What is rage-lance-pounce?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 531 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

So, how far does the very notion of AM get under some peoples' noses?

So far that they twisted the rules, the English language and their knickers into an uncomfortable mess.

C'mon, the castys are beating AM now ayway: you don't need to play silly buggers with the rules to be victorious.

And, incidentally, this should have been a two-post thread.

Liberty's Edge

I'd really prefer you edited that to not imply I've said something I didn't. I don't make strawman arguments about you; I think it's inconsiderate of you to do so about me.

When you apply one set of rules to one side, and another set to the other, you create an inherently unjust situation. As an example: your statement about how mind blank works is a restrictive interpretation of how the rules work. Your interpretation of how Pounce works is a liberal interpretation of how the rules work.

This is the gist of my problem with this discussion multi-thread.


@Geraint Elberion: That banish thing was a work of beauty.

The problem with that, DS, is that Lances specifically say when a Mounted Character uses these on a Charge. It's in their rules text under the 'Charge' action.

If a mounted character uses them on a charge, then there is no way under the logic you're putting forth that the ability of the lance works.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Trinam wrote:

@Geraint Elberion: That banish thing was a work of beauty.

The problem with that, DS, is that Lances specifically say when a Mounted Character uses these on a Charge. It's in their rules text under the 'Charge' action.

If a mounted character uses them on a charge, then there is no way under the logic you're putting forth that the ability of the lance works.

WAS? Do you have a counter? ;-)

And I find it funny DS's argument is that a 20th level fighter goes from a melee tank of death to an incompetent when he gets on a horse.


Matthew Morris wrote:

WAS? Do you have a counter? ;-)

And I find it funny DS's argument is that a 20th level fighter goes from a melee tank of death to an incompetent when he gets on a horse.

Short of a very specifically focused ring of counterspells, not yet, and that seems rather... silly.

I say 'was' because it is a build brought up in the past. Brought a tear to my eye, that one. :'D

Dark Archive

AM AMUSED.

Ahrm.

But in all seriousness, good masters, I do know someone very skilled at reading legalities. I would suggest resolving this with the wine of common sense before calling forth the Prince of Darkness, but if not ...

Liberty's Edge

Trinam wrote:
White is black.

Heh. Sometimes white really is black (scroll down to 'Checkerboard with shadow').

Liberty's Edge

Trinam wrote:

@Geraint Elberion: That banish thing was a work of beauty.

The problem with that, DS, is that Lances specifically say when a Mounted Character uses these on a Charge. It's in their rules text under the 'Charge' action.

If a mounted character uses them on a charge, then there is no way under the logic you're putting forth that the ability of the lance works.

The RAW never once says that a fighter cannot cast spells. It never says that a wizard cannot channel energy. Obviously, this is because pathfinder is a permissive ruleset. Just as obviously, we need to read the rules with some common sense, or we end up with the interpretation that you cannot use any feats when you're mounted (which, by the way, I did not claim). That's where the disagreements show up, of course (and that's, by and large, a good thing. Everyone in lockstep makes for a poorer game, I think). But when you require two different sides of an argument to adhere to different standards, you remove the point of the discussion. We have a couple of mechanisms in Pathfinder for that, too: developer rulings/errata and GM fiat. However, neither of these (yet) applies to this discussion, so we're left with either no discussion, or all sides agreeing on a set of rules for the discussion.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

DeathSpot wrote:
Just as obviously, we need to read the rules with some common sense, or we end up with the interpretation that you cannot use any feats when you're mounted (which, by the way, I did not claim).
You mean you didn't write
DeathSpot wrote:
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?

Must have been another DeathSpot then.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If we're applying common sense then it would seem to make sense that the trained mount and its skilled rider are acting together as a unit. When they charge, they charge together as one. Stop being pedantic.


11 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 4 people marked this as a favorite.

I've tried to stay out of the debate here but this has been going on too long.

Both sides have good arguments but seem to be based on different premises. One (anti-RAGELANCEPOUNCE) requires the rule set to be viewed as permissive only, the other (pro-RAGELANCEPOUNCE) requires the rule set to be viewed as exclusive only.

Problem is that the rule set switches between these perspectives too often for either view to be taken as a hard-and-fast guideline, so can't we just say that this is going to be a houseruling issue until official errata is released and just go home?

I'm getting tired of this line of pedantic debate. And yes, both sides of this debate are guilty of being pedantic.

And to maybe hasten the issue resolution, I'm going to hit the FAQ button and suggest that everyone else do the same. Maybe with enough requests the developers will address this issue and put all our minds to ease.

IE: Does Pounce apply to iterative attacks? Does Pounce qualify as a "bonus" for a PC on a charging mount? Can Pounce be used with manufactured weapons?

Hopefully this will hasten the end of the debate.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

POST AM ENTIRELY BECAUSE NOBODY THINKING IF THIS YET.

WHAT AM RAGELANCEPOUNCE?
BABY NOT HURT CASTY
NOT HURT CASTY
NO MORE.

WO OH WO OH WO EE OH OH OH. OH OH EE OH OH OH OO. OOOOH OH.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

My only confusion on RLP is I read it as some people seem to imagine it works along the way to the charge, not just at the end.

Example: AM BARBARIAN charges wizard, wizard's contingency (Yes I know it's illegal, call it greater contingency) puts up forcer cage around wizard.

If I'm reading some people's reading it reads as AM BARBARIAN spell sunders the cage and keeps on going dumping the rest of the attacks into wizard.

I would read (and rule) that AM BARBARIAN can pounce the force cage but his charge ends with the immovable object so he can't reach the crunchy wizard on the other side.

Liberty's Edge

Matthew Morris wrote:

My only confusion on RLP is I read it as some people seem to imagine it works along the way to the charge, not just at the end.

Example: AM BARBARIAN charges wizard, wizard's contingency (Yes I know it's illegal, call it greater contingency) puts up forcer cage around wizard.

If I'm reading some people's reading it reads as AM BARBARIAN spell sunders the cage and keeps on going dumping the rest of the attacks into wizard.

I would read (and rule) that AM BARBARIAN can pounce the force cage but his charge ends with the immovable object so he can't reach the crunchy wizard on the other side.

I don't believe Trinam ever said that. Now, AM does have Ride-by Attack, so he might be able to sunder the forcecage and continue his movement to end up next to the caster. Of course, this depends on whether you allow him to change the target of his attack or not.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Ravingdork wrote:

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.

Just wanted to add that I think it is equally obvious that the RAI was that Spirited Charge and Ride-by Attack (and lances) actually work.

RAW they don't, RAI they should.


Trinam wrote:
@Geraint Elberion: That banish thing was a work of beauty.

Not to derail this thread further, but I need to know what this "banish thing" was/is. I tried to find it but failed. Please allow my vicious combination of curiosity and obsessive compulsion rest. Pretty please?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So a charge isn't a charge.....
right......
I am leaving now.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

I believe we also had the argument that you don't need to attack the target of your charge...who you attack is completely dependent on whoever gets in your way. The being you are charging is merely the last viable target. SOmeone jumps in your way, you can certainly attack them.

So yes, he could smash the Forcecage and wind up next to the wizard, not a problem.

==Aelryinth

Liberty's Edge

Aelryinth wrote:

I believe we also had the argument that you don't need to attack the target of your charge...who you attack is completely dependent on whoever gets in your way. The being you are charging is merely the last viable target. SOmeone jumps in your way, you can certainly attack them.

So yes, he could smash the Forcecage and wind up next to the wizard, not a problem.

==Aelryinth

...well, not a problem if you interpret the rules that way. Many folks don't.


DeathSpot wrote:
The RAW never once says that a fighter cannot cast spells. It never says that a wizard cannot channel energy. Obviously, this is because pathfinder is a permissive ruleset. Just as obviously, we need to read the rules with some common sense, or we end up with the interpretation that you cannot use any feats when you're mounted (which, by the way, I did not claim). That's where the disagreements show up, of course (and that's, by and large, a good thing. Everyone in lockstep makes for a poorer game, I think). But when you require two different sides of an argument to adhere to different standards, you remove the point of the discussion. We have a couple of mechanisms in Pathfinder for that, too: developer rulings/errata and GM fiat. However, neither of these (yet) applies to this discussion, so we're left with either no discussion, or all sides agreeing on a set of rules for the discussion.

To be clear, when people point out what you're saying is ridiculous, the correct response isn't to try to make arguments that are more ridiculous.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

DeathSpot wrote:
...well, not a problem if you interpret the rules that way. Many folks don't.

I see.

Reaching a target, destroying/killing it, and then moving on is the DEFINITION of Ride-by/Spring attack. Why would it NOT work that way?

==Aelryinth

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Mr.Alarm wrote:
Not to derail this thread further, but I need to know what this "banish thing" was/is. I tried to find it but failed. Please allow my vicious combination of curiosity and obsessive compulsion rest. Pretty please?

Using a circle of simulacra with the Aid ANother Spell action to boost the Caster level of a Binding spell to more then 2x the Hit Dice of Am Barbarian, thus not allowing him a saving throw. Poof, works!

==Aelryinth


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

How are they using the aid another action to boost caster level? It's no even a roll!

Contributor, RPG Superstar 2014 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32

Trinam wrote:

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.

Pounce is not a "benefit" of a charge. It is a unique and separate ability. Furthermore, you can't make more than 1 attack if your mount moves more than 5 feet in a round. Pounce may remove the limitation to 1 attack from charging, but it does not remove the limitation from being on a moving mount.

My two cents... though I have not been following this discussion all that much.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Dork, some sort of Ritual casting where they sacrifice a spell to the Ritual to aid the primary caster's spellcaster level by 1/3rd of their own level. Six sims = +18 caster level to a base of +25 = 43rd level, over twice AB's. Poof.

Not sure of the source, but he typed confidently posting it! :)

===Aelryinth

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Mike Kimmel wrote:
Trinam wrote:

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.

Pounce is not a "benefit" of a charge. It is a unique and separate ability. Furthermore, you can't make more than 1 attack if your mount moves more than 5 feet in a round. Pounce may remove the limitation to 1 attack from charging, but it does not remove the limitation from being on a moving mount.

My two cents... though I have not been following this discussion all that much.

All points covered previously.

Pounce lets you full attack at the end of a charge.
You can charge while on a horse, or you can't make a charge with a lance. Charging while mounted is explicitly allowed in the rules.
Ride-by Attack lets you make a full attack while mounted and keep on going.

Nothing to see here, move along.

===Aelryinth

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Aelryinth wrote:

I believe we also had the argument that you don't need to attack the target of your charge...who you attack is completely dependent on whoever gets in your way. The being you are charging is merely the last viable target. SOmeone jumps in your way, you can certainly attack them.

So yes, he could smash the Forcecage and wind up next to the wizard, not a problem.

==Aelryinth

Ah, I think I see where we differ.

I don't think the two abilities work the way you do (if I'm reading you right).

The way I'm reading your post...
Am Barby's action: Charge to the wizard, end the move, pounce.
Force cage goes up.
Use one of the full attacks by pounce to break force cage, finish move, maul wizard.

If I'm understanding you correctly, that's how it works.

How I see it.

Am Barby's action: Charge to wizard, end move, pounce.
Force cage goes up.
Am Barby can
a) Pounce the force cage, ending his charge.
b) Ride by attack the force cage, end his turn next to the wizard, but can't pounce, as he already attacked en route.

Reading pounce in the bestiary the 'at the end of the charge' isn't there like I'm used to. But in the charge description, it says "at the end of your movement" you may attack. Again, if I'm reading you correctly, you're saying that pounce + Ride by attack allows you to attack multiple places along the way, I'm reading it that it allows you to make a full attack in one spot instead of the end of the charge.

Re: Aid another spell, there's a acursed bloodline that would add +1 caster level per sim. Also the Divine Stratigist archtype can do something similar as can the witch with the coven hex.

Contributor, RPG Superstar 2014 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32

Aelryinth wrote:


Ride-by Attack lets you make a full attack while mounted and keep on going.

Nothing to see here, move along.

===Aelryinth

This is where you lost me. Ride-By Attack allows you to charge while mounted, make an attack as normal, and keep moving. It doesn't say anything about full attacks. It doesn't say it negates the limitation to 1 attack from being on a moving mount.

Nor does Pounce. Pounce says that you can make a full attack when you charge. It doesn't say you can make a full attack when you charge while on a moving mount, nor does it address any other situation which might limit you from making more than one attack. Sure, if you're mounted on a lion and the lion charges, it can Pounce, and you can make your (single) attack. But you only get one, as per the mounted combat rules. If you also have Pounce, it won't help you, because the mounted combat rules limit you to making a single attack while on a moving mount. Pounce does not remove this limitation.

If conditions A and B both limit charging, and you remove limitation A, that does not mean that limitation B is also removed. In this case, "A" is "you can make only one attack when you charge," and "B" is "you can make only one attack while on a moving mount." Pounce removes limitation A. It does not remove limitation B.

EDIT: The Mounted Skirmisher feat allows a full-attack while mounted. So, it looks like a full-attack is okay as long as the mount is moving only up to its normal speed.

EDIT again: Although this would seem to negate the need for Pounce on such a character, so maybe I'm still missing something. Maybe rage-lance-pounce should actually just be rage-lance-skirmish?

Paizo Employee Senior Software Developer

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I changed "RAGELANCEPOUNCE" to "rage-lance-pounce" in the thread title because I'm tired of thinking this thread is shouting at me. All caps considered harmful in thread titles.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Gary Teter wrote:
I changed "RAGELANCEPOUNCE" to "rage-lance-pounce" in the thread title because I'm tired of thinking this thread is shouting at me. All caps considered harmful in thread titles.

You could make a nice joke and change that into rage-dance-pounce... :)

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Mike Kimmel wrote:


EDIT: The Mounted Skirmisher feat allows a full-attack while mounted. So, it looks like a full-attack is okay as long as the mount is moving only up to its normal speed.

So I guess the question is, does pounce + Ride by attack allow you to divide the pounce up across multiple movement increments?* For that matter does Mounted Skirmisher?

*

Spoiler:
Yes, logic states that you can only pounce at the end of the charge, and it seems silly to have the lion move 30' maul the halfling, then move another 30' all in one round. OTOH, we have people flying, casting fire from their fingertips and channelling the power of gods. A little bit of silliness to give the fighter nice things is acceptable.

Contributor, RPG Superstar 2014 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32

Matthew Morris wrote:
*** spoiler omitted **

It is certainly neat to be able to have martial characters do "fantastic" things in a world where wizards and clerics exist. Honestly I think as long as it's not breaking an individual game, there isn't much of a problem with allowing this.

Still, the rules could be more clear. I think it's mostly just that the developers never really intended for player characters to have access to Pounce, much less for anyone to use it while mounted, so they didn't address it directly.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Axl wrote:

My interpretation is that the mounted charge rules are poorly worded. To be fair to the game designers, this "RAGEPOUNCELANCE" concept wasn't considered at the time.

In my opinion, the mounted charge rule should say something like "If your mount charges, you are not charging but you also take the AC penalty associated with a charge. If you make an attack at the end of the mount's charge, you receive the attack bonus gained from the mount's charge. When your mount charges, you deal double damage with a lance."

Of course there is no point asking for FAQ. The answer will be "No staff response required".

I'm not trying to add fuel to this thread, I found the opposing viewpoints to be quite fascinating. And found myself agreeing with the side that would deny it. So I decided to take a look at the d20PFsrd.com and see what was put there.

Here's the www.d20PFsrd.com verbage from the Mounted Combat section, that seems to say, at least for me, the same thing as what I bolded.

Quote:
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).

That of course leads to Charge:

Quote:

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.

...After moving, you may make a single melee attack. You get a +2 bonus on the attack roll and take a –2 penalty to your AC until the start of your next turn.

...Lances and Charge Attacks: A lance deals double damage if employed by a mounted character in a charge.

So what this says to me, that with a charge, it takes a full-round action, and you gain only a single attack, suffering some AC drop to gain some extra to hit.

And now let's look at Pounce:

Quote:
When a creature with this special attack makes a charge, it can make a full attack (including rake attacks if the creature also has the rake ability).

No problem with this, you get a full attack if you have the Pounce Extraordinary special attack ability at the end of a charge.

Finally, the Lance:

Quote:

Benefit: A lance deals double damage when used from the back of a charging mount. While mounted, you can wield a lance with one hand.

Weapon Feature(s): reach

Reach states you can strike creatures up to 10 feet away, but not those directly adjacent to you.

So taken at face value, the Rage-Lance-Pounce maneuver appears to be RAW. Except for the first part of the description for Mounted Combat that says ...If your mount charges. Those 4 words alone, for me as a GM say to me that YOUR HORSE, if it had Pounce, would be able to gain a full attack, but not the rider of the CHARGING MOUNT. If a Barbarian were to Rage, while wielding a Lance, had the Pounce ability, and decided to Charge, well, then more power to him, grab his full attack at the end of the charge and be done. But from horseback, no, the mount is the creature actually charging, the rider is just gaining the benefits and penalty of the mount charging.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Mike Kimmel wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:
*** spoiler omitted **

It is certainly neat to be able to have martial characters do "fantastic" things in a world where wizards and clerics exist. Honestly I think as long as it's not breaking an individual game, there isn't much of a problem with allowing this.

Still, the rules could be more clear. I think it's mostly just that the developers never really intended for player characters to have access to Pounce, much less for anyone to use it while mounted, so they didn't address it directly.

I think 'unexpected interactions*' can be limited with more open playtesting. Limited but not eliminated, there are always corner cases "What kind of Barbarian would have pounce and ride a half elf?" was one of them. Who else would have thought of that?

One of the perks of Paizo's system of PDFs and PRD is if such clarifications need to be made, they can be updated quickly on the PRD and (with a little more difficulty) in the PDFs. It does go to what others have said elsewhere about a 'revised CRB' being cleaned up would be nice.

*

Spoiler:
Waaaay back in playing 2e, I had a thri-kreen psionicist. Had ectoplasmic form, which we read as intangible. I asked the GM, a mechanical engineering student what happened when I was holding something while intangible and let go. Apparently he had the thought I was going to try to 'phase out' people, objects, etc. So he said they turned solid. (apparently he read X-men and not Avengers. This is important later)

Later in the adventure my character is scouting and kicks on ectoplasmic form. He encounters some kind of wasp like humanoid. It slashes at me ineffectively.

Me: I take my shortsword and shove it in his thorax
DM: Ok, you now have your intangible short sword shoved into this throat. Now what?
Me: *smiles* Let go.
DM: *makes choaking noises.*

Later, same DM.
Me: I want to buy a bag of rocks about the size of my fist.
DM: *thinks I want Balistic attack ammo* Sure! but they're all 1.1 lbs. (balistic attack only worked on 1lb or smaller.)
Me: Ok.

Still later
Me: I stick my head through the wall.
DM: The two guards slash at you ineffectually.
Me: Ok, I grab four rocks in my hands and hold my fists in their spines.
DM: Ok, now what?
Me: I let go.

Problem was he was unable to see things outside his linear path. It was like when we lost the half-giant to poison. The party's doing the 'naked alone in the desert' thing. So we take our obsidian knives and carve him up to use his bones as weapons. DM was horrified and getting physically ill at the image, but it never occured to him.


Mike Kimmel wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:


Ride-by Attack lets you make a full attack while mounted and keep on going.

Nothing to see here, move along.

===Aelryinth

This is where you lost me. Ride-By Attack allows you to charge while mounted, make an attack as normal, and keep moving. It doesn't say anything about full attacks. It doesn't say it negates the limitation to 1 attack from being on a moving mount.

Nor does Pounce. Pounce says that you can make a full attack when you charge. It doesn't say you can make a full attack when you charge while on a moving mount, nor does it address any other situation which might limit you from making more than one attack. Sure, if you're mounted on a lion and the lion charges, it can Pounce, and you can make your (single) attack. But you only get one, as per the mounted combat rules. If you also have Pounce, it won't help you, because the mounted combat rules limit you to making a single attack while on a moving mount. Pounce does not remove this limitation.

If conditions A and B both limit charging, and you remove limitation A, that does not mean that limitation B is also removed. In this case, "A" is "you can make only one attack when you charge," and "B" is "you can make only one attack while on a moving mount." Pounce removes limitation A. It does not remove limitation B.

EDIT: The Mounted Skirmisher feat allows a full-attack while mounted. So, it looks like a full-attack is okay as long as the mount is moving only up to its normal speed.

EDIT again: Although this would seem to negate the need for Pounce on such a character, so maybe I'm still missing something. Maybe rage-lance-pounce should actually just be rage-lance-skirmish?

This is 100% correct. No matter whether YOU are charging or your MOUNT charges you are still limited to make one attack only because you are on a mount.

And the only thing I ever saw against htat is some RAI lawyering how rules should stack and how not...


Whichever way you think about the RAW, it simply isn't RAI.

You do not get multiple attacks at the end of a charge made by your mount with any weapon. Not RAI.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

tricky bob wrote:

Whichever way you think about the RAW, it simply isn't RAI.

You do not get multiple attacks at the end of a charge made by your mount with any weapon. Not RAI.

No offence intended, but do you have a cite of RAI? Since it's as intended, there should be a link to a developer saying "This is what's intended." Indeed, since mounted skirmisher says "If your mount moves its speed or less, you can still take a full-attack action" that tells me there's already room for a feat modifying a combat condition (attacking while mounting) so how is it RAI that a similar feat/trait doesn't allow it?

Else it's RAIWTTB*. I know what RAMT* would be, but not RAI.

*

Spoiler:
Rules As I Want Them To Be

**

Spoiler:
Rules At My Table.


What Rage power gives pounce? From what book?

Liberty's Edge

The third power of the beast totem in the APG.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Matthew Morris wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

I believe we also had the argument that you don't need to attack the target of your charge...who you attack is completely dependent on whoever gets in your way. The being you are charging is merely the last viable target. SOmeone jumps in your way, you can certainly attack them.

So yes, he could smash the Forcecage and wind up next to the wizard, not a problem.

==Aelryinth

Ah, I think I see where we differ.

I don't think the two abilities work the way you do (if I'm reading you right).

The way I'm reading your post...
Am Barby's action: Charge to the wizard, end the move, pounce.
Force cage goes up.
Use one of the full attacks by pounce to break force cage, finish move, maul wizard.

If I'm understanding you correctly, that's how it works.

How I see it.

Am Barby's action: Charge to wizard, end move, pounce.
Force cage goes up.
Am Barby can
a) Pounce the force cage, ending his charge.
b) Ride by attack the force cage, end his turn next to the wizard, but can't pounce, as he already attacked en route.

Reading pounce in the bestiary the 'at the end of the charge' isn't there like I'm used to. But in the charge description, it says "at the end of your movement" you may attack. Again, if I'm reading you correctly, you're saying that pounce + Ride by attack allows you to attack multiple places along the way, I'm reading it that it allows you to make a full attack in one spot instead of the end of the charge.

Re: Aid another spell, there's a acursed bloodline that would add +1 caster level per sim. Also the Divine Stratigist archtype can do something similar as can the witch with the coven hex.

No, you aren't reading me correctly. I never said anything about attacking after taking down the forcecage. I said he could end up next to the wizard.

He can ride-charge, unleash a full attack on whatever target he wishes as part of the charge, and then move afterwards. He can't move in between attacks.

You read too much into what I was saying. :)

==Aelryinth


GeraintElberion wrote:
darth_borehd wrote:
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.

I am gonna agree this would not work. The mount does not have pounce, you can't pounce while mounted.


@Gendo

So ride by attack and spirited charge don't work at all right?

Since you know both feats require you to charge.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
GeraintElberion wrote:
darth_borehd wrote:
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.

I am gonna agree this would not work. The mount does not have pounce, you can't pounce while mounted.

The fact that the mount doen't have pounce is (relatively) easily corrected, and to second part that's what this whole debate is all about and i don't really think that the "i say so" makes a could arguement.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Aelryinth wrote:

No, you aren't reading me correctly. I never said anything about attacking after taking down the forcecage. I said he could end up next to the wizard.

He can ride-charge, unleash a full attack on whatever target he wishes as part of the charge, and then move afterwards. He can't move in between attacks.

Good.

That's why I said 'this is how I'm reading' instead of "You said." ;-)


If the mount had pounce then it could make the attack, But you could not with the lance. You are not pouncing and can't while mounted.


leo1925 wrote:

@Gendo

So ride by attack and spirited charge don't work at all right?

Since you know both feats require you to charge.

By RAW? No...

By RAI? Sure

We had that one already...


Alienfreak wrote:
leo1925 wrote:

@Gendo

So ride by attack and spirited charge don't work at all right?

Since you know both feats require you to charge.

By RAW? No...

By RAI? Sure

We had that one already...

Sure we did but since Gendo decided to circle back then i also circled back.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
You are not pouncing and can't while mounted.

Ok. Let's construct this bit by bit.

Are you able to charge while on a mount? In other words, do you get the benefits of a charge while mounted?

If you are considered charging, then it follows that you can pounce because all pounce is is a full attack at the end of a charge.

If you are not considered charging then lances and mounted combat don't work AT ALL.

Those are your choices.


I am gonna disagree, I don't think pounce works while mounted. You are free to rule other wise. I will allow the charge, I will not allow the pounce, they are not the same thing.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
I am gonna disagree, I don't think pounce works while mounted. You are free to rule other wise. I will allow the charge, I will not allow the pounce, they are not the same thing.

If that's a houserule you want to implement in your game that's fine. If you're saying that's how you see the rules as written working you'll have to come up with a reason as to why not.

51 to 100 of 531 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / What is rage-lance-pounce? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.