Power Attack + Leap Attack Question

[Mythril]

Hello all!
I am kinda new to the site and been doing my best to look around for proper info on the subject of Power Attack + Leap Attack. My fighter is about to hit level 7 to be able to use this combo with shock trooper. ( i am just now getting around to doing this ) I know this has been around for some time now and been discussed. What i am hoping here, is for someone to help me with sited rules. What i am hoping to find out is the rules in the 3.5 books AND the new rules ( if any ) when it comes to the errata. Having both would help me present proper rules and regs on this combo and options.

My question is when using a Two handed weapon with power attack is 1 for 2, So if i where to use 7 points at level 7 i would have 14 points? If this is correct do i then triple that with leap attack making it making it 42?
I am being told that it does not work this due to the fact that power attack is being doubled by a two handed weapon, then tripled by leap attack. At his point i cam getting a bit confused even when i read pages 134 and 304 of the PHB.
I thought you only did the double+triple = quad type thing ONLY if the items used did double damage. ( the example given in the PHB )

Simple answers are welcome with sited pages or web pages. If this question is asked some where else could a link be given to me so i may read up on the rules.
Thank you in advance!

Mythril

[PrismCat21]

Page 110: Leap Attack The second sentence of the Benefit paragraph should read as follows: 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 your normal Power Attack bonus is +1 damage for every point of Base Attack Bonus sacrificed, it becomes 2 damage.
If your normal Power Attack bonus is +2 damage for every point of Base Attack Bonus sacrificed, it becomes 4 damage.

Edit: For 1-handers only it looks like

[Andezzar]

Correction, the erratum only modifies what happens in case of using a one-handed weapon in one hand. The following sentence about what to do with two-handed weapons1 is neither removed nor modified. So power attack damage when using a two-handed weapon is still tripled.

The erratum however has no impact on the combination of power attack and leap attack, because using a two-handed weapon does not multiply the damage from power attack you would get with a one-handed weapon, it simply gives you a different AB to damage conversion. So you only have one multiplier.

It only becomes relevant once you add other multipliers, because you already have one (the tripling) when using a two-handed weapon and you do not when using a one-handed weapon in one hand.
_____
1: for brevity's sake I left out the option of using a one-handed weapon with two hands, consider that included.

[Doctor Awkward]

If your normal Power Attack bonus is +1 damage for every point of Base Attack Bonus sacrificed, it becomes 2 damage.
If your normal Power Attack bonus is +2 damage for every point of Base Attack Bonus sacrificed, it becomes 4 damage.

The errata only changes the second sentence of Leap Attack.
It doesn't erase or modify the third:


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

Whenever you use Leap Attack in conjunction with Power Attack and a two-handed weapon, you deal 3 points of damage for every 1 point of BAB you sacrifice.

[PrismCat21]

Okay, my bad. Anyone else want to give him the numbers then to make sure he's got it right?

[Andezzar]

Power Attack with two-handed weapon: +2 damage per -1 (up to BAB)
Power Attack with two-handed weapon and Leap Attack: +2*3 = 6 per -1 (up to BAB)

A critical hit does not use weird math either, because it does not multiply the power attack damage (alone) but the entire damage (except extra damage dice), so this again is the first multiplication of the "entire" damage.

Example: A critical hit from a +1 flaming greatsword on a leap attack attack with a -2 from power attack on a character with +4 STR bonus:

4d6 that's how you are supposed to multiply the normal damage dice
+ (
6 1.5 * STR bonus
+ 1 enhancement bonus from the weapon+
-(-2) AB penalty from Power Attack * 3 multiplier from Leap Attack
)*2 crit multiplier
+1d6 fire damage (not multiplied)
= 4d6 + 26 +1d6 fire

I forgot the 1.5 * STR bonus for wielding a two-handed weapon

[Zombimode]

Power Attack with two-handed weapon: +2 damage per -1 (up to BAB)
Power Attack with two-handed weapon and Leap Attack: +2*3 = 6 per -1 (up to BAB)

Leap Attack is not a very well-worded feat, but I think the Intention is clear enough that the damage Bonus from Power Attack with Leap Attack is trippled INSTEAD OF being doubled for being a two-handed weapon. Not an ADDITIONAL Multiplier of 3.

Tonymitsu has already posted the correct calculation.

[Darrin]

I thought you only did the double+triple = quad type thing ONLY if the items used did double damage. ( the example given in the PHB )


You use additive multipliers (or the wacky D&D multiplication rule) whenever you are applying two or more multipliers to an abstract value, such as damage. It doesn't matter if the multiplier is a "double" or a "triple", you add them up as per the PHB: (n2) x (n2) = n3, (n2) x (n3) = n4, etc.

If the value you are multiplying is a real-world value, such as distance, weight, etc., then you use standard multiplication rules.

Two-handed Power Attack normally doubles the value of your attack penalty as a damage modifier. Leap Attack *replaces* that x2 with a x3, so there's no additive multipliers involved (yet). As has been noted, the pointlessly confusing errata for Leap Attack didn't actually change how two-handed Leap Attack works.

If you have additional damage multipliers, such as charging with a lance, a Valorous weapon, Decisive Strike, Headlong Rush, etc., then things get a bit kooky, as different portions of your damage bonus are getting different multipliers. For example, let's assume we have 18 Str, PA, Leap Attack, a two-handed Valorous Greataxe +2, and are charging + leaping with a -6 PA penalty. Your damage could be calculated as:

1d12 + 4 (enhancement bonus x2) + 10 (Str bonus x 2.5) + 24 (-6 PA x 4) = 1d12 + 38

Unfortunately, there are still some ambiguous areas in the rules, such as how your Str modifier is multiplied. Some people don't consider "you add 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus" (PHB p. 134) to be multiplication, rather it's "setting a fixed value" (although how exactly you do that without multiplying is beyond my understanding of the principles of logical reasoning). Assuming you do consider x1.5 Str bonus to be multiplying the Str bonus, then it's not clear how fractional or decimal multipliers should be added. I'm assuming (n1.5) x (n2) = n2.5, but the rules don't really specify if that's how you handle the Str bonus.

The crux of the matter is this: the multiplication rules for damage are NEEDLESSLY COMPLICATED, and they don't NEED to be that way. The game will work just as well if you come up with a simpler house rule to handle all the various interactions of Power Attack, Leap Attack, and other multipliers. Talk it over with your group, decide what works best for you, and keep the flow of the game moving.

[Zombimode]

1d12 + 4 (enhancement bonus x2) + 10 (Str bonus x 2.5) + 24 (-6 PA x 4) = 1d12 + 38

Hm, thats not the figure I arrive at.


By my calc it would be:

(1d12+2(enh)+6(str*1.5)+18(PA*3))*2(Default 1 + valorous 1) = 2d12+52

[Andezzar]

Leap Attack is not a very well-worded feat, but I think the Intention is clear enough that the damage Bonus from Power Attack with Leap Attack is trippled INSTEAD OF being doubled for being a two-handed weapon. Not an ADDITIONAL Multiplier of 3.

Tonymitsu has already posted the correct calculation.I don't quite agree. First of all none of us have an insight into what the writers' intentions were so we are just guessing.

Secondly Tonymitsu's calculation is wrong by RAW. The last sentence says that you triple the damage from power attack when wielding a two-handed weapon. It does not say that you triple the damage you would have were you wielding a one-handed weapon. As such the damage to use in the tripling is +2 per -1, not +1 per -1. So the resulting damage is +2*3 per -1.

Thirdly what you and tonymitsu are proposing makes the relative increase from leap attack when using a two-handed weapon (+50%) smaller than the one for using a one-handed weapon (+100%). That sounds wrong.

I do however think that applying the errataed +100% of the normal bonus damage to both types of weapons (i.e. +2 damage on on-handed weapons and +4 on two-handed per -1 AB) is a simple houserule.

@Darrin: using 2.5 * STR makes no sense. The weird D&D multiplication only kicks in when you multiply the same abstract value more than once, which is not the case. The 1.5 multiplies the STR bonus and the crit multiplies damage. So there is only one multiplication per abstract value.

[Darrin]

Hm, thats not the figure I arrive at.


As I said. It's ambiguous and open to different interpretations. Your method is simpler and less likely to get bogged down into a lengthy discussion about associative, commutative, or distributive properties.


Thirdly what you and tonymitsu are proposing makes the relative increase from leap attack when using a two-handed weapon (+50%) smaller than the one for using a one-handed weapon (+100%). That sounds wrong.

That's a separate issue. Whatever bonehead wrote the errata for Leap Attack made something that was fairly clear to understand to begin with and made it +100% more confusing (or is it x3 more confusing?). The fact that they forgot to fix the third sentence is just sloppy editing. I can't tell what problem they were trying to fix with the errata, but it's simpler to understand if you just ignore it or rewrite it with a houserule to include two-handed weapons.


@Darrin: using 2.5 * STR makes no sense. The weird D&D multiplication only kicks in when you multiply the same abstract value more than once. Which is not the cast. The 1.5 mulitplies the STR bonus and the crit multiplies damage. So there is only one multiplication per abstract value.

Ok, that makes more sense than the way I explained it. However, I am uncomfortable with establishing a precedent that multiplying the Str bonus and multiplying the Str bonus as a damage modifier are two distinctly different values. You multiplied the Str bonus by x1.5. You multiply it later by x2. To me, that's multiplying the same value twice, and if you're using the wacky D&D multiplication rule, you'd get a x2.5 multiplier. You could make the same argument about Leap Attack, that it's not "damage" when it's multiplied x3 by Leap Attack.

Anyway, my suggestion would be not to get too far down into the weeds on this. Come up with something simple and fast that keeps the game moving.

[Aimeryan]

Relevant quotes:


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 with a two-handed weapon, you instead triple the extra damage from Power Attack.


The second sentence of the Benefit paragraph should read as follows: 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.


So, just to sum up the options for the OP for Leap Attack:

1. Take the bonus-to-penalty as a ratio of 1:1, multiply by 3. The effective result is three times the penalty.

This is when the interpretation is that the "triple the extra damage from Power Attack" means to take the extra damage of a 1H weapon and triple that, and that this is the result of a multiplication.

This gives you an already multiplied value, so further multiplications are already facing the combining rule. This is interpretation leads to by far the weakest result.

Doubling this, by lets say Valorous, would lead to four times the penalty. If you instead Tripled this it would lead to five times the penalty.


2. Take the bonus-to-penalty as a ratio of 3:1. The effective result is three times the penalty.

This is the same interpretation as the one above, however, being a modifier based on a ratio, not the result of a multiplication.

Since this is not a multiplied value further multiplication is not yet impacted and so is easier and stronger than option one.

Doubling this would lead to six times the penalty. Tripling would lead to nine times the penalty.


3. Take the bonus-to-penalty as a ratio of 1:1, multiply by 2, then add 100% of this. The effective result is four times the penalty.

This interpretation is that the errata applies to the 2H as well (basically also removing the third sentence), and that the bonus-to-penalty is of a multiplication.

Further maths become painful because you now have to multiply something that is already multiplied AND multiply something that is not already multiplied.

Doubling this would lead to seven times the penalty. Tripling would lead to ten times the penalty.


4. Take the bonus-to-penalty as a ratio of 2:1, add 100% of this. The effective result is four times the penalty.

This is the same interpretation as the one above, except the bonus-to-penalty being a modifier based on a ratio.

No multiplication involved, easier, stronger.

Doubling this would lead to eight times the penalty. Tripling this would lead to twelve times the penalty.


5. Take the bonus-to-penalty as a ratio of 1:1, multiply by 2, then multiply by 3. The effective result is four times the penalty.

This interpretation is that the "triple the extra damage from Power Attack" means to take the extra damage of a 2H weapon and triple that. It is also taking the extra damage of a 2H (the bonus-to-penalty) as itself being a multiplication.

Multiplication is involved, so further multiplication is impacted.

Doubling this would lead to five times the penalty. Tripling would lead to six times the penalty.


6. Take the bonus-to-penalty as a ratio of 2:1, multiply by 3. The effective result is six times the penalty.

This is the same interpretation as the one above, however, the bonus-to-penalty being a modifier based on a ratio, not the result of a multiplication

Multiplication is involved, so further multiplication is impacted.

Doubling this would lead to eight times the penalty. Tripling would lead to ten times the penalty.



So which option? RAW wise, 1, 2, 5, and 6 are all valid, although some require very obtuse interpretations and assumptions. Unfortunately, RAI is difficult to determine.

Balancing wise, I would say number 2 is the most reasonable - it is also the simplest to work with.

However, I would interpret number 6 as being the closest to RAW.


Edit: Added quote.

[Andezzar]

You forgot the relevant quote from Power Attack:
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.Emphasis mine. You can never have a ratio of +1 damage per -1 AB with a two-handed weapon. It is always +2 per -1 without other abilities.

So options 1, 2, 3 and 5 are not RAW. 4 is not RAW but a sensible house rule. So that leaves us with 6 only. While it is true that this option is susceptible to weird D&D multiplication, I am not sure there even is another ability that multiplies the extra damage from power attack.

[Aimeryan]

You forgot the relevant quote from Power Attack:Emphasis mine. You can never have a ratio of +1 damage per -1 AB with a two-handed weapon. It is always +2 per -1 without other abilities.

So options 1, 2, 3 and 5 are not RAW. 4 is not RAW but a sensible house rule. So that leaves us with 6 only. While it is true that this option is susceptible to weird D&D multiplication, I am not sure there even is another ability that multiplies the extra damage from power attack.

Bolded for correction.

I agree with you that there isn't a ratio of 1:1 that is then multiplied by 2 and that it should be thought of as just 2:1 by default. However, there are those that interpret the "twice" as meaning multiplication is involved, rather than a substituted value based on a ratio. I am simply giving all the options mentioned.

Option 6 is the one I default to as well. However, if I wanted to balance uberchargers I would probably gravitate to option 2.


Edit: I've edited the previous post to include the quote.

[Andezzar]

Bolded for correction.That was a case of sausage fingers. Corrected in my post as well.

[Remuko]

Based on everything said here and the quotes for how the feats work I can't see how anything but the one persons "Option 2" is correct. It says in power attack that instead of 1 for 1 2h use 2 for 1. then in leap attack when talking specifically about 2h it says instead it becomes 3 for 1. this is telling you that, since its talking about 2hs specifically that you replace the normal 2:1 of power attack for 3:1 when using leap attack. I can't fathom how people could see this differently without willful misinterpretation.

[emeraldstreak]

Based on everything said here and the quotes for how the feats work I can't see how anything but the one persons "Option 2" is correct. It says in power attack that instead of 1 for 1 2h use 2 for 1. then in leap attack when talking specifically about 2h it says instead it becomes 3 for 1. this is telling you that, since its talking about 2hs specifically that you replace the normal 2:1 of power attack for 3:1 when using leap attack. I can't fathom how people could see this differently without willful misinterpretation.

I have to second that.

[Andezzar]

Read again, It explicitly says to "triple the extra damage from power attack". The extra damage from power attack is always +2 per -1 with a two handed weapon. As per the rules for Power Attack it cannot be +1 per -1, when a two-handed weapon is used. So it must be +2*3 per -1. It does not say to triple the damage you would get were you using a one-handed weapon with one hand.

You may not like it, but there is absolutely no basis in the rules for +1*3 per -1 when using a two-handed weapon.

[Aimeryan]

Read again, It explicitly says to "triple the extra damage from power attack". The extra damage from power attack is always +2 per -1 with a two handed weapon. As per the rules for Power Attack it cannot be +1 per -1, when a two-handed weapon is used. So it must be +2*3 per -1. It does not say to triple the damage you would get were you using a one-handed weapon with one hand.

You may not like it, but there is absolutely no basis in the rules for +1*3 per -1 when using a two-handed weapon.

I agree with Andezzar; 2:1 * 3 is the closest to RAW.

The argument is that the "the extra damage from Power Attack" means to use the 1H's extra damage, and therefore you should triple the 1:1 ratio; I see no reason to make this additional assumption. The extra damage from Power Attack for a 2H is that of a 2H, which is the 2:1 ratio.

If the issue is with the "instead" in the third sentence, then it is more obviously referring to the previous sentence when you look at the original:


...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.


...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 "instead" here is that you replace the double in that previous sentence with triple. The previous sentence does not itself have an "instead"; you are not replacing the damage done by power attack, you are doubling it.


For it to be 3:1 it would really have to say something like "...you instead add double the number subtracted from your attack rolls by your use of the Power Attack feat. If you use this tactic with a two-handed weapon, you instead add triple the number subtracted from your attack rolls from Power Attack."

For balance it probably would have been better they did that, but they didn't.

[emeraldstreak]

This is the benefit of 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.


Everything else are special circumstances referring to this original benefit.

[Andezzar]

Yes, and the circumstance we are talking about is using a two-handed weapon. Power Attack does not state multiply the damage number you would get if you were using a one handed weapon in one hand by 2, it instructs us to use twice the number of the penalty as extra damage instead of using the same number. In both cases the rules are referencing the AB penalty, but the extra damage is calculated through different formulae. Only one is ever used.

The extra damage, not the numbers or the formula, is then referenced in the rules for Leap Attack, which in the case of a two-handed weapon is +2 per -1. So you arrive at +1*2 per -1 in case of a one-handed weapon wielded in one hand, and +2*3 per -1 in case of a two-handed weapon, or a one-handed weapon wielded in two hands.

[Aimeryan]

This is the benefit of Power Attack



Everything else are special circumstances referring to this original benefit.

I think I understand what you are trying to get at here, however, for the purpose of clarity could you expand upon this?

[Doctor Awkward]

...
The crux of the matter is this: the multiplication rules for damage are NEEDLESSLY COMPLICATED, and they don't NEED to be that way. The game will work just as well if you come up with a simpler house rule to handle all the various interactions of Power Attack, Leap Attack, and other multipliers. Talk it over with your group, decide what works best for you, and keep the flow of the game moving.

No they aren't.

The rules for damage multiplication are very consistently spelled out:


Sometimes you multiply damage by some
factor, such as on a critical hit. Roll the damage (with all modifiers)
multiple times and total the results. Note: When you multiply
damage more than once, each multiplier works off the original,
unmultiplied damage (see Multiplying, page 304).
Exception: Extra damage dice over and above a weapon’s normal
damage, such as that dealt by a sneak attack or the special ability of a
flaming sword, are never multiplied.SRD Link. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatStatistics.htm#multiplyingDamage)

That is the general rule used any time you apply a multiplier to a damage roll for any reason.
The proper method for determining damage on a critical hit, or in the case of the valorous enchantment weapon, or on any other time you are required to multiply a weapon damage roll: you roll the weapon damage (with all modifiers) once for each time the multiplier tells you to, and then add them together to get your result. The only things you do not roll more than once are any and all extra damage dice applied to your damage roll, beyond the dice listed for the weapon your character is wielding.

If a weapon or other special ability excepts itself from this rule, then that particular weapon or special ability will tell you.

The reason why pretty much every table doesn't do that is because nothing bogs the game down more than rolling the same dice multiple times for each action. So they instead simply multiply the one damage roll by the listed number.


Sometimes a special rule makes you multiply a number or a die roll.
As long as you’re applying a single multiplier, multiply the number
normally. When two or more multipliers apply to any abstract value
(such as a modifier or a die roll), however, combine them into a
single multiple, with each extra multiple adding 1 less than its value
to the first multiple. Thus, a double (×2) and a double (×2) applied to
the same number results in a triple (×3, because 2 + 1 = 3).SRD Link (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm#multiplying)

Thus if Leap Attack required you to triple the normal bonus damage from a two-handed power attack, the ratio would be 4 damage for every -1 to your attack roll. Because Power Attack instructs you to "instead add twice the number subtracted from your attack rolls" when using it with a two-handed weapon. Because tripling a double means you take one of those multipliers, subtract one from it, then add them together (3+[2-1]=4, or 2+[3-1]=4)



The reason why I said "if" that was the case is because, well...



Secondly Tonymitsu's calculation is wrong by RAW. The last sentence says that you triple the damage from power attack when wielding a two-handed weapon. It does not say that you triple the damage you would have were you wielding a one-handed weapon. As such the damage to use in the tripling is +2 per -1, not +1 per -1. So the resulting damage is +2*3 per -1.

Thirdly what you and tonymitsu are proposing makes the relative increase from leap attack when using a two-handed weapon (+50%) smaller than the one for using a one-handed weapon (+100%). That sounds wrong.

I do however think that applying the errataed +100% of the normal bonus damage to both types of weapons (i.e. +2 damage on on-handed weapons and +4 on two-handed per -1 AB) is a simple houserule.

@Darrin: using 2.5 * STR makes no sense. The weird D&D multiplication only kicks in when you multiply the same abstract value more than once, which is not the case. The 1.5 multiplies the STR bonus and the crit multiplies damage. So there is only one multiplication per abstract value.


I agree with Andezzar; 2:1 * 3 is the closest to RAW.

The argument is that the "the extra damage from Power Attack" means to use the 1H's extra damage, and therefore you should triple the 1:1 ratio; I see no reason to make this additional assumption. The extra damage from Power Attack for a 2H is that of a 2H, which is the 2:1 ratio.

If the issue is with the "instead" in the third sentence, then it is more obviously referring to the previous sentence when you look at the original:





The "instead" here is that you replace the double in that previous sentence with triple. The previous sentence does not itself have an "instead"; you are not replacing the damage done by power attack, you are doubling it.


For it to be 3:1 it would really have to say something like "...you instead add double the number subtracted from your attack rolls by your use of the Power Attack feat. If you use this tactic with a two-handed weapon, you instead add triple the number subtracted from your attack rolls from Power Attack."

For balance it probably would have been better they did that, but they didn't.


I see assertions like this pop up quite often on this forum, and for some reason I am always bewildered every single time.

When I say "assertions like this", I am referring to arguments regarding what counts as Rules As Written that are based on the foundation that a) designer intent and common sense doesn't matter, and b) RAW means parsing out sentences such that they are devoid of the context present that allows you to ignore obvious intent.

This is exactly the wrong approach to take to interpreting the rules. They were designed to be read with both common sense and a reasonable understanding of the English language in mind. Trying to play the game strictly and solely by the Rules As Written leaves you with an unplayable game. This isn't some opinion I have formed based on my personal collective experience with the system. The rules flat-out tell you this is how you should be reading them:


Let’s face it: No set of rules can cover every possible
circumstance in a game meant to mimic life in a fantasy
world. The rules clear up as much as possible, assuming the
DM can make a judgment in a situation that the rules don’t
cover or that they don’t cover adequately. DMs are expected
to use knowledge of existing rules, common sense, realworld
knowledge, and a sense of fun when dealing with
such special cases. Knowledge of the existing rules is key,
because the rules often do cover similar cases or combine
to make such judgment calls unnecessary.


So in order for the above assertions to be correct, that the proper thing to do with Leap Attack on a two-handed weapon is to apply a 6:1 ratio for bonus damage... you are required to read the "instead" in the sentence, "If you use this tactic with a two-handed weapon, you instead triple the extra damage from Power Attack." as referring to "instead of doubling the damage" as is contained within the Leap Attack feat, rather than what it clearly was intended to refer to, which is instead of using Power Attack's normal 2:1 ration for two-handed weapons, use 3:1.

As everyone seems to agree that is the most balanced and sensible interpretation, that tells me that you also agree the intent of the feat is clear. Arguing over actual sentence structure in a situation like this isn't using the Rules As Written. It's rules-lawyering. And it's counter to the entire point of optimizing a character.

[Remuko]

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

That means it only is talking about two handed weapons. And it says "you instead triple the extra damage from power attack". Which means instead of doing 2:1 its 3:1. Its clear as day thats what its saying. The errata to leap attack says nothing about 2h weapons and thus is irrelevant. Power Attack says 2:1 for 2 handed weapons or 1h weapon in 2 hands, and leap attack says that when you use it, with a 2h weapon "you instead triple.." which means instead of double which means 2:1 becomes 3:1.

[Aimeryan]

As everyone seems to agree that is the most balanced and sensible interpretation, that tells me that you also agree the intent of the feat is clear. Arguing over actual sentence structure in a situation like this isn't using the Rules As Written. It's rules-lawyering. And it's counter to the entire point of optimizing a character.

It is important to the people it is important to - you don't have to be one of them if you don't want to be, I'm not going to force you, honest.

As you noted, I already said the 3:1 result is simpler and more balanced, at least before you get into what happens when you stack it with other possible Bonus:Penalty mutators like Improved Power Attack and Combat Brute (unless you read Combat Brute as additional damage... lets not go there).

I have not approached this without considering the intent; I have listed multiple ways of reading it and left it up to the OP as to what the intent may be. When pressed I have stated what my interpretation would be, however, I have also stated what interpretation I would prefer when considering balance. Looking at it from many different angles is never a bad thing, merely something some people have no desire to do.



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

That means it only is talking about two handed weapons. And it says "you instead triple the extra damage from power attack". Which means instead of doing 2:1 its 3:1. Its clear as day thats what its saying. The errata to leap attack says nothing about 2h weapons and thus is irrelevant. Power Attack says 2:1 for 2 handed weapons or 1h weapon in 2 hands, and leap attack says that when you use it, with a 2h weapon "you instead triple.." which means instead of double which means 2:1 becomes 3:1.

Extra damage from Power Attack with a 2H is 2 damage for every 1 Attack Roll sacrificed. If you consider this to be its own figure then when you triple this you get 6 damage for every 1 Attack Roll sacrificed. If instead you consider it to be a multiplication of the 1H bonus then you apply combination rules and arrive at 4 damage for every 1 Attack Roll sacrificed.

Simple example: I take a -5 to my Attack Roll. I have a 2H, so I gain +10 extra damage. I use Leap Attack so I then triple this, so it is +30 extra damage, or +20 damage if applying combination rules.

Your assumption is that the triple is to the 1H extra damage (so 5 * 3 = 15), but that is not the extra damage of Power Attack when wielding a 2H weapon. It is an extra assumption to make that is not listed by RAW. I consider that some people prefer this interpretation, but I find it to be weaker by RAW. It may very well be RAI; I can simply not say.

I previously explained that the "instead" is referring to the previous sentence, which was more obvious before the errata.

[emeraldstreak]

Extra damage from Power Attack with a 2H is 2 damage for every 1 Attack Roll sacrificed.

Can you think of a reason why that is NOT written in the benefit of the feat Power Attack?

[Aimeryan]

Can you think of a reason why that is NOT written in the benefit of the feat Power Attack?

The layout of the feat is easier to read and parse if overriding parts are not in the main section. The use of a 2H is an override; instead of the usual 1:1 you get 2:1.

In any case, it need not be in the "Benefit" section - it works as is.

[Remuko]

Extra damage from Power Attack with a 2H is 2 damage for every 1 Attack Roll sacrificed. If you consider this to be its own figure then when you triple this you get 6 damage for every 1 Attack Roll sacrificed. If instead you consider it to be a multiplication of the 1H bonus then you apply combination rules and arrive at 4 damage for every 1 Attack Roll sacrificed.

Simple example: I take a -5 to my Attack Roll. I have a 2H, so I gain +10 extra damage. I use Leap Attack so I then triple this, so it is +30 extra damage, or +20 damage if applying combination rules.

Your assumption is that the triple is to the 1H extra damage (so 5 * 3 = 15), but that is not the extra damage of Power Attack when wielding a 2H weapon. It is an extra assumption to make that is not listed by RAW. I consider that some people prefer this interpretation, but I find it to be weaker by RAW. It may very well be RAI; I can simply not say.

I previously explained that the "instead" is referring to the previous sentence, which was more obvious before the errata.

Instead is not referring to the previous sentence its referring to the general rule. Its saying you triple rather than double, from 2:1 to 3:1. Its very clear from the context of the line.


The layout of the feat is easier to read and parse if overriding parts are not in the main section. The use of a 2H is an override; instead of the usual 1:1 you get 2:1.

In any case, it need not be in the "Benefit" section - it works as is.

Yeah instead of 1:1 you get 2:1 and Leap attack says "instead you triple" its talking about the 1:1. Instead of 2:1 you get 3:1.

But I've said my peace, so I'm done here.

[Aimeryan]

Instead is not referring to the previous sentence its referring to the general rule. Its saying you triple rather than double, from 2:1 to 3:1. Its very clear from the context of the line. But I've said my peace, so I'm done here.

I am happy to accept that as an interpretation, I just see it as an extra step to take and thus Occam's razor...

If, however, you mean to say it can not possibly be referring to the previous statement, I can only say you need to read up on how English is parsed. Perhaps an example would help?

"You may take 2 chocolates from my hand. If you have been a good boy you may instead take 3."

What does the good boy take 3 of? and where from? I can tell you that most English readers will be able to parse the "instead" as meaning instead of "2 chocolates from my hand" that was the case of the previous sentence.

[emeraldstreak]

I am happy to accept that as an interpretation, I just see it as an extra step to take and thus Occam's razor...

If, however, you mean to say it can not possibly be referring to the previous statement, I can only say you need to read up on how English is parsed. Perhaps an example would help?

"You may take 2 chocolates from my hand. If you have been a good boy you may instead take 3."

What does the good boy take 3 of? and where from? I can tell you that most English readers will be able to parse the "instead" as meaning instead of "2 chocolates from my hand" that was the case of the previous sentence.

The syntax of the original feat is all special cases refer to the main value, not to each other.

There's no reason to think a follow-up feat will change this.

[ExLibrisMortis]

The syntax of the original feat is all special cases refer to the main value, not to each other.

There's no reason to think a follow-up feat will change this.
I have no idea what you mean by this, but I'll note that syntax has very little to do with what is being discussed here. The sentences under review are grammatically correct. What you're looking for is semantics, and particularly pragmatics.


Anyway...

For what it's worth, I'd say that the 1:2*3 interpretation makes the most sense if you do a precise reading without prior D&D knowledge, the 1:2+2 makes sense if you know about D&D multipliers (though it can be argued that it's 1:2*3 even if you do, if you don't accept that 1:2 = 1:1*2, which is fair, if a bit particular), and the 1:3 makes sense only if you consider that what you're reading is supposed to be balanced (by whatever arcane standards WotC writers discern balance, anyway, which means you can never be quite sure what was intended).

Of course, that raises a question: How much can you expect a reader to keep in mind while reading the Power Attack and Leap Attack rules? Is it really fair to expect "balanced" readings from your players? How do you read shapechange in a "balanced" reading? What's an acceptable Power Attack damage value, anyway? (It's not in the books anywhere, that I know.)

In my opinion, it's best to keep this "balance" idea in the background. Use it in real games, at the actual table, sure, but in the knowledge that it's a (good, sensible) houserule or guideline, and something that was largely developed long after the original books were printed--some after the books went out of print, in fact. Meanwhile, accept that the PA + Leap Attack combo was written by someone who didn't know what they were doing, and errata'd by another of the same, so the result is sloppy and quite probably too powerful.

To answer the original question: I think you get 1:6, but you should discuss it with your group, and settle for whatever value would make you fit in with the group (though not lower than 1:3, I should think!).

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

There are two completely different ways to interpret it.

Power Attack itself: 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.


Leap Attack before the errata:
...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.

Leap Attack after the errata:
...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 instead portion of the third sentence regarding two-handed weapons is in the context of the feat itself. Instead of the second sentence, triple your the extra damage from power attack. That means two-handed power attack's normal add twice the number subtracted becomes (due to the rules on multipliers) bonus damage equal to quadruple the penalty you take when power attacking. Since x2 is x1+1 and x3 is x1+2, it becomes x1+1+2 = x4, or +4 damage per -1 to hit.

This is exactly the same as if you take the errata to replace the second sentence through the end of the paragraph, so there is no separate rule for two-handed weapons. +2 per -1 increased by 100% is also +4 damage per -1 to hit.


Edit: I said there were two ways to interpret it. The completely incorrect way is to take the instead portion of the third sentence regarding two-handed weapons to also indicate it's used instead of Power Attack's text regarding two-handed weapons. The feat itself is saying everything it grants is in addition to the normal benefits of power attack, not instead of those normal benefits, so no portion of leap attack should be taken to mean it replaces or otherwise removes any of the power attack feat's normal effect.

[emeraldstreak]

The completely incorrect way is to take the instead portion of the third sentence regarding two-handed weapons to also indicate it's used instead of Power Attack's text regarding two-handed weapons.

Your argument.


The feat itself is saying everything it grants is in addition to the normal benefits of power attack

Your proof. Please provide a RAW citation, or your argument is void.

[Doctor Awkward]

There are two completely different ways to interpret it.

Power Attack itself: 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.


Leap Attack before the errata:
...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.

Leap Attack after the errata:
...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 instead portion of the third sentence regarding two-handed weapons is in the context of the feat itself. Instead of the second sentence, triple your the extra damage from power attack. That means two-handed power attack's normal add twice the number subtracted becomes (due to the rules on multipliers) bonus damage equal to quadruple the penalty you take when power attacking. Since x2 is x1+1 and x3 is x1+2, it becomes x1+1+2 = x4, or +4 damage per -1 to hit.

This is exactly the same as if you take the errata to replace the second sentence through the end of the paragraph, so there is no separate rule for two-handed weapons. +2 per -1 increased by 100% is also +4 damage per -1 to hit.


Edit: I said there were two ways to interpret it. The completely incorrect way is to take the instead portion of the third sentence regarding two-handed weapons to also indicate it's used instead of Power Attack's text regarding two-handed weapons. The feat itself is saying everything it grants is in addition to the normal benefits of power attack, not instead of those normal benefits, so no portion of leap attack should be taken to mean it replaces or otherwise removes any of the power attack feat's normal effect.

The definition of the word "instead" is "as an alternative to or substitute of". If you walk to work from home instead of taking your car, you and your car are not both at work by the end of your journey. You are at work at the car is at home.

If you use Leap Attack in conjunction with a two-handed weapon. You are "instead tripling the bonus damage from your use of Power Attack." If you are not substituting the triple bonus damage for the normal double bonus damage, what are you substituting it for?



It is important to the people it is important to - you don't have to be one of them if you don't want to be, I'm not going to force you, honest.

As you noted, I already said the 3:1 result is simpler and more balanced, at least before you get into what happens when you stack it with other possible Bonus:Penalty mutators like Improved Power Attack and Combat Brute (unless you read Combat Brute as additional damage... lets not go there).

I have not approached this without considering the intent; I have listed multiple ways of reading it and left it up to the OP as to what the intent may be. When pressed I have stated what my interpretation would be, however, I have also stated what interpretation I would prefer when considering balance. Looking at it from many different angles is never a bad thing, merely something some people have no desire to do.

I do not begrudge people for wanting to play the game however they want or in whatever way is most fun for them.

But more important than that, I feel, is the ability to be informed about your decisions. For the purposes of open communication at the table, it is far preferable to actively ignore a rule that you find distasteful than to be unknowingly ignorant of it.

Compare these two scenarios:

Player A: "I take <insert action>."
DM: "You can't do that. It's against the rules."
Player B: "What? Which rule is that?"
Player A: "No it's not. See? Right here!"
DM: "You're reading it wrong. Talk to me about it after the game."

vs.

Player A: "I take <insert same action>."
DM: "Oh, sorry. You can't do that.
Player A: "What? But the rules say..."
DM: "Yeah, I know what the book says, but we don't play it that way. Talk to me about it after the game."


Both of those scenarios are essentially resolved exactly the same way... but the first case results in at least one, and possibly more, irritable players which results in a far more negative immediate effect on the game: a lack of confidence in the DM. The first scenario leaves the player looking forward to a possibly extended argument. The second one leaves the player hopeful for a compromise.

In my experience, most problems at the tables begin when one or more players stops trusting the DM to play fair. And appearing uninformed about the rules is the shortest distance to that point.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Your argument.

Your proof. Please provide a RAW citation, or your argument is void.

Where does the feat say it replaces anything that Power Attack does, apart from that incorrect interpretation of the third sentence? Feat does X, but if you're using a two-handed weapon, feat does Y instead. That doesn't replace what any other feat does, that's dictated by the context of the language used.



The definition of the word "instead" is "as an alternative to or substitute of". If you walk to work from home instead of taking your car, you and your car are not both at work by the end of your journey. You are at work at the car is at home.

If you use Leap Attack in conjunction with a two-handed weapon. You are "instead tripling the bonus damage from your use of Power Attack." If you are not substituting the triple bonus damage for the normal double bonus damage, what are you substituting it for?

See above. The text of the third sentence applies to the second sentence because that's within the context.

You can drive to work without a coat most days, but if it's raining you wear your raincoat instead. You're still driving to work, that instead doesn't replace EVERYTHING, just the one thing it was clearly meant to replace within the context of what was said.

[Doctor Awkward]

Where does the feat say it replaces anything that Power Attack does, apart from that incorrect interpretation of the third sentence? Feat does X, but if you're using a two-handed weapon, feat does Y instead. That doesn't replace what any other feat does, that's dictated by the context of the language used.




See above. The text of the third sentence applies to the second sentence because that's within the context.

You can drive to work without a coat most days, but if it's raining you wear your raincoat instead. You're still driving to work, that instead doesn't replace EVERYTHING, just the one thing it was clearly meant to replace within the context of what was said.


Because Leap Attack by itself doesn't do anything. The context of the entire feat is a specific change to the function of Power Attack.

The only way your interpretation makes sense is if Leap Attack had a specific function independent of Power Attack. Since it doesn't, common sense should tell you that every single line of the benefit is with regards to Power Attack.

[emeraldstreak]

Where does the feat say it replaces anything that Power Attack does, apart from that incorrect interpretation of the third sentence? Feat does X, but if you're using a two-handed weapon, feat does Y instead. That doesn't replace what any other feat does, that's dictated by the context of the language used.

And you couldn't provide a citation despite claiming "it's what the feat says". Moving on.

Leap Attack doesn't say what Power Attack does. Power Attack itself does that. Let's go back to where I quoted the RAW (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22836194&postcount=20).