Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Rerednaw 03-02-07, 12:48 PM	Lions can pounce which allows a full attack. It also allows 2 rake attacks. Lions also have improved grab. So it is literally: 1) charge 2) claw (atk +7) +9 with charge 3) claw (atk +7) +9 with charge 4) bite (atk +2) +4 This is where I get confused: 5) grapple check (if bite hits) grp +12. (+14 with charge?) 6) Rake #1. atk at +7? 7) Rake #1. atk at +7? Rake is listed as an (EX) melee at +7. But if you're grappling and using a natural weapon don't you get a -4 penalty? Shouldn't it be +3 (+5 for the charge)? Any clarification appreciated.
solbergb 03-02-07, 01:28 PM	You do need to read the monster manual rules on Rake, pounce and natural weapons and the PHB rules on grapple. But the gist of it is like this: Rake can be used as part of a pounce or if you start inside a grapple. If neither of these conditions apply, you can't use rake attacks. Rake attacks take no penalty when used in grapple. They are also the exception to the general rule that you get one and only one natural weapon attack inside a grapple. So lion is: Normal full attack Claw +7/+7 Bite +2 + grapple attempt Pounce attack (requires charge attack) Claw +9/+9 Rake +9/+9 Bite +4 +grapple attempt (it is unclear if rake attacks go before or after the bite, but it doesn't really matter as rake works whether or not grapple succeeds. Inside grapple Bite (as grapple check) OR one and only one CLAW at +3 (7 with -4 penalty) Rake +7/+7 Only the "Claw" attacks are primary for purpose of strength damage. Rake attacks use primary nat weapon attack mods but usually use secondary strength damage. They're weird....always check the monster statblock (Annis Hags, for example, have rake with full str mod I think....)
Lupo 03-02-07, 03:16 PM	You do need to read the monster manual rules on Rake, pounce and natural weapons and the PHB rules on grapple. But the gist of it is like this: Rake can be used as part of a pounce or if you start inside a grapple. If neither of these conditions apply, you can't use rake attacks. Rake attacks take no penalty when used in grapple. They are also the exception to the general rule that you get one and only one natural weapon attack inside a grapple. So lion is: Normal full attack Claw +7/+7 Bite +2 + grapple attempt Pounce attack (requires charge attack) Claw +9/+9 Rake +9/+9 Bite +4 +grapple attempt (it is unclear if rake attacks go before or after the bite, but it doesn't really matter as rake works whether or not grapple succeeds. Inside grapple Bite (as grapple check) OR one and only one CLAW at +3 (7 with -4 penalty) Rake +7/+7 Only the "Claw" attacks are primary for purpose of strength damage. Rake attacks use primary nat weapon attack mods but usually use secondary strength damage. They're weird....always check the monster statblock (Annis Hags, for example, have rake with full str mod I think....) the whole pounce/improved grab is somehow messy ;) taking in account that attacks should - according to the PHB - be taken from highest attack bonus downward, lions don't have so much of a problem. pounce sequence is: claw/claw rake/rake bite if the bite hits, the lion has the option to initiate a grapple - when the victim is at least one size smaller than the animal ;). take a tiger to make it really complicated. a tiger can initiate a grapple if ANY of its normal attacks hit. so a tiger can pounce: start with a claw, if it hits either start a grapple or continue, next claw, if it hits either start a grapple or continue rake, rake, bite, if it hits decide whether to start a grapple or not any start of a grapple would void any further attacks because a critter cannot use his rake attacks in a round during which it initiates a grapple. never mind, an enlarged tiger with "greater magic fang" for +1 on all attacks and a "nature's favour" spell running hardly has any problem after it got something into its grapple. ciao martin m.
solbergb 03-02-07, 07:33 PM	The Tiger dilemma is similar to the bear one and the scorpion one. Generally I take the -20 on all those attacks if they're outnumbered and try to establish the grapple for real if not outnumbered (this seems like a decent "survival" instinct for an animal...animals caught in a grapple by a larger predator are screwed and can't fight back very well, so it doesn't matter if it takes longer to kill it). Now a PC-level intelligence creature trying to make best use of it would probably take -20 or not even try to grapple most of the time, taking full grapple only when the goal is to lock down enemy
moridin30 02-18-08, 10:39 PM	I have a similar question about the pounce ability. A guy at my table, who shall remain nameless to protect the guilty, tried to use a summoned creatures pounce to not only attack the creature it charged, but other creatures within it's reach. Is this even possible? There's no clear rules text on either side of this argument that I am able to locate. If this rules interpretation is allowed to stand, it would, IMHO, turn the pounce ability into one of the most broken creature abilities in the game since it's usually accompanied by some kind of extra attacks as well as full normal attacks.
awroe 02-19-08, 07:52 AM	taking in account that attacks should - according to the PHB - be taken from highest attack bonus downward, lions don't have so much of a problem. The attacks from high BAB have to be taken in order of highest bonus down. Natural attacks are at full BAB, with a penalty to the roll for secondary attacks (not to the attack bonus), so should be able to be taken in any order.
Sieylianna 02-19-08, 09:08 PM	I have a similar question about the pounce ability. A guy at my table, who shall remain nameless to protect the guilty, tried to use a summoned creatures pounce to not only attack the creature it charged, but other creatures within it's reach. Is this even possible? Did the creatures charge? If so, the creature can pounce. The pounce ability requires a charge, but it does not require that the extra attacks be made against the specific creature charged. Pounce is a nice ability, but I don't see how this particular usage is "broken". At lower levels, it may be an issue, but I don't see it being a factor at high levels. (Now if the judge lets him summon the creatures, animal growth them, and then have them carry out their charges, that's a different issue). Ed
moridin30 02-20-08, 12:49 PM	Did the creatures charge? If so, the creature can pounce. The pounce ability requires a charge, but it does not require that the extra attacks be made against the specific creature charged. Pounce is a nice ability, but I don't see how this particular usage is "broken". At lower levels, it may be an issue, but I don't see it being a factor at high levels. (Now if the judge lets him summon the creatures, animal growth them, and then have them carry out their charges, that's a different issue). Ed That's exactly what happened. A druid with a feat or magic item used a high level summon nature's ally and was able to animal growth it as a free action. It then chraged. As I said, this seems to be a broken way of using pounce.
JamesMaissen 02-20-08, 02:00 PM	Pounce is a nice ability, but I don't see how this particular usage is "broken". At lower levels, it may be an issue, but I don't see it being a factor at high levels. (Now if the judge lets him summon the creatures, animal growth them, and then have them carry out their charges, that's a different issue). Ed Most judges tend to have summons go during the druids turn rather than right before their turn. If you accept that then the animal growth is perfectly valid and even reasonable. A more interesting question is whether to allow a pounce during a surprise round or not. A creature can charge during a surprise round as a standard action. The charge allows them to take a full attack action, but would the lack of having a full round prevent it? Seems strange that a creature can attack significantly more by moving 10 ft than if it started adjacent. -James
solbergb 02-20-08, 02:20 PM	I've never seen a judge rule anything but "You have to use all attacks on the guy you charged" when pounce is involved. But as is common in D&D, if it is possible to read the text another way, somebody will. Charge rules are very specific about the target of the charge, interfering with access to that target (can't see, no clear path etc) spoils the charge, even if done mid-charge (readied action). The only way I'm aware of to attack anybody other than the charge target during a charge is cleave, and even then you get no charge benefits vs that enemy. It wouldn't work at my table to spread the attacks around, I would never try it as a player and I'd question it if I saw a GM doing it although I'm pretty sure I can't prove a negative....that's what is going on here. The argument is that "the extra attacks aren't limited by the charge limitations". If a GM ruled that way I'd say "the extra attacks then don't benefit from the charge advantages" (which can be considerable, +2 to hit, full power attack for AC, marshall bonus charisma on each attack etc) And if you don't think ruling charge this way would be an issue at higher levels, I posit you have not seen how much damage a charge-oriented PC, NPC or buffed augmented summons (animal growth+nature's favor) can do at APL14.
Istaran 02-20-08, 03:55 PM	If a GM ruled that way I'd say "the extra attacks then don't benefit from the charge advantages" (which can be considerable, +2 to hit, full power attack for AC, marshall bonus charisma on each attack etc) The extra attacks are part of the charge advantages in this case. A more interesting question is whether to allow a pounce during a surprise round or not. A creature can charge during a surprise round as a standard action. The charge allows them to take a full attack action, but would the lack of having a full round prevent it? Seems strange that a creature can attack significantly more by moving 10 ft than if it started adjacent. It is in it's own way highly appropriate that the cat-type creatures attack much better by moving 10ft or more than if they start adjacent: they perform a single leaping attack, bringing all of their assorted pointy bits to bear at the same time. They need the foreward momentum of a charge to pull this off, whereas against an adjacent foe they would only manage a bite or a claw. (Though that explanation breaks down in the case of someone/something that somehow has pounce and uses it to deliver iterative attacks with a sword or something.) That seems to make a surprise round far more powerful with pounce than without it, though I'll note that spellcasters also bring their full power to bear in a surprise round (std action spell + swift action spell if desired). Most judges tend to have summons go during the druids turn rather than right before their turn. If you accept that then the animal growth is perfectly valid and even reasonable. That can be problematic for balance reasons: the summon is supposed to appear right before your turn (assuming you aren't using Rapid Spell) and act immediately. Most SNA summons aren't tactical thinkers on the scale that they'd delay for you to buff them first (though a high enough handle animal would solve that problem), so they should be attacking your enemies immediately rather than waiting for the growth spell. Getting them to delay until after you (or go during your turn) gives you one more round of buffing on them, which can be a significant advantage. (Worth a +1 spell level and a feat in the form of Imbued Spell, specifically.)
copperwyrmling 02-20-08, 04:15 PM	The extra attacks are part of the charge advantages in this case. solbergb's point is that charge advantages generally only apply vs the target of your charge. I agree with him that (a) on my table, when you pounce you can only attack your charge target, and (b) if I was playing and the GM ruled otherwise, I'd argue that attacks against anyone other than the charge target wouldn't gain the benefits of the charge (e.g. +2 to hit, triple damage on lance spirited charge, etc). In other words, when my druid-lancer can do a pouncing shocktrooper spirited lance charge at L9 (with a flying mount, to add insult to injury), she'll be really good at reducing one bad guy to paste, but she can't splat multiple bad guys on the same ride-by attack ;)
Sieylianna 02-20-08, 05:42 PM	If I were running the table, the summoned animal would appear and take its action, so there would be no opportunity for animal growth until it had already taken it's initial attacks. About the only way I'd allow the animal growth in the 1st round is if one PC summoned the creatures and a second PC had a readied action to cast animal growth when they appear. Ed
RtrnofdMax 02-20-08, 06:06 PM	If I were running the table, the summoned animal would appear and take its action, so there would be no opportunity for animal growth until it had already taken it's initial attacks. About the only way I'd allow the animal growth in the 1st round is if one PC summoned the creatures and a second PC had a readied action to cast animal growth when they appear. Ed What if the druid readies to cast Animal Growth on their animal companion once they finish summoning a creature as a swift action? You have a valid target for animal growth, and a valid ready condition. An argument would be that you only said you were targeting the AC, but the counter argument would follow the same logic as a targeted fireball. You can ready to attack a creature with a fireball and just because another creature wasn't in the AoE when you readied doesn't mean it wouldn't be hit by the fireball if it moved into said area before the spell triggered. This is the only way I can think of that you would have a valid target and a valid set of actions allowing you to Animal Growth a summon in the first round.
solbergb 02-20-08, 06:42 PM	Area Effects != charge You're comparing two unlike things and drawing a conclusion as if they are the same. Also, there is no such thing as targeting a creature with a fireball, but that's irrelevant for why the comparison is useless for this discussion.
moridin30 02-21-08, 03:54 AM	Guys, guys, hold on a minute. The animal growth is cast as part of either a metamagic feat or a magic item that allows the summoner to cast 1 buff type spell on the summon as it comes in. This is not a case of normal actions in a round. The animal growth is completely legal. Pounce is the issue. When something has a 15' or 20' reach, and charges with a pounce, the question of what constitutes a legal target for those attacks really becomes important. I'm of a mind that pounce attacks can only be used on the target of the charge, but the wording of the ability is criminally vague. It only states that a creature using it gets a full attack action + other attacks in some cases such as rake. I've seen in the rules set for the minis that the rule has been clarified that pounce many only be used on the target of the charge, but that has no bearing here. However, it can be used as an example of what they intended for the ability. It's just one more thing that should be errattaed, but hasn't been.
_metz_ 02-21-08, 04:10 AM	Pounce gives you a full attack. On a full attack you can target seperate foes. Aside from intent there is no legal basis to dissalow a Pounce from targetting multiple foes, as long as the Lion/Critter was able to Carge ALL THE FOES IT ATTACKS. Charging one bad guy doesn't let it pounce someone who was too close to charge, despite being in reach for example. That is not a valid target. Whilst it may seem cheesy (and Yes, shocktroopering pouncing things that were leap attacking were a major issue, and lets not get started on frienzied beserker wild runners) That is why Pounce is a limited ability. Yes it is REALLY good, but there isn't any ruling that points against it being used for waht you say it is being used for. As such you must abide by the RAW. There isn't any clear Intent against it either. (Lets not bring up how Lions Charge, cos the idea of a Lion with Reach pouncing is dumb as it is, The Pounce of a big cat is essentially a grapple/bullrush. No 'real world' stuff exists properly in DnD.)
copperwyrmling 02-21-08, 03:12 PM	Pounce gives you a full attack. On a full attack you can target seperate foes. Aside from intent there is no legal basis to dissalow a Pounce from targetting multiple foes, as long as the Lion/Critter was able to Carge ALL THE FOES IT ATTACKS. Charging one bad guy doesn't let it pounce someone who was too close to charge, despite being in reach for example. That is not a valid target. Where on earth are you getting that restriction (given your ruling)? "Pounce: When a creature with this special attack makes a charge, it can follow with a full attack - including rake attacks if the creature also has the rake ability." Under Charge: "Charging is a special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action. However, it carries tight restrictions on how you can move." "You must move before your attack, not after. You must move at least 10 feet and may move up to double your speed directly towards the designated opponent. You must have a clear path towards the opponent, and nothing can hinder your movement." "After moving, you may make a single melee attack." By far the most common way to read Pounce, imx, is that "when you make a charge, you can follow with a full attack" is equivalent to replacing "melee full attack" with "single melee attack" in the sentence "after moving, you may make a single melee attack". It does not remove any of the other restrictions on charge, in particular the requirement to designate a single opponent that you charge. There is nothing in Pounce, RAW, that allows you to charge multiple opponents at once - it's not even clear how this would work, since it's unusual for the closest space from which you could attack the target to be the same for all targets within your ending reach. Another way to read it would be that pounce lets you charge as normal, and THEN get a separate follow-up full attack. In that case you would indeed be able to spread the attacks around, but those attacks wouldn't be part of the charge (in the same way that AoOs after a spirited charge don't get the x3 multiplier) and would not gain the benefits of the charge. I have never seen this ruling in play.
solbergb 02-21-08, 05:28 PM	Aside from intent there is no legal basis to dissalow a Pounce from targetting multiple foes, as long as the Lion/Critter was able to Carge ALL THE FOES IT ATTACKS. Well that's where you are wrong. #1, GM's in Living Greyhawk are allowed to consider intent. They are expected to rule by the letter AND SPIRIT of the rules. We've stated the case for why you might come down on the side of one target only on this thread, repeatedly. #2, there are no explicit rules allowing attacks on multiple targets with a pounce. Therefore it is up to the GM how he rules, since the rules neither explicitly forbid or allow multiple targets.
_metz_ 02-21-08, 06:53 PM	What I was saying is that there was no RAW for or against it. I said that all targets should have to be legitimate targets for the pounce, but I may be wrong there. Something was lost in timing and lack of coffee I think... Though by RAW< it does look like the charge is a trigger condition rather than a contingent condition. Charge -> Triggers pounce Pounce = Full attack + Rake. Thats the RAW. There is a lot of DM interpretation inbetween. Coper, I was more saying that would be a reasonable DM ruling, it was just articulated really badly. Though there isn't much legalese to back up either. Think about it this way, in a few months times you won't have to put up with 3rd edition table variation...
TetsujinOni 02-21-08, 08:01 PM	Where on earth are you getting that restriction (given your ruling)? "Pounce: When a creature with this special attack makes a charge, it can follow with a full attack - including rake attacks if the creature also has the rake ability." >>snipped<< Another way to read it would be that pounce lets you charge as normal, and THEN get a separate follow-up full attack. In that case you would indeed be able to spread the attacks around, but those attacks wouldn't be part of the charge (in the same way that AoOs after a spirited charge don't get the x3 multiplier) and would not gain the benefits of the charge. I have never seen this ruling in play. It's frightening, but the way you haven't seen ALMOST seems to best fit the wording of the RAW. Lion's Charge just became the most amazing Ranger spell ever for a TWF ranger.... Since there's no Full Attack action in 4e, we only have to worry about it for a few more months.
Sieylianna 02-21-08, 09:12 PM	Guys, guys, hold on a minute. The animal growth is cast as part of either a metamagic feat or a magic item that allows the summoner to cast 1 buff type spell on the summon as it comes in. This is not a case of normal actions in a round. The animal growth is completely legal. Pounce is the issue. No, pounce is not the problem. This is how it has worked through 3.5 and I believe 3.0 was the same. I've seen this a few times in games - 12 levels of druid will do that, but it's never been overwhelming. The problem is in the feat and/or magic item which allows animal growth. The other thing you need to keep in mind is 1) you must move at least 10' for a charge; 2) the animal increases in size; 3) it will have reach and 4) your charge must be the most direct path and ends as soon as you can attack the opponent. I don't think this tactic would work in many combats due to the limitations. I have enough problems getting people to leave charge lanes free for my tiger, much less setting things up where multiple enemies could be attacked. Ed
clannagh 02-21-08, 10:16 PM	Well that's where you are wrong. #1, GM's in Living Greyhawk are allowed to consider intent. They are expected to rule by the letter AND SPIRIT of the rules. We've stated the case for why you might come down on the side of one target only on this thread, repeatedly. This tends to be the crux of many arguments, especially at cons where people are facing different DM's to the ones they are accustomed too. In reality, unless you can show that both RAI and RAW point to the same conclusion you will get table variation. Unfortunately there are some players who feel RAW should be the final arbiter in any conflict over interpretations (bringing up arguments like "in a game, unlike the real world, you must have strict set rules"). This sometimes means such a player quoting RAW, and being over-ruled by a DM that sees that RAW conclusion as invalid (becasue it results in a silly conclusions, conflicts with other rules in the same area etc etc or simply feels "I do not have time for this now we will do it the way I always have" ) can result in very heated arguments. As an example of RAW potentially leading to silly conclusions, given that: Pounce: When a creature with this special attack makes a charge, it can follow with a full attack ... it is probably possible from RAW to argue that a pounce gives a charge attack at "full BAB + charge" followed by a complete full round attack effectively giving an EXTRA charging attack over and above the normal full attack.
solbergb 02-22-08, 03:04 PM	Well, that's why respect is important. If the PLAYER knows there are common variations, and the GM has chosen one he will not be inclined to argue with the GM. At my tables, I have had very good luck saying to the player "Your opinion is one of several interpretations that fit the rules. I have considered it and I disagree, and my opinion is also supported by the rules. Please respect my ruling at my table, as I would respect yours if you were running." (or variations of this) I can't remember the last time a rules argument at a table I was running went much beyond that. The player wants to know I've considered his point of view, but if he knows I've considered and rejected it, the inclination to argue is a lot less than if he feels I'm simply uninformed. I generally have the arguments for my points of view at my fingertips but I only need them as a player (and only exercise them when the GM is taking an action that is both contrary to any rules variations, is easy to disprove and there is at least potentially life on the line or a plot-significant encounter outcome change)
copperwyrmling 02-22-08, 06:26 PM	Coper, I was more saying that would be a reasonable DM ruling, it was just articulated really badly. Eh, Internet misunderstandings, they're wonderful aren't they? Sorry if I was too snarky in response. I agree there's not much legalese to back up either, but I'll continue to run it the first way, I'm pretty sure it'll get me fewer weird looks from players ;) Think about it this way, in a few months times you won't have to put up with 3rd edition table variation... No, we'll get a whole NEW set! :rolleyes: And then again there's the table variation on rules that should be clear-cut, like the GM you mentioned not allowing you to Quickdraw two weapons with TWF even though that is explicitly allowed in the PHB (I believe the wording is "if you have TWF, you can draw two weapons in the time it would normally take to draw one" - it's about as clear as it could possibly be). Hopefully at the very start of a new edition people will have fewer preconceptions about the way spells and abilities should work...
magebeast 02-22-08, 07:51 PM	No, we'll get a whole NEW set! :rolleyes: Really, it's going to be even worse for at least 6 months or so.
JamesMaissen 02-22-08, 11:03 PM	Really, it's going to be even worse for at least 6 months or so. It'll probably be at least a full year until even the rules writers really have a firm sense of the game let alone the players, James
Hariman 02-23-08, 08:27 AM	It'll probably be at least a full year until even the rules writers really have a firm sense of the game let alone the players, James I've heard that playtesters have managed to "break" 4E without even trying all that hard. How much do you want to bet that the 4E PHB gets erratad within the next year?
MwaO 02-23-08, 09:36 AM	I've heard that playtesters have managed to "break" 4E without even trying all that hard. It really shouldn't be difficult. They've got people designing the game who aren't game mechanics experts for the most part. Knowing how to do certain kinds of math is more important for breaking a game system than it is for writing it. And then you're putting their product in front of thousands of eyes all at once when it might have been looked at by hundreds. Something that didn't look broken can get strange quickly. An easy example of this is Leap Attack. Leap Attack is not broken at all. But it has crazy synergy with Heedless Charge, Wraithstrike, and Pounce, all of which are broken.
Sieylianna 02-24-08, 10:19 AM	It really shouldn't be difficult. They've got people designing the game who aren't game mechanics experts for the most part. Knowing how to do certain kinds of math is more important for breaking a game system than it is for writing it. And then you're putting their product in front of thousands of eyes all at once when it might have been looked at by hundreds. Something that didn't look broken can get strange quickly. An easy example of this is Leap Attack. Leap Attack is not broken at all. But it has crazy synergy with Heedless Charge, Wraithstrike, and Pounce, all of which are broken. Except the playtesters aren't creating PCs, they are merely running pre-generated PCs through defined combats. I would think the opportunities for broken things to show up to be far diminished once you take character creation out of the mix. Ed
Timlagor 02-29-08, 10:42 AM	I only skimmed this thread so this may have already been said. There is a valid basis for refusing pounce in a urprise round (or other restricted-action situation) in teh same rule that requires a full attack for multiple attacks from TWF and iteratives. It's clear that Pounce overrules the charge restriction to one attack but it is far from clear that it overrules the general requirement* for a full-round action in order to take extra attacks. * It's in the PHB combat chapter somewhere with words to the effect that 'you must take a full round action to gain additional attacks from iteratives, TWF, Feats or other abilities' -Pounce is definitely covered but Pounce could be deemed to superceded that restriction ..or not.
Hariman 02-29-08, 07:36 PM	It really shouldn't be difficult. They've got people designing the game who aren't game mechanics experts for the most part. Knowing how to do certain kinds of math is more important for breaking a game system than it is for writing it. And then you're putting their product in front of thousands of eyes all at once when it might have been looked at by hundreds. Something that didn't look broken can get strange quickly. An easy example of this is Leap Attack. Leap Attack is not broken at all. But it has crazy synergy with Heedless Charge, Wraithstrike, and Pounce, all of which are broken. "The best written systems survive first contact with the public. Lesser systems are broken upon release."? Oh, and don't forget Frenzied Berserker and Reckless Rage.
_metz_ 02-29-08, 10:13 PM	"The best written systems survive first contact with the public. Lesser systems are broken upon release."? Oh, and don't forget Frenzied Berserker and Reckless Rage. NOthing wrong with Reckless Rage. Frienzied Beserker by iteslef wasn't too bad really. Combined with all the other feats though...
clannagh 03-02-08, 07:11 PM	I only skimmed this thread so this may have already been said. There is a valid basis for refusing pounce in a urprise round (or other restricted-action situation) in teh same rule that requires a full attack for multiple attacks from TWF and iteratives. It's clear that Pounce overrules the charge restriction to one attack but it is far from clear that it overrules the general requirement* for a full-round action in order to take extra attacks. * It's in the PHB combat chapter somewhere with words to the effect that 'you must take a full round action to gain additional attacks from iteratives, TWF, Feats or other abilities' -Pounce is definitely covered but Pounce could be deemed to superceded that restriction ..or not. I have never thought of it this way before but I agree, pounce can really only validly apply in a normal charge .. not a partial charge taken in a surprise round.