D&D 4E The math behind power attack and why it needs to be redone in 4e

[Fifth Element]

No.

The power attack optimization formula requires calculus, actually. You write up the equation for expected damage per attack, with the amount by which you are power attacking as the X variable. You cap that equation properly to account for natural 1s and 20s, and you make sure to include critical hits. Then you take its derivative, and set the resulting equation equal to zero. If there is an optimal amount for power attacking, you will find it when you solve for X.

You will actually need several equations, one for each amount of iterative attacks you might have.

No wonder Tweet has a problem with it. His players are doing calculus in the middle of combat! I think that would slow things down a bit.

 

[DamnedChoir]

I think what not everyone who's ranting and raving about math realizes, is not everyone who plays D&D cares about average hit percentages and spreadsheets and has calculus going on at their gaming table.

3.0 and 3.5 have brought ALOT of people to the game who are basically playing an MMO, plan their char to 20th level, average things out to get maximum benefit for their buck and exploit the system. D&D falls apart when put to that much scrutiny.

My group, at least, plays D&D for fun, not to 'beat the system' or 'win the game'. Power-Attack is cool, you take a -4 to hit and +8 damage and get a critical and you cut a Black-Orc in half in a single blow with your Greataxe, that's cool enough. I've played with number crunchers, however, so I understand that style of play, and moreso, understand how much 3.0 and especially 3.5 appeal to those sorts of gamers BECAUSE it's so mathematically dense. Some people, however began playing in 1st or Second Edition where balance was the whim of the DM, and we just enjoyed the game.

These are the sorts of people who are arguing with your assertion that it needs to be changed.

 

[Someone]

I think what not everyone who's ranting and raving about math realizes, is not everyone who plays D&D cares about average hit percentages and spreadsheets and has calculus going on at their gaming table.

The one's disparaging the math think PA is col because it's effects are not immediately recognizable or intuitive; suppose this feat:

Strong attack [General]
Your blows are strong and powerful
Benefit: You get +1 dodge bonus to AC.

Strong attack is idiotic. It may be balanced (many people house rule Dodge to have Strong Attack's effect) and to some people it can be fun. But it doesnt work as intended. It should help you deal damage, not avoid hits. The only advantage of Power Attack over Strong Attack is that you need calculus to show that PA doesn't work as the designers wanted it to work. It may be fun, it may be balanced, it may be useful, but what the math shows undeniably is that it's counter intuitive and doesn't work like it's supposed to work.

 

[ruleslawyer]

I think what not everyone who's ranting and raving about math realizes, is not everyone who plays D&D cares about average hit percentages and spreadsheets and has calculus going on at their gaming table.

...Except, of course, that a cleaner, smoother, and better-balanced rule is still at least non-negative for those people as well. A better Power Attack would work well for the casual gamers you're referencing as well as the number-crunchers. Moreover, it would potentially enable the casual gamers to keep better pace with the number-crunchers, and vice versa. I'm lucky not to have the calculus-users at my table either, but if I did, that would be a problem with Power Attack that doesn't need to be present.

 

[DM_Blake]

I think what not everyone who's ranting and raving about math realizes, is not everyone who plays D&D cares about average hit percentages and spreadsheets and has calculus going on at their gaming table.

3.0 and 3.5 have brought ALOT of people to the game who are basically playing an MMO, plan their char to 20th level, average things out to get maximum benefit for their buck and exploit the system. D&D falls apart when put to that much scrutiny.

My group, at least, plays D&D for fun, not to 'beat the system' or 'win the game'. Power-Attack is cool, you take a -4 to hit and +8 damage and get a critical and you cut a Black-Orc in half in a single blow with your Greataxe, that's cool enough. I've played with number crunchers, however, so I understand that style of play, and moreso, understand how much 3.0 and especially 3.5 appeal to those sorts of gamers BECAUSE it's so mathematically dense. Some people, however began playing in 1st or Second Edition where balance was the whim of the DM, and we just enjoyed the game.

These are the sorts of people who are arguing with your assertion that it needs to be changed.

That's only part of the point.

It doesn't have to be about number crunching.

What if the rules for PA said "Apply a penalty to your attack roll and add half that amount to damage"?

Would you take it then because it was cool?

What if it only added 1/4 the amount of the attack penalty? Would you take it then? 1/5? 1/8? 1/10?

At some point, even the most die hard roleplayer says "Wow, this power attack feat sounds cool and my barbarian would really love it, but it's just such a crummy feat and would ruin his damage output. Using it would turn him into a wimp. I can't justify spending a valuable feat slot to take this miserable feat"

The problem with the actual mechanics of Power Attack is that it already does this. You don't have to actually play the game as a number cruncher. You don't have to sit at the game table this saturday with your calculus and your spreadsheets and try to "beat the system".

The simple fact is that you have to spend a precious feat slot. You could have taken something else, but you took Power Attack. And now, most of the time, it's giving you less damage improvement than you think it is. In fact, sometimes, it is actually making you do less damage because over time, you will certainly have some encounters where the total damage you do to the monsters is less with PA than it would have been, with the same rolls, without PA.

So, because the Power Attack mechanic is capable of reducing your damage output, or basically breaking even, it IS ALREADY an unwise choice for a feat.

At this point, the only justification for taking it, other than to gain access to Cleave, is if your defiinition of fun is "I will gladly take weak feats, even if they limit my character or make me weaker, just because they are fun and I like to roleplay that fun."

By that same logic, why not arm your barbarian with a dagger and roleplay him as believing it holds the spirit of his father. Make him afraid of all magic because magic killed his father, so he will never equip an item he knows to be magical. And he comes from a tribe that believes only sissies wear armor, so he prefers to fight in a loincloth. And let him use Power Attack at its maximum penalty/bonus because he "swings for the bleachers" every time. Oh, and when you build the character, use STR as a dump stat and load up his CHA and INT because he's a clever and friendly barbarian determined to outsmart all those mean old mages who killed his father.

I mean, if it is "just for fun" and your decisions are not based on doing what works and avoiding what doesn't work, then why not?

I myself am not a number cruncher. I play to have fun. I don't play to beat the system. But on the other hand, I do intend for my character to be good at what he does. He chooses his stats, class, skills, feats, spells, and equipment based on what will make him better at achieving his goals as an adventurer.

Power Attack, as designed, falls short of this expectation.

 

[Cadfan]

I think what not everyone who's ranting and raving about math realizes, is not everyone who plays D&D cares about average hit percentages and spreadsheets and has calculus going on at their gaming table.

3.0 and 3.5 have brought ALOT of people to the game who are basically playing an MMO, plan their char to 20th level, average things out to get maximum benefit for their buck and exploit the system. D&D falls apart when put to that much scrutiny.

My group, at least, plays D&D for fun, not to 'beat the system' or 'win the game'. Power-Attack is cool, you take a -4 to hit and +8 damage and get a critical and you cut a Black-Orc in half in a single blow with your Greataxe, that's cool enough. I've played with number crunchers, however, so I understand that style of play, and moreso, understand how much 3.0 and especially 3.5 appeal to those sorts of gamers BECAUSE it's so mathematically dense. Some people, however began playing in 1st or Second Edition where balance was the whim of the DM, and we just enjoyed the game.

These are the sorts of people who are arguing with your assertion that it needs to be changed.

Yes, I know. The sorts of people who are arguing against my assertion that power attack needs to be changed are the sorts of people who believe that MMO players are infesting their hobby and ruining it. I... apparently draw different conclusions from that fact than you do.

The problem with power attack (one of them at least) isn't that it leads to people doing calculus in the middle of the game. The problem with power attack is that if you want to get an actual benefit out of it, you have to use your gut instinct to estimate what a complex calculus problem would be necessary to know for certain. And a lot of people are a lot worse at this than they think.

So they have their fun, they power attack, they think they're kicking butt, and in fact they're making their character worse than if they'd just taken Weapon Focus.

There has got to be some way of making a power attack-like feat that doesn't have the long term effect of screwing over the people who take it. This is true even if the people being screwed over don't realize its happening.

 

[Dracorat]

... bunch of stuff about feat strength

Your starting arguments are very weak. Aside from the point that taking the feat power attack does not apply a permanent change to your character, but rather, an activateable one - the fact that when used in the proper situations, people swear by it - makes a huge difference. It's not some "oh yawn" feat but rather one that requires poise and experience to use well and when used well, greatly strengthens the character using it.

The problem with the actual mechanics of Power Attack is that it already does this. You don't have to actually play the game as a number cruncher. You don't have to sit at the game table this saturday with your calculus and your spreadsheets and try to "beat the system".

Sure you don't but then you don't have to try to analyze it through spreadsheets either. More in a moment.

The simple fact is that you have to spend a precious feat slot. You could have taken something else, but you took Power Attack. And now, most of the time, it's giving you less damage improvement than you think it is. In fact, sometimes, it is actually making you do less damage because over time, you will certainly have some encounters where the total damage you do to the monsters is less with PA than it would have been, with the same rolls, without PA.

And your argument neglects one very important fact. Most D&D encounters are over in a few rounds, at best. This isn't some "over time" analysis. It's a "I activate power attack for 10 - I roll - I do XYZ Damage" "The enemy dies"

But also, I am going to get to another example that the anti-power attack camp is intentionally ignoring. Wait for it...

So, because the Power Attack mechanic is capable of reducing your damage output, or basically breaking even, it IS ALREADY an unwise choice for a feat.

Taking improved grapple would be an unwise choice of a feat if you took it so you could grapple at every opportunity. But you don't. You grapple when the time seems right. Similarly, you PA when the time seems right. And usually, especially with some experience, you'll be right. And that means you use the feat to optimize your damage output. Which means you are using it right.

At this point, the only justification for taking it, other than to gain access to Cleave, is if your defiinition of fun is "I will gladly take weak feats, even if they limit my character or make me weaker, just because they are fun and I like to roleplay that fun."

This is a very weak attempt at building a straw man argument. One can easily take the feat because it works. Because it does.

By that same logic, why not arm your barbarian with a dagger and roleplay him as believing it holds the spirit of his father. Make him afraid of all magic because magic killed his father, so he will never equip an item he knows to be magical. And he comes from a tribe that believes only sissies wear armor, so he prefers to fight in a loincloth. And let him use Power Attack at its maximum penalty/bonus because he "swings for the bleachers" every time. Oh, and when you build the character, use STR as a dump stat and load up his CHA and INT because he's a clever and friendly barbarian determined to outsmart all those mean old mages who killed his father.

And some people do. Hell, most of this even has a prestige class straight out of BoED.

I myself am not a number cruncher.

You've made number crunching statements here.

I play to have fun. I don't play to beat the system. But on the other hand, I do intend for my character to be good at what he does. He chooses his stats, class, skills, feats, spells, and equipment based on what will make him better at achieving his goals as an adventurer.

Power Attack, as designed, falls short of this expectation.

You're power gaming and complaining the feat doesn't work how you'd like it to.

Now, my example.

I have power gamed in the past. I have created fighter/weapon masters of the scythe. The scythe is a 2H weapon with an insane crit multiplier. The Weapon Master enhances both the range and the multiplier even further.

Every point of + to hit I took from that character resulted in crits ten percent of the time with +10 damage. If I knew I could take even say, 8 points, and still hit with the same chance of success, that is 80 extra damage.

Power Attack is for people who know how and when to use it. Because some people don't know how doesn't make it a bad feat. It's an exercise of use that requires seeing in action, not on paper.

 

[Najo]

The one's disparaging the math think PA is col because it's effects are not immediately recognizable or intuitive; suppose this feat:

Strong attack [General]
Your blows are strong and powerful
Benefit: You get +1 dodge bonus to AC.

Strong attack is idiotic. It may be balanced (many people house rule Dodge to have Strong Attack's effect) and to some people it can be fun. But it doesnt work as intended. It should help you deal damage, not avoid hits. The only advantage of Power Attack over Strong Attack is that you need calculus to show that PA doesn't work as the designers wanted it to work. It may be fun, it may be balanced, it may be useful, but what the math shows undeniably is that it's counter intuitive and doesn't work like it's supposed to work.

Exactly.

 

[Najo]

I think what not everyone who's ranting and raving about math realizes, is not everyone who plays D&D cares about average hit percentages and spreadsheets and has calculus going on at their gaming table.

3.0 and 3.5 have brought ALOT of people to the game who are basically playing an MMO, plan their char to 20th level, average things out to get maximum benefit for their buck and exploit the system. D&D falls apart when put to that much scrutiny.

My group, at least, plays D&D for fun, not to 'beat the system' or 'win the game'. Power-Attack is cool, you take a -4 to hit and +8 damage and get a critical and you cut a Black-Orc in half in a single blow with your Greataxe, that's cool enough. I've played with number crunchers, however, so I understand that style of play, and moreso, understand how much 3.0 and especially 3.5 appeal to those sorts of gamers BECAUSE it's so mathematically dense. Some people, however began playing in 1st or Second Edition where balance was the whim of the DM, and we just enjoyed the game.

These are the sorts of people who are arguing with your assertion that it needs to be changed.

Believe it or not, I am the sort of DM and player that ignores rules when they hurt story. Who encourages background and preludes (like in storyteller games), and I have actually ran a dark sun game where one session the party was jumped by a gith war party and no dice came out that evening because the party role played their way through the encounter and ended up helping the gith. Gith are sort of like Dark Sun's orcs. When playing story and fun come first, 100%. When game designing and developing, the math, game mechanics and balance have to come first. Otherwise, the people playing won't have fun.

You can argue this, but your playing a fairly balanced game system. Good examples of not having fun is the 3.0 paladin and ranger vs the 3.5 ones. Those classes were made more fun by making them more fair, compared to the other classes and giving them more to do. If they were made overpowered, then it would throw that balance out the window again and player's woudl complain. RPGs are one part story, one part game. Its the story people who were not doing the math that think power attack is fine. Even then ,story wise, power attack doesn't do what its supposed to.

 

[Najo]

...Except, of course, that a cleaner, smoother, and better-balanced rule is still at least non-negative for those people as well. A better Power Attack would work well for the casual gamers you're referencing as well as the number-crunchers. Moreover, it would potentially enable the casual gamers to keep better pace with the number-crunchers, and vice versa. I'm lucky not to have the calculus-users at my table either, but if I did, that would be a problem with Power Attack that doesn't need to be present.

Exactly as well.