As written, the horse support benefit works for spell attack rolls and also doesnt require you to be mounted. Are either of these not intended/flagged for errata already?
As written, the horse support benefit works for spell attack rolls and also doesnt require you to be mounted. Are either of these not intended/flagged for errata already?
FEAR MY GODRIC THE DESTROYER BUILD! HIS DISINTEGRATE SPELLS ARE EVEN MORE POTENT WHEN WITHIN THE VICINITY OF A HORSE !
But yeah wordage here:
Your horse adds momentum to your charge. Until the start of your next turn, if you moved at least 10 feet on the action before your attack, add a circumstance bonus to damage to that attack equal to twice the number of damage dice. If your weapon already has the jousting weapon trait, increase the trait’s damage bonus by 2 per die instead.
you do need to move... and it does refer to weapons but only insofar as this relates to the jousting trait.
This should be corrected, we can all see the intent but the RAW allows this to work within vicinity, if the horse used a support action.
Lol, I'd wager at least the second is unintended. I also believe there is no errata against this idea, though it could be too outlandish for most GMs to allow.
It'd be weird if it was only the horse companion that had a support action that required you to be mounted, compared to the other companions that dont, but it makes sense in the context of the description. Not including "weapon" for the attack seems like an oversight though unless they intended casters to get a hell of a boost to their spells. Hopefully they shall errata it soon.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Walk 10ft then Cataclysm for 21d10+42 damage, or Disintegrate for 20d10+40 damage if you require single target.
Add +10 for Dangerous Sorcery.
Godric the horse adjacent sorcerer build is taking shape...
|
You're thinking small fry people.
Staff Nexus Wizard, level 20, 39 changes in a staff of power. Break that sucker and deal 39*2d8 Force Damage + 78 damage to everything within 30 feet (Ref DC 40). This WILL kill your Character pretty much no matter what though (since you automatically critically fail your own save and take double that) so be wise to save it for the final fight and have someone ready to pay for your resurrection.
Okay, seriously now though, this is pretty clearly only ever supposed to work with Weapons and while actually Mounted, they didn't do a hard enough pass on making sure it wasn't ambiguous but the context is quite easy to grok IMO regardless.
The verbiage does mention attack though, so I think it'd still have to be an attack tagged spell though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The not being mounted part is kind of odd, but I don't see a problem with a wizard slapping someone with shocking grasp or a similar spell from atop a charging steed.
Hum...
So I have a doubt.
A druid transformed in a Green Man could do 12d8+12 per attack while mounted in a horse?
And once the description says "add a circumstance bonus to damage to that attack equal to twice the number of damage dice" so we can have a divine caster (like a cleric) morphed with Divine Vessel and Handwraps of Mighty Blows full equipped with a major striking rune and 3 elemental runes could do 10d10+6d6 per attack? (2d10 from a bite unarmed attack that deals piercing damage + 3 extra dices from major striking + 3 additional d6 from each elemental rune, everything doubled by horse support)
Hum...
So I have a doubt.
A druid transformed in a Green Man could do 12d8+12 per attack while mounted in a horse?
And once the description says "add a circumstance bonus to damage to that attack equal to twice the number of damage dice" so we can have a divine caster (like a cleric) morphed with Divine Vessel and Handwraps of Mighty Blows full equipped with a major striking rune and 3 elemental runes could do 10d10+6d6 per attack? (2d10 from a bite unarmed attack that deals piercing damage + 3 extra dices from major striking + 3 additional d6 from each elemental rune, everything doubled by horse support)
I think you misread, you don’t double the dice, you add a circumstance modifier of the damage dice*2. So you say you start with 2d10? Haven’t looked up that detail, but will take it as assumption. Major striking does not add 3 dice, it makes it 4 weapon dice. That means you do 4d10 + 8 extra damage, then you add your extra elemental dice. You get 8 extra damage not extra whole dice of damage, and elemental runes aren’t counted as weapon dice. So those don’t boost the support damage.
So that would mean 4d10 + 3d6 + 8 plus presumably their strength modifier for damage.
Ops. I forgot the enlarge part of Divine Vessel.
And yeah. I miss read the "bonus to damage to that attack equal to twice the number of damage dice" as was a dice but re-reading it I notice that is +2 per dice.
But I disagree with the handwraps besides how do you put them they say "give your unarmed attacks the benefits of those runes" without any additional restriction so any unarmed attack receives the benefits don't matter if they are punchs, kicks, claws or even bites.
But with non-sense part I agree with you this is basically we having fun with horse support limited description. That's why we said by raw disintegration spell benefits from horse support. But in a real gameplay the GM won't allow such things. Even ranged weapons don't make sense to receive benefits from the horse charge.
Why are you doubling dice? The damage is twice the number of damage dice, not twice the dice.
Assuming handwraps affect battle form stats. Which is a big assumption that probably is false but paizo has yet to clarify.
Divine Vessel isn't a form, is a morph spell so there's any problem with handwraps.
Divine Vessel isn't a form, is a morph spell so there's any problem with handwraps.
Oops thought you meant avatar when i saw you say 10d10 damage. Looking closer i see in all of your posts you've been doubling all the damage dice mistakenly.
Yeah. I misunderstand like the Horses are doubling the damages dices.
Until then...
GODRIC HORSEFRIEND
Sorcerer build
"A kind soul, Godric always though of himself as a friend of horses, and always felt better when he was around them... This tendency was exacerbated when it turned out that his great grandmother had sallies around with a brass Dragon and his sorcerous powers awakened."
A:halfling
B:animal handler
C: sorcerer (dragon bloodline)
Str:10
Dex:16
Con:12
Int:10
Wis:12
Cha:18
(Boosts to dex con Wis cha every five levels)
Feats:
1: dangerous sorcery
2: beastmaster dedication
4: mature companion
6: bloodline spell
8:incredible beastmaster
10: other bloodline spell feat
12: enlarge companion (if ever you want to polymorph into something large)
14: specialised beastmaster companion (bully)
16: side by side (if someone comes in melee with you you can shocking grasp their ass while it's flat footed)
18:effortless concentration
20: bloodline perfection
Enjoy your 20d10+50 disintegrate agaisnt a flat footed frightened target.
Cavalier works too if you want more sorcerer feats.
A bloodline with divine would give you divine vessel which you can use to get on top of a huge horse thanks to enlarge companion. You don't get disintegrate but you can use chilling darkness/searing light.
"The devs know and will implement a fix in the next patch"
Well, the thing is that the if or when of when that might actually be might be years away if ever. This means you might have the chance to play through several AP's before it ever sees print. You're saying "next patch" like it's right around the corner and we don't even know if this is going to be in the next patch [or any patch], let alone that such a patch is in the near future.
How long has it been since the Daikyu came out and it still doesn't have a patch? Long enough to play through an AP...
|
I'm just making an example of players not caring about intent and only wanting to exploit the rules.
Also if your GM can't figure out a solution for the Daikyu for the duration of an AP, they have larger issues than Paizo being slow. GMs should work with their players to make broken rules not broken, rather than just letting their players run wild and throw bows at people as if it were intended.
"The devs know and will implement a fix in the next patch"Well, the thing is that the if or when of when that might actually be might be years away if ever. This means you might have the chance to play through several AP's before it ever sees print. You're saying "next patch" like it's right around the corner and we don't even know if this is going to be in the next patch [or any patch], let alone that such a patch is in the near future.
How long has it been since the Daikyu came out and it still doesn't have a patch? Long enough to play through an AP...
If you already know that the intent of the rule is for it to work in a way that makes any sense, why does it matter if errata has happened yet?
If you already know that the intent of the rule is for it to work in a way that makes any sense, why does it matter if errata has happened yet?
But I don't know intent: that's kind of the point. No DEV has said what it should be and that it WILL be fixed in an upcoming errata. What we have is people guessing what the intent is and assuming it'll be errata. For instance, some have assumed melee was the intent but PF1 allowed charging with ranged weapons so it's not unprecedented that it could happen.
As long as your DM is cool with your character, does it matter if it ends up unintended? Personally, there are WAY more things ahead on the list on errata that should be looked over before this.
I'm just making an example of players not caring about intent and only wanting to exploit the rules.
Why focus in on "players"? You'd need a DM to use it so why the example?
Also if your GM can't figure out a solution for the Daikyu for the duration of an AP, they have larger issues than Paizo being slow.
If you say this then can't that same DM come to a solution for what you see as an issue the horse and that they then DIDN'T need your example?
GMs should work with their players to make broken rules not broken, rather than just letting their players run wild and throw bows at people as if it were intended.
Sure... So why assume that one wouldn't do the same with the character you didn't like? Whatever you say about allowing that a player use that character, you can say about allowing a player to use the Daikyu...
|
|
If you already know that the intent of the rule is for it to work in a way that makes any sense, why does it matter if errata has happened yet?But I don't know intent: that's kind of the point. No DEV has said what it should be and that it WILL be fixed in an upcoming errata. What we have is people guessing what the intent is and assuming it'll be errata. For instance, some have assumed melee was the intent but PF1 allowed charging with ranged weapons so it's not unprecedented that it could happen.
I'm just making an example of players not caring about intent and only wanting to exploit the rules.Why focus in on "players"? You'd need a DM to use it so why the example?
Also if your GM can't figure out a solution for the Daikyu for the duration of an AP, they have larger issues than Paizo being slow.If you say this then can't that same DM come to a solution for what you see as an issue the horse and that they then DIDN'T need your example?
GMs should work with their players to make broken rules not broken, rather than just letting their players run wild and throw bows at people as if it were intended.Sure... So why assume that one wouldn't do the same with the character you didn't like? Whatever you say about allowing that a player use that character, you can say about allowing a player to use the Daikyu...
The whole point of this thread was to think of overpowered ways to exploit a known bug in the game to their benefit. Some GMs, like in Society play, have to follow the rule as written rather than how it's intended to work, so these threads only serve to further push the "exploiting the game is fine" mindset.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Probably unpopular opinion follows:
Exploiting the game is fine, as long as everyone is aware and having fun. If the GM says Horse Support works with Disintegrate, coolio. If they don't then also coolio.
Personally I restrict horse support to weapons, but that still leaves the table open to a precision archery ranger using their trusty steed to empower their bow attacks. Is that intended? Don't know, but it's fun. And gives the Ranger more reasons to not just take a bear like everyone else.
|
|
It's not really an exploit if everyone's on board. My example mentioned Society GMs. They can make judgement calls about vague rules, we call it Table Variation, but some things like this are explicit and broken, and building characters around it can ruin other player's and even the GMs fun with the game.
I was making a theoretical build just for my personal enjoyment.
As a gm I wouldn't allow this, as a player I wouldn't push for it.
But I find it HILARIOUS.
On 3.5 I partnered with skyknight on the chuck the ruby Knight windicator build. I also authored the ruby Knight Vindicator guide.
The ruby Knight windicator was silly broken and should never be allowed in any game. It was still a fun theorycraft. Same with the beatboxing bard that could use a maneuver to deal quadruble the result of his perform (beatbox) check in damage to an ennemy.
But it's worth a laugh!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The whole point of this thread was to think of overpowered ways to exploit a known bug in the game to their benefit.
Excuse me sir, the point of "this thread" (assuming you meant this thread we're in) was to find out if it had been flagged for errata because it seemed poorly written. I mean, I still agree completely that obviously broken things shouldn't be exploited just because they haven't released the errata yet, but I felt I had to clarify that.
Very rarely stuff is flagged for errata that I dont agree should be, (such as sixth pillar mastery, because i believe the feat investment combined with the limited usefulness to most characters offsets the benefits enough) but the horse support text is not one of them. They need to fix that crap otherwise horses will become every blaster's "must have" accessory.
I still wonder if they intended a character to receive the benefit only when mounted, or if the benefit can be gained at any time; as is the case for all the other animal companion support abilities.
I dont think there's any possibility that it's intended to work as it currently does, positioning-wise, where the horse doesn't need to be anywhere near the PC or the enemy.
I beg to differ.
You've been saying "It has been acknowledged that it's meant to only work on Melee Weapon attack rolls" and that's a misrepresentation of Mark's words by your own quote. He said Strike, not Melee Weapon attack roll. As written, swapping the word Strike for attack allows a bow attack.
I dunno, I think the whole thread has been hilarious. Sure, it's not a serious character development but Godric the Horse-Adjacent Sorcerer gives me a silly grin. He's the Princess Bride of PF2 characters. Totally worth it.
Now I kind of want to find a way to build in a tolerance to iocane powder in there...
|
|
I beg to differ.You've been saying "It has been acknowledged that it's meant to only work on Melee Weapon attack rolls" and that's a misrepresentation of Mark's words by your own quote. He said Strike, not Melee Weapon attack roll. As written, swapping the word Strike for attack allows a bow attack.
I also said I didn't have the source, so yea I was a bit off, but you're just being needlessly pedantic. Either way, it's not supposed to work on spells at all.