Sormsby's page

Thanks for putting together this clarification. You have obviously done a great job of researching the rulebooks and other materials to form your synopsis. I uncovered one possible discrepency in regards to your ruling on multiple sneak attacks by a hidden attacker;

If you begin an attack action while you are Unobserved, meaning you are already Invisible or Stealthed before you begin this attack, then your opponent is denied his DEX bonus to his Armor Class and you can Sneak Attack this opponent. Your first attack (if you have more than one) will reveal you to this opponent, automatically removing your Invisibility or Stealth benefits (this is not true of Improved Invisibility) which means that only your first attack gets the benefits of being Invisible or Stealthed; subsequent attacks in this round are treated as normal attacks.

And the descripton of Flat-Footed from the OGC;

A character who has not yet acted during a combat is flat-footed, unable to react normally to the situation. A flat-footed character loses his Dexterity bonus to AC and Combat Maneuver Defense (CMD) (if any) and cannot make attacks of opportunity, unless he has the Combat Reflexes feat or Uncanny Dodge class ability.

The way I read this, a rogue can sneak attack a foe multiple times in one round if the target is flat-footed. The FF status is removed once the defender takes his turn, not once he is attacked. This situation would only occur on the first round of combat. Your ruling as it is written now would still pertain to a hidden foe attacking a target who has already acted in the fight.

I am trying to find any info on Minderhal's Anvil in the Iron peaks. It is marked as a ruin on the pg 20 map. I seem to remember reading something about the Dwarves of the Iron Peaks being wiped out by Mokmurian, but maybe that was ina previous chapter. Searching the forums and DB of Paizo comes up with no real match. Does anyone know of some real info on this city/fort/smoldering ruin? I have a feeling my group of players may want to investigate the Dwarven fortress, and perhaps help any Dwarves still present.

Thanks Howie. The four articles are actually pretty clear on the subject and would work even better than my suggested changes.

There's also a ride check required to not have to spend your move action controlling your mount. Granted it's a DC 5 but....

And as pointed out by others, you can only make a full attack with a melee weapon if you have Mounted Skirmisher, a fairly high level ability if you're not a Sohei.
Now, archers on mounts are a different story....

You do not need the Mounted Skirmisher feat to make a full attack from your mount, while your mont is also making a full attack - so long as you only take a 5 foot step.

The movement exploit that I mention is available to any character at first level with a half decent ride skill. You should not be able to move faster than a character who stays on his mount for the full turn by dismounting and moving further on foot. It ruins the movement action/standard action cadence that is the core of the Pathfinder mechanics.

Mounted Skirmisher (Combat)

You are adept at attacking from upon a swift moving steed.

Prerequisites: Ride rank 14, Mounted Combat, Trick Riding.

Benefit: If your mount moves its speed or less, you can still take a full-attack action.

Normal: If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only take an attack action.

Thanks for pointing out this feat. It actually clarifies my complaint about the rules as they are written : both you and your mount can make a full attack so long as you only take a 5 foot step - with no penalty or feat required.

I find that the rules for mounted movement and combat as they are written in the CRB are unbalanced and unrealistic. As it stands now a rider can double move his mount, quick dismount and move twice more - essentially moving faster than a rider who stays on his mount for the whole turn. A rider on a war-trained mount can take a full attack for himself and for his mount (so long as the mount only takes a 5 foot step) with no penalty to the attack. This means that a druid on a mountain lion mount gets the full 5 attacks of his mount, and can still take a full attack. With the pounce feature of the lion, this becomes even more ridiculous.
There needs to be some measure of synchronicity between the mount and rider that restricts them from moving and attacking more than a single creature. I don't claim to be a master equestrian, but I can assure you that riding a horse is not a completely passive activity. Horses (and cats) do not hover across the ground when you are sitting on them. They jostle and bounce, and if one should decide to rear up and kick its front legs out, you need to be holding on with more than just your knees. Steering a mount so you can attack a target would also interefere with the mount's own attempts to bite/claw/kick at an enemy in reach.
In the issue of fairness and balance I propose that you institute a rule that makes manipulating your mount a move action. One move action by the rider would allow the full two actions of his mount. This would restrict the full attack action to just you or your mount (instead of both of you getting all attacks). Further, dismounting/mounting requires a move action from both you and your mount. You would still be able to do this as a free action with the quick dismount ride skill ability, but you have to remember that in order to quick mount/dismount you need to have a movement action available to use. This would prevent the exploit of double moving, galloping or charging then quick dismounting and moving even further on foot in the same turn.
With these rule changes mounted characters would still get the advantage of the mount's greater speed, as well as height advantage, trampling attacks, using your mount as cover and charging with a lance that is essential to mounted combat. Cavaliers, paladins and druids would still have some advantages when they are mounted, but in a more balanced fashion.