Ranged attack after/during charge?

[Jlazarin]

I'm working on a Bloodstorm Blade build, and trying to figure out if it's possible to charge and use the associated feats (leap attack, shock trooper, pounce, etc.) with a ranged attack. This seems to be an incredibly common build here on the forums, yet it's not really clear to me if this actually works according to RAW.

To some extent this comes down to the infamous question about whether Thunderous Throw allows one to treat the attack (vs. the attack roll) as melee, but more generally, are there any mechanics or feats that allows one to make a ranged attack in conjunction with or after a charge? Am I just not understanding how these feats stack together that would allow one to throw while pouncing? And if it actually goes against RAW, what other solutions are there to charge and throw simultaneously?

[Inevitability]

To answer the 'general' case, there's Hurling Charge (requires quick draw, lets you throw a weapon before making your charge attack, explicitly doesn't stack with pounce) and Tormtor School lets you throw a javelin as a swift action after attacking with it in melee, which works with charges even if it doesn't explicitly requires one.

[Darg]

Pounce doesn't limit you to melee attacks only and charge only requires one melee attack. If you wanted you could do your melee attack and then attack with your ranged weapon for the iteratives.

As for thunderous blows, it treats your ranged attacks as melee attacks. It's as simple as that. Or, an easy to understand way to think of it as a reach weapon with reach equal to range.

[Gruftzwerg]

Pounce doesn't limit you to melee attacks only and charge only requires one melee attack. If you wanted you could do your melee attack and then attack with your ranged weapon for the iteratives.
Pounce doesn't give you the permission to use ranged attacks on a charge. It sole gives permission to make a full attack instead of a single attack.

No specific call out to make changes (to the melee attack restriction) = no changes made

The limitation to melee attacks still applies for pounce.




As for thunderous blows, it treats your ranged attacks as melee attacks. It's as simple as that. Or, an easy to understand way to think of it as a reach weapon with reach equal to range.

Agree. Thunderous Throw allows your thrown weapon attacks to count as melee attack. Charge/pounce requires a melee attack. Works as intended here.

[Jlazarin]

As for thunderous blows, it treats your ranged attacks as melee attacks. It's as simple as that. Or, an easy to understand way to think of it as a reach weapon with reach equal to range.


Agree. Thunderous Throw allows your thrown weapon attacks to count as melee attack. Charge/pounce requires a melee attack. Works as intended here.

I guess this is where the RAW/RAI argument comes in. The description for Thunderous Throw specifies that it's the attack roll that gets treated as melee, not the action itself:


As a swift action, you can choose to treat your ranged attack rolls with thrown weapons as melee attacks for the rest of your turn.

It's definitely unclear, but the example they give is Power Attack, which specifically applies to one's "melee attack rolls", and they also say that one can apply feats " to determine your attack bonus". But to me this always made sense, as they go on to say that the standard range penalties apply, meaning that it is still a ranged attack, but that your damage is calculated as melee.

But I guess the ubiquity of builds that combine BSB with pounce/leap attack means that many people think otherwise.

[Gruftzwerg]

I guess this is where the RAW/RAI argument comes in. The description for Thunderous Throw specifies that it's the attack roll that gets treated as melee, not the action itself:


As a swift action, you can choose to treat your ranged attack rolls with thrown weapons as melee attacks for the rest of your turn.

It's definitely unclear, but the example they give is Power Attack, which specifically applies to one's "melee attack rolls", and they also say that one can apply feats " to determine your attack bonus". But to me this always made sense, as they go on to say that the standard range penalties apply, meaning that it is still a ranged attack, but that your damage is calculated as melee.

But I guess the ubiquity of builds that combine BSB with pounce/leap attack means that many people think otherwise.

The Rolls get treated as Melee Attacks and not sole as Melee Attack Roll.


treat your ranged attack rolls with thrown weapons as melee attacks for the rest of your turn

Imho there is no point left to debate here. The ranged attack rolls get treated as melee attack and thus qualifies for anything that needs a melee attack.

The "ranged attack rolls" also qualify as designation as a melee attack, because the effect starts as soon as you use the swift action:
1) Use Swift Action to activate Thunderous Throw
2) Designate Thrown Weapons as melee weapon(s: you could TWF if you want)
3) Use Full Attack to make ranged attack rolls (with a thrown weapons) as melee attacks.
At any given point from designation to execution the ranged attack rolls count as melee attack. So I don't see a problem here.

This is further proven by this statement:

You use your melee attack bonus, including Strength bonus, feats, and so forth, to determine your attack bonus for each attack as normal, but you apply the standard modifiers for range penalties.
"and so forth" implies that anything that normally applies to (or works with) melee attacks works here too.

I mean...
"Do you wanna argue that you can use Ride-by Attack (a legal feat) to charge with Thunderous Throw, but can't use TT after a normal charge?" (same with Spirited Charge or any other Charge related feat)
Imho that is not what "and so forth" means here ;)

[Jlazarin]

The Rolls get treated as Melee Attacks and not sole as Melee Attack Roll.

"and so forth" implies that anything that normally applies to (or works with) melee attacks works here too.


I completely get your reading of this, but I still would interpret the "so forth" differently. The "including...and so forth" is an example, so it can remove that clause and the statement reads:


You use your melee attack bonus to determine your attack bonus for each attack as normal, but you apply the standard modifiers for range penalties.

Once you remove that example, it's pretty clear they are specifically talking about determining your attack bonus. Sure, you can interpret this as referring to any feat that deals with melee, but I think the RAW are pretty clear that they are talking about your attack bonus. It also doesn't seem like a coincidence that the example they give (Power Attack) specifically uses the words "melee attack roll" -- this example would be totally pointless if it was a straightforward melee attack because of course it would apply. In which case they could have given something like Charge as the example, which doesn't specify a melee attack roll but rather a melee attack. The fact that they choose Power Attack over something like Charge (to me) makes it clear they are drawing attention to the "attack roll" not the action itself. And the fact that they also state that range penalties apply further makes it clear that this is a ranged attack that simply uses a melee attack bonus.

Anyway, I get your interpretation, but I'll have to respectfully disagree unless there's some additional information outside of these RAW that I'm missing.

[Darg]

Pounce doesn't give you the permission to use ranged attacks on a charge. It sole gives permission to make a full attack instead of a single attack.

No specific call out to make changes (to the melee attack restriction) = no changes made

The limitation to melee attacks still applies for pounce.

It's called a loophole. Even using melee attacks after the first is extrapolation, not RAW. It's extremely obvious that it was meant to allow melee attacks for sure. At the same time as long as you include one melee attack after a charge you fulfill the spirit of the ability. Another hole is that pounce does not say that more than one attack receives the bonus to the attack roll.

The way we rule pounce is that the first attack must be melee and is the only one to receive the bonus to the attack roll. Otherwise it's like a normal full attack. Pounce is already really strong. No need to arbitrarily make it stronger and limiting.

[Gruftzwerg]

I completely get your reading of this, but I still would interpret the "so forth" differently. The "including...and so forth" is an example, so it can remove that clause and the statement reads:


You use your melee attack bonus to determine your attack bonus for each attack as normal, but you apply the standard modifiers for range penalties.

Once you remove that example, it's pretty clear they are specifically talking about determining your attack bonus. Sure, you can interpret this as referring to any feat that deals with melee, but I think the RAW are pretty clear that they are talking about your attack bonus. It also doesn't seem like a coincidence that the example they give (Power Attack) specifically uses the words "melee attack roll" -- this example would be totally pointless if it was a straightforward melee attack because of course it would apply. In which case they could have given something like Charge as the example, which doesn't specify a melee attack roll but rather a melee attack. The fact that they choose Power Attack over something like Charge (to me) makes it clear they are drawing attention to the "attack roll" not the action itself. And the fact that they also state that range penalties apply further makes it clear that this is a ranged attack that simply uses a melee attack bonus.

Anyway, I get your interpretation, but I'll have to respectfully disagree unless there's some additional information outside of these RAW that I'm missing.
Imho you are ignoring the underlying structure of the rule text. Lets dissect the text into its parts:

Beginning at 2nd level, you build up incredible tension as you ready yourself to throw your weapon, which becomes visible around you like heat waves. When you release your weapon, that power rushes out with your weapon.
Just fluff text that doesn't provide any actual rules.

The actual rule is:

As a swift action, you can choose to treat your ranged attack rolls with thrown weapons as melee attacks for the rest of your turn.

What follows after that ain't additional permission rules, but sole explanatory text of the actual rule mentioned above:

You use your melee attack bonus, including Strength bonus, feats, and so forth, to determine your attack bonus for each attack as normal, but you apply the standard modifiers for range penalties. Attacking into melee, through cover, and so forth incurs the standard penalties. In addition, you can apply 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus to damage if you wield the thrown weapon with two hands, and you can use Power Attack with your thrown weapon attacks (adding two times the number subtracted from attack rolls as a bonus on damage rolls when throwing a twohanded weapon).
The entire text here just explains how you "treat your ranged attack rolls with thrown weapons as melee attacks for the rest of your turn."
Nothing in that explanatory text indicates that your melee options are limited. (It's rather the opposite with "and so forth"..)
Besides, as said Charge/pounce requires melee attacks and TT's actual rule did give permission to that. Your attack count as "melee attack". Nothing in the explanation reflects any kind of shortcoming of that permission.The absence of further examples is not an valid argument to make assumptions, since that would be guessing blindly RAI and not RAW. The example show that your attack rolls and damage count as if you would still make melee attack (+ ranged penalties).





It's called a loophole. Even using melee attacks after the first is extrapolation, not RAW. It's extremely obvious that it was meant to allow melee attacks for sure. At the same time as long as you include one melee attack after a charge you fulfill the spirit of the ability. Another hole is that pounce does not say that more than one attack receives the bonus to the attack roll.

The way we rule pounce is that the first attack must be melee and is the only one to receive the bonus to the attack roll. Otherwise it's like a normal full attack. Pounce is already really strong. No need to arbitrarily make it stronger and limiting.

Sorry but for me it sound more like houserule.

And no, you don't need to extrapolate info to come to a clear interpretation. All you need is the Primary Source Rule.

1) Charge gives the initial permission for making a single melee attack.

2) Pounce sole attempts to change the single attack into a full attack. For anything else it would need a specific call-out to trump the general charge rules here. But there is none. Thus the limitation of melee attacks still apply. The pounce rule give the permission to use a Full Attack on a charge. All attacks count as part of the charge and thus receive the bonus. Because there is nothing mentioned that these attacks don't receive the charge bonuses.

If something "specific" sole makes partial changes, anything unchanged still follows the "general" rules.

Sorry but there is no loophole here by RAW. You would need to ignore the Primary Source Rule to come to that conclusion and that would be neither RAW nor RAI (since I don't think there is any evidence that this would be the designers intention). If you wanna houserule it that way, fine. But it has nothing to do with RAW.

[Darg]

Sorry but for me it sound more like houserule.

And no, you don't need to extrapolate info to come to a clear interpretation. All you need is the Primary Source Rule.

1) Charge gives the initial permission for making a single melee attack.

2) Pounce sole attempts to change the single attack into a full attack. For anything else it would need a specific call-out to trump the general charge rules here. But there is none. Thus the limitation of melee attacks still apply. The pounce rule give the permission to use a Full Attack on a charge. All attacks count as part of the charge and thus receive the bonus. Because there is nothing mentioned that these attacks don't receive the charge bonuses.

If something "specific" sole makes partial changes, anything unchanged still follows the "general" rules.

Sorry but there is no loophole here by RAW. You would need to ignore the Primary Source Rule to come to that conclusion and that would be neither RAW nor RAI (since I don't think there is any evidence that this would be the designers intention). If you wanna houserule it that way, fine. But it has nothing to do with RAW.

Charge says one melee attack. Pounce says full attack. Full attack itself as an action allows ranged attacks. RAW you could say you have the choice of an attack after a charge with bonuses and penalties or a full attack with no bonuses or penalties.

The issue with your interpretation is that it requires the understanding that pounce is intended to only allow you to make iterative melee attacks. It says nothing of the sort. PSR at most would apply to one attack as charge specifically says "one."

[Gruftzwerg]

Charge says one melee attack. Pounce says full attack. Full attack itself as an action allows ranged attacks. RAW you could say you have the choice of an attack after a charge with bonuses and penalties or a full attack with no bonuses or penalties.

The issue with your interpretation is that it requires the understanding that pounce is intended to only allow you to make iterative melee attacks. It says nothing of the sort. PSR at most would apply to one attack as charge specifically says "one."

While I see you (common sense) logic, that is not how the PSR/Specific Trumps General works.


"Full Attack" sole creates a conflict with "Single Attack". There is no conflict between "Melee" and "Full Attack".

As such sole the "single attack" part gets trumped. The general rules for "melee" attack stay, since there was no conflict to begin with.
No Conflict => No Specific Trumps General => No Change

edit: @ Iterative melee attacks
Sorry but where did you pull that from?^^
Pounce just requires you to have some kind of multiple attacks that would need a Full Attack. It doesn't care if those are iterative or your secondary natural attack. It just changes the single attack limitation up to a Full Attack limitation. It doesn't care where the extra attacks come from. And remind you that pounce was originally intended as monster ability (who don't have iterative attacks to begin with). So I don't get how you did come up with that assumption.

[Darg]

While I see you (common sense) logic, that is not how the PSR/Specific Trumps General works.


"Full Attack" sole creates a conflict with "Single Attack". There is no conflict between "Melee" and "Full Attack".

As such sole the "single attack" part gets trumped. The general rules for "melee" attack stay, since there was no conflict to begin with.
No Conflict => No Specific Trumps General => No Change

edit: @ Iterative melee attacks
Sorry but where did you pull that from?^^
Pounce just requires you to have some kind of multiple attacks that would need a Full Attack. It doesn't care if those are iterative or your secondary natural attack. It just changes the single attack limitation up to a Full Attack limitation. It doesn't care where the extra attacks come from. And remind you that pounce was originally intended as monster ability (who don't have iterative attacks to begin with). So I don't get how you did come up with that assumption.

Your order of operations is weird.

Iterative simply means something that repeats, i.e. attacks in sequence. So yes, monsters do have iterative attacks as "iterative" is not a word used in the core rules. I'm not even sure iterative is used in first party splat, but could be wrong.

I have one question for you. Where does it say that the full attack replaces the attack at the end of a charge considering the ability only says that the creature "can follow with a full attack." Because the single attack is made as part of the charge and the full attack follows the charge, wouldn't it by strict RAW have the full attack be a separate action from the charge?

[Gruftzwerg]

Your order of operations is weird.

Iterative simply means something that repeats, i.e. attacks in sequence. So yes, monsters do have iterative attacks as "iterative" is not a word used in the core rules. I'm not even sure iterative is used in first party splat, but could be wrong.

I have one question for you. Where does it say that the full attack replaces the attack at the end of a charge considering the ability only says that the creature "can follow with a full attack." Because the single attack is made as part of the charge and the full attack follows the charge, wouldn't it by strict RAW have the full attack be a separate action from the charge?

As said, it is about where specific trumps general and where it does not:
(or to be fully precise here:" How the Primary Source Rule works, sine Specific Trumps General is a mechanic that thrives from the "book & topic precedence" mechanic")


After moving, you may make a single melee attack.

When a creature with this special attack makes a charge, it can follow with a full attack—including rake attacks if the creature also has the rake ability.

Pounce refers to "Charge", thus it tries to be a more specific charge.
The question now is, "where it differs and is more specific"?

The sole conflict (!) between charge and pounce is that Pounce allows for a "Full Attack".
This is why the Primary Source Rule rules in favor of the more specific "topic": Pounce


The "melee attack" limitation of "Charge" doesn't cause a conflict with "Pounce".
"Can you combine melee attacks with a full attack?" - Yes, thus no conflict.
And since there is no conflict, the "melee attack" limitation stays.

[Jlazarin]

It's called a loophole. Even using melee attacks after the first is extrapolation, not RAW. It's extremely obvious that it was meant to allow melee attacks for sure. At the same time as long as you include one melee attack after a charge you fulfill the spirit of the ability. Another hole is that pounce does not say that more than one attack receives the bonus to the attack roll..



The entire text here just explains how you "treat your ranged attack rolls with thrown weapons as melee attacks for the rest of your turn."
Nothing in that explanatory text indicates that your melee options are limited. (It's rather the opposite with "and so forth"..).

So rather than arbitrarily argue back and forth over this I just emailed Matt Sernett, one of the writers of ToB, and here was his clarification:

"It's just intended to have the Str replace the Dex bonus for the attack roll when throwing the weapon (it usually applies just to damage with a thrown weapon)."

He did caveat that it was a long time ago and he doesn't specifically remember the character creation process. But, at least for me, that's sort of case closed. Doesn't necessarily affect whether Pounce would apply with a mixed melee/ranged attack, though.

[Gruftzwerg]

So rather than arbitrarily argue back and forth over this I just emailed Matt Sernett, one of the writers of ToB, and here was his clarification:

"It's just intended to have the Str replace the Dex bonus for the attack roll when throwing the weapon (it usually applies just to damage with a thrown weapon)."

He did caveat that it was a long time ago and he doesn't specifically remember the character creation process. But, at least for me, that's sort of case closed. Doesn't necessarily affect whether Pounce would apply with a mixed melee/ranged attack, though.

Thx for doing the effort to contact him.

But the problem that I see is that even the rules presented disagree with that statement.
Because the rules imply that everything works the same as a normal melee attack when the rules say "and so forth.".
And that is further proven by the Power Attack example that imho showcases what the intention here is.

I mean, how is Power Attack gonna work, if TT doesn't count as "melee attack"?

If the rule doesn't give you the permission to treat TT for any purpose as Melee Attack, then the Power Attack example becomes dysfunctional.
If you want the Power Attack example to work, it has to qualify as Melee Attack. There is no other option left.

Or am I missing anything here?

[Darg]

Thx for doing the effort to contact him.

But the problem that I see is that even the rules presented disagree with that statement.
Because the rules imply that everything works the same as a normal melee attack when the rules say "and so forth.".
And that is further proven by the Power Attack example that imho showcases what the intention here is.

I mean, how is Power Attack gonna work, if TT doesn't count as "melee attack"?

If the rule doesn't give you the permission to treat TT for any purpose as Melee Attack, then the Power Attack example becomes dysfunctional.
If you want the Power Attack example to work, it has to qualify as Melee Attack. There is no other option left.

Or am I missing anything here?

Exchange "melee attack" with "melee attack roll" and it works exactly as they said. Power attack only cares about melee attack rolls, which is why ranged attacks are not penalized with power attack being used.

Then again, it's not the first time that the "intent" doesn't line up with the letter of the rules. An example is the hideous blow invocation (likewise eldritch glaive). The author's intent was for it to instead of being cast, you just take a standard action to make an attack and add your eldritch blast damage + essence. It wasn't supposed to provoke an AoO. Invocations have the structure of working like spells, but with the default cast time of 1 standard action. The cast time is already known. So when a spell has "as a standard action" in the description it doesn't mean to cast the spell, it's to take a standard action to do something like call lightning. If call lightning had an instantaneous duration you'd forever be able to make standard actions to shoot bolts of lightning without provoking AoOs. However the FAQ disagrees with this making HB cast every use instead.

[Gruftzwerg]

Exchange "melee attack" with "melee attack roll" and it works exactly as they said. Power attack only cares about melee attack rolls, which is why ranged attacks are not penalized with power attack being used.

Then again, it's not the first time that the "intent" doesn't line up with the letter of the rules. An example is the hideous blow invocation (likewise eldritch glaive). The author's intent was for it to instead of being cast, you just take a standard action to make an attack and add your eldritch blast damage + essence. It wasn't supposed to provoke an AoO. Invocations have the structure of working like spells, but with the default cast time of 1 standard action. The cast time is already known. So when a spell has "as a standard action" in the description it doesn't mean to cast the spell, it's to take a standard action to do something like call lightning. If call lightning had an instantaneous duration you'd forever be able to make standard actions to shoot bolts of lightning without provoking AoOs. However the FAQ disagrees with this making HB cast every use instead.

I agree, RAI doesn't match RAW here.

And since the OP asked for RAW, I'm "dismissing" the RAI to some degree "here".
And if you take the rule mechanics behind the permission to Power Attack, the permission to count em as "melee attack" and the phrase "and so fort", you should come to the conclusion that it counts as "Melee Attack" by RAW.
The Power Attack example wouldn't otherwise work.