Vital Strike


Rules Questions

101 to 150 of 337 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

Yes, this disregards official rulings SKR already made. What a mess.

Designer

19 people marked this as a favorite.
thebigragu wrote:
Yes, this disregards official rulings SKR already made. What a mess.

No, and this is one of the points I want to make. Messageboard posts on a subjects made by the design and development team are not "official rulings" on the games. Clarifications in FAQ posts and errata are official rulings.

This serves a couple of purposes.

First, it allows the design and development team to interact with fans, and have rules discussions with fans, in an exploratory, argumentative (and I mean that in a construct sense) and even sometimes a playful manner without the fear of taking such comments out of context. This is good for everyone.

Second, it does not force anyone playing the game to participate in or wade through message board threads (some of which can be a thousand or more posts long) in order to find official rulings. Many of us enjoy doing such things, but not everyone, and it should not be seen as a requirement for playing Pathfinder.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cayzle wrote:

The rest of the ruling is a fairly restrictive ruling, but as a rules purist and conservative, I like that. We don't need no stinking power inflation! :-)

Seems to me that Vital Strike could have used some power inflation.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cayzle wrote:

***The rest of the ruling is a fairly restrictive ruling, but as a rules purist and conservative, I like that. We don't need no stinking power inflation! :-)

***

This ruling actually creates more power inflation, not less, and does so for the classes that need it least. This is a nerf for the Cavalier and some melee-based Fighter and Ranger builds, but is actually a big boost for the Barbarian and any other class or build that can get access to Pounce. It also further widens the gap between casters and martials, since a druid can still cast and use a move action while riding on the back of a Pouncing big cat, but the Cavalier loses action economy. Similarly, archers and other ranged combatants are completely unaffected by this ruling, increasing the gap in that area as well.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:


No, and this is one of the points I want to make. Messageboard posts on a subjects made by the design and development team are not "official rulings" on the games. Clarifications in FAQ posts and errata are official rulings.

Stephen,

There is a FAQ on the ragelancepounce issue. This specifically states that Pounce works when you are the one charging, not when the mount is charging, making this new ruling a change in the existing rules.


Ssalarn wrote:
Cayzle wrote:

***The rest of the ruling is a fairly restrictive ruling, but as a rules purist and conservative, I like that. We don't need no stinking power inflation! :-)

***

This ruling actually creates more power inflation, not less, and does so for the classes that need it least. This is a nerf for the Cavalier and some melee-based Fighter and Ranger builds, but is actually a big boost for the Barbarian and any other class or build that can get access to Pounce. It also further widens the gap between casters and martials, since a druid can still cast and use a move action while riding on the back of a Pouncing big cat, but the Cavalier loses action economy. Similarly, archers and other ranged combatants are completely unaffected by this ruling, increasing the gap in that area as well.

I came to voice a similar sentiment.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Actually, the best mounted caster is probably a witch, riding a broom, since it can also use its move action to cackle.


Ssalarn wrote:
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:


No, and this is one of the points I want to make. Messageboard posts on a subjects made by the design and development team are not "official rulings" on the games. Clarifications in FAQ posts and errata are official rulings.

Stephen,

There is a FAQ on the ragelancepounce issue. This specifically states that Pounce works when you are the one charging, not when the mount is charging, making this new ruling a change in the existing rules.

I don't think the FAQ says that, unless I'm misunderstanding your point. The FAQ just says that the extra damage from using a lance only applies when you're riding a mount that is charging, not when you're charging on your own.

I don't see how these things are incompatible. But if I'm missing something, please clarify.


I still do not understand the intent of charge/pounce as a standard action. A staggered barbarian can not stand still and attack more than once, but he could totally move 40 ft and attack 5 times (for example, TWF).

Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:


No, and this is one of the points I want to make. Messageboard posts on a subjects made by the design and development team are not "official rulings" on the games. Clarifications in FAQ posts and errata are official rulings.

Stephen,

There is a FAQ on the ragelancepounce issue. This specifically states that Pounce works when you are the one charging, not when the mount is charging, making this new ruling a change in the existing rules.

And upon further reflection on this matter, the first part of that FAQ is in error, but the second part is purely valid.

We will clarify this in the near future.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:


No, and this is one of the points I want to make. Messageboard posts on a subjects made by the design and development team are not "official rulings" on the games. Clarifications in FAQ posts and errata are official rulings.

Stephen,

There is a FAQ on the ragelancepounce issue. This specifically states that Pounce works when you are the one charging, not when the mount is charging, making this new ruling a change in the existing rules.

And upon further reflection on this matter, the first part of that FAQ is in error, but the second part is purely valid.

We will clarify this in the near future.

Will PFS be allowing limited rebuilds of characters who took Vital Strike for their mounted combatants believing it worked under the existing rules?

Also, what are the design teams thoughts and insights into the assertions that this needlessly nerfs a limited selection of characters while creating even larger discrepancies in power between standard characters like the core cavalier and characters with access to things like spells and Pounce?

Designer

Ssalarn wrote:
Will PFS be allowing limited rebuilds of characters who took Vital Strike for their mounted combatants believing it worked under the existing rules?

That is for PFS to decide.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
WinterwolfNW wrote:

Sorry it's been a while since I been here, I'm not a forum troll. I see I stirred up some conversation.

I can see your arguments about the extra free damage when you have to move anyway before attacking. Good point.

However I hardly think an extra D8 (for a Longsword) is stupidly overpowered when a -3 Power attack does 6 extra points of damage, but then I admit I don't know your campaigns.

As for "Attack Actions"... I consider anything that would break an Invisibility spell an "Attack Action", I guess we each have our own interpretations here.

How about instead of that D8, you substitute Greatsword or Amiri's Large Bastard Sword dice instead?

Or even going back to that Longsword, thinking of it as changing its base damage dice from 1d8 to 2d8.

When your only option to deal with DR is to put as much damage per blow as you can, Vital Strike and it's addons look a lot better.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't have a dog (or a horse, or a barbarian) in this dustup, but I'm following it with interest. Only thing I really have to say: Stephen, thanks for your careful and thoughtful engagement with the boards.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
Will PFS be allowing limited rebuilds of characters who took Vital Strike for their mounted combatants believing it worked under the existing rules?
That is for PFS to decide.

Sorry, that second question was a little "gotchya" and I didn't intend it to be. This is just an issue that there have been threads and threads about with hundreds if not thousands of posts, and for a ruling to come out overnight that contradicts all previous ruling and insight from the design team, it's.... disconcerting. I'm very curious as to the reasoning behind this as it has a lot of far-reaching impact. While "you can rule it how you want in your home game" is very true, this changes the way that at least two major PFS groups I'm aware of have been ruling this issue, the way I've been ruling this issue, and I would imagine it changes the understanding of some 3pp publishers as well, which may cause ripples in supporting materials not directly issued by Paizo. I suspect this changes a few items in some of Paizo's splatbooks as well, though I would need to review the particular materials I'm thinking of to ascertain that that's the case.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:
This is just an issue that there have been threads and threads about with hundreds if not thousands of posts, and for a ruling to come out overnight that contradicts all previous ruling and insight from the design team

They may not always be aware of how rulings are being argued on the forums.

Are you asserting there was no debate? That everyone on the forums agreed it worked the old way? The way that agreed with the SKR post? Or was there dissenting posts? If there were and someone built a build that had people debating how the rule works, there shouldn't be rebuilds when the final ruling comes down officially? And to date, this is the first official ruling.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
This is just an issue that there have been threads and threads about with hundreds if not thousands of posts, and for a ruling to come out overnight that contradicts all previous ruling and insight from the design team

They may not always be aware of how rulings are being argued on the forums.

Are you asserting there was no debate? That everyone on the forums agreed it worked the old way? The way that agreed with the SKR post? Or was there dissenting posts? If there were and someone built a build that had people debating how the rule works, there shouldn't be rebuilds when the final ruling comes down officially? And to date, this is the first official ruling.

That is incorrect. Even Stephen acknowledged that the ragelancepounce FAQ is being changed as a result of this. When a FAQ, developer statement, and the existing rules all point one way and a ruling comes in that changes the FAQ, says ignore the developer ruling, and says that things are now one way when they weren't before, something has changed. This ruling creates new rules text and conditions that did not exist previously, and contradicts some that did.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Ssalarn wrote:
This ruling creates new rules text and conditions that did not exist previously, and contradicts some that did.

To confirm.

You are saying that no one disagreed with the old position? No one?


Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:


That, of course, brings us to the question of whether or not you are considered charging when making a mounted charge. After much discussion, some gnashing of teeth, and combing through the various rules bits involving mounted combat, we have decided to clarify that section of the Core Rulebook to state that when you charge on horseback you do so as a full-round action, and both you and your mount are considered charging.

There will be an official FAQ of that change to that clarification of mounted charge in the near future posted by the Design Team.

<3

Quote:
Also, keep in mind that while the design and development team does enjoy to interact with all of you, and even give our feedback to rules issues, off-the hip (and after hours) rules discussion by the staff should not be taken as an FAQ or errata for the game as a whole. If you are using random posts to justify your build in Pathfinder Society or as a player in other games…you really should cut that out. Just a bit of friendly advice from this designer.

But I've worked so hard...:(


James Risner wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
This ruling creates new rules text and conditions that did not exist previously, and contradicts some that did.

To confirm.

You are saying that no one disagreed with the old position? No one?

You do realize that doesn't actually matter, right?


And to be fair, the "old way" also meant that the cavalier would need some serious rule changes.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Ziegander wrote:
You do realize that doesn't actually matter, right?

Au contraire, but it does matter.

If it is debated, asking for a rebuild shouldn't be granted. The thing is when things are debated, one should make a build unless they are willing to take the change when/if it happens.


This is not a clarification. This is a rewrite. At least call it what it is. Forum posts may not be "official," just like all comments in this thread are not official, but an issue that takes years to FAQ will take on its own life. Also, after a year or two of no official clarification, we tend to assume an issue hasn't been officially addressed because the design team feels clarification isn't warranted. So devs weigh in unofficially, absent official rulings, clarifying rules as written. The movement rules are in the CRB. Posts by prominent devs supported it. Whatever teeth-gnashing discussion the current design team had one morning a year or two later, disregarding all that has been hashed out during the meantime (including the unofficial rulings from noted devs JJ and SKR), while certainly within the rights of the design team, is "weak sauce," to use your term. You have to expect some blowback.

Regardless, this won't effect my current campaign. I'll keep doing Detect Evil from the back a charging mount, like a boss. I feel for those like Ssalarn, who play PFS and generally must take unofficial dev comments seriously. That's the dominant culture of the game. The slow pace of FAQ clarifications, combined with prominent devs giving their two coppers in the meantime, leads to this sort of thing. In any case, this FAQ or errata better be exhaustive, because there are many more issues with mounted combat that need to be addressed, not that a mounted hero is a classic fantasy archetype or anything.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I, for one, am very happy with the new Mounted Charge faq. It ends the ongoing debate because the former wording of the "RageLancePounce" faq did not specifically state that the rider was not charging. You had to look to SKR's post for that.

For years, including back in 3.X, the Rider and the Mount were both expending a full-round action when charging (despite it not being clear back in 3.X either without looking to Skip Williams' Rules of the Game for partial clarity).

Stephen, now if you could only clear up the apparent contradiction between these two FAQs: FAQ1 and FAQ2.

Basically, in one it says you get the 2-handed damage from Power Attack while using a weapon one-handed while the other says you do not.

Oh, and thank you for the open dialog. While it may confuse some it is much appreciated and will hopefully move us towards a better understanding of the game.


James Risner wrote:
Ziegander wrote:
You do realize that doesn't actually matter, right?

Au contraire, but it does matter.

If it is debated, asking for a rebuild shouldn't be granted. The thing is when things are debated, one should make a build unless they are willing to take the change when/if it happens.

Whether the old interpretation of the rules was debated or not shouldn't matter. The old interpretation was part of an official FAQ ruling and thus the official way the rules worked.

I would tend to agree with you were the old interpretation just some random guy on the internet spouting off about the issue, but that was not the case as I understand it.


Gauss wrote:

I

Basically, in one it says you get the 2-handed damage from Power Attack while using a weapon one-handed while the other says you do not.

You'll have to wait for another FAQ. Until then, any clarification is unofficial, according to the guy you're asking.


This is super terrible for me lol, because I had a cavalier who used vital strike on a charge because his mount was charging, not him.

Blargh this is awful

Apparently it is be an archer or die, because their mount can still take full round actions and they can full attack :(


Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
thebigragu wrote:
Yes, this disregards official rulings SKR already made. What a mess.

No, and this is one of the points I want to make. Messageboard posts on a subjects made by the design and development team are not "official rulings" on the games. Clarifications in FAQ posts and errata are official rulings.

This serves a couple of purposes.

First, it allows the design and development team to interact with fans, and have rules discussions with fans, in an exploratory, argumentative (and I mean that in a construct sense) and even sometimes a playful manner without the fear of taking such comments out of context. This is good for everyone.

Second, it does not force anyone playing the game to participate in or wade through message board threads (some of which can be a thousand or more posts long) in order to find official rulings. Many of us enjoy doing such things, but not everyone, and it should not be seen as a requirement for playing Pathfinder.

Stephen you are awesome and your shoes fit perfectly :)

Nice shoes BTW;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ziegander, the "old interpretation" was NOT part of the FAQ. Nowhere in the old RageLancePounce FAQ did you find the statement that the rider is not charging. What it DID state was that you do not get lance damage if you charge, only if the mount you are riding charges. That does not mean you are not charging.

former FAQ wording wrote:

Lance: If I have the pounce ability and I charge with a lance, do my iterative lance attacks get the lance's extra damage multiplier from charging?

No, for two reasons.
One, because a lance only deals extra damage when you’re riding a charging mount—not when you are charging."

Yes, it was confusing and created problems but it did not clearly state the rider was not charging. People were using SKR's non-FAQ comments to support the assertion that the FAQ was stating the Rider was not charging.


Gauss wrote:

Ziegander, the "old interpretation" was NOT part of the FAQ. Nowhere in the old RageLancePounce FAQ did you find the statement that the rider is not charging. What it DID state was that you do not get lance damage if you charge, only if the mount you are riding charges. That does not mean you are not charging.

Yes, it was confusing and created problems but it did not clearly state the rider was not charging. People were using SKR's non-FAQ comments to support the assertion that the FAQ was stating the Rider was not charging.

Ah, good point. Yes, even the FAQ goes on to mention pounce was not accounted for when the CRB was released, and even should you be able to pounce if you were charging that it didn't make sense thematically.

Also, something I was wondering about earlier today: Doesn't the "if your mount travels more than 5ft" language prevent mounted pouncing anyway? At least before 14th level (ouch, by the way) when you can take the Mounted Skirmisher feat?


Ziegander wrote:
Also, something I was wondering about earlier today: Doesn't the "if your mount travels more than 5ft" language prevent mounted pouncing anyway? At least before 14th level (ouch, by the way) when you can take the Mounted Skirmisher feat?

No, because if you are charging, the description of Pounce delimits the number of attacks possible.

If you are a Barb, you only need Gr Beast Totem to full attack. (which saves you Mounted Combat feats)


Archaeik wrote:
No, because if you are charging, the description of Pounce delimits the number of attacks possible.

Hrmmm... my head officially hurts again. *grumbles*


Archaeik, that is not true.

If you are charging you may make multiple attacks. That changes the limit on the number of attacks you make while charging.

What is NOT changed is that you can only make one attack if the mount moves more than 5 feet. There is no text to contradict that.

1) Are you charging? Yes. You may make multiple attacks because Pounce has wording to allow you to make multiple attacks while charging.
2) Does your mount move more than 5 feet? Yes. You may not make multiple attacks.
3) Is there wording in Pounce to change #2? No. Thus, despite charging and possessing pounce if your mount moves more than 5 feet you may not make multiple attacks.

Note: this is a very RAW interpretation and one that the Devs may not subscribe to.


OK, this ruling from SRM is in line with what I've been doing at home.

It was a tough call for me because I agree Vital Strike could use a boost but for me it would have to be across the board not just for mounted characters.

I always thought SKR opened a can of worms for mounted combat when he was just trying to stop ragelancepounce. Out of the frying pan into the fire.

I got a rash of mounted vital strike spirited charge builds at the table after SKR's comments but after careful deliberation I decided to keep ruling that when your mount charges you are also charging.

My fix for ragelancepounce is to not allow pounce with iteratives, only with natural attacks.

I think it fits the flavor of a pounce better.


That would be a nice fix. :)


Wouldn't it be simple just to say that a lance gets double damage on the first attack, but not any subsequent ones? You get the benefit you invested in (extra attacks from pounce, extra lance damage) without going all force-multiplier on the game.


Vital strike is fine. Loads times you only get one swing so may as well make it a good one.
Level 15 fighter in serpents skull AP has been happy with it and its chain

Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bizbag wrote:
Wouldn't it be simple just to say that a lance gets double damage on the first attack, but not any subsequent ones? You get the benefit you invested in (extra attacks from pounce, extra lance damage) without going all force-multiplier on the game.

The lance FAQ already states that, and the new FAQ on mounted charge now says that too. That is one of the clarifications that was already out there that we are implicitly putting in the paragraph describing a mounted charge, or as the cavalier class features refers to it "charging while mounted."

The main problem when it came to mounted charge is that while the mounted combat section of the Core Rulebook stated that the mount charged, and that line was used to justify the argument that the barbarian couldn't pounce on a mounted charge, there were too many abilities (the lance, cavalier abilities, archetype abilities) that hinged on a mounted charge or when you charge while mounted. There was a disconnect between the FAQ and those rules.

In the end we do realize that this allows a mounted barbarian with the Greater Beast Totem rage power to use pounce at the end of a charge, but if she is using a lance, has Spirited Charge, or is using both the multiplier is only applied to the first attack if that attack hits.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As I said in my last post the new stuff is in line with how I thought it was supposes to work. The onmy area left fuzzy to me now is who needs the feats to do mounted stuff the mount or rider. My view is the ridee. But feat wording is inconsistant.


So, as far as I can tell, you can still have your mount charge and have your character use Vital Strike at the destination; you just wouldn't get the charge bonus/penalty. That seems workable (and is, in fact, how I've always played it).


Yeah your mount could always double move and allow a vital strike. I think its a good oorion for a mobile mounted character that's only lightly invested in mounted combat. Its also useful if terrain prevents a charge.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Gauss wrote:
I, for one, am very happy with the new Mounted Charge faq. It ends the ongoing debate......

You must be new here, or otherwise you know that the only way a messageboard debate ends is when the server dies.


Mojorat wrote:
Yeah your mount could always double move and allow a vital strike. I think its a good oorion for a mobile mounted character that's only lightly invested in mounted combat. Its also useful if terrain prevents a charge.

Yes, that's a niche use that should remain useful and legal.

I do hope this FAQ will be more than a sentence or two. I still don't know if the mount is still charging after Ride-By-Attack, for example. As currently written and supported by apocrypha, there's a good case for:

Charge-->Rider Attacks-->RBA allows the charge to continue-->Mount uses Charge Through to Overrun the rider's target and keeps going-->Mount reaches target of its charge and completes attack.

If the rider is considered charging, however, the rider can't do anything in the middle of it, so the above tactic is right out. Who's doing the Overrun anyway? Mount or rider? As currently written, it would be the mount, but I can't rely on CRB these days.

It will also be impossible to direct a mount to charge if it isn't trained for combat. Seems to me that if this was RAI from the beginning, there would probably already be a feat for it. [/grumble]


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:

In the end we do realize that this allows a mounted barbarian with the Greater Beast Totem rage power to use pounce at the end of a charge, but if she is using a lance, has Spirited Charge, or is using both the multiplier is only applied to the first attack if that attack hits.

Are there any plans to possibly restrict Greater Beast Totem's pounce to be for natural weapons only? It would certainly be more thematic with the totem's spirit.


LazarX wrote:
Gauss wrote:
I, for one, am very happy with the new Mounted Charge faq. It ends the ongoing debate......
You must be new here, or otherwise you know that the only way a messageboard debate ends is when the server dies.

I lol'd at work. Thanks Lazar

Lantern Lodge

Hmmm....

Is there a way to allow a mount to charge without it's rider to charge? I'm assuming this is still allowed via the new ruling... Or would any charge made by the mount be considered a mounted charge, forcing the character to charge along with the mount?

I speak on behalf the awesome archer/tiger rider concept :) (Tiger just goes around ravaging people as the archer picks off the important targets).


Cheapy wrote:
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:

In the end we do realize that this allows a mounted barbarian with the Greater Beast Totem rage power to use pounce at the end of a charge, but if she is using a lance, has Spirited Charge, or is using both the multiplier is only applied to the first attack if that attack hits.

Are there any plans to possibly restrict Greater Beast Totem's pounce to be for natural weapons only? It would certainly be more thematic with the totem's spirit.

Yes, this^^

Dark Archive

It's not broken, why fix it?
The problem is not to have pounce, the problem is to not have pounce.

Instead of nerfing barbarians, other martial classes should be brought to their level (still below full casters).


FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:

Hmmm....

Is there a way to allow a mount to charge without it's rider to charge? I'm assuming this is still allowed via the new ruling... Or would any charge made by the mount be considered a mounted charge, forcing the character to charge along with the mount?

I speak on behalf the awesome archer/tiger rider concept :) (Tiger just goes around ravaging people as the archer picks off the important targets).

The ruling only states that when you charge on horseback, both you and the mount are charging. It doesn't preclude the mount charging alone.

Really, the ruling increases options rather than reducing them. Before, you couldn't charge on horseback at all, as you couldn't move without dismounting first. Now you can charge on horseback, and all of the feats and abilities that work on a charge now work on horseback. Seems like a good call to me.


Jadeite wrote:

It's not broken, why fix it?

Well, see...

It is.

101 to 150 of 337 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Vital Strike All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.