| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Once again, 'you' are the one that has to be charging, not the horse. When they say you in the pounce description, they are talking about you - not your horse, not your mother, not your best friends neighbor Bobby with the wandering eye but you. Like I have already said before, when you are mounted the rules change. Stop trying to read what you want to read.Exactly. That section is the reason ragelancepounce works. You gain the benefits of charging when the horse charges + pounce lets you full attack when charging = you can full attack when the horse charges.Except that we know from the mounted combat section that's been linked in half a hundred times that you gain the benefits of your mounts charge. Which is why the whole thing works.When you are mounted and making a charge action is pretty clear actually, to use spirited charge you have to be mounted and use a charge action if you cannot use a charge action on a horse you cannot gain the benefits of a spirited charge.
If the rules had said when you are mounted and your horse is making a charge then you ruling would be sane and logical.
If you're going to be pedantic about that 'you', that all the mounted combat feats also have, then no mounted combat feat works. Nor lances for that matter. So you're breaking the whole mounted combat, just to stop a single possible build that, while working in RAW, nobody would actually allow or use.
We're not aguing that you should allow this build, we're arguing you shouldn't break a section of the rules just to stop a build noone has asked to play.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You need to realize that when the rule says "you", it doesn't always mean "you".
And when I say that "You need to realize...", what I really mean is that "Your horse needs to realize..."
You need to realize that when the rule says "you", it doesn't always mean "you".
And when I say that "You need to realize...", what I really mean is that "Your horse needs to realize..."
So what you're saying is that your horse is saying...
If you charge on a Phantom Steed, do you need to make a will save?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, are you suggesting that your horse* is "riding" a phantom steed? For shame! That's what barns are for!
EDIT twice to fix tags
EDIT 3:
|
Ssalarn,
You do realize that when you are adding entire clauses to a sentence, it does mean the original sentence is different. I am still waiting for that link.
BigNorseWolf: Thank for understanding that point.
Those "clauses" are extrapolations of the rules and clarifications found elsewhere in the book. They aren't changing the original sentence, they're giving the context that the rule exists within. Each sentence doesn't exist in a vacuum, and the separation of actions between rider and mount has been a standard part of the game since at least 3rd edition, one which has been carried over unchanged from each edition. I've provided you with the links to the Rules of the Game articles, to the developer references, to the sections in the book that cover combat. If you can't click on them and read, I can't help you.
|
|
If you're going to be pedantic about that 'you', that all the mounted combat feats also have, then no mounted combat feat works. Nor lances for that matter. So you're breaking the whole mounted combat, just to stop a single possible build that, while working in RAW, nobody would actually allow or use.
We're not aguing that you should allow this build, we're arguing you shouldn't break a section of the rules just to stop a build noone has asked to play.
This is incorrect. I've pointed it out dozens of times, but there is exactly one feat that uses a "you" in the same sentence that references taking the charge action, the Ride-by Attack feat. It is the only place where this even comes close to a legitimate inconsistency.
There are also numerous exceptions in this game. That's why the "specific trumps general" clause exists. One of those exceptions is the functionality of being on a charging mount. That exception is spelled out in the mounted combat section of the book. Your mount charges, you get the benefits.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am going to agree on this. The devs should have just admitted that they won't allow this because its overpowered(Same as why you can't get Speed on an amulet of mighty fists).
Instead, they tried to justify it by the rules and broke several other things in the process.
Personal opinion...
How is this overpowered? I mean in the sense of what level would a Barbarian have to survive to to pull this off? At least 7th for the leadership feat.
Assuming 7th level...
A wizard can give you a 50% chance to do nothing, for the rest of your life. Or kill you with two failed saves from around 200' away.
A druid or cleric can sick 2 giant spiders on you, or wildshape and cast spells.
A bard can make you think you're not a barbarian, but you're a 6 year old elven florist.
And that's all with their highest level spell, not an entire build dedicated to it.
If you can ragelancepounce at 7th level how much damage can you do?
Your mounted charge attacks deal a tremendous amount of damage.
Prerequisites: Ride 1 rank, Mounted Combat, Ride-By Attack.
Benefit: When mounted and using the charge action, you deal double damage with a melee weapon (or triple damage with a lance).
While mounted, you can ride down opponents and trample them under your mount.
Prerequisites: Ride 1 rank, Mounted Combat.
Benefit: When you attempt to overrun an opponent while mounted, your target may not choose to avoid you. Your mount may make one hoof attack against any target you knock down, gaining the standard +4 bonus on attack rolls against prone targets.
With a DC 5 Ride check, you can guide your mount with your knees so as to use both hands to attack or defend yourself. This is a free action.
When you attack a creature smaller than your mount that is on foot, you get the +1 bonus on melee attacks for being on higher ground. If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only make a single melee attack. Essentially, you have to wait until the mount gets to your enemy before attacking, so you can't make a full attack. Even at your mount's full speed, you don't take any penalty on melee attacks while mounted.
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).
And Ride-By Attack mentions you four times.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Ah, where to start with Ssalarn...
How about it being two feats. OR maybe that using 3.5 references for Pathfinder isn't a good source. Are tieflings in your game proficient in all martial weapons?
Or how about that you can't point to the statement you said existed, namely that "you use the charge action" was stated to mean "you tell your horse to use the charge action". I'm still waiting for that link. The only link we have is a Dev saying that you can't use pounce because you aren't charging. You are saying the Devs have said that a charge on a horse is a charge, except when it isn't.
Finally, it's clear that if you can't see adding clauses and words to a sentence changes the meaning of a sentence. So I guess that means to you if I say Bill is a fool it means the exact same thing as "I talked to Bill yesterday, and he is sure you're a fool." After all, I'm just adding words to a sentence.
|
|
I don't believe the concern is that it is overpowered. I think it stems from the inherent misunderstanding many players have regarding lances and mounted combat. Because they don't understand the action economy involved due to a poorly worded feat and the extra complexity of mounted combat, they think ragelancepounce should work. The devs aren't killing it because it's overpowered, they're killing it because it was never intended to work in the first place.
Lances are supposed to deal extra damage because of the added weight and momentum of a charging steed behind them. Riders on horses can't possibly be taking the charge action because they're not the ones moving. These have been understood (though clearly not by all) facets of the game for many years. Unfortunately the growth of Pathfinder and the addition of powers and abilities that didn't used to exist means that rules sections that once didn't need any clarification (because there didn't exist any ways they could be interpreted and used outside of their intended context initially) now need to be clarified and addressed.
When the Mounted Combat rules were written, there weren't any ways to melee full attack while mounted and moving. You either full attacked with a bow, stood still and full attacked, or had your mount charge so you could stick someone with a lance and then draw a sword or whatever in medieval style. The wording didn't need to be any more specific. The rules allowed you to take a move and standard from a mount and gain the benefits of a charge.
It wasn't until someone got the idea to use the lance and combo it with an ability that didn't exist that any clarification was needed.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Cessna, this is the tower. You seem to be losing altitude quickly. Are you crashing?"
"Tower, this is Cessna. There's no need to be alarmed. The plane is crashing. I'm only making a 'Crash Action'. That means I take the same bonus and penalties, but I won't be strewn all over the landscape."
"Cessna, this is tower. Umm, we actually kind of think you will."
"Tower, Cessna. By 'you', you mean the plane, right?"
I think it is good the way it is because you can just kinda think about it and apply it in the ways that makes sense but if you don't really want to do that then it's put together in a way where you guys can just argue a lot and generate return visits for traffic reports and what the hell Paizo dang just put some Adsense ads on here because you are sitting on a goldmine.
|
|
Ah, where to start with Ssalarn...
How about it being two feats. OR maybe that using 3.5 references for Pathfinder isn't a good source. Are tieflings in your game proficient in all martial weapons?
Or how about that you can't point to the statement you said existed, namely that "you use the charge action" was stated to mean "you tell your horse to use the charge action". I'm still waiting for that link. The only link we have is a Dev saying that you can't use pounce because you aren't charging. You are saying the Devs have said that a charge on a horse is a charge, except when it isn't.
Finally, it's clear that if you can't see adding clauses and words to a sentence changes the meaning of a sentence. So I guess that means to you if I say Bill is a fool it means the exact same thing as "I talked to Bill yesterday, and he is sure you're a fool." After all, I'm just adding words to a sentence.
First: tieflings in 3.5 weren't proficient with all martial weapons. Not sure what you're thinking of. Since many of the rules from 3.5 were carried over whole cloth, and you know, the entire game was built around the 3.5 OGL then references addressing rules that haven't changed between the two editions are perfectly valid.
Secondly: Show me the two feats. They don't exist, because as I've linked to you before, there is no "you" in Spirited Charge. It just says, "when mounted and using the charge action". Since we know that your mount charges and you reap the benefits, it works just fine. Only Ride-by attack uses the word "you" in a manner that could be misleading.
Finally, it's clear that you believe that every sentence exists in a vacuum. Every sentence exists in context to a frame of reference. "When mounted and using the charge action" exists in context to the rules for mounted combat. I'm not adding clauses to change the meaning of the sentence, I'm including the context that can be drawn from the other rules which interact with that particular reference.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
"Cessna, this is the tower. You seem to be losing altitude quickly. Are you crashing?"
"Tower, this is Cessna. There's no need to be alarmed. The plane is crashing. I'm only making a 'Crash Action'. That means I take the same bonus and penalties, but I won't be strewn all over the landscape."
"Cessna, this is tower. Umm, we actually kind of think you will."
"Tower, Cessna. By 'you', you mean the plane, right?"
Ok, now people are wondering why I'm laughing outloud.
|
|
Ok, now people are wondering why I'm laughing outloud."Cessna, this is the tower. You seem to be losing altitude quickly. Are you crashing?"
"Tower, this is Cessna. There's no need to be alarmed. The plane is crashing. I'm only making a 'Crash Action'. That means I take the same bonus and penalties, but I won't be strewn all over the landscape."
"Cessna, this is tower. Umm, we actually kind of think you will."
"Tower, Cessna. By 'you', you mean the plane, right?"
I was on another thread during the workday a couple days ago and when I saw something so funny I couldn't hold it in either. Fortunately, it's pretty laid back around here.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I can't pull it up through firewalls, but you're wrong about 3.x tieflings. It's ok to admit you're wrong. Or you can use that google thing to search for WOTC Tieflings proficient with martial weapons.
Now Pathfinder tieflings aren't proficient with martial weapons.
And it's clear that if you think adding clauses isn't adding clauses, there's no sense debating with you.
So wait are you swinging the lance or the mount? Or is the mount swinging the lance? Or by you does it mean the lance? Is the lance swinging the rider? Is the rider youing the mount? Are you riding? Are mounts riding the lancefhghglrhghrllhlsahsd-
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
If you can ragelancepounce at 7th level how much damage can you do?About double what you would do otherwise.
Rough calculations, you would do about 35 damage a swing(assuming 18 strength when raging and power attack). Optimized about 50 damage a swing. With haste you can swing 3 times, which would average you around 100 damage a round. You would one shot most things.
Thank you John,
So it is powerful as it's an infinate resource vs the 4th level spells. I didn't know how soon it would be viable.
|
|
About double what you would do otherwise.
Rough calculations, you would do about 35 damage a swing(assuming 18 strength when raging and power attack). Optimized about 50 damage a swing. With haste you can swing 3 times, which would average you around 100 damage a round. You would one shot most things.
What barbarian has an 18 STR when raging at 7th level? If you assume at least a 22 when raging and at least a +1 weapon you're looking at 1d8+16 (average 20, doubled to 40) for the first swing and then your standard 20 for the two follow up attacks. So probably 80, potentially 100 damage in a round. Compared to a buffed druid wildshaped into a tiger and attacking in tandem with his animal companion, it's pretty tame. It's also exactly what a mounted cavalier would be capable of. I personally don't think ragelancepounce is too powerful, especially in the context of the other abilities out there.
|
|
I can't pull it up through firewalls, but you're wrong about 3.x tieflings. It's ok to admit you're wrong. Or you can use that google thing to search for WOTC Tieflings proficient with martial weapons.
I don't have a problem with being wrong. Tieflings were presented as a player race for the first time in the Forgotten Realms Campaign setting, no proficiencies.
**EDIT**
In the Forgotten Realms Setting, tieflings did not have racial weapon proficiencies. In researching it does appear that in the revised Monster Manual when they revamped the races and they got all caught up in the ECL thing, they did feel it was necessary to give tieflings martial weapon proficiency to compensate for their level adjustment and put them back on par with the other planetouched +1 ECL, the aasimar, who did not share their negative stat.
Is the tiefling riding the mount and charging?
No, wait. It's gotta be your bull!
No no it's okay because the bull isn't really doing the charging anyway, the lance is.
When did the tiefling get a lance? I thought he was using both hands to steer the bull by the horns?
No no it's okay because the bull isn't really doing the charging anyway, the lance is.
No no no the bull is steering (haha 'steer') the mount. The lance has the rider and you have the bull. The rider is charging and the bull is not. The bull is steering. The lance is most likely charging as well.
Seriously come on Ssalarn this is super easy to understand if you just read it exactly.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When did the tiefling get a lance? I thought he was using both hands to steer the bull by the horns?
No no it's okay because the bull isn't really doing the charging anyway, the lance is.No no no the bull is steering (haha 'steer') the mount. The lance has the rider and you have the bull. The rider is charging and the bull is not. The bull is steering. The lance is most likely charging as well.
Seriously come on Ssalarn this is super easy to understand if you just read it exactly.
Ok, I think I've got this: The bull has the mount, the mount has the tiefling, the tiefling has the lance, the lance has the mouse, the mouse has the cheese, and the cheese stands alone. Right?
(Also, thumbs up on the steer joke. Classic.)
But, does the Cheese ride alone?
You need to realize that when the rule says "you", it doesn't always mean "you".
And when I say that "You need to realize...", what I really mean is that "Your horse needs to realize..."
and when i say "..and the horse you rode in on" i mean the horse your horse rode in on...
By "rode" you mean "charged", right?
So we can all infer, vis a vis, concordantly that it is the horse your horse charged in on in which case only one of the horses is actually charging.
Okay, so now that we've solved this whole thread, I'm not sure what to do with my time.
Wait...I'm going to go build a Mounted Fury Barbarian.
This thread is finally getting somewhere.
I'm still waiting on my answer, because no one's told me whether or not the Cheese is the one riding alone, or if someone else is riding the cheese. Links, or it didn't happen!
Also, anyone else thinking of this the whole time?
EDIT: This is another possiblity.
Or this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, that wouldn't work, because one horse would charge (and have its action resolved) before the other horse, as there's no "in tandem" charging action, and each horse would have to resolve its turn (and thus its charge) individually!
... while riding other horses.
|
|
Well, that wouldn't work, because one horse would charge (and have its action resolved) before the other horse, as there's no "in tandem" charging action, and each horse would have to resolve its turn (and thus its charge) individually!
... while riding other horses.
Hmmm..... Good call. Even if one horse readied an action to charge when the other horse charged, his action would just interrupt the other horse's charge action and resolve first....
No matter which way you cut it, this chariot ends up broken in half and tangled in wreckage and horse flesh.
But hey, at least chariot-lance-pounce mangles somebody, and, in the end, isn't that all that really matters?
I never found mounted combat complicated or difficult to understand (I've ridden a horse, but am certainly no cavalier, I love cav charges in games lol), and rage lance pounce sounds tricky.
Chariot lance pounce sounds beastly. I saw a Chinese halberd in the Singaporean museum. Nasty looking weapon (close to a pick or a hooked lance, where you know someone is going to lose their head as you go past).
Let's all be calm and get along, at least until we get into rage lance pounce distance.
I never found mounted combat complicated or difficult to understand (I've ridden a horse, but am certainly no cavalier, I love cav charges in games lol), and rage lance pounce sounds tricky.
Chariot lance pounce sounds beastly. I saw a Chinese halberd in the Singaporean museum. Nasty looking weapon (close to a pick or a hooked lance, where you know someone is going to lose their head as you go past).
Probably a fake.
So at this point where are we at exactly? In a game with no house rules, does this stuff work or not? Say in PFS?
As far as I've seen from all arguments, RAW, it works, unless you squint and read it a certain way (ignoring the logical implications of making it not work by reading it that way upon entire feat chains) in which case it doesn't.
RAI, it clearly doesn't and was never meant to.
In PFS? I don't know. I kind of expected them to go pretty much by RAW, but they (understandably) denied Crafting feats, so...