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

[Celtavian]

As I have (now twice) tried to indicate, the comment was meant to be tongue-in-cheek rather than 'snide' or 'snotty'.

FYI: T-I-C indicator light --->

Nevertheless, to reply to your post, I addressed particularly the issue of Savage Species because (as suggested in my previous post) I feel any non-Core supplement is something over which a DM has right of refusal, and so should be used only very judiciously to critique the Core rules.



I can't comment on that, not having seen the 3.5e Monster Manual. Savage Species certainly struck me as being, like the Psionics Handbook or Oriental Adventures, as a supplement providing interesting options for gamers and DMs who wanted a different type of campaign; not necessarily guaranteed to be balanced with respect to the Core Rules. MM templates are designed for use with monsters - if people want to adapt them to PC use; again, nice to expand options available but don't expect them to necessarily balance out against non-templated PCs.

Core Rules were designed and play-tested on the basis of PCs with stats that would top out at around 20 at low levels. Does that mean you can't run a fun campaign with a Str 24 or more half-ogre fighter? No, but don't expect all of the assumptions made by the Core rules (like, for example "Power Attack, while at the 'good' end for Feats for a strong fighter, is more-or-less balanced") to hold.

With regard to the rest of your post:

1) I completely agree with your overall thesis that the change to Power Attack raises the premium on high Str to an even greater level.

2) Similarly I agree about Cleave/Great Cleave/Whirlwind Attack/Dragons getting more out of Power Attack. That is, iterative attacks blunt the impact of Power Attack.

Whenever you get more attacks at full (or non-decreasing) BAB, that makes Power Attack more attractive. Even AoOs are at full BAB - if you are in a situation (e.g. superior reach against an opponent without Tumble) where you regularly get AoOs Power Attack gains value. Heck, even Spring Attack synergises (because if you are exchanging blows one-for-one rather than trading full attacks you get the full benefit of Power Attack on each of your attacks, rather than the reduced benefit it grants when applied to a Full Attack sequence.)

I'm sorry for making an assumption concerning your comment. On this board, there seems to be a group who are condescending towards those who like to play options such as templated characters, use non-core material like Savage Species, play high magic, or play in the Forgotten Realms.

I have Races of Faerun and we use Savage Species. That means this change will be felt in our campaign since there are a few PC's in a few of our campaigns that have Power Attack and templates, so their already high damage output just went up a notch.

I also use alot of leveled giants, ogres, minotaurs, and other such creatures in adventures who are now going to be much tougher due to the change to Power Attack. It will make it a little harder to balance the encounter considering the amount of extra damage they will be doing.

Since dice don't operate according to statistics on a battle-to-battle basis, only over the course of multiple battles and hundreds if not thousands of rolls. As well as not taking into account crits and variable AC's, I think the average damage increase is going to be much higher than th listed statistical analysis suggests.

 

[Mike Sullivan]

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.

He demonstrably does, if he buys GWF and GWS for both rapier and dagger. Which is well within a Fighter's feat budget (and since only fighters can get GWF and GWS, that's not an issue).

(EDITED Note: Of course, he also gets more out of normal WF and WS, just like he always did)

Fighter level 12 has 11 feats, or 12 if human. If he's a rapier/dagger fighter, he needs to do the following:

Level 1: TWF, WF: Rapier
Level 2: WF: Dagger
Level 3: Whatever
Level 4: WS: Rapier
Level 5: --
Level 6: ITWF, WS: Dagger
Level 7: --
Level 8: GWF: Rapier
Level 9: GWF: Dagger
Level 10: Whatever (Two Weapon Defense?)
Level 11: --
Level 12: GTWF, GWS: Rapier

So, he has to wait until level 14 to pick up GWS: Dagger.

Though, to my knowledge, pretty much every serious TWFer in 3.0 used paired 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.

Good for you. I'm not going to argue with anyone's personal preference -- I will argue with, "Oh my god, this is so broken, it's terrible! 3.5 two weapon fighting is so nerfed!"

 

[Mike Sullivan]

Since dice don't operate according to statistics on a battle-to-battle basis, only over the course of multiple battles and hundreds if not thousands of rolls. As well as not taking into account crits and variable AC's, I think the average damage increase is going to be much higher than th listed statistical analysis suggests.

Actually, the numerous analyses that I and others have made have taken critical hits and variable AC's into account, thank you very much. If you wish to believe that the average damage will be much higher than the, uh, totally calculable average damage is, that is your prerogative -- but unless your dice are loaded, you will be incorrect.

Now, of course, a limitation of expected damage-per-round calculations is that damage does not flow out at an even rate. While the average is calculable, that critical hit that does 100 points of damage can not be pinpointed in time. And, of course, unless your number of die rolls approaches infinity, your average will not be exactly at the true average -- though again, unless your dice are loaded, there is no way to tell if you'll be over or under the average.

 

[nikolai]

Now, of course, a limitation of expected damage-per-round calculations is that damage does not flow out at an even rate.

There are also other limitations to these calculations. Some of these have been listed, single attacks, the effect of feats, and the importance of killing your opponent before he gets to act, etc. To my mind it's doubtful whether expected damage calculations say much that's useful about what actually happens in combat.

Personally I'm still very wary of the change. With the new Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialisation feats, that's +2 to attack and +4 to damage. Or just +8 to damage. Add to this the new Power Attack and two handers are going to be substantially increased in power over their 3.0 equivalents. Celtavian's point about monsters is also spot on.

I'm not saying it's "broken", the game will still work, but boosting the already "uber" options doesn't take the game in the direction I think it should be going.

yours,

nikolai.

 

[Mike Sullivan]

There are also other limitations to these calculations. Some of these have been listed, single attacks, the effect of feats, and the importance of killing your opponent before he gets to act, etc.

...And they've been accounted for. We've gone over single attacks so many times it's ludicrous. I did a Cleave analysis.

Some things are resistant to analysis, of course: for example, the "importance of killing your opponent before he gets to act."

I hope that you do realize that the most effective way to kill your opponent in the least amount of time is to maximize your expected damage per round, not to increase your expected damage per hit. But yes, there will be situations in which you might want to take a gamble, accepting the expectation of lower damage for the chance at higher damage.

To my mind it's doubtful whether expected damage calculations say much that's useful about what actually happens in combat.

...as opposed to what? The intuition of people who can't even seem to grasp the difference between expected damage per hit and expected damage per round?

Any analysis is going to have its limitations, especially one as wide-ranging as this. There's going to be a certain amount that you can only learn through play -- and a large amount that most people will never learn, because it's very hard to take even a very large amount of data (the play of your campaign, for example), and pull a single variable out of it (the actual performance of PA, as opposed to "that time I remember when James couldn't hit anything for like three rounds," or "that time I remember when Mary critted and did 120 points of damage in one round").

What I reject is that somehow carefully applied statistical analysis of what is a difficult-to-grasp mathematical tradeoff (as evidenced by the number of people who keep coming in here and misunderstanding the effects of 3.0 PA) is less useful than people's knee jerk reactions.

Personally I'm still very wary of the change. With the new Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialisation feats, that's +2 to attack and +4 to damage. Or just +8 to damage. Add to this the new Power Attack and two handers are going to be substantially increased in power over their 3.0 equivalents. Celtavian's point about monsters is also spot on.

Everyone gets the new WF and WS feats (if they're willing to take the 12 levels of Fighter necessary for it). While those certainly do constitute an up-powering of the Fighter class, it's not unique to big-weapon fighters. And, as I've pointed out several times, TWFers get the most benefit out of them.

As for "or just +8 to damage," please. That's sloppy thinking at its worst.

In 3.0, the same big-weapon guy was getting +1 to hit, +2 to damage. And he could trade in the +1 to hit for +1 to damage, so that's a total of +3 to damage. That means, your "or just +8 to damage" is actually only +5 higher than in 3.0.

But wait, it gets better. Let's compare a 3.5 big weapon fighter to a 3.5 sword-and-board guy.

+2 to hit, +4 to damage for both of them. "or just +8 to damage" for the two-weapon fighter.

But the SAB guy gets that same +2 to hit, +4 to damage, and he can use PA as well, ending up with +6 to damage. So this "substantial increase in power" that you're talking about for big-weapon fighters constitutes a +2 to damage over SAB guys.

...And it's a +2 that's unlikely in many situations to actually provide a +2 to expected damage per round.

You know? That sounds a lot less scary than "+8 to damage."

I'm not saying it's "broken", the game will still work, but boosting the already "uber" options doesn't take the game in the direction I think it should be going.

The "über" option in 3.0 is being a Wizard or Cleric.

The best melee style in 3.0 is sword-and-board. Big-weapon takes a close second, TWF is a distant third.

The PA changes in no way benefit the people who already had everything going for them.

 

[Lotus]

When we reallocate for 3.5, I'm giving up my TWF finesse war fan fighter. She was cool, but Power Attack is the only reason she could even keep up with the party's rogue in damage.

Even in 3.0, a large-weapon fighter has the following advantages over TWF:

- more likely to cause 50+ damage in a single hit, triggering Fort save vs. death.

- easier to overcome damage reduction.

- more meaningful attacks of opportunity.

- disarm/sunder advantages.

- one weapon to enchant, not two.

- shorter feat chain.

- one weapon type to specialize in. If you do this as a TWF, but you give up the chance to use the best of the one-handed weapons.

- an available hand to grab a potion or something, without dropping/stowing a weapon first.

- more damage done without a full attack action. In the current campaign my TWF is in, maybe 1 in 4 rounds does she actually get to use a full attack action.

- less emphasis on getting full attack actions = charging and spring attack are more attractive.


This change I think is more of a nerf to TWF fighters than it is a boon to two-weapon users. But there are a few situations where PA is king:

- destroying stationary objects.

- coups de grace.

- low AC enemies.

- insanely high AC enemies that you need a 20 to hit anyhow and you might as well use full PA.

- True Strike with full PA.


Anyway, I'm kinda glad of this change because it's the impetus for switching from a relatively weak TWF war fan fighter to a keen falchion improved crit tank.

 

[Metalsmith]

Power Attack: Still broken, only Different.

<<<Andy speaks>>>
Look at it this way. Every point of attack bonus given up translates roughly to a 5% decrease in damage over the long run, since you're hitting 5% less often. (I say roughly because this ignores automatic hits and misses.) A 5% decrease in the barbarian's damage is more than a 5% decrease in the ranger's damage, because the barbarian's expected damage per attack is higher.

In a perfect world, Power Attack would work just like Strength bonus to damage (half for light, normal for one-handed, one-and-one-half for two-handed). But unlike Str bonus (which generally only has to be calculated once, at which point it's written down on the character sheet), the PA bonus changes every round. Asking players to calculate those numbers on the fly grinds combat to a halt. Thus, the 3.5 PA simplifies it to "none for light, normal for one-handed, double for two-handed." Ultimately, the difference isn't that huge--a few points of damage here or there.

Malarkey!

So here we have an explanation using Math and a few measly % points as the justification of nerfing PowerAttack for Light Weapons and Buffing PowerAttack for 2 Handed Weapons.

Then following it up with a statment that says the Math is too complicated to use round to round so it gets Nerfed and Buffed even further. Mabey in a perfect world we wouln't have been concerned with the minuita of a few percentage points anyway.

Wraping it all up with bow, "Ultimately, the difference isn't that huge--a few points of damage here or there." Which happens to be the same 5% that caused this panty bunching in the first place.

3.5 the "Real Men Use Swords, Big Swords!" edition.

 

[Mike Sullivan]

When we reallocate for 3.5, I'm giving up my TWF finesse war fan fighter. She was cool, but Power Attack is the only reason she could even keep up with the party's rogue in damage.

...


Anyway, I'm kinda glad of this change because it's the impetus for switching from a relatively weak TWF war fan fighter to a keen falchion improved crit tank.

This is getting old.

A two-shortsword fighter in 3.0, average damage on a full attack, level 12, against an AC 15 opponent, an AC 20 opponent, and AC 25 oppnent.

Character has a +2 flaming shortsword and a +2 frost shortsword.

Character has: Ambi, TWF, ITWF, WF: Shortsword, WS: Shortsword, Increased Critical: Shortsword, Weapon Finesse: Shortsword

Character has a 22 Dexterity, and a 14 Strength (after all bonuses).

To hit: +12 (BAB), +1 (WF), +6 (Dex), +2 (Magic), -2 (TWF) = +19/+19/+14/+14/+9

Damage:

"On" shortsword: 1d6 + 2 (Str) +2 (Magic) +2 (WS) = 9.5 * 1.2 (critical) = 11.4 + d6 (fire) = 14.9 expected per hit.

"Off" shortsword: 1d6 + 1 (Str) +2 (Magic) +2 (WS) = 8.5 * 1.2 (critical) = 10.2 + d6 (frost) = 13.7 expected per hit.

Versus AC 15 opponent:

Partial attack expected damage: .95 * 14.9 = 14.155 damage

Full attack expected damage: .95 * 14.9 + .95 * 13.7 + .95 * 14.9 + .95 * 13.7 + .75 * 14.9 = 65.515 damage


Versus AC 20 opponent:

Partial attack expected damage: .95 * 14.9 = 14.155 damage

Full attack expected damage: .95 * 14.9 + .95 * 13.7 + .75 * 14.9 + .75 * 13.7 + .5 * 14.9 = 56.07 damage


Versus AC 25 opponent:

Partial attack expected damage: .85 * 14.9 = 12.665 damage

Full attack expected damage: .75 * 14.9 + .75 * 13.7 + .5 * 14.9 + .5 * 13.7 + .25 * 14.9 = 39.475 damage



Okay, the same character, except in 3.5.

Feats: TWF, WF: Shortsword, WS: Shortsword, ITWF, GWF: Shortsword, GWS: Shortsword, GTWF, Weapon Finesse, Improved Critical: Shortsword.

Same magic items, same stats.

Attack bonus: +12 (BAB) + 1 (WF) + 1 (GWF) +2 (Magic) + 6 (Dex) -2 (TWF) = +20/+20/+15/+15/+10/+10

Damage, on-hand: 1d6 + 2 (magic) + 2 (str) +2 (WS) +2 (GWS) = 11.5 * 1.2 (criticals) = 13.8 + d6 (fire) = 17.3

Damage, off-hand: 1d6 + 2 (magic) + 1 (str) +2 (WS) +2 (GWS) = 10.5 * 1.2 (criticals) = 12.6 + d6 (frost) = 16.1

Versus AC 15 Opponent:

Partial attack: .95 * 17.3 = 16.435 or 116% what it would have been in 3.0

Full attack: .95 * 17.3 + .95 * 16.1 + .95 * 17.3 + .95 * 16.1 + .8 * 17.3 + .8 * 16.1 = 90.18 or 137.6% what it would have been in 3.0


Versus AC 20 Opponent:

Partial attack: .95 * 17.3 = 16.435 or 116% what it would have been in 3.0

Full attack: .95 * 17.3 + .95 * 16.1 + .8 * 17.3 + .8 * 16.1 + .55 * 17.3 + .55 * 16.1 = 76.82 or 137% what it would have been in 3.0


Versus AC 25 Opponent:

Partial attack: .9 * 17.3 = 15.57 or 110% what it would have been in 3.0

Full attack: .8 * 17.3 + .8 * 16.1 + .55 * 17.3 + .55 * 16.1 + .3 * 17.3 + .3 * 16.1 = 55.11 or 140% what it would have been in 3.0




...Okay? Is that clear? The changes to TWF and its follow-ups, and GWF and GWS, increase your damage by 10% to 40%, totally regardless of PA. I assure you that you were not seeing a 40% increase in your damage output due to PA back in 3.0.

Two weapon fighters are more viable in 3.5, regardless of changes to Power Attack... And if you're a ranger, and thus don't benefit from GWF and GWS, what you do have the feats to do is use a longsword/shortsword combo instead of shortsword/shortsword, and then you can power-attack with your longsword if you think it's such a hot idea, when you're doing partial attacks instead of full attacks.

So, can we please lay to rest the idea that TWF is getting nerfed?


EDIT: A quick "duh" to me, for forgetting double-weapons (I personally think they look silly, but whatever). For fewer feats than it would take to go longsword/shortsword, a Fighter can get a double bladed sword, and improve on all of the numbers above significantly, plus, on partial attacks, get the * 1.5 str bonus and the *2 PA bonus (if he chooses to PA). And rangers can use 'em now, too.

 

[frisbeet]

Mike Sullivan,

I admire your patience.

 

[Ysgarran]

This is getting old.

A two-shortsword fighter in 3.0, average damage on a full attack, level 12, against an AC 15 opponent, an AC 20 opponent, and AC 25 oppnent.

I think your analysis was interesting but rather pointless. The question isn't whether 3.5v TWF is more or less powerfull versus 3.0v TWF, the real question is how 3.5v TWF compares to 3.5v 2-H fighting. Most of Lotus's post was about the relative gains in power between the two fighting styles, i.e., the relative power gain of 2-H fighting between 3.0v and 3.5v is greater than the relative power gain of TWF (3.0 vs. 3.5).

What I'm interested in is how much AC monsters, which have low AC and High damage potential, have gained. Creatures like Hill Giants, Fire Giants, etc.

Ysgarran.