Power Lunge

[Crothian]

Smartest answer I've read yet!!!

 

[FrankTrollman]

Thus, damage is a property of the weapon used to make an attack (specifically, the die roll). Strength is an effect that modifies damage.

A is correct.

No.

Strength Bonus: When you hit with a weapon, you also add your Strength modifier with melee and thrown weapons.

It's cunningly hidden under the heading "DAMAGE".

-Frank

 

[Deset Gled]

The SRDs support my statement.

Strength Bonus: When you hit with a melee or thrown weapon, including a sling, add your Strength modifier to the damage result. A Strength penalty, but not a bonus, applies on attacks made with a bow that is not a composite bow.

A strength modifier is something you add to damage. It is not the basis of the definition of damage.

I don't have the 3.0 PHB in front of me, so I do not have access to it's exact wording for analysis. As far as rules go, though, I would take the 3.5 SRDs over it.

 

[FrankTrollman]

Well, we are talking about a 3rd edition feat, so the 3.5 SRD is sort of meaningless.

I have the 3rd edition PHB right in front of me. The heading DAMAGE begins at the tail end of page 118, it has headings for minimum damage, strength bonus, multiplying damage, and ability score damage.

Minimum damage is also on page 118, everything else spills over onto page 119.

In 3rd edition, Strength is part of the damage of a melee attack. Power Lunge is a 3rd edition feat, and cannot be cogently evaluated with another rules set.

-Frank

 

[Deset Gled]

Well, we are talking about a 3rd edition feat, so the 3.5 SRD is sort of meaningless.
...
In 3rd edition, Strength is part of the damage of a melee attack. Power Lunge is a 3rd edition feat, and cannot be cogently evaluated with another rules set.

In response to your comment I took a look at Sword and Fist. Interestingly enough, I have not found any specific references to D+D 3.0 anywhere in it. It merely claims to refer to Dungeons and Dragon (without a specified edition) and the d20 system. To be honest, this suprises me a bit. More importantly, though, this means that it is supposed to be used in conjunction with d20 rules. The fact that the base d20 rules have changed does not mean it cannot be used with them. Also of importance is the fact that this thread has neither a 3.0 or 3.5 tag. Now, whether or not 3.5 rules should take precedence in terms of discussion at ENWorld is debatable, but both should be taken into acount in this case.

At the moment, I will not comment on the standing of this feat in 3.0. You may very well be correct. I will probably check later.

In 3.5, however, the feat gives the character damage of (base weapon damage) + (2*Str modifier) on a charge.

 

[Camarath]

In total, what it actually says is that you add strength bonus x2 to the normal damage (which includes strength bonus or strength bonus x1.5). In total, it comes out to three times or three and a half times damage as written - but the Author has come out and said that wasn't intended.

And no, I don't have archives of message board discussions from 2001.

-Frank

So just to summarize, what you are saying is that the feat actually says to add 2x your Str Mod to your normal damage including your normal Str Bonus but that the author of the feat has indicated that the feat is not meant to function as written but was meant to function in another manner. But you can not provide us with a quote or source supporting that claim (which would, like Sage rulings, still not be binding IMO) and this feat has not been changed in the errata or the FAQ to make the feat function in the way the author intended. In that case I don’t see how you can make definitive claims about how the feat should work when the official (published/errata) version of the feat is not compatible with your assertion of how the feat should work.

 

[FrankTrollman]

In that case I don’t see how you can make definitive claims about how the feat should work when the official (published/errata) version of the feat is not compatible with your assertion of how the feat should work.

What it literally says is an amount of damage much larger than the totals that I was arguing about with Hypersmurf.

It says that the damage should be 1d12+14 damage with that Greataxe.

The author and Skip Williams have both said that that is more than it is supposed to inflict. They disagree about whether it should be 1d12+8 or 1d12+10.

And that's where all of the crazy comes in. Sword and Fist, even with errata, doesn't actually say what it is supposed to. If you want it to work at all, you sort of have to hand wave and use Natural English and your impression of their intentions.

The classic example is the Knockdown feat. As written, there is no point in this feat at all, as it just allows you to take your regular attack from Improved Trip before the Trip attack (which is the wrong order because the normal attack is less likely to hit and gives no bonus to the trip). The author clarified that it was supposed to render you immune to being counter tripped (as you were just knocking them over instead of actively tripping them up). It doesn't say that. But that's how we play it, because that's how it is supposed to be played.

And that's how everything in Sword and Fist needs to be read - with telepathy, because the information sure isn't on paper.

And that's why there's argument. Our telepathic impressions are telling us that the amount of damage inflicted is supposed to be less than what is literally printed. How much less is open for discussion. Join in!

-Frank

 

[Elvinis75]

Hey Frank why does every one ignore the english language in these discussions?
"regardless of"
"without taking into account"
Power Lunge modifies the strength modifier for the charge attack "without taking into account" modifiers for hand modifiers. What in that feats says do not apply them later?
It does not say that the modifiers are not to be applied before.
The way I see it is that this feat creates a set increase of strength for the one blow. However they are only looking at the raw strength and tell us to ignore the other basic multiplier that is commonly used, number of hands used.

 

[kreynolds]

[TROLL]Am I the only one that thinks the Power Lunge feat would rock for the BoEF? [/TROLL]

 

[Brekki]

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

No I really did mean 3 x str and 3.5 x str ... for 2 x str or 2.5 x str the feat would not be used at all ... ever ... in our campaigns ... and thats usually a good way to find out what's the right interpretation for your campaign.