Longstaff, Quarterstaff, Power Attack, and Flurry

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

Okay, so I went over this many moons ago, and got shouted down by
a couple of people, but my examples were pretty poor.

The basic question: going only by the Rules As Written (RAW), can a
monk gain the doubled Power Attack bonus to damage when using Flurry
of Blows and only one end of his staff?

Now, slow down. Don't hit your follow-up button immediately. Please bear
with my argument:

(a) certainly, a monk using Power Attack and the Attack action can
gain the double bonus, since the quarterstaff is a two-handed
weapon when it isn't being used as a double-weapon.

(b) certainly, a ranger using a quarterstaff as a double weapon
won't gain the double bonus, and in fact will fail to gain *any*
Power Attack bonus with the "off-hand" attack(s), since that
counts as a light weapon.

(c) according to the FAQ, a monk can use the quarterstaff as a double-
weapon *in addition* to his using flurry of blows. in this case,
all of the flurry attacks will generally come from the "primary"
end or be unarmed strikes (and gain a single bonus), and the
"off-hand" attacks will come from the "secondary" end (and gain
no power attack bonus, as (b) above).

If all of the statements above are clearly correct, does a monk flurrying
with a quarterstaff *and only using one end* gain the double power attack
bonus, even though he only gains x1 STR bonus instead of x1.5?

If so, can he gain the double bonus using both ends? Neither end is
being treated as a "light" weapon, after all...

Remember, this is all using the RAW (including FAQs and errata).

(the last time I brought this up, the question used a Three-Section Staff
from OA, since it isn't a double-weapon at all; MSB and at least one other
person argued that the x1 STR bonus implied that the weapon wasn't being
used "two-handed", a conclusion I find absurd)

Same question for longstaff (from Complete Adventurer). Jet Li
using such a beast (in the Once Upon a Time in China series, and
Fong Sai Yuk) is *fairly* clearly doing a flurry with a two-handed
monk weapon...

Donald
58 answers Last reply
More about longstaff quarterstaff power attack flurry
  1. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 04:18:16 +0000 (UTC), tsang@soda.csua.berkeley.edu
    (Donald Tsang) scribed into the ether:

    >Okay, so I went over this many moons ago, and got shouted down by
    >a couple of people, but my examples were pretty poor.
    >
    >The basic question: going only by the Rules As Written (RAW), can a
    >monk gain the doubled Power Attack bonus to damage when using Flurry
    >of Blows and only one end of his staff?
    >
    >Now, slow down. Don't hit your follow-up button immediately.

    Too late, I already did.
  2. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    tsang@soda.csua.berkeley.edu (Donald Tsang) wrote in
    news:ddmgm8$141v$1@agate.berkeley.edu:

    > Okay, so I went over this many moons ago, and got shouted down by
    > a couple of people, but my examples were pretty poor.
    >
    > The basic question: going only by the Rules As Written (RAW), can a
    > monk gain the doubled Power Attack bonus to damage when using Flurry
    > of Blows and only one end of his staff?
    >
    > Now, slow down. Don't hit your follow-up button immediately. Please
    > bear with my argument:
    >
    > (a) certainly, a monk using Power Attack and the Attack action can
    > gain the double bonus, since the quarterstaff is a two-handed
    > weapon when it isn't being used as a double-weapon.
    >
    > (b) certainly, a ranger using a quarterstaff as a double weapon
    > won't gain the double bonus, and in fact will fail to gain *any*
    > Power Attack bonus with the "off-hand" attack(s), since that
    > counts as a light weapon.
    >
    > (c) according to the FAQ, a monk can use the quarterstaff as a double-
    > weapon *in addition* to his using flurry of blows. in this case,
    > all of the flurry attacks will generally come from the "primary"
    > end or be unarmed strikes (and gain a single bonus), and the
    > "off-hand" attacks will come from the "secondary" end (and gain
    > no power attack bonus, as (b) above).
    >
    > If all of the statements above are clearly correct, does a monk
    > flurrying with a quarterstaff *and only using one end* gain the double
    > power attack bonus, even though he only gains x1 STR bonus instead of
    > x1.5?

    Yes, the rules are clear. Power Attack feat states: "If you choose to
    use a double weapon like a two-handed weapon, attacking with only one
    end of it in a round, you treat it as a two-handed weapon." The Furry of
    Blows section states: "In the case of the quarterstaff, each end counts
    as a separate weapon for the purpose of using the flurry of blows
    ability."
    Think of the problem like this. The furry of blows gives up accuracy and
    brute power with two-handed weapons from the Strength score by an
    exclusive monk technique. Power Attack is not specific to monks; it is a
    general technique that deals damage independent of how much strength
    bonus one has. The more skilled in mêlée, by base attack bonus, the more
    damage you can dish out by this feat.

    > If so, can he gain the double bonus using both ends? Neither end is
    > being treated as a "light" weapon, after all...

    Yes as well, because each end is a separate weapon, so the monk uses the
    quarterstaff as a two-handed weapon with both ends not a double weapon.
    Only the monk is able to use any end of the quarterstaff as a two-handed
    weapon with each iterative attack by the furry of blows ability.


    > Remember, this is all using the RAW (including FAQs and errata).
    >
    > (the last time I brought this up, the question used a Three-Section
    > Staff from OA, since it isn't a double-weapon at all; MSB and at least
    > one other person argued that the x1 STR bonus implied that the weapon
    > wasn't being used "two-handed", a conclusion I find absurd)
    >
    > Same question for longstaff (from Complete Adventurer). Jet Li
    > using such a beast (in the Once Upon a Time in China series, and
    > Fong Sai Yuk) is *fairly* clearly doing a flurry with a two-handed
    > monk weapon...
    >
    > Donald
  3. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Donald Tsang wrote:
    > Okay, so I went over this many moons ago, and got shouted down by
    > a couple of people, but my examples were pretty poor.
    >
    > The basic question: going only by the Rules As Written (RAW), can a
    > monk gain the doubled Power Attack bonus to damage when using Flurry
    > of Blows and only one end of his staff?
    >
    > Now, slow down. Don't hit your follow-up button immediately. Please bear
    > with my argument:
    >
    > (a) certainly, a monk using Power Attack and the Attack action can
    > gain the double bonus, since the quarterstaff is a two-handed
    > weapon when it isn't being used as a double-weapon.

    True.

    > (b) certainly, a ranger using a quarterstaff as a double weapon
    > won't gain the double bonus, and in fact will fail to gain *any*
    > Power Attack bonus with the "off-hand" attack(s), since that
    > counts as a light weapon.

    True.

    > (c) according to the FAQ, a monk can use the quarterstaff as a double-
    > weapon *in addition* to his using flurry of blows. in this case,
    > all of the flurry attacks will generally come from the "primary"
    > end or be unarmed strikes (and gain a single bonus), and the
    > "off-hand" attacks will come from the "secondary" end (and gain
    > no power attack bonus, as (b) above).

    True.

    > If all of the statements above are clearly correct, does a monk flurrying
    > with a quarterstaff *and only using one end* gain the double power attack
    > bonus, even though he only gains x1 STR bonus instead of x1.5?

    No. The doubled bonus from power attack only applies when you are already
    entitled to a 1.5x STR bonus to damage, and a monk attacking with a
    quarterstaff
    in a flurry does not get such a bonus.

    > If so, can he gain the double bonus using both ends? Neither end is
    > being treated as a "light" weapon, after all...

    No. See above. You can still gain the normal 1:1 bonus from using
    Power Attack
    of course.

    > Remember, this is all using the RAW (including FAQs and errata).
    >
    > (the last time I brought this up, the question used a Three-Section Staff
    > from OA, since it isn't a double-weapon at all; MSB and at least one other
    > person argued that the x1 STR bonus implied that the weapon wasn't being
    > used "two-handed", a conclusion I find absurd)

    The FAQ does have a few entries on what "two-handed" means for a weapon; see
    pages 17, for example. Thus, even though a lance is listed as
    "two-handed" you
    are normally using it one-handed while mounted and you don't get the normal
    bonuses that accrue to someone using it two-handed (the +4 opposed roll
    to resist
    being disarmed and similar things).

    > Same question for longstaff (from Complete Adventurer). Jet Li
    > using such a beast (in the Once Upon a Time in China series, and
    > Fong Sai Yuk) is *fairly* clearly doing a flurry with a two-handed
    > monk weapon...

    You can certainly flurry with a quarterstaff, but since you never get
    the normal x1.5 STR
    mod bonus when you flurry, you never get the x2 bonus in its place.
  4. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Joseph wrote:
    > tsang@soda.csua.berkeley.edu (Donald Tsang) wrote in
    > news:ddmgm8$141v$1@agate.berkeley.edu:
    >
    >
    >>Okay, so I went over this many moons ago, and got shouted down by
    >>a couple of people, but my examples were pretty poor.
    >>
    >>The basic question: going only by the Rules As Written (RAW), can a
    >>monk gain the doubled Power Attack bonus to damage when using Flurry
    >>of Blows and only one end of his staff?
    >>
    >>Now, slow down. Don't hit your follow-up button immediately. Please
    >>bear with my argument:
    >>
    >>(a) certainly, a monk using Power Attack and the Attack action can
    >> gain the double bonus, since the quarterstaff is a two-handed
    >> weapon when it isn't being used as a double-weapon.
    >>
    >>(b) certainly, a ranger using a quarterstaff as a double weapon
    >> won't gain the double bonus, and in fact will fail to gain *any*
    >> Power Attack bonus with the "off-hand" attack(s), since that
    >> counts as a light weapon.
    >>
    >>(c) according to the FAQ, a monk can use the quarterstaff as a double-
    >> weapon *in addition* to his using flurry of blows. in this case,
    >> all of the flurry attacks will generally come from the "primary"
    >> end or be unarmed strikes (and gain a single bonus), and the
    >> "off-hand" attacks will come from the "secondary" end (and gain
    >> no power attack bonus, as (b) above).
    >>
    >>If all of the statements above are clearly correct, does a monk
    >>flurrying with a quarterstaff *and only using one end* gain the double
    >>power attack bonus, even though he only gains x1 STR bonus instead of
    >>x1.5?
    >
    >
    > Yes, the rules are clear. Power Attack feat states: "If you choose to
    > use a double weapon like a two-handed weapon, attacking with only one
    > end of it in a round, you treat it as a two-handed weapon." The Furry of
    > Blows section states: "In the case of the quarterstaff, each end counts
    > as a separate weapon for the purpose of using the flurry of blows
    > ability."

    Which is to say, a one-handed weapon.

    > Think of the problem like this. The furry of blows gives up accuracy and
    > brute power with two-handed weapons from the Strength score by an
    > exclusive monk technique. Power Attack is not specific to monks; it is a
    > general technique that deals damage independent of how much strength
    > bonus one has. The more skilled in mêlée, by base attack bonus, the more
    > damage you can dish out by this feat.

    Except that the x2 bonus applies in cases where you can exert superior
    leverage,
    using both hands on a lever to increase force (that's represented by the
    normal
    x1.5 instead of x1 bonus). Since you're not actually using the
    quarterstaff as a
    two-handed weapon (each end being treated as separate) you don't get the
    bonus
    which accrues to such a character.

    >>If so, can he gain the double bonus using both ends? Neither end is
    >>being treated as a "light" weapon, after all...
    >
    >
    > Yes as well, because each end is a separate weapon, so the monk uses the
    > quarterstaff as a two-handed weapon with both ends not a double weapon.
    > Only the monk is able to use any end of the quarterstaff as a two-handed
    > weapon with each iterative attack by the furry of blows ability.

    Being a "two-handed weapon" doesn't necessarily mean you're using it in
    two hands--lances, bastard swords, and dwarven waraxes all demonstrate
    this (among other things).

    >>Remember, this is all using the RAW (including FAQs and errata).
    >>
    >>(the last time I brought this up, the question used a Three-Section
    >>Staff from OA, since it isn't a double-weapon at all; MSB and at least
    >>one other person argued that the x1 STR bonus implied that the weapon
    >>wasn't being used "two-handed", a conclusion I find absurd)
    >>
    >>Same question for longstaff (from Complete Adventurer). Jet Li
    >>using such a beast (in the Once Upon a Time in China series, and
    >>Fong Sai Yuk) is *fairly* clearly doing a flurry with a two-handed
    >>monk weapon...
    >>
    >> Donald
    >
    >
    >
  5. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Some Guy <someguy@thedoor.gov> wrote:
    >> If all of the statements above are clearly correct, does a monk flurrying
    >> with a quarterstaff *and only using one end* gain the double power attack
    >> bonus, even though he only gains x1 STR bonus instead of x1.5?
    >
    >No. The doubled bonus from power attack only applies when you are already
    >entitled to a 1.5x STR bonus to damage

    Where, exactly, in the RAW (plus errata plus FAQ) does it say that?

    It's my contention that you can get doubled Power Attack damage when
    you wield a one-handed or two-handed weapon in two hands, even when
    a weapon specifically says you can't gain a STR bonus to damage
    (Flame Blade, Moonblade, etc)

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

    Donald Tsang wrote:
    > Some Guy <someguy@thedoor.gov> wrote:
    >
    >>>If all of the statements above are clearly correct, does a monk flurrying
    >>>with a quarterstaff *and only using one end* gain the double power attack
    >>>bonus, even though he only gains x1 STR bonus instead of x1.5?
    >>
    >>No. The doubled bonus from power attack only applies when you are already
    >>entitled to a 1.5x STR bonus to damage
    >
    >
    > Where, exactly, in the RAW (plus errata plus FAQ) does it say that?

    Here's what I used to come to my conclusion:

    • PHB p. 41 ("When using weapons as part of a flurry of blows, a monk
    applies her
    Strength bonus (not Str bonus x 1-1/2 or x 1/2) to her damage rolls for
    all successful
    attacks, whether she wields a weapon in one or both hands... In the
    case of a quarterstaff,
    each end counts as a separate weapon for the purposes of using the
    flurry of blows ability.
    Even though the quarterstaff requires two hands to use, a monk may still
    intersperse
    unarmed strikes with quarterstaff strikes, assuming that she has enough
    attacks in her
    flurry of blows routine to do so.")

    In other words, even though you're physically using the quarterstaff
    with 2 hands, you're not
    actually wielding it as a two-handed weapon--you're wielding it as if it
    were two separate weapons,
    just like a double weapon. You're attacking in a manner that allows you
    to use both ends, even if
    you don't actually choose to do so, e.g. a more widely-spaced grip
    rather than a baseball-style grip.
    This prevents you from gaining the leverage necessary to get more damage
    out of your Strength
    modifer.

    • PHB p. 98 ("If you attack with a two-handed weapon, or with a
    one-handed weapon wielded in both
    hands, instead add twice the number subtracted from your attack rolls.
    You can't add the bonus from
    Power Attack to the damage dealt with a light weapon (except for unarmed
    strikes or natural weapon
    attacks), even though the penalty on attack rolls still applies.
    [Normally, you treat a double weapon
    as a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. If you choose to use a
    double weapon like a two-handed
    weapon, attacking with only one end of it in a round, you treat it as a
    two-handed weapon.]")

    With the flurry of blows ability, as stated above, when you use a
    quarterstaff you're treating as two separate
    monk weapons instead of one two-handed weapon. This is exactly the same
    as if you were using two sais
    or a sai and an unarmed strike, etc. For purposes of the Power Attack
    feat, this is *like* using it as two
    one-handed weapons.

    To put it another way, a monk's flurry of blows is effectively a variant
    form of TWF that only works with
    unarmed strikes and special monk weapons, and that can stack with normal
    TWF. When you're flurrying,
    you are really setting up to strike with multiple weapons, even if you
    don't actually do so, just as you take
    the normal TWF penalty to your attacks when fighting with 2 weapons even
    if you never make the off-hand
    attack you're entitled to.

    • PHB p. 113 ("If a one-handed weapon is wielded with two hands during
    melee combat, add 1-1/2 times the
    character's Strength bonus to damage rolls.")

    • PHB p. 113 ("Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon
    effectively, Apply 1-1/2 times the
    character's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with such a
    weapon.")

    A weapon being used with both hands (either by virtue of being a
    one-handed weapon you're double-gripping or
    by virtue of being a two-handed weapon) is treated as one weapon when
    you're attacking, not as two separate
    weapons. Since a monk flurrying with a quarterstaff is treating it as
    two separate weapons, these paragraphs
    don't apply.

    • Main35FAQv07282005, p. 17 ("When the combat rules speak of 'two-handed
    weapons,' they're referring to how the
    weapon is *being used* <emphasis added>. A Medium character using a
    Medium longsword in two hands is using
    a 'two-handed' weapon. The same character using a Medium lance in one
    hand while mounted is using a one-handed
    weapon. Light weapons are an exception. If you wield a light weapon in
    two hands you get no advantage on damage
    (see page 113 in the Player's Handbook). Likewise, you always take a -4
    penalty on your opposed roll when you're
    wielding a light weapon in a disarm attempt [when someone tries to
    disarm you or you try to disarm someone]
    regardless of whether you wield it one-handed or two-handed.")

    Although the weapon is physically being wielded with two hands, it's not
    being USED as a two-handed weapon. It's
    being used as two separate weapons, as specified in the flurry of blows
    ability.

    • Main35FAQv07282005, p. 22 ("As noted in the previous question, you can
    decide to wield a one-handed weapon
    in two hands and get the benefits of a two-handed weapon in combat. To
    do so, the weapon has to be designated a
    one-handed weapon for you.")

    Since a quarterstaff isn't actually a designated one-handed weapon, even
    though it's being used as two one-handed
    weapons, this prevents you from gaining the two-weapon benefit when
    flurrying with it. This would be just as true
    with a Large creature wielding a Medium quarterstaff, which is not a
    two-handed weapon for it.

    • Main35FAQv07282005, p. 29 ("When you make only a single attack with a
    double weapon, the weapon is treated as
    a two-handed weapon... It doesn't matter which end you swing with.")

    Since a flurry is not a single attack, you're obviously not treating it
    as a two-handed weapon, which is exactly the same
    as would be the case if you were TWFing with it--it isn't treated as a
    two-handed weapon then, either.

    > It's my contention that you can get doubled Power Attack damage when
    > you wield a one-handed or two-handed weapon in two hands, even when
    > a weapon specifically says you can't gain a STR bonus to damage
    > (Flame Blade, Moonblade, etc)

    That's silly.
  7. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    tsang@soda.csua.berkeley.edu (Donald Tsang) wrote in
    news:ddoc6q$2gq5$1@agate.berkeley.edu:

    > Some Guy <someguy@thedoor.gov> wrote:
    >>> If all of the statements above are clearly correct, does a monk
    >>> flurrying with a quarterstaff *and only using one end* gain the
    >>> double power attack bonus, even though he only gains x1 STR bonus
    >>> instead of x1.5?
    >>
    >>No. The doubled bonus from power attack only applies when you are
    >>already entitled to a 1.5x STR bonus to damage
    >
    > Where, exactly, in the RAW (plus errata plus FAQ) does it say that?

    The RAW contradicts Some Guy's assertion here. Power Attack Feat: "If
    you attack with a two-handed weapon, or with a one-handed weapon wielded
    in two hands, instead add twice the number subtracted from your attack
    rolls." Nowhere does the feat mention the requirement of needing a 1.5x
    STR bonus. That is just what normally happens; the monk is an exception
    to the standard. Said monk must use the quarterstaff with both hands, of
    course.

    > It's my contention that you can get doubled Power Attack damage when
    > you wield a one-handed or two-handed weapon in two hands, even when
    > a weapon specifically says you can't gain a STR bonus to damage
    > (Flame Blade, Moonblade, etc)

    Correct. The monk is also able to treat both ends of the quarterstaff,
    while using two hands in furry of blows, as a two-handed weapon. Look at
    the example of the 8th-level monk: PHB page forty-one. "The monk is able
    to attack with both ends of the quarterstaff without treating it as a
    double weapon." Notice that there are no two-weapon penalties in any of
    the example monk's attacks; monks are truly masters of martial arts.
  8. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Joseph wrote:
    > tsang@soda.csua.berkeley.edu (Donald Tsang) wrote in
    > news:ddoc6q$2gq5$1@agate.berkeley.edu:
    >
    >
    >>Some Guy <someguy@thedoor.gov> wrote:
    >>
    >>>>If all of the statements above are clearly correct, does a monk
    >>>>flurrying with a quarterstaff *and only using one end* gain the
    >>>>double power attack bonus, even though he only gains x1 STR bonus
    >>>>instead of x1.5?
    >>>
    >>>No. The doubled bonus from power attack only applies when you are
    >>>already entitled to a 1.5x STR bonus to damage
    >>
    >>Where, exactly, in the RAW (plus errata plus FAQ) does it say that?
    >
    >
    > The RAW contradicts Some Guy's assertion here. Power Attack Feat: "If
    > you attack with a two-handed weapon, or with a one-handed weapon wielded
    > in two hands, instead add twice the number subtracted from your attack
    > rolls." Nowhere does the feat mention the requirement of needing a 1.5x
    > STR bonus. That is just what normally happens; the monk is an exception
    > to the standard. Said monk must use the quarterstaff with both hands, of
    > course.

    Except that a monk flurrying with a quarterstaff does not meet the
    required standard
    for using a two-handed weapon or a one-handed weapon in two hands. She
    is treated
    as if she is using two separate weapons (one-handed, essentially, from
    the way the
    Strength bonus is calculated). You youself even quoted part of the
    relevant text:

    "In the case of the quarterstaff, each end counts
    as a separate weapon for the purpose of using the flurry of blows
    ability."

    In other words, the quarterstaff is NOT treated as a two-handed weapon,
    or a
    one-handed weapon in 2 hands, even though you're physically wielding it in
    two hands. It's treated as two separate weapons, just as if it were a
    pair of sai
    instead of 2 ends of a quarterstaff.

    >>It's my contention that you can get doubled Power Attack damage when
    >>you wield a one-handed or two-handed weapon in two hands, even when
    >>a weapon specifically says you can't gain a STR bonus to damage
    >>(Flame Blade, Moonblade, etc)
    >
    >
    > Correct.

    To say that specific states exceptions get overruled by general rules is
    ridiculous.
    Flame Blade is an energy beam, for EGG's sake!

    >The monk is also able to treat both ends of the quarterstaff,
    > while using two hands in furry of blows, as a two-handed weapon.

    That's false. It doesn't say that at all--it says just the opposite.
    Do you have trouble
    remembering what you wrote earlier?

    >Look at
    > the example of the 8th-level monk: PHB page forty-one. "The monk is able
    > to attack with both ends of the quarterstaff without treating it as a
    > double weapon."

    When you put text in quotes, you're claiming that's what the book says.
    Page
    41 of the PHB does not contain that text at all. Did you perhaps quote
    some
    other source by mistake or, as MSB would say, are you a lying whore?

    >Notice that there are no two-weapon penalties in any of
    > the example monk's attacks; monks are truly masters of martial arts.

    You're an idiot. What do you think the flurry of blows abilty is
    describing, there,
    you moron? It's describing how a monk gets to make an exceptional form
    of attack
    with it similar to using unarmed strike flurries.
  9. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Some Guy <someguy@thedoor.gov> wrote in
    news:w7QLe.684$uO2.44@fed1read07:

    > Joseph wrote:
    >> tsang@soda.csua.berkeley.edu (Donald Tsang) wrote in
    >> news:ddoc6q$2gq5$1@agate.berkeley.edu:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Some Guy <someguy@thedoor.gov> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>>If all of the statements above are clearly correct, does a monk
    >>>>>flurrying with a quarterstaff *and only using one end* gain the
    >>>>>double power attack bonus, even though he only gains x1 STR bonus
    >>>>>instead of x1.5?
    >>>>
    >>>>No. The doubled bonus from power attack only applies when you are
    >>>>already entitled to a 1.5x STR bonus to damage
    >>>
    >>>Where, exactly, in the RAW (plus errata plus FAQ) does it say that?
    >>
    >>
    >> The RAW contradicts Some Guy's assertion here. Power Attack Feat: "If
    >> you attack with a two-handed weapon, or with a one-handed weapon
    >> wielded in two hands, instead add twice the number subtracted from
    >> your attack rolls." Nowhere does the feat mention the requirement of
    >> needing a 1.5x STR bonus. That is just what normally happens; the
    >> monk is an exception to the standard. Said monk must use the
    >> quarterstaff with both hands, of course.
    >
    > Except that a monk flurrying with a quarterstaff does not meet the
    > required standard
    > for using a two-handed weapon or a one-handed weapon in two hands.
    > She is treated
    > as if she is using two separate weapons (one-handed, essentially, from
    > the way the
    > Strength bonus is calculated). You youself even quoted part of the
    > relevant text:
    >
    > "In the case of the quarterstaff, each end counts
    > as a separate weapon for the purpose of using the flurry of blows
    > ability."
    >
    > In other words, the quarterstaff is NOT treated as a two-handed
    > weapon, or a
    > one-handed weapon in 2 hands, even though you're physically wielding
    > it in two hands. It's treated as two separate weapons, just as if it
    > were a pair of sai
    > instead of 2 ends of a quarterstaff.

    Yes, and the monk can *switch* between each end (separate weapons)
    without penalty while using furry of blows. Just like the monk can use
    an unarmed strike (using the rest of her body) mixed in with the
    quarterstaff's attacks without penalty. All of these are treated as
    interchangeably as desired. This is an exception to normal quarterstaff
    rules which demand a double attack if one wants to use both ends. PHB
    page 120 notes that the monk has special options when using a
    quarterstaff.

    >>>It's my contention that you can get doubled Power Attack damage when
    >>>you wield a one-handed or two-handed weapon in two hands, even when
    >>>a weapon specifically says you can't gain a STR bonus to damage
    >>>(Flame Blade, Moonblade, etc)
    >>
    >>
    >> Correct.
    >
    > To say that specific states exceptions get overruled by general rules
    > is ridiculous.
    > Flame Blade is an energy beam, for EGG's sake!

    Flame Blade is treated as a scimitar. Are you saying one can't use Power
    Attack with it? The Power Attack Feat does not say anything about
    requiring a 1.5x Stir bonus when using a weapon. Your implication that
    it does is unproven.

    >>The monk is also able to treat both ends of the quarterstaff,
    >> while using two hands in furry of blows, as a two-handed weapon.
    >
    > That's false. It doesn't say that at all--it says just the opposite.
    > Do you have trouble
    > remembering what you wrote earlier

    Well, the text doesn't state it explicitly, but that what the text and
    example implies. If the monk has attacks available and uses two hands,
    each end can be used as a separate two-handed weapon.

    >>Look at
    >> the example of the 8th-level monk: PHB page forty-one. "The monk is
    >> able to attack with both ends of the quarterstaff without treating it
    >> as a double weapon."
    >
    > When you put text in quotes, you're claiming that's what the book
    > says.
    > Page
    > 41 of the PHB does not contain that text at all. Did you perhaps
    > quote some
    > other source by mistake or, as MSB would say, are you a lying whore?

    It was an honest punctuation error; I meant to omit the quotation marks.
    Obviously, no one would be fooled by that if they looked at the text. My
    first paragraph had a quote, so I wanted a second one in the second
    paragraph. I went another way, though, and forgot to delete the quote
    marks. And an invocation of MSB's rhetoric does not impress me.

    >>Notice that there are no two-weapon penalties in any of
    >> the example monk's attacks; monks are truly masters of martial arts.
    >
    > You're an idiot. What do you think the flurry of blows abilty is
    > describing, there,
    > you moron? It's describing how a monk gets to make an exceptional
    > form of attack
    > with it similar to using unarmed strike flurries.

    Thanks for tossing the insults first, clown. Look at the example: the
    8th level monk has a base bonus of +6/+1, a Flurry of Blows Attack Bonus
    of +5/+5/+0. Two attacks with the quarterstaff (one with each end) at +5
    and +0 with an unarmed strike. There is no fourth attack mentioned here
    as in double weapon fighting, and even clearer there are no negative
    penalties listed as there should be for two-weapon fighting.
  10. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Some Guy <someguy@thedoor.gov> wrote:
    >>>The doubled bonus from power attack only applies when you are already
    >>>entitled to a 1.5x STR bonus to damage
    >>
    >> Where, exactly, in the RAW (plus errata plus FAQ) does it say that?
    >
    >Here's what I used to come to my conclusion:
    >
    > PHB p. 41 ("When using weapons as part of a flurry of blows, a monk
    >applies her Strength bonus (not Str bonus x 1-1/2 or x 1/2) to her
    >damage rolls for all successful attacks, whether she wields a
    >weapon in one or both hands... In the case of a quarterstaff,
    >each end counts as a separate weapon for the purposes of using the
    >flurry of blows ability. Even though the quarterstaff requires
    >two hands to use, a monk may still intersperse unarmed strikes with
    >quarterstaff strikes, assuming that she has enough attacks in her
    >flurry of blows routine to do so.")

    See, this is probably the main bone of contention:

    I see the "two separate weapons" as *both* being wielded two-handed,
    albeit with only x1 STR bonus. And if you only attack with one
    end, you shouldn't need to treat the quarterstaff as two weapons.


    >In other words, even though you're physically using the quarterstaff
    >with 2 hands, you're not actually wielding it as a two-handed
    >weapon--you're wielding it as if it were two separate weapons, just
    >like a double weapon. You're attacking in a manner that allows you
    >to use both ends, even if you don't actually choose to do so, e.g.
    >a more widely-spaced grip rather than a baseball-style grip. This
    >prevents you from gaining the leverage necessary to get more damage
    >out of your Strength modifer.

    Have you seen a staff being wielded by a Kung Fu expert? It's held at
    one end... in fact, that the longstaff isn't treated as a reach weapon
    is sorta short-sighted.


    > PHB p. 98 ("If you attack with a two-handed weapon, or with a
    >one-handed weapon wielded in both hands, instead add twice the
    >number subtracted from your attack rolls. You can't add the bonus
    >from Power Attack to the damage dealt with a light weapon (except
    >for unarmed strikes or natural weapon attacks), even though the
    >penalty on attack rolls still applies. [Normally, you treat a
    >double weapon as a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. If you
    >choose to use a double weapon like a two-handed weapon, attacking
    >with only one end of it in a round, you treat it as a two-handed
    >weapon.]")
    >
    >With the flurry of blows ability, as stated above, when you use a
    >quarterstaff you're treating as two separate monk weapons instead
    >of one two-handed weapon. This is exactly the same as if you were
    >using two sais or a sai and an unarmed strike, etc. For purposes
    >of the Power Attack feat, this is *like* using it as two one-handed
    >weapons.

    No, I think it should be treated like using it as two two-handed
    weapons, except that you only get x1 STR bonus. By the RAW, that
    means you still get double Power Attack bonus.


    >To put it another way, a monk's flurry of blows is effectively a
    >variant form of TWF that only works with unarmed strikes and special
    >monk weapons, and that can stack with normal TWF. When you're
    >flurrying, you are really setting up to strike with multiple weapons,
    >even if you don't actually do so, just as you take the normal TWF
    >penalty to your attacks when fighting with 2 weapons even if you
    >never make the off-hand attack you're entitled to.

    You're striking one extra time with your primary weapon, though
    (twice at 11th level and above).


    >PHB p. 113 ("If a one-handed weapon is wielded with two hands
    >during melee combat, add 1-1/2 times the character's Strength
    >bonus to damage rolls.")
    >
    >PHB p. 113 ("Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon
    >effectively, Apply 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to
    >damage rolls for melee attacks with such a weapon.")

    >A weapon being used with both hands (either by virtue of being a
    >one-handed weapon you're double-gripping or by virtue of being a
    >two-handed weapon) is treated as one weapon when you're attacking,
    >not as two separate weapons. Since a monk flurrying with a
    >quarterstaff is treating it as two separate weapons, these paragraphs
    >don't apply.

    If you only use one end, you're certainly using one two-handed weapon.


    >Main35FAQv07282005, p. 17 ("When the combat rules speak of 'two-handed
    >weapons,' they're referring to how the weapon is *being used*
    ><emphasis added>. A Medium character using a Medium longsword in
    >two hands is using a 'two-handed' weapon. The same character using
    >a Medium lance in one hand while mounted is using a one-handed
    >weapon. Light weapons are an exception. If you wield a light
    >weapon in two hands you get no advantage on damage (see page 113
    >in the Player's Handbook). Likewise, you always take a -4 penalty
    >on your opposed roll when you're wielding a light weapon in a disarm
    >attempt [when someone tries to disarm you or you try to disarm
    >someone] regardless of whether you wield it one-handed or two-handed.")
    >
    >Although the weapon is physically being wielded with two hands, it's not
    >being USED as a two-handed weapon. It's being used as two separate weapons,
    >as specified in the flurry of blows ability.

    If you only use one end, a la Jet Li (and not Errol Flynn), you're
    certainly wielding it as a two-handed weapon.


    >Main35FAQv07282005, p. 22 ("As noted in the previous question, you
    >can decide to wield a one-handed weapon in two hands and get the
    >benefits of a two-handed weapon in combat. To do so, the weapon
    >has to be designated a one-handed weapon for you.")
    >
    >Since a quarterstaff isn't actually a designated one-handed weapon,
    >even though it's being used as two one-handed weapons, this prevents
    >you from gaining the two-weapon benefit when flurrying with it.
    >This would be just as true with a Large creature wielding a Medium
    >quarterstaff, which is not a two-handed weapon for it.

    Now wait a minute. A medium quarterstaff is a double or two-handed
    weapon for a medium creature, and a one-handed weapon for a large
    creature.

    Your own arguments tend to lead one to believe that a quarterstaff
    being flurried counts as two one-handed weapons, as well...


    >Main35FAQv07282005, p. 29 ("When you make only a single attack
    >with a double weapon, the weapon is treated as a two-handed weapon...
    >It doesn't matter which end you swing with.")
    >
    >Since a flurry is not a single attack, you're obviously not treating it
    >as a two-handed weapon, which is exactly the same as would be the
    >case if you were TWFing with it--it isn't treated as a two-handed
    >weapon then, either.

    This is misleading, at best. If you make a full attack with one
    end of a double weapon, it's treated as a two-handed weapon then, too.


    >> It's my contention that you can get doubled Power Attack damage when
    >> you wield a one-handed or two-handed weapon in two hands, even when
    >> a weapon specifically says you can't gain a STR bonus to damage
    >> (Flame Blade, Moonblade, etc)
    >
    >That's silly.

    There's nothing in the RAW that directly contradicts this.

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

    Michael Scott Brown wrote:
    >
    > There is a difference between being "in game reality" two handed, and
    > being "in game *mechanics*" two handed. Game mechanical two-handedness is a
    > very specific concept that does not extend to all cases of weapons used in
    > two hands. It applies to weapons used and held in such a way that strong
    > characters can exert greater leverage, such as one-handed weapons taken up
    > in two hands and two-handed weapons *used in such a way* that they strike
    > powerfully - rather than "quickly". When two handed weapons are used in
    > that fashion, they exert 1.5x strength and power attacks have double
    > benefit. When they are used as double weapons, this is not the case. When
    > normally two-handed weapons are monkey gripped into one-handed use, this is
    > not the case.
    >
    > There is a very simple question you have to ask yourself: is a monk
    > flurrying with his two handed staff fighting with it AS IF it were a "two
    > handed weapon" being used powerfully, or as two individual weapons (or as a
    > two-handed weapon being used 'quickly')? Does he get the 1.5x strength
    > bonus? *NO*. Therefore, the *flurrying* monk is not using his staff in the
    > game-mechanical "two handed fashion", and all arguments about doubled power
    > attack benefits are *over*.

    Quoted for truthery and clarity. Very well put.

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

    Kaos <kaos@invalid.xplornet.com> wrote in
    news:id40g1lrlts329f7i8qmgmehqjg6h3v9fm@4ax.com:

    > On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 19:14:57 -0700, Some Guy <someguy@thedoor.gov>
    > dared speak in front of ME:
    >
    >>Donald Tsang wrote:
    >>> I see the "two separate weapons" as *both* being wielded two-handed,
    >>> albeit with only x1 STR bonus. And if you only attack with one
    >>> end, you shouldn't need to treat the quarterstaff as two weapons.
    >>
    >>I don't see how you see that. It's contradictory to both the letter and
    >>the spirit
    >>of the rules for a (normal) humanoid to wield 2 two-handed weapons
    >>simultaneously.
    >
    > AFAIC, most of the double-weapon rules tend to say 'we are exceptions
    > to the general letter and spirt of the rules' as it is. Which means
    > simply citing them isn't good enough for our purposes.

    I see no contradiction in that the quarterstaff is really just one weapon.
    It is a game rule conceit that defines it as two separate two-handed
    weapons. Common sense, to me, says that monks should have the control
    needed to handle one end of the quarterstaff as a two-handed weapon with
    each flurry of blows attack. Accuracy may be lost as well as some Strength
    bonus, but the monk should be able to take advantage of an opponent's
    openings with a two-handed use of each end of the quarterstaff in a flurry.

    > However...
    >>> Have you seen a staff being wielded by a Kung Fu expert? It's held at
    >>> one end... in fact, that the longstaff isn't treated as a reach weapon
    >>> is sorta short-sighted.
    >
    > I have seen a staff being wielded by quite a few Kung Fu experts. And
    > here I'd have to agree with Some Guy; the staff *isn't* exclusively
    > held at one end. In fact, my sifu went so far as to say that he
    > teaches the staff first because it is versatile and the techniques for
    > using the staff mimic all weapons. He then demonstrated sword, spear,
    > and chain using his staff.

    Bojutsu: The Staff and Stick Arts of Hontai Yoshin Ryu Jujutsu
    http://www.furyu.com/archives/issue2/hontai.html

    What is impressive in East Asian martial arts is the variety of styles that
    have developed for the effective use of the simple six foot staff. Although
    similarities certainly exist, specific stylistic differences in traditional
    schools are quite diagnostic. This point was emphasized to me on several
    occasions by sensei of Hontai Yoshin Ryu-Kukishin Ryu bojutsu, especially
    in comparison with their perception of Okinawan cho bo style. The latter,
    they claimed, tends to emphasize a hands positioning near the center of the
    staff, whereas Kukishin Ryu cho bo emphasizes a more ample te sabaki, or
    active handwork along the entire length of the staff. These differences
    were even demonstrated to me by using hashi ("chopsticks") at the dinner
    table, where a sensei's scissors fingers (the index and middle finger
    holding the wood between them) of both hands would manipulate the
    chopsticks from their middle for their rendition of the Okinawan style,
    which created a sort of fluttering of the ends of the hashi. In contrast,
    they would slide their fingers up and down the length of the hashi for the
    Kukishin bo, creating more of an end-over-end action, that also varied much
    more dramatically the effective length of the staff.

    This sliding of the hands along the entire length of the cho bo is
    characteristic of the Kukishin Ryu, and is emphasized in the style's kihon
    or basics. The first three formal basics, uchi komi, harai, and tsukue, all
    emphasize this action in movements that are respectively strikes directed
    from up-down, side-to-side, and from down-up. In addition, a straight-
    forward thrust (tsuki), and movements that show influences of the halberd-
    like naginata also tend to emphasize the entire length of the cho bo, and
    alternate its ends-with the hands located nearer the opposite or "back"
    end-for striking.

    This shows a tradition where one can quickly change hand positions on the
    staff from middle to end... which is similar to a monk's quarterstaff
    flurry in my view. Would you deny the masters of Bojutsu Hontai Yoshin Ryu
    jujutsu style full use of Power Attack? ;-)

    > I have no real problems with simply assuming that a Flurry with a
    > staff doesn't permit the use of two-handed techniques.
    >> Some have also said that quarterstaves
    >>should be able to make trip attacks, but they don't in D&D and the FAQ
    >>explains
    >>why.
    >
    > Bow down and worship the Holy Faq even when it's completely stupid.
    > (Although, in point of fact I've been perusing the faq and can't find
    > this particular issue in there so I can't really say if it's
    > explanation is any good, or just whoever answered that question being
    > a retard with Official status.)

    current 3.5 FAQ page 17
    You cannot use a quarterstaff to make a trip attack, because
    tripping isn’t one of a quarterstaff’s properties.
    In the D&D game, a trip attack involves grabbing a foe and
    somehow yanking him off balance. All the Player’s Handbook
    weapons that allow trip attacks have some kind of hook that
    can snag a foe or some flexible portion that you can wrap
    around an opponent’s limb or body.

    Well, that's their standard at least.
  13. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 05:52:16 GMT, Joseph <void@verizon.net> dared
    speak in front of ME:

    >Kaos <kaos@invalid.xplornet.com> wrote in
    >news:id40g1lrlts329f7i8qmgmehqjg6h3v9fm@4ax.com:
    >> AFAIC, most of the double-weapon rules tend to say 'we are exceptions
    >> to the general letter and spirt of the rules' as it is. Which means
    >> simply citing them isn't good enough for our purposes.
    >
    >I see no contradiction in that the quarterstaff is really just one weapon.
    >It is a game rule conceit that defines it as two separate two-handed
    >weapons. Common sense, to me, says that monks should have the control
    >needed to handle one end of the quarterstaff as a two-handed weapon with
    >each flurry of blows attack. Accuracy may be lost as well as some Strength
    >bonus, but the monk should be able to take advantage of an opponent's
    >openings with a two-handed use of each end of the quarterstaff in a flurry.

    Treating it mechanically as two seperate one-handed weapons fits what
    you just described. Flurry already drops a bit of accuracy, and the
    loss of some strength bonus coincides neatly with barring the
    two-handed advantages.

    >This sliding of the hands along the entire length of the cho bo is
    >characteristic of the Kukishin Ryu, and is emphasized in the style's kihon
    >or basics. The first three formal basics, uchi komi, harai, and tsukue, all
    >emphasize this action in movements that are respectively strikes directed
    >from up-down, side-to-side, and from down-up. In addition, a straight-
    >forward thrust (tsuki), and movements that show influences of the halberd-
    >like naginata also tend to emphasize the entire length of the cho bo, and
    >alternate its ends-with the hands located nearer the opposite or "back"
    >end-for striking.
    >
    >This shows a tradition where one can quickly change hand positions on the
    >staff from middle to end... which is similar to a monk's quarterstaff
    >flurry in my view.

    Or simply a high-level monk making use of his iterative attack
    sequence. There's more than sufficient room for debate to just let
    the question slide in favour of mechanical balance; they're already
    getting a break being allowed to use str + str rather than str + 1/2
    str.

    At most I could see an argument allowing a monk to bypass the "one end
    is considered a light weapon" restriction that would bar him from
    using power-attack at all.

    >> Bow down and worship the Holy Faq even when it's completely stupid.
    >> (Although, in point of fact I've been perusing the faq and can't find
    >> this particular issue in there so I can't really say if it's
    >> explanation is any good, or just whoever answered that question being
    >> a retard with Official status.)
    >
    >current 3.5 FAQ page 17
    >You cannot use a quarterstaff to make a trip attack, because
    >tripping isn’t one of a quarterstaff’s properties.
    >In the D&D game, a trip attack involves grabbing a foe and
    >somehow yanking him off balance. All the Player’s Handbook
    >weapons that allow trip attacks have some kind of hook that
    >can snag a foe or some flexible portion that you can wrap
    >around an opponent’s limb or body.
    >
    >Well, that's their standard at least.

    Reads like "retard with Official Status" to me.

    --
    Address no longer works.
    try removing all numbers from
    gafgirl1@2allstream3.net

    --
    Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
    ------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
    Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
  14. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Joseph" <void@verizon.net> wrote in message
    news:Xns96B2CE7749BAB619void@199.45.49.11...
    > Yes, and the monk can *switch* between each end (separate weapons)
    > without penalty while using furry of blows.

    So can any person performing a full attack with a staff.

    > Just like the monk can use
    > an unarmed strike (using the rest of her body) mixed in with the
    > quarterstaff's attacks without penalty. All of these are treated as
    > interchangeably as desired. This is an exception to normal quarterstaff
    > rules which demand a double attack if one wants to use both ends.

    No. It demands the use of two weapons fighting if you want to get
    *additional attacks*.

    A man holding two weapons can fight with them interchangeably when he
    full attacks.
    It only becomes TWF when the attack rate is accelerated.

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

    "Joseph" <void@verizon.net> wrote in message
    news:Xns96B2B46CFDD07619void@199.45.49.11...
    > The RAW contradicts Some Guy's assertion here. Power Attack Feat: "If
    > you attack with a two-handed weapon, or with a one-handed weapon wielded
    > in two hands, instead add twice the number subtracted from your attack
    > rolls." Nowhere does the feat mention the requirement of needing a 1.5x
    > STR bonus. That is just what normally happens; the monk is an exception
    > to the standard. Said monk must use the quarterstaff with both hands, of
    > course.

    A person using a double weapon is also using it in both hands. Yet he
    does not get 1.5x strength bonuses and the weapon is TREATED AS IF he were
    using two individual weapons, one in each hand. Further, when power
    attacking, despite being used in two hands, the damage bonus is as for a
    one-handed weapon, and can only possibly apply to the 'primary' end of the
    weapon at that (as the off is light and cannot benefit).

    There is a difference between being "in game reality" two handed, and
    being "in game *mechanics*" two handed. Game mechanical two-handedness is a
    very specific concept that does not extend to all cases of weapons used in
    two hands. It applies to weapons used and held in such a way that strong
    characters can exert greater leverage, such as one-handed weapons taken up
    in two hands and two-handed weapons *used in such a way* that they strike
    powerfully - rather than "quickly". When two handed weapons are used in
    that fashion, they exert 1.5x strength and power attacks have double
    benefit. When they are used as double weapons, this is not the case. When
    normally two-handed weapons are monkey gripped into one-handed use, this is
    not the case.

    There is a very simple question you have to ask yourself: is a monk
    flurrying with his two handed staff fighting with it AS IF it were a "two
    handed weapon" being used powerfully, or as two individual weapons (or as a
    two-handed weapon being used 'quickly')? Does he get the 1.5x strength
    bonus? *NO*. Therefore, the *flurrying* monk is not using his staff in the
    game-mechanical "two handed fashion", and all arguments about doubled power
    attack benefits are *over*.

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

    "Donald Tsang" <tsang@soda.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
    news:ddmgm8$141v$1@agate.berkeley.edu...
    > If all of the statements above are clearly correct, does a monk flurrying
    > with a quarterstaff *and only using one end* gain the double power attack
    > bonus, even though he only gains x1 STR bonus instead of x1.5?

    What about the part where the x1 STR bonus means he isn't using it like
    a two handed weapon DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?

    The monk can flurry, sacrificing power for a bonus attack, or he can
    attack normally, and hit harder per blow.
    It's just that easy.

    Get over yourself, hump.

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

    "Donald Tsang" <tsang@soda.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
    news:ddoo6f$2qki$1@agate.berkeley.edu...
    > I see the "two separate weapons" as *both* being wielded two-handed,
    > albeit with only x1 STR bonus.

    So is a double weapon, and you can't get big power attacks with those,
    either, Donald.
    Quit being a damnned moron! Flurrying contradicts whopper power
    attacks. It's just that easy.

    > And if you only attack with one end, you shouldn't need to treat the
    quarterstaff as two weapons.

    The issue is not treating it as two. The issue is that you're not using
    it as powerfully as you ordinarily would.
    You're flurrying. No super hard blows for you!

    > Have you seen a staff being wielded by a Kung Fu expert? It's held at
    > one end... in fact, that the longstaff isn't treated as a reach weapon
    > is sorta short-sighted.

    Actually, having *performed* such combat maneuvers, sir, I can assure
    you that the Chinese staff is not held at *only* one end. It is a living
    thing and it flows through the hands as the intention demands. Many strikes
    and extensions finish with the fighter holding only one end, but *which* end
    of the staff that happens to be at any given moment changes constantly.

    Further, if the staff "should" be a reach weapon then so should a basic
    spear.

    > No, I think it should be treated like using it as two two-handed
    > weapons, except that you only get x1 STR bonus.

    OXYMORON.

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

    Michael Scott Brown <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
    >> does a monk flurrying with a quarterstaff *and only using one
    >> end* gain the double power attack bonus, even though he only
    >>gains x1 STR bonus instead of x1.5?
    >
    > What about the part where the x1 STR bonus means he isn't using it like
    >a two handed weapon DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?

    The part where "getting a x1 STR bonus" supposedly means a character
    isn't using a weapon "as a two handed weapon", I guess. Probably because
    THE RULES DON'T SAY THAT. All they say is that the flurrying character
    only gets x1 STR bonus. No explanation of why. No "this means he's
    treated as wielding the weapon one-handed" anywhere. Try to stick to
    what's actually written in the rulebooks, not to your own hyperbolistic
    interpretations.

    Now, can you answer the same question for a Three-Section Staff
    (OA, two-handed non-double weapon), or for a Greatsword (positing
    the existence of the "Unusual Flurry" feat from an early 3E Dragon)?


    > The monk can flurry, sacrificing power for a bonus attack, or he can
    >attack normally, and hit harder per blow.

    (A monk with a 13 STR will do exactly the same amount of STR damage whether
    he gets x1 or x1.5...)

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

    "Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in
    news:58WLe.6390$WD.4660@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:

    > "Joseph" <void@verizon.net> wrote in message
    > news:Xns96B2CE7749BAB619void@199.45.49.11...
    >> Yes, and the monk can *switch* between each end (separate weapons)
    >> without penalty while using furry of blows.
    >
    > So can any person performing a full attack with a staff.

    Yes, but said person using full attack treats the staff as one weapon
    overall, not as two separate weapons while he is making an attack in the
    full attack action. Perhaps it is a weak comparison, but the whole monk
    two weapons in one staff while using an iterative attack in a flurry
    leads to odd considerations for the use of Power Attack that the
    non-monk doesn't have to deal with. This issue seems to lead to an
    epistemological question of what does two-handed quarterstaff fighting
    and the question of two-handed grips mean in a flurry of blows.

    >> Just like the monk can use
    >> an unarmed strike (using the rest of her body) mixed in with the
    >> quarterstaff's attacks without penalty. All of these are treated as
    >> interchangeably as desired. This is an exception to normal
    >> quarterstaff rules which demand a double attack if one wants to use
    >> both ends.
    >
    > No. It demands the use of two weapons fighting if you want to get
    > *additional attacks*.

    True. Of course generally without some other factor, if one only has one
    base attack and wants to use both ends of a quarterstaff in a round
    without TWF; you need to be a monk to do that.

    >A man holding two weapons can fight with them interchangeably when
    >he full attacks. It only becomes TWF when the attack rate is
    >accelerated.

    Yes, quite right.
  20. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in
    news:bjWLe.6394$WD.6281@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:

    > "Joseph" <void@verizon.net> wrote in message
    > news:Xns96B2B46CFDD07619void@199.45.49.11...
    >> The RAW contradicts Some Guy's assertion here. Power Attack Feat: "If
    >> you attack with a two-handed weapon, or with a one-handed weapon
    >> wielded in two hands, instead add twice the number subtracted from
    >> your attack rolls." Nowhere does the feat mention the requirement of
    >> needing a 1.5x STR bonus. That is just what normally happens; the
    >> monk is an exception to the standard. Said monk must use the
    >> quarterstaff with both hands, of course.
    >
    > A person using a double weapon is also using it in both hands. Yet
    > he
    > does not get 1.5x strength bonuses and the weapon is TREATED AS IF he
    > were using two individual weapons, one in each hand. Further, when

    I would add that this applies only when TWF a double weapon. Surely you
    can attack normally without TWF with one end of a double weapon in a
    two-handed grip, and gain a 1.5x Str bonus. See Page 113 PHB wizard
    quarterstaff example.

    > power attacking, despite being used in two hands, the damage bonus is
    > as for a one-handed weapon, and can only possibly apply to the
    > 'primary' end of the weapon at that (as the off is light and cannot
    > benefit).

    Yes, when using TWF. But that doesn't solve the monk furry of blows with
    a quarterstaff when the monk does not TWF. The text states that, "In the
    case of the quarterstaff, each end counts as a separate weapon for the
    purpose of using the flurry of blows ability." I interpret that purpose
    as meaning the monk can use any end as one separate weapon (which I
    think he can use two-handed) in each non-TWF iterative attack.

    > There is a difference between being "in game reality" two handed,
    > and
    > being "in game *mechanics*" two handed. Game mechanical
    > two-handedness is a very specific concept that does not extend to all
    > cases of weapons used in two hands. It applies to weapons used and
    > held in such a way that strong characters can exert greater leverage,
    > such as one-handed weapons taken up in two hands and two-handed
    > weapons *used in such a way* that they strike powerfully - rather than
    > "quickly". When two handed weapons are used in that fashion, they
    > exert 1.5x strength and power attacks have double benefit. When they
    > are used as double weapons, this is not the case. When normally
    > two-handed weapons are monkey gripped into one-handed use, this is not
    > the case.

    Quite true, I just have a question of how the monk actually grips the
    quarterstaff in a non-TWF flurry of blows. The text says the monk loses
    accuracy when using flurry of blows. Perhaps that is one rationalization
    for why the 1.5x damage bonus is lost instead of the grip issue. Also,
    his attacks may not bludgeon with the time needed to really connect. He
    is using lighter thumps to have more time to make all his attacks in six
    seconds, not because he is gripping the staff wrong.

    > There is a very simple question you have to ask yourself: is a
    > monk
    > flurrying with his two handed staff fighting with it AS IF it were a
    > "two handed weapon" being used powerfully, or as two individual
    > weapons (or as a two-handed weapon being used 'quickly')? Does he get
    > the 1.5x strength bonus? *NO*. Therefore, the *flurrying* monk is not
    > using his staff in the game-mechanical "two handed fashion", and all
    > arguments about doubled power attack benefits are *over*.
    >
    > -MIchael

    That's my core issue. I think the monk can use an end of the
    quarterstaff, as a two-handed weapon being used quickly, in a non-TWF
    flurry of blows. He loses the 1.5x Str bonus. But I believe that Power
    Attack does not have any Str bonus on a weapon (as long as you have Str
    13) requirement to double its damage bonus. I view it as an attack bonus
    flavor feat not a muscle "power" feat; the more base attack bonus you
    have the more powerful damage you can produce. The feat does say you can
    treat a double weapon like a two-handed weapon, attacking with only one
    end of it in a round (non-TWF), you treat it as a two-handed weapon. I
    can understand why DM's may not want to allow this, but I would rather
    err on the side of the monk since he is a master of monkish weapons like
    the quarterstaff.
  21. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 06:08:07 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
    <mistermichael@earthlink.net> scribed into the ether:

    >"Joseph" <void@verizon.net> wrote in message
    >news:Xns96B2B46CFDD07619void@199.45.49.11...
    >> The RAW contradicts Some Guy's assertion here. Power Attack Feat: "If
    >> you attack with a two-handed weapon, or with a one-handed weapon wielded
    >> in two hands, instead add twice the number subtracted from your attack
    >> rolls." Nowhere does the feat mention the requirement of needing a 1.5x
    >> STR bonus. That is just what normally happens; the monk is an exception
    >> to the standard. Said monk must use the quarterstaff with both hands, of
    >> course.
    >
    > A person using a double weapon is also using it in both hands. Yet he
    >does not get 1.5x strength bonuses and the weapon is TREATED AS IF he were
    >using two individual weapons, one in each hand. Further, when power
    >attacking, despite being used in two hands, the damage bonus is as for a
    >one-handed weapon, and can only possibly apply to the 'primary' end of the
    >weapon at that (as the off is light and cannot benefit).

    Which is a designation consideration, and not the actuality, since hardly
    any double weapons have ends that actually vary. Side A of a quarterstaff
    is just as heavy as Side B, the are only *considered* light, they are not
    actually light.

    Not disagreeing, just picking a nit.
  22. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 06:19:18 +0000 (UTC), tsang@soda.csua.berkeley.edu
    (Donald Tsang) scribed into the ether:

    >Michael Scott Brown <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
    >>> does a monk flurrying with a quarterstaff *and only using one
    >>> end* gain the double power attack bonus, even though he only
    >>>gains x1 STR bonus instead of x1.5?
    >>
    >> What about the part where the x1 STR bonus means he isn't using it like
    >>a two handed weapon DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?
    >
    >The part where "getting a x1 STR bonus" supposedly means a character
    >isn't using a weapon "as a two handed weapon", I guess. Probably because
    >THE RULES DON'T SAY THAT. All they say is that the flurrying character
    >only gets x1 STR bonus. No explanation of why. No "this means he's
    >treated as wielding the weapon one-handed" anywhere. Try to stick to
    >what's actually written in the rulebooks, not to your own hyperbolistic
    >interpretations.

    Because flurrying with the staff means attacking with both ends, just like
    if he were TWF the staff, only without the need for extra feats. You don't
    get 1.5 damage as a TWFighter using a double-bladed sword, monks don't get
    it when flurrying a quarterstaff. However, monks are actually, better than
    TWF, since they get full strength bonus for the extra attack, where a TWF
    gets half.

    >> The monk can flurry, sacrificing power for a bonus attack, or he can
    >>attack normally, and hit harder per blow.
    >
    >(A monk with a 13 STR will do exactly the same amount of STR damage whether
    >he gets x1 or x1.5...)

    Not if he is power attacking. Can make quite a bit of difference.

    Flurry + Power Attack = Normal boost.
    Non Flurry + Power Attack (and apparently swinging the staff around akin to
    a really long baseball bat) = 2x damage.
  23. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Matt Frisch <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in
    news:kip0g1dl7lqc67a45ig6rlr909hms8325g@4ax.com:

    > On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 06:19:18 +0000 (UTC), tsang@soda.csua.berkeley.edu
    > (Donald Tsang) scribed into the ether:
    >
    >>Michael Scott Brown <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
    >>>> does a monk flurrying with a quarterstaff *and only using one
    >>>> end* gain the double power attack bonus, even though he only
    >>>>gains x1 STR bonus instead of x1.5?
    >>>
    >>> What about the part where the x1 STR bonus means he isn't using
    >>> it like
    >>>a two handed weapon DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?
    >>
    >>The part where "getting a x1 STR bonus" supposedly means a character
    >>isn't using a weapon "as a two handed weapon", I guess. Probably
    >>because THE RULES DON'T SAY THAT. All they say is that the flurrying
    >>character only gets x1 STR bonus. No explanation of why. No "this
    >>means he's treated as wielding the weapon one-handed" anywhere. Try
    >>to stick to what's actually written in the rulebooks, not to your own
    >>hyperbolistic interpretations.
    >
    > Because flurrying with the staff means attacking with both ends, just
    > like if he were TWF the staff, only without the need for extra feats.

    No, it doesn't mean that at all. You don't have to attack with both ends of
    a staff when flurrying. Flurrying also has somewhat different level-based
    penalty mechanics than TWF use.

    > You don't get 1.5 damage as a TWFighter using a double-bladed sword,
    > monks don't get it when flurrying a quarterstaff. However, monks are
    > actually, better than TWF, since they get full strength bonus for the
    > extra attack, where a TWF gets half.
    >
    >>> The monk can flurry, sacrificing power for a bonus attack, or he
    >>> can
    >>>attack normally, and hit harder per blow.
    >>
    >>(A monk with a 13 STR will do exactly the same amount of STR damage
    >>whether he gets x1 or x1.5...)
    >
    > Not if he is power attacking. Can make quite a bit of difference.
    >
    > Flurry + Power Attack = Normal boost.
    > Non Flurry + Power Attack (and apparently swinging the staff around
    > akin to a really long baseball bat) = 2x damage.

    That is only if you come to the conclusion that you can't double your Power
    Attack bonus when using a non-TWF Flurry of Blows. So, it really can't be
    used to justify the position in an ongoing debate that monks can not double
    their Power Attack bonuses when using Flurry of Blows.
  24. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Kaos <kaos@invalid.xplornet.com> wrote in
    news:vtm0g15t0i1a86ko0rea6m04kem5669a2n@4ax.com:

    > On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 05:52:16 GMT, Joseph <void@verizon.net> dared
    > speak in front of ME:
    >
    >>Kaos <kaos@invalid.xplornet.com> wrote in
    >>news:id40g1lrlts329f7i8qmgmehqjg6h3v9fm@4ax.com:
    >>> AFAIC, most of the double-weapon rules tend to say 'we are
    >>> exceptions to the general letter and spirt of the rules' as it is.
    >>> Which means simply citing them isn't good enough for our purposes.
    >>
    >>I see no contradiction in that the quarterstaff is really just one
    >>weapon. It is a game rule conceit that defines it as two separate
    >>two-handed weapons. Common sense, to me, says that monks should have
    >>the control needed to handle one end of the quarterstaff as a
    >>two-handed weapon with each flurry of blows attack. Accuracy may be
    >>lost as well as some Strength bonus, but the monk should be able to
    >>take advantage of an opponent's openings with a two-handed use of each
    >>end of the quarterstaff in a flurry.
    >
    > Treating it mechanically as two seperate one-handed weapons fits what
    > you just described. Flurry already drops a bit of accuracy, and the
    > loss of some strength bonus coincides neatly with barring the
    > two-handed advantages.

    Even treated as two separate one-handed weapons the Power Attack feat
    allows for double bonuses when using a one-handed weapon with two hands.
    My real target is that Power Attack Feat. I believe it functions on combat
    skill not raw power, hence the use of base attack bonus instead of Strength
    bonus to determine damage limits. I am determined to oppose the idea that a
    weapon needs a 1.5x Str bonus capability to double the Power Attack feat
    bonus.

    >>This sliding of the hands along the entire length of the cho bo is
    >>characteristic of the Kukishin Ryu, and is emphasized in the style's
    >>kihon or basics. The first three formal basics, uchi komi, harai, and
    >>tsukue, all emphasize this action in movements that are respectively
    >>strikes directed from up-down, side-to-side, and from down-up. In
    >>addition, a straight- forward thrust (tsuki), and movements that show
    >>influences of the halberd- like naginata also tend to emphasize the
    >>entire length of the cho bo, and alternate its ends-with the hands
    >>located nearer the opposite or "back" end-for striking.
    >>
    >>This shows a tradition where one can quickly change hand positions on
    >>the staff from middle to end... which is similar to a monk's
    >>quarterstaff flurry in my view.
    >
    > Or simply a high-level monk making use of his iterative attack
    > sequence. There's more than sufficient room for debate to just let
    > the question slide in favour of mechanical balance; they're already
    > getting a break being allowed to use str + str rather than str + 1/2
    > str.

    Possibly, but I hate to deny it to all those low-level characters. It does
    state that "This sliding of the hands along the entire length of the cho bo
    is characteristic of the Kukishin Ryu, and is emphasized in the style's
    kihon or basics. The first three formal basics, uchi komi, harai, and
    tsukue, all emphasize this action in movements that are respectively
    strikes directed from up-down, side-to-side, and from down-up."

    That is getting far from the Core, though. Unfortunately, my sense of
    verisimilitude trumps balance factors to me; the monk is the master of the
    quarterstaff after all. Plus, my real issue is with interpreting Power
    Attack correctly.

    > At most I could see an argument allowing a monk to bypass the "one end
    > is considered a light weapon" restriction that would bar him from
    > using power-attack at all.
    >
    >>> Bow down and worship the Holy Faq even when it's completely stupid.
    >>> (Although, in point of fact I've been perusing the faq and can't
    >>> find this particular issue in there so I can't really say if it's
    >>> explanation is any good, or just whoever answered that question
    >>> being a retard with Official status.)
    >>
    >>current 3.5 FAQ page 17
    >>You cannot use a quarterstaff to make a trip attack, because
    >>tripping isn't one of a quarterstaff's properties.
    >>In the D&D game, a trip attack involves grabbing a foe and
    >>somehow yanking him off balance. All the Player's Handbook
    >>weapons that allow trip attacks have some kind of hook that
    >>can snag a foe or some flexible portion that you can wrap
    >>around an opponent's limb or body.
    >>
    >>Well, that's their standard at least.
    >
    > Reads like "retard with Official Status" to me.

    D&D writers do tend to be stubborn about following the official blueprint.
    Gary Gygax was infamous for that in First Edition AD&D.
  25. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Mere moments before death, Joseph hastily scrawled:
    >
    >Even treated as two separate one-handed weapons the Power Attack feat
    >allows for double bonuses when using a one-handed weapon with two hands.

    Read that out loud to yourself a couple times, and try to imagine how
    it makes any sense. Keep in mind that you've only got two hands, and
    using a weapon in each hand precludes using either weapon with both
    hands.


    Ed Chauvin IV

    --
    DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
    use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
    kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
    modifier G @ 11.

    "I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
    --Terry Austin
  26. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Joseph" <void@verizon.net> wrote in message
    news:Xns96B34F1E916B5619void@199.45.49.11...
    > I am determined to oppose the idea that a weapon needs a 1.5x Str bonus
    > capability to double the Power Attack feat bonus.

    Then you are determined to be an idiot. Doubled power attack bonuses
    are, for some reason, keyed not to combat skill, but to the availability of
    great leverage. Yet you seem to want to hand them out like candy to people
    who are not fighting under those conditions. Tell us, little halfwit - how
    are you able to reconcile double weapons not receiving 2x power attacks with
    your "determination"?


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

    "Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
    news:kip0g1dl7lqc67a45ig6rlr909hms8325g@4ax.com...
    > Because flurrying with the staff means attacking with both ends, just like
    > if he were TWF the staff, only without the need for extra feats.

    No. The meme you are using here is fundamentally wrong and you need to
    take it out back and stake it through its heart.
    Or I will do it for you.
    And I won't be half so nice about it.
    Flurrying can be combined with TWF, therefore it is not TWF. It is
    something altogether different. A flurrying monk holding a pair of kama can
    choose to make all of his attacks with but one of them (as might be the case
    were one of the two, for instance, magical), and he can also choose to do so
    with only the enchanted end of his magical staff. This instantaneously
    invalidates any claim that the flurry "means attacking with both ends".
    Notice the name. FLURRY. Notice the game mechanical result - additional
    attacks, with a limitation on potential strength bonuses.
    The fighting technique is about *speed*. The monk, of course, _can_
    attack with both ends of his staff while flurrying, just as he can when full
    attacking, just as he can when using TWF and full attacking, but in each
    case there is a different result.

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

    Michael Scott Brown <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
    >> I am determined to oppose the idea that a weapon needs a 1.5x Str bonus
    >> capability to double the Power Attack feat bonus.
    >
    > Then you are determined to be an idiot. Doubled power attack bonuses
    >are, for some reason, keyed not to combat skill, but to the availability of
    >great leverage. Yet you seem to want to hand them out like candy to people
    >who are not fighting under those conditions. Tell us, little halfwit - how
    >are you able to reconcile double weapons not receiving 2x power attacks with
    >your "determination"?

    I believe he's going to answer "skill".

    I'm not entirely sure why only a kook is supporting my side of the
    argument; I'd much rather go it alone.

    On the other hand, Michael, you see "weapon wielded two-handed" and
    read "leverage". Why can't it just be a game balance issue
    ("two-handed fighters are screwed out of shields, and only get a
    half STR bonus to damage... nobody's playing them. Let's give them
    something else to even the odds in 3.5E") and ignore the physics?
    You do that pretty well with the abstract damage system...

    Monks are pretty lame fighters, due to their middling BAB and
    inability to bolster it. It won't break anything to give them a
    slight bennie in terms of damage. Since wearing armor or using a
    shield prevents Flurry of Blows, it's not a big deal, even for
    multiclass builds.


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

    "Donald Tsang" <tsang@soda.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
    news:ddqdbc$10rs$1@agate.berkeley.edu...
    > Michael Scott Brown <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
    > On the other hand, Michael, you see "weapon wielded two-handed" and
    > read "leverage". Why can't it just be a game balance issue
    > ("two-handed fighters are screwed out of shields, and only get a
    > half STR bonus to damage... nobody's playing them. Let's give them
    > something else to even the odds in 3.5E") and ignore the physics?

    Your game balance argument falls flat on its face for the *FLURRYING*
    monk, sir.
    It falls apart again on the basis of the "would everyone take this"
    test - not a monk in the game would be caught dead without power attack and
    a staff in short order.
    Further, this new-age hippy namby-pamby bullshit belief that your
    argument is how the game *is intended to work* because *YOU* believe monks
    deserve a perk ... is the most ridiculous of positions from which to have
    built a castle.

    If you think monks are underpowered
    (a) prove it
    (b) and then CHANGE THEM

    Do not insist that an obviously contradictory interpretation of the
    rules (which cookie cutter implications) is "right" because of it.

    <shakes head sadly>


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

    Michael Scott Brown <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
    >"Donald Tsang" <tsang@soda.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote:
    >> On the other hand, Michael, you see "weapon wielded two-handed" and
    >> read "leverage". Why can't it just be a game balance issue
    >> ("two-handed fighters are screwed out of shields, and only get a
    >> half STR bonus to damage... nobody's playing them. Let's give them
    >> something else to even the odds in 3.5E") and ignore the physics?
    >
    > Your game balance argument falls flat on its face for the *FLURRYING*
    >monk, sir.

    I don't think it does.


    > It falls apart again on the basis of the "would everyone take this"
    >test - not a monk in the game would be caught dead without power attack and
    >a staff in short order.

    Again, I doubt that. It feels more like a munchkin trap to me.


    > Further, this new-age hippy namby-pamby bullshit belief that your
    >argument is how the game *is intended to work* because *YOU* believe monks
    >deserve a perk ... is the most ridiculous of positions from which to have
    >built a castle.

    You have your causality screwed up a little. The rules as written, if
    followed (rather than interpreted) would lead one to the conclusion that
    flurrying, power-attacking monks get double power attack damage
    from any flurryable one- or two-handed weapon wielded in two hands.

    I merely appealed to reason from MSB (which, I admit, is a bit of a reach)
    because he's too thick and set in his opinions to see the cold facts for
    what they are.

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

    "Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in
    news:Fx2Me.6850$RS.2527@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:

    > "Joseph" <void@verizon.net> wrote in message
    > news:Xns96B34F1E916B5619void@199.45.49.11...
    >> I am determined to oppose the idea that a weapon needs a 1.5x Str
    >> bonus capability to double the Power Attack feat bonus.
    >
    > Then you are determined to be an idiot. Doubled power attack
    > bonuses
    > are, for some reason, keyed not to combat skill, but to the
    > availability of great leverage. Yet you seem to want to hand them out
    > like candy to people who are not fighting under those conditions.
    > Tell us, little halfwit - how are you able to reconcile double
    > weapons not receiving 2x power attacks with your "determination"?

    Oh, I believe that leverage is very important to Power Attack. That is
    why doubled weapons used TWF can not gain 2x power attacks. So, the
    Power Attack feat is not only base attack bonus flavor. I was only
    trying to analyze part of the feat. I also happen to believe that monks
    can grip their quarterstaff end to qualify for a double bonus Power
    Attack. And I don't want to hand out exceptions often to people using
    Power Attack. I just believe that a few weapons can have very odd
    properties that do not have a normal Strength bonus, but should be able
    to double the Power Attack bonus.
    Such as Flame Blades, no Strength bonus to damage, but a bonus to
    attack, the RAW doesn't forbid it after all. What if I wanted to create
    a nonstandard magic weapon with say an ability that magically forces
    every attack to a 1x Str bonus, a 2x Str bonus (a very powerful weapon
    here), or even eliminates all Str bonus on every attack (the weapon must
    have some powerful other abilities to make its use worthwhile.)

    So, I would rather take a liberal view of Power Attack, and let players
    with the feat use it to double bonus effect with odd weapons like these.
  32. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Donald Tsang" <tsang@soda.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
    news:ddqfnj$12pe$1@agate.berkeley.edu...
    > Michael Scott Brown <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
    > > Your game balance argument falls flat on its face for the *FLURRYING*
    > >monk, sir.
    >
    > I don't think it does.

    This is not a matter of opinion, Donald. You're trying to claim that
    monks need a mechanism to do more damage in the context OF A MECHANISM THAT
    GIVES THEM MORE DAMAGE. Or do you wish to contend that up to 2 additional
    "free" attacks does *not* somehow constitute a boost in damage potential?

    > > It falls apart again on the basis of the "would everyone take this"
    > >test - not a monk in the game would be caught dead without power attack
    and
    > >a staff in short order.
    >
    > Again, I doubt that. It feels more like a munchkin trap to me.

    Ahem. "Munchkin trap" and "would everyone take this" are interchangeable
    concepts. Quit being such a weaseling pussy.

    > > Further, this new-age hippy namby-pamby bullshit belief that your
    > >argument is how the game *is intended to work* because *YOU* believe
    monks
    > >deserve a perk ... is the most ridiculous of positions from which to have
    > >built a castle.
    >
    > You have your causality screwed up a little. The rules as written, if
    > followed (rather than interpreted) would lead one to the conclusion that
    > flurrying, power-attacking monks get double power attack damage
    > from any flurryable one- or two-handed weapon wielded in two hands.

    No they *don't*. The rules as written describe a situation where power
    attack's bonuses are magnified when weapons are used in a way that magnifies
    strength bonuses. They very clearly limit potential power attack benefits
    for one-handed weapons, for light weapons, and for TWO HANDED WEAPONS used
    in other fighting styles.

    Does a monk's use of a weapon held-in-both hands *while flurrying*
    conform to the paradigm of two-handed weapon use that gets power attack
    bonuses, or to the paradim of two-handed weapon use that does not? The
    limited strength bonus makes the answer clear as day, Donald. There is
    *no* entity in the rules that associates a 1xSTR bonus with a 2x power
    attack.

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

    On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 11:46:35 GMT, Joseph <void@verizon.net> dared
    speak in front of ME:

    >Kaos <kaos@invalid.xplornet.com> wrote in
    >news:vtm0g15t0i1a86ko0rea6m04kem5669a2n@4ax.com:
    >
    >> On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 05:52:16 GMT, Joseph <void@verizon.net> dared
    >> speak in front of ME:
    >>
    >>>Kaos <kaos@invalid.xplornet.com> wrote in
    >>>news:id40g1lrlts329f7i8qmgmehqjg6h3v9fm@4ax.com:
    >>>> AFAIC, most of the double-weapon rules tend to say 'we are
    >>>> exceptions to the general letter and spirt of the rules' as it is.
    >>>> Which means simply citing them isn't good enough for our purposes.
    >>>
    >>>I see no contradiction in that the quarterstaff is really just one
    >>>weapon. It is a game rule conceit that defines it as two separate
    >>>two-handed weapons. Common sense, to me, says that monks should have
    >>>the control needed to handle one end of the quarterstaff as a
    >>>two-handed weapon with each flurry of blows attack. Accuracy may be
    >>>lost as well as some Strength bonus, but the monk should be able to
    >>>take advantage of an opponent's openings with a two-handed use of each
    >>>end of the quarterstaff in a flurry.
    >>
    >> Treating it mechanically as two seperate one-handed weapons fits what
    >> you just described. Flurry already drops a bit of accuracy, and the
    >> loss of some strength bonus coincides neatly with barring the
    >> two-handed advantages.
    >
    >Even treated as two separate one-handed weapons the Power Attack feat
    >allows for double bonuses when using a one-handed weapon with two hands.

    Mechanically speaking, you are not using a one-handed weapon with two
    hands; nor are you (mechanically speaking) using a two-handed weapon.

    You are effectively (though not literally) using two one-handed
    weapons, each in one hand.

    >> Or simply a high-level monk making use of his iterative attack
    >> sequence. There's more than sufficient room for debate to just let
    >> the question slide in favour of mechanical balance; they're already
    >> getting a break being allowed to use str + str rather than str + 1/2
    >> str.
    >
    >Possibly, but I hate to deny it to all those low-level characters.

    They're not going to want to be using power attack anyway, unless
    they're silly. They have enough trouble hitting as it is, stacking
    the -2 for flurry with power-attack penalties is just not worth it
    yet.

    >That is getting far from the Core, though. Unfortunately, my sense of
    >verisimilitude trumps balance factors to me;

    IMO, the verisimilitude is not even close to being at sufficient risk
    in this situation to allow it to trump balance.

    --
    Address no longer works.
    try removing all numbers from
    gafgirl1@2allstream3.net

    --
    Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
    ------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
    Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
  34. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 15:45:48 +0000 (UTC), tsang@soda.csua.berkeley.edu
    (Donald Tsang) dared speak in front of ME:

    >Michael Scott Brown <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
    >>> I am determined to oppose the idea that a weapon needs a 1.5x Str bonus
    >>> capability to double the Power Attack feat bonus.
    >>
    >> Then you are determined to be an idiot. Doubled power attack bonuses
    >>are, for some reason, keyed not to combat skill, but to the availability of
    >>great leverage. Yet you seem to want to hand them out like candy to people
    >>who are not fighting under those conditions. Tell us, little halfwit - how
    >>are you able to reconcile double weapons not receiving 2x power attacks with
    >>your "determination"?
    >
    >I believe he's going to answer "skill".
    >
    >I'm not entirely sure why only a kook is supporting my side of the
    >argument; I'd much rather go it alone.
    >
    >On the other hand, Michael, you see "weapon wielded two-handed" and
    >read "leverage". Why can't it just be a game balance issue
    >("two-handed fighters are screwed out of shields, and only get a
    >half STR bonus to damage... nobody's playing them. Let's give them
    >something else to even the odds in 3.5E") and ignore the physics?
    >You do that pretty well with the abstract damage system...
    >
    >Monks are pretty lame fighters, due to their middling BAB and
    >inability to bolster it. It won't break anything to give them a
    >slight bennie in terms of damage.

    They got one already: they don't suffer the reduced str bonus for the
    extra attacks.

    --
    Address no longer works.
    try removing all numbers from
    gafgirl1@2allstream3.net

    --
    Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
    ------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
    Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
  35. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Michael Scott Brown <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
    >> Again, I doubt that. It feels more like a munchkin trap to me.
    >
    > Ahem. "Munchkin trap" and "would everyone take this" are interchangeable
    >concepts. Quit being such a weaseling pussy.

    Nono. You misunderstand. "Munchkin trap" means "thing that looks powerful,
    that munchkins are tempted into taking, that turns out to be not worth
    taking."


    >> The rules as written, if
    >> followed (rather than interpreted) would lead one to the conclusion that
    >> flurrying, power-attacking monks get double power attack damage
    >> from any flurryable one- or two-handed weapon wielded in two hands.
    >
    > No they *don't*. The rules as written describe a situation where power
    >attack's bonuses are magnified when weapons are used in a way that magnifies
    >strength bonuses. They very clearly limit potential power attack benefits
    >for one-handed weapons, for light weapons, and for TWO HANDED WEAPONS used
    >in other fighting styles.
    >
    > Does a monk's use of a weapon held-in-both hands *while flurrying*
    >conform to the paradigm of two-handed weapon use that gets power attack
    >bonuses, or to the paradim of two-handed weapon use that does not? The
    >limited strength bonus makes the answer clear as day, Donald. There is
    >*no* entity in the rules that associates a 1xSTR bonus with a 2x power
    >attack.

    The rules are quite silent about whether a monk's flurrying of a two-handed
    (non-double) weapon "gets power attack bonuses". You keep saying that
    the x1 STR bonus makes it "clear" that he does not, but I don't see
    that as being the case.

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

    On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 15:44:45 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
    <mistermichael@earthlink.net> scribed into the ether:

    >"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
    >news:kip0g1dl7lqc67a45ig6rlr909hms8325g@4ax.com...
    >> Because flurrying with the staff means attacking with both ends, just like
    >> if he were TWF the staff, only without the need for extra feats.
    >

    > Flurrying can be combined with TWF, therefore it is not TWF. It is
    >something altogether different.

    A 3.5 change? I don't recall this ability in 3.0, just some rather large
    abuses in NWN which allowed monks with ranger levels to flurry with
    longswords, but NWN broke the rules in all kinds of fundamental ways, so I
    never counted it.

    >. This instantaneously
    >invalidates any claim that the flurry "means attacking with both ends".
    >Notice the name. FLURRY. Notice the game mechanical result - additional
    >attacks, with a limitation on potential strength bonuses.

    The confusion rests in part to how similar FoB is to TWF, mechanically.
  37. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 22:51:01 GMT, Matt Frisch
    <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> dared speak in front of ME:

    >On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 15:44:45 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
    ><mistermichael@earthlink.net> scribed into the ether:
    >
    >>"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
    >>news:kip0g1dl7lqc67a45ig6rlr909hms8325g@4ax.com...
    >>> Because flurrying with the staff means attacking with both ends, just like
    >>> if he were TWF the staff, only without the need for extra feats.
    >>
    >
    >> Flurrying can be combined with TWF, therefore it is not TWF. It is
    >>something altogether different.
    >
    >A 3.5 change?

    Not sure whether it's a change, or something that wasn't clarified
    before the 3.5 faq.

    --
    Address no longer works.
    try removing all numbers from
    gafgirl1@2allstream3.net

    --
    Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
    ------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
    Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
  38. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
    news:mv62g151g6ov3j34n420h9avl5d1v5hkp6@4ax.com...
    > > Flurrying can be combined with TWF, therefore it is not TWF. It is
    > >something altogether different.
    >
    > A 3.5 change? I don't recall this ability in 3.0,

    It's discussed in the FAQ or Sage advice for one edition or the other.
    Which isn't the most useful reference, but the moral of my point is that I
    am Not Making This Up (tm). It probably came up in the context of MSB
    arguing the opposite was the case, in fact.

    > >This instantaneously
    > >invalidates any claim that the flurry "means attacking with both ends".
    > >Notice the name. FLURRY. Notice the game mechanical result - additional
    > >attacks, with a limitation on potential strength bonuses.
    >
    > The confusion rests in part to how similar FoB is to TWF, mechanically.

    How similar is that? Flurries take a -2, -1, or 0 penalty and add 1 or 2
    bonus attacks as a result, with STR bonuses limited to 1x even when 2-handed
    weapons are used. A flurry takes the same penalties whether light, medium
    or large weapons are used.
    With a feat, TWF takes a -2 or -4 penalty (depending on the weapon size
    in the off-hand), adding 1 bonus attack with 1/2 STR bonus. More
    *iterative* bonus attacks can be added with additional feats.

    These aren't remotely the same, mechanically once you get past the wonky
    "penalty to all attacks for bonus attacks" description.


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

    "Donald Tsang" <tsang@soda.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
    news:ddqrd4$1cgl$1@agate.berkeley.edu...
    > Michael Scott Brown <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
    > >> Again, I doubt that. It feels more like a munchkin trap to me.
    > >
    > > Ahem. "Munchkin trap" and "would everyone take this" are
    interchangeable
    > >concepts. Quit being such a weaseling pussy.
    >
    > Nono. You misunderstand. "Munchkin trap" means "thing that looks
    powerful,
    > that munchkins are tempted into taking, that turns out to be not worth
    > taking."

    Prove that it isn't worth taking. You babble a lot about "beliefs" but
    have very little knowledge.
    Here's a hint for you, Donnie boy. At *2x*, power attack is actually
    worth taking on many occasions.

    > The rules are quite silent about whether a monk's flurrying of a
    two-handed
    > (non-double) weapon "gets power attack bonuses". You keep saying that
    > the x1 STR bonus makes it "clear" that he does not, but I don't see
    > that as being the case.

    Ahem. Of course he gets power attack bonuses. He simply doesn't get the
    *doubled* ones that apply to using a weapon as a two handed weapon; NO MORE
    THAN HE WOULD FOR USING A DOUBLE WEAPON.
    You sod, THERE IS *PRECEDENT* here. Double weapon used in TWF style - a
    weapon, used in two hands, getting 1x STR bonus and 1x Power attack. It's
    just that easy. It should be AS OBVIOUS AS THE NOSE ON YOUR FACE (you have
    a nose, yes?) that the language in power attack about "two handed" is not
    particularly strong language.

    -Michael


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

    Kaos <kaos@invalid.xplornet.com> wrote in
    news:7rc2g19do1eq9ama1iaa1jgf3okhkgnejp@4ax.com:

    > On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 11:46:35 GMT, Joseph <void@verizon.net> dared
    > speak in front of ME:
    >
    >>Kaos <kaos@invalid.xplornet.com> wrote in
    >>news:vtm0g15t0i1a86ko0rea6m04kem5669a2n@4ax.com:
    >>
    >>> On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 05:52:16 GMT, Joseph <void@verizon.net> dared
    >>> speak in front of ME:
    >>>
    >>>>Kaos <kaos@invalid.xplornet.com> wrote in
    >>>>news:id40g1lrlts329f7i8qmgmehqjg6h3v9fm@4ax.com:
    >>>>> AFAIC, most of the double-weapon rules tend to say 'we are
    >>>>> exceptions to the general letter and spirt of the rules' as it is.
    >>>>> Which means simply citing them isn't good enough for our purposes.
    >>>>
    >>>>I see no contradiction in that the quarterstaff is really just one
    >>>>weapon. It is a game rule conceit that defines it as two separate
    >>>>two-handed weapons. Common sense, to me, says that monks should have
    >>>>the control needed to handle one end of the quarterstaff as a
    >>>>two-handed weapon with each flurry of blows attack. Accuracy may be
    >>>>lost as well as some Strength bonus, but the monk should be able to
    >>>>take advantage of an opponent's openings with a two-handed use of each
    >>>>end of the quarterstaff in a flurry.
    >>>
    >>> Treating it mechanically as two seperate one-handed weapons fits what
    >>> you just described. Flurry already drops a bit of accuracy, and the
    >>> loss of some strength bonus coincides neatly with barring the
    >>> two-handed advantages.
    >>
    >>Even treated as two separate one-handed weapons the Power Attack feat
    >>allows for double bonuses when using a one-handed weapon with two hands.
    >
    > Mechanically speaking, you are not using a one-handed weapon with two
    > hands; nor are you (mechanically speaking) using a two-handed weapon.
    >
    > You are effectively (though not literally) using two one-handed
    > weapons, each in one hand.

    Yes, the mechanical explanation just bothers me from an inside gameworld
    viewpoint, and a sense that the monk's core role of master of martial
    combat is being treaded upon by a wonky game mechanic.

    >>> Or simply a high-level monk making use of his iterative attack
    >>> sequence. There's more than sufficient room for debate to just let
    >>> the question slide in favour of mechanical balance; they're already
    >>> getting a break being allowed to use str + str rather than str + 1/2
    >>> str.
    >>
    >>Possibly, but I hate to deny it to all those low-level characters.
    >
    > They're not going to want to be using power attack anyway, unless
    > they're silly. They have enough trouble hitting as it is, stacking
    > the -2 for flurry with power-attack penalties is just not worth it
    > yet.

    The majority of the time, but I'd rather keep the option open. Some
    opponents are easy to hit, but one needs the damage sometimes. It is nice
    to have the ability to remove a few points of attack bonus to get a double
    power attack bonus, if allowed. And different character builds can mitigate
    some of these penalties.

    >>That is getting far from the Core, though. Unfortunately, my sense of
    >>verisimilitude trumps balance factors to me;
    >
    > IMO, the verisimilitude is not even close to being at sufficient risk
    > in this situation to allow it to trump balance.

    I will present my position and a hostile one to my position.

    Hostile position: PHB page 41 "In the case of the quarterstaff, each end
    counts as a separate weapon for the purpose of using the flurry of blows
    ability."
    1. Interprets key sentence conventionally. The quarterstaff is treated as
    two separate one-handed weapons each wielded in one hand. Hence the Power
    Attack double bonus can not be gained by definition.

    2. The fairness of game balance warrants that the monk not be allowed to
    have a double Power Attack bonus in a flurry of blows.

    3. The fact that the monk gains only a 1x Strength bonus strongly implies
    that the monk is unable to leverage the quarterstaff to qualify for a
    double Power Attack bonus in a flurry.

    My position: PHB page 41 "In the case of the quarterstaff, each end counts
    as a separate weapon for the purpose of using the flurry of blows
    ability."
    1. Interprets key sentence unconventionally. Each end is treated as a
    separate weapon by the game text only for the purpose of pointing out that
    the monk can use any end of the quarterstaff as one of the monk's iterative
    attacks in a flurry without penalty. Therefore clarification of that and
    not implication that the staff is actually treated as two weapons in a
    flurry is the intent of the Players Handbook.

    2. Reasonable verisimilitude warrants that the quarterstaff is really only
    one weapon so the monk should be able to use it in a two-handed grip even
    in a flurry.

    3. Concern that the core monk archetype is violated; the quarterstaff is
    the monk's bailiwick. Therefore, allow the monk the benefit of the doubt
    concerning the use of the staff in the specific monk ability Flurry of
    Blows.

    On the related matter of Power Attack feat requirements, the challenge is
    to demonstrate the relationship between weapons and double Power Attack
    bonuses. The vast majority of weapons listed in the Core have a Strength
    bonus 1.5x capability. But are there exceptions? The game text doesn't
    explicitly give a requirement of Strength bonus on a weapon, only a two-
    handed grip requirement to gain double Power Attack.

    Is there a semantic implication? A|= B Where A is the set of sentences that
    names all the weapons listed (or heavily implied possible) in the Core that
    gains a double Power Attack bonus. And B is the set of sentences that
    demands all the weapons listed (or heavily implied possible) in the Core
    that gains a double Power Attack bonus have a 1.5x Str bonus capability.
    Variant: Change Core in above to all official D&D product. Every model of A
    must be a model of B.

    Is there a logical implication? A|- B Where A is the set of sentences that
    names all the weapons listed (or heavily implied possible) in the Core that
    gains a double Power Attack bonus. And B is the set of sentences that
    demands all the weapons listed (or heavily implied possible) in the Core
    that gains a double Power Attack bonus have a 1.5x Str bonus capability.
    Variant: Change Core in above to all official D&D product. B can be proven
    from A.
  41. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 04:26:36 GMT, Joseph <void@verizon.net> dared
    speak in front of ME:

    >Kaos <kaos@invalid.xplornet.com> wrote in
    >news:7rc2g19do1eq9ama1iaa1jgf3okhkgnejp@4ax.com:
    >> You are effectively (though not literally) using two one-handed
    >> weapons, each in one hand.
    >
    >Yes, the mechanical explanation just bothers me from an inside gameworld
    >viewpoint, and a sense that the monk's core role of master of martial
    >combat is being treaded upon by a wonky game mechanic.

    First off, the mechanics are clearly of the 'treat as if' variety -
    meaning they don't make attempts to dictate the in-game nature of the
    thing (such as the 'no tripping with a staff' does.)

    Second... he can do things with a staff that no one else can, so his
    role isn't really being treaded on.

    Third, the 'master of martial combat' thing is actually the fighter's
    schtick. The monk is a mix of unarmed combat and spiritual
    enlightenment, not a general martial combatant.

    >> They're not going to want to be using power attack anyway, unless
    >> they're silly. They have enough trouble hitting as it is, stacking
    >> the -2 for flurry with power-attack penalties is just not worth it
    >> yet.
    >
    >The majority of the time, but I'd rather keep the option open. Some
    >opponents are easy to hit, but one needs the damage sometimes. It is nice
    >to have the ability to remove a few points of attack bonus to get a double
    >power attack bonus, if allowed.

    Sure, it would be nice.
    It would also be nice if my Sorceror could learn every spell in the
    book at some point, but that doesn't happen.

    >> IMO, the verisimilitude is not even close to being at sufficient risk
    >> in this situation to allow it to trump balance.
    >
    >I will present my position and a hostile one to my position.
    >
    >Hostile position: PHB page 41 "In the case of the quarterstaff, each end
    >counts as a separate weapon for the purpose of using the flurry of blows
    >ability."
    >1. Interprets key sentence conventionally. The quarterstaff is treated as
    >two separate one-handed weapons each wielded in one hand. Hence the Power
    >Attack double bonus can not be gained by definition.
    >
    >2. The fairness of game balance warrants that the monk not be allowed to
    >have a double Power Attack bonus in a flurry of blows.
    >
    >3. The fact that the monk gains only a 1x Strength bonus strongly implies
    >that the monk is unable to leverage the quarterstaff to qualify for a
    >double Power Attack bonus in a flurry.

    More to the point: it's what makes the strong implication that it's
    being treated as two one-handed weapons (being wielded one handed.)

    >My position: PHB page 41 "In the case of the quarterstaff, each end counts
    >as a separate weapon for the purpose of using the flurry of blows
    >ability."
    >1. Interprets key sentence unconventionally. Each end is treated as a
    >separate weapon by the game text only for the purpose of pointing out that
    >the monk can use any end of the quarterstaff as one of the monk's iterative
    >attacks in a flurry without penalty.

    An unecessary clarification IMO. One could use either end just as
    well in an iterative attack sequence.

    >3. Concern that the core monk archetype is violated; the quarterstaff is
    >the monk's bailiwick.

    Er... I don't see this. I see kicking, elbow-strikes, grappling and
    other feats of unarmed combat as the monk's bailiwick. While the
    staff certainly has much history in the eastern martial arts, I still
    tend to associate it more to Little John of Robin Hood fame.

    >On the related matter of Power Attack feat requirements, the challenge is
    >to demonstrate the relationship between weapons and double Power Attack
    >bonuses. The vast majority of weapons listed in the Core have a Strength
    >bonus 1.5x capability. But are there exceptions?

    None so far. If we allowed staff (longstaff/3ss) to benefit during a
    flurry, it would be the exception.

    >The game text doesn't
    >explicitly give a requirement of Strength bonus on a weapon, only a two-
    >handed grip requirement to gain double Power Attack.

    Actually, it does give a requirement of a strength bonus, though not
    the one we're talking about. 13 or higher Str to take Power Attack.

    >Is there a semantic implication? A|= B Where A is the set of sentences that
    >names all the weapons listed (or heavily implied possible) in the Core that
    >gains a double Power Attack bonus. And B is the set of sentences that
    >demands all the weapons listed (or heavily implied possible) in the Core
    >that gains a double Power Attack bonus have a 1.5x Str bonus capability.
    >Variant: Change Core in above to all official D&D product. Every model of A
    >must be a model of B.

    >Is there a logical implication? A|- B Where A is the set of sentences that
    >names all the weapons listed (or heavily implied possible) in the Core that
    >gains a double Power Attack bonus. And B is the set of sentences that
    >demands all the weapons listed (or heavily implied possible) in the Core
    >that gains a double Power Attack bonus have a 1.5x Str bonus capability.
    >Variant: Change Core in above to all official D&D product. B can be proven
    >from A.

    The specific set of implications are as follows:
    1) Using a weapon in two hands gives 1.5* strength bonus.
    2) Using a weapon in two hands gives 2x Power Attack bonus.
    3) Using a weapon in two hands during a flurry gives only the
    one-handed strength bonus.

    3 implies that, regardless of weapon or use, you treat a weapon as
    one-handed during a flurry. It does not explicitly say this, but it
    shouldn't have to.
    --
    Address no longer works.
    try removing all numbers from
    gafgirl1@2allstream3.net

    --
    Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
    ------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
    Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
  42. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 01:53:21 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
    <mistermichael@earthlink.net> scribed into the ether:

    >"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
    >news:mv62g151g6ov3j34n420h9avl5d1v5hkp6@4ax.com...

    >> >This instantaneously
    >> >invalidates any claim that the flurry "means attacking with both ends".
    >> >Notice the name. FLURRY. Notice the game mechanical result - additional
    >> >attacks, with a limitation on potential strength bonuses.
    >>
    >> The confusion rests in part to how similar FoB is to TWF, mechanically.
    >
    > How similar is that? Flurries take a -2, -1, or 0 penalty and add 1 or 2
    >bonus attacks as a result, with STR bonuses limited to 1x even when 2-handed
    >weapons are used. A flurry takes the same penalties whether light, medium
    >or large weapons are used.

    Well, that's definately a 3.5 bit. I know that monks had their attacks
    changed around a bit, I skimmed the PHB enough to see that, but never
    bothered to record it in detail.

    > These aren't remotely the same, mechanically once you get past the wonky
    >"penalty to all attacks for bonus attacks" description.

    They are similar from the perspective of:

    Get an additional attack per round, with a -2 to all attacks made that
    round.
  43. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 01:58:25 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
    <mistermichael@earthlink.net> scribed into the ether:


    > It should be AS OBVIOUS AS THE NOSE ON YOUR FACE (you have
    >a nose, yes?)

    http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/GiantITP/ootscript?SK=215 tho
  44. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
    news:ivq2g1591korelhhqnklcip2ohdv0u7588@4ax.com...
    > On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 01:53:21 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
    > They are similar from the perspective of:
    >
    > Get an additional attack per round, with a -2 to all attacks made that
    > round.

    <cough> Rapid Shot <cough>

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

    Matt Frisch wrote:
    > On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 05:58:18 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
    > <mistermichael@earthlink.net> scribed into the ether:
    >
    > >"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
    > >news:ivq2g1591korelhhqnklcip2ohdv0u7588@4ax.com...
    > >> On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 01:53:21 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
    > >> They are similar from the perspective of:
    > >>
    > >> Get an additional attack per round, with a -2 to all attacks made that
    > >> round.
    > >
    > > <cough> Rapid Shot <cough>
    >
    > Also similar. IME, going for TWF is a lot more common than rapid shot. Most
    > of my games, ranged weapons tend to not be overly useful. Typical encounter
    > distances result in having to shoot into melee and risk hitting friendlies
    > more often than not,

    There is no such risk. You gain a -4 to hit when firing into melee, but
    there is no risk of hitting a friendly (unless he's in a grapple). And
    even the -4 only applies if you don't have Precise Shot.

    > which leads to not many people climbing the bow
    > specialization (no, not term of art) feat tree.

    I'm not surprised, since apparently, you have house rules crippling
    archers.

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

    On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 05:58:18 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
    <mistermichael@earthlink.net> scribed into the ether:

    >"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
    >news:ivq2g1591korelhhqnklcip2ohdv0u7588@4ax.com...
    >> On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 01:53:21 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
    >> They are similar from the perspective of:
    >>
    >> Get an additional attack per round, with a -2 to all attacks made that
    >> round.
    >
    > <cough> Rapid Shot <cough>

    Also similar. IME, going for TWF is a lot more common than rapid shot. Most
    of my games, ranged weapons tend to not be overly useful. Typical encounter
    distances result in having to shoot into melee and risk hitting friendlies
    more often than not, which leads to not many people climbing the bow
    specialization (no, not term of art) feat tree.
  47. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On 16 Aug 2005 11:18:12 -0700, laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu scribed into the
    ether:

    >
    >Matt Frisch wrote:
    >> On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 05:58:18 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
    >> <mistermichael@earthlink.net> scribed into the ether:
    >>
    >> >"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
    >> >news:ivq2g1591korelhhqnklcip2ohdv0u7588@4ax.com...
    >> >> On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 01:53:21 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
    >> >> They are similar from the perspective of:
    >> >>
    >> >> Get an additional attack per round, with a -2 to all attacks made that
    >> >> round.
    >> >
    >> > <cough> Rapid Shot <cough>
    >>
    >> Also similar. IME, going for TWF is a lot more common than rapid shot. Most
    >> of my games, ranged weapons tend to not be overly useful. Typical encounter
    >> distances result in having to shoot into melee and risk hitting friendlies
    >> more often than not,
    >
    >There is no such risk.

    There is when your party members are being used as cover by back row
    combatants. Poor word choice on my part. Shoot THROUGH melee, rather than
    into it.

    >> which leads to not many people climbing the bow
    >> specialization (no, not term of art) feat tree.
    >
    >I'm not surprised, since apparently, you have house rules crippling
    >archers.

    I just use the rules as they are written. 3.0 PHB, page 133, "Strike the
    Cover Instead of a Missed Target".
  48. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Matt Frisch <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in
    news:vch5g15qju1m197gm91shfph3a7b1lmbt0@4ax.com:

    > On 16 Aug 2005 11:18:12 -0700, laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu scribed
    > into the ether:
    >
    >>
    >>Matt Frisch wrote:

    >>> Also similar. IME, going for TWF is a lot more common than rapid
    >>> shot. Most of my games, ranged weapons tend to not be overly useful.
    >>> Typical encounter distances result in having to shoot into melee and
    >>> risk hitting friendlies more often than not,
    >>
    >>There is no such risk.
    >
    > There is when your party members are being used as cover by back row
    > combatants. Poor word choice on my part. Shoot THROUGH melee, rather
    > than into it.

    There is no such risk in 3.5. You can only hit the wrong target with a
    splash weapon, or if shooting into a grapple.
  49. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
    news:kea4g194f6ur9lv9f0vutuo5vh7jcpg49i@4ax.com...
    > >> They are similar from the perspective of:
    > >> Get an additional attack per round, with a -2 to all attacks made that
    > >> round.
    > >
    > > <cough> Rapid Shot <cough>
    >
    > Also similar. IME, going for TWF is a lot more common than rapid shot.

    *IRRELEVANT*. Rapid shot's mechanics ARE IDENTICAL TO THOSE OF THE
    (basic) FLURRY. Take -2 to all attacks, get one more attack. JUST LIKE
    FLURRY. *NOT* like TWF - there is no funny business with strength bonuses,
    no funny business with the penalty depending on the size of weapon. It's
    stupid to assume flurry is mechanically similar to TWF when a comparison of
    the available mechanics shows that the true spiritual partner is RapidShot.

    -Michael
Ask a new question

Read More

Games Power Video Games