Why Power Attack was never errated / fixed? Math suggests it should.

Mathematically it's worse than striking twice. Mathematically with 3 actions it's always worse than using Exacting Strike. Even vs high AC enemies with Furious Focus it still just matches Exacting Strike mathematically with 3 Actions available for only striking. Even Press feats like Brutal Finish/Certain Strike actually (statistically) helps more Strike-> Exacting Strike as if you miss Exacting Strike you can go for Brutal Finish and if you hit with Exacting Strike you can go for Certain Strike (or for 3rd Strike even).

Every other Fighter fighting style has it's "style defining" feat that is baseline of attacking: dual wielding has Double Slice, free-hand has Snagging Strike/Dual-Handed Assault, Sword and Shield has obviously tons of shield feats. Yet Power Attack, which I assume was supposed to be THE feat for 2 handed builds, mathematically fails to be that. Unless it's Exacting Strike that was supposed to be THE feat for 2 handed builds.

Anyway, I am just surprised that Paizo didn't think that PA needs a little bit of love. It should be a more viable way to use your 2 actions than Striking twice and mathematically that's never the case, unlike Double Slice which is always better than Striking twice and Snagging Strike or Dual-Handed Assault are direct upgrades to Strike action for free-hand builds. And while I understand argument "feats are situational": many feats are not and are direct upgrades to mechanics, like feats I mentioned here and many more.

I guess after so many years there no hope for errata for PA, but maybe we will get in future some defining feat for 2 handed characters. I love PF2e but I also love 2 handed weapons and it makes me sad that PA is so bad.

I think Power Attack just allows fighter PCs to better punch through an enemy's resistances. It works as intended, so no need for errata.

The fact that every other fighting style has a "defining feat" may or may not be true, but that sort of symmetry isn't a design principle of 2E. For example, there's INT- and WIS-based prepared casters, but no CHA-based prepared casters.

Yet Power Attack, which I assume was supposed to be THE feat for 2 handed builds,

I would think Brutish Shove and Knockdown.

Though those are available at level 2 and level 4 respectively instead of level 1, two-hand wielders are a bit ahead of the curve on offense power to begin with.

I think Power Attack just allows fighter PCs to better punch through an enemy's resistances. It works as intended, so no need for errata.

The fact that every other fighting style has a "defining feat" may or may not be true, but that sort of symmetry isn't a design principle of 2E. For example, there's INT- and WIS-based prepared casters, but no CHA-based prepared casters.

Well, mathematically even vs resistance (which are rare if you campare % to monster number) there won't be much damage difference FF PA->Strike vs Strike->Exacting Strike->X simply due to statistical chance for second attack missing in both cases. Yes, IF FF PA and Strike both hits it will net better result, obviously. But that's not how statistic works. Throughout the whole campaign/adventures you will overall have always better result with Exacting Strike. Not only that but PA loses more to Exacting Strike the further you go from D12 die + the more damage property runes you add (as PA doesn't scale with those, while number of attacks do). So even resistance argument does not help PA ON AVERAGE.

Kyle_TheBuilder wrote:

Yet Power Attack, which I assume was supposed to be THE feat for 2 handed builds,

I would think Brutish Shove and Knockdown.

Though those are available at level 2 and level 4 respectively instead of level 1, two-hand wielders are a bit ahead of the curve on offense power to begin with.

I agree that Knockdown and Imp. Knockdown are great on 2 handed Fighter. Brutish Shove I am not fan due to size restriction and needing to waste another feat slot to make up for that. However, getting back to Knockdown: free-hand Fighter can also use it with any 1 handed trip weapon and with Improved Knockdown he can use it with reach 1 handed weapons. So while I agree it's good feat for 2 handed Fighter, it's also good feat for free-hand Fighter. Also with shield augmentations it's also good feat for S&S Fighter. Hardly "style defining" in my humble opinion.

However, getting back to Knockdown: free-hand Fighter can also use it with any 1 handed trip weapon and with Improved Knockdown he can use it with reach 1 handed weapons. So while I agree it's good feat for 2 handed Fighter, it's also good feat for free-hand Fighter. Also with shield augmentations it's also good feat for S&S Fighter. Hardly "style defining" in my humble opinion.

*Blinks slowly*

So... You are saying that Power Attack isn't useful and usable by free-hand fighters or 1-hand and shield fighters?

Because apparently that is what is necessary to be 'style defining'...

Kyle_TheBuilder wrote:

However, getting back to Knockdown: free-hand Fighter can also use it with any 1 handed trip weapon and with Improved Knockdown he can use it with reach 1 handed weapons. So while I agree it's good feat for 2 handed Fighter, it's also good feat for free-hand Fighter. Also with shield augmentations it's also good feat for S&S Fighter. Hardly "style defining" in my humble opinion.

*Blinks slowly*

So... You are saying that Power Attack isn't useful and usable by free-hand fighters or 1-hand and shield fighters?

Because apparently that is what is necessary to be 'style defining'...

Hm, you cought me here as I can see that I may have sounded like that. Power Attack is "usable" for free hand fighters and S&S Fighters but then it's even more terrible due to lower damage die size. Generally mathematically you lose more damage by trying to PA with 1d8 and lower die than attacking twice/Exacting Strike or their (better) style feats like Snagging Strike etc. PA it's even worse here than on d10/d12 die vs Exacting Strike. That's how bad PA is designed. So yes, more builds than 2 handed Fighter can use PA, but from logical stand point I was assuming that PA was supposed to be THE feat to go for when you wield big die weapons. But math doesn't support that, so 2 handed builds are left with well, Exacting Strike as baseline if you actually care about using something that will perform best for particular build. If you don't then obviously everything can be fun and cool and that's ok.

I think Power Attack just allows fighter PCs to better punch through an enemy's resistances. It works as intended, so no need for errata.

Yep. That's where the math more than balances or vs. Hardness, though also when using True Strike (et al).

As for "defining feat", I think that's a false premise. Maybe Paizo meant Exacting Strike to be better for 2HWs, or Sudden Charge. Or maybe big-die weapons (especially in the hands of a Fighter) already set the topmost bar for damage. Plus most every feat already favors them (if not somewhat obviously meant to enable another style).

With AoOs, the single Strike from Haste (or Sudden Charge, etc.), and the way Striking Runes work, why would anyone ever use anything other than a single, big weapon? Well, because Paizo included feats which reward those weapon styles so they become competitive. If anything big-die weapons have the freedom from a "defining feat" rather than an unfulfilled need.

Similar w/ Ranger, where a big-die weapon doesn't have a great Hunt Prey action (as someone complained recently). True I guess unless one counts Disrupt Prey (which disrupts more types of actions than similar Reactions). And then there's Quick Draw, Skirmish Strike, and any other feat which grants one Strike. Or Haste, a Marshal's "To Battle", et al.
Or the fact again that a big weapon defaults to being among the strongest options so requires no help.

NECR0G1ANT wrote:

I think Power Attack just allows fighter PCs to better punch through an enemy's resistances. It works as intended, so no need for errata.

Yep. That's where the math more than balances or vs. Hardness, though also when using True Strike (et al).

As for "defining feat", I think that's a false premise. Maybe Paizo meant Exacting Strike to be better for 2HWs, or Sudden Charge. Or maybe big-die weapons (especially in the hands of a Fighter) already set the topmost bar for damage. Plus most every feat already favors them (if not somewhat obviously meant to enable another style).

With AoOs, the single Strike from Haste (or Sudden Charge, etc.), and the way Striking Runes work, why would anyone ever use anything other than a single, big weapon? Well, because Paizo included feats which reward those weapon styles so they become competitive. If anything big-die weapons have the freedom from a "defining feat" rather than an unfulfilled need.

Similar w/ Ranger, where a big-die weapon doesn't have a great Hunt Prey action (as someone complained recently). True I guess unless one counts Disrupt Prey (which disrupts more types of actions than similar Reactions). And then there's Quick Draw, Skirmish Strike, and any other feat which grants one Strike. Or Haste, a Marshal's "To Battle", et al.
Or the fact again that a big weapon defaults to being among the strongest options so requires no help.

Math barely balances vs resistances too, especially vs those that can be bypasses by silver. But even without that, most resistances aren't high enough to make any big swing in numbers for PA. Those few that are high enough: yes, you are correct but is that worth 2 feats vs 1 that will be useful way more and net on average way better results? That's also a question.

But your other points are very good. I can see where you are coming from. I just wish that 2 handed had this iconic move to pull or attack that you know.. only really makes sense on 2 handed weapon, like Double Slice on dual or Snagging/THA on free-hand. I just feel that while highly effective, it's very bland with feats for it (2 handed builds I mean). It just lacks... a feats that are tailored for it and overall just always good to pick. PA could have been that, but it's not.

NECR0G1ANT wrote:

I think Power Attack just allows fighter PCs to better punch through an enemy's resistances. It works as intended, so no need for errata.

Yep. That's where the math more than balances or vs. Hardness, though also when using True Strike (et al).

It's kinda funny looking at all the various asks across multiple threads and seeing how we, the player community, basically ask for the impossible.

Players: we don't want one constantly repeating way to do damage, we want options! Different tools for different enemies!
Paizo: okay, here's an option, a tool, against hardness
Players: but if I build my PC to make that my single constantly repeating way to do damage, I won't be optimized! So it's no good!

How about this one:

Players: we want style-defining traits!
Paizo: okay, here's a cool feat or combo only X's get
Players: but now my other character can't access it! What if I want to build a not-X that can do that?

And I bet you've heard some version of this one before:

Players: I want my selection choices to matter! To make a difference! No false choices where it all turns out the same!
Paizo: okay, we'll give our weapons, spells etc. different characteristics, dice, etc.
Players: I'll never use any spell, weapon, that sits below optimized damage. They're broken, mathematically nobody should take them. Fix them, Paizo, so that all these cool things all do optimized damage!
Paizo: well, bu... Players: but remember Paizo, they can't be the same!

Mathematically it's worse than striking twice. Mathematically with 3 actions it's always worse than using Exacting Strike. ... I am just surprised that Paizo didn't think that PA needs a little bit of love.... I guess after so many years there no hope for errata for PA

It doesn't need a boost it is only a concern in the basic scenario you are talking about. Power Attack has it's place. What is more it is a good feat that I recommend.

It is the better option when:
a) Resistance is a factor
b) You improve it with Furious Focus to get rid of the second MAP penalty. Then Power Attack plus Strike is better than Strike x3.
c) You have a bonus on your next attack only. Example: Aid, True Strike, Devise a Strategem.

Then there is the style factor.

Power Attack is exactly how it should be. It is not a compulsory static damage add. The designers got it right.

but maybe we will get in future some defining feat for 2 handed characters. I love PF2e but I also love 2 handed weapons and it makes me sad that PA is so bad.

I'm all for more options.

Aid + True Strike on Power Attack can be nasty. I agree that with two-handed (non-reach) fighters there's not a whole lot that feels particularly unique, though, and that Power Attack is pretty marginal/niche unlike Double Slice. The issue is, as Castilliano said, a d12 two-hander is pretty close in damage to what dual-wielders get with Double Slice, if memory serves. Buffing Power Attack may place two-hander fighters outside intended bounds of the game, whereas Double Slice serves to make dual-wielding viable for fighters.

For me, the main issue is that Power Attack feels unintuitive. PF 2e has a lot of features and mechanics in it that, intentionally or not, fall in line with Monte Cook's initial definition of ivory tower mechanics - the intended/optimal use case for the mechanics are not immediately clear, and experienced players are rewarded for knowing how they work with other mechanics and what those use cases are.

To be fair, any game with as many moving parts as PF 2e is going to fall into this to some degree, but there are numerous and not-insignificant pain points for new players that the community has to step in and explain to them (and does a pretty good at doing so, I think). And these ivory tower features seem like they should have been avoidable.

I think Power Attack, if its intended use case is indeed to cut through resistances, would be better served as simply doing that - treating the target's resistances as 5-6 lower (scaling the same as it currently does) - instead of implying to the casual reader that it's stronger than Striking twice.

Castilliano wrote:

NECR0G1ANT wrote:

I think Power Attack just allows fighter PCs to better punch through an enemy's resistances. It works as intended, so no need for errata.

Yep. That's where the math more than balances or vs. Hardness, though also when using True Strike (et al).

It's kinda funny looking at all the various asks across multiple threads and seeing how we, the player community, basically ask for the impossible.

Players: we don't want one constantly repeating way to do damage, we want options! Different tools for different enemies!
Paizo: okay, here's an option, a tool, against hardness
Players: but if I build my PC to make that my single constantly repeating way to do damage, I won't be optimized! So it's no good!

How about this one:

Players: we want style-defining traits!
Paizo: okay, here's a cool feat or combo only X's get
Players: but now my other character can't access it! What if I want to build a not-X that can do that?

And I bet you've heard some version of this one before:

Players: I want my selection choices to matter! To make a difference! No false choices where it all turns out the same!
Paizo: okay, we'll give our weapons, spells etc. different characteristics, dice, etc.
Players: I'll never use any spell, weapon, that sits below optimized damage. They're broken, mathematically nobody should take them. Fix them, Paizo, so that all these cool things all do optimized damage!
Paizo: well, bu... Players: but remember Paizo, they can't be the same!

It's almost like a lot of players would be happy with a classless system that doesn't value niche protection above most other concerns. That's an easy way to answer most of these specific issues.

I think Power Attack, if its intended use case is indeed to cut through resistances, would be better served as simply doing that - treating the target's resistances as 5-6 lower (scaling the same as it currently does)

There is another class that does that.

- instead of implying to the casual reader that it's stronger than Striking twice.

It is impossible to protect the reader from themselves. There is no point in being confusing, but beyond that it is futile.

There is nothing in Power Attack to imply it is stronger than Striking twice.

If nothing else, two strikes beats power attack at all levels vs resist 5 and most levels at resist 10 regardless of weapon die size. Resist 15 and resist all reducing rune damage on top of the phys make it worth using.

If nothing else, two strikes beats power attack at all levels vs resist 5 and most levels at resist 10 regardless of weapon die size.

But only if you actually land both Strikes. So there is a minor bit of tradeoff there too.

Power attack they 100% got right.

It is not mandatory.
It does not have any action taxes.
It does not just deal strike damage.
It has unlimited uses.
It does not take up your entire turn.

If anything the issue is that Power Attack is such a perfect point of comparison as to what other abilities should do that its weird its not used that way.

* P.S. Yeah two strikes will do more damage, you are making more attacks. The point is that Power Attack is making 1 attack at maximum hit chance, which is great vs higher level enemies. I still don't know why they didn't keep the Vital Strike name, that would have made it more clear.

There is another class that does that.

I take it you mean thaumaturge? There are enough differences between use cases there that I don't think there's an issue of niche protection, any more than Power Attack already invalidates it by being useful against resistances to begin with.

It is impossible to protect the reader from themselves. There is no point in being confusing, but beyond that it is futile.

There is nothing in Power Attack to imply it is stronger than Striking twice.

I disagree. The lead/flavor sentence says "You unleash a particularly powerful attack that clobbers your foe but leaves you a bit unsteady." And without crunching the numbers yourself, the effect of it is one big attack with more damage than a normal attack. It's easy to assume based on that and the flavor that that one big attack is intended to be more valuable for those two actions than Striking twice would be, in the same way that one would assume that similar damage boosters bring you above baseline. In the same way that Double Slice is obviously better than Striking twice with a dual-wield build.

I'm speaking anecdotally here of course, but that's an assumption I made initially about the intent before doing the math and speaking to others, that's an assumption Kyle made, that's an assumption I've seen others online make, and that's an assumption I've had new players in my group make. It's not obvious that it lowers your damage without doing MAP-based calculations for average damage.

More to the point, even if it doesn't mislead you, make you believe that its intent is to be better than baseline, it still doesn't proactively lead you to the overcoming-resistance use case - that's something you have to put together yourself based on a deeper understanding of mechanics or come to the forums to have explained to you.

gesalt wrote:

If nothing else, two strikes beats power attack at all levels vs resist 5 and most levels at resist 10 regardless of weapon die size.

But only if you actually land both Strikes. So there is a minor bit of tradeoff there too.

And you can hit with one strike and whiff the power attack. Success rates are already factored in, you know that. If two fighters perform the two routines 100 times, the one striking twice will come out ahead more often than the one power attacking, except against resist all or resist phys 15.

The feat has its place (in the late game, surprisingly) and is a good pick for using fighter's flex feat if you know you're going to be fighting that sort of enemy.

Power attack they 100% got right.

It is not mandatory.
It does not have any action taxes.
It does not just deal strike damage.
It has unlimited uses.
It does not take up your entire turn.

If anything the issue is that Power Attack is such a perfect point of comparison as to what other abilities should do that its weird its not used that way.

* P.S. Yeah two strikes will do more damage, you are making more attacks. The point is that Power Attack is making 1 attack at maximum hit chance, which is great vs higher level enemies. I still don't know why they didn't keep the Vital Strike name, that would have made it more clear.

Not great vs higher-level enemies, actually. Say you're at 5th level.

You're wielding a d12 weapon (best case for Power Attack), you have Striking runes, and you have +16 to hit. Your damage with Power Attack is 3d12+4 (23.5), and your damage without it is 2d12+4 (17). A level 7 enemy with high AC (about typical for melee bruisers) has 25 AC, and a level 8 enemy has high AC of 27.

Against the level 7 enemy, Power Attack hits on 9-18 and crits on 19-20 (0.7x damage on hit), dealing 16.45 damage on average. Your first Strike has the same accuracy as Power Attack, and your second hits on 14-19 and crits on 20 (0.4x). Together they deal 18.7 on average.

Against the level 8 enemy, Power Attack hits on 11-19 and crits on 20 (0.55x), dealing 12.925 average damage. The second Strike in a two-Strike routine hits on 16-19 and crits on 20 (0.3x), resulting in the two-Strike routine dealing 14.45 average damage.

Once you get Striking runes, Power Attack needs either Furious Focus (meaning a three-action routine) and/or "on your next attack" buffs to outcompete vanilla Strikes. Or, of course, a target with damage resistances.

Gortle wrote:

It is impossible to protect the reader from themselves. There is no point in being confusing, but beyond that it is futile.

There is nothing in Power Attack to imply it is stronger than Striking twice.

I disagree. The lead/flavor sentence says "You unleash a particularly powerful attack that clobbers your foe but leaves you a bit unsteady." And without crunching the numbers yourself, the effect of it is one big attack with more damage than a normal attack. It's easy to assume based on that and the flavor that that one big attack is intended to be more valuable for those two actions than Striking twice would be

and you would be wrong to do that. You have really just made my point rather well. There is nothing in your reasoning to base that outcome on. Yet you persist with it. You are reading something in which isn't there, and then complaining it is not right!

This is Pathfinder 2. Please leave your preconceptions from other games at the door.

Temperans wrote:

Power attack they 100% got right.

It is not mandatory.
It does not have any action taxes.
It does not just deal strike damage.
It has unlimited uses.
It does not take up your entire turn.

If anything the issue is that Power Attack is such a perfect point of comparison as to what other abilities should do that its weird its not used that way.

* P.S. Yeah two strikes will do more damage, you are making more attacks. The point is that Power Attack is making 1 attack at maximum hit chance, which is great vs higher level enemies. I still don't know why they didn't keep the Vital Strike name, that would have made it more clear.

Not great vs higher-level enemies, actually. Say you're at 5th level.

You're wielding a d12 weapon (best case for Power Attack), you have Striking runes, and you have +16 to hit. Your damage with Power Attack is 3d12+4 (23.5), and your damage without it is 2d12+4 (17). A level 7 enemy with high AC (about typical for melee bruisers) has 25 AC, and a level 8 enemy has high AC of 27.

Against the level 7 enemy, Power Attack hits on 9-18 and crits on 19-20 (0.7x damage on hit), dealing 16.45 damage on average. Your first Strike has the same accuracy as Power Attack, and your second hits on 14-19 and crits on 20 (0.4x). Together they deal 18.7 on average.

Against the level 8 enemy, Power Attack hits on 11-19 and crits on 20 (0.55x), dealing 12.925 average damage. The second Strike in a two-Strike routine hits on 16-19 and crits on 20 (0.3x), resulting in the two-Strike routine dealing 14.45 average damage.

Once you get Striking runes, Power Attack needs either Furious Focus (meaning a three-action routine) and/or "on your next attack" buffs to outcompete vanilla Strikes. Or, of course, a target with damage resistances.

I meant great as in you don't want to risk the second attack missing, and so you use this. Also I personally though it was obvious that it was for getting around resistances given how its 1 large attack vs 2 relatively smaller attacks.

Granted this is coming from someone that saw no issue with Vital Strike when everyone dismissed it because "more attacks is better". So in my case I never expected it to deal more damage.

Given my stance on other things stand, if Power Attack got a damage bonus I would 100% would like a damage bonus on other 2 action single strike abilities. As I said Power Attack makes a good guidelines and its weird its not actually used that way.

and you would be wrong to do that. You have really just made my point rather well. There is nothing in your reasoning to base that outcome on. Yet you persist with it. You are reading something in which isn't there, and then complaining it is not right!

This is Pathfinder 2. Please leave your preconceptions from other games at the door.

If you're going to be condescending and avoid actually engaging with what I'm saying, more power to you and I'm happy to talk to other people about this instead, but I'd prefer to have an actual conversation.

In your eyes, to a new player not willing/able to look too deeply into the math, what exactly signals to them that Double Slice is meant to be a direct damage boost and that Power Attack is not? What exactly signals to a new player that Power Attack is meant for overcoming particularly high resistances?

I meant great as in you don't want to risk the second attack missing, and so you use this. Also I personally though it was obvious that it was for getting around resistances given how its 1 large attack vs 2 relatively smaller attacks.

Granted this is coming from someone that saw no issue with Vital Strike when everyone dismissed it because "more attacks is better". So in my case I never expected it to deal more damage.

Given my stance on other things stand, if Power Attack got a damage bonus I would 100% would like a damage bonus on other 2 action single strike abilities. As I said Power Attack makes a good guidelines and its weird its not actually used that way.

We may have different definitions of "great." IMO it's preferable to be making two attacks for consistent damage; the odds of both hitting are lower, but the odds of doing no damage at all are also lower, which is nice against bosses that are harder to hit.

1e's Vital Strike prepping you for how 2e's Power Attack works is interesting, sounds like the opposite of what Gortle's talking about with preconceptions from other games, where that context for 1e was important for setting expectations. Speaking personally, I didn't play much 1e and was expecting 2e Power Attack to have a similar niche as 1e Power Attack; the player I had hadn't played 1e at all, and I'm not sure about any of the others I've seen online with incorrect assumptions about how it works.

Gortle wrote:

and you would be wrong to do that. You have really just made my point rather well. There is nothing in your reasoning to base that outcome on. Yet you persist with it. You are reading something in which isn't there, and then complaining it is not right!

This is Pathfinder 2. Please leave your preconceptions from other games at the door.

If you're going to be condescending and avoid actually engaging with what I'm saying, more power to you and I'm happy to talk to other people about this instead, but I'd prefer to have an actual conversation.

I am disagreeing with you? I object at exactly the position in your argument you make the logical leap. it is easy to assume The hole in your reasoning. Then you say I'm not engaging with you? I have directly engaged with you. I disagreed and I showed you where and why.

In your eyes, to a new player not willing/able to look too deeply into the math, what exactly signals to them that Double Slice is meant to be a direct damage boost and that Power Attack is not? What exactly signals to a new player that Power Attack is meant for overcoming particularly high resistances?

This is just conjecture built on an irrational premise.

Power attack is imo fine ( meant for big weapons ), although i'd recommend using it with the furious focus feat by lvl 6 ( if you are not a fighter, just don't get power attack ).

Beastmaster dedication also helps with movement, ending up giving a free stride by lvl 4, so by lvl 6 the routine may be:

Stride: 1 action ( companion ).
Power attack ( 2 actions. map *1 rather than *2 ).
Strike ( 1 action ).

Power attack is one of the better tuned feats in the game. It does exactly what it is supposed to do without being too strong or weak.
There is no point in arguing that it does less damage than attacking twice, that is the point. It is a sidegrade.
Also I wish to point out that you can power attack and then attack again just fine with furious focus if you want to go full out damage in a turn.

I think it is also important to remember hero points. When you are fighting a significantly higher level enemy, you are probably in a boss fight. You might have a situational circumstance bonus to your next strike that only applies to your next attack (like aid) and or the target might only be flat-footed to you for one attack. The tactical situation of PF2 let’s you as a player make your decision about whether this is a time where taking a second attack feels worth while to you as a separate action or if getting everything you can out of one attack.

Personally, my 2 handed mail fighter went knock down strike and it was amazing, but also wastefully so 20 to 30% of the time I used it. There were definitely times I considered retraining out of the knockdown greater knockdown chain into power attack and furious focus. Having the extra damage register as a separate damage instance often made it do no additional damage. At higher level you are facing a lot of resistances.

...

Personally, my 2 handed mail fighter ...

I know what you meant but i love the idea of your fighter slapping people in the face with a chainmail. Stealing immediately.

Unicore wrote:

...

Personally, my 2 handed mail fighter ...

I know what you meant but i love the idea of your fighter slapping people in the face with a chainmail. Stealing immediately.

Alternative picture: it's not chainmail, it's just a package or an absurdly sturdy envelope XD

Not great vs higher-level enemies, actually. Say you're at 5th level....

Since at least two people have pointed out that PA is a tool probably intended to help get through resistances, you should add resistance to your example. I think the parity point for your +16 attack vs 25 AC example is Resistance 5 (the parity point will change, depending on attack and AC). As in: that's where both options are roughly equal in terms of average DPR. For lower resistances two strikes yields better average DPR. For higher resistance, PA does.

All of which again brings up the 'how you look at the role of feats' question. Are you viewing feats as "If I only pick one, and do it over and over again, which one should I pick"? Or are you viewing feats as "If I pick as if they are tools in my toolbox, to use in different situations, does this feat/tool cover a situation I think is going to be important?"? If the former, PA is likely not for you. If the latter, it could be. And the frustrating part for game designers is that when they ask players what they want, players often say "the toolbox." More options. More special tricks they can pull out just when they are needed. But when players actually GET an option delivered in a rules update, they immediately do an use-over-and-over analysis and complain if the feat is not optimal for always-use-it-over-and-over application.

IOW do you see rules providing situational abilities as cool options that expand the game, or do you see them as feat taxes and trap feats which drain slots?

b) You improve it with Furious Focus to get rid of the second MAP penalty. Then Power Attack plus Strike is better than Strike x3.

Also I wish to point out that you can power attack and then attack again just fine with furious focus if you want to go full out damage in a turn.

Actually FF (Furious Focus) mathmatically only makes it equally good to Exacting Strike. FF is basically a feat that carries PA as without FF PA would be totally useless after level 3, FF makes it equal to Exacting Strike, but that's again 2 feats vs 1 feat. So it's worth to remember.

Funny fact also is that the more AC enemies have the worse PA is, even with Furious Focus, as you can see on this graph:

Higher AC makes FF PA->Strike better than 3x Striking, but worse than Exacting Strike.

To be fair to FF Power Attack, it has short peaks over Exacting attack at levels 10-11 and at level 18, shown in this graph :

However, that's only 3 levels range for 20 levels where PA is mathemathically slightly better than Exacting Strike. So overall in my humble opinion, it hardly justifies 2 feats investment unless you were to retrain it for levels 10-11 and retrain it just on level 18.

Power Attack is also really strong for Finesse builds. They rarely have much strength and as such doubling the damage dice is a definite power improvement.

Also, it makes Power Attack's description appropriate, as Strength-based martials are already putting all their strength in their attacks when Dexterity-based martials are attacking in a very different way normally.

breithauptclan wrote:

gesalt wrote:

If nothing else, two strikes beats power attack at all levels vs resist 5 and most levels at resist 10 regardless of weapon die size.

But only if you actually land both Strikes. So there is a minor bit of tradeoff there too.

And you can hit with one strike and whiff the power attack. Success rates are already factored in, you know that. If two fighters perform the two routines 100 times, the one striking twice will come out ahead more often than the one power attacking, except against resist all or resist phys 15.

But no one needs to attack 100 times in order to take down the enemy that they are currently facing.

Overcoming resistances is only one use case for the feat.

IMO, the primary benefit of the feat is to put all of your eggs into one basket. A Power Attack does more damage than a single normal Strike. And yes, very likely less damage than two successful Strikes.

But there are a lot of times where you can get a temporary buff to one attack. Guidance, Feint, Aid, Hero Point, ...

Also, shoutout to Unicore who said pretty much the same thing about three hours ago upthread. I missed that when skimming through the rest of this.

But no one needs to attack 100 times in order to take down the enemy that they are currently facing.

It's not about attacking 100 times, I never said that. It's about statistic so I took 100 simulated "turns" for easier statistic calculation for average outcome. It was to simulate when you have either 2 actions or you have 3 actions available and all you want to do is deal damage, either be PA vs 2 Strikes or by Furious Focus PA vs Strike, Exacting Strike, Strike. It's to shown what is more beneficial from math standpoint on average to 2 handed character. Meaning: if you play campaign, doesn't matter if level 1-10 or 1-20 or 10-20: on average Power Attack or Furious Focus Power Attack nets you worse result. I never said you attack 100 times, just that I simulated 100 turns where you have either 2 or 3 actions for full offense, which in whole campaign seemed like good statistical base. Result would be same for 50, but it was easier to for me to calculate with 100.

And it still feels like you are deliberately avoiding the point that I am trying to make.

The effect of Power Attack isn't to do more damage given an optimal routine of an ideal turn.

The point is that you do all of the damage with one attack roll and as one damage instance. The first part of that is good for temporary buffs, and the second is good for mitigating damage resistance.

And all of that for only two of your three actions for the round. I'm not overly worried about the MAP and whether you make Power Attack as your second attack or first attack. Other than in whiteroom theorycrafting it is unlikely that you will be making an additional attack alongside Power Attack anyway.

And as SuperBidi pointed out, it is also useful for dex-based switch hitter ranged/melee fighters. With lower static strength damage, the increase in dice is more of an impact.

Also good to pick up the feat from the Fighter archetype for non-martial classes. They don't have the weapon proficiency to make more than one good attack, so getting more damage out of that one attack roll is a nice boon.

-----

I have mentioned before in other threads that there are diminishing returns for optimization. Trying to squeeze out the last 10% of possible damage comes at a really steep price.

So if you are building a strength-based 2-hand weapon fighter that already has high accuracy and high single Strike damage, trying to scour the rulebooks looking for feats, tricks, and gimmicks to gain even more damage than that is going to lead to frustration more often than not. And taking Power Attack in order to do that is definitely one of those cases where it may not work at all.

This is just conjecture built on an irrational premise.

Get your facts straight. Then we can talk.

I'd recommend rereading my initial post in this thread. The premise is in-line with what I've been arguing from the beginning, and I think you didn't read what I was saying carefully enough.

If you don't think that the game should make it clearer to players what features are intended for, that's fine, but that's a different point of disagreement than whether Power Attack makes it clear what it's intended to be used for.

egindar wrote:

Not great vs higher-level enemies, actually. Say you're at 5th level....

Since at least two people have pointed out that PA is a tool probably intended to help get through resistances, you should add resistance to your example. I think the parity point for your +16 attack vs 25 AC example is Resistance 5 (the parity point will change, depending on attack and AC). As in: that's where both options are roughly equal in terms of average DPR. For lower resistances two strikes yields better average DPR. For higher resistance, PA does.

Sure. I did the math without resistance because Temperans was saying PA was great for bosses, which I took to be a separate use case from resistance. I've said it's good at cutting through resistance.

For +16 against 25 AC, PA does 12.95, and two Strikes does 13.2. So about the same, yeah. As gesalt was saying it's not quite enough for there to merely be resistances; they have to be high for PA to become worth it (before one-Strike buffs or Furious Focus come in). I've seen it put to good use against Animated Armor, for example, which has Hardness 9 at level 2 (and was also encountered before Striking runes were in play).

All of which again brings up the 'how you look at the role of feats' question. Are you viewing feats as "If I only pick one, and do it over and over again, which one should I pick"? Or are you viewing feats as "If I pick as if they are tools in my toolbox, to use in different situations, does this feat/tool cover a situation I think is going to be important?"? If the former, PA is likely not for you. If the latter, it could be. And the frustrating part for game designers is that when they ask players what they want, players often say "the toolbox." More options. More special tricks they can pull out just when they are needed. But when players actually GET an option delivered in a rules update, they immediately do an use-over-and-over analysis and complain if the feat is not optimal for always-use-it-over-and-over application.

IOW do you see rules providing situational abilities as cool options that expand the game, or do you see them as feat taxes and trap feats which drain slots?

I'm fine with the toolbox approach, although there are tolerances for how situational a special trick should be. Sudden Charge is a good example, where it's not useful in absolutely every scenario, but its use case comes up often enough. Power Attack being used for high resistances is obviously a little more niche than that, but still fine with me.

My main issue is that it's not obvious to players that that's what it's for. Other feats like Double Slice are intended as simple damage boosters to enable builds, and PA doesn't do much in the way of suggesting it's not the same as them. I'd prefer if it were less misleading to casual readers, which is something that can be accomplished either by changing the mechanics or by changing the flavor.

Mathematically it's worse than striking twice. Mathematically with 3 actions it's always worse than using Exacting Strike. Even vs high AC enemies with Furious Focus it still just matches Exacting Strike mathematically with 3 Actions available for only striking. Even Press feats like Brutal Finish/Certain Strike actually (statistically) helps more Strike-> Exacting Strike as if you miss Exacting Strike you can go for Brutal Finish and if you hit with Exacting Strike you can go for Certain Strike (or for 3rd Strike even).

Every other Fighter fighting style has it's "style defining" feat that is baseline of attacking: dual wielding has Double Slice, free-hand has Snagging Strike/Dual-Handed Assault, Sword and Shield has obviously tons of shield feats. Yet Power Attack, which I assume was supposed to be THE feat for 2 handed builds, mathematically fails to be that. Unless it's Exacting Strike that was supposed to be THE feat for 2 handed builds.

Anyway, I am just surprised that Paizo didn't think that PA needs a little bit of love. It should be a more viable way to use your 2 actions than Striking twice and mathematically that's never the case, unlike Double Slice which is always better than Striking twice and Snagging Strike or Dual-Handed Assault are direct upgrades to Strike action for free-hand builds. And while I understand argument "feats are situational": many feats are not and are direct upgrades to mechanics, like feats I mentioned here and many more.

I guess after so many years there no hope for errata for PA, but maybe we will get in future some defining feat for 2 handed characters. I love PF2e but I also love 2 handed weapons and it makes me sad that PA is so bad.

I'm sorry but you have a complete misunderstanding of the point of Power Attack in PF2. It is not intended to be something that replaces you basic strike. It's intended to be a more powerful attack (in that it does more damage than a basic strike) at the cost of additional actions so that you can pierce through damage reduction more easily.

Power Attack is also really strong for Finesse builds. They rarely have much strength and as such doubling the damage dice is a definite power improvement.

Also, it makes Power Attack's description appropriate, as Strength-based martials are already putting all their strength in their attacks when Dexterity-based martials are attacking in a very different way normally.

Overcoming resistances is only one use case for the feat.

IMO, the primary benefit of the feat is to put all of your eggs into one basket. A Power Attack does more damage than a single normal Strike. And yes, very likely less damage than two successful Strikes.

But there are a lot of times where you can get a temporary buff to one attack. Guidance, Feint, Aid, Hero Point, ...

These are both good points and present an interesting challenge to me. If the intended niche for Power Attack includes these use cases and not just resistance reduction, changing the mechanics to make that clearer is less feasible. So you'd need the flavor text to change instead, and need it to be concise in communicating that. I'm picturing something like "You unleash a particularly powerful attack that focuses all your efforts into one Strike, [clause]," where the clause goes into a little more detail on uses.

I think the mechanics of Power Attack are fine.

I don't think the mechanics are misleading. No one reads 'one additional weapon damage die with no static bonuses' and thinks that this is going to do more damage than two regular Strike actions. Unless their character either doesn't have much static bonus damage or is very likely to miss with a second attack.

or by changing the flavor.

I think that is the only argument against the current version of Power Attack that I can actually get behind.

The first sentence doesn't really describe the feat very well. There is nothing in the mechanics that represents being unsteady as a result of the action.

SuperBidi wrote:

Power Attack is also really strong for Finesse builds. They rarely have much strength and as such doubling the damage dice is a definite power improvement.

Also, it makes Power Attack's description appropriate, as Strength-based martials are already putting all their strength in their attacks when Dexterity-based martials are attacking in a very different way normally.

breithauptclan wrote:

Overcoming resistances is only one use case for the feat.

IMO, the primary benefit of the feat is to put all of your eggs into one basket. A Power Attack does more damage than a single normal Strike. And yes, very likely less damage than two successful Strikes.

But there are a lot of times where you can get a temporary buff to one attack. Guidance, Feint, Aid, Hero Point, ...

These are both good points and present an interesting challenge to me. If the intended niche for Power Attack includes these use cases and not just resistance reduction, changing the mechanics to make that clearer is less feasible. So you'd need the flavor text to change instead, and need it to be concise in communicating that. I'm picturing something like "You unleash a particularly powerful attack that focuses all your efforts into one Strike, [clause]," where the clause goes into a little more detail on uses.

Does Power Attack do what it states? Yes. It definitely adds power (damage) to an attack: the description is a proper one.

So in my opinion, there's nothing wrong with Power Attack.
I could say that Double Slice is more of a problematic ability than Power Attack, as it breaks PF2 design.

I don't know if you are a former PF1/D&D3 player. If it's the case, then I think your issue may come from what Power Attack was, something that is in direct contradiction with PF2 design. Maybe then the solution is just to rename the feat "Stronk Attack".

I still don't know why they didn't keep the Vital Strike name, that would have made it more clear.

Wholeheartedly agree. There is an element of tradition to all of this. Power Attack has history. The new mechanics are fine, it serves a decent purpose. But it is misleading, in an admittedly trivial way, to someone who is familiar with that history.

I think the mechanics of Power Attack are fine.

I don't think the mechanics are misleading. No one reads 'one additional weapon damage die with no static bonuses' and thinks that this is going to do more damage than two regular Strike actions. Unless their character either doesn't have much static bonus damage or is very likely to miss with a second attack.

egindar wrote:

or by changing the flavor.

I think that is the only argument against the current version of Power Attack that I can actually get behind.

The first sentence doesn't really describe the feat very well. There is nothing in the mechanics that represents being unsteady as a result of the action.

To me it's not as clear as it sounds. Whether 1d12 with no MAP is worth as much as 1d12+4 with -5 MAP is hard to say without deeper numbers; it's easier to make that judgment when it's 1d12 vs 2d12+4, but you may be in the habit of using it a certain way by then.

Does Power Attack do what it states? Yes. It definitely adds power (damage) to an attack: the description is a proper one.
Does Power Attack follow PF2 design? Yes. It's not supposed to replace Strike, it's supposed to be an alternate ability.
Does the description of an ability need to be an explanation on when the ability is strong tactically? No. Also, that would be impossible as use cases come and go with new material.

So in my opinion, there's nothing wrong with Power Attack.
I could say that Double Slice is more of a problematic ability than Power Attack, as it breaks PF2 design.

I don't know if you are a former PF1/D&D3 player. If it's the case, then I think your issue may come from what Power Attack was, something that is in direct contradiction with PF2 design. Maybe then the solution is just to rename the feat "Stronk Attack".

Obviously not every use case can be covered by the flavor text, especially at launch. I'm speaking more of intended use case at print than the full depth of what something can do.

I have barely any experience with 1e/3.x, for what it's worth. As I've said before this is something that seems to trip people up regardless of experience with edition, speaking anecdotally of course.

Temperans wrote:

I still don't know why they didn't keep the Vital Strike name, that would have made it more clear.

Wholeheartedly agree. There is an element of tradition to all of this. Power Attack has history. The new mechanics are fine, it serves a decent purpose. But it is misleading, in an admittedly trivial way, to someone who is familiar with that history.

This reminds me of the complaints people brought up with Witch Cackle.

"PF1 Cackle was such a powerful and useful ability. Really defining for the class. PF2 Cackle is niche use. Why wasn't it made to be as powerful as in PF1?"

Because PF1 Cackle was so good that it was renamed Sustain a Spell and given to all spellcasters with no feat tax. PF2 Cackle had to be a new ability.

Also good to pick up the feat from the Fighter archetype for non-martial classes. They don't have the weapon proficiency to make more than one good attack, so getting more damage out of that one attack roll is a nice boon.

This is why my Mutagenist will eventually pick up Grievous Blow at 10th (had other priorities at L8.) Grievous Blow is basically Power Attack for Martial Artists. (Grievous Blow also lets you ignore a certain amount of Resistance on top of adding the extra damage dice.)

To me it's not as clear as it sounds. Whether 1d12 with no MAP is worth as much as 1d12+4 with -5 MAP is hard to say without deeper numbers;

Apparently not, because that still isn't quite accurate.

The 1d12+4 with -5 MAP is fine - that would be your second Strike after you make your first Strike. You do have to roll that separately and take your additional MAP into account.

1d20 with no MAP isn't right. That second action of Power Attack does not require any roll or have any failure chance. If you succeed at that first Strike, you get the extra damage guaranteed.

So it is more a question of: is pre-spending an action worth 1d12 of additional damage?

Sometimes players struggle to find useful things to do with their third action of the round because their MAP is so high at that point, but they haven't built for doing much else. I have seen people flail away with a 3rd Strike because they can't think of anything better to do.

This reminds me of the complaints people brought up with Witch Cackle.

I see it a little, the proper noun being shared across editions. Although Power Attack feels more like a case of mistaken identity with Vital Strike rather than it becoming a core feature of every martial. Would we even want that? 2e math is tight enough that trading accuracy away seems unfavorable. Almost the opposite situation really; Power Attack went from anyone can do it in an edition where all martials had enough accuracy to consider it, to Fighter only in an edition where only the Fighter had enough accuracy to want it (while also becoming Vital Strike, sidestepping the accuracy conversation entirely). Now I really want to hear the developer discussions that got us here. Yes, I guess it does bring up the Cackle comparison, just played in reverse. How odd.

For +16 against 25 AC, PA does 12.95, and two Strikes does 13.2. So about the same, yeah.

In fact if you do the math, the differences in DPR are less than ~2 points except in the extremes: for 'regular range' skill values but resistance >10ish, PA dominates. For skill values AC+10ish or higher, two strikes dominates. Any other time, the DPR difference is less than a point or two. That's 1-2 DPR difference at level 5. When bosses have, what, 100-150 HP? Negligible.

Which tells me, as a player, to choose on style. I just don't personally care about minimaxing that 1 extra DPR at level 5 enough to sacrifice thematics to do it. And it tells me, as a GM, that if board discussions upset my newbie player by convincing them their style choice isn't going to pull it's weight DPR-wise, to tell my player to ignore the boards. Because the difference in this case between 'optimal' and 'their choice' is really not all that.

One final comment on the math. What drives the *average* DPR in extreme cases is crits. But in a short combat, you may not see any of those. Including them for short combats gets close to the gambler's fallacy: erroneously expecting a short series of events to resemble the long-time average. If your game is mostly 2-3 round combats with 3-4 players, and someone wants to calculate DPRs for various tactics and techniques, you may get a better prediction of what you're going to see by just leaving the crits out. This is not bad math. It's analogous to choosing to use the median or mode to compare two options instead of the average. Which is perfectly fine to do when your expected outcomes has a long low-probability tail. The average is not the end-all, be-all of statistical analysis. Its just often the easiest thing to calculate.

Yea, the chance that the DPR difference actually matters is negligible. when PA is substantially stronger, its against high resistance or high AC boss monsters, who are usually harder fights. When attacking twice is substantially stronger, its against low resistance or low AC grunts, who are probably dying quickly anyways. Plus, the likelihood that damage increases matter increases the more HP a target has. If a grunt has 40 hp, it doesn't matter if attacking twice deals 25 damage per round and PA deals 20, its a 2 shot either way. But if the target has 100, then PA dealing 25 compared to attacking twice's 20 matters, as that's a difference between a 4 hit kill and a 5 hit kill.

egindar wrote:

or by changing the flavor.

I think that is the only argument against the current version of Power Attack that I can actually get behind.

The first sentence doesn't really describe the feat very well. There is nothing in the mechanics that represents being unsteady as a result of the action.

I always thought the extra MAP from a single swing was meant to show that you were unsteady after that swing. Which was also why furious focus, which eliminates that extra penalty, is described as being able to maintain your balance.

ReyalsKanras wrote:

Temperans wrote:

I still don't know why they didn't keep the Vital Strike name, that would have made it more clear.

Wholeheartedly agree. There is an element of tradition to all of this. Power Attack has history. The new mechanics are fine, it serves a decent purpose. But it is misleading, in an admittedly trivial way, to someone who is familiar with that history.

This reminds me of the complaints people brought up with Witch Cackle.

"PF1 Cackle was such a powerful and useful ability. Really defining for the class. PF2 Cackle is niche use. Why wasn't it made to be as powerful as in PF1?"

Because PF1 Cackle was so good that it was renamed Sustain a Spell and given to all spellcasters with no feat tax. PF2 Cackle had to be a new ability.

Actually that is wrong.

Sustain a spell is a renamed version of concentration spells. Which in that edition took your standard action (2 PF2 actions).

What PF1 Cackle did was very specific: It extended the duration of a hex whose fixed duration would have otherwise ended. It was also only good in that it doubled the duration of hexes at the sole cost of a move action (1 PF2 action).