|
I still find it hilarious that someone making a mounted charge is not in fact charging, its like saying that you are not moving when your mount is moving because the mount is the one making the move action.
Mind you interestingly this interpretation really helps mounted skirmisher. One of devs said in a post about mounted skirmisher that you couldn't full attack with mounted skirmisher and make a mounted charge because charging is its own full round action. But with this interpretation you are not charging on a mounted charge so as long as you only move your speed you can full attack and gain the benefits of a mounted charge.
Why?
If you are riding on a horse, who's doing the running you or the horse?
What it all boils down to is simple, the horse is the one who is actually doing the charging but it's taking up your action as well so you aren't left with trying to say you still have all of your actions left because your mount was the one who was moving and not you. The mount is the one who is doing the moving while you are the one doing the attacking. Does anyone know what a pounce is? It is when something, say a cat, runs forward, jumps, and lands on something. Now if there was a feat that allowed you to train your mount into working in conjunction with your attack to pull it off would be different but no such feat exists.
You people need to focus on the meaning of pounce and everything that is associated with it. You are trying to play word search to gain an advantage. Sean has already cleared it up so if you want to discuss it further then open a thread in the homebrew section.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was not denying what Sean said even if his interpretation makes a bunch of mounted stunts not work (ones that require the user to be charging).
This is really only true if you're too pedantic in your interpretation of the rules. It's a role playing game, not some legalistic document intended to close all loopholes in interpretation (something even the law usually cannot prevent).
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is really only true if you're too pedantic in your interpretation of the rules. It's a role playing game, not some legalistic document intended to close all loopholes in interpretation (something even the law usually cannot prevent).
I was not denying what Sean said even if his interpretation makes a bunch of mounted stunts not work (ones that require the user to be charging).
Bill,
Some people (me included) believe that the rules as written work with Ragelancepounce, without being 'pedantic in [our] interpretation of the rules.' Sean's 'your mount is charging, you're not.' statement invalidates feats that refer to charging. RAI, yes, it's clear how the feats work. It's also clear that RAW, Ragelancepounce works.
My distaste for ragelancepounce has always been more of a gut thing then a rules thing. I've followed along admittedly hoping it would turn out to be illegal but trying not to let my bias influence my reading of the the rules.
|
|
This is really only true if you're too pedantic in your interpretation of the rules. It's a role playing game, not some legalistic document intended to close all loopholes in interpretation (something even the law usually cannot prevent).
I was not denying what Sean said even if his interpretation makes a bunch of mounted stunts not work (ones that require the user to be charging).
Bill,
Some people (me included) believe that the rules as written work with Ragelancepounce, without being 'pedantic in [our] interpretation of the rules.' Sean's 'your mount is charging, you're not.' statement invalidates feats that refer to charging. RAI, yes, it's clear how the feats work. It's also clear that RAW, Ragelancepounce works.
Why do you continue to believe in something that does not work? You have already been told it doesn't work and you have been shown it doesn't work. Sticking your fingers in your ears and singing la la la doesn't make it work.
|
|
This is really only true if you're too pedantic in your interpretation of the rules. It's a role playing game, not some legalistic document intended to close all loopholes in interpretation (something even the law usually cannot prevent).
I was not denying what Sean said even if his interpretation makes a bunch of mounted stunts not work (ones that require the user to be charging).
Bill,
Some people (me included) believe that the rules as written work with Ragelancepounce, without being 'pedantic in [our] interpretation of the rules.' Sean's 'your mount is charging, you're not.' statement invalidates feats that refer to charging. RAI, yes, it's clear how the feats work. It's also clear that RAW, Ragelancepounce works.
RAW it does not work, RAI it does not work. Why do you insist that it does?
Well no one has given them a solid official reason why it doesn't work that doesn't raise more problems then it solves.
Why do you continue to believe in something that does not work? You have already been told it doesn't work and you have been shown it doesn't work. Sticking your fingers in your ears and singing la la la doesn't make it work.
RAW it does not work, RAI it does not work. Why do you insist that it does?
This is a set of extremely rude responses.
RAW it works unless you get pedantic... in which case it works if you hold a consistent standard of pedantry.
RAI of course it doesn't work. You're being rude and yelling at people about something that they're not claiming.
The number one rule, sir,
The most important rule: Don't be a jerk. We want our messageboards to be a fun and friendly place.
While rude, your responses aren't offensive - thus not worth flagging, but I'm mentioning because you've been veering more and more towards such things of late, man.
Please, chill. We're not angry here, but you seem like you are. If I'm misreading, let me know: I'm not here to tell you how you're feeling, but I'm going to let you know how you come off online.
Design Manager
|
Sean's 'your mount is charging, you're not.' statement invalidates feats that refer to charging.
That's your interpretation.
There are only three places where people seem to have trouble with the mounted combat rules:Spirited Charge which both say "When mounted and using the charge action". Since SKR has already clarified that when your mount is charging, you are not the one taking the charge action, we know that this feat is triggered by being on the back of a charging mount.
The section in Mounted combat that says "When charging on horseback, you deal double damage with a lance (see Charge)." The lance is clarified in it's own equipment entry where it says "A lance deals double damage when used from the back of a charging mount".
Ride-by Attack says "When you are mounted and use the charge action".
It sounds like it could be saying "When you are mounted and (you) use the charge action" but given the clarification we've been given we know it actually is saying "When you are mounted and use the charge action (via your mount)".
No problems with Sean's ruling there. This is also consistent with the rulings made on Mounted combat back in the 3.5 Rules of the Game days. Since mounted combat came over almost whole cloth, it should be just as applicable.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So if I line up a bunch of horses (omg wizard with Communal Mount!!!) and then jump up on them (Acrobatics, whoa!) and run across all their backs (Oh man barbarian with extra movement!!!) while holding a lance then jump down to the ground then hit an enemy do I get the double damage with the lance since I'm charging?
I mean come on I know I am charging on horsebacks rather than horseback but since you can charge on one horseback then I don't see why you can't charge on multiple horsebacks!
Guys look at me I'm totally rules lawyering this is awesome!
And by awesome I mean just basically the worst ever.
Guys guys guys I'm having a huge problem interpreting SKR's post but that's mainly because I'm trying as hard as I can to refuse to use any common sense whatsoever, so I'm going to need some more clarification because I think I'm onto something with this horsebacks thing.
Well I think I'm onto a horse's back, mostly, but still.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes you do. Once. Because I, as GM, would say, holy crap that's hilarious and totally allow it. Once.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes you do. Once. Because I, as GM, would say, holy crap that's hilarious and totally allow it. Once.
I can just see AM BARBARIAN yelling at the wizard to "MAKE HORSE STAIRWAY TO ETERNAL GLORY FOR AM BARBARIAN" while he is just ruthlessly pounding some enemy with a lance that he's wielding like a club.
All I can think of when I hear lance + pounce + leap is this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Azten I like your post but unless people actually click to read what you linked, it sounds like you are saying it's okay to make iterative lance attacks, regardless of the multiplier working or not.I know you are not saying that and I'm posting this more to prevent people from looking at your post and going 'Ohhhhh see, you can make iterative attacks with a lance!" No, no no no no no no no no
Ah, but you can!
Pounce: If have this ability , can I make iterative attacks with weapons as part of my full attack? The answer?
Any melee attack sequence you can perform as a full attack is allowed as part of the charge-pounce-full attack. For example, a barbarian with the greater beast totem rage power gains the pounce universal monster ability and could make iterative attacks with manufactured melee weapons as part of her charge-pounce-full attack.
—Sean K Reynolds, 02/21/12
The FAQs sorted this out fairly nicely.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Azten I like your post but unless people actually click to read what you linked, it sounds like you are saying it's okay to make iterative lance attacks, regardless of the multiplier working or not.I know you are not saying that and I'm posting this more to prevent people from looking at your post and going 'Ohhhhh see, you can make iterative attacks with a lance!" No, no no no no no no no no
Ah, but you can!
Pounce: If have this ability , can I make iterative attacks with weapons as part of my full attack? The answer?
Any melee attack sequence you can perform as a full attack is allowed as part of the charge-pounce-full attack. For example, a barbarian with the greater beast totem rage power gains the pounce universal monster ability and could make iterative attacks with manufactured melee weapons as part of her charge-pounce-full attack.
—Sean K Reynolds, 02/21/12
The FAQs sorted this out fairly nicely.
...you...
...you just started this whole thread all over, from the beginning, like it never even happened.
*slow clap*
|
Design Manager
|
So if I line up a bunch of horses (omg wizard with Communal Mount!!!) and then jump up on them (Acrobatics, whoa!) and run across all their backs (Oh man barbarian with extra movement!!!) while holding a lance then jump down to the ground then hit an enemy do I get the double damage with the lance since I'm charging?
I mean come on I know I am charging on horsebacks rather than horseback but since you can charge on one horseback then I don't see why you can't charge on multiple horsebacks!
Guys look at me I'm totally rules lawyering this is awesome!
And by awesome I mean just basically the worst ever.
Guys guys guys I'm having a huge problem interpreting SKR's post but that's mainly because I'm trying as hard as I can to refuse to use any common sense whatsoever, so I'm going to need some more clarification because I think I'm onto something with this horsebacks thing.
Well I think I'm onto a horse's back, mostly, but still.
Shifting towards a horse's backside...
J/K! I know you're speaking facetiously. The other interpretation involved riding a colossal mount bareback and taking a running start from one end to the other, I believe...
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Shame Shallowsoul can't be tactful, but that's ok. I've a thick skin.
Ssalarn "When mounted and using the charge action" How can you be mounted and using the charge action? Do you run from one end of your mount to the other?
"Since SKR has already clarified that when your mount is charging, you are not the one taking the charge action" Ergo you are not using the charge action. So those feats don't work.
The text in the lance also says the mount is charging. Therefore again, you're not charging, so those feats don't work.
|
Design Manager
|
Shame Shallowsoul can't be tactful, but that's ok. I've a thick skin.
Ssalarn "When mounted and using the charge action" How can you be mounted and using the charge action? Do you run from one end of your mount to the other?
"Since SKR has already clarified that when your mount is charging, you are not the one taking the charge action" Ergo you are not using the charge action. So those feats don't work.
The text in the lance also says the mount is charging. Therefore again, you're not charging, so those feats don't work.
It says, from the back of a charging mount. Mounted combat 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 (see Charge)."
The lance entry says "Lance: A lance deals double damage when used from the back of a charging mount. While mounted, you can wield a lance with one hand."
I pointed out how the abilities can and should be interpreted based on the ruling.
At this point, I can't tell if you're just blindly stubborn or deliberately trolling.
The only reasons those abilities stop working, is if you close your eyes, dig in your heels, put your hands over your ears and start screaming at the top of your lungs "My reading of the abilities is the only one that counts even if it doesn't make any sense in context and it's impossible for any other interpretation to work because I say so!"
Oh man the minute you drop an ergo I just start mumbling vis a vis concordently and imagine you in a white suit sitting in a room with a lot of televisions while just basically making the movie terrible.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I'm not trolling. Even you conceed the language isn't adamant. "I pointed out how the abilities can and should be interpreted based on the ruling."
Which conceeds they're unclear.
I also notice you didn't disagree that you can no longer use spirited charge or ride by attack because it says "When mounted and using the charge action"
Again, how are you using the 'charge action' when your mount is the one charging?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Oh man the minute you drop an ergo I just start mumbling vis a vis concordently and imagine you in a white suit sitting in a room with a lot of televisions while just basically making the movie terrible.
I used Ergo before the Matrix made it cool :P
It annoyed my (ex-)wife so much that her half orc barbarian was named Ergo.
Hipster.
No no it was never cool
Sure, ask him
|
Design Manager
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also notice you didn't disagree that you can no longer use spirited charge or ride by attack because it says "When mounted and using the charge action"
Again, how are you using the 'charge action' when your mount is the one charging?
Maybe you missed this post:
Spirited Charge which both say "When mounted and using the charge action". Since SKR has already clarified that when your mount is charging, you are not the one taking the charge action, we know that this feat is triggered by being on the back of a charging mount.
The section in Mounted combat that says "When charging on horseback, you deal double damage with a lance (see Charge)." The lance is clarified in it's own equipment entry where it says "A lance deals double damage when used from the back of a charging mount".
Ride-by Attack says "When you are mounted and use the charge action".
It sounds like it could be saying "When you are mounted and (you) use the charge action" but given the clarification we've been given we know it actually is saying "When you are mounted and use the charge action (via your mount)".
No problems with Sean's ruling there. This is also consistent with the rulings made on Mounted combat back in the 3.5 Rules of the Game days. Since mounted combat came over almost whole cloth, it should be just as applicable.
SKR's ruling creates some questions, and a few problems, besides making the language in the mounted feats messy. Can you no longer brace against a mounted charger(just the horse), does the rider now provoke against the target of the mounts charge(because of there movement), and can you use full round actions when your mount charges(seeing as you are no longer using a charge, or move action)?
Also most feats don't specifically spell out that you can use them while mounted so does that mean unless something is specifically called out as working you are unable to use it?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
NOpe. I replied to that. It doesn't say "When mounted and your mount is using the charge action." It says "When mounted and using the charge action." You chose twice now not to address how you can use the charge action sitting on your mount. You are inferring the intent is that 'your mount is' is included. Again, RAI is 'your mount is' RAW is you are.
Which is the point. Sean's clarification is RAI. And if you are saying that "When mounted and using the charge action" assumes the intent is that it's your mount is using the charge action, it goes back to pounce saying "When a creature with this special attack
makes a charge, it can make a full attack" Why can it not be read "When a creature with this special attack makes a charge mounted or not it can make a full attack."
The flaw with Sean's answer, and your reading of the rules is both choose to add words that aren't in the rules of one section and then say you can't add rules in another.
Either you are making a charge action, and thus can pounce, or you are not, and can't use ride-by/spirited charge. If they want to errata it, sure, I'll download the next PDF. Right now it is "you're charging, except you're not."
Edit: as to going to 3.5 as an argument, so you allow aasimar and tieflings to be proficient in all martial weapons? They were in 3.x, but aren't (per James) in Pathfinder. This isn't 3.x This is Pathfinder.
|
Design Manager
|
**stubborn refusal to acknowledge any rules interpretation but his own**
Dev clarifications contribute to RAW. If there is a possible ambiguity in RAW, where do you go for reference? Dev clarification and FAQs. Since the devs have clarified what's happening when your mount charges, we use that information to better our understanding of how feats work. But I've discussed that to death in this thread. They don't work only because you don't want them to work, for whatever reason. Dev clarification of RAI is good enough to verify RAW. Now you're just trumpeting about hoping they'll either justify your obstinance with a FAQ or give you some more ammo to try and restart the ragelancepounce debate. Which is pointless. You can infer intent in both feats since the wording is vague, and you do that by referencing the clarifications you've been given.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
So you conceed it's RAI. Good.
Edit: Forgot to add. All we have is Sean saying you can't ragelancepounce because you're not charging. Since you're relying on 'thus spoke the developer' I'm sure you can point me to where Sean says that the language in the feats should be read as "When mounted and your mount is using the charge action."
I eagerly await your link to that post so I may tag it for FAQ and eventual errata.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why do you continue to believe in something that does not work? You have already been told it doesn't work and you have been shown it doesn't work. Sticking your fingers in your ears and singing la la la doesn't make it work.
The problem is that the same reasoning for saying ragelancepounce doesn't work makes EVERY mounted combat ability not work. If you need to throw the baby out with the bathwater there's a problem.
Exactly.
I actually like Matthew's way of doing things mainly because I want to run all over a bunch of horsebacks and beat enemies with a lance like they were dirty carpets.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Ambiguous = unclear. Which goes back to square one. RAW is clear you have to be charging to use the feats. Not your horse, you. How does "Your mount has to be charging" not contradict that?
@Lamontius
I just noticed that while commenting on wearing a white suit and saying "Ergo" is annoying, your avatar is wearing... a white suit. Well played.
So you conceed it's RAI. Good.RAI does not contradict RAW in this case. RAW is just ambiguous.
You are suggesting that RAI is that the feats work when the mount takes the charge action. RAW is that the rider takes the charge action. Now I think it's easy to infer that they clearly don't want to break the mounted combat feats, but by creating this odd charge by proxy they are creating more problems then they are solving. With this new system Magus can use spell combat and spirited charge together. It's unclear if whirlwind attack is forbidden, and really it unclear what is forbidden while on a charging mount.
Oh no the white suit is just rad as hell, but the ergo thing takes that radness and turns it into something just terrible
Plus I have Monocle Exemption™.
|
Design Manager
|
You are suggesting that RAI is that the feats work when the mount takes the charge action. RAW is that the rider takes the charge action. Now I think it's easy to infer that they clearly don't want to break the mounted combat feats, but by creating this odd charge by proxy they are creating more problems then they are solving. With this new system Magus can use spell combat and spirited charge together. It's unclear if whirlwind attack is forbidden, and really it unclear what is forbidden while on a charging mount.So you conceed it's RAI. Good.RAI does not contradict RAW in this case. RAW is just ambiguous.
RAW does not say "while you are mounted and you are using the charge action" it says, for example:
Spirited Charge which says "When mounted and using the charge action".You are assuming that the only interpretation of this is "When (you are) mounted and (you are) using the charge action"
as opposed to "When (you are) mounted and using the charge action (via your mount as discussed in the mounted combat section)".
Mounted combat 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 (see Charge)."
That should be enough to make it clear that you are gaining the benefits of your mount's charge instead of charging yourself, and explain how we should be reading associated feats.
You know what makes it clear what's forbidden during mounted combat? The Mounted combat section which I provided a link to. You need Mounted Skirmisher to take a full attack action with a melee weapon while mounted, so if you don't have mounted skirmisher, you can't Whirlwind Attack, since Whirlwind Attack is an option for the full attack action. If you do have both Mounted Skirmisher and Whirlwind Attack, then you can Whirlwind Attack from the back of your mount.
All I can think of when I hear lance + pounce + leap is this.
Good one. In soul calibur 5, there is a move by the staff guy xiba, where he leaps forward and aggressively pogo sticks the opponent while still moving ahead (you can fall off the stage with this). That reminds me of rage lance pounce.
|
Design Manager
|
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.
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. And again, like I've posted numerous times, the "you" is only found in one place where it could be a delineator, the Ride-by Attack feat. Since we know that you can't charge while mounted (you're strapped into a seat after all) the only "logical and sane" conclusion is that the charge action referenced is the one being taken by your mount, which you get to benefit from.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ahhhh I always love threads like this. I come in read through and marvel at the I internets ability to read a given text, exclude any and all words that do not support their argument. Carefully place emphasis that may or may not even exist and then defend their position like a spear toting member of the 300.
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.
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.
|
|
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.
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.
Saggy lance, cannot be used except by charging horses.
| 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.
If you read you with any consistency, then lances, spirited charge, and most mount based abilities stop working.
The easiest raw answer is that there's a conflict between pounce and
Essentially, you have to wait until the mount gets to your enemy before attacking, so you can't make a full attack
So you have an irresistible force and an immovable object. Just clarify that the above trumps pounce.