|
Under Strength on page 6 it says:
You apply your character’s Strength modifier to:
• Melee attack rolls.
• Damage rolls when using a melee weapon or a thrown
weapon (including a sling). (Exceptions: Off-hand attacks
receive only half the character’s Strength bonus, while two-
handed attacks receive one-and-a-half times the Strength
bonus. A Strength penalty, but not a bonus, applies to
attacks made with a bow that is not a composite bow.)
This has caused debate in my group - typically (except bows) you apply the STR bonus to damage, but not a STR penalty. This is in fact the verbiage used in all other sections (Equipment, Combat, etc.) so i think we just need to be consistent here to eliminate confusion.
Thanks
Arnold
You apply a Strength penalty to damage. That's why cats in the SRD have 1d2-4 damage.
In fact, the game has a rule for when you roll damage and it would go below 1 (in the case of the cat above), that minimum damage possible is 1.
.
This has been the rule since the start of 3e, and hasn't changed in PF as far as I can find.
And the rules are consistant across the rest of the system (Equipment, Feats, etc).
You apply your modifier to your damage roll. If it's a bonus, it might be halved if it's an offhand attack, or multiplied by 1.5 if you are using two hands.
The wording is meant to prevent the penalty from being modified by the handedness... if you have a penalty to strength, it's the same regardless if it's in one hand or two, or offhanded.
*Edit*
I think where you are getting confused is that the other sections don't mention the penalty because they aren't modifying the penalty, only when you have a bonus. That doesn't mean they alter the rule that you don't apply the penalty to damage... it would have to say that specifically to say that it wouldn't apply.
|
|
Ok... Lets follow this to it's absurd conclusion:
If a character has a 7 STR... that is a -2 Modifier.
So damage with a longsword is 1d6-2.
Off-handed the damage is 1d6-1. Two handed it is 1d6-3!!!
This is how our whole silly debate got started. It was at this time that someone pointed out the strategic use of Bonus in place of Modifier in most places in the rules. The argument was made that this was intentional to indicate that a Penalty would not be applied. While this doesn't make intuitive sense, it does fix the silliness above.
Previous to this coming up, i had always applied STR penalties to damage. Then the halfling with the low strength asked about 2 weapon fighting and we all got totally confused.
I think the issue with cats may be one of size.
A
|
Ok... Lets follow this to it's absurd conclusion:
If a character has a 7 STR... that is a -2 Modifier.
So damage with a longsword is 1d6-2.
Off-handed the damage is 1d6-1. Two handed it is 1d6-3!!!
This is how our whole silly debate got started. It was at this time that someone pointed out the strategic use of Bonus in place of Modifier in most places in the rules. The argument was made that this was intentional to indicate that a Penalty would not be applied. While this doesn't make intuitive sense, it does fix the silliness above.
Previous to this coming up, i had always applied STR penalties to damage. Then the halfling with the low strength asked about 2 weapon fighting and we all got totally confused.
I think the issue with cats may be one of size.
A
Or alternatively, we follow it to a less absurd conclusion.
Bonuses get multiplied by 0.5 or 1.5 if you are using an off-hand attack or two-handed weapon respectively. However, as it does not mention penalties as exceptions, they are applied normally, i.e. you take the same penalty to damage regardless of whether it's your primary attack, off-hand attack, or two-handed attack.
That follows quite logically from the quote you started with.
I tend to allow people to halve damage penalties (becuase these are the only thing adjusted by using a weapon two handed... not the to hit penalty), if they use a weapon two handed.
So a wizard with a str 7 using a staff two handed would have - 2 to hit and deal 1d6 - 1 (instead of - 2) damage.
|
|
OK... Now i get it - and this was in fact the way we had run up until this point.
The issue is poor word choice on Page 99 of the Beta Rules. Under Light and One-Handed the book mistakenly uses Bonus instead of Modifier. This let the rules lawyers in my group point out that a penalty should not be applied. It is inconsistant with the usage in other areas in the book, so hopefully that will get rectified.
Thanks for the clarification
A
You are still confused.
The light/one-handed and two-handed weapon entries is only talking about the bonus. This means the multiplier (1/2 strength or 1.5x strength) are only applied towards the bonus.
If the weapon entries said "modifier", that's where you'd have silliness like making the penalty higher for holding it twohanded, etc.
.
In other words, the part you are saying that seems like it's missing something, is missing it specifically so the strange cases don't come up.
The altering factors to strength (one half or 1.5x more) only apply to bonus, so they only mention bonus. The Strength Score entry still applies normally.
The wording is safe from Rules Lawyers.
But that's my point... it's not the wrong word. They are talking about strength modification, and they are only modifying the bonus.
The wordage:
Add the wielder’s Strength bonus (if any) to damage rolls for melee attacks with a light weapon if it’s used in the primary hand, or one-half the wielder’s Strength bonus if it’s used in the off hand.
You don't take each portion of the sentence out of context, you have to apply the whole sentence together.
Also, this text has been copy/pasted from the System Reference Document, it's not a Pathfinder change.
..
I guess maybe what you are asking for is to have Pathfinder make this even more clear than it already is? Perhaps by rewriting that sentence:
When using a weapon in each hand, apply the wielder's Strength bonus normally for melee attack rolls with a light weapon in the primary hand, and apply one-half the wielder's Strength bonus on a light weapon used in the off hand.
The word "normally" would reinforce the implication that you apply it towards regular rules.
Simply changing it to "modifier" doesn't make sense, because they are talking about strength bonus modification on light or onehanded weapons, not general application of strength ability towards melee combat.
The general application is already covered in the Strength score entry.