Understanding leap attack maths

[HurinTheCursed]

Flame of Anor asked a question about leap attack the other day in the Q/A thread.
It proved a bit too complex to get a clear answer. After several exchanges, it was proposed to start a new thread. I face the same question in my game so I'm interested in this thread as well.

Below I quoted as I could the different answers:


Q1636
The feat Leap Attack says that "If you [perform a Leap Attack] with a two-handed weapon, you instead triple the extra damage from Power Attack." Does that mean that the 3x multiplier replaces the two-handed weapon's regular 2x multiplier to bonus damage, or does that mean that the 3x multiplier stacks with the 2x multiplier for a total 4x multiplier?


A 1636
The Leap Attack feat has been errata'd to say that you deal an additional 100% of the extra damage from Power Attack. Leap Attacking with a two-handed weapon deals additional damage equal to three times the attack bonus reduction (x1 + 100% (two-handed) + 100% (Leap Attack)).


The leap attack errata only mentions the second sentence. I quoted the third sentence. The question stands.


A 1636: Three Times.
I'm going to interleave the wording of Power Attack with Leap attack to show you why:
Quote:
Power Attack, Leap Attack
Benefit
On your action, before making attack rolls for a round, you may choose to subtract a number from all melee attack rolls and add the same number to all melee damage rolls. This number may not exceed your base attack bonus. The penalty on attacks and bonus on damage apply until your next turn. 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.
Special
If you attack with a two-handed weapon, or with a one-handed weapon wielded in two hands, instead add twice the number subtracted from your attack rolls. If you use this tactic [Leap Attack] with a two-handed weapon, you instead triple the extra damage from Power Attack.

Flame of Anor is correct that the errata does not delete the third sentence, despite seeing it stricken elsewhere on the net.


1636 continued
I think there's still some ambiguity brought in by the differing antecedents to "instead" in "you instead triple"--instead of what, precisely?
In your interleaved text, the "you instead triple" phrase comes right after, and its effect presumably replaces, "add twice the number subtracted from your attack rolls", a phrase from the Power Attack text. But in the original Leap Attack text, the "you instead triple" phrase comes right after "deal +100% the normal bonus damage from your use of the Power Attack feat".
You see the difference? Your interleaving made it imply that the tripling was replacing part of the Power Attack feat, but in the original Leap Attack text the tripling seems more likely to be replacing part of the Leap Attack feat.



Leap Attack does not give a x3 modifier. It adds +100% of the normal power attack damage (as per errata). The normal extra damage for a two-handed weapon is 2 per -1 AB. This is not a multiplication but a replacement of the normal +1 damage per -1 exchange rate. So on a leap attack you get +4 damage per -1 AB with a two-handed weapon (or a one-handed weapon wielded with two hands).
It is unclear whether the extra damage from Leap Attack applies to all Pounce attacks or only the first one. The DM can decide that it only applies to the first. It should still be enough.


This is incorrect. The errata only replaces the second sentence of the benefit of the feat, not the third. The third sentence remains intact, and states "If you use this tactic with a two-handed weapon, you instead triple the extra damage from Power Attack."
This is not a multiplication but a replacement of the normal +2 damage per -1 exchange rate of two-handed power attack. So on a leap attack you get +3 damage per -1 AB with a two-handed weapon (or a one-handed weapon wielded with two hands).


If this still stands, the result is something else entirely. The sentence refers to the extra damage from power attack, not the damage from power attack if you were wielding a one-handed weapon (in one hand). Since you are wielding a two-handed weapon (or a one-handed weapon in two hands) the one-handed rate never applies and the alternate exchange rate is tripled. I.e. the result is +6 per -1 AB.


Not really, because the third sentence of leap attack replaces the special benefit of power attack (with two hands). New thread for further discussion?

Feel free the make the discussion reach a consensus to the right understanding, how much extra damage do you get to each BAB point traded using power attack with a two handed weapon ?

[Devronq]

My understanding is that it gives one additional multiplier that is x2 becomes x3.

[Renen]

Well, if it says "instead triple" that means INSTEAD of x2 you make it x3.

Unless i totally missed the point of the argument?

[MeiLeTeng]

Well, if it says "instead triple" that means INSTEAD of x2 you make it x3.

Unless i totally missed the point of the argument?

The disagreement, as far as I can reckon is that due to the wording of the feat there is a degree of ambiguity of whether the "instead triple" applies to the standard x2 from two handing, or if it applies to the total bonus from Power Attack.

Personally I and my group have always played it as the latter, but I can definitely see where the confusion comes from.

[Curmudgeon]

If you read the Complete Adventurer errata for Leap Attack you'll get a 1-sentence change. If you also read the Complete Warrior errata you'll get an explanation for the exact language inserted into Leap Attack (bolded below), which I've added as a footnote.

LEAP ATTACK (with errata):

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. ]

* In other words, when using the Power Attack feat, when wielding a two-handed weapon you gain a +4 bonus on damage rolls (instead of a +2 bonus) for each –1 penalty you apply to your attack rolls.


So we've got two sentences which each specify what you get wielding a two-handed weapon when using Power Attack with this feat. The change to the second sentence (with explanation) already specifies both the one-handed and two-handed damage, and then the unchanged third sentence creates a contradiction.

There aren't any rules which tell how to address this problem, so it's up to each individual DM. Personally, I simply add the errata in place of both the second and third sentences as the simplest fix and the one which stays consistent with the text in Complete Warrior.

[Deaxsa]

I function much better when i have an example to work with. to make things easier for me, let's use the example of using a battleaxe made for a medium creature (we're human), where A) we rolled a natural 18 and actually hit the guy, B) we have 18 STR, and C) we used -2 attack on the PA feat, and D) all this action is taking place within an anti-magic field. the only variables is which version of the errata we are going by, as well as well as whether we are two-handing or one-handing the thing.

my understanding is that things go like this:

1. one-handed NOT using leap attack (before and after errata, mostly for reference)
1d8+(4[from str]*1[from no TH])+(2[from PA])*1[from no Leap attack]=1d8+4+2

2. one-handed using Leap Attack (before and after errata, mostly for reference)
1d8+(4[from str]*1[from no TH])+(2[from PA])*2[instead of 1, from LA]= 1d8+4+4

3. two-handed, not using leap attack
1d8+(4[from str]*1.5[from TH])+(2[from PA]*2[from TH]+0[no leap attack involved here])*1[from no Leap attack])=1d8+4*1.5+2*2=1d8+6+4

4. two-handed, using leap attack, using a liberal(pro-user) interpretation of this (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20050107a&page=3).
1d8+(4[from str]*1.5[from TH])+(2[from PA]*(2[from TH]+0[leap attack used elsewhere])*3[from Leap attack])=1d8+4*1.5+2*(2+0)*3=1d8+6+12

5. two-handed, using leap attack, using a conservative(anti-user) interpretation of this (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20050107a&page=3), or using this (http://dndtools.eu/feats/complete-adventurer--54/leap-attack--1741/).(the second "this" being itself a liberal(using it more that it actually applies) interpretation of the errata)
1d8+(4[from str]*1.5[from TH])+(2[from PA]*(2[from TH]+1[from leap attack])*1[leap attack was used somewhere else, sorry, this stays at 1])= 1d8+4*1.5+2*(2+1)*1=1d8+6+6


so; am am i on target? that 4 and 5 are what we arguing about? (or to be more precise, first, did the errata actually change the TH LA clause, and second, if it did not, which one is RAW?)

edit: sorry for the constant edits i'm trying to make my math clearer. now with color coding! the first three are mainly for reference, and the first two are not going to be colored

[mattie_p]

If you read the Complete Adventurer errata for Leap Attack you'll get a 1-sentence change. If you also read the Complete Warrior errata you'll get an explanation for the exact language inserted into Leap Attack (bolded below), which I've added as a footnote.

LEAP ATTACK (with errata):

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. ]

* In other words, when using the Power Attack feat, when wielding a two-handed weapon you gain a +4 bonus on damage rolls (instead of a +2 bonus) for each –1 penalty you apply to your attack rolls.


So we've got two sentences which each specify what you get wielding a two-handed weapon when using Power Attack with this feat. The change to the second sentence (with explanation) already specifies both the one-handed and two-handed damage, and then the unchanged third sentence creates a contradiction.

There aren't any rules which tell how to address this problem, so it's up to each individual DM. Personally, I simply add the errata in place of both the second and third sentences as the simplest fix and the one which stays consistent with the text in Complete Warrior.

While I understand where you are coming from, Curmudgeon, I disagree with your reading here. The normal benefit of Power Attack is to gain a +1 bonus on damage rolls for each –1 penalty you apply to your attack rolls. The special benefit of Power Attack when wielding a two-handed weapon is to gain a +2 bonus for each -1 penalty to attack rolls. As this is in the special section of the feat, it cannot be considered normal, in my opinion.

Thus the errata applies to all situations equally, that is to say, using Leap Attack gives the character an extra +1 (+100% of normal) on top of the normal (+1) or special (+2) benefits of power attack for each -1 penalty to the attack roll, making the final benefits of Leap Attack + Power Attack +2 (normal) or +3 (special: two-handed weapon).

EDIT: The errata to CW applies within that context, but not to the CA errata, much as the note on CW martial prestige classes applies only within that context. Again, in my opinion, I could be wrong.

[shaikujin]

To provide an even balance of view points, what about this:

Type | Damage per BAB


Power Attack with a 1 handed weapon normally gives :

| n = 1


Power Attack with a 2 handed weapon normally gives :

| n = 2


"If you use this tactic with a two-handed weapon, you instead triple the extra damage from Power Attack".
Ie, when using a 2 handed weapon, instead of the normal n = 2, you now use n = 3

| n = 3


"You deal +100% the normal bonus damage from your use of the Power Attack feat"

| n = 6

[cerin616]

Since the erata doesn't

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 can double the extra damage dealt by 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.

Power attack: trade 1 attack for 1 damage, double if Two Hander.
Leap attack: trade 1 attack for 1 damage, double if a one hander, triple if a Two Hander.

[Emperor Tippy]

If you Power Attack for two points, wield a one handed weapon and don't use Leap Attack then you do 2 additional points of damage.

If you Power Attack for two points, wield a one handed weapon and do use Leap Attack then you do 4 additional points of damage.

If you Power Attack for two points, wield a two handed weapon and don't use Leap Attack then you do 4 additional points of damage.

If you Power Attack for two points, wield a two handed weapon and do use Leap Attack then you do 8 additional points of damage.

(1[PA]*2[PA, two handed])*3[Leap Attack, two handed weapon] = 6 [total]
(1[PA]*1[PA, one handed])*2[Leap Attack, one handed weapon] = 2 [total]

I don't really see how it can be read differently.

The "normal bonus damage from your use of the Power Attack feat" if you wield a 2 handed weapon is 2*AC reduction.

Then Leap Attack applies and triples that. It doesn't just triple your AC Reduction.

[Talderas]

While I understand where you are coming from, Curmudgeon, I disagree with your reading here. The normal benefit of Power Attack is to gain a +1 bonus on damage rolls for each –1 penalty you apply to your attack rolls. The special benefit of Power Attack when wielding a two-handed weapon is to gain a +2 bonus for each -1 penalty to attack rolls. As this is in the special section of the feat, it cannot be considered normal, in my opinion.

Thus the errata applies to all situations equally, that is to say, using Leap Attack gives the character an extra +1 (+100% of normal) on top of the normal (+1) or special (+2) benefits of power attack for each -1 penalty to the attack roll, making the final benefits of Leap Attack + Power Attack +2 (normal) or +3 (special: two-handed weapon).

EDIT: The errata to CW applies within that context, but not to the CA errata, much as the note on CW martial prestige classes applies only within that context. Again, in my opinion, I could be wrong.

To quote the feats.

Power Attack
Benefit
On your action, before making attack rolls for a round, you may choose to subtract a number from all melee attack rolls and add the same number to all melee damage rolls. This number may not exceed your base attack bonus. The penalty on attacks and bonus on damage apply until your next turn.
Special
If you attack with a two-handed weapon, or with a one-handed weapon wielded in two hands, instead add twice the number subtracted from your attack rolls. You can’t add the bonus from Power Attack to the damage dealt with a light weapon (except with unarmed strikes or natural weapon attacks), even though the penalty on attack rolls still applies. (Normally, you treat a double weapon as a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. If you choose to use a double weapon like a two-handed weapon, attacking with only one end of it in a round, you treat it as a two-handed weapon.)

Leap Attack (With errata)
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.

The important part to consider is whether or not the special is its own conversion ratio or if it's a doubling of the normal bonus (1:1) however, that only matters IF you ignore the third sentence in leap attack. If you do not ignore it then that sentence overrides the whole +100% damage (thanks to the word instead so you get +100% or triple but not both) so you have 3 doublings which means 4:1.

If the conversion rate is what matters for determining what is increased. So with a 2:1 conversion it becomes 4:1. However if it's really 1:1 and using a 2H just doubles it then you have a 3:1 conversion.

[cerin616]

I don't believe it can be counted as its own conversion, or else 1 of 2 things would happen.

1. you can only take a -10 so that your bonus does not exceed your BAB.

(it can be argued that it only applys to the subtraction, but the rules we learn on grammar state that in the English language has some adjective, the adjective describes the first previous noun. IE "the boy touched the girl with the flower" means the boy touched a girl who had a flower, not the boy used a flower to touch the girl.)

2. The "cannot exceed this number" section is not in the special, and thus it is not applied when using a 2 handed weapon.

[Deaxsa]

you deal +100% the normal bonus damage... you instead triple the extra damage

so, we are arguing because no one knows what "extra damage" means? i mean, "bonus damage" CLEARLY indicates the "bonus damage" from the power attack feat, but... there is never a mention of "Extra damage" anywhere. additionally, since they use the word "instead", i would only assume they are trying to A) replace some number with another, and B) draw a parrallel between two numbers. so which number is "Extra damage" being compared to?

1. my vote goes for the "+100% normal bonus damage" mentioned directly before in the same passage, because it's directly before(not much of a reason, the writers are very very vague). now, at this point, if we try to do the maths, we run into a problem: what does "triple" mean? well, using the DnD rules for multiplication (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/DnD_PH_Glossary_GG.asp), we get that it means +200%... so someone using a two-handed weapon would get a 1:4 ratio, not a 1:6 ratio (which you would get if you ignored the DnD multiplication rules)

2. now, let's say the number being referred to is, in fact, the "special" portion of the power attack feat. (completely valid) in this case, the special portion goes from giving a 1:2 ratio to giving a 1:3 ratio. now we apply the leap attack feat, which ups the bonus damage by 100%... giving us a 1:4 ratio.

so, according to how i see it, it does not matter which understanding you go by, because you get the same answer either way... unless you ignore the DnD rules for multiplication
PEACH.

[undead hero]

Does it really matter?

If you are using this correctly, even at minimal damage (valarous weapon) you are killing +90% of the monsters...

:p

[mattie_p]

I don't really see how it can be read differently.

The "normal bonus damage from your use of the Power Attack feat" if you wield a 2 handed weapon is 2*AC reduction.

Then Leap Attack applies and triples that. It doesn't just triple your AC Reduction.

Several similar responses to me, I chose the Emperor as typical.

The key word here is "instead." The multiplier of leap attack for THW does not add to the multiplier of x2, it replaces the multiplier of x2 with x3.
(Note that this still has the effect of adding +100% of normal PA damage, normal meaning the 1:1 exchange within the benefit of the feat).

[Emperor Tippy]

Several similar responses to me, I chose the Emperor as typical.

The key word here is "instead." The multiplier of leap attack for THW does not add to the multiplier of x2, it replaces the multiplier of x2 with x3.
(Note that this still has the effect of adding +100% of normal PA damage, normal meaning the 1:1 exchange within the benefit of the feat).

How Leap Attack is worded it's "instead of Leap Attack doubling your PA number, Leap Attack triples your PA number". Now, "Instead of power attack doubling for wielding two handed it triples".

Leap Attack does not modify Power Attack. It is done after Power Attack has been calculated. It's 2(or 3)*(whatever damage PA would do without Leap Attack).

[shaikujin]

Regarding D&D math -

That's the issue, they changed the wording in the errata so that part of the equation isn't D&D math anymore. Replacing "Double" with "100%". Which, from a similar and more elaborate errata of CW, shows that it's treated differently.



From the CW errata that has a similar part regarding "100%":



Supreme Power Attack: A 10th-level frenzied berserker deals +100% the normal damage from her use of the Power Attack feat.

In other words, when using the Power Attack feat, a frenzied berserker wielding a two-handed weapon gains a +4 bonus on damage rolls (instead of a +2 bonus) for each –1 penalty she applies to her attack rolls.




Hence, one possible interpretation is that the errata of the 2nd sentence of "Leap Attack" :

"You deal +100% the normal bonus damage from your use of the Power Attack feat"


And just that 2nd sentence alone, changes the 1:2 ratio to a 1:4 ratio (100% increase).



Now, because the errata doesn't change the 3rd sentence:

"If you use this tactic with a two-handed weapon, you instead triple the extra damage from Power Attack".


That means it still takes effect. And it should do more than 1:4.
Since "triple" is D&D math, the 1:2 ratio is changed to 1:3, which is increased by 100% to a 1:6 ratio.



Hence, the contention.
Personally though, I feel that 1:6 is too much for a single feat.

[mattie_p]

But why should you get both the "+100%" and the "triple instead of double" from the feat? How does that make sense? The only way to get 1:6 is by applying the benefit of the feat twice, once per sentence. I really don't understand that reading of the feat.

[Emperor Tippy]

But why should you get both the "+100%" and the "triple instead of double" from the feat? How does that make sense? The only way to get 1:6 is by applying the benefit of the feat twice, once per sentence. I really don't understand that reading of the feat.

Power Attack:
If using a one handed weapon: Trade one point of AB for +1 Damage.
If using a two handed weapon: Trade one point of AB for +2 Damage.

Leap Attack:
If using a one handed weapon: Multiple your PA damage by 2.
If using a two handed weapon: Multiply your PA damage by 3.

PA just provides a number that LA then acts on, LA isn't rewriting the PA rules and then implementing them.

[cerin616]

Power Attack:
If using a one handed weapon: Trade one point of attack for +1 Damage.
If using a two handed weapon: Trade one point of attack for +2 Damage.

Leap Attack:
If using a one handed weapon: Multiple your PA damage by 2.
If using a two handed weapon: Multiply your PA damage by 3.

PA just provides a number that LA then acts on, LA isn't rewriting the PA rules and then implementing them.

And it still depends on how you interpret the wording as well.

[Emperor Tippy]

And it still depends on how you interpret the wording as well.

Yeah, I'm moderately sleepy and had a brain flub.

And I don't see it. Leap Attack and Power Attack are discrete entities and the extra damage from PA if you wield a two handed weapon is +2 per point of attack

[cerin616]

Yeah, I'm moderately sleepy and had a brain flub.

And I don't see it. Leap Attack and Power Attack are discrete entities and the extra damage from PA if you wield a two handed weapon is +2 per point of attack

Read above what I said about the restrictions. The wording of power attack states "this number may not exceed your base attack bonus". The last "number" they reference is "you add this number to your damage rolls". This should mean, according to the rules of english, that your attack bonus cannot exceed your base attack bonus when only using power attack. meaning either way you gain +20 only. Leap attack would then give you +40 with no attack for a one hander, and +60 with 10 attack with a two hander.

I know thats not the contemporary interpretation, but thats how english technically works.

[Emperor Tippy]

Read above what I said about the restrictions. The wording of power attack states "this number may not exceed your base attack bonus". The last "number" they reference is "you add this number to your damage rolls". This should mean, according to the rules of english, that your attack bonus cannot exceed your base attack bonus when only using power attack. meaning either way you gain +20 only. Leap attack would then give you +40 with no attack for a one hander, and +60 with 10 attack with a two hander.

I know thats not the contemporary interpretation, but thats how english technically works.
The number it is referring to is how much the user chooses to subtract from his AB, nothing more.

[cerin616]

The number it is referring to is how much the user chooses to subtract from his AB, nothing more.

See, you can say that all you want, but that's not how English works, mechanically. if it said "the subtracted number) you would be right. but it just says "the number" and mechanically, in english, when you refer to something that there are multiple of, the descriptor is appended to the last one mentioned.

IE: the boy touched the girl with the flower can never mean the boy used a flower to touch the girl, mechanically it must always mean that the girl was holding a flower when the boy touched her.

such is why it is up to interpretation since logic and not rules shows they mean the subtracted number

[HurinTheCursed]

From the CW errata that has a similar part regarding "100%":

Hence, one possible interpretation is that the errata of the 2nd sentence of "Leap Attack" :

"You deal +100% the normal bonus damage from your use of the Power Attack feat"

And just that 2nd sentence alone, changes the 1:2 ratio to a 1:4 ratio (100% increase).
With the CW erratum, this part is now clear IMHO.
That's where I'd stop because I get the feeling the feat is applied twice if we go further. But since I don't come from a country where English is first language, some arguments go a bit beyond the subtilities I can handle.



Now, because the errata doesn't change the 3rd sentence:

"If you use this tactic with a two-handed weapon, you instead triple the extra damage from Power Attack".
That means it still takes effect. And it should do more than 1:4.
Since "triple" is D&D math, the 1:2 ratio is changed to 1:3, which is increased by 100% to a 1:6 ratio.

Hence, the contention.
Personally though, I feel that 1:6 is too much for a single feat.
As a player, with the prerequisites to make it work, I find 1:3 is underwhelming on 1 attack, just nice for all attacks. 1:4 is rather weak if it's applied only to 1 attack but if applied to all attacks, it's OK but comes close to being too much for me. 1:6 (even if it's not stronger on just 1 attack) seems a too big modifier to me especially just coming from a 1:2.
But here it's not RAW, just gentlemen agreement with the DM.

[TuggyNE]

But why should you get both the "+100%" and the "triple instead of double" from the feat? How does that make sense? The only way to get 1:6 is by applying the benefit of the feat twice, once per sentence. I really don't understand that reading of the feat.

I think it's just that they messed up the errata; strictly speaking, it does kind of seem to double-apply for an absurd amount of damage, but I've never bothered exploiting that.


IE: the boy touched the girl with the flower can never mean the boy used a flower to touch the girl, mechanically it must always mean that the girl was holding a flower when the boy touched her.

That's not even slightly true; that example sentence is ambiguous. Sorry. (How about "Jim shot the man with a gun"? Since you can shoot people with crossbows or bows or blowguns or tasers, at the very least, it's not a foregone conclusion that "with a gun" can only apply to "the man".)