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?
My understanding is that there's a central sort of documentations source in XML containing most of the PRD, Rulebooks, and so on that's maintained in InDesign. To update the PRD, they have to go back to the source, and then follow through the entire publication cycle once again.
This republication then spiders off in several directions from the single source. In theory.
In theory, XML publication is easy. In practice, there are quirks--most likely seen when we saw the titled updated to 'Playtest' not too long ago.
This also suggests that there's an established documentation team as well as a series of teams surrounding that. I'm not too surprised the error hasn't been fixed yet.
That said, the person who probably needs asked about it isn't a developer, but one of the documentation managers. I'm not sure if they've been updated or not, or what their republication schedule/cycle is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps for this thread we need to start a list of what DOES work with vital strike. I think maybe I'll start a new thread with that name and we can go from there
Perhaps for this thread we need to start a list of what DOES work with vital strike. I think maybe I'll start a new thread with that name and we can go from there
That sounds like a great idea.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
you're now arguing intent
No, but I see we will be at this for hours.
I'm arguing that there is no way they don't know what that means and it does not mean they can take those any time other than 1st level, 3rd level, etc.
The site has countless errors, this is not the only error.
And the PRD isn't perfect either.
The PDF books and the PRD should be identical, are you saying it isn't?
Check out the Crane Wing feats I linked. Crane Wing still has the old text, and Crane Riposte lists the new text from Crane Wing. That was pointed out on the day of the errata and it's still not fixed. I'm not going to pore over it for other examples.
James Risner, the PRD has had inaccuracies for a long time. Even simple ones like the light spell have yet to be corrected.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
any time they gain a feat, yes, you are definitely arguing intent.
The normal feats say that, so are you saying all feats can be taken any time? You are definitely arguing made up rules. Please let us shift to the numerous other threads on these feats instead of polluting this thread with this discussion.
I have to assume it does what it says, therefore any time a kitsune gains a feat, she may take those racial feats.
I have to assume that the rest of the "errors" james refers to are of a similar nature, ah well.
To do that it needs to say "any time she take a feat from a limited list, she may choose one of these feats instead.
Yes some of the other errors are related to this awkward RAW where you pick your wildest dream of interpretations and run with it.
But many of them are reach diagram errors (incorrect squares shown to be in or out of reach) and old text from the 1st printing still on the site and not updated with future printings came out.
In short, the site is a 3rd party source with 3rd party delay in updating and editorial review on what the rules mean.
James Risner, the PRD has had inaccuracies for a long time. Even simple ones like the light spell have yet to be corrected.
How about I revise my point. Do what I do then. Look at the latest PDF instead of any online source.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
James Risner, if you have ever seen me post a quote it is always from a PDF rather than an online source. I use online sources as a quick lookup but for the real thing I go to the latest book.
With the new FAQ, is there any word on who needs the feats now, the mount or the rider? Or both?
This has come up in some of my games and I would appreciate an answer as I'd like to be fair.
With the new FAQ, is there any word on who needs the feats now, the mount or the rider? Or both?
This has come up in some of my games and I would appreciate an answer as I'd like to be fair.
Well, it seems Stephen has retreated from the topic entirely. He hasn't addressed any of the accusations that the new FAQ has broken many other things at all, nor has any mention been made, from him or otherwise, that it's even something that's being looked into.
:-/
|
My hope is that they've realized that mounted combat didn't need one little FAQ that addressed one specific action. It needed massive reconstructive surgery that addressed all of the ancillary items, including the Ride and Handle Animal skills, followed by a nice comprehensive blog post that went over how they envision it working at length, especially considering the direction they chose to go with this ruling. I would hope that they're taking the time to carefully work through the ramifications and review all the ways this ruling impacts a very complex subsystem so they can come back with a definitive clarification that resolves the many issues still plaguing mounted combat.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
With the new FAQ, is there any word on who needs the feats now, the mount or the rider? Or both?
This has come up in some of my games and I would appreciate an answer as I'd like to be fair.
Well, it seems Stephen has retreated from the topic entirely. He hasn't addressed any of the accusations that the new FAQ has broken many other things at all, nor has any mention been made, from him or otherwise, that it's even something that's being looked into.
:-/
I'm sure the thread has got mounted combat on the list for a more thorough fix, whenever the designers have time for it. As the thread has rightly brought out, the mounted combat rules are a mess!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm still stuck on this mission to keep Vital Strike from being usable in creative niche ways. For me, the rules mastery aspect of the game is as much about the archetypes these mechanics bring to mind as the combat effectiveness they provide. When I originally came across the synergy of Spirited Charge and the Vital Strike chain, it suggested a build less Strength-based: a careful striker who relied an superior technique over brute strength. (The Knight of Flowers versus Clegane comes to mind). Understanding the rules as I did pre-FAQ, I appreciated the flexibility that helped bring about a unique build that I enjoy and hasn't broken anything. Under the new ruling, the archetype of the gentleman lancer who prevails through superior technique over brute force (e.g., max strength + power attack + furious focus) is a harder sell, an also-ran who "doesn't really work" in Golarion. Even though this won't affect my current game, it bums me out to see it unsupported by IMHO unwarranted changes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My hope is that they've realized that mounted combat didn't need one little FAQ that addressed one specific action. It needed massive reconstructive surgery that addressed all of the ancillary items, including the Ride and Handle Animal skills, followed by a nice comprehensive blog post that went over how they envision it working at length, especially considering the direction they chose to go with this ruling. I would hope that they're taking the time to carefully work through the ramifications and review all the ways this ruling impacts a very complex subsystem so they can come back with a definitive clarification that resolves the many issues still plaguing mounted combat.
It is the most optimistic explanation for this silence. They've realized the current rules are a mess, and don't want to risk making any more statements that might just muddy the waters further. I certainly prefer that possibility to the pessimistic idea that they're hoping the problem will just go away on its own if they ignore it hard enough. Anyone who spends time on the forums knows that never happens.
With the new FAQ, is there any word on who needs the feats now, the mount or the rider? Or both?
This has come up in some of my games and I would appreciate an answer as I'd like to be fair.
Well, it seems Stephen has retreated from the topic entirely. He hasn't addressed any of the accusations that the new FAQ has broken many other things at all, nor has any mention been made, from him or otherwise, that it's even something that's being looked into.
:-/
It does need some discussion. My hope is for small realignments or clarifications that make it work more smoothly. I'm okay with the new FAQ; I'm also grateful they've discussed it and hope to see more brought to the table, as it were.
It matters for my players and while I'm okay with crafting more general guidelines as to how the rules are interpreted, I'd love it if there could be something more official, instead.
The most delicate areas I'm concerned with:
- Guidelines for dividing up who needs what feat, mount/rider
- The ride skill replacing Handle Animal when controlling mounts in combat, officially (though this is minor--it's easy enough to handwave...the first is more difficult)
So in the end, not too much at all, but who possesses and uses the feats are stumping, as it were. I suspect a hard line would be difficult to construct, given the wording of a number of feats. Developer intent/guidance really would be enough.
i agree that it does not seem logical that the developers do not want creative uses and niche builds made out of this feat. that said, i can understand the reason behind it to a degree.
if you created a feat with the soul purpose of "when you cant do your main thing you do" as the basis of its design, it stands to reason that whenever making a ruling or clarification on that feat, that you rule or clarify AGAINST anything that would be outside of its original design.
that said, i dont like it when my creativity gets trampled on because im trying to use something "outside of its intended purpose". i personally believe that thinking outside the box should be rewarded, not stifled...but thats just me.
i agree that it does not seem logical that the developers do not want creative uses and niche builds made out of this feat. that said, i can understand the reason behind it to a degree.
if you created a feat with the soul purpose of "when you cant do your main thing you do" as the basis of its design, it stands to reason that whenever making a ruling or clarification on that feat, that you rule or clarify AGAINST anything that would be outside of its original design.
that said, i dont like it when my creativity gets trampled on because im trying to use something "outside of its intended purpose". i personally believe that thinking outside the box should be rewarded, not stifled...but thats just me.
There are all forms of creativity. I've been trying to reconcile the old Rules of the Game article with PF and back and forth. It was the most comprehensive guide I've seen yet, though there are parts of PF it doesn't work with and vice versa.
One of the parts I enjoyed with 3.5 is that when you performed a maneuver when mounted, the rider and mount counted as a unit. You used the mount's size and strength bonus, for example. OTOH, it seemed for the trade-off that the both of you only received the one action (in addition to movement).
I doubt that interpretation will make it into PF, even though it felt "right" from a creative standpoint.
We all play differently. I'm grateful for a roundtable discussion amongst Paizo devs, rather than posts by one or two people here and there. These rules deserve that attention.
If you're defining "creative use" as either breaking the intent, or twisting the rules entirely, then yes, you're correct.i agree that it does not seem logical that the developers do not want creative uses and niche builds made out of this feat. that said, i can understand the reason behind it to a degree.
you are twisting my words. i said it does not seem logical that they DONT want you to do these things. i didn't say that anything was breaking the intent. to be clear, intent should not be placed on "how something is used", only on "how it should be understood". if you limit things such as feats, abilities, and spell to "intent", then you limit the imagination of the user.
example: using divination spells "intended" for spying on others in conjunction with conjuration spells used for summoning things. this combination is a wonderful example of mixing magic schools in a new, creative way with an awesome result. you use divination to "see" your target in another room, then conjure a creature to attack it, all the while you remain safely hidden away somewhere else. this creative thinking is what makes this game so fun. if you limit those two schools of magic to their "intended purposes" alone, then things like this are not possible and the game becomes stale.
|
|
Aside from which, Vital Strike on a mounted charge was legit until just a few days ago, so there have been all kind of creative or cool builds that used to be in play that have since gone the way of the dodo. Things like the mounted Gorgon's Fist strike, the Spirited Charge Spellstrike from a Phantasmal Steed, etc.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
it does not seem logical that they DONT want you to do these things.
It doesn't seem logical that they don't want to prohibit awkwardly avoiding prohibitions by interpreting the rules in a way that you can suggest the prohibitions don't apply?
Seems logical they would like to close these interpretations off to me.
OK. Now read the rest of the original post that I said that in...
|
|
you are twisting my words. i said it does not seem logical that they DONT want you to do these things.If you're defining "creative use" as either breaking the intent, or twisting the rules entirely, then yes, you're correct.i agree that it does not seem logical that the developers do not want creative uses and niche builds made out of this feat. that said, i can understand the reason behind it to a degree.
Especially when they publish things like the Valkyrie whose stat block would very much lead you to believe that she's combining both Spirited Charge and Vital Strike, especially in light of the previous commentary.
But hopefully we'll be seeing an answer in the FAQ thread looking to get this mess sorted out sometime in the not too distant future.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Especially when they publish things like the Valkyrie whose stat block would very much lead you to believe that she's combining both Spirited Charge and Vital Strike
Why? Because she has both feats?
So having an option when you can't charge makes you think it is only there for when you can?
|
|
Especially when they publish things like the Valkyrie whose stat block would very much lead you to believe that she's combining both Spirited Charge and Vital StrikeWhy? Because she has both feats?
So having an option when you can't charge makes you think it is only there for when you can?
When a mounted flying creature has a feat line up like "Mounted Combat, Power Attack, Ride-By Attack, Skill Focus (Ride), Spirited Charge, Trample, Vital Strike, Weapon Focus (spear)", yeah, most GMs are going to assume those are all meant to work together. And until very recently, they did.
|
When a mounted flying creature has a feat line up like "Mounted Combat, Power Attack, Ride-By Attack, Skill Focus (Ride), Spirited Charge, Trample, Vital Strike, Weapon Focus (spear)", yeah, most GMs are going to assume those are all meant to work together. And until very recently, they did.Especially when they publish things like the Valkyrie whose stat block would very much lead you to believe that she's combining both Spirited Charge and Vital StrikeWhy? Because she has both feats?
So having an option when you can't charge makes you think it is only there for when you can?
But at the same time, they only did work for a few months. the RAGELANCEPOUNCE faq made vital strike on a charge possible. So when that material was written, it probably wasn't in the rules that you could vital strike on a charge.
|
|
But at the same time, they only did work for a few months. the RAGELANCEPOUNCE faq made vital strike on a charge possible. So when that material was written, it probably wasn't in the rules that you could vital strike on a charge.
Vital Striking on a charge had always been possible, SKR just verified that that was the case. That's why the new FAQ required them to delete an entire paragraph out of the mounted combat section and change all of the equipment entries for the lance. I'd bet money the guy who did that write-up planned on the Valkyrie performing Vital Strike charges, but I could be wrong, and it could have been intended for the Valkyrie's ranged attacks.
For that to happen she'd have to be in a situation where she can't charge, but can only make a single attack (as spirited charge already doubles the damage on a charge so it is always superior to vital strike in situations where she can charge). I guess maybe if she like, has to ride around a corner and doesn't have straight LOS it could be but... doesn't she have a flying mount and ride-by? I mean it seems like a very unlikely situation where she can't charge, and even more unlikely that she'd go with vital strike cause it's good enough (especially since she can't even use vital strike with ride-by I think).
Correct, Ride-by and Vital Strike are incompatible. There just aren't a lot of situations where you're going to see a creature with Ride-by Attack and a reach weapon riding a mount that can walk on air ever having or needing to use Vital Strike.
But at the same time, they only did work for a few months. the RAGELANCEPOUNCE faq made vital strike on a charge possible. So when that material was written, it probably wasn't in the rules that you could vital strike on a charge.When a mounted flying creature has a feat line up like "Mounted Combat, Power Attack, Ride-By Attack, Skill Focus (Ride), Spirited Charge, Trample, Vital Strike, Weapon Focus (spear)", yeah, most GMs are going to assume those are all meant to work together. And until very recently, they did.Especially when they publish things like the Valkyrie whose stat block would very much lead you to believe that she's combining both Spirited Charge and Vital StrikeWhy? Because she has both feats?
So having an option when you can't charge makes you think it is only there for when you can?
There was a some point a discussion clarifying that you could not vital strike on a charge, I believe. If that is the case, then allowing the mount to charge but the rider not, yet the rider still gaining the benefits of a charge and none of the restrictions sounds more and more like an unintentional loophole.
|
|
There was a some point a discussion clarifying that you could not vital strike on a charge, I believe. If that is the case, then allowing the mount to charge but the rider not, yet the rider still gaining the benefits of a charge and none of the restrictions sounds more and more like an unintentional loophole.
Or the natural result of having two creatures working together.
Can you honestly say that it makes sense that a mount could spend the entire round at a full out run and the guy on its back can draw wands, drink potions, brush his freaking teeth, and then still make an attack (including Vital Strike) or cast a spell at the end, but if he wants to benefit from the momentum of that charging monster he's sitting on he has to spend the entire round leaning forward?
It's ridiculous, and it doesn't make any sense. Vital Strike doesn't work with other things because of action economy. A charge is usually a full round action and Vital Strike is a standard action, so the two exclude each other. Mounted Combat gave the rider back some action economy making it possible. It's one of the benefits you're supposed to get in exchange for tying all of your viability up in abilities reliant on a target twice your size that caps at 12 hit die having a straight line to your enemy. That would be like a wizard having to wear his flesh and blood familiar with half as many as a shield and still keep it alive if he wanted to cast spells, without actually being able to cast any spells to protect the familiar.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
no problem with being conservative, but you should be aware that your opinion/experience is not the most generic one.
Depends on your area. I find I'm awfully liberal in the rules at a lot of tables I'm sitting. Both in my area and in my experience at large conventions. I've got no less than 5 PFS characters I don't play because my "conservative" rules interpretations were far too liberal for the average table. Why play something when you get nerfed every other table.
This from the biggest conservative rules interpreter on the forums?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ssalarn, you often state it was always possible. Do you have a citation to back that up?
I am not aware of SKR stating that it was always possible. To my knowledge he neither stated that it was always possible nor did he state it was not always possible. He made a statement that the rider is not charging his mount is charging without providing any historical background.
In fact, if you check the historical background (3.X) it was unclear until it was clarified in "Rules of the Game: All About Mounts" where it was placed in the Full-Round Action category for rider's actions when riding a moving mount. I am not aware of anything Paizo/Pathfinder did to change that understanding (pro or con) until SKR's post.
You repeatedly make statements that this has always been possible but the fact is, until SKR made his statement it was not well explained and many people were forced to rule one way or the other.
Additionally, you and several others keep stating that this was covered in the RAGELANCEPOUNCE FAQ and that is also not true. There was no statement in the FAQ that a rider was not charging. It required SKR providing further explanation in a post (not FAQ) to arrive at that conclusion.
Ssalarn, you often state it was always possible. Do you have a citation to back that up?
I am not aware of SKR stating that it was always possible. To my knowledge he neither stated that it was always possible nor did he state it was not always possible. He made a statement that the rider is not charging his mount is charging without providing any historical background.
In fact, if you check the historical background (3.X) it was unclear until it was clarified in "Rules of the Game: All About Mounts" where it was placed in the Full-Round Action category for rider's actions when riding a moving mount. I am not aware of anything Paizo/Pathfinder did to change that understanding (pro or con) until SKR's post.
You repeatedly make statements that this has always been possible but the fact is, until SKR made his statement it was not well explained and many people were forced to rule one way or the other.
Additionally, you and several others keep stating that this was covered in the RAGELANCEPOUNCE FAQ and that is also not true. There was no statement in the FAQ that a rider was not charging. It required SKR providing further explanation in a post (not FAQ) to arrive at that conclusion.
he is basing his statement that it "was always possible" on the quote from SKR that clarified it. what he means is that although it was unclear before what SKR said, when SKR said what he did, it meants that it had always worked that way.
A quote from a Dev stating how something works is in no way a statement on how it has or has not always worked unless the Dev states that. To say otherwise is supposition.
We do not know why SKR made his statement. Was it a reaction to RAGELANCEPOUNCE? Was it how it always worked? Was it a grey area that allowed him to make a ruling? Any of these fit the statement he made. How do we know which one is true? We don't. Any statement that it has (or has not) always worked that way cannot be based on SKR's forum post regarding the rider not charging because he did not make such a statement in that post.
|
|
I think that the fact that their most recent FAQ involved changing entire paragraphs, an existing FAQ, and entries in multiple books speaks well enough as to the fact that this ruling is a change to the existing materials, making them say something different than what they said before. The fact that both SKR and JJ supported the fact that the rider was not the one charging only underscores that fact.
it is an assumption that CAN be made when a writer/author/developer of something is asked a question (or in this case makes a statement) about something that they created that what they say is exactly how they envisioned it to always be. granted, the PF developers were not the original writers of the text in question, but that doesn't mean that they are not the current ruling determination. as a developer, it is their responsibility to understand that anything and everything they say can and probably will be considered by players as law within the rules and those players with most likely consider what is said as how the rules were always meant to be used.
if JJ were to say right now that it is not possible to wear a headband and a helmet at the same time, most people would assume that that statement means that it was never possible and that they have been playing incorrectly up until that point.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
this ruling is a change to the existing materials, making them say something different than what they said before. The fact that both SKR and JJ supported the fact that the rider was not the one charging only underscores that fact.
It is a change to the books, but it doesn't have to be a change to how it was "supposed" to work.
I've yet to see SKR or JJ post a quote saying "you can Vital Strike on top of a charging mount".
exactly the point. they've never directly said that you can, so it is safe to assume that it was never possible to begin with. at least it was never intended to work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They don't directly say a lot of things. So what? The point is that there used to be good reason to believe that a rider was allowed a standard action when riding a charging mount. Vital Strike is a special standard action. It seemed to fit. Nothing in CRB indicated otherwise, only the wording of some feats. JJ responded generally to complaints concerning these apparent discrepancies that such feats were meant to be read with the understanding that the rider and mount maintained separate action economies, maintaining CRB. That SKR quote was just an affirmation of CRB as well. Others disagreed, but it made sense. But now that they changed that part of the rules to mean something else, we're evaluating the new discrepancies. Ho-hum.
|
|
I've yet to see SKR or JJ post a quote saying "you can Vital Strike on top of a charging mount".
There's nothing in the books that says Wizards can cast Fireballs either, but everyone knows they can (or at least we've got a pretty good reason to believe they can).
We know they can cast Fireballs, because there are rules that say they can cast fireballs, and fireballs are a type of spell. By that same token, we knew that the mount was the one charging, not the rider, and that the attack that was allowed after a mount moved was an attack action. Since a Vital Strike is a type of attack action, they worked.
It is a change to the books, but it doesn't have to be a change to how it was "supposed" to work.
They changed the rules, but they didn't change what they meant to say back before someone else said that it meant something different...
That's not even an argument anymore. They changed the rules. It worked before, and now it doesn't, and a bunch of other things don't jive anymore either. That's the whole point. Whether or not they intended it to work that way, it's been the way it has been for several years now, and the only people on the staff who've chimed in have been to reinforce a rules interpretation completely contradictory to the one that was laid out in this thread.
Yes they are changing the rules to fix a long time (since 3.X) grey area. Is this changing them? Yes. Is it changing them to contradict a firm rule? No, the rule was unclear at best.
Making things say something different than before does not necessarily mean they are changing how something worked if how something worked was unclear at best. For example, cleaning up text means the text is different than before but it may not change how the rule works.
I am not stating your side (rider should be allowed to use standard actions in a mounted charge) should not be the way things are done. I am saying that the mounted combat rules have NEVER been clear. They have needed cleaning up for 3 editions of the rules now.
Now, if people could just acknowledge that they were not clear rather than claiming they have always been clear and now the rules are suddenly being changed then we can better discuss the changes being made. After all, from some peoples point of view (my own included) SKR's comment flew in the face of years of rules understanding all in what was perceived to be an attempt to prevent one form of abuse.
P.S. For those of you saying that they don't directly say things doesn't matter, a number of posts back people claimed that SKR only affirmed the rule as it had always existed. Something which he had NOT stated. That is where it matters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see the point in rehashing arguments over rules that no longer exist. FWIW, no, SKR did not say he was upholding CRB. But he was commenting on CRB rules, explaining how they worked, and in doing so affirmed what was already written there. That is where it mattered.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ Caeserion
I don't think you've actually been following what I'm saying. I never said the Cavalier needed to spend a move action to Handle Animal; I said that classes like the Dragoon, Roughrider, and Sohei who specialize in mounted combat but don't get animal companions have to spend a move action. You're clarifying something everyone already knew.
What I was saying is ridiculous as regards the Cavalier is that he can (assuming we understand the RAI of the FAQ to match with SRMF's interpretation) have a mount run full out and spend his move action brushing his teeth, drawing/drinking a potion, etc. and then Vital Strike at the end, but if he wants it to be considered a charge he has to spend the whole round leaning forward and doing nothing. It's illogical that the cavalier loses action economy somewhere between the mount double-moving, running, or withdrawing, and the mount charging.
There's a situation now where the RAW prevents anyone who doesn't have an animal companion from performing a mounted charge, and causes the animal's actions to dictate the rider's. All of this to nerf what is probably the most highly situational and least consistent combat style in the game. It would be akin to a ruling that Double Slice cannot be used in the same round that you make a full attack. The option would suddenly only be available to an incredily small percentage of the design space, and it would damage a fighting style that already requires a large amount of set up to make functional.