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

[Ahglock]

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.

I'm curious is it supposed to work in a way where you reduce accuracy and do more damage when you hit. That because of that reduced accuracy you may miss more and lower your overall damage so a poorly played usage of it doesn't net you benefits. But in fact against most CR appropriate encounters some benefit is seen overall. Because that's what the numbers show, and that is what I thought it was supposed to do.

It might not be working as well as it could, but it seems to be working at least up to its general intent.

 

[neceros]

Pardon me, but isn't this debate almost point less now? I'm sure they've said that Power Attack (as a feat) doesn't exist in 4E.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

PA isn't necessarily supposed to be something that you always use in a fight. DM lets you twink out your AB to godly proportions? PA! Fighting a mage? PA! Fighting something with DR? PA! Otherwise, don't PA because it's a niche feat like combat expertise. After all, it is just a 1st level feat.

 

[Ahglock]

Pardon me, but isn't this debate almost point less now? I'm sure they've said that Power Attack (as a feat) doesn't exist in 4E.

Pointless debates are where the internet was made.

Also it was actually a blog post form a designer railing against PA, but he made a post expressly saying this was a personal opinion and not necessarily a change for 4e. Also SAGA has power attack, and its a preview and all that jazz.

Which reminds me, bards when there finally made should totally get the Jazz Hands power.

 

[Nifft]

Pardon me, but isn't this debate almost point less now? I'm sure they've said that Power Attack (as a feat) doesn't exist in 4E.

If house rules were illegal, you'd have more of a point. But it's important to understand why Power Attack is a bad idea in order to decide if you want to import it into your 4e game.

Cheers, -- N

 

[neceros]

If house rules were illegal, you'd have more of a point. But it's important to understand why Power Attack is a bad idea in order to decide if you want to import it into your 4e game.

Cheers, -- N

Understandable, I suppose. I've never really seen 4e as an evolution to 3.5, but more of a revolution.

 

[Nifft]

Understandable, I suppose. I've never really seen 4e as an evolution to 3.5, but more of a revolution.

As someone else pointed out above, 4e seems to have some roots in common with SWSE, and that has Power Attack -- so it might also be nice to consider removing Power Attack from SWSE. Understanding why and when it's bad helps with that. SWSE is far more focused on single attacks, so PA isn't as bad there as it is in D&D. But is it actually good? Looks like it's not all that good.

Anyway. Cheers, -- N

 

[Someone]

I'm curious is it supposed to work in a way where you reduce accuracy and do more damage when you hit.

It was also supposed to be a feat that big weapon users would want to have and use often. Instead is a feat which is much more useful for rapier-wielding halflings.

 

[Ahglock]

It was also supposed to be a feat that big weapon users would want to have and use often. Instead is a feat which is much more useful for rapier-wielding halflings.

Really?

I never read it that way.

This sounds like one of those cleave shouldn't work with thrusting weapons arguments. I don't interpret some flavor text in order to say what the mechanics should be. The flavor text is a quick example of how the mechanics can be interpreted not an exclusive way it should be.

And the argument that it is better for the rapier wielding halfing is also somewhat false. Sure there is a larger % effect for those using rapiers, but in a HP system anything that does extra HP in damage favors % wise a smaller base. Unless they were planning on making it a +% damage which actually would become a pain to calculate at the table it will always have a larger % effect on low damage bases.

Heck the -2extra 1d6 ideas work better for the rapier wielding halfing in the same way.

Unless the change it to something like for every -4 to hit you get an base weapon die in damage this will remain. and even then its there just to a lesser degree, and not so much based on the weapon but based on what other bonus damage they already have.

 

[Najo]

Really?

I never read it that way.

This sounds like one of those cleave shouldn't work with thrusting weapons arguments. I don't interpret some flavor text in order to say what the mechanics should be. The flavor text is a quick example of how the mechanics can be interpreted not an exclusive way it should be.

And the argument that it is better for the rapier wielding halfing is also somewhat false. Sure there is a larger % effect for those using rapiers, but in a HP system anything that does extra HP in damage favors % wise a smaller base. Unless they were planning on making it a +% damage which actually would become a pain to calculate at the table it will always have a larger % effect on low damage bases.

Heck the -2extra 1d6 ideas work better for the rapier wielding halfing in the same way.

Unless the change it to something like for every -4 to hit you get an base weapon die in damage this will remain. and even then its there just to a lesser degree, and not so much based on the weapon but based on what other bonus damage they already have.

You know what I have noticed. My posts have all of the evidence showing what is wrong with power attack, they challenge the arguements and then they offer suggestions that stay true to what power attack is. Yet, for some reason, the posts challenging these points for the last page and a half are avoiding everything I have posted. If you want to comment or challenge these points, start with my posts. I am arguing against power attack for far more than just its minus to hit hurts its damage. Power attack is awful on many levels and it barely works in optimum builds and it is all supported in the posts on here that I made, or supporters made connected with those posts. So please read them, reply to them if you don't agree. Present your evidence or new math and keep it respectful and intelligent.

But stop ignoring the points and come in here and say you think power attack is fine and we are wrong without ANY evidence to back you up.

Next person that wants to challenge our power attack, please show us optimum builds at level 5, 10, 15, 20 and it must be compared to a CL of equal level. Show us power attack's value please.