| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I keep seeing people refer to this but searching the boards has failed to produce a definition. I guess from the name its some kind of optimized barbarian/cavalier build, but what exactly is it?
|
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I keep seeing people refer to this but searching the boards has failed to produce a definition. I guess from the name its some kind of optimized barbarian/cavalier build, but what exactly is it?
barbarians can get pounce.
Then they get a mount.Then a lance.
that's about it, at high levels it does crazy damage.
It is also absurd and won't make it to a table any time soon.
barbarians can get pounce.
Then they get a mount.
Then a lance.that's about it, at high levels it does crazy damage.
It is also absurd and won't make it to a table any time soon.
But that wouldn't work. Pounce is for the creature doing the charging, which would be the mount, not the barbarian riding it.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, mounted combat rules state that the character riding a charging mount gets all benefits of a charge, of which pounce is one.
It is a beautiful, horrible thing. Never use it.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Actually, mounted combat rules state that the character riding a charging mount gets all benefits of a charge, of which pounce is one.
The problems with this are:
- I can't find that rule on mounted combat anywhere.
- Pounce does not work with iterative attacks.
- Lances are reach weapons. Which is irrelevant because you can't attack more than once with it anyway due to the above.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
'If your mount charges, you also take the
AC penalty associated with a charge. If
you make an attack at the end of the
charge, you receive the bonus gained
from the charge.'
The relevant section is under mounted combat. The reasoning goes, then, that since Pounce allows a full attack at the end of a charge, this too is a bonus gained from the charge.
Pounces not allowing iteratives is mentioned nowhere in the rules text anywhere and the pounce ability specifically says full attack. The only evidence for it not including iteratives if a quote from JJ which never got added to errata.
...and how is a reach weapon lance relevant?
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
'If your mount charges, you also take the
AC penalty associated with a charge. If
you make an attack at the end of the
charge, you receive the bonus gained
from the charge.'The relevant section is under mounted combat. The reasoning goes, then, that since Pounce allows a full attack at the end of a charge, this too if a bonus gained from the charge.
The logic is flawed. The passage is only referring to the bonus/penalty gained and lost for making a charge. Pounce is not a bonus, it is an ability.
Pounce also does not allow iterative attacks, either. It allow creatures with multiple natural attacks to make a full attack after a charge.
You cannot attack with lance once your opponent is in the next square. That is why "reach" quality would be important. Its not though, because you can't attack with more than once with a manufactured weapon while using pounce anyway.
It seems this RAGELANCEPOUNCE has been over-inflated.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
And if that is how you would rule it in your game, more power to you.
However, there is nothing within pounce that states you would not get iterative attacks, and there is no reason not to believe that pounce is not a bonus gained during a charge, and thus the opposite interpretation is equally valid.
Any other questions I can help with?
Edit: Oh right. Reach. Charges state you must attack from the first square you can, so you end up at reach distance from them.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
No where else is a bonus anything other than a numerical quantity.
Even if you could call a pounce a "bonus", the mount does not have pounce in the example, the barbarian does. The mount is doing the charging and the barbarian is getting the bonus from the mount, not the other way around.
Therefore, per RAW, it won't work.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now show me where either of those are written or outlined in no uncertain terms in raw. Also bear in mind JJ spoke of that a month prior to the bestiary errata. If they wanted Pounce changed the would have.
Alternatively, I could direct you to a thread here where this exact argument has already run its course. For some reason this thread smells green and regeneration-y.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
What if the mount has levels in barbarian with a lance strapped to either side of its head?
TRIPLE-THREAT!
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
IF YOU WANT TO SEE A RAGELANCEPOUNCE GET A CASTY TO STAND IN THE OPEN AND TALK ABOUT HOW GREAT THEY ARE. JUST REMEMBER TO SCOTCH GUARD YOUR CLOTHING FIRST.
|
Now show me where either of those are written or outlined in no uncertain terms in raw. Also bear in mind JJ spoke of that a month prior to the bestiary errata. If they wanted Pounce changed the would have.
Alternatively, I could direct you to a thread here where this exact argument has already run its course. For some reason this thread smells green and regeneration-y.
I'm not sure I'd agree with your conclusions regarding the course this argument has run. Per the RAW, if your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only make a single attack. So far, so good, right? Here's the crucial bit, I think: "If your mount charges, you also, etc." (emphasis mine). In this case, your mount is charging. You're not. You're simply gaining the bonus to hit and the penalty to AC your mount gets. The RAW specifically calls out the AC penalty. To assume that the bonus you gain from the charge is anything other than the +2 to-hit bonus is...more than a stretch. "But, you say, the rules don't say you don't get the pounce ability." Well, sure. And the RAW doesn't say anywhere that a fighter cannot cast spells, or channel energy. That's because it's a permissive ruleset. Now, I can certainly see that you could argue that Pounce would give you the full iterative attack if YOU charged, despite JJ's comment, because he's not the final authority (your friendly local GM is, of course), but nothing says you get it if your mount charges.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Benefit: When you are mounted and use the charge action, you may move and attack as if with a standard charge and then move again (continuing the straight line of the charge). Your total movement for the round can't exceed double your mounted speed. You and your mount do not provoke an attack of opportunity from the opponent that you attack.
Benefit: When mounted and using the charge action, you deal double damage with a melee weapon (or triple damage with a lance).
The mount is doing the charging and the barbarian is getting the bonus from the mount, not the other way around.
Head Explode!!!
| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As I said the last two times we did this, this entire line of logic is predicated on the idea that if your mount is charging you are not charging.
This is a patently false conclusion, because by that logic the feats Ride By Attack and Spirited Charge do nothing, because they are both used When you are mounted and using the charge action.
If you weren't charging on the mount, then you wouldn't be using a charge action, you would be attacking after your mount used a charge action, and just getting the bonuses/penalties with it.
'Lances and Charge Attacks' says the same basic thing. 'A lance deals double damage if used by a mounted character in a charge.'
Bear in mind that under the above logic a mounted character can never charge. Thus, there are two completely pointless feats and a completely pointless line in the combat rules as well as in the Lance description.
So, I believe based on that that if your mount declares a charge you are de facto charging, and thus anything associated with a charge would apply.
This being the case, this would mean Pounce applies because you are charging.
Because of this, it would override the standard combat rule of 'only one attack if you move more than five feet,' because the specific Pounce ability would then override the general combat rule.
I cannot possibly make my position any more clear than that. If you still want to disagree, that is fine by me, but there is not a contradiction within my reading of the RAW.
|
|
Bear in mind that under the above logic a mounted character can never charge.
I completely agree. The mount charges. The rider doesn't. Both Ride-by Attack and Spirited Charge use the phrase 'charge action.' Neither feat says 'when you charge,' which is the text Pounce uses.
The same logic you use to argue mind blank doesn't protect the caster's spells and items prevents you from using Pounce while mounted. You cannot have it both ways. Well, not and be internally consistent, anyway.
If the mount charges, and the rider doesn't, how does the rider use the Spirited Charge or Ride-by Attack feats, which requires the rider use the charge action while mounted?
I think he's trying to say that, despite being in the middle of a charge action he himself is not charging. Which is nonsense.
I'm with DeathSpot and Darth_Borehd on this one.
RAW it doesn't work. RAW, neither do Spirited Charge or Ride-by Attack. Seems plain to me that the feats (or the mounted charge rule) needs to be errata'd so that they all mesh.
I'm with DeathSpot and Darth_Borehd on this one.
RAW it doesn't work. RAW, neither do Spirited Charge or Ride-by Attack. Seems plain to me that the feats (or the mounted charge rule) needs to be errata'd so that they all mesh.
Well if RD says its RAW then the RAI must be that it works. ;)
Seriously though we can all agree the feats work as they are meant too in our home games as for pouncing and charging on Mount Your GM Milage May Very
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does this mean am barbarian has to be a centaur?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm with DeathSpot and Darth_Borehd on this one.
RAW it doesn't work. RAW, neither do Spirited Charge or Ride-by Attack. Seems plain to me that the feats (or the mounted charge rule) needs to be errata'd so that they all mesh.
If your mount charges, you also take the AC penalty associated with a charge. If you make an attack at the end of the charge, you receive the bonus gained from the charge. When charging on horseback, you deal double damage with a lance (see Charge).
Do people even bother to read the rules? How are you not charging, when the rules on mounted combat clearly say you are charging?
|
|
Do people even bother to read the rules? How are you not charging, when the rules on mounted combat clearly say you are charging?
Of course we're reading the rules. The mount charges; you don't. Says so right in the rules section for mounted combat. "If your mount charges, etc." Now, if AM wants to get off BATTY BAT and charge, he's welcome to use Pounce with all his natural attacks.
I think you're conflating Charge with the Charge action while mounted. They are NOT THE SAME THING.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
*Face-Palm*
|
|
I don't see how two charge actions could be different.
Okay, let's take the oft-cited example of a big cat with Pounce. The big cat charges, and pounces, getting a full attack (plus rake, but that's not really germane to the argument). So far, so good. We're all in agreement on this. Now put the big cat on a horse. Yeah, bear (Bear? I thought it was on a horse!) with me for a sec. The horse charges. Does the big cat get the benefits of Pounce? No, because it didn't charge. Its mount did. Can you see any way for the big cat to get the benefits of Pounce? I can't. A mounted charge (using the charge action while mounted, which is verbal shorthand for 'your mount charges, and you get to make an attack at the end of it') is mechanically different from a Charge.
Now, you're going to say that it's different, because AM isn't a big cat. Well, show me one way that Pounce says 'you can use this feat while mounted.' Permissive ruleset, remember?EDIT: If charge is the same mounted as on foot, how can you justify getting double damage with a lance while mounted, but not while on foot, or use the weapon one-handed?
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
A mounted charge (using the charge action while mounted, which is verbal shorthand for 'your mount charges, and you get to make an attack at the end of it') is mechanically different from a Charge.
Ah, there's my problem. You're using your own verbal shorthand, not the rules. Unless you can provide evidence of that being more than your interpretation, I can't agree with you
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
As a GM, the only way I could reconcile Pounce and Mounted Charging would be to have the rider make a Ride check (DC 15? 20? depending on mount speed, flying,etc) to *leap off* the mount, imparting the kinetic energy necessary for a Pounce.
Come to think of it, that's a pretty badass barbarian move... ^_^
|
|
Ah, there's my problem. You're using your own verbal shorthand, not the rules. Unless you can provide evidence of that being more than your interpretation, I can't agree with you
It's not my verbal shorthand, it's the designers'. But let's say for a moment that that particular phrasing is mine. We're still dealing with a permissive ruleset. And unless you can show any evidence anywhere that Pounce may be used on a mounted charge, I can't agree with you.
This is a PERMISSIVE RULESET. No one who is in favor of allowing Pounce on a mounted charge has addressed this yet. Why? I think it's because if you do, you will conclude that Pounce doesn't work with a mounted charge.
|
|
As a GM, the only way I could reconcile Pounce and Mounted Charging would be to have the rider make a Ride check (DC 15? 20? depending on mount speed, flying,etc) to *leap off* the mount, imparting the kinetic energy necessary for a Pounce.
Come to think of it, that's a pretty badass barbarian move... ^_^
Nah, that'd be Acrobatics, and he'd need to jump at least ten feet to get the charge distance. But at 20th level, AM should be able to do that in his sleep. Which, since he sleeps on BATTY BAT, he should take precautions against, lest he try to RAGELANCEPOUNCE in his sleep. :)
...I'd even give him the benefit of a running start, based on the momentum of the mount.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think you're conflating Charge with the Charge action while mounted. They are NOT THE SAME THING.
When charging on horseback, you deal double damage with a lance (see Charge).
You don't think they are the same things, the designers don't agree with you on that point.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is a PERMISSIVE RULESET. No one who is in favor of allowing Pounce on a mounted charge has addressed this yet. Why? I think it's because if you do, you will conclude that Pounce doesn't work with a mounted charge.
How about the fact that it's blatantly obvious in the Pounce rule? It says 'full attack at the end of a charge', and a mounted charge is a charge. Pounce overrides the general rule via it being a specific rule.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Now, you're going to say that it's different, because AM isn't a big cat. Well, show me one way that Pounce says 'you can use this feat while mounted.' Permissive ruleset, remember?
EDIT: If charge is the same mounted as on foot, how can you justify getting double damage with a lance while mounted, but not while on foot, or use the weapon one-handed?
Wow... So using your example, being mounted shuts down all feats, since there's no language saying "You can use this feat while mounted."
So I put a 20th level fighter in full plate on a mount...
He loses his weapon training with the lance. He's no longer proficient in it as Proficiency in the lance is a feat. Same thing for armor training.
He gains the armor check penalty from his armor on to hit roles.
He loses weapon focus, weapon specialization, power attack...
All because there's no language stating "You can use this feat while mounted."
Most amusing of all... He loses skill focus (ride), while mounted.
And as to your Edit.
A lance deals double damage when used from the back of a charging mount. While mounted, you can wield a lance with one hand.
The lance clearly states when it does double damage, and when it can be wielded one hand. Permissive rules set, remember?
Hey Trinam didn't shoot down the wish binding build that got thrown against him and it could be argued that casting binding as a standard action is not duplicating the spell binding since binding has a 1 minute casting time.
Duplicate: Identically copied from an original.
But it seem like a pretty rough break to have wish unable to shorten any casting time to 1 standard action or quicker wouldn't it? I mean wish is supposed to be a very powerful option.
Trinam... just how many of these threads are there?
|
|
Okay, now that I seem to have everyone's attention, my basic problem is not RAGELANCEPOUNCE. I'm willing to grant that it may be possible (I still think it's not, but I can understand your argument). I think the basic issue in the entire multi-thread discussion is that many, if not most, of the proponents of RAGELANCEPOUNCE will not give the same consideration to the other side as they insist on for theirs. They require a liberal reading of the rules for their side, and a restrictive reading for the caster side. This is inherently unjust. We need to be working from the same set of rules, or we may as well not even have the discussion. Examples? How about the interpretation of mind blank that says it doesn't cover the caster's spells and items, because it doesn't specifically say it does?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey I would like to point you up to my post. People let the wish thing slide even though wish does not say specifically state if it uses its own casting time or not when duplicating a spell. It just makes more sense that any spell wish duplicates works as a standard action unless wish is quickened. I know seems to make sense is a weak argument but a lot of the game is not as well defined as some people want.
|
Hey I would like to point you up to my post. People let the wish thing slide even though wish does not say specifically state if it uses its own casting time or not when duplicating a spell. It just makes more sense that any spell wish duplicates works as a standard action unless wish is quickened. I know seems to make sense is a weak argument but a lot of the game is not as well defined as some people want.
As far as I understand it, your casting the wish spell. It then duplicates the other spell. But you did not cast the other spell, nor do you need to cast it. You already cast the wish which just does the same thing.
Okay, now that I seem to have everyone's attention, my basic problem is not RAGELANCEPOUNCE. I'm willing to grant that it may be possible (I still think it's not, but I can understand your argument). I think the basic issue in the entire multi-thread discussion is that many, if not most, of the proponents of RAGELANCEPOUNCE will not give the same consideration to the other side as they insist on for theirs. They require a liberal reading of the rules for their side, and a restrictive reading for the caster side. This is inherently unjust. We need to be working from the same set of rules, or we may as well not even have the discussion. Examples? How about the interpretation of mind blank that says it doesn't cover the caster's spells and items, because it doesn't specifically say it does?
I'd like to point out that every spell in the entire CRB that does cover spells/items also specifically states it covers spells/items.
The fact that mind blank doesn't is very telling. It implies that it prevents YOU from being found via Legend Lore/etc. Your stuff doesn't have minds to blank. They're objects. This is likely why they were not included in the spell descriptor, unlike every other spell with similar blanket invisibility protection stating 'this extends to items.' (i.e. Nondetection, Invisibility) The fact that they had this text and did not include it implies that it was not included with a purpose in mind.
There was an interesting point brought up that Arcane Sight requires you to see the thing in order to discern its auras (based on the phrase 'You know the location and power of all magical auras within your sight.') but I am not certain that you must see the thing causing the aura in order to see the aura itself.
Trinam... just how many of these threads are there?
Enough that it's tempting to just make a FAQ document.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I completely agree. The mount charges. The rider doesn't. Both Ride-by Attack and Spirited Charge use the phrase 'charge action.' Neither feat says 'when you charge,' which is the text Pounce uses.
I thought I knew what ridiculous was, until this day.
I thought I knew what ridiculous was, until this day.
Particularly considering this:
Lances and Charge Attacks: A lance deals double damage if employed by a mounted character in a charge.
|
|
I'd like to point out that every spell in the entire CRB that does cover spells/items also specifically states it covers spells/items.
The fact that mind blank doesn't is very telling. It implies that it prevents YOU from being found via Legend Lore/etc. Your stuff doesn't have minds to blank. They're objects. This is likely why they were not included in the spell descriptor, unlike every other spell with similar blanket invisibility protection stating 'this extends to items.' (i.e. Nondetection, Invisibility) The fact that they had this text and did not include it implies that it was not included with a purpose in mind.
There was an interesting point brought up that Arcane Sight requires you to see the thing in order to discern its auras (based on the phrase 'You know the location and power of all magical auras within your sight.') but I am not certain that you must see the thing causing the aura in order to see the aura itself.
I understand your argument regarding mind blank. I can see why you might argue that way, and that is certainly a possible interpretation of the rules. But it's also a restrictive one, and goes to prove my point.
...I don't see how Mind Blank's dialogue proves that a charge isn't a charge.
That's like me saying 'blue is blue and green is green' and getting a reply of 'yes, thus white is black.'
I see I lost you. Allow me to explain.
Invisibility and Nondetection are both abilities which state they cover items, and thus cover items. Mind Blank does not have this item-coverage text and thus shouldn't.
Green is green, while blue is blue. They are two separate things.
Yes, and this proves that a charge isn't a charge.
White is black.