A replacement for power attack

[Crashy75]

I'm not a big fan of the feat power attack.
The feat is supposed to increase your damage output in exchange for accuracy. The problem is, reduced accuracy reduces your damage output. I think the trade off should be something else. So...

Power Attack
Prerequisite: Str 15
Benefit: You can draw on your strength and inner reserves of power to recklessly attack your foes with extra might. You gain use power attack as an at-will power.


Power Attack
Feat Power
You attack your enemies with extra force, leaving yourself open to attack.
At-Will ✦ Stance
Minor Action
Personal
Effect While you are in this stance, you gain a +2 bonus to melee damage rolls (or a +3 bonus to the damage roll with a two-handed weapon). This extra damage increases by level, as shown on the table below. In addition, you take a –2 penalty to AC and Reflex defenses. This penalty does not increase at higher levels.
Special: When you exit this stance, you continue to take the penalty to AC and Reflex defense until the beginning of your next turn.

[b]Level     Damage Bonus(Two Handed)[/b]
1st-10th           +2(+3)
11th-20th          +4(+6)
21st-30th          +6(+9)

 

[timbannock]

I like it, and don't see any issue yet. I'm not good at noticing that sort of thing though ;-)

Regardless, I totally agree with the intent of this...after watching one of my players do all the math up for his attack and damage and then whiff on the shot, it was frustrating even for me as the DM. I kept going through his math hoping he'd missed the +1 he needed to hit!

Needless to say, he didn't miss anything, 'cept for that creature.

 

[Bold or Stupid]

I like it and may well steal it but may make it a feat to buy after getting power attack, to remove the penalty and I may even up the bonus a damage a bit.

 

[Crashy75]

I like it and may well steal it but may make it a feat to buy after getting power attack, to remove the penalty and I may even up the bonus a damage a bit.

If you do that the feat(s) should probably be paragon. Either seems too good for heroic. And I'm glad you guys like it!

 

[Lakoda]

So of course I got bumped out while trying to post my original response so this will be much shorter.

I understand why you don't like Power Attack as written but I actually do like it. As a feat it works for me, but to each their own. Feat Powers are a bad idea. WotC has not granted a power from a feat yet (the closest thing is the Channel Divinity feats that grant you an additional option, but not an additional use) and I certainly hope they never do. Feats are not a powerful as they were in 3rd, that's why you get more of them.

Stances are almost always daily powers. There are only 3 encounter stance powers, 1 is a Fighter power and the other 2 are paragon path utilities. One of those is Throw Caution to the Wind (PHB 115) which just so happens to be very similar to your Power Attack. TCttW grants +2 to attack in exchange for -2 to all defenses. However, it doesn't scale, penalizes all defenses, and it is an encounter utility.

If there is a particular class you want to have this power, make the power an option for that class as say a 10th level utility (or a 12th level paragon path). Otherwise the feat should be paragon (as you suggested) and allow you to swap an existing utility power for this utility power. The power itself should be an encounter power and I'd change the scaling a bit; +2(3) and +4(6) at 21st level, and then change the penalty to -2 to all defenses. I know that's pretty much copying TCttW but it works and this way we know Power Attack is balanced.

Finally, it seems likely to me that this is a power that you can expect to see with the barbarian class once it's released.

 

[Kordeth]

So of course I got bumped out while trying to post my original response so this will be much shorter.

I understand why you don't like Power Attack as written but I actually do like it. As a feat it works for me, but to each their own. Feat Powers are a bad idea. WotC has not granted a power from a feat yet (the closest thing is the Channel Divinity feats that grant you an additional option, but not an additional use) and I certainly hope they never do. Feats are not a powerful as they were in 3rd, that's why you get more of them.

Err--you do realize that the way he wrote up Power Attack as a power doesn't actually change anything, right? If anything, it makes it weaker because of the Stance keyword. As this new replacement is written, it can still be used on every melee attack you make--just like the feat in the PHB. The only thing he's changed is making the penalty to AC instead of attack, and calling out that it lasts until the beginning of your next turn.

Stances are almost always daily powers. There are only 3 encounter stance powers, 1 is a Fighter power and the other 2 are paragon path utilities. One of those is Throw Caution to the Wind (PHB 115) which just so happens to be very similar to your Power Attack. TCttW grants +2 to attack in exchange for -2 to all defenses. However, it doesn't scale, penalizes all defenses, and it is an encounter utility.

Again, the Stance keyword is actually a nerf of Power Attack, because it means you can't Power Attack while you're using any other Stance power. Don't just look at keywords and where they usually show up, look at how those keywords interact with new the ability as compared to the core PHB version.

If there is a particular class you want to have this power, make the power an option for that class as say a 10th level utility (or a 12th level paragon path). Otherwise the feat should be paragon (as you suggested) and allow you to swap an existing utility power for this utility power. The power itself should be an encounter power and I'd change the scaling a bit; +2(3) and +4(6) at 21st level, and then change the penalty to -2 to all defenses. I know that's pretty much copying TCttW but it works and this way we know Power Attack is balanced.

So then what's your opinion of the core 4E Power Attack feat?

 

[Crashy75]

Kordeth said it. I will add that tcttw is much better than my power/feat. A +2 to attacks automatically stacks because better powers will connect more often. This adds to DPR and so much more.

 

[Lakoda]

I do realize that. As I mentioned my post was eaten by DoS on submit so I shorted my post when I reentered it.

As written the attack roll is something that is directly and most importantly directly swappable with damage roll. You can fully resolve the benefit and the cost in the same turn. Because of this using stance for the feat as written would be pointless, the power would carry over until the stance was ended (for whatever reason) and not effect anything unless used again. A pointless limitation. Power Attack as written is actually more powerful, as a -2 attack is not as high a cost as -2 to all defenses. The issue with this different cost is that it does not immediately resolve with the benefit. You don't use both attack rolls and your defenses in the same turn (ignoring OAs of course). Using stance is just a justification for having the defense penalty last until the start of your next turn.

Honestly, who would use Power Attack in any form, a defender or a striker? The striker will be the one who wants more damage and is also more then willing to sacrifice defense (which if the defender is doing his job) is not that big of a cost, especially compared to the risk of missing. I don't view defenses as an even trade for more damage here, hence why I prefered the original Power Attack and why I'd make it an encouter stance power - you're likely to get more out of it then you put into it and that is the roll of powers not feats.

Power Attack as written does not affect total DPS that much over time, if anything it lowers it. The only reason for a change like this one would be to increase DPS long term, to be something used most rounds and that just isn't the purpose of the feat (nor should it be). The feat as written is about providing a greater reward if you are willing to risk more (by lessening your chance to hit). It's a one shot deal to be used periodically through the encounter, not ever round.

Anyways, thanks for pointing out the ambiguity in my logic. I hope this makes more sense even if you disagree. After all, to each their own.

{edit - Oops! You beat me to it.

Kordeth said it. I will add that tcttw is much better than my power/feat. A +2 to attacks automatically stacks because better powers will connect more often. This adds to DPR and so much more.

It seems you understand what I was trying to say so I think this long explanation was unnecessary besides being late. It is a fine power and if it's something you want in your character you have a lot of options to make it work, as evident by TCttW's existence.}

 

[Crashy75]

Honestly, who would use Power Attack in any form, a defender or a striker? The striker will be the one who wants more damage and is also more then willing to sacrifice defense (which if the defender is doing his job) is not that big of a cost, especially compared to the risk of missing. I don't view defenses as an even trade for more damage here, hence why I prefered the original Power Attack and why I'd make it an encouter stance power - you're likely to get more out of it then you put into it and that is the roll of powers not feats.

I think any defender that uses a THW is linkely to use PA in most forms. I suspect that any defenders using a THW likely minor in striker though, so in that sense, your point holds.

I can add that I swapped the ability to use PA with all powers for the ability to use it with stances. That's a trade up I'd say, but the cost is still great (minor action to initiate, no other stances, penalty to AC and reflex).

Changing the original PA to a stance would be quite a nerf to an already suspect feat. Perhaps I am misunderstanding?

As for whether it's an even trade, I'd say the beauty of it is that it really depends on the circumstance. Against minions, it is clearly not. Not ever. (just as the original) Against many others, it can be. But in this case, you can be confident that you are getting something definitive. This is not really the case for the original PA. The damage boost is not really worth it in most circumstances (and requires a lot of MM knowledge.) No, for the most part, the original PA it is a false choice.

Power Attack as written does not affect total DPS that much over time, if anything it lowers it. The only reason for a change like this one would be to increase DPS long term, to be something used most rounds and that just isn't the purpose of the feat (nor should it be). The feat as written is about providing a greater reward if you are willing to risk more (by lessening your chance to hit). It's a one shot deal to be used periodically through the encounter, not ever round.

Well, I think that's a matter of opinion. I do think PA should increase DPR, especially for THF. My feat/power exacerbates their (THF) weaknesses, but I feel that is acceptable as that is less of a concern to the THF.

Anyways, thanks for pointing out the ambiguity in my logic. I hope this makes more sense even if you disagree. After all, to each their own.

I think I get you. Agree to disagree.

{edit - Oops! You beat me to it. It seems you understand what I was trying to say so I think this long explanation was unnecessary besides being late. It is a fine power and if it's something you want in your character you have a lot of options to make it work, as evident by TCttW's existence.}

Thanks! I don't think it was unnecessary. I enjoy these conversations.