Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Bride of the FAQ Attack!

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

She’s ready to pounce!

If I have the pounce ability and I charge with a lance, do my iterative lance attacks get the extra damage multiplier from charging?

No, for two reasons.

One, because a lance only deals extra damage when you’re riding a charging mount—not when you are charging.

Two, even if you have an unusual combination of rules that allows you to ignore the above limitation, it doesn’t makes sense that those iterative attacks gain the damage bonus. To make that second attack, you have to pull the lance back and stab forward again, and that stab doesn’t have the benefit of the charge’s momentum. (The Core Rulebook doesn’t state that you only get the damage multiplier on the first attack with a lance because there is no rule in the Core Rulebook that allows a PC to charge and take multiple attacks with a weapon, so that combination didn’t need to be addressed.)

If I drink a potion, do I automatically forgo my save against that potion?

No. Nothing in the potion rules says it changes whether or not you get a saving throw against the spell stored in the potion. Even if someone hands you a potion of poison and tells you it’s a potion of cure serious wounds, you still get a save.

Does the dodge bonus from the “offensive defensive” rogue talent (Advanced Player’s Guide, page 131) stack with itself? Does it apply to everyone, or just to the target I’m attacking?

There are two issues relating to this rogue talent.

One, in the first printing it provided a +1 circumstance bonus against the attacked target, which was a very weak ability. The second printing update changed it from a circumstance bonus to a dodge bonus, but accidentally omitted the “against that creature” text, which made it a very strong ability.

Two, it doesn’t specify whether the dodge bonus stacks with itself, and because this creates a strange place in the rules where bonuses don’t stack from the same source but dodge bonuses always stack. While we haven’t reached a final decision on what to do about this talent, we are leaning toward this solution: the dodge bonus only applies against the creature you sneak attacked, and the dodge bonus does not stack with itself. This prevents you from getting a dodge bonus to AC against a strong creature by sneak attacking a weak creature, and prevents you from reaching an absurdly high AC by sneak attacking multiple times in the same round.

Sean K Reynolds
Designer

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Frequently Asked Questions Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
101 to 150 of 229 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

JMD031 wrote:

*reads posts about people arguing that mounted combat feats work as intended while arguing that the player is not the one doing the charging and therefore doesn't get pounce*

*head explodes*

1. To those of you who are making these kinds of arguments: You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Or, you cannot both qualify as charging on a mount for some feats while at the same time be disqualified as charging for others.

2. This is not a mounted combat question, it's a question about the charge mechanic while mounted. Huge difference.

3. The FAQ did not "kill" RAGELANCEPOUNCE it simply brought it down from amazing to simply awesome. As someone earlier in the thread pointed out, all that has changed is that you do not get the X2 bonus from iterative attacks which simply means that less damage will be done after the first, but enough damage will be done to incapacitate most casters.

4. SKR is a cool guy and I feel sorry for him that he has to waste his time clarifying the semantics of this argument. You are a better man than I, SKR.

did you ignore all the "while on a charging mount" language? I'm sure this will get clarified Tuesday. The pounce thing has been addressed 2 weeks in a row. Time for round 3.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If a dev clarifies intent he has done his job. People can always use semantics to try to get around something. I don't know if that is the case because I have not read every post, but if it is I would move on to other issues that need addressing.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
ATron9000 wrote:
did you ignore all the "while on a charging mount" language? I'm sure this will get clarified Tuesday. The pounce thing has been addressed 2 weeks in a row. Time for round 3.

Umm, no I have not ignored anything. Most of the arguments come from the language of how the Charge Action is worded versus how charging on a mount is described. The Charge Action states you (the player) take a full round action to move and attack someone with a variety of specifications for how this works (-2 AC, must move in a straight line, etc). In the mounted combat section it states that you may have your mount charge and after the mount moves you may make a single attack, which means...you are not the one charging but there is also something that states that if your mount charges you count as charging (gaining the -2 to AC, etc) and thus the confusion. Because if your mount is the one charging then you can't use any of the mounted combat feats that require you (the player to charge) and not your mount. Now common sense would dictate that the intent of these feats was to allow players to use these feats as intended but based on the wording used for charging while mounted it would appear not to work as they are supposed to.

Now many people have stated that the mounted combat feats, spirited charge and the like, work exactly as intended within the mounted combat rules and the charge rules as currently written. BUT then will vehemently argue that a player cannot use pounce at the end of a mounted charge because of the same wording of the mounted combat rules. Which is why I made the comment I did about having your cake and eating it too. You can't say that the rules work one way (such as with spirited charge) and then say they don't work that same way in a similar situation (such as with pounce).

Last weeks FAQ made an official ruling in the terms of Pounce and being able to use manufactored weapons with this ability. This FAQ only changed the fact that the bonus to damage you would normally gain from charging with a lance is only applied once even if you would get multiple attacks from a mounted charge. NOW this is the big thing that has happened with this FAQ, SKR does not say that you can't have multiple attacks after a charge and in fact states that if such an ability exists then a lance would only get its bonus damage from charging once and not multiple times.

So unless next week comes around and there is a decision about whether or not players can pounce at the end of a mounted charge or if there is clarification on who is charging during a mounted charge (the mount or the player), nothing has changed.

Silver Crusade

JMD031 wrote:

*reads posts about people arguing that mounted combat feats work as intended while arguing that the player is not the one doing the charging and therefore doesn't get pounce*

*head explodes*

1. To those of you who are making these kinds of arguments: You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Or, you cannot both qualify as charging on a mount for some feats while at the same time be disqualified as charging for others.

2. This is not a mounted combat question, it's a question about the charge mechanic while mounted. Huge difference.

3. The FAQ did not "kill" RAGELANCEPOUNCE it simply brought it down from amazing to simply awesome. As someone earlier in the thread pointed out, all that has changed is that you do not get the X2 bonus from iterative attacks which simply means that less damage will be done after the first, but enough damage will be done to incapacitate most casters.

4. SKR is a cool guy and I feel sorry for him that he has to waste his time clarifying the semantics of this argument. You are a better man than I, SKR.

Try actually reading the Mounted Combat rules and you will see that it's the mount that is considered to be charging.

I'll save you the trouble:

Combat while Mounted: With a DC 5 Ride check, you can
guide your mount with your knees so as to use both hands to
attack or defend yourself. This is a free action.
When you attack a creature smaller than your mount that
is on foot, you get the +1 bonus on melee attacks for being on
higher ground. If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you
can only make a single melee attack. Essentially, you have to
wait until the mount gets to your enemy before attacking, so
you can’t make a full attack. Even at your mount’s full speed,
you don’t take any penalty on melee attacks while mounted.

If your mount charges, you also take the AC penalty
associated with a charge. If you make an attack at the end of
the charge, you receive the bonus gained from the charge.
When charging on horseback, you deal double damage with
a lance (see Charge).

How do you figure pouncing with a lance is any good? All it is is 1d8 x3, you would be better off with a greatsword.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
shallowsoul wrote:

Try actually reading the Mounted Combat rules and you will see that it's the mount that is considered to be charging.

I'll save you the trouble:

Combat while Mounted: With a DC 5 Ride check, you can
guide your mount with your knees so as to use both hands to
attack or defend yourself. This is a free action.
When you attack a creature smaller than your mount that
is on foot, you get the +1 bonus on melee attacks for being on
higher ground. If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you
can only make a single melee attack. Essentially, you have to
wait until the mount gets to your enemy before attacking, so
you can’t make a full attack. Even at your mount’s full speed,
you don’t take any penalty on melee attacks while mounted.

If your mount charges, you also take the AC penalty
associated with a charge. If you make an attack at the end of
the charge, you receive the bonus gained from the charge.
When...

Wow, that was completely uncalled for. I have read the mounted combat rules and maybe I'm mistaken here but that is exactly what I said when it comes to the debate about mounted combat.

Of course you are replying to an earlier post...and did not read the next one I made where I specifically spell out the issue on why this is still an issue. See, if things work as you pointed out, then Spirited Charge and other mounted combat feat do not work as intended because you (the player) are not charging, the mount is and those feats specifically require you (the player) to make a charge action.

PRD wrote:

Spirited Charge (Combat)

Your mounted charge attacks deal a tremendous amount of damage.

Prerequisites: Ride 1 rank, Mounted Combat, Ride-By Attack.

Benefit: When mounted and using the charge action, you deal double damage with a melee weapon (or triple damage with a lance).

The argument (which isn't mine btw) is that because you the player are not "using the charge action" instead your mount is and you cannot use this feat or any other that requires the player to "use the charge action" to utilize e.g. pounce.

The part you bolded is exactly the problem with this debate. It specifies the mount charges, not the player but as the above feat and several others mention, the player is the one who needs to "use the charge action" which as written makes them completely useless.

Again, as I pointed out, common sense will win out at my gaming table and I would allow the use of Spirited Charge and the like. But what about a Barbarian with the Pounce ability gained from the Beast Totem Rage Power tree? Can that player utilize pounce while mounted? Well the rules are unclear on that completely and contridictory in other places. Now as to why the lance itself is important, look no further than the feat and imagine a 20th level Barbarian on a flying mount with a lance getting 1d8+Str mod with a X3 crit chance for each of his attacks. Kind of way better than a greatsword then, wouldn't you agree?

Now comes the difficult part. See, I should have just flagged your post and moved on, but I felt that while you are being inflamatory, you did bring up a good point about why is this even important in the first place, which to the greater community out there I wanted to clarify. I am still going to flag your post as your comments were rude and unnecessary. Good day sir.

Silver Crusade

JMD031 wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:

Try actually reading the Mounted Combat rules and you will see that it's the mount that is considered to be charging.

I'll save you the trouble:

Combat while Mounted: With a DC 5 Ride check, you can
guide your mount with your knees so as to use both hands to
attack or defend yourself. This is a free action.
When you attack a creature smaller than your mount that
is on foot, you get the +1 bonus on melee attacks for being on
higher ground. If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you
can only make a single melee attack. Essentially, you have to
wait until the mount gets to your enemy before attacking, so
you can’t make a full attack. Even at your mount’s full speed,
you don’t take any penalty on melee attacks while mounted.

If your mount charges, you also take the AC penalty
associated with a charge. If you make an attack at the end of
the charge, you receive the bonus gained from the charge.
When...

Wow, that was completely uncalled for. I have read the mounted combat rules and maybe I'm mistaken here but that is exactly what I said when it comes to the debate about mounted combat.

Of course you are replying to an earlier post...and did not read the next one I made where I specifically spell out the issue on why this is still an issue. See, if things work as you pointed out, then Spirited Charge and other mounted combat feat do not work as intended because you (the player) are not charging, the mount is and those feats specifically require you (the player) to make a charge action.

PRD wrote:

Spirited Charge (Combat)

Your mounted charge attacks deal a tremendous amount of damage.

Prerequisites: Ride 1 rank, Mounted Combat, Ride-By Attack.

Benefit: When mounted and using the charge action, you deal double damage with a melee weapon (or triple damage with a lance).

The argument (which isn't mine btw) is that because you the player are not "using the charge action" instead your mount is and you cannot use this feat or any...

Rage Pounce isn't a feat so I'm not sure why that keeps getting thrown into the mix. Mounted Feats work because being mounted meets the criteria, it has nothing to do with the actual PC charging.

Spirited Charge (Combat)
Your mounted charge attacks deal a tremendous amount
of damage.
Prerequisites: Ride 1 rank, Mounted Combat, Ride-
By Attack.
Benefit: When mounted and using the charge action,
you deal double damage with a melee weapon (or triple
damage with a lance).

Where does it say anything about "you" charging? All it says is when mounted and using the charge action. Now if it said when mounted and you charge then I could see where someone would try and use the wording to their advantage but it doesn't even give you that. "You" yourself aren't the one that's doing the charging. You can't be riding a mount and say that I charge and my mount charges. Your mount is doing the charging but you gain the benefits and the drawbacks, also you gain benefits from certain feats. Like I said before, simply reading and understanding the mounted combat rules well settle everything.

If we went by your reading then all someone would need to do is buy a mount such as a tiger and you could automatically gain pounce but you can't.

Edit: Let me put it in simpler terms. Actually I mentioned it above but I will say it again. When you are mounted you don't get to have 2 charge actions, you can't say that you are using your charge action and your mount is using a charge action.


Oh yay, the devs actually went with what I was arguing, that all the momentum is on the first hit and lance and spirited charge multipliers shouldn't happen on iterative attacks and the like... but otherwise left mounted pounce alone.

Sanity prevails!


JMD031 wrote:
ATron9000 wrote:
did you ignore all the "while on a charging mount" language? I'm sure this will get clarified Tuesday. The pounce thing has been addressed 2 weeks in a row. Time for round 3.

Umm, no I have not ignored anything. Most of the arguments come from the language of how the Charge Action is worded versus how charging on a mount is described. The Charge Action states you (the player) take a full round action to move and attack someone with a variety of specifications for how this works (-2 AC, must move in a straight line, etc). In the mounted combat section it states that you may have your mount charge and after the mount moves you may make a single attack, which means...you are not the one charging but there is also something that states that if your mount charges you count as charging (gaining the -2 to AC, etc) and thus the confusion. Because if your mount is the one charging then you can't use any of the mounted combat feats that require you (the player to charge) and not your mount. Now common sense would dictate that the intent of these feats was to allow players to use these feats as intended but based on the wording used for charging while mounted it would appear not to work as they are supposed to.

Now many people have stated that the mounted combat feats, spirited charge and the like, work exactly as intended within the mounted combat rules and the charge rules as currently written. BUT then will vehemently argue that a player cannot use pounce at the end of a mounted charge because of the same wording of the mounted combat rules. Which is why I made the comment I did about having your cake and eating it too. You can't say that the rules work one way (such as with spirited charge) and then say they don't work that same way in a similar situation (such as with pounce).

Last weeks FAQ made an official ruling in the terms of Pounce and being able to use manufactored weapons with this ability. This FAQ only changed the fact that the bonus to damage you would...

"when riding a charging mount" -SKR

Reverse the argument. Pounce is a special ability that doesn't state you can pounce while riding a charging mount.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Ahhh, to be a sophist.


i think even the greeks didn't appreciated sophists... and they started it

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
shallowsoul wrote:
Where does it say anything about "you" charging? All it says is when mounted and using the charge action.

Who is the one that has the feat? The mount, or the rider?

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

If your mount is doing the charging, you're not using the charge action. The mount is.


shallowsoul wrote:
You meet the criteria of the feats because you are mounted and the charge action is being used, it doesn't state where the charging as to come from.

Using this interpretation, it doesn't require your mount to be charging either. Just a charge to have occurred. So, if the Barbarian charges a goblin, my Cavalier will now get triple lance damage against the next creature he attacks.

Of course, that is absolute and utter nonsense, because the structure of the sentence clearly shows indicates that the mentioned "you" are the one charging. You can keep quoting the Mounted Combat rules, but it isn't going to change that.

Also, at least fix the spacing. No need to use half a page every time you requote something everyone is already aware of.

Silver Crusade

TriOmegaZero wrote:
If your mount is doing the charging, you're not using the charge action. The mount is.

Nope, you control the mount so your mount is doing the charging but it requires that (the player) spends a charge action. You don't get two charge actions. It's not hard to comprehend. By your theory, the character gets a charge action and the horse gets a charge action.

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Regardless, it is the mount spending the charge action, not the rider.

For once I'm looking forward to the next blog post.

Shadow Lodge

If your mount charges, you also take the AC penalty associated with a charge. If you make an attack at the end of the charge, you receive the bonus gained from the charge. When charging on horseback, you deal double damage with a lance (see Charge).

Now, I don't know why they didn't just say "when your mount charges you're charging too", but the above makes it very explicit that when your mount charges you get all the benefits and drawbacks of the charge.

The only other interpretation would be to somehow make a charge attack while on fighting on the back of an enormous horse (call him Trojan) because you need to move 10 feet and then attack your opponent.

-I believe you can substitute any mount for a horse. Thats rai for this paragraph, and raw under the description for a lance.


shallowsoul wrote:


Please tell me where you are having the problem here. This actually helps me argument even more. Do you understand that you and the mount don't get a charge action each? Now whenever you are mounted it still uses up a charge action but your mount is the one that is doing the charging and not you. It's under the Mounted Combat rules. Now these feats were designed to give benefits while mounted. Notice how they don't say "When you charge while mounted". It says when mounted and using the charge action, it's telling you as the player and not the character that you gain this when the charge action is used. You (the player) still has to declare that you are using a charge action. You meet the criteria of the feats because you are mounted and the charge action is...

You either charge, or you don't. And since, by your reckoning you are not actually charging than you cannot use this feat. For it to work the way you say it would have to say "When you make an attack while your mount is charging..." So why doesn't it say that?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'm of the opinion that the feats don't work as written (good thing the intent is obvious).

Silver Crusade

A charge is still happening when on a mount but it's the horse that's actually doing the physical charging. There is no problem with the feats because the criteria has been met like I said earlier. You are still taking using a charge action but it's the horse that is charging and not the PC. Not one feat states that you yourself must be the one counted as charging.

Silver Crusade

BigNorseWolf wrote:

When charging on horseback, you deal double damage with a lance (see Charge).

Does it say anything what so ever about the actual PC doing the charge? Remember, the above is written for you the player, not you the fighter for instance. You are still using up a charge action but it's the horse that is doing the charging.


shallowsoul wrote:
A charge is still happening when on a mount but it's the horse that's actually doing the physical charging. There is no problem with the feats because the criteria has been met like I said earlier. You are still taking using a charge action but it's the horse that is charging and not the PC. Not one feat states that you yourself must be the one counted as charging.

So the horse does in fact need spirited charge.

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Again, if the horse is charging, you're not charging, and thus not charging while on horseback, and do not deal double damage.


How many times has Sean said "on a charging mount"? Several. How many times has he said charging on horseback? Zero.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber

I'm on a horse.

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

So even Sean says Spirited Charge doesn't work.

Also, Sebastian is not meant to be ridden that way Gorb.

Shadow Lodge

shallowsoul wrote:


Does it say anything what so ever about the actual PC doing the charge? Remember, the above is written for you the player, not you the fighter for instance. You are still using up a charge action but it's the horse that is doing the charging.

So your interpretation is that I, the player, need to show up to the game on a charging horse, and then all of my players lance attacks will deal double damage?

Makes about as much sense as anything else in the thread....

Silver Crusade

BigNorseWolf wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:


Does it say anything what so ever about the actual PC doing the charge? Remember, the above is written for you the player, not you the fighter for instance. You are still using up a charge action but it's the horse that is doing the charging.

So your interpretation is that I, the player, need to show up to the game on a charging horse, and then all of my players lance attacks will deal double damage?

Makes about as much sense as anything else in the thread....

It all makes sense except for what you just posted.


If an ogre charges with a leopard on his back does the leopard get to make a pounce attack? Not only is the concept absurd but the rules say no. I understand that you guys want a mounted pounce. That's ok. House rule it.


Here is how I see it to date including SKR feedback:

1. Human on horseback with Spirited Charge, lance, charging at defender smaller than horse = single attack from lance, +3 TH, x3 lance damage, -2 AC for horse and rider

2. Human on horseback making his (combat trained) horse (only) charge and attack defender smaller than horse = single attack from horse, +3 TH, -2 AC for horse and rider

3. Human on horseback with Spirited Charge, lance, charging at defender smaller than horse, and making his (combat trained) horse attack same target = single attack from lance and single attack from horse, +3 TH, x3 lance damage, -2 AC for horse and rider

4. Human on horseback with Spirited Charge, Pounce ability, lance, charging at defender smaller than horse = single attack from lance, +3 TH, x3 lance damage, -2 AC for horse and rider

5. Human on foot with Spirited Charge, Pounce ability, lance, charging at defender = full attack from lance, +2 TH, x1 lance damage, -2 AC for human


I just want to see if I understand this heated debate. The argument on one side is that clearly a mounted (which means riding on a mount, just to be semantically obvious) player character, whose mount is Charging, also gains the benefits of that charge. This is true because the Mounted Combat rules state

PRD Mounted Combat wrote:
If your mount charges, you also take the AC penalty associated with a charge. If you make an attack at the end of the charge, you receive the bonus gained from the charge. When charging on horseback, you deal double damage with a lance (see Charge).

This camp also says that a feat like Spirited Charge clearly benefits from this same assumption. Since the text says: "Your mounted charge attacks deal a tremendous amount of damage." Which means that you are mounted and gain the benefits of a charge. Thus the words "mounted charge attack." I wonder, how would one charge while mounted, unless the mount is considered a co-equal partner in performing the action?

The opposing camp says this is not true because the wording for Spirited Charge also says: "When mounted and using the charge action, you deal double damage with a melee weapon (or triple damage with a lance)." Which seems to indicate that I (here meaning the mounted player character, I assume) am not using the "charge action." Instead my mount is the one using the charge action, and even though the above rules for Mounted Combat clearly state that if I (again here meaning a mounted player character) make an attack at the end of my mount's Charge I gain the benefits of said Charge, Spirited Charge states that I (you get the idea) must in fact be the participant using "the charge action" or the benefits of the feat are null and void.

Does that about sum up the debate? Or am I missing something else?

Edit: Also wanted to point out that the language for Mounted Combat says "When charging on horseback." Unless you are running across the backs of multiple horses to attack at the end of the run, I don't see how this could be looked at as anything other than being mounted, and being considered a co-equal participant in a charge.


MendedWall12 wrote:
I just want to see if I understand this heated debate. The argument on one side is that clearly a mounted (which means riding on a mount, just to be semantically obvious) player character, whose mount is Charging, also gains the benefits of that charge. This is true because the Mounted Combat rules state
PRD Mounted Combat wrote:
If your mount charges, you also take the AC penalty associated with a charge. If you make an attack at the end of the charge, you receive the bonus gained from the charge. When charging on horseback, you deal double damage with a lance (see Charge).

This camp also says that a feat like Spirited Charge clearly benefits from this same assumption. Since the text says: "Your mounted charge attacks deal a tremendous amount of damage." Which means that you are mounted and gain the benefits of a charge. Thus the words "mounted charge attack." I wonder, how would one charge while mounted, unless the mount is considered a co-equal partner in performing the action?

The opposing camp says this is not true because the wording for Spirited Charge also says: "When mounted and using the charge action, you deal double damage with a melee weapon (or triple damage with a lance)." Which seems to indicate that I (here meaning the mounted player character, I assume) am not using the "charge action." Instead my mount is the one using the charge action, and even though the above rules for Mounted Combat clearly state that if I (again here meaning a mounted player character) make an attack at the end of my mount's Charge I gain the benefits of said Charge, Spirited Charge states that I (you get the idea) must in fact be the participant using "the charge action" or the benefits of the feat are null and void.

Does that about sum up the debate? Or am...

Yes, you are missing something. Simply put, one camp says you can use the pounce ability from horseback, the other camp says you can not. The spirited charge comes into the debate, because the camp that says you can pounce from horseback is being obtuse and saying that if you can not pounce from horseback, then you also can not use spirited charge, because both are done as part of a charge action. This, of course is preposterous, as spirited charge is designed to be used from horseback, and a pounce is not.

P.S. You may substitute "from atop a mount" for "from horseback" if you please.


cibet44 wrote:

Here is how I see it to date including SKR feedback:

1. Human on horseback with Spirited Charge, lance, charging at defender smaller than horse = single attack from lance, +3 TH, x3 lance damage, -2 AC for horse and rider

2. Human on horseback making his (combat trained) horse (only) charge and attack defender smaller than horse = single attack from horse, +3 TH, -2 AC for horse and rider

3. Human on horseback with Spirited Charge, lance, charging at defender smaller than horse, and making his (combat trained) horse attack same target = single attack from lance and single attack from horse, +3 TH, x3 lance damage, -2 AC for horse and rider

4. Human on horseback with Spirited Charge, Pounce ability, lance, charging at defender smaller than horse = single attack from lance, +3 TH, x3 lance damage, -2 AC for horse and rider

5. Human on foot with Spirited Charge, Pounce ability, lance, charging at defender = full attack from lance, +2 TH, x1 lance damage, -2 AC for human

I agree with everything said here except for #4 - which I would ammend to:

#4 wrote:


Human on horseback with Spirited Charge, Pounce ability, lance, charging at defender smaller than horse = Full attack w/ lance, +3 TH, x3 lance damage (but only on the first attack; subsequent attacks do not get the bonus damage), -2 AC for horse and rider

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If an ogre charges with a leopard on his back does the leopard get to make a pounce attack?

No.

The Leopard is a medium animal with only 5 feet of reach.

The ogre has 10 feet of reach. The ogre MUST stop his charge attack 10 feet out and make his attack.

You must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent.

The leopard is then out of reach.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

If an ogre charges with a leopard on his back does the leopard get to make a pounce attack?

No.

The Leopard is a medium animal with only 5 feet of reach.

The ogre has 10 feet of reach. The ogre MUST stop his charge attack 10 feet out and make his attack.

You must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent.

The leopard is then out of reach.

nothing stops the ogre from charging to an adjacent square.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I can't wait till the next FAQ comes out tonight (Perhaps Abbot and Costello vs. the FAQ Attack), and they once again try to put ragelancepounce to rest, and it just spurs another 150 post thread arguing the meaning of the word "is."

Shadow Lodge

ATron9000 wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

If an ogre charges with a leopard on his back does the leopard get to make a pounce attack?

No.

The Leopard is a medium animal with only 5 feet of reach.

The ogre has 10 feet of reach. The ogre MUST stop his charge attack 10 feet out and make his attack.

You must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent.

The leopard is then out of reach.

nothing stops the ogre from charging to an adjacent square.

An adjacent square is not the closest square from which the ogre can attack his opponent. That's what stops him from moving there.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
An adjacent square is not the closest square from which the ogre can attack his opponent. That's what stops him from moving there.

Correct. A Charge has specific parameters. The ogre could "run" to an adjacent square, but running is not the same as charging, according to the RAW.

Taldor

Is it possible the next FAQ could include the Witch's fortune hex clarification, or even just in a reply on here? The topic has 19 FAQ's on it since July last year but still no response and there are still two contradictory statements within the description of the Fortune hex.

I've read arguments from both sides endlessly so please don't start a debate on it here on this thread.

Link to FAQ Post Re: Fortune Hex


you guys are funny

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

I removed some posts that were Not Helping.


Ross Byers wrote:
I removed some posts that were Not Helping.

Were there a lot of buffalos in them?

101 to 150 of 229 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / Paizo Blog: Bride of the FAQ Attack! All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

The Wait is Nearly Over,

Friday Publisher Preview: Out Sick,

2014 Cosplay Contest Champions!,

Honor the Hold!,

Armored,


©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.