|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Animated Objects are constructs and thus, are not objects. Because they are constructs they are creatures.
The quote on page 175 states that animated objects are not treated as objects (for the purposes of AC).
Note: If you are referencing the critical hits section of text where it states that Animated Objects are immune to critical hits then you are using an older version of the CRB and should consider updating your copy. It is no longer present.
In any case, no, you do not apply the 1/2 damage rule to creatures because creatures are not objects.
Val'bryn2, your assumption is flawed. If the Devs had insufficient room to print (which they often do) they would cut it short at a point they consider "reasonable".
How many creatures in the Bestiary would exceed 28HD if turned into zombies?
Answer: Most Ancient and older Dragons, Tarn Linnorm, Black Scorpion, and the Tarrasque. Ie. a very short list and not reason enough for the Devs to extend the list.
Add to that that if they did want to limit what you can animate with Animate Dead all they had to do is add a phrase similar to what they used in the Skeleton.
Compare these two:
Bestiary p250 Skeleton wrote:
Hit Dice: A skeleton drops any HD gained from class levels and changes racial HD to d8s. Creatures without racial HD are treated as if they have 1 racial HD. If the creature has more than 20 Hit Dice, it can’t be made into a skeleton by the animate dead spell. A skeleton uses its Cha modifier (instead of its Con modifier) to determine bonus hit points.
Bestiary p288 Zombie wrote:
Hit Dice: Drop HD gained from class levels (minimum of 1) and change racial HD to d8s. Zombies gain a number of additional HD as noted on the following table.
No such statement is present in the zombie entry.
So, using your assumption that if the Devs did not put it there then it must not exist then we can assume that since the Devs did not put a limit there but they did put one in the Skeleton entry then there is no limit for zombies.
James, you cannot perform an AoO on any creature that has total concealment. Pinpointing an invisible creature does not negate the total concealment.
CRB p197 wrote:
Just a point here, the pro-slope arguments are missing the fact that you have to be ON the slope. That is written into the rule.
The slope only exists around the 10x10 pit. The 10x10 pit is not a slope, it is a sheer wall and as such if the pit is opened up underneath a target they cannot use the climb-slope rule.
For targets adjacent to the pit then, yes, you can use the slope rule.
Summary: you have to be on the slope to use the climb skill's slope DC. Adjacent to the slope is not what the rule is.
Latrecis, so...what about all the other creatures that wield weapons and do not have "wrists, elbows, shoulders, muscle structure, and so forth"? Are they suddenly non-proficient despite all the rules to the contrary?
This is the rules forum, not the house rules forum.
RAW: Earth Elementals are described as roughly humanoid.
Result: Roughly humanoid elementals can use weapons, only proficiency varies.
Now, if you can find another rule somewhere else that states that you cannot use a Martial weapon even though you can use Simple weapons then please post that.
Proficiency is not relevant to whether you can use it or not and taking away someone's proficiency is inappropriate and any player should cry foul.
There is no rule against taking 10 for an opposed check. You can take 10 anytime you are not in immediate danger (such as in combat) or rushed. Stealth vs Perception are both situations you can take 10 in.
The guard is an active guard and is spending a move action every round to scan his surroundings.
Both are able to take 10 and it really becomes a matter of who's skill level is greater.
In short, he said if they are not in combat or distracted let them take 10.
As an aside, I think some GMs have a problem with take 10 because in their minds it reduces the risk of failure. Im really not sure where they get this.
2) Stealth check+20.
Note: the timeframe is not relevant because Taking 10 does not increase the duration it takes to complete the task. People often confuse Take 10 with Take 20 which does increase the time required.
3) It is a DC 20 check to notice the presence of an invisible creature within 30 feet of you. This does not tell you where it is, it only tells you something is "here".
CRB p563 wrote:
A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Perception check. The observer gains a hunch that “something’s there” but can’t see it or target it accurately with an attack. It’s practically impossible (+20 DC) to pinpoint an invisible creature’s location with a Perception check. Even once a character has pinpointed the square that contains an invisible creature, the creature still benefits from total concealment (50% miss chance). There are a number of modifiers that can be applied to this DC if the invisible creature is moving or engaged in a noisy activity.
Now, the downside of #3 is that stealth becomes better than invisibility. With Stealth they cannot perform a DC20 perception check to have a hunch that something is around.
Personally, I houserule that if they beat the DC20 invisibility check but not your stealth check without invisibility factored in then they still don't sense your presence.
This is the rules forum, not the "physics" forum. In Physics everyone moves together simultaneously not in stop and start fashions such as in Pathfinder.Pathfinder does not remotely obey real world physics (people can fire muzzleloaders 3 times in one round rather than the real world limit of once every 20 seconds or so, people can swim in plate mail rather than the real world limit of sinking like a stone, etc...).
Now, back to your example...
This is EXACTLY how it works in RAW. If you think otherwise please cite specific rules that states how it does not.
Also, could you cite where it states that 5-foot steps taken during Step Up or a Readied action prohibit movement in the next round?
Readied actions may be taken after your turn but before your next turn has begun.
So what does that mean? It means that there is a limit to how long the readied action may be taken after you ready an action.
What does it not mean? It does not mean that the Readied Action is not your turn.
As Cuttler stated, it is semantics but people should not state that Mromson is wrong when he got it right.
In this post Mromson listed off the occassions you can take a 5-foot step as a way of demonstrating his newfound understanding of the rules. One person appears to have decided that Mromson was "wrong" because of the semantic of "is a readied action on your turn or on their turn?". It doesn't matter.
Remy Balster, no, I do not agree with you beating up someone who got it right over a semantic argument of "is a readied action your turn or their turn". He had all the occasions of when you can take a 5-foot step correct and you chose to argue a point of semantics.
Yes, I posted that early in the thread because it is a simple way of saying it not because it is semantically correct or not. Readied action is your turn. Readied action is not your turn. Who cares? It was a point of semantics and yet over that point you chose to tell a guy he is wrong when he is 99% correct just to...what? Prove your intellectual superiority in arguing semantics?
Taku Ooka Nin, there is already a balance for item creation. +25% WBL.
Ultimate Campaign p173 wrote:
The Golembane Scarab only works with Golems, sorry.
However, it should be relatively easy to use the Golembane Scarab as precedent for a Clockwork Scarab, so long as the type of construct is restricted to a group and not the entire class of constructs. However, it would have to be approved by your GM.
To my knowledge there has been no ruling, could you cite the ruling?
B) you do not need the threaten as per the normal Aid Another rules at which point it doesn't matter what, if any, weapon is in your hands. All you need to do is be adjacent to your buddy and have an attack of opportunity available.
1. The number of natural attacks you have is not based on the number of limbs you have. The person who told you this may have been giving you a simplistic answer.
Special things like haste can increase the number of attacks you have.
What you do not get is extra attacks due to a higher Base Attack Bonus. For example, if you have a Base Attack bonus of 16 (16/11/6/1) and you have a bite and 2 claw attacks you do not have four attacks. You still have only three attacks.
2. Claw blades turn your natural weapons into manufactured weapons. This benefits from things like Two-Weapon Fighting and a higher Base Attack Bonus.
3. Your clawblade is a manufactured weapon and uses iterative attacks. Your natural weapons become secondary natural weapons and take a -5 attack penalty (-2 if you have multiattack).
CRB p182 wrote:
You can make attacks with natural weapons in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes, so long as a different limb is used for each attack. For example, you cannot make a claw attack and also use that hand to make attacks with a longsword. When you make additional attacks in this way, all of your natural attacks are treated as secondary natural attacks, using your base attack bonus minus 5 and adding only 1/2 of your Strength modifier on damage rolls. Feats such as Two-Weapon Fighting and Multiattack (see the Pathfinder RPG Bestiary) can reduce these penalties.
So in the above example of a bite and 2 claw attacks if you decided to carry a longsword (one handed weapon) and you have a BAB of 16 then the attack sequence would be:
4. No, they are no longer natural weapon <claws>. They are now light weapon <claw blades>. Feats that apply to <claws> do not apply to <claw blades>. However, it might be reasonable to house rule this so you should check with your GM.
5. Magic Fang does not apply to manufactured weapons. You lose the benefit when you put on claw blades.
6. Yes, they are weapons.
In short, the moment you put on claw blades you are using weapons. Treat them as entirely different weapons unless your GM chooses to house-rule it otherwise.
There has been a debate regarding this for a long time. There are two possible interpretations.
A) A legal charge is where you draw a line from your square to the target creature's square and must proceed along that line.
B) A legal charge is where you draw a line from your square to any square from which you can attack the target.
"A" makes it so that Ride-by Attack is impossible because you cannot change direction in a charge and you cannot move through the target's square.
SKR has previously stated (when he was a Developer) that B is the correct answer but that is not part of a FAQ or Errata.
Of course, that brings up the definition of "closest space" and, for those that advocate "B", that means that you cannot charge past a creature and attack them from behind. You must attack them from the closest space along the path.
In short, yes, it is legal but I suggest checking with your GM and if he goes with "A" ask how Ride-by Attack works. That usually illustrates the flaw in "A".
I was looking around for a feat similar to Planar Wild Shape but for undead. Not finding any I decided to create the following. Please let me know what you think.
Undead Wild Shape (custom feat):
Benefit: When you use Wild Shape to take the form of an animal, you can expend an additional daily use of your wild shape class feature to become a skeleton or zombie animal. Add the following bonuses and penalties to those already gained from Wild Shape:
As with the spell Undead Anatomy, you are treated as undead for the purposes of effects such as detect undead, channeled energy, cure spells, and inflict spells. See the spell Undead Anatomy for details.
Skeleton: +2 Dexterity, Darkvision, DR 5/Bludgeoning, and Cold Resistance 20. Unlike true skeletons you have thin membranes for wings and thus retain an animal's fly speed and maneuverability.
Zombie: +2 Strength, -2 Dexterity, Darkvision, DR 5/Slashing, and the zombie's slam attack. Unlike true zombies you are not staggered and your flying maneuverability is not reduced to clumsy.
Detect Magic works against invisibility AFTER 3 rounds of concentration.
Player: I cast detect magic and focus it straight ahead of me.
A DC20 perception check (within 30 feet) or the special ability scent (easily available to many spellcasters) would have told the player just about the same thing and used a lot less time.
Regarding Constant Detect Magic, there is no text in the constant spell-like ability sections that negates the concentration requirement. Even if you ruled that the concentration requirement is not applicable that does not change that it takes 3 rounds to locate magic auras in a cone. So from the moment you designate the area it still takes 3 rounds.
Bestiary p6 wrote:
Spell-Like Abilities: After listing the caster level of the creature’s spell-like abilities, this section lists all of the creature’s spell-like abilities, organized by how many times per day it can use the abilities. Constant spell-like abilities function at all times but can be dispelled. A creature can reactivate a constant spell-like ability as a swift action.
Bestiary p304 wrote:
A spell-like ability usually has a limit on how often it can be used. A constant spell-like ability or one that can be used at will has no use limit; unless otherwise stated, a creature can only use a constant spell-like ability on itself. Reactivating a constant spell-like ability is a swift action. Using all other spell-like abilities is a standard action unless noted otherwise, and doing so provokes attacks of opportunity. It is possible to make a concentration check to use a spell-like ability defensively and avoid provoking an attack of opportunity, just as when casting a spell. A spell-like ability can be disrupted just as a spell can be. Spell-like abilities cannot be used to counterspell, nor can they be counterspelled.
Summary: While Detect Magic can detect the location of an invisibility spell's illusion aura it takes 3 rounds to do so and that still does not indicate "invisible creature be here". It only indicates "illusion aura be here".
Note: Rope Trick is no longer the safe haven it used to be (you cannot pull the rope up anymore or conceal it via magic). Better find a safe spot to cast Rope Trick in. :)
Regarding verisimilitude, any time you come to the rules forum expect answers that are rules based (RAW or at least RAI). Verisimilitude doesn't really have a place in the RAW/RAI discussion in the Rules forum.
For discussions regarding verisimilitude vs RAW I suggest a different forum (such as the Advice, Pathfinder RPG General Discussion, or the House Rules forums).
The rationale behind my suggestion is that if you know the rule and want to discuss the verisimilitude regarding that rule this is not the forum for that. It seems that after your first post you got your answer and then you chose to continue to debate how the rule *should* work rather than how it actually works.
Of course, some of us entertained that discussion but it may explain why others had a less than positive response. :)
Lets be polite about it Heliodorus04.
I had the same problem as Krinn when I migrated from 3.X to Pathfinder. It took me awhile to learn it was simply easier to handwave an element which most people did not enjoy and that was really geared towards making one ability from one class feel useful. It just wasn't worth it.
If I had a group that wanted to play old style traps I would adjust my style to that one and kill them repeatedly with traps until they remembered why nobody runs old style trap dungeons anymore. (I jest, mostly.)
Regarding Plate Mail swimming, there has been a migration away from penalizing it in even 3.X. Back in 3.0 you were penalized for every 5lbs of weight. Then in 3.5 they reduced that to double ACP. Finally in Pathfinder they just said to heck with it and made it straight ACP. It is clearly a case of simplicity over verisimilitude.
Regarding costing minutes/hours, IC times do change OOC times. If you are burning extra resources (spell durations) because of trapfinding then you wind up resting more often to regain those resources. That takes OOC time, often considerable time as people debate how to set up camp.
You say "yay rogues are useful again!" while everyone else says "ugh, who is going to be forced to be a Rogue again?"
Yes, it detracts from Rogues but that is a flaw in Pathfinder's design of Rogues not catching up to the philosophy that no man (class) should be irreplaceable. Rogues should not need traps to become useful.
If traps are just to make Rogues useful then what if there is not a Rogue? Oh, no Rogue? I'm sorry, you can kiss any of your buffs goodbye as you crawl around looking for traps.
Seriously, for a long time the game has been progressing away from the idea that you *must* have a Rogue and that Rogue *must* be able to deal with traps. It is an outdated concept that forces people into a role and that is not really good roleplaying is it? :)
Reminds me of the "you didn't roll high enough strength so you cannot be a fighter" days.
1) Declare Great Cleave (a standard action).
Quintain, Targets are not required to be adjacent to you to use Cleave/Great Cleave. Cleaving Finish does not allow you to transfer the cleave to a creature that is not adjacent to the previous target. What it does is grants you an extra attack against any creature you can attack.
So that people do not need to look up the feats here they are:
CRB p124 Great Cleave wrote:
Benefit: As a standard action, you can make a single attack at your full base attack bonus against a foe within reach. If you hit, you deal damage normally and can make an additional attack (using your full base attack bonus) against a foe that is adjacent to the previous foe and also within reach. If you hit, you can continue to make attacks against foes adjacent to the previous foe, so long as they are within your reach. You cannot attack an individual foe more than once during this attack action. When you use this feat, you take a –2 penalty to your Armor Class until your next turn.
UCombat p92 Cleaving Finish wrote:
Benefit: If you make a melee attack, and your target drops to 0 or fewer hit points as a result of your attack, you can make another melee attack using your highest base attack bonus against another opponent within reach. You can make only one extra attack per round with this feat.
UCombat p105 Improved Cleaving Finish wrote:
Benefit: You can use Cleaving Finish any number of times per round.
SlimGauge, the lance is just an example in the first FAQ ("such as"). The first FAQ also applies to any other two-handed weapon being used in one hand.
I pointed out the apparent contradiction when the second FAQ came out and was told by a number of posters that the difference is "using" vs "treated as" or vs "wielding".
I still don't really see a need to split hairs in the language to that extent. Either your weapon is or is not in one hand and based on that there is an apparent contradiction here.
SKR had even stated that it would need to be examined but there was no (posted) followup to that. SKR's post
The obvious answer to that tactic is that if the (single) opponent has not attacked the monk then the monk also readies an action to attack when attacked.
It becomes a standoff of "you first".
Also, your "take any action" is a bit broad. Are we talking "if the monk attacks" or are we stating any action from the CRB? As a GM would you allow a player to state such a broad readied action? How does the NPC/PC *know* it is an action? Are you counting a 5' step as an action? (It is listed as a non-action.)
While your readied action solution is a good one it brings up a number of questions and there is a counter (to ready an action).
Edit: Dang it, I gotta stop posting in this thread. I said I would stop and yet I keep getting drawn back into it. Don't you hate it when that happens? :)
I recently had a frustrating experience with a friend of mine where she played a druid and she had a hard time leveling her character due to needing to update all of her wild shape forms. I decided there had to be a better way to level up a character with a significant number of alternate forms. Not finding any I liked I decided to create my own.
Thus, I present: the Polymorph Sheets excel file
What it is: It is a way to quickly level your Polymorph (wild shape) forms via significant automation.
What it is not: It is not a database of creatures, you still have to know the rules. It is not a full character sheet but will handle just about anything polymorph can throw at it.
How is it used? Fill out the base creature information (Ability Scores, Armor Class, some Skills, etc.). This information will be plugged into all of the Polymorphed forms you create and then modified by the size and type of Polymorph effect you use. Then fill out the Polymorph form's attack data (a bit more complex but still automated once you fill it out the first time.)
Extra information: There are four Polymorph sheets per printed page. This allows you to have only a few sheets for all of your polymorph forms.
I am looking for feedback. Anything I missed, anything that is broken, opinions on color scheme, layout, and the clarity of the instructions.
In general, have at it and let me know what I can improve.
Blackstorm, you do not need to threaten, you need to be able to make an attack. They are not the same thing. :)
CRB p197 Aid Another wrote:
In melee combat, you can help a friend attack or defend by distracting or interfering with an opponent. If you’re in position to make a melee attack on an opponent that is engaging a friend in melee combat, you can attempt to aid your friend as a standard action. You make an attack roll against AC 10. If you succeed, your friend gains either a +2 bonus on his next attack roll against that opponent or a +2 bonus to AC against that opponent’s next attack (your choice), as long as that attack comes before the beginning of your next turn. Multiple characters can aid the same friend, and similar bonuses stack.
The reason why "make a melee attack" does not equal "threaten" is because "make a melee attack" is a subset of "threaten".
I can make a melee attack with an unarmed strike. But because I do not have Improved Unarmed Strike I do not threaten with my unarmed strike. Because Aid Another only requires that I be able to make a melee attack against the attacker and not threaten I can use Aid Another with an unarmed strike.
This has been debated quite a number of times over the years and from the author's post and various threads the general consensus appears to be that:
With the advent of ways (such as Benevolent armor property and the Halfling-Helpful trait) to ramp up the bonus from Aid Another I doubt they will ever errata it to bring it into line with the Author's intent because then it becomes greatly imbalanced.
In my own games I house rule it to the Authors intent but state that you cannot combine it with abilities that increase Aid Another bonuses.
The feat is still useful if you have a reach weapon and/or Enlarge Person. Since the AoO is not against the enemy cover is not a factor and so you can set up behind your ally.
The mount using it's action to move does not mean you are not using a charge action. What you posted does not tell me in any way that you are not using a charge action. That is the debate that has raged for years. The same debate that was clarified back in 3.X.
Posting an opinion to clarify understanding does not mean the rules themselves are clarified. They are two separate things. The rules are still grey and unclear and if they require explanation to clarify them that does not mean they (as an object) have been clarified (changed).
Perhaps this will explain the difference:
No, I made no such argument. My argument stems around the fact that SKR's clarification is not in the rules or even a FAQ. It is a post which (as Stephen pointed out) does nothing to clarify the understanding of the rules for a majority of people (the majority probably do not visit the boards let alone know of that one single post tucked away somewhere). So the statement that the new rules re-write is reversing a previous rules clarification is only correct in that it is reversing some people's understanding of the rules (via SKR's post). It is not actually reversing the rules since the rules themselves were grey even after SKR's post.
P.S. It does not state that if you take an attack action at the end of the charge you get the bonus. It states that if you make an attack at the end of the charge you get the bonus. They are different statements and do not mean the same thing. If it said attack action I would be agreeing with you.
Show me in the CRB (not SKR's post) where it states that the Rider is or is not charging when his mount charges. You cannot. At best it was unclear.
I am not saying nothing changed. I am saying that it was unclear before and SKR's post did not clarify the rules. It may have clarified some people's understanding but the RULES were not clarified.
Now they (the rules) are finally being clarified. YAY! Unfortunately for some people they are being clarified in the opposite of the desired direction. Fortunately for some people they are being clarified in the desired direction.
Personally? It doesn't matter to me which direction they get clarified in so long as they are clarified. Justifications for either direction can be made.
My problem is that you keep presenting your case as if this is some major change to a clear rule. It isn't. The rule was never clear.
Frankly, I have a house rule that you can use Vital Strike anytime you make a single attack regardless of action economy so I really have no personal stake in which direction the Rider charging/not charging rules get clarified. It really just doesn't matter for my own games.
My posts in the Rules forum assume no house rules. I only state my own house rule in this case to indicate my lack of a personal stake in the direction this comes down on.
Does it make sense that guys in plate mail can swim? Does it makes sense that....well frankly, so many things in the game fail to make sense in the context of reality that debating what makes sense is pointless. It is a set of rules, it is not reality.
In this set of rules Vital Strike cannot be combined with a charge. Thus, within the context of the rules it makes sense that it cannot be combined with a mounted charge. Any context outside of the rules is not really relevant.
Oh, and just for a bit of reality...it is not *just* the weight and momentum of the animal beneath you. If you are not properly set you cannot properly use that weight and momentum. That requires specific actions on the part of the rider to get set.
Ssalarn, you often state it was always possible. Do you have a citation to back that up?
I am not aware of SKR stating that it was always possible. To my knowledge he neither stated that it was always possible nor did he state it was not always possible. He made a statement that the rider is not charging his mount is charging without providing any historical background.
In fact, if you check the historical background (3.X) it was unclear until it was clarified in "Rules of the Game: All About Mounts" where it was placed in the Full-Round Action category for rider's actions when riding a moving mount. I am not aware of anything Paizo/Pathfinder did to change that understanding (pro or con) until SKR's post.
You repeatedly make statements that this has always been possible but the fact is, until SKR made his statement it was not well explained and many people were forced to rule one way or the other.
Additionally, you and several others keep stating that this was covered in the RAGELANCEPOUNCE FAQ and that is also not true. There was no statement in the FAQ that a rider was not charging. It required SKR providing further explanation in a post (not FAQ) to arrive at that conclusion.
Ssalarn, all but one of my questions were issues before the current FAQ and they were issues before the SKR post. Except for one (which I stated was related), they exist without the "you are charging/you are not charging" issue. You are being disingenuous by using my post as an example for your case.
Your statement specifically said that "there is a greater number of questions and discrepancies" and linked my post. That is either an incorrect statement or a lie. My post had exactly ONE issue brought about by the current discussion. One issue is not a "greater number". It is in fact an "equal number". As stated earlier, all of the other issues in my post exist separately from the "am I charging when my mount charges" issue.
Even if the FAQ backed up SKR's statement my post (save the one issue directly stemming from the current FAQ) would remain. In fact, I would have several more FAQ questions relating to specific feats which do not work as written when using SKR's statement.
You and I have argued over this issue before, it is not worth it. All I ask is that you do not use misrepresent my posts as backing up your own.
Please do not use my post as fodder for your argument. All but one of my questions have existed long before this current FAQ issue so you providing my post as an example of "greater number of questions and discrepancies" is incorrect and misleading.
Frankly, SKR's statement that the Rider did not charge when the mount charged created just as many problems. A number of mounted combat feats broke as a result of that but people chose to gloss over that or claim that no problem existed because you had to use common sense.
In short, the Mounted Combat rules have never been clear. Not in 3.X, not in Pathfinder. They did not become more clear with the "old" ruling and they did not become less clear with the "new" ruling. There is still much work to be done.
Mounted Combat has been a big mess for a long time. However, lets try to post all the issues at once in a concise and clear way so that they might get addressed.
Q: Does Ride supersede Handle Animal?
Q: What does "closest space" mean when charging (a Ride-By-Attack question)?
CRB p198 wrote:
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.
Q: Can your mount make an attack when you use Ride-By Attack?
Q: Can you make a lance attack when your mount charges?
Mounted Combat quote:
CRB p202 wrote:
Q: If your mount charges can you elect not to charge so that you can perform other actions (such as spellcasting)?
These are just some of the questions I have seen come up. There are probably others.
I, for one, am very happy with the new Mounted Charge faq. It ends the ongoing debate because the former wording of the "RageLancePounce" faq did not specifically state that the rider was not charging. You had to look to SKR's post for that.
For years, including back in 3.X, the Rider and the Mount were both expending a full-round action when charging (despite it not being clear back in 3.X either without looking to Skip Williams' Rules of the Game for partial clarity).
Basically, in one it says you get the 2-handed damage from Power Attack while using a weapon one-handed while the other says you do not.
Oh, and thank you for the open dialog. While it may confuse some it is much appreciated and will hopefully move us towards a better understanding of the game.
I am not one who usually posts after action reports but I felt this is a modification to the normal setup so it might be useful to some people. Note: not all of this is RAW as I was converting things and trying to make a storyline fit the rules in the best way possible.
The PCs consist of a Barbarian (Superstition/Pounce build), an Anti-Paladin, an Arcane Trickster, and an Oracle specializing in Undead. Additionally they have 3 "noncombat" cohorts (Cleric, Lore Oracle, and Wizard) they use for support roles outside of combat.
The following is spoilered for the reader's protection:
Rather than using the narrative of the army battle I (with the co-operation of my players) decided that we would use at least part of the army rules in Ultimate Campaign and Ultimate Battle.
First, the players did round up the various minions and armies. Present were Bugbears (with both leaders), Duergar, the Nessian Warhounds, the Ogre Mage, the Medusa, and the Vampire Spawn.
Additionally, the players created a number of Gargantuan Necrocraft (4), and an army unit (100) of Bloody Burning Skeletons.
Next, I tried to convert the various minions and "armies" into armies using the UCampaign and UBattle rules.
The Bugbears were split into two units (ACR3 and ACR2). Pretty straight forward. I also gave them Reckless Brutality.
The Duergar were ACR1 but with some significant advantages (poison use, invisibility, etc). I also gave them a bonus against Dwarves.
The Nessian Warhounds were a bit more difficult. Individually each one is an ACR1 unit. They used the Ogre Mage to lead them thus the three got the special ability invisibility provided they stuck together. This came in handy later.
The Medusa was a unit unto herself. She came in at ACR3 and was quite useful against a number of enemies.
I decided to increase the Vampire Spawn to ACR1. The dominate ability I deemed was worth a +1 to both OM and DV as they will turn the enemy against itself.
The Necrocraft were ACR2 each and were constructed of Skeletons. They were given the Bleed, Constrict, and Trample abilities. Note: I used Ultimate Battle's DV boost for DR rather than Ultimate Campaign's.
Finally the bleeding burning skeletons were ACR1.
The Lammasu acted as runners for awhile coordinating attacks. The PCs never discovered this.
I gave the defenders the Battlefield Advantage ability due to this being home turf. However, since this was at night they were penalized either -3DV and -2OM for darkness or -1DV if they had lights.
Generally speaking I also translated the battles the PCs were to fight as the 'core' of each army. Defeat the core and you remove some of the boons and a leadership derived bonus to each army (varied from +2 to +4 to DV/OM). This way the PCs were still relevant to the success of the armies. I also buffed up many of the major NPCs to about level 9-10 with the supporting NPCs being level 6 (usually). My group is rather optimized so this is necessary to deal with that.
Mounted Calvary: ACR2, with armor and weapon equipment. Also had the boons Calvary Experts and Daring Maneuvers as well as Sniper Support from the archer group. In short, devastating. The Calvary destroyed one Necrocraft at which point the players decided to destroy the calvary core. They succeeded and then the army fell without further casualties.
Archers: Unhappy with the sniper support the players sent the Hellhounds and Ogre Mage to deal with them. The Archers were not an army (I had left them as a "core unit" without an army) and so I ran this as a regular melee combat and not an army engagement. Using invisibility they were able to approach and were only detected at the last moment. The Archers fared poorly against the Warhounds.
Dwarven Center: In addition to the Dwarves I added 4 "run of the mill" human army units ((ACR1). These humans were not lead by special leaders and were there to soak up some combat while the Dwarves (ACR2) held the center. The Human armies were dealt with easily while, initially, the Dwarves did little damage but suffered little in return due to defensive strategies and superior equipment.
Serene Order (ACR2): I decided the monks would hide and surprise the first army that 'tripped' over them. They did just that and managed to completely destroy the weaker of the Bugbear armies in the first phase of combat. Afterwards the Serene Order got overwhelmed without the PCs having to intervene to take out the leaders of the Order.
Shield Archons: The PCs decided to march their Necrocraft right up to the bridge where the Archons hammered them. The Necrocraft retreated and the PCs dealt with the Archons rather easily.
Meanwhile, the Lammasu had had enough of the Necrocraft and decided that with the PCs occupied this would be a good time to strike them down. They nearly did that but the cohorts cast obscuring mist and kept healing the Necrocraft until reinforcements (the Medusa) arrived. Eventually the Greater Invisibility ran out on the Lammasu and the Necrocraft killed them easily with the Medusa having provided a distraction for awhile.
Blessed Knights/Griffons and Clerics: I revamped them a bit to Paladin 6 and had their spells be: Shield Other, PFE (x2), and Bull's Strength. They also had weapon Divine Bond and some better equipment (up to NPC WBL).
Fireballs: I had given the PCs advance notice (via the book in the Keep) that there was a core of clerics that worshipped the fire aspect of Mitra. They discussed casting Resist Energy and then never did so. Oops.
Cleric army proper (ACR2): Afterwards they sent their non-undead armies and the vampires spawn to go deal with the clerics. The Vampire spawn didn't survive of course but the clerics were defeated.
In the end the PCs lost one of the two bugbear armies, a Gargantuan Necrocraft, the Duergar, and the Vampire spawn. They were nearly killed a couple of times but survived it.
The conversion was a bit of work but the I and my players felt it was worth it.
jimibones83, there is realistic and then there is Pathfinder.
In Pathfinder you can fire a muzzleloader a minimum of once a round (6 seconds) but realistically the fastest shooters would manage once every 20 seconds (about every 3 rounds) or so.
My suggestion is to use the misfire rules just for simplicity and in keeping with the general Pathfinder rules.
I shoot muzzleloaders. The simplest and safest way to remove the ball and powder is to fire the gun.
If you manage to load a ball without powder you can either use caps to fire the ball out (in the case of a caplock) or push powder through the touch hole (in the case of a flintlock, can also be done with caplock if you remove the nipple).
Finally, if all else fails, you can use a ball puller which is a sharp screw that you attached to your rod. You drill down into the ball and pull it out.
Since muzzleloaders are not modeled with any level of realism in Pathfinder (1+ shots per round is very unrealistic) I would suggest using the "clearing a misfire" action.
Elbedor, you are correct we can argue until the Sun goes out but it does appear that you are in the minority. At current tally the number is 30 to 3 against you (via the Poll I linked above).
While that could have some under-representation of your side I doubt it is so under-represented that it would change the results too much.
Matthew, I think that section you are quoting is to prevent people from trying to combine the two options into one super option.
Player: So, if I have the standard Detect Evil going and I use the move action version do I get all of the information at once on all the people in the cone?
GM: No, you use one or the other even if both are in operation at the same time.