| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
"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."
Since he adds to the damage roll rather than replaces his normal strength bonus, does this mean the fighter effectively gets 3x his strength to damage?
"Weapon Training (Ex): As the fighter class feature, but the bonuses only apply when wielding two-handed melee weapons."
So, does a 9th-level fighter get a +2 to attack and damage with ALL two-handed weapons? Or does he only get a +2 bonus with a subset of two-handed weapons and a +1 bonus to another subset of two-handed weapons?
"Backswing (Ex): At 7th level, when a two-handed fighter makes a full attack with a two-handed weapon, he adds double his Strength bonus on damage rolls for all attacks after the first. This ability replaces armor training 2."
As my first question, since it's ADDING to the damage roll is the final damage roll with x3 strength mod or x2 strength mod?
|
"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."
Since he adds to the damage roll rather than replaces his normal strength bonus, does this mean the fighter effectively gets 3x his strength to damage?
"Weapon Training (Ex): As the fighter class feature, but the bonuses only apply when wielding two-handed melee weapons."
So, does a 9th-level fighter get a +2 to attack and damage with ALL two-handed weapons? Or does he only get a +2 bonus with a subset of two-handed weapons and a +1 bonus to another subset of two-handed weapons?
"Backswing (Ex): At 7th level, when a two-handed fighter makes a full attack with a two-handed weapon, he adds double his Strength bonus on damage rolls for all attacks after the first. This ability replaces armor training 2."
As my first question, since it's ADDING to the damage roll is the final damage roll with x3 strength mod or x2 strength mod?
1) It is pretty clear that you simply add double your strength when making the specified type of attack with a two-handed weapon. Suggesting that this adds on top of the strength.5 he would normally add is ... yeah, sorry no. If this were the case the phrasing would reflect that you would add that much as a bonus. Also, technically your math is wrong, if you added that way you would be using 3.5x Strength on these attacks.
2) This one is a little bit vague but I am pretty sure that the bonus simply applies to all two-handed weapons, not a subset of them. The wording however, is a bit ambiguous.
3) Same as my first answer but this now counts toward full-attacks as well. Arguing otherwise just enters the realm of silliness.
I think it's supposed to be "adds instead of" for 1 and 3, and all two handed weapons for 2. As for the "adds instead of", doesn't it normally say to "add 1 and a half times your Str" for a two handed weapon? That is why I am pretty sure they're trying to say 2x instead of 1.5x. That and that's how Overhand Chop (the feat) worked in the Beta.
Suggesting that this adds on top of the strength.5 he would normally add is ... yeah, sorry no. If this were the case the phrasing would reflect that you would add that much as a bonus.
Is that not how it is phrased?
Ravingdork, sometimes I wonder about these posts of yours... XD
And I have a bunch of question posts tonight. :P
...I am pretty sure that the bonus [for weapon training] simply applies to all two-handed weapons, not a subset of them...
Would it apply to bows then as they are two-handed? EDIT: Nevermind. It specifically says MELEE weapons.
|
|
Is that not how it is phrased?
No it isn't phrased that way. It's phrasing directs you to add double your strength to these attacks, not add double your strength to these attacks on top of your normal strength bonus.
You seriously need to stop looking for "key" words to try to abuse, it makes me wonder if you really think these half-baked munchkin interpretations do any good.
Is that not how it is phrased?No it isn't phrased that way. It's phrasing directs you to add double your strength to these attacks, not add double your strength to these attacks on top of your normal strength bonus.
You seriously need to stop looking for "key" words to try to abuse, it makes me wonder if you really think these half-baked munchkin interpretations do any good.
I think my posts do plenty of good. It gets people to think about alternate interpretations that they may not have otherwise considered themselves. If the game designers didn't intend for this to be a possible interpretation, then it shows them that errata or a new clarifying FAQ entry may be called for.
It's one of my hobbies to help the designers in said fashion (by finding the quirky little rules loop holes that nobody else does). I've been doing it since the invention of D&D v3.5 and Star Wars Saga Edition. Not gonna stop any time soon.
EDIT: And though I'm sure it wasn't intended to work that way, it DOES seem to be phrased that way.
No man, I have to side with Carbon here. It is phased the very way it is in the core book. It is clear that this replaces the normal 1.5, sorry man there really is no need to clear this up as most people do not seem to be in the lest bit confused about it.
No man, I have to side with Carbon here. It is phased the very way it is in the core book. It is clear that this replaces the normal 1.5, sorry man there really is no need to clear this up as most people do not seem to be in the lest bit confused about it.
But there's no qualifier stating that it replaces the original rule.
Its called common sense man, not every thing needs 40 words to nail it down. Your the only one confused here because you look for things to twist to mean something else. This is simply not an issue.
RD I do think you look for the strongest possible interpretation of a rule. I also think it is clear that you only get double strength, not strength + double strength or any variation of it.
I do see how a new person might misinterpret it, but after a certain amount of time most people become pretty good with recognizing intent even if the rule is not in legalese.
By the way the thread is over. Check the post above mine.
Its called common sense man, not every thing needs 40 words to nail it down. Your the only one confused here because you look for things to twist to mean something else. This is simply not an issue.
It wouldn't take 40 words to clarify. At most it would need one more sentence (and rephrasing the existing sentence might require the addition of only one or two more words).
I am NOT confused.
I DO look for different meanings in things.
|
|
Sorry to jump this threade back up, but I have a question about the interaction of overhand chop and backswing. Overhand Chop applies to single attacks, whilst Backswing applies to all but the first attack in a full attack. This interprets to me that you have the following for a single and full attack respectively:
Single: weapon damage + (2 x Str) if you hit
Full: weapon damage + (1.5 x Str) if you hit with the first, weapon damage + (2 x Str) if you hit with any of the others
However, it seems a bit strange to me that the first attack in a full attack would be weaker. Is the RAI that overhand chop is for the first attack in an attack routine (including an attack routine that only has one attack) and backswing opens it out to any subsequent attacks, or is it just that the first one is weaker?
However, it seems a bit strange to me that the first attack in a full attack would be weaker. Is the RAI that overhand chop is for the first attack in an attack routine (including an attack routine that only has one attack) and backswing opens it out to any subsequent attacks, or is it just that the first one is weaker?
Well, to add to this... you don't know it the first attack is a single attack OR the firts of an actual full attack until you attack a second time.
Shouldn't more easy just say that past X level the TH fighter adds 2x str to EVERY blow, and call it a day :D ?
Well, to add to this... you don't know it the first attack is a single attack OR the firts of an actual full attack until you attack a second time.
I'm gonna have to say you're incorrect, as per the rules as written. Taking one attack, using the attack action, is a standard action. Taking multiple attacks is a full-round action. It's not specified anywhere that a full attack is a single attack that gets upgraded, so by a scrict reading of the rules, you decide at the beginning of your turn which you're making. (You can't decide what type of action you took AFTER you took the action, right? Strictly, you'd decide before making your first attack whether you're going to take one or two, because you're deciding whether you're going to use a standard or a full-round action.) I'm sure many DMs allow this, but that doesn't mean it's intended. Being able to choose what action you took AFTER the fact would lead to lots of weird rules situations, like the one you said, where you get different bonuses whether you spent a standard or a full.
|
Well, to add to this... you don't know it the first attack is a single attack OR the firts of an actual full attack until you attack a second time.I'm gonna have to say you're incorrect, as per the rules as written. Taking one attack, using the attack action, is a standard action. Taking multiple attacks is a full-round action. It's not specified anywhere that a full attack is a single attack that gets upgraded, so by a scrict reading of the rules, you decide at the beginning of your turn which you're making. (You can't decide what type of action you took AFTER you took the action, right? Strictly, you'd decide before making your first attack whether you're going to take one or two, because you're deciding whether you're going to use a standard or a full-round action.) I'm sure many DMs allow this, but that doesn't mean it's intended. Being able to choose what action you took AFTER the fact would lead to lots of weird rules situations, like the one you said, where you get different bonuses whether you spent a standard or a full.
Sorry Gabe but it's explicitly stated in the Full Attack section that you can take a single melee attack and then choose to complete a full attack or use your move action. You don't have to specify a full attack beforehand. I as a GM prefer players calling out their actions on their turn, but this is one that's always been allowed.
Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack: After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round. If you've already taken a 5-foot step, you can't use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.
--Vrock Bottom Prices!
@King of Vrock:
I see your point and it makes perfect sense. I just wonder why the developers explicitly say in "Backswing (Ex)":
"At 7th level, when a two-handed fighter makes a full-attack with a two-handed weapon, he adds double his Strength bonus on damage rolls for all attacks after the first."
instead of only:
"At 7th level, when a two-handed fighter makes a full-attack with a two-handed weapon, he adds double his Strength bonus on damage rolls for all attacks."
(quoted from the d20pfsrd.com)