Almost everything in the new fighter preview is a red flag.


Prerelease Discussion

51 to 100 of 121 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

4d6 drop lowest should do the trick and I only allow one reroll without ever having thoughts if the ability score is higher or lower than any given point buy. does that make me "the cancer that is killing tabletop RPGs"?


Hythlodeus wrote:
4d6 drop lowest should do the trick and I only allow one reroll without ever having thoughts if the ability score is higher or lower than any given point buy. does that make me "the cancer that is killing tabletop RPGs"?

That was sarcasm, which should have been clear in context.

But I have read opinions from people who unironically think that letting players assign their stat rolls was the first surrender by tabletop gaming to the "powergaming builds&%t cancer" (that is a direct quote) who ruined RPGs from 3rd edition onward.


Quote:
I've found that when it comes to important things like ability scores and HP, many people indeed prefer point-buy for the former and taking the average for the latter.

I let my players pick the low average hit dice since 3.5 (ie, 1d10 = 5) and they still rolled HP, then cried when they rolled below average. They have been using fixed HP only in PF with the high average (1d10=6)


Ha actually now that I think about it my first DM had to have that first die roll 18 or he would just "throw that character out. " which amounted to rolling the dice over and over until he had an 18 then he would have to take the rest of the rolls. I was like well why not just give the first one an 18 why sit their and roll dice.. I never did get a clear answer on that.


Hythlodeus wrote:
4d6 drop lowest should do the trick and I only allow one reroll without ever having thoughts if the ability score is higher or lower than any given point buy. does that make me "the cancer that is killing tabletop RPGs"?

Back when our (admittedly larger than the norm) group rolled for abilities, we used 4d6 drop lowest. Every new campaign we started we got at least one "unplayable" character (like, nothing above 13). So the DM allowed him a reroll. And another. This lead to endless discussion of how unbalanced the group was, the DM used fiat to fix one or two scores, etc. It was always messy and the end result was never satisfactory. Considering how important ability scores are in PF in the long run, this is a real issue. We eventually turned to fixed array, then to point buy. Everyone is much happier.

Same applies to hp. When you have the barbarian at level 5 trailing behind the cleric in hp, that's really a downer. Given the high variability of d12, it's not that unlikely a situation.

Rolling for your fireball is fine because it's one-time. For numbers that will remain unchanged for the lifetime of the characters, dice aren't ideal.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

For the longest time we used the 4d6 drop lowest method, with the only reroll being allowed if the character qualified for absolutely no class (in AD&D 1e and 2e there were ability score minimums for every class, even things like fighter). In order to qualify for a reroll you had to roll something truly pathetic like no score above 8.

Some of the AD&D 1e stat generation systems had "rerolls" built in. I seem to recall one involved roll 3d6 straight down a bunch of times and picking your favorite set. Another was roll 3d6 twelve times and pick your favorite six.

Nowadays most of my groups use 15 point buy. My one group that likes rolling has put a restriction on your rolls - your roll must have a point buy value between 10 and 20, or else throw it away and try again. We use a computer to do this so we don't even get to see the theoretical wunderkind that gets thrown away for being too many points. It lets us get the randomness of rolling but everyone is close to the same level of power.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

This is more than a bit off topic, folks.


Rysky wrote:
... that’s why we roll first, narrate second :3

Cute quips aside, if your intention is to build a legendary beast slayer but the mechanics don’t support it, then you have a problem.

Just for clarity, I’m talking about the mechanics not supporting an idea functionally (as opposed to not supporting by omission.) If a set of options say “this will make you a beast slayer,” but it actually is not as good at slaying beasts as the default class options, or you have to give up iconic/powerful options for a marginal improvement, or it only works under ridiculous edge conditions, or if another class altogether does your thing better than you without specializing at all; then you have serious narrative issues.

Just remember that the fighter character is going to get only ~25 feats for the entire course of the game. If one (showcase worthy) feat is “if you miss while being flanked you can swing at the other guy instead,” then that is kind of a problem. And that problem is a narrative problem MORE than a math problem.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Evilgm wrote:


You're making a lot of unsubstantiated assumptions that not only run contrary to the math done by the community based on the limited information we have, but also run contrary to the math done by those that have all the information.

PF2s version of Power Attack is PF1 Vital Strike.

The math is the same. You get to apply 2W+X instead of 2(W+X) where W = weapon damage and X = static modifiers.

Unless the attacker is having difficulty hitting, 2(W+X) > (2W + X)

For all scenarios where X > 0, a successful Power Attack deals less damage than 2 successful normal attacks. The larger the value of X, the greater the disparity.

This is basic math.


Volkard Abendroth wrote:
Evilgm wrote:


You're making a lot of unsubstantiated assumptions that not only run contrary to the math done by the community based on the limited information we have, but also run contrary to the math done by those that have all the information.

PF2s version of Power Attack is PF1 Vital Strike.

The math is the same. You get to apply 2W+X instead of 2(W+X) where W = weapon damage and X = static modifiers.

Unless the attacker is having difficulty hitting, 2(W+X) > (2W + X)

For all scenarios where X > 0, a successful Power Attack deals less damage than 2 successful normal attacks. The larger the value of X, the greater the disparity.

This is basic math.

Good thing you can now do a power attack and a normal swing under the new action econ rules which beats two basic swings by dint of basic math!

But seriously,the new PA is no longer going to be the ubiquitous martial feat and probably more along the lines of something desired by 2hers or people who simply want something to hammer higher AC targets and don't have too many pressing needs for their third action. At least that's how I presume it and more than likely how the devs intend it to turn out (just replace my possible archtypes with theirs or whatever).


Tarik Blackhands wrote:


Good thing you can now do a power attack and a normal swing under the new action econ rules which beats two basic swings by dint of basic math!

But seriously,the new PA is no longer going to be the ubiquitous martial feat and probably more along the lines of something desired by 2hers or people who simply want something to hammer higher AC targets and don't have too many pressing needs for their third action. At least that's how I presume it and more than likely how the devs intend it to turn out (just replace my possible archtypes with theirs or whatever).

It is the same quandary that any martial currently faces. Choosing between a full attack or Greater/Improved/Vital Strike.

Each successive attack is less likely to hit and deal full damage or make a single Vital Strike, multiplying base weapon damage but not static damage.

Unless either 1) hitting opponents is significantly more difficult or 2) static damage modifiers are significantly lower, multiple attacks remains the preferred option.

Another dynamic to consider is the affect of magic weapons in PF2. We already know that a +1 weapon deals 2W damage. I severely doubt that Vital Strike is going to be 2(2W) = 4W. It will almost certainly be 2W+W = 3W

So: a character with a +1 weapon using Power Attack will deal 3W+X
As opposed to 2 successful attacks: 2(2W+X) = 4W+2X

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

You also have to take into account the fact that critting now happens if you hit by more than 10, so an advanced fighter might be critting on low numbers like 12. It's implied that critting multiplies extra dice now too, so your math needs to take that into account. It means relying on "basic math" comparisons could lead you to an incorrect conclusion. People have really crunched the numbers above in the thread and it shows that the new Power Attack really can be a modest increase in damage, depending on circumstances.


Volkard Abendroth wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:


Good thing you can now do a power attack and a normal swing under the new action econ rules which beats two basic swings by dint of basic math!

But seriously,the new PA is no longer going to be the ubiquitous martial feat and probably more along the lines of something desired by 2hers or people who simply want something to hammer higher AC targets and don't have too many pressing needs for their third action. At least that's how I presume it and more than likely how the devs intend it to turn out (just replace my possible archtypes with theirs or whatever).

It is the same quandary that any martial currently faces. Choosing between a full attack or Greater/Improved/Vital Strike.

Each successive attack is less likely to hit and deal full damage or make a single Vital Strike, multiplying base weapon damage but not static damage.

Unless either 1) hitting opponents is significantly more difficult or 2) static damage modifiers are significantly lower, multiple attacks remains the preferred option.

Another dynamic to consider is the affect of magic weapons in PF2. We already know that a +1 weapon deals 2W damage. I severely doubt that Vital Strike is going to be 2(2W) = 4W. It will almost certainly be 2W+W = 3W

So: a character with a +1 weapon using Power Attack will deal 3W+X
As opposed to 2 successful attacks: 2(2W+X) = 4W+2X

1- Power Attack scales, it becomes 2 dice at some point, possibly more later.

2- The crit mechanics make lower accuracy attacks a lot less attractive compared to having good power on the most accurate one. The first attack is a lot more likely to crit than anything else, after all. So you want the dice and mods on it.


But why does it take two actions?
It negates the agency granted by the new action economy and once again turns the game into move + single attack, if the notion is to be believed that it's better to bet on getting a crit than it is to make two attacks.

My decision has no tactical bearing in this case, whether I choose to make two regular attacks because math says it's better or whether I choose to fish for a critical hit with my one attack for the round. The dice decide everything, not me.

This is poor design, unless the plan is for this feat to suck, which is possible.

Scarab Sages

4 people marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:


This is poor design, unless the plan is for this feat to suck, which is possible.

1) Its pretty big leap to say its poor design until you've actually seen the entire system and know how it works in game play. If, during game play, it doesn't work well, then yeah, its poor design.

Then you tell them in your playtest reports so they can fix it.

2) The actual math done, and not just the theorizing about whether its good, better, or worse, actually shows its at least on par if not better than PF1 Power Attack. So hyperbolic statements with no backup data aren't helpful.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Old Power Attack was math - Specifically algebra. What is the OP talking about?

Old Power Attack was an algebraic equation added to attack and damage dependent on a variable.

Attack:
(Assuming turning on Power Attack equates to a 1)

For attack:
-(?{power attack|yes,1|no,0}*(floor(BAB/4)+1))

For damage: 1 handed
+(?{power attack}*((floor(BAB/4)+1)*2))

2 handed
+(?{power attack}*((floor(BAB/4)+1)*3))

-----

New Power Attack is just one additional damage step.

+1d(insert)

-----

New is less math than old...


New power attack looks like Paizo nerfage at it's finest. I mean i get that PF1 PA was simply too good not to take, and that math is significantly different in PF2, but this is just ridiculous. The issue is not that you are contending between a -10 attack and full bonus attack with an extra dice, it's that (as it seems) you'll have significant other number of in-combat actions and that this extra die of damage is contending with using a shield or something else extra spiffy. Also, I'm getting the feeling that two-handing as a style is being designated as the loser this time around. Of course this is pure speculation until August.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Volkard Abendroth wrote:

PF2s version of Power Attack is PF1 Vital Strike.

The math is the same. You get to apply 2W+X instead of 2(W+X) where W = weapon damage and X = static modifiers.

Unless the attacker is having difficulty hitting, 2(W+X) > (2W + X)

For all scenarios where X > 0, a successful Power Attack deals less damage than 2 successful normal attacks. The larger the value of X, the greater the disparity.

This is basic math.

This is bad math. It ignores the fact that second attack has - 5 to hit, which in the new rules means a lot less damage. That is - 5 to hit, - 5 to crit and +5 to be riposted VS some enemies.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:

But why does it take two actions?

Because if it is a flat boost that takes no action, there is no reason to not power Attack, ever. It would be automatic. Which means no tactic involved


HWalsh wrote:

Old Power Attack was math - Specifically algebra. What is the OP talking about?

Old Power Attack was an algebraic equation added to attack and damage dependent on a variable.

Attack:
(Assuming turning on Power Attack equates to a 1)

For attack:
-(?{power attack|yes,1|no,0}*(floor(BAB/4)+1))

For damage: 1 handed
+(?{power attack}*((floor(BAB/4)+1)*2))

2 handed
+(?{power attack}*((floor(BAB/4)+1)*3))

-----

New Power Attack is just one additional damage step.

+1d(insert)

-----

New is less math than old...

Since it's taking an action, you have to factor in the math of that attack you're forgoing into the equation ("the possible damage lost"). That's the extra math, not the addition of extra die (that part is certainly simpler).


master_marshmallow wrote:

This is poor design, unless the plan is for this feat to suck, which is possible.

I don't expect it to suck, but to be balanced against other options, so that while it is A choice, it isn't THE choice.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
necromental wrote:
New power attack looks like Paizo nerfage at it's finest. I mean i get that PF1 PA was simply too good not to take, and that math is significantly different in PF2, but this is just ridiculous. The issue is not that you are contending between a -10 attack and full bonus attack with an extra dice, it's that (as it seems) you'll have significant other number of in-combat actions and that this extra die of damage is contending with using a shield or something else extra spiffy. Also, I'm getting the feeling that two-handing as a style is being designated as the loser this time around. Of course this is pure speculation until August.

You may not be contending between a -10 attack and a full bonus attack with an extra die, but plenty of people will be. A shield means dropping from 1d12 to 1d8, after all, and that gets more pronounced as you level. Those extra spiffy options might also be a little more circumstantial, so Power Attack is a worthwhile default. Even if it's no longer the most optimal, it can still be good, and optimal for certain preference constraints.

Paizo has to account for a lot of different styles. While the more tactical sword-and-board is getting a boost, there should still be options for people who really just want to hit stuff as hard as possible.

I don't think two-handed is likely to be the loser. Getting its larger die size advantage magnified seems pretty handy. That's speculation on my part too.


Captain Morgan wrote:

If this qualifies as bad design, given how little we know about combat, numbers, and feats on the whole, I hate to hear what you think of the original power attack.

--So good it's considered mandatory
--Makes math harder on the fly
--Numbers change based on level so not everyone follows the same rules
--Numbers change based on the hands used for the weapon
--Ensures the damage from full attacking always blows away more mobile based attack patterns.

I really don't understand why people are freaked out about the new Power Attack occupying a different design space in a different game.

The key with Old Power Attack is that because it's so good it's considered mandatory, it doesn't make math harder on the fly. If you're using a two-handed weapon, you should always be power attacking.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The only problem with new Power Attack is that it is Vital Strike and thus incorrectly named.

As for the reroute a miss when flanked, sure looks like a trap. If we aren't supposed to evaluate it under our current understanding then the context really should have been supplied already.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Lord Mhoram wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

This is poor design, unless the plan is for this feat to suck, which is possible.

I don't expect it to suck, but to be balanced against other options, so that while it is A choice, it isn't THE choice.

That seems to be the going theme, doesn't it? If it's not THE choice, then it's not viable. No in between.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Angel Hunter D wrote:
As for the reroute a miss when flanked, sure looks like a trap. If we aren't supposed to evaluate it under our current understanding then the context really should have been supplied already.

Do your characters not get flanked? I have player's characters get flanked all the time. Anything with at least animal intelligence goes for it in my games.

Anyway, I suspect that the additional context is "almost no characters threaten AoOs, and so characters can move with relative freedom to position themselves in optimal spots". Gimme a couple minutes to figure out the DRP increase when flanked, though.


My issue is I'm not a fan of damage dice rolling for me or people at my tables. Do you know how long it takes some people to sum up 10d6? The less die rolling the better since it's FAR faster to do 2d6+28 than 10d6.


bookrat wrote:
Lord Mhoram wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

This is poor design, unless the plan is for this feat to suck, which is possible.

I don't expect it to suck, but to be balanced against other options, so that while it is A choice, it isn't THE choice.
That seems to be the going theme, doesn't it? If it's not THE choice, then it's not viable. No in between.

My feeling is that power attack should continue to be just as appealing and useful as it is currently, and that the goal should be to keep it from being THE choice by increasing the allure of the other options.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
QuidEst wrote:
necromental wrote:
New power attack looks like Paizo nerfage at it's finest. I mean i get that PF1 PA was simply too good not to take, and that math is significantly different in PF2, but this is just ridiculous. The issue is not that you are contending between a -10 attack and full bonus attack with an extra dice, it's that (as it seems) you'll have significant other number of in-combat actions and that this extra die of damage is contending with using a shield or something else extra spiffy. Also, I'm getting the feeling that two-handing as a style is being designated as the loser this time around. Of course this is pure speculation until August.

You may not be contending between a -10 attack and a full bonus attack with an extra die, but plenty of people will be. A shield means dropping from 1d12 to 1d8, after all, and that gets more pronounced as you level. Those extra spiffy options might also be a little more circumstantial, so Power Attack is a worthwhile default. Even if it's no longer the most optimal, it can still be good, and optimal for certain preference constraints.

Paizo has to account for a lot of different styles. While the more tactical sword-and-board is getting a boost, there should still be options for people who really just want to hit stuff as hard as possible.

I don't think two-handed is likely to be the loser. Getting its larger die size advantage magnified seems pretty handy. That's speculation on my part too.

If PA is built in, rather than a feat to take, I would use it sometimes, but as it stands now, no way I'm gonna take it.

The bolded part is one of my biggest fears for PF2, that the actions they are adding will be so circumstantial that this crap of a power attack will still be the most palatable option. Certainly not saying it will be so, as I think paizo people can design good stuff, but this is the clear worst-case-scenario for me (and they also designed the shifter and swashbuckler, so it's not clear cut).


Chess Pwn wrote:
My issue is I'm not a fan of damage dice rolling for me or people at my tables. Do you know how long it takes some people to sum up 10d6? The less die rolling the better since it's FAR faster to do 2d6+28 than 10d6.

Okay, but is +28 the correct modifier? Did you factor in X bonus or Y ability correctly? What about circumstance Z, does it apply here? Wouldn't effect W also change that damage dice up a step as well?

You're paying for the time of summing up one way or the other, it doesn't matter if you're want it to be done with calculating dice rolls or modifier bonuses.

On top of that, dice rolling in this genre is precisely one of the most iconic draws to it. If you don't like it, then maybe a card game (or other game that doesn't involve dice) would be more your forte.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
QuidEst wrote:
Angel Hunter D wrote:
As for the reroute a miss when flanked, sure looks like a trap. If we aren't supposed to evaluate it under our current understanding then the context really should have been supplied already.

Do your characters not get flanked? I have player's characters get flanked all the time. Anything with at least animal intelligence goes for it in my games.

Anyway, I suspect that the additional context is "almost no characters threaten AoOs, and so characters can move with relative freedom to position themselves in optimal spots". Gimme a couple minutes to figure out the DRP increase when flanked, though.

It's a free reroll on a miss, something that's considered pretty valuable. And it's not limited per day, just by condition. I imagine most table sessions will have at least one combat where the fighter could set this up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

All right, here's my assumption. The situation of being flanked is not rare- attack bonuses are hugely valuable because they increase crit chance, and flanking positioning is easy because Fighters seem to be one of the few classes to impede movement.

We'll take the situation where you have two mooks flanking you. It's not boss fight time, so we'll have your primary attack hit on 6. We'll assume your damage is one unit to make the math easier. I'm also assuming that you can use the feat twice in the same round.

DPR without Sudden Reversal: (0.75 + 0.25 for crit) + (0.5 + 0.05 for crit) + (0.25 + 0.05 for crit) = 1.85

DPR with Sudden Reversal: (0.75 + 0.25 for crit) + (0.5 + 0.05 for crit) + (0.25 + 0.05 for crit) + 0.5 * (0.5 + 0.05 for crit) + 0.75 * (0.25 + 0.05 for crit) = 2.35

So, when flanked, you do 0.5 of a hit more every turn. That's a 27% increase in DPR when flanked.

Out of curiosity, let's try an agile weapon. Our one unit of damage will be lower, but we'll have a higher multiple of that.

DPR without Sudden Reversal: (0.75 + 0.25) + (0.55 + 0.05) + (0.35 + 0.05) = 2

DPR with Sudden Reversal: (0.75 + 0.25) + (0.55 + 0.05) + (0.35 + 0.05) + 0.45 * (0.55 + 0.05) + 0.65 * (0.35 + 0.05) = 2.53

Looks like the math works out pretty similarly. You do a hair over half a hit more, and it still rounds to a 27% increase in DPR when flanked.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
KingOfAnything wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
Angel Hunter D wrote:
As for the reroute a miss when flanked, sure looks like a trap. If we aren't supposed to evaluate it under our current understanding then the context really should have been supplied already.

Do your characters not get flanked? I have player's characters get flanked all the time. Anything with at least animal intelligence goes for it in my games.

Anyway, I suspect that the additional context is "almost no characters threaten AoOs, and so characters can move with relative freedom to position themselves in optimal spots". Gimme a couple minutes to figure out the DRP increase when flanked, though.

It's a free reroll on a miss, something that's considered pretty valuable. And it's not limited per day, just by condition. I imagine most table sessions will have at least one combat where the fighter could set this up.

So long as there is no language preventing it I'm really looking forward to having a "no regard for safety" fighter who deliberately gets himself surrounded by enemies. If I can Whirlind Strike with a polearm whilst flanked, and get to convert any of those missed attacks into a second try it will be epic.


QuidEst wrote:

All right, here's my assumption. The situation of being flanked is not rare- attack bonuses are hugely valuable because they increase crit chance, and flanking positioning is easy because Fighters seem to be one of the few classes to impede movement.

We'll take the situation where you have two mooks flanking you. It's not boss fight time, so we'll have your primary attack hit on 6. We'll assume your damage is one unit to make the math easier. I'm also assuming that you can use the feat twice in the same round.

DPR without: (0.75 + 0.25 for crit) + (0.5 + 0.05 for crit) + (0.25 + 0.05 for crit) = 1.85

DPR with: (0.75 + 0.25 for crit) + (0.5 + 0.05 for crit) + (0.25 + 0.05 for crit) + 0.5 * (0.5 + 0.05 for crit) + 0.75 * (0.25 + 0.05 for crit) = 2.35

So, when flanked, you do 0.5 of a hit more every turn. That's a 27% increase in DPR when flanked.

Out of curiosity, let's try an agile weapon. Our one unit of damage will be lower, but we'll have a higher multiple of that.

DPR without: (0.75 + 0.25) + (0.55 + 0.05) + (0.35 + 0.05) = 2

DPR with: (0.75 + 0.25) + (0.55 + 0.05) + (0.35 + 0.05) + 0.45 * (0.55 + 0.05) + 0.65 * (0.35 + 0.05) = 2.53

Looks like the math works out pretty similarly. You do a hair over half a hit more, and it still rounds to a 27% increase in DPR when flanked.

I now see why flanking is now -2AC instead of +2 to hit. Hadn't clicked yet how overpowered the +2 could get.

Wait, the flat-footed status still increases crit chance, right? Back to square one...


Chess Pwn wrote:
My issue is I'm not a fan of damage dice rolling for me or people at my tables. Do you know how long it takes some people to sum up 10d6? The less die rolling the better since it's FAR faster to do 2d6+28 than 10d6.

Well, it's already like that with blasters of all kinds, and it mostly seems like fighters are gonna get to roll both their d12s more often (and may need to acquire a third eventually). Moreover, I think there's inherent drama in "I rolled the dice and what they say makes a difference." If it doesn't make a difference, as a GM you can estimate whether an attack will, might, or can't drop an opponent and if it's just a matter of "how much damage will the next person have to do" you can move on while they tabulate if this isn't something the player can do quickly. How much damage the attack did to monster x won't matter until the next person damages monster x, after all.


ChibiNyan wrote:

I now see why flanking is now -2AC instead of +2 to hit. Hadn't clicked yet how overpowered the +2 could get.

Wait, the flat-footed status still increases crit chance, right? Back to square one...

That's not the math on what flanking gives them, that's the math on what Sudden Reversal gives you when they flank you.

It's probably -2 AC for a couple minor reasons, like simplifying what it means to be immune to that condition.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
My issue is I'm not a fan of damage dice rolling for me or people at my tables. Do you know how long it takes some people to sum up 10d6? The less die rolling the better since it's FAR faster to do 2d6+28 than 10d6.

Okay, but is +28 the correct modifier? Did you factor in X bonus or Y ability correctly? What about circumstance Z, does it apply here? Wouldn't effect W also change that damage dice up a step as well?

You're paying for the time of summing up one way or the other, it doesn't matter if you're want it to be done with calculating dice rolls or modifier bonuses.

On top of that, dice rolling in this genre is precisely one of the most iconic draws to it. If you don't like it, then maybe a card game (or other game that doesn't involve dice) would be more your forte.

Yes because when a buff comes you change your attack numbers on a piece of paper.

My attack is +14 for 1d8+9 cool
Oh bardsong went up let me write the new attack of +16 for 1d8+11 cool
Oh enlarged went up that makes it +16 for 2d6+10

Even if you for some crazy reason waited till your attack to figure it out you'll have it solved for all your attacks.

All the buffs are one and done on the math. 10d6 per hit can't ever be one and done, it's an every attack thing. Every attack you need to add up all the dice.

Dice rolling is fun and all, we get plenty with the d20 and having 2d6 is still dice rolling. Rolling handfuls of dice is also fun when done in moderation. Needing handfuls of dice for every attack gets old fast.


QuidEst wrote:
All right, here's my assumption. The situation of being flanked is not rare- attack bonuses are hugely valuable because they increase crit chance, and flanking positioning is easy because Fighters seem to be one of the few classes to impede movement.

That also should make it easier to get out of a flank, which is important to evaluating Quick Reversal.

Your math assumes that the fighter is spending all their actions on attacking. This will often--I'd think usually--be a bad idea. Often, it will be a better idea to use your third action to move out of the flank instead of attacking at -10. In that case, the numbers become:

DPR without: (0.75 + 0.25 for crit) + (0.5 + 0.05 for crit) = 1.55
DPR with: (0.75 + 0.25 for crit) + (0.5 + 0.05 for crit) + 0.5 * (0.5 + 0.05 for crit) =1.825

We're now down to a 17% increase--very slightly better than a +1 attack bonus by the raw numbers, but actually substantially worse because (again) it's not focusing fire. So, we have a feat that:

(a) often, you will be better off avoiding getting into a position where it benefits you at all;
(b) in the cases in which you are in such a position, it often gives you a +1 attack bonus, or
(c) in a limited subset of those cases, a +2 attack bonus.

Would you honestly take this feat? I sure wouldn't.

Again, I get that we have next to no information and that our assessments could totally be off. My point in the OP was that if Quick Reversal is actually the way it looks given our limited information, it would be totally consistent with a clear bad trend in recent Paizo design. Again, recent Paizo design is full of feats that give you small uninteresting bonuses in highly specific circumstances. These are not well-designed feats. Whenever a new book comes out, tons of people point this out. For this reason, if Paizo's previews give us any indication they might be extending their bad design habits into PF2, this is a red flag and deserves comment. (Who knows--maybe it will spur the devs into checking their math more during the playtest!)


BigDTBone wrote:
Rubber Ducky guy wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Rubber Ducky guy wrote:

Math counts for predicting damage outcomes, not the enjoyment players derive from playing.

That's why things are playtested instead of simulated with formulas.

Most players enjoy it when the game behaves as predicted (within a tolerance.) That is why formulas are an important part of game design.

Additionally, we have had 18 years to playtest the hell out of the system. We are pretty good at understanding how changes to rules will impact the game prima facie at this point. Formula or no.

Yeah, but combat is about more than how much damage you're dealing in a turn.

There's also a narrative component.

Players care how they deal their damage as much as how much is dealt

DM:

Farius the magnificent spins on his right heel to face the new threat before him. The glint from his lonsword is somewhat dimmed by the stain of blood dripping from its hardened edge. Farius takes an extra moment to study his opponent as he approaches, as he thinks the extra moment of pause will allow him to land a more powerful attack. He levels his blade with his hands both grasping the hilt near his right breast and forcefully thrusts it into the creatures body. A squeal, almost deafening, is heard erupting from the foe as sinue, muscle, cartilidge, and bone are unnaturally separated.

Player:
4 damage

DM:
Ok, well actually it looks mostly unharmed, and has 53 HP remaining.

If the story and math don’t mesh then it is terrible.

That Momentary pause sounds like NuPowerAttack as it takes 2 actions.


Mark Seifter wrote:
a normal non-Power Attack (+0/-5/-10) tends not to be as good as a Power Attack (+0 for more damage/-5)

Okay, this is very helpful. A version of Power Attack that is basically always worth using if and only if you are spending all three actions on attacking looks like a great idea. It sounds thematic, and it would be awesome if whether to power attack depended on the tactical situation (should I spend the whole round just attacking?) as opposed to arithmetic depending on your target's AC etc.

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Angel Hunter D wrote:
If we aren't supposed to evaluate it under our current understanding then the context really should have been supplied already.

Frankly, these are just teaser nuggets to create anticipation for the new rules. We aren't supposed to be evaluating really at all. Now don't get me wrong, I've done a fair amount of evaluating myself. It's hard not to.

But don't get all huffy when your called to task for using old information when evaluating something new when not only do you not have complete information, you have hardly any at all.

Just enjoy the teaser nuggets and stop trying to evaluate it as good or bad until August 2018.

Scarab Sages

BigDTBone wrote:
bookrat wrote:
Lord Mhoram wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

This is poor design, unless the plan is for this feat to suck, which is possible.

I don't expect it to suck, but to be balanced against other options, so that while it is A choice, it isn't THE choice.
That seems to be the going theme, doesn't it? If it's not THE choice, then it's not viable. No in between.
My feeling is that power attack should continue to be just as appealing and useful as it is currently, and that the goal should be to keep it from being THE choice by increasing the allure of the other options.

My understanding after reading through the math thread, is that PF2 Power Attack will be just as appealing and useful. AND they will have equally as alluring options.

Its just not going to be appealing and useful in the same way in which you are used to, and you likely won't really see it until you use it. Because the math is more subtle in PF2 than it was in PF1.


Hythlodeus wrote:
Athaleon wrote:


I've found that when it comes to important things like ability scores and HP, many people indeed prefer point-buy for the former and taking the average for the latter.

o.O

I've never met those people, where can I find them?

Let me ask you this: How do you do rolling? Straight up 4d6 drop the lowest, or do you add rules like re-roll 1's and 2's and if you don't have at least 1 18 roll another set?

Same with hit points, is it straight up roll the die and take what you get, or is it roll the die if it's less than half take half?

when you set rules to ensure that rolling the dice will always turn out better than point buy, of course they're going to roll the dice.


Athaleon wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:
4d6 drop lowest should do the trick and I only allow one reroll without ever having thoughts if the ability score is higher or lower than any given point buy. does that make me "the cancer that is killing tabletop RPGs"?

That was sarcasm, which should have been clear in context.

But I have read opinions from people who unironically think that letting players assign their stat rolls was the first surrender by tabletop gaming to the "powergaming builds&%t cancer" (that is a direct quote) who ruined RPGs from 3rd edition onward.

Which is amusing since combinations of 3d6, 4d6 drop the lowest, 18d6 total split as desired to stats, and in order/assign to scores are all variants found in my 1983 1E AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide... So those people are not only overwhelmingly archaic, they seem to think that the move from D&D to AD&D started this horrific downward spiral.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
QuidEst wrote:

All right, here's my assumption. The situation of being flanked is not rare- attack bonuses are hugely valuable because they increase crit chance, and flanking positioning is easy because Fighters seem to be one of the few classes to impede movement.

We'll take the situation where you have two mooks flanking you. It's not boss fight time, so we'll have your primary attack hit on 6. We'll assume your damage is one unit to make the math easier. I'm also assuming that you can use the feat twice in the same round. ...

So, when flanked, you do 0.5 of a hit more every turn. That's a 27% increase in DPR when flanked.

Interesting analysis.

I'll admit that I share the initial feeling that Sudden Reversal is a trap option, because in my experience PCs aren't flanked that frequently (say, 1 in 10 encounters, and only for a round or two of those encounters). And given that ratio, even feats which are effective when they're available don't seem to be worth it. (Cleave is a good example of such a feat -- it's pretty good at low levels when you can use it, but you generally can't use it frequently enough to make it worthwhile.)

But your thoughts about why being flanked might be more common in PF2 are well-taken. I guess we'll have to wait and see how often these situations arise during the playtest!


Porridge wrote:


Interesting analysis.

I'll admit that I share the initial feeling that Sudden Reversal is a trap option, because in my experience PCs aren't flanked that frequently (say, 1 in 10 encounters, and only for a round or two of those encounters). And given that ratio, even feats which are effective when they're available don't seem to be worth it. (Cleave is a good example of such a feat -- it's pretty good at low levels when you can use it, but you generally can't use it frequently enough to make it worthwhile.)

But your thoughts about why being flanked might be more common in PF2 are well-taken. I guess we'll have to wait and see how often these situations arise during the playtest!

Depending on what measures are implemented to avoid Conga-line phenomena with the new rairity of AOOs, this feat could be Suprisingly reliable.

When you are in a battle where this line thing is going on, you get a big edge over the other martials by having this feat.


In general the math seems a lot subtler and tighter in PF2 (kind of like Starfinder in that regard) so identifying the good options is going to take a lot more digging than "reading the new Player Companion". One hopes the community eventually either adapts to just deep diving on the math regularly or people gravitate to a place where "all the options are reasonably good, so pick the ones you like" is the dominant paradigm.


QuidEst wrote:

1. PF1, nobody moved. My players had to be reminded of how to do things without provoking all the time. I think allowing movement leads to tactics, and Fighter being unique in locking things down is good.

Well if only fighters have it in the party but all monsters can do it too, that won't change a lot : your party will remain unable to move ...


4 people marked this as a favorite.

The fact you can move, act and move again by itself makes the game more mobile.

51 to 100 of 121 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Almost everything in the new fighter preview is a red flag. All Messageboards