I've been trying to figure out how movement feats like Step Up and Rhino Charge work with mounted combat and I came across this thread.
http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/53809/at-what-point-do-i-stop-my-cha rge-while-mounted-and-using-a-lance
If your mount charges, you also take the AC penalty associated with a charge.
You must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent.
He points out that because your mount is the one charging and because it must move to the "closest space from which you can attack the opponent" which for a horse is adjacent, its rider can't make an attack with a lance or any reach weapon. While I can't help but agree with him in his interpretation of the rules there are glaring examples (double damage with a lance, spirited charge, etc) throughout the core book that indicate a mounted character can indeed make a charge attack with a lance. Is he wrong?
The mounted combat rules are not very well written. But the crux of the matter is that there is a distinction between you charging while mounted, and your mount charging while you are mounted.
From the Mounted Combat section of the SRD: Your mount acts on your initiative count as you direct it. You move at its speed, but the mount uses its action to move.
Mechanically, the mount spends its action to grant you its movement, rather than moving directly itself.
In other words, when you "move" while mounted, the mount spends actions. When you charge while mounted, the mount spends actions, but you are still the one who is charging.
Particularly bad is this paragraph: 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).
You really have two different clauses here. The first is what happens when your mount charges (instead of granting you movement): 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.
The second is the special rule for lances, which triggers "when you make a charge while mounted:"When charging on horseback, you deal double damage with a lance (see Charge). When trying to run at someone and hit them with a lance, the mechanics are: Y
ou take the charge full-round action.
The mount spends its actions to grant you its movement.
You stop at the edge of your reach, and poke it with your lance.
By contrast, I suppose you could command your mount to charge.
The mount takes the full-round charge action.
The mount moves to within its reach of the target.
The mount attacks.
You may attack, if able (but generally not with a lance, because your mount is too close to the target).
Is this actually how mounted combat works? If not how does it?
|
Linkified
At what point do I stop my charge while mounted and using a Lance?
You stop at the first square where you can make an attack.
If you're wielding a lance (10ft reach) while charging on a Horse (5ft reach), you'd stop at 10ft (meaning your Horse couldn't attack).
If you're wielding a longsword (5ft reach) while charging on an Axebeak (10ft reach), you'd also stop at 10ft (meaning you couldn't attack).
|
A couple of factors to consider:
A recent FAQ clarified that when a mounted combatant charges, both mount and rider both acquire the "charging condition".
While charging, an attack is not mandatory.
Thus, if you have a lance, odds are you're making a choice when you charge: Do you want to attack with the lance, or with your mount? Unless your mount has reach, then it's one or the other.
If you want to charge, and attack with both the mount and rider on the same charge, then rider must attack with something that has the same reach as his mount.
So how do special movement rules work while mounted? The mounts using its actions to moves but at your initiative. Can Step Up and Strike work while mounted? Who needs to have Rhino Charge in mounted combat, the rider, the mount, or both?
|
|
So how do special movement rules work while mounted? The mounts using its actions to moves but at your initiative. Can Step Up and Strike work while mounted? Who needs to have Rhino Charge in mounted combat, the rider, the mount, or both?
That's getting into another question entirely from the original one.
But with regards to this question, the movement rules generally (but not completely) view a rider and mount as an amalgam single entity. I'm not sure that there is a definitive answer as to where the feats "must" be, but I'm of the opinion that so long as either rider or mount has a movement-related feat, then they both benefit so long as they're together as mount and rider.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you're wielding a longsword (5ft reach) while charging on an Axebeak (10ft reach), you'd also stop at 10ft (meaning you couldn't attack).As deusvult said, an attack is not mandatory, so you can attack with your longsword while charging on an axebeak as long as the axebeak doesn't attack.
No, while the attack is optional, the movement and restrictions on movement are not. Since the axebeak is charging it must stop at the closest square from which it can attack. That square is 10' from the target due to reach. Whether or not it attacks the movement portion of the charge is over.
|
|
No, while the attack is optional, the movement and restrictions on movement are not. Since the axebeak is charging it must stop at the closest square from which it can attack. That square is 10' from the target due to reach. Whether or not it attacks the movement portion of the charge is over.If you're wielding a longsword (5ft reach) while charging on an Axebeak (10ft reach), you'd also stop at 10ft (meaning you couldn't attack).As deusvult said, an attack is not mandatory, so you can attack with your longsword while charging on an axebeak as long as the axebeak doesn't attack.
Except that's overwritten because since the axebeak isn't exercising the option to attack, the rider MUST then move into range.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since rider and mount are both performing a charge, which is movement, then attack, the charge ends the moment either can reach their target.
There is no stipulation in the rules for choice (outside of feats, such as Ride-By Attack and Wheeling Charge).
Why would you interpret the rules in such a way as to make it so dysfunctional? Shouldn't the assumption be that the rules are intended to work?
|
|
Since rider and mount are both performing a charge, which is movement, then attack, the charge ends the moment either can reach their target.
There is no stipulation in the rules for choice (outside of feats, such as Ride-By Attack and Wheeling Charge).
I don't see that language in the CRB or in the mounted charge faq, and unless you know something I don't, it certainly looks like "charge movement ends when either can reach the target" is how you're choosing to interpret.
Interpretation is a conscious choice. You could also choose to interpret as I had. I'll echo Bill Dunn's sentiment: "When you can choose, why choose the dysfunctional?"
Since rider and mount are both performing a charge, which is movement, then attack, the charge ends the moment either can reach their target.
There is no stipulation in the rules for choice (outside of feats, such as Ride-By Attack and Wheeling Charge).
I don't see that language in the CRB or in the mounted charge faq, and unless you know something I don't, it certainly looks like "charge movement ends when either can reach the target" is how you're choosing to interpret.
Interpretation is a conscious choice. You could also choose to interpret as I had. I'll echo Bill Dunn's sentiment: "When you can choose, why choose the dysfunctional?"
The rules are perfectly functional. The dysfunction is someone choosing a mount with a greater reach than they have. That is like claiming the rules are dysfunctional because the wizard but a 6 in Int and thus cannot cast spells.
|
|
The rules are perfectly functional. The dysfunction is someone choosing a mount with a greater reach than they have. That is like claiming the rules are dysfunctional because the wizard but a 6 in Int and thus cannot cast spells.Since rider and mount are both performing a charge, which is movement, then attack, the charge ends the moment either can reach their target.
There is no stipulation in the rules for choice (outside of feats, such as Ride-By Attack and Wheeling Charge).
I don't see that language in the CRB or in the mounted charge faq, and unless you know something I don't, it certainly looks like "charge movement ends when either can reach the target" is how you're choosing to interpret.
Interpretation is a conscious choice. You could also choose to interpret as I had. I'll echo Bill Dunn's sentiment: "When you can choose, why choose the dysfunctional?"
No, the dysfunction is in saying that just because the axebeak has a long neck (or whatever reason it has reach) you can't charge someone and thump them with your longsword.
The rules don't say that the charge must end when the greater of the two reaches between mount and rider are achieved. Saying that's how you want it to work is making a choice. I'm not saying its an invalid choice, as the rules could indeed be read that way. But is it needlessly restrictive when you don't have to read them that way? It's equally viable to read that if the reach mount is opting to not attack, there's no restriction keeping the rider w/o reach from getting into reach.
Edit: Another way to illustrate choosing dysfunction:
The rules don't say when EXACTLY the decision about taking the optional attack after charge movement must take place. You're effectively saying that it has to be after movement.
But why? The rules don't say when it has to be. And it could instead been interpreted as being before or during movement.
If the rider declares that he's going to charge with his longsword, then the only attack that's impending is a 5' reach one, even from the back of an axebeak. It's dysfunctional to insist the charge has to fail because the axebeak that's not even attacking has reach.
It'd be similar to saying that if (for whatever reason) a lance-wielding rider wanted to charge and forgo the lance and have the horse kick instead (or perhaps wants to charge with a no-reach shield bash while armed with a lance), he couldn't do it. Of course he could! Even if it came down to saying he had to forgo his reach for the moment of the charge attack, obviously he could just point the tip anywhere but at the target.
LinkifiedAt what point do I stop my charge while mounted and using a Lance?You stop at the first square where you can make an attack.
If you're wielding a lance (10ft reach) while charging on a Horse (5ft reach), you'd stop at 10ft (meaning your Horse couldn't attack).
If you're wielding a longsword (5ft reach) while charging on an Axebeak (10ft reach), you'd also stop at 10ft (meaning you couldn't attack).
Not quite correct. You attack from the closest square from which you can attack, which might vary depending on your actual reach and which might be any of several squares, not the first one you happen to pass through.
You do not have to attack from the first square, but you do have to attack from the closest square, which is a different thing entirely.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rules are perfectly functional. The dysfunction is someone choosing a mount with a greater reach than they have. That is like claiming the rules are dysfunctional because the wizard but a 6 in Int and thus cannot cast spells.Since rider and mount are both performing a charge, which is movement, then attack, the charge ends the moment either can reach their target.
There is no stipulation in the rules for choice (outside of feats, such as Ride-By Attack and Wheeling Charge).
I don't see that language in the CRB or in the mounted charge faq, and unless you know something I don't, it certainly looks like "charge movement ends when either can reach the target" is how you're choosing to interpret.
Interpretation is a conscious choice. You could also choose to interpret as I had. I'll echo Bill Dunn's sentiment: "When you can choose, why choose the dysfunctional?"
No, the dysfunction is in saying that just because the axebeak has a long neck (or whatever reason it has reach) you can't charge someone and thump them with your longsword.
The rules don't say that the charge must end when the greater of the two reaches between mount and rider are achieved. Saying that's how you want it to work is making a choice. I'm not saying its an invalid choice, as the rules could indeed be read that way. But is it needlessly restrictive when you don't have to read them that way? It's equally viable to read that if the reach mount is opting to not attack, there's no restriction keeping the rider w/o reach from getting into reach.
Edit: Another way to illustrate choosing dysfunction:
The rules don't say when EXACTLY the decision about taking the optional attack after charge movement must take place. You're effectively saying that it has to be after movement.
But why? The rules don't say when it has to be. And it could instead been...
What color is the sky in your world?
Movement During a Charge
You must move before your attack, not after. You must move at least 10 feet (2 squares) and may move up to double your speed directly toward the designated opponent. If you move a distance equal to your speed or less, you can also draw a weapon during a charge attack if your base attack bonus is at least +1.
You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles). You must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent. If this space is occupied or otherwise blocked, you can't charge. If any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through a square that blocks movement, slows movement, or contains a creature (even an ally), you can't charge. Helpless creatures don't stop a charge.
Black and white there that you move before the attack. Black and white that you stop at the first space you can attack from. Zero room for interpretation. Unless you want to "interpret" that you can charge around corners too.
|
|
You must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent.Both mount and rider charge.
First one to reach the target wins.
The fun part is that same quote justifies what I'm saying, as well.
If the axebeak isn't attacking but the rider is, then the rider must move to the closest space within his reach during the charge movement.
The RAW can therefore also be said to prohibit the charge from stopping when the not-attacking axebeak's reach is achieved. Because the attacking rider MUST move into reach, as the rule says.
I like the example of a lance and shield, since our discussion is one of charging with while having varying threaten reaches.
If it's a knight on a horse, if he charges to use a shield bash (and possibly horse attack), you appear to also be saying those attacks fail as well if he's got a lance in the other hand. Wheras I'm saying that if the declared charge is with a weapon other than the lance, its reach isn't relevant for calculating the charge movement.
Maybe this would help.
http://i248.photobucket.com/albums/gg168/seankreynolds/angled-charges.jpg
|
|
What color is the sky in your world?
On my planet, the skies are blue, thanks for asking. What about yours?
Since you appear to be unfamiliar with our conventions here on earth, I'll reiterate this for you:
It's a choice about how one decides to interpret the rules governing charges to insist that an axebeak's reach prohibits a rider's non-reach charge attack.
As you and Nefreet both quoted, the rules never say the charge movement automatically stops when the maximum reach is satisfied without regard to whether or not that reach is actually being used with which to attack.
So, as I said upthread, arguing your and Nefreet's position is in fact a conscious decision about how to interpret the rules. Specifically, that the decision about what weapon with which a charge attack will be made has to be, and can only be, declared after movement is complete.
Obviously, no such rule exists. So, it's therefore also equally "correct" to interpret that the choice about what weapon to use on the charge can instead be made before the charge movement is complete.
As I and at least one other said upthread, when you can choose between the rules working and the rules not working, what benefit is there in choosing to make the rules not work?
I agree with deusvult in this argument because as per RAW you can argue that you are correct but why rule to make something like mounted combat not work when you can interpret it in which I can assume it was meant to be.
|
Maybe this would help.
http://i248.photobucket.com/albums/gg168/seankreynolds/angled-charges.jpg
Except that that's not what the rules say, and forum posts by the devs are not binding, and don't count as FAQs. Don't get me wrong, I go by the SKR ruling in my home games because mounted charging is broken without it. And by broken, I mean does not work.
Case in point, how can I Ride-By-Attack if the closest square to attack is a straight line at the opponent. I shouldn't have to take Wheeling Charge just to make Ride-By-Attack work. Although it's probably worth it to charge allies.
I can't believe the devs haven't clarified mounting charging to a point where it works, considering they created an entire class around mounted charges.
|
|
Except that that's not what the rules say, and forum posts by the devs are not binding, and don't count as FAQs. Don't get me wrong, I go by the SKR ruling in my home games because mounted charging is broken without it. And by broken, I mean does not work.Maybe this would help.
http://i248.photobucket.com/albums/gg168/seankreynolds/angled-charges.jpg
I challenge you to back this statement up.
What, exactly, does not jive with the rules? The "closest" square, by pathfinderian geometry, is actually pretty counterintuitive.
For example: E= Enemy, X = closest squares, T = charge path, 0 = open space, C=Charger's original position.
0E0
XXX
0T0
0T0
0T0
0C0
C can charge to any one of the X squares, as they're all exactly 20' away and all equally close to both the target and the point of origin(again, by pathfinder geometry, anyway)
This diagram may be made more clear by imagining the continued charge paths for the three viable X squares had they continued.
Same legend as above, but ? = continuation of charge paths beyond point of attack
?0?0?
?0?0?
?0?0?
0???0
0???0
0?E?0
0XXX0
00T00
00T00
00T00
00C00
|
|
Well, it's debatable whether that's the closest square. I use that rule myself, but have been flat out refused to be allowed to charge that way by a number of very experienced GMs, since they count moving diagonal as being halfway to using another 5 feet of movement. Also, try it from a diagonal, there's no way to excuse the movement to get around the opponent. Case in point.
.
.
_____E
____X
___T
__T
_T
C
How do you explain getting around the opponent to use Ride-By-Attack in that case?
|
|
SKR's diagram GM_Arrule linked shows exactly how a straight-line charge path could proceed through one of the "corner closest squares" and continue on beyond the target.
If a GM wants to rule that the corner squares don't count as equally close as the center one, that's on them, but it's the same situation as saying higher reach cancels a lower reach on the charge. You COULD rule that way, but should you, when it's perfectly legal to rule otherwise whilst allowing the rules to work (presumably as intended).
An apples to apples comparison: in the example of SKR's left most charge path, the blue one, the three squares north of the target are 55, 55, and 60 feet away. And example does indeed go through the 60 foot square. So, on the diagonals, that wasn't the "closest", you're right.
However, if there were some feature in the way that precluded the left or middle square being the destination, then yes that rightmost square is now the "closest" legal square, and it shows how the path could continue on beyond it. (interestingly, the charge path could also have just gone through the leftmost square, presuming no obstacles, but that wasn't the point of the diagram.. it's illustrating "straight lines" that don't neatly mate with the axes on the grid.
|
|
If there's an obstruction in the closest path you can't charge. It says so right in the movement during a charge section. Charging doesn't work the way SKR explains it. It solves all the problems with mounted charging if you run it that way, but it doesn't work by RAW.
Touche. Fair enough. You're right that you can't pick a longer charge path to bypass an obstacle and I stand corrected there.
However.
Another way to look at it is to look at Ride By Attack, as the "continuing beyond" discussion is moot without the feat.
The feat allows you to continue moving after the attack, but does not give the ability to go through the target. Thus, the "center square" is now no longer an eligible destination for the charge attack when you're going to continue moving in a straight line after the attack. And since it's not eligible, it cannot be the "closest eligible" square.
|
What happens if you charge with a spear? The "closest space" from your starting point "from which you can attack the opponent" is 100 ft away. (20 ft range x 5 range increments for thrown weapon). The rule doesn't restrict the attack type to "melee."
The next relevant rule, however, does specify that you may make a "melee attack." So, the rules are clearly spelling out "attack" and "melee attack" as different actions. Of course you can't make a melee attack with a medium sized spear from 100 ft away, so the charge would be pointless. According to this interpretation, it is impossible to charge with any weapon that can be thrown.
An alternate interpretation is that "the closest space from which you can attack" always means the closest space to the enemy (NOT the closest space from where you started your turn). If you charge with a lance and shield, you can either stop at 10 ft (lance) or 5 ft (gauntlet). Since 5 ft is the "closest space from which you can attack the opponent," you must stop 5 ft from the enemy, and you may attack with your gauntlet.
Personally, I think some common sense is needed in interpreting the rules. It makes no sense for a charge to stop before (or after) the intended attack can even be made, just because another attack type could theoretically be made from a further (or closer) distance.
|
|
It still doesn't say that you have to stop and attack from that square.
Ride by attack let's you attack and keep moving, that's different.
If you move 2 squares past the closest square you did not move to the closest square. It doesn't say you have to stop there, because it doesn't have to say that. Once you end your movement anywhere but that square, you did not move to that square, you moved through that square.
|
|
In the movement during a charge. It says you must move to the closest square you can attack from. It doesn't say you have to include that square in your movement. It says you have to go to that square. Ride-By-Attack allows you to move again down the straight line you followed to charge.
It's a similar conundrum to the varying reach issue.
It's a matter of splitting hairs over the timing of when a decision has to be made. In this case, when the decision to take advantage of the post-attack charge movement R-B-A offers.
If you cannot decide before the attack, then the center square can be said to be eligible, and arguably even mandatory. But that makes RBA pointless, and is a dysfunctional way to read the rules.
If you say RBA can be 'invoked' before movement even begins, then the continued line cannot be drawn through the target itself, which means the center square(s) are not eligible. That leaves only the corner squares as legal places for the charge attack as only they would allow a continued line after declaring that the line will indeed continue.
|
|
Not using any definition that I'm aware of. It does not say that you must end your movement in the closest square, it says you must move to it. Until you make your attack, you can move up to double your speed, which means that you can continue the move as long as you don't violate any of the charge restrictions.
Yes, I can see why people think 'move to' means 'end your movement in' because they assume that's how charge works. But technically, by RAW, these are two different things.
Charging is a full round action. You must move to the closest square as the movement for that full round action. Unless you have something that allows you another move action, or to move again after the charge, you can't keep moving because you've already used your movement in the full round action.
Okay, what happens when I want to charge past someone, even with provoking?
The first square I'm capable of making an attack would stop me before my intended target.
Seeing as stopping someone in your threatened area normally requires a feat (not sure which, just knows it does), how w=is the person, which happens not to have that feat, manages to stop me?
Just because that's the "closest square", I immediately stop.
Another thing, it says closest square from which you can attack, not your mount.
Which would let you use a lance.
|
|
While charging, you designate an opponent as the target of your charge. You must stop at the closest square you can attack that target, not any target. So you can charge past as many enemies as you choose, as long as none of them are in your path, or stop your movement along the way. As for being able to attack with a Lance while mounted, you're correct that you can use it, but per the FAQ both you and your mount count as charging. So technically the first square either of you could attack from would be the square you must move to.
Welcome to the horribly implemented rules of Mounted Combat. Personally I say don't even bother playing a mounted charger if you're not going to use the SKR charging rules as a house rule, along with a few other things that fix the rules that don't make sense. But RAW, the things a mess. I kinda hope one day we get a blog fix, or explanation similar to the monk blog.
While charging, you designate an opponent as the target of your charge. You must stop at the closest square you can attack that target, not any target. So you can charge past as many enemies as you choose, as long as none of them are in your path, or stop your movement along the way. As for being able to attack with a Lance while mounted, you're correct that you can use it, but per the FAQ both you and your mount count as charging. So technically the first square either of you could attack from would be the square you must move to.
Welcome to the horribly implemented rules of Mounted Combat. Personally I say don't even bother playing a mounted charger if you're not going to use the SKR charging rules as a house rule, along with a few other things that fix the rules that don't make sense. But RAW, the things a mess. I kinda hope one day we get a blog fix, or explanation similar to the monk blog.
Right there, you speak as to my point. With a lance, you have 10 ft. reach. A horse has 5 ft. reach.
When you charge, the first square either of you could attack from would be the lance's reach. The horse wouldn't get an attack unless there's another target in reach.With a longsword, you have 5 ft. reach. The horse has 5 ft. reach.
You charge, both attack.
With a lance on an axebeak, both of you could attack.
With a longsword on an axebeak, you'd miss out on your attack unless there's a secondary target within your reach.
Remember, you can designate different targets for yourself and your mount.
Not sure as to where the "horribly implemented rules of Mounted Combat" are coming in, it seems pretty simple to me.
|
|
Alright. New possibility:
With the Axebeak/Longsword combination, I suppose (assuming the Axebeak is your Animal Companion) you could perform the "Down" trick as a free action before it performed its attack, and then continue the movement portion of the charge so you could attack with your Longsword.
I just realized the charge rules use the word "may" attack, which would imply that it is possible to charge without actually attacking.
But, this would only be possible when riding your Companion, as known tricks otherwise require a move action to command.
|
|
Alright. New possibility:
With the Axebeak/Longsword combination, I suppose (assuming the Axebeak is your Animal Companion) you could perform the "Down" trick as a free action before it performed its attack, and then continue the movement portion of the charge so you could attack with your Longsword.
I just realized the charge rules use the word "may" attack, which would imply that it is possible to charge without actually attacking.
But, this would only be possible when riding your Companion, as known tricks otherwise require a move action to command.
What about the possibility that the decision about who's going to attack (and with what weapon) can be made before the movement even begins? If the axebeak is not making an attack, under what justification would it have to stop when it could first attack? Especially so when the charge rules stipulate that the rider's non-reach longsword attack may not stop prior to coming into reach?
Is rule it to function, as a DM, and take ride-by attack as a player so that aspect is irrelevant.
The question about the axebeak is really whether a creature with natural reach can charge to be adjacent to the target. If you say no, and the axebeak hadst to attack with its reach, then you would have to use a reach weapon to both attack, but you should be able to charge with your mount's move and perform your attack.
Hells, takr ride-by and ride a pouncing tiger, or an overrunning trampler for a mount. =]
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can your Axebeak understand your spoken words?
Usually there's just Handle Animal. You issue the command to attack, and charge.
You'd need another command to get it to stop.
Why would it have to?*
If you don't give it the command to attack, it shouldn't attack. It doesn't automatically attack everything that comes in reach while you ride around afterall. Not if it's properly trained, anyway.
If the rider intends to charge some target and doesn't give his axebeak the command to attack (verbally or otherwise) its reach should be irrelevant, and from a meta-view is reach should objectively NOT prohibit the rider from coming into his 5' reach since it's not an option for him to come up short. 10' reach is irrelevant when the declared charge attack is 5' reach, is it not?
It really is, in my opinion, the same rules interaction as charging when armed with a lance and shield. If you want to charge someone with your shield bash, you don't have to stop as soon as the lance's reach is achieved.
*= additionally, handle animal doesn't even come into play. Issuing orders to one's mount is completely covered by the Ride skill, but that's a whole different tangent.