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

[glass]

Which is why the Pounce entry is wrong.

The Pounce entry CAN'T BE WRONG. The rules text defines what is right; by definition, what the rules say is right about what the rules are!


glass.

 

[Kmart Kommando]

The Pounce entry CAN'T BE WRONG. The rules text defines what is right; by definition, what the rules say is right about what the rules are!


glass.

Then why are there erratas and FAQ? Just because they haven't fixed it yet, doesn't mean they shouldn't. There are tons of things that are poorly worded, which leads to arguments like these. That's one of the reasons 'by the RAW' means nothing.

 

[glass]

Then why are there erratas

Because sometimes the rules do not work as intended and need to be changed.

and FAQ?

Because sometime the rules are unclear.

Just because they haven't fixed it yet, doesn't mean they shouldn't.

No. They shouldn't 'fix' it, because it would be horribly broken, but let ignore that for the moment. You realise that by saying that they should 'fix it' you are admitting there is something to fix, ie that the rules as they stand are not as you would like?


glass.

 

[Kmart Kommando]

You realise that by saying that they should 'fix it' you are admitting there is something to fix, ie that the rules as they stand are not as you would like?


glass.

as opposed to the rules as how you interpret them?

this can go on forever.

and how is a tiger with a full attack more broken than a tiger with a full attack plus another attack at the same time?

most of the charging feats were either written more clearly or put in the errata making only 1 attack count for the feat, even if they had multiple attacks on the charge. or they were some weird broken splat book, which doesn't even factor into the equation, since they aren't in the SRD to begin with.

 

[glass]

as opposed to the rules as how you interpret them?

As opposed to the rules as they are. As you tacitly admitted in your previous post.

and how is a tiger with a full attack more broken than a tiger with a full attack plus another attack at the same time?

Well, there is the +2 to hit for charging, to start with an then all the other bonuses that can be added to a charge.

most of the charging feats were either written more clearly or put in the errata making only 1 attack count for the feat, even if they had multiple attacks on the charge.

If everything that gives bonuses has that text or errata then it might be less of an issue. I still doubt they'll bother with errata now, though, even if they could do it safely.

or they were some weird broken splat book, which doesn't even factor into the equation, since they aren't in the SRD to begin with.

What does being in the SRD have to do with anything? Especially since you had a go upthread for quoting from the SRD, even though I had already pointed out that the MM text was identical.

glass.

 

[Kmart Kommando]

As opposed to the rules as they are. As you tacitly admitted in your previous post.
Well, there is the +2 to hit for charging, to start with an then all the other bonuses that can be added to a charge.
If everything that gives bonuses has that text or errata then it might be less of an issue. I still doubt they'll bother with errata now, though, even if they could do it safely.
What does being in the SRD have to do with anything? Especially since you had a go upthread for quoting from the SRD, even though I had already pointed out that the MM text was identical.

glass.

-the +2 attack is balanced out by the -2 AC and vulnerability to set weapons. unless you always miss by 1, the +2 is pretty trivial.

-4th edition is probably one of the reasons they never got around to it.

-the only problem I see so far is Leap Attack, but it was put in the errata a long time ago.