Shadow blade feat clarification

[Soranar]

I'm trying to determine two things

1rst, does the wording of the feat mean that DEX replaces STR for damage or DEX is added to damage (possibly on top of STR)?

2nd, if it does replace STR, should I use it with a spiked chain, do I get 1.5 times my DEX to damage?

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

1. The table's summary says you use Dex instead of Str, but it completely botches the name of the discipline. The feat itself simply says you get to add your Dex bonus to melee damage, nothing about Str no longer applying. When there's a disagreement between the text and the table, the text always wins. That the table's summary also got the discipline wrong is further evidence that it was poorly proofread and is probably incorrect on all accounts. Ignore what the table says, just go with the text of the feat. You still get Str to damage as appropriate, but also add your Dex to damage with certain weapons.

2. No. You get 1.5 Str with two handed weapons, not 1.5 [ability bonus]. A Thunderlance wielded two-handed won't get 1.5 Int to damage, and a Spiked Chain with Shadow Blade won't get 1.5 Dex to damage. You only get 1.5 [ability bonus] when it specifically says you do, and in most cases you only ever get that when the ability bonus being used is Str.

[Whammydill]

The quick-text on the feat table in the Tome Of Battle says that the Dex bonus replaces the Strength bonus for damage when using a Shadow friendly weapon. However the specific entry for the feat mentions nothing about replacing strength. It says:

"....you can add your Dexterity modifier as a bonus on melee damage...."

Since specific feat entry trumps general table entry. You get STR and DEX for damage with a Shadow Hand weapon. I'm sure there will be some disagreement on this however, it is what it is.

As for the hypothetical answer to your second question, I'd say no to the 1.5 times DEX. Using two hands allows you to impart more power thus 1.5 from Strength. I don't see that using two hands would do anything to allow better usage of what Dexterity represents, indeed it could be argued that it would make it worse. This is just my opinion on the matter though.

Edit: Swordsaged on a swordsage based question...oh the irony!

[Fyermind]

Though reality has absolutely no bearing on D&D, I'd like to point out from the perspective of someone who has fought with one and two-handed swords. The only reason a two handed sword isn't more accurate and faster and easier to maneuver is it's inertia (analogous to a non finessible weapon). Wielding a light, relatively short weapon in two hands, if there is enough room to easily use both hands, gives better control and allows for much more surprising strikes. This is because the weapon may be rotated about the point at which you hold it with much greater ease due to the improved torque exerted by two hands over 1.

Of course this has no bearing in D&D. As stated above, dex adds to damage on top of strength, and is not multiplied by 1.5.

[Bloodgruve]

You could argue to house rule 1.5 dex to the spiked chain. You could assume that the damage added by dexterity is akin to precision damage and using 2h to control the weapon may simply give you better control and damage...

Blood~

[Whammydill]

Though reality has absolutely no bearing on D&D, I'd like to point out from the perspective of someone who has fought with one and two-handed swords. The only reason a two handed sword isn't more accurate and faster and easier to maneuver is it's inertia (analogous to a non finessible weapon). Wielding a light, relatively short weapon in two hands, if there is enough room to easily use both hands, gives better control and allows for much more surprising strikes. This is because the weapon may be rotated about the point at which you hold it with much greater ease due to the improved torque exerted by two hands over 1.

Of course this has no bearing in D&D. As stated above, dex adds to damage on top of strength, and is not multiplied by 1.5.

I know I'm stepping on dead cat-girls and going off topic but... Given my own experience in training in Historical European Martial Arts, I do not agree with, or maybe I just misunderstand what you are trying to say.

I am racking my brain but I'm trying to think of any real light/short weapon that would benefit from using two hands. Smallsword? Duelling Sabre? Rapier, which isn't even short? Sure you might get better point control using two hands, but you are just giving your opponent more targets for a stop-cut or thrust. Not to mention more telegraphing your movements which would be bad in both single-time and double-time. Can you help me out and tell me what you are referring to?

Again maybe this is what you were trying to say, but as for the two-handed sword thing, my experience is that having two hands is exactly what makes it more accurate and faster. Not only can you change the geometry of your body/weapon faster with two hands, you can effectively cover more lines of defence than you could with one hand. Inertia shouldn't be an issue. Inertia should only be a problem if you have to change through a comitted attack, which if you had proper timing, distance, measure..etc. You wouldn't have to.

If this is what you are saying you can do with a short/light weapon then I disagree. All the short/light weapons I can think of are for thrusting and therefore don't have the size/mass, center of balance/percussion that would lend itself to taking advantage to two-hand usage.

Aside from spears/pole weapons. All I can think of is the Estoc or Tuck, but again, its not short or light.

***Catgirl bodycount: 42***