Power attack is generally a damage decrease except against targets with high AC relative to your attack bonus.
The other thing to consider is that on level challenges are supposed to be challenging, typically you're intended to fight things 1 or 2 levels below your level for "non-challenging" encounters, these should make up the bulk of your "daily fights" with mini-bosses potentially being of level, and bosses potentially being 1 or 2 levels above (be careful because it can be dangerous).
Doing some math on a greatpick wielding fighter making two regular iterative attacks at level 20 vs AC 46 average damage should be about 37.4. Making a power attack (cost two actions) gives average damage of about 33. Slightly worse.
Power attack is useful if you have to go against DR, but is otherwise generally worse than making two regular iterative attacks. It's no longer a must have.
If you're really interested I can post the damage calculations, but I believe they are correct.
I am just trying to understand.
About the calcolation you made, it is ok to say that power attack uses 2 actions, but we can say tha if we compare 2 scenarios
1) first
-first attack > power attack +36 hit
-second attack > attack + 31 hit2) second
-first attack > Normal attack +36hit
-second attack > Normal attack + 31 hit
-third attack > Normal attack + 26 hit
He compared:
1) first-first attack > power attack +36 hit
2) second
-first attack > Normal attack +36hit
-second attack > Normal attack + 31 hit
You rarely have a third action to attack. But you're right that in that case, Power Attack may end up being better than not power attacking.
Yes, if you compare Power Attack + a second attack with Furious Focus then you might come out ahead of making two strikes.
However, as Superbidi pointed out you rarely are going to want to spend all 3 of your actions in a turn making attacks. I would have to run the math for 3 strikes vs Power Attack + Furious Focus strike. In that scenario Power Attack might will probably come out ahead, but that math doesn't account for the Action Economy cost of dedication all 3 actions to attacks (and the math cannot do so).
I simply compared two strikes (for two actions) to Power Attacking (which costs 2 actions).
The strikes only routine also isn't using any feats to enhance the fighters capabilities in any way, so you have to look at things like Certain Strike or Intimidating Strike, which it's hard to do a comparison against since the effects aren't simply damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The item which mirrors Runes onto your second weapon is a ring. If it were a Rune, that would be a loss of weapon effectiveness because you wouldn't have that slot for a damaging Rune.
Power Attack is a good, low-level way to break items and get through hardness & DR (as are some other feats which stack damage). Since retraining is a normal mechanic in PF2, Power Attack has its time to shine before being put on the shelf.
The existence of Furious Focus though, makes me wonder if PA is meant for long term use.
Also, Power Attack has to be balanced around a PC with a d12 weapon, so I'd expect other weapons would be sub-par automatically (even if the difference is incremental).
And there are corner cases, like if fighting a creature w/ a fiery aura, spikes, or say a Rust Monster and you want to hit it as few times as possible while still killing it.
I am just trying to understand.
About the calcolation you made, it is ok to say that power attack uses 2 actions, but we can say tha if we compare 2 scenarios
1) first
-first attack > power attack +36 hit
-second attack > attack + 31 hit2) second
-first attack > Normal attack +36hit
-second attack > Normal attack + 31 hit
-third attack > Normal attack + 26 hitAll vs 46 ac
I don't get how the first rotation would be worst than the latter.
Also, even if we were facing lower lvl enemies. Let's say with 42 AC, it would be always the same. The first hit will have higher chance to hit and could eventually crit. Same goes for the second one. While the last one will only have 25% chances to hit.
power attack coutns as 2 attacks for MAP.
so its1) first
-first attack > power attack +36 hit
-second attack > attack + 26 hit
2) second
-first attack > Normal attack +36hit
-second attack > Normal attack + 31 hit
-third attack > Normal attack + 26 hit
You unleash a particularly powerful attack that clobbers your foe but leaves you a bit unsteady. Make a melee Strike. This counts as two attacks when calculating your multiple attack penalty. If this Strike hits, you deal an extra die of weapon damage. If you’re at least 10th level, increase this to two extra dice, and if you’re at least 18th level, increase it to three extra dice.
edit: ah i see people are expecting you to have furious focus.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, if you make 2 attacks with power attack and furious focus there is potential for it to be better than strike + strike + strike. But if a fighter is making 3 strikes instead of using their class feats I would hope the routine using class feats is better, else it means they're actively bad choices.
But the problem is that many turns there is a chance you wont be able to use all 3 actions to strike. That will depend heavily on how your GM runs combats, but as an example my group now has much more mobile combat. Non-melee combatants don't stay next to a melee combatant, at least until they see they have AoO. And now we run everyone as not assuming AoO exists until they're used by someone. PF1 had the habit of everyone just locking in place until they died because of AoO. In the sort of game I'm currently playing in 70% of turns involve making at least one stride per turn. Basically every turn involves doing something besides spending 3 actions to make attacks.
Yeah, if you make 2 attacks with power attack and furious focus there is potential for it to be better than strike + strike + strike. But if a fighter is making 3 strikes instead of using their class feats I would hope the routine using class feats is better, else it means they're actively bad choices.
But the problem is that many turns there is a chance you wont be able to use all 3 actions to strike. That will depend heavily on how your GM runs combats, but as an example my group now has much more mobile combat. Non-melee combatants don't stay next to a melee combatant, at least until they see they have AoO. And now we run everyone as not assuming AoO exists until they're used by someone. PF1 had the habit of everyone just locking in place until they died because of AoO. In the sort of game I'm currently playing in 70% of turns involve making at least one stride per turn. Basically every turn involves doing something besides spending 3 actions to make attacks.
which is why i kinda assumed people wouldn't be taking it, power attack is really only great if you're overcoming DR or hardness, and only with a very large damage dice.
Power attack as first attack (with Furious Focus and a second attack) is mathematically better than regular attack first and then power attack.
The accuracy loss to the more damaging of your two attacks is significant.
If I were giving fighters general advice it would be only to use power attack when you are trying to overcome hardness or DR and not otherwise.
You get enough class feats that you could drop one on Power Attack and not be too sad if you only used it occasionally, but I personally think Sudden Charge and Exacting Strike are much better choices.
If I were giving fighters general advice it would be only to use power attack when you are trying to overcome hardness or DR and not otherwise.
You get enough class feats that you could drop one on Power Attack and not be too sad if you only used it occasionally, but I personally think Sudden Charge and Exacting Strike are much better choices.
Yeah. Honestly I always saw exactly that as Power Attacks niche. To overcome heavy defenses, either good AC or resistance (or defensive reactions). PF2 actually manages to make PA fill that role.