Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
3.5 power attack: the designers' rationale
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Mike Sullivan" data-source="post: 955252" data-attributes="member: 9824"><p>I don't know that I agree that mowing down zombie hordes is a gaming staple. It's a staple of a particular horror genre, sure. And I think that Large or Huge zombies are a particularly dubious "generic challenge" -- and PA is much less useful against the medium sized ones in the scenario you proposed.</p><p></p><p>I also am unconvinced by the "mildly useful in a broad number of situations" argument. In general, I see it as useful for a big-weapon fighter in three scenarios:</p><p></p><p>1. When you are fighting fairly small bands of AC and hit point opponents at level 5 and below (before you get iterative attacks).</p><p></p><p>2. Briefly in the level 6-10 range when you're charging or otherwise denied your iterative attacks.</p><p></p><p>3. When all of your attacks for a given round hit on a 2+, and only when you aren't affecting your odds to hit at all.</p><p></p><p>I think that number 1 is fairly common for a brief level range. Numbers 2 and 3 will come up fairly frequently, but they're turning a rotten situation into a mildly less rotten situation -- increasing your damage from 35 expected per round to 40 expected per round, when your full-attack damage is 65 expected per round, just means you're killing time until you get to full attack.</p><p></p><p>That said, I think we can agree on one thing:</p><p></p><p>Clearly, 3.0 PA is at its most useless when we're talking about the archetypical greatsword fighter. Sword-and-boarders benefit more from it, and it's huge for a TWFer.</p><p></p><p>The change, then, is meant to equalize its utility for everyone -- centering around the sword-and-boarders. Thus, they're making it less useful for the TWFers, and more useful for two-handed guys.</p><p></p><p>They're making a seperate series of changes to make TWF more competetive (GWS, removing Ambidexterity, and ITWF and GTWF), as it was otherwise by-and-large the weakest style. I think that the goal here -- and, despite what people want to claim, there's no evidence that they've fallen short on this goal -- is to make the three different melee styles be an interesting and tough choice.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Mike Sullivan, post: 955252, member: 9824"] I don't know that I agree that mowing down zombie hordes is a gaming staple. It's a staple of a particular horror genre, sure. And I think that Large or Huge zombies are a particularly dubious "generic challenge" -- and PA is much less useful against the medium sized ones in the scenario you proposed. I also am unconvinced by the "mildly useful in a broad number of situations" argument. In general, I see it as useful for a big-weapon fighter in three scenarios: 1. When you are fighting fairly small bands of AC and hit point opponents at level 5 and below (before you get iterative attacks). 2. Briefly in the level 6-10 range when you're charging or otherwise denied your iterative attacks. 3. When all of your attacks for a given round hit on a 2+, and only when you aren't affecting your odds to hit at all. I think that number 1 is fairly common for a brief level range. Numbers 2 and 3 will come up fairly frequently, but they're turning a rotten situation into a mildly less rotten situation -- increasing your damage from 35 expected per round to 40 expected per round, when your full-attack damage is 65 expected per round, just means you're killing time until you get to full attack. That said, I think we can agree on one thing: Clearly, 3.0 PA is at its most useless when we're talking about the archetypical greatsword fighter. Sword-and-boarders benefit more from it, and it's huge for a TWFer. The change, then, is meant to equalize its utility for everyone -- centering around the sword-and-boarders. Thus, they're making it less useful for the TWFers, and more useful for two-handed guys. They're making a seperate series of changes to make TWF more competetive (GWS, removing Ambidexterity, and ITWF and GTWF), as it was otherwise by-and-large the weakest style. I think that the goal here -- and, despite what people want to claim, there's no evidence that they've fallen short on this goal -- is to make the three different melee styles be an interesting and tough choice. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
3.5 power attack: the designers' rationale
Top