|
Do you mean:
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.
By the way the mounted combat section begins on page 201.
Do you mean:
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.
ignored the "if your mount charges" bit and out of context on the "gained from the charge part". The charge" as in the charge the mount makes. Charging on horse back is an action you direct the mount to make.
The burden of proof is still on you sir. :)
NO U
The burden of proof is still on you sir. :)It's already been proven but you won't accept the proof so then it becomes a a personal problem. All the book would have to do is say you are considered to be charging when your mount charges but it doesn't. It limits you because "you" are not charging.
The thing is that people really want to be able to do this and bad. I bet the developers are taking their sweet time to decide who not to upset on the ruling.
Charging on horseback gives all the benefits of charging. It says so in the rules.
wrong again. It says bonus not benefit.
Oh man, we're gonna do the synonyms thing now?
bonus in d20 has always been numerical.
I'm having trouble finding that rule in my Core Rulebook. Would you tell me the page number?Oh man, we're gonna do the synonyms thing now?bonus in d20 has always been numerical.
page 11. Nice try.
|
Specific overrides general. In the general case, if you were considered to be charging when your mount charges, there would be no need to specify in the rules what the effects were - they would just be as for charging.
We have the statement:
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.
This is a specific statement to say that you acquire the numeric AC penalty and the numerical bonus obtained by your mount charging. Since we have a specific set of bonuses and penalties called out for this specific situation, you are not yourself charging.
Otherwise you'd save valuable wordcount just by stating:
If your mount charges, you are also charging.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
bonus is in no way synonymous to benefit.
bonus signifies 'more', 'additional' 'beyond the normal amount' but it has a fixed reference, the thing that normally you have 1,2,3,4 of, you now have X more of. benefit may have no relation to some 'normal' amount.
mounted charge actually says
notice that bonus is in the singular 'the bonus', not 'all bonuses of charge' which would be necessary to carry over charging to you even if you blur the lines between bonus/benefit. further, the context for this is 'If you make an attack' i.e., again singular tense.
there are some feats that allow full attacks after your mount moves, even though normally you are restricted to one.... i believe rhino hide armor was clarified (officially?) to only apply to one charge attack, pounce or not....
likewise w/ mounted charge, the bonus from charge should only apply to one attack... i'm ok enough with that 1 attack counting as a charge attack (though that's not clear by raw at all), but YOU aren't charging yourself (to trigger pounce) that isn't really raw, but it seems clear that mounted charge needs errata, and not just this exact issue, either.
I'm not trying anything. I wanted to find the page. Rule 1, don't be a jerk.
my apologies. I thought you were coming across that way :x
So, just to get this straight, there is a faction of people on the boards who are arguing the rules are written in such a way as to prevent the shining knight in armor from being able to charge with a lance while mounted on horseback. Do I have that correct?
No. Mr Knight uses the horse's charge to gain the bonus to charge and double damage with lance. Then we have a few mounted charge feats to help him along the way.
|
The problem some people have with the rules is whether the current mounted combat rules allow a steamy relationship with the pounce rules and the lance rules.
Having seen a level 2 barbarian two shot a CR 5 encounter in a PFS scenario, I really don't think giving him pounce all the way at level 10 is an issue. Barbarians have and always will wreck face in melee.
Core rules state that the horse uses his action to move. They also state that you may make an attack at the end of its charge with charge bonus. Our faction interprets this as your mount makes the charge and you gain the bonus. This makes pounce illegal because you aren't using your charge to accomplish this.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The rules also state that you(the rider) is using the charge action so I ask again how are you using the charge action, but not charging.
I saw you previous reply, but if that was the case you(the rider) would not be using the charge action, the horse would. You would just be along for the ride.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Core rules state that the horse uses his action to move. They also state that you may make an attack at the end of its charge with charge bonus. Our faction interprets this as your mount makes the charge and you gain the bonus. This makes pounce illegal because you aren't using your charge to accomplish this.
But what if I'm riding a dire tiger?
|
|
Core rules state that the horse uses his action to move. They also state that you may make an attack at the end of its charge with charge bonus. Our faction interprets this as your mount makes the charge and you gain the bonus. This makes pounce illegal because you aren't using your charge to accomplish this.But what if I'm riding a dire tiger?
Awww, curved ball! ;)
ATron9000, by the same logic lances would never deal double damage (or triple with spirited) since they aren't really charging.
It's fine that you don't like the way the rules work. But there's no need to resort to sophistry to show that your skewed interpretation of the rules is correct.
|
|
Core rules state that the horse uses his action to move. They also state that you may make an attack at the end of its charge with charge bonus. Our faction interprets this as your mount makes the charge and you gain the bonus. This makes pounce illegal because you aren't using your charge to accomplish this.But what if I'm riding a dire tiger?
You still don't get to use pounce. Your tiger can pounce all day long and still get it's attacks but you don't because it's still the tiger's action that is being used, not yours. It's simple.
|
|
Awww, curved ball! ;)Core rules state that the horse uses his action to move. They also state that you may make an attack at the end of its charge with charge bonus. Our faction interprets this as your mount makes the charge and you gain the bonus. This makes pounce illegal because you aren't using your charge to accomplish this.But what if I'm riding a dire tiger?
Sorry might want to try pitching something a little harder to knock out of the park.
The rules also state that you(the rider) is using the charge action so I ask again how are you using the charge action, but not charging.
I saw you previous reply, but if that was the case you(the rider) would not be using the charge action, the horse would. You would just be along for the ride.
where does it specifically state that?
It does specifically state that if the horse charges you get the charge bonus. Page 11 in the core book tells us that bonus is numerical. That's specific stuff. We need feats to do other specifics like spirited and ride by. It also points out the lance damage
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
ATron9000, by the same logic lances would never deal double damage (or triple with spirited) since they aren't really charging.
It's fine that you don't like the way the rules work. But there's no need to resort to sophistry to show that your skewed interpretation of the rules is correct.
Nope, because the rules specifically state these properties. One is a weapons property and the other is a feat. We are talking about an ability from Rage which has nothing to do with the above.
Core rules state that the horse uses his action to move. They also state that you may make an attack at the end of its charge with charge bonus. Our faction interprets this as your mount makes the charge and you gain the bonus. This makes pounce illegal because you aren't using your charge to accomplish this.But what if I'm riding a dire tiger?
then you must be awesome. It would pounce I guess. What???
ATron9000, by the same logic lances would never deal double damage (or triple with spirited) since they aren't really charging.
It's fine that you don't like the way the rules work. But there's no need to resort to sophistry to show that your skewed interpretation of the rules is correct.
It specifically says all that works.
....and back at ya
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
ATron9000, by the same logic lances would never deal double damage (or triple with spirited) since they aren't really charging.
A lance deals double damage when used from the back of a charging mount.
In what way? It specifically says the mount must be charging to get the x2.
You yourself can't charge while seated on a mount - you have to move at least 10' and would fall off.
The rules also state that you(the rider) is using the charge action so I ask again how are you using the charge action, but not charging.
I saw you previous reply, but if that was the case you(the rider) would not be using the charge action, the horse would. You would just be along for the ride.
where does it specifically state that?
It does specifically state that if the horse charges you get the charge bonus. Page 11 in the core book tells us that bonus is numerical. That's specific stuff. We need feats to do other specifics like spirited and ride by. It also points out the lance damage
Spirited Charge (Combat)
Your mounted charge attacks deal a tremendous amount of damage.
Prerequisites: Ride 1 rank, Mounted Combat, Ride-By Attack.
Benefit: When mounted and using the charge action, you deal double damage with a melee weapon (or triple damage with a lance).
That could have easily been written to say when your mount is charging or when your mount is using the charge action....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A lance deals double damage when used from the back of a charging mount.
In what way? It specifically says the mount must be charging to get the x2.
But then, under the charge rules you have this gem.
Lances and Charge Attacks: A lance deals double damage if employed by a mounted character in a charge.
A lance deals double damage when used from the back of a charging mount.
In what way? It specifically says the mount must be charging to get the x2.
But then, under the charge rules you have this gem.
Lances and Charge Attacks: A lance deals double damage if employed by a mounted character in a charge.
yes, the charge of a charging mount that is using its move action to take the charge action.
just to be nitpicky a charging mount is using a fullround action not a move action. Figured I'd mention it since everyone seems to be slanting every bit of data they've got to prove their respective point. Have fun.
RAW, many of the mounted combat feats don't work as written. It's a bug in the system to be sure. One that our faction hopes gets fixed right along with the clarifications we seek.
just to be nitpicky a charging mount is using a fullround action not a move action. Figured I'd mention it since everyone seems to be slanting every bit of data they've got to prove their respective point. Have fun.
yes. I should have said the mount uses a full round action. My point remains unchanged.
Why don't let charge and spirited charge working as usual and just avoid obviously broken rules? ^_^
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.
So, the intent is not what they wrote. He never changed the wording, he just said this wasn't the intent.
So he since he didn't change the wording the quote, "The size of a firearm never affects how many hands you need to use to shoot it" means ignoe what he says.
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.
So, the intent is not what they wrote. He never changed the wording, he just said this wasn't the intent.
So he since he didn't change the wording the quote, "The size of a firearm never affects how many hands you need to use to shoot it" means ignoe what he says.
I'm having a hard time following. Are you saying you still think a medium character can wield a large 2 handed rifle?
|
|
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.
So, the intent is not what they wrote. He never changed the wording, he just said this wasn't the intent.
So he since he didn't change the wording the quote, "The size of a firearm never affects how many hands you need to use to shoot it" means ignoe what he says.
He wrote " Just like with non-firearms, a creature cannot wield a weapon that’s far too big or small for it. " That should settle it.
If one of my players ever insisted on it, well 20 kobold gunslingers with giant guns aren't that funny.
While we're on the topic of charging, does my flying quadruped eidolon with pounce get to use his Death From Above feat on ALL of his pounce attacks?
While we're on the topic of charging, does my flying quadruped eidolon with pounce get to use his Death From Above feat on ALL of his pounce attacks?
see the bride of the faq thread. It says if a character had a combination of abilities that allowed you charge as if you were on a charging mount you'd only get spirited charge on the first attack. That is because after the first attack you aren't charging anymore. All momentum from the charge is on the initial attack. This is still fuzzy because its a bonus to hit and not damage though.
It replaces the charge bonus with a higher one so I don't see why not.