Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lord Ernie" data-source="post: 4127124" data-attributes="member: 58517">Hrmm... We have to look at this one in a vaccuum, I take it, and not in the existing feat-tree (Cleave requiring PA, for instance, like mentioned before)? Likewise... are we to compare the feats amongst themselves, or to the 'math gloat' that was 3.5 PA?Well... let's look at the options.A is simple and seems balanced, but it's very limiting, reducing power attack to a 'must have if you're two-handed basher, utterly useless otherwise'. Binary options are not exactly unprecedented, but are overall not an indication of good design.B resembles the original feat but punishes your AC instead of attack, thus creating the situation where, at high levels (where AC really doesn't matter so much anymore), taking as high a PA bonus as possible is optimal. At lower levels, you still have the 'sliding modifier' problem. Not so great.C is simple, works well at low levels, but really starts to lose out on higher levels. Of course, this is due to the 'stand still and whack things' philosophy, not so much due to the feat itself. Of all the options present, this one seems the most balanced - providing bonuses for all weapon types and it's not a binary 'this is the best attack' option. Plus, it adds in a potential 'Improved power attack' option, where you could do it as a part of a full attack (with bigger penalties). D is off the charts ridiculous, making weapons with high crit modifiers far too good, and worse, flat-footed does not effect most fighter-types at all (little or no Dex modifier to AC). Dishing out ridiculous damage without real penalties from level 1 does not sound well-balanced to me.So it seems... my vote goes to C.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lord Ernie, post: 4127124, member: 58517"] Hrmm... We have to look at this one in a vaccuum, I take it, and not in the existing feat-tree (Cleave requiring PA, for instance, like mentioned before)? Likewise... are we to compare the feats amongst themselves, or to the 'math gloat' that was 3.5 PA? Well... let's look at the options. A is simple and seems balanced, but it's very limiting, reducing power attack to a 'must have if you're two-handed basher, utterly useless otherwise'. Binary options are not exactly unprecedented, but are overall not an indication of good design. B resembles the original feat but punishes your AC instead of attack, thus creating the situation where, at high levels (where AC really doesn't matter so much anymore), taking as high a PA bonus as possible is optimal. At lower levels, you still have the 'sliding modifier' problem. Not so great. C is simple, works well at low levels, but really starts to lose out on higher levels. Of course, this is due to the 'stand still and whack things' philosophy, not so much due to the feat itself. Of all the options present, this one seems the most balanced - providing bonuses for all weapon types and it's not a binary 'this is the best attack' option. Plus, it adds in a potential 'Improved power attack' option, where you could do it as a part of a full attack (with bigger penalties). D is off the charts ridiculous, making weapons with high crit modifiers far too good, and worse, flat-footed does not effect most fighter-types at all (little or no Dex modifier to AC). Dishing out ridiculous damage without real penalties from level 1 does not sound well-balanced to me. So it seems... my vote goes to C. [/QUOTE]

Verification