Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Spikes01k 08-11-07, 05:01 PM	I E-Mailed WoTC and got a response! Customer (******) 08/10/2007 05:40 AM I was hoping you would be so kind as to please give an example of the ratio of minus to hit: bonus damage. ALSO please be sure to include your own errata when giving me these examples. http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20040125a This is attached to this E-mail It is MY understanding that a ratio should look like the following. "Using Leap Attack" One Handed Weapon: 2:1 Power attack 1 gives 2 damage, power attack for 4 gives 8 damage, power attack for 14 gives 28 damage. Two Handed Weapon: 3:1 Power attack 1 gives 3 damage, power attack for 4 gives 12 damage, power attack for 14 gives 42 damage. Please Correct me if I am wrong, and please give your own examples. On a side note: Official examples in the FAQ or even better added to the errata would be nice! The Response. ******, You have it right, your examples all have the right numbers. Please let me know if you need anymore help! We would appreciate your feedback on the service we are providing you. <a href=""> Please click here to fill out a short questionnaire</a>. To login to your account, or update your question please <a href="*******">click here</a>. Chuck Customer Service Representative Wizards of the Coast 1-800-324-6496 (US and Canada) 425-204-8069 (From all other countries) Monday-Friday 9am-6pm PST / 12pm-9pm EST However it is now clear that this is how leap attack is supposed to work! So with more feats and attacks leap attacking with TWF can out power a one handed weapon!
Tempest Stormwind 08-11-07, 05:08 PM	Except you can't power attack with a light weapon, and if your off-hand weapon isn't light you're taking serious penalties on your attack. A missed attack is less helpful than a successful-but-weaker attack.
Spikes01k 08-11-07, 05:16 PM	Except you can't power attack with a light weapon, and if your off-hand weapon isn't light you're taking serious penalties on your attack. A missed attack is less helpful than a successful-but-weaker attack. True, there is also oversived off hand weapon, where you treat a one handed weapon as a light weapon for the purposes of TWF.
Tempest Stormwind 08-11-07, 05:24 PM	True, there is also oversived off hand weapon, where you treat a one handed weapon as a light weapon for the purposes of TWF. Well aware of it. Add up the feats. TWF, ITWF, GTWF, OTWF, PA, LA = 5/7 feats for most characters right there. Furthermore, look at the TWF penalty on attack rolls. Meanwhile... PA+LA is all you need on a two-hander to outdo it, and at a higher attack bonus to boot. "II. Wieldest thou thy two-handed weapon with alacrity; but two weapons shalt thou not wield, excepting that thou hast a source of bonus damage such as Sneak Attack."
Spikes01k 08-11-07, 05:32 PM	Well aware of it. Add up the feats. TWF, ITWF, GTWF, OTWF, PA, LA = 5/7 feats for most characters right there. Furthermore, look at the TWF penalty on attack rolls. Meanwhile... PA+LA is all you need on a two-hander to outdo it, and at a higher attack bonus to boot. "II. Wieldest thou thy two-handed weapon with alacrity; but two weapons shalt thou not wield, excepting that thou hast a source of bonus damage such as Sneak Attack." Not arguing with you here that TWF is still under powered, but at least in some why they pull ahead. P.S. In a leap attack set up you don't need ITWF or GTWF. However you do need TWP. So you Need TWF, TWP, PA, LA and your doing more damage than a normal THF, IF both hit at that point. So I suggest getting Imp. Bull Rush and getting Shock Trooper, but that is just my suggestion.
Tempest Stormwind 08-11-07, 05:43 PM	TWP is weak. There are better ways of getting Pounce that give you REAL Pounce. If you want to do damage with TWF, find ways of adding damage to each attack. Leap Attack + Oversized TWF has been tried on the CO boards before (we reached exactly the same conclusion that Customer Service provided you, a long time ago), and found wanting in every situation we've been able to cook up.
Khan the Destroyer 08-11-07, 05:48 PM	I bet a thri-kreen using two two-handed weapons could make pretty good use of it.
Tempest Stormwind 08-11-07, 05:50 PM	I bet a thri-kreen using two two-handed weapons could make pretty good use of it. With a +2 level adjustment and 2 racial hit dice, go wild. I love the 'kreen, but not for the reasons that people normally end up using them.
Khan the Destroyer 08-11-07, 06:09 PM	With a +2 level adjustment and 2 racial hit dice, go wild. I know, I know. I'm just saying. :)
Twylyght 08-12-07, 12:47 AM	One thing I can say for the mantis men is that +2 level adjustment actually nets you 2 class levels even if it is just in monstrous humanoid. Not a bad deal really, monstrous humanoid isnt a bad class as far as a racial tack on goes. I love them just for jumping around *grin* Crossing thri-kreen with leap attack and pounce is a scary thought...
StruckingFuggle 08-12-07, 01:05 AM	But that's not TWF, that's MWF. (grab a level of swordsage and shadow blade, which sadly does not work with blood in the water or kukris... then go into bloodclaw master for two levels to knock off the -2 penalty to hit.)
Tempest Stormwind 08-12-07, 01:12 AM	One thing I can say for the mantis men is that +2 level adjustment actually nets you 2 class levels even if it is just in monstrous humanoid. Not a bad deal really, monstrous humanoid isnt a bad class as far as a racial tack on goes. I love them just for jumping around *grin* Crossing thri-kreen with leap attack and pounce is a scary thought... You're also misreading how they work. You apply the HD AND the LA. A thri-kreen with no class levels has 2 hit dice but is ECL 4. (I'm a fan of them for other reasons altogether. Go play Dark Sun.)
Vaelan 08-12-07, 01:20 AM	This response contradicts the errata on Leap Attack. From the Complete Adventurer errata... Page 110: Leap Attack The second sentence of the Benefit paragraph should read as follows: If you cover at least 10 feet of horizontal distance with your jump, and you end your jump in a square from which you threaten your target, you deal +100% the normal bonus damage from your use of the Power Attack feat. And from the Complete Warrior errata... Page 36: Frenzied Berserker’s Supreme Power Attack (class feature) The supreme power attack class feature should read as follows: Supreme Power Attack: A 10th-level frenzied berserker deals +100% the normal damage from her use of the Power Attack feat. In other words, when using the Power Attack feat, a frenzied berserker wielding a two-handed weapon gains a +4 bonus on damage rolls (instead of a +2 bonus) for each –1 penalty she applies to her attack rolls. They use identical phrases to describe their respective benefits and Supreme Power Attack clarifies exactly what the phrase they both use means. The only valid conclusion is that Leap Attack allows you Power Attack at a 4-1 ratio with a two-handed weapon. So congratulations on confusing CustServ. :)
Novacat 08-12-07, 01:25 AM	Now if only we could get WotC to address the issue of Leap Attack + Favored Power Attack. With a 2H weapon, what is the penalty-to-damage ratio? Here's how I figure it: First, FPA alters the "base bonus" of another feat (Power Attack), in certain circumstances. This brings the ratio from 1:2 to 1:3. Second, Leap Attack adds "+100%" of the normal bonus damage. Here, we could interpret "normal bonus damage" as either "whatever the bonus damage would be otherwise", which gives us a whopping 1:6 ratio, or "the base bonuses as listed in the Power Attack feat", which gives us a decent 1:5 ratio. Remember to check the errata for both of these feats before commenting, and keep in mind that these are not multiplier bonuses, so they don't follow the "stacking multipliers" rule. In fact, neither feat adds a bonus at all. They merely alter a bonus granted by Power Attack. I'll go ahead and post this query as it's own thread, so feel free to respond here or there.
Asmodeur 08-12-07, 07:48 AM	While I am sure lots of people just wants the most powerful solution possible, the only way (imo) to balance these feats and keep them in check, is to rule that they each add the same bonus to the base. Meaning PA = 1:2 ratio PA + LA = 1:3 ratio (1:2 if 1-hander) PA + FPA = 1:3 ratio (1:2 if 1-hander) PA + LA + FPA = 1:4 ratio (1:3 if 1-hander) PA + SPA = 1:3 ratio (1:2 if 1-hander) PA + LA + FPA + SPA = 1:5 ratio (1:4 if onehander) Combined with some sort of Pounce ability, that could still hurt enough to make the feats worthwhile.
Spikes01k 08-12-07, 08:09 AM	This response contradicts the errata on Leap Attack. From the Complete Adventurer errata... And from the Complete Warrior errata... They use identical phrases to describe their respective benefits and Supreme Power Attack clarifies exactly what the phrase they both use means. The only valid conclusion is that Leap Attack allows you Power Attack at a 4-1 ratio with a two-handed weapon. So congratulations on confusing CustServ. :) I just got an official ruling by WoTC? and your still questioning the meaning of leap attack??? Sigh..... I guess people can still disagree with the rules.
GhostStepper 08-12-07, 09:28 AM	I just got an official ruling by WoTC? and your still questioning the meaning of leap attack??? Sigh..... I guess people can still disagree with the rules. Except that the errata is official while CustServ isnt. Ive baited them into to saying some pretty crazy things myself.
Nephlite 08-12-07, 01:05 PM	I E-Mailed WoTC and got a response! The Response. However it is now clear that this is how leap attack is supposed to work! So with more feats and attacks leap attacking with TWF can out power a one handed weapon! That makes no sense. +100% of 2 for 1 is not 3: 2 + 2=3? Noooo. 2 + 2 =4, simple math. You add 100% of the other number. PA for 4 is 4 + 4=8. Not 4 + 4=6. Cut Serv can't count.
Twylyght 08-12-07, 02:12 PM	This response contradicts the errata on Leap Attack. From the Complete Adventurer errata... And from the Complete Warrior errata... They use identical phrases to describe their respective benefits and Supreme Power Attack clarifies exactly what the phrase they both use means. The only valid conclusion is that Leap Attack allows you Power Attack at a 4-1 ratio with a two-handed weapon. So congratulations on confusing CustServ. :) And now if you read that Leap Attack errata again, it only alters the second sentence. The effect of leap attack on a two-handed weapon is covered by the third sentence of the original entry, thus the errata has no effect on two handed weapons at all and thus the arguement of comparing the leap attack errata to the supreme power attack errata is completely flawed, and thus invalid. Even if we assume that it does apply to two-handed weapons, the only thing actually proven by the comaprison is that one of the erratas is worded incorrectly. And given how multiplying effects are handled in every other aspect of 3.5 I have to support that supreme power attack is the one thats incorrect. Dont get me wrong, I believe they intend Supreme Power Attack to net you a 4 for 1 exchange on a two-hander, they just wrote themselves into a corner with how to write it, wizards does that alot. They need to write the effects of one hand and two hand seperate. One handed should be +100% and two-handed +200% both targeting the base benefit of PA ofcourse. That makes no sense. +100% of 2 for 1 is not 3: 2 + 2=3? Noooo. 2 + 2 =4, simple math. You add 100% of the other number. PA for 4 is 4 + 4=8. Not 4 + 4=6. Cut Serv can't count. This is is D&D 3.5, it does make sense. +100% is x2. Multiplication effects target the original number, not the running total. So even going by the +100 reading youll get a 3 for 1. Base PA bonus + 100% (two handed) + 100% (leap attack) = PA*3 Multiple multiples isnt just for critical hits! x2 + x2 = x3
Jaxgaret 08-12-07, 03:55 PM	The Complete Warrior errata on FPA (that FPA = 4:1) plus the fact that these are the only two abilities (FPA and LA) in all of 3.5 that use this +100% wording seem to suggest that LA does indeed break the 3.5 convention of x2 + x2 = x3. x2 + x2 = x3 is a specific rule. There is no mention of x2 in LA, only of +100%. To Spikes: CustServ is often wrong with their "rulings", as every experienced board member here has seen. It is not official.
Tempest Stormwind 08-12-07, 03:59 PM	It's NOT a specific rule. It's a consequence of the basic rules of the game. When two or more multipliers apply to any abstract value (such as a modifier or a die roll), however, combine them into a single multiple, with each extra multiple adding 1 less than its value to the first multiple. Thus, a double (×2) and a double (×2) applied to the same number results in a triple (×3, because 2 + 1 = 3). When applying multipliers to real-world values (such as weight or distance), normal rules of math apply instead. In other words, if the number is abstract -- here, damage -- you use the normal doubling rules (x2+x2=x3), not notmral multipliers.
Jaxgaret 08-12-07, 04:07 PM	It's NOT a specific rule. It's a consequence of the basic rules of the game. Okay. In other words, if the number is abstract -- here, damage -- you use the normal doubling rules (x2+x2=x3), not notmral multipliers. +100% is not a multiplier, it is an addition.
Vaelan 08-12-07, 06:29 PM	And now if you read that Leap Attack errata again, it only alters the second sentence. The effect of leap attack on a two-handed weapon is covered by the third sentence of the original entry, thus the errata has no effect on two handed weapons at all and thus the arguement of comparing the leap attack errata to the supreme power attack errata is completely flawed, and thus invalid. My mistake. Thanks for actually bothering to show reasoning rather than being a dismissive ass like others have been.
Jaxgaret 08-12-07, 09:27 PM	This is is D&D 3.5, it does make sense. +100% is x2. Multiplication effects target the original number, not the running total. So even going by the +100 reading youll get a 3 for 1. Base PA bonus + 100% (two handed) + 100% (leap attack) = PA*3 Multiple multiples isnt just for critical hits! x2 + x2 = x3 +100% is not x2. They may have the same end result, but they are not the same. One is multiplication, the other addition. Going by the fact that Complete Warrior delineates +100% from x2, it seems sensical to apply it the same way with Leap Attack. Could you please explain again, a little more clearly perhaps, why exactly you think it is that the CWar errata parses out to a ruling that the feat doesn't apply to 2-handed weapons any differently than 1-handed? I didn't really understand your point, and I apologize if it was already lucid enough. I just don't see it.
WorldsLargestDungionFan 08-12-07, 09:42 PM	Acording to the Wizo And officle Rules, Which most people go off mind you, Wizo and the Officle ruleing, Then the first post was correct, Remeber that TWP Can be great on a Fighter or a Human character, Not only that but with a Ranger you get the TWF feats for free, The Penity on Two Weapon fighting is only big at early levels, I Know plunty of people who have +20 to hit by the time there level 5, Takeing -2 or even -4 to hit isnt much of a problem So The "To Hit" Shouldnt be a problem inless your fighting GodZilla of AC, But then there are other ways around "AC" , Fighter types should have no problems being able to hit there targets with most of there attacks later on in the game, Only time To hit means alot is the early levels, The Question I have is this, Cant you use a Double Handed weapon to Duel Wield and effectively only have that weapon? Or dose the off hand part counting as light counter the whole Leap Attack thing? This brings up another question, Monkey Grip a double bladed weapon, so you can wield it in one hand insteed of two, Can you now duel wield with it? I Dont care about the Negitives on to hit or anything eles on that line, the question is, Can You duel wield with one hand? Eather by use of Monkey grip or some other use? Thats the only question I Have reguarding This post, Besides that, Yes TWF, Can out damage a Two Handed weapon, inless your useing horrible weapons that your not proficint with and there not light, there both heavy and your duel wielding without the feats, Inless your doing just that!, Im pretty sure your going to hit things higher levels,
EjoThims 08-12-07, 10:44 PM	OP, Cust Serv, and Tempest Stormwind are in the right. The wording on the errata should be changed, but we already ahve clarification that it is indeed meant to be a multiplying affect instead of an additive effect (this is why the errata was made in the first place). And yes, TWF with PA is generally a poor option, unless your bonuses to hit are obscene.
archerpwr 08-12-07, 10:56 PM	And yes, TWF with PA is generally a poor option, unless your bonuses to hit are obscene. I do believe I can actually accomplish this with my epic gish. Of course a whole lot of rules and spells are abused in the process, but that's besides the point. One attack form actually involves tentacles, unarmed stikes, PA, leap attack, arcane stike, and SA on a single pounce. For easier math I just abuse hydra's though.
EjoThims 08-12-07, 10:59 PM	epic I found the key word here...
risner 08-13-07, 10:23 PM	However it is now clear that this is how leap attack is supposed to work! So with more feats and attacks leap attacking with TWF can out power a one handed weapon! I am confused, isn't this what the latest errata from 2 years ago says? 1:3 for Two Handed? Yea, I just read the errata posted in this thread. This is old news, cust service just gave out a correct ruling. They described exactly what the errata has said for years. I still don't understand why the people who say it is 1:4 don't actually read the errata before they said invalid and incorrect things.
EjoThims 08-14-07, 06:03 PM	I still don't understand why the people who say it is 1:4 don't actually read the errata before they said invalid and incorrect things. Because when you look at the errata in full the description of Leap Attack is only one word away from giving a 1:4 ratio.
Nephlite 08-14-07, 07:25 PM	Because when you look at the errata in full the description of Leap Attack is only one word away from giving a 1:4 ratio. The errata changed nothing if it isn't 4 to 1. Wasn't it originally double in the book. How does change by the errata if it is still 3? It has to be 4 to 1 if it is 100%. No multiplying.
Spikes01k 08-14-07, 08:20 PM	I called WoTC as well. They guy I talked to confirmed the same conclusion. I don't remember the name but it was a different guy, I was sure to check that.
Spikes01k 08-14-07, 09:33 PM	The errata changed nothing if it isn't 4 to 1. Wasn't it originally double in the book. How does change by the errata if it is still 3? It has to be 4 to 1 if it is 100%. No multiplying. The errata changed LA's effect to one handed weapon not two handed weapon. Two handed is still 1:3. It only changed the 2nd sentence.
Nephlite 08-14-07, 09:47 PM	The errata changed LA's effect to one handed weapon not two handed weapon. Two handed is still 1:3. It only changed the 2nd sentence. Wasn't one handed PA with Leap double...how does 100% do anything for 1 handed? I can't imagine much confusion with one handed. Anyone give me an example where one handed PA was confusing?
Spikes01k 08-14-07, 09:55 PM	Wasn't one handed PA with Leap double...how does 100% do anything for 1 handed? I can't imagine much confusion with one handed. Anyone give me an example where one handed PA was confusing? Normally a one handed weapon get 1:1 power attack a +100% increase would make it 1:2
EjoThims 08-15-07, 08:02 AM	The errata changed nothing if it isn't 4 to 1. Wasn't it originally double in the book. How does change by the errata if it is still 3? It has to be 4 to 1 if it is 100%. No multiplying. The errata did not change how Leap Attack works, only made it clear that it was a mutiplicative and not additive affect. Supreme Power Attack is 4:1 and is also mutiplicative instead of additive. The confusion comes in that there is only a one word difference in the wording of their erratas, despite the difference in ratios.
risner 08-15-07, 08:49 AM	The errata did not change how Leap Attack works, only made it clear that it was a mutiplicative and not additive affect. Supreme Power Attack is 4:1 and is also mutiplicative instead of additive. The confusion comes in that there is only a one word difference in the wording of their erratas, despite the difference in ratios. It isn't multiplicative, it is additive. It still follows the "two x2 make a x3" rules. The errata made that clear, which is the whole reason they said they changed the text to make it clear it is additive and not multiplicative.
EjoThims 08-15-07, 08:59 AM	It isn't multiplicative, it is additive. It still follows the "two x2 make a x3" rules. The errata made that clear, which is the whole reason they said they changed the text to make it clear it is additive and not multiplicative. I need to stop posting in the morning before I go to sleep. Leap Attack has always been a multiplier, following all the DnD multiplier rules. The errata was worded simply to make this more clear. Supreme Power Attack used to simply be an addition to the bonus damage of Power Attack. It's errata changed it to a multipler, following all the DnD multiplier rules.
bobthe 09-08-07, 10:15 PM	I think there's some confusion as to what the "base damage bonus" from Power Attack is for 2H weapons. The base damage for a 2H weapon from Power Attack is twice the penalty. So, for each -1 to hit the base extra damage for PA is +2. Leap Attack would then triple this to +6.
Count Arioch the 28th 09-09-07, 03:55 AM	Here is how I interpret the feat. Leap attack allows you to add +100% to power attack damage. Using a two handed weapons allows you to power attack at x2, or 200% 200% + 100% = 300% That is my ruling.
bobthe 09-09-07, 03:58 AM	Leap attack allows you to add +100% to power attack damage. That is my ruling. Except when using a 2 handed weapon, then it deals 3x damage. I generally assume that the errata is meant to change this to +200% damage, but regardless, the errata does not change the fact that Leap Attack deals more extra damage with a 2H weapon than with a 1H weapon.
Count Arioch the 28th 09-09-07, 04:22 AM	I have no idea why you're saying the exact same thing I am, but trying to argue with me anyway.
bobthe 09-09-07, 04:26 AM	I'm not saying the same thing. You said that Leap Attack adds 100% of the Power Attack bonus. I am saying that that is only for 1H weapons. For 2H weapons, it adds 200% the Power Attack damage, which is effectively 1:4 to-hit penalty to damage increase since Power Attack deals a base 2 damage per 1 point of to-hit penalty for 2H weapons. Power Attack + Leap Attack + 2H weapon = +6 damage per -1 to hit The power attack itself deals 2 damage for the -1, and then the Leap Attack triples this. If this is what you were saying, then you missed part of your statement.
Count Arioch the 28th 09-09-07, 07:03 AM	That's not what you said in your previous post. And I am aware of that ruling. All that ruling shows is that Andy Collins can't add. 200% + 100% = 300%. Not 400%. I understand that it's "official", but it's still mathematically incorrect, while my way is mathmatically correct. His ruling might be "official", but my ruling is correct.
EjoThims 09-09-07, 07:11 AM	while my way is mathmatically correct. Only if you assume that using a 2h weapon applies a multiplier to your PA bonus. Which is wrong. 2H PA is not a multiplier bonus. It simply changes the bonus you get. You do not get double the normal PA bonus when using a 2H weapon. You get two bonus for every one penalty. The difference is small, but very important.
war_thog 09-09-07, 10:34 AM	Said some stuff.... I'd like to point out one thing he said though. "I generally presume" Damn straight. And thats why youre wrong. This has been covered, recovered, flogged, beaten and repainted in a seperate thread. Then of the guys in it fetched 2 independent rulings on top of the huge consensus to a ruling which relies on reading the rules properly. And you still choose to fight the losing fight. Thats ok. Just dont do it by presuming. PA has 1 base rate. This is 1:1. 2h alters the base rate to instead deal double bonus damage. LA with 2h instead alters the base rate to deal triple bonus damage. Bye bye to all confusion. Assuming that the base rate for 2h is 1:2 is practically accurate when only looking at PA. When combining feats the technical difference becomes relevant. The 2h section is not under the "normal PA section" Its under special circumstances. I hope no-one arguing that "special circumstances" constitute a "base" rate. Right?
bobthe 09-09-07, 01:41 PM	I'd like to point out one thing he said though. "I generally presume" Note that regardless of whether you take the as-written "x3" or what I am assuming is meant to be "+200%" the effect is still the same, so arguing that my assumption is wrong changes nothing at all. Forget my assumption, and use the written x3 multiplier. And I really don't see how you can argue that PA's base bonus is not 2 for every 1 point of penalty. Just because it's under "special" doesn't mean it doesn't still apply. It replaced the 1 point of damage for every point of attack penalty, it doesn't multiply it. Important difference.
war_thog 09-09-07, 08:56 PM	Yes it 2h wep replaces the base rate. It isnt it though. Its seperate. And LA replaces that. If we replace something its no longer in effect. So we get triple the base rate instead. Base rate = 1:1. triple that = 1:3.
EjoThims 09-09-07, 09:02 PM	Yes it 2h wep replaces the base rate. It isnt it though. Its seperate. The base PA rate for a 2H weapon is 2 bonus for 1 penalty. All multipliers are applied to this. It is not a multiplier itself.
war_thog 09-09-07, 09:14 PM	Dictionary.com has this to say on the word base... base1 /beɪs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[beys] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, adjective, verb, based, bas·ing. –noun 1. the bottom support of anything; that on which a thing stands or rests: a metal base for the table. 2. a fundamental principle or groundwork; foundation; basis: the base of needed reforms. 3. the bottom layer or coating, as of makeup or paint. A special circumstantial rule does not fit under that. So no the base rate for 2h wep is not 2:1. It is 1:1 that you "instead add twice" to your damage roll. Twice im pretty sure means double or x2. That is regardless though, im not saying it is a multiplier. Im saying that it gets replaced, as the text in LA says. They use the same style of wording in LA and in PA "special" area, both referring to the PA base rate. They overlap each other, not stack with for a total of 1:3. The CustServ also agrees on 1:3. Perhaps my method of getting there is arguable if you dont like it. However we still end up at 1:3.
bobthe 09-09-07, 09:32 PM	I really don't see how you can argue that the special section doesn't apply simply because another feat is affecting the resulting damage from Power Attack. That's a silly argument. The base damage is 2 damage for each 1 point of attack penalty for a 2H weapon with Power Attack.
EjoThims 09-09-07, 10:05 PM	The CustServ also agrees on 1:3. Perhaps my method of getting there is arguable if you dont like it. However we still end up at 1:3. Too bad that goes against the errata and the FAQ and the rules on multipliers stacking. CustServ does not have the power to overrule these.
war_thog 09-10-07, 01:17 AM	Its silly that you are arguing that it is base damage when it is clearly not. Base as above noted is the fundamental principle, the groundwork, the bottom layer. 2h wep use does not consitute this. The base damage is 1:1. The modified damage is 1:2. Whether the multipliers stack or not is irrelevant. LA says you get it instead. Theres no stacking here. Thats how we end up at the 1:3 indicated by CustServ.