Power attack bonus x2 for 2 hand weps

[Olgar Shiverstone]

double post

 

[Quixon]

This is a good change. Power attack in 3.0 was hardly a "must take" or "great" feat. My players though it was also when they first saw it, then after using it in a game found otherwise. We even have a few math wiz's who would keep track of when they would miss just because of the power attack mod they took. Even 1 miss on your second or third attack took care of ALL the extra damage you might have did with power attack plus more.

Since you have to Power attack on ALL your extra attacks, you can't just pick one, we found people almost never power attacked unless

A. They only had 1 attack-and even then reducing you chance to do ANY damage for a few bonus points didn't seem worth it.

B. Something had DR they had to punch thru

This will at least make the feat worth it to take on its own, not just because you want the others in the "tree".


EDIT: In regards to the Power Attack+True Strike Combo being abuse. HOW? You can only Power attack up to you BaB, True strike doesn't increase that. A 10th level Fighter can only Power attack up to 10 points, even if with true strike he has a +40 to hit. You can NEVER use the Full +20 for power attack until 20th level-and at that level I don't see a poblem with it.

 

[dcollins]

I'm probably goiung to get pig-piled for this, but here goes.

I've got this really bad feeling in my gut now that, way too much like the poorly considered changes for AD&D 2nd Edition, this 3.5 Edition is basically composed of all of Andy Collins' personal house rules.

Can someone name a designer other than Andy Collins involved in this process?

 

[Quixon]

Well as far as I know, Andy Collins didn't design 3.5. He is in charge of it though . Somehow I doubt he sat and just added what he wanted, ignoring what the playtest groups said(Even more I doubt WotC would let somebody ignore what the playtest groups said and just add what they wanted)

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

True Strike+Power Attack was never very useful except in a few smackdown situations when combined with Spirited Charge and/or Rhino Hide Armor. At low levels, the power attack damage is severely limited by BAB. At high levels, 2 full attacks or a charge and a full attack is usually more advantagous.

The change may make true strike+power attack a more viable tactic but in most situations

Fighter 2/wizard 6/spellsword 2: BAB +6, 14 str, +3 glaive
Atk +11/+6 1d10+6; +13/+8 against opponent without dex bonus using Improved Invisibility.

Fighter 8/Sorceror 2: BAB +9, 18 str, +3 greatsword, weapon focus, weapon specialization; Atk +17/+12 2d6+11

Against two opponents:
A: AC 22 (+4 dex, +6 armor, +2 buckler)
B: AC 24 (+3 dex, -1 size, +12 natural)

Average Damage/Round (old/new)
Spellsword against opponent A
Charge + full attack: 15.525 damage/round or 27.025 (imp invis)
True Strike+power attack: 16.625 (old) or 22.325 (new)
Spellsword against opponent B
Charge + full attack: 12.075 damage/round or 20.7 (imp invis)
True Strike+power attack: 16.625 (old) or 22.325 (new)

Fighter/sorceror against opponent A
Charge+full attack: 40.5
True Strike+Power Attack: 25.65 (old) 34.2 (new)
Against opponent B:
Charge+Full attack: 35.1
True Strike+Power Attack: 25.65 (old) 34.2 (new)

(weaknesses of the analysis: failed to account for a possible 2nd attack in a True Strike+full attack combo (probably doesn't have much chance of hitting though considering that it would be a secondary attack at full power attack); failed to account for the possibility of the Spellsword using Expert Tactician to pull off the True Strike+Power Attack combo twice in the two rounds (using Imp Invis); failed to account for criticals. I don't think any of that negates my conclusions however).

Conclusion: True Strike+Power Attack is a potentiall advantageos combination but not devastatingly so. In all of the above situations, it added up to less damage than a charge+full attack from the fighter/sorceror and even had the spellsword done so twice using expert tactician and improved invisibility (and a greatsword) with the new power attack, his damage total would only have been slightly higher than the fighter/sorcerors's partial+full attack combo.) The combination seems to fare better the higher the AC of the creature being attacked and since neither example had a good AC, it's possible that True Strike+Power Attack could be significantly more effective against high AC creatures. In other situations--such as when combined with rhino hide armor or spirited charge, it would have the potential to be significantly more effective than partial attack+full attack. However, even with the new power attack and a two handed weapon it is only obviously superior in certain situations rather than across the board. (And that is true of all tactics--improved trip, is obviously a very good tactic in some situations but not others--so there is nothing broken about True Strike+power attack whether the old or the new version is in use).

In 3e, the primary uses of power attack were allowing fighters to punish low AC enemies such as zombies or skeletons, overcome DR or the hardness of animated objects, and allowing characters to gain extra damage on charge attacks that were sure to hit (such as a raging fighter/barbarian with a modified 28 strength from rage and buffs charging opponent A above--he would hit on a roll of -3). True Strike+Power Attack was a marginal side use that was only occasionally advantageous to a few of the characters with the feat.

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

 

[Mike Sullivan]

Olgar, quoting Andy Collins
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

The above is somewhat incorrect on a purely mathematical level.

A -1 penalty to hit does not correspond to a 5% reduction in expected damage. For example:

Suppose that after all adjustments, you hit on a D20 roll of 11 (50% of the time), and do 2d6 damage, against a target not susceptible to crits (average damage = 7). Thus, your per-attack expected damage is 3.5 (7 * 50%).

Now, suppose you take an additional -1 to hit, meaning that you now hit on a 12. You still do 2d6 damage, no crits, but you hit only 45% of the time (a 5% reduction in chance to hit). Your per-attack expected damage is now 7 * 45%, or 3.15.

However, 3.15 is not 95% of 3.5. In fact, it's 90% of 3.5.

Why is this? Because it's not your damage which suffers a 5% reduction in chances, it's your chance to hit. Your chance to hit was already only 50% and you're reducing it to 45%. 45% is 90% of 50% -- and that's what matters.

What's the practical upshot of the above? That it's very difficult to calculate the tradeoff between attack and damage bonuses. For example, suppose you hit on a 19, normally. Is a -1 to hit worth it to you, if your average damage is, say, 10? No, because that -1 to hit actually halves your odds of hitting! You go from having a 10% chance of hitting to a 5% -- and that means that you only get 50% as many hits in. So it's only worth it to you if you're going to get a 50%+ increase in damage as well.

On the other extreme, if you hit on a 2+ normally, taking a -1 to hit means you hit on a 3+ afterwards. In this case, you're going from a 95% chance to hit to a 90% chance to hit, which is a total of a 6.3% decrease in potential damage -- so if the corresponding +1 to damage increases your total by more than 6.3%, it's a good deal for you.

Now, I said that Andy Collins' quote is "somewhat wrong," because though the details are incorrect, the basic sentiment is (sort of) correct.

Let's examine two different fighters under 3.0.

We've got Greatsword Fighter Bob, and Double-Shortsword Fighter Joe. Both are fourth level, and are human.

Bob has Str 18, Dex 13, and the feats Weapon Focus (greatsword), Weapon Specailization (greatsword), Power Attack, and some other ones.

Joe has Str 13, Dex 18, and the feats Weapon Focus (short sword), ambidexterity, TWF, Weapon Specialization (short sword), Weapon Finesse (short sword), and Power Attack.

Bob attacks with his greatsword at +4 (base) + 4 (strength) + 1 (Weapon focus) = +9. He does 2d6 + 6 (str) + 2 (specialization) damage, or a total of 2d6 + 8 = 15 damage base, with a 19-20/x2 crit, for a total of 16.5 expected damage per hit, after crits.

Joe attacks with two shortswords at +4 (base) + 4 (dexterity) + 1 (Weapon focus) - 2 (TWF) = +7/+7. His "on" short sword does 1d6 + 1 (str) +2 (specialization) damage, or 1d6 + 3 = 6.5 before crits, 7.15 damage after. His "off" short sword does 1d6 + 2 (specialization) damage, or 5.5 before crits, 6.05 after.

Okay, let's examine their performance against various opponents. I'm going to stick with relatively low-AC opponents, because the purpose of this exercise is to examine PA, and PA is never worthwhile against high AC opponents.

AC 20 Opponent

Bob needs an 11 to hit (50% hit ratio). His damage is 16.5, on average, leading to a total expected damage of 8.25.

Is it worthwhile for Bob to PA? Well, let's look at the -1 to hit. That means he needs a 12 to hit, so his chances drop to 45% chance to hit, but his average damage increases to 17.6. That means his per-round expected damage is 7.92 -- it's not worth it for Bob to PA.


Joe needs 13's (40%) to hit with each sword. His expected damage per round with his "on" sword is 7.15 * .40 = 2.86, and his damage per round with his "off" sword is 6.05 * .40 = 2.42. Thus, his per-round average damage is 2.86 + 2.42 = 5.28.

Is it worthwhile for Joe to PA? If he takes a -1 to hit, his odds of hitting with each sword drops to 35%. His average damage with his "on" sword goes up to 8.25, and the damage on his off sowrd goes to 7.15. That means his per-round damage goes to 5.39. Thus, it's marginally worthwhile for Joe to PA for 1 point. It won't be worth it again.

So we see that against an AC 20 opponent, Power Attack is more worthwhile for the two-shortsword guy than for the greatsword guy.... BUT, it's still better to be the greatsword guy overall.


AC 15 Opponent

Bob attacking at +9 hits on a 6+, 75% of the time. His average damage is 16.5, so his per-round expected damage is 12.375.

If Bob PA's for 1, his chance of hitting drops to 70%, but his average damage increases to 17.6. That means his per-round expected damage is 12.32 -- it's STILL not worthwhile for Bob to PA.

Joe, on the other hand, is hitting 65% of the time (8+) with each sword. His on sword does 7.15 * .65 = 4.65 damage, and his off sword does 6.05 * .65 = 3.93 damage, for a total of 8.59 expected damage per round.

If Joe PA's for 1, his chances of hitting drop to 60% for each short sword, and his average damages increase to 8.25 and 7.15. That means that his per-round expected damage is 9.24!

If Joe PA's for 2, his chances of hitting drop to 55% for each sword, but his average damages increase to 9.35 and 8.25. Per-round expected damage is 9.68!

If Joe PA's for 3, his chances of hitting drop to 50%, and average damage increase to 10.45 and 9.35. Per round expected damage is 9.9!

If Joe PA's for 4, his chances of hitting drop to 45%, and average damages increase to 11.55 and 10.45. Per round expected damage is 9.9 again -- and after that, it's downhill.

So Joe, by strong use of PA, sees an increase in damage from 8.59 damage per round to 9.9... A much better bonus than Bob gets from PA, but still not enough to increase Joe's damage to be comparable to Bob's.

An AC 10 opponent would be even more favorable to Joe and less to Bob -- TWF is a style which is advantaged when fighting low-AC people, and PA excaberates this.

Another interesting point: If your pre-critical-hit average per-hit damage is above 20, it's only worthwhile to PA when it doesn't affect your chances of hitting at all. (ie, if you're attacking at +20 and your opponent has AC 15, you can PA for 6, and still only miss on a natural 1).



What about things not in this analysis? It's hard to say. Joe does less damage than Bob, that's clear, even with the relative utility of PA for him. However, Joe also has an 18 Dex, which gives him a +4 to reflex saves, initiative, and AC, over Bob's 13 Dex, giving him only a +1. Also, we're looking at isolated points in their careers. Later on, magic weapons enter the picture (and generally advantage Joe, though at a monetary cost), as do iterative attacks (which advantage Bob). And, of course, Bob has more feats to throw around...

Now, expanding out to 3.5e, contrary to what's above in this thread, it's not simple to say which style is more advantaged. Some points:

Power Attack: This is pretty obviously a buff for the two-handers and a nerf for the two-weapon fighters. BUT, see below...

Higher Monster AC's: TWF is better, the lower the AC's, so having generally higher-AC opponents is a nerf to TWF. But PA is also better, the lower the AC's, so this nerfs PA as well, mitigating the differential above.

Lower Feat Costs, Lower Feat Requirements(?): This is obviously a buff for TWF, in no uncertain terms.

Greater Weapon Specialization: Assuming that this feat gives a larger damage bonus than the standard +2 for normal weapon spec, it's a buff for TWF (our iconic double-shortsword wielder gets twice as many attempts to put the damage bonus into play). It's also a bit of a nerf to PA, because PA doesn't play well with other damage bonuses (ie, it will be sooner before PA is obviated, even with the *2 bonus).

So, at the end of the day, Andy Collins is right in generalities if not specifics: as written, PA is better for TWF than for two-handed fighters. For purely flavour reasons, he may have thought that was inappropriate regardless of whether either style was to be "nerfed" or "buffed." I don't think that it's really possible to back up a claim that either TWF or two-handed fighting are objectively weaker or stronger in 3.5 than in 3.0e.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

If it is possible to do so, one of the biggest shifts will probably be the dramatic reduction in full attack actions as a consequence of the elimination of the 3.0 Haste Spell. The extra (single) attack from the 3.5e Haste spell will probably be another cause of that shift.

I don't think that it's really possible to back up a claim that either TWF or two-handed fighting are objectively weaker or stronger in 3.5 than in 3.0e.

 

[Mike Sullivan]

If it is possible to do so, one of the biggest shifts will probably be the dramatic reduction in full attack actions as a consequence of the elimination of the 3.0 Haste Spell. The extra (single) attack from the 3.5e Haste spell will probably be another cause of that shift.

Right, that's another factor, and the change in DR is yet another.

That's really my point -- the number of variations on the field makes it impossible to truly objectively back one position or another. You've got to go with your intuition, and also go with how your particular game is structured -- lots of low AC critters attacking? Prevalent magic items? The PC's can often stand and let their enemies come to them? Two weapon fighting is probably right up your alley. On the other hand, high AC single monsters? GM likes to throw you up against DR of a sort you can't bypass? Highly mobile combats? Get yourself a greatsword!

There's a popular fiction on this board that somewhere in between those two is the "common" D&D game, but I suspect that's purely wishful thinking.

 

[Malin Genie]

I play a longspear-wielding Barbarian, and every time I considered taking Power Attack I ended up deciding it wasn't worth it, because for the high-ST 2H weapon wielder the relative increase in damage is too small to make PA worth the hit penalty. 1 1/2x damage would have been enough to make it marginal - 2x damage makes it very attractive. Perhaps too good? but i'll wait to see all the chagnes before a final assessment.

Not being able to use light weapons gets rid of the 'finesse/power attack' combination (except possibly for rapiers and spiked chains?) which really stuffs high-dex mediocre-strength fighter concepts.

 

[Endur]

The 3.0 Power Attack feat was a weak feat that was a pre-req to other better feats. Similar to Toughness or Dodge or Endurance (all of which have been improved in 3.5). It had several follow-up feats that were valuable, Cleave, Divine Might, Power Lunge, etc.

But the 3.0 Power Attack feat had problems.

Three possible combat scenarios (before using the feat):

case 1) Attacker hits target on 1 or less

case 2) Attacker chance to hit needs a die roll of 2 to 19

case 3) Attacker hits target only on a 20

If case 1, this is probably going to be an easy combat, so even though it makes sense to use power attack to increase your damage, you probably don't need the feat to win this combat.

If case 3, you are probably going to lose the combat, so even if you Power Attack to increase damage, its probably not going to matter.

Case 2 is the case that usually comes up in tough encounters, and as Andy Collins pointed out, if you are doing a lot of damage with an attack, you do not want to take a penalty to hit on your attacks.

Doubling the damage for the two handed weapon wielder makes a lot of sense.