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

[mmadsen]

Ok, so I did the math. I'm looking at a character with BAB +8, +13 attack roll, on a full attack with a greataxe (two-handed) for damage 1d12+5.

Looking at the damage per attack spreadsheet, under an average damage of 11.5, that attacker would want to power-attack only if he would normally hit on an 8 or higher -- AC 21 -- under the 3.0 rules, where -1 to-hit yields +1 to damage. If a -1 to-hit yields +2 to damage, he would want to power-attack if he would normally hit on a 14 or higher -- AC 27.

From AC 25, it's better not to use Power Attack. Basically this is saying that for low AC where you have more than 50% to hit, it's always better to use Power Attack. If you have a smaller than 50% chance to hit, never use Power Attack.

The actual rule was pointed out earlier. If the trade-off is one-for-one, you want to equalize your number of chances of hitting (out of twenty) and your average number of points of damage. If you hit 10 times out of 20, and you average 11.5 points per hit, that's close to optimal. If you hit 15 times out of 20, you want to drop your accuracy for more damage, to 13 and 13.5, say.

 

[Pinotage]

The actual rule was pointed out earlier. If the trade-off is one-for-one, you want to equalize your number of chances of hitting (out of twenty) and your average number of points of damage. If you hit 10 times out of 20, and you average 11.5 points per hit, that's close to optimal. If you hit 15 times out of 20, you want to drop your accuracy for more damage, to 13 and 13.5, say.

That rule would apply for a single attack, yes, but not when taking a full-round action to make a power attack. In that case the rule is different.

Take our same character as above. With a full attack, anything under AC 25 is fair game for power attack, but for a single attack (a standard action) it goes up to AC 27 as you mentioned.

Pinotage

 

[Mishihari Lord]

Just looking at average damage misses a lot of things.

One example: you're in a one on one fight and losing. You have maybe one more hit before you go down, but from the look of your opponent he could take a couple more hits of the kind you've been landing (as a DM I give this type of information to my players). Do you use a standard attack and accept that you're going down with his next attack, or do you power attack to get a chance of taking down your opponent before he gets you?

 

[OpusLich]

To understand the effect of the feat you have to lay out a base line somewhere. The example with the 50% chance to hit means that the challenge is just that, a challenge for the melee character in the group. Remember there are three more characters assumed by the rules being there, and an encounter is supposed to eat up 25% of their resources.

I know that this is not the way most of us play. But that is the guidelines for design that the developers work along to keep game balance. Likewise, by my showing average damage overtime, it reflects what the feat is doing for most people.

I could take and make a wall of numbers that shows every possible configuration of to hit va armor class and degree of power attack, both with and with out two handed attacks. That would have been mind numbing for all of us, so I simplified it and boiled it down. Even then Lanfan's head exploded

Anyrate, the data is what it is. Opuslich, you are misrepresenting the facts (which the designers of the game brought to our attention) and making it sound like the feat is fine. But it doesn't work the way you described it, it only appears to. Which is why Johnathan Tweet himself said the feat is a vile tempter, or something to that effect. Because it doesn't really do what it advertises it should.

This is some fine insanity here, Najo.

No sane DM is going to have, as their 'standard' encounter, a baseline where the fighter type (the one who has the highest 'to hit' in the party) only hits 50% of the time. If that were really true, then the Bards, Rogues, Monks, and all the other non-casty types would be missing 75% of the time, or more. That's not how the game was intended. Or at least any game I'm playing.

If your game is conducted as such, then...

A) I'd wager it was in the vast minority.
B) I probably wouldn't take Power Attack under those circumstances either.
and
C) You need to get a new DM, or relax your DMing encounters if you're running the show.

Every combatant should be reasonably able to contribute to most encounters. Granted there will be some where a finesse fighter just can't surpass the DR of a monster, or a Rogue is less able to help against undead/constructs/etc.

But in the average encounter, the non-front line combatant should be able to hit 50% of the time. Otherwise, how not fun is that?

And if the non-front line combatant is hitting 50% of the time, then the real front line fighter should be hitting 75%, or more, of the time. They have a higher BAB, usually a higher stat bonus, WF, and are usually swinging the better weapon.

And, as many others have pointed out, that better to-hit range makes for optimal PA use (if used appropriately). Especially if they're getting -1/+2.

Think of it this way... at worst, PA brings a fighter's to-hit bonus down to the level of the Bards, Rogues, Monks, etc.. while giving them +5 or +10 more on their damage. They're still a better combatant if they're hitting the same as the others, but much harder.

And I'll repeat it again, just in case, you won't be doing it all the time. Just when appropriate.

Your average damage over time doesn't apply here. If we were leaving PA on all the time, then sure. But, again, we're not.

You're still clinging to your 50%, using it all the time, data and not listening to anything anyone else says that contradicts that baseline of yours. Without that, you have no leg to stand upon.

So, if you really play in a game where the average encounter is really that hard, then PA is probably not for you.

But for the majority who don't play in that world, PA works just fine.

And once again, in case you missed it before, PA use is situational. Charts don't apply.

Just for grins, I looked in the DMG for encounter difficulty levels. Their example shows a party of level 6 adventures (4) would be 'challenged' by 4 Ogres. Ogres have an AC of 16.

A fighter at level 6 would have +6 BAB, +1 WF, a +1 weapon, and probably a +4 bonus from Str. That's a total of +12 to hit. YMMV.

So that fighter will hit 85% of the time in a 'challenging' adventure. Just a point of order, the DMG suggests that only 20% of the encounters should be more difficult than this type of encounter.

So, wrapping this all up. Standard encounter = at least 85% hits for a fighter type in the vast majority of DMG suggested encounters. Not 50%. No charts needed.

As others have pointed out with non-fake math, that range is prime range for PA.

Let's see if I can remember the insanity anyway.

So our fighter does 1d8+5 = 9.5. 9.5 x 85% = 8.075... not Power Attacking.
Then he/she turns PA on and does 1d8+10 = 14.5. 14.5 x 60% = 8.7... Power Attacking.

And that's only -1/+1.

There's your chart.

Hmm.

 

[Particle_Man]

And if you do have such a high AC opponent, then the other characters can use the Aid Another ability to help the fighter, since they can't hit the bad guy directly anyhow. IF three of them do Aid Another, that is up to a +6 bonus to hit, some or all of which could be plowed into PA.

 

[Najo]

This is some fine insanity here, Najo.

No sane DM is going to have, as their 'standard' encounter, a baseline where the fighter type (the one who has the highest 'to hit' in the party) only hits 50% of the time. If that were really true, then the Bards, Rogues, Monks, and all the other non-casty types would be missing 75% of the time, or more. That's not how the game was intended. Or at least any game I'm playing.

If your game is conducted as such, then...

A) I'd wager it was in the vast minority.
B) I probably wouldn't take Power Attack under those circumstances either.
and
C) You need to get a new DM, or relax your DMing encounters if you're running the show.

Every combatant should be reasonably able to contribute to most encounters. Granted there will be some where a finesse fighter just can't surpass the DR of a monster, or a Rogue is less able to help against undead/constructs/etc.

But in the average encounter, the non-front line combatant should be able to hit 50% of the time. Otherwise, how not fun is that?

And if the non-front line combatant is hitting 50% of the time, then the real front line fighter should be hitting 75%, or more, of the time. They have a higher BAB, usually a higher stat bonus, WF, and are usually swinging the better weapon.

And, as many others have pointed out, that better to-hit range makes for optimal PA use (if used appropriately). Especially if they're getting -1/+2.

Think of it this way... at worst, PA brings a fighter's to-hit bonus down to the level of the Bards, Rogues, Monks, etc.. while giving them +5 or +10 more on their damage. They're still a better combatant if they're hitting the same as the others, but much harder.

And I'll repeat it again, just in case, you won't be doing it all the time. Just when appropriate.

Your average damage over time doesn't apply here. If we were leaving PA on all the time, then sure. But, again, we're not.

You're still clinging to your 50%, using it all the time, data and not listening to anything anyone else says that contradicts that baseline of yours. Without that, you have no leg to stand upon.

So, if you really play in a game where the average encounter is really that hard, then PA is probably not for you.

But for the majority who don't play in that world, PA works just fine.

And once again, in case you missed it before, PA use is situational. Charts don't apply.

Just for grins, I looked in the DMG for encounter difficulty levels. Their example shows a party of level 6 adventures (4) would be 'challenged' by 4 Ogres. Ogres have an AC of 16.

A fighter at level 6 would have +6 BAB, +1 WF, a +1 weapon, and probably a +4 bonus from Str. That's a total of +12 to hit. YMMV.

So that fighter will hit 85% of the time in a 'challenging' adventure. Just a point of order, the DMG suggests that only 20% of the encounters should be more difficult than this type of encounter.

So, wrapping this all up. Standard encounter = at least 85% hits for a fighter type in the vast majority of DMG suggested encounters. Not 50%. No charts needed.

As others have pointed out with non-fake math, that range is prime range for PA.

Let's see if I can remember the insanity anyway.

So our fighter does 1d8+5 = 9.5. 9.5 x 85% = 8.075... not Power Attacking.
Then he/she turns PA on and does 1d8+10 = 14.5. 14.5 x 60% = 8.7... Power Attacking.

And that's only -1/+1.

There's your chart.

Hmm.

Actually, here's your chart:

to hit %hit av (9.5) two hand
15 85% 8.075 8.075
14 80% 8.4 9.2
13 75% 8.625 10.125
12 70% 8.75 10.85
11 65% 8.775 11.375
10 60% 8.7 11.7
9 55% 8.525 11.825
8 50% 8.25 11.75
7 45% 7.875 10.575
6 40% 7.4 8.6

I was putting the fighter up against a strong melee challenge, but lets go with your hitting 85% of the time, although 75% is more likely.

The first thing I notice is there never really is a gain with one handing power attack still. Even though we placed the fighter against a much lower AC, all he gets for his troubles is more random hits and an avergae increase of .675 damage at best. Taking weapon specialition is a better choice, in fact that feat looks like:

to hit %hit av (11.5)
15 85% 9.775

That is with no minus either, it out performs power attack on every level, except the middle of the curve with two handed weapons.

Now, power attack is going to give more random swongs, and yes, it could get lucky. But we can't accurately analyize the math behind the feats by assuming chance is always going to be in our favor. We have to go off averages.

You call me insane. But here are my points:

1) power attack doesn't play the way it advertises, my chart and may version of your chart proves that. At best, you get +2 damage out of it in a blue moon.

2) Knowing how to use it well is broken. Crank up the to hit bonus, attack low AC creatures, use two hand weapons, have high strength and low average damage and then take a penalty that either keeps you hitting on a 2+ or doesn't turn your average damage against you. Once you do this, power attack throws out a sick amount of damage. Find a way to get true strike on you and you have a way to do a +40 bonus to damage too.

3) Those who are power attacking for very little every now and then ARE NOT DOING ANYTHING. Those who are doing it for a lot, ARE HURTING THEIR GROUP and missing all the time.

4) Power attack is a low level feat, attainable at first level. It is virutally useless for a first level character. It is virtually useless until your in the mid range of level 8 - 12. With that, it is confusing for a new player to understand.

5) Power attack's crunch doesn't fit its fluff. It feels more like a aimed strike of some sort. Not a hard hitting violent swing.

6) Power attack's purpose is to convert extra attack bonus into damage and help over come DR, hardness, or kill high hit point monsters quickly. It only does this if you min/max the character for it. It shouldn't be that hard to get the feat to work. It should just do what it says.

7) The designers have come out and denouced the feat for all the reasons I am saying. Doesn't that count for something?

You try to make me look like the insane one. But you are ONLY focusing on my table of 50%, and avoiding ALL of these other issues. You even went so far to assuming what my own DMing and playing experiences are. Well, we can use the new table from here. It doesn't change much, if anything. What do you have to say about the other points?

Lets keep this friendly. The personal attacks are unnecessary please. How do you know I wasn't in a mental hospital in my torrid past or having psychological issues I am heavily medicated for

That and the mods gave me your home address and the doctors took me off the meds

Anyrate, lets play nice and have a mature discussion.

 

[Najo]

And if you do have such a high AC opponent, then the other characters can use the Aid Another ability to help the fighter, since they can't hit the bad guy directly anyhow. IF three of them do Aid Another, that is up to a +6 bonus to hit, some or all of which could be plowed into PA.

Thats good advice Mix that in with the raging, barbarian with a level in sorcerer and true strike and presto, you got an even more broken feat Be hella fun to play at times.

EDIT:

Ok, so I figure I would stat this guy up and min max him.

So you would want 4 levels of fighter, 1 level of sorcerer and the rest in Barbarian. By 20th level, you have a +19 bab, a STR of 23 (maxed out and then ability bonuses)+11 (magic items: manual of gainful strength, Belt of Giant Strength) = 34. That gives you a +12 bonus to damage and to hit, then add in a magic Weapon that gives you a +5 to hit and damage. With bonsuses from feats you gain +2 to hit and +4 to damage. Plus, you can true strike 3 times per day.
So you are hiting on +38 most of the time and a +41 when raging. You deal (greatsword) 2d6+21 (28) damage/ 2d6+24 (31) when raging. Most of the baddies around that level are AC 40 and DR 20 (wyrm dragons, balor, pit fiend, etc).

Needless to say, power attack sucks at end game. It is only worth it when you pick on stuff that is below your level.

Here is the table:

to hit %hit two hand raging
38 95% 26.6 34.1
37 90% 27 34.65
36 85% 27.2 35
35 80% 27.2 35.15
34 75% 27 35.1
33 70% 26.6 34.85
32 65% 26 34.4
31 60% 25.2 33.75
30 55% 23.1 31.5
29 50% 20 27.95

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

Najo, it's not that I don't appreciate the endless maths that 'proves' or 'disproves' that power attack is or isn't working properly, but please, no more.

I accept that if you do the maths it turns out that you do higher average damage by not using power attack - that's fine. I accept that for some people this means that power attack doesn't work properly - that's fine.

But it doesn't stop me wanting to use it and it doesn't mean that it's utterly broken and should be removed from the game or fixed entirely. I like dealing occasional WHACKS of huge damage in exchange for not always hitting. It marks a different style of gaming, one that I'm happy with.

You're not going to convert me to not using it, and neither am I going to convince you that it's OK. I'm sure power attack in 4e will be different (with all the new abilities that are being talked about it might not need to be a seperate feat at all!) and I'm just happy to wait for it to either be leaked or to be published in the final books.

 

[Particle_Man]

Taking weapon specialization is a better choice.

I take both.

I hope they do what Mearls did in IH. Things like, if you power attack for -9, your opponent, if hit, must save or be dazed for a round.

 

[Najo]

Najo, it's not that I don't appreciate the endless maths that 'proves' or 'disproves' that power attack is or isn't working properly, but please, no more.

I accept that if you do the maths it turns out that you do higher average damage by not using power attack - that's fine. I accept that for some people this means that power attack doesn't work properly - that's fine.

But it doesn't stop me wanting to use it and it doesn't mean that it's utterly broken and should be removed from the game or fixed entirely. I like dealing occasional WHACKS of huge damage in exchange for not always hitting. It marks a different style of gaming, one that I'm happy with.

You're not going to convert me to not using it, and neither am I going to convince you that it's OK. I'm sure power attack in 4e will be different (with all the new abilities that are being talked about it might not need to be a seperate feat at all!) and I'm just happy to wait for it to either be leaked or to be published in the final books.

This whole thing has been tiring for me too. So you undertsand where I am coming from though, originally we had dicussion going on about how to fix power attack in another thread. This discussion was prompted by Tweets blurb about what is wrong with power attack. This is when many of became aware of the problem.

While attempting to solve the power attack problem and keep in mind the things that power attack should be, we continued to be interrupted with the arguments that power attack is fine, and so on.

That lead to this thread, which has overtaken the originally unfortunately, but seems to be necessary because people are keeping the thread going. Power attack is needing work, and the hope was to find the solution so WOTC can keep the feat, not get rid of it.

If we all are going to contribute ideas to power attack's evolution then it is important that a) either power attack is proven not broken or b) the majority of us see it is broken and can now contribute towards fixing it.

That is all. I am not trying to take your enjoyment of the feat away, only trying to help solve the issues that the feat has and help towards solving the problem.

To be honest, in concept, Power Attack is one of my favorite feats at first glance. I was disapointed to learn it had these problems. I just want to see the little guy up and running in a good way.