This feat is notorious for its bad writing. The expression "+ 100%" is completely unique in D & D 3.5e, as far as I know, for example. Ultimately, I can not imagine another interpretation here than adding the subtracted number of your attack rolls again, and it has the good feature of specifying the "normal" Power Attack damage, which means that features such as the supreme power attack of the Frantic berserker who already give the hands with only one hand the returns of 2: 1 do not double to 4: 1, but it goes to the 3: 1 that would normally be expected from the multiplication rules of D & D.

But then there is the line that you have not quoted:

If you use this tactic with a two-handed weapon, you triple the extra damage of the power attack instead.

No bizarro "+ 100%" in sight! But we've also lost the useful reference to "normal" and is now multiplying "additional Power Attack damage", whatever it is for you. This is going to put us in trouble, you can tell.

So you're tripling the extra damage, not tripling the applied penalty. The problem here, well, the first problem here, is that "the additional damage of Power Attack" is "double the number subtracted from your attack rolls" when attacking with two hands. Worse still, since "the additional damage of Power Attack" is calculated as twice the penalty, but is not subject to any multiplier, it could be said that the rules of repeated multiplication do not apply, and that gives a 2 × 3 = 6 instead of 1+ (2-1) + (3-1) = 4. So instead of 2: 1 come back in Power Attack, you get **6**: 1 returns in Power Attack. Or maybe you have 5: 1; It is impossible to say since it is so poorly written. Also, you know, I suspect what they wanted to do was give you a 3: 1 return, but of course they did not say that.

And that would combine quite well with, say, the supreme power attack feature of the frantic berserker, who was getting 4: 1 to start with. Now you can say that they are getting 8: 1.

On top of those issues, this is *only* The additional damage of Power Attack. The result is added to the rest of your damage, and that gives you your full damage … which could multiply again, for example. with *valuable*. This effectively multiplies your multiplier, which is *exactly* what the multiplication rules try to avoid, but since two different things are being multiplied, the rules of multiplication do not come into play.

So, for the example: 2d6 + 1 damage of the weapon itself, +6 for the Force, and the attack penalty of -6 to get a maximum of Power Attack results in twice the damage of +12 of Power Attack without Leap Attack. Thus, 2d6 + 19 is the baseline for all interpretations, and *valuable* double that for 4d6 + 38.

With 6: 1 returns, we are looking for a Power Attack bonus of +36 (six times the penalty, tripling "the additional Power Attack damage", which would have been +12). Using 5: 1 reduces that to +30, which is somewhat better, but not, you know, great, when what they probably wanted to say was +18. Keep in mind that +36 is almost what *valuable* I was giving all the attack before. Now with *valuable*, we are seeing 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 an internal rule, but keep in mind that the additional damage of the Power Attack is not the only case of this: the additional damage due to the Force It also has a multiplier, + 1½ ×, which is *also* being folded by *valuable*. This, unlike Leap Attack, has a strong precedent in the rules. The "solution" would be to apply the multiplication rule individually to all sources of damage, in this way:

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(2-1right) \

& ] & times 2 text {d} 6 & +[1 \

&& && +left(2-1right) \

&& & ] & times 1 & +[1 \

&& && && +left(2-1right) \

&& && && +left(1frac{1}{2}-1right) \

&& && & ] & times 4 & +[1 \

&& && && && +left(2-1right) \

&& && && && +left(3-1right) \

&& && && && +left(2-1right) \

&& && && & ] & 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, without a doubt, an internal rule, and I am not convinced that *is* well (I mean *good luck* calculating that for each attack!), although it "imposes" the idea that you are not supposed to multiply multipliers.