|
And the :
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.
How much damage would someone with 18 Str be doing with with an overhand chop ?
This was actually talked about just a few days ago.
I'd wager a sack of gold coin that the intent was to be +8. But the wording is very liberal with its use of the term "bonus"
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.
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 weapons with two hands.
Depends on which instance of the term bonus you want to base it on.
This was actually talked about just a few days ago.
I'd wager a sack of gold coin that the intent was to be +8. But the wording is very liberal with its use of the term "bonus"
Stat Modifier; The number associated with that stat expressed as either a + or -. A Strength of 18 has a +4 modifier.
Stat Penalty; If the modifier for a stat is negative, this number is that stat's penalty. A strength of 8 has a -1 penalty.
Stat Bonus; If the modifier for a stat is positive, this number is that stat's bonus. A strength score of 18 has a +4 bonus.
////
A Stat Modifier can be either a penalty or a bonus. The term modifier is used when the particular calculation doesn't care one way or the other. Ex. Skill checks, saves, melee attack bonus, etc.
A Stat Bonus is always a positive number. This is your stat modifier, if your stat modifier is a positive number. This will be used when only a positive or beneficial feature is being applied. Thus a negative number is never used where a stat bonus is used. Ex. If you have a St of 8 and a -1 strength modifier, and a feat says to add your strength bonus to [whatever] you would not add anything to this roll. You do not have a strength bonus add.
Clear enough?
////
The answer is you'd add +8.
You guys just ruled a cool ability into lameness.
The way my Gm and I was using it was 18 str mod = 4
Plus 2 for 1.5 str then doubling for over head chop. So
I was getting 12. Now my gm will see this and I kiss my 12 good bye.
You guys just ruled a cool ability into lameness.
The way my Gm and I was using it was 18 str mod = 4
Plus 2 for 1.5 str then doubling for over head chop. So
I was getting 12. Now my gm will see this and I kiss my 12 good bye.
Ask him to house rule you into OPness by making it three times your Str bonus. If that is 'cool', ask for it. Then you'd have your +12.
This was actually talked about just a few days ago.
I'd wager a sack of gold coin that the intent was to be +8. But the wording is very liberal with its use of the term "bonus"
Stat Modifier; The number associated with that stat expressed as either a + or -. A Strength of 18 has a +4 modifier.
Stat Penalty; If the modifier for a stat is negative, this number is that stat's penalty. A strength of 8 has a -1 penalty.
Stat Bonus; If the modifier for a stat is positive, this number is that stat's bonus. A strength score of 18 has a +4 bonus.
////
A Stat Modifier can be either a penalty or a bonus. The term modifier is used when the particular calculation doesn't care one way or the other. Ex. Skill checks, saves, melee attack bonus, etc.
A Stat Bonus is always a positive number. This is your stat modifier, if your stat modifier is a positive number. This will be used when only a positive or beneficial feature is being applied. Thus a negative number is never used where a stat bonus is used. Ex. If you have a St of 8 and a -1 strength modifier, and a feat says to add your strength bonus to [whatever] you would not add anything to this roll. You do not have a strength bonus add.
Clear enough?
////
The answer is you'd add +8.
Except that it refers to the total 1.5 number as your strength bonus too.
Clear enough? I put it rifgt there in the part of my post you didn't quote. Maybe you should have read all of it before posting.
Except that it refers to the total 1.5 number as your strength bonus too.
Clear enough? I put it rifgt there in the part of my post you didn't quote. Maybe you should have read all of it before posting.
If you wanna try to make that argument you can, I guess. But it is pretty clear, and well explained, what a strength bonus is.
The quote you are speaking of is not using the most precise language possible, but the implication is obvious in context. A more exact way of saying what you quoted would be 'You don't get this higher strength based bonus'.
You can, again, ignore the obvious meaning of this sentence and continue to argue that this one instance, somehow is defining what a strength bonus is. You of course would have to ignore all other instances where what a strength bonus is is specifically defined as such. But.. I mean, have at it.
|
|
Except that it refers to the total 1.5 number as your strength bonus too.
Clear enough? I put it rifgt there in the part of my post you didn't quote. Maybe you should have read all of it before posting.
If you wanna try to make that argument you can, I guess. But it is pretty clear, and well explained, what a strength bonus is.
The quote you are speaking of is not using the most precise language possible, but the implication is obvious in context. A more exact way of saying what you quoted would be 'You don't get this higher strength based bonus'.
You can, again, ignore the obvious meaning of this sentence and continue to argue that this one instance, somehow is defining what a strength bonus is. You of course would have to ignore all other instances where what a strength bonus is is specifically defined as such. But.. I mean, have at it.
Wouldn't that just be a case of specific beating general. Something like the following?
When using a two handed weapon in two hands or using a one handed weapon that isn't a rapier in two hands your strength bonus is equal to 1.5 times your normal strength bonus.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except that it refers to the total 1.5 number as your strength bonus too.
Clear enough? I put it rifgt there in the part of my post you didn't quote. Maybe you should have read all of it before posting.
If you wanna try to make that argument you can, I guess. But it is pretty clear, and well explained, what a strength bonus is.
The quote you are speaking of is not using the most precise language possible, but the implication is obvious in context. A more exact way of saying what you quoted would be 'You don't get this higher strength based bonus'.
You can, again, ignore the obvious meaning of this sentence and continue to argue that this one instance, somehow is defining what a strength bonus is. You of course would have to ignore all other instances where what a strength bonus is is specifically defined as such. But.. I mean, have at it.
Wouldn't that just be a case of specific beating general. Something like the following?
When using a two handed weapon in two hands or using a one handed weapon that isn't a rapier in two hands your strength bonus is equal to 1.5 times your normal strength bonus.
Your strength bonus cannot be defined as 1.5x times your strength bonus.
If you try to define your strength bonus as a multiple of your strength bonus you create an infinite loop.
My strength bonus is 4. So it is 6. So it is 9. So it is 13. So it is 19. So 28 then 42 then 63 then ... continues... infinity.
It is not only wrong, but absurd.
|
|
Except that it refers to the total 1.5 number as your strength bonus too.
Clear enough? I put it rifgt there in the part of my post you didn't quote. Maybe you should have read all of it before posting.
If you wanna try to make that argument you can, I guess. But it is pretty clear, and well explained, what a strength bonus is.
The quote you are speaking of is not using the most precise language possible, but the implication is obvious in context. A more exact way of saying what you quoted would be 'You don't get this higher strength based bonus'.
You can, again, ignore the obvious meaning of this sentence and continue to argue that this one instance, somehow is defining what a strength bonus is. You of course would have to ignore all other instances where what a strength bonus is is specifically defined as such. But.. I mean, have at it.
Wouldn't that just be a case of specific beating general. Something like the following?
When using a two handed weapon in two hands or using a one handed weapon that isn't a rapier in two hands your strength bonus is equal to 1.5 times your normal strength bonus.
Your strength bonus cannot be defined as 1.5x times your strength bonus.
If you try to define your strength bonus as a multiple of your strength bonus you create an infinite loop.
My strength bonus is 4. So it is 6. So it is 9. So it is 13. So it is 19. So 28 then 42 then 63 then ... continues... infinity.
It is not only wrong, but absurd.
The personal attacks are a bit tiring.
Anyway, that was the point of using the word 'normal' before 'strength bonus'. Your strength bonus is normally equal to any positive strength modifier you have. In this particular case (two handed or one handed non rapier weapons in two hands) it is equal to 1.5 times any positive strength modifier you have.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The personal attacks are a bit tiring.
Uh... which ones? Caling something absurd isn't a personal attack.
I called an idea absurd. An idea. The idea that 'strength bonus' can be defined as 1.5 times 'strength bonus', this idea is absurd.
That has nothing to do with you, or your person. It simply isn't personal, or an attack.
Anyway, that was the point of using the word 'normal' before 'strength bonus'. Your strength bonus is normally equal to any positive strength modifier you have. In this particular case (two handed or one handed non rapier weapons in two hands) it is equal to 1.5 times any positive strength modifier you have.
Your strength bonus is your normal strength bonus. 'normal' is something you are adding to attempt to define something in a way that is clearly not intended. You are also now substituting the word 'modifier' for the word 'bonus', and while these are interrelated terms, are not perfectly synonymous.
You can comb through the books, but I doubt you will find a definition for 'normal strength bonus'. You'll find one for 'strength bonus', but 'normal'? That is an invention.
On the topic of just inventing game terms; I just came up with one too. I call it ‘higher strength bonus’.
Higher Strength Bonus; This is 1.5 x your strength bonus. “When you deal damage with a weapon that you are wielding two-handed, you add” … your Higher Strength Bonus to damage instead of your Strength Bonus. “You don't get this higher Strength bonus, however, when using a light weapons with two hands.”
The personal attacks are a bit tiring.
There was no personal attack. Define X=aX, where a is a fixed value, unless you're coding, is math wise impossible. If X=aX, then a=1. If Str=1,5Str, then 1,5=1. So, no, your str bonus can't be 1,5 your Str bonus.
Anyway, that was the point of using the word 'normal' before 'strength bonus'. Your strength bonus is normally equal to any positive strength modifier you have. In this particular case (two handed or one handed non rapier weapons in two hands) it is equal to 1.5 times any positive strength modifier you have.
Wrong:
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.
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.
Check the two wording. They're the same. Your Str bonus never change. Your bonus damage for wielding a 2 handed weapon is equal to 1,5 Str bonus. Your Str bonus never change. Overhand chop says that you add 2*Str bonus to damage when you make a single attack action.
If you're not agree, please, argument, because it's really clear for me.
Except that it refers to the total 1.5 number as your strength bonus too.
Clear enough? I put it rifgt there in the part of my post you didn't quote. Maybe you should have read all of it before posting.
If you wanna try to make that argument you can, I guess. But it is pretty clear, and well explained, what a strength bonus is.
The quote you are speaking of is not using the most precise language possible, but the implication is obvious in context. A more exact way of saying what you quoted would be 'You don't get this higher strength based bonus'.
You can, again, ignore the obvious meaning of this sentence and continue to argue that this one instance, somehow is defining what a strength bonus is. You of course would have to ignore all other instances where what a strength bonus is is specifically defined as such. But.. I mean, have at it.
Wouldn't that just be a case of specific beating general. Something like the following?
When using a two handed weapon in two hands or using a one handed weapon that isn't a rapier in two hands your strength bonus is equal to 1.5 times your normal strength bonus.
Your strength bonus cannot be defined as 1.5x times your strength bonus.
If you try to define your strength bonus as a multiple of your strength bonus you create an infinite loop.
My strength bonus is 4. So it is 6. So it is 9. So it is 13. So it is 19. So 28 then 42 then 63 then ... continues... infinity.
It is not only wrong, but absurd.
Its also exactly what the wording does.
If you'll notice, the first thing I said was that I don't think its the correct ruling. I was pointing out where the confusion comes from. Take it easy mate.
|
Applying twice your strength is applying twice your strength; overhand chop allows you to use 2x instead of 1.5x. That is more than powerful enough of an ability all on its own. Taken in (obvious) context, one can tell this is meant to replace the use of 1.5x on a two-handed (or one-handed in two hands) weapon; it should not allow you to use double STR, then 1.5x that for two-handing a weapon. Therefore yes, you would be rolling damage at a +8. At no point in time does overhand chop interact with attack rolls, however. You continue to do those as per your normal strength total.
That something can be houseruled, even with an obvious houserule, does not mean it is not a problem.
|
To me this is pretty clear.
Using a 2 handed weapon, or a 1 handed weapon in two hands confers 1.5X your STR bonus (or modifier, in this case they are synonymous).
18 STR has a modifier (or bonus) of +4. Wielding a 2 handed weapon, or 1 handed weapon in two hands results in a final, adjusted bonus of +6.
When Overhand Chop refers to "double his STR bonus", it is in fact referring to the STR bonus > in this example it is +4.
Thus +4 x2 = +8
It is my opinion that the "other" interpretation (the one that confers a +12 to damage) would require additional, specific language, citing the already modified bonus.
Your STR bonus is your STR bonus. Nothing more, nothing less. If something were to confer some additional amount it would need to be called out very clearly.
To me this is pretty clear.
Using a 2 handed weapon, or a 1 handed weapon in two hands confers 1.5X your STR bonus (or modifier, in this case they are synonymous).
18 STR has a modifier (or bonus) of +4. Wielding a 2 handed weapon, or 1 handed weapon in two hands results in a final, adjusted bonus of +6.
When Overhand Chop refers to "double his STR bonus", it is in fact referring to the STR bonus > in this example it is +4.
Thus +4 x2 = +8
It is my opinion that the "other" interpretation (the one that confers a +12 to damage) would require additional, specific language, citing the already modified bonus.
Your STR bonus is your STR bonus. Nothing more, nothing less. If something were to confer some additional amount it would need to be called out very clearly.
Strength Bonus
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 weapons with two hands.
To me this is pretty clear.
Using a 2 handed weapon, or a 1 handed weapon in two hands confers 1.5X your STR bonus (or modifier, in this case they are synonymous).
18 STR has a modifier (or bonus) of +4. Wielding a 2 handed weapon, or 1 handed weapon in two hands results in a final, adjusted bonus of +6.
When Overhand Chop refers to "double his STR bonus", it is in fact referring to the STR bonus > in this example it is +4.
Thus +4 x2 = +8
It is my opinion that the "other" interpretation (the one that confers a +12 to damage) would require additional, specific language, citing the already modified bonus.
Your STR bonus is your STR bonus. Nothing more, nothing less. If something were to confer some additional amount it would need to be called out very clearly.
Strength Bonus
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 weapons with two hands.
Overhand Chop doubles your STR bonus, not your higher STR bonus.
But the higher strength bonus (isn't that the exac concept that was getting locked a few posts ago?) is the only one being applied to two handed attacks. So how do you double something that isn't there instead of doubling the strength bonus that IS there?
|
|
But the higher strength bonus (isn't that the exac concept that was getting locked a few posts ago?) is the only one being applied to two handed attacks. So how do you double something that isn't there instead of doubling the strength bonus that IS there?
No, but I can see how your confused (and I'm not trying to be snarky or condescending here). Your STR bonus is your STR bonus.
When you are using a 2-handed weapon, or a 1-handed weapon in two hands you receive 1.5 times your STR bonus to damage.
When you are using Overhand chop, you receive 2x STR bonus to damage.
Where X = 4, 1.5X = 6, 2X = 8.
That is simple the bonus is a tiled bonus strength damage. A two handed weapon does 1.5 strength bonus. Overhand chop does 2 times strength bonus, since the bonus type is the same they by RAW don't stack.
But the 1.5 value is referred to as "Strength Bonus" so they question is which instance of strength bonus is getting doubled, not how they stack.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But the 1.5 value is referred to as "Strength Bonus" so they question is which instance of strength bonus is getting doubled, not how they stack.
You are overthinking this. The common terms/rules for multiplying tell us that multipliers are not multiplied by one another, so why would we assume that you multiply and already multiplied bonus?
Unless it's specifically called out we revert to the base number, or in this case the Characters STR bonus.
That is simple the bonus is a tiled bonus strength damage. A two handed weapon does 1.5 strength bonus. Overhand chop does 2 times strength bonus, since the bonus type is the same they by RAW don't stack.But the 1.5 value is referred to as "Strength Bonus" so they question is which instance of strength bonus is getting doubled, not how they stack.
It's referred to as your "higher strength bonus," not your strength bonus. Your "higher strength bonus" is a modified bonus. Overhand Chop doubles your strength bonus not your modified "higher" bonus.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That something can be houseruled, even with an obvious houserule, does not mean it is not a problem.
Understanding the English language is not a houserule.
Okay... so as the new guy reading all this discussion, here is my understanding:
The bonus provided by overhand chop SHOULD BE a x2 strength modifier in place of a 1.5 strength modifier. Everyone agrees to this, Davick included. Everyone agrees that this was the intent. A few people believe it says this in black and white in the text, while the rest say the written description is a bit muddied but this is obviously what the purpose was. Even those people who think it's pretty clearly spelled out would probably agree that the writeup could use some editing for the sake of clarity.
The only disagreement in this thread comes from Davick, who says that while a x2 bonus to damage is what the rules are intended to say, a x3 (1.5 x 2) bonus is what a word for word ultra-literal reading of the text says. So it's a case of RAI saying one thing and very literal reading of RAW saying another.
Okie dokie. For the sake of discussion, that point is conceded. I will agree that it is entirely possible to interpret the ability that way if you do a case study of possible word use after an exhaustive search of the rules. A person who put that much effort into presenting that interpretation could get the RAW to disagree with the RAI. Great.
So Davick, now what? Is your point that the description needs to be edited for clarity? I think a lot of folks whole heartedly agree, and even those who don't probably wouldn't mind so that it could reduce confusion amongst others. I'm not sure how this thread would accomplish that. It seems like something that would have to be done through errata rather than FAQ. But if your goal is to petition for the text to be edited for clarity, I'd whole-heartedly back it it any way I could.
If your goal is to have the x3 damage modifier be used in place of the x2, I think the majority of GM's are going to go with RAI over RAW. But home game GM's are certainly welcome to use whatever ruling they feel appropriate. I don't think the x3 modifier is game breaking, especially since it's limited to a single attack and is given in exchange for armor training.
If your goal is to have the x3 damage modifier apply in PFS, where the FAQs matter a great deal more, I think you'd find it a much more productive use of your time to be emailing your thoughts to Mike Brock and John Compton. They are the folks in charge of rules interpretations applying to PFS.
If your goal is just to have your point recognized... then yes. I agree wholeheartedly that the description is muddied and that someone who put a great deal of effort into it could bend the language enough to get an interpretation different from what the ability is intended to do. I think most people would go with RAI regardless, and I don't think that someone who spent that much time and effort to get a few points added to their damage modifier would be looked at too fondly by other members of their group, but it's certainly possible to make the argument.
I've recently started a character using the two handed fighter archetype, so this discussion was certainly educational. I'm just not sure why it's gone on so long.