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

[Najo]

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.

One thing Tallarn, here is why the designers say the feat is broken: Power Attack doesn't do what the description says. It would be like using a feat that says expend a spell and add the spell level of the expended spell to the caster level of another spell your casting or whatever. But then it expended two spells without telling you or it only adds half the spell level to caster level, rounded down.

Do you see what J. Tweet and our whole side of the camp is saying? Power Attack doesn't make for heroic hits, it likely makes you go in and miss. When you do hit, it might seem like you did something great, but your not. The feat tricks you. Also, it doesn't feel like a POWER ATTACK. It takes way to much meta game, when you should be feeling like your letting loose and giving an attack all you got.

You might be fine with the feat as is. But that doesn't change the fact that it is not doing what it is supposed to be doing.

That is what is the problem. The feat is misadvertising. Does it mean anything to you that the designers are the ones who are saying this?

 

[Najo]

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.

Take greater weapon specialization instead.

Take weapon focus and greater weapon focus too.

Take improved critical.

See, there is always better feats than power attack.

 

[Hussar]

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.

I hope that's tongue in cheek.

Making a feat better by having other characters give up their actions to aid another is not my idea of fun. In fact, any situation where your only option is aid another is pretty much boring as all heck. There's a reason it blows to be a rogue when facing uncrittable critters.

*snore... oh, I roll my d20, did I aid you? Yup.... zzzzz *

 

[Cadfan]

I don't know why people are all hung up on PROVING that power attack can be useful in certain carefully chosen situations, specifically, when you are unable to make a full attack versus an enemy with a significantly lower armor class than what you might expect. We know that.

The problem is that the feat just isn't that useful.

1: Even if you know your targets armor class, there's a narrow band of amounts by which you should power attack that will yield a benefit.
2: You don't usually know your targets armor class, and you can't derive it until after a few rounds of combat.
3: After a few rounds of combat, you're usually stuck in, and don't need to make standard action attacks.
4: Even if you ARE making standard action attacks, and you ARE aware of your target's AC, this is perhaps too much work to justify the small benefit you gain.
5: Even if you don't mind the work, there are a lot of players out there who don't understand the math, and who mess up by power attacking while making a full round attack.

And as a sidenote, while 4e will not have full round attacks in the sense that we currently know them, I am pretty sure that this will require a rebalancing of full BAB characters versus typical enemy AC. Currently, BAB versus AC at higher levels is balanced so that in a typical fight, you are almost certain to hit with your first attack, then progressively less likely with your later attacks. WOTC will have to rebalance the attack bonus on your best attack to avoid high level fighters who almost always hit on anything but a natural 1.

Anyways, I am completely in favor of a feat (or feats) which accomplishes the following things:

1: Letting a character with excess attack bonus transform it into something else. This is a gamist issue, but a valid one- attack bonus is a resource, and if you have more of it than you need, it would be nice to turn it into something else on a situational basis.
2: Lets you smack things really hard, harder in fact than normal. This is flavorful, and is useful for when you prefer the damage increase versus whatever you paid to get it, and for when whatever you paid to get it isn't important.

I just don't think power attack is a very elegant way to go about satisfying these goals.

I'd kind of like a feat that just plain gave you a damage bonus when your attack significantly exceeded your targets armor class. That would save a lot of time, and reflect the fact that even if YOU don't know your target's armor class, your CHARACTER has a pretty good idea of "how hard is it for me to hit this dude."

 

[Najo]

I don't know why people are all hung up on PROVING that power attack can be useful in certain carefully chosen situations, specifically, when you are unable to make a full attack versus an enemy with a significantly lower armor class than what you might expect. We know that.

The problem is that the feat just isn't that useful.

I don't get it either. The people arguing with the anti-power attack movement ultimately come down to, "well, I don't care if it sucks, I like it." We are trying to fix it, so we all can still like it and it doesn't suck...why is that so hard to understand?

It is like we killed Kennedy, dropped the next atom bomb or nailed a particular someone to the cross. The resistance and hostility shows how well loved the feat is. I be willing to bet it is the most popular feat or at least in the top 5.

Anyways, I am completely in favor of a feat (or feats) which accomplishes the following things:

1: Letting a character with excess attack bonus transform it into something else. This is a gamist issue, but a valid one- attack bonus is a resource, and if you have more of it than you need, it would be nice to turn it into something else on a situational basis.
2: Lets you smack things really hard, harder in fact than normal. This is flavorful, and is useful for when you prefer the damage increase versus whatever you paid to get it, and for when whatever you paid to get it isn't important.

I just don't think power attack is a very elegant way to go about satisfying these goals.

I'd kind of like a feat that just plain gave you a damage bonus when your attack significantly exceeded your targets armor class. That would save a lot of time, and reflect the fact that even if YOU don't know your target's armor class, your CHARACTER has a pretty good idea of "how hard is it for me to hit this dude."

How about this:

Power Attack
Pre: str 13+
benefit: You may make a power attack as a standard action. To use power attack, make a single melee attack as normal. If you hit, power attack deals a damage bonus equal to the amount your attack roll is greater than your opponent's armor class. If you miss, your opponent may make an attack of opportunity against you. You may only make one power attack per round.

1. it uses excess to hit as a damage bonus
2. it toggles on or off instead of using meta game math
3. no messy penalty to hit, instead you risk being attacked back as you over swing and leave yourself open
4. the attack is controlled by limiting it once per round
5. It has ALL of the benefits of the current feat and works with the builds that exploit the current feat, but does it with out any of the draw backs. Thus, the feat can actually pay off when used.

I challenge someone to do a better job or find holes in this redesigned power attack. This one is better than the current one, so lets test it and find out if it holds up or if there is something better.

 

[Ahglock]

I don't know why people are all hung up on PROVING that power attack can be useful in certain carefully chosen situations, specifically, when you are unable to make a full attack versus an enemy with a significantly lower armor class than what you might expect. We know that.

The problem is that the feat just isn't that useful.

Thing is in actual play a lot of people have found it about as useful as most other feats. Its not certain situations its most situations full BAB classes are in.

And besides "fixing" power attack is fine. Removing the sliding scale lots of people aren't to excited about, they don't see that as a fix. They like the flexibility in the feat, they like the options. When people say fix they really mean remove sliding scale, and that is why you get arguments.

 

[Cadfan]

I see two possible flaws.

1: It instantly tells you enemy armor class. You roll a modified 28 and your DM says you do 5 extra damage, and you know you're attacking AC 23. I'm not sure that bothers me, personally. AC is something a character ought to at least roughly understand, alongside how injured an opponent is, whether enemies are in range of spells and ranged attacks, etc.

2: It doesn't scale so well by level. At low level it would be pretty sweet. If you're attacking at +10, and your typical foe has AC 15 and 20 hit points, this is a pretty cool feat. If you're attacking at +30 and your typical foe has AC 35 and 100 hit points, its not really very good.

But I like the start.

 

[Particle_Man]

Take greater weapon specialization instead.

Take weapon focus and greater weapon focus too.

Take improved critical.

See, there is always better feats than power attack.

I am not sure about improved critical. I don't know the math behind it, but I do know that lots of critters are immune to crits. But fighters are drowning in feats in any case. Take them all!

 

[Particle_Man]

I hope that's tongue in cheek.

Making a feat better by having other characters give up their actions to aid another is not my idea of fun. In fact, any situation where your only option is aid another is pretty much boring as all heck. There's a reason it blows to be a rogue when facing uncrittable critters.

*snore... oh, I roll my d20, did I aid you? Yup.... zzzzz *

Actually it was kind of fun, for me at least. I took my rogue in against the undead and boggled people by saying "I aid another!". Because I wasn't directly hurting the bad guy, I wasn't a primary target. But my power attacking fighter friend got a bonus to the attack roll that could get rolled into a bonus to damage, so he was happy.

And anyhow, the above example was with uber-high AC opponents that the fighter hits 50% of the time. The rogue is likely not as twinked out for attacking (since there is rogue stuff to do that is not attacking) so will likely only hit 5%-25% of the time. Suddenly Aid Another looks like a more attractive option because I can do that one fairly easily, at least.

I mean, it is all abstract anyhow. "I cut into it with my sword" vs. "I snap my rapier at its eyes, distracting it for just long enough for my companion to..."

But I like better what they have in Savage Worlds, where a non-combat character doing a "trick" on an opponent can stun an opponent briefly, making it easier for the fighter types to put them down.

 

[Particle_Man]

Maybe what they should do is make the progression geometric:

PA for 1, get +1 DA
PA for 3, get +9 DA
PA for 9, get +81 DA

Suddenly it looks more attractive to swing for the bleachers!

Maybe this would be going too far. I leave it to the math folk to find a "good" non-linear range.