Post/Author/DateTime	Post
BUFU 05-05-07, 12:11 PM	Hi, I wanted to ask: if I use a horse to charge with a lance, and then I do two lance attacks with the pounce ability, do both attacks do double damage?
Prator_the_Legendary 05-05-07, 12:25 PM	First I'd have to ask how you get the Pounce Ability. Second I would say no, you can't do that. It'd be a nice trick, but there's nothing in the rules to suggest that it works like that, and a stunt like that would defy physics even by the magically broken laws of D&D.
Tempest Stormwind 05-05-07, 12:42 PM	First I'd have to ask how you get the Pounce Ability.It really isn't that hard. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=5305146&postcount=29)Second I would say no, you can't do that. It'd be a nice trick, but there's nothing in the rules to suggest that it works like that, and a stunt like that would defy physics even by the magically broken laws of D&D.Actually, there *are* things in the rules that suggest it. 1) Lances deal double damage on a charge. 2) Pounce lets you make a full attack at the end of the charge. Conclusion: A pouncing charge with lances will be a full attack with the lances that deals double damage. There's nothing in the rules that says the lance doubling -- or similar effects, like Spirited Charge or any other multiplier -- only apply to the first attack made at the end of a charge. Nothing. As odd as it sounds, this is legal. I usually envision the multiple attack rolls and multiple damage rolls as actually part of a multi-step SINGLE thrust at the end of the charge myself (an attack roll doesn't necessarily correspond to a single attack, but rather a single chance at damaging your opponent. Just imagine him thusting *really* deep through the target, with each successful attack roll from the full attack showing just how precise the attack was and how many multiples of the normal damage it did).
BUFU 05-05-07, 12:44 PM	First I'd have to ask how you get the Pounce Ability. Second I would say no, you can't do that. It'd be a nice trick, but there's nothing in the rules to suggest that it works like that, and a stunt like that would defy physics even by the magically broken laws of D&D. I am playing a 11 level binder(6) Kots(5)(andras as my patron)(from tome of magic). if I bound Chupoclops i get Pounce for every wepon or naturel wepon I have. And how exactly does it defy the laws of physics in a world where people can bend the fabric of the universe by reading a book.
Prator_the_Legendary 05-05-07, 12:49 PM	The full attack is at the END of the charge... I interpret that to mean that it isn't actually part of the charge. Do you add the attack bonus from the charge to every attack of the full attack? Do you take into account that most beings with the pounce ability are not using the exact same weapon for all attacks every time they do a pounce? If you do, more power to ya, because if so than that's how the rules work for you. I personally don't run that way because it just doesn't make sense to me in any context outside of rules-lawyering. Binding is different; when you're bound to something like Chupoclops, you're not totally human anymore. You're something MORE than a normal human, hence your special pact-related powers. Or do ALL humans spontaneously grow enlarged lower jaws and fangs, gain the ability to shift onto the ethereal plane at will, and fill everyone around them with despair?
AtmaWeapon 05-05-07, 01:12 PM	As silly as it is, I also don't see anything prohibiting it. Although, while I'm sure some of the other feats may differ, in the case of Snow Tiger Berserker (from FR/Unapp. East), you need to wield... and Admittedly, I'm not great with weapon sizes to *this* degree, a.. tiny lance? In order to benefit from STB, you need to be wielding a light weapons, you instead of doing 1d8 x 2, you're doing 1d4 x 2 a couple times. So really, you're not getting much *that* huge of an investment out of it. Other feats are probably different, but I have a limited selection of books here unfortunately. Make sure to check into this aspect of it, but hey, overall it's legal so far as I can see. [Edited: STB specifically says "As part of a charge", not "at the end of a charge" so that one is fully confirmed. Don't know about others
Tempest Stormwind 05-05-07, 01:17 PM	The full attack is at the END of the charge... I interpret that to mean that it isn't actually part of the charge. Do you add the attack bonus from the charge to every attack of the full attack? Do you take into account that most beings with the pounce ability are not using the exact same weapon for all attacks every time they do a pounce?Actaully, I can't think of a single instance of Pounce that says you attack at the end of a charge. I can think of several that say "When you charge, you can make a full attack in the same round" or "You may make a full attack as part of a charge". Even if it did say a full attack at the end of a charge, think about it -- ALL attacks are at the end of a charge. The lance does *not* say it deals double damage only on the first hit. Where, in the rules, are you finding that the lance doesn't multiply on the subsequent hits on a charge? (Oh, and as for "most" -- There's a LOT of pounce-granters that don't mention anything about needing multiple weapons. In fact, most use the wording provided above.)If you do, more power to ya, because if so than that's how the rules work for you. I personally don't run that way because it just doesn't make sense to me in any context outside of rules-lawyering.Didn't I just say that you can step outside that box and think of the entire full attack as a single powerful charge? An attack roll does NOT correspond to swinging your weapon. Have you, personally, with your (likely) +0 base attack bonus, ever tried attacking anything with a dagger? You can undoubtedly get more than one swing in six seconds. However, due to your lack of proficiency, you're not very likely to land a good, solid blow every time -- that is, three or four failed swings followed by a sharp stab would be a single attack roll. How, then, is that different from a GIANT thrust at the end of a charge, empowered with whatever granted you Pounce, where the individual attack rolls just indicate how many more multiples of the damage your attack did? If I pounce-charge with a lance and hit three times, I describe it as striking the opponent ONCE, but because it does six times normal damage in that circumstance (three hits for double damage each), I describe the charge as freaking DEVASTATING, possibly running the target through.Binding is different; when you're bound to something like Chupoclops, you're not totally human anymore. You're something MORE than a normal human, hence your special pact-related powers. Or do ALL humans spontaneously grow enlarged lower jaws and fangs, gain the ability to shift onto the ethereal plane at will, and fill everyone around them with despair? You're applying a double standard. If I gain that full attack through binding Chupoclops to my soul, how is that different from gaining that full attack from turbo-charging my body with psionic energy, channelling the aspect of the lion with a spell, or gaining it as part of some primal training from a prestige class? Either Pounce is Pounce, or it is not. Whether you gain it from a feat, a spell, a psionic power, a pact, or a class or racial feature, it functions the same. Thus, if you can see it working if he's bound his soul to Chupoclops, you should be able to see it working if he were using another pounce tool (I linked SEVERAL in my last post).
AtmaWeapon 05-05-07, 01:37 PM	An attack roll does NOT correspond to swinging your weapon. Have you, personally, with your (likely) +0 base attack bonus, ever tried attacking anything with a dagger? You can undoubtedly get more than one swing in six seconds. However, due to your lack of proficiency, you're not very likely to land a good, solid blow every time -- that is, three or four failed swings followed by a sharp stab would be a single attack roll. How, then, is that different from a GIANT thrust at the end of a charge, empowered with whatever granted you Pounce, where the individual attack rolls just indicate how many more multiples of the damage your attack did? Unfortunately, I get where you're going on this, and it's at it's heart a logical way to extrapolate it, but mechanically, it doesn't work. If they're not seperate hits, then the monster wouldn't get seperate applications of DR. Special effects that occured when you hit it wouldn't trigger multiple times. The monster would have to save against massive death. Trying to explain it as it's a single attack isn't a good idea... because it isn't. It's several. That may be how you describe it... but yeah. No. There might be several attacks that miss, or don't hit for damage inside of a full attack routine, but each actual attack roll *is* a seperate attack. That said, look for Lance errata coming soon to a FAQ near you. At least, if people fully break this and make it rediculous.
Tempest Stormwind 05-05-07, 01:49 PM	Unfortunately, I get where you're going on this, and it's at it's heart a logical way to extrapolate it, but mechanically, it doesn't work. If they're not seperate hits, then the monster wouldn't get seperate applications of DR. Special effects that occured when you hit it wouldn't trigger multiple times. The monster would have to save against massive death. Trying to explain it as it's a single attack isn't a good idea... because it isn't. It's several. That may be how you describe it... but yeah. No. There might be several attacks that miss, or don't hit for damage inside of a full attack routine, but each actual attack roll *is* a seperate attack. That said, look for Lance errata coming soon to a FAQ near you. At least, if people fully break this and make it rediculous. I'm talking *description* being separate from mechanics. You make multiple attack rolls, each of which has a possiblity of missing, hitting, or critting. Each successful hit is subject to DR as normal. He doesn't get massive damage unless you deal over 50 points with one of those attacks. He triggers "on attack" things multiple times. But then, when the mechanical resolution is complete, you describe what has just happened as one single, powerful, devastating charge. Look, Lances have been around since core. They haven't changed. Neither has ANYTHING ELSE that serves as a charge multiplier -- Spirited Charge, the Valorous weapon enhancement, Headlong Rush, Unstoppable Charge, and so on. They *all* are written in exactly the same way, and they *all* function this way. It hasn't been errata'd. It has been exploited. Hell, check out the UberERcharger link in my sig -- using this techique we got tens of thousands of damage in a single charge. And yet, if you are talking about actual character designs instead of theoretical exercises, it's actually pretty hard to get this as high as you need. The best I could do there was essentially the Lancer (see the Lancer link in my sig), which is powerful, but hardly gamebreaking. Get your self-righteous head out of your ass. I'm just providing a description that is designed to satisfy those of you with tiny imaginations, unable to comprehend how this could possibly work whatsoever despite the rules showing it working. Meanwhile, you're making rule-based arguments... based on description. Gee, I want to play in your games, where I can create astral constructs (shapable summon creatures) with two dozen arms and then demand I get that many slam attacks (despite the rules showing they have one or two, POSSIBLY with one extra if they have the right menu selection).
Prator_the_Legendary 05-05-07, 02:28 PM	...I'm sorry, but the way you're describing it sounds like you have completely divorced description from mechanics. It's not just seperation, it's that the way you describe what you're doing and what you actually did with your dice do not relate to eachother at all. There's not necessarily anything wrong with that: Saying "I immolate him in a massive field of fiery death!" and saying "He explodes as a massive sphere of flame spreads outwards from his body" signifies a 10d6 fireball either way. Still, my philosophy on roleplaying games of all sorts is "You don't play with your stats; you ARE your stats." The numbers written on your character sheet define who you are described to be in the game, as opposed to who you are in real life, playing around with numbers that represent skills and abilities. I don't see how that should be any less true in combat. Dice rolls and numbers should still define the action descriptively as well as mechanically. If, mechanically, a successful SINGLE attack role is defined as a single successful hit (which itself may or may not represent six seconds of wild swinging and missing), then descriptively you just hit something a single time. If you make a full attack, you have made multiple strikes, and maybe struck multiple times. Maybe that shows a lack of imagination on my part, but I don't see anything unreasonable in saying that representing multiple theoretical attacks as only one actual attack is a little bit skewed. Plus, there's other ways MECHANICALLY to show a single powerful attack made as part of a full-round action that have nothing to do with lances, charging, or pounce. I apologize for screwing up the Pounce rules.
AtmaWeapon 05-05-07, 02:54 PM	Look, Lances have been around since core. They haven't changed. Neither has ANYTHING ELSE that serves as a charge multiplier -- Spirited Charge, the Valorous weapon enhancement, Headlong Rush, Unstoppable Charge, and so on. They *all* are written in exactly the same way, and they *all* function this way. Of all the things you named, How many of them are core? 1. And it really has nothing to do with the issue. Of all the things that give PCs "pounce", how many are core? 1. Polymorph. And if you're going to try to argue to me that you're polymorphing into a tiger on top of your mount, wielding a lance in your teeth so that you can make a full attack as a charge, I'm gonna say "uhwhaaa?"? Just because lances haven't changed since core doesn't mean that non-core material hasn't changed lances. There is no logical explaination, flavorful or otherwise, that can even remotely explain how you can make 4 seperate "devastating" attacks with a lance on a charge. But the rules allow for it, and thus it is valid. Nightsticks weren't broken on thier own. Combo them with Divine feats, though, and now all of a sudden they are. Get your self-righteous head out of your ass. I could say the same to you, especially considering that so far I'm the only person that's agreed with you that mechanically it works. How, then, is that different from a GIANT thrust at the end of a charge, empowered with whatever granted you Pounce, where the individual attack rolls just indicate how many more multiples of the damage your attack did? There's a difference. A big one. First, it adds unneeded complication to what some people are already having problems grasping from a fundamental rules standpoint. Secondly, I have issues with people describing what happened different then what actually happened. Third, if this were to come up in a game, the person was intentionally doing it. No one "accidentally" stumbles on a pouncing charger build. I see no reason to try to reward someone's cheesing of the rules system with an elaborate description. If someone wants to do that, they can roll thier dice and do thier damage. If they want elaborate combat descriptions from me, they can do me the favor of making characters who don't rely on attack routines that defy logic and physics. I'm just providing a description that is designed to satisfy those of you with tiny imaginations, unable to comprehend how this could possibly work whatsoever despite the rules showing it working. Perhaps you should actually read all my posts in the thread. At no point did I ever say it didn't work. I said I disagreed that description of what happened is valid, and lends itself to confusion. Apparently I somehow also must have insulted your mother, hit on a baby, and defiled all you hold true and dear based on the venom you decided to spew back. Meanwhile, you're making rule-based arguments... based on description. Gee, I want to play in your games, where I can create astral constructs (shapable summon creatures) with two dozen arms and then demand I get that many slam attacks (despite the rules showing they have one or two, POSSIBLY with one extra if they have the right menu selection). I don't allow psionics anyway, so it's a moot point. For two reasons, 1) I don't like them from a flavor standpoint, and 2) The current watered-down "Wizards with Power Points instead of spell slots" psionics system is absolutely terrible. As for the example above, you get what the book says. I accept the rules for what they are, I don't try to explain all the stupidity that can result from them in logical terms. Bonus points though, you apparently must have a good 6 or so points sunk into ranks in Speak Language (Condescending, Rude, and Holier-than-thou), but you could use a few more in Read(All Posts).
Prator_the_Legendary 05-05-07, 03:06 PM	Please, now, let's be civil. I'm reasonably sure that, at least when we started, we were not intending to be insulting to eachother. Summary of both sides: FOR Lance-Pounce: Mechanically it can work, if description is altered to fit. Therefore it is a valid strategy. AGAINST Lance-Pounce: The description, if unaltered/kept true to the initial design of the mechanics, makes the mechanics seemingly senseless and is therefore treated as invalid. Overall, my assessment is that this sort of trick should be up to individual DMs to decide whether it is feasible or not. That said, I maxed out ranks in Diplomacy specifically so I could mediate stuff like this. And I've consistently rolled 1s on every check since character creation. Maybe my luck will be better today...
Tempest Stormwind 05-05-07, 03:36 PM	Let's step back and look at this from a game balance perspective. So a lance deals double damage on a charge. If you spend some very limited resources to get the Pounce ability (which, by the way, can be attained in core through psionic lion's charge -- the XPH is in the SRD), which is already limited in when it applies (on a charge) and most are limited in some other way (costs daily resources, only works in the first round, only works on flat-footed opponents, or similar), you can deal double damage on every attack you make. Big. Whoop. At the levels you're doing this at, magic is already raping the game. It only gets worse as you scale things up. Oh, and magic does so in ways that make you question the validity of the "realism" argument. So you do more damage if you charge with a lance and the rules say you can do this over multiple attacks at the end of a charge. The wizard waves his fingers, speaks gibberish, and flings bat crud at you and you explode. Which is a bigger stretch to realism. If you're up in arms against this, think about what else you're accepting, or what else you're denying. I don't allow psionics anyway, so it's a moot point. For two reasons, 1) I don't like them from a flavor standpoint, and 2) The current watered-down "Wizards with Power Points instead of spell slots" psionics system is absolutely terrible.1) Completely irrelevant. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=470229) 2) Your opinion, and it's contested by pretty much anyone with mathematical skill. It's the best system for psionics ever published, and a common replacement for magic in general since it's far harder to break. (For the record, there's far more to it than "wizards with spell points". Calling it thus demonstrates your unfamiliarity with the system, and thus your expertise to speak on the subject.)
BUFU 05-07-07, 03:52 PM	I'm sorry to interrupt but this argument has gone a little of track, so I just want to say a few things: A) I didn't try to achieve any kind of trick or broken character in my build, if any thing my character is underpowered relative to the rest of my group (who toke it on their self to optimize their characters in to mindless fighting machines). I archived the pounce lance combo by going strait binder (the KoSS doesn't help in any significant way to this combination). B) My first and only question is: do I get the double damage on the rest of my pounce attack, not how the attack will look like. So dose any body have a conclusive rules based answer to my question?
Prator_the_Legendary 05-07-07, 04:22 PM	There is no conclusive rules-based answer. Ask your DM to decide this one.
Nadaka 05-07-07, 04:28 PM	I'm sorry to interrupt but this argument has gone a little of track, so I just want to say a few things: A) I didn't try to achieve any kind of trick or broken character in my build, if any thing my character is underpowered relative to the rest of my group (who toke it on their self to optimize their characters in to mindless fighting machines). I archived the pounce lance combo by going strait binder (the KoSS doesn't help in any significant way to this combination). B) My first and only question is: do I get the double damage on the rest of my pounce attack, not how the attack will look like. So dose any body have a conclusive rules based answer to my question? Yes. And the answer has been given. You do recieve the damage on those attacks (with the lance) at the end of a charge.
Matthew77 05-07-07, 05:15 PM	When you charge, you move twice your movement in a straight line, and then stop to make an attack. Nothing in the charge description or mechanics indicates that you need to continue moving past your opponent, or that you need to be travelling at a high velocity when you make your attacks. Consider that your next action could be to turn around and run at full speed back the way you came, and that a charge only requires 10' of movement from a dead stop to be effective. With this in mind, I would describe a pounce charge as a quick dash forward, followed by a sudden stop and several quick jabs with the lance. I realize this is not the action one typically envisions where the lance charge is carried through to overrun and ride past the target, but it is perfectly suitable for pulling up short and impaling several hapless infantry, or applying a pair of punctures to the side of a large beast.
Balseraph 05-07-07, 08:51 PM	Warning: Personal opinion follows and someone might disagree and yell at me. I would personally just houserule it to "no". Lance deals double damage on the first hit of the pouncing charge, normal on the second. Much like how manyshot can only crit once and only the first arrow can be used to sneak attack. Sure, the description of Pounce never states that a lance cannot deal double on both hits, but then when the rules for lances and the pounce ability were written, there wasn't any way that I can think of to actually achieve a pounce with a lance. Other than that, it's just how I think of it. I don't need to justify that decision, since none of my players have brought it up yet :P
Tytalus 05-08-07, 12:14 AM	There is no conclusive rules-based answer. Ask your DM to decide this one. The rules are very clear: it's allowed. Whether your DM decides to houserule otherwise is an entirely different issue.
Radijs 05-08-07, 03:12 AM	The rules are very clear: it's allowed. Whether your DM decides to houserule otherwise is an entirely different issue. QFT. Personally I'd houserule it.
LCD2YOU 05-08-07, 04:11 PM	Short answer: By the rules you can. My answer, and these are MY RULES, not RAW: Combining Pounce with a Charge is rules-lawyering cheese. WTF? "Pounce", to me is what an animal does to attack. No, I'd house rule that you can't do that. Also, on a charge, you should, by physics and biology, make it that the one charging MUST continue the next round either slowing down or continue moving, but hey, that's just me.
tsuyoshikentsu 05-08-07, 09:29 PM	I'd just like to say that the hostility and general ignorance of the rules displayed in this thread is why I usually stay away from this board. But I'm bored. :P So: Tempest is right.
LCD2YOU 05-09-07, 09:46 AM	I'd just like to say that the hostility and general ignorance of the rules displayed in this thread is why I usually stay away from this board. But I'm bored. :P So: Tempest is right.So happy to entertain you. Look outside your window now, I'm sure there's about to be an accident with injuries, fatalities even. Hope that helps you get rid of your boredom.
TwistedPuppy 05-09-07, 09:57 AM	Short answer: By the rules you can. My answer, and these are MY RULES, not RAW: Combining Pounce with a Charge is rules-lawyering cheese. Agreed. WTF? "Pounce", to me is what an animal does to attack. No, I'd house rule that you can't do that. Also, on a charge, you should, by physics and biology, make it that the one charging MUST continue the next round either slowing down or continue moving, but hey, that's just me. I see your point, but if you were to rule something like that perhaps a ride check to stop or turn? I mean a horse can stop or change direction pretty quick - the question is can you stay in the saddle while he does?
LCD2YOU 05-09-07, 10:33 AM	I see your point, but if you were to rule something like that perhaps a ride check to stop or turn? I mean a horse can stop or change direction pretty quick - the question is can you stay in the saddle while he does?Yes, a horse can stop and change direction pretty quick, but not instant. It doesn't take long, 1 round to go from a full run to a dead stop. As for staying in the saddle, if it is a warhorse and the PC/NPC has a "military saddle", they have bonuses. A basic rider on a light horse with a regular, light saddle can have major issues. I treat it like air maneuverability. Actually, remember SFB? I use a form of maneuver class for different animals on how far they must go straight before they can make a 45 degree turn. Some animals can go really fast in a straight line but not turn easily. Others, can change on a dime but not go as fast. Horses, can't run flat out and make an instant 90 degree turn (sans magic) as it could break bones in their legs. Oh, they can always try but there are risks and the DC is based on their velocity and just how fast they wish to turn.
TwistedPuppy 05-09-07, 10:43 AM	Yes, a horse can stop and change direction pretty quick, but not instant. It doesn't take long, 1 round to go from a full run to a dead stop. As for staying in the saddle, if it is a warhorse and the PC/NPC has a "military saddle", they have bonuses. A basic rider on a light horse with a regular, light saddle can have major issues. I treat it like air maneuverability. Actually, remember SFB? You're talking to a guy that liked to play Gorn bathtubs here :D Gotta love turn mode E... I use a form of maneuver class for different animals on how far they must go straight before they can make a 45 degree turn. Some animals can go really fast in a straight line but not turn easily. Others, can change on a dime but not go as fast. Horses, can't run flat out and make an instant 90 degree turn (sans magic) as it could break bones in their legs. Oh, they can always try but there are risks and the DC is based on their velocity and just how fast they wish to turn. What, you aren't giving them their bonus HET? :eek: At least SFB (the now ten-year-old Captain's Edition I have, anyway) did a pretty good job of cross-referencing new material with existing material and saying what interacted with what and how. I think WotC is in too much of a hurry to push new material into print to consider those interactions.
LCD2YOU 05-09-07, 10:57 AM	You're talking to a guy that liked to play Gorn bathtubs here :D Gotta love turn mode E...Hydrans RULE! I have a year 172 Hydran Lord Paladin Dreadnaught with over 80 kills, including a Lyran CX.What, you aren't giving them their bonus HET? :eek:Which is how I got the CX. I did use the HET at the right moment when he came up on my rear shield (fortunately the guy fired more than half of his weapons previously and damaged almost all of my shields. He was getting ready to power up his ESGs, range zero and over run me. He had just taken a turn and a sideslip so his next movement had to be forward. I HET'd and moved making me range 1. You should have seen his eyes. I took my 3 remaining Hellbores and 2 Gatling Phasers and pounded his #1 shield, making him use up all of his batteries and doing a few internals. He forgot to fire and I took out 2 OL Disruptors and 2 P-1s. Next impulse he was going to Sideslip again and realized he could not and that he had no Reserve Warp to making an HET. Range 0 with 4 OL Fusion and 7 P-1s down his throat. As he had never hit my front shield it absorbed a butt load of damaged. Yeah, I still took 40 internal but well after the damage was resolved his Lyran CX was a hollow metal tube. Didn't have enough power to continue with ESGs which were already gone BTW. 120 points or something like that of internals. What a great victory for the Hydran Imperial Starforces.At least SFB (the now ten-year-old Captain's Edition I have, anyway) did a pretty good job of cross-referencing new material with existing material and saying what interacted with what and how. I think WotC is in too much of a hurry to push new material into print to consider those interactions.Sounds about right.
TwistedPuppy 05-09-07, 11:04 AM	Best claim I can make is taking out Uncle Rolandus (Ron Spitzer, a great guy btw) in the Origins '91 Captain's Tournament.
LCD2YOU 05-09-07, 01:21 PM	Best claim I can make is taking out Uncle Rolandus (Ron Spitzer, a great guy btw) in the Origins '91 Captain's Tournament.Good for you. Remeber this adage when fighting Pasma Armed Ships: "Speed is life. The more speed, the better. Too much speed? That's almost enough"