A few questions regarding Charging (Pounce) and multiple attacks

[Hypersmurf]

No, actually. I meant to look at the name of "pounce," not to make some grand statement about the appropriateness of the names of feats.

But why should the name 'Pounce' be considered rules text, if we aren't going to apply the same logic universally?

The mechanics of the ability, that happens to have the name 'Pounce', are that when the creature makes a charge, it can follow with a full attack.

If we take another ability, named 'Charge Action Boost', that states 'When the creature makes a charge, it can follow with a full attack', and a third ability, named 'Unanticipated Fury', that also states 'When the creature makes a charge, it can follow with a full attack', all three abilities should function identically. The mechanics tell us what happens; we should not need to refer to the label to interpret those mechanics.

Otherwise, we'd have to say "Set aside the Deflect Arrows feat for a moment, and just look at the name: 'Deflect Arrows' implies that you can knock aside projectiles from a bow. So while the text refers to 'ranged weapons', we have to take that name into account, and exclude non-arrows."

Directing one to look at the name Pounce either must make a grand statement about the appropriateness of the names of feats, or it has no relevance, or it's opening the door to inconsistency in how things should be interpreted.

I don't want to introduce inconsistency, and the grand statement is bad, so the only option left to me is that the name 'Pounce' has no relevance to how the mechanics are interpreted.

-Hyp.

 

[Andras]

FWIW, the epic feat Dire Charge explicitly replaces the single attack at the end of the charge with a full-attack.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I'm pretty sure they meant to have just a full attack at the end of a charge, not a single melee attack AND a full attack at the end of the charge.

I agree that it is entirely possible that someone, when writing the pounce ability, wanted that to happen.

Unfortunately, that is not what they ended up writing.

"When you charge someone" = when you move up to twice your speed and make a single attack at +2

Really, there shouldn't be any debate on what the rules actually say - Hyp's got it exactly correct.

Whether or not you want to change what the rules actually say, or whether the rules don't say what we think the designer wanted them to say, is a separate discussion.

 

[Pielorinho]

But why should the name 'Pounce' be considered rules text, if we aren't going to apply the same logic universally?

Because we're not working on a computer program here, but rather we're working with a game that should give us a way to imagine events. Logic is less important than being able to imagine events.

Here, I see a conflict between the programmatic logic that you espouse and a clear image of what's happening. When you see this attack in your mind, what does it look like? Does the tiger race forward, lash out with a paw, and then jump on top of the creature? If so, does this correlate to how you've seen cats (or great cats on nature shows) attack prey?

If we take another ability, named 'Charge Action Boost', that states 'When the creature makes a charge, it can follow with a full attack', and a third ability, named 'Unanticipated Fury', that also states 'When the creature makes a charge, it can follow with a full attack', all three abilities should function identically. The mechanics tell us what happens; we should not need to refer to the label to interpret those mechanics.

I absolutely disagree. The labels tell us what action is being described by the numbercrunching, and allow us to see where the authors have described things poorly or implausibly, allow us to arrive at something that matches either the author's intentions or an elegant representation of the intended referent, or ideally both.

Otherwise, we'd have to say "Set aside the Deflect Arrows feat for a moment, and just look at the name: 'Deflect Arrows' implies that you can knock aside projectiles from a bow. So while the text refers to 'ranged weapons', we have to take that name into account, and exclude non-arrows."

Nothing doing; I am not a computer program, but rather a human being who may adapt to different circumstances that may have superficial similarities. In this case, I may look at it, realize that what's being described is the act of knocking something aside, and realize that the feat name in this case is a hyponym.

Directing one to look at the name Pounce either must make a grand statement about the appropriateness of the names of feats, or it has no relevance, or it's opening the door to inconsistency in how things should be interpreted.

It's the latter, if by consistency you mean consistency to a literal interpretation of rules that could easily be programmed into a computer. THat's not a type of consistency that I value in rules interpretations; rather, I value consistency in interpreting rules in an elegant fashion that maps to easily-imagined, exciting scenes.

Daniel

 

[Pielorinho]

Really, there shouldn't be any debate on what the rules actually say - Hyp's got it exactly correct.

Whether or not you want to change what the rules actually say, or whether the rules don't say what we think the designer wanted them to say, is a separate discussion.

The debate is at a deeper level--it's whether the only valid interpretation of "what the rules actually say" is a literal interpretation that takes nothing into consideration outside of the rules themselves. That's not an approach that I endorse, although I certainly recognize that it works for many folks, and it's not the only valid approach to the rules in this forum.

Daniel

 

[kjenks]

If a PC has the "Pounce" ability (such as the Psychic Warrior's Lion's Charge power), which allows them to do a full round attack at the end of a charge, do they get their charge attack PLUS a full round worth of attacks?

Nope. I just checked the power's description. Check it out:

SRD
===
Psionic Lion's Charge
Psychometabolism
Level: Psychic warrior 2
[...]
You gain the powerful charging ability of a lion. When you charge, you can make a full attack in the same round.
===

And now, check out the lion's description:

SRD
===
Pounce (Ex): If a lion charges a foe, it can make a full attack, including two rake attacks.
===

So, just like the lion, it's just a full attack, not a charge attack plus a full attack.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Here, I see a conflict between the programmatic logic that you espouse and a clear image of what's happening. When you see this attack in your mind, what does it look like? Does the tiger race forward, lash out with a paw, and then jump on top of the creature? If so, does this correlate to how you've seen cats (or great cats on nature shows) attack prey?

One thing I lament in the 3E to 3.5 update is the removal of the paragraph: "An attack roll represents your attempts to strike your opponent, including feints and wild swings. It does not represent a single swing of the sword, for example. Rather, it simply indicates whether, over perhaps several attempts, you managed to connect solidly."

But regardless, I don't see a problem with a single attack at a +2 bonus, followed by a full attack sequence, being cinematically represented as jumping at someone, claws and teeth flashing. The difference in mechanics (a full attack following a charge, vs a full attack as part of a charge) doesn't necessitate a change in cinematics. The cinematics are fluid - as implied by the 3E quote.

I absolutely disagree. The labels tell us what action is being described by the numbercrunching, and allow us to see where the authors have described things poorly or implausibly, allow us to arrive at something that matches either the author's intentions or an elegant representation of the intended referent, or ideally both.

But if we adhere to the labels, we end up with DMs declaring that you cannot Cleave with a piercing weapon, or can only Cleave into an opponent adjacent to your original target... because although the mechanics deny both of those, the label 'allows' that DM to 'see' that the author described those mechanics implausibly and they don't match his intentions.

In this case, I may look at it, realize that what's being described is the act of knocking something aside, and realize that the feat name in this case is a hyponym.

So if I, for example, create a Cerberus-like three-headed dog, and wish him to be able to attack with more than one bite attack when he charges, would you consider it incorrect to give him Pounce [Ex]? He's not leaping upon his target with all claws out in the fashion of a great cat; but he is following his charge with a full attack. Can I call this ability Pounce [Ex]?

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

And now, check out the lion's description:

SRD
===
Pounce (Ex): If a lion charges a foe, it can make a full attack, including two rake attacks.
===

So, just like the lion, it's just a full attack, not a charge attack plus a full attack.

I don't agree. How is charge defined? Movement, plus a single melee attack.

So let's look at the lion.

"If a lion charges a foe..."

Okay - the lion moves and makes a single melee attack. He satisfies the condition - what's the result?

"... it can make a full attack."

Okay - the lion makes a full attack.

End result? The lion moves and makes a single melee attack (charge), and if it does that, it can make a full attack.

And Psionic Lion's Charge lets the PW do the same thing.

-Hyp.

 

[Sidekick]

Well here goes the way I'll be ruling this one.

Pounce [Ex]
When someone (or something) has the pounce ability they, upon moving their full allotment (ie double move as described in the charge ability), they can gain a Full attack action in place of their usual single attack action. They only get a +2 to the first attack, and it is only on the first attack that they can add damage from Rhino hide armour and/or special feats (powerful charge, etc) and so forth.

I reckon that’s a fair and reasonable ruling, that keeps the RAI, if not the RAW in mind.

They will not be doing a charge attack followed by a full attack, nor will they be allowed to get the +2 and thus all the bonuses they would get on charging for ALL the attacks – both seem abusive to me, this is the way I’ve always assumed that it was intended and the way I’ve always run it with the various creatures I’ve had pounce on the PCs.

Sure it may be seen as a ‘house rule’ or a ‘nerf’ by some, But that’s the middle ground and until errata or Cust Serve clear up the mess. Then this is what I’ll be doing.

I encourage you all to do the same.

 

[Pielorinho]

But regardless, I don't see a problem with a single attack at a +2 bonus, followed by a full attack sequence, being cinematically represented as jumping at someone, claws and teeth flashing.

:Shrug I do. A pounce, to my mind, represents a set of simultaneous attacks, not a single attack followed by that same attack and a series of other attacks.

But if we adhere to the labels
...
So if I, for example, create a Cerberus-like three-headed dog, and wish him to be able to attack with more than one bite attack when he charges, would you consider it incorrect to give him Pounce [Ex]? He's not leaping upon his target with all claws out in the fashion of a great cat; but he is following his charge with a full attack. Can I call this ability Pounce [Ex]?

-Hyp.

Hyp, your fashion of arguing this is at ninety degrees to how I approach it. I'm not saying you adhere to the labels, nor will I prevent you from calling any ability anything you want. It seems as if you think I'm going to substitute programmatic adherence to the mechanic-text with programmatic adherence to labels; that's not at all what I'm suggesting.

Daniel