Power Attack Modification

[Scharlata]

Hi, all!

If I was (as a DM) to feel uncomfortable with the Damage Ratio of 3.5 Power Attack and was to rating it down, what would I have to consider?

Would the attempt to modify the damage ratio with a one-handed weapon from [3.5] 1:1 to 1:0,5 and with a two-handed weapon from [3.5] 1:2 to 1:1,5 be the right way? What would I have to consider if Two-Weapon fighters weren't to be favored?

Please, let me elaborate:

Normally, you can't use a light weapon to Power Attack.
Using a one-handed weapon allows you to add your BAB [let it be +10] to the damage.
Using a two-handed weapon allows you to add twice your BAB to the damage.

Example 1:
Light weapon [1d6] + no PA = 3,5 damage
One-handed weapon [1d8] + 10 = 14,5 damage
Two-handed weaopn [1d12] + 20 = 26,5 damage

If you now fight Power Attacking with 2 weapons [with TWF] using a one-handed weapon as primary weapon and a light weapon in you off hand [attack modifier both -2], the example would be as follows:

Example 2:
One-handed weapon [1d8] + 10 = 14,5 damage
Light weapon [1d6] = 3,5 damage
Total = 18,0 damage

If you modify the above example and use 2 one-handed weapons [attack modifier both -4], the example would be as follows:

Example 3:
One-handed weapon [1d8] + 10 = 14,5 damage
One-handed weapon [1d8] + 10 = 14,5 damage
Total = 29,0 damage

-----------------------------------------------

Now, if the Damage Ratio was reduced to 1:0,5 for one-handed weapons and to 1:1,5 for two-handed weapons, the examples would be:

Example 1:
Light weapon [1d6] + no PA = 3,5 damage
One-handed weapon [1d8] + 5 = 9,5 damage
Two-handed weaopn [1d12] + 15 = 21,5 damage

Example 2:
One-handed weapon [1d8] + 5 = 9,5 damage
Light weapon [1d6] = 3,5 damage
Total = 13,0 damage

Example 3:
One-handed weapon [1d8] + 5 = 9,5 damage
One-handed weapon [1d8] + 5 = 9,5 damage
Total = 19,0 damage

Would that be playable?

Please let me know of your opinions/experiences.

Kind regards

 

[SteelDraco]

I seem to remember reading at one point that this was actually their initial plan, but they decided to go with the current system for numerical ease. Personally, I think it's slightly more balanced - I tend to agree that 3.5 Power Attack is TOO good. With 1.5x Strength bonus and 2x PA damage, two-handed fighters can pump out insane levels of damage, even at fairly low levels.

 

[Scharlata]

Hi, SteelDraco!

I seem to remember reading at one point that this was actually their initial plan, but they decided to go with the current system for numerical ease. [...]

Aha, that's very interesting.

I tend to agree that 3.5 Power Attack is TOO good. With 1.5x Strength bonus and 2x PA damage, two-handed fighters can pump out insane levels of damage, even at fairly low levels.

Yes, that's what I intend to skip in my next campaign.

Thanx for your input.

 

[Arkhandus]

Your set-up seems okay Scharlata, though I still prefer 3.0 Power Attack.

Thing is, the whole point of two-weapon fighting is to deal more damage by getting in more attacks in roughly the same amount of time. Though half or more of the attacks will be with a mediocre weapon and the rest will be with a mediocre or weak weapon, they should overall exceed a two-handed weapon in damage per round (when doing full-attack actions at least). As it stands presently, 3.5 makes TWF moot because of Power Attack and two-handed weapons; a greatsword and one feat will outdamage a TWFer every time, whereas the TWFer typically has to pay more for their weapons, put a good score into Dexterity just to qualify for the TWF feats, and spend several feats to merely come moderately close to a two-hander in damage.

Examples, using your setup ---

Swordsman: Human fighter 1, Str 18, Power Attack, Weapon Focus, Cleave, greatsword, 1 attack/round, +6 melee for 2d6+6 (avg 13), or +5 melee for 2d6+7.5 (avg 14.5)

Hatchetman: Human fighter 1, Str 18, Dex 15, Two-Weapon Fighting, Power Attack, Weapon Focus (battleaxe), battleaxe, handaxe, 2 attacks/round, +4/+3 melee for 1d8+4/1d6+2 (avg 14), or +3/+2 melee for 1d8+5/1d6+2.5 (avg 15.5)

Comparison: Swordsman gets higher attack bonuses, plus Cleave, only needs to hit once per round to deliver full damage, and doesn't need the good Dexterity score, plus the swordsman has the exact same damage capacity with every standard attack, cleave attack, attack of opportunity, charge attack, and so on, whereas the hatchetman's only advantages are that he can deal 1-2 more damage with most full-attack actions, and that he gets two chances to hit with each full-attack action (though at slightly to moderately lower attack bonuses), but only deals a half or less of his potential damage with each hit

Swordsman: Human fighter 20, Str 26, Power Attack, Weapon Focus, Cleave, Greater Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Improved Critical, Greater Weapon Specialization, Great Cleave, Improved Sunder, many other feats, flaming greatsword +5 of shocking and frost, 4 attacks/round, +35/+30/+25/+20 melee for 4x(2d6+21+3d6) (avg 154), or +15/+10/+5/+0 melee for 4x(2d6+51+3d6) (avg 274)

Hatchetman: Human fighter 20, Str 22, Dex 19, Two-Weapon Fighting, Power Attack, Weapon Focus (battleaxe), Weapon Focus (handaxe), Cleave, Weapon Specialization (battleaxe), Weapon Specialization (handaxe), Great Cleave, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Greater Weapon Focus (battleaxe), Greater Weapon Focus (handaxe), Greater Weapon Specialization (battleaxe), Greater Weapon Specialization (handaxe), Improved Critical (battleaxe), Improved Critical (handaxe), Greater Two-Weapon Fighting, a few other feats, flaming battleaxe +4, frost handaxe +4, 7 attacks/round, +30/+25/+20/+15/+30/+25/+20 melee for 4x(1d8+14+1d6)+3x(1d6+11+1d6) (avg 142), or +10/+5/+0/-5/+10/+5/+0 melee for 4x(1d8+34+1d6)+3x(1d6+21+1d6) (avg 252)

Comparison: The swordsman now deals better damage even on a full-attack action, deals even more damage per individual attack, needs only slightly more than half as many attacks per round to beat the hatchetman in damage during full-attack actions, and can afford more significant enhancements to his single weapon as opposed to the hatchetman needing to divide funds between two weapons to even come close to the swordsman in accuracy and damage, while the swordsman also still beats out the hatchetman in accuracy by several points, and the swordsman gets his advantages while still spending 8 fewer feats to get them (allowing him to get more general feats to bolster his ranged, skill, save, or other capabilities), and the hatchetman also has to divert 4 ability score increases towards Dexterity just to qualify for his higher-level TWF feats (which doesn't help his melee attack or damage one bit, let alone his grapple, trip, bull rush, or similar melee rolls, unlike the swordsman's 4 extra points of Strength)

I guess, my gripe is that 3.5 makes TWF completely stupid and pointless, while making two-handed weapons completely dominant, while also making classic sword-and-board fighters far outclassed by their two-hander counterparts. The TWFer at least comes close to the two-hander in damage, but the poor sword-and-boarder (or finesser) is left in the dust at only slightly greater than half as much damage, for perhaps a measly 1-7 points more AC (from a magic shield or from magically-boosted Dex beyond what the two-hander's heavy armor would have allowed; and that's not even considering the fact that the TWFer or finesser are going to be using weaker armor anyway, just to make the most of their high Dex, so the AC difference won't even be that significant).

At least in 3.0, Power Attack was the same regardless of what you wielded, and was actually more useful to TWFers, finessers, and sword-and-boarders.

 

[Scharlata]

Hi, Arkhandus!

Thank you very much for your elaborate answer.
One remark only...

[...]Examples, using your setup ---
Hatchetman: Human fighter 1, Str 18, Dex 15, Two-Weapon Fighting, Power Attack, Weapon Focus (battleaxe), battleaxe, handaxe, 2 attacks/round, +4/+3 melee for 1d8+4/1d6+2 (avg 14), or +3/+2 melee for 1d8+5/1d6+2.5 (avg 15.5)

(Emphasis mine) That should be +2 (avg 15.0) because the handaxe is a light weapon and therefore neither power attackable with 3.5 nor with my setup At that point it is neglegible.

Hatchetman: Human fighter 20, Str 22, Dex 19, Two-Weapon Fighting, Power Attack, Weapon Focus (battleaxe), Weapon Focus (handaxe), Cleave, Weapon Specialization (battleaxe), Weapon Specialization (handaxe), Great Cleave, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Greater Weapon Focus (battleaxe), Greater Weapon Focus (handaxe), Greater Weapon Specialization (battleaxe), Greater Weapon Specialization (handaxe), Improved Critical (battleaxe), Improved Critical (handaxe), Greater Two-Weapon Fighting, a few other feats, flaming battleaxe +4, frost handaxe +4, 7 attacks/round, +30/+25/+20/+15/+30/+25/+20 melee for 4x(1d8+14+1d6)+3x(1d6+11+1d6) (avg 142), or +10/+5/+0/-5/+10/+5/+0 melee for 4x(1d8+34+1d6)+3x(1d6+21+1d6) (avg 252)

(Emphasis mine) And that should be +11 and (avg 222) [light weapon, no PA]

At least in 3.0, Power Attack was the same regardless of what you wielded, and was actually more useful to TWFers, finessers, and sword-and-boarders.

You got a valid point. Still, I'm looking for more input.

Kind regards

 

[Ferrix]

I don't see the problem with one-handed weapons and power attack, however the only change I would potentially consider is changing light weapons to receive x.5, and for two-handed weapons to be x1.5. This matches the strength to damage rules and gives some use for power attack back to two-weapon fighters which 3.5 hacked to bits.

Sacrificing twice the bonus to damage on your attack roll is penalizing people who use one-handed weapons more than it's removing the bonus for using a two-handed weapon. The 1 to 1 baseline should be the one-handed weapon, otherwise you'll only ever see two-handed fighters taking it.

A bonus to damage is often times worth less than a bonus to hit, as to even apply the bonus to damage, you need to hit your target.

Examples:
Weapon Focus +1 to hit vs Weapon Specialization +2 to damage
Greater Weapon Focus +2 to hit vs Greater Weapon Specialization +4 to damage

Now, I ask, why explicitly are you uncomfortable with the damage ratio? Is tweaking it down going to make you and your gaming groups experience better or worse? Will it create more or less hassle/tension for your gaming group? I think these are more important questions than the above, but that's just me.

 

[Arkhandus]

I do notice now that I had miscalculated; the use of commas in your post in place of periods, in some spots, confused me a bit and I slipped up in guessing what the ratios were supposed to mean. You meant, then, that Power Attack with a 1-hander deals +0.5 damage per point of PA used, and that PA still doesn't help light weapons? I had thought I read 1:1 for 1-handers and 1:0.5 for lights, that was my mistake (I had noted the 1:1.5 for 2-handers at least); it moderately lowers the TWFer damage values I calculated, and makes the TWFer even more pathetic than I thought.

I agree with Ferrix though, the 1H Power Attack values should be kept as-is in 3.5, only the 2H and possibly Light weapon values for Power Attack really need tweaking. Though, personally, I'm of the mindset that Power Attack should be split into PA and Improved PA, same as Expertise was in 3.0 (Improved Expertise was in Oriental Adventures), such that PA itself would only allow up to a -5 penalty to be taken for extra damage. Mid-to-high-CR monsters can make frightening use of Power Attack sometimes....

If you're going to keep your PA for 1-handers at +0.5 damage per -1 attack penalty, then I'd reccomend reducing 2-hander PA to +1 damage per -1 attack penalty, if you want to reign in the massive damage dealing somewhat and keep the two basic kinds of fighting similar in power.

 

[Pelgrin]

Math

I think something you are forgetting in all of these calculations is how often each party is hitting. The TWF has the -2 to hit for the extra attack while the power attacking two-hander is taking a bigger minus to his chance to hit to equal the damage output of the two weapon fighter... I wrote a little application that calculates average damage output over time with all the possible Power attack combos and power attack is really only efficient over time against ACs that they can easily hit...

I think if you put that in to your calculations you will see TWF is actually worth it...


~Pelgrin

 

[Scharlata]

[...]; the use of commas in your post in place of periods, in some spots, confused me a bit and I slipped up in guessing what the ratios were supposed to mean. [...]

Sorry, my fault!
Thanx for reconsidering your PoV.

To @: Thanx, too, for your opinions.

I think I'll go with that:
Light Weapons: Ratio n/a
1-handed Weapons: Ratio 1:1
2-handed Weapons: Ratio: 1:1,5

Kind regards

 

[Rystil Arden]

Arkhandus--Two-Weapon Fighting is not completely useless now: it has become the domain of the people who can get lots of extra bonus d6s added to every attack, such as the Rogue. With that in mind, if your two-weapon fighter with the axes chose the wiser route and purchased a +1 Holy Flaming Shocking Axe and a +1 Holy Frost Sonic Axe instead, having the axes enhanced by Greater Magic Weapon afterwards, he would gain some advantage over where it stands in your example. Of course, a dual-wielding Rogue15/Fighter4/Ranger1 would do significantly more damage than the Power-Attacking Fighter.