9erik1
2018-07-11, 02:24 AM
Ok, I'll start off here saying there are a few posts that address things like power attack and a critical, but the arguments vary, so I wanted to add another argument on here that, from a common sense perspective, seems to give the valid solution as criticals multiplying the total damage modifier, rather than each of the constituent modifiers that make up the total. It'll be cool to see what everyone else thinks about this.
So many of you know that using power attack with a one handed weapon in two hands still doubles your power attack damage. If you also critical in this case, one might argue that because of the multiplication rules, your overall multiplier is x3 because 2 + (2 - 1) = 3. These things are explicitly laid out in things like Leap Attack in RAW, as they deal specifically with power attack, but not for critical hits. The other argument is that the multiplier is x4, because the power attack modifier and the damage modifier are two separate things, and so the doubled power attack (from using a 2h weapon) combined with the doubled damage modifier (from the critical) works out to 2 x 2 = 4.
But what if you critical while using a 1h weapon in two hands? Your strength bonus is multiplied by 1.5 for wielding it in two hands. But on a critical (again, x2), does this work out to 1.5 + (2 - 1) = 2.5? Or do we separate the strength modifier from the damage modifier, and the math becomes 1.5 x 2 = 3? Again, this issue isn't explicitly dealt with in RAW for clarity.
But to not separate the modifiers seems a bit overcomplicated if you add the two above cases together. Let's look at the separation case, then the non-separation case. We'll assume a x2 critical and a +4 STR mod with a longsword in two hands, with a +10 damage power attack:
SEPARATION: 2*(1d8 + (2*10 + 1.5*4)) = 2*(1d8 + 26) = 2d8 + 52
--- Here, the power attack mod is quadrupled and the strength mod tripled. The math is much easier, from a "having-to-process-in-game" perspective, because the +26 is easy to calculate and double quickly. This is a 3-step process and the steps are simple.
NO SEPARATION: 2*(1d8 + 2*10 + 1.5*4) = 2d8 + (2 + 2 - 1)*10 + (2 + 1.5 - 1)*4 = 2d8 + 3*10 + 2.5*4 = 2d8 + 30 + 10 = 2d8 + 40
--- You can see this is a 5-step process with more complicated steps.
My question to you guys is, do you think the rules as intended accommodate the separation method, or the non-separation method?
Cheers
So many of you know that using power attack with a one handed weapon in two hands still doubles your power attack damage. If you also critical in this case, one might argue that because of the multiplication rules, your overall multiplier is x3 because 2 + (2 - 1) = 3. These things are explicitly laid out in things like Leap Attack in RAW, as they deal specifically with power attack, but not for critical hits. The other argument is that the multiplier is x4, because the power attack modifier and the damage modifier are two separate things, and so the doubled power attack (from using a 2h weapon) combined with the doubled damage modifier (from the critical) works out to 2 x 2 = 4.
But what if you critical while using a 1h weapon in two hands? Your strength bonus is multiplied by 1.5 for wielding it in two hands. But on a critical (again, x2), does this work out to 1.5 + (2 - 1) = 2.5? Or do we separate the strength modifier from the damage modifier, and the math becomes 1.5 x 2 = 3? Again, this issue isn't explicitly dealt with in RAW for clarity.
But to not separate the modifiers seems a bit overcomplicated if you add the two above cases together. Let's look at the separation case, then the non-separation case. We'll assume a x2 critical and a +4 STR mod with a longsword in two hands, with a +10 damage power attack:
SEPARATION: 2*(1d8 + (2*10 + 1.5*4)) = 2*(1d8 + 26) = 2d8 + 52
--- Here, the power attack mod is quadrupled and the strength mod tripled. The math is much easier, from a "having-to-process-in-game" perspective, because the +26 is easy to calculate and double quickly. This is a 3-step process and the steps are simple.
NO SEPARATION: 2*(1d8 + 2*10 + 1.5*4) = 2d8 + (2 + 2 - 1)*10 + (2 + 1.5 - 1)*4 = 2d8 + 3*10 + 2.5*4 = 2d8 + 30 + 10 = 2d8 + 40
--- You can see this is a 5-step process with more complicated steps.
My question to you guys is, do you think the rules as intended accommodate the separation method, or the non-separation method?
Cheers