D&D 3E/3.5 3.5 power attack: the designers' rationale

[Mike Sullivan]

I broadly agree, (P)SH.

I'm just saying that I think that there will likely be some CR 10 monsters with below-20 AC's. Not as many, of course.


EDIT: Note that he lists Giants as having "not very good AC's," but, as I pointed out to Plane Sailing, for a greatsword fighter, 3.0 PA wasn't very useful against Frost or Fire Giants from a 10th level fighter -- even on partial attacks!

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Right after Andy posted that I looked up the AC scores of several giants, and noted that some, at least, had good AC scores

I think people are worrying too much about this now. I don't want to worry too much, but I'm positive some munchkin, somewhere, will break it. Probably playing a non-standard race or by getting polymorphed in every battle, of course.

 

[Nail]

FWIW:

When I first heard of this change, my knee-jerk response to my players was: "Wow. I'll crunch the numbers, but...wow, that seems too good!"

Thankfully, Mike S. has done the number crunching for me. Thanks, Mike!

And my gut reaction was wrong, thank you very much.

It's clear that 3.5 PA is not the game breaker I thought it was. Even in the case of partial attacks, it's No Big Deal(tm). Frankly, that flies in the face of "common sense" though, doesn't it? Number analysis tends to do that, mostly 'cause we have such a poor sense of probability. (Buying lottery tickets comes to mind. Thinking that driving a car is safe is another.)

This thread reminds me of the early chatter on the web about 3.0, when it was first introduced. I remember having a heck of a time convincing people that TWF was much weaker than THWF. People were always including including the rogue sneak attack in an effort to prove otherwise. Remember that, guys?

I'm sure some of you do, and I'm surprised to see some of those old-timers here arguing that 3.5 PA is broken. Statistics apply to your game with your "5 or 6 round combats" just as much as anyone else, buddy. Doesn't seem like it does ("Holy %%$#!#@, Joe just rolled three 20's in a round"), but......

 

[Celtavian]

Re: Re: Re: Re: re

I think that Dodge is underpowered. I think that Expertise is probably better than either version of Power Attack, though I haven't backed up that general feeling with any close analysis.

Agreed about Dodge.

Expertise is equal or better than Power Attack until it caps, though being able to better your AC by up to 5 points is never useless.

TWFers were weak in comparison to big weapon fighters in 3.0. I'm sorry to keep harping on this, but I need to point out again that aside from the 3.5 PA change, 3.5 TWFers got very much improved in comparison to 3.0 TWFers!

You can't look at the PA change in a vacuum. If PA was overly good for TWFers in 3.0, it'd be killer for them in 3.5, if it hadn't changed as well. If 3.0 TWFers were "keeping up" with big-weapon fighters (a contention that I'd argue, actually), then they'd significantly exceed them in 3.5.

Not sure on this one. It seems that you are saying that TWF's are greatly improved due to the addition of more TWF feats to the core rules. We have always used the splat books, so we had access to the TWF feat chain prior to their addition to the core rules.

Honestly though, we have never had a high level TWF due to the fact that TWF are significantly weaker at lower levels compared to big weapon users. The pay off at higher level for TWF's is probably great, but we have never witnessed it. I am lacking experience seeing the effectiveness of a min/maxed TWF using the TWF feat chain.

Because "they" (and I) feel that not only is PA too good for TWFers, it's almost no use at all for big weapon fighters. Remember that, though we've been focussing on the TWF/big-weapon comparison, 3.0 PA is better for sword-and-board guys than it is for big-weapon guys, too.[/i]

It seems about equal considering that sword and board guys trade the 1.5 damage for the shield bonus to their AC. In terms of just Power Attack, your statement is true.

Well, hey, I like your non-insulting tone, so I'll try running that Cleric combo that you were talking about, later today. But I'm still just not seeing any of the (admittedly worrying!) combos that people are talking about work out in practice.

Thanks for running the analysis. Its good to start looking at certain combinations that will take full advantage of the change.

Did you check out my look at the Fire Giants?

Yes, I did. I have alot fighters in my group who prefer light armor so they don't have massive skill penalties. I do think that the

Power Attack

change will not impact heavily armored types so much as light armored mobility fighters and rogues. I won't be surprised if Giants start teeing off on rogues, and the light armored fighter better have some great dex or he is going to get crushed.



After reading yours and others analyses, I have decided to give the new Power Attack a try. I'll see how it effects combat, then decide where to go from there. Thanks again to you and the others who ran the numbers.

 

[Mike Sullivan]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: re

Not sure on this one. It seems that you are saying that TWF's are greatly improved due to the addition of more TWF feats to the core rules. We have always used the splat books, so we had access to the TWF feat chain prior to their addition to the core rules.

Honestly though, we have never had a high level TWF due to the fact that TWF are significantly weaker at lower levels compared to big weapon users. The pay off at higher level for TWF's is probably great, but we have never witnessed it. I am lacking experience seeing the effectiveness of a min/maxed TWF using the TWF feat chain.

Well, you can now get ITWF at level 6 of a fighting class, instead of level 9. And GTWF at level 11 (I don't know what the prerequisites for it are in MotW, which I don't have). So your guys won't have to wait as long for it, if they want to try it.

Yes, I did. I have alot fighters in my group who prefer light armor so they don't have massive skill penalties. I do think that the change will not impact heavily armored types so much as light armored mobility fighters and rogues. I won't be surprised if Giants start teeing off on rogues, and the light armored fighter better have some great dex or he is going to get crushed.

A light-armored fighter with a chain shirt +2 and an 18 Dex has an AC of 20. Two weapon defense apparently gives +1 to AC, though I have no idea what the prerequisites are. And there's Expertise. And Duellist is now a core PrC. Rings of Protection. The Shield spell.

I'm not sad to see scenarios in which it's helpful to have a decent AC. From some of the stuff I've read on this board, I get the impression that there are games out there in which everybody hits all the time. If there are mechanical incentives to making defense important, I'm cautiously for them.

After reading yours and others analyses, I have decided to give the new Power Attack a try. I'll see how it effects combat, then decide where to go from there. Thanks again to you and the others who ran the numbers.

Hey, glad to be of service. Hope it works out for you.

 

[Nail]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: re

Hey, glad to be of service.

This thread should be saved. Mike's done a great job, and y'all know we'll see this arguement come up ad nauseum, right?

 

[Technik4]

Anyone else want a slight revision to the 3.5 version?

I mean lets say Im a big brute that usually uses power attack and a greatsword, but Im fighting a werewolf (in wolf form) and I whip out my dagger. I understand Im not going to get as big of a benefit from Power Attack as I usually do, but I also know that it has a low AC.

What about for every 2 points of Attack I give up, I get 1 point of damage when using light weapons.

Intuitively this seems a useless strategy unless in a situation where you KNOW you are going to hit, and I dont think it will lead to many people picking it up to trade +2 to hit for +1 damage with a light weapon!

Technik

 

[3d6]

All this talk about a revised Power Attack makes me think of one thing: A Half-Ogre Psychic Warrior with Deep Impact, Improved Critical, Power Attack, and a keen mindfeeder scythe.

Better make that scythe ironwood, too. Then you can cast spikes on it, which doubles the threat range again and gives you +1 damage per caster level, to a maximum of +10.

Yee ha!

(I'd like to use that as a situation in which Power Attack is broken, but I don't think I can do it with a straight face.)

 

[jodyjohnson]

Keen and Improved Cri no longer stack

http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=54611

Seems to put the PA change in a little more perspective.

What other changes don't we know about yet that impact this feat?

Personally, whenever they say Solution X had the right idea but was oo complicated so we went with Solution Xrevised I'd tended to go with Solution X. In this case x.5 for light, x1 for one hand and x1.5 for two hand.

 

[Elvinis75]

All this talk about a revised Power Attack makes me think of one thing: A Half-Ogre Psychic Warrior with Deep Impact, Improved Critical, Power Attack, and a keen mindfeeder scythe.

Better make that scythe ironwood, too. Then you can cast spikes on it, which doubles the threat range again and gives you +1 damage per caster level, to a maximum of +10.

Yee ha!

(I'd like to use that as a situation in which Power Attack is broken, but I don't think I can do it with a straight face.)

Agree with most of this but doesn't the weapon have to be all wood for spikes?