What reasoning and rules do you have to say that it's not going to get the increased power attack?
My view is the rules explicitly state that a natural attack is either primary or secondary, and that if you only possess one, its is automatically primary. Now, if the class/feature/spell whatever giving you the claws explicitly claws them out as primary? Yes, you'd get the bonus. Unfortunately, you've multiple attacks, so its not automatic. Now, what you CAN do is make those claws a bite or a tail slap.
Either was, Dragon Style would NOT qualify you for power attack by itself. That is technically just a damage bonus that happens to equal half your strength modifier. Dragon Ferocity on the other hand, explicitly modifies your modifier, qualifying you.
Of course, you'd be wasting feats on dragon style to do it. By RAW? "If a creature has only one natural attack, it is always made using the creature’s full base attack bonus and adds 1-1/2 times the creature’s Strength bonus on damage rolls." Just get a single attack and you're fine.
You've missed like half the thread. There are many abilities that give you a primary weapon with 1xSTR. The question isn't whether or not the feats turn it primary, but whether or not the increase of added strength qualifies for PA -1/+3.
It would seem I completely misread your post. I thought you were talking about the attack being primary. Frankly, I don't know how I could have read your post that way, must have been tired. My apologies
And I don't see how can you not think of DS as an increase of the actual modifier. It doesn't state add half your strength on top of your damage, it says you can add 1.5 times your strength. It replaces, not adds.
"In summary, DS/DF doesn't make the weapon a different type of weapon for the purposes of Power Attack ratio"
The same way that wielding a one handed longsword with two hands doesn't change the type of weapon into 2handed for the purposes of Power Attack ratio.....
Oh... Never mind. It does!
So maybe... Just maybe using DS/DF is like using a one handed weapon with 2 hands. In other words you are putting more effort into the attack.
Regardless it's obvious that some people just won't see it that way and trying to convince them otherwise just wastes your time
|
To add a bit of fun to this, here's an indirectly relevant faq:
With a two-handed weapon, you add 1-1/2 times your Dexterity bonus on damage rolls, and with an off-hand weapon, you add half your Dexterity bonus on damage rolls. As per the ability's text, if an effect would prevent you from adding your Strength modifier on damage rolls, you don't add your Dexterity modifier. However, any other effects that would increase the multiplier to your Strength bonus on damage rolls (such as the two-handed fighter archetype's overhand chop) do not affect your Dexterity bonus on damage rolls.
This indicates that effects that increase your strength bonus to damage are fundamentally different from the base strength multiplier to damage that is offered for how a weapon is wielded or its primary/secondary nature. This lends credence to to the position that effects such as Dragon Style do not count the same way as a standard multiplier to strength and thus it's reasonable to say that they therefor don't interact with power attack the same way either. (And yes, Dragon Style and Overhand Chop use the same wording.)
Of course, it's all conjecture. Like I said in my other post, you have two options here: You can read it like a lawyer and get your -1/+3, or read it like someone who's looking for intent, balance, and following standard design patterns of the system and get -1/+2.
Regardless, I doubt anyone here will convince anyone else. The existing conversation is enough to give anyone looking for an honest answer the detail they need to come to a reasonable conclusion within the context of their own game.
"In summary, DS/DF doesn't make the weapon a different type of weapon for the purposes of Power Attack ratio"
The same way that wielding a one handed longsword with two hands doesn't change the type of weapon into 2handed for the purposes of Power Attack ratio.....
Oh... Never mind. It does!
So maybe... Just maybe using DS/DF is like using a one handed weapon with 2 hands. In other words you are putting more effort into the attack.
Regardless it's obvious that some people just won't see it that way and trying to convince them otherwise just wastes your time
Since I can't resist: It doesn't matter. Power attack calls out one-handed weapons wielded in two hands explicitly. It doesn't have to "treat it as a two-hander" because it's calling it out exactly for what it is: a one-hander in two hands. Nothing more, nothing less. It just happens to assign that category the same bonus as a two-hander.
There is no usable evidence to be found down this path, one way or the other.
PS: Sarcasm/snark NEVER help your position in an argument. It only makes the other person frustrated with you for being disrespectful and causes them to work to prove you wrong just out of spite. It's not a tactic to use when you're looking for an honest result. But, I suspect you've already come to your own conclusions and are merely looking for validation and have grown frustrated that you haven't found it. My advice? If you grow frustrated and begin to express it outwardly, you've already lost. Best to step back and collect yourself before moving forward. You can be absolutely correct and no-one will care if you try to prove it with anger.
The same way that wielding a one handed longsword with two hands doesn't change the type of weapon into 2handed for the purposes of Power Attack ratio.....
Oh... Never mind. It does!
Actually it doesn't change it into a two-handed weapon, which is why Power Attack also has to list 'a one-handed weapon using two hands' as an additional thing that gets 1:3.
The only natural weapons that actually get 1.5xSTR inherently are the ones that make up the only attack a creature makes, or the ones with a weapon entry that specifically says so. Like a wolf, which gets to go 1.5xPA because it puts all it's effort into one bite, not unlike wielding a weapon in both hands.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Regardless it's obvious that some people just won't see it that way and trying to convince them otherwise just wastes your time
This particular thing (as some things go) is something you simply can't find a passage that would convince me. StabbittyDoom's FAQ post is a pretty illuminating example of the concept I'm trying to express. Having an effect that increases your STR bonus doesn't magically make Power Attack think it is a 2 handed weapon that normally deals 1.5 STR.
Regardless it's obvious that some people just won't see it that way and trying to convince them otherwise just wastes your timeThis particular thing (as some things go) is something you simply can't find a passage that would convince me. StabbittyDoom's FAQ post is a pretty illuminating example of the concept I'm trying to express. Having an effect that increases your STR bonus doesn't magically make Power Attack think it is a 2 handed weapon that normally deals 1.5 STR.
of course not. DS/DF doesn't make things 2hw. But it does increase the damage a Primary Natural attack is doing so that the Primary Natural Attack is adding 1.5 str to damage rolls. Which is what PA is asking for.
It sounds like you're saying If I only had a bite it gets +3 power attack, because it's bite is adding 1.5, but then if I gets claws my bite goes down to 1 str. Nothing has changed about the type of natural attack my bite is. So now if I get DS to make my bite do 1.5 again, you're saying I still don't get the better PA because... you don't want it to? My bite is adding 1.5 str to damage rolls before and after, it's a primary natural attack before and after. What is making you think that before is okay but after isn't?
A lot of the ambiguity with natural attacks/ power attack/ dragon style is coming from the fact that the line in Power Attack that says:
"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."
...can be interpreted to mean:
1)The attack must deal 1.5xSTR.
2)The weapon itself is what must naturally deal 1.5xSTR, not just the attack.
While it's possible to read it as 1, it's very clunky grammatically, since you'd have to be reading it as "if you are making an attack - with (thing A), (thing B), or (thing C) - that adds 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier on damage rolls." where the part about strength modifier applies to attacks with all of the above rather than just to the kind of natural weapon needed. Which if it was true would technically turn off 3:1 Power Attack for things like the Two-Handed Fighter's Backswing ability, a classic Monk two-handing in a flurry, or a character wielding a two-handed weapon with the Agile property.
The whole "a natural attack deals 1.5xSTR if it's the only one" statement in the monster rules is also problematic, since again it's talking about a given attack, while Power Attack is referencing the actual weapon.
All this put together, it seems that if the natural weapon in question actually has an entry that says it gets 1.5xSTR, then it will get 1.5xPA because that's the nature of the weapon; otherwise it won't.
If a creature has only one natural attack, it is always made using the creature’s full base attack bonus and adds 1-1/2 times the creature’s Strength bonus on damage rolls
While using Dragon Style, increase your Strength bonus on claw damage rolls by an additional one-half your Strength bonus, to a total of double your Strength bonus on the first attack and 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus on the other attacks.
Further, you can add 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus on the damage roll for your first claw attack on a given round.
The natural attack, by virtue of DS/DF, is naturally adding 1.5 str just like a natural attack, by virtue of being the only attack, is naturally adding 1.5 str. It's right there, the claw actually has an entry that says it's getting 1.5 str.
And Power attack is (two handed weapon), (one handed in two hands), or (primary natural weapon that adds 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier on damage rolls)
The real distinction would be that all of those conditions adding 1.5xSTR are adding it to a given attack, rather than changing the actual weapon itself; whereas Power Attack would seem to be conditional on the weapon itself, rather than the circumstances of the attack.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
The real distinction would be that all of those conditions adding 1.5xSTR are adding it to a given attack, rather than changing the actual weapon itself; whereas Power Attack would seem to be conditional on the weapon itself, rather than the circumstances of the attack.
+1
I think I figured it out, Chess Pwn is saying this:
With a Bite that normally deals 1.5 STR, FCT, DS, and DF it deals 2.0 STR now.
So on his first attack, which isn't dealing 1.5 STR, he gets the -1/+2 Power Attack ratio.
On the other attacks, it is dealing 1.5 STR, he gets the -1/+3 Power Attack ratio.
Am I right?
Why do you see PA as conditional on the weapon, and not the attack? PA doesn't care if your attack is with a one-handed as long as you wield it two handed, so why should it care if your NA has an original 1xSTR if you deal 1.5xSTR with it? You can answer this by saying that it specifically calls out the 1h 2h thing, but to that I say that DS and other effects that rise your multiplier to NA didn't exist when PA was released. To me the description in PA is pretty clear that the weapon doesn't matter, but the oomph behind it does, and then it goes and lists what counts as enough oomph, and that is based on the attack, not the weapon.
And not really James, since conditionals are by default inclusive unless otherwise noted.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
And not really James, since conditionals are by default inclusive unless otherwise noted.
Rules quote for that?
Something new (some new rule that hasn't been produced) is what it it is going to take to dig us (both sides) out of our mutual entrenchments.
We can't come to agreement with the rules as they have been quoted so far, because we few the meaning, the RAW, differently.
Why do you see PA as conditional on the weapon, and not the attack?... To me the description in PA is pretty clear that the weapon doesn't matter, but the oomph behind it does, and then it goes and lists what counts as enough oomph, and that is based on the attack, not the weapon.
I tried to break down exactly what the rules for Power Attack say regarding weapon vs. attack above, and why reading it as the attack and not the weapon is very problematic.
In a contentious issue like this, carefully reading exactly what the text says and applying it is the only way to get any kind of common answer. Otherwise, we're just sitting around debating the the 'feel' of how we think a rule should work. Which is incidentally a totally valid thing to do - it's just not something that's going to give a concrete answer.
Yes, but if you read exactly what PA says, and then read what DS says, you get the "... if you are making an attack with...a primary natural weapon that adds 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier on damage rolls." and "...you can add 1-1/2 times your strength...". The attack adds the 1-1/2 times. The literal meaning is the one that supports the -1/+3 approach, but some of you think that the condition is for the original multiplier of the weapon, which I think is a legitimate argument. That's why I think also non-literal arguments are necessary for this discussion.
Yes, but if you read exactly what PA says, and then read what DS says, you get the "... if you are making an attack with...a primary natural weapon that adds 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier on damage rolls." and "...you can add 1-1/2 times your strength...". The attack adds the 1-1/2 times. The literal meaning is the one that supports the -1/+3 approach, but some of you think that the condition is for the original multiplier of the weapon, which I think is a legitimate argument. That's why I think also non-literal arguments are necessary for this discussion
It's (barely) grammatically possible to read the sentence two ways, though really if the part about damage applies to the attack instead of the weapon, it should properly say "make an attack that deals 1-1/2 times your strength modifier with A or B or C".
However if you read Power Attack to mean that the modifier on an attack is what matters, then any time a two-handed weapon or a weapon in two hands doesn't deal the right modifier it loses 3:1.
what about this way?
Power attack is (two handed weapon), (one handed in two hands), or (primary natural weapon that adds 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier on damage rolls)
Very well, let's do the grammatical break-down. The source:
[quote:Power Attack]... 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. This bonus to damage is halved (–50%) if you are making an attack with an off-hand weapon or secondary natural weapon.
The condition is "if you: A) make an attack with a two-handed weapon; B) make an attack with a one handed weapon using two hands; or C)make an attack with a primary natural weapon that adds 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier on damage rolls."
This is the only grammatically correct way to break-down the sentence. The problem stems from the reading of C. It may be read in two different ways:1) Make an attack (with a primary natural weapon that adds 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier on damage rolls).
2) Make an attack (with a primary natural weapon) that adds 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier on damage rolls.
If the reading of C was 2), then an attack with DS would no doubt qualify for -1/+3. However, considering that tiny little s at the end of the sentence, I believe the correct reading is 1).
Now that we have narrowed down the discussion to this sentence, let's consider where the ambiguity comes from. It comes from whether or not there is a difference between innate and acquired multipliers. I claim that not only is there no difference, but the innate multiplier does not exist. Consider the following example:
Hip Hop is a PC that happens to be a Hippo. As such, he has one bite attack, that deals 2d8+1.5xSTR damage. Hip Hop, smart hippo that he is, knows that as a natural attack based fighter, he should get a Helm of the Mammoth Lord for an additional attack each round. The moment he puts it on, his bite attack deals 2d8+1xSTR damage, even though he did nothing to change his bite natural weapon. If there were such a thing as an innate multiplier, and only it mattered, then either Hip Hop should get the -1/+3 in both situations, or in neither (a case I believe no one is making), since it was Hip Hop that changed, not his bite and therefore not any of it's innate properties.
With DS it's exactly the same case. The weapon itself did not change, that is true, but it's acquired multiplier did.
Of course, PF rules were written by humans, and thus a logical contradictions in a certain reading does not necessarily invalidate it, but baring an official ruling or GM decision, the logically sound option should be followed.
And I believe there is truly no more I can say on the subject, although I reserve the right to be wrong on that account.
You guys are crazy persistent. The original feat was a damage add. There was confusion about the add. They then gave the totals. Now it reads like it could work with -1/+3 power attack. RAI originally vs RAW now.
It is a GM issue. Very simple.
The text of DS wasn't changed in the latest FAQ, just dragon ferocity. Also, even with the original DF I still think you would have gotten -1/+#3.
all snarkiness aside.... I think most of the time in these discussions most posters leave with their initial opinion on the matter intact unless someone can point out a relevant FAQ.
Despite this, these threads are very useful, to me at least. I bookmark threads like this and when they become relevant to one of my characters I simply send the GM a link to and ask how he wants to play it in his campaign. I don't waste my time trying to argue my position. Both sides will have been argued ad nauseum in the thread. So I just send the link and wait for his ruling...easy
So thanks to everyone here who pulls apart these rules and examines them with a microscope and a copy of the Genius Guide to Grammar.
The text of DS wasn't changed in the latest FAQ, just dragon ferocity. Also, even with the original DF I still think you would have gotten -1/+#3.What you think it does, is irrelevant.
What I think it does, is irrelevant.What does your GM think it does? Do that.
Agreed
FAQ'd.
I personally lean toward letting it work, since I see it as a replacement effect of strength damage, rather than an additional source of bonus dsmage. But like others have said, just FAQ it(surprisingly few have done so) since the discussion has seemingly run it's course already.
I've been watching this, but not commented because I really wasn't sure, so thought I'd share. I think on balance, having read all the arguments, I am of the view that power attack doesn't state or care how you get the +1.5 damage on your natural attacks, it just cares that you have it, so DS in my games will grant you -1/+3 with PA.