JJ's quote regarding pounce and iteratives never made it to errata, despite ample windows of opportunity. Whether this is intentional or just something that fell through the cracks is irrelevant to the fact that it just didn't make it.
Further, DMs everywhere who make contact with RAGELANCEPOUNCE will rule it as they see fit anyway, RAW or not. There's no need to be all righteous about it when you know how divided the community is - you're not alone, your view is agreed upon by many, so you can rest assured that, any way you rule it, your opinion is reasonable.
^
||
Most reasonable post yet.
But then, they've had over a year to errata it, why haven't they?Those wild parties take up a lot of their work time, you know.Game designers are a hopeful lot. They like to think we are all on the same wave-length until a series of discussions pops up on their forums to prove otherwise.
There was no need to issue errata before because it wasn't an issue before. They probably just assumed we understood that pounce works with whatever attacks you have, including iteractives.
Fixed for you.
Also if pounce worked only with natural weapons, why is there a monk archetype that gives pounce but doesn't give natural weapons? Can you only get that archetype if you already have natural weapons? I don't see any prerequisites for the archetype...
But then, they've had over a year to errata it, why haven't they?Those wild parties take up a lot of their work time, you know.Game designers are a hopeful lot. They like to think we are all on the same wave-length until a series of discussions pops up on their forums to prove otherwise.
There was no need to issue errata before because it wasn't an issue before. They probably just assumed we understood that pounce [b]works with whatever attacks you have, including iteractives.
Fixed for you.
Also if pounce worked only with natural weapons, why is there a monk archetype that gives pounce but doesn't give natural weapons? Can you only get that archetype if you already have natural weapons? I don't see any prerequisites for the archetype...
INb4 "unarmed strikes are natural weapons" because if they were you could take Improved Natural Attack as a monk :P
INb4 "unarmed strikes are natural weapons" because if they were you could take Improved Natural Attack as a monk :PBut then, they've had over a year to errata it, why haven't they?Those wild parties take up a lot of their work time, you know.Game designers are a hopeful lot. They like to think we are all on the same wave-length until a series of discussions pops up on their forums to prove otherwise.
There was no need to issue errata before because it wasn't an issue before. They probably just assumed we understood that pounce [b]works with whatever attacks you have, including iteractives.
Fixed for you.
Also if pounce worked only with natural weapons, why is there a monk archetype that gives pounce but doesn't give natural weapons? Can you only get that archetype if you already have natural weapons? I don't see any prerequisites for the archetype...
Also beast morph alchemist can get pounce without natural attacks.
But then, they've had over a year to errata it, why haven't they?Those wild parties take up a lot of their work time, you know.Game designers are a hopeful lot. They like to think we are all on the same wave-length until a series of discussions pops up on their forums to prove otherwise.
There was no need to issue errata before because it wasn't an issue before. They probably just assumed we understood that pounce works with whatever attacks you have, including iteractives.
Fixed for you.
Also if pounce worked only with natural weapons, why is there a monk archetype that gives pounce but doesn't give natural weapons? Can you only get that archetype if you already have natural weapons? I don't see any prerequisites for the archetype...
So you are asserting that we shouldn't believe that the designer's intent is what they specifically tell us it is?
So you are asserting that we shouldn't believe that the designer's intent is what they specifically tell us it is?But then, they've had over a year to errata it, why haven't they?Those wild parties take up a lot of their work time, you know.Game designers are a hopeful lot. They like to think we are all on the same wave-length until a series of discussions pops up on their forums to prove otherwise.
There was no need to issue errata before because it wasn't an issue before. They probably just assumed we understood that pounce works with whatever attacks you have, including iteractives.
Fixed for you.
Also if pounce worked only with natural weapons, why is there a monk archetype that gives pounce but doesn't give natural weapons? Can you only get that archetype if you already have natural weapons? I don't see any prerequisites for the archetype...
The way they tell us is through published rules and errata :)
I'm just not so sure. I could see the argument that in the specific case of beast totem barbarians it was meant to only be natural weapons. But then, they've had over a year to errata it, why haven't they?
I've seen this logical fallacy show up all over the place in regards to AM's pouncing. Just because something wasn't included in an errata doesn't mean it won't be in the future. Even if you emailed each developer 10 times a day about it and it didn't show up in the errata doesn't mean it won't (or shouldn't) be updated. There are many reasons why they wouldn't errata it, including:
1) it works as written and they think people are smart enough to figure it out
2) discussing it is not as high priority as other work on their plates
3) they don't want to encourage people to find loopholes in the rules so they can errata them, thereby taking time away from errata for things that are likely to get everyday use
4) they hate AM and all he stands for
5) they love AM and all he stands for
6) they simply don't care
The Core Rulebook has had five printings and several rounds of updates in the FAQ system. One update happening is not a sign that everything in the book is 100% perfect.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
So you are asserting that we shouldn't believe that the designer's intent is what they specifically tell us it is?
Given that it's not in the errata/faq, it appears that James was a) wrong b) overruled or c) other designers, including the errata guy disagree. ;-)
If you guys are really this invested in it, make a thread in the rules section and mark it for a FAQ. The Gods knows at our tables we pick and choose what rules count anyhow :)
The way they tell us is through published rules and errata :)So you are asserting that we shouldn't believe that the designer's intent is what they specifically tell us it is?But then, they've had over a year to errata it, why haven't they?Those wild parties take up a lot of their work time, you know.Game designers are a hopeful lot. They like to think we are all on the same wave-length until a series of discussions pops up on their forums to prove otherwise.
There was no need to issue errata before because it wasn't an issue before. They probably just assumed we understood that pounce works with whatever attacks you have, including iteractives.
Fixed for you.
Also if pounce worked only with natural weapons, why is there a monk archetype that gives pounce but doesn't give natural weapons? Can you only get that archetype if you already have natural weapons? I don't see any prerequisites for the archetype...
No. That's how they tell us about the RAW. These forums work just fine for telling us about RAI.
I don't see how that matters at all. The only RAI that matters now are those of the current developers.
The only thing that overules that in terms of officiality are errata and a GM's house rules.
Should I even bring up the differing intents of the current developers?
Doesn't really matter. If we made it general policy to disregard clearly stated RAI just because of the POSSIBILITY that it might be contradicted by another designer then, well, there wouldn't be any point in EVER listening to the designers.
If that were the case, we wouldn't constantly hear about how great it is that the developers post on the forums.
It's only practical to assume that what they say is the RAI until there is just such a contradiction. After all, if one makes a statement, and the others agree with it, no one's likely to jump in to confirm nor deny.
You Forgot About Poland!Nobody that I've seen in this thread has shown themselves to be wrong, only really stubborn.Lessee, you, me, meatrace, seeker, well that's just a foregone conclusion! :)
My favorite bushism.
If you guys are really this invested in it, make a thread in the rules section and mark it for a FAQ. The Gods knows at our tables we pick and choose what rules count anyhow :)
There is one
@Gendo
So ride by attack and spirited charge don't work at all right?
Since you know both feats require you to charge.
Ride by Attack has the prerequisite that one must have Mounted Combat and states that "Move before and after a charge attack while mounted. Seems pretty clear to me Ride by Attack works, since while the mount is charging, the rider makes a charge attack, but is NOT actually charging the mount is.
Spirited Charge has the prerequisite of Ride by Attack and states that you deal double damage on a mounted charge. Again, seems pretty clear to me. One has to be mounted first, the mount has to be charging.
If I really wanted to nitpick...Mounted Combat means one is riding some sort of mount. Correct? If one is RIDING a mount, that would seem to indicate that one is SITTING or maybe STANDING on the mount. Correct?
So the question the clarity issue is really with Charging. If you are riding a mount, are you charging or is your mount charging? Or are you gaining the benefits and penalties of your mounts charge for a charge attack?
I stand by my original opinion. As a GM, I wouldn't allow it. The Barbarian would have to be on foot and charging the target, not mounted. As someone else stated, your GM mileage may vary.
On a completely different note, it's unforseen ability-feat-mechanics combinations such as Rage-Lance-Pounce that lends a very strong argument in favor of, at least for me, rules-lite systems...basically anything pre-3E or modern non-d20 systems. These same sorts of combinations in the manner of talents-feats is what makes Star Wars Saga an easily broken system.
You direct the mount's actions. Do you want it to be charging? Then it charges. You also control your own actions. Do you want to be charging? Then choose the charge action, and charge. Nothing in the rules prevents you from choosing to charge with your mount, giving you all the benefits of charging, including abilities and feats. Remember,...
I am not sure how running beside your mount counts as a mounted charge :)
That is never how I have ran it and still will not be. You can't charge if the mount is charging. It requires you to take an action you can't while mounted. You are part of a charge, just not the one charging.
Charge is an action you take where as you can move up to double Your move. You are not doing the moving so you are not the one charging with your action.
If you and the horse both charge...you are slower so get left behind.I would also advise you read the mounted combat section. It makes it pretty clear you are not the one making the charge, you do however take the charge penalties.
No. If you do a charge by the rules you may only move twice your move. Not your mounts move. How a mount works in a charge is covered in the rules as is how an unmounted PC works. You can not do both at once.
No, the character may make a single attack as part of a mounted charge unless you have a feat that allows some other action. He may not make a charge. The mounted rules are clear on who makes the charge, what kind of action it is and what penalties effect the PC.
The pc may make a charge action, if he can move on his own. To me the rules are pretty clear about who is doing the charging and who is not.
Mount charge says 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 "
Your way we have a -4 ac,+4 attack, times 4 lance damage and two different movement speeds.
It is utterly useless to argue with seeker. He will never change his stance, ever. Never has.
That isn't true really. I have admitted I was incorrect more then once, but I have to be convinced I am wrong. I am just telling you how I read it , you can't do both at once.
It is utterly useless to argue with seeker. He will never change his stance, ever. Never has.
Tell me, seeker, how many lights are there? :P
THERE. ARE. FOUR.MOTHERF#~&ING. LIGHTS!
And a clown, a seal and a mime named Ernie.
I disagree, by the charge rules you can't charge while mounted. The mount makes the charge, not you. If you want to charge you need to dismount.
If you both charge you would get both sets of modifies, you do not however as you can not charge as you are mounted.
You really do need to read the combat rules man, it covers all this there. But eh, do what ya want. I read it how I read it, seems pretty clear to me.
This just in! The mounted combat rules were written badly and likely need to be errata'd.
Also, forum goers beat horse to death and beyond.
More on these breaking stories at 11.
It is utterly useless to argue with seeker. He will never change his stance, ever. Never has.
That is true, i remember a qinggong thread where for 2 or 3 pages everyone was trying to explain to seeker how a qinggong works but he just couldn't change his stance.
@Gendo
Ok you either don't know english or don't want to read the feats, because i really can't understand how someone who reads "When you are mounted and use the charge action" means that you don't use the charge action.
|
Charging is a special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action. Charging, however, carries tight restrictions on how you can move.Movement During a Charge
You must move before your attack, not after. You must move at least 10 feet (2 squares) and may move up to double your speed directly toward the designated opponent.
Your mount acts on your initiative count as you direct it. You move at its speed, but the mount uses its action to move.
It's pretty clear to me that if you charge, you have to take the move action. On a mounted charge, it's your mount that's taking the move action. You're simply gaining the to-hit benefit and AC penalty of its charge.
Also, y'know what? None of us plays exactly per RAW, because we all interpret rules differently. The above is my interpretation; YMMV.
Seeker, I suppose this rule is just for fun:
Lances and Charge Attacks: A lance deals double damage if employed by a mounted character in a charge.
And I suppose the last line of this section should be changed to "When sitting on a mount that is charging which you certainly aren't doing...":
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).
|
It is utterly useless to argue with seeker. He will never change his stance, ever. Never has.That is true, i remember a qinggong thread where for 2 or 3 pages everyone was trying to explain to seeker how a qinggong works but he just couldn't change his stance.
If you go back and read the end of that thread, he did actually admit the possibility of being wrong.
Yes, I was frightened too.
Also, forum goers beat horse to death and beyond.
Horse? What horse? All I can find is this cloud of pink mist...