While implementing this feat, I noticed a problem:
Two-Weapon Rend (Combat)
Striking with both your weapons simultaneously, you can
use them to deliver devastating wounds.
Prerequisites: Dex 17, Double Slice, Improved Two-Weapon
Fighting, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +11.
Benefit: If you hit an opponent with both your primary
hand and your off-hand weapon, you deal an additional 1d10
points of damage plus 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier.
You can only deal this additional damage once each round.
What happens if the Strength Score falls below 10, thus giving you a penalty? (i.e. Ray of Enfeeblement...)
I suggest modifying the prerequisites and add a "Strength of 12 or higher" to solve this.
RiTz21
http://TheOnlySheet.com
P.S. There should be a specific forum to report issues like this - or did I miss it?!
I can't find it right now, but somewhere it says to only apply the 1.5 strength if you have a positive modifier.
The SRD doesn't say the two-handed modifier doesn't apply if the strength mod is a negative. Neither does PathfinderRPG. The implication is that using a two-handed weapon when you are weak makes your attack even weaker.
I would rule it the same for Two-Weapon Rend.
-Jack
It should say "Strength bonus," not "Strength modifier."
|
The 1-1/2 penalty is probably accurate - in fact it is generous. The idea is you are dealing damage for rending plus your primary and off-hand Strength bonuses. Since the off-hand bonus to damage is 1/2 your strength bonus, that means if you HAVE a penalty, you normally take the full penalty to damage on an off-hand weapon, not half the penalty.
Therefore, Two-Weapon Rend actually improves the damage you would deal if you had a strength penalty.
Rend with daggers, Str 14: primary 1d4+2, off-hand 1d4+1, rend +1d10+3
Rend with daggers, Str 6: primary 1d4-2, off-hand 1d4-2, rend +1d10-3
Rend with daggers, Str 6 (apply 1-1/2 bonus only): 1d4-2, 1d4-2, +1d10-4) (as if two seperate attacks were dealt, if this is what Rend simulates)
That said, the feat would work better with a prerequisite of Str 13.
Why 13 (+1 bonus) as opposed to my initial suggestion of a 12 (+1 bonus) strength score?
RiTz21
I fully support this idea. There is no ambiguity and it works even in the event of ability damage/drain. Your Strength drops below 13 you lose access to the feat. Nice and simple.
That said, the feat would work better with a prerequisite of Str 13.
Changing the word "modifier" to "bonus" is a far easier solution.
Why 13 (+1 bonus) as opposed to my initial suggestion of a 12 (+1 bonus) strength score?
RiTz21
I fully support this idea. There is no ambiguity and it works even in the event of ability damage/drain. Your Strength drops below 13 you lose access to the feat. Nice and simple.
That said, the feat would work better with a prerequisite of Str 13.
Feat prerequisites are usually the odd number in the bonus range. Its that way on most feats, possibly all of them.
-Jack
Oh!
Indeed it is a wise idea to use the 'odd' numbers to give them some usefulness even if they provide the same 'bonus' as its lower counterpart even number! Good idea, Thanks!!
RiTz21
...The reason 13 probably stood out to me more is that it is more commonly used as a prerequisite. They are normally odd scores as opposed to even, probably to give odd ability scores more value. I support the concept regardless of the actual numerical value so long as it functions the same and is not excessively prohibitive.
Feat prerequisites are usually the odd number in the bonus range. Its that way on most feats, possibly all of them.