Logic of Power Attack

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Ok, so Power Attack has always bugged me that it takes away from you to-hit.

The fluff of power attack, which the mechanics try to imulate is...

More Power = More Damage
More Power = Less Accuracy

However there is something else that works off a similar principal.

Strength Score is your power and accuracy

More Strength = More Damage
More Strength = More Accuracy

So it seems, that by adding more power to an attack shouldn't reduce your accuracy. When I have a 13 strength score and raise it at level four to 14 my power goes up but so does my accuracy. By the logic of power attack, my accuracy should go down.

Even if we take the idea of Power Attack is pushing you beyond what you are prepared for... Wouldn't you compensate for that or get used to it once you used power attack enough (like, say... A week or two?) I know it worked that way in Kendo (I had bruises because of it).

I get that the devs want to balance stuff (well attempt to balance haha) but I'm not getting how power attack logic works within D&D Strength/Attack Roll logic.

[gr8artist]

It's more the idea of swinging wildly, with attacks that are easier to see coming, and thus more easily blocked.
If you're using quick jabs, then the opponent has a harder time dodging, thus there is no penalty.
But, if you're pulling back, and screaming, and hacking at someone like your name's Gregor Clegane, then they can see your attacks coming a lot sooner and can better prepare for it. The easiest mechanic, then, is to lower your attack roll, as you sacrifice surprise and speed for power and predictability.

[Kazudo]

Well, the logic behind it is that you're using some of your BAB (which is inherent weapon training for accuracy measures I'm assuming since it only applies to attacks and not damage) to deal more damage. You're basically sacrificing accuracy for damage. Realistically, Power Attack is primarily used in circumstances where accuracy may not be the biggest concern. Really big, slow enemies for example. Now, if you're insanely strong but have a low BAB (which happens with War Hulk builds, for an example) then you end up with the idea that you simply don't have the training to learn how to swap your accuracy for strength very well.

It makes pretty good sense. The mechanics are somewhat awkward, but the logic is sound. What you're doing is making large, broad swings and putting more force behind them instead of making precision strikes carefully.

[FidgetySquirrel]

I suppose the logic that the dev team had in mind is that a power attack is a wild swing. You're not trying as hard to actually aim your attack, but you're applying much more force to the blow, therefore reducing accuracy and increasing damage.

As to whether the logic makes sense from a RL perspective... well, the rage ability is 100% this, but improves accuracy...:smallconfused:

Let's just call it what it is. Balance trumps logic, except when magic's involved.

EDIT: Swordsage'd... twice!

[Demonic Spoon]

If you are physically stronger, you get the extra damage "for free" (i.e. you don't need to change what you're doing other than swing harder) - any hit you make will have more umph behind it and thus deal more damage. Your additional strength also makes it easier for you to punch through your opponent's armored bits (more force) and easier to control where the weapon is going -> Easier to hit.

If you are power attacking, you aren't any stronger than you were before. Nor are you being "reckless" (which would imply leaving yourself open, i.e. giving yourself an AC penalty). You are simply caring less about placing your hits correctly (e.g. aiming for the less armored bits, or aiming the weapon such that it's hard to dodge) and caring more about whacking the person as hard as you possibly can (e.g. more damage). Think trying to poke the guy in the gaps of his armor versus a powerful side-to-side swing. The former is more likely to inflict damage on a heavily-armored opponent, but if it doesn't get completely dodged or deflected, the latter is more likely to kill the guy outright.

Barbarian rage indicates an adrenaline and anger-fueled state where the barbarian is literally stronger. However, the barbarian is far more reckless (not because he's swinging harder but because of his mental state), which is why barbarians get the -2 AC.

[FidgetySquirrel]

*snip*That's true. I actually forgot about the AC penalty, since it's been a looong time since I played a barb. Still, I stand corrected, and apologize for the error.

[mr_odd]

If you are physically stronger, you get the extra damage "for free" (i.e. you don't need to change what you're doing other than swing harder) - any hit you make will have more umph behind it and thus deal more damage. Your additional strength also makes it easier for you to punch through your opponent's armored bits (more force) and easier to control where the weapon is going -> Easier to hit.

If you are power attacking, you aren't any stronger than you were before. Nor are you being "reckless" (which would imply leaving yourself open, i.e. giving yourself an AC penalty). You are simply caring less about placing your hits correctly (e.g. aiming for the less armored bits, or aiming the weapon such that it's hard to dodge) and caring more about whacking the person as hard as you possibly can (e.g. more damage). Think trying to poke the guy in the gaps of his armor versus a powerful side-to-side swing. The former is more likely to inflict damage on a heavily-armored opponent, but if it doesn't get completely dodged or deflected, the latter is more likely to kill the guy outright.

Barbarian rage indicates an adrenaline and anger-fueled state where the barbarian is literally stronger. However, the barbarian is far more reckless (not because he's swinging harder but because of his mental state), which is why barbarians get the -2 AC.

This basically sums it up. Strength gives bonuses to damage and attack because in a melee fight, you have both participants actively blocking and attacking, trading blows. Whoever is stronger is going to be able to overpower the other's strength and hit them. It can also be seen as one's ability to puncture armor.

[Gwendol]

The rules don't actually say what you do when power attacking, only that you sacrifice accuracy for damage. Which is good for when you want to PA for full with your Ice Axe.

[snailgosh]

Power Attack doesn't have to mean swinging without aiming...it could also mean aiming for a more vital body part thats harder to hit

[Segev]

There are two things being modeled by two separate rules, here:

Strength gives more accuracy because "armor class" is what must be overcome to hit somebody. To the first order, then, higher strength means you can get a meaningful blow through the armor more easily. There is also room to argue that higher strength means you are spending less effort on just holding the weapon in the desired orientation and can thus put that effort into choosing that orientation and placing the blow properly.
Power Attack is sacrificing accuracy for damage. This can be a "wild swing" that puts a lot of oomph behind it but gives up effort normally used to make the blow hit a weak spot or penetrate armor rather than glancing off of it. Alternatively, it could be that you're making a "called shot" of sorts: you're deliberately going for a more damaging blow, but to a harder-to-hit area than just "somewhere on the target."

The two do not conflict, despite the seeming contradictions, because they're modeling two different things with the same set of mechanics. It actually lets you fine-tune your fluff more; if you're the strong type that bashes through armor to hit, then your power attack might be choosing to actually aim for the weak spot in the armor. If you're the type who uses their strength to better control their weapon to hit, then your power attack could be a "wild swing" where you give up that precision for more oomph behind the blow.

[Grod_The_Giant]

But, if you're pulling back, and screaming, and hacking at someone like your name's Gregor Clegane, then they can see your attacks coming a lot sooner and can better prepare for it. The easiest mechanic, then, is to lower your attack roll, as you sacrifice surprise and speed for power and predictability.


Power Attack doesn't have to mean swinging without aiming...it could also mean aiming for a more vital body part thats harder to hit

These are pretty much the two ways to think about it.

[Person_Man]

Yeah, there's not that much logic to it, IMO.

Here's the odd chain of decisions that probably led to the creation of Power Attack.

In 2e, the Fighter was a very useful class. Only Warriors (Fighter, Paladin, Ranger) could get more then +2 hit points per level from a high Con bonus, and healing was a pretty limited resource. (There were no unlimited healing options, and outside of town you couldn't rest to regain spells without risking a random monster attack). Fighter had high AC, high hit dice, and arguably the best Saving Throws. Fighters could use many different magic items, which were restricted by class. Fighter was the only class to get Weapon Specialization bonuses (in a game where constant bonuses were pretty rare). The Fighter was the only class that could get Exceptional Strength (if you had 18 Strength you actually got a higher Str bonus based on a d100 roll. This was generally replaced by magic gauntlets or a belt at mid-high levels, but was very useful at low levels). At 9th level the Fighter got a free keep and followers (in a game where buying Hirelings who fought beside was a normal part of most high level games).

While developing 3.0, they decided that they wanted to add Feats as a character customization option. And they streamlined attack bonuses/saves/hit points/magic items/etc in such a way that the Fighter no longer had any big inherent numerical advantages over other classes.

So they decided to give the Fighter Feats, and to make his only "real" class abilities (Weapon Specialization and Leadership) into Feats.

+2 to damage from Weapon Specialization become the baseline bonus for a Feat, because that's what it started as in 2e.

But then they decided they wanted some other Feat options to add damage, like Power Attack. But it couldn't just be strait out better then Weapon Specialization, because then why would anyone take it. So they added an attack penalty.

And now you know the tortured logic of why there are so many fiddly little Feats and weird penalties in 3.X D&D.

[Firechanter]

In 2e, the Fighter was a very useful class. Only Warriors (Fighter, Paladin, Ranger) <snip>

Yeah, all of that, and of course they also had the best THAC0 progression (that what's now BAB) and were the only ones who could get additional melee attacks. Priests also had a pretty good THAC0 (2/3) but only ever got 1 attack per round, just like any other Non-Warrior.
They are also the only class able to use swords longer than shortswords, and swords in turn were the only weapons that could have a bonus greater than +3. The Longsword is arguably the best weapon in the game, and only Warriors are allowed to use it.
So between all of the above (best To Hit, multiple attacks, best weapons, highest damage bonuses), a highlevel Fighter may churn out over 10 times as much damage as any non-warrior.
(They also get heaps of extra XP for killing stuff, but this is counterbalanced by also requiring by far the most XP to level up, so this is pretty much a zero sum game.)
The only problem with the 2e Fighter is, while it's mechanically stronk, it doesn't give you a lot of options. There are special combat maneuvers but they are rarely worth it, because they typically impose an attack penalty, and stuff you can hit reliably with the penalty usually goes down easily enough with regular hits. So essentially your most effective course of action is to just say "I hit it with a stick" over and over again.

So... in this regard, 3E with its feats has really been an improvement -- though it could have been done much better, of course.

[SinsI]

Another interpretation is that you are going for the areas that hurt more - i.e. groin instead of leg - but since the target is smaller it is harder to hit.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Yeah, all of that, and of course they also had the best THAC0 progression (that what's now BAB) and were the only ones who could get additional melee attacks. Priests also had a pretty good THAC0 (2/3) but only ever got 1 attack per round, just like any other Non-Warrior.
They are also the only class able to use swords longer than shortswords, and swords in turn were the only weapons that could have a bonus greater than +3. The Longsword is arguably the best weapon in the game, and only Warriors are allowed to use it.
So between all of the above (best To Hit, multiple attacks, best weapons, highest damage bonuses), a highlevel Fighter may churn out over 10 times as much damage as any non-warrior.
(They also get heaps of extra XP for killing stuff, but this is counterbalanced by also requiring by far the most XP to level up, so this is pretty much a zero sum game.)
The only problem with the 2e Fighter is, while it's mechanically stronk, it doesn't give you a lot of options. There are special combat maneuvers but they are rarely worth it, because they typically impose an attack penalty, and stuff you can hit reliably with the penalty usually goes down easily enough with regular hits. So essentially your most effective course of action is to just say "I hit it with a stick" over and over again.

So... in this regard, 3E with its feats has really been an improvement -- though it could have been done much better, of course.

Actually comparing 2e to 3e, the 2e fighter obtained a bunch of options from the Fighter Handbook. Instead of taking AoO or using skills that the Fighter doesn't have... The 2e fighter got quite a few combat options that adjusted his initiative or his to hit.

My favorite is the disarm, you can knock a weapon out of the hands of the creature, close by or far away, or if you have a free hand you could catch the weapon. I think you took a penalty to hit at... -4

Pinning a creature with, well anything, was another martial option that was just so much fun. Use the call shot to throw an item and pin a person or creature to the ground or another object. Evil Duke Fernando has a cape and is about to run away? Pin his cape to a wall!

What a wonderful book. Most of those things just aren't spelled out OR are pretty impossible for a fighter to use effectively while maintaining his combat status. Sure you can take a feat in 3e to gain the disarm benefits but then you lose out in something better, you can't just decide to do it as a tactical maneuver or else you get an AoO in you... :/

[Snails]

There is another way of looking. The bog standard Fighter, by definition, must be highly competent at basic hitting. At a slightly simplified level, every feat must either be a Bonus or a Trade Off. A few Bonuses are a fine thing, but it would be dull to have a long list of possible bonuses, because that boils down to lots of feat tax and bookkeeping. So anything interesting ought to be a Trade Off.

Power attack is a clean example of Trade Off. Whether it is a wild hard swing or a kind of called shot is irrelevant, because it keys off skill (BAB).

What is somewhat odd, now that I am thinking about it, is why the reverse Trade Off does not exist. Why can I not employ a Gentle Strike, doing less damage for a to hit bonus? Maybe this exists, but it seems like a logical Core option.

[Jeff the Green]

A mathematical point of view:

Assume that the acceleration of the sword during a swing that takes time t is constant up to a certain point, where it becomes zero.
This means that the velocity of your sword when it impacts is proportional to t.
The energy your sword, E, is equal to 0.5 * m * v2.
This means that the energy your sword is proportional to t2.
Assume that your enemy has a probability of blocking or evading your blow p(m) = k * t, where k is a positive number.
Thus the probability of you hitting the enemy p(~m) = 1 - k * t.
Thus as t increases from 0 to 1/k, E increases but p(~m) decreases.
Thus if one can control t one can decide to increase E at the expense of p(~m).

I think you'd need for damage to increase with the square root of E for the math to work out right, but that doesn't seem terribly unreasonable.

[SinsI]

There is another way of looking. The bog standard Fighter, by definition, must be highly competent at basic hitting. At a slightly simplified level, every feat must either be a Bonus or a Trade Off. A few Bonuses are a fine thing, but it would be dull to have a long list of possible bonuses, because that boils down to lots of feat tax and bookkeeping. So anything interesting ought to be a Trade Off.

Only Bonuses should be Feats. Trade offs should be Traits, or available for free.

[Svata]

Only Bonuses should be Feats. Trade offs should be Traits, or available for free.

By that logic, metamagic should be free, as you trade using a higher-level spell slot for more power.

[Jeff the Green]

Only Bonuses should be Feats. Trade offs should be Traits, or available for free.

No, traits are trade-offs you can't choose to switch off. Power Attack itself has no downside because you can choose when and how to use it.

In addition to metamagic, there's all the feats that require you to expend psionic focus, the Mageslayer line, and craven.

[Firechanter]

My favorite is the disarm, you can knock a weapon out of the hands of the creature, close by or far away, or if you have a free hand you could catch the weapon. I think you took a penalty to hit at... -4

Yeah, exactly. Pretty much every maneuver is a -4 to hit. That's why it's usually not worth it, considering 2e creatures have relatively few HP. If the enemy's AC is so bad that you can easily hit it with a -4 penalty, odds are you can just one-round that enemy with regular attacks. If the enemy AC is rather high, you may waste several attacks to uncertain effect, and by the time you disarmed the bugger you might have already killed him with regular attacks. So for those maneuvers to be worthwhile, you'd need an enemy with high HP, powerful attacks, but lousy AC. And tbh I haven't seen that combo in actual play.

I currently play AD&D2 on a weekly basis. It's a lot of fun. With the experiences I am making in that game, I would have written 3E quite a bit differently.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

There isn't really that much of a disconnect between +damage and + to hit coming from Strengh and - hit/+ damage coming from power attack. The more strengh you have the more power you can use elegently. This it why a stronger person is often less likely to break tools, jars, etc as well as hurt themselves. The stronger person is applying measured steady force while the weaker one applies all the controlled force they can muster then resorts to using their body mass or making jerky motions power attacking is the equivelent of this.

What is awkward is that the plus to hit from Strengh is generally thought of as the ability to punch through armor, so maybe that bonus should go away against opponents with no Armor or Natural Armor bonus to AC. However, the Strengh bonus could still be argued as helping you knock aside parries which are assumed to be part ones passive AC.

If it bothers you that much, you could replace it with a dex based feat that represents aiming for vulnerable spots at the risk of hitting heavily armored spots next to them and an increased chance of parrying or a smaller target.


What is somewhat odd, now that I am thinking about it, is why the reverse Trade Off does not exist. Why can I not employ a Gentle Strike, doing less damage for a to hit bonus? Maybe this exists, but it seems like a logical Core option.

As someone who's done a fair amount of sparring with and without weapons I can tell you that trying not to hurt people doesn't make you more accurate. If anything it makes you less accurate as modeled by the rules for doing subdual damage with lethal weapon.

You could make a case for fencing (with a foil not a real, practice or mock rapier) or just tapping people with your fingertips, but those are best modeled as touch attacks that deal 0 damage asin the case of the ToB feat the name of which esapes me at the moment.

[gomipile]

I think you'd need for damage to increase with the square root of E for the math to work out right, but that doesn't seem terribly unreasonable.

Momentum is sometimes used as an indicator of potential impact trauma* rather than kinetic energy. Since the magnitude of momentum is mass times speed and kinetic energy is mass times speed squared, for situations where momentum is more important than energy, your condition would seem reasonable.

Edit:
* For example, google "Taylor KO Factor."

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Power Attack [General]
Prerequisite
Str 13.
Benefit
On your action, before making attack rolls for a round, you may choose to subtract a number from all melee attack rolls and add the same number to all melee damage rolls. This number may not exceed your base attack bonus. The penalty on attacks and bonus on damage apply until your next turn.
Special
If you attack with a two-handed weapon, or with a one-handed weapon wielded in two hands, instead add twice the number subtracted from your attack rolls. You can’t add the bonus from Power Attack to the damage dealt with a light weapon (except with unarmed strikes or natural weapon attacks), even though the penalty on attack rolls still applies. (Normally, you treat a double weapon as a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. If you choose to use a double weapon like a two-handed weapon, attacking with only one end of it in a round, you treat it as a two-handed weapon.)
A fighter may select Power Attack as one of his fighter bonus feats.


For those that say you are swinging wildly or you hitting a weak spot (vitals), the feat makes no mention of these things. Sneak attack targets vitals but Power Attack doesn't even have fluff to go off from except for its name really.

What it is doing is Less Accuracy = More Damage when we know that (with the way the math/system works) More Accuracy = More Damage when it comes to Strength (Power).

I know the many problems of 3e and I just don't see how they wrapped their head around this in context to the system. I get how it works I just have problems with why it works like that.

Thanks Person_Man for the timeline breakdown, what a silly way to make a system.

Firechanter: Yeah generally not worth it, but I played in many games where killing the target wasn't the main goal. Using the different maneuvers was such fun. When I transitioned over to 3.5, it was such a pain to play the same way :/. I know AoO was needed for the system (ok maybe not) but I hated I had to build what I could already out of the box in 2e (using the handbook).

I'm going to use the advantage/disadvantage system from D&D Next to replace the AoO system in 3.5. If you provoke AoO in the game, you don't get attacked but you do get hit (not hard enough to hurt) and you have disadvantage on your attack roll. Casters that cast while threatened (no defensive casting) have disadvtage on attack rolls OR the target gains advantage on the saving throw.

Stand Still is usually given for free to all Full BaB classes.

[Person_Man]

I currently play AD&D2 on a weekly basis. It's a lot of fun. With the experiences I am making in that game, I would have written 3E quite a bit differently.

Just out of curiosity, because I grew up playing 1st and 2nd ed but haven't played them since 3.0 came out, does your group utilize Hirelings, lots of magic items, and Kits? I had a whole stack of 2nd ed supplements when I was a kid (which sadly disappeared in my transition to college), and remember a bunch of of the options being just totally crazy awesome. So when people talk about "The Fighter's raw numbers are great but they're boring" it doesn't match my memory of playing a Fighter at all. (But that was like 20ish years ago, before my working class teenage self ever saw the internet or cable tv or anything else remotely entertaining beyond D&D, so who knows what really happened. Anything was better then Risk).

[Jeff the Green]

For those that say you are swinging wildly or you hitting a weak spot (vitals), the feat makes no mention of these things. Sneak attack targets vitals but Power Attack doesn't even have fluff to go off from except for its name really.

Neither does Weapon Focus (or any other PHB feat, for that matter). That doesn't mean we say the +1 to attack rolls is inexplicable; we take the most reasonable fluff (you've spent a lot of effort training with this weapon above others) and run with it.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Just out of curiosity, because I grew up playing 1st and 2nd ed but haven't played them since 3.0 came out, does your group utilize Hirelings, lots of magic items, and Kits? I had a whole stack of 2nd ed supplements when I was a kid (which sadly disappeared in my transition to college), and remember a bunch of of the options being just totally crazy awesome. So when people talk about "The Fighter's raw numbers are great but they're boring" it doesn't match my memory of playing a Fighter at all. (But that was like 20ish years ago, before my working class teenage self ever saw the internet or cable tv or anything else remotely entertaining beyond D&D, so who knows what really happened. Anything was better then Risk).

I had the same experience with the fighter and using the Fighter's Handbook or whatever it is called... I should really take that off the shelf sometime and give it a good read through again.


Neither does Weapon Focus (or any other PHB feat, for that matter). That doesn't mean we say the +1 to attack rolls is inexplicable; we take the most reasonable fluff (you've spent a lot of effort training with this weapon above others) and run with it.

Well yes you can fluff it however you want, but general consensus fluff doesn't make it the only way or the way they it works.

I had a character who took weapon focus, total fat slob who's personality was Hedonism-Bot from Futurama. He didn't practice with his weapon at all, he was just that damn good. What a fun character that was...

[Morty]

There isn't a whole lot of logic to PA, if only because the entire system of armed combat is shaky and based mostly on misconceptions. If I were to actually run a 3.x game, I'd just allow everyone to use Power Attack, without spending a feat on it and regardless of what weapon they use, and let players describe it however they want.

[Sayt]

I think of it this way: If you hold an axe in two hands, one at the end of the haft, and the other up against the head, you get very good control. On the other hand, if you move the upper hand down towards the middle of the haft, you can swing it in a wider, faster and harder circle, but with less precision.

[gomipile]

I think of it this way: If you hold an axe in two hands, one at the end of the haft, and the other up against the head, you get very good control. On the other hand, if you move the upper hand down towards the middle of the haft, you can swing it in a wider, faster and harder circle, but with less precision.

Which is why a proper way to swing a felling axe is to start with the hands far apart, and slide the upper hand down to meet the lower hand during the downward swing.

[Firechanter]

Just out of curiosity, because I grew up playing 1st and 2nd ed but haven't played them since 3.0 came out, does your group utilize Hirelings, lots of magic items, and Kits?

Yes, we do, though we only started the Hireling bit for real last session. Current group composition is a Dwarf Earthwalker 10, Elf Thief 10, Half-Elf Ranger [with the kit that gives you Weapon Spec] 7, and Half-Elf Fighter/Bard 7/8 (my character). So the Priest and Elf already have their followers (120 Fanatics in one case, a handful of levelled Thieves in the other), while my Gish (who offically is a Baron already) has to wait a little while still until his Followers arrive (about 45K XP to go).
In terms of magic items, between our group we have a +4 Silver Sword, the +3 Sword of the Dales, a +3 Warhammer, a +3 Vampiric Dagger, a +2 Shortbow with a magic quiver supplying 12x +2 arrows per day, a +2 Whirling Scimitar, a +2 Scimitar, a Ring of Invisibility, Boots of Elvenkind, various Rings of Protection, Rings of Fire Resistance and some more stuff like that, plus armour and some backup weapons. Oh and Gauntlets of Ogre Power!
So... nothing like "WBL" there... but it's fun. ;)

Currently we are executing an operation to conquer the Mines of Tethyamar.
For that, we invested a lot of our wealth to hire a crack company of dwarven tunnel fighters, and also hired a competent (if slightly insane) Mage/Priest for added magic support.
The first part of the operation went astonishingly well, as our careful planning and scouting had paid off. We drove the enemy airforce away (a bunch of Fey'Ri), neutralized their external defenses with Insect Swarm (or whatever the spell is called), and managed to enter the fortifications and clear out the first couple of halls. One of the halls was defended by >100 Hobgoblins and 8 Giants, which we handled by having the crack company throw smoke (so the giants and archers couldn't target us with ranged attacks), then after the Hobbos were dead we had the Fanatics swarm the giants to distract them, while we PCs attacked them from above (buffed with Fly spells).
In the end, we had killed several hundred defenders, while our own losses are limited to about 13 Fanatics (which regrow). Of course that was only the first battle, and certainly not the most difficult one, but we are quite confident that we can pull it off.

We play AD&D2 mainly because our DM wanted a break from 3.5. His previous group must have stressed him out quite a bit with various powerbuilds. ;) And he still had all his old 2e material, from Completes to FR books, and wanted to put them to use again. And what can I say, it's lovely.
The DM says he's got enough material for at least one more year of 2e (as I said, we play almost weekly), but once we're done with that, we're going to start a new campaign with 3.5 again.

I briefly played AD&D2 before, in the 90s, but it didn't really take. So now I was really pleasantly surprised that it can work so well.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

There isn't a whole lot of logic to PA, if only because the entire system of armed combat is shaky and based mostly on misconceptions. If I were to actually run a 3.x game, I'd just allow everyone to use Power Attack, without spending a feat on it and regardless of what weapon they use, and let players describe it however they want.

Take all the Improved X feats (bullrush etc), power attack, deadly aim, combat expertise, and pirahna strike and make them basic abilities and things work out pretty well. Non casters can do extra things without provoking and they even get a bonus to do it!

Disarming, a very niche build, now can be used when needed without a jumble of mess.


Edit...

Crack company of dwarven tunnelers... Breaking bad, dwarven style! I totally read that as company of drug dealers who tunnel around to pass on their crack.

[Person_Man]

In reply to Firechanter:

That sounds completely awesome.

In many ways, I think that 2E was more "broken" (in the sense that it's hard to balance different characters sitting at the same table) then 3.X, because so much of the game was randomly determined, and at higher levels there is more of an emphasis on basically controlling a small army of people instead of just having 4ish adventurers.

But what you describe just sounds so extremely interesting and fun. Defeating a dungeon or other adversary basically becomes a collective problem solving (who do we hire, what trickery can we get past them, what spells let us bypass this, etc), and narrative building experience, and not just a long series of 4E style tactical combats.


Back on topic regarding Power Attack - 3.0 was also a very Similationist game - they tried to simulate what would make sense in a "real world" where magic and whatnot existed and allow DMs to construct whatever world they want out of tons of little pieces. But the more complex any simulation becomes, the more likely it is to include a bunch of disconnected garbage that doesn't make real sense. Yes, it sorta makes sense that swinging your weapon harder might make you less accurate. But the underlying Power Attack math modeling that idea is just bonkers, and it's not even particularly balanced (in terms of risk vs reward) either.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Back on topic regarding Power Attack - 3.0 was also a very Similationist game - they tried to simulate what would make sense in a "real world" where magic and whatnot existed and allow DMs to construct whatever world they want out of tons of little pieces. But the more complex any simulation becomes, the more likely it is to include a bunch of disconnected garbage that doesn't make real sense. Yes, it sorta makes sense that swinging your weapon harder might make you less accurate. But the underlying Power Attack math modeling that idea is just bonkers, and it's not even particularly balanced (in terms of risk vs reward) either.

I've talked to other about this (maybe posted this somewhere) but, why not just allow power attack to do something like this.

Name: Power Attack (Fighter)
Prerequisites: Strength 11

Benefit: When determining your damage treat your strength score as 3 points higher. If you are using a two handed weapon (or primary natural attack) then treat your strength score as 5 points higher.

This would require a bit of change to work with rage, or actually you could leave rage alone and just let the barbarian do crazy damage at low level... Not like that would break the game haha. Perhaps just turn rage into abfeat and get rid of the barbarian class (in next I wish they would make the barbarian a subclass :/ )

Edit:

Rage (Ex):
When you rage, every swing of your weapon counts as you power attacking. You gain an addition +2 to your strength score when using power attack. At level 8 and 16 this bonus increases by +2 for a total of +6 from this class feature.

In addition you gain a number of temporary hit points equal to your constitution score. These temporary hit points do jot stack with temp HP from other rages.

Due to your wild nature you take a -2 AC penalty and a +2 bonus to Will saves.

You may rage for any number of rounds per day during battle. After battle you are fatigued for double the rounds you spend in rage.

Needs fixed up a bit but could work.

Strength: 20 + 5 (PA) + (2) (Rage): 27 Strength (+8 modifier?)

2d6 + 12 damage at level 1? (1-1/2 times Strength modifier) so if you hit... You hurt like hell. But you have to hit.

[Morty]

Take all the Improved X feats (bullrush etc), power attack, deadly aim, combat expertise, and pirahna strike and make them basic abilities and things work out pretty well. Non casters can do extra things without provoking and they even get a bonus to do it!

Disarming, a very niche build, now can be used when needed without a jumble of mess.


Edit...

Crack company of dwarven tunnelers... Breaking bad, dwarven style! I totally read that as company of drug dealers who tunnel around to pass on their crack.

Making all of them basic combat options wouldn't hurt, I suppose, but Power Attack is the ultimate feat tax - if you're a melee weapon user who doesn't rely on magic or sneak attacks, you're probably going to need it if you want to deal any damage at all. And several weapon options - like light weapons or ranged weapons - suffer from not having this kind of damage increase. Might as well just let them have it.

[Kazudo]

All you have to do to see how bad the first few editions were is to read what they had to say about Psionics. I had a DM who, upon someone complaining about how imbalanced fighter vs. wizard was, pulled out the 1st edition and AD&D psionics information and began reading aloud.

We stopped whining.

[grarrrg]

What it is doing is Less Accuracy = More Damage when we know that (with the way the math/system works) More Accuracy = More Damage when it comes to Strength (Power).

The logic behind Power Attack is perfectly fine.
It's the logic behind STR>Accuracy that is flawed.

Accuracy should more logically be based on dexterity, perception and reflexes (the more common meaning of the words, not the game terms). Strength factors in, but is not the main/sole factor.

[Anlashok]

The logic behind Power Attack is perfectly fine.
It's the logic behind STR>Accuracy that is flawed.

Accuracy should more logically be based on dexterity, perception and reflexes (the more common meaning of the words, not the game terms). Strength factors in, but is not the main/sole factor.

Well given that armor is miss chance it sort of makes sense that strength (easier time forcing past the armor or causing damage despite the armor) has an effect on accuracy.

[Kazudo]

The entire accuracy/damage/armor class system in D&D is COMPLETELY unrealistic AT ALL. Period. It's important to remember the MST3K mantra at points like this.

Now then, there are a lot of variants in the UA that can help add realism to the notion of AC, but really it's all really just a game mechanic. You can't expect an entire game to be realistic, especially when said game has psionics and magic and sword wizards and actual ninjas and undead and constructs, etc.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

The entire accuracy/damage/armor class system in D&D is COMPLETELY unrealistic AT ALL. Period. It's important to remember the MST3K mantra at points like this.

Now then, there are a lot of variants in the UA that can help add realism to the notion of AC, but really it's all really just a game mechanic. You can't expect an entire game to be realistic, especially when said game has psionics and magic and sword wizards and actual ninjas and undead and constructs, etc.

Well yes the whole system is weird and I'm not looking for realism, just consistency and logic between rules and such.

I'm not the biggest fan of Str = accuracy but that is what the system is based on so that's what I have to go with.

UA has some gems, but they are tacked onto a system that can't always support them. UA needs an update.

[Kazudo]

It IS kind of the "Book of Semi-Official Houserules".

Back on topic though, I believe the STR=Accuracy thing came up as a pre-emptive attempt to make combat classes not quite so MAD. Could you imagine having to choose between, say, DEX for accuracy and STR for damage not just when optimizing one or the other but ALL THE TIME? Then you'd also have archers who are just as capable as swordsmen (save for feat selections) etc.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

It IS kind of the "Book of Semi-Official Houserules".

Back on topic though, I believe the STR=Accuracy thing came up as a pre-emptive attempt to make combat classes not quite so MAD. Could you imagine having to choose between, say, DEX for accuracy and STR for damage not just when optimizing one or the other but ALL THE TIME? Then you'd also have archers who are just as capable as swordsmen (save for feat selections) etc.


Yup, and we love UA for that.


Well no, I think they just took from older editions and in the beginning they had their reasons.

Well if you get rid of the notion that a fighter can't be an excellent swordsman can't be an excellent archer. Give non-casters the ability to switch hit, you may get some good things.

So all those feats that are weapon specific, let's replace melee/ranged with the tag [weapon] and we may get somewhere.

Weapon Focus: +1 to attacks with all weapons.
Power Attack: Boost damage by X amount when using weapons.
Weapon Specialization: +2 Damage with all weapons.

Combine a bunch of feats (Point blank shot and weapon focus) and you can really get some mileage.

And people who don't want to be a switch hitter? They can just not use other weapons *shrug*

[Person_Man]

Since we're getting all suggest house-rule-y on this thread, as I've mentioned on other threads, in my ideal game players would have a Concentration (or Focus, or whatever you want to call it) ability, and they could only have 1 such ability active at any given time, similar to a Tome of Battle Stance. There would be no other way to gain a passive bonuses from any other class ability, Feat, spell/psionics/etc, or magic item. (Though you could get them from your base ability score, proficiency, Advantage/Disadvantage, or however else you want to set up your basic math that can't altered by player optimization).

In this setup, you could make all of your class/feat/spell/etc options ike Power Attack big, cool, and meaningful, without any drawbacks, because when you write them you can always compare and balance them on a one-to-one basis, without worrying about odd interactions with each other.


Power Attack
Prerequisites: 14 Strength or Fighter 1
Activation: Swift Action
Duration: Concentration
Benefit: Whenever you succeed on a melee or ranged attack with a weapon, you may add 5 + 2 point per class level bonus damage. This damage is multiplied on a critical hit.
Insert Cool Fluff Description.


Multiweapon Fighting
Prerequisites: 14 Dexterity or Ranger 1
Activation: Swift Action
Duration: Concentration
Benefit: When wielding two or more weapons, when you take an attack action you may make one additional attack. At 7th level you may make two additional attacks, and at 14th level you may make three additional attacks. Each attack may target the same creature or different creatures, as long as all of the attacks are within range and occur during the same action.
Insert Cool Fluff Description.


This lets you create whatever "fighting styles" you want, but with a complete lack of fiddly bonuses or annoying penalties. You'd have to play test them to death to get the math right, and create explicit and obvious tradeoffs for being able to deal more damage vs being able to target more enemies vs other stuff. But you get the point.

[Barstro]

[SPOILER=Power Attack]
What it is doing is Less Accuracy = More Damage when we know that (with the way the math/system works) More Accuracy = More Damage when it comes to Strength (Power).

You keep citing this equation, but it is flawed.

To follow up on what grarrg said; Strength score is having enough innate ability to control a heavy object. With my personal lousy strength, I could swing a claymore sword. Even with training, I would not be as good at it as someone with greater strength, because that person would be more able to keep the sword in the correct arc and overcome the sword's momentum in order make changes in angle mid-swing.

So, my lesser accuracy and ability to deal damage gives me a +1 to hit at +1 to damage
Greater STR by the other person gives a +3 to hit and +3 to damage (Better able to move the sword into openings and harder hits as well)

Given physics, if I can somehow swing the sword as fast as the other person (Mass x Velocity), I will hit for the same damage. Grunting like a tennis player will allow my lower STR to swing the sword harder/faster (giving me a +3 damage), but all my work went into forward momentum and I have no way to even remotely change the swing angle to get into a presented opening (-1 to hit). My STR did not increase, but the way I used it changed.

[Barstro]

Oh, let's go back to highschool physics


f=Force
p=Momentum (power)
m=Mass
v=Velocity
a=Acceleration
t=time
s=Distance


v=s/t
"Velocity equals Distance over Time"

p=m*v
"Momentum equals mass times velocity"

p=f*t
"Momentum equals force over time"

f=m*a
"Force equals mass times acceleration"

a=(v(1)-v(0))/time
a*t=(v(1)-v(0))
a*t=v(1) (v=a*t)
"Acceleration equals change in velocity over time"
"Acceleration times Time equals Change in Velocity"
"Acceleration times Time equals ending Velocity when starting at 0"

Adding d20 physics

Greater STR equals greater Force "f".
Greater momentum "p" at impact equals greater damage.

Real world comparison;

Me "weakling" has enough force "f" to move a sword (mass of "m") from in front of me to my target (distance of "s") over a certain amount of time "t"
a=f/m My force divided by the sword's mass allows me to accelerate it a certain amount.
v=a*t My velocity at impact is Acceleration time Time (when velocity starts at 0)
p=m*v Momentum at impact is final Velocity times the sword's Mass

If a fighter with greater Strength ("f+1") does this, we have the following;
a=(f+1)*m -- ("a" will be greater)
v=a*t -- ("v" will be greater because "a" was greater from the above equation)
p=m*v -- ("p" will be greater because "v" was greater in the above equation)

Conclusion; greater STR creates more momentum and greater damage.

Since "f" is fixed for the person swinging the sword, and "m" is fixed for the sword itself, how can we get more momentum to create more damage?

p=mv We want to increase "p", but "m" is constant. We must increase "v"!
v=a*t We want to increase "v" so we need to increase either "a" or "t"
a=f/m "f" is fixed for the individual and "m" is fixed for the sword. We cannot increase acceleration
Therefore, we must increase "t".

edit: But we must increase "t" while still applying full force "f". This cannot be done using the same type of attack, because v=s/t. If we increase "t", over the same distance "s", then velocity must decrease, and we are trying to increase "v".

In order to increase "t" while still increasing "v", we must also increase "s". This means moving the sword a greater distances while using the same force. This will take more time, but will allow for greater ending velocity.

Increasing the time it takes to swing the sword will increase momentum, but it also gives the opponent more time to parry, dodge, or raise a shield.
Weakling can do the same damage as the Fighter by taking a longer swing. But this results in a lesser chance of hitting the opponent.

Increasing damage by using more time lowers the chance of hitting.

Maybe it would make more sense if "Windup Attack" was used instead of "Power Attack"

[SpawnOfMorbo]

You keep citing this equation, but it is flawed.

To follow up on what grarrg said; Strength score is having enough innate ability to control a heavy object. With my personal lousy strength, I could swing a claymore sword. Even with training, I would not be as good at it as someone with greater strength, because that person would be more able to keep the sword in the correct arc and overcome the sword's momentum in order make changes in angle mid-swing.

So, my lesser accuracy and ability to deal damage gives me a +1 to hit at +1 to damage
Greater STR by the other person gives a +3 to hit and +3 to damage (Better able to move the sword into openings and harder hits as well)

Given physics, if I can somehow swing the sword as fast as the other person (Mass x Velocity), I will hit for the same damage. Grunting like a tennis player will allow my lower STR to swing the sword harder/faster (giving me a +3 damage), but all my work went into forward momentum and I have no way to even remotely change the swing angle to get into a presented opening (-1 to hit). My STR did not increase, but the way I used it changed.

Not at all. They made their game with certain qualities of core rules (Str = accuracy and damage) and then disregarded their own rules with things like Power Attack. Or at the very least didn't explain it correctly and offered no further explanation at all.



Stuff

Yeah, real world physics doesn't exist in D&D all that much so you can stop with the physics explanations. I took physics in high school and college (where my professor asked me to change my major to physics) but that doesn't matter because D&D doesn't use real world physics.

Giants don't have problems with their hearts/breathing, we have giant bugs, and dragons fly. Heck in 2e (maybe in 3.5? not sure) spells were described as potential energy stored in the brain of a wizard and then released wit the right phrases and gestures as kinetic energy or spells. D&D has never really followed real world physics.


My thoughts are more about consistency within their own rules more so than realism or anything like that.

[Snails]

By that logic, metamagic should be free, as you trade using a higher-level spell slot for more power.

Narrowly speaking, I think that the more vanilla metamagic feats should be free. But in the larger context, since other classes pay through the nose for tactical flexibilty, the champions of flexibilty need to pay a feat tax like everyone else.

One can make a strong design argument that both Power Attack and Gentle Attack should be out of the box class features of the fighters classes.

[Barstro]

Not at all. They made their game with certain qualities of core rules (Str = accuracy and damage) and then disregarded their own rules with things like Power Attack. Or at the very least didn't explain it correctly and offered no further explanation at all.

The core rule is BASE STR = accuracy and damage. But only for Melee weapons, unless you use light weapons and apply Dex, or the weapon is of the wrong size, etc.
The next rule is that if you want to somehow increase damage, it comes at a price. I explained in real world physics where that price comes from. Ignore that if you want, but don't say that Power Attack defies their rules. It is an exception to base rules, just like every other Feat is. "Flavor language" trying to explain things is were people try to turn fluff into core. If you really need flavor language, I gave it to you; "PC takes a much larger swing to increase damage, this larger swing allows the opponent more time to react and decreases the chance to hit."

Power Attack not the same thing as increasing STR. It is using STR in a different way.

Be glad they stopped having different armor types affect damage types differently.

edit: Maybe it's because the PC has to shout "Power Attack" while doing it that allows the opponent a greater chance to defend.

[Barstro]

Narrowly speaking, I think that the more vanilla metamagic feats should be free. But in the larger context, since other classes pay through the nose for tactical flexibilty, the champions of flexibilty need to pay a feat tax like everyone else.

I agree. "Vanilla Metamagic" should be a Feat and magic users should just lose all those bonus Feats that they would otherwise need. Then lower tiers could have nice things too.

[Barstro]

As an aside, but still consistent with the original topic;

I've always felt that every player should be able to add damage at the price of accuracy or the other way around without a feat, at least to the extent that a rapier should be able to hit much more often than a greataxe. The reduced damage is built into the system, but inherent increased accuracy is not.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

As an aside, but still consistent with the original topic;

I've always felt that every player should be able to add damage at the price of accuracy or the other way around without a feat, at least to the extent that a rapier should be able to hit much more often than a greataxe. The reduced damage is built into the system, but inherent increased accuracy is not.

This is why i tend to combine Deadly Aim, Power Attack, Piranha Strike, and Combat Expertise into one maneuver that anyone can do. I've called it different things but it used be called "Basic Tactics" or something like that.

Feats should be for something Ex/Su and special when it comes to combat. Not fiddly little bonuses or basic principals that a commoner could pull off. But sadly I wasn't on the 3.0 creation team.

Edit:

Vanilla Metamagic would make a great Cantrip. Especially for systems where Cantrips are at-will... Might need to port this idea over to 5e.

[Knaight]

All you have to do to see how bad the first few editions were is to read what they had to say about Psionics. I had a DM who, upon someone complaining about how imbalanced fighter vs. wizard was, pulled out the 1st edition and AD&D psionics information and began reading aloud.

We stopped whining.

If the first few editions were the totality of role-playing, this might be a fair point (though I'm not a fan of the whole "this is above criticism because other things are worse" attitude in general). They aren't though. Early GURPS is much better balanced, for example, and that wasn't even a design goal in that game.

[Trundlebug]

All you have to do to see how bad the first few editions were is to read what they had to say about Psionics. I had a DM who, upon someone complaining about how imbalanced fighter vs. wizard was, pulled out the 1st edition and AD&D psionics information and began reading aloud.

We stopped whining.

Haha 2nd was awesomely horrible! Don't forget 3.0, dat mental leap. Seriously as a huge fan of psionics, wt...just wth?

[Morty]

In the end, this kind of logic-bending inconsistency tends to happen if you make several different offensive and defensive factors work in an entirely identical way.

[Zaq]

Narrowly speaking, I think that the more vanilla metamagic feats should be free. But in the larger context, since other classes pay through the nose for tactical flexibilty, the champions of flexibilty need to pay a feat tax like everyone else.

One can make a strong design argument that both Power Attack and Gentle Attack should be out of the box class features of the fighters classes.

For what it's worth, Legend makes both Power Attack and Precise Strike (which is your Gentle Attack: sacrifice damage, gain accuracy) basic out-of-the-box options available to everyone, no investment required. Legend's numbers are a lot more sane than 3.5's (you're basically never going to be unhittable or unmissable, whereas 3.5 nearly guarantees that one or the other will be the case by mid-to-high levels), but even in 3.5, I don't think that it would actually cause any problems to let everyone (except maybe casters) have those options. (Legend even gives ranged characters the Deadly Aim option, which is like Power Attack, though Power Attack gives damage at a 2:1 ratio, while Deadly Aim is a straight 1:1 ratio.)

[Qwertystop]

Personally, my annoyance is more in the lack of a Finesse-based equivalent. Strength-based weapon-users get bonus damage from Strength automatically, and can get more with Power Attack. Dexterity-based fighters have to scrounge around for other bonus damage - Sneak Attack, Skirmish, etc - that all take more of an investment, are usually situational, and don't scale unless you keep putting levels in.

The exceptions are Power Attacking with a Finesseable non-light weapon (not many options there) and Shadow Blade (requires two feats or some Swordsage levels to qualify). I get that it makes sense that a Dexterity-based fighter needs to set up a good situation to be able to hit, since they can't just swing harder, but at the same time it's really annoying from a balance perspective.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Personally, my annoyance is more in the lack of a Finesse-based equivalent. Strength-based weapon-users get bonus damage from Strength automatically, and can get more with Power Attack. Dexterity-based fighters have to scrounge around for other bonus damage - Sneak Attack, Skirmish, etc - that all take more of an investment, are usually situational, and don't scale unless you keep putting levels in.

The exceptions are Power Attacking with a Finesseable non-light weapon (not many options there) and Shadow Blade (requires two feats or some Swordsage levels to qualify). I get that it makes sense that a Dexterity-based fighter needs to set up a good situation to be able to hit, since they can't just swing harder, but at the same time it's really annoying from a balance perspective.

Well Dexterity is already abgod stat and I think that the Devs at least saw that.

A way to fix this is to allow Strength or Dexterity to work for a lot of things that the other works for. Because things like reaction time is also determined by a person's strength as it is their dexterity. Higher Strength means you are faster after all.

May replace Strength and Dexterity on the following items...

Initiative
Reflex Saves
Armor Class/Touch AC
Attack Rolls (not with bows and the like)
Damage Rolls (always add Dex mod to damage with bows and such)

This way each melee character has a god stat, like clerics and wizards with their respective ability scores (wis and Int).

A Rogue will want Dex due to skills/evasion reasons but a Fighter would want Str or Dex. Barbarians would want Strength to be boosted by Rage... That is the core three non-casters.

Make all feats work on any weapon type, so weapon focus will be a +1 to all weapon attack rolls.

Then we can start getting somewhere...

[Morty]

Personally, my annoyance is more in the lack of a Finesse-based equivalent. Strength-based weapon-users get bonus damage from Strength automatically, and can get more with Power Attack. Dexterity-based fighters have to scrounge around for other bonus damage - Sneak Attack, Skirmish, etc - that all take more of an investment, are usually situational, and don't scale unless you keep putting levels in.

The exceptions are Power Attacking with a Finesseable non-light weapon (not many options there) and Shadow Blade (requires two feats or some Swordsage levels to qualify). I get that it makes sense that a Dexterity-based fighter needs to set up a good situation to be able to hit, since they can't just swing harder, but at the same time it's really annoying from a balance perspective.

WotC have always considered fighters who aren't meathsields to be an exotic alternative players should be punished for taking, at best. Usually, they're just ignored.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

WotC have always considered fighters who aren't meathsields to be an exotic alternative players should be punished for taking, at best. Usually, they're just ignored.

Unless you are a magical fighter called a Wizard*, Druid**, or Cleric***.

*Spells to buff yourself and wade into combat at your leisure and bad touch people. Shape change and polymorph are used for this.

**Wildshape

***Still using Strength but you don't really need it as much as a normal fighter and your wis mod could be higher than strength mod if you so choose.