Power Lunge

[Stalker0]

Hmm, this one's tough. I think I'll bring out the usability argument on this one.

If the lunge does just double your normal str, is it still worth taking? Btw, for those who use it with a glaive to negate the AOO, rememeber the opponent can use his AOO to disarm that glaive.

Now if the lunge does add in an additional doubling of str along with your normal str mod and everything else, does it become too powerful?

 

[AGGEMAM]

I found this little thing in the FAQ

Sharp readers may notice that two-handed weapons by their
nature deal “multiplied” damage (Strength bonus x1.5), but this
is not a true damage multiplier in the sense that the term is used
in the D&D game. Thus, the extra damage from a two-handed
weapon is multiplied for a confirmed critical hit.

This seems to indicate that you get x2 str mod with a one-handed weapon, and x3 str mod with a two-handed weapon.

 

[Artoomis]

I found this little thing in the FAQ

This seems to indicate that you get x2 str mod with a one-handed weapon, and x3 str mod with a two-handed weapon.

Were the feat's history (errata) and language different, I'd agree.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Btw, for those who use it with a glaive to negate the AOO, rememeber the opponent can use his AOO to disarm that glaive.

... provoking an AoO in turn...

But I've never found any support for that in the rules.

"An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you."

Since he's not in a threatened square, he's not taking certain actions while in a threatened square, is he?

-Hyp.

 

[FrankTrollman]

Nope.

You can no more disarm the powerlunger's glaive than you can disarm an archer's arrows.

Firing the bow provokes an attack of opportunity. Powerlunging with a glaive provokes an attack of opportunity.

But if you are 10 ft. away from them and they only have a reach of 5 ft. there's jack all they can do about it in either case.

-Frank

 

[Deset Gled]

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.

While I can understand why you would have this interpretation, I also see an error in it. The feat never states that you "add" anything to your strength bonus. It states what you actually inflict on top of normal damage.

Note that normal damage is determined soley by the weapon used. From the SRD:

The type of weapon used determines the amount of damage you deal.

Later, it states

When you hit with a melee or thrown weapon, including a sling, add your Strength modifier to the damage result.

Once you start adding in bonuses from feats and strength, you are no longer talking about damage, you are talking about modified damage.

 

[Hypersmurf]

You can no more disarm the powerlunger's glaive than you can disarm an archer's arrows.

The Sage says otherwise, but then, the Sage says you can take an AoO to Sunder the glaive instead... which has, if anything, even less[/]i rules support.

-Hyp.

 

[Deset Gled]

The Sage says otherwise, but then, the Sage says you can take an AoO to Sunder the glaive instead... which has, if anything, even less[/]i rules support.

Just out of curiosity, has he said this specifically about 3.5, or is that ruling a holdover from 3.0?

 

[FrankTrollman]

I like to keep a salt lick within arm's reach at all times when I read Sage rulings.

The Monks and Torches things was funny, but not in the good way.

-Frank

 

[Elvinis75]

My 2 cents

What is the problem with accepting the word of the feat’s creator about how it was meant to work?
I don’t see how the feat matches the idea of the power attack tree of feats otherwise.
Didn’t they change PA so that it helps a 2H style more than two weapon?
Why would a PL then help out a 1H weapon more than a 2H?

e.g.
The strength bonus for that single weapon is increased by 100%.
The strength bonus for that two handed weapon is increased by 50%.
There is no logic that would lead me to believe that was the intent of the feat.

That being said I believe that it says that feat reads “in addition to” thus a big “+” symbol.
So at 18 STR +4 modifier:
Single Hand Long Sword (1d8+4) + 8
Two Hand Long Sword (1d8+6) + 8

If we are talking about a replacement effect. I would have to wonder what is the “normal strength modifier”. I would have to think that would have to be +4 and then other factors can later multiply that result. Including weilding style and criticals.

This is really hard to make a iron clad case because we don’t have the verbage that would be used if it where a replacement effect but keep this in mind.
The terms “regardless of” means:
Main Entry: regardless of
Function: preposition
: without taking into account
So regardless of 1H or 2H meant that the replacement effect does not apply any modifiers for 1H or 2H, they are applied after(as nothing says not to take them into account).
I hate word smithing but I think that regardless of is being used to mean something that it doesn’t.
Thus it is my belief that Frank has this right.
1d8+8 (one hand)
1d8+10(two hand) d8 + normal str + normal str + ½ normal strength 4+4+2=10