Post/Author/DateTime	Post
LarryMac 07-19-07, 02:07 AM	Could the Leap Attack feat be used in conjunction with various forms of Pounce attacks (the Lion's Pounce feat or a Druid wildshaped into an animal that can pounce for instance)?
bobothechimp 07-19-07, 02:30 AM	Yes.
Jungingen 07-19-07, 03:17 AM	Good work, Bobo.
bobothechimp 07-19-07, 03:46 AM	I do my best.
Xeviat-DM 07-19-07, 03:59 AM	I believe it technically works, as the pounce gets to add the +2 to attack charge bonus to all attacks, but I've seen this destroy games. There was this warblade ...
bobothechimp 07-19-07, 04:48 AM	You had better not be implying that ToB is broken. A lot of it does seem powerful, but in practice (practice meaning that there are no rules being broken or "ignored" by the person playing the martial class and getting away with it because the DM doesn't understand the system so the DM has to go to these boards and complain about how ToB is broken while it really isn't) it really isn't.
Jungingen 07-19-07, 04:53 AM	Good work, Bobo.
bobothechimp 07-19-07, 05:49 AM	I do my best.
Spikes01k 07-19-07, 12:35 PM	You had better not be implying that ToB is broken. A lot of it does seem powerful, but in practice (practice meaning that there are no rules being broken or "ignored" by the person playing the martial class and getting away with it because the DM doesn't understand the system so the DM has to go to these boards and complain about how ToB is broken while it really isn't) it really isn't. I believe he is implying that two weapon pounce is broken.
tarkin 07-19-07, 04:51 PM	+2 to attacks is not a big deal. The problem is when someone claims another feat/ability counts for both attacks because they are both charging. That is both illogical (charge bonus is due to momentum you built up, and you have already used that momentum up) and abusive. Strict/Loose game: When using abilities that grant extra attacks on a charge, only the first one counts as a charge. Power/Anything Goes Game: Sure, let all the attacks count as charging.
ibayboy 07-20-07, 01:43 AM	You take the penalty to AC untill your next turn, so why shouldn't you have +2 on all your attacks. (i am biased, Warblade12/Monk2 with leap attack, and a pounce maneuver:D )
Xeviat-DM 07-20-07, 02:45 AM	The problem is that people stack multiple abilities that are meant to "fix" charging, and together they produce insanity. The character's build used the Pouncing Charge maneuver, Power Attack, the Shock Trooper feat from Complete Warrior, and Leap Attack from Complete Adventurer. He was an 11th level warblade. So, he would charge with Pouncing Charge (giving him 3 attacks), Power Attack for 11, jump in with the charge, and use Shock Trooper to channel all of the attack penalty into an AC penalty. He then had an AC 3, but his attacks were dealing 2d6+(strx1.5)+3 (enhancement)+44 (4x power attack, based on Leap Attack clarifications). I forget what his strength was ... I think it was 26, which would put his total damage at 2d6+59 per attack, all made at full attack (and -5, and -10). Yeah, he shredded stuff. So no, ToB isn't overpowered; I wasn't implying such. But multiple charge feats/abilities at once is.
Jungingen 07-20-07, 03:17 AM	Well, the Leap Attack errata was sort of silly. But that's neither here nor there. The character you're describing isn't any where near optimized as a charger and could be doing much, much more damage if he were, errata or not. The consensus opinion as I'm aware is that Pounce or a similar ability grants you Full Round Attack with all the benefits of Charging. The RAW is ambiguous on this point, so it's probably going to come down to your DM's discretion unless there's an official ruling that I'm not aware of. The way that Charging and Pounce work isn't very consistent at the moment. I could understand +2 to hit on Charge, -2 to AC till your next turn if you're making a wild, aggressive swing and can't recover quickly. However, the way the rules are written and the way that things like Power Attack work, that should give you a bonus to damage and not attack rolls. Also, if you're Pouncing for a Full Round Attack then obviously you have time to recover and launch additional attacks, so you probably shouldn't take an AC penalty at all except on AoOs. If you're attacking simultaneously with multiple weapons then multiple weapons should get momentum-based bonuses to damage, but I can understand Tarkin's claim that it should be a one per weapon thing. At any rate, as I said, my impression is that most games permit Leap Attack and Charge bonuses on all iterative Pounce attacks. If anyone has an official ruling counter to this, please share.
EjoThims 07-20-07, 04:16 AM	Anything that affects a cahrge attack affects all attack used with any kind of pounce ability. And any and all builds that can get one level of barabarian can now get pounce at the cost of the barb's 10' move bonus. Oh... Complete Champion... What have you done...
Bopple 07-20-07, 04:48 AM	I am not sure, but didn't they somewhere say damage multiplier by special charge effects(like leap attack) can only be applied to the first attack of the charge?
ibayboy 07-20-07, 04:52 AM	I am not sure, but didn't they somewhere say damage multiplier by special charge effects(like leap attack) can only be applied the first attack of the charge? Please, nobody find that anywhere.:weep:
Sorath 07-20-07, 11:31 AM	Personally, I will not ever consider any melee damage builds overpowered as long as there are unchecked wizards running around with Gate, Timestop, and Reverse Gravity. So, when you are able to get a saving throw against all spells and spell resistance applies to all spells, then I will agree to start nerfing melee damage. Until then, I say pounce and leap attack your way to mass carnage. Because Wizards and Spellcasters in general are still the most overpowered characters in the game.
Jungingen 07-20-07, 02:38 PM	Personally, I will not ever consider any melee damage builds overpowered as long as there are unchecked wizards running around with Gate, Timestop, and Reverse Gravity. So, when you are able to get a saving throw against all spells and spell resistance applies to all spells, then I will agree to start nerfing melee damage. Until then, I say pounce and leap attack your way to mass carnage. Because Wizards and Spellcasters in general are still the most overpowered characters in the game. It's not really the chargers or the casters that you have to worry about, it's the charging casters. Wraithstrike, Shapechange, Greater Celerity, Arcane Strike and every other horrifying, insidious buff out there may not beat straight-up chargers on theoretical max damage in one round, but it changes things from a matter of theory to a matter of course. If that doesn't work, you've still got every other old reliable spell at your disposal. And just so we're all clear, EjoThims and Bopple, I don't believe that they've stated one way or another that Leap Attack, etc. apply to a single attack after a Charge, or that they apply to all attacks. The rules for Charge were clearly written with the intent of making a single attack and are worded as such. None of the abilities, feats, or Charge itself deal with the issue explicitly, so it's up to individual DM interpretations until someone can point to an official ruling or clarification.
EjoThims 07-20-07, 03:02 PM	And just so we're all clear, EjoThims and Bopple, I don't believe that they've stated one way or another that Leap Attack, etc. apply to a single attack after a Charge, or that they apply to all attacks. Exactly. The only thing we have to judge on are the fact that Pounce abilities require the charge action. Since there is no clarification that this charge action is different from any other for the purposes of all the abilities that modify charges, it is not. Otherwise, you'd have to assume that other abilities that modify the base single charge attack can't be used in conjunction to modify the same, single charge attack.
Clivenlongsight 08-09-07, 12:56 AM	I have to disagree with the majority here, at least in reference to Leap Attack bonuses applying to *all* of the Pounce attacks. Leap Attack states: You can combine a powerful charge and a mighty leap into one devastating attack. That's *one* devastating attack: not two or three or four. Yes, Pounce gives you a full round of attacks, and these attacks are off of a charge, and one may *assume* (tho I have not seen hard data on this) that all the attacks take the positive charge modifiers as well as the AC penalty, but Leap Attack is a *feat*, and has *specific* wording. Yes, charge itself is very specific in the wording as well, but nowhere in Leap Attack does it say the Leap Attack benefits may be modified; it is it's own game mechanic. Yes LA is bound to the *normal* rules for charges, but "normal rules" does not imply Pounce. If the Pounce ability and/or Leap Attack gets officially errata-ed to allow the combo then it applies, but until then the Feat's wording says one attack, period: the first one. Even if you *were* to allow multiple attacks to have the LA's momentum apply, any Rake attacks absolutely should not gain the bonus as they are *explicitly* listed as *follow-up* attacks to a grapple (in this case simply the critter getting in two good hits first). Again, if anyone has *official* acknowledgement of the combo being valid then it is; otherwise the Feat itself says no. Technically, the wording of the Leap Attack feat implies that you must either choose it OR Pounce.
MagickHobo 08-09-07, 01:48 AM	I have to disagree with the majority here, at least in reference to Leap Attack bonuses applying to *all* of the Pounce attacks. Leap Attack states: You can combine a powerful charge and a mighty leap into one devastating attack. That's *one* devastating attack: not two or three or four. Yes, Pounce gives you a full round of attacks, and these attacks are off of a charge, and one may *assume* (tho I have not seen hard data on this) that all the attacks take the positive charge modifiers as well as the AC penalty, but Leap Attack is a *feat*, and has *specific* wording. Yes, charge itself is very specific in the wording as well, but nowhere in Leap Attack does it say the Leap Attack benefits may be modified; it is it's own game mechanic. Yes LA is bound to the *normal* rules for charges, but "normal rules" does not imply Pounce. If the Pounce ability and/or Leap Attack gets officially errata-ed to allow the combo then it applies, but until then the Feat's wording says one attack, period: the first one. Even if you *were* to allow multiple attacks to have the LA's momentum apply, any Rake attacks absolutely should not gain the bonus as they are *explicitly* listed as *follow-up* attacks to a grapple (in this case simply the critter getting in two good hits first). Again, if anyone has *official* acknowledgement of the combo being valid then it is; otherwise the Feat itself says no. Technically, the wording of the Leap Attack feat implies that you must either choose it OR Pounce. I'm going to agree with this one. The first attack gets the LA bonus because it's the one carrying the momentum of the leap, and all your other pounce attacks would have the "normal" power attack bonus.
fire-blade 08-09-07, 07:16 AM	can you combine leap attack with supreme power attack?
EjoThims 08-09-07, 07:23 AM	Leap Attack states: You can combine a powerful charge and a mighty leap into one devastating attack. Fluff =/= rules. All you quoted was the ability's description, not it's mechanics. The relevant mechanical info is: "If you cover at least 19 feet of horizontal distance with your jump, and you end your jump in a square from which you threaten your target, you can double the extra damage dealth by the use of the Power Attack feat. if you use this tactic with a two-handed weapon, you instead triple the extra damage from Power Attack." The rest of the mechanical section talks about how you follow normal jump and charge rules (including the rule that multiple attacks made with a pounce ability are all attacks made when charging) and the fact that you ignore terrain modifiers for squares you jump over. No where in the discussion of the way the feat works does it even say 'attack,' much less 'one attack' or 'one ... attack' even.
EjoThims 08-09-07, 07:24 AM	can you combine leap attack with supreme power attack? Of course.
Steely_Dan 08-09-07, 07:31 AM	Fluff =/= rules. All you quoted was the ability's description, not it's mechanics. The relevant mechanical info is: "If you cover at least 19 feet of horizontal distance with your jump, and you end your jump in a square from which you threaten your target, you can double the extra damage dealth by the use of the Power Attack feat. if you use this tactic with a two-handed weapon, you instead triple the extra damage from Power Attack." No where in the discussion of the way the feat works does it even say 'attack,' much less 'one attack' or 'one ... attack' even. How do feel about the RAI?
EjoThims 08-09-07, 07:59 AM	How do feel about the RAI? It's fine for basing house rules on, but unless those are what the discussion is about or you preface it with a statement that such and such is how you believe the rules should work, it really doesn't have a place in questions about what the actual rules are. If that made no sense just lemme know and I'll repost it later... I'm on about 7 hours of sleep in the last three days... :tantrum:
Dalthbar 08-09-07, 08:17 AM	It's important to keep in mind that it's not like the vast, vast majority of characters are able to leap attack every round anyway just due to the strict conditions imposed on when you're able to actually charge. This is probably the single-greatest limitation on the crazy leap attacker - pouncing or not.
fire-blade 08-09-07, 09:29 AM	It's says in the leap attack feat that you get +100% the Normal bonus form the power attack feat, so how do this combine with the supreme power attack thet improve the bonus you get from the power attack feat?
Steely_Dan 08-09-07, 09:40 AM	It's fine for basing house rules on, but unless those are what the discussion is about or you preface it with a statement that such and such is how you believe the rules should work, it really doesn't have a place in questions about what the actual rules are. That's all fine and well, but do you think WotC intended for you to apply Leap Attack to multiple attacks at the end of a charge, or just the one attack? I'm inclined to think they intended for it to only be applied to one attack.
Pechvarry 08-09-07, 09:44 AM	It's important to keep in mind that it's not like the vast, vast majority of characters are able to leap attack every round anyway just due to the strict conditions imposed on when you're able to actually charge. This is probably the single-greatest limitation on the crazy leap attacker - pouncing or not. Round 1: charge nearest foe. Target dies. Round 2: charge nearest foe. Target dies. Round 3: charge nearest foe. Target dies. As long as your opponents are spread out, it's still incredibly viable. The opposing force has to choose to stay together and get Fireballed and Lighting Bolted, or stand far apart and let a charger or 2 destroy them one by one. Don't see much weakness in it. =( Btw, we houserule that it only applies to first hit, because we have too many people trying for a 1-to-6 PA ratio.
Breetai 08-09-07, 09:56 AM	Pretty Creative Idea. But Here's the Problem. #1 Pounce requires the use of natural Weapons. #2 Natural Weapons are Light #3 You Can't Power Attack with Light Weapons #4 No Power Attack No Leap Attack Meaning you can't Pounce With Leap Attack
Steely_Dan 08-09-07, 10:24 AM	#1 Pounce requires the use of natural Weapons. Tell that to the 1st level barbarian with the CC substitution level
Breetai 08-09-07, 11:58 AM	They still can't power attack with a light weapon.
Steely_Dan 08-09-07, 12:02 PM	They still can't power attack with a light weapon. So, what barbarian is going to charge and pounce with a light weapon? Basically, it is perfectly legal for your barbarian with a greataxe to charge+Power Attack+pounce+Leap Attack.
Breetai 08-09-07, 12:07 PM	The Pounce Feats only work with natural weapons that's light. So it dosn't work.
Nightshade 08-09-07, 12:09 PM	So, what barbarian is going to charge and pounce with a light weapon? Basically, it is perfectly legal for your barbarian with a greataxe to charge+Power Attack+pounce+Leap Attack. Umm... no, it's not, as has already been specified by Breetai. Leap Attack and pounce are not to be combined, they are alternative powers that combine with a charge.
Steely_Dan 08-09-07, 12:19 PM	The Pounce Feats only work with natural weapons that's light. Natural weapons are always light.
Steely_Dan 08-09-07, 12:21 PM	Leap Attack and pounce are not to be combined, they are alternative powers that combine with a charge. Are you sure that the 1st level pounce barbarian substitution level requires the barbarian uses a natural weapon?
ibayboy 08-09-07, 03:52 PM	The Pounce Feats only work with natural weapons that's light. So it dosn't work. Where are you getting this info from? Can you please post a quote or page reference.
Ralp 08-09-07, 06:38 PM	I'll let others address this claim: "#1 Pounce requires the use of natural Weapons." (I can't present any evidence, but I suspect it might depend on what exactly is granting you the Pounce ability.) Instead I'll refute this: #2 Natural Weapons are Light #3 You Can't Power Attack with Light Weapons You can’t add the bonus from Power Attack to the damage dealt with a light weapon (except with unarmed strikes or natural weapon attacks),
Archtyrant Terevoth 08-09-07, 06:41 PM	By RAW, it works but I strongly advise a house-rule to the effect that charge based effects (leap attack, shock trooper, etc.) only count for the first attack of a charge sequence when you've got multiple attacks.
EjoThims 08-09-07, 09:10 PM	Pretty Creative Idea. But Here's the Problem. #1 Pounce requires the use of natural Weapons. Wrong. Certain pounce abilities require the use of natural weapons. But there are many different abilities called pounce from many different sources. There's a psionic power, a Barbarian alternate class feature, and shadow pounce that let you use any melee weapon. There may be more as well, that list is just off the top of my head.
EjoThims 08-09-07, 09:11 PM	That's all fine and well, but do you think WotC intended for you to apply Leap Attack to multiple attacks at the end of a charge, or just the one attack? I'm inclined to think they intended for it to only be applied to one attack. I'm inclined to think that that pretty much qualifies as attempting to put words in someone else's mouth. Either use the rule as it's written or make a house rule.
EjoThims 08-09-07, 09:19 PM	It's says in the leap attack feat that you get +100% the Normal bonus form the power attack feat, so how do this combine with the supreme power attack thet improve the bonus you get from the power attack feat? Leap Attack gives you three times normal power attack when using a 2H weapon and Supreme Power Attack was errated to give you two times normal power attack. Using both givess you four times normal power attack with how multipliers stack, meaning for each -1 penalty you take, you get +8 damage using a 2H weapon. Now... Before Supreme Cleave was errated, the way it was written simply gave bonus damage instead of being a multiplier, meaning that Supreme Cleave and Leap Attack together effectively gave six times normal power attack, or +12 damage for each -1.
EjoThims 08-09-07, 09:21 PM	Umm... no, it's not, as has already been specified by Breetai. Leap Attack and pounce are not to be combined, they are alternative powers that combine with a charge. There is nothing that prevents them from combining with the same charge.
StruckingFuggle 08-09-07, 10:54 PM	"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." (this is added text to make the message long enough to post)
Steely_Dan 08-10-07, 03:42 AM	I'm inclined to think that that pretty much qualifies as attempting to put words in someone else's mouth. Actually no, it's more like trying to understand someone's vagueness.
Clivenlongsight 08-15-07, 01:04 AM	Fluff =/= rules. All you quoted was the ability's description, not it's mechanics. The relevant mechanical info is: "If you cover at least 19 feet of horizontal distance with your jump, and you end your jump in a square from which you threaten your target, you can double the extra damage dealth by the use of the Power Attack feat. if you use this tactic with a two-handed weapon, you instead triple the extra damage from Power Attack." The rest of the mechanical section talks about how you follow normal jump and charge rules (including the rule that multiple attacks made with a pounce ability are all attacks made when charging) and the fact that you ignore terrain modifiers for squares you jump over. No where in the discussion of the way the feat works does it even say 'attack,' much less 'one attack' or 'one ... attack' even. It does not need to say this in the mechanics, as it has already been said in the description, and is implied from the way charges work, as well. You call the quote a "fluff" rule but it is in fact a WRITTEN, OFFICIAL description of the feat. Describing official data from WotC as "fluff" seems to indicate that you prefer to ignore the data when it is inconvenient to you. Theorizing is nice, but written descriptions trump them every time. Don't put words in *WotC's* mouth. As you are adhering to "relevant mechanical info" to support your position, it behooves you to properly examine that info. To wit: 1) As the Pounce ability does *not* say that its attacks are initiated *simultaneously* it does *not* follow that a modifier to *one* attack must inherently effect *all* of the attacks, as these attacks are *in sequence*. 2) Pounce very clearly does *not* say that *Feats* which are modifying the charge apply to all the attacks it provides, only that (as you yourself have noted) the pounce attacks have NORMAL charge rules applied to them. 3) The Leap Attack description does *not* say that if a full attack action is possible off of a charge, then the effect is applied to all of those attacks. Perhaps WotC will, at some point, errata LA + Pounce to let the combo work the way you believe it does, but for now they have not and the "relevant mechanical information" has no clear points supporting such a position. On a practical-DMing note, if WotC did endorse the LA/P combo, it would then be overpowered, as many more *NPCs* and *monsters* would get the combo and could *easily* TPK, while being worth the same old amount of XP. Most DMs I know don't want to have to deal with total party rerolls every other month just because of a broken feat combo, but giving the combo to PCs means giving it to monsters too, for reasons of game balance.
EjoThims 08-15-07, 08:21 AM	It does not need to say this in the mechanics, as it has already been said in the description, and is implied from the way charges work, as well. Decriptions are not rules. They have no effect on the way rules work. I put words in no one's mouth. I simply read the rules that are there. The rules state that a pounce follows all the normal charge rules. This would include giving the charge bonus to all attacks in a pounce. This would also include giving any modifiers to that charge bonus to all attacks in a pounce. Sequence of the attacks in the pounce is irrelevant. All of them follow the normal charge rules, which sets the precedent of them all getting all bonuses any non-pounce charge attack would get for the character in question. The mechanics of pounce and charge set precedent for cahrge bonuses applying to all pounce attacks, and with no explicit answer for or against it, this precedent is the only information we can base our decision on. Therefor, the logical conclusion until either clarified or errated otherwise, is that all feats, abilities, spells, etc that affect a charge attack will affect all attacks made with a pounce. As for giving it to monsters too, multi-pouncing monsters are FAR more troublesome than Uber-chargers, and any practical DM will build his NPCs and encounters with the same level of detail as his PCs built their own characters. No DM that wants to keep his party sends a multi-pouncer or nano-bots build up against a party of 4 level 20 Xs... Unless maybe they're all Clerics.
risner 08-15-07, 08:55 AM	Leap Attack gives you three times normal power attack when using a 2H weapon and Supreme Power Attack was errated to give you two times normal power attack. Using both givess you four times normal power attack with how multipliers stack, meaning for each -1 penalty you take, you get +8 damage using a 2H weapon. You had me going yes, yes, yes, until the end. It is -1 for +5 (+2 for leap Two Handed +3 for SPA Two Handed)
EjoThims 08-15-07, 09:08 AM	You had me going yes, yes, yes, until the end. It is -1 for +5 (+2 for leap Two Handed +3 for SPA Two Handed) 2H LA = x3 bonus SPA = x2 bonus 2H LA + SPA = x4 bonus 2H PA bonus = +2 2H PA + LA + SPA = +2 x 4 = +8 The 2H bonus is simply +2 for every -1. It is not a multiplier to the one handed bonus. SPA used to work this way as well, giving +4 for every -1 instead of being a multiplier. Before errate 2H PA + LA + SPA = +12:-1
kalstrand 08-15-07, 06:06 PM	The errata for LA and SPA both give +100% the normal bonus for PA. So if you PA for 20 with a 2 hander you add 40 damage. LA adds 100% which is 40. SPA adds 100% which is 40. For a grand total of +120 damage with a 2 hander which works out to 20:120 or 1:6.
EjoThims 08-15-07, 07:47 PM	A adds 100% which is 40. It still adds extra when used with a 2H weapon. The errata didn't change that.
Clivenlongsight 08-16-07, 06:18 PM	Decriptions are not rules. They have no effect on the way rules work. I put words in no one's mouth. I simply read the rules that are there. The rules state that a pounce follows all the normal charge rules. This would include giving the charge bonus to all attacks in a pounce. This would also include giving any modifiers to that charge bonus to all attacks in a pounce. Sequence of the attacks in the pounce is irrelevant. All of them follow the normal charge rules, which sets the precedent of them all getting all bonuses any non-pounce charge attack would get for the character in question. The mechanics of pounce and charge set precedent for cahrge bonuses applying to all pounce attacks, and with no explicit answer for or against it, this precedent is the only information we can base our decision on. Therefor, the logical conclusion until either clarified or errated otherwise, is that all feats, abilities, spells, etc that affect a charge attack will affect all attacks made with a pounce. As for giving it to monsters too, multi-pouncing monsters are FAR more troublesome than Uber-chargers, and any practical DM will build his NPCs and encounters with the same level of detail as his PCs built their own characters. No DM that wants to keep his party sends a multi-pouncer or nano-bots build up against a party of 4 level 20 Xs... Unless maybe they're all Clerics. Descriptions are just that: they indicate what the ability is in briefer language. Where a rule may be vague, a description is oft useful for seeing the intent. A rule may be left nebulous in the actual mechanics because it is assumed the intent of the ability in question is clear, but it remains an unfortunate oversight in the rules if it leaves such room for debate. As the only written comment on whether or not multiple attacks may be given the bonus is the "fluff" desription we have been provided, and as that description shows the intent of the feat is to provide one atack with the bonus, it seems reasonable to assume the position I have already stated. Furthermore. . . Your statement that "This would also include giving any modifiers to that charge bonus to all attacks in a pounce" should allow LA to apply to all attacks has one very major flaw: LA was *never* stated as being a modifier of a charge, but rather is a specific ability which has a charge and jump as it's prerequisites in order to be available. Read the feat again. There is no implied imperatitve for the LA feat to apply outside of it's stated game mechanic, therefore it does not inherently follow that any attack other than the one indicated should be provided the bonus. ***Again, LA, as written, does NOT give *any* bonus to the charge, but is simply a feat which requires a charge.*** Thus it is not inherently "the logical conclusion" that Pounce + LA provides bonuses across all attacks, since LA does not provide ANY modifers to the charge modifiers to the attack(s) itself/themselves. Perhaps if D&D were Magic the Gathering such combos would follow naturally, but D&D rules are a bit more precise, and tend towards *minimalizing* damage output wherever possible, to avoid instant kills; witness the conservation, from 1st edition AD&D, of the factoring of multiple multipliers together: one never multiplies multipliers by each other. The one game mechanic which sidesteps this is criticalling while using Power Attack with a 2H weapon and/or with Leap Attack: the multiplier of the PA bonus is multiplied by the critical because it is not itself considered a multiplier. The result is that 2-handed use of PA makes it one of the most unbalancing feats in the game, and into a feat that becomes a fighter's near-prerequisite rather than a fighter's choice. This is an unfortunate result, but it is by the book. A DM may decide to minimalize risk to party members by avoiding Leap Attacking Pouncers if the combo were ruled to work across all attacks, but fair play would dictate monster "builds" could, and should, be set to overly destructive levels with this combo on a disturbingly frequent basis, considering how many critters of intellect would have access to pounce. Dodging the issue would merely be a "patch" on a flaw in the system.
EjoThims 08-16-07, 09:28 PM	Descriptions are just that: they indicate what the ability is in briefer language. Where a rule may be vague, a description is oft useful for seeing the intent. A rule may be left nebulous in the actual mechanics because it is assumed the intent of the ability in question is clear, but it remains an unfortunate oversight in the rules if it leaves such room for debate. All well and good, but intent is not what the rules state. ***Again, LA, as written, does NOT give *any* bonus to the charge, but is simply a feat which requires a charge.*** [/QUOTE] Simply wrong. "You can combine a jump with a charge" "This attack must follow all the normal rules for using the Jump skill and for making a charge..." A charge is movement+attack. A pounce is charge with multiple attacks or movement+attacks. But this is all pointless because of the exact wording of this phrase: "If you ...[requirements]... you can double the extra damage from dealt by your use of the Power Attack feat. if you use... two-handed weapon, you instead triple the extra damage." Power Attack applies bonus and penalty to all melee attacks until your next turn, so regardless of if Leap Attack was intended to give the bonus to multiple attacks, sine it makes no mention of an exception to the PA rules, you keep that increased damage bonus on all melee attacks you make until your next turn. This would automatically include Pounce attacks.
Clivenlongsight 08-17-07, 09:49 PM	All well and good, but intent is not what the rules state. Posted by Clivenlongsight ***Again, LA, as written, does NOT give *any* bonus to the charge, but is simply a feat which requires a charge.*** Simply wrong. "You can combine a jump with a charge" "This attack must follow all the normal rules for using the Jump skill and for making a charge..." A charge is movement+attack. A pounce is charge with multiple attacks or movement+attacks. But this is all pointless because of the exact wording of this phrase: "If you ...[requirements]... you can double the extra damage from dealt by your use of the Power Attack feat. if you use... two-handed weapon, you instead triple the extra damage." Power Attack applies bonus and penalty to all melee attacks until your next turn, so regardless of if Leap Attack was intended to give the bonus to multiple attacks, sine it makes no mention of an exception to the PA rules, you keep that increased damage bonus on all melee attacks you make until your next turn. This would automatically include Pounce attacks. My point (again) is that the Leap Attack should not apply past the first attack due to what the LA feat seems to be intended for. If, as you suggest, the mechanics are to be adhered to without the intent being considered, then the written rules state that LA must follow the *normal* rules for a charge, which Pounce *absolutely exceeds*, so a *literal* reading of the rules indicates the combo is not possible at all. Period. That would be a very literal reading, however. Clearly the *intent* of the meaning of "normal rules of a charge" could be extended to include the use of Pounce, but this would require the reading of intent into the mix. In LA's case, the intent is shown by the descriptor: it is a single, highly focused attack, not multiple attacks. Thus my position that the LA effect should not apply any further than the first attack, even though LA modifies Power Attack, which itself must continue through all the round's attacks. That the idea may seem odd and forced is a response to the scenario it arises from being one the rules were never meant to handle. A lack of detail on multiple attacks in LA *may* be due to the feat applying no matter what, as you suggest, but it could just as easily be because no one realized the feat could end up being used for a multiple attack routine, especially since such a use would be "broken". LA's built-in safeguard vs. munchkin abuse and overpowered monsters is that only one attack is possible with it; it requires a charge, so only one attack can, under "normal" charge rules, be launched. WotC may well declare that the combo works as you indicate, but they also might not, considering how often they have published errata which "nerf" abiliites which turned out to be overpowered. Plenty of folks wanted the LA feat itself to do far more than it does and the (poorly) written rules actually backed them up before they were errata'd, but these people were wrong all the same. I made no such no mistake as to the non-errata'd version of the feat's meaning when I read it, as I took into account the larger context of game balance. WotC needs to make a statement one way or the other but, in the interim, one needs to consider both the spirit of the rules and the overall effect of new rules on the game, in addition to the reading of the mechanics. D&D is not a card game where players duel each other and need to deal as much damage in one round as possible, it is a game which is based upon attrition over considerable amounts of time and, especially in 3rd and 3.5th editions, has always been tweaked to reduce the incidence both of "instant-kill" PC abilities and of the same from monsters, even while new rules have ever been intro'd which dodged those tweaks for a time.
EjoThims 08-18-07, 08:43 PM	Leap Attack affects your Power Attack numbers when you charge. Attack always applies penalties and bonuses to all attacks until the start of your next round. This would include any extra attacks made with the pounce ability, regardless. As for "normal charge," when you have a pounce ability, making multiple attacks is how your charge normally works, so you would contiue to resolve your attack in this manner even when using Leap Attack. This statement: "which Pounce *absolutely exceeds*" is itself an interpretation, so you've defeated your own "ultra literal non-intrepretting" argument right there. And this combo is no more broken than a dozen others that don't rely on charge and pounce (most of which are spell abuse), and actually has to be combined with other charge tricks to even come close to their level. So the broken card is nothing more than a rather lackluster strawman. I'll state it again, slowly and clearly. There is nothing in the rules that prevents this from working, and no reason for it not to. IF you feel it needs to be 'balanced' in your own games then houserule it, but don't talk about your houes rules like everyone else has to follow them.
Clivenlongsight 08-18-07, 10:04 PM	Leap Attack affects your Power Attack numbers when you charge. Attack always applies penalties and bonuses to all attacks until the start of your next round. This would include any extra attacks made with the pounce ability, regardless. As for "normal charge," when you have a pounce ability, making multiple attacks is how your charge normally works, so you would contiue to resolve your attack in this manner even when using Leap Attack. This statement: "which Pounce *absolutely exceeds*" is itself an interpretation, so you've defeated your own "ultra literal non-intrepretting" argument right there. And this combo is no more broken than a dozen others that don't rely on charge and pounce (most of which are spell abuse), and actually has to be combined with other charge tricks to even come close to their level. So the broken card is nothing more than a rather lackluster strawman. I'll state it again, slowly and clearly. There is nothing in the rules that prevents this from working, and no reason for it not to. IF you feel it needs to be 'balanced' in your own games then houserule it, but don't talk about your houes rules like everyone else has to follow them. The PA comment I am not going to go over again, since I have made the point plain repeatedly. The statement that Pounce absolutely exceeds normal charge rules is fact, not interperetation. The normal rules *clearly* state that only a single attack may be made (pg 155 if you are curious). Note that this is *explicitly* stated, and there is even a *very* clear follow-up comment that you do not get to make extra attacks even if you have a high BAB or multiple weapons. Pounce is a very clear EXCEPTION to this. Thus, Pounce is not "normal" and my statement was not an interperetation. As for Pounce making the multiattack into a normal charge for that individual, Pounce is listed as a special attack. That's special. As in *not* normal. The character or critter can always take a normal charge action, but they get the special *option* (which is completely counter to the normal rules) due to the special attack. As for the "spell abuse" issues, I know not of them. I do know that a great many people complain about spell users, and conveniently ignore the balancing factor of the limited number of spells that casters have per day, especially when they are low-level. People have always complained about high-level casters, but it is better now than it was in 1st Ed, where a high level caster was well-nigh untouchable if played right. No one ever mentions how useless low level casters are in these arguments. Were these broken spell combos introduced recently? I have yet to see any combo which even comes close to LA + Pounce for abuse potential. There is no down side to it, and it can one-round kill with far too much ease. As to the "straw man", any system put in place which seriously unbalances the game is a problem. Period. Even if there are other combos not adressed here, that does not justify ignoring this one's balance issues. I haven't houseruled the combo to not work; it is, despite your protestations, a 'grey area" and I am discussing its parameters.
EjoThims 08-18-07, 10:47 PM	The PA comment I am not going to go over again, since I have made the point plain repeatedly. The only thing you have addressed is that fact that you think LA should change the rules for how long PA lasts, when the feat only describes it cahnging the rules for how much bonus you get for each point of penalty. You give no reasons for this other than your opinions on the flavor of the ability. As for Pounce making the multiattack into a normal charge for that individual, Pounce is listed as a special attack. That's special. As in *not* normal. The character or critter can always take a normal charge action, but they get the special *option* (which is completely counter to the normal rules) due to the special attack. And Charge is a special attack option itself. But if you have the pounce ability, making multiple attacks on a charge is a normal option just like making a sunder or a trip attempt. For such a character, multiple attacks are well within the normal rules. As for the "spell abuse" issues, I know not of them. I do know that a great many people complain about spell users, and conveniently ignore the balancing factor of the limited number of spells that casters have per day, especially when they are low-level. People have always complained about high-level casters, but it is better now than it was in 1st Ed, where a high level caster was well-nigh untouchable if played right. No one ever mentions how useless low level casters are in these arguments. Were these broken spell combos introduced recently? I have yet to see any combo which even comes close to LA + Pounce for abuse potential. There is no down side to it, and it can one-round kill with far too much ease. Many broken combos are straight core. Multi-pouncers (using teleport and shadow pounce, not charges, to make up to 8 full attacks in a round even before leadership/cohort cheese), psionic novas, divine metamagic, multiple free spells in a round, super mounts, and a plethora of other combinations achieve far, far, far nastier results. I'd suggest heading over to the CO boards and spending about 15 minutes there. Any mention of LA will only be addition to at least 3 other charge or power attack modifiers. As to the "straw man", any system put in place which seriously unbalances the game is a problem. Period. Even if there are other combos not adressed here, that does not justify ignoring this one's balance issues. We'd better get rid of spells, psionics, power attack itself, and TOB then. Oh and Incarnum. And anything else other than sword and board fighter 20, since it's ALL potentially more powerful with little to no drawbacks. I haven't houseruled the combo to not work; it is, despite your protestations, a 'grey area" and I am discussing its parameters. There's no grey area. Nothing in the rules say this combination is not valid to use together. If you use LA on a charge and you can use a pounce to make multiple attacks, you can get LA benefits on all those attacks. And it's not one those "it doesn't say I can't" arguments like making actions while dead (which it does not, in fact state you cannot do), because we have rules that clearly state each can be used on, they can be used on the same type of ability, and pounce abilities existed long before the writing of LA (the most common and falacious argument against combos that are not explicity stated).
Clivenlongsight 08-20-07, 12:05 AM	The only thing you have addressed is that fact that you think LA should change the rules for how long PA lasts, when the feat only describes it cahnging the rules for how much bonus you get for each point of penalty. You give no reasons for this other than your opinions on the flavor of the ability. And Charge is a special attack option itself. But if you have the pounce ability, making multiple attacks on a charge is a normal option just like making a sunder or a trip attempt. For such a character, multiple attacks are well within the normal rules. Many broken combos are straight core. Multi-pouncers (using teleport and shadow pounce, not charges, to make up to 8 full attacks in a round even before leadership/cohort cheese), psionic novas, divine metamagic, multiple free spells in a round, super mounts, and a plethora of other combinations achieve far, far, far nastier results. I'd suggest heading over to the CO boards and spending about 15 minutes there. Any mention of LA will only be addition to at least 3 other charge or power attack modifiers. We'd better get rid of spells, psionics, power attack itself, and TOB then. Oh and Incarnum. And anything else other than sword and board fighter 20, since it's ALL potentially more powerful with little to no drawbacks. There's no grey area. Nothing in the rules say this combination is not valid to use together. If you use LA on a charge and you can use a pounce to make multiple attacks, you can get LA benefits on all those attacks. And it's not one those "it doesn't say I can't" arguments like making actions while dead (which it does not, in fact state you cannot do), because we have rules that clearly state each can be used on, they can be used on the same type of ability, and pounce abilities existed long before the writing of LA (the most common and falacious argument against combos that are not explicity stated). The LA duration to PA *is* an intertperetation, but one which I postulated due to the mix of the two abilites seeming to need a workaround *if* the combo was at all valid, which I am still not sure it is. I did mention that that part was an interperetation, BTW. I disagree with respect to Pounce being seen as comparable with Sunder and Trip, as nothing in the normal charge rules prevents either of these, but exactly the sort of acton Pounce provides is *specifically* prohibited. Pounce very clearly is an exception to the normal rules. Again, LA specifically states normal charge rules, which include a prohibition of multiple attacks. LA was, as you mentioned, written well after Pounce, so LA should have noted this issue if it were to be allowed. As to Pounce making multiattacks normal, there is nothing in the (one sentence) Pounce rules to provide for this. Making Pounce "normal rules" would be a seperate mechanic from its providing a full attack option; something along the lines of "Pounce is considered a normal charge for all other purposes" would need to have been included. As written, Pounce is not a "two-fer"; it is simply an option on a charge; LA is another (mutually exclusive) option, as are Overrun, Bull Rush, etc. I am not sure of what you mean by "we have rules that clearly state each can be used on, they can be used on the same type of ability"? Technically you can take actions while dead, but you generally have to be in with a necromancer first to do so. Or have been attacking one and failed. . . I have seen some discussion of Divine Metamagic (but not personally in-game); the prereq of already having to have the metamagic feat in question *and* the Div Meta feat, per MM feat you want to go Divine with, can get pretty expensive, feat-wise. Plus you have to drop turning uses to activate it, sometimes a few per casting. Yeah, it's powerful, but it doesn't seem *that* bad, considering the sacrifices to be made. Mind you, I've never seen it in-game. Spells are not overpowered in and of themselves, as they have limited uses per day if run by "generic" rules with no major modifications. I have to agree about PA itself being overpowered, but only in the case of 2H PA hitting with a crit. If the 2H bonus were not multiplied on a crit it would be a perfectly balanced feat IMO, but it grates on my 1st-edition nerves to see a multiplier get multiplied. Gone are the idyllic days when modifiers got factored in AFTER multipliers. Sigh. Incarnum and 3.5 Psionics I have only seen in passing. After having rushed out and bought 3.0 stuff just to hit 3.5 in 5 yrs, it has not seemed worth the $ to buy all the 3.5 products just to have them make 4.0, so I haven't been getting all the sourcebooks. Most of those few I *have* seen were of exceeedingly mixed quality, so this further discouraged any acquisitiveness. If anything, the recent trend in D&D has reminded me much of Rifts, where each sourcebook was an exponential factor more powerful than the previous one. From what you have written previously, I suspect you will remain unconvinced of my position, as will I of yours. Most likely we are at an impasse in this matter. Where is Skip Williams when you need him? Although, admittedly, I never liked his ad-hoc ruling on Stoneskin. . .
EjoThims 08-20-07, 12:39 AM	LA was, as you mentioned, written well after Pounce, so LA should have noted this issue if it were to be allowed. Actually, since it was written afterwards, it should mention if the combination is not allowed. But even when errated after this combination came to light, no mention of such a restriction was made. As written, Pounce is not a "two-fer"; it is simply an option on a charge; LA is another (mutually exclusive) option, as are Overrun, Bull Rush, etc. Wrong. Overruns, Bull Rushes, Trips, and Disarms can all be made with the attacks that Pounce provides. Any other action which can be taken or used during a normal charge can also be usd by any attack made while using the Pounce ability with a charge. Why should LA be restricted from this if it doesn't explicity say it should? I am not sure of what you mean by "we have rules that clearly state each can be used on, they can be used on the same type of ability"? That should have read: "And it's not one those "it doesn't say I can't" arguments like making actions while dead (which it does not, in fact state you cannot do), because we have rules that clearly state each can be used on the same type of ability..." Bad editing on my part. Technically you can take actions while dead, but you generally have to be in with a necromancer first to do so. Or have been attacking one and failed. . . That would be while Undead, a completely seperate condition. The actual 'dead' condition does not limit you from taking actions, though it is foolish to think you should be able to. Plus you have to drop turning uses to activate it, sometimes a few per casting. Yeah, it's powerful, but it doesn't seem *that* bad, considering the sacrifices to be made. Mind you, I've never seen it in-game. Nightsticks. Libris Mortis or Complete Divine, I don't recall which they appear in. They are cheap and provide all the turning attempts you need. Again, head over to CO boards to see some of the nastier DMM combinations, especially with DMM Persist. If the 2H bonus were not multiplied on a crit it would be a perfectly balanced feat IMO, but it grates on my 1st-edition nerves to see a multiplier get multiplied. Well first, it's not a multiplier, despite having that affect. It's a bonus. Other PA multipliers (LA, SPA, etc) still follow multiplier rules after their errata, though most were bonuses to begin with. And even without crits, the way 2H PA scales makes 2H castly superior in melee to TWF, even without charge tricks. If anything, the recent trend in D&D has reminded me much of Rifts, where each sourcebook was an exponential factor more powerful than the previous one. Core is still one of the most powerfukl combinations, and the true power of the splatbooks usually comes in some form of being able to better bend or break core or previous spalts, not the new material itself. From what you have written previously, I suspect you will remain unconvinced of my position, as will I of yours. Most likely we are at an impasse in this matter. Where is Skip Williams when you need him? Although, admittedly, I never liked his ad-hoc ruling on Stoneskin. . . Or I his ruling on White Raven Tactics. Not that I felt the ability didn't need a nerf (level 5ish ability for infinite actions? No way should that hold up), but dropping the ruling with no explanation leaves myself and everyone else just as much in the dark as before. I truly do believe we will each continue to play it our own way, and I have no problem with this... But your points to interpret the description as limiting it because it seems too powerful otherwise does grate on me when things like the H.I.V.E and Pun-Pun are out there (not that they should ever, ever apear in a game, despite working 100% by RAW).
risner 08-20-07, 10:31 PM	2H LA = x3 bonus SPA = x2 bonus 2H LA + SPA = x4 bonus 2H PA bonus = +2 2H PA + LA + SPA = +2 x 4 = +8 The 2H bonus is simply +2 for every -1. It is not a multiplier to the one handed bonus. SPA used to work this way as well, giving +4 for every -1 instead of being a multiplier. Before errate 2H PA + LA + SPA = +12:-1 Let me try again: 2H LA = +200% (+1 base +1+1) SPA = +100% (+1+1) 2H LA + SPA = +300% (+1+1+1+1) 2H PA = +100% (+1+1) 2H PA + LA + SPA = +400% (+1+1+1+1+1) 2H PA + LA + SPA = -1 for +5
EjoThims 08-21-07, 12:38 AM	Let me try again: 2H LA = +200% (+1 base +1+1) SPA = +100% (+1+1) 2H LA + SPA = +300% (+1+1+1+1) 2H PA = +100% (+1+1) 2H PA + LA + SPA = +400% (+1+1+1+1+1) 2H PA + LA + SPA = -1 for +5 You're still considering the +2 per -1 of 2H to be a multiplier. It's not, despite having the same end result as if it were. If it were just another multiplier, than you would be correct.
risner 08-21-07, 08:36 PM	You're still considering the +2 per -1 of 2H to be a multiplier. It's not, despite having the same end result as if it were. If it were just another multiplier, than you would be correct. Can you provide a rule quote that backs up your interpretation? As I read the rules, I see it as a multiplier. So I fail to see why you see it differently, but maybe I am missing something.
Spikes01k 08-22-07, 02:56 AM	Doing things in order might help you out a little more. PA= Power Attack; SPA= Supreme Power Attack; LA= Leap Attack 2H PA = 1:2 (+1+1) 2H LA = 1:3 (+1+1+1) Note that LA specifically says, even after the errata, that it is a 1:3 ratio for 2H 2h SPA = +100% of PA (+1+1+1+1) 2H PA + LA + SPA = 1:3 +100% (+1+1+1+1+1+1) 2H PA + LA + SPA = -1 for +6 I suggest just E-mailing them and/or calling them at this point. I might. This is a combination of two very poorly worded feats, thus understandably creating a lot of confusion.
EjoThims 08-22-07, 08:41 AM	Can you provide a rule quote that backs up your interpretation? As I read the rules, I see it as a multiplier. So I fail to see why you see it differently, but maybe I am missing something. Simple. The wording of the feat. When using a weapon two-handed you don't apply a multiplier to the standard benefits, you simply apply a different numerical benefit in the first place. It's -1 for +1 if using a weapon one-handed. It's -1 for +2 if using a weapon one-handed. It's not -1 for +1(2) if using a weapon one-handed. Same net result, different reasons, different mechanics.
Patinho_Amarelo 08-22-07, 09:24 AM	Doing things in order might help you out a little more. PA= Power Attack; SPA= Supreme Power Attack; LA= Leap Attack 2H PA = 1:2 (+1+1) 2H LA = 1:3 (+1+1+1) Note that LA specifically says, even after the errata, that it is a 1:3 ratio for 2H 2h SPA = +100% of PA (+1+1+1+1) 2H PA + LA + SPA = 1:3 +100% (+1+1+1+1+1+1) 2H PA + LA + SPA = -1 for +6 I couldnīt agreed more. About the Doubt (Pounce, LA e PA) This is a "grey area" in game rule. But, i agreed wich the PA feat only apply to one single attack, the logic and mechanical of game always put that way, but... this really is a "grey area" and only the Wizard himself to put a end on this doubt. PS: If i make any mistake in my english, sorry, isnīt my first language.
Spikes01k 08-22-07, 11:29 AM	I couldnīt agreed more. About the Doubt (Pounce, LA e PA) This is a "grey area" in game rule. But, i agreed wich the PA feat only apply to one single attack, the logic and mechanical of game always put that way, but... this really is a "grey area" and only the Wizard himself to put a end on this doubt. PS: If i make any mistake in my english, sorry, isnīt my first language. If power attack only applies to one attack then your taking a minus to hit on a bunch of additional attacks that don't do anything.... I am sorry but If I have a BaB of 6, my power attack applies to both attacks, one at 6 BaB and another at 1 BaB... Benefit On your action, before making attack rolls for a round, you may choose to subtract a number from all melee attack rolls and add the same number to all melee damage rolls. This number may not exceed your base attack bonus. The penalty on attacks and bonus on damage apply until your next turn. Source: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#powerAttack
Spikes01k 08-22-07, 12:29 PM	I have just called WoTC help line support and here is what I asked. I asked how would Leap Attack and Supreme Power Attack would work together. First he said he needed to check the rules to even see if they worked together. 1 Handed 1:3 2 Handed 1:6 And YES Leap attack does stack with Pounce sense power attack and all feats/abilities modifying the power attack apply to all attacks made, not just the first. The minuses are at a flat rate so multiple attacks would inquire multiplying the minuses per attack with extra power attack damage.
Patinho_Amarelo 08-22-07, 01:12 PM	Sure, to all your attacks you will have a bonus damage to your attacks, but the bonus form LP is only to first one.
Spikes01k 08-22-07, 04:03 PM	Sure, to all your attacks you will have a bonus damage to your attacks, but the bonus form LP is only to first one. Nope all of them. If you disagree take the time to call the 1800 help number. They are open ATM. All leap attack does is apply a diffrent ratio for power attack and require you to be charging and to perform a jump check. Other than that it is identical to power attack.
Patinho_Amarelo 08-22-07, 04:19 PM	Nope all of them. If you disagree take the time to call the 1800 help number. They are open ATM. All leap attack does is apply a diffrent ratio for power attack and require you to be charging and to perform a jump check. Other than that it is identical to power attack. Yes, but the bonus dame only worth to one single attack. I already say, this is a "grey area"
Spikes01k 08-22-07, 04:56 PM	Yes, but the bonus dame only worth to one single attack. I already say, this is a "grey area" It dosn't say that in power attack, it doesn't change that in leap attack. Show me where it says that, state the line of the feat and I'll look.
Patinho_Amarelo 08-22-07, 05:09 PM	Spikes, again, read all this topic, because everything could be say, already was.
Spikes01k 08-22-07, 05:21 PM	Ok then, there is no "rule" stating otherwise. The phone call to WoTC says that it does apply to all attacks. All is good, if you want to house rule other wise then fine. If you continue to disagree, call/e-mail WoTC and then get back to this thread. Good day.
Spikes01k 08-22-07, 05:23 PM	Natural weapons are always light. But light weapons can't power attack, so natural weapons are not light their natural. P.S. Hezrou- Natural Weapons with Power Attack. Source: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/demon.htm I remember natural attacks are allowed to power attack, just like monk's fists. So they are not light, they are natural weapons.
risner 08-22-07, 08:54 PM	I remember natural attacks are allowed to power attack, just like monk's fists. So they are not light, they are natural weapons. No, they are light weapons that can Power Attack which is very different.
Clivenlongsight 08-22-07, 09:35 PM	Actually, since it was written afterwards, it should mention if the combination is not allowed. But even when errated after this combination came to light, no mention of such a restriction was made. Wrong. Overruns, Bull Rushes, Trips, and Disarms can all be made with the attacks that Pounce provides. Any other action which can be taken or used during a normal charge can also be usd by any attack made while using the Pounce ability with a charge. Why should LA be restricted from this if it doesn't explicity say it should? Well first, it's not a multiplier, despite having that affect. It's a bonus. Other PA multipliers (LA, SPA, etc) still follow multiplier rules after their errata, though most were bonuses to begin with. And even without crits, the way 2H PA scales makes 2H castly superior in melee to TWF, even without charge tricks. Core is still one of the most powerfukl combinations, and the true power of the splatbooks usually comes in some form of being able to better bend or break core or previous spalts, not the new material itself. I truly do believe we will each continue to play it our own way, and I have no problem with this... But your points to interpret the description as limiting it because it seems too powerful otherwise does grate on me when things like the H.I.V.E and Pun-Pun are out there (not that they should ever, ever apear in a game, despite working 100% by RAW). I still disagree about LA not being blocked by the RAW for the reasons I have already mentioned: LA *explicitly* says normal charge rules only; nothing in Pounce says the attack is mechanically considered as a normal charge; and normal charge rules *VERY explicitly* say no multiple attacks. So we disagree, and until WotC lays down the law with this combo, we will continue to disagree. Disarm, Feint, Sunder, and Trip can be used as standard actions and thus can be used with a charge and, as NONE of them state they must follow normal charge rules, I heartily agree that they may be used in multiples via Pounce. It's the lack of normal rules requirement which I see as different from LA here. I discovered the magic of the WotC helpline and got "Rob" who said that the ruling on P + LA was NOT fixed either way in the RAW (!!!); basically no matter *what* you decide it's a house rule, because no-one thought about it, and it is a rules conflict. Personally, I'm not surprised at his answer, as I suspected WotC never errata'd this because they had too many sourcebooks to properly review 'em all for logical consistancy. Heck, they had to errata the core bks how many times already, when they even had a prior edition that was very similar and playtested? Now, as I have read (here in this very forum and elsewhere) that other folks got other answers about P + LA from other reps on the helpline (dubious quiality of knowledge base here?), I will put in a petition to WotC to get some offical *written* errata out on this. Let's see if they respond. Even if my position is wrong and they hang scented garlands off of your head for your rightness, I would rather know the official answer. Of course, if it's your answer I will never buy another book from WotC as then they clearly can't keep a balanced rules system afloat. . . If I want 5 attacks off of a move action I'll play Hong Kong Action Theater instead. Now, an apology. I meant to say (with respect to Bull Rush and Overrun) "an option off of a charge". Consider this "forum post errata". As to Bull Rush, after thinking about it, and then querying WotC, you are right with respect to BR in Pounce: you can BR and then attack normally (say if someone was next to where you ended the BR, or you just wanted to hit the guy you'd pushed for good measure). Pretty insane, but what the hey Pounce is already insane. Kudos to you for setting me straight on this point, BTW. However, you still cannot BR multiple times off of a Pounce, as: 1) BR requires moving *into* the target's space to begin it 2) you cannot end a movement (even a BR) in an occupied square (ignoring the knock-down for failing the BR, which precludes any more BRs anyway). 3) you cannot move outside of the Charge and BR, no matter how many attacks you get (charge rules). If you already knew no multiple BRs off of a Pounce, apologies again. Note that we were *both* mistaken with respect to Overrun, as you now (PHB errata) *cannot* make an Overrun off of a Charge! That's a huge change. Note that you must *move* to Overrun (DURING the Overrun), so you *cannot* Overrun in combo with Pounce because the only movement allowed is the Charge (no movement, not even additional 5 ft steps, are allowed when you Charge) and you must move to Overrun. As to PA's 2H bonus not being a multiplier, yes I know; that was actually my point. The bonus really *should* be treated as a multiplier as it is insanely overpowered if it gets further multiplied. 2H STR bonuses are only 150% of normal; that would have been far more reasonable, but 200% is just out of control if you crit. It starts to look exponential, and that makes it hard for a DM to be able to gauge the odds. Unfortunately it is quite "by the book". I agree that 2WF is underpowered to PA, which is sad because the half-damage on the off-weapon thing is new and uneeded; there are already enough drawbacks to 2WF, and the off-hand weakness never existed in prior editions. The trend to the combo-of-death thing is what grates on me; it is very *not* what D&D was, right up until WotC bought it. D&D now is a combo of old-school D&D, WotC's original "pure D20 system", Talisanta, and WotC's MtG with its million combos of death. The whole seeking to 1-round kill is fun, but it makes running a *campaign* a real headache unless your players want new PCs every few games or so, as balance must be preserved, so monsters get the combos too. Too often I have seen my usual DM have to backpedal a scenario of certain death because a core-rules monster turned out to be *far* too powerful for it's given CR and we were going to get TPK'd. Such "victories" leave a bitter taste. Even MtG tried to reduce first-round kills by banning and restricting.
EjoThims 08-23-07, 06:28 PM	Disarm, Feint, Sunder, and Trip can be used as standard actions and thus can be used with a charge Actually, they (other than feint) can be used as attack actions is the reason they work with Charge and Pounce. If they required a standard action (like feint) they would not be eligible. I will put in a petition to WotC to get some offical *written* errata out on this. Let's see if they respond. They won't. They only errata for mistakes, not clarifications or power balance. The best we'd get on the issue is a FAQ or a Sage topic. [QUOTE=Clivenlongsight;13514613]Of course, if it's your answer I will never buy another book from WotC as then they clearly can't keep a balanced rules system afloat. . . If I want 5 attacks off of a move action I'll play Hong Kong Action Theater instead. Actually, it's a full round action, and you already get those attacks with it. ;) Now... There are characters that can make full attacks as move actions... </3 multi-pouncers. They hurt. Had a DM use one against us once. [QUOTE=Clivenlongsight;13514613]As to Bull Rush, after thinking about it, and then querying WotC, you are right with respect to BR in Pounce: you can BR and then attack normally (say if someone was next to where you ended the BR, or you just wanted to hit the guy you'd pushed for good measure). Pretty insane, but what the hey Pounce is already insane. Kudos to you for setting me straight on this point, BTW. However, you still cannot BR multiple times off of a Pounce, as: 1) BR requires moving *into* the target's space to begin it 2) you cannot end a movement (even a BR) in an occupied square (ignoring the knock-down for failing the BR, which precludes any more BRs anyway). 3) you cannot move outside of the Charge and BR, no matter how many attacks you get (charge rules). If you already knew no multiple BRs off of a Pounce, apologies again. I'd have to agree, the special status of being able to make a Bull Rush as a charge would initially indicate that yes, multiples are possible on a pounce even though it's a standard action, and the wording of Bull Rush itself doesn't neccesarilly preclude that, but the movement requirement shoots it down pretty hard. Note that we were *both* mistaken with respect to Overrun, as you now (PHB errata) *cannot* make an Overrun off of a Charge! That's a huge change. I'd say, since originally charge specifically let you use this standard action and gave bonuses for it. I'm a tad rushed to redownload the errata though, so I'll take your word for it. I never use this option in the first place... All my characters that need to get past someone have enough ranks in Tumble. ;) As to PA's 2H bonus not being a multiplier, yes I know; that was actually my point. The bonus really *should* be treated as a multiplier as it is insanely overpowered if it gets further multiplied. Ah, I misunderstood that the first time. I agree that 2WF is underpowered to PA, Something we can agree on at last! In my mind, the worst part of TWF is that, other than the Dervish, there's really no classes or PrCs that lend themselves to TWF and do anything to offset the balance. Hell, TWF as a Master Thrower with ranged attacks is all around a better option than melee TWF with the Tempest. but it makes running a *campaign* a real headache unless your players want new PCs every few games or so, as balance must be preserved, so monsters get the combos too. Balance doesn't always mean fighting a one-shot kill with a one-shot kill. A good control tripper will shut down most pouncers (but not multi-pouncers, stupid teleport), and a good DR/AC tank can often just ignore their attacks. Especially fromt he DM's perspective, it's more about offering a challenge to the characters the players play. If that means tossing them up against higher CRs or using stuff like Ethereal Filchers with class levels... That's all part of the fun of the game. You can also control the environment to limit their tactics, or swarm them with many smaller opponents, making the initial charge wasted and no others available.