At 10th level, you can touch an ally and give her the gift of flight for 1 minute (as fly). The ally gains a fly speed of 60 feet with average maneuverability. She gains a bonus on Fly skill checks equal to your level. Whenever the ally succeeds at a charge attack while flying, that attack deals an amount of additional electricity damage equal to your level.
+
You can charge and make a full attack or flurry of blows at the end of your charge as part of the charge action. You can use Pummeling Charge in this way only if all of your attacks qualify for using Pummeling Style against a single target.
= A Sacred Fist Warpriest fly-charging and landing up to +20 electricity damage on each flurry attack, which is at bare minimum 7 and 9 attacks at most. That's 140 to 180 damage flat if I'm reading right. Anything not immune to electricity is going to get fried.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Regardless of how many attacks you make at the end of the charge, you make 1 charge attack.
It is similar to charge/pounce with a lance:
Lance: If I have the pounce ability and I charge with a lance, do my iterative lance attacks get the lance's extra damage multiplier from charging?
No, it doesn’t makes sense that those iterative attacks gain the damage bonus. To make that second attack, you have to pull the lance back and stab forward again, and that stab doesn’t have the benefit of the charge’s momentum. (The Core Rulebook doesn’t state that you only get the damage multiplier on the first attack with a lance because when the Core Rulebook was published, there was no way for a PC to charge and get multiple attacks with a weapon in the same round, so that combination didn’t need to be addressed.)
The iterative attacks after the first aren't charge attacks.
Yarp, you get the bonus damage once.
That FAQ was pretty specific to lances. Pummeling charge seems to be intended for the full attack action to be part of the charge.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sacred geometry is not OK VM, there's been plenty of pushback against that. And a ragelancepouncer still does a lot of damage, just not quite as much.
So ragelancepounce has always been about that first hit...?
I mean, damage is damage, but ALL those builds were banking on that one first hit? What the F is the purpose of the POUNCE, then?
I thought that was the WHOLE point of investing in Pounce as a Barbarian with a lance... why the investment for one hit? Sure, Pounce is nice, more damage is better than less damage. But I took three Totem Powers for ONE lance attack?
Suppose you're a hasted 12th level barbarian with a lance, pounce and a mount. The first attack does triple damage, and you have three more after that which do normal damage (for a raging barbarian with a 2H weapon). If the same barbarian uses a greataxe and no mount then they do slightly more damage at base, the same number of attacks (4) but they don't get the triple damage on the first; maybe 30% less damage for the round. If a 12th level barbarian doesn't have pounce or a lance then they get a single attack on a charge and just aren't in the same ballpark.
You take 3 feats to get the triple damage on the first attack (and a means of negating 1 attack/round against your mount). You spend 3 rage powers to get multiple attacks on a charge. Even if they don't multiply having both adds to your effectiveness.
I get the general advantage of Pounce. That much is very obvious. As is Rage. But for how much I have seen it mentioned, I just thought it was some guanteed gloriousness. Layered approaches are respectable, but you all really tricked me on this one.
It's literally just a mounted charge with a Lance... yeah, there's Rage, and Pounce... but, it's still just that single charge attack with a Lance (that literally anyone can do)... awesome.
And if that is how the classic ragelancepounce build goes, sorry, this one probably sucks, too...
I mean, you get pounce so you get all the attacks. But only the first attack benefits from it having been a charge (i.e. double damage with a lance).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I get the general advantage of Pounce. That much is very obvious. As is Rage. But for how much I have seen it mentioned, I just thought it was some guanteed gloriousness. Layered approaches are respectable, but you all really tricked me on this one.
It's literally just a mounted charge with a Lance... yeah, there's Rage, and Pounce... but, it's still just that single charge attack with a Lance (that literally anyone can do)... awesome.
And if that is how the classic ragelancepounce build goes, sorry, this one probably sucks, too...
You know, this kind of attitude is why spellcasting gets to do the same in the other direction. "A martial should be able to do a few fantastilions of damage with its attacks." "A spellcaster should be able to twist reality till it cries Uncle or he hasn't a chance against a martial that do a few fantastilions of damage." Those are mirror positions (from a mirror of opposition).
While Pathfinder and other 3.x games are better for other things, the pace of combat in AD&D 1st and 2nd edition was way less extreme and more conductive to role-playing.
I mean, you get pounce so you get all the attacks. But only the first attack benefits from it having been a charge (i.e. double damage with a lance).
With a lance. But this post was about pummeling charge. There doesn't seem to be any such limitation for pummeling charge.
I mean, you get pounce so you get all the attacks. But only the first attack benefits from it having been a charge (i.e. double damage with a lance).With a lance. But this post was about pummeling charge. There doesn't seem to be any such limitation for pummeling charge.
That is your position.
I extrapolate that things that happen on charge only apply to the first attack after a charge (if you have some ability to make multiple attacks) because despite people knowing about methods to get pounce (or similar) abilities they're usually not taken into account when writing rules like this.
Because PF1 is a deprecated product line we're unlikely to ever receive an official answer.
Extrapolating things on your own is fine, but that would just be a house rule. With the rules available to us, I don't see any evidence that pummeling charge doesn't treat all of its attacks as charge attacks.
FAQ are just about what they say they are about. The FAQ you are referencing is very, very specific to lances and pounce. Pummeling charge is not a pounce and does not involve a lance. So, that FAQ is irrelevant to the discussion.
Oh look, its missing anything that limits it to only being applied on the first charge attack.
And if that doesn't make sense to you, do creatures only get the +2 to attack from charging on their first attack in a pounce or all of their attacks?
Your example do nothing except illustrate to me bad editing on this specific ability.
You provide lots of examples that explicitly limit the effect if you get multiple attacks on a charge.
The lance charge FAQ is limited.
Basically everything is limited...except this one ability?
I don't buy it, I say it's bad editing or simply that the possibility of making multiple attacks on a charge was accounted for, because the basic rules of pounce limit you to on attack.
As for you final question, the bonus to attack rolls is only the first attack after the charge.
And I'm pretty sure at some point in time in the past the devs were asked about that for just the basic interaction of charge and pounce for a barbarian and that was the ruling, but I don't remember the source.
You can guess it’s bad editing, but what’s there is what’s there. The rules are written. And it’s perfectly reasonable that the absence was intentional. You can find lots of king fu movies with a charging flurry. The ability makes sense in its own context. It’s not the same as a lance pounce, which doesn’t have cinematic parallels. Without a follow-up or errata, every attack of a pummeling charge is a charge attack.
@willuwontu
My problem with your post is that it doesn't actually illustrate enough though. We can't know whether any of the items that don't explicitly mention what happens when you have multiple charges on a full attack as being authoritative.
All the ones that do mention what happens when you have multiple attacks on a charge seem to specify it only happens once or on the first attack.
Do we have any examples that explicitly go the other way? Specifying it does happen multiple times if you have multiple attacks on a charge?
To me, lacking any examples that explicitly specify it happens on all attacks I would general say it only applies once. And the lack of language addressing the problem isn't proof that you get the benefit on each attack, but rather evidence of bad writing/poor editing/lack of foresight.
Edit:
@melkiador
Sure, if you want to be a RAW is law type you can argue that the rules are what they are exactly as written.
But that can lead to issues in terms of an ability being much more powerful than intended.
You don’t need to specify a general case. By default, every attack in a pounce is an attack made in a charge. To break that general rule, you need extra text.
You don’t need to specify a general case. By default, every attack in a pounce is an attack made in a charge. To break that general rule, you need extra text.
What's your basis for this statement?
Other than the lack of anything to specify such?
Because my converse statement would be, unless you have verbiage stating all attacks count as a charge attacks when making a pounce I wouldn't think that's the case.
Completely disagree.
They state it for clarity, not because you can assume the general rule that being able to make more than the normal number of attacks on a charge makes all of those attack "charge attacks".
My evidence, is that I require less assumptions.
You're require an assumption that all attacks made after a charge are charge attacks, but that's not written any place.
My assumption, is that only the first attack after a charge qualifies as a charge attack. Since you normally only get one attack, to me it would seem necessary to state those additional attacks beyond the normal be explicitly called out as also being "charge attacks".
|
|
The basic problem is that Pounce is a monster ability and was written with the monster in mind.
It is reasonable to argue that when pouncing (the RL animal ability) the animal benefit from the charge or leap it made when pouncing with all its attacks, but, in the same situation it is reasonable to argue that all its attacks should be aimed against the same target. I don't know of any RL animal capable to pounce several targets at once.
RL animals don't use manufactured weapons, so we have no RL example of pounce combined with weapon use.
Pathfinder Pounce rules don't address any of that. Theoretically, it is possible to pounce on a target, kill it with the first strike and attack adjacent targets with the second and third attacks, possibly using grab and rake on the third target.
So we need to look at the Charge rules:
Attacking on a Charge: After moving, you may make a single melee attack. You get a +2 bonus on the attack roll and take a –2 penalty to your AC until the start of your next turn.
...
Even if you have extra attacks, such as from having a high enough base attack bonus or from using multiple weapons, you only get to make one attack during a charge.
What is changed by Pounce?
Attacking on a Charge: After moving, you may make a single melee attack. You get a +2 bonus on the attack roll and take a –2 penalty to your AC until the start of your next turn.
...
Even if you have extra attacks, such as from having a high enough base attack bonus or from using multiple weapons, you only get to make one attack during a charge.
Pounce: When a creature with this special attack makes a charge, it can make a full attack (including rake attacks if the creature also has the rake ability).
Oh ho, Pounce doesn't change the bolded part while it removes the italicized parts. Pounce never says that you get the +2 on all the attacks. So RAW you get the +2 only to one attack roll at the end of the charge and you get all your attacks.
Now we add Soaring assault to the mix:
At 10th level, you can touch an ally and give her the gift of flight for 1 minute (as fly). The ally gains a fly speed of 60 feet with average maneuverability. She gains a bonus on Fly skill checks equal to your level. Whenever the ally succeeds at a charge attack while flying, that attack deals an amount of additional electricity damage equal to your level.
Wit Pounce you still get all your attacks, but only one benefit from it being a charge, so only one benefit from the Soaring attack.
It is RAI? No idea.
It is how I would rule at my table? Yes
(but I will limit a creature using only natural attack so that it has to target them all on the same target while benefitting from the +2 charge bonus on all of them. My choice, but it decidedly non-RAW).
Arguable, but again: Pummeling charge is not pounce. It’s its own thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pummeling Charge is not Pounce, that is a true statement.
The earliest a Sacred Fist Warpriest could possibly get Pummeling Charge is 12... for something that requires a special kind of attack (a flying charge) in order to even attempt in the first place... and how horribly they ruined Pummeling Style already, I would probably just let you have the damage on all your attacks. Blessings are a finite resource that has to be spent, as well.
You earned it, little buddy. Go get 'em...
|
|
Arguable, but again: Pummeling charge is not pounce. It’s its own thing.
True, let's see how they combine:
Attacking on a Charge: After moving, you may make a single melee attack. You get a +2 bonus on the attack roll and take a –2 penalty to your AC until the start of your next turn.
...
Even if you have extra attacks, such as from having a high enough base attack bonus or from using multiple weapons, you only get to make one attack during a charge.Pummelling charge: You can charge and make a full attack or flurry of blows at the end of your charge as part of the charge action. You can use Pummeling Charge in this way only if all of your attacks qualify for using Pummeling Style against a single target.
You still get the +2 only on one attack. The charge still affects one attack. You still get to make all your attacks at the end of the charge. You still get to do all your attacks.
To me, the final effect still results as: +2 and charge benefits added to one attack, but you get to do all the attacks.Maybe it is because Paizo never bothered to make explicit something they feel is implicit, but RAW the bonus applies only to one attack.
So, is this 12th or 20th-level Sacred Fist Warpriest by chance a Strix with Flyby Attack? That would make this whole thing a lot easier to begin with... that way you already have the whole flying charge nonsense built into your strategy. Hold the charge on a touch spell, then CHARGE!
Well, use your Major Blessing, hold the charge on the touch spell, then fly into action with a Pummeling Charge Soaring Assault... apparently only getting a +2 attack bonus on your first attack, but I say you get the +12 or +20 shock damage on all your attacks, and whatever spell you were holding. Do it!
Get Rhino Charge, and you can ready a charge as a standard action. Hmm... you can full attack after a charge... even a standard action charge?
True, let's see how they combine:
You're missing the exception. You normally can take only one attack at the end of a charge. Pummeling charge lets you instead take a full attack at the end of the charge. Each of those attacks is still a charge attack.
Compare:*After moving, you may make a single melee attack.
*You can charge and make a full attack or flurry of blows at the end of your charge as part of the charge action.
The only other way to interpret this is that you charge and do the charge attack and then on top of that you can also do a full attack.
|
|
True, let's see how they combine:You're missing the exception. You normally can take only one attack at the end of a charge. Pummeling charge lets you instead take a full attack at the end of the charge. Each of those attacks is still a charge attack.
Compare:
*After moving, you may make a single melee attack.
*You can charge and make a full attack or flurry of blows at the end of your charge as part of the charge action.The only other way to interpret this is that you charge and do the charge attack and then on top of that you can also do a full attack.
The exception is that you can make a full attack. There is no exception that says that you add the +2 or that all attacks are a charge. Only one attack is a charge.
I had bolded it. And then you quoted what I bolded. You make the full attack as part of a charge, so every attack is part of a charge. Nothing says that only the first attack is part of the charge. Why even the first? Or rather, why not the 2nd or 3rd?
The full attack or Flurry of Blows allowed by Pummeling Charge is, in fact, part of the charge action. I don't know how it could possibly be any more clear.
Any attack made as part of a Pummeling Charge action is a charge attack, unless orherwise stated to only work with the first attack in a charge... which Soaring Assault does NOT specify... it works with all attacks as part of a charge.
|
The full attack or Flurry of Blows allowed by Pummeling Charge is, in fact, part of the charge action. I don't know how it could possibly be any more clear.
Any attack made as part of a Pummeling Charge action is a charge attack, unless orherwise stated to only work with the first attack in a charge... which Soaring Assault does NOT specify... it works with all attacks as part of a charge.
100% agree
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We're never going to get official resolution on this, and I think it's fair to say that neither side finds the other arguments convincing.
Ultimately, ask your GM about it as the topic is contentious.
|
|
You know, at least some people FAQed the pounce lance charge thing because they had GM that said that the multiple on the damage was on the first hit only and they wanted to have it on all attacks.
You shouldn't assume that something was FAQed in a way that you feel is a nerf because people were complaining that it was too strong.
And the whole "Wizard magic'ing problems away" not being addressed is a consequence of martials destroying problems away in a zip. The more you push for "moar damage", the more the spellcaster can push for "moar spellpower". It is an out of control arms race.
Vmonk, please don't respond. You were a little inflammatory in some of your earliest posts on this thread. Valid points have been made by you and others here. We ALL fail on our diplomacy checks from time to time. Acknowledgements and apologies were, are, and will be made, but lets not any of us take things too personally.
I wish I had seen this before I posted. Lol. Story of my life... open mouth, insert foot.
From the sound of it, the lance ruling was less about power than realism. Realism is why martials rarely get nice things. The way lance works in real life didn’t make much sense with a pounce charge. More than a few FAQ were based on realism. There’s always the old joke about weapon cords and someone tying a computer mouse to their wrist.
But I’ve seen plenty of martial arts movies with a flying/charging flurry. So while pummeling style may not be “realistic”, it is very cinematic.
In regard to the "full attack as part of the charge action", I read that as saying "the full round action that you're doing now also substitutes a full attack or FoBs" but does so to establish the action economy cost, not to say that all attacks function as "charge attacks".
Perhaps that is the correct interpretation. I don't personally think so, and again we're not going to get an official clarification. I just wanted to clarify my line of reasoning.
Honestly, the same options are available to everyone. If you complain because someone else is better than you... too bad for you, buddy. Karens... Lol.
As a melee combatant, did you pick a class with access to Pounce? Stop complaining, right meow...
Oh sure, there we go. Make all melee options inferior to the Barbarian, that's so much better, lol.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, the same options are available to everyone. If you complain because someone else is better than you... too bad for you, buddy. Karens... Lol.
As a melee combatant, did you pick a class with access to Pounce? Stop complaining, right meow...
That's very rich coming from someone who's made it their part time job to complain about caster supremacy. According to yourself you should either shut up or always play an Exploiter Wizard with Sacred Geometry.
"Did you pick a class with access to 9th level spellcasting? Stop complaining, right meow..."