|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm genuinely curious of how game math switches if that change was done.
Like with power attack high level game turns very rocket taggy and any monsters with bab higher than 20 get insane damage boosts, but at same time lot of late game monsters' majority of damage comes from power attack and players would deal lot less damage but still have lot of buff options and such for damage.
So I'm curious of if anybody has ever tried what happens to game math if single feat is removed :O I kinda want to white room test this for macabre curiosity
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Everything dangerous kills you with magic or special effects. Banning power attack makes all martial characters pretty much hit like a wet noodle.
|
I have not, I generally find my late game monsters have difficulty hitting my PCs, so I often don't power attack.
Bad math if you do that. Barring rare instances where the attacker or monster has an high base damage and hits only with 19-20 or 18-20, and power attacks change that to 20 only, you do more damage using power attack
|
|
Outright removing power attack, no, but in the current game, we are experimenting with limiting it to a fixed value.
I have done some calculations and decided to fix it at a point where it is comparable to weapon specialization.
So it is -2 to hit +4 to damage for one-handed weapons, and -2 +6 for two-handed.
But we have removed a lot of metamagic feats that make saving more difficult too, and a lot of unbalanced spells from splatbooks (actually the spells have to be approved in, to be precise).
It is meant to be a campaign with a "One Thousand and One Nights" flavor, so plenty of magical wonders and relatively low-cost access to consumable, high-cost permanent items and lots of money.
And the slow advancement track.
So far there isn't an imbalance between the characters.
You must keep in mind that I don't play the 15 minutes adventuring day, so spending all your magic to go nova in 1-2 encounters isn't a good idea.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have not, I generally find my late game monsters have difficulty hitting my PCs, so I often don't power attack.Bad math if you do that. Barring rare instances where the attacker or monster has an high base damage and hits only with 19-20 or 18-20, and power attacks change that to 20 only, you do more damage using power attack
My experience is that bestiary 1-4 high level monsters with +20 attack bonuses are only ones that keep missing, bestiary 5-6 or enemies with +30 bonuses still keep hitting and anything of bab 20-30 range hits automatically even with power attack :'D
But yeah, I would presume that removing power attack would make martials weaker, but then again my realization with spellcaster is that majority of spellcaster effectiveness isn't about dealing damage, its about save or suck spells. (that said, you could nerf most spellcasting just by giving creatures higher touch ac <_< Enervation less useful when you keep missing) So again, it sounds like could be interesting just to see what happens to game balance
Barring rare instances where the attacker or monster has an high base damage and hits only with 19-20 or 18-20, and power attacks change that to 20 only, you do more damage using power attack
I suspect it's not all that rare for monsters to benefit from not using Power Attack.
For example, a full-attacking Purple Worm has:
Bite +25 (4d8+12/19–20 plus grab), Sting +25 (2d8+12 plus poison)
If it uses Power Attack:
Bite +20 (4d8+22/19–20 plus grab), Sting +20 (2d8+22 plus poison)
Against a PC with, say 33 AC, it needs an 8 to hit with a regular attack, and a 13 to hit with power attack.
Power attack reduces its hit chance from 65% to 40%.
Ignoring Crits, power attack reduces average damage from 33 per round to 28. Additionally, it might miss out on the chance to inflict grab or poison.
It only hurts martial classes, which are regarded as inferior at late levels anyway.
Honestly it doesn't add to the game in any significant way, I wouldn't bother
Incorrectly regarded as inferior… spellcasters are only considered superior because of spells that can incapacitate multiple enemies at once… the problem with that though comes when enemies succeed their saves. If your games consist of nothing but prebuilt enemies with low saves then sure… but once your GM starts tailoring things to challenge the party, those super powerful spellcasters start to become the weakest members of the party… it honestly is not all that uncommon for spellcasters to be the weak link in a group. Martial characters can actually be every bit as powerful as spellcasters and even harder to shut down depending on how they are built.
Never played a game without it, but have played some where it and Combat Expertise are considered Default combat options instead of feats.
|
|
Barring rare instances where the attacker or monster has an high base damage and hits only with 19-20 or 18-20, and power attacks change that to 20 only, you do more damage using power attack
I suspect it's not all that rare for monsters to benefit from not using Power Attack.
For example, a full-attacking Purple Worm has:
Bite +25 (4d8+12/19–20 plus grab), Sting +25 (2d8+12 plus poison)If it uses Power Attack:
Bite +20 (4d8+22/19–20 plus grab), Sting +20 (2d8+22 plus poison)Against a PC with, say 33 AC, it needs an 8 to hit with a regular attack, and a 13 to hit with power attack.
Power attack reduces its hit chance from 65% to 40%.
Ignoring Crits, power attack reduces average damage from 33 per round to 28. Additionally, it might miss out on the chance to inflict grab or poison.
It is dependant on how high is the base damage against the bonus from power attack. And if and how much DR has the target. And if they make iterative attacks or multiple nature attacks. And...
So I was making a generalization, but, for the creatures I checked, I would say that on average using power attack is beneficial.The number of variables is so high that it becomes almost impossible to give an absolute reply.
I suspect it's not all that rare for monsters to benefit from not using Power Attack.
For example, a full-attacking Purple Worm has:
Bite +25 (4d8+12/19–20 plus grab), Sting +25 (2d8+12 plus poison)DPR Including crits: 35.7825 (vs AC:33)
If it uses Power Attack:
Bite +20 (4d8+22/19–20 plus grab), Sting +20 (2d8+22 plus poison)DPR Including crits: 30.62 (vs AC:33)
Against a PC with, say 33 AC, it needs an 8 to hit with a regular attack, and a 13 to hit with power attack.
Power attack reduces its hit chance from 65% to 40%.
Ignoring Crits, power attack reduces average damage from 33 per round to 28. Additionally, it might miss out on the chance to inflict grab or poison.
Just added the totals in there.
From memory the calculations for whether to use Power Attack or not arr complicated unless you're getting 1.5× damage . If you're getting -1/+3 from Power Attack then it becomes almost a no-brainer to use it, but if you're not then it's harder to quantify.
As Diego says, it's also important to see where else they're getting damage from. If you've got +50 damage from other sources then taking a -5 to hit for +15 damage may not be worthwhile.
For the OP: You could try taking the 1.5× damage away from Power Attack, or you could try tying the accuracy penalty to the damage bonus in order to balance it out. I have the feeling the consensus of this thread is going to be correct though, and that you won't achieve what you want to. People will find another way to deal damage, or just play classes that don't rely on it as much. It'll cchange the meta-balance of the game by changing which classes are competetive, but won't really change how your game feels.
|
|
I decide to limit the modifiers to -2/+4 or -2/+6 because that way it is already stronger than weapon specialization, which requires a prerequisite feat and is limited to a single kind of weapon.
If you spend 2 feats, weapon focus and power attack give a -1/+4 or -1/+6 against +1/+2 of weapon focus and weapon specialization.
Most other martial classes have other ways to increase their damage, so I wanted to keep weapon specialization relevant, and not something way weaker than power attack.
Obviously, deadly aim is limited the same way. An archer already gets a lot of attacks.
I never used Power Attack as a monster. It would add extra math for me and make the battles more swingy (hence less strategic). I am skeptical it would change much of the monster's DPR anyway: Those with Power Attack tend to have a lot of damage bonus per hit already, and frontline PCs' AC values are high enough to make any AB penalty problematic.
If it were banned / heavily nerfed for PCs, I guess it would help to reduce the rocket tag. But I'd rather address the underlying problems: Why do feel players the need to beat monsters that quickly? Why is the damage output curve (over the course of levels) that odd?
|
|
SheepishEidolon, in my opinion, it is caused by the mechanics of the 3.x and Pathfinder.
In both systems, battles multiple, relatively weak opponents, are often problematic for the GM. Managing 30 mooks in 1st or 2nd edition AD&D was easy, so making an epic scene where the PCs did defeat numerous opponents was easy and fun. With the 3rd edition and derivates, it becomes more complicated, with plenty of special abilities common even to relatively low power mooks. So GM and module writers tend to use few high-power opponents. But few high power opponents mean that there is a serious risk of character death for a few swingy dice rolls. So the players want to end the battle rapidly to reduce the risk of character death.
But that push the GM into using stronger opponents to keep up the challenge.
The end result, as I see it, has been a system where experienced players can and want to make very powerful characters.
We banned fighters, that took care of most of the power attack issue. Once you get away from pure fighters, the only class power attack becomes annoying on is barbarians.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Incorrectly regarded as inferior… spellcasters are only considered superior because of spells that can incapacitate multiple enemies at once… the problem with that though comes when enemies succeed their saves. If your games consist of nothing but prebuilt enemies with low saves then sure… but once your GM starts tailoring things to challenge the party, those super powerful spellcasters start to become the weakest members of the party… it honestly is not all that uncommon for spellcasters to be the weak link in a group. Martial characters can actually be every bit as powerful as spellcasters and even harder to shut down depending on how they are built.It only hurts martial classes, which are regarded as inferior at late levels anyway.
Honestly it doesn't add to the game in any significant way, I wouldn't bother
the fighter Archer can quite often obliterate the BBEG before the spell caster even gets a turn. So yes, Martials are in no way inferior to casters. Not to mention that at some point Casters run out of spells and rests are not always an option.
SheepishEidolon, in my opinion, it is caused by the mechanics of the 3.x and Pathfinder.
In both systems, battles multiple, relatively weak opponents, are often problematic for the GM. Managing 30 mooks in 1st or 2nd edition AD&D was easy, so making an epic scene where the PCs did defeat numerous opponents was easy and fun. With the 3rd edition and derivates, it becomes more complicated, with plenty of special abilities common even to relatively low power mooks.
Yeah, for a mook it totally suffices to have some basic stats and one or two special powers. I remember myself skimming through the Bestiaries for medium / high level mooks and discarding several due to "too complicated" each time, until I found something simple enough.
Pathfinder has the troop template to emulate a big group of inferior targets, but so far it didn't work out that well for us. Players complain about being hit automatically, while the troop is still no real threat, so killing it is rather boring. I guess both issues can be fixed, though.
|
|
Pathfinder has the troop template to emulate a big group of inferior targets, but so far it didn't work out that well for us. Players complain about being hit automatically, while the troop is still no real threat, so killing it is rather boring. I guess both issues can be fixed, though.
My single experience with a troop was Rasputin must die. They killed my poor wolf animal companion without any problem.
4 lines dealing 6d10+6, with a reflex save at DC 23 for half damage plus an area attach doing 12d6, reflex save DC 21 for half hardly seem balanced for a CR 11 "creature". An average of 208 hp of damage is "a bit more" than the average of 50 hp of damage suggested for a creature with high damage.
The CR of swarms has always been undervalued.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I try not ban anything. At all. Ever.
Definitely not going to start by picking on martials. Lol. Like they need anything taken away from them. Poor martials have it bad enough already, and now you want to take Power Attack away, too? My goodness, what did martials ever do to you?
Ever think about banning Spell Focus? Of course not, that's freaking stupid. Stop banning stuff...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah Martials can't possibly be the problem!
Poor Martials, they don't even have any tools to affect the game besides killing things, and we Know that killing enemies Never unbalances the game.
And the Casters can't Possibly be countered! And if they are then it's your Players' fault, because they're playing them Wrong!
Where's the Evidence?!? And I'm not counting TxSam88's testimony coz Clearly that's biased! And the OP doesn't count because I've never seen Martials be a problem so it's Impossible!!
You're not wrong, but that's the most (possibly) angry/emphatic post I think I've seen you make.
Read it again, but dial up the sarcasm to 110%.
|
|
Sorry for possible derail. I have books from, but never got to play in, 1st a 2nd edition. What made running mobs of enemies easier in those systems? Could any of those mechanics be semi-easily modified and house ruled for a Pathfinder game?SheepishEidolon, in my opinion, it is caused by the mechanics of the 3.x and Pathfinder.
In both systems, battles multiple, relatively weak opponents, are often problematic for the GM. Managing 30 mooks in 1st or 2nd edition AD&D was easy, so making an epic scene where the PCs did defeat numerous opponents was easy and fun. With the 3rd edition and derivates, it becomes more complicated, with plenty of special abilities common even to relatively low power mooks. So GM and module writers tend to use few high-power opponents. But few high power opponents mean that there is a serious risk of character death for a few swingy dice rolls. So the players want to end the battle rapidly to reduce the risk of character death.
But that push the GM into using stronger opponents to keep up the challenge.
The end result, as I see it, has been a system where experienced players can and want to make very powerful characters.
Things like: you had your movement and your number of attacks so you were always moving in full and doing whatever attacks you had, fixed to hit based on HD, with very few variations, no AoO, no feats, no combat maneuvers, no 5' step or tactical movement to position yourself better without provoking an AoO, less hit points on both sides, way less damage, haste did age by a year every time it was used and you risked to die for a heart attack, often a clearer description for spells, simpler saves for everyone (and generally better saves). It is not so simple to pinpoint a single thing, it was a plethora of small things.
3.x-Pathfinder is way more tactical, and, to play it as it is intended, you need to evaluate your moves way more accurately. With older editions, a grid wasn't necessary until you were placing your miniatures around an opponent or people were trying to benefit from some terrain feature.The end result was that play was faster.
Naturally, a factor is that those that played in those versions were younger than they are today, so more flexible and may be less interested in following the rules to the letter.
Mr Charisma, if "scathing" can be used to describe the word sarcasm... like, I can appreciate sarcasm, but I winced bit reading that. My apologies if it was something I said and that was directed at my completely useless previous post. Got me all scared like I did something wrong... even if it wasn't directed at me... like a bunch of privates hearing an NCO start yelling.
|
|
Sorry. I got the sarcasm, it just seemed a bit more acerbic than your usual tone. I apologize if I was projecting too much.You're not wrong, but that's the most (possibly) angry/emphatic post I think I've seen you make.Read it again, but dial up the sarcasm to 110%.
I get perfectly his position. In any instance nerfing the martial alone isn't a good idea.
With the current campaign removed plenty of metamagic feats and spells, added 2 skill points/level to every class that can be spent on a limited number of skills linked to the class, changed the skill bonus point to the average of the physical stats for physical skills and to the average of the mental stats for the mental skills, so that any build will get some bonus skill point, and so on. I am aiming at a specific flavor and trying to get it, so it is a heavily modded campaign.So far the result is nice, play goes faster, and martial can do several things out of combat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry. I got the sarcasm, it just seemed a bit more acerbic than your usual tone. I apologize if I was projecting too much.You're not wrong, but that's the most (possibly) angry/emphatic post I think I've seen you make.Read it again, but dial up the sarcasm to 110%.
All good. It's hard to tell tone form text alone. I should have put in more emoticons ...
:o
>:(
;)
... Dancing Man!
o/-<
o\-<
o/-L
o\-/
o>-|
o|-<
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mr Charisma, if "scathing" can be used to describe the word sarcasm... like, I can appreciate sarcasm, but I winced bit reading that. My apologies if it was something I said and that was directed at my completely useless previous post. Got me all scared like I did something wrong... even if it wasn't directed at me... like a bunch of privates hearing an NCO start yelling.
Aw man, now I feel bad =P
My comments weren't directed at anyone in particular. They were directed at the general reductive nature of the Martial Vs Caster debate. Anything can destabilize a game if the balance is out of whack. Casters probably have more tools to destabilize a game, but you only need 1 to accomplish the job.
So Report to the Mess Hall Private! You're on Cleaning Duty for the next Week! ... or something.
Haha thanks. What's the puzzle?
I decide to limit the modifiers to -2/+4 or -2/+6 because that way it is already stronger than weapon specialization, which requires a prerequisite feat and is limited to a single kind of weapon.
If you spend 2 feats, weapon focus and power attack give a -1/+4 or -1/+6 against +1/+2 of weapon focus and weapon specialization.
I went back to the actual question, and here's my thoughts on this.
When considering 2 feats that looks good, but if you take it to 3 feats ...
Power Attack, Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Focus = -0/+4 or -0/+6
Weapon Specialization, Greaater Weapon Specialization, Weapon Focus = +1/+4.
For the 2-handed weapon it's probably still better, but for a 1-handed weapon it's strictly inferior. I dunno if that matters, but something to think about.
What if you just reduce the number of upgrades Power Attack gets? -1/+2 at +1BAB, then -2/+4 at +8BAB, then -3/+6 at +16BAB. Still gets the ×1.5 for 2-handed weapons etc. This still gets you a good chunk of damage but doesn't end up with +18 damage on a Barbarian.
|
|
I decide to limit the modifiers to -2/+4 or -2/+6 because that way it is already stronger than weapon specialization, which requires a prerequisite feat and is limited to a single kind of weapon.
If you spend 2 feats, weapon focus and power attack give a -1/+4 or -1/+6 against +1/+2 of weapon focus and weapon specialization.
I went back to the actual question, and here's my thoughts on this.
When considering 2 feats that looks good, but if you take it to 3 feats ...
Power Attack, Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Focus = -0/+4 or -0/+6
Weapon Specialization, Greaater Weapon Specialization, Weapon Focus = +1/+4.
For the 2-handed weapon it's probably still better, but for a 1-handed weapon it's strictly inferior. I dunno if that matters, but something to think about.
What if you just reduce the number of upgrades Power Attack gets? -1/+2 at +1BAB, then -2/+4 at +8BAB, then -3/+6 at +16BAB. Still gets the ×1.5 for 2-handed weapons etc. This still gets you a good chunk of damage but doesn't end up with +18 damage on a Barbarian.
Greater weapon specialization requires greater weapon focus, so 4 feats to get there.
The fighter lacks most of the powers of the other class and is someone that is specialized in fighting. For sure I don't feel bad at giving it his edge in combat.If we use any and all splatbook with all the options the class has other possibilities, but not all of the splatbooks options are balanced.