All Power Attack, All the Time!

[Fenes 2]

Of course, there's always the threat of a campaign devolving into a game of mathematics, but some people enjoy that sort of thing. Personally, I've never had this sort of problem, but I have had some problems getting the players to act in character, even if it means making the "sub-optimal" decision.

Then again, I suppose that's a trust issue. They might be scared that I'll jump on them for making a mistake/bad choice on purpose. I try to reassure them that I wouldn't do that often -- if at all -- that's what the other players are for...

...

I'm serious. Have you ever purposefully made a "sub-optimal" decision because you thought your character would go down that path? If you've answered yes, how many times have the other players jumped down your throat for doing it? I'm not talking about it happening in character, I'm talking out-of-character, when you're all sitting around the table.

I hate that. It makes playing certain characters ... difficult (to say the least). Especially when you and your character's worth are judged on certain decisions being made in the "correct" direction.

In another system, one of the players I'm running a campaign for had his character make a couple of foolhardy decisions, and it seems that there's resentment toward the player for it. I don't like that, I don't like it at all. Anything in character is fine, but out-of-character, these people should know better...

I dunno, like I said, it seems that this is really a Player-DM trust issue. Some people really don't like the idea of one person holding that much artificial power. Some people let that power go to their heads.

I make suboptimal decisions with my PCs fairly often, but then, suboptimal combat-number choices may very well be optimal player choices depending on the focus of a campaign.

Case in point, the Shadowrun campaign I GM focuses not so much on the abilities and guile of the PCs (or, heaven forbid, even the abilities and tactics of the players) but on the various entertaining ways the weaknesses of the different PCs and plain coincidence can screw with a plan or encounter. As long as I don't say anything the players (should) know that there is no "wrong" decision - if the PCs accidentally kill a information source the adventure does not end, it just gets a wee bit more complicated. If the PCs botch an infiltration attempt a chase or break out of jail scene is added.

 

[Zappo]

Yes, but he's also keeping the Player from playing his PC in the way he wants to. A better way to handle this problem would be to ask the Player to do the math before he comes to the game, and asking him to try and speed it up during the current game.

I suggest you read Henry's post I was replying to. Saying that I discourage PA or any other tactic is false and taking my words out of context. In my examples, the player can still use PA effectively, he just won't metagame and bog the game. What I do discourage is actively exploiting the fact that the game system is only an approximation of reality.

And BTW, takyris's post is not taking my examples to an extreme, because what he wrote has no relation in either mean, end or effect on the players to what I wrote.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

The title of the thread is ALL Power Attack, ALL the time.

If you are doing it correctly, there's no math to be done at the table, ever.

It takes discipline and nerves of steel to power attack everything you've got even when you know it's statistically foolish, but it is the cornerstone of good roleplaying (especially for barbarians) and eventually will net you some truly memorable moments at the table.

Again, as I have said elsewhere, if you play the game as a mathematical exercise, power attack (and the rest of that feat chain) isn't particularly enticing. After 20+ years at this game, I still min-max, but it's no longer the focus of my entertainment.

Wulf

 

[Pielorinho]

Not only don't we calculate maximum power-attack advantages -- not only don't we know our foes' armor classes -- we often don't even know what armor-class we hit. It speeds up play, leaving time for description.

DMs in our group describe hits and misses: "He raises his shield to protect his head, and you're able to give his leg a good whack," or, "You stab at his arm, but he twists out of the way just in time, and the tip of your spear glances off his shoulderplate." We get a vague idea from this description about armor class, enough to know whether someone is nimble and dodgearrific or slow and heavily-armored, for example. But we don't know the exact AC.

We do find out, of course, that a roll of (for example) 13 hits a particular opponent, once we've added in our attack bonus. So if we roll a 17, we don't bother figuring out exactly what attack bonuses apply this round, unless things have changed a lot since the round on which a 13 hit; we just tell the DM that we almost certainly hit, and he usually accepts it. (If the opponent has secretly cast a shield spell in the meantime, of course, he makes us figure out our exact attack roll).

And we use Power Attack (and expertise) freely, but it's all shot-from-the-hip. We decide PA for 5 just because it sounds like fun, or because we realize we hit when we rolled a 3 last time. Calculating an optimal amount in the middle of combat would run completely counter to our combat style, which tends toward the descriptive and flashy.

Daniel

 

[takyris]

Hey, sorry to be gone so long, this thread drifted off my radar.

My points, or what passed for my points while making these vicious and slanderous accusations, were these:

1) I completely agree that a player who slows down combat is bad, regardless of reason, and the player should be dealt with.

2) However, I didn't feel that the Zapster's post was attempting to solve (1). I felt that his post was attempting to come down on a hypothetical player who was trying to be effective in combat.

I'm open to disagreement on this, but here's my interpretation of the rules:

If you allow a wizard to strategically place his fireball, you should allow your fighter to know what AC he's aiming at after the first few strikes. No, the fighter does not mystically get a vision of AC27 floating in the air over his foe's head, but the fighter DOES figure out how tough that armor is, how quick and agile his enemy is, and whether or not any of the fighter's strikes have been deflected by invisible barriers. In real life, that fighter would have enough visual clues to figure out how hard he should risk swinging without making it impossible for him to connect meaningfully with his enemy.

Heck, I can tell you for a fact that it works that way in martial arts sparring -- after less than thirty seconds, I can tell whether I should be doing quick light jabs or thundering heavy kicks on the guy based on whether he's going to be able to block or get out of the way. Although in sparring, I'm trying not to actually HURT anyone...

My argument here is really that you shouldn't put the fighter's player at a disadvantage because he can't actually SEE the fight and pick up the minutia. I believe that knowing your enemy's AC is reasonable after, say, three rounds or five attacks. And if the player has put in the necessary research and math time beforehand to figure out the best possible scenario, good for him. It's no different than a player researching a wizard's spell selection in his spare time.

(And again, just so that we stop clobbering the straw man, NO, I wouldn't let said player stop the game for five minutes to flip through the PHB and figure out the best spell, just like I wouldn't let the fighter's player spend five minutes figuring out his best attack option.)

3) All of that really just applies to a stupid monster who has few different attack options. What's good for the PC is good for the monster, and I completely agree that an intelligent opponent might change his tactics to throw off the fighter. That's an equally valid result of people knowing whether or not they're getting hit, and I'd applaud a fighter who, for example, saw that he was getting pummeled by an opponent's power attack and switched grom Greatsword+Power Attack to Longsword + Shield + Expertise in response. The only caveat I'd throw out there is that, in fairness to the attacker, you say something like, "The enemy fighter switches to his shield and longsword, and his next strikes are light and fast -- he's concentrating on parrying after the drubbing you just gave him."

What I objected to was not Zappo using that tactic, but the manner in which Zappo phrased it. Zappo was not saying, "An intelligent monster might do this to throw off the tactics of a fighter who thinks he's found the best attack method." Zappo said, "I do this to throw off my players." I object not to the tactic, but the use of the tactic to defeat the player, rather than the PC.

Or, in other words, if Zappo has his cunning swashbuckler use that tactic, that's great, but if he has an Int:6 Ogre go through three different kinds of shields and possibly fight defensively, that's metagaming to one-up the players, which is just as obnoxious and detrimental to game enjoyment and balance as someone taking five minutes to figure out their action for that turn.

It's possible that I misinterpreted Zappo's post or read too much into it, but that's what I got. I didn't get, "Here's a tactic for dealing with someone who takes five minutes to do the math." I got, "Here's a tactic I use to mess up anyone who tries to fight effectively, even if they did all the math beforehand." Please correct me if I'm wrong.

-Tacky

 

[LostSoul]

What I do discourage is actively exploiting the fact that the game system is only an approximation of reality.

That's all fine and good, but if the Player wants to play that way, and you respond as in the example I quoted, I don't think you'd be handling it very well. I'm saying that if a Player is playing in a way that upsets the game, you should talk with him about the problem rather than trying to make him readjust through the gameplay.

 

[Shadeus]

I've got a 17th-level dwarven defender that I've been playing since 3e came out and power attack is a core to his arsenal. One thing that hasn't been mentioned is iterative attacks. If you power attack, sure you get great damage on the first attack, but what about the other three you have?

Personally, I don't do any calculations. I usually eyeball it. I want my first attack to hit around 90% of the time. Then take 25% off for each other attack...that's acceptable to me. Of course, I will sometimes power attack so my bonuses are divisible by 5 for easy calculation. I think my highest attack bonus is +33 now. So I'll do a PA 3 just to get it to +30. *shrug* Easy math.

That said, I think Wulf has it right. It's a flavor thing. I think you will really anger your party if you are the main melee fighter and decide to do that against the dragon and miss every attack. But hey, rolling up new characters is fun too.

 

[Jolly Giant]

Care to elaborate? Or were you just trying to start a pro/anti-min/max flame war? Considered that we lose a likewise number of helpfull rules-gurus because they cant stand pretentious snobs on THESE boards?

I ask merely for information

No, Roland, I'n definitely not out to start a war. I say live and let live. Let people rpg however they like. I'm just saying this is very far from the type of gaming I personally enjoy, and therefore I see very little point in seeking out 'company' who prefer this style of play.
I didn't mean to cause offence, I'm a peace-loving man. Nor do I have a problem with people wanting to get the most out of their characters; I want that to! But when you reach a point where you need an actual spreadsheet to calculate to the exact desimal how many points of powerattack is the most favorable, you have long since left roleplaying behind and entered the dreaded realm of... ALGEBRA!
IMHO...