Pounce and Iterative attacks.


Rules Questions

151 to 200 of 315 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Glendwyr wrote:
Hyla wrote:
b) is just silly: "I charge the dragon and impale him on my lance, using all the power from my motion and the whole weight of me and my mount ... five times: stab stab stab stab stab." Yeah right.

So dragons, fireballs, and wish spells don't break suspension of disbelief, but a warrior infinitely more capable than anyone ever seen in the real world lancing a 150' flying, fire-breathing, spell-casting lizard more than once as he rides up to it is a road too far? Really?

Edit to add: Keep in mind that this high level warrior's monk friend can punch his way through the belt armor on a battleship in a matter of seconds. What even very skilled people can do in the real world has zero bearing on what the high level fighters/barbarians/monks/etc can do in the game world.

It's not a matter of realism.

But you explain to me why a collossal red dragon does 1/5th the damage while power attacking of one lance strike from this so called realistic charging barbarian? Why?

Why is this huge, iconic beastly creature like a great wyrm ancient red dragon do so much less damage than a barbarian charging with a lance and attacking five times? The dragon weighs about 20 tons and is a 1000 times stronger than the barbarian, but his damage 4d6+15 with his enormous bite compared to 3d8+168 for the barbarian? And you find that in any way "realistic" or fair?

As a DM I find it annoying. I start to get really unhappy with the Pathfinder game and don't want to run it any more. To me a colossal ancient creature should be able to kill even a high level barbarian if he is alone. But put that barbarian on a horse and let him charge, he kills the ancient colossal red dragon in one round? Pretty damn lame mechanical design there. I doubt game designers like James Jacobs, Jason Buhlman, or Sean K. Reynolds would find it all that cool a battle for that to happen. Or maybe they would be fine with it. I don't know.

I only know as a DM I don't like it. I take careful pains to make sure casters can't hammer my great wyrm dragons, I certainly don't like martial characters having builds to kill them in one round in a very cheesy fashion. Not how the game should work.


dragonfire8974 wrote:
Maddigan wrote:

I think barbarians have a lot more options than just Beast Totem. The barbarian I run in my group has been the hardest class to deal with for most of his levels. Far superior to the two-weapon damage warrior. He is using Fiend Totem.

Did you forget about the following:

1. Massive hit points
2. Half level DR from invulnerable rager.
3. Come and Get Me: Easily the best physical damage dealer offensive ability in the game.
4. Superstition
5. Raging Brutality
6. Reckless Abandon
7. Strength Surge
8. Higher number of skill points and better class skills
9. Faster movement

I guess you forgot all that when you made your statement about the only thing making the barbarian good was Greater Beast Totem. I've DMed one of these monsters from 1st to 20th level, it was one of the hardest classes I've ever had to deal with. Only thing that was a lot worse was the 3.0 Archmage before the changes.

wonderful thing about pathfinder is that it is a social game. In my game i made easily the most powerful character in the party, to the point where it is very ridiculous. 3 times i have met with the GM asking if I should tone down the character to be more in line with the party, and 3 times he has told me that if it became a problem he would let me know. but how the group is, they need the character to keep them alive.

the point of this. if your players get out of control, talk to them.

You must have tolerant players playing with you. I for as another player would never tolerate such rubbish. If the DM has it so one player is outshining all others and the only reason we're surviving, I'm not going to be particularly happy with that character.

I certainly don't run the game that way. My intent as a DM has always been to make every character have shining moments. And some of the cheese in Pathfinder that has come out since Core is making it harder to do since cheesy builds like the barbarian, the sap master, spells like prediction of failure, and the like pretty much make one option shine so far above the others, that if don't have their powers you're a sidekick character.

I don't think that's very fun for anyone.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fozbek wrote:
Maddigan wrote:
The feat only allows a full attack if you move the mount's speed or less. Nowhere does it say you can charge. You are claiming the charge works by omission rather than actual statement the feat works with a charge.
And you're being incredibly pedantic. For one thing, it doesn't need to include "can be used while charging", because, as long as the mount doesn't move more than its speed, you still meet the conditions.

It does need to include can't be used while charging when a player makes a cavalier or any character that charges with a lance and attacks four or five times with the charge bonus to hit and the double or triple damage for every attack.

I think when this starts happening as a game designer you should very much stop this in its tracks by saying only the first attack on a charge gains the bonus. That elminates the problem right there and stops the abuse in its tracks.

What you are advocating is that a martial character get to do the equivalent of a triple damage crit every attack while moving up the mount's speed without actually rolling a crit. That is what you are advocating.

Would you be happy if the DM used this feat chain every game and killed your character every single game at least once? Would you honestly be ok with it?

Tell me when looking at designed monsters in the bestiary, is the game set up to handle this type of ability? I want an honest answer from you.


Hyla wrote:
Fozbek wrote:

It does not break the game. I can make a character that can one-round any monster in the Bestiary without using lances to charge.

Then the rules you are using for that build are probably whacky and need to be revised, too. One rounding any creature in the bestiary is pretty much the definiton of game-breaking.

You mean dominate monster, hold monster and a myrid of other save or die spells?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andy Ferguson wrote:
You mean dominate monster, hold monster and a myrid of other save or die spells?

The issue at hand is that a PC can reliably finish off a monster in the first round. As you mentioned, those are save or die, and to affect higher level monsters one must have unbelievably high DC's and penetrate said monster's spell resistance (I assume most big challenges have a moderate SR). Not only that, but several powerful monsters have immunity to mind-affecting spells, which constitute most save-or-suck spells IIRC. A monster's defenses against attacks from a barbarian generally consist of AC, which the build that started this discussion easily beats, and DR, which is generally in the 25/magic~15/epic range for the strongest monsters and will do little to stop the massive damage a two-hander brings to the table.

I find the most reliable contention to be that only the first attack in the charge pounce is actually a part of the charge, whereas the rest is made available after the charge has ended. A closer inspection of the rules bears this out I think, but only the most discerning would come to such conclusions and several here want an official clarification as to whether or not the entire pounce full attack counts as part of a charge.

EDIT: had a quoting mistake


Maddigan wrote:
You must have tolerant players playing with you. I for as another player would never tolerate such rubbish. If the DM has it so one player is outshining all others and the only reason we're surviving, I'm not going to be particularly happy with that character.

Just to play devil's advocate, it's a fairly common literary trope that a group of people would get together because they all have different strengths and bring different things to the table. One guy is the combat monster, and each of the others in the group are drawn from the following groups (or combinations thereof)- Face, Trapmonkey, Knowledge dude, Wilderness guide dude, utility caster, support caster, etc.

Now I'll admit that such a playstyle doesn't appeal to many, but sometimes its fun to be able to focus on a few different side roles and not need to worry about combat because someone else 'has it covered.' You'll still do your thing when combat rolls around, and once in a rare while you'll be the deciding factor, but because that's not really your shtick it's just an awesome bonus when you are, rather than something you're striving to achieve.


Maddigan wrote:


But you explain to me why a collossal red dragon does 1/5th the damage while power attacking of one lance strike from this so called realistic charging barbarian? Why?

Because the barbarian/fighter/rogue/whatever martial you want to use manages to barely dodge the attack the dragons sword like teeth only barely touching his armor. Even despite the enchanted protections and the thickness of the steel just that touch of those immesurably sharp teeth was enough to damage the warrior, but not enough to take him out of the battle. He grits his teeth and bears the pain while cfuriously running towards his enemy. He hits the dragon with the strenght of an avlanche, his lance blurring with the speed of his attacks. He was a small agile creature compared to the great monster, who was too slow too try and evade the striking lance and it's unprotected belly, his small weakness among adamntine solid scales, is still taller than a man and an easy target to such a seasoned warrior.

Anything is possible if you have imagination. You should try someday.

Maddigan wrote:
Why is this huge, iconic beastly creature like a great wyrm ancient red dragon do so much less damage than a barbarian charging with a lance and attacking five times? The dragon weighs about 20 tons and is a 1000 times stronger than the barbarian, but his damage 4d6+15 with his enormous bite compared to 3d8+168 for the barbarian? And you find that in any way "realistic" or fair?

Well yes. Yes I do.

First, a thousand times stronger? Don't be silly. An ancient red (CR19) has strenght 39. A barbarian at 19 level could have strengt around 41 while raging, easy. So he's what, only 4 times stronger than the dragon? Hardly 'a thousand times'.
Second, the dragons bite is 4d6+21.
Third, a character of proper level to do that to a dragon has had years of fighting powerful enemies and learning how to deal with those more powerful and cuning than himself. That is why he is high level.

Maddigan wrote:
As a DM I find it annoying. I start to get really unhappy with the Pathfinder game and don't want to run it any more. To me a colossal ancient creature should be able to kill even a high level barbarian if he is alone. But put that barbarian on a horse and let him charge, he kills the ancient colossal red dragon in one round? Pretty damn lame mechanical design there. I doubt game designers like James Jacobs, Jason Buhlman, or Sean K. Reynolds would find it all that cool a battle for that to happen. Or maybe they would be fine with it. I don't know.

And why is the dragon standing there to take it? Why isn't he flying using his breath weapon and spells to soften the target? He lived this long because he is one of the more cunning and inteligent creatures around, if you can't roleplay that and stop the dragon from being one shotted by a tactic the barbarian probably uses often and that both you as a DM and the dragon as a BBEG should know he would use it and have some countermeasure, well then, maybe it isn't the barbarians fault you know?

Maddigan wrote:
I only know as a DM I don't like it. I take careful pains to make sure casters can't hammer my great wyrm dragons, I certainly don't like martial characters having builds to kill them in one round in a very cheesy fashion. Not how the game should work.

So you have to go to great lenghts to make sure the caster can't destroy an encounter, but if the martials make you do the same thing they are broken and cheezy? You honestly can't see the problem in the logic here?

Shadow Lodge

Guys, please TRY to discuss this maturely, instead of insulting each other.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Maddigan wrote:
You must have tolerant players playing with you. I for as another player would never tolerate such rubbish. If the DM has it so one player is outshining all others and the only reason we're surviving, I'm not going to be particularly happy with that character.

Just to play devil's advocate, it's a fairly common literary trope that a group of people would get together because they all have different strengths and bring different things to the table. One guy is the combat monster, and each of the others in the group are drawn from the following groups (or combinations thereof)- Face, Trapmonkey, Knowledge dude, Wilderness guide dude, utility caster, support caster, etc.

Now I'll admit that such a playstyle doesn't appeal to many, but sometimes its fun to be able to focus on a few different side roles and not need to worry about combat because someone else 'has it covered.' You'll still do your thing when combat rolls around, and once in a rare while you'll be the deciding factor, but because that's not really your shtick it's just an awesome bonus when you are, rather than something you're striving to achieve.

BARBARIAN ENJOY PLAYING THIS STYLE.

BARBARIAN AM CALLING B.A. BARACUS.


TOZ wrote:
Guys, please TRY to discuss this maturely, instead of insulting each other.

*makes Knowledge(History) check*

WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT AM BARELY POSSIBLE ON INTERWEBZ. HISTORY CHECK SAYS MATURITY DOES NOT LAST LONG ANYWAY.

*makes Spellcraft check*

MATURITY ONLY HAVE ONE-MINUTE PER LEVEL DURATION. TIMEZONES MAKE DURATION ACT WEIRD ON INTERWEBZ.


Maddigan wrote:


You must have tolerant players playing with you. I for as another player would never tolerate such rubbish. If the DM has it so one player is outshining all others and the only reason we're surviving, I'm not going to be particularly happy with that character.

I certainly don't run the game that way. My intent as a DM has always been to make every character have shining moments. And some of the cheese in Pathfinder that has come out since Core is making it harder to do since cheesy builds like the barbarian, the sap master, spells like prediction...

I agree with the idea with having a broken character in the party is not a good idea. And it wasn't the GM that made my character

you really did miss the point... if you talk to your other players and your GM, you can convince someone to tone down their character without player death or outright banning of abilities


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I just like the fact that 'the barbarian' has become a cheesy build now.

Not a specific kind of barbarian, Barbarian as a whole is cheese.

AM BARBARIAN wrote:
AM MORE EVIDENCE OF BARBARIAN NOT-BARBARIAN DESTRUCITY.


TOZ wrote:
Guys, please TRY to discuss this maturely, instead of insulting each other.

Agreed.

Additionally, this has gotten far away from the actual initial question. How a fireball works has no bearing on whether somebody can use iterative attacks on a pounce. Additionally, how any class compares to a particular pounce build is pretty much irrelevant. The developers and designers have mentioned in numerous threads that the classes excel at different things and they don't design options saying "Well, the wizard can cast comprehend languages and scrying, so I guess the fighter should be able to get weapon specialization." Obviously, they do crunch numbers in a lot of cases, but there are also rulings where a suboptimal choice was overruled because they didn't think it made sense.

If I could summarize what I view as the important points addressed so far:

1) pounce and iterative attacks work with RAW. No question.
2) RIA is muddled. The flavor, based on the use of the word "pounce" and the types of creatures and archetypes given pounce (big cats, "beast" archetypes", etc.), seems to favor the idea of using all your limbs to attack, not iterative attacks.
3) The flavor point in 2) doesn't mean the developers don't want people using iterative attacks with pounce. We can only know that if a developer chimes in since RAW clearly supports it today.
4) James Jacobs spoke against it. His rulings are almost always what is intended by the developers as well and he usually states his bias (e.g. preferring vital strike and spring attack to work together). His rulings have been overturned by FAQs before, but then again, so have developers' rulings. See: synthesists
5) Some say cases of unrelated literature (anime/samurai films) are how pounce works.
6) My interpretations of the rules are not always popular ;)

To me, 5) is a case of applying new flavor to an old rule to justify getting this ruling. I like the idea of bending flavor to fit a character concept, but I don't think it carries weight in determining how a rule works.


Trinam wrote:

I just like the fact that 'the barbarian' has become a cheesy build now.

Not a specific kind of barbarian, Barbarian as a whole is cheese.

Oh I can beat that. In the game I GM, the monk is the cheese. We used stat rolling and he came out on top, so he saunters around with absurdly high AC and CMD. Although...he pretty much just soaks up damage...it's the barbarian that kills everything...dammit!


drumlord wrote:
Trinam wrote:

I just like the fact that 'the barbarian' has become a cheesy build now.

Not a specific kind of barbarian, Barbarian as a whole is cheese.

Oh I can beat that. In the game I GM, the monk is the cheese. We used stat rolling and he came out on top, so he saunters around with absurdly high AC and CMD. Although...he pretty much just soaks up damage...it's the barbarian that kills everything...dammit!

A monk being a meat-shield for a barbarian? This seems counter-intuitive.


drumlord wrote:
4) James Jacobs spoke against it. His rulings are almost always what is intended by the developers as well and he usually states his bias (e.g. preferring vital strike and spring attack to work together). His rulings have been overturned by FAQs before, but then again, so have developers' rulings. See: synthesists

I know this is off-topic, but could you tell me what happened with the synthesists? I wasn't really active on the boards during that time period. (A link to the relevant thread would work as well, thank you.)


Maddigan wrote:
But you explain to me why a collossal red dragon does 1/5th the damage while power attacking of one lance strike from this so called realistic charging barbarian? Why?

He's not a realistic charging barbarian. If he were realistic, he'd be, at best, level 5 or so. And if he were realistic, he wouldn't be dealing with red dragons in the first place because there's nothing realistic about dragons, wizards, or much anything else in a fantasy RPG. You can't demand realism of warriors and give everyone else a pass!

For the record, I have no problem with restricting the double/triple damage on a mounted lance charge to the first attack, in the name of game balance. But that's an issue of game balance, not with realism.

Hyla wrote:
Yes, really. A lance charge is an iconic trope in fantasy and romantic medieval literature / gaming. A lance charge is always a single attack.

I think you're taking the combat mechanic way too literally. Even as a terrible amateur fencer, I can make more than one offensive movement in six seconds - so a single attack roll doesn't represent a single attack. Combat doesn't actually proceed by a pair of opponents taking alternating actions. Hit points are a notorious abstraction. All of pathfinder combat is an abstraction. And I'm sure you know this.

So here's the thing: if we can accept one attack roll representing multiple offensive movements, I don't see any reason not to accept multiple attack rolls representing one offensive movement. You could very well conceptualize the pouncing lance charger as making a single mighty thrust, so potent and so precise that it pierces the dragon's chest and slays it instantly, even while in reality that pouncing lance charger rolled five attack rolls.

Personally, I don't see any need to explain things that way, because I figure there's no 20th level warriors in fantasy and romantic medieval literature, just like there's no one who can punch through an Abrams tank, and we're not running into many wizards who can snap their fingers and alter reality at a whim, either. But you could choose to use this explanation if you felt like it.

The problem you actually have, if I may be so bold, is that high level pathfinder in general isn't a faithful representation of the romantic medieval genre. I sympathize with you, which is why I like E6. But if we're going to go ahead and use high level pathfinder, it's absurd to say that realism/faithful representations of iconic tropes are unimportant for casters, but are still required for that guy over there with the sword.


Trinam wrote:
A monk being a meat-shield for a barbarian? This seems counter-intuitive.

He's more a meat shield for the rest of the group since it's a 6 man group (5 plus leadership with occasional 7th NPC following around). Most fights start: monk stunning fist/scorpion style something, barbarian charge and murder something else. Barbarian occasionally charges wrong thing and get full attacked nearly to death. Life oracle soaks up damage with life link and quickened channels. Damn efficient party making my job as GM hard! Just means I get to put scarier monsters against them than normal.


drumlord wrote:
Trinam wrote:
A monk being a meat-shield for a barbarian? This seems counter-intuitive.
He's more a meat shield for the rest of the group since it's a 6 man group (5 plus leadership with occasional 7th NPC following around). Most fights start: monk stunning fist/scorpion style something, barbarian charge and murder something else. Barbarian occasionally charges wrong thing and get full attacked nearly to death. Life oracle soaks up damage with life link and quickened channels. Damn efficient party making my job as GM hard! Just means I get to put scarier monsters against them than normal.

A barbarian who's charging but isn't able to kill his target in one hit?

I am very disappoint. :'(


Trinam wrote:

A barbarian who's charging but isn't able to kill his target in one hit?

I am very disappoint. :'(

If only there were a thread that could bring him an option to do more attacks on a charge somehow...

Most in the group aren't min-maxed much, especially the barbarian. However, between raging and the group's cohort being a diviner harrower (played by me) who gives the barb heroism, haste and diviner's fortune all the time, he pretty much always hits and destroys things with full attacks. I catch him frequently rolling 2's and 3's and announcing he missed and I say "Well, what AC did you hit?" "Only a [high number]" *sigh* "You hit." "A million damage."

edit: curses, now I'm the one not staying on topic...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

The preparation for the barbarian build seems pretty investment heavy. A smart dm would have places where this would shine, but others where it would be less effective so that others can shine. What if he could not charge? What if the enemy is incorporeal? In the end, the dm is who decides how much effect a character has on the game.
Still wish there was an official response to the workings of pounce, as I hope I am doing it right.


Maddigan wrote:


Why is this huge, iconic beastly creature like a great wyrm ancient red dragon do so much less damage than a barbarian charging with a lance and attacking five times? The dragon weighs about 20 tons and is a 1000 times stronger than the barbarian, but his damage 4d6+15 with his enormous bite compared to 3d8+168 for the barbarian? And you find that in any way "realistic" or fair?

so you're going to take a custom, well-built, twinked out barbarian and put it up against the dragon right out of the book? Build your dragon with an idea of what you want it to do, then compare it


drumlord wrote:
edit: curses, now I'm the one not staying on topic...

Ach! You're right!

Uhhh....

Have him use Greater Beast Totem to get pounce with his iteratives on a charge! It totally works by RAW!

Reflex Save vs Derailment:1d20 + 10 ⇒ (12) + 10 = 22


this isn't another AM BARBARIAN thread?

Shadow Lodge

There are threads that aren't?


dragonfire8974 wrote:
this isn't another AM BARBARIAN thread?

I'm... pretty sure it's tangentially related (I.e. someone decided to throw up the thread because someone else was complaining about AM getting full attacks on a pounce) but it's not directly an AM thread per se.


TOZ wrote:
There are threads that aren't?

The Ponyfinder one.


Cheapy wrote:
TOZ wrote:
There are threads that aren't?
The Ponyfinder one.

BARBARIAN AM EXECUTIVE PRODUCER OF PONYFINDER. AM FUNDED BY BARBARIAN FINANCIAL.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cheapy wrote:
TOZ wrote:
There are threads that aren't?
The Ponyfinder one.

AM FIXING THAT.


AM PONY wrote:
Cheapy wrote:
TOZ wrote:
There are threads that aren't?
The Ponyfinder one.
AM FIXING THAT.

... Can AM BARBARIAN change his mount from a bat to some sort of pegasus? Better yet, the synthesist can change his eidolon from BATTY BAT to PEGASUS. A blue-coated, rainbow-maned one at that :)


VM mercenario wrote:
AM PONY wrote:
Cheapy wrote:
TOZ wrote:
There are threads that aren't?
The Ponyfinder one.
AM FIXING THAT.
... Can AM BARBARIAN change his mount from a bat to some sort of pegasus? Better yet, the synthesist can change his eidolon from BATTY BAT to PEGASUS. A blue-coated, rainbow-maned one at that :)

Currently the synthesist's eidolon form is a Dire Bat Dragon Giant Robot Pony Unicorn Pegasus.

And its cutie mark is a drill.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Trinam wrote:
VM mercenario wrote:
AM PONY wrote:
Cheapy wrote:
TOZ wrote:
There are threads that aren't?
The Ponyfinder one.
AM FIXING THAT.
... Can AM BARBARIAN change his mount from a bat to some sort of pegasus? Better yet, the synthesist can change his eidolon from BATTY BAT to PEGASUS. A blue-coated, rainbow-maned one at that :)

Currently the synthesist's eidolon form is a Dire Bat Dragon Giant Robot Pony Unicorn Pegasus.

And its cutie mark is a drill.

To pierce he heavens?


VM mercenario wrote:

Because the barbarian/fighter/rogue/whatever martial you want to use manages to barely dodge the attack the dragons sword like teeth only barely touching his armor. Even despite the enchanted protections and the thickness of the steel just that touch of those immesurably sharp teeth was enough to damage the warrior, but not enough to take him out of the battle. He grits his teeth and bears the pain while cfuriously running towards his enemy. He hits the dragon with the strenght of an avlanche, his lance blurring with the speed of his attacks. He was a small agile creature compared to the great monster, who was too slow too try and evade the striking lance and it's unprotected belly, his small weakness among adamntine solid scales, is still taller than a man and an easy target to such a seasoned warrior.

Anything is possible if you have imagination. You should try someday.

So in your imagination the great wyrm red dragon that is a thousand years plus old dies in 6 seconds the first time the barbarian runs into him. That's what you refer to as imagination?

Let's just say my imagination sees a much longer, more drawn out fight. You should try using your imagination a bit more as 6 seconds from a charge isn't very imaginative.

Quote:
First, a thousand times stronger? Don't be silly. An ancient red (CR19) has strenght 39. A barbarian at 19 level could have strengt around 41 while raging, easy. So he's what, only 4 times stronger than the dragon? Hardly 'a thousand times'.

Yes. It is a thousand times stronger. You forget how much a colossal creature can lift? The dragon only has a 39 strength because D&D is attempting to make a reasonable creature to fight. But the colossal beast is much, much, much stronger than the barbarian. But if you gave the creature a 100 strength, how could any martial character have a chance?

Quote:
Second, the dragons bite is 4d6+21.

Oh. +21 versus +168. You really don't see the problem do you?

Quote:
Third, a character of proper level to do that to a dragon has had years of fighting powerful enemies and learning how to deal with those more powerful and cuning than himself. That is why he is high level.

A great wyrm has been fighting for 1000s of years. Makes the fighting ability of even a lvl 20 fighter seem pale in comparison.

Quote:
And why is the dragon standing there to take it? Why isn't he flying using his breath weapon and spells to soften the target? He lived this long because he is one of the more cunning and inteligent creatures around, if you can't roleplay that and stop the dragon from being one shotted by a tactic the barbarian probably uses often and that both you as a DM and the dragon as a BBEG should know he would use it and have some countermeasure, well then, maybe it isn't the barbarians fault you know?

Because the barbarian gets to make a double move while charging and do his damage. How does flying around help the dragon if the barbarian when hasted moves at 180 feet a round with a fly spell and haste and gets to make a full attack at the end of his charge. Even worse for suped up mounts.

You really don't understand the rule do you? I wish I had you as a player. After I used this against you three or four times, you would probably begin to understand.

If a player ever introduces a combo into my game, I use it against them to prove a point. That's why I allow it. After the characters die a few times to the combination, they're more willing to stop using it or not argue about a house rule.

Just wish the game designers themselves would nip this stuff in the bud, so I didn't have to abuse my players to make my point.

Quote:
So you have to go to great lenghts to make sure the caster can't destroy an encounter, but if the martials make you do the same thing they are broken and cheezy? You honestly can't see the problem in the logic here?

I do for the melees too. Make no mistake. This cheese wouldn't last long in my campaign. I would already have killed a charging class that tried this about ten times as well as half the party or more.

My main problem is that game designers like Jason Buhlman, James Jacobs, and the like shouldn't have let this kind of stuff in the game to begin with.

Love to show you why this pounce combination is dumb not only mechanically, by also not going to be too fun for your imagination either as absolutely nothing but the most ruthless tactics available will deal with the combination. I'd use them against you without remorse for even thinking it was ok to bring this garbage into my campaign.


Glendwyr wrote:
Maddigan wrote:
But you explain to me why a collossal red dragon does 1/5th the damage while power attacking of one lance strike from this so called realistic charging barbarian? Why?

He's not a realistic charging barbarian. If he were realistic, he'd be, at best, level 5 or so. And if he were realistic, he wouldn't be dealing with red dragons in the first place because there's nothing realistic about dragons, wizards, or much anything else in a fantasy RPG. You can't demand realism of warriors and give everyone else a pass!

For the record, I have no problem with restricting the double/triple damage on a mounted lance charge to the first attack, in the name of game balance. But that's an issue of game balance, not with realism.

Hyla wrote:
Yes, really. A lance charge is an iconic trope in fantasy and romantic medieval literature / gaming. A lance charge is always a single attack.

I think you're taking the combat mechanic way too literally. Even as a terrible amateur fencer, I can make more than one offensive movement in six seconds - so a single attack roll doesn't represent a single attack. Combat doesn't actually proceed by a pair of opponents taking alternating actions. Hit points are a notorious abstraction. All of pathfinder combat is an abstraction. And I'm sure you know this.

So here's the thing: if we can accept one attack roll representing multiple offensive movements, I don't see any reason not to accept multiple attack rolls representing one offensive movement. You could very well conceptualize the pouncing lance charger as making a single mighty thrust, so potent and so precise that it pierces the dragon's chest and slays it instantly, even while in reality that pouncing lance charger rolled five attack rolls.

Personally, I don't see any need to explain things that way, because I figure there's no 20th level warriors in fantasy and romantic medieval literature, just like there's no one who can punch through an Abrams tank, and we're not...

That's why I said "so called realistic barbarian". None of the classes are particularly realistic. I mean the archer fires a strengthened longbow accurately at the rate of over 1 arrow a second at high level. I've fired bows before and that is impossible. I've watched specials on English longbow users and if you could fire one accurate arrow every 12 seconds, you were considered a very proficient archer.

Pathfinder is high fantasy. I get that. Combat is abstract and based more on attempting to capture a particular feel rather than realistically render a battle. I get all that.

But when you toss in pounce and then add Lance use to it, it gets ridiculous. Heck, Spirited Charge gets ridiculous. I hope they nip it in the bud soon before I have to deal with it and retaliate against my players, then nerf it myself.

I do always like to see something in action before I nerf it, just to make sure it's out of line. So I'll play with it first. See how bad it is.

Right now we're finding out how nasty the Crane Style is with a high AC fighter. It's pretty damn nasty. Master of Many Styles can have Crane Style deflect attack by lvl 2. Basically makes him immune to physical attacks until creatures get multiples. Not sure I'll change it though. I don't think it will hold up as well at high level.


Maddigan wrote:
mean stuff

Is there a reason why your post is mean-spirited and personal?

Quote:

I wish I had you as a player. After I used this against you three or four times, you would probably begin to understand.

If a player ever introduces a combo into my game, I use it against them to prove a point. That's why I allow it. After the characters die a few times to the combination, they're more willing to stop using it or not argue about a house rule.

...

I do for the melees too. Make no mistake. This cheese wouldn't last long in my campaign. I would already have killed a charging class that tried this about ten times as well as half the party or more.

...

Love to show you why this pounce combination is dumb not only mechanically, by also not going to be too fun for your imagination either as absolutely nothing but the most ruthless tactics available will deal with the combination. I'd use them against you without remorse for even thinking it was ok to bring this garbage into my campaign.

This all sounds awful. Shouldn't encounters be what the story demands, not something put together to prove a point? Isn't the point of the GM to make for an entertaining time for all, not to kill the players? It sounds to me like if you don't like a combo, you should communicate with your players, not ruin the campaign just to prove a point.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I play by this motto: If we are not having fun, we are doing it wrong. I suggest all others do the same.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
I play by this motto: If we are not having fun, we are doing it wrong. I suggest all others do the same.

RAWR! THIS IS NOT THE WAY TO PLAY! AM ONLY ONE WHO KNOWS HOW TO PLAY RIGHT


As much as I would love to get into a GM theory discussion, I do not think that this is will turn out particularly relevant nor does it appear that anything positive or constructive will be discussed. Please divert your focus from this path.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Yes, Pounce, how does it work, and why. That's what we were discussing.

Lantern Lodge

so, AM killed a CR20 dragon via RAGELANCEPOUNCE. don't use that dragon alone.

for a CR20 BARBARIAN of this twinked level of absurdity, i would use a customized CR 18 Dragon, and 14 similarly twinked out minmaxed CR16 archers. a CR 24 encounter worthy of AM. the dragon should be prebuffed and haste the archers. the archers each unload a volley of deadly aimed magically augmented Arrows at AM and utilize the clustered shots feat. so DR would apply once per archer instead of once per arrow. each archer would make 7 attacks to AM's 5.

now you have a CR24 fight that lasts more than 6 seconds.

never use a lone monster.


From my understanding, we are at the point where by RAW a pounce grants iteratives, whereas by RAI it is unclear, but leaning in the direction of granting iteratives.
The most satisfactory compromise will come from taking away the interpretation that the entire full-attack is considered a part of the charge. Raw is unlcear in this respect, as pounce indicates no deference as to whether all attacks get the bonus. Also, AFAIK there has been no FAQ to clarify this. I once again propose that the Charge action does indeed only grant one attack as a part of the action, whereas pounce allows you to capitalize on that attack as the catalyst for a full attack action, whose additional generated attacks receive no bonus for the previous charge.


Psha, thread staying on topic only lasts for 1 round/casterlevel, ask the AM BARD, he'll tell you.

@Maddigan: I used your example man. If that barbarian can kill a dragon in one round, he can kill a dragon in one round. You wishing that it weren't so doesn't make it less awesome. It COULD be a long draw out battle, IF the dragon wasn't a pushover. Get too confortable chewing on low level adventurers, that happens.
No it's not a thousand times stronger. The barbarian can carry more than he can. He can hit harder and better. The dragon can be the size that he wants, that tiny barbarian is stronger than him. He has gigantic strenght, the barbarian has superhero strenght. The dragon can take half a castle off the ground? The barbarian can lift the entire thing while holding by the corner.
+21 to +168. Between an off the book monster and a fully twinked out for maximun damage PC. No problem at all. Phisically fighting is not what dragons specialize in. They also have magic powers and breath weapons and other abilities.
A great wyrm has been fighting 1000s of years. Okay, yeah, but you have to remember level 15 and above adventurers are supposed to be 1 in a million. There are a couple of them every century or so. The guys that legends are made of, chosens of the gods. A dragon only get to a thousand years because he didn't meet ANY adventurers with that kind of drive and/or destiny. A level twenty anything is so badass that he has perfected his art to a level that would take several millenia of single focus to anyone else.
If your dragon lets a hasted flying barbarian (funny how he suddenly got a lot of buffs) do what he wants it's his funeral. Considering that he could create an antimagic field around himself and completely bar anyone of flying up to him without actual wings, its death is its own fault.
So do you do the same hate inspired stuff against casters too? Say a caster uses time stop and a bunch of summom monsters too flood the field. Do you do the same thing agaist them until they stop being cheezy? Or any of the many other poweful combos that a caster can do?
And I would do anything to not be your player. You sound like a horrible GM.


Don't stoop to saying people are horrible GMs based on their interpretation of how they wish things worked in their game.

Someone once did that to me, and that's how I got a title that was all-bold and somehow became king of trolls that one time. Which was pretty cool, I immediately started raising non-deity'd Earth/Fire domain cleric trolls.

Now we play the waiting game.


Guess most people's views on pounce probably exclude sneak attack as well since I doubt I can hit that many vital areas on one "leaping like attack" n


Talonhawke wrote:
Guess most people's views on pounce probably exclude sneak attack as well since I doubt I can hit that many vital areas on one "leaping like attack" n

Obviously not. Nobody cares about rogues, thus they can clearly have their sneak attack damage on a charge pounce.


Talonhawke wrote:
Guess most people's views on pounce probably exclude sneak attack as well since I doubt I can hit that many vital areas on one "leaping like attack" n

The full-attack granted by pounce is just a regular full-attack in my view, as I mentioned earlier. There is no restriction of precision damage, but only one attack is a charge attack.


Trinam wrote:
Don't stoop to saying people are horrible GMs based on their interpretation of how they wish things worked in their game.

Ok, your right, that was out of line.

151 to 200 of 315 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Pounce and Iterative attacks. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.