|
A lot of stuff
Actually, you are a bit off with the description of those feats.
Fly-By Attack, first of all, is more akin to Spring Attack then Ride-By Attack. Note that it allows the flying creature itself to do the actions, not a rider. It is, essentially, Spring Attack for flying creatures.
Ride-By Attack, on the other hand, is used for the person riding a mount. There is nothing that says it cannot be used with a person riding a flying mount. A flying creature can charge just as easily as a person on the ground can.
In short:
Spring Attack - For someone on the ground to use a standard action at some point during their move.
Fly-By Attack - Same as Spring Attack, but for flying creatures.
Ride-By Attack - Similar to Spring Attack/Fly-By Attack, but meant for a creature riding atop a mount.
As for the -5 circumstance penalty on the Ride check because it's a flying mount, that'd be your own house rule. Not really something for a PFS game.
If the guy is going light, has taken a lot of feats, and has done the appropriate skillwork with Ride/Fly, I really don't get why it's such a problem. There's so few scenarios in PFS that this would work in (comparatively). Everyone deserves to shine.
Karui,
I think this thread started off as a "can he do this stuff in tight underground settings", not can he do it at all. The others took the discussion off on a tangent. My original questioning was just how is he pulling off all these maneuvers and feats in a 10'x10' hallway when there were no ride checks being done and there was no way either the character's head was not hitting the ceiling or the wingtips of the roc were not hitting the walls. Also, I may have misunderstood how miniaturepeddler originally said things, but it sounded like this player was flying his roc through 5' wide doorways as well with no skill checks rolled.
|
|
Fly-By Attack is just spring attack for a flying mount.
A small nit pick here.
Fly-by attack is different from spring attack in a few ways:
1. It does NOT negate the AOO that Spring attack (or ride by attack) does.
2. It allows a STANDARD action during the move, rather than a single attack.
3. It doesn't have the prior or post movement restrictions added onto spring attack in Pathfinder.-James
Fair enough, my main point was just that it was more like Spring Attack then it was Ride-By Attack. Spring Attack = attack and bounce away for ground, Fly-By Attack = attack and bounce away for air. That's putting it very loosely. Ride-By Attack = attack and bounce away for person riding on a mount.
Again, very very loosely. I know there's AoOs here and there for one feat or another, but that wasn't my point.
Enevhar - That's fine, I was just responding to the Ride-By/Fly-By bit. I agree totally that, assuming a wide enough corridor, this tactic would be mostly ineffectual in a 10' high corridor. Medium creatures default reach includes that 5'1" - 10'0" high area above them after all.
Karui and james,
I was just looking at the descriptions of those feats and Fly-by is sort of the opposite of both Ride-by and Spring Attack. Ride-by and Spring Attack both say you can move, then attack, then move again. Fly-by says that you attack, then move, then attack again. So Fly-by allows two attacks with a move in between, while the others let you move to a target, attack, and then move away. Fly-by is also not a charge movement the way Ride-by is.
|
|
Karui and james,
I was just looking at the descriptions of those feats and Fly-by is sort of the opposite of both Ride-by and Spring Attack. Ride-by and Spring Attack both say you can move, then attack, then move again. Fly-by says that you attack, then move, then attack again. So Fly-by allows two attacks with a move in between, while the others let you move to a target, attack, and then move away. Fly-by is also not a charge movement the way Ride-by is.
I think that's just poor wording. The "Normal" text is that you have to take a standard action before or after your move. The Benefit text is... a bit strange, for sure, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't allow two standard actions during a move. Otherwise you'd have flying casters with that feat casting two spells per move. :S
|
Again, I say this is fine. I've run a lot of PFS scenarios and the vast majority of them have had a lot of indoor environments where this kind of character couldn't be as successful (average ceiling maybe 10 feet). And if there is a module that is mostly outdoors with few ranged characters and this guy excels... so what? He's obviously taken a lot of feats to do this effectively, he's practiced at it, he's good at it, let him have his moment in the sun.
Unless you want to nerf the paladin/cleric in a high undead game, the ranger in a scenario against a lot of his favored enemies, etc., then the mounted druid on roc should be fine as well.
I actually played at the con with the player/character in question. While VERY effective in the open, he was far more limited in confined spaces. Furthermore, his mount was a definite 'soft' target, which could easily be taken out with ranged attacks, or a readied action. (Ride-By Attack does nothing to prevent an opponent from using readied actions)
I also noted that, at least in our session, he did not charge every round. He spent one round charging, then the next one recovering and setting up another charge. Granted, he was a bit 'loose' with the maneuvering, which could have been better controlled by the GM, but he had tons of movement. Counting out all of his movement would have slowed things down, so I appreciated the quickness of his turns.
One last thought ... while he was above the curve in damage at this level of play, the next tiers may prove more problematic for him, as there is no way his mount can keep up with the damage potential of more advanced creatures.
Just my 2 coppers ...
(1) his behavior doesn't get tracked module-to-module so he never has to worry about atonement.....
Well, if I were a GM in one of his sessions and he were violating his druid code as badly as it sounds, then I would have a little talk with him about it and make a note on his chronicle sheet about this. Then the next GM could read my notes and observe him and note if he is still doing it. I would look at this as a "three strikes and you are out" rule, where if this behavior has been noted twice and a third GM catches him behaving this way, then that GM can take away his druid powers and require him to get that atonement.
Well, if I were a GM in one of his sessions and he were violating his druid code as badly as it sounds, then I would have a little talk with him about it and make a note on his chronicle sheet about this. Then the next GM could read my notes and observe him and note if he is still doing it. I would look at this as a "three strikes and you are out" rule, where if this behavior has been noted twice and a third GM catches him behaving this way, then that GM can take away his druid powers and require him to get that atonement.Heh... it look like he probably vetted that carefully also:
A druid who wears prohibited armor or carries a prohibited shield is unable to cast druid spells or use any of her supernatural or spell-like class abilities while doing so and for 24 hours thereafter.Nature's Bond is an Extraordinary Ability, and thus not affected by the metal armor penalty.
The argument could be made that since there is a specific penalty for wearing armor then the broader "revering nature" penalty can't be applied as it would need to be an act that is more grievous. It's a misdemeanor, rather than a felony.
I guess you could argue by wearing metal armor constantly they are not revering nature therefore this would apply:
Ex-Druids
A druid who ceases to revere nature, changes to a prohibited alignment, or teaches the Druidic language to a nondruid loses all spells and druid abilities (including her animal companion, but not including weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She cannot thereafter gain levels as a druid until she atones (see the atonement spell description).
|
I guess you could argue by wearing metal armor constantly they are not revering nature
Just found this bit of lore: If the druid in question worships Gorum, which hearing the stories of charging into every battle seems likely he might even get away with it!
From Gods and Magic, about Druids of Gorum, p17:
Druids are forbidden from using the rusting grasp spell. Druids can wear metal armor, though they cannot cast spells while wearing it, nor does it meld with them when they use wild shape; druids interested in metal armor acquire a set for a specific beastform and have allies or slaves put it on them when itis time to fight.
And we have to agree, culling the weak and survival of the fittest are quite natural! ;-)
|
|
I guess you could argue by wearing metal armor constantly they are not revering natureJust found this bit of lore: If the druid in question worships Gorum, which hearing the stories of charging into every battle seems likely he might even get away with it!
From Gods and Magic, about Druids of Gorum, p17:
Druids are forbidden from using the rusting grasp spell. Druids can wear metal armor, though they cannot cast spells while wearing it, nor does it meld with them when they use wild shape; druids interested in metal armor acquire a set for a specific beastform and have allies or slaves put it on them when itis time to fight.
And we have to agree, culling the weak and survival of the fittest are quite natural! ;-)
Just keep in mind that, while awesome and very cool for home games, that isn't legal for Society play. Pretty much none of the 'clerics of this god can cast X spell earlier' or 'druids of this god can do this special' bits from Gods and Magic are legal.
|
Hi
Been reading the posts - this was one build I had thought of myself.
Question is, why multiclass? You lose the 'extra' HP from favoured class, and Shillelagh does more damage at low levels. OK, Spirited Charge grants triple damage with lance, compared to double with Shillelagh, but I'd go with 4D4+2 vs 3D6 any day.
Cheers
Paul H
|
PaulH
I would strongly discourage to follow a build like that. Read through the whole discussion and especially the encumbrance issues.
It technically works if:
you are a halfling female 27 lbs
wear mithril chain chain shirt 5 lbs
lance 5 lbs
handy haversack 5 lbs
And 1 lbs left free for anything else
This assumes you are allowed to use minimal weight from table 7.3 and don't assume average weight.
You take mithril chain shirt as the only metal armour that light
You go naked as you can't carry anything else - not even clothes
You don't have a saddle
You don't have bit and briddle - why care it's just fluff anyhow - there is no description that tells you, you need this extra albs of weight
As a GM I really would look at the character sheet to ensure you follow the rules on this build. It's possible but flying around naked or without bit and bridle should have consequences role-play vice.
Off course you are a Druid - so going around naked is natural to you ...
And what concerns me is that the player with this build was always referred to as male and wearing metal amour Nobody ever mentioned his character was female.
Thod
|
|
I need some help with a Player who has chipmunked the rules a bit.
We have all these buildings/sewers/doors, etc usually 5' wide, and this halfling druid has summoned a baby ROC Man size, he is riding it, and using it like a calvary mount, by hovering 10' in the air. So he is constantly above other party members with a reach weapon (lance) doing drive by attacks and charges (charge/hit, fly past, next round repeat).
Most of the encounters do not have reach weapons itself.
How as a GM do I "deal" with this?
I am getting no AoO, and because he is 10' up and cannot even attack him normally.In a 50' hallway/doorway, he sits behind the front line, about 30' back, and on his turn charges the opponent with reach, bypassing his buddy on the front line.
What am I missing on this? He can charge through his buddy right?
2nd question on animal companions, does the mini version of a animal companion get all the feats of its full size version?
Ie, a full Roc has Feats Flyby Attack, Improved Critical (talons), Improved Initiative, Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, Power Attack, Skill
Focus (Perception), Weapon Focus (talons)Does the Junior version (Baby Roc) get all these feats? or does he have to pay for/select all of them per the companion rules?
Thanks
Robyn
Consider yourself lucky. In LG the same player had a flying, mithral full plate wearing centaur with split personalities and levels in barbarian. He was the entire calvary BY HIMSELF. I used to be his main GM :)
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I think that's just poor wording. The "Normal" text is that you have to take a standard action before or after your move. The Benefit text is... a bit strange, for sure, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't allow two standard actions during a move. Otherwise you'd have flying casters with that feat casting two spells per move. :SKarui and james,
I was just looking at the descriptions of those feats and Fly-by is sort of the opposite of both Ride-by and Spring Attack. Ride-by and Spring Attack both say you can move, then attack, then move again. Fly-by says that you attack, then move, then attack again. So Fly-by allows two attacks with a move in between, while the others let you move to a target, attack, and then move away. Fly-by is also not a charge movement the way Ride-by is.
Are you sure about that? The text I'm looking at makes it seem pretty clear that it's a regular turn with an extra Standard Action in there.
"This creature can make an attack before and after it moves while flying.
Prerequisite: Fly speed.
Benefit: When flying, the creature can take a move action and another standard action at any point during the move. The creature cannot take a second move action during a round when it makes a flyby attack.
Normal: Without this feat, the creature takes a standard action either before or after its move."
I mean, the feat description says it right there: extra attack. Granted, the wording of the Benefit is a little off (it makes it sound like you get to attack, then move, pause and attack, and finish the move, which I doubt was the intent), but the last line of the same blurb also states that you CANNOT use this feat as a Move-Attack-Move kind of ability (so it would not work like Spring Attack).
And I don't think we're in danger of having spellcasters taking the feat to cast two spells per turn, since it's a monster-only feat.
Though I would like to get an official ruling on this and Spring Attack for flying animal companions for my PFS character. Especially since Spring Attack seems to refer to all movement, and not just land speed.
Also, sorry for posting on what appears to be a dead post, but this was the only Roc discussion I could find that had pertinent information to what I needed. :/
|
|
"This creature can make an attack before and after it moves while flying.
Prerequisite: Fly speed.
Benefit: When flying, the creature can take a move action and another standard action at any point during the move. The creature cannot take a second move action during a round when it makes a flyby attack.
Normal: Without this feat, the creature takes a standard action either before or after its move."
I think you misunderstood the feat. From the feat text you quoted, it explicitly says you may take your attack anytime DURING your move.
So, as an example, say the flyer has a fly speed of 60'
Yes: Move 30', attack, move the other 30' of its move
No: Move 60', attack, move 60'
Yes: Move 20', attack, move 40'
I think the problem is that the word "another" is used, and should have been "uses its" instead. So, like Spring Attack and Ride-By Attack, it allows the attack in the middle of the single Move action, but does NOT grant another Standard action above and beyond the normal one.
|
|
I have an inquisitor that has a roc. When I choose this AC, (i got boon companion) i realized that I would probably only use him the once per 2 or 3 encounters. My character is 8inq 1 fighter.
Now this is a different circumstance entirely from the baby roc. But for my specific circumstance. I did not want to invest allot of feats for my AC realizing I wouldnt use him often in combat. I also do not have the amount of spells for buffing an AC. Ride checks are going to almost be mandatory, as well as fly checks. Without going through AC advancement which would be lengthy., as well as equipment i can only note a couple things that may help your pc or player.
First a character sheet for the mount as well as tracked tricks that can make him combat trained I am not sure the amount I think it is six tricks.
Second a reference sheet of ride check, concetration checks and fly check DCs as well as penalties for actions on a mount.
Third equipment, enlarge person or expeditious retreat. magic fang etc. At higher levels my personal ROC is not a combat machine.
When I use him on the rare outdoor mods it is mainly to drop me in behind enemies to give my companions more strategic advantage.
I really like the theme of a flying mount, though the rules of mounts and mounted combat can be cumbersome unless everything is prepped and resources cited and ready. I would encourage the player to have these handy incase he plays with a GM that is unfamiliar with his build. Providing these references to a GM before a con would be pretty respectfull for that GM.
|
|
"This creature can make an attack before and after it moves while flying.
Prerequisite: Fly speed.
Benefit: When flying, the creature can take a move action and another standard action at any point during the move. The creature cannot take a second move action during a round when it makes a flyby attack.
Normal: Without this feat, the creature takes a standard action either before or after its move."I think you misunderstood the feat. From the feat text you quoted, it explicitly says you may take your attack anytime DURING your move.
So, as an example, say the flyer has a fly speed of 60'
Yes: Move 30', attack, move the other 30' of its move
No: Move 60', attack, move 60'
Yes: Move 20', attack, move 40'
I think the problem is that the word "another" is used, and should have been "uses its" instead. So, like Spring Attack and Ride-By Attack, it allows the attack in the middle of the single Move action, but does NOT grant another Standard action above and beyond the normal one.
Yes, that does sound like what the move portion of it is saying, but look at the first line: "This creature can make an attack before and after it moves while flying."
Which clearly states that you can attack, move, and attack again. That's where I'm getting the most confused here. I never had a question about this feat until seeing this forum, and I'm still pretty sure that I'm not wrong. Is there any other way to read that first line, and I'm just missing something?I don't want to be breaking PFS rules or anything, and especially not if I end up DMing a game again where this comes up.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Yes, that does sound like what the move portion of it is saying, but look at the first line: "This creature can make an attack before and after it moves while flying."
Which clearly states that you can attack, move, and attack again. That's where I'm getting the most confused here. I never had a question about this feat until seeing this forum, and I'm still pretty sure that I'm not wrong. Is there any other way to read that first line, and I'm just missing something?
I don't want to be breaking PFS rules or anything, and especially not if I end up DMing a game again where this comes up.
Remember that that first line is just the fluff, not the crunch of the feat.
And, in this case, whoever wrote that fluff wasn't paying attention to the crunch as well as they should have, or ran into an inversion issue.
It should probably (RAI) have the fluff of:
"This creature can move while flying both before and after making an attack."
Then again, the crunch wasn't written that clearly, either:
Benefit: When flying, the creature can take its standard action anytime during its movement. The creature cannot take a second move action during a round when it makes a flyby attack.
Or, more appropriate:
Benefit: As a full round action, this creature can fly up to its movement speed, and perform a standard action at any point during the move. The creature can move by flying both before and after the standard action, but the total distance moved cannot be greater than its fly speed.
Normal: Without this feat, the creature may only take a standard action either before or after its move.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Remember that that first line is just the fluff, not the crunch of the feat.And, in this case, whoever wrote that fluff wasn't paying attention to the crunch as well as they should have, or ran into an inversion issue.
It should probably (RAI) have the fluff of:
"This creature can move while flying both before and after making an attack."Then again, the crunch wasn't written that clearly, either:
Benefit: When flying, the creature can take its standard action anytime during its movement. The creature cannot take a second move action during a round when it makes a flyby attack.Or, more appropriate:
Benefit: As a full round action, this creature can fly up to its movement speed, and perform a standard action at any point during the move. The creature can move by flying both before and after the standard action, but the total distance moved cannot be greater than its fly speed.
Normal: Without this feat, the creature may only take a standard action either before or after its move.
Though, there is another line in the Benefit that sways the argument toward my thinking:
Benefit: When flying, the creature can take a move action and another standard action at any point during the move. The creature cannot take a second move action during a round when it makes a flyby attack.Normal: Without this feat, the creature takes a standard action either before or after its move.
Now, if we assume it means what you say it means (move and use a standard action at any time during said move, while being allowed to finish the move after), then pay extra attention to that second sentence of the Benefit: "The creature cannot take a second move action during a round when it makes a flyby attack". This means that you cannot choose to make a second move action instead of the one standard action. Which means that you wouldn't be able to double move. What kind of feat would restrict that? That makes no sense, and in any case, there would be no benefit using the feat to double move, so why bother disallowing it?
I believe the intent was in saying that you could use a standard action, move, and make another standard action; however, you could not choose to replace one of those standards with a second move, which would give you a double-move AND a standard (basically acting as a more maneuverable charge with no penalties or bonuses).
Also notice the Normal example: it states that without this feat, the creature takes a standard action EITHER before, or AFTER its move.
It's an either/or. That pretty well states that WITH this feat, you don't have to make a choice between the two. You get to do both options. Otherwise it would have something closer to the Spring Attack Normal text which says "You cannot move before and after an attack" (clearly stating that WITH that feat, you get to move Before AND After).
Of course, this is a debate that I could see going nowhere very quickly, since I can see how it could be interpreted the way you describe, but it still seems obvious to me that it is as I described. If this is causing so much confusion, is there a way to get an official ruling on it? Just to set our minds at ease? A creator of the game, perhaps, or some PFS official? Is there a different channel I should be going through for clarity?
|
|
Very debatable, and, as a GM, I would not allow any feat that gives anyone two Standard actions, as it is obscenely powerful. Which is also why things like the Belt of Battle was not legal for Living Greyhawk.
The best way to get a resaponse from the PTB is to mark a relevant post with the FAQ button to get them to take a look at th e issue, and hopefully, put an entry in the FAQ and/or errata/update the item to increase the clarity of the rule.
|
|
Hmm.. from the charge description I would assume the player could not charge and move.
"Charge
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.
Movement During a Charge
You must move before your attack, not after. "
|
|
Very debatable, and, as a GM, I would not allow any feat that gives anyone two Standard actions, as it is obscenely powerful. Which is also why things like the Belt of Battle was not legal for Living Greyhawk.
Yes and no, I think. I mean, yes, two attacks is nice, and super awesome at two different places on the board, but this means the flying creature gets one attack (say, a claw...woo), draws an AoO for flying out of the threatened area and still moving (and has to roll extra fly checks if hit), flies a short distance to get another single attack (maybe a beak this time...woo), and then ends its turn flapping right next to an enemy, who will now probably hit it (making it suffer through ANOTHER extra fly check). Assuming the flying creature managed to not die or fall out of the sky, its next turn goes about the same. Attack, Draw AoO, Attack, and wait to get hit. If this creature doesn't have an amazing AC, it's going to get slaughtered mid-air.
Honestly, I really would rather have Spring Attack work with flying creatures. Getting an attack, not drawing an AoO, AND getting my little animal friend out of a dangerous area seems far better (in most situations).The best way to get a resaponse from the PTB is to mark a relevant post with the FAQ button to get them to take a look at th e issue, and hopefully, put an entry in the FAQ and/or errata/update the item to increase the clarity of the rule.
Thank you! I'll see if I can do that.
|
|
Very debatable, and, as a GM, I would not allow any feat that gives anyone two Standard actions, as it is obscenely powerful. Which is also why things like the Belt of Battle was not legal for Living Greyhawk.Yes and no, I think. I mean, yes, two attacks is nice, and super awesome at two different places on the board, but this means the flying creature gets one attack (say, a claw...woo), draws an AoO for flying out of the threatened area and still moving (and has to roll extra fly checks if hit), flies a short distance to get another single attack (maybe a beak this time...woo), and then ends its turn flapping right next to an enemy, who will now probably hit it (making it suffer through ANOTHER extra fly check). Assuming the flying creature managed to not die or fall out of the sky, its next turn goes about the same. Attack, Draw AoO, Attack, and wait to get hit. If this creature doesn't have an amazing AC, it's going to get slaughtered mid-air.
Honestly, I really would rather have Spring Attack work with flying creatures. Getting an attack, not drawing an AoO, AND getting my little animal friend out of a dangerous area seems far better (in most situations).
And you ignore situations where, barring unusual PC weapon choices, the flyer does NOT provoke, where the flyer itself has attacks with Reach.
A Dragon with Fly-By Attack can easily do its attacks out of threatened range for its targets. Especially if, as an intelligent opponent, it uses this to go after the unarmed squishies. After all, if it has a serious Fly speed, it could easily bypass the ground-bound Barbarian in front to go after the Wizard, Sorceror, Bard or Archer at the rear of the party.
So i have recently come across a very similar problem to this in a kingmaker game involving a cavalier and I have one thing to ask.
Charge says:
You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles). You must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent. If this space is occupied or otherwise blocked, you can't charge. If any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through a square that blocks movement, slows movement, or contains a creature (even an ally), you can't charge. Helpless creatures don't stop a charge.
And if I had read this right I surmise that any angle the lance wielding halfling comes in on as long as he is in the air will not only run him straight into the enemy but also into the ground due to how ride-by attack requires you to continue on your movement in a straight line.
|
|
The rules are written poorly.
James Jacobs once showed a graphic with all the various charge lanes available to a person, which is to say, there isn't just one. You choose any angle, as long as it's a line and puts the enemy in your threatened area (and meets other charge requirements too).
The first square you threaten from is where you must stop & attack.
With Ride By Attack, the exception is you do not have to stop, but can continue, but still in a straight line.
If a character had to go directly at the opponent, then Ride By Attack would always make you go through their square to work. That would be untenable.
As for the ground, you are correct. If coming from above, Ride By Attack will lead into the ground, and the PC cannot bank away from it that round, though they may stop earlier or even land. Hopefully the angle is slight so they can get some distance first.
(I have a rules savvy player who has a Gnome on a Roc up near 17th level, so have dealt with this many times.)
Note to correct error of the older conversation: Flyby Attack does not work with a charge, which is a separate action. Also, if the lance wielder strikes when the mount cannot reach the opponent, the mount does not get its attack, even passing by or moving closer after the hit.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So i have recently come across a very similar problem to this in a kingmaker game involving a cavalier and I have one thing to ask.
WHoa.. thread necro
Hell, this one counts as archeology
And the follow up discussion with the handsome wolf there.
Even after a few attempts to hammer it out.. Raw is borked. As long as you're doing guy on a horsie charging stuff, you're fine.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Rhein Main South
|
I have seen this build in action and the player used a wand of ant haul to get around the weight problem -> it was very wierd, but with an wizard at the table with CL 9! at level 5 it was not the worst thing at the table.
Tip to counter it -> KILL the Animal.
|
|
So i have recently come across a very similar problem to this in a kingmaker game involving a cavalier and I have one thing to ask.WHoa.. thread necro
Hell, this one counts as archeology
And the follow up discussion with the handsome wolf there.
Even after a few attempts to hammer it out.. Raw is borked. As long as you're doing guy on a horsie charging stuff, you're fine.
Why infamous? love that diagram. Helps explain that there is a difference between "towards" and "at".