Quick question about the Leap Attack. [Archive] - Wizards Community

Quick question about the Leap Attack. [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
JarionSilverblades
04-30-08, 01:40 PM Quick question about the Leap Attack feat from The Complete Adventurer. The Errata says "you deal +100% the normal bonus damage from your use of the Power
Attack feat." Does that mean that if you are using a Two-handed weapon and take a -2 on your attack that you get a +8 instead of the +4 to damage?
RobbyPants
04-30-08, 04:23 PM I've heard it argued both that it gives you a 3:1 ratio (+6 for -2) and a 4:1 ratio (+8 for -2). Based on how the errata is worded, the 4:1 makes the most sense to me, in that the "normal bonus damage" for a two hander is 2:1.

The only argument I've heard for the 3:1 ratio is that +100% is the same as doubling, but doubling is treated differently in D&D (double a double is a tripple). Still, I get the feeling that you get 4:1.
GalaGalaxia
04-30-08, 06:11 PM Power Attack = bonus damage
Leap Attack = +100% the normal bonus damage from Power Attack

You get 4:1 ratio. Custserv agrees as well.
EjoThims
05-01-08, 07:57 AM Power Attack = bonus damage
Leap Attack = +100% the normal bonus damage from Power Attack

You get 4:1 ratio. Custserv agrees as well.

Correct.
risner
05-01-08, 11:54 AM Quick question about the Leap Attack feat from The Complete Adventurer. The Errata says "you deal +100% the normal bonus damage from your use of the Power
Attack feat." Does that mean that if you are using a Two-handed weapon and take a -2 on your attack that you get a +8 instead of the +4 to damage?

Normal (+100%) can be read to be either +1 or +2 additional per penalty. It is up to your DM to determine if normal damage is straight damage or if normal damage is 2x for a Two Handed.

Both could be considered RAW and both have had custserv agree.

The 4:1 crowd uses the meaning of normal to be 1:1 if one handed and 2:1 if two handed.

The 3:1 crowd uses the meaning of normal to be 1:1 always.
ravenshrike
05-01-08, 12:04 PM *blinks* The +100% only applies to using a one-handed weapon. The errata makes no note of erasing the third sentence(the one referring to THWs) and therefore it takes precedence.
mplindustries
05-02-08, 01:48 AM I absolutely believe that it is a 3:1 ratio. If you actually care, I will describe my position. Otherwise, Risner has the short answer dead on.

I can see the argument for 4:1. Sort of. I've seen it made very logically, and I can respect that. Unfortunately, its based on an example given in the Frenzied Berserker errata, so I just don't buy it.

As for Ravenshrike, the errata did not actually change meaning at all, it only clarified the wording. It provides exactly the same ratio as the old version, because the same arguments can be made for either interpretation with either "version" of the rules. The only reason it was changed in errata was for uniformity in language with other, similar effects.
EjoThims
05-02-08, 04:08 AM The only reason it was changed in errata was for uniformity in language with other, similar effects.

I miss back before Supreme Cleave and then Leap Attack and the rest were errated.... 12+:1 ratios on PA made FBs and Chargers insane with so little effort.

However, I will point out that thinking for 4:1 ratio is based on the PHB entry for Power Attack, and the example entry in the Frenzied Berserker is only used as support for it.
Tordak
05-02-08, 06:03 AM I think 2:1 is the normal trade off for 2-handers. Everytime you use a weapon 2-handed (as long as it's not light cause you can't PA with those), you get 2:1 ratio; it's not on a special occasion, it's everytime, for everyone with PA. The 3:1 ratio provided by combat brute(momentum swing; CW) is the example of 'not normal PA damage'; this is where you calculate the leap attack benefits off the original PA, with its original trade-off ratio, not the ratio from momentum swing.

Which means OP, you conclusion would be correct.
mplindustries
05-02-08, 11:29 AM I think 2:1 is the normal trade off for 2-handers. Everytime you use a weapon 2-handed (as long as it's not light cause you can't PA with those), you get 2:1 ratio; it's not on a special occasion, it's everytime, for everyone with PA.
If its not special, why is it listed in the "Special" section of the feat?

Additionally, the special section actually says it "twices" the damage. Twice = double = x2.

Sorry, I promised myself I would try not to argue this one, and I'm already failing.
EjoThims
05-02-08, 11:38 PM If its not special, why is it listed in the "Special" section of the feat?

It's not that it's not special. It's that it's still normal, despite that.

Because it's not an abnormal case.

Every time you use a two-handed weapon, no matter what, you gain +2 damage for each -1 on to hit.

The 'special' section also lists its use as a fighter bonus feat and the fact that light weapons gain no penalty, but these are both normal occurrences for the feat even if they are special variations on the standard benefit.

So again, normally, when using a 2H weapon, your PA return is 2:1. There is no case where this could not be the normal, unmodified result of using a 2H weapon with PA. Just like the normal, unmodified result of using PA with a light weapon is 0:X.
TheCobra
05-03-08, 12:39 AM As the errata didn't remove the line about tripling extra damage with a two-handed weapon, I don't see how it could be a 4:1 ratio. It should be either 3:1 or 6:1.
risner
05-03-08, 01:00 AM As the errata didn't remove the line about tripling extra damage with a two-handed weapon, I don't see how it could be a 4:1 ratio. It should be either 3:1 or 6:1.

Which is the evidence for the 3:1 and the "normal is 2x for two handed man" is the evidence for 4:1.

In other words, this is a "ask your DM" question that can't be settled by the text directly.

P.S. just using your message as a quote to help the point, so it isn't that I didn't like what you said. In fact you said it succinctly.
mplindustries
05-03-08, 01:04 AM There is no case where this could not be the normal, unmodified result of using a 2H weapon with PA.
Just to be contrary, and not really to prove anything...

Rapier

Win for me! :P

In other news, I really just flat out disagree. Its all sound and good, but I think its probably valid either way. Basically, you're defining "normal" as "if someone does X, what happens (almost) every time?" and I'm saying "normal" is what's listed under "Benefit," while "Special" is by definition, "not normal."

It is in the special section, and it specifically mentions twicing. If you +100% from Leap Attack, then you have:
Twice + 100% = +100% + 100% = +200% = x3 total PA damage.

I'm not saying it can't be viewed your way, I just think it shouldn't be, because mine makes slightly more sense, both from a power and language/math perspective.
EjoThims
05-03-08, 07:31 AM Just to be contrary, and not really to prove anything...

Rapier

Win for me! :P

Rapiers aren't two-handed, nor are they light. But if you held a rapier in two hands, you still get 2:1 on PA. It only lists says you don't get 1.5 Str for doing so. And even if you didn't, that is a specific exception, and it must be stated because it defies the norm.

you're defining "normal" as "if someone does X, what happens (almost) every time?"

I'm defining 'normal' as "if someone does X, what happens each time that an exception isn't called out." Normally, I drive to work in 15 minutes. When there's heavy traffic, it takes me up to 25 minutes.

I'm not saying it can't be viewed your way, I just think it shouldn't be, because mine makes slightly more sense, both from a power and language/math perspective.

I wholeheartedly disagree on both issues. Even with the old wording for all these abilities, 2Hers are simply the best melee damages, but nowhere near the top for power.
risner
05-03-08, 10:30 AM I wholeheartedly disagree on both issues. Even with the old wording for all these abilities, 2Hers are simply the best melee damages, but nowhere near the top for power.

You are welcome to disagree, since the rules on this can be view different ways.
EjoThims
05-03-08, 10:38 AM You are welcome to disagree, since the rules on this can be view different ways.

For once, that is correct, as the crux of the distinction rests on the use of a word the use of which in the English language varies based on perspective and which is also undefined in the rules.

I'm simply clarifying.

Notice, unlike in other situations where there is only one correct RaW 'interpretation,' I never said this was the only way to apply it, simply that I these are the supports for 4:1 and why I belief it is the more proper ratio.
Tordak
05-03-08, 12:03 PM If its not special, why is it listed in the "Special" section of the feat?

Additionally, the special section actually says it "twices" the damage. Twice = double = x2.

Sorry, I promised myself I would try not to argue this one, and I'm already failing.

Normal power attack damage (well, to my understanding) are the one described in the text (the full text) for the Power Attack feat. This includes the special section. You'll also notice that it is under the special section that the limitations on combining PA with light weapon are writing. The special section simply implement additional technicality (mechanic) to the PA feat. Anyone, anytime, using a light weapon, with one or two hands, and using power attack will not get additionnal damage. Anyone, anytime, using a weapon that qualifies for PA in 2 hands will receives the additional benefits. All of the above are 'normal' for PA. What is described under the PA feat description is normal for PA.

What is not normal PA damage is PA damage higher trade-offs gain from a special Class or Racial Feature, or another feat. Examples of this include the Frenzied Berserker uber-PA and the benefits from Combat Brute. If for some reason someone would have a class feature that allow it to power attack with light weapon, he would not gain benefits from leap attack because the normal PA damage bonus for a light weapon is +0.

If it was to be understood the other way, where PA normal damage bonus is the 1:1 ratio described under the benefit section only and leap attack with a 2-handed weapon add 3:1, someone could benefit from leap attack using a light weapon and using PA.

That being said, I totally understand that the part of power attack that should be considered normal is unclear from the text. My understanding is that everything in the text for PA is normal, as it applied in every situation it describes, but the fact that there is a 'special' section to described both the mechanic of 2-handed and light weapon makes it confusing. I don't think 4:1 is overpowered, I don't think 3:1 is underpower, and I find neither option to be abusing on the part of either players or DMs.
TheCobra
05-03-08, 01:03 PM Remember, the sentence about tripling extra damage with a two-handed weapon was not removed by the errata. How do y'all fit that sentence into your 4:1 interpretations?
GalaGalaxia
05-03-08, 02:25 PM Either way ... the feat is awkwardly worded at best. There should be some examples and an updated errata for it.
TheCobra
05-03-08, 02:31 PM Either way ... the feat is awkwardly worded at best. There should be some examples and an updated errata for it.

Agreed. This goes for about half of 3.5 material, by the way. Clear wording and examples would be wonderful.
GalaGalaxia
05-03-08, 09:32 PM The big problem, as I see it, is inconsistent use of keywords.

Double =/= ×2
Normal == Depends on circumstances
Paralysis =/= being paralyzed due to STR/DEX reaching zero

A whole slew of scenarios that should be simple to understand, if the use of certain keywords always meant the same. And, if it's not clear what is meant, a simple example should always be provided.

I love when feats have a "benefit" and "normal" comparison.
mplindustries
05-04-08, 04:58 AM If it was to be understood the other way, where PA normal damage bonus is the 1:1 ratio described under the benefit section only and leap attack with a 2-handed weapon add 3:1, someone could benefit from leap attack using a light weapon and using PA. No. If you leap attacked with a light weapon in two hands, you'd add +100% to the damage dealt.

Lets say you take a -5 penalty to hit. So, you'd take the normal base (note you don't even "twice it" because the Special section calls out that it only twices two-handed damage if the weapon is two-handed or one-handed).

Anyway, you take the normal base (5 damage), then add the bonus from Leap Attack (+100% = +5). Your power attack is "worth" 10 damage. Oh, but wait, "you can’t add the bonus from Power Attack to the damage dealt with a light weapon." Ok, well the power attack gives 10 bonus damage, but you can't actually add that damage because you're using a light weapon. Too bad.

The big problem, as I see it, is inconsistent use of keywords.

Double =/= ×2...

Actually, Double = x2, but only because both actually mean +100%.

Your point is still valid, though, because while they mean the same thing, neither utilizes the "standard" meaning of that word.
TheCobra
05-06-08, 03:23 AM I've heard the errata was supposed to remove the tripling line. If so, I think the 4:1 ratio is correct.
risner
05-06-08, 03:35 AM I've heard the errata was supposed to remove the tripling line. If so, I think the 4:1 ratio is correct.

You should look at the errata, it doesn't remove that line.
TheCobra
05-06-08, 03:39 AM I'm aware of how the errata currently stands. CustServ has supposedly said WotC screwed up. As this happens regularly, I'm inclined to believe them.
Johannixx
05-06-08, 09:31 PM My gut instinct (and how I read the initial wording of the feat) is that when using a one-handed weapon, you get a 2:1 return on Power Attack when using Leap Attack. With a two-handed weapon, you get a 3:1 return.

However, if you read the errata (and the CW errata for Supreme Power Attack, which uses the exact same wording with an additional explanatory clause dealing with two-handed weapons), it's clear that they meant two-handed weapons' "normal" power attack damage is 2:1, so adding 100% would bring it to 4:1. However, since the errata left the third sentence alone ("If you use this tactic with a two-handed weapon, you instead triple the extra damage from Power Attack."), you could make a logical argument that Leap Attack grants a 6:1 ratio with two handed weapons.

I still think 2:1 for one-handed and 3:1 for two-handed is more balanced and appropriate, but I can't deny that the rules as written grant a minimum of 4:1 for a two-handed weapon, and arguably a 6:1 ratio.
risner
05-08-08, 02:38 PM I can't deny that the rules as written grant a minimum of 4:1 for a two-handed weapon, and arguably a 6:1 ratio.

All I can say is that I've read the Errata, and I can deny the interpretation you have made.

Granted, I can see how you get to 4:1, but I don't think 6:1 has a leg to stand upon.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
JarionSilverblades 04-30-08, 01:40 PM	Quick question about the Leap Attack feat from The Complete Adventurer. The Errata says "you deal +100% the normal bonus damage from your use of the Power Attack feat." Does that mean that if you are using a Two-handed weapon and take a -2 on your attack that you get a +8 instead of the +4 to damage?
RobbyPants 04-30-08, 04:23 PM	I've heard it argued both that it gives you a 3:1 ratio (+6 for -2) and a 4:1 ratio (+8 for -2). Based on how the errata is worded, the 4:1 makes the most sense to me, in that the "normal bonus damage" for a two hander is 2:1. The only argument I've heard for the 3:1 ratio is that +100% is the same as doubling, but doubling is treated differently in D&D (double a double is a tripple). Still, I get the feeling that you get 4:1.
GalaGalaxia 04-30-08, 06:11 PM	Power Attack = bonus damage Leap Attack = +100% the normal bonus damage from Power Attack You get 4:1 ratio. Custserv agrees as well.
EjoThims 05-01-08, 07:57 AM	Power Attack = bonus damage Leap Attack = +100% the normal bonus damage from Power Attack You get 4:1 ratio. Custserv agrees as well. Correct.
risner 05-01-08, 11:54 AM	Quick question about the Leap Attack feat from The Complete Adventurer. The Errata says "you deal +100% the normal bonus damage from your use of the Power Attack feat." Does that mean that if you are using a Two-handed weapon and take a -2 on your attack that you get a +8 instead of the +4 to damage? Normal (+100%) can be read to be either +1 or +2 additional per penalty. It is up to your DM to determine if normal damage is straight damage or if normal damage is 2x for a Two Handed. Both could be considered RAW and both have had custserv agree. The 4:1 crowd uses the meaning of normal to be 1:1 if one handed and 2:1 if two handed. The 3:1 crowd uses the meaning of normal to be 1:1 always.
ravenshrike 05-01-08, 12:04 PM	blinks The +100% only applies to using a one-handed weapon. The errata makes no note of erasing the third sentence(the one referring to THWs) and therefore it takes precedence.
mplindustries 05-02-08, 01:48 AM	I absolutely believe that it is a 3:1 ratio. If you actually care, I will describe my position. Otherwise, Risner has the short answer dead on. I can see the argument for 4:1. Sort of. I've seen it made very logically, and I can respect that. Unfortunately, its based on an example given in the Frenzied Berserker errata, so I just don't buy it. As for Ravenshrike, the errata did not actually change meaning at all, it only clarified the wording. It provides exactly the same ratio as the old version, because the same arguments can be made for either interpretation with either "version" of the rules. The only reason it was changed in errata was for uniformity in language with other, similar effects.
EjoThims 05-02-08, 04:08 AM	The only reason it was changed in errata was for uniformity in language with other, similar effects. I miss back before Supreme Cleave and then Leap Attack and the rest were errated.... 12+:1 ratios on PA made FBs and Chargers insane with so little effort. However, I will point out that thinking for 4:1 ratio is based on the PHB entry for Power Attack, and the example entry in the Frenzied Berserker is only used as support for it.
Tordak 05-02-08, 06:03 AM	I think 2:1 is the normal trade off for 2-handers. Everytime you use a weapon 2-handed (as long as it's not light cause you can't PA with those), you get 2:1 ratio; it's not on a special occasion, it's everytime, for everyone with PA. The 3:1 ratio provided by combat brute(momentum swing; CW) is the example of 'not normal PA damage'; this is where you calculate the leap attack benefits off the original PA, with its original trade-off ratio, not the ratio from momentum swing. Which means OP, you conclusion would be correct.
mplindustries 05-02-08, 11:29 AM	I think 2:1 is the normal trade off for 2-handers. Everytime you use a weapon 2-handed (as long as it's not light cause you can't PA with those), you get 2:1 ratio; it's not on a special occasion, it's everytime, for everyone with PA. If its not special, why is it listed in the "Special" section of the feat? Additionally, the special section actually says it "twices" the damage. Twice = double = x2. Sorry, I promised myself I would try not to argue this one, and I'm already failing.
EjoThims 05-02-08, 11:38 PM	If its not special, why is it listed in the "Special" section of the feat? It's not that it's not special. It's that it's still normal, despite that. Because it's not an abnormal case. Every time you use a two-handed weapon, no matter what, you gain +2 damage for each -1 on to hit. The 'special' section also lists its use as a fighter bonus feat and the fact that light weapons gain no penalty, but these are both normal occurrences for the feat even if they are special variations on the standard benefit. So again, normally, when using a 2H weapon, your PA return is 2:1. There is no case where this could not be the normal, unmodified result of using a 2H weapon with PA. Just like the normal, unmodified result of using PA with a light weapon is 0:X.
TheCobra 05-03-08, 12:39 AM	As the errata didn't remove the line about tripling extra damage with a two-handed weapon, I don't see how it could be a 4:1 ratio. It should be either 3:1 or 6:1.
risner 05-03-08, 01:00 AM	As the errata didn't remove the line about tripling extra damage with a two-handed weapon, I don't see how it could be a 4:1 ratio. It should be either 3:1 or 6:1. Which is the evidence for the 3:1 and the "normal is 2x for two handed man" is the evidence for 4:1. In other words, this is a "ask your DM" question that can't be settled by the text directly. P.S. just using your message as a quote to help the point, so it isn't that I didn't like what you said. In fact you said it succinctly.
mplindustries 05-03-08, 01:04 AM	There is no case where this could not be the normal, unmodified result of using a 2H weapon with PA. Just to be contrary, and not really to prove anything... Rapier Win for me! :P In other news, I really just flat out disagree. Its all sound and good, but I think its probably valid either way. Basically, you're defining "normal" as "if someone does X, what happens (almost) every time?" and I'm saying "normal" is what's listed under "Benefit," while "Special" is by definition, "not normal." It is in the special section, and it specifically mentions twicing. If you +100% from Leap Attack, then you have: Twice + 100% = +100% + 100% = +200% = x3 total PA damage. I'm not saying it can't be viewed your way, I just think it shouldn't be, because mine makes slightly more sense, both from a power and language/math perspective.
EjoThims 05-03-08, 07:31 AM	Just to be contrary, and not really to prove anything... Rapier Win for me! :P Rapiers aren't two-handed, nor are they light. But if you held a rapier in two hands, you still get 2:1 on PA. It only lists says you don't get 1.5 Str for doing so. And even if you didn't, that is a specific exception, and it must be stated because it defies the norm. you're defining "normal" as "if someone does X, what happens (almost) every time?" I'm defining 'normal' as "if someone does X, what happens each time that an exception isn't called out." Normally, I drive to work in 15 minutes. When there's heavy traffic, it takes me up to 25 minutes. I'm not saying it can't be viewed your way, I just think it shouldn't be, because mine makes slightly more sense, both from a power and language/math perspective. I wholeheartedly disagree on both issues. Even with the old wording for all these abilities, 2Hers are simply the best melee damages, but nowhere near the top for power.
risner 05-03-08, 10:30 AM	I wholeheartedly disagree on both issues. Even with the old wording for all these abilities, 2Hers are simply the best melee damages, but nowhere near the top for power. You are welcome to disagree, since the rules on this can be view different ways.
EjoThims 05-03-08, 10:38 AM	You are welcome to disagree, since the rules on this can be view different ways. For once, that is correct, as the crux of the distinction rests on the use of a word the use of which in the English language varies based on perspective and which is also undefined in the rules. I'm simply clarifying. Notice, unlike in other situations where there is only one correct RaW 'interpretation,' I never said this was the only way to apply it, simply that I these are the supports for 4:1 and why I belief it is the more proper ratio.
Tordak 05-03-08, 12:03 PM	If its not special, why is it listed in the "Special" section of the feat? Additionally, the special section actually says it "twices" the damage. Twice = double = x2. Sorry, I promised myself I would try not to argue this one, and I'm already failing. Normal power attack damage (well, to my understanding) are the one described in the text (the full text) for the Power Attack feat. This includes the special section. You'll also notice that it is under the special section that the limitations on combining PA with light weapon are writing. The special section simply implement additional technicality (mechanic) to the PA feat. Anyone, anytime, using a light weapon, with one or two hands, and using power attack will not get additionnal damage. Anyone, anytime, using a weapon that qualifies for PA in 2 hands will receives the additional benefits. All of the above are 'normal' for PA. What is described under the PA feat description is normal for PA. What is not normal PA damage is PA damage higher trade-offs gain from a special Class or Racial Feature, or another feat. Examples of this include the Frenzied Berserker uber-PA and the benefits from Combat Brute. If for some reason someone would have a class feature that allow it to power attack with light weapon, he would not gain benefits from leap attack because the normal PA damage bonus for a light weapon is +0. If it was to be understood the other way, where PA normal damage bonus is the 1:1 ratio described under the benefit section only and leap attack with a 2-handed weapon add 3:1, someone could benefit from leap attack using a light weapon and using PA. That being said, I totally understand that the part of power attack that should be considered normal is unclear from the text. My understanding is that everything in the text for PA is normal, as it applied in every situation it describes, but the fact that there is a 'special' section to described both the mechanic of 2-handed and light weapon makes it confusing. I don't think 4:1 is overpowered, I don't think 3:1 is underpower, and I find neither option to be abusing on the part of either players or DMs.
TheCobra 05-03-08, 01:03 PM	Remember, the sentence about tripling extra damage with a two-handed weapon was not removed by the errata. How do y'all fit that sentence into your 4:1 interpretations?
GalaGalaxia 05-03-08, 02:25 PM	Either way ... the feat is awkwardly worded at best. There should be some examples and an updated errata for it.
TheCobra 05-03-08, 02:31 PM	Either way ... the feat is awkwardly worded at best. There should be some examples and an updated errata for it. Agreed. This goes for about half of 3.5 material, by the way. Clear wording and examples would be wonderful.
GalaGalaxia 05-03-08, 09:32 PM	The big problem, as I see it, is inconsistent use of keywords. Double =/= ×2 Normal == Depends on circumstances Paralysis =/= being paralyzed due to STR/DEX reaching zero A whole slew of scenarios that should be simple to understand, if the use of certain keywords always meant the same. And, if it's not clear what is meant, a simple example should always be provided. I love when feats have a "benefit" and "normal" comparison.
mplindustries 05-04-08, 04:58 AM	If it was to be understood the other way, where PA normal damage bonus is the 1:1 ratio described under the benefit section only and leap attack with a 2-handed weapon add 3:1, someone could benefit from leap attack using a light weapon and using PA. No. If you leap attacked with a light weapon in two hands, you'd add +100% to the damage dealt. Lets say you take a -5 penalty to hit. So, you'd take the normal base (note you don't even "twice it" because the Special section calls out that it only twices two-handed damage if the weapon is two-handed or one-handed). Anyway, you take the normal base (5 damage), then add the bonus from Leap Attack (+100% = +5). Your power attack is "worth" 10 damage. Oh, but wait, "you can’t add the bonus from Power Attack to the damage dealt with a light weapon." Ok, well the power attack gives 10 bonus damage, but you can't actually add that damage because you're using a light weapon. Too bad. The big problem, as I see it, is inconsistent use of keywords. Double =/= ×2... Actually, Double = x2, but only because both actually mean +100%. Your point is still valid, though, because while they mean the same thing, neither utilizes the "standard" meaning of that word.
TheCobra 05-06-08, 03:23 AM	I've heard the errata was supposed to remove the tripling line. If so, I think the 4:1 ratio is correct.
risner 05-06-08, 03:35 AM	I've heard the errata was supposed to remove the tripling line. If so, I think the 4:1 ratio is correct. You should look at the errata, it doesn't remove that line.
TheCobra 05-06-08, 03:39 AM	I'm aware of how the errata currently stands. CustServ has supposedly said WotC screwed up. As this happens regularly, I'm inclined to believe them.
Johannixx 05-06-08, 09:31 PM	My gut instinct (and how I read the initial wording of the feat) is that when using a one-handed weapon, you get a 2:1 return on Power Attack when using Leap Attack. With a two-handed weapon, you get a 3:1 return. However, if you read the errata (and the CW errata for Supreme Power Attack, which uses the exact same wording with an additional explanatory clause dealing with two-handed weapons), it's clear that they meant two-handed weapons' "normal" power attack damage is 2:1, so adding 100% would bring it to 4:1. However, since the errata left the third sentence alone ("If you use this tactic with a two-handed weapon, you instead triple the extra damage from Power Attack."), you could make a logical argument that Leap Attack grants a 6:1 ratio with two handed weapons. I still think 2:1 for one-handed and 3:1 for two-handed is more balanced and appropriate, but I can't deny that the rules as written grant a minimum of 4:1 for a two-handed weapon, and arguably a 6:1 ratio.
risner 05-08-08, 02:38 PM	I can't deny that the rules as written grant a minimum of 4:1 for a two-handed weapon, and arguably a 6:1 ratio. All I can say is that I've read the Errata, and I can deny the interpretation you have made. Granted, I can see how you get to 4:1, but I don't think 6:1 has a leg to stand upon.