| 29 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If a creature with the Pounce ability gets hit with a Slow spell and then makes a charge as a standard action (thus being limited to only their base movement rate), do they still get all the attacks from Pounce?
It seems weird that when you're limited to either one standard or one move action, you either stand in place and make one attack, or you can move up to your base speed... or if you have Pounce, you can do both and make 5+ attacks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Foxdie13: If you are limited to a standard action (such as a zombie, someone in a surprise round, or someone slowed), you can make a charge as a standard action, going only your normal movement.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I don't think pouncing as a standard action was ever intended, just because a charge is allowed. I think if enough of us FAQ it then we will get an official answer however.
I think wraithstrike is right here, and FAQing doesn't hurt a bit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure pouncing in a surprise round is intended, at least.
IIRC, some creature write-ups even suggest tactics like laying in wait (using stealth), then ambushing prey (by way of pounce). Even if my memory is faulty on that, creatures like tigers and hellcats would be a lot less dangerous if they couldn't combine their stealth and high initiative with pounce.
I agree with MacGurcules. Many creatures are expected to charge as a standard action during a surprise round to pounce their prey. I don't see pounce as a series of attacks, but rather making all the attacks at once as you land on the foe. So the slow reduces how far they can charge (single move action distance) but doesn't make all their claws not come out as they land.
I agree that I don't think pouncing as a standard action because you charge your normal movement speed as a standard and make an attack is intended, but with the current rules that is how it would work.
We can FAQ it and ask for a clarified ruling and if this is intended.
I could see the reasoning behind this working in the surprise round, essentially for ambush predators only. When PCs get the ability, or when ambush predators are able to use their ambush predator ability every round, things get a little more complicated.
I would probably suggest that the Pounce ability should only be usable in the surprise round. At the very least, there should be a Reflex save to avoid the extra attacks from Pounce if the target is aware of the incoming attacker.
Some barbarian (and alchemist and druid, at least) proponents would probably disagree with that idea, but look at it this way - if you manage to land a Slow spell on an opponent with lots of attacks, you'd expect it to work the same way on him (restrict him to just one attack) whether he has Pounce or not.
I'd argue that pounce is at its most appropriate when used as a standard action. Surprise rounds are where you see the most standard action charges and ambush predator creatures (big cats and the like) are the ones you most often see with pounce. So I'd say a pounce from a standard action charge is legit.
If you can't make a full attack with a standard action it makes less sense to be able to charge and get a full attack in.
I'd argue that pounce is at its most appropriate when used as a standard action. Surprise rounds are where you see the most standard action charges and ambush predator creatures (big cats and the like) are the ones you most often see with pounce. So I'd say a pounce from a standard action charge is legit.If you can't make a full attack with a standard action it makes less sense to be able to charge and get a full attack in.
Pouncing never utilizes the full-attack action though. It uses the charge action. Which is full-round or standard if you are limited to standard.
If it could still only be used in a surprise round, it wouldn't be a problem. Very good point about the speed (half a normal move).
Pounce first appeared in 3.0, where it could only be used in a surprise round, which of course meant standard action. The intent of Pounce is right there.
Citation needed for that. Where does it limit pounce in 3.0?
Citation needed for that. Where does it limit pounce in 3.0?Pounce first appeared in 3.0, where it could only be used in a surprise round, which of course meant standard action. The intent of Pounce is right there.
I just checked the first creature with pounce I could remember (Dire Tiger). The 3.0 Monster Manual, on page 59, says the following:
Pounce (Ex): If a dire tiger leaps upon a foe during the first round of combat, it can make a full attack even if it has already taken a move action.
That doesn't exactly limit it to a surprise round (or to a charge, for that matter), but it does limit the ability to only being used during the first round of combat.
Edit: The dire lion, on the same page, uses the same wording for its pounce.
Citation needed for that. Where does it limit pounce in 3.0?Pounce first appeared in 3.0, where it could only be used in a surprise round, which of course meant standard action. The intent of Pounce is right there.
Pg. 197: Pounce (Ex): If a leopard leaps upon a foe during the first round of combat, it can make a full attack even if it has already taken a move action.
Pg. 198: Pounce (Ex): If a lion leaps upon a foe during the first round of combat, it can make a full attack even if it has already taken a move action.
Pg. 203: Pounce (Ex): If a tiger leaps upon a foe during the first round of combat, it can make a full attack even if it has already taken a move action.
So not only in a surprise round, but only in the first round of combat, which may or may not be a surprise round.
EDIT: Ninja'd
I always allowed it, but a FAQ would be nice.
I would allow one attack with each weapon/natural weapon, but no iterative attacks. "Full attack" in the text is misleading since most pouncing animals do not have iterative attacks.
|
I would allow one attack with each weapon/natural weapon, but no iterative attacks. "Full attack" in the text is misleading since most pouncing animals do not have iterative attacks.
It is not misleading. If you want yo make all your natural attacks, you need to make a full-attack. Exactly the same as making all your iterative attacks.
I have always seen the Pounce ability as a specific exception to the generic full-attack = full-action rule.
And if monsters can do it, then PCs with the appropriate abilities can do it too :-)
IMO, RAW a slowed creature can still charge, pounce, full attack. I will hit the FAQ though.
Official Rules Response
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
FAQ: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fo#v5748eaic9quy
Pounce and Slow: If a creature with pounce is under a slow effect, and it charges, does it still get its full attack from pounce?
According to the rules as written, pounce would allow the creature its full attack, despite the slow effect.
(This happens because there is no "partial charge" action in the Pathfinder RPG.)
For clarification: there IS a 'partial charge' (in all but name) type action in the Pathfinder RPG.
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.
Since slow reduces your actions to a standard or move action you can use the standard action version of charge.
- Gauss
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There isn't a separate partial charge action in the game, charge just has a limitation if you can only take a standard action.
Pounce doesn't say, "if you can only take a standard action on your turn, you cannot use pounce," therefore it always acts like a full pounce, even if you're limited to a standard action.
None of us like that it works that way, but that's how the rules fit together.
SKR, I had put in an edit where I explain that I did not disagree with the FAQ, that I was only pointing out that there is a standard action version of charge. However, Paizo's website ate it. (It keeps having very slow moments lately where things get lost.)
Anyhow, to restate what I had posted:
I agree with the FAQ since it allows for creatures (such as Tigers) that pounce during the surprise round. While it may also allow the more devastating Barbarian Pounce builds to also pounce during the surprise round that may or may not come up enough to make a difference.
I was only trying to point out that there is a standard action version of charge that in a previous edition was referenced as a 'partial charge'.
- Gauss
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gauss, my point is still: there is no "partial charge" action in the game, and that's where this ruling comes from:
3.5:
Rules: There is a charge action, and a partial charge action.
Monster: My pounce ability says I get a full attack when I charge.
PC: I cast slow on the monster.
Monster: I charge and pounce!
Rules: Sorry, that's a partial charge, not a charge, so your pounce doesn't activate.
PF:
Rules: There is a charge action, sometimes limited if you only have a standard action.
Monster: My pounce ability says I get a full attack when I charge.
PC: I cast slow on the monster.
Monster: I charge and pounce!
Rules: Uh... I guess that's a regular charge because it's not classified as a different action... so you get your full attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand why the 'flawed' RAW is being upheld here,
but in the 2WF/2H case you are issuing FAQs that don't derive from the RAW?
2WF never discusses restrictions on mainhand damage, so the normal rules are still in play there by RAW.
That also applies for the Double Weapons.
EDIT: I've seen plenty of coherent arguments that big cats pouncing on surprise rounds is exactly a perfect representation of their modus operandi, so taking away pounce from partial charges per se isn't a good idea. If you wanted to add wording to Slow specifically, or other 'conditions' that reduce actions to only a standard per round, while not affecting surprise rounds, that would be different (but more specific open-heart rules surgery).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i decided to take a perusal of this thread for some reason.
I have frequent the PbP boards and unless the DM restricts certain classes I see large amounts of characters that are built specifically for the pounce and multiple attacks to the point a straight fighter was obsolete in favor of alchemists and synthesis summoners.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand why the 'flawed' RAW is being upheld here,
Because we try not to change the rules in the books via a FAQ.
I don't understand why the 'flawed' RAW is being upheld here,Because we try not to change the rules in the books via a FAQ.
There are still plenty of other over powered options to go with. I understand SKR completely. Working out every overpowered option would destroy the game, take too long, and be horribly subjective. There are probably other reason too.
I don't understand why the 'flawed' RAW is being upheld here,Because we try not to change the rules in the books via a FAQ.
Cutting off the last part of that sentence kind of destroys it's meaning.
My question was not why RAW is upheld here even when not ideal.My question was why it is upheld here, but not other places, where FAQs diverge from RAW.
Anyways, I just brought that up because the rationale for the ruling and RAW justification for that was already being discussed.
I guess Paizo doesn't really need to have a consistent rationale or objective standard for sticking with RAW in one case but not others.
But when there isn't consistency there, and other FAQs are diverging from RAW and creating new rules, the rationale that "RAW made me do it" just doesn't hold water. Saying "maybe it's not the most ideal, but we don't think the RAW is broken enough to make it worth it to change the rules in this case" is another thing, it's certainly understandable why Paizo might want to diverge from RAW is some cases but not every single one where the RAW isn't 100% ideal.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
1) If we don't explain why we made a ruling, people complain that they don't understand why we made that ruling.
2) If we do explain why we made that ruling, people pick apart the reasoning for that ruling, using various quotes from one of over a thousand pages of rules, some of which were inherited from 3.5 and weren't scrutinized for whether they used consistent terminology (where is where you get the "wielded in one hand" problems in the other FAQs).
3) And sometimes we make a ruling because there's an unwritten rule that guides and informs other rules--a rule that's never explained in the books (like "d8 classes get 3/4 BAB,") but is still valid for the purposes of whether or not things should work one way or the other way. One such rule affects the greatsword + "offhand" attack with spiked gauntlet, which goes against the unwritten rule about the expectations of the number of attacks and damage output a character should have at various levels.
Given how people react to #2, and the confusion relating to #3, in the long run I'm going to encourage us to post FAQs like #1. At least that way we don't get armchair designers nitpicking everything we say and blaming us for rule terminology discrepancies we inherited from 3.5.
I think my ears are burning SKR. I dont fault you guys at all. I know I am fighting an uphill battle over there but. Oh well. :)
- Gauss
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
None of us like that it works that way, but that's how the rules fit together.
Well, my friends and I all quite like it a lot!
The only aspect we don't like so much is the more general problem that casters can get pounce far more easily and/or earlier than the martial classes can. Pouncing while slowed on its face would seem like an awesome "FU!" from martials to casters, but in practice... the message is most likely being sent from one caster to another.
Coincidentally, how do the people you refer to as "us" feel about the actual broken crap casters get? Like Mystic Past Life. Or using Paragon Surge for a spont. caster to cherry pick from their entire spell lists on the spot via Expanded Arcana (and Oracles from the Sorc/Wiz list as well via Improved Eldritch Heritage [Arcane])? Or the limitless combos possible with Dazing Spell, such as geysermancer? Or how a Wizard with an Elemental specialization can end up with no prohibited school at all at 10th level with Opposition Research (even though the fact you can only take it once presumably means the devs didn't want the drawback to go away entirely)?
We only ever seem to see you weighing in on martial rules "exploits" and how much you hate them. Even though said exploits seldom if ever actually break the game. Like...any of the examples I posted above do.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
StreamOfTheSky, I think you need to work on your attitude. I really have no interest in interacting with someone who is so consistently negative and combative.
I like to imagine that Paizo, as are all of us, are learning more and more about Pathfinder each day, and each time a call like this comes up.
...I also like to imagine that there's this little notebook of rules like this one, of areas where it's confusing, of where it just seems "off", and that that knowledge will go into the next version of PF...which, as so many have said, does not need to be different so much as "streamlined."
...in about 10 years from now.
I imagine myself to be into gaming for the long haul.
I will hope to stick with Paizo, so I'm willing to wait and to appreciate discussions like this one, because it shows that yeah--we're all learning, and Paizo's dev is talking about it in a way that shows they're looking at all of the angles.
I can wait. In the meantime...for home games and elsewise, it can be a different discussion about a rule like this one, and probably one which will reference the good thoughts and ideas from this thread.
Game on!
StreamOfTheSky, I think you need to work on your attitude. I really have no interest in interacting with someone who is so consistently negative and combative.
Actually, I would characterize Stream's posts as 'realistic/pragmatic' rather than 'negative' and his attitude as 'working to further the understanding of posters on these boards' rather than 'combative.' Stream is one of the few posters around who consistently has good insight into the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Otter, it's just an excuse to not respond.
Asking why he never seems to post about broken caster stuff = combative
Calling someone negative and combative = acceptable forum behavior
I don't care, it just makes him look bad.
But thank you.
The people bringing 3.5 arguments to this discussion should actually look up rules:
Pounce
When a creature with this special attack makes a charge, it can follow with a full attack—including rake attacks if the creature also has the rake ability.
Nothing in there that restricts this to the first round of combat, or a surprise round, or anything else.
There isn't a separate partial charge action in the game, charge just has a limitation if you can only take a standard action.
Pounce doesn't say, "if you can only take a standard action on your turn, you cannot use pounce," therefore it always acts like a full pounce, even if you're limited to a standard action.
None of us like that it works that way, but that's how the rules fit together.
Couldn't you errata Slow to also include a line like, "...and cannot make more than a single attack on their turn," or something to that effect?
If you (the design team) don't like how it works, and a lot of the players don't like how it works, largely because it makes no sense from a logical standpoint, AND weakens a spell by essentially negating one of its main purposes (avoiding full attacks), shouldn't something be done to rectify this? I know you don't like making changes to the game via FAQs, but what about an errata (and maybe a FAQ also to increase visibility)?
I think we're all mostly in agreement here that being able to pounce while slowed is stupid.
Or most of us think it's awesome that there are certain abilities that can foil what is STILL a very, very, very good spell, overall.
Or most of us think it's awesome that there are certain abilities that can foil what is STILL a very, very, very good spell, overall.
Eh.