Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Piratecat" data-source="post: 953380" data-attributes="member: 2">Ed Stark has specifically given me permission to repost this. It originally appeared on an industry mailing list:---------------------------------------------------------------------------Sorry to jump in at the end of this, but I saw the topic and asked Andy Collins, who is very eloquent in rules explanations, to take a shot at explaining why we changed Power Attack. Here's his response:<<<Andy speaks>>>Power Attack doesn't do what most players think it does.Most players think that Power Attack is the feat for the 18-Str barbarian with the greataxe. It's not--it's the feat for the 13-Str, 18-Dex ranger with two short swords. That's what the 3.5 change aims to fix.This is because the lower your average damage, the more advantageous it is to give away a point of attack bonus to gain a point of damage. At its most basic level, Power Attack increases the risk of dealing zero damage (because of a miss) in exchange for increased damage in the case of a hit. The higher your expected damage, the greater the cost of a miss (and thus the lower your expected damage, the lower the cost of a miss).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.The new PA becomes much more attractive to the exact characters and monsters that we want using it--raging barbarians with greataxes, giants, and other big, beefy monsters that smash you with two-handed weapons. At the same time, it's becoming less attractive to characters who we don't want to use it--rogues, rangers, and all those finesse monsters.(I also think that you're dramatically underestimating the value of a shield bonus to AC. If anything, I worry that two-handed weapon users and two-weapon users are *still* underpowered compared to weapon-and-shielders, but adding more significant changes were deemed inappropriate for the revision.) <<<end Andy-speak>>>I hope that explicates why we made the change we did. Certainly, there are judgement calls involved, here, but I think the rationale is a good one. I particularly like that the character who gains the main benefit from the 3.5 PA is the big, strong guy wielding the two-handed weapon. It just makes more sense (to me) that way than the slim halfling with the rapier.Ed StarkDungeons & Dragons Design Manager---------------------------------------------------------------------------Once again, Piratecat here. I was dead set against the change before this. Now I'm intrigued enough to try it. We'll see how it goes.</blockquote>

Verification