Power Attack: like or no like?

[Jin_Kataki]

Power attack is supposed to symbolize a mighty swing that sacrifices accuracy for damage correct? So why should the player even be allowed to chose how much they are subtracting from their attack to add to their damage. I would center it on a roll. You declare you are power attacking you a roll a die thats how much you are subtracting from your attack role to add to your damage roll. None of this well I am fighting X creature type so I need X damage to be able to really have an effect. As far as I am concerned that is metagaming. Thats just me though I don't like it either when spellcasters start getting all precise on where they need to be standing and where they need to center their spell in order to maximize how many mooks they hit with an area effect spell.

 

[delericho]

I really like Power Attack as a way to bypass DR.

I really dislike the default assumption that players are too stupid to multiply by 1.5 on two handed weapons.

I have sometimes wondered if the tradeoff shouldn't have been 1-for-1 on light weapons, 1-for-2 on one-handed weapons, and 1-for-3 on two-handed weapons. As it is, Power Attack is a waste of a feat except for two-handed weapon users (or as a gateway to Cleave). Given that feats are a precious commodity, that really shouldn't be the case.

Then again, the trade-off above is probably too powerful - perhaps the feat would then need tougher pre-requisites? Which raises the question of what to do with Cleave...

 

[JDJblatherings]

Subtract from one number to add to another number...shriek...how could people ever do that ! :\

In 1,500+ hours of play never noticed power attack being problem or useless beyond the occasional player who couldn't decide what to do even be when the choice is a simple as blunt weapon or edged weapon.

 

[TerraDave]

So 90% had the power attack, but less then 40% liked the power attack.

Based on this highly scientific pole: Power Attack should probably go, but something like it, only better, should replace it.

 

[Fenes]

I voted "like it" but I was thinking of 3.0 because I never switched to 3.5.

Same. I agree with Lord Zardoz too - in the games I DMed, power attack enhances the fights, and adds falvor and fun to the barbarian types.

 

[Zweischneid]

Mostly ignored it.

To me, Power Attack has always been the redundant micro-management that shouldn't be spelled out in all that painstacking detail in either case.

Player: "I hit the baddy so damn hard, he'll be split right in half."

DM: "You get an x-tra d6 for damage, but if he survives, he'll have an easier time hitting you back" *cackles evilly*.

Fixed..
No need for stupid rules.. focus on the big picture, not the little things you can easily narrate on the fly. Sensible DM judgment is the best precaution to abuse anyways.

 

[FadedC]

Many Dm's prefer to keep their games in a sweet spot between levels 5 and 12. Within the rules as written, a character with 18 Str can use a 2 handed weapon and hit for something like 1d12+6. Adding in a power attack with a +5 bab, and that character can hit for 1d12+16, which is an overpowering amount of damage for that level range. The attack bonus from Strength, Weapon focus, buff spells and weapon enchantments make the character a reasonable threat to score hits against most CR appropriate AC's, while able to score way more damage than most CR appropriate opponents can sustain.


END COMMUNICATION

The example you give isn't really such a bad example of power attack, your hitting for an average of 22 which is strong, but not horrible for 5th level. However take a 6th level character and throw in some buffs and magic items and it can get insane. With 18 strength, haste, barbarian rage, a +1 weapon, an bull strength or the equivelent in buffs and magic items, he will be hitting for 2d6+25 on 3 different attacks, for an average of 96 damage if he hits on them all. And his attack bonuses will still be high enough that he is very likely to hit with at least the 2 main attacks, and somewhat likely to hit with the secondary one. This is where it gets unbalancing, and we haven't even started to throw in splatbook feats yet.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

I loved PAing with my raging barbarian/cleric (smite from destruction domain) and divine power'ed up, plus Divine Might feat, with with Improved Crit swinging her flaming burst goliath greathammer (1d12, 19-20 x 4). Damage output with a crit regularly around 200 points. Those are a blast (pun intended).

I loved my Goliath Musou Machine.

He used a Great Falchion for the higher threat range. I had three smite-crits in one full attack sequence on a BBEG. Oh, that was a happy day.

General strategy was to guess at AC from their appearance*, and quickly do the bonuses and make a guesstimate on how much to PA using the various and sundry things I had available. I didn't always hit (I rolled a surprising number of 2s and 3s), but I usually did on most of my attacks. Great fun.

Brad

* - It's amazing how much of a character/monster's AC is visible, from armor/natural armor to Dexterity ("Wow, he looks really nimble"). Not all of it is, but enough that early on it's pretty easy to figure out.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

Player: "I hit the baddy so damn hard, he'll be split right in half."

DM: "You get an x-tra d6 for damage, but if he survives, he'll have an easier time hitting you back" *cackles evilly*.

Fixed..

Honestly, +1d6 damage /= Voltron-like split down the middle.

Brad

 

[houser2112]

I seriously have lost more time to players not being able to calculate the DC of their spells than with Power Attack slowing things down.

Really? Power Attack can be changed from round to round, but Spell DC is pretty much fixed, except for buffs. When I played a 3.0 sorceror, I made a chart on my spell sheet that had default values filled in:

Level 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Known
Per Day
DC

If a buff would change those values, I'd pencil that in (like a big "+2" for Eagle's Splendor). I can't think of anything other than the animal buff spells that would change these values in game time.