Power Attack too useful? When is it NOT taken?

[KarinsDad]

Hi Karinsdad – yup it’s the combination of feats that’s powerful, that’s why I built Brak that way; partly to see if I could be a viable ‘meat shield’ with AC 15 at 5th level… I didn’t expect to be quite as dominant as I have been so far though. I checked the online PC sheets and I am indeed the only PC with full (+5) BAB - there’s a Ranger/Rogue with BAB +4, otherwise it’s all BAB +3 – Monk, Cleric (with STR 9!), Psychic Warrior (his combat posts are always long paragraphs about power points, stacking psionic feats etc, at the end of which he does ca 5hp damage – glad I’m not GMing this), and Rogue. So it’s maybe not surprising I stand out among this lot. I think in a typical game with a high-STR high-AC Cleric and a fireballing Wizard Brak’s attack ability would not be exceptional.

At AC 15, Brak wouldn't stay conscious long in our campaign.

We have a saying in our game straight out of the Three Stooges (typically quoted nearly every combat and quite often multiple times per combat by my psion):

"Fine time to take a nap".

Our low AC Fighter types would fall unconscious almost every combat from levels 1 to 4 or so (we are now 7th), especially the Ranger. In fact, we recently noted not too long ago that we have had 3 combats in a row where the low AC Ranger (in the 18 to 22 range now depending on whether he is using bow, or sword and +2 large shield) didn't fall (we even gave him the only +1 Ring of Protection in the group ). We were shocked and amazed at that turn of events. He's almost becoming useful and not just a healing sponge.

 

[Felon]

Our low AC Fighter types would fall unconscious almost every combat from levels 1 to 4 or so (we are now 7th), especially the Ranger. In fact, we recently noted not too long ago that we have had 3 combats in a row where the low AC Ranger (in the 18 to 22 range now depending on whether he is using bow, or sword and +2 large shield) didn't fall (we even gave him the only +1 Ring of Protection in the group ).

An AC of 22 is considered low at 7th level? Sounds like your campaign is a bit ahead of the curve. As both a DM and player, I'd consider a 22 as still competitive.

At 7th level, +2 AC magic items are not terribly common in terms of loot drops (you're just enterring the range where CR 7 creatures even have a chance to drop medium magic items). Figure that the combination of Dex bonus and armor bonus tops out at about AC 18-20 for warrior classes, be they either light or heavy armor-oriented, so characters are relying on magical bonuses from that point on.

Guess it depends on how AC-conscious the party is. I have had players who wanted to spend the first round of every fight quaffing a potion of barkskin, and would gladly exchange damage-dealing capability for the benefit of a +1 large shield, but somebody's actually gotta concentrate on taking the offense or else the entire party takes a nap.

 

[KarinsDad]

An AC of 22 is considered low at 7th level? Sounds like your campaign is a bit ahead of the curve. As both a DM and player, I'd consider a 22 as still competitive.

You can get AC 21 at second level with full plate, dex +1, and large shield.

AC 23 at second level with full plate, dex +1, and tower shield (AC 24 if you throw Dodge into the mix and AC 26 if you throw in Combat Expertise).


I consider AC 18 (his AC with a bow) to be very low at level 7, AC 22 to be average, but still not good. Overall, an AC range of 18 to 22 is low for level 7 (btw, one point of this is Dodge, hence, only good versus one opponent per round).


The 7th level fighter type opponents are going to be +8 to +12 to hit with BAB +7/+2. Against AC 22, that's hitting "35% to 85% of the time" (i.e. +8 = 35% of normal one swing damage, +12 /+7 on a full round attack = 85% of normal one swing damage).


A 6 hit dice CR 5 Troll hits AC 22 40% of the time with claws, 15% with bite.

That's an average of (40% * 9.5 * 1.05 Claw) + (40% * 9.5 * 1.05 Claw) + (15% * 6.5 * 1.05 Bite) + (16% * 16 Rend) = 11.5 points of damage per round in a full round attack. A 14 Con Ranger with AC 22 could stand up against said Troll for just 4+ full round attacks.

If the Troll has something as simple as flank with another foe, a full round attack bumps up to 15 2/3rds average points per round against AC 22 or 3+ full round attacks to take down the 14 Con Ranger.

2 CR 5 Trolls are supposed to be a moderate challenge for 4 7th level PCs, but I suspect that if AC 22 is a good AC in your game, that they would be more than a moderate challenge and would use up more than 25% of party resources to defeat.

Guess it depends on how AC-conscious the party is. I have had players who wanted to spend the first round of every fight quaffing a potion of barkskin, and would gladly exchange damage-dealing capability for the benefit of a +1 large shield, but somebody's actually gotta concentrate on taking the offense or else the entire party takes a nap.

Quite frankly, AC is the bread and butter of DND survival (not hit points and not damage dealing). If you do not get hit, you do not get poisoned or level drained or many other nasty things. Sure, you need good saves (and hit points and damage dealing ability) as well, but you will typically run into more opponents who hit for damage than ones who cast spells.

Some people think that Fighters should be offensively powerful. I personally prefer defense over offense in DND any day. The higher the AC, the better. IMO. If your opponents need 20s to hit you and you need less then 20 to hit them, you have a serious advantage.

Plus, if you can hold off an opponent, that gives the other PCs a chance to counterattack AND it gives the party Cleric or Druid options which do not include healing fellow PCs nearly every round.


I really feel for players who play Clerics and who get annoyed at the fact that they are almost forced into the most rounds walking medic roll. Blow that nonsense off. If I played a Cleric, I would tell the other PCs to either concentrate on AC, or die. I might heal someone a little after the combat is over, but don't expect me to stop fighting in order to heal their sorry butt on a regular basis. It's their own job to stay alive, not mine.

 

[S'mon]

Karinsdad - your campaign does sound a bit unusual to me, though your play style would be well suited to all those published Meatgrinder modules. My experience with trolls is that they're still a severe threat to 7th level PCs _in melee_ and I certainly wouldn't expect a lone Ranger-7 to last 4 rounds against a troll! In my last campaign PCs and Cohorts around 6th level were sometimes killed by a single troll Full Attack in the first melee round. I'd generally expect a warrior-type PC to last 3 rounds of combat against an enemy warrior of the same Level, and a troll is more like an 8th to 10th level warrior PC in terms of offensive capability; their CR is low because they're dumb and lack ranged attacks, even so IMC I usually bump their CR up to 6.

 

[moritheil]

An AC of 22 is considered low at 7th level? Sounds like your campaign is a bit ahead of the curve. As both a DM and player, I'd consider a 22 as still competitive.

I'd consider it low at 7th level. My party of 3rd levels regularly hits AC20. The elven fighter has AC25 with a partial defense, which often happens. Heck, the human barbarian was angry at not taking Power Attack because he kept getting attack rolls in the vicinity of 28.

Competitive is a relative term - it all depends on what you're fighting. Sure, goblins aren't likely to hit you at AC22. But at 7th level, goblins shouldn't be anything more than a bump in the road.

 

[Felon]

I'd consider it low at 7th level. My party of 3rd levels regularly hits AC20.

Well, like I said, that is near the ceiling that characters hit before resorting to magical bonuses (if you can get mithral plate, it goes up to 21), which aren't going to be wildly abundant at 7th level.

The elven fighter has AC25 with a partial defense, which often happens.

Not sure if you're talking about fighting defensively or using Combat Expertise (same thing, basically), but along with things like shields that is the alternative to racking up magic bonuses. It involves trading off some offense for that defense, and that is not hands-down worth it. Offense is defense. A foe that dies on round two doesn't attack you in round three.

Heck, the human barbarian was angry at not taking Power Attack because he kept getting attack rolls in the vicinity of 28.

You can power attack with your primary attack, but the question is, is it worth risking your secondary?

Competitive is a relative term - it all depends on what you're fighting. Sure, goblins aren't likely to hit you at AC22. But at 7th level, goblins shouldn't be anything more than a bump in the road.

A 22 AC is good against more than goblins. There's good reason to keep a barkskin potion handy for things like trolls (preventing rending is the only big challenge), but that's not going to be a consistent tactic due to the sheer expense.

 

[green slime]

16 of Str, mean you can lift over your head 460 lbs according to the book, personnaly i know no one around me who can do that, this one quarter of a ton, this very heavy !!! I don't think that many people in a society could do that. We should check how much people can lift over head in the olympic to have an idea.

No MoonZar, you incorrectly read the rules:

Lifting and Dragging

A character can lift as much as his or her maximum load over his or her head.

A character can lift as much as double his or her maximum load off the ground, but he or she can only stagger around with it. While overloaded in this way, the character loses any Dexterity bonus to AC and can move only 5 feet per round (as a full-round action).

A character can generally push or drag along the ground as much as five times his or her maximum load. Favorable conditions can double these numbers, and bad circumstances can reduce them to one-half or less.

So a 16 Strength can lift 230 lbs over his head (not an impossible feat by a long shot.) or lift a maximum of 460 lbs (but note, this is not over his head.....just lifting from the floor and staggering around under the burden....and he'll probably put his back out... )

Also, lifting a certain weight over your head is easier than bench pressing the same weight. A Snatch-and-jerk will use the muscles in you legs and back, which are far more powerful than your arms. Once the weight is moving upward, you move quickly move under the weight (squating), locking your elbows, and making sure it is directly above your center of gravity, whereupon it is just a matter of keeping it balanced there as you leg muscles once again push up, until you are standing.

Bench presson the other hand is very difficult, as the muscles work from an extreme angle, where they are weakest, and as your arms actually have to physically move the weight themselves, without any assistance from your legs.

 

[KarinsDad]

Karinsdad - your campaign does sound a bit unusual to me, though your play style would be well suited to all those published Meatgrinder modules. My experience with trolls is that they're still a severe threat to 7th level PCs _in melee_ and I certainly wouldn't expect a lone Ranger-7 to last 4 rounds against a troll! In my last campaign PCs and Cohorts around 6th level were sometimes killed by a single troll Full Attack in the first melee round. I'd generally expect a warrior-type PC to last 3 rounds of combat against an enemy warrior of the same Level, and a troll is more like an 8th to 10th level warrior PC in terms of offensive capability; their CR is low because they're dumb and lack ranged attacks, even so IMC I usually bump their CR up to 6.

Our group of 6 6th level PCs took out 2 Trolls AND 2 Rust Monsters AND a Human Fighter 3 / Cleric 5 / Blackguard 2 who had a special cursed Ring of Invisibility that he could activate as a Move Action, all in the same combat. We did, however, use up about 75% of our daily resources doing it.

The bottom line to survival in DND is playing smart. In fact, don't just play smart to survive, play smart to be overly successful.

For example, we have one +1 Cloak of Resistance in our current group (now 7th level). We purposely gave it to our Cleric at level 4 because it is critically important for the rest of us for her to survive every battle. Not just most battles, every battle. In fact, she keeps wanting to give it to someone else, but everyone else refuses. I suppose she could sell it, but ...

If we ever find a +2 Cloak of Resistance, guess who will get it?

Plus, our campaign is only somewhat hack and slash. Most 8 hour sessions, we have one or two combats. But, we have had sessions where nobody pulled out a weapon. It all depends. But if you are going into combat, why do it with the same or lower AC, saves, to hits, and damage as your opponents? That's not smart. Squeeze out every advantage you can. Your PCs will live longer.

Just because we focus on AC (at least my character does and she tries to influence the others when possible) does not mean that we play a meatgrinder type of game. It means that we like to walk out of combats relatively unscathed when possilble.

Another example: I talked our PC Warmage into taking Leomund's Tiny Hut as his advanced learning spell. It is a great spell for protecting PCs from ranged attacks. He was only lukewarm on that spell until I told him what it could be used for (major concealment against missiles and single target spells). Course, he hasn't had a need for it yet, but when he does, it will be very helpful.

 

[KarinsDad]

Not sure if you're talking about fighting defensively or using Combat Expertise (same thing, basically), but along with things like shields that is the alternative to racking up magic bonuses. It involves trading off some offense for that defense, and that is not hands-down worth it. Offense is defense. A foe that dies on round two doesn't attack you in round three.

This is true. You should always try to take out foes as quickly as possible.


However, there are several situations where it is definitely worth it to trade offense for defense.


In any situation where you are facing one or two really powerful melee foes (both to hit and damage and presumably with high hit points), it is imperative that your focus for the one or two PCS who are holding them off change from offense to defense.

It doesn't help to quarter damage the opponent if your Fighter holding it off is going to go down doing that. It is better for that Fighter to do very little damage if he takes very little damage in return. The other PCs are then responsible for doing the serious damage.


Another situation is that of numbers. Numbers often win.

If you have 3 melee opponents facing you, Combat Expertise is huge. +5 to your AC against 3 attackers versus -5 to hit against 1 attacker.

I know that when I am DM, my NPC Villains attempt their best strategies against PCs. One of those strategies is to overwhelm a single PC (preferably one with a low looking AC such as the Wizard in no armor or the Rogue, Ranger, or Barbarian in light armor) with many opponents as opposed to sending a single opponent against each PC (then, do an area affect spell against those PCs who do not have a melee opponent ). It is worth it for the NPC Spellcasting Villain to throw 5 grunts against the PC Barbarian and lose 3 of them in the process if he can also take out that Barbarian (where the Barbarian does not get in his face and do 20 hits of damage per round).


A third situation is that of non-combatant types. We had a Eberron Artificer in our group who took Combat Expertise. He was not a combat specialist, he was a support specialist. However, he would often in melee (especially if he was outnumbered or the opponent could do nasy things) Fight Defensively with full Combat Expertise and he would survive long enough for the other PCs to save him. His job was not to fight in melee, so it was important for him to not do so, even when the opponents forced him into that situation.


People who rely solely on an offensive strategy are doomed to failure at some point, just due to not being flexible enough for what the situation warrants.

 

[S'mon]

Just because we focus on AC (at least my character does and she tries to influence the others when possible) does not mean that we play a meatgrinder type of game. It means that we like to walk out of combats relatively unscathed when possilble.

No, but your tactics are well suited to surviving extreme encounters (EL +4 over party level, or higher); usually a sign that combat is unusually dangerous in your game compared to 3e standard. Personally I tended to run this kind of rare-but-dangerous campaign also, unfortunately the players weren't up to it & their PCs kept dying... Now I have better players.