I've read several claims that At high levels PA becomes sub-optimal because the penalty to hit outweighs the additional damage. Since both the penalty and bonus damage scale at the exact same linear rate, that implies it's really the 3rd & 4th iterative that's primarily affected and dragging the overall damage down. What's the math for this? What I'm looking for is a general cutoff in terms of hit percentage on the last two iterative attacks which delineate when to use PA and when not to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a complex formula, but here's a simple rule of thumb: For a two-handed weapon with its 3-to-1 ratio, if you would be dealing 60 or more damage on a hit, expected-value-wise you are guaranteed to be getting a bad deal out of Power Attack if the full penalty actually affects your odds (that is, if you didn't have such an incredibly high bonus that you already had more than enough to hit on anything but a natural 1). For example, if you had +38 (or less) to hit and dealt 60 damage per hit before Power Attack against an AC 40 enemy, Power Attack would lower your expected damage. The more likely you were to miss before using Power Attack, the less that threshold damage needs to be to make it a bad deal.
There's a complex formula, but here's a simple rule of thumb: For a two-handed weapon with its 3-to-1 ratio, if you would be dealing 60 or more damage on a hit, expected-value-wise you are guaranteed to be getting a bad deal out of Power Attack if the full penalty actually affects your odds (that is, if you didn't have such an incredibly high bonus that you already had more than enough to hit on anything but a natural 1). For example, if you had +38 (or less) to hit and dealt 60 damage per hit before Power Attack against an AC 40 enemy, Power Attack would lower your expected damage. The more likely you were to miss before using Power Attack, the less that threshold damage needs to be to make it a bad deal.
Given the fact that we have Mark Seifter here, I might as well ask: So that means deadly aim is not really worth it for phyical blasts on kineticists?
Sorry, just...similar mechanics to power attack, and it is a 'one big hit' style that gets 60 damage with the base mechanics (composite blasts, for example, easily hit that, even with energy, and empowered simple blasts too)
And more on topic- same for power attack/kinetic blade, I suppose.
I've read several claims that At high levels PA becomes sub-optimal because the penalty to hit outweighs the additional damage. Since both the penalty and bonus damage scale at the exact same linear rate, that implies it's really the 3rd & 4th iterative that's primarily affected and dragging the overall damage down. What's the math for this? What I'm looking for is a general cutoff in terms of hit percentage on the last two iterative attacks which delineate when to use PA and when not to.
Beware of Power Attack! It's a trap! ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would say level 1, when Wizards and other full casters become more powerful than melee characters.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The answer is really, it depends on what your chance to hit is vs the amount of damage power attack provides. Which will change a lot across all levels and characters.
There is no one fundamental statement that can be made that can encompass all possibilities.
Suffice it to say, if you are wielding a two handed weapon there is a relatively simple rule you should follow:
Always be Power Attacking.
When you become an advanced player and no longer need to follow simple rules or you are looking into how to optimize your character further, you can actually do some math (with estimated values for a potential enemy).
The formula is hd+tchd. This can be expressed as hd(1+tc)
Another way to write it is h(d+s)+tchd.h = Chance to hit, expressed as a percentage
d = Damage per hit. Average damage is assumed.
s = Precision damage per hit (or other damage that isn't multiplied on a crit). Average damage is again assumed.
t = Chance to roll a critical threat, expressed as a percentage.
c = Critical hit bonus damage. x2 = 1, x3 = 2, x4 = 3.The link to the excel sheet is here
Use this spreadsheet to give you an idea of enemy AC values.
Run the calculation with and without power attack. That spreadsheet should make it pretty easy to do so.
Then simply compare which value is larger. That will tell you if (at your current stats) it is better to use power attack or not.
Because of how much your going to normally be pumping strength as a two-hander, and likely having full BAB, you will most likely find that your chance to miss is actually quite low except on your final iterative attack. But Power Attack is likely for most builds to represent 30+% of your total damage. And will almost always be beneficial keep using.
you are looking into how to optimize your character further, you can actually do some math (with estimated values for a potential enemy).
Yeah, this is what I'm looking for; if someone's already performed this math so I don't have to duplicate efforts. =)
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Listen here sonny-boy, back in my day we had to choose how much bonus to give up, and WE LIKED IT!
We also never got a 3 for 1 damage output and THAT WAS FINE!
You confabbed whipper-snappers and your need for things like optimization and game balance.
STOP STEALING OUR JOBS
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe this one is worth looking at? Sweet and simple for getting a general idea.
you are looking into how to optimize your character further, you can actually do some math (with estimated values for a potential enemy).Yeah, this is what I'm looking for; if someone's already performed this math so I don't have to duplicate efforts. =)
Did you not notice the two links in my post?
|
I'd say low levels are the time when PA isn't worth it. At levels 1-4, you're going to miss a lot, so you don't want that penalty on your hit roll, especially since that 2d6+6 damage (assuming a greatsword with 18 str) is plenty at that level.
At high levels, you should have enough bonuses to hit that you can PA every time and not worry about the penalties. If you don't, go make friends with a bard.
I'd say low levels are the time when PA isn't worth it. At levels 1-3, just hitting is hard, so you don't want that penalty on your hit roll, especially since that 2d6+6 damage (assuming a greatsword with 18 str) is plenty at that level.
At high levels, you should have enough bonuses to hit that you can PA every time and not worry about the penalties. If you don't, go make friends with a bard.
Don't encourage Bardic behavior. It just encourages them.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't encourage Bardic behavior. It just encourages them.I'd say low levels are the time when PA isn't worth it. At levels 1-3, just hitting is hard, so you don't want that penalty on your hit roll, especially since that 2d6+6 damage (assuming a greatsword with 18 str) is plenty at that level.
At high levels, you should have enough bonuses to hit that you can PA every time and not worry about the penalties. If you don't, go make friends with a bard.
If you don't encourage it, you just end up with a needlessly complicated Fighter/Rogue/Sorcerer multiclass with a specialization in enchantment spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you don't encourage it, you just end up with a needlessly complicated Fighter/Rogue/Sorcerer multiclass with a specialization in enchantment spells.Don't encourage Bardic behavior. It just encourages them.I'd say low levels are the time when PA isn't worth it. At levels 1-3, just hitting is hard, so you don't want that penalty on your hit roll, especially since that 2d6+6 damage (assuming a greatsword with 18 str) is plenty at that level.
At high levels, you should have enough bonuses to hit that you can PA every time and not worry about the penalties. If you don't, go make friends with a bard.
I would say level 1, when Wizards and other full casters become more powerful than melee characters.
Bonus gripe: doesn't it seem odd that it takes a feat slot to swing your weapon really hard? Like, feats are supposed to be these amazing abilities that level the gap between fighters and casters... but it turns out that the best feat is the one where you attack harder. And people who don't have this special training are completely unable to comprehend the concept of sacrificing accuracy for power.
Just picture the training montage where the wise old master drills the youngster in how to do a Power Attack. Pretty short, right?
One other nuanced point:
You need to factor in how much HP the enemy has. At low levels it is extremely easy to boost your damage over the HP of an enemy, so you should favor accuracy.
e.g. An Unchained Barbarian with 16 Strength who rages does 8 minimum damage when two-handing a weapon. A Goblin only has 6 HP. If you Power Attack you're only going to hurt your odds.
Bonus gripe: doesn't it seem odd that it takes a feat slot to swing your weapon really hard? Like, feats are supposed to be these amazing abilities that level the gap between fighters and casters... but it turns out that the best feat is the one where you attack harder. And people who don't have this special training are completely unable to comprehend the concept of sacrificing accuracy for power.
Just picture the training montage where the wise old master drills the youngster in how to do a Power Attack. Pretty short, right?
I agree. They could've mostly avoided this by creating a base combat rule that allowed you to sacrifice accuracy for damage, but just not at the ratio of Power Attack; such as 1 for 1 instead of 1 for 2.
Get yourself furious focus and get free power attacks from lvl 1 to 5...
Then get yourself an impact two handed weapon and vital strike...
Most of the time, the additional damage from power attack more than makes up for the penalty to hit, but there is a break point. The exact number depends on your build (crit threat, crit multiplier, etc.), but a decent general rule is about 30% chance to hit. That is, if the penalty from Power Attack drops your chance to hit below 30% (and you only hit on a 16 or higher), consider dropping Power Attack.
A lot of people say that Power Attack stops being worth it at higher levels because most melee characters will hit that break point around 8th level. This is just a coincidence, though. Power Attack's penalty (and bonus) goes up another step at BAB 8, and the average enemy AC also happens to jump up around CR 9. Suddenly, at level 8, you're doing less damage with Power Attack than without, but this evens out at level 9 and gets back on track at level 10.
Note that if you have Furious Focus, you can pretty much always Power Attack without worrying about.
|
Yes - it's mostly the 3rd & 4th attacks that make PA less beneficial in general. (There will always be outliers where it isn't beneficial at lower levels [ex. will o' wisp], and ones where it is beneficial at high levels [ex. any ooze].)
However, it's also because static bonuses without counting PA get larger, the extra damage from PA becomes a smaller % of the total damage while the accuracy % loss keeps going up.
Also - at levels 1-3, while -1 accuracy for +3 damage is often worth it, the benefit isn't worth a feat.
And in general - it's very situational based upon the character, AC they're up against, and any DR they're dealing with.
|
|
I would say level 1, when Wizards and other full casters become more powerful than melee characters.Really Alex? I have a hard time saying they become more powerful until level 3 at the earliest.
They're just roughly equal at level 1.
If anything they are underpowered at level 1. The can cast very few spells per day, most first level spells aren't encounter enders, and they are generally squishy and not able to contribute much to a fight without spells.
There are exceptions, especially for divine casters vs arcane ones.
I would say level 1, when Wizards and other full casters become more powerful than melee characters.Really Alex? I have a hard time saying they become more powerful until level 3 at the earliest.
They're just roughly equal at level 1.
I was just being a jerk. My personal experience has been that Fighters are pretty good up till 8 or so (higher, depending on the group).
Power attack isn't something that sees a lot of play with my group, we value consistency in hitting over burst damage.
Numbers-wise, our DPR is probably much lower than optimal, but it works.
What I'm saying is that I hate Power Attack. I tend to go more for Focus, Specialization, Dodge... Stuff that adds, not stuff that takes away.
|
|
What I'm saying is that I hate Power Attack. I tend to go more for Focus, Specialization, Dodge... Stuff that adds, not stuff that takes away.
I generally do too, being the source of the "Power Attack is a trap" quote. I was being quasi-facetious at the time, but I generally prefer accuracy over damage, and I prefer damage increases that don't cause accuracy penalties, such as weapon specialization, arcane strike, and so on.
There are times when Power Attack is not a good idea. It's generally better than not in most situations. However, every time you miss because of it you will be annoyed. Especially if it's an iterative attack that would have done more damage than the total damage you dealt from power attack.
What I'm saying is that I hate Power Attack. I tend to go more for Focus, Specialization, Dodge... Stuff that adds, not stuff that takes away.I generally do too, being the source of the "Power Attack is a trap" quote. I was being quasi-facetious at the time, but I generally prefer accuracy over damage, and I prefer damage increases that don't cause accuracy penalties, such as weapon specialization, arcane strike, and so on.
There are times when Power Attack is not a good idea. It's generally better than not in most situations. However, every time you miss because of it you will be annoyed. Especially if it's an iterative attack that would have done more damage than the total damage you dealt from power attack.
This illustrates my point, my opinion, well.
Power Attack, in some peoples opinions, sucks right from level 1.
My comment about casters wasn't required, that was simply an attempt at... I dunno, lets call it humor.
I must be missing something because any melee build I get has power attack and uses it nearly every fight. There other ways to increase attack which generally negates the penalties from power attack.
Iterative attacks hitting less often are a significant detail. This means 0-3 attacks per round swinging with a lower chance of hitting. If you set yourself up to get an attack of opportunity, you have haste, and your primary attack this is only half of your attacks at max. Those attacks already have a penalty to attack anyways.
One reason I like power attack is that it helps get around damage reduction. If you are swinging for 15 damage on a guy with 10 damage reduction, the extra 6 damage from a -2 to attack is huge.
Also, I tend to stack my attack so high that without power attack I would have 130% chance to hit my opponent on my primary attacks. that 35% is wasted as hit chance caps out at 95%. My attack simply raises faster than monster AC.
There are times when Power Attack is not a good idea. It's generally better than not in most situations. However, every time you miss because of it you will be annoyed. Especially if it's an iterative attack that would have done more damage than the total damage you dealt from power attack.
This is probably the biggest thing.
When power attack no longer constitutes a large percentage of your total damage, that's when you have to more closely look at how much damage it's adding versus the reduced chance to hit.
I've never found it to be much of an issue, but my groups also tend to have bards in them. So haste and attack bonuses are de rigueur, and I would never be caught dead not using Power Attack.
Haste changes the whole thing significantly since it's an extra attack at full BAB (minimal chance of missing).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In fact, it might be even better for those 3/4 BAB classes that get self-buffs up to pseudo full BAB. They don't get the full iteratives, so they don't have to worry about whether they can hit with that last -10 or -15 attack.
Truth. My Holy Vindicator didn't even have a second attack for most of his career, so thanks to Furious Focus he was always Power Attacking.
In fact, it might be even better for those 3/4 BAB classes that get self-buffs up to pseudo full BAB. They don't get the full iteratives, so they don't have to worry about whether they can hit with that last -10 or -15 attack.Truth. My Holy Vindicator didn't even have a second attack for most of his career, so thanks to Furious Focus he was always Power Attacking.
My inquisitor confirms this as well. Heck, even when he did finaly get an iterative it wasn't much of a loss when simply making a standard action attack.
|
|
Also, I tend to stack my attack so high that without power attack I would have 130% chance to hit my opponent on my primary attacks. that 35% is wasted as hit chance caps out at 95%. My attack simply raises faster than monster AC.
As I said above - it's very situational. If you GM sends little at you but naked monsters straight from the beastiary - PA is more useful than if they actually use armor/buffs. (I'm amazed how many people are shocked at the idea of a dragon even just casting mage armor & shield on themselves, much less equipping themselves with a fraction of their horde.)
Indeed it was fine. You got 4 for 1 damage output out of Leap Attack, took the penalty to AC with Shock Trooper and got a x3 multiplier the turn after you charged [if the victim... I mean target... survived] with Combat Brute.Listen here sonny-boy, back in my day we had to choose how much bonus to give up, and WE LIKED IT!
We also never got a 3 for 1 damage output and THAT WAS FINE!
Iirc leap attack was errata'd to only add a multiplier for 3x damage.
It was when you threw in Favored Power Attack that you got 4x.
GET OFF MY LAWN
|
|
As I said above - it's very situational. If you GM sends little at you but naked monsters straight from the beastiary - PA is more useful than if they actually use armor/buffs. (I'm amazed how many people are shocked at the idea of a dragon even just casting mage armor & shield on themselves, much less equipping themselves with a fraction of their horde.)
That's when my Vindicator starts Vital Striking with Furious Focus. All PA, no penalty.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When you are missing on a ~17 (Maybe, I forget when it evened out, there was a chart somewhere). It turns out using power attack is better than not using power attack when your chance to miss is very very high.
The feat that's got the weird criterion of being a good idea except for when you need exactly an 18 to hit (before the penalty) that I think you're thinking about is Rapid Shot. It's from my fighter guide in the archer section on Rapid Shot: "It’s not worth it to take this option if your attack ever needs to roll exactly an 18 to hit an enemy with your full bonus"
Power Attack's usefulness is a function of both accuracy and damage. For example, at the point where you need exactly an 18 to hit, two-handed Power Attack evens out if your expected damage before Power Attack is 6, and it's worse if you expect more than 6 without Power Attack. This continues all the way up to 60 if you need precisely a roll of 2 to hit before Power Attack. If your accuracy is such that 2 is more than enough to hit or if the enemy's AC is so high that Power Attack would take you beyond the point where a 20 would hit without the auto-hit part, then you have to factor for those as well.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
My inquisitor confirms this as well. Heck, even when he did finaly get an iterative it wasn't much of a loss when simply making a standard action attack.In fact, it might be even better for those 3/4 BAB classes that get self-buffs up to pseudo full BAB. They don't get the full iteratives, so they don't have to worry about whether they can hit with that last -10 or -15 attack.Truth. My Holy Vindicator didn't even have a second attack for most of his career, so thanks to Furious Focus he was always Power Attacking.
Heck, my no-archetype cleric was Power Attacking with (often) the best accuracy at the table.
(Not counting touch-attackers, such as ray-casters or gunslingers.)
But most of the time, if you're a half BAB Wizard it's not a good idea to be attacking. to worry about whether they can hit with that last -10 or -15 attack.And you've never had the player who insisted on playing the 18str dwarven wizard with a battle axe?
Those helicopter blades don't throw themselves, you know! ;)
|
But most of the time, if you're a half BAB Wizard it's not a good idea to be attacking. to worry about whether they can hit with that last -10 or -15 attack.And you've never had the player who insisted on playing the 18str dwarven wizard with a battle axe?
I left Power Attack off my 16 Str Elf Wizard.
I really only miss it when I cast monstrous physique III AND transformation.
As I said above - it's very situational. If you GM sends little at you but naked monsters straight from the beastiary - PA is more useful than if they actually use armor/buffs. (I'm amazed how many people are shocked at the idea of a dragon even just casting mage armor & shield on themselves, much less equipping themselves with a fraction of their horde.)
Also, I tend to stack my attack so high that without power attack I would have 130% chance to hit my opponent on my primary attacks. that 35% is wasted as hit chance caps out at 95%. My attack simply raises faster than monster AC.
I love doing this. Sometimes I even go so far as to use some of their horde money to buy different items (like barding, amulets of mighty fists etc).
I've always felt dragon CRs to be a bit low. Customizing them IMO bring them up to where they should be. :D
My players face-stomp them anyway, but it takes an extra round or two.