Sustain a spell is a renamed version of concentration spells. Which in that edition took your standard action (2 PF2 actions).
What PF1 Cackle did was very specific: It extended the duration of a hex whose fixed duration would have otherwise ended. It was also only good in that it doubled the duration of hexes at the sole cost of a move action (1 PF2 action).
And since Sustain a Spell takes 1 PF2 action instead of 2, it matches PF1 Cackle a lot closer than it does PF1 concentration duration spells.
And I am not seeing where you are getting double duration of hexes.
A witch can cackle madly as a move action. Any creature that is within 30 feet that is under the effects of an agony hex, charm hex, evil eye hex, fortune hex, or misfortune hex caused by the witch has the duration of that hex extended by 1 round.
Compare to:
Choose one spell with a sustained duration you have in effect. The duration of that spell continues until the end of your next turn.
Furious Focus only helps on Power Attack -> Strike.
Okay. Not sure what point you're making, but I agree, furious focus is designed, and thus flavored, for Power Attack->Strike.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or Power Attack -> Grapple/Trip.
I still don't know why they didn't keep the Vital Strike name, that would have made it more clear.Wholeheartedly agree. There is an element of tradition to all of this. Power Attack has history. The new mechanics are fine, it serves a decent purpose. But it is misleading, in an admittedly trivial way, to someone who is familiar with that history.This reminds me of the complaints people brought up with Witch Cackle.
"PF1 Cackle was such a powerful and useful ability. Really defining for the class. PF2 Cackle is niche use. Why wasn't it made to be as powerful as in PF1?"
Because PF1 Cackle was so good that it was renamed Sustain a Spell and given to all spellcasters with no feat tax. PF2 Cackle had to be a new ability.
Actually that is wrong.
Sustain a spell is a renamed version of concentration spells. Which in that edition took your standard action (2 PF2 actions).
What PF1 Cackle did was very specific: It extended the duration of a hex whose fixed duration would have otherwise ended. It was also only good in that it doubled the duration of hexes at the sole cost of a move action (1 PF2 action).
And when combined with the favored hex, Evil Eye, it basically meant that it didn't matter if the enemy succeeded at their save, you were debuffing them and they couldn't get rid of it. Evil Eye (to saves) + cackle followed by another caster throwing save or suck spells became a classic. With cackle the witch could join the dog pile on the next turn.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also I think we should stop this side track here.
Maybe. Is there all that much value left in the primary topic? It looks to me like everything that needs to be said has been said.
Isn't PA also meant to be used as a boost for 3 action routines? I'm pretty sure that Strike, then PA with d10 and d12 weapons is better than striking 3 times against most AC values.
I agree with the people saying that it has an adecuate power level. It gives you some options, and I think that's enough for a level 1 feat. If anything, I'd say that Double Slice is way above the other level 1 fighter feats, but guess that's another conversation for another day.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
when PA is substantially stronger, its against high resistance or high AC boss monsters, .This is common missconception (high AC). If you look at Graph here you can see that the higher AC goes the better Exacting Strike is and worse Furious Focus Power Attack is. Also for Furious Focus to have advantage over Exacting Strike in 3 action scenario (in 2 it's even worse for PA vs 2 Strikes) the resistance would have to be minimum 10 to your main damage and then it's only a slight improvement and if enemy has high AC and high resistance, actually Exacting Strike is better cause high AC is not in favour to PA as you can see in graph.
It's also worth to mention that the higher you go the more different damage rides on your attacks due to property runes which makes PA worse. So a +3 weapon has extra 1d6 acid, 1d6 cold, 1d6 force on it, which means that more attacks can net you more damage going past resistance. Also the more flat damage bonuses you have (Telluric Power, Enlarge (4), Rage, Divine Smite, Forceful etc.) the worse PA becomes vs Exacting Strike even vs resistance as more strikes = more damage riders and property runes are applied to enemy. I am not sure what the statistic for all monsters now are, but in Bestiary 1 only 5% of monsters had physical resistances? And if you choose B damage type it's even less and a lot can be bypasses by cheap silversheen. Now, again, I don't know the % of all Bestiaries now, but it's worth to mention.
Kyle you have a pretty good grasp of the math here and it sounds like you would not much like to play a fighter with power attack. I think we are all very well convinced it is not a good feat for you.
But a fighter who picks runes like fearsome, or grievous (runes that don't do much if you manage to crit a second time), and has picked up ways to get spells like true strike, or make use of consumables that greatly increase damage on one attack are going to be approaching things from a different perspective and power attack can be a very good feat for folks approaching the game from a non-DPR centric perspective. In the Magus Playtest, my favorite build was the Magus with a Fighter archetype and the Power attack feat. Unfortunately, that build was made useless by turning spell strike into an activity, but there are quite a few versions of characters that still spend enough actions on making one really big strike that a feat that lets you invest one extra action into it for a bigger bump is pretty well justified.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Those other feats are so strong because they are trying to bring weaker fighting styles up to par with two handed weapons.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Power Attack is a level 1 feat that is a situational tool in the toolbox. Seems like a good enough feat I see get a lot of use early on and then less use at higher levels, but still occasional use if you have to bash through something like a wall of force or destroy some trap.
Power Attack is a level 1 feat that is a situational tool in the toolbox. Seems like a good enough feat I see get a lot of use early on and then less use at higher levels, but still occasional use if you have to bash through something like a wall of force or destroy some trap.
Good point on traps. We don't tend to think about hazards when we discuss battles, but they tend to make for the deadliest encounters in the game and often have higher hardness than creatures of the same level would have resistance.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Power Attack is a level 1 feat that is a situational tool in the toolbox. Seems like a good enough feat I see get a lot of use early on and then less use at higher levels, but still occasional use if you have to bash through something like a wall of force or destroy some trap.
It does get more dice at higher level.
At higher level the situational modifiers you can get from things like Aid for example are stronger, which makes it more valuable.
Then resistance situations can get complex. You can have maybe 4 different damage rune on your weapon but your enemy might have something like resistance all 10 - then each rune is doing damage separately of a different type, and thus each rune is just useless. Then Power Attack really becomes important again.
The relative value may move around a bit. I don't see it going away though.
Power Attack is a level 1 feat that is a situational tool in the toolbox. Seems like a good enough feat I see get a lot of use early on and then less use at higher levels, but still occasional use if you have to bash through something like a wall of force or destroy some trap.Good point on traps. We don't tend to think about hazards when we discuss battles, but they tend to make for the deadliest encounters in the game and often have higher hardness than creatures of the same level would have resistance.
And traps, ghosts, and walls are often immune to precision damage. Power Attack works very well for bashing through high hardness and resistance obstacles.
I sometimes see it used against high AC creatures too just to land one big blow if the second attack doesn't have much of a chance. Use falls off substantially once players get Greater Striking. Then it is clearly better to swing more often. Furious Focus extends it a bit for a regular striking runes.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
(as my graphs showed)
I am not looking at your graphs. I do not believe that they have accounted for all of the various complexities of usage scenarios that Power Attack is suited for.
At best your graphs will show what several of us have already said - that Power Attack is not a good fit for a high Strength two-hand weapon Fighter. Power Attack is not a way to get additional damage on top of what is widely considered to be one of the highest 'standard Strike' damage dealers in the books.
Power Attack is not a way to get additional damage on top of what is widely considered to be one of the highest 'standard Strike' damage dealers in the books.
There are other ways out there. Trip, Prone, Opportunity Attack, Combat Reflexes, Swipe, Whirlwind Attack etc all work better with more damaging two handed weapons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are other ways out there. Trip, Prone, Opportunity Attack, Combat Reflexes, Swipe, Whirlwind Attack etc all work better with more damaging two handed weapons.
Yes.
Not disagreeing in the slightest, but to better explain why those get to be damage increasing where Power Attack doesn't:
Trip and Prone are two examples of standard debuff actions - which don't actually change the Strike damage, just make it hit and crit more often. Other examples are Demoralize and Grab.
Attack of Opportunity and Combat Reflexes also don't change your Strike damage, but give you an additional chance to make a Strike at full attack bonus. And one that the enemy has to do something in order to trigger.
Swipe and Whirlwind Strike also don't change your Strike damage. They do increase your damage done overall, but not against any one particular target. In fact, they will do quite a bit lower damage to one target than if you had simply attacked that target exclusively.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
TBH I think Power Attack is in a pretty decent place. It might be slightly underpowered in the grand scheme of things but not so much as to make it unusable and it does pretty much exactly what you'd expect it to do.
The fact that sometimes you want to use it and sometimes you'd rather not is part of what makes it interesting, and I wish in general more classes had actions like that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I personally don't like that fighters are still using a level 1 feat at higher level. Fighters are often very limited in what they can do, so they end up doing the same feat they picked up at low level over and over and over again.
That's why I don't mind Power Attack being more situational. A Dual Weapon warrior uses Double Slice over and over and over again. Very monotonous.
I'm currently very lazy to do graphs. But you can do. Add 5/10/15/20 physical resistances to your maths. Also add Strike vs Shield block and PA vs Shield Block (including resistance + shield block). Including, consider how ineffective things like Certain Strike in resistances scenario.
If we want to do things more complex, consider to do graphs in Hero Points, DaS and True Strike scenarios.
IMO since the beginning when you see that PA only add some extra dices was pretty intuitive that it isn't developed to be a stronger attack but a tool to be used in some situations.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The thing about 1st level feats for a 2 handed fighter, and why power attack might feel worth it, even if situational, is because accuracy isn’t really the fighter’s issue, while the class lacks a lot of ways to get additional damage, especially early on. That makes resistances feel like a particular weak spot of the class, and something players might look to a class feat to solve. Fighting a shadow at level 2 without a magic weapon is very brutal, to mention an encounter from a fairly popular AP. Even with magic a martial focused party can suffer.
Now, I went sudden charge with my 2 weapon fighter, which is nice on a heavy armor class.it is 3 actions for the cost of 2, but it also got me in a fair bit of trouble because the champion could not keep up and so I would say I rarely used that feat more than once an encounter, if that.
Exacting strike is tricky because it might occasionally be ok at low levels, but fighters don’t take long to get so good at aiding another’s strike that a third attack, maybe with no map has little chance of being more useful than giving a +3 or +4 to a rogue or Barbarian or other martial striker ally that you are also giving flanking to. It feels like a situational feat with a low level expiration date on it…which isn’t a big deal with retraining and fighters getting so many feats, but it doesn’t really feel style defining unless your party includes support that moves you around a lot into position to make 3 attacks a turn.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
To me, Exacting Strike is a feat I don't really consider worthwhile.
Now to be fair, I think a 2 handed weapon fighter should really be focusing on using intimidating strike and knockdown. While intimidating strike doesn't carry the penalty of counting as two attacks, knockdown does. Any round I use knockdown (any round the enemy isn't already prone, which is probably often since they probably want to try to stand up and I'm unlikely to be able to keep them prone with my AoO) my MAP is already going to be high enough that striking again is a bad idea.
Exacting strike is definitely better that just swinging away 3 times in a row, but it's one of the least interesting things one can do in my opinion.
Helping to set up the rest of the players by debuffing the enemy is the most effective thing the fighter can do, IMO.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, for me Exacting Strike is a feat I'd never take either. The math seems to check out, but hot damn if it doesn't sound boring as hell and I don't think it feels particularly good either.
I'd also say that a two-handed melee fighter is already an amazing damage dealer by its pure existence. With that part covered, I focus on other bad things I can do to my enemies, same as you Claxon. Intimidating Strike + Shatter Defenses is a personal favourite of mine. Occasionally Knockdown, especially when I get Improved Knockdown. Enabling the big moves of teammates seems more worth it than directly squeezing a bit more damage out of this.
I respect all different opinions in this thread but "believe" has nothing to do with math. If you think my calculations are wrong/incorrect I am always happy to be proven wrong by better calculations. If you think you can do math better then please do, I am open to be proven wrong by arguments. "Believe" is not an argument and "various complexities" is empty argumement as it means nothing.(as my graphs showed)I am not looking at your graphs. I do not believe that they have accounted for all of the various complexities of usage scenarios that Power Attack is suited for.
The problem isn't with your math. I fully expect your calculations to be correct because you likely had a computer do them for you.
The problem is with your assumptions and expectations that you have put into your math as input. And those assumptions and expectations are your beliefs and are therefore just as subjective as mine.
What I find concerning about your beliefs is that you are omitting many scenarios from your consideration. You have a base assumption that Power Attack is designed for high strength two-hand weapon builds and so that is all that you are using to judge the feat with. And then when the feat's math comes up lacking, you believe that the feat itself needs changed to better suit what you believe the feat should be used for.
The problem is not with your math, but with your beliefs.
I cannot give you better math. I can give you different scenarios with different math. For example, a hypothetical character that wants to behave like a Swashbuckler but without the two points of failure involved in making skill checks to gain Panache - so they opt to be a Dexterity based 1-hand weapon Fighter that sometimes uses a shield, and sometimes makes combat maneuvers, and sometimes just attacks repeatedly.
With a Strength of 14 (+2) and a Dexterity of 18 (+4), using a shortsword for the finesse and agile and 1d6 base damage; and at level 4 where Striking runes become commonplace:
Against a low AC enemy for that level - AC 18 - and with an attack bonus of 4(level) +4(expert) +4(DEX) +1(item) = +13:
Damage on a successful Strike is 2d6+2 => 9
Damage on two successful Strikes is 9 + 9 => 18
Damage on a critical Strike is 9*2 => 18
Damage on a successful Power Attack is 3d6+2 => 12.5
Damage on a critical Power Attack is 12.5*2 => 25
Roll needed to hit with no MAP: 5 => 50% = .50
Roll needed to crit with no MAP: 15 => 30% = .30
Roll needed to hit with MAP1: 9 => 50% = .50
Roll needed to crit with MAP1: 19 => 10% = .10
Roll needed to hit with MAP2: 13 => 40% = .40
Roll needed to crit with MAP2: 20 => 5% = .05
Expected value of rounds with one Strike => .30 * 18 + .50 * 9 = 9.9
Expected value of rounds with two Strike => (.30 * 18 + .50 * 9) + (.10 * 18 + .50 * 9) = 16.2
Expected value of rounds with three Strike => (.30 * 18 + .50 * 9) + (.10 * 18 + .50 * 9) + (.05 * 18 + .40 * 9) = 20.7
Expected value of rounds with Power Attack alone => .30 * 25 + .5 * 12.5 = 13.75
Expected value of rounds with Strike, Power Attack => (.30 * 18 + .50 * 9) + (.10 * 25 + .5 * 12.5) = 18.65
If the first attack has a +1 bonus from something like Aid, then the probability changes slightly.
Roll needed to hit with no MAP: 5 => 50% = .50
Roll needed to crit with no MAP: 14 => 35% = .35
Expected value of rounds with one Strike => .35 * 18 + .50 * 9 = 10.8
Expected value of rounds with two Strike => (.35 * 18 + .50 * 9) + (.10 * 18 + .50 * 9) = 17.1
Expected value of rounds with three Strike => (.35 * 18 + .50 * 9) + (.10 * 18 + .50 * 9) + (.05 * 18 + .40 * 9) = 21.6
Expected value of rounds with Power Attack alone => .35 * 25 + .5 * 12.5 = 15
Expected value of rounds with Strike, Power Attack => (.35 * 18 + .50 * 9) + (.10 * 25 + .5 * 12.5) = 19.55
Against a high AC enemy for that level - AC 21 - and with the same +13 attack bonus:
Damage on a successful Strike is 2d6+2 => 9
Damage on two successful Strikes is 9 + 9 => 18
Damage on a critical Strike is 9*2 => 18
Damage on a successful Power Attack is 3d6+2 => 12.5
Damage on a critical Power Attack is 12.5*2 => 25
Roll needed to hit with no MAP: 8 => 50% = .50
Roll needed to crit with no MAP: 18 => 15% = .15
Roll needed to hit with MAP1: 12 => 45% = .45
Roll needed to crit with MAP1: 20 => 5% = .05
Roll needed to hit with MAP3: 16 => 25% = .25
Roll needed to crit with MAP3: 20 => 5% = .05
Expected value of rounds with one Strike => .15 * 18 + .50 * 9 = 7.2
Expected value of rounds with two Strike => (.15 * 18 + .50 * 9) + (.05 * 18 + .45 * 9) = 12.5
Expected value of rounds with three Strike => (.15 * 18 + .50 * 9) + (.05 * 18 + .45 * 9) + (.05 * 18 + .25 * 9) = 15.3
Expected value of rounds with Power Attack alone => .15 * 25 + .50 * 12.5 = 10
Expected value of rounds with Strike, Power Attack => (.15 * 18 + .50 * 9) + (.05 * 25 + .45 * 12.5) = 16.875
If the first attack has a +1 bonus from something like Aid, then the probability changes slightly.
Roll needed to hit with no MAP: 7 => 50% = .50
Roll needed to crit with no MAP: 17 => 30% = .30
Expected value of rounds with one Strike => .30 * 18 + .50 * 9 = 9.9
Expected value of rounds with two Strike => (.30 * 18 + .50 * 9) + (.05 * 18 + .45 * 9) = 14.85
Expected value of rounds with three Strike => (.30 * 18 + .50 * 9) + (.05 * 18 + .45 * 9) + (.05 * 18 + .25 * 9) = 18
Expected value of rounds with Power Attack alone => .30 * 25 + .50 * 12.5 = 13.75
Expected value of rounds with Strike, Power Attack => (.30 * 18 + .50 * 9) + (.05 * 25 + .45 * 12.5) = 20.625
Data Analysis
For this swashbuckling dex-based Fighter:
Against enemies with low AC, striking twice instead of using Power Attack will have about 2 points more expected damage. So for enemies that have lower AC but have damage reduction for their protection, a damage reduction of Resist 5 will be enough for Power Attack to be a useful option.
Against enemies with a higher AC: Strike, Power Attack will by itself do slightly more damage than 3x Strike. If an ally is giving an Aid bonus, the difference between 2x Strike and Power Attack is negligible.
I'll leave it to you as an excercise to do the math on a level 4 character that is a Fencer Swashbuckler with STR 14, DEX 18, CHA 14 that uses a Rapier (deadly d6 and finesse, but not agile) that took Fighter Dedication at level 2 and Power Attack at level 4 so that they can on round 1 do Feint, Power Attack (with Precice Strike and -2 enemy AC if Feint succeeds); then on round 2 do Strike, Feint, Confident Finisher. Then compare that damage output to what the swashbuckling Fighter from this post is doing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, for me Exacting Strike is a feat I'd never take either. The math seems to check out, but hot damn if it doesn't sound boring as hell and I don't think it feels particularly good either.
I'd also say that a two-handed melee fighter is already an amazing damage dealer by its pure existence. With that part covered, I focus on other bad things I can do to my enemies, same as you Claxon. Intimidating Strike + Shatter Defenses is a personal favourite of mine. Occasionally Knockdown, especially when I get Improved Knockdown. Enabling the big moves of teammates seems more worth it than directly squeezing a bit more damage out of this.
Yeah, intimidating strike + shatter defenses is another great combat. Personally I think every 2h fighter should have knockdown, improved knockdown, intimidating strike, and shatter defenses.
The best part about intimidating strike is that you're not even making a intimidation skill check, it's just "deal damage get condition".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Others were touching on this before in a more abstract way, but
I did some Math on this quite awhile ago.
What's frequently more important than total expected damage, is chance to kill and there are quite a few cases where Power Attack improves those odds (And quite a few cases where it doesn't).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder why people are arguing back and forth on what is just a weak feat?
The game is full of weak feats, do we need an 83 message discussion on all of them?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hahaha. Too easy of a set up on that one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a level 1 class feat, it's not supposed to replace your normal attack routine.
Yes, it's worse than two Strikes and yes, Exacting Strike mathematically trumps it damage-wise, so Power Attack is situational by design; that's the point, you use it against things with high AC or damage resistance. To say it's without its uses just because it's not a strict DPR increase is residual thinking from past editions.
Spoilers: something like Exacting Strike might give you more damage in a vacuum but it's still not gonna come up most of your turns (unless you're used to attacking thrice every turn, which is downright suicidal in the encounters you wanna be optimizing for). I don't think Power Attack needs adjusting.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder why people are arguing back and forth on what is just a weak feat?
The game is full of weak feats, do we need an 83 message discussion on all of them?
I'm of the opinion that the best candidates for "what feats should be weak" are "the feats with the same names as the strongest feats in the previous edition."
That Reddit analysis doesn't take into consideration shields and resistances and the last paragraph assumes they are rare, which is not true. Starting from lvl 10 the number of creatures with some kind of physical resistance increases a lot. Also many APs have NPCs that uses shield block or that has physical resistance or can cast stoneskin.
The game isn't just bare numbers and simulations. There are situations where PA is better and others where other actions or activities is better.
Based in AoN data. About 18% of current monsters from level 10 and higher have some kind of physical resistance or resistance to all except.
Unfortunately I cannot count the number of antagonist NPCs with some kind of Shield Block or resistance spell in APs and other published adventures. But they exist. I remember some of them in Extinction Curse but not how may (also this will strongly depend from adventure and GM).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Becasue resistance 5 would not give PA any advantage.
Not at all. Resistance 5 from a physical shield, shield cantrip or champions reaction - almost totally negates the 3d6 added to everything in this analysis for additional damage runes. Each damage type goes through resistance separately. In such a case it could count 4 times.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The analysis also assumes that you have extra action to attack with to get the benefit of Exacting Strike. Note that it has the press trait so it is only helping your 3rd attack, by making it as good as your second attack. Often you won't have that action as you want to do something else.
Sometimes you will critically fail your Exacting Strike attack, it is at -5 after all, then it doesn't give its benefit (press trait).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Becasue resistance 5 would not give PA any advantage.Not at all. Resistance 5 from a physical shield, shield cantrip or champions reaction - almost totally negates the 3d6 added to everything in this analysis for additional damage runes. Each damage type goes through resistance separately. In such a case it could count 4 times.
Physical shields and the shield cantrip only offer Hardness, which is simply subtracted from the total amount of damage, not each individual damage type. The only thing that works as you describe is resistance against all damage, such as from some champion's reactions. Which is rare on monsters. It's basically only incorporeal creatures and then a whole load of nothing with a few examples here and there.