Do You Really Use Power Attack Every Time?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 186 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Victor Zajic wrote:
Being inflexible with your tactics is a good way to lose battles.

Great post Victor!


4 people marked this as a favorite.

The value of power attack depends both on your chance to hit and your damage. The higher your chance to hit, the more valuable it is, the higher your damage is, the less valuable it is. Basically, the breakeven point where the damage gained from PA outweighs the decreased change to hit gets higher the more static damage you do.

But, because I'm geeky, I worked up a spreadsheet that lets you put in your details and it gives you a chart of your DPR with and without Power Attack at every pre-power attack attack bonus between 0 and 30 against every armor class between 10 and 40.

The Google Doc is here.

The excel spreadsheet (with a graph!) is here.

Plug in your weapon damage, static damage (strength, weapon specialization, weapon enhancement bonus, smite/favored enemy/challenge, etc), crit range, crit multiplier, precision damage, and power attack damage bonus and hit penalty. Haven't done anything with iterative attacks yet, might in the future though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Akerlof wrote:

The value of power attack depends both on your chance to hit and your damage. The higher your chance to hit, the more valuable it is, the higher your damage is, the less valuable it is. Basically, the breakeven point where the damage gained from PA outweighs the decreased change to hit gets higher the more static damage you do.

But, because I'm geeky, I worked up a spreadsheet that lets you put in your details and it gives you a chart of your DPR with and without Power Attack at every pre-power attack attack bonus between 0 and 30 against every armor class between 10 and 40.

The Google Doc is here.

The excel spreadsheet (with a graph!) is here.

Plug in your weapon damage, static damage (strength, weapon specialization, weapon enhancement bonus, smite/favored enemy/challenge, etc), crit range, crit multiplier, precision damage, and power attack damage bonus and hit penalty. Haven't done anything with iterative attacks yet, might in the future though.

Iterative attacks are important.

Basic rule of thumb that will come out of it for simple math, if you ignor crits:
If the sum of non-power attack damage from all of your attacks is less than 40 on average, 60 for 2 Handed, you are better off power attacking. If you are a crit fisher, the math can change. TWF are harder to deal with unless your GM allows deadly stroke to count for off hand power attack damage as well, and then it is also 40 damage per hand.

The end result is that power attack will almost always increase your DPR.

The real question is not "will it increase your DPR" though. It is "will it help me kill my enemy." You need to consider how many attacks it will take to kill the enemy without power attack, vs how many it will take you with it. If you go from 2 shotting the orc to 1 shotting it, power attack is worth its weight in gold. If that bonus 3 damage wont kill it, but 2X your strength bonus will, then power attack is not worth it because you reduce your chance to hit.


I usually do a quick calculation if I know what AC I need to hit. I multiply the number of sides on a d20 that will hit the target by the damage for each case. The higher number wins. It's not exact, but I think it's decent for a rough guide.

For example: Say you're level 1 with a greatsword and 18 strength and you hit on a 15 or higher without power attacking, 16 with.
Without power attack: (2d6+6=13 avg)*(6 hits per 20 rolls)=13*6=78.
With power attack: (2d6+9=16 avg)*(5 hits per 20 rolls)=16*5=80.

Power attack wins by a hair, so I would probably use it.


i power attack most of the time. But i usally try to get my to hit up to a point where power attack almost never is a dpr decrease.


If you really want to figure it out, use Tejon's DPR Calculator

I was recently building a level 4 Summoner and discovered that the crossover point was the crit-range of his weapon (2H Elven Curve Blade). So if the character needs less than an 18 to hit, Power Attack it. If an 18 or 19 is required, don't use Power Attack. And obviously if you need a 20 to hit without Power Attack, you might as well Power Attack anyway!


I use power attack so much that at the beginning of the game i just tell my DM I've already figured in the minus's to hit and the bonus to damage on my character sheet. I'll just tell you when I'm not Power attacking to make everything easier. I also allow my player's to have the option to do the same as long as everything is figured into there weapon on there character sheet.


Marc Radle wrote:
If I take Power Attack, I always use it.

I fall into this category. If I feel PA might not be used often/always, then I'd find a different Feat to take in its place rather than take it and not use it.

When I have it, if I'm having alot of problems hitting, I will stop using it, but I'm going into almost all fights using it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If my character takes Power Attack then I use it like any other tool. Use it when it makes sense and don't if it seems to be a problem.


Caineach wrote:


The real question is not "will it increase your DPR" though. It is "will it help me kill my enemy." You need to consider how many attacks it will take to kill the enemy without power attack, vs how many it will take you with it. If you go from 2 shotting the orc to 1 shotting it, power attack...

This is absolutely true and very important. It's why taking power attack at level 1 is so often overkill, especially if you are using a two hander. Triply so if you're running around with 18+ strength, your minimum damage will overkill those CR 1/2 or CR 2/3 critters, and power attacking won't generally move you from two shotting a CR 3 BBEG down to one shotting him.

On the other hand, especially at low levels, if you're seeing someone miss a lot while they're power attacking, it's probably not because of power attack. Until BAB 4, power attack will only turn a hit into a miss on one possible roll out of 20. If you miss a lot of attacks due to power attack at that level, you're just having a bad day. More likely you'll be missing those attacks regardless of whether or not you use PA.

And I added a section that will calculate iterative attacks.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

The majority of the time, I roll attack rolls for crap. The dice may say I have an 80% chance to hit, but I will somehow roll 1-4 80% of the time instead.

So no, I don't use Power Attack every time, even when I'm playing my dwarf fighter who according to the optimizers "should."

Now, if the target's AC is low enough, I might try.

And then I roll a 1, and the GM draws a Crit Fumble card that makes me cut my own nose off.

And then I stop using Power Attack, and just remind myself I used it as a prerequisite for Improved Bull Rush and that is what it's there for.


Long term stats are useless when it comes to round-to-round tactical decisions.

What happens on your next action and, importantly, on their next action should lead whether you Power Attack, or Expertese etc.


i frequently use power attack all the time on one of the following

a full bab character

or a 3/4 bab character under the influence of a lot of buffs such as with a gish or melee oriented oracle or inquisitor, or even in a party with a bard.

if i don't meet the requirements for power attack, then i will at least build around deadly aim or pirahna strike, or find a loophole around the power attack requirements.

somebody in weekly william's group has to be the primary melee damage dealer. it's usually me. because all the other martials completely neglect it.


Caineach wrote:
...The real question is not "will it increase your DPR" though. It is "will it help me kill my enemy." You need to consider how many attacks it will take to kill the enemy without power attack, vs how many it will take you with it....

I completely agree with this. I would love to see a spreadsheet that says you have an X% percent chance of killing the monster in 2 rounds, a Y% chance in three rounds, etc, etc. It may be that DPR doesn't change for power attack but it does increase that X% chance of killing the monster in 2 rounds. That would be nice to know. However, no one has figured out a spreadsheet that will give you this.


Lab_Rat wrote:
Caineach wrote:
...The real question is not "will it increase your DPR" though. It is "will it help me kill my enemy." You need to consider how many attacks it will take to kill the enemy without power attack, vs how many it will take you with it....
I completely agree with this. I would love to see a spreadsheet that says you have an X% percent chance of killing the monster in 2 rounds, a Y% chance in three rounds, etc, etc. It may be that DPR doesn't change for power attack but it does increase that X% chance of killing the monster in 2 rounds. That would be nice to know. However, no one has figured out a spreadsheet that will give you this.

Surely the fun of the game is working that stuff out?

I mean, say you had a spreadsheet that flashed red or green depending on factors... what would be the point of you playing the combat?


Lab_Rat wrote:
Caineach wrote:
...The real question is not "will it increase your DPR" though. It is "will it help me kill my enemy." You need to consider how many attacks it will take to kill the enemy without power attack, vs how many it will take you with it....
I completely agree with this. I would love to see a spreadsheet that says you have an X% percent chance of killing the monster in 2 rounds, a Y% chance in three rounds, etc, etc. It may be that DPR doesn't change for power attack but it does increase that X% chance of killing the monster in 2 rounds. That would be nice to know. However, no one has figured out a spreadsheet that will give you this.

It wouldn't be terribly hard to configure a spreadsheet to give you this information, provided you knew how many hitpoints the target had remaining.

I've yet to meet a DM that would provide such information, unless the targets death was a foregone conclusion if you hit at all (e.g. it has ~1 HP left).


Funky Badger wrote:


Never underestimate the powers of stupid.

"Is the stupid stronger?"

"No, no, no. Quicker, easier, more seductive."


Rictras Shard wrote:
Funky Badger wrote:


Never underestimate the powers of stupid.

"Is the stupid stronger?"

"No, no, no. Quicker, easier, more seductive."

"The stupid is strong with this one."

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I played a Cleric of Gorum who used Power Attack every time he made melee attacks, but it was an RP choice. Guy figured there was no point in swinging a greatsword if you weren't going to swing it was hard as you could. Every. Time.

As a GM, I tend to have dumb monsters like ogres and dinosaurs use Power Attack every time if it's in their feat list. Sentient dummies like Ogres do it because they like the gory results. Animals, constructs, undead and such do it because they're simple.


If you're making a primary melee attacker (and if you're not, why take power attack?) and you've built a character (full or 3/4 bab) for whom a -1 or -2 or -3 is a deal breaker on whether you're going to hit consistently, then you have no business on a message board asking for build advice, because you've obviously made choices with your character where you've sacrificed mechanical advantage for flavor or something else. Primary damage dealers, if optimized at all, should be built in such a way that hitting is not an issue except against certain specific foes with crazy ac or defensive abilities.

TL; DR - yes, if you've built a character for whom taking power attack is a good idea, you should have built a character for whom nearly always using it is also a good idea.


With my fighter/Barbarian, I took Power attack (and furious focus), and always used it. I even wrote my stats to hit and damage with it in the character sheet, instead of writing the base and then adding the numbers in combat.

I did a single fight where I didn't use it. It was in lvl 17, fighting the BBEG at the end of Kingmaker campaign, which has an absurd level of AC (in the 50s). Against everyone else I always used PA.


PA. I often take it if class appropriate, have a line on my sheet for it, may start to use it... use it for unlocking feats, often

Liberty's Edge

MyTThor wrote:

If you're making a primary melee attacker (and if you're not, why take power attack?) and you've built a character (full or 3/4 bab) for whom a -1 or -2 or -3 is a deal breaker on whether you're going to hit consistently, then you have no business on a message board asking for build advice, because you've obviously made choices with your character where you've sacrificed mechanical advantage for flavor or something else. Primary damage dealers, if optimized at all, should be built in such a way that hitting is not an issue except against certain specific foes with crazy ac or defensive abilities.

TL; DR - yes, if you've built a character for whom taking power attack is a good idea, you should have built a character for whom nearly always using it is also a good idea.

I am not here asking build advice about taking the power attack feat.

I was expressing my incredulity and trying to find out if the situation was more or less universal. It sounds like it might be.

I have little experience in high level play. Our campaigns tend to end in the mid levels (~10). And I am stil at the getting started stage in PFS.

I have observed some pickup games and PFS sessions. I do not know what their build was or what their gear was. But they were 3/4 BaB classes and I think they were mostly THF. While I have been there, they missed consistently but insisted on using their power attack every time no matter what.
The wizard using ray of frost and the pregen rogue using the normal bow where at least coming close to out performing them because they were hitting. But tactics did not change.

That just seems wierd to me. But from this thread it sounds like somewhere around 1/4 of the people (that is a guess, I haven't tallied the responders) might do the same thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Velcro Zipper wrote:

I played a Cleric of Gorum who used Power Attack every time he made melee attacks, but it was an RP choice. Guy figured there was no point in swinging a greatsword if you weren't going to swing it was hard as you could. Every. Time.

As a GM, I tend to have dumb monsters like ogres and dinosaurs use Power Attack every time if it's in their feat list. Sentient dummies like Ogres do it because they like the gory results. Animals, constructs, undead and such do it because they're simple.

Roleplaying reason good!

Min/maxing reason bad!


MyTThor wrote:

If you're making a primary melee attacker (and if you're not, why take power attack?) and you've built a character (full or 3/4 bab) for whom a -1 or -2 or -3 is a deal breaker on whether you're going to hit consistently, then you have no business on a message board asking for build advice, because you've obviously made choices with your character where you've sacrificed mechanical advantage for flavor or something else. Primary damage dealers, if optimized at all, should be built in such a way that hitting is not an issue except against certain specific foes with crazy ac or defensive abilities.

TL; DR - yes, if you've built a character for whom taking power attack is a good idea, you should have built a character for whom nearly always using it is also a good idea.

As I asked before, does that apply when iterative attacks are in play? Sure, if you're a well built full BAB class, you're going to be hitting regularly with your first attack even with a -3 from power attack, but what about a -8 instead of a -5 on the second attack?


My PFS Lavode De'Morcaine wrote:

I have observed some pickup games and PFS sessions. I do not know what their build was or what their gear was. But they were 3/4 BaB classes and I think they were mostly THF. While I have been there, they missed consistently but insisted on using their power attack every time no matter what.

....

That just seems wierd to me. But from this thread it sounds like somewhere around 1/4 of the people (that is a guess, I haven't tallied the responders) might do the same thing.

Most people here haven't said that. They have said that if you took power attack, unless you are taking it as a prerrequisite for improved [whatever], you should be able to use it. If not, you are either building your melee character wrong, or taking PA with the wrong character.

Without further information about the combat you witnessed, it's hard to know if they were playing right. "they were missing" isn't enough information. They might be rolling 6+ to hit, and having bad luck and rolling 1-5, but that does not mean it was a bad idea to power attack.

For a 3/4 BAB with THF and PA, I guess it was a cleric or oracle (magus, summoners, monks and rogues don't ussually use 2h weapons). Assuming they are lvl 6, with STR 18, and a single buff spell to hit (bless, prayer, divine power, whatever), they are doing like 2d6+7 or so with a +1 weapon. With PA, it's a 2d6+13, and +9 to hit (+4 BAB, +4 STR, +1 weapon focus +1 magic weapon, +1 spell, -2 PA). So unless they are fighting vs AC 26 or so (hitting with 15+ without PA, or 17+ with it), they should be using PA. If they could flank, then they shouldn't PA vs AC 28+

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Power Attack becomes less and less useful the higher the number you need to hit something, it's not 'always better'.

First, you have to figure the base odds you need to hit. Say, you need an 11. That's a 50% chance of hitting, and let's say you do 20 pts avg base, and 29 with a -3 when power attacking.

That's a 45% increase in damage, for a 30% reduction in hitting (now need a 14). Power Attack is worth it.

If you need a 14 (35% chance of a hit) and Power Attack, now you need a 17 (20% chance of a hit)...that's a 42% reduction in accuracy, vs +45% dmg...you're right on the breakpoint. If you need a base 15, you shouldn't Power Attack.

So, it comes down to what % dmg increase you get from Power Attack, and what % decrease you get from the penalty.

For partial BAB classes, it's already hard to hit, meaning you're going to be closer to the breakpoint, and your damage is lower.

You can very rapidly calculate the breakpoint by just seeing what fraction of your damage Power Attack is, and then comparing it to your reduction in hit chance at any AC. The -3 to hit will hurt non-melee classes a lot more, but the +9 will also likely make up a bigger damage chunk.

If you're going one-handed, the breakpoint is going to be lower because the dmg % is lower. In the above example, 11 is the breakpoint for one handed....-3 to hit is -30%, which is exactly equal to the +6 dmg (+30% dmg). So, you'd Power Attack at 11 or less, and just hit at 11 or higher.

Counter-intuitively, the more base damage you do, the less you should use Power Attack. If you're doing 30 points a swing, +9 dmg is 30%...your break even went from 15 and higher to 11 and higher.

if you're doing 40 pts a swing, +9 is 23% dmg, and you're down to PA if you can hit on an 8 or less. Etc etc.

==Aelryinth

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

That's the beauty of being a fighter Ael.... extra feat slots to spend on things like Furious Focus and Vital Strike. Power Attack dynamics change when it's part of a package rather than just looked at by itself.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Oh, sure, sure. If Power Attack doesn't modify your to hit, it's a moot point calculating. Use it and ream on them!

==Aelryinth


Aelryinth wrote:

Oh, sure, sure. If Power Attack doesn't modify your to hit, it's a moot point calculating. Use it and ream on them!

==Aelryinth

Power attack always modifies your attack bonus. If you have other things that add back what power attack subtracts, then if you don't use power attack your attack bonus will be higher.

I would not build a character and give them power attack unless I felt like I would benefit from the feat the vast majority of the time. And that means against the toughest opponents I'm likely to face. So that means if I'm taking power attack, that character is going to have a monster attack bonus.

Taking it and then deciding that it isn't helping when you are faced with your most difficult encounters just strikes me as... poor tactics.

However, I can see a legitimate role playing reason for taking it even when it doesn't always help, but in those cases my character would probably use it even when it is mathematically the wrong choice.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

??? Furious Focus means that on your first attack of every round, you ignore the penalty from Power Attack...it does NOT give you a bonus if you don't PA.

Add on Vital Strike, and mathematically you're probably better off just taking one attack instead of iteratives until you are 11th+, unless it's REALLY easy to hit something. And given how much Melee fighters are limited to single attacks, that's a pretty deadly thing to employ.

==Aelryinth


Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

Oh, sure, sure. If Power Attack doesn't modify your to hit, it's a moot point calculating. Use it and ream on them!

==Aelryinth

Power attack always modifies your attack bonus. If you have other things that add back what power attack subtracts, then if you don't use power attack your attack bonus will be higher.

Furious Focus in any round where you can't make itterative attacks


Is Furious Focus really worth it? Didn't we just get finished arguing that full BAB 2H types should always Power Attack since they should be built to hit consistently even with the penalty? If you're already hitting, what's the point of Furious Focus?

It doesn't help with the rest of the iterative attacks, which are the ones likely to miss because of Power Attack.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

You haven't been reading the posts, have you?

As your base damage goes up, Power Attack becomes less important, because you want iteratives to hit. And you don't control the AC of an enemy...the higher their AC, the less you want to use Power Attack.

Nobody always hits, esp at low levels. Furthermore, you can't always make your iteratives.

Furious Focus is excellent because it almost guarantees a full power hit on your first attack...your following attacks, if any, are normal, not penalized further. However, in any round where you can't make iteratives, it shines because it virtually guarantees damage. Add on Vital Strike, and you might not ever need to take that iterative, you can just single attack and keep your full move, at least until later levels when you actually might hit with a 3rd iterative.

Sure, at level 20, Furious Focus is probably a wasted feat. But until 15+, its going to be worth it.

==Aelryinth


thejeff wrote:

Is Furious Focus really worth it? Didn't we just get finished arguing that full BAB 2H types should always Power Attack since they should be built to hit consistently even with the penalty? If you're already hitting, what's the point of Furious Focus?

It doesn't help with the rest of the iterative attacks, which are the ones likely to miss because of Power Attack.

Do you get Weapon Focus? Why? Would you get a weapon focus feat that only work in the first attack, but it's +3 or +4 to hit? Yeah, me too.

And yes, 2h builds are built to hit consistently. That's why they take things like weapon focus, furious focus, or weapon training enhances like the gloves of dueling.


gustavo iglesias wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Is Furious Focus really worth it? Didn't we just get finished arguing that full BAB 2H types should always Power Attack since they should be built to hit consistently even with the penalty? If you're already hitting, what's the point of Furious Focus?

It doesn't help with the rest of the iterative attacks, which are the ones likely to miss because of Power Attack.

Do you get Weapon Focus? Why? Would you get a weapon focus feat that only work in the first attack, but it's +3 or +4 to hit? Yeah, me too.

And yes, 2h builds are built to hit consistently. That's why they take things like weapon focus, furious focus, or weapon training enhances like the gloves of dueling.

It was just the contrast between the argument that the To Hit penalty for Power Attack doesn't matter because a properly built melee character will hit anyway, the near complete avoiding of any analysis of iterative attacks which is where the PA penalty really hurts and the sudden claim that Furious Focus is great because you can ignore the PA penalty (which we've already been assured doesn't matter) on the first attack.


thejeff wrote:
It was just the contrast between the argument that the To Hit penalty for Power Attack doesn't matter because a properly built melee character will hit anyway, the near complete avoiding of any analysis of iterative attacks which is where the PA penalty really hurts and the sudden claim that Furious Focus is great because you can ignore the PA penalty (which we've already been assured doesn't matter) on the first attack.

"it doesn't matter" is a thing, and "it does not balance the extra damage" is a different thing.

Assuming the example given before, a Char with BAB 4, STR 4, Weapon Focus, a +1 sword, and a spell that gives him +1 to hit, you have + 9 to hit and 2d6+11 to damage.
The penalty to hit *does* matter against any AC higher than 12. Even against AC 16 or so, you will benefit from Furious Focus. HOWEVER, the penalty to hit does not counterweight the bonus to damage. Against AC 16, this character should be powerattacking, with, or without itterative attacks and with, or without furious focus. The extra damage is worth it. Against AC 27, however, it's no longer worthy to PA (Except with furious focus).

For any AC between AC 13 and AC 26, both sentences are true: Furious Focus is a valid and worthy feat, and PA should be used because the bonus to damage outweight the penalty to hit


Ah, I've never taken furious focus. And based on the comments here, I don't think I would.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Ah, I've never taken furious focus. And based on the comments here, I don't think I would.

Could you elaborate?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

I dunno, worked pretty good for my Holy Vindicator.


Adam Ormond wrote:

If you really want to figure it out, use Tejon's DPR Calculator

I was recently building a level 4 Summoner and discovered that the crossover point was the crit-range of his weapon (2H Elven Curve Blade). So if the character needs less than an 18 to hit, Power Attack it. If an 18 or 19 is required, don't use Power Attack. And obviously if you need a 20 to hit without Power Attack, you might as well Power Attack anyway!

Hey thanks for the link, thats pretty cool.


Adam Ormond wrote:

If you really want to figure it out, use Tejon's DPR Calculator

I was recently building a level 4 Summoner and discovered that the crossover point was the crit-range of his weapon (2H Elven Curve Blade). So if the character needs less than an 18 to hit, Power Attack it. If an 18 or 19 is required, don't use Power Attack. And obviously if you need a 20 to hit without Power Attack, you might as well Power Attack anyway!

For several characters, and in several levels, the above is true. They should be powerattacking a great majority of the time. In your example, 90% of possible target to-hit numbers should be a power attack (everything but a 18+ and a 19+). Even if you are missing.


gustavo iglesias wrote:
thejeff wrote:
It was just the contrast between the argument that the To Hit penalty for Power Attack doesn't matter because a properly built melee character will hit anyway, the near complete avoiding of any analysis of iterative attacks which is where the PA penalty really hurts and the sudden claim that Furious Focus is great because you can ignore the PA penalty (which we've already been assured doesn't matter) on the first attack.

"it doesn't matter" is a thing, and "it does not balance the extra damage" is a different thing.

Assuming the example given before, a Char with BAB 4, STR 4, Weapon Focus, a +1 sword, and a spell that gives him +1 to hit, you have + 9 to hit and 2d6+11 to damage.
The penalty to hit *does* matter against any AC higher than 12. Even against AC 16 or so, you will benefit from Furious Focus. HOWEVER, the penalty to hit does not counterweight the bonus to damage. Against AC 16, this character should be powerattacking, with, or without itterative attacks and with, or without furious focus. The extra damage is worth it. Against AC 27, however, it's no longer worthy to PA (Except with furious focus).

For any AC between AC 13 and AC 26, both sentences are true: Furious Focus is a valid and worthy feat, and PA should be used because the bonus to damage outweight the penalty to hit

Well yeah, but that's a character who doesn't get iterative attacks. It's pretty obvious that's the best case for Power Attack and Furious Focus. It's less clear once you've got iteratives.

I'm not good at crunching the numbers or at guessing what a higher level character should have available, but I played around with Tejon's DPR calculator. A char with BAB 12, Str +6, Weapon Spec and a +2 sword seemed to do better with Power Attack up to AC 32, after that losing more iterative attacks made him do less damage. I didn't try FF because that wasn't built into the sheet :)
After AC30, a single attack with Vital Strike did better though, so maybe that changes the argument from When should you stop Power Attacking to When should you start Vital Striking?

I suspect a real 12th level melee would have more bonuses but I was just playing quickly with what was on the calculator.


thejeff wrote:

Well yeah, but that's a character who doesn't get iterative attacks. It's pretty obvious that's the best case for Power Attack and Furious Focus. It's less clear once you've got iteratives.

I'm not good at crunching the numbers or at guessing what a higher level character should have available, but I played around with Tejon's DPR calculator. A char with BAB 12, Str +6, Weapon Spec and a +2 sword seemed to do better with Power Attack up to AC 32, after that losing more iterative attacks made him do less damage. I didn't try FF because that wasn't built into the sheet :)
After AC30, a single attack with Vital Strike did better though, so maybe that...

Well, let's take your example. A BAB 12 character should power attack everything short of AC 32. That's the average AC of a CR 17. Which means a 12th level character should powerattack everything he normally fights in a regular encounter, unless it is one of those "run out, you fools" you shouldn't be fighting anyway.

Dark Archive

I did the math for one of my characters. Xurtr is a half-giant barbarian 1, psychic warrior 1 optimized for damage. When enraged and enlarged (expansion) he has a +10 to hit and he does 4d6+12 damage. (He has the killer trait for 2 extra damage on a crit.) Taking weapon focus instead of power attack, he does an extra 2,3 points of damage per round. (That is, without taking crits into the equation)

Ofcourse, this is an extreme example. He might take power attack later in the game, though he probably won't get the chance.


thejeff wrote:
Is Furious Focus really worth it? Didn't we just get finished arguing that full BAB 2H types should always Power Attack since they should be built to hit consistently even with the penalty? If you're already hitting, what's the point of Furious Focus?

No-one always hits all the time. If you blew a feat on Weapon Focus, for just +1 to hit, then Furious Focus is worth it. Also, with a two-handed weapon the gain is +3 per -1 to hit, and that makes the break-point higher, so Power Attack is more likely to be useful anyway.

thejeff wrote:
It doesn't help with the rest of the iterative attacks, which are the ones likely to miss because of Power Attack.

It changes the dynamic of what you gain and what you lose.

So there are three factors involved:
1) How significant a loss in hits will I incur?
2) Does the target have DR?
3) Am I going to get iterative attacks at all?

Furious Focus is ironically worth using against very high AC targets where iterative attacks are not likely to hit anyway. Against low AC targets it is irrelevant because your first attack is likely to hit even with Power Attacks.

However, it is ALWAYS useful as an opener, being favourable over Vital Strike as a gain in damage on the first non-iterative attack.


I use it all the time with full BAB types. If I have a medium BAB build then I pick up furious focus. The buffs I have in place are also a factor, but if I am picking up power attack I make sure I can use it more often than I am not using it.


A word of DPR, spreadsheet, etc.

Some players don’t use DPR formulas or spreadsheets or computers that calculate what is the most über option. Yes I know it is really bizarre. They even roll their dice themselves.

Some of these players use a more organic philosophy when dealing with PA. If you miss a lot, no PA. If you don’t, use PA. If you need PA because of DR or other issues, use PA. Etc.


Zark wrote:

A word of DPR, spreadsheet, etc.

Some players don’t use DPR formulas or spreadsheets or computers that calculate what is the most über option. Yes I know it is really bizarre. They even roll their dice themselves.

Some of these players use a more organic philosophy when dealing with PA. If you miss a lot, no PA. If you don’t, use PA. If you need PA because of DR or other issues, use PA. Etc.

If you need a 20 to hit, PA all the way. If you are only missing on a 1, then PA.


Besides, you have to live thru the non-iterative levels to get to the iterative levels. Those that argue that furious Focus is wasted later, provided they are playing a fighter, should take it at low levels, and retrain it to... lots of things at either 8/12.

51 to 100 of 186 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Do You Really Use Power Attack Every Time? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.