Shadow Blade, Bloodclaw Master and TWF

[Behold_the_Void]

I was thinking of posting this in the "By RAW" area, but it's somewhat involved so I thought a full thread was more important.

So, assuming prerequisites are met, Shadow Blade replaces Strength with Dex for damage.

When TWF, you get 1/2 strength for the off-hand attack.

Bloodclaw Master allows full strength for off-hand.

So.

When using Shadow Blade, is the dexterity bonus to damage halved when the off-hand attack is made?

If so, does the Bloodclaw Master's ability negate this?

[Rachel Lorelei]

You get your full Dexterity to damage with your offhand... it's only Strength that takes that penalty.

Edit: also, Shadow Blade adds to your strength when it comes to damage according to the feat's text (the table loses out to the text), so your question doesn't apply...

[Behold_the_Void]

Really.

That's INTERESTING.

Thank you for that.

[Douglas]

That's not the only error in the table summary, btw. What is this "Shadow Sun" discipline they mention?

[Iku Rex]

Edit: also, Shadow Blade adds to your strength when it comes to damage according to the feat's text (the table loses out to the text), so your question doesn't apply...

It's not as simple as that. The text takes precedence over a table entry if there's a conflict. How does the table contradict the text?

[Starbuck_II]

It's not as simple as that. The text takes precedence over a table entry if there's a conflict. How does the table contradict the text?

The table says: Use dex mod instead of Str mod on damage rolls with Shadow Sun Weapons

Text: While in Shadow Hand stance and attack their weapons, add dex mod as a bonus on melee damage.

Not exact text, but gets meanng across.

So table says replace dex for Str, but Text says Add Dex and Str to do damage.

[Behold_the_Void]

WotC really needs better proofreaders is what this tells us.

[Iku Rex]

So table says replace dex for Str, but Text says Add Dex and Str to do damage.

That's not what the text says at all. It's not even what it says in your summary of it. The text only says to add your Dex mod to damage. The table agrees that the feat lets you add your Dex mod to damage. Strictly speaking there's no contradiction.

[Aximili]

That's not what the text says at all. It's not even what it says in your summary of it. The text only says to add your Dex mod to damage. The table agrees that the feat lets you add your Dex mod to damage. Strictly speaking there's no contradiction.

Actually, there is.
TEXT:
(...)you can add your dexterity modifier as a bonus on melee damage for attacks made with the weapon.
TABLE:
Use DEX modifier instead of STR modifier on damage rolls with shadow sun weapons.

In D&D terms, when you use DEX instead of STR you are applying your DEX modifier in place of your STR modifier to the usual damage bonus. And yes, this does differ from adding your DEX and removing your STR.
In the first case, DEX acts exactly as STR would, even suffering a penalty to the off-hand attack.
In the second case, it is a bonus all of it self, with no relation to the usual STR bonus. Meaning it applies normally to all attacks.

Furthermore, even if they aren't contradicting, the table should never complement the text. It's supposed to be a short description, not further ruling beyond the feat's description.

[Iku Rex]

Actually, there is.
TEXT:
(...)you can add your dexterity modifier as a bonus on melee damage for attacks made with the weapon.
TABLE:
Use DEX modifier instead of STR modifier on damage rolls with shadow sun weapons.

In D&D terms, when you use DEX instead of STR you are applying your DEX modifier in place of your STR modifier to the usual damage bonus. And yes, this does differ from adding your DEX and removing your STR.
In the first case, DEX acts exactly as STR would, even suffering a penalty to the off-hand attack.
In the second case, it is a bonus all of it self, with no relation to the usual STR bonus. Meaning it applies normally to all attacks.

There's no such distinction.

If you are using your Dex modifier instead of your Str modifier on damage rolls {table], you can add your dexterity modifier as a bonus on melee damage [text]. The special rules for off-hand or two-handed weapons won't apply either way, on account of how Strength isn't the same as Dexterity and the text of the feat says to add your Dex modifier to damage (with no qualifications).

Furthermore, even if they aren't contradicting, the table should never complement the text. It's supposed to be a short description, not further ruling beyond the feat's description.

It shouldn't, but as written it is.

[Fax Celestis]

There's no such distinction.

If you are using your Dex modifier instead of your Str modifier on damage rolls {table], you can add your dexterity modifier as a bonus on melee damage [text]. The special rules for off-hand or two-handed weapons won't apply either way, on account of how Strength isn't the same as Dexterity and the text of the feat says to add your Dex modifier to damage (with no qualifications).

They will apply if you see the word "substitution".

[Iku Rex]

They will apply if you see the word "substitution".

Is this some sort of hypnosis attempt?

The word "substitution" does not apply anywhere in this case, and if it did it would depend on the context.

[Aximili]

Actually, the table doesn't have to go against the text to contradict the text.
As it is, the table is saying that the feat does something different from what the text says (not mutually excluding, but significantly different), and that why it is contracting the text.

If the table's description for dodge said: "you get a +1 luck bonus to AC", and the text said: "you get a +1 dodge bonus to AC against a single foe", they wouldn't be mutually excluding. A feat can give a +1 luck bonus to AC and a +1 dodge bonus.
But still, the table description would be contradicting the text, since it says that the feat does something that's not in the feat's description.

[Iku Rex]

That's a good point. The problem is that the table doesn't say "summary of what the feat description tells us about the feat's benefit". It just says "benefit". Technically no rule says the table can't supplement the text. So I don't agree with your example, even if it would be silly. Silly rules can be rules as written, and while I draw the line at blatant absurdity ("it is self-evidently not the intended interpretation") this does not cross that line.

[Aximili]

That's a good point. The problem is that the table doesn't say "summary of what the feat description tells us about the feat's benefit". It just says "benefit". Technically no rule says the table can't supplement the text.

Indeed, but there are rules that says the text trumps the table if they contradict each other.
In my understanding of contradicting, if the table says something, while the text says something different (even if they could supplement each other) than they contradict each other.

If you do not think that, and instead believe that different descriptions are not necessarily contradicting, Then I won't argue with you , since my interpretation of that word is based purely on my common sense.

[Ponce]

Thanks for bringing this to our attention! We’ve passed this along to the good folks that make the games and hopefully we’ll see some errata covering this situation soon. Until then, it is up to your Dungeon Master to determine how he/she wants to handle this particular situation in their campaign. In most cases, keep in mind that the actual feat description will take precedence over the summary earlier in the book. This means that taking this feat will allow you to add both your Str and Dex when rolling damage, but your DM could easily rule that the mention of Weapon Finesse in the special section indicates a different application.

This is what I got from CustServ, though I suspect any future errata will reinforce what is written in the table.

[The Glyphstone]

But will they say the same thing if we call during a different phase of the moon?

[Darrin]

This is what I got from CustServ, though I suspect any future errata will reinforce what is written in the table.

I suspect not. From what I can see looking at all the preview material WotC puts online, they usually put up the "Feats" table from a new book. The number of discrepancies between what this table says and the actual text in a book leads me to believe that the table is created early on in the development of the book, and sometime after playtesting, editing, and layout, the feat descriptions are tightened up or reworked for readability and playability... but the table descriptions are often left as-is (most likely because the tabular material isn't edited with the rest of the text and is inserted later during layout, after proofreading is done).

For example, I got pretty deep into a monk/rogue/TOB build before I noticed that the Aescetic Rogue feat from Comp. Adv. did NOT actually let monk levels count towards sneak attack damage, as the table says it does.

And while Custserv can be... uh, "colorfully eccentric" at times, they've been somewhat consistent with the "text trumps table" concept.