Just so nobody has to find it, the *Complete Adventurer* errata says that in the feat Leap Attack that the

second sentence of the Benefit paragraph should read as follows: If you cover at least 10 feet of horizontal distance with your jump, and you end your jump in a square from

which you threaten your target, you deal +100% the normal bonus damage from your use of the Power Attack feat.

But does the +100% of the bonus to damage from the feat Power Attack (*PH* 98) *via* the feat Leap Attack (*CAd* 110) interact–due to *Dungeons and Dragons 3.X*'s multiplication rules–with…

- the feat Power Attack adding twice the attack roll penalty's absolute value as a bonus to damage when using a weapon two-handed?
- the doubling (or more) damage
*via*a weapon with the weapon special ability*valorous*(*Una*54-5), the feat Headlong Rush (*Rac*164), or another means of multiplying damage?

That is, does the feat Leap Attack care if multiplication happens either before or after the feat's effect is determined? Or was the feat *deliberately* subjected to errata to *avoid* interaction with the multiplication rules?

Example

A Medium creature with a base attack bonus of +6 and a Strength score of 18 uses a+1 valorous greatsword. The creature charges, satisfies the conditions for the feat Leap Attack, and uses Power Attack to the maximum he's able.If the creature makes a successful melee attack roll, how much damage is dealt?

## Best Answer

This feat is notorious for its poor wording. The “+100%” phrasing is completely unique within D&D 3.5e as far as I know, for example. Ultimately, I can’t imagine any other interpretation here than adding again the number subtracted from your attack rolls, and it does have the nice feature of specifying the “normal” damage from Power Attack which means that features like the frenzied berserker’s supreme power attack that already give one-handed weapons 2:1 returns don’t get doubled to 4:1, but instead go to the 3:1 you would normally expect from D&D’s multiplication rules.

But then there is the line you haven’t quoted:

No bizarre “+100%” in sight! But also we have lost the useful reference to “normal” and now it is multiplying “the extra damage from Power Attack,” whatever that is for you. This is going to get us in trouble, you can just tell already.

So you are tripling the extra damage—not tripling the penalty applied. The problem here, well the first problem here, is that “the extra damage from Power Attack” is “twice the number subtracted from your attack rolls” when attacking two-handed. Worse, since “the extra damage from Power Attack” is calculated as twice the penalty, but isn’t itself subject to any multiplier, arguably the repeated-multiplication rules don’t apply, and that gets you a 2×3=6 rather than 1+(2−1)+(3−1)=4. So instead of 2:1 returns on Power Attack, you get

6:1 returns on Power Attack. Or maybe you get 5:1; it’s impossible to say since it’s worded so poorly. Plus, ya know, I suspect what they meant to do was give you 3:1 returns, but of course they didn’t say that.And that would combine quite nicely with, say, the supreme power attack feature of the frenzied berserker, who was getting 4:1 returns to begin with. Now they’re arguably getting 8:1.

On top of those issues, this is

onlythe Power Attack bonus damage. The result is added to the rest of your damage, and that gets you your full damage... which might be multiplied again, e.g. withvalorous. This effectively multiplies your multiplier, which isexactlywhat the multiplication rules try to avoid, but since two different things are being multiplied, the multiplication rules don’t actually come into play.So for the example: 2d6+1 damage from the weapon itself, +6 for Strength, and the −6 attack penalty for maximum Power Attack results in double that for +12 damage from Power Attack without Leap Attack. Thus 2d6+19 is the baseline for all interpretations, and

valorousdoubles that for 4d6+38.With the 6:1 returns, we are instead looking at Power Attack bonus of +36 (six times the penalty, triple “the extra damage from Power Attack” which would have been +12). Using 5:1 brings that down to +30, which is somewhat better, but not, ya know, great, when what they probably meant was +18. Note that +36 is nearly what

valorouswas giving the entire attack before. Now withvalorous, we’re looking at a total of 4d6+66—of which, 52 comes from Power Attack.It may not be a bad idea to try to eliminate the multiplication of a multiplier here through houserule, but note that the Power Attack bonus damage isn’t the only case of this: the bonus damage due to Strength also has a multiplier, +1½×, which is

alsobeing doubled byvalorous. This, unlike Leap Attack, has strong precedent in the rules. The “fix” would be to apply the multiplication rule individually to all sources of damage, like so:\begin{array}{r} 2 \times ( && 2\text{d}6 && +1 && +1\tfrac{1}{2}\times 4 && +3\times 2\times 6 & ) \\ = && 2\times 2\text{d}6 && + 2\times 1 && + 2\times 1\frac{1}{2}\times 4 && + 2\times 3\times 2\times 6 \\ = & [1 \\ && +\left(2-1\right) \\ & ] & \times 2\text{d}6 & +[1 \\ && && +\left(2-1\right) \\ && & ] & \times 1 & +[1 \\ && && && +\left(2-1\right) \\ && && && +\left(1\frac{1}{2}-1\right) \\ && && & ] & \times 4 & +[1 \\ && && && && +\left(2-1\right) \\ && && && && +\left(3-1\right) \\ && && && && +\left(2-1\right) \\ && && && & ] & \times 6 \\ = && 2\times 2\text{d}6 && +2\times 1 && +2\frac{1}{2}\times 4 && +5\times 6 \\ = && 4\text{d}6 && +2 && +10 && +30 \\ = && && && && 4\text{d}6+42 \\ \end{array}

But this is very-definitely a houserule, and I’m not convinced that it

isgood (I mean,good luckcalculating that for every attack!), even though it “enforces” the idea that you’re not supposed to get to mulitply multipliers.