PO: Glaive'ur, the last Eldritch Knight of Bane [Archive]

View Full Version : PO: Glaive'ur, the last Eldritch Knight of Bane

Gruftzwerg

2023-09-26, 11:41 AM

Welcome to my newest build showcase. This time we will try to build an Eldritch Knight without taking any lvls in the actual PRC with the same name. The main idea here is to use an Eldritch Glaive in a mounted ubercharger build. I hope you enjoy this silly build concept :)

Glaive'ur, the last Eldritch Knight of Bane (✝)

Warlock 4 / Lion Totem Spirit - Hunter - Barbarian 1 / Ur-Priest 2 / Eldritch Disciple 8 / Hierophant 5

Race: Human
Alignment: N-E
Religion: Bane (dead)*
*Note that Eldritch Disciple requires to worship an evil deity, while Ur-Priest (variant) only allows to worship a dead deity.

STR: 10
DEX: 10
CON: 10
INT: 14
WIS: 16 (+1 lvl +6 item +5 wish = 28 max to get a 9th lvl bonus spell)
CHA: 16 (+4 lvl +6 item +5 wish = 31max)
Glaive'Ur is the firstborn of the High-priest of Bane and was supposed to inherit the title of his father. But then the unimaginable happened. Bane was killed by Torm and the priesthood did fall mostly apart. But a hard core remained and swore vengeance and to do anything to restore Bane back to life. They are determined to take any risks to achieve their goals. Even if it means to steal power from the other gods (those who are to unworthy to be worshiped).

LVL
Class
BAB
For
Ref
Wil
Skills

*=Cross Class
Feats
Class Features

1st
Warlock
+0
+0
+0
+2
Bluff: 4 (+4)
K. arcana: 2 (+2)
K. religion: 4 (+4)
K. planes: 4 (+4)
Ride: 1* (+2)
Spellcraft: 4 (+4)
Mounted Combat (human)

Ride-By-Attack
Eldritch Blast 1d6

Eldritch Glaive

2nd
Barbarian

Lion Spirit Totem

Hunter
+1
+2
+0
+2
K. religion: 5* (+2)
K. planes: 5* (+2)
Ride: 2 (+1)
Spellcraft: 5* (+2)

Pounce

Favored Enemy
(pick any)

3rd
Warlock
+2
+2
+0
+3
Bluff: 6 (+2)
K. arcana: 5 (+3)
Spell Focus (evil)
Detect Magic

See the Unseen

4th
Warlock
+3
+3
+1
+3
Concentration: 1 (+1)
K. religion: 7 (+2)
Spellcraft: 7 (+2)

Eldritch Blast 2d6

DR 1 / Cold Iron

5th
Warlock
+4
+3
+1
+4
Concentration: 2 (+1)
Ride: 3* (+2)
K. religion: 8 (+1)
Spellcraft: 8 (+1)

Frightful Blast

6th
Ur-Priest*

*requires Iron Will:
Otyugh Hole
(magical location)
+4
+3
+1
+6
Concentration: 5 (+3)
Ride: 4* (+2)
Spirited Charge

7th
Ur-Priest
+5
+3
+1
+7
Concentration: 8 (+3)
Ride: 5* (+2)

Rebuke Undead

8th
Eldritch Disciple
+5
+5
+1
+9
Concentration: 11 (+3)
Intimidate: 2 (+2)

Gift of the Divine Patron:
Corrupting Blast
Rebuke Undead

9th
Eldritch Disciple
+6
+6
+1
+10
Concentration: 12 (+1)
Intimidate: 4 (+2)
Ride: 6* (+2)
Wild Cohort
Flee the Scene

10th
Eldritch Disciple
+7
+6
+2
+10
Concentration: 13 (+1)
Intimidate: 8 (+4)

11th
Eldritch Disciple
+8
+7
+2
+11
Concentration: 14 (+1)
Intimidate: 10 (+2)
Ride: 7* (+2)

Gift of the Divine Patron:
Damage Reduction

Brimstone Blast

12th
Eldritch Disciple
+8
+7
+2
+12
Concentration: 15 (+1)
Intimidate: 14 (+4)
Extend Spell
Eldritch Spellweave

13th
Eldritch Disciple
+9
+8
+3
+12
Concentration: 16 (+1)
Intimidate: 16 (+2)
Ride: 8* (+2)

Beshadowed Blast

14th
Eldritch Disciple
+10
+8
+3
+13
Bluff: 9 (+3)
Concentration: 17 (+1)
Intimidate: 17 (+1)

Gift of the Divine Patron:
Fiendish Resistance

Vitriolic Blast

15th
Eldritch Disciple
+11
+9
+3
+13
Bluff: 10 (+1)
Concentration: 18 (+1)
Intimidate: 18 (+1)
Ride: 9* (+2)
Persistent Spell

16th
Hierophant
+11
+11
+3
+15
Bluff: 11* (+2)
Concentration: 19 (+1)
Intimidate: 19* (+2)

Spell Power

17th
Hierophant
+12
+12
+3
+16
Bluff: 11.5* (+1)
Concentration: 20 (+1)
Intimidate: 20 (+1)
Ride: 10* (+2)

Spell Power

18th
Hierophant
+12
+12
+4
+16
Bluff: 13* (+3)
Concentration: 21 (+1)
Intimidate: 21 (+1)
DMM (Persistent Sp.)
Spell Power

19th
Hierophant
+13
+13
+4
+17
Bluff: 13.5* (+1)
Concentration: 22 (+1)
Intimidate: 22 (+1)
Ride: 11* (+2)

Spell Power

20th
Hierophant
+13
+13
+4
+17
Bluff: 15 (+3)
Concentration: 23 (+1)
Intimidate: 23 (+1)

Spell Power

Spells per Day/Spells Known

Level
0lvl
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th

(1st-5th)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

6th
4
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

7th
5
3
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

(8th)
(5)
(3)
(0)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

9th
5
3
1
0
-
-
-
-
-
-

10th
6
3
2
1
0
-
-
-
-
-

11th
6
3
3
2
1
0
-
-
-
-

12th
6
3
3
3
2
1
0
-
-
-

13th
6
4
3
3
3
2
1
0
-
-

14th
6
4
4
3
3
3
2
1
0
-

15th
6
5
4
4
4
4
3
2
1
0

(16th-20th)
(6)
(5)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(3)
(2)
(1)
(0)

Manifestation of a Deity & Frightful Eldritch Glaive
MotD can shaken your enemies (on failed save) and with a FEG attack we can make em frightened (on failed save). A nice combo which we unlock at lvl 7. Should carry us for a few lvls against most encounters.

Blade of Pain and Fear + Frightful Blast (Spellweave)
Every creature we hit with the touch attacks of the spellblade needs to make 2 will saves or becomes panicked. Lacks the reach of the former combo and is unlocked at lvl 12. While the save DCs are bit low for lvl 12, most monsters and non casters have a low Will save.

Lucent Lance + Vitriolic Blast (Spellweave)
Deal damage based on light condition (bright d6's; dim d4's; no light = no damage). Best used with some kind of permanent daylight item. Deal up to 15d6 (1d6/clvl) acid damage, blind 1 round and dazzle for 1 round/clvl a single target. No Save (from spell) and No SR (from essence) makes this a very handy offensive spell to lock down a single target, no matter what it is (unless it has an immunity to spells/magic/acid).

Fiery Vision + Vitriolic Blast (Spellweave)
Gives 2 rays per round for clvl/rounds. Each ray deals 4d6 acid damage. Again No Save and No SR. Deals more damage than the LL combo on lower clvl and is more slot efficient due to its duration, but lacks the blind/dazzled conditions.

Wild Cohort: Heavy Horse
(https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/horse.htm)Feats from Bonus HD:
6 HD: Tunnel Fighting - Nice if the space wouldn't normally be sufficient for a large creature.
9 HD: Martial Study: Douse the Flame - successful attack denies enemy AoO for a round. create an escape path for your allies.
12HD Martial Stance: Leading the Charge - gives all allies +1/2 initiator lvl as bonus damage on a charge

1-5
Without the divine presence of Bane we do anything to obtain more power. Be it to tap into eldritch powers (warlock) or the abuse brute force methods (barbarian). And we are searching for ways to steal from the divine power of the other gods.

We start out with our main ability Eldritch Glaive. The downside of EG is that it is very immobile with a full-round action. To bypass this limitation we need a mount and Pounce. When the mount charges (it uses its own action) the rider counts as charging too when he attacks at the end of the charge. Pounce enables us to make a Full Attack at the end of a charge. This allows us the use of our EG while moving and even allows for iterative attacks later (when we have enough BAB).

See the Unseen is mainly picked because humans lack darkvision. Being able to see invisible enemies/objects is just nice to have on top of that.

Frightful Blast applies the shaken condition if the enemy fails his Will save.

6-10
After visiting "Otyugh Hole" a magical location (Iron Will), we have finally have obtained the ability to steal divine power from the other worthless gods (Ur-Priest).

With Ur-Priest we can now wield divine spells and rebuke undead. Eldritch Disciple allows us to progress our Eldritch Glaive and divine spells at the same time.

Spirited Charge doubles our Eldritch Glaive damage at the end of a charge. This can be further enhanced if we can somehow get a flying mount (see magic items). Because when making a diving charge/pounce, piercing and slashing weapons deal double damage (triple damage combined with Spirited Charge) and our Eldritch Glaive is a slashing weapon.

Wild Cohort allows us to have an expandable mount (24h praying to get a new one). I would suggest to pick a heavy horse. This gives up to 3 extra feats from HD progression.

Corrupting Blast is really nice as Eldritch Glaive user. It applies a penalty of 1/2 our class lvl to the next will save of our foe. With our E. Glaive we can attack and apply it to multiple enemies. Next turn we can then use a Will save based AoE spell of our desire.

Flee the Scene allows us to enter and leave any buildings. Since we can take allies with us, this can include our mount. Mainly picked for the utility.

Eldritch Spellweave allows to apply Eldritch Essences to Spells (spell level needs to be at least same or higher lvl). See the "Spells & Combos" section for some combos.

11-15
Glaive'Ur gets more and more addicted to draining the power of those worthless gods. Soon we will have enough power. The time is near for Bane to come back!

Brimstone Blast turn the damage into fire and sets em on fire. Best used against fire vulnerable enemies or those that regenerate.

Beshadowed Blast can apply a blind condition on failed save. Good against caster enemies since those tend to have a low Fortitude save.

Vitriolic Blast enables us to deal acid damage and bypass Spell Resistance. The damage over time effect is stackable and thus this is better against single targets compared to Brimstone Blast.

Fiendish Resistance & Damage Reduction can each be activated as swift action with a duration 3+CHA rounds. Situational useful.

16-20
We are now draining the maximum possible power from the other gods. Finally we are prepared for Banes return.

Finally we can persist spells via Divine Metamagic. We will persist only 2 spells. Divine Power and Greater Consumptive Field. Remind you to share DP with your familiar. Also note that CF increases both divine and arcane clvl. The latter further improves our Eldritch Blast damage (up into epic warlock progression).
Hierophant's "Spell Power" also adds into this combo very well.

max Caster Level: (unbuffed)
Divine: (4 warlock + 8 Eldritch Disciple)/2 + 2 Ur-Priest + 7 Eldritch Disciple + 5 Hierophant = 20
Arcane: 4 warlock + 8 Eldritch Disciple + 5 Hierophant = 17

Consumptive Field can add up to +10 to our CLVLs, bringing the divine side up to 30 and 27 on the arcane side.
This pushes our Eldritch Blast/Glaive damage up to 12d6 base damage (+ bonus from Leading the Charge). Triple it when doing a diving Spirited Charge/Pounce to 36d6 dmg (also triple the LtC bonus).

Gear & Magic Items

Except the magical location to get Iron Will (for Ur-Priest) everything else is just optional to increase the damage and mobility of the build.

Magical Location: Otyugh Hole (Complete Scoundrel)
Required for the feat tax "Iron Will" to enter Ur-Priest. If you don't like item dependency you could also take a flaw instead.

Grotesque Barding (dragon 349)This cheap (+50g) upgrade allows our mount to make free Intimidate rolls (+2) on each attack to demoralize his enemy. Except the -1 to attacks, this has a nice synergy with the other fear effects in the build.

Equestrian's Saddle (A&EG) Saddle that grants +10 circumstance bonus to Ride. Since Ride is a cross class skill, this is a very welcome bonus.

Horned Helm (A&EG)
+2 Horn attack and doubles base movement speed. This increases our mounts mobility and gives it a primary attack (the hoofs are always secondary attacks at -5...).

Horseshoes of Speed
+30ft to base movement speed. Combined with the Horned Helm our horse has a land speed of (50+30)x2 = 160ft

Rapid Wrath (Ghostwalk)
A +1 shortspear that doubles the movement speed for simply carrying it. Load it onto the mount for tripling its movement speed to 240ft.

Phoenix Cloak
Allows our horse to fly at its land movement speed (240ft) with perfect maneuverability. Charge for up to 480ft or Dive+Charge for 960ft (roughly 110 miles/h if my calculations are correct). Catch your enemies before they expect it with our turbo charged flying race horse^^. Also note that diving charge attacks give a damage multiplier to the entire charge damage done with piercing and slashing weapons.
Thus Glaive'Ur does triple damage with a Spirited Charge combined with his Eldritch Glaive.

Necklace of Natural Attacks (horn) +5 + valorous
Valorous gives the mount double damage on charge. If making a diving charge this totals to a x3 multiplier for the entire charge damage.

Gauntlets of Heartfelt Blows (dragon 314)
Adds CHA mod as fire damage to melee attacks.

I hope you enjoyed this silly build concept and I appreciate any kind of feedback.

_____________

Next build's topic:
"A Cleric of Bane & his Ubermount"
:smallcool:

loky1109

2023-09-27, 02:55 PM

Gruftzwerg

2023-09-27, 11:45 PM

Build looks good, but I don't see why you did call it Eldritch Knight. First - EK has no class abilities besides one bonus feat and 9/10 spellcasting. It isn't something hard to emulate. Second - EK has full BAB and "all martial weapons" requirement. Highly likely he ends up with at least 16 BAB at 20th level, you have only 13. You at least have good enough base Fort.

I did call it Eldritch Knight for fluff reasons. Like building a monk without actual monk class level.

We have a build with an Eldritch Glaive that is specialized into Mounted Combat.

Spells "Eldritch Knight" for me ;)

edit: I initially tried to enter the Eldritch Knight prc with this build, but the prc ain't very warlock friendly and doesn't offer anything to the build and theme.
_______

I hope that you enjoyed the build. The main reason for the build was that I was looking for a way to make a Glaivelock more mobile. As soon as I realized the Eldritch Glaive + Pounce + Mounted Combat combo should work, I was in love with the (imho) silly concept.

Thanks for the feedback. I appreciate it.

Crake

2023-09-29, 01:57 AM

I did call it Eldritch Knight for fluff reasons. Like building a monk without actual monk class level.

We have a build with an Eldritch Glaive that is specialized into Mounted Combat.

Spells "Eldritch Knight" for me ;)

edit: I initially tried to enter the Eldritch Knight prc with this build, but the prc ain't very warlock friendly and doesn't offer anything to the build and theme.
_______

I hope that you enjoyed the build. The main reason for the build was that I was looking for a way to make a Glaivelock more mobile. As soon as I realized the Eldritch Glaive + Pounce + Mounted Combat combo should work, I was in love with the (imho) silly concept.

Thanks for the feedback. I appreciate it.

Im not certain if eldritch glaive can be combined with a charge tbh, as the wording is that it is a cast time of a full round action, but as part of that casting you can make a number of attacks as you would be allowed with your full bab, but it is not actually a full attack, nor does it allow you to do other combat maneuvers like charging.

You could probably get it to work with mounted combat, for sure, but no charge, and therefore no pounce. That being said, you wouldnt NEED pounce or charge while mounted, as theres nothing stopping you from doing full round actions while moving and mounted, you simply cant do full ATTACKS while mounted and moving.

You would however need to roll concentration checks to cast while mounted, but it would only be DC12, which is trivial, or even auto pass by early to mid game

That said, seems like your build is focusing around stacking damage multipliers with spirited charge and dive attack, but hitting with an eldritch glaive doesnt actually do damage, it produces an effect, which is “does damage as if struck with an eldritch blast”. It doesnt say the glaive does damage equal to your eldritch blast damage, it treats any hit as if the creature had taken a hit from your eldritch blast, not the same thing.

Thats not including the fact that eldritch blasts dont do slashing damage, so no multiplier from that, and your attack with the eldritch glaive isnt an actual attack, so you cant charge with it anymore than you can charge with the initial attack from produce flame.

Now, that said I personally think the way eldritch glaive works is really stupid, and would houserule the hell out of it, but the way it works RAW, you dont gain any bonuses from spirited charge nor dive attacks.

Gruftzwerg

2023-09-29, 03:37 AM

Im not certain if eldritch glaive can be combined with a charge tbh, as the wording is that it is a cast time of a full round action, but as part of that casting you can make a number of attacks as you would be allowed with your full bab, but it is not actually a full attack, nor does it allow you to do other combat maneuvers like charging.

You could probably get it to work with mounted combat, for sure, but no charge, and therefore no pounce. That being said, you wouldnt NEED pounce or charge while mounted, as theres nothing stopping you from doing full round actions while moving and mounted, you simply cant do full ATTACKS while mounted and moving.

You would however need to roll concentration checks to cast while mounted, but it would only be DC12, which is trivial, or even auto pass by early to mid game

That said, seems like your build is focusing around stacking damage multipliers with spirited charge and dive attack, but hitting with an eldritch glaive doesnt actually do damage, it produces an effect, which is “does damage as if struck with an eldritch blast”. It doesnt say the glaive does damage equal to your eldritch blast damage, it treats any hit as if the creature had taken a hit from your eldritch blast, not the same thing.

Thats not including the fact that eldritch blasts dont do slashing damage, so no multiplier from that, and your attack with the eldritch glaive isnt an actual attack, so you cant charge with it anymore than you can charge with the initial attack from produce flame.

Now, that said I personally think the way eldritch glaive works is really stupid, and would houserule the hell out of it, but the way it works RAW, you dont gain any bonuses from spirited charge nor dive attacks.

I have to admit that the rule-chain is a bit long and difficult to follow maybe. But I am (atm at least^^) very confident that it should work. I'll try to sum up all the relevant parts:

1. Eldritch Glaive's special action and effect duration
While EG has a full-round action casting time, its effect doesn't come at the end of the turn into effect. Similar to touch attack spells, EG's effect can be used during its casting time and beyond that (AoO until the start of your next turn).

2. Mounted Combat lets you count as charging without using the "charge action" yourself.
This allows us to invoke an Eldritch Glaive in the first place, since you don't need to pay the action for the charge yourself.

3. Full Attack is defined
By definition (of Full Attack), Eldritch Glaive allows for a full attack as soon as you have enough BAB for multiple attacks. It would need an explicit call out to deny this, which is not the case here. Eldritch Glaive doesn't need to repeat the general rules here to be affected by em.

4. Pounce allows for a Full Attack at the end of a Charge
On a mounted charge the rider passively counts as charging as soon as he attacks at the end of a charge. This triggers Pounce which allows you now to make a Full Attack with your Eldritch Glaive. Note that Pounce trumps the restrictions set by the Mounted Combat rules.

5. Concentration checks:
Yeah you would need to do em. But imho due to the low DC its of no concern here. Because glaivelocks should already be investing into concentration imho. If you want to maintain your EG for AoO, you have to consider that you might take damage and need to roll on Concentration. Since you should already be maxing Concentration, the problem from casting while riding is almost nonexistent.

6. Charge Multipliers:
An EG allows you to shape your Eldritch Blast into "physical substance" to form a "glaive-like weapon". The rules effectively define the "weapon damage" as your "Eldritch Blast damage". We use a weapon to make the Spirited Charge and and it's a slashing weapon for he dive. Imho all conditions are fulfilled here. The rule text ain't referring to explicit "weapon damage" here, because your Eldritch Blast may also include rider effects which ain't part of your "weapon damage". But that doesn't stop your physical Eldritch Glaive from relying on "weapon damage" rules to do its damage.
And I heavily insist that weapon-like effects/spells who refer to an explicit weapon category that they inherit their attack type (slashing here). I mean, do you use a flaming whip (slashing) like a rapier (piercing)? I guess not. Imho base logic without any rules denying/suppressing it. Also note that it would need to call out an exception to deny that generally weapons have types. I don't see how magic bypasses this elementary property of a weapon.

I hope that I could maybe clear up your doubts. Thanks for taking your time to dive into the build and to give feedback. I really appreciate it. I hope you enjoyed the build :)

loky1109

2023-09-29, 04:11 AM

Crake

2023-09-29, 05:51 AM

Chronos

2023-09-29, 06:32 AM

Even if Eldritch Glaive worked this way (and I agree with others that it doesn't), this build just doesn't seem very impressive to me. You take some pieces that are known to be powerful and mash them all together, and unsurprisingly end up with something powerful, but there's nothing here that's greater than the sum of its parts. And the goal you're trying to achieve here, spellcasting combined with melee, is a very easy goal to reach in this edition, and you don't even achieve it all that well, with a BAB seven less than a dedicated melee character (and below the last breakpoint).

Troacctid

2023-09-29, 10:21 AM

Pounce doesn't work with mounted charges. In a mounted charges, the mount is the one charging, and the rider simply shares the -2 AC, and gains the benefit of the +2 attack if they make an attack at the end of the charge. Pounce only works when you, the character with the pounce ability, are the one charging.

Pounce doesn't work with Eldritch Glaive. A warlock's invocations have their own casting time and cannot replace melee attacks in a full attack. Eldritch Glaive resembles a Full Attack action, but it is actually a Use a Spell-Like Ability action, which the pounce ability does not allow you to do at the end of a charge.

Eldritch Glaive doesn't work with mounted combat. I mean, it does work, but it doesn't work the way you want. If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only make a single melee attack that round. So, technically, yes, you can use your laser glaive from the back of a charging mount. However, you can only make a single attack with it, which makes the invocation quite pointless, IMO.

Even if the core of your build worked in the rules, I wouldn't consider it very well optimized. Why are you taking Eldritch Glaive at level 1? Why are you waiting to take Wild Cohort until after you already have Animate Dead? What is the point of taking 5 levels of a prestige class that doesn't advance your casting just to get the benefits of Practiced Spellcaster when you could just be taking Practiced Spellcaster as a feat? Why do are you spending so much gold on speed increases for a build that's already on horseback?

Originality: 2/5
While mounted warlocks are unusual, slapping mounted combat and pouncebarian on an otherwise very basic ur-priest theurge doesn't feel very novel.

Elegance: 1/5
The main schtick of the build doesn't work in the rules for multiple reasons, but even beyond that, you're leaning hard on the notoriously inelegant Otyugh Hole trick, and you have some clear timing issues.

Power: 3/5
Look, full casting is good, it really is, but ur-priest casting takes longer than usual to come online, and it feels like you really flail around a lot in the early game with weak invocation selection, lost casting progression, and low damage output. Meanwhile, in the late game, you've got all these terrible mounted combat feats taking up build resources that could have been spent on casting, and you waste five whole levels on a crappy prestige class. And in the midgame, you're just a worse version of a cleric.

Total: 6/15
I just don't think this is a very good execution of the concept.

Crake

2023-09-29, 10:56 AM

A warlock's invocations have their own casting time and cannot replace melee attacks in a full attack. Eldritch Glaive resembles a Full Attack action...

Eldritch Glaive doesn't work with mounted combat. I mean, it does work, but it doesn't work the way you want. If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only make a single melee attack that round. So, technically, yes, you can use your laser glaive from the back of a charging mount. However, you can only make a single attack with it, which makes the invocation quite pointless, IMO.

I think these two statements are saying opposite things. You're not making a melee attack, you're casting a spell-like ability, who's effect is, at the end of casting it, you get multiple touch attacks at reach. The mounted combat rules go on to say "Essentially, you have to wait until the mount gets to your enemy before attacking, so you can’t make a full attack." which, we've agreed upon, you're not actually doing.

That said, since you are casting while the mount is moving, you invoke this line: " If you have your mount move both before and after you cast a spell, then you’re casting the spell while the mount is moving, and you have to make a Concentration check due to the vigorous motion (DC 10 + spell level) or lose the spell." which, considering that the SLA is a full round action, would be invoked by the mount moving more than 5ft, rather than only when double moving.

Again though, I think all this jank is more a product of how terribly written (not worded, written) eldritch glaive is. Of all the ways they could have had the ability work, this was a really bad choice.

Gruftzwerg

2023-09-29, 11:57 PM

I reread description of Eldritch Glaive.
As I see you don't need pounce at all. Mounted Eldritch Glaive lets you attack multiple times from box. And no, it isn't full attack, it's separate full-round action.

But no, I don't see why Eldritch Glaive should cause slashing damage. It's regular Blast damage - untyped and not weapon.
The reason why we need Pounce here is the limitation Mounted Combat (rules) puts on melee attacks. As soon as the mount moves more then 5ft, you are reduced to a single attack.
You could do a single attack with a EG on a mount; you could do a full attack on the mount not moving more than 5ft; but you couldn't full attack while the mount is moving. For the latter we need Pounce + mounted Charge. (more details see below)

Correct. It is not a weapon to be wielded, and it, itself, does not do damage. It is a stick that has an effect that is applied on touching. It would be like saying, if I cast inflict wounds, and charge at someone on my mount, then my inflict spell can benefit from spirited charge, it just doesn't work.

The main issue here is that Weapon-like spells are poorly defined and don't all follow the same pattern.

My main argument here is that EG takes "physical substance" and ain't a pure energy weapon anymore. This implies that it needs to be wielded like the physical object it represents (remind you of weight balancing) and not like a pure energy weapon anymore.

The reference to treat a hit as if the target had been struck by eldritch blast is made to indicate that you can still apply Essences with it, not to deny that an EG deals weapon damage.

Finally, "weapon damage" ain't defined even when it's a constantly used term. Which means all possible interpretations are valid. Imho we have enough indicators that the glaive like effect here deals (also) "weapon damage" (since it ain't the sole tag on the damage done. damage can have multiple tags like "poison and ability damage" or "weapon damage and slashing damage" at the same time).

And yeah, to reiterate, you don't need pounce at all, because the multiple touch attacks all happen upon completion of casting, and are not a full attack, ergo are not barred from all being used by the mounted combat rules. You could MAYBE get away with it counting as a charge, but all you would get is the +2 to hit and -2 AC from that, no double damage from spirited charge, because again, you're not performing a weapon attack. You're performing a touch attack with an effect you've created, that treats a hit as if the target had been struck by eldritch blast.
As said, Eldritch Glaive is special regarding its effect and casting time. It's similar to regular touch spells in that regard that the effect happens during the casting time and not at the end as normal. (you don't stand 6 seconds still to make a full attack in an instant. NO^^). Finally, it allows AoO which goes beyond the end of your turn, where a regular full-round action/duration would end.

Even if Eldritch Glaive worked this way (and I agree with others that it doesn't), this build just doesn't seem very impressive to me. You take some pieces that are known to be powerful and mash them all together, and unsurprisingly end up with something powerful, but there's nothing here that's greater than the sum of its parts. And the goal you're trying to achieve here, spellcasting combined with melee, is a very easy goal to reach in this edition, and you don't even achieve it all that well, with a BAB seven less than a dedicated melee character (and below the last breakpoint).
I think you got my intention wrong here.
First, this is not a TO build to break the game. This was more intended as PO (Practical Optimization). Ubercharger builds do see play in actual games. And the main intend was to have a Mobile Gaivelock Build. Because that is the main issue with Glaivelocks. The alternative option would have been to go for a Travel Devotion build, but I already have used the trick somewhere somehow (IIRC) and did find if boring. Thus I ended up trying to see if EG is compatible with Charge.

And regarding the low BAB:
Yeah, its a bit low, but with Touch Attacks at least hitting ain't a problem. Also note that the build persists Divine Power at the later levels. While it comes late, the build still gets his 4 attacks per turn at lvl 18 (2 lvl later than a regular full BAB build).

Pounce doesn't work with mounted charges. In a mounted charges, the mount is the one charging, and the rider simply shares the -2 AC, and gains the benefit of the +2 attack if they make an attack at the end of the charge. Pounce only works when you, the character with the pounce ability, are the one charging.

If your mount charges, you also take the AC penalty associated with a charge. If you make an attack at the end of the charge, you receive the bonus gained from the charge. When charging on horseback, you deal double damage with a lance (see Charge).
The last sentence makes clear that the rules assume that you are treated as "charging on horseback" when your mount charges.

While the editing could have been made far better from the authors, we still have a clear statement in the rules.

Pounce doesn't work with Eldritch Glaive. A warlock's invocations have their own casting time and cannot replace melee attacks in a full attack. Eldritch Glaive resembles a Full Attack action, but it is actually a Use a Spell-Like Ability action, which the pounce ability does not allow you to do at the end of a charge.

First pls read my response to Crake regarding the special casting time and effect duration of EG. It's important for the rule chain here..

Now lets have a look on the Full-Round Action - Full Attack rules:

Full-Round Action

A full-round action requires an entire round to complete. Thus, it can’t be coupled with a standard or a move action, though if it does not involve moving any distance, you can take a 5-foot step.

Full Attack

If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough, because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon or for some special reason you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks. You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones.

The only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step. You may take the step before, after, or between your attacks.

If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest. If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first. If you are using a double weapon, you can strike with either part of the weapon first.
The Full Attack rules are so defined that they come into play as soon as you get multiple attacks from any source. Be it BAB, TWF or some other special reason.

Eldritch Glaive qualifies for BAB and special reason. It also follows the general rule to use a full round action.
And EG doesn't call out any exceptions, thus it is following the general rules here. EG allows you to make a Full Attack even if it is not spelled out. The same Full Attack that Pounce allows at the end of a Charge.

1. So we have established that we count as charging on horseback.
2. This triggers Pounce
3. Pounce trumps the regular limitations for melee attacks on a moving horse (more than 5ft)

Even if the core of your build worked in the rules, I wouldn't consider it very well optimized. Why are you taking Eldritch Glaive at level 1? Why are you waiting to take Wild Cohort until after you already have Animate Dead? What is the point of taking 5 levels of a prestige class that doesn't advance your casting just to get the benefits of Practiced Spellcaster when you could just be taking Practiced Spellcaster as a feat? Why do are you spending so much gold on speed increases for a build that's already on horseback?
I wanted to have the mobile mounted EG combo as early as possible, that's why I picked EG at 1st lvl (along with using 1st lvl warlock because of "class skills" and "requirements" to fulfill).

I was toying around with the idea of an undead mount via Animate Dead, but they are just too bad (especially over time/lvls) imho. No feats, no progression (becomes very squishy over time) and poor movement have been the main reasons here against it. Finally, with access to 9th lvl cleric spells ( = a bunch of good buff spells) I wanted to have the ability to share spells. Sorry but Animate Dead can't compete with that in any way.
But I am still thinking about adding the option for leveling (the mid lvls until WC is picked). Maybe it will end in the update.

Since I focused on the mobility for EG first, I wanted to finish that feat chain (Spirited Charge).

Finally, on the early levels the gain from a WC horse compared to regular one is minimal and not worth the hurry. Imho it sits on the right spot for the build.

Originality: 2/5
While mounted warlocks are unusual, slapping mounted combat and pouncebarian on an otherwise very basic ur-priest theurge doesn't feel very novel.

Elegance: 1/5
The main schtick of the build doesn't work in the rules for multiple reasons, but even beyond that, you're leaning hard on the notoriously inelegant Otyugh Hole trick, and you have some clear timing issues.

Power: 3/5
Look, full casting is good, it really is, but ur-priest casting takes longer than usual to come online, and it feels like you really flail around a lot in the early game with weak invocation selection, lost casting progression, and low damage output. Meanwhile, in the late game, you've got all these terrible mounted combat feats taking up build resources that could have been spent on casting, and you waste five whole levels on a crappy prestige class. And in the midgame, you're just a worse version of a cleric.

Total: 6/15
I just don't think this is a very good execution of the concept.

Thanks for doing all the hassle and to even rate my build <3
I really appreciate it.

I was hoping to get a few more points for the mobile glaivelock but yeah..^^

And the build was never meant to compete with an optimized T1 build. The warlock friendly dual progression prc usually don't have a good reputation and this was my measuring line here. This wasn't intended to be totally overloaded TO build, but to just have a normal playable fun build. It's an Ubercharger with an evil and magical icing on top. From an Ubercharger build's perspective, achieving 9th spells is always a big gain.

And I don't get why people rate gish builds pessimistically? Why look at gish builds from a T1 classes perspective? Why not rate gish builds from the perspective what you add onto the mundane base?
If I wanted to play an overoptimied T1 build, I would do that and not build a gish. But if I want to play a gish, I optimize as gish and not as pure caster. Builds can have different goals. Its not always about with how much "pun-pub you can get away with".

Then I want to also point out the damage output as warlock. Normal the common warlock dogma is: "if you want damage, go Hellfire". But I think I have manged to show alternatives here. Be it the epic lvl Eldritch Blast damage the build wields/achievs or the (imho legal) charge multiplies that come on top of it.

I hope this didn't sound like a rant. As said, I really appreciate it that you have judged/rated at all and the time and effort you did put into it. I wasn't expecting anyone to do that =)

____________________________________________
____________________________________________

Again, thx for everybody's interest and time. I welcome all your feedback.

Troacctid

2023-09-30, 12:35 AM

glass

2023-09-30, 03:18 AM

Apart from what everyone else has said, the build seems to rely on Bane being dead, and he isn't!

EDIT: Obviously he was briefly, and it is possible to set a campaign during that brief time. But I feel like it is a bit dodgy for a build showcase to be for a very specific period in a campaign and not mention that. Especially when it is a 3.5 build - I have been trying to find exactly when Bane came back, without success, but my recollection is that it was pretty close to the start of 3.5! EDIT2: Apparently my recollection was incorrect.

loky1109

2023-09-30, 05:00 AM

glass

2023-09-30, 10:04 AM

Iyachtu Xvim was consumed by re-emerge from death Bane in Midwinter night, 1372 DR.
https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Iyachtu_XvimYeah, lots of sites wanted to tell me the in-universe date. But what I was looking for was the real-world date when it happened. My recollection is that it coincided quite closely with the launch of 3.5, but I didn't want to assert that without checking and my attempts to check drew a blank. :smallredface::smallconfused:

EDIT: Although, I didn't think to check the citations until just now. If the above wiki link is to be believed, the event did not occur until 2007 so well into the 3.5 era if not just into 4e. Which largely removes my objection (although I still think the OP should have mentioned it).

EDIT2: Faiths and Pantheons from May 2002 mentions Bane as being "recently returned" so it was even earlier than I thought. Bane was alive for the entire 3.5 era, so my objection stands.

loky1109

2023-09-30, 11:21 AM

Beast of Bane exists in Shadowdale (July 2007).

Chronos

2023-10-01, 07:27 AM

Quoth Gruftzwerg:

I think you got my intention wrong here.
First, this is not a TO build to break the game. This was more intended as PO (Practical Optimization). Ubercharger builds do see play in actual games.
To be clear, my objection isn't that this build isn't powerful enough. It's that it isn't interesting enough. For comparison, your He-Man build a few weeks ago took a few ubermount classes that let you have a big strong whale as a companion, but ordinarily that wouldn't be very useful because you can't take a whale most places, but then found an interesting interaction with a Dragonfire Adept invocation that let you make the whale practical. That was interesting. You also had the whole stack-of-mounts thing, which was at least amusing, and which also let you take a lot of advantage of the protection from the Mounted Combat feat. With this build, though, the cleverest "trick" is "solve mobility issues by riding a more-or-less normal mount". Which isn't much of a trick.

Crake

2023-10-01, 07:46 AM

The Full Attack rules are so defined that they come into play as soon as you get multiple attacks from any source. Be it BAB, TWF or some other special reason.

This is just blatantly false. There are MANY ways to get multiple attacks that do not invoke or use the full attack rules. Manyshot for example, greater manyshot, scorching ray, etc.

The error in your logic is "If A -> B, then B -> A" which is incorrect. A full attack action allows you to make multiple attacks, but not all actions that allow multiple attacks are full attacks.

Doctor Despair

2023-10-01, 07:52 AM

This is just blatantly false. There are MANY ways to get multiple attacks that do not invoke or use the full attack rules. Manyshot for example, greater manyshot, scorching ray, etc.

The error in your logic is "If A -> B, then B -> A" which is incorrect. A full attack action allows you to make multiple attacks, but not all actions that allow multiple attacks are full attacks.

Yeah, I have to agree here. Regrettably, monks cannot flurry of blows on a pounce, but they can full attack -- they are two different full-round actions that grant multiple attacks. Eldritch glaive is also distinct from a full attack.

Crake

2023-10-01, 06:53 PM

Yeah, I have to agree here. Regrettably, monks cannot flurry of blows on a pounce, but they can full attack -- they are two different full-round actions that grant multiple attacks. Eldritch glaive is also distinct from a full attack.

This isnt true either, flurry of blows is a modifier to full attacks:

A monk must use a full attack action to strike with a flurry of blows.

Doctor Despair

2023-10-01, 07:03 PM

This isnt true either, flurry of blows is a modifier to full attacks:

Oh... how strange. When I first started playing, the GiantitP forums assured me that it would be homebrew for my DM to allow me to have it work favorably -- and yet, as I review it, you're absolutely right that you explicitly have to use a full attack to flurry, and the flurry itself seems to be a nonaction to toggle on or off for the full attack. How strange -- but I feel vindicated for insisting that it feels like it SHOULD work at the time :smallbiggrin: Thanks for the correction

Crake

2023-10-01, 07:07 PM

Oh... how strange. When I first started playing, the GiantitP forums assured me that it would be homebrew for my DM to allow me to have it work favorably -- and yet, as I review it, you're absolutely right that you explicitly have to use a full attack to flurry, and the flurry itself seems to be a nonaction to toggle on or off for the full attack. How strange -- but I feel vindicated for insisting that it feels like it SHOULD work at the time :smallbiggrin: Thanks for the correction

It might be a difference in the way pathfinder does it? Not sure, either that or just the absurd anti-monk bias on these forums coming through, but yeah, definitely able to flurry on a pounce xD

Gruftzwerg

2023-10-01, 10:29 PM

Your power level problem isn't that you aren't Pun-Pun, or even that you aren't a T1 caster. The bigger issue here is that you're doing a lot of work and you don't even meaningfully outperform a baseline single-class warlock for most of your progression—and when you eventually do beat the baseline, it's because everything else you're doing is overshadowed by overpowered ur-priest casting. Also, hierophant is very bad here; it doesn't fit the build at all. That hurts too.
Imho this is true for most magically enhanced melee gishes. The magical part suffers from the melee optimization. As said, try to see this from the bottom perspective of the Tiers. Compared to a mundane ubercharger any magical access is a good thing. Just having UMD as Ubercharger can make you much more flexible and useful.

I'm not arguing that this is a high tier build. Just an optimized charge build on an unexpected gaivelock base.
The idea was the silly mounted glaivelock trick, not to have the most powerful build there is. I already have an optimized Glaivelock build (my lil killer kobold build if you shoud be interested) that sole goes for big numbers.

And I don't get get why you dislike Hierophant? Maybe for fluff reasons? Otherwise I think it's the best option here since it provides caster level for both sides, arcane and divine alike. This further enhances our Greater Consumptive Field combo which in return boosts our Eldritch Blast damage into EPIC range. Imho that is the best option here and hard to pass.

Here (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1VGsRzdeorUus249EuOzsHIPXHapvbP3WmMeWsxTEZ4I/edit#gid=0) is an example of how I would have built a mounted warlock. There's a lot of stuff in there that you can change around based on personal preference (if you want to go in hard on mounted charges, a variant that uses Spirited Charge with a lance for massive hideous blow damage is absolutely viable), but IMO, what you want to do is lean into the gishiness in the early game when it's the most relevant, and then be open to a pivot into more caster-y stuff at higher levels.
I'm always interested in warlock stuff and have to admit that I still haven't read all of your stuff (but most). I'll give the build a deeper look as soon as I find some time for it. But as of now I barely find time to reply to my own thread... :(

Apart from what everyone else has said, the build seems to rely on Bane being dead, and he isn't!

EDIT: Obviously he was briefly, and it is possible to set a campaign during that brief time. But I feel like it is a bit dodgy for a build showcase to be for a very specific period in a campaign and not mention that. Especially when it is a 3.5 build - I have been trying to find exactly when Bane came back, without success, but my recollection is that it was pretty close to the start of 3.5! EDIT2: Apparently my recollection was incorrect.

Dodgy? I thought that this deserves a medal xD
Do you know how annoyed I was when I realized the fluff problem with Eldritch Disciple and Ur-Priest?
Can you imagine how hard it was to pull that (bane is dead) outta my A$$??? ^^

Yeah, lots of sites wanted to tell me the in-universe date. But what I was looking for was the real-world date when it happened. My recollection is that it coincided quite closely with the launch of 3.5, but I didn't want to assert that without checking and my attempts to check drew a blank. :smallredface::smallconfused:

EDIT: Although, I didn't think to check the citations until just now. If the above wiki link is to be believed, the event did not occur until 2007 so well into the 3.5 era if not just into 4e. Which largely removes my objection (although I still think the OP should have mentioned it).

EDIT2: Faiths and Pantheons from May 2002 mentions Bane as being "recently returned" so it was even earlier than I thought. Bane was alive for the entire 3.5 era, so my objection stands.
If you really want the exact dates (as far as I could find em..)

FR 3E/3.5 (according to this site (https://alphastream.org/index.php/2020/04/09/the-official-timeline-for-the-forgotten-realms-and-its-adventures/))
1372 DR – 3rd Edition begins, with several FR products.
1376 DR – Roughly the end of 3E.

Bane (according to this wiki (https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Bane))
1358 DR (slain by Torm)
1372 DR (resurrected)

So, Bane was resurrected in the same year as 3rd edition started. And I doubt that this incident "started" the 3E timeline. Thus it is plausible (even if very restraining) for the build to exist. And if you really have a problem with this fluff requirement, I can look up any other dead deity and include it into the update for you? The build ain't otherwise dependent on specifically "Bane", thus a change to any other dead deity wouldn't be any problem. I just picked Bane because my next build will also resolve around Bane.

Beast of Bane exists in Shadowdale (July 2007).
****sssshhhhh****

...that is part of the next build in line. Pls stop spoiling it xD
Also, Glaive'Ur wasn't intended to be an Ubermount build. The next build kinda is more of an Ubermount build.

To be clear, my objection isn't that this build isn't powerful enough. It's that it isn't interesting enough. For comparison, your He-Man build a few weeks ago took a few ubermount classes that let you have a big strong whale as a companion, but ordinarily that wouldn't be very useful because you can't take a whale most places, but then found an interesting interaction with a Dragonfire Adept invocation that let you make the whale practical. That was interesting. You also had the whole stack-of-mounts thing, which was at least amusing, and which also let you take a lot of advantage of the protection from the Mounted Combat feat. With this build, though, the cleverest "trick" is "solve mobility issues by riding a more-or-less normal mount". Which isn't much of a trick.

Pls stop complaining, I get it. Gruftzwerg may only showcase totally broken or otherwise crazy builds.. ^^
(just wait for the next build ;)

Imho a mounted Glaivelock is an interesting build concept. Sure not the most fancy or broken concept. While what the build does is very simple and not very deep, it's the total opposite to get a build that just simply can do that due to the limitations of Eldritch Glaive. I wanted to showcase some more/new abuse of the Mounted Charge rules, which I frequently used in the past.

I also thought that I would be doing the forum a favor for making a normal "PO" build once in a while after all the recent rule debates. But it seems I was mistaken.
First because the build did pull more rule discussions than I assumed.
Second because it seems you got more addicted to my silly builds than i assumed xD

This is just blatantly false. There are MANY ways to get multiple attacks that do not invoke or use the full attack rules. Manyshot for example, greater manyshot, scorching ray, etc.

The error in your logic is "If A -> B, then B -> A" which is incorrect. A full attack action allows you to make multiple attacks, but not all actions that allow multiple attacks are full attacks.
Those things like Manyshot & Scorching Ray have their specific rule for the "action used/paid" (standard action here).
But that doesn't change that you are still doing a Full Attack (per definition).
Since FA is defined, the rules don't need to mention when something is a FA. As soon as something fits the definition, it is a Full Attack unless the rules explicitly make an exception.

Eldritch Glaive either fits the BAB reason and the special reason for additional attack (doesn't matter how you wanna interpret it here) and thus is capable of making a Full Attack.

Yeah, I have to agree here. Regrettably, monks cannot flurry of blows on a pounce, but they can full attack -- they are two different full-round actions that grant multiple attacks. Eldritch glaive is also distinct from a full attack.
While your example is wrong, I wanted to still point out for you that on a Mounted Charge your mount takes the charge action. You only count as charging from horseback for any possible attacks you make. You can spent your actions as you see it fit while your mount charges (except the normal limitations for riding). You can still cast a spell or just spend your actions as you see it fit.
Thus the mount takes the charge action and the glaivelock only activates his Eldritch Glaive.
Since we count as charging, Pounce kicks in and allows for a Full Attack at the end of the charge.
We have "paid the action" for EG, but haven't used any attack so far. So when we reach the end of the charge, we can use all our EG attacks thanks due to Pounce.

______________________
______________________

Thanks again for all your interest and feedback so far =)
I hope I could clear up any remaining doubts about the ruling. If not, let me know it^^

While I'm a bit short on time these day, I'll try to response as soon as possible.

JNAProductions

2023-10-01, 10:39 PM

Since Eldritch Glaive is a Full Attack, that means we can choose to change it from a full-round action to a standard action and then move, right?

Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack
After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out. If you’ve already taken a 5-foot step, you can’t use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.

Troacctid

2023-10-01, 11:11 PM

Imho this is true for most magically enhanced melee gishes. The magical part suffers from the melee optimization. As said, try to see this from the bottom perspective of the Tiers. Compared to a mundane ubercharger any magical access is a good thing. Just having UMD as Ubercharger can make you much more flexible and useful.

I'm not arguing that this is a high tier build. Just an optimized charge build on an unexpected gaivelock base.
The idea was the silly mounted glaivelock trick, not to have the most powerful build there is. I already have an optimized Glaivelock build (my lil killer kobold build if you shoud be interested) that sole goes for big numbers.
I'm just speaking from a PO perspective—the way it's optimized is not very practical. A good PO build should strive to be more elegant and well-balanced.

And I don't get get why you dislike Hierophant? Maybe for fluff reasons? Otherwise I think it's the best option here since it provides caster level for both sides, arcane and divine alike. This further enhances our Greater Consumptive Field combo which in return boosts our Eldritch Blast damage into EPIC range. Imho that is the best option here and hard to pass.
It would make more sense to take more warlock levels to advance warlock casting and grab the Practiced Spellcaster feat to advance ur-priest caster level. That way, you would get new invocations and increased blast damage, too. As is, increasing your warlock caster level doesn't actually matter in a meaningful sense, since you didn't take any invocations that care about caster level except to increase damage (and you're giving up that increased damage by not taking real warlock levels).

Crake

2023-10-02, 01:44 AM

Those things like Manyshot & Scorching Ray have their specific rule for the "action used/paid" (standard action here).
But that doesn't change that you are still doing a Full Attack (per definition).
Since FA is defined, the rules don't need to mention when something is a FA. As soon as something fits the definition, it is a Full Attack unless the rules explicitly make an exception.

Eldritch Glaive either fits the BAB reason and the special reason for additional attack (doesn't matter how you wanna interpret it here) and thus is capable of making a Full Attack.

Again, you’re using backward logic. Your reasoning is “full attack allows you to make multiple attacks, ergo anything that allows you to make multiple attacks is a full attack”. This is a fallacy, and is simply not correct. Full attack is a defined action, it is not a category of actions, or a “tag” of some sort. Haste, for example, only gives you an extra attack as part of a full attack action. As such, it would not affect eldritch glaive any more than it would scorching ray or multiattack, because none of these are full attack actions.

NontheistCleric

2023-10-02, 03:35 AM

According to Table 8–2: Actions in Combat, on page 141 of the PHB, 'Use spell-like ability' and 'Full attack' are distinct actions. Unless there is some language in the text of eldritch glaive that explicitly makes it count as a full attack, it is not a full attack.

Gruftzwerg

2023-10-02, 11:18 PM

Since Eldritch Glaive is a Full Attack, that means we can choose to change it from a full-round action to a standard action and then move, right?
Nope. You are referring to the general rule for generic actions to decide between a regular standard attack or full attack. EG is a specific action and has its specific rules trumping the normal option to later decide between a "move action + single attack" and a "Full Attack without movement action". It leaves you still with the option to either do a single attack or multiple attacks (if your BAB is high enough), but the action payed for EG is fixed (Specific Trumps General).

I'm just speaking from a PO perspective—the way it's optimized is not very practical. A good PO build should strive to be more elegant and well-balanced.

It would make more sense to take more warlock levels to advance warlock casting and grab the Practiced Spellcaster feat to advance ur-priest caster level. That way, you would get new invocations and increased blast damage, too. As is, increasing your warlock caster level doesn't actually matter in a meaningful sense, since you didn't take any invocations that care about caster level except to increase damage (and you're giving up that increased damage by not taking real warlock levels).
I see your critique regarding the PO part. While I agree on a general basis with your interpretation/definition, for me solving difficult rule "problems" is also part of PO/TO builds. The movement limitation of an EG build is imho such a difficult rule "problem" (issue whatsoever you wanna call it). And by chaining up rules to allow for a Pounce is imho an elegant way to solve it, but our tastes seem to differ here.

And as said (before even releasing the build), this build is was intended to be relatively "normal". I just really liked the fluff of a Knight with an EG.^^

Again, you’re using backward logic. Your reasoning is “full attack allows you to make multiple attacks, ergo anything that allows you to make multiple attacks is a full attack”. This is a fallacy, and is simply not correct. Full attack is a defined action, it is not a category of actions, or a “tag” of some sort. Haste, for example, only gives you an extra attack as part of a full attack action. As such, it would not affect eldritch glaive any more than it would scorching ray or multiattack, because none of these are full attack actions.
I'm not using backward logic, but the definition of a term. And that is what I am supposed to do here:

Full Attack

If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough, because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon or for some special reason you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks. You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones.

The only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step. You may take the step before, after, or between your attacks.

If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest. If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first. If you are using a double weapon, you can strike with either part of the weapon first.

Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack

After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out. If you’ve already taken a 5-foot step, you can’t use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.

Fighting Defensively as a Full-Round Action

You can choose to fight defensively when taking a full attack action. If you do so, you take a -4 penalty on all attacks in a round to gain a +2 dodge bonus to AC for the same round.
Cleave

The extra attack granted by the Cleave feat or Great Cleave feat can be taken whenever they apply. This is an exception to the normal limit to the number of attacks you can take when not using a full attack action.
Eldritch Glaive qualifies either for high BAB or special reason for multiple attacks. It follow the general rule to use a Full-Round Action. I have provided evidence that it fits the definition and I doubt that you can present any counter argument why I should ignore the general definition.
It's the same problem some have when something lacks a tag (e.g. Special Abilities). That doesn't mean you may ignore general definitions. It's rather the opposite, it's the reason when and why you should fall back to general definition.

No matter what you do in 3.5, in theory you should be constantly checking for any possible more general rules if they somehow apply due to their definition. 3.5 ruling is not for the lazy people. The game expects you to know and memorize the rule perfectly and uses "friendly reminders" on such a inconsistent base that most people get more irritated by it and try to extrapolate rules outta this inconsistency..
It's your (DM's) duty to constantly check for the rule hierarchy (created by the Primary Source Rule), to see if there are any interactions. If you don't do it, you failed your duty and follow the rules (PSR).

The rules even call out (Gr) Cleave as an exception to the rule (doesn't need to be Full-Round Action). But we don't have any kind of exception for Eldritch Glaive. It would need to explicitly deny to be a Full Attack to trump the general rule here. But it doesn't do that.

According to Table 8–2: Actions in Combat, on page 141 of the PHB, 'Use spell-like ability' and 'Full attack' are distinct actions. Unless there is some language in the text of eldritch glaive that explicitly makes it count as a full attack, it is not a full attack.
So what? Do we now have an omnipotent rule that is immune to Specific Trumps General or what?
May SLA not allow you to make some kind of attacks anymore or what?

Sorry but this is an invalid argument. If an SLA allows for an attack or multiple attacks it follow the general rules for that unless otherwise mentioned.

To make it clear, Eldritch Glaive is an SLA and a (Full) Attack at the same time. It's a specific action with multiple tags. While maybe rare, nothing new. Any generic "touch spell" SLA is the same since it also is a (touch) attack at the same time. EG allows for attacks within it's casting time just like touch spells. And these attacks follow the general rules for attacks and don't ignore em.

_________
_________

Once again, thx for all your feedback and if any doubts are left let me know it ;)

NontheistCleric

2023-10-02, 11:42 PM

So what? Do we now have an omnipotent rule that is immune to Specific Trumps General or what?
May SLA not allow you to make some kind of attacks anymore or what?

Sorry but this is an invalid argument. If an SLA allows for an attack or multiple attacks it follow the general rules for that unless otherwise mentioned.

To make it clear, Eldritch Glaive is an SLA and a (Full) Attack at the same time. It's a specific action with multiple tags. While maybe rare, nothing new. Any generic "touch spell" SLA is the same since it also is a (touch) attack at the same time. EG allows for attacks within it's casting time just like touch spells. And these attacks follow the general rules for attacks and don't ignore em.

A full attack is not just what happens whenever you get multiple attacks. It's a specific kind of action you can take in combat, distinct from other kinds of actions, even if they happen to function similarly.

loky1109

2023-10-02, 11:53 PM

Eldritch Glaive qualifies either for high BAB or special reason for multiple attacks. It follow the general rule to use a Full-Round Action.
It doesn't actually. Full-round action, you trying to refer to, has its specific name - full-attack action. EG doesn't use full-attack action.

Referring to BAB is ludicrous. "Or for some special reason" part covers all possible reasons for making multiple attack, high BAB is irrelevant.

There are full round actions with multiple attacks, which aren't full-attack action. Decisive Strike, for example. Or do you claim it's full-attack action, too?

To make it clear, Eldritch Glaive is an SLA and a (Full) Attack at the same time.
It's impossible. These aren't "tags" these are different actions.

Any generic "touch spell" SLA is the same since it also is a (touch) attack at the same time.
And this fact doesn't change action name from "use SLA" to "attack".

Crake

2023-10-03, 12:39 AM

I'm not using backward logic, but the definition of a term. And that is what I am supposed to do here:

Eldritch Glaive qualifies either for high BAB or special reason for multiple attacks. It follow the general rule to use a Full-Round Action. I have provided evidence that it fits the definition and I doubt that you can present any counter argument why I should ignore the general definition.
It's the same problem some have when something lacks a tag (e.g. Special Abilities). That doesn't mean you may ignore general definitions. It's rather the opposite, it's the reason when and why you should fall back to general definition.

Okay, just so we’re clear, your stance is, any action that allows you to make more than one attack is therefore classified as a full attack action?

So by your stance, when i have the rapid shot feat, and haste cast on me, I can make 2 extra shots from my equipped bow when casting scorching ray, or using multishot? Oh and double that for a quickened scorching ray in that same turn, get 2 extra shots for those as well.

Gruftzwerg

2023-10-03, 01:21 AM

Okay, just so we’re clear, your stance is, any action that allows you to make more than one attack is therefore classified as a full attack action?

So by your stance, when i have the rapid shot feat, and haste cast on me, I can make 2 extra shots from my equipped bow when casting scorching ray, or using multishot? Oh and double that for a quickened scorching ray in that same turn, get 2 extra shots for those as well.
No you can not do that. Those thing don't compare to the interaction between "Pounce" and a "Mounted Charge".

It's pounce that alters the action economy here by giving a full attack at the end of the mounted charge (for which I don't need to pay the action costs).

None of the your ingredients bypass action costs (Mounted Charge) or alter your normal action economy (Pounce). This is a special and rare interaction here and the entire reason why I think that this build deserves a showcase imho. Sure it ain't worldbreaking, but it still is a nice gimmick for a build's theme that deserves mentioning imho.

Crake

2023-10-03, 01:26 AM

No you can not do that. Those thing don't compare to the interaction between "Pounce" and a "Mounted Charge".

It's pounce that alters the action economy here by giving a full attack at the end of the mounted charge (for which I don't need to pay the action costs).

None of the your ingredients bypass action costs (Mounted Charge) or alter your normal action economy (Pounce). This is a special and rare interaction here and the entire reason why I think that this build deserves a showcase imho. Sure it ain't worldbreaking, but it still is a nice gimmick for a build's theme that deserves mentioning imho.

Why cant you get extra shots if, by your statement, many shot and scorching ray are both full attacks, and haste and rapid shot allow you to perform extra attacks with weapons you hold when performing a full attack? Action economy has nothing to do with it? In fact, we could add in snap kick and two weapon fighting with a bladed longbow to get extra offhand attacks and an unarmed strike as well, while we’re using that scorching ray

Gruftzwerg

2023-10-03, 01:32 AM

Why cant you get extra shots if, by your statement, many shot and scorching ray are both full attacks, and haste and rapid shot allow you to perform extra attacks with weapons you hold when performing a full attack? Action economy has nothing to do with it? In fact, we could add in snap kick and two weapon fighting with a bladed longbow to get extra offhand attacks and an unarmed strike as well, while we’re using that scorching ray

Because none of these give you a "free Full Attack" within your current action as Pounce does.

Also my build relies on the fact that a Mounted Charge lets you count as charging without paying for the charge action itself. Does anything in your examples compare to that?

Crake

2023-10-03, 03:10 AM

Because none of these give you a "free Full Attack" within your current action as Pounce does.

Also my build relies on the fact that a Mounted Charge lets you count as charging without paying for the charge action itself. Does anything in your examples compare to that?

My examples aren't talking about the interaction between pounce, charge, and full attacks, that's not relevant to my point.

I'm saying that haste says "When making a full attack action, a hasted creature may make one extra attack with any weapon he is holding." Your assertion is that Manyshot and scorching ray are full attacks by definition. Ergo, by your detinifion, haste will allow you to make an extra attack with a weapon you are holding when using manyshot or casting scorching ray.

loky1109

2023-10-03, 03:29 AM

Because none of these give you a "free Full Attack" within your current action as Pounce does.

Why do we need "free full attack"? By your logic we already make full attack just by casting scorching ray.

Hish

2023-10-03, 10:50 AM

My biggest question is, why Ur-Priest? Ur-priest, otyugh hole, DMM: Persist, and DMM:Persist Greater Consumptive Field are all really well known cheese, but I don't really see how they contribute to the main goal of creating a mounted eldritch knight. The only thing I see is it gives you 12d6 eldritch blast, but you could do better than that with just hellfire warlock.

It's definitely a powerful build (regardless of whether or not you can glaive on a pounce), but it has a lot of cheese and it doesn't seem to be doing anything cohesive with it.

Chronos

2023-10-03, 04:15 PM

Hish

2023-10-03, 04:38 PM

I will say that the whole Bane thing isn't all that big a deal. As I understand it, all the build actually needs is a deity that's both evil and dead, and nearly any setting is bound to have a few of those.

Actually, does the deity even have to be dead? I read thru the ur-priest's section in CDiv and I don't see any restriction on worshipping a deity, just on getting divine spells from one.

Gruftzwerg

2023-10-03, 08:06 PM

My examples aren't talking about the interaction between pounce, charge, and full attacks, that's not relevant to my point.

I'm saying that haste says "When making a full attack action, a hasted creature may make one extra attack with any weapon he is holding." Your assertion is that Manyshot and scorching ray are full attacks by definition. Ergo, by your detinifion, haste will allow you to make an extra attack with a weapon you are holding when using manyshot or casting scorching ray.
Oh, now I got what you meant. Sorry was a bit in a hurry with my last response and did got your intent wrong there..

Yeah in theory they would profit from Haste if possible. It won't do anything for Scorching Ray since the spell description restricts the amount of attacks you get. But Manyshot on the other hand should be legally profiting from Haste due to this interaction. Nothing in Manyshots descriptions denies that you are doing a Full Attack and the definition of Full Attack is fitting here. (And yeah, I also did have a wrong perception of this situation for many years until I noticed the full extend of the Full Attack rules a while ago...).

Why do we need "free full attack"? By your logic we already make full attack just by casting scorching ray.
1. Eldritch Glaive requires a Full-Round Action and thus limits us to 5ft, but we wanna be mobile
2. Mounted combat (not the feat) makes us mobile, but moving more then 5ft limits us to a single melee attack
3. Scorching Ray is a ranged attack and thus would only get penalties for moving on a mount, but wouldn't otherwise be restricted from making the Full Attack.
4. Eldritch Glaive on the other hand relies on Pounce to trump the regular mounted combat limitations. It allows for a full attack at the end of the charge (back again).

We have 2 times Specific Trumps General here. First when (mounted) movement limits our EG to a single attack, and the second one brings us back to a Full Attack again.

This is why we need the free full attack at the end of the charge, otherwise you would be limited to a single attack with a mounted charge. This is true for all mounted charge builds, not just glaivelocks.
It's just that glaivelocks normally can't take a move action + standard attack and thus profits more from the mounted mobility compared to other builds.

My biggest question is, why Ur-Priest? Ur-priest, otyugh hole, DMM: Persist, and DMM:Persist Greater Consumptive Field are all really well known cheese, but I don't really see how they contribute to the main goal of creating a mounted eldritch knight. The only thing I see is it gives you 12d6 eldritch blast, but you could do better than that with just hellfire warlock.

It's definitely a powerful build (regardless of whether or not you can glaive on a pounce), but it has a lot of cheese and it doesn't seem to be doing anything cohesive with it.
Mainly for the max BAB due to persisting Divine Power to get the extra attack. Remind you that it's a touch attack and thus much more likely to hit stuff than a regular 4th attack. Combined with the Clvl boost from (gr) Consumptive Field and Hierophant for the extra progress for EG, this is imho more worth than the extra dice a Hellfire build have given.
I also like some of the Spellweave interactions. While not gamebreaking (due to moderate dmg), we can have spells with No Save and No SR. Which builds further on the concept that a warlock's dmg is hard to prevent/resist.

And even if we lock at the build from the Ur-Prists side it is imho a fitting build. The cleric casting is often better used in a gish since it lacks high dmg spells compared to other casters. And a gish build means you are looking for ways to build up (melee?) damage. I also see this build as a solid Ur-Priest build that makes good use of the cleric casting here to enhance melee combat.

Finally, I like to make all kinds of warlock builds. I already have a "normal" glaivelock build, so it was only a matter of time until I would experiment with the dual progression prc for warlocks. Since dual progression often has the reputation of being the weaker choice, I am personally happy with the outcome here.

I will say that the whole Bane thing isn't all that big a deal. As I understand it, all the build actually needs is a deity that's both evil and dead, and nearly any setting is bound to have a few of those.
I agree. My sole reason for explicitly picking Bane was that I like the flavor & theme and that I have another build showcase in line themed with him.

Actually, does the deity even have to be dead? I read thru the ur-priest's section in CDiv and I don't see any restriction on worshipping a deity, just on getting divine spells from one.
It's an option for an adaptation (sorry, OP is misleading with "variant". Note @myself for the update..):

Adaptation: This prestige class is written to describe characters who steal divine power from the gods and use it themselves. It’s also a good choice, however, for ex-clerics of gods who’ve somehow lost their connection to their deity (because the deity died, disappeared, or faded from existence because he had too few worshipers). Secret societies of ur-priests could exist for the express purpose of elevating (or reelevating) someone or something to godhood.

While the character ain't an ex cleric, I think the fluff presented in the build should be enough to justify the adaptation here.

________________
________________
Thx again for all you interest and feedback. I really appreciate it =)

Crake

2023-10-03, 11:03 PM

Oh, now I got what you meant. Sorry was a bit in a hurry with my last response and did got your intent wrong there..

Yeah in theory they would profit from Haste if possible. It won't do anything for Scorching Ray since the spell description restricts the amount of attacks you get. But Manyshot on the other hand should be legally profiting from Haste due to this interaction. Nothing in Manyshots descriptions denies that you are doing a Full Attack and the definition of Full Attack is fitting here. (And yeah, I also did have a wrong perception of this situation for many years until I noticed the full extend of the Full Attack rules a while ago...).

Okay, so we all agree you’re wrong, but at least you’re consistent in your incorrectness i guess. You ARE still wrong though, for the reasons explained previously about the backwards working logic, but I can’t explain it any better than I already have

Gruftzwerg

2023-10-04, 02:04 AM

Okay, so we all agree you’re wrong, but at least you’re consistent in your incorrectness i guess. You ARE still wrong though, for the reasons explained previously about the backwards working logic, but I can’t explain it any better than I already have
"We"?
Interesting that you can speak for everybody...

A) Yeah I am consistent with my standpoint that you don't need "friendly reminders" to apply the rules of the definition to a fitting situation. As said multiple times, the lack of (the inconsistently used..) friendly reminders doesn't allow you to ignore definitions. The rules don't need to tell you that something is fitting to a specific definition. It's your duty to keep track of such things. To give a real life example: Does every law which has its roots in the human rights need to tell you that this is the case? You can always tell if a specific law is based on that due to the definition of human rights. No need for friendly reminders.

It's the same as with Special Abilities that lack a tag (NA; EX; SLA; SU). You fall back to the definitions and look up the fitting mechanics (special or not? / magical or not?) and pick the according category.

Same here. As soon as something allows you to make even a single Attack, the general Attack rules kick in.
And Full Attack is defined as any kind of extra attacks.

So as soon as anything gives you multiple attacks it counts automatically as Full Attack per definition. It would to explicitly say otherwise to deny this interaction.

B) Let me try to explain what is going one by one to make it may more obvious what is happening here...

1. If you wanna make a Full Attack, no matter if mounted or not, you are limited to a 5ft step.

2. Things like Pounce & Shadowpounce give you a free Full Attack. The former at the end of your charge, the other after any teleport.

3. When a mount charges, the rider also counts as charging for any possible attacks at the end of a charge. He doesn't needs to pay the charge action, but sole the attacks he makes.

4. When you combine Pounce with a Mounted Charge, you get the free (pounce) Full Attack without using any actions to pay those attacks! This is true for any mounted pounce build. Remind you that (shadow) pounce gives a free full attack. The character in question could still use his actions otherwise in addition to the free Full Attack.

5. And with Eldritch Glaive, we make use of our own actions. As said, EG has a special duration, since its effect overlaps the casting time (and lasts beyond that until the start of your next round). Due to the Full-Round Action casting time, we would normally be limited to a 5ft step, to get off all our attacks in that turn. The mounts movement restricts us to a single attack. Pounce trumps that as usual and gives us a free Full Attack.

Do you really wanna say that an Eldritch Glaive is incapable of profiting from a free Full Attack?
If you deny it, why and due to which rule?

Imho EG is already capable of possibly making Full Attacks, since it allows for additional attacks from high BAB. It should be easily profiting from the free Full Attack that Pounce provides at the end of a charge.

loky1109

2023-10-04, 03:03 AM

1. If you wanna make a Full Attack, no matter if mounted or not, you are limited to a 5ft step.
It's just wrong. Nobody prevent you from moving if you have enough actions.

5. And with Eldritch Glaive, we make use of our own actions. As said, EG has a special duration, since its effect overlaps the casting time (and lasts beyond that until the start of your next round). Due to the Full-Round Action casting time, we would normally be limited to a 5ft step, to get off all our attacks in that turn. The mounts movement restricts us to a single attack. Pounce trumps that as usual and gives us a free Full Attack.
But, EG isn't full attack so pounce doesn't work with it. It's open question could you use multiple EG attacks while mounting charge or not.

Do you really wanna say that an Eldritch Glaive is incapable of profiting from a free Full Attack?
If you deny it, why and due to which rule?
Of course. Eldritch Glaive isn't full attack. This is your work to give us rule where said opposite. You didn't. It looks similar, but similar isn't enough.

One more time. Full Attack is specific full round action. If you claim Eldritch Glaive's attacks are Full Attack... Well, EG became useless, because you need two full round actions to use it AND Full Attack.

Crake

2023-10-04, 05:02 AM

"We"?
Interesting that you can speak for everybody...

I say we because literally nobody agrees with you on this.

Gruftzwerg

2023-10-06, 01:14 AM

It's just wrong. Nobody prevent you from moving if you have enough actions.

The statement was just meant as a starting point (general rules) for my argumentation.

The "Full Attack = 5ft limitation" was meant as statement presenting the general rules here.
Normally you need to pay a Full-Round Action for a Full Attack and thus are limited to a 5ft step.

Sure, if you have any kind of action altering stuff going on (pounce's "free full attack"; mounted combat's "count as charging for free"; extra actions;...) you can bypass the normal restrictions for actions.
That's what my build is doing here: It's altering the ACTION ECONOMY. Just like any Pounce or Shadowpounce build does.
I just added a Mounted Charge to count as charging without expending any actions for it. This allows the build to still use his full-round action for EG.

My question is, what stops EG from profiting from a FREE full attack?
Do the EG rules prevent you from making multiple attacks with your EG?
Or is it somehow incompatible with the iterative attack rules?

None of the rule EG presents prevents it from making a free full attack.

That's like saying the pounce barbarian can't use a Free Full Attack, because he already used a Full-Round Action for his charge...
Sorry, but it's simply a Free Full Attack and I don't see any reason why EG shouldn't be able to simply make use of it.

But, EG isn't full attack so pounce doesn't work with it. It's open question could you use multiple EG attacks while mounting charge or not.
1.
The rule argument chain goes into the opposite direction:
- Mounted Charge allows to count as charging without the rider spending any actions for it
- Pounce allows for a Free Full Attack at the end of a charge
- EG can profit from a Free Full Attack
Even if your claim that EG ain't a FA would be true (which I still heavily contest), nothing would stop the interaction here. EG can still profit from a Free Full Attack. Nothing int the EG prevents such an interaction.

2.
EG presents mechanics that clearly fit into the definition of a Full Attack. Any kind of extra attack requires a Full Attack, unless there is a clear exclusion from this rule, like it is the case for Cleave. Have a look:

Cleave

The extra attack granted by the Cleave feat or Great Cleave feat can be taken whenever they apply. This is an exception to the normal limit to the number of attacks you can take when not using a full attack action.

Can you present anything similar for EG? If not, it is a Full Attack according to the general definitions for attacking. If you do multiple attacks for any reason, it is a Full Attack.

Remind you that "touch spells" already have an inbuild free attack within their own action (cost). EG expands this to multiple attacks within its full-round action.
It all boils down that it EG is a Full-Round Action that allows multiple Attacks according to your BAB. The literal definition of a Full Attack.

The mechanical evidence that it fits the definition is there. You would need to show a rule that excludes this interaction. But I don't see anything here. Do you?

Of course. Eldritch Glaive isn't full attack. This is your work to give us rule where said opposite. You didn't. It looks similar, but similar isn't enough.
The definition of a FA is any kind of extra attack. Be it from BAB (fits for EG since its extra attacks are BAB dependent and follow the general rules for iterative attacks!) or any special reason (a full-round action invocation that allows for multiple attacks within its own action). Definitions are not eyecandy. They are mechanics to be used. And to use em, you have to actively look for things that fit the definition.

One more time. Full Attack is specific full round action. If you claim Eldritch Glaive's attacks are Full Attack... Well, EG became useless, because you need two full round actions to use it AND Full Attack.
Specific Trumps General...
EG's effect clearly allows for multiple attacks within its own action.

Or let me ask you it a slightly different way:
Do you claim that a "touch spell" doesn't give you a free "Attack" and operates under the general rules for "Attack"?
You would need to clearly ignore the entire rule hierarchy here that is created by the "topic supremacy" from the Primary Source Rule.

I say we because literally nobody agrees with you on this.
Thank for letting me know that you still like to beat more on the dead minority vs majority argument instead of responding to my rule question directed at you..

And btw, it's in the nature of things that negative things/news/.. get more frequently communicated than positive things.
If you go into any video game forum, it is filled with people complaining about the game and how it needs change X or otherwise everybody will quit soon. At the same time the majority is just playing the game and simply don't care what is happening in the forum. Shall we now conclude that the complainers are right?
Same here. People are quick when it comes to things they dislike in a build showcase, while they barely say what they liked about them. At the same time, most people just consume the content and move on and don't care for the discussion.
Most of the time those who wanna argue about rules remain. (nothing wrong with that. I always welcome rule discussions)
But that shouldn't be seen as evidence for anything imho.

Crake

2023-10-06, 02:26 AM

The definition of a FA is any kind of extra attack. Be it from BAB (fits for EG since its extra attacks are BAB dependent and follow the general rules for iterative attacks!) or any special reason (a full-round action invocation that allows for multiple attacks within its own action). Definitions are not eyecandy. They are mechanics to be used. And to use em, you have to actively look for things that fit the definition.

This is not correct. Full attacks says that, “to use any extra attacks from bab etc you must use a full attack”. This is not the same as saying “if you gain extra attacks in an action, then it is a full attack”.

Again, your logic is backward. A therefore B is not equivalent to B therefore A.

Thank for letting me know that you still like to beat more on the dead minority vs majority argument instead of responding to my rule question directed at you..

Because I have already explained why you’re wrong, and your response was “nah, because of the exact backward logic that was noted”

Gruftzwerg

2023-10-08, 11:56 PM

This is not correct. Full attacks says that, “to use any extra attacks from bab etc you must use a full attack”. This is not the same as saying “if you gain extra attacks in an action, then it is a full attack”.

Again, your logic is backward. A therefore B is not equivalent to B therefore A.
Sorry but your logical analogy is flawed here.

Full Attack is defined. As soon as something fits the mechanical pattern presented there, it operates under the rules unless a specific exception is called out.

Now tell me where Eldritch Glaive makes an explicit callout that it is not using a Full Attack?
Ain't it allowing for multiple attacks? (fitting the FA definition)

And even if I would ignore this and take on you position here, nothing changes. Because nothing stops Eldritch Glaive from profiting from a Full Attack. There is nothing that makes EG incompatible with a free Full Attack. And EG is clearly able to attack multiple times, since it is simply repeating the general BAB/iterative attack rules. How you wanna stop EG from profiting here? Ain't it weapon-like enough to profit or what?

Because I have already explained why you’re wrong, and your response was “nah, because of the exact backward logic that was noted”
I have been trying to explain why this specific argument is pointless since it doesn't affect if EG may profit from a free Full Attack or not. But somehow you didn't seem to get my intention here. I hope that this post did clear up your doubts.

Crake

2023-10-09, 12:02 AM

Sorry but your logical analogy is flawed here.

Full Attack is defined. As soon as something fits the mechanical pattern presented there, it operates under the rules unless a specific exception is called out.

No. Full attack is not a catch all. It is not a category of actions, it is a specifically defined action. “When you full attack, you X” is not the same as “When you X, it is a full attack”. Show me the rule that says “any action that meets this criteria is also considered a full attack”. This is not a case of multiple interpretations here. You are just plain wrong.

Gruftzwerg

2023-10-09, 12:36 AM

No. Full attack is not a catch all. It is not a category of actions, it is a specifically defined action. “When you full attack, you X” is not the same as “When you X, it is a full attack”. Show me the rule that says “any action that meets this criteria is also considered a full attack”. This is not a case of multiple interpretations here. You are just plain wrong.

It doesn't matter if it's a category of actions or a specifically defined action. What matters is that it is defined.

And as such, it is your duty to keep track of things that would fit the definition:

If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough, because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon or for some special reason you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks.
EG gives you multiple attacks for having a high enough BAB, just like the definition of Full Attack and iterative attacks demands.

If your base attack bonus is +6 or higher, you can (as part of the full-round action) make as many attacks with your eldritch glaive as your base attack bonus allows.

To give you a similar example: Does a spell that produces a weapon-like effect needs to explicitly call out that it is a weapon-like spell to operate under the general rules for weapon-like spells? No. (otherwise a bunch of spells that effectively produce weapon-like effects without explicitly saying so would become dysfunctional).

Same here, EG doesn't need to tell you that it is a Full Attack (or a weapon-like spell/effect). It's enough if the mechanics for a Full Attack (or counting as weapon-like spell/effect) are represented to count as such.

_________

May I ask if you still have any complaints about the legal use of EG with the free Full Attack? You didn't response to it and I'm just curious about your current point of view.

Crake

2023-10-09, 02:07 AM

To give you a similar example: Does a spell that produces a weapon-like effect needs to explicitly call out that it is a weapon-like spell to operate under the general rules for weapon-like spells? No. (otherwise a bunch of spells that effectively produce weapon-like effects without explicitly saying so would become dysfunctional).

Same here, EG doesn't need to tell you that it is a Full Attack (or a weapon-like spell/effect). It's enough if the mechanics for a Full Attack (or counting as weapon-like spell/effect) are represented to count as such.

This is a false equivalence, because weapon-like spells IS a category of spells. It is defined as “if the spell has X, then it is Y”. Full attacks ARE NOT a category of actions. They are defined as “to do X, you must use Y”. You keep quoting the first line, and ignoring the rest of it, and the context of the fact that this is coming from the definition OF A SPECIFIC ACTION.

loky1109

2023-10-09, 03:52 AM

because your base attack bonus is high enough
This part is irrelevant anyway.

EG gives you multiple attacks for having a high enough BAB, just like the definition of Full Attack and iterative attacks demands.
BAB enough or another reason - doesn't matter.

To give you a similar example: Does a spell that produces a weapon-like effect needs to explicitly call out that it is a weapon-like spell to operate under the general rules for weapon-like spells? No.
Not similar. There exists explicit definition of weapon-like spells in CArc.
Explicit definition of full attack is it's its own full-round action. And.. by the way, it isn't definition, it's instruction: if you want make multiple attacks - you must use full attack. What is full attack? Nobody knows.

May I ask if you still have any complaints about the legal use of EG with the free Full Attack?
As I see - it's legal. But where did you get "free full attack" from?
I read pounce and mounted combat in RC once again and... It's unclear. Even how pounce works with mounted combat actually.

From my stance you anyway get multiple attacks from EG while are on the charging mount. Even without pounce. With pounce you maybe get another another full attack or get nothing. You could make full attack with EG if you have enough actions, but basic multiple attack are part of using invocation (it's explicitly stated) and therefore aren't full attack themselves.

Nihilarian

2023-10-14, 12:43 AM

A thunderlance wielding knight phantom would probably inspire fewer arguments

Gruftzwerg

2023-10-14, 10:55 PM

This is a false equivalence, because weapon-like spells IS a category of spells. It is defined as “if the spell has X, then it is Y”. Full attacks ARE NOT a category of actions. They are defined as “to do X, you must use Y”. You keep quoting the first line, and ignoring the rest of it, and the context of the fact that this is coming from the definition OF A SPECIFIC ACTION.
What matters here is that Full Attack is DEFINED.
As such you have to apply the rules as soon as the mechanics described could apply to any situation.

Does the definition of a Longsword need to call out that you can make Full Attack with it? No. Because you check the rules that can apply and use em. Same with Eldritch Glaive. It doesn't need to call out that it can be used with Full Attacks for the very same reason that a Longsword doesn't need it. You check the general rules if they can apply and just use em. That is what you always do.

So what stops the weaponlike Eldritch Glaive that has "physical substance" to make Full Attacks? It is clearly following the rules for a Full Attack:
- full round action
- possible additional attacks from high BAB

Just because it is a "specific" situation (just like the specific Longsword example) doesn't stop general rules from applying here.

This part is irrelevant anyway.

BAB enough or another reason - doesn't matter.
As said above to Crake, you have to actively check if any other more general rule can be applied due to it's definition.
An Eldritch Glaive is able to make additional attacks according to your BAB as mentioned in the rules for a Full Attack. Remind you that FA is defined for any kind of reason that allows for multiple attacks.

You both are arguing about the differences that a more specific application of the rule has, compared to the general case.
If I would apply your point of view to Shadowpounce it would become dysfunctional. Because it clearly allows a FA without spending a Full Round Action for it.

Just because the specific case of Eldritch Glaive conjures a magical weapon along the Full Attack it technically provides, doesn't stop it from counting as a Full Attack.

And the question here is still: Can Eldritch Glaive profit from a free Full Attack or not. And I haven't seen any argument targeting explicitly that, but sole arguments if EG counts as FA or not (which is irrelevant for the outcome).

Not similar. There exists explicit definition of weapon-like spells in CArc.
Explicit definition of full attack is it's its own full-round action. And.. by the way, it isn't definition, it's instruction: if you want make multiple attacks - you must use full attack. What is full attack? Nobody knows.
See the Shadowpounce example. As said, just because Eldritch Glaive alters the base action economy doesn't stop it from counting as a Full Attack. It still is providing you with multiple attacks. And the definition of FA doesn't care for the reason. It sole cares if something allows for multiple attacks or not.

As I see - it's legal. But where did you get "free full attack" from?
I read pounce and mounted combat in RC once again and... It's unclear. Even how pounce works with mounted combat actually.

From my stance you anyway get multiple attacks from EG while are on the charging mount. Even without pounce. With pounce you maybe get another another full attack or get nothing. You could make full attack with EG if you have enough actions, but basic multiple attack are part of using invocation (it's explicitly stated) and therefore aren't full attack themselves.
I'll try to sum it up again:

1. Eldritch Glaive allows for multiple melee attacks but we can only move 5ft (due to the full-round action)

2. (Being mounted and) moving more then 5ft limits us to a single melee attack (and having a mobile build is the goal here^^)

3. A mounted charge allows for a melee attack at the end of the mount's charge which lets you count as charging. The last sentence in that paragraph "When charging on horseback, you deal double damage with a lance (see Charge)." only is functional if we assume that we count as "charging on horseback". Otherwise you would be arguing that the statement is wrong.
Also note that we only need to spend our actions for our own attacks and not for the charge action itself here! This allows us to use EG along with this combo.

4. And if we count as "charging on horseback", we can legally make use of Pounce (which is triggered by "end of a charge").

5. Now we are "charging on horseback" (mount's Full-Round Action) with an Eldritch Glaive (our own Full-Round Action) and make a Full Attack at the end of the charge (Pounce).

A thunderlance wielding knight phantom would probably inspire fewer arguments

Well, I had a Thunderlance wielding build recently, namely my Lion-O adaptation if you should be interested^^.

But yeah, I really didn't thought that this build would cause so much debate. I thought that it is a simple trick with 3 commonly known ingredients and had the impression it's obvious what is going on. I mean, normally I have a rules section if there is complicated rule stuff going on, but I really thought that it was not needed for this simple trick...

____

Maybe the discussion would have went smother if I would have added a rules section for this. I'm thinking about adding a rule section in the update (since there is nothing else to update in the build as it seems).
But update may be delayed a bit more. I'm currently in the finishing phase of my next build showcase and need to get that outta my head to make space for new thoughts.. my brain is totally blocked by thought about the current build..^^

I hope that I could clear up the remaining doubts. If not let me know. It's just that I'm currently short on forum time and also work an next build showcase. So I need a bit longer then usual to response..

edit: I've made up my mind. The build after the next one in line, will be another Pounce + Mounted Charge combo. I already had another idea based on this combo, but thought the combo ain't interesting enough to make 2 build showcases about it. I changed my mind.
Chaos Monk build incoming! ;)
But until then you still have some time to think about this combo. First I need to finish my other Bane related build.

Crake

2023-10-14, 11:19 PM

What matters here is that Full Attack is DEFINED.

So is the haste spell. But the rapid shot feat doesn't count as the haste spell simply because it gives an extra attack.

Gruftzwerg

2023-10-18, 03:55 AM

So is the haste spell. But the rapid shot feat doesn't count as the haste spell simply because it gives an extra attack.
Maybe because Rapid Shot ain't a spell (nor does it refer to spells in any way) and thus doesn't rely on specific spell rules to work in the first place!? ...

Rapid Shot doesn't rely on Spell rules to work, whereas Eldritch Glaive definitively relies on general combat rules to work. See the difference here.

Praise the Primary Source Rule and the glory that it creates with it's hierarchy! ;)

It's all about the rule hierarchy and the rule interactions between em.