Power Attack too useful? When is it NOT taken?

[Thanee]

Mounted charge ...

Didn't know about the mounted part.

Bye
Thanee

 

[S'mon]

Didn't know about the mounted part.

Bye
Thanee

I love you Thanee (in a platonic way)

 

[Plane Sailing]

Leaving aside tunneling through walls (the only sensible solution there IMO is to ignore the RAW and use common sense re what's possible)

Actually the RAW is fine in preventing that kind of abuse. I don't have the text to quote properly here, but it says something along the lines of "the DM may decide that a weapon is unsuitable to damaging a particular kind of object, e.g. a blunt weapon can't cut a rope". It is quite appropriate for a DM to say "nope, you can't chop a stone wall down with your sword. Try using a pick"

Cheers

 

[S'mon]

Actually the RAW is fine in preventing that kind of abuse. I don't have the text to quote properly here, but it says something along the lines of "the DM may decide that a weapon is unsuitable to damaging a particular kind of object, e.g. a blunt weapon can't cut a rope". It is quite appropriate for a DM to say "nope, you can't chop a stone wall down with your sword. Try using a pick"

Cheers

Hi Plane Sailing - yes, the RAW does pretty much say "The RAW sucks, use common sense"

Even where it's an appropriate weapon for excavation, eg a pick, the RAW gives nonsensical results due to stone wall Hardness being 8 - same as for a small stone figurine - combined with Power Attack damage bonuses. I just don't use the combat rules for attacking walls and suchlike, and if I do stat a worked stone wall's Hardness & Hit Points I give it cumulative Hardness of ca 8 for 1st inch, + 4 per extra inch. Tunnelling through stone IMC takes hours, not seconds.

 

[just__al]

I'm playing an Urgosh weilding fighter2/rogue7. He has power attack. When combat starts he'll usually charge in and full power attack. After that he normally doesn't power attack since with improved TWF he can get in 4 sneak attacks in the right circumstances. However, when reduced to a single attack, he'll power attack (two handed) for either full or the amount of any bonuses he might have from charging, bless, etc.

Of course this all stems from having an amazing versitile weapon. There is no feeling quite like critting on a full power attack at the beginning of combat. I did 3d8+3d6+48 on the wizard I caught flat footed at the beginning of a fairly important combat.

Oddly enough, she put a dying curse on me, I don't think the DM was very happy.

 

[ForceUser]

3.5 Power Attack seems overpowered due to its damage potential, but it's not. The big limitation is the fact that it is a melee-range option. Many big, power-attacking warriors aren't incredibly mobile, and unless your campaign spends a vast majority of its play time in cramped dungeon corridors, it won't be an overpowering feat because the warrior will be spending half the fight just jockeying for position with his foes. Our campaign is about 80% wilderness encounters, 20% dungeon, and let me tell you--between the wizard and the archer in the party, my dwarf fighter feels really ineffective in a lot of encounters because he spends most of his time running toward distant foes who often die before he arrives, thanks to the artillery in the group. Sure, my character can down a hill giant in a single full attack thanks to a nice falchion/Improved Critical/Power Attack combo, but it just doesn't happen all that often due to his lack of mobility. It sure is fun power attacking for 10 and popping a giant for 2d4+25 though (4d4+50 on a crit).

 

[Evilhalfling]

Playing a 11th/1st cleric Figter, his backstory mentioned that he started out as FPAATT but that had learned better. He normally power attacked for 3 on any round where he made a single attack against a foe with moderate AC. He would up it to 5 if he charged with 2 or more buffs (normally Quickened DF and Bull Str or DP) Any full attacks were made without PA.
Mid adventure the party would run into hardy undead with AC 14 - he was quite posessive of his right to kill them with charge and full power attack. Mathmatically he should only have used 6 pts instead of 9 - (so he would hit on a 2) but that didn't bother him.

His other joy was crits his x4 multilplier would force a MDS on any critical.

 

[two]

3.5 Power Attack seems overpowered due to its damage potential, but it's not. The big limitation is the fact that it is a melee-range option. Many big, power-attacking warriors aren't incredibly mobile, and unless your campaign spends a vast majority of its play time in cramped dungeon corridors, it won't be an overpowering feat because the warrior will be spending half the fight just jockeying for position with his foes. Our campaign is about 80% wilderness encounters, 20% dungeon, and let me tell you--between the wizard and the archer in the party, my dwarf fighter feels really ineffective in a lot of encounters because he spends most of his time running toward distant foes who often die before he arrives, thanks to the artillery in the group. Sure, my character can down a hill giant in a single full attack thanks to a nice falchion/Improved Critical/Power Attack combo, but it just doesn't happen all that often due to his lack of mobility. It sure is fun power attacking for 10 and popping a giant for 2d4+25 though (4d4+50 on a crit).

This objection is partly campaign-specific (some campaigns involve much more close-quarters fighting) and also partly the fault of the D&D system, which makes ranged combat sickeningly effective often at the expense of much more dangerous combat options (melee).

The ranged guy gets more attacks, more often, in complete or relative safety, while the melee guy is busy trying to get into position, trying to get close enough for a full attack, trying to survive getting hammered on, etc.

If I had my druthers, I'd go back to the "no mighty long bow" days, to put a reasonable limit on how much damage bows can do (no strength bonus applies). After playing an archer in a long campaign, as well as been the "melee guy" during other campaigns (and watching the archers go to town), I made notes and did the math. My archer got nearly precisely 2ce the number of attacks as the next closest melee guy. If I shot 10 arrows, he swung 5 times. This average seemed consistent over a 5 month play period (multiple combat types, close quarters, forest, plain, ships, air, etc.). The melee guy also wasn't doing 2ce as much damage per hit as the arrows, but he was on the other hand taking much more damage. Rather thankless job, methinks.

 

[MoonZar]

It used to be said that if a feat was a no-brainer; if it was always taken regardless of build; if no serious fighter ever failed to have it -- then the feat was probably too good/overpowered.

Could this be said of Power Attack?

No serious or half-serious melee type fails to get this. 2 handed weapons, 1 handed, using 2 weapons, etc. When you need to do a lot of damage, this gives you the chance (you just have to hit). Plus sometimes you gotta penetrate DR or blast through a wall.

Plus it's the prerequisite for other feats, etc.

I'm tempted to break power attack into 2 feats; but how? I don't really want to limit the tactical options it allows, but still -- every build (fighter, ranger, barbarian, paladin, fighter-mage, monster-based build) etc. has power attack.

They should just write it on the character sheet for non-pure spellcasters -- and even then you get clerics, druids, and occasional true-striking arcane builds taking it.

Eh, whatever. Maybe a tempest in a teapot.

Does anyone know of any melee build that doesn't include power attack (besides the rogue sneak attack route)?

I don't think that power attack is that much powerful. This could be handy againt Oger, Giant, Ethin and other big creature who don't have a good AC and a lot of HP.

But again Dragon and other big stuff who have a very high AC, i don't think i would risk to lower my attack bonus.

Also this give a chance to people who don't have the right weapon to overcome DR. The DR is very dangerous in 3.5 and we should give the players every option they could have to beat this.

Another point is that not every fighter class have the requirement of 13 of str. I know that many people play very powerful character around there, but i know many paladin, ranger or fighter who didn't have 13 of strenght to get the feat.

 

[S'mon]

I agree 100% that Power Attack is a necessary feat to balance melee fighters against ranged attackers. I do think that for melee fighters it's a no-brainer & the only viable option, ie I don't think Duelist, Sword & Board, or TWF types are really viable in 3.5e compared to 2h PAers. But archers and spellcasters certainly are as viable as 2h PAers, so unless you nerf all 3 there's not much can be done.