Power Attack too useful? When is it NOT taken?

[two]

It used to be said that if a feat was a no-brainer; if it was always taken regardless of build; if no serious fighter ever failed to have it -- then the feat was probably too good/overpowered.

Could this be said of Power Attack?

No serious or half-serious melee type fails to get this. 2 handed weapons, 1 handed, using 2 weapons, etc. When you need to do a lot of damage, this gives you the chance (you just have to hit). Plus sometimes you gotta penetrate DR or blast through a wall.

Plus it's the prerequisite for other feats, etc.

I'm tempted to break power attack into 2 feats; but how? I don't really want to limit the tactical options it allows, but still -- every build (fighter, ranger, barbarian, paladin, fighter-mage, monster-based build) etc. has power attack.

They should just write it on the character sheet for non-pure spellcasters -- and even then you get clerics, druids, and occasional true-striking arcane builds taking it.

Eh, whatever. Maybe a tempest in a teapot.

Does anyone know of any melee build that doesn't include power attack (besides the rogue sneak attack route)?

 

[Thanee]

Two-weapon fighters do not always take it, as the benefit is rather limited for TWF.

Of course, you won't see many fighter-types focussing on two-handed weapons without Power Attack.

And not every non-fighter has enough feats, a paladin (possibly even non-human) who wants to pick up some of the mounted feats will have trouble to also pick up Power Attack before 9th or 12th level and even then there are a few other options, for example.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Celebrim]

Actually, finesse fighters - like the rogue sneak attack route or duelists - probably get more out of Power Attack than just about any other combat build.

I've seen threads before where they complained about how useless power attack was except in a narrow range of situations.

My guess is that most builds take power attack primarily because (like Dodge) its the basis of a powerful feat path.

It's really only useful against inanimate objects and creatures with low AC and high hit points, and perhaps when charging. In most other real game cases, taking more than 3 or so levels of power attack actually reduces the average damage that the fighter will do because it increases the chance that his iterative attacks will miss completely.

It's in no way as powerful as improved initiative, IMO, and yet I've heard arguments (obviously to me unconvincing ones) that improved initiative isn't a powerful feat.

 

[Henry]

The disussion has come up several times in the past on these forums, (especially in late 2003), and I think the consensus that, by the numbers, it was good, but not TOO good - it stayed on the border of useful.

One observation made - two-handed wielders after the initial flush of 3.0 rarely took power attack except where cleave was desired, and even then rarely used it. Dual-weapon wielders, however, frequently took it because it benefitted them more than two-handers. WotC changed it because they wanted it to fit their intention - that big hulking warriors with the big guns took it instead of the little effete-rapier-wielders.

Instead of breaking it up, it may be better to simply de-couple it from cleave, and leave cleave's pre-req's as high as they are now (in other words, STR 13, and BAB +4). I Imagine you might see fewer fighters without Power Attack if this happens, because while it's good, it's not useful if the AC is past a certain point.

 

[fuindordm]

It used to be said that if a feat was a no-brainer; if it was always taken regardless of build; if no serious fighter ever failed to have it -- then the feat was probably too good/overpowered.

Could this be said of Power Attack?

No serious or half-serious melee type fails to get this. 2 handed weapons, 1 handed, using 2 weapons, etc. When you need to do a lot of damage, this gives you the chance (you just have to hit). Plus sometimes you gotta penetrate DR or blast through a wall.

Plus it's the prerequisite for other feats, etc.

It's definitely too strong a feat. 3.0 was OK--useful in certain situations, but not always. The designers noticed, however, that it made more sense to PA with light weapons than heavy weapons statistically, so they decided to beef up the heavy weapon bonus. Now it's too good, and a no-brainer as you say.

In my Eberron campaign, I've kept it more or less as is, but with the following caveat:

The damage bonus from power attack, rather than a standard bonus, acts as if you rolled higher on the dice. This means that it cannot boost your damage above the maximum roll for that weapon--power attacking for 1 with a dagger will yield 2, 3, 4, or 4 damage depending on your roll. It is therefore pointless to PA for more than 3. With a great sword, however, you can PA up to 5 for a +10 damage bonus; if you hit, it will be as if you rolled maximum damage (12, since the minimum roll is a 2) automatically.

This accomplishes two things--it keeps players from pushing the damage bonus out of hand at higher levels, and it prevents the rules oddity of power attacking your way through inanimate objects and
obstacles with impunity.

Ben

 

[two]

It's definitely too strong a feat. 3.0 was OK--useful in certain situations, but not always. The designers noticed, however, that it made more sense to PA with light weapons than heavy weapons statistically, so they decided to beef up the heavy weapon bonus. Now it's too good, and a no-brainer as you say.

In my Eberron campaign, I've kept it more or less as is, but with the following caveat:

The damage bonus from power attack, rather than a standard bonus, acts as if you rolled higher on the dice. This means that it cannot boost your damage above the maximum roll for that weapon--power attacking for 1 with a dagger will yield 2, 3, 4, or 4 damage depending on your roll. It is therefore pointless to PA for more than 3. With a great sword, however, you can PA up to 5 for a +10 damage bonus; if you hit, it will be as if you rolled maximum damage (12, since the minimum roll is a 2) automatically.

This accomplishes two things--it keeps players from pushing the damage bonus out of hand at higher levels, and it prevents the rules oddity of power attacking your way through inanimate objects and
obstacles with impunity.

Ben

That's a pretty sweet adjustment. nice.

 

[KarinsDad]

That's a pretty sweet adjustment. nice.

Not really. It makes the feat fairly worthless.

As is, you give up something in order to gain something. With this house rule, you give up something to maybe gain something, maybe not.

The best adjustment is to just go back to the 3E rule if you think it is too powerful.

In our campaigns, only two PCs out of the last twelve or so took it and then mostly for Cleave.

 

[pbd]

It may not be taken if you know your DM has a penchant for using high AC opponents or, more importantly, if it doesn't fit your character.

I played an elven dervish that used a falchion and opted for elusive target over power attack, because it fit the character better. Later I took whirlwind attack. I think he may have eventually gone for PA, but only when he had run out of other things to take...

 

[moritheil]

It may not be taken if you know your DM has a penchant for using high AC opponents or, more importantly, if it doesn't fit your character.

I have often seen the TWF ranger in my group miss with one or more of his attacks because he PAd. Both attacks hitting would have landed more damage.

 

[the Jester]

Nowadays I'd only call it integral to a two-handed weapon wielder build. My two-weapon fighting madman has it cuz he took it in 3.0, but if he had been built 3.5 I wouldn't have bothered with it (I don't think).