Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

PaizoCon 2014!

Bride of the FAQ Attack!

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

She’s ready to pounce!

If I have the pounce ability and I charge with a lance, do my iterative lance attacks get the extra damage multiplier from charging?

No, for two reasons.

One, because a lance only deals extra damage when you’re riding a charging mount—not when you are charging.

Two, even if you have an unusual combination of rules that allows you to ignore the above limitation, it doesn’t makes sense that those iterative attacks gain the damage bonus. To make that second attack, you have to pull the lance back and stab forward again, and that stab doesn’t have the benefit of the charge’s momentum. (The Core Rulebook doesn’t state that you only get the damage multiplier on the first attack with a lance because there is no rule in the Core Rulebook that allows a PC to charge and take multiple attacks with a weapon, so that combination didn’t need to be addressed.)

If I drink a potion, do I automatically forgo my save against that potion?

No. Nothing in the potion rules says it changes whether or not you get a saving throw against the spell stored in the potion. Even if someone hands you a potion of poison and tells you it’s a potion of cure serious wounds, you still get a save.

Does the dodge bonus from the “offensive defensive” rogue talent (Advanced Player’s Guide, page 131) stack with itself? Does it apply to everyone, or just to the target I’m attacking?

There are two issues relating to this rogue talent.

One, in the first printing it provided a +1 circumstance bonus against the attacked target, which was a very weak ability. The second printing update changed it from a circumstance bonus to a dodge bonus, but accidentally omitted the “against that creature” text, which made it a very strong ability.

Two, it doesn’t specify whether the dodge bonus stacks with itself, and because this creates a strange place in the rules where bonuses don’t stack from the same source but dodge bonuses always stack. While we haven’t reached a final decision on what to do about this talent, we are leaning toward this solution: the dodge bonus only applies against the creature you sneak attacked, and the dodge bonus does not stack with itself. This prevents you from getting a dodge bonus to AC against a strong creature by sneak attacking a weak creature, and prevents you from reaching an absurdly high AC by sneak attacking multiple times in the same round.

Sean K Reynolds
Designer

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Frequently Asked Questions Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
151 to 200 of 229 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

One, because a lance only deals extra damage when you’re riding a charging mount—not when you are charging.

I just wanted to point this out again.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
shallowsoul wrote:

One, because a lance only deals extra damage when you’re riding a charging mount—not when you are charging.

I just wanted to point this out again.

Okay this might need an FAQ then because that seems to directly contradict the language in Mounted Combat that says, emphasis mine:
d20pfsrd.com-Mounted Combat wrote:
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).

To close out the section on getting the benefits of charge from a charging mount by saying: "When charging on horseback," seems to diametrically oppose: "when you're riding a charging mount-not when you are charging."


Thank you MendedWall12. Hopefully that is enough to explain why people are asking for clarification of the rules. It will help with consistency with other charging actions.


I thought shallowsoul's distinction was to point out you get the bonus lance damage only when charging while on a mount, not when just simply charging (like on foot).


Dal, the problem is the way it's worded, you can't actually charge on a mount. Either you can charge or your mount can charge.

I agree with the ruling that you can't pounce with a lance. I also think that it would be better if there was some clarification on how charging works. While it is fine for my games, how would it work in PFS? What if I join another game and I want my mounted fighter to work one way but that GM interprets charge a different way?

Currently the ruling makes several feats and class abilities no longer function as written. I think that most of the people arguing this same point aren't going to have a problem in their own games and already know how they will handle it. That doesn't change the fact that the ruling impacts more than just pouncing with a lance or two.


Bob_Loblaw wrote:

Dal, the problem is the way it's worded, you can't actually charge on a mount. Either you can charge or your mount can charge.

I agree with the ruling that you can't pounce with a lance. I also think that it would be better if there was some clarification on how charging works. While it is fine for my games, how would it work in PFS? What if I join another game and I want my mounted fighter to work one way but that GM interprets charge a different way?

Currently the ruling makes several feats and class abilities no longer function as written. I think that most of the people arguing this same point aren't going to have a problem in their own games and already know how they will handle it. That doesn't change the fact that the ruling impacts more than just pouncing with a lance or two.

Which feats and class abilities no longer function as written?


My understanding: "Charging while mounted" = "Riding a charging mount"
They're the same thing. I get that the wording is a sticky wicket, but that's my understanding regardless.

And to clarify, you CAN pounce with a lance (you can pounce with any manufactured weapon), but you'll only get the extra damage from a lance on the first attack of a mounted charge. Yes?


Dal Selpher wrote:

My understanding: "Charging while mounted" = "Riding a charging mount"

They're the same thing. I get that the wording is a sticky wicket, but that's my understanding regardless.

And to clarify, you CAN pounce with a lance (you can pounce with any manufactured weapon), but you'll only get the extra damage from a lance on the first attack of a mounted charge. Yes?

Therein lies the turmoil. "Charging while mounted" is not the same thing as "riding a charging mount" (and gaining the benefits of that mount's charge action). So getting the extra damage from a lance is fine, as that is specifically addressed. However, pouncing from the back of a charging mount is not so clear, because, technically, you are not charging, the mount is. It just so happens that if you are making an attack at the end of the charge you gain the bonus to hit. Again, technically though, you the mounted PC are not charging. This would preclude a Pounce at all, because a Pounce requires that you actually be the person taking the movement and fulfilling the requirements of the charge.


MendedWall12 wrote:
Dal Selpher wrote:

My understanding: "Charging while mounted" = "Riding a charging mount"

They're the same thing. I get that the wording is a sticky wicket, but that's my understanding regardless.

And to clarify, you CAN pounce with a lance (you can pounce with any manufactured weapon), but you'll only get the extra damage from a lance on the first attack of a mounted charge. Yes?

Therein lies the turmoil. "Charging while mounted" is not the same thing as "riding a charging mount" (and gaining the benefits of that mount's charge action). So getting the extra damage from a lance is fine, as that is specifically addressed. However, pouncing from the back of a charging mount is not so clear, because, technically, you are not charging, the mount is. It just so happens that if you are making an attack at the end of the charge you gain the bonus to hit. Again, technically though, you the mounted PC are not charging. This would preclude a Pounce at all, because a Pounce requires that you actually be the person taking the movement and fulfilling the requirements of the charge.

while I agree with you 100%, the other side will say spirited charge can't work with this wording(absurd) and that the wording of spirited charge trumps the mounted combat explanation(don't buy it).


Diego Rossi wrote:
Multiple attacks, even when using TWF are sequential, not simultaneous. You spend the mounted charge momentum with the first attack.

I guess I am uneasy with a ruling that implies you only get charge bonuses on one attack if you pounce. I've never denied a pouncing dire tiger the +2 bonus on every attack, and I don't particularly see why a lance should be different if the lance-wielder has some way to make more than one attack. Or why the barbarian with pounce and a greatsword shouldn't get his +2 when he pounces on a pair of guards and cleaves through them both in a mighty swing (rules-wise, making an iterative attack against #2)... you get the idea?

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

@Coriat

I think you have missed the comment at which that reply was aimed:

Diego Rossi wrote:
Stynkk wrote:


Wouldn't your mount still have mount-mentum?! Why not just dual wield lances on a horse? TWF!

Multiple attacks, even when using TWF are sequential, not simultaneous. You spend the mounted charge momentum with the first attack.

What I meant was that you will not get the multiple damage bonus with both lances because your attacks aren't simultaneous (not that I will let anyone use 2 lances at the same time at my table).

I dislike the concept of pouncing with manufactured weapons and iterative attacks so you can guess what I think of this whole discussion.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Just bumping this to see if I perhaps missed a resolution to the: PC is or is not actually considered to be charging whilst they are on the back of a charging mount, question. Was there ever a ruling that updates this?


SKR made a ruling. The argument was that his ruling was not supported by the RAW. His intent was clear.

While on horseback you are treated as though you are charging if your mount charges is basically what he said.


wraithstrike wrote:

SKR made a ruling. The argument was that his ruling was not supported by the RAW. His intent was clear.

While on horseback you are treated as though you are charging if your mount charges is basically what he said.

Could you point me to that particular post? Thanks.


Let me rephrase that. You are considered to be charging for the purpose of activating the mounted feats, but you are not charging.

It is actually at the top of this FAQ.

Quote:

If I have the pounce ability and I charge with a lance, do my iterative lance attacks get the extra damage multiplier from charging?

No, for two reasons.

One, because a lance only deals extra damage when you’re riding a charging mount—not when you are charging.

Two, even if you have an unusual combination of rules that allows you to ignore the above limitation, it doesn’t makes sense that those iterative attacks gain the damage bonus. To make that second attack, you have to pull the lance back and stab forward again, and that stab doesn’t have the benefit of the charge’s momentum. (The Core Rulebook doesn’t state that you only get the damage multiplier on the first attack with a lance because there is no rule in the Core Rulebook that allows a PC to charge and take multiple attacks with a weapon, so that combination didn’t need to be addressed.)

The bolded area means that charging and riding a charging mount are not the same by RAI.


Right, which is exactly my question then, especially because of things like Pounce. If my PC wants to Pounce, can they do that from the back of a charging mount. I don't think that question has ever been answered. The rules of Pounce say the PC must be charging. SKR's post in this blog seems to specifically and purposefully say that the PC is not actually charging when they ride on a charging mount, though, they still benefit from the mount's charge for the purposes of doing extra lance damage.

Silver Crusade

MendedWall12 wrote:
Right, which is exactly my question then, especially because of things like Pounce. If my PC wants to Pounce, can they do that from the back of a charging mount. I don't think that question has ever been answered. The rules of Pounce say the PC must be charging. SKR's post in this blog seems to specifically and purposefully say that the PC is not actually charging when they ride on a charging mount, though, they still benefit from the mount's charge for the purposes of doing extra lance damage.

I think the biggest mistake people are making is comparing a rage ability to a feat.

If you are riding a dire tiger, who has charge, should you get to get a full attack even though it's the tiger that has Pounce?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think saying "charging" and "charging on a mount" are different things can be somewhat misleading.

It would be better to say that "charging on a mount" IS "charging," but "charging" isn't "charging on a mount." Kind of like how every motorcycle is a vehicle, but not every vehicle is a motorcycle.

Going off that interpretation, do the RAW rules begin to mesh up with the RAI?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

If you are still taking votes for offensive defense i say keep it against all the opponents and not just the one you sneak attacked.


I hear you Ravingdork, but I think the wording having to be interpreted like that makes it less than ideal for precise-ness.

This post by Bob_Loblaw explains what I mean.

Bob_Loblaw wrote:

Dal, the problem is the way it's worded, you can't actually charge on a mount. Either you can charge or your mount can charge.

I agree with the ruling that you can't pounce with a lance. I also think that it would be better if there was some clarification on how charging works. While it is fine for my games, how would it work in PFS? What if I join another game and I want my mounted fighter to work one way but that GM interprets charge a different way?

Currently the ruling makes several feats and class abilities no longer function as written. I think that most of the people arguing this same point aren't going to have a problem in their own games and already know how they will handle it. That doesn't change the fact that the ruling impacts more than just pouncing with a lance or two.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

Actually what Sean said is pretty obvious, and it only leaves one question open:

1. No, you can’t charge on foot with a Lance and get double damage.

2. If you do charge on a mount, yes, you do get double damage with a lance, but only on your main, not iterative attacks. This was a new ruling, but since in general you couldn’t charge and get iterative attacks, it wasn’t all that new.

3. He didn’t say so, but yes, when the mount charges both you and the mount are charging. It’s right there is the rules under Mounted Combat.

4. The only question left unresolved is mixing Pounce and Mounted Combat. However, the rules here are also seem clear “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”. Now, I guess if your Mount has pounce, the Mount gets a FAO at the end of the charge but you don’t. From what I can see, as long as you are on a Mount, your own ability to pounce does you no good.

People have jumped all over Sean as they really want to do range-lance-pounce. This was always a strained reading, and now it’s solidly a “NO”.

Silver Crusade

DrDeth wrote:


3. He didn’t say so, but yes, when the mount charges both you and the mount are charging. It’s right there is the rules under Mounted Combat.

No it's not in the mounted combat rules, go back and read them again. Your mount is the one that is charging but you still gain the bonus and the minus from the charge. It doesn't say anywhere that "the person on the mount" is considered to be charging.

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
DrDeth wrote:


People have jumped all over Sean as they really want to do range-lance-pounce. This was always a strained reading, and now it’s solidly a “NO”.

Actually it is not a solid no. The validity of it was not touched in the slightest. What people would like is a solid yes or no, but they haven't chosen to give it yet.


It doesn’t have to. Ok, first of all, you do get double damage with a lance (just as if you are charging) Next you also (as you said) get the + & -‘s just as if you charging. Lastly, as the rules say, “If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only make a single melee attack.” So you only get one attack, just as if you are charging. (all this is while mounted)

Thusly, you are, for all intents and purposes- charging, and so is your mount.

The only thing that can interfere with the obvious RAW & RAI here is Pounce. Otherwise both the RAI & RAW are very clear.

It’s just that some folks are trying to get a FAO while mounted with Pounce, and thus are trying to push a strained interpretation of “Charging” so they can do so. You can’t Pounce while mounted.


Perhaps, to make it more clear, my question is in regards to a seeming discrepancy presented by these items.

SKR wrote:
... you’re riding a charging mount—not when you are charging.

This seems to purposefully intend that riding a charging mount does not equal the PC charging.

If this is true, and I have a Cavalier with 5 ranks in the Ride skill, he can guide his mount with his knees, leaving both hands free to attack, and also (still via the Ride skill) as a free action

pfsrd-ride skill--fight with a combat trained mount wrote:
direct your war-trained mount to attack in battle, you can still make your own attack or attacks normally. This usage is a free action.

It's important to know if the mounted PC is considered to be actually charging or not.

If the PC isn't charging they could make a full attack action at the end of the mount's charge. So a Cavalier of high enough BAB could direct their mount to charge (as a free action), attack with their lance getting x2 damage on the first attack, and then attack again with the lance (now obviously that second attack wouldn't get the x2 because, as the blog shows you have to pull it back and attack again) as part of a Full-Attack action.

In addition, since the mount actually did the charging the mount gets to make that single melee attack as part of their charge.

So in the end the Cavalier's mount charged, and took a single attack as part of the action, and the Cavalier get's to make a full attack dealing x2 damage on the first of the two attacks. IF, that is, the mount is the only entity considered to be actually charging in the sequence.

Charge also says

d20pfsrd.com-Attacking on a Charge wrote:
Even if you have extra attacks, such as from having a high enough base attack bonus or from using multiple weapons, you only get to make one attack during a charge.

Which is why I think it's important to decipher is the Cavalier considered to be charging or are they just benefiting from being on the back of a charging mount? The separation between the two becomes rather important for the purposes of some of the mechanics.

Edit:

Quote:
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.

Good point.

Silver Crusade

DrDeth wrote:

It doesn’t have to. Ok, first of all, you do get double damage with a lance (just as if you are charging) Next you also (as you said) get the + & -‘s just as if you charging. Lastly, as the rules say, “If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only make a single melee attack.” So you only get one attack, just as if you arte charging.

Thusly, you are, for all intents and purposes- charging, and so is your mount.

The only thing that can interfere with the obvious RAW & RAI here is Pounce. Otherwise both the RAI & RAW are very clear.

It’s just that some folks are trying to get a FAO while mounted with Pounce, and thus are trying to push a strained interpretation of “Charging” so they can do so. You can’t Pounce while mounted.

The only thing some people are looking for is that wording that says the person on the mount "is" charging because once that is done then they can technically "by the wording" pounce while riding a mount. The "Mounted Combat" rules state the mount is charging but the rider gains some benefits from the charge and some minuses from the charge. Some people are trying their best to interpret that as the person on horse back is charging because he is getting those bonuses and minuses.

You still have to use up your "charge" action in order to do a charge attack while on horseback. If it was worded any other way then people would claim they still have a charge attack action they can use because the horse used up his but the PC didn't.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
DrDeth wrote:


People have jumped all over Sean as they really want to do range-lance-pounce. This was always a strained reading, and now it’s solidly a “NO”.
Actually it is not a solid no. The validity of it was not touched in the slightest. What people would like is a solid yes or no, but they haven't chosen to give it yet.

"One, because a lance only deals extra damage when you’re riding a charging mount—not when you are charging."

Thus the only way you could possibly get Range-lance-pounce now is to ride a charging Mount and then “Pounce” yourself. (I think we all agree now that you can’t get double-damage with a lance while on foot, right?) However, “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”. Now yes, Pounce could over-ride the moving more than 5’ portion. But it can’t over-rule the “Essentially, you have to wait until the mount gets to your enemy before attacking, so you can't make a full attack.”

Silver Crusade

MendedWall12 wrote:

Perhaps, to make it more clear, my question is in regards to a seeming discrepancy presented by these items.

SKR wrote:
... you’re riding a charging mount—not when you are charging.

This seems to purposefully intend that riding a charging mount does not equal the PC charging.

If this is true, and I have a Cavalier with 5 ranks in the Ride skill, he can guide his mount with his knees, leaving both hands free to attack, and also (still via the Ride skill) as a free action

pfsrd-ride skill--fight with a combat trained mount wrote:
direct your war-trained mount to attack in battle, you can still make your own attack or attacks normally. This usage is a free action.

It's important to know if the mounted PC is considered to be actually charging or not.

If the PC isn't charging they could make a full attack action at the end of the mount's charge. So a Cavalier of high enough BAB could direct their mount to charge (as a free action), attack with their lance getting x2 damage on the first attack, and then attack again with the lance (now obviously that second attack wouldn't get the x2 because, as the blog shows you have to pull it back and attack again) as part of a Full-Attack action.

In addition, since the mount actually did the charging the mount gets to make that single melee attack as part of their charge.

So in the end the Cavalier's mount charged, and took a single attack as part of the action, and the Cavalier get's to make a full attack dealing x2 damage on the first of the two attacks. IF, that is, the mount is the only entity considered to be actually charging in the sequence.

Charge also says

d20pfsrd.com-Attacking on a Charge wrote:
Even if you have extra attacks, such as from having a high enough base attack bonus or from using multiple weapons, you only get to make one attack during a charge.
Which is why I think it's important to decipher is the...

What the cavalier has done is it has gained an ability that allows a mounted character to do something special. Before now, the Monk was considered special with his fists and didn't have to obey the two-weapon fighting rules, he had his own thing going on. The cavalier is the same thing, you can't look at the cavalier and then try and say other PC classes can do this because the cavalier can.


MendedWall12 wrote:

Perhaps, to make it more clear, my question is in regards to a seeming discrepancy presented by these items.

SKR wrote:
... you’re riding a charging mount—not when you are charging.

This seems to purposefully intend that riding a charging mount does not equal the PC charging.

If this is true, and I have a Cavalier with 5 ranks in the Ride skill, he can guide his mount with his knees, leaving both hands free to attack, and also (still via the Ride skill) as a free action

pfsrd-ride skill--fight with a combat trained mount wrote:
direct your war-trained mount to attack in battle, you can still make your own attack or attacks normally. This usage is a free action.

It's important to know if the mounted PC is considered to be actually charging or not.

If the PC isn't charging they could make a full attack action at the end of the mount's charge. So a Cavalier of high enough BAB could direct their mount to charge (as a free action), attack with their lance getting x2 damage on the first attack, and then attack again with the lance (now obviously that second attack wouldn't get the x2 because, as the blog shows you have to pull it back and attack again) as part of a Full-Attack action.

In addition, since the mount actually did the charging the mount gets to make that single melee attack as part of their charge.

So in the end the Cavalier's mount charged, and took a single attack as part of the action, and the Cavalier get's to make a full attack dealing x2 damage on the first of the two attacks. IF, that is, the mount is the only entity considered to be actually charging in the sequence.

Charge also says

d20pfsrd.com-Attacking on a Charge wrote:
Even if you have extra attacks, such as from having a high enough base attack bonus or from using multiple weapons, you only get to make one attack during a charge.
Which is why I think it's important to decipher is the...

No. Whether or not you are charging makes no difference as “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.”

Yes, there are times when you can get a FAA while mounted- when the Mount moves no more than 5’. So the “attackS” portion is still valid.


@shallowsoul: Good point. Also, the wording of Combat While Mounted that says you only get a single attack if the mount moves more than five feet definitely changes a lot of my assumptions. I guess it's one more example of what assuming does.


shallowsoul wrote:

The only thing some people are looking for is that wording that says the person on the mount "is" charging because once that is done then they can technically "by the wording" pounce while riding a mount. The "Mounted Combat" rules state the mount is charging but the rider gains some benefits from the charge and some minuses from the charge. Some people are trying their best to interpret that as the person on horse back is charging because he is getting those bonuses and minuses.

You still have to use up your "charge" action in order to do a charge attack while on horseback. If it was worded any other way then people would claim they still have a charge attack action they can use because the horse used up his but the PC didn't.

Right. It’s actually very clear, unless you want to strain both RAI & RAW to get Pounce while mounted. Yes, true, if you are “charging” then you could twist RAW into allowing Pounce while Mounted. But the RAI is clear and right now the RAW is clear. The whole “debate’ here is people trying to get a very broken build and “ruling” into a game.


shallowsoul wrote:
DrDeth wrote:

It doesn’t have to. Ok, first of all, you do get double damage with a lance (just as if you are charging) Next you also (as you said) get the + & -‘s just as if you charging. Lastly, as the rules say, “If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only make a single melee attack.” So you only get one attack, just as if you arte charging.

Thusly, you are, for all intents and purposes- charging, and so is your mount.

The only thing that can interfere with the obvious RAW & RAI here is Pounce. Otherwise both the RAI & RAW are very clear.

It’s just that some folks are trying to get a FAO while mounted with Pounce, and thus are trying to push a strained interpretation of “Charging” so they can do so. You can’t Pounce while mounted.

The only thing some people are looking for is that wording that says the person on the mount "is" charging because once that is done then they can technically "by the wording" pounce while riding a mount. The "Mounted Combat" rules state the mount is charging but the rider gains some benefits from the charge and some minuses from the charge. Some people are trying their best to interpret that as the person on horse back is charging because he is getting those bonuses and minuses.

You still have to use up your "charge" action in order to do a charge attack while on horseback. If it was worded any other way then people would claim they still have a charge attack action they can use because the horse used up his but the PC didn't.

I'm also concerned with things like rhino hide armor when combined with mounted skirmisher and two weapon fighting. I'm concerned with certain things, like overrun. I'm concerned with certain classes altogether, like the cavalier.

Anything that requires mounted combat can get confusing with this ruling. How do you know when to consider the mount as charging and when do you consider the rider to be the one charging? I know how I would rule things, but what is the intention of Paizo?

Silver Crusade

Bob_Loblaw wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
DrDeth wrote:

It doesn’t have to. Ok, first of all, you do get double damage with a lance (just as if you are charging) Next you also (as you said) get the + & -‘s just as if you charging. Lastly, as the rules say, “If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only make a single melee attack.” So you only get one attack, just as if you arte charging.

Thusly, you are, for all intents and purposes- charging, and so is your mount.

The only thing that can interfere with the obvious RAW & RAI here is Pounce. Otherwise both the RAI & RAW are very clear.

It’s just that some folks are trying to get a FAO while mounted with Pounce, and thus are trying to push a strained interpretation of “Charging” so they can do so. You can’t Pounce while mounted.

The only thing some people are looking for is that wording that says the person on the mount "is" charging because once that is done then they can technically "by the wording" pounce while riding a mount. The "Mounted Combat" rules state the mount is charging but the rider gains some benefits from the charge and some minuses from the charge. Some people are trying their best to interpret that as the person on horse back is charging because he is getting those bonuses and minuses.

You still have to use up your "charge" action in order to do a charge attack while on horseback. If it was worded any other way then people would claim they still have a charge attack action they can use because the horse used up his but the PC didn't.

I'm also concerned with things like rhino hide armor when combined with mounted skirmisher and two weapon fighting. I'm concerned with certain things, like overrun. I'm concerned with certain classes altogether, like the cavalier.

Anything that requires mounted combat can get confusing with this ruling. How do you know when to consider the mount as charging and when do you consider the rider to be the one charging? I know how I would rule things, but what is the intention of...

There is nothing that would require you to actually need to look at whether it's you that's charging or the mount.

Rhino Hide
Aura moderate transmutation; CL 9th
Slot armor; Price 5,165 gp; Weight 25 lbs.
Description
This +2 hide armor is made from rhinoceros hide. In addition
to granting a +2 enhancement bonus to AC, it has a –1 armor
check penalty and deals an additional 2d6 points of damage on
any successful charge attack made by the wearer, including a
mounted charge.

Construction
Requirements Craft Magic Arms and Armor, bull’s strength; Cost
2,665 gp

Rhino Hide spells it out for you. If it was common practice that you are considered charging even when on a mount then they wouldn't even bother with the bolded part.

If you go through and look at the rules for several things including this then you will see that it was never intended that the PC is considered to be "charging" while on a mount.


My question is: does the +2d6 apply to every attack in that charge? If so, how is it different than pounce?

Silver Crusade

Bob_Loblaw wrote:
My question is: does the +2d6 apply to every attack in that charge? If so, how is it different than pounce?

Charge from horseback?


Just for the my own purposes of clarification here, we are all saying that "charging on horseback" is exactly the same as (and might be better worded as) a "mounted charge," correct?

Implicit in that understanding is that the mount is charging, and the mounted character gains certain benefits from that, but is not considered to be charging themselves.

Silver Crusade

MendedWall12 wrote:

Just for the my own purposes of clarification here, we are all saying that "charging on horseback" is exactly the same as (and might be better worded as) a "mounted charge," correct?

Implicit in that understanding is that the mount is charging, and the mounted character gains certain benefits from that, but is not considered to be charging themselves.

That's a good way to look at it. Also don't forget that sometimes feats will give you an exception to the rule but it is usually spelled out in the feat.


Bob_Loblaw wrote:
My question is: does the +2d6 apply to every attack in that charge? If so, how is it different than pounce?

Sure- every one of your attacks, which is exactly one attack when mounted. Pretty good when on foot and pouncing, tho.


shallowsoul wrote:
MendedWall12 wrote:

Just for the my own purposes of clarification here, we are all saying that "charging on horseback" is exactly the same as (and might be better worded as) a "mounted charge," correct?

Implicit in that understanding is that the mount is charging, and the mounted character gains certain benefits from that, but is not considered to be charging themselves.

That's a good way to look at it. Also don't forget that sometimes feats will give you an exception to the rule but it is usually spelled out in the feat.

Okay, that makes a lot of things much more clear for me. Thanks shallowsoul.


DrDeth wrote:
The whole “debate’ here is people trying to get a very broken build and “ruling” into a game.

People are trying to play mounted wizards that wield lances? I know wizards are generally considered broken at high levels, but one built for mounted combat seems lacking.


DrDeth wrote:
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
My question is: does the +2d6 apply to every attack in that charge? If so, how is it different than pounce?
Sure- every one of your attacks, which is exactly one attack when mounted. Pretty good when on foot and pouncing, tho.

Unless you take the Mounted Skirmisher feat, then you can take a full attack. How is that different than pounce?


shallowsoul wrote:
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
My question is: does the +2d6 apply to every attack in that charge? If so, how is it different than pounce?
Charge from horseback?

Yup. You've got feats, class abilities, and at least one weapon that mentions charging while mounted. So since you can charge while mounted, how would this work and why is it different than pounce?

Silver Crusade

Bob_Loblaw wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
My question is: does the +2d6 apply to every attack in that charge? If so, how is it different than pounce?
Charge from horseback?
Yup. You've got feats, class abilities, and at least one weapon that mentions charging while mounted. So since you can charge while mounted, how would this work and why is it different than pounce?

Because charging from horseback is not the same as charging. When charging from horseback you still use the same rules as mounted combat which states the mount is charging.

I've looked at those feats and none of them say anything about the PC having to be the one to charge, they specifically mentioned charging from horseback or charging while mounted which means mounted charge.

I've looked at those class abilities and again there is nothing there that states the person riding the mount must be physically charging or is referred to as charging. They all lead you to the mounted charge rules which is contained in the mounted combat rules. I read the Cavalier and all I see is an improved version of the mounted combat rules. Now there may be a specific Cavalier ability that may allow him to get his full attack while on horseback after a charge but I don't remember seeing that anywhere, and besides, if there is it still doesn't give the green light for the pounce ability to work.

Charging while mounted still implies that you refer to the mounted combat section. Why would you honestly think any different?

Silver Crusade

Bob_Loblaw wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
My question is: does the +2d6 apply to every attack in that charge? If so, how is it different than pounce?
Sure- every one of your attacks, which is exactly one attack when mounted. Pretty good when on foot and pouncing, tho.
Unless you take the Mounted Skirmisher feat, then you can take a full attack. How is that different than pounce?

Bob, Mounted Skirmisher has nothing to do with a charge.

If your fighter walks up, how many attacks does he get......1

All this feat does is it allows a mounted character to get a full attack if their mount moves, not charges. Charging has it's own special set of rules.

I see how people are trying to interpret this. They think that because they are moving in a charge that it automatically qualifies them to be able to use this feat and that's not the case.

Normally nobody can move more than 5 feet and gain a full attack unless they have something that says they can. You can take a 5ft step and get a full attack.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.
MendedWall12 wrote:
Right, which is exactly my question then, especially because of things like Pounce. If my PC wants to Pounce, can they do that from the back of a charging mount. I don't think that question has ever been answered. The rules of Pounce say the PC must be charging. SKR's post in this blog seems to specifically and purposefully say that the PC is not actually charging when they ride on a charging mount, though, they still benefit from the mount's charge for the purposes of doing extra lance damage.

Being on a charging mount does not mean you get the benefits for the purpose of feats that require "you" to charge. You just get the mathematical benefits such as +2 to attack, and -2 AC.


Jeez, this is sad. I suppose a simple solution is to write up that an action called mounted charge, then designate the mounted feats and actions use the mounted charge action so that way its clear.

I don't see a need but this is plain silly.

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'd just like a FAQ ruling stating it clearly. I'm still going to do what I want, but it would be nice to have a clarification.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It is really rather simple to sort this out. All rules from the CRB take precedence. Any feat or ability which alters those rules must be completely explicit in how the rules are changed. If you must infer something by taking the new feature and comparing it against the basic rule, then it does not stand. Any new feature which does not work if not tied to an inference is edited incorrectly and needs an errata.

Pounce works without inferring anything not explicit. Double damage from a lance while mounted atop a charging mount works without inferring anything not explicit. Pouncing from atop a charging mount requires that you infer something not explicit in the rules, thus it is either not possible, or if it is the intended effect, then it requires an errata before it can be used as such.


shallowsoul wrote:
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
My question is: does the +2d6 apply to every attack in that charge? If so, how is it different than pounce?
Sure- every one of your attacks, which is exactly one attack when mounted. Pretty good when on foot and pouncing, tho.
Unless you take the Mounted Skirmisher feat, then you can take a full attack. How is that different than pounce?

Bob, Mounted Skirmisher has nothing to do with a charge.

If your fighter walks up, how many attacks does he get......1

All this feat does is it allows a mounted character to get a full attack if their mount moves, not charges. Charging has it's own special set of rules.

This is the exact reason why people are asking for more clarification. Why is it that the rules for mounted charging change depending on which ability you are using but there aren't any guidelines?

If the mount moves, you can only make a single attack because you have to wait until you get to the enemy. But it is the mount that is charging, not the character. However, the character benefits from the mount's charge. So if the character can benefit from the mount's charge, but isn't himself charging, and he takes mounted skirmisher can he gain the benefits of the mount's charge for each attack assuming the mount moves only its speed, no more and no less? Can the mount charge it's movement and the rider still get his full attack? What is the difference between getting a full attack at the end of your move and getting a full attack at the end of your move?

How does this ruling interact with Charge Through? Can the lance get it's x2 or x3 bonus in this case for both attacks? Would rhino hide apply to both attacks? Why or why not?

If the GM needs to go through a bunch of justifications for why something works or doesn't, there may be a problem with the wording of the ruling.

151 to 200 of 229 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / Paizo Blog: Bride of the FAQ Attack! All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.