Nope, power attack is either "on" or "off".
Sorry, PA is all or nothing nowadays.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But where does it say that it has to be use at full power? It doesn't necessary say either way. I'd like more opinions on this please.
It says it right here:
When your base attack bonus reaches +4, and every 4 points thereafter, the penalty increases by –1 and the bonus to damage increases by +2.
It does not say "You may choose to take a further -1 penalty for +2 more damage" or something similar. It flat out says that the penalty increases, and so does the bonus. No scaling down.
But where does it say that it has to be use at full power? It doesn't necessary say either way. I'd like more opinions on this please.
I think you mean you want different opinions, which you probably wont find. But in response to your request for more opinions I will offer mine: power attack is all or none.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just don't be one of those players who agonizes about exactly how much to dial back, or carries reams of paper print-outs of the optimal amount to power attack when the target has DR5/- and and AC of 25.
Yes, they existed. And they REALLY slowed the game down with all the extra math. Don't be that guy. Just don't.
I think it's a fair house rule to allow you to decide the benefit and penalty you get from Power Attack, but I do agree that it's a house rule at least as far as Pathfinder is concerned.
Back in 3.5 when you could use it from one point up to your BAB, there would be cheesy players who would "monkey" with the number they have it dialed up to and that would frustrate me as a DM.
"Wait! I thought you said you were going with Power Attack at -11 to hit"
"No I decided to only go with -3!"
"That was after you discovered how hard these things are to hit..."
Now it is easy as it is on or off and the same is true with Combat Expertise. I really like it this way, but like Xaratherus said, feel free to houserule it however your group like it.
I believe that the reason it is now all or nothing is that in D&D 3.x, figuring out how much to power attack turned into a major calculation for some players.
There are equations and spreadsheets to allow you to calculate the optimal penalty to take. It is fairly simple if you have a good idea of what the target's AC is and you are only making one attack. OTOH, if you have multiple attacks, it gets rather complicated.
I can certainly imagine finer divisions than "I swing hard" and "I swing normal". I have trouble imagining the granularity achieved by a 20th level D&D fighter, who could power attack for +0, -20 or any value in between.
The house rule seems reasonable, especially if you don't become "that guy" that SlimGauge is talking about.
Furious focus would work, I guess I'll pick that up next time. I respect all your answers and hate to agree, but I must. But let me just say this in parting. What exactly is a 'power attack'? Is it not the act of giving up a small portion of your accuracy when you throw more of your strength and weight behind the swing of your attack, in the hopes of doing more damage to your opponent? And if that's what is really happening during the process of a power attack, ...then couldn't a trained fighter control how much extra weight and strength he wants to apply to his attack, ...knowing that doing so adds a small touch of uncontrolled recklessness to his attack?
I guess I'll ask my GM if he'd be willing to house rule this. Since in reality, what is it really hurting? All I'm doing is wreaking the power of the feat back to the level it was when I first took it.
Well, in one way, you are dialing the power of the feat back to where you first took it (back to a -1 to hit). In another way, you aren't. When you had a BAB of +1, -1 was pretty significant as a modifier. When you have +13, a -1 isn't very significant. Perhaps the designers intend for Power Attack to represent giving up a significant portion of your accuracy to boost your damage. Note that this isn't entirely granular (it isn't Reduce your BAB by 10% rounding up to boost damage by 10%), but it's an approximation.
So, there's at least 3 good reasons I can think of to avoid the 'dial-up' power attack.
First, quick gameplay. You have a fixed penalty and a fixed damage boost. Quick and easy to apply. This isn't to be under-valued. There are systems with such flexible options (say, look at GURPS and Deceptive Attack) and the added decision time involved in applying those options is one of the most common criticisms of them.
Second, it reduces mathematical gaming of the system. If you know that you can hit someone (barring a 1) automatically at a specific penalty, then you might consistently dial down Power Attack to that penalty so you get the bonus with no detriment.
Third, I think it's functioning as intended. I don't think the designers intended to write it as a 'convert X accuracy to get Y damage' engine. It's supposed to represent a significant loss of accuracy resulting from a mighty, uncontrolled swing.
On the other hand, it's not going to break the system, either!
Yes, you can choose how much you power attack by.
However, if your DM guesses that number correctly, your melee weapon spontaneously turns into a bouquet of flowers.
Ooooo OOooooo not flowers, but a Rod of WONDER
Is that an old-school Rod of Wonder, or the watered-down version?
Completely unrelated to the OP but wholly related to the wonderful Rod of Wonder, in one of my weekend games the first time our Bard used a RoW (with one of the older edition charts, with GM's approval) she wound up granting her wand of Magic Missile infinite charges and effectively wound up with a minor artifact. :) Good times.
|
Think about it. The initial attack action, I use power attack at its full penalty and damage bonus. That triggers a swift action that I can then use to make a trip attempt. That trip attempt is a second (swift) action that is no longer related to the power attack penalty from the first attack action. So I would suffer no penalty to my CMB roll to trip. :)
So I guess this was a non-issue all along! Thanks Nefreet!
You're misunderstanding the way power attack works.
From the rules:
You must choose to use this feat before making an attack roll, and its effects last until your next turn.
So, yeah, your trip attack would be affected. It also means, you can't do things like power attack on your first attack and not power attack on your iteratives.
|
From the rules:
You must choose to use this feat before making an attack roll, and its effects last until your next turn.
Just to throw a wrench into it, because I'm that guy...I notice it doesn't say, "You must choose to use this feat before making YOUR FIRST attack roll..." (Emphasis mine.)
While I don't believe this next statement to be RAI, I can see the argument for RAW: You have BAB +15, so you're at -4/+8 with power attack. You make your first two iteratives and THEN decide to use power attack. You chose before making "AN attack roll."
As I said, I don't think that's how it's supposed to work, necessarily, but there's a compelling argument there...
|
|
From the rules:
You must choose to use this feat before making an attack roll, and its effects last until your next turn.Just to throw a wrench into it, because I'm that guy...I notice it doesn't say, "You must choose to use this feat before making YOUR FIRST attack roll..." (Emphasis mine.)
While I don't believe this next statement to be RAI, I can see the argument for RAW: You have BAB +15, so you're at -4/+8 with power attack. You make your first two iteratives and THEN decide to use power attack. You chose before making "AN attack roll."
As I said, I don't think that's how it's supposed to work, necessarily, but there's a compelling argument there...
Hmm, I think that is quite reasonable actually. I can't really think of a reason why you would only want the damage bonus on the attack that is least likely to hit though.
|
|
Hmm, I think that is quite reasonable actually. I can't really think of a reason why you would only want the damage bonus on the attack that is least likely to hit though.
Imagine you're fighting something that you can only hit on a natural 20 with the last attack. Might as well power attack. You'll STILL only hit on a natural 20. Then, even if you fail to confirm, you're doing more damage. If you PA for the first two attacks, you significantly reduce your chance to hit for possible increased damage. With the last attack, you don't really suffer a penalty as you already only had a 5% chance to hit. With PA you just do an extra +8 damage 5% of the time.
That's the only time I could see it being useful to PA only on your last iterative.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can see the point you're making re: "an attack roll". I have never run it that way, though, and I don't personally think that's the intent. In common grammatical terms, if someone tells you to "...wash your hands before you eat a cupcake," they mean for you to wash your hands before eating your first cupcake. Likewise, when it says "...before making an attack roll..." I think the intend is that you decide before making your first attack roll of the round.
|
|
From the rules:
You must choose to use this feat before making an attack roll, and its effects last until your next turn.Just to throw a wrench into it, because I'm that guy...I notice it doesn't say, "You must choose to use this feat before making YOUR FIRST attack roll..." (Emphasis mine.)
While I don't believe this next statement to be RAI, I can see the argument for RAW: You have BAB +15, so you're at -4/+8 with power attack. You make your first two iteratives and THEN decide to use power attack. You chose before making "AN attack roll."
As I said, I don't think that's how it's supposed to work, necessarily, but there's a compelling argument there...
And as soon as you make your first attack roll, you have made "an" attack roll and therefore cannot apply Power Attack.
Attempts at trick logic arguments like that only serve to muddy the waters, waste time cause undue confusion on what should be very clear rules. Disingenuous, willful misinterpretations of rules are responsible for at least half of the nonsense that fills these forums and makes legitimate questions difficult to get answered.
There is nothing compelling about that argument, unless one is trying to find ways to work around the rules by intentionally misreading them.
|
Hmm, I think that is quite reasonable actually. I can't really think of a reason why you would only want the damage bonus on the attack that is least likely to hit though.Imagine you're fighting something that you can only hit on a natural 20 with the last attack. Might as well power attack. You'll STILL only hit on a natural 20. Then, even if you fail to confirm, you're doing more damage. If you PA for the first two attacks, you significantly reduce your chance to hit for possible increased damage. With the last attack, you don't really suffer a penalty as you already only had a 5% chance to hit. With PA you just do an extra +8 damage 5% of the time.
That's the only time I could see it being useful to PA only on your last iterative.
One of the other discussions of this refers to having PA on for your AoOs, this way.
Big bad is who you swing at, but your AoO might be used against a minion with lower AC...
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
couldn't a trained fighter control how much extra weight and strength he wants to apply to his attack,
Yes and this is how it worked in 3.5, but was deemed too flexible/powerful/broken.
So in PF, there was a deliberate choice to remove this option.
So I would suffer no penalty to my CMB roll to trip. :)
No, you would apply the penalty that you ignored with Furious to your Trip.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From the rules:
You must choose to use this feat before making an attack roll, and its effects last until your next turn.Just to throw a wrench into it, because I'm that guy...I notice it doesn't say, "You must choose to use this feat before making YOUR FIRST attack roll..." (Emphasis mine.)
While I don't believe this next statement to be RAI, I can see the argument for RAW: You have BAB +15, so you're at -4/+8 with power attack. You make your first two iteratives and THEN decide to use power attack. You chose before making "AN attack roll."
As I said, I don't think that's how it's supposed to work, necessarily, but there's a compelling argument there...
And as soon as you make your first attack roll, you have made "an" attack roll and therefore cannot apply Power Attack.
Attempts at trick logic arguments like that only serve to muddy the waters, waste time cause undue confusion on what should be very clear rules. Disingenuous, willful misinterpretations of rules are responsible for at least half of the nonsense that fills these forums and makes legitimate questions difficult to get answered.
There is nothing compelling about that argument, unless one is trying to find ways to work around the rules by intentionally misreading them.
Actually, according to one of the folks who wrote the book, you can turn Power Attack on before any attack AoO, iterative, or otherwise.
|
|
From the rules:
You must choose to use this feat before making an attack roll, and its effects last until your next turn.Just to throw a wrench into it, because I'm that guy...I notice it doesn't say, "You must choose to use this feat before making YOUR FIRST attack roll..." (Emphasis mine.)
While I don't believe this next statement to be RAI, I can see the argument for RAW: You have BAB +15, so you're at -4/+8 with power attack. You make your first two iteratives and THEN decide to use power attack. You chose before making "AN attack roll."
As I said, I don't think that's how it's supposed to work, necessarily, but there's a compelling argument there...
And as soon as you make your first attack roll, you have made "an" attack roll and therefore cannot apply Power Attack.
Attempts at trick logic arguments like that only serve to muddy the waters, waste time cause undue confusion on what should be very clear rules. Disingenuous, willful misinterpretations of rules are responsible for at least half of the nonsense that fills these forums and makes legitimate questions difficult to get answered.
There is nothing compelling about that argument, unless one is trying to find ways to work around the rules by intentionally misreading them.
Actually, according to one of the folks who wrote the book, you can turn Power Attack on before any attack AoO, iterative, or otherwise.
Huh...well there you go. And to think, after I stated that I didn't thing PA was supposed to work that way, SKR agrees with my "trick logic argument." I guess one of the guys who wrote the book is "muddy[ing] the waters" and is using "Disingenuous, willful misinterpretations of rules" that he helped write.
I guess you're right, Fomsie, there ISN'T anything compelling about that argument...because it's EXACTLY how the rule works. Who knew, eh?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think you're so wrong.
I can't find anything in the rules that says you have to activate PA before your first attack of your turn, or on your turn at all. Thus, you could activate it between your primary attack and your offhand, or your primary and your 1st iterative, or between your last iterative and an AOO. All are valid options. Some are poor choices, but they are still valid choices.
It doesn't say that the rule was definitely intended to do that. It reads like someone shoved the new feat (as written in PF) under his nose and made him comment on it as if he were a lawyer or computer programmer.
You must choose to use this feat before making an attack roll, and its effects last until your next turn.
As discussed above, this could be taken to mean 'before any individual attack' OR it could mean 'before making ANY attack whatsoever'. But which was intended? What is the evidence?
Since the statement itself could be read either way, we must look for supporting evidence outside the statement itself, because citing the statement itself can be used to support either interpretation.
So, what supporting evidence is there for each interpretation?
First, lets see what evidence supports the 'before the first attack':-
On your action, before making attack rolls for a round, you may choose to (do Power Attack stuff)...The penalty on attacks and bonus to damage apply until your next turn.
Okay, no doubt there!
Next, using an earlier example, if your mum said, 'you MUST wash your hands BEFORE taking a cookie from the jar', and then you took two cookies without washing your hands, then washed your hands, then took a third cookie....do you think for one moment that if (when!) mum finds out, that your explanation of '...but...I did wash my hands before taking A cookie...the third cookie...!' that you getting away without a smacked bottom and getting sent to bed without supper with cookie priveliges withdrawn for a month?
Next, if you were allowed to switch PA on halfway through your full attack, wouldn't it make sense that you could also switch it off partway through? And isn't that strictly forbidden in both 3rd ed and in PF?
So what's the evidence the other way, outside of the ambiguous wording?
Er....
...can't think of anything....!
If anyone else can, I'd be interested in reading it. Until then, the most reasonable explanation is that the RAI of the PF version was that the timing of it's use was the same as in 3rd, that you must use it before you have attacked that turn, and that the writer understood that his choice of words meant just that. Since he knew what he meant, it never occurred to him to check if it could be misunderstood.
Let's face it, the whole point of re-writing the feat was to get away from all the umm-ing and ahh-ing about just how many points to transfer, and make it all or nothing; on or off! There's no point doing all that just to replace it with a different decision about when to start using it during a full attack! I just don't believe that this is a credible scenario.
|
|
If it's means that now, then it's an unintended consequence of ambiguous wording. If the intention was to specifically change the timing of when to switch it on (which I don't believe for a second!) then the writer, conscious of this deliberate change, would have written that the choice to use it could be made at any point just before you make any attack roll!
|
|
As I said in my original post, I don't believe RAI was to allow you to switch power attack on after making a couple attacks. I really don't. In my games, it won't fly. I LIKE the idea of making the PC use PA from the get go. I think that's the right mechanic AND flavor.
That being said, if I were running a PFS table, and a player tried to do this, I would allow it. Without an official errata on the subject, I have to apply RAW in PFS scenarios.
I'm not sure that I'd say it was "RAW the other way" - more like it's ambiguous due to designer comment. Since not every person reads the forums, or has read that specific designer quote, I'd expect table variation - with the 'old way' being used by people who came up from 3.x. If you want to argue the point at a PFS table, I'd suggest printing out the comment from SKR - and then still expect table variation since it's not an official FAQ.
|
|
...
So what's the evidence the other way, outside of the ambiguous wording?Er....
...can't think of anything....!.
..
Easy:
You can only choose to use this feat when you declare that you are making an attack or a full-attack action with a melee weapon.
You must choose to use this feat before making an attack roll, and its effects last until your next turn.
You see the difference in the text? If they are meant to work the same way why they don't have the same text?
|
|
And something peculiar regarding the OP question:
...
(I've done my best to hammer the writers into saying "bonus" when they mean "it's always going to be +0 or better," or when using "modifier" has the possibility of making no sense, such as "you can use this a number of times per day equal to your Charisma modifier," which would mean you could have negative uses per day. So trust whether it says "bonus" or "modifier" to mean exactly that. :))
(from this thread Smite Evil and Negative Charisma)
and:
When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver. The DC of this maneuver is your target's Combat Maneuver Defense. Combat maneuvers are attack rolls, so you must roll for concealment and take any other penalties that would normally apply to an attack roll.
Ooops.
I am almost sure there is some post by Sean saying that it is "modifier", but I think an errata should be made.[Edit: I did a search, but I was unable to find any post by SKR saying that you use the modifiers]
- * -
Further Bonus vs Modifier by Sean
When the game says "bonus" rather than "modifier," it really means "bonus."
In other words, if you have an AC penalty from a low Dex, it still applies to your FF AC.
(Speaking of Flat Footed AC, you still get a negative modifier if you have it, you only lose an eventual the bonus)
Errr, no. That is bonuses due to Spells, Feats, and Other Effects. EX: Weapon Focus, Inspire Courage, Bless.
It doesn't feel the need to state penalties there since it's implied a specific effect (overcoming the general rule of you adding bonuses) giving you -2 to attack...gives you -2 to attack.
Not the same as the confusion between Bonus, Penalty, and Modifier when talking about stats.
|
|
Errr, no. That is bonuses due to Spells, Feats, and Other Effects. EX: Weapon Focus, Inspire Courage, Bless.
It doesn't feel the need to state penalties there since it's implied a specific effect (overcoming the general rule of you adding bonuses) giving you -2 to attack...gives you -2 to attack.
Not the same as the confusion between Bonus, Penalty, and Modifier when talking about stats.
Right Rynjin
Found the piece I was missing:You can choose to take a –1 penalty on all melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +2 bonus on all melee damage rolls.
So it is in the feat itself.
On the other hand, Sean is adamant that bonus mean bonus, not modifiers. So if something don't say that it apply a penalty to the CMB check, it don't apply it.|
|
...
So what's the evidence the other way, outside of the ambiguous wording?Er....
...can't think of anything....!.
..Easy:
You can only choose to use this feat when you declare that you are making an attack or a full-attack action with a melee weapon.You must choose to use this feat before making an attack roll, and its effects last until your next turn.You see the difference in the text? If they are meant to work the same way why they don't have the same text?
I'm okay with evidence being posted, but then it gets weighed against the other evidence according to its merit.
So, the only counter evidence so far is that there is more than one way to word the same concept....?
|
|
...
So what's the evidence the other way, outside of the ambiguous wording?Er....
...can't think of anything....!.
..Easy:
You can only choose to use this feat when you declare that you are making an attack or a full-attack action with a melee weapon.You must choose to use this feat before making an attack roll, and its effects last until your next turn.You see the difference in the text? If they are meant to work the same way why they don't have the same text?
I'm okay with evidence being posted, but then it gets weighed against the other evidence according to its merit.
So, the only counter evidence so far is that there is more than one way to word the same concept....?
"before making an attack roll" and "when you declare that you are making an attack or a full-attack action" isn't the same concept at all.
One call for an action, the other for an attack.An attack isn't necessarily an action,
couldn't a trained fighter control how much extra weight and strength he wants to apply to his attack,Yes and this is how it worked in 3.5, but was deemed too flexible/powerful/broken.
So in PF, there was a deliberate choice to remove this option.
So wait; Martials had something nice going for them for a change? And apparently that's powerful/broken? Compared to what a caster can do.
Logic.
I seriously doubt that's the case. It's a much more believable argument to say that they wanted to simplify the system, given that the added, unnecessary math (and mechanical meta-gaming) just bogged the gameplay down.
Also, in relation to your second argument:
When you are wielding a two-handed weapon or a one-handed weapon with two hands, and using the Power Attack feat, you do not suffer Power Attack’s penalty on melee attack rolls on the first attack you make each turn.
While you can substitute several Combat Maneuvers for Attacks (Trip is one of them), they aren't Attacks, so Furious Focus' penalty negating would not apply.
**EDIT**
@ Diego Rossi: I understand the premise and intent you're carrying, and I agree with it. However, with the evidence you posted, one can interpret that to mean that they can do so upon any single Attack (including Attacks of Opportunity), or the Full Attack Action.
Obviously, the RAI should be "When you declare that you are making an attack [action] or a full-attack action," but the RAW isn't that way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
DM: You must turn off the electricity before taking a step on the electrified floor!
Player: What do you MEAN, 'I'm dead?' I was going to turn it off before my third step! The third step is definately A step, so I should still be alive!
DM: "You can give yourself a boost of speed before taking a step with this item."
Player: "Cool! That'll come in handy later."
-2 hours later-
Player: "Now would be a great time to use my speed boost to catch that guy!"
GM: "Sorry bro, I told you 'a' step. You walked from the area you picked it up so now you'll never be able to use it."
Both are equally stupid. Now let's stop with the useless ad absurdum, please.
|
|
DM: You must turn off the electricity before taking a step on the electrified floor!
Player: What do you MEAN, 'I'm dead?' I was going to turn it off before my third step! The third step is definately A step, so I should still be alive!
DM: "You can give yourself a boost of speed before taking a step with this item."
Player: "Cool! That'll come in handy later."
-2 hours later-
Player: "Now would be a great time to use my speed boost to catch that guy!"
GM: "Sorry bro, I told you 'a' step. You walked from the area you picked it up so now you'll never be able to use it."
Both are equally stupid. Now let's stop with the useless ad absurdum, please.
It's been extremely useful in making crystal clear that the sentence can easily and legitimately understood either way, based on the wording alone!
Therefore, to work out which way is the correct way, we must look for evidence to support each interpretation, and that evidence cannot be the very sentence itself!
I've provided evidence to support one interpretation, but the only contrary 'evidence' was that it's possible to write the same concept using different words! That doesn't support either interpretation more or less than the other!
Do you have any evidence which supports your POV, without being equally applicable to support the opposite POV?
I wasn't aware that I'd taken a side.
I was just annoyed with your post.