D&D 3E/3.5 What do you ban? (3.5)

[Borthos]

I wanna know why people nerf power attack and cleave. that just seems wrong

 

[Jhaelen]

I wanna know why people nerf power attack and cleave. that just seems wrong

I've never heard of anyone nerfing Cleave.

Monsters generally benefit more from Power Attack than pcs, so I've never felt it should be nerfed. I fondly remember when in my first enccounter featuring giants, the barbarian pc of one of my players was killed by a hill giant with a single hit when he tried charging him. Good times!

 

[Janaxstrus]

Power Attack isn't banned in our game, but it is nerfed to 1-1.5 ratio, instead of 1-2 with a 2 handed weapon. So dropping 2 into power attack yields 3 extra damage, etc.

 

[Celebrim]

Power Attack isn't banned in our game, but it is nerfed to 1-1.5 ratio, instead of 1-2 with a 2 handed weapon. So dropping 2 into power attack yields 3 extra damage, etc.

True of my game as well. And, barring a few broken builds, this tends to be better for the PC's than for monsters. Some of the brutish monsters can get huge benefits out of power attack, and more importantly, monsters will generally face fewer traumatic damage saves over the course of their career than players. Power attack is a critical component of any plan to regularly do melee hits doing more than 50 points of damage.

On the other hand, I allow power attack with a light weapon to better allow for 'finesse builds' and 'swashbucklers'.

I've considered 'nerfing' power attack, but only by limiting you to dumping a maximum of 5 from your attack roll (which is usually more than you'd want to dump anyway), but the overall benefits of that approach aren't equal to the drawbacks. In particular, I like giving high level fighters the freedom to power attack objects in order to destroy them. Brute force as a creative tool has upside, especially in terms of sharing spotlight with spellcasters.

I've also considered making 'power attack' a standard manuever available to everyone and having the feat simply elimenate a cap on trading 'to hit' for damage, but that also seems to have more drawbacks than benefits.

 

[Eldritch_Lord]

I've also considered making 'power attack' a standard manuever available to everyone and having the feat simply elimenate a cap on trading 'to hit' for damage, but that also seems to have more drawbacks than benefits.

Instead of eliminating the cap, you could have it give you a more favorable ratio. Just like there's the option to fight defensively (-4 attack, +2 AC) which is improved upon by Combat Expertise (-X attack, +X AC), you could have a "fight recklessly" option that trades -4 attack for +2 damage, which is improved to the normal -X/+X by taking Power Attack.

What sorts of drawbacks were you seeing to making PA a standard maneuver? In my recent games, I've given most of the "martial" classes an ability to subtract up to (-BAB/2) from attack, damage, or AC and add the same amount to one of the other two attributes (no splitting it up between them), and this ability counts as Power Attack, Combat Expertise, Shock Trooper, etc. for prerequisite purposes. Having that option available to all of the combat types makes them less of a one-trick pony, shortens feat trees, gives archery a bit of a boost, and so far I haven't seen any detriment to the martial classes or any sort of game breakage.

 

[Celebrim]

Instead of eliminating the cap, you could have it give you a more favorable ratio. Just like there's the option to fight defensively (-4 attack, +2 AC) which is improved upon by Combat Expertise (-X attack, +X AC), you could have a "fight recklessly" option that trades -4 attack for +2 damage, which is improved to the normal -X/+X by taking Power Attack.

I already have an option to 'fight recklessly' which let's you trade 4 AC for +2 to hit. And there is a fairly popular homebrew martial feat called 'All Out Attack' that let's you do +2 damage when in an offensive fighting stance. (The tactic often seen in my games is to get someone in a defensive stance to 'tank' the target after getting it's attention, then have someone flank and 'go all out'. So long as the target isn't particularly savvy, this works very well.)

What sorts of drawbacks were you seeing to making PA a standard maneuver?

Mostly I'm worried about adding additional complexity/decision making time by making power attack standard and universal. But, I'm also worried about treading to much on the 'strong man' schtik by letting everyone do large amounts of damage without investing in the 13+ Str. I want players to feel that they have 'their thing'.

In my recent games, I've given most of the "martial" classes an ability to subtract up to (-BAB/2) from attack, damage, or AC and add the same amount to one of the other two attributes (no splitting it up between them), and this ability counts as Power Attack, Combat Expertise, Shock Trooper, etc. for prerequisite purposes. Having that option available to all of the combat types makes them less of a one-trick pony, shortens feat trees, gives archery a bit of a boost, and so far I haven't seen any detriment to the martial classes or any sort of game breakage.

If this works for you, then great. Personally, I find the 'Shock Trooper' trade to be somewhat broken (especially with missile weapons!), and this particular things you are trying to accomplish with this I've already addressed through other means. (For example, the 'Shock Trooper' trade feels less broken if you haven't somewhat nerfed core Wizards, Clerics, and Druids - but I have.) Also, my game is borderline too complicated as it is with the options I've added and this would just make it worse. If I was going to add complexity there are areas I think would be a better tradeoff (facing, simulataneous resolution, weapon vs. AC modifiers, etc.), but really I don't think I have any room for it left. Any more complexity would start to bog down the game I think.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

I allow a lite power attack that anyone can use. It's limited to your BAB, like PA, but also caps at a max of 5 (like Expertise). You only get +1 damage per -1 to hit, even if it's a 2H weapon. Light weapons get no benefit. If you actually take the PA feat, the cap of 5 is removed, 2H gets 2 damage per -1 to hit, and light weapons get +1 damage per -2 to hit.

This way anyone using a 1H weapon has a decent option to boost damage against low AC targets and the feat is relegated specifically for people who want a better exchange with a 2H weapon or possibly a TWF build that wants to use it and not completely waste it on the off-hand. I might even be willing to make the feat give light weapons 1-for-1 in the future.

 

[TarionzCousin]

I have no universal ban/nerf list. If I do ban or nerf something, I do it for campaign-specific reasons (IOW, "There are no Dwarves/Druids/necromancy spells in this game because of _____").

No fair! I spent hours writing up "Grom Greengrass the Ghoul-o-Mancer!"

I found it easier to level up the monsters than to ban stuff. That said, Vow of Poverty should never be allowed for a Gestalt character.

 

[BENINHB]

The only reason i can see to ban Cleave is because its not very good and it slows fighters down in their feat chains an extra step. Kind of like a pity ban. If i was doing that i would at the same time ban dodge or make it apply to AC in general instead of AC vs targeted opponent.

Also trying to set up cleaves can easily turn into moving yourself into position to be flanked.

 

[Borthos]

At low levels, though, cleave is not a bad feat because stuff doesn't have that much HP and if you can PA it to death, you can get another free attack.

I would agree with BeninH's assessment with Dodge. PF did that and it's awesome