I thought gore was an attack not a result?

[eyebreaker7]

noun
blood that has been shed, especially as a result of violence.
"the film omitted the blood and gore in order to avoid controversy"

I thought gore meant an attack with horns or tusks? The Gargoyle has:
"2 claws +6 melee (1d4+2) and bite +4 melee (1d6+1) and gore +4 melee (1d6+1)"

I tried to find a definition that explains what type of attack a gore is and found the above definition. Would the Gargoyles gore attack be with it's horns or it's mouth? Horns right? The entry already lists a bite attack & damage.
If the gore attack IS with it's horns, can it do a flying ramming attack?

[Kraynic]

You just need a different dictionary. Number 3 in this entry:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gore

[eyebreaker7]

Thank you.

[Segev]

Yeah, "gore," like many words in English, has homonyms. "The gore splattered everywhere when the gargoyle gored him." "To gore" is generally synonymous with "to pierce deeply." "Gore" as a noun refers to the product of violence on living things, particularly spread around. "Gory" is an adjective that describes scenes and movies and the like which have a lot of displayed gore (the noun), and goring (the verb) something usually does result in a lot of gore (the noun).

[AnimeTheCat]

Yeah, "gore," like many words in English, has homonyms. "The gore splattered everywhere when the gargoyle gored him." "To gore" is generally synonymous with "to pierce deeply." "Gore" as a noun refers to the product of violence on living things, particularly spread around. "Gory" is an adjective that describes scenes and movies and the like which have a lot of displayed gore (the noun), and goring (the verb) something usually does result in a lot of gore (the noun).

Is a single word with multiple definitions a homonym? Gore is spelled the same way whether it is being used as a noun or a verb, so that doesn't make it a homonym right? Their and There are homonyms, because they're different words that sound the same and have different meanings. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what a homonym is...

EDIT: Could have saved an entire post... but I just looked up the definition of homonym and it looks like mine is only half-correct and you were using the other half that I didn't consider. re-learn something not-so-new every day.

[Segev]

Is a single word with multiple definitions a homonym? Gore is spelled the same way whether it is being used as a noun or a verb, so that doesn't make it a homonym right? Their and There are homonyms, because they're different words that sound the same and have different meanings. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what a homonym is...

EDIT: Could have saved an entire post... but I just looked up the definition of homonym and it looks like mine is only half-correct and you were using the other half that I didn't consider. re-learn something not-so-new every day.

No problem. I was pondering the same question as I started the post, then dismissed it based on the fact that "homonym" means "sounds the same" (well, not exactly literally, but that's the etymology) and there isn't a different word for "spelled the same." Which is a pity, because, "The wind pushed the blades of the mill to turn swiftly, causing the spring to which they were attached to wind tightly," is NOT a pair of homonyms, despite being spelled identically, because they sound different and mean ENTIRELY different things.

But since "gore" and "gore" sound the same and mean different things, they meet the definition for "homonym," yes. Being spelled the same doesn't change that. I definitely see why it would give pause, though; it gave me pause, too, before I blundered on regardless. :smallcool:

[eyebreaker7]

What about the ramming attack? Personally I don't see why not but just curious what others think?

[Segev]

What about the ramming attack? Personally I don't see why not but just curious what others think?

I don't understand the question. Are you asking why it doesn't do piercing? Typically, ramming does bludgeoning because it's modeling a blunt force. Most horned creatures that engage in rams (rather than gores) have the striking surface of the horn be a "side" of it rather than the pointy tip.

[eyebreaker7]

If the gore attack IS with it's horns, can it do a flying ramming attack?

That was one of my initial questions. Sorry I didn't repeat it :)
The 1st part was answered so I'm now curious about the 2nd part/question. Would a Gargoyle be able to do a flying ramming attack as it's initial attack? Obviously not a fly-by-attack without that feat.

[Segev]

That was one of my initial questions. Sorry I didn't repeat it :)
The 1st part was answered so I'm now curious about the 2nd part/question. Would a Gargoyle be able to do a flying ramming attack as it's initial attack? Obviously not a fly-by-attack without that feat.

Are there mechanics for a "flying ramming attack" or "a ramming attack" in general?

Usually, monsters that have special ramming attacks spell out what those do.

The rules for a Bull Rush are probably closest to hwat you're looking for, and gargoyles don't natively have any special features enabling that to be better than the rather dangerous move it is by default. And certainly not to couple it with a gore attack.

[denthor]

That was one of my initial questions. Sorry I didn't repeat it :)
The 1st part was answered so I'm now curious about the 2nd part/question. Would a Gargoyle be able to do a flying ramming attack as it's initial attack? Obviously not a fly-by-attack without that feat.

It has to do with unintended consequences.

A gargoyle (I assume with wings (fragile part). You hit a wall by a nat 1 you hit a fighter with metal armor. Stone can break. It adds an extra roll to see if you break a wing(slows game down). Also without a feat the player can argue if I hit you your attack fails even on a nat 20.

Just quick tought

[eyebreaker7]

After looking up the rules for Bull rush I saw the rules for Attacking on a Charge: "After moving, you may make a single melee attack.". That sounds more like what I'm looking for. Now my question would still be the same. Would a gargoyle (or anything flying with horns) be able to make a flying ramming attack as it's initial start to battle? I guess it would use it's gore damage for such an attack? Or would it be it's own specific damage I should figure out? If the flying/charging ramming attack is not normally possible, how would I make it so? Are there any feats I would need to take? I'm guessing I would need:
Flyby Attack [General]
Prerequisite
Fly speed.

Benefit
When flying, the creature can take a move action (including a dive) and another standard action at any point during the move. The creature cannot take a second move action during a round when it makes a flyby attack.

Normal
Without this feat, the creature takes a standard action either before or after its move.

Or would the flying charge be enough and save me a feat?

[eyebreaker7]

It has to do with unintended consequences.

A gargoyle (I assume with wings (fragile part). You hit a wall by a nat 1 you hit a fighter with metal armor. Stone can break. It adds an extra roll to see if you break a wing(slows game down). Also without a feat the player can argue if I hit you your attack fails even on a nat 20.

Just quick tought

Sorry missed this reply while I was replying myself. The stone gargoyle shouldn't just break if it hits a wall or warrior in armor. Otherwise how would they even attack without breaking a claw or tooth or horn?

[Segev]

After looking up the rules for Bull rush I saw the rules for Attacking on a Charge: "After moving, you may make a single melee attack.". That sounds more like what I'm looking for. Now my question would still be the same. Would a gargoyle (or anything flying with horns) be able to make a flying ramming attack as it's initial start to battle? I guess it would use it's gore damage for such an attack? Or would it be it's own specific damage I should figure out? If the flying/charging ramming attack is not normally possible, how would I make it so? Are there any feats I would need to take? I'm guessing I would need:
Flyby Attack [General]
Prerequisite
Fly speed.

Benefit
When flying, the creature can take a move action (including a dive) and another standard action at any point during the move. The creature cannot take a second move action during a round when it makes a flyby attack.

Normal
Without this feat, the creature takes a standard action either before or after its move.

Or would the flying charge be enough and save me a feat?

On basic charging? Oh, definitely, he can charge in using his fly speed (actually, up to double it), and make a gore attack. That being a "flying ram" visually is just fine. It's a very standard way of opening a fight: charge and attack.

The Flyby Attack feat is to allow him to KEEP MOVING after the attack, if he had movement left over. He couldn't charge, then, though.


I should spell out the rules for a charge, for clarity:
Charge
Charging is a special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action. However, it carries tight restrictions on how you can move.

Movement During a Charge
You must move before your attack, not after. You must move at least 10 feet (2 squares) and may move up to double your speed directly toward the designated opponent.

You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles). Here’s what it means to have a clear path. First, you must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent. (If this space is occupied or otherwise blocked, you can’t charge.) Second, if any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through a square that blocks movement, slows movement, or contains a creature (even an ally), you can’t charge. (Helpless creatures don’t stop a charge.)

If you don’t have line of sight to the opponent at the start of your turn, you can’t charge that opponent.

You can’t take a 5-foot step in the same round as a charge.

If you are able to take only a standard action or a move action on your turn, you can still charge, but you are only allowed to move up to your speed (instead of up to double your speed). You can’t use this option unless you are restricted to taking only a standard action or move action on your turn.

Attacking on a Charge
After moving, you may make a single melee attack. You get a +2 bonus on the attack roll and take a -2 penalty to your AC until the start of your next turn.
A charging character gets a +2 bonus on the Strength check made to bull rush an opponent.

Even if you have extra attacks, such as from having a high enough base attack bonus or from using multiple weapons, you only get to make one attack during a charge.

What this means is that, as a full-round action, you may "charge." Move up to 2x your movement speed in a straight line towards an enemy, and make a melee attack when you get within reach of that enemy. This attack has +2 to hit, and you have -2 to your AC until the start of your next turn. If you're bull rushing as part of the charge, you instead get +2 to the Strength check.

But it sounds like you just want to do a standard charge+attack. Use the Gargoyle's gore attack if you want. That would be him flying into somebody horns-first.

[eyebreaker7]

On basic charging? Oh, definitely, he can charge in using his fly speed (actually, up to double it), and make a gore attack. That being a "flying ram" visually is just fine. It's a very standard way of opening a fight: charge and attack.

But it sounds like you just want to do a standard charge+attack. Use the Gargoyle's gore attack if you want. That would be him flying into somebody horns-first.

Awesome. Thanks for the clarification. That's exactly what I'm looking for. :cool:

[Lvl 2 Expert]

I'm sorry, am I goring you? I bet I am, I can be a bit of a gore. I must be goring you to death.

[Psyren]

I'm sorry, am I goring you? I bet I am, I can be a bit of a gore. I must be goring you to death.

As long as you don't start doing the Macarena I think we're good.