D&D 4E The math behind power attack and why it needs to be redone in 4e

[BryonD]

"It's suboptimal but fun!" is a terrible argument in defense of a mechanic. A good mechanic is one that rewards you for doing fun things, not one that penalizes you for it!

"suboptimal" does not mean it is worse than not using it.

As in my example, a +10 PA would be suboptimal, but would still increase damage over not using PA by over 40%. You are confusing suboptimal with being a penalty.

 

[BryonD]

No it doesn't, and in fact it works out worse, because the penalty for missing is so much bigger.

Actually you are correct here. I was shooting from the hip and recalling a different debate.
However, the real examples still work out because the typical power attacking characters to hit bonuses go up faster than ACs at a pace that more than compensates for the increased base damage that may be lost out on.

 

[BryonD]

Having said that, if Tweet's blog is any indication, Power Attack is going to be totally re-worked in 4e if it's there at all.

Indications are that AC, to Hit and damage will all scale together in 4e. At least a lot more closely than in 3E. So the math that makes PA work out in actual play in 3X likely will fall apart under 4E.

 

[Gloombunny]

I'm just pointing out that one of the more common arguments in favor of power attack is actually a very poor one. Your math-based argument and what I said have nothing to do with each other.

 

[BryonD]

I'm just pointing out that one of the more common arguments in favor of power attack is actually a very poor one. Your math-based argument and what I said have nothing to do with each other.

OK, I had stated the "fun" point above, so I thought you were replying to me. Also, it remains true that suboptimal does not equate to a penalty. You said it penalizes you. I find that to almost never actually be true. It can in some cases, certainly. But those cases are so glaring obvious that the simple choice to stop using PA makes it a non-issue.

 

[Cadfan]

But those cases are so glaring obvious that the simple choice to stop using PA makes it a non-issue.

Are you sure? I mean, you just gave us a big math post that left out your average damage per hit, which is a statistic that is absolutely necessary for calculating the optimal power attack level.

You also didn't mention whether you were using iterative attacks, but I'm going to assume that your barbarian was not.

If you do fill in these issues, what you will find is that power attack is best when your base damage isn't very high, your attack bonus is extremely high relative to target AC, your critical bonus isn't so great, and you haven't got iterative attacks available. I consider this basically a slam dunk for the anti-power attack squad, but I suppose your mileage will vary.

The fact that you get more statistical advantage power attacking with a Two Handed Spork than a Greatsword should be the end of the debate, in my opinion. Rewrite the thing.

 

[Ahglock]

Are you sure? I mean, you just gave us a big math post that left out your average damage per hit, which is a statistic that is absolutely necessary for calculating the optimal power attack level.

You also didn't mention whether you were using iterative attacks, but I'm going to assume that your barbarian was not.

If you do fill in these issues, what you will find is that power attack is best when your base damage isn't very high, your attack bonus is extremely high relative to target AC, your critical bonus isn't so great, and you haven't got iterative attacks available. I consider this basically a slam dunk for the anti-power attack squad, but I suppose your mileage will vary.

The fact that you get more statistical advantage power attacking with a Two Handed Spork than a Greatsword should be the end of the debate, in my opinion. Rewrite the thing.

Anything that adds to damage helps low damage things more than it helps high damage things. When you are talking % of help that is just the way it works in a HP system.

I guess you could create some kind of % system for the bonus damage, but other than that a +2 to damage from specialization helps the dagger wielder more than the greatsword wielder.

 

[KingCrab]

"It's suboptimal but fun!" is a terrible argument in defense of a mechanic. A good mechanic is one that rewards you for doing fun things, not one that penalizes you for it!

It's not always suboptimal. If you work out the expected damage per round, it can be quite beneficial to power attack (even at lower levels) if the enemy is not too well armored.

 

[Someone]

The math has been posted repeteadly on these boards, and is quite simple. It shows that, for single attacks, you maximize average damage by power attacking up to the point where the number of sides in the d20 that allows you to hit equals the average damage, including power attack damage.

As an example, suppose your total attack bonus for one charge is +10, your opponent's AC is 15 and you deal 1d8+4 damage, using a single handed weapon. You hit on a 5+: that is 16 sides on the d20. You deal on average 8,5 damage. Therefore the optimum amount of power attack is 4: you hit with 12 sides of the d20 and deal 12,5 average damage. IIRC criticals didn't alter the calculations, as power attack is also multiplied.

Conclusions have been repeated several times in the thread: power attack is great for combatants who have very high attack bonuses and low damages, and who don't use a lot of iterative attacks (it's better for combatants wth high mobility). In 3.0 it was great for finesse fighters using rapiers and such. However, it isn't so great for fighters with large damage outputs. In fact, if your average damage is already 19 or more (say, flaming greatsword, Str 20 and Weapon specialization is enough) then on average you shouldn't power attack unless, after the PA penalty, you still hit on a 2+.

 

[BryonD]

Are you sure?

Yes.

I mean, you just gave us a big math post that left out your average damage per hit, which is a statistic that is absolutely necessary for calculating the optimal power attack level.

Again, neither I nor my players get hung up on "optimal". What I said was it was obvious was not whether or not you are at the optimum, but whether or not you were being penalized.

If you do fill in these issues, what you will find is that power attack is best when your base damage isn't very high, your attack bonus is extremely high relative to target AC, your critical bonus isn't so great, and you haven't got iterative attacks available. I consider this basically a slam dunk for the anti-power attack squad, but I suppose your mileage will vary.

So if any number selected for PA increases damage output over not using it you consider that a slam dunk for NOT using it just because you don't easily know how to get the perfect maximum?
You are saying that it is a slam dunk to do an avg of 18 damage over a random avg somewhere between 21 and 28? 21 is suboptimal compared to 28, but to me it is still a slam dunk to use PA for 21 over not use it for 18. Right?

This hang-up on "optimum" is really strange. And I don't mean you. I mean that so many people seem unreasonably fixated on it.