What are the "rules" of power attacking?

[EyeontheMountain]

While there is no straight formula, I tend to assign a portion that my individual fighter/barb likes to use, based on personality. Say 25% or so for a cautious type, while a wilder type may vary from 50% to 100% on many hits. All of my characters then vary the amount depending on the opponent's AC or seeming AC. That is the role-playing formula I use.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

Optimally, you make sure that with your Power Attack and other modifiers, you hit on a 2 with your primary attack. This requires figuring out how tough to hit an opponent is, which isn't always that hard. If a 23 hits and a 22 misses, hrm, I wonder what its AC is?

The problem is that it adds more math, which is hard for some people. It's especially fun when you're using things like Smites and rages and having to add those into the mix. While the other PCs are figuring out what they'll do, I'll figure out my attack rolls and damage and whatnot, and then finish up by asking the DM questions like "Is he fortified?" and "Is there anyone in Cleave range?"

Brad

 

[Stalker0]

Another way to go is just assign a comfortable to hit mod, and always power attack to get that number. If you charge, PA for 2 more. If your a -2, PA for 2 less.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

Well, not a lot o science here... The basic rule for my group is: if you have power attack you should be using it always and for maximum potential damage, just trusting the d20 to do its job and bring you a result worthy of your reckless bravery.

Our champions of power attack are not the guys who own in tactical play, but the lucky ones...

Cheers,

 

[shilsen]

Heh. The last barbarian I played, my rule of thumb was to use Power Attack tactically, unless I was Raging. In which case it was FPAATT.

-Hyp.

Hah! Exactly the same thing for me. Sure, he wasn't making the most optimal use of the feat, but he still hit a lot of the time, and when he did, things stayed hit.

 

[kaomera]

So obviously, we were doing it wrong. Actually, since I was the GM, my evil plan worked very well for my badguys... So educate me, please!

Well, one of my players has a nifty little trick of simply not remembering to include the power attack penalty (or any other attack penalties he might be suffering) in the attack total he announces. That tends to make power-attacking very, very effective (Or it would, except that I seem to have developed a habit of being lazy and not actually recording any damage he deals...) This is a replacement for his previous trick of simply not announcing how much he was power-attacking for until after he had rolled. I'd get upset with him, but I'm mostly letting the other players do that for me (he has been made aware that he will not be welcome in the game that much longer if he can't learn to deal with actually playing the game, and not just jerking the rest of us around).

Overall, power-attacking, especially at less than 2 for 1, is really not that effective for the PCs, I've found. Most opponents either have enough armor or else not enough hit points to make it worthwhile. Against large targets, and/or with buffs (Raging + Bull's Strength + full BAB = 4 to 8 point power-attack, easy) it can be worthwhile, but actually getting to the point where you hit on a 2+ (or even a 5+, my personal threshold) can be difficult even without a PA penalty. For NPCs, OTOT, it can be almost too good. Give PA to an Ogre, especially with levels (Barbarian, Fighter, even Warrior) and/or a template (Half-Fiend (Str 25) or Half-Dragon (Str 29), anyone?), and watch out...

 

[Hypersmurf]

It also helps if the Player behind the PC is mature enough to handle missing. Because you will miss more often than the PCs who use their high BAB to hit.

Yup.

But it's fun to watch people's faces who aren't used to the big numbers... they deal their 5 and 9 point attacks nice and consistently, while you miss twice each round... and then pull out the 'Ooh, a hit! ... for... thirty-two points of damage'.

If they haven't realised that they've actually dealt somewhat more than that over the course of several rounds, the reactions can be amusing

-Hyp.

 

[nittanytbone]

Power Attack is also great when attacking things with special defenses:

-Breaking objects (need to lots of damage to overcome Hardness)
-Damage Reduction: Doing 20 points of damage to something with DR/10 every few rounds is better than doing 10 points of damage every round
-Oozes: Things with low AC but lots of HP need to get taken down quickly

 

[Felix]

I was playing a "FPAATT" barbarian wielding a greataxe with the Leap Attack feat (ruled as x3 not x4 for two-handed weapons).

I was giggling for a full three minutes when I critted on a full power attack raging leap attack. It only happened like that once in the two years of that campaign, but boy, it was worth it!

 

[SteveC]

Optimally, you make sure that with your Power Attack and other modifiers, you hit on a 2 with your primary attack. This requires figuring out how tough to hit an opponent is, which isn't always that hard. If a 23 hits and a 22 misses, hrm, I wonder what its AC is?

The problem is that it adds more math, which is hard for some people. It's especially fun when you're using things like Smites and rages and having to add those into the mix. While the other PCs are figuring out what they'll do, I'll figure out my attack rolls and damage and whatnot, and then finish up by asking the DM questions like "Is he fortified?" and "Is there anyone in Cleave range?"

Brad

That's the theory that most of my players used, and one that I used briefly with a fighting character myself. The problem is, once you bring iterative attacks into place, you virtually guarantee that one or even more of your attacks will miss because of your power attack. Now if power attack is the largest part of your damage, you're not losing much. The thing is, most characters who use power attack have HUGE base damage to base from. Let's take an example from my game.

There was a character who was (basically) a fighter 11. He used a +2 two handed sword that had shocking burst on it, and was typically enlarged for the battle. He operated typically with a 20 str, and had weapon specialization. Without power attack, he did 4d6+d6(electricty)+11 damage. Now if he did a five point power attack, even if he was fighting a monster which he could hit on a 2+, he reduced the odds on his second and third attack hitting by 25% each. The thing was, it most often ended up he would hit with one less attack by power attacking, so he'd actually end up doing less damage on average, since power attack only gave him +10 to damage, and average damage with his normal attack was 28.

I guess to me it seems like power attack is something that's ideal when:

You only have one attack
You have a feat that mitigates the loss to hit
You have a spell or other ability that targets your opponent's touch AC

Beyond that, I have to say, "meh."

Now the thing is, power attack tends to be the corner stone of the argument that two-handed weapon fighting beats all other weapon types. So ultimately is it:

- Power attack requires other feats or abilities to work (which means it's those abilities and not power attack itself that's making the two-handed fighter better).
- Power attack is actually great, but only in special circumstances (like a charging, raging barbarian).
- Power attack really isn't so hot, and (like most discussions on the Internet) it's a lot of hot air.
- There's something I'm just missin'.

So what does everyone think?


EDIT:
Of course, it goes without sayin' that the "All Power Attack All the Time" character is a lot of fun, too...in the right circumstances.

--Steve