[3.5] Power Attack - can this possibly be right?

[Archade]

Hi all,

My player is concerned with the new Power attack revision, and he's concerned that he's going to do *too* much damage.

Here's the situation. He has a half-orc Ftr3/Bbn6 with a Str of 20. He also has a Belt of Giant Strength to bring his Str up to 24. He wields a +2 Keen Two-Handed Sword. Nothing too unreasonable for his level, right?

So when he does a run of the mill strike, he hits on +18/+13 (BAB +9, Str +7, Sword +2) and does 2d6+12 damage. Pretty reasonable.

Now, when he rages and power attacks, things get ugly. Say he takes a -5 to hit from his BAB, he now hits at +15/+10, and does 2d6+30 damage. Gah! So on average, he's going 70hp a round in damage. Does this strike you as right?

He's currently overshadowing all the other characters in hand-to-hand. Have any of you run across this problem?

Thanks!

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Yep, a ragin,' power attackin' Str 20 barbarian can lay a smack down.

Let's see, while raging: BAB +9, Str +9, Sword +2: +20/+15 to hit, 2d6+14 damage.

Add -5/+10 power attack: +15/+10 for 2d6+24 (slight correction to your math -- it's only x2 to PA damage, Str is still x1.5).

Yep, pretty nasty, but in 3.0 that combo would be +15/+10 for 2d6+19, which is still nasty. Opponents that see him are likely to want to keep a calm emotions spell or the like handy, just in case!

We had a ragin', all-powerattack-all-the-time barbarian in our party for a while, and though he dealt some spectacular damage when he connected, his low AC while raging tended to compensate pretty well; the standard fighter with plate & shield was more effective overall. It's balanced in the long run.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Monsters in 3.5 generally have more hit points than in 3.0, so your berserking fighter, optimally designed for damage, will be dishing out nearly as much as a wizard would be able to. Which isn't a bad thing, by any stretch.

 

[Breakstone]

While I can see monster Hit Points and Character Damage being balanced against each other, I don't know if NPC Hit Points and Character Damage are...

I mean, sure, the Balor can take a few hits and deliver a bunch too, but I'm not sure if my recurring human fighter villain will be able to.

 

[Angcuru]

Just say NO to 3.5 Power Attack.

 

[anonystu]

Luckily, things like average damage calculators exist (check the Electronic aids) section.

+20/+15 (2d6+14, 17-20/x2)
versus
+15/+10 (2d6+24, 17-20/x2)

yields a break even point of AC 23: when the enemy is AC23: he's indifferent to power attacking or attacking normally: he'll do an expected 39.06 damage per round.

Anything below AC23, and he's better, but anything more, and he's best off attacking normally. At AC30: not power attacking does 21.42 points a round, and power attacking gets him only 12.79 points a round.

People tend to underestimate the value of having a high hit percentage: it is precisely because two-handed wielders do so high amount of damage on individual strokes that power attack needs to be x2: otherwise, it makes little sense at any time. (Under old style power attacking, the break even point is little old AC19: at AC25, he's already giving up 8 points of expected damage to power attack.)

And it gets worse, the higher you level: if your half-orc picks up a few levels, going to +25/+20/+15 versus +20/+15/+10, (with expected damage of 2d6+20 versus 2d6+30, by adding flaming or something), the break even point is a lowly (at that stage) AC 25.

There are times to use power attack: when DR reduces your damage to low values, when you have absolutely ludicrous chances of missing: but people who are toned for damage are ironically, the ones who benefit the least from power attack: when you're doing 30 damage, even 10 extra doesn't compensate you for a 25% drop in hit chance.

It still is of course, quite nice as a way to get to cleave, or to increase the chances of cleaving when you absolutely need to. It's just rarely worth it in expected damage terms.

 

[anonystu]

Note, that also power attack as a general strategy, increases variance for PC's: this is almost never a good thing, given that PC's are expected to win most fights.

At first, when I saw the 3.5 power attack revision to 2H weapons, I wondered why, and thought it silly, and was going to say no to it, but really if you push the math through, it's something which is occasionally useful, but most of the time, is only for tactical purposes, not damage purposes.

 

[Angcuru]

Makes sense. The way it was geared before, it seemed like duelists were getting the best benefit. Now that I think about it, the new revised power attack makes sense. Think of Orson ala Record of Lodoss War. He rarely hits high-level people, but when he does, things die. A lot.

 

[Nareau]

While I can see monster Hit Points and Character Damage being balanced against each other, I don't know if NPC Hit Points and Character Damage are...

I mean, sure, the Balor can take a few hits and deliver a bunch too, but I'm not sure if my recurring human fighter villain will be able to.

Yeah, but I think that might be more of a problem with the idea of Human CR == Character Level. I've run into many situations where a CR X monster is much tougher than a Level X NPC in a "normal" combat situation.

I mean, maybe I'm crazy, but I'd rather go toe-to-toe with a Ftr3/Wiz2 than a Djinni or a Greater Barghest *any* day.

Spider

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

My initial reaction was the same of yours, but then I ran the math and reconsidered.

And I realized that there will no longer be any way for melee characters to move and still full attack (in 3e, a haste action partial charge+full attack was typical by the time characters reached the level you're discussing) so I reconsidered yet again.

And I came to the conclusion that 3.5e power attack is one of the few changes that I like.