Jonathan Tweet denounces Power Attack

[Gloombunny]

Oh, and guys, the tricky-math part of Power Attack isn't figuring how much extra damage you get for a given penalty. It comes in when you're trying to decide what degree of PAing would result in optimal damage output based on your current net attack bonus and what you know of your target's AC. It may not be advanced math, but it's lot of calculations to run through in your head every turn.

And yeah, of course a lot of people won't bother and will just guesstimate a value. That's good! The problem is that the tedious calculations actually yield better results in-game. A system should not reward a player for slowing down the game.

 

[Nifft]

Ah. Cool. That's not what I'd been picking up from the thread. I'll admit, though, that I'm a bit tired and my comprehension may be low. Similarly, I might be a bit non-communitcative. Mostly, I was just being a bit good-naturedly sarcastic. Sorry if it reads as snarkiness.

No worries. Internet : vocal tone :: water : warforged blood.

Well, if you consider that the players know the monsters AC within 2 rounds of combat in most cases, I don't see that you knowing the ACs of the PCs (that are being attacked) is that much worse.

Average combat lasts 5 rounds, so that's about half.

The way I usually fudge is to have the monsters either NOT power attack or power attack at a fixed -10 for 2-3 rounds.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Plane Sailing]

That is a smidge better than weapon specialization, which is supposed to be a decent and class exclusive feat. And you see, by nixing power attack, other damage based feats no longer have to be 'competitive' with power attack. And thus, this is one way damage escalation will be kept in check in 4E.

Full disclosure - we allowed Weapon Specialisation to be picked by anyone with BAB 4+. Fighters could still get it first (at 4th level, others have to wait until at least 6th), and it didn't reduce the number of fighters we had at all. So that point wouldn't have occurred to me.

I think that two merits of the approach I suggest are
a) no calculations required on 'to hit' chance
b) damage doesn't get multiplied on crits

These are the two areas which can lead to maths-related slowdowns (and in terms of 3.5e style 2H power attack with a x3 or x4 crit weapon reduces the vast potential increase in damage from attacks at random intervals).

Those who want to give bigger benefit to 2H weapons could, I suppose, give +1d4 for 1H weapons and +1d6 for 2H weapons. But I don't see any need to give bigger bonuses to the weapons that do more damage anyway, frankly.

I think that KahunaBurger made a great point, which I'll make a second post to comment on

 

[Plane Sailing]

Reducing your chance to hit to get better damage if you do can be represented just as well by a carefully aimed thrust into an armor chink (that they may dodge more easily because you are telegraphing the move as you aim) as by a wild swing. Changing the mechanics to follow ill concieved flavor was a horrible move for no benefit to anyone. The idea that PA was "broken" with smaller weapons because it actually helped catch them up to the damage output of large ones basicly said "there is only one way we want you to deal damage if you aren't a rogue and thats with a big honking weapon. If you want to play a swashbuckler without being a rogue, too bad! Your damage output will suck and we like it that way!"

Really excellent point.

Although the flavour was 'wild powerful swings', the mechanics are simply reduce your chance to hit in order to cause more damage, and this could equally be achieved by simulating aiming at a chink in the armour or a slightly more vital location as KB suggests.

None of the DMs I game with used the 3.5e power attack, we completely stuck with the 3.0e version (I think it was the only 3.5e change we didn't use).

Cheers

 

[Plane Sailing]

Really like Power Attack's results - IMO, it's nice for a high level fighter type to be able to splatter someone from time to time - and helps them keep up with the neighbours (spellcasters).

Gosh, even without power attack in the picture, our spellcasters struggle to keep up in the damage stakes with the fighters, who with massive strength, big weapons, critical hits and full attacks *completely* rule the roost in damage stakes.

Ooh, the wizard drops a fireball - 10d6, so that's 35 damage, half on a save, and take off the fire resistance. 7 damage gets through. Versus the fighter full attack, hit! 2d6+12 damage! Critical 4d6+24! (55 damage) cleave onto next guy! 2d6+12! etc etc. BTW, I'm understating the damage here, as I'm assuming 22 Str, weapon specialisation and +1 weapon; in reality it is likely to be more strength and better weapon magic)

The only time that a caster beat them in the damage stakes was a druid with the (overpowered?) incense of meditation, which maximises all his spells prepared that day - doing 60 with every flamestrike and 50 with every Call Lightning Storm bolt was a pretty tough act to follow (and no arcane caster could have managed it, at least not with core rules).

Cheers

 

[Baby Samurai]

None of the DMs I game with used the 3.5e power attack, we completely stuck with the 3.0e version (I think it was the only 3.5e change we didn't use).

I forget how 3.0 PA works – is it limited to -5?

 

[FireLance]

I forget how 3.0 PA works – is it limited to -5?

1 for 1 regardless of weapon, capped at BAB.

 

[Spatula]

3.0 version could be used with all weapons and didn't change results depending on the type of weapon. This resulted in it being better with smaller weapons than larger ones, so the revised version bars it from being used with light weapons and doubles the return with 2-handers, which creates problems of its own.

 

[ruemere]

Lovely thing about Power Attack was its use by BBEGs. Giants, Monstrous Humanoids, Dragons and Golems had a field day with that. Of course, the players could have a field day with that feat, too. They just delegated one character to perform successful grapple, and let the rest use Power Attack at full power.

Regards,
Ruemere

 

[Baby Samurai]

1 for 1 regardless of weapon, capped at BAB.

Ah, thanks.

Funnily enough in the current Planescape campaign I'm running we have ported over many of the changes from Saga, and a 2 to 1 ratio for Power Attacking two-handed is one of them.