| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
So, I have been rereading the rules regarding Ride and Handle Animal and realized that it may not be possible to have your mount attack when you make a full attack.
Setup:
PC mounted on a regular (non-Companion) animal that is war trained.
No more than a 5' step is taken by the mount (allowing the PC to make a full attack).
Rules:
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.
Handle an Animal: This task involves commanding an animal to perform a task or trick that it knows. If the animal is wounded or has taken any nonlethal damage or ability score damage, the DC increases by 2. If your check succeeds, the animal performs the task or trick on its next action.
Action: Varies. Handling an animal is a move action, while “pushing” an animal is a full-round action. (A druid or ranger can handle an animal companion as a free action or push it as a move action.)
So it would seem that the rules state it takes a handle animal check (move action) to command the horse to fight and a ride check to attack while the horse attacks. Thus, you are always limited to a standard action while the horse is attacking. But I do not think it is RAI.
Thoughts?
- Gauss
I think page 104 handles the exception for mounts by saying its a free action.
Yeah, I think so too, but it does not specifically state it is an exception to Handle Animal. Nor does it state what the penalty for failure is. Does it mean you have to burn a move action (as per Handle Animal)? Does it mean your animal cannot attack?
- Gauss
I think I would say that you don't need to make Handle Animal checks to get an animal to perform a task that's part of its "general purpose" training, once that training has been completed. Otherwise it doesn't really make sense.
|
I haven't checked recently for if PF makes a difference on this. A lot of people have the sense that when mounted, riders use Ride rather than Handle Animal. Originally in 3.5, these have different uses. Handle Animal involves the instructions to with the mount, while Ride involves the coordination between mount and rider. The following all is based on the assumption that both are still needed; if that premise is false, ignore it. :) I think there is a JJ post around to this effect for those that give such posts authority, but I'm not positive and don't have a reference.
The ride check for fighting with a war-trained mount is above and beyond whatever is required to get the mount to attack. It covers the coordination between the attacking mount and the rider. If the mount is also attacking, the rider makes the Ride check to also attack. The Ride check itself doesn't get the mount to attack. It merely says, "If you direct..." There is no reason to read this as the free action Ride check actually gets it to attack.
If reading the Ride check to attack with a war-trained mount as supplanting the Handle Animal Attack trick, the result is to make it easier to get a mount to attack than another creature, and it results in different checks to get the mount to attack with the rider than either on it's own when mounted or dismounted. Neither of these are particularly elegant.
Getting the mount to attack, assuming a war-trained animal, is a Handle Animal check. If it isn't an animal companion, it is a move action. However, once directed to attack, the mount keeps attacking until otherwise directed to stop. In the first round, if the mount isn't attacking, the rider doesn't have the actions for a full attack. However, in subsequent rounds, the already issued Attack command is still in effect and the rider can make full attacks. If taking the Ride check as insufficient to direct the mount to attack, this covers whether the rider can full attack while the mount is attacking.
In prior conversations during 3.5 days, this unveils a possible problem in getting a mount to charge. Since the charge results in an attack, it sounds like a Handle Animal check is required. The screwy language regarding the rider's charge attack from a mount, which is split up in the mounted combat rules and the related feats, then has the possibility of being interpreted as the rider not having the action to charge. I think, however, that this is outside the generally accepted interpretations of how mounted charge works. I've been in some discussions where this is then used via reducto absurdum that the Attack command isn't needed. Other interpretations are in support that the rider doesn't need a charge action (common currently, even if not accepting the need for the Attack command), or as an additional example of how the rules for mounted combat are kind of a mess. The latter is my position on this, and I just make on-the-fly rulings to make mounted combat work.
Note that for mounted Paladins, calling for for Handle Animal and Ride really puts them in a skill bind. In 3.5, it wasn't much of an issue because the 3.5 DMG addresses intelligent mounts specifically in a way where the Handle Animal isn't needed. This is one of those non SRD areas that PF didn't carry over.
This isn't a particularly popular point of view. I've been through this conversation a couple of times, particularly on the old Infinite Monkeys board, and don't plan on picking it up to rigorous defense again. The point is that there is an alternate point of view, which OP has found. There is an underpinning problem in all of this associated with screwy mounted combat rules, so a logical approach relying on the RAW only goes so far. If you don't agree, just ignore me. If someone things there is something to this, feel free to pick up the mantle. All of the fury of internet gamer angst awaits you. ;)
@Are, by the rules Handle Animal checks are required to get an animal to perform any task it is trained for, Attack is one such task that requires the check. The DC is 10 and it takes a move action (free action for Druids and Rangers with animal companions).
@RedDogMT, I would agree except for the part where there is no counter statement here. Hence the question. I believe this is another case of RAW written badly.
I believe the intent is to replace Handle Animal with a ride check for the purpose of a mount attacking. But, no direct counter to Handle Animal is stated and there is no listed penalty for failure. Does failure mean you do not attack, the mount does not attack, or that it takes a move action rather than a free action?
Edit:
@Howie23, you have to make the check each round due to the line:
If your check succeeds, the animal performs the task or trick on its next action.
- Gauss
Are, by the rules Handle Animal checks are required to get an animal to perform and task it is trained for. The DC is 10 and it takes a move action (free action for Druids and Rangers with animal companions).
I'm aware of that. However, I don't think that makes much sense, since that pretty much forces anyone who rides a horse (not just into combat) to have ranks in Handle Animal, since it would be a DC 15 check to make a ride-trained animal come to you, follow you, or stand still and wait for you.
Edit: Also, anyone who owns a guard dog would need to have ranks in Handle Animal, since it would be a DC 20 check to make a guard-trained animal actually perform that task.
So, in essence, I believe the only way those rules make any sense is if successful "general purpose" training (as opposed to "single trick"-training) allows the animal to perform those tricks without further Handle Animal checks.
***
[Edit2: Please disregard this post.]
|
|
General Purpose, in game terms, is just a package deal for training purposes. Additional meaning has been given re: war-trained, but it doesn't take away from how General Purpose fits in.
Yes, people using animals should be trained in Handle Animal. However, getting a dog to guard is just a DC 10, not 20. The DC 20 is for training the dog to know the trick, not to execute the trick.
@Gauss: I appreciate what you're saying about the next action, but I see that as the start, not an ongoing recurring situation. Attack=start attacking, Down=stop attacking. I don't envision a world where the Attack command has to be made repeatedly. But, if you see Attack otherwise, that's cool. If I'm understanding you correctly, it sounds like non-mount non-animal companion use is pretty expensive in terms of action economy in your games.
[Edit: Never mind the original content of this post, or of the one I made above. I changed my opinion, considering I agree it should be harder for people who don't have a way with animals to make an animal do things.]
***
To make this post actually mean something: The move action would only be to get the animal to begin performing the task, as Howie23 says. Otherwise you'd have to spend a move action each turn in order for a guard dog to continue guarding an area.
Howie,
This is not a case of 'how do I run my games'. This is a rules forum, not a 'how do I run it in my own games' forum. In any case, before I houserule something I need to know what the rule I am houseruling is. That is the purpose of this thread.
The rules do not state that it is more than just the next action. It does state next action. One more case of Raw as Written Badly.
- Gauss
|
|
Gauss,
I know it's the rules forum. However, one of the elements of a rules discussion is that if something is ambiguous and there are multiple interpretations, then an interpretation that makes more sense is more likely to be correct. Whatever interpretation results then characterizes the game that results from the interpretation. In other words, "how (a person) run (that person's) games." Yes, it's the rules forum; I don't take that to strictly mean answers that are provided solely by the text. It also includes various interpretations, analysis, coordination with related rules elements, and the consequences of those interpretations in terms of game play.
The section you cited says what you claim, but only if you take it out of context.
"Down (DC 15): The animal breaks off from combat or otherwise backs down. An animal that doesn't know this trick continues to fight until it must flee (due to injury, a fear effect, or the like) or its opponent is defeated."
I suppose it's possible to posit that the Down command only applies to animals who are fighting on their own initiative rather than one that is following an Attack command, but I think it's a bit of a stretch.
I'll grant that the language you cited could be written better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you Howie, that was well stated, I think some of the more cerebral posters here dumped cha for int at birth and can't make a point without coming of as combative or grating at best.
Is that a self fulfilling statement or what?
Sorry, had to.
Howie, I do not disagree with your usage of it. In fact, that is how I use it in my games. But, that is not what the rules would indicate.
1) Handle Animal states that the check applies to the creature's next action.
2) Nothing in the attack trick indicates that it continues longer than 1 action.
Now, should it work the way you stated? Yes. But that is not the point of the rules forum. The rules forum is to work out what the rules are and if the rules are bad then they can be FAQd so they are updated by the staff.
Claiming 'reasonable interpretation' is fine in a home game but for PFS or for the purpose of getting a rule clarified or cleaned up it doesn't work.
@Conundrum, if the rules were so clear then they wouldnt need to be FAQd. Yes, what Howie stated is very nicely stated but it is also not clearly in the rules. He is extrapolating based on another use of Handle Animal.
Once again, the purpose of the rules forum is to clarify rules. Reasonable interpretations, while useful, are not necessarily rules clarifications.
Finally, even veiled insults are just that. I keep my content clean. I would ask you to do the same.
- Gauss
|
|
Howie, I do not disagree with your usage of it. In fact, that is how I use it in my games. But, that is not what the rules would indicate.
1) Handle Animal states that the check applies to the creature's next action.
2) Nothing in the attack trick indicates that it continues longer than 1 action.
The general rule is that a successfully handled animal carries out the trick or task on it's next move. Attack tells the critter to attack apparent enemies. This is plural in the text, although that is inconclusive. Down tells the animal to stop attacking; if it doesn't have Down, it doesn't stop.
If I'm understanding correctly, your point is the domain of the Down exception to keep attacking doesn't include attacks generated by the Attack trick. Your rationale for pointing this out is not that it can't be figured out, but that it could be clearer and thus is worthy of a FAQ.
I agree it could be clearer, but don't see it as a frequent issue. While I've never heard of anyone coming to the problematic conclusion, I suspect that's just a cue for an anecdote from someone who did. :)
While on the topic, a similar reading would indicate that an animal without Down as a trained trick cannot be made to stop attacking; Push would be insufficient.
Best of luck with your FAQ campaign and Good Gaming!
Howie, you are understanding correctly. It is not a frequent issue. I agree that most people use it, and the originally posted issue of Ride vs Handle Animal, that way.
Sometimes I bring up rules issues that are not a 'common problem' because most people are using the rule as it makes sense rather than as written. Example: 3.5 reach weapon exception, most people didnt even know it was no longer part of PF.
Regarding being *pushed* to perform the Down trick, yes, it again would seem that it applies only for one round and if the creature wishes to attack after that round you would have to keep using it. Not very useful as written.
Frankly, I think most people use Handle Animal like this: The creature continues performing that action to the best of it's abilities until told to do otherwise.
Back to the original topic, any idea of what the penalty for failing the Ride check to fight while your mount is attacking should be?
- Gauss
|
|
Back to the original topic, any idea of what the penalty for failing the Ride check to fight while your mount is attacking should be?
Failing the Ride check to attack with the mount doesn't result in a penalty so much as a failure to succeed. If the ride check fails, only one of them can attack, either the rider or the mount, but not both. Whether the check is made before the first attacks or after is a procedural thing.
That Ride check used to be pretty much guaranteed except at the lowest levels in 3.5. In PF, where the ACP applies to all Ride checks, not so much.
While you're looking at the Handle Animal/next action verbage, it sounds like the type of reading that you are bringing light to would also suggest that an animal must already be within reach of a target or must charge. And given that core rules don't have a trick option to "Go There," this is a bit of a headache for such a reader.
Page 104 of Pathfinder core
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.
So it is very easy to get your mount to full attack and for you to full attack. The mount just needs to be wartrained.
Also look at guiding with the knees so that you can fight with a two handed weapon while mounted.
You do not need handle animal to control a mount. Because you are not instructing the mount to perform a trick. Handle animal is used when you are giving commands which the animal must then follow. When you are using ride you are actively guiding the mount in what you need it to do by using reigns, spurs, knees, riding crop, ect...
Ride doesn't replace Handle Animal when fighting with a mount.
In order for you and your mount to both attack you must first command your mount to attack with Handle Animal (move action), then make the Ride check (free action) so that you can attack as well.
I don't see how "Anyone who has a mount (or guard dog) would have to have Handle Animal" is a counter argument. The person dealing with animals....has to have the skill to.....deal with animals.....yeah. Its only DC 10. Suck it up.
I agree with Howie that you would only need to give the Attack command once per combat. While "Handle an Animal" does say it will perform the command on its next action, Attack says the animal "attacks apparent enemies," which definitely sounds ongoing to me. In fact, none of the tricks can really be performed in just one action. What good would a guard dog be if you had to command it to Guard every 6 seconds? The animal should continue with the commanded trick until commanded to stop. "Handle an Animal" should read it "commences" on the next action.
As far as the Handle Animal check taking a move and thus preventing full attacks, I extend the handle animal=free action to any class with an effective druid level for their animal companion. This includes paladins, cavaliers, oracles of nature, sylvan sorcerers, etc.
Also keep in mind some mounts are intelligent enough that you shouldn't have to direct them with Handle Animal. A griffon, for example, has an Int of 5 and understands Common. Just tell it to do what you want, make the Ride check to fight, and you don't have to worry about "Handling" anything.
I don't see how "Anyone who has a mount (or guard dog) would have to have Handle Animal" is a counter argument. The person dealing with animals....has to have the skill to.....deal with animals.....yeah. Its only DC 10. Suck it up.
It isn't. I already edited that post to say "please disregard this post". I only didn't delete everything in it because Howie23 had already responded to it :)