|
Pounce (Ex)
When a creature with this special attack makes a charge, it can make a full attack (including rake attacks if the creature also has the rake ability).
(Emphasis mine.)
To use pounce, the creature with the special attack must use a charge action.
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 straight line 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.
(Emphasis mine.)
Ride-by attack requires the PC to use a charge action.
When you use ride-by attack, YOU are making a charge, not your mount, so the mount cannot use it's pounce ability.
EDIT: If you, the PC (or NPC if you're a sadistic GM...*thinking*...), somehow gain the Pounce ability, you could charge while mounted, full attack, then finish your movement.
Design Manager
|
Ride-by attack requires the PC to use a charge action.When you use ride-by attack, YOU are making a charge, not your mount, so the mount cannot use it's pounce ability.
This is wrong. Any time something refers to a mounted charge action it is the mount making the charge. See links to good references here and here.
The real issue with Pounce and Ride-by Attack is that the mount has no ability to keep moving after an attack.
Ride-by Attack allows the rider to attack and keep moving; the mount has no such ability and can only attack at the end of the charge.
|
I believe the two cannot stack.
If you look at it like this, both pounce and ride-by-attack trigger on charge. But, Ride-By-Attack states that you can use an "move action and attack action" together as a standard action and then use another move action (which is effectively your full-round action. Standard+Move).
Pounce, as it also triggers on charge, allows you to move and then mount makes a full attack action instead of a normal attack as charge normally does (which is effectively a full-round action + a move). If you take out the common factor between the two, which is the move action granted by the charge action, you are left with a Standard attack from ride-by-attack and a full-round action (the full attack) from pounce. You cannot do a standard action and a full-round action in the same round, it's one or the other.
From that point of view, if I was the GM I'd rule against the two working together.
A simpler way to look at it is, pounce is move then full attack and once the full attack happens you can't move (as stated above by Ssalarn). The other way is ride-by-attack lets you move and attack and then move, but you can't trade a move action for a full attack action provided by pounce after the charge.
Hope that helps.
|
Design Manager
|
Action economy is not the issue here; there are two creatures involved in a mounted charge, and you and your mount each have your own pool of actions. The issue is that Ride-by Attack only gives the rider the ability to attack and continue moving, it does not give the mount any ability to also attack in the middle of its charge. The only way to mix them together would be if the mount and rider were targeting different targets:
A
MR-------------------B
MR = Mount and Rider
A = legal target for rider
B = legal target for pouncing mount (and rider w/o Ride-by Attack)
Or if the mount had some ability allowing it to attack in the middle of a charge and keep moving that did not conflict with its Pounce ability.
:( sad day. Literal meaning vs. Clearly implied meaning - which interpretation is correct?
There was a FAQ that addressed this:
Lance: If I have the pounce ability and I charge with a lance, do my iterative lance attacks get the lance's extra damage multiplier from charging?
No, for two reasons.One, because a lance only deals extra damage when you’re riding a charging mount—not when you are charging.
Two, even if you have an unusual combination of rules that allows you to ignore the above limitation, it doesn’t makes sense that those iterative attacks gain the damage bonus. To make that second attack, you have to pull the lance back and stab forward again, and that stab doesn’t have the benefit of the charge’s momentum. (The Core Rulebook doesn’t state that you only get the damage multiplier on the first attack with a lance because when the Core Rulebook was published, there was no way for a PC to charge and get multiple attacks with a weapon in the same round, so that combination didn’t need to be addressed.)
—Sean K Reynolds, 03/01/12
So. No pouncing on a mount, because you, the character with pounce, are not charging.... the mount is.
This means that a beastrider riding something like a big cat that has pounce can make a mounted charge and the big cat can pounce, but the rider can not. This is an important distinction.
Action economy is not the issue here; there are two creatures involved in a mounted charge, and you and your mount each have your own pool of actions. The issue is that Ride-by Attack only gives the rider the ability to attack and continue moving, it does not give the mount any ability to also attack in the middle of its charge. The only way to mix them together would be if the mount and rider were targeting different targets:
A
MR-------------------BMR = Mount and Rider
A = legal target for rider
B = legal target for pouncing mount (and rider w/o Ride-by Attack)Or if the mount had some ability allowing it to attack in the middle of a charge and keep moving that did not conflict with its Pounce ability.
Since the mounted charge ruling by SKR in the FAQ, this is true by RAW.... but to keep the feat functional at all in the way it was intended to be used, one has to adjudicate a bit.
This means that references to a charge while mounted must conform to the FAQ. That means that ride by attack is referring to the mount's ability to move, and the mount's charge action NOT the rider's. This is the only way the feat makes sense, since a rider who it atop a charging mount technically only uses a standard action to make their mounted charge attack, and maintains their move action. Therefore, without ride-by-attack, a mounted rider can perform a mounted charge, make an attack and then move. With ride-by attack, a mount can charge and then move.
This charge is not a standard+move... it is very clearly a "Standard Charge" which means that the mount CAN pounce. The rider can't, but the mount can. Afterward, the mount can continue moving in a straight line.
Again, this has to be the interpretation of the feat, because the rider is neither charging nor moving, the mount is.... so we have to read the feat as if it were using the collective "you" referring to both the mount AND the rider.
|
Design Manager
|
Since the mounted charge ruling by SKR in the FAQ, this is true by RAW.... but to keep the feat functional at all in the way it was intended to be used, one has to adjudicate a bit.
This means that references to a charge while mounted must conform to the FAQ. That means that ride by attack is referring to the mount's ability to move, and the mount's charge action NOT the rider's. This is the only way the feat makes sense, since a rider who it atop a charging mount technically only uses a standard action to make their mounted charge attack, and maintains their move action. Therefore, without ride-by-attack, a mounted rider can perform a mounted charge, make an attack and then move. With ride-by attack, a mount can charge and then move.
This charge is not a standard+move... it is very clearly a "Standard Charge" which means that the mount CAN pounce. The rider can't, but the mount can. Afterward, the mount can continue moving in a straight line.
Again, this has to be the interpretation of the feat, because the rider is neither charging nor moving, the mount is.... so we have to read the feat as if it were using the collective "you" referring to both the mount AND the rider.
Ride-by Attack only allows the rider to attack in the middle of the charge. It does nothing for the mount. See developer reference here .
"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)."
Ride-by Attack only allows the rider to attack in the middle of the charge. It does nothing for the mount. See developer reference here .
"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)."
This is a fun thread, but it displays a misuse of the rules on SKR's part.
Firstly, you can't use Spring Attack with a charge... so right away this quote is invalid from a RAW perspective (devs make mistakes too).
Secondly, the Rider cannot take the charge action. Which immediately makes the feat non-functional if we apply it only to the rider. The rider also cannot move unless he dismounts, and the feat requires him to be mounted... so again... non-functional. The mounted combat section is very clear on this... the rider does not move... the mount does, and the rider is carried along. The rider does not charge, but he can make an attack when his mount charges, and if he does he gets the bonuses and penalties as if he had charged.
The mount can charge, and the mount can move... and since that is the only part of the duo that can possibly make use of these actions, we have to apply the wording of the feat to the mount in order for it to function at all.
Read through that thread and you will find that SKR makes a whole slew of rules mistakes. he is only human, and TBH, a lot of the mounted combat wording is legacy stuff that needed to be changed to reflect the new position of things and never was. These debates have spilled out all over the forums ever since the Rage-Lance-Pounce FAQ.
Feats like Ride-by-attack and Trample need to be dissected to get at the actual intent behind them... because as written they simply do not function at all. If you want to adopt a RAW only view of things, then you may as well scratch both of these feats off of the list of possibilities.
Anyway, it is not unreasonable to read Ride-By-Attack as a feat that is addressing a collective "you" which includes both the rider and the mount. Since the mount is the one charging, and the mount is the one moving... it makes sense. It also makes sense considering that it references "your mounted speed", which isn't actually a thing. You, the rider, do not have a "mounted speed" you have a speed, and your mount has a speed. You are using your mount's speed, but the concept of who's movement is being referred to comes back to a collective.
Otherwise, we have to go line by line and figure out what is functional and what isn't:
Ride-by Attack (Combat)
1. When you are mounted and use the charge action, STOP, you cannot use the charge action while mounted.
2. you may move and attack as if with a standard charge STOP, you cannot move OR make a standard charge. Only the mount can until you are no longer mounted.
3. and then move again (continuing the straight line of the charge). STOP. You aren't moving, and cannot "move" again. You haven't moved to begin with, and moving would require dismounting.
4. Your total movement for the round can't exceed double your mounted speed. STOP. A term that no longer exists. Your mount has a speed and you are moving with it, that is all.
5. You and your mount do not provoke an attack of opportunity from the opponent that you attack. STOP. this is just about the only part that makes sense, but then again, it references you and your mount, and in the next line uses "you". So is it the monster the rider attacks and not the mount, or is this another instance where we need to use the collective "you"?
|
Design Manager
|
SKR never implied that Spring Attack could be used in conjunction with Ride-by Attack, just that it would take an ability like that in order for the mount to attack on the middle of the movement. Ride-by Attack only allows the rider to attack in the middle of the charge; it confers no such ability upon the mount.
SKR never implied that Spring Attack could be used in conjunction with Ride-by Attack, just that it would take an ability like that in order for the mount to attack on the middle of the movement. Ride-by Attack only allows the rider to attack in the middle of the charge; it confers no such ability upon the mount.
Yes... yes he did.
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...
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.
...
That is a quote from the very same thread... a 3 year old thread that predates the mounted charge FAQ that has caused a lot of uproar by 2 years.
And the discussion within that thread, from SKR, about ride-by-attack is fundamentally flawed, just like the feat itself. If ride-by-attack does not apply to the mount, then it does not function as a feat.... period... end of story.
What needs to happen, is that we need a comprehensive mounted combat FAQ or set of erratas... because the rules, as they are, do not work well and lack an immense amount of clarity.
If ride-by-attack is meant to only apply to the rider, then it should be worded to say that you, the rider, can make an attack at any point along the path of your mount's charge rather than just at the end. Effectively, this work a lot like Flyby attack... which would be fine, but a pretty weak feat.
The same type of reworking would have to happen for Trample, which is just another broken mounted combat feat.
|
Design Manager
|
What needs to happen, is that we need a comprehensive mounted combat FAQ or set of erratas... because the rules, as they are, do not work well and lack an immense amount of clarity.
If ride-by-attack is meant to only apply to the rider, then it should be worded to say that you, the rider, can make an attack at any point along the path of your mount's charge rather than just at the end. Effectively, this work a lot like Flyby attack... which would be fine, but a pretty weak feat.
The same type of reworking would have to happen for Trample, which is just another broken mounted combat feat.
The rule just needs to be read in context.
"Your mount acts on your initiative count as you direct it. You move at its speed, but the mount uses its action to move."
"If your mount charges, you also take the AC penalty associated with a charge. If you make an attack at the end of the charge, you receive the bonus gained from the charge. When charging on horseback, you deal double damage with a lance (see Charge)."
So when Ride-by Attack refers to you charging while mounted, you know that it is the mount charging and you gain certain benefits because of that. If you read in the context of the existing rules, they don't need to add an extra 50 characters to every feat.
What needs to happen, is that we need a comprehensive mounted combat FAQ or set of erratas... because the rules, as they are, do not work well and lack an immense amount of clarity.
If ride-by-attack is meant to only apply to the rider, then it should be worded to say that you, the rider, can make an attack at any point along the path of your mount's charge rather than just at the end. Effectively, this work a lot like Flyby attack... which would be fine, but a pretty weak feat.
The same type of reworking would have to happen for Trample, which is just another broken mounted combat feat.
The rule just needs to be read in context.
"Your mount acts on your initiative count as you direct it. You move at its speed, but the mount uses its action to move."
"If your mount charges, you also take the AC penalty associated with a charge. If you make an attack at the end of the charge, you receive the bonus gained from the charge. When charging on horseback, you deal double damage with a lance (see Charge)."
So when Ride-by Attack refers to you charging while mounted, you know that it is the mount charging and you gain certain benefits because of that. If you read in the context of the existing rules, they don't need to add an extra 50 characters to every feat.
You are missing the conflict.
Yes it is referring to you charging while mounted... great.Except that the mount has to have a target to charge... and its movement ends when it reaches that target. You move with your mount, and can also attack at the end of that charge, cool. But how are "you" moving afterward? And how is this a "standard charge".
Again the idea the "you may move and attack as with a standard charge" then "move again" is the issue. The mount is charging... got it. Then with ride by attack I can move and attack as with a standard charge... this is a mounted charge, okay. So I move with my mount and make an attack at the end of that charge, get some bonuses, got it.....
Now what. Now I can move again? So I can jump off my mount and go for a walk? Is that how this should be read?
The problem I have here, is that for this feat to work, you already have to interpret the first line as "when you are riding atop a charging mount" rather than "when you use the charge action". Because the way that it is written is contradictory to the rules.
So right off the bat we have to accept that the feat is referring to the Mount's charge action and NOT the rider's. We also have to accept that it is referring to the Mount's movement, because the mount is the one using its action to move... the rider is not. In fact this is well supported by the mounted combat section. So how is it that this ONE bit of bad wording where it refers to "your" attack has to be kept as canon when the rest of the feat needs to be read differently?
So here is my breakdown:
1. "When you are mounted and use the charge action" = When you and your mount charge something.
2. "you may move and attack as if with a standard charge..." = You move atop your mount up to double your speed in a straight line toward a target, your mount stops and you both make a single attack with a +2 to hit and -2 AC.
3. "...and then move again (continuing the straight line of the charge)." = This part only applies to the mount, since the mount is the one moving and charging. It can keep going along the straight path it used to charge.
4. "Your total movement for the round can't exceed double your mounted speed." = you are still moving up to double the mount's speed as usual for a charge, but it can extend past the enemy.
5. "You and your mount do not provoke an attack of opportunity from the opponent that you attack." = this part, at least, is self explanatory.
So, all together: the mount and the rider still have the same charge target, they still both attack at the end of the charge. The charge is still a straight line and still limited to double the mount's speed etc. all as a standard charge. The ONLY difference here is that the mount can keep going, following the path of its charge up to the full amount of double its speed rather than stopping short.
If we are to take your interpretation. How does the feat work?
The mount is charging. SO it has to pick a target, move in a straight line toward it, stop and attack. Yes? So, who is making an attack "as with a standard charge" then moving again? Where do we get the idea that the mount "loses" its attack or must target something other than the rider?
|
Design Manager
|
You are missing the conflict.
Yes it is referring to you charging while mounted... great.Except that the mount has to have a target to charge... and its movement ends when it reaches that target. You move with your mount, and can also attack at the end of that charge, cool. But how are "you" moving afterward? And how is this a "standard charge".
Again the idea the "you may move and attack as with a standard charge" then "move again" is the issue. The mount is charging... got it. Then with ride by attack I can move and attack as with a standard charge... this is a mounted charge, okay. So I move with my mount and make an attack at the end of that charge, get some bonuses,...
Your mount does not need to charge the same target as you. Nor does it need to make an attack at the end of its charge.
|
Design Manager
|
You aren't a rider and mount; you're a four-legged guy charging. Which is actually a bit of a bummer, because it means you don't get any of the bonuses for wielding a lance while mounted. Probably something they should have considered for the tauric races.
*EDIT*
Ah, I see they considered that for the Wemic. YOu'd make all of your attacks as normal and the first attack with the lance would get the boosted damage.
|
Design Manager
|
Based on the abilities you posted a Wemic could use Pounce and Spirited Charge together.
Let's say he had a base attack bonus of +6/+1 :
On a charge he could make one attack with his lance for triple damage, a second lance attack at -5 for regular damage, and a claw at -5 for claw damage + 1/2 STR.
|
Design Manager
|
He isn't wearing any weapons, only his claws. In this case, the attack sequence is more of a "Two Weapon Rend" than a pounce, I guess. The point here is if he could continue the movement after making the pounce.
Ah, gotchya. No, he couldn't. He gets specific exceptions for Spirited Charge and Trample, but not for Ride-by Attack, so it isn't a valid option for him (unless he's riding on another, larger, creature).
|
Design Manager
|
Ride-by Attack requires you to be mounted; your Wemic is not mounted, so he cannot use Ride-by Attack.
Sean Reynolds and James Jacobs have both chimed in that "when you are mounted and using the charge action" should be read as short-hand for "when you are mounted and your mount is using the charge action". The FAQs make it inarguably clear that the rider is not using the charge action, so what Driver 325 is stating is manifestly not what is currently rules legal. Be aware of that as you plan your builds.
Hi there, I am wondering if the Ride by attack and pounce would be working with a summoner mounted on his eidolon.
If it would, what eidolon/summoner feat combination would be needed?
|
Design Manager
|
Hi there, I am wondering if the Ride by attack and pounce would be working with a summoner mounted on his eidolon.
If it would, what eidolon/summoner feat combination would be needed?
It's going to be exactly the same as the scenarios discussed earlier in the thread; the Summoner and Eidolon don't in any way change the Mounted Combat rules. The only way that Ride-by Attack and Pounce are going to work in conjunction is if the Summoner is attacking a separate target from the Eidolon.
--------A
MR-------------------B
MR = Eidolon and Summoner
A = legal target for Summoner using Ride-by
B = legal target for pouncing Eidolon (and/or Summoner w/o Ride-by Attack)
Or if the mount had some ability allowing it to attack in the middle of a charge and keep moving that did not conflict with its Pounce ability.
|
|
[
The mount can't pounce unless it ends it's movement on the intended target. Ride by essentially prohibits the mount from attacking AT ALL. You can choose one of the two, not both.
Why? RBA just says you can continue the movement after your attack. Why can't your mount finish its movement with a pounce? Nothing in RBA says anything about not getting closer to the target, or restricts the mount in any way other than the charge requirement, which is already a pounce requirement.
I think if you've got a reach weapon and your mount doesn't have reach, you can pull it off. Your mount charges, you attack when you hit the 10-foot point, and then your mount finishes its movement (admittedly, only five feet) and pounces. What am I missing?
Yes.
Also, bear in mind what Ssalarn said about the ability of mount and rider to declare separate targets. Overrun also works well with RBA fwiw. The part that bothers me is that, by RAW, the rider only gets the benefit of the charge if he attacks "at the end of the charge." I run it that the charge mods still apply in the middle of the charge with RBA, but the stricter argument can be made.
|
|
Why? RBA just says you can continue the movement after your attack. Why can't your mount finish its movement with a pounce? Nothing in RBA says anything about not getting closer to the target, or restricts the mount in any way other than the charge requirement, which is already a pounce requirement.
I agree with this interpretation. I have a friend who is a gnome druid 8/fighter 1 with the mounted feats -including Wheeling Charge- riding on a medium tiger. She charges the bad guy while riding the mount, and takes her one lance attack at 10' out. Using Ride-by attack she moves after the lance attack, but chooses to move only 5' closer to the bad guy, I.E. next to it. The tiger now takes its attack. Since the tiger has pounce, it gets all its attacks off since it was charging.
The downside to this approach is the higher damage almost always comes from the lance-wielding PC, and if you end your movement next to the bad guy you either need to spend a round moving away or choose another target to spirited charge. This also opens up both rider and mount to attacks from the bad guy if the bad guy is still up, and the rider can't make any AoO's because they're right next to the bad guy using a reach-only weapon.
|
Design Manager
|
Note that despite the fact that the FAQs have changed since this thread was started, everything in this scenario still works pretty much the same way.
You have to have Ride-by Attack or a mount with reach if you both want to execute an attack against the same target while you are wielding a lance, and Pounce still has to be at the end of a charge, so your mount cannot attack and keep moving without some other explicit ability that allows it. The benefits of your feats still only apply to you unless they explicitly state otherwise.
