POWER ATTACK - The trap option that you never knew was a trap.


Advice

1 to 50 of 117 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

6 people marked this as a favorite.

This conversation was derailing this thread.

The premise is that Power Attack is a trap option because it looks good on the surface but actually reduces damage output. Throughout the conversation the argument against Power Attack became more nuanced, including that for two-handed fighting style it will always be effective, and against low AC enemies it will always be effective.

I issued a challenge to the thread to give me any Full-BAB class, any Fighting Style, and at any Level and I will make builds that demonstrate that Power Attacking is ALWAYS a good idea.

I must say that the challenge was serious.

Level 12
Paladin
Two-Weapon Fighting

The challenger ALSO included that the enemy was NOT evil, AND wanted the test run at CR=level and CR=level+4.

This is probably the worst of the worst possible circumstances against power attack. It is a class that doesn't get much in the way of increasing damage (outside of smite), a class that is supremely MAD (made worse by TWF), and a class that is feat starved (made worse by TWF).

Builds use 20pt buy and 108,000gp.

BUILD 1:

STR Focused TWF Paladin
24/17/13/7/7/18
AC 26 Saves 15/14/12
2x +2 Keen Kukri (+5 with Weapon Bond)

FEATS
Weapon Focus
Double Slice
Two-Weapon Fighting
Improved Two-Weapon Fighting
Dual Enhancement
Two-Weapon Rend
Power Attack OR Critical Focus

GEAR
Belt of DEX+4
Headband of CHA+4
Cloak of Resistance +2
Boots of Speed
+3 Mithril Full Plate


Build 1 damage:

WITHOUT SMITE

DPR with PA vs CR16 (AC 31) - 63.02
DPR with PA vs CR12 (AC 27) - 98.02

DPR without PA vs CR16 (AC 31) - 64.96
DPR without PA vs CR12 (AC 27) - 86.20

SMITE

DPR with PA vs CR16 (AC 31) - 147.70
DPR with PA vs CR12 (AC 27) - 203.23

DPR without PA vs CR16 (AC 31) - 171.49
DPR without PA vs CR12 (AC 27) - 195.32

BUILD 2:

DEX Focused TWF Paladin.
10/24/14/7/7/22
AC 32 Saves 18/20/14
2x +2 Keen Kukri (+5 with Weapon Bond)

FEATS
Weapon Focus
Weapon Finesse
Two-Weapon Fighting
Improved Two-Weapon Fighting
Greater Two-Weapon Fighting
Dual Enhancement
Piranha Strike OR Critical Focus

GEAR
Belt of DEX+4
Headband of CHA+4
Cloak of Resistance +2
Boots of Speed
+3 Mithril Full Plate


Build 2 damage:

WITHOUT SMITE

DPR with PS vs CR16 (AC 31) - 36.06
DPR with PS vs CR12 (AC 27) - 60.95

DPR without PS vs CR16 (AC 31) - 35.70
DPR without PS vs CR12 (AC 27) - 48.94

SMITE

DPR with PS vs CR16 (AC 31) - 138.00
DPR with PS vs CR12 (AC 27) - 179.82

DPR without PS vs CR16 (AC 31) - 140.30
DPR without PS vs CR12 (AC 27) - 158.24

________ BREAKDOWN __________

To add to the challenge, because this challenge is about PA being a trap option, NOT just when to not use it - I replaced PA in the build with Critical Focus.

The build analysis shows that in the STR based build DPR is increased with power attack vs an opponent of CR=level. DR is slightly reduced against non-evil opponents of CR=level+4 and is greatly reduced with evil opponents of CR=level+4.

Build analysis shows that in the DEX based build the only time DPR is decreased with PA is against evil CR=level+4 opponents. In that case DPR is reduced by 1.6%.

SO, in the worst possible build scenario - PA is STILL a strong, definitely NON-TRAP option. For reals. This is a good feat.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not sure if serious.


26 people marked this as a favorite.

I think a better suited title is "Power Attack: The trap option you always knew wasn't a trap and never doubted that fact until someone mentioned it and I'm gonna do a bunch of math to dispel that tiny doubt you never had before now" but that might be a mouthful iunno

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Now if only DPR calculations represented actual play.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Check your numbers. You actually have PA decreasing DPR 3 times.

PA is a bad feat, but that is because it should just be a mechanic folded into BAB.


Would you care to share the formula you used to determine DPR, for the record?


Marroar Gellantara wrote:

Check your numbers. You actually have PA decreasing DPR 3 times.

PA is a bad feat, but that is because it should just be a mechanic folded into BAB.

Those are all mentioned in the breakdown.

Sovereign Court

heh not like it matters, in actual play the dwarf in our group does an average of 200-300 damage every round with PA. I Seriously just buff the dwarf fighter and sit back and relax. It doesn't matter whatever kind of enemy or boss we are fighting, when he just smashes them dead, occasionally cast crowd control for the lol.


Oncoming_Storm wrote:
Now if only DPR calculations represented actual play.

Care to be more specific about your reservations?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
Would you care to share the formula you used to determine DPR, for the record?

The damage formula is h(d+s)+tchd.

h = Chance to hit, expressed as a percentage. Remember, this will never exceed .95 or go below .05.
d = Average damage per hit.
s = Average precision damage per hit (or other damage that isn't multiplied on a crit).
t = Chance to roll a critical threat, expressed as a percentage.
c = Critical hit bonus damage. x2 = 1, x3 = 2, x4 = 3.


well remember that this was a pretty worst case scenario, and for PA to just be a few points off, it's not a trap, because of all the times it does more damage. A build a bit more focused for PA, A few buffs from allies, a little flanking, boom it's going to be even better.


Eltacolibre wrote:

Not sure if serious.

Me either.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It can be a kind of trap for 3/4ths BAB characters since they never gain the last two scaling bonuses that full martial characters obtain. Additionally, 3/4th BAB characters need more bonuses to hit than Martials who can afford to sacrifice some hit for more damage.

I mean they still get to 12BAB, so it is +8/-4 but it is not the 20BAB that gives you +12/-6.

-4 damage or -6 damage compared to a full martial character, so if you have another method to gain +8 damage or +12 damage then it might be worthwhile exploring that option. Of course, such options are rare which is why power attack is valued so highly.

That is why people tend to use it and why it is so powerful. Anything that scales in Pathfinder is just so valuable, and so power attack is viewed as a powerful choice.

I know that occasionally on hard to hit enemies, I forgo power attacking so I can get my damage in there. Since that is an option, and I still have so much extra damage when I need it...I do not mind Power Attack.

Still, the lower hit chance does hurt and since it scales off BAB some classes certainly get less from it than others.

Grand Lodge

BigDTBone wrote:
Oncoming_Storm wrote:
Now if only DPR calculations represented actual play.
Care to be more specific about your reservations?

Let me start by saying Power Attack is a good feat, and DPR calculations have their uses.

But it's just not actual play. Speaking from experience there are a ton of situations where our high DPR characters just aren't able to contribute in a meaningful way.

I suppose what I'm really saying is we shouldn't let DPR be the end all be all when it comes to what's effective and what isn't, since things are hardly ever optimal for adventurers.


BigDTBone wrote:
Oncoming_Storm wrote:
Now if only DPR calculations represented actual play.
Care to be more specific about your reservations?

People don't understand that averages are averages. Those calculations are more or less the statistical probability of "actual play."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Oncoming_Storm wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Oncoming_Storm wrote:
Now if only DPR calculations represented actual play.
Care to be more specific about your reservations?

Let me start by saying Power Attack is a good feat, and DPR calculations have their uses.

But it's just not actual play. Speaking from experience there are a ton of situations where our high DPR characters just aren't able to contribute in a meaningful way.

I suppose what I'm really saying is we shouldn't let DPR be the end all be all when it comes to what's effective and what isn't, since things are hardly ever optimal for adventurers.

I agree. BUT DPR is supremely useful for comparing hypothetical build A vs hypothetical build B. That's all I'm doing here.


right, but when you're checking to see if you want to pick up the power attack feat or not it's a helpful tool.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Oncoming_Storm wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Oncoming_Storm wrote:
Now if only DPR calculations represented actual play.
Care to be more specific about your reservations?

Let me start by saying Power Attack is a good feat, and DPR calculations have their uses.

But it's just not actual play. Speaking from experience there are a ton of situations where our high DPR characters just aren't able to contribute in a meaningful way.

I suppose what I'm really saying is we shouldn't let DPR be the end all be all when it comes to what's effective and what isn't, since things are hardly ever optimal for adventurers.

You're not actually thinking of the scenario.

In this case gameplay will have the same results as dpr simply because it's just a statistical average found using a basic formula.

The argument is whether or not its mathematically superior to powerattack or not power attack. No more. No less.

Thus using math to answer the question is an entirely feasible means to put the debate to rest.

The debate as to whether or not melee centric characters will contribute more than ranged characters. Or the argument that pure damage dealing characters are worth less than hybrid support or controlling characters is a separate issue that, yes, would be better represented by live gameplay experience.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Oncoming_Storm wrote:


But it's just not actual play. Speaking from experience there are a ton of situations where our high DPR characters just aren't able to contribute in a meaningful way.

I suppose what I'm really saying is we shouldn't let DPR be the end all be all when it comes to what's effective and what isn't, since things are hardly ever optimal for adventurers.

Not able to contribute? The amount of people who really think damage is everything on this board is incredibly low. Most optimization comes from an adventuring standpoint. That is to say, when not dealing damage, what else can they do?

DPR is basically a metric to balance out how much damage should we achieve before considering utility options for other scenarios.

Additionally, the damage one can do every round has very little to do with the choices you make personally on your character depending on the class at hand. A Paladin or Barbarian with one simple feat(Power Attack) has legitimate damage at all stages of the game with literally one feat in investment combined with a Two-handed weapon. This has nothing to do with their skill point allotment or spellcasting capabilities.

With all that said, one of the most useful DPR centric builds, the Blaster Wizard, maintains all of his spell utility whilst still dealing more than enough damage with level appropriate challenges to end them in a round or two.

If High DPR characters were unable to contribute meaningfully to an encounter, then it is likely they were poorly made.


I'm afraid your initial claim is supported by theoretical numbers, not by what actually happens in-game. Since you seen to know that, I'm wondering what exactly the purpose is of all of your careful calculations?


Ciaran Barnes wrote:
I'm afraid your initial claim is supported by theoretical numbers, not by what actually happens in-game. Since you seen to know that, I'm wondering what exactly the purpose is of all of your careful calculations?

What is happening in-game to disprove the theorhetical numbers?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Scavion wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Oncoming_Storm wrote:
Now if only DPR calculations represented actual play.
Care to be more specific about your reservations?
People don't understand that averages are averages. Those calculations are more or less the statistical probability of "actual play."

The difficulty I tend to find is that they aren't really able to convey the overkill damage.

It's definitely still valuable and quite possibly best of available resources when theorycrafting.


18 people marked this as a favorite.
Ciaran Barnes wrote:
I'm afraid your initial claim is supported by theoretical numbers, not by what actually happens in-game. Since you seen to know that, I'm wondering what exactly the purpose is of all of your careful calculations?

I'm curious, do you not roll dice and add numbers to it in your games?

Because that's the only way these maths don't work out. "Does Power Attack increase or decrease DPR in X scenario" is a binary question determined by mathematics.

These are the average numbers this character will achieve under those conditions. Claiming it's "not actual play" is silly, because it is exactly what will happen, statistically, in the circumstances used to calculate it.


reiella wrote:
Scavion wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Oncoming_Storm wrote:
Now if only DPR calculations represented actual play.
Care to be more specific about your reservations?
People don't understand that averages are averages. Those calculations are more or less the statistical probability of "actual play."

The difficulty I tend to find is that they aren't really able to convey the overkill damage.

It's definitely still valuable and quite possibly best of available resources when theorycrafting.

Neither of those builds ever approached "overkill" Typical HP for a CR12 opponent is 160 and HP for a CR16 opponent is 240. Rounds to kill is a pretty good way of expressing overkill.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I mean, why bother investing in damage at all if you aren't doing exactly enough damage to one-shot mobs with 0 variance? Every mob. Because they all have the same Hp.


Xethik wrote:
I mean, why bother investing in damage at all if you aren't doing exactly enough damage to one-shot mobs with 0 variance? Every mob. Because they all have the same Hp.

Was that conversation we are having here? I got lost somewhere.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BigDTBone wrote:
Xethik wrote:
I mean, why bother investing in damage at all if you aren't doing exactly enough damage to one-shot mobs with 0 variance? Every mob. Because they all have the same Hp.
Was that conversation we are having here? I got lost somewhere.

I'm just poking fun at the overkill argument. Yes, what matters is rounds to kill min, max, and avg. But DPR is the way to represent that without needing to factor in ally DPR and health of opponents. Saying +10 to 100 avg damage versus opponents with 250 HP is silly because it likely won't matter is just wrong in a game where stats and damage rolls have immense variance.


Xethik wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Xethik wrote:
I mean, why bother investing in damage at all if you aren't doing exactly enough damage to one-shot mobs with 0 variance? Every mob. Because they all have the same Hp.
Was that conversation we are having here? I got lost somewhere.
I'm just poking fun at the overkill argument. Yes, what matters is rounds to kill min, max, and avg. But DPR is the way to represent that without needing to factor in ally DPR and health of opponents. Saying +10 to 100 avg damage versus opponents with 250 HP is silly because it likely won't matter is just wrong in a game where stats and damage rolls have immense variance.

Ok, gotcha.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BigDTBone wrote:
reiella wrote:
Scavion wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Oncoming_Storm wrote:
Now if only DPR calculations represented actual play.
Care to be more specific about your reservations?
People don't understand that averages are averages. Those calculations are more or less the statistical probability of "actual play."

The difficulty I tend to find is that they aren't really able to convey the overkill damage.

It's definitely still valuable and quite possibly best of available resources when theorycrafting.

Neither of those builds ever approached "overkill" Typical HP for a CR12 opponent is 160 and HP for a CR16 opponent is 240. Rounds to kill is a pretty good way of expressing overkill.

Not that I necessarily disagree in this instance, but I'm specifically confused by your number total and your assertion here.

Build 1 Smite's DPR against CR 12 was ~ 200, versus their 160 hp.

KPR is definitely a good metric, but typically needs a more robust accounting, especially if you start introducing more swingy components.


reiella wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
reiella wrote:
Scavion wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Oncoming_Storm wrote:
Now if only DPR calculations represented actual play.
Care to be more specific about your reservations?
People don't understand that averages are averages. Those calculations are more or less the statistical probability of "actual play."

The difficulty I tend to find is that they aren't really able to convey the overkill damage.

It's definitely still valuable and quite possibly best of available resources when theorycrafting.

Neither of those builds ever approached "overkill" Typical HP for a CR12 opponent is 160 and HP for a CR16 opponent is 240. Rounds to kill is a pretty good way of expressing overkill.

Not that I necessarily disagree in this instance, but I'm specifically confused by your number total and your assertion here.

Build 1 Smite's DPR against CR 12 was ~ 200, versus their 160 hp.

KPR is definitely a good metric, but typically needs a more robust accounting, especially if you start introducing more swingy components.

Yeah, sorry. The challenge was issued for non-smiteable opponents. I just included those numbers for completeness.

Scarab Sages Modules Overlord

7 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
ShroudedInLight wrote:
It can be a kind of trap for 3/4ths BAB characters since they never gain the last two scaling bonuses that full martial characters obtain.

Except for a war priest who picks up Power Attack as a bonus feat, in which case he treats his class level (+ bab from other sources) as his base attack bonus, and gets the same scaling bonuses as full bab classes.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BigDTBone wrote:


Yeah, sorry. The challenge was issued for non-smiteable opponents. I just included those numbers for completeness.

Ah that makes sense. Was throwing me off. And one I probably should note is that your scenario isn't one that highlights the problem of swingyness/overkill that well.

The scenario I'm principally thinking of is with a high critical multiplier weapon as you tend to have very high numbers on a crit, but that damage is likely to be wasted.

It's also that I could be bitter at a 760 point damage crit hitting an enemy with 36 hit points left.


Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
ShroudedInLight wrote:
It can be a kind of trap for 3/4ths BAB characters since they never gain the last two scaling bonuses that full martial characters obtain.
Except for a war priest who picks up Power Attack as a bonus feat, in which case he treats his class level (+ bab from other sources) as his base attack bonus, and gets the same scaling bonuses as full bab classes.

Is that in an upcoming FAQ/errata? Because that's not at all clear from the wording of the Bonus feat ability in a book that is famously bad in the editing to the point that what was intended by the devs is muddled.


Rynjin wrote:
I think a better suited title is "Power Attack: The trap option you always knew wasn't a trap and never doubted that fact until someone mentioned it and I'm gonna do a bunch of math to dispel that tiny doubt you never had before now" but that might be a mouthful iunno

I think the question is whether you need to track DPR or RUD... rounds until dead. Because an opponent is just as lethal on 1 hp as woo. Power attack only matters if the extra damage drops the creature before its turn,which is pretty unlikely given how much damage is already in a big honking two handed weapon swing.

I may be biased. The dice god hates me. I do not tempt them by dropping my attack by 1, that WILL be what i miss by.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

Eh. For what it's worth, I've never taken Power Attack for any of my martial characters and have never missed it, still kill things just fine. I just don't like the extra math involved.


the average HP thing is (i'm fairly sure) pulled straight from the GM section's monster guidelines sheet--which also conveniently lists things like average AC by monster type, saves by monster type, and more.

i'm not sure going full strawman is helping you, dude. the numbers used are SPECIFICALLY THERE to tell if your players are ahead of or under the curve of the game, so that you (the GM) can adjust the challenge accordingly.

.
EDIT: christ that's a tangent, sorry.

Spoiler:
your players all hyper-optimized and have their tactics polished to a mirror shine? throw some bigger guns at them, change up the terrain, increase the scale of the game (once you've a reputation for being the biggest badass in the area, people seek you out to follow you or challenge you) or shift into a more macro-focused one (the players need to manage/defend all the land and titles they're granted from saving so many kingdoms or somesuch).

one player in particular outstripping the rest of the party? doublecheck their character and the rules you're running (i see so many folks shout 'rogue OP please nerf' when they're not running the tumble or stealth rules correctly, for example), and if they're legit then ask them to dial it back a bit--but only if the players aren't enjoying themselves. if everyone's having fun despite the imbalance, then let it be.

.

and for the player: trying to remove a threat as quickly as possible keeps it from killing you, your friends/allies, and the nearby countryside (which hint: is a good thing). working towards making that more efficient is a good thing (in moderation). power attack is a single feat that allows that, if you're willing to make the accuracy trade.

you've also gotta remember that while this is calculated as one-on-one, you should certainly take teammates into account (presumably with them picking up any slack) for both the player AND the monster (since alone they just get action economy'd to death no matter how suboptimal the party is).

a player going whole hog on damage just makes you less well-rounded everywhere else, giving your GM more tools to challenge you elseways (like encounters where 'demons over there kill they ass' isnt the solution, or social/skill stuff, or enemies that are particularly resistant against that particular brand of pointy object, or encounters with hampering terrain or hard-to-reach enemies, etc. etc.)


TarkXT wrote:
Ciaran Barnes wrote:
I'm afraid your initial claim is supported by theoretical numbers, not by what actually happens in-game. Since you seen to know that, I'm wondering what exactly the purpose is of all of your careful calculations?

What is happening in-game to disprove the theorhetical numbers?

I guess maybe that came across harsh, now that I've read it. Anyhow, I power attack and still score hits most of the time, by seeking tactical advantages whenever possible to negate the attack penalties/increase my overall attack bonus. And power attack helps to make it so enemies can't attack back... cause they're dead.


DPR is both easier to calculate and a more significant factor.

RUD = Some even number of rounds is ideal, but not the most significant metric since while an enemy with 1 HP is just as effective at fighting, an enemy with 40 HP more than he would have if your DPR was 40 points lower is MORE dangerous still since RUD doesn't take into account ally help.

If you have an enemy with 150 HP, a character with 100 DPR, and 2 allies with 25 DPR apiece, RUD when taking that into account is 1...not the misleading 2 that would come up if we assumed HP/DPR = RUD.

Because THAT is more likely in actual play. DPR as the most significant, but not sole factor.


Rynjin wrote:
Ciaran Barnes wrote:
I'm afraid your initial claim is supported by theoretical numbers, not by what actually happens in-game. Since you seen to know that, I'm wondering what exactly the purpose is of all of your careful calculations?

I'm curious, do you not roll dice and add numbers to it in your games?

Because that's the only way these maths don't work out. "Does Power Attack increase or decrease DPR in X scenario" is a binary question determined by mathematics.

These are the average numbers this character will achieve under those conditions. Claiming it's "not actual play" is silly, because it is exactly what will happen, statistically, in the circumstances used to calculate it.

In an actual game, many GMs completely homebrew the setting, give out little to no magical gear, leaving everyone undergeared and then they throw APL+4 encounters at the party.

The party to-hit is low, the enemy AC is way too high. Suddenly everyone is the monk and power attack actually hurts their DPR.

I've also seen paladins with a starting strength of 14.

When everyone from player to GM doesn't know what they are doing, then these calculations do not translate to: "actual play"

Silver Crusade

Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
ShroudedInLight wrote:
It can be a kind of trap for 3/4ths BAB characters since they never gain the last two scaling bonuses that full martial characters obtain.
Except for a war priest who picks up Power Attack as a bonus feat, in which case he treats his class level (+ bab from other sources) as his base attack bonus, and gets the same scaling bonuses as full bab classes.

I was about to say it doesn't say that, but then I went to look and actually it does.

But what it doesn't say is that warpriest level = BAB for purposes of qualifying; just for purposes of how the feats operate. So it's useful for... Power Attack. And Vital Strike, I guess. Sucks for actually getting into the high-BAB requirement stuff, though.

But then again I guess getting early entry to some of those would be kind of janky. Like taking Greater Two-Weapon Fighting before you actually have a third attack with your primary hand. :p


Marroar Gellantara wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Ciaran Barnes wrote:
I'm afraid your initial claim is supported by theoretical numbers, not by what actually happens in-game. Since you seen to know that, I'm wondering what exactly the purpose is of all of your careful calculations?

I'm curious, do you not roll dice and add numbers to it in your games?

Because that's the only way these maths don't work out. "Does Power Attack increase or decrease DPR in X scenario" is a binary question determined by mathematics.

These are the average numbers this character will achieve under those conditions. Claiming it's "not actual play" is silly, because it is exactly what will happen, statistically, in the circumstances used to calculate it.

In an actual game, many GMs completely homebrew the setting, give out little to no magical gear, leaving everyone undergeared and then they throw APL+4 encounters at the party.

The party to-hit is low, the enemy AC is way too high. Suddenly everyone is the monk and power attack actually hurts their DPR.

I've also seen paladins with a starting strength of 14.

When everyone from player to GM doesn't know what they are doing, then these calculations do not translate to: "actual play"

DPR can easily account for all of those things. The conditions in the challenge were set forth by the challenger, not the builder. If your issue is that "your challenge conditions don't represent a senario that I openly state is poorly conceived," then... So what?


In other words... power attack only helps when:

- the players are actually optimizing their characters so as not to have attack bonuses too low to reliably hit enemy AC when power attacking

- the GM is granting appropriate loot or sufficient wealth and opportunities to spend it so that players can keep their characters appropriately equipped for their level

- the GM is presenting the party with appropriate encounters which they can reliably hit with their attack bonuses

- the creatures the party is facing have enough hit points that power attack actually presents a meaningful increase in damage.

This last one is an important thing to note, because if you're mostly wading through minions with high AC but low hp, then the bonus damage from power attack might be pure overkill that fails to get the job done, or might simply fail to do enough extra damage to kill the monster in one hit. If you're doing 20-30 points of damage per swing without power attack, and fighting monsters with 40 hp, then power attack needs to add a minimum of +10 damage per hit to have any meaningful effect.


Mackenzie Kavanaugh wrote:

In other words... power attack only helps when:

- the players are actually optimizing their characters so as not to have attack bonuses too low to reliably hit enemy AC when power attacking

- the GM is granting appropriate loot or sufficient wealth and opportunities to spend it so that players can keep their characters appropriately equipped for their level

- the GM is presenting the party with appropriate encounters which they can reliably hit with their attack bonuses

- the creatures the party is facing have enough hit points that power attack actually presents a meaningful increase in damage.

This last one is an important thing to note, because if you're mostly wading through minions with high AC but low hp, then the bonus damage from power attack might be pure overkill that fails to get the job done, or might simply fail to do enough extra damage to kill the monster in one hit. If you're doing 20-30 points of damage per swing without power attack, and fighting monsters with 40 hp, then power attack needs to add a minimum of +10 damage per hit to have any meaningful effect.

Which is why you don't have to Power Attack all the time. Eventually, you won't be fighting a swarm of high-AC-low-HP monsters, and Power Attack will still be sitting there on your sheet.


Marroar Gellantara wrote:


I've also seen paladins with a starting strength of 14.

When everyone from player to GM doesn't know what they are doing, then these calculations do not translate to: "actual play"

My Paladin has a STR of 14, what's wrong with that?

15 point buy, you can only do so much.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Renegade Paladin wrote:
Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
ShroudedInLight wrote:
It can be a kind of trap for 3/4ths BAB characters since they never gain the last two scaling bonuses that full martial characters obtain.
Except for a war priest who picks up Power Attack as a bonus feat, in which case he treats his class level (+ bab from other sources) as his base attack bonus, and gets the same scaling bonuses as full bab classes.

I was about to say it doesn't say that, but then I went to look and actually it does.

But what it doesn't say is that warpriest level = BAB for purposes of qualifying; just for purposes of how the feats operate. So it's useful for... Power Attack. And Vital Strike, I guess. Sucks for actually getting into the high-BAB requirement stuff, though.

But then again I guess getting early entry to some of those would be kind of janky. Like taking Greater Two-Weapon Fighting before you actually have a third attack with your primary hand. :p

I went through the exact same process - I thought WPs used their level as BAB to qualify for bonus feats, not for how the feat actually worked with the Warpriest. So a 6th level Warpriest can't use his bonus feat to take Vital Strike?

Edit: Posts by Owen and Mark here, here and here seem to suggest that Warpriests should be able to qualify for combat feats early. So taking Greater Two-Weapon Fighting could give you an extra off-hand attack before you gain the third iterative attack.


I've never taken Power Attack as anything other than a pre-req, never played with anyone that actually used it. The lose in chance to hit was always to much for us to eat. Though we probably played with very high enemy ACs anyway. A few players just have dice luck so bad as to not be worth it.


Awesome stuff BigDTBone.

It looks like Power Attack on build 1 does actually hurt more than it helps against high AC opponents. But only by a slight bit. And this was a worst case sort of scenario.

It cool to see some math behind it.

It's also interesting to note that the strength focused build does appear to have a significant edge on DPR versus the dex focused build, even while TWF.

Also, I would like to note I never called Power Attack a trap option, but I did believe it was bad idea for TWF builds. This may be linked to the fact that when making TWF I usually go completely dex based. Would the inclusion of agile weapons make a significant difference?

What about a 1 level dip in daring champion cavalier with exotic weapon proficiency saw tooth sabers and slashing grace? This would require having 13 strength to gain access to power attack instead of piranha strike.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
Ciaran Barnes wrote:
I'm afraid your initial claim is supported by theoretical numbers, not by what actually happens in-game. Since you seen to know that, I'm wondering what exactly the purpose is of all of your careful calculations?

I'm curious, do you not roll dice and add numbers to it in your games?

Because that's the only way these maths don't work out. "Does Power Attack increase or decrease DPR in X scenario" is a binary question determined by mathematics.

These are the average numbers this character will achieve under those conditions. Claiming it's "not actual play" is silly, because it is exactly what will happen, statistically, in the circumstances used to calculate it.

What some people call theorycraft, I call the results of a playtest with a sample size of infinity.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
ShroudedInLight wrote:
It can be a kind of trap for 3/4ths BAB characters since they never gain the last two scaling bonuses that full martial characters obtain.
Except for a war priest who picks up Power Attack as a bonus feat, in which case he treats his class level (+ bab from other sources) as his base attack bonus, and gets the same scaling bonuses as full bab classes.

Wasn't that removed from the class?


LazarX wrote:
Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
ShroudedInLight wrote:
It can be a kind of trap for 3/4ths BAB characters since they never gain the last two scaling bonuses that full martial characters obtain.
Except for a war priest who picks up Power Attack as a bonus feat, in which case he treats his class level (+ bab from other sources) as his base attack bonus, and gets the same scaling bonuses as full bab classes.
Wasn't that removed from the class?

The full text for the Warpriest bonus feats as follows:

Quote:
Bonus Feats: At 3rd level and every 3 levels thereafter, a warpriest gains a bonus feat in addition to those gained from normal advancement. These bonus feats must be selected from those listed as combat feats. The warpriest must meet the prerequisites for these feats, but he treats his warpriest level as his base attack bonus for these feats (in addition to base attack bonuses gained from other classes and racial Hit Dice). Finally, for the purposes of these feats, the warpriest can select feats that have a minimum number of fighter levels as a prerequisite, treating his warpriest level as his fighter level.

1 to 50 of 117 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / POWER ATTACK - The trap option that you never knew was a trap. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.