Vital Strike


Rules Questions

201 to 250 of 337 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Ssalarn wrote:
Allowing you to attack. If you are on the back of a rearing animal lashing out with hoofs and claws, you have to make a ride check if you also want to try and make an attack. You fail the Ride check, you can't attack. That's all that use of the ride skill does. You still need to command the mount to attack in the first place, and that requires Handle Animal.

So you're saying you spend whatever action on Handle Animal to command your mount to attack, and then spend a free action to use Ride to keep from losing your ability to attack?


Yes


Mounted combat seems like a big mess, I think that eventurally there coudl be a need for an entire blog post for this issue.


Quote:

This is specifically what the FAQ under discussion addresses.

I'm not sure I see what you mean. Can the mount charge independently or not? If it's all or nothing, if the rider must be charging for the mount to charge, then the restrictions Ssalarn has introduced are valid. The FAQ is not about how a lance works. It mentions the lance and Spirited Charge but does not change them. It changes the third paragraph of "Combat While Mounted." The lance has its own very clear text and has not been changed.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The FAQ developed from Stephen MacFarlane visiting in on a thread yesterday. I'll link in a moment in an edit.

FAQ:
FAQ wrote:

Mounted Combat: When making a charge while mounted, which creature charges? The rider or the mount?

Both charge in unison, suffer the same penalty to AC, the gaining the same bonus to the attack rolls and following all other rules for the charge. The mounted combat rules are a little unclear on this. Replace the third paragraph under the "Combat while Mounted" section on page 202 with the following text. Note that a "mounted charge" is synonymous with a "charge while mounted."

A mounted charge is a charge made by you and your mount. During a mounted charge, you deal double damage with your first melee attack made with a lance or with any weapon if you have Spirited Charge (or a similar effect), or you deal triple damage with a lance and Spirited Charge.

This change will be reflected in future printings of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook

it addresses the definition of a mounted charge, but doesn't put restrictions on what else can happen. if your mount is charging, and the rider is not, the situation is -not- a mounted charge. Thus, the rider doesn't get x2 damage (or more) with a lance. This is to eliminate vital strike from being used with a charging lance.

Edit: Vital strike specified

where Stephen sees charge on a mount is unclear

where an attack action is referenced to a mount moving over 5 feet

The result of discussion with other PDT, and charging on a mount means both charge

Note that this is the change that went into the FAQ, rather than the one that went with rage/lance/pounce about only the mount doing the charge.

And now the biggie. of course you can do other things while your mount charges.

Edit #2: these posts are from this thread, which started tuesday.


FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:

I think there needs to be a distinction made here, between a mounted charge (now also known as charging on a mount) and being on a charging mount.

Things only mounted charges can do:
Get extra damage from lances and spirited charge.
Gain the +2 attack bonus from charging
Use charge specific feats and abilities

Things a [u]character on a charging mount[/u]can do:
Cast a spell
Full round attack with a bow/ranged weapon
Use vital strike
Any combination of standard/move actions (including full round actions) besides actually moving.
Anything that can be done on a moving mount.

Once again:

CRB wrote:


A lance deals double damage when used from the back of a charging mount.

Seems to me that extra damage from lance and Spirited Charge belongs in your second group.


DesolateHarmony wrote:


it addresses the definition of a mounted charge, but doesn't put restrictions on what else can happen. if your mount is charging, and the rider is not, the situation is -not- a mounted charge. Thus, the rider doesn't get x2 damage (or more) with a lance. This is to eliminate vital strike from being used with a charging lance.

I don't know how else to put it. The lance text only says, very specifically, that the mount needs to be charging. It does not say "charge while mounted," which is the only synonymy addressed in the FAQ. The lance text does not say that you only get that extra damage when "mounted charging" nor "charging on a mount." What text within the FAQ changes this? Nothing in the FAQ says it is intended to prevent the combo of Vital Strike and Spirited Charge.

Silver Crusade

PRD on mounted combat

deleted text from PRD, per new FAQ 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).

FAQ link

FAQ replacement text wrote:
A mounted charge is a charge made by you and your mount. During a mounted charge, you deal double damage with your first melee attack made with a lance or with any weapon if you have Spirited Charge (or a similar effect), or you deal triple damage with a lance and Spirited Charge.
PRD on using lance with charge: wrote:
Lances and Charge Attacks: A lance deals double damage if employed by a mounted character in a charge.

This is what the new FAQ is about. mounted charging.

Silver Crusade

thebigragu wrote:
DesolateHarmony wrote:


it addresses the definition of a mounted charge, but doesn't put restrictions on what else can happen. if your mount is charging, and the rider is not, the situation is -not- a mounted charge. Thus, the rider doesn't get x2 damage (or more) with a lance. This is to eliminate vital strike from being used with a charging lance.
I don't know how else to put it. The lance text only says, very specifically, that the mount needs to be charging. It does not say "charge while mounted," which is the only synonymy addressed in the FAQ. The lance text does not say that you only get that extra damage when "mounted charging" nor "charging on a mount." What text within the FAQ changes this? Nothing in the FAQ says it is intended to prevent the combo of Vital Strike and Spirited Charge.

I'm showing you the development and intent of the FAQ. If PDT needs to make corrections in other sections to get it all to match up, I hope they are reading our comments so they can go ahead and make what they intend clear.

Lantern Lodge

thebigragu wrote:
DesolateHarmony wrote:


it addresses the definition of a mounted charge, but doesn't put restrictions on what else can happen. if your mount is charging, and the rider is not, the situation is -not- a mounted charge. Thus, the rider doesn't get x2 damage (or more) with a lance. This is to eliminate vital strike from being used with a charging lance.
I don't know how else to put it. The lance text only says, very specifically, that the mount needs to be charging. It does not say "charge while mounted," which is the only synonymy addressed in the FAQ. The lance text does not say that you only get that extra damage when "mounted charging" nor "charging on a mount." What text within the FAQ changes this? Nothing in the FAQ says it is intended to prevent the combo of Vital Strike and Spirited Charge.

I think you got an old rulebook there :) Desolate has the correct citation.


19 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite.

Mounted Combat has been a big mess for a long time. However, lets try to post all the issues at once in a concise and clear way so that they might get addressed.

Q: Does Ride supersede Handle Animal?
Explanation: To command an animal to attack requires a Handle Animal check. To command a mount to attack requires either Ride or Handle Animal depending on who you talk to. The RAW appears to be you need to use Handle Animal while the RAI appears to be you need to use Ride.

Q: What does "closest space" mean when charging (a Ride-By-Attack question)?
Explanation: According to the bolded line in the spoiler below, you must move to the "closest space".
Some people interpret that as "draw a line from the center of your space to the center of theirs and move along that line until you reach the closest space".
Other people interpret that as "draw a line from your space to a point that is close to the target that you can attack from".
If the first interpretation is used then Ride-By-Attack is impossible (you cannot move through the enemy).

Charge quote:
CRB p198 wrote:
You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles). You must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent. If this space is occupied or otherwise blocked, you can’t charge. If any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through a square that blocks movement, slows movement, or contains a creature (even an ally), you can’t charge. Helpless creatures don’t stop a charge.

Q: Can your mount make an attack when you use Ride-By Attack?
Explanation: The feat states that you can move and attack and then move again. It does not state your mount can. The RAI appears to be you can but people do argue this.

Q: Can you make a lance attack when your mount charges?
Explanation: This may seem like an obvious answer but the RAW states otherwise. If you have to wait until the Mount has completed it's charge and it has a 5' reach then it completes it's charge 5' away from the enemy. You cannot make your lance attack at 5' away.

Mounted Combat quote:
CRB p202 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).

Q: If your mount charges can you elect not to charge so that you can perform other actions (such as spellcasting)?
Explanation: This is a brand new question based on the recent discussion but it should be included here.

These are just some of the questions I have seen come up. There are probably others.


I finally see what you are saying. I also see what I am saying. Rather, I see what we are quoting. They addressed the reference to the lance in the combat section, whereas the section I quote, from the Weapons section, suggests an opposite reading. It seems they are trying to say that there is a new category called Mounted Charge, which is a charge where both mount and rider are considered charging. It is still possible for the mount to charge while the rider uses his own action economy, but if he attacks with the lance, it is considered a Mounted Charge, so he is for that purpose considered charging as well. Wow, I sure am glad they simplified things. *slow clap*

This whole thing is very strange. SKR was really up on mounted combat. Stephen, whose effort here I truly appreciate, only became aware of the issue a couple of days ago. So, after well over a year of raging debate on this issue and a conspicuous lack of official ruling, we suddenly get something official right after SKR leaves. Naturally, it contradicts SKR's rulings. Er, not "rulings" but late night posts, as Stephen put it.

All this to make Vital Strike worse? Really?! I don't get it.


FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:

I think you got an old rulebook there :) Desolate has the correct citation.

I'm quoting from http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/weapons/weapon-descriptions/lance

Is d20pfsrd considered out of date?


thebigragu wrote:
Is d20pfsrd considered out of date?

Always.

Use http://www.paizo.com/prd

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

thebigragu wrote:
Is d20pfsrd considered out of date?

It has too many errors to count, and shouldn't ever be used when looking up rules that matter.

So yes out of date. Use prd or the lastest PDF (what I do.)


Even the PRD has occasional errors (such as the Light spell).

Liberty's Edge

Ssalarn wrote:


That rule allows you to attack. Read it.

"If you direct your war-trained mount to attack in battle, you can still make your own attack or attacks normally. This usage is a free action"

This allows you, the rider, to attack if you've commanded your mount to attack in battle. You command your mount to attack by using the Handle Animal skill. There is no Ride check that allows you to command your animal to attack. That's why every class that has the Ride skill also has Handle Animal.

As I noted earlier, this also causes other ridiculous incongruencies, like preventing you from spurring your mount in the same round you perform a mounted charge.

If you want to read it that way, sure you'll have problems. Otherwise, if you read it in the way that if you're riding the mount into battle, you don't even use the Handle Animal skill, you don't have a problem.

Lantern Lodge

Along with the witches spell list (Can witches only summon evil creatures?) and the kensai magus has an ability lacking a little bit of bolding...


James Risner wrote:
thebigragu wrote:
Is d20pfsrd considered out of date?

It has too many errors to count, and shouldn't ever be used when looking up rules that matter.

So yes out of date. Use prd or the lastest PDF (what I do.)

Interesting, I had no idea. Thanks to the several people who pointed me away from it. Too bad, since I prefer the navigation on that site. Turns out, the text for Lance in the weapon section of the Paizo doc says the same thing as PFSRD, so in this case it's a moot point. They'll need to FAQ the Lance listing as well, since as Stephen said, it doesn't count until it's official.

Silver Crusade

thebigragu wrote:
Turns out, the text for Lance in the weapon section of the Paizo doc says the same thing as PFSRD, so in this case it's a moot point. They'll need to FAQ the Lance listing as well, since as Stephen said, it doesn't count until it's official.

Yeah, that's what I was trying to point out. The FAQ needs to make sense in the related areas.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DesolateHarmony wrote:
thebigragu wrote:
Turns out, the text for Lance in the weapon section of the Paizo doc says the same thing as PFSRD, so in this case it's a moot point. They'll need to FAQ the Lance listing as well, since as Stephen said, it doesn't count until it's official.
Yeah, that's what I was trying to point out. The FAQ needs to make sense in the related areas.

Yes, I understood it the first time when you wrote:

Quote:
I'm showing you the development and intent of the FAQ. If PDT needs to make corrections in other sections to get it all to match up, I hope they are reading our comments so they can go ahead and make what they intend clear.

Actually, I've been active in this thread from the beginning, so showing me the development isn't necessary. In fact, I believe I was the first one to bring up Vital Strike with a Mounted Charge in this thread, not that it matters. My point has been that nothing matters except official text, because that's what Stephen pointedly said in response to one of my comments. By that guideline, the rule is still unresolved. You may recall Stephen's comment:

Quote:
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.

Whatever he says in this thread to explain the FAQ means as much, or as little, as any SKR or JJ quote I can find, which is why I haven't posted those. It's also why Stephen's comments, while appreciated, should not be taken too seriously, following his own advice. I'd like to believe otherwise, but he strongly advises against.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'll say this for the Pathfinder rules forum: it has some seriously smart people. My metaphorical 'tip of the hat' to the best gaming forum community.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

HangarFlying wrote:
If you want to read it that way, sure you'll have problems. Otherwise, if you read it in the way that if you're riding the mount into battle, you don't even use the Handle Animal skill, you don't have a problem.

No, I absolutely agree that if you make up your own rules and ignore the ones you don't like, it works fine. However, if you actually follow the rules, it doesn't work, which was my point.

The issue before was that people were getting hung up on feats that referred to "charging while mounted". A clarification that the feats using this verbage are referring to actions taken while your mount is charging would have been a simple resolution using minimum wor count, keeping existing rulings valid, and allowing all the rules to continue to function. Instead, this ruling straight up invalidates prior rulings, existing rules, and creates even more ambiguity on other issues, without creating any positive change for the game. See the really big (and not even remotely complete) list of things that have been invalidated by this ruling that I listed on the previous page.

Also, to the people telling thebigragu that he's using an out of date quote, the Lance entry in the CRB, PRD and Ultimate Equipment uses the exact verbage he was quoting.

"A lance deals double damage when used from the back of a charging mount."

That is the verbage that has been in every equipment entry for the lance since Pathfinder's release, and is still there currently.

thebigragu wrote:

Yes, I understood it the first time when you wrote:

Quote:
I'm showing you the development and intent of the FAQ. If PDT needs to make corrections in other sections to get it all to match up, I hope they are reading our comments so they can go ahead and make what they intend clear.

*** My point has been that nothing matters except official text, because that's what Stephen pointedly said in response to one of my comments. By that guideline, the rule is still unresolved. You may recall Stephen's comment:

Quote:
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.
Whatever he says in this thread to explain the FAQ means as much, or as little, as any SKR or JJ quote I can find, which is why I haven't posted those. It's also why Stephen's comments, while appreciated, should not be taken too seriously, following his own advice. I'd like to believe otherwise, but he strongly advises against.

This. SKR's post which was said to not be official was the "the development and intent of the FAQ" for ragelancepounce, which we were clearly told does not matter (even the FAQ itself was clarified as needing to be corrected).


thebigragu wrote:
The rider does not need to be considered charging in order to gain the double damage benefit of the lance, nor does he need to be charging to gain triple from Spirited Charge. Only the mount does, unless the lance wording has been FAQed to reflect something else. I don't think so though. Only the mount needs to be charging. If I'm wielding a lance on a charging mount, I assume I also get this bonus on an AoO I perform during this charge. I also assume I can combine with Vital Strike, if blapher's reading is in fact correct. All the rider loses from my previous reading of mounted charge is +2/-2 associated with the charge. If the rider essentially gets to choose whether he's also charging when the mount charges, things get more interesting/complicated.

I find this both hilarious and in need of further FAQ clarification. Because when I asked Stephen whether or not I could command the mount itself to charge while I sat on it and cast a spell (or performed some other standard action), he told me, of course you can do that.

So, if that's the case, then we're right back to letting Vital Strike work from the back of a charging mount. No, it won't be a mounted charge, so it won't mix with a lot of other abilities, but, still, the basic, my mount charges, at the end of that charge I perform an attack action (without a +2 bonus to hit) to activate Vital Strike with my lance, and I deal a pile of damage (triple weapon dice damage + double all other damage modifiers? not sure how the multiplication rule interacts here).

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The stated goal of the FAQ was to prevent a character from being able to do something like combining Vital Strike with the bonus damage from a Lance and Spirited Charge (despite the fact that there was no evidence presented that this was actually causing issues).

The effect of the FAQ was to create 5 times as many issues as it fixed, and give rise to an even greater number of questions and discrepancies.

Instead of a single clarification conforming to the existing FAQs and developer commentary stating that entries referring to a mounted charge are triggered by the mount using the charge action, we've gotten an unnecessary FAQ that doesn't actually say what they said it was going to say or solve any of the issues it was supposed to solve, but does create a whole swath of new issues that will need to be addressed individually. None of this additional work was necessary either, because there's no evidence that mounted chargers getting to have the same action economy as every other character with a companion was actually causing any issues.

One of my biggest issues is this- instead of a simple answer that would have had no negative impact on either interpretation of the rules prior, we've got a ruling that negates options people on the development staff had previously supported which requires even more FAQs and rewrites to actually be functional.


Majuba wrote:
thebigragu wrote:
Is d20pfsrd considered out of date?

Always.

Use http://www.paizo.com/prd

James Risner wrote:
thebigragu wrote:
Is d20pfsrd considered out of date?

It has too many errors to count, and shouldn't ever be used when looking up rules that matter.

So yes out of date. Use prd or the lastest PDF (what I do.)

Like what? I never noticed any, but then I rarely check it for core rules. Seems to me they stay up to date on errata.

It contains a lot of first party content that the PRD just doesn't have. And it has its own section on third party material (such as Psionics). Beyond that, it has a much better search function, including tools for filtering spells, etc.


Ssalarn wrote:


The issue before was that people were getting hung up on feats that referred to "charging while mounted". A clarification that the feats using this verbage are referring to actions taken while your mount is charging would have been a simple resolution using minimum wor count, keeping existing rulings valid, and allowing all the rules to continue to function. Instead, this ruling straight up invalidates prior rulings, existing rules, and creates even more ambiguity on other issues, without creating any positive change for the game. See the really big (and not even remotely complete) list of things that have been invalidated by this ruling that I listed on the previous page.

A good concise summary of why this all sits wrong. JJ is the one who had previously posted on how to interpret the feat wording. In fact, he seemed quite exasperated that people would rely on the ambiguous wording of some feats to call core into question. SKR's clarification that the charge is exclusively a mount's was so emphatic that the subtext seemed clear: no need for a FAQ, because the rules are already there to make it work. Coming from this perspective, the new FAQ is a surprising and odd development for some of us.


I originally posted this in another vital strike thread and it was never answered.

I notice creatures like Jabberwockees and Wyrms only have regular vital strike. Would it be considered cruel or cheesy to give those monsters the entire chain and rework their feats? The Jabberwockee's eye beam with greater vital would be monstrous.

Quoted from an adventure path I will not name for spoiler's sake...

"The lesser jabberwock races into the midst of
the PCs on the first round of combat to make a vital strike
with its bite. On the second round, it burbles to confuse
the PCs that surround it. On following rounds, it makes
full attacks—preferably against the PC wielding -censored-. If the
monster is reduced to fewer than 200 hit points, it takes to
the air and circles, firing one eye ray per round with Vital
Strike while it heals back up to at least 300 hit points before
landing and entering melee again"

This has horrifying implications.


I am just guessing but to shoot two eye ray the Jabberwock have to use a full round action.

SO, if the two rays hits it does 30d6. If he use vital strike for one ray he is still doing 30d6.


Spastic Puma wrote:

I originally posted this in another vital strike thread and it was never answered.

I notice creatures like Jabberwockees and Wyrms only have regular vital strike. Would it be considered cruel or cheesy to give those monsters the entire chain and rework their feats? The Jabberwockee's eye beam with greater vital would be monstrous.

Quoted from an adventure path I will not name for spoiler's sake...

"The lesser jabberwock races into the midst of
the PCs on the first round of combat to make a vital strike
with its bite. On the second round, it burbles to confuse
the PCs that surround it. On following rounds, it makes
full attacks—preferably against the PC wielding -censored-. If the
monster is reduced to fewer than 200 hit points, it takes to
the air and circles, firing one eye ray per round with Vital
Strike while it heals back up to at least 300 hit points before
landing and entering melee again"

This has horrifying implications.

I know which AP this comes from and it was a rules violation even then (when the AP was out) and it certainly is now.

Also keep in mind that tactics (or even statblocks) in APs are not error-free, i have seen it a lot of times that a tactic wasn't rules legal and more scarcely it ruined the encounter.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Athaleon wrote:
Like what? I never noticed any, but then I rarely check it for core rules. Seems to me they stay up to date on errata.

Usually it is transcription errors, interpretation errors, etc. I've witnessed many many errors (at least 5 or 10)

If you can't deal with it until you are given an example, then here is an example:

Fox Shape does not have that Special line.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:

The stated goal of the FAQ was to prevent a character from being able to do something like combining Vital Strike with the bonus damage from a Lance and Spirited Charge (despite the fact that there was no evidence presented that this was actually causing issues).

The effect of the FAQ was to create 5 times as many issues as it fixed, and give rise to an even greater number of questions and discrepancies.

Instead of a single clarification conforming to the existing FAQs and developer commentary stating that entries referring to a mounted charge are triggered by the mount using the charge action, we've gotten an unnecessary FAQ that doesn't actually say what they said it was going to say or solve any of the issues it was supposed to solve, but does create a whole swath of new issues that will need to be addressed individually. None of this additional work was necessary either, because there's no evidence that mounted chargers getting to have the same action economy as every other character with a companion was actually causing any issues.

One of my biggest issues is this- instead of a simple answer that would have had no negative impact on either interpretation of the rules prior, we've got a ruling that negates options people on the development staff had previously supported which requires even more FAQs and rewrites to actually be functional.

Please do not use my post as fodder for your argument. All but one of my questions have existed long before this current FAQ issue so you providing my post as an example of "greater number of questions and discrepancies" is incorrect and misleading.

Frankly, SKR's statement that the Rider did not charge when the mount charged created just as many problems. A number of mounted combat feats broke as a result of that but people chose to gloss over that or claim that no problem existed because you had to use common sense.

In short, the Mounted Combat rules have never been clear. Not in 3.X, not in Pathfinder. They did not become more clear with the "old" ruling and they did not become less clear with the "new" ruling. There is still much work to be done.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

leo1925 wrote:
Spastic Puma wrote:

I originally posted this in another vital strike thread and it was never answered.

I notice creatures like Jabberwockees and Wyrms only have regular vital strike. Would it be considered cruel or cheesy to give those monsters the entire chain and rework their feats? The Jabberwockee's eye beam with greater vital would be monstrous.

Quoted from an adventure path I will not name for spoiler's sake...

"The lesser jabberwock races into the midst of
the PCs on the first round of combat to make a vital strike
with its bite. On the second round, it burbles to confuse
the PCs that surround it. On following rounds, it makes
full attacks—preferably against the PC wielding -censored-. If the
monster is reduced to fewer than 200 hit points, it takes to
the air and circles, firing one eye ray per round with Vital
Strike while it heals back up to at least 300 hit points before
landing and entering melee again"

This has horrifying implications.

I know which AP this comes from and it was a rules violation even then (when the AP was out) and it certainly is now.

Also keep in mind that tactics (or even statblocks) in APs are not error-free, i have seen it a lot of times that a tactic wasn't rules legal and more scarcely it ruined the encounter.

I'm not seeing where the rules violation is?

first round: move + Vital Strike
second: burble
third+: full attacks

all those seem legit

if hurt, fly up, using 1 move action to fly and a standard to vital strike an eye ray each round.

I don't see the issue.

EDIT: Ok, looking at the monster entry I think I see where your issue is. It takes a special standard action to fire 2 eye beams, so that can't be used with Vital Strike. However, one could make the argument (and this is probably how the author felt) that the jabberwok could use a normal attack action to fire just one eye beam, and that could be used with Vital Strike. In other words, the eye beam is a normal ranged attack for the monster, and he also has a special ability that lets him fire two of those as a standard action.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

Gauss wrote:
Please do not use my post as fodder for your argument.

Questions, which could have been easily resolved by a simple statement supporting the existing rulings, have instead been made more complex. Your post is a perfect example of that, so I will use it.

There was an easy fix to this solution that would have had absolutely no negative impact on any existing games or characters. Instead, a FAQ was issued that invalidated numerous options and abilities that players had every reason to believe were perfectly legitimate and legal. This FAQ also fails to actually say what thje developers said it was going to say, and fails to do what they said it was going to do. The wording of the FAQ fails to match the intent, and the intent further breaks numerous options and entries in multiple publications.

This could have been fixed with one simple FAQ that was consistent with the rulings and developer insight given up to this point, and which would have required little, if any, actual reprinting. That FAQ also would have kept both halves of their player base able to continue with their games unchanged. Players who were operating under the understanding that the mount (only) was the one charging would have continued on exactly as they had been, and players who believed that both were charging would have gained some new possibilities without losing any of their build's validity.

Instead they've chosen an answer which requires multiple other FAQs to support it before it can work, requires reprinting of multiple items in multiple books that have been core since the game released, invalidates previous rulings both official and unofficial, and invalidates a large number of feats and options.

I have defended the decisions of the design staff on multiple occasions, and have always tried to see things from their perspective. Go back over the last several years of posting history and you can easily see that this is the case. But this is a bad ruling.

It's bad for any and all of the following reasons-

1)It changes the rules needlessly. What evidence is there that Vital Striking Cavaliers and Fighters were breaking the game?

2) It discriminates needlessly against a specific group of players. These were players who were going off the interpretation supported by an entire paragraph of the CRB that they're now replacing and by statements from both JJ and SKR. There was an easy solution that would not have invalidated anyone's characters or builds, and there was no good reason to choose this over that.

3) It does not solve the problem it is supposed to address, and creates numerous other issues. As has been pointed out, the FAQ does not say what the design team said it was supposed to say. Instead, when the mount charges the rider is automatically charging. That's one thing if everyone is being treated equally, but this is directly at odds with what SRMF said the FAQ was going to allow. Further, it takes issues related to the Ride and Handle Animal skills that were basically academic before and makes them points of immediate concern. RAW characters without Animal Companions cannot perform a mounted charge. No character can use the Ride skill when charging on a mount to Spur their mount. And numerous other issues.

4) It takes a narrow and highly conditional combat type (mounted) and restricts it even more, allowing fewer options for players. This is a big one. How is it a good idea to take away fun and flavorful options from a segment of players who already have issues with getting to regularly use their mounts and mounted abilities, both in PFS and in home play?

One sentence "Feats and abilities which refer to charging or using a charge action while mounted refer to your mount using the charge action while you are mounted" would have solved every single issue. Instead they have to ammend FAQs, tell us that we cannot take them at their word unless it's posted in a FAQ or errata and even then it's subject to change, cut and paste entire paragraphs in the CRB, and change the equipment entries for lances in every book they appear in. They're also going to have more FAQs and changes to make to supporting mechanics before this actually becomes a functional change.
How can you argue that the latter option was the correct course? Why is a solution that invalidates play options and creates more issues than it solves preferable to one that had no negative impact on anyone's characters and actually opened up more options in the game?


@ryric
I am spoilering it because it kinda is a threadjack.

eye ray and vital strike:

No one can't make that arguement, the ability clearly is standard action for two eye beams. The author clearly was confused on how to use vital strike (which isn't a big deal since a lot people get confused by that feat).
Anyway the issue is that there are small differences* to using the one ray+vital strike with a standard action (if it was legal) and using two rays with a standard action BUT the real issue is that a number of people in the forum, of that AP, (becuase of the lack of big differences between the two ways) took it to mean that the monster can fire two rays, use vital strike in one of them and end doing 45d6 damage total.

*both options end up doing 30d6 but in the one ray+vital strike instance (if it was legal) you have only one attack roll and it's only one attack, which means that resist energy protects you less than in the instance of two rays


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ssalarn, all but one of my questions were issues before the current FAQ and they were issues before the SKR post. Except for one (which I stated was related), they exist without the "you are charging/you are not charging" issue. You are being disingenuous by using my post as an example for your case.

Your statement specifically said that "there is a greater number of questions and discrepancies" and linked my post. That is either an incorrect statement or a lie. My post had exactly ONE issue brought about by the current discussion. One issue is not a "greater number". It is in fact an "equal number". As stated earlier, all of the other issues in my post exist separately from the "am I charging when my mount charges" issue.

Even if the FAQ backed up SKR's statement my post (save the one issue directly stemming from the current FAQ) would remain. In fact, I would have several more FAQ questions relating to specific feats which do not work as written when using SKR's statement.

You and I have argued over this issue before, it is not worth it. All I ask is that you do not use misrepresent my posts as backing up your own.


leo1925 wrote:

@ryric

No one can't make that arguement, the ability clearly is standard action for two eye beams.

Why is that?

Grand Lodge

James Risner wrote:
Athaleon wrote:
Like what? I never noticed any, but then I rarely check it for core rules. Seems to me they stay up to date on errata.

Usually it is transcription errors, interpretation errors, etc. I've witnessed many many errors (at least 5 or 10)

If you can't deal with it until you are given an example, then here is an example:

Fox Shape does not have that Special line.

Correct, it doesn't have that Special line. However, the side bar that it's printed in does list that as the rule.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

Gauss wrote:

Ssalarn, all but one of my questions were issues before the current FAQ and they were issues before the SKR post. Except for one (which I stated was related), they have nothing to do with the "you are charging/you are not charging" issue. You are being extremely disingenuous by stating that my post has anything to do with that issue.

Your statement specifically said that "there is a greater number of questions and discrepancies" and linked my post. That is either an incorrect statement or a lie. My post had exactly ONE issue brought about by the current discussion. One issue is not a "greater number". It is in fact an "equal number". As stated earlier, all of the other issues in my post exist separately from the "am I charging when my mount charges" issue.

Even if things were ruled "your way" my post (save the one issue directly stemming from the current FAQ) would remain. In fact, I would have several more FAQ questions relating to specific feats which do not work as written when using SKR's statement.

You and I have argued over this issue before, it is not worth it. All I ask is that you do not use misrepresent my posts as backing up your own.

I am not misrepresenting anything. As I have stated, multiple times, had they affirmed SKR's statement that the mount is the one charging with a simple FAQ like- "Feats and abilities which refer to charging or using a charge action while mounted refer to your mount using the charge action while you are mounted" (the interpretation backed by the chunk of the CRB that they are now deleting), the questions " If your mount charges can you elect not to charge so that you can perform other actions (such as spellcasting)?",

"Can you make a lance attack when your mount charges?", and "Does Ride supersede Handle Animal? " would have been either answered or of little impact.

Whether or not Ride supersedes Handle Animal (which by RAW it does not) would have been largely academic because characters would have had all the actions necessary to perform either way. Instead, the new ruling immediately requires a FAQ for any character who purchased a mount instead of gaining one as an animal companion to know if they can even use several of their feats and abilities at all.

Whether or not you can elect not to charge when your mount charges would also have been resolved as it was a non-existent issue under SKR's clarification and the old rules which are being removed from the CRB.

Whether you can make a lance attack when your mount charges was much easier to answer when you were not also charging. You could take a standard action on your turn to attack at the appropriate time and every single equipment entry of the lance made it clear that you obtained the bonus damage. Now, since you are also charging, there is an issue, because you have to end your[/]i charge before the mount can end [i]his, assuming you are both targeting the same enemy.

These questions absolutely support my point, and are an appropriate reference.


Alexandros Satorum wrote:
leo1925 wrote:

@ryric

No one can't make that arguement, the ability clearly is standard action for two eye beams.
Why is that?

eye ray+vital strike issue:

Becuase the ability says that it fires two rays and activating that ability is a standard action, how can you go from that to i can fire one ray with an attack action?
Is it possible for a 7th level wizard to use an attack action to fire only one scorching ray? No it isn't, because he needs to cast the spell which is a standard action.

PS. I know that the monster in question doesn't use a spell to get his two eye rays but it was the closer example i could think in a moment's notice.


leo1925 wrote:
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
leo1925 wrote:

@ryric

No one can't make that arguement, the ability clearly is standard action for two eye beams.
Why is that?
** spoiler omitted **

Spoiler:
You are right

I keep seeing these references to "the way it worked up until now" (paraphrasing) as though that was so clear and explicit, but it never seemed that way to me.

What I remember is SKR stating that when your mount charges you do not charge, which seemed like a from-the-hip way to shut down ragelancepounce, then bazillions of posts followed saying ok if that's the case half of the mounted combat rules and associated feats don't work, and SKR just kinda backed away from the pandora's box his comment opened. Whatever "way it worked" between then and now has been independently drawn conclusions unless I missed something.

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I honestly feel like a blog post would be the best option for the mounted combat system at this point. One of my GM's has soft banned (AKA if you make a mounted character, you'll lose your mount over and over and over...) mounted characters in combat simply because of the mess that it is.

Everybody (or I should say mostly everybody) recognizes it as a mess. A good portion of classes and archetypes rely on the system. Having a clear, concise write up of developer intent in a form that is official would greatly improve game play in pathfinder. It would be one thing that Pathfinder would have above any other TT RPG.

Though we should continue this in another thread, and leave this thread to continue about vital strike. Here a link to a new thread about the different issues in the mounted combat section.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

Grimmy wrote:

I keep seeing these references to "the way it worked up until now" (paraphrasing) as though that was so clear and explicit, but it never seemed that way to me.

What I remember is SKR stating that when your mount charges you do not charge, which seemed like a from-the-hip way to shut down ragelancepounce, then bazillions of posts followed saying ok if that's the case half of the mounted combat rules and associated feats don't work, and SKR just kinda backed away from the pandora's box his comment opened. Whatever "way it worked" between then and now has been independently drawn conclusions unless I missed something.

There was a FAQ supporting SKR's ruling, which was in line with numerous blocks of text. You'll notice as part of this FAQ they're deleting almost an entire paragraph out of the CRB, and amending an existing FAQ, which leaves other issues still unresolved, as I've detailed at some length.

James Jacobs even chimed in on this issue, saying that of course the feats and abilities saying "when charging while mounted" obviously work, even the wording is a little poor.

As I noted here there was ample evidence to support a ruling that allowed the Vital Strike combo.

I've also noted how the mounted combat rules have to be tossed out the window to accomodate a reading of the rules where both characters are charging, but to be fair, the design team saw that and has specifically said in the fact that throwing those rules out is the direction they decided to go with.

To accomodate this ruling, the design team has had to:

1) Put instructions in the FAQ to remove a paragraph from the mounted combat rules.
2) Tell us that what they say cannot be counted upon unless it is in a FAQ or errata.
3) Amend an existing FAQ.

Note the issues with options 2 and 3.

With the new FAQ in place, they still have to:
1) FAQ the Ride and Handle Skill interactions.
2) Amend every instance of the Lance equipment entry to reflect the new ruling.
3) Address numerous other ancillary issues (detailed at some length though not in their completeness earlier in the thread), like how it's possible for a rider to end his charge before the mount ends its charge.

A simple, one sentence ruling like the one I suggested earlier supporting the previous interpretations, which were supported by statements from SKR and JJ and the swaths of material they're now removing or amending, would have resolved many issues, or made them items of very little import. It also would have had no impact on players who were using either interpretation of the rules, other than to potentially open up more options, something frequently clamored for, especially from people playing classes like the Fighter and Cavalier whose options are generally already pretty limited to variations on one or two themes.

Lantern Lodge

By the way, the FAQ changed wording:

Mounted Combat: When making a charge while mounted, which creature charges? The rider or the mount?
Both charge in unison, suffer the same penalty to AC, the gaining the same bonus to the attack rolls and following all other rules for the charge. The mounted combat rules are a little unclear on this. Replace the third paragraph under the "Combat while Mounted" section on page 202 with the following text. Note that a "mounted charge" is synonymous with a "charge while mounted," and that when a lance is "when used from the back of a charging mount" it is during a mounted charge not when only the mount charges.

A mounted charge is a charge made by you and your mount. During a mounted charge, you deal double damage with your first melee attack made with a lance or with any weapon if you have Spirited Charge (or a similar effect), or you deal triple damage with a lance and Spirited Charge.

This change will be reflected in future printings of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook

From

Mounted Combat: When making a charge while mounted, which creature charges? The rider or the mount?
Both charge in unison, suffer the same penalty to AC, the gaining the same bonus to the attack rolls and following all other rules for the charge. The mounted combat rules are a little unclear on this. Replace the third paragraph under the "Combat while Mounted" section on page 202 with the following text. Note that a "mounted charge" is synonymous with a "charge while mounted."

A mounted charge is a charge made by you and your mount. During a mounted charge, you deal double damage with your first melee attack made with a lance or with any weapon if you have Spirited Charge (or a similar effect), or you deal triple damage with a lance and Spirited Charge.

This change will be reflected in future printings of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook


although i have to agree that the FAQ might not be any clearer than the rules currently printed are, i would have to say that it seems to me that they are making a clear distinction that "mounted charge" and "charge while mounted" as an action is one that the character, not the mount, starts.

so i would have to say that its still perfectly legal for the mount to use its own action economy to make a charge, and as long as the character riding on isn't trying to get the double damage, his actions are still his own. so its still possible to cast a spell, make a vital strike'd attack, or anything else you can do with a standard action because you are not the one charging, just the horse. but if you WERE the one trying to charge, you now FORCE the horse to charge as well.

this is my interpretation given that i gave up on this thread after the ruling was made and am now just coming back to see what the kerfuffle is about.

none the less, i do agree that this new FAQ is just as unclear as everything was before, and seeming answered no questions.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Jeff Merola wrote:
However, the side bar that it's printed in does list that as the rule.

That is not a special line and these feats can't be taken by people with Fighter bonus feats. Only level based General feats gained at 1st, 3rd, 5th, etc.

Do we need to debate whether or not there are errors on the site? Or can we leave it alone? There are obvious errors. It is a difference in philosophy. They edit as they wish and I'd prefer unedited rules.

Grand Lodge

James Risner wrote:
Jeff Merola wrote:
However, the side bar that it's printed in does list that as the rule.

That is not a special line and these feats can't be taken by people with Fighter bonus feats. Only level based General feats gained at 1st, 3rd, 5th, etc.

Do we need to debate whether or not there are errors on the site? Or can we leave it alone? There are obvious errors. It is a difference in philosophy. They edit as they wish and I'd prefer unedited rules.

While I agree that there are errors on the site, you're now arguing intent over strict "this is in error" rules on this particular issue, since the book says that kitsune can take them any time they would gain a feat, not something like "any time they would gain a feat from hit dice" or "only a kitsune can take these feats."


And the PRD isn't perfect either. They still haven't sorted out the Crane Wing errata, and that was pointed out on the day it happened, how long ago?


FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:

I honestly feel like a blog post would be the best option for the mounted combat system at this point. One of my GM's has soft banned (AKA if you make a mounted character, you'll lose your mount over and over and over...) mounted characters in combat simply because of the mess that it is.

Everybody (or I should say mostly everybody) recognizes it as a mess. A good portion of classes and archetypes rely on the system. Having a clear, concise write up of developer intent in a form that is official would greatly improve game play in pathfinder. It would be one thing that Pathfinder would have above any other TT RPG.

Though we should continue this in another thread, and leave this thread to continue about vital strike. Here a link to a new thread about the different issues in the mounted combat section.

I would echo this and appreciate it. I'd also love to see the ride skill supersede the handle animal skill officially when working mounted. I believe this would add some clarity as well as general streamlining to mounted combat.

As a side note, I sympathize with you both.

201 to 250 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.