Does sitting on a horse count as "sitting" w.r.t. AC modifiers?


Rules Questions

Dark Archive

i.e. -2 AC vs Melee and +2 AC vs ranged

Richard


1 person marked this as a favorite.

No. It counts as being mounted and has no affect on AC. The mount is a seperate target and has it's own AC.

Silver Crusade

richard develyn wrote:

i.e. -2 AC vs Melee and +2 AC vs ranged

Richard

1. It's not mentioned in the rules for the Ride skill, the Mounted Combat feat, or the mounted combat rules (CRB p. 201).

2. The mounted combat feat specifically has rules for AC adjustment on a horse during a charge, and doesn't mention adjusting for sitting.

3. +2 to ranged makes since for sitting on braced surface, but makes little sense on a horse. -2 AC to melee when you are on a horse and, in many cases harder to reach, also makes little sense.

4. For what it's worth, I've never played it that way, or seen it played that way.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

What if the horse was stationary?

And you knelt on it?

What if it was stuffed?

Richard


Your AC doesn't change on a live horse because it moves, and you control it's movement. If you are caught by surprise you lose AC for being flat footed (stationary and unaware). On a stuffed horse, well I'd rule that as sitting and subject to all of the rules you mentioned.

Dark Archive

I think this is more to do with cover, to be honest with you, at least when it comes to ranged attacks, a bit like you get cover when you're up to your waist in water. I think that sitting on a horse should give you partial cover - your horse is, after all, a separate target.

With the melee side, I think you lose some of your maneuverability when you're sitting on a horse, so you should be a bit easier to hit.

All in all I would rule it as written - i.e. sitting on a horse is no different to sitting on anything else.

Just my opinion.

Richard

Grand Lodge

Your stuffed horse is an object. Being on inanimate objects requires no ride skill, but at least your mount is immune to critical hits, but if you animate it, it will lose this immunity.


What if the horse is just a stick horse? Then I would think that you won't get cover, but maybe still + AC against ranged for "crouching"? And - AC because of the akwardness?

What if it is actually just a horse head in your bed (you know, after local mob troubles) - do you then get any cover against ranged attack for the head? You would get the +4 AC for lying down, I think - but what about cover for the horse head?

What if it's just a metaphorical horse (you know - beating a dead horse) - would you get any cover for that? Maybe just metaphorical cover?

...I'll stop know. Excuse my silliness - I just really liked Richard's question about the stuffed horse :)


In home games you can houserule whatever you want, but RAW being on a moving mount doesn't change your AC.

Sovereign Court

All in all, sitting is not riding. Nowhere in the mounted combat rules does it say that you are "sitting" on a mount.

EDIT: If you really want to get 'realistic,' you should receive a penalty to AC vs ranged attacks because you are actually up higher off the ground and easier to target.

Liberty's Edge

As others have said, no, riding a horse isn't sitting. You posted asking what the rules are, you were told what the rules are, like it or not, use it or not, that doesn't change the fact that they're the rules.

Beyond that, "what if the horse is stuffed" is a straw man, and as such has no place in an actual intellectual conversation.

Dark Archive

ShadowcatX wrote:

As others have said, no, riding a horse isn't sitting. You posted asking what the rules are, you were told what the rules are, like it or not, use it or not, that doesn't change the fact that they're the rules.

No they're not.

The rules are that sitting grants you the AC bonuses I stated above. There is no qualifier on the word "sitting", and the fact that the rules on mounted combat don't repeat this rule does not mean they contradict it.

ShadowcatX wrote:


Beyond that, "what if the horse is stuffed" is a straw man, and as such has no place in an actual intellectual conversation.

A straw horse, even?

Anyway, it's entirely relevant, and entirely intellectual. If you are sitting on a horse that isn't moving, and you are not in combat so you're not having to control it in any way, and someone fires an arrow at you, then apparently you don't get your AC mod. If the horse wasn't actually alive, you would. What about if it was paralysed? Etc, etc.

The intellectual part of the argument is deciding why you get the AC bonus (or not). If, as I argue, it's about cover, then the allegory between alive and stuffed horse helps to illustrate the fact that you should get the AC bonus.

Richard

Dark Archive

Nebelwerfer41 wrote:
All in all, sitting is not riding. Nowhere in the mounted combat rules does it say that you are "sitting" on a mount.

That'll be the only place that I know of in the english language, then, where you're not thought of as sitting on a horse when you're riding it. What's a sitting trot, then?

Consider also:

Do you ride a flying carpet, or sit on it?

Do you ride a broom of flying, or sit on it?

Richard

Liberty's Edge

richard develyn wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:

As others have said, no, riding a horse isn't sitting. You posted asking what the rules are, you were told what the rules are, like it or not, use it or not, that doesn't change the fact that they're the rules.

No they're not.

The rules are that sitting grants you the AC bonuses I stated above. There is no qualifier on the word "sitting", and the fact that the rules on mounted combat don't repeat this rule does not mean they contradict it.

If you're riding a horse in combat, you are not sitting. A lot of your weight will be on your legs in your stirrups because you're moving, trying not to get hit and trying to hit your opponents. Heck, even jockeys don't "sit" in the saddle when they ride, and they have a lot less riding on their movements in the saddle than warriors do. Sitting is a relaxed position, fighting from a saddle is not.


If you're sitting side saddle..I'd say yes.


Has anyone ever told you about mountains and molehills?

Let's break it down this way:

The word "attack" in pathfinder has several connotaions. There is the attack action which is a game term, and subject to spelled out rules. Then there is the descriptor "attack" which denotes a hostile action which is not subject to written rules, but can be subject to DM interpretation.

The word "sitting" is a descriptor, which they use as a guidline for modifying AC. They give you an example of +2/-2 to AC, but they do not define it well. Sitting at a table would provide cover, sitting on a wall would make you more visable, resting on your laurels in high grass would be a nightmare to stat if we didn't just make on the fly common sense rulings.

Sitting on a horse, however, is a game mechanic called "Mounted". Now, when it comes to game mechanics, if something isn't spelled out specifically it is unaffected by the mechanic. AC is never mentioned when it comes to being mounted, same as it's never mentioned when you're using the attack action, even though both acts traditionally make you harder to hit with a sword. This is because of game balance, and to keep things running smoothly.

So I say again, feel free to houserule it, but RAW being mounted does not affect your AC.


ShadowcatX is right. Riding a horse requires ALOT more than just sitting on it, ESPECIALLY if you are not using the reins (I actually wonder if this is at all possible-attempting to ride with just one hand on the reins is already pretty darn difficult). There is alot of work going on with your knees and feet in the stirrups. There is a reason why horse-riding is tiring.

Sovereign Court

richard develyn wrote:
Nebelwerfer41 wrote:
All in all, sitting is not riding. Nowhere in the mounted combat rules does it say that you are "sitting" on a mount.

That'll be the only place that I know of in the english language, then, where you're not thought of as sitting on a horse when you're riding it. What's a sitting trot, then?

Consider also:

Do you ride a flying carpet, or sit on it?

Do you ride a broom of flying, or sit on it?

Richard

It isn't a matter of how you are positioned on the horse, but game terms. Mounted =/= sitting. How do you wrap your head around the term "ranged touch?"

BTW, for your magic item examples, you would be mounted on both.

Dark Archive

I'm sorry but I really think you guys are missing the point, and I think I'm getting a lot of "interpretation of RAW" being stated as fact.

In my opinion (and until someone who works from Paizo steps in all we're doing is trading *opinions*), the AC changes are due from your reduced target size (for ranged) and reduced maneuverability (for melee).

I don't think this has anything to do with having to control an animal beneath you.

If you're sitting on a chair concentrating on a spell, you still get the AC changes. If you're sitting on an animated chair that's trying to buck you off, you still get the AC changes.

If you're sitting on a horse construct that's entirely self-determining, you get the AC changes. It doesn't matter whether you have your feet in its stirrups or your sitting side saddle or cross-legged - you are still a smaller target for a ranged attack.

If you stood up on your horse, you would would lose the AC changes. If you lay down on your horse, you would be prone. You could even fire a crossbow prone from a horse if you wanted, and your horse was sufficiently well trained.

Like I said, just my opinion - please do not get on your high horses over this.

Richard

Sovereign Court

richard develyn wrote:

I'm sorry but I really think you guys are missing the point, and I think I'm getting a lot of "interpretation of RAW" being stated as fact.

In my opinion (and until someone who works from Paizo steps in all we're doing is trading *opinions*), the AC changes are due from your reduced target size (for ranged) and reduced maneuverability (for melee).

I don't think this has anything to do with having to control an animal beneath you.

If you're sitting on a chair concentrating on a spell, you still get the AC changes. If you're sitting on an animated chair that's trying to buck you off, you still get the AC changes.

If you're sitting on a horse construct that's entirely self-determining, you get the AC changes. It doesn't matter whether you have your feet in its stirrups or your sitting side saddle or cross-legged - you are still a smaller target for a ranged attack.

If you stood up on your horse, you would would lose the AC changes. If you lay down on your horse, you would be prone. You could even fire a crossbow prone from a horse if you wanted, and your horse was sufficiently well trained.

Like I said, just my opinion - please do not get on your high horses over this.

Richard

If you already had an opinion and were set on a ruling, why did you ask the question in the rules forum? It seems pretty clear as written.

As I mentioned earlier, if you are using your own AC modifiers, you should also take a penalty to AC to ranged attacks due to your elevated status. The mods as written for sitting should only apply if you are sitting at ground level. The modifiers to ranged AC are due to your target size relative to the horizon, not your overall size (which are factored into your race).


...Did you post this QUESTION in a public forum to get other people's opinion on something that you clearly already have a set opinion on, or just hoping to get confirmation on a piece of house-rule that you're trying to pass off as Rules as Intended?

Dark Archive

I posted this QUESTION because I wanted to get people's OPINIONS rather than any self-styled rules lawyer's ANSWERS, unless, of course, someone within Paizo posts a definitive ANSWER.

That's how all conversations on this forum work, as far as I can see. You debate your opinions with mutual respect.

Anyway, consider this from the RAW:

"Cavalier

Heavily armored and well armed, sitting astride a powerful charger..."

Seems pretty clear as written to me ....

As far as elevated position goes, that's already there:

"When you attack a creature smaller than your mount that is on foot, you get the +1 bonus on melee attacks for being on higher ground."

Is there another elevated position modifier that I'm missing?

Richard


richard develyn wrote:

You could even fire a crossbow prone from a horse if you wanted, and your horse was sufficiently well trained.

Mate...have you ever had any first-hand experiences with horses?

Grand Lodge

Horses are scary.

Liberty's Edge

richard develyn wrote:
I posted this QUESTION because I wanted to get people's OPINIONS rather than any self-styled rules lawyer's ANSWERS, unless, of course, someone within Paizo posts a definitive ANSWER.

If you want something from a Paizo member, post in the ask James Jacobs thread. If you want answers to questions about the rules, post here, and we will give you answers. And yes, they're answers, not opinions, because they are in black and white.

Mounted =/= sitting unless you can find a place in the rulebook that says it does.

Honestly, it sounds like you thought you had found something oh so clever to screw with someone at your table and you wanted us all to confirm how amazingly clever you are and worship at your feet, and now you're getting your feelings hurt that it isn't happening and so you're lashing out.

Dark Archive

ShadowcatX wrote:
Honestly, it sounds like you thought you had found something oh so clever to screw with someone at your table and you wanted us all to confirm how amazingly clever you are and worship at your feet, and now you're getting your feelings hurt that it isn't happening and so you're lashing out.

It might sound that way to you, but I think that says more about you than it does about me.

Anyway, the quote I put up about the cavalier says he's *sitting* on his horse quite clearly, so unless you want to tell me he isn't mounted I think I have found a way to prove that mounted == sitting.

I can imagine that this is not RAI, and I'm not that worried about how this rule ends up in the end, I just think it's a shame that people like you have to get unpleasant and personal when we should have just been calmly sharing opinions (you might think your opinions are answers, by the way, but I don't).

Richard


I glued myself to my horse, and now even though I am (RAW) helpless you can not coup me because I am "sitting" and my horse is moving!

I win I win I win!

Liberty's Edge

richard develyn wrote:
Anyway, the quote I put up about the cavalier says he's *sitting* on his horse quite clearly, so unless you want to tell me he isn't mounted I think I have found a way to prove that mounted == sitting.

Fluff text =/= rules text.

And allow me to point out that I'm not the one who tried to argue against everyone who gave a different opinion than I did after asking the question. Nor am I the one who had to resort to logical fallacies.


Personally, if there were any ac adjustments to be made during mounted combat I imagine it would be mentioned in the mounted combat section, something like that seems rather important to the very fundamentals of Mounted Combat as a whole.

Also would you mind telling me where your quote came from? that personally sounds more like fluff & not an actual rule quote.

Sovereign Court

According to Richard's interpretation, I could levitate to any elevation and then simply go prone in the air to get a +4 AC vs ranged attacks.

Dark Archive

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateCombat/classArchetypes/cavalier. html#

I thought the whole point of the PRD was that it was fluff-less.

Richard

P.S. Arguing with everyone doesn't make you obstinate - it's your absolute right - and there was nothing fallacious about any of my logic.

P.P.S. The whole point about being prone is to lessen the target against your opponent. If the person that was firing at you was at the same elevation then getting +4 to AC would be completely right. Obviously, this takes a bit of common sense, since you could argue that being prone against someone shooting from directly above should not give you any AC change.


richard develyn wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
Honestly, it sounds like you thought you had found something oh so clever to screw with someone at your table and you wanted us all to confirm how amazingly clever you are and worship at your feet, and now you're getting your feelings hurt that it isn't happening and so you're lashing out.

It might sound that way to you, but I think that says more about you than it does about me.

Just an observation, if this were just one person against another a by stander might think one or the other had the issue. When multiple people in this thread are pointing out that you seem to have an issue, you might want to consider that the way you are presenting yourself is coming across as hostile/opinionated/whatever - regardless of whether you are intending to be that way or not.

As to the question itself, I'd say mounted does not equal sitting. Would you really grant an -2 AC bonus to a guy on horse ignoring the fact that the guy attacking the guy on the horse is likely to get a horse hoof in his face, or cracking down on his skull, depending on where he is in relation to the horse. One could easily house rule a penalty to attacking a mounted character if you are looking for 'realistic' effects.

Liberty's Edge

richard develyn wrote:

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateCombat/classArchetypes/cavalier. html#

I thought the whole point of the PRD was that it was fluff-less.

Descriptive text / fluff / whatever, tis all the same thing. It is not rules text and the rules are what we are discussing.

Quote:
P.S. Arguing with everyone doesn't make you obstinate - it's your absolute right - and there was nothing fallacious about any of my logic.

Logical Fallacies list

Dark Archive

Just on your first point - I think you have to look carefully at what you write to decide whether you are being reasonable and polite, or not. regardless of the numbers of people who are choosing to have a go at you over this (and actually there has only been a handful at that).

There is a body of opinion which believes that if enough people shout enough about something then it must be true, or if enough people shout at you that you're wrong then you must be wrong. I have certainly come across plenty of people who live their lives this way but I am not in any way one of them.

It is also widely documented that people act in "packs", and that if there is enough of a "pack" arguing "black rather than white", then the "white rather than black" people will be put off from joining in.

All in all, though, I don't think anyone should ever feel the need to get personal on these forums. We should be debating issues, not criticising people.

At the end of the day, this is hole in the rules (in my opinion). Obviously the mounted melee advocates are not going to be too happy about losing 2 points of AC, which is probably why the arguments are getting heated.

Richard

Dark Archive

ShadowcatX wrote:
url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies]Logical Fallacies list[/url]

Well aware of it, actually, so what point are you trying to make?

Richard

Sovereign Court

richard develyn wrote:


P.P.S. The whole point about being prone is to lessen the target against your opponent. If the person that was firing at you was at the same elevation then getting +4 to AC would be completely right. Obviously, this takes a bit of common sense, since you could argue that being prone against someone shooting from directly above should not give you any AC change.

So, if you agree it is about your target size (not 'actual size'), then the same reasoning would be true for the 'sitting/kneeling' (BTW, you keep leaving that other, important qualifier out of the discussion) modifiers. When you get right down to it, the sitting/kneeling modifiers are about target size. So being mounted on a larger creature would not change your target size (all of you is still there, and being mounted is more of a vertical position than the 'sitting with knees bent at 90 degrees' position). Therefore, no need to apply the AC modifiers.

Grand Lodge

Its OK Richard, most people don't understand mounted combat very well. I suggest you check out 3.5 Private Sanctuary's Podcast entitled "Mounted Combat"

You might be able get a handle on how wrong you are on this issue.

Dark Archive

I have always said it was about target size.

Overall, of course, you and your horse together are a bigger target, but you are not just one target - you are two.

A ranged attacker could, presumably, fire at your horse instead of you (true?).

So your position on the horse reduces your personal target size, either because of your sitting position or because your horse is obscuring part of you.

The melee argument is different, of course, but the ranged argument makes sense to me.

Richard

Sovereign Court

richard develyn wrote:
either because of your sitting position or because your horse is obscuring part of you.

So, it is about cover as well, then? What if you look at the rider from the back, you can see all of him then. If you look at them from the side, only one leg is obscured. So, would a one-legged creature get a bonus to AC from ranged attacks? If you attack from the front, only a portion of the torso is obscured. Interpreting it this way opens up the aspect of facing and directionality, which doesn't matter in the core rules.

By RAW, the only cover AC modifier you can get from your mount is if you make a ride check to hug the side of your mount or if it is standing between you and your attacker, but not if you are mounted on top of it.

The argument may make sense to you, but to me and the rest of the posters, it doesn't.

Dark Archive

richard develyn wrote:

I have always said it was about target size.

Overall, of course, you and your horse together are a bigger target, but you are not just one target - you are two.

A ranged attacker could, presumably, fire at your horse instead of you (true?).

So your position on the horse reduces your personal target size, either because of your sitting position or because your horse is obscuring part of you.

The melee argument is different, of course, but the ranged argument makes sense to me.

Richard

What part of you is obscured by the horse? If you are hiding behind the horse, it would not be an AC change due to sitting, but for cover. It sounds more like this rule then sitting/kneeling:

Quote:
Partial Cover: If a creature has cover, but more than half the creature is visible, its cover bonus is reduced to a +2 to AC and a +1 bonus on Reflex saving throws. This partial cover is subject to the GM's discretion.

and that is covered by the ride rules with a DC15 ride check:

Quote:
Cover: You can react instantly to drop down and hang alongside your mount, using it as cover. You can't attack or cast spells while using your mount as cover. If you fail your Ride check, you don't get the cover benefit. Using this option is an immediate action, but recovering from this position is a move action (no check required).

Liberty's Edge

richard develyn wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies]Logical Fallacies list[/url]

Well aware of it, actually, so what point are you trying to make?

Richard

Actually, I was mistaken, it was another poster who made the strawman claims. My apologies.


Not many ac modifiers come into place when on a horse because it would complicate the game.

@Richie
In your game could I turn the saddle so it's under the horse and ride it from there so I have cover?

Dark Archive

I guess so :-)

Anyway, I think we're in danger of discussing as a rules issue something which I was only quoting as justification.

The rules issue is "is sitting on a horse, sitting". I don't think the rules are clear on this though I accept that RAI is probably no, because of the detrimental effect this would have on mounted melee combatants.

The reason why I thought it was reasonable to think of sitting on a live horse as being the same, from an AC point of view, as sitting on a stuffed one, is because in both cases you present a smaller target, possibly because you're folded up a bit or possibly because of cover.

Now, of course, cover brings its own issues, like this rule, for example:

"Characters swimming, floating, or treading water on the surface, or wading in water at least chest deep, have improved cover (+8 bonus to AC, +4 bonus on Reflex saves) from opponents on land."

- seems totally over the top to me when it comes to being attacked by something amphibious like a crocodile.

The point was not, however, to argue about the cover rules, but to argue that a cover "consideration" could support the idea that you should get +2 AC from ranged attacks when sitting on a horse (a live one).

Richard


There are already cover rules incorporated into mounted combat, so trying to use cover as a justification for applying the "sitting" AC modifiers to mounted combat doesn't hold water.

"PRD", Ride skill checks wrote:
Cover: You can react instantly to drop down and hang alongside your mount, using it as cover. You can't attack or cast spells while using your mount as cover. If you fail your Ride check, you don't get the cover benefit. Using this option is an immediate action, but recovering from this position is a move action (no check required).

If they wanted to apply other applications of cover mechanics to mounted combat, it would be mentioned somewhere within the mounted combat rules. It isn't.


The PRD is not Fluffless, that entire paragraph is pure fluff used to describe & help the player bring to mind the image of the typical Knight on his horse & in the course of so they use words that do not interact well in the rules section of the game. Fluff should not factor into rules which is where many players see them sometimes going, but its sometimes hard for writers to completely detach descriptive text from the rules.

Regardless something that is mostly just descriptive text is not a hardcore rule, unless there is a great deal of the mechanics system involved its likely fluff/descriptive text.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Also, the CRB makes absolutely zero reference (that I could find) to "sitting" while mounted. In fact it seems to go out of its way to use "mounted" and "riding".

So, Paladins don't sit on their mounts, but Cavaliers do? Not a chance.

Sovereign Court

Richard the overwhelming response from the community seems to be that Mounted and Sitting are two different states in the game. The rules for Mounted Combat clearly do not include any mention nor modification of your AC that remotely match the AC modifiers in the combat table for sitting. Everything related to Mounted Combat can be found in the Ride skill, the mounted combat section of the Combat chapter, and in any feat related to mounted combat. I recommend you keep it simple.

Sitting is for sitting on the ground, at a chair, on a wagon, and IMO on a magic carpet. However when mounted you are not sitting. This comes from 12 years of 3.x/PF GMing experience. YMMV.

--School of Vrock


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Has is occurred to anyone that the AC modifiers for sitting or kneeling might be assuming that you are doing do on the ground? After all, sitting on a relatively high stool is little different from simply leaning against ir, which in turn is little different from standing next to it unless the stool is suddenly knocked over. Kneeling puts your knees either at or near ground level or in a precarious position in most cases.

Since the bonuses and penalties are half those of being prone, the assumption would seem to be that a seated character is "half-prone" -- which is true only if you are sitting on the ground. If you are riding or seated on a raised surface, you are far more than half way to a standing position.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

David knott 242 wrote:

Has is occurred to anyone that the AC modifiers for sitting or kneeling might be assuming that you are doing do on the ground? After all, sitting on a relatively high stool is little different from simply leaning against ir, which in turn is little different from standing next to it unless the stool is suddenly knocked over. Kneeling puts your knees either at or near ground level or in a precarious position in most cases.

Since the bonuses and penalties are half those of being prone, the assumption would seem to be that a seated character is "half-prone" -- which is true only if you are sitting on the ground. If you are riding or seated on a raised surface, you are far more than half way to a standing position.

^^ This.

It seems like the "rules" for kneeling sitting are intended more as guidelines than rules anyway, as the only place I can seem to find any reference to kneeling/ sitting is a brief mention in the table on Armor Class Modifiers. You wouldn't override clearly detailed mechanics by quoting the short text listed on a feat table to try and justify your version of how a feat should work, I don't see why you would try it with any other table without something in the detailed mechanics to back your interpretation up.
Also, Mounted Combat reads:"Combat while Mounted: With a DC 5 Ride check, you can guide your mount with your knees so as to use both hands to attack or defend yourself. This is a free action."
This, to me, makes it fairly clear that you are actively engaged in "riding" not passively sitting.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Does sitting on a horse count as "sitting" w.r.t. AC modifiers? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.