Saint Kargoth

Warpriest_Guy's page

63 posts (184 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 63 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Normally, the effect from the skill unlocks cannot last longer than demoralize normally lasts (1 round +1 additional round for every 5 by which you beat the dc). I assume that with the enforcer feat, the fear from skill unlock would last longer? So at levels 15 or 20, "panicked thereafter" or "frightened thereafter" would end up lasting as long as the rounds of shaken from enforcer? My assumption is yes, but I could see someone interpreting the skill unlock duration to be a hard limit, as opposed to reading "skill unlock lasts as long as you are able to demoralize the opponent."


Skill Unlock wrote:
10 Ranks: If you exceed the DC to demoralize a target by at least 10, it is panicked for 1 round or frightened for 1d4 rounds (your choice) and shaken thereafter.

And the target gets a will save.

Intimidate wrote:
Using demoralize on the same creature [that you already demoralized] only extends the duration; it does not create a stronger fear condition.

Say I use skill unlock for intimidate twice on my turn. Each time, opponent fails save and is panicked for 1 round and shaken for 3. So would the final effect be:

A. 2 rounds panicked, then 6 rounds shaken
B. 1 panicked, then 3 shaken, then 1 panicked, then 3 shaken
C. Unclear, go with A since it makes more sense.
D. I'm missing something and its none of the above


1. Yes.
2. Yes you can take a full round since you didn't move. If you fail the hover check you must move 20 ft and can't full round. You could always take a full round that involves movement, like charge.
3. Anyone who has a "reliable means of flying every day" (so not potions or scrolls, but mounts, boots of flying, etc) can put ranks in fly, and it is always a class skill for them.


Ive gone through most of the threads about this. The general consensus is that it does work RAW. Ive seen a few people post about using it in PFS too. It is undeniably cheesy, though, so be prepared to get made fun of when using it.


Thats a great idea. Didnt really check the date, there. The faq ruling is an unnecessary nerf to a fun and underplayed strategy, and it causes a lot of overcomplicated interactions. Officially though, demoralize extends the duration of demoralize. This brings up one last question:

If players A and B both use skill unlock (intimidate) to demoralize for 1 round panicked, 3 rounds shaken, do the durations stack as follows? 2 rounds panicked, then 6 rounds shaken thereafter.


I was also mistaken when I said that the author referenced that unofficial (and really old) faq. Sorry Le Petite, you are the master and you clearly know what you're doing. I will stop ignantly blowing up your thread now.


So edit to earlier post: that is an unofficial faq. Officially, while demoralize doesnt stack with itself, it does stack with other fear sources, so the author wasnt wrong. However, I still maintain that cowering isnt a fear condition.


Thats the thing. Shaken from demoralize actually does "push" shaken from other sources. Its not perfectly clear how this works with higher levels of fear conditions, though. Assumption here is that push only occurs if fear level is the same (shaken and shaken).


So say I use cause fear. Opponent frightened four rounds. Now I use skill unlock for intimidate (still demoralize). Opponent is panicked for one round, then shaken for 3.

So if interpretation B is true, we think the effects would overlap but not stack to 1 round panicked, then 3 frightened? Rather than: 4 frightened, then 1 panicked, then 3 shaken?

If we used doom (shakes opponent) instead of cause fear (frightens opponent) would they still combine since one of the demoralize rounds is panic? Or would doom extend the duration of the fear, being applied after the demoralize rounds end?


Bump. Even if you don't know, what would you rule? Is there another option besides A or B? As written the answer seems to be A, and that weird situations like this are just the result of the nerf to fear stacking via demoralize. Its so odd though that I am doubting whether this is the way it works.


Answer will probably end up being "unclear, GM discretion," but I'm hoping someone has some insight on this.

The following is from an unofficial faq explaining how demoralize does not stack like normal fear conditions.

faq wrote:

Q: (10/8/09) Can you demoralize the same being more than once, and have the effects stack?

A: (Joshua J. Frost) The shaken condition gained in this matter cannot be stacked to create a stronger condition. If you succeed at another demoralize attempt, you just extend the shaken condition’s duration. There was a sentence left out of the skill description that will be noted in a future errata update.
Q: (10/8/09) Does the above mean a Shaken condition imposed by a Intimidate Skill – Demoralise can never be upgraded by another use Source of a Fear condition?
A: (Joshua J. Frost) Correct. Though, as noted above, it can extend the duration of the shaken condition.
Q: (10/8/09) Does this idea that Shaken + Shaken only increases the duration of the Shaken condition come into effect only when Demoralise is in the mix?
A: (Joshua J. Frost) Yes.

The updated demoralize description on d20pfsrd says "This shaken condition doesn’t stack with other shaken conditions to make an affected creature frightened."

It becomes clear from this that:

1. Demoralize + demoralize = extended duration
2. Demoralize + shaken from another source = extended duration

HERE IS THE QUESTION: Say I demoralize a creature, then I use a spell that normally makes a creature frightened. Obviously the fear conditions don't stack to make the creature panicked, but does the duration extension still apply? Would it be:

A. Four rounds of shaken, then four rounds of frightened?

B: effects overlap but dont stack (frightened AND panicked for four rounds), so its effectively just frightened for four rounds?


Yes, fantastic guide. Demoralize is misunderstood because it isn't written clearly or consistently. For example, under the cowering description, a cowering creature can take no actions. Under the panicked description, a cowering creature can use total defense.


Also, while the intimidate skill unlock can allow demoralize to cause frightened, panicked, or cowering conditions, these conditions are still caused by demoralize, and thus do not stack with other fear sources to increase fear conditions. So if you used demoralize to frighten a creature, casting doom on it would not make the creature panicked, but would extend the fear duration with some rounds of shaken.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I hate to spoil the author's fun, but I found two issues with his (really impressive) unchained rogue build. It doesn't work exactly as he describes. I think its important to clarify some fear rules if the author could misinterpret them.

Le Petite Mort wrote:
Fearsome Strike means you can make them frightened without any save whatsoever. The important part about Fearsome strike is that it requires no Intimidate check, and is not a demoralize attempt. As such, it follows the general rule of fear conditions, which state that such things stack to go to progressively worse fear conditions (unlike demoralize attempts, which specifically state that they can’t raise a creature’s fear condition above shaken). Basically, even if they made the save they are panicked off the bat, and if they didn't make the save they are fully cowering.

ISSUE ONE:

Fearsome strike, which causes a creature to become frightened, would not cause a creature shaken by demoralize to become panicked. Fear effects caused by demoralize do not stack with other fear sources to increase fear level, even if demoralize is used BEFORE the other fear source (like in the example above). Demoralize can only extend fear duration, which normal fear sources cannot do.
Source (below) is the same faq which the author references above

faq wrote:

Q: (10/8/09) Can you demoralize the same being more than once, and have the effects stack?

A: (Joshua J. Frost) The shaken condition gained in this matter cannot be stacked to create a stronger condition. If you succeed at another demoralize attempt, you just extend the shaken condition’s duration. There was a sentence left out of the skill description that will be noted in a future errata update.

A: (Jason Bulmahn) This is indeed the case.

Q: (10/8/09) Does the above mean a Shaken condition imposed by a Intimidate Skill – Demoralise can never be upgraded by another use Source of a Fear condition?

A: (Joshua J. Frost) Correct. Though, as noted above, it can extend the duration of the shaken condition.

Q: (10/8/09) Does this idea that Shaken + Shaken only increases the duration of the Shaken condition come into effect only when Demoralise is in the mix?

A: (Joshua J. Frost) Yes.

The updated demoralize description on d20pfsrd says "This shaken condition doesn’t stack with other shaken conditions to make an affected creature frightened."

ISSUE TWO:
Cowering is not a fear condition. From the official prd (see fear)

prd wrote:
"Becoming Even More Fearful: Fear effects are cumulative. A shaken character who is made shaken again becomes frightened, and a shaken character who is made frightened becomes panicked instead. A frightened character who is made shaken or frightened becomes panicked instead."

Note that cowering was not mentioned. And under fearful,

prd wrote:
"Panicked characters cower if they are prevented from fleeing."

So on a panicked character's turn, they attempt to flee. If they cannot, they cower until their next turn, when they attempt to flee again.


For those not playing PFS, soulless gaze is redonk. If you have cornugon smash AND enforcer, an opponent is frightened in one hit, or panicked in two. They get no save against this, like with signature skill (intimidate). That is so powerful it makes hurtful look like a bad feat since it might end the effect. The only other way to fear stack this effectively is by combining disheartening display, violent display, shatter defenses, and sneak attacks.

If you are playing PFS, soulless gaze, violent display, and hurtful are banned, unfortunately.


Thanks for the responses. I misinterpreted cowering to be a fear condition. Disheartening display and signature skill (intimidate) probably led to my confusion. Interestingly, the panicked description says that a cowering creature can use total defense, but the cowering description says it can't take any actions. Not like it really makes a difference at that point, though.


Fairly certain I found the answer. The intimidate skill description on d20pfsrd uses the specific wording "create stronger fear conditions" and from the context, this is understood to mean moving from shaken to frightened/panicked, or from frightened to panicked, as with normal fear stacking. Soulless gaze uses the exact same wording, and since the feat is about demoralizing, it is safe to assume that the feat allows demoralize to stack like normal fear (except only with itself). So demoralize could be used to cause a demoralized shaken creature to become frightened, or to cause a demoralized frightened creature to become panicked. It could not cause a demoralized panicked creature to cower. It would only cower if it became unable to flee.


Effect of soulless gaze:
"When you demoralize a creatures more than once using Intimidate, you can create stronger fear conditions rather than increasing the duration of the shaken condition."

I know that fear effects are cumulative, stacking to a maximum condition of panicked, and that panicked creatures cower if they cannot flee. source

I also know that fear caused by the intimidate skill does not stack with itself (or other fear sources) without soulless gaze. source

MY QUESTION IS:
If soulless gaze is used on a panicked creature, does the creature cower like with disheartening display? Normally fear stacking caps at panicked, but cowering is a fear condition that is stronger than panicked, so does soulless gaze consider cowering to be a "stronger fear condition?"


Found some answers but I still need help.

1. Dc increases by 5. "Try again" is not dependent on success or failure of skill check.
2. Demoralize never stacks to increase fear conditions.
3. Either A or B. I assume A. If not a GM would probably houserule A because B would be unrealistic

4,5: still not sure.

Also, 6. Fear conditions stack aside from demoralize. Shaken+shaken=frightened, but does shaken+frightened=panicked, or just frightened?


5. Also, the dc for signature skill (intimidate) isn't that high. Is there some feat, trait, or magic item that will help lower a will save or increase my dc?


Building an intimidator and have several questions of increasing complexity.

1. If I successfully demoralize, then demoralize the shaken creature again, does the dc increase by 5 or is that only for when I fail to demoralize?

2. If I demoralize, then cast doom, is the opponent frightened or shaken? If they are shaken, I assume the durations stack? If they are frightened, what is the duration? What if I cast doom first, then demoralize? Is that any different?

3. Signature skill (intimidate): Say I use this when I first get it at level 5. I demoralize as a free action via cornugon smash, enforcer, etc. I beat the DC by exactly 10. The opponent fails their save so they are frightened for one round and then shaken for two rounds thereafter. Now I demoralize again, on the same turn, to extend the duration. Again, I beat it by exactly 10 and they fail the save. What happens? Is it:

A. Opponent is frightened for two rounds, then shaken for 4.
B. Opponent is frightened for one round, then shaken for two, then frightened for one, then shaken for two
C. The second demoralize cancels the effect of the first.
D. Something else

4. Soulless gaze: Say I do the same thing as in question 3, only this time, I use soulless gaze on the second demoralize attempt to move the enemy up a fear category, rather than just extending the fear duration. Before I do this, the enemy's status is one round frightened, two rounds shaken. What would it be after I use soulless gaze? One round panicked, two rounds frightened?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It looks like I may have been wrong about the RAW of the chaplain's advanced weapon training. Found a developer response that says the intent was to make sacred weapons the one and only group, meaning no advanced weapon training at level 9.


Edit to last post: I was under the assumption that the arsenal chaplain's weapon training feature did not qualify it for gloves of dueling or advanced weapon training. It does. (However, if you play pfs, warpriests cannot take the advanced weapon training feat or select advanced weapon training options). With this in mind, I would argue that fighter vmc is not worth five feats, even if retrained at high levels.


For those at home, I found the messageboards he was referencing. PFS doesn't let the warpriest take the feat or take the 9th level feature, but for home games, both work RAW


I am assuming that people seem to think "sacred weapons" are a "group." Is that right? To me it seems like you still choose groups but only get the benefits for the specific weapons in those groups that are your sacred weapons, but I guess I am biased.


Thanks! One more question though. The answer to #2 confuses me. If I could get more weapon groups with weapon training, could I not trade them in for the 9th level feature? For example, I could apply weapon training to my deity's favored weapon, or to a weapon I took weapon focus with. What is the reasoning for not getting the 9th level feature? Not arguing one way or the other just want to understand it.


Does the weapon training class feature of the arsenal chaplain archetype work with the gloves of dueling? Does the feature count as a prerequisite for the advanced weapon training feat? (arsenal chaplains can take fighter-exclusive feats)


So is fighter vmc optimal for a 2 hander arsenal chaplain? Or are the armor and weapon training not worth the feats? Also, finding a lot of mixed messages on whether or not the fighter weapon training stacks with the chaplain's. Does it?


Struggling to figure out which feats are optimal for a Two-Hander Paladin/Antipaladin (divine bond=weapon). Everything is legal except for leadership and squire.

I am aware of: fey foundling, power attack, hurtful and cornugon smash, extra lay on hands for more heals/conductive weapon uses.

What are some other great feats? I am trying to optimize but am thinking about giving up on that to adopt a demoralize theme since I will likely get hurtful anyway.


Warpriest_Guy wrote:
Dave Justus wrote:
Warpriest_Guy wrote:
By that logic, one could argue that the mount needs a feat to move-don't attack-move
Anyone can take two move actions in a turn.
I should have been more specific. According to the faq, the only way to get the damage multipliers from a lance and spirited charge is for both mount and rider to charge. Charging is a full attack with movement ending in front of an opponent. So additional movement could not be a move action. Either ride-by grants post-charge movement to the rider and mount as a free action, or it isn't usable when both charge.

That being said, from a strict RAW the feat doesn't even work, since it only lets "you" move after the charge, but RAI its obvious the feat allows both mount and rider to move post-charge. The question is whether RAI the feat prevents the mount from attacking. RAI it seems the feat is supposed to act like a joust, in which the rider attacks during the mount's continuous movement (even though mechanically the mount is actually stopping to let the rider attack). Therefore, a houserule that the mount cannot attack during a ride-by is perfectly reasonable. Here's a great thread on the subject.


deusvult wrote:
The Trample feat also provides the ability to literally charge THROUGH your target, which is another great utility for sidestepping the interpretations about charge rules wording.

Trample prevents the opponent from avoiding the rider's (not the mount's) overrun attemps and gives the mount a hoof attack if you beat their cmb by 5 or more. The rider cannot overrun AND attack an opponent during a charge, as overrun can only be used in place of the charge attack, not during the charge movement (see the feat "charge through").


Chess Pwn wrote:
Ride by attack can let you attack at reach and then have the mount be able to keep moving for his attack.

Technically, on a mounted charge where mount and rider with different reaches are charging, they have to end the charge in different squares, which isn't possible. If partial charges existed, this seems reasonable to allow.


Dave Justus wrote:
Warpriest_Guy wrote:
By that logic, one could argue that the mount needs a feat to move-don't attack-move
Anyone can take two move actions in a turn.

I should have been more specific. According to the faq, the only way to get the damage multipliers from a lance and spirited charge is for both mount and rider to charge. Charging is a full attack with movement ending in front of an opponent. So additional movement could not be a move action. Either ride-by grants post-charge movement to the rider and mount as a free action, or it isn't usable when both charge.


I would also like to explain why I think a mount can attack before a ride-by. The feat simply says that after the rider completes his charge, he can move again (via the mount). It does not restrict the mount from taking actions it normally could. Some say the mount doesn't have a feat to move-attack-move. By that logic, one could argue that the mount needs a feat to move-don't attack-move, which would mean the rider could only use ride-by to move if he dismounted, since the feat does not allow the mount to move twice.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

In this post, I will explain why ride-by attack does not work, regardless of your interpretation of the charge rules, and am adding 3 solutions to fix the problem (2 houserules and 1 RAW solution). Until we get an FAQ on ride-by attack or charging, players will have to use one of these solutions, or a similar one, if ride-by attack is to work.

Interpretation #1- Charging to "the closest square from which you could make a melee attack... DIRECTLY at the opponent" means the charge lane must pass through not only one of the closest squares, but also must pass through the opponent, so a ride-by always runs into the opponent (and the feat is completely nonfunctional).

Interpretation #2- Some say that "directly toward" doesn't mean a charge lane can't pass by the opponent, as long as the lane passes through one of the "closest squares from which you could make a melee attack." This allows a ride-by to work, unless every lane passing through the closest squares also passes through the opponent, in which case a ride-by runs into the opponent (so ride-by attack occasionally doesn't work).

Houserules: 2 common houserules to make ride-by attack work are: 1. to allow players to phase through opponents like kitty pride. 2. D&D 3.0 charge rules. The 3.0 charge rules allowed you to choose any charge lane that passed through a square from which the charger could attack the opponent, and the charger had to end the charge at the first square along that path from which he could attack them (so ride-by always worked). Some GMs might add that you can only charge to the closest side, or must pass by a square adjacent to the enemy even if you have reach.

RAW Solution: The wheeling charge feat allows you to make a turn during your charge movement (or during the ride-by movement after the charge attack). It is up to GMs to decide how turning before a charge attack interacts with the "directly towards" and "closest square" requirements of the charge rules.


Okay. So as i thought the charge action is not itself an attack for the purposes of these skills, just the attack at the end if it.

New question, though: I thought one had to make a handle animal check to make a mount attack, then make a ride check to fight with the mount. So you only have to make the ride check? What if the mount hasn't been trained to attack all enemy types, such as undead or constructs?


Reason I asked is because a "mounted charge" as described in the faq is when both mount and rider are charging. Unless both charge, you don't get the multipliers from a lance or spirited charge. I was wondeding if I could make a mounted charge without making skill checks which would be difficult at early levels.


If I direct a mount to charge an enemy but not make the optional attack, does the charge count as attacking for the purposes of the ride skill (fight with a combat trained mount) or the handle animal skill (attack trick)? Can I direct a mount to charge without making those checks if I do not direct it to attack at the end of the charge?


also: aside from lunge, power attack, and armor proficiencies, are there any good feats for animal companions?


also, I know that the armor and shield special qualities in the core rulebook are a waste of gold functionally, but are there any good ones outside of core?


I'm building a seal breaker antipaladin (undead theme, has a mount like the paladin instead of summons). It's going to be a mounted-charge build. I plan on using animate dead at the higher levels to create minions (fits the archetype but CL-3 makes this difficult). I need some suggestions for feats and gear.

Stuff I've got so far:

Feats: power attack, mounted combat, ride-by attack, spirited charge, wheeling charge, furious focus, escape route

Gear: The Big Six magic items. Conductive weapon quality to debuff the opponents with the touch of corruption class feature. Maybe a spell storing weapon to get some use out of the spells. Horse will wear an amulet of natural armor, horsheshoes of speed/zephyr, and horsemaster's saddle (for escape route) or military saddle.

I don't know much about non-core equipment. Is a mithral full plate, lance, and spiked light shield as good as it gets? I can't find any way to control more undead. caster level -3 really hurts this strategy and the command undead feat becomes terrible.


Thanks to you both! So for those following at home:

"your mount can make one turn of up to 90 degrees as part of the move"

You are not required to begin your charge as normal. You may begin your charge by moving in any direction, so long as you can still make a turn (max 90 degrees), head towards the opponent, and enter a square which threatens them. You can then strike and ride-by. You also have the option of charging normally, striking, and turning at any point during the ride-by movement (even immediately following the strike)

"You may make an attack during any part of this move"

This does not mean the rider gets an extra attack. This refers to the normal attack from the charge. The purpose of the feat is to allow the player to either take an alternate route to the opponent, or to turn during the ride-by movement.


My current interpretation is that I can change direction after 10ft of a normal charge, and can either keep moving up to double speed, or end my charge in a space where my mount and I can attack the opponent, then we can use ride-by to keep moving straight. I imagine the feat isn't usable in the post-charge movement granted by ride-by. Is any of that wrong?


Wheeling Charge

I do not understand this feat at all, so any help would be appreciated, even if you don't fully understand the feat yourself or can't answer all my questions.

All I can figure out is that I am supposed to begin a "mounted charge" as normal by travelling 10ft in a straight charge lane, then I just don't know.

1. Can I travel 10ft towards my opponent and then just turn 90 degrees and "charge" away from the opponent? If not, what rule(s) prevent me from doing so?

2. Can I make a normal mounted charge, use ride-by attack to continue moving, then use wheeling charge to make a turn during the post-charge movement allowed from ride-by attack?

3. If yes to #2, can I make that turn towards the opponent and attack them again?

4. Can I turn in the last square of a normal charge or do I have to attack/forfeit my attack if I enter this square?

5. Does the attack allowed by this feat extend to the mount as well?

6. If not too much trouble could someone please translate this feat into the clearest language possible, explaining its interaction (or lack thereof) with ride-by attack?


Last question: where am I and my mount when we get the AoO from greater overrun? Are we in the opponent's space, meaning I may not get an attack with a reach weapon (lance)? Or does the AoO happen where the overrun was initiated (10ft from the opponent if mount has reach) which means I could attack with my lance?


Thanks! That was very helpful. So mindless undead can't make use of feats given to them?


1. Does escape route work while mounted RAW? Do most people think it isn't RAI or is the consensus that its fine?

2. If a mount makes an overrun attempt, do AoOs work like this?
-mount initiates overrun attempt, triggering AoO against mount
-mount succeeds and moves through opponent's space, triggering 2 AoOs from movement, one on rider and one on mount
-mount keeps moving but triggers no additional AoOs from movement as it is the same movement as moving through opponent's space

3. What does moving through an opponent's space mean? Where am I and the mount when this happens?

4. Can an int 2 mount learn escape route if given to them with something like the cavalier's battle tactics ability? I know they can't learn it themselves until int 3. Can int 0 undead minions be granted teamwork feats by battle tactics or a similar ability?


Update: RAW interpretation (and probably RAI) regarding overrun is actually really common. Many agree that if your mount has improved overrun and tries to overrun, it doesnt provoke from initiating it, but the movement upon success triggers 2 AoOs, one for the mount and one for the rider. This means that overrun builds aren't reallly feasible unless you use cheesy tactics like escape route , which doesn't work RAI. Also, turns out greater overrun (question 5) allows everyone who threatens the victim to take the AoO.


Upon closer inspection, I think I know the answer to question #3. Correct me if I am wrong. The wording of the ride-by attack feat seems to state pretty clearly that the post- charge movement of the feat is actually part of the charge. "WHILE charging, you can...and then continue moving"...."as if with a STANDARD charge." After extreme amounts of research on the poorly worded overrun maneuver, it seems that overrunning "as part of a charge" means doing it in place of the melee attack at the end of your charge, like bull rush, rather than doing it on your way to the target. The feat charge through would be useless otherwise. The movement from ride-by attack happens after your free attack/overrun/bull rush, so I believe that would make overrun a standard action again, and not usable during a ride-by. Also, Apparently RAW overrunning triggers an AoO from movement if you continue moving after a successful attempt, even if you have improved overrun, but 95% of people house rule this away.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

I need help interpreting rules and coming up with house rules. Please correct me if I am misunderstanding anything.

From the FAQ: "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."

Problem #1: both mount and rider have to take the charge action for it to be a "mounted charge." Charging requires you to move to the closest space from which you could make a melee attack. So RAW, it is impossible to make a mounted charge if the rider has 10ft of reach (lance) and the mount (horse) has 5ft. Clearly not intentional.

1. House rule: So RAI, a "mounted charge" stops at the rider's reach? And if the horse had the lunge feat it could attack along with the rider?

Problem #2 Ride-by attack . To use this feat, you must "continue in the straight line of the charge," but charging requires you to move DIRECTLY toward the opponent, to the closest space from which you could attack them. So RAW you can't use ride-by attack unless you pass through your opponents space, which would be overrunning them.

2. House rule: So RAI, is the consensus to pass through the opponents space as if they weren't there, or can you choose to change your charge lane to one side of the opponent? If the latter, can you charge toward either side or just the closest side (assuming one side is closer to you than the other).

3. Does the post-charge movement allowed by ride-by attack still count as part of the charge? If so, could the mount make an overrun attempt "as part of a charge?" Would it get +2 to cmb?

4. To use the ride check "fight with a combat trained mount," do I first have to make a handle animal check telling my mount to attack an enemy? Can I make this check AFTER I myself have attacked to see whether the mount can attack with me, or is the check specifically to see whether I can attack after the mount has? If I fail this check, can I still have the mount charge but not make a charge attack?

5. If a mount has the greater overrun feat and knocks an opponent prone does only the mount get an AoO or does the rider also get one, assuming he has a weapon with 5ft reach?

1 to 50 of 63 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>