Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
3.5 power attack: the designers' rationale
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Celtavian" data-source="post: 961370" data-attributes="member: 5834"><p><strong>re</strong></p><p></p><p>I think some of the guys who run analysis should also take into account alot of other ways the new <em>Power Attack</em> is going to be seriously abused so that it is nightmarish. Such as:</p><p></p><p>Cleric/Fighter combo using <em>Divine Favor</em>, <em>Righteous Might</em>, <em>Prayer</em> and [/i]Bless[/i]. I thinks this is a fairly common class set up personally.</p><p></p><p>Barbarian raging with <em>Bless</em> and <em>Prayer</em>. Lost two points of attack that you didn't have in the first place for 4 points of damage.</p><p></p><p>Fighter/Wizard combo using <em>Tenser's Transformation</em>. This could bet ugly.</p><p></p><p>Druid using <em>Wildshape</em> at higher levels into a huge bear or something of the kind. </p><p></p><p>The new <em>Power Attack</em> will be the "must have" feat for power gamers and a new nightmare for many DM's who have these kinds of players.</p><p></p><p>Personally, I think in time people will adapt. Initially, I think the following will happen:</p><p></p><p>Players will hate the new feat because power attacking monsters like dragons and giants will now be dishing substantially more damage.</p><p></p><p>Certain min/max players will create some pretty awe inspiring combinations that take serious advantage of the new <em>Power Attack</em>.</p><p></p><p><strong>The main gyst of this for experienced DM's is that it will be a problematic change because <em>Power Attack</em> is more abusable by min/max players and it is more useful to certain powerful, high strength monsters that are already very tough. (Dragons especially.)</strong></p><p></p><p>I just feel the design team was looking at <em>Power Attack</em> from a very narrow angle when they made this change. It would have been better to limit <em>Power Attack</em> damage to the primary weapon for a two-weapon wielder using the simple premiss that a two-weapon fighter cannot generate the powerful body movement necessary to take advantae of power attack with both weapons. </p><p></p><p>I completely agree that <em>Power Attack</em> would be more useful for a two-weapon fighter than a two-hander fighter at higher levels and given certain feat combinations, especially considering that energy/special damage (Bane, holy) are already more beneficial to two-weapon wielders. <em>Power Attack</em> could use a change, but I don't think this was the best way to change it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Celtavian, post: 961370, member: 5834"] [b]re[/b] I think some of the guys who run analysis should also take into account alot of other ways the new [i]Power Attack[/i] is going to be seriously abused so that it is nightmarish. Such as: Cleric/Fighter combo using [i]Divine Favor[/i], [i]Righteous Might[/i], [i]Prayer[/i] and [/i]Bless[/i]. I thinks this is a fairly common class set up personally. Barbarian raging with [i]Bless[/i] and [i]Prayer[/i]. Lost two points of attack that you didn't have in the first place for 4 points of damage. Fighter/Wizard combo using [i]Tenser's Transformation[/i]. This could bet ugly. Druid using [i]Wildshape[/i] at higher levels into a huge bear or something of the kind. The new [i]Power Attack[/i] will be the "must have" feat for power gamers and a new nightmare for many DM's who have these kinds of players. Personally, I think in time people will adapt. Initially, I think the following will happen: Players will hate the new feat because power attacking monsters like dragons and giants will now be dishing substantially more damage. Certain min/max players will create some pretty awe inspiring combinations that take serious advantage of the new [i]Power Attack[/i]. [b]The main gyst of this for experienced DM's is that it will be a problematic change because [i]Power Attack[/i] is more abusable by min/max players and it is more useful to certain powerful, high strength monsters that are already very tough. (Dragons especially.)[/b] I just feel the design team was looking at [i]Power Attack[/i] from a very narrow angle when they made this change. It would have been better to limit [i]Power Attack[/i] damage to the primary weapon for a two-weapon wielder using the simple premiss that a two-weapon fighter cannot generate the powerful body movement necessary to take advantae of power attack with both weapons. I completely agree that [i]Power Attack[/i] would be more useful for a two-weapon fighter than a two-hander fighter at higher levels and given certain feat combinations, especially considering that energy/special damage (Bane, holy) are already more beneficial to two-weapon wielders. [i]Power Attack[/i] could use a change, but I don't think this was the best way to change it. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
3.5 power attack: the designers' rationale
Top