OK, seriously, what's this "Leaping Attack?"

[Frogwarrior]

So, I'm horribly confused. I've heard mention of getting lots of power in 3.5 doing some sort of "leaping attack" a la Belkar. How?? I don't recall anything remotely like this in the SRD, and I don't want to be missing out on the chance to score some srs dmg!

[olentu]

Assuming that they mean the leap attack feat it is in complete adventurer.

[Quietus]

So, I'm horribly confused. I've heard mention of getting lots of power in 3.5 doing some sort of "leaping attack" a la Belkar. How?? I don't recall anything remotely like this in the SRD, and I don't want to be missing out on the chance to score some srs dmg!

Leap Attack feat, from ... Complete Adventurer? Requires some base attack and like 5 or 8 ranks in Jump, gives you +100% power attack damage if you leap 10 feet forward on a charge. If you're using a one-handed weapon and do a leap attack, you get 2 damage for every 1 AB given up, or if you use a two-handed weapon, you get 3 damage for every 1 AB given up.

This is generally combined with Shock Trooper (Complete Warrior, requires ... Power Attack, Improved Bull Rush, and BAB +6?), letting you drop your AC instead of your attack bonus, so you keep full attack bonus, get 3x BAB to damage, but your AC goes into the negatives.

[KBF]

A rule of thumb is: If they are talking about something game breaking and you don't recognize it, it is probably not in the SRD.

Alternate rule of thumb is: It is probably not in the SRD.

[Kylarra]

Complete Adventurer feat, luckily for you, it's online (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20050107a&page=3).

[Kyeudo]

A rule of thumb is: If they are talking about something game breaking and you don't recognize it, it is probably not in the SRD.


Gate. Shapechange. Timestop. Forcecage+Cloudkill. I can go on, but I think you get the point.

[Hat-Trick]

Gate. Shapechange. Timestop. Forcecage+Cloudkill. I can go on, but I think you get the point.

But, most people know about those, even if they don't know they're broken.

[Tempest Fennac]

http://crystalkeep.com/d20/ and http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?PHPSESSID=00e335f1b6d3a915c0205de27cc583 43&topic=1109.0 are both great for non-SRD stuff (Crystal Keep only details the first 2 levels of the PrCs it mentions sadly). Both Shock Trooper and Leap attack re featured on CK's Feats page.

[Mr.Moron]

But, most people know about those, even if they don't know they're broken.

Point is, Leap Attack is far from broken.

[Hat-Trick]

Didn't say that, I was mentioning on the well know SRD things someone else listed that WERE.

[Mr.Moron]

Didn't say that, I was mentioning on the well know SRD things someone else listed that WERE.

I didn't say you said it was broken. Your post was just a convenient one to bounce of off to highlight the point that it wasn't broken. Since it was a response to a response, about things outside core. Sorry for the confusion.

[daggaz]

A rule of thumb is: If they are talking about something game breaking and you don't recognize it, it is probably not in the SRD.

Alternate rule of thumb is: It is probably not in the SRD.

Except that leap attack is far far far from broken, unless you combine it with Shocktrooper and a couple of other feats (and Frenzied Berserker, Im looking at YOU!) for ultimate one shot wonder cheese. At which point your DM just massively ups important hps and as well starts jumping your party members with similiar tactics.

High powered game, the combo is a must as some form of ubercharging is essential. Low powered game, leap attack is cool but isnt going to drastically change things. In fact on its own, there are plenty of more optimized feats a meleer can take instead.

[Talic]

Correction. As erratad, Leap Attack increases power attack damage by 100%, and applies last.

So a normal power attacker (1 for 1) changes to (2 for 1). Now if he power attacks for 4, he gets +8 damage.

A Power attacker with a 2 handed weapon normally gets (2 for 1). Now it's (4 for 1). This is because it isn't a technical doubling. Now if he power attacks for 4, he gets +16 damage.

A level 10 Frenzied Berserker (Complete Warrior) with a two handed weapon gets (4 for 1). Now it's (8 for 1). Now, if he power attacks for 4, he gets +32 damage.

It really breaks with Shock Trooper, where you can apply the penalty to AC instead of Attack bonus. What's this mean? That frenzied berserker, above? Can power attack for 16, take a -16 to AC, attack at his Full BAB, and deal an extra 128 damage per hit. (Full attacks are possible with Psionic Lion's Charge, Rhino's Rush, or the Lion totem Barbarian's ACF (Complete Champion).

None of these are particularly optimized. A fully decked out ubercharger can get around (20 for 1) on a charge, and full attack. So that -16? is +320 damage per hit. Lion totem that with an unarmed strike off hand?
+320, +320, +320, +320
+160, +160, +160

Even if only the first attacks hit, and half of the second attacks hit (each round), you're looking at an average of +720 damage from power attack alone, every round. And such numbers turn DR into swiss cheese.

Yeah, your AC will be low. What's alive to hit you?

[ericgrau]

Gate. Shapechange. Timestop. Forcecage+Cloudkill. I can go on, but I think you get the point.

Does someone have to do this every single time someone says something remotely related to non-core brokenage? Or something else they have an opinion on? Last I checked repetition without a supporting argument is not a valid way to reason. To advertise, maybe, but not reason.

I suppose it'd be better if people weren't so OCD about making sure it gets said each and every time. Then it'd look more like a casual opinion and less like they're trying hard to convince others mostly by shear volume of words.

[ghost_warlock]

Correction. As erratad, Leap Attack increases power attack damage by 100%, and applies last.

So a normal power attacker (1 for 1) changes to (2 for 1). Now if he power attacks for 4, he gets +8 damage.

A Power attacker with a 2 handed weapon normally gets (2 for 1). Now it's (4 for 1). This is because it isn't a technical doubling. Now if he power attacks for 4, he gets +16 damage.

A level 10 Frenzied Berserker (Complete Warrior) with a two handed weapon gets (4 for 1). Now it's (8 for 1). Now, if he power attacks for 4, he gets +32 damage.

It really breaks with Shock Trooper, where you can apply the penalty to AC instead of Attack bonus. What's this mean? That frenzied berserker, above? Can power attack for 16, take a -16 to AC, attack at his Full BAB, and deal an extra 128 damage per hit. (Full attacks are possible with Psionic Lion's Charge, Rhino's Rush, or the Lion totem Barbarian's ACF (Complete Champion).

None of these are particularly optimized. A fully decked out ubercharger can get around (20 for 1) on a charge, and full attack. So that -16? is +320 damage per hit. Lion totem that with an unarmed strike off hand?
+320, +320, +320, +320
+160, +160, +160

Even if only the first attacks hit, and half of the second attacks hit (each round), you're looking at an average of +720 damage from power attack alone, every round. And such numbers turn DR into swiss cheese.

Yeah, your AC will be low. What's alive to hit you?

Is it just me, or does this math seem screwy...?

Power attack damage is 32. Increasing it by 100% yields 64, not 320.

[Gaiyamato]

He was talking about if you optimised you can get a 20x damage. So 16 x 20 = 320.

But a normal character won't get that much.

I wonder if all that is usable with Mithral Tornado??

[Eldariel]

Correction. As erratad, Leap Attack increases power attack damage by 100%, and applies last.

So a normal power attacker (1 for 1) changes to (2 for 1). Now if he power attacks for 4, he gets +8 damage.

A Power attacker with a 2 handed weapon normally gets (2 for 1). Now it's (4 for 1). This is because it isn't a technical doubling. Now if he power attacks for 4, he gets +16 damage.

A level 10 Frenzied Berserker (Complete Warrior) with a two handed weapon gets (4 for 1). Now it's (8 for 1). Now, if he power attacks for 4, he gets +32 damage.

This is wrong. Both refer to the "the normal damage from her use of the Power Attack feat", or x1/x2, therefore making it 6-for-1 with both, FB and Leap Attack. That said, 4-for-24 is still plenty good.


Is it just me, or does this math seem screwy...?

Power attack damage is 32. Increasing it by 100% yields 64, not 320.

He PAd for more; the first example was PA for 4, the second was PA for 16.

[ghost_warlock]

He was talking about if you optimised you can get a 20x damage. So 16 x 20 = 320.

But a normal character won't get that much.

I wonder if all that is usable with Mithral Tornado??

Ah, okay. But where in the Leap Attack errata does it say it applies last?

[Talic]

Leap attack is only available on a charge attack. So if Mithral tornado counts as a charge attack? Then yes. Otherwise, no.

Even a (8 for 1) power attacker, when power attacking for 16? Will get +128 for the main hand, and +64 for the off hand. The initial example I used was a power attack for 4, as an example of how quickly it scales.


Ah, okay. But where in the Leap Attack errata does it say it applies last?

Effects generally apply in the order that is most beneficial to the character performing the action/creating the effect.

This means, as a rule of thumb, that if someone hits someone with a fireball, and they have Vulnerability (+50% damage) and Resistance to Fire 20, they'd apply the fire resist to the damage first, and multiply the remaining damage. The mitigation applies in the order most beneficial to the person mitigating.

In the same way, when someone is applying effects to an attack, they apply in the order that provides the best result for the attack (unless the ability states otherwise).

Example of abilities that state otherwise? Empower and Maximize. It specifically states that the effects don't apply in a cumulative fashion. Each is taken seperately.

[Gaiyamato]

You would need to be able to make a full attack after a charge.
If I recall there is a feat that allows that. Then yes Mithral tornado is usable.

Now is there any way of leaping into the middle of a group of something..
A tiny creature with underfoot combat maybe?

Would that work?

The sprite leaps into the middle of a group of minotaurs and activates Mithral Tornado attacking all of them at the same time, giving up AC for PA (shock trooper) and using Leap attack and other nastiness, hits all of the Minotaurs for hundreds of points of damage.. slaying them all instantly.

:)

[Talic]

"Make a full attack when you charge" means just that.

It does not mean "use a full round action ability that attacks".

Maneuvers and the like do not qualify unless they specifically say that they're used on a charge, or considered a charge.

[Eldariel]

You can technically combine Battle Jump [Unapproachable East] and Leap Attack though to do "charges" basically anywhere even with maneuvers/special standard action attacks.

[Gaiyamato]

MITHRAL TORNADO
Iron Heart (Strike)
Level: Warblade 4
Prerequisite: Two Iron Heart
maneuvers
Initiation Action: 1 standard action
Range: Melee attack
Target: All adjacent opponents
Your weapon becomes a blur of motion as
you swing it in a tight arc over your head.
Once you build up enough speed, you explode
into a sweeping attack that chops into the
enemies around you.
When you initiate this strike, you make
a melee attack against every opponent
adjacent to you. Resolve each attack
separately. You gain a +2 bonus on each
of these attacks, which are otherwise
made at your highest attack bonus.



You can technically combine Battle Jump [Unapproachable East] and Leap Attack though to do "charges" basically anywhere even with maneuvers/special standard action attacks.

Awesome. :D

[Talic]

Not a very strong maneuver to use this with, TBH. useful against numbers, but numbers aren't very strong, typically. I'd personally go with something that lets you work better against a single foe. Splash damage + Lion Barbarian will already mean you decimate groups with nothing more than Cleave / Great Cleave... Plus, that works with reach. Mithril Tornado only works on opponents that are 5 feet away.

[Eldariel]

Not a very strong maneuver to use this with, TBH. useful against numbers, but numbers aren't very strong, typically. I'd personally go with something that lets you work better against a single foe. Splash damage + Lion Barbarian will already mean you decimate groups with nothing more than Cleave / Great Cleave... Plus, that works with reach. Mithril Tornado only works on opponents that are 5 feet away.

The good news is that Battle Jump can be combined with any maneuver so you have variety and options as much as you have maneuvers. Nightmare Blade is preeetty nice against a single foe with PA-returns.

[Gaiyamato]

Yes, I realise it isn't the strongest thing you could do.

But I have a Barbarian (whirling Frenzy)/Warblade/Fighter/Frenzied berserker in a game already.
All I need to get are the Shock Trooper, Leap Attack and Battlejump feats for a purely awesome scene to occur..

[Riffington]

Text of Leap Attack:

Leap Attack

You can combine a powerful charge and a mighty leap into one devastating attack.

Prerequisites: Jump 8 ranks, Power Attack.

Benefit: You can combine a jump with a charge against an opponent. If you cover at least 10 feet of horizontal distance with your jump, and you end your jump in a square from which you threaten your target, you deal +100% the normal bonus damage from your use of the Power Attack feat. If you use this tactic with a two-handed weapon, you instead triple the extra damage from Power Attack.

2handers are normally x2 the extra damage. With Leap attack, they are x3 the extra damage instead of x2.

[Sinfire Titan]

A rule of thumb is: If they are talking about something game breaking and you don't recognize it, it is probably not in the SRD.

Alternate rule of thumb is: It is probably not in the SRD.

Wanna bet? 70% of broken abilities are Core-only, and nothing a melee character can do is in that list (unless you think melee is broken, which is a bad idea).


Does someone have to do this every single time someone says something remotely related to non-core brokenage? Or something else they have an opinion on? Last I checked repetition without a supporting argument is not a valid way to reason. To advertise, maybe, but not reason.

I suppose it'd be better if people weren't so OCD about making sure it gets said each and every time. Then it'd look more like a casual opinion and less like they're trying hard to convince others mostly by shear volume of words.

It has more to do with the thought that someone thinks Leap Attack is brokenly overpowered. The fact that he called "Non-Core is usually broken" a rule of thumb proves he doesn't realize how broken Core-only can be.

[Gnomo]

Leap Attack is not broken... Shock Trooper: Heedless Charge is.

[Sinfire Titan]

Leap Attack is not broken... Shock Trooper: Heedless Charge is.

No, just good. It sucks when you realize you can't charge through a Solid Fog/Grease spell. Hell, the number of ways to make Shock Trooper suck is astounding. A Knight 3/PsiWar 1 with a Spiked Chain, Expansion, and Practiced Manifester beats a Charger with Shock Trooper hands down.

[Keld Denar]

2handers are normally x2 the extra damage. With Leap attack, they are x3 the extra damage instead of x2.

Read about the 4th post here. Talic's post. It was errata'd. Errata is an official change to the wording of the rules, not an optional interpretation such as the FAQ.

Talic has it right on stacking order as well. With flaws and the 3.0 reading of regional feats (that you can take them with 2 ranks in Know: Local), a character could have Battle Jump, Headlong Rush (the orc one), a Valorous weapon, Frenzied Berzerker, Favored Power Attack, Leap Attack, and Shocktrooper. They would get 3:1 PA from FPA, and 4:1 PA from Frenzied Berzerker for 6:1 PA, which increases to 12:1 PA with Leap Attack. Then, because of the charge, they would have (x2 Valorous + x2 Headlong Rush + x2 Battle Jump) or x4 damage on a charge for an effective return on PA of 48:1. If you had some way to activate an item that grants Dolorous Blow with a scythe or similar x4 weapon, youd have x7 damage on a charge instead of x4, or an effective return on PA of 84:1 on your first attack. Thats not including the fact that you are getting a 10.5x return on your +str bonus or anything else that gets multipled....

Fortunately, you can't combine most of these with a mounted charge, or the numbers would be even sillier. Mounted Combat has its own subset of silly multiplers though.

[Eldariel]

Read about the 4th post here. Talic's post. It was errata'd. Errata is an official change to the wording of the rules, not an optional interpretation such as the FAQ.

Talic has it right on stacking order as well. With flaws and the 3.0 reading of regional feats (that you can take them with 2 ranks in Know: Local), a character could have Battle Jump, Headlong Rush (the orc one), a Valorous weapon, Frenzied Berzerker, Favored Power Attack, Leap Attack, and Shocktrooper. They would get 3:1 PA from FPA, and 4:1 PA from Frenzied Berzerker for 6:1 PA, which increases to 12:1 PA with Leap Attack. Then, because of the charge, they would have (x2 Valorous + x2 Headlong Rush + x2 Battle Jump) or x4 damage on a charge for an effective return on PA of 48:1.

You only get +100% your normal PA, which to me looks to be x2 or x3 at most, making the total PA here x7, or x9 at best (depending on how you read Favored Power Attack interacting with the definition of "normal damage").

Also, Riffington was referring to the probable clerical error with Leap Attack's errata that only changes the SECOND sentence to it granting +100% your normal PA returns, leaving the third sentence (about two-hander getting x3 PA returns) in there, which technically means that one-hander gets +100% your normal PA and two-hander gets x3 PA.

As this is inconsistent with the same errata as applied to Frenzied Berserker, it's most likely just an error (they forgot to remove the third row).

[JaxGaret]

Eldariel and Riffington are correct. 2H Leap Attack is x3, not x4. Go search the wizards forum archives for the definitive argument on the subject.

Also, Elusive Target anyone? :smallsmile:

[Frosty]

Read about the 4th post here. Talic's post. It was errata'd. Errata is an official change to the wording of the rules, not an optional interpretation such as the FAQ.

Talic has it right on stacking order as well. With flaws and the 3.0 reading of regional feats (that you can take them with 2 ranks in Know: Local), a character could have Battle Jump, Headlong Rush (the orc one), a Valorous weapon, Frenzied Berzerker, Favored Power Attack, Leap Attack, and Shocktrooper. They would get 3:1 PA from FPA, and 4:1 PA from Frenzied Berzerker for 6:1 PA, which increases to 12:1 PA with Leap Attack. Then, because of the charge, they would have (x2 Valorous + x2 Headlong Rush + x2 Battle Jump) or x4 damage on a charge for an effective return on PA of 48:1. If you had some way to activate an item that grants Dolorous Blow with a scythe or similar x4 weapon, youd have x7 damage on a charge instead of x4, or an effective return on PA of 84:1 on your first attack. Thats not including the fact that you are getting a 10.5x return on your +str bonus or anything else that gets multipled....

Fortunately, you can't combine most of these with a mounted charge, or the numbers would be even sillier. Mounted Combat has its own subset of silly multiplers though.

Actually, if you're a Centaur, you migth be able to combine ALL of those...

[Keld Denar]

Actually, if you're a Centaur, you migth be able to combine ALL of those...

Centaurs arn't consider "mounted" and wouldn't get bonuses for any feats derived from Mounted Combat (mainly Spirited Charge).

If they were, that would be SOOOO rediculous, since you could make a Ride check to negate the first attack against YOU every round...

[Riffington]

Read about the 4th post here. Talic's post. It was errata'd. Errata is an official change to the wording of the rules, not an optional interpretation such as the FAQ.

Errata and FAQ are equally optional.
However, the text that I quoted happened to be the errata-ed official wording.

[Keld Denar]

Errata and FAQ are equally optional.


Technically, Errata isn't optional. Its like a republishing of the book. Now, you can ignore it just as you can ignore patching a video game, but generally when playing with others, you use a mutually agreed on version, which is usually the most up-to-date. Errata is RAW. Most DMs don't play with 100% RAW, but that doesn't make it any less RAW.

FAQ is optional though.

[Riffington]

Technically, Errata isn't optional. Its like a republishing of the book. Now, you can ignore it just as you can ignore patching a video game, but generally when playing with others, you use a mutually agreed on version, which is usually the most up-to-date. Errata is RAW. Most DMs don't play with 100% RAW, but that doesn't make it any less RAW.

FAQ is optional though.

First of all, do you have any evidence that people are more likely to follow RAW than to follow the FAQ, when the two conflict?
Second, every rule is optional.

[Fostire]

First of all, do you have any evidence that people are more likely to follow RAW than to follow the FAQ, when the two conflict?
Second, every rule is optional.

Yes, every rule is optional, the difference here is that errata are rules while the FAQ are not.

Also at a discussion forum (like this) it is best for everyone to use the same set of rules (in this case, RAW is the agreed set), else everything just turns into pointless arguments as everyone is talking about different things.

[Keld Denar]

I would imagine that more people would follow RAW than FAQ if the 2 were in conflict (which they sometimes are, primarily due to the fact that the Sage is a yammering idiot). That wasn't what I said though. I said that Errata IS RAW. It is the rules. You literally can copy the changes errata makes into the respective book and call it V1.01 of that book. They are as part of the game as any other rule printed in that book.

And who cares if people do or don't play by RAW. Thats irrelevant. RAW is the only thing you can debate, and the internet exists primarily to debate (and find porn). That people don't play by the rules can be acknowledged, but bears no weight in the arguement beyond what each person wants it to.

[Riffington]

And who cares if people do or don't play by RAW. Thats irrelevant. RAW is the only thing you can debate

You can debate FAQ just as easily as you can RAW. FAQ and errata both contain rules.

On this board, more people like the rules in the errata than the rules in the FAQ. But they are equally rules, equally debatable, and equally optional. Whether more people outside this board prefer rules in the errata to rules in the FAQ... that's an empirical question that I have no information on. I was curious if anyone else did.

I find it ironic, given all this, that I was the one who was actually quoting the errata-ed RAW.

[Yuki Akuma]

The FAQ contains rulings, not rules. They are interpretations of the rules and not actual rules themselves.

[Doc Roc]

A rule of thumb is: If they are talking about something game breaking and you don't recognize it, it is probably not in the SRD.

Alternate rule of thumb is: It is probably not in the SRD.

Not actually true. A lot of my game breaks are SRD only. Like the lyre of building into infinite wealth and infinite power. Or timestop. No, nothing else, just timestop.

[Keld Denar]

You can debate FAQ just as easily as you can RAW. FAQ and errata both contain rules.

Ah, but the Errata is explicitly modifications to the published rules. FAQs are suggested interpretations of existing rules, or suggested rulings for cases that aren't covered by the rules. No where in the FAQ does it say that the Sage's words are, or should be, considered rules. The sage, or the DM of your home game, is like a judge. He can suggest interpretations of rules, which may or may not be enforced in some or all similar situations. He can't print rules into that book for all to use, though. Only the designers (congress) can. Thats what errata is. Its an acutal changing of the rules...as written.

I can't believe we are debating the debating of rules...:smallcool:



I find it ironic, given all this, that I was the one who was actually quoting the errata-ed RAW.
Oopse? My bad!

Where were we again?

[Frosty]

Centaurs arn't consider "mounted" and wouldn't get bonuses for any feats derived from Mounted Combat (mainly Spirited Charge).

If they were, that would be SOOOO rediculous, since you could make a Ride check to negate the first attack against YOU every round...

How I do is is that Centaurs don't need to take Mounted Combat in order to take Spirited Charge, and in fact Centaurs can't BENEFIT at all from Mounted Combat unless they actually ride another mount.

They get screwed enough by their Racial HD and LA anyways so letting them have Spirited Charge is not broken at all. Love Centaur Paladins who take Smiting Charge :smallbiggrin:

[Thrawn183]

Frankly, leap attack combined with shock trooper alone isn't broken at all. It's only when you combine it with absurly large multpliers and/or pounce that it gets broken.

Seriously, if you want to take a -10 penalty to your AC for an extra 40 damage on your attack, be my guest. I just hope you have the HP to withstand the full round attack that returns your pleasant greeting.

[HamHam]

Frankly, leap attack combined with shock trooper alone isn't broken at all. It's only when you combine it with absurly large multpliers and/or pounce that it gets broken.

Seriously, if you want to take a -10 penalty to your AC for an extra 40 damage on your attack, be my guest. I just hope you have the HP to withstand the full round attack that returns your pleasant greeting.

It's a good thing Frenzied Berserkers can't die.

[Frosty]

At higher levels, go with Miss Chance instead of AC. Displacement always scales.

[Talic]

First of all, do you have any evidence that people are more likely to follow RAW than to follow the FAQ, when the two conflict?
Second, every rule is optional.

Every rule is optional. True. On that ground, I'm going to say that Wizards are not overpowered, because they can't cast (as their casting ability is optional).

I'll further argue that Solid Fog can't stop a charger, because the text on slowing movement is optional.

I may round it out by saying that Barbarian is totally worse than fighter, because all of their abilities are optional, as well.

I hope you get the point. Just because a standard rule can be removed by a DM does not mean it's not a standard rule. Errata is official. FAQ is not. End of Discussion on that one.

When we come together to discuss various aspects of the game, there must be a universally agreed standard for the discussion. Unless a specific scenario is being discussed ("In the campaign I'm playing in, Mind Blank is opposed by caster checks. Considering this..."), then the default is the official rules.

In short? Rule 0 is not to be used to make your point. It can just as easily remove every point you're making. Using Rule 0 to argue rules is like having a house building competition on quicksand. When you start with a base that's not stable and reliable, bad things happen.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

At higher levels, go with Miss Chance instead of AC. Displacement always scales.

That's what makes Shock Trooper problematic, really, the fact that you can easily put up with a -20 AC because your enemy has a 50-50 chance to miss regardless.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

That's what makes Shock Trooper problematic, really, the fact that you can easily put up with a -20 AC because your enemy has a 50-50 chance to miss regardless.The right build(Barbarian with at least 10 Con) and you'll survive anything that AC would have protected you from anyways. Besides, with Cleave you probably don't leave anything left alive to fight you. The ability to pull PA out of anything besides AB is the problem, not AC specifically.

[Viv]

Applying Leap Attack's damage to Frenzied Berserker's extra damage is bogus IMO anyway.


you deal +100% the normal bonus damage from your use of the Power Attack feat.

The extra damage from the Frenzied Berserker's class features is not the "normal" bonus damage from the Power Attack feat.

[Talic]

Attack bonus has always been more valuable than AC. This is due to the scaling of each. Enemy AC scales much faster than the CR that they belong to. At level 1, an AC of 14-17 is the order of the day. At CR 20, the AC can get upwards of 60. But over that time, You've gotten no more than +19 additional BAB. So about +20 to about +45 means that AC scales faster than BAB when it's players trying to hit.

Conversely, a CR 1 creature may have a +1-2 BAB, and a total bonus of +5. Starting AC for characters can easily hit 18-20 (chain shirt, large shield, and 18 dex) or more. Typical Characters at level 20? Will achieve reasonable results around AC 35-40. The CR 20 critters? Many sport attack bonuses over +40-50.

So AC is a moot point, in general, as most monsters will hit you easily. BAB is not, however, as you need every point you can get to achieve the AC's some critters are sporting. Thus, in most cases, giving up AC for accuracy only makes other creatures able to power attack for more. Giving up accuracy for damage is a delicate system that can be optimized with statistical analysis, but usually the AC for damage trade results in "power attack for full". It removes the finesse from the ability, while making it much more powerful, usually by 30-40 damage, with no more optimization than Power Attack and shock trooper with a 2 handed weapon. No Leap, no multipliers, no nothing.

[Riffington]

Every rule is optional. True. On that ground, I'm going to say that Wizards are not overpowered, because they can't cast (as their casting ability is optional).

I'll further argue that Solid Fog can't stop a charger, because the text on slowing movement is optional.

I may round it out by saying that Barbarian is totally worse than fighter, because all of their abilities are optional, as well.

I hope you get the point. Just because a standard rule can be removed by a DM does not mean it's not a standard rule. Errata is official. FAQ is not.


End of Discussion on that one.

When we come together to discuss various aspects of the game, there must be a universally agreed standard for the discussion. Unless a specific scenario is being discussed ("In the campaign I'm playing in, Mind Blank is opposed by caster checks. Considering this..."), then the default is the official rules.

In short? Rule 0 is not to be used to make your point. It can just as easily remove every point you're making. Using Rule 0 to argue rules is like having a house building competition on quicksand. When you start with a base that's not stable and reliable, bad things happen.

Don't create strawman arguments that I never made. When people come together to play a game, they should agree (more or less) on a set of rules. Those rules ought to include Rule 0 if it's a roleplaying game, but that's also optional.

My argument is this: when one joins a D&D game, one's shared ruleset is extremely likely to incorporate the three written Core books. It is fairly likely to be influenced by the FAQ and the errata (both of which offer additional WotC-published* rules that they believe will help your game). A player who shows either of those two sources to his DM when a rules question arises would be helping his case.

The game could plausibly be influenced by Dragon Magazine, Sandstorm, a Mongoose book, or the Magic Items Compendium - but if you show one of those to a DM that wasn't initially planning to use it, you might get "oh that's cool" or "get that crap away from me". There may be a few people on this board who think "get that crap away from me" when they see the errata or FAQ, but it's certainly not going to be the majority of DMs.

*"official" is ambiguous, since it can mean WotC-published or DM-approved. I'm not sure how some of you are trying to use it.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

The right build(Barbarian with at least 10 Con) and you'll survive anything that AC would have protected you from anyways. Besides, with Cleave you probably don't leave anything left alive to fight you. The ability to pull PA out of anything besides AB is the problem, not AC specifically.

You'll survive hit point damage, yes, but it's all the rays and touch attack stuff that are really the problem, since the penalty to AC affects touch AC as well. Enervation or ray of enfeeblement can really wreck your day if a caster only misses you on a natural 1.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

You'll survive hit point damage, yes, but it's all the rays and touch attack stuff that are really the problem, since the penalty to AC affects touch AC as well. Enervation or ray of enfeeblement can really wreck your day if a caster only misses you on a natural 1.But that's the case after about level 5 anyways. Your Touch AC is going to be Dex+Dodge+Deflection+10. Not that good.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

Don't create strawman arguments that I never made. When people come together to play a game, they should agree (more or less) on a set of rules. Those rules ought to include Rule 0 if it's a roleplaying game, but that's also optional.

Riffington, in the short amount of time that I have interacted with you, I have noticed that you are not good at optimization. Be humble and listen to those who are better at it than you are. You'll get father that way.

[Sinfire Titan]

Riffington, in the short amount of time that I have interacted with you, I have noticed that you are not good at optimization. Be humble and listen to those who are more experienced with optimization.

The term "better" implies Elitism. Optimizers are only superior when their numbers are being put to use, otherwise we are no better than anyone else.

However, the more experience you have as an optimizer, the more likely your argument will be correct. Someone who does not optimize can still be right, but it may be for the wrong reason (at times).

A general rule of thumb when arguing with people: Judge their stubbornness off of their previous arguments. If they have consistently proved themselves incapable of accepting another poster's point in an argument and constantly refute evidence to their own errors, it is best to ignore their opinions when debating similar subjects.

[arkol]

I didn't read the WHOLE thing so sorry if someone already asked about this but...

how are you guys getting -20ac from PA+Shock Trooper? Aren't you limited by the normal cap of PA (ie 5)? That fact that the penalty now applyes to AC doesn't change that cap does it? If so, how?

[Muad'dib]

I didn't read the WHOLE thing so sorry if someone already asked about this but...

how are you guys getting -20ac from PA+Shock Trooper? Aren't you limited by the normal cap of PA (ie 5)? That fact that the penalty now applyes to AC doesn't change that cap does it? If so, how?

Power attack's only cap is your BAB.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#powerAttack

[Keld Denar]

Yea, Combat Expertese is (stupidly) capped by your BAB or 5, whichever is lower, and has a similar mechanic. Power Attack is NOT capped except by BAB (although it is in NWNs, which may be whats confusing you).

[arkol]

:smalleek:

*checks*

:smalleek::smalleek:

*double checks*

HOLY CRAP! I've been playing it wrong for.. I dunno for how long. I guess this is some 3.0 leftover thing or something. Maybe... probably... geez.. thanks for pointing that out. :smallredface:

[Eldariel]

Yeah, it's capped in basically every computer game ever, which confuses a ton of people. I played IWD before getting into 3.X and I'll have to admit, I was assuming the limitation was right there.

[warrl]

The term "better" implies Elitism. Optimizers are only superior when their numbers are being put to use, otherwise we are no better than anyone else.

However, the more experience you have as an optimizer, the more likely your argument will be correct. Someone who does not optimize can still be right, but it may be for the wrong reason (at times).

Also not everybody is a combat optimizer first and foremost.

4E character I'm building is heavily optimized - as a dancer.

[Riffington]

Riffington, in the short amount of time that I have interacted with you, I have noticed that you are not good at optimization. Be humble and listen to those who are better at it than you are. You'll get father that way.

I'm not an optimizer, have never claimed to be one, and haven't said anything in this thread about how to optimize.

[Juggernaut1981]

Nah my pet favourite "nutso build" was the...

Shock Trooper-Robilar's Gambit cheese. Combining it with this Leap Attack just seems like Cheese + Combat Gravy...

Barbarian charges with AC at the lowest level of the Abyss... and slaughters everyone else along his path... (funny if combined with spells/feats that allow you to ignore death until combat ends...)

[Pharaoh's Fist]

I'm not an optimizer, have never claimed to be one, and haven't said anything in this thread about how to optimize.

Even so, there was no need to be so rude to people.

[Doc Roc]

Even so, there was no need to be so rude to people.

If Pharaoh, who is a rude, crude, but lovable man, thinks you are rude, crude, and unlovable....
I strongly advocate being more genteel in your mannerisms.

That said, to properly evaluate Leap Attack, I suggest taking a look at the errata. Why? Because it doesn't do anything about the last line.


LEAP ATTACK, post errata

You can combine a powerful charge and a mighty leap
into one devastating attack.
Prerequisites: Jump 8 ranks, Power Attack.
Benefit:
If you cover at least 10 feet of horizontal distance with
your jump, and you end your jump in a square from
which you threaten your target, you deal +100% the
normal bonus damage from your use of the Power
Attack feat. If you use this tactic with a two-handed
weapon, you instead triple the extra damage from Power
Attack.
This attack must follow all the normal rules for using
the Jump skill and for making a charge, except that you
ignore rough terrain in any squares you jump over.


Needless to say, this is weird, problematic, and generally rationality-ruled to mean +150% or something similar. However, RAW, it means that this is amazing feat for two-handed chargers. And why would you use a one-handed weapon on a charger normally? (One or two good reasons do exist)

Additional notes:
D&D only uses the additive stacking of multipliers if they multiply the same thing. In other words, the formula here with say... a lance and spirit charge looks like this (basically):

(2*3)*3
9/1 exchange rate, subject to interpretation.

As a mount may leap during a charge, most people accept that leap attack can be triggered by a mounted charger. However, this was just an example of multipliers and the weirdness. This gets stranger with the errata of frenzied berserker.

Needless to say, sit down and talk to your GM about this, what you're doing, and why. I wrote a farking treatise on this stuff, basically. I'm sort of an expert on charger builds.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

If Pharaoh, who is a rude, crude, but lovable man, thinks you are rude, crude, and unlovable....
Know this: There is a hell, and when you arrive there, I shall visit such horrors upon you as are unspeakable in this moral realm.

[Doc Roc]

I hope you like text. (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/04/10/)

[Pharaoh's Fist]

I darn you! I darn you to heck!

[Colmarr]

Or timestop. No, nothing else, just timestop.

I think you mean timestop and {insert any number of things here}.

I fail to see how you can break the game by casting Timestop and then doing nothing else. :smallwink:


Yea, Combat Expertese is (stupidly) capped by your BAB or 5, whichever is lower,

Given the rest of the discussion of Power Attack in this thread, are you sure that the cap on Combat Expertise is stupid? It seems to me to be more stupid that Power Attack isn't capped.

[Doc Roc]

Truth. I misspoke. Humble apologies. :)

I feel that meleers need all the power they can get. Combartise should be uncapped.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Given the rest of the discussion of Power Attack in this thread, are you sure that the cap on Combat Expertise is stupid? It seems to me to be more stupid that Power Attack isn't capped.But how often do you hear of people taking Combat Expertise for anything other than Imp Trip?

[Doc Roc]

But how often do you hear of people taking Combat Expertise for anything other than Imp Trip?

Clearly that's the correct way the game should work, though, STK! Why should you have feats that are more desirable than others? It only promotes class divides! :: joking warmly ::

I second STK here. You can judge a feat by its prevalence in higher end builds, and Combat Expertise is used very rarely.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

When it is used, it is often gotten for free via, say a monk dip...

[Talic]

Don't create strawman arguments that I never made. When people come together to play a game, they should agree (more or less) on a set of rules. Those rules ought to include Rule 0 if it's a roleplaying game, but that's also optional. Actually, it was the argument that you made. You ignored an official rule because it didn't agree with your point of view, on the grounds that DM's can choose to ignore it, via Rule 0. Whether or not you want to debate whether or not people pay attention to errata is one thing. But make no mistake. When WotC publishes errata, they are saying, "The old ability? No longer exists. This is the ability. It has the full force of rules support, just as if it had been the version physically printed in the book." Ignoring Errata is like ignoring Feats and Class Features. It may make the game good for you, but it's homebrew.

And we're not discussing homebrew here. We're discussing how Leap Attack operates. And the universal standard that is followed for D&D is defined by the people that create it. I applaud that you find ways to make the game yours. But that's just it. The "I can ignore that if I want" is yours. Not ours. It's not universal. The only thing that is? Is RAW. If you would like to argue how it should work, or how you handle it in a campaign, good for you. But don't tell me how it does work, and invoke Rule 0 to change that.

Rule 0 means precisely nothing in a "what's legal by the rules" discussion, or a "how it works" discussion. Nothing. In a RAW discussion, it shouldn't even be brought up. The "break the rules" rule doesn't assist in determining what the rules are, or how they apply as written. The sooner you realize that, the better off you'll be.


My argument is this: when one joins a D&D game, one's shared ruleset is extremely likely to incorporate the three written Core books. It is fairly likely to be influenced by the FAQ and the errata (both of which offer additional WotC-published* rules that they believe will help your game). A player who shows either of those two sources to his DM when a rules question arises would be helping his case. And when one plays a D&D game, that's true. That doesn't change the fact that when many people from different places gather to discuss the game, the universal standard is RAW. Errata is RAW. Ignoring it is homebrew. Rule 0 is an open rule that can argue for or against anything. Invoking it in a game is one thing. Invoking it in a rules discussion is another. The first is fine; the second is poor reasoning.


The game could plausibly be influenced by Dragon Magazine, Sandstorm, a Mongoose book, or the Magic Items Compendium - but if you show one of those to a DM that wasn't initially planning to use it, you might get "oh that's cool" or "get that crap away from me". There may be a few people on this board who think "get that crap away from me" when they see the errata or FAQ, but it's certainly not going to be the majority of DMs.And all of that means absolutely nothing to a rules discussion on how leap attack works. Errata is official WotC updates to Existing Product.


*"official" is ambiguous, since it can mean WotC-published or DM-approved. I'm not sure how some of you are trying to use it.
"Official" in this text means "part of D&D's Rules As Written, as published and approved by the creators and owners of the game (WotC). Official Manufacturer Updates to an Existing Product"

There aren't many other ways to put it. Make it your game if you want. Everyone does. But RAW is the median standard that is used for discussion. Bring in Rule 0 to alter it, and say "that could be true, for my group".

And my counter is, "Well my world is no-magic. All wizards, clerics, and other casting classes don't have any casting ability, and I used Rule 0 to do this. So I really don't understand where all these people are coming from when they say wizards are OP."

Just because your application of Rule 0 alters the ability in such a way as to make it fine? Doesn't mean that's the way it works for everyone. Just you.

And we're not discussing "How Leap Attack works at Riffington's Game Table". We're discussing how it works via RAW.

[Riffington]

Actually, it was the argument that you made. You ignored an official rule because it didn't agree with your point of view, on the grounds that DM's can choose to ignore it, via Rule 0.
I don't recall making that argument. I presented the RAW rule, as modified by WOTC errata. I also said as an aside that FAQ and errata are both equally optional, but that was unrelated to the discussion of Leap Attack.

Also: Pharaoh: which of my posts did you consider rude?

[Demons_eye]

I also said as an aside that FAQ and errata are both equally optional, but that was unrelated to the discussion of Leap Attack.


If you are talking about a class/feat/spell and it has a errata it is not optional. The creators of the game said "Wait we need to fix that, put out an errata". Unless your using homebrew you follow the errata.

[Keld Denar]

"Wait we need to fix that, put out an errata".

If only they would have said that more often...sigh...

[Samb]

The version that a psywar uses is leaping attack, lion charge and deep impact, main drawback is that all attacks after the first will have a hard time hitting (unless you have psicrystal containment). If you are not playing a class with a lot of feat then the psionic route might work better.

You can also use up the walls to "charge" at point blank range but leap of the heavens (PH2) works as well and you don't need wall to run on.

[Person_Man]

Average Damage * Probability of Hitting = Expected Damage

Getting a high average damage can be accomplished many, many different ways in 3.5. Power Attack, Leap Attack, Spirited Charge, Headlong Rush, Battle Jump, Rhino's Rush, Valorous weapon enhancement, various buff spells, etc.

Getting a high To-Hit is only slightly more difficult. High Str or Dex, full BAB, Shock Trooper, Touch Attacks (Flame Blade, Wraith Strike, etc), Dex Denial (Improved Invisibility, Ring of Blinking, Skill Tricks, etc), Knowledge Devotion, Smite, various buff spells, etc.

When you put these two things together, it's quite easy to get very high Expected Damage. Of course, optimizing Expected Damage beyond your DM's expectations is counter productive, because he can easily add more enemies, or otherwise make them more powerful.