D&D 3E/3.5 3.5 power attack: the designers' rationale

[Mike Sullivan]

I think your analysis was interesting but rather pointless. The question isn't whether 3.5v TWF is more or less powerfull versus 3.0v TWF, the real question is how 3.5v TWF compares to 3.5v 2-H fighting.

If that's the "real question," then I wonder why you and Lotus didn't read frisbeet's post on the first page of this thread which already has such a comparison, done out numbers-style.

But I don't agree that that's the "real question," as Lotus was at pains to note that he thought that the PA change was not so much a buff to big-weapon fighting as a nerf to TWF. He says so right there in his post.

What I'm interested in is how much AC monsters, which have low AC and High damage potential, have gained. Creatures like Hill Giants, Fire Giants, etc.

This is an interesting question, yes.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

and it certainly is a nerf to his existing war fan two weapon style character.

Power attack a feat he already had is now useless GWF, and GWS he doesn't have because they didn't exist, the next level of TWS he didn't have.

Without doing a near total redesign of his character his character was nerfed. And how much you can redisign existing characters will vary greatly from DM to DM.

Sure you can now design a new character to be better at TWS at a pretty heafty feat cost to get good at one style, but exisitng characters may be in some trouble.

And while TWS overall may have gotten a boost TWS via power attack was nerfed and you may need that power attack if you face DR creatures often in your campaign.

 

[Mike Sullivan]

and it certainly is a nerf to his existing war fan two weapon style character.

Power attack a feat he already had is now useless GWF, and GWS he doesn't have because they didn't exist, the next level of TWS he didn't have.

Without doing a near total redesign of his character his character was nerfed. And how much you can redisign existing characters will vary greatly from DM to DM.

One: Aren't we reaching just a little bit in terms of why to hate the new PA?

Two: His alternate plan was to start playing a whole new character. If his GM is inexplicably enough of a jerk to force him to a 3.5 ruleset without allowing him to reset his feats in the face of massive differences to those feats, then he could always drop his twin warfans character and create a new twin warfans character who had the appropriate feats.

Three: I don't care what Lotus does with his character. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, I assumed that he was using his situation to illustrate the general case, not that he particularly wanted my or anyone else's advice about what to do with his specific character.

And while TWS overall may have gotten a boost TWS via power attack was nerfed and you may need that power attack if you face DR creatures often in your campaign.

Well, I did a PA vs. DR comparison for a 3.0 Greatsword fighter earlier in this thread -- you might want to check it out.

But for lower-base-damage double-shortsword wielders, PA would be more useful, yes.

If this seriously worries you, and you don't mind looking like a silly Darth Maul wannabe, then I can only suggest the two-bladed sword option.

Check it out:

Total number of necessary feats:
Exotic WP: Two bladed sword
WF: Two bladed sword
WS: Two bladed sword
TWF
ITWF
GWF: Two bladed sword
GTWF
GWS: Two bladed sword
Power Attack
= 9 feats at 12th level, leaving you two more (cleave and great cleave) if you're non-human, or three more if you're human (cleave, great cleave, and two weapon defense?).

Benefits:

Six attacks per round at 12th level, all of them with the +2 to hit, +4 to damage of GWF and GWS, on a full attack, each doing d8 damage.

On a partial attack, or object attacking attack, or whatever, a two-handed strike with Power Attack at the favorable rate -- only 2.5 points of damage less, on average, than a Greatsword attack.

Your partial attack damage will be consistantly only about three points lower than a greatsword wielder. Your full attack damage will be consistantly higher than a greatsword wielder, assuming you have enough money to enchant both sides of your sword. If you get the two weapon defense thing (assuming that it works with double weapons), your AC will be higher.

 

[Lotus]

My DM is considering what to do, but last I heard he wanted everyone to reroll stats using point buy and build characters with our current experience/cash.

Well, if I keep the same basic character concept I can purify it a lot by NOT trying to qualify for Tempest and NOT using finesse.

Exotic Prof, WF, WS, GWF, TWF, ITWF, TWD, GWS, Dodge, Mobility, Iron Will.

Assuming STR 24 (which is my dex now) and identical gear, at 12th level I'll attack on-hand at 21/16/11 for 3d6+12, offhand at 21/16 for 2d6+8, crit 20/x3. Quite respectable actually (though the instinct is to see that d20+21 to hit and weep for the potential extra damage it could have done).

But chances are I'd drop Sure Striking off the secondary fan and replace it with another elemental damage die.


Or as Mike Sullivan points out, go dual weapon and get the best of both worlds. +1 keen sweeping / +1 keen flaming double scimitar, with PA/Improved Crit/Improved Trip. Attack at d6+12/2d6+8 with crit 12-20/x2, or single attack at 2d6+15, up to 2d6+39 on a full PA.

I may have just talked myself into that one.

So, all things considered (rather than just PA), TWF can be pretty damn good in 3.5 after all.

Edit: didn't see Mike's latest post. Heh.

Further Edit: Improved Trip requires Expertise, so I have one too many feats to do all that at 12th level, unless I change to Human. The character is so different from the original concept at that point anyway that I might as well.

 

[Plane Sailing]

It behoves you to understand what 3.0 Power Attack actually does do, not what you think it does.

I'll try to charitably assume that you are not attempting to be patronising.

If a given melee lasts for 3-8 rounds (which is pretty common in my games at the moment) the average calculations you claim to be so excellent are actually worthless because the randomness in that combat means that nobody is going to get anything like the statistical average on their rolls. I've seen it in my games, you must have seen it in your games. Your statistics only have meaning over the theoretical lifetime of a character.

Also, you still seem to have failed to gain the notion that comparing full attacks isn't sufficient. Others have pointed it out as well as me, and I think it behoves you to understand what combats are actually like, not what you think they are.

 

[Mike Sullivan]

I'll try to charitably assume that you are not attempting to be patronising.

I'll correctly assume that you are, and you're failing because you don't know what you're talking about.

If a given melee lasts for 3-8 rounds (which is pretty common in my games at the moment) the average calculations you claim to be so excellent are actually worthless because the randomness in that combat means that nobody is going to get anything like the statistical average on their rolls. I've seen it in my games, you must have seen it in your games. Your statistics only have meaning over the theoretical lifetime of a character.

No, you're wrong.

Naturally, a relatively small sample size of rolls will not perfectly land the statistical average -- in fact, a very large sample size will still not perfectly land the statistical average. That does not mean that the statistical average is "meaningless."

Also, you still seem to have failed to gain the notion that comparing full attacks isn't sufficient. Others have pointed it out as well as me, and I think it behoves you to understand what combats are actually like, not what you think they are.

Plane Sailing, sorry to burst your bubble, but I've been looking at single-attack actions from the beginning. But heck, I'll do it again, just for you.

Your tenth level group:

Fighter level 10, greatsword-wielding, 3.5 style feats

Character has 20 Strength, WF, GWF, WS, Improved Critical. +3 Greatsword with no special attributes.

Damage: 2d6+7+3+2 = 2d6+12, average to 19 before criticals.

One-attack-attack-bonus: +10 (BAB) + 5 (Str) + 1 (WF) + 1 (GWF) +3 (Magic) = +20

Elder Arrowhawk (CR 8) AC: 22, optimal amount of 3.0 Power Atack: 0

Behir (CR 8) AC: 16, optimal amount of 3.0 Power Attack: 6 points, for an increase in average damage of 31.6%.

Avoral (CR 9) AC: 21, optimal amount of 3.0 Power Attack: 1 point, for an increase in average damage of 5.3%.

Bebilith (CR 9) AC: 25, optimal amount of 3.0 Power Attack: 0

Retriever (CR 10) AC: 22, optimal amount of 3.0 Power Attack: 0

Cornugon (CR 10) AC: 25, optimal amount of 3.0 Power Attack: 0

Destracharn (CR 8) AC 16, as Behir above (31.6% advantage).

Devourer (CR 10) AC 18, optimal amount of 3.0 Power Attack: 4 points, for an increase in average damage of 21%.

Dragon Turtle (CR 10) AC 20, optimal amount of 3.0 Power Attack: 1 point, for an increase in average damage of 5.3%

Adult Black Dragon (CR 10) AC 25, optimal amount of 3.0 Power Attack: 0.

Greater Air Elemental (CR 9) AC 26, optimal amount of 3.0 Power Attack: 0.

Greater Earth Elemental (CR 9) AC 20, optimal amount of 3.0 Power Attack 1 point, fo r an increase in average damage of 5.3%

Greater Fire Elemental (CR 9) AC 24, optimal amount of 3.0 Power ATtack: 0.

Greater Water Elemental (CR 9) AC 22, optimal amount of 3.0 Power Attack: 0.

Mymarch Fomorian (CR 10) AC 27, optimal amount of 3.0 Power Attack: 0

Efreeti (CR 8) AC 18, optimal amount of 3.0 Power Attack 4 points, for an increase in average damage of 21%.

Frost Giant & Fire Giant (CR 9 & 10) AC 21, optimal amount of 3.0 Power Attack: 1 point, for an increase in average damage of 5.31%.

...

Do I really need to go through every damn monster in the SRD this way?

Yes, there are occaisional monsters for which it's very useful -- a Colossul Animated Object has an AC of 11, and is in the appropriate CR range. But they're the exception and not the rule. The basic state of things is that at mid-shading-to-high levels like you seem to be concerned with, 3.0 Power Attack is flatly useless when taking a full round attack, and either useless or mildly useful when taking a partial attack.

 

[IanB]

I'll try to charitably assume that you are not attempting to be patronising.

If a given melee lasts for 3-8 rounds (which is pretty common in my games at the moment) the average calculations you claim to be so excellent are actually worthless because the randomness in that combat means that nobody is going to get anything like the statistical average on their rolls. I've seen it in my games, you must have seen it in your games. Your statistics only have meaning over the theoretical lifetime of a character.

Also, you still seem to have failed to gain the notion that comparing full attacks isn't sufficient. Others have pointed it out as well as me, and I think it behoves you to understand what combats are actually like, not what you think they are.

His statistics are still more useful than using anecdotal evidence or just guessing, which seems to be most of what is going on in this thread.

Yes, the standard deviation on the results you'll get out of one single combat is very large, but how does that change the value of the analysis? You're still building characters based on how they'll do in the long haul, unless you're creating new characters before every fight. Consider it similar to the analysis done to evaluate baseball players - it isn't very useful for figuring out how valuable a player will be in one single game, but it is damn good for figuring out how valuable a player will be over a season.

 

[Celtavian]

re

I think some of the guys who run analysis should also take into account alot of other ways the new Power Attack is going to be seriously abused so that it is nightmarish. Such as:

Cleric/Fighter combo using Divine Favor, Righteous Might, Prayer and [/i]Bless[/i]. I thinks this is a fairly common class set up personally.

Barbarian raging with Bless and Prayer. Lost two points of attack that you didn't have in the first place for 4 points of damage.

Fighter/Wizard combo using Tenser's Transformation. This could bet ugly.

Druid using Wildshape at higher levels into a huge bear or something of the kind.

The new Power Attack will be the "must have" feat for power gamers and a new nightmare for many DM's who have these kinds of players.

Personally, I think in time people will adapt. Initially, I think the following will happen:

Players will hate the new feat because power attacking monsters like dragons and giants will now be dishing substantially more damage.

Certain min/max players will create some pretty awe inspiring combinations that take serious advantage of the new Power Attack.

The main gyst of this for experienced DM's is that it will be a problematic change because Power Attack is more abusable by min/max players and it is more useful to certain powerful, high strength monsters that are already very tough. (Dragons especially.)

I just feel the design team was looking at Power Attack from a very narrow angle when they made this change. It would have been better to limit Power Attack damage to the primary weapon for a two-weapon wielder using the simple premiss that a two-weapon fighter cannot generate the powerful body movement necessary to take advantae of power attack with both weapons.

I completely agree that Power Attack would be more useful for a two-weapon fighter than a two-hander fighter at higher levels and given certain feat combinations, especially considering that energy/special damage (Bane, holy) are already more beneficial to two-weapon wielders. Power Attack could use a change, but I don't think this was the best way to change it.

 

[Mike Sullivan]

Re: re

I think some of the guys who run analysis should also take into account alot of other ways the new Power Attack is going to be seriously abused so that it is nightmarish. Such as:

Cleric/Fighter combo using Divine Favor, Righteous Might, Prayer and [/i]Bless[/i]. I thinks this is a fairly common class set up personally.

Bah. Give me actual stats, and I'll run it.

Barbarian raging with Bless and Prayer. Lost two points of attack that you didn't have in the first place for 4 points of damage.

As opposed to 2 points of damage? Wooo.

Fighter/Wizard combo using Tenser's Transformation. This could bet ugly.

How? I'm baffled.

Druid using Wildshape at higher levels into a huge bear or something of the kind.

This is a huge bear wielding a two-handed weapon?

The new Power Attack will be the "must have" feat for power gamers and a new nightmare for many DM's who have these kinds of players.

I wish that people who make these claims would back them up with something other than assertion.

The main gyst of this for experienced DM's is that it will be a problematic change because Power Attack is more abusable by min/max players and it is more useful to certain powerful, high strength monsters that are already very tough. (Dragons especially.)

These are dragons wielding two-handed weapons?

I completely agree that Power Attack would be more useful for a two-weapon fighter than a two-hander fighter at higher levels and given certain feat combinations, especially considering that energy/special damage (Bane, holy) are already more beneficial to two-weapon wielders. Power Attack could use a change, but I don't think this was the best way to change it.

Power Attack was better at every level and with every feat combination for two-weapon fighters than for big-weapon fighters. The higher-levels and whatever feat combinations that I and others have been arguing was whether Power Attack is any good at all for big-weapon fighters.

 

[Mike Sullivan]

I think it might be time for everyone to get a grip on monster use of 3.5 PA.

A Fire Giant (CR 10) attacks with a Huge Greatsword at +20/+15/+10 for 2d8+15 damage.

A tenth level sword-and-board fighter in Full Plate +2 with a Large Shield +2 (either or both possibly from Magic Vestment) and with a 12 Dexterity has an AC of 25.

Under 3.0 Power Attack, it never makes any sense for the Fire Giant to PA against the AC 25 fighter, whether it's making a full or partial attack.

Under 3.5 Power Attack,

For a full attack:

• 
  With no PA, it works like this: Hits on a 5+, Hits on a 10+, Hits on a 15+, average 26.4 damage per hit = 43.56 damage
  
  If the Fire Giant PA's for 1, it works like this: Hits on a 6+, Hits on a 11+, Hits on a 16+, average 28.6 damage = 42.9 damage...

even using 3.5 PA, there's no reason for the Fire Giant to PA with full attack against the fighter!

For a partial attack:

• 
  With now PA, it works like this: Hits on a 5+, average 26.4 damage per hit = 21.12 damage
  
  If the Fire Giant PA's for 1, it works like this: Hits on a 6+, average 28.6 damage = 21.45 damage
  
  If the Fire Giant PA's for 2, it works like this: Hits on a 7+, average 30.8 damage = 21.56 damage
  
  If the Fire Giant PA's for 2, it works like this: Hits on an 8+, average 33 damage = 21.45 damage

So yeah, 3.5 benefits the Fire Giant partial attacking -- to the tune of a fractional amount of expected increase in HP damage.

Yes, lower-AC opponents will be more adversely affected. That's the price they pay for having a larger amount of damage potential themselves.

Maybe I'll do a fuller analysis tomorrow. I'm up way too late.