DamnedChoir
First Post
When I play D&D, I don't pull out spreadsheets and a Vulcan, thanks.
D&D 4E The math behind power attack and why it needs to be redone in 4e
- Thread starter Najo
- Start date
JDJblatherings
First Post
Power attack is always a good idea when your only chance of hitting is rolling a 20.
Imaro
Legend
DamnedChoir said:
Lol...
and...QFT. I've just never ran into this computation "problem" when players are using power attack in my game. They usually use it after determining that they can hit a monster with a fairly easy roll...or (after making an Int or Knowledge test) realizing the effects of their hits aren't as damaging as they should be. My players actually like the fact that it's a semi-bidding mechanic and I don't find it to slow the game down in any measurably significant way. Eh, different strokes for different folks I guess.
@ Damage Reduction matters posts: It only matters when you go to apply the actual damage. Still, that doesn't change power attack being subpar. If I use a magic weapon with a +3 damage bonus and I have a +2 bonus from a buff spell, effectively I am at +5 to damage, just as I would be with power attack if I took a -5 penalty to hit.
What about where the damage on power attack dips down? In those cases power attack hurts you getting over DR. My point is you can compare average damage before DR in every case (weapon damage, spell damage, power attack modified damage, magic weapon damage) it is all damage, and they all get compared to DR the same. Now if power attack actually said, it ignores DR 5 or DR 10, then it would matter. And yes, technically, power attack affects average damage..but the point isn't to compare it to DR, the point is to look at the raw damage. I can have 2 point strength buff and get more out of that then the power attack feat with a one handed weapon. In all of these examples, DR is a unrelated factor to proving power attack's value. The ONLY time DR matters in this study and power attack is a benefit is if you have enough to hit to take a penalty and still hit on a 2+ on your roll.
@ Two Handed Weapons: there are alot of sacrifces made doing that. Loss of a shield. Less magic effects. Fewer attacks (no off hand attack). Plus, your not considering irrerative attacks either. Power attack does fair a bit better with a two hander, but it is not spetacular. Weapon Specialization and greater weapon specialization is still a better choice for fighters and weapon focus and greater weapon focus have a better effect overall too. Even if you get a good to hit bonus, and your enemy's AC is low, power attack is limited in its use and doesn't feel right for what it is supposed to do. The designers are the one who brought this up remember.
@ Doing more damage in less hits: Sure you can go for it like the last post says. You can crank that damage up by +6 (or +12 with two hands) and hit on a 14+ instead of a 8+. But is it worth it? You are now giving yourself over to luck. Instead of controlling odds and being constistent, you are allowing more randomness to determine if you deal damage. D&D already has issues here because a) its uses a single dice to resolve conflict and b) it uses a d20 (more sides = more chance). By lowering your to hit range on purpose, you are making it more likely you will miss. The odds are now in favor of the monster. So, yeah, you might deal 1d10+12 damage when you hit, you might roll a 10 on that d10 too, but more likely thna not you are going to just miss. You went from a 65% chance to hit to a 35% chance to hit by doing that. That means you are hitting half as many times as before.
The math is laid out. The designers stated most of this. I agree with everyone that the idea of the feat is cool. I like the feat myself. But everytime I used it it always felt like it did very little, and now I know why. I would not choose power attack unless I was going down one of its chains. I would rather see a feat that serves the purpose of power attack but is designed well make its way back into the game. That is why we are discussing it.
@
What about where the damage on power attack dips down? In those cases power attack hurts you getting over DR. My point is you can compare average damage before DR in every case (weapon damage, spell damage, power attack modified damage, magic weapon damage) it is all damage, and they all get compared to DR the same. Now if power attack actually said, it ignores DR 5 or DR 10, then it would matter. And yes, technically, power attack affects average damage..but the point isn't to compare it to DR, the point is to look at the raw damage. I can have 2 point strength buff and get more out of that then the power attack feat with a one handed weapon. In all of these examples, DR is a unrelated factor to proving power attack's value. The ONLY time DR matters in this study and power attack is a benefit is if you have enough to hit to take a penalty and still hit on a 2+ on your roll.
@ Two Handed Weapons: there are alot of sacrifces made doing that. Loss of a shield. Less magic effects. Fewer attacks (no off hand attack). Plus, your not considering irrerative attacks either. Power attack does fair a bit better with a two hander, but it is not spetacular. Weapon Specialization and greater weapon specialization is still a better choice for fighters and weapon focus and greater weapon focus have a better effect overall too. Even if you get a good to hit bonus, and your enemy's AC is low, power attack is limited in its use and doesn't feel right for what it is supposed to do. The designers are the one who brought this up remember.
@ Doing more damage in less hits: Sure you can go for it like the last post says. You can crank that damage up by +6 (or +12 with two hands) and hit on a 14+ instead of a 8+. But is it worth it? You are now giving yourself over to luck. Instead of controlling odds and being constistent, you are allowing more randomness to determine if you deal damage. D&D already has issues here because a) its uses a single dice to resolve conflict and b) it uses a d20 (more sides = more chance). By lowering your to hit range on purpose, you are making it more likely you will miss. The odds are now in favor of the monster. So, yeah, you might deal 1d10+12 damage when you hit, you might roll a 10 on that d10 too, but more likely thna not you are going to just miss. You went from a 65% chance to hit to a 35% chance to hit by doing that. That means you are hitting half as many times as before.
The math is laid out. The designers stated most of this. I agree with everyone that the idea of the feat is cool. I like the feat myself. But everytime I used it it always felt like it did very little, and now I know why. I would not choose power attack unless I was going down one of its chains. I would rather see a feat that serves the purpose of power attack but is designed well make its way back into the game. That is why we are discussing it.
@
One of the key points that needs to be emphasized is that power attack is not particularly intuitive. I'm sure some people immediately grasp all the nuances of optimal -- or near-optimal -- use, but most players do not.
Here are some damage-per-attack numbers for various to-hit and average-damage values:
Power-attacking makes sense if moving down one and to the right one yields a higher number. For instance, if an attacker would hit on an 11 or higher -- half the time, or 10 times out of 20 -- then power-attacking makes sense only if he averages less than 10 points of damage per hit.
Here are some damage-per-attack numbers for various to-hit and average-damage values:
Code:
hit\dam 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 8.5 9.5 10.5
1 2.50 3.50 4.50 5.50 6.50 7.50 8.50 9.50 10.50
2 2.38 3.32 4.28 5.22 6.18 7.12 8.08 9.02 9.98
3 2.25 3.15 4.05 4.95 5.85 6.75 7.65 8.55 9.45
4 2.12 2.98 3.82 4.68 5.52 6.38 7.22 8.08 8.92
5 2.00 2.80 3.60 4.40 5.20 6.00 6.80 7.60 8.40
6 1.88 2.62 3.38 4.12 4.88 5.62 6.38 7.12 7.88
7 1.75 2.45 3.15 3.85 4.55 5.25 5.95 6.65 7.35
8 1.62 2.28 2.92 3.58 4.22 4.88 5.52 6.18 6.82
9 1.50 2.10 2.70 3.30 3.90 4.50 5.10 5.70 6.30
10 1.38 1.92 2.48 3.02 3.58 4.12 4.68 5.22 5.78
11 1.25 1.75 2.25 2.75 3.25 3.75 4.25 4.75 5.25
12 1.12 1.58 2.02 2.48 2.92 3.38 3.82 4.28 4.72
13 1.00 1.40 1.80 2.20 2.60 3.00 3.40 3.80 4.20
14 0.88 1.22 1.58 1.92 2.28 2.62 2.98 3.32 3.68
15 0.75 1.05 1.35 1.65 1.95 2.25 2.55 2.85 3.15
16 0.62 0.88 1.12 1.38 1.62 1.88 2.12 2.38 2.62
17 0.50 0.70 0.90 1.10 1.30 1.50 1.70 1.90 2.10
18 0.38 0.52 0.68 0.82 0.98 1.12 1.28 1.42 1.58
19 0.25 0.35 0.45 0.55 0.65 0.75 0.85 0.95 1.05
20 0.12 0.18 0.22 0.28 0.32 0.38 0.42 0.48 0.52
Code:
hit\dam 11.5 12.5 13.5 14.5 15.5 16.5 17.5 18.5 19.5
1 11.50 12.50 13.50 14.50 15.50 16.50 17.50 18.50 19.50
2 10.92 11.88 12.82 13.78 14.72 15.68 16.62 17.58 18.52
3 10.35 11.25 12.15 13.05 13.95 14.85 15.75 16.65 17.55
4 9.78 10.62 11.48 12.32 13.18 14.02 14.88 15.72 16.58
5 9.20 10.00 10.80 11.60 12.40 13.20 14.00 14.80 15.60
6 8.62 9.38 10.12 10.88 11.62 12.38 13.12 13.88 14.62
7 8.05 8.75 9.45 10.15 10.85 11.55 12.25 12.95 13.65
8 7.48 8.12 8.78 9.42 10.08 10.72 11.38 12.02 12.68
9 6.90 7.50 8.10 8.70 9.30 9.90 10.50 11.10 11.70
10 6.32 6.88 7.42 7.98 8.52 9.08 9.62 10.18 10.72
11 5.75 6.25 6.75 7.25 7.75 8.25 8.75 9.25 9.75
12 5.18 5.62 6.08 6.52 6.98 7.42 7.88 8.32 8.78
13 4.60 5.00 5.40 5.80 6.20 6.60 7.00 7.40 7.80
14 4.02 4.38 4.72 5.08 5.42 5.78 6.12 6.48 6.82
15 3.45 3.75 4.05 4.35 4.65 4.95 5.25 5.55 5.85
16 2.88 3.12 3.38 3.62 3.88 4.12 4.38 4.62 4.88
17 2.30 2.50 2.70 2.90 3.10 3.30 3.50 3.70 3.90
18 1.72 1.88 2.02 2.18 2.32 2.48 2.62 2.78 2.92
19 1.15 1.25 1.35 1.45 1.55 1.65 1.75 1.85 1.95
20 0.58 0.62 0.68 0.72 0.78 0.82 0.88 0.92 0.98
BryonD
Hero
It seems you and I disagree on the idea of +72% is subpar. I think it is not.Najo said:
I really think you are not understanding the math here.
When DR is taking away from the raw damage, the added effectiveness of PA is greatly magnified.
Your statement of "only time" is quite simply incorrect.
Last edited:
DM_Blake
First Post
Najo said:
I agree with you that Power Attack is very situational. For the cost of a whole feat, where most classes only get 7 feats by the time they're level 20, it's a tough, and usually ineffective, decision to select power attack instead of something more frequently useful
I further agree that Power Attack could use some work to make it more useful more of the time. Realistically, if I take Dodge, or Improved Initiative, or Improved Critical, or Weapon Focus, etc., I can use those feats in every combat against every kind of opponent I can fight. But not true with Power Attack. If I only get 7 feats, I will choose feats I can count on every time.
At the very least, it shouln't be a level 1 feat since level 1 characters cannot even use it effectively. It should be farther down the feat chain, and it should be bumped up to -x to hit gives + x * y damage, and it should be capped so those ranging frenzied barbarians 2H wielders cannot use it to get +40 damage per hit. It might also benefit from a diminishing penalty on iterative attacks (I've already house ruled it to where the feat only applies to one attack per use, and you can use it as often each round as you want, so people with high BAB can choose to apply it to one, or some, of their iterative attacks without having to apply it to all of them).
I disagree with you on your belief that evaluating Power Attack shouldn't take DR into consideration. Arguing that real damage per swing is important but applied damage per swing is not important makes no sense.
YOU have already stipulated conditions where Power Attack is beneficial, so why not accept that one of those situations is where your normal damage will only scratch a creature with high DR, but your Power Attack enhanced damage will injure it solidly. In these cases, you're applied damage per swing MUST influence your decision about whether to use it or not.
My fix for power attack:
* Rename it "Tactician"
* Make its prerequisite Int 13
Done!
Now it's works as a careful math exercise that benefits high attack over damage. The careful planning with it represents the feel of the new fluff of the feat. And it is more useful for high to-hit, low damage fighters. High Int/Dex planner archetypes.
* Rename it "Tactician"
* Make its prerequisite Int 13
Done!
Now it's works as a careful math exercise that benefits high attack over damage. The careful planning with it represents the feel of the new fluff of the feat. And it is more useful for high to-hit, low damage fighters. High Int/Dex planner archetypes.
Najo- It really is true that DR makes power attack more effective.
Think of damage in this sense- how many times do I have to hit this monster before it dies?
Lets say I do 20 damage per hit, and the monster has 100 hit points. That means I have to hit it 5 times. If I power attack for 5, I do 30 damage per hit, and have to hit the monster 4 times. I saved one round.
Now give the monster DR 10. Now I do 10 damage per hit, and have to hit the monster 10 times. But if I power attack for 5, I do 20 damage per hit, and have to hit the monster 5 times. I saved 5 rounds.
Of course, all of this is pretty much moot if you are in the habit of using iterative attacks. And if you're not, and all you want is bonus damage, you should probably just buy a copy of Tome of Battle.
Think of damage in this sense- how many times do I have to hit this monster before it dies?
Lets say I do 20 damage per hit, and the monster has 100 hit points. That means I have to hit it 5 times. If I power attack for 5, I do 30 damage per hit, and have to hit the monster 4 times. I saved one round.
Now give the monster DR 10. Now I do 10 damage per hit, and have to hit the monster 10 times. But if I power attack for 5, I do 20 damage per hit, and have to hit the monster 5 times. I saved 5 rounds.
Of course, all of this is pretty much moot if you are in the habit of using iterative attacks. And if you're not, and all you want is bonus damage, you should probably just buy a copy of Tome of Battle.
Similar Threads
