Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Najo" data-source="post: 3907155" data-attributes="member: 9959">@ 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.   @</blockquote>

Verification