|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Mounted Combat: When making a charge while mounted, which creature charges? The rider or the mount?
Both charge in unison, suffer the same penalty to AC, the gaining the same bonus to the attack rolls and following all other rules for the charge. The mounted combat rules are a little unclear on this. Replace the third paragraph under the "Combat while Mounted" section on page 202 with the following text. Note that a "mounted charge" is synonymous with a "charge while mounted," and that when a lance is "when used from the back of a charging mount" it is during a mounted charge not when only the mount charges.A mounted charge is a charge made by you and your mount. During a mounted charge, you deal double damage with your first melee attack made with a lance or with any weapon if you have Spirited Charge (or a similar effect), or you deal triple damage with a lance and Spirited Charge.
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.
If you're both performing a charge, and your mount doesn't have reach, can you legally charge?
Both you and your mount can't stop in the closest space from which you can attack the opponent. So would it not be illegal to declare the charge since you both can't attack and thus one of you can't charge?
disclaimer: Obviously this is being pedantic and I would never actually try to impose this on someone, it's just an anomaly I noticed. So my question is, In the most strict RAW interpretation, is this not true?
I approve of this thread.
|
If you insist on ignoring common sense and want to only use RAW, then consider that an attack after charge movement is by RAW optional.
If rider or mount has reach and the other does not, the one without reach simply opts not to attack after the charge movement. The one with reach stops at one of the shortest paths possible where reach allows the attack, as normal. There's no reason to insist the non-attacking member of the pair has to ruin the reach attack by moving inside that reach to make the attack it's not making.
To say that it DOES is neither RAW nor conforming to common sense.
We know it must be since the lance exist and has special abilities which work only a mounted charge and it is a reach weapon.
Now, how that works when trying to read it with all the other rules is that you don't try to RAW too hard because you hurt yourself.
And this is why I ignore virtually every request for "RAW".
disclaimer: Obviously this is being pedantic and I would never actually try to impose this on someone, it's just an anomaly I noticed. So my question is, In the most strict RAW interpretation, is this not true?
If a rule is written in such a way that you know it is not intended to be run that way such as this one then I would suggest asking posters to click the FAQ button. It might be true if one is to go by strict RAW rulings, and there might be a way to argue that it is not true by the letter of the rules, but I don't think it is worth the effort to try to discount it.
PS: It is hard to read tone of voice online so I am not angry or upset. I am just providing a solution that is more likely to get a problem fixed than to cause an argument.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder is a fantasy adventure role playing game. The rules are meant to facilitate having fantasy adventures in a relatively easily administered manner - not throw up barriers to entirely reasonable actions via over-pedantic, tortured readings.
So, yes, of course you can charge with a reach weapon like a lance.
|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
All right, I'll turn it into a real question. If you are riding on a mount with a lance and charging, is there a way to have both the mount and the rider make attacks?
Mounts rarely have reach of their own, so you'd normally have to stop 10' away for the lance and 5' away for the mount. Any way to deal with that?
But it does say that you *must* move to the closest space from which you can attack.Also, nothing in the Charge rules state that you *must* make an attack at the end.
The word used is "may".
Is this rejoinder meant to imply that the charging mount, let's call it a horse, must charge to the closest space from which it can attack? If so, stop it. You ever see a joust, either in real life or in the media? Does the horse make an attack? No. The rider does. They're a unit. They act together. That unit needs to move to the closest spot from which it can attack and that's pretty much going to be determined by the boss of that unit - the rider - and his weapon. The individual components of the unit may be targeted (you can try to attack the rider or the horse separately if given the opportunity) and, for those issues, the effects of the charge (loss of AC) can apply to both, but the primary concerns facing the charging unit are going to be determined by the rider and his (or her] attack.
All right, I'll turn it into a real question. If you are riding on a mount with a lance and charging, is there a way to have both the mount and the rider make attacks?
Mounts rarely have reach of their own, so you'd normally have to stop 10' away for the lance and 5' away for the mount. Any way to deal with that?
Good question, and it should probably get its own thread. I allow it in my games, but I am not sure if it is supposed to work.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Good question, and it should probably get its own thread. I allow it in my games, but I am not sure if it is supposed to work.All right, I'll turn it into a real question. If you are riding on a mount with a lance and charging, is there a way to have both the mount and the rider make attacks?
Mounts rarely have reach of their own, so you'd normally have to stop 10' away for the lance and 5' away for the mount. Any way to deal with that?
If Ride-By-Attack is in play, there's no reason the lance attack couldn't be performed from 10' away, then the movement continues per RBA. Then from adjacent square, the horse kicks/stomps. Then per RBA the movement keeps continuing on past the target.
|
|
But it does say that you *must* move to the closest space from which you can attack.Also, nothing in the Charge rules state that you *must* make an attack at the end.
The word used is "may".
Why would a horse that's not attacking have to move into its reach so that it could have made the attack it's not going to make when the rider with a lance that IS attacking has the rule that he HAS to stop 10' out?
You're deliberately choosing to read the rule in such a way it doesn't work. You don't have to do that. All you have to do is read that the reach has to stop trumps the non-reach has to move in, and there's no quandry.
Mind you, I'm not saying reach always means you stop there. If the rider/mount were charging and the rider has a shield and a lance, he's still allowed to charge with the shield instead of the lance. You stop when you achieve the reach of the charge attack, not the maximum reach of ALL possible attacks.
What if he's riding a rhino though?
If the rider had Ride-By attack, I'd consider allowing both attacks (lance and gore) since that would allow him to move past the spot he made his own attack and enable the rhino's shorter reach to get in its attack. Otherwise, I'd be expecting the rhino rider to choose which charge attack he'll make - with his lance or with the rhino's powerful charge and gore. And then that would determine which space the charge needed to be to - one suitable for the lance or one suitable for the rhino horn.
Ride by attack does not mention allowing your mount to attack and move, only yourself. The mount is only mentioned when stating there are no AoO for the movement.
A very strict reading of ride by attack would not get the mount an attack since it does not say the mount can attack and keep moving.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But it does seem a pretty reasonable interpretation to use Ride-by attack to get the rider's attack with a lance, continue movement, and let the mount get its follow-up charge attacks in even if you don't allow the ride-by attack feat to allow movement to continue after that point.
|
|
But it does say that you *must* move to the closest space from which you can attack.Also, nothing in the Charge rules state that you *must* make an attack at the end.
The word used is "may".
Why would a horse that's not attacking have to move into its reach so that it could have made the attack it's not going to make when the rider with a lance that IS attacking has the rule that he HAS to stop 10' out?
You're deliberately choosing to read the rule in such a way it doesn't work. You don't have to do that. All you have to do is read that the reach has to stop trumps the non-reach has to move in, and there's no quandry.
Mind you, I'm not saying reach always means you stop there. If the rider/mount were charging and the rider has a shield and a lance, he's still allowed to charge with the shield instead of the lance. You stop when you achieve the reach of the charge attack, not the maximum reach of ALL possible attacks.
Because the rule is charging. The horse is charging. I'm reading the rule the way it's been presented to us.
Obviously he could charge with a non-reach weapon--obviously that's not the question.
But it does seem a pretty reasonable interpretation to use Ride-by attack to get the rider's attack with a lance, continue movement, and let the mount get its follow-up charge attacks in even if you don't allow the ride-by attack feat to allow movement to continue after that point.
I allow it. I was just saying why it might be an issue for some GM's. :)
My wife made an elegant suggestion: the horse is a large creature that takes up a 2x2 square but has only a 5-foot reach. The rider with a reach weapon is a medium creature that sits in the middle of the horse, so for purpose of determining the squares threatened by the rider, choose one of the squares occupied by the horse as the rider's location.
Ordinarily, one would choose a square that lets the rider reach the farthest ahead. But for a charge where the horse will also attack, chose a square at the back end of the horse so that the rider's 10-foot reach hits the same square as the horse's 5-foot reach.
My wife made an elegant suggestion: the horse is a large creature that takes up a 2x2 square but has only a 5-foot reach. The rider with a reach weapon is a medium creature that sits in the middle of the horse, so for purpose of determining the squares threatened by the rider, choose one of the squares occupied by the horse as the rider's location.
Ordinarily, one would choose a square that lets the rider reach the farthest ahead. But for a charge where the horse will also attack, chose a square at the back end of the horse so that the rider's 10-foot reach hits the same square as the horse's 5-foot reach.
Technically, the rider is considered to be taking up the whole space of the mount. Granted, that gets a little weird when riding an elephant, but it's an abstraction.
All right, I'll turn it into a real question. If you are riding on a mount with a lance and charging, is there a way to have both the mount and the rider make attacks?
Mounts rarely have reach of their own, so you'd normally have to stop 10' away for the lance and 5' away for the mount. Any way to deal with that?
Your mount takes Lunge.
I don't necessarily see a problem here. (Because there shouldn't BE a problem.)
If a player declared a simultaneous rider/mount charge with a lance, here's how I'd expect the logic to play out:
The mount stops next to its target and makes its charge attack. However, before that is resolved, the rider gets a charge attack 5ft earlier due to reach. Yes, the rider ends up traveling 5ft after making his attack, after the "stops" statement but that 5ft of movement is riding, not charging simply because his mount is still in motion. For purposes of mounted combat, the mount and the rider are sort of considered one. So when reach differences come into play, I'd treat the things that CAN be unified (space-sharing, movement) as one, and things that CAN'T (reach) as individual attributes.
Additional:
I would resolve attacks of opportunity in that order as well (rider first) if the charged target has reach. The target might knock the rider off his mount, or kill him, etc, before the mount's last 5ft of movement completes. This is purely for purposes of determining where the body ends up, if there is one. The mount still completes its movement even if the rider is downed.
|
|
I don't necessarily see a problem here. (Because there shouldn't BE a problem.)
If a player declared a simultaneous rider/mount charge with a lance, here's how I'd expect the logic to play out:
The mount stops next to its target and makes its charge attack. However, before that is resolved, the rider gets a charge attack 5ft earlier due to reach. Yes, the rider ends up traveling 5ft after making his attack, after the "stops" statement but that 5ft of movement is riding, not charging simply because his mount is still in motion. For purposes of mounted combat, the mount and the rider are sort of considered one. So when reach differences come into play, I'd treat the things that CAN be unified (space-sharing, movement) as one, and things that CAN'T (reach) as individual attributes.
Additional:
I would resolve attacks of opportunity in that order as well (rider first) if the charged target has reach. The target might knock the rider off his mount, or kill him, etc, before the mount's last 5ft of movement completes. This is purely for purposes of determining where the body ends up, if there is one. The mount still completes its movement even if the rider is downed.
This is even less right than how it's supposed to be. Without any other feats/abilities, if you charge with a reach weapon you stop at 10' and attack--at this point your mount is also done.
|
If an enemy was moving and ran into the range of someone making a readied action to attack, would you make the enemy stop moving because their action was interrupted? No - while there was an interrupt, it was only a matter of timing the readied action; it does not magically end the enemy's action.
I think of double attack lance charges the same way. The mount charges, and the rider readies an attack when they get in range. The rider's action interrupts the mount's move, but does not end it - the mount is still in the middle of its charge action, you're just resolving the readied action before it finishes.
|
|
If an enemy was moving and ran into the range of someone making a readied action to attack, would you make the enemy stop moving because their action was interrupted? No - while there was an interrupt, it was only a matter of timing the readied action; it does not magically end the enemy's action.
I think of double attack lance charges the same way. The mount charges, and the rider readies an attack when they get in range. The rider's action interrupts the mount's move, but does not end it - the mount is still in the middle of its charge action, you're just resolving the readied action before it finishes.
The rider isn't readying an action. What you're describing is Spring Attack / Ride-By Attack. You're describing a case where I'm on a moving object that I'm not controlling and readying an action. If I'm controlling it with my move action then I can't move/attack/move when I am just charging with no other feats/abilities.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This comes up quite a bit on the boards. As written, the mounted combat rules do not work as intended. That has been clear for quite a long time.
Even the phrases: "You must move at least 10 feet (2 squares) and may move up to double your speed directly toward the designated opponent." and "You must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent." (CRB p198 Charge rules) cause problems with Mounted Combat (specifically Ride-By Attack).
Many people read those phrases (separately or combined) to be that you draw a line from your square to the opponents square and move along that line. The problem is, that prevents ride by attack as you cannot move through your opponent afterwards.
Then there is the issue stemming from the rules not taking into account a rider and mount with different reach.
As written, if the mount and the rider have attacks with different reach then only one of them can make an attack when charging.
A Blog or FAQ on all of the mounted combat issues has been needed for quite some time.
The rider isn't readying an action. What you're describing is Spring Attack / Ride-By Attack. You're describing a case where I'm on a moving object that I'm not controlling and readying an action. If I'm controlling it with my move action then I can't move/attack/move when I am just charging with no other feats/abilities.
Tiger lily is correct. What everyone seems to be getting tripped up as the rider and the mount are still two separate characters. They still get their own actions.
My take is that both the rider and the mount are a part of a charge but only the mount is taking the actual charge ACTION. The rider just gets the benefits of and drawbacks of AC and to hit. But the only way the rider would be able to get an attack in with a reach weapon, is if he readies his own action to poke some bad guy with his lance when one gets in range. It doesn't even have to be the target of the mount depending on the wording of the readied action.
The mount cannot actually declare a charge unless it can end its movement adjacent to the target(assuming 5ft mount reach). And yes, the mount taking an attack is optional. I can't see myself allowing my pouncing tiger to make natural attacks against an ooze.
It's not spring attack because they are two different characters working together. Spring attack is only if one character attacks and moves. Plus Spring Attack is its own full round action that cannot be combined with a charge.
deadboy, your take is contradicted by the mounted charge FAQ quoted at the top of the thread. Both are using the charge action.
No, "Both charge in unison," does not mean both take a charge ACTION. It means that both are a part of a charge. But only the mount is taking the charge ACTION.
No, "Both charge in unison," does not mean both take a charge ACTION. It means that both are a part of a charge. But only the mount is taking the charge ACTION.
You can't charge without taking the charge action. If that is not true then show a rules quote saying so. Otherwise taking the charging is taking the charge action.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
deadboy,
Did you read the entire FAQ? The entire question it is asking is who is charging. It states that both are charging.
This was to shut down the very loophole that you are still trying to claim.
People were claiming that the mount can charge while the rider does not and thus the rider can still perform other actions while benefiting from the charge.
The above posted FAQ shut this down.
Really, you are quite late to this one, as it was already asked, answered, and the dead horse beaten to death again.
You actually cannot take simultaneous actions with another character such as rider/mounts. One would have to wait till the other is done with their action to be able to take their own. There is no precedence in Pathfinder that two entities can act simultaneously.
But with the interpretation that the rider is "along for the ride" as a part of the charge it actually works mechanically.
You actually cannot take simultaneous actions with another character such as rider/mounts. One would have to wait till the other is done with their action to be able to take their own. There is no precedence in Pathfinder that two entities can act simultaneously.
But with the interpretation that the rider is "along for the ride" as a part of the charge it actually works mechanically.
The FAQ says they can so they can. Look at it as a rules exception.
FAQ > deadboy
Now if you feel as if the FAQ is in error or that it should be stated as a specific rules exception then start a new FAQ, but the question is:
"When making a charge while mounted, which creature charges? The rider or the mount?"
The answer is :
Both charge in unison, suffer the same penalty to AC, the gaining the same bonus to the attack rolls and following all other rules for the charge. The mounted combat rules are a little unclear on this. Replace the third paragraph under the "Combat while Mounted" section on page 202 with the following text. Note that a "mounted charge" is synonymous with a "charge while mounted," and that when a lance is "when used from the back of a charging mount" it is during a mounted charge not when only the mount charges.
A mounted charge is a charge made by you and your mount........
That is a copy and paste from the FAQ.
Reading that last line tell me who is not charging?
Deadboy, It actually works better if you treat them both as charging but as a single unit...
deadboy, again, you are re-hashing something that was already debated ad nauseam.
Those who wanted to be able to perform your own action at the end of the mounted charge (your position) hated the FAQ because it prevented that option. They understood that it meant the rider is using a charge action.
They argued against the FAQ because they felt the rules had been changed for the worse.
But I don't remember any of them (and there were many) stating that the FAQ works the way you say it does.
Before arguing this, I suggest searching out those threads (about a year old now) and reading them.
I couldn't find the threads you are talking about, if you can toss a link or more good reads in this thread I will read them. But even re-reading the faq you are copying I don't see how this excludes my interpretation.
Deadboy, It actually works better if you treat them both as charging but as a single unit...
I don't think it works better. If I give Bob the Barbarian(played by Steve the salesman) a enlarge person potion and an exotic saddle. I can mount my barbarian friend but I cannot make him charge. It makes no difference if you do it with a PC or an NPC. It works better if you treat you mount as its own entity.
Mind you, I am not saying there isn't room for abuse of the rule. I just don't see them. I just have a hard time believing that I can attack with a lance during a mounted charge and my mount then cannot do an overrun/trample/pounce etc.
Mind you, I am not saying there isn't room for abuse of the rule. I just don't see them. I just have a hard time believing that I can attack with a lance during a mounted charge and my mount then cannot do an overrun/trample/pounce etc.
Who said the mount could not pounce?
I am not saying it was not said. I am saying if so I did not see it. It seems legal to me since pounce happens on a charge anyway. Well I guess I see the argument for it, but I don't think it is the intent for a mount to not be able to pounce/etc.
Mind you, I am not saying there isn't room for abuse of the rule. I just don't see them. I just have a hard time believing that I can attack with a lance during a mounted charge and my mount then cannot do an overrun/trample/pounce etc.Who said the mount could not pounce?
I am not saying it was not said. I am saying if so I did not see it. It seems legal to me since pounce happens on a charge anyway. Well I guess I see the argument for it, but I don't think it is the intent for a mount to not be able to pounce/etc.
Right but by your proposed charge rules my mount HAS to stop at my lance range. Which I do not agree with.
Right but by your proposed charge rules my mount HAS to stop at my lance range. Which I do not agree with.Mind you, I am not saying there isn't room for abuse of the rule. I just don't see them. I just have a hard time believing that I can attack with a lance during a mounted charge and my mount then cannot do an overrun/trample/pounce etc.Who said the mount could not pounce?
I am not saying it was not said. I am saying if so I did not see it. It seems legal to me since pounce happens on a charge anyway. Well I guess I see the argument for it, but I don't think it is the intent for a mount to not be able to pounce/etc.
I never said treat them as one unit. I said they both charge at the same time. The mounted character attacks. The mount has not made an attack so he should still be able to move. Unless a feat like ride-by-attack is in play the mounted character just becomes a rider at this point.
In this way they both charge at the same time, keeping in line with the FAQ, but each one still gets the full benefits of the charge.
Another issue with saying they are one unit would be if something happens to the mounted character, it would stop the mount also even when it would not make sense such as the mounted character being hit with a hold person spell.
|
Right but by your proposed charge rules my mount HAS to stop at my lance range. Which I do not agree with.Mind you, I am not saying there isn't room for abuse of the rule. I just don't see them. I just have a hard time believing that I can attack with a lance during a mounted charge and my mount then cannot do an overrun/trample/pounce etc.Who said the mount could not pounce?
I am not saying it was not said. I am saying if so I did not see it. It seems legal to me since pounce happens on a charge anyway. Well I guess I see the argument for it, but I don't think it is the intent for a mount to not be able to pounce/etc.
If you have Ride-By Attack, you may continue the charge another 5ft, after your lance attack, and have your mount make its attack.
But after that occurs, your round is pretty much spent.
Also, yes, I can confirm you are rehashing the same arguments that spawned this FAQ in the first place.
I don't think anyone wants it reversed again.
I don't think it works better. If I give Bob the Barbarian(played by Steve the salesman) a enlarge person potion and an exotic saddle. I can mount my barbarian friend but I cannot make him charge. It makes no difference if you do it with a PC or an NPC. It works better if you treat you mount as its own entity.
I think that's mostly because it's a silly, contrived situation and not a real rider-mount relationship.
Also, yes, I can confirm you are rehashing the same arguments that spawned this FAQ in the first place.
I don't think anyone wants it reversed again.
I still haven't seen anyone link the cited document. I will read it if I can find it. I see both sides of the argument. I am not yet swayed with the quoted text as it does not implicitly state that the rider has to take a charge action. Everything that I read says the rider is a part of the charge getting the pluses and negatives and other charge requirements but doesn't say his action also has to be charge.
Ride by attack is an interesting argument for this. I have read the Ride-by-attack form post. But I don't see how it would be required for my mount to get his attacks in.
Hello I am a forum post about Ride-by-attacks.
For reference.
I never said treat them as one unit. I said they both charge at the same time. The mounted character attacks. The mount has not made an attack so he should still be able to move. Unless a feat like ride-by-attack is in play the mounted character just becomes a rider at this point.In this way they both charge at the same time, keeping in line with the FAQ, but each one still gets the full benefits of the charge.
Another issue with saying they are one unit would be if something happens to the mounted character, it would stop the mount also even when it would not make sense such as the mounted character being hit with a hold person spell.
I am pretty much 100% on board with you on this. Also if a mounted character gets hit with a hold person spell the DM then takes control of the mount as the rider cannot unless in some sort of telepathic connection with the mount.
Also, yes, I can confirm you are rehashing the same arguments that spawned this FAQ in the first place.
I don't think anyone wants it reversed again.
I still haven't seen anyone link the cited document. I will read it if I can find it. I see both sides of the argument. I am not yet swayed with the quoted text as it does not implicitly state that the rider has to take a charge action. Everything that I read says the rider is a part of the charge getting the pluses and negatives and other charge requirements but doesn't say his action also has to be charge.
Ride by attack is an interesting argument for this. I have read the Ride-by-attack form post. But I don't see how it would be required for my mount to get his attacks in.
Hello I am a forum post about Ride-by-attacks.
For reference.
As I said the FAQ disagrees with you, and you never proposed a counter.
Here is the link--> Click me