Natural attacks and Class attacks confusion

[Diirk]

Your argument can be voided by one word: Charge.

I don't think voided, weakened maybe. What do you think the duration of flurry is, and why ?

 

[Diirk]

If you charge, the penalty to your AC persists until your next turn.

Are you, then - or your mount - considered to be 'charging' until your next turn? The lance deals double damage when used from the back of a charging mount - would you apply this to all AoOs made before your next turn?

Actually in thinking about it a bit more, you can technically already get double damage or more on (some) AoOs... consider the following:

A.....B
.......
...C...

A (using a lance) charges B, and gets provokes an attack of opportunity by C (who has a longspear) on the way. C takes this attack of opportunity, provoking an attack of opportunity from A, through Rombilar's Gambit or Karmic Strike or something similar. This occurs during a charge, so Spirited Charge, lances, Rhino's Rush etc would all apply.

Given that such things are possible (even if it is a border case), I'd rather consider a charging character to be considered charging until his next action, consistent with my stance on flurry, power attack etc. However then I'd feel obligated to house rule in some fixes for charging.

Rhino's Rush is fine as is, as it only applies to the first charging attack you make.
Spirited Charge only function while using the charge action, as opposed to when charging, so its debatable if even under my interpretation of charging lasting until your next turn whether it would continue to function after your turn or not. However I'd change it to be similair to Rhino's Rush and only work on the first charging attack you make, which also fixes Pounce abuse.
Lances do double damage whenever you're charging and attack from horseback. I'd likely house rule the same restriction (only double damage once), however I'm not sure if lances are broken by themselves or not. Although even with "only" double damage, pounce can still be pretty abusive.

 

[Asmo]

I can´t belive I did it! I read the whole thread on my first day on my 4 week vacation, and I don´t even play this game any more!
I need to get a life and a brain surgery. Argh!!

Asmo

 

[Cameron]

I don't think voided, weakened maybe. What do you think the duration of flurry is, and why ?

It is voided the second you disallow the +2 to-hit on a charge to carry over to *all* your attacks that round (especially AoOs). If your "Charge" status remains for the whole round, everything from Spirited Charge and lance damage onwards counts towards AoOs you get until your next turn. If the status is not persistent, then your argument is debunked.

So, which is it?

 

[Hypersmurf]

It is voided the second you disallow the +2 to-hit on a charge to carry over to *all* your attacks that round (especially AoOs). If your "Charge" status remains for the whole round, everything from Spirited Charge and lance damage onwards counts towards AoOs you get until your next turn.

Lance damage applies to any attack made from the back of a charging mount.

The +2, on the other hand, applies to 'the attack':

After moving, you may make a single melee attack. You get a +2 bonus on the attack roll.

It seems unambiguous to me that the +2 applies to the single melee attack described by the Charge action that you make after moving. An AoO may or may not occur while a state of 'charging' is considered to exist, but if it is not the single melee attack you make after moving - if it occurs while you are moving, or occurs after that single melee attack has taken place - the +2 bonus is inapplicable.

If any attack made while 'charging' gained the +2 bonus, that would be a different story.

-Hyp.

 

[Diirk]

It is voided the second you disallow the +2 to-hit on a charge to carry over to *all* your attacks that round (especially AoOs). If your "Charge" status remains for the whole round, everything from Spirited Charge and lance damage onwards counts towards AoOs you get until your next turn. If the status is not persistent, then your argument is debunked.

So, which is it?

You'll notice I already answered this.

 

[Cameron]

Lance damage applies to any attack made from the back of a charging mount.

The +2, on the other hand, applies to 'the attack':

After moving, you may make a single melee attack. You get a +2 bonus on the attack roll.

It seems unambiguous to me that the +2 applies to the single melee attack described by the Charge action that you make after moving. An AoO may or may not occur while a state of 'charging' is considered to exist, but if it is not the single melee attack you make after moving - if it occurs while you are moving, or occurs after that single melee attack has taken place - the +2 bonus is inapplicable.

If any attack made while 'charging' gained the +2 bonus, that would be a different story.

-Hyp.

True enough. I thought the wording for the +2 to hit is the same as the damage one. Turns out they were different.





Diirk, you haven't answered the question.

Suppose my character charged someone. I deal double damage. Someone else runs in and I get a aoo on him. Does the double damage still apply? If it doesn't your stance is voided.

What you wish the rules to be is not what the rules say. I would like to avoid the realm of House Rules, please.

 

[Diirk]

Diirk, you haven't answered the question.

Suppose my character charged someone. I deal double damage. Someone else runs in and I get a aoo on him. Does the double damage still apply? If it doesn't your stance is voided.

I actually did answer that question, it seems you didn't read my post very well, I shall elucidate:

a. As illustrated above, you can already do double damage with lances on AoOs under certain circumstances. So no, I wouldn't have any problem with considering 'charging' to last for as long as the penalty did. I think it fits in better with the idea of 'abstracted simultaneity' that D&D combat is supposed to represent, anyway.
b. Charging as a whole is broken, due to the availability of things like Pounce. I think the house rules I suggested are a good idea regardless

PS you didn't answer my question about how long you think the duration of flurry of blows is ?

 

[eamon]

Charging is a whole different ball-game. Let's leave that as may be. The FAQ indeed might contain imperfections, however, it's as close to an official intent as we're liable to get. Despite Hyp's contention otherwise, the FAQ section on the monk does not contradict itself concerning TWF or natural attacks. There is only one interpretation made, namely that you can use TWF and natural weapons in conjunction with flurry of blows. Flurry of blows is an attack pattern which grants you a certain number of attacks, all of which need to be a variety of unarmed strike, or a variety of monk weapon. Once those attacks are made, the FAQ contends that there is nothing stopping you from further making attacks using TWF or natural attacks.

It's useful to consider that unarmed strike, physically, is not a single weapon, but a class of attacks. You may argue that for rules consistency or clarity it's better to interpret it as one weapon for the purposes of the D&D weapon mechanics, but I can't see how this simplifies or improves things (be free to clarify that, however). Clearly, the rules do not address this issue directly (or we wouldn't be having this discussion). Unless there is an explicit reason to assume otherwise, unarmed strike is not a single weapon, but a class of weapons. The FAQ has an internally consistent interpretation of the flurry rules. This interpretation is simple, in that it simply allows everything else to tack on, and as far as I can tell does not impose any balance issues. Why choose another interpretation, when this one exists, is consistent, and is as close to rules intent as we're likely to discover?

 

[eamon]

I actually did answer that question, it seems you didn't read my post very well, I shall elucidate:

a. As illustrated above, you can already do double damage with lances on AoOs under certain circumstances. So no, I wouldn't have any problem with considering 'charging' to last for as long as the penalty did. I think it fits in better with the idea of 'abstracted simultaneity' that D&D combat is supposed to represent, anyway.
b. Charging as a whole is broken, due to the availability of things like Pounce. I think the house rules I suggested are a good idea regardless

PS you didn't answer my question about how long you think the duration of flurry of blows is ?

I think that the flurry of blows does not have a duration per se. It's an ability to add attacks to a full-attack sequence, and therefore could be seen as having the same duration as that full-attack sequence. The penalty taken to permit this is the payoff, and it has a very explicit duration of exactly one round.