Show me that Power Attack is ever Worth it..

[Cadfan]

Avenger, wielding a Fullblade. Level 2 character, 18 wisdom. No feats other than Power Attack and Proficiency: Fullblade. Attacking an enemy with an AC of 16, which is about standard issue at level 2. Attack deals 1[W]+Wis. Target is his oath target.

+8 v AC versus AC 16 means you hit on an 8+. That's a 65% chance per attack, and you get two attack rolls. So 87.75% chance of a hit. Chance of a critical hit is 9.75, which is part of that initial 87.75%. Average damage on a regular hit is 10.5, average damage on a critical hit is 22.5.

So we get,
.78*10.5 + .0975*22.5 = 10.38375

Lets add in Power Attack now, which changes the numbers to
.7*13.5 + .0975*25.5 = 11.93625

There you go.

I'm too lazy to do the math for everything else in the game, but generally speaking any character that is highly accurate but does relatively low damage per hit is going to see better results from Power Attack than you might expect. The same is true for characters who get multiple damage rolls.

I suspect that a Ranger might benefit from Power Attack, particularly when using Twin Strike, because they get two chances to apply the damage, a significant portion of their total damage is extra accurate (the quarry portion), and because the regular damage per individual hit with twin strike is low.

 

[DracoSuave]

I disagree. I think your assertion is largely irrelevant.

If there is a feat which renders suboptimal results for many people because the math is difficult and/or counter-intuitive then that feat is bad design.

The math behind the viability of Power Attack might be complex, but that doesn't make it bad design. It means that it's not elegantly designed for the types of players that are willing to mathematically calculate DPR for their character to the third decimal point.

And if it wasn't obvious the feat wasn't -designed- for that sort of player (who prefer stackable direct mathematical boosts to situational bonuses) then I don't know what to say.

Power Attack is bad design. It may not be a trap according to your definition, but it is a trap to lots of gamers in practice, and that's all that matters.

I disagree.
1) It is not mathematically a trap. Proven.
2) It is a feat designed for players who like to gamble for big gains. The sorts of players who are attracted to Bravura Warlords. To Brash Strike. To taking risks for huge gain. For those less interested in maximum DPR and more interested in trying for the biggest damage numbers they can.

For -that- sort of player, it is -very well designed-. Risk. Reward. Simple, elegant, and not in a way that breaks the game, or produces a useless feat.

If it was introduced in a Dragon article, with a sidebar explaining things (perhaps even lifting your excellent explanation verbatim) then maybe just maybe it would be okay.

Naw. You just don't understand who it is for. And the fact it is not even a bad feat for increasing damage (proven mathematically for multiple builds) proves that it is not a trap.

As a heroic PHB1 feat? Not a chance. It's a trap, plain and simple.

Here's the thing. The feat is fun for a certain type of player, and it doesn't make the player perform worse as a damage dealer.

Which means calling it a trap is nothing more than being one of those guys.

Don't be one of those guys.

 

[two]

The number of hitpoints that monsters normally have means it needs to be nearly out of the fight (a condition that might be quite detectable) or a minion before that question even comes to the drawing board.... meaning that most of the battle higher dpr is just better. If its a first level monster and bloodied .... maybe dont power attack (others have to be even closer to gone).

If its a minion don't power attack... (If your dm keeps minion status hidden and still uses them quite a bit this can really be a solid reduction on the value of power attack... and a solid increase in the value of sure strike)

What this means is that higher dpr really is more useful most of the time.. and if you don/t want to worry about fringe cases you dont have to.

I don't think I made myself quite clear. I'll illustrate with a simple example.

You are fighting a monster 1 on 1. Monster had 100 HP. You do 15 DPR with no Power Attack (PA), you do 10 with PA.

This DPR does not include a presumed -2 to hit (in our example) for the PA (so it's not really DPR, it's average damage per hit, but you get the idea).

It takes you 7 rounds to kill the monster if you hit every round with PA.
It takes you 10 rounds to kill the monster without using PA.
That's a net savings of 3 rounds, which is substantial.

(again, ignores the -2 to hit)

Unfortunately, that -2 to hit really sucks when you have power attack. It means that you are gonna miss 2/20 or 1/10 of the time when going against a static AC.

So what is the chance that 7 otherwise successful hits will generate a miss because of the -2? Around 47%. So roughly 1 time in 2, one of those 7 blows that would have hit except for the -2 will instead be a miss, making it require another round of hitting to take down the monster.

It's still a huge advantage, however. With PA you get the job done in 7.5 rounds instead of 10.

The problem here is that in D&D you don't stand there for 10 rounds fighting a solo. If you are up against the 100 HP monster and you are doing 15 instead of 10, what is the chance this will drop the monster sooner than without using it, given that you are fighting as a party?

This is incredibly party-specific, but I suppose I can estimate/guess.

With 4 pals and yourself... let's see. You are doing 15. Let's say striker does 20, defender does 10, other 2 PCs do 15 like you.

They are all piling on to the 100 HP monster (solo) just like you, but they don't have power attack. They whale away as best they know how.

With 5 PC's doing on average 15 per round, you will drop the monster in 2 round if everyone hits. Let's assume 50% hitting. So Party does 15 * 4 / 2 = 30 per round, and you contribute 15/2 = 7 (not 7.5 because of the -2 to hit).

Total for you and party is 37 per round.

Monster dies on round 3 on average, as the party deals out 111 HP of damage.

What happens if you don't use power attack? You are doing 5 per round instead of 7, and do 2*3 = 6 less overall, which results in the monster dying on round 3 after 111 - 6 = 105. That's really close. But it still makes no difference. Monster dies on round 3 either way.

No what's the chance that the party will have done between 100 and 105 by round 3? 100-105 is the "sweet spot" where power attack makes the difference between killing the monster a round early or not.

This is a probability question I'm not capable of answering, really. Damage is done on a bell curve (party damage, overall), clumping around the average DPR. If people roll lower than expected, you might end up with 104 damage after round 3. If they roll higher than average, they might have done 130 and power attack simply does not matter since the party is doing a lot better than expected.

Roughly, I'd say that to get a result of 103, for example, the average DPR would have to be 34.3 instead of 37, for 3 instances running. How likely is that? Call a statistician, I can't do that even as a guess. But it's a number I'm unlikely to calculate at the table. And I don't think it's that big.

DPR is extremely overrated in D&D as far as I can tell, since it is a game of discrete battles instead of long-term attrition. When higher DPR "wins" is when it stops one of these discrete battles a round or more sooner. When it does not matter is when it fails to do this (i.e. it simply contributed to overkill, or caused the attacker to miss too much).

It would be neat if somebody who is actually good at Excel could run some really simple battles with a party + 1 PC using or not using Power Attack, with the focus being upon #rounds required to KiLL BADDIE.

 

[Garthanos]

Here's the thing. The feat is fun for a certain type of player, and it doesn't make the player perform worse as a damage dealer.
.

Whether something is a trap or not is partly a perceptual thing too...not just a mechanical one..

If it misleads the player to choose it at the wrong time (at heroic tier) or with the wrong character type (barbarian instead of avenger) it "might be" considered "a trap" to some people... even if there are very good builds that go with it.

(haven't analyzed the barbarian just grabbed it off the top of my head as somebody who I envision attacking powerfully).

 

[DracoSuave]

It would be neat if somebody who is actually good at Excel could run some really simple battles with a party + 1 PC using or not using Power Attack, with the focus being upon #rounds required to KiLL BADDIE.

This is an interesting challenge. I might see what I can cook up when I have some free time.

 

[DracoSuave]

Whether something is a trap or not is partly a perceptual thing too...not just a mechanical one..

If it misleads the player to choose it at the wrong time (at heroic tier) or with the wrong character type (barbarian instead of avenger) it "might be" considered "a trap" to some people... even if there are very good builds that go with it.

(haven't analyzed the barbarian just grabbed it off the top of my head as somebody who I envision attacking powerfully).

If it's not a trap to an epic BRV fighter spamming Brash Strike for maximum damage, the barbarian isn't going to have much trouble using it either.


I think the big problem is trying to judge this ability the wrong way.

Bringing up Magic: The Gathering design ideas here.

Power Attack is an ability for Timmy. He wants to feel something, in the case of Power Attack, the sense of gambling to attain more powerful hits.

But DPR analysis is the realm of Spike, who is there to prove something, that he can make the most consistantly damaging build.

So.... does this make the ability bad? Well, it IS a bad Spike ability. It's absolutely terrible for the sort of person who wants to min/max risk/reward.

But it's a -great- Timmy ability. It's absolutely wonderful for someone who wants to feel the rush of large damage numbers.

The fact it doesn't gimp out your character to do so is just gravy.

Let's face it, Linguist, Light Step, and Ritual Caster aren't exactly min/max feats either, and they aren't bad. They're just not for min/maxers.

Does it add to the fun of the person the feat is made to appeal to? Yes.

Stop trying to ruin this guy's fun with failed mathematical analysis based on raw assumptions that have already been proven to be false or incorrect or not consistantly appropriate.

Timmy's having fun. Let him enjoy his game.

 

[Garthanos]

Please dont mistake my motivations
I sometimes get protective of timmy...
I promise to make sure his sure strike using character encounters plenty of minions... I am throughly prepared to design my encounters to make the heros feel heroic. I dont want to have his gambling game rigged thoroughly in his disfavor and still feel it comes out that way at heroic level (If spikey dm fails to help timmy ;-p his power is for naught) with the way power attack is skinned a lot of timmys out there may be deceived about that gambling game as they are in real life... The math says there are enough conditions at paragon tier (and even with some builds at heroic tier where that timmy is actually spike in disguise), so I am happy.. if timmy needs a handy ally for boosting his to hit to make power attack viable (with the number of players I have I may need to arrange that ally as an npc at least once in a while the same way I arrange for linguistics skills to be viable.. .One of my players has a character who speaks canine and equine).
I am nothing if not my players friend.