Jonathan Tweet denounces Power Attack

[Mallus]

Have you played with smart players and math probability? That isn't quite how it goes down...Power Attack becomes a moment to use that math brain of theirs...and they do just that.

Not all smart and mathematically-inclined gamers are optimizers. For example, the math PhD I used to game with would never 'run the numbers' before choosing his PC's actions. That just wasn't his style, which is to say he prioritized others aspects of the gaming experience over raw combat efficiency.

Which is besides my original point, that it's strange to label selfish, counterproductive behavior at the gaming table 'smart'.

Try this phrasing on for size: "Last night a dumb player ground the game to a halt trying to decide how much Power Attack to use". Sounds better, doesn't it?

 

[Mark Chance]

I've never seen Power Attack slow the game, much less drag the game to a screeching halt while allegedly smart people try to figure out how to do 4th grade math. My suspicion isn't that the feat is the bulk of the problem, but rather it's a certain subset of players.

 

[Arkham Angel]

Here's how I envisioned PA in the first place; I'm sure it's already been thought of but hey..

Give up an amount of AC and apply it to your damage. You must announce before the round begins. I see it is as you are opening yourself up for a perfect position to strike with the most damage.

In some ways charge and PA are similar. Give it some thought.

 

[Klaus]

Here's how I envisioned PA in the first place; I'm sure it's already been thought of but hey..

Give up an amount of AC and apply it to your damage. You must announce before the round begins. I see it is as you are opening yourself up for a perfect position to strike with the most damage.

In some ways charge and PA are similar. Give it some thought.

Of course, the problem there is that you only suffer from that tradeoff if you are actually attacked.

I think something like the monk's Decisive Strike (-2 to hit, double damage) or Robilar's Gambit (provoke AoO, make attack full of awesome) would be more in line with the style of play intended.

Either that or a flat -5 attack/+5 damage (+10 with 2-handed weapons).

 

[Ahglock]

BAM! This is the point ALL of us who get it are trying to make to the power attack is fine crowd. This ability costs you a FEAT! It slows down play! It does not feel right! And...it doesn't really do anything for you

Its not that we don't get it, because there isn't an it to get. We have a different opinion on power attack.

Sure it costs a feat.

But it doesn't slow down play. It feels right. And it does something for you, maybe not the most powerful feat in the game but there are plenty of feats that are worse.

Making power attack a set bonus/penalty instead of a sliding scale might add a whopping 20 seconds to en entire evening of gaming for my group, and none of us are math professors.

 

[Beginning of the End]

Its not that we don't get it, because there isn't an it to get. We have a different opinion on power attack.

Sure it costs a feat.

We've actually gone the other way: We use the Power Attack mechanic to simulate called shots. Accept a -2 penalty to your attack roll for a +1 bonus to damage. Everybody can do it. People with Power Attack and the (new feat) Called Shot do it better (with a -1/+1 exchange rate).

And, yeah, we've never seen it slow down play. People either eyeball it or, if they're the type who wants to eke out every mathematical advantage, they either have the spreadsheets or they know the math by heart.

Of course, we also don't announce the AC number at the beginning of combat. (It can be figured out, of course, but that takes time.) This might be discouraging people from trying to fine-tune the number.

 

[Ahglock]

We've actually gone the other way: We use the Power Attack mechanic to simulate called shots. Accept a -2 penalty to your attack roll for a +1 bonus to damage. Everybody can do it. People with Power Attack and the (new feat) Called Shot do it better (with a -1/+1 exchange rate).

And, yeah, we've never seen it slow down play. People either eyeball it or, if they're the type who wants to eke out every mathematical advantage, they either have the spreadsheets or they know the math by heart.

Of course, we also don't announce the AC number at the beginning of combat. (It can be figured out, of course, but that takes time.) This might be discouraging people from trying to fine-tune the number.

That is how I think most feats should of been done where many of the "feats" are really basic combat maneuvers anyone can do, the people with the feat just do it better. I'd add this to virtually every combat feat if I had my way. Whirlwind attack sure everyone can do it but its at a -5 to hit with the feat no penalty to hit.

Fighters should be able to pull off an incredible array of maneuvers just because they are fighters they shouldn't need a feat to be able to even make the attempt.

 

[Beginning of the End]

That is how I think most feats should of been done where many of the "feats" are really basic combat maneuvers anyone can do, the people with the feat just do it better. I'd add this to virtually every combat feat if I had my way. Whirlwind attack sure everyone can do it but its at a -5 to hit with the feat no penalty to hit.

Whirlwind Attack is actually a good example of a feat, IMO, because everyone CAN do a Whirlwind Attack... it just takes 'em longer than 1 round. (That's the advantage the feat gives.)

 

[Arkham Angel]

Of course, the problem there is that you only suffer from that tradeoff if you are actually attacked.

Why? Is that a balance problem? It sounds pretty realistic to me.

 

[Ahglock]

Why? Is that a balance problem? It sounds pretty realistic to me.

It sounds ok to me as well, but its a DM balancing feat not a self balancing one and for some that causes issues.

I'd just crate a quick mechanic to see if the person gets attacked, something like a perception check to see if people see the lowered defenses.