Hello, seems like a silly question, but I couldn't find it explicitly stated anywhere.
Fighting with a two-handed weapons increases your strength bonus on damage by x1.5.
Now, a character with a 12 strength normally has +1 damage. And typically, the rules are that a bonus will be a minimum of +1. I assume someone with a 12 strength would deliver +2 damage total with a two-handed weapon.
Someone with 17 strength normally gets +3 damage. The bonus will be x1.5 points of damage. So +4.5 damage... Does everyone play this as +5 damage?
Somewhere I remember a statement that all fractions roll-down, not up (meaning this would be +4), but I have been through so many versions of D&D this may be a dead rule.
|
Hello, seems like a silly question, but I couldn't find it explicitly stated anywhere.
Fighting with a two-handed weapons increases your strength bonus on damage by x1.5.
Now, a character with a 12 strength normally has +1 damage. And typically, the rules are that a bonus will be a minimum of +1. I assume someone with a 12 strength would deliver +2 damage total with a two-handed weapon.
Someone with 17 strength normally gets +3 damage. The bonus will be x1.5 points of damage. So +4.5 damage... Does everyone play this as +5 damage?
Somewhere I remember a statement that all fractions roll-down, not up (meaning this would be +4), but I have been through so many versions of D&D this may be a dead rule.
Always round down.
|
Hello, seems like a silly question, but I couldn't find it explicitly stated anywhere.
Fighting with a two-handed weapons increases your strength bonus on damage by x1.5.
Now, a character with a 12 strength normally has +1 damage. And typically, the rules are that a bonus will be a minimum of +1. I assume someone with a 12 strength would deliver +2 damage total with a two-handed weapon.
Someone with 17 strength normally gets +3 damage. The bonus will be x1.5 points of damage. So +4.5 damage... Does everyone play this as +5 damage?
Somewhere I remember a statement that all fractions roll-down, not up (meaning this would be +4), but I have been through so many versions of D&D this may be a dead rule.
RAW is always round down. My personal house rule is round in favor of the players (i.e. PCs and allies round up, enemies round down).
RAW is always round down. My personal house rule is round in favor of the players (i.e. PCs and allies round up, enemies round down).
Wouldn't mind a pointer to the RAW statement on that in the Core Rulebook, but assuming this is the case, what I am hearing is that the totals for x1.5 strength bonus would look like this:
Str(normal)(x1.5 Total) Actual Percentage
12(+1)(+1) +0%
13(+1)(+1) +0%
14(+2)(+3) +50%
15(+2)(+3) +50%
16(+3)(+4) +33%
17(+3)(+4) +33%
18(+4)(+6) +50%
Adding +50% to very tiny whole numbers creates this. I wonder that an average person with a 10-11 strength gets no benefit two-handed. I am an average Joe and I bet I would get a little extra bite out of an ax swing with both hands. :)
I wonder if in my games I should just house rule that one gets +1 damage when using two hands, regardless of strength. (I could hear the fighter's howl, as soon as I wrote this.)
|
|
Wouldn't mind a pointer to the RAW statement on that in the Core Rulebook,
RAW is always round down. My personal house rule is round in favor of the players (i.e. PCs and allies round up, enemies round down).
Core rulebook, pg 8: "Unless otherwise noted, whenever you are must round a number, always round down." Toward the end of the book, in the section about calculating Average Party Level, it does make an exception, but in almost all other cases, it says to round down.
but assuming this is the case, what I am hearing is that the totals for x1.5 strength bonus would look like this:
Str(normal)(x1.5 Total) Actual Percentage
12(+1)(+1) +0%
13(+1)(+1) +0%
14(+2)(+3) +50%
15(+2)(+3) +50%
16(+3)(+4) +33%
17(+3)(+4) +33%
18(+4)(+6) +50%
By RAW, that is correct.
I wonder if in my games I should just house rule that one gets +1 damage when using two hands, regardless of strength. (I could hear the fighter's howl, as soon as I wrote this.)
That doesn't sound like an unreasonable house rule! :)
RAW is always round down. My personal house rule is round in favor of the players (i.e. PCs and allies round up, enemies round down).Wouldn't mind a pointer to the RAW statement on that in the Core Rulebook, but assuming this is the case, what I am hearing is that the totals for x1.5 strength bonus would look like this:
Str(normal)(x1.5 Total) Actual Percentage
12(+1)(+1) +0%
13(+1)(+1) +0%
14(+2)(+3) +50%
15(+2)(+3) +50%
16(+3)(+4) +33%
17(+3)(+4) +33%
18(+4)(+6) +50%Adding +50% to very tiny whole numbers creates this. I wonder that an average person with a 10-11 strength gets no benefit two-handed. I am an average Joe and I bet I would get a little extra bite out of an ax swing with both hands. :)
I wonder if in my games I should just house rule that one gets +1 damage when using two hands, regardless of strength. (I could hear the fighter's howl, as soon as I wrote this.)
Yeah, +1 gets no bonus, but then again what self respecting two-handing fighter only has a +1? :)
I will try to find the quote for the rounding
Rounding: Occasionally the rules ask you to round a result or value. Unless otherwise stated, always round down. For example, if you are asked to take half of 7, the result would be 3.
It should be in the "getting started" section in the core book.
edit:edit made.
Thanks everyone, for the reference in the book. I never would have found it; I haven't read that page more than once, and that was quickly, while getting on to the rest. :)