"All Power Attack, All the Time?"

[maddman75]

At the risk of getting this thread moved to House Rules, does anyone have an alternate Power Attack mechanic, hopefully removing the calculator part of it, that they'd care to share? I love to 'go all out' (both as a player and as DM), and sometimes I love to 'conserve my strength'; I just prefer to make that decision based on gut feeling and situational observance as opposed to a spreadsheet. I'm considering something like +1d6 damage at the cost of 2 points of damage to the user (whether the attack succeeds or not), with no penalty to the attack roll, or perhaps a damage bonus usable X times per day. If someone already has tested a similar mechanic, I'd love to hear about it!

You could always steal the feats from Neverwinter Nights. This gives you a simple -5 to hit and +5 to damage. Great boon at lower level, not as good at high level, much simpler to calculate. They also added an Improved Power Attack feat that changed it to -10/+10, though I think you needed +6 BAB to take it.


And I used All Power Attack, All The Time as a DM last night to great effect. The party needed to kill off a troll and his goblin henchmen. THe troll had a huge greatclub that he swung around with wild abandon. The barbarian flew into him, and they started pounding on each other. Describing the misses was a lot of fun .

 

[rkanodia]

I think I was a little unclear when I said what I was looking for.

You're right that the NWN Power Attack reduces the 'spreadsheet factor', but using it or not is still a spreadsheet decision - albeit a spreadsheet of much smaller size. I would prefer Power Attack to have a completely anti-intellectual feel to it. When a player asks himself, "Will I inflict more damage on this monster using Power Attack than not using Power Attack?", I want the answer to be YES, every time; I don't want Power Attack to have any negative impact on the attack itself.

Viewed in that light, the questions I'm asking myself are
1) What is a fair bonus?
2) What is a fair drawback?

if anyone has thought about it, I'd love to hear their answers.

And yes, I agree that full Power Attack can be fun both as a PC and as a DM. I just don't think it's a good mechanic overall.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I want the answer to be YES, every time; I don't want Power Attack to have any negative impact on the attack itself.

There's already a feat in the game that does that. It's called Weapon Specialization.

Power Attack's flavor is intertwined with its mechanics. A more reckless, forceful swing that is therefore less accurate but far more devastating if successful. IMO, removing the "less accurate" part of it ruins its flavor.

 

[Tessarael]

1) What is a fair bonus?
2) What is a fair drawback?

I strongly agree that Power Attack is an ugly mechanic because of the calculations required to use it effectively, and because many people use it very ineffectively. I also don't like the fact that it works versus very high AC opponents, who you can only hit on a 20 anyway.

Here are two alternative mechanics I've proposed:

(a) +2 damage when wielding a weapon two-handed [idea being that Power Attack is supposed to help the two-handed weapon guys]

(b) if (attack > AC - 2) get bonus damage of (attack - AC + 2) with single-handed weapon, 2x(attack - AC + 2) with two-handed weapon. This is a bit of a pain to calculate, but you don't need to optimize and choose when to use Power Attack: either you have a very high chance to hit and get extra damage, or you don't.

Thoughts?

Anyone else got some modifications to Power Attack to get rid of the calculations needed to choose to use Power Attack?

 

[rkanodia]

Yeah. Weapon specialization does add damage to every attack, assuming the character is always fighting with his weapon of choice. I'm not saying I want Power Attack to just add damage to every attack with no drawback. I'm saying I think the drawback should be something external to the attack, such as damage to the PC, an AC penalty, chance for fatigue, limited uses per day, or suchlike. A fighter's 'special attack' as it were. Think about the way that a monk can say "I'm using Stunning Fist" without having to reach for his calculator - he can't use it every round, but when he needs extra oomph, he can declare it with the knowledge that it's giving him a chance for a better attack, with no chance for a worse attack.

For instance, a "reckless, forceful swing" could also be represented like this:
Power Attack
Description: You swing with reckless abandon, with disregard for your own safety.
Benefit: On your first melee attack of any round, you may make a mighty swing, adding +1d6 dice of damage. However, the muscle strain you undergo deals 2 points of subdual damage. If the attack misses, that damage is normal damage instead of subudal as your muscles and joints are put under extreme duress. You may add up to 1 more die for each 5 points of Base Attack Bonus you possess, but the damage you take increases by 2 points for each die added this way.

Anyway, it looks like I'm in the minority on this one, so maybe I'll just make a change to Action Points instead, what with my upcoming campaign being in Eberron and all. Action Points can be used to gain 1d6 on an attack roll after seeing the die roll, but before learning the result. Would it be overpowered to say that an Action Point is worth +1d6 on the attack roll AND +1d6 on damage? Or perhaps make them choose the better of the two; if the attack would have hit anyway, it gets a little oomph. If the attack misses even with the bonus, well, too bad, at least you get a well-described failure

 

[takyris]

In a d20 Modern "Enter the Dragon" type game, I scared one of my players silly with The Ultimate Warrior. The Ultimate Warrior was a Strong5/Fast4 or Strong5/Tough4 hero who had Power Attack, Combat Expertise, Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting... and Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Bastard Sword.

In a full attack, he had four attacks per round, dual-wielding a bastard sword, and he had Power Attack and Combat Expertise turned on to full power the entire time. Sure, he needed a 20 to hit after all those penalties, but man, that one time he did, he forced a massive damage save without me even rolling damage. (+3 Improved Melee Smash, +4/+2 from 18 Strength, +9 from Power Attack, and, well, he's using Bastard Swords...)

Big Fun. And given that my player's hero specialized in disarms, I gave the Ultimate Warrior 8 bastard swords, which was down to, if I recall correctly, 3 when the Ultimate Warrior finally went down. The others got tossed into lava.

Oh, man, I loved that game.

 

[hong]

I strongly agree that Power Attack is an ugly mechanic because of the calculations required to use it effectively, and because many people use it very ineffectively. I also don't like the fact that it works versus very high AC opponents, who you can only hit on a 20 anyway.

Here are two alternative mechanics I've proposed:

(a) +2 damage when wielding a weapon two-handed [idea being that Power Attack is supposed to help the two-handed weapon guys]

(b) if (attack > AC - 2) get bonus damage of (attack - AC + 2) with single-handed weapon, 2x(attack - AC + 2) with two-handed weapon. This is a bit of a pain to calculate, but you don't need to optimize and choose when to use Power Attack: either you have a very high chance to hit and get extra damage, or you don't.

Thoughts?

Anyone else got some modifications to Power Attack to get rid of the calculations needed to choose to use Power Attack?

I find your idea of adding more calculations to Power Attack to solve the problem of needing to make calculations to use Power Attack to be very interesting, and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

 

[Tessarael]

Quote Hong, "I find your idea of adding more calculations to Power Attack to solve the problem of needing to make calculations to use Power Attack to be very interesting, and wish to subscribe to your newsletter."

Haha! True. Option (b) is still complicated (less complicated in the sense of no optimization needed, more complicated to figure out how much extra damage you do). Simplify it to (attack - AC) and it's still a bit of a pain.

Here is what I think happened in D&D 3E:

1. Getting extra attacks in AD&D is too good. Going from 1/1 to 3/2 increases damage output by 50%.

2. We'll fix this by using iterative attacks. That way your increased damage isn't that much unless your opponent has poor AC.

Some time passes ...

3. Wait, what about all this wasted extra attack bonus that I don't need because I only miss on a one. Kethunk kethunk ... end result is the Power Attack mechanic.

I really don't buy the need for the Power Attack feat to exist in the D&D mechanics. If you have a high chance to hit, your lower iterative attacks will more likely hit - that is how you get the extra damage for a high attack score. There doesn't need to be anything added to this.

In that regard I would have preferred fewer 3E D&D core feats: combine Cleave and Great Cleave, get rid of Heighten Spell, get rid of Power Attack, reduce the number of magic item creation feats, etc.

 

[Li Shenron]

Back to original question...

Not that I am a very frequent user of power attack, since I mostly play spellcasters but when I have used it I have often used an intermediate value.

For example, when the opponent was in an unfavorable situation (and I knew that this meant an AC penalty or an attack bonus) such as being flat-footed, charging, prone, flanked... I often took a few points of power attack, no more than the bonus I had on the attack (or penalty the opponent had to AC), so that I basically traded the accuracy advantage with a possible bonus to damage.

 

[frankthedm]

Orson, from Record of Lodoss War.

Goes berserk, swings at Parn, misses, and proceeds to take a giant chunk out of the side of the cliff that he hit instead of the main character.

Some folks think "That is cool" others think "his sword should have snapped."