@skylancer4: Aura is a 10 radius. You could easily get the whole party, and if you are on your horse, the horse gets it automatically.
@Avianfoo: I don't buy that they are different powers.
My question is, assuming they are the same, would the horse's power stack with the power he gets from his master's aura?
Gotcha. There are advantages to the paladin activating it twice if he is fighting certain opponents. Against evil outsiders, dragons, etc, he gets double his level in damage on the first hit of the smite, so if he has smites to burn, he could resmite the same person and get double damage again on the first strike of the new smite. Not a thing to do if you are running out of smites, but it would be useful sometimes.
Skylancer4, you raise an interesting issue, but there is always more than one round in a game. The horse could activate his and then the next round, the paladin could turn on the aura. I don't see that as an issue. Claxon seems to be saying that even though the bonuses are untyped and might stack RAW, since the Aura is like a smite, they come from the same source, and should not stack. Avianfoo says they should stack because they are untyped. Both positions seem defensible. Is it back to a coin toss then?
Aura of Courage lets me share the pally's smite with his mount, using the paladin's bonus. The mount has the celestial template, so gets a smite with his own HD to damage once a day.
If they both smite the same target, the smite is coming from different sources. Does the mount get his own smite and the pally's smite, or would only the highest one apply?
I am confused since they are from different sources, and although it seems like it should be a sacred bonus, it is an untyped bonus.
I know that multiple people can join a grapple, so several people can pile on to subdue someone.
What if a monster grabs PC 1, can PC 2 join the grapple to free him, or is he limited to simply attacking the monster?
I know you can always aid another for +2, but that doesn't seem as much help as piling on the monster should be. I don't want to reverse the grapple, just have party members try and help free PC 1.
Let's say I am armed with a lance, and my mount has greater overrun (see below for the feat). We charge, knocking an opponent down, provoking on AoO from us both (we will ride on through, but that isn't really relevant to my question). My horse hits the guy with a hoof, but I don't think I can get an AoO because I am wielding a reach weapon and the opponent is adjacent.
What can I do so that I benefit from that AoO?
I think armor spikes will do it, but I don't like the flavor of that since I am on a horse and the opponent is prone.
I couldn't kick him as an AoO because I don't think natural weapons threaten unless I have the improved unarmed combat feat.
Would a blade boot work? I like the flavor of that better, and it is on my foot, which is close to the opponent. Is there anything else I can do so that I benefit from that AoO?
Here's the feat:
Prerequisites: Improved Overrun, Power Attack, base attack bonus +6, Str 13.
Benefit: You receive a +2 bonus on checks made to overrun a foe. This bonus stacks with the bonus granted by Improved Overrun. Whenever you overrun opponents, they provoke attacks of opportunity if they are knocked prone by your overrun.
Normal: Creatures knocked prone by your overrun do not provoke an attack of opportunity.
Here's the blade boot:
Benefit: You can use a blade boot as an off-hand weapon.
Action: Releasing the knife is a swift action; rearming it is a full-round action.
Drawback: When the blade is extended, you treat normal terrain as difficult and difficult terrain as impassable.
They can overrun, and once someone is prone, seems like they could try and pin them with a hoof, but they don't have grabby parts. Without the feat, it would provoke and AoO, but is there a rule against horses grappling? If it makes a difference, in our game we are talking about a Paladin's mount, so he has INT 7.
That makes sense. Seems like you could handle it with the AC of the object or the DC of the ride roll, but either way, something small should be harder to grab. But check out this trick rider, in this 17 sec video, she's picking something up while hanging upside down by one leg from her moving horse! It's called the Cossak drag.
So you are talking three or four rounds for an unconscious ally. I might agree if I were picking up someone heavy. In the video, the guy leans over from his horse and scoops the goat up off the ground and rides off with it. It it clearly possible in real life, and my character has 16 in ride. Seems like there out to be a DC that would let me attempt it in one round, even if the DC is high. I am a strong human, picking up a 35 halfling. Should be possible for an expert rider, or in game terms, someone with the right ranks and feats.
What would the DC be to ride by and pick up a willing ally? It seems to happen in every western movie, whenever someone's horse gets shot. Would it require feats? How much harder would it be if the guy you were picking up didn't have a readied action to help?
What about to ride by and pick an unconscious ally up off the ground? Like at 2:06 of this video, where Rambo picks up the goat:
I wanted to do that in last night's game to a halfling that was knocked out and was in danger, but I couldn't figure it how it would work, rules-wise.
The way the feat is written, they lose the option to simply step aside. If you lose the CMB roll, you stop in the square you are in, and can't continue. Seems like there might be times, say if you are charging a giant, where it would be advantageous not to have to make the CMB roll.
Yes, it was common place at the time, and many believe it still is, but if the most famous person to do it only laid on hands seven times in his twenty-seven healing miracles, I don't think appealing to this tradition has much bearing on the argument at hand, other than to say you don't need to touch someone to heal them in the biblical tradition.
Nope. There were twenty seven healing miracles of Jesus. Only seven involved laying of hands:
So you can't really use this as part of the argument for a tradition of laying on hands. You're better off citing Gygax.
Grick, thanks for looking through the threads. I went through and read them as well. The consensus was that you need a hand that you can touch with, more specifically, one that doesn't have a sword or shield hand. You need an empty hand. This isn't the same as a "free" hand, as in a hand that isn't restricted. I'd still allow a Pally to LoH in a grapple. I might require a concentration check or perhaps a DEX check, but I'd allow it. "free" here means empty. Now if you were grappled and had weapons you couldn't drop (like in a locked gauntlet or something) I would not allow it.
But again, a free hand doesn't have to mean not restricted, it could mean empty.
Does that mean that Paladins have to have hands? If an intelligent creature like a unicorn or a couatl took Paladin levels, would you tell them they couldn't LoH because they didn't have hands?
I don't think so. Lay on hands doesn't have to have such a literal meaning.
You maybe right, but let's talk about it:
A pinned creature is tightly bound and can take few actions. A pinned creature cannot move and is denied its Dexterity bonus. A pinned character also takes an additional –4 penalty to his Armor Class. A pinned creature is limited in the actions that it can take. A pinned creature can always attempt to free itself, usually through a combat maneuver check or Escape Artist check. A pinned creature can take verbal and mental actions, but cannot cast any spells that require a somatic or material component. A pinned character who attempts to cast a spell or use a spell-like ability must make a concentration check (DC 10 + grappler's CMB + spell level) or lose the spell. Pinned is a more severe version of grappled, and their effects do not stack.
So on the one hand it says you can't move, but on the other hand, it says you can attempt a CMB or Escape Artist check to try and break free, and those must involve movement. It certainly isn't a struggle of mental will. It also says you can cast spells with a concentration check, which presumably involves some movement.
Under Paladin, it says, "Despite the name of this ability, a paladin only needs one free hand to use this ability."
This might mean you can't have a weapon in both hands. And the free here might mean "empty." Like you need a hand empty of a weapon or shield etc.
At the very least, if it is possible to cast a spell with a concentration check, it should be possible to LoH with a concentration check.
As a DM, I'd allow a pinned Paladin to LoH. I'd make him roll to add tension, but I'd let him do it.
Off topic of spells, but related to vital strike: vital strike doesn't work on a charge, because that is not an attack action.
What about when you charge with a mount? Then the mount is charging, and you are not.
"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."
You aren't charging, your mount is. Support for this idea comes from the fact that you could even get a full attack with a bow while your mount is charging: "You can make a full attack with a ranged weapon while your mount is moving. Likewise, you can take move actions normally."
Seems like it is possible to interpret that when your mount charges, and you take one attack at the end, you could use vital strike.
And the consensus was yes, you get vital strike when attacking from the back of a charging mount.