Power Lunge

[Brekki]

In most groups we use it like:
1-hd power lunge: d? + 3 x Str
2-hd power lunge: d? + 3.5 x Str

We have one DM that uses the argument that the "1.5" damage is the normal damage with two-handed, so that becomes:

2-hd power lunge : d? + 4.5 x Str

But that's to overpowerd for the other campaigns.

 

[Iku Rex]

The author is Richard Redman, and he has confirmed that in electronic communication.

Cite?

 

[Darklone]

Btw: Wouldn't be the first time an author wrote a broken thing and was "corrected" by errata or Sage advice.

 

[DM2]

In most groups we use it like:
1-hd power lunge: d? + 3 x Str
2-hd power lunge: d? + 3.5 x Str

We have one DM that uses the argument that the "1.5" damage is the normal damage with two-handed, so that becomes:

2-hd power lunge : d? + 4.5 x Str

But that's to overpowerd for the other campaigns.

Did you mean 2 x Str and 2.5 x Str, because 3 and 3.5 are too high as well.

Heck the argument here has basically been whether the multiplier for 2 handed weapons should be 2 or 2.5.

DM2

 

[Artoomis]

Well, for whatever it's worth, I'll tell you what I remember about this. I remember a lot of confusion about this, and that was supposedly cleared up with the errata.

The confusion was over how to handle the "1.5x" damage bonus. The solution was the errata.

p. 8, Power Lunge
Insert to the end of the 1st sentence in Benefit:
regardless of whether you’re using one- or two-handed weapons.

This makes the first sentence read:

A successful attack roll during a charge allows you to inflict double your normal Strength modifier in addition to the attack's damage regardless of whether you’re using one- or two-handed weapons.

Let's repeat that, with a little highlighting:

A successful attack roll during a charge allows you to inflict double your normal Strength modifier in addition to the attack's damage regardless of whether you’re using one- or two-handed weapons.

It looks like 2x str damage to me.

It's especially clear when you consider that the errata was written solely to clear up the issue of what to do when your normally got 1x or 1.5x str damage. In that context there seems to be little doubt that this 2x str damage replaces the 1.5x str damage from using a two-handed weapon (or one-handed weapon in two hands, of course).

I know the language could have been clearer, but the errata folks were obviousy trying to make the smallest change possible to clear up the two possible ways to interpret this feat.

I see no way of reconciling the additional language with an interpretation of 2.5xdamage from two-handed weapons. If you went that route, wouldn't the additional language be meaningless?

Unless I'm really missing something, this rule looks pretty darn clear.

 

[FrankTrollman]

No, he means, 3.0 and 3.5.

That is, in fact, what the feat actually says.

When you have an 18 strength and you stab someone with a short sword you do 1d6 + 4. If you have weapon specialization you "add +2" to the damage. Then you do 1d6 + 6 (not 1d6 + 2).

If you powerlunge, you add double your strength bonus - which is +8. Now it literally doesn't say that it negates any other bonuses. So that +8, as literally worded, is in addition to the +4 you already have. For a total of +12 when charging with the short sword (+14 when charging with the greataxe).

That's what the feat literally says.

Now the author said that wasn't what he meant - and wanted it to be +8 and +10 - not +12 and +14 like the revised text actually says.

I don't have anything against the people who play it at +12 and +14 - that is how it really reads. But I figure that if I'm willing to take the author's word that Knockdown is not supposed to allow a counter-trip (despite not saying that in any way), I'm willing to take the author's word on this, too.

After all, Knockdown and Powerlunge is a good combo - so powering up Knockdown to make it actually useful while powering down Powerlunge until it's no longer a really great feat means that the same character now has two good feat chains instead of one great feat chain and one useless feat chain.

-Frank

 

[jgsugden]

Regardless of how we feel, the following is true:

1.) The only official material is from the S&F text and the errata.

2.) Sage advice, statements by the author (outside the text), statements by Monthe Cook or our own opinion offer no more than advice on how to interpret the written rules. This advice is not 'binding'.

3.) Even when rules are 'binding', we are free to use house rules as we see fit.

To that end, most of the arguments here are pointless. The rule lacks enough clarity for a single interpretation to be universally accepted, so until they release further errata, you're all right.

For my experience, I've played under 3 different DMs who allowed this feat.

Under one DM, the damage was calculated as dX + strength + other modifers + 2X strength. The half-orc barbarian (42 strength when raged) got an extra 32 damage out of the feat. This proved to be far too strong in the eyes of everyone but the barbarian. Especially when the barbarian went epic and took dire charge and got the damage on every attack in a full attack action. His total damage for a round was horrific.

Under the other two, the damage was calculated as dX + 2X strength + other modifiers. This proved to be more reasonable, but still too strong. In both games, the ability was limited in some fashion. In one game, it could only be used once per day. In another, it caused a penalty to attack of -4.

 

[Artoomis]

I don't own S&F. I don't suppose this feat has an extra line something like:

Normal: You do 1x str damage with a one-handed weapon and 1.5x str damage with a tow-handed weapon.

That would clear up the issue of ADDING the 2x damage, wouldn't it? It ought to be pretty clear that adding in an extra 2x str damage on a charge is worth more than one feat with, IIRC, very light prerequisites.

 

[AGGEMAM]

I don't own S&F. I don't suppose this feat has an extra line something like:

Normal: You do 1x str damage with a one-handed weapon and 1.5x str damage with a tow-handed weapon.

Nope, I'm afraid not.

 

[Artoomis]

Nope, I'm afraid not.

Ah, well. No surprise. As I understand it, S&F was published rather quickly and with little review. It was also, as I understand it, the reason for starting up review council at WotC for d20 publications.