Level Up (A5E) Powerful Attacker Question

[nyarly23]

According to the A5E Tools site, the Powerful Attacker feat only functions with heavy weapons.

My copy of the Adventurer's Guide, however, adds the following sentence to the "cleave" aspect of the feat:

In addition, you can use Cleaving Swing with a versatile weapon wielded with two hands.

The text of the "powerful attack" aspect also differs (bold text for emphasis):

Before you make a melee attack with a two-handed weapon or versatile weapon wielded with two hands...

These are significant differences. Which version is correct?

 

[Distracted DM]

So there are a few places to check when discrepancies come up like this:

The book, the a5e.tools site, the a5e errata site, and the a5e srd.

There's no errata.
The AG and a5e.tools differ. Usually I'd say if there's no errata, go with the book since something might have been mistaken when entering data into the a5e.tools site.

If for some reason I can't reach a conclusion, I check the SRD.

Here's the SRD:

So yeah, the a5e.tools site is missing that sentence.

 

[Sepulchre]

The feats from the AG on the tools page are all old versions from a prior pre-publication draft of the AG. The AG has the correct text.

I think it’s just an oversight; I can’t imagine that it was intended to allow Cleaving Swing to work with a versatile weapon but not all two-handed weapons.

 

[nyarly23]

Ah, good call with the SRD!

There is a strange interaction with the AG version, I noticed. A quarterstaff can be used to "power attack" but not cleave (it is two-handed, but not heavy/versatile).

The Warrior Monk is the opposite: they can cleave with unarmed strikes (they count as heavy), but not "power attack" (which does not mention heavy).

This is mainly an observation. I know such things can easily be houseruled for consistency.

 

[lichmaster]

One thing I'm noticing, besides the weird interactions with staff and warrior monk, is how it specifies that you must not have disadvantage on the attack.
What if someone has advantage on the attack instead?
On one side the attack has advantage, the player decides to power-attack, getting +10 damage but also disadvantage, netting out the two.
The other way to read it (probably more correct since specific beats general) is that this disadvantage overrides the advantage completely, since the spelling of power attack says that "A powerful attack is made at disadvantage". In this case, one would likely pause and ponder quite a bit if it's better to attack with advantage or with disadvantage but +10 to damage.
If the second reading is the most correct I'd prefer a clearer statement, like "Regardless of whether you have advantage or not, a powerful attack is made with disadvantage"

 

[Selganor]

Advantage and disadvantage cancel themselves out.

The limit on "not if you got disadvantage" is probably due to the fact that if this limit doesn't exist you could just do power attacks and get a damage bonus "for free" (since you can't get multiple disadvantage).

 

[Distracted DM]

Advantage and disadvantage cancel themselves out.

The limit on "not if you got disadvantage" is probably due to the fact that if this limit doesn't exist you could just do power attacks and get a damage bonus "for free" (since you can't get multiple disadvantage).

Actually it's ... kind of worded oddly. I thought the same at first, yeah advantage and disadvantage cancel each-other out.
But it then goes on to state that the attack has disadvantage. So... if you have advantage and disadvantage canceling themselves out, say Poisoned and True Strike... when you make the powerful attack, is the roll made with disadvantage as the text says? That seems to go to Specific beats General- so yes, you'd have disadvantage on the attack.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

Actually it's ... kind of worded oddly. I thought the same at first, yeah advantage and disadvantage cancel each-other out.
But it then goes on to state that the attack has disadvantage. So... if you have advantage and disadvantage canceling themselves out, say Poisoned and True Strike... when you make the powerful attack, is the roll made with disadvantage as the text says? That seems to go to Specific beats General- so yes, you'd have disadvantage on the attack.

that's a completely normal way for the system to say a type of roll has normal disadvantage. see ethereal umbra ("Opportunity attacks made against you while this umbra is active have disadvantage") or sunlight sensitivity ("You have disadvantage on attack rolls and on Perception checks thatrely on sight when you, the target of yourattack, or whatever you are trying to perceiveis in direct sunlight") or even the poisoned condition ("A poisoned creature has disadvantage onattack rolls and ability checks").

i don't think powerful attacker's disadvantage is special in any way.

 

[Distracted DM]

that's a completely normal way for the system to say a type of roll has normal disadvantage. see ethereal umbra ("Opportunity attacks made against you while this umbra is active have disadvantage") or sunlight sensitivity ("You have disadvantage on attack rolls and on Perception checks thatrely on sight when you, the target of yourattack, or whatever you are trying to perceiveis in direct sunlight") or even the poisoned condition ("A poisoned creature has disadvantage onattack rolls and ability checks").

i don't think powerful attacker's disadvantage is special in any way.

OK so to be clear you're saying that if you're poisoned, attacking a prone foe, and power attacking it's a wash? I'm not disagreeing- I don't know what to think here

 

[W'rkncacnter]

OK so to be clear you're saying that if you're poisoned, attacking a prone foe, and power attacking it's a wash? I'm not disagreeing- I don't know what to think here

yeah, basically.
advantage/disadvantage is weird, but that's how it works.