Revenge of the Son of the FAQ Attack!

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

It’s back, and it wants revenge!

Inappropriately Sized Firearms (Ultimate Combat, page 136): Does this allow a Medium or smaller creature to use larger firearms of any size?

The text of the rule is, "The size of a firearm never affects how many hands you need to use to shoot it." The intent of that rule was to prevent a Medium character from using a Small rifle as a one-handed pistol; it wasn’t intended to let a Medium character use a Large, Huge, Gargantuan, or Colossal two-handed firearm as a two-handed weapon. Just like with non-firearms, a creature cannot wield a weapon that’s far too big or small for it. Specifically in the case of firearms, a Medium character can’t use a two-handed firearm sized for a Large or larger creature, and a Small character can’t use a two-handed firearm sized for a Medium or larger creature.

Pounce (Bestiary, page 302): If have this ability, can I make iterative attacks with weapons as part of my full attack?

Any attack sequence you can perform as a full attack is allowed as part of the charge-pounce-full attack. For example, a barbarian with the greater beast totem rage power gains pounce universal monster ability and could make iterative attacks with manufactured weapons as part of her charge-pounce-full attack.

Spell Combat (Ultimate Magic, page 10): Can a magus use this ability with cantrips?

Yes. It is not limited to spells of level 1 or higher.

Rage Mutagen (Ultimate Combat, page 25): Is the Strength bonus for this archetype ability in addition to the normal bonus for a Strength mutagen?

No, the +6 replaces the normal +4 Strength bonus of the alchemist’s Strength mutagen. This will be clarified in a future printing of Ultimate Combat.

Page 25—In the Ragechemist archetype, in the Rage Mutagen class feature, change the first sentence to read as follows:

"At 2nd level, whenever a ragechemist creates a mutagen that improves his Strength, that mutagen’s bonus to Strength increases by +2 and penalizes the alchemist’s Intelligence score."

Sean K Reynolds
Designer

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Frequently Asked Questions Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
101 to 150 of 211 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

Soooooooooooooooo............ Is my question going to be answered by a developer?

The Exchange

Scott Betts wrote:
AlecStorm wrote:

Now tell me that making a full attack with a lance is not ridicolous. Tell me that was the traditional way of fighting of medieval knight.

Yes, making a full attack with a lance is ridiculous. But it's also no more ridiculous than about a thousand other things that have wormed their way into D&D, many of which you probably have no problem with. I don't think you actually care that much about what is and isn't ridiculous.

It's not ridiculous in the slightest. You roll the attacks, sum the damage and the DM describes it as a single, thunderous strike to the enemy that shatters bone and rends flesh.

One attack roll does not equal one physical strike against the enemy. Unless that makes for better description, when it does.


brock wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
AlecStorm wrote:

Now tell me that making a full attack with a lance is not ridicolous. Tell me that was the traditional way of fighting of medieval knight.

Yes, making a full attack with a lance is ridiculous. But it's also no more ridiculous than about a thousand other things that have wormed their way into D&D, many of which you probably have no problem with. I don't think you actually care that much about what is and isn't ridiculous.

It's not ridiculous in the slightest. You roll the attacks, sum the damage and the DM describes it as a single, thunderous strike to the enemy that shatters bone and rends flesh.

One attack roll does not equal one physical strike against the enemy. Unless that makes for better description, when it does.

If it was a single strike DR should apply 1 time, not to all strike.

If someone want to add impossible stuffs like this to game a different wording on rules is necessary, or maybe a new feat.
What is worst in all this discussion is that people are defending a game option that not only is not serious to imagine and describe (and in fact you should describe something else), but that let a character to make his full attack x3 damage, so if a barb can attack 4 times he will make the equivalent of 12 attacks, and this is obviously a non sense in game balance.

Silver Crusade

From my personal perspective I just want to play the game by the rules and if there are things that are kind of funky with the rules then I want them clarified.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
shallowsoul wrote:
Soooooooooooooooo............ Is my question going to be answered by a developer?

Back off, my pony question comes first.


Wait which pony question?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
redliska wrote:
Wait which pony question?

If I can have one from Paizo...after all, Sebastian got his!

Also, I believe that there are those 5 guys still hoping that Antagonize will get nerfed waiting in that line...

Liberty's Edge

Gorbacz wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Soooooooooooooooo............ Is my question going to be answered by a developer?
Back off, my pony question comes first.

Mister would you please help my pony?

I think it's his lung.


AlecStorm wrote:
If it was a single strike DR should apply 1 time, not to all strike.

You have a really hard time understanding the concept of abstraction, don't you?


Glendwyr wrote:
AlecStorm wrote:
If it was a single strike DR should apply 1 time, not to all strike.

You have a really hard time understanding the concept of abstraction, don't you?

Yes, I have. More or less as some people has hard time to understand the concept of seriousness and game balance :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Glendwyr wrote:
AlecStorm wrote:
If it was a single strike DR should apply 1 time, not to all strike.

You have a really hard time understanding the concept of abstraction, don't you?

That level of abstraction only works in a bubble. When you actually play the game where abilities interact, it only might work. For example, what if ragelancepounce is used against somebody who uses crane style to deflect the first attack? Are we going to say he deflected the entire full attack? What if ragelancepounce killed the target on the first hit and there are three other enemies within range? Is the barbarian going to not attack them for the sake of abstraction? Probably not. He's probably going to kill each one in turn.


drumlord wrote:
Glendwyr wrote:
AlecStorm wrote:
If it was a single strike DR should apply 1 time, not to all strike.

You have a really hard time understanding the concept of abstraction, don't you?

That level of abstraction only works in a bubble. When you actually play the game where abilities interact, it only might work. For example, what if ragelancepounce is used against somebody who uses crane style to deflect the first attack? Are we going to say he deflected the entire full attack? What if ragelancepounce killed the target on the first hit and there are three other enemies within range? Is the barbarian going to not attack them for the sake of abstraction? Probably not. He's probably going to kill each one in turn.

I agree at all.

The Exchange

drumlord wrote:
Glendwyr wrote:
AlecStorm wrote:
If it was a single strike DR should apply 1 time, not to all strike.

You have a really hard time understanding the concept of abstraction, don't you?

That level of abstraction only works in a bubble. When you actually play the game where abilities interact, it only might work. For example, what if ragelancepounce is used against somebody who uses crane style to deflect the first attack? Are we going to say he deflected the entire full attack? What if ragelancepounce killed the target on the first hit and there are three other enemies within range? Is the barbarian going to not attack them for the sake of abstraction? Probably not. He's probably going to kill each one in turn.

Yep - and it's up to the GM to describe what happens in terms of the abstracted combat system. Perhaps the barbarian skewers the first target on the end of the lance and then whirls it around his head to bludgeon the other targets to death with its feebly kicking feet.

The only purpose of the multiple dice rolls to attack and damage, and the DR that AlecStorm mentioned, is to produce statistics that make for a fun and reasonably balanced (in that order) game. Why is DR applied 3 times on an iterative that is described as a single hit? Well, because the numbers work more fun that way - no other reason.

It's up to the players not to be jerks and break the immersion of other players by doing something that's completely nonsensical. It's up to the GM to provide a vivid description for everything else. Where the line is drawn on nonsensical is up to the play style of the individual table.


drumlord wrote:
That level of abstraction only works in a bubble. When you actually play the game where abilities interact, it only might work. For example, what if ragelancepounce is used against somebody who uses crane style to deflect the first attack? Are we going to say he deflected the entire full attack?

No (or maybe!). Maybe he only partially deflected the blow, directing it towards a less vital location. Or whatever. That's the whole idea behind abstracted combat. It encourages you to come up with your own flavorful explanation for what happened.

A lot of people are having a tough time wrapping their heads around abstracted combat.


Ahah it's funny how abstraction can help to have a barb that pounce with 2 lance and make 8 attacks (no buffs) that are x3 bonus damage, so he will do the equivalent of 24 attacks in dmg output.
It's super effective!


I guess I don't get it. "I don't do abstraction. Change the game to suit my tastes! It's too much like a video game!"

The problem is that it's the abstraction that keeps the game from being like a video game. If you insist every attack roll is a single attack, every damage roll is a single wound, and so on -- if you reduce everything about hit points, and armor class, and attack bonuses to a pure mechanistic thing -- you're running the combat exactly the same way as a computer would and you have... a video game combat system. And you complain about it.

But the problem is all in your head, and the problem is all your fault.

There's also, of course, the issue of complaining about the realism of high-level play and calling it the fault of, say, pounce, when it's the fault of high level play.

Let's give an example. An Iowa class battleship has belt armor 12 inches thick. Steel has hardness 10, 30 hit points/inch of thickness. A 16th-level monk ignores the hardness, and does, say, 20 points of damage per attack when stripped stark naked (2d8 + strength + power attack, forget magic and everything else). With flurry and some ki points, he can punch his way through the side of a battleship in 30 seconds flat.

That's not remotely realistic, of course, and the reason is that high level characters aren't meant to be realistic. Is it any surprise that the 16th-level monk's barbarian friend is also vastly more capable than our puny brains can imagine?

So I repeat - the problem isn't with the rules, it's with your expectations and your lack of abstraction.


Abstraction it's super effective!

The Exchange

AlecStorm wrote:

Ahah it's funny how abstraction can help to have a barb that pounce with 2 lance and make 8 attacks (no buffs) that are x3 bonus damage, so he will do the equivalent of 24 attacks in dmg output.

It's super effective!

I'd ask anyone proposing to play like that at my table to find another game. See the comment about breaking immersion above. It's not possible to craft a set of RPG rules that eliminates all of the stupid corner cases. It's up to the players and the GM to cooperate. It's not against the law to turn up to a formal dinner in a gimp suit and proceed to vomit in the punch bowl either, but you should have the grace to know that some actions are just pushing the bounds a little too far.


AlecStorm wrote:
Abstraction it's super effective!

Sarcasm: it's the last refuge of the witless!

Or, you know, you could try discussing things rationally.


That said, because I like realism in my games, I prefer E6. But playing a high level melee character and moaning about how unrealistic it is... that's just stupid. If you don't want to lose that sense of realism, don't play a superhero. It's just that simple.


brock wrote:
AlecStorm wrote:

Ahah it's funny how abstraction can help to have a barb that pounce with 2 lance and make 8 attacks (no buffs) that are x3 bonus damage, so he will do the equivalent of 24 attacks in dmg output.

It's super effective!
I'd ask anyone proposing to play like that at my table to find another game. See the comment about breaking immersion above. It's not possible to craft a set of RPG rules that eliminates all of the stupid corner cases. It's up to the players and the GM to cooperate. It's not against the law to turn up to a formal dinner in a gimp suit and proceed to vomit in the punch bowl either, but you should have the grace to know that some actions are just pushing the bounds a little too far.

I agree, in fact i let pounce work even with manufactured weapon, but you can attack 1 time with each weapon you wield. In my previous comment i say the same thing you say, it's impossible with so many options to avoid bug, it's up to gm and player fix it. What is sad is seeing many players that want to use the ragelancepounce option. Lol 9 attacks with haste with the dmg output of 27 attack, and the fighter... 1. Maybe in 6 round he will make the same damage the bard did in first round.


2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm still in the camp that a mounted pounce is illegal and a mounted charge is different than an unmounted charge. I'm sure this will get FAQed soon enough.


I recall multiple times Sean saying that abilities either need to be the same or be different. What he means by that is that they should either be exactly the same, or very different. So if you have two classes that give "channeled energy", they should do the same exact thing.

I have a hunch he'd feel the same about charges.


So you should be able to spring attack while mounted.


...


You are using a movement that is not your own to use an attack that requires your movement to execute.


ATron9000 wrote:
So you should be able to spring attack while mounted.

Nope. You being able to dodge on foot does not mean your mount knows how to do so.

Quote:
You are using a movement that is not your own to use an attack that requires your movement to execute.

Where is that quote. Pounce only requires a charge, and by the mount charging rules you and the mount are both charging unless you are going to argue that you(the rider) is not charging, but the rules quoted before say otherwise.

Another rules quote:

Quote:
When charging on horseback, you deal double damage with a lance (see Charge).

It seems like you are charging to me. Bear in mind I am not saying a GM should allow everything that is rules legal.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Glendwyr wrote:

...

Let's give an example. An Iowa class battleship has belt armor 12 inches thick. Steel has hardness 10, 30 hit points/inch of thickness. A 16th-level monk ignores the hardness, and does, say, 20 points of damage per attack when stripped stark naked (2d8 + strength + power attack, forget magic and everything else). With flurry and some ki points, he can punch his way through the side of a battleship in 30 seconds flat.
...

This example is unfair. If the Navy had access to Adamatium, they wouldn't use steel for their battleships... ;-)


Exactly Zen. Exactly.

Silver Crusade

wraithstrike wrote:
ATron9000 wrote:
So you should be able to spring attack while mounted.

Nope. You being able to dodge on foot does not mean your mount knows how to do so.

Quote:
You are using a movement that is not your own to use an attack that requires your movement to execute.

Where is that quote. Pounce only requires a charge, and by the mount charging rules you and the mount are both charging unless you are going to argue that you(the rider) is not charging, but the rules quoted before say otherwise.

Another rules quote:

Quote:
When charging on horseback, you deal double damage with a lance (see Charge).
It seems like you are charging to me. Bear in mind I am not saying a GM should allow everything that is rules legal.

The main problem is we don't know exactly what is legal and what isn't.

Let's look at it this way. Say you are riding a dire tiger or lion who posses pounce while you don't. By your logic you are able to use pounce because your mount has it.

I see what you are trying to do here. It's the PC that posses the ability to Pounce and not your mount. Now there are feats, abilities and certain weapons that do certain things while mounted and those are spelled out. If I have the ability to run and jump a certain height over a wall that doesn't mean my horse can do the same. You don't use your stats to do a high jump when riding a horse.

The Exchange

wraithstrike wrote:


Quote:
When charging on horseback, you deal double damage with a lance (see Charge).
It seems like you are charging to me. Bear in mind I am not saying a GM should allow everything that is rules legal.

Elsewhere it specifically calls out that you get the numerical bonuses of a charge if you are on the back of a charging mount. So the rules themselves are not clear on whether you are classed as charging when riding a mount that is charging.

What the above should probably say is:

Quote:
When you are riding a mount that is charging, you deal double damage with a lance.

The whole concept of mounted combat would benefit from a rewrite and a cleanup. Until then, it's up to the GM.


brock wrote:
Yep - and it's up to the GM to describe what happens in terms of the abstracted combat system. Perhaps the barbarian skewers the first target on the end of the lance and then whirls it around his head to bludgeon the other targets to death with its feebly kicking feet.

Which intrudes on a rage power, a monk feat line, and arguably an improvised weapon character in terms of flavor. No, I'm not arguing against abstraction. I use it to a limited extent in my games. But I am arguing that when the rules say you make an attack and you made that attack with a given weapon, that is precisely what you did.

brock wrote:
The only purpose of the multiple dice rolls to attack and damage, and the DR that AlecStorm mentioned, is to produce statistics that make for a fun and reasonably balanced (in that order) game. Why is DR applied 3 times on an iterative that is described as a single hit? Well, because the numbers work more fun that way - no other reason.

That is your interpretation of the rules, not fact. As I said, there are number of things that would break up an abstracted single ragelancepounce attack into each of its four, from crane style to a target dying to class abilities that trigger when an ally takes damage. All of these force the abstraction excuse for ragelancepounce to break. That is my sole point.

Don't make this out to be me saying abstraction is bad and can never be used. I'm saying you can't use abstraction as an excuse for ragelancepounce to exist. If you want ragelancepounce to exist, you have to acknowledge that it might need to be described as a barbarian striding forward on a mount, attacking with a lance, and then attacking with a lance, and then attacking with a lance, and then attacking with a lance.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
drumlord wrote:


Don't make this out to be me saying abstraction is bad and can never be used. I'm saying you can't use abstraction as an excuse for ragelancepounce to exist. If you want ragelancepounce to exist, you have to acknowledge that it might need to be described as a barbarian striding forward on a mount, attacking with a lance, and then attacking with a lance, and then attacking with a lance, and then attacking with a lance.

Actually, my intent was to say the opposite: the fact that 'ragelancepounce' could result in 4 attacks with a lance is not a sufficient reason to condemn it - the combat system is an abstraction and it is the GM's job to provide a believable description of what happens.

I'd not allow 'ragelancepounce' as a tactic because a) I believe its not allowed under the rules, and b) It's so obviously an overpowered, unpredicted edge-case that even if it were legal, it would be in bad taste to use it.


wraithstrike wrote:
ATron9000 wrote:
So you should be able to spring attack while mounted.

Nope. You being able to dodge on foot does not mean your mount knows how to do so.

Quote:
You are using a movement that is not your own to use an attack that requires your movement to execute.

Where is that quote. Pounce only requires a charge, and by the mount charging rules you and the mount are both charging unless you are going to argue that you(the rider) is not charging, but the rules quoted before say otherwise.

Another rules quote:

Quote:
When charging on horseback, you deal double damage with a lance (see Charge).
It seems like you are charging to me. Bear in mind I am not saying a GM should allow everything that is rules legal.

Where does it say you cannot use dodge and mobility on horseback? You would get the bonus and not your mount. You can of course use mounted combat to negate. So where does spring attack stand? I'd say no dice just like with pounce.

"If your mount charges, you also take the AC penalty associated with a charge. If you 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."

The "charge action" it calls for under spirited charge is referring to this.

Dark Archive

brock wrote:
drumlord wrote:


Don't make this out to be me saying abstraction is bad and can never be used. I'm saying you can't use abstraction as an excuse for ragelancepounce to exist. If you want ragelancepounce to exist, you have to acknowledge that it might need to be described as a barbarian striding forward on a mount, attacking with a lance, and then attacking with a lance, and then attacking with a lance, and then attacking with a lance.

Actually, my intent was to say the opposite: the fact that 'ragelancepounce' could result in 4 attacks with a lance is not a sufficient reason to condemn it - the combat system is an abstraction and it is the GM's job to provide a believable description of what happens.

I'd not allow 'ragelancepounce' as a tactic because a) I believe its not allowed under the rules, and b) It's so obviously an overpowered, unpredicted edge-case that even if it were legal, it would be in bad taste to use it.

You're posting in a FAQ thread where they just confirmed ragelancepounce works. ???


Mergy wrote:
brock wrote:
drumlord wrote:


Don't make this out to be me saying abstraction is bad and can never be used. I'm saying you can't use abstraction as an excuse for ragelancepounce to exist. If you want ragelancepounce to exist, you have to acknowledge that it might need to be described as a barbarian striding forward on a mount, attacking with a lance, and then attacking with a lance, and then attacking with a lance, and then attacking with a lance.

Actually, my intent was to say the opposite: the fact that 'ragelancepounce' could result in 4 attacks with a lance is not a sufficient reason to condemn it - the combat system is an abstraction and it is the GM's job to provide a believable description of what happens.

I'd not allow 'ragelancepounce' as a tactic because a) I believe its not allowed under the rules, and b) It's so obviously an overpowered, unpredicted edge-case that even if it were legal, it would be in bad taste to use it.

You're posting in a FAQ thread where they just confirmed ragelancepounce works. ???

Now the argument is that pounce doesn't work while mounted.

Dark Archive

TarkXT wrote:
Mergy wrote:
brock wrote:
drumlord wrote:


You're posting in a FAQ thread where they just confirmed ragelancepounce works. ???
Now the argument is that pounce doesn't work while mounted.

Why? Is there anything mentioned under the pounce rules that states it does not work while mounted?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
ATron9000 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
ATron9000 wrote:
So you should be able to spring attack while mounted.

Nope. You being able to dodge on foot does not mean your mount knows how to do so.

Quote:
You are using a movement that is not your own to use an attack that requires your movement to execute.

Where is that quote. Pounce only requires a charge, and by the mount charging rules you and the mount are both charging unless you are going to argue that you(the rider) is not charging, but the rules quoted before say otherwise.

Another rules quote:

Quote:
When charging on horseback, you deal double damage with a lance (see Charge).
It seems like you are charging to me. Bear in mind I am not saying a GM should allow everything that is rules legal.

Where does it say you cannot use dodge and mobility on horseback? You would get the bonus and not your mount. You can of course use mounted combat to negate. So where does spring attack stand? I'd say no dice just like with pounce.

"If your mount charges, you also take the AC penalty associated with a charge. If you 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."

The "charge action" it calls for under spirited charge is referring to this.

The thing with Spring Attack is "you" know how to Spring Attack, not your horse. Dodge could be looked at as you weaving back and forth in your saddle, the same would go for Mobility. Anyway, Rage Pounce is an ability and not a feat.

Actually I think I found the answer right here: Core rulebook page 201 "Your mount acts on your initiative count as you direct it.
You move at its speed, but the mount uses its action to move."

The horse is using "it's" action not move, not your action therefore you don't get to use pounce.


The argument is that under the mounted combat rules it says "if your mount charges"

Silver Crusade

Mergy wrote:
brock wrote:
drumlord wrote:


Don't make this out to be me saying abstraction is bad and can never be used. I'm saying you can't use abstraction as an excuse for ragelancepounce to exist. If you want ragelancepounce to exist, you have to acknowledge that it might need to be described as a barbarian striding forward on a mount, attacking with a lance, and then attacking with a lance, and then attacking with a lance, and then attacking with a lance.

Actually, my intent was to say the opposite: the fact that 'ragelancepounce' could result in 4 attacks with a lance is not a sufficient reason to condemn it - the combat system is an abstraction and it is the GM's job to provide a believable description of what happens.

I'd not allow 'ragelancepounce' as a tactic because a) I believe its not allowed under the rules, and b) It's so obviously an overpowered, unpredicted edge-case that even if it were legal, it would be in bad taste to use it.

You're posting in a FAQ thread where they just confirmed ragelancepounce works. ???

It does work, to a certain extent, but it doesn't say anything about doing double damage and using being able to use Spirited Charge with a pounce. That's a whole different scenario.

You can rage lance pounce and do 1d8 + (X) x3 but that's it and while on foot. Says nothing about while being mounted.

Dark Archive

Except you're both charging, not moving.


shallowsoul wrote:
ATron9000 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
ATron9000 wrote:
So you should be able to spring attack while mounted.

Nope. You being able to dodge on foot does not mean your mount knows how to do so.

Quote:
You are using a movement that is not your own to use an attack that requires your movement to execute.

Where is that quote. Pounce only requires a charge, and by the mount charging rules you and the mount are both charging unless you are going to argue that you(the rider) is not charging, but the rules quoted before say otherwise.

Another rules quote:

Quote:
When charging on horseback, you deal double damage with a lance (see Charge).
It seems like you are charging to me. Bear in mind I am not saying a GM should allow everything that is rules legal.

Where does it say you cannot use dodge and mobility on horseback? You would get the bonus and not your mount. You can of course use mounted combat to negate. So where does spring attack stand? I'd say no dice just like with pounce.

"If your mount charges, you also take the AC penalty associated with a charge. If you 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."

The "charge action" it calls for under spirited charge is referring to this.

The thing with Spring Attack is "you" know how to Spring Attack, not your horse. Dodge could be looked at as you weaving back and forth in your saddle, the same would go for Mobility. Anyway, Rage Pounce is an ability and not a feat.

Actually I think I found the answer right here: Core rulebook page 201 "Your mount acts on your initiative count as you direct it.
You move at its speed, but the mount uses its action to move."

The horse is using "it's" action not move, not your action therefore you don't get to use pounce.

I believe I said this in another thread which was ignored.

Silver Crusade

Mergy wrote:
Except you're both charging, not moving.

Actually thats incorrect. Your horse is charging but the only thing you gain is the minus to AC and the bonus to hit. You are not considered charging.

"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)."

From the core rulebook.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

No, I'm pretty sure you're both charging.

Silver Crusade

Mergy wrote:
No, I'm pretty sure you're both charging.

You're not listening. I'm "telling" you that you and your horse are not charging.

Your horse is doing the charging but you still gain the bonus and the minus.

Dark Archive

Okay. Would you show me the rule that says "when charging on your mount, you are not considered to be charging"?

Silver Crusade

Mergy wrote:
Okay. Would you show me the rule that says "when charging on your mount, you are not considered to be charging"?

"If your mount charges" Page 201.

Silver Crusade

Mergy wrote:
Okay. Would you show me the rule that says "when charging on your mount, you are not considered to be charging"?

Show me in the mounted combat section where it says that you charge instead of your mount, which is impossible by the way. You will notice that it talks about your mount charging and not you.

Dark Archive

Do you mean:

Quote:
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).

Because I'm pretty sure that means pounce is still A-okay!

EDIT: By the way, that's page 202. And there's an edit button; it's pretty good for avoiding those annoying double posts.

Silver Crusade

Mergy wrote:

Do you mean:

Quote:
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).

Because I'm pretty sure that means pounce is still A-okay!

EDIT: By the way, that's page 202.

No. The rules specify what you actually gain. It doesn't anything about you are considered to be charging, only your mount. If you are assumed to be charging as well then why do they have to take the time to specify that you gain the bonus and the minus. It should be a given.

101 to 150 of 211 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Paizo Blog: Revenge of the Son of the FAQ Attack! All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.