Being purely the item creation guy is going to be very boring for you. I think the closest you'll get to an equivalent to some sort of gadgeteer is a bomb-focused Alchemist. They have a nice crafting flavor, can take the item creation feats, and the bombs can easily feel or be flavored like a "neverending" supply of offensive gadgets.
Make sure to always be the person that has the appropriate out-of combat gear. Ropes, ladders, grappling hooks, fire (not a problem for an alchemist). Have tools and ranks in the Disable Device skill to tinker your way past (mundane) locks and traps. Learn the mundane alchemical items and weapons and how to use the Hybdridization Funnel.
This kind of character requires a lot of knowledge of both mundane and magical items and tools, but can be very fun to play. Just don't focus everything on crafting, or you'll be bored 99% of the time.
Horn of the Criosphinx does make a specific exception for empty-handed monks, so they can use it with unarmed strikes. Too bad for brawlers.
Horn of the Criosphinx was written before the Advanced Class Guide was released, so unless you're playing PFS or you have a tyrannical GM, Brawler should be fine.
It would probably help if you told us more about what power he is abusing and how it is slightly broken according to you. It's difficult to suggest solutions when we don't know what the problem is :)
Unarmed Strike Damage is 1d3. Casting Enlarge person on the Monk would increase the unarmed strike damage, but too bad you are not using that number! The number for US damage is 1d3, so increasing your size 1 step would increase your damage from 1d3 to 1d4. Better to just keep your MUS Damage of 1d8.
This does not hold up, as MUS also increases when you enlarge. In the last sentence, your MUS damage is now 2d6, since you are a large monk, which makes Enlarge Person function splendidly for you, and voids your reductio ad absurdum.
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Therefore, Improved Natural Attack would increase the Bite Damage from 1d8 to 2d6, too. Or your premise is wrong, and neither Enlarge Person nor INA increase the damage starting from the 1d8 MUSD. I would be from 1d4 to 1d6 for the Bite and 1d3 to 1d4 for the US....
... and 1d8 to 2d6 for the MUS, which is what you're delivering with your bite attack when using FCT.
You are saying that if you have a Monk with Unarmed Strike Damage of 1d10 who grows to Large say via Wild Shape or maybe even Enlarge Person, the damage increases from 1d10 to 2d8. And you are saying that if this same Monk had a Natural Attack, a Bite Attack in your example that benefits from Feral Combat Training, growing 1 size larger also increases the Bite Damage from 1d10 to 2d8. Is that right?
No, that is not right. Specifically, the bolded part is incorrect. That's the thing we keep explaining, and you keep missing. And it is what your argument hinges upon.
When you grow large, your bite attack does increase in damage, but, unless by coincidence your bite attack also did 1d10 damage without FCT, it will not grow from 1d10 to 2d8. Your Bite Damage will probably grow from 1d6 to 2d6. Seeing as 2d8 is better than 2d6 and you have FCT (bite), you can use your bite attack to deal your monk unarmed strike damage. Increasing your bite damage through any means (such as INA), has no effect on your unarmed strike damage.
This does not mean that FCT "squelches all other aspects of the natural attack". No one has made that claim, saying we did and that that is incorrect is a straw man argument. If your bite is poisonous, you still get to apply the poison. If your bite grabs, you can still grab. The only thing we are saying, is that if you choose to apply your monk unarmed strike to your bite attack (which you can do thanks to FCT), monk unarmed strike replaces the damage of your bite attack as per the table in the monk unarmed strike class feature.
This is simply applying all the rules as they are written. It is not an "alternative" interpretation of the rules.
You can't really keep saying we need to provide you with a "rules-based counter argument", when we have repeatedly done so. Perhaps you don't think we are correct, but then the ball is now in your camp and you need to show why we are not correct. You can't keep claiming the rules show you correct and then simply ignore our repeated and extensive challenges to that notion.
prototype00: I agree with your interpretation of how Improved Natural Attack stacks with Unarmed Strike when you have Feral Combat Training. However, being that your entire guide seems to hinge on this it would definitely be nice to have a ruling. Well, actually, with or without your guide I think it is a basic rule that needs a ruling. Do we have a post we can FAQ on this that exists currently?
I humbly suggest my post, post #109 on this thread. It includes a quote from designer Mark Seifter and a counter argument. And frankly, my argument is so strong (if I do say so myself), the Design Team must either accept it as correctly what the rules say, or rewrite the rules to defeat the build.
It unfortunately is anything but. prototype00 quite succinctly pointed out something that your argument does not take into account, being that the monks unarmed strike damage is a "set" value, not something that is added or increased from his "base" unarmed damage.
FCT lets you use anything that "augments an unarmed strike" with the natural weapon. The monk's unarmed strike damage is such an effect. And just like with your ordinary unarmed strikes, it "sets" the damage of the attack in question to the unarmed strike damage. It does not add to or increase it.
Now, say a level 8 monk with FCT(bite) wild shapes into a large creature with a 2d6 bite attack. He is now a large monk with a bite attack. Being a large monk, his unarmed strike damage is 2d8. This is more than the normal damage for his bite, so he elects to use his unarmed strike damage instead (again, not a formulaic addition or an increase).
Suppose he has a buddy cast Strong Jaw on him. The buddy casts Strong Jaw not on his bite, but on his monk unarmed strike (a valid target for the spell). His monk unarmed strike damage increases, and since he replaced the value of his bite with his monk unarmed strike damage, his bite now also does that increased damage.
If he has Improved Natural Attack (bite), his bite attack would deal 3d6 damage. While this is higher average damage than his 2d8 large monk unarmed strike, it does not increase his large unarmed strike damage to 3d8. He has INA (bite), not INA (unarmed strike) (which is not allowed by INA). He can choose his bite to deal its own damage (3d6) or have it do the unarmed strike damage of a large 8th level monk (2d8).
Where you may have a point (or where prototype00 might have missed something), is that by FCT's wording and especially the wording of the FAQ on FCT, it is clear that FCT does two things. One is that it makes the natural attack a monk weapon, allowing you to do anything with it that requires such a weapon. Two is that it allows you to "augment" the natural attack with any effect relating to IUS. Which means what you can do, by RAW, is INA(bite) up to the wazoo, and then flurry with your bite, choosing to do your bite damage, which would at that point be quite a bit higher than your monk unarmed strike damage.
tl;dr FCT a) makes your natural attack a monk weapon and b) allows you to apply effects to it that relate to unarmed strike, such as a monk's unarmed strike improved damage. Choosing the latter results in replacing the NA's damage with whatever your monk's unarmed strike damage is at that moment.
Dear diary, today I killed one of my players for the first time, it was the best day ever.
PC Name: Daigo
Class/Level: Gunslinger (Pistolero) 6
Adventure: Skinsaw Murders
Catalyst: Iesha Foxglove didn't want to dance.
Spoiler:
The party meets Iesha. After some hesitation, the Sorcerer ends up casting Prestidigitation to dust the mirror. This breaks the self-loathing of Iesha the Revenant. She shouts "Aldern, I'm coming for you!" and bolts to the door (I clearly communicate this to the players). Daigo is one of the few players who beats her initiative, and is blocking her path to the door, standing right next to her. Daigo was also the character that got hit by the dancing haunt. Recognizing a golden roleplaying opportunity, Daigo's player has his character holster his weapon and assume a "shall we dance" pose.
Iesha's turn. She full attacks Daigo, hits and grabs (and constricts) with her first claw, then shatters his face with a massive crit from her second claw. Tossing him aside, she five-foot steps towards the door. Apparently she didn't quite feel like dancing.
They wisened up to her goals, however, and let her go. She pulled pretty much the same trick on Aldern, massively critting and tearing his head off in the second round of combat. So there's that.
Though we have dabbled with PF previously, this is our first full campaign. At first I was very careful with the party, fudging lots of things and playing monsters more stupidly than they really should be, to give them a fighting chance (Malfeshnekor especially would have been a virtual TPK otherwise). They're all quite hardcore boardgamers and didn't like this very much. So as of Skinsaw Murders, the training wheels came off. They're actually doing pretty well, but having no-one with Knowledge(Religion), they had no idea just how incredibly dangerous a cornered Revenant can be...
Kastar, how are you taking Weapon Focus (Bite) at level 3? You can't Wild Shape yet, so don't have proficiency with Bite from that... You're Human, so you're not using Half-orc stuff to grab a Bite...
Even though a druid can only wild shape from level 4 onward, he gets the proficiencies at level 1. It's weird and not entirely unambiguous, this thread has more discussion on it.
However it's pretty much a non-issue. Save some gold and retrain it when leveling to five if you have to (it's an optional rule, but even PFS legal). Or get the local town cleric to cast Savage Maw on you while you level, boom, bite attack. Or burn a trait on it for Mother's Teeth if you really have to.
Also, I think the real argument against using Brawler's Flurry with natural weapons is:
Brawler's Flurry wrote:
A brawler with natural weapons can't use such weapons as part of brawler's flurry, nor can she make natural weapon attacks in addition to her brawler's flurry attacks.
Flurry of Blows has similar language, so you could argue that the FAQ still applies, but I don't think that's RAW.
...Yes, that is the exact exception that the Feral Combat Training feat creates. Unarmed Strikes aren't natural attacks, FCT changes that to make them equivalent for one specific natural attack. Flurry (both monk's and brawler's) states you can't use natural attacks. FCT changes that so you can. FCT was created before any other class had a flurry, however, so its wording speaks about a monk's flurry. Then some designers take additional pains to extensively FAQ that feat to explain that, with regards to the "Special" part of the feat, what it actually does is change the natural attack in question to count as a weapon with the "monk" property, allowing it to be used with any special attack or ability requiring such a weapon. A Brawler's Flurry specifically states it works with any weapon with the monk property.
There's really not much of a question here. I already pointed all of that out in my previous post. I'm not quite sure I understand what your counter-argument is, if any. If you ignore the part in Brawler's Flurry where it says it can be used with monk weapons, and also ignore the FAQ on FCT that says your natural attack is now a monk weapon, then no, Brawler's Flurry doesn't work with FCT. But I don't really feel that ignoring half of the relevant RAW makes for a very strong argument. (Not trying to be snarky, btw. I simply don't think you have a point.)
Most of the time you don't need it anyway, however the FAQ on Feral Combat Training seems to imply very strongly that the intent of Feral Combat Training is for the natural attack to function as if it were a monk weapon. Specifically:
Quote:
Feral Combat Training allows you to use the selected natural attack as if it were a monk weapon—you can use it as one of your flurry of blows attacks, use it to deploy special attacks that require you to use a monk weapon, apply the effects of the natural weapon (such as a poisonous bite) for each flurry of blows attack, and so on.
The bolded part clearly states that it extends beyond simply flurry of blows. And given that the Brawler's Flurry specifically mentions it working with "weapons with the 'monk' special property", I think the RAW is fairly clear that it works.
And even if you'd (somehow) argue it doesn't, that doesn't really matter much. You're not going to play a build that starts to come "online" at around level 9 in PFS anyway, and I think most non-PFS DM's would allow you to use FCT on Brawler's Flurry regardless of the RAW legalese. It's not exactly stretching the imagination, nor is it broken.
Thanks for this guide. Gave me an idea for a constrictor snake character. However, trying to build it with monk didn't really work. Tetori takes away more than it gives, since the main form already has grab and constrict. Furthermore, with only a single bite attack, I need flurry (with Feral Combat Training) for when I can't grapple for some reason.
In the end I went with barebones druid and the rest in Brawler. Brawler has no WIS synergy, but if you only go for the minimum 4 druid levels, that does not matter very much. In return, you get tons of bonus feats, which a constrictor desperately needs. And maneuver training for even more grapple. And more HP, which you need because your AC tanks. And interchangeable combat feats for when grappling is not an option. And a high BAB. And you're chaotic neutral because you love breaking rules and laughing at monks.
So, this is what I came up with:
Human, dual talent (without AC, we'll need extra CON and, while feat starved, all the nescessary feats come with skill or BAB prereqs).
15-point buy (+2 in STR, +2 CON or DEX):
STR 18 DEX 14 CON 14 INT 9 WIS 13 CHA 7
At that point, the core of the build is complete. You have level 8 wild shaping for the huge sea snake if it's nescessary, but most of the time, the Anaconda (large constrictor) will do.
Some relevant equipment:
- Belt of Physical Might (STR and CON) +4
- +1 Brawling Elven Chain. We're monks, so we can wear this. The AC won't help until we get the horrifically expensive Wild property, but the Brawling does add to unarmed (and thus bite and constrict) damage.
- +2 Ghost Touch Amulet of Mighty Fists (strangle ghosts!)
- Gauntlets of Skilled Maneuver (grapple) (MOAR GRAPPLE!).
Back-of-the-envelope calculations:
Given that we put attribute increases in strength, our strength our strength in Anaconda form is 21 + 4 (belt) + 4 (large) = 29, for a +9 modifier.
bite attack bonus is +12 (BAB) +9 (STR) +1 (WF) +2 (AoMF) = +24. Not exactly an auto-hit, but very good odds nonetheless (CR 13 AC = 28).
grapple CMB is +12 (BAB) +9 (STR) +2 (IG) +2 (GG) +1 (large) +4 (grab) +2 (brawler maneuver training) +2 (gauntlets) = +32. Again not an auto-success, but close (the better CMD's at this level are 36-37).
With mildly good rolls, you can have a "full attack" of bite + grab + constrict, (move) grapple + constrict, (swift) grapple + constrict, for 3*(26+35) = 183 damage. You have decent odds of pulling this off against, for example, a CR 13 adult blue dragon, which - coincidentally - has 184 HP.
You had best win initiative though, because with an AC in the low 20's and hp slightly above 100, the dragon auto-hits with all its attacks and does an average of 100 damage...
Very much a one-trick pony (almost non-existant spellcaster), but a very cool trick it is =) Don't forget you can still pick any 2 combat feats on the fly (3 at Brawler 10) for when you need to adapt. And you can still flurry anything that can't be grappled (three weaker attacks, but it's still something).
I found this when looking for a GunKata build for one of my players. It's somewhat slow to really get going, but from level 4-5 onwards you can quite comfortably wade into (quasi-)melee and go to town.
Unrelated, I think the general trick of Unarmed Fighter 1/MoMS 2 to complete a full style chain in three levels, ignoring all prereqs, is pretty hype.
Suppose I have a character holding a two-handed reach weapon. The character also has a bite natural attack.
1) Does the character threaten adjacent squares with his bite, and at 10ft. with the reach weapon?
2) When under the effects of an Enlarge Person spell or similar effect, does the character threaten with his bite out to 10ft. and with his reach weapon from 15ft. to 20ft? So 20ft. continuous threaten, but half on bite and half on weapon?
3) The bite is the character's only natural attack. If the character is holding a reach weapon and attacks with an AoO using his bite, does he add 1-1/2 times strength (and power attack) to damage by virtue of it being his only natural attack? Or does he add strength only once because, wielding a weapon, he now technically also has other attacks (though not natural attacks)?
Minor remark: you recommend Heroic Defiance under feats, but Heroic Defiance has a prereq of +8 base fortitude save. Investigators, with their low Fort, never reach +8 base fortitude, so they can't get that feat. Well, I guess if they dip a high fort class they can get it at level 19, but that seems limited at best :)
"Snap Shot, Improved, Greater Straight up perfect, threatening 5 to 10 feet around you will shock most foes who aren’t aware of it, although Greater is a weak step up from the other feats."
I may be misinterpreting the feat. But Snap Shot says you threaten five feet around you. Improved Snap Shot says you threaten an additional 10 feet with Snap Shot. So with Improved Snap Shot you threaten 15 ft., not 10.
True, but then I'd also have a full caster. Pretty sure you could make a Wizard with everything 7 except Int and it would still work reasonably well. It's true I didn't specify it, but the idea is to punch people in the face (or a variant thereof), with just two stats, and without polymorph or other temporary magical stat-boosts (cause that kind of defeats the point).
Also, PFS legal, just for added challenge. Because Divine Protection is completely dumb and no GM would ever allow it.
This is something I just cooked up. It's a fun theorycrafting exercise. You can probably make a more optimized build by not dumping everything but two stats, but I just wanted to see what could be done if you do.
Chadex, LG Halfling Swashbuckler 1/Paladin 2
20-point buy:
STR 6 (-2)
DEX 20 (17)
CON 7 (-4)
INT 7 (-4)
WIS 7 (-4)
CHA 20 (17)
Alternative racial traits:
- Fleet-footed (30ft. speed, no bonus to acrobatics and climb)
Defense:
- HP: 16 (w/o favored class bonuses)
- Lay on Hands: heal 1d6 HP 6/day.
- AC: 20 (25 vs. target of Smite Evil; 25 w/ Dodging Panache; 30 w/ both); touch 16, flat-footed 15
- 5 panache points per day
- Fort: +8
- Ref: +13
- Will: +8
---------------------
So on level 1 and 2 you'll be in a corner, plucking arrows at enemies and using your +4 small stealth bonus so hopefully nobody notices you and sneezes in your direction, or you'll die of pneumonia.
At level 3, all threats are rendered powerless by your disarming smile, and are subsequently poked full of holes by your lightning-quick rapier of death.
HP remains a bit of a problem, though you can heal yourself 5/day starting at level 2. I also haven't really thought about what to do after level 3. Straight pally is powerful enough, but the Swashbuckler gets lots of goodies that shouldn't be underestimated (More initiative! More damage! Demoralize on each attack! Improved Critical!). He might also go with a third class entirely (Ninja?).
He should probably get Combat Reflexes sometime before level 11, then take Signature Deed (opportune parry & riposte) at 11. The parry is an opportunity attack, the riposte is an immediate action.
Any other ideas on how to further give the finger to all of the inferior stats? :-)
As a sidenote, I think that anyone who claims that Dex to damage means you can dump strength does not apply the carrying capacity rules correctly.
I created a Swashbuckler today. I started with a STR dump. Studded Leather, a Scimitar and a Buckler put me over a light load. Had to switch to Int as dump stat to get the 10 STR I need to carry the bare nescessities in combat. Still had to buy a pony to carry adventuring gear.
A caster that can wear only clothing might get away with a STR dump. For any martial character, however, STR is never a true dump stat.
Problem. Slashing Grace doesn't let you use Weapon Finesse with the one-handed slashing weapin. You're attacks are still based of BaB + Str. Maybe I'm missing something.
The way Swashbucklers work is what you're missing. They treat any one-handed piercing weapon as finnesseable (basically) and since the Feat makes the weapon count as piercing...
Still not that useful for non-Swashbucklers (other than Daring Champions, who get the same thing)...though it can be used with whips and Aldori Dueling Swords by anyone.
Huh, I completely missed that. Luckily it doesn't affect me since I do plan on playing a Swashbuckler anyway, but that does make it less of a Dex-Fighter feat and more of a Swashbuckler feat-tax...
Slashing Grace (Combat)
You can stab your enemies with your sword or another
slashing weapon.
Prerequisites: Dex 13, Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus
with chosen weapon.
Benefit: Choose one kind of one-handed slashing
weapon (such as the longsword). When wielding your
chosen weapon one-handed, you can treat it as a
one-handed piercing melee weapon for all feats and
class abilities that require such a weapon (such as a
swashbuckler’s or a duelist’s precise strike) and you can
add your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength
modifier to that weapon’s damage. The weapon must be
one appropriate for your size.
Dervish Dance for any weapon, with better requirements (Weapon Focus instead of Perform(dance) 2). Human Swashbucklers can get this at level 1. Human or Half-Elven Swashbucklers get Dex-powered Katana's at level 3, if that's your thing :)
5 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
3 people marked this as a favorite.
This thread is almost a year old now, and, as far as I can find, there's still no FAQ on mounted combat. There have been a large amount of threads on mounted combat, all generally asking the same questions, usually triggered by the disgraceful mess that is the Ride-By Attack feat, which does not contain half a sentence that is not somehow at odds with either the RAW for charging or for mounted combat.
Some of the biggest problems, as highlighted in this thread, and others:
1) RAW, a lance is useless. As pointed out in this thread, your mount charges, meaning it has to end its movement next to an opponent, from where you cannot attack with a reach weapon, such as a lance. Charge always mentions an "opponent", so unless you can somehow make your mount go full Don Quixote and have it view an empty space as its mortal enemy, it must end its charge next to an actual creature, unless it has reach itself. So, no charge attacks with a lance.
2) Ride-By Attack screws with everything. The wording is ridiculous, as you never charge while on a mount. Your mount charges, and when it does, you are considered charging for the purposes of your AC and the attack you make after your mount completed its movement, as per the normal mounted combat rules. Even so, Ride-By Attack is rather clear on what kind of effect it has on you. You get to attack at any point during the charge. But what about your mount? It says you attack, "and then [you] may move again". But you never were moving. Your mount was charging. So what happens after the attack? Is it still charging? Did it have to charge at a creature to begin with? Does this have to be the same creature you attacked? Even disregarding the mess of point 1), does it get to attack at any point when the rider uses Ride-By Attack?
3) Trample, Overrun, Charge Through, etc... Especially Trample is just silly stupid, possibly even more so than Ride-By Attack. While on a mount, you never move, you never charge, you never overrun. These are things your mount does. The trample feat is just entirely unplayable, making sense neither when you take it nor when your mount takes it. There are also numerous threads with endless discussion of how exactly overrunning on a charge is supposed to work (even without a mount), or whether Charge Through actually does anything at all, which adds another layer of confusion and discussion to the already messed up mounted charging rules.
By the way, somewhat ridiculously, with the current RAW, the only way to actually make charged-up attack with a lance is if you let your mount charge, then overrun, stopping its charge 10 feet behind the overran/trampled enemy, then swing your lance backwards and attack, gaining the charge bonuses from the RAW on mounted combat, and thus dealing double damage with a lance by way of poking your opponent in the opposite direction your mount was charging in. Seems like a hell of a poke.
All this can of course simply be house-ruled, but PFS screws with that, too. So the halfling beastrider I'm thinking about will function more or less completely different based on what DM I'm playing with next week? No thank you.
There's threads going back to 2011 (at least), asking for clarification on these issues. The only thing we have so far is this FAQ entry, which manages to confuse everything even more. The wording used in that FAQ entry simply does not make sense. What is the difference between a mounted charge and a charging mount with you on top of it? Where does a mounted charge end, at the closest square for the rider or the closest square for the mount? I can attack on a mounted charge, but not on top of a charging mount? I'm sorry to say that this FAQ post is simply terrible. The rules are confusing and convoluted and need to be pruned and cleaned up. While obviously not the intent, this FAQ post unfortunately adds extra exceptions and complexity, which raises even more questions and solves none.
In order for mounted combat and mounted charging to work in a way that doesn't result in hours of discussion everytime a cavalier comes to the table, all of the following things need to be addressed:
1) Charge: Since a double move is possible as a full-round action anyway, it seems that a simple solution would be to remove the requirement to charge to a square threatening an opponent. So you'd move at least 10 feet, at most your speed, in a straight, unblocked line, without difficult terrain in your path. Otherwise, no charge. When you stop moving, you may make an attack against an opponent within reach, with the charge bonuses. The movement of your charge does not provoke AoO's from this opponent. You have a -2 AC until your next turn. The end. Don't want to attack? Congratulations, you just made a very restricted double move. Not quite broken, I'd say.
2) Overrun: tied closely to charging, this simply needs to get a clarification on what it does with your remaining movement after the overrun attempt is succesful, especially on a charge. And even though I don't think there is any confusion about this, stating specifically whether or not one can still attack after overrunning on a charge would really help alleviate a lot of discussion.
3) The Mounted Charge (and the lance): If the changes to charge would be as written above, the mounted charge would already become a lot less confusing. Your (reachless) mount can simply run straight to 10 feet away from an opponent and not attack, and you would get a lance attack with a charge bonus. It'd be a bit weird from a realism point (seems like your extra lance damage would come from you crashing into your opponent), but there would be no RAW issue. If the charge rules are not changed, or changed differently, clarification is required on how reach weapons, and specifically the one designed for mounted charging are supposed to work on a mounted charge.
4) The Ride-By Attack and Trample feats: These simply need a rewrite. The alternative would be rewriting everything else related to charging, mounted combat, and overrun, and that's simply a Bad Idea. For Ride-By specifically, there seem to be two "schools of thought" as to its intent: either your mount charges, and you may make your charged-up attack during its charge instead of at the end, and neither you nor your mount provoke AoO's for movement from the target of your Ride-By Attack. Or, you perform a normal charge, after which your mount may move what remains of its double speed as a free action, provoking no AoO's from the opponent you may have attacked at the end of your charge. Trample... Hell I don't even know. Just get rid of it for the rider, give it to the mount, adjust the wording accordingly.
5) Pounce: What, Pounce? There are no problems with Pounce! Well no, but apparently, one of the reasons the Mounted Combat rules are such a mess are because of RAGELANCEPOUNCE. In order for RAGELANCEPOUNCE not to be possible add a provision to Pounce abilities (there aren't that many) that they can't be used while you are riding a mount. Done, no more GM tears. It's logical from both a "realism" as from a game balance point of view. "But now Pounce is worthless", said exactly no-one. Pounce is tasty enough, it really doesn't need the extra cheese, and if that's the reason that mounted combat can't get cleaned up, then just fix Pounce first.
I really hope these things get addressed in a clear, official FAQ, errata, or blog post. Cavaliers, Pally's and others deserve it. So do GM's.
