Power attack bonus x2 for 2 hand weps

[MadScientist]

This deffinately feels like WotC fixing something that wasn't broken in the first place. I don't like it at all. If anything PA was already a little over-powered. I have even thought about instituting a -5/+5 max, similar to expertise, to avoid some of the worst abuses of it. (Like the true strike, power attack combo.)

Ugh, when I first heard about the revision I was pretty excited about it. There are many things that are broken that need to be fixed, and other things that need to be clarified but now it seems like I'll have to mix and match...... I would have been happier with a more conservative revision I think.

Edit: I can't spell.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Unfortunately, players in the RPGA's living campaigns don't have a choice, but if the rest of the changes 3.5 changes are like 90% of the changes so far, any game I have a choice about will run 3.0e rules with the odd 3.5e adjustment. (Maybe the new classes and some of the new spells but very few--if any (I'm not sure I like the way Harm was revised--the save is good; the cap is a player nerf) of the revised spells, and possibly improved Weapon focus and speciailization but that's probably it).

That said, the power attack change is utterly ridiculous. In 3e, multiclass 10th level fighter/barbarian/rogue characters can lose two or three points of BAB and still be cranking out upwards of 70 points of damage per round on a full attack and 40/round on a normal attack using power attack. This will probably bump those numbers up to 90 and 50 respectively. I suppose it will help to remedy the melee/archer inequality now that melee fighters don't have Haste to help them get full attacks but it still seems wildly advantageous to two handed weapon wielders.

Should Combat Expertise mirror power attack (can't be used with a weapon larger than the character, +2 to AC for each -1 to hit if you're using a weapon in one hand), shield and dwarven waraxe dwarf fighters will also be a viable character type.

And I suppose that single classed rogues with TWF feats will now be able to do +42d6 sneak attack if they hit with all six attacks at 15th level. Other TWF characters, however, need not apply.

 

[Destil]

I don't think it's a bad idea, with a bonus to hit being better than a bonus to damage in general. It also gives the feat a lot of flavor, it's fairly clear now that it's intended to be a reckless swing with a big weapon, so that much is good. The problem I'd have with is it while I like the idea they went too far IMHO. My gut instinct would be to give a 1.5x bonus to damage two handed, and half the bonus with a light weapon. This would be consistant with strength bonuses, at least.

As far as the two handed vs. two weapon compairson, I'm guessing the one thing I really wanted to balance these two (a feat required to take advantage of 1.5x str bonus for two handed weapons) isn't in there...

Any playtesters want to mention how this has worked in 3.5 so far?

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Here's what R&D had to say about it:

Ironically (and counterintuitively), Power Attack in 3.0 was "best" for exactly the wrong characters.

Power Attack was best for characters wielding two light weapons, and worst for characters wielding one big weapon.

That's because each -1 to attack reduces expected damage by 5%--the more damage you're likely to deal with a hit, the more damage you "give up" over the long term by taking a penalty to attacks.

At the same time, that +1 to damage is a bigger effect, relative to the damage being dealt, for smaller weapons than it is for bigger weapons. If your average damage is 5 points, that +1 is an increase of 20%--in other words, you're decreasing damage by 5% on the front end but increasing it by 20% at the back end. If your average damage is 10 points, that +1 is an increase of 10%. If your average damage is 20 points, that +1 is an increase of only 5%.

For that reason, we felt it important to make Power Attack more attractive for big-weapon wielders, and less attractive for little-weapon wielders.

I've been using this in my campaign now (with three different PA-using characters, one with a halberd) and it hasn't resulted in any significant abuses.

Andy Collins
Senior Designer
Wizards of the Coast Roleplaying R&D

 

[LokiDR]

Excluding True-Stike/Power Attack, the feat wasn't overly useful.

Think of it this way: Half-orc barbarian, 2d6+13 damage from his greatsword +3 at 8th level with a to hit of, say +16. To hit a target AC 26, he needs to roll a 10. PA for 4 takes 20% off his hit, taking 20% off his average damage. 20% of 24 (average) is 6, making the average damage less than the unadjusted damage (20).

This isn't true in all cases, but in general the more you power attack the LESS damage you do after some cut-off. PA has a max effectiveness, IIRC the past calculations I have seen, of around 2-4. Past that it isn't useful. That cut off goes down the more damage you did in the first place.

I'll agree that this change makes statistical sense for large damaging characters, such as those that wield 2-handed weapons.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

IME CR 8 creatures rarely enjoy an AC score of 23.

 

[Stalker0]

Reading Andy's comments, I can understand them wanting to make PA a little more attractive for two handers. Okay, how about -2/+3? A little bit better, but nothing crazy. -1/+2 is A LOT!! Now that +1 magic weapon becomes a +3 to damage if the person wants it to be.

But aside from that, maybe with the new system (less buffing, higher AC's) maybe PA really did need a power boost. Okay, I can buy that. But not allowing its use for light weapons!! Now the TWF ranger with his longsword and shortsword takes the -1 to attack from BOTH weapons, but only gets the bonus to ONE weapon. Not cool in my opinion.

 

[Styracosaurus]

I certainly don't think that 2WF is hosed.
Especially since you don't have to spend alot of feats to get this improved version of Power Attack. You can always switch between the two styles.

With the 2WF style, you spread out your damage potential. You are more likely to get a hit each round.

Average damage calculations are a little misleading, because a character makes so few attacks per round. For the most part, you either hit or you miss.

2WF takes a -2 penalty in exchange for twice the number of attacks.
vs.
Two Hander takes -2 penalty for +4 on damage rolls.

When you both square off, it'll be initiative that separates the men from the meat regardless of their respective styles.

However, DMs (which includes me) will have to be nice when using ogres. That isn't a problem either, because as a group, DMs are nice people.

 

[Fenes 2]

One possible consequence could be that the "waiting for the other to charge so that he gets only one attack and I can use full attack" tactic vanishes - with 3.5 PA a charge attack can be devastating.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

One possible consequence could be that the "waiting for the other to charge so that he gets only one attack and I can use full attack" tactic vanishes - with 3.5 PA a charge attack can be devastating.

No more devastating than when your opponent takes advantage of the fact that you're down 2 AC, and uses Power Attack on BOTH his attacks as a full round action.