Blood-Spiked Charger - score or bonus?

[Bryn]

In a current RL game, one of the players has decided to retire his character and create a new one. This would not, in itself be a problem, but the player's new character is planning to exploit a vague rule in a broken way.

We are currently level 6, and we are playing the Speaker in Dreams module. The module, until now, has featured numerous low-level mooks and a few tougher enemies.

The possible brokenness lies in his interpretation of the Blood-Spiked Charger feat from the PHBII. This tactical feat allows him to deal twice his 'Strength' to damage in a full-round action attack provoking AoOs. He is going to use the Wu Jen Giant Size spell before using the feat.

The player believes that the feat allows him to deal twice his strength score in extra damage on this attack. I feel that he is interpreting this rule incorrectly, and he deals twice his strength bonus in damage.

By my calculations, he would deal +37 damage if it was only bonus, and +104 if it was strength score. I feel that an extra 104 damage is ridiculously high for a 6th level character, and that 37 is a far more reasonable interpretation of the rule: it is still a lot of damage, probably higher than the current primary damage dealers. He is adamant that it deals the full 104 damage.

Could anyone offer any insight? Does the Spiked Slam ability of Blood-Spiked Charger deal twice the strength score or strength bonus? Can anyone point me to any errata on the subject, and if not, what do you think is the most reasonable interpretation of the word 'Strength'?

[Mewtarthio]

Strength to Damage is like Dex to AC: You add the bonus, not the score.

[Stevenson]

How does he have giant size at 6th level? Isn't it like a 6th/7th level spell?

[Krellen]

Nothing in D&D is ever based on the scores (except for feat prerequisites) - everything is modifiers. To assume this feat somehow breaks the norm is ridiculous.

[ThunderEagle]

But for the things like dex to AC, it says modifier or bonus, not just dex. in the feat, there is another ability, spiked avalanche, that specifically states bonus. I think this is evidence for the score, not bonus applying. (I am the person who mentioned this interpretation of the feat, but I had seen it on these boards somewhere before)

[Hazkali]

Okay, I have a third interpretation: he deals damage as if his strength score were doubled, with the appropriate strength bonus.

Thus if his strength were 12, he would treat his strength bonus as 24, and so instead of a +1 bonus have a +7 bonus.

Without the text as written I can't make a judgement, except to say that your player's interpretation has a 99% chance, in my opinion, of being wrong. There is simply no precident of adding a score to anything like this.

[PinkysBrain]

Ignoring intent I'd say your player has the most reasonable reading of the rule. If I say a character has 18 strength does anyone think I'm talking about his strength bonus?

That said, it's just a typo ... houserule it.

PS. and I am also curious how a 6th level character would get access to a giant size spell.

[Fax Celestis]

Typoed. RAW says "Strength". RAI is probably "Strength bonus". If it meant your Strength score, it would have said "add your Strength score" or "add your Strength attribute".

[Bryn]

I don't know how he managed to get a Giant Size spell - he told me that he bought a Contingent Spell or something like that. The sentence in question (I believe that is allowed to be posted, but please tell me if not) is as follows:

In return, your attack eals extra damage equal to wice your Strength and an additional amount based on your size

The DM is undecided, and it was him who asked me to post this here for your verdict. It seems pretty clear that the interpretation is illegal, though.

Apparently, he has to pay a lot of money to buy the contingent spells of Giant Size, so perhaps it is balanced as he can only use it rarely.

Thanks for everyone's help! If he can't use said tactic, he has decided not to make the character after all.

[Tweekinator]

It says it deals twice your Strength. Unless it has been addressed in errata, that's what the feat says it does, then that's what it does. And for a single attack that provokes AoOs, and requires 2 worthless Weapon Focus feats, it doesn't seem that overpowered on it's own. Now, you should probably look deeper in exactly how he gets this "Giant Size", but the ability the feat grants is not (in my view) itself overpowered.

[Closet_Skeleton]

It has been erratad officially somewhere. I remember reading it.

[Bryn]

I couldn't find any errata for the PHBII in my brief glance over the list on the WotC site.

[DaMullet]

Well, one section earlier in the feat, it says, "[Blah blah], successful attack deals extra damage equal to twice your Strength bonus."

I would assume they got lazy and decided to overestimate the intelligence of a few people instead of typing Bonus twice.

[Annarrkkii]

To my knowledge, there is no Errata for the PHB II officially compounded yet.

Your player is correct in his straight-of-the-page reading. However, any DM worth his salt will immediately houserule in the word "bonus."

Hazkali, you are incorrect, as well, I'm afraid. In all precedent cases, the books say "deal damage as if his strength score were x higher" or "as if her were two sizes larger" when they mean it as such. I think the word "bonus" was merely left out by the Feat-typer Man, when he got tired of being so specific.

[PinkysBrain]

A contingent giant size would set you back between 9100 (for CL13) and 13300 (for CL19) and it would only work once. How is a 6th level character affording this?

[Iron_Mouse]

But IF it is supposed to be the str bonus, isn't this maneuver totally useless? Let's say you are a human with 18 str and want to use that trick. Now you use a full round action, to make a single attack that provokes AoOs AND you don't threaten any squares until your next turn after that - to deal 1d6+8 extra damage?

Do I miss something?

[Fax Celestis]

But IF it is supposed to be the str bonus, isn't this maneuver totally useless? Let's say you are a human with 18 str and want to use that trick. Now you use a full round action, to make a single attack that provokes AoOs AND you don't threaten any squares until your next turn after that - to deal 1d6+8 extra damage?

Do I miss something?

No. It's just bad.

[Tweekinator]

But IF it is supposed to be the str bonus, isn't this maneuver totally useless? Let's say you are a human with 18 str and want to use that trick. Now you use a full round action, to make a single attack that provokes AoOs AND you don't threaten any squares until your next turn after that - to deal 1d6+8 extra damage?

Do I miss something?

That's why I assume the feat text is not a typo. Otherwise it'd be completely underwhelming.

[Matthew]

Yeah, I am pretty sure I agree that the meaning is 'twice your Strength', which is unusual, but it's not a good Feat regardless.

[Dhavaer]

Considering all the penalties you tkae when using that ability, using the score seems reasonable.

[The_Snark]

In most cases, using the Strength score rather than the bonus is pretty reasonable, if unusual. I think the Giant Size spell is the problem here.

Contingent spells don't really work like that, I think. I don't have the rules on me, but Giant Size is a personal-only spell. Not a good precedent for putting it on someone else. In any case, the spell would go off once and then be gone, like a potion. So then, he'd have to pay a lot of money to get another one, assuming he can find a high-level Wu Jen who's willing to craft another one on him. And you can't ever have more than one contingent spell on at once.

[Borogove]

Strength score seems to me to be both RAW and RAI : the other maneuvers specifically mention strength bonus, so the fact that this one doesn't, combined with it being really quite pants otherwise makes me suspect that it should be strength score. Having said that, it does kind of render the bonus damage based on size irrelevant, so maybe I'm wrong.

[Thrawn183]

This got mentioned in one of the games I currently play in. Using the strength score instead of the bonus was setting something of a precedent so we sat down and looked at the feat itself. Full round action provoking AoO's and then not threatening any squares for an entire round to make a single attack? You bet you should be able to turn out the damage. I kind of see it like a souped up version of power attack quite frankly.

Strength Score not bonus in this case.

[Tor the Fallen]

Hrm. Strength score. That seems like you could put out some obscene damage.