D&D 3E/3.5 Statistical Analysis of 3.5 Power-Attack: UNDERpowered?

[Spatula]

Facing an AC 18 opponent at 12th level?

Plane Sailing, the "problem" with 3.0 Power Attack is that the 2 Weap Fighter got some benefit out of using it and 2 Handed Fighter got next to nothing. The 2HFer was still dealing more damage and had more feats to spend, but the situation didn't fit the designers' idea of what PA should be. So now the 2WFer gets little or no benefit (depending on weapon choices) and the 2HFer gets a boost. I am unsure where the poor sword&board fighters fit into all of this.

BUT in 3.5 you now get things like Greater Weapon Specialization, which benefits 2WF more than 2HF. You don't necessarily need added damage dice to make 2WF effective, any added damage works. That's why the 3.0 PA was a good choice for the dual-wielder. Also, the 2WF feats can now be learned at lower levels (no more Ambidexterity, lower BAB reqs).

Although the new weapon feats will probably only be practical if you're fighting with paired weapons - two short swords, two daggers, etc. If you prefer something like a longsword and dagger style, you'll need 5 feats for each weapon, plus the 2WF feats, plus any other feats you may want.

 

[Darklone]

Facing an AC 18 opponent at 12th level?

Plane Sailing, the "problem" with 3.0 Power Attack is that the 2 Weap Fighter got some benefit out of using it and 2 Handed Fighter got next to nothing.

Right, these math games should be made for ACs up to 35, then it starts to be interesting.

PA was useful in 3.0 even for 2handed weapon twinks, just not as useful as they would have wanted, eh? Good joke, they were useful enough without it already.

 

[Mike Sullivan]

Facing an AC 18 opponent at 12th level?

As was repeatedly told to me the first dozen times or so that I posted on 3.5 PA threads, there is a fairly sizable minority of monsters who have shockingly low AC's for their CR's.

I freely admit that my example was somewhat contrived. I chose a scenario that I knew would benefit the TWFer more than the big-weapon fighter. But I point out the context for my example: Zhure asserted that regardless of the situation, with or without PA, in or out of 3.5, TWFers were disadvantaged in comparison to big weapon fighters, barring only bonus dice of damage from elemental weapon enhancements or sneak attack. My example, then, was intended to point out that this sentiment was incorrect, and not to be a general comment on the utility of TWF vis a vis big-weapon fighting.

That said, let's take another look at it. Yes, the AC they're facing is low. On the other hand, these aren't exactly power builds for either character. Their only modifiers to hit are very plain, vanilla magic weapons, a Strength score which honestly seems a little low to me for a 12th level pure Fighter, and their feats. Neither of them has used all of his feats. The two-weapon fighter isn't even a particularly good build -- using a two-bladed sword would increase his damage output significantly. And, most tellingly, the TWFer isn't just a percentage point or two ahead of the big-weapon fighter -- he's doing a very solid 11% more damage than the big-weapon guy. And his off-hand weapons sucks.

I don't think that it strains plausibility to suggest that in an actual campaign (where, among other things, elemental damage is certainly an option), an intelligently built but not min-maxed TWFer will find that there are a wide variety of encounters (perhaps a minority, but a sizable one) in which his damage output matches or exceeds the big-weapon guy's.

 

[Plane Sailing]

But, and I think this is an astonishingly big but which also didn't apparently figure into Andy Collins reasoning...

Not all attack rounds are full attacks!

A highly significant amount of combat is actually spent in single attacks rather than multiple attacks, on standard actions rather than full-round actions.

We all know the list: charges, AoO, Spring Attacks, Readied actions, move and attack...

In all of those situations the 2H fighter was massively ahead on the damage curve because he was already getting full benefit from his str, power attacks etc.

As the PCs in my campaign reach higher levels, the fighters are starting to spend less time just standing there and blasting out full attacks and more time in tactical manouvering again, because the melee opponents they are facing are damned tough, and can put out a frightening amount of damage if you go toe-to-toe.

Personally, I think a bigger abusive mismatch of intent over practice than light weapons being used with power attack was the whole issue of 2H weapons being used with spring attack! Spring attack "sounds" quintessentially like it should be a light fighter option, ducking in and out, but it is the 2H fighters who get the most benefit out it!

Cheers

 

[Darklone]

Right. Bullrushes (my group consists of 8 players) usually cause an enemy to provoke up to 5 AoOs against one or perhaps two (if more than one player has to try) he can give back and spoils his full attack action. The puny opposing strength check is dominated by luck (ogre rolls bad, player rolls good, there he goes).

The TWF dude was playable in 3.0 already, just a little bit sneak attack (multiclassing with rogue for 1-3 levels) made enough of a difference to keep you in the game, but it didn't fit the "flair" of the mobile, dextrous swashbuckler. They made so many changes for flair, why not changing something here? In my first 3.0 group, the two fighter/rogue and barbarian/rogue dudes of the group with twohanded weapons were the ones tumbling into flanking position, the TWF guys (with doubleweapons) stood their ground as tanks and played the anvil part.

I have to admit though: I haven't seen one good houserule yet to include a mobile TWF fighter in 3.0.

 

[Jens]

I have to admit though: I haven't seen one good houserule yet to include a mobile TWF fighter in 3.0.

Could it be something like allowing and attack with each weapon as a standard action? Maybe as a feat?

 

[Zhure]

This is not true in all cases.

Example follows:
<snip>

Of course, Sneaky's one-round attacks lag way behind Bashy's, and Sneaky's feat expenditure is three more than Bashy's, and Bashy will tend to do better as AC's rise. But without any kind of Power Attack, it is possible for a two-weapon fighter to out-damage a similarly built big-weapon fighter in 3.5.

All very true, but that's a relatively rare case and Bashy has a couple more thousand to invest in better AC or better STR modifying equipment rather than investing in the off-hand weapon. I'll amend my earlier statement to a less strong stance by adding "generally" adverbially to it.

 

[Darklone]

Could it be something like allowing and attack with each weapon as a standard action? Maybe as a feat?

One more feat? And allowing several attacks for Standard actions... STOP. This would end up in a Manyshot rant. We already have those.

 

[Spatula]

You know, I forgot all about double weapons. Where do they fit into the 3.5 PA scheme? PA can no longer be used with light weapons, gives 1-for-1 for one handers and 2-for-1 for two handers. A double weapon is a two hander that can be used with 2WF, but the off-hand is considered light in that case. So what does the two-bladed sword wielder get from the 3.5 PA, by the rules?

 

[Mike Sullivan]

You know, I forgot all about double weapons. Where do they fit into the 3.5 PA scheme? PA can no longer be used with light weapons, gives 1-for-1 for one handers and 2-for-1 for two handers. A double weapon is a two hander that can be used with 2WF, but the off-hand is considered light in that case. So what does the two-bladed sword wielder get from the 3.5 PA, by the rules?

This answer is not authoritative, and is based on my reasoning, not a reading of the 3.5 book. That said, I bet I'm right:

Basically, you use whatever ratio is appropriate for the attack you're making at the time. Are you using the double weapon as a two-handed weapon (ie, not using TWF feats with it)? Then you get the *2 ratio. Are you using it as two weapons? Then your "on-hand" attacks use the *1 ratio, and your "off-hand" attacks use the *0 ratio.