Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DM_Blake" data-source="post: 3915368" data-attributes="member: 57267">What was weak? I presented a hypothetical version of Power Attack and destroyed it by increments to illustrate that at some point, some hypothetical version becomes a feat that nobody would take, not even roleplayers. Then I referred back to that by suggesting it is already at that point ass printed in the 3e PHB, although currently it is marginally useful enough that roleplayers might still take it for flavor or gish-build crators can base a careful build around it.So what if the encounter is over in a few rounds? How many encounters where the Power Attacking melee guy misses more than he hits have to go by before he starts to question the benefit of his Power Attack feat?This IS some "over time" analysis, because for every "I activate power attack for 10 - I roll - I do XYZ Damage - The enemy dies" there are "I activate power attack for 10 - I roll - I miss - The enemy lives for another round". No, I'm not implying it's a 1-for-1 rario, but the numbers presented here demonstrate the long-term over time effects of using PA to attack.I think you misspoke about grapple. Taking improved grapple would be A WISE choice of a feat if you took it so you COULD grapple at every opportunity. But it would be an unwise choice if you took it for your 2-H sword specialist because you would rarely use it. Kind of exactly like Power Attack which you should only use in the rare cases (or at least uncommon cases) that it is beneficial.You called me a number cruncher and a pwoer gamer. I'm neither, though I am more than willing to crunch the numbers for game design purposes. At the table, I don't crunch the numbers - I assume the designers have crunched the numbers for me and I play the game as presented. At least until I become aware of a flaw in it. Then, I might crunch some numbers to figure out a solution to fix the flaw.As for power gaming, I have never built a character around a power concept. My current two characters are a rogue who primarily takes luck feats, and a warmage who was created to fill the artillery role in a group that was lacking in mages. His feat selection is metamagic and a couple feats in the Complete Arcane designed for war mages. Nothing fancy about either of them, both fill a role and have skills, feats, and gear suitable for that role.I do, however, expect that when I add something to my character, I can depend on it to do what it seems to do. Power Attack is a deceptive feat. It seems to add to your damage output, and it's obvious it reduces your hit successes, but I never thought it actually reduced anyone's overall damage output until it was pointed out, and then supported with math. Now I recognize it as a feat that doesn't deliver on its promise, unless someone builds a character around it, such as your scythe master. That character very likely got a damage increase because he was built for it. But more mainstream generalist melee characters won't be so lucky.I would be all for an improvement to Power Attack to  make it more viable for all characters who take it. I would also suggest capping the damage potential so that scythe master gish characters can't blow it out of proportion.Or, failing that, 4e might want to put a disclaimer right into the feat to educate people who might take it that it should only be used in certain situations. Not hard and fast rules. Not spreadsheets. Just general notes like "Note: don't use Power Attack against well armored or otherwise hard to hit targets or you'll miss so much that you'll end up doing less damage instead of more".Now, such a note is impractical. Fixing the feat makes more sense.</blockquote>

Verification