The questioned part is whether the line that mentions "treats his warpriest level as his base attack bonus for these feats" means for the purpose of prerequisites or if it includes using the feat.
My reading of it is that the line means prereqs only, as it follows a line discussing about qualifying for feats, but makes an exception to allow for early qualification based on BAB.
Unless the developer himself comes in and contradicts otherwise I'll take Owen K.C. Stephens at his word.
In other words... power attack only helps when:
- the players are actually optimizing their characters so as not to have attack bonuses too low to reliably hit enemy AC when power attacking
- the GM is granting appropriate loot or sufficient wealth and opportunities to spend it so that players can keep their characters appropriately equipped for their level
- the GM is presenting the party with appropriate encounters which they can reliably hit with their attack bonuses
All three of these are basically talking about situations where your martial characters need what, 18s or higher to hit? Those seem like the edge cases. If not, that sounds like kind of a boring game. What are the 3/4 BAB classes supposed to do? Is your group really just the full casters hurling spells while everyone else stands around impotently?
- the creatures the party is facing have enough hit points that power attack actually presents a meaningful increase in damage.
You are looking at a significant amount of damage, though. This is particularly true with your example of non-optimized characters. If you're not getting lots of magic items and you aren't getting all the bonuses and you have low attributes then power attack is more useful because it is a larger percentage increase in total damage. If your character is doing 1d8+4 with his long sword, that's 8.5 points of damage on average. An extra 2 points increases the damage output by 24%. If you're doing 1d8+9 and you increase by 2, that's only a 15% increase.
TL/DR: Non-optimized characters benefit MORE from power attack.
This last one is an important thing to note, because if you're mostly wading through minions with high AC but low hp, then the bonus damage from power attack might be pure overkill that fails to get the job done, or might simply fail to do enough extra damage to kill the monster in one hit. If you're doing 20-30 points of damage per swing without power attack, and fighting monsters with 40 hp, then power attack needs to add a minimum of +10 damage per hit to have any meaningful effect.
You're looking at it in a vacuum. So you do 30 points instead of 24. That means that when the bard comes along and does 10 points behind you, he's taking out the enemy instead of knocking him down to "he's SO CLOSE".
Either way - large quantities of low powered mooks is for the blaster wizard or maybe even the cleric, not the barbarian.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In other words... power attack only helps when:
- the players are actually optimizing their characters so as not to have attack bonuses too low to reliably hit enemy AC when power attacking
The level is really damn low for optimization.
Did you put your highest stat in strength?
Are you playing a martial class or a 3/4 bab class that has an ability to up there attack (i.e. most of them).
Congratulations you have optimized for power attack.
- the GM is granting appropriate loot or sufficient wealth and opportunities to spend it so that players can keep their characters appropriately equipped for their level
- the GM is presenting the party with appropriate encounters which they can reliably hit with their attack bonuses
"The gm is doing it wrong" is a bad argument.
If the gm is arbitrarily declaring numbers and fudging dice you can argue that character sheets are pointless as you're operating entirely upon their narrative.
- the creatures the party is facing have enough hit points that power attack actually presents a meaningful increase in damage.
This last one is an important thing to note, because if you're mostly wading through minions with high AC but low hp, then the bonus damage from power attack might be pure overkill that fails to get the job done, or might simply fail to do enough extra damage to kill the monster in one hit. If you're doing 20-30 points of damage per swing without power attack, and fighting monsters with 40 hp, then power attack needs to add a minimum of +10 damage per hit to have any meaningful effect.
The trouble with this argument is variance and metagaming.
You only describe two types of encounters when the game can present dozens. There's no taking into account DR, miss chances, impossible to hit AC's, low ac high hp enemies, enemies that are difficult to full attack at all etc.
It also ignores points about group teamwork, namely buffing, and how there is a higher diminishing returns on attack than there is damage.
The "overkill" argument is simply stupid as it's the same argument against focus firing that gets my characters killed or knocked out so often.
First, it's bad roleplaying as no one in the history of ever decided to stop swinging their sword so hard fearing they might kill the guy a bit too hard when they wanted to spread their murder more evenly and efficiently.
Second, it's metagaming as you're assuming a perfect amount of damage to hp ratio. Which requires knowing how much hp the critter has which you shouldn't actually without a knowledge check in some form or another.
Awesome stuff BigDTBone.
It looks like Power Attack on build 1 does actually hurt more than it helps against high AC opponents. But only by a slight bit. And this was a worst case sort of scenario.
It cool to see some math behind it.
It's also interesting to note that the strength focused build does appear to have a significant edge on DPR versus the dex focused build, even while TWF.
Also, I would like to note I never called Power Attack a trap option, but I did believe it was bad idea for TWF builds. This may be linked to the fact that when making TWF I usually go completely dex based. Would the inclusion of agile weapons make a significant difference?
What about a 1 level dip in daring champion cavalier with exotic weapon proficiency saw tooth sabers and slashing grace? This would require having 13 strength to gain access to power attack instead of piranha strike.
I know you didn't say it was a trap option, but power attack was brought up in a thread called "List of trap options."
So, that's part of why I didn't mention you by name in the OP.
Unless the developer himself comes in and contradicts otherwise I'll take Owen K.C. Stephens at his word.
Based on the posts I quoted earlier I don't think there is confusion as to what the RAI is, but rather if the rules text confers the (now apparent) intent clearly. Since there seems to be a fair amount of people (including myself) who have misunderstood the rule... Might be worth asking to have it clarified?
It's potentially a fairly nice boost for Warpriests - especially feats that base a save DC on BAB, such as Stunning Critical, could see their DC rise by anywhere between 1 and 5.
It would however also mean that Warpriests would have to keep track of which feats they took as bonus feats and which they took as regular feats, since they would interact differently with the Warpriest's level progression. For example many Warpriests would want to delay Power Attack until level 3 so they can get the more favorable progression. Not a huge inconvenience, but slightly awkward.
There are obviously going to be times that it's better not to use Power Attack, such as when fighting a will o' wisp at lower levels, or a bunch of low-HP enemies that you kill with a single hit anyways but that you can miss on higher than a 1. Like armored kobolds! Power Attack is redundant at that point, and only its penalties affect the battle.
at any Level and I will make builds that demonstrate that Power Attacking is ALWAYS a good idea.
1st level versus a kobold rogue in a +1 chain shirt who just drank potions of Barkskin and cat's grace. He'll have around a 24 AC, but could have as few as 7 HP.
3rd level versus a will o' wisp.
Obviously, Power Attack is an awesome feat, but I can't let blanket statements like this stand. ;D
Oh man. Level 1, I would advocate not using power attack. By level 3 though you use it on every attack except the most absurd circumstances
@TarkXT
You would be surprised at how poorly people optimize. Just look Valeros and the other iconics. Take a moment to realize that those are middle optimization.
Unless the developer himself comes in and contradicts otherwise I'll take Owen K.C. Stephens at his word.Based on the posts I quoted earlier I don't think there is confusion as to what the RAI is, but rather if the rules text confers the (now apparent) intent clearly. Since there seems to be a fair amount of people (including myself) who have misunderstood the rule... Might be worth asking to have it clarified?
It's potentially a fairly nice boost for Warpriests - especially feats that base a save DC on BAB, such as Stunning Critical, could see their DC rise by anywhere between 1 and 5.
It would however also mean that Warpriests would have to keep track of which feats they took as bonus feats and which they took as regular feats, since they would interact differently with the Warpriest's level progression. For example many Warpriests would want to delay Power Attack until level 3 so they can get the more favorable progression. Not a huge inconvenience, but slightly awkward.
Technically Warpriests have to delay Power Attack until 3rd level anyways. They don't qualify for it at first level after all (though a multi-classed Warpriest would be different).
@TarkXT
You would be surprised at how poorly people optimize. Just look Valeros and the other iconics. Take a moment to realize that those are middle optimization.
I'm not surprised?
I'm just pointing out that having high strength and power attack on a martial class isn't exactly the high order optimization that results in table killers.
And lo and behold the iconic barbarian known for wielding a large weapon rather than a greatsword has power attack, high strength, and an ability that negates the attack penalty while taking advantage of using a two handed weapon.
It's a set of synergies so easy to pull off it's hardly worth calling optimization as the word would imply effort was involved to get there.
I'm just pointing out that having high strength and power attack on a martial class isn't exactly the high order optimization that results in table killers.
What you have described is top-shelf omg optimization for many tables.
I walked into a game with an 18 strength fighter with power attack next to a paladin, a ranger, a druid, and a bard. People just thought fighters were ridiculously OP.
I'm pretty sure that that Warpriests are only treated as full BAB for the purpose of qualifying for those feats. They don't shift into full BAB characters on USING them. The whole point of the WarPriest revision was to lock them into 3/4 BAB for combat purposes, and make up for it with self buffs.
I'm more than "sure," the whole paragraph is about qualifying for feats. Yay for taking things out of context I guess.
Oh man. Level 1, I would advocate not using power attack.
Agreed: a lot of the enemies you're likely to face at level 1 can be one-hit killed by a good martial. 6 HP goblins, 4 hp kobolds, and 5 hp dire rats should only survive a hit if you have low strength for a martial and roll poorly on your damage dice.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just pointing out that having high strength and power attack on a martial class isn't exactly the high order optimization that results in table killers.What you have described is top-shelf omg optimization for many tables.
I walked into a game with an 18 strength fighter with power attack next to a paladin, a ranger, a druid, and a bard. People just thought fighters were ridiculously OP.
I can't decide if that makes me want to laugh or cry. Maybe I'd better just borrow a page from Ollidamra.
I'm just pointing out that having high strength and power attack on a martial class isn't exactly the high order optimization that results in table killers.What you have described is top-shelf omg optimization for many tables.
I walked into a game with an 18 strength fighter with power attack next to a paladin, a ranger, a druid, and a bard. People just thought fighters were ridiculously OP.
I understand that there are major variations in play style table to table, but honestly if the optimization ceiling is that low how could the party survive something like rise of the runelords?
Were most fights in that game apl - X?
Not trying to be antagonistic, just trying to understand.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just pointing out that having high strength and power attack on a martial class isn't exactly the high order optimization that results in table killers.What you have described is top-shelf omg optimization for many tables.
I walked into a game with an 18 strength fighter with power attack next to a paladin, a ranger, a druid, and a bard. People just thought fighters were ridiculously OP.
I understand that there are major variations in play style table to table, but honestly if the optimization ceiling is that low how could the party survive something like rise of the runelords?
Were most fights in that game apl - X?
Not trying to be antagonistic, just trying to understand.
Groups like that also tend to run campaigns that end (intentionally or through implosion) around 4th level.
Thanks, BigDTBone!
I'm glad to see both the math and this taken out of the thread I started asking what people considered Trap options. As I said in the other thread, I personally don't consider Power Attack to be a Trap option.
For all those talking about seas of low AC / low HP mooks, Cleave is for wading through those situations, and has Power Attack as the prerequisite.
It is my impression that High AC / low HP isn't that common in monsters. There are certainly character builds that can result in that, and a few monsters like that. I don't believe it to be a typical case.
|
I'm just pointing out that having high strength and power attack on a martial class isn't exactly the high order optimization that results in table killers.What you have described is top-shelf omg optimization for many tables.
I walked into a game with an 18 strength fighter with power attack next to a paladin, a ranger, a druid, and a bard. People just thought fighters were ridiculously OP.
Does your group purposely optimize for inefficiency?
This is far from OP, or "omg optimization" that I suspect your group runs exclusively Core Rogues, with a 14, 14, 14, 14, 10, 10 array.
Do Wizards in your group dump intelligence, because this isn't even Color Spray power at first level.
I don't care to bicker between personal beliefs. I prefer to let math show what is calculable and factual. Power Attack as a trap?
Without getting into really boring mathematics... As your weapons' average damage goes up, the effectiveness of Power Attack goes down. The math shows that depending on what you need to roll to hit normally vs what you need to roll while power attacking plays more of an impact as to whether power attack is a trap.
A kukri power attacking needs at least a 10% chance of hitting to be more effective than a dagger not power attacking. If a power attacking kukri needs a Natural 20 to hit, then not power attacking is more effective.
A Longsword after power attacking needs at least a 15% chance of hitting to be more effective than a longsword prior to power attacking. If a power attacking longsword needs a 19 or Natural 20 to hit, then not power attacking is more effective.
A great axe power attacking needs at least a 20% chance of hitting to be more effective than a great axe without power attacking. If a power attacking great axe needs an 18, 19, or Natural 20 to hit, then not power attacking is more effective.
*all three of these calculations have already factored in the variable number of your power attack penalty; all three of these calculations are based off medium sized weapons*
-- Phrased a little weird, in part because it is and in part because I am tired --
DPR is both easier to calculate and a more significant factor.
Its definitely easy to calculate. Rud would probably take a statistics degree. DPR is just not as significant as the sole determiner of if a feat is worth it.
RUD = Some even number of rounds is ideal, but not the most significant metric since while an enemy with 1 HP is just as effective at fighting, an enemy with 40 HP more than he would have if your DPR was 40 points lower is MORE dangerous still since RUD doesn't take into account ally help.
RUD does take ally help into account , far better than DPR does. With a huge change of 40 dpr you would change rud, but power attack doesn't do that.
If you have an enemy with 150 HP, a character with 100 DPR, and 2 allies with 25 DPR apiece, RUD when taking that into account is 1...not the misleading 2 that would come up if we assumed HP/DPR = RUD.
Then don't assume that.
Unless I'm mistaken, I believe Owen was involved in writing the Warpriest class.
Unless I'm mistaken, I believe Owen was involved in writing the Warpriest class.
I know he playtested the class internally, but Jason Bulhman is the writer of the Warpriest. Any other involvement that Owen made would be unclear to me. Additionally I note that the game devs seem to have a very different way of interpreting a lot of the stuff in the ACG, likely because they have access to the intent of the rules while we only have access to what's written and pending errata.
I wish we could all be on the same page :(
Also sorry if I'm sounding at all harsh Owen. I'm a huge fan of your work, but most definitely not a fan of the ACG and how the fiasco was handled. I don't put the blame on you either.
I don't care to bicker between personal beliefs. I prefer to let math show what is calculable and factual. Power Attack as a trap?
Without getting into really boring mathematics... As your weapons' average damage goes up, the effectiveness of Power Attack goes down. The math shows that depending on what you need to roll to hit normally vs what you need to roll while power attacking plays more of an impact as to whether power attack is a trap.
A kukri power attacking needs at least a 10% chance of hitting to be more effective than a dagger not power attacking. If a power attacking kukri needs a Natural 20 to hit, then not power attacking is more effective.
A Longsword after power attacking needs at least a 15% chance of hitting to be more effective than a longsword prior to power attacking. If a power attacking longsword needs a 19 or Natural 20 to hit, then not power attacking is more effective.
A great axe power attacking needs at least a 20% chance of hitting to be more effective than a great axe without power attacking. If a power attacking great axe needs an 18, 19, or Natural 20 to hit, then not power attacking is more effective.
*all three of these calculations have already factored in the variable number of your power attack penalty; all three of these calculations are based off medium sized weapons*
-- Phrased a little weird, in part because it is and in part because I am tired --
Did we take into account that each instance of +2 for the greataxe is +3? Or does that even matter?
Alright so bottom line is, as it's always been for me, that powerattack is not a trap but you probably shouldn't use it all the time.
Overkill is a silly misconception. The game does not reward you for getting exact numbers correctly. It rewards you for killing the bastard.
If the table is too new or too inept at the system mastery to think high strength+power attack+big weapons is a neat idea it probably doesn't hold much weight in the discussion about it.
Power attack should be used when:
DR is an issue
Party buffs be rocking out
The enemy is at average or below average AC for the CR
The enemy has good self healing options
When you have ridiculous attack bonuses
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is always a situation in which a particular option would be a "Trap".
Does this automatically make it generally a "Trap" option?
No.
A 7 strength Wizard, with two levels in Ranger, for Power Attack, is not an average build.
Campaigns with custom wealth distribution, and enemies of higher CR do not disprove the averages.
So, if it helps to see past these obscure, and irrelevant examples, then imagine it is for PFS.
Also, the "Math, pfft, what does that matter" and "Thinking about damage makes you an optimizer doody head" responses are just silly, and unhelpful.
Even those with less than optimized builds can be curious about their damage potential, without somehow committing some atrocity.
Not enough math.
http://imgur.com/DJKtTbc
http://imgur.com/cqCzpkM
Tool used http://rechneronline.de/function-graphs/
If you can hit on a 2, power attack is great!
Codzilla in the house!
Playing a Dwarf cleric in RoTRl - all our enemies are low AC heavy hitters and I'm usually running 4 accuracy buffs only 2 of which need to be cast just before combat starts. That's not to say some of our enemies actually have enough AC to make me miss some times.
Cleric? Great for power attack - tons of buff spells to make up for 3/4 class level.
Cavalier? Godly for power attack - you get 3x normal damage and nearly always hit because charges have insanely high attack roll bonuses!
Full BAB + Power Attack = Awesome!
Medium BAB + Power Attack = Something to think about...
Power Attack can also lose some of its shine if you've got a lot of other damage bonuses. My Paladin/Bard with Inspire Courage, Good Hope, and Smite Evil was very accurate but probably had as much to lose from Power Attack as he did to gain, especially considering the fact he used a one-handed weapon.
I'm just pointing out that having high strength and power attack on a martial class isn't exactly the high order optimization that results in table killers.What you have described is top-shelf omg optimization for many tables.
I walked into a game with an 18 strength fighter with power attack next to a paladin, a ranger, a druid, and a bard. People just thought fighters were ridiculously OP.
Does your group purposely optimize for inefficiency?
This is far from OP, or "omg optimization" that I suspect your group runs exclusively Core Rogues, with a 14, 14, 14, 14, 10, 10 array.
Do Wizards in your group dump intelligence, because this isn't even Color Spray power at first level.
The crossbow wielding druid was a power gamer. He was bad at the rules and optimization. He killed off his druid to play a "really strong" rogue.
The ranger was too busy flinging his boobs at people to do anything all that interesting. He grabbed a snake AC and thought the whole class feature was useless.
The paladin had like 14 int, high cha, and 14 strength. She fell near the start of the campaign and never bothered to redeem herself. So instead of striping all powers the GM had her smite only a particular faction until she tried to redeem herself. She never did.
The bard was thundercaller. She hit the party several times before giving her life to save my fighter. She then brought in a cleric, who was killed by the party rogue.
This campaign went to 13th level. The GM threw custom encounters at us. I did convince him to keep us at WBL, which actually made CR or higher fights mildly doable. I also respeced to Aegis at level 10.
EDIT: Regardless of pro-nouns, all the players were dudes.
I know you didn't say it was a trap option, but power attack was brought up in a thread called "List of trap options."
So, that's part of why I didn't mention you by name in the OP.
|
|
I issued a challenge to the thread to give me any Full-BAB class, any Fighting Style, and at any Level and I will make builds that demonstrate that Power Attacking is ALWAYS a good idea.
I must say that the challenge was serious.
OK, where is the Level 1 Halfling Inspired Blade Swashbuckler that demonstrates that "Power Attacking is ALWAYS a good idea"?
Modules Overlord
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unless I'm mistaken, I believe Owen was involved in writing the Warpriest class.I know he playtested the class internally, but Jason Bulhman is the writer of the Warpriest. Any other involvement that Owen made would be unclear to me. Additionally I note that the game devs seem to have a very different way of interpreting a lot of the stuff in the ACG, likely because they have access to the intent of the rules while we only have access to what's written and pending errata.
I wish we could all be on the same page :(
Also sorry if I'm sounding at all harsh Owen. I'm a huge fan of your work, but most definitely not a fan of the ACG and how the fiasco was handled. I don't put the blame on you either.
I take my gaming, and my rules, seriously. I was recently accused of "messageboard logic" on a thread on my Facebook wall by another professional game designer. I understand why the details on these things are so important to some people.
In short, as long as you are polite and rational, you don't sound harsh to me. :)
Paizo base classes are almost always written by a member of the Design Team, and Jason certainly goes over all of them with a critical eye. Interestingly, the ACG is my last freelance-from-outside project for Paizo. (I may still take on freelance Paizo projects above and beyond my developer load, but it's a little different when you work here).
I'd never try to claim my work as a freelancer on a project gives me any kind of official capacity to dictate rules, and I'm certainly not trying to do so here. My statement regarding warpriests, bab, and Power Attack comes from two sources:
1: A RAW read, which makes it clear to me that for all purposes, a warpriest treats his warpriest level as that class's bab when consider feats (both for qualifying and for determining function), and;
2: That's what Jason said when I asked him about it. But that's a casual off-the-record conversation (I happened to be playing a warpriest in a game), and should not be taken as his official word on the subject. When and if the design team makes an official ruling on it (and my guess is they won't), their considerations certainly won't include what Jason said to me as an aside. But having him confirm my reading gives me confidence in it.
Certainly RAI sometimes gets lost in rig writing, in the occasionally over-dense mass that is essentially technical creative writing, and that's unfortunate. It isn't always obvious when a clause should be read to stand alone, and when it exists as part of a larger rule. It also isn;t always obvious when a rule is worded in a particular way to ensure one specific result, and when it's just an effort to convey a general idea without a specific stacking or balance issue being given specific instruction.
In general when a clause has a broad meaning by itself, and does not limit itself or directly link itself to a proceeding clause, I read it as having the broad reading. I sometimes form a similar sentence with different subjects, and compare how I would read them.
"The halfling warbaker must have all the ingredients required to bake these cakes, but he treats his sweat as sugar for these cakes."
I would assume when I later ate such a cake, I would taste sweetness, not sweaty-hafling funk. He doesn't treat his sweat as sugar just to mix the ingredients, he treats it as sugar for those cakes.
Until Jason makes an official Design ruling on the taste of halfling war cakes, at which point that supersedes my read.
...What level is he and how on earth does he do that kind of damage?A buffed level 11 can easily exceed 200-300 damage a round. Paladin giving smite, bard song and haste in actual games your damage flies out the window if you're buffed.
Not to mention a Litany of Righteousness.
SMITELANCEPOUNCE. AM PALADIN.
1st level two weapon halfling rogue against CR 1 2 3 and 4 foes. Feel free to change stats around if str would only be used for prereqs.
Is PA every good for this guy? (who is not very good in the first place)
Since you did not quote anyone I dont know the basis of this question but TWF + PA is generally a bad idea.
As for fighting CR 4 opponents in general at level 1 it might be better to not TWF or PA.
1st level two weapon halfling rogue against CR 1 2 3 and 4 foes. Feel free to change stats around if str would only be used for prereqs.
Is PA every good for this guy? (who is not very good in the first place)
The real question is if it turns out to be "no," does that make you think power attack is a trap?
|
|
By the way, as the one who listed power attack as a "trap", I fully admit I was being a little over zealous in my representation of it. It's a good feat for two handed characters with an accuracy bonus, and situationally good for other combat styles or if you don't have an accuracy bonus.
My point was its harmful in some situations, and in those times you are better off with a different feat.
@Owen Thanks for the response and thanks for some RAI clarification. I can't wait for the eventual ACG reprint that fixes a lot of those problems with ACG.
Furious Focus a strong feat for
Single Huge attackers (some Beast Shape builds)
Martial Initiators
Or anything that doesn't full attack.
By the way, as the one who listed power attack as a "trap", I fully admit I was being a little over zealous in my representation of it. It's a good feat for two handed characters with an accuracy bonus, and situationally good for other combat styles or if you don't have an accuracy bonus.
My point was its harmful in some situations, and in those times you are better off with a different feat.
The situations where Power Attack is not useful are too infrequent to discourage most anyone from taking it on non-TWFing martial characters.