Power Attack: You can choose to take a –1 penalty on all melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +2 bonus on all melee damage rolls. This bonus to damage is increased by half (+50%) if you are making an attack with a two-handed weapon, a one handed weapon using two hands, or a primary natural weapon that adds 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier on damage rolls. When your base attack bonus reaches +4, and every 4 points thereafter, the penalty increases by –1 and the bonus to damage increases by +2.
Rules as written, the progression with a two-handed weapon would be:
BAB +1 = -1 to hit, +3 to damage
BAB +4 = -2 to hit, +5 to damage
BAB +8 = -3 to hit, +7 to damage
and so forth.
Nothing in the feat description says that the damage bonus is +3 each time. It says it's +3 at first level, and +2 at every subsequent tier. I don't know anyone that plays it that way though, is there some errata or faq I'm missing?
You're not multiplying the extra damage.
Normal (+50%)
+1 to +3: +2 damage (+3)
+4 to +7: +4 damage (+6)
+8 to +11: +6 damage (+9)
Etc.
You're not multiplying the extra damage.
Normal (+50%)
+1 to +3: +2 damage (+3)
+4 to +7: +4 damage (+6)
+8 to +11: +6 damage (+9)
Etc.
But that's my point. The rules don't say to multiply the extra damage. It says: When your base attack bonus reaches +4, and every 4 points thereafter, the penalty increases by –1 and the bonus to damage increases by +2. Nowhere does it say that these subsequent +2's become +3's for a 2 handed weapon.
Yes, you're crazy.
Really helpful input. Care to elaborate? I'm copy-pasting directly from the core rulebook and interpreting the rules exactly as they're written.
I guess the you're crazy was the short way of informing you that the additional effects that are added upon increasing bab are treated as the base and are then augmented by the +50%.
We can state this comfortably because it is RAI as far as we know/
Edit for clarification: You aren't multiplying the extra damage. You are multiplying the base damage. At a bab of 8 the base damage is +6.
|
There usually is no input needed for obvious things. Everyone plays it as written by Gorbacz, including the game developers and guys who write rulebooks and adventure paths. No developer ever stood to say it was wrong. Convoluted reading may appear RAW, it's still wrong.
You get a -1 penalty to attack for a +2 bonus to damage. The bonus to damage is increased by 50% when wielding a 2HW. The +2 bonus to damage increases by +2 later, becoming +4. You still gain +50% on this bonus.
The bonus starts at 2. Then, it gets +50% if THW. Then, the bonus is increased at BAB +4. Not a new bonus added. The bonus is increased. So you go back and replace the original bonus, then add 50%. You don't have a +2 bonus, a +50% adjustment to the origional +2 bonus, and a new unadjusted +2 bonus on top of that.
RAI is clear and unambiguos. If that hadn't meant for the 50% to apply to later increases, they wouldn't have written it that way. What you're doing is pointless sematitic wankery.
Again, given stuff like Death or Glory and Prone Shooter, why do people insist on holding the writers to standards they obviously don't meet?
|
|
Again, given stuff like Death or Glory and Prone Shooter, why do people insist on holding the writers to standards they obviously don't meet?
To be fair, designing for the Pathfinder RPG system is a bit like having to memorize the dictionary when you just want to write one sentence.
Not that it isn't awesome, but even the most hardcore rules lawyers always have something to learn.
Duh, I'm trying to be helpful and get shouted at...story of my life.
Other than you not actually trying to be helpful and me not shouting at you, excellent point.
his piece.
Makes sense as you interpret it, thanks. While it may be pointless, I wasn't trying to reinvent the wheel; just making an observation. I play it the same way everyone else does, just looking over the rules and notice what I thought was unclear wording. Thanks for the personal attack though; didn't know I was going to get called names tonight.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dude in all fairness consider your topic title. I don't think that Gorbacz was trying to offend you.
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you start your topic with "am I crazy?", the Rule of Comical Consequence demands that somebody answers "Yes you are" or "No you aren't".
And if you throw your arms up and act like if somebody kicked your puppy when that happens, well, don't make such thread titles.
I just took one for the team, threw myself upon the grenade, made sure that if Gary removes any posts it will be my posts, not from any poor bystander.
If you start your topic with "am I crazy?", the Rule of Comical Consequence demands that somebody answers "Yes you are" or "No you aren't".
And if you throw your arms up and act like if somebody kicked your puppy when that happens, well, don't make such thread titles.
I just took one for the team, threw myself upon the grenade, made sure that if Gary removes any posts it will be my posts, not from any poor bystander.
I'm cool with the "yes you are," just would have liked an actual response to go with it. I don't really know why my snarky response to your snarky response was taken as some kind of serious lashing out. I definitely didn't feel puppy-kicked, and didn't mean to act puppy-kicked. Fight fire with fire and all that? I guess my response should have been "please sir, may I have some more?"
Thanks for the personal attack though; didn't know I was going to get called names tonight.
That is what it sounded like. Perhaps though it isn't what you meant.
|
Power Attack: You can choose to take a –1 penalty on all melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +2 bonus on all melee damage rolls. This bonus to damage is increased by half (+50%) if you are making an attack with a two-handed weapon, a one handed weapon using two hands, or a primary natural weapon that adds 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier on damage rolls. When your base attack bonus reaches +4, and every 4 points thereafter, the penalty increases by –1 and the bonus to damage increases by +2.
Emphasis is mine. Basically when the last sentence refers to the "bonus to damage", it is referring to the bonus to damage before it is increased by half should you use a two handed weapon etc.
I entirely agree with DigitalMage's summary and implications.
Good question MyTThor as the PF rules can sometimes have nuggets that are incredibly tricky. Fortunately, you were overthinking this instance and the written text ties up the loose end you suggested.
clearly you put to much power attack into your response...
byc is also crazy as his post contributed nothing
"Power Attack: You can choose to take a –1 penalty on all melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +2 bonus on all melee damage rolls. This bonus to damage is increased by half (+50%) if you are making an attack with a two-handed weapon, a one handed weapon using two hands, or a primary natural weapon that adds 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier on damage rolls. When your base attack bonus reaches +4, and every 4 points thereafter, the penalty increases by –1 and the bonus to damage increases by +2."
The RAW is perfectly clear. In every instance "the bonus" being talked about is the same exact thing. Paizo has plenty of examples of shoddy rules-writing, but this one is as plain as day as you can get.
"Power Attack: You can choose to take a –1 penalty on all melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +2 bonus on all melee damage rolls. This bonus to damage is increased by half (+50%) if you are making an attack with a two-handed weapon, a one handed weapon using two hands, or a primary natural weapon that adds 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier on damage rolls. When your base attack bonus reaches +4, and every 4 points thereafter, the penalty increases by –1 and the bonus to damage increases by +2."
The RAW is perfectly clear. In every instance "the bonus" being talked about is the same exact thing. Paizo has plenty of examples of shoddy rules-writing, but this one is as plain as day as you can get.
Even I'd agree with this. And I can justify some really bizarre things from a close reading of the text.
Basically, Power Attack is: Gain a +2 bonus to damage. If you have a two-handed weapon, you gain +50%. You don't gain +1, you gain 50%. So your damage is now +2+(2*.50) = +3. When the bonus increases to +4, your damage is now +4+(4*.50) = +6.
|
A good way to check if you have the right interpretation, is to check out some of the sample PCs and NPCs given in the products, since they will often have a description of a typical attack routine, with and without Power Attack applied.
Usually, it's easier to spot on a low- to mid-level warrior type, as they won't be muddying the issue with lots of other circumstantial feats.
Pre-generated PCs stopped being included a while back, plus any statblocks up to PF24 were for the 3.5 rules, but if you check out some sample NPCs from PF 25 onwards, or in PF-specific products such as the Game Master's Guide, Rival Guide, etc, you'll see the progression is as described by everyone above, ie:
BAB +1-3; -1 to hit, damage bonus +1(off-hand)/+2(regular)/+3(2hand),
BAB +4-7; -2 to hit, damage bonus +2(off-hand)/+4(regular)/+6(2hand)
BAB +8-11; -3 to hit, damage bonus +3(off-hand)/+6(regular)/+9(2hand)
BAB +12-15; -4 to hit, damage bonus +4(off-hand)/+8(regular)/+12(2hand)
BAB +16-19; -5 to hit, damage bonus +5(off-hand)/+10(regular)/+15(2hand)
BAB +20; -6 to hit, damage bonus +6(off-hand)/+12(regular)/+18(2hand)
As well as being easier to remember, it's also elegant when it comes to the off-hand and secondary attacks. You're either adding one, two, or three times the attack penalty to your damage every time.
Thanks for the opinions all, but I need no more convincing. I never thought that it actually was the way I thought it read, just noticed what I thought was an inconsistency in the wording. I have since been corrected to my satisfaction.
I'm crazy too, but for reasons that are distinct from questionable reading comprehension.
I personally get a kick out of observing that PA effectively makes a martial character's BAB as a 3/4 class, and a 3/4 BAB class have BAB as 1/2... 1 level behind starting at +4. Then trade it off for more damage.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
MyTThor, your reading assumes that the Pathfinder rules are edited by technical writers with legal training, alert to what the rules actually say, vs. what they're intended to mean. That's a constant point of great confusion for those of us who deal with contracts, permits, regulations, and so on IRL.
Once you resign yourself to the fact that the rules are in fact written be people who say "close enough, you can pretty much tell what we're getting at, anyway," then interpreting them becomes a lot easier, because you know up front to simply skim for the big picture and not try to parse the actual wording.
I'm crazy too, but for reasons that are distinct from questionable reading comprehension.
I personally get a kick out of observing that PA effectively makes a martial character's BAB as a 3/4 class, and a 3/4 BAB class have BAB as 1/2... 1 level behind starting at +4. Then trade it off for more damage.
You still get the extra attacks though, also the Medium BAB ends with -4/+8 meaning you stay just ahead of slow BAB.
MyTThor, your reading assumes that the Pathfinder rules are edited by technical writers with legal training, alert to what the rules actually say, vs. what they're intended to mean. That's a constant point of great confusion for those of us who deal with contracts, permits, regulations, and so on IRL.
Once you resign yourself to the fact that the rules are in fact written be people who say "close enough, you can pretty much tell what we're getting at, anyway," then interpreting them becomes a lot easier, because you know up front to simply skim for the big picture and not try to parse the actual wording.
But it's so much fun to figure out what would happen if you applied the rules in an excessively literal manner! You come up with all kinds of amusing absurdities.