Tell Me About A Tiger's Full Attack...

[frankthedm]

I doubt it, since as frankthedm points out doing it that way is broken. But even that is what they intended, it is not what they wrote.

Oh, I'm pretty sure WOTC did originally mean it to be a Pouce changed the charges single attack to a full attack. It is just that with splat based damage boosters, that gets ugly fast unless the wisely DM rules the damage boosters only work on one damage roll per charge. Also ruling pounce only lets one take natural attacks also helps eliminate ludicrous pounce & splat combos.

 

[glass]

Oh, I'm pretty sure WOTC did originally mean it to be a Pouce changed the charges single attack to a full attack.

On reflection, you might be right about that, but it still isn't what they wrote.

Anyway, you were right about the brokenness. I don't think you even need splats. The buffs available to PCs in core are enough.


glass.

 

[Kmart Kommando]

Just because they wrote it, it doesn't make them right.
They haven't gotten around to everything in an errata, but the fact that there even needs to be errata takes away from 'it's there, so it must be right'.

The same book says something in one place, and something else in 25 other places, so which seems more likely, they screwed up once, or they screwed up 25 times in the exact same way?

 

[frankthedm]

The same book says something in one place, and something else in 25 other places, so which seems more likely, they screwed up once, or they screwed up 25 times in the exact same way?

They screwed up once one way or the way or the other. Just because something gets copypasta'd 25 times, like a monster statblock short entry, does not give it more weight. In fact if the mistake IS repeated 25 times in the exact same way, a copy and paste error becomes suspect #1. That's even why the rulebook conflicts use the primary sources concept.

 

[glass]

Just because they wrote it, it doesn't make them right.

It makes me right! Pounce is charge followed by full attack. That is what the books says, so that is what the rules are.

You don't have to like it, you don't have to think that is what they meant to write, but you can't reasonably argue that the rules are anything different.

The same book says something in one place, and something else in 25 other places, so which seems more likely, they screwed up once, or they screwed up 25 times in the exact same way?

Your own quotes show that the 25 other places do not anything of the sort. They didn't screw up at all, because all 26 places are perfectly consistent.


glass.

 

[Kmart Kommando]

It makes me right! Pounce is charge followed by full attack. That is what the books says, so that is what the rules are.

You don't have to like it, you don't have to think that is what they meant to write, but you can't reasonably argue that the rules are anything different.

Your own quotes show that the 25 other places do not anything of the sort. They didn't screw up at all, because all 26 places are perfectly consistent.


glass.

except they aren't all the same copy/paste, since there are some with and some without rake.

'full attack +1 more attack' has plenty of examples, none of which are consistent with what Pounce says.

 

[glass]

except they aren't all the same copy/paste, since there are some with and some without rake.

'full attack +1 more attack' has plenty of examples, none of which are consistent with what Pounce says.

Are you replying to me? I didn't mention copy-and-paste.

And where are these 'plenty of examples'? Are you still talking about the summaries from the idividual creature that you posted upthread? The ones that say nothing about replacing the charge attack?

glass.

 

[Kmart Kommando]

Are you replying to me? I didn't mention copy-and-paste.

And where are these 'plenty of examples'? Are you still talking about the summaries from the idividual creature that you posted upthread? The ones that say nothing about replacing the charge attack?

glass.

you have to look at the section for charging as well.
it says you get 1 attack, even if you have multiple attacks, and the pounce entries for those creatures with pounce modify charging by saying they can full attack when they charge.

since charging is a fullround action, where you move then attack, there is no 'after you charge', hence my comment about the Pounce entry itself being flawed. Pounce isn't some animal psionics, where they get another fullround action in a round when they charge.

 

[Elethiomel]

since charging is a fullround action, where you move then attack, there is no 'after you charge'

Not by default, but the pounce entry specifically changes that rule, hence adding something 'after the charge' in its rules text.

Pounce isn't some animal psionics, where they get another fullround action in a round when they charge.

No, they get a full attack after they charge, sometimes including additional attacks (like rake).

 

[Kmart Kommando]

Not by default, but the pounce entry specifically changes that rule, hence adding something 'after the charge' in its rules text.




No, they get a full attack after they charge, sometimes including additional attacks (like rake).

Which is why the Pounce entry is wrong. Pounce turns 1 attack on a charge into a full attack on a charge, not a full attack plus 1 attack. You're already getting extra attacks using Pounce due to going from single attack to full attack, adding an extra one on top of that is blatantly abusing the spirit of the rules. Gaining extra attacks are never for free, (check out everything that gives you extra attacks), the one you're giving, would be.