I can see how it's possible to interpret it as that, but I don't think (observe think; I'm not sure) that it isn't intended. I also think that TWF needs all the help it can get, and thus I'd advice against it. It's not as if two-weapon fighters have an easy time anyway.
It is only the attack with the off-hand weapon that only gets 50% of the PA damage.
While it is possible to read it as you do, but then again, this might cause some very strange situation if you A) are multi-weapon fighting and combining two handed weapons with off hand ones, or B) you have a primary natural attack with 1½ str bonus, and either other attacks or secondary natural attacks.
Generelly I think it is reading too much into it, as does nowhere state that the + or - 50% is added to all attacks, and not the specific one in question.
And if I am making an attack with a 2-handed weapon and an off-hand weapon (see armor spikes)? Do I get a cancelation, 150% then 50% of that damage? By your own ruling that's what would happen.
Attacks are with a particular weapon, not with all attacks. If I had a feat that said I get +9999 damage when I attack with a Mace, that would not mean I would get that damage added to a sword if I TWF Sword and Mace.
The me phrase it as Power Attack does:
This bonus to damage increases to +9999 if you are making an attack with a light mace.
I see some of where the OP is getting confused -- and I congratulate him on presenting his problem well too. Often we have people post up with lots of misspelled words, a maximum of two sentences which aren't even sentences and not clearly stating what they are having trouble with. I would hold this OP up as an example of how to post a question in the rules forum.
Now on to clarifying the situation:
Power attack does it's mojo based on the type of attack you are using, however it isn't a "single instance" but a "check each time you make an attack" sort of check.
So if we were to attack with a two handed weapon we would get a 50% increase on the damage bonus that is received from power attack. If you were to then attack with an off hand attack (regardless of where that attack comes from) we must recalculate the amount of bonus power attack gives the off hand attack. All off hand attacks only deal 50% of the normal bonus from power attack. It would not get the increase in damage because it is not a two handed weapon.
So we have the following situations that arise:
Attacking with an one handed or light weapon = Normal power attack damage
Attacking with a two handed weapon (or one handed used with two hands or natural attack that gets str and 1/2 damage) = 1.5 normal power attack damage.
Attacking with an off hand weapon (or secondary natural attack = .5 normal power attack damage.
For a quick example I'll use a fighter using a great sword and armor spikes with two weapon fighting at level 1 with power attack (strength of 14):
Greatsword +0 (2d6+3(str)+3(power attack))
Armor spikes +0 (1d6+1(str)+1(power attack))
+1 on Abe`s sentiment in all respects.
Technically, the Feat COULD probably be better written, more along the lines of:
¨This bonus to damage is increased by half (+50%) ON ATTACKS MADE WITH a two-handed weapon...¨
That said, as Abe explains it is how the Feat is understood to operate.
Now I could see one point of contention with a summoner's eidolon having multiple arms and using multiple two handed weapons.
In such a case I would guess that the "off hand" two handed weapons should deal normal power attack damage, I base this off of the order of operations: division and multiplication would cancel out before being applied to the power attack damage.
To add to the question, would having a way to add full strength to your off hand (Double Slice or a monk's Flurry of Blows) mean that you can add full strength with Power Attack?
Yar.
would having a way to add full strength to your off hand (Double Slice or a monk's Flurry of Blows) mean that you can add full strength with Power Attack?
There have been threads on this before, and people seem to be torn. My answer however is this:
No. Power Attack, with the exception of natural attacks that deal 1-1/2 str, does NOT actually rely on the strength bonus being inflicted to determine it's effects. Power attack relies on the size of the weapon and how it's being wielded. An off-hand attack with full strength bonus is still an off-hand attack.
The opposite is also true (well, not really opposite, but the other end of the PA spectrum). A two-handed fighter (archetype) does not get double the normal PA bonus when using Overhand Chop (which gives double his Str to damage). Increasing PA's bonus damage is it's own, separate thing (see Greater power Attack, gained at 15th level).
~P
To add to the question, would having a way to add full strength to your off hand (Double Slice or a monk's Flurry of Blows) mean that you can add full strength with Power Attack?
I think that yes. In the monk entry, it says : "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may apply his full STR bonus on damage rolls for all his unarmed strikes"
ABout the double slice part, although I would allow the full PowerAtk bonus should a character have double slice, it isn't so well said in the book...
EDIT : Since the Flury of blows part is treater as being the two-weapon fighting fork of feats, I would assume it also comes with the semblance of double slice, hence the "No such thing as off-hand attacks". I could be mistaken, but more evidence shows up in favor of the full PowerAttack Bonus while double-slicing.
Thanks that does alot to clear this up enough for me.
Yar.
Yup: a monk does not actually make off-hand attacks in a flurry-of-blows. So if he power attacks, all his attacks gain the full, normal bonus. If he used a temple sword (which IS a monk weapon) with both hands (see one-handed weapon used two-handed), he will gain PA's 2handed bonus to his attacks. His strength bonus is not at 1.5 however, as that is specifically called out in the FoB description as being static.
The key here is this: Power Attacks bonus is NOT based on the strength bonus to damage. Power Attacks bonus IS based on the size of the weapon being used, and HOW it's being used.
~P
If he used a temple sword (which IS a monk weapon) with both hands (see one-handed weapon used two-handed), he will gain PA's 2handed bonus to his attacks.
Are you sure of this?
EDIT: I've found the thread. IMHO is not RAI, but is RAW and, more importantly, I'm quite fine with it :)
And remember, when using power attack, all Attacks of Opportunity you take "until your next turn" gain the bonus too. Those are not off-hand attacks.
And remember, when using power attack, all Attacks of Opportunity you take "until your next turn" gain the bonus too. Those are not off-hand attacks.
I was just going to ask that haha.
Speaking of which.... an attack of opportunity... what can I attack with?
Such as...
... a trip?
... a Stunning Fist?
... a Vital Strike?
or is it just basic melee attack?
Trip is an option as is stunning fist -- vital strike isn't since it requires a standard action.
Anything that can be done "As part of an attack action" or "In place of an attack" can generally be done as an AoO.
Trip is an option as is stunning fist -- vital strike isn't since it requires a standard action.
Anything that can be done "As part of an attack action" or "In place of an attack" can generally be done as an AoO.
Thanks. Kinda wish the core wasnt vague about this. I dont want to sound like a munchkin when I use stunning fist as an AoO and try and prove that I can do it with what looks like a technicallity :/
Trip is an option as is stunning fist -- vital strike isn't since it requires a standard action.
Anything that can be done "As part of an attack action" or "In place of an attack" can generally be done as an AoO.
Sure?
An attack action is a standard action while an AoO is more like an immediate action.Making an Attack of Opportunity
An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack, and .....
You dont get an attack action .. you only get a single melee attack.
So in my opinion you cant use combat maneuvers etc. as a part of an AoO.
Trip is an option as is stunning fist -- vital strike isn't since it requires a standard action.
Anything that can be done "As part of an attack action" or "In place of an attack" can generally be done as an AoO.
Sure?
An attack action is a standard action while an AoO is more like an immediate action.Making an Attack of Opportunity
An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack, and .....
You dont get an attack action .. you only get a single melee attack.
So in my opinion you cant use combat maneuvers etc. as a part of an AoO.
1. An AoO is not a standard action. Otherwise you could do other things that you can do with a standard action which you can't.
2. I already said you could do any combat maneuver you can do "as part of an attack action" or "in place of an attack" (which are the lines generally used in trip, disarm, or stunning fist).
3. It's still not a standard action so you couldn't grapple, or sunder.
Now an attack can be done as a standard action but that doesn't mean all attacks are such.
I think Abe confused English with Pathfinder-ese when he said anything that can be done ´as an attack action´ can be done via AoO. ´Attack action´ is a very specific Standard Action in PRPG*, even though AoO´s are ´attacks´ and they do count as ´action´ in the English-language sense of things. AoO´s could be considered their own action type in a sense (you have X many AoO´s per round), but they have nothing to do with other action types in the game (standard, swift, immediate) and suggesting so will just confuse one further.
SO: No Sunders or Vital Strikes as Aoo´s, because those use the attack action. Likewise nothing else ´fancy´ like Cleaves (Standard Action)... just one attack roll. Trips and Disarms CAN be substituted for ANY attack roll (with qualifying weapons for Trip, according to James Jacobs, not so clear by RAW), and Stunning Fist is very flexible in that it can apply to ANY attack you want, whatever action/non-action was used to initiate it (you just can´t go over the 1/round limitation normally).
* and 3.x, it didn´t actually change... and neither did the location of general attack info like crits, i.e. under ´attack action´... whoops!
I didn't say "as an attack action" I said, "as part of an attack action" Not the same thing.