D&D 4E 4e Contest: Prove Nate Right - Power Attack Entry Finalists - You help decide winners

[Jack99]

Hmmm. A I think is mechanically wrong. For one, creatures with natural attacks only get 1.5 times their Strength to damage if the attack is the ONLY attack they can make. How this works with A is not stated, and hence I've scrapped that one as clumsy.

and..

ENTRY A)
Power Attack
You can make exceptionally powerful melee attacks.
Prerequisite: Str 13+
Benefit: Whenever you would normally add one-and-a-half times your Strength modifier to your damage with a melee attack, you instead add twice your Strength modifier to your damage with that attack.
Normal: You add one-and-a-half times your Strength modifier as a bonus to melee damage when attacking with a two-handed weapon, a one-handed weapon wielded in two hands, or certain natural weapon attacks.
Special: A fighter may select Power Attack as one of his fighter bonus feats.

Check the bolded. I don't see what is not logical. A creature with only one natural attack which takes this feat, gets the benefit of adding 2x it's STR bonus to it's attack. Yes, it benefits slightly more than characters from it, since it only has one attack, but I don't see that as a problem.

I think A is simple, easy and works great as a feat.

Cheers

 

[Pinotage]

My hope is that the fact that A.) does not provide any bonus for one handed weapons (or natural weapons, as Pinotage pointed out) is an accidental ommision. If so, that is by far the best option in my book... if not, then it needs some work.

It's also worth noting that while A needs a rewrite to clarify one or two things, it's actually worse than Weapon Specialization for most Strength scores. If you're Strength 18, 1.5 gives +6 damage, this gives +8. So that's equivalent to Weapon Specialization. Even for Str 22, the difference is only +3, which is not great. Sure, it's another bonus to add to your damage, but it's not much and very little help when attempting to overcome DR.

Pinotage

 

[Pinotage]

Check the bolded. I don't see what is not logical. A creature with only one natural attack which takes this feat, gets the benefit of adding 2x it's STR bonus to it's attack. Yes, it benefits slightly more than characters from it, since it only has one attack, but I don't see that as a problem.

I think A is simple, easy and works great as a feat.

Cheers

You mean a creature with natural attacks benefits much less from it since it only has 1 attack that can use it, whereas presumably a character with 4 attacks can use it on every attack? It could use a little clarification in the Normal section to define 'certain' creatures, but generally it's just a glorified Weapon Specialization.

Pinotage

 

[Jack99]

You mean a creature with natural attacks benefits much less from it since it only has 1 attack that can use it, whereas presumably a character with 4 attacks can use it on every attack? It could use a little clarification in the Normal section to define 'certain' creatures, but generally it's just a glorified Weapon Specialization.

Pinotage

You are correct, and I am quite embarrassed. Not sure how I misread the feat. Somehow I thought it was a standard action, or something.

Cheers

 

[am181d]

It's also worth noting that while A needs a rewrite to clarify one or two things, it's actually worse than Weapon Specialization for most Strength scores. If you're Strength 18, 1.5 gives +6 damage, this gives +8. So that's equivalent to Weapon Specialization. Even for Str 22, the difference is only +3, which is not great. Sure, it's another bonus to add to your damage, but it's not much and very little help when attempting to overcome DR.

Well, given that (a) weapon specialization is a feat with higher requirements and (b) power attack damage stacks with weapon specialization and (c) this version of the feat scales as the characters strength increases, I'd say Version A power attack compares pretty well.

 

[olshanski]

Holy crap:
If option D is in play, you've really gotta beware of any barbarian with a scythe.

1st level Half Orc Barbarian with 18 strength with scythe.
Normal damage 2d4+6. (average 11)
Raging damage 2d4+9. (average 14)
Raging power attack damage 8d4+36 (average 52) range 44-68

 

[Pinotage]

Well, given that (a) weapon specialization is a feat with higher requirements and (b) power attack damage stacks with weapon specialization and (c) this version of the feat scales as the characters strength increases, I'd say Version A power attack compares pretty well.

Yeah, I think A is growing on me. It needs a little clarification, but otherwise is looks easy and simple. I really wonder how well this will work in actual play across the board of characters and monsters, though, since there's no one-handed benefit. I really shafts strong high BAB creatures like dragons that can't take Power Attack at all since they don't use weapons two-handed.

Pinotage

 

[Lord Ernie]

Hrmm... We have to look at this one in a vaccuum, I take it, and not in the existing feat-tree (Cleave requiring PA, for instance, like mentioned before)? Likewise... are we to compare the feats amongst themselves, or to the 'math gloat' that was 3.5 PA?

Well... let's look at the options.

A is simple and seems balanced, but it's very limiting, reducing power attack to a 'must have if you're two-handed basher, utterly useless otherwise'. Binary options are not exactly unprecedented, but are overall not an indication of good design.

B resembles the original feat but punishes your AC instead of attack, thus creating the situation where, at high levels (where AC really doesn't matter so much anymore), taking as high a PA bonus as possible is optimal. At lower levels, you still have the 'sliding modifier' problem. Not so great.

C is simple, works well at low levels, but really starts to lose out on higher levels. Of course, this is due to the 'stand still and whack things' philosophy, not so much due to the feat itself. Of all the options present, this one seems the most balanced - providing bonuses for all weapon types and it's not a binary 'this is the best attack' option. Plus, it adds in a potential 'Improved power attack' option, where you could do it as a part of a full attack (with bigger penalties).

D is off the charts ridiculous, making weapons with high crit modifiers far too good, and worse, flat-footed does not effect most fighter-types at all (little or no Dex modifier to AC). Dishing out ridiculous damage without real penalties from level 1 does not sound well-balanced to me.

So it seems... my vote goes to C.

 

[Chocobo]

I don't like any of those feats more than the current Power Attack. If A added something to one-handers also, it would be acceptable but not great. If it also had a minor penalty, then it would be well balanced.

 

[Cactot]

now i am even more confused, if this is "re-writes" of a 3.5e feat, with nothing to do with 4e, why is it in the 4e forum? If it is going to be in the 4e forum shouldnt it at least take the limited knowledge we have about 4e into account?