Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Puggle Halfwine 03-12-06, 08:36 PM	Hey guys, I was wondering if anyone knew of any prestige classes which give the pounce ability (full attack at the end of a charge) or something similar? It's a rare ability but one my charging-based character would really, really like. :)
LCJJohnson 03-12-06, 08:46 PM	The Wildrunner prestige class from Races of the Wild allows one pounce per combat in its 6th level. LCJJ
Nerax 03-13-06, 01:32 AM	The Wildrunner prestige class from Races of the Wild allows one pounce per combat in its 6th level. LCJJ Let me Quote the book: At 6th level you gain the ability to punce on an opponent in the round in which you activate your Primal Scream. You get 3 Primal Screams + cha bonus per day and there is no negative effects when you end the Primal Scream (it lasts 3+con bonus in rounds). so you can do it more than once a day.
Puggle Halfwine 03-13-06, 07:41 AM	Hmm, but you have to be an elf... No other way anyone else knows? Feats, etc?
Iswald 03-13-06, 09:00 AM	Five levels of druid, then take lion's charge as a feat... I didn't think this would be a joyous piece of information, so didn't post it previously. ;) There are probably some spells too, but I don't think they'd help either.
Tungar 03-16-06, 10:29 AM	Just a question, can you pounce more than one character ? Example : you pounce a mirrored image character, what happens ?
redgamer 03-16-06, 10:54 AM	I can't think of a reason why you wouldn't be able to pounce and then attack any target you could reach in melee. Keep in mind many things that pounce also rake with does effectively require attacking one target.
kjenks 03-16-06, 11:14 AM	Yes, you can pounce more than one character. The usual rules for a full attack apply, so "You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones." SRD === Pounce (Ex): 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. === A druid can Wild Shape into a leopard, lion, tiger, deinonychus, megaraptor, dire lion, or dire tiger, all of whom can pounce. I just looked through the LGCS and I don't see a rule preventing a druid from changing into a dinosaur. (Remember, the MM Errata changed deinonychus and megaraptor significantly.) But I think the best pouncing animal for LG is dire lion. Dire tiger is better, but the 16 HD limit means that the druid would have to be 16th level, so that won't work with LG's mandatory retirement level cap. Power Attack and Shock Trooper work very well with a pounce attack, letting you get 1x Power Attack with all of your natural weapons while using the Heedless Charge tactic from the Shock Trooper tactical feat. The alternative application of Greater Magic Fang (imbue all of the creature’s natural weapons with a +1 enhancement bonus) is also good for pouncing, and at 1 hour/level, you're likely to have it up and running. The Natural Spell feat plus the swift (Spell Compendium) version of Nature's Favor will add some more punch to your pounce. Hopefully, LGCS 5.1 will get us the better Nature's Favor. So if you're looking for a really good prestige class for pouncing, consider druid. It has all of the pouncing prestige you'll need.
kjenks 03-16-06, 11:16 AM	Or to gain pounce with just one feat, take Leadership and get your cohort to Polymorph you into one of those pouncing critters.
Samwise 03-16-06, 02:07 PM	There's one problem with pouncing and attacking more than one character: Pounce is part of a charge. Unless all your targets are in the same space, your line of charge almost certainly wouldn't have been directly towards all of them. Nothing in Pounce allows you to otherwise vary or modify the normal requirments and limitations of a Charge. So while it could work against a PC and his mount, I'm not sure it would otherwise be possible.
kjenks 03-16-06, 02:15 PM	That's true, but if there happen to be two characters that qualify for your charge attack, you could pounce 'em both. To qualify, both characters would have to be side-by-side or 5 ft. apart, and an imaginary line between them must be exactly perpendicular to your charge path, and your charge path must take you to the square between them, following all of the usual charging rules. That doesn't happen very often. Or they could occupy the same squares, like a rider on a mount. That happens a bit more often.
Samwise 03-16-06, 02:29 PM	To qualify, both characters would have to be side-by-side or 5 ft. apart, and an imaginary line between them must be exactly perpendicular to your charge path, and your charge path must take you to the square between them, following all of the usual charging rules. That doesn't happen very often. Well there's the thing - if your path takes you between them, you weren't charging directly at one of them, possibly both of them. I can, possibly, see it working of the pouncer is large charging two medium size creatures directly in line with him. But even that is questionable, as a "direct" line would obviously still veer away from one of them. Since I loathe geometry, I'll leave it to someone else to calculate how reasonable that would be, and just stick with suggesting it only be possible against a mount and rider, two targets more than two sizes different sharing a space, or two targets small enough to otherwise be able to share a space. (Pounce the wizard AND his familiar!)
Arvagor 03-16-06, 02:44 PM	Well there's the thing - if your path takes you between them, you weren't charging directly at one of them, possibly both of them.Not true, and the "geometry" is actually very simple... Charge specifically states, "First, you must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent." So take the following example (presuming each letter takes up a 5' space): XXXXXXXXXXXA XXXXXCXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXB If "C" is going to charge "A" or "B" the closest square to which he can move to and attack either A or B is the square marked with the blue X. In game movement terms, it is the same distance to the green Xs as well, but geometrically speaking, the path to the blue X is the shortest.
Mortepierre 03-16-06, 02:46 PM	Geomancer PrC (Complete Divine): One of the Drift 4 abilities is "you can pounce like a leopard".
Samwise 03-16-06, 11:42 PM	Not true, and the "geometry" is actually very simple... Charge specifically states, "First, you must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent." It also specifically states, "You must move at least 10 feet (2 squares) and may move up to double your speed directly toward the designated opponent." Note both "directly toward" and "designated opponent" (singular). Your example is not moving "directly toward" either, nor does it have a "designated opponent." Also, although my geometry is terrible, you are wrong. Geometrically speaking, both the bold face green X's are closer to A and B respectively than the bold face blue X.
King Kashue 03-17-06, 02:04 AM	Also, although my geometry is terrible, you are wrong. Geometrically speaking, both the bold face green X's are closer to A and B respectively than the bold face blue X. the closer is relative to the starting position, not to the target...The blue x is closer to the starting position in both cases...
redgamer 03-17-06, 11:57 AM	Sam I heard you only begrudgingly use battlemaps anyways. If you had to charge to the square closest to the opponet you could never charge to a diagonal adjacent square but always charge to any of 4 other adjacent squares. That can't be what the rule says.
Samwise 03-17-06, 03:01 PM	the closer is relative to the starting position, not to the target...The blue x is closer to the starting position in both cases... Is it? Odd though that a direct line doesn't even pass through that square. So how exactly would your charge ever get you there?
Samwise 03-17-06, 03:06 PM	Sam I heard you only begrudgingly use battlemaps anyways. And? How exactly is that relevant? Do you know why I dislike battlemats? If you had to charge to the square closest to the opponet you could never charge to a diagonal adjacent square but always charge to any of 4 other adjacent squares. That can't be what the rule says. The rule says what it says. As for not being able to charge to a diagonally adjacent square, why would that not be possible?
PaulH 03-17-06, 07:01 PM	Hi As I see it, you can charge into the blue 'x' square, but since you can only charge a single target, you just designate which one. Of course, the other one is prime target for cleave. Cheers Paul H
King Kashue 03-18-06, 12:59 AM	Is it? Odd though that a direct line doesn't even pass through that square. So how exactly would your charge ever get you there? Certainly it does, since in D&D lines are drawn from one corner of the starting square...The line pass through the target square along one side... The text of the PHB indicates how to determine if a path is clear, and also makes clear that (as already stated) "you must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent"...The PHB is implicitly clear, and the FAQ explicitly clear that the "closest square" is relative to your starting position...
Samwise 03-18-06, 08:04 PM	Certainly it does, since in D&D lines are drawn from one corner of the starting square...The line pass through the target square along one side...[?QUOTE] Not all of them. In fact, by the example given, specifically not for lines to determine if a charge is possible. [QUOTE]The text of the PHB indicates how to determine if a path is clear, and also makes clear that (as already stated) "you must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent"...The PHB is implicitly clear, and the FAQ explicitly clear that the "closest square" is relative to your starting position... It does? Where does it say to draw the line along a corner? In fact, from that example, it is clear the line is definitely NOT drawn from a corner.
redgamer 03-18-06, 11:15 PM	I can't see why you would say the character must charge to the green x but not say that they can't charge to the blue x. If I misintrupreted what you said can you explain again?
Samwise 03-19-06, 11:09 AM	I can't see why you would say the character must charge to the green x but not say that they can't charge to the blue x. If I misintrupreted what you said can you explain again? Draw a line from the center of the start square to the center of the target square. It doesn't pass through the blue x square.
pedr 03-19-06, 01:08 PM	Draw a line from the center of the start square to the center of the target square. It doesn't pass through the blue x square. I've not followed this whole (sub-)discussion but one comment on this: When, in D&D, do we ever have the rules telling us explicitly to draw lines from the centre of squares? There might be examples, but as far as I can recall, all lines are drawn from corners - sometimes it's choose a corner, sometimes it's all corners, but I can't recall the use of the centre. If that's simply your interpretation of the meaning of the word 'closest' ... well then it's one possible interpretation but that doesn't mean there aren't other interpretations equally compatible with the RAW. And if (I've not checked the books I'm sorry) the rule is that you have to charge to the closest square to you from which you can attack the target, that would suggest the blue one. Think of it like this: if C is moved in a straight line directly towards A ignoring any lines on a mat we'd put him straddling the line between the blue X and the top green one. That's not a suitable place to put him given squares, so we have to decide whether he goes up (to green) or down (to blue). In D&D terms they're both as close to the starting square as each other, but clearly moving to the green X is a longer path. This would be clearer if the diagonal movement rules said: "a diagonal move costs 1.5 squares, round fractions down at the end of movement" (so 1 square is 1.5=1 square, 2 squares is 3 squares, etc). It doesn't say that but that's how it works. So, even if it seems counter-intuitive to some, I would say that the valid charge square in this situation is, indeed, the blue X.
King Kashue 03-19-06, 04:29 PM	[QUOTE=King Kashue] It does? Where does it say to draw the line along a corner? In fact, from that example, it is clear the line is definitely NOT drawn from a corner. Except the diagram is for determining if you have a clear path, not for determining whether it is a direct path... And infact the line for determining a clear path is drawn from a corner, from EVERY corner of the starting square to every corner of the ending squar...explicitly, in the diagram and in the text...
Samwise 03-19-06, 09:03 PM	Except the diagram is for determining if you have a clear path, not for determining whether it is a direct path... And infact the line for determining a clear path is drawn from a corner, from EVERY corner of the starting square to every corner of the ending squar...explicitly, in the diagram and in the text... Well then, if that is the case, then there is no way you can claim that the blue x (of the example here) is a legitimate square, as no path to it would be able to trace to half of the corners of the target squares. If course, that isn't explicit in the diagram. If it were, the path of the "legal" charge would be wrong.
solbergb 03-20-06, 12:50 PM	This sort of thing is why, when charging, if it is at all unclear if I what square I should go to or if I have a legal path, I just ask the GM "Can I charge from here?" There are multiple ways to interpret the RAW, even with the PHB diagram. At my table, the green x is the closest square, but I won't object to a player charging to the blue x, since the movement allotment used up is identical. I interpret the charge rules to mean "you charge to the nearest square from which you can launch your melee attack on the target, where nearest is defined as that which will used the least amount of your movement allotment". Since in charge, you can't slow down for any reason (rough terrain and such needs to be jumped over or balanced over or flown over or whatever), this approach works pretty well, and I've never had any players complain about it. Whichever square is chosen (if more than one possibility exists), I'll then use the PHB diagram approach to see if the charge lane is blocked.
Samwise 03-20-06, 02:23 PM	Whichever square is chosen (if more than one possibility exists), I'll then use the PHB diagram approach to see if the charge lane is blocked. There should never be more than one possible square. That is the whole point of "directly" in the text. Even if two squares are the same distance because of a single diagonal shift, one is still closer by a direct line. Draw that line, from center to center, see which square it goes through, and that is the line of the charge.
King Kashue 03-20-06, 02:39 PM	Well then, if that is the case, then there is no way you can claim that the blue x (of the example here) is a legitimate square, as no path to it would be able to trace to half of the corners of the target squares. If course, that isn't explicit in the diagram. If it were, the path of the "legal" charge would be wrong. How is that? The line hits that square from every corner... The diagram we have is thus: XXXXXXXXXXXA XXXXXCXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXB A line from either "top" corner of square C hits the "top" corners of the blue square, passing along the "top" side to get to the "back top" corner"...and passes through the square when hitting the "back bottom" corner...And the converse is true for lines starting from the bottom... That is how lines for cover work, for line spells, for determining if a charge path is obstructed, if a run path is obstructed, et al... There is nothing in the way preventing the charge, and it is the closest square from which one can attack (as prescribed in the PHB)... As you yourself just said: Even if two squares are the same distance because of a single diagonal shift, one is still closer by a direct line. Draw that line, from center to center, see which square it goes through, and that is the line of the charge. The Blue square is closer than the Green square, since hitting the green square requires diagonal movement, which makes the path longer... As for drawing from the center, nothing in D&D uses that, in fact the way for determining a path is explicitly different in every case...What rule are you looking at that tells you to do it that way?
Samwise 03-20-06, 02:52 PM	How is that? The line hits that square from every corner... A line from either "top" corner of square C hits the "top" corners of the blue square, passing along the "top" side to get to the "back top" corner"...and passes through the square when hitting the "back bottom" corner...And the converse is true for lines starting from the bottom... Except those lines don't hit all the corners of the square occupied by the target of the charge. You aren't charging something in the square between A and B, but something in either A or B. Therefore your lines must go to all four corners of those squares. That is how lines for cover work, for line spells, for determining if a charge path is obstructed, if a run path is obstructed, et al... That is not how it is determined for a charge. If it were, it would be significantly easier to charge around obstacles, as all you need to do is find a single path that avoids such a space. Look at the second example where the charge is blocks because it goes through a square with a wall. It isn't just the corner of that wall, otherwise the path of the first charge would be blocked as well. The Blue square is closer than the Green square, since hitting the green square requires diagonal movement, which makes the path longer... Not the path directly to the target in A or B. As for drawing from the center, nothing in D&D uses that, in fact the way for determining a path is explicitly different in every case...What rule are you looking at that tells you to do it that way? The rule written in the book that uses the phrase "directly towards" and the diagrams that accompany it. I am also using the rules for drawing lines between two spaces, along with basic geometry which tells me that any single side of a triangle is shorter than the sum of the other two sides of the triangle, thus providing us with the "closest" square. As for the wya of determing a path being explicitly different, why are you relying on the corner to corner rule here?
Mommy was an Orc 03-20-06, 03:28 PM	The rule written in the book that uses the phrase "directly towards" and the diagrams that accompany it. I am also using the rules for drawing lines between two spaces, along with basic geometry which tells me that any single side of a triangle is shorter than the sum of the other two sides of the triangle, thus providing us with the "closest" square. Except the diagrams show us with their arrows what they mean by 'directly towards'....They're using the center of the square that is the start of the charge to the center of the square where Tordek ends up - the line does not actually pass through the center of the orc's square. i.e. when they say directly, they do not mean directly in the real world sense, but in the D&D mechanical sense.
Arvagor 03-20-06, 04:15 PM	Wow, I didn't think a simple little text based diagram would generate this much chatter... ;) I'm going to repost it -- with some modifications -- for the sake of my clarifying how I interpret the charging rules... 12......4A C3......56 .........B For the sake of argument, I acknowledge that you must declare you are charging toward a single creature; therefore, before you ever move, you know which creature (A or B, in this case) is going to be attacked. So will use "A" for this purpose. The way I always determined the closest square/shortest route problem was as follows... Note the position of the creature doing the charging -- A Note the position of the creature receiving the attack at the end of the charge -- C Determine the two closest points for each of those squares in relation to the other. Using the "illustration", that means the corner common to (C, 1, 2, 3) and the corner common to (A, 4, 5, 6) Now, what is the shortest path C/C's square can take to, in essence, "connect" the two corners described in step 3? You cannot "rotate" or "twist" the square as it is moving. The answer has to be that the creature doing the charging would end up in square 5. (Try this exrcise with an actual battlemap -- or a pencil and graph paper, if you like -- and you'll see that it makes much more sense when you can see the actual squares.)
Samwise 03-22-06, 07:26 PM	Here is the problem with tracing towards the square you end up in instead of the target: Two creatures standing next to each other in a 10 ft. wide corridor. The charger has a long spear. He "charges" 10 ft. away from his target, to the "closest" square he can attack from, and makes his charge attack. Obviously that isn't right. "But he should really just go 5 ft. to the side! Just because there is a corridor doesn't mean he can go sideways all of sudden!" Well, that is what happens when you are now charging to where you are attacking from instead of towards the creature you are attacking. But let us take that as a good reason. We just change the example to a large creature with a reach weapon. Now it must actually "charge" away from the target creature to be in range to use its weapon. Again, that obviously isn't right. So apparently just targeting the square you are charging to isn't right.
Mommy was an Orc 03-22-06, 08:17 PM	Actually, there's the larger problem that what you're describing is also illegal. You quite clearly cannot make a charge by moving away from your opponent. If you're 10' away from an opponent with a longspear, you cannot charge them. Here is the problem with tracing towards the square you end up in instead of the target: Two creatures standing next to each other in a 10 ft. wide corridor. The charger has a long spear. He "charges" 10 ft. away from his target, to the "closest" square he can attack from, and makes his charge attack.
Samwise 03-22-06, 08:35 PM	Actually, there's the larger problem that what you're describing is also illegal. You quite clearly cannot make a charge by moving away from your opponent. If you're 10' away from an opponent with a longspear, you cannot charge them. Yes, but why can't I make a charge by moving away? If "directly towards" is being defined as referring to the square you attack from, then there is nothing left that requires you to actually move towards the opponent you are attacking. Combined with the "closest square you can attack from being further away if you are large and have a reach weapon, then suddely you can indeed charge by moving away from the opponent. So indeed, that interpretation must be wrong. That brings us back to the requirement actually being directly towards the opponent himself, not the square you charge to. Of course that means the first example in the PH is at least partially wrong. A rather clear example does appear in another WotC book, but since it isn't a D&D book I'm sure nobody will want to even consider it. So I guess that leaves us with the specter of table variation for yet another rule.
Mommy was an Orc 03-22-06, 09:32 PM	Yes, but why can't I make a charge by moving away? If "directly towards" is being defined as referring to the square you attack from, then there is nothing left that requires you to actually move towards the opponent you are attacking. You're using real-world logic in a 5' square mechanical world and ignoring the arrows in the diagrams. If I'm charging an opponent, I cannot enter his space and I must end up in an actual square. It is impossible to literally move directly towards someone unless we happen to be facing off in one of the 8 major compass directions. You can literally as close as possible to moving directly towards them and actually towards the closest available square. Take a ruler and put it on PHB's diagrams. The arrow does pass through the center of Tordek and does not pass through the center of the Orc. But more importantly, if you take a close look at the blocked diagram and draw a line from the center of Tordek to the center of the orc, Tordek shouldn't actually be blocked by the wall as he has to be significantly to the East of the point the drawn line is at. In any case, there's a simple test of which variation we should be using: If we use yours, Ride-By-Attack cannot be done, ever. If we use the other one, Ride-By-Attack works perfectly well and is a useful feat.
Samwise 03-22-06, 10:02 PM	You're using real-world logic in a 5' square mechanical world and ignoring the arrows in the diagrams. No, I am using real-world English, and the precise terms used in the rules text. That is how the rules are written - with very precise, very specific terms. If I'm charging an opponent, I cannot enter his space and I must end up in an actual square. It is impossible to literally move directly towards someone unless we happen to be facing off in one of the 8 major compass directions. You can literally as close as possible to moving directly towards them and actually towards the closest available square. Not at all. You simply have to use a straight edge and center-center measuring to determine which square to enter. Take a ruler and put it on PHB's diagrams. The arrow does pass through the center of Tordek and does not pass through the center of the Orc. But more importantly, if you take a close look at the blocked diagram and draw a line from the center of Tordek to the center of the orc, Tordek shouldn't actually be blocked by the wall as he has to be significantly to the East of the point the drawn line is at. Which means the examples are very poorly done. I already knew that. In any case, there's a simple test of which variation we should be using: If we use yours, Ride-By-Attack cannot be done, ever. If we use the other one, Ride-By-Attack works perfectly well and is a useful feat. Except for one very minor fact: Ride-By Attack was written for 3E and pre-errata 3.5 when you could do an overrun as part of a charge, allowing you to make such a move with no problem at all. It is only that errata, without any correction to the Ride-By Attack feat that causes the problem. Also, you can do a Ride-By Attack. You just have to be 3 sizes different from your target, allowing you to pass through their square (a rather bizarre situation), or you have to kill your target (which makes the approach part relevant even if it makes the continuing part irrelevant), or, by one view of the specific rules, either you or your target has to be incorporeal (for however often that happens). Or the rule can just be properly clarified, with a comprehensive errata that provides a specific method of measuring the line of a charge, clear diagrams illustrating it, and accommodation for the Ride-By Attack feat.
Arvagor 03-22-06, 10:15 PM	Yes, but why can't I make a charge by moving away?Because the rules say otherwise (..."move up to double your speed directly toward the designated opponent"; PHB, page 154) If "directly towards" is being defined as referring to the square you attack from, then there is nothing left that requires you to actually move towards the opponent you are attacking.The example I gave above changes nothing about how charging actually works; my illustration was simply to show how I determine what is "the closest space from which you can attack your opponent" when there are multiple paths to the target that use up the same amount of squares of movement. The text also states that you get the +2 bonus on your attack roll at the end of the charge because you're using your momentum in your favor. I can hardly see how moving away from your opponent would enhance your attack roll in this regard. Hmm... I know! A new combat maneuver -- "Backpedal", a full-round action, wherein you can make a single attack, and then move up to twice your speed directly away from your opponent. However, because you're momentum is working against you, you take a -2 penalty on the attack roll... That is how the rules are written - with very precise, very specific terms. :heehee Oh, thanks, Samwise! The way work went today, I needed that laugh! :rofl:
Samwise 03-22-06, 10:54 PM	Because the rules say otherwise (..."move up to double your speed directly toward the designated opponent"; PHB, page 154) Which doesn't include moving next to your opponent, or having a direct path to the square you end up in. It can't be both. The example I gave above changes nothing about how charging actually works; my illustration was simply to show how I determine what is "the closest space from which you can attack your opponent" when there are multiple paths to the target that use up the same amount of squares of movement. I am aware of that. Your example does not fit the ones in the book, or the language used for the rule. The text also states that you get the +2 bonus on your attack roll at the end of the charge because you're using your momentum in your favor. I can hardly see how moving away from your opponent would enhance your attack roll in this regard. I agree. That is why tracing a direct path to the square you end up in can't be right. Hmm... I know! A new combat maneuver -- "Backpedal", a full-round action, wherein you can make a single attack, and then move up to twice your speed directly away from your opponent. However, because you're momentum is working against you, you take a -2 penalty on the attack roll... Don't give them any ideas! Now that will be a feat in the next accessory. :mad: :P :heehee Oh, thanks, Samwise! The way work went today, I needed that laugh! :rofl: Laugh all you like, but however bad you might think the rules are, that is the intent behind them. That is why the glossary is so big, it has so many things very specifically defined with very specific descriptors. That's why if boxed text were to read: "The very sight sickens you." a player would respond: "You mean a -2 to everything? What about a save?!?!" Don't confuse a near endless stream of typos and poorly balanced spells and feats with a poor choice of words, particularly since they are found in different books. I might not like many of the Core rules (square horses!) but that doesn't diminish their thoroughness and quality.
Tahldrehlian 04-16-06, 07:57 PM	Not to be a spoilsport and bring this topic back in line... Wild Plains Outrider and Halfling Outrider both let you move a single move on your mount and take a full attack action. Sure, you're mounted... but A single move charge with a lance is 2-3 attacks at double damage.
GorTeX 04-16-06, 10:47 PM	As for drawing from the center, nothing in D&D uses that, in fact the way for determining a path is explicitly different in every case...What rule are you looking at that tells you to do it that way? Flanking does
Iswald 04-17-06, 07:31 AM	Not to be a spoilsport and bring this topic back in line... Wild Plains Outrider and Halfling Outrider both let you move a single move on your mount and take a full attack action. Sure, you're mounted... but A single move charge with a lance is 2-3 attacks at double damage. I think you'd only get the extra damage on the first attack. After that, you're no longer charging. To me, this seems akin to only getting one sneak attack when you volley arrows.
Puggle Halfwine 04-17-06, 11:04 AM	Actually, I think you'll find that the Wild Plains Outrider and Halfling Outrider both are quite specific that you can only take a full attack after making a *single move*, rather than a charge action. I don't have my books on me, however, so don't take that as gospel...
Casebier 04-17-06, 01:23 PM	To answer the original question... You can also gain the Pounce ability via the spell Lion's Charge (Dru3/Rng2), which has a Swift casting time. One of the biggest effects I could see with gaining the pounce ability... the Scout class with the Skirmish bonus. John Jr
PaulH 04-17-06, 05:49 PM	I think you'd only get the extra damage on the first attack. After that, you're no longer charging. To me, this seems akin to only getting one sneak attack when you volley arrows. Hi Not exactly sure what extra damage you're talking about (unless one of the charge feats), but surely the damage applies to ALL attacks? 'Volley' is having extra attacks (Excluding those from high BAB) with same weapon. You get the same str bonuses with all your primary attacks, so same should apply here. If target is susceptable to sneak damage, then all attacks include sneak damage. (Unless sneak because of invis - you're no longer invis after 1st attack). You certainly get all the same bonuses to hit if you cleave. (Includes Smite, etc, just not damage). My Choice of Full Attacker: If you don't mind losing the higher spells, Druid follwed by Master Many Forms & Warshaper (immunity to crits/sneak damage) is the way to go. Human Druid 5/Master Forms 7: Wild Shape 8/day 1: Druid Alertness, Toughness; Companion, Nature Sense, Wild Empathy 2: Druid; Woodland Stride, 3: Druid Endurance; Trackless Step 4: Druid; Resist Nature's Lure 5: Druid; Wild Shape 1/day 6: Master Forms (CA),Lion's Pounce; Shifter's Speech, Improved Wildshape (Humanoid) 7: Master Forms; Imp Shape (Giant, Large) 8: Master Forms, Fast Wild Shape, Imp Shape (Most Humanoid) 9: Master Forms,Spontaneous Healer(Or Practiced Spellcaster) ; Imp Shape (Fey, Tiny) 10: Master Forms, Imp Shape (Vermin) 11: Master Forms, Imp Shape (Aberration, Huge) 12: Master Forms, Oaken Resilience, Extraordinary Shape, Imp Shape (Plant) 12 Hrs/Day you're Dire Bear. St 31, De 13, Co 19. Oaken Resilience - Plant Immunities (Sneak/Crits/Poison/etc). Lion's Pounce (free action) full attack after charge. Extraordinary Wildshape (Master 7th) grants Ex abilities of animal, (Imp Grapple, etc). I know the BAB isn't brilliant, but high Str/Con & shape versatility should make up for it. Cheers Paul H PS Master Many Form's 1st Lvl ability allows you to cast spells whilst wild-shaped. Can also communicate with others of that type.