I generally use it, if it looks like the beast is easy to hit and has a lot of health (generally something large or huge, say a hillgiant or the like.) but not for every single creature in the game.
also of course the wizard was always hitting, he's aiming for touch AC which is generally low for most combat monsters, though not all.
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.
Even worse, some DM's refuse point-blank to let you know what AC the target is!
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.
I don't know anyone who use a spreadsheet in the middle of the game.
What you advocate in the last paragraph is exactly what they do. The difference, is that those who can do math, do it rightly instead. It's like playing Black Jack or Poker: everybody "counts" probabilities, through insight: you aren't very fond of asking for a new card in blackjack if you have 19, aren't you? Those who understand statistics do the same, except they replace "instict" by "knowledge".
If I have Power Attack (or Deadly Aim), then I use it unless I already know or it becomes apparent that I'll have or am having a hard time hitting the target [because of the PA penalty].
/Full BAB + Feats/Resources + Magic Toys + Friendly Buffs generally means you can keep up fairly well with Power Attack's scaling penalty to hit.
My entire table always takes Power Attack at level 1 or 3 depending on BaB, and always just writes it in as part of their normal To Hit bonuses.
|
Depends on the character.
My Inquisitor? Not always. I usually lead with it, and if I have trouble hitting, I stop.
My Samurai? I declare it "always-on", as his entire feat progression is built around using it. Power Attack > Cornugon Smash > Shatter Defenses > Deadly Stroke. So, for him, it makes sense to always have it on, unless it's a specific creature type that can't be demoralized.
Heck on my Magus it's "always on unless I state otherwise"
even combat states are written as if I'm using power attack at -2 all the time....
I don't usually even take Power Attack on characters that are below full BAB, but on full BAB characters, yeah, I'm Power Attacking unless I say I'm not.
I don't know anyone who use a spreadsheet in the middle of the game.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.
I never said people do, but IO would be surprised if some actually do just that.
My point is, if you need spreadsheet or a DPR formula and build you character at level 1 from level 1 every skill, feat, spell or whatever from level 1 to 17 it’s a pretty dull. At least to me. If people like it. Go ahead.
What you advocate in the last paragraph is exactly what they do. The difference, is that those who can do math, do it rightly instead. It's like playing Black Jack or Poker: everybody "counts" probabilities, through insight: you aren't very fond of asking for a new card in blackjack if you have 19, aren't you? Those who understand statistics do the same, except they replace "instict" by "knowledge".
I don’t think knowledge is wrong. If your first attack is 24 and you miss, and your second attack is 25 and you hit, then know the AC. It's not hard to figure out enemy AC after a few rounds or even in one round as pointed out by TOZ. But “counting Cards” and pre study your spreadsheet so you know that a hit with PA on attack roll X will grant you 65, 23 damage and hit with attack roll Y without PA will grant you 43, 77 damage but chance of doing this is XX so the net bonus is Z, 33 is a bit boring and not to my taste. But hey, if you like it go ahead. If the game is mostly about damage and math, be my guest.
I like optimization as long as it doesn’t have to equal max your DPR. A Gnome barbarian or Paladin can be just as fun as a human. Not as strong nut fun. Again, I know not everyone char my taste and that’s fine.
But “counting Cards” and pre study your spreadsheet so you know that a hit with PA on attack roll X will grant you 65, 23 damage and hit with attack roll Y without PA will grant you 43, 77 damage but chance of doing this is XX so the net bonus is Z, 33 is a bit boring and not to my taste. But hey, if you like it go ahead. If the game is mostly about damage and math, be my guest.
Once again, you don't need to know if it's going to do 65.23 or 23.65 average damage. What you need to know, is the breaking point.
You say yourself that you use power attack when you need to roll "low" and you don't when you need to roll "high". A guy who understand maths, will use power attack when he needs to roll "less than X" and won't use when he needs to roll "more than X", where X is the target to-hit number where PA is no longer useful (which depends on your average damage). It's exactly the same, except the guy who understand maths works with higher precision, but the principle is the same.
Also, PA tends to be better if you don't waste the extra damage. It makes me laugh at levels 1 and 2 when the big 24 str barbarian is power attacking for 2d6+13 damage on a creature with 10 or so hp. The normal 2d6+10 would kill the thing.
However, power attacking is a lot better when there is a chance of leaving a monster with 1-2 hp. At this point power attacking is worth it just so it doesn't take another hit to down them.
|
I actually RP it ... my dwarven barbarian (8 wisdom + 8 int) thinks that he should always swing as hard as possible to hit something, so unless someone at the table tells him not to swing so hard (in character) he power attacks every time. I also have a paladin who's a bit better on the mental stats than the dwarf who realizes he's often better off just swinging, especially if he's swinging at a smite target.
My upcoming Viking Fighter will be Power Attacking when they Rage regardless. If only for theme.
Slightly Ninja'd...
stuff
You’ve got a point. I just seriously need to say away from stuff that get me going.
As for PA. I haven’t played a full BAB class in a long time, but I suspect my default mode would be PA. If target is hard to hit or if I really want to make sure I hit I would turn it off.
When playing bard, cleric or other 3/4 bab class I usually only use PA when facing low AC foes or when buffed.
There are also RP stuff that affects PA or no PA.
Well I love and hate this thread. Had a build with PA and furious Focus - were PA became the standard. But now i start to think i should consider when to use PA and when not to...
With a low level magus there's 1handed spellcombat attacks, 2handed single attacks... So i get confused - what is best? Shouold I just drop PA?
But then we get a nice little post with angry dwarf and an angry viking... Just be a brute! I like...
|
I have a 10th level Barbarian with a 2H sword. I took PA at 1st level and never even looked at furious focus and EVERY to hit roll has been with PA. All day everyday. I'm not following a build I just see him as super aggressive so it wouldn't even occur to him not to go at it with everything every swing.
stuffYou’ve got a point. I just seriously need to say away from stuff that get me going.
As for PA. I haven’t played a full BAB class in a long time, but I suspect my default mode would be PA. If target is hard to hit or if I really want to make sure I hit I would turn it off.
When playing bard, cleric or other 3/4 bab class I usually only use PA when facing low AC foes or when buffed.
There are also RP stuff that affects PA or no PA.
I often don't get PA in non-full BAB anyways. In full BAB, the few cases where it doesn't pay off are so corner case, that I often just make full PA everytime, just for speed of play (having the character sheet writen with PA already in). Often, a decently melee focused char should be Power Attacking in most circumstances, maybe with 17 to 19 to hit needed being the exception. Full BAB wouldn't really need to hit 18+ in the huge majority of fights, the exception being rigged fights that you shouldn't be fighting, that have a completelly different solution, or are there to be solved by some other party member (like a foe with huge AC but low Will)
Then sometimes you find that some encounter need to change, but that's not hard to see. For example, BBEG from kingmaker, the last campaign where I played a Power Attack guy, has AC 50+. That made me to shut down Power Attack in the decissive full round attack.
.
.
.
.
.
Everything else being equal, using power attack effectively drops your BAB to the next lowest progression. Some levels there's a discrepancy, but most of them Full BAB + Power Attack = same bonus as Medium BAB and Medium BAB + Power Attack = same bonus as Poor BAB. Make of that what you will.
If you power attack and hit, keep using it. If you power attack and miss, consider not power attacking.
Well I love and hate this thread. Had a build with PA and furious Focus - were PA became the standard. But now i start to think i should consider when to use PA and when not to...
With a low level magus there's 1handed spellcombat attacks, 2handed single attacks... So i get confused - what is best? Shouold I just drop PA?
But then we get a nice little post with angry dwarf and an angry viking... Just be a brute! I like...
I would drop the Furious Focus as most of the time you will be using spell combat...
But keep it, you have class abilities and buff spells which allow you to get close to full BAB numbers.
For example, Greater Magic Weapon + Arcane Point Weapon Enchant allows you to get to +5 Hit and Damage a lot faster then any other class.
Also remember your Magus Arcana... Arcane Accuracy's bonus to attack gets converted to damage though power attack.
Also get into flanking positions, suddenly that +2 to hit becomes +4 damage instead.
Forious focus was a battle oracle build - wouldn't take it with a magus (as you said don't work with spellcombat)
But arcane points - it's just enough to make the weapon make up for the lost bab. Then you can add GMW or be a black blade - but so can the full bab chars. So a magus is still -2 behind a full bab char (from spell combat).
Arcane accuracy - well i consider it a joke. With low points buys you don't have enough int to make it matter. At highlevel with an extra arcane or two - yes usefull. But low level it's just an ability you really can't afford to use.
I did decide to keep PA - add wand weilder +wand of true strike + fighting defensely + all enhancement into dam keen/flaming
lose one attack but get one with +22 at lvl 6.
But sorry back to topic...
Flanking/charging - great idea - if you have a bonus to hit then use PA, if no bonus better not (if low to hit)
|
Here's my formula to calculate the damage breakpoint to decide if Power Attack is beneficial:
First, calculate your odds of hitting for each attack you have in the round without using Power Attack. Add them together. This is "Odds(N)".
Second, calculate your odds of hitting for each attack you have in the round whilst using Power Attack. Add them together. This is "Odds(PA)".
Third, the extra damage gained from Power Attack will be labelled "PAD".
Fourth, the term to be solved for is the base damage (use average) that is the breakpoint. This is labelled "Damage".
Damage = PAD*Odds(PA)/{Odds(N)-Odds(PA)}
If your Average damage before factoring in Power Attack is greater than this value then you shouldn't use Power Attack.
This formula doesn't take critical hits into account, but if it did the numbers would be LOWER. This is because of the extra damage critical hits do and lowering the to hit chance lowers the confirmation chance.
As an example, a character with a BAB of +12 with Power Attack, Furious Focus, and Haste, is attacking an enemy with a full attack. Without using Power Attack, he would need a 2, 2, 5, 10 on the dice to hit with each attack.
Odds(N) = 0.95 + 0.95 + 0.80 + 0.55 = 3.25
When Power Attacking, the rolls required are 2, 4, 9, 14.
Odds(PA) = 0.95 + 0.85 + 0.6 + 0.35 = 2.75
Power Attack is adding 8 damage per hit so...
PAD = 8
So now to solve the formula.
Damage = PAD*Odds(PA)/{Odds(N)-Odds(PA)}
Damage = 8*2.75/{3.25 - 2.75}
Damage = 44
So if the character's average damage was 44 or greater per hit before Power Attack, then the character is better off not using Power Attack.
If the character was not under the effects of Haste then the damage breakpoint would be 36. Even worse, if the character was Sickened then the breakpoint would be 30.
Sometimes it will take a few misses to correctly gauge your opponent, as TOZ pointed out. Always consider what the opponent is wearing (or made of as far as constructs) or taking a defensive stance (fighting defensively, etc).
Also Power Attack definitely helps out when there is an opponent set up as to where you can take advantage of him (i.e. Flanking, you're on higher ground, target is prone, stunned). This is where you can feel more confident about swinging for the fences.
|
|
Don't know if I could say most, but at least a significant percentage of the people I see using power attack for whom that doesn't enter in to it at all.
There is no learning the AC. There is no calculation. I have power attack therefore I must use it. So what if I missed 14 times in a row. I use power attack. I read on the boards that I should use power attack. It is best. I use power attack.
I will freely admit, I've seen really maxed out builds that rarely miss on their second iterative even with power attack. So yes, it makes sense to have it on most of the time.
But even then. If that guys is up against something bizzare and he is missing most of his attacks, seems like he might want to consider if it is helping more than it is hurting.
But I've seen characters that don't have their melee to hit bonus maxed but have power attack and a 2 handed weapon. They will still use it all the time.
As far as the guys that do the calculations. A few weeks ago there was someone at one of the PFS tables that was getting upset with the GM because he wouldn't tell the players what it's AC, attack bonus, and save bonuses were. He kept saying, "How can we plan what is the best thing to do if you won't tell us anything about it?" I did not hear if he had made a knowledge roll to learn anything or not. Even if he had, no GM that I know would tell you the stat numbers like that.
If for RP reasons you say, GORBASTOMP ALWAYS SMASH THINGS! That's fine.
Now if you do the calculations based on an average enemy, paying attention to your performance and the others in combat, trial and error as you play, etc... Then you say to yourself, ok I'm usually better off with power attack. That is reasonable.
If you actually think about it and realise since you have missed the last 7 rounds in a row. Maybe I should try to hit it rather than max my damage on another miss. That's even better.
But I've seen several guys that spout the holy mantra, "Check the boards. Everyone knows you should use power attack unless you are fighting with 2 weapons."
It's your character, and you are free to play the way you want. That just seems wierd to me. That was why I started this thread several months ago. If you read through it sounds like it is at least fairly common to just always power attack no matter what.
Smite evil + power attack all the way.
I don't use it every time. There are times when its better not to use it, but they are rare. Most martials can hit the opponent on a 10 or less even after factoring power attack in for the first two attacks.
It depends on how significant part of your damage PA provides.
3 attacks at +25/+20/+15 for 2d6+17 (24)
or
3 attacks at +21/+16/+11 for 2d6+29 (36)
vs AC 32
70%+45%+20% = 135% = 32.4
50%+25%+5% = 80% = 28.8
so in this case PA would lose out in average damage, lower AC is better for PA in this case playing even at AC 29, DR might also be a factor at DR 10+ PA will be more effective.
If you havso hard hitting characters might have to think twice about using it, a build dealing lower base damage PA becomes more rewarding though. This is also highly mutable in combat, if you only have one attack it is usually better to use PA, if you are sickened it is more likely to be less effective, if you are flanking you might be able to deal with the attack penalty better, it might be best not to combine with defensive fighting etc.
EDIT: in theory extremely hard to hit opponents might suffer more from your PA because you only will hit on a 20 either way, but this should almost never happen except in more extreme sandboxing campaigns.
I start out using it, then if I'm having trouble hitting I stop.
As a player, I do this.
As a GM, unless I'm controlling an NPC who is supposed to be canny (and would thus do this as well), it's often easier on the calculations to simply power attack every round. Every round being a simple "Sword+Power attack equals d20+X to hit, d8+Y damage if it hits" regardless of how well such attacks have been hitting on pprevious rounds is easier to calculate than stopping to figure out when it would be prudent and characteristic of that random, insignificant town guard to switch from power attacks to regular attacks out of his concerns of accuracy.
How would people feel about a fighter starting with a twenty in STR and wielding a greatsword who never even takes power-attack?
How would it hold up against a Fighter who did take it?
I'm actually rather inclined to think that it wouldn't even make much of a difference since you may make up for it with an advantage on your iterative attacks. It just seems like a feat tax, and one I'm not sure provides all that great an advantage, So I'd like to know if people feel like you could get away with it fairly easily or not.
I'm already aware that it is a DPR boost, But what is the average difference against a "typical" AC?
|
|
How would people feel about a fighter starting with a twenty in STR and wielding a greatsword who never even takes power-attack?
How would it hold up against a Fighter who did take it?
I'm actually rather inclined to think that it wouldn't even make much of a difference since you may make up for it with an advantage on your iterative attacks. It just seems like a feat tax, and one I'm not sure provides all that great an advantage, So I'd like to know if people feel like you could get away with it fairly easily or not.
I'm already aware that it is a DPR boost, But what is the average difference against a "typical" AC?
With a greatsword?
Hmmm.
What if the iteratives already hit pretty regularly?
What level are we talking about, and what gear, feats, etc?
It's an interesting thought.
Of course, that only counts if he's not moving...and taking full attacks. That can be the best strategy...but not always.
I'm working on my personal DPR calculator (which right now accounts for everything including Nat 1/20, critical hits, iterative attacks, et al) to calculate what I'm thinking of as damage threshold probabilities: the chance of delivering at least X damage per round (where X is a number of different results, 10, 25, 50, 100).
While I'm working it, for the more maths inclined of you, the probability of at least one attack in a sequence of attacks hitting is 1-((1-hit%att1)*(1-hit%att2)*(1-hit%att3)*(etc)).
Go, play with numbers.
How would people feel about a fighter starting with a twenty in STR and wielding a greatsword who never even takes power-attack?
How would it hold up against a Fighter who did take it?
I'm actually rather inclined to think that it wouldn't even make much of a difference since you may make up for it with an advantage on your iterative attacks. It just seems like a feat tax, and one I'm not sure provides all that great an advantage, So I'd like to know if people feel like you could get away with it fairly easily or not.
I'm already aware that it is a DPR boost, But what is the average difference against a "typical" AC?
The numbers were ran in the DPR Olympics. Power Attack matters. It is not just a tax feat.
How would people feel about a fighter starting with a twenty in STR and wielding a greatsword who never even takes power-attack?
How would it hold up against a Fighter who did take it?
I'm actually rather inclined to think that it wouldn't even make much of a difference since you may make up for it with an advantage on your iterative attacks. It just seems like a feat tax, and one I'm not sure provides all that great an advantage, So I'd like to know if people feel like you could get away with it fairly easily or not.
I'm already aware that it is a DPR boost, But what is the average difference against a "typical" AC?
Might make for some interesting alternatives.
I rarely see things like Combat Expertise, or fighting defensively work well, for example, but a high-Str character from a full BAB class would likely have a high-enough to-hit rating to pull off a more defensive style while still doing damage as an alternative to the brute force method of power attacking.
Some classes already tend to hit on practically every attack (I've seen a nice greatsword-wielding barbarian who landed the majority of his attacks on everything but natural 1s with most opponents. Wasn't even particularly optimized, Barbarians just tend to do that beyond the early levels), and those ones would likely find negligible difference in chance to hit between standard attacks and special ones. For those, it makes reasonable sense to power attack, or fight with Combat Expertise, or something along those lines.
If I play a Full BAB class and I have the feat I use it almost all the time.
If I play a 3/4 BAB class I rarely even take Power Attack feat. Usually have other feats I want. 1/2 BAB classes I never take power attack.
The numbers were ran in the DPR Olympics. Power Attack matters. It is not just a tax feat.How would people feel about a fighter starting with a twenty in STR and wielding a greatsword who never even takes power-attack?
How would it hold up against a Fighter who did take it?
I'm actually rather inclined to think that it wouldn't even make much of a difference since you may make up for it with an advantage on your iterative attacks. It just seems like a feat tax, and one I'm not sure provides all that great an advantage, So I'd like to know if people feel like you could get away with it fairly easily or not.
I'm already aware that it is a DPR boost, But what is the average difference against a "typical" AC?
You contradict yourself. Usually a feat tax is seen as something always worth taking, because the build is either nonfunctional without it, or because it's so good that it is simply assumed it is taken.
You contradict yourself. Usually a feat tax is seen as something always worth taking, because the build is either nonfunctional without it, or because it's so good that it is simply assumed it is taken.The numbers were ran in the DPR Olympics. Power Attack matters. It is not just a tax feat.How would people feel about a fighter starting with a twenty in STR and wielding a greatsword who never even takes power-attack?
How would it hold up against a Fighter who did take it?
I'm actually rather inclined to think that it wouldn't even make much of a difference since you may make up for it with an advantage on your iterative attacks. It just seems like a feat tax, and one I'm not sure provides all that great an advantage, So I'd like to know if people feel like you could get away with it fairly easily or not.
I'm already aware that it is a DPR boost, But what is the average difference against a "typical" AC?
Incorrect. A feat tax is generally a weak or much unneeded feat used to gain access to another feat or a PrC that a player might want.
As an example combat expertise is often seen as a feat tax for those that like trip builds because.
Back on track:Anyway my point was that Power Attack makes a difference.
|
|
The trick to using my formula (posted earlier) is to make a table for a range of ACs (treated as minimums needed on the dice rolls). Make three tables: Standard attack, Full attack, Full attack with extra attack at highest BAB. You know the character's average damage a hit so it can be reduced down to a minimum roll of the dice where Power Attack is useful. Then it is quick and easy to use in play as you get an idea of what you need to roll on the attack die within a small range very quickly. E.g.: "I'm full attacking this enemy and I need to hit on at least a 7 to justify power attack. I know I hit on a 9 so I'll take a gamble and use Power Attack until I roll lower and determine the enemy's AC more accurately."
The idea is to know the exact point Power Attack becomes a liability, so then you only have to guess the opponent's AC. The less unknown variables there are to work with, the easier it is to estimate.
|
|
That is a perfectly reasonable approach.
Kinda meta-gamey, but that can be reasoned away as practice against a variety of opponents.
But what I started the thread about was the people for whom using power attack always and forever is a matter of dogmatic faith. There are no circumstances where they will not power attack.
|
|
My dice rolls tend to suck so I optimise my choices where I can. I only give Power Attack to full BAB characters with a strong focus on combat and high to-hit rolls, then use it all the time unless I come up against a massive AC. I gave it to a two-weapon fighter, but not until level 12, and not until Greater Weapon Focus was gained. Compare that to a friend of mine who will put Power Attack on every character who he plans to have enter melee - he just thinks it is the best feat in the game. We can't understand the other's rationale.