How Does Pounce Work?

[Amechra]

OK, so the Lion/Tiger/Saber-Toothed Tiger/Weretiger have Pounce, which looks like this:


If the lion moves at least 20 feet straight toward a creature and then hits it with a claw attack on the same turn, that target must succeed on a DC 13 Strength saving throw or be knocked prone. If the target is prone, the lion can make one bite attack against it as a bonus action.

Do they get to do the bonus action attack if they knock their target prone? Or does the target have to have already been prone?

[Amnestic]

Do they get to do the bonus action attack if they knock their target prone? Or does the target have to have already been prone?

I kinda thought both? If they knock it prone, they get the bonus action attack, or if it's already prone when they start the pounce, they get the bonus action attack.

The way it's written I could see it only giving it to you if it was already prone but that doesn't feel 'right' intention-wise.

[JNAProductions]

I kinda thought both? If they knock it prone, they get the bonus action attack, or if it's already prone when they start the pounce, they get the bonus action attack.

The way it's written I could see it only giving it to you if it was already prone but that doesn't feel 'right' intention-wise.

I'll echo this. It's possible to read it as only working if the target was prone before the attack was initiated, but it seems much more sensible to have it work provided the target is prone by the time the first attack is done.

[elyktsorb]

I personally always read it as being separate. That the 'Pounce' enables them to knock a target over. Then if a target is prone, they can do a bonus action attack, regardless if the target was made prone by the 'Pounce'

[OldTrees1]

Throwing up some pseudocode

Case 1:

If the lion moves at least 20 feet straight toward a creature and then hits it with a claw attack on the same turn, that target must succeed on a DC 13 Strength saving throw or be knocked prone.

If the target is prone, the lion can make one bite attack against it as a bonus action.


Aka the bonus attack requires the use of Pounce (20ft + hit) and happens if the target is prone after resolving the first statement. Regardless of whether the first statement causes the prone status or not.

It is hard to tell in English when an if clause ended. Given close proximity and without other indication, a nested if clause seems a reasonable reading.

Case 2:

If the lion moves at least 20 feet straight toward a creature and then hits it with a claw attack on the same turn, that target must succeed on a DC 13 Strength saving throw or be knocked prone.
If the target is prone, the lion can make one bite attack against it as a bonus action.


Aka the bonus attack only requires the target is prone because it is an independent check.

It is hard to tell in English when an if clause ended. If the clauses were independent it would be good to have a context clue somewhere here.

Case 3:

If the lion moves at least 20 feet straight toward a creature and then hits it with a claw attack on the same turn,

If the target is prone, the lion can make one bite attack against it as a bonus action.
ELSE that target must succeed on a DC 13 Strength saving throw or be knocked prone.

Aka the bonus attack only happens if the target was already prone before the pounce.

Given how much I had to mangle the quote for this case, I don't think this is intended or even the most valid parsing.


Given those 3 cases, it seems like case 1 is the one with the most context support.

If they move 20ft in a straight line, and hit with a claw,

then give a chance for target to fall prone,
then bonus attack if target is now prone (regardless of how or when they became prone)
(end if)

[Unoriginal]

If they move 20ft in a straight line, and hit with a claw,

then give a chance for target to fall prone,
then bonus attack if target is now prone (regardless of how or when they became prone)
(end if)

I read it like this as well.

Conditions for the save-or-fall-prone effect are:

-move 20ft straight toward a creature
-hit said creature with a claw attack

Condition for the bonus attack are:

-move 20ft straight toward a creature
-hit said creature with a claw attack
-the target of the claw attack is prone (no precision how they ended up prone)

Beside, I don't think it breaks verisimilitude to have those feline creatures insist on attacking a prone being they pounced on, regardless of how it ended up on the ground. Furthermore it also certainly doesn't make the ability too strong.

So IMO there is no reason to be more restrictive on how the target ended up prone.

[Tanarii]

Furthermore it also certainly doesn't make the ability too strong.The move 20ft in a straight line is the real limiting factor for taking advantage of an independent proned enemy. Especially for "natural" animals that aren't likely to provoke an OA by going through a bunch of enemies to do it. A wild shaped Druid or Conjured beast is far more likely to provoke, but even then the prerequisite of 20ft in a straight line isn't insignificant.

As an aside that 20ft straight line requirement results in some nice cinematic in-combat jumping. Players somewhat regularly use jumps to bypass difficult terrain or low objects IMX, but for straight line requirements it's almost a given.

[Unoriginal]

The move 20ft in a straight line is the real limiting factor for taking advantage of an independent proned enemy. Especially for "natural" animals that aren't likely to provoke an OA by going through a bunch of enemies to do it. A wild shaped Druid or Conjured beast is far more likely to provoke, but even then the prerequisite of 20ft in a straight line isn't insignificant.

It's true it's a big limiting factor, but I'd say that in an open field/the wilderness, three lions (for example) charging at the same frontliner would be able to do quite a bit with that ability.

[Tanarii]

It's true it's a big limiting factor, but I'd say that in an open field/the wilderness, three lions (for example) charging at the same frontliner would be able to do quite a bit with that ability.
"Bob, stop looking so much like a damn Wildebeest. This is lion territory!"

[MrCharlie]

The move 20ft in a straight line is the real limiting factor for taking advantage of an independent proned enemy. Especially for "natural" animals that aren't likely to provoke an OA by going through a bunch of enemies to do it. A wild shaped Druid or Conjured beast is far more likely to provoke, but even then the prerequisite of 20ft in a straight line isn't insignificant.

As an aside that 20ft straight line requirement results in some nice cinematic in-combat jumping. Players somewhat regularly use jumps to bypass difficult terrain or low objects IMX, but for straight line requirements it's almost a given.
I actually played a Druid built entirely around pouncing and charging and the mobile feat was surprisingly useful. Nothing keeps it from working as a wild-shape, so 10 feet movement, no difficult terrain, and easier AOO avoidance proved quite good actually.

BTW this post made me look up jumping, and lo and behold, the rules never say you have to jump in a straight line. While it's obvious that you can't because of how jumping physically works, the rules never felt a need to clarify. Relevant in light of certain debates going on in other threads.

[The Glyphstone]

Hypothetically, what would be the skill DC for a 20-ft vertical jump into the air?

[Unoriginal]

Hypothetically, what would be the skill DC for a 20-ft vertical jump into the air?

Well:

-First, the DM needs to make a ruling that all characters can increase their verticall jumping distance with an ability check.

-Second, the Beast Barbarian, who has a class specific ability to accomplish this, would need around a DC 20 STR (Athletics) check to do it. So someone without that specific ability probably should have much more troubles to do it.

[MrCharlie]

Hypothetically, what would be the skill DC for a 20-ft vertical jump into the air?
There is no objective answer to that. And further, it depends on the characters strength even in the rules-if they somehow how a strength modifier or +17 they can just straight up make the jump, otherwise they need to roll, but I don't remember there ever being any guidance on that. Probably high, maybe impossible (there is only so much force one can push against gravity with, and as you get stronger the mass you need to push against increases). In real life, the highest jump ever recorded was something like 8 feet-if we include animals, something like 10-15 feet by Kangaroos.

In general, the jumping rules translate poorly to superman level jumping, but if we start trying to model that we run into issues where the jump should shatter the ground beneath you.

The real answer is "Does the DM want this to be possible for your character?" which I can't even begin to answer.

[Gignere]

Well:

-First, the DM needs to make a ruling that all characters can increase their verticall jumping distance with an ability check.

-Second, the Beast Barbarian, who has a class specific ability to accomplish this, would need around a DC 20 STR (Athletics) check to do it. So someone without that specific ability probably should have much more troubles to do it.

Isn’t it check divide by 3 for vertical jumping without the Beast Barbarian’s ability. So for 20 feet vertical DC 60.

Edit-Ignore this maybe prior edition rules lol.

[Composer99]

Granting that I might be misreading designer intent, my expectation would be that if the designers meant for lions et al to only get their bonus action attack against the creature if they knock it prone with the claw attack, they would have written it as such, something to the effect of:


If the lion moves at least 20 feet straight toward a creature and then hits it with a claw attack on the same turn, that target must succeed on a DC 13 Strength saving throw or be knocked prone. If the target is knocked prone as a result of failing its saving throw, the lion can make one bite attack against it as a bonus action.

Likewise, as I read it, if the designers meant for lions et al to be able to get bonus action attacks against prone targets, they would have split the text into a distinct feature.


If the lion moves at least 20 feet straight toward a creature and then hits it with a claw attack on the same turn, that target must succeed on a DC 13 Strength saving throw or be knocked prone.

SomethingName. If the lion uses its action to attack a prone creature, or knocks a creature prone with its Pounce, it can make a bite attack against the target as a bonus action.

Instead, the second sentence exists independently of the first, while still existing within the Pounce trait text - meaning the lion has to fulfill the pounce criteria (move at least 20 feet straight toward a creature and then hit it with a claw attack) to get the bonus action attack, but can get the bonus action attack as long as the target is prone, whether the target fell prone as a result of the claw attack or whether it was already prone.

So I concur with OldTrees1 and Unoriginal.

[MrCharlie]

Granting that I might be misreading designer intent, my expectation would be that if the designers meant for lions et al to only get their bonus action attack against the creature if they knock it prone with the claw attack, they would have written it as such, something to the effect of:

Likewise, as I read it, if the designers meant for lions et al to be able to get bonus action attacks against prone targets, they would have split the text into a distinct feature.

Instead, the second sentence exists independently of the first, while still existing within the Pounce trait text - meaning the lion has to fulfill the pounce criteria (move at least 20 feet straight toward a creature and then hit it with a claw attack) to get the bonus action attack, but can get the bonus action attack as long as the target is prone, whether the target fell prone as a result of the claw attack or whether it was already prone.

So I concur with OldTrees1 and Unoriginal.
I agree that there were better ways to word it. RAW the clause is, however, independent as written because of the hard stop period-the second sentence can be re-written as...

"The lion can make one bite attack against a target if it is prone."

The order preserves meaning while re-ordering the preposition to be last-the If being first does not connect it to the previous sentence, it would be a comma between sentences if it did.

That's what is meant by plain English.

[Unoriginal]

The order preserves meaning while re-ordering the preposition to be last-the If being first does not connect it to the previous sentence, it would be a comma between sentences if it did.

I'm pretty sure that the "if the target is prone" part, in plain English, means that the bonus attack can only be made on the target of the rest of the ability.


independent as written because of the hard stop period-the second sentence can be re-written as...

"The lion can make one bite attack against a target if it is prone."

It cannot be rewritten like that, though, because there is a big difference between "a target" and "the target". "The target" refers specifically to the creature subjected to the Pounce ability which was talked about in the rest of the paragraph. Rewriting the ability like you say would change the meaning.

[MrCharlie]

I'm pretty sure that the "if the target is prone" part, in plain English, means that the bonus attack can only be made on the target of the rest of the ability.

It cannot be rewritten like that, though, because there is a big difference between "a target" and "the target". "The target" refers specifically to the creature subjected to the Pounce ability which was talked about in the rest of the paragraph. Rewriting the ability like you say would change the meaning.
No, because it's an independent clause. In English grammar, it's unrelated to the previous sentence. It's a complete, independent thought, as indicated by the period.

Plain English grammar indicates that the second sentence is entirely independent. Is there a better way to word it, sure, but that's the correct reading.

Edit: Look, this is the sentence literally just re-ordered.

The lion can make one bite attack against it as a bonus action if the target is prone.

This violates the principal that you define what "it" is before you use it to avoid ambiguous pronouns, but it's grammatically complete. It can also be interpreted to mean that the lion can make one bite attack against itself as a bonus action if it's prone, but it's complete.

In English, starting a sentence with a proposition doesn't relate it to the previous sentence, and what they did here was define what "it" is in the propositional phrase rather than than the main text of the sentence, because you wrote it first.

This whole debate is why people are encouraged not to use propositions to start sentences, because they sound like they are relating sentences when in fact they do nothing of the sort, and if you mean to connect sentences you should use a comma or semicolon.

[PhoenixPhyre]

No, because it's an independent clause. In English grammar, it's unrelated to the previous sentence. It's a complete, independent thought, as indicated by the period.

Plain English grammar indicates that the second sentence is entirely independent. Is there a better way to word it, sure, but that's the correct reading.

Plain grammar doesn't necessarily mean that the unit of bounded context is the sentence. Yes, a sentence is a complete thought. But not an independent one. Sentences flow into each other. In fact, you can have sentences whose subject and object have to be inferred from previous ones[1]. Most often, when writing, the basic unit of context is the paragraph. And this holds for D&D 5e rules in particular. Look at how they word abilities that have multiple, completely independent features in them. They always use a paragraph break to separate them.

[1] Pronouns are a common case of this. The words marked in bold refer to previous sentences for meaning or must be inferred from previous context to make sense: "The storm raged outside. Its winds howled around the cottage, whose walls barely withstood the blast. Inside [the cottage], the people huddled around a flickering fire."

That's perfectly cromulent English writing. But only the first sentence can be read in isolation. Both the others require looking back for meaning. Heck, even my last couple sentences in the main body of the post. The referent for "they" has to be inferred from external sources. English is not a sentence-by-sentence language, no matter what elementary-school grammar teachers want to promulgate. It's just not that simple.


and if you mean to connect sentences you should use a comma or semicolon.

No! A thousand times no! That creates comma splices and run-on sentences. Sentences within a paragraph are intrinsically connected--paragraphs collect related ideas. Not sentences. Sentences express individual pieces of that collected thought.

[MrCharlie]

Plain grammar doesn't necessarily mean that the unit of bounded context is the sentence. Yes, a sentence is a complete thought. But not an independent one. Sentences flow into each other. In fact, you can have sentences whose subject and object have to be inferred from previous ones[1]. Most often, when writing, the basic unit of context is the paragraph. And this holds for D&D 5e rules in particular. Look at how they word abilities that have multiple, completely independent features in them. They always use a paragraph break to separate them.

[1] Pronouns are a common case of this. The words marked in bold refer to previous sentences for meaning or must be inferred from previous context to make sense: "The storm raged outside. Its winds howled around the cottage, whose walls barely withstood the blast. Inside [the cottage], the people huddled around a flickering fire."

That's perfectly cromulent English writing. But only the first sentence can be read in isolation. Both the others require looking back for meaning.
Okay, fine, I understand that this is correct in general, but in specific the sentence has a complete meaning where it defines the pronoun in the propositional phrase and then refers back to it, which overrides relying on context to define ambiguous pronouns.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Okay, fine, I understand that this is correct in general, but in specific the sentence has a complete meaning where it defines the pronoun in the propositional phrase and then refers back to it, which overrides relying on context to define ambiguous pronouns.

I don't see that it does. And I was speaking of the general case, because you pronounced a general rule. Which does not hold. In fact, the vast majority of the time it does not hold. And produces absurdities when reading rules, which were written at the paragraph level, not the sentence level.

In this particular case, the only reading I can come up with that makes sense is:

Required: move 20 feet in a straight line AND hit with a claw attack.
Result: Target (of the claw attack) must make a saving throw or be knocked prone.
Additional Result: If the target (of the claw attack) is prone (cause unspecified) after the claw attack completes, the attacker can make a bonus action bite attack (implied: against it).

You can't re-order it--the preconditions (move and attack) have to be fulfilled first. But the result "can make a bite attack" only depends on the preconditions having been fulfilled and the target being prone, not that it failed its saving throw. That's just one way it could be prone, but not required.

[Unoriginal]

Okay, fine, I understand that this is correct in general, but in specific the sentence has a complete meaning where it defines the pronoun in the propositional phrase and then refers back to it, which overrides relying on context to define ambiguous pronouns.

Doesn't change a thing, though.

Yes, "it" and "the target" are unambiguously the same in the last sentence. But what is "the target" in said sentence?

It is the same as the one in the previous sentence, unambiguously so thanks to the definitive article.



Also, plain English does not require grammatical elegance nor perfection. It's plain, not legalese.



Required: move 20 feet in a straight line AND hit with a claw attack.
Result: Target (of the claw attack) must make a saving throw or be knocked prone.
Additional Result: If the target (of the claw attack) is prone (cause unspecified) after the claw attack completes, the attacker can make a bonus action bite attack (implied: against it).

Indeed, and also worth noting: if we go by a literalist, only-what-is-written-matters-and-not-the-context approach, then we would also need to ignore the implication that the bonus action bite attack is made against the target, since it is never explicitly stated in-text.

[MrCharlie]

Doesn't change a thing, though.

Yes, "it" and "the target" are unambiguously the same in the last sentence. But what is "the target" in said sentence?

It is the same as the one in the previous sentence, unambiguously so thanks to the definitive article.

Also, plain English does not require grammatical elegance nor perfection. It's plain, not legalese.
The target of the attack. Also unambiguous in context, because attacks define targets in the rules, and the implied target is required to make that text readable at all. Yes, the target of the attack could still be the same as the target of the pounce, but they don't need to be. That's what we're debating to begin with!

You start by reading sentences, then by reading paragraphs to link those ideas. If the pronouns truly were ambiguous then yeah, you would need to link them for readability, but there is enough context within the sentence to define that pronoun-meaning it's not needed.

The entire reason I'm arguing this is because I'm making a case on the RAW strictly, which is that there are independent thoughts. But interpretation wise, yeah, it's valid to link them, and the RAW don't contradict this. It also doesn't require that you do so.

My point was that there is ambiguity, and I was replying to a post that appeared to be claiming that there was not. If I made a big hubbub about nothing I apologize, and I actually agree that you should read them as connected. How is up to the reader.

Pheonix: Comma splices and run on sentences both occur when you don't use proper conjugation or punctuation. Obviously the exact conjunctions and verbiage may need to be modified somewhat to avoid those issues, but it's not inherent with putting a comma or semicolon there.

[Asisreo1]

Fairly certain the RAW is that Pounce is an ability with 2 independent parts.

The first is that 20 ft of movement and a claw attack can force a save vs prone.

The second is that a prone target enables the animal to bite as a bonus action.

"The target" is the prone creature about to get bitten, if one so exists.

The way I see it in realistic terms is that a Panther's first instinct is to topple their enemy and get on top of them. They use their speed and claws to push them down. Once they're on top, they use their superior positioning to bite their target's neck or vitals, which they can do so quicker because the target's vitals are closer to their mouth (ie. On the ground).

[Composer99]

The target of the attack. Also unambiguous in context, because attacks define targets in the rules, and the implied target is required to make that text readable at all. Yes, the target of the attack could still be the same as the target of the pounce, but they don't need to be. That's what we're debating to begin with!

You start by reading sentences, then by reading paragraphs to link those ideas. If the pronouns truly were ambiguous then yeah, you would need to link them for readability, but there is enough context within the sentence to define that pronoun-meaning it's not needed.

The entire reason I'm arguing this is because I'm making a case on the RAW strictly, which is that there are independent thoughts. But interpretation wise, yeah, it's valid to link them, and the RAW don't contradict this. It also doesn't require that you do so.

My point was that there is ambiguity, and I was replying to a post that appeared to be claiming that there was not. If I made a big hubbub about nothing I apologize, and I actually agree that you should read them as connected. How is up to the reader.


I'm not aware of any text in the Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, or Monster Manual stating that you read each sentence of rule text independently, which is what you appear to be asserting? If so, do you have a page number?

Absent such a guideline, you have indeed made a big hubbub about nothing.

The second sentence of the Pounce ability is insensible when read in isolation: "If the target is prone, the lion can make one bite attack against it as a bonus action. [Emphasis mine.]" Which "the target"? The sentence, by itself, doesn't tell you. It only makes sense when you add in the first sentence, at which point it becomes clear that "the target" is the creature that the lion (a) moved at least 20 feet towards in a straight line and (b) hit with a claw attack on the same turn. It necessarily follows that there is only one possible "the target".

What I was saying in my previous post was that:
- if the designers had intended for the bonus action bite to only happen if the claw attack knocked the target prone, they would have explicitly stated as much;
- if the designers had intended for the lion to be able to make a bite attack as a bonus action against any prone creature, they would have explicitly stated as much;
- since the designers did neither of those things, the lion's bonus action bite triggers as described above.