|
Also - since power attack is far more useful with single attacks than full attacks - pummeling style (charge) just made it far less useful.That bit - that bolded bit. That's a claim that needs evidencing.
Sorry - I was assuming that you could use logic & math. (too snarky? :P)
For example - if you can hit 80% (hit on a 16) of the time base at level 12 on your first attack, power attack is dropping your accuracy to 60% (hit on a 12) for bonus damage. That's a drop in accuracy of 25% (60/80 is 75, which is 25 less than 100). That's the disadvantage of power attack on a single swing.
I'm not going to go into the math here as to how valuable that extra damage is for the accuracy.
But back the example - consider if they make a full attack. Their second and third attacks will hit 55% & 30% of the time (hit on 11 & 6 respectively). If they power attack their accuracy drops to 35% & 10% (hit on 7 & 2 respectively) Those are drops in accuracy of 36.4% & 66.7%. (35/55 & 10/30 which are 36.4 & 66.7 less than 100).
Therefore the drop in accuracy is much greater for iterative attacks than it is for the first swing, while the bonus damage is static.
This is an example of how power attack is less beneficial with a full attack than it is with a single attack. (true for any initial accuracy numbers)
Now - as to whether or not power attack is worth using is situational. The easier your target is to hit with your average swing, and the lower your damage sans power attack, the more beneficial it is.
Aside, if you're using a one handed weapon power Attack gives you about the same benefit at 1st level that it does at 16th (a 15% increase to a 14.3% increase).
Atatrok, here are the numbers you posted for 12th level:
Longsword DPR: 51.71Longsword DPR w/ Power Attack: 52.2
While I agree that 52.2 is higher than 51.71 it is not significantly higher, and in fact if you rounded both to the nearest whole number (since damage is only done in whole numbers) they are identical.
And of course, having PA means you dont have some other feat.
So, yes, for Twohanded tanks, it's definitely the best feat to take. For One handers, it's Ok,but hardly standard, and for two-weapon guys,there are likely better feats. True, those last are rather rare.
|
Also - since power attack is far more useful with single attacks than full attacks - pummeling style (charge) just made it far less useful.That bit - that bolded bit. That's a claim that needs evidencing.
Evidence:
I am about level 10 with a +18 to hit. I am a martial character. The enemy ac I need to hit ranges from 24-28. I am more likely than not to hit most things I will face barring variables.
I power attack and reduce my chance of hitting by 15% on my best attack. I now have a +15 to hit. On level appropriate enemies I have just around a 50% shot at landing my strikes but against much else these numbers cease to favor me slightly. On the tough challenges, I only need to roll a 13, though.
My second attack is already at -5 so without power attacking I had a +13 to hit, which dependong on what I am fighting is fine or makes for a hard hit to land. Without power attack I need to roll an 11-15 to land my hits. The odds do not favor me but the chances on level appropriate enemies is very reasonable. But I am power attacking so my bonus to hit is really only a +10. This means that I need to roll a 14-18 to land a hit oj anything with my iterative. It should be obvious now that using power attack can and will hurt your chances of hitting in a way that measurably impacts damage dealt.
Power attack is better on highly accurate characters than it is on anyone else. Barbarians and characters with weapon focus or highly optimized strength scores and secondary abilities that are currently active and available on the target (judgment for attack, study target, favored enemy) are far better off using the feat than anyone else. The fighter I demonstrated above is not optimized he's a nod to a real fighter who began with a 17-18 str instead of a 20. He purchased a +4 belt instead of spending half his wealth on a single item. His weapon is +2 with no frills so everything is on to hit and damage. Normally, this fighter hits pretty hard and hits pretty often. This only becomes half true once he begins to use power attack. Without flanking, accuracy buffs and the like, he does more damage without the feat when using a full attack than he does with the feat when doing a full attack. This applies to every monster he should ever face at his level. Mook? That +6-9 damage on the first hit probably doesn't make up for the fact that you are likely to completely whiff on all of the rest of your attacks as a direct result of using power attack.
Before you could have landed the +13 attack for 1d8+8 (or whatever) on an 11 but now since you need a +14 that isn't going to happen nearly as often. You were better off just using a single attack.
*edit* adjust everything by 2 due to weapon training which I forgot to add in. It doesn't change the facts but it does make the difference much less of a swing. Assuming average rolls, the problem remains the same. Power attack is better on a full attack only if you're very very accurate (or lucky or desperate).
Also, I play in a home game and our fighter doesn't have power attack. He still hits very hard but our enemies are tough and rounds spent missing attacks happen already when we don't have penalties. We have an inquisitor with power attack and he uses it mostly when flanking and buffed. He misses a lot with it otherwise. He tried the always on power attack for the first few levels but not being able to contribute offensively made him change that rule. Believe me, we could use some extra power attack damage. Our gm uses full monster HP.
Foes immune to magic? I'm not sure how common that is among the bestiaries, but among homebrewed monsters and NPCs I have quite a stable of magic immune beings where spellcasters are practically non-participants in a given combat with them. I don't use such too extensively, but they pop up now and again, giving martials a special spot light in such circumstances.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Aside, if you're using a one handed weapon power Attack gives you about the same benefit at 1st level that it does at 16th (a 15% increase to a 14.3% increase).
Atatrok, here are the numbers you posted for 12th level:
Longsword DPR: 51.71
Longsword DPR w/ Power Attack: 52.2While I agree that 52.2 is higher than 51.71 it is not significantly higher, and in fact if you rounded both to the nearest whole number (since damage is only done in whole numbers) they are identical.
And of course, having PA means you dont have some other feat.
So, yes, for Twohanded tanks, it's definitely the best feat to take. For One handers, it's Ok,but hardly standard, and for two-weapon guys,there are likely better feats. True, those last are rather rare.
Um, Mr.Deth...
While I agree that 52.2 is higher than 51.71 it is not significantly higher, and in fact if you rounded both to the nearest whole number (since damage is only done in whole numbers) they are identical.
Do you not understand fractional math over a defined period? It's not the damage for an individual hit, it's damage per round of attacking. It means that in 10 rounds of attacking, one is going to do about 522 points of damage versus the 517.1.
And here you are cherry picking the location on the sliding scale of levels that the difference is the most diminished, and presenting that as if it were a standard.
I'm sick and tired of this sort of dishonesty.
Foes immune to magic? I'm not sure how common that is among the bestiaries, but among homebrewed monsters and NPCs I have quite a stable of magic immune beings where spellcasters are practically non-participants in a given combat with them. I don't use such too extensively, but they pop up now and again, giving martials a special spot light in such circumstances.
If you're intentionally leaning on the weight, what do you expect? The reverse could be true too. If you make lots of monsters that can't be harmed by non-magic, that doesn't do anything to say casters are any stronger. It just means you're engineering the disparity yourself.
In the actual game, extremely few creatures are immune to either magic or physical combat. Golems are about the only ones I can think of that actually are immune to magic, and that's also a bit misleading because the actual truth of their "magic immunity" is that they have infinite spell-resistance, and are affected just fine by any spell that manipulates the battlefield or ignores SR (such as various wall spells, terrain spells, or conjuration spells).
Foes immune to magic? I'm not sure how common that is among the bestiaries, but among homebrewed monsters and NPCs I have quite a stable of magic immune beings where spellcasters are practically non-participants in a given combat with them. I don't use such too extensively, but they pop up now and again, giving martials a special spot light in such circumstances.
I remember our GM years ago toss a monster he got out of Either All the Worlds Monster or Alarums and excursion(Anyone else remember those)that was immune to all magic and could only be hurt by normal weapons
And then there was the Magic eater a cousin of the rust monster that(You guessed it) that ate magic ann all spells did was make it stronger.| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, this escalated quickly.
I apologize. I'm just sick and tired of this gross level of dishonesty rampant across...everything! I just got done making a post refuting the nonsense that Arthantos was saying about Fighters (all of which had nothing to do with actually being a Fighter), only to have DrDeth make a joke out of the effort and work put in by Aratrok by cherry picking and misrepresenting the data (as well as a basic understanding of how numbers work) and in an effort to discredit a member of the boards who is actually putting forth the legwork to make the rest of the community informed on a subject.
Aratrok didn't even present his evidence as empirical. He gave them the formulas that are used and invited them to run their own evaluations. Instead, we get dishonesty. Rubbish. Garbage spewed forth in a way that serves to ensure the continued ignorance of people who haven't seen or bothered to check the facts themselves like Aratrok did.
I'm just so sick of it.
|
|
I never said that it wasn't a good idea. I would have run the damage numbers if I had been making the attempt. I said that it's benefit was reduced with a full attack.
You're straw-manning me!
(And your math is bad. Adjust the pre-accuracy damage for crit % - not the accuracy. Or if you do - it's just a modifier. After that mistake - I stopped reading.)
To be honest Atatrok has posted a number of stats, I just went back to his most recent post on the subject:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ri33&page=6?35-Psionics-Experience-Math-an d-Balance#300
"12th Level
Our Fighter: 26 Str (+1 level bump, advanced to a +5 Str item), +12 BAB, Power Attack, [Gtr] Weapon Focus, [Gtr] Weapon Specialization, Improved Critical, +2 Weapon, Weapon Training +2
Longsword Routine: +26/+21/+16 (1d8+16/17-20)
Greatsword Routine: +26/+21/+16 (2d6+20/17-20)
CR 12 Average AC: 27
Longsword DPR: 51.71
Longsword DPR w/ Power Attack: 52.2
Greatsword DPR: 68.11
Greatsword DPR w/ Power Attack: 71.43"
Then earlier he posted:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rgtb&page=9?Which-foes-are-stupid-enough-t o-not-attack#436
"1st Level
Our Fighter: 18 Str, +1 BAB, Power Attack, Weapon Focus
Longsword Routine: +6 (1d8+4/19-20)
Greatsword Routine: +6 (2d6+6/19-20)
CR 1 Average AC: 12
Longsword DPR: 6.85
Longsword DPR w/ Power Attack: 7.87
Greatsword DPR: 10.48
Greatsword DPR w/ Power Attack: 11.98
4th Level
Our Fighter: 20 Str (+1 level bump, acquired a +1 Str item), +4 BAB, Power Attack, Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Masterwork Weapon
Longsword Routine: +11 (1d8+7/19-20)
Greatsword Routine: +11 (2d6+9/19-20)
CR 4 Average AC: 17
Longsword DPR: 9.27
Longsword DPR w/ Power Attack: 10.73
Greatsword DPR: 12.90
Greatsword DPR w/ Power Attack: 15.23
8th Level
Our Fighter: 22 Str (+1 level bump, advanced to a +2 Str item), +8 BAB, Power Attack, Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Focus, +1 Weapon, Weapon Training +1
Longsword Routine: +18/+13 (1d8+10/19-20)
Greatsword Routine: +18/+13 (2d6+13/19-20)
CR 8 Average AC: 21
Longsword DPR: 24.22
Longsword DPR w/ Power Attack: 27.23
Greatsword DPR: 33.40
Greatsword DPR w/ Power Attack: 38.52
12th Level
Our Fighter: 26 Str (+1 level bump, advanced to a +5 Str item), +12 BAB, Power Attack, [Gtr] Weapon Focus, [Gtr] Weapon Specialization, Improved Critical, +2 Weapon, Weapon Training +2, Boots of Speed (Haste)
Longsword Routine: +27/+27/+22/+17 (1d8+16/17-20)
Greatsword Routine: +27/+27/+22/+17 (2d6+20/17-20)
CR 12 Average AC: 27
Longsword DPR: 77.46
Longsword DPR w/ Power Attack: 85.53
Greatsword DPR: 102.01
Greatsword DPR w/ Power Attack: 117.04"
What is interesting to me is that the large difference between the two 12th level builds. And the fact that no offsetting feat was given to offset the fact that taking Power Attack means you dont take another feat.
For example, if one took a 1st level fighter, and one had Wpn focus and the other had PA?
In any case, those are his numbers, and one set of numbers show a negligible increase for PA with a one handed weapon. Yes, over 10 attacks, that could add up to 5 more points, but since without PA you'd have some other feat, I am sure you can make up a half pt per round, easy.
But in any case, a half-point is negligible and certainly hardly makes Power Attack a
"required" feat for one handed warriors. Certainly it is a decent choice, but maybe the player would rather have Iron Will, which I think would be far better.
But if you really want to run an Encounter that forces your caster to think or feel useless it very easy. Just send in the Monks.
with good will saving throw and Evasions,, Monks can be a hand full for caster that are not prepared to fight them.
Monks in my opinion are under used as bad guys.
Rogues are also a good choice. They also have evasion ,which can screw up caster who just like to blow things up. and with stealth , the first time a caster knows there going to be a fight is when he suddenly develop severe back pain.
If you're intentionally leaning on the weight, what do you expect? The reverse could be true too. If you make lots of monsters that can't be harmed by non-magic, that doesn't do anything to say casters are any stronger. It just means you're engineering the disparity yourself.
The reverse could certainly be true (and sometimes is), but the OPs question has nothing to do with the opposite, only the issue at hand, so I answered it as it applies to my home game, which extensively uses 3PP and my own alterations to the game - we don't play in Golarian, everything is homebrew (and always has been thru every edition of the game since 1e). Isn't engineering the disparity a major role for a GM anyway? It is in our games. Otherwise you're depending upon the disparity as created by the developers - somebody is creating the disparity, I'd rather it be me.
In the actual game, extremely few creatures are immune to either magic or physical combat. Golems are about the only ones I can think of that actually are immune to magic, and that's also a bit misleading because the actual truth of their "magic immunity" is that they have infinite spell-resistance, and are affected just fine by any spell that manipulates the battlefield or ignores SR (such as various wall spells, terrain spells, or conjuration spells).
"In an actual game..."? I consider my homebrewed games no less actual than PFS, and I never do PFS. What do you mean by "actual game"?
Golems in the bestiary are indeed one of the few listed monsters in those books that have magic immunity, but I did say "homebrewed monsters" which means they don't exist in any of the bestiaries, except our own homebrewed bestiary. For that matter, golems almost never appear in our games. Sometimes our homebrewed magic-immune monsters are very much like golems where spells that effect the environment affect them too. That way casters aren't completely ineffective against. Some games involve monsters that exclusively dwell in magic-dead areas, so its not the monster providing the magic immunity, rather the environment - and in those cases, environment affecting magic doesn't work either.
You don't need to get upset with posts in this thread, but regarding whatever you just explained in a previous post, there's almost 600 responses to this thread, I didn't read every response, nor plan to do so, I was only answering the question in the original post with mine.
In our games, we regularly alter the environments, include magic-immune beings, martial immune beings, and normal monsters susceptable to any normal martial or arcane attack. We like variety in our encounters where logical problem solving is often a better solution that class features and spells. Magic is just a tool and certainly not the only tool our players use to defeat opponents, more often than not thinking outside of the box, and outside of the character sheet will lead to positive resolutions of an encounter. If you rely too much on spells and class features you're likely just gaming the system and not thinking on your feet. We like our players to use their heads more than game knowledge.
In the actual game, extremely few creatures are immune to either magic or physical combat. Golems are about the only ones I can think of that actually are immune to magic, and that's also a bit misleading because the actual truth of their "magic immunity" is that they have infinite spell-resistance, and are affected just fine by any spell that manipulates the battlefield or ignores SR (such as various wall spells, terrain spells, or conjuration spells)."In an actual game..."? I consider my homebrewed games no less actual than PFS, and I never do PFS. What do you mean by "actual game"?
How did you manage to quote what I said and misquote it immediately after? I said the game. Not whatever your game is after you've modified it.
|
|
"In an actual game..."? I consider my homebrewed games no less actual than PFS, and I never do PFS. What do you mean by "actual game"?
The actual game is using the rules as written.
Your homebrew is a game - but it's not quite Pathfinder anymore.
If I made it so that 99% of the planet was covered in anti-magic fields, casters would suck.
If in my world only casters could use magic items because of 'resonance' or something, martials would suck.
Neither are valid arguments for whether either casters or martials are better in general.
In our home-brewed games, magic dead fields exist in only one area subject to an ancient catastrophe involving a single desert and mountain region, while the area is extensive, it isn't more than 5% of the total world, so I don't know whose world is covered with 99% of anything. I simply said, one tactic involves magic-dead zones, I never suggested that such a condition is dominant anywhere. Using 3PP rules, whether they apply to your game or not still involves RAW, just a different RAW than you use. Most of our homebrew alterations are fluff alterations, not rules alterations, in fact our "magic dead" areas use RAW in their existence - it isn't rules anyway we want, but as published in Paizo and other publisher books. We do have some completely homebrewed aspects and rules, but that involves a fairly limited house-rulings (are there no house rules in your game?). Most of the rules used in our games was published by somebody (including myself - I create much of the material for the Kaidan setting of Japanese horror - PFRPG).
I'm not arguing whether casters or martials are better or worse - both play fine and well together in our games, we don't have a disparity issue, but then we don't play too high a level where disparity could become an issue. I didn't realize this was yet another caster vs. martial disparity thread, I thought I was just answering which foes are stupid enough not to attack the casters first. I thought it was an issue between casters and stupid monsters, not casters and martials. Again, there is no problem between casters and martials in our games, so why the unstated topic wasn't obvious to me.
A lot of the differences might be our setting is not Golarian and it has some rules exclusive to the setting, and in some cases overriding the RAW of some rules. But this isn't extensive, just slightly different. And apparently by the responses this post is getting, being slightly different seems equivalent to changing 99% of a game - which is not true. That seems to be a poor assumption on your part.
The stereotypical 'caster' image is a flimsy guy in cloth robes. That sounds pretty manageable for martials to attack.
Enter pathfinder casters. Compare the idea of attacking them vs the Fighter in Full Plate:
The Behemoth Hippopotamus (Druid)
The Guy in Full Plate who looks just as tanky as the Fighter (Cleric + Heavy Armor Proficiency)
The Flying Invisible Mirror-image Huge Fire Elemental with Contingency (Wizard)If I was the enemy, I'd go 'screw it' and just attack whoever is within reach. Because all the casters look just as hard, if not harder, to attack than the Fighter.
Mirror image doesn't really work when you're invisible. Wizards are generally smart enough to pick one or the other. :P
There are nothing wrong with house rules. But you can't use them as the basis for an argument.
I'm not arguing anything, I am simply stating how the situation described in the OP applies to our games. I am sure its different than your game, there's no argument there. I would never seek to impose what applies to my game as applicable to anyone elses. Where's the arguement?
I am also not applying our table's house rules to this discussion. The use of magic dead zones, of magic immune creatures or altered environmental conditions in almost every case uses RAW from somewhere in Pathfinder rules. Your assumptions that my responses rely on house rules is totally false. Now what percentage of outside of the standard game might entirely depend on whether you're using Golarian or not. Perhaps my percentages of conditions differ than in Golarian, but as I said, I don't use Golarian so what percentages exist there compared to my setting is completely meaningless. Which rules we use, in most cases, uses Pathfinder RAW - there's nothing house-ruly about that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But in any case, [PIXIE DUST's blaster build] is weak sauce compared to a Batman Utility Wizard or Battlefield Control caster.
Blasting is the Deuce in the spellcaster's armory.
Blasting effectively requires lots of resources. Being a utility/battlefield wizard doesn't really require any at all.
That means you can do BOTH!!!
Why people keep insisting on being one or the other, I will never know.
I never walk around in robes as a caster unless I'm wearing a magic item. I don't cast unless I know I'm going to win on the first cast. Otherwise, I wait until the big sword guy is in battle. By that time it's too late for them to get to me. I also like walking around disguised as a peasant or porter in my group. Makes it look like I'm the least threatening individual in the group.
As a DM knowledgeable enemies definitely track the casters down first. Take the casters out is job one.
This is exactly how I play many of my spellcasters. I often use a hat of disguise, or similar magic, and prolific use of the magic aura spell, or similar masking effects, to look like and detect like nobody of import. I also invest in Eschew Materials, Silent Spell, and Still spell so I can cast discreetly.
I once survived all the way to level ten on 30 hit points or less before retiring the character all because no one ever saw her as a threat. That is, except for those who knew her, like her party, who tried to kill her on more than one occasion because they were so terrified of her growing powers and desire to obtain lichdom.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
However, I don't have any respect for the DPR calculations used in these threads though. I'll explain why below.
Percentages used in the context of these boards actually don't correlate to the game table itself. The model is incorrect. It cannot account for the actions of the enemy, nor can it account for the actions of the party. All statistics used for those models of DPR assume that every outcome is completely independent of the actions at the table. They aren't though. Every action at the table completely effects the next action and can in fact screw with your model totally (buffs, miss chances, tactical advantages, healing, etc etc.)As a consequence of non independent outcomes, the models used are actually not correlating to the real world. In statistics we call that a failed model.
It's not supposed to account for the actions of the enemy or your party members- that's why it doesn't include buffs or debuffs. It's supposed to determine what an average result is; you're often going to see higher numbers due to buffs like heroism being thrown around or just being a better class than a fighter, so if it fails in any way it fails by low-balling the effectiveness of the feat.
Miss chance does not alter the model at all. If every point of comparison is reduced by 50%, they have the same relative value. IE for 50% miss chance, 30 is 50% more than 20, and 15 is still 50% more than 10. The benefits you receive from Power Attack have not in any way been reduced.
Tactical advantages like what? Flanking? Prone or blind enemies? The higher your to-hit is, the better the returns on Power Attack are. All those elements do is push its effectiveness higher. Not including tactical advantages or buffs was being conservative.
Healing doesn't really affect how much damage you do; generally speaking, it's either very low levels and a well rolled cure light wounds fully heals someone, or it's high levels and heal is restoring someone almost completely, so you'd better hope you're doing more damage per round than healing restores, something the damage boost helps with and that isn't usually that difficult.
You haven't demonstrated why the model fails. It does what it is intended to do; show an average result of a person with nobody else helping him. Power Attack gets stronger the higher your to-hit is pushed, so it can really only go up from there (Unless you receive a significant amount of to-hit penalties. Not many exist in the game, aside from being shaken, entangled, or sickened, and they are applied far more rarely than to-hit buffs like just having a bard in the party).
Additionally, the "average AC" model is ok for comparison, but it doesn't represent the game table very well for the exact reasons I mentioned above. I understand where you're coming from, I read the build threads and I take from them some solid advice on feat combinations and damage etc. However, I also understand statistics extremely well and have a good feel for how the stats play out in the game itself. One day, I might even try to track the statistics just to see how they bear out over a campaign, but I have much better things to do, so probably not.
I'm not sure you understand where I'm coming from. The model shows an average result, and that means it's a composite of higher AC, lower AC, and average AC fights- it doesn't mean that Power Attack will always provide the same benefit in every fight, but it does mean that on average it will provide a significant benefit. Sometimes less, sometimes more.
In order to take it, you have to not take something else. For many players in our area, the something else often is chosen instead of power attack. Especially for martial classes that don't have the feat freedom that fighters do.
That doesn't really make a lot of sense. If they're going to invest any of their feats at all in increasing their damage output, they're first going to need to find one that's either superior to Power Attack or also provides another significant tactical benefit that's useful in the long term. If they invest one feat in boosting their damage potential, it should probably be Power Attack. If they're not investing any feats in being good at dealing damage... why are they playing a martial class?
Something to consider, when you use power attack in your probability models. You know exactly what the creature is and what its AC is.
The players at the table don't know this. They have to make a call about how hard it is going to be to hit and whether they can afford to lose on those +'s to hit or not. First attack is power attack and they miss. Player doesn't know by how much, doesn't know if the power attack cost them the hit or not, doesn't know if using power attack next turn will cause them more misses.
They can choose to take a risk and keep going, or they drop power attack.
It works the other way too. If they don't use power attack they still have no idea of the enemies capabilities.
Sure you can make a judgement, but in this game there are so many ways to ramp up AC that those judgements are damn hard. Particularly as levels increase.
I sincerely doubt that. I doubt it enough that I went back and performed my calculations again against the highest AC an enemy could have by each CR instead of the average. Numbers in a spoiler at the end of the post. The conclusion was that, even though the ACs were spiked by extremely high AC outliers (25 at CR 3, 26 at CR 6), Power Attack was either a small loss, or a small gain, making little significant difference (except for 4th level, due to the extremely high outlier, producing a 10% loss). Ranged from a 10% loss at the absolute worst, to 10% gains, with most cases being a loss or gain of only a couple percent. This is in the absolute worst case scenario for Power Attack. Just a few points closer to average AC, or a buff or "tactical advantage" and it's right in the green again.
So... yes. I'd still definitely still say it's a problem with people not understanding the math and why it's an extremely desirable choice over almost all others for the same job. If you want to boost your melee damage output, take Power Attack. If you don't care about dealing melee damage, don't. As stated before; it's standard issue on martials that want to deal melee damage- it's the first and best choice, mostly since its nature both amplifies your damage output and increases the maximum attack bonus that will provide a useful benefit to you. Picking another feat to fulfill the same purpose is effectively handicapping yourself- whether on purpose or due to ignorance.
And please, please stop trying to use anecdotes as evidence. I don't care what people in your group do. I'm not emphasizing what people in my group do because it doesn't matter to the discussion (if you must know, everyone fighting in melee takes Power Attack and uses it most of the time).
On 3/4ths BAB Classes
When I refer to "martials", I'm talking about full BAB classes that make trading hits and striking hard their primary duty. I haven't done any work on the effectiveness of Power Attack for 3/4ths BAB classes that like to get into the mix. It would likely be significantly more variable, as some of them draw large portions of their damage from special abilities like Judgment, Mutagen, Bardic Performance, or buffing spells/infusions without producing the excess accuracy that makes Power Attack so destructive. I'd hypothesize that the list of situations where it's applicable and the degree to which it affects their damage output are far more restrained than full BAB classes, due to the more narrow scaling and overall lower accuracy, but I don't have any numbers to support that, so it's a very weak claim, if you could consider it a claim at all.
@DrDeth
You went through my post history and cherry picked a post from a different thread out of context, which was among a series intended to show the difference that haste makes in martial damage output. Seriously, dude? You can clearly see in the Fighter setup that one has reliable haste and one doesn't, and the very post you grabbed that from makes reference to that premise. But you discarded that information because it would have shot your argument in the foot. That's dishonest.
1st Level
Our Fighter: 18 Str, +1 BAB, Power Attack, Weapon Focus
Longsword Routine: +6 (1d8+4/19-20)
Greatsword Routine: +6 (2d6+6/19-20)
CR 1- Maximum AC: 18
Longsword DPR: 4
Longsword DPR w/ Power Attack: 4.37
Greatsword DPR: 6.11
Greatsword DPR w/ Power Attack: 6.66
4th Level
Our Fighter: 20 Str (+1 level bump, acquired a +1 Str item), +4 BAB, Power Attack, Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Masterwork Weapon
Longsword Routine: +11 (1d8+7/19-20)
Greatsword Routine: +11 (2d6+9/19-20)
CR 4- Maximum AC: 25
Longsword DPR: 3.55
Longsword DPR w/ Power Attack: 3.16
Greatsword DPR: 4.94
Greatsword DPR w/ Power Attack: 4.49
8th Level
Our Fighter: 22 Str (+1 level bump, advanced to a +2 Str item), +8 BAB, Power Attack, Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Focus, +1 Weapon, Weapon Training +1
Longsword Routine: +18/+13 (1d8+10/19-20)
Greatsword Routine: +18/+13 (2d6+13/19-20)
CR 8- Maximum AC: 26
Longsword DPR: 16.03
Longsword DPR w/ Power Attack: 15.96
Greatsword DPR: 22.1
Greatsword DPR w/ Power Attack: 22.57
12th Level
Our Fighter: 26 Str (+1 level bump, advanced to a +5 Str item), +12 BAB, Power Attack, [Gtr] Weapon Focus, [Gtr] Weapon Specialization, Improved Critical, +2 Weapon, Weapon Training +2, Boots of Speed (Haste)
Longsword Routine: +27/+27/+22/+17 (1d8+16/17-20)
Greatsword Routine: +27/+27/+22/+17 (2d6+20/17-20)
CR 12- Maximum AC: 31
Longsword DPR: 61.53
Longsword DPR w/ Power Attack: 57.61
Greatsword DPR: 81.04
Greatsword DPR w/ Power Attack: 78.83
16th Level
Our Fighter: 32 Str (+1 level bump, better Str item, inherent bonuses), +16 BAB, Power Attack, [Gtr] Weapon Focus, [Gtr] Weapon Specialization, Improved Critical, Critical Focus, +5 Weapon, Weapon Training +3, Gloves of Dueling (+2), Boots of Speed (Haste)
Longsword Routine: +40/+40/+35/+30/+25 (1d8+25/17-20)
Greatsword Routine: +40/+40/+35/+30/+25 (2d6+30/17-20)
CR 16- Maximum AC: 39
Longsword DPR: 129.89
Longsword DPR w/ Power Attack: 126.01
Greatsword DPR: 162.91
Greatsword DPR w/ Power Attack: 165.88
|
<sigh> This really is a pointless argument. We're doing semantics.At the risk of sounding contrary, you aren't "doing semantics". What you're doing is saying "your maths doesn't count because my experience says it never matters". Semantics is a discussion of the meanings of words.
Which, I'll be honest, is a lot less convincing than having maths and experience agreeing with each other.
Couldn't help myself on this one.
This whole back and forth on power attack came from one post I made on the use of the word "standard" in regards to what feats are taken.
Everything since then has been two posters trying to convince me that power attack is "standard" for all melees.
It seems their idea of the word standard and my idea do not agree.
Therefore - semantics.
However, thank you for agreeing that my real life data (experience) not matching the theoretical maths is a compelling argument against the maths only crowd on the forums.
They don't stack. Feat bonuses don't stack unless they specifically state otherwise. (Greater _____ always makes specific allowances for stacking.)
I have never been entirely convinced that spell focus and energy focus actually stack as they are both feat bonuses to DC.
The above statement couldn't be more wrong. For starters, there's no such thing as a "feat bonus."
This subject reminds me of a recent game where there was a VIP (in this case, not a mage but the bad guy who had a lot of really tough hired bodyguards), and my brother just decided that the best course to getting the guy was to just go get him, so his Paladin goes "Stand down and no harm will come to you, but either way I'm coming through!" and then just began marching up the staircase with his sword & shield.
He ended up getting the hell blasted out of him by a group of psychic knight mercenaries (multiclassed and fairly optimized for melee with the ability to also do some magical attacking), but none of them could really hurt him (he had popped a couple of AC boosting potions when they entered, was wearing plate mail, had a shield, etc). He just kept walking through their attacks to the panicking dude in the back. They spent lots of actions just trying to stop him, and then the party was more or less free to wreck the knights from a distance.
Turns out that due to a high AC, Hp, and Lay on Hands, he just didn't give a **** about their attacks. When they flanked him and attacked, he just started beating the snot out of them with his longsword, and then continued moving when it was applicable.
It was just hilarious to watch.
Hahaha! That reminds me of one of my own recent games:
Been running my players through the Skull and Shackles adventure path. So far, the party monk (linked above) has dominated most of the encounters. No one can hit him unless they roll a natural 20.
So far, I've been able to knock him down once in no less than 10 game sessions. In our last game, he punched a stone pillar while a ghost wizard (who had already succeeded in running off the rest of the party) tried to slay/stop him with spells. Why was he punching a pillar? Because he could. . Then the monk started punching the ghost wizard until he discorporated. He made nearly every save and dodged every ray. Nothing could touch him!
It was the most ridiculous in-game combat I've ever seen. And that's just with a fighter/MoMS monk multiclass character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mirror image doesn't really work when you're invisible. Wizards are generally smart enough to pick one or the other. :PUnless you're facing creatures with constant see invisibility or true seeing.
Well if the opponent has constant true seeing than being invisible is just as not useful as mirror image, as true seeing sees around mirror image just as easily.
Mirror image doesn't really work when you're invisible. Wizards are generally smart enough to pick one or the other. :PUnless you're facing creatures with constant see invisibility or true seeing.
I hadn't considered the ability to see you while invisible, though true seeing would see past the mirror images as well as the invisibility. :P
EDIT: Gack! Ninja'd!
That's fair. I'm not certain what you'd take instead trying to get a damage output boost like Power Attack provides, though.
So far, I've been able to knock him down once in no less than 10 game sessions. In our last game, he punched a stone pillar while a ghost wizard (who had already succeeded in running off the rest of the party) tried to slay/stop him with spells. Why was he punching a pillar? Because he could....
This was pretty much the case for one of my past PCs, a single class monk. I've forgotten what we were fighting, but it dwelled within it own pocket dimension and one of its powers were to expell opponents from its domain, except my monk was the only one to consistently make its save time and again. After my ki was fully expended, I finished by spring attack half my movement for a single strike and half way back out of the way. The monster had a devastating physical attack, so I would never get close enough to get hit. When it tired of me spring attacking, I just ran around avoiding every attempt at it attacking me, until an opportunity to spring attack once again and continue pummeling until it was defeated. In most encounters my monk fairs about as well as any monk can be expected, but in that encounter he was unstoppable when everyone else in the party failed.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the actual game, extremely few creatures are immune to either magic or physical combat. Golems are about the only ones I can think of that actually are immune to magic, and that's also a bit misleading because the actual truth of their "magic immunity" is that they have infinite spell-resistance, and are affected just fine by any spell that manipulates the battlefield or ignores SR (such as various wall spells, terrain spells, or conjuration spells)."In an actual game..."? I consider my homebrewed games no less actual than PFS, and I never do PFS. What do you mean by "actual game"?
Golems in the bestiary are indeed one of the few listed monsters in those books that have magic immunity, but I did say "homebrewed monsters" which means they don't exist in any of the bestiaries, except our own homebrewed bestiary....
I've chatted with you before, both here and at ENWorld, and I think you're just somewhat missing Ashiel's point.
I don't run the game RAW either. I'm not making changes on the fly, but I DO have a large list of houserules, and some of which make significant changes to gameplay. And that's fine. Likewise, I'm fairly accommodating of 3PP, 3.5, and even some homebrewed stuff online (all of the non Paizo, non-houseruled-by-me stuff requires me to look it over and approve it). If I didn't think it improved my games, I wouldn't change them myself or allow their use.
However, it would not be helpful for me to post assertions about game balance in Pathfinder taking my custom content into consideration, as that is going to skew the game balance from where it would be in the stock assumption (which for most people is: Any Paizo Pathfinder Product, possibly excluding the stuff that was printed before Pathfinder Core - like Second Darkness).
So when people discuss Pathfinder balance, they assume they're up against the Paizo Monsters, (and they assume the monster guideline numbers in the bestiary provide accurate average statistics), and they assume an equal distribution of those monsters, and that the majority of the monsters will be CR appropriate.
The reason for these assumptions is that you can't know what any given GM is going to do. Does he give you a disproportionately high number of outsiders to fight: Some options are much more powerful now. How about lots of undead: Channel energy just got much better. Are Paizo feats competing with 3.x feats as options: some of the 3.X feats are very powerful. Same goes for spells.
So when they discuss game balance, they take the default assumption of "Pathfinder Products by Paizo". Some of them even look at you sideways with angry squints if you start including options that come from the various APs and Golarion setting books. I know one guy who insists that when you're talking about game balance and builds, nothing outside Pathfinder Core + Bestiary 1 count > Obviously I don't ascribe to such things, or give much thought to his opinions on pathfinder game balance, but he's at the extreme end (He's also fond of "Core Only" games, and I have had to make it clear to him since we share a gaming group that I'm really not interested in playing a "core only" game).
Taking a conservative stance as to what options are allowed and what adversaries you will be facing facilitates the ability to have comparisons - you need to work from the same baseline assumptions for such a comparison to be viable. Obviously, if even 10% of my monsters are surrounded by a 5' anti-magic field, I have just significantly reduced the power of mages beyond what is in the game normally.
Taking the baseline Pathfinder stuff as your basis of comparison for new materials is also a good idea, because for instance, if you're assuming access to all 3.5 stuff, you're now dealing with a much higher power level (divine metamagic/nightsticks, for instance) - and if the argument is "well, I wouldn't allow that one" the question becomes "Well, what IS allowed?" because being on the same page for such discussions matters if we're going to discuss the power of various options/builds.
Also:
Hi Gamer-Printer, How is it going? :)
Regarding the Monk: I remember, back before the devs had shut the option down, I ran a monk in a campaign, and took the line about a monk's unarmed attacks counting as manufactured to argue I could have them masterworked via a spell, and then enchanted. The GM was convinced (it's a ruling I still use in my own games, though it is now a houserule sine it contradicts the official stance). One of the first things I did was to get my monk attacks made ghost-touch, another was to give them energy enchantments.
I remember there was a point in the campaign (Ptolus Bane-Warrens) where we ran into a somewhat difficult ghost or wraith or something of the sort. The rest of the party was struggling, and I turned it around by wall-running, jumping at it, grappling the thing to hold it still for everyone else, while flurrying to attack it. The thing was not happy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Everything since then has been two posters trying to convince me that power attack is "standard" for all melees.
It seems their idea of the word standard and my idea do not agree.What exactly are melee characters taking that is better than power attack? I mean, there are a few thing I can imagine taking earlier, for specific reasons. But sooner or later a dedicated melee character is going to throw feats at doing more damage, surely?
However, thank you for agreeing that my real life data (experience) not matching the theoretical maths is a compelling argument against the maths only crowd on the forums.The people posting the maths also have real life experiences, that match up with their maths. You've declared your real life experiences more important than maths and also some other peoples real life experiences.
So no, we don't really agree.
This reminds me of the arguments with rogues... without fail there is always one guy who goes "Well in my party the rogue is the deadliest person, therefoe there is absolutely nothing wrong with the rogue"
I've chatted with you before, both here and at ENWorld, and I think you're just somewhat missing Ashiel's point.
Actually I didn't say anything that wasn't RAW in my first post, I simply stated that when foes are immune to magic, having to attack the caster first doesn't have to be a priority in combat. Nothing about that is outside of RAW. Golems are an example of some kind of immunity to magic, and magic dead areas certainly do exist in the game by RAW. Nothing house ruled was even implied.
I never suggested that such an encounter should occupy 99% of the game, perhaps one encounter in a 15 level campaign might such a situation arise, but if they do arise at all, then my statement is accurate and in no way implies the assertion of a house rule into an argument. (Again, I stated a fact, no argument has been made by me).
When I qualified my statement with using homebrew monsters, there's nothing about these monsters that differ from standard bestiary monster abilities except for either being a monster completely immune to magic (there's only one such monster in our home game, but it does exist) or a creature that only resides in magic dead areas - and as I stated, in my homebrew there's only one place on the entire planet that is magic dead at all. So while our homebrew world has some differences to Golarian, it mostly fits within PF physics and magic with only a few specific exceptions. Its not something wildly incompatible.
Really, our table uses very, very few house rules, mostly relying completely on RAW, with some 3PP inclusions. The only real difference is that we don't play in Golarian, we've got different races, other monsters, unique magic items specific to the setting, but doesn't any PF AP have its own unique inclusions that come with their respective player guides? Despite not using Golarian, how my setting implements its differences is hardly different than how Paizo does it. Our setting is different, but the difference is subtle.
Ashiel's point (?) was if 99% of every encounter was magic dead or immune, it would suck to be caster. I don't disagree with that sentiment, that's why such an encounter might only happen once during a PCs entire career in my games. Who'd want to play in game that Ashiel is suggesting, I wouldn't and that's why I never made such a claim. That was Ashiel saying that, not me.
Again, aside from the mention of using homebrewed monsters, nothing I've stated in this entire thread suggested my point was not using RAW.
- and hello, Darkholm! I'm not upset, though it's sad that when anyone posts something contrary to specific critics, what's said get's twisted to the point that even you feel I've missed the point.
If I were running the kind of game Ashiel was suggesting I must, then, yes, I would be missing something, but Ashiel is making a hypothetical and extreme stretch out of my actual, by RAW, point.
|
|
Reasonable explanation pointing out that mechanically his games play out basically the same as regular Pathfinder and that there's not much reason for enemies like Golems to specifically focus their attentions on spellcasters.
Fair enough, I misunderstood your statement, and thought you were describing the frequent use of homebrewed monsters that diverge significantly from the design patterns Paizo uses, and highly gratuitous use of 3PP options - which could easily change how things are balanced in relation to core Pathfinder.
I have run a bunch of games in Golarion, but that's usually been due to time constraints and using an AP. When I write my own plot, it's usually been set in the Forgotten Realms, and once it was set in a Realms/Golarion mashup (Mostly Realms, but with Golarion merged in) - that was fun. I photoshopped together a custom Faerun map with Cheliax = Sembia (Emphasis Cheliax), Cormyr = Andoran (Emphasis Cormyr), Tethyr = Taldor (Emphasis Taldor), Razmiran = Thay (Emphasis Thay), and slight rearranging of locations to fit Ustalav in somewhere.
Outright magic immunity is definitely better than golem immunities, but not enough so that it should make a significant difference to game balance if they are not a frequent thing.
|
Cool. Share them. I did. Claiming the numbers exist without being willing to prove it is not in the least bit helpful.
An example of Power Attack decreasing damage.
Darlina Twoblades
Female human (garundi) rogue 10
CG Medium humanoid (human)
Init +5; Senses Perception +13
--------------------
Defense
--------------------
AC 21, touch 14, flat-footed 18 (+6 armor, +3 Dex, +1 natural, +1 deflection)
hp 83 (10d8+30)
Fort +6, Ref +11 (+3 bonus vs. traps), Will +4; +2 trait bonus vs. charm and compulsion
Defensive Abilities evasion, improved evasion, improved uncanny dodge, trap sense +3
--------------------
Offense
--------------------
Speed 30 ft.
Melee +2 keen rapier +13/+8 (1d6+9/15-20) and
. . +2 mithral cestus +13/+8 (1d4+9/19-20)
Special Attacks sneak attack +5d6
Spell-Like Abilities (CL 10th; concentration +10)
. . 3/day—minor magic
--------------------
Statistics
--------------------
Str 22, Dex 17, Con 14, Int 13, Wis 10, Cha 10
Base Atk +7; CMB +13; CMD 27
Feats Arcane Strike, Combat Expertise, Double Slice, Gang Up[APG], Improved Two-weapon Fighting, Shadow Strike[APG], Two-weapon Fighting
Traits reactionary, strong willed
Skills Acrobatics +15, Appraise +5, Bluff +13, Climb +12, Diplomacy +13, Disable Device +22, Disguise +4, Knowledge (dungeoneering) +8, Knowledge (local) +14, Linguistics +5, Perception +13, Sense Motive +13, Sleight of Hand +9, Stealth +9, Swim +9, Use Magic Device +13
Languages Common, Kelish, Osiriani, Tien
SQ rogue talent (combat trick, improved evasion, minor magic, offensive defense, trap spotter), trapfinding +5
Combat Gear wand of cure light wounds, wand of shield (50 charges); Other Gear +2 chain shirt, +2 keen rapier, +2 mithral cestus, amulet of natural armor +1, belt of giant strength +4, cloak of resistance +1, deep red sphere ioun stone, ring of protection +1, thieves' tools, masterwork, 325 gp
--------------------
Special Abilities
--------------------
Arcane Strike As a swift action, add +1 damage, +1 per 5 caster levels and your weapons are treated as magic for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction.
Combat Expertise +/-2 Bonus to AC in exchange for an equal penalty to attack.
Evasion (Ex) If you succeed at a Reflex save for half damage, you take none instead.
Gang Up You are considered to be flanking your target if another ally is also adjacent to that target
Improved Evasion (Ex) If you succeed at a Reflex save for half damage, you take none instead. If you fail you take half damage.
Improved Uncanny Dodge (Lv >=14) (Ex) Retain DEX bonus to AC when flat-footed. You cannot be flanked unless the attacker is Level 14+.
Minor Magic (Acid Splash, 3/day) (Sp) Gain the chosen cantrip as a spell-like ability.
Offensive Defense (Ex) Sneak attack grants a +1 dodge bonus to AC for each die rolled vs. that foe.
Shadow Strike You can deal precision damage against targets with some concealment.
Sneak Attack +5d6 Attacks deal extra dam if flank foe or if foe is flat-footed.
Strong Willed Your fervent desire to choose your own path gives you strong willpower, and you receive a +2 trait bonus on saving throws against charm and compulsion effects.
Trap Sense +3 (Ex) +3 bonus on reflex saves and AC against traps.
Trap Spotter (Ex) Whenever you come within 10' of a trap, the GM secretly rolls for you to find it.
Trapfinding +5 Gain a bonus to find or disable traps, including magical ones.
Wand of shield (50 charges) Add this item to create a wand of a chosen spell.
--------------------
+2 Keen Rapier +15/+10 (1d6+11/15-20/x2) +5d6
+2 Mithral Cestus +15/+10 (1d4+11/19-20/x2) +5d6
AC at APL = 24
(.6*32)+(.6)(.3)(14.5) = 21.81
(.6*31)+(.6)(.1)(13.5) = 19.413
(.35*32)+(.35)(.3)(14.5) = 12.7225
(.35*31)+(.35)(.3)(13.5) = 12.2675
DPR = 66.213
======================================
Replace Arcane Strike with Power Attack
(.35*35)+(.35)(.3)(17.5) = 14.0875
(.35*31)+(.35)(.1)(13.5) = 11.3225
(.2*35)+(.1)(.3)(17.5) = 7.525
(.2*31)+(.1)(.3)(13.5) = 6.605
DPR = 39.52
|
|
Arcane Strike Rogue
This may be nitpicking, but your rogue doesn't cast spells and therefore doesn't qualify for Arcane Strike.
Arcane strike requires the ability to cast arcane spells as a prerequisite. Spell-like abilities are not arcane spells, despite similarities.
A rogue would have to multiclass into wizard, bard, or sorcerer (or another arcanist class) in order to gain the benefit of Arcane Strike.
It's a better feat for bards than rogues as a result.
|
|
Arcane Strike RogueThis may be nitpicking, but your rogue doesn't cast spells and therefore doesn't qualify for Arcane Strike.
Arcane strike requires the ability to cast arcane spells as a prerequisite. Spell-like abilities are not arcane spells, despite similarities.
A rogue would have to multiclass into wizard, bard, or sorcerer (or another arcanist class) in order to gain the benefit of Arcane Strike.
It's a better feat for bards than rogues as a result.
Rogues qualifying for Arcane Strike via Minor Magic was one of the examples the developers used when they ruled in favor of SLA's qualifying characters for feats and prestige class entry.
|
|
Oh. Can I get a quote/link on that? That's good to know. All I've seen is the James Jacobs statement that I quoted;
[Edit] Nevermind, Found Them. I hadn't realized that they had errata'ed that.
Alright, carry on. :)
|
|
Oh. Can I get a quote/link on that? That's good to know. All I've seen is the James Jacobs statement that I quoted;
[Edit] Nevermind, Found Them. I hadn't realized that they had errata'ed that.
Alright, carry on. :)
The statement you want is here.
In response to the FAQ, SKR is replying directly to somebody asking about rogues qualifying for Arcane Strike with Minor Magic.
|
|
Hmm. How does one know if an SLA is arcane or divine? Do you just have to guess?
So does this mean that I can also Arcane Strike with a Power-Attacking Fighter, assuming I somehow give him an SLA first (Such as by race/race feature selection)?
In general, SLAs use the sor/wiz spell level for DCs if the spell is on multiple spell lists, so you should assume that an SLA is arcane unless the source of the ability suggests otherwise (such as a spell that's only on the cleric list, or an SLA from a cleric domain, or uses Wisdom to determine DCs instead of Charisma).
Apparently, yes, you should guess. =/