Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Burlane 12-11-07, 01:58 PM	Just wondering how Power Attack + Leap Attack combo supposedly works... Power Attack lets you subtract a number from your hit roll which cannot exceed your Base Attack Bonus, then you add that number to your damage roll, and in the case of wielding a two handed weapon, you add twice that number. So in formula terms, it would equate to, -BAB from Hit Roll with a two handed weapon to give.... DAMAGE = (2*BAB) + (1.5*StrengthModifier) + (MiscModifiers) where BAB was some number subtracted from the Hit Roll which cannot exceed your Base Attack Bonus. Now, Leap Attack allows 3 times damage multiplier on a Charged Power Attack in which case you make a DC10 Jump Check correct ? So this is what i'm wondering, where does that 3x damage multiplier apply ? Only to BAB or to DAMAGE (See Above)? This would lead to the following damage with a Two Handed Weapon.... -BAB from Hit Roll, +2 To Hit Roll for Charging, would give.... DAMAGE = (2*3*BAB) + (1.5*StrengthModifier) + (MiscModifiers) OR DAMAGE = 3*[(2*BAB) + (1.5*StrengthModifier) + (MiscModifiers)] Where does the 3x Multiplier come in above ? Now furthermore, Pounce is another ability which lets the character take a full round action on a leap attack. So do you apply the -BAB to all melee attacks for that entire round or only the first one ? Also, if you take the -BAB on all attacks, does the 3x Multiplier from Leap Attack apply to all damages or only the first hit, and then all other hits are just normal Power Attacked Hits ?
Tordak 12-11-07, 03:18 PM	Actually, here's the correct version : leap attack adds 100% to the damage from power attack, so it's (points taken from BAB)*2 for one handed, and (points taken from BAB)*4 for a 2 handed weapon. So here's the calculation for your leap attack DAMAGES= (penalty taken to hit, up to max BAB)*4+(1.5*strengh)+(msic modifier). You are correct about the leap machanic (jump 10 ft, DC 10 with running start, 20 with standing start), and I believe the jump as at the end of the charge (where you land is where your charge ends). As for pounce, I believe it has not been clarified in the rules, but usually when you take a penalty it applies for the whole round, as do benefits (for power attack anyway); I believe this is RAW, I might be wrong. However, since leap attack relies on momentum, I think ruling it's only on the first attack make sense.
risner 12-11-07, 06:03 PM	Just wondering how Power Attack + Leap Attack combo supposedly works... -BAB from Hit Roll with a two handed weapon to give.... DAMAGE = (2*BAB) + (1.5*StrengthModifier) + (MiscModifiers) So this is what i'm wondering, where does that 3x damage multiplier apply ? Only to BAB or to DAMAGE (See Above)? This would lead to the following damage with a Two Handed Weapon.... -BAB from Hit Roll, +2 To Hit Roll for Charging, would give.... DAMAGE = (2*3*BAB) + (1.5*StrengthModifier) + (MiscModifiers) OR DAMAGE = 3*[(2*BAB) + (1.5*StrengthModifier) + (MiscModifiers)] Where does the 3x Multiplier come in above ? Now furthermore, Pounce is another ability which lets the character take a full round action on a leap attack. So do you apply the -BAB to all melee attacks for that entire round or only the first one ? Also, if you take the -BAB on all attacks, does the 3x Multiplier from Leap Attack apply to all damages or only the first hit, and then all other hits are just normal Power Attacked Hits ? Leap Attack -BAB DAMAGE = 3*BAB + 1.5*STR + Misc The errata makes this very clear, you get only +100% damage. Standard multiplication rules prohibit silly things like 3*2*BAB, since all multipliers are simply in terms of +x%. For example 2x = +100% and 3x=+100%. The errata tried to clear up the confusion (where people were trying to do 3*2) by stating mechanically what it does.
1hitparry 12-11-07, 08:40 PM	The errata was pretty confusing to me, but I think what risner said is most accepted interpretation (by far? not really sure), the other popular one being the the 4:1 power attack ratio. I just wish they had been more explicit.
Tordak 12-12-07, 08:45 AM	Yeh, it's confunsing because it say "+100% the normal bonus from power attack". Now the question is whether 2x (penalty to AB) is the 'normal' bonus from power attack from using a weapon 2-handed or if (penalty to AB) is the normal bonus. I though it was x4 for a 2-handed, but now that you guys mention it isn't that clear. I was certain I read the 4x somewhere, but I can't find it now so it's probably a fantasy of mine.
mplindustries 12-12-07, 12:07 PM	Here is some rules lawyering for you. Note that while I'm sure the tone seems condescending, it is not intended that way. According to the SRD, power attack (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#powerAttack) allows you to subtract a number (that does not exceed your BAB) from all melee attack rolls and add the same number to all melee damage rolls. As a special function, it adds "twice the number subtracted from your attack rolls" when you use a two-handed weapon or a one-handed weapon in two hands. Now, the key word here is twice. It does not say that when you wield a weapon two-handed that you get to add 2 points of damage for every point of penalty you take. Twice does not just imply a doubling, it is a doubling. A quick dictionary search will show that the most acceptable definitions of "twice" are "two times" and "to double the degree." In other words, twice = x2 Now, in D&D v3.X math, everything that is decided by dice rolling is a function. Damage is a function. The attack roll is a function. Skill checks are a function. For the sake of this explanation, we are going to use the damage function. Lets call our damage function D just for simplicity. D is a very complicated function that takes into account a large number of variables including base weapon damage dice, strength modifiers, sneak attack, etc. We are told here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#criticalHits), "extra damage over and above a weapon’s normal damage is not multiplied." Thus, we know that D must contain a sub-function to handle "normal damage" or else it would have no way to know what does and does not get multiplied. Let's call our sub-function N. When we hit with an attack, the function N runs. Everything in N is taken into account, including weapon dice, strength bonus, power attack, etc. Lets use a level 1 fighter with 14 strength and a trident that he wields in two-hands as our example. His N is 1d8+3. If he hits with an attack, N runs and he rolls 1d8, adds 3, and deals that much damage. Now what happens if he scores a critical hit (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#criticalHits)? A trident has a "x2" critical, and according to the SRD, "a critical hit means that you roll your damage more than once, with all your usual bonuses, and add the rolls together." Now, given that you actually roll your damage more than once and add them, how should this work in terms of our function based examples? Should he do 2N in damage? No, when you score a x2 critical hit, N runs two times. Yes, sorry to say, if you roll 1d8+3 and double what you get, you are not playing RAW. You are actually supposed to roll 1d8+3 + 1d8+3. (Now, obviously, nobody is going to kick in your door and revoke your D&D playing rights if you just double your single roll. I know I wouldn't care and never enforce it in my games.) Ok, so, you're probably wondering, why the hell is he using a trident in his example? Well, smarty-pants, because I needed another simple doubling and this trident wielder is going to set a charge next. So what happens when he scores a critical hit while set against a charge? Here's where the game says: N runs once because he hit (1d8+3) He set against a charge? Ok, thats x2 damage, so N has to run again +(1d8+3). He scored a critical hit? Ok, thats x2 damage, so N has to run again +(1d8+3). Now, wait a second, if the critical hit does x2 damage, why doesn't it run N two more times since its already run twice? When damage is calculated, each multiplier works on N and N alone. It doesn't care how many other multipliers apply or don't. You can reverse the order of application and have the crit first and it won't change. Now, what if our example guy were using a spear? Thats a x3 critical multiplier. Let me expand each step this time: I hit with an attack, which causes Function D to run. Function N represents my base damage. As part of D, it runs once. Now, as part of D, function S runs. It checks to see if I set against a charge. I did. Since that function does double damage, it makes sure my damage is doubled. As part of S, N runs, meaning that as far as S is concerned, N has run twice, fulfilling its x2 multiplier. Now, as part of D, function C runs. It checks to see if I scored a critical hit. I did. Since a critical hit does triple damage with a spear, C makes sure my damage is tripled. As part of C, N runs again. Function C then checks to see if N has been run 3 times total, since it is trying to make sure I dealt triple damage. Having no ability to see what happened within function S, in fact, it sees only S, C determines that N has only been run twice, so it runs N once again, for a total of 3. When all subfunctions have run, D totals them. The only functions that returned results were N, S, and C, so: D = N + S + C + an infinite number of functions returning 0 As part of S, N ran once, so S = N. As part of C, N ran twice, so C = N + N Thus, D = N + N + N + N In game terms, even though you doubled and then tripled your damage, that would suggest to most that you'd deal x6 damage, but you actually only roll 4 times. And, again, I want to stress, that the RAW action is actually rolling 1d8+3 four separate times. Why did I go into this long explanation about multiplying trident damage and other such nonsense? Because it holds the answer to your question about power attack multipliers stacking. Lets call the Power Attacking Function P. N uses P to determine its own value. In fact, N uses many functions to determine "normal damage" such as W(dice from your weapon) and S (bonus from your Strength modifier) among others. When P runs, it uses several functions of its own. P first checks to see what penalty you chose to take on your melee attack actions. This is the normal value of your power attack. Lets call this function B as it is the base damage. Now, the feat Power Attack (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#powerAttack) mentions special circumstances that call for subfunctions. Here we need an example. Lets say I have a BAB of +6 and Power Attack and I accept a -5 penalty on my attack rolls with my spear. I hit, so D runs. As part of D, N runs. As part of N, P runs. It checks to see what penalty I took (5) and then B runs. (+5) As part of P, T runs. It checks to see if I am wielding a two-handed weapon or a one-handed weapon in two hands. I am. Ok, that is x2 damage, so as part of T, B runs again (+5) If I were wielding a light weapon, another function would have checked for that and returned a result of 0 for the entire P function. So, yes, obviously, a -5 penalty on my attack rolls gives me a +10 bonus to my base damage. Now, when I add Leap Attack into the equation, all it does is add another subfunction into P. So assuming everything was the same as before, except that I also used Leap Attack: P runs. As part of P, B runs (+5) As part of P, T runs (+5) Now, as part of P, function L runs. It checks to see if I fulfilled the requirements of Leap Attack. I have. According to the errata, Leap Attack adds +100% to the normal damage I'd deal with power attack. Now L checks for our "normal" damage, which is represented by B. L adds +100% of B to our damage +(100% of 5) = 5 (obviously) Thus, our final returned value for P is B + T + L, or +15 for simplicity. The funny thing is, the only reason they had to add errata is that function L has no way to see what happened during function T, when it tripled damage, it did so separately from T and thus, actually did deal an effective x4 damage. Now, the main question is, probably, how come T is a subfunction of P and not simply part of B? If I wield a weapon in two-hands isn't my base normal power attack bonus increasing which means that when L checks for my "normal" damage, it sees 10 and adds +(100% of 10)? The simple answer is, no. The power attack feat as I have linked to quite a few times calls the two-handed bonus a "special" feature of the feat. It can't be both normal and special at the same time. As a more complicated answer, T has to be a modifier to the base damage and not the actual base damage, because as I mentioned way at the beginning, it deals twice as much bonus damage. If there was no base value for bonus damage, what is it "twicing?" Additionally, the weapon itself has to be separate from the normal calculation because if you read it carefully, you do actually have a bonus from power attack when you are wielding a light weapon (that isn't an unarmed or natural attack), you are simply unable to apply that bonus to your damage. In fact, the only argument that can be made is that when T determines you are using a weapon two-handed, it does not try to double B, but instead checks to see what penalty you took to your melee attack rolls, adds twice that number, and then prevents B from applying to P's total, since it does say you add this damage "instead." In the end, its the same total, as B still exists and can be referenced, just not applied. If you scrolled through this crazy-long winded explanation for how this works, here's the simple gist: When you use Leap Attack and a two-handed weapon, you trade hit for damage at a 1:3 ratio. The extra damage you deal when power attacking with a two-handed weapon is just that, extra, and can not be considered part of the "normal" power attack bonus mentioned in the errata for Leap Attack. As for Pouncing, Power Attack (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#powerAttack) states "the penalty on attacks and bonus on damage apply until your next turn." This means that not only do you get to do all that amazing extra power attacking damage for the entire Pounce-induced full attack, you also get that damage bonus (and take the penalty to hit) with any Attacks of Opportunity you make until your next turn as well.
Suspect_Unusual 12-12-07, 10:22 PM	Take a close look at the errata, people - you'll see that the +100% affects ONLY the one-handed power attacking text, not the two-handed power attacking text of the next sentence, which is UNCHANGED from the "triple normal damage bonus" stated in Complete Adventurer. That leaves us with 2 possible interpretations: 1. The "triple normal damage bonus" is referring to the 1-handed damage benefit for Power Attacking, and thus a two-handed Leap Attacker would get 3 x bab +1.5 x str + misc. 2. The "triple normal damage bonus" is referring to the 2-handed damage benefit for Power Attacking, and thus a two-handed Leap Attacker would get (3 x 2 - in D&D math, this is explicitly equal to x4) x bab + 1.5 x str + misc. In no possible RAW interpretation can you gain a 6:1 ratio solely from Leap Attacking with a two-handed weapon.
kalstrand 12-12-07, 10:23 PM	The lengthy definition of damage is quite good but I would say that the feat sets base damage for two handed weapon at +2 damage for a -1 penalty rather than it being a multiplier of its own.
Suspect_Unusual 12-12-07, 10:32 PM	The lengthy definition of damage is quite good but I would say that the feat sets base damage for two handed weapon at +2 damage for a -1 penalty rather than it being a multiplier of its own. That's a wonderful houserule, but that's not RAW. His lengthy definition of damage is. Really, nice try, though, and the short-and-sweet argument style really argues in your favor among those too lazy to read. :)
mplindustries 12-12-07, 11:41 PM	Take a close look at the errata, people - you'll see that the +100% affects ONLY the one-handed power attacking text, not the two-handed power attacking text of the next sentence, which is UNCHANGED from the "triple normal damage bonus" stated in Complete Adventurer. That leaves us with 2 possible interpretations: 1. The "triple normal damage bonus" is referring to the 1-handed damage benefit for Power Attacking, and thus a two-handed Leap Attacker would get 3 x bab +1.5 x str + misc. 2. The "triple normal damage bonus" is referring to the 2-handed damage benefit for Power Attacking, and thus a two-handed Leap Attacker would get (3 x 2 - in D&D math, this is explicitly equal to x4) x bab + 1.5 x str + misc. In no possible RAW interpretation can you gain a 6:1 ratio solely from Leap Attacking with a two-handed weapon. Actually, if you read it that way, it still works out as a 3:1 ratio. That third sentence says that you do triple your normal damage bonus instead. That critical "instead" means that it prevents your normal damage from applying. Using my examples from above: P runs. As part of P, B runs. (+5) As part of P, T runs. Since you are wielding a weapon two handed, it doubles the damage, and I already outlined how it treats doubling. (+5) As part of P, L runs. It checks to see if you qualify for Leap Attack. Since you do, it runs a check to see if you're wielding a weapon two-handed. Since you are, it is supposed to deal triple normal damage instead. Thus, it triples damage, by running B twice more. (+10) Then, it prevents the original B from applying to P, because it says instead. Thus, the end result is T + L. B = 5, but it can't apply because of the clause in L. T = 5 L = 10 So, +15 damage. It is still 3:1. Even though I agree that you definitely can't get 6 to 1, I just wanted to explain why you also couldn't actually get 4 to 1 either.
Suspect_Unusual 12-13-07, 12:22 AM	Actually, if you read it that way, it still works out as a 3:1 ratio. That third sentence says that you do triple your normal damage bonus instead. That critical "instead" means that it prevents your normal damage from applying. Using my examples from above: P runs. As part of P, B runs. (+5) As part of P, T runs. Since you are wielding a weapon two handed, it doubles the damage, and I already outlined how it treats doubling. (+5) As part of P, L runs. It checks to see if you qualify for Leap Attack. Since you do, it runs a check to see if you're wielding a weapon two-handed. Since you are, it is supposed to deal triple normal damage instead. Thus, it triples damage, by running B twice more. (+10) Then, it prevents the original B from applying to P, because it says instead. Thus, the end result is T + L. B = 5, but it can't apply because of the clause in L. T = 5 L = 10 So, +15 damage. It is still 3:1. Even though I agree that you definitely can't get 6 to 1, I just wanted to explain why you also couldn't actually get 4 to 1 either. The exact wording of the feat, unfortunately, is not that explicit. The instead isn't referring to the original Power Attack damage, it's referring to the feat's earlier doubling (or, per Errata, +100%) of the Power Attack damage. It's also vague enough to allow, as far as I can tell, the "extra damage from Power Attack" to be either the 1:1 ratio or the "twice" (2:1) ratio. I wish it were as clear as you so unclearly state, but alas, life isn't so simple. :)
mplindustries 12-13-07, 03:04 AM	The exact wording of the feat, unfortunately, is not that explicit. The instead isn't referring to the original Power Attack damage, it's referring to the feat's earlier doubling (or, per Errata, +100%) of the Power Attack damage. It's also vague enough to allow, as far as I can tell, the "extra damage from Power Attack" to be either the 1:1 ratio or the "twice" (2:1) ratio. I wish it were as clear as you so unclearly state, but alas, life isn't so simple. :) It is indeed not that explicit at all, but since it has no reference point, instead can apply to a lot of things. You're right though, I did have to use intention there to prove it. However, I think that no matter how poorly written both the feat and errata are written, its clear they meant for the first benefit paragraph to end after the revised sentence 2. If that sentence was really meant to stay, then why did the write errata at all? It doesn't actually change how much damage your normal one-handed power attack does by saying +100% instead of double. They certainly wouldn't have issued errata without changing anything. Of course, since it was never explicitly said, I guess I can't use logic to fix typos/errors, and so my position might not be RAW. ;P If you truly believe the triple two handed damage is supposed to still be there, and you can speak more eloquently than your GM, you can probably convince him it really is a 4:1, which is the only other possibility. Under no circumstances or readings can it be higher than that.
Suspect_Unusual 12-13-07, 09:16 AM	Don't get me wrong, I think the best interpretation by FAR is for normal Power Attack damage (the one that is to be multiplied) should be the 1:1 ratio. I'm just nitpicky like that. :)