Community

Leap Attack from Complete Adventurer allows you to triple Power Attack bonus damage while wielding a two-handed weapon. But Power Attack states that you deal double the bonus damage while wielding a two-handed weapon. So could you deal double damage, but then triple THAT damage using Leap Attack? So you're actually dealing six times the bonus damage from Power Attack?

Or does the Leap Attack multiplier override the normal Power Attack multiplier for wielding a two-handed weapon?

Oh, and another kind of unrelated question: can you use Leap Attack at the same time as the Heedless Charge maneuver gained from taking the Shock Trooper feat from Complete Warrior? So you use a Leap Attack but apply the penalty from Power Attack to your AC instead of attack bonus.

the leap attack ratio superceades that of power attack, but yes, you can use the heeadless charge manuver from the shock trooper feat well leap attacking.

That's some bad news and some good news. May I ask how you determined that the Leap Attack bonus takes the place of the normal Power Attack bonus?

That ability has been subject to some errata. Now, you deal +100% of the normal bonus damage from power attack. So, you can get 4-to-1 returns from a two-handed weapon.

You can actually manage 6-to-1 returns with the supreme power attack ability of the frenzied berserker prestige class (Complete Warrior), which has also been subject to errata.

We don't really use errata in our games since it's too much work to keep up with the updates. But are you saying the effects do stack?

Think of leap attack as a tactical feat like shoock trooper, it's an advancment of the power attack feat that can only be used in a certain cercumstance. Also note the wording of the feat, it reads "...you can double the extra damage delt by use of the power attack feat. If you use this tactic with a two handed weapon, you insted triple the damage from power attack...", whihc also showes it's ment to advance thee capacitys of power attack, not stack with them.

I suppose you're right. I think technically the wording allows for x6, but I'm really just being nitpicky. I do realize they MEANT for the x3 to replace the normal x2 for wielding a two-handed weapon. I'll just run the loophole by my DM. But, just for fun, here's the damage I WOULD do if I used the loophole and also used Headlong Rush, and my 3d6 damage magic longsword:

((3d6 + 8) + 42) x 2 = (3d6) x 2 + 100 damage!!

My DM would kill me. 

Sep 3, 2012 -- 9:48PM, Krazed wrote:

We don't really use errata in our games since it's too much work to keep up with the updates. But are you saying the effects do stack?

That's probably one of the weirdest house rules I've ever heard. Probably tops "We ban ToB" or even "We ban Monks".

Really? I should talk to our DM about it. The thing is most of our players are very new and we don't even all have books of our own, so we just don't bother adding more complication by going online to look up all the updates. For the record, though, our DM banned druids, so we do have weird house rules.

Actually, banning Druids kinda makes sense.
If you're power attacking with Leap Attack, they DO stack, but not in the way think. "x2", in D&D terms, just means "+100% of base damage". Of course, "base damage" refers to your weapon's base damage + anything that gives a flat bonus. So, like Maat said, you would deal 4x your danage, not 3 or 6.

Sep 3, 2012 -- 9:34PM, Krazed wrote:

May I ask how you determined that the Leap Attack bonus takes the place of the normal Power Attack bonus?

This is one of those things where getting 6x damage would just be willfully misinterpretting the rules. Unless you're playing a devil, that's kind of bad form. If you are calling it a "loophole", that suggests you don't really believe it was intended to be that way. It's kind of like how people choose to interpret Master Spellthief to give them a ridiculous CL because the wording is a little exploitable.

Maybe they should have hired some lawyers to go over the books but that would open a whole new can of worms.

The errata didn't really change much: It made things a bit more internally consistent (i.e. Leap Attack switching to a +% ability on top of extant Power Attack modes, instead of its original wording which may or may not have been a replacement effect). And you really don't need a loophole for damage dealing. This is pretty stock Ubercharge mechanics, and those have been around since at least as long as CAdv's been out.

The big thing isn't the damage potential. It's the accuracy. The real core ability to charge damage is Shock Trooper's Heedless Charge maneuver, which lets you Power Attack at no loss of accuracy. Stack enough multipliers on that - Leap Attack, Pounce, Supreme Power Attack, Headlong Rush, Valorous weapons, etc. - and it's not hard to break any damage record.

The "classical" example with extra multipliers (but without Pounce) is this:
Half-Orc Fighter 6
18/12/14/11/10/6 ability scores (15 starting Strength, +2 racial, +1 at 4th)
01: Power Attack, Improved Bull Rush
02: Improved Bull Rush
03: Weapon Focus [Optional feat]
04: Headlong Rush
05: 
06: Leap Attack, Shock Trooper 
Equip: +1 Greatsword, nothing else of note (L6 is too early for a warrior-type to have serious +Strength equipment or the +2 equivalent that a +1 Valorous sword gets you.)

Attack: 6 base +4 Strength +1 Focus +1 Enhancement = +12, or +14 on a charge.
Average CR 6 AC: 18.88, let's be conservative and say 19 -> 72% chance of a normal hit, 8% chance of a confirmed critical hit.
Charge damage, using full Power Attack + Heedless Charge + Headlong Rush + Leap Attack:
--Base: (2d6 + 6 Strength +1 enhancement +(12 Power Attack +12 Leap Attack)) x2 Headlong Rush = 76.
--Critical:  (2d6 + 6 Strength +1 enhancement +(12 Power Attack +12 Leap Attack)) x3 (Headlong Rush+Critical) = 114.
Final expected damage: 0.72*76 + 0.08*114 =  63.84.
(Note: Average CR 6 HP is 69.12.) 

That's at level 6 with bare-bones gear and a pretty basic gear set. By level 8 you might add in Weapon Spec and a Valorous weapon, or you probably dipped Barbarian to grab Pounce so you can swing twice on that charge. (The alternative base Ubercharge build uses Human Barbarian 2 / Fighter 4; works out slightly better but I wanted to show multipliers sooner.)

I don't know about you, but I think that once this reaches your level, you might need to ignore errata and use a custom-magic'd 3d6 longsword to match what the rules already provide.

So if x2 means +100%, x3 means +200%? So it would be +100% Power Attack damage, +200% Power Attack damage from Leap Attack, so +300%, or x4 Power Attack damage in total? But Headlong Rush says the attack deals "double damage", so I would make a Power Attack, add 300% of the Power Attack damage onto it, and then double the TOTAL damage from the attack, correct?

So if I get +7 Power Attack damage, it's actually +28 Power Attack damage with Leap Attack, but it's +56 with Headlong Rush? 

It's all covered in multiple multipliers. The *3 indicates a +100% on top of the initial 100% provided by a two handed weapon. You're still only doing *3 power attacks with Leap attack and Headlong Rush adds another 100% so *4 with two handed.

Is multiple multipliers a section of some rulebook that I could read? Where are the official 3.5 rules for multiple multipliers? Because wouldn't *3 indicate +200% Power Attack damage if x2 indicates +100%?

EDIT: So it would be Power Attack two-handed weapon rules +100% base Power Attack damage, Leap Attack two-handed rules +200% base Power Attack damage, and Headlong Rush adds 100% of total damage. So it would be:

([weapon damage] + (Power Attack damage x 4) + damage bonus) x 2

You need to be cautious around power attack and the various multipliers.  Weilding a weapon with two hands does NOT give you x2 the damage bonus that you'd normally get but instead changes the rate from 1:1 to 2:1; the effect may be the same be the mechanics are different.  If you double PA damage then you get +2 for every -1 attack taken with one handed weapon but +4 damage for every -1 taken with a two-hander.

Right, so using a two-handed weapon with Leap Attack gives 28 bonus damage if you take a -7 penalty to your attack bonus, right?

Sep 4, 2012 -- 5:16PM, Krazed wrote:

Right, so using a two-handed weapon with Leap Attack gives 28 bonus damage if you take a -7 penalty to your attack bonus, right?

With a two handed weapon and no particular special effects, then yes:
-7 attack: +14 damage, (+100% of 14 or +14 extra from Leap Attack) = 28.

Remember, though, accuracy matters. Without Shock Trooper, you'll need an ally to make sure that attack hits (such as a bard).

I do have Shock Trooper. So before errata, Leap Attack modified Power Attack to a whopping 42 damage with a -7 penalty?!

Sep 4, 2012 -- 8:03PM, Krazed wrote:

I do have Shock Trooper. So before errata, Leap Attack modified Power Attack to a whopping 42 damage with a -7 penalty?!

You haven't given us any details about your build...

But did you notice that the very simple level 6 example from above can dish out expected damage close to what the average CR 6 monster has in HP? (That's weighted for critical hits and chances to miss.)

I suspect yours will be pretty similar.

And that's WITHOUT "ignoring the errata" to get obscene multipliers on Leap Attack. It's all post-errata Leap Attack. 

I'm not ignoring errata anymore, I was simply curious about how broken the system was before.

Sep 4, 2012 -- 8:50PM, Krazed wrote:

I'm not ignoring errata anymore, I was simply curious about how broken the system was before.

I think that it's more a case that without the errata, it was not 100% clear how the system should have worked. It wasn't broken but it could have been interpreted in a broken way. Anyone who went by RAI would presumably not be using a broken system. This is me not looking at the exact wording, here, but then that's kind of the point. Rules-lawyering wording like that just to get something which was clearly not intended (*cough* Master Spellthief again *cough*) is just... well, it misses the point a bit, I think.

The errata was probably more like "yeah, this is what we meant," rather than "we're changing the rule so it's not broken".