What is rage-lance-pounce?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

201 to 250 of 531 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

TOZ wrote:
DeathSpot wrote:
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.

This pretty much covers every part of every conceivable argument on the subject.

Seriously folks, this isn't that complicated.

Charging is something the Attacker does. It has to be. Your horse is not charging. It does not get an attack bonus or an AC penalty. You, the Attacker, does. You are charging. Your mount is just moving.

A Mounted Charge is a kind of Charge. Pounce works with a Mounted Charge.

Yes, it's silly and needs errata. Nobody should allow it at their table.

Yes it does work under the current rules.


Ok i didn't get the four lights reference, can someone help me?

Shadow Lodge

Chain of Command.


Been to long since I watched that. I could have sworn it was three lights he was trying to get him to say, not five. Still that is a good one.


Matthew Morris wrote:
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 omitted **

**** spoiler omitted **

Quibble...

I think the vast majority of DM's would have a RAMT answer of NO! and probably a "stop trying to break the game, munchkinface" readied action just in case!

Why the hell would anyone argue in favour of this munchkin-ism, balance is the key my friends, balance!


SO ravingdork you would be ok with this build if it had the Mounted Skirmisher and it charged only its move speed and not double?? I personally believe that the rules allow rage lance pounce without this feat but I would NEVER allow it in any of my campaigns. I am just curious if this feat is ok for you to allow the pounce.

If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only take an attack action. My thought about this are a charge is a special full round action that does not look at this rule but I can see both view points. just curious if mounted skirmisher would allow me to make rage lance pounce in your build?

PS how come no one ever does 10 barb 10 ranger and max 2wf and dual wield lances with this build?


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.

.

.
Yes, sooo yes.


meatrace wrote:

Okay. Simple logic here. Let's try this.

Mounted combat lets you charge while on a horse.
Pounce says you get a full attack when you charge.
Therefore you can pounce while on a horse.

You can full attack when you charge with pounce, so if you say you can't pounce while on a horse that means you can't charge while on a horse since you can full attack whenever you charge.

If you can't charge while on a horse then the mounted combat rules are nonsensical.

So your options are:
A)You can pounce while mounted.
B)You cannot charge while mounted.

Your logic is flawed.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
meatrace wrote:

Okay. Simple logic here. Let's try this.

Mounted combat lets you charge while on a horse.
Pounce says you get a full attack when you charge.
Therefore you can pounce while on a horse.

You can full attack when you charge with pounce, so if you say you can't pounce while on a horse that means you can't charge while on a horse since you can full attack whenever you charge.

If you can't charge while on a horse then the mounted combat rules are nonsensical.

So your options are:
A)You can pounce while mounted.
B)You cannot charge while mounted.

C) Allow you to charge on a horse but not allow the pounce while mounted.

+1 to C)


Gorbacz wrote:
Ooooh the Caster Defense League in full swing!

How does not wanting to die of excessive cheese equate to caster defence?

Shadow Lodge

This isn't excessive cheese. And you can't die from it anyway, only your characters can.


Honestly you should see some of the things spell casters are throwing at AM BARBARIAN in the AM BARBARIAN build one. Being able to go first and prepare an action to interrupt another action seems to be the gist of the winning tactics though.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.
tricky bob wrote:

Quibble...

I think the vast majority of DM's would have a RAMT answer of NO! and probably a "stop trying to break the game, munchkinface" readied action just in case!

Why the hell would anyone argue in favour of this munchkin-ism, balance is the key my friends, balance!

A simple *no* would have sufficed.

I gave what I thought was a perfectly valid reason above. You have wizards who can create demi-planes and live forever, druids who make their best animal friend a super predator just by going 'I choose you' and mad chemists who can bring back the dead. In that context is a fighter/barbarian able to move, get a full attack, and keep moving is horrible/broken/bad?

Or to put it another way...

18th level Druid: I stand 1120 feet away, in the form of a squirrel and blanket at 360' radius area and do 6d6 damage to everyone in it, plus an additional 10d6 to 6 poor sods of my choice. I also shut down most all spell casters and no one can see me.

16th level Wizard: I stand 1040 feet away and make everyone in a 30' radius take 15d6 points of damage.

20th level fighter: I ride up into close combat, and hit one target for 100 points of damage. Oh and if he survives or I miss, I likely get my mount shot out from under me, lose access to a bunch of feats to be able to do this well, and am right next to my target, and any of his allies.

That's your example of balance?


I would like to thank you all for making this thread. I have now added a "rules clarification" houserule for my group which will not allow pouncing while mounted.


I think people are confusing actions with descriptions. Nowhere in RAW does it state you cannot take the charge action while mounted. The mounted combat rules give you the benefit of the charge bonus, but do not require you to take the charge action to receive them. This does not say that you cannot take the charge action.

What is your character's action during a mounted charge? Anything it wants to be. Nothing even requires you to attack during your mount's charge. If you make an attack at the end of the charge, you get the charge bonus for that attack.

If you choose charge as your character's action while your mount charges, you already count as charging from your own charge, so the fact that the mount is charging doesn't matter.

Ride-by attack states that you can indeed take the charge action while mounted. Nothing ever denies this capability. So, you can take the charge action while mounted. Which means you can use pounce. by RAW it is fine.

The mounted combat only specifies how movement works (based on your mount's speed and action) and what penalties and benefits apply to attacks while mounted. No action choices are removed from your character.


blue_the_wolf wrote:

holy crap.

I read the first post because I wanted to know what RAGELANCEPOUNCE was.

I read the first page because i was entertained by the madness of the trolling.

but for this thing to be at 200 posts now is truly insane troll posse

note... I dint read past first page
(201)

edit: ok, read the last page. and i have one all important question...

WTF does is this 'AM' all about?

Ride by reply to the rescue.

All you need to know about the myth of AM BARBARIAN.


tricky bob wrote:
meatrace wrote:

Okay. Simple logic here. Let's try this.

Mounted combat lets you charge while on a horse.
Pounce says you get a full attack when you charge.
Therefore you can pounce while on a horse.

You can full attack when you charge with pounce, so if you say you can't pounce while on a horse that means you can't charge while on a horse since you can full attack whenever you charge.

If you can't charge while on a horse then the mounted combat rules are nonsensical.

So your options are:
A)You can pounce while mounted.
B)You cannot charge while mounted.

Your logic is flawed.

Instead of making baseless assertions, I challenge you to prove me wrong with the rules.


Matthew Morris wrote:

A simple *no* would have sufficed.

Someone's tired.

Matthew Morris wrote:
That's your example of balance?

No, actually that's yours.

Arguing for something that clearly isn't a go-er at the vast majority of tables just because it might allow X to do something like Y is weird.

Boils down to, you don't get to Pounce, get over it.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
The_Big_Dog wrote:

I think people are confusing actions with descriptions. Nowhere in RAW does it state you cannot take the charge action while mounted. The mounted combat rules give you the benefit of the charge bonus, but do not require you to take the charge action to receive them. This does not say that you cannot take the charge action.

What is your character's action during a mounted charge? Anything it wants to be. Nothing even requires you to attack during your mount's charge. If you make an attack at the end of the charge, you get the charge bonus for that attack.

If you choose charge as your character's action while your mount charges, you already count as charging from your own charge, so the fact that the mount is charging doesn't matter.

Ride-by attack states that you can indeed take the charge action while mounted. Nothing ever denies this capability. So, you can take the charge action while mounted. Which means you can use pounce. by RAW it is fine.

The mounted combat only specifies how movement works (based on your mount's speed and action) and what penalties and benefits apply to attacks while mounted. No action choices are removed from your character.

One of the better arguments I've seen so far.

One question though, does charge not say you must move (at least 10 feet no less) to gain the effect? If your mount is moving you, you're not the one doing the moving and thus are not (technically) charging and thus cannot reap the benefits of pounce.

Also, there's that "can only make one attack if your mount moves more than 5 feet rule."

jackspeed wrote:

SO ravingdork you would be ok with this build if it had the Mounted Skirmisher and it charged only its move speed and not double?? I personally believe that the rules allow rage lance pounce without this feat but I would NEVER allow it in any of my campaigns. I am just curious if this feat is ok for you to allow the pounce.

If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only take an attack action. My thought about this are a charge is a special full round action that does not look at this rule but I can see both view points. just curious if mounted skirmisher would allow me to make rage lance pounce in your build?

I honestly don't know if I would allow it in my games. Either way, any GM who can't handle a one trick pony (especially one that can only deal damage in specific situations) probably shouldn't be the GM.

There are plenty of ways to challenge a combat powerhouse and his fellows. Everything from murder mysteries to time-based encounters will be just as challenging to this kind of character as it would be for the rest of the party.

Roleplaying isn't JUST about combat elements you know.


meatrace wrote:
tricky bob wrote:
meatrace wrote:

Okay. Simple logic here. Let's try this.

Mounted combat lets you charge while on a horse.
Pounce says you get a full attack when you charge.
Therefore you can pounce while on a horse.

You can full attack when you charge with pounce, so if you say you can't pounce while on a horse that means you can't charge while on a horse since you can full attack whenever you charge.

If you can't charge while on a horse then the mounted combat rules are nonsensical.

So your options are:
A)You can pounce while mounted.
B)You cannot charge while mounted.

Your logic is flawed.
Instead of making baseless assertions, I challenge you to prove me wrong with the rules.

Arr, you one of *those* people.

The answer is C)

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.
tricky bob wrote:

Someone's tired.

Boils down to, you don't get to Pounce, get over it.

Shorter Bob:

I can't back up my RAI statement, so it's "Because I said so."


Ravingdork wrote:
Also, there's that "can only make one attack if your mount moves more than 5 feet rule."
PRD wrote:
The only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step.

The same prohibition exists for regular full attacks. The wording in the Mounted Combat section is just meant to prohibit you from saying "well my mount moved, not me, so I still have a full attack" and getting a full attack every round while mounted by default.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
tricky bob wrote:

Arr, you one of *those* people.

The answer is C)

Which is what?

The equivalent logical argument is:
All ducks are birds.
All mallards are ducks.
Therefore:?
And you're responding "some beans"


Matthew Morris wrote:
tricky bob wrote:

Someone's tired.

Boils down to, you don't get to Pounce, get over it.

Shorter Bob:

I can't back up my RAI statement, so it's "Because I said so."

I think you'd manage a whole thread by yourself. You seem able to ask and answer your own questions, and others by putting your own words in their mouths, congratulations, you win...something.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Everyone's backed up their statements with RAW, and have done so correctly and accurately, but unfortunately there are some serious flaws within the RAW so differing interpretations have arisen. This is why clarifying errata is VERY much needed.

I find it ironic that almost everyone is accusing everyone else of bring wrong. Nobody that I've seen in this thread has shown themselves to be wrong, only really stubborn.

Liberty's Edge

Ravingdork wrote:

Everyone's backed up their statements with RAW, and have done so correctly and accurately, but unfortunately there are some serious flaws within the RAW so differing interpretations have arisen. This is why clarifying errata is VERY much needed.

I find it ironic that almost everyone is accusing everyone else of bring wrong. Nobody that I've seen in this thread has shown themselves to be wrong, only really stubborn.

I'm wrong AND stubborn.

Therefore, you're wrong. :D

Liberty's Edge

From RAW page 198 Core Rulebook:

Quote:

Attacking on a Charge: After moving, you may make a single melee attack...

Even if you have extra attacks, such as from having a high enough base attack bonus or from using multiple weapons, you only get to make one attack during a charge.

From Bestiary I page 302:

Quote:
Pounce (Ex): 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).

From AGP page 74:

Quote:
Beast Totem, Greater (Su): While raging, the barbarian gains the pounce special ability, allowing her to make a full attack at the end of a charge. In addition, the damage from her claws increases to..."

Thoughts from the above quotes:

Charge does not allow multiple attacks from iterative attacks or multiple weapons.

Pounce was originally created for creatures, not players, and extra natural attack damage can occur if the creature has Rake.

A barbarian gains a full attack at the end of his charge and his natural attack damage is increased.

Questions:

Are there any creatures in the 3 Bestiaries that are able to charge and gain either iterative attacks or an extra attack from multiple weapons because of pounce?

Are the Core Rulebook and the AGP contradicting one another? If so, which book was more play tested?


Ravingdork wrote:

I think everyone's backed up their statements with RAW, and done so correctly, but there are serious flaws within the RAW so differing interpretations arise. This is why errata is VERY much needed.

I find it ironic that almost everyone is accusing everyone else of bring wrong. Nobody that I've seen has shown themselves to be wrong, only stubborn.

I've just been asserting that either you allow this or ride by attack fails to function. It's my opinion that the designers wouldn't create a feat that didn't work out of the box, so therefore mounted pouncing must work.

Your interpretation that it's all borked is equally valid.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Ravingdork wrote:

One of the better arguments I've seen so far.

One question though, does charge not say you must move (at least 10 feet no less) to gain the effect? If your mount is moving you, you're not the one doing the moving and thus are not (technically) charging and thus cannot reap the benefits of pounce.

Also, there's that "can only make one attack if your mount moves more than 5 feet rule."

RD,

If you don't mind arguing from precedent, there are other examples that might address the 'move' rule.

Bull Rush calls out that even though the target is moving, it doesn't draw AoOs for the movement. Here's an example of a target moving w/o taking a move action. It also calls out that unlike normal threatening moves, this movement doesn't draw AoOs (that the Bull Rusher doesn't seem to get the benefit is amusing, but not germaine to this discussion. The same can be held true for the rider. He isn't taking a move action, but is clearly moving. As long as he moves more than 10' then he can charge, yes?

Two feats exist that bypass established rules for movement. Greater Bull Rush changes the bull rush movement rules to allow AoOs. Mounted Skirmisher changes the 'more than 5', one attack' rule. So again we have precident (or anticedent, in the case of Mounted skirmisher) to alter the movement rules.

Now Pounce allows a full attack at the end of the charge (movement). So using the above examples, charging on a mount could be broken down as.

PC: (ready action) When I move more than 10' I charge
Mount: Moves PC more than 10'.
PC stops moving. His charge had ended, so now normally he could make his one attack (with all the benefits of the charge).
PC has pounce, pounce allows all attacks at the end of a charge, so now he can full attack.

Now with Ride by attack, it allows the 'one attack if you move more than 5' rule' to take place anywhere in the movement. So if the PC has Ride by attack and pounce as long as his mount moves him more than 10' he can charge. Since he can now take his 'end of move attack' anywhere along the move, he can pounce anywhere along the move.

I think part of it might be hanging up on the image of 'pounce'. It's like a rogue's 'sneak attack'. If you're fighting the guy face to face, and he sees you, you're not being sneaky. If you have a flanking buddy, you're going to do (un-sneaky) sneak attack damage anyway.

Edit: Technically you could likewise ready an action to charge if someone bullrushes you more than 10' in my example. Why would you want to is beyond me.


uhgh... why did i read this entire thread...
but here is what I think.
This is an ABSURD build, but id DOES work
You may charge while mounted, otherwise MANY feats and abilities DON'T work
After charging while mounted, you may make a full attack from pounce.
AND WHERE THE HECK DID THE WORDS "CHARGE ACTION" COME FROM (this was a complaint from much earlier)
those words come up together EXACTLY once in the core but i kept seeing them come up in "quotes" so i thought they were taken directly from something but...
Until POUNCE get an official errata, the quote from the developer is worth absolutely nothing.

I WOULD allow this in my game, i WOULD probably regret it, i WOULD (the second time) use my mage's readied action to blast the mount out from under him.


Ravingdork wrote:
The_Big_Dog wrote:

I think people are confusing actions with descriptions. Nowhere in RAW does it state you cannot take the charge action while mounted. The mounted combat rules give you the benefit of the charge bonus, but do not require you to take the charge action to receive them. This does not say that you cannot take the charge action.

What is your character's action during a mounted charge? Anything it wants to be. Nothing even requires you to attack during your mount's charge. If you make an attack at the end of the charge, you get the charge bonus for that attack.

If you choose charge as your character's action while your mount charges, you already count as charging from your own charge, so the fact that the mount is charging doesn't matter.

Ride-by attack states that you can indeed take the charge action while mounted. Nothing ever denies this capability. So, you can take the charge action while mounted. Which means you can use pounce. by RAW it is fine.

The mounted combat only specifies how movement works (based on your mount's speed and action) and what penalties and benefits apply to attacks while mounted. No action choices are removed from your character.

One of the better arguments I've seen so far.

One question though, does charge not say you must move (at least 10 feet no less) to gain the effect? If your mount is moving you, you're not the one doing the moving and thus are not (technically) charging and thus cannot reap the benefits of pounce.

Also, there's that "can only make one attack if your mount moves more than 5 feet rule."

I considered your question before, and found the following:

Mounted Combat wrote:


Your mount acts on your initiative count as you direct it. You move at its speed, but the mount uses its action to move.

Compared to the standard charge rule:

Charge wrote:


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.

So, the requirement is that a character must move at least 10 feet. The mounted combat rules state that you are moving at your mounts speed using its action. As long as the mount under you moves at least 10 feet and does not break any other rules of the standard charge, you can still perform a charge action. Your mount is spending its action to move you, and the movement your character (using the mount's action) is completing the charge requirements. The charge rules state that you cannot move after the attack, so the mount cannot continue moving after the attack without ride-by attack.

As for the second point, the pounce feat removes this restriction. The authors state the purpose of the 5-ft rule is to avoid full attack actions after the mount moves. Pounce is the more specific rule, since it applies to only charging characters which have the pounce ability, and not every charging character. Pounce specifically states that you can full attack after a charge.

Shadow Lodge

Ravingdork wrote:
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! :)


Rapthorn2ndform wrote:

uhgh... why did i read this entire thread...

but here is what I think.
This is an ABSURD build, but id DOES work
You may charge while mounted, otherwise MANY feats and abilities DON'T work
After charging while mounted, you may make a full attack from pounce.
AND WHERE THE HECK DID THE WORDS "CHARGE ACTION" COME FROM (this was a complaint from much earlier)
those words come up together EXACTLY once in the core but i kept seeing them come up in "quotes" so i thought they were taken directly from something but...
Until POUNCE get an official errata, the quote from the developer is worth absolutely nothing.

I WOULD allow this in my game, i WOULD probably regret it, i WOULD (the second time) use my mage's readied action to blast the mount out from under him.

This. A thousand times, this!

Besides, RAGELANCEPOUNCE is not a tactic that even Trinam thinks should be allowed at a table. However, it is definately a wonderful counterstrike against a RAW-trawling munchkin at your table!

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
TOZ wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
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! :)

You Forgot About Poland!

Shadow Lodge

You're far more reasonable than the rest of us, Gorb.

Liberty's Edge

I think the issue boils down to how you interpret the following:

Mounted Combat (the rules section, not the feat) wrote:


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).

The way I read this is that you aren't charging, your mount is. You're simply gaining the AC penalty and to-hit bonus of the mount. To me, this rules out Pounce when mounted. YMMV, of course.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
TOZ wrote:
You're far more reasonable than the rest of us, Gorb.

Now I'll ponder the consequences of that statement in solitude, will be back next week, unless I get the B3 PDF :)


DeathSpot wrote:

I think the issue boils down to how you interpret the following:

Mounted Combat (the rules section, not the feat) wrote:


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).
The way I read this is that you aren't charging, your mount is. You're simply gaining the AC penalty and to-hit bonus of the mount. To me, this rules out Pounce when mounted. YMMV, of course.

This speaks specifically of your mount's action, not your own. It in no way stops you from choosing the charge action to make your attack at the end of the charge. Attack is a very general term. This rule states that if the character directs his mount to charge, he gets the bonus for charging as well, as long as he makes an attack at the end of the charge. Depending on how the charge bonus itself reads, you might get double the bonus (and penalty) if you declare a charge action as well as your mount.

Again, this talks about attacks and your mount's action, not your character's action. You direct your mount to charge, then you do whatever you want. You could declare a charge action yourself, or you could pull out your lute and rock out some fun tunes while your mount charges.


DeathSpot wrote:

I think the issue boils down to how you interpret the following:

Mounted Combat (the rules section, not the feat) wrote:


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).
The way I read this is that you aren't charging, your mount is. You're simply gaining the AC penalty and to-hit bonus of the mount. To me, this rules out Pounce when mounted. YMMV, of course.

aaaand you're back to Ride By Attack not working since it requires you to be charging.

Not saying you're wrong, mind you, just that your interpretation makes a stock feat not work out of the box, which I don't feel is intentional.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

The RAI is absolutely clear. The mounted feats are supposed to work. A mount and his rider are both charging. Ragelancepounce fails as pounce was only intended to work with natural weapons.

The RAW on the other hand is not at all clear.


Ravingdork wrote:
The RAI is absolutely clear. The mounted feats are supposed to work. A mount and his rider are both charging. Ragelancepounce fails as pounce was only intended to work with natural weapons.

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?


The RAW is clear enough. Your mount receives its own actions, as directed by your character. Your character moves using the mounts actions, not your own. Beyond this, the mounted combat rules apply bonuses and penalties based on what actions the mount takes. Only the general mounted movement rules deny are general movement rules. Charge rules are a more specific form of movement and attack rules. The logic is as follows:

In the general case of mounted movement, you can only make a single melee attack after your mount moves more than 5 feet.

In the general case of the charge action, you can only make a single melee attack at the end of your charge.

In the general case of charging while on a mount, both the charge rules and the mounted combat rules state you can only make a single melee attack.

In the specific case of charging, mounted combat or not, if you have the pounce ability, you can make a full attack.

Pounce works by the rules, as the general mounted combat and general charge rules are less specific than the pounce ability. Everyone can use the mounted combat and charge rules, not everyone can use the pounce rules.

Shadow Lodge

meatrace wrote:
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.


I always liked swinging with my great sword on the eidion while pouncing. I know this wasn't the best but I always imagined it as a thrust/swing then kind of a slashing with his claws and bashing with his tail and one last bite to finish him off. Now DO I think this should be done while on a horse? NO do I think that wildshaping into a squirrel should allow you to cast spells with a feat? thats one cool feat. so why shouldn't a feat make this possible? because its not magic? because it is not balanced? or because its not physically possible? and then what is a pounce? I always thought of it with a jump, but yet no acrobatics check is needed so maybe a pounce is just a style that allows you to use your momentum to attack faster. if this is the case then why not use a horses momentum? I hope I brought up some interesting questions


Also note: A pounce on a mount with iterative attacks is no more absurd than a pounce on foot with iterative attacks.


TOZ wrote:
meatrace wrote:
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.

If you read Jason's FB feed a lot of his posts revolve around consumption of mass quantities of alcohol. Like an off-putting amount. Now I have this conception of the Paizo offices being like a Bacchanal.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
TOZ wrote:
meatrace wrote:
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 only worked on natural weapons.


Ravingdork wrote:
TOZ wrote:
meatrace wrote:
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 only worked on natural weapons.

That's what I'm saying though. Barbarian builds have been floating around since the APG came out that pounce with iterative attacks. I'm sure its in the DPR Olympics thread somewhere. I know I brought it up several times because that's how I build my Mul Barbarian.


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.

Liberty's Edge

meatrace wrote:
DeathSpot wrote:

I think the issue boils down to how you interpret the following:

Mounted Combat (the rules section, not the feat) wrote:


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).
The way I read this is that you aren't charging, your mount is. You're simply gaining the AC penalty and to-hit bonus of the mount. To me, this rules out Pounce when mounted. YMMV, of course.

aaaand you're back to Ride By Attack not working since it requires you to be charging.

Not saying you're wrong, mind you, just that your interpretation makes a stock feat not work out of the box, which I don't feel is intentional.

I thought about including stuff in my last post about Ride-by Attack and Spirited charge, but decided against it. But both feats, which are designed to be used while mounted, specifically say 'mounted and use the charge action,' which is not used in Pounce. Also, there's the argument that Ride-by Attack and Spring Attack are redundant if charging is the same mounted as on foot. Both of these are weaker arguments (in my opinion), but lend credence to my interpretation of the rules. I think. Again, as always, YMMV.

201 to 250 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.