I'm using an Inquisitor with the chivalry inquisition, granting me a mount.
I just obtained 4th level spellcasting, and noticed the spell "Flash Forward";
Flash Forward
Range: Personal
Target: You
You cheat the laws of time and enter into combat before reverting back to your original position. As part of the action to cast the spell, you make a charge attack against an enemy. You make this charge attack normally, accounting for terrain, obstacles, attacks of opportunity, attack rolls, and damage rolls. At the end of your charge action, you instantly teleport back to your original location as a free action. Any damage or conditions dealt by you or to you during this action are real and remain when you return to your original location.
Unsurprisingly, charging is a big part of my build (I'm on a mount afterall, why not use a lance?), so the spell could be usefull... except... it's not clear to me if this spell allows the mount to charge with you.
Does anybody knows if casting flash forward while mounted allows you to charge mounted?
|
The mounted combat rules have always been subject to interpretation and argument. There are plenty of edge (and not-so-edge) cases that the book doesn't cover very well. So it's almost certain that multiple people can point to different parts of the rules and come up with different answers.
Needed to get that out of the way before I respond.
My reading is that the mount could charge with you and at the end of the charge you would revert back to your original position but the mount would not. The reference is the last paragraph on page 201 of the Core Rulebook.
Your mount acts on your initiative count as you direct it. You move at its speed, but the mount uses its action to move.
The mount uses its own action to charge with you (just like if you were making a regular charge attack). But the spell only affects you so only you are returned to the starting position.
Even if the mount was a standard animal companion (this particular build doesn't have the share spells ability), you couldn't both flash back. If you cast the spell on the mount it could make the charge attack and flash back but you would stay at the end of the charge. And since you would have used your standard to cast the spell you couldn't even attack at the end of the charge.
|
|
Having said that, I could see interesting use of this spell by a magus that had an animal companion (or a small magus/small familiar with Undersized Mount). Spell Combat flash forward, targeting the mount. You get to charge, the mount attacks, the mount flashes back, and you still get to make all your normal attacks.
Not sure who would actually do that considering dimension door is the same level as flash forward and Dimensional Agility is only one feat. Maybe an Undersized Mount halfling Beastblade with a dodo familiar :) I like oddball uses of spells, even if they aren't particularly optimized.
the Target of the spell is "YOU", nothing muddy about this one, it affects you and only you.
the Target of the spell is "YOU", nothing muddy about this one, it affects you and only you.
that is normally not a valid point when talking about animal companions -see shared spells.
BUT!
if this was a druid animal companion and not a mount that count as cavalier mount, i might have allowed casting it on the mount (via share spells) while charging and having it (and you) do the move.
alas cavalier mount has this to say:
"A cavalier’s mount does not gain the share spells special ability."
I kind of expected the same conclusion; rider and mount charge in unison, meaning the mount will likely charge with you regardless whenever or not it is affected by the spell.
And the spell has only 1 target, "You"... which, depending on whenever or not you have spell sharing means only one is actually affected by the spell, either you or your mount.
I can see generous GMs ruling the mount gets affected as well, but RAW it seems that this is a fancy way to dismount your mount with a charge. -Leaving the mount in question all by itself on the front line.
Still usefull, just very situational dependant.
It's still tricky wording, though... a very ungenerous GM might rule you dismount and charge for this spell, without the mount in question.
Since this is a Pathfinder Society Character, I'm not sure if I should take this spell; I'm subjected to a different GM very often and not confident in my ability to rule lawyer desirable outcomes... potentially making this a useless spell to learn.
Although it does seem everyone here draws the same conclusion, so the outcome might be clear afterall?
|
the Target of the spell is "YOU", nothing muddy about this one, it affects you and only you.
that is normally not a valid point when talking about animal companions -see shared spells.
BUT!
if this was a druid animal companion and not a mount that count as cavalier mount, i might have allowed casting it on the mount (via share spells) while charging and having it (and you) do the move.alas cavalier mount has this to say:
"A cavalier’s mount does not gain the share spells special ability."
If your mount did somehow get Share Spells, it is still pretty messy as you spent your standard action to allow your mount (only) to charge (you only have a move action left, so you can't actually attack, but you will go along for the ride), and at the end your mount (only) teleports back to your starting location: You don't both get the spell effect as the text reads 'The druid may cast a spell with a target of “You” on her animal companion (as a spell with a range of touch) instead of on herself.'
The spell makes no mention of bringing others with you when you teleport, so you would probably be dropped on the ground in front of your foe with only a move action left.
I don't think the author had mounted combat in mind when this spell was written...
As a reader and interpreter of rules, I can only come to the same conclusion as others have: Played to the letter, this spell affects only you and leaves your mount stranded.
As a GM, there is no world in which I would ever actually run the spell that way, as I fundamentally believe that spells are meant to serve useful purposes. The most common reason to have any investment in frequently charging is to do so with a mount and lance. Getting a reposition after a charge in exchange for a fourth level spell slot does not seem like too much obtained for the price; someone invested in charging needs a variety of feats to optimize their strategy not including anything they want for defense or utility, and most classes that have a mount and good BAB find 4th-level spell slots to be not particularly abundant (and those that have access to this spell don't have much in the way of access to bonus feats). Even if it were too strong (which I don't think it is), it could be abused only rarely.
All that said, if this is for PFS I can only advise that you not take it. While you would surely encounter some generous GMs, at best you'll get heavy table variance. At worst, the rules interpretation is pretty cut and dry even if unfortunate.
I don't think the author had mounted combat in mind when this spell was written...
Likely so.
look, it's not that hard to fix (it might even be by the rules).
ever since they made the rule that mounted charge is special charge action taken by both rider and mount you have two kinds of charge (at least) one when you charge and one when the action is used by both the rider and mount.
it is still a charge. she spell change nothing about that:
"As part of the action to cast the spell, you make a charge attack against an enemy. You make this charge attack normally, accounting for terrain, obstacles, attacks of opportunity, attack rolls, and damage rolls"
so assuming the mount has share spells, the spell say that one cast it while using the charge action. share spell let you cast it on your mount while you BOTH use the charge action. my only concern is if you go back with your mount or only he get ported and that depend on how teleporting a mount works. (are you considered something he carry etc?) i for one let bounded creatures such as mounts and familiar that have share spells hitch a ride together with their owner just because separating them feel like a di-ck move.
look, it's not that hard to fix (it might even be by the rules).
ever since they made the rule that mounted charge is special charge action taken by both rider and mount you have two kinds of charge (at least) one when you charge and one when the action is used by both the rider and mount.
it is still a charge. she spell change nothing about that:"As part of the action to cast the spell, you make a charge attack against an enemy. You make this charge attack normally, accounting for terrain, obstacles, attacks of opportunity, attack rolls, and damage rolls"
so assuming the mount has share spells, the spell say that one cast it while using the charge action. share spell let you cast it on your mount while you BOTH use the charge action. my only concern is if you go back with your mount or only he get ported and that depend on how teleporting a mount works. (are you considered something he carry etc?) i for one let bounded creatures such as mounts and familiar that have share spells hitch a ride together with their owner just because separating them feel like a di-ck move.
I suppose a rider is considered carried by the mount... but using it on the mount (when you have share spell, which I unfortunatly don't have) will only let the mount charge; you will already have spend your standard action to cast the spell. You may even have to make a concentration check since now you are casting while your mount is charging?
This use may be more likely rules wise to teleport both you and your mount back, but it means not actually doing a charge yourself... shame about that lance in your hand that would have gotten double damage (or triple with spirited charge) if you were joining the charge.
And it is also vague at best if you get teleported along with the mount; it would yet again be up to interpetation by the GM.
you don't spend a standard action to cast this spell. it's casted as part of a charge. even when used normally without a mount.
it's the part i copied:
"As part of the action to cast the spell, you make a charge attack"
since a charge is a full round action(unless partial charge, lets not go into that now) and the spell is cast as part of the charge, you use no standard action to cast it.
the only difference is what kind of charge are u using when you cast this spell. the normal charge or the mounted one where both you and the mount use the same full round action to charge.
now since you are mounted you use the special mounted charge full round action. and since were talking about a mount with share spells when you cast the spell as part of the charge, and the mount CAN be targeted by it the effect of the spell work on the mount.
-----------------
the reason i said it might be by the rules is that since this is a SPECIAL charge action taken by both rider and mount. and since both are alliable targets for this spell i would simply rule it effect them both since the spell is cast to effect the one who charged and in this case it's a 'joint body'. with both being a valid target for such a spell.
so i rule (and i think it's very much RAI) that the body that charged is the one that teleport. and since the rules demand the rider and mount to act as one and use the SAME action they count as one for the spell that teleport the one who's charge action it is.
they use the same action, are bound by action economy to move as one. they are by my count combined until separated , and anything that effect the charge should effect them both. hack it's already been somewhat implemented by the rule that the rider count as if it take up the entire space the mount use.
in the words of the FAQ:
"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"
this is the arrow and the bow analogy. apart they are nothing. only combined they become a thing that can take effect.
in a mounted charge the rider and mount are one for a lot of things. and can both be a valid target for the spell. i say since they are both the operator of the mounted charge and it won't be a mounted charge if one of them is not there. the spell that effect the one who charged should effect them both.
you don't spend a standard action to cast this spell. it's casted as part of a charge. even when used normally without a mount.
it's the part i copied:
"As part of the action to cast the spell, you make a charge attack"since a charge is a full round action(unless partial charge, lets not go into that now) and the spell is cast as part of the charge, you use no standard action to cast it.
the only difference is what kind of charge are u using when you cast this spell. the normal charge or the mounted one where both you and the mount use the same full round action to charge.
You are reading that backwards. You don't get to cast the spell as part of a charge, you get to charge as part of casting the spell. That is, you must use the action(s) required to cast the spell. Getting to charge is just a bonus to casting the spell.
Casting Time 1 standard action
So you cast the spell with 1 standard action. What happens next?
If this was a fireball, the fireball would streak toward its target location and explode. If it was haste, all selectd targets would gain the haste buff.
For flash forward, the spell grants you the ability to make a charge attack, in addition to anything else the spell may do. In this case the only additional thing is that you teleport back to your starting location after the charge.
What is not clear from the spell description is, does it effectively grant a full action charge? A partial charge?
Its also wierd in that it leaves you your move action to still do things with. eg. by RAW I could cast this spell, make my charge attack, then do a regular move to move my speed. Or I could move, then cast this spell and get a charge attack - this does help with positioning to set up to use the spell more frequently.
If I were to rewrite this spell I would probably make it a full round action to cast. Clarify that you get a regular (not partial) charge attack. OR it becomes a swift action that can only be used when making a charge attack.
|
|
Zza ni’s argument is that the text says: “as part of the action to cast the spell you make a charge attack.” Therefore even if the caster targets another creature with the spell (such as with the share spells ability) you still “cast the spell” and therefore get to make a charge attack.
Yes, that’s the text of the spell. The problem with that reading is that you have then broken the spell. “You make a charge attack,” but also “At the end of your charge action, you instantly teleport back to your original location.” If the caster can target another creature, that creature becomes the “you” in the text of the personal range spell. The caster can’t have the benefit of the “you make a charge attack” but give the “you teleport back” to the mount.
|
|
Oh, I just thought of a REALLY good use for this spell. I have a Sacred Huntmaster who is, himself, a pretty terrible combatant. Great buffer, great skills, great roleplay. His companion, however, is a tiger.
If I start a round in a position where I can’t charge the tiger can move to where a charge lane is open. The inquisitor fast dismounts, casts flash forward on the tiger, tiger pounces, flashes back, inquisitor fast mounts, and still has a move action left.
Although "you" in the effect of the spell would refer to the target, being the mount if you cast it using Shared spellcasting, it isn't the mount that is casting it. Therefore, the part of "as part of casting the spell, you make a Charge attack" can only refer to the caster, rather than a potential other target. Weird and broken as that is written, I think Zza Ni has a point there. However, I agree with Belafon that that only makes any further mention of "you" in the effect ambigouis. Where is the line on who is refered by "you" then?
The more we discuss this, the more I agree that this spell needs to be rewritten.
After my own last comment I realised there is another snake in the grass here; no matter what the outcome will be, casting this spell while mounted will likely require a concentration check due to vigorous movement... the mount will be charging as you cast it, after all. This is another problem that could render the spell potentially useless.
Although the funny thing is, that all the problems so far can be solved if the mount was the actual caster of the spell.
Thus, this might be a good spell for a co-op player build of a high strength mountable player character, paired with a smaller sized riding character that can mount the first.
(Which was also a build I've been dying to make for a while now... I just need to get me the right partner player)
|
Although the funny thing is, that all the problems so far can be solved if the mount was the actual caster of the spell.
Thus, this might be a good spell for a co-op player build of a high strength mountable player character, paired with a smaller sized riding character that can mount the first.
(Which was also a build I've been dying to make for a while now... I just need to get me the right partner player)
I also have worked on a player as a mount with a mounted combatant build.
you don't spend a standard action to cast this spell. it's casted as part of a charge. even when used normally without a mount....
You are reading that backwards. You don't get to cast the spell as part of a charge, you get to charge as part of casting the spell. That is, you must use the action(s) required to cast the spell. Getting to charge is just a bonus to casting the spell.
Casting Time 1 standard action
So you cast the spell with 1 standard action. What happens next?
If this was a fireball, the fireball would streak toward its target location and explode. If it was haste, all selectd targets would gain the haste buff.
For flash forward, the spell grants you the ability to make a charge attack, in addition to anything else the spell may do. In this case the only additional thing is that you teleport back to your starting location after the charge.
What is not clear from the spell description is, does it effectively grant a full action charge? A partial charge?
Its also wierd in that it leaves you your move action to still do things with. eg. by RAW I could cast this spell, make my charge attack, then do a regular move to move my speed. Or I could move, then cast this spell and get a charge attack - this does help with positioning to set up to use the spell more frequently.
If I were to rewrite this spell I would probably make it a full round action to cast. Clarify that you get a regular (not partial) charge attack. OR it becomes a swift action that can only be used when making a charge attack.
no it's not backwards.
since the spell say you must abide to all the charge rules and that as part of casting it you make a charge attack they are in fact combined. no before or after rather together, you don't start casting then have a free charge happening to you, you charge and cast at the same time. and with mounter combat you charge with the mount in unison, so even without my special ruling that the target can effect both rider and mount in unison casting the spell while making a mounted charge is still allowed in any raw way. the effect depend on who get the spell cast on it.
Well... it's not backwards. It's just written in a confusing order;
When you cast a spell, the effect entry does not apply until you have successfully performed the standard action, made a concentration check if necessary, and saves have been failed or bypassed.
Only after all that are you supposed to apply what's in the effect entry of the spell, which now suddenly mentions the timing of spending the standard action (which was the first step).
Normally, these weird entries in the effect are no problem to resolve, but since Flash Forward already is unclear in this situation, this will only add to the confusion.
no it's not backwards.
since the spell say you must abide to all the charge rules and that as part of casting it you make a charge attack they are in fact combined. no before or after rather together, you don't start casting then have a free charge happening to you, you charge and cast at the same time. and with mounter combat you charge with the mount in unison, so even without my special ruling...
Your original statement was
you don't spend a standard action to cast this spell. it's casted as part of a charge. even when used normally without a mount.it's the part i copied:
"As part of the action to cast the spell, you make a charge attack"since a charge is a full round action(unless partial charge, lets not go into that now) and the spell is cast as part of the charge, you use no standard action to cast it.
But given
Casting Time 1 standard action
then you have not made an accurate statement.
That is, you cannot by the rules make a charge attack (full round action) and cast a standard action spell. So in casting this spell you are breaking the normal rules. At this point getting a charge attack as part of the (standard) action to cast the spell, or the casting of the spell allows you to make a charge attack becomes a distinction without difference => you only get the charge attack by casting the spell => thus casting this spell grants you a charge attack (even if the language on that is poorly written).
On a side note
...you must abide to all the charge rules...
Is not quite correct either, as clearly the spell (and thus the charge you get with it) is a standard action, so we are breaking the charge is a full round action rules. Other rules regarding charge (having a clear unobstructed path, etc) are not relevant to the point of contention.
That is, you cannot by the rules make a charge attack (full round action) and cast a standard action spell. So in casting this spell you are breaking the normal rules. At this point getting a charge attack as part of the (standard) action to cast the spell, or the casting of the spell allows you to make a charge attack becomes a distinction without difference => you only get the charge attack by casting the spell => thus casting this spell grants you a charge attack (even if the language on that is poorly written).
Wouldn’t the spell then have written "upon casting this spell, you get a free Charge attack"?
The wording suggests the spell and the Charge happen simultaneously (even though the charge itself is mentioned in the effect entry).This is also why I'm starting to think casting this on a mount means having to make a concentration check due to vigorous movement...
Either way, I would love to see some official ruling on this. I hope Paizo still does that for 1e.
That is, you cannot by the rules make a charge attack (full round action) and cast a standard action spell. So in casting this spell you are breaking the normal rules. At this point getting a charge attack as part of the (standard) action to cast the spell, or the casting of the spell allows you to make a charge attack becomes a distinction without difference => you only get the charge attack by casting the spell => thus casting this spell grants you a charge attack (even if the language on that is poorly written).Wouldn’t the spell then have written "upon casting this spell, you get a free Charge attack"?
The wording suggests the spell and the Charge happen simultaneously (even though the charge itself is mentioned in the effect entry).This is also why I'm starting to think casting this on a mount means having to make a concentration check due to vigorous movement...
Either way, I would love to see some official ruling on this. I hope Paizo still does that for 1e.
becomes a distinction without difference => you only get the charge attack by casting the spell => thus casting this spell grants you a charge attack (even if the language on that is poorly written).
Outside of free actions, you can't normally take 2 actions at the same time (in this case a charge action and a cast a spell action). So casting this spell is granting you the ability to do something you cannot normally do.
There won't be an official ruling made. They no longer respond to PF1 issues.
Outside of free actions, you can't normally take 2 actions at the same time (in this case a charge action and a cast a spell action). So casting this spell is granting you the ability to do something you cannot normally do.There won't be an official ruling made. They no longer respond to PF1 issues.
I guess the spell delivers on the promise of cheating the laws of time.
Shame they sort of abandoned PF1.