So reading the rule forward says -1 to hit and +2 to damage. This damage is halved for off-hand. At BAB 4 intervals -1 additional to hit and +2 additional damage.
Interpretation 1: Literally interpreting this like a math word problem. Only the initial +2 damage bonus is halved because "this bonus" is specifically referring to the previous statements defining a bonus and it is this specific part is halved. So for off-hand damage at BAB 1 it is +1 (from "this bonus" of +2 being halved). For BAB 4 it is +3 (+1 (from "this bonus" of +2 being halved) plus +2 (for BAB 4 increase)).
I countered with interpretation 2: In the 2nd paragraph the words "the bonus" being "increased" means the single bonus from this feat is increased, and modified the first sentence. The total with any BAB increases are what is "this bonus" that needs to be halved for off-hand. So for off-hand damage at BAB 1 it is the same as interpretation 1. But for BAB 4 it is +2 (+2 initially, +2 more at BAB 4 = +4 which is "the bonus" that is the same as "this bonus" that has to be halved).
They countered with: The first interpretation is correct, because if the editors had intended the total off-hand bonus (after factoring in BAB increases) to be halved the sentence for halving the damage for off-hand weapons would have been placed after the sentence about the BAB increases. Changing the order of the sentences would have removed all doubt as to the intent.
My counter is: No it wouldn't because then someone might read it to mean that only the BAB increases get halved.
Comments?
