This is a PERMISSIVE RULESET. No one who is in favor of allowing Pounce on a mounted charge has addressed this yet. Why? I think it's because if you do, you will conclude that Pounce doesn't work with a mounted charge.How about the fact that it's blatantly obvious in the Pounce rule? It says 'full attack at the end of a charge', and a mounted charge is a charge. Pounce overrides the general rule via it being a specific rule.
This pretty much covers every part of every conceivable argument on the subject.
Seriously folks, this isn't that complicated.
Charging is something the Attacker does. It has to be. Your horse is not charging. It does not get an attack bonus or an AC penalty. You, the Attacker, does. You are charging. Your mount is just moving.
A Mounted Charge is a kind of Charge. Pounce works with a Mounted Charge.
Yes, it's silly and needs errata. Nobody should allow it at their table.
Yes it does work under the current rules.
Ok i didn't get the four lights reference, can someone help me?
Been to long since I watched that. I could have sworn it was three lights he was trying to get him to say, not five. Still that is a good one.
Whichever way you think about the RAW, it simply isn't RAI.
You do not get multiple attacks at the end of a charge made by your mount with any weapon. Not RAI.
No offence intended, but do you have a cite of RAI? Since it's as intended, there should be a link to a developer saying "This is what's intended." Indeed, since mounted skirmisher says "If your mount moves its speed or less, you can still take a full-attack action" that tells me there's already room for a feat modifying a combat condition (attacking while mounting) so how is it RAI that a similar feat/trait doesn't allow it?
Else it's RAIWTTB*. I know what RAMT* would be, but not RAI.*** spoiler omitted **
**** spoiler omitted **
Quibble...
I think the vast majority of DM's would have a RAMT answer of NO! and probably a "stop trying to break the game, munchkinface" readied action just in case!
Why the hell would anyone argue in favour of this munchkin-ism, balance is the key my friends, balance!
I am gonna disagree, I don't think pounce works while mounted. You are free to rule other wise. I will allow the charge, I will not allow the pounce, they are not the same thing.
.
.
Okay. Simple logic here. Let's try this.
Mounted combat lets you charge while on a horse.
Pounce says you get a full attack when you charge.
Therefore you can pounce while on a horse.You can full attack when you charge with pounce, so if you say you can't pounce while on a horse that means you can't charge while on a horse since you can full attack whenever you charge.
If you can't charge while on a horse then the mounted combat rules are nonsensical.
So your options are:
A)You can pounce while mounted.
B)You cannot charge while mounted.
Your logic is flawed.
C) Allow you to charge on a horse but not allow the pounce while mounted.Okay. Simple logic here. Let's try this.
Mounted combat lets you charge while on a horse.
Pounce says you get a full attack when you charge.
Therefore you can pounce while on a horse.You can full attack when you charge with pounce, so if you say you can't pounce while on a horse that means you can't charge while on a horse since you can full attack whenever you charge.
If you can't charge while on a horse then the mounted combat rules are nonsensical.
So your options are:
A)You can pounce while mounted.
B)You cannot charge while mounted.
+1 to C)
Ooooh the Caster Defense League in full swing!
How does not wanting to die of excessive cheese equate to caster defence?
Honestly you should see some of the things spell casters are throwing at AM BARBARIAN in the AM BARBARIAN build one. Being able to go first and prepare an action to interrupt another action seems to be the gist of the winning tactics though.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Quibble...
I think the vast majority of DM's would have a RAMT answer of NO! and probably a "stop trying to break the game, munchkinface" readied action just in case!
Why the hell would anyone argue in favour of this munchkin-ism, balance is the key my friends, balance!
A simple *no* would have sufficed.
I gave what I thought was a perfectly valid reason above. You have wizards who can create demi-planes and live forever, druids who make their best animal friend a super predator just by going 'I choose you' and mad chemists who can bring back the dead. In that context is a fighter/barbarian able to move, get a full attack, and keep moving is horrible/broken/bad?
Or to put it another way...
18th level Druid: I stand 1120 feet away, in the form of a squirrel and blanket at 360' radius area and do 6d6 damage to everyone in it, plus an additional 10d6 to 6 poor sods of my choice. I also shut down most all spell casters and no one can see me.
16th level Wizard: I stand 1040 feet away and make everyone in a 30' radius take 15d6 points of damage.
20th level fighter: I ride up into close combat, and hit one target for 100 points of damage. Oh and if he survives or I miss, I likely get my mount shot out from under me, lose access to a bunch of feats to be able to do this well, and am right next to my target, and any of his allies.
That's your example of balance?
I would like to thank you all for making this thread. I have now added a "rules clarification" houserule for my group which will not allow pouncing while mounted.
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?
Ride by reply to the rescue.
All you need to know about the myth of AM BARBARIAN.
Your logic is flawed.Okay. Simple logic here. Let's try this.
Mounted combat lets you charge while on a horse.
Pounce says you get a full attack when you charge.
Therefore you can pounce while on a horse.You can full attack when you charge with pounce, so if you say you can't pounce while on a horse that means you can't charge while on a horse since you can full attack whenever you charge.
If you can't charge while on a horse then the mounted combat rules are nonsensical.
So your options are:
A)You can pounce while mounted.
B)You cannot charge while mounted.
Instead of making baseless assertions, I challenge you to prove me wrong with the rules.
A simple *no* would have sufficed.
Someone's tired.
That's your example of balance?
No, actually that's yours.
Arguing for something that clearly isn't a go-er at the vast majority of tables just because it might allow X to do something like Y is weird.
Boils down to, you don't get to Pounce, get over it.
I think people are confusing actions with descriptions. Nowhere in RAW does it state you cannot take the charge action while mounted. The mounted combat rules give you the benefit of the charge bonus, but do not require you to take the charge action to receive them. This does not say that you cannot take the charge action.
What is your character's action during a mounted charge? Anything it wants to be. Nothing even requires you to attack during your mount's charge. If you make an attack at the end of the charge, you get the charge bonus for that attack.
If you choose charge as your character's action while your mount charges, you already count as charging from your own charge, so the fact that the mount is charging doesn't matter.
Ride-by attack states that you can indeed take the charge action while mounted. Nothing ever denies this capability. So, you can take the charge action while mounted. Which means you can use pounce. by RAW it is fine.
The mounted combat only specifies how movement works (based on your mount's speed and action) and what penalties and benefits apply to attacks while mounted. No action choices are removed from your character.
One of the better arguments I've seen so far.
One question though, does charge not say you must move (at least 10 feet no less) to gain the effect? If your mount is moving you, you're not the one doing the moving and thus are not (technically) charging and thus cannot reap the benefits of pounce.
Also, there's that "can only make one attack if your mount moves more than 5 feet rule."
SO ravingdork you would be ok with this build if it had the Mounted Skirmisher and it charged only its move speed and not double?? I personally believe that the rules allow rage lance pounce without this feat but I would NEVER allow it in any of my campaigns. I am just curious if this feat is ok for you to allow the pounce.
If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only take an attack action. My thought about this are a charge is a special full round action that does not look at this rule but I can see both view points. just curious if mounted skirmisher would allow me to make rage lance pounce in your build?
I honestly don't know if I would allow it in my games. Either way, any GM who can't handle a one trick pony (especially one that can only deal damage in specific situations) probably shouldn't be the GM.
There are plenty of ways to challenge a combat powerhouse and his fellows. Everything from murder mysteries to time-based encounters will be just as challenging to this kind of character as it would be for the rest of the party.
Roleplaying isn't JUST about combat elements you know.
Instead of making baseless assertions, I challenge you to prove me wrong with the rules.Your logic is flawed.Okay. Simple logic here. Let's try this.
Mounted combat lets you charge while on a horse.
Pounce says you get a full attack when you charge.
Therefore you can pounce while on a horse.You can full attack when you charge with pounce, so if you say you can't pounce while on a horse that means you can't charge while on a horse since you can full attack whenever you charge.
If you can't charge while on a horse then the mounted combat rules are nonsensical.
So your options are:
A)You can pounce while mounted.
B)You cannot charge while mounted.
Arr, you one of *those* people.
The answer is C)
Also, there's that "can only make one attack if your mount moves more than 5 feet rule."
The only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step.
The same prohibition exists for regular full attacks. The wording in the Mounted Combat section is just meant to prohibit you from saying "well my mount moved, not me, so I still have a full attack" and getting a full attack every round while mounted by default.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Arr, you one of *those* people.
The answer is C)
Which is what?
The equivalent logical argument is:All ducks are birds.
All mallards are ducks.
Therefore:?
And you're responding "some beans"
Someone's tired.
Boils down to, you don't get to Pounce, get over it.
Shorter Bob:
I can't back up my RAI statement, so it's "Because I said so."
I think you'd manage a whole thread by yourself. You seem able to ask and answer your own questions, and others by putting your own words in their mouths, congratulations, you win...something.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Everyone's backed up their statements with RAW, and have done so correctly and accurately, but unfortunately there are some serious flaws within the RAW so differing interpretations have arisen. This is why clarifying errata is VERY much needed.
I find it ironic that almost everyone is accusing everyone else of bring wrong. Nobody that I've seen in this thread has shown themselves to be wrong, only really stubborn.
|
Everyone's backed up their statements with RAW, and have done so correctly and accurately, but unfortunately there are some serious flaws within the RAW so differing interpretations have arisen. This is why clarifying errata is VERY much needed.
I find it ironic that almost everyone is accusing everyone else of bring wrong. Nobody that I've seen in this thread has shown themselves to be wrong, only really stubborn.
I'm wrong AND stubborn.
Therefore, you're wrong. :D
|
|
From RAW page 198 Core Rulebook:
Attacking on a Charge: After moving, you may make a single melee attack...
Even if you have extra attacks, such as from having a high enough base attack bonus or from using multiple weapons, you only get to make one attack during a charge.
From Bestiary I page 302:
Pounce (Ex): When a creature with this special attack makes a charge, it can make a full attack (including rake attacks if the creature also has the rake ability).
From AGP page 74:
Beast Totem, Greater (Su): While raging, the barbarian gains the pounce special ability, allowing her to make a full attack at the end of a charge. In addition, the damage from her claws increases to..."
Thoughts from the above quotes:
Charge does not allow multiple attacks from iterative attacks or multiple weapons.
Pounce was originally created for creatures, not players, and extra natural attack damage can occur if the creature has Rake.
A barbarian gains a full attack at the end of his charge and his natural attack damage is increased.
Questions:
Are there any creatures in the 3 Bestiaries that are able to charge and gain either iterative attacks or an extra attack from multiple weapons because of pounce?
Are the Core Rulebook and the AGP contradicting one another? If so, which book was more play tested?
I think everyone's backed up their statements with RAW, and done so correctly, but there are serious flaws within the RAW so differing interpretations arise. This is why errata is VERY much needed.
I find it ironic that almost everyone is accusing everyone else of bring wrong. Nobody that I've seen has shown themselves to be wrong, only stubborn.
I've just been asserting that either you allow this or ride by attack fails to function. It's my opinion that the designers wouldn't create a feat that didn't work out of the box, so therefore mounted pouncing must work.
Your interpretation that it's all borked is equally valid.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
One of the better arguments I've seen so far.
One question though, does charge not say you must move (at least 10 feet no less) to gain the effect? If your mount is moving you, you're not the one doing the moving and thus are not (technically) charging and thus cannot reap the benefits of pounce.
Also, there's that "can only make one attack if your mount moves more than 5 feet rule."
RD,
If you don't mind arguing from precedent, there are other examples that might address the 'move' rule.
Bull Rush calls out that even though the target is moving, it doesn't draw AoOs for the movement. Here's an example of a target moving w/o taking a move action. It also calls out that unlike normal threatening moves, this movement doesn't draw AoOs (that the Bull Rusher doesn't seem to get the benefit is amusing, but not germaine to this discussion. The same can be held true for the rider. He isn't taking a move action, but is clearly moving. As long as he moves more than 10' then he can charge, yes?
Two feats exist that bypass established rules for movement. Greater Bull Rush changes the bull rush movement rules to allow AoOs. Mounted Skirmisher changes the 'more than 5', one attack' rule. So again we have precident (or anticedent, in the case of Mounted skirmisher) to alter the movement rules.
Now Pounce allows a full attack at the end of the charge (movement). So using the above examples, charging on a mount could be broken down as.
PC: (ready action) When I move more than 10' I charge
Mount: Moves PC more than 10'.
PC stops moving. His charge had ended, so now normally he could make his one attack (with all the benefits of the charge).
PC has pounce, pounce allows all attacks at the end of a charge, so now he can full attack.
Now with Ride by attack, it allows the 'one attack if you move more than 5' rule' to take place anywhere in the movement. So if the PC has Ride by attack and pounce as long as his mount moves him more than 10' he can charge. Since he can now take his 'end of move attack' anywhere along the move, he can pounce anywhere along the move.
I think part of it might be hanging up on the image of 'pounce'. It's like a rogue's 'sneak attack'. If you're fighting the guy face to face, and he sees you, you're not being sneaky. If you have a flanking buddy, you're going to do (un-sneaky) sneak attack damage anyway.
Edit: Technically you could likewise ready an action to charge if someone bullrushes you more than 10' in my example. Why would you want to is beyond me.
uhgh... why did i read this entire thread...
but here is what I think.
This is an ABSURD build, but id DOES work
You may charge while mounted, otherwise MANY feats and abilities DON'T work
After charging while mounted, you may make a full attack from pounce.
AND WHERE THE HECK DID THE WORDS "CHARGE ACTION" COME FROM (this was a complaint from much earlier)
those words come up together EXACTLY once in the core but i kept seeing them come up in "quotes" so i thought they were taken directly from something but...
Until POUNCE get an official errata, the quote from the developer is worth absolutely nothing.
I WOULD allow this in my game, i WOULD probably regret it, i WOULD (the second time) use my mage's readied action to blast the mount out from under him.
|
|
I think the issue boils down to how you interpret the following:
If your mount charges, you also take the AC penalty associated with a charge. If you make an attack at the end of the charge, you receive the bonus gained from the charge. When charging on horseback, you deal double damage with a lance (see Charge).
The way I read this is that you aren't charging, your mount is. You're simply gaining the AC penalty and to-hit bonus of the mount. To me, this rules out Pounce when mounted. YMMV, of course.
I think the issue boils down to how you interpret the following:
The way I read this is that you aren't charging, your mount is. You're simply gaining the AC penalty and to-hit bonus of the mount. To me, this rules out Pounce when mounted. YMMV, of course.
If your mount charges, you also take the AC penalty associated with a charge. If you make an attack at the end of the charge, you receive the bonus gained from the charge. When charging on horseback, you deal double damage with a lance (see Charge).
aaaand you're back to Ride By Attack not working since it requires you to be charging.
Not saying you're wrong, mind you, just that your interpretation makes a stock feat not work out of the box, which I don't feel is intentional.
The RAI is absolutely clear. The mounted feats are supposed to work. A mount and his rider are both charging. Ragelancepounce fails as pounce was only intended to work with natural weapons.
The RAW on the other hand is not at all clear.
The RAI is absolutely clear. The mounted feats are supposed to work. A mount and his rider are both charging. Ragelancepounce fails as pounce was only intended to work with natural weapons.
I'm just not so sure. I could see the argument that in the specific case of beast totem barbarians it was meant to only be natural weapons. But then, they've had over a year to errata it, why haven't they?
But then, they've had over a year to errata it, why haven't they?Those wild parties take up a lot of their work time, you know.
If you read Jason's FB feed a lot of his posts revolve around consumption of mass quantities of alcohol. Like an off-putting amount. Now I have this conception of the Paizo offices being like a Bacchanal.
But then, they've had over a year to errata it, why haven't they?Those wild parties take up a lot of their work time, you know.
Game designers are a hopeful lot. They like to think we are all on the same wave-length until a series of discussions pops up on their forums to prove otherwise.
There was no need to issue errata before because it wasn't an issue before. They probably just assumed we understood that pounce only worked on natural weapons.
But then, they've had over a year to errata it, why haven't they?Those wild parties take up a lot of their work time, you know.Game designers are a hopeful lot. They like to think we are all on the same wave-length until a series of discussions pops up on their forums to prove otherwise.
There was no need to issue errata before because it wasn't an issue before. They probably just assumed we understood that pounce only worked on natural weapons.
That's what I'm saying though. Barbarian builds have been floating around since the APG came out that pounce with iterative attacks. I'm sure its in the DPR Olympics thread somewhere. I know I brought it up several times because that's how I build my Mul Barbarian.
JJ's quote regarding pounce and iteratives never made it to errata, despite ample windows of opportunity. Whether this is intentional or just something that fell through the cracks is irrelevant to the fact that it just didn't make it.
Further, DMs everywhere who make contact with RAGELANCEPOUNCE will rule it as they see fit anyway, RAW or not. There's no need to be all righteous about it when you know how divided the community is - you're not alone, your view is agreed upon by many, so you can rest assured that, any way you rule it, your opinion is reasonable.
|
|
I think the issue boils down to how you interpret the following:
The way I read this is that you aren't charging, your mount is. You're simply gaining the AC penalty and to-hit bonus of the mount. To me, this rules out Pounce when mounted. YMMV, of course.
If your mount charges, you also take the AC penalty associated with a charge. If you make an attack at the end of the charge, you receive the bonus gained from the charge. When charging on horseback, you deal double damage with a lance (see Charge).aaaand you're back to Ride By Attack not working since it requires you to be charging.
Not saying you're wrong, mind you, just that your interpretation makes a stock feat not work out of the box, which I don't feel is intentional.
I thought about including stuff in my last post about Ride-by Attack and Spirited charge, but decided against it. But both feats, which are designed to be used while mounted, specifically say 'mounted and use the charge action,' which is not used in Pounce. Also, there's the argument that Ride-by Attack and Spring Attack are redundant if charging is the same mounted as on foot. Both of these are weaker arguments (in my opinion), but lend credence to my interpretation of the rules. I think. Again, as always, YMMV.