frankthedm
First Post
Agree with the Big Kahuna, It made the already good 2 Handed weapon a bit too desirable.
Power Attack: like or no like?
- Thread starter TerraDave
- Start date
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.
And I came to the conclusion that PA was almost required for any full BAB class in order to be effective in melee past about 10th level.
I really dislike the default assumption that players are too stupid to multiply by 1.5 on two handed weapons.
And I came to the conclusion that PA was almost required for any full BAB class in order to be effective in melee past about 10th level.
Atlatl Jones
Explorer
I have it, but my GM caps the penalty at -5, and I pretty much always use it as a straight "-5 attack for +10 damage" toggle. It works fine in those circumstances.
borc killer
First Post
This was one of the many items I was changing to create my own 3.75. needless to say I was happy has a bird to find out 4e was coming out before I put way to much effort into my own stuff.
I'll go with mixed feelings. PA works okay in most situations, but has fundamental design flaws.
First and foremost, the problem that I posted about in the other thread: You cannot balance open ended bonuses. Any completely open ended numbers are nothing but an opportunity for exploitation and mathematical headaches. It's why we have caps on spell damage. It's why buffs spells were changed to be flat bonuses in 3.5. It's a lesson that WotC keeps discovering over and over again in individual cases, but never seems to be able to learn.
Second, PA (in 3.5 form) made some forms of combat much better than others, and works directly against the "options, not limitations" design aspect of 3.x.
First and foremost, the problem that I posted about in the other thread: You cannot balance open ended bonuses. Any completely open ended numbers are nothing but an opportunity for exploitation and mathematical headaches. It's why we have caps on spell damage. It's why buffs spells were changed to be flat bonuses in 3.5. It's a lesson that WotC keeps discovering over and over again in individual cases, but never seems to be able to learn.
Second, PA (in 3.5 form) made some forms of combat much better than others, and works directly against the "options, not limitations" design aspect of 3.x.
Lord Zardoz
Explorer
Why I suspect some DM's hate power attack
There are a significant number of responses saying mixed feelings and dislike. I think that the reasons that DM's dislike power attack have a lot less to do with Tweets findings than it does the 2-for-1 on a 2 handed weapon.
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.
Any Dm that likes low to mid level play has probably ran into problems when balancing a specifically tweaked high strength fighter. Those problems can be vexing, but they are a known issue. Groups that do not like that style of play will just avoid that problem. Groups that do not mind or like that style of play know how to work around it. But the 2 for 1 power attack will exaggerate the benefits of a strength focused build.
I suppose there are also a subset of people who do not mind the mechanic, but do not like how it applies to light weapons. Or the secondary subset that do not like it being uncapped.
(Personally, I never understood why combat expertise has a cap, but power attack does not).
END COMMUNICATION
There are a significant number of responses saying mixed feelings and dislike. I think that the reasons that DM's dislike power attack have a lot less to do with Tweets findings than it does the 2-for-1 on a 2 handed weapon.
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.
Any Dm that likes low to mid level play has probably ran into problems when balancing a specifically tweaked high strength fighter. Those problems can be vexing, but they are a known issue. Groups that do not like that style of play will just avoid that problem. Groups that do not mind or like that style of play know how to work around it. But the 2 for 1 power attack will exaggerate the benefits of a strength focused build.
I suppose there are also a subset of people who do not mind the mechanic, but do not like how it applies to light weapons. Or the secondary subset that do not like it being uncapped.
(Personally, I never understood why combat expertise has a cap, but power attack does not).
END COMMUNICATION
TerraDave
5ever, or until 2024
As a DM:
Against Players: I like causing the hurt, but it is fiddly, and as noted above, is yet another DMing complication.
By Players: 3.5 messed it up (more), as his Lordship notes. One of my first houserules since addressed that. But with my players, anything involving a decision with that kind of discretion can and will take too much time and effort. Even when it shouldn't.
Against Players: I like causing the hurt, but it is fiddly, and as noted above, is yet another DMing complication.
By Players: 3.5 messed it up (more), as his Lordship notes. One of my first houserules since addressed that. But with my players, anything involving a decision with that kind of discretion can and will take too much time and effort. Even when it shouldn't.
Ahnehnois
First Post
I suppose I have some problems with PA *mechanics*. Other people have noted the capping issue and the two-handed issue. The real problem I have is that you can't power attack at all without the feat (unlike, say, the way you can fight defensively without Combat Expertise).
In principle, however, the idea of trading attack for damage is flavorful and adds a lot to the game. I don't know what fighters would be like without it. I shudder to think that the "quasi-spells" could replace the fighter's real purpose: hit someone really hard!
In principle, however, the idea of trading attack for damage is flavorful and adds a lot to the game. I don't know what fighters would be like without it. I shudder to think that the "quasi-spells" could replace the fighter's real purpose: hit someone really hard!
Never had, but dislike (in theory; in practice, if I ever ran a front-line warrior type, he'd probably have Power Attack, if only because it's a pre-req for Cleave). It's a feat that makes sub-optimal tactics very tempting (it's rarely optimal to power attack at all, even with the 3.5 2-for-1 power attack, but few people can resist the idea of throwing down huge amounts of damage on a hit), and with variable effects.
Similar Threads
