| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
After looking very specifically at the Charge rules. It seems to me that a PC could absolutely be considered to be charging themselves, from the back of a mount.
Reason? None of the language says that the PC actually needs to use their own limbs to enact the required movement. It just simply says
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.
If you don't have line of sight to the opponent at the start of your turn, you can't charge that opponent.
You can't take a 5-foot step in the same round as a charge.
All of these requirements can be met from the back of a mount. I can make sure that the mount moves according to the requirements (at least 10 feet but no more than double my base movement) for "me" to have fulfilled the charge action. Did my character just move in a direct line more than 10 feet, without obstruction, to the closest space from which I can attack? Yup. At which point, the character charged while on the back of a mount, but the mount itself did not use a charge action. It simply moved in such a way as to help me fulfill the requirements of a charge.
One of the reasons this works is because a "charge" makes no obligation for the character to move at a certain speed. There's no speed (meaning how quickly I went 10 feet, or double my movement) built into the movement rules. I either did, or did not move 10 feet, etc.
How's that for a loophole?
The key is under the mounted combat.
"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)."
So no, you do not charge when on a mount. Your mount charges, and you happen to get the benefits and downsides of having made a charge. Since the mount charges, and taking your attack is only a standard action, you can still use your move action to retrieve an item or whatever you wanted.
So yes, your horse can use a full-round action to charge, move 2x its speed, make a single attack, and then you can as a standard action also make an attack getting the +2 for charging. (Or double damage if you used a lance).
This is better than the PC charging, as the PC only has to spend the standard action at the end of the mounts charge.
No, no. See, the mount didn't charge. The PC charged, the mount just moved. In order for the mount to charge I have to declare that the mount is using the charge action. If I want the PC to charge I say the PC is using the charge action. Which is perfectly viable by the rules. As long as the PC fulfills the requirements of the charge. He or she charged. If I declare that my mount is moving say, 30 feet, and that the PC is using the charge action, that is completely reasonable, given the language above.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mounted combat is an ambiguity, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma. Pointing out weird inconsistencies with it is almost too easy.
Mounted combat is an ambiguity, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma. Pointing out weird inconsistencies with it is almost too easy.
Almost... :)
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
No, no. See, the mount didn't charge. The PC charged, the mount just moved. In order for the mount to charge I have to declare that the mount is using the charge action. If I want the PC to charge I say the PC is using the charge action. Which is perfectly viable by the rules. As long as the PC fulfills the requirements of the charge. He or she charged. If I declare that my mount is moving say, 30 feet, and that the PC is using the charge action, that is completely reasonable, given the language above.
This is where you are confusing yourself because it doesn't work that way. The moment you get on a mount for combat purposes the rules change and move over to the mounted combat rules. When you are riding a mount and declare a charge you don't get to decide who does the actual charging. The mount is the one that is doing the actual charging but it still uses up your charge action. You don't get to declare that you still have a charge action that you would like to use since the horse was the one that did the charging. The does the actual charge while you get some bonuses, get to use a few feats, and you get some minuses.
I'd have to disagree with you because the mounted combat rules say:
If your mount charges, you also take the AC penalty associated with a charge.
A horse can move 30 feet and not have it be a charge. In fact in order for a horse to "charge" they would have to "move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent." A horse has 5ft of reach, but a man with a lance has a reach of 10ft. So if the man is to "charge" he'd have to end his movement ten feet away from the opponent.
Besides the fact that, in some circumstances, a mounted PC might not want their horse to take the AC penalty associated with a charge.
A charge is a specific action declared by the player. Many is the time a PC has moved 10 feet and not had it be a charge. Why, then, couldn't a horse move 10 feet, and have it not be a charge, while the rider of that horse declares that he is charging?
It's a confusing area, rife with flamewars. Pretty much anyway you rule things, it's going to break some other set of rules (similar to the Monk's FoB clarification last week).
Some assert that during a mounted charge, the mount must make an attack. Others say that you can you can make mounted charges where the mount doesn't attack.
|
|
I'd have to disagree with you because the mounted combat rules say:
If your mount charges, you also take the AC penalty associated with a charge.A horse can move 30 feet and not have it be a charge. In fact in order for a horse to "charge" they would have to "move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent." A horse has 5ft of reach, but a man with a lance has a reach of 10ft. So if the man is to "charge" he'd have to end his movement ten feet away from the opponent.
Besides the fact that, in some circumstances, a mounted PC might not want their horse to take the AC penalty associated with a charge.
A charge is a specific action declared by the player. Many is the time a PC has moved 10 feet and not had it be a charge. Why, then, couldn't a horse move 10 feet, and have it not be a charge, while the rider of that horse declares that he is charging?
Because charging is a special full round action. You can't separate your actions like that. You and your horse are working together, you are not considered to be two separate players acting on two different sets of actions who are going at the same time.
Because charging is a special full round action. You can't separate your actions like that. You and your horse are working together, you are not considered to be two separate players acting on two different sets of actions who are going at the same time.
Could you point me to the rule that says the PC and the mount suddenly become one entity? Did we suddenly become a centaur for the purposes of the mechanics? If the mount dies, does the PC die? If the horse attacks, does it use my standard action?
|
|
Combat while Mounted: With a DC 5 Ride check, you can
guide your mount with your knees so as to use both hands to
attack or defend yourself. This is a free action.
When you attack a creature smaller than your mount that
is on foot, you get the +1 bonus on melee attacks for being on
higher ground. If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you
can only make a single melee attack. Essentially, you have to
wait until the mount gets to your enemy before attacking, so
you can’t make a full attack. Even at your mount’s full speed,
you don’t take any penalty on melee attacks while mounted.
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 can use ranged weapons while your mount is taking a
double move, but at a –4 penalty on the attack roll. You can
use ranged weapons while your mount is running (quadruple
speed) at a –8 penalty. In either case, you make the attack roll
when your mount has completed half its movement. You can
make a full attack with a ranged weapon while your mount is
moving. Likewise, you can take move actions normally.
All right here!
This doesn't work because while you are mounted you are in every square the mount occupies. You thus cannot move from the back square of the mount to the front square of the mount because you're already there.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
You and your mount have separate actions. I have seen no rules that say that you and your mount share the same set of actions.
I don't see anything in there that precludes me from charging. The attack at the end of a charge, is a single attack.
So what if a Cavalier is riding a Centaur?
Assuming they delay to act at the same time, do they both get to charge?
Can the Cavalier use a ride check if the Centaur is attacked?
Could the Centaur charge and then the Cavalier Full-Attack?
|
|
Mounts in Combat: Horses, ponies, and riding dogs
can serve readily as combat steeds. Mounts that do not
possess combat training (see the Handle Animal skill)
are frightened by combat. If you don’t dismount, you must
make a DC 20 Ride check each round as a move action
to control such a mount. If you succeed, you can perform
a standard action after the move action. If you fail, the
move action becomes a full-round action, and you can’t do
anything else until your next turn.
Your mount acts on your initiative count as you direct it.
You move at its speed, but the mount uses its action to move.
You still get a move action that you can use to do things that you can normally do with such an action. If it costs a move action to drink a potion then you can drink a potion.
You don't get two charge actions on your turn.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see anything in there that precludes me from charging. The attack at the end of a charge, is a single attack.
You cannot charge because you do not move. Your mount moves. The charge section says YOU must move. but you didn't move the mount moved. To help you get a charge while mounted the mounted combat section give you the benefits of a charge when your mount charges.
To be clear when we say move we mean using the move action to actually move spaces. Since you are not doing that you cannot charge. The language is unclear because they use move to both mean the character rides along with the mount to a new space and move action.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PF and 3.5 have the same wording so unless someone can prove that the same words have different meaning:
Moving While MountedWhen you and your mount move, the two of you use your mount's speed rating, adjusted for the mount's encumbrance and the terrain. Because your mount takes you along with it when it moves, a move for your mount also counts as a move for you.
In short any type of movement based actions counts for both creatures for the purpose of using up available actions. If not then the mount could move across the battlefield, you could dismount as a free action(fast dismount), and then get a full round attack in since you would not have used any of your actions up.
PF and 3.5 have the same wording so unless someone can prove that the same words have different meaning:
Moving While MountedWhen you and your mount move, the two of you use your mount's speed rating, adjusted for the mount's encumbrance and the terrain. Because your mount takes you along with it when it moves, a move for your mount also counts as a move for you.
In short any type of movement based actions counts for both creatures for the purpose of using up available actions. If not then the mount could move across the battlefield, you could dismount as a free action(fast dismount), and then get a full round attack in since you would not have used any of your actions up.
That would also mean that this is relevant as well, would it not?
Charge: Performing a mounted charge works just like performing a charge on foot. You use your mount's speed rating. Remember that no creature can charge through an obstacle, another creature, or terrain that hampers movement. Due to its larger size, your mount might be unable to charge in a location where you could if on foot (see page 148 in the Player's Handbook).
If you're armed with a lance, you deal double damage when you perform a mounted charge.
That is, of course, from the area explaining full-round actions that the player can take.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find it hilarious that some people think that your mount is the one charging, meaning it has to make an attack at the end of the charge. And then presumably you take your standard action to attack after the mount has finished its movement and attack.
That's so, so far away from the very thing it's meant to model that it should really make you stop and think for a second.
PF and 3.5 have the same wording so unless someone can prove that the same words have different meaning:
Moving While MountedWhen you and your mount move, the two of you use your mount's speed rating, adjusted for the mount's encumbrance and the terrain. Because your mount takes you along with it when it moves, a move for your mount also counts as a move for you.
In short any type of movement based actions counts for both creatures for the purpose of using up available actions. If not then the mount could move across the battlefield, you could dismount as a free action(fast dismount), and then get a full round attack in since you would not have used any of your actions up.
That would also mean that this is relevant as well, would it not?
That is, of course, from the area explaining full-round actions that the player can take.Charge: Performing a mounted charge works just like performing a charge on foot. You use your mount's speed rating. Remember that no creature can charge through an obstacle, another creature, or terrain that hampers movement. Due to its larger size, your mount might be unable to charge in a location where you could if on foot (see page 148 in the Player's Handbook).
If you're armed with a lance, you deal double damage when you perform a mounted charge.
It makes sense to me. The creature is taking care of the movement part of the charge for you, and you get the bonus to attack.
I don't see why the PC couldn't use his full-round action to make a charge, directing the mount to use its move action to meet the requirements of movement. The result would be the PC takes the AC/ATK penalty/bonus and the mount would use up its movement. The mount could still take its standard action attack at the end of the movement (without the charging bonus, or the ac penalty). This does fit in the rules.
The difference is minimal, the mount doesn't get the charge bonus to ATK or the AC penalty, but the PC loses his move action.
I don't see why the PC couldn't use his full-round action to make a charge, directing the mount to use its move action to meet the requirements of movement. The result would be the PC takes the AC/ATK penalty/bonus and the mount would use up its movement. The mount could still take its standard action attack at the end of the movement (without the charging bonus, or the ac penalty). This does fit in the rules.
The difference is minimal, the mount doesn't get the charge bonus to ATK or the AC penalty, but the PC loses his move action.
That's what I'm saying. Especially if a "move for the mount is a move for [the PC]." If a move = movement then the PC has fulfilled the requirements of a charge. When a PC "moves" across the grid map, whether under their own volition or not, they have moved. Even if the PC were riding on a palanquin, if they moved the requisite number of feet and fulfilled all the other requirements of a charge, they could use the charge action.
I can't actually see why it matters. It appears to me that you've noticed a semantic oddity and are hanging a (relatively trivial) rule interpretation from it. Just ask the GM you're currently playing with to rule on it if it does actually matter. And don't expect a legalistic interpretation of where the emphasis in the sentence to be to hold much water. For the record, I would probably fall into the 'horse and rider are one' camp and slap you with your character sheet for being silly.
Semantic oddities are my specialty. ;)
I think SKR might disagree with you.
One, because a lance only deals extra damage when you’re riding a charging mount—not when you are charging.
This would seem to make it pretty clear that "I'm" not charging when I'm on a charging horse, the horse is. Which should mean the reverse could also be true. "I" could charge while the horse isn't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is why mounted charge and pounce from horseback needs a FAQ attack.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think SKR might disagree with you.
One, because a lance only deals extra damage when you’re riding a charging mount—not when you are charging.This would seem to make it pretty clear that "I'm" not charging when I'm on a charging horse, the horse is. Which should mean the reverse could also be true. "I" could charge while the horse isn't.
What SKR means is that a lance doesn't deal the extra damage when you charge WITHOUT a mount; in no way did SKR imply that the charging mount is separate from it's rider in making a charge. A mounted charge is a charge action for both mount and rider. This semantic game you're playing with this rule is unbecoming.
Finding loopholes like this and implying or insisting that Paizo add additional lines of text to clarify what should be common sense is bad form, sir.
I think SKR might disagree with you.
One, because a lance only deals extra damage when you’re riding a charging mount—not when you are charging.This would seem to make it pretty clear that "I'm" not charging when I'm on a charging horse, the horse is. Which should mean the reverse could also be true. "I" could charge while the horse isn't.What SKR means is that a lance doesn't deal the extra damage when you charge WITHOUT a mount; in no way did SKR imply that the charging mount is separate from it's rider in making a charge. A mounted charge is a charge action for both mount and rider. This semantic game you're playing with this rule is unbecoming.
Finding loopholes like this and implying or insisting that Paizo add additional lines of text to clarify what should be common sense is bad form, sir.
Your opinion about my conduct is duly noted.
Can no one conceive of a time where a mounted character might want to gain the benefit of a charge, but not have their mount suffer the AC penalty?
The only reason I'm making the distinction, is because the distinction can be made. Semantic or not, it seems to me that a character could fulfill the requirements of a charge from horseback, and not have their mount partaking of said charge.
There is language that makes the distinction already, like
You move at its speed, but the mount uses its action to move... 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.
These two seem to make it pretty clear that the actions of the mount are separate from the rider. If that's true, what I propose in the original post, bad form or not, is feasible.
Its pretty clear that the mount charges and its movement becomes your movement.
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
On a mounted charge especially with a lance, you're the one making the charge attack, both you and the mount take the associated AC penalties, both you and the mount use up the full turn. There's no extra action left over for either to take.
Actually, that is not true. Your mount is charging (and uses its full action to do so), but you do not lose any action for it. If you want to benefit from the charge bonus (say by hitting with a lance), you do it by taking the "single melee attack" you are entitled to, which is a standard action.
However, you might be an archer and full-attack with your bow while your mount charges an opponent. Nothing in the RAW prevents this.
Amusingly, the line about "If the mount charges... " most likely y means that "IF the mount charges and you do not", just to clarify that you can't cheese. You know, maybe you fail your check to control your dire puppy and he goes charging after a day bunny.
But, as I said earlier, it's abundantly clear how this works if you think about what it's meant to model. Cavalry charges didn't involve horses biting, and at most it was occasionally a trample.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Given that this is a silly thread anyway, let's examine the wording:
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 or having a horse/saddle stuck between your legs). You must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent. If this space is occupied or otherwise blocked(by the horse), 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/allied horse), you can't charge. Helpless creatures don't stop a charge.
If you don't have line of sight to the opponent at the start of your turn, you can't charge that opponent.
You can't take a 5-foot step in the same round as a charge.
Not to mention: ...you must have a clear path toward the opponent... I imagine a horses head denies you this clear path.
Let's get even more ridiculous:The clothes you wear deny you a clear path.
Want more?
You're running (naked?) through a space that contains some air; this air will slow you down. It's called 'drag'. You can't charge.
Oh brother.
Where art thou?
@Macfetus: If having a horse/saddle between my legs prevents charging at all, then there are a lot of feats and class abilities that are null and void.
Also,