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
201 to 229 of 229 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

Bob_Loblaw wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
My question is: does the +2d6 apply to every attack in that charge? If so, how is it different than pounce?
Sure- every one of your attacks, which is exactly one attack when mounted. Pretty good when on foot and pouncing, tho.
Unless you take the Mounted Skirmisher feat, then you can take a full attack. How is that different than pounce?

Bob, Mounted Skirmisher has nothing to do with a charge.

If your fighter walks up, how many attacks does he get......1

All this feat does is it allows a mounted character to get a full attack if their mount moves, not charges. Charging has it's own special set of rules.

This is the exact reason why people are asking for more clarification. Why is it that the rules for mounted charging change depending on which ability you are using but there aren't any guidelines?

If the mount moves, you can only make a single attack because you have to wait until you get to the enemy. But it is the mount that is charging, not the character. However, the character benefits from the mount's charge. So if the character can benefit from the mount's charge, but isn't himself charging, and he takes mounted skirmisher can he gain the benefits of the mount's charge for each attack assuming the mount moves only its speed, no more and no less? Can the mount charge it's movement and the rider still get his full attack? What is the difference between getting a full attack at the end of your move and getting a full attack at the end of your move?

How does this ruling interact with Charge Through? Can the lance get it's x2 or x3 bonus in this case for both attacks? Would rhino hide apply to both attacks? Why or why not?

If the GM needs to go through a bunch of justifications for why something works or doesn't, there may be a problem with the wording of the ruling.

Here is how it all works:

If you take a move while mounted you get one attack.

If you move while mounted and you have the Mounted Skirmisher feat then you get to make a full attack.(Which is very nice)

If you are mounted and you declare a charge then you refer to the mounted combat rules which state the mount is the one that is charging but there are some benefits that you gain and some minuses that you get as well.

The Pounce ability requires that you charge.

There is no mounted combat ability or feat that allows you to charge and get a full attack modified by all the mounted combat feats plus the benefit of rhino hide. A Cavalier can never charge with a lance, get all his attacks with all the benefits that go with it.

You will always need to refer to the mounted combat rules unless the feat or ability specifically says it overrides the current rule.

With critical mastery you can apply two critical feats at the same time while without the feat you can normally only apply one. The feat specifically gives you a before and after description.


Here's the complete text of Mounted Skirmisher:

Quote:

Mounted Skirmisher (Combat)

You are adept at attacking from upon a swift moving steed.
Prerequisites: Ride rank 14, Mounted Combat, Trick Riding.
Benefit: If your mount moves its speed or less, you can still take a full-attack action.
Normal: If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only take an attack action.

Why would you not get your full attack if your mount moves between 5 feet and its movement? The feat just requires that your mount move. That includes charging. There is no mechanical difference between this and pounce. What if the rider is a monk? Can he still flurry and get a charge bonus on each attack? What if the rider is a Dragoon using Leaping Lance?

You also didn't address the issue with Charge Through. Does the character get his damage multiplier for both attacks?

The mounted combat rules are not clear on this. If they were, there wouldn't have been a FAQ in the first place. SKR's answer works for attacks with a single weapon but doesn't address other ways to get multiple attacks.

Silver Crusade

Bob_Loblaw wrote:

Here's the complete text of Mounted Skirmisher:

Quote:

Mounted Skirmisher (Combat)

You are adept at attacking from upon a swift moving steed.
Prerequisites: Ride rank 14, Mounted Combat, Trick Riding.
Benefit: If your mount moves its speed or less, you can still take a full-attack action.
Normal: If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only take an attack action.

Why would you not get your full attack if your mount moves between 5 feet and its movement? The feat just requires that your mount move. That includes charging. There is no mechanical difference between this and pounce. What if the rider is a monk? Can he still flurry and get a charge bonus on each attack? What if the rider is a Dragoon using Leaping Lance?

You also didn't address the issue with Charge Through. Does the character get his damage multiplier for both attacks?

The mounted combat rules are not clear on this. If they were, there wouldn't have been a FAQ in the first place. SKR's answer works for attacks with a single weapon but doesn't address other ways to get multiple attacks.

Nope. Charging and moving are two different things. if I tell you I am moving up to attack is different than if I tell you I am charging.

I told you that just because you move 10ft in a charge doesn't qualify you to be able to use that feat. Charging is considered a "special" attack and has it's own rules that is followed. The "only" thing that gives something a full attack at the end of a charge is the pounce ability.

Mounted Skirmisher (Combat)
You are adept at attacking from upon a swift moving steed.
Prerequisites: Ride rank 14, Mounted Combat, Trick
Riding.
Benefit: If your mount moves its speed or less, you can
still take a full-attack action.
Normal: If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can
only take an attack action.

All you have to do is look at the normal entry to know what they are talking about. You can't charge from 5 feet, you can only charge at a minimum of 10 feet. This feat doesn't suddenly open you up to being able to full attack at the end of a charge.

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.

All the feat does is expand on the above, it doesn't grant anything to do with a charge.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Bob, I have to admit, although I am pretty sure my interpretation is RAI, some later feats like Mounted Skirmisher may be an exception. Note that I generally admire your posts here, and your reasoning- and sure, of course you’re right, the RAW wasn’t clear, thus this FAQ. Still, I am pretty sure that the RAI on Mounted Skirmisher does not include Charging.

But still, for those with RangeLancePounce, it’s a double NO. No, because Pounce only works when you charge on foot, that’s RAI. And NO as the double damage on a lance charge only occurs on a primary, never, ever on a iterative attack, Pounce or no pounce. That’s RAW and FAQ.


shallowsoul wrote:
Bob_Loblaw wrote:

Here's the complete text of Mounted Skirmisher:

Quote:

Mounted Skirmisher (Combat)

You are adept at attacking from upon a swift moving steed.
Prerequisites: Ride rank 14, Mounted Combat, Trick Riding.
Benefit: If your mount moves its speed or less, you can still take a full-attack action.
Normal: If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only take an attack action.

Why would you not get your full attack if your mount moves between 5 feet and its movement? The feat just requires that your mount move. That includes charging. There is no mechanical difference between this and pounce. What if the rider is a monk? Can he still flurry and get a charge bonus on each attack? What if the rider is a Dragoon using Leaping Lance?

You also didn't address the issue with Charge Through. Does the character get his damage multiplier for both attacks?

The mounted combat rules are not clear on this. If they were, there wouldn't have been a FAQ in the first place. SKR's answer works for attacks with a single weapon but doesn't address other ways to get multiple attacks.

Nope. Charging and moving are two different things. if I tell you I am moving up to attack is different than if I tell you I am charging.

I told you that just because you move 10ft in a charge doesn't qualify you to be able to use that feat. Charging is considered a "special" attack and has it's own rules that is followed. The "only" thing that gives something a full attack at the end of a charge is the pounce ability.

Mounted Skirmisher (Combat)
You are adept at attacking from upon a swift moving steed.
Prerequisites: Ride rank 14, Mounted Combat, Trick
Riding.
Benefit: If your mount moves its speed or less, you can
still take a full-attack action.
Normal: If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can
only take an attack action.

All you have to do is look at the normal entry to know what they are talking about. You can't charge from 5 feet, you can only charge at a minimum of 10...

The benefit of the feat is that you get a full attack action if your mount moves. It doesn't matter if it's charging or not. If it moves more than 5 feet then you get the benefit.

Getting a full attack action at the end of your mount's movement or getting a full attack action at the end of your own movement really doesn't matter for this though. How are they really different? They both give you full movement and a full attack.


DrDeth wrote:

Bob, I have to admit, although I am pretty sure my interpretation is RAI, some later feats like Mounted Skirmisher may be an exception. Note that I generally admire your posts here, and your reasoning- and sure, of course you’re right, the RAW wasn’t clear, thus this FAQ. Still, I am pretty sure that the RAI on Mounted Skirmisher does not include Charging.

But still, for those with RangeLancePounce, it’s a double NO. No, because Pounce only works when you charge on foot, that’s RAI. And NO as the double damage on a lance charge only occurs on a primary, never, ever on a iterative attack, Pounce or no pounce. That’s RAW and FAQ.

RAI you are probably right. However it does seem odd that I can essentially pounce without using the pounce ability and the only issue people are focused on is ragelancepounce. I agree completely that it looks silly poking someone with two lances 8 times at the end of a charge. In my games I wouldn't allow it because it just doesn't make any sense regardless of what the rules state.

Why wouldn't one get the increased damage if using Charge Through? You are charging the whole time so the lance should not lose enough momentum to have its damage reduced. That and it's two separate attacks at two separate opponents so it's not nearly as bad or silly looking.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
shallowsoul wrote:

Because charging from horseback is not the same as charging. When charging from horseback you still use the same rules as mounted combat which states the mount is charging.

I've looked at those feats and none of them say anything about the PC having to be the one to charge, they specifically mentioned charging from horseback or charging while mounted which means mounted charge.

I've looked at those class abilities and again there is nothing there that states the person riding the mount must be physically charging or is referred to as charging. They all lead you to the mounted charge rules which is contained in the mounted combat rules. I read the Cavalier and all I see is an improved version of the mounted combat rules. Now there may be a specific Cavalier ability that may allow him to get his full attack while on horseback after a charge but I don't remember seeing that anywhere, and besides, if there is it still doesn't give the green light for the pounce ability to work.

Charging while mounted still implies that you refer to the mounted combat section. Why would you honestly think any different?

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).

Again looking at Spirited Charge, you'll notice that it says "When mounted and using the charge action, you" implying that You (the player) has to be the one taking the action. You stated above, "the mount is charging" which implies that the rider is not and therefore can NEVER use spirited charge as the rider can never "use a charge action" if the mount is charging. It even says in the mounted combat rules that if your mount charges all you can get is 1 attack which is basically a standard action while a "charge action" is a full-round action.

An aside. I DO NOT WANT POUNCE TO WORK WITH A MOUNTED CHARGE. The concept of it is utterly silly and at my table I'd probably throw something at anyone who tried it more than once. What I do want is the same thing TOZ and others want and that is clarification on what constitutes a "charge action" and who is actually considered charging while mounted. I want this because I don't want to have my PCs attacked by guys on horseback and some rules nazi to start an hour long argument stating that Spirited Charge doesn't work as written which will make me mad and then I decide to go start playing mah jong or something like that. To some people the rules are clear, but to others they are not...which means they are not clear enough. Some rules should be left up to interpretation but not something that invalidates a choice a player can make from the core rulebook.

The problem as I see it isn't the mounted combat rules, or the charge rules or the feats or any of it, but it is the interaction between all of them. A quick and dirty fix is to say that a "mounted charge" is an action a player makes that is equivalent to a "charge action" and then further clarify that pounce does not work while mounted.


Cloud is sad.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:

Bob, I have to admit, although I am pretty sure my interpretation is RAI, some later feats like Mounted Skirmisher may be an exception. Note that I generally admire your posts here, and your reasoning- and sure, of course you’re right, the RAW wasn’t clear, thus this FAQ. Still, I am pretty sure that the RAI on Mounted Skirmisher does not include Charging.

But still, for those with RangeLancePounce, it’s a double NO. No, because Pounce only works when you charge on foot, that’s RAI.

I disagree. A flying creature (or a potion of fly drinker) with Pounce still gets to use it.


I think DrDeth meant to say when you charge under your own power, but due to the fact that most PC's travel on foot he forgot to include other types of movement.


JMD031 wrote:
Quote:
Benefit: When mounted and using the charge action, you deal double damage with a melee weapon (or triple damage with a lance).
Again looking at Spirited Charge, you'll notice that it says "When mounted and using the charge action, you" implying that You (the player) has to be the one taking the action. You stated above, "the mount is charging" which implies that the rider is not and therefore can NEVER use spirited charge as the rider can never "use a charge action" if the mount is charging. It even says in the mounted combat rules that if your mount charges all you can get is 1 attack which is basically a standard action while a "charge action" is a full-round action.

I grant you the language is not as precise as it should be and certainly leaves one questioning what exactly it means. I'm guessing, though, that if they had just changed the wording to say: "When on a charging mount..." instead of "using the charge action," nobody would have a problem with it. I'm pretty sure I understand the RAI to be that, when a PC is on a mount that is using the charge action, these feats, abilities, etc. are triggered.

Perhaps if they just changed all the various types of ways they describe it, like: charging on horseback, mounted and using the charge action, mounted charge, etc. and changed them all to "when a PC is on a charging mount" it would clear everything up and we could all move on understanding the RAW and RAI. My guess is that they wrote it different ways because they assumed everybody would know what charging on a mount meant. Unfortunately when we're dealing with such a precise set of rules, and an even more precise necessity to interpret the language specifically, that assumption is lacking.


MendedWall12 wrote:
JMD031 wrote:
Quote:
Benefit: When mounted and using the charge action, you deal double damage with a melee weapon (or triple damage with a lance).
Again looking at Spirited Charge, you'll notice that it says "When mounted and using the charge action, you" implying that You (the player) has to be the one taking the action. You stated above, "the mount is charging" which implies that the rider is not and therefore can NEVER use spirited charge as the rider can never "use a charge action" if the mount is charging. It even says in the mounted combat rules that if your mount charges all you can get is 1 attack which is basically a standard action while a "charge action" is a full-round action.

I grant you the language is not as precise as it should be and certainly leaves one questioning what exactly it means. I'm guessing, though, that if they had just changed the wording to say: "When on a charging mount..." instead of "using the charge action," nobody would have a problem with it. I'm pretty sure I understand the RAI to be that, when a PC is on a mount that is using the charge action, these feats, abilities, etc. are triggered.

Perhaps if they just changed all the various types of ways they describe it, like: charging on horseback, mounted and using the charge action, mounted charge, etc. and changed them all to "when a PC is on a charging mount" it would clear everything up and we could all move on understanding the RAW and RAI. My guess is that they wrote it different ways because they assumed everybody would know what charging on a mount meant. Unfortunately when we're dealing with such a precise set of rules, and an even more precise necessity to interpret the language specifically, that assumption is lacking.

I think what was lacking from the developers was the understanding that some people are so invested in finding loopholes in the game that they will insist that one can pounce from atop a horse.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Okay, this is probably going to irritate some people, but after looking very specifically at the Charge rules. It seems to me that a PC could absolutely be considered to be charging themselves from the back of a mount.

Reason? None of the language says that the PC actually needs to use their own limbs to enact the required movement. It just simply says

d20pfsrd.com wrote:

You must move before your attack, not after. You must move at least 10 feet (2 squares) and may move up to double your speed directly toward the designated opponent. If you move a distance equal to your speed or less, you can also draw a weapon during a charge attack if your base attack bonus is at least +1.

You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles). You must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent. If this space is occupied or otherwise blocked, you can't charge. If any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through a square that blocks movement, slows movement, or contains a creature (even an ally), you can't charge. Helpless creatures don't stop a charge.

If you don't have line of sight to the opponent at the start of your turn, you can't charge that opponent.

You can't take a 5-foot step in the same round as a charge.

All of these requirements can be met from the back of a mount. I can make sure that the mount moves according to the requirements for "me" to have fulfilled the charge action. At which point, I charged while on the back of a mount, but the mount itself did not use a charge action. It simply moved in such a way as to help me fulfill the requirements of a charge.

How's that for a loophole?


wraithstrike wrote:
I think DrDeth meant to say when you charge under your own power, but due to the fact that most PC's travel on foot he forgot to include other types of movement.

Right.


Mabven the OP healer wrote:
[I think what was lacking from the developers was the understanding that some people are so invested in finding loopholes in the game that they will insist that one can pounce from atop a horse.

Worse than that, some folks want to pounce while on foot, using dual lances, and get all the various charge and lance benefits, including a FAA and triple damage on all attacks.

Sad isn’t it?

Silver Crusade

Apparently what the designers should have done was choose specific phrases to use each and every time they are doing the rules on a specific topic. What the designers have done is use different wording to mean the same thing but the loophole seekers have taken that different wording and tried to apply it to mean something different in order for them to get their little trick to work.

Silver Crusade

Coriat wrote:
DrDeth wrote:

Bob, I have to admit, although I am pretty sure my interpretation is RAI, some later feats like Mounted Skirmisher may be an exception. Note that I generally admire your posts here, and your reasoning- and sure, of course you’re right, the RAW wasn’t clear, thus this FAQ. Still, I am pretty sure that the RAI on Mounted Skirmisher does not include Charging.

But still, for those with RangeLancePounce, it’s a double NO. No, because Pounce only works when you charge on foot, that’s RAI.

I disagree. A flying creature (or a potion of fly drinker) with Pounce still gets to use it.

Flying(Pounce)can be seen as a dive attack but either way it's still you that's flying. You couldn't pounce if you were on a flying mount.

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
DrDeth wrote:

Worse than that, some folks want to pounce while on foot, using dual lances, and get all the various charge and lance benefits, including a FAA and triple damage on all attacks.

Sad isn’t it?

Why is that sad?

Because people play the game differently than you do? That they are doing it wrong and should feel bad about it?


TriOmegaZero wrote:
DrDeth wrote:

Worse than that, some folks want to pounce while on foot, using dual lances, and get all the various charge and lance benefits, including a FAA and triple damage on all attacks.

Sad isn’t it?

Why is that sad?

Because people play the game differently than you do? That they are doing it wrong and should feel bad about it?

People can play any way they want - that's between them and their GM. This is called rule 0. But when people insist that loopholes they have found in the rules are there because it is the intended design, it shows a lack of respect for and trust in one's GM.

Silver Crusade

Exploitation is not a playstyle and should not be considered one.

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Using rules in a different way than you do is exploitation?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Using rules in a different way than you do is exploitation?

That's biggest crock I have ever heard. Using rules differently than intended is exploitation. Interpreting a rule one way while it means something totally different just so you can have that broken build is exploitation.

That's like saying it's not murder because you used a knife instead of a gun.

Finding creative ways to use a rule is not the same thing. Some rules work one way while others may work another but finding a rule that allows you to somehow deal 500 points of damage by 5th level is exploitation.

Stop dancing around the issue, you know damn well the difference.

Andoran

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

You say that like there is a specific way the rules must be used.

I'm also sorry you think asking a question is a 'crock'.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
MendedWall12 wrote:
JMD031 wrote:
Quote:
Benefit: When mounted and using the charge action, you deal double damage with a melee weapon (or triple damage with a lance).
Again looking at Spirited Charge, you'll notice that it says "When mounted and using the charge action, you" implying that You (the player) has to be the one taking the action. You stated above, "the mount is charging" which implies that the rider is not and therefore can NEVER use spirited charge as the rider can never "use a charge action" if the mount is charging. It even says in the mounted combat rules that if your mount charges all you can get is 1 attack which is basically a standard action while a "charge action" is a full-round action.

I grant you the language is not as precise as it should be and certainly leaves one questioning what exactly it means. I'm guessing, though, that if they had just changed the wording to say: "When on a charging mount..." instead of "using the charge action," nobody would have a problem with it. I'm pretty sure I understand the RAI to be that, when a PC is on a mount that is using the charge action, these feats, abilities, etc. are triggered.

Perhaps if they just changed all the various types of ways they describe it, like: charging on horseback, mounted and using the charge action, mounted charge, etc. and changed them all to "when a PC is on a charging mount" it would clear everything up and we could all move on understanding the RAW and RAI. My guess is that they wrote it different ways because they assumed everybody would know what charging on a mount meant. Unfortunately when we're dealing with such a precise set of rules, and an even more precise necessity to interpret the language specifically, that assumption is lacking.

Exactly.


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

Plus, it's crystal clear that the rider is charging using the mount's speed when you actually think about the intent of what the rules for mounted charges are trying to model.

To think otherwise is madness, and illustrates wonderfully the folly of going by RAW (if it indeed is that the mount charges and makes the attack) over RAI.


Cheapy wrote:

Plus, it's crystal clear that the rider is charging using the mount's speed when you actually think about the intent of what the rules for mounted charges are trying to model.

To think otherwise is madness, and illustrates wonderfully the folly of going by RAW (if it indeed is that the mount charges and makes the attack) over RAI.

I completely agree with you Cheapy. The intent of a mounted charge seems to be very clear, and I agree that the PC is the one charging, but the movement for the charge is coming from the mount. That's the exact reason I started this thread.

As I read the various rules, it seems that a charging mount, must fulfill all the requirements of the charge action, which, to my way of thinking, means they need to stop in a square where they can make an attack against an opponent, and then make that single melee attack. However, if the mount is simply providing the movement for their rider to charge, they do not have to charge themselves.

This is the intent of a mounted charge is it not? A mount moves, but the rider uses the charge action? (Instead of gaining the benefits of the charging mount, which is ridiculous, since a charge in Pathfinder is just a very criteria based movement with a single attack at the end of it.) This way a rider with a lance could halt their mount's movement at the time when they could hit an enemy with their lance, not when the mount itself can make an attack. It just seems to me that the language for this particular segment of the rules needs to be cleared up. It needs to be specifically stated that the PC is charging using the mount's movement. This might necessitate a change in language that says a charging PC only gets extra damage with a lance, if they are riding a mount. That way you separate a non-mounted charge with a lance, from a mounted charge with a lance. Unfortunately, this might mean that Pathfinder needs to adopt some very specific language that addresses what "riding a mount" means. Sad, but true: rules lawyer-ing seems to make such things requisite.


I'm glad for this ruling, the RAGELANCEPOUNCE was just silly.

In my home game, I only allow Pounce to work with 1-handed weapons. Thematically (and balance wise) it made more sense that way, Pounce is supposed to be a flurry of attacks using all your limbs (like a tiger), not a flurry of 2H haymakers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jason S wrote:

I'm glad for this ruling, the RAGELANCEPOUNCE was just silly.

In my home game, I only allow Pounce to work with 1-handed weapons. Thematically (and balance wise) it made more sense that way, Pounce is supposed to be a flurry of attacks using all your limbs (like a tiger), not a flurry of 2H haymakers.

Psst, Lances are 1 handed while riding a Mount. So Lances worth with Pounce in you games.

201 to 229 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.





©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.