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

[Celtavian]

re

Who has Andy Collins been playing with? Sometimes Andy sounds like he knows what he is talking about, and sometimes I just have to wonder. Two weapon fighters and rogues with Power Attack? Why is this not my experience?

I have never had a rogue or two-weapon fighter in my campaign take Power Attack. They have made the feat too good, when it is supposed to be a pre-requisite feat much like the Dodge feat, useful mostly for obtaining feats like Cleave and Sunder.

Unbelievable. I have more than a few two handed fighters in my party who already do an enormous amount of damage. This change is going to increase their damage substantially. I don't see why they couldn't have done something like make Power Attack only apply to a two weapon fighters main weapon. Sheesh.

 

[Staffan]

Re: re

I have never had a rogue or two-weapon fighter in my campaign take Power Attack.

That would probably be on account of your players not bothering to do the math. Taking -1 to hit for +1 damage is a lot more attractive when you're doing 1d6+1 damage instead of 2d6+6 - and it's *really* attractive when you have *two* attacks for 1d6+1.

Though it's probably pretty bad for rogues, who (a) don't hit all that often anyway (mid-BAB) and (b) can inflict some pretty mean damage in certain not-too-difficult situations (sneak attack).

 

[Celtavian]

Re: Re: re

That would probably be on account of your players not bothering to do the math. Taking -1 to hit for +1 damage is a lot more attractive when you're doing 1d6+1 damage instead of 2d6+6 - and it's *really* attractive when you have *two* attacks for 1d6+1.

Though it's probably pretty bad for rogues, who (a) don't hit all that often anyway (mid-BAB) and (b) can inflict some pretty mean damage in certain not-too-difficult situations (sneak attack).

I think it is because my players are concept players. They take a particular concept and develop it whether or not that concept is min/maxed. I give my players a pretty hard time if I think they are min/maxing. I don't care for min/maxers in my campaign. I don't usually allow it.

Not to mention, becoming a very good two weapon fighter takes quite a few feats.

 

[Dimwhit]

My rogue took power attach, and it wasn't to min/max. I just thought it would be unusual. He was stronger than your typical rogue, and I thought it would be a cool concept to take it. I don't use it much, though, so I kind of wish I had taken Quick Draw instead. That would have really come in handy for that character.

 

[Ravellion]

Re: re

Unbelievable. I have more than a few two handed fighters in my party who already do an enormous amount of damage. This change is going to increase their damage substantially.

No it will not. But, hey, if you can prove to me that they will with numerical examples, I'll take your word for it. Note that you must also disprove the numerical examples listed above.

Rav

 

[Trainz@work]

In my book, excellent complicated analysis aside (thanks for the input guys), Power attack is good, sometimes, when you have only one attack, and not really when you have at least 3 attacks (some exceptinos not withstanding).

Simple.

 

[med stud]

Re: Re: Re: re

I think it is because my players are concept players. They take a particular concept and develop it whether or not that concept is min/maxed. I give my players a pretty hard time if I think they are min/maxing. I don't care for min/maxers in my campaign. I don't usually allow it.

Not to mention, becoming a very good two weapon fighter takes quite a few feats.

That means you and your group dont have to have strict rules; the rules should be made so you cant min/max them to much. People who dont min/max wont be affected by a rule that is possible to abuse, while people who min/max is very much affected.

 

[Dimwhit]

That means you and your group dont have to have strict rules; the rules should be made so you cant min/max them to much. People who dont min/max wont be affected by a rule that is possible to abuse, while people who min/max is very much affected.

With all due respect, I couldn't agree with you less. And that's exactly the problem with 3.5. The min/max folk find as many rules as they can to abuse, not just one, and use them to create nasty powerful characters. But many of us take occassional use of one of those rules (like an hour/level buff spell, for example) to help shape their character. They're being affected unfairly (and for no reason) while running a legit and fair charcter, all in an attemp to shut down the min/max characters. That's the fundamental problem with the revision. Rules should not be changed so that you can't min/max. Rules should be made and shaped with the standard players in mind.

 

[Malin Genie]

Re: Re: re

No it will not. But, hey, if you can prove to me that they will with numerical examples, I'll take your word for it. Note that you must also disprove the numerical examples listed above.

Rav

I'm going to use one of my characters as an example (currently Bbn4/Rgr1; let's take him to Bbn4/Rgr2 and give him Power Attack as a 6th level Feat) as I don't feel he's atypical for a 'two-handed-strength-fighter' type.

Raging attack bonus +13 (+6 BAB +6 Str +1 magic)
Damage 1d8 +10 (+9 Str +1 magic; Longspear +1)

Hit chance; average damage 0.05 x [14.5 + P] x [(33 - AC) - P]

Completing the square, with 1-for-1 PA it's beneficial to Power Attack when the opponent's AC is worse than 18.

Now with 2-for-1 PA, the equation is

0.05 x [14.5 + 2P] x [(33 - AC) - P]

which can be rewritten

0.1 x [7.25 + P] x [(33 - AC) - P]

allowing us to complete the square; lo and behold, it's now beneficial for me to Power Attack if the opponent's AC is 24 or worse (given that P must be an integer.) There aren't many opponents at level 6 with AC 25+ (not none, just not many - even a CR6 red dragon is only AC 21. The only creatures I can find on a quick flip through the MM with CR 7 or less and AC 25+ are the Huge Air Elemental (26) and Will-O'-Wisp (29))

Even if we look at a full attack sequence; average damage

0.05 + [14.5 + 2P] x {[(33 - AC) - P] + [(28 - AC) - P]}

=0.05 x [14.5 + 2P] x [(61 - 2 x AC) - 2P]

=0.2 x [7.25 + P] x [(30.5 - AC) - P]

making the break point AC 22.

Obviously, if I am blessed or flanking or have further bonuses to hit, Power Attack becomes even more attractive.

For a two-handed weapon wielder it's gone from 'useful against relatively low AC opponents' to 'useful against nearly all opponents'. At least in an average damage sense - how meaningful a measure of combat effectiveness that is is another debate unto itself.

 

[spunky_mutters]

Re: Re: Re: re

I'm going to use one of my characters as an example (currently Bbn4/Rgr1; let's take him to Bbn4/Rgr2 and give him Power Attack as a 6th level Feat) as I don't feel he's atypical for a 'two-handed-strength-fighter' type.

<snip>

For a two-handed weapon wielder it's gone from 'useful against relatively low AC opponents' to 'useful against nearly all opponents'. At least in an average damage sense - how meaningful a measure of combat effectiveness that is is another debate unto itself.

I don't think it is another debate. The feat has become more generally useful for 2-handers, but it is only increasing your effectiveness marginally. Your numbers don't show that at AC 22, your best increase in average damage is only about 0.25 points/rnd at 1 point power attack. That goes down to 0.1 at 2 points, a higher power attack than 2 will be below your average damage with no power attack. At AC 18 (a more realistic AC for CR6 creatures, and probably on the low end for most), you peak at 1.95 more damage/rnd on average with a 3 point power attack. If you don't know the exact AC you're facing, you probably won't select the optimal power attack. In most situations, it's still going to be up in the air whether or not you are helping yourself by using it. You can really only be sure if you're fighting low AC creatures, as before.

I really don't think it's an issue unless you're someone who had their character concept knocked out by the change (and in a Living campaign, that will be a big problem).