Is Power Attack balanced?

[shilsen]

Considering that it is not always a prudent option, I'd say "yes." But I think it might be more balanced if it went Power Attack -> Superior Power Attack, in the way Combat Expertise does.

That's the house-rule I use, and it works very well for me.

One thing I notice nobody ever seems to bring up in these discussions is that the 2x Power Attack is really deadly for the PCs. In general, I find that most PCs are much better on offense than defense, and the 2x PA rule makes it that much easier to drop a PC. A good 75%+ of my house rules are based on removing things that make it way too easy to drop a PC. That's why I removed Wraithstrike. Think what a dragon casting Wraithstrike can do. Ouch!

 

[TheGogmagog]

I've often though that it should cost a feat to do the extra power attack damage with a 2-handed weapon. Or even the x1.5 str damage with a 2 handed weapon.

Haven't felt strongly enough to houserule it though.

Ditto, The 1.5x str damage seems equal to a two weapon fighter in my mind. I didn't realize the 2x damage was new to 3.5. I probably wouldn't end up house-ruling it though, so far none of the players feel the same way.

 

[starwed]

Considering that it is not always a prudent option, I'd say "yes.

Power attacking is itself not always a prudent option. But taking the power attack feat is pretty much automatic for most fighters. This by itself indicates it's too powerful.

I think the best houserule is to add a free -2 attack/+2 damage combat option, and break the two-hander functionality into a separate feat.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I've houseruled both that PA deals x 1 1/2 damage for two-handed and that it requires Improved Power Attack to go up to +BAB. Power Attack only allows up to +6 (at +5 it creates a little oddity that screws the two-handed weapon wielder).

Edit: So, yes, I think it's unbalanced. Moreover, I think my houserules play better than the RAW, at least for my game (my players think so, too).

 

[satori01]

T

One thing I notice nobody ever seems to bring up in these discussions is that the 2x Power Attack is really deadly for the PCs.

No it gets brought up, Giants are disproportionately deadly with the 3.5 rules. My biggest issue w/ Power Attack is that it crowds out other options due to it's obvious utility. Why use a Maneuver from Bo9s when you can flank and full Power Attack with your Keen Falchion.

Anything that adds to your static modifier is golden....and PA is the standard. At high levels it is easy to stack and find modifiers to increase your Attack Modifier.

For the record I would also say that PA does not balance damage the out put of melee-ists vs Casters....iterrative attacks and Saving Throws already put Combatants ahead.

 

[KarinsDad]

I think +1 1/2 for two handed weapons, +1 for single weapons, and +1/2 for offhand weapons works best balance-wise.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I think +1 1/2 for two handed weapons, +1 for single weapons, and +1/2 for offhand weapons works best balance-wise.

I'd actually say that off-hand warrants +1 as well, since it is a more feat intensive approach (and you are less likely to get all the power attack in on crit since you've got to make two crits to get the full damage otherwise).

Anyway, we've never seen any problem with the 3.0 version, to tell the truth.

 

[Engilbrand]

What confuses me is that spellcasters are always touted as being more powerful than melee guys. Power Attack seems to help that a bit, but it's somehow unbalanced to a lot of people?
At best, you can get +40 to damage. If it crits and you use a scythe, it does 160. Are you going to hit multiple times with it at 20th level? I doubt it. By that time, that's supposed to be low damage. In epic levels, it never gets any better, either. Not that I think that epic should be the balancing point, but a level 50 fighter can still only apply a -20 to attacks for +40 damage. Woopy!

 

[Egres]

Acording to this site Power Attack is not a big deal.

It seems that PA is better for character with less strength and bonus damage in general.

 

[Deset Gled]

Acording to this site Power Attack is not a big deal.

It seems that PA is better for character with less strengt and bonus damage in general.

The problem is that there is a difference between "in general" and "in play". In real play, most players will not worry about calculating the optimum PA factor for every attack. They will, however, know that when they have a very easy attack roll to make (a charge against a low AC opponent, when they are buffed heavily with True Strike or other spells, when they are making a touch attack, or countless other situations), they can convert any extra attack bonus to extra damage. For high level characters, this can happen fairly often (as attack bonuses scale faster than ACs). The real question is: what conversion factor is acceptable to maintain balance? Most people generally accept that 1 for 1 is a little weak, but 2 for 1 seems a little on the strong side. Puting a cap on the damage (a la Expertise) is another possible balancing factor that I happen to like, as I don't like feats or items that give unbounded bonuses.

What confuses me is that spellcasters are always touted as being more powerful than melee guys. Power Attack seems to help that a bit, but it's somehow unbalanced to a lot of people?

The problem isn't balance against spellcasters, it's balance against other warriors. PA makes the two-handed weapon very favorable when compared to two-weapon builds or sword-and-board builds.