I think that was answered early in the thread, also by Sean. Your mount has to have the feat spring attack to do so. This is the ruling I stick to, at least.
I'm not so sure about this point. Charging is a full-round action, as is spring attack; can they be combined? Charging defines very clearly that the movement (up to double your speed) has to take place before the attack, while in spring attack it is only a movement of one time your speed.
One possible interpretation of this is that Ride-by-Attack allows both you and your mount to attack during the charge, without the necessity of any other feats.
But I'm not sure at all.
The problem is that none of those charges would be legal (if they stopped at the attacking point) under a strict reading of the charging rules. They are not moving directly at the opponent, and they are not moving to the closest square from which an attack can be made.
Are we supposed to lighten up on the charging rules in general, or just lighten up on the charging rules when someone has rideby attack?
Hm, agreed.
I see myself houseruling more and more, while I actually thought, I was following RAW.
So, the problem is: where do your actions - as PC - start and end and where do the actions of your mount come into play OR is your mount allowed any actions on its own at all.
You use the mount's speed/distance it can cover with a move action (and maybe its mode of movement, too) to do a RBA, but it's your charge action (as a full round action) to move and attack (and continue moving).
Under the skill section I find:
Fight with a Combat-Trained Mount: If you 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.
This I read as you guide your mount to attack with its own weaponry, while you can still attack with yours.
But since this would under normal circumstances happen before (you are already adjacent to your enemy) or after (you have to close in to get a stab at your adversary) you and your mount have moved, this is a given.
Now, to make an attack while on the move - as by using ride-by-attack-style - your mount needs to time its attack - thus it needs spring attack.
Maybe not RAW and maybe too rational for PF, but I would not allow a mount to use pounce (I imagine this as an attack where the mount literally jumps on the emenemy, stays in that spot and claws away) or a full-round-attack-action, so just as in the spring attack description: a single attack and than mount and rider are past the enemy.
Ruyan.
Yeah, not closest in terms of distance from your starting point, but in terms of "this is the first square along my path where I could attack this guy."Does this apply to all charge attacks, or just with Ride-by-Attack?That applies to all charge attacks. That's the normal rule for charge.
RBA is fancy because normally when you charge, you stop in the 1st square in your path from which you can attack that enemy, but when you have RBA you can keep moving after attacking from that square.
Sean, the very definition of charging (both as a gaming term and as a real world term) requires that you be moving directly towards your enemy.
For it to work in the manner you describe, you will need to implement errata. The rules are (sadly) clear in their disagreement with your interpretation.
| 26 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sean, the very definition of charging (both as a gaming term and as a real world term) requires that you be moving directly towards your enemy.
Well, that's stupid. (And not how we did it in 3.0. Another annoying 3.5 change, I guess.)
If I charge someone, I should be able to charge directly at them, or obliquely. If I charge and cut a guy as I run by, that should still be valid... my momentum applies to the weapon whether it's in front of me or to my side.
And the 3.5 ruling (as people have pointed out) basically makes it impossible to use RBA because you'd have to move *through* your target. Which means it should be called Ride-Through attack.
Noting for personal houserule and errata-lobbying.
Sean, the very definition of charging (both as a gaming term and as a real world term) requires that you be moving directly towards your enemy.Well, that's stupid. (And not how we did it in 3.0. Another annoying 3.5 change, I guess.)
If I charge someone, I should be able to charge directly at them, or obliquely. If I charge and cut a guy as I run by, that should still be valid... my momentum applies to the weapon whether it's in front of me or to my side.
And the 3.5 ruling (as people have pointed out) basically makes it impossible to use RBA because you'd have to move *through* your target. Which means it should be called Ride-Through attack.
Noting for personal houserule and errata-lobbying.
Now that you mention it, it was different in v3.0, wasn't it? I'm glad to see its been added to the list. There have been threads about this problem for years.
And the 3.5 ruling (as people have pointed out) basically makes it impossible to use RBA because you'd have to move *through* your target. Which means it should be called Ride-Through attack.
Actually, you can still charge to the closest space and still ride past your opponent in almost all cases without going through his square. If I knew how to make diagrams like the one you provided upthread, I could demonstrate.
In each case of where your enemy is in your example, if you asterisk the closest square(s) from your initial position, you'll see that it's possible to draw lines so that they go through those squares and yet do not pass through the opponent. In fact, in each case, it's possible to use ride-by-attack and pass by the opponent on either side, too.
And the 3.5 ruling (as people have pointed out) basically makes it impossible to use RBA because you'd have to move *through* your target. Which means it should be called Ride-Through attack.Actually, you can still charge to the closest space and still ride past your opponent in almost all cases without going through his square. If I knew how to make diagrams like the one you provided upthread, I could demonstrate.
In each case of where your enemy is in your example, if you asterisk the closest square(s) from your initial position, you'll see that it's possible to draw lines so that they go through those squares and yet do not pass through the opponent. In fact, in each case, it's possible to use ride-by-attack and pass by the opponent on either side, too.
I would have to see it to believe it. How are you moving directly towards your opponent when you are moving alongside them? Its a contradiction of terms.
Sean, would you please answer us the following questions:
- Can a mount attack at a ride by attack?
- If not, can a mount with spring attack attack at a ride by atack- Why are there the great differences between spring attack and flyby attack?
- 1 vs 3 feats to get it
- Attack vs Standard Action when at the Target
Theat means, that an aerial Creature has much earlier the access to such a feature and it can use all special Attacks like Cleave or Vital Strike. Seems a little bit strange to me.
Ariel creatures with Flyby Attack don't get the immunity to attacks of opportunity that Spring Attack grants, so it makes sense that it would have less prerequisites. What's more, it's balanced for monster NOT PCs. Giving it a bunch of prerequisites would only make it harder on GMs.
Greetings, fellow travellers.
True, spring attack is more geared towards PCs. But than, there are enough (prestige) classes or spells out there granting flight.
True, the AOO might be a balance factor, but then again I am not convinced.
My feeling is, that it's got to do with what seemed appropriate for a PC as a mount and what is a monster right away.
A horse (as a standard mount) is just not known for its killing bite attack as, say, a dragon - so why bother with having it attack on its own. Now, when flying creatures become available as mounts, balancing changed, but the mechanics where not checked.
And I would disagree with the real world definition of charging. Because I would attribute that term also (hell, that should be the archetype for RBA) for a joust in the middle ages:
Two people on horse back, armed with lances (or other weapons), charging on horse back right at each other, only to bypass each other (because they were seperated by a fence or similar structure) and having to veer their lances slightly to the right to get a good stab at each other.
To me, this looks like exactly what game designers had in mind. (But than again, that's my interpretation and not RAW...)
Ruyan.
Sean, would you please answer us the following questions:
- Can a mount attack at a ride by attack?
- If not, can a mount with spring attack attack at a ride by atack- Why are there the great differences between spring attack and flyby attack?
- 1 vs 3 feats to get it
- Attack vs Standard Action when at the Target
Theat means, that an aerial Creature has much earlier the access to such a feature and it can use all special Attacks like Cleave or Vital Strike. Seems a little bit strange to me.
1) No, because the mount is doing all the work moving. If the mount is to attack, it needs to use Spring Attack.
2) Without rereading all of the mounted combat rules, I think so.3) What RavingDork said.
Sean, would you please answer us the following questions:
- Can a mount attack at a ride by attack?
- If not, can a mount with spring attack attack at a ride by atack- Why are there the great differences between spring attack and flyby attack?
- 1 vs 3 feats to get it
- Attack vs Standard Action when at the Target
Theat means, that an aerial Creature has much earlier the access to such a feature and it can use all special Attacks like Cleave or Vital Strike. Seems a little bit strange to me.
1) No, because the mount is doing all the work moving. If the mount is to attack, it needs to use Spring Attack.
2) Without rereading all of the mounted combat rules, I think so.
3) What RavingDork said.
A mount can't use spring attack and a charge in the same round any better than a character can though, right? They are both full round actions and are therefore mutually exclusive.
The deal with Spring Attack is that now with it`s new shiny Errata,
it is it`s own Full Round Action, while Charge is also it`s own Full Round Action.
So for it to work would mean the Mount is Spring Attacking BUT NOT CHARGING,
while the Rider is doing a CHARGE action. I thought that the Mount must be Charging for the Rider to make a Mounted Charge(?), but if that`s NOT the case, then I guess the Mount could Spring Attack while the Rider does the Mounted Charge thing.
Of course, Spring Attack only allows 1 Move Action amount of total movement,
so you can only Charge half the distance if you want to try and do this.
Since Ride By Attack already protects you AND your mount from AoO, it seems pretty silly that the Mount would even need Spring Attack in the first place.
A better solution IMHO, would be Errata`ing RIDE BY ATTACK itself, so that any Mount can take it without the Pre-Reqs of Mounted Combat and 1 rank in Ride (which don`t make sense - in their place give the Pre-Reqs of Spring Attack, namely DEX 13 and BAB +4), and adjust the wording a bit (so the attack mid-charge applies to both the mounted rider AND mount if it has the feat).
Hm. I guess that would mean if Heavy Horses are Errata`d to actually add HD to the normal Horse (gaining a Feat), that a Heavy Horse might be able to get this Feat instead of Armor Training or whatnot (extra HD came up when the definition of `Combat Trained` and Armor Proficiency was debated, with input from James Jacobs. extra HD, possibly linked to war training and not `heavy horses`, also seemed to better match warhorses which no longer exist in PRPG. )
I would have to see it to believe it. How are you moving directly towards your opponent when you are moving alongside them? Its a contradiction of terms.
Well, I don't know how to draw the fancy diagrams, but the easiest example to see is if the hero is in column A and charges directly downward towards an enemy in column B. The square above and to the left of the enemy is the closest square from your initial position and you can clearly continue moving downward after making your attack.
|
I would have to see it to believe it. How are you moving directly towards your opponent when you are moving alongside them? Its a contradiction of terms.Well, I don't know how to draw the fancy diagrams, but the easiest example to see is if the hero is in column A and charges directly downward towards an enemy in column B. The square above and to the left of the enemy is the closest square from your initial position and you can clearly continue moving downward after making your attack.
Tem is describing the charge that, in Sean's diagrams, would be the grey charge to the closest square, which is two squares to the right of the asterix.
|
|
Noting for personal houserule and errata-lobbying.
I have started this thread to attempt to collect a comprehensive list of the problems associated with the current rules for charge, mounted combat, and RBA.
Yeah - I'm not as much of a stickler for "reality" as my posts above might suggest. I guess my point can be summerized as: you can still do everything you could want or expect to do, even when you require people to charge to the nearest square from their starting position (including running past with ride-by-attack). So why remove this condition? I don't see how it affects balance either way and it only seems to adversly affect the intuition regarding how charging works.
The condition is not being removed since it was never really there. It is just badly worded, kind of like how Vital Strike had people confused for a while.
I would have to see it to believe it. How are you moving directly towards your opponent when you are moving alongside them? Its a contradiction of terms.And the 3.5 ruling (as people have pointed out) basically makes it impossible to use RBA because you'd have to move *through* your target. Which means it should be called Ride-Through attack.Actually, you can still charge to the closest space and still ride past your opponent in almost all cases without going through his square. If I knew how to make diagrams like the one you provided upthread, I could demonstrate.
In each case of where your enemy is in your example, if you asterisk the closest square(s) from your initial position, you'll see that it's possible to draw lines so that they go through those squares and yet do not pass through the opponent. In fact, in each case, it's possible to use ride-by-attack and pass by the opponent on either side, too.
You ever seen the movies where the guys on horseback cut down people and keep on moving? It is kind of like that.
|
|
Yeah - I'm not as much of a stickler for "reality" as my posts above might suggest. I guess my point can be summerized as: you can still do everything you could want or expect to do, even when you require people to charge to the nearest square from their starting position (including running past with ride-by-attack). So why remove this condition? I don't see how it affects balance either way and it only seems to adversly affect the intuition regarding how charging works.The condition is not being removed since it was never really there. It is just badly worded, kind of like how Vital Strike had people confused for a while.
The nearest square condition, a consequence of the requirement to charge directly to the target IS there. It is explicitly laid out in the 3.5 PHB, which uses the same text. Sean was unaware of the requirement to charge directly in 3.5/PF; he was using the straight line charge rule of 3.0. Sean doesn't like it and will now lobby for changes.
The nearest square condition, a consequence of the requirement to charge directly to the target IS there. It is explicitly laid out in the 3.5 PHB, which uses the same text. Sean was unaware of the requirement to charge directly in 3.5/PF; he was using the straight line charge rule of 3.0. Sean doesn't like it and will now lobby for changes.Yeah - I'm not as much of a stickler for "reality" as my posts above might suggest. I guess my point can be summerized as: you can still do everything you could want or expect to do, even when you require people to charge to the nearest square from their starting position (including running past with ride-by-attack). So why remove this condition? I don't see how it affects balance either way and it only seems to adversly affect the intuition regarding how charging works.The condition is not being removed since it was never really there. It is just badly worded, kind of like how Vital Strike had people confused for a while.
I read it, but I always thought it was a badly written rule, because it did not make sense. I guess an RAI meeting will be held.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Thanks Sean, but to clarify:
1) How does the mount having Spring Attack help in a charge situation? Spring Attack allows a melee attack, charge is at least a standard.
2) Can a rider and mount attack in the same round if the rider has Ride-By Attack, and the mount has Pounce (and/or Spring Attack if it works).
*edit* 3) Also, when it says you can overrun as part of a charge, if you have Trample and Charge Through feats, can you Overrun multiple opponents and then charge a creature at the end of your movement? What if you have Pounce?
Cheers again.
Is there any chance we can resolve these questions at all?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So for it to work would mean the Mount is Spring Attacking BUT NOT CHARGING,
while the Rider is doing a CHARGE action. I thought that the Mount must be Charging for the Rider to make a Mounted Charge(?), but if that`s NOT the case, then I guess the Mount could Spring Attack while the Rider does the Mounted Charge thing.Of course, Spring Attack only allows 1 Move Action amount of total movement,
so you can only Charge half the distance if you want to try and do this.
My bold
That's wrong. It's preatty obvious the rider and the mount is a team, both charge or no one charges.
While mounted and charging, you can move, strike at a foe, and then continue moving.
When you are mounted and use the charge action, you may move and attack as if with a standard charge and then move again.
Your mounted charge attacks deal a tremendous amount of damage.
My bold.
or:
Combat while Mounted, page 202.
"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."
Even if you would claim they are not both charging, it's pretty obvious you can't charge if you don't move.
"Movement During a Charge: You must move before your attack, not after. You must move at least 10 feet (2 squares)"
So if you don't move some one else have to take care of the moving part, your mount. If you want to charge, the mount charges so it can't use Spring Attack.
It's pretty obvious the rider and the mount is a team, both charge or no one charges.
I am absolutely amazed this truth hasn't come up sooner in this thread.
|
|
It's pretty obvious the rider and the mount is a team, both charge or no one charges.I am absolutely amazed this truth hasn't come up sooner in this thread.
This is an interpretation. It isn't the "truth". The RAW is that the mount charges; mounted combat uses the movement of the mount and charge requires movement. The rider takes the AC penalty. The rider gains the bonus to attack if he attacks. The rider isn't charging; doing so requires that he move.
By RAW, a non-sentient mount requires a Handle Animal check to attack, which is an embedded element of charging. Unless intentionally looking to prevent non-companion mounts from charging, that move action skill check is taking place during the charge.
I'm aware many see Ride as completely obviating the need for Handle Animal here. If replacing a charisma skill with a dex skill works for you, go for it; it has a long history that also has support in various supplemental 3.5 rules articles. It is not RAW.
Even if you would claim they are not both charging, it's pretty obvious you can't charge if you don't move.
"Movement During a Charge: You must move before your attack, not after. You must move at least 10 feet (2 squares)"
The rider isn't charging; doing so requires that he move.
But if he wasn't charging, he wouldn't get all the goodies only available on a charge, like damage multipliers with a lance!
|
|
The rider isn't charging; doing so requires that he move.But if he wasn't charging, he wouldn't get all the goodies only available on a charge, like damage multipliers with a lance!
*sigh* I hate it when posts get eaten. Trying again... :(
The text doesn't read that the rider has to be charging. Rather, that he is on a mount that is charging.
"A lance deals double damage when used from the back of a charging mount."
"A lance deals double damage if emplyoyed by a mounted character in a charge." (p. 198)
"When charging on horseback, you deal double damage with a lance (see Charge)." (p. 202; the (see Charge) is for the prior passage.)
The passage from p. 202 gets iffy, but in the context of all three passages, I think it's clear that your concern is unwarrented for lance.
As for charging feats: Yes, I agree that the rider doesn't get benefit of feats that require him to charge, such as pounce. I also recognize it is an unpopular position in some circle. RBA, Spirited Charge, and other feats that clearly require you to be mounted and charging obviously are fine. I also recognize the intent is unclear regarding non-mounted charge feats and resources, which is why I included it in the Suggestions thread about Mounted Combat. There may be an element of evolved intent here.
I respect a good round of rules lawyering as I have so often seen those who were diametrically opposed end up agreeing at the end of a passionate discussion, as long as they were willing to listen to logic and reason.
So let's take a closer look at the literal wording, page 198 of the core rules:
"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."
Closest space.... to what?
1) Closest space to your starting square? That seems to be the popular interpretation.
2) Closest space to the target? That would mean you would have to stop at 10' if you're using a lance, but 5' if you're large and have reach because you can still attack at 5', which would force you to give the target an attack of opportunity if it has reach. Seems an unlikely and problematic interpretation at best.
3) Closes space along your trajectory from which your opponent can be struck (Sean's take). Obviously, if your trajectory doesn't pass through a square in which you can attack your target, it isn't a charge, it's just a move.
The text of Ride-By Attack under Benefit says: "When you are mounted and use the charge action, you may move and attack as if with a standard charge and then move again (continuing the straight line of the charge)".
Under the assumption that an explicit rule cannot invalidate another explicit rule, and that if two explicit rules seem to conflict, one should chose the interpretation that does the least harm to both, I would chose #3 above, Sean's interpretation.
Since mounted charge requires one to explicitly "use the charge action" it cannot be required to then continue the straight line of the attack which will sometimes require moving through an enemy's square, an action explicitly forbidden.
If one instead choses interpretation #3, then mounted charge and ride-by attack no longer conflict, and no harm is done to someone using either mechanic.
Another factor arguing in favor of this approach is this: if an actor using ride-by attack can retain the benefits of a charge when not charging at center mass of the charged creature, why would an actor who must stop at the point of attack not get the same benefit? IOW, if there's a slot full of dragon within charging range and I have a clear path at it, why could I not charge the dragon (barring weak knees or a lethal attack of opportunity preventing it)? I must still charge ahead at center mass, although a friendly hobbit or a shrubbery is inconveniently placed there, invalidating my charge? Seems counterintuitive, in addition to forcing a differing interpretation of the same rule used for two purposes.
I respect a good round of rules lawyering as I have so often seen those who were diametrically opposed end up agreeing at the end of a passionate discussion, as long as they were willing to listen to logic and reason.
The first step in deciding if rules need to be changed is deciding if the rules are broken. If the rules are broken as written, and its not a misreading on the individuals part, then they need to be changed.
-What part of a creature is never specified. If you are moving towards the dragons left claw theoretically you are moving directly towards that creature.
-Charge is insanely restrictive. its ANNOYING and unrealistic but so are a lot of other things in the game. That its annoying and unrealistic doesn't make it bad or an invalid reading. The rules do not break charge.
-The restrictions on charge DO break ride by attack, however you try to tweak them. While moving directly towards a creature is open to some interpretation, its pretty clear that in seans diagram that the charger isn't doing that. He's quite clearly aimed off to one side or the other. Its also apparent that any reading of the rules results in the charger being aimed directly at the target most of the time and unable to perform ride by attacks intended purpose of letting the charger joust right past his opponent.
So.. are we misreading something? No. IS the feat doing what it should? No. So a tweak is needed either to the charging rules or to rideby attack. I don't like making houserules unless it has been established that the rules broke first.
I agree - Ride-by needs an errata... and mounted combat needs a FAQ. It needed a FAQ in 2000; it needed a FAQ in 2003; and it needs a FAQ in 2010.
3.5 had a writeup on Mounted Combat under Rules of the Game. I wish we'd kept some of this under Pathfinder. Bull Rushing with your beastly mount was always fun. Now a mount has to invest in BR, or the three-feat chain from Spring Attack, and armor feats, and we get discussions like this one.
Part One
Part Two
Part Three
Part Four
Part Five
On the other hand, that there were five parts suggests that mounted combat always was and always will be somewhat complicated.
Fight with a Combat-Trained Mount: If you direct your wartrained
mount to attack in battle, you can still make your
own attack or attacks normally. This usage is a free action.
Free Action: Free actions consume a very small amount of
time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions
while taking another action normally.
I'd say you can direct your wartrained mount to attack while performing a ride by attack normally.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Based on my own group discussions and the discussions that I have read on the message boards, my interpretations of mounted charge, which come up a lot with my cavalier character, are as follows:
There are basically three options for a mounted charging character that has the feat Ride-by-Attack:
1. Charge directly at the target – If using a lance, deal double damage, however if the character is on a mount without reach (such as a horse) the mount does not get an attack since it cannot reach the target and the character must stop at the nearest square it can hit the target. If using a weapon without reach, the character may have the mount attack at the end of the charge, using the charge bonus. If dealing with a target larger than medium size, the charge can be directly at any portion of the target.
2. Ride-by-Attack – Charge in a straight line (towards, but not necessarily directly at the target, which is what Ride-by-Attack modifies), hitting the target at the nearest point, and continuing on the straight line of the charge which should be next to the target, but not over it. Because the mount is using two actions to move, or because it can’t move-attack-move, the mount does not get an attack. However, if the mount has the feat Spring Attack, it may take a single attack if directed by the character with a successful Ride 10 check (unless of course the mount never gets within reach of the target, based on its trajectory). (Hasn’t really come up yet since I can’t see burning three feats for my mount for it to get a single attack on a charge.)
3. Overrunning charge – Charge directly at the target, make the character’s attack, then attempt the overrun using the mount’s CMB, not the character’s. If successful, the mount overruns the target, with the possibility of the character using the feat Trample. Because the overrun attempt is a standard action, it does not get an attack, with the exception of the specifically stated “free” hoof attack in Trample.
These options retain the flavor of the mounted knight while keeping the RAW.
Looking for official clarification, if anything is incorrect.
Sean, the very definition of charging (both as a gaming term and as a real world term) requires that you be moving directly towards your enemy.Well, that's stupid. (And not how we did it in 3.0. Another annoying 3.5 change, I guess.)
If I charge someone, I should be able to charge directly at them, or obliquely. If I charge and cut a guy as I run by, that should still be valid... my momentum applies to the weapon whether it's in front of me or to my side.
And the 3.5 ruling (as people have pointed out) basically makes it impossible to use RBA because you'd have to move *through* your target. Which means it should be called Ride-Through attack.
Noting for personal houserule and errata-lobbying.
Would it not be both easier and better to reword the Ride-by Attack feat like this:
Ride-By Attack (Combat)
While mounted and charging, you can move, strike at a
foe, and then continue moving.
Prerequisites: Ride 1 rank, Mounted Combat.
Benefit: When you are mounted and use the charge
action, you may move and attack as if with a standard
charge and then move again (continuing the movement in any direction away from the starting point of the charge). Your total movement for the round can’t
exceed double your mounted speed. You and your mount
do not provoke an attack of opportunity from the opponent
that you attack.
... Under the assumption that an explicit rule cannot invalidate another explicit rule, and that if two explicit rules seem to conflict, one should chose the interpretation that does the least harm to both, I would chose #3 above, Sean's interpretation.
But clearly there are degrees of specificness. And considering Ride-By Attack is more specific than the Charge rule one can rightly argue that interpretation #1 is correct for any combatant without Ride-By Attack (which incidentaly further increases the value of the feat).
A mount can't use spring attack and a charge in the same round any better than a character can though, right? They are both full round actions and are therefore mutually exclusive....1) No, because the mount is doing all the work moving. If the mount is to attack, it needs to use Spring Attack.
...
I agree that Spring Attack and Charge are incompatible.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Sean, the very definition of charging (both as a gaming term and as a real world term) requires that you be moving directly towards your enemy.Well, that's stupid. (And not how we did it in 3.0. Another annoying 3.5 change, I guess.)
If I charge someone, I should be able to charge directly at them, or obliquely. If I charge and cut a guy as I run by, that should still be valid... my momentum applies to the weapon whether it's in front of me or to my side.
And the 3.5 ruling (as people have pointed out) basically makes it impossible to use RBA because you'd have to move *through* your target. Which means it should be called Ride-Through attack.
Noting for personal houserule and errata-lobbying.
Did this ever get officially settled one way or another?
I imagine the big problem is with changing the wording on charge so that it allows for slightly off-center charging, but not allowing for bizarre letter-of-the-law cheats to like, charge to the space directly behind someone and attack behind you for flanking bonuses. Pretty sure the magic wording would go something like this:
Completely omit all references to the designated opponent from "Movement During a Charge." Leave all the straight, unobstructed line stuff in, but include no restrictions on where the target space must be.
Under "Attacking on a Charge" add the following (or something like it):
You may attack a single melee opponent while charging. This opponent must be within range of this attack at some point during your movement. If there are multiple points along the path of your charge at which the opponent you wish to attack, the attack must be made from the first such space you enter. If this space is within 5' of your initial position, charging is not possible. Upon making this attack, your movement immediately ends.
Then Ride-By Attack could be tweaked slightly:
Special: Making an attack during a charge does not end your movement.
Normal: Attacking as part of a charge immediately ends your movement.
Pretty sure that would leave everything working exactly as intended, unambiguously, with no wiggle room for stupid stuff like backstabbing charges or bouncing off at an angle from a ride by.
I want to clarify our own situation as this thread has me questioning what we have been doing:
1st - We use Sean's interpretation of Ride-by-attack and don't find it to be a problem.
2nd - My son plays a mounted Summoner riding his Eidolon built as a dragon.
3rd - The Summoner has Ride-by-Attack and the Eidolon has Flyby Attack and Pounce (also Death From Above, but that isn't really relevant)
So... we have been playing that during a charge, when the Summoner reaches a point 10' from the target, he gets to make his lance attack. If the Eidolon gets within 5', he gets to make his full attack (as per Pounce)and continue his movement (as per Ride-by/Flyby Attack).
We have always visualized this as the Eidolon swooping down, and landing on the target (with the summoner making his lance attack just before impact) dealing damage with tooth and claw, before springboarding back into the air.
Pounce never says the attacks have to come at the end of the move, just that the Eidolon can get a full attack during the charge.
Some other questions arose because the mounted combat rules assume that your mount is an animal with animal intelligence.
It says that the mount moves on your initiative. What if the mount is an intelligent being (possibly more intelligent than his rider) with his own motivations and his own (higher) initiative? Could you have a situation where the mount gets to act (charging, attacking, flying away) before the rider can attack?
It says that a DC 5 Ride check is required to guide your mount with your knees, in order to free up both hands. While this is an easy roll to make, is it really needed if the mount can understand the rider's language and follow instructions?
|
If you want to move, have the mount attack, and move, the mount has to have Spring Attack. Ride-By Attack lets you attack in the middle of moving; it doesn't change the attack sequence for your mount (it doesn't mention your mount attacking at all).
I couldn't see if this was clarified anywhere, but this means that there isn't really a way for you and your mount to attack together using Ride-by Attack, correct? Ride-by Attack requires you to be riding a charging mount, and Spring Attack is its own special Full-round action, incompatible with a charge.
The only way I can see you and your mount attacking together on a Ride-by Attack would be if you attacked from a square prior to the end of your mounts charge, so your mount would either need to target a different enemy, or you'd need to pull some (legal as far as I can tell) shenanigans with reach weapons.
|
(Yes, I'm practicing Threadomancy, resurrecting this thread from two years ago with new information.)
This is in the Pathfinder CRB FAQ:
---
Mounted Combat: When making a charge while mounted, which creature charges? The rider or the mount?
Both charge in unison, suffer the same penalty to AC, the gaining the same bonus to the attack rolls and following all other rules for the charge. The mounted combat rules are a little unclear on this. Replace the third paragraph under the "Combat while Mounted" section on page 202 with the following text. Note that a "mounted charge" is synonymous with a "charge while mounted," and that when a lance is "when used from the back of a charging mount" it is during a mounted charge not when only the mount charges.
A mounted charge is a charge made by you and your mount. During a mounted charge, you deal double damage with your first melee attack made with a lance or with any weapon if you have Spirited Charge (or a similar effect), or you deal triple damage with a lance and Spirited Charge.
This change will be reflected in future printings of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook
posted Mar 26, 2014
---
So now, the mount and the rider can both attack during the charge. No Spring Attack required.
With RBA, you and your mount just keep moving after your attacks.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
This new rule clarification (both mount and rider charge at the same time) doesn't answer a key question: When do they stop if the mount and the rider have different reach?
For example, a human lancer on a horse. Lancer has 10 ft reach, horse has 5 ft reach. When do they stop charging -- in the first square from which the lancer can attack, or the first square from which the horse can attack?
Another example: A human with a longsword, riding a mammoth. The swordsman has 5 ft reach, mammoth has 10 ft reach. When do they stop charging?