Leap Attack Wording

[Brennan1612]

Leap Attack states;
"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. 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."

Emphasis mine.

What does it mean when it says normal bonus damage, dose that mean 1 to 1 power attack in all situations or does it mean if I am two-handing a weapon my "normal" bonus damage is 2 to 1 power attack?

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Complete Adventurer Errata:

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.

Leap Attack feat original wording, italicized portion is replaced by the above:

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.

So that's only the one-handed version of power attack that the errata applies to. Two-handed power attacking is still triple the extra damage from Power Attack, as it's originally printed.

[Nifft]

I think it's the standard "double double = triple" thing.

You get +100% of your Power Attack to-hit penalty as damage, which will result in a total of 3-for-1 (2hand) or 2-for-1 (1hand) or 1-for-1 (light).

[Brennan1612]

I think it's the standard "double double = triple" thing.

You get +100% of your Power Attack to-hit penalty as damage, which will result in a total of 3-for-1 (2hand) or 2-for-1 (1hand) or 1-for-1 (light).

But this line;
"If you use this tactic with a two-handed
weapon, you instead triple the extra damage from Power
Attack."
says you tripple the damage so wouldn't it be 4 damage per to-hit penalty.

2x+3x=4X

right?

[Buufreak]

Wow. What are the chances we get the exact same thread from 2 users within an hour of each other? Anywho...


But this line;
"If you use this tactic with a two-handed
weapon, you instead triple the extra damage from Power
Attack."
says you tripple the damage so wouldn't it be 4 damage per to-hit penalty.

2x+3x=4X

right?

The errata removed that line. Like whoever above was saying, you get a flat +100% from power attack. That means the 1 to 1 for 1handed becomes 2, which is a double, and the 2 to 1 of 2handed becomes 3, which is also a double by 3.5 multiply rules. And, thusly, the "double double" you get from the double from power attack and the double from leap attack becomes triple (which is where your text is coming from pre errata, and why it was errata'd in order to avoid this entire conversation).

The errata exists to clear this mess up, not further complicate it. Leap power attack will at most net 3 to 1, not 4 to 1.

[Brennan1612]

Wow. What are the chances we get the exact same thread from 2 users within an hour of each other? Anywho...



The errata removed that line. Like whoever above was saying, you get a flat +100% from power attack. That means the 1 to 1 for 1handed becomes 2, which is a double, and the 2 to 1 of 2handed becomes 3, which is also a double by 3.5 multiply rules. And, thusly, the "double double" you get from the double from power attack and the double from leap attack becomes triple (which is where your text is coming from pre errata, and why it was errata'd in order to avoid this entire conversation).

The errata exists to clear this mess up, not further complicate it. Leap power attack will at most net 3 to 1, not 4 to 1.

Though +100% is not multiplying by 2, yes it is effectively multiplying by 2, but so is adding 2 to 2.

so the two-handed +2 damage would add 100%, or 2, making it +4 damage per to-hit subtracted, would it not?

[Buufreak]

Again, incorrect. As I said, no combo of leap and power results in 4 to 1. Its 3 to 1.

[Brennan1612]

Again, incorrect. As I said, no combo of leap and power results in 4 to 1. Its 3 to 1.

But why is ADDING 100% considered multiplying?

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

But why is ADDING 100% considered multiplying?

You don't add 100% when using it two-handed. The errata only replaced the second sentence of the benefit, not the third sentence, "If you use this tactic with a two-handed weapon, you instead triple the extra damage from Power Attack."

[Brennan1612]

You don't add 100% when using it two-handed. The errata only replaced the second sentence of the benefit, not the third sentence, "If you use this tactic with a two-handed weapon, you instead triple the extra damage from Power Attack."

Buufreak said that was errata'ed out

[Buufreak]

Buufreak said that was errata'ed out

I'm entirely capable of being wrong. However, 1 times 2 plus 100%(1) is still 3.

[Brennan1612]

I'm entirely capable of being wrong. However, 1 times 2 plus 100%(1) is still 3.

No, because of order of operations, BEDMAS,

1 times 2 plus 100%

you multiply first making it

2 plus 100%

solving that is 4

[Buufreak]

When in doubt, apply more parenthesis.

Further, you are trying to apply earth math to dnd, where it's own version of math takes precidence in any and all cases.

[Brennan1612]

When in doubt, apply more parenthesis.

Further, you are trying to apply earth math to dnd, where it's own version of math takes precidence in any and all cases.

What do you mean "earth math", you know that the people who created D&D were from earth and therefore using earth math right?

[Buufreak]

I mean exactly what I said. In many situations, order of operations isn't pemdas and is instead "whatever works best" and even sometimes its "what went into effect last."

Let's start over.

Power attack 1 hand = 1 to 1
Power attack 2 hand = 2 to 1
Leap attack with power attack = 2 to 1
Leap attack with power attack and 2 hand = 3 to 1

And that's it.

[Brennan1612]

I mean exactly what I said. In many situations, order of operations isn't pemdas and is instead "whatever works best" and even sometimes its "what went into effect last."

Let's start over.

Power attack 1 hand = 1 to 1
Power attack 2 hand = 2 to 1
Leap attack with power attack = 2 to 1
Leap attack with power attack and 2 hand = 3 to 1

And that's it.

if it is "whatever works best why isn't it;

1 times 2 plus 100%

you multiply first making it

2 plus 100%

solving that is 4

because that is best

[Brennan1612]

I mean exactly what I said. In many situations, order of operations isn't pemdas and is instead "whatever works best" and even sometimes its "what went into effect last."

Let's start over.

Power attack 1 hand = 1 to 1
Power attack 2 hand = 2 to 1
Leap attack with power attack = 2 to 1
Leap attack with power attack and 2 hand = 3 to 1

And that's it.

if it is "whatever works best" why isn't it;

1 times 2 plus 100%

you multiply first making it

2 plus 100%

solving that is 4

because that is best, isn't it?

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Buufreak said that was errata'ed out

He's 100% wrong. In the very first reply to this thread, I quoted exactly what the errata says, and exactly how that's applied to the feat's original text, RAW. If you want to download the errata yourself (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/errata) and double check it, you'll see I'm right.

The errata only replaces the second sentence of the feat's benefit. The third sentence is what says two-handed is at a flat x3, it's untouched by the errata, and it says "instead" so it completely replaces what the errata says when you're using a weapon two-handed.

[Brennan1612]

He's 100% wrong. In the very first reply to this thread, I quoted exactly what the errata says, and exactly how that's applied to the feat's original text, RAW. If you want to download the errata yourself (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/errata) and double check it, you'll see I'm right.

The errata only replaces the second sentence of the feat's benefit. The third sentence is what says two-handed is at a flat x3, it's untouched by the errata, and it says "instead" so it completely replaces what the errata says when you're using a weapon two-handed.

So, that would make it +6 damage for every to-hit penalty?

[Buufreak]

{Scrubbed}

[Nifft]

So, that would make it +6 damage for every to-hit penalty?

Nope.

"+100% of normal" is +100% of the bonus in the Benefit paragraph, not the Special paragraph.

Special isn't normal, because it's special.

[truemane]

Metamagic Mod: asked and answered.