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

RPG Superstar 2015

What is rage-lance-pounce?


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

151 to 200 of 505 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

Zaister wrote:

There's also no rule that says I can't charge or pounce or full-attack when sleeping.

LOL! My stomach is hurting from this comment.


Its become aparent that if there are going to be even more of these threads, someone needs to make the AM DRINKING GAME


PALADIN AM SUPPORT IDEA.

Scarab Sages

Andy Ferguson wrote:


There are no rules for casting while wearing a hat.

Just because you guys keep saying that does not mean it has anything to do with the topic at hand.

Shadow Lodge

Ravingdork wrote:
]Oh? Where does it say that? I thought one allowed you to make a full attack on a charge and one restricted you to a single attack if you mount moves more than five feet. The latter rule has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with charging, and therefore has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with pounce. No. Interaction. Your specific over general principle does not apply.

The latter rule doesn't have to have anything to do with charge, they are about about attacks, as I have bolded. There is your interaction.


Brambleman wrote:
Its become aparent that if there are going to be even more of these threads, someone needs to make the AM DRINKING GAME

AM LIKE DRINKING,WHY AM DRINKING? DOES NOT MATTER AM DRINKING.

Shadow Lodge

seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Andy Ferguson wrote:


There are no rules for casting while wearing a hat.

Just because you guys keep saying that does not mean it has anything to do with the topic at hand.

Regardless, it is still hilarious.


Casting while wearing a hat is whatever and you should feel meh.

C'mon TOZ you're falling for it. Neither Ravingdork nor Seeker can be budged an inch after they decided on a position, no matter how much you argue with them. Thei'll keep ganging up with more nonsensical arguments as time goes on, inciting people to retaliate with more trollish stuff and inflamating less coolheaded posters that peruse the thread. This path leads only to insanity and flames and the mods having to delete posts.

Shadow Lodge

You say that like I'm not doing the exact same thing.

Besides, I know these guys. I'm well aware of their track record on admitting to being wrong. ;)

Scarab Sages

Oddly me and Ravingdork rarely agree on well anything. I do agree with him here, pounce is not a mounted ability and does not over ride the mounted limits.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
VM mercenario wrote:

Casting while wearing a hat is whatever and you should feel meh.

C'mon TOZ you're falling for it. Neither Ravingdork nor Seeker can be budged an inch after they decided on a position, no matter how much you argue with them. Thei'll keep ganging up with more nonsensical arguments as time goes on, inciting people to retaliate with more trollish stuff and inflamating less coolheaded posters that peruse the thread. This path leads only to insanity and flames and the mods having to delete posts.

First, nonsensical?

Second, since when does disagreeing with someone make them a troll? A troll is a poster who is disruptive to the community. We are neither.

We aren't inciting/inflaming anyone to do anything. We are not trolls. You on the other hand...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
VM mercenario wrote:

Casting while wearing a hat is whatever and you should feel meh.

C'mon TOZ you're falling for it. Neither Ravingdork nor Seeker can be budged an inch after they decided on a position, no matter how much you argue with them. Thei'll keep ganging up with more nonsensical arguments as time goes on, inciting people to retaliate with more trollish stuff and inflamating less coolheaded posters that peruse the thread. This path leads only to insanity and flames and the mods having to delete posts.

First, nonsensical?

Second, since when does disagreeing with someone make them a troll? A troll is a poster who is disruptive to the community. We are neither.

We aren't inciting/inflaming anyone to do anything. We are not trolls. You on the other hand...

First, a mounted charge is not a charge. See it doesn't make any sense, thus nonsense. I might be using the wrong word, so I will check a dictionary tomorrow.

Second, I said that people would retaliate with trollish responses and things would devolve. Self fulfilling prophecy apparently.

And then you start with the name calling. My point, it has been proved.

To TOZ: If you're sure. Trinam might come back to back you up and I'll be back when everything has gone to flames, it's when the fun really starts.


NEED PLACE TO VOTE AM RAGELANCEPOUNCE OKEYDOKEY OR NO
ME AM VOTE OKEYDOKEY
NO ABSTAIN FROM DEMOCRATIC RESPONSA- RESPONDE- ...
FROM CONTRIBUTION TO TYRANNY OF MAJORITY


VM mercenario wrote:


To TOZ: If you're sure. Trinam might come back to back you up

Yeah, TOZ, you really ought to revert to your other alias, because once people are confused about who they're arguing with it will only get more fun.

Shadow Lodge

Can't, still need another thousand or so posts on this one


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Everyone needs to read the mounted combat rules again. You technically do not charge while mounted since the mount charges you may never deal double damage with a lance. If your mount moves more than 5 feet you are only allowed to make one more melee attack ever since it never states this penalty ends. You never suffer any penalties to melee attacks while mounted so being dazzled, sickened, and frightened isn't to bad if you are mounted. You benefit from the bonus of your mounts charge if you attack at the end so If your mount has powerful charge you may benefit from it though you may not get the +2 to hit as it states you gain "the benefit of the charge" if your mount has pounce you may benefit from it but are restricted to only a single attack this is still useful if you are a magus and wish to employ spell combat however.

I think that sums up all the confusion over mounted combat right?

Shadow Lodge

Nope!


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

TOZ is secretly a pony!


What's that chap, I was nodding off there, did I RAGEPOUNCELANCE? Bother. Terribly sorry.


redliska wrote:
TOZ is secretly a pony!

NEIGH.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
redliska wrote:
TOZ is secretly a pony!

A horrifically ugly pony.NINJA'D!


POUNCE AM FANCY MOVE
MORE PACIFIC

MOUNTY COMBAT AM COMBAT MODE, NOT FANCY MOVE
MOUNTY COMBAT MORE GENERIC THAN FANCY MOVE

POUNCE STUFF OVER-EAT MOUNTY COMBAT STUFF

OH LOOK
ME USE AM COMMA
AM SMART


AM STILL DRINKING. WHY YOU NO DRINK? DO YOU NOT LIKE DRINKING GODS? IT IS NOT GOOD TO NOT LIKE GODS.WHY YOU DON'T LIKE GODS? AM THINKS YOU BE HAPPY IF YOU DRINK.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

(I don't know why I'm bothering to chime in on this one, but thought I'd make a comment anyway):
Rage-lance-pounce is something I would not allow in a game I ran. To me, the "why not" is a 'rules as intended' (that is what you mean with that RAI acronym, right?) issue:

Pounce, as an ability, was originally intended for critters (like big cats) that are known for running up and slicing you to bits with both sets of claws... the barbarian "beast totem" set of abilities that eventually gives the barbarian character the 'pounce' ability also gives the barbarian claws at lower levels-- and explicitly makes the claws do more damage at the same level that you also get your 'pounce' ability. Now, I realize the RAW (Rules As Written) do not state that 'pounce' only works with natural weapons, but to me, that's implied by everything else about pounce as a critter ability granted by a 'beast totem' set of powers that gives you the claws to pounce with in the first place.

Likewise, I think I wouldn't allow you to use the 'pounce' ability while mounted-- your mount makes the charge, not you (as others have said)-- again, while this isn't specifically RAW, to me it is RAI: using 'pounce' is about you imitating one of the big cats, rushing up, leaping on an opponent, and clawing him to ribbons... unless you're going to leap from your mount to your target at the end of the charge and use your claws on your intended victim (at which point, I would allow the pounce if you make your acrobatics check, because IMO that does fit the flavor of the ability, and it's cool...), YOU are not pouncing.

However, if I was aware that any of my players were even thinking about wrapping a build around just such a concept or use of the mechanics, I would be clear in advance about how 'pounce' works in my game (and I'd allow someone who had made such a build, not realizing it wasn't going to work that way, to rebuild the character if the player wished to do so).

You want to call that 'house-ruling' it? Fine, I guess that's what my decision on it is. YMMV.

Shadow Lodge

I would house rule the $#!% out of it.


You know, after reading the full text of the mounted combat rules the authors describe the intention of the single attack rule. "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."

So, the rule is intended to remove the full attack at the end of the mounts movement, as stated by the author. Pounce is a special ability written to allow a full attack on the end of a charge. Nothing in the mounted combat rules prevents you from charging. The rules state "You move at its speed, but the mount uses its action to move." The mounts movement action when you declare a charge, is the charge action. Nothing prevents you from declaring the charge action also. As stated by the mounted combat rules, the mount uses its action to move, but you are considered to have moved as well.

Yes, you can use pounce with RAW at the end of a mounted charge. You cannot, however, declare any other action yourself aside from a charge (and other actions allowed with a charge by the general charge rules). Charge is a combined form of movement and attack.

As a side note, this allows you to declare an action besides charge while your mount is charging. So, you could sing a song or draw a weapon as a move action while your mount charges, and make a standard action attack at the end.

Personally, I would not allow pounce to work with a manufactured weapon at the end of a charge, but I would allow natural weapons to be used on a mounted charge with pounce. RAW disagrees with me as stated above.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Finn K wrote:
Likewise, I think I wouldn't allow you to use the 'pounce' ability while mounted-- your mount makes the charge, not you (as others have said)

This reasoning also invalidates lances, Spirited Charge, etc. All specifically require you to charge while mounted.


I can support Finn's assessment on how to handle it in a game (despite Fozbek's accurate correction).
However, I also believe that RageLancePounce is legal by the RAW.
What this simply tells me is that this requires errata. Until then, it's legal.

In a serious game, I would overrule it as Finn does, but in a silly game, I would allow it.

Star Voter 2013

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm with Finn K on this one ...

... Its common sense really. Otherwise you're saying that, and picture it in your head, someone on a horse charges another person. They have a lance down and readied. The horse charges towards the target and upon reaching it .... the world goes into some nonsense world where the person on the horse gets to stab with the lance multiple times as he rides by?

Basically that's what I'm seeing with the whole pro-pounce argument. Are you people seriously trying to argue that's kosher? Hang the literal interpretation of the rules (which I think that interpretation is wrong anyway) and arguments of RAW ... its just silly and you're being a bunch of ninnies about it.

Shadow Lodge

There are sillier things in the rules.

Scarab Sages

Gods Above knows that's the truth. Silly things folks have tired with the rules as well.

Shadow Lodge

I think Ravingdork has come up with some of them.

Scarab Sages

Oh yes, sooooooooooooo many of them in fact. :)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Malignor wrote:

However, I also believe that RageLancePounce is legal by the RAW.

What this simply tells me is that this requires errata. Until then, it's legal.

Unlike you, I believe it is illegal by the RAW, as are those silly feats that do nothing. Like you, I too believe that errata is required (if only to see that those feats work again).

TOZ wrote:
I think Ravingdork has come up with some of them.
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Oh yes, sooooooooooooo many of them in fact. :)

I'm curious to know which ones you are referring to/thinking of.

Scarab Sages

The old lady lich thread always springs to mind :)


Wonderful idea, duelweilding lances X4 damage at first level

Scarab Sages

The duel lance thread was 2 or maybe 3 years back. Ended up with some nice historical debate on it.


oh, don't know of it, can you link me please?


maybe we should not be asking WHAT is ragelancepounce, but WHY is ragelancepounce. what event sped AM BARBARIAN on his path of caster-splatting and rules-munchikining?

once we uncover this event, we may gain some insight into the legend of RAGELANCEPOUNCE that has thus far eluded us.

failing that, it'll give everyone new stuff to argue over for the next hundred or so posts;)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
VM mercenario wrote:
Neither Ravingdork nor Seeker can be budged an inch after they decided on a position, no matter how much you argue with them.

THERE! ARE! FOUR! LIGHTS!

:P (Kudos to anyone who gets the reference and the meaning behind it.)

Scarab Sages

Mostly rules munchkin casters I would say

Don't think this is the first one, but here is a thread from 09

Scarab Sages

Ravingdork wrote:
VM mercenario wrote:
Neither Ravingdork nor Seeker can be budged an inch after they decided on a position, no matter how much you argue with them.

THERE! ARE! FOUR! LIGHTS!

:P (kudos to anyone who gets the reference)

There are three lights.


Ravingdork wrote:
THERE! ARE! FOUR! LIGHTS!

Don't let them break you, Captain Leondegrance.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Malignor wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
THERE! ARE! FOUR! LIGHTS!
Don't let them break you, Captain Leondegrance.

;P


Ravingdork wrote:
VM mercenario wrote:
Neither Ravingdork nor Seeker can be budged an inch after they decided on a position, no matter how much you argue with them.

THERE! ARE! FOUR! LIGHTS!

What self-respecting turbonerd wouldn't get that reference?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
meatrace wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
VM mercenario wrote:
Neither Ravingdork nor Seeker can be budged an inch after they decided on a position, no matter how much you argue with them.

THERE! ARE! FOUR! LIGHTS!

What self-respecting turbonerd wouldn't get that reference?

Well, me. An hour ago.

I just watched the episode for the first time.

AMAZING. Simply. Amazing.

Sovereign Court

I always thought the AM in AM BARBARIAN stood for anti-magic since sunder spell was a vital compenent to the build. I guess I was mistaken.


Ravingdork wrote:
AMAZING. Simply. Amazing.

YOU AM MET MY COUSIN?


Ravingdork wrote:
meatrace wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
VM mercenario wrote:
Neither Ravingdork nor Seeker can be budged an inch after they decided on a position, no matter how much you argue with them.

THERE! ARE! FOUR! LIGHTS!

What self-respecting turbonerd wouldn't get that reference?

Well, me. An hour ago.

I just watched the episode for the first time.

AMAZING. Simply. Amazing.

3 more points on your nerd card and you get a free interweb


holy crap.

I read the first post because I wanted to know what RAGELANCEPOUNCE was.

I read the first page because i was entertained by the madness of the trolling.

but for this thing to be at 200 posts now is truly insane troll posse

note... I dint read past first page
(201)

edit: ok, read the last page. and i have one all important question...

WTF does is this 'AM' all about?

151 to 200 of 505 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / What is rage-lance-pounce? 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.