| 21 people marked this as a favorite. |
I’m glad I play a game made by real game designers and not an algorithm blindly chopping-and-screwing text.
A bit OP. It basically is making a better Rage (lvl 1 feat, no AC penalty, just one action, no concentration restriction).
ChatGPT has the problem of mix different system versions a due this make many mistakes.
I feel like somebody saw the latest South Park episode and went "You know what? I'm gonna fix the entire system I have problems with via AI writing!"
Heck, I initially read the OP and first thought "bait," then I thought that it was referring to PF1, then after a third read through, I realize it's just a badly written feat and is actually worse than what we currently have.
That's kind of a lame feat and interacts with the way strength scales really jankily.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A bit OP. It basically is making a better Rage (lvl 1 feat, no AC penalty, just one action, no concentration restriction).
ChatGPT has the problem of mix different system versions a due this make many mistakes.
Chat GPT says it knows what the different systems are, but all it really means is it can talk about it. In practice it muddles the different systems together and largely talks about D&D5.
All ChatGPT really understands is language, almost all languages. It is very impressive, but also more limited than people think.
Give it a couple of years, and it will have mastered some domains quite well.
Actual real AI is still not close though.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
It also made an agile greatsword with the holy trait when asked to make Excalibur, and built an "Inquisitor class" which was basically a 5e subclass with pf1 mechanics in the features.
Leave poor ChatGPT alone, it's drunk.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's kind of a lame feat and interacts with the way strength scales really jankily.
Yep.
-2 to attack loses about 1/4 your damage (given standard enemies), for a +4 damage (early game). With a d12 weapon, you're gaining about 1 1/2 points damage (10.5/4=2.6 vs. 4). That's a squeak of damage for a feat that immediately becomes worthless w/ the first Striking rune. Unless a defensive PC, likely with a one-hander, who would get more advantage out of this power attack? That doesn't seem right either, though then too it would become worthless fast.And it makes one's attacks more of a gamble, which tends to favor enemies over PCs (assuming it's balanced in the party's favor).
So not only is it poorer mechanically, its shelf-life makes it laughable.
Nearly all feats, even early ones, see play into the late game.
And if the math were fixed, it's still kind of boring. A feat which "makes your basic Strikes better all the time" doesn't fit the PF2 paradigm where feats are situational tools.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes a more powerful thing could be considered better
That's not the point of power attack anymore though
The devs deliberately wanted power attack to not be an "always use" mandatory melee feat.
The current version fits that. It gives increased damage via more dice, but counts as two actions and increases your MAP as though it was two attacks. It's intended to help you get through an enemy that has extra high AC that you might not hit against with 2nd or 3rd attacks, and also to help deal with enemies that have resistance or reduction to the damage you deal. It's supposed to be a tool for specific occasions, not the tool you always use.
ChatGPT's version you posted is a 1 action, trade to hit for damage, and doesn't interact with MAP beyond the way making a strike does. It's basically a straight upgrade for attacks and isn't balanced for PF2 at all. It's a terribly written feat in the context of the wider game because it is unbalanced and a "must have" for any class that has access to it.
Edit: The funny thing about it though, is at higher levels the damage bonus falls off. Because eventually power attacks adds 2 or 3 dice (depending on character level). The characters who would normally use power attack are wielding d12 or d10 weapons (maybe rarely d8). But even a d8 add +4.5 damage on average, while your strength bonus will probably start at +4 and cap at +6. So this ChatGPT version is going to add between 4 to 6 damage, while the original version of power attack is going to add as much as 19.5 damage when using a d12 weapon at high level. The real downside remains that it's two actions and counts as two attacks for MAP. But those downside are very much intended.
There's Furious Focus for the MAP increase.
There's Furious Focus for the MAP increase.
True, but that's a second feat.
The point is how PF2's version of Power Attack is for specific purposes, and not a general damage increase ability. It's intended to cost two actions and increase MAP as though it was two attacks. Eventually you can get a feat that will reduce the penalty to counting as only 1 attack for MAP.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
According to Chat GPT
When using the power attack feat.
Make a single attack action.
Take -2 to hit.
If you hit double your strength bonus.
Thats way better mechanucally then the actual feat.
Sure it's better. But you know what? I can make it even better than that! Take -1 to hit, if you hit, double your total damage! Wow! How amazing is that, it's awesome now! Best feat in the game, I deserve a medal!
tl:dr; Balance matters.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
love how indicative this thread is of the quality of machine-generated text. yay for a device that doesn't know what context is generating text that doesn't function well!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hmmm. How do we know this isn’t ChatGPT trying to convince us that it would be a better game developer? :)
Hmmm. How do we know this isn’t ChatGPT trying to convince us that it would be a better game developer? :)
Do you actually want me to answer that?
Because I could certainly try. But I have found when I have tried that previously that I end up either irritating people or confusing them.
Hmmm. How do we know this isn’t ChatGPT trying to convince us that it would be a better game developer? :)Do you actually want me to answer that?
Because I could certainly try. But I have found when I have tried that previously that I end up either irritating people or confusing them.
I was joking. No need to actually answer that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"ChatGPT - write me an RPG."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah this is weird, can one delete their own profile? Or do we really think they were banned. Out right bans don't seem common, and I've seen some pretty dark discussion and usually posts just get locked.
I have a hard time imagining a ban happening so quickly.
"XBox, open game menu"
ACCESSING DIGITAL STORE. PROCEED WITH PURCHASE?
"What? No, go back!"
DIGITAL PIRACY DETECTED. PLEASE DRINK A VERIFICATION CAN.
Better?! So what? Better is easy. I can do better.
Strike with your Str-Modifier as a circumstance bonus. When you hit, you do maximum damage and it gets the Adamantine Trait.
Voilà! Even better. Balanced, no. Broken, yes. But better.
That's AI for you: artifical. Having six fingers might be "better", after all; upgrade, anybody?