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

[Spatzimaus]

Not only do people not gain much by Power Attacking, it's practically impossible to get a LARGE gain.

Do the following math:

A = (number of sides of a d20 resulting in a hit, i.e. 21 + AttackBonus - ArmorClass). If you need a 10 to hit, A=11.

B = average damage you do to the target on a successful hit. That is, average weapon damage + STR damage + flaming/icy/whatever + 5-15% for critical hits, minus any DR you can't penetrate. If I have a nonmagical greatsword and STR 14, that's B=11 (7 weapon + 3 STR + 10% crit).

The only ways Power Attack gives you additional damage, on average:
1> A>20. Power Attack for (A-20) points and continue. This is never really going to be much of an issue, EXCEPT for monsters without an iterative progression.
2> A>B. A shouldn't increase too quickly since AC for most enemies raises with level. B, on the other hand, can raise VERY quickly. Once B>20, you gain nothing for Power Attacking unless A>20 above.
So, if A>B, Power Attack for (A-B)/2.

The thing is, 2-handers are far more likely to hit that B=20 cap than anyone else, since their base damage is higher. If my 8th-level Fighter has a +1 Flaming greatsword and a STR of 20, B=((7+1+7)*1.1 + 3.5) = 20.0, right at the cap.
So right now, 3E Power Attack is a bad choice for that 2-handed weapon fighter (which is not an uncommon weapon choice) UNLESS the target has fire resistance or DR that I can't penetrate, or if my hits are automatic (A>20).

What this change does is effectively divide B by 2 for two-handers. Now, Power Attack is EXACTLY as useful for the guy with a 2d6 greatsword as it is for the guy with a 1d6 shortsword.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Re: Re: Re: Re: re

It wouldn't have been hard to beef up dodge without breaking things. +1 dodge bonus vs. all opponents would have been a start. Nothing would have broken.

+2 dodge bonus vs. all opponents would have made it a good feat. But I don't think that would have broken anything either.

If WotC couldn't think of something to do with Dodge that wouldn't break anything, it's probably because they weren't thinking about it at all.

I don't think they know what to do with dodge without breaking something. It's a feat nobody would take except as a prereq., so it should be up for a change.

 

[Otterscrubber]

Can anyone tell me where this new 3.5 version of Power Attack is described? For that matter can you tell me where all of this is posted? I have gone to the WoTC website but their revision spotlight covers hardly anything mentioned on these boards.

 

[spunky_mutters]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: re

It wouldn't have been hard to beef up dodge without breaking things. +1 dodge bonus vs. all opponents would have been a start. Nothing would have broken.

+2 dodge bonus vs. all opponents would have made it a good feat. But I don't think that would have broken anything either.

If WotC couldn't think of something to do with Dodge that wouldn't break anything, it's probably because they weren't thinking about it at all.

You're probably right. It seems to fit the criteria for change that I have seen described, so I guess there just weren't enough complaints about it.

 

[Plane Sailing]

This change does not bring PA even close to "broken".

Compare how much damage a 3.0 (or 3.5) TW fighter, 3.0 THW fighter, and 3.5 THW fighter do against a range of ACs. They all know the AC of their opponent and strike with the optimum PA which maximizes their average full attack (FA) damage/round.

.Unfortunately your basic premise is fatally flawed - because full attacks all the time are often just not available in combat. At lower levels you don't have the BAB for it, and even when iterative attacks become available there are lots of occasions when you can only take single attacks e.g. Cleave, AoO, Charge, Spring Attack, Move and Attack.

My players are just hitting 10th/11th level, and they are discovering that it is suicide to attempt to swap full attacks with foes of equivalent CR to them (dragons and giants particularly) so they are taking single attack options more and more now. Full attacks are pretty much only being used against significantly lesser foes or in situations against targets known to have low hp.

The time when Power Attack (and especially New Power Attack) will be particularly attractive will be in these single attack situations... situations when 2H weapons are *already* far ahead of all other combat options in terms of dealing damage (bigger base die, bigger str damage bonus). This merely accentuates that problem.

I think it is a very bad and ill thought out move by WotC. I don't even think the designers rationale really holds water. The fact that the current version could, in some circumstances, benefit the lighter weapon wielder more in terms of the proportional increase in damage is paltry considering that (as someone has already pointed out) the 2H weapon fighter is *already* doing more damage on an absolute scale, and that is the thing that really matters.

If they really had to limit it I would rather that they had just limited power attack to working with 2H weapons. That would also get around the strange situation of someone great cleaving through a whole circle of enemies with his dagger or shortspear...

Cheers

 

[Mike Sullivan]

I think it is a very bad and ill thought out move by WotC. I don't even think the designers rationale really holds water. The fact that the current version could, in some circumstances, benefit the lighter weapon wielder more in terms of the proportional increase in damage is paltry considering that (as someone has already pointed out) the 2H weapon fighter is *already* doing more damage on an absolute scale, and that is the thing that really matters.

It behoves you to understand what 3.0 Power Attack actually does do, not what you think it does.

It's not that, in 3.0, Power Attack adds +3 damage to the expected per-round averages of both large-weapon fighters and two-weapon fighters, but because large-weapon fighters do more damage, it's proportionally less.

Rather, under most circumstances with a full-round attack, and a significant number of partial attacks, for the large-weapon fighters, per-round expected damage is decreased, while for two-weapon fighters, per-round expected damage is increased.

As far as TWF being a suboptimal fighting style in 3.0: It is. In 3.5, it gets a third off-hand attack, a faster secondary off-hand attack, a defensive bonus, one fewer feat to start off the chain, and, of the three major styles, it gets the most out of GWF and GWS. In comparison, the decrease in utility of PA is not all that big a deal.

Finally, in any game in which fighter-types find that they can rarely or never make full-round attack options, the balance is so broken that PA is just not going to make up for it. Why would anyone play a fighter-type in that situation?

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Finally, in any game in which fighter-types find that they can rarely or never make full-round attack options, the balance is so broken that PA is just not going to make up for it.

If all the fighter does is stand in place and trade full-round attacks, it's ... boring!

 

[Mike Sullivan]

If all the fighter does is stand in place and trade full-round attacks, it's ... boring!

Sure. But there's a world of difference between "that's all he does," and "we find that increasingly, fighters don't do it."

If a fighter-type can't, by the time he's getting a tertiary attack, be making full attacks fairly often -- about 1/3rd of the time at the worst -- then all but the strangest builds of melee fighter are just going to be incapable of keeping up with the rest of the characters.

 

[Fenes 2]

As far as TWF being a suboptimal fighting style in 3.0: It is. In 3.5, it gets a third off-hand attack, a faster secondary off-hand attack, a defensive bonus, one fewer feat to start off the chain, and, of the three major styles, it gets the most out of GWF and GWS. In comparison, the decrease in utility of PA is not all that big a deal.

You know, I don't think the classic rapier & main gauche fighter gets more out of GWF and GWS than the greatsword wielder. Your statement is only true if you apply it to the fighter that wields two identical weapons.

Frankly, the fact that power attack by the numbers did more for a two-weapon wielder than for the two-handed weapon fighter does not bug me in the slightest - what counts for me is the final result.

 

[Ds Da Man]

I was just really glad they don't allow it with the little weapons. All around, there are already so many feats out there that allow people to do whatever they want. This really isn't that big of a deal. The made a good change, tho' they could have made a better change with dodge.