Godunderscor's page

The spell itself doesn't allow the character to make the attack like you say he does. He has to spend an action separate from casting the spell to do so (a Free Action).

I was referring to ranged Touch Spells like Scorching Ray and Acid Arrow. Link and Relevant Text:

Ranged Touch Spells in Combat: Some spells allow you to make a ranged touch attack as part of the casting of the spell. These attacks are made as part of the spell and do not require a separate action. Ranged touch attacks provoke an attack of opportunity, even if the spell that causes the attacks was cast defensively. Unless otherwise noted, ranged touch attacks cannot be held until a later turn.

If we want to homogenize these subjects, then we either do it fully or not at all, this pseudo-crap doesn't fly. I mean, why bother making the distinctions between a Full Attack and a Full Attack Action, or an Attack versus an Attack of Opportunity, if they are, according to you, fundamentally the same damn thing?

I don't want to homogenize anything. Far from it. I want - and I have said this before - I want the Attack Action to be renamed the Standard Attack to avoid exactly the conflation you're suggesting. If we did that, then making an attack and making a Standard Attack would be rightfully different. There could be no room for confusion as one(myself included, obviously given this thread) is wont to run into when reading too deeply into the rules.

Pounce wrote:

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).

Note the lack of the word "Action" after full attack.

It's very important to note that the game differentiates between the terms: "Melee basic attack", "Full attack", "Attack action", and "Full attack action". The attack action and full attack action are simply making melee basic attacks and full attacks respectively, but an action making a melee basic attack attached to it is not an attack action, and an action making a full attack as part of the action is not a full attack action.

And finally, this is all relevant because the text that allows you to demote your full attack into a melee basic attack is listed under the rules for the "Full attack" action that is listed under "full round actions". This, in fact, specifically prevents you from using that special rule with any feature granting a full attack that is not made as part of a full attack action.

Until your post, I did not realize the obvious conclusion: Full Attacks are separate from the Full Attack Action.

I'm convinced now that a Charge-Pounce-Full-Attacking character could not make use of the Attack/Move Conversion listed under the Full Attack Action.

The spell equivalency is a misnomer. There is a specific clause that allows characters to make the touch attack as a free action, when it would otherwise take its own standard action to make the attack. The casting of the spell creates an effect, and the player may make a ranged touch attack with that effect as its own action.

Right. Even though he isn't specifically making a ranged attack, he's making one as part of the spell. The attack is its own event despite the wizard having performed the Cast a Spell action. Relevant FAQ.

My point is that Pounce triggers on the Charge Action, which is a special full-round action separate from the Full Attack Action. The Charge Action does not allow for an expos-facto option change on attacks, and the Pounce feature makes no extra exception to this note other than stating that they can make all of their attacks.

In point of fact, Pounce dictates "When a creature with this special attack makes a charge, it can make a full attack." It doesn't matter if you are receiving it from a Charge, you are given a Full Attack from Pounce. That's the event you're now in, that's the action you're taking. Pounce makes no extra exception to say it's a special, limited version of a full attack, so there's no reason to treat it as anything other than a full attack.

There was a FAQ that had to state Pounce counts as a Full Attack for Haste, and was originally voted to not count. (It did get reversed.)

The funny thing about this FAQ is that, right now, despite Haste saying quite clearly "When making a full attack action", it works with Pounce. Pounce says it gives a full attack, it works with Haste which requires players to be making a full attack action. As the adage goes, "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck."

As all this information currently reflects, Pounce gives a Full Attack. As events go, you Charge, Pounce triggers, you get a full attack. Nowhere in the game - and please provide examples if I'm wrong - is there a reference to being able to make all of your attacks without making a Full Attack Action. Thus, there's no reason to believe this Pounce-granted Full Attack should not use the Full Attack rules.

Charge wrote:

Charging is a special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action. Charging, however, carries tight restrictions on how you can move.

If you're Pouncing, you're not Full-Attacking, you're Charging. Charging does not allow an expos-facto option change. Full Attack Action does.

There are spells that allow players to make ranged touch attacks. Yes, they're still casting a spell, but for the purpose of Attacks of Opportunity, these are two separate events thus enemies may take Attacks of Opportunity on either the Spell's Casting or on the Ranged Attack, as both provoke. If you're performing an action, you're performing that action.

It's also key to suggest that just because the Pounce allows you to make a Full Attack on a Charge, doesn't mean you're making a Full Attack Action, which is what allows you to stop after your first attack and allows for a move action. You're not taking the Full Attack Action with Pounce, you're taking the Charge Action, and the Charge Action doesn't allow the expos-facto option change that the Full Attack Action allows.

The only time at which characters may make a full attack is via the full attack action. A character with Pounce is not circumventing, but overcoming the normal limitations of the charge action. The Pounce addendum is an exception granting them a Full Attack post-charge. Just as if a character would be granted a melee attack they could substitute a trip, disarm or sunder combat maneuver, so too should a character granted a Full Attack be able to substitute their secondary attacks for a move; as they Full Attack action allows.

Now as action economy goes, Pounce is giving you a Full Attack, which is roughly equivalent to granting you a move action at the end of your charge. Already, a Charge is roughly equivalent to two Moves and a Standard since you can move double your speed then attack. Pounce is essentially giving that character 2 Full-Round equivalent actions, functionally granting its owners an additional move action over a normal charge. One way or another a Pouncing character is receiving extra turn economy, so why not as a Move proper?

It's a little cheesy, but that's Pounce in the first place. For fighter-esque characters with lots of attacks, Pouncing is probably the most powerful ability you can get. And in line with powerful abilities, it's difficult to achieve.

So is it cheesy? A little. Is it against RAW? Not as I can see. Is it against RAI? Well, it's a lot of movement, but the types of characters that can Pounce are hyper-reflexive athletes; so no, not really.

You completely missed what a full-round action is.

Quote:

Full-Round Actions

A full-round action requires an entire round to complete. Thus, it can't be coupled with a standard or a move action, though if it does not involve moving any distance, you can take a 5-foot step.

Pounce already seems to be an exception to the rule. I acquiesce, the wording here is irrefutable; however, is it not the case that feats and features often allow characters to perform actions otherwise unallowed?

As far as I'm reading, characters with Pounce who aren't otherwise hampered can:

1. Make a Full-Round Charge
2. Make a Full Attack at the destination using Pounce
3. Prematurely end their Full Attack to gain a move action useable for traversing distance up to their speed.

Relevant text:

"Charging is a special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action. Charging, however, carries tight restrictions on how you can move."
____________________
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)."
____________________
Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack

"After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round. If you've already taken a 5-foot step, you can't use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action."
____________________
"In a normal round, you can perform a standard action and a move action, or you can perform a full-round action."
____________________
Take 5-Foot Step

"You can move 5 feet in any round when you don't perform any other kind of movement. Taking this 5-foot step never provokes an attack of opportunity. You can't take more than one 5-foot step in a round, and you can't take a 5-foot step in the same round that you move any distance."
____________________

This looks legal. On a legal charge, Pouncing characters are granted a Full Attack - as the action - instead of just an attack. As per the rules of Full Attack, a character can convert the remaining attacks after their first into a move action. Technically, the character hasn't already taken a move action, as a Full Round is a different action type altogether. Thus, the character is free to take an additional move after having already Charged per RAW.

The only time a character is exempted from using a move action to traverse distance is in the same round one has already taken a 5-Foot Step.

The Morphling wrote:

The rules are written well. You're demanding they be revised to be less clear simply because you want them more legalistic.

+1

This is probably the most common confusion. Many people want the rules to be legal text, but don't understand that they are the 1% of the people that play the game. The other 99% wouldn't buy a legal text book for a game.

The text as it is now:

Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack

After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round. If you've already taken a 5-foot step, you can't use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.

The text as I'd like it to be

Interrupting a Full Attack

After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out. (If you've already taken a 5-foot step, you can't use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.)

Is that legal text?

Full Attack has some weird wording. To properly explain the conundrum, I'll have to reference some other rules first. To begin, they can't be started and completed like some other Full-Rounds actions can. This rule isn't used often, but here it is:

"The "start full-round action" standard action lets you start undertaking a full-round action, which you can complete in the following round by using another standard action. You can't use this action to start or complete a full attack, charge, run, or withdraw." So it looks like Full Attacks have to be accomplished all in one turn. That's the interpretation I've always seen in play, but then I see this rule:

Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack
After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round. If you've already taken a 5-foot step, you can't use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.

I bolded the relevant section. This text is not only superfluous, but confusing. The first section makes sense in play but is a little confusing rules-wise. Basically, every character that could legally make a Full Attack is considered to do so if they begin their turn with an attack. It's a crucial difference from them making an Attack action - a type of Standard action - because that would mean they couldn't use the rest of their attacks after the first resolved, since they would run into this rule:

"In a normal round, you can perform a standard action and a move action, or you can perform a full-round action." In play, this is intuitive and it all works with the "After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks," wording. Players are assumed to be using a Full Attack. This is why Vital Strike can't be used with a Full Attack.

"When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage. Roll the weapon’s damage dice for the attack twice and add the results together..." Vital Strike is an Attack action, which is a specific Standard Action. Because you're specifically saying you're using your Standard Action, you can't be making a Full-Round, and aren't making a Full Attack.

Why is this so much trouble? Taken as is, the "assuming you have not already taken a move action this round" is just completely useless. But that's not even the worst part of all this. The worst is the section heading.

Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack

As Full Attack is a type of Full-Round Action, Attack is a type of Standard Action. Using this wording - along with the aforementioned move action language - makes it seem the first attack in a round is always an Attack Action and that a Full Attack is a conversion of the Move Action following it. (Which would make Vital Strike a must-have, though that's not actually the worst thing.)

The trouble here is "Attack" is just too general. In other threads across the web there is a suggestion to rename the Attack action the Standard Attack. Given all the trouble I've gone through making this thread, I concur with their motion to distinguish language.

TL;DR - Name your shit better Paizo.

Sundering an ioun stone should use the normal rules for sundering a carried or worn object. That is, you make a combat maneuver check against the opponent's CMD. This represents the fact that the wearer of the stone can attempt to dodge the sunder, e.g. by moving his head, or deflecting your blow with his sword.

The text describing the AC of an ioun stone is just a holdover from 3.5, where attacks against carried or worn items (i.e. anything but a sword or a shield) used the AC of the item. If the designers had intended for sundering ioun stones to be possible without succeeding at a sunder combat maneuver, they would have been much more explicit about it.

I'd assume you're correct. Both Seekers of Secrets(wherefrom I assume the "facts about Ioun Stones" comes from) and the Core Rulebook were published in 2009. Old material, certainly.

To begin, I'll say I'm rather impressed with this whole Playtest. My initial reaction to getting new classes was one of jubilance. This lessened when I heard the "new" classes were combinations of existing classes - do excuse me for jumping to the conclusion they'd be straight mash-ups.
I was certainly surprised to see the result of these meshings were true offspring. Results such as the Arcanist, Investigator, Swashbuckler and Shaman.

My group ran a playtest session wherein we conducted a run through the first level of Thornkeep. My opinions of Slayer are based off this experience.

And what can I say, Slayer seems fantastically capable - as much as any fighter, certainly - but on the same breath; it's my opinion that Slayers are altogether less interesting than Fighters.

Whereas Fighters' main draw is their excellent selection of feats and polypurpose archetypes which allow them to fill almost any martial role thinkable, Slayers rely on a more specific experience.

They carry a "Specialist" air. In contrast to the Fighter who is "on" all the time, a Slayer focuses on single threats and dispatches them, then moves on.
But the devil is in the details.
As it stands, Slayers get a very "flat" numerical bonus against a single target. While good, Favored Target doesn't feed into the flavor of the class: of marking a target for death. Other than tracking those extra numbers - useful as they are - there's no moment of "Ah!"

Now, having seen what Paizo managed for the Arcanist, I'd say they're very much up to defining the Slayer; What follows are a few suggestions that I hope to get the ball rolling with.

Notice: I'll post a chart of the class progression down below. You'll also see that Sneak Attack is no longer an intrinsic feature but an Improvement.
!-----------!
Mark(Favored Target) - Instead of having access to a minorly effective (and effectively minor) ability all the time, I suggest Slayer repositions Mark into a choice worth some "umph". While I know it is not in keeping with its parents' class features(which are on all the time), I suggest Mark gain a number of uses per combat. So it looks like this:

"At level 1, the Slayer gains the ability to tune in to an opponent, recording their every movement in search for weakness. By spending a move action, the Slayer studies a target and gains +1 on Weapon Attack, Weapon Damage, and certain Skill rolls made against his mark. This ability may be used 1/Combat at 1st level, 2/Combat at 10th level, and 3/Combat at 19th level.

At levels 4,8,12, and 16, the Slayer's Marked Target Bonuses increase by 1; up to +5 at level 16."

By placing a limiting factor on the ability, I think some more "whizbam" could be allocated to it while keeping it under power budget.

Deathdealing(Whizbams) - Where it gets interesting.

"At level 2 and every 4 levels thereafter, the Slayer's efficiency in dispatching his Marks improves. The Slayer selects one of the following Improvements that modifies or adds to the bonuses he gains against a Marked Target.

Improved Critical - Any attacks you make against your Marked Target gain the benefit of Improved Critical, doubling the critical range of your attacks.

Combat Daring - You add your Marked Target bonus on Combat Maneuvers made against your Mark. This bonus stacks with the bonus on Weapon Attacks against your Mark.

Bloodhound - You gain the Scent Special Quality solely against your Mark(s). You gain the benefits of Blind-Fight against your Mark(s).

Gorehound - You gain the benefits of Improved Blind-Fight and Greater Blind-Fight in addition to Bloodhound's benefits. Requires 'Bloodhound'.

Sneak Attack - This acts as the Rogue Class Feature, with the exception that it only functions against a Marked Target. The damage progression is 1d6+1d6/3 Slayer levels(to a maximum of +7d6 at level 18)."

So on and so forth. This is where being a Slayer could really shine.

Slayer Talents - "At 3rd level and every 2 levels thereafter, a Slayer gains one Slayer Talent.

This functions identically to the current talents with the following additional talents to choose from.

Quick Draw - Gain Quick Draw as a bonus feat.

Poison Use - The Slayer is trained in the use of poison and can no longer accidentally poison himself while applying poison to a weapon.

Improved Feint - Gain Improved Feint as a bonus feat.

Exotic Weapon Proficiency - Gain as a bonus feat."

That rounds out some of the more essential ideas. Here's a chart.

1st - Mark Target +1, Mark 1/Combat
2nd - Deathdealing
3rd - Slayer Talent
4th - Mark Target +2
5th - Slayer Talent
6th - Deathdealing
7th - Slayer Talent
8th - Mark Target +3
9th - Slayer Talent
10th - Deathdealing, Mark 2/Combat
11th - Slayer Talent
12th - Mark Target +4
13th - Slayer Talent
14th - Deathdealing
15th - Slayer Talent
16th - Mark Target +5
17th - Slayer Talent
18th - Deathdealing
19th - Slayer Talent, Mark 3/Combat
20th - Capstone

The important thing, the thing I really want to push, is that *Favored Target can be so much more than a scaling number.

Cheers for reading.