Is Power Attack balanced?

[Plane Sailing]

At the same time, not every style can be balanced with each. A fighter that specializes in knife throwing is not going to be equal to another straight up fighter style...though a rogue with knife throwing and SA could make this possible.

I would argue though that any style which required feat investment (TWF etc.) should be better than a style which requires no feat investment (2H)!

 

[AllisterH]

I would argue though that any style which required feat investment (TWF etc.) should be better than a style which requires no feat investment (2H)!

The problem is "how to balance it" taking into account the bonus damage dice or weapon enhancements though. Remember in 2E when 2WF was the "best" method not just because you did more damage but your weapons bonuses kicked in twice....

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Power Attack is just fine in 3.5. I'm a little tired of hearing all the whineing from those TWF types that Two Handed weilders have an advantage over them. weilding a Twohanded massive weapon is going to deal more damage do to Physics of the strike. The 2-handed strike uses all the major muscle groups in the normal body, A single handed weapon does not use the muscle mass of twohanded strike hence the doubble dammage you are using twice the Muscle mass so you do twice the damage.

No offense, but none of that matters. A poison coated blade can kill any human, infection and wounds can kill you after a battle, even if you weren't knocked unconsious, and gifts of the gods aren't generally thought to be doled out in a carefully limited fashion to match the learning curve of other trades. IOW, a combat style should be balanced first against the character building investment needed to use it and only secondarily (if at all) against "Physics" or any other real world concern.

Those big windup all muscle using strikes would also have disadvantages in game terms which are usualy brushed off with a "D&D combat is abstract" handwave when brought up, so no having your cake and eating it too. (D&D combat has the amazing property of being both abstract and micromanaged at the exact same time, but thats another subject.)

 

[Kahuna Burger]

The problem is "how to balance it" taking into account the bonus damage dice or weapon enhancements though. Remember in 2E when 2WF was the "best" method not just because you did more damage but your weapons bonuses kicked in twice....

My answer would be to choose between making combat truely abstract, or embracing the micromanagement with a GURPS style point system where the advantages of your gear are figured explicitly into the character balance. Personaly I'm into the "truely abstract" angle, with a base damage and defense stat that scales with class and level....

 

[KarinsDad]

At the same time, not every style can be balanced with each. A fighter that specializes in knife throwing is not going to be equal to another straight up fighter style...though a rogue with knife throwing and SA could make this possible.

In real life, two weapon is generally better than either two handed or sword and board. In the game it requires a feat and then is worse than two handed and only slightly better than sword and board. Go figure.

 

[Nifft]

Ah, so you are suggesting that Two Weapon Fighting is not a style that Fighters should choose, eh?

I consider that to be a flaw in the system

I mostly don't think Fighter is a class fighting men should choose, and consider Fighter to be a flaw in the system.

- - -

Power Attack + Barbarian = win.

TWF + Rogue = win.

Fighters are fine for spiked-chain tripping, but that's rather specialized, and many foes resist or are immune to it.

-- N

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

I mostly don't think Fighter is a class fighting men should choose, and consider Fighter to be a flaw in the system.

- - -

Power Attack + Barbarian = win.

TWF + Rogue = win.

Fighters are fine for spiked-chain tripping, but that's rather specialized, and many foes resist or are immune to it.

Huh?

The fighter can benefit just as much from Power Attack as the barbarian, since he has the feats to back it up even more...you know, like Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Focus, Great Cleave, Weapon Specialization, and so on.

Brad

 

[Moon-Lancer]

Ah, so you are suggesting that Two Weapon Fighting is not a style that Fighters should choose, eh?

I consider that to be a flaw in the system

What I consider flawed is twf has dex pre reqs. when dex based fighters usaly have no means to do damage. Rogues bypass this with sneak attack, and thats why they pump dex and finesse. The problem in this case isn't power attack but twf. I suggest making twf require dex or strength. However then you screw over the ranger, as thats something only they can do. I think a fix though could be the secondary attack doesn't do half strength damage, but full damage.

In real life, two weapon is generally better than either two handed or sword and board. In the game it requires a feat and then is worse than two handed and only slightly better than sword and board. Go figure.

One can also use a two handed sword better with less investment then is required for twf (real life), so it should constitute a considerable investment. In return I do think twf should be strong.

Mechanically one should invest in properties like flaming, or specialization, something that will let them do more damage per a hit and hope they hit alot. If your using two short swords, specialization really helps in the twf department. Lets not forget sun blades. Also with a dragon shaman, with its damage aura up, twf gains more of a benifit then thf.

 

[Dnjscott]

In real life, two weapon is generally better than either two handed or sword and board. In the game it requires a feat and then is worse than two handed and only slightly better than sword and board. Go figure.

I dunno about that... given real world armies' tendencies towards sword and board I'd imagine it has some big advantages in real life.

 

[KarinsDad]

I dunno about that... given real world armies' tendencies towards sword and board I'd imagine it has some big advantages in real life.

You are comparing armies with small groups of skirmishers.

The reasons armies used shields are:

1) It is a simpler set of styles (short weapon and shield, spear and shield, etc.) to teach peasants and run of the mill troops.

2) It is easier to create phalanxes and other formations which result in mutual protection.

DND is typically a game with a few combatant types in a skirmish, not entire armies. Apples and Oranges. A well trained two weapon fighter has a significant advantage over an equal sword and board fighter in single combat because both weapons can be used for offense or defense whereas close in, shields are slow to move, hamper vision, and are mostly capable of defense (shield bashes in the game are fine, but were actually hard to successfully accomplish in reality outside of pushing or slamming an opponent who should be ready for that; against another shield user, it did little; against two weapon, it gives him an advantage, he wants the shield user to bash with his shield so that he can attack around it). In group combat, weapon and shield is often better because it makes it difficult for attacks to get past the wall of shields whereas counterattacks can even be swung wildly and still connect.