FOOLISH!!! couple of Power Attack and Rage questions

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

First:

The rules say that you can use Power Attack with natural weapons. What
if a creature is using a natural weapon as a seconary attack? For
example, attacking with an axe and then a bite? I'm imagining that the
answer is yes.

Also, if a creature only has one natural attack, and gets to use 1.5 X
its Strength bonus, does it also gain +2 to damage for every -1 it takes
to hit with a Power Attack? The rules don't specifically say so, but I
think it is in their spirit, unless the creature is also attacking with
a weapon.

One last one. Bawb the Barbarian is 6th level and flies into a
barbarian rage. Ordinarily, he has 50 hit points, but when in a rage
that +4 to Con kicks his total up to 62 hit points. During combat with
a firedrake, Bawb suffers several punishing blows and suffers 40 points
of damage, then 30 more points in the next round.

What happens to Bawb? Is he left unconscious at -8 hit points, hoping
for friends to bind his wounds quickly? Or is he dead at -20 hit
points, because his rage ended when he went unconscious and he lost the
bonus hit points?

My guess is this has been answered several times already, but hey, RTFH.
:^)

Thanks,

- Ron ^*^

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Werebat wrote:
> The rules say that you can use Power Attack with natural weapons.
> What if a creature is using a natural weapon as a seconary attack?

By the book, yes.

> Also, if a creature only has one natural attack, and gets to use 1.5 X
> its Strength bonus, does it also gain +2 to damage for every -1 it
> takes to hit with a Power Attack?

By the book, no.

> The rules don't specifically say so, but I think it is in their
> spirit, unless the creature is also attacking with a weapon.

I agree; it's not book-legal, but it's a decent house rule. I'd say the
same thing about disallowing Power Attack for secondary natural weapons.
If you like, treat all 1/2 Str attacks as "light weapons" (not eligible
for the damage bonus), and treat all 1-1/2 Str attacks as "two-handed
weapons" (with the 2-for-1 bonus). But I'd definitely call those house
rules, not the official rules, barring further information.

> One last one. Bawb the Barbarian is 6th level and flies into a
> barbarian rage. Ordinarily, he has 50 hit points, but when in a rage
> that +4 to Con kicks his total up to 62 hit points. During combat
> with a firedrake, Bawb suffers several punishing blows and suffers 40
> points of damage, then 30 more points in the next round.
>
> What happens to Bawb? Is he left unconscious at -8 hit points, hoping
> for friends to bind his wounds quickly?

That's my reading, unless the barbarian prematurely ends the rage for
some reason.

> Or is he dead at -20 hit points, because his rage ended when he went
> unconscious and he lost the bonus hit points?

You could argue that unconsciousness effectively calms the barbarian,
but I think extra hp from Con bonuses are risky enough already.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Symbol wrote:

> If not then I would just echo what Jasin said. It's a great feat for
two
> handed fighters provided you fight opponents that may be considered
mooks
> relative to your level. It is useful against those with ACs typical
at a
> characters CR level or those just higher.
>
> For one handed fighters (which includes a lot of monsters will
multiple
> natural weapons) it is a detriment against all but the lowest ACs and
it
> is always a detriment to light weapon combatants which would have
pretty
> serious implications if you use natural weapons that way for the
purposes
> of this feat.

You left out one very important other sitution, DR that you can't
ignore.

- Justisaur

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Werebat wrote:
>
> First:
>
> The rules say that you can use Power Attack with natural weapons. What
> if a creature is using a natural weapon as a seconary attack? For
> example, attacking with an axe and then a bite? I'm imagining that the
> answer is yes.

Sure, why not? Its status as a secondary attack doesn't change it into
something else. Remember that the PA penalty applies to ALL attacks,
though, even secondary ones.

> Also, if a creature only has one natural attack, and gets to use 1.5 X
> its Strength bonus, does it also gain +2 to damage for every -1 it takes
> to hit with a Power Attack? The rules don't specifically say so, but I
> think it is in their spirit, unless the creature is also attacking with
> a weapon.

I'd say no, off the top of my head. But you might want to look around
in other sources.

> One last one. Bawb the Barbarian is 6th level and flies into a
> barbarian rage. Ordinarily, he has 50 hit points, but when in a rage
> that +4 to Con kicks his total up to 62 hit points. During combat with
> a firedrake, Bawb suffers several punishing blows and suffers 40 points
> of damage, then 30 more points in the next round.
>
> What happens to Bawb? Is he left unconscious at -8 hit points, hoping
> for friends to bind his wounds quickly? Or is he dead at -20 hit
> points, because his rage ended when he went unconscious and he lost the
> bonus hit points?

Any effect that ends the rage early ends its benefits. Therefore, Bawb
is dead.

> My guess is this has been answered several times already, but hey, RTFH.
> :^)
>
> Thanks,
>
> - Ron ^*^
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Some Guy <someguy@thedoor.gov> wrote:
> Any effect that ends the rage early ends its benefits. Therefore,
> Bawb is dead.

Why do you assume that unconsciousness ends the rage early? It's not an
unreasonable assumption, but neither is the opposite.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Werebat" <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in message
news:CG8ge.4016$cf5.3068@lakeread07...
>
>
> Symbol wrote:

> >>Maybe you've never seen a barbarian in action...
> >
> >
> > Is that an offer? If so I don't swing that way.
>
> Obviously you've never seen an 18 Cha nubile barbarian woman (who rages
> when she cums) in action...
>

I am still not tempted by your offer of a threesome.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Justisaur" <justisaur@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115768117.931455.226800@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Symbol wrote:

RE: Power Attack.

> You left out one very important other sitution, DR that you can't
> ignore.

Yes DR is a factor, not so much in 3.5 and not so much for low attack
rate, high damage 2H fighters but it can't be ignored.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Some Guy" <someguy@thedoor.gov> wrote in message
news:49gge.7869$Fa1.2711@fed1read02...
> Werebat wrote:
> >

> > What happens to Bawb? Is he left unconscious at -8 hit points, hoping
> > for friends to bind his wounds quickly? Or is he dead at -20 hit
> > points, because his rage ended when he went unconscious and he lost
the
> > bonus hit points?
>
> Any effect that ends the rage early ends its benefits. Therefore, Bawb
> is dead.

What makes you think unconciousness ends Rage early? For balance reasons,
if nothing else, it would probably be better if it doesn't.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <g-SdnZrv56YbeBzfRVnygQ@pipex.net>, Symbol <jb70@talk21.com> wrote:
>
>"Some Guy" <someguy@thedoor.gov> wrote in message
>news:49gge.7869$Fa1.2711@fed1read02...
>> Werebat wrote:
>> >
>
>> > What happens to Bawb? Is he left unconscious at -8 hit points, hoping
>> > for friends to bind his wounds quickly? Or is he dead at -20 hit
>> > points, because his rage ended when he went unconscious and he lost
>the
>> > bonus hit points?
>>
>> Any effect that ends the rage early ends its benefits. Therefore, Bawb
>> is dead.
>
>What makes you think unconciousness ends Rage early? For balance reasons,
>if nothing else, it would probably be better if it doesn't.

If rage does end early, then those extra hit points don't seem to be anything
more than a souped-up version of Die Hard.
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Some Guy wrote:
> Any effect that ends the rage early ends its benefits. Therefore,
Bawb
> is dead.

According to the SRD, rage is an extraordinary ability. The
description in the barbarian class says that it lasts
(3 + con bonus) rounds or ends when the barbarian decides.

I looked at other extraordinary abilities and found some that
would not stop working even if the user was unconcious: fast
healing, regeneration, spell resistance...

Unless you found something in one of the books, I would let
the rage continue until it (3 + con bonus) rounds were up.

Game Justification: Rage is not just mental, but has a physical
component as well (the tap on the adrenal gland is opened wide).

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd wrote:
>> I agree; it's not book-legal, but it's a decent house rule. I'd say the
>> same thing about disallowing Power Attack for secondary natural weapons.

Michael "Scarecrow" Brown wrote:
> I'd say that was *galactically stupid*. Any humanoid monster may have
> its secondary weapons be its claws; this monster can power attack with
> a weapon held in its hands (one or two handed) but not *without*?

So the monster would be able to Power Attack with an empty hand, but not
if you put a dagger in its hand? Who's galactically stupid, again?
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd872mp.d3f.bradd+news@szonye.com...
> Bradd wrote:
> >> I agree; it's not book-legal, but it's a decent house rule. I'd say the
> >> same thing about disallowing Power Attack for secondary natural
weapons.
>
> Michael "Scarecrow" Brown wrote:
> > I'd say that was *galactically stupid*. Any humanoid monster may have
> > its secondary weapons be its claws; this monster can power attack with
> > a weapon held in its hands (one or two handed) but not *without*?
>
> So the monster would be able to Power Attack with an empty hand, but not
> if you put a dagger in its hand? Who's galactically stupid, again?

You, apparently, for citing a galactically irrelevant point. If one
wishes to argue that a secondary limb is somehow "inappropriate" for power
attacking, then it should be mightily surprising that said limb is perfectly
adequate to support power attack after all. The rules we have allow power
attacks for limbs holding weapons, limbs without weapons, limbs with natural
weapons - the *only* weapon that one cannot use to power attack is a "light
manufactured weapon", and this is disallowed REGARDLESS OF THE LIMB USING
IT; the objection is therefore rooted entirely in a quality of light
manufactured weapons - not the creature. While this is a point worth
reconsidering (why can a 20-strength hero do 1d4+5 with his dagger, but an
18 strength character can't use 1 point of power attack to do the same?),
but it's the rule we have.

If one wishes to argue that a creature's secondary limbs are "too weak"
to power attack we encounter an interesting issue - why would a monster with
a STR score of 20 be unable to power attack with a secondary limb when even
at half-str-bonus to damage they would hit harder than a monster with a
primary limb that is only STR 10? 'Weakness' is not an appropriate paradigm.

One might argue that secondary limbs aren't "adroit" enough to power
attack, but power attack isn't about finesse - in fact, some of the weapons
best suited to finessed usage (light manufactured weapons) *don't benefit
from power attack*. Further, power attacks work just fine with two-weapons
fighting (as long as you use a non-light weapon in your off hand), so
arguments about "clumsiness" are doubly delegitimized; in fact as things
stand one is _obligated_ to fight clumsily if wanting to power attack with
TWF...

-Michael







-Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Michael "Scarecrow" Brown wrote:
>>> I'd say that was *galactically stupid*. Any humanoid monster may
>>> have its secondary weapons be its claws; this monster can power
>>> attack with a weapon held in its hands (one or two handed) but not
>>> *without*?

>> So the monster would be able to Power Attack with an empty hand, but
>> not if you put a dagger in its hand?

> If one wishes to argue that a secondary limb is somehow
> "inappropriate" for power attacking, then it should be mightily
> surprising that said limb is perfectly adequate to support power
> attack after all ....

First, the benefit of Power Attacking with a weapon is obviously related
to leverage, so it's quite reasonable that you'd lose it with a short-
levered weapon.

Second, nobody's arguing that the /limb/ can't perform a Power Attack,
merely that its /claws/ may not be suitable for the feat (again, largely
because they lack leverage). Your whole counter-argument attacked a
straw man.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
>>> If one wishes to argue that a secondary limb is somehow
>>> "inappropriate" for power attacking, then it should be mightily
>>> surprising that said limb is perfectly adequate to support power
>>> attack after all ....

Bradd wrote:
>> First, the benefit of Power Attacking with a weapon is obviously
>> related to leverage, so it's quite reasonable that you'd lose it with
>> a short-levered weapon.

> This word "obviously" is very fascinating.

So you don't think Power Attack is related to leverage? Explain, then,
why two-handed weapons deal extra damage, and light handheld weapons get
no damage bonus at all.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd vs MSB:
>>> First, the benefit of Power Attacking with a weapon is obviously
>>> related to leverage, so it's quite reasonable that you'd lose it with
>>> a short-levered weapon.
>
>> This word "obviously" is very fascinating.
>
>So you don't think Power Attack is related to leverage? Explain, then,
>why two-handed weapons deal extra damage, and light handheld weapons get
>no damage bonus at all.

<troll>And how about Flame Blade?</troll>

Donald

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd87rb2.dkf.bradd+news@szonye.com...
> Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> Bradd wrote:
> >> First, the benefit of Power Attacking with a weapon is obviously
> >> related to leverage, so it's quite reasonable that you'd lose it with
> >> a short-levered weapon.
>
> > This word "obviously" is very fascinating.
>
> So you don't think Power Attack is related to leverage? Explain, then,
> why two-handed weapons deal extra damage, and light handheld weapons get
> no damage bonus at all.

I think it's so cute when you snip the argument the disproves your case
and focus on one out of context statement, in some desperate attempt to
cover up your spanking with an argument from incredulity.

Your concession is noted, *again*.

-Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd wrote:
>>>> First, the benefit of Power Attacking with a weapon is obviously
>>>> related to leverage, so it's quite reasonable that you'd lose it
>>>> with a short-levered weapon.

Michael "Scarecrow" Brown wrote:
>> > This word "obviously" is very fascinating.

>> So you don't think Power Attack is related to leverage? Explain,
>> then, why two-handed weapons deal extra damage, and light handheld
>> weapons get no damage bonus at all.

> I think it's so cute when you snip the argument the disproves your case --

Bullshit! You compared a secondary claw attack to unarmed strike.
Unarmed strikes include kicks, head butts, roundhouse punches, and other
whole-body attacks. Is that a valid comparison, hm? Or is the claw more
like a dagger?

Are you even capable of arguing without relying on blatant straw men and
laughably untrue claims?
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd881sr.dkf.bradd+news@szonye.com...
> Bradd wrote:
> > I think it's so cute when you snip the argument the disproves your
case --
>
> Bullshit! You compared a secondary claw attack to unarmed strike.
> Unarmed strikes include kicks, head butts, roundhouse punches, and other
> whole-body attacks. Is that a valid comparison, hm? Or is the claw more
> like a dagger?
>
> Are you even capable of arguing without relying on blatant straw men and
> laughably untrue claims?

Says the little bitch who was proven wrong on *every single one* of his
points on grappling, and who further refuses to address the issue of how
*his* claim about "leverage" is the one that is laughably untrue, given the
available game rules. You're just squirming for me, Bradd. You may as well
stop copping your attitude and slink away for a while.

-Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd wrote:
>> Bullshit! You compared a secondary claw attack to unarmed strike.
>> Unarmed strikes include kicks, head butts, roundhouse punches, and
>> other whole-body attacks. Is that a valid comparison, hm? Or is the
>> claw more like a dagger?
>>
>> Are you even capable of arguing without relying on blatant straw men
>> and laughably untrue claims?

Michael "Scarecrow" Brown wrote:
> Says the little bitch who was proven wrong on *every single one* of
> his points on grappling --

At least I had a good argument. You, on the other hand, resorted to
lying to cover up holes in your argument.

> ... and who further refuses to address the issue of how *his* claim
> about "leverage" is the one that is laughably untrue, given the
> available game rules.

It's addressed above. What, you don't bother to read what you're
replying to at all now?

> You're just squirming for me, Bradd.

Heh. You claim that cats can't grab with their claws, and you flip-flop
on arguments that you conceded long ago, and you even lie about
evidence, and yet you think /I'm/ squirming?
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd88ar4.ghv.bradd+news@szonye.com...
> > You're just squirming for me, Bradd.
>
> Heh. You claim that cats can't grab with their claws,

Here's some irony. The argument is actually just a *little* bit
different than that, Bradd.
Yet you accuse _me_ of lying! How glorious!

> and you flip-flop on arguments that you conceded long ago,

... or perhaps new information caused a shift in paradigm ... what's
that? Flexibility? Ability to learn? Why, it's a list of qualities BRADD
DOESN'T POSSESS!!! For instance, when once upon a time we had it in 3.0
that grapple checks _were_ attack rolls, then clearly "like a melee attack
roll" must be interpreted to read "like a _melee_ attack roll", because they
*are* attack rolls; it would be silly to say they were like what they
already are. But in 3.5, we have it that grapple checks are _not_ attack
rolls, which means that we must now interpret the statement in the new
context - "like a melee _attack roll_" (or _melee attack roll_; same
difference). The edition transition *changed what this sentence meant* (as
indicated in FAQ and web supplement) ... but you have repeatedly protested
that MSB argued differently in the past ... despite the fact that the RULES
CHANGED, and thus we must!
You're hopelessly ossified, BraddGoslin. Which is tricky to do, for
someone so fundamentally spineless and hypocritical.

>and you even lie about evidence, and yet you think /I'm/ squirming?

Given that the only monkey who is telling lies here is ludwig von
Braddathon (see above), the case is settled in favor of the proposition that
you are indeed this week's squirming little honeypot. I was perfectly
prepared to let you lose with dignity, but you've been such a bitter little
jackass I just can't pass up the chance to poke you in the eye a bit. And
all the squealing and yelping! I'm so happy with my decision.
<munches popcorn>

-Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Suddenly, Bradd W. Szonye, drunk as a lemur, stumbled out of the darkness
and exclaimed:
> Michael "Scarecrow" Brown wrote:
> Bradd wrote:

Sigh. Another thread-kill. You two really do need to get a room.

--
Billy Yank

Quinn: "I'm saying it's us, or them."
Murphy: "Well I choose them."
Q: "That's NOT an option!"
M: "Then you shouldn't have framed it as one."
-Sealab 2021

Billy Yank's Baldur's Gate Photo Portraits
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze2xvw6/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

> Ron's on crack.

Well duh

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Werebat" <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Y20he.6451$cf5.283@lakeread07...
> I was talking about granting a creature with one natural attack (say, a
> bite) +2 points of damage per -1 penalty taken to hit via power attack.
> Of course if it were using a weapon, the weapon would be a primary
> attack and the bite would be secondary, and not eligible for the +2
> bonus (+1 per would still be in effect, though).

"Of course"? Please tell the class why it is that the bite is weakened
if the {lizardman?} uses a dagger.

Also, the weapon would not be the primary attack; primary is reserved
for natural weapons and no weapon qualifies as primary when a monster is
also using a manufactured weapon. Bradd will get confused about the
terminology unless you conform to his exacting glossary standards. We're
not allowed to just talk as if we were speaking english!

> Note that this is all in my opinion, since it isn't specifically covered
in the rules.

It is specifically covered in the rules, in that what you suggest is
rather explicitly not part of them.

> However, once again, you have jumped to conclusions and made yourself
> look the ass.

Says the mannequin with the stupid idea?

-Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Werebat wrote:
>> I was talking about granting a creature with one natural attack (say,
>> a bite) +2 points of damage per -1 penalty taken to hit via power
>> attack. Of course if it were using a weapon, the weapon would be a
>> primary attack and the bite would be secondary, and not eligible for
>> the +2 bonus (+1 per would still be in effect, though).

Michael "Scarecrow" Brown wrote:
> "Of course"? Please tell the class why it is that the bite is weakened
> if the {lizardman?} uses a dagger.

For the same reason that /any/ primary natural weapon is weaker when you
use it as a secondary attack behind a melee weapon. RTFM!
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd wrote:
>> WTF do you call that little stunt you pulled with the video, then?
>> You said that my recollection of the evidence was incorrect (it
>> wasn't) and then invented a false description to support your
>> argument.

Michael "Scarecrow" Brown wrote:
> I clearly remember a lion chasing down and using one claw to trip its
> prey. Perhaps it's a different video.

Yeah, right. You still haven't gone back to check, have you?

> You're really being quite pathetic with these hysterical accusations
> of deceit.

No, "pathetic" is when you falsely cite an authority without actually
checking it, and then instead of admitting to your mistake when caught,
or even checking to see whether you were wrong, you bluster on about it
and try to blame your accuser instead.

> *Improved* grab, no less! You would do well to consider what improved
> grab is for - it's for modeling those natural weapons that are
> "sticky" when used to inflict their full damage (ie; tentacles, big
> claws and pincers, large jaws, strong hands, etc.).

Gee, that sounds just like a lion's claw! If you actually bothered to
review the evidence, instead of relying on your faulty memory, you'd
already know that.

> Ask yourself whether the lion that simply "stuck" its fingernails ....

Fingernails? Haw, haw.

> You're still shaming yourself, buckwheat.

Yeah, you keep telling yourself that.

> Soooo desperate to deflect attention from your total faceplant --

Would that be like the hyena's (nonexistent) faceplant?

> ... you're going to run around making it all about MSB again.

That's what you get for lying, juicebag.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd