Edit:
I personally as an optimizer LIKE the new version of power attack. The better returns means its actually better for what it's meant to do. And the optimizer in me doesnt force me to do in prompt due calculations to figure out how much minus to attack yeilds the most damage. I can just figure out if power attack on or off is better based on % to hit. And if we limit a pretty rediculous combo as a result im ok with that.
"Applause"
Ditto. Well said.
Well, I just wonder how people can be so proud to make ridiculously effective characters in 3.5. It's not exactly a water-tight system.
"Applause"Ditto. Well said.
I missed the first one, you got me. It's -6/+12. The x1.5 doesn't count because it's an irrelevant factoring.
I missed the first one, you got me. It's -6/+12. The x1.5 doesn't count because it's an irrelevant factoring.
Pardon? I don't understand what you mean.
Pardon? I don't understand what you mean.I missed the first one, you got me. It's -6/+12. The x1.5 doesn't count because it's an irrelevant factoring.
How did you get -6/+18.
3.0/3.5 was phenomenally broken with regards to characters that broke the system, Pathfinder at least has taken steps to correct this somewhat.
Sure its not perfect, but its our system.
Frankly, its more cohesive than it used to be, and characters that were suboptimal choices now have more potential.
Sure some people think too many choices can be a bad thing when it comes to options.
But consider that in 3.0/3.5 there was dozens of alternative class features in virtually every official sourcebook they released (Dungeonscape, etc) and technically, that makes 3.5 WORSE in terms of too many options if thats a problem for players.
But the systems much more refined than it used to be, plus with the new errata that was released recently, we're already in the process of fine tuning things.
Well, my complaint isn't the change so much as the relationship between Power Attack and Cleave.
In 3.5, Power Attack made mechanical sense with Cleave. If you deal more HP, you're more likely to drop a target and get an extra attack.
In Pathfinder, Power Attack and Cleave are at cross-purposes. You will almost never want to Power Attack and Cleave at the same time, because then you diminish your chances of getting a whole second damage roll.
Now, this touches off my irritation with Feat pre-requisites in general, that is, if two feats are not mechanically linked then they should not be in a pre-req chain, since that screws characters. I have seen so many interesting concepts undone by the Combat Expertise pre-req. Now add Cleave to the list of feats that is road-blocked by a nonsensical pre-requisite.
How did you get -6/+18.Pardon? I don't understand what you mean.I missed the first one, you got me. It's -6/+12. The x1.5 doesn't count because it's an irrelevant factoring.
You take -6 to hit and get +18 to damage in the normal way that Power Attack is used (two-handed). Compare this to -20 to hit and +40 damage in 3.5E.
You know what really grinds my gears? People complaining. They should just move on already. :)
...
Fair enough.
You take -6 to hit and get +18 to damage in the normal way that Power Attack is used (two-handed). Compare this to -20 to hit and +40 damage in 3.5E.
Exactly my point. That is not the rule. The rule is -1/+2. The max is -6/+12. Whether or not it is used two-handed is irrelevant because that is just a general continuation of the rules and held over from 3.5. It isn't important to factor it in.
...The reduction in penalty to to-hit and increase in damage does not make up for the total loss in power and the loss of control over the feat.
I have found starkly the opposite in my personal experience. Power Attack is used much more often now than previsouly, ESPECIALLY at lower levels. Before the minus was too much to risk for the benefit at levels 8 or less. Now with the much better return, it is far easier for my lower level melee types to hit accurately with the damage boost from PA.
And at epic levels, I use it ALL THE TIME and I never would before. With the minus to hit being so small for the damage boost it is a lot more usable now.
a -5 for 5 more damage at level 21 was not worth it but for +10 it definaetly is (-5 is my max from BAB on my cleric/Fighter)
Well, my complaint isn't the change so much as the relationship between Power Attack and Cleave.
In 3.5, Power Attack made mechanical sense with Cleave. If you deal more HP, you're more likely to drop a target and get an extra attack.
In Pathfinder, Power Attack and Cleave are at cross-purposes. You will almost never want to Power Attack and Cleave at the same time, because then you diminish your chances of getting a whole second damage roll.
Now, this touches off my irritation with Feat pre-requisites in general, that is, if two feats are not mechanically linked then they should not be in a pre-req chain, since that screws characters. I have seen so many interesting concepts undone by the Combat Expertise pre-req. Now add Cleave to the list of feats that is road-blocked by a nonsensical pre-requisite.
I agree. I could make a very nice list of new Pathfinder rules which just don't work with rules and design held-over from 3.5 for no discernible reason.
I suppose we'll have to wait for Pathfinder 2e :<
...The reduction in penalty to to-hit and increase in damage does not make up for the total loss in power and the loss of control over the feat.I have found starkly the opposite in my personal experience. Power Attack is used much more often now than previsouly, ESPECIALLY at lower levels. Before the minus was too much to risk for the benefit at levels 8 or less. Now with the much better return, it is far easier for my lower level melee types to hit accurately with the damage boost from PA.
And at epic levels, I use it ALL THE TIME and I never would before. With the minus to hit being so small for the damage boost it is a lot more usable now.
a -5 for 5 more damage at level 21 was not worth it but for +10 it definaetly is (-5 is my max from BAB on my cleric/Fighter)
An immensely better rewrite of Power Attack would have been.
You may take a penalty to attack up to half of your BAB (minimum 1) in order to deal +2 damage on the attack.
And at epic levels, I use it ALL THE TIME and I never would before.
That's funny. There is no epic play in Pathfinder.
Exactly my point. That is not the rule. The rule is -1/+2. The max is -6/+12. Whether or not it is used two-handed is irrelevant because that is just a general continuation of the rules and held over from 3.5. It isn't important to factor it in.
Well, in 3.5 power attack was -1/+1 or -1/+2 if used two handed.
In Pathfinder power attack is -1/+2 or -1/+3 if used two handed.Big difference. I for one would have gotten rid of the bonus increase for two handed weapons, but then the complaints would have REALLY been flying!
3.5 SRD for Power Attack:
"Prerequisite: Str 13.
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 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 one-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 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.)"
In Pathfinder, Power Attack and Cleave are at cross-purposes. You will almost never want to Power Attack and Cleave at the same time, because then you diminish your chances of getting a whole second damage roll.
I don't think I agree with your numbers here. The addition of Cleave to the calculation is generally only going to make a marginal difference in determining whether Power Attack is optimal. It definitely doesn't elminate anywhere near a lion's share of the scenarios.
Again take away shocktrooper and leap attack and I would prefer MOST OF THE TIME the -6/+12 (which was not an option for you in 3.5)
Which still fails to make it good design. You still don't get the choice of how much you want to reduce your attack and it is still significantly weaker.
Exactly my point. That is not the rule. The rule is -1/+2. The max is -6/+12. Whether or not it is used two-handed is irrelevant because that is just a general continuation of the rules and held over from 3.5. It isn't important to factor it in.
You take -6 to hit and get +18 to damage in the normal way that Power Attack is used (two-handed). Compare this to -20 to hit and +40 damage in 3.5E.
I see what you're saying now. I would say it is important to factor in, and it's actually in 3.5's favor. Two-handed under 3.5 did 2x damage, not 1.5x.
So you can compare:
Exactly my point. That is not the rule. The rule is -1/+2. The max is -6/+12. Whether or not it is used two-handed is irrelevant because that is just a general continuation of the rules and held over from 3.5. It isn't important to factor it in.Well, in 3.5 power attack was -1/+1 or -1/+2 if used two handed.
In Pathfinder power attack is -1/+2 or -1/+3 if used two handed.Big difference. I for one would have gotten rid of the bonus increase for two handed weapons, but then the complaints would have REALLY been flying!
*Face palm*
I appreciate your obfuscation of what Power Attack actually says, but let's try again.3.5: -1/+1, x2
PF: -1/+2/4 lvl, x1.5
Exactly my point. That is not the rule. The rule is -1/+2. The max is -6/+12. Whether or not it is used two-handed is irrelevant because that is just a general continuation of the rules and held over from 3.5. It isn't important to factor it in.
You take -6 to hit and get +18 to damage in the normal way that Power Attack is used (two-handed). Compare this to -20 to hit and +40 damage in 3.5E.
If we want to make an honest comparison we need to compare two-handed, not one-handed, damage -- because that's the way the feat is typically used. PF damage is -1/+3, while 3.5E damage is -1/+2. Ignoring Shock Trooper (and I always do), that's still the appropriate comparison.
I see what you're saying now. I would say it is important to factor in, and it's actually in 3.5's favor. Two-handed under 3.5 did 2x damage, not 1.5x.So you can compare:
Two-handed: -6/+18 to, say, -9/+18 at 9th level.
One-handed: -6/+12 to -12/+12 at 12th level.
Off-handed: -6/+6 to -6/+0 at 6th level
...what?
Two-handed under 3.5 did 2x damage, not 1.5x.
The attack BONUS is increased by 1.5x - that means, using PF power attack, you get 3 points of damage for every attack bonus point sacrificed (instead of 3.5's 2 points per).
If we want to make an honest comparison we need to compare two-handed, not one-handed, damage -- because that's the way the feat is typically used.
Being entirely irrelevant.
Man, I was totally not meaning to start another Power Attack debate! I thought we could just all share horror stories about their friends complaining about cheese being invalidated by the new rules D:
Difficult formula:
3.5: -1/+1, x2
PF: -1/+2 + -1/+2/4 lvl, x1.5
I thought we could just all share horror stories about their friends complaining about cheese being invalidated by the new rules D:
You made the mistake of thinking everyone shares your opinion. Especially on an extremely contentious rule change.
I agree. I could make a very nice list of new Pathfinder rules which just don't work with rules and design held-over from 3.5 for no discernible reason.
(detect magic, create water)
Well, anyway, if you're looking for a fix to the Pre-req problem, I tell my players this:
There are no feat pre-reqs for any feats, unless there is a direct mechanical link between the two feats in question (Spell focus, greater spell focus).
If you ignore a listed feat pre-req, you must be at least high enough level to have been able to take the pre-req feat first (although you don't actually need the feat). For example, Whirlwind attack becomes: Dex 13, Base Attack +4, and at least 4 other feats.
This allows players access to some of the more interesting feats in the game without having to detour through something they don't want and doesn't make sense. The level requirement keeps them from getting access too early.
The interesting thing is that under a reasonable range of expected enemy AC values, the PF Power attack approaches the optimal Power Attack in a good percentage of cases.
Difficult formula:
3.5: -1/+1, x2
PF: -1/+2 + -1/+2/4 lvl, x1.5
Well, to be more exact.
3.5: (-1 atk/+1 dmg)/1 BAB with a damage modifier of x2 two-handedPF: (-1 atk/+2 dmg)/4 BAB with a damage modifier of x1.5 two-handed and the inability to decide on the attack penalty
Difficult formula:
3.5: -1/+1, x2
PF: -1/+2 + -1/+2/4 lvl, x1.5Well, to be more exact.
3.5: (-1 atk/+1 dmg)/1 BAB with a damage modifier of x2 two-handed
PF: (-1 atk/+2 dmg)/4 BAB with a damage modifier of x1.5 two-handed and the inability to decide on the attack penalty
Mmm, well, except you left in the one thing I corrected:
PF: (-1 atk/+2 dmg) + (-1 atk/+2 dmg)/4 BAB with a damage modifier of x1.5 two-handed
So you are all bummed out that your 20th level fighter with a greatsword can only power attack for -6/+18 instead of being able to choose some great thing like -10/+20?
WOW! We are almost at 1 post/minute on this thread! Who knew?
Difficult formula:
3.5: -1/+1, x2
PF: -1/+2 + -1/+2/4 lvl, x1.5Well, to be more exact.
3.5: (-1 atk/+1 dmg)/1 BAB with a damage modifier of x2 two-handed
PF: (-1 atk/+2 dmg)/4 BAB with a damage modifier of x1.5 two-handed and the inability to decide on the attack penalty
Right. So a PF Fighter 12 wielding a greatsword can power attack for -4/+12.
Alternatively, a 3.5E Fighter 12 can power attack for -4/+8, or -6/+12 (choosing the same penalty for less damage or a greater penalty for the same damage), or can go all the way to -12/+24. The "all the way" option is pretty much never going to be damage-optimal, though.
|
What I miss from 3.5's Power Attack is one character I can't recreate effectively in Pathfinder - a Paladin/Bard with the Knowledge Domain. She would actually be able to sacrifice her entire BaB into damage when all of her attack buffs were up. There are some cases where having a huge attack bonus is necessary. There are a lot where it's just a waste. Pathfinder negates a certain amount of that with it's Power Attack feat, but not nearly as much as previous possible.
I never had a problem with players having spreadsheets or calculating power attack values for minutes at a time - so I didn't see the need for the change personally. But a lot of people talk about how it was a huge issue at their table. So I lose a favorite character I would love to bring back. It's not like there aren't a ton more.
Maybe the bard stuff in the APG will make her a possibility again. :)
What I miss from 3.5's Power Attack is one character I can't recreate effectively in Pathfinder - a Paladin/Bard with the Knowledge Domain. She would actually be able to sacrifice her entire BaB into damage when all of her attack buffs were up. There are some cases where having a huge attack bonus is necessary. There are a lot where it's just a waste. Pathfinder negates a certain amount of that with it's Power Attack feat, but not nearly as much as previous possible.
I never had a problem with players having spreadsheets or calculating power attack values for minutes at a time - so I didn't see the need for the change personally. But a lot of people talk about how it was a huge issue at their table. So I lose a favorite character I would love to bring back. It's not like there aren't a ton more.
Maybe the bard stuff in the APG will make her a possibility again. :)
Personally, I really like that this cheeze, and the lvl 20 barb with UMD and a wand of truestrike is gone from this world. I also like taking lots of less damage from high str monsters who didn't care what your AC was, they just hit.
Right. So a PF Fighter 12 wielding a greatsword can power attack for -4/+12.
Alternatively, a 3.5E Fighter 12 can power attack for -4/+8, or -6/+12 (choosing the same penalty for less damage or a greater penalty for the same damage), or can go all the way to -12/+24. The "all the way" option is pretty much never going to be damage-optimal, though.
All this still fails to counter my point was the change to Power Attack is still bad. I already stated at least one half-way point that is significantly better than the current design.
All this still fails to counter my point was the change to Power Attack is still bad. I already stated at least one half-way point that is significantly better than the current design.
Right. So a PF Fighter 12 wielding a greatsword can power attack for -4/+12.
Alternatively, a 3.5E Fighter 12 can power attack for -4/+8, or -6/+12 (choosing the same penalty for less damage or a greater penalty for the same damage), or can go all the way to -12/+24. The "all the way" option is pretty much never going to be damage-optimal, though.
Which part do you feel is bad design: limiting it to a quarter BAB, eliminating intermediate choices, or both?
Hey Cartigan you realize by the way you've worded that, at level 10 a fighter will take up to a minus 5 penalty, but only deal +2 damage, and you consider that a better feat :P
You may take a penalty to attack up to half of your BAB (minimum 1) in order to deal +2 damage on the attack.
No, that's just your Fighter. Mine gets +10 damage.
Which part do you feel is bad design: limiting it to a quarter BAB, eliminating intermediate choices, or both?All this still fails to counter my point was the change to Power Attack is still bad. I already stated at least one half-way point that is significantly better than the current design.
Right. So a PF Fighter 12 wielding a greatsword can power attack for -4/+12.
Alternatively, a 3.5E Fighter 12 can power attack for -4/+8, or -6/+12 (choosing the same penalty for less damage or a greater penalty for the same damage), or can go all the way to -12/+24. The "all the way" option is pretty much never going to be damage-optimal, though.
Primary limiting choice, but I don't agree with limiting to quarter BAB either.
|
|
Personally, I really like that this cheeze, and the lvl 20 barb with UMD and a wand of truestrike is gone from this world. I also like taking lots of less damage from high str monsters who didn't care what your AC was, they just hit.
Remember, this is a 3.5 Paladin / Bard. She had to take a lot of feats to even be allowed to multiclass in that way, and Paladins and Bards in 3.5 were hardly powerhouses. Not only that, she had NO dump stat. Strength and Con are needed for a meleer, Dex was necessary because she could only wear light armor, Charisma of course was key, and Wisdom was a casting stat. I suppose I could consider Int a dump stat, but I need my skill points to enjoy playing a character - also, no flat +2, unlike in Pathfinder. I think her highest stat was a 14 in Charisma. A couple 13s for feat requirements and then average scores across the board.
I'm pretty proud of being able to make a Fighter / Magic User with a strange, underpowered combination of classes and have her not absolutely stink at everything.
Personally, I really like that this cheeze, and the lvl 20 barb with UMD and a wand of truestrike is gone from this world. I also like taking lots of less damage from high str monsters who didn't care what your AC was, they just hit.Remember, this is a 3.5 Paladin / Bard. She had to take a lot of feats to even be allowed to multiclass in that way, and Paladins and Bards in 3.5 were hardly powerhouses. Not only that, she had NO dump stat. Strength and Con are needed for a meleer, Dex was necessary because she could only wear light armor, Charisma of course was key, and Wisdom was a casting stat. I suppose I could consider Int a dump stat, but I need my skill points to enjoy playing a character - also, no flat +2, unlike in Pathfinder. I think her highest stat was a 14 in Charisma. A couple 13s for feat requirements and then average scores across the board.
I'm pretty proud of being able to make a Fighter / Magic User with a strange, underpowered combination of classes and have her not absolutely stink at everything.
What I'd do in this case is make a follow-up feat with Power Attack as a prerequisite that allows you to opt for a bigger sacrifice / return.
