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

[Grog]

The design team's theory on that is that you get to attack more often with dual wield. You have more attacks, so I guess in 3.0 that meant Power Attack worked out mathematically better for dual-wielders than greatsword wielding barbarians. I'm sure you can agree that just ain't right. Hence the change.

If that was the case, then either raising the bonus to +2 per point of PA for two-handed weapons, or eliminating PA for light weapons would have fixed that problem. It wasn't necessary to do both.

 

[ForceUser]

If that was the case, then either raising the bonus to +2 per point of PA for two-handed weapons, or eliminating PA for light weapons would have fixed that problem. It wasn't necessary to do both.

I think stratifying the weapon sizes was a good fix, myself. If, for instance, they had merely removed the benefit from TWF, then sword/board would still be leaps and bounds above two-handers because of the balanced AC and damage. Now the choices are very clear: attack more often (TWF), attack for more damage (THF), or go sword/board and do good damage while keeping a good AC.

 

[Staffan]

I recall seeing a post by Andy Collins (or maybe that one was Ed Stark) about 3.5e Power Attack. In that post, Andy (or Ed) said that in a world where everyone was a perfect mathematician, they would have gone for 0.5/1.0/1.5 with Power Attack (like with Strength) instead of 0/1/2, but that they felt having fractions computed on the fly would take too long. Having Strength involve fractions doesn't hurt so much because it's only calculated once and then left alone, whereas power attack can change from round to round.

That said, it probably wouldn't break the game if you allowed light/off-hand weapons to power attack at -2 to hit per +1 damage.

 

[WizarDru]

This is sounding more like it belongs in the rules forum.

 

[anonystu]

With regards to the complexity of including cleave:

I think at that point, you should abandon all hope of constructing a formula, and instead move to monte carlo simulations (defined roughly as just simulating an event a lot of times to get a feel for what happens: it's rolling 2d6 10000 times to understand that the average is 7).

 

[sithramir]

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

Good thing human CR isn't really == to character level eh?

 

[Tom Cashel]

edit: forget it.

I guess the people without 3.5 books aren't welcome. If you're going to discuss a rule, quote the rule!

 

[Jens]

I recall seeing a post by Andy Collins (or maybe that one was Ed Stark) about 3.5e Power Attack. In that post, Andy (or Ed) said that in a world where everyone was a perfect mathematician, they would have gone for 0.5/1.0/1.5 with Power Attack (like with Strength) instead of 0/1/2, but that they felt having fractions computed on the fly would take too long. Having Strength involve fractions doesn't hurt so much because it's only calculated once and then left alone, whereas power attack can change from round to round.

I think that thread/post was called something like Power Attack: The Designers' Rationale. I can't find it now, though. Link, anyone?

That said, it probably wouldn't break the game if you allowed light/off-hand weapons to power attack at -2 to hit per +1 damage. [/B]

I think that will be a common house rule, well in line with the designers' intention.

 

[ForceUser]

I think that will be a common house rule, well in line with the designers' intention.

-2 attack for +1 damage? Bleh. I'd rather hit for less damage more often. That is the TWF gig.