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.
The problem with this is that Rend does not add damage to another attack. It is a completely separate source of damage. You don't roll 1d6+1d6 for the second claw attack to hit. You roll 1d6 for the second claw attack, apply any DR to that, then roll 1d6 for the Rend and apply DR to that.
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).
Yetis get cold damage (bonus damage) applied to their rend... so, in the same way, should Power Attack (bonus damage) apply as well?
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).Yetis get cold damage (bonus damage) applied to their rend... so, in the same way, should Power Attack (bonus damage) apply as well?
Ah, thanks Kirth, much better way of showing the proof of the point. Rend is clearly a separate source of damage, and not bonus damage to an attack. It is provably (and proven) different from Sneak Attack or energy damage on a weapon.
|
I do not really see a problem with allowing it to add to rend, treating it as a separate attack in all ways.
I think very few of us who are arguing against whether it DOES apply, feel that it would be a big problem if it did. Personally I have no opinion one way or the other.
As a GM I like the idea of a troll, yeti, or other such nasty beastie having that type of damage output potention in their arsenal.
From a global perspective, my concern would be dual-wielding weapons with two-weapon rend getting a bit out of hand; not necessarily a troll.
There are alot of instances and rules where allowing something wouldn't be a "problem"; but in this case the conversation is about whether or not it was MEANT to apply; and completely irrespective of if or if not that allowance would be problematic.
Most creatures with Sneak attack aren't going to have a lot of strength and so adding power attack to a sneak attack isn't really that big of a problem and wouldn't add a large perecentage of additional damage for almost all such creatures. But arguing what would or would not necessarily be problematic is a slippery slope; what's not problematic in most instances is sure to be problematic in a select few; as somewhere somehow someone will find a way to exploit it such a rule.
A dual wielding barbarian with gobs of strength and BAB powerattacking and adding PA damage to their two-weapon rend attacks is probably what the designers would be concerned with preventing moreso than anything. And like James said - at a relative APL party to a trolls CR, with a character made by the strictest adherence to rules (see Pathfinder Society for an example - and not house ruled friendly GMed gaming style to allow better stats or max hit points or rerolled hit points etc etc) a troll without adding PA to their rend is still a very capable foe - and if it gets ahold of the one of the party's squishys.......it's usually bad news.
Robert
|
|
Ah, thanks Kirth, much better way of showing the proof of the point. Rend is clearly a separate source of damage, and not bonus damage to an attack. It is provably (and proven) different from Sneak Attack or energy damage on a weapon.
It still doesn't change the fact that is provable and proven to not be a seperate attack roll in and of itself that is penalized for accuracy to trade off for damage that the Power Attack feat is cleary designed to work as.
Robert
From a global perspective, my concern would be dual-wielding weapons with two-weapon rend getting a bit out of hand; not necessarily a troll.
At maximum, for a 20th level full-BAB character, that's a grand total of 18 extra damage per round. Remember, just like Rend, Two-Weapon Rend only applies once per round. Believe me, at 20th level, 18 extra damage is ... not terribly important.
Simply: does Rend gain a damage bonus from Power Attack?
I'm seeking official clarification on this one. The "additional damage" text makes me strongly believe that the answer is no, but others hold the opposite opinion and have reasonable arguments.
An interesting topic no doubt. I'm really ok either way with it, but it does seem that if a troll were to power attack, the claws would sink in deeper, and the rend would be stronger as it is both ripping harder and has a deeper grip. As to DR tougher hide would be harder to rip reducing the rend damage. It should be a separate source.
|
|
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.
Once again - I point to your specific point of add PA to trample and lowering the DC of the save
And I contest that Trample is not melee damage. Trample is a special attack or quality - that happens to inflict damage. So too is rend, swallow whole, etc; they are resolved with different set of mechanics outside the scope of a standard attack roll that deals melee damage.
|
|
And I contest that Trample is not melee damage. Trample is a special attack or quality - that happens to inflict damage. So too is rend, swallow whole, etc; they are resolved with different set of mechanics outside the scope of a standard attack roll that deals melee damage.
So too is the "knockback" special attack of a barbarian's rage power.
Its a special attack that happens to deal damage. But it is not "melee damage" as it pertains to a melee attack roll.
Robert
It still doesn't change the fact that is provable and proven to not be a seperate attack roll in and of itself that is penalized for accuracy to trade off for damage that the Power Attack feat is cleary designed to work as.
Robert
Once again, Power Attack does not penalize or even notice individual attack rolls. It works at a macro level. You are not choosing to take a penalty to your melee attack rolls to gain a bonus to damage on the hits that come from your melee attack rolls. You are taking a penalty to ALL melee attack rolls (and combat maneuver checks) to gain a bonus to ALL melee damage rolls. You keep trying to make this about individual rolls, and it isn't. Power Attack doesn't care about individual rolls. Power Attack only cares that you are applying the penalty in a global sense.
You can actually choose to Power Attack and then not even attack that round. Why would you do this? Because Power Attack is still in effect until the start of your next round, and thus applies to Attacks of Opportunity. I say this to show, again, that Power Attack doesn't operate on an individual attack level. It simply applies a temporary penalty and a temporary bonus to the numbers on your character sheet.
As far as I'm concerned, Rend implies that attacking with both of your weapons (it says simultaneously) delivers devastating wounds (what it says). When you power attack you are striking with extra power, extra strength in your blows, you get this bonus when you strike with your weapons. Rend is the added effect of these two mighty blows, you have already power attacked and Rend is the result of those attacks landing.
So, you swing your weapons with extra power (at -1 attk) and as a result, you get bonus damage (PA). If these blows hit the creature, the combined effect deals nasty wounds, or Rend.
So, no PA on Rend, at least in my games.
But it is not "melee damage" as it pertains to a melee attack roll.
Melee damage does not pertain to melee attack rolls. I've said this over and over again. Please, show me anywhere at all in the rulebook that states that melee damage only comes as a result of a melee attack roll. ANYWHERE. There is no such rule.
I tend to think the damage bonus you get should be balanced in the attack somewhere, but I thought it over and in the case of rend it actually does.
using the troll as example :
you need two succesful attacks to deal 3d6 + 17 damage without power attack
if you use power attack it would come down to 3d6 + 31, if you miss one claw you'd just do 1d6 + 9 damage.
In the second you need to hit with two claw attacks at - 2 though if you miss one or both you would not deal rend damage. rend raises the stakes a bit higher on the claw attacks, but it does stick to the principle of losing accuracy for damage bonus.
* trample I am not so sure, though I suppose you could houserule it like that. normally it might be hard to first make a melee attack and then start your trample, since you need to attack before you get a bonus to melee damage rolls.
since you need to attack before you get a bonus to melee damage rolls.
No, you don't. You have to choose to use it before you attack, but that's not the same thing as having to attack in order to use it.
But it is not "melee damage" as it pertains to a melee attack roll.Melee damage does not pertain to melee attack rolls. I've said this over and over again. Please, show me anywhere at all in the rulebook that states that melee damage only comes as a result of a melee attack roll. ANYWHERE. There is no such rule.
I agree with what you are saying about this, and it is a useless focusing on terms. What I purpose is that, with the flavor of rend and PA they should not stack.
Power attack= striking with extra powerRend= the effect of two blows landing together
PA= the blows, Rend= the combined effect of the blows.
(hope this makes sense)
|
|
You can actually choose to Power Attack and then not even attack that round. Why would you do this? Because Power Attack is still in effect until the start of your next round, and thus applies to Attacks of Opportunity. I say this to show, again, that Power Attack doesn't operate on an individual attack level. It simply applies a temporary penalty and a temporary bonus to the numbers on your character sheet.
But an attack of opportunity is an idividual attack. It has its own attack roll. You don't use the same roll you made during your turn to apply to the AoO; you make a seperate (individual) attack roll that is or is not hampered by the PA mechanic - depending of if you did or did not intend to apply the penalty and benfit tradeoff on your previous turn.
It absolutely applies to individual and sperate attack rolls.
Robert
But an attack of opportunity is an idividual attack. It has its own attack roll. You don't use the same roll you made during your turn to apply to the AoO; you make a seperate (individual) attack roll that is or is not hampered by the PA mechanic - depending of if you did or did not intend to apply the penalty and benfit tradeoff on your previous turn.
It absolutely applies to individual and sperate attack rolls.
I'm not saying this well.
Power Attack is essentially a very temporary template. The Power Attack template increases your Strength score for the purposes of damage by (4*(1 + 1/4 BAB)) and reduces your Strength score for the purposes of chance to hit by (2*(1 + 1/4 BAB)). (literally -- you'll find that, barring corner cases like Rend that may be in dispute ;) this is precisely what PA does)
As such, no, it doesn't affect individual rolls. It affects ALL rolls. It doesn't look at Damage Roll #3 and ask "Did you take your penalty to attack? Oh, good boy! You get a treat!". It's actually Damage Roll #3 that says "Oh, look, my strength is effectively 34 instead of 22! That means I deal +18 damage.".
The problem with this is that Rend does not add damage to another attack. It is a completely separate source of damage. You don't roll 1d6+1d6 for the second claw attack to hit. You roll 1d6 for the second claw attack, apply any DR to that, then roll 1d6 for the Rend and apply DR to that.
I really don't believe you apply DR to rend damage. Once a troll has his claws in you, he's already gone through your tough hide or whatever. What's more, DR only applies against attacks. DR is not at attack, it is just automatic damage (which is triggered by attacks that ARE effected by DR).
|
|
As such, no, it doesn't affect individual rolls. It affects ALL rolls. It doesn't look at Damage Roll #3 and ask "Did you take your penalty to attack? Oh, good boy! You get a treat!". It tells the character "You have a penalty to all your melee attack rolls. In return, you have a bonus to all your melee damage rolls.".
And therein lies the crux of my arguement; the rend is not an attack roll and thus should not get the 'good boy treat.'
Robert
|
|
I really don't believe you apply DR to rend damage. Once a troll has his claws in you, he's already gone through your tough hide or whatever. What's more, DR only applies against attacks. DR is not at attack, it is just automatic damage (which is triggered by attacks that ARE effected by DR).
I think you meant to say REND is not an attack....
I really don't believe you apply DR to rend damage. Once a troll has his claws in you, he's already gone through your tough hide or whatever.
No, he hasn't. Rend triggers from hits, not from damage. You can hit and deal no damage with both claws and still Rend a creature with DR 1,000,000/-.
What's more, DR only applies against attacks.
False. DR does not apply to attacks. DR applies to damage.
And therein lies the crux of my arguement; the rend is not an attack roll and thus should not get the 'good boy treat.'
Once again, there is no correlation in the rules between attack rolls and melee damage.
You can actually choose to Power Attack and then not even attack that round. Why would you do this? Because Power Attack is still in effect until the start of your next round, and thus applies to Attacks of Opportunity. I say this to show, again, that Power Attack doesn't operate on an individual attack level. It simply applies a temporary penalty and a temporary bonus to the numbers on your character sheet.
But an attack of opportunity is an idividual attack. It has its own attack roll. You don't use the same roll you made during your turn to apply to the AoO; you make a seperate (individual) attack roll that is or is not hampered by the PA mechanic - depending of if you did or did not intend to apply the penalty and benfit tradeoff on your previous turn.
It absolutely applies to individual and sperate attack rolls.
Robert
Board ate my post. As stated before I am ok with either ruling, but the example of a power attacking troll getting extra rend damage makes more sense to me than an 8 STR halfling throwing two light hammers getting rend damage which does work by RAW.
As such, no, it doesn't affect individual rolls. It affects ALL rolls. It doesn't look at Damage Roll #3 and ask "Did you take your penalty to attack? Oh, good boy! You get a treat!". It tells the character "You have a penalty to all your melee attack rolls. In return, you have a bonus to all your melee damage rolls.".
And therein lies the crux of my arguement; the rend is not an attack roll and thus should not get the 'good boy treat.'
Robert
Would the power attack penalty to hit not apply if you decided to make a touch attack too ?
in effect that is the reverse of this situation, it will not do damage but you need an attack roll...
|
|
is not at attack, it is just automatic damage (which is triggered by attacks that ARE effected by DR).
Which is similar in theme as "Swallow Whole" which is in and of itself not an attack, but a by-product of a successful attack.
I think some swallow whole features work as "swallowed" if you beat the persons AC by 5 or more or some other specified amount. Thus using power attack would lessen the chances of it triggering - just as it would for both claw attacks of a troll - thus lessening the chance that rend or gullet constriction (whatever you call it) from applying - but power attack being used on the bite will not add to the damage one receives in the belly of the beast - as it like rend is the by-product of a successful attack and not the successful attack itself.
Robert
|
|
Would the power attack penalty to hit not apply if you decided to make a touch attack too ?
in effect that is the reverse of this situation, it will not do damage but you need an attack roll...
So what you're stating is that someone who uses power attack in conjunction with a touch attack is "paying the price" but not getting the reward of the bonus damage?
That's an interesting point - and it's true. I'm not sure why someone would do that knowing they're not getting a bone for it.
That would be like using combat expertise to up ones AC against something that doesn't require an attack roll to hit you (like a creature Swarm)
To answer it simply - yes it would - and is explicity stated - however, if you know you'll get nothing for it, you wouldn't do it. Now, a player or well-roleplayed character may not KNOW that a swarm automatically hits and will use Combat Expert mistakenly thinking it will help - but after the first contact a good DM should describe his defensive manuevering as being ineffective. Afterwards they wouldn't do it again.
But in your scenario a player doens't need to have meta-game knowledge of a creature to know that his PA won't work on his proposed touch attack maneuver he's about to perform, so I'm guessing most players won't espouse to such an action.
Robert
|
|
Board ate my post. As stated before I am ok with either ruling, but the example of a power attacking troll getting extra rend damage makes more sense to me than an 8 STR halfling throwing two light hammers getting rend damage which does work by RAW.
true = but such a creature would not be adding Power Attack or Deadly aim damage to it.
And for what it's worth the rend damage for such a creature would lose some of it's potency since some it's bonus damage is hinged on one's stength modifier.
Robert
False. DR does not apply to attacks. DR applies to damage.
Alright, I'll be more specific: DR applies to damage from attacks (that is, a claw attack or longsword attack, for example). Rend is not an attack. It specifically says it in the DR description. That's why DR does nothing to help against things like fireball and falling damage.
And yes, I meant to say REND in the above post, not DR. Sorry about that.
Rend is not an attack.
Then why is it listed in the "Special Attacks" section of a monster stat block?
|
|
Rend is not an attack.Then why is it listed in the "Special Attacks" section of a monster stat block?
You mean as opposed to the MELEE ATTACK section of said stat block?
But by focusing on the word "attack" you fail to differentiate it from a "melee" attack.
Dragon breath, paralyzing gaze, fear-inducing howls, charming songs, eye-rays of a beholder, and disease causing spores of a vrock are all special attacks too - but Power Attack clearly doesn't work on them.
Why? because they are "Special Attacks". Not Melee Attacks.
"Special" is a different enough of an adjective to describe the type of attack to differentiates itself from Ranged Attack and Touch Attack as well.
Special, Melee, Touch, Ranged, Incorporeal Touch, Splash, Ranged Touch are all various terms used in the game to define and differentiate one type from another. To deny that Special ATTACK is actually different from ATTACK or MELEE attack would be to deny the difference of the other terms as well.
Robert
Rend is not an attack.Then why is it listed in the "Special Attacks" section of a monster stat block?You mean as opposed to the MELEE ATTACK section of said stat block?
But by focusing on the word "attack" you fail to differentiate it from a "melee" attack.
Dragon breath, paralyzing gaze, fear-inducing howls, charming songs, eye-rays of a beholder, and disease causing spores of a vrock are all special attacks too - but Power Attack clearly doesn't work on them.
Why? because they are "Special Attacks". Not Melee Attacks.
"Special" is a different enough of an adjective to describe the type of attack to differentiates itself from Ranged Attack and Touch Attack as well.
Special, Melee, Touch, Ranged, Incorporeal Touch, Splash, Ranged Touch are all various terms used in the game to define and differentiate one type from another. To deny that Special ATTACK is actually different from ATTACK or MELEE attack would be to deny the difference of the other terms as well.
Robert
What does that have to do with what I was responding to?
He said Rend was not an attack. I said it was. You even say it is.
And, by the way, I'm still waiting for you to come up with the rule that states all melee damage comes from a melee attack roll.
|
|
What does that have to do with what I was responding to?
It was just pointing out that although it is a type of attack, it isn't a standard melee attack - at least not one that is applicable with feats like Power Attack, Combat Expert, or Deadly Aim.
He said Rend was not an attack. I said it was. You even say it is.
Actually what I've trying to say all along is that it's not in and of itself an attack - it's a special attack - each special attack are special because each are adjudicated in a different way - and not resolved in a catch-all applicable mechanic (such as Ranged Touch attacks can be). Dragon Breath, Spores, Gaze etc are all resolved differently and different from creature to creature. Rend and Swallow Whole are two others.
By falling into a category that does not fall into standard melee attacks my stand is still that it is not intended to work in conjuction with power attack - none of them are.
And, by the way, I'm still waiting for you to come up with the rule that states all melee damage comes from a melee attack roll.
As I expressed before - it's inferred by the spirit of the mechanic. Take some away here - to add some there. On a one-for-one basis.
I don't need it to state "All melee damage caused by the very same attack that was penalizead by the use of this feat is increased by two times the penalty" in order for me to deduce the logic of the mechanic.
I don't need it to specifically state in the Unconscious description that you automatically fail perception checks.....
Some things simply go without saying.
Robert
In other words, your argument is circular. It's true because you say it's true.
So for those advocating power attack works with rend, what multiplier does it get? x0.5? x1? x1.5? How are you coming to that conclusion? Just curious.
I'm still not an advocate of it for the record.
So for those advocating power attack works with rend, what multiplier does it get? x0.5? x1? x1.5? How are you coming to that conclusion? Just curious.
By letter of the feat, x1. Rend does not come from an attack with an off-hand weapon, nor does it come from an attack with a two-handed weapon, an attack with a one-handed weapon wielded with two hands, or a primary natural attack with a 1 1/2 Strength modifier. However, it does mimic a natural attack with a 1 1/2 Strength modifier, so I apply the x1.5 modifier in my own games.
|
|
In other words, your argument is circular. It's true because you say it's true.
That's Right.
Just me. No one else agreed with me.
In actuality, I already gave plenty of instances and comparisons as to why Rend is not a "melee attack" and why it isn't meant to work in conjunction with additional damage from other sources (like Vital Strike - oops did I just open up that can of worms)?
You can rule it, believe it, and play it anyway you'd like. There are those on here who agree with you. There are those on here including JJ on the Paizo staff who disagrees. I do not have to play with it working as you see it in order for me to have fun, and I'm sure the reverse is also true. I will lose no sleep over how you use it in your games. That's what makes RPGs so special - there's no inherently WRONG way to play.
I would then only be concerned with how it should work in an organized play for official use - especially considering the "cookie-cutter" nature that characters are made (in other words no player-friendly GM golden handshake rules to make your characters more uber better), and concern for the potential abuse by a player who builds the two-weapon power attacking barbarian build I mentioned earlier.
It never worked with Rend in that way in the Living Greyhawk or other organized play, and I see no reason that it has or should be changed for Pathfinder Society - and if it doesn't apply to a creatures rend, it wouldn't apply to two-weapon rend feat (which is my guess that some with staunch support of the notion really pertains to them as possibly watering down their "build"), since that feat did not exist in 3.5, it was never a bone of contention then. So as I have described and defended it is how i believe it is logically meant to be used - one attack penalized - one attack benefitted.
You do not have to agree with me. My beliefs do not require you to in order for them to possibly be true.
Robert
In actuality, I already gave plenty of instances and comparisons as to why Rend is not a "melee attack"
I have never stated that Rend is a melee attack.
and why it isn't meant to work in conjunction with additional damage from other sources (like Vital Strike - oops did I just open up that can of worms)?
Uh, Rend and Vital Strike literally cannot both function on the same turn. Rend requires two hits from two separate attacks. Vital Strike requires that you only make one attack.
|
|
In actuality, I already gave plenty of instances and comparisons as to why Rend is not a "melee attack"I have never stated that Rend is a melee attack.
Good. Then it's not melee damage that it's inflicting as far as I'm concerned.
Not the strict definition of the term Melee for the purposes of this game.
Yes it's damage that is inflicted while engaged in melee combat. But so too is being knocked back by a barbarian, and sneak attack damage done by a rogue.
But it is not damage from a "melee attack" which is the meaning of the term. (melee used to define and differentiate it from other sources of damage).
Uh, Rend and Vital Strike literally cannot both function on the same turn. Rend requires two hits from two separate attacks. Vital Strike requires that you only make one attack.
I meant power attack damage being applied twice w/ use of Vital Strike.
False. DR does not apply to attacks. DR applies to damage.
Jumping in on that one...
Some magic creatures have the supernatural ability to instantly heal damage from weapons or ignore blows altogether as though they were invulnerable.
The numerical part of a creature's damage reduction (or DR) is the amount of damage the creature ignores from normal attacks. Usually, a certain type of weapon can overcome this reduction (see Overcoming DR). This information is separated from the damage reduction number by a slash. For example, DR 5/magic means that a creature takes 5 less points of damage from all weapons that are not magic. If a dash follows the slash, then the damage reduction is effective against any attack that does not ignore damage reduction.
So for those advocating power attack works with rend, what multiplier does it get? x0.5? x1? x1.5? How are you coming to that conclusion?
x1, just enough to tip the balance enough that Power Attack isn't a totally wasted feat for all creatures with rend.
Jumping in on that one...
So DR reduces your chance to hit now?
Now that it has appeared again I'll take the opportunity to mention that DR does not stop working below the skin(if there's skin at all, skeleton comes to mind) but involves all the subjects body IMO.
I couldn't but frown upon this idea when it was mentioned some posts ago.
edit:
BTW, aside from that pet peeve of mine, I really liked grasshoper's view in how all this should be handled.
An interesting topic no doubt. I'm really ok either way with it, but it does seem that if a troll were to power attack, the claws would sink in deeper, and the rend would be stronger as it is both ripping harder and has a deeper grip. As to DR tougher hide would be harder to rip reducing the rend damage. It should be a separate source.
Rend is not an attack.Then why is it listed in the "Special Attacks" section of a monster stat block?
You are taking a small portion of my post and taking it out of context. The entire post refers to "an attack" as being of the mundane kind (such as a claw attack or a longsword attack).
I do not think we come to a definitive conclusion on this thread, I see both points for and against it, I have been paging through the feats in the PHB and to me it seems while most are nice feats individually they do not work together well as a solid listing of feats that can be used indiscriminately in my campaigns, just like I won't allow some feats from different splat books.
two-weapon rend seems to add damage a bit too easy with multiple attacks and 1d10 damage seems an arbitrary ammount.
double slice lets you use full str bonus with off-hand attack which should in my opinion be worked into the power attack feat as well.
power attack could have been clearer on how it interacts with two-weapon rend, it is probably melee damage, but it isn't a primary attack though it does deal 1 1/2 times the strength damage.
I haven't switched to prpg fully, since my running campaign characters have a hard time to get converted to prpg ruleset, but too much of it seems to lack in a consistent set of rules.
I haven't encountered a perfect set of rules yet though, so I am very content to houserule freely, prpg might lack in consistency but it does add flavour to my gaming table.
To me it is an awesome book full of shiny options it just isn't quite there yet.
Shall we agree to disagree on this rend subject ? ^^
Just a reminder to you folks out there ;-)
Rend adds damage to an attack; it's not an attack in and of itself. Just as power attack won't increase sneak attack damage or constrict damage, it won't increase rend damage (although it DOES increase the damage inflicted by the attacks that are necessary to trigger rend in the first place). Rake attacks ARE attacks, so power attack applies there.
Rend kills enough PCs anyway. There's no need to increase its damage, for the same reason there's no reason to tie a machine gun onto a nuclear bomb!
I did read that, all I mean to say.. points are made clear, you can rule it however you want, good points for both.. and yes I know James told how he uses it, it isn't the end all answer for everyone, but I guess we got all we can from this thread ^^
and why it isn't meant to work in conjunction with additional damage from other sources (like Vital Strike - oops did I just open up that can of worms)?Uh, Rend and Vital Strike literally cannot both function on the same turn. Rend requires two hits from two separate attacks. Vital Strike requires that you only make one attack.
Funny you mention that because I was thinking about this earlier you could vital strike someone with one weapon, and hit them with another weapon as an AoO and technically qualify for two-weapon rend
*ducks the incoming rule books*
Just a reminder to you folks out there ;-)
Rend adds damage to an attack; it's not an attack in and of itself. Just as power attack won't increase sneak attack damage or constrict damage, it won't increase rend damage (although it DOES increase the damage inflicted by the attacks that are necessary to trigger rend in the first place). Rake attacks ARE attacks, so power attack applies there.
Rend kills enough PCs anyway. There's no need to increase its damage, for the same reason there's no reason to tie a machine gun onto a nuclear bomb!
Based on the wording of the two-weapon rend feat I have decided my stance will be 1d10 points of damage + 1 1/2 STR modifier because that is what is specifically stated. The rend description from the beastiary has similar wording. I can still see why people could read into it that power attack should apply, but rend itself states what damages apply and power attack is not included in the list. I would just treat rend as a separate attack, dealing rend damage, and applying DR separately.
Did the text of Rend change since this thread was created? The text of the ability at d20pfsrd.com repeatedly and consistently calls it an attack.
If it hits with two or more natural attacks in 1 round, a creature with the rend special attack can cause tremendous damage by latching onto the opponent’s body and tearing flesh. This attack deals an additional amount of damage, but no more than once per round. The type of attacks that must hit and the additional damage are included in the creature’s description. The additional damage is usually equal to the damage caused by one of the attacks plus 1-1/2 times the creature’s Strength bonus.
Did the text of Rend change since this thread was created? The text of the ability at d20pfsrd.com repeatedly and consistently calls it an attack.
If it hits with two or more natural attacks in 1 round, a creature with the rend special attack can cause tremendous damage by latching onto the opponent’s body and tearing flesh. This attack deals an additional amount of damage, but no more than once per round. The type of attacks that must hit and the additional damage are included in the creature’s description. The additional damage is usually equal to the damage caused by one of the attacks plus 1-1/2 times the creature’s Strength bonus.
It is an attack in the sense that it does damage. It is not an attack in the normal sense, because it is just a rider affect.