Thinking about Power Attack

[Oldtimer]

Well, we read Jonathan Tweet's litany over the failings of Power Attack a month ago. It eventually (yes, I seem to have rolled -10 on Initiative) got me to think about another "feature" with Power Attack I've come to dislike.

As Jonathan said, Power Attack evokes the mental image of a wild, almost uncontrolled, swing. Let's see how the present mechanics work that out.

Meet Simon and Pete, two greatsword fighters who just picked Power Attack (and, surprisingly, no other valid combat feats).

Simon the Strong
Fighter 1
Strength 20
BAB +1
Attack Greatsword +6 (2d6+7)
Full Powerattack Greatsword +5 (2d6+9)

Pete the Proficient
Fighter 5
Strength 13
BAB +5
Attack Greatsword +6 (2d6+1)
Full Powerattack Greatsword +1 (2d6+11)

Looking at these numbers, whose Power Attack is the wild, almost uncontrolled, swing? You would expect the inexperienced hulk Simon, right? But it's actually the skilled fighter Pete who makes the wildest swing, while Simon hardly benefits (or is penalized) by his Power Attack.

Why is Power Attack working better for the skilled fighter than for the really strong fighter?

Let's say we change that. Let Power Attack allow you to move Strength bonus instead of BAB. Now the two wild fighters look like this:

Simon the Strong
Fighter 1
Strength 20
BAB +1
Attack Greatsword +6 (2d6+7)
Full Powerattack Greatsword +1 (2d6+17)

Pete the Proficient
Fighter 5
Strength 13
BAB +5
Attack Greatsword +6 (2d6+1)
Full Powerattack Greatsword +5 (2d6+3)

Now, that looks much better to me. What do the rest of you say?

 

[Kahuna Burger]

This is one of those situations where I would rather change the flavor to match the mechanics than the mechanics to match a (imo poor) flavor. Your suggestion just continues what I saw as the mistakes of 3.5, and would just enforce more than ever the "one effective melee style" issue.

 

[Oldtimer]

This is one of those situations where I would rather change the flavor to match the mechanics than the mechanics to match a (imo poor) flavor.

Sure, that's certainly another way of fixing it.

Your suggestion just continues what I saw as the mistakes of 3.5, and would just enforce more than ever the "one effective melee style" issue.

It's not obvious to me what the "mistake" is here. Could you elaborate?

 

[Kahuna Burger]

It's not obvious to me what the "mistake" is here. Could you elaborate?

I perceived the changes to PA (disallowing it for light weapons and the double reward for 2 handed) as a mistake. The logic I heard was "We wanted this feat to represent a brutal fighting style, but finessed fighters and two (light) weapon fighters get "more"* out of it than the two handed charging barbarians! Let's make it so it doesn't work for almost any finesse or two weapon fighters and is twice as good for 2 handers!"

*"more" in this case being defined as "increases their damage by a greater percentage because their damage starts out lower but gives the same actual increase."

Now, the other way to look at the 3.0 situation would have been "This feat is allowing characters with 1-3 feats sunk into their preferred fighting style to start to catch up with characters who require no starting feat investment but get an automatic greater damage output. Sounds good to me, but maybe we should change the flavor a bit to reflect the multiple ways it turned out to be used."

Because I prefer a system which doesn't penalize players for style choices (such as weapon choice) I was displeased with the choice they made. And making the feat even more dependent on a style distinction (high str vs high skill) would be even less pleasing to me.

 

[rkanodia]

Your idea would indeed curb in some of the worst excesses of mid- to high-level Power Attack, OldTimer, and (IMHO) improve the flavor, but it wouldn't remove the whole 'gaminess' of the thing. Changing the cap does change the equation a bit - but this version of Power Attack still provides the best reward to a player who sits there with a calculator plugging in the AC and DR of his foes each round.

My version of a 4E Power Attack would look something like,
Power Attack
Per Encounter
Make a melee attack. If it hits, you deal double damage. If it misses, you grant Combat Advantage to all foes until your next turn.

I guess there's still some 'gaminess' in there, too - Power Attack is still the most effective against monsters who are easy to hit. However, the big potential downside means that players are always going to be truly acting recklessly when they declare Power Attack. Also, the mechanics encourage players to save this ability for when they have an 'open shot' - perhaps an enemy is being flanked, and dazzled by a burst of light, and now the Power Attacking player chooses to capitalize on its AC penalties by hauling back for a powerful blow. I don't think 'Per Encounter' is too few uses, but I suppose it might be entertaining to add a rider, "If Power Attack misses, its per-encounter usage is not consumed" - the image of a luckless, angry barbarian Power Attacking over and over, exposing himself to huge danger, until he finally hits (hopefully splattering something big) amuses me.

That being said, Races and Classes seemed to imply that all feats in 4E were the 'always on' type, which provide a permanent modifier to some stat or ability, and that anything which gave you a new attack, especially one with a limit on usage, would be firmly in the 'Powers' category. But I guess there's no reason that this Power Attack couldn't be a low-level Fighter power, and then if someone else wanted to pick it up, they could always take Fighter Training.

 

[Stalker0]

Frankly I think it would be great if they changed Power Attack to "Called Shot"

Called Shot
You try to hit a harder spot on an enemy's body for massive damage.

Benefit: Same as 3.0 power attack.

Now it makes sense that it works for light weapons as well as two handed ones.

 

[DJCupboard]

My problem with using strength as the modifyable variable, is that now, conceptually, what I would be doing is giving up some of the force of my attack to increase the force of my attack. My brain hurts trying to calculate how exactly I could accomplish that. (please edit out any snarkiness that may be contained in my analysis, if it is there it is unintentional).

 

[Doug McCrae]

Interesting idea, Oldtimer, definitely makes the rule match the 'flavour text' more.

However my preferred approach is to just forget about the flavour text. I find power attack interesting purely as a mechanic, very handy for getting through DR, and a useful buff to help melee guys take a step towards casters in power. Otoh it does make 2h weapon fighters too good relative to twf + sword and board.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Let's say we change that. Let Power Attack allow you to move Strength bonus instead of BAB. Now the two wild fighters look like this:

...

Now, that looks much better to me. What do the rest of you say?

I think that looks like an excellent version of power attack. Much, much better in fact. It removes the scaling with level aspect which was a bit wonky anyway compared to most other feats, and allows it to fit the image.

The other good option would have been a straight "-5 to hit +5 to damage" as per Neverwinter Nights.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Frankly I think it would be great if they changed Power Attack to "Called Shot"

Called Shot
You try to hit a harder spot on an enemy's body for massive damage.

Benefit: Same as 3.0 power attack.

Now it makes sense that it works for light weapons as well as two handed ones.

That would have been my preference as well. Maybe even make the prereq str or dex based.