Power Attack too useful? When is it NOT taken?

[MoonZar]

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.

Hello S'mon,

Yeah that true that ranged attacker are very dangerous and don't take much of the risk because they are not in the front line.

You really think that spellcaster are viable in 3.5 ? Monster have good saving throw and my caster in my campaign have a lot of trouble. Fighter can make 20-50 dmg each round at higher level, what the spellcaster can really do to be as much efficient beside the fighter ?

 

[Thanee]

TWF is probably ok, if you go Tempest.

S&B is actually pretty good IMHO. Not as much damage, but much better AC.

Duelist is a bit more style over effectiveness, of course, but with the Swashbuckler class, also decent enough to be viable, tho probably not as good as a 2Hd fighter.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Thanee]

You really think that spellcaster are viable in 3.5 ? Monster have good saving throw and my caster in my campaign have a lot of trouble. Fighter can make 20-50 dmg each round at higher level, what the spellcaster can really do to be as much efficient beside the fighter ?

Well, my sorceress (13th level now) in City of the Spider Queen is doing pretty good.

There have been a few combats, where I did the majority of damage, but others where the barbarian or paladin have been more effective. Overall it seems pretty fair, I think, especially considering, that my spells are much, much more useful outside combat than what they can offer (mostly some good perception skills (brb) and healing (pal)).

Bye
Thanee

 

[S'mon]

You really think that spellcaster are viable in 3.5 ? Monster have good saving throw and my caster in my campaign have a lot of trouble. Fighter can make 20-50 dmg each round at higher level, what the spellcaster can really do to be as much efficient beside the fighter ?

Spellcasters are definitely viable in 3.5. They don't dominate the game totally like in 3.0 - in 3.5 a Fighter can do more damage to a single opponent than a spellcaster. But spellcasters still do much more damage to groups of opponents (Horrid Wilting - *ugh*) and unlike Fighters they can do tons of other things _outside combat_. I'd say in 3.5 Sorcerers were pretty balanced vs Fighters, while Wizards and Clerics who can choose from a wide range of spells are still considerably better.

 

[MoonZar]

Spellcasters are definitely viable in 3.5. They don't dominate the game totally like in 3.0 - in 3.5 a Fighter can do more damage to a single opponent than a spellcaster. But spellcasters still do much more damage to groups of opponents (Horrid Wilting - *ugh*) and unlike Fighters they can do tons of other things _outside combat_. I'd say in 3.5 Sorcerers were pretty balanced vs Fighters, while Wizards and Clerics who can choose from a wide range of spells are still considerably better.

What do you prefer between sorcerer and wizard, personnaly i think that the spell known of the sorcerer is so restrain... We have a house rules that you could add the same bonus spell to your spell known according to your charisma that you use for the spell per day.

 

[S'mon]

What do you prefer between sorcerer and wizard, personnaly i think that the spell known of the sorcerer is so restrain... We have a house rules that you could add the same bonus spell to your spell known according to your charisma that you use for the spell per day.

Sorcerers are better for inexperienced players and IMO seem more fun to play. Wizards are more powerful though, especially at higher level. They access higher level spells faster and they're far more versatile. Sorcerers fill the artillery role well, but Wizards can potentially fill almost ALL the other roles, given time to chose the right spells. Your house rule seems reasonable. My own house rule is I let Sorcerers use Quickened spells as a free action, which helps them pump out their (numerous) spells faster than most Wizards can, while using up lots of high-end spell slots.

 

[MoonZar]

Sorcerers are better for inexperienced players and IMO seem more fun to play. Wizards are more powerful though, especially at higher level. They access higher level spells faster and they're far more versatile. Sorcerers fill the artillery role well, but Wizards can potentially fill almost ALL the other roles, given time to chose the right spells. Your house rule seems reasonable. My own house rule is I let Sorcerers use Quickened spells as a free action, which helps them pump out their (numerous) spells faster than most Wizards can, while using up lots of high-end spell slots.

Okay, in my campaign world they have a bloody war between sorcerer and wizard. The wizard are follower of a goddess of magic who provide their power and the sorcerer use elemental magic and follow the elemental gods of my world.

This give more taste for the sorcerer and i give them some minor power according to the elemental they chose and many of them go for the elemental savant class.

 

[KarinsDad]

"Too low" for what? It's a low-magic swords & sorcery world, a bit less wealth than standard (at 5th level I had 3600 gp for gear, spent most of it on +1 greatsword) and the desert area (Arypt = Egypt) doesn't have much heavy armour. Obviously low ACs make PA more powerful. In the fight before the desert zombies we faced 3 Zeereshi (giant carnivorous lizards); I think again my PC killed all 3 of them, charging on horseback (+2 charge, +1 vs unmounted/lower) I could full-PA and still have a good to-hit bonus (only 2 under my standard attack bonus) and do 2d6+17. My PC has STR 16 BTW, not very high for a Fighter. He has a level of Ranger which is one reason to keep his armour check penalty down.

Did the Zeereshi try to kill your horse???

Difficulty of a game is dependent on the DM and the decisions he makes. If he doesn't give you high AC opponents or he doesn't play the creatures at their intelligence level, then it becomes easier.

Your to hit went from +13 (or so) to +8 (or so) (I assume you have Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization due to the damage you quoted). You still had the option of charging on a horse, regardless of PA. The fact that you "killed 9 out of 12 in a party of 6" in a PBEM indicates that the DM might be fudging rolls as well (you'll note that several people here questioned your effectiveness, it sounds very unusual, even with the data you supplied).

Against opponents with AC in the 20 to 24 range (fairly common for 5th level but not apparently in your campaign), your +8, even charging on horseback, should not hit that often. And how do you charge on horseback every single round???

 

[Endur]

Mounted Charge = 1 handed Power Attack

Of course, your GM can rule anytime he likes that you can't do a two handed power attack while mounted. The horse's head gets in the way of your swing.

Mounted charge + PA I'm +8* to hit, 2d6+17 damage. That will hit most appropriate-CR opponents more than half the time.

*BAB +5 STR +3 Wpn Focus +1 +1-weapon +1 = +10, -5 PA, +2 Charge, +1 vs lower elevation = +8. Damage 2d6 +4 (STR) +2 (Spec) +1 (magic) = +7, +10 PA = +17.

 

[MoonZar]

"Too low" for what? It's a low-magic swords & sorcery world, a bit less wealth than standard (at 5th level I had 3600 gp for gear, spent most of it on +1 greatsword) and the desert area (Arypt = Egypt) doesn't have much heavy armour. Obviously low ACs make PA more powerful. In the fight before the desert zombies we faced 3 Zeereshi (giant carnivorous lizards); I think again my PC killed all 3 of them, charging on horseback (+2 charge, +1 vs unmounted/lower) I could full-PA and still have a good to-hit bonus (only 2 under my standard attack bonus) and do 2d6+17. My PC has STR 16 BTW, not very high for a Fighter. He has a level of Ranger which is one reason to keep his armour check penalty down.

Wow you really think that 16 of Str is not very high ? According to me one on 100 000 man have a str of 16 and higher in the world, and maybe one on 1 000 000 could have a 18 Str. If you take in consideration that global population is low in medieval era, this not that much. BTW maybe i'm simply wrong and more people have 16 of str ?