What's better Power Attack vs. Weapon Focus

[molonel]

Power Attack, then Cleave.

I play a lot of melee types, and I find that in the lower levels I use a lot of different weapons, and specializing in just one of them usually isn't an option. I've gone from smashing skeletons with a warhammer to cleaving through zombies with an axe often enough that I wouldn't want to tie myself to one weapon, and Cleave and Power Attack both work no matter what you're smacking.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I wouldn't take weapon focus, because it is more likely to be a wasted feat (if you take weapon focus longsword and then find a +2 flaming battleaxe...)

Not an issue in magic shoppe campaign worlds, where you just trade in the +2 flaming battleaxe for the desired +2 keen longsword (or whatever), but I never like that setup.

Plus at 1st level, PA + Cleave is likely to get a lot of use against your typical foes.

Cheers

 

[drothgery]

Eh. The biggest point in favor of PA is that it's the pre-requisitie to Cleave; especially when iterative attacks start coming into play, reducing your chance to hit in favor of doing more damage is only a good idea in extreme conditions, i.e.

- only miss on a 1
- only hit on a 20
- enemy has damage resistance and you lack a weapon that can bypass it

... and this is even true with 2-for-1 greatswords.

 

[Victim]

Eh. The biggest point in favor of PA is that it's the pre-requisitie to Cleave; especially when iterative attacks start coming into play, reducing your chance to hit in favor of doing more damage is only a good idea in extreme conditions, i.e.

- only miss on a 1
- only hit on a 20
- enemy has damage resistance and you lack a weapon that can bypass it

... and this is even true with 2-for-1 greatswords.

And yet, characters often can't take their full attacks due to circumstances - mostly from needing to move. Power Attack is pretty useful for increasing single attack damage.

Also, average damage doesn't tell the whole story; sometimes it may be best to trade expected damage for some tactical effect. Increasing damage may be needed to remove a dangerous foe before he next goes, or to increase the overall chance of a cleave chain.

You might not want to use it all the time, but it still comes in handy.

 

[was]

Honestly, the only reason I even take weapon focus is as a prerequisite for weapon specialization at 4th level. I find it a little expensive for only getting a +1 bonus.

 

[RFisher]

Yep, PA---> CLeave is one of the best setups for a 1st level fighter, and he should never use the PA until at elast 3rd level or against something with a pathetic AC, like a door

Would it be crazy to reverse Power Attack & Cleave? i.e. make Cleave the prereq for Power Attack

On the one hand, I could see an argument that Cleave is too powerful to cost only one feat slot w/o a prereq.

On the other hand, I hate it when a system uses a prereq on a useful ability to passive agressively make you take an ability you otherwise wouldn't. If Cleave is more useful at 1st level & Power Attack isn't very useful until 3rd level, it's annoying to have the prereq the way it is.

 

[DragonLancer]

Weapon Focus. Theres no point in having Power Attack if you don't have a BAB to use with it. At first level, that +1 just is not worth it.

 

[EyeontheMountain]

Would it be crazy to reverse Power Attack & Cleave? i.e. make Cleave the prereq for Power Attack

On the one hand, I could see an argument that Cleave is too powerful to cost only one feat slot w/o a prereq.

On the other hand, I hate it when a system uses a prereq on a useful ability to passive agressively make you take an ability you otherwise wouldn't. If Cleave is more useful at 1st level & Power Attack isn't very useful until 3rd level, it's annoying to have the prereq the way it is.

Cleave as a single feat would be overpowered, but not terribly IMHO. Extra attacks are always a big deal because they most often happen at the highest BAB, granted cleave does not. But that extra attack is what a fighter lives for, like all the extra attack feats in PHBII. Hit you if you move, hit you if you don't move, hit you if you attack, hit you if you don't attack. Each attack is extra damage.

 

[Hussar]

Count me in the PA crowd. The +1 to hit that you lose is only a 5% drop in accuracy. This isn't a huge problem and can certainly be made up for with things like charging, flanking, etc. OTOH, +2 to damage against anything up to CR 1 is HUGE. That autokills an orc with a 14 str for example. It also gives you the chance of downing much larger creatures in that single hit.

Granted, if something's got a massive AC, you're pooched. But, then again, a 20 always hits. If you needed that extra +1 to hit, you probably have a larger problem anyway.

 

[Wolfwood2]

Assuming you've got a Strength 16 fighter using a non-masterwork greatsword, here're average damage stats against AC 13, 15, and 17 enemies for a character with neither Power Attack nor Weapon Focus, for a character with Weapon Focus, and for a character Power Attacking for 1 point.

None --
AC 13: 7.26
AC 15: 6.05
AC 17: 4.84

Weapon Focus --
AC 13: 7.865
AC 15: 6.655
AC 17: 5.445

Power Attacking for 1 --
AC 13: 7.26
AC 15: 5.94
Ac 17: 4.62

Note that the average damage output for Power Attack is incorrect under 3.5. The above was calculated assuming you only get a 1 for 1 trade-off of Power Attack, but using a Greatsword you get 1 for 2.

Here are the actual totals Power Attacking for 1 (-1 to hit, +2 damage)--
AC 13: 7.75
AC 15: 6.35
AC 17: 4.94

Weapon Focus is still the clear winner, but you're at least doing better than without a feat at all.