Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Fend 04-23-07, 11:53 PM	for the record this deamons a kastiguhr (MM4) and ive given it awsome blow - Can i use Stunning charge "and" awsome blow in combination... there for charging for 5d6+12 damage, DC 25 fortitude or be stunned for round, DC X (x being damage taken) Reflex save or be thrown 10 feet and knocked prone... I thought it would be a pretty cool combo attack - especially on the first round (charing someone horns first and butting them up into the air) .. just wondering.
runestar 04-24-07, 12:04 AM	I have no idea what a khastigur or stunning charge is, but if my interpretation is correct, you are essentially asking if you can combine awesome blow with a charge. I doubt that is possible. Awesome blow is a standard action, not an attack action. So you could charge+attack, but not charge+awesome blow.
orionm42 04-24-07, 11:40 AM	I doubt that is possible. Awesome blow is a standard action, not an attack action. So you could charge+attack, but not charge+awesome blow. It is true an awesome blow is a standard action...but, so is a single melee attack. As I read it, an awesome blow is a single melee attack (i.e., it is a melee attack roll with a -4 modifier). As such, I think you could combine it with a charge.
dragor_shadowfury 04-24-07, 02:00 PM	I'd let it be combined, as it sounds reasonable, and it doens't seem owerpowered to me. If you decide not to, then go for knockback from races of stone instead.
Evil DM Mk3 04-24-07, 02:03 PM	If it says it is a standard action, then no. Becasue it is not a melee attack. If it says it is a melee attack then yes.
Radijs 04-24-07, 02:05 PM	But usually a charge is a full-round action leaving no time for a standard action. The attack roll is done as a part of the charge and not as an action in itself.
Evil DM Mk3 04-24-07, 02:10 PM	Exactly
orionm42 04-24-07, 02:47 PM	If it says it is a standard action, then no. Becasue it is not a melee attack. If it says it is a melee attack then yes. It kinda says both... Attacking on a Charge: After moving, you may make a single melee attack. You get a +2 bonus on the attack roll. and take a –2 penalty to your AC until the start of your next turn. AWESOME BLOW [GENERAL, FIGHTER] Prerequisites: Str 25, Power Attack, Improved Bull Rush, size Large or larger. Benefit: As a standard action, the creature may choose to subtract 4 from its melee attack roll and deliver an awesome blow. After a charge, you can make a single melee attack (which is a standard action). An awesome blow is a single melee attack with a -4 modifier (also a standard action). Again, I personally think combining the two is reasonable.
Evil DM Mk3 04-24-07, 02:59 PM	Right, thanks for the handy quote. The answer is no, it is a standard action, no such standard action exists to take. You can't manyshot in a full attack for the same reason.
orionm42 04-24-07, 03:07 PM	Right, thanks for the handy quote. The answer is no, it is a standard action, no such standard action exists to take. You can't manyshot in a full attack for the same reason. Again...a single melee attack is also a standard action. And yet, you can make a single melee attack as part of a charge even though "no such standard action exists to take." An awesome blow is a single melee attack.
Evil DM Mk3 04-24-07, 03:09 PM	Becasue the charge INCLUDES the attack, it is a part of the charge. Simple. Easy. Clear. unlike a lot of the rules.
orionm42 04-24-07, 03:15 PM	Becasue the charge INCLUDES the attack.... A charge can also include a trip, a disarm, or a grapple. Granted, the RAW specifically states these attack forms substitute for melee attacks. While awesome blow does not say the same thing, it would not be a game breaker in my opinion to rule that way. It would also not be that big of a stretch of the RAW, since an awesome blow is a single melee attack.
Muspelheim 04-24-07, 04:05 PM	A charge can also include a trip, a disarm, or a grapple. Granted, the RAW specifically states these attack forms substitute for melee attacks. While awesome blow does not say the same thing, it would not be a game breaker in my opinion to rule that way. It would also not be that big of a stretch of the RAW, since an awesome blow is a single melee attack. But the qustion is whether or not it is technically legal by the rules, not whether or not it is a reasonable houserule. When it says specifically that you can do something as a standard action, it means that you can't substitute a part of any other action to do it; otherwise it ought to have the same text as trip etc.
Evil DM Mk3 04-24-07, 04:13 PM	Bare in mind such a house rule would allow, for example, a full attack of awesome blows. A full attack of manyshots and possilby (if taken to the logical extreme) a full attack of touch attack spells.
Shatari 04-24-07, 04:23 PM	A charge can also include a trip, a disarm, or a grapple. Granted, the RAW specifically states these attack forms substitute for melee attacks. While awesome blow does not say the same thing, it would not be a game breaker in my opinion to rule that way. It would also not be that big of a stretch of the RAW, since an awesome blow is a single melee attack.Here's the problem I see with this: An awesome blow can't be used as part of a full attack, unlike for example a trip attack. This implies a larger amount of effort is used to perform an awesome blow. Now I personally could visualize an awesome blow as being part of a charge, but I think that would be more of a house rule than an official ruling.
runestar 04-24-07, 11:59 PM	The way I see it, An awesome blow is a standard action. You can use a standard action to make a melee attack. You cannot use a melee attack to perform a standard action. Is everyone still with me? Basically, a standard action can be a melee attack, but a melee attack cannot be a standard action. That is the difference. On a side note, awesome blow is already quite useful. You knock them back, then hit them again(though the AoO they provoke when they leave a square you threaten). I am not sure about boosting it any more by allowing it to be combined with a charge...:embarrass
Fend 04-25-07, 12:01 AM	Bare in mind such a house rule would allow, for example, a full attack of awesome blows. A full attack of manyshots and possilby (if taken to the logical extreme) a full attack of touch attack spells. Thats takeing it abit far, i know it cant be used as part of a full attack. I was just wondering, because my players tend to do things like - Charge and grapple - or Charge and stunning fist - Charge and tumble - If makeing use of the Khastiguhr's Awsome blow was so unreasonable on a charge. Heres the thing tho - the Khastiguhr stunning charge entry reads - Stunning Charge (EX) A Kastighur typically begins a battle by charging at an opponent. in addition to the normal benefits and hazards of a charge, this allows the kastighur to make a single gore attack with a +23 attack bonus that deals 5d6+12 points of damage. The struck creature must then succeed on a DC 25 fortitude save or be stunned for 1 round. the save dc is Strength-based. It doesnt say anything about this being an activated ability - just somthing that makes the kastighur's charge nasty. Now i was thinking. This not being an extraordinary ability, Combined with an Awsome blow (It says its a standard action - but then it also says as a melee attack roll) It would be a Very Nasty / yet interesting combination because the total attack would resolve at -2 to hit, would have the Stun save "and" the knockback save which leaves them stunned and prone on the ground (as im very sure 5d6+12 damage is going to deliver a minimum DC 17 max DC 42 Reflex save or be knocked 10 feet and prone) Maybe it is abit whoarish. But its a hard one to figure out if its legal.
Radijs 04-25-07, 02:29 AM	I still say it isn't legal. Though the stunning charge doesn't require an extra action to use its used as a part of a charge which is a full-round action in itself. Maybe tomb motes could pull it off but that would be about it.
Fend 04-25-07, 02:30 AM	yeah but tomb motes dont qualify for awsome blow. but yeah i think after reading this all again the popular theory is it cant be done. ah well. thanks anyway guys.
Evil DM Mk3 04-25-07, 04:59 AM	My referance to full attacks was under the theory that you substitute a standard ation for a melee attack.
Radijs 04-25-07, 10:22 AM	yeah but tomb motes dont qualify for awsome blow. but yeah i think after reading this all again the popular theory is it cant be done. ah well. thanks anyway guys. They tend to do after I'm through with them.:evillaugh
Frugal 04-25-07, 10:41 AM	Now i was thinking. This not being an extraordinary ability, Combined with an Awsome blow (It says its a standard action - but then it also says as a melee attack roll) It would be a Very Nasty / yet interesting combination because the total attack would resolve at -2 to hit, would have the Stun save "and" the knockback save which leaves them stunned and prone on the ground (as im very sure 5d6+12 damage is going to deliver a minimum DC 17 max DC 42 Reflex save or be knocked 10 feet and prone) Maybe it is abit whoarish. But its a hard one to figure out if its legal. It's completely straight forward, there are plenty of standard actions that involve a melee attack roll (the attack (melee) action being the most obvious). However, that doesn't mean that it's the same as a melee attack, it's a standard action. It's the same reason why you can't use manyshot with shot on the run (or cast a ranged spell for that matter). The other examples (stunning fist, trip, grapple, etc) off a charge are all valid because those actions work as an attack action, and thus you can replace your attack granted as part of the charge with those actions. But you can't charge and use awesome blow any more than you could charge and cast a spell that's a melee touch attack.
mad_warlock 04-25-07, 01:05 PM	The way I see it, An awesome blow is a standard action. You can use a standard action to make a melee attack. You cannot use a melee attack to perform a standard action. Is everyone still with me? Basically, a standard action can be a melee attack, but a melee attack cannot be a standard action. That is the difference. On a side note, awesome blow is already quite useful. You knock them back, then hit them again(though the AoO they provoke when they leave a square you threaten). I am not sure about boosting it any more by allowing it to be combined with a charge...:embarrass You can't make an Attack of Opportunity against an opponent who is moved against his will....through Awesome Blow, Bull Rushes, the Violent Thrust Capability of Telekinesis, a Warlock's Repelling Eldritch Blast, etc. Attacks of opportunity only come from movement where a move action actually takes place. (see Bull Rushes.) It is for this reason that it's so much fun to use Violent Thrust to hurl your fighter into melee range with creatures with long reach. Fighter gets set up for a full attack (cause violent thrust doesn't say they end up prone), and avoids AoOs.
Frugal 04-25-07, 01:31 PM	You can't make an Attack of Opportunity against an opponent who is moved against his will....through Awesome Blow, Bull Rushes, the Violent Thrust Capability of Telekinesis, a Warlock's Repelling Eldritch Blast, etc. Attacks of opportunity only come from movement where a move action actually takes place. (see Bull Rushes.) It is for this reason that it's so much fun to use Violent Thrust to hurl your fighter into melee range with creatures with long reach. Fighter gets set up for a full attack (cause violent thrust doesn't say they end up prone), and avoids AoOs. Nope, see the bull rush rules: Bull Rush Results If you beat the defender’s Strength check result, you push him back 5 feet. If you wish to move with the defender, you can push him back an additional 5 feet for each 5 points by which your check result is greater than the defender’s check result. You can’t, however, exceed your normal movement limit. (Note: The defender provokes attacks of opportunity if he is moved. So do you, if you move with him. The two of you do not provoke attacks of opportunity from each other, however.) (emphasis mine) I don't know the rules around the methods you're mentioning but if they work like a bull rush then they will provoke.
mad_warlock 04-25-07, 01:48 PM	Wow....my mistake...I was indeed looking at that wrong. Oh well, I made a mistake. my bad. :P
runestar 04-25-07, 01:53 PM	Actually, if you have the MM3, look at the battlebriar entry. It explicitly lists this strategy as one of its tactics(use awesome blow to push someone out of your threatened square, this forcing him to provoke an AoO).:)
Frugal 04-25-07, 02:00 PM	Actually, if you have the MM3, look at the battlebriar entry. It explicitly lists this strategy as one of its tactics(use awesome blow to push someone out of your threatened square, this forcing him to provoke an AoO).:) Well I didn't say anything about the awesome blow tactic, I just know about the bull rush one. I'd have to reread the feat, the AoO wording and the statblock to say for sure.
PhantomTrain 04-25-07, 04:28 PM	I don't want to turn this thread into another 'Godmod GMs are teh suxz0rz' flamewar (ok, I kinda do), but your monster can do whatever the sweet Christmas you want it to. It's a demon. The PCs aren't going to ask it what feat tree it follows.
MethaneGranola 04-25-07, 06:37 PM	thats exactly what I was going to say, point is you're DM, go for it. my view on things like this, is if it would improve the encounter (holy hell, that Demon just owned Bob!) then it is worth the rule bending ex- zombies are able to open their sarcophogus and attack in the same round- even though they are only able to take single actions and opening a heavy stone lid is probably not a free action if your player question your suble rule bending then its " "uhh ohh where is this enormous lightning storm coming from" "oh its coming from that lvl 20 druid over there" "how do you know?" "oh i was cheating again" "oh dang there goes Bob" for them"
Kobold Paladin 04-25-07, 09:45 PM	Why are you guys still debating this, give the guy Pounce (ex) and he can combind them.
runestar 04-25-07, 11:10 PM	He can't, even with pounce. I know you can houserule otherwise. But I still like rules consistency in my games, for and from everyone, both player and DM. But maybe it is just me.:)