Jonathan Tweet denounces Power Attack

[BryonD]

But that's irrelevant to the issue of dumbing down the game. You are right-- they're not. From what little we've seen so far, my impression is that they're adding complexity, while telling us they're streamlining play.

I agree completely on some cases. And I am not complaining about 4E as a whole. But there are exceptions and I see this topic at hand as one.

 

[BryonD]

Read the rest of the thread. It's been said before: The problem is not any one individual bit of "quick math" like "add 2 here, subtract 1 there." It's the combined effects of even that small delay when imposed over and over again, and the vast magnification of delay caused by stacking mathematical modifiers.

I have read the thread, please don't talk down to me.

I have one player in particular who uses PA constantly at a wide range of modifiers. Another who uses it with moderate frequency and almost always a fixed intervals, and me using it at totally random frequencies and extents as a DM. I've never seen it slow down the game to a degree that was an issue. Maybe like 5 to 10 seconds sometimes while they debate a little, moderate, or all out, but that is all. Hell, a wizard trying to choose which spell to cast is vastly more of a game stopper, both in terms of frequency and amount of delay caused.

 

[BryonD]

I would hope that one of the goals for 4E is to reduce the total number of said modifiers, focusing instead on a smaller number of more easily applied and more significant ones, with fewer on-the-fly choices necessary to apply them. While PA may not be the most egregious of these, it's certainly a solid example of one--and one that, as this thread suggests, some people do have problems with.

And I will remain eager to see what they do and won't pass judgment on THAT until then.
But "fewer choices" isn't the kind of sales pitch that makes me enthusiastic.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I have read the thread, please don't talk down to me.

All right, that's fair. In return I'll ask an acknowledgment that the issue being discussed is far more than +2/-1, as has been stated multiple times by multiple people. Belittling the problem isn't a good way to discuss things.

I've never seen it slow down the game to a degree that was an issue.

Fair enough. It's not a problem at your table. Me, I've seen it slow things down, and obviously other people have a well.

Hell, a wizard trying to choose which spell to cast is vastly more of a game stopper, both in terms of frequency and amount of delay caused.

Which may well be one of the reasons Vancian casting is (mostly) gone.

The point I'm trying to get across is that PA may not be the only culprit, may not even be a primary culprit, but it is a known--and in some cases, at least, bemoaned--contributor to the slowdown of gameplay. Therefore, adjusting it into something that takes less time is a legitimate solution, as long as it's only part of the solution.

 

[Mouseferatu]

And I will remain eager to see what they do and won't pass judgment on THAT until then.
But "fewer choices" isn't the kind of sales pitch that makes me enthusiastic.

Well, suppose there's a replacement for Power Attack that works in a similar fashion, but with a fixed amount, as others have suggested.

It's not a reduction of choice when building the character; you still choose whether to take the feat or not.

It's not a reduction of choice when fighting; you still choose whether to use the feat or not.

I suppose one could call it a reduction of choice, in as much as it's no longer possible to decide whether to PA for a little or a lot--but honestly, that doesn't strike me as a real loss. The capability is still there, and the ability to play a character who swings wildly to hit harder is still there. I don't think that the loss of a small bit of granularity--and really, that's all we're talking about here, a tiny matter of degrees--is too much to pay for a more streamlined combat.

(Granted, this assumes there is an equivalent of PA in the new game, but I think it's likely.)

 

[Ahglock]

Which may well be one of the reasons Vancian casting is (mostly) gone.

Vancian spell casting doesn't slow down the spell casting it slows down the between times where people prep spells.

Unless they are reducing the different per encounter abilities to a ridiculously small amount spell casting will remain as slow as it is now as the person takes there time looking through there spell list for the right spell to cast and what it does.

 

[Ahglock]

Well, suppose there's a replacement for Power Attack that works in a similar fashion, but with a fixed amount, as others have suggested.

It's not a reduction of choice when building the character; you still choose whether to take the feat or not.

It's not a reduction of choice when fighting; you still choose whether to use the feat or not.

I suppose one could call it a reduction of choice, in as much as it's no longer possible to decide whether to PA for a little or a lot--but honestly, that doesn't strike me as a real loss. The capability is still there, and the ability to play a character who swings wildly to hit harder is still there. I don't think that the loss of a small bit of granularity--and really, that's all we're talking about here, a tiny matter of degrees--is too much to pay for a more streamlined combat.

(Granted, this assumes there is an equivalent of PA in the new game, but I think it's likely.)

Its a small bit of granularity for the system as a whole but a large bit for the feat in particular. It speeds up my game by maybe 20 seconds an entire night to remove that granularity while reducing the options for the power attacking player by a decent amount.

 

[Arkham Angel]

I've read a bit about the new 4th edition and watched the demo at Gen Con. It seems to me like the salesmen were saying that they're streamlining the rules (they're rules and not guidelines now?) by seemingly dumbing the system down. Stuff like grapple and power attack aren't hard to remember and don't slow the game down for our group so what's the deal?

Perhaps 4E will be a great system. 3E grudgingly gained my respect over the time I've used it. But so far I don't like what I see overall.

 

[Ahglock]

I've read a bit about the new 4th edition and watched the demo at Gen Con. It seems to me like the salesmen were saying that they're streamlining the rules (they're rules and not guidelines now?) by seemingly dumbing the system down. Stuff like grapple and power attack aren't hard to remember and don't slow the game down for our group so what's the deal?

Perhaps 4E will be a great system. 3E grudgingly gained my respect over the time I've used it. But so far I don't like what I see overall.

This specific example may be of it being dumbed down and maybe a couple other specific places, but as a whole it really hasn't sounded that way to me.

 

[mxyzplk]

OK, I'm late in on this thread, but I don't like the "fiddliness" of Power Attack either. Pretty much anything that encourages you to min-max at attack time is bad. I've seen many a fighter sit there trying to figure out how many points to put into PA given the rolls we've seen and the enemy's likely AC. "Hmm, 2 or 3 points?" A binary choice should be the most complexity for a single effect, given how many different effects can apply to a single attack.