[PF] Power Attack

[Mari01]

My group is of the opinion that Power Attack sucks now because you cant COMPLETELY tank your ability to hit and then shenanigan it away. How can I convince them that despite the change, its better off?

[Hiro Protagonest]

You can't. PF Power Attack is roughly even in terms of power, but 3.5 has Power Attack synergizing with other feats, while PF has Furious Focus and that's it. It's good, but it's not "better off".

[lsfreak]

Play games that never get above 4th or 5th level. 3.5 Power Attack tends to suck at low levels because you can't afford the loss to hit, and don't yet have ways of boosting it to really be good. At 1st through 4th or 5th level, I'd pretty much always prefer Pathfinder's version, because it's actually useful. By 6th level you reliably have Shock Trooper and Pounce, and at that point PF can't really compete.

[Akisa]

Play games that never get above 4th or 5th level. 3.5 Power Attack tends to suck at low levels because you can't afford the loss to hit, and don't yet have ways of boosting it to really be good. At 1st through 4th or 5th level, I'd pretty much always prefer Pathfinder's version, because it's actually useful. By 6th level you reliably have Shock Trooper and Pounce, and at that point PF can't really compete.

If you're allowed 3.5 material you can still take shock trooper, pounce, leap attack (for leap attack just improve the pa bonus) and etc. The problem is that you can't adjust on the fly. For example you may feel that -4 to hit is too big of hit lost, but a -1 is acceptable.

[Duncan_Ruadrik]

Though you can't take a huge negative, and get in return huge damage numbers, you are (if using two hands) getting a 3 to 1 return... i.e. three damage for every 1 attack bonus sacrificed... To do that in 3.5 was another feat entirely.

It's not mechanically better per se, but I prefer the Pathfinder method. I always hated seeing Frenzied Berserkers and what have you always missing... and then doing 400 damage the one time they hit in a fight.

[jaybird]

Out of curiosity, did 3.5 have anything like Pathfinder's Cornugon Smash (free intimidate on PA hit)?

[Keneth]

I like Power Attack as it is in Pathfinder, there's far too many ways to abuse it if it were like in 3.5. The fact is, your characters don't need the extra damage, classes focused on damage dealing (such as barbarian, magus, etc.) can easily dispose of any level-appropriate enemies without the use of such shenanigans. If they can't, you're either throwing too much at them, or the casters in their party aren't doing their job.

[Mari01]

Though you can't take a huge negative, and get in return huge damage numbers, you are (if using two hands) getting a 3 to 1 return... i.e. three damage for every 1 attack bonus sacrificed... To do that in 3.5 was another feat entirely.

It's not mechanically better per se, but I prefer the Pathfinder method. I always hated seeing Frenzied Berserkers and what have you always missing... and then doing 400 damage the one time they hit in a fight.

This is how I feel about it. There's no more SWING BATTER SWING. It's a calculated trade-off and the trade value even got increased. For anyone who wasn't tanking their attack bonus in massive amounts, its a straight buff almost.

[lsfreak]

This is how I feel about it. There's no more SWING BATTER SWING. It's a calculated trade-off and the trade value even got increased. For anyone who wasn't tanking their attack bonus in massive amounts, its a straight buff almost.

I really dislike the lack of choice, though. If I played Pathfinder, I'd certainly houserule in that you can choose the penalty you're taking every time you use it.

[Grail]

I really dislike the lack of choice, though. If I played Pathfinder, I'd certainly houserule in that you can choose the penalty you're taking every time you use it.

And then watch it combined with the 2 handed fighter archetype and furious focus for stupid.
:smallsigh:

[Novawurmson]

Because it's actually a trade-off in PF? In optimized 3.5, you 1-shot everything as a SUPEROMGPOUNCE character, for little/no penalty. In PF, it's a conscious decision - Do I reduce my accuracy for more damage or not? - which is (I believe) the point behind a feat that lets you trade accuracy for damage.

[Captain Six]

My favorite thing about Pathfinder's Power Attack is that it's actually not a bad choice for sword and board or two-weapon fighting now. Especially if you rule that Double Slice gives full Power Attack damage to your off-hand weapon. The only thing that was really hurt badly was two-handed fighting.

[grarrrg]

I really dislike the lack of choice, though. If I played Pathfinder, I'd certainly houserule in that you can choose the penalty you're taking every time you use it.


And then watch it combined with the 2 handed fighter archetype and furious focus for stupid.
:smallsigh:

How about we tweak lsfreak's idea to make Grail happy:

houserule in that you can choose the penalty you're taking every time you use it. Anywhere from -1 to the maximum allowed by the feat.

This way it's no worse/better/powerful than before, but you don't have to go 'all-in'. So if the normal allowed by the feat is -4, you can choose -4, -3, -2, or -1. You wouldn't be restricted to "-4 or nothing".

[Person_Man]

PF Power Attack is mathematically strictly inferior to 3.5 Power Attack at ECL 6+, especially against enemies with very high or very low AC (ie, enemies that you have largest incentive to "max out" Power Attack against). If you're playing in a PF only environment, then you also have to deal with the fact that Shock Trooper doesn't exist, and that 3.5 has 10+ ways to multiply Power Attack damage (which in turn multiplies the mathematical disparity between the two feats) whereas PF has four (add additional attacks, critical hits, use a lance, and Spirited Charge). Pounce, free movement, and increases in size/reach are also fairly hard to come by in PF, whereas they're extremely easy to come by in 3.5 (which again, limits the multiplying effect of Power Attack when enemies are outside of your reach +5 feet).

Since PF also lacks full BAB Tier 3+ melee classes (Warblade, Crusader, Wildshape Ranger, Duskblad, and anyone with Divine Power), and they also nerfed special attacks/combat maneuvers, and I personally prefer Tier 3ish games, I never bother with Power Attack in Pathfinder.



Out of curiosity, did 3.5 have anything like Pathfinder's Cornugon Smash (free intimidate on PA hit)?

Not specifically with a Power Attack. But 3.5 has dozens of ways to impose Fear effects as Free, Swift, or attack action.

[lsfreak]

This way it's no worse/better/powerful than before, but you don't have to go 'all-in'. So if the normal allowed by the feat is -4, you can choose -4, -3, -2, or -1. You wouldn't be restricted to "-4 or nothing".

That's what I meant. You're limited to the normal maximum that Pathfinder has, but Power Attacking isn't an all-or-nothing thing. There are plenty of times you just want to take a -1 or -2 to hit.

[Diarmuid]

Out of curiosity, did 3.5 have anything like Pathfinder's Cornugon Smash (free intimidate on PA hit)?

The closest thing is probably Intimidating Strike. It lets you, as a standard action, take a penalty to your attack and gain that bonus to your intimidate roll to make the target shaken for the encounter if you hit them.

[Daftendirekt]

My group is of the opinion that Power Attack sucks now because you cant COMPLETELY tank your ability to hit and then shenanigan it away. How can I convince them that despite the change, its better off?

It doesn't suck now. It's relatively balanced now. Power Attack is broken as **** in 3.5 with all the stuff you can do to multiply it.

[navar100]

It's a varying mileage problem. The only "suckiness" about Pathfinder Power Attack is that it no longer has great synergy with the 3E feat Shock Trooper to combine with Leap Attack to deal hundreds points of damage.

For the Pathfinder feat in its own right it works fine. One handed weapons now get the -1/+2 ratio, decent enough to mean two-handed weapon fighting is no longer the only way to fight. That's a good thing. Two-handed weapons have -1/+3 ratio. That is still significant damage. +3 damage is devastating at levels 1-3. At level 4 you're at -2/+6. Level 8 becomes -3/+9. How regularly did 3E warriors attack for -8/+16 at level 8, barring Shock Trooper?

Paladins Smite, Barbarians Rage, Rangers have Favored Enemies, Fighters have Weapon Training. Combine with Power Attack, Pathfinder warriors are NOT lacking in dealing damage.

If your fellow players just cannot get over fantasizing Power Attack with Shock Trooper, there's no hope for them.

[TuggyNE]

It's a varying mileage problem. The only "suckiness" about Pathfinder Power Attack is that it no longer has great synergy with the 3E feat Shock Trooper to combine with Leap Attack to deal hundreds points of damage.

Or, you know, Deep Impact.

As I see it, it's a nerf, for arguably well-intentioned balance reasons, that is most noticeable to those who most care about melee damage. Therefore, it tends to rub the wrong way, even if it was necessary — a nerf is a nerf, after all — and the ones most affected are also often the most visible on forums etc. (The fact that Paizo doesn't always seem to be fully aware of balance considerations doesn't help matters any, of course.)

[Psyren]

Saph had a great post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12154024&postcount=29) on 3.5 charger builds that I think is relevant here. To paraphrase, either the charger would miss spectacularly and feel useless, or one-shot everything and quickly force the DM into a compensatory arms-race - adding fodder, difficult terrain etc. to every fight just to keep the charger from ending battles before the other players could do anything. Neither situation made for a particularly sustainable game.

That post centered around Shock Trooper + Power Attack, but 3.5's Power Attack was still the lynchpin of that binary situation. I think Pathfinder's version does a good job of modeling what it was meant to (i.e. sacrificing precision for output), still managing to scale (which all feats should) and at the same time, keeping the PC from reducing every combat to that whiff/kill solution set. You can still squeeze out the extra damage you need to take down a tougher-than-normal baddie, but would end up needing the other players to put a particularly chewy enemy to bed quickly - as it should be.

[LordBlades]

It doesn't suck now. It's relatively balanced now. Power Attack is broken as **** in 3.5 with all the stuff you can do to multiply it.

Relatively balanced compared to what? It's not like casters have changed much in PF compared to 3.5

In 3.5:
-casters have tons of way to win
-melee has charging and ToB

In PF:
-casters have tons of way to win
-melee has ???

Just because something is outside your comfort zone, that doesn't make it 'broken as ****'. There are tons of people out there for whom charging works just fine, just like there are tons of people for whom charging is too powerful.

Think about the following(perfectly possible in a moderately optimized game) scenario:

charger: battle starts, maybe he can charge somebody, maybe he hits, and kills him, thus making a contribution to the outcome of the fight.

non-charger: battle starts, he moves to somebody, whacks him for some damage, and then the caster includes the dude in an AOE (no)save-or-suck, dude is incapacitated regardless of remaining HP, thus rendering the non-charger's contribution quite marginal.

[Keneth]

@LordBlades: That's far too an extreme a case to be worth any consideration. Power Attack, as it is in Pathfinder, is not balanced against spellcasters, it's balanced against the predicted amount of damage characters should be doing. Hit Dice are balanced against that benchmark as well. Deviations that are too large are detrimental to the gameplay.

Yes, casters can still dominate the battlefield, but D&D is not a race between player characters. In an ideal case, the spellcaster will SoS the enemies while the melee characters will clean up afterwards. And the characters will work well enough together to not position themselves in the way of each other's fire.

And even without the absurd Power Attack mechanics of 3.5, a decent paladin or barbarian will still be out-damaging any spellcaster. My optimized magus only ever came on par with the barbarian in our group and we wreaked havoc together once I dropped a few spells on the opposing group.

[LordBlades]

@LordBlades: That's far too an extreme a case to be worth any consideration. Power Attack, as it is in Pathfinder, is not balanced against spellcasters, it's balanced against the predicted amount of damage characters should be doing. Hit Dice are balanced against that benchmark as well. Deviations that are too large are detrimental to the gameplay.

Yes, casters can still dominate the battlefield, but D&D is not a race between player characters. In an ideal case, the spellcaster will SoS the enemies while the melee characters will clean up afterwards. And the characters will work well enough together to not position themselves in the way of each other's fire.

And even without the absurd Power Attack mechanics of 3.5, a decent paladin or barbarian will still be out-damaging any spellcaster. My optimized magus only ever came on par with the barbarian in our group and we wreaked havoc together once I dropped a few spells on the opposing group.

I think you're missing the real issue somewhat.

First of all, any attempt of adjusting the amount of damage a char should be doing is IMO beating a dead horse unless you also address the reason why dealing damage is suboptimal. Most casters' attacks work in a binary way: you bypass the relevant defense (save, immunity, etc.) and the monster gets taken out of the combat (permanently or temporary). Dealing the damage you 'should be dealing' works differently: you bypass the relevant defense (AC), and then get to chip away at a second ablative defense (HP) with no visible effect until you reach a certain value (monster's max HP). Not only does this take significantly longer to put a monster out of commission than a binary attack, but it also has a decent chance to waste a lot of actions. If your entire party isn't built around dealing damage, healing and buffing, and some also drop monsters by binary attacks as opposed to HP damage, every time they drop one of the monsters you're attacking, it means all your damage and the rounds you've spent doing it have been largely useless.

Charging is not about doing record numbers of damage, it's about doing enough damage to give your fighter a binary attack: you bypass AC, monster dies.

I can totally understand how these damage numbers were most likely not intended, can be too much for some people and would definitely be too much in a perfect and balanced world, but in the reality of 3.5/PF, charging is one of the very few things you can do past a certain optimization level to prevent your fighter from turning into a dead weight.

[Psyren]

"My fighter is a dead weight if he's not charging" is a solo-play concept. In most groups, the fighter contributes quite well even when he's not running around one-shotting things. This is particularly true in Pathfinder, where casting in melee is a total pain in the ass and getting as much meat between the caster and the enemy as possible is heavily desired.

The thread I linked contains most of my (and Saph's) arguments against charging's binary solution set, so I won't rehash them all here. But the notion that wizards instantly take people out of the fight is one I find strange. The wizard still has to have the right tools ready for the job (good luck glitterdusting that black pudding for instance), and even for those tools that bypass both SR and saves there are still ways to beat them, like dispels.

Charging is a one-trick pony. Yeah that means you can counter it reliably - but the problem is that if you don't, your encounters end in seconds, often before the other party members get to do anything. And if you do counter it, now it's the charging player doing nothing and having no fun. At least with casters you can have a little back-and-forth with dispels, counters, saves etc. Or if you counter their favorite trick, they have backup plans. Charging has two outcomes - let it happen, or prevent it, with little daylight in between - and the ways to do the latter become increasingly contrived as the campaign goes on.

[Keneth]

You're focusing on the fighter too much, other classes have plenty of cool combat abilities in PF which contribute meaningfully to a fight, and even the fighter has a whole set of combat maneuvers (which they're good at) to abuse. This isn't a thread about whether the melee classes are on par with the casters, we all know they're not, but your examples seem intent on the caster in the group intentionally sabotaging the fighter to prove a point, and that's not how combat in D&D works (if it does, either you or the DM are doing it wrong). Yes, the caster can disable someone with a single attack, which presents a perfect opportunity for any warrior to finish them off or focus on a different target. Like I said, it's not a competition.

The point is, your so called "binary attack" for a fighter is a one hit - one kill attack and that's a horrible design problem when you can use it at will. If that's how you want to play D&D, then simply remove HP from your games and introduce a realistic lethal system where your attack determines the type of wound.

[LordBlades]

In the end it looks we have quite different notions of what 'contributing' and 'being good at x' means in the context of D&D, so let's leave it at that

[Chained Birds]

I like PF Power Attack. As a standalone feat, it does its job.

3.5 Power Attack requires more feats to use properly (More so, efficiently), and eventually becomes either OTK or Miss entirely. This maneuver pretty much becomes the only melee action in the end once Shock Trooper kicks in.

At least PF gave some support for other combat styles with their version of PA.