Is Power Attack balanced?

[Egres]

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).

If you look carefully at those calculations, you'll find that PA is a suboptimal choice more often than you think, cause it heavily penalizes your iterative attacks in a full attack, even at high levels.

Attacking with a greatsword with a +15 bonus to damage, missing only on a natural 1, makes an optimal Power Attack choice give you only a +4 bonus to damage, and for the first attack only, getting worse with following attacks.

 

[Deset Gled]

If you look carefully at those calculations, you'll find that PA is a suboptimal choice more often than you think, cause it heavily penalizes your iterative attacks in a full attack, even at high levels.

Which means PA is still very powerful option whenever you make a single attack in a round, like when using a charge. Incidentally, when characters start to have many itterative attacks is also when the first attack begins to be prettty much guaranteed, making PA a more attractive option.

When looking at balance, you can't just look at averages (although that is an important factor), you also need to look at the extremes. That's where the balance of PA starts to break down.

 

[hong]

Well, "suboptimal" is a rather ambiguous word. Let's say I PA for -7/+14, which according to that site is about the best for a heavy damage-dealer against AC ~ 5 less than attack bonus. Seems not very much, right? With 4 attacks at BAB +20, I'm getting roughly 50 extra damage. One feat for +50 damage isn't bad at all! I can't think of many other feats that would let me bump my raw damage output by that much.

Not only that, it synergises well with everything: buff spells, extra attacks (haste), etc.

EDIT: Actually, that site seems not to take iterative attacks into account at all. If I change the "can Power Attack for up to ___" box from 20 to 15, it makes no difference to the result.

 

[Ender_rpm]

Am I the only one who has never had a problem with this? Sure, PA-ing great sword wielders do a lot of damage. But that ability is quickly overshadowed by A. being in range for retaliation, B. No shield, making that retaliation more likely to hit, and C. anything with enough hit points to go toe to toe with a PA-ing fighter with a great sword is likely to be able to give about as well as it gets. In a long campaign, damage out put vs durabilty questions, IME, almost always favor durabilty.

 

[KarinsDad]

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).

Possibly. The issue with that is the number of attacks a dedicated two weapon fighter can get in during a round. Two handed weapon fighters often (maybe one successful attack out of 3 or 4) blow through an opponent (i.e. do 30 points of damage at a point in time when 10 would suffice). If the 2 weapon fighter does the same average damage, he actually would take down more opponents in the same time because of not blowing through as often.

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

Agreed. It is simpler.

 

[Egres]

Which means PA is still very powerful option whenever you make a single attack in a round, like when using a charge.

Uh?
Very powerful?

Getting a +4 damage with an attack where I fail only with a natural 1 doesn't seem so good to me.

Incidentally, when characters start to have many itterative attacks is also when the first attack begins to be prettty much guaranteed, making PA a more attractive option.

More attractive only if you like to miss your following attacks.

Actually, that site seems not to take iterative attacks into account at all. If I change the "can Power Attack for up to ___" box from 20 to 15, it makes no difference to the result.

That only means that it makes no difference.

 

[wildstarsreach]

Compared to other feats, is Power Attack balanced? Or, is it two or three feats in one?

Thoughts?

jh

I'd say no. This feat is incomsistant with the comparable one of combat expertise. You only get up to +5 of you base attack transferred without taking Improved Combat Expertise. The same should be done with Power Attack in that some point it caps and should be required to take Improved Power Attack. Personally I think the limit should be either +5 or +8 IMO.

 

[AllisterH]

.

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.

True, and I really can't see why a warrior would go sword and board. Your AC increases but you also suffer penalties as well, so wielding a shield is a balanced option in of itself. TWF though still rocks when it comes to situations where you aren't really interested in getting a lot of damage but a lot of attacks (which is why Rogues seem to favour TWF).

 

[hong]

That only means that it makes no difference.

I find that very hard to believe, especially since one of the arguments that PA isn't so good is exactly because it affects iterative attacks.

 

[SlagMortar]

One of the common complaints about feats is that they do not scale with level. Power attack does scale with level. It is as good (or better) for a high level character as a low level character, so of course it looks better than other feats at higher levels. In my opinion, it should be a combat option instead of a feat and perhaps should be buffed for two-weapon fighters.

I like that it is best used with a charge or a spring attack because it mitigates somewhat the "first full attack wins" part of melee combat. It sounds like Bo9S also tried to mitigate that in a different way with the strikes that can't be used on a full attack.

It also keeps AC relevant at high levels. Why is it a bad idea to make a barbarian with AC 12 and 400 hit points? Because power attack eats through those hit points fast.