Power Lunge

[FrankTrollman]

Not as impressive as all that, I'm afraid.

I know that the ruling I've seen, and use (with 3E, since it's a 3E feat), is that with a weapon used in one hand, you add your Str bonus to your normal damage; with a weapon used in two hands, you add 1.5x Str bonus to your normal damage; and with Power Lunge, you add 2x Str bonus to your normal damage, regardless of whether the weapon is used in one or two hands.

And likewise, I know that the ruling I've seen and use is that a one handed weapon does 2.0x strength bonus, and a two handed weapon does 2.5x strength bonus.

And that Corwin and Souljourn have also seen and use this ruling.

More importantly, I actually remember seeing the other ruling - the one that I don't use.

It really has been ruled both ways, and I've seen the evidence, I've seen both explanations, and I've made my choice.

If you only saw one of the rulings, your opinion simply doesn't carry weight with me at all - you haven't even made an informed choice or invested your thought at all.

When there is a distinct disagreement, it's time to analyze what the actual context of both positions are. If the context of your position is that "you saw someone tell you that it should be XXX way one time" - that just doesn't mean anything to me.

Yes. Yours is a position that I really am going to dismiss. Yours and Reapersaurus both. If you don't know why you hold your opinions, I can't think of any reason why I should change mine to match yours.

-Frank

 

[Hypersmurf]

Double Post.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

If you only saw one of the rulings, your opinion simply doesn't carry weight with me at all - you haven't even made an informed choice or invested your thought at all.

I've seen the other interpretation, but I don't agree with it... and your cite of Rich Redman above is the first time I've seen it linked with anyone "official".

(Just reread that last sentence, and want to clarify - it's not intended to cast doubt on your veracity!)

If it weren't for the "regardless of whether" line, I'd be inclined to agree with your reading... but that clause's inclusion is what makes me perfectly comfortable accepting that the total Str modifier is x2, not x2.5.

I think my main problem with the x2.5 interpretation is that I can't "make it work". Either Str bonus is included in "your normal damage", or it is not.

If it is, then you add double your Str modifier (+8) to your normal damage (1d12+6) for a total of 1d12+14.

If it it not (which I see as the way the feat is designed), then you add double your Str modifier (+8) to your normal damage (1d12) for a total of 1d12+8.

What the feat does not say is "You double your Str bonus to damage", which would invoke the multiplier rule. You add double your Str bonus to your normal damage.

1d12+10 - +4 x 2.5 - is not a scenario I can actually read into that wording.

-Hyp.

 

[FrankTrollman]

What the feat does not say is "You double your Str bonus to damage", which would invoke the multiplier rule. You add double your Str bonus to your normal damage.

The context to remember here is that strength bonuses when using a two handed weapon are already an exception to the normal multiplication rules.

All damage multipliers are handled at the same time - except the Two Handed Strength Bonus Multiplier, which happens first and then can be further multiplied.

If it didn't have the "regardless" line, you would do double strength with a one handed weapon and triple strength with a two handed weapon.

They need the incredibly awkward wording to get around the standard order of operations (first the two handed weapon multiplier, then all other multipliers).

They didn't need it to be that awkward, but there's no way for it to be the way it's supposed to be (x2 and x2.5) without having some very screwy language.

---

Also, in D&D "adding double" and "doubling" mean the exact same thing, because doubling means "adding x, where x equals the unmodified amount."

-Frank

 

[Hypersmurf]

Also, in D&D "adding double" and "doubling" mean the exact same thing, because doubling means "adding x, where x equals the unmodified amount."

They don't mean the exact same thing.

A. Longsword. Base damage 1d8.
B. Longsword with special ability - double base damage. 2d8.
C. Longsword with special ability - add double base damage. 1d8 + 2d8 = 3d8.

Critical with A: 2d8.
Critical with B: 3d8. (1d8 doubled twice)
Critical with C: 4d8. (1d8 doubled, plus 2d8 expressed as bonus dice and therefore not multiplied on a critical)

"Double" is a multiplier. It is calculated by "adding x, where x equals the unmodified amount"... but it is a multiplier.

"Add double" is not a multiplier in the longsword example.

In the case of Power Lunge, "add double" is not a multiplier if you consider your usual Str bonus to be included in "normal damage". (Which leads to 1d12+14 with a greataxe.)

You don't, as far as I can tell, so again we go back to the wording.

With a longsword, you add 1x or 1.5x Str bonus to damage, dependent on whether you use it in one or two hands.
With a longsword and Power Lunge, you add 2x Str bonus to damage, regardless of whether you use it in one or two hands.

-Hyp.

 

[FrankTrollman]

With a longsword, you add 1x or 1.5x Str bonus to damage, dependent on whether you use it in one or two hands.
With a longsword and Power Lunge, you add 2x Str bonus to damage, regardless of whether you use it in one or two hands.

No.

You still add 1x or 1.5x Str bonus to damage dependent on whether you use it in one or two hands.

The feat adds a double to your normal 1x strength regardless of whether you use it in one or two hands.

The feat would have to say that it specifically negated your 1.5 strength modifier for using it two handed to actually do so. As is, the feat is not modified by using it two handed, but your damage still is.

-Frank

 

[Hypersmurf]

You still add 1x or 1.5x Str bonus to damage dependent on whether you use it in one or two hands.[/b]

Only if you consider "normal damage " to include that Str bonus... in which case we get x3 / x3.5.

The feat would have to say that it specifically negated your 1.5 strength modifier for using it two handed to actually do so.

Only if you consider "normal damage " to include that Str modifier... in which case we get x3 / x3.5.

-Hyp.

 

[Mistwell]

I think this debate is worthwhile. I have a character with this feat, and we have been using the interpretation that comes out with the lower damage (+8, not +10). However, I would love to be persuaded that it is the higher number, for obvious reasons.

That said, I think it is incredibly silly that two people, on opposite sides of this debate, have both said they KNOW how this feat works.

You don't KNOW how this feat works. There is a reasonable dispute about how it works, and we have equally semi-official rulings on both sides of the debate according to folks here. You can offer an opinion as to which you think is the better intepretation. You can offer evidence that one side of the debate has more support in the D&D gaming community than the other. You can analyze the debate based on other official answers about related subjects. But none of that will add up to KNOWING how this feat works. Because we do not know for sure, as long as people can articulate a reasonable intepretation on both sides of the debate and a final and definitive official answer remains elusive.

So can we please back off on the certainty used in the language here, and get back to the debate over which intpretation is the one more supported by the rules and logic?

 

[Archer]

You actually use that feat with the lowest damage interpretation? I thought there were two groups, the ones who play add your strength bonus an additional time and those who pretend the feat doesn't exist. The feat isn't really worth taking IMHO unless it does 3/3.5 damage anyway. It needs to be conditionally superior to weapon specialization or it's underpowered.

 

[FrankTrollman]

Actually, there are also the people who interpret it to replace your strength bonus for two handed weapons (making it suck for them), one handed weapons (making it sketchy for them), and off-hand weapons (making it awesome for them).

Then they cast Lion's Pounce and Shield Charge for oodles of damage.

But we really don't talk to those people, as if a feat actually requires a combo that obscure to be worthwhile damage wise it's probably not worth having in your game.

-Frank