Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
A Whirlwind Question
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Treebore" data-source="post: 2289946" data-attributes="member: 10177"><p>We all know that WOTC are not the grammar masters of the universe, so if they were writing it to correctly mean both bonus and extra attacks they would have used "and" instead of "or". "Or" implies contrasts, not similarities. So grammatically it means "any bonus or any extra attacks", not any kind of bonus/extra attack. So if they meant it to mean only bonus/extra attacks they need it to say so. As written it does not.</p><p></p><p>In all likelyhood they do mean for it to mean only the extra attacks. But allowing all bonuses to hit and damage from other feats does greatly increase the likelyhood and amount of extra damage a PC/NPC is going to dole out. Especially if you have a reach of ten and you have 24 targets massed up around you for you to hit with your highest attack bonus. Just weapon specialization would had 48 HP to the total damage dealed out if every target were hit. If you can add 5 points of power attack you are adding 120 points of damage being dealt out to the 24 targets. 168 if both PA and Specializaton add on.</p><p></p><p>So allowing feat bonuses does greatly increase the power/balance of this feat. So realizing this they may have actually meant "any bonus or extra attack" given by feats. Because they saw how much more powerful this feat becomes when bonuses to attack and damage for feats are allowed to be added in.</p><p></p><p>So I will stand by the correct grammatical interpretation of "or" and keep this feat from becoming over powered.</p><p></p><p>BTW, I read the updated FAQ's and errata, so there is no clarification, unless it is worded differently in the SRD, which I have not checked. I have asked another player to e-mail Andy Collins for what the game designers meant for this feat.</p><p></p><p>I do think allowing "any bonus" to be added, especially when reach is involved, boosts the power of this feat greatly, too greatly. But that is my perspective of game balance. Since I am the DM of Darthjaye, that is all that really matters. But I also want to know exactly what WOTC means. Just in case.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Treebore, post: 2289946, member: 10177"] We all know that WOTC are not the grammar masters of the universe, so if they were writing it to correctly mean both bonus and extra attacks they would have used "and" instead of "or". "Or" implies contrasts, not similarities. So grammatically it means "any bonus or any extra attacks", not any kind of bonus/extra attack. So if they meant it to mean only bonus/extra attacks they need it to say so. As written it does not. In all likelyhood they do mean for it to mean only the extra attacks. But allowing all bonuses to hit and damage from other feats does greatly increase the likelyhood and amount of extra damage a PC/NPC is going to dole out. Especially if you have a reach of ten and you have 24 targets massed up around you for you to hit with your highest attack bonus. Just weapon specialization would had 48 HP to the total damage dealed out if every target were hit. If you can add 5 points of power attack you are adding 120 points of damage being dealt out to the 24 targets. 168 if both PA and Specializaton add on. So allowing feat bonuses does greatly increase the power/balance of this feat. So realizing this they may have actually meant "any bonus or extra attack" given by feats. Because they saw how much more powerful this feat becomes when bonuses to attack and damage for feats are allowed to be added in. So I will stand by the correct grammatical interpretation of "or" and keep this feat from becoming over powered. BTW, I read the updated FAQ's and errata, so there is no clarification, unless it is worded differently in the SRD, which I have not checked. I have asked another player to e-mail Andy Collins for what the game designers meant for this feat. I do think allowing "any bonus" to be added, especially when reach is involved, boosts the power of this feat greatly, too greatly. But that is my perspective of game balance. Since I am the DM of Darthjaye, that is all that really matters. But I also want to know exactly what WOTC means. Just in case. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
A Whirlwind Question
Top