Kuremento's page

How does the level 1 focus spell for the Lightning Domain work?

Charged Javelin, the focus spell in question, says it targets 1 or more creatures but then does not explain how it does so. Does it indeed target more than one creature in some circumstances, and if so then how?

Even if it is still dynamic and scaling from Revelation Spells, I'd prefer there to be some static part of it. I do agree I'd prefer it to be static entirely, or scale as you level but effectively still be static.

My Bones Oracle in 1e took Wasting because it was thematic to be rotting away, leaving the BONES, yess-yess. I also basically played them as a Skaven, as they were Ratfolk.

The other part of the curse I dislike is when you go too hard, you get knocked unconscious for 8 hours. That doesn't feel fair to the party having to carry that character around, or the player who now can't play at all during the rest of the session basically. Someone I was talking with suggested take away their spellcasting for the day. At first I thought that was too harsh, but at least you are awake and can still do other stuff!

Rysky wrote:

Any Feat or ability that assumes Oracles have a Focus pool because they have Focus Spells.

Or someone merely forgot because the Oracles rules on their Not-Focus are needlessly complicated rather than being innovative. I also wouldn’t consider them the class defining feature of the Oracles, that belongs to the Mystery/Curse.

So if its something specific to Orcales, yes that is rules writing incompetence. Sorry but that would be like forgetting how Witches get their spells when writing content for a Witch. If it isn't something specific to Oracle then it is already covered in the "Oracles never get Focus" portion of the Oracle text. Maybe I'm still being dumb and still require an actual specific example.

1e's Charger archetype for Animal Companions has a feature that gives benefits to a Cavalier, but replaces Share Spells. A Cavalier's Animal Companion doesn't get Share Spells as per the Cavalier's class feature that grants the Animal Companion. It was designed for Cavaliers, but cannot be taken by them. And this is just an example of overlooking a single sentence in Cavalier.

If that can happen for 1e, it can happen in 2e as well. I feel like it'd be even MORE likely to happen if the class feature is confusing, like with the playtest's Oracle not focus* TM.

Who needs to sneak past the guards when you can bribe them using Legendary Steak, with a sampling of Sunwurst. If that doesn't work then be prepared to hit them with a Baking Nightmare.

The Mount action specifies an animal companion or creature at least one size larger than you. Also on the top of 284 it mentions riding an animal companion as long as it is at least one size larger than the rider.

Also, goblins in Golarion traditionally hate and fear horses. It's a bit weird to have no culturally appropriate animal companions with the mount feature.

This is why I think they should add a line to the Goblin's Rough Rider ancestry feat that lets you treat a goblin dog or wolf as though it has the mount special ability, or something along those lines.

After trying to find ways to do a non-charge build on a Samurai, I've instead decided to go with a charge focused Cavalier.

The basics are this is an all Evil Goblin campaign. I will be taking Wolf at level 1 and getting Monstrous Mount feat at level 5 to get a Worg. The Animal Companion will be allowed the Charger archetype despite conflict of "Share Spells" because DM agrees it is obvious that this archetype should be for a Cavalier's mount. My order will be Order of the Sword so I can take advantage of another mount feat. Using the 4d6 method and already subtracting the lowest die, the array I have to work with is:

14, 10, 11, 11, 13, 18

I would prefer to use a Two-handed weapons despite the -2 Str from being a Goblin, I was thinking something like the Nodachi given it is Martial and my original character concept was a Samurai. I do NOT want Lances, even if they are an AMAZING charge pick. I also would prefer to stay away from reach weapons as this brings up the controversy about stopping the mount close enough so it can attack too or not and if that messes with my being able to reach attack it. My mount also has the feats picked out (but alternatives picks are allowed to be suggested):

Level 1 Power Attack
Level 2 Improved Overrun
Level 5 Improved Bull Rush
Level 8 Improved Natural Attack (Bite)
Level 10 Charge Through
Level 13 Rhino Charge
Level 16 Greater Overrun
Level 18 Greater Bull Rush

I have no idea for feats personally besides wanting to maybe take Saddle Shrieker and definitely taking Monstrous Mount at level 5. This means I also have no idea about the bonus teamwork feat at level 1.

Thank you in advance for reading this post even if you don't reply, and thank you if you do have build concepts or even just minor pushes in the right direction.
Edit: PFS legal doesn't matter for this build but please keep it PF and not 3.5.

You could always just grab two levels of Barbarian, at which point you can start using Furious Finish (maybe with Roused Anger and then Resolve to cure exhausted?)... Samurai can't specialize in greatsword, but it's not really that big a class feature.

The Dual Strike Weapon Trick allows you to use a standard action to strike with a weapon in each hand, so you could use that to strike with two swords at once. Two full-bonuses strikes on a Samurai (particularly with Challenge running) is going to do a whole lot more than an Improved Vital Strike on a medium-size die... and it's a pretty awesome cavalry move to dual-katana-strike while riding. You can't get it until the level 12 bonus feat, but we're already talking about 10+ BAB feats here.

The Order of the Dragon grants the Strategy ability at level 8, and you can pull some crazy tactical tricks with Ready Action: Strategy - like letting your mount move as an immediate action when it's not your turn to set up a mini-ambush/full attack. But that's probably not the theme you're looking for.

I don't think Furious Finish would stack with Dual Strike Weapon Trick because Furious Finish specifics a roll and Dual Strike is two rolls.

Also personally I was looking at Nodachi because Samurai. And I am a Goblin so small dice until I get effects to buff the dice. Finally I am 200% sure about my choice of Order of the Sword. Also if it can be helped my preferred deity is Zarongel given his importance in Goblin riding and preference of wolves and hate of dogs!

At this point I think I am going to just go with charge related feats. I do have to ask though, doing bull rush or overrun, does my mount make those checks or do I? I'd assume the mount because it is the thing ACTUALLY charging.

you can do it as anything, fighter and barb just have alternate access though the fighter alternate access is..kind of pointless as you give up a bonus feat to replace taking the feat.

Do I have to be the same alignment as the deity or is that only if I am using the optional prereq? Because this is very much an Evil Goblin campaign where all the PC are Evil Goblins being attacked by the racist Paladins because our villages might be behind some farm raids and stuff...

Ryan Freire wrote:

_Ozy_ wrote:

Ryan Freire wrote:

but the vital strike option also requires feat investment from your companion, where spirited charge is just you.

Only if you want to vital strike during a 'spring attack' from the mount. A vital strike during normal mounted movement is perfectly fine too.

I mean yeah but thats kind of the whole point of the thread.

Given the various misunderstandings, it wasn't clear to me whether the OP thought the mount needed to use Spring Attack for the rider to be able to attack an enemy during the mount's movement.

I mean, unless the mount's attack is going to be super optimized, chances are it will be relatively negligible compared to an optimized vital strike attack, so why bother?

Just because I ask about rules doesn't mean I want to be optimized out the wazoo. I mean we are talking about a GOBLIN Samurai. Also the feat Goblin Shrieker exists, which I was planning on using it maybe.

Also my emphasis of NOT CHARGING was because I didn't want people to just say "Can't Vital Strike on Charge, FAQ."

The Gorum's thing seems cool but it clearly says Fighter or Barbarian and though I might have not clearly stated this character is a Samurai (probably Order of the Sword, no archetypes, wolf companion), that is what I plan on being for sure because even if it isn't the RAW rules, my DM agrees with Cavalier FCB working for Samurai.

Kuremento wrote:

_Ozy_ wrote:

Kuremento wrote:

_Ozy_ wrote:

Where on earth did you guys get the idea that you couldn't take actions while your mount was moving? It's right in the mounted combat section:

Quote:

You can make a full attack with a ranged weapon while your mount is moving. Likewise, you can take move actions normally.

That specifically says ranged weapon full attack. It doesn't mention using your own standard action during your mount's full round action. I haven't seen anything that tells me I can or can't but I've seen people in other posts say you can't interrupt the mount's full round action with a standard action unless specified like with the Ranged Weapon stuff.

Well yeah, that demonstrates that you can take actions while your mount is moving. You can also cast a spell (a standard action) while your mount is moving. So this confirms that you are actually allowed to take actions, during your turn, while your mount is moving.

In fact, the general rule is that you can take actions during your turn, so you need to provide specific rules that say that you can't. And that rule doesn't exist. At least, nobody has provided it.

So once again, why do people insist that you can't take your actions during your turn?

Something about interrupting the action of someone else. I guess you are probably right. However I think I might end up going with charge stuff anyway. Still nice to know the rules around this though considering I posted this in rules and not advice.

Spirited charge + a lance is generally superior to vital strike anyway.

I don't necessarily care about being the most superior. However Spirited Charge + a lance only gives you 3 times where as if you get all the Vital Strike feats you can get to a total of 4 times. Unless of course I've misread the Vital Strike feats.

Of course it also requires the animal companion to get an int bump, then spend 3 feats on dodge mobility and spring attack

All three of those are on the default list for Animal Companions.

Kuremento wrote:

_Ozy_ wrote:

Where on earth did you guys get the idea that you couldn't take actions while your mount was moving? It's right in the mounted combat section:

Quote:

You can make a full attack with a ranged weapon while your mount is moving. Likewise, you can take move actions normally.

That specifically says ranged weapon full attack. It doesn't mention using your own standard action during your mount's full round action. I haven't seen anything that tells me I can or can't but I've seen people in other posts say you can't interrupt the mount's full round action with a standard action unless specified like with the Ranged Weapon stuff.

Well yeah, that demonstrates that you can take actions while your mount is moving. You can also cast a spell (a standard action) while your mount is moving. So this confirms that you are actually allowed to take actions, during your turn, while your mount is moving.

In fact, the general rule is that you can take actions during your turn, so you need to provide specific rules that say that you can't. And that rule doesn't exist. At least, nobody has provided it.

So once again, why do people insist that you can't take your actions during your turn?

Something about interrupting the action of someone else. I guess you are probably right. However I think I might end up going with charge stuff anyway. Still nice to know the rules around this though considering I posted this in rules and not advice.

Seriously?

Please elaborate, there are many things I can see you saying this to.

Where on earth did you guys get the idea that you couldn't take actions while your mount was moving? It's right in the mounted combat section:

Quote:

You can make a full attack with a ranged weapon while your mount is moving. Likewise, you can take move actions normally.

That specifically says ranged weapon full attack. It doesn't mention using your own standard action during your mount's full round action. I haven't seen anything that tells me I can or can't but I've seen people in other posts say you can't interrupt the mount's full round action with a standard action unless specified like with the Ranged Weapon stuff.

_Ozy_ wrote:

Where on earth did you guys get the idea that you couldn't take actions while your mount was moving? It's right in the mounted combat section:

Quote:

You can make a full attack with a ranged weapon while your mount is moving. Likewise, you can take move actions normally.

It also says:

Quote:

If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only make a single melee attack which Vital Strike is not.

But you can make a Standard Action, right? You have yet to answer this

Kuremento wrote:

I actually agree with the using a single melee attack because not only is your mount taking part of their "6 seconds" to move to the target and attack, but you are doing nothing during said movement toward that full attack. If a full attack also takes a huge chunk of my own "6 seconds" then it wouldn't mesh together very well.

I'm not sure you understood my argument. If your mount is moving down a line of enemies, that means you can attack for the entirety of your turn. There is always somebody in melee range for you, so you are doing plenty during the movement...you are full attacking.

At least, that would be a better rule than saying you can only take a single attack because the rules are assuming there is nobody within range during the movement.

I understand what you mean. It would be like those action movies where you swing to the left, to the right, to the left again; each swing hits an orc. I think maybe there should be a feat or something for that. I mean there kind of is a feat for that, Mounted Blade. It lets you during a Ride-By Attack to attack an adjacent target but at a -5 to attack. It requires Qadira affinity, though, and is only a second attack with the target NEEDING to be adjacent to the first.

Kuremento wrote:

And the concept of needing a readied action is because Spring Attack is a full round action, it isn't technically two move actions and an attack action. To mine understanding this means I cannot interrupt by using a normal standard attack unless it was a readied attack. However I've seen some people say no to a readied attack if your mount moves before the attack or even triggering a readied attack the same exact turn you make it.

? Why do you need a readied action at all? Your mount is moving during your initiative turn, you can take your single standard action attack whenever you want during that turn. You are guiding your mount as a free action.

Again, readied actions are for interrupting actions not on your turn.

Not that it really matters since you're using a standard action to get a standard action, but I don't understand why people seem to think you need a readied action to take a standard action on your own turn.

This:

Spring attack is not a charge. The problem with attacking when your mount uses spring attack is timing, you can take your action before or after your mount's action, not during. Spring attack is one action, not two moves with an attack in the middle. This is why I earlier suggested a readied action to vital strike, allowing your action to interrupt the flow of the mount's action.

I've seen arguments on not being able to use your action in the middle of someone else's without it being an immediate action.

Java Man wrote:

Kuremento wrote:

Java Man wrote:

Spring attack is not a charge. The problem with attacking when your mount uses spring attack is timing, you can take your action before or after your mount's action, not during. Spring attack is one action, nkt two moves with an attack in the middle. This is why I earlier suggested a readied action to vital strike, allowing your action to interrupt the flow of the mount's action.

Makes sense. However I've heard arguments against it though. I mean at the end of the day my DM is rather easygoing but I prefer to have rules first because, well rules are rules. If I can avoid DM intervention with houserules, I will.

My basic concept was Goblin Samurai that rides a Wolf and the Wolf Spring Attacks and assuming I still got a standard action, I'd go vital strike build.

Not to side track the discussion, but what are the arguements against this? Looks like the definition of readied actions to me.

You don't even need a readied action, because readied actions are for actions not on your initiative turn. This attack takes place during your initiative. You have a full round's worth of actions available to you, with the caveat that you can only make a single melee attack.

So, you can use a move action to do something, like retrieve an item, and then use your standard action to make a single melee attack, with vital strike if you want.

Frankly, the idea that you can't make a full attack action while your mount is moving is pretty dumb. It assumes that you aren't in melee range during the entire motion, which is not always the case.

Your mount could be running through a crowd of enemies, it could be circling a large or huge enemy, or any number of scenarios where you are always/mostly in melee range to attack.

An archer can use a full-action ranged attack while his mount is moving, so melee attacks should also be allowed if enemies are within range during the movement.

I actually agree with the using a single melee attack because not only is your mount taking part of their "6 seconds" to move to the target and attack, but you are doing nothing during said movement toward that full attack. If a full attack also takes a huge chunk of my own "6 seconds" then it wouldn't mesh together very well.

And the concept of needing a readied action is because Spring Attack is a full round action, it isn't technically two move actions and an attack action. To mine understanding this means I cannot interrupt by using a normal standard attack unless it was a readied attack. However I've seen some people say no to a readied attack if your mount moves before the attack or even triggering a readied attack the same exact turn you make it.

Kuremento wrote:

Java Man wrote:

Spring attack is not a charge. The problem with attacking when your mount uses spring attack is timing, you can take your action before or after your mount's action, not during. Spring attack is one action, nkt two moves with an attack in the middle. This is why I earlier suggested a readied action to vital strike, allowing your action to interrupt the flow of the mount's action.

Makes sense. However I've heard arguments against it though. I mean at the end of the day my DM is rather easygoing but I prefer to have rules first because, well rules are rules. If I can avoid DM intervention with houserules, I will.

My basic concept was Goblin Samurai that rides a Wolf and the Wolf Spring Attacks and assuming I still got a standard action, I'd go vital strike build.

Not to side track the discussion, but what are the arguements against this? Looks like the definition of readied actions to me.

From ready action:

There was something about how when your mount takes a move action or moves that it counts against the "before your next action" clause.

Kuremento wrote:

My basic concept was Goblin Samurai that rides a Wolf and the Wolf Spring Attacks and assuming I still got a standard action, I'd go vital strike build.

A one-level dip into Sohei Monk can be used to grab Mounted Skirmisher, in which case you can full-attack during your mount's movement...

EDIT: actually, no, probably not during it's movement. My mistake.

So it is probably better to just forget trying to standard action for vital strike and instead just go for spirited charge, ride by attack, stuff like that, and just charge?

And for reference I'm not much of a dipper kind of person, not that dipping is bad. If I need to dip for a build concept, I will.

When the rules say "you can only make a single melee attack", it's clearly in reference to not being able to make a full attack. "Single melee attack" by itself isn't a recognized type of action at all, so I have no idea why someone would interpret that text as acting like you were using an ability that granted a "single melee attack". The reason you can't use Spring Attack and Vital Strike is that Spring Attack itself is the action.

Besides, there's little to suggest that you're restricted from taking a standard action after your mount moves. I mean seriously, if you can have your mount move and then cast a spell after it's done moving, then obviously the intent isn't to tell people they can't use a standard action after a mount moves.

So this means if I have a standard action after my mount uses Spring Attack, I can personally use Vital Strike, yes? Just not between its movements because Spring Attack is a full round action?

Spring attack is not a charge. The problem with attacking when your mount uses spring attack is timing, you can take your action before or after your mount's action, not during. Spring attack is one action, nkt two moves with an attack in the middle. This is why I earlier suggested a readied action to vital strike, allowing your action to interrupt the flow of the mount's action.

Makes sense. However I've heard arguments against it though. I mean at the end of the day my DM is rather easygoing but I prefer to have rules first because, well rules are rules. If I can avoid DM intervention with houserules, I will.

My basic concept was Goblin Samurai that rides a Wolf and the Wolf Spring Attacks and assuming I still got a standard action, I'd go vital strike build.

Ok, better and simplified questions to get my point across.

My mount uses Spring Attack to move, attack and move.
Is using Spring Attack considered a charge?
If it is a charge, does that mean I am also charging?
If I am not charging, do I get a standard action?
If I do get a standard action, can I use it before my mount takes its second move?

What if you ready an action to vital strike when in range before your mount begins its spring attack?

If I can ready an action, that is a standard action. If I can take a standard action, I can already take the attack action, right? And I don't want to get into the controversy about a readied action triggering because my mount moved closed to someone.

More words from me would have helped.

You mentioned the charge FAQ.
I mentioned that rule to convey a similar way of thinking is used on mounted combat.

If your mount moves 10 ft, you can't Vital strike.

Ok, so let me ask this separate question. My mount moves 10ft and isn't charging. I am still allowed a single attack. What action am I taking to achieve this single attack?

That second line is not true. Anytime you make just one attack that is not a charge or spring attack Vital Strike is possible.

My mount is the one making a single attack as part of Spring Attack. This uses my mount's full round action. Since my mount has moved I am still allowed a single attack. There is no charging involved, so do I use the attack action to make this attack?

When your mount charges, you charge.

If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only make a single melee attack which Vital Strike is not.

Is spring attack a form of charge? I do not see where that is mentioned. If you think I am trying to charge, I am not. Are you saying if my mount moves more than 5 feet I am considered to have charged even if no charge action was taken by my mount?

EDIT: My example has my mount using Spring Attack and me using an Attack Action since my mount is moving more than 5ft. I guess a similar question is if my mount moves and doesn't charge, what kind of actions can I still use?

Firstly I want to mention this does NOT involve charge, I know that you can't use vital strike unless the attack action is used.

Anyway, I was wondering if I could be on a mount and have the mount use Spring Attack (which isn't charging) and then I use an attack action as it makes its attack from Spring Attack, and if it is an attack action does that mean I can use Vital Strike?

To break it down:
Mount uses Spring Attack to move to target, more than 10ft and not adjacent
Mount uses attack as part of Spring Attack (mount doesn't have Vital Strike, isn't trying to use it)
Rider uses Vital Strike as an attack action before the mount moves again
Mount finishes Spring Attack by moving more

Does this all pan out or do I have a misunderstanding? Again, NO CHARGING is involved. I already looked through the FAQ and tried searching the forum to see if it had been specifically answered elsewhere and I do not see it. I personally take that as being fine but I figured it was probably best to ask.