Revenge of the Son of the FAQ Attack!

Hurray! More FAQ!

RageLancePounce lives on!

AM will be happy.

FAQ and errata all in one, I love this blog.

Plea, at any time can we please address the wild rager?

I'm sad about Pounce. Really sad. Made more sense with natural attacks only, it's not like the barbarian would have any difficulty getting a lot of them.

Yay for clarifications! Now maybe some arguments will die. Thank you very much.

What's that sound? It's AM BARBARIAN popping a bottle of champagne!

Three in a row? I really hope this is a sign of a new trend!

I'm sad about Pounce. Really sad. Made more sense with natural attacks only, it's not like the barbarian would have any difficulty getting a lot of them.

I think it's worth noting that the barbarian pounce is high level and is a bit of a trap if natural only because of the difficulty of overcoming DR with natural weapons.

It is also of note that locking out pounce would make it harder to apply to any other class/archetype/prestige class.

And, personally, I find the idea that someone who can pounce can not do so with the weapons they have spent 15 levels mastering to be a bit odd.

The barbarian horde rejoices....then pounces on the party of sulking wizards in the back corner.

Yeah, hopefully this will put an end to all the questions regarding spellcombat with Arcane Mark.

I'm loving the Faq attacks.

Thanks for these Sean, they really help clarify arguments at the table! :D

Thanks SKR!

yay, the firearm FAQ was well needed, the pounce however makes we wonder if you can use it with ranged weapons.
For example, I have a dagger and a revolver, I charge monster X, and 15 feet from him is monster Y, can I full attack monster x with my dagger while shooting at monster Y (let's disregard attacks of opportunity).

I ask because the way I read it, pounce overwrites a passage that has "melee" in it, but doesn't repeat melee full round attack.
Possible brokenness could come from the scout archetype (possibly with sap master and guns, charge the lvl 1 goblin and shoot the villain instead, while dodging all AoO without a problem).

SKR, your titular mastery of the FAQ Blog is unparalleled!

Is there anything anywhere that says your claw attacks must be made with your hands opposed to your feet?

It occurs to me than an Eidolon specifically allows you to have the Claws evolution it's feet, so what's to stop a barbarian from Charging up with Pounce and get claw attacks from their feet and also getting their normal weapon attacks that they are holding in their hands?

Sean you might want to verify if you really meant any attack sequence instead of melee attacks which is the the core rules say.

This FAQ thread is going to get long. Thanks for the reiteration of the pounce rules and may Pharasma have mercy on the souls that will be lost in this debate.

Thanks for the FAQ's. :)

Although I can't help but think that the main question about Spell Combat was arcane mark, not if cantrips can be used.

More FAQ is Good FAQ!

Dotting so I can keep checking back to see AM's reply.

At least all the magi will leave a trail of dead bodies with Arcane Mark leading right to them.

Sean you might want to verify if you really meant any attack sequence instead of melee attacks which is the the core rules say.

The charge rule limits you to melee attacks.

The pounce rule says you can make a full attack when you charge, but doesn't invalidate the rest of the restrictions of the charge rule (melee only).

Technically, the FAQ just clarifies that the pounce rule doesn't limit you to just natural attacks, and thus doesn't invalidate the rest of the charge rules (melee only), but when I add this to the actual FAQ I'll make sure it's clear that the FAQ answer isn't opening up this combo for non-melee attacks.

Lol @ the blog entry name :)

Maybe just use the Charge rules for the Pounce FAQ entry:

Pounce (Ex) A creature with this ability can perform the Pounce-Charge special attack.

Pounce-Charge
Pounce-Charging is a special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and make a full attack (including rake attacks if the creature also has the rake ability) during the action. Pounce-Charging, however, carries tight restrictions on how you can move.

Movement During a Pounce-Charge: You must move before your attack, not after. You must move at least 10 feet (2 squares) and may move up to double your speed directly toward the designated opponent. If you move a distance equal to your speed or less, you can also draw a manufactured weapon during a pounce-charge attack if your base attack bonus is at least +1.

You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles). You must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent. If this space is occupied or otherwise blocked, you can't pounce-charge. If any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through a square that blocks movement, slows movement, or contains a creature (even an ally), you can't pounce-charge. Helpless creatures don't stop a pounce-charge.

If you don't have line of sight to the opponent at the start of your turn, you can't pounce-charge that opponent.

You can't take a 5-foot step in the same round as a pounce-charge.

If you are able to take only a standard action on your turn, you can’t pounce-charge.

Attacking on a Pounce-Charge: After moving, you may make a full melee attack (including rake attacks if the creature also has the rake ability). You get a +2 bonus on all attack rolls and take a –2 penalty to your AC until the start of your next turn.

A pounce-charging character gets a +2 bonus on combat maneuver attack rolls made to bull rush an opponent.

Lances and Pounce-Charge Attacks: Since a mounted character can’t pounce-charge, a lance does not deal double damage in a pounce-charge.

Weapons Readied against a Pounce-Charge: Spears, tridents, and other weapons with the brace feature deal double damage when readied (set) and used against a pounce-charging character.

I really don't think that's necessary.

These FAQ blogs are getting better while their names are getting worse!

BARBARIAN LIKE TO THANK ALL PEOPLE WHO AM MAKE THIS POSSIBLE. AMOUNT PRETTY MUCH ENTIRELY TO BUTTHURT CASTYS WHO AM NOT LIKING RAGELANCEPOUNCE AND PEOPLE WHO AM ALSO TREX.

BARBARIAN ONCE RIDE FLYING TREX, BUT FIND NOT AS SUBTLE AS BATTY BAT.

BARBARIAN ALSO NOTE MANY PEOPLE EXPECTING SPEECH. BARBARIAN NOT WANT DISAPPOINT, BUT IF BARBARIAN SPEND MORE THAN 50 SECONDS TAKING, MUST RAGELANCEPOUNCE BARBARIAN OUT OF SENSE OF FAIR PLAY.

INSTEAD, BARBARIAN INVITE EVERYONE TO PARTY AT BARBARIAN PLACE. AM NULL MAGIC DEMIPLANE NEXT TO BREWERY AND BROTHEL. NOT MISS IT.

Pounce with a lance? Never. Even multiattack with a lance is ridicolous.

I love AM Barbarian.

Sorry, just had to say that.

I love AM Barbarian.

Sorry, just had to say that.

/agree

Everytime I want to rip out my hair reading some moronic jackass's take on a rule, all I have to do is go look at AM's posts and I always feel better.

AM forever.

I can just see next week's FAQ ("Return of the Revenge of the Son of the FAQ Attack!") now:

Do lances deal their extra charging damage on attacks other than the first successful hit?

No.

I'd laugh.

That would mean that next next week FAQ would need name like FAQ: Resurrection after AM is done with it.

HOORAY FOR ONGOING FAQ/ERRATA BLOG POSTS!!! KEEP IT GOING!!!

Seriously, I just want to know how many more times I need to voice approval for these regular FAQ blog updates for them to get firmly cemented into a weekly blog feature. Please tell me, cause I *will* do whatever is necessary to make it happen. Just saying...

My humble suggestions for future FAQ weekly blog names:

How about "Beneath the Planet of the FAQ Attack"?

or my favorite:

"Life, Liberty, and Pursuit on the Planet of the FAQ Attack"

That would be really boss.

MSG

I can just see next week's FAQ ("Return of the Revenge of the Son of the FAQ Attack!") now:

Quote:

Do lances deal their extra charging damage on attacks other than the first successful hit?

No.

I'd laugh.

Why? How would that be funny?

Mostly the seemingly planned decision to clarify the rules as they've always been on one week (with AM clearly being the catalyst), and the next week they take away the main bit of damage from ragelancepounce. Build up one week, then knock down the next. If that happened, I'd laugh and then lament.

Here's a candidate for a future installment. 22 clicks and counting in an hour and a half.

Seems worthwhile, eh?

The strange thing is that this was already done. In a very long thread were AM presented the ragelancepounce build a developer said that the totem was not intended to be used this way, that the ability "pounce" was designed for natural weapons. I like that. I would also permit a 2 weapons user to attack with both.

I'm quite sure they have a list of all those FAQ'd threads, ordered by number of FAQ requests ;)

The strange thing is that this was already done. In a very long thread were AM presented the ragelancepounce build a developer said that the totem was not intended to be used this way, that the ability "pounce" was designed for natural weapons. I like that. I would also permit a 2 weapons user to attack with both.

Which developer said that? Was it JB, SKR, or SMR? I do not recall seeing any of the developers weigh in on that previous.

Don't remember, sorry. Since I'm not interested in havin "the official rules about..." I just take what is useful for my game. I'm discussing about that because I'd like that PF mantains a more serious style and this sounds to me as a big error.

So the barbarian wearing Rhino Hide armor is still able to rage-pounce-lance with 4 attacks, 5 if hasted all in one move?

wraithstrike wrote:

Sean you might want to verify if you really meant any attack sequence instead of melee attacks which is the the core rules say.

The charge rule limits you to melee attacks.

The pounce rule says you can make a full attack when you charge, but doesn't invalidate the rest of the restrictions of the charge rule (melee only).

Technically, the FAQ just clarifies that the pounce rule doesn't limit you to just natural attacks, and thus doesn't invalidate the rest of the charge rules (melee only), but when I add this to the actual FAQ I'll make sure it's clear that the FAQ answer isn't opening up this combo for non-melee attacks.

Great blog posts!

Also the recurring question if the bonus from furious weapons, bane weapons, Hol y Avenger, etc. count for bypassing DR would be nice to have a verdict on. But all in due time :-)

Which developer said that? Was it JB, SKR, or SMR? I do not recall seeing any of the developers weigh in on that previous.

It was James Jacobs. So, not really official errata or anything. I think he has said it a few times, but you can see one here.

EDIT: Oh yes, and "Yay, FAQ!" It is great to have a few of these little issues worked out every week. Now I just have to wait until they get to how the heck Master Craftsman is supposed to work.

Don't remember, sorry. Since I'm not interested in havin "the official rules about..." I just take what is useful for my game. I'm discussing about that because I'd like that PF mantains a more serious style and this sounds to me as a big error.

Well, one developer commented that it was not intended. It happens I write lots of things that aren't treated as intended. But, when an FAQ comes out that generally means the question was tossed around the office and multiple developers came to the conclusion to leave it work that way.

If you prefer to have games where people can't use iterative attacks on a pounce feel free to do so. Just don't let me catch you crying later about how martial characters don't get nice things.

Pounce should really just be natural attacks. I would even go one step further and say natural attacks of Animal creature types only. Any other creature type does not benefit from Pounce at all. That would certainly solve much debate about this Universal Monster Rule. Why this applies to player characters at all I have no idea.

Pounce should really just be natural attacks. I would even go one step further and say natural attacks of Animal creature types only. Any other creature type does not benefit from Pounce at all. That would certainly solve much debate about this Universal Monster Rule. Why this applies to player characters at all I have no idea.

Said universal monster rule is handed out to barbarians, rangers, spellcasters and druids. So I don't understand the point of emphasis.

cibet44 wrote:

Pounce should really just be natural attacks. I would even go one step further and say natural attacks of Animal creature types only. Any other creature type does not benefit from Pounce at all. That would certainly solve much debate about this Universal Monster Rule. Why this applies to player characters at all I have no idea.

Said universal monster rule is handed out to barbarians, rangers, spellcasters and druids. So I don't understand the point of emphasis.

And then players couldn't have damage reduction, flight, climb speed, natural attacks, resistance, or anything else. Oh noes!

Pounce should really just be natural attacks. I would even go one step further and say natural attacks of Animal creature types only. Any other creature type does not benefit from Pounce at all.

The griffon, hydra, shadow demon, and sphinx are now crying.

That would certainly solve much debate about this Universal Monster Rule. Why this applies to player characters at all I have no idea.

Ferocity, immunity, and low-light vision would like a few words with you.