During the surprise round you can take a standard or move action. Thus, you cannot do a pounce / full attack since that is a full round action.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, you can pounce during a surprise round, just like you can make a regular charge during a surprise round.
If you are able to take only a standard action on your turn, you can still charge, but you are only allowed to move up to your speed (instead of up to double your speed) and you cannot draw a weapon unless you possess the Quick Draw feat. You can't use this option unless you are restricted to taking only a standard action on your turn.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
unsure wither it can use its full attack pounce during a suprise round
Pounce (Ex): "An eidolon gains quick reflexes, allowing it to make a full attack after a charge. This evolution is only available to eidolons of the quadruped base form."
Charge: "If you are able to take only a standard action on your turn, you can still charge, but you are only allowed to move up to your speed (instead of up to double your speed) and you cannot draw a weapon unless you possess the Quick Draw feat. You can't use this option unless you are restricted to taking only a standard action on your turn."
The Surprise Round: "If some but not all of the combatants are aware of their opponents, a surprise round happens before regular rounds begin. In initiative order (highest to lowest), combatants who started the battle aware of their opponents each take a standard or move action during the surprise round. You can also take free actions during the surprise round. If no one or everyone is surprised, no surprise round occurs."
Interpretation 1: You are restricted to taking only a standard action on your turn during the surprise round, being able to take free actions doesn't count, and the option to take a move action is just another use of the standard action.
Interpretation 2: You are able to take other actions during a surprise round (free and/or move), so you are not restricted to taking only a standard action on your turn, so you cannot make a 'partial charge'.
The problem with Interpretation 2 is there aren't really any other situations in which you're specifically restricted to taking only a standard action and no other actions. The Staggered condition permits free actions and lets you choose standard or move. Disabled is the same way. So given the fact that you can almost always take free actions, and that you can always take a move action in place of a standard action, it's reasonable to assume Interpretation 1 is correct.
Otherwise Tigers wouldn't work right. They stalk their prey, and use stealth in tall grass, but in order to pounce they would have to alert their prey in order to make sure there's not a surprise round so it can actually charge.
Thanks for posting all the applicable rules Grick.
I'm also interested to see what the verdict is on this. I can see it going either way.
I'm inclined to say no. Pounce specifically says "full attack". And the wording for Suprise rounds is pretty strict. You can take either a Standard action or a Move action and free actions. Now while you CAN charge as a standard action with limited movement, you're still not allowed a full attack action. So IMO you couldn't Pounce and would be limited to a single attack.
I'm also inclined to say No because getting a full attack on a surprise round is very powerful and can dramatically change a combat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pounce is meant to be used in surprise rounds. The general tactics for most of the monsters who have pounce (big cats, for instance) is to ambush their prey with pounce. That only works if pounce works on a surprise round.
I'm with grick on this, because many animals rely on pounce for the initial damage. going back to specific > general.
'charge' is the action you are doing, pounce just alters the action 'charge'
Pounce is meant to be used in surprise rounds. The general tactics for most of the monsters who have pounce (big cats, for instance) is to ambush their prey with pounce. That only works if pounce works on a surprise round.
I understand that thematically it kinda fits to pounce in a surprise round. But the rules wording doesn't seem to back it up and it's not like you can't pounce in subsequent rounds.
I'm not a big fan of comparing game mechanics to real world scenarios but, when a lion is hunting down a Gazelle there's usually a chase right? That means the Gazelle's aware of the lion. The lion is still going to get a pounce at the end of that chase. It's not just for ambush attackers.
IejirIsk, Pounce does not alter the charge action otherwise the rules would say something along the lines of "An eidolon gains quick reflexes, allowing it to make a full attack in place of the standard attack at the end of a charge."
Instead it says "full attack after a charge.
Now I could be completely wrong and the wording in the rules could be a little loose and maybe it was their intention to have it alter the charge. But as written I'm just not seeing it that way.
... but the more I think of it the more I can see both sides. Hmmmm this is a pickle.
I suppose you could argue that the eidolon's specific version of pounce doesn't allow a full attack during a surprise round, given the "after a charge" wording.
The regular universal monster rules version of pounce, however, definitely alters the charge itself:
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).
While you can pounce in subsequent rounds, unless you have ways to avoid AoO and a large area with multiple enemies, it isn't likely. i guess could move 15' and tumble, then charge and pounce, but...
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).
Hmmm I wonder why the change in the wording between the abilities? If the Eidolon ability was worded that way I wouldn't see it as a problem. The general Pounce rule implies it does alter the charge.
I wonder if it was deliberate on the developers part to keep an Eidolon's power level in line?
If that's not the case, then why not just refer to the exact Pounce rule for an Eidolon? Hrmmmmm...
Now I'd really like an official explanation...
...anyone?
...Bueller,
...Bueller?
The eidolon pounce is worded a bit ambiguously though, and I'd be interested if there's been any devs chiming in on whether it just gives pounce (ex) from the universal monster rules or not.
Exactly, why wouldn't they have just written "The eidolon gains the ability to Pounce, this ability functions as the Pounce special ability; See universal monster rules..." or simply quote Pounce word for word?
My guess, yes you can get full attack on surprise round, otherwise animals with pounce wouldn't work right.
i would go ocam's razor on this one. when refering to the barbarian ability in the same book they specifally used the language of pounce.
I would say that an eidolon is limited, because in the same book, when giving another class the pounce ability they didnt use any such limitation.so if they added the limitation, they meant the limitation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i would go ocam's razor on this one. when refering to the barbarian ability in the same book they specifally used the language of pounce.
I would say that an eidolon is limited, because in the same book, when giving another class the pounce ability they didnt use any such limitation.so if they added the limitation, they meant the limitation.
you're aware that different people write each of the sections, and simply aren't taking into account what is going on in the other sections?
malachi has it.
When Pounce first appeared in the 3.0 Monster Manual, it only worked in the surprise round! That's what it's for!
Malachi- I don't think comparing it to 3.0 is a fair comparison at all. 3.0 was a long time ago and the game has evolved a LOT since then.
Quandry- I understand it could be a simple case of editing. But in a class with so many other rules exceptions I also have to consider it's not.
Since I don't know for certain one way or the other, my next question then has to be- 'is an eidolon that gets a full attack in a surprise round overpowered?' Again I don't know for sure. Haven't play tested it. But my gut says yes.
Again, I feel a ruling on this can go either way. I just tend to err on the side of caution which generally means not giving a player more power.
Because... y'know power corrupts... or something.
|
My answer was strictly about Pounce, not Eidolons.
I don't believe that Pounce would work any differently for Eidolons, unless it unambiguously stated that it did, and if they envisioned it working differently then they would have written an entirely new ability similar to but worse than Pounce.
As to the more general question: are Eidolons overpowered?
This is not a rules question so not a rules answer, but OMG yes! They, and summoners, are so overpowered!
I don't allow them when I DM for that reason. You'll have to make your own decisions, of course.
i would go ocam's razor on this one. when refering to the barbarian ability in the same book they specifally used the language of pounce.
I would say that an eidolon is limited, because in the same book, when giving another class the pounce ability they didnt use any such limitation.so if they added the limitation, they meant the limitation.you're aware that different people write each of the sections, and simply aren't taking into account what is going on in the other sections?
malachi has it.
yes i am aware, and they also have editors. for istance the titan mauler was changed by the editor from what the writer had intented.
if they wanted the eidelon to have "pounce" they would have just inserted the same language"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now while you CAN charge as a standard action with limited movement, you're still not allowed a full attack action.
This doesn't make any sense.
For a tiger, on a non-surprise round, it could:
Charge, which is a full-round action.
Pounce allows it to make a full-attack at the end of the charge.
The only way pounce does anything is if the pounce ability removes the action type requirement of the full-attack, otherwise the Tiger would need to perform two full-round actions in one turn, which it can't do.
So look at the Eidolon pounce. It either does the exact same thing, or it does nothing.
If it works like the Tiger's pounce, then it removes the action type requirement of the full-attack, meaning if the Eidolon performs a full-round action to Charge, it gets to make a full-attack without spending another full-round action (which it cannot do).
If not, then the ability does nothing. Because you can't take two full-round actions in the same turn.
Since the ability clearly is supposed to do something, we have to realize that it removes the action type requirement of the full-attack.
Thus, whenever the pouncing creature charges, it can make a full-attack, regardless of what actions it has used and/or has remaining in it's turn. Which means if it uses a standard action to pounce, for whatever reason, it can still full-attack.
Now while you CAN charge as a standard action with limited movement, you're still not allowed a full attack action.This doesn't make any sense.
For a tiger, on a non-surprise round, it could:
Charge, which is a full-round action.
Pounce allows it to make a full-attack at the end of the charge.The only way pounce does anything is if the pounce ability removes the action type requirement of the full-attack, otherwise the Tiger would need to perform two full-round actions in one turn, which it can't do.
So look at the Eidolon pounce. It either does the exact same thing, or it does nothing.
If it works like the Tiger's pounce, then it removes the action type requirement of the full-attack, meaning if the Eidolon performs a full-round action to Charge, it gets to make a full-attack without spending another full-round action (which it cannot do).
If not, then the ability does nothing. Because you can't take two full-round actions in the same turn.
Since the ability clearly is supposed to do something, we have to realize that it removes the action type requirement of the full-attack.
Thus, whenever the pouncing creature charges, it can make a full-attack, regardless of what actions it has used and/or has remaining in it's turn. Which means if it uses a standard action to pounce, for whatever reason, it can still full-attack.
actually no, because even though the word "pouce" is used. they are defined differently.
actually no, because even though the word "pouce" is used. they are defined differently.
So you're saying that the Eidolon pounce means it can make a full-attack after a charge only if it can still perform a full-round action after charging?
If it could perform a full-round action after charging, it could full-attack anyway, and the ability does absolutely nothing.
|
actually no, because even though the word "pouce" is used. they are defined differently.
Before using that argument, please this post
To quote the first paragraph:
First, let me give a bit of background. Back when I was at Wizards, at the start of 3E I worked with Jonathan Tweet on a bunch of advice columns, including an article called "How to Design a Feat." One of the concepts we established was "things should be the same, or they should be different." (And by "different" I mean "very different" so you don't mix up the two.) That concept helps players remember different rules--if rule X is already in the game, and you're creating new rule Y that works a lot like X, you should either (1) make Y work EXACTLY like X, or make Y work differently than X. That way, players can remember that Y works like X, or not accidentally confuse how Y and X work. And if Y feels a lot like X, it's almost certainly supposed to work like X, and things that attach to X should be able to attach to Y.
Emphasis mine.
Different authors frequently use different verbiage. Editing frequently misses this, causing a great many issues. This has been proven and clarified upon more instances than I can count.
There is no reason to believe eidolon pounce is not one of those circumstances.
actually no, because even though the word "pouce" is used. they are defined differently.So you're saying that the Eidolon pounce means it can make a full-attack after a charge only if it can still perform a full-round action after charging?
If it could perform a full-round action after charging, it could full-attack anyway, and the ability does absolutely nothing.
it means it's ability doesnt function during a suprise rounds. a limitation on it's ability.
actually no, because even though the word "pouce" is used. they are defined differently.Before using that argument, please this post
Different authors frequently use different verbiage. Editing frequently misses this, causing a great many issues. This has been proven and clarified upon more instances than I can count.
There is no reason to believe eidolon pounce is not one of those circumstances.
that is not the same, because differen't verbage means different words that create a similair meaning, even when different words are used. This is not the case here, the words used have a completely different meaning, and secondly in all other cases were pounce is granted for example, they literally tack on at the, see the pounce special ability.
the duck in this case, does not quack like a duck, because it doesn't work in the same way, and the language used indicates it doesn't work the same way.
so it may say duck, but it neither walks like a duck or quack like a duck.
Ikarinokami, I really think you are reaching here. The pounce ability is what gives characters the full attack after a charge whether it's a surprise round or not.
it means it's ability doesnt function during a suprise rounds. a limitation on it's ability.
Can you explain how this interpretation stems from the wording of the ability?
Either the ability lets you full-attack after a charge, ignoring the action type, or it does nothing, ever, in any situation.
If you charge in a surprise round, you can't normally also take a full-round action.
If you charge in a normal round, you can't normally also take a full-round action.
Ok so this isn't a definitive answer yet, but...
I asked James Jacobs and he was kind enough to respond. (I don't know how to do that thing where you can link to a specific reply so I'm posting the whole thing here) It's all in the ask James Jacobs thread.
James, is the eidolon's Pounce ability intentionally different than the Universal Monster ability Pounce?
They are worded differently and the eidolon's ability seems to indicate that its version of Pounce won't work in a a surprise round while the universal version seems to indicate it can. Was this done deliberately to keep the eidolon's power level in line?
Eidolon's Pounce- Pounce (Ex): "An eidolon gains quick reflexes, allowing it to make a full attack after a charge. This evolution is only available to eidolons of the quadruped base form."
Universal Monster Ability Pounce- 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).
Hope you have the time to answer. Thanks in advance.
It is indeed intentionally different, hence the different name for the ability. That said... I'm not seeing anything at all in the above that says anything about surprise rounds.
In a follow up I asked him specifically to clarify the surprise round angle of things since my original question wasn't all that clear. We'll see if he responds.
Still after all of this I can see it going either way.
Grick- you bring up some interesting points. I'm going to have to think about them before I get back to you.
I don't know how to do that thing where you can link to a specific reply
The link to that post is the timestamp to the far right of the user's name. Most browsers/OSs will let you right-click that link and copy the URL.
It is indeed intentionally different, hence the different name for the ability. That said... I'm not seeing anything at all in the above that says anything about surprise rounds.
The ability isn't named differently, they're both named "Pounce (Ex)."
Yes, they are different, because the Eidolon version doesn't let it use Rake attacks.
I'm still not seeing how anything in either version of pounce has anything to do with surprise rounds.
|
|
(And by "different" I mean "very different" so you don't mix up the two.)that is not the same, because differen't verbage means different words that create a similair meaning, even when different words are used. This is not the case here, the words used have a completely different meaning, and secondly in all other cases were pounce is granted for example, they literally tack on at the, see the pounce special ability.
the duck in this case, does not quack like a duck, because it doesn't work in the same way, and the language used indicates it doesn't work the same way.
so it may say duck, but it neither walks like a duck or quack like a duck.
You omitted the most important line in my quote when you reposted. I restated it for you.
If the intention was to change how pounce worked, it would be done in clear language that left no room for debate that the change was unintentional.
People would fight over what that new meaning was, but the intent to change mechanics would not be debatable.
The follow up. James' reply
Thanks Grick for letting me know how to link that BTW.
While I know James isn't the "rules guy" I asked him because he's very good about answering. I definitely feel the same way he does about it. I personally am not going to allow it at my table because eidolons with pounce = overkill to me.
Again this isn't a "rules verdict" but if someone wants to pursue that I'd be interested as to the response.
The most interesting part of that post for me was JJ saying he doesn't allow summoners in his game. If I feel the same inclination to cut a class from my game at some point, it's nice to be able to say the Creative Director does it too :)
I would have a hard time banning a legal class from the game. I personally am willing to go the extra mile for my people to understand the class, and if it's something a player of mine really wants to play, then together I would work with him so that his build is something that both of us are satisfied with. Otherwise I would be a jack*#$#.
Whoa, ease up there.
What I was referring to are his feelings on the Pounce ability for Eidolon's. I allow summoners at my table and have one in my current campaign. While I feel the class has a lot of exceptions to existing rules, which is usually a sign of some design flaws, I don't think its game breaking.
The only time I would ban a class is if my campaign world didn't have something intrinsic to that class or that part of the world hadn't been explored yet. For an example, Ninjas- There's no eastern themes in my world(yet). So I'd be hard pressed to let one in unless we worked on the background so it would fit. Or if there actually was a class that unbalanced the game.
I've stated multiple times I can see the ruling going either way on this Eidolon Pounce business. And I'm happy either way it falls because if I do ban it at my table I feel I can justify why after all this debate. (And having James back me up helps too :) )
That post wasn't directed at you Anvil. It was about me, and how I feel about it and the way I felt when I was told "No" because the DM can't put into a little bit of effort. The game is not about the players, it's not about the DM either. It's about both the DM and the players working together to create a fun gaming experience for everyone. I understand that DM's are responsible for more than the players. Yet, it honestly only takes maybe 30 minutes to sit down with the player and hash over a class. If after that time the player says I can't agree to the restrictions for that PC, then move on. At the very least, you can try. I feel its poor sportsman ship of a DM not to try.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
yeah, but since it's NOT a PFS-specific rule, rather, just how the actual RAW works, any thread would likely be moved back to the Rules Questions Forum. honestly, paizo really needs to take care of quite a few errata/FAQ issues at this point, but not posting it in the correct forum doesn't fix that problem.
straight up: there is no special qualification for pounce such that it only applies "when you could have made a full attack normally (rather than charging)". the difference of the eidolon version is that rake doesn't apply... still no clause imposing an additional limitation on when you can use it. if there were some special qualification, the sentences would have a clause imposing another qualification: they don't. that is the straight-up RAW... i don't see what you can actually argue about that. there just is no other limitation clause.
incidentally, the eidolon pounce IS otherwise horribly written, since 'after the charge' literally means the eidolon pounce is IN ADDITION to the normal charge attack, i.e. BETTER than normal pounce (not taking into account rake attacks.) this is worthwhile to hit FAQ for, IMHO the intent is 'at the end of the charge movement', or 'in place of the charge's normal attack', NOT 'after the charge', but that is what the current RAW states.
"instead of a standard attack" is implied at the end of after a charge.
that is not implied by the text itself.
making a full attack after (in addition to) a charge attack indeed seems consistent with the fluff: "an eidolon gains quick reflexes", it would simply be MORE 'quick reflexes' than an ability which functioned as 'instead of the standard charge attack'.
that conclusion of intent could only be reached by comparing it to the non-eidolon pounce, and even then the intent is not clear, in one manner eidolon pounce is undoubtedly worse (rake), but who is to say that it's not intended to be better in other areas?
sure, i personally believe the intent is like you say, likewise i believe that is the more balanced approach, but on a RAW basis that isn't true - SO PAIZO SHOULD ERRATA IT. Saying the current RAW supports the Full Attack replacing, rather than happening after, the normal Charge attack would mean that Paizo doesn't need to Errata the ability wording at all. hit FAQ and maybe they will do the right thing.
I find the easiest way to interpret most of the eidolon evolutions is:
If it has the same name as a monster ability and clearly has similar intent, then they probably work the same way unless specified otherwise.
My 2cp.