A fighter using a greatsword with a 16 STR deals 2d6 + 4 damage.
The same fighter, with the two-handed fighter archtype in the APG using the overhand chop ability, deals 2d6 + ?
Do they add double their STR bonus, so +6 and then add 50% to make +9?
Or do they add 50% to their original STR bonus - +4 and then add their STR bonus again for +7?
Or, and this is a long shot, do they deal their original STR bonus, +4, and then ADD double their STR bonus for a total of +10.
What do you think?
Iirc one developer said (in the APG errata thread iirc) that it was "instead of 1.5 Str" so it is 2d6+6
A fighter using a greatsword with a 16 STR deals 2d6 + 4 damage.
The same fighter, with the two-handed fighter archtype in the APG using the overhand chop ability, deals 2d6 + ?Do they add double their STR bonus, so +6 and then add 50% to make +9?
Or do they add 50% to their original STR bonus - +4 and then add their STR bonus again for +7?Or, and this is a long shot, do they deal their original STR bonus, +4, and then ADD double their STR bonus for a total of +10.
What do you think?
These sorts of ambiguities are frustrating....and unnecessary! Just send me the galleys of all future products, and I will mark in RED the things you missed...or need clarity....or totally contradict other rules....etc.
BIG SMILE!
A fighter using a greatsword with a 16 STR deals 2d6 + 4 damage.
The same fighter, with the two-handed fighter archtype in the APG using the overhand chop ability, deals 2d6 + ?Do they add double their STR bonus, so +6 and then add 50% to make +9?
Or do they add 50% to their original STR bonus - +4 and then add their STR bonus again for +7?Or, and this is a long shot, do they deal their original STR bonus, +4, and then ADD double their STR bonus for a total of +10.
What do you think?
These sorts of ambiguities are frustrating....and unnecessary! Just send me the galleys of all future products, and I will mark in RED the things you missed...or need clarity....or totally contradict other rules....etc.
Overhand Chop (Ex): At 3rd level, when a two-handed
fighter makes a single attack (with the attack action or acharge) with a two-handed weapon, he adds double his
Strength bonus on damage rolls. This ability replaces
armor training 1.
There is no ambiguity at all in this statement. There is no mention of dealing an additional anything, no 50% on top of double your strength bonus..... Simply double your strength bonus....
These sorts of ambiguities are frustrating....and unnecessary! Just send me the galleys of all future products, and I will mark in RED the things you missed...or need clarity....or totally contradict other rules....etc.Overhand Chop (Ex): At 3rd level, when a two-handed
fighter makes a single attack (with the attack action or a
charge) with a two-handed weapon, he adds double his
Strength bonus on damage rolls. This ability replaces
armor training 1.There is no ambiguity at all in this statement. There is no mention of dealing an additional anything, no 50% on top of double your strength bonus..... Simply double your strength bonus....
On the contrary, that is exactly where the ambiguity lies. The simple statement "when a fighter makes a single attack, (etc) he ADDS (etc)", strongly implies that you use the normal rules for the attack damage and ADD double your strength bonus. And many, if not most, players of fighters who enjoy laying down the smack will see it this way.
When you contradict and/or fiddle with the normal working of a rule, you should drop a simple line like: he adds double his strength bonus on the damage roll (instead of one and a half times his strength bonus).
Easy as pie.
PS I should clarify that while I think this is needlessly ambiguous, I did not for one moment think that they actually meant for the fighter to add double his bonus on top of the normal damage. I wouldn't allow that anyway.
|
I think it is perfectly clear that the ability means 'replace damage with' rather than 'add to damage'. Especially for those of us who saw Overhand Chop as a Beta feat with the call out. As it is not a feat, I can forgive them for not following the feat format of spelling out what normally happens without the feature.
General question: why do the messageboards sometimes make your whole post a quote? I went back and checked to make sure the "end quotes" were in the right place, yet entire post is in the gray quote field.
Hmmmphh.
I think it is perfectly clear that the ability means 'replace damage with' rather than 'add to damage'. Especially for those of us who saw Overhand Chop as a Beta feat with the call out. As it is not a feat, I can forgive them for not following the feat format of spelling out what normally happens without the feature.
Ah, you see that is precisely what I don't forgive. The feat format clearly states in the Normal entry that you 'normally add 1 1/2 times your str bonus'. So when you cut and paste it to the class ability text, you have to make sure you restate that. If it were originally written as a class ability instead of a feat, it's likely that it would have been more clear in the first place.
Cut/paste errors are the most common form in the entire Pathfinder RPG and it's predecessors.
|
|
Usually there is an extra open quote tag in there somewhere. I think it was from the multiple quotes you quoted. So it added a close quote tag on the end to close it out.
I can agree with that. The Inquisitor cut/paste errors annoy me. However, I still don't think anyone reasonable would honestly think it said to add x2 STR bonus to x1.5 STR bonus for total damage.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
These sorts of ambiguities are frustrating....and unnecessary! Just send me the galleys of all future products, and I will mark in RED the things you missed...or need clarity....or totally contradict other rules....etc.Overhand Chop (Ex): At 3rd level, when a two-handed
fighter makes a single attack (with the attack action or a
charge) with a two-handed weapon, he adds double his
Strength bonus on damage rolls. This ability replaces
armor training 1.There is no ambiguity at all in this statement. There is no mention of dealing an additional anything, no 50% on top of double your strength bonus..... Simply double your strength bonus....
On the contrary, that is exactly where the ambiguity lies. The simple statement "when a fighter makes a single attack, (etc) he ADDS (etc)", strongly implies that you use the normal rules for the attack damage and ADD double your strength bonus. And many, if not most, players of fighters who enjoy laying down the smack will see it this way.
When you contradict and/or fiddle with the normal working of a rule, you should drop a simple line like: he adds double his strength bonus on the damage roll (instead of one and a half times his strength bonus).
Easy as pie.
PS I should clarify that while I think this is needlessly ambiguous, I did not for one moment think that they actually meant for the fighter to add double his bonus on top of the normal damage. I wouldn't allow that anyway.
It doesn't "strongly imply anything", it simply states that when you make a single attack you add double your strength bonus. How does it suggest you use the normal rules for damage and then add double your strength? Like I said, there is no suggestion, inference, whatever that you calculate normal damage then add an extra 2x. Does it say "when a fighter makes a single attack and rolls normal damage... he then adds double his strength bonus" or something like that? The "when a fighter makes a single attack" is simply a conditional clause that provides context for the "he adds double his Strength bonus on damage rolls" bit.
From the PRD.
Strength Bonus: When you hit with a melee or thrown weapon, including a sling, add your Strength modifier to the damage result. A Strength penalty, but not a bonus, applies on damage rolls made with a bow that is not a composite bow.
Off-Hand Weapon: When you deal damage with a weapon in your off hand, you add only 1/2 your Strength bonus. If you have a Strength penalty, the entire penalty applies.
Wielding a Weapon Two-Handed: When you deal damage with a weapon that you are wielding two-handed, you add 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus (Strength penalties are not multiplied). You don't get this higher Strength bonus, however, when using a light weapon with two hands.
The Overhand Chop description uses the same language as the standard strength bonuses - add your strength modifier, add only half your strength bonus, add 1 1/2 times your strength bonus...add double his strength bonus. No mention of "on top of normal damage" etc. People are taking a simple description and complicating by reading too much into it.
Sure they could put in an additional clause in as you suggest, but then all the Pathfinder books would be twice as long.
That said, as some of the other posters have said, a bit more consistency in descriptions and terminolgy across feat descriptions, class abilites etc would not hurt.
Usually there is an extra open quote tag in there somewhere. I think it was from the multiple quotes you quoted. So it added a close quote tag on the end to close it out.
I can agree with that. The Inquisitor cut/paste errors annoy me. However, I still don't think anyone reasonable would honestly think it said to add x2 STR bonus to x1.5 STR bonus for total damage.
Of course, you are right. Now....where did I see those reasonable people....?
It doesn't "strongly imply anything", it simply states that when you make a single attack you add double your strength bonus. How does it suggest you use the normal rules for damage and then add double your strength? Like I said, there is no suggestion, inference, whatever that you calculate normal damage then add an extra 2x. Does it say "when a fighter makes a single attack and rolls normal damage... he then adds double his strength bonus" or something like...
These sorts of ambiguities are frustrating....and unnecessary! Just send me the galleys of all future products, and I will mark in RED the things you missed...or need clarity....or totally contradict other rules....etc.Overhand Chop (Ex): At 3rd level, when a two-handed
fighter makes a single attack (with the attack action or a
charge) with a two-handed weapon, he adds double his
Strength bonus on damage rolls. This ability replaces
armor training 1.There is no ambiguity at all in this statement. There is no mention of dealing an additional anything, no 50% on top of double your strength bonus..... Simply double your strength bonus....
On the contrary, that is exactly where the ambiguity lies. The simple statement "when a fighter makes a single attack, (etc) he ADDS (etc)", strongly implies that you use the normal rules for the attack damage and ADD double your strength bonus. And many, if not most, players of fighters who enjoy laying down the smack will see it this way.
When you contradict and/or fiddle with the normal working of a rule, you should drop a simple line like: he adds double his strength bonus on the damage roll (instead of one and a half times his strength bonus).
Easy as pie.
PS I should clarify that while I think this is needlessly ambiguous, I did not for one moment think that they actually meant for the fighter to add double his bonus on top of the normal damage. I wouldn't allow that anyway.
Wow...I am happy that the rules are so crystal clear to you. But I have been reading mass confusion about d20 rules all over the web for 10 years now. So, I think a few words of clarification around some rules is a good and simple thing.
However, I still don't think anyone reasonable would honestly think it said to add x2 STR bonus to x1.5 STR bonus for total damage.
I agree. However, players that read the rules to maximize their characters aren't reasonable, and those unclear rules just make the task of dealing with those players harder. As usual the DMs get no love :p
Edit:
I agree with Can'tFindthePath. "Adding" in pathfinder/3.5 doesn't usually mean that you replace the normal modifiers, at least when I read "Gnomes add +1 to the DC of any saving throws against illusion spells that they cast" I still apply the usual modifiers to DC and when I use Strength Surge I don't ignore the normal Str bonus. But I migth be doing it wrong.
General question: why do the messageboards sometimes make your whole post a quote? I went back and checked to make sure the "end quotes" were in the right place, yet entire post is in the gray quote field.
Hmmmphh.
The post to which you refer has 4 (Quote=) and only three (/quote) so you are missing an "end quote".
"To understand recursion you must begin by understanding recursion." - programmer proverb
General question: why do the messageboards sometimes make your whole post a quote? I went back and checked to make sure the "end quotes" were in the right place, yet entire post is in the gray quote field.
Hmmmphh.
The post to which you refer has 4 (Quote=) and only three (/quote) so you are missing an "end quote".
"To understand recursion you must begin by understanding recursion." - programmer proverb
Thanks.
I looked it over pretty well when trying to edit out the full quote but, I guess I missed it.