Is power attack too powerful?

[satori01]

Even before 3.0 was released and Eric Noah was the font of all true knowledge, the wonks had figured out that PA was effective in only limited circumstances, which Jgsuden finely presented.

The whole point of the 3.5 power attack rules, was to negate the statistical fact that 'old' PA was more effective, average damage wise, for light weapons than 2 handed weapons. Effective being defined here in percentage of positive change, a short sword PA vs a Two handed sword PA has a higher percent of increase in average damage, but never does as much damage.

The percentage of change certainly favors 2 handed weapons now, mainly for the fact that PA doesnt work w/ small weapons. Of course now two handed weapons are doubly effective in the single attack with PA scenario, which can cause the DM to raise the eybrows, especially when the critical hit happens, but w/o changing the way people play.. ie it seems people dont PA with 3.5 rules more often than before.

Frankly this doesnt seem like a success to me, the change hasnt seemed to have facillitated a change in PA use, other than to foil concepts like a knife fighter not wanting to rely on sneak attack as the main damage focus.

 

[MiB]

Power Attack

I was actually looking forward to a post like this. I also like the Power Attack feat, and it was a decent choice in 3E.

In 3E, I always felt that TWF was inferior to either THF or S&B, but that the two others were well balanced.

S&B gave you better AC (+2, and potentially more), while THF gave you bigger damage dice and STR x 1.5, which was good for high STR warriors. So it was a tough choice.

In 3.5, they upped TWF a bit and I'm still not sure, but it seems worthwile now However, if you are min-maxing, THF seems the method of choice now, due to the new power attack ruling.

I wholeheartedly agree that PA is the method of choice in rounds were you have only one attack (and will get more by Cleaving). In other situations, since you usually lack the info to optimize the PA-rating, it tends to trade of fairly well with normal non-PA multiple attacks.

However causing lots of damage on a single blow is also better than causing it in lots of blows (DR, massive damage, bypassing defensive spells like Fire shield) AND having to maneuver and being able to do only a standard attack action should be a disadvantage compared to full attacking. With PA, it seems not to be.

I think PA was fine in 3E (worth consideration, but not a definitve must have). In 3.5, it seems overpowered. Tips the scale in favor of warriors and in favor of THF especially.

The only balancing aspect seems the above-mentioned "you do it, monsters do it", but I don't like that.

Maybe one should consider handling PA like Combat Expertise? Max of +5, and invent Improved PA for more the +5 BAB-transfering?

 

[Darklone]

Oih. My main problem with Power Attack is the possibility of having a TWF guy with Improved C-Expertise, high shield bonus with Improved Buckler Defense, using two Bastard Swords and fighting defensively with 7 attacks at full Power Attack for insane AC and still nice average damage because he only hits on a 20 anyways...

Luckily this doesn't happen yet. The worst things that happened were Power Attacking charging barbarians in Rage with Great Cleave hopping into the middle of as many opponents as possible and killing all of them with one slash. Funny when it works, but baaad if it does not work and the 2nd attack already misses ...

 

[Plane Sailing]

I dislike the change in 3.5e power attack, I believe the decision was based on faulty reasoning and on faulty maths (the percentage increase in benefit nonsense).

If they were concerned about TWF getting more of a benefit from it (after sacrificing two extra feats for the priviledge in 3e!) they could have simply eliminated it for light weapons and left 2H weapons alone (although even that isn't a great idea either). I've never actually seen any TWF user with power attack to date although it is possible (although most twf are dex focussed rather than str focussed, and so may not have the requisite str to get power attack).

As regards the use of power attack, I tend to use it to gain an extra damage bonus from beneficial conditions. e.g. when charging? 2pt power attack. Flanking? 2pt power attack. Uphill? 1 pt power attack. Sure it isn't the mathematically optimal way to use it, but it is simple and gives a nice extra bonus in those cases.

n.b. the thing that really bugs me about 2H weapons is that they become the most effective thing for spring attacking by far. Seems really bizarre. Ah well.

 

[Mallus]

I don't think 3.5 power attack is unblanced, per se, but I don't like the way it seems to make other fighter builds undesirable. I can't see why a warrior-type wouldn't go the two-handed weapon route. Offensive melee power goes up faster than defense, particularly if you play closer to the core rules. A mid-level fighter can use power attack fairly regularly in the games I've seen.

I think that 3.5 PA is [another] example of 3.5 working against its own design. In some ways the rules are set up to make a host of different character 'styles' viable [specifically combat-viable], and in others they seem to herd players into very specific builds.

 

[Eltern]

I had not realized until a few days ago I had not realized that you could take different penalties for different iterative attacks. Ex. A dwarf fighter player IMC has two attacks with BAB +8/+3, and on the first attack took a -6 and the second a -3. This is not legal, correct? What would be the benefits/balances to allowing a feat (Maybe a tactical feat) that allows this?

Tactical feat seems better so you could include more "little benefits", but I may be wrong in judging its impact.

Eltern

 

[Darklone]

Yeah it's wrong, check the Power Attack feat description...

 

[Nail]

Hey ho.

I'm one of the "wonks" that did the optimization math. (It's fun!)

In play, it's true you have to guess the AC of the opponent.....but frankly, that's pretty straightforward. And then you have (printed out in bright, cheery colors!) a graph that shows your optimal PA for each AC. Quite helpful and speedy.

But even this is probably unnecessary; knowing the range of probable ACs your opponent has gives a corresponding error on the PA guess, so it's usually safe enough to estimate, which can be done in a second or two at most.

Example:

"My barbarian charges at the Dire Tiger, and swings his sword. Mumble: (I guess the Dire Tiger's AC is ~ 18, so I power attack for 5.)"

"Hey, hey! I hit! ....and I did 44 hp of damage! ...Err, it's not dead yet, is it?! Oh."

 

[two]

Power Attack can also be quite powerful at precisely the right moments: when setting up an ambush, for example, or when making a last-gasp attack.

Even one round of prep/surprise makes a barbarian with power attack very scary, because you can pile on the to-hit modifiers like crazy.

At lower levels:

The cleric prays (+1 luck), the bard sings (+2), the barbarian rages (+2), Wiz casts haste (+1), barbarian charges (+2), etc. That's +8 without much effort = +16 damage over the barbarian with no power-attack options. Vs. flatfooted ac or whatever. That's very significant. Sure a lot of buffing has gone on, but it's all good buffing;everyone benefits. It's just that with power attack you benefit more.

Add higher ground bonus, etc. whatever for flavor.

Last-gasp attack when almost dead vs. the brown bear full power attack -- opens the door for a devestating critical or heck, just a lot of damage killing it. Without power attack, you just don't get that chance.

Anyone ever played a fighter/barbarian WITHOUT power attack?

 

[Nail]

...and without cleave! Never!