D&D 3E/3.5 [3.5] Power Attack and Str bonus x 1.5 for monsters

[Davelozzi]

Okay, so the new Power Attack lets you get double the bonus if you're fighting with one weapon in two hands (if you take a -3 penalty on your attack roll, you get a +6 bonus on damage). Likewise, using a weapon in two hands also lets you add 1.5 times your Strength bonus to damage. The idea here, of course being that you're puttin all your power behind the attack.

Monsters (including animals) get to use 1.5 times their Strength bonus when using a natural attack, provide it only gets one type of natural attack. Again, the creature is putting all of its Strength behind this attack.

So does a critter with the Power Attack feat get to add the double bonus if it's using its sole natural attack?

My logic says yes, although the rules aren't specific on the issue. What do you folks think?

 

[ThirdWizard]

I say yes, otherwise a monster would be treated two different ways with the same attack.

 

[Darklone]

My logic says yes, although the rules aren't specific on the issue. What do you folks think?

The rules are specific. Why should the feat be different for an animal or a PC?

The only problem may arise in case the natural weapon is considered a light weapon.

 

[Davelozzi]

Re: This doesn't look specific to me

The rule, from feat description in the SRD:
Special: If you attack with a two-handed weapon, or with a one-handed weapon wielded in two hands, instead add twice the number subtracted from your attack rolls.

It's talking about two-handed weapons and one-handed weapons wielded in two hands. There is no mention of natural attacks or any other situation.

continuing with the feat description:
You can’t add the bonus from Power Attack to the damage dealt with a light weapon (except with unarmed strikes or natural weapon attacks), even though the penalty on attack rolls still applies.

Now here they mention natural weapons, but now they're no longer talking about the double bonus, they're talking about whether or not a Power Attack bonus applies at all, not whether or not it's doubled.

Specific would be something like this:

not an actual quote:
Special: Anytime you would normally get 1.5 x your strength bonus on an attck, such as when wielding a weapon in two hands, or when attacking with a creature's sole natrual weapon, instead add twice the number subtracted from your attack rolls.

At any rate, I'm not trying to split hairs here, it's just to me the rules here imply something which they do not state. Thanks for the opinions.

 

[hong]

Monsters (including animals) get to use 1.5 times their Strength bonus when using a natural attack, provide it only gets one type of natural attack. Again, the creature is putting all of its Strength behind this attack.

So does a critter with the Power Attack feat get to add the double bonus if it's using its sole natural attack?

Going strictly by the book, it would still get the regular form of Power Attack. What you suggest would be a pretty good house rule, though.

 

[Davelozzi]

Re: Re: [3.5] Power Attack and Str bonus x 1.5 for monsters

In case anyone else cares, I got an official answer from the Sage on this:

My original email
I have a quick question about the revised Power Attack in D&D 3.5. If a creature is attacking with its sole natural weapon, it would normally get to apply Str bonus x 1.5 to its damage roll just as a character wielding a weapon in two hands would. The same character, wielding a weapon in two hands and using Power Attack, gets to add add twice the number subtracted from his attack rolls. Should a creature with Power Attack that is attacking with its sole natural weapon also get the double Power Attack bonus?

The Sage's answer
Yes, creatures use the same Power Attack rules as everyone else does.

 

[smetzger]

Well either Skip is off his rocker, the MM needs some major errata, or you need to have actual hands to get the x2 modifier.

Given Skips poor record for email responses I'll stick with "Skip is off his rocker" at least until its published in the FAQ or Sage Advice (in which he has a much better track record)