He already said he doesn't think the game needs to strap a machine-gun on top of a tactical nuke.
That's why they don't intend Power Attack to apply to Rend damage.
If you disagree, you can play your own house-rules, not Paizo's house rules.
Calling Rend a tactical nuke is silly. That's why I ignored it. Rend is nothing even vaguely reminiscent of a tactical nuke, or any grade of bomb for that matter. It's less damage than Sneak Attack is no matter what creature is using it, and Sneak Attack isn't even remotely reminiscent of a tac nuke.
Rend is a very minor source of extra damage compared to most other options. Furthermore, it gets even more marginalized when Power Attack enters the picture (because, AFAIK, every creature that Rends has Power Attack). Why? Because creatures with Rend actually get less relative benefit from Power attack than other creatures. The Power Attack damage bonus partially to completely overlaps the Rend damage bonus, if Power Attack doesn't apply to Rend.
That's just backwards design.
Mr. Jacobs didn't call rend a tactical nuke. He simply used the reference for comparison. Adding Power Attack bonus to Rend isn't going to add all that much to the individual's overall damage for the round. When you take into account that the individual hit at least twice, and gained additional damage from PA and rend already, that's a lot of HP of damage; applying PA to rend isn't adding much.
Although I think this would be a good candidate for errata, making it into a big rules dilemma is silly. Of all the monsters in the bestiary, few can Rend, and of those few, I think only 3 can power attack as well. On the PC side of things, few player's I know take PA for a 2-weapon specialist, since they already take a -2 penalty to hit. I agree with Mr. Jacobs that it's a corner case.
Creative Director
|
So the more I think on it... the more I'm inclined to say that rend WOULDN'T be affected by damage reduction, since it's adding damage rather than being its own attack starting from new. Especially since we rebalanced a lot of the rend stuff so it's not effectively giving a monster the damage potential of a creature 3 or 4 CR points higher than normal.
So the more I think on it... the more I'm inclined to say that rend WOULDN'T be affected by damage reduction, since it's adding damage rather than being its own attack starting from new. Especially since we rebalanced a lot of the rend stuff so it's not effectively giving a monster the damage potential of a creature 3 or 4 CR points higher than normal.
Cool... That would probably go along with the normal rules for 'special effects' triggered by damage (already overcoming DR), which is probably the simplest approach AND the least change to current wording (substituting 'must damage...' for 'must hit... with two attacks').
So the more I think on it... the more I'm inclined to say that rend WOULDN'T be affected by damage reduction, since it's adding damage rather than being its own attack starting from new. Especially since we rebalanced a lot of the rend stuff so it's not effectively giving a monster the damage potential of a creature 3 or 4 CR points higher than normal.
This is how I intend to run it in my next game as well, with the caveat that if neither required attack gets past damage reduction then the rend damage doesn't either. I'm also in the camp of power attack doesn't add to rend damage. That said, I should also say that rend doesn't come up very often in our games, but when it does I'll be prepared. *grin*
So the more I think on it... the more I'm inclined to say that rend WOULDN'T be affected by damage reduction, since it's adding damage rather than being its own attack starting from new. Especially since we rebalanced a lot of the rend stuff so it's not effectively giving a monster the damage potential of a creature 3 or 4 CR points higher than normal.This is how I intend to run it in my next game as well, with the caveat that if neither required attack gets past damage reduction then the rend damage doesn't either. I'm also in the camp of power attack doesn't add to rend damage. That said, I should also say that rend doesn't come up very often in our games, but when it does I'll be prepared. *grin*
Man,
Rend doesn't come up much, but rake, wow, it comes up all the time in my games. :) Then again, I have a player with a dire-tiger cohort who can also turn into a dire tiger (sorta, druid). So there's always bite/claw/claw did I rake attacks.
Sometimes I wonder if posting rules clarifications and interpretations to these boards is time well spent, since they only seem to spiral into "what if" scenarios and corner case investigations. Hard to not get frustrated... :(
I not trying to be snark, but a FAQ would help both us, players and Game Masters, and you, the designers. When is the FAQ comming?
|
Creative Director
|
I not trying to be snark, but a FAQ would help both us, players and Game Masters, and you, the designers. When is the FAQ comming?
Sometimes I wonder if posting rules clarifications and interpretations to these boards is time well spent, since they only seem to spiral into "what if" scenarios and corner case investigations. Hard to not get frustrated... :(
Soon as we get our schedule caught up. Which should HOPEFULLY be within a few months. At that point, we'll have the time and resources to start working on a FAQ.
It'll be a while, in other words. Until then, the messageboards will have to suffice.
I not trying to be snark, but a FAQ would help both us, players and Game Masters, and you, the designers. When is the FAQ comming?
Sometimes I wonder if posting rules clarifications and interpretations to these boards is time well spent, since they only seem to spiral into "what if" scenarios and corner case investigations. Hard to not get frustrated... :(Soon as we get our schedule caught up. Which should HOPEFULLY be within a few months. At that point, we'll have the time and resources to start working on a FAQ.
It'll be a while, in other words. Until then, the messageboards will have to suffice.
I'm not saying you need a FAQ with answer to all questions asked.
Just start of small. Answer the questions that seam to be the most common and the stuff that get GM and players most confused.The way things are now there are questions all over the I'm not saying you need a FAQ with all the questions asked.
Just start of small. Answer the questions that seam to be the most common and the stuff that get GM and players most confused.
The way things are now there are questions all over the messageboards some of the question reoccur in many threads with you, Jason or others answering the same question.
A good idea could be to create official FAQ threads.
etc.
A) You would get an overview of the questions we have
B) You wouldn't have to answer the same questions again and again in different threads.
C) You could answer when you got time to spare and slowly these threads would create a base for a FAQ.
D) Now, finding an answer by searching the messageboards is a bit like finding a needle in a haystack. This would make easier for us to find the answers.
/Just my 2c
Man,
Rend doesn't come up much, but rake, wow, it comes up all the time in my games. :) Then again, I have a player with a dire-tiger cohort who can also turn into a dire tiger (sorta, druid). So there's always bite/claw/claw did I rake attacks.
I played a 3.5 druid in our last game, but hardly ever used rake either. I mostly went dire bear (had never seen dire tigers) and kept the same riding dog animal companion from start to finish. Other than that one PC, we've not had anyone with a significant animal companion in a very long time in our group.
The occasional monster will have it, of course, but those are few and far between. /salute!
I removed some posts. Please don't insult other members of the community.
|
I can honestly think of no situation where a creature could use Power Attack on an attack that did not require an attack roll. Isn't the point of Power Attack to put more oomf in the swing at the cost of percision?The problem with this is that Rend does require an attack roll. Actually, it requires two attack rolls. Using Power Attack makes Rend much less likely to trigger. Why, then, should Rend (which does take a precision penalty when using Power Attack, and does apply separately to DR) not gain the benefits of Power Attack?
The way I see it, Zurai, and why I disagree with your interpretation, is that your example of rend is in no way different from sneak attack damage.
They are both conditions that must be met by an attack roll - one that is hampered by the use of Power Attack, making the condition(s) to be met less likely than otherwise, but regardless, both rend and sneak attack damage are applied each time an attack actualy hits that meets needed conditions to activate the additional damage.
Power Attack does not increase the damage of the sneak attack, and should not be applied to rend either IMO.
Yes, using power attack will make the claw/claw attack combo less likely to hit and thus less likely to apply the damage; so too will it make a power attacking fighter/rogue's longsword less likely to hit, and thus less likely to apply the normal sneak attack damage at all.
On the DR front, I'm with James, the DR applies to the claws; the rend is not reduced however.
Robert
A) You would get an overview of the questions we have
B) You wouldn't have to answer the same questions again and again in different threads.
C) You could answer when you got time to spare and slowly these threads would create a base for a FAQ.
D) Now, finding an answer by searching the messageboards is a bit like finding a needle in a haystack. This would make easier for us to find the answers.
E) You could encourage the community to help you by posting answer that you, Jason and others from Paizo have already made and add link to the thread where they original post was made. Be it an official answer or just an advice from you or anyone else from Paizo. This would save you some time and help the community.
The way I see it, Zurai, and why I disagree with your interpretation, is that your example of rend is in no way different from sneak attack damage.
Robert, that's an excellent point, but not 100% correct. The difference is in activation.
I'll still apply PA to rend damage, because when you factor in the activating conditions, the math breaks down somewhat. Sneak attack, assuming you're flanking or the guy's flat-footed, requires one (1) successful attack roll to activate, and can re-activate in the same round, every time that condition is met. Rend requires two (2) successful claw attacks (if the condition ever fails to be met, it fails outright), and it never re-activates in a round.
Any hit penalty therefore has a greatly magnified effect on rend, vs. sneak attack. For example, anything that makes a hit twice as difficult makes a sneak attack half as likely, but it makes a rend one fourth as likely. Also, sneak attack damage applies to each successful attack -- say if you're flanking and using TWF. Rend can only ever apply once.
The way I see it, Zurai, and why I disagree with your interpretation, is that your example of rend is in no way different from sneak attack damage.
They are both conditions that must be met by an attack roll - one that is hampered by the use of Power Attack, making the condition(s) to be met less likely than otherwise, but regardless, both rend and sneak attack damage are applied each time an attack actualy hits that meets needed conditions to activate the additional damage.
Power Attack does not increase the damage of the sneak attack, and should not be applied to rend either IMO.
Yes, using power attack will make the claw/claw attack combo less likely to hit and thus less likely to apply the damage; so too will it make a power attacking fighter/rogue's longsword less likely to hit, and thus less likely to apply the normal sneak attack damage at all.
Rend and Sneak Attack are in no way comparable. Rend is not applied every time an attack hits that meets the needed conditions; it is applied once per round, maximum. Sneak attack is directly added to the attack that triggers it and thus actually does benefit from Power Attack; Rend has its own separate damage code and does not add to any other attack.
I removed some posts. Please don't insult other members of the community.
I apologize for that.
|
|
Rend and Sneak Attack are in no way comparable. Rend is not applied every time an attack hits that meets the needed conditions; it is applied once per round, maximum. Sneak attack is directly added to the attack that triggers it and thus actually does benefit from Power Attack; Rend has its own separate damage code and does not add to any other attack.
Sure they are. Perhaps not in how they are administered, but in the way that they are both conditional-based modified damage. Obviously the conditions for each are different.
Fireball and Lightning Bolt are vastly different in size, shape, and who they can affect, too; however thematically they both still apply damage via a spellcasting - and do significantly more or less damage based on a intervention of a Reflex Save.
Rend and Sneak Attack damage are both add-ons for and when having met the conditions to apply them; though the conditions are admittedly different.
The fact that Rend has a "stiffer" condition to meet is irrelevant. Its a small part of a creature's "Special Qualities". IF were talking a troll for instance, other qualities that he possess could speak to his strength, his amount of damage he can potentially do sans rend, and of course his regeneration ability.
Sneak attack damage on the other hand is the primary aspect of a rogue-class.
If were talking about the feat that allows you to rend when hitting w/ two weapons, were talking about a feat that is added to a character vs the core function of a class feature.
This isn't necessarily the place to argue balance of one class feature over another or vs a monster trait; but I have no problem with sneak attack being more univerally applicable than rend.
Regardless, they are both thematically similar in their application to the game.
If we're adding power attack to all such creatures' special qualities, what about notions such as swallow whole and the crushing from the gullet? There are a myriad of creatures with special qualities that are ancillary to the creature itself; but not necessarily the primary function of said creature.
That being siad, Zurai, I saw your post about allowing a power attack to be applied to a trample and penalizing the save DC as a trade-off. And such a person would be expected to believe as you do with the rend and power attack. To which I will commend you on your forethought and ability to think outside the box and make allowances and judgements for such things. DMs like that who are capable and willing to forgo RAW for a little extra fun and stretching the rules for more extravagen excitement are a diamond in the rough. And I habitually try to come up with similar outside-the-box notions when I GM; but I daresay that these things should be canon for rules as written.
I still contend that the damage by Rend and sneak attack (and various other methods) are similar in nature and should not be modified by the use of Power Attack and ruled as such for those who do wish to apply strict following of the rules and for Pathfinder Society league play. Rend is not affected in how much it can do by Power Attack any more or less than it's potential when said creature decides to use Combat Expertise; they both affect the bonus damage in the same manner - which is the overall liklihood that the condition for the special damage is to be included.
Robert
Rend and Sneak Attack damage are both add-ons for and when having met the conditions to apply them; though the conditions are admittedly different.
But Rend is not an add-on. It is an entirely separate damage source. Sneak Attack adds to the damage of the attack that triggers it, taking on that attack's damage type and increasing that attack's ability to penetrate DR, cause massive damage saves, and so on; Rend does not. Rend and Sneak Attack are two entirely different animals except that they both have a condition that must be met to trigger and both deal damage (although they deal that damage differently). Saying Rend and Sneak Attack are the same is like saying Sneak Attack and explosive runes are the same.
Rend and Sneak Attack damage are both add-ons for and when having met the conditions to apply them; though the conditions are admittedly different.But Rend is not an add-on. It is an entirely separate damage source.
O.K., how about another somewhat spurious example: a cleric casts Inflict Light Wounds, holds the charge, and then later punches an orc using Power Attack. Does he add the extra damage from Power Attack once or twice in total?
|
|
Saying Rend and Sneak Attack are the same is like saying Sneak Attack and explosive runes are the same.
Now you're just being difficult or silly. I know from past posts of yours that I've read that you're a great deal wiser than to really make that kind of hyperbole and believe its merits.
But Rend is not an add-on. It is an entirely separate damage source. Sneak Attack adds to the damage of the attack that triggers it, taking on that attack's damage type and increasing that attack's ability to penetrate DR, cause massive damage saves, and so on; Rend does not.
What you're arguing here is the actual science and physics of the attack itself; what I'm contesting is that as it applies to a game, both follow similar logic and mechanics to be applicable.
And it's the mechanics of Power Attack that is initially in question.
I'm not trying to change your mind or expect you to accept my opinions as the way you should be forced to play - I'm merely expressing what I believe is the way the intent of the rules as written were as to the way that the mechanics work, and why that is.
I have nothing more to add really than what I already used as the evidence to my theory. To me both concepts (rend and sneak attack) are similar enough in their mechanics to warrant similar adjudication of ancillary mechanics such as Power Attack. Furthermore since Rend is no more or less affected by the use of Combat Expertise, it shouldn't be affected any more or less by Power Attack.
Robert
O.K., how about another somewhat spurious example: a cleric casts Inflict Light Wounds, holds the charge, and then later punches an orc using Power Attack. Does he add the extra damage from Power Attack once or twice in total?Rend and Sneak Attack damage are both add-ons for and when having met the conditions to apply them; though the conditions are admittedly different.But Rend is not an add-on. It is an entirely separate damage source.
Power Attack does not affect damage caused by spells, so once. Fortunately for me, Rend is not a spell.
Saying Rend and Sneak Attack are the same is like saying Sneak Attack and explosive runes are the same.Now you're just being difficult or silly. I know from past posts of yours that I've read that you're a great deal wiser than to really make that kind of hyperbole and believe its merits.
In my defence, I'm really tired. I've been up for about 15 hours now and it's 70 degrees in my house, which isn't helping me stay awake. I'm probably losing a degree of whatever mental sharpness you've attributed to me for that reason.
That all said, I maintain the comparison. Explosive runes is damage that is only dealt when a condition is met, acting separately from whatever the condition is. That actually makes it much closer in concept to Rend than to Sneak Attack, which was my (admittedly not directly addressed) point. The difference between Rend and explosive runes as relevant to this particular debate is that Rend is damage inflicted in melee while explosive runes is a spell and does not deal melee damage.
Power Attack does not affect damage caused by spells, so once. Fortunately for me, Rend is not a spell.
Agreed, Rend is a (melee range) Special Attack. Now, let me check the rules about Power Attack and Special Attacks...huh, it's missing in my copy. Maybe it's next to the bit about using Power Attack with (melee range) spells.
TO BE FAIR: if Rend had a separate attack roll, I'd agree 100% that Power Attack should affect it. But it doesn't, so I don't.
Power Attack does not affect damage caused by spells, so once. Fortunately for me, Rend is not a spell.Agreed, Rend is a Special Attack. Now, let me check the rules about Power Attack and Special Attacks...huh, it's missing in my copy.
Rake is a Special Attack, too. Are you contending that Power Attack doesn't apply to Rake?
Special Attacks are merely a layout organization tool; "Special Attack" has no mechanical meaning.
Rake is a Special Attack, too. Are you contending that Power Attack doesn't apply to Rake?
I edited my post a bit while you were responding.
My opinion: anything that requires a melee attack roll is a melee attack. So yes, Rake qualifies, and no, Trample + Constrict + Coup de Grace + Rend + etc. don't.
If Rend had a separate attack roll, I'd agree 100% that Power Attack should affect it. But it doesn't, so I don't.
Again, I see where you're coming from, but instead you've got a "double jeopardy" from previous attack rolls, which makes it LESS likely to activate than if there were a single additional attack roll. That's a fairly unique activation mechanic, which in my mind makes a slightly "non-compliant" outcome ruling OK.
The fact that creatures with the rend ability almost always deal less mean damage with Power Attack than without just bugs me. Why do they even have that feat, then? Is it a prerequisite "gateway feat"?
I don't think Rend would gain power attack, because, if it does, as someone pointed out above, then you should also add power attack to the sneak attack damage as well, which would be double dipping.
Attack + Attack (both successfuly) triggers Rend.
If we allow PA on all three, we get damage of Attack + Attack + Rend + 3xPA.
Attack + (Flank/Flat Footed Target) triggers Sneak Attack.
If we allow PA for Rend, we would have to allow it for SA (Both are add ons to damage that do not require a separate attack roll) and we'd end up with :
Damage on PA + SA : Attack + Sneak Attack + 2xPA.
I don't think anyone would agree the above should happen, but it follows directly from allowing PA on Rend.
Rake is a different story, of course, because the Rake isn't extra damage, it's an extra attack that is only allowed when certain conditions are met, and you can choose to use PA on it or not, even if you used it or not on the claw attacks.
|
|
Rake is a different story, of course, because the Rake isn't extra damage, it's an extra attack that is only allowed when certain conditions are met, and you can choose to use PA on it or not, even if you used it or not on the claw attacks.
I agree with all that you said - except for the final sentence. You either Power Attack or do not Power Attack for you round of attacks.
So if the claw attacks in this instance were not hindered by Power Attack, you would not have the option of changing that for the rake attacks in the same round. This also goes for any immediate action attacks or attack of opportunies that may be afforded later in the same round.
Whatever you did in regards to power attack affects all attacks for that round until your next turn.
Robert
If we allow PA for Rend, we would have to allow it for SA (Both are add ons to damage that do not require a separate attack roll)
No, they aren't. Rend does not add on to anything.
Fair enough - but automatic hits don't allow power attack damage to be added either.
Coup de grace does.
I still feel that looking for parallel mechanics is not directly applicable, insofar as rend has a unique activation mechanic. Rather, the question is "should a monster with rend do more damage when it uses Power Attack, or less?" Anyone who feels that use of Power Attack should almost always reduce the troll's mean damage ought to make sure PA doesn't apply to the rend. People who feel that Power Attack should allow the troll to deal more damage (or at least equal damage) to appropriate-AC targets ought to apply PA to the rend as well.
Fair enough - but automatic hits don't allow power attack damage to be added either.Coup de grace does.
I agree, but to play Devil's advocate, where do the rules say that coup de grace can be combined with power attack or similar effects?
I agree, but to play Devil's advocate, where do the rules say that coup de grace can be combined with power attack or similar effects?
Where do the rules say that anything can be combined with Power Attack? Power Attack works on "all melee damage" except for touch attacks and attacks that do not deal hit point damage. This is the only place in the rules that defines Power Attack's interaction with anything else in the rules. CDG is undoubtedly melee damage (excepting the point-blank ranged weapon use of CDG, of course), thus Power Attack applies.
If we allow PA for Rend, we would have to allow it for SA (Both are add ons to damage that do not require a separate attack roll)No, they aren't. Rend does not add on to anything.
If you allowed PA to add to the rend damage I assume you will have to add SA on top of the rend damage as well since it would be a separate attack, seems a bit too much do you really want to see two weapon rending rogues with that ?
Basic point is rend in itself is not an attack, it is the result of two attacks.
As for DR I think it still has to bypass DR since it is afterall still physical damage.
alternatively I think it would make ruling much easier if the damage was added to the attack that 'closed the deal' if the troll's second claw attack hit making the rend possible at it to the second attack, I can very well imagine how that works anyway.
If we allow PA for Rend, we would have to allow it for SA (Both are add ons to damage that do not require a separate attack roll)No, they aren't. Rend does not add on to anything.If you allowed PA to add to the rend damage I assume you will have to add SA on top of the rend damage as well since it would be a separate attack, seems a bit too much do you really want to see two weapon rending rogues with that ?
Basic point is rend in itself is not an attack, it is the result of two attacks.
As for DR I think it still has to bypass DR since it is afterall still physical damage.
alternatively I think it would make ruling much easier if the damage was added to the attack that 'closed the deal' if the troll's second claw attack hit making the rend possible at it to the second attack, I can very well imagine how that works anyway.
DR only applies to attacks. Rend isn't an attack the same way hitting with a pair of claws or a longwsword is. Even if it was, one could argue that DR has already been applied (to the initial 2 attacks) and therefore should not also apply to rend. After all, once that troll has sunk his claws into your flesh and has begun tearing you apart, DR should do little if anything.
DR only applies to attacks. Rend isn't an attack the same way hitting with a pair of claws or a longwsword is. Even if it was, one could argue that DR has already been applied (to the initial 2 attacks) and therefore should not also apply to rend. After all, once that troll has sunk his claws into your flesh and has begun tearing you apart, DR should do little if anything.If we allow PA for Rend, we would have to allow it for SA (Both are add ons to damage that do not require a separate attack roll)No, they aren't. Rend does not add on to anything.If you allowed PA to add to the rend damage I assume you will have to add SA on top of the rend damage as well since it would be a separate attack, seems a bit too much do you really want to see two weapon rending rogues with that ?
Basic point is rend in itself is not an attack, it is the result of two attacks.
As for DR I think it still has to bypass DR since it is afterall still physical damage.
alternatively I think it would make ruling much easier if the damage was added to the attack that 'closed the deal' if the troll's second claw attack hit making the rend possible at it to the second attack, I can very well imagine how that works anyway.
you could argue that though a the 'troll' only need to hit the creature to rend, not actually inflict damage this could arguably allow the troll to rend anything even though he can't dent it at all with it's claw attacks.
I am very much tending to add the rend damage to one of the attacks, automatically bypassing DR seems not my choice.
I am very much tending to add the rend damage to one of the attacks, automatically bypassing DR seems not my choice.
In most cases, rend will still get past the DR then unless the initial attack with witch it was tied did very little, or unless the DR is unusually high.
One could argue that if no damage is dealt, then rend doesn't happen. Isn't there a rule somewhere that says many special attacks that are delivered through natural attacks generally have to deal at least one point of damage to work at all?
|
|
I agree, but to play Devil's advocate, where do the rules say that coup de grace can be combined with power attack or similar effects?Fair enough - but automatic hits don't allow power attack damage to be added either.Coup de grace does.
Indeed. I've never allowed PA to affect C-d-G attacks.
Some things are more obvious than others - but when I read Power Attack description, and it idicates that I need to "apply a penalty to my attack roll", it infers that if I make no attack roll, the Power Attack feat is inapplicable.
That would simply go against the basic concept of the natural trade-off of accuracy and damage that are the staple of that game-mechanic.
But that's what becomes obvious to me.
Robert
|
I agree, but to play Devil's advocate, where do the rules say that coup de grace can be combined with power attack or similar effects?Fair enough - but automatic hits don't allow power attack damage to be added either.Coup de grace does.Indeed. I've never allowed PA to affect C-d-G attacks.
Some things are more obvious than others - but when I read Power Attack description, and it idicates that I need to "apply a penalty to my attack roll", it infers that if I make no attack roll, the Power Attack feat is inapplicable.
That would simply go against the basic concept of the natural trade-off of accuracy and damage that are the staple of that game-mechanic.
But that's what becomes obvious to me.
Robert
+1
Seems obvious to me, no penalty, no benefit, and certainly no "pay the penalty once, get the benefit multiple times".
Basic point is rend in itself is not an attack, it is the result of two attacks.
Whether Rend is an attack is irrelevant.
Power Attack adds damage to, and I quote, all melee damage.
The question is not whether Rend is an attack, but whether Rend is melee damage.
|
|
Basic point is rend in itself is not an attack, it is the result of two attacks.Whether Rend is an attack is irrelevant.
Power Attack adds damage to, and I quote, all melee damage.
The question is not whether Rend is an attack, but whether Rend is melee damage.
"all melee damage" is a good reference, but one still needs to take notice of the inferred use of the feat - attacks that are penalized on their attack rolls - thats at the very bones of the mechanics of the feat is built upon.
I'm certainly not arguing that rend isn't melee damage - I'm illustrating that it falls out side the other aspect of the feat - and that is it does not require a seperate attack roll that is penalized to on its attack roll.
Can rend do "critical hit damage" ?
No - because the bones of the critical hit damage mechanic is that you must roll a D20 and the result landing inside the critical threat range. Which is impossible to do if you're not rolling a dice to adjudicate the attack.
Robert
"all melee damage" is a good reference, but one still needs to take notice of the inferred use of the feat - attacks that are penalized on their attack rolls - thats at the very bones of the mechanics of the feat is built upon.
The feat does not affect individual attacks. It affects all of your melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks for the round. In return, you get a bonus to all melee damage for the round.
I find it astounding how many people define "all" to mean "not every instance of".
Can rend do "critical hit damage" ?
No - because the bones of the critical hit damage mechanic is that you must roll a D20 and the result landing inside the critical threat range. Which is impossible to do if you're not rolling a dice to adjudicate the attack.
Irrelevant and also untrue. Once again, coup de graces prove an exception. You do not roll a die, yet they are critical hits. It doesn't matter though, because Power Attack is independent of the ability to critically hit. You could be wielding a magical weapon with the special ability that it can never crit, and still be able to Power Attack with it. Thus, the fact that Rend cannot crit is irrelevant.
Just for my own perspective (right or wrong), I consider things as follows:
There is melee damage, and then there are bonuses to melee damage.
A weapon that hits does melee damage. If someone was using power attack with it the power attack damage is bonus damage to the weapon damage. Same thing if it was an energy weapon...the energy damage is bonus damage (and you wouldn't get power attack bonus to energy damage).
Sneak attack I consider to be bonus damage (albeit precision damage, with its own modifiers) as well.
Rend I consider to be bonus damage as well.
Thus, if you hit with two weapons and were power attacking, and were sneak attacking, and have two weapon rend, you get your melee damage (from weapons), your bonus sneak attack damage, your bonus power attack damage (for each weapon as adjudicated under two weapon fighting rules), and your bonus rend damage. /salute!
|
|
Power Attack adds damage to, and I quote, all melee damage.
The question is not whether Rend is an attack, but whether Rend is melee damage.
Lightning Bolt states it adds Xd6 amount of damage.
It doesn't state that "it applies this damage unless a creature has some form of resistance to lightning."
Why does it not explicitly state this? Because the foundation is already set, and ancillary rules already cover the fact that it may not work "all the time."
The Power Attack (and other feats I'm sure) shouldn't have to put every exception or circumstance in black and white to guide someone into following logic printed elsewhere - in this case - an attack roll - and penalizing an attack roll. Attack rolls and melee damage are described elsewhere on how to resolve.
My common sense tells me that since rend is not an attack roll, and melee damage is typically the result of an attack roll, and power attack seems to add damage to a penalized attack roll, in order to trade off for the benefit of extra damage on the attack roll, and other areas of the book already explain to me exactly how an attack roll is adjudicated - that the "all melee damage" clause can still be trumped by other factors and mechanics in the game; that the feat doesn't need to explicity state - "does not add damage to a rend attack, does not add damage to a sneak attack, does not add to a trample, Does not add damage to the gullet squeezing constriction of a swallowed whole victim, does not add damage to someone who is bullrushed during melee off a 100' cliff....etc," in order for me to draw that logical conclusion.
Once again - I point to your specific point of add PA to trample and lowering the DC of the save - that is great outside the box thinking but it is not the way things work in the strictest sense of the rules -and I think that most posts of OP in regards to questions on how rules work - usually want the way things should officially work. I applaud your outside the box thinking and would suggest this as a means to someone looking to spice up their trample or power attack; in fact I may even allow that as an option to my players; but I won't say it was designed originally to work that way - regardless of how cool of a concept it is. Rule things (as GM) any way you want and use whatever logic suits best for you - personally I don't like the crafting times it takes to make armor or weapons - so I shortened it drastically in my games and used the logic that characters shouldn't sit for 6 months while waiting for the dwarf fighter to make himself some full plate; but thats my logic, and how I want things to work; but it isn't official, and I don't expect everyone to agree.
Robert
I thought about it, read powerattack again and considered what it is supposed to do from a designer's perspective.
It is supposed to trade accuracy for damage and looked at the game impact it would have such as power attack and rend are at this moment, I do not really see a problem with allowing it to add to rend, treating it as a separate attack in all ways.
I can very well imagine a troll ripping into a creature's flesh and can see how rend would directly relate to the ferocity of those attacks. The actual chance of a successful rend attack is diminished in the mechanic working of a rend attack afterall, if it wasn't I would be very hesitant to accept it.
I haven't really looked beyond troll, but it seems the impact of power attack on rend is a bit overrated, the damage of the rend will still only be marginally better than a claw attack 1d6 + 8 for the claws and 1d6 + 13 for rend treating it as a primary natural weapon in this case, since it deals 1 1/2 str bonus damage.
about 39 to 40 damage, not including bite, trolls are for pussies !
Power Attack adds damage to, and I quote, all melee damage.
The question is not whether Rend is an attack, but whether Rend is melee damage.
Lightning Bolt states it adds Xd6 amount of damage.
It doesn't state that "it applies this damage unless a creature has some form of resistance to lightning."
Why does it not explicitly state this? Because the foundation is already set, and ancillary rules already cover the fact that it may not work "all the time."
Yes, the rules specifically state elsewhere that energy resistance reduces the amount of damage a creature takes from that type of energy.
Nowhere do the rules state that damage without an attack roll is not considered melee damage.
Once again - I point to your specific point of add PA to trample and lowering the DC of the save
You're acting like those two things are linked. They are not. Trample deals additional damage when used with Power Attack. Why? Because it's melee damage. Separately, I would reduce the DC of the Reflex save as a house rule to compensate. The rules do not support this second, separate action on my part; it is a house rule. The rules do support the first action, adding Power Attack to Trample.