Power attack bonus x2 for 2 hand weps

[FreeTheSlaves]

I find power attack is a feat designed not to be used with the full attack option but rather with the move and attack or charge.

Unless the opponant has a rotten AC, full action power attacking is of negligible benefit. For the charge however you can place some of that certain hit into damage.

I am somewhat concerned for the sword and shield style, it currently looks like the poor cousin. I'll be house ruling if that is the case.

 

[Dr_Rictus]

Currently an empowered and maximized Bull's Strength is +7. If the DM allows double empowered spells it is +10.

Not true. Maximize Spell and Empower Spell act independently. So (in 3.0) an empowered and maximized bull's strength gives a bonus of +5 (the maximized normal value) +0.5*(1d4+1) (the extra 50% from being empowered, but this component is not maximized). And a doubly empowered, maximized bull's strength gives a bonus of +1d4+6 (+5 for being maximized, and +1d4+1 on top of that for being doubly empowered).

 

[Silver Griffon]

Dr_Rictus, I stand corrected.

 

[Piratecat]

Argh. They screw the TWF fighters compared to the twohanded weapon twinks even more??

Nope. TWF only costs one feat now, not two.

I really objected to the change in power attack, too, at first. Now it makes a ton of sense to me, once Ed Stark and andy Collins were kind enough to clarify the design logic behind the change. Since it was on a private list, I'll email them and ask if I can share the logic.

 

[magnas_veritas]

Does it, or will the class get a change to it's Improved Power Attack ability in the conversion notes?

Well, theoretically, the Frenzied Berserker *could* go TWF style, or use a sword and a shield.

Okay, it's a non-zero chance. Really. Despite the fact that the type who goes Frenzied Berserker isn't going to be concerned about defense, or be all that flourishy.

There's a decent chance they'll either bump up the Frenzied Berserker's Improved and Supreme Power Attacks to x2.5 and x3, or maybe make the multiplier usable on one-handed weapons or light weapons, though the latter would be somewhat strange. We'll see in a month.

Brad

 

[satori01]

It would be great PC if we can go behind the proverbial looking glass as it were and get the skinny from the designers.
My biggest problem with the new rule is removing power attack as an option for light weapons, doesnt quite live up to the moto "less restrictions, more options".

Power attack was a great means for providing extra damage for less than optimal weapon choices,(ala a knife fighter etc), it seems shameful to just rule that into oblivion, especially given that the evidence presented in this thread seems to confirm that,
yes small weapon receive a larger percent increace with Power attack, but still underperformed overall against 2 handed weapons.

 

[MadScientist]

It also feels like they patched a very minor weirdness in the rules (PA being slightly better for small weapons than for large) with a new rule that boosts a feat that didn't really need boosting and replaced an elegant simple mechanic with one that is more complicated (i.e. filled with exceptions and different rules for one handed and two handed attacks etc.). Overall I still need alot more convincing on this one. The light weapon benefiting more than a heavy one arguement simply isn't a compelling enough reason to me for introducing a complicated and potentially unbalanced rule IMHO.

 

[Rugger]

This is really bugging me...

Now, I'm no statistician or even a "math person"....but the justification that light weapons get a greater percentage increase in damage vs bigger weapons strikes me as poop. The game is based on abstract concepts (HP and Damage) and its the FINAL damage total that matters....not the fact that a +2 to damage is a 50% increase for a dagger and only a 25% increase for a longsword.

If i'm bungling the mentality here, please let me know so I can remove my foot from my mouth...

And, in my experiences, if someone thinks the feat is not worthwhile, they are mistaken. In nearly every game I've played in, PA became essentially a damage-buff conversion. For example, any buff the fighter gets that adds to his "To-Hit", is instantly swapped into damage using power attack. Obviously, this won't apply to enemies that are hard to hit in the first place.

A specific example would be the 16th level tank in my home game: if someone casts a bless on him, he instantly converts it to damage with PA...same with spells like prayer. At that level, he doesn't sit and figure out how it affects his "average damage per round calculations", he just knows that a +1 to hit is not of much use to him...but every little + to damage is more appealing...

I'm just starting to think that all the logical calculations folks can make, though mathmatically correct, don't apply to most players...they just play the game. And in their mindset, PA just got changed from a great feat to a gotta-have feat.

-Rugger
"I Blather!"

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Power Attack was already a "gotta-have" feat. At first level, it was "gotta-have" because it let you get cleave. By 8th level, it's "gotta have" because it lets you maintain your damage output when readying actions, during surprise rounds, or when you have to move more than 5 feet to attack.

. And in their mindset, PA just got changed from a great feat to a gotta-have feat.

 

[Mike Sullivan]

This is really bugging me...

Now, I'm no statistician or even a "math person"....but the justification that light weapons get a greater percentage increase in damage vs bigger weapons strikes me as poop. The game is based on abstract concepts (HP and Damage) and its the FINAL damage total that matters....not the fact that a +2 to damage is a 50% increase for a dagger and only a 25% increase for a longsword.

If i'm bungling the mentality here, please let me know so I can remove my foot from my mouth...

You're bungling the mentality here.

Look at my analysis again -- it's not that Bob (the greatsword fighter) gets 3 extra damage while Joe (the two-shortsword fighter) gets 3 extra damage as well, but it's a bigger percentage for Joe.

In all scenarios, Joe actually gets more total points of damage in his expected per-round total than does Bob. This is because Joe's percentage rate of damage increases more than his percentage attack rate decreases, while Bob's percentage rate of damage increases less than his percentage attack rate decreases.

If you're using a greatsword, in almost all cases in D&D3, it lowers your per-round expected damage to use Power Attack. Not "increases by a flat rate, but not as much, percentage-wise." Lowers.

Someone below you said that at 8th level, you use PA to keep up your rate of damage output on rounds that you have only one attack (for whatever reason). This is almost certainly incorrect, and I'll suggest why below:

You're an 8th level Fighter. You have a modified 20 Strength, (perhaps naturally, perhaps using Strength buffers), a +2 Greatsword, and Weapon Specialization in Greatsword. Your total damage is 2d6 + 11, for an average of 18 points of damage per round, before criticals. (Note that this character is not particularly optimized for damage).

When does it make sense for you to Power Attack, assuming you only get one attack a round?

Let's suppose you're just PAing for 1 point of damage. Let's suppose that x is the number on a D20 you have to roll, after all modifiers, to hit your opponent.

Your odds of hitting normally (without PA):

1 - .05x

Your odds of hitting with 1 point of PA:

1 - .05x -.05 = .95 - .05x

Your expected damage without PA: 18.

Your expected damage with PA: 19

We want:

(1 - .05x) * 18 < (.95 - .05x) * 19

For what values of x is this true?

18 - x * (18/20) < (361/20) - x * (19/20)
(1/20) * x < (361/20) - 18
x < 361 - 20 * 18
x < 361 - 360
x < 1

That's right! Unless your attack bonus is already so high that you already (would) hit on a 1 (if it weren't for the auto-fail rule), your 8th level Fighter expects a decrease in per-round damage when using any PA at all, even when he's denied his iterative attacks.