# Jonathan Tweet denounces Power Attack



## TerraDave (Nov 19, 2007)

Its sad to see a parent turn on a child, from his blog:



			
				JoT said:
			
		

> *Power Attack, I disown thee! Foul deceiver! False friend! Vile tempter! You promised fun and flavor, but you brought only arithmetic and delay. You offered wild, barbaric swings, but you bogged us down with attempts to maximize average damage. Begone! Thou art no rule of mine.*
> 
> Power Attack is one of my regrets. It seems innocent enough, but it puts complication where one wants excitement.
> 
> The ability to mciromanage one's attack and damage rolls has some appeal, but it runs counter to the spirit of Power Attack. Power Attack simulates a reckless, mighty swing in melee, but at the table it turns into a picky exercise in sliding numbers. It sounds like a slick feat for the mighty chopping barbarian, but it works better the less damage you normally deal. A better feat that would fit the flavor would give you a fixed attack penalty and damage bonus, so that using it becomes a simple either/or toggle rather than a sliding numeric effect. Even simpler and faster would be a feat that makes the power-attack effect always on. That way the reckless barbarian could make attack rolls just as quickly as any other character rather than having to pause and assess the odds with every swing


----------



## Aloïsius (Nov 19, 2007)

The gamist in me strongly disagree, the rolist in me strongly agree. I'm torn apart.


----------



## JDJblatherings (Nov 19, 2007)

oh yeah, it takes ages to subtract form one number and add to another number.  :\


----------



## Remathilis (Nov 19, 2007)

Power Attack ultimately became a game of averages. I've seen spreadsheets that did the math for how much PA to use. Monsters typically either had this on or utterly forgot it. 

I'll be upset to see it go, but maybe something better will take its place...


----------



## Remathilis (Nov 19, 2007)

JDJblatherings said:
			
		

> oh yeah, it takes ages to subtract form one number and add to another number.  :\




The math wasn't hard, it was getting the *(^*%( to declare how much that took for-bloody-ever...


----------



## Scribble (Nov 19, 2007)

JDJblatherings said:
			
		

> oh yeah, it takes ages to subtract form one number and add to another number.  :\




Dude we already determined this between 2e and 3e. 

Also... I wonder how it would work if you switched it to instead of a 1 for 1 bonus you made it a certain number of points buys you a certain die for extra damage. ie: 1 point = 1d2 2 points = 1d3 3 points = 1d4 and so on...


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 19, 2007)

JDJblatherings said:
			
		

> oh yeah, it takes ages to subtract form one number and add to another number.  :\




I had a spreadsheet which calculated the amount by which I should power attack with a given weapon and a given damage bonus in order to gain the maximum average damage per round versus a known AC.  It was... a pretty complex spreadsheet.

I didn't use it in gameplay, of course, nor did I try to recreate it with pen and paper.  But I could have.  The potential was there, latent, in the rule.

Here's my take on power attack:

It COULD have worked like JoT says, but no one I know who took power attack ever used it for min maxing.  They just used it to wager higher damage in combats where higher damage per hit wasn't useful, and where they were reducing their overall average damage.  It was a trap for enthusiastic players- Hit harder! it advertised.  And then it made you miss.

I don't think power attack was a time sink for number crunchers.  It was a trap for people who _should_ have crunched some numbers, and realized what they were doing to themselves.


----------



## JDJblatherings (Nov 19, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> The math wasn't hard, it was getting the *(^*%( to declare how much that took for-bloody-ever...





that's a tabletop play-time management issue.   

DM "well what does olaf do?"

PC "let's see he attacks with a +12...no wait a +4 that would mean i'd do..."

DM "well'

PC "wait let me compare atatckign at +12 to aattacking at +4 with the dmage bonus...'

DM "Next player"


----------



## Daniel D. Fox (Nov 19, 2007)

Good riddance to an underperforming Feat!


----------



## Irda Ranger (Nov 19, 2007)

I'm with Tweet.


----------



## JohnSnow (Nov 19, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> The math wasn't hard, it was getting the *(^*%( to declare how much that took for-bloody-ever...




Yeah, the problem isn't the math, it's the time the player takes deciding _to what degree_ he should Power Attack. As a sliding scale, it's annoying.

As a simple combat challenge (-2, -4, or -6) for the equal amount of benefit, it's cool. _Iron Heroes_ does this with more than just attacks (but sticks to a small number of options), and it works great. Hopefully, we'll see the concept of Power Attack (less chance to hit in exchange for a more damaging attack) represented in either more interesting maneuvers, or just by a short, discrete list of options.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Nov 19, 2007)

All Power Attack, All the Time.

Problem solved.


----------



## BadMojo (Nov 19, 2007)

Moniker said:
			
		

> Good riddance to an underperforming Feat!




Underperforming?  Power attack?

I think Power Attack was many things, but underperforming wasn't one of 'em.  It was pretty much a no-brainer for anyone wielding a two-handed weapon (except for maybe the party wizard with his staff).

I think this is one situation where overly enthusiastic power gamers are more to blame for any slow downs in game play.  It isn't the feat's fault if you're constantly spending 5 minutes a turn trying to squeak out that last 0.10 HP of damage.


----------



## Lord Xtheth (Nov 19, 2007)

It's funny. I've ran with several different playing groups and many, MANY different playing styles since 3.0 came out and no one I ever played with used power attack as anything besides the requisite for cleave.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Nov 19, 2007)

Lord Xtheth said:
			
		

> It's funny. I've ran with several different playing groups and many, MANY different playing styles since 3.0 came out and no one I ever played with used power attack as anything besides the requisite for cleave.




Ever used a scythe?


----------



## Lord Xtheth (Nov 19, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Ever used a scythe?



I'm not too sure what that has to do with anything here... but yes, I've had characters use a scythe.


----------



## JDJblatherings (Nov 19, 2007)

Lord Xtheth said:
			
		

> It's funny. I've ran with several different playing groups and many, MANY different playing styles since 3.0 came out and no one I ever played with used power attack as anything besides the requisite for cleave.




don't forget the joy of power attacking and thus cleaving thru hordes of mooks.   
sure -5 to hit +10 damage isn't such a bright idea against Lord Dark but it's a great idea versus his 101 faceless minions.


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Nov 19, 2007)

JDJblatherings said:
			
		

> oh yeah, it takes ages to subtract form one number and add to another number.  :\



Its not that it takes so long to do the math.  The real problem is that it interruptes the fast paced flow of an MMO by the gamer having to enter in each time how much he wants to lower his attack by.  By setting it to auto, the player can just click the mouse to auto attack the closest baddy, click on PA, goto the fridge, get a snack, see that his char is still attacking, get a drink come back.  That's the real problem.  

*Ducks*


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Nov 19, 2007)

Lord Xtheth said:
			
		

> I'm not too sure what that has to do with anything here... but yes, I've had characters use a scythe.




Not even the 2d4, two-handed, x4 critical ever tempted you to use Power Attack.


----------



## tomBitonti (Nov 19, 2007)

I've always thought that having a fixed bonus and a fixed reduction in attack bonus would make a lot more sense.  Plus, that would unify power attack with other feats that have fixed benefits and penalties.  As well, I think that cleave should *require* the use of power attack.

An "aggressive attack" feat would be nice, too, where you lose AC in return for increasing your attack bonus.

The options and feats, below, would make combat against multiple opponents *much* more deadly, and would make combat reflexes a lot more useful.  Using these options, I would allow a combatant to make attacks-of-opportunity using the same progression as with normal attacks.  (At +6 BAB allowing an attack-of-opportunity at +6 and at +1.)

And, of course, all of this jiggering turns into just the beginning of a whole suite of changes, as one works through the impacts and rebalances combat.

(Ooh ... allow power attack on attacks-of-opportunity, but only allow cleave attacks on other attacks-of-opportunity, and over and above the normal count of attacks-of-opportunity that you are normally allowed.)

---

So:

Power attack (Attack option): You may reduce your attack bonus by 4 in order to increase your damage by 2.  You draw an attack-of-opportunity when you use this attack option.  You may not use this option with a light weapon.  With a two-handed weapon, your damage bonus is 4 instead of 2.  You must use the power attack option to obtain the benefits of cleave.

Power attack (Feat): You may either reduce the penalty for using the power attack option to 2, or you may use the attack option without drawing an attack-of-opportunity.

Power specialization (Feat): You may obtain both benefits of the power attack feat.  (Both the penalty reduction and the avoidance of an attack-of-opportunity).

Aggressive attack (Attack option): You may increase your attack bonus by 2 by reducing your armor class by 4.  Using this attack option draws an attack-of-opportunity.

Aggressive attack (Feat): You may either reduce the penalty for using the aggressive attack option to 2, or you may use the attack option without drawing an attack-of-opportunity.

Aggression (Feat): You may obtain both benefits of the aggressive attack feat.  (Both the penalty reduction and the avoidance of an attack-of-opportunity).

---

(You may notice that I'm not a big fan of the feats that provide two bonuses, such as improved overrun, which provides both a +4 bonus and eliminates the attack-of-opportunity.)


----------



## Voadam (Nov 19, 2007)

Lord Xtheth said:
			
		

> I'm not too sure what that has to do with anything here... but yes, I've had characters use a scythe.




Power attack bonus x4 on crits.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Nov 19, 2007)

JDJblatherings said:
			
		

> don't forget the joy of power attacking and thus cleaving thru hordes of mooks.
> sure -5 to hit +10 damage isn't such a bright idea against Lord Dark but it's a great idea versus his 101 faceless minions.




Nobody remembers the strike outs-- but they damn sure remember the home runs.

Drop a cool 100+ damage on Lord Dark, you'll have a gaming tale for the ages.

Swing for the fences. 

All Power Attack, All the Time.


----------



## billd91 (Nov 19, 2007)

Lord Xtheth said:
			
		

> I'm not too sure what that has to do with anything here... but yes, I've had characters use a scythe.




Power attack + 4x critical = lots of damage... if you get a critical.

Personally, I don't see power attack as a significant problem, though I would prefer a return to the 1 for 1 for all weapons that 3.0 power attack gave. I also wouldn't mind seeing the effect capped at 5 points like Combat Expertise.
The problem is the players who hold up the game because they either can't handle power attack calculations or who try to figure the optimal amount with their spreadsheets and tables. Pick a number and go with it! If you rolled reasonably well but missed, tone it down a couple points and try again. If you hit with a relatively low roll, dial it up a bit and swing for the fences.


----------



## Nebulous (Nov 19, 2007)

billd91 said:
			
		

> Power attack + 4x critical = lots of damage... if you get a critical.




Which makes one wonder how, exactly, is getting critically hit by a scythe so much worse than getting hit by a 2H greatsword.  Get enough farmers with scythes, they'll hold off an orc invasion any 'ol day.


----------



## Nahat Anoj (Nov 19, 2007)

> Even simpler and faster would be a feat that makes the power-attack effect always on. That way the reckless barbarian could make attack rolls just as quickly as any other character rather than having to pause and assess the odds with every swing



This would be an interesting way to make the Barbarian into form of Martial Striker - he just deals out craploads of damage, provided he's raging.  It would also make calculating a Barbarian's bonus to attack and damage lots easier to implement than changing the Strength score.


----------



## Reaper Steve (Nov 19, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Nobody remembers the strike outs-- but they damn sure remember the home runs.




I remember all the times I chose to power attack and was told "Oh, you miss by 1." 
Curse you, power attack!

I like the idea of a  binary use-it-or-not option that gives a flat -to hit/+ damage versus the sliding scale as well. Granted, I never used a spreadsheet to optimize it and always try to decide how much to use before my turn, but use-it/don't-use-it should really be the only decision point.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 19, 2007)

Aloïsius said:
			
		

> I'm torn apart.




Nah, that'd require something like _Torn Asunder_, which isn't Core.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Nov 19, 2007)

BadMojo said:
			
		

> I think this is one situation where overly enthusiastic power gamers are more to blame for any slow downs in game play.  It isn't the feat's fault if you're constantly spending 5 minutes a turn trying to squeak out that last 0.10 HP of damage.



Yes, it is.

Make Power Attack scale with level, but the numbers aren't a matter of individual taste. A level 20 Power Attack is always, say, -10/+20 effect. No delay at the table, no problem.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Nov 19, 2007)

dmccoy1693 said:
			
		

> The real problem is that it interruptes the fast paced flow of an MMO



OK, you've clearly never played EverQuest.


----------



## Michael Morris (Nov 19, 2007)

I use the fix of Neverwinter Nights and Neverwinter Nights 2 -- Power Attack is in 5 point increments, and a feat for each

PowerAttack = -5 hit / +5 damage
Improved Power Attack = -10 hit / +10 damage
Greater Power Attack = -15 hit / +15 damage.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Nov 19, 2007)

JDJblatherings said:
			
		

> that's a tabletop play-time management issue.



It's easier to fix the rule than fix the people.


----------



## Gog (Nov 19, 2007)

I NEVER had my barbarians do anything but either Power Attack at full or not at all. I never did see the fun in all the charts and crap.


----------



## Mercule (Nov 19, 2007)

Huh?  When has Power Attack ever slowed down a game.  Every time I've seen it used, it's either a standard ("I always PA by 5") or a gut reaction thing.


----------



## EricNoah (Nov 19, 2007)

PA grinds my brain to a halt every time I use it.  I never did well on those timed math tests as a kid.  I have to have a cheat sheet that shows me what happens for +5 PA and +10 PA and never pick anything other than one of those two.  

As DM I always pre-include it in monster stats.


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Nov 19, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> OK, you've clearly never played EverQuest.



EverCrack, no.  I managed to dodge that bullet and not get hooked.  Did most of my online gaming time playing online Halo.  

EDIT:  yea, "fast paced" is the wrong choice of words for DDO.  How about, "OMG, How much longer until I make it to the next level!?!"


----------



## Reaper Steve (Nov 19, 2007)

How about a scaling power attack that's still a binary decision point?

Power attack: add only 1/2 your BAB to your attack roll. If you hit, add 1/2 of your BAB to the damage roll.

This way it scales as you level without requiring extra feat slots (improved and greater versions) but it's still a use-it/don't use it choice.


----------



## sidonunspa (Nov 19, 2007)

:: sniff ::

:: cry ::

:: pout ::

I will miss power attack because, it was like the only way to make my swashbuckler deal any real damage... (High dex turns into + to damage when using a rapier)


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Nov 19, 2007)

dmccoy1693 said:
			
		

> EverCrack, no.  I managed to dodge that bullet and not get hooked.  Did most of my online gaming time playing online Halo.



EverQuest is just like Halo, except instead of running around a savanna in the back of a quad, firing a machine gun, you sit in the corner of a dungeon, not daring to move, for six hours, and after every fight, you wait 10 minutes to recharge before the one guy allowed to see the rest of the dungeon goes back out and brings (hopefully) a single monster back to where six people are waiting to jump him.

It was a _riveting_ experience.


----------



## Lurks-no-More (Nov 19, 2007)

I have to agree with Tweet on Power Attack; it's a bit too good a feat in the first place (I don't think I've seen a single fighter without Power Attack!), and the "sliding scale" thing complicates things in the middle of the fight, as people start calculating how hard they dare to PA and still hope to hit.


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Nov 19, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> It was a _riveting_ experience.



Now I'm even more glad I didn't take the Crack.  Give me a sniper rifle and max rounds anyday.


----------



## Wisdom Penalty (Nov 19, 2007)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> I'm with Tweet.




Me too.


----------



## Abstraction (Nov 19, 2007)

Forgive my ignorance. The designer of Power Attack denounced it as a sloppy feat. Is he on the 4E rules design team? If he isn't, then it's just conjecture as to whether power attack is in or out.


----------



## Kraydak (Nov 19, 2007)

Lurks-no-More said:
			
		

> I have to agree with Tweet on Power Attack; it's a bit too good a feat in the first place (I don't think I've seen a single fighter without Power Attack!), and the "sliding scale" thing complicates things in the middle of the fight, as people start calculating how hard they dare to PA and still hope to hit.




Bah, PA is weak (without multiplier increasing abilities, even 2H PA is usually not worth it).  The sliding scale is needed to make it a non-catastrophic choice.  (the range where PA is useful is narrow, and the payoffs are marginal... you need the sliding scale to be able to actually get any advantage out of it)

Admittedly, part of the problem with PA is that iterative attacks have low hit chances, and so are *extremely* vulnerable to PA.  Shifting away from iterative attacks can raise PA's value substantially, making statements about what PA should look like in 4e... silly as things stand.


----------



## JohnSnow (Nov 19, 2007)

sidonunspa said:
			
		

> :: sniff ::
> 
> :: cry ::
> 
> ...




Umm, not to belittle your feelings, but that sounds like a bug to me. Power attacking with a rapier just seems wrong... :\


----------



## sidonunspa (Nov 19, 2007)

Lurks-no-More said:
			
		

> I have to agree with Tweet on Power Attack; it's a bit too good a feat in the first place (I don't think I've seen a single fighter without Power Attack!), and the "sliding scale" thing complicates things in the middle of the fight, as people start calculating how hard they dare to PA and still hope to hit.




ya but it was the only way for some fighters to = out the damage output of casters...

I always thought that was the purpose of the feat


----------



## BadMojo (Nov 19, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> It was a _riveting_ experience.




That sounds a little to fast paced for me.  I got a little out of breath just reading about it.


----------



## blargney the second (Nov 19, 2007)

It's a useful feat, but deceptive in application.  Here's how it should have been written.

*Power Attack* [Math Intensive]
*Prerequisite:* Str 13, player with very strong math skills.
*Benefit:* Spend each round doing calculus.  If you're right, win the game.
-blarg


----------



## TerraDave (Nov 19, 2007)

I am surprised by this. Even knowing that JoT can be a little tongue-in-cheek, I am surprised.

I see Power Attack as the signature feat of 3ed. It wasn't a 2nd ed carryovers , like blind fighting or weapon specialisation. It saw a lot of use in play (the list of feats used less is a long one). It, and variations on it, was popular in OGL games, where it was also used in play. Power attacks slightly wonky nature just added to its 3rd editioness. This feat was what 3rd ed was all about. 

And know its been kicked to the curve by its maker. 

Yes, surprised. But at this point, I guess I shouldn't be.


----------



## Jedi_Solo (Nov 19, 2007)

With our group it was (almost) always used in sets of five... or for full.

I won't be too heartbroken to see it go.


----------



## Merlin the Tuna (Nov 19, 2007)

sidonunspa said:
			
		

> I will miss power attack because, it was like the only way to make my swashbuckler deal any real damage... (High dex turns into + to damage when using a rapier)



Warblade + Diamond Mind is how manly men make swashbucklers, just so you know.


----------



## sidonunspa (Nov 19, 2007)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Umm, not to belittle your feelings, but that sounds like a bug to me. Power attacking with a rapier just seems wrong... :\




Ever fight with one? 

There are quite a few moves that relay on strength over finesse (see the way Porthos fights in the 3 musketeers, Disney version as well as others) 

I can recall a move where you power though your opponent’s parry and push into your opponent with all your might... the move is pure strength; the finesse is all in putting the blade where you want it where you can force the opening.

Lastly Rapiers can cut as well as thrust, D&D developers seem to get the rapier confused with the small sword. (See RobRoy for a rapier cutting someone to bits)


----------



## Zaruthustran (Nov 19, 2007)

I think it should be a a fixed minus to AC in return for a fixed plus to damage. More of a "wild swing" than a "calculated strike".


----------



## sidonunspa (Nov 19, 2007)

Merlin the Tuna said:
			
		

> Warblade + Diamond Mind is how manly men make swashbucklers, just so you know.




Just never felt swashbuckley enough...  I'm of the old rogue/fighter (or swashbuckler base class) mindset...


----------



## Zaruthustran (Nov 19, 2007)

sidonunspa said:
			
		

> Lastly Rapiers can cut as well as thrust, D&D developers seem to get the rapier confused with the small sword. (See RobRoy for a rapier cutting someone to bits)




These are the same developers that don't seem to accept that longswords can be used to thrust. (see any movie featuring longswords, ever, for example of someone getting stabbed with a sword).


----------



## frankthedm (Nov 19, 2007)

Power attack was the gateway to many ways to push a character's damage output beyond acceptable amounts. 

If one tried to determine _"How much damage should a melee character be dealing at a given level"_ power attack skewed those numbers far too easily since any buff that gave +1 to hit could be melted down to +2 to damage. A bulls str or a low level rage could be fluxed from +2 to hit and +2 to damage to just +6 to damage by third character level.


----------



## sidonunspa (Nov 19, 2007)

Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> These are the same developers that don't seem to accept that longswords can be used to thrust. (see any movie featuring longswords, ever, for example of someone getting stabbed with a sword).




QFT


----------



## Najo (Nov 19, 2007)

Reaper Steve said:
			
		

> How about a scaling power attack that's still a binary decision point?
> 
> Power attack: add only 1/2 your BAB to your attack roll. If you hit, add 1/2 of your BAB to the damage roll.
> 
> This way it scales as you level without requiring extra feat slots (improved and greater versions) but it's still a use-it/don't use it choice.




This is the best option so far.

* Scales with level 
* On/ Off (which is better than always on IMHO, power attack feels like a combat option not a requirment by its very name).
* Feels like a power attack. 

I think the only way to improve upon it is to make it a combat option that gives a bonus to damage but opens the player up to an AC penalty or an attack of opportunity or some other misfortune. That way it doesn't subtract from the to hit roll, which has always felt a little weird. But over all I like Reaper Steve's suggestion alot.


----------



## Deset Gled (Nov 19, 2007)

Gah!  There is a really simple design point here that WotC keeps dancing around without ever saying directly.

*You cannot balance open ended bonuses.*

This is a lesson we have learned many times.  We learned it in damage reduction, with the problem of the skeletons "1/2 damage from slashing weapons" DR.  We learned it in AC with all of the debates around the Monk's Belt.  We learned it in charging with Rhino Hide armor.  And here, we learned it one more time with Power Attack.

WotC must learn to stop giving things open ended bonuses.  Until they do, they will find something to "revise" in every edition they ever produce, because balance will change in every splat book they release, eventually ending in some open ended bonus  being labeled "broken".


----------



## Merlin the Tuna (Nov 19, 2007)

*Edit:* Off topic.  Carry on.


----------



## sidonunspa (Nov 19, 2007)

Merlin the Tuna said:
			
		

> *Edit:* Off topic.  Carry on.




lol never seen that before...

maybe a flat +5/-5 will end up replacing power attack.. 

still be useful, but standerd...


----------



## frankthedm (Nov 19, 2007)

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> WotC must learn to stop giving things open ended bonuses.  Until they do, they will find something to "revise" in every edition they every produce, because balance will change in every splat book they release, eventually ending in some open ended bonus  being labeled "broken".



The open eneded bonuses are a problem at times, but more often it is the multiplication of those bonuses that cause the breaking.

Extended crits
Charging with lance and or spirited charge
Leap Attack
FB Greater and Supreme power attack.

All increased the problem of the open ended damage bonus of power atatck.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Nov 19, 2007)

An interesting option for power attack might be to say the feat simply gives a +1d4 bonus to damage, with no penalty on attack. The cost is then in taking the feat (rather than any other feat) and just not worry about a penalty to hit.


----------



## ShadowX (Nov 19, 2007)

It seems rather obvious to me that power attack's original purpose lay in patching up the attack bonus scaling problems in the core game.  The disparity in attack bonuses between classes put the designers in a sticky situation regarding the AC of monsters because if it challenged fighters then other classes had no chance of hitting it, yet you catered to classes with less attack bonus and the fighters were guaranteed a hit.  Power Attack allowed the designers to reduce monster AC since fighters could convert excess attack bonus to damage.  This also, conveniently, helped to scale fighter damage as the game progressed.

Unfortunately, splat books brought too many ways to multiply damage and Power Attack quickly escalated in effectiveness.  Nearly every high damage melee build requires Power Attack.  So whether it is to clean up balance or reduce calculations, Power Attack needs a fix.


----------



## frankthedm (Nov 19, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> An interesting option for power attack might be to say the feat simply gives a +1d4 bonus to damage, with no penalty on attack. The cost is then in taking the feat (rather than any other feat) and just not worry about a penalty to hit.



That is  a smidge better than weapon specialization, which is supposed to be a decent and class exclusive feat. And you see, by nixing power attack, other damage based feats no longer have to be 'competitive' with power attack. And thus, this is one way damage escalation will be kept in check in 4E.


----------



## SteveC (Nov 19, 2007)

I remember asking a question about why power attack was mentioned as the be-all-end-all of melee combat a while ago, and the answer that I got was that it really wasn't, it was fantastic with add-ons.

Power attack is really a great way to cause yourself to miss if you don't think about how to use it. However, taking it in conjunction with True Strike, Wraith Strike, Shock Trooper and then using a two handed weapon with Favored Enemy Power Attack, well, there you've got something.

From playing Neverwinter Nights 2, a flat -5/+5 or -10/+10 with a feat works for me.

--Steve


----------



## WayneLigon (Nov 19, 2007)

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> WotC must learn to stop giving things open ended bonuses.  Until they do, they will find something to "revise" in every edition they ever produce, because balance will change in every splat book they release, eventually ending in some open ended bonus  being labeled "broken".




Eh, it's another 'damned if you do/don't' scenario for them. They cap it, and then they get an equal amount of people complaining about 'Well, why is it capped at x?'. _Wizard _ had a really simple means of capping magic item usage, for instance: you could never have more than five active items on your person at once, period. WoTC could do something similar for D&D but likely it would feel artificial and then people would trot out things like 'Giants are massive, why is their Power Attack mod the same as the one for a halfling?'


----------



## Black Knight Irios (Nov 19, 2007)

I like PA as it is written now. Sure you can boost your damage really high, but you still have to hit to see any gain in having a high damage potential. It does scale, that's a great thing and you can choose how "wild" you swing (I can make a descision other than I attack). And it is not PA's fault that combat expertise is capped at -5/+5, but it's own -- CE should be open ended as PA is.

All people here that suggest extra feats for PA, I don't know what you are doing but how many feats does a fighter (any other class) have. Does she get extra feats for every PA feat you present here?

The idea PA schould reduce AC not to hit, would make my DM cry (those tears wouldn't be tears of joy...).

PA is one of the most used feats in our grps, it is powerful but then again improved initiative is used by nearly every 3rd character as well...


But I won't cry and spill hate for 4E because of this statement. For I do not know what feats/talents/powers/etc. there might be.


----------



## frankthedm (Nov 19, 2007)

SteveC said:
			
		

> From playing Neverwinter Nights 2, a flat -5/+5 or -10/+10 with a feat works for me.



The problem with that is it still allows _the player_ to choose a bonus that was supposed to be _to hit_, to instead go _to damage_. A bonus to hit currently HAS to be treated as "more valuable" because it can be fluxed _to damage_. By killing that option, bonuses to hit can be granted more often since that bonus is only gong to be _to hit_. Thus characters who need that bonus to hit can be given a 'leg up' by the ruleset, since “hitting is fun”, without risking a more optimized build to turn said ‘leg up’ into damage potential.


----------



## Daniel D. Fox (Nov 19, 2007)

We houseruled it to allow a bonus to strike equal to his Fighter level whenever a character drops to 1/3 his HP or lower (and renamed it Desperate Attack).

Sounds like if the 4th edition uses Bloodied as a condition, that it will convert easily to simply allow Power Attack as a Fighter maneuver/talent/whatever they call it whenever the player is Bloodied.


----------



## Remathilis (Nov 19, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> The problem with that is it still allows _the player_ to choose a bonus that was supposed to be _to hit_, to instead go _to damage_. A bonus to hit currently HAS to be treated as "more valuable" because it can be fluxed _to damage_. By killing that option, bonuses to hit can be granted more often since that bonus is only gong to be _to hit_. Thus characters who need that bonus to hit can be given a 'leg up' by the ruleset, since “hitting is fun”, without risking a more optimized build to turn said ‘leg up’ into damage potential.




True.

The Remathilis way of using Power Attack.

Me: Ok, what bonuses are floating around right now?
Cleric: I have bless up, +1 to hit
Bard: Bardsong for +2
Wizard: I hasted everyone, that a +1 to hit.
Me: Great. [To DM] I'm Power Attacking for four...


----------



## SteveC (Nov 19, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> The problem with that is it still allows _the player_ to choose a bonus that was supposed to be _to hit_, to instead go _to damage_. A bonus to hit currently HAS to be treated as "more valuable" because it can be fluxed _to damage_. By killing that option, bonuses to hit can be granted more often since that bonus is only gong to be _to hit_. Thus characters who need that bonus to hit can be given a 'leg up' by the ruleset, since “hitting is fun”, without risking a more optimized build to turn said ‘leg up’ into damage potential.



Sure...I see where you're coming from. I think the real problem is that once you hit, it doesn't matter by how much...unless it's that natural 20 and a crit. In a game that I'm currently working on I give a bonus to damage based on hitting by 10 or more...I use Power Attack to be -5 to hit, but automatically give the bonus to damage. It works fairly well. I like the idea of taking power attack to permanently change how you attack, actually. I think that would be very much in tune with the intent of the feat, as opposed to how it's actually applied.

--Steve


----------



## Lord Zardoz (Nov 19, 2007)

If I were going to modify power attack, I would be tempted to set it up as a toggle that for every X points of penalty you took, you added one extra damage die to your attack.  I would want to keep the feat open ended, so some mechanism that prevented you from dumping beyond what your Bab would allow would null out, such as "If your bab - the power attack cost is negative, you cannot further power up a power attack".

Example, assuming Power attack cost 4 points per die and a fighter with Bab 7:
Normal attack Longsword:  +7 to hit, 1d8+4 damage (bonus damage from wpn spec, str, etc)
Power attack at -4:  +3 to hit, 2d8+8 damage
Power attack at -8:  -1 to hit, 3d8+12
Power attack at -12:  Not possible 

This allows the feat to still be open ended, but it simplifies the calculations that lead to min maxing by allowing few combinations.

Alternately, I could see allowing a pure 'toggle' or on / off power attack that made a successful hit count give the same extra dice as a critical hit, and still allow an actual critical hit on top of it, using the existing rules that would apply for things like a critical hit on a lance charge (for time X damage, add X-1 damage dice).

Normal attack for longsword(x2 crit):  1d8+4
Power attack for longsword:  2d8+8
POwer attack + critical for longsword:  3d8+12

Normal attack for great axe (x3 crit):  1d12+4
Power attack for longsword:  3d12+8
Power attack + critical for longsword:  5d12+12

This makes the Power attack a simple toggle effect while preserving the synergy for high crit damage with power attack.

END COMMUNICATION


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Nov 19, 2007)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Umm, not to belittle your feelings, but that sounds like a bug to me. Power attacking with a rapier just seems wrong... :\



And not to belittle your feelings, but that attitude in the designers and the 3.5 changes to PA were the real bug as far as I was concerned. The name of the feat is "power attack" so that flavor has to suffuse the game experince and balance be damned?

Reducing your chance to hit to get better damage if you do can be represented just as well by a carefully aimed thrust into an armor chink (that they may dodge more easily because you are telegraphing the move as you aim) as by a wild swing. Changing the mechanics to follow ill concieved flavor was a horrible move for no benefit to anyone. The idea that PA was "broken" with smaller weapons because it actually helped catch them up to the damage output of large ones basicly said "there is only one way we want you to deal damage if you aren't a rogue and thats with a big honking weapon. If you want to play a swashbuckler without being a rogue, *too bad!* Your damage output will suck and we like it that way!"

'Options not restrictions' my left Complete book....


----------



## Driddle (Nov 19, 2007)

JDJblatherings said:
			
		

> oh yeah, it takes ages to subtract form one number and add to another number.  :\




Careful there. You'll be yelled at as an anti-anti-mathist, someone who picks on people who can't add and subtract. It happens every few months.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Nov 19, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> An interesting option for power attack might be to say the feat simply gives a +1d4 bonus to damage, with no penalty on attack. The cost is then in taking the feat (rather than any other feat) and just not worry about a penalty to hit.




I was thinking along these lines as well, altho a lean towards the idea of being a favored feat for the greatsword weilding barbarian... reimagining the 'take a huge swing' as, well, a huge swing!

*alt.Power Attack*
 As a Full Attack, make a melee attack at your normal BAB plus a bonus that is based on the number of attacks you normally would have. You gain +2 to hit  for each attack normally available.
 You also gain bonus damage dice based on your Strength Modifier as shown in the table below for each of your normal attacks. These additional dice are not multiplied on a Critical Hit.
 You suffer a -4 penalty to AC until the start of your next round due to the recklessness of the attack.

```
1                  1d3
           2                  1d4
           3                  1d6
           4                  1d8
           5                  2d6
           6                  2d8
           7                  3d6
           8                  3d8
          etc...
```


Examples:[sblock]
_First level fighter _ with Str of 18 could Power Attack once per round, gaining +2 to hit, +1D8 damage, and suffer -4 to AC

_A 20th level Fighter_, could Power Attack once per round and a Str of 22 would gain +10 to hit and +10D8 to damage.

_A stock Hill Giant_ with a Str of 25 could Power Attack once per round.. going from:
Greatclub +16/+11 melee (2d8+10) 
to:
Greatclub +20 melee (2d8+6D6+10) 

er... ouch!     
But actually thats the averages out to be about the same additional damage {+9 PA = 18 pts additional damage} , altho the attack is more likely to hit... and he is slower {full attack} and easier to hit {-4 to AC}

[/sblock]

This auto scales and negates any math questions. Further feats might look like:

*Improved alt.Power Attack*
Prereq: 3 Iterative attacks
As a Full Attack, you may make two Power Attacks.

*Rapid alt.Power Attack*
Prereq: Str 24
You may Power Attack as a Standard Action, gaining the normal benefits and penalties.

Anyway, thats probably far enough off topic for today!


----------



## Nifft (Nov 19, 2007)

IMHO, Power Attack with a Rapier = *Lunge*.

- - -

Anyway, I basically agree with Tweet. I dislike the fiddly bits of Power Attack, from players who forget to use it to monsters who shouldn't have any way of knowing precisely how much to use it. It rewards meta-game knowledge too much.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Nov 19, 2007)

Driddle said:
			
		

> Careful there. You'll be yelled at as an anti-anti-mathist, someone who picks on people who can't add and subtract. It happens every few months.




Some people have trouble subtracting shifting numbers on a repated time-pressure basis.  Many of these people are more intelligent than the majority of anti-mathists.  It's why THAC0 went away.


----------



## Spatula (Nov 19, 2007)

ShadowX said:
			
		

> It seems rather obvious to me that power attack's original purpose lay in patching up the attack bonus scaling problems in the core game.  The disparity in attack bonuses between classes put the designers in a sticky situation regarding the AC of monsters because if it challenged fighters then other classes had no chance of hitting it, yet you catered to classes with less attack bonus and the fighters were guaranteed a hit.  Power Attack allowed the designers to reduce monster AC since fighters could convert excess attack bonus to damage.  This also, conveniently, helped to scale fighter damage as the game progressed.



Yes, exactly.  While PA does contribute to battle-slow-down-syndrome (which is bad), it also gives you something to do with your otherwise-worthless excessive hit bonuses (which is good).  If PA does go away, they're going to have to find something else for warrior-types to use their attack bonuses on.



			
				JDJblatherings said:
			
		

> oh yeah, it takes ages to subtract form one number and add to another number.



The adding & subtracting isn't hard.  The problem is that as you go up in levels (or even just move around a battlefield), you start racking up all sorts of different bonuses, and applying them all (or even _remembering_ to apply them all) slows the game down.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Nov 19, 2007)

I'm happy that this is recognized as an obstruction to play.  I had thought this was exactly the type of thing that was being expanded to every single level for every single character.  I don't play D&D to do bistro math.


----------



## Klaus (Nov 19, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> All Power Attack, All the Time.
> 
> Problem solved.



 QFMFT.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Nov 19, 2007)

JDJblatherings said:
			
		

> oh yeah, it takes ages to subtract form one number and add to another number.  :\




At any given time, no.

But...

A) Lots of people--smart people, educated people--stumble when asked to do even simple math quickly.

B) The complexity of the math increases _fast_ when dealing with crits (or other abilities that increase damage).

C) Even a small delay is significant when added to the length of time a high-level round of 3E combat already takes, or when added up every round over the course of a session.


----------



## Goblyn (Nov 19, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> > Originally Posted by Wulf Ratbane
> > All Power Attack, All the Time.
> >
> > Problem solved.
> ...




Most definitely.


----------



## Wormwood (Nov 20, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> C) Even a small delay is significant when added to the length of time a high-level round of 3E combat already takes, or when added up every round over the course of a session.




Bingo.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Nov 20, 2007)

JDJblatherings said:
			
		

> oh yeah, it takes ages to subtract form one number and add to another number.  :\



A ringing endorsement of THAC0!


----------



## frankthedm (Nov 20, 2007)

Originally Posted by Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> All Power Attack, All the Time.
> 
> Problem solved.



 Solves very little. An optimized build then deals far too much damage for a character of his level and the non optimized character never hits. Damage bonuses that come in precise amounts from feats along the lines of weapon specialization can be accounted for in balancing characters with far more regularity than the power attacker with the keen falchion.

And make no mistake, damage dealing feats in 4E will be far more in line with Weapon specialization rather than power attack.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Nov 20, 2007)

How about for a fixed escalation of attack roll penalty (-3/6/9), the character gets an extra damage die of some type (d6, or same die as weapon) per penalty range taken:

-3: +1d6
-6: +2d6
-9: +3d6


----------



## Nifft (Nov 20, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> C) Even a small delay is significant when added to the length of time a high-level round of 3E combat already takes, or when added up every round over the course of a session.



 Yep. And it gets a lot worse at higher levels -- the number of bonuses increase, the number of attacks per critter increase, and the number of critters on the board increase. Cubic escalation of annoyance? No thank you.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Amphimir Míriel (Nov 20, 2007)

sidonunspa said:
			
		

> ya but it was the only way for some fighters to = out the damage output of casters...
> 
> I always thought that was the purpose of the feat






			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Umm, not to belittle your feelings, but that sounds like a bug to me. Power attacking with a rapier just seems wrong... :\




Which shows that the feat was not doing what it was designed to do (_You Puny! Thog kill you!!_ -type of unsophisticated, yet powerful strokes), and instead it was being picked up by all kinds of martial characters in order to be able to *do something*!


---


			
				Merlin the Tuna said:
			
		

> Warblade + Diamond Mind is how manly men make swashbucklers, just so you know.



Thanks Merlin the Tuna, for another example of "bad rules forcing players to bend rules from one concept to another" (the "no-weapons-swordsage as a better-monk-than-the-monk" is another prime example)


----------



## Blair Goatsblood (Nov 20, 2007)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> PA grinds my brain to a halt every time I use it.  I never did well on those timed math tests as a kid.  I have to have a cheat sheet that shows me what happens for +5 PA and +10 PA and never pick anything other than one of those two.
> 
> As DM I always pre-include it in monster stats.




As a DM, I've made it a prerequisite for the feat that the player must fill out attack entries on the character sheet for whatever level of power attack they will be using.


----------



## Inconsequenti-AL (Nov 20, 2007)

Really like Power Attack's results - IMO, it's nice for a high level fighter type to be able to splatter someone from time to time - and helps them keep up with the neighbours (spellcasters). 

But do find it one of the most complex bits of the game - sat on top of a pile of 'fiddly' buffs... IME, can result in a fair bit of slowdown - with multiple attacks and crits all piling up.

Personally, I'd like to see fighter types given some more interesting options to play with instead of 'I hit the monster'. The talk of per encounter and per day special abilities would IMO seem to fit the ticket? It could negate the need for power attack... When it's time to kill things, Mr(s) Fighty would pull out the special moves?

Edit: And while I think about it, they would need to fix what started our group using Power Attack... a monster with DR 15/Weapons You Don't Have and the 'Runs Faster Than You' ability. It was a TPK for our lovely party of Dual Weilding/Sword and Board guys. Sniff.


----------



## Azgulor (Nov 20, 2007)

TerraDave said:
			
		

> Its sad to see a parent turn on a child, from his blog:




Sigh.  Another "fix" to something that never arose as broken at my gaming table.


----------



## Hejdun (Nov 20, 2007)

I think 3.5 Power Attack had 2 problems:

1)  It made 2-handed weapons obviously superior to sword and shield, to the point that there's really no point in having a (non-animated) shield anymore as a fighter.  At least in 3.0 the disparity wasn't as bad.

2)  The fact that it multiplied resulted in unintended slaughter.  Scythe is a good example.  Charging with a lance is another (seriously, _ouch_).

Going back to 3.0 Power Attack is pointless, since in 3.0 its sole purpose was as a pre-req for Cleave.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (Nov 20, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> True.
> 
> The Remathilis way of using Power Attack.
> 
> ...




Truly the Path to Enlightenment


----------



## Olaf the Stout (Nov 20, 2007)

JDJblatherings said:
			
		

> that's a tabletop play-time management issue.
> 
> DM "well what does olaf do?"
> 
> ...




I do what now?

Olaf the Stout


----------



## Michael Silverbane (Nov 20, 2007)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> How about for a fixed escalation of attack roll penalty (-3/6/9), the character gets an extra damage die of some type (d6, or same die as weapon) per penalty range taken:
> 
> -3: +1d6
> -6: +2d6
> -9: +3d6




That's kind of what I was thinking, as well...  Plus you get the added bonus of seeing fighters rolling a handfull of d6...  That way they won't feel left out.

Later
silver


----------



## Goobermunch (Nov 20, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> EverQuest is just like Halo, except instead of running around a savanna in the back of a quad, firing a machine gun, you sit in the corner of a dungeon, not daring to move, for six hours, and after every fight, you wait 10 minutes to recharge before the one guy allowed to see the rest of the dungeon goes back out and brings (hopefully) a single monster back to where six people are waiting to jump him.
> 
> It was a _riveting_ experience.




Sigg'd.

--G


----------



## CleverNickName (Nov 20, 2007)

Good riddance to bad rubbish.


----------



## Dragonblade (Nov 20, 2007)

BadMojo said:
			
		

> Underperforming?  Power attack?
> 
> I think Power Attack was many things, but underperforming wasn't one of 'em.  It was pretty much a no-brainer for anyone wielding a two-handed weapon (except for maybe the party wizard with his staff).
> 
> I think this is one situation where overly enthusiastic power gamers are more to blame for any slow downs in game play.  It isn't the feat's fault if you're constantly spending 5 minutes a turn trying to squeak out that last 0.10 HP of damage.




Yes, Power Attack is a great feat. But we never messed around with the sliding damage. Pretty much the only people to take Power Attack were two-handed weapon wielders.

Then it was pretty much -5 hit, +10 to damage!! Hopefully, the 4e feat will just work like that.

And hopefully it won't be nerfed in 4e. -5 to hit and +5 damage is too weak to make the feat viable, in my opinion. One point of attack bonus is worth more than one point of damage.


----------



## Dragonblade (Nov 20, 2007)

Hejdun said:
			
		

> I think 3.5 Power Attack had 2 problems:
> 
> 1)  It made 2-handed weapons obviously superior to sword and shield, to the point that there's really no point in having a (non-animated) shield anymore as a fighter.  At least in 3.0 the disparity wasn't as bad.
> 
> ...




Multiples of damage is a good thing. It keeps the game exciting and fast paced.

Power attack is perfectly balanced at full effect for dual wielders. -5 to hit, +10 damage is perfect. Shield users should just be beefed up to compensate. +2 or more to AC instead of just +1 for using a shield. Or just say that shields provide a DR bonus in addition or instead of an AC bonus.


----------



## FireLance (Nov 20, 2007)

I'm thinking that Power Attack may no longer be necessary in 4e. If fighters have access to per encounter and per day abilities, these abilities may be enough to keep up with the spellcasters. If access to abilities is based on the weapon used, then the major damage abilities could be restricted to big two-handed weapons like the greatsword and the greataxe, while light and finesse weapons like daggers and rapiers get other types of abilities, e.g. accurate or wounding attacks.


----------



## KB9JMQ (Nov 20, 2007)

I don't know if this is good or not.
We only used PA as a gateway to other feats.
It was written down on a character sheet and forgotten. So at least with my group it makes no difference.


----------



## Drowbane (Nov 20, 2007)

Lord Xtheth said:
			
		

> It's funny. I've ran with several different playing groups and many, MANY different playing styles since 3.0 came out and no one I ever played with used power attack as anything besides the requisite for cleave.




If you would be so kind as to email thier addresses, dates & times that they play and a small fee, I can have a Powergaming Tutor sent to each of those groups.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Nov 20, 2007)

I find it a bit funny that Power Attack was called weak. IME it was too strong due to very poor monster ACs.

Only classed characters with full plate and a heavy shield seemed to be able to avoid the raging barbarian's attacks (still getting hit on the first round, but probably not taking as much damage mathematically). Anyone else just got screwed over. I'm just glad mages had so many options for not getting into melee :0

(This was 3.5's 2:1 Power Attack, but nothing over-the-top like a Frenzied Berserker.)


----------



## frankthedm (Nov 20, 2007)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> Multiples of damage is a good thing. It keeps the game exciting and fast paced.



Not when those multipliers get accounted for in character builds. If someone plans for making attacks dealing x2 to x5 the normal damage of a character at his level, something ridiculous is going on.







			
				Dragonblade said:
			
		

> Power attack is perfectly balanced at full effect for dual wielders. -5 to hit, +10 damage is perfect. Shield users should just be beefed up to compensate.



 Thankfully, 4E won't be going the path of _"Something is broken, lets break everything else so they are equal."_They had plenty of that in 3.5 splat.







			
				Dragonblade said:
			
		

> +2 or more to AC instead of just +1 for using a shield.



That just gives more encouragement to FPAATT and shoot for 20’s.


----------



## mmadsen (Nov 20, 2007)

ShadowX said:
			
		

> It seems rather obvious to me that power attack's original purpose lay in patching up the attack bonus scaling problems in the core game.  The disparity in attack bonuses between classes put the designers in a sticky situation regarding the AC of monsters because if it challenged fighters then other classes had no chance of hitting it, yet you catered to classes with less attack bonus and the fighters were guaranteed a hit.  Power Attack allowed the designers to reduce monster AC since fighters could convert excess attack bonus to damage.  This also, conveniently, helped to scale fighter damage as the game progressed.



Well said.

It's important to note that power attack is most useful when (a) the attacker has a high probability of hitting, and (b) the attacker does not normally do much damage.

As this damage per attack spreadsheet points out -- assuming a single attack at -1 to hit for +1 to damage -- power attacking does not makes much difference once an attacker is doing serious damage.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 20, 2007)

For me, Power Attack was one of those feats that was useful at all levels. It could scale quite nicely. When dealing with foes with very high AC's, it's utility was somewhat diminished, but as Wulf notes, all power attack all the time, leads to some great stories.

It was also one of the first things about 3e that made me say, "Ah, this is different." than previous editions.

I'd played around with not even making Power Attack a feat, but rather a combat option. Why should you need a feat to put some extra effort into the attack after all?

I KNOW that the author is not saying this, but it reads to me, "Basic math is hard and well, people are stupid and we're going to make this game a snap to play!"

The author is actually saying, "Leave the mechanics behind the scenes and game on."

I don't like it.


----------



## Pygon (Nov 20, 2007)

I guess because he jokes about it so much that I'm just supposed to agree with him (or think everyone else is going to).  Nevertheless, I didn't mind Power Attack.  If you know you could hit easily, hell, use it all.  Or just use a little to get past that DR.  It seemed fine the way it was, except MAYBE was overpowered with the 2x with two-handers at high levels.

As was already hinted at, maybe PA as is won't be necessary in 4e for fighters to perform well (rather, it would be too powerful the way it is).  Fine, tell us that instead of all those extra words.  Along with "loving paladins now" and "thinking that everything they say about rules is obvious", I really don't like the way they communicate.  But, that's common at this point.


----------



## Storm Raven (Nov 20, 2007)

billd91 said:
			
		

> Power attack + 4x critical = lots of damage... if you get a critical.




And often, a lot of that extra damage is just wasted, as your foe would have been just as dead if you have inlficted 15 fewer hit points of damage.


----------



## Storm Raven (Nov 20, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> I'd played around with not even making Power Attack a feat, but rather a combat option. Why should you need a feat to put some extra effort into the attack after all?




We use a house rule as the flip side of fighting defensively: you can take a -4 to your attack roll to add +2 to your damage roll. Everyone can pump up their damage by swinging wildly, so having the Power Attack feat just means that you are especially skilled at doing this sort of thing.


----------



## Ahglock (Nov 20, 2007)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> Yes, Power Attack is a great feat. But we never messed around with the sliding damage. Pretty much the only people to take Power Attack were two-handed weapon wielders.
> 
> Then it was pretty much -5 hit, +10 to damage!! Hopefully, the 4e feat will just work like that.
> 
> And hopefully it won't be nerfed in 4e. -5 to hit and +5 damage is too weak to make the feat viable, in my opinion. One point of attack bonus is worth more than one point of damage.




Wow you could do that.  You could just pick a number and use that every round.  What a nifty option.  What would be really cool is if I could like have an option to change that number if I wanted to whenever I wanted to.  Sure I might stick with the same one for ease of play, but having the option to change it would be really cool.  

Oh wait  I could do that in 3e and you could keep a fixed number in 3e, in 4e you might be able to do what you were doing and I can't do what I was doing.  

If my options are reduced I'm not so sure I want to pay the ease of use tax.


----------



## Ahglock (Nov 20, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> I'd played around with not even making Power Attack a feat, but rather a combat option. Why should you need a feat to put some extra effort into the attack after all?





A lot of feats should be basic combat options.


----------



## Ahglock (Nov 20, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Not when those multipliers get accounted for in character builds. If someone plans for making attacks dealing x2 to x5 the normal damage of a character at his level, something ridiculous is going on. Thankfully, 4E won't be going the path of _"Something is broken, lets break everything else so they are equal."_They had plenty of that in 3.5 splat.That just gives more encouragement to FPAATT and shoot for 20’s.




That is a problem with the players IMO not the mechanics.   And its only a problem with the players if its a player or two that don't fit the group there in.

  Closing loopholes for power gamers can be a good thing.  When it weakens the options of the ordinary intended use for the non-power gamers its a bad thing.  

  I don't really care much if something can be broken.  I can pull out the hammer of mighty DMing to solve people who abuse the system.  I do care if its ordinary intended use is either to powerful or to weak.


----------



## Nifft (Nov 20, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> For me, Power Attack was one of those feats that was useful at all levels. It could scale quite nicely.



 Quote for mild dispute.

A 1st level Cleric or Druid with Str 13 might be interested in Power Attack, but he can't actually use it. Same for a strong Monk.

I'd like feats which are usable when you meet the pre-reqs. Rapid Shot, for example.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Dragonblade (Nov 20, 2007)

Ahglock said:
			
		

> Wow you could do that.  You could just pick a number and use that every round.  What a nifty option.  What would be really cool is if I could like have an option to change that number if I wanted to whenever I wanted to.  Sure I might stick with the same one for ease of play, but having the option to change it would be really cool.
> 
> Oh wait  I could do that in 3e and you could keep a fixed number in 3e, in 4e you might be able to do what you were doing and I can't do what I was doing.
> 
> If my options are reduced I'm not so sure I want to pay the ease of use tax.




Actually, I do think they should keep the option to slide damage. In fact, I think the feat as is, is perfect. Hopefully, it won't be changed.


----------



## Mercule (Nov 20, 2007)

Wait.  Seriously....  People have a hard time with the math for Power Attack?  I can understand being miffed if you've got someone running statistics on a spreadsheet or some such.  But, doing the math for -5 to hit, +5/+10 damage?  That totally and completely blows my mind.

What happens when a cashier gives you change?  That's a lot more complex, what with all the different values of coins and bills.


----------



## Nifft (Nov 20, 2007)

Mercule said:
			
		

> Wait.  Seriously....  People have a hard time with the math for Power Attack?



 No. But thanks for insulting our intelligence. It makes me want to read the rest of your post.

My players have a problem remembering to use and vary it every round.

My monsters have a terrible advantage in that I know the PC's ACs, and the monsters shouldn't.

In optimal cases, it takes up some (small) time every round. In sub-optimal cases, it's forgotten.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Dragonblade (Nov 20, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Thankfully, 4E won't be going the path of _"Something is broken, lets break everything else so they are equal."_They had plenty of that in 3.5 splat.That just gives more encouragement to FPAATT and shoot for 20’s.




See I disagree. I don't think power attack was too good. I think your basic shield wielder was too weak.

I disagree with the notion that everything has to completely wussified, watered down, and nerfed into blandness before its "balanced".


----------



## Mercule (Nov 20, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> No. But thanks for insulting our intelligence. It makes me want to read the rest of your post.




Odd.  You picked out something I didn't think was insulting.  Looking at my post, there probably is some fodder if you want to get huffy, but I wouldn't consider that line to be it.

I was seriously getting the impression that people were having a hard time doing that one calculation on the fly.  I honestly have a hard time believing that.

If you have an issue with the massive glut of simple modifiers and what a PITA that is, that's a totally different matter (and one I agree with).  I just don't see Power Attack as being a particularly bad offender.  The endless river of buff spells is a far, far worse offender.



> My players have a problem remembering to use and vary it every round.




This, I can empathize with.  I often forget modifiers, no matter which side of the screen I'm on.  I don't see anything stand-out about Power Attack in this regard, either.  Again, I'd point the finger at the magical buffs.  My group tends to use them extremely sparingly and I'm pretty sure it's because no one ever remembers to apply them, anyway.

As I said, I can see the basic premise that lots of little bits of math add up and/or get forgotten.  I completely fail to see why Power Attack is specifically vexing or poorly designed.

On its own, it's pretty darn simple.  When it's just one more ornament on the tree, the problem isn't that the bulb is too shiny, it's that there are too many bulbs.


----------



## Mercule (Nov 20, 2007)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> See I disagree. I don't think power attack was too good. I think your basic shield wielder was too weak.




Agreed.  The feat tree made it more easier to get a good shield bonus from a non-magic dagger (and TWF) than a non-magic shield.


----------



## Nifft (Nov 20, 2007)

Mercule said:
			
		

> If you have an issue with the massive glut of simple modifiers and what a PITA that is, that's a totally different matter (and one I agree with).



 That's it exactly. It's not that the math is too *hard*. It's that it's piled onto a bunch of other (trivial) calculations which together become hard to remember and manage. (Again, not hard as in it's tough math, hard as in it's more math than is fun to do 4-5 times per round every round.)



			
				Mercule said:
			
		

> This, I can empathize with.  I often forget modifiers, no matter which side of the screen I'm on.  I don't see anything stand-out about Power Attack in this regard, either.  Again, I'd point the finger at the magical buffs.  My group tends to use them extremely sparingly and I'm pretty sure it's because no one ever remembers to apply them, anyway.
> 
> As I said, I can see the basic premise that lots of little bits of math add up and/or get forgotten.  I completely fail to see why Power Attack is specifically vexing or poorly designed.
> 
> On its own, it's pretty darn simple.  When it's just one more ornament on the tree, the problem isn't that the bulb is too shiny, it's that there are too many bulbs.



 The meta-game issue is my biggest beef. As a DM I'm stuck either playing my monsters stupider than the players are playing their PCs, or I'm potentially giving the monsters more information than they should have.

It's a fine mechanic, if information is equally hidden on both sides of the screen, and the folks on both sides are equally adept with the math. But information is asymmetrically distributed, and some people are better at math than others.

Thus, my beef rephrased: the real limit to optimal Power Attack use is information -- specifically, AC. Players who memorize the Monster Manual are rewarded; DMs are put in the uncomfortable position of having more useful information than they "should". I don't like it when mechanics reward meta-gaming.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Kintara (Nov 20, 2007)

JDJblatherings said:
			
		

> that's a tabletop play-time management issue.
> 
> DM "well what does olaf do?"
> 
> ...



Sounds like...fun.


----------



## Toben the Many (Nov 20, 2007)

Power Attack was a horrible time-waster. Good riddance. 

It was a horrible time-waster on many different levels. If a player sat there and thought about their attack roll for a few seconds, no big deal. But what happened was those few extra seconds would slow down the whole game, because everyone else was taking a few extra seconds, too. It just added more of this: "Um...I do...uh...no wait. I do this...hold on..." to the game.

Also, power attack got complex and time-consuming when you factored it in with all of your buffs and boosts. 

"Oo! I got Bull's Strength. We'll I'm sure to hit him now. Wait, maybe I should power attack for 2 points, channeling my extra +2 to hit into damage. Plus, I'm two-handing it so I'd add +4 points to damage."

"Don't forget, you got bless."

"That's right! Maybe I should power attack for -3 to hit."

"You also could smite evil." 

"I could do that. And channel even more of my to-hit into damage. Plus I get damage from smiting."

"So what are you going to do?"

"Okay, wait. I have a question. What if I...."


----------



## Mercule (Nov 20, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> That's it exactly. It's not that the math is too *hard*. It's that it's piled onto a bunch of other (trivial) calculations which together become hard to remember and manage. (Again, not hard as in it's tough math, hard as in it's more math than is fun to do 4-5 times per round every round.)




Ah.  Cool.  That's not what I'd been picking up from the thread.  I'll admit, though, that I'm a bit tired and my comprehension may be low.  Similarly, I might be a bit non-communitcative.  Mostly, I was just being a bit good-naturedly sarcastic.  Sorry if it reads as snarkiness.


----------



## billd91 (Nov 20, 2007)

Mercule said:
			
		

> What happens when a cashier gives you change?  That's a lot more complex, what with all the different values of coins and bills.




For some people, that's not really math. But once it's _obviously_ math, they might as well be deer caught in the headlights. I have a friend who can figure out a 20% tip on a restaurant check, but tell her she'd doing math and suddenly she can no longer do it.


----------



## billd91 (Nov 20, 2007)

Toben the Many said:
			
		

> Power Attack was a horrible time-waster. Good riddance.
> 
> It was a horrible time-waster on many different levels. If a player sat there and thought about their attack roll for a few seconds, no big deal. But what happened was those few extra seconds would slow down the whole game, because everyone else was taking a few extra seconds, too. It just added more of this: "Um...I do...uh...no wait. I do this...hold on..." to the game.




Meh. You get this in any game with a significant number of choices before you. Power attack is no different  in this regard than choosing to fight defensively, use combat expertise, or any other tactic that trades penalties for bonuses.


----------



## babomb (Nov 20, 2007)

Scribble said:
			
		

> Dude we already determined this between 2e and 3e.
> 
> Also... I wonder how it would work if you switched it to instead of a 1 for 1 bonus you made it a certain number of points buys you a certain die for extra damage. ie: 1 point = 1d2 2 points = 1d3 3 points = 1d4 and so on...



On average?
1d2 = 1.5 dmg
1d3 = 2 dmg
1d4 = 2.5 dmg
...
1dn = (n+1)/2 dmg

While a coarser gradation does make the feat simpler, it doesn't mean you can't crunch the numbers on it. It may speed up the decision process, but there's an even simpler solution: tell your player he's delaying until he can figure it out and move on.


----------



## Najo (Nov 20, 2007)

How about this:



Power Attack (pre: Str 13+)

You may choose to use power attack as a full-round action. Make a single melee attack. If the attack hits your foe, add a damage bonus to your attack equal to the amount your attack roll is greater than your foe's armor class. If your attack misses, your opponent may make an attack of opportunity against you. 

You may only use this feat once per round. 


Or you can do this:

You may choose to use power attack as a full-round action. Make a single melee attack. If your attack hits your foe, you automatically cause a critical hit. If your attack misses, your opponent may make an attack of opportunity against you. 

You may only use this feat once per round.


----------



## Deverash (Nov 20, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> My monsters have a terrible advantage in that I know the PC's ACs, and the monsters shouldn't.




Well, if you consider that the players know the monsters AC within 2 rounds of combat in most cases, I don't see that you knowing the ACs of the PCs (that are being attacked) is that much worse.


----------



## Gloombunny (Nov 20, 2007)

Najo said:
			
		

> If the attack hits your foe, add a damage bonus to your attack equal to the amount your attack roll is greater than your foe's armor class.



This strikes me as a much better way to solve the "more BAB than I ever need" issue.


----------



## Kintara (Nov 20, 2007)

Deverash said:
			
		

> Well, if you consider that the players know the monsters AC within 2 rounds of combat in most cases, I don't see that you knowing the ACs of the PCs (that are being attacked) is that much worse.



Most monsters die within five rounds, in my experience. If the monster dies in the fourth round, then two rounds is nothing to dismiss.


----------



## Gloombunny (Nov 20, 2007)

Oh, and guys, the tricky-math part of Power Attack isn't figuring how much extra damage you get for a given penalty.  It comes in when you're trying to decide what degree of PAing would result in optimal damage output based on your current net attack bonus and what you know of your target's AC.  It may not be advanced math, but it's lot of calculations to run through in your head every turn.

And yeah, of course a lot of people won't bother and will just guesstimate a value.  That's good!  The problem is that the tedious calculations actually yield better results in-game.  A system should not reward a player for slowing down the game.


----------



## Nifft (Nov 20, 2007)

Mercule said:
			
		

> Ah.  Cool.  That's not what I'd been picking up from the thread.  I'll admit, though, that I'm a bit tired and my comprehension may be low.  Similarly, I might be a bit non-communitcative.  Mostly, I was just being a bit good-naturedly sarcastic.  Sorry if it reads as snarkiness.



 No worries. Internet : vocal tone :: water : warforged blood.



			
				Deverash said:
			
		

> Well, if you consider that the players know the monsters AC within 2 rounds of combat in most cases, I don't see that you knowing the ACs of the PCs (that are being attacked) is that much worse.



 Average combat lasts 5 rounds, so that's about half. 

The way I usually fudge is to have the monsters either NOT power attack or power attack at a fixed -10 for 2-3 rounds.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Plane Sailing (Nov 20, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> That is  a smidge better than weapon specialization, which is supposed to be a decent and class exclusive feat. And you see, by nixing power attack, other damage based feats no longer have to be 'competitive' with power attack. And thus, this is one way damage escalation will be kept in check in 4E.




Full disclosure - we allowed Weapon Specialisation to be picked by anyone with BAB 4+. Fighters could still get it first (at 4th level, others have to wait until at least 6th), and it didn't reduce the number of fighters we had at all. So that point wouldn't have occurred to me.

I think that two merits of the approach I suggest are 
a) no calculations required on 'to hit' chance
b) damage doesn't get multiplied on crits

These are the two areas which can lead to maths-related slowdowns (and in terms of 3.5e style 2H power attack with a x3 or x4 crit weapon reduces the vast potential increase in damage from attacks at random intervals).

Those who want to give bigger benefit to 2H weapons could, I suppose, give +1d4 for 1H weapons and +1d6 for 2H weapons. But I don't see any need to give bigger bonuses to the weapons that do more damage anyway, frankly.

I think that KahunaBurger made a great point, which I'll make a second post to comment on


----------



## Plane Sailing (Nov 20, 2007)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> Reducing your chance to hit to get better damage if you do can be represented just as well by a carefully aimed thrust into an armor chink (that they may dodge more easily because you are telegraphing the move as you aim) as by a wild swing. Changing the mechanics to follow ill concieved flavor was a horrible move for no benefit to anyone. The idea that PA was "broken" with smaller weapons because it actually helped catch them up to the damage output of large ones basicly said "there is only one way we want you to deal damage if you aren't a rogue and thats with a big honking weapon. If you want to play a swashbuckler without being a rogue, *too bad!* Your damage output will suck and we like it that way!"




Really excellent point.

Although the flavour was 'wild powerful swings', the mechanics are simply reduce your chance to hit in order to cause more damage, and this could equally be achieved by simulating aiming at a chink in the armour or a slightly more vital location as KB suggests.

None of the DMs I game with used the 3.5e power attack, we completely stuck with the 3.0e version (I think it was the only 3.5e change we didn't use).

Cheers


----------



## Plane Sailing (Nov 20, 2007)

Inconsequenti-AL said:
			
		

> Really like Power Attack's results - IMO, it's nice for a high level fighter type to be able to splatter someone from time to time - and helps them keep up with the neighbours (spellcasters).




Gosh, even without power attack in the picture, our spellcasters struggle to keep up in the damage stakes with the fighters, who with massive strength, big weapons, critical hits and full attacks *completely* rule the roost in damage stakes.

Ooh, the wizard drops a fireball - 10d6, so that's 35 damage, half on a save, and take off the fire resistance. 7 damage gets through. Versus the fighter full attack, hit! 2d6+12 damage! Critical 4d6+24! (55 damage) cleave onto next guy! 2d6+12! etc etc. BTW, I'm understating the damage here, as I'm assuming 22 Str, weapon specialisation and +1 weapon; in reality it is likely to be more strength and better weapon magic)

The only time that a caster beat them in the damage stakes was a druid with the (overpowered?) incense of meditation, which maximises all his spells prepared that day - doing 60 with every flamestrike and 50 with every Call Lightning Storm bolt was a pretty tough act to follow (and no arcane caster could have managed it, at least not with core rules).

Cheers


----------



## Baby Samurai (Nov 20, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> None of the DMs I game with used the 3.5e power attack, we completely stuck with the 3.0e version (I think it was the only 3.5e change we didn't use).




I forget how 3.0 PA works – is it limited to -5?


----------



## FireLance (Nov 20, 2007)

Baby Samurai said:
			
		

> I forget how 3.0 PA works – is it limited to -5?



1 for 1 regardless of weapon, capped at BAB.


----------



## Spatula (Nov 20, 2007)

3.0 version could be used with all weapons and didn't change results depending on the type of weapon.  This resulted in it being better with smaller weapons than larger ones, so the revised version bars it from being used with light weapons and doubles the return with 2-handers, which creates problems of its own.


----------



## ruemere (Nov 20, 2007)

Lovely thing about Power Attack was its use by BBEGs. Giants, Monstrous Humanoids, Dragons and Golems had a field day with that. Of course, the players could have a field day with that feat, too. They just delegated one character to perform successful grapple, and let the rest use Power Attack at full power.

Regards,
Ruemere


----------



## Baby Samurai (Nov 20, 2007)

FireLance said:
			
		

> 1 for 1 regardless of weapon, capped at BAB.




Ah, thanks.

Funnily enough in the current _Planescape_ campaign I'm running we have ported over many of the changes from _Saga_, and a 2 to 1 ratio for Power Attacking two-handed is one of them.


----------



## Klaus (Nov 20, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Really excellent point.
> 
> Although the flavour was 'wild powerful swings', the mechanics are simply reduce your chance to hit in order to cause more damage, and this could equally be achieved by simulating aiming at a chink in the armour or a slightly more vital location as KB suggests.
> 
> ...



 How's about "reduce attack to increase threat range"? Call it, I dunno, Precisie Strike, and have Weapon Finesse as a prerequisite, and it can't be used with Power Attack and Combat Expertise.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Nov 20, 2007)

I think Tweet is overreacting.  I've used, and DM'd, 3.5 PA in many games, and in no case did I find it broken, nor did it slow the game down any more than any other damage mechanic in the game.  I encouraged players to pre-calculate some set PA levels and write them on their sheet, and then it works like any other attack.  It did encourage more two-handed weapons in play, but that was a nice change from what would have otherwise been a bunch of sword-and-shields.

Can it be used for some sort of spreadsheet-based horror?  Sure, and if some players find it fun to do that, more power to them.  I suspect that's more the exception than the rule.  I've personally seen more all-power-attack-all-the-time.  And in my opinion, an game element that allows for multiple styles of play is a good thing for players.

For the DM, it wasn't much more complicated, and it made a range of monsters much more impressive.

I'm starting to see too much from the 4E team that seems like they are changing what isn't broken just for the sake of change.


----------



## Najo (Nov 20, 2007)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> I think Tweet is overreacting.  I've used, and DM'd, 3.5 PA in many games, and in no case did I find it broken, nor did it slow the game down any more than any other damage mechanic in the game.  I encouraged players to pre-calculate some set PA levels and write them on their sheet, and then it works like any other attack.  It did encourage more two-handed weapons in play, but that was a nice change from what would have otherwise been a bunch of sword-and-shields.
> 
> Can it be used for some sort of spreadsheet-based horror?  Sure, and if some players find it fun to do that, more power to them.  I suspect that's more the exception than the rule.  I've personally seen more all-power-attack-all-the-time.  And in my opinion, an game element that allows for multiple styles of play is a good thing for players.
> 
> ...




They are making changes that speed up play and remove metagaming, both of which are good. Power attack can be fixed to work with these interests in mind.


----------



## Najo (Nov 20, 2007)

Najo said:
			
		

> How about this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I like feedback on these two ideas. How do they stack up to fixing the problem? Pros and cons please.


----------



## amethal (Nov 20, 2007)

Some players should simply not be allowed to play certain characters.

For instance, a character who uses a bastard sword, sometimes in one hand and sometimes in two, sometimes raging, sometimes polymorphed should only be allowed to take power attack if either his mental arithmetic is up to the challenge or his notes are very good.

Otherwise, the game slows down to a crawl.

However, power attack is just one of many contributing factors.


----------



## BryonD (Nov 20, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Really excellent point.
> 
> Although the flavour was 'wild powerful swings', the mechanics are simply reduce your chance to hit in order to cause more damage, and this could equally be achieved by simulating aiming at a chink in the armour or a slightly more vital location as KB suggests.
> 
> Cheers



I disagree.  For one thing, there is a difference between flavor and design intent.

Further, I don't see flat damage bonuses as capturing the vital spot feel nearly as well as the wild powerful swings feel.  A complimetary feat that added sneak attack dice or improved critical hit effects would be a better match for "vital location" attacks.  Obviously, opinions vary, but that is how I see it.  

More on the main topic, I have loved PA in both 3E and 3.5 incarnations and it has added a lot of fun to the game.  But the concept can certainly be captured other ways, so I won't assume anything negative toward 4E yet.

I do find myself tired of the WotC decrying of 3X stuff.  Did they (or just Tweet) think PA sucked for a long time and simply wasn't up to the task to addressing it or even admitting it?  Or has the desire to sell 4E influenced a sudden insight?  Either way it is pretty shallow.  There are spots that I've felt 3X needed improvement for a while.  But my level of interest in 4E has had no bearing on that opinion.  It certainly makes it hard to believe anything else that they say.  And it also makes it hard to defend WotC's quite reasonable choices from the attacks of the "WotC is just a money-grabbing corporation out to pull one on you" fringe.


----------



## Wolfspider (Nov 20, 2007)

Najo said:
			
		

> How about this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Wow!  These are really good!  You should post them in the House Rules forum as well.

Thanks!


----------



## ehren37 (Nov 20, 2007)

BadMojo said:
			
		

> I think this is one situation where overly enthusiastic power gamers are more to blame for any slow downs in game play.  It isn't the feat's fault if you're constantly spending 5 minutes a turn trying to squeak out that last 0.10 HP of damage.




Yeah, this is sort of like saying Gather Information is a bad skill because your local drama whore wants to dig up dirt on EVRY. SINGLE. NPC.

The feat is fine.


----------



## glass (Nov 20, 2007)

Azgulor said:
			
		

> Sigh.  Another "fix" to something that never arose as broken at my gaming table.



Why do people keep saying that? Does everyone really think that their table is the only one that matters? 


glass.


----------



## TerraDave (Nov 20, 2007)

5 pages in less then 24 hours. I think its time for:

a poll!


----------



## Baby Samurai (Nov 20, 2007)

glass said:
			
		

> Why do people keep saying that? Does everyone really think that their table is the only one that matters?




Yep, just like people feel that WotC releasing 4th Ed is a personal, vindictive move to rape their wallets and ruin their gaming experience…


----------



## glass (Nov 20, 2007)

Mercule said:
			
		

> But, doing the math for -5 to hit, +5/+10 damage?  That totally and completely blows my mind.



Except -5 to hit does not add +10 damage. It adds +10 to damage _on a successful hit_. Since you have to decide to use it (and for how much) before you roll to hit, you need to figure out how much it adds to (or subtracts from) _expected_ damage. Which is a lot more complicated -requiring you to figure out your damage from other sources know the AC of your target.

Funny how, with the maths apparently being so simple, you didn't get it right, eh?  


glass.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Nov 20, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> I disagree.  For one thing, there is a difference between flavor and design intent.




True. 

I think the 3.5 revisers mixed the two up. In 3.0 it was a flavour thing (hence there was no mechanical difference), the 3.5 revisers decided to make it a design intent (hence the change to bar light weapons and boost 2H weapons (as if it were needed)).

I think the 3.0 designers were right (and to be honest they had a stack of a lot more playtesting behind them too)


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Nov 20, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Further, I don't see flat damage bonuses as capturing the vital spot feel nearly as well as the wild powerful swings feel.  A complimetary feat that added sneak attack dice or improved critical hit effects would be a better match for "vital location" attacks.  Obviously, opinions vary, but that is how I see it.



Seems like adding an extra layer of complication to the mechanic for the same end result (more damage). Making the feats balanced would require that when the "power critical" did hit and damage happened to be high, it would massively exceed the average every hit effect of power attack, leading to complaints about it being broken. If the critical damage only caught up to PA at maximum, it would be a useless feat the vast majority of the time. 

Damage is damage and as we are constantly told is abstract and can be described many ways. Let the swashbuckler do some damage without jumping through extra hoops for it. (Not that I have anything against a "power critical" type feat but I don't see the need to limit it's availability anymore than I do PA.)


----------



## Mercule (Nov 20, 2007)

glass said:
			
		

> Except -5 to hit does not add +10 damage. It adds +10 to damage _on a successful hit_. Since you have to decide to use it (and for how much) before you roll to hit, you need to figure out how much it adds to (or subtracts from) _expected_ damage. Which is a lot more complicated -requiring you to figure out your damage from other sources know the AC of your target.
> 
> Funny how, with the maths apparently being so simple, you didn't get it right, eh?




I suppose it depends on what math you're talking about.  If you want to include the probability, then that has no place at the table.  I've run the numbers for players who wanted to use Power Attack, Combat Expertise, etc.  Do an Excel sheet with columns for enemy ACs at 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30 (or a subset, depending on PC level), blah blah.

In play, you go with your gut.  If you need the spreadsheet to feed your gut, do that away from the table.  Please don't even bring the spreadsheet to play because you're slowing things down.  So, from my perspective, I did get the math right -- at least the only math that should be able to slow down the game.  

If you've got someone running specific probabilities _at the table_, the issue isn't with Power Attack.  The issue is with rude players.  The same as when the caster doesn't look up his spell until after he's cast it -- or asks the GM what the spell does.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Nov 20, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Solves very little.




Solves the problem that was specified-- fiddly math at the table. Do the math once, write it down, problem solved.



> An optimized build then deals far too much damage for a character of his level and the non optimized character never hits.




I wasn't aware that non-optimized builds rolled d19's. My dice still have 20's.



> And make no mistake, damage dealing feats in 4E will be far more in line with Weapon specialization rather than power attack.




And make no mistake, they'll be far more in line with Iron Fist than Weapon Specialization or Power Attack. Not sliding bonuses, not fixed bonuses, but more dice to roll.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Nov 20, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> And often, a lot of that extra damage is just wasted, as your foe would have been just as dead if you have inlficted 15 fewer hit points of damage.




Actually, as it turns out, it's most typically useful on creatures with really low AC and big bags of hit points-- giants, vermin, animals, zombies, oozes (although less fun without criticals). It's a big list of viable options. So, not usually wasted, no.

Fun as all hell, though. That's the main thing. The point is to maximize the fun, not the math.


----------



## frankthedm (Nov 20, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> I do find myself tired of the WotC decrying of 3X stuff.  Did they (or just Tweet) think PA sucked for a long time and simply wasn't up to the task to addressing it or even admitting it?



 They admitted that the two for one may have been too much a while after 3.5 was released. In the same commentary they explained the original plan was a two handed weapon wielder to get 1 for 1.5 with power attack, but at the time decided the math may to troublesome. 







			
				BryonD said:
			
		

> Or has the desire to sell 4E influenced a sudden insight?



It damn well better! They are playing _Profits or Pink Slips_ with Hasbro. It plays a lot like _Papers and Paychecks_, but Hasbro is the frenzied berserker with a +5 Job-Bane, Mighty Cleaving Great Axe. If the profits don’t show, lots of folks and their friends will be out of jobs. 







> It certainly makes it hard to believe anything else that they say.  And it also makes it hard to defend WotC's quite reasonable choices from the attacks of the "WotC is just a money-grabbing corporation out to pull one on you" fringe.



I’m on that fringe myself, it just so happens I love a lot of their changes for 4E. Their products should be enjoyed, provided they are enjoyable, but trust the puppet of a megacorp like hasborg? No.


----------



## frankthedm (Nov 20, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I wasn't aware that non-optimized builds rolled d19's. My dice still have 20's.



FPAATT _can_ still be hitting without the autohit 20's. Notably if built and buffed for it. Heck, by taking a monster race with a highstr and mild ECL, you keep your BAB from being too much of your attack bonus. So even IF you FPAATT, your 'to hit' can't suffer as much as if you were a human with most 'to hit' coming from BAB.



			
				Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> And make no mistake, they'll be far more in line with Iron Fist than Weapon Specialization or Power Attack. Not sliding bonuses, not fixed bonuses, but more dice to roll.



That the bonuses will likly be more dice, I'll agree.


----------



## glass (Nov 20, 2007)

Mercule said:
			
		

> I suppose it depends on what math you're talking about.  If you want to include the probability, then that has no place at the table.  I've run the numbers for players who wanted to use Power Attack, Combat Expertise, etc.  Do an Excel sheet with columns for enemy ACs at 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30 (or a subset, depending on PC level), blah blah.
> 
> In play, you go with your gut.  If you need the spreadsheet to feed your gut, do that away from the table.  Please don't even bring the spreadsheet to play because you're slowing things down.  So, from my perspective, I did get the math right -- at least the only math that should be able to slow down the game.
> 
> If you've got someone running specific probabilities _at the table_, the issue isn't with Power Attack.  The issue is with rude players.  The same as when the caster doesn't look up his spell until after he's cast it -- or asks the GM what the spell does.



Yes, it is. You can't work it out in advance, because the calculation requires your damage from other sources and the AC of the target.

To get real benefit from the feat requires that you do that, which slows the game to a crawl. Alternatively, you can take a punt and guess, but if you do that there is a good chance that the feats you have spent one of your precious feat slots on is _actually making you worse_. Either way, there is a problem -and that problem is the direct result of the feat's working the way it does.


glass.


----------



## Remathilis (Nov 20, 2007)

Perhaps it will be replaced with brutal swing from Saga

Brutal Swing (Str 13) -2 to hit, +1d8 damage.


----------



## Wolfspider (Nov 20, 2007)

glass said:
			
		

> Yes, it is. You can't work it out in advance, because the calculation requires your damage from other sources and the AC of the target.




I'm sorry, glass, I really don't understand what you mean here.  You CAN work it out in advance.  I've seen it done.  

And I really don't know what you are meaning to argue when you said:



> Except -5 to hit does not add +10 damage. It adds +10 to damage on a successful hit.




Uhhh...of course you only get the damage bonus when you hit.  That's how the combat system works...a hit equals damage.

Maybe I've just attended one too many meetings today....


----------



## ThirdWizard (Nov 20, 2007)

I haven't noticed anybody with my main complaint about Power Attack. It's far more useful for monsters than for PCs. It can take a giant and increase his damage output by insane amounts. But, every time I see a PC use PA for more than -2 or so, they inevitably miss with iteratives by a small amount and end up doing less overall damage. But, man, that stone giant _whollops_ the PCs something fierce!



			
				Wolfspider said:
			
		

> Uhhh...of course you only get the damage bonus when you hit.  That's how the combat system works...a hit equals damage.
> 
> Maybe I've just attended one too many meetings today....




Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the point is that, because your to hit goes down, your average damage increase will be a derived number that is based off of the new chance to hit and the new damage you will be doing.

Some people see -5 attack to do +10 damage. Some people see a decrease in the likelihood to hit by 12%, thereby decreasing damage, along with an increase in damage dealt that will have to offset this 12% less damage you are initially accepting.

Ironically, I see it this way and I'm also one of the people that sucks at basic math. I can't subtract to save my life. I have to use excel to do all this stuff for me. I aced Calculus, though. Go figure.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Nov 20, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> FPAATT _can_ still be hitting without the autohit 20's.




I know. So why would you say "never?" _At worst_ you hit on a natural 20. And even if you're not Johnny Mathist, most folks know that 5% is not never.



> Notably if built and buffed for it. Heck, by taking a monster race with a highstr and mild ECL, you keep your BAB from being too much of your attack bonus. So even IF you FPAATT, your 'to hit' can't suffer as much as if you were a human with most 'to hit' coming from BAB.




Even a human typically has a total attack bonus in excess of his BAB, without resort to any particular "optimization." 

In fact, it can take until the late mid-levels for raw BAB to even catch up to those bonuses.

You'll probably have to define "optimized" and/or "never." 

Is an 18 STR optimized? 16 STR? Weapon Focus? Bard songs, Bull's strength, Enlarge Person, Bless? 

Perhaps what you consider "optimized" I consider "typical" and what you consider "never" I consider "often enough." 

Or perhaps you never play in the 1st-8th level range at all. Could be, since you're comfortable talking about optimal builds with monster races and ECL. 

But hey, play a non-standard game, expect non-standard performance from standard feats. 

Still not the fault of Power Attack.




P.S. It's All Power Attack, All the Time.


----------



## Klaus (Nov 20, 2007)

Option:

Limit Power Attack to match Combat Expertise (i.e., max penalty of -5 or BAB, whichever is lower).


----------



## frankthedm (Nov 20, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> Perhaps it will be replaced with brutal swing from Saga
> 
> Brutal Swing (Str 13) -2 to hit, +1d8 damage.



I think we have our answer


----------



## ehren37 (Nov 20, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> Perhaps it will be replaced with brutal swing from Saga
> 
> Brutal Swing (Str 13) -2 to hit, +1d8 damage.




Snooo-zers. I'm assuming that since most characters will only be getting one attack per round, they are going to be dealing more damage (otherwise we may as well retire the fighter types for good). That seriously needs to scale with level to be worthwhile.


----------



## helium3 (Nov 20, 2007)

glass said:
			
		

> Why do people keep saying that? Does everyone really think that their table is the only one that matters?




No. That's not what they're saying. What they're saying is that Tweet's article speaks as if Power Attack is so hideously and terribly broken that the every game suffers under it's yoke. Which just isn't true. The feat is only a problem in the way he's claiming it is if you have a player that is (a) a hyper optimizer who (b) takes forever to make a decision. For most groups it isn't a problem.

In a sense, that sums up many of the criticisms about the way the need for 4E as a product is being "proven." Essentially, a designer will make a hyperbolic case for how some portion of 3.X is "horribly broken and makes the entire game suffer under its yoke" and then presents a very vague solution for the supposed problem, with the additional assurance that the fully detailed solution "rocks" and will "knock our socks off" when the game is released next year. 

Many of the "serious design flaws of 3.X" that the designers have used the general routine described above for, are really only problems in special cases involving certain types of generally undesirable players or matters of personal taste. I would certainly put Tweet's issues with Power Attack in that category.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Nov 20, 2007)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> I think Tweet is overreacting.  I've used, and DM'd, 3.5 PA in many games, and in no case did I find it broken, nor did it slow the game down any more than any other damage mechanic in the game.
> 
> ...
> 
> I'm starting to see too much from the 4E team that seems like they are changing what isn't broken just for the sake of change.




It's nice that you never saw it cause a slowdown. But given that _lots_ of people in this thread have said that they _did_ see it cause slowdowns, accusing this of being a "change for change's sake" is more than a bit inappropriate. Obviously, it's been a problem for some people; the fact that you weren't one of them doesn't mean it's not something that needs to be addressed.


----------



## Wolfspider (Nov 20, 2007)

Power Attack has never given me or my group any problems, balance-wise or math-wise, in any incarnation.

It's really rather shocking for me to hear about spreadsheets and how hard the math is and the other things that have been mentioned in this thread about the negative aspects of Power Attack.

Quite eye-opening, in fact.

I'm glad it's never been an issue for me (like the invisible flying wartrolls I always hear about when the "problem" of polymorph comes up...).


----------



## billd91 (Nov 20, 2007)

Gloombunny said:
			
		

> The problem is that the tedious calculations actually yield better results in-game.  A system should not reward a player for slowing down the game.





I agree, sort of, that a player should not be rewarded for slowing down the game _excessively_. But I don't think a game that doesn't reward a certain amount of careful deliberation and decision-making is a very interesting one. Might as well be playing Candyland or  Uncle Wiggly, something that is completely determined by random selection.


----------



## Aust Diamondew (Nov 20, 2007)

Mercule said:
			
		

> If you've got someone running specific probabilities _at the table_, the issue isn't with Power Attack.  The issue is with rude players.  The same as when the caster doesn't look up his spell until after he's cast it -- or asks the GM what the spell does.




Amen!
I'm in the camp that says power attack is fine.  People in my group who use it go with their gut or power attack for all of it on every attack and have not power attacking the exception to the rule.

That said it isn't excellent, because unfortunatley many people don't use it because they aren't comfortable going with their gut and are too concerned about missing, so if it was removed I wouldn't mind, don't think it'd be too hard to come up with a 4e version of it but who knows?


----------



## billd91 (Nov 20, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> It's nice that you never saw it cause a slowdown. But given that _lots_ of people in this thread have said that they _did_ see it cause slowdowns, accusing this of being a "change for change's sake" is more than a bit inappropriate. Obviously, it's been a problem for some people; the fact that you weren't one of them doesn't mean it's not something that needs to be addressed.




But I think it's not at all clear that it's the fault of the _feat_ that the slowdowns occurred rather than the fault of the indecisive or nit-picky _players_.


----------



## helium3 (Nov 20, 2007)

billd91 said:
			
		

> But I think it's not at all clear that it's the fault of the _feat_ that the slowdowns occurred rather than the fault of the indecisive or nit-picky _players_.




Well, the feat certainly does allow for it to happen. The question is whether or not that's sufficient enough reason to throw out the feat and replace it with something that's much less complex. I guess the real question to be answered is how much loss of complexity should be tolerated. A couple of people have suggested limiting the choices to none, increments of five or all. That seems like a reasonable compromise to me but would be difficult to justify in terms of flavor.

I'm more interested in the problems people seem to have with monsters using the feat to do extreme amounts of damage beyond what the feat seems to have been intended to allow.


----------



## Voadam (Nov 20, 2007)

billd91 said:
			
		

> I agree, sort of, that a player should not be rewarded for slowing down the game _excessively_. But I don't think a game that doesn't reward a certain amount of careful deliberation and decision-making is a very interesting one. Might as well be playing Candyland or  Uncle Wiggly, something that is completely determined by random selection.




I generally play a very deliberate character who gets involved in figuring out plots, making decisions in interacting with NPCs and what to pursue and how to do so. 

However when it comes to combat I prefer to have everything figured out before hand and just execute so combat flows quickly and can be more narratively focused than mechanically number focused. I like deciding things like attack this one, move over there, use this type of weapon or spell against this foe. I hate deciding on judging number probabilities such as used for power attack and expertise. The less numbers to think about during combats the happier I am.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Nov 20, 2007)

billd91 said:
			
		

> But I think it's not at all clear that it's the fault of the _feat_ that the slowdowns occurred rather than the fault of the indecisive or nit-picky _players_.




Precisely.  If a problem with a mechanic occurs at all tables where it is used, the mechanic is flawed.  If the problem occurs only at some tables where it is used, the mechanic may be flawed, or there may be other contributing factors.  The solution might be to change the mechanic, or it might be to change something else.

Combat Expertise is just as complicated as Power Attack when it comes to the math involved -- why don't we see complaints about Combat Expertise?  Is Combat Expertise not flawed whereas PA is?  If so, why are the two mechanics different in play when they are built similarly?

@Wulf -- You da man!  APAATT!!


----------



## lkj (Nov 20, 2007)

Sorry if it's already been posted, but I didn't see it. Tweet has added an addendum to his blog:

http://www.gleemax.com/Comms/Pages/Communities/BlogPost.aspx?blogpostid=23612&pagemode=2&blogid=2076


Seems like he's not so much concerned about the slow down as much as how that slow down represents a failure of the feat to capture the flavor he was shooting for. 

AD


----------



## lkj (Nov 20, 2007)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> Precisely.  If a problem with a mechanic occurs at all tables where it is used, the mechanic is flawed.  If the problem occurs only at some tables where it is used, the mechanic may be flawed, or there may be other contributing factors.  The solution might be to change the mechanic, or it might be to change something else.
> 
> Combat Expertise is just as complicated as Power Attack when it comes to the math involved -- why don't we see complaints about Combat Expertise?  Is Combat Expertise not flawed whereas PA is?  If so, why are the two mechanics different in play when they are built similarly?
> 
> @Wulf -- You da man!  APAATT!!





Funny you should mention Combat Expertise. Tweet mentions it as well in his blog addendum . . .

AD


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 20, 2007)

Baby Samurai said:
			
		

> Yep, just like people feel that WotC releasing 4th Ed is a personal, vindictive move to rape their wallets and ruin their gaming experience…




Now see, here we have the word rape used in context of 4e bashers.

Yet when someone says something like 4e apologists, it's a group attack.

The mods need to make sure to hit both sides of this fence nicely. Getting a little rep on other boards for the pro 4e fandom.


----------



## BryonD (Nov 20, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> It damn well better! They are playing _Profits or Pink Slips_ with Hasbro. It plays a lot like _Papers and Paychecks_, but Hasbro is the frenzied berserker with a +5 Job-Bane, Mighty Cleaving Great Axe. If the profits don’t show, lots of folks and their friends will be out of jobs.



I am 100% on board with them doing everything they can to make 4E as profitable as they can.  As long as honesty stays in play.  

But if they were not shooting straight before then they have already lost that and they "damn well better" not start bending the truth now.  The double standards that have cropped up here and there are a bad thing any way you slice it.


----------



## BryonD (Nov 20, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> It's nice that you never saw it cause a slowdown. But given that _lots_ of people in this thread have said that they _did_ see it cause slowdowns, accusing this of being a "change for change's sake" is more than a bit inappropriate. Obviously, it's been a problem for some people; the fact that you weren't one of them doesn't mean it's not something that needs to be addressed.



And the "dumb it down" drumbeat grows just a little louder.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Nov 21, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> And the "dumb it down" drumbeat grows just a little louder.




Meh. I've never yet seen an argument that the game is being "dumbed down" that holds any weight with me.

To me, streamlining the on-the-fly math isn't "dumbing things down," it's smoothing out gameplay. If and when that streamlining harms the _overall play experience_, then _maybe_ I'll agree with you.

But this? Not so much. Especially considering that the people I've seen stopped in their tracks by Power Attack are among the smartest people I know.


----------



## IanB (Nov 21, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> But this? Not so much. Especially considering that the people I've seen stopped in their tracks by Power Attack are among the smartest people I know.




I can definitely back this up (well not about how smart the people Ari knows are.   )

And in addition I think glass's point about PA actually making your character worse if you just go off of your gut needs to be reinforced. The fact that PA more or less requires an excessive amount of time spent looking at the variables of a given situation in order to be a net positive, *and* the fact that it costs a precious resource (a feat) to even have access to it is, in combination, broken.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Nov 21, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Meh. I've never yet seen an argument that the game is being "dumbed down" that holds any weight with me.




WOTC still batting .1000 at Marmell Park.


----------



## MerricB (Nov 21, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> But this? Not so much. Especially considering that the people I've seen stopped in their tracks by Power Attack are among the smartest people I know.




The smarter you are, the more likely Power Attack will slow the game down.

No, seriously. Because smart (ok, mathematically gifted) people understand the tradeoff between attack bonus and damage and may well try to optimise it... which takes more and more time.



Cheers!


----------



## Piratecat (Nov 21, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Now see, here we have the word rape used in context of 4e bashers.
> 
> Yet when someone says something like 4e apologists, it's a group attack.
> 
> The mods need to make sure to hit both sides of this fence nicely. Getting a little rep on other boards for the pro 4e fandom.



Have a problem with moderation? Email the moderator. Have a problem with a post? Report the post. But don't discuss it in the thread. You know that.

To be crystal clear, folks: we don't care if you're pro-4e or against it. It makes absolutely no difference to Morrus, Henry or myself. But we certainly expect *both* sides to be polite and civil about it. If you can't do that, don't post.


----------



## Piratecat (Nov 21, 2007)

Baby Samurai said:
			
		

> Yep, just like people feel that WotC releasing 4th Ed is a personal, vindictive move to rape their wallets and ruin their gaming experience…



I'll point out that many people who don't like 4e don't feel this way. Dislike does not inherently equal fearful zealotry, nor should it. The "Razz"s of the world are few and far between.

Think about it: change means uncertainty, both for acquiring players and for the stability of campaigns. Change means expense. Both of these are worrisome for a lot of people, and both of these are a problem _even for people who are willing to keep an open mind about 4e._ This isn't a binary sets of sides, it's a continuum, with peoples' opinions scattered all up and down the scale. Not only that, many people simply don't care either way.

So please don't try to paint everyone with the same brush. It makes conversations much more difficult.


----------



## Nifft (Nov 21, 2007)

One of the smartest guys I've ever played with always, always, always forgets Power Attack.

I think it's because he's more into role-playing, and Power Attack is a purely out-of-character meta-game declaration.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Umbran (Nov 21, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> I think it's because he's more into role-playing, and Power Attack is a purely out-of-character meta-game declaration.




It doesn't have to be.  Couple players I know took the feat not to optimize, but to demonstrate when their characters were getting cheesed off - the more angry they were, the more they went for the hard hit.  Consider telling your friend about that - make it a way for the rules ot reflect character anger


----------



## Mouseferatu (Nov 21, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> WOTC still batting .1000 at Marmell Park.




Not entirely. Maybe closer to, oh, .0925.

But I think that's actually irrelevant as to whether or not I feel they're "dumbing down" the game, which was the specific issue I was addressing. I can agree or disagree with a rules change, separately from whether I agree or disagree with its motivations. And even the few rules I dislike, I don't attribute to "dumbing down."


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 21, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Couple players I know took the feat not to optimize, but to demonstrate when their characters were getting cheesed off - the more angry they were, the more they went for the hard hit.  Consider telling your friend about that - make it a way for the rules ot reflect character anger




I had an archer character who wound up with an intelligent bastard sword.  Threw my plans off completely, and I ended up taking a level in barbarian and Power Attack.  He'd occasionally Power Attack for 1 or 2 points... except when Raging, at which point it was APAATT 

-Hyp.


----------



## PoeticJustice (Nov 21, 2007)

Am I alone in thinking that, while stuff like Grappling and Bull Rushes may have slowed the game down significantly, a line might be drawn between those effects and the comparatively simple Power Attack? It seems like they're axing a good feat (accessible, easy to use, and creative) for a pretty bad reason.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Nov 21, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Not entirely. Maybe closer to, oh, .0925.
> 
> But I think that's actually irrelevant as to whether or not I feel they're "dumbing down" the game, which was the specific issue I was addressing.




I guess the point is, if they're honestly batting .925, it doesn't appear to matter much how they arrive at the decisions they are making. As far as I can tell, they could be tying little scrips of potential 4e changes to rampant weasels and just working in whatever they can catch during Weekly Weasel Roundups, and it wouldn't make a difference-- you'll find a way to appreciate it and defend it.

That's my way of saying I commend your boundless enthusiasm. 

But that's irrelevant to the issue of dumbing down the game. You are right-- they're not. From what little we've seen so far, my impression is that they're adding complexity, while telling us they're streamlining play.


----------



## Michael Silverbane (Nov 21, 2007)

PoeticJustice said:
			
		

> Am I alone in thinking that, while stuff like Grappling and Bull Rushes may have slowed the game down significantly, a line might be drawn between those effects and the comparatively simple Power Attack? It seems like they're axing a good feat (accessible, easy to use, and creative) for a pretty bad reason.




Stuff like Grappling and Bull Rushing, while more complicated, tended to get used less (partly since it was more complicated) than Power Attack...  Which gets used during almost every round of combat.  So Power Attack may actually have had a more dramatic effect on game speed than those more complicated aspects.

I would much prefer if power attack could be fixed rather than tossing it completely, but if it has to go...  It can pretty easily be house-ruled back in by folks who want it, and maybe it'll make room for something even better.

Later
silver


----------



## Henry (Nov 21, 2007)

Michael Silverbane said:
			
		

> Stuff like Grappling and Bull Rushing, while more complicated, tended to get used less (partly since it was more complicated) than Power Attack...  Which gets used during almost every round of combat.  So Power Attack may actually have had a more dramatic effect on game speed than those more complicated aspects.




I will say that the first time we've (my game group) really LOOKED at Grappling (as in, really used it extensively with lots of grappling-related feats) was the past three game sessions, with one of the PCs as a grappling-built character. We spent so much time debating if this clever wrestling feat goes off before that op-attack, or this close-quarters fighting feat works with that other conditional modifier, etc. that it dominated the whole combat's time. In fact, the player of a party barbarian, when wrestling the other PC, was so flustered he conceded their bout rather than try to figure out if he stood a chance. The rules weren't broken, really - but they were extremely convoluted.

Power attack, I can understand, can be convoluted to those over-analyzing it; however, if there's one thing that some of my group are concerned with it's the total stamping out of all in-game "tinkering" options that the designers seem to be doing. It happened with Star Wars - there have been some rather long discussions on the WotC forums about tech specialist characters losing their reasons for existance; Rodney provided some good web enchancements, mind you, but because of careful "bonus rationing," a lot of the focus was moved from tweaking stuff and making stuff, over to high-action maneuvers.

I see the same sort of thing with skills - no more tinkering with 3 points here and 5 points there possible, every 5th level character gets a certain amount of bonus to each, and there's no micro-managing that. Vancian spellcasting bites the dust in the same way - the fewer memorizations, the fewer "strategic" options to be tweaked. It's great for the majority of players who don't care about it, but for that minority who love the micro-management of resources, it's looking like a pretty sparse field.


----------



## Ahglock (Nov 21, 2007)

Najo said:
			
		

> They are making changes that speed up play and remove metagaming, both of which are good. Power attack can be fixed to work with these interests in mind.




Both can be good, it just depends on what you give up to get there.  

The fights would be much quicker if it was deiced ed by a single flip of the coin.  Heads you win the fight tails you lose.  I'm not sure speed and lack of metagaming would save that from being  a sucky game.  

  Whether or not removing the sliding scale speeds up game play enough to justify its loss of options is up for debate.  Since I doubt it will even speed my games up at all for my table its just a loss of options if they put this change in the game.


----------



## Ahglock (Nov 21, 2007)

lkj said:
			
		

> Sorry if it's already been posted, but I didn't see it. Tweet has added an addendum to his blog:
> 
> http://www.gleemax.com/Comms/Pages/Communities/BlogPost.aspx?blogpostid=23612&pagemode=2&blogid=2076
> 
> ...




Wow that almost makes it worse to me.

If we had given power attack a different name it would be ok?

   Sorry I guess I fall into the camp already displayed in this thread where the name was just one type of flavor to the feat.  The -to hit and +to damage might be a precise thrust for a rapier, a wild swing with an ax or anything you could come up with.  

Though I can see how it could be a problem at his table they way he described his players.


----------



## Waylander the Slayer (Nov 21, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I guess the point is, if they're honestly batting .925, it doesn't appear to matter much how they arrive at the decisions they are making. As far as I can tell, they could be tying little scrips of potential 4e changes to rampant weasels and just working in whatever they can catch during Weekly Weasel Roundups, and it wouldn't make a difference-- you'll find a way to appreciate it and defend it.
> 
> That's my way of saying I commend your boundless enthusiasm.
> 
> But that's irrelevant to the issue of dumbing down the game. You are right-- they're not. From what little we've seen so far, my impression is that they're adding complexity, while telling us they're streamlining play.




Well said. I am unsure as to how power attack is complex compared to situational terrain based modifiers, situational conditional based modifiers, situational terrain based modifiers triggered by conditional based modifiers, situational character abilities that impact monster modifiers and ....


----------



## BryonD (Nov 21, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Meh. I've never yet seen an argument that the game is being "dumbed down" that holds any weight with me.
> 
> To me, streamlining the on-the-fly math isn't "dumbing things down," it's smoothing out gameplay. If and when that streamlining harms the _overall play experience_, then _maybe_ I'll agree with you.
> 
> But this? Not so much. Especially considering that the people I've seen stopped in their tracks by Power Attack are among the smartest people I know.



shrug  

It is simple addition and subtraction.  

But that is beside the point.  If Hawking has trouble with it then dumbing it down is a good idea, but it remains dumbing it down.  I don't accept that this case meets that criteria of good idea.  

I'm boggled that +2/-1 is all that tough and forced to wonder.

As I said before, I'm perfectly fine with replacing PA with something else if it still catches the feel.  But if the reason you stated and I quoted is the basis, then it is simply dumbing down and I find that sad.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Nov 21, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> I'm boggled that +2/-1 is all that tough and forced to wonder.




Read the rest of the thread. It's been said before: The problem is not any one individual bit of "quick math" like "add 2 here, subtract 1 there." It's the combined effects of even that small delay when imposed over and over again, and the vast magnification of delay caused by stacking mathematical modifiers.

I would hope that one of the goals for 4E is to reduce the total number of said modifiers, focusing instead on a smaller number of more easily applied and more significant ones, with fewer on-the-fly choices necessary to apply them. While PA may not be the most egregious of these, it's certainly a solid example of one--and one that, as this thread suggests, some people _do_ have problems with.

I'm confident that it'll be replaced with something comparable, though, simply because the "wild swing" is a staple.


----------



## BryonD (Nov 21, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> But that's irrelevant to the issue of dumbing down the game. You are right-- they're not. From what little we've seen so far, my impression is that they're adding complexity, while telling us they're streamlining play.



I agree completely on some cases.  And I am not complaining about 4E as a whole.  But there are exceptions and I see this topic at hand as one.


----------



## BryonD (Nov 21, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Read the rest of the thread. It's been said before: The problem is not any one individual bit of "quick math" like "add 2 here, subtract 1 there." It's the combined effects of even that small delay when imposed over and over again, and the vast magnification of delay caused by stacking mathematical modifiers.



I have read the thread, please don't talk down to me.

I have one player in particular who uses PA constantly at a wide range of modifiers.  Another who uses it with moderate frequency and almost always a fixed intervals, and me using it at totally random frequencies and extents as a DM.  I've never seen it slow down the game to a degree that was an issue.  Maybe like 5 to 10 seconds sometimes while they debate a little, moderate, or all out, but that is all.  Hell, a wizard trying to choose which spell to cast is vastly more of a game stopper, both in terms of frequency and amount of delay caused.


----------



## BryonD (Nov 21, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I would hope that one of the goals for 4E is to reduce the total number of said modifiers, focusing instead on a smaller number of more easily applied and more significant ones, with fewer on-the-fly choices necessary to apply them. While PA may not be the most egregious of these, it's certainly a solid example of one--and one that, as this thread suggests, some people _do_ have problems with.



And I will remain eager to see what they do and won't pass judgment on THAT until then.
But "fewer choices" isn't the kind of sales pitch that makes me enthusiastic.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Nov 21, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> I have read the thread, please don't talk down to me.




All right, that's fair. In return I'll ask an acknowledgment that the issue being discussed is far more than +2/-1, as has been stated multiple times by multiple people. Belittling the problem isn't a good way to discuss things.



> I've never seen it slow down the game to a degree that was an issue.




Fair enough. It's not a problem _at your table_. Me, I've seen it slow things down, and obviously other people have a well.



> Hell, a wizard trying to choose which spell to cast is vastly more of a game stopper, both in terms of frequency and amount of delay caused.




Which may well be one of the reasons Vancian casting is (mostly) gone.

The point I'm trying to get across is that PA may not be the only culprit, may not even be a _primary_ culprit, but it _is_ a known--and in some cases, at least, bemoaned--contributor to the slowdown of gameplay. Therefore, adjusting it into something that takes less time is a legitimate solution, as long as it's only _part_ of the solution.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Nov 21, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> And I will remain eager to see what they do and won't pass judgment on THAT until then.
> But "fewer choices" isn't the kind of sales pitch that makes me enthusiastic.




Well, suppose there's a replacement for Power Attack that works in a similar fashion, but with a fixed amount, as others have suggested.

It's not a reduction of choice when building the character; you still choose whether to take the feat or not.

It's not a reduction of choice when fighting; you still choose whether to use the feat or not.

I suppose one _could_ call it a reduction of choice, in as much as it's no longer possible to decide whether to PA for a little or a lot--but honestly, that doesn't strike me as a real loss. The capability is still there, and the ability to play a character who swings wildly to hit harder is still there. I don't think that the loss of a small bit of _granularity_--and really, that's all we're talking about here, a tiny matter of degrees--is too much to pay for a more streamlined combat.

(Granted, this assumes there _is_ an equivalent of PA in the new game, but I think it's likely.)


----------



## Ahglock (Nov 21, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Which may well be one of the reasons Vancian casting is (mostly) gone.




Vancian spell casting doesn't slow down the spell casting it slows down the between times where people prep spells.  

Unless they are reducing the different per encounter abilities to a ridiculously small amount spell casting will remain as slow as it is now as the person takes there time looking through there spell list for the right spell to cast and what it does.


----------



## Ahglock (Nov 21, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Well, suppose there's a replacement for Power Attack that works in a similar fashion, but with a fixed amount, as others have suggested.
> 
> It's not a reduction of choice when building the character; you still choose whether to take the feat or not.
> 
> ...




Its a small bit of granularity for the system as a whole but a large bit for the feat in particular.  It speeds up my game by maybe 20 seconds an entire night to remove that granularity while reducing the options for the power attacking player by a decent amount.


----------



## Arkham Angel (Nov 21, 2007)

I've read a bit about the new 4th edition and watched the demo at Gen Con.  It seems to me like the salesmen were saying that they're streamlining the rules (they're rules and not guidelines now?) by seemingly dumbing the system down.  Stuff like grapple and power attack aren't hard to remember and don't slow the game down for our group so what's the deal?

Perhaps 4E will be a great system.  3E grudgingly gained my respect over the time I've used it.  But so far I don't like what I see overall.


----------



## Ahglock (Nov 21, 2007)

Arkham Angel said:
			
		

> I've read a bit about the new 4th edition and watched the demo at Gen Con.  It seems to me like the salesmen were saying that they're streamlining the rules (they're rules and not guidelines now?) by seemingly dumbing the system down.  Stuff like grapple and power attack aren't hard to remember and don't slow the game down for our group so what's the deal?
> 
> Perhaps 4E will be a great system.  3E grudgingly gained my respect over the time I've used it.  But so far I don't like what I see overall.




This specific example may be of it being dumbed down and maybe a couple other specific places, but as a whole it really hasn't sounded that way to me.


----------



## mxyzplk (Nov 21, 2007)

OK, I'm late in on this thread, but I don't like the "fiddliness" of Power Attack either.  Pretty much anything that encourages you to min-max at attack time is bad.  I've seen many a fighter sit there trying to figure out how many points to put into PA given the rolls we've seen and the enemy's likely AC.  "Hmm, 2 or 3 points?"  A binary choice should be the most complexity for a single effect, given how many different effects can apply to a single attack.


----------



## Achan hiArusa (Nov 21, 2007)

Power attack is just fine for my cleric 3 (healing, destruction)/paladin 6, especially when I do it during a smite.

But if he wants something he's describing maybe he should just look in the D&D Rules Cyclopedia under Fighter.  Its called a smash attack, -5 to hit and you got to add your Strength to your damage roll.

Other than that, the power attack all the time character already exists, its called the monk.


----------



## Najo (Nov 21, 2007)

PoeticJustice said:
			
		

> Am I alone in thinking that, while stuff like Grappling and Bull Rushes may have slowed the game down significantly, a line might be drawn between those effects and the comparatively simple Power Attack? It seems like they're axing a good feat (accessible, easy to use, and creative) for a pretty bad reason.




As merric said above, the smarter your players are the more power attack slows down the game as they min max.

Look at this too:

1) It doesn't feel like a wild, brutal swing. 

2) It breaks the immersion of roleplaying as you determine the number.

3) Why have something as simple as swinging really hard be something you have so much control over and can fine tune like that?

Most of the arguments being made can be countered by simple points Tweet makes in his post and are being made here. 

Power Attack should toggle, be quick and dirty, and feel like a wild swing that does more damage. If it doesn't  then the current feat is not doing its job.


----------



## Najo (Nov 21, 2007)

Ahglock said:
			
		

> Both can be good, it just depends on what you give up to get there.
> 
> The fights would be much quicker if it was deiced ed by a single flip of the coin.  Heads you win the fight tails you lose.  I'm not sure speed and lack of metagaming would save that from being  a sucky game.




With a game like D&D, streamlining akward rules and making them fun is very, very important on many levels. D&D needs choice, strategy, ability to min/max character building and such, but once your playing your abilities, resources and other character features should be intuitive to find and use, they should allow for choices that players can figure out and remember easy. Especially as the character gains levels and becomes more complicated.

Another thing, metagame play and convoluted rules hurt roleplaying and fun. Metagaming in case you do not understand the term is when you no longer are playing the game as intended and are playing with the theories and higher mechanics of the game system. In D&D, you are no longer playing your character but studying and tweaking the game mechanics and holding up everyone's actions. This is neither fun nor streamline when a game rule does this.

What you are really saying, and many people are saying, is that the current power attack seems simple and streamline, almost elegant, and as such necessary to the game mechanics. Converting to hit chance into damage. The sliding scale gives the illusion of flexibility and choice. But it really doesn't do this. As you take penalties to hit, your overall percantage of damage is dropping, and so even though you are gaining a damage bonus, you are actaully losing the chance to cause that damage in the first place. 

Thus, like Tweet says, if you miss you don't even gain anything from the feat. You actually sabotage yourself. This is counter to fun. The math-challenged won't realize it, but they are screwing themselves over, while the math-capable are boring the hell out of their friends while they work the numbers. 

Now, in none of my posts did I say replace the wonderful depth of a game system like D&D with coin flips. Just streamline and smooth the rough spots, but keep the fun areas of playing with the rules once you attain mastery of the game system.


----------



## Najo (Nov 21, 2007)

mxyzplk said:
			
		

> OK, I'm late in on this thread, but I don't like the "fiddliness" of Power Attack either.  Pretty much anything that encourages you to min-max at attack time is bad.  I've seen many a fighter sit there trying to figure out how many points to put into PA given the rolls we've seen and the enemy's likely AC.  "Hmm, 2 or 3 points?"  A binary choice should be the most complexity for a single effect, given how many different effects can apply to a single attack.




I agree with you 100%. You keep it so simply too. He is right peeps, listen up


----------



## Najo (Nov 21, 2007)

I want to throw one other point out at the doom and gloom removal of choice camp that is on here.

1) Just because they are looking at Power Attack doesn't mean they are removing it. They may make it better.

2) From everything I have seen, 4e is going to give WAY more options than 3.5. So far we have: 
* talent trees
* easier multi classing
* improved combat actions to make them more accesible
* terrain effects
* magic items that are more interesting and useful to each class
* more diverse spells 
* more class features and choices with those features 
* adding movment and tactics to combat 

In comparison, 3.5 is more like:
* Get as many stackable bonuses as you can.
* Min/ Max your character to do its couple of things it does really well
* Find overly synergistic (i.e. broken) combos that help you do those one or two things really well.
* Fill up every magic item slot you can.
* Use the same power gaming spells in the same slots, either leaning to healing or damage/ neutralizing your target the best you can. 
* Not being able to multi class spellcasters and non-spellcasters together without screwing them over
* take 5 foot step and then unlease with everything while avoiding attacks of opportunity

Now, for all of those cool things 4e should do, you need to streamline things like power attack, saving throws, grappling, bull rush, polymorph etc...

4e is going to be amazing. So far WOTC has done way more good than bad with D&D, trust them to keep doing their job until proven otherwise.

So far, the biggest mistake I think they have made is killing the Dungeon and Dragon. I think there was a better option there for two wonderful staples of our hobby. I miss reading them on the throne  and I am not impressed with the DI or Gleemax yet. The magazines were more fun to read than the web articles, it was fun to get it in the mail, it was fun to see them in the store, it was fun to have all the articles at once and flip through them instead of being spoon fed. It was fun to sit away from a computer and get ideas from them, whether travelling, hanging in the living room, down time between a meeting or other appoinment.

That is what they took away and messed up. But power attack, it needs fixing. Dragon and Dungeon didn't.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Nov 21, 2007)

Arkham Angel said:
			
		

> It seems to me like the salesmen were saying that they're streamlining the rules (they're rules and not guidelines now?)




They've always been rules. People can treat them as guidelines, and DMs may choose which rules to follow, change, or throw out--but every edition of the game has indeed identified them as "rules."


----------



## Klaus (Nov 21, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> I will say that the first time we've (my game group) really LOOKED at Grappling (as in, really used it extensively with lots of grappling-related feats) was the past three game sessions, with one of the PCs as a grappling-built character. We spent so much time debating if this clever wrestling feat goes off before that op-attack, or this close-quarters fighting feat works with that other conditional modifier, etc. that it dominated the whole combat's time. In fact, the player of a party barbarian, when wrestling the other PC, was so flustered he conceded their bout rather than try to figure out if he stood a chance. The rules weren't broken, really - but they were extremely convoluted.




... which is the reason I decided to make the Action Cards in Fiery Dragon's BattleBox. Instead of changing the "software" (rules) of the game, I opted to make a new piece of "hardware" (accessory) that'd make the game run faster. The Grappling card was by far the most busy, but I still managed to get all rules in a Magic-sized card. And the presence of the cards at the table is enough to remind players that there are other things they can do besides "roll attack/roll damage".


----------



## Inconsequenti-AL (Nov 21, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Gosh, even without power attack in the picture, our spellcasters struggle to keep up in the damage stakes with the fighters, who with massive strength, big weapons, critical hits and full attacks *completely* rule the roost in damage stakes.
> 
> Ooh, the wizard drops a fireball - 10d6, so that's 35 damage, half on a save, and take off the fire resistance. 7 damage gets through. Versus the fighter full attack, hit! 2d6+12 damage! Critical 4d6+24! (55 damage) cleave onto next guy! 2d6+12! etc etc. BTW, I'm understating the damage here, as I'm assuming 22 Str, weapon specialisation and +1 weapon; in reality it is likely to be more strength and better weapon magic)
> 
> ...




I can definitely see where you're coming from here. IMO it's often a casters weakest point - dealing HP damage to 'one big monster' - i.e. strong saves/sr/resists. (Although the Orb spells from CA would probably disagree).

That fireball you exampled gets way more impressive when it hits a dozen mook targets who don't have fire resistance? 

Having said that, IME most high level spellcasters nasty comes from non damaging spells. Death magic, Dominates/Disablers, horrors like the Irresistable Dance and so on? That and some really nifty battlefield control? Nothing deals infinity damage like a failed Implosion save?

Given all that good stuff, I find it fair for the fighter types to be able to pound away at a single target more effectively? IME, it's kinda been their niche?

Think the most devastating attack I've seen recently was a Rainbow Pattern, a very high bridge and 15 elite hobgoblins (with lowish will saves)...


----------



## ThirdWizard (Nov 21, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> I have one player in particular who uses PA constantly at a wide range of modifiers.  Another who uses it with moderate frequency and almost always a fixed intervals, and me using it at totally random frequencies and extents as a DM.




An interesting side effect of that is that I would lay good odds that the PCs have only succeeded in overall _lowering_ their average damage by playing PA that way. If you don't play the numbers with PA, it is a very sub-par feat. If you do play the numbers, its a good feat, but slows down play.


----------



## Mallus (Nov 21, 2007)

Najo said:
			
		

> As merric said above, the smarter your players are the more power attack slows down the game as they min max.



Let me suggest that the smarter your players are, the less they indulge in behavior that bogs down the flow of play, even if it means a slight loss in their own character's effectiveness...


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Nov 21, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Well, suppose there's a replacement for Power Attack that works in a similar fashion, but with a fixed amount, as others have suggested.




As I suggested earlier, I think we will indeed see something like Brutal Swing: -2, +1d8 damage.

-2, +1d8 works for me, _if and only if_ the +1d8 gets multiplied on a crit.

Of course we don't know how crits are changing overall. (sigh) 

If indeed they're reducing all crits to 20/x2 (hinted at only through SAGA, as far as I know) then I don't see the need to "roll the dice twice" anymore. At that point, they've dumbed down crits (yes, I said it!) to the point where it's easier to go back to "Add up all the dice and double the amount."

Indeed if all crits are x2, +1d8 is probably superior to any version of PA.


----------



## Wolfspider (Nov 21, 2007)

Najo said:
			
		

> 1) It doesn't feel like a wild, brutal swing.
> 
> 2) It breaks the immersion of roleplaying as you determine the number.
> 
> 3) Why have something as simple as swinging really hard be something you have so much control over and can fine tune like that?




1) It does to me, but that is a subjective thing.  Which I guess is my point. 

2) "Immersion of roleplaying"?  That's amusing.  Then I guess rolling all those dice when you hit someone with a fireball or doing any calculations at all does the same thing.  D&D is a system, and a rather complex one, so if you're going to talk about how numbers and calculcations disrupt roleplaying, then you are going to have to criticize D&D quite highly in this regard--along with Hero, Exalted, Shadowrun, and just about every RPG out there that involves numbers (which, I warrant, is the vast majority of them).

In any case, I doubt that the "immersion of roleplaying" is going to be damaged very much at all by Power Attack, especially when players are dusting Cheeto powder off their fingers before they roll dice or move their little counters/miniatures around a map grid while juggling 2-liters of Mountain Dew and PHBs. 

3) Ask a batter on a professional baseball team.  Or a golfer.


----------



## mmadsen (Nov 21, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Let me suggest that the smarter your players are, the less they indulge in behavior that bogs down the flow of play, even if it means a slight loss in their own character's effectiveness...



That's the difference between _wisdom_ and _intelligence_.


----------



## Mallus (Nov 21, 2007)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> That's the difference between _wisdom_ and _intelligence_.



I do believe you're right...


----------



## mmadsen (Nov 21, 2007)

For the people perplexed by where the complex math comes into play, I thought I'd reiterate the point that choosing how much to power attack is a well-defined math problem, and that choosing without doing the math is often quite counterproductive -- or has no real effect except to complicate things.

Power attack is most useful when (a) the attacker has a high probability of hitting, and (b) the attacker does not normally do much damage.

As this damage per attack spreadsheet points out -- assuming a single attack at -1 to hit for +1 to damage -- power attacking does not makes much difference once an attacker is doing serious damage.

For instance, an attacker doing 1d8+4 damage and hitting his target on a natural 10 or higher averages 4.68 points of damage per _attack_ (not _hit_), and power attacking by one increases that to 4.75, for 2 percent more damage.  Power attacking by one more then decreases that to 4.72.

An analytical player may be tempted to spend an inordinate amount of time calculating such values at the table, and a non-analytical player may be tempted to make demonstrably terrible -- but seemingly appropriate and fun -- decisions.


----------



## BryonD (Nov 21, 2007)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> An interesting side effect of that is that I would lay good odds that the PCs have only succeeded in overall _lowering_ their average damage by playing PA that way. If you don't play the numbers with PA, it is a very sub-par feat. If you do play the numbers, its a good feat, but slows down play.



Actually, I have no clue if they have increased or decreased total damage output.

However, I am 100% certain that they have strongly increased total fun produced.  And that is how I measure a quality feat.


----------



## Stalker0 (Nov 21, 2007)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> An interesting side effect of that is that I would lay good odds that the PCs have only succeeded in overall _lowering_ their average damage by playing PA that way. If you don't play the numbers with PA, it is a very sub-par feat. If you do play the numbers, its a good feat, but slows down play.




That's using the assumption that you should power attack all the time, which is completely bogus.

Power Attack is useful in a variety of situations:

1) Smashing through objects
2) On a coup de grace for maximum assurance of death.
3) Against mooks with crap AC, to assure death with a single swing and guarrantee cleaves.
4) When a creature's AC has been lowered, or my attacks have been increased (prone, flatfooted vs big spell buffs to attack rolls).
5) Combined with mounted combat, lance charging, etc.
6) Vs a guy with heavy DR.
7) Vs a guy where only a 20 can hit anyway.

People are under the impression that for power attack to be useful it has to be good on every swing, and that's certainly not true of most feats in the game, but its very useful in certain situations.

Further, while mechanically PA is not always good to use, it does have a huge cinematic factor. As others have mentioned, you don't always remember the misses, but you will tell stories about the time you did 200+ damage to a BBEG with a single swing and took him out.

If doing the math on PA slows your game down, then stop doing the math Just pick a number and ride with it.


----------



## frankthedm (Nov 21, 2007)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> Power Attack is useful in a variety of situations:
> 
> 1) Smashing through objects



PA'ing a solid object should be a great way to break something, namely the weapon being swung.







> 5) Combined with mounted combat, lance charging, etc.



One trick ponies dealing 100+ damage only because they are mounted is a bug, not a feature. Thankfully the extra 1D8 of power attack's suspected replacement won't be multiplied, ending, at least in part, the _dire_ need of killing mounts from underneath their rider's.







> 6) Vs a guy with heavy DR.



Maybe it is only me, but IMHO i think it is far more satisfying beating a werewolf to death with a silver goblet than power attacking through DR.







> 7) Vs a guy where only a 20 can hit anyway.



If putting up a good defense only encourages a foe to swing more wildly, that sounds like a bug, not a feature.







> If doing the math on PA slows your game down, then stop doing the math Just pick a number and ride with it.



Unfortunately not everyone has the option to force that onto their group.


----------



## Klaus (Nov 21, 2007)

And what if Power Attack worked like the monk's Decisive Strike from the PHBII?

Full-Round Action. Make one attack at -2 to hit. If you hit, you deal double damage.


----------



## frankthedm (Nov 21, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> And what if Power Attack worked like the monk's Decisive Strike from the PHBII?
> 
> Full-Round Action. Make one attack at -2 to hit. If you hit, you deal double damage.



Because I have _strong_ doubts there will much multiplication beyond critical hits. 4e will be balancing characters fairly carefully to keep any one character from running away with damage output. Multiplication of effects generally a hard thing to balance in any game. 

Now I suspect there will be an ability to take -5 {or -8] to hit and take a second attack[both with penalty], but that still requires 2 successful attack rolls to get that doubled damage output. I also could see the smash attack return in the 20th to 30th  level range “-x to hit, add your STR score to damage”, but directly multiplying damage would favor “already built to do scads of damage” character far too much.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 21, 2007)

I wonder if this will lead to them eliminating the 1.5 bonus for two handed weapons or the .5 bonus for off handed attacks in order to speed things up?


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Nov 21, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> I wonder if this will lead to them eliminating the 1.5 bonus for two handed weapons or the .5 bonus for off handed attacks in order to speed things up?




Nah, you don't need to recalculate your Strength often.

Unless you use lots of buff spells. I wouldn't be surprised if ability-score-buffing spells (including things that change your shape) get nerfed though.


----------



## frankthedm (Nov 21, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> I wonder if this will lead to them eliminating the 1.5 bonus for two handed weapons or the .5 bonus for off handed attacks in order to speed things up?



Unless that was changed in saga, I'd guess it stays.


----------



## Remathilis (Nov 22, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Unless that was changed in saga, I'd guess it stays.




Nope. Changed.

2 Hand: Str Mod X2
Off Hand: Str Mod

Bare in mind that without iterative attacks and with twf being a royal pain in saga, this works. If D&D makes multiple attack as rare, then I think these will be the new weapon damage mods.


----------



## Holy Bovine (Nov 22, 2007)

JDJblatherings said:
			
		

> oh yeah, it takes ages to subtract form one number and add to another number.  :\




At 15th+ level it does.

And don't forget
Prayer
Bull's Strength 
Combat Expertise
the Dragon Shaman's Aura
Hero's Feast
etc
etc
etc

I've seen the math on PA take up to 15 minutes to figure out.  from a PhD with an IQ in the 180 range.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 22, 2007)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> Nah, you don't need to recalculate your Strength often.
> 
> Unless you use lots of buff spells. I wouldn't be surprised if ability-score-buffing spells (including things that change your shape) get nerfed though.



They were already in 3.5. And I don't think for the better. Removing the random factor was a good idea, but reducing the duration means that you have to recalculate your ability scores and their modifiers more often. 
I think granting a +2 enhancement bonus and giving the spell a duration of 1 hour per level would have worked better than the +4 enhancement bonus and 1 minute per level duration. 

Generally, modifiers that affect ability scores should last very long and be reliable, but not high. Modifiers that work on short terms should be direclty to the statistic they are supposed to improve. 
Example would be the Starwars equivalent of Rage (+2 moral bonus to attack and damage) or 3rd edition Bards Inspire Courage. That's a lot easier to use than the 3.x Rage or Bull's Strength, because you immediately know what the ability affects and how much it does so .
(Rage in 3rd edition wasn't that bad, because the player himself could simply write down his stats for Normal, Rage, and After-Rage down and he controlled when the ability was activated)


----------



## Najo (Nov 22, 2007)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> 1) It does to me, but that is a subjective thing.  Which I guess is my point.
> 
> 2) "Immersion of roleplaying"?  That's amusing.  Then I guess rolling all those dice when you hit someone with a fireball or doing any calculations at all does the same thing.  D&D is a system, and a rather complex one, so if you're going to talk about how numbers and calculcations disrupt roleplaying, then you are going to have to criticize D&D quite highly in this regard--along with Hero, Exalted, Shadowrun, and just about every RPG out there that involves numbers (which, I warrant, is the vast majority of them).
> 
> ...




1) Because they can fine tune the number and choose it (as oppose to it being random or maxed out) it lacks a give it all you got kind of feel to it. It doesn't feel like "power attack". It feels like some sort of aimed strike.

2) Most of D&D's mechanics become intuitive and run under the radar once players are comfortable with them. Roll d20 + mods vs Difficulty. Rolling damage. Doing saves. All of these things are consistent and flow. Power attack becomes disruptive when a player decides to sit there and figure out the odds for each step of power attack they an do. This is not the same as the player's planning out their strategies and it is not a tactical choice. Sliding power attack's value up and down is stepping outside of the game and looking at the mechanics removed from the story. This is how it breaks immersion and the other rules don't. 

3) I will give you this one, though they are driving through with more accuracy and not swinging wildly. Again, the feat as it is is more of a aimed strike than a power attack.


----------



## Najo (Nov 22, 2007)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> For the people perplexed by where the complex math comes into play, I thought I'd reiterate the point that choosing how much to power attack is a well-defined math problem, and that choosing without doing the math is often quite counterproductive -- or has no real effect except to complicate things.
> 
> Power attack is most useful when (a) the attacker has a high probability of hitting, and (b) the attacker does not normally do much damage.
> 
> ...





BAM! This is the point ALL of us who get it are trying to make to the power attack is fine crowd. This ability costs you a FEAT! It slows down play! It does not feel right! And...it doesn't really do anything for you


----------



## Najo (Nov 22, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Let me suggest that the smarter your players are, the less they indulge in behavior that bogs down the flow of play, even if it means a slight loss in their own character's effectiveness...




Have you played with smart players and math probability? That isn't quite how it goes down...Power Attack becomes a moment to use that math brain of theirs...and they do just that.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Nov 22, 2007)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> That's using the assumption that you should power attack all the time, which is completely bogus.




It's actually quite the opposite.


----------



## Mallus (Nov 22, 2007)

Najo said:
			
		

> Have you played with smart players and math probability? That isn't quite how it goes down...Power Attack becomes a moment to use that math brain of theirs...and they do just that.



Not all smart and mathematically-inclined gamers are optimizers. For example, the math PhD I used to game with would never 'run the numbers' before choosing his PC's actions. That just wasn't his style, which is to say he prioritized others aspects of the gaming experience over raw combat efficiency.

Which is besides my original point, that it's strange to label selfish, counterproductive behavior at the gaming table 'smart'. 

Try this phrasing on for size: "Last night a dumb player ground the game to a halt trying to decide how much Power Attack to use". Sounds better, doesn't it?


----------



## Mark Chance (Nov 22, 2007)

I've never seen Power Attack slow the game, much less drag the game to a screeching halt while allegedly smart people try to figure out how to do 4th grade math. My suspicion isn't that the feat is the bulk of the problem, but rather it's a certain subset of players.


----------



## Arkham Angel (Nov 22, 2007)

Here's how I envisioned PA in the first place;  I'm sure it's already been thought of but hey.. 

Give up an amount of AC and apply it to your damage.  You must announce before the round begins.  I see it is as you are opening yourself up for a perfect position to strike with the most damage.  

In some ways charge and PA are similar.  Give it some thought.


----------



## Klaus (Nov 22, 2007)

Arkham Angel said:
			
		

> Here's how I envisioned PA in the first place;  I'm sure it's already been thought of but hey..
> 
> Give up an amount of AC and apply it to your damage.  You must announce before the round begins.  I see it is as you are opening yourself up for a perfect position to strike with the most damage.
> 
> In some ways charge and PA are similar.  Give it some thought.



 Of course, the problem there is that you only suffer from that tradeoff if you are actually attacked.

I think something like the monk's Decisive Strike (-2 to hit, double damage) or Robilar's Gambit (provoke AoO, make attack full of awesome) would be more in line with the style of play intended.

Either that or a flat -5 attack/+5 damage (+10 with 2-handed weapons).


----------



## Ahglock (Nov 22, 2007)

Najo said:
			
		

> BAM! This is the point ALL of us who get it are trying to make to the power attack is fine crowd. This ability costs you a FEAT! It slows down play! It does not feel right! And...it doesn't really do anything for you




Its not that we don't get it, because there isn't an it to get.  We have a different opinion on power attack.

Sure it costs a feat.

But it doesn't slow down play.  It feels right.  And it does something for you, maybe not the most powerful feat in the game but there are plenty of feats that are worse.

  Making power attack a set bonus/penalty instead of a sliding scale might add a whopping 20 seconds to en entire evening of gaming for my group, and none of us are math professors.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Nov 22, 2007)

Ahglock said:
			
		

> Its not that we don't get it, because there isn't an it to get.  We have a different opinion on power attack.
> 
> Sure it costs a feat.




We've actually gone the other way: We use the Power Attack mechanic to simulate called shots. Accept a -2 penalty to your attack roll for a +1 bonus to damage. Everybody can do it. People with Power Attack and the (new feat) Called Shot do it better (with a -1/+1 exchange rate).

And, yeah, we've never seen it slow down play. People either eyeball it or, if they're the type who wants to eke out every mathematical advantage, they either have the spreadsheets or they know the math by heart.

Of course, we also don't announce the AC number at the beginning of combat. (It can be figured out, of course, but that takes time.) This might be discouraging people from trying to fine-tune the number.


----------



## Ahglock (Nov 22, 2007)

Beginning of the End said:
			
		

> We've actually gone the other way: We use the Power Attack mechanic to simulate called shots. Accept a -2 penalty to your attack roll for a +1 bonus to damage. Everybody can do it. People with Power Attack and the (new feat) Called Shot do it better (with a -1/+1 exchange rate).
> 
> And, yeah, we've never seen it slow down play. People either eyeball it or, if they're the type who wants to eke out every mathematical advantage, they either have the spreadsheets or they know the math by heart.
> 
> Of course, we also don't announce the AC number at the beginning of combat. (It can be figured out, of course, but that takes time.) This might be discouraging people from trying to fine-tune the number.




That is how I think most feats should of been done where many of the "feats" are really basic combat maneuvers anyone can do, the people with the feat just do it better.   I'd add this to virtually every combat feat if I had my way.  Whirlwind attack sure everyone can do it but its at a -5 to hit with the feat no penalty to hit.

Fighters should be able to pull off an incredible array of maneuvers just because they are fighters they shouldn't need a feat to be able to even make the attempt.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Nov 22, 2007)

Ahglock said:
			
		

> That is how I think most feats should of been done where many of the "feats" are really basic combat maneuvers anyone can do, the people with the feat just do it better.   I'd add this to virtually every combat feat if I had my way.  Whirlwind attack sure everyone can do it but its at a -5 to hit with the feat no penalty to hit.




Whirlwind Attack is actually a good example of a feat, IMO, because everyone CAN do a Whirlwind Attack... it just takes 'em longer than 1 round. (That's the advantage the feat gives.)


----------



## Arkham Angel (Nov 22, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Of course, the problem there is that you only suffer from that tradeoff if you are actually attacked.




Why? Is that a balance problem?  It sounds pretty realistic to me.


----------



## Ahglock (Nov 22, 2007)

Arkham Angel said:
			
		

> Why? Is that a balance problem?  It sounds pretty realistic to me.




It sounds ok to me as well, but its a DM balancing feat not a self balancing one and for some that causes issues.  

   I'd just crate a quick mechanic to see if the person gets attacked, something like a perception check to see if people see the lowered defenses.


----------



## Abraxas (Nov 23, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> P.S. It's All Power Attack, All the Time.




Other than here at EN world I've not heard it called that. It's always been Full Power Attack, All The Time.

Interesting


----------



## Najo (Nov 23, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Not all smart and mathematically-inclined gamers are optimizers. For example, the math PhD I used to game with would never 'run the numbers' before choosing his PC's actions. That just wasn't his style, which is to say he prioritized others aspects of the gaming experience over raw combat efficiency.
> 
> Which is besides my original point, that it's strange to label selfish, counterproductive behavior at the gaming table 'smart'.
> 
> Try this phrasing on for size: "Last night a dumb player ground the game to a halt trying to decide how much Power Attack to use". Sounds better, doesn't it?




I am not saying ALL smart people do that. I am saying that it does happen though. Players who either don't care about the math, don't want to take the time or are "dumb" are going to say" max power attack!". It is the player's that realize the mathematical effects more instinctively, i.e. the smart ones, that will start figuring out the probabilities. 

This doesn't mean all do that. But, the fact the feat allows for this ind of behavior and actually doesn't benefit the player much anyways means that the feat should be fixed. That is all that matters here. By the game system, there is little benefit to taking Power Attack other than to get to other feats.


----------



## Najo (Nov 23, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Not all smart and mathematically-inclined gamers are optimizers. For example, the math PhD I used to game with would never 'run the numbers' before choosing his PC's actions. That just wasn't his style, which is to say he prioritized others aspects of the gaming experience over raw combat efficiency.
> 
> Which is besides my original point, that it's strange to label selfish, counterproductive behavior at the gaming table 'smart'.
> 
> Try this phrasing on for size: "Last night a dumb player ground the game to a halt trying to decide how much Power Attack to use". Sounds better, doesn't it?




The fourth grade math is the adding and subtracting.

The spreadsheets that show how power attack actually is not as good as people think is another more in your high school realm. Seeing the true effects and understanding them comes in with college level math. 

I am really surprise people aren't getting this still.


----------



## FireLance (Nov 23, 2007)

A thought just occured to me about how Power Attack might be changed in 4e. I recall one of the podcasts mentioned something about fighters still dealing damage on a miss. If Power Attack damage adds to the damage dealt on a miss (possibly half the damage it would have dealt on a hit), that might go some way towards fixing its "deceptive" nature. There would still be some scope for optimizing expected damage, but if an un-optimized Power Attack was not very much worse than an optimized Power Attack, perhaps players would be more willing to sacrifice a bit of mechanical effectiveness for role-playing flavor.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Nov 23, 2007)

Abraxas said:
			
		

> Other than here at EN world I've not heard it called that. It's always been Full Power Attack, All The Time.
> 
> Interesting




If you can find a usage that predates the 2002 printing of Heroes of High Favor: Half-Orcs, you're welcome to (re)claim provenance, with my regards.

Who knows where gamers get these things?


----------



## BadMojo (Nov 23, 2007)

Najo said:
			
		

> The fourth grade math is the adding and subtracting.
> 
> The spreadsheets that show how power attack actually is not as good as people think is another more in your high school realm. Seeing the true effects and understanding them comes in with college level math.




Ya know, the longer this debate goes on I am starting to change my position on power attack.  Calculating average damages and poring over spreadsheets to find the amount of PA that provides the most damage vs. any given AC just isn't my idea of fun, at or away from the table.

The whole thing is starting to feel way to meta-game for my tastes.  It's not even so much the amount of slow down at the table, since a wizard trying to decide which spell to cast will probably take just as long for many players.  PA is just starting to feel like a distraction from the game unless you do All Power Attack, etc., which really defeats the purpose of a feat where you need to declare a modifier.


----------



## Klaus (Nov 23, 2007)

BadMojo said:
			
		

> Ya know, the longer this debate goes on I am starting to change my position on power attack.  Calculating average damages and poring over spreadsheets to find the amount of PA that provides the most damage vs. any given AC just isn't my idea of fun, at or away from the table.
> 
> The whole thing is starting to feel way to meta-game for my tastes.  It's not even so much the amount of slow down at the table, since a wizard trying to decide which spell to cast will probably take just as long for many players.  PA is just starting to feel like a distraction from the game unless you do All Power Attack, etc., which really defeats the purpose of a feat where you need to declare a modifier.



 Other options:

-2 attack, maximize weapon base damage (so greataxe does 12 points of damage). You sacrifice accuracy in exchange to using the weapon to its fullest.

-2 attack, add in your Strength modifier again, so a Str 18 barbarian with a greataxe deals 1d12 + 4 (Str) + 2 (two hands) + 4 (Str again), for a total of 1d12+10 (opposed to the usual 1d12+6).


----------



## Evilusion (Nov 23, 2007)

I have not read the entrie thread so forgive if I duplicate anything. The power attack feat is not broken for me or my group. There is nothing hard about subtracting one number and adding that to another number. Why Jonathan Tweet denounces it I will never know? To list some examples from my group at low and medium levels we tend to use -1 to -5. Higher levels we tend to up that to a max of -10. Why you may ask? My players would rather hit and do normal damage. Compaired to having a less chance to hit and cause more damage.

Where I do thinnk power attack shines though is either getting through DR (if you do not the proper abilitys) or killing the minions of the BBEG. Where is does not shine is vs the BBEG where the BBEG ac is 10 or more points over your attack bonus.


Evilusion


----------



## Najo (Nov 23, 2007)

Evilusion said:
			
		

> I have not read the entrie thread so forgive if I duplicate anything. The power attack feat is not broken for me or my group. There is nothing hard about subtracting one number and adding that to another number. Why Jonathan Tweet denounces it I will never know?




Read the thread and you will understand. Heck, read my posts and you will at least see the other side of the coin. The key point is mathematically power attack doesn't give you more damage on average over time. Power attack also plays counter to how it should feel. The crunch and the fluff do not match well. Power attack is a massive, hard hit blow that sacrifices accuracy for damage. The feat allows to much sliding adjustment and fine tuning, which feels more like aiming and not giving it all you got to hit something really hard. The fine tuning of the modifier when the feat is used is metagaming and where someone can waste alot of time if they wish, and this can be done every combat round. Spells are only prepared at the start of each day, and thus do not constantly interrupt the combat like Power Attack.   



> Where I do thinnk power attack shines though is either getting through DR (if you do not the proper abilitys) or killing the minions of the BBEG. Where is does not shine is vs the BBEG where the BBEG ac is 10 or more points over your attack bonus.




I agree with you on this point completely.


----------



## Najo (Nov 23, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Other options:
> 
> -2 attack, maximize weapon base damage (so greataxe does 12 points of damage). You sacrifice accuracy in exchange to using the weapon to its fullest.
> 
> -2 attack, add in your Strength modifier again, so a Str 18 barbarian with a greataxe deals 1d12 + 4 (Str) + 2 (two hands) + 4 (Str again), for a total of 1d12+10 (opposed to the usual 1d12+6).




My suggestion in another thread was this:

Power Attack
Pre: Str 13+
You may choose to use power attack as a full-round action. Make a single melee attack. If your attack hits your foe, you automatically cause a critical hit. If your attack misses, your opponent may make an attack of opportunity against you. 

You may only use this feat once per round. 

So far, this approach I like the best.

1) It is on or off toggle.
2) It has no messy modifiers, but a clear cost to missing. The idea is your swinging hard and leaving yourself open.
3) It has an immediate benefit of auto criting. 
4) It is doing more damage, and thus getting over DR or breaking things easier.
5) The once per round shows the cost and strain it causes.
6) The full round action shows the putting all you have behind the hit it needs. 

Not saying this is the end all be all. 4e changes things a bit too. But this direction solves alot of the problems without being dull.


----------



## Evilusion (Nov 23, 2007)

Najo said:
			
		

> Read the thread and you will understand. Heck, read my posts and you will at least see the other side of the coin. The key point is mathematically power attack doesn't give you more damage on average over time. Power attack also plays counter to how it should feel. The crunch and the fluff do not match well. Power attack is a massive, hard hit blow that sacrifices accuracy for damage. The feat allows to much sliding adjustment and fine tuning, which feels more like aiming and not giving it all you got to hit something really hard. The fine tuning of the modifier when the feat is used is metagaming and where someone can waste alot of time if they wish, and this can be done every combat round. Spells are only prepared at the start of each day, and thus do not constantly interrupt the combat like Power Attack.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you on this point completely.




Ok when I get a chance to I will. 

Well as for a sliding scale it still does not interupt our games much. I think this has a lot to due with us playing rolemaster so much. The adding and substracting just comes easy for us. As far as people spending time trying to figure the best optium power attack is just plain nuts to me. Just chose a number and go for it.


----------



## Najo (Nov 23, 2007)

Evilusion said:
			
		

> Ok when I get a chance to I will.
> 
> Well as for a sliding scale it still does not interupt our games much. I think this has a lot to due with us playing rolemaster so much. The adding and substracting just comes easy for us. As far as people spending time trying to figure the best optium power attack is just plain nuts to me. Just chose a number and go for it.




One thing I don't want people getting me wrong on here... When I first saw power attack and the little bit I used it I like the feat. It does "appear" elegant. But I have seen and heard of power attack horror stories and abuse. Though alot of people feel the feat is fine, there is places it breaks down and stops working how it was meant to. The designers see this, and they are right. Power attack needs tighting up. It is a cool idea, and even a needed one in the current version of the game (i.e. converting attack roll excess into damage), but this version doesn't do that very well unless a) your attack roll is so high that any excess moved over to damage doesn't hurt your to hit chance, b) your target's hardness or damage reduction is so high that you can't harm it without using power attack. In any other circumstance, you are increasing your miss rate and thus actually lowering your average damage over the whole encounter, thus power attack is most of the time a wasted feat.

Besides, Power Attack is such as cool idea and it is so often taking at low level that it should be better than it is.


----------



## Najo (Nov 23, 2007)

Here is another idea for Power Attack:


Power Attack
Pre: Str 13+

You may choose to use power attack as a standard action. Power attack counts as a single melee attack with any weapon you are holding. Damage from power attack is doubled. 

You may only use power attack once per encounter.


----------



## Najo (Nov 23, 2007)

and one more idea for Power Attack:

Power Attack
Pre: Str 13+

You may use power attack as a standard action. Power attack counts as a single melee attack with any weapon you are holding. If power attack hits, then your strength modifer added to damage is doubled for that attack. If you miss, then your opponent gets an attack of opportunity against you. 

You may only use power attack once per round.


----------



## Abraxas (Nov 24, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> If you can find a usage that predates the 2002 printing of Heroes of High Favor: Half-Orcs, you're welcome to (re)claim provenance, with my regards.
> 
> Who knows where gamers get these things?




Not trying to claim provenance, having not read Heroes of High Favor: Half-Orcs I was just pointing out that FPAATT is the common usage around my neck of the woods - heck even Hyp refered to it as FPAATT back in aught5.   

As for where gamers get these things, I'm sure the people who I game with got it from saying things like "I power attack full" for every attack and finally just saying "I'm full power attacking all the time unless I say otherwise" - in fact, I'm pretty sure it was one specific player that said just that with his first charater with 3.0, but we don't write these things down...and he went through lots of characters.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Nov 24, 2007)

Abraxas said:
			
		

> Not trying to claim provenance, having not read Heroes of High Favor: Half-Orcs I was just pointing out that FPAATT is the common usage around my neck of the woods - heck even Hyp refered to it as FPAATT back in aught5.




Aught5 does not predate Aught2.

(sigh)

You can't leave these things in the hands of average gamers. Put your trust in a professional wordsmith, such as myself. "All Power Attack, All The Time" has an accepted and time-honored symmetry that lesser alternatives lack.

http://www.google.com/search?client...en&q="All+*,+All+the+Time"&btnG=Google+Search

To be fair, I am sure the distinction flies right over the heads of the typical gamer philistine. As for myself, I am highly trained and highly paid to make these discerning decisions in diction. No word can be left to chance.

You wouldn't invite some average joe to come in off the street to overhaul your engine, would you? Fix your plumbing? Re-wire your house? Of course not. I respectfully suggest that you accord the same respect to the craft of the wordsmith.

I grant you license, on my behalf, to gently but firmly correct the fellow gamers in your neck of the woods:

It's All Power Attack, All the Time.


----------



## BryonD (Nov 24, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I grant you license, on my behalf, to gently but firmly correct the fellow gamers in your neck of the woods:
> 
> It's All Power Attack, All the Time.



Well, at least for a few more months....


----------



## Takei (Nov 24, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> All Power Attack, All the Time.
> 
> Problem solved.




Seconded.


----------



## Nifft (Nov 24, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> To be fair, I am sure the distinction flies right over the heads of the typical gamer philistine. As for myself, I am highly trained and highly paid to make these discerning decisions in diction. No word can be left to chance.



 APA,ATT is ambiguous, as it does not specify by how much you are Power Attacking.

FPA,ATT is unambiguous.

But to be fair, perhaps the distinction flies over some heads...

Cheers, -- N


----------



## blargney the second (Nov 24, 2007)

FPAATT has the distinction of being onomatopoeic.
-blarg


----------



## Najo (Nov 24, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> APA,ATT is ambiguous, as it does not specify by how much you are Power Attacking.
> 
> FPA,ATT is unambiguous.
> 
> ...




I agree with Nifft and the others saying FPT, ATT. Full clearly states the degree to which your "power attacking". All makes it sound like you use it exclusively, and thus is redundant with all the time. You don't power attack for ALL, you power attack for FULL. Heck, saying MAX(imum) power attack, all the time makes even more sense then either of them. 

So, MPA, ATT it is then


----------



## Kunimatyu (Nov 25, 2007)

I'll be happy if Power Attack becomes a Bo9S-style manuever -- I've seen too many times where Power Attack slowed down gameplay, either because someone was trying to calculate it on the fly, or because they couldn't find where on their sheet they'd written their standard attacks.


----------



## Abraxas (Nov 25, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Aught5 does not predate Aught2.
> 
> (sigh)



Never said it did   



> You can't leave these things in the hands of average gamers. Put your trust in a professional wordsmith, such as myself. "All Power Attack, All The Time" has an accepted and time-honored symmetry that lesser alternatives lack.
> 
> http://www.google.com/search?client...en&q="All+*,+All+the+Time"&btnG=Google+Search




As does Full Power Attack, All The Time

http://www.google.com/search?q="Ful...&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&start=10&sa=N



> To be fair, I am sure the distinction flies right over the heads of the typical gamer philistine. As for myself, I am highly trained and highly paid to make these discerning decisions in diction. No word can be left to chance.
> 
> You wouldn't invite some average joe to come in off the street to overhaul your engine, would you? Fix your plumbing? Re-wire your house? Of course not. I respectfully suggest that you accord the same respect to the craft of the wordsmith.
> 
> ...



FPAATT and APAATT appear to be a case of divergent evolution. However, assuming that everyone using Full Power Attack, All The Time actually knew about the APAATT formulation, and knowing that language is fluid and changes to meet the needs of those who use it, I believe, in that case, a migration from APAATT to FPAATT was natural and inevitable. I have never heard a gamer say they power attack All or are All power attacking during an actual game, although it is possible others have. Only a prescriptionist wordsmith would hold onto antiquated phrasing, and I choose to let my philistine gaming friends continue to be unaware of any alternate to their functional FPAATT.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Nov 25, 2007)

Abraxas said:
			
		

> As does Full Power Attack, All The Time
> 
> http://www.google.com/search?q="Ful...&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&start=10&sa=N




F*AAT hits: 177,000
A*AAT hits: 1,930,000


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Nov 25, 2007)

Well, it's official: Wizards' target market for 4e is complete idiots. I guess it's a smart move, since there are an awful lot of those, but for the majority of existing players, this means that the new, dumbed-down, D&D will feel like going from university to "special class". 

I guess that this is what you get when you let people who wrote a "...for Dummies" book or two design a game: They just assume that everyone's a dummy and treat them as that.


----------



## BryonD (Nov 25, 2007)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> F*AAT hits: 177,000
> A*AAT hits: 1,930,000



Yeah, and the F*AAT appear a lot more random chance word usage as well.

As to "All Power Attack" being ambiguous, I can only reply:  "HUH???"


----------



## BryonD (Nov 25, 2007)

Kae'Yoss said:
			
		

> Well, it's official: Wizards' target market for 4e is complete idiots. I guess it's a smart move, since there are an awful lot of those, but for the majority of existing players, this means that the new, dumbed-down, D&D will feel like going from university to "special class".
> 
> I guess that this is what you get when you let people who wrote a "...for Dummies" book or two design a game: They just assume that everyone's a dummy and treat them as that.



Now now...  WotC does no wrong so just stop that right there.  
Besides, it is clear that there are thousands of up and coming power DMs that are going to flock to 4E now that they are no longer shaking with fear.  It is a good thing and you WILL like it.  Unless you just think bad things about your mom.  You don't think bad things about your mom now do ya?  huh? huh?


----------



## Nifft (Nov 25, 2007)

Kae'Yoss said:
			
		

> Well, it's official: Wizards' target market for 4e is complete idiots.





			
				BryonD said:
			
		

> Now now... WotC does no wrong so just stop that right there.




C'mon guys. This is the one place left for reasoned discussion. Incoherent rage and pointlessly vindictive sarcasm have lots of other places to call home.

 -- N


----------



## Najo (Nov 26, 2007)

Kae'Yoss said:
			
		

> Well, it's official: Wizards' target market for 4e is complete idiots. I guess it's a smart move, since there are an awful lot of those, but for the majority of existing players, this means that the new, dumbed-down, D&D will feel like going from university to "special class".
> 
> I guess that this is what you get when you let people who wrote a "...for Dummies" book or two design a game: They just assume that everyone's a dummy and treat them as that.




Streamlining and making a game intuitive does not equal making it for idiots. Games need to be easy to learn, difficult to master. As entertaiment evolves and becomes much more visual, accesible and easy to do, games like D&D need to evolve too or they will die. 

D&D 4e is more than likely going to be to 3.5 as 3.0 was to AD&D. Mark my words. 

Star Wars saga and D20 Modern both have elements of what D&D 4e is doing, and they are fantastic.


----------



## The Little Raven (Nov 26, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> C'mon guys. This is the one place left for reasoned discussion. Incoherent rage and pointlessly vindictive sarcasm have lots of other places to call home.




You think they're going to listen to reason when their only intent here is to turn a thread about a 3e's designer's ability to turn a critical eye on his own work into a "fans of 4e are stupid" thread?


----------



## Nifft (Nov 26, 2007)

Mourn said:
			
		

> You think they're going to listen to reason when their only intent here is to turn a thread about a 3e's designer's ability to turn a critical eye on his own work into a "fans of 4e are stupid" thread?



 They're on EN World by choice, so they're probably decent people deep down. 

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Nov 26, 2007)

Mourn said:
			
		

> You think they're going to listen to reason when their only intent here is to turn a thread about a 3e's designer's ability to turn a critical eye on his own work into a "fans of 4e are stupid" thread?




My only intent here is to correct this horrible usurpation of my intellectual property.


----------



## Abraxas (Nov 26, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Yeah, and the F*AAT appear a lot more random chance word usage as well.



Hmm, it appears that, in my quick perusal, that the F*ATT isn't any more random than the A*ATT usage. Also, it appears that the F*ATT usage applies to using whatever the * is at maximum all the time, while the A*ATT usage applies to using whatever the * is all the time but not necessarily at maximum. Of course this is probably enough of this particular threadjack.


----------



## Najo (Nov 26, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> My only intent here is to correct this horrible usurpation of my intellectual property.




Actually, the thread is supposed to be about Tweets comments on power attack and our opinions on it. Not your IP or putting down the people posting here about power attack. You should work on that Diplomacy skill you mentioned earlier you've neglected, considering you represent your company and the products they sell. 

But enough of that. On a positive note, what is Bad Axe's plans for 4th edition?


----------



## Najo (Nov 26, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Now now...  WotC does no wrong so just stop that right there.
> Besides, it is clear that there are thousands of up and coming power DMs that are going to flock to 4E now that they are no longer shaking with fear.  It is a good thing and you WILL like it.  Unless you just think bad things about your mom.  You don't think bad things about your mom now do ya?  huh? huh?




WOTC does very little wrong with products they acquire from other people or products based off those said aquisitions. For example, Magic was created by Richard Garfield. D&D bought from TSR. Pokemon imported from Japan, Avalon Hill (bought and tranformed into a family board game company). Everything else has been a good game that failed (netrunner, mechwarrior, star wars TCG, jyhad, etc) or a terrible or nitchy game to begin with (dreamblade, hecatomb, duelmasters, x-23, xena, hercules, everway rpg).   

Wotc is also cursed with products they cancel to soon and products they attempt to take themselves into the electronic or mass media. D&D movie and its made for TV sequel, master tools, e-tools, dragon and dungeon online, gleemax, the D&D insider, the dragonlance movie, ployhedron, star wars insider, most support for the star wars rpg, duelist magazine (which must be why they made dragon and dungeon e-mags)...ironically the magic duelist info (i.e. mtg.com) is very good, comes out weekly, and is FREE.

The ONE exception to all of this is magiconline. That is the online e-product WOTC is handling well. If D&D were handle like magic is, we be golden.

Regardless, I think the print books for D&D 4e will be spectacular.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Nov 26, 2007)

Kae'Yoss said:
			
		

> Well, it's official: Wizards' target market for 4e is complete idiots. I guess it's a smart move, since there are an awful lot of those, but for the majority of existing players, this means that the new, dumbed-down, D&D will feel like going from university to "special class".
> 
> I guess that this is what you get when you let people who wrote a "...for Dummies" book or two design a game: They just assume that everyone's a dummy and treat them as that.




Since a large proportion of ENworld would consider themselves the target market for 4e, you think it is appropriate to call people here idiots?

You know how to make reasoned arguments, so make them. Don't fling poo like a deranged monkey.

Take a 3 day break and make a better job when you come back. Email me if you want to talk about this.


----------



## BryonD (Nov 26, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> C'mon guys. This is the one place left for reasoned discussion. Incoherent rage and pointlessly vindictive sarcasm have lots of other places to call home.
> 
> -- N



My sarcasm was neither pointless nor vindictive.


----------



## BryonD (Nov 26, 2007)

Najo said:
			
		

> WOTC does very little wrong with products they acquire from other people or products based off those said aquisitions. For example, Magic was created by Richard Garfield. D&D bought from TSR. Pokemon imported from Japan, Avalon Hill (bought and tranformed into a family board game company). Everything else has been a good game that failed (netrunner, mechwarrior, star wars TCG, jyhad, etc) or a terrible or nitchy game to begin with (dreamblade, hecatomb, duelmasters, x-23, xena, hercules, everway rpg).
> 
> Wotc is also cursed with products they cancel to soon and products they attempt to take themselves into the electronic or mass media. D&D movie and its made for TV sequel, master tools, e-tools, dragon and dungeon online, gleemax, the D&D insider, the dragonlance movie, ployhedron, star wars insider, most support for the star wars rpg, duelist magazine (which must be why they made dragon and dungeon e-mags)...ironically the magic duelist info (i.e. mtg.com) is very good, comes out weekly, and is FREE.
> 
> ...



I don't even know where to even start with a response.
I make a comment to the point that any critical comment on any single rule can get blasted and instantly damned as if being from a wotc-bashing axe grinder, even if the poster is pro wotc 5 times out of 7 (such as say, me).  Your response is to forget the rules context and start talking about complete products and then use the assumption of your own personal opinions being fact as the whole basis of this misplaced rebuttal.  

And if you think magiconline was the "ONE" thing WotC has done wrong, then I accept that and simply will consider your opinion as representing a very very small group.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 26, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> And if you think magiconline was the "ONE" thing WotC has done wrong, then I accept that and simply will consider your opinion as representing a very very small group.



I am not sure, but I think you misread him, or somehow used the false wording in your post. 

The way I read his post, "Magic Online" was one of the things WotC did well (referring only to the electronic and mass media products related to their "traditional" systems)


----------



## Najo (Nov 26, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> And if you think magiconline was the "ONE" thing WotC has done wrong, then I accept that and simply will consider your opinion as representing a very very small group.




You completely misread me. take another read through please and then let me know what you think of my reply. 

Most of my comments were from first hand experience in the frontlines of the game industry for the last 13 years. They were backed by experience and a strong understanding of what makes a good game sell and why a bad game fails.


----------



## Najo (Nov 26, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I am not sure, but I think you misread him, or somehow used the false wording in your post.
> 
> The way I read his post, "Magic Online" was one of the things WotC did well (referring only to the electronic and mass media products related to their "traditional" systems)




On the nose  Thank you for pointing this out. See Byron, Mustrum got it


----------



## BryonD (Nov 26, 2007)

Najo said:
			
		

> You completely misread me. take another read through please and then let me know what you think of my reply.



Sorry, I did indeed misread that line.  My bad.  I apologize.


----------



## Najo (Nov 26, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Sorry, I did indeed misread that line.  My bad.  I apologize.




No worries. Thanks for the apology.  Now you have reread it did you have any comments?


----------



## BryonD (Nov 26, 2007)

No.  

I still think WotC makes mistakes and it is ok to point them out and expect to not be automatically decried as a WotC basher.  I don't think WotC having several good products changes that.  

I do agree that WotC has numerous good products.  And I am not accusing you of calling anyone a basher, that is simply the context of my prior post to which you replied.


----------



## Najo (Nov 26, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> No.
> 
> I still think WotC makes mistakes and it is ok to point them out and expect to not be automatically decried as a WotC basher.  I don't think WotC having several good products changes that.
> 
> I do agree that WotC has numerous good products.  And I am not accusing you of calling anyone a basher, that is simply the context of my prior post to which you replied.




I actually think WOTC is 50/50 with their products. They have alot of stinkers (which I point out in the post) and they have some sleepers that were too niche. 

Even within the products they do well with, they do make mistakes. I still do not agree with the mystic theurge approach to multiclassing spellcsaters. I think it was a easy way out and a band aid. That classes like that still are underpowered and now require extra time to prepare their daily spells. In both cases, no fun. Ironically, mr. Tweet was all over the mystic theurge thinking it was the bst thing since sliced bread. I think he was 100% wrong. 

Anyrate, I am not looking to call people WOTC bashers and I don't think sliver clouds, sunshine and rainbows fly out of their arses. 

All in all, I think that WOTC will do well with 4e though. There are some good designers on the team. The studio has done well with the other d20 projects and at least 80% of D&D. I trust the intelligence of Mearls, Collins, Wyatt, Heisoon <sp> and the rest of their crew. There is a very good foundation put their to work with from Monte, Skip and even Johnathan. 4e has a very good chance of blowing us away. 

My WOTC rep told me that the first two times he played 4e as a playtester it frustrated him because it was so different. Things weren't where he was comfortable with them. It was new and different and that made it frightening that the D&D he was comfortable with was gone.

He said after the third time playing, it all clicked and he couldn't imagine going back. That he loved it, and that it was miles of difference between the two games. That 4e made 3.5 look primiative and akward. 

So for what it is worth, there you go. He has never lied to me before. I believe him.


----------



## glass (Nov 26, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Let me suggest that the smarter your players are, the less they indulge in behavior that bogs down the flow of play, even if it means a slight loss in their own character's effectiveness...



And thus, my group never uses power attack (except as a prereq for cleave), because they are smart enough to realise that without the maths it is a liability.

Do you think that 'bog down the game or suck' is a good choice to be built into the game?


glass.


----------



## BryonD (Nov 26, 2007)

If you go back to the annoucement you will find posts from me that were completely in support of 4E and for reasons completely consistent with the ideas you state.  You don't need to talk me into that.

4E may still be great.  
I hate the idea of dumbing down.  
No matter how good 4E is, I think it will be better if they avoid dumbing it down.
They may in fact NOT be dumbing it down.
Some people have very actively advocated "simplfying" and then detail the ideas in ways that sum up to "dumbing down".
Some of these people make it clear that any hint of questioning these type changes is a high heresy.  
The actual WotC comments have been far to ambiguous to make a statement, but some seem to lend themselves into the dumbing down path.
I like Power Attack.
I am fully open to alternative ways of handling Power Attack.
If a key driver in redoing PA is a need to dumb it down then that is bad.

I'm certain there are insiders that love 4E.
There are people who love WoD and hate 3X.   
That doesn't make WoD a better game for what I want.

There have also been claims that one goal of 4E should be to grow the number of players by somehow lowering the bar for entry.  I believe this is deeply misguided.  Not because I am slightly opposed to more gamers but because I believe the unintended consequences will be substantial and the addition of new players by this approach will be negligible.

I am still right now very enthusiastic about 4E.  
I love 3X, but certainly see ways that the mechanics and more abstract lessons learned of the D20 era can be used to re-tool and move the game to a higher level.  And while my total support of a few months ago has gained some real shadows of concern now, I remain very optimistic and expect to be happily relieved in a few months.  And if (WHEN!!!) I love 4E, I will be very vocal about it here.

In the mean time I'm still going to disagree with claims that dumbing down is good and I'm still going to take each piece of news as it comes and be just as critical of the "wotc does no wrong" types as I am of the "wotc is just grubbing corporate jerks"  types.


----------



## BryonD (Nov 26, 2007)

glass said:
			
		

> And thus, my group never uses power attack (except as a prereq for cleave), because they are smart enough to realise that without the maths it is a liability.
> 
> Do you think that 'bog down the game or suck' is a good choice to be built into the game?
> 
> glass.



You know, I thought some more about the prior comment that my group doesn't increase their damage and I concluded that I 100% disagree with this claim.  You can come far short of optimizing PA and still gain a solid advantage from it.

It is really easy to gauge what you need to roll to hit a particular target and adjust over the course of a few rounds.  I am certain that they dish out substantially more damage than they would if they never used PA at all.  And they don't spend any significant time dwelling on it.  

For example, my wife tends to almost always start at 0 PA.  If she hits with a 4 or something (or observes that other players are), she will start rolling in some PA.   On really obvious easy hits she will do the opposite and start with a lot of PA and work back as needed.  Either way the total damage output goes up and she ends up close to optimal just be natural tendency without the slightest need for dwelling on the math.  And really, if a player is going to get themselves worked up over perfectly maximizing their damage output over being into the roll of a powerful warrior smashing his foes, then getting rid of the math isn't going to treat the core problem.

Because I will repeat that regardless of how much damage they do, the total amount of fun added by PA is very high in my group.

Be cool without any bogging at all is an awesome addition to the game.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Nov 26, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Because I will repeat that regardless of how much damage they do, the total amount of fun added by PA is very high in my group.
> 
> Be cool without any bogging at all is an awesome addition to the game.



True.  I think that PA is fun, but it is still a problem.  It might not be in your particular group, but it is in general across all groups.

I can tell you from experience having a number of new people join my home game as well as running RPGA conventions at gaming stores where new people are always showing up asking to play that the situation with power attack goes the same way 90% of the time:

New Player: "I don't know how to play this game, but I want to learn!"
Everyone Else: "You should be a fighter, its easy to learn and you get to use a big sword and kill the enemies."
New Player: "That sounds cool.  I don't know how to make up a character though."
Someone: "No problem, you are a human fighter with power attack, cleave, and a high strength."
....
New Player: "Ok, I attack the enemy."
Someone: "You should use power attack.  It lets you take a minus to your attack and add damage instead."
New Player: "Doing more damage is good.  How do I do that?"
Someone: "You just take a minus to your attack and add that much to your damage."
New Player: "So, I rolled at 12....what does that mean?"
Someone: "Well, how much were you power attacking for?"
New Player: "Oh, I didn't know I had to say before I rolled."
Someone: "Yeah, since you need to minus that off your to hit roll."
New Player: "Oh...I think I get it now....so, it says I have plus 7 to hit, so I add that to the 12 and I get...19."
Someone: "Except you are power attacking...for 4 you said."
New Player: "Right, so...then what do I hit?"
Someone: "15.  Which is 19 minus 4."
New Player: "Ok, so then I roll the damage listed on the sheet?"
Someone: "Yes."
New Player: "I get 10."
Someone: "That seems wrong, you power attacked for 4 and you rolled 4 on the dice.  It seems too low.  You added the damage from power attack?"
New Player: "No, I forgot, I was just looking at the numbers on my sheet.  Then I get 14."
Someone: "Keep in mind that when you use power attack with a two handed weapon you get double the amount you power attack for to damage."
New Player: "That's 18 then."
DM: "Either way, this discussion is pointless, the enemy has an AC of 16 and 15 misses."
(next round)
Someone: "So, are you going to power attack again?"
New Player: "Sure...how much should I power attack for?  I don't want to miss again."
Someone: "That's up to you, it can be anything."
New Player: "I don't know what's best though, what do you think?"
....
etc.

We currently have one player in our group who can't do the math on power attack at all and calculates either the attack roll or the damage roll wrong every time she does it (although she's getting better, she only does it wrong about 30% of the time now).

We have another player who, whenever he does math involving a power attack doubles or triples the length of his turn.

It isn't isolated to just a few groups.  I have no doubt that some groups are entirely filled with people that don't have a problem with power attack and therefore don't see it.

However, I can say from experience that dumbing down the game IS a good thing.  As a large number of players I've met can't handle the current complexity.  At least, not well.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 26, 2007)

I think it really depends on what you dumb down. 

If you dumb down that every class plays the same, just has a different flavour text, I'd say that's not what "good" dumbing down is about. 
If you remove all combat maneuvers and leave only the option to hit and deal damage, that's also bad dumbing down.

But changing power attack so that it becomes faster to apply is not really dumbing down negatively. 
I think Power Attack requires a little bit to much micro-management, especially because it is associated with a flavour that doesn't imply careful observation or calculations. 
Provoking an attack of oppertunity and/or suffering an AC penalty for it sounds more fitting (though these might have problems in the balance department)


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 26, 2007)

*shrug*

The fact that finding the proper amount to power attack requires creating an equation for expected damage giving constant average damage without power attack, constant target AC, variable power attack to hit modifier and variable damage, then taking its derivative, setting it equal to zero, and solving the question, IS a problem, even if no one does all that work during an actual game.

Power attack accomplishes three things.

1) It gives fighting characters something to do with excess BAB.  If you're charging an enemy, you only get one attack per round anyways, and you hit on a -4 or above, you might as well power attack a bit.
2) It lets people simulate wild, crazed swings of an axe, lowering their chance to hit in exchange for a gamble for huge damage.
3) It lets people optimize their damage by power attacking for one or two here or there as the situation merits.

My thoughts on these: 

1) Power attack accomplishes the first pretty well.  

Personally, I'd rather accomplish the same thing with a rule like this- Feat: Crush.  Effect: For every two full points by which you beat a target's armor class, deal one extra point of damage.  This bonus applies to all attacks automatically unless you choose otherwise.

2) Power attack is not so great at the second.  Frankly, the damage isn't big enough to justify the risk.  If I'm going to reduce my chance of hitting by a half, I want to see around a 100% increase in damage.  I'd be in favor of a feat that lets a player lower his chance of hitting in exchange for a bonus to damage, but it had better be a BIG bonus.  I want it to be a momentous decision that has everyone on the edge of their seat as the player rolls, not a small decision that everyone kind of ignores.

I'd rather see a feat like this: Feat: Demolish.  Effect: You may choose to subtract 10 from an attack roll.  If the attack hits, you deal triple damage, and the target you strike suffers a Fortitude Stun Attack with bonus equal to your character level plus your strength.  Normal rules for multipliers apply.  You must choose before you roll the attack.

With a feat like this, everyone knows that your risking a serious chance of missing your attack.  But if you hit, its going to be awesome.

3) And while power attack is awesome at the third if you do the calculus, I don't think the third is a good idea.  I'd rather that tactical decisions revolve around in game effects, rather than number juggling.  I say this as someone who is pretty good at number juggling.


----------



## Guild Goodknife (Nov 26, 2007)

Kae'Yoss said:
			
		

> Well, it's official: Wizards' target market for 4e is complete idiots. I guess it's a smart move, since there are an awful lot of those, but for the majority of existing players, this means that the new, dumbed-down, D&D will feel like going from university to "special class".
> 
> I guess that this is what you get when you let people who wrote a "...for Dummies" book or two design a game: They just assume that everyone's a dummy and treat them as that.




Just one question: Why are you still here? You've been trolling the boards since 4th edition was announced. Your insulting comments got old real quick.


----------



## mmadsen (Nov 26, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> You can come far short of optimizing PA and still gain a solid advantage from it.
> 
> It is really easy to gauge what you need to roll to hit a particular target and adjust over the course of a few rounds.  I am certain that they dish out substantially more damage than they would if they never used PA at all.  And they don't spend any significant time dwelling on it.



But the evidence suggests that power attack, applied blindly, hurts as much as it helps, especially for attackers already doing decent damage.


----------



## Najo (Nov 26, 2007)

1) Ok, to reply to the comment on WOTC as a big, evil corporation. WOTC may answer to public stock holders (ala through Hasbro), but the people working in WOTC and on D&D are huge D&D fans and love the game.

2) Power Attack has been proven to be open to abuse and cause confusion for new players. Regardless if your players don't do this, the possiblity for it to occur is there. Mathematically power attack is proven to not do much, even though the idea of it is neat. Again, if you don't see this, then you are not doing the math on it. Good game rules do not behave like this. The end result, power attack needs to be fixed in a way that keeps the feel of it, but removes the issues it can cause.

3) D&D is a wonderful game that is now competing for time and money from some other very well-done games, namely World of Warcraft. These other games have fewer barriers to entry, thus making it easy for a new player (and a potential D&D player at that) to play that game, learn it, and then stay their once they gain mastery.

Because of this, D&D has to look at its marketing, its barriers to entry and how well the game players over time. They need to look at all levels of play, and the ability for the game to draw in new blood and keep it playing. They need to remove and change the things that were counter intuitive, turned off new players or made running or playing the game not fun for veteran players. 


That is the streamlining that D&D is going through right now. They are not dumbing it down. Adding in versitle talent trees is going to allow for much more character flexibility than anything the current game has. Having abilities you can use per encounter, per day and per round is going to give tactical choices. Environmental rules, monster tactics, team dynamics and roles, all of these things allow for new players to pick up and run easier, while giving old players more to chew on than ANY previous version of the game did. 

D&D is making the basic rules easier to learn and get rolling. But in turn, they are giving you more options than ever before. This is the sign of a great game, simple to learn and difficult to master. 

Absolutly nothing they have said about the changes or the sneak peaks we have been given suggest that they are dumbing it down. That is just gamers worst fears getting the better of them. Have faith in the guys who love the game that work at WOTC. Yeah, their bosses are saying sell books and make money, but they know if they kill the cow and lose all of their customers that noone is happy and I am willing to bet if they were having to do that they wouldn't want to work on this project anyways. The designers know what they are doing.


----------



## Najo (Nov 27, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> *shrug*
> 
> The fact that finding the proper amount to power attack requires creating an equation for expected damage giving constant average damage without power attack, constant target AC, variable power attack to hit modifier and variable damage, then taking its derivative, setting it equal to zero, and solving the question, IS a problem, even if no one does all that work during an actual game.
> 
> ...




Criteria 
1) Power attack should feel like a wild swing that leaves you open but hits harder or is harder to hit with.
2) Power attack should increase the damage of the attack.
3) Power attack should toggle on and off and possibly be restricted in use per round.


My suggestion:

*Power Attack * (Pre: Strength 13+)
*Benefit: * You can use power attack as a standard action. To use power attack, make a single melee attack. If your attack hits, then it causes double damage. If you miss, your opponent may make an attack of opportunity against you. You may only make one power attack per round.


----------



## frankthedm (Nov 27, 2007)

Guild Goodknife said:
			
		

> Just one question: Why are you still here? You've been trolling the boards since 4th edition was announced. Your insulting comments got old real quick.



On Enworld, if you think someone is trolling, you click the 'report post' button and let a Moderator about it. It looks like this> 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





That said, I like 4E, but that doesn't mean I disagree with Kae'Yoss on thet wotc seems to be simplifying the game for more mass market appeal. The bulk of humanity is not called _"the ignorant masses"_ without reason. Hasborg wants the cash of the fools who are soon parted from thier money. Wotc want to keep thier jobs and has to get as much money as possible for thier megacorp owner.


----------



## Quartz (Nov 27, 2007)

I love Power Attack and Combat Expertise: a fighter-type can allocate a couple of pips of BAB to each and hit hard while being harder to hit.


----------



## Najo (Nov 27, 2007)

Here is some basic math that simply presents the Power Attack issues:

Lets assume we have a character with a to hit roll modifier of +15 (all bonuses included)

Lets say our monster has an AC of 26 (giving our hero a 50% chance to hit)

Our hero has power attack and deals 1d8+3 damage. The average damage is 7.5. 

Because the hero has a 50% chance to hit, they will deal 3.75 damage per attack.

Here is the effect that power attack has:

+hit	%hit       av. damage
15	50%	3.75
14	45%	3.825
13	40%	3.8
12	35%	3.675
11	30%	3.45
10	25%	3.125
9	20%	2.7
8	15%	2.175
7	10%	1.65
6	5%	0.875

This shows you exactly how power attack works. As the hero takes greater penalties to hit, and thus adds to damage, they actually do less damage over time. This at the cost of a feat. Power attack only benefits you if you have excessive BAB or within a small amount used +1 or +2. Even then, the effect is negligible. 

If you look at power attack with monsters with a much lower AC (say 17), and thus higher chance to hit, it looks like this as you use it:

+hit	%hit       av. damage
15	95%	7.125
14	90%	7.65
13	85%	8.075
12	80%	8.4
11	75%	8.625
10	70%	8.75
9	65%	8.775
8	60%	8.7
7	55%	9.075
6	50%	8.75

Ironically, power attack fluctuates up and down as you go down the chart. But overall, when you have a high base attack bonus, it gives you about +1 damage extra, all for a feat.

The ONLY exception is when your to BAB is far higher then needed. So much so that you can take all of the excessive, still hit on anything but a 1 and then add that difference to your damage. That is the ONLY place power attack really does anything at all. 

Now, here is where all the arguments come in. But for a starting feat, that a 1st level character can have and doesn't get ANY benefit from at all. That it takes using with tables like these to understand and I won't really break it until high level and then once I do it can add gross amounts of damage to monsters that are already easy to hit.

Power attack doesn't work like it advertises. It confuses new players and lies to veteran players. It is pure luck if you get it to work for you, and your missing more than you realize, likely only remembering when it is lucky. Power attack needs an overhaul, badly.


----------



## helium3 (Nov 27, 2007)

Najo said:
			
		

> Here is some basic math that simply presents the Power Attack issues:




So here's a tangentially related question for you. If power attack is so obviously broken in that it doesn't even do what it claims to do, how did that get by the designers of 3E?


----------



## frankthedm (Nov 27, 2007)

helium3 said:
			
		

> So here's a tangentially related question for you. If power attack is so obviously broken in that it doesn't even do what it claims to do, how did that get by the designers of 3E?



 One side says _"lets make power attatck deal a little extra damage, 50% more, with a two handed weapon". _ 

Someone else, _"that might confuse some folks, lets just make it x2"._

1st side, _"well we better playtest that..."_

Hasborg rumbles... *"PRRRROFITS OR PIIIINKSLIPS!"*

1st side, _"Fine fine, x2 it is"_


----------



## Ahglock (Nov 27, 2007)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> But the evidence suggests that power attack, applied blindly, hurts as much as it helps, especially for attackers already doing decent damage.




I'm trying to find where in his post he implied anyone at his table uses power attack blindly.  You don't need a spreadsheet to make a relatively informed decision on what to put into power attack after a couple rounds of combat.


----------



## mmadsen (Nov 27, 2007)

helium3 said:
			
		

> If power attack is so obviously broken in that it doesn't even do what it claims to do, how did that get by the designers of 3E?



It's not _obviously_ broken until you've done a bit of mathematical analysis -- and running the numbers isn't something everyone's inclined to do.  The power attack mechanic _seems_ elegant, and it seems like it should work.  Further, people actually using power attack seem to think they're using it well and gaining from it, even when they're not.


----------



## helium3 (Nov 27, 2007)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> It's not _obviously_ broken until you've done a bit of mathematical analysis -- and running the numbers isn't something everyone's inclined to do.  The power attack mechanic _seems_ elegant, and it seems like it should work.  Further, people actually using power attack seem to think they're using it well and gaining from it, even when they're not.




Right. But that's sorta my point. If you run the numbers, apparently it becomes obvious that power attack doesn't actually do what it's supposed to. So the designers of 3E didn't run the numbers when they designed the feat?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 27, 2007)

helium3 said:
			
		

> Right. But that's sorta my point. If you run the numbers, apparently it becomes obvious that power attack doesn't actually do what it's supposed to. So the designers of 3E didn't run the numbers when they designed the feat?



I don't know. Maybe they did, but they also had other considerations they put more emphasis on: 
- Power Attack is the prerequisites for Cleave, Improved Bullrush and Improved Sunder. These feats might have been seen worthwile a weak feat (and it's not like Power Attack is useless in totally every way)
- Monte himself wrote that they wanted to reward Rules Mastery. Some feats where written deliberately in a way that wouldn't really make them good - Toughness, Skill Focus (3.0) and maybe also Power Attack. (Honestly, I don't mind the concept of rewarding Rules Mastery, but the type of reward should probably not be related to character effectiveness so much and more in gaining ability to express what you want to play or create in mechanical terms).


----------



## glass (Nov 27, 2007)

helium3 said:
			
		

> So here's a tangentially related question for you. If power attack is so obviously broken in that it doesn't even do what it claims to do, how did that get by the designers of 3E?



Because it is not obvious, it is insidious. Just look at this thread!


glass.


----------



## Nifft (Nov 27, 2007)

helium3 said:
			
		

> Right. But that's sorta my point. If you run the numbers, apparently it becomes obvious that power attack doesn't actually do what it's supposed to. So the designers of 3E didn't run the numbers when they designed the feat?



 It's obvious if you know what to look for.  If you're just looking to see how balanced it is, the numbers show it to be basically fine. If you're looking to see how *usable* it is, the numbers show "not very".

But it doesn't look hard to use...

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Najo (Nov 27, 2007)

helium3 said:
			
		

> So here's a tangentially related question for you. If power attack is so obviously broken in that it doesn't even do what it claims to do, how did that get by the designers of 3E?




When I went to Gen Con to witness the release of 3.0 there was a seminar that had like 800+ people in it. We came to listen to Monte and Johnathan Tweet talk about the future of D&D 3.0. Tweet passed out a handout that had math on it for combat probablity and the math around hitting, damage and critical hits. He had percentage of chance to cause a critical hit based on crit range on the sheet. The math on the sheet was wrong though, it forgot to take into account having to roll to confirm the crit, so it had the chances to cause crits were more likely than they should be. 

Likewise, the Mystic Theurge, regardless of what the team in WOTC said, was a huge mathematical mistake. I still have copies of the debate between Tweet and myself on this board. It was educational. I still to this day disagree with the prestige class bandaid to fix issues with multiclassing spellcasters. I don't know anyone who likes the class once they used it, and as owner of a game store I see alot of D&D players.

Every time a player finds a broken combo, that is a game design error. They do get missed, they do exist. Game designers are human. They can't cover the material like all of the playes can, espcially with forums like this where we can share our insights with each other. 

The thing is, they do this as a job, day in and day out. They are less likely to make those mistakes. They are more likely to catch things. They get to benefit from years of working on those designs as a job, and recieving all of the feedback from the players directly. 

What I am saying, they probablly, like all of us, like the idea and elegance that power attack seemed to have. But, somewhere along the lines, didn't really run the math on it or if they did thought it was fine for a low level starting feat. 

But regardless, none of this matters. Because Tweet came forward and said the feat was flawed. So there is your designer catching the mistake, it happend after it was published and in play for 6-7 years..but hey, they caught it. At least it was sooner than any of us did


----------



## BryonD (Nov 27, 2007)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> But the evidence suggests that power attack, applied blindly, hurts as much as it helps, especially for attackers already doing decent damage.



I've done the math for actual play in my game.  The facts that it works out real well trumps evidence based on incomplete data.


----------



## mmadsen (Nov 27, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> I've done the math for actual play in my game.



Would you mind sharing that math?


----------



## BryonD (Nov 27, 2007)

1d12+10 attack with a +28 attack against a typical MM CR correct AC of 26.  Crits for 19/X3.
Avg damage with no PA is 18.81.
Avg damage with a completely random PA between -1 and -14 is 24.78.  Optimal PA is -7 with an avg damage of 27.45.  Worst case for using PA is -14 with an avg damage of 21.36 or -1 with an avg of 21.09.  No matter what number is selected, the expected damage improves.1d12+10	+28	AC 26	

PA	Hit %	crit %	avg damage
0	0.95	0.095	18.81
1	0.95	0.095	21.09
2	0.95	0.095	23.37
3	0.95	0.095	25.65
4	0.9	0.09	26.46
5	0.85	0.085	27.03
6	0.8	0.08	27.36
7	0.75	0.075	27.45
8	0.7	0.07	27.3
9	0.65	0.065	26.91
10	0.6	0.06	26.28
11	0.55	0.055	25.41
12	0.5	0.05	24.3
13	0.45	0.045	22.95
14	0.4	0.04	21.36


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 27, 2007)

I don't understand your character's stats, Bryon.  How do you have a +28 attack roll with only 1d12+10 damage per hit?

BAB 14
Strength 20
Greataxe +3
Weapon Focus
Charging

That gets me to +25 attack, 1d12+10 damage, and the charging explains why you're not getting any iterative attacks.  Where does the last +3 come from?  It can't be a better weapon or higher strength, or that would increase your damage.


----------



## Thundershield (Nov 28, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> I don't understand your character's stats, Bryon.  How do you have a +28 attack roll with only 1d12+10 damage per hit?
> 
> BAB 14
> Strength 20
> ...



It might be a _+4 alchemical silver greataxe_ (+1 attack and damage, but -1 damage) and he end up flanking the foe he charges (+2 attack)? If you don't like the "charging and flanking" combo, he can simply be invisible instead. Also gives +2.

Don't nitpick. It really serves no purpose.


----------



## Mark Chance (Nov 28, 2007)

Thundershield said:
			
		

> Don't nitpick. It really serves no purpose.




Sure it does. Nitpicking is how one gets rid of nits.


----------



## Najo (Nov 28, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> 1d12+10 attack with a +28 attack against a typical MM CR correct AC of 26.  Crits for 19/X3.
> Avg damage with no PA is 18.81.
> Avg damage with a completely random PA between -1 and -14 is 24.78.  Optimal PA is -7 with an avg damage of 27.45.  Worst case for using PA is -14 with an avg damage of 21.36 or -1 with an avg of 21.09.  No matter what number is selected, the expected damage improves.1d12+10	+28	AC 26
> 
> ...




Ironically, your presenting your data the same way I did. All it proves is:

a) You know how to abuse power attack with a high to hit bonus - which is one of the issues
b) That power attack gets worse the further you use it, notice as your damage drops back down at the bottom
c) that using it well is abusive and requires doing nothing else with the character 
d) that power attack requires charts of math to understand it, hence it is a complicated game mechanic and not good for new players or low level characters without high to hit bonuses.

So, you are supporting my arguments.


----------



## Lenaianel (Nov 28, 2007)

Kunimatyu said:
			
		

> I'll be happy if Power Attack becomes a Bo9S-style manuever -- I've seen too many times where Power Attack slowed down gameplay, either because someone was trying to calculate it on the fly, or because they couldn't find where on their sheet they'd written their standard attacks.




I'd like that too. Even better if such powers dont come with a attack malus 
I have a few exemples of what can be done :

*Strong blow.* (Martial power) (at will)
Add X to damage. As you focus on attack you give Combat Advantage to any opponent targeting you until your next turn


*Mighty blow.* (Martial power) (per encounter)  (bludgeonning weapons only)
Add Y to damage. Your blow also attack Fort Defense causing your taget to become "stunned" for one round (or triped, or pushed back ..... (so many options there)) You give combat Advantage to any opponent targeting you until your next turn

*
Executioner blow*. (Martial Power) (Per encounter) (2 handed szlashing weapon only)
Usable only vs a bloodied target. Totaly focusing on attack you dont defend yourself (giving combat advantage at least maybe auto hit) to any opponent targeting you until your next turn. Add Z (where Z is a realy big number) to damage (plus anything from trip to bleeding damage ...)

And so on ...


----------

