Yoyojo's page

Well the reach of the attack is independent of the range to moving, and I would be unable to use a corner in such a way that i could only be in range AT the 5 feet mark because i wouldnt be able to charge if there was a corner there, since it would count as an obstacle.

Right?

That would be awesome, a link from devs would add a good bit of credibility.

Thanks for the responses.

So, I have 4 natural attacks in my "full attack" on my Eidolon.
I have the pounce evolution, AND the reach evolution with JUST ONE of those 4 attacks.

Now, charge says "You must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent."

My DM is trying to rule that because one of my attacks has reach, I must stop at the range that is outside of the remaining attacks reach, making pounce worthless. Since all remaining natural attacks only have range 5, instead of the 10 that my Gore has.

However, I feel like this goes against the spirit of the pounce evolution (RAI). Pounce reads the following:

"An eidolon gains quick reflexes, allowing it to make a full attack after a charge. This evolution is only available to eidolons of the quadruped base form."

"Full attack" and "Attack" are both listed as separate types of actions with their own blocks of the "Combat" chapter (same place charge is at). They contain separate traits and features in the rule book, this sort of points to full attacks and the normal kind of attack (although these may be poorly worded / named) being completely different actions with different restrictions (duh?).

Since they seem to be different, and the verbage for Charge doesnt specify that a full attack must also be done from the same reach as an attack, one should assume that if you are performing a full attack, it would be done at the range a full attack is capable of being performed at.

I claim that where charge SAYS "You must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent." due to my evolution it should NOW (for my Eidolon anyway) say "You must move to the closest space from which you can full attack the opponent." unless of course I am not intending to utilize pounce and instead intend to just use a normal attack (stead of full attack), at which point I MUST attack at the range of 10.

However, he disagrees and is making my reach evolution nullify pounce. I find this bogus. RAI vs RAW? Or does my interpretation (bias though it may be) work also?

Can anyone provide more context or opinions or facts?