Jonathan Tweet denounces Power Attack

[Ahglock]

I'd played around with not even making Power Attack a feat, but rather a combat option. Why should you need a feat to put some extra effort into the attack after all?

A lot of feats should be basic combat options.

 

[Ahglock]

Not when those multipliers get accounted for in character builds. If someone plans for making attacks dealing x2 to x5 the normal damage of a character at his level, something ridiculous is going on. Thankfully, 4E won't be going the path of "Something is broken, lets break everything else so they are equal."They had plenty of that in 3.5 splat.That just gives more encouragement to FPAATT and shoot for 20’s.

That is a problem with the players IMO not the mechanics. And its only a problem with the players if its a player or two that don't fit the group there in.

Closing loopholes for power gamers can be a good thing. When it weakens the options of the ordinary intended use for the non-power gamers its a bad thing.

I don't really care much if something can be broken. I can pull out the hammer of mighty DMing to solve people who abuse the system. I do care if its ordinary intended use is either to powerful or to weak.

 

[Nifft]

For me, Power Attack was one of those feats that was useful at all levels. It could scale quite nicely.

Quote for mild dispute.

A 1st level Cleric or Druid with Str 13 might be interested in Power Attack, but he can't actually use it. Same for a strong Monk.

I'd like feats which are usable when you meet the pre-reqs. Rapid Shot, for example.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Dragonblade]

Wow you could do that. You could just pick a number and use that every round. What a nifty option. What would be really cool is if I could like have an option to change that number if I wanted to whenever I wanted to. Sure I might stick with the same one for ease of play, but having the option to change it would be really cool.

Oh wait I could do that in 3e and you could keep a fixed number in 3e, in 4e you might be able to do what you were doing and I can't do what I was doing.

If my options are reduced I'm not so sure I want to pay the ease of use tax.

Actually, I do think they should keep the option to slide damage. In fact, I think the feat as is, is perfect. Hopefully, it won't be changed.

 

[Mercule]

Wait. Seriously.... People have a hard time with the math for Power Attack? I can understand being miffed if you've got someone running statistics on a spreadsheet or some such. But, doing the math for -5 to hit, +5/+10 damage? That totally and completely blows my mind.

What happens when a cashier gives you change? That's a lot more complex, what with all the different values of coins and bills.

 

[Nifft]

Wait. Seriously.... People have a hard time with the math for Power Attack?

No. But thanks for insulting our intelligence. It makes me want to read the rest of your post.

My players have a problem remembering to use and vary it every round.

My monsters have a terrible advantage in that I know the PC's ACs, and the monsters shouldn't.

In optimal cases, it takes up some (small) time every round. In sub-optimal cases, it's forgotten.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Dragonblade]

Thankfully, 4E won't be going the path of "Something is broken, lets break everything else so they are equal."They had plenty of that in 3.5 splat.That just gives more encouragement to FPAATT and shoot for 20’s.

See I disagree. I don't think power attack was too good. I think your basic shield wielder was too weak.

I disagree with the notion that everything has to completely wussified, watered down, and nerfed into blandness before its "balanced".

 

[Mercule]

No. But thanks for insulting our intelligence. It makes me want to read the rest of your post.

Odd. You picked out something I didn't think was insulting. Looking at my post, there probably is some fodder if you want to get huffy, but I wouldn't consider that line to be it.

I was seriously getting the impression that people were having a hard time doing that one calculation on the fly. I honestly have a hard time believing that.

If you have an issue with the massive glut of simple modifiers and what a PITA that is, that's a totally different matter (and one I agree with). I just don't see Power Attack as being a particularly bad offender. The endless river of buff spells is a far, far worse offender.

My players have a problem remembering to use and vary it every round.

This, I can empathize with. I often forget modifiers, no matter which side of the screen I'm on. I don't see anything stand-out about Power Attack in this regard, either. Again, I'd point the finger at the magical buffs. My group tends to use them extremely sparingly and I'm pretty sure it's because no one ever remembers to apply them, anyway.

As I said, I can see the basic premise that lots of little bits of math add up and/or get forgotten. I completely fail to see why Power Attack is specifically vexing or poorly designed.

On its own, it's pretty darn simple. When it's just one more ornament on the tree, the problem isn't that the bulb is too shiny, it's that there are too many bulbs.

 

[Mercule]

See I disagree. I don't think power attack was too good. I think your basic shield wielder was too weak.

Agreed. The feat tree made it more easier to get a good shield bonus from a non-magic dagger (and TWF) than a non-magic shield.

 

[Nifft]

If you have an issue with the massive glut of simple modifiers and what a PITA that is, that's a totally different matter (and one I agree with).

That's it exactly. It's not that the math is too hard. It's that it's piled onto a bunch of other (trivial) calculations which together become hard to remember and manage. (Again, not hard as in it's tough math, hard as in it's more math than is fun to do 4-5 times per round every round.)

This, I can empathize with. I often forget modifiers, no matter which side of the screen I'm on. I don't see anything stand-out about Power Attack in this regard, either. Again, I'd point the finger at the magical buffs. My group tends to use them extremely sparingly and I'm pretty sure it's because no one ever remembers to apply them, anyway.

As I said, I can see the basic premise that lots of little bits of math add up and/or get forgotten. I completely fail to see why Power Attack is specifically vexing or poorly designed.

On its own, it's pretty darn simple. When it's just one more ornament on the tree, the problem isn't that the bulb is too shiny, it's that there are too many bulbs.

The meta-game issue is my biggest beef. As a DM I'm stuck either playing my monsters stupider than the players are playing their PCs, or I'm potentially giving the monsters more information than they should have.

It's a fine mechanic, if information is equally hidden on both sides of the screen, and the folks on both sides are equally adept with the math. But information is asymmetrically distributed, and some people are better at math than others.

Thus, my beef rephrased: the real limit to optimal Power Attack use is information -- specifically, AC. Players who memorize the Monster Manual are rewarded; DMs are put in the uncomfortable position of having more useful information than they "should". I don't like it when mechanics reward meta-gaming.

Cheers, -- N