So I have a question about this spell and taking along a passenger, is this a legal way to move another character so they don’t have to use their move actions to move.
Example arcanist altered self in to a Sasquatch tell the barbarian to jump on the disc the following round with the barbarian on the disc the Sasquatch charges the BBG can the barbarian come along and get its full attack’s during its round?
I don't think this is directly addressed by RAW, but it seems to me it should be run as mounted combat on a steed that happens to direct itself. In particular, if the "mount" moves more than 5', the rider only gets one attack.
I would treat this like riding a mount, so no.
But in general, yes a creature other than the caster could ride the disk assuming the disk can support the creatures weight, and assuming the creature can reasonably fit on a 3' disk, so medium or smaller creatures yes, large creatures maybe no. Large than larger, no.
But again, I would treat this like being on a mount, which limits you to you one attack for the round, if you mvoe more than 5'.
Combat while Mounted
With a DC 5 Ride check, you can guide your mount with your knees so as to use both hands to attack or defend yourself. This is a free action.When you attack a creature smaller than your mount that is on foot, you get the +1 bonus on melee attacks for being on higher ground. If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only make a single melee attack. Essentially, you have to wait until the mount gets to your enemy before attacking, so you can’t make a full attack. Even at your mount’s full speed, you don’t take any penalty on melee attacks while mounted.
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).
You can use ranged weapons while your mount is taking a double move, but at a –4 penalty on the attack roll. You can use ranged weapons while your mount is running (quadruple speed) at a –8 penalty. In either case, you make the attack roll when your mount has completed half its movement. You can make a full attack with a ranged weapon while your mount is moving. Likewise, you can take move actions normally.
In that regard Temperans, I've always treated those items as the creature being mounted.
I have seen this listed as a standard way for the caster to trade a move action for moving a melee character into position. As the melee is not moving on their turn, they get to full attack, but probably want to 5' step off the disk to avoid being accidentally moved if the caster fails to enforce the disk's position. [Remember, the disk returns adjacent if you don't direct it.]
EDIT: Also, since the disk can only move at the rate you can move. But if you double-move, the disk cannot keep up. Keeping your melee type stuck on the disk means moving the party at that slow speed and is not desired for most parties. Using it for an ambush, or just before opening that door you the enemy is behind, however, works much better.
/cevah
Really, I've never seen it done, though since I play with the same group of people for most games that's hardly surprising.
Still I'm almost certain it's not intended by the rules.
However, this trick, like being on a mount, would allow the melee character to do something else with their move action besides moving. Which could be useful. I just don't think it will get you a full attack.
The rider of a moving floating disk should also need a non-trivial acrobatics check to keep his balance on that pesky thing.
The floating disk conundrum is not the only situation where a character is being moved rather than using his own action to move. A passenger on a wagon or a boat or a flying carpet that moves at the driver's initiative are all being moved, and could easily find themselves adjacent to an enemy at the end of that move, and try to argue that they should be able to do a full attack.
AFAIK the rules don't address the difference between moving yourself and being moved by somebody else (and hence on a different initiative count).
Rather than treat it as being mounted, you could simply state that being moved more than 5' by an outside agency counts as using a move action. You could still allow non-movement move actions, but the action of being moved would interfere with full attacks (and other full-round actions) and prevent a kind of double move.
But all that is a DM call. RAW is silent on being moved.
For what it's worth you can also move inanimate objects at your speed just fine as well. A person should have no problem staying the disc if a chest full of gold doesn't have an issue. You can even move liquids. Making a person give a check and spend an action to do what their corpse would do without a check is silly.
The mounted rules work well enough as an abstraction that you can't attack while moving. Use those if you want to be restricitive, but RAW there's nothing that prevents the full attack action from being used.
This idea of moving others has been around for decades. See these:
Willingly Failing to Resist Combat Manouvers
Tensers Floating disk and an Archer is this legal?
Spending your action to give someone else a move has been a thing for quite a while. I have almost never seen it used, but how is moving your fighter next to the enemy different from moving an enemy next to the fighter?
/cevah
Spending your action to give someone else a move has been a thing for quite a while. I have almost never seen it used, but how is moving your fighter next to the enemy different from moving an enemy next to the fighter?
/cevah
The main difference is that the enemy is attempting to resist so it's not guaranteed to work.
This difference exists because our pals at Paizo never stopped to consider the ramifications of being moved and the synergy with the full attack action.
So either you run a strict RAW situation, and being moved by a floating disk (or other similar situation) doesn't cost a move action, allowing the disk rider a full attack...
Or you make a DM call and prevent it from happening in your game.
Cevah is right, this has been debated for years. Probably back in the DD3.5 days as well. AFAIK there is no RAW ruling on being moved, whether by floating disk or otherwise.
Note that dim-dooring wizards can put this tactic to good use as well, due to a similar loophole in the action economy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is also the fact no one would prevent you from full attacking while on the back of a wagon, but doing it on top of a floating disk is suddenly super hard?If you dont want melee pseudo pounce just rule that you can't do a melee full-attack after being moved. Suddenly repostion/bull rush got a super buff vs melee characters; also ship battles got nerfed for everyone.
What?!
I do exactly that. If the wagon is moving towards someone else and happens to stop with a PC next to an NPC they don't suddenly get a full attack. Part of that turn was spent moving, even if the PC didn't have to move themselves. This doesn't get you a full attack.
With respect to bull rush and reposition it's different since those are against the characters will. And ship battles are completely irrelevant since two characters on the same boat will not be moving relative to each other if standing still on the boat.
I do exactly that. If the wagon is moving towards someone else and happens to stop with a PC next to an NPC they don't suddenly get a full attack. Part of that turn was spent moving, even if the PC didn't have to move themselves. This doesn't get you a full attack.
This is precisely what I proposed earlier in the thread. The PF rules don't cover the ways being moved (whether by riding a disk, a wagon or a magic carpet) interact with full attack actions (or any full-round action) so IMHO it's up to the DM to impose limits... or not.
Either you rule that only single attack actions are possible, or you allow full attacks after being moved. It's a DM call, and nowhere in the RAW will you find help on this issue.
As usual, archers get around any such limitations, since they can fire a full attack sequences from anywhere. That's just PF archery for you.
I do exactly that. If the wagon is moving towards someone else and happens to stop with a PC next to an NPC they don't suddenly get a full attack. Part of that turn was spent moving, even if the PC didn't have to move themselves. This doesn't get you a full attack.This is precisely what I proposed earlier in the thread. The PF rules don't cover the ways being moved (whether by riding a disk, a wagon or a magic carpet) interact with full attack actions (or any full-round action) so IMHO it's up to the DM to impose limits... or not.
Either you rule that only single attack actions are possible, or you allow full attacks after being moved. It's a DM call, and nowhere in the RAW will you find help on this issue.
As usual, archers get around any such limitations, since they can fire a full attack sequences from anywhere. That's just PF archery for you.
This is all true Wheeldrake, but I just keep coming back to mounted combat is the closest rules analog to a general set of rules for "being moved without using your actions" so it makes sense to me to extend the restrictions.
But you are correct that the situation is never explicitly covered.
I would say that mounted combat is a very special case, and I have argued in other threads that the only way being mounted makes any sense is if you consider the mount and the rider to be a single entity, so that both spend their move actions together. This is never specified either, but it seems to me to be a "given" every time I go back and try to pull together the rules governing mounted combat.
The floating disk reminds me of the situation when a dim-dooring wizard brings his pals along for a fight. The spell specifies that the wizard can't take any actions after dim-dooring (without a special feat) but remains silent on the actions of his pals, who hence get full attacks out of the deal.
I see Dimension Door as a special case as it's instantaneous teleportation movement, that happens to cause the caster to not be able to act.
Regular physical movement takes time, is essentially why mounted combat (and in my view other forms of being moved) prevent you from making full attacks.
So being shoved across a room your still good but carried is a no? And talking about wagons and such that doesn't fit with the rules on vehicles at all which don't give any restrictions for making attacks against other vehicles or people on other vehicles.
And while people on the same ship might be moving the same rate relative what about ship to ship or otherwise? Do Siege engines not work since no-one aboard a a moving ship can take a full-round action if it involves someone on another ship?
And while people on the same ship might be moving the same rate relative what about ship to ship or otherwise? Do Siege engines not work since no-one aboard a a moving ship can take a full-round action if it involves someone on another ship?
last I checked siege engines were ranged weapons, meaning like the aforementioned archers their ability to perform full round actions is not impeded by movement.
as for vehicle combat, what rules are you looking at?
Everything I see says that if you're not crewing then you can act as per the normal rules. So, if you're making a ranged attack you're fine if you're making a melee attack you would only be able to make a single attack based on how far you've moved. Since those are the "normal rules".
I'm confused if being moved via moving on a cart means I can only make 1 melee attack because i'm in motion how do you determine what range penalties apply if a vehicle is moving at extreme speeds? A sail boat might be moving at 180ft per round at max speed If I have a Bab of 6 and rapid shot with short bow and before the movement I was 200 feet away what ranged penalties should each shot take?
None would be the answer based on the rules we do have in the game since if my turn is after the pilots I am 20 feet away when I make my attacks. Even though based on movement at least one of them should have happened at a -4 if I'm shooting while moving. Mounted combat rules don't apply to riding in a cart and applying moving the same amount based on relative location doesn't mean jack since two guys on horses can move side by side on their turns and still only get one attack on each other.
It depends on how realistic the DM wants to make things. Some D20 systems introduce rules that get used for combat where the motion and distances make using the normal rules challenging at best. If the normal combat rules don't make sense for the scenario then use different rules.
I personally like the way vehicle combat is handled in d20 modern. When it comes to ship to ship combat (naval or space) the combat rules in the Starwars D20 system handles it in a way I find elegant.
as for your questions. Distances are measured at the moment you take your attack regardless of what has happened. If you're making a ranged attack then you just apply penalties as normal in addition to any circumstances that would modify it.
If you're trying to make a melee attack then:
1. are you in range?
2. have you moved during the round?
If you're not in melee range then you can't attack. If the movement you experienced prevents you from making a full attack then you can't make a full attack. You don't lose your move action, you just may not be able to do anything useful with it.
Yes, these rules do cause weird things to happen in certain edge cases. The DM is free to change things if they don't like the result. If the whole fight seems like a weird edge case, then maybe the DM should use a different set of combat rules that better represent the scenario. While pathfinder may not have adequate rules you can take advantage of the fact that it's still a d20 system. You can steal the relevant set of rules from any other d20 system and for the most part it will work fine. You may have to sub what skills get used if they aren't skills that normally exist in pathfinder.
So being shoved across a room your still good but carried is a no? And talking about wagons and such that doesn't fit with the rules on vehicles at all which don't give any restrictions for making attacks against other vehicles or people on other vehicles.
And while people on the same ship might be moving the same rate relative what about ship to ship or otherwise? Do Siege engines not work since no-one aboard a a moving ship can take a full-round action if it involves someone on another ship?
The d20 system simply wasn't designed to accommodate these sorts of situations, as LordKailas notes.
So things done against you're will like being repositioned don't preclude you from making a full attack. But only because that would be abused to stop things from getting full attacks. In the same way that without the Greater version of the feats the movement doesn't even provoke AoO.
And as Lord Kailais again mentioned, being moved doesn't stop you from using your move action to do something, you just can't combine it with your standard to get a full attack.
Outside of mounted combat where is a rule stating that non-character movement precludes the use of a full attack action? I get that I can't use my move action to move and full attack but what about the myriad other ways i could go from point A to point B? And why do some seem to get a pass (IE bullrush) but others don't (being on an apple cart driven by random citizen). All are happening in the same round outside of my own set of actions and are not called out as invalidating my actions in any way in the rules other than when i am on a mount and directing in to move.
And as Lord Kailais again mentioned, being moved doesn't stop you from using your move action to do something, you just can't combine it with your standard to get a full attack.
That isn't anywhere in the rules except under mounted combat and isn't implied to affect any other situation.
Not to mention you two are on different points Kalias says you can make a full attack as long as it's ranged, you are saying i cannot if I have been moved. So here we have 2 differing opinions on the same rule (likely based on what mounted combat allows) that could drastically effect the game. Keep in mind mounted combat is based on actions happening during your turn not on other combatants. Your not waiting to attack the guy next to the carriage if you arrived there before your turn started.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Both Dimensional Steps and Dimensional Hop allow the person doing it to move after, unlike Dimension Door. And they also allow others to be brought along. These others could then full attack if they were brought to the enemy. The cleric's Dimensional Hop even will allow the cleric to make a single attack after use.
/cevah
And as Lord Kailais again mentioned, being moved doesn't stop you from using your move action to do something, you just can't combine it with your standard to get a full attack.
That isn't anywhere in the rules except under mounted combat and isn't implied to affect any other situation.
Not to mention you two are on different points Kalias says you can make a full attack as long as it's ranged, you are saying i cannot if I have been moved. So here we have 2 differing opinions on the same rule (likely based on what mounted combat allows) that could drastically effect the game. Keep in mind mounted combat is based on actions happening during your turn not on other combatants. Your not waiting to attack the guy next to the carriage if you arrived there before your turn started.
Sorry, my wording may have been bad in the past.
Only melee attacks are prevented from full attacking under these circumstances.
I effectively apply mounted combat rules to anytime you are sitting on an object or creature and being moved.
The rules are otherwise silent about what happens in the various situations.
This issue boils down like this (as I see it):
Moving takes time whether you move yourself or ride a horse or are sitting on a moving cart. This time spent moving prevents you from full attacking. This is because everything happens approximately at the same time in a round, even though things are done in discrete turns, but that's because there is no sensible way to run the game if everyone tried to do everything at the same time. But preventing melee full attacks is a nod to the fact that you didn't spend the whole round next to your target.
I've been enjoying following this discussion. I think there's an important distinction we are missing in a lot of posts though.
If you are moves and didn't spend your action to move there is nothing in the rules (aside from mounted combat rules) that changes whether or not you can make a melee full attack. RAW you can absolutely make a full attack. However, SHOULD you be able to do so? probably not. Mounted combat gives a more realistic model and is probably a good HOUSERULE for such things.
On the other hand, martial characters have trouble keeping up with higher level spellcasters once the ability to make a full attack or not means a lot. For game balance is it really a bad thing to allow any martial to get a pseudo pounce with the help of a buddy? As opposed to it being the preview of only a few specific martial classes\archetypes...?
This issue boils down like this (as I see it):Moving takes time whether you move yourself or ride a horse or are sitting on a moving cart. This time spent moving prevents you from full attacking. This is because everything happens approximately at the same time in a round, even though things are done in discrete turns, but that's because there is no sensible way to run the game if everyone tried to do everything at the same time. But preventing melee full attacks is a nod to the fact that you didn't spend the whole round next to your target.
Which you also wouldn't be if
1.You are moved by an opponent for any reason.2. The target moved to you during their turn.
3. You were moved via a spell effect such as DD (which would eat up more time in the round via being a Standard action over a move)
But you would be if you and the target both moved in a straight 30 foot line adjacent to each other and I'm willing to bet you wouldn't suddenly give the 2 mounted guys doing this full attacks on each other.
Well, this is the rules forum. By the rules as written two characters riding side by side would not be able to get full attacks on each other because the rules state that mounted characters are not able to make full attacks if they move more then 5 feet.
It's pretty explicit in this case.
I even agree that the rules are not perfect and that some weird nonsensical things can happen in edge cases. You either have to accept that this will happen or if it really bothers you and you're running the game, then make your own ruling on it. Use a different set of rules that do make sense to you for the given situation. As a DM you are completely within your right to do this. You are free to change and/or remove any rule you want and as long as your players don't get upset about it its fine. But it's a losing battle to come on here and argue against something that's explicitly stated.
P1: you can't do X when Y happens
P2: yes, but in this case Y is happening over here at the same time Y is happening over there, so now I should be able to do X.
P1: The rules say you can't do X when Y happens and Y is happening so you can't do X.
P2: but that doesn't make sense
I agree that the 2 guys riding tandem shouldn't get full attacks. But using the earlier ship logic that's exactly what is still happening just they are on a vehicle. My objection is trying both apply the mounted rules to any situation of movement that would be considered voluntary but not involuntary.
If me be moved to a target via being on an apple cart means i can't full attack then why isn't that applied due to a bull rush? Because the rules don't say i can't after a bull rush is the answer I'll likely get or it makes the bull rush too good. But the situation is identical someone is giving up an action to move me a distance outside of my turn. If instead of a friend one of the BBEG's minions hop-on and drive the apple cart into a crowd of their buddies can I now full attack since it wasn't voluntary? What if a Friend is the one bull-rushing me closer to a target is it now not gonna let me full attack?
To the proponent of being on the disk counting as a move action hence being able to attack only once rather all the iterative attacks of a full attack, how would you resolve a disk big enough to have two passangers moving and then later on in the same round one of the passangers attacking the other? Does he get a full attack or only one attack?
What if one of the two passangers gets to act before the disk moves? Does he get full attack?
Then the disk moves with the two of them on it. Then the second passanger gets only one attack? But if he delay to act on the top of the next round, he gets to make a full attack?
If the disk accomp the caster, then the caster has to stay adjacent to the rider. Which means that the caster effectively becomes "mounted." If we take that reading, then I wouldn't put any addtional restrictions, since the caster is effectively stuck next to the rider.
just wanted to drop this bomb at the thread here and run off, have fun...