Hello there,
I've got a creative use of Ride by Attack I'd like to run through here.
Say 2 ennemies are standing 30' away from each other, and I am standing adjacent to the first one. Could I declare a charge on the other one, and ride by attack the first one with my lance after having moved 10' (attacking backwards).
If Im right, this wouldn't provoke right?
No
When you say no, you mean I'm wrong or it wouldn't provoke?
I mean you're wrong. You can't do it. At all.
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.
Charge
Charging is a special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action. Charging, however, carries tight restrictions on how you can move.
Movement During a Charge: You must move before your attack, not after. You must move at least 10 feet (2 squares) and may move up to double your speed directly toward the designated opponent. If you move a distance equal to your speed or less, you can also draw a weapon during a charge attack if your base attack bonus is at least +1.
You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles). 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. If any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through a square that blocks movement, slows movement, or contains a creature (even an ally), you can't charge. Helpless creatures don't stop a charge.
If you don't have line of sight to the opponent at the start of your turn, you can't charge that opponent.
You can't take a 5-foot step in the same round as a charge.
If you are able to take only a standard action on your turn, you can still charge, but you are only allowed to move up to your speed (instead of up to double your speed) and you cannot draw a weapon unless you possess the Quick Draw feat. You can't use this option unless you are restricted to taking only a standard action on your turn.
Attacking on a Charge: After moving, you may make a single melee attack. You get a +2 bonus on the attack roll and take a –2 penalty to your AC until the start of your next turn.
A charging character gets a +2 bonus on combat maneuver attack rolls made to bull rush an opponent.
Even if you have extra attacks, such as from having a high enough base attack bonus or from using multiple weapons, you only get to make one attack during a charge.
By announcing a charge you are specifying the type of action you are taking and that comes with restrictions. You must move towards the specified opponent (which must be at least 10ft away), you only get one attack, and you must attack the specified opponent.
Player creativity is one thing. Trying to break the rules is another.
No. When you declare a charge, you declare the target of that charge. That target is the one you must move directly toward and attack. Ride-by lets you continue moving after your attack on that target.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Besides which, if you want to attack the guy you are adjacent to, attack him once and move away. Done. You've accomplished the same thing effectively as what you were trying to do.
I don't think we're reading the same thing. Im using the charge action to target the second ennemy, all conditions are met.
I am let's say adjzcent to him but to the left, while the second guy is on the right. I move 10 ft on the right, this is actually the closest space in my path in which I can attack, since I would be using a reach weapon. Then my eidolon (mount) completes her charge by pouncing on the second one.
I don't see anything in what you quoted that would make it wrong, especially not the bold part, since I would actually be moving 10ft before attacking
Ride by attack lets you move attack move during the charge, the target of the attack and that of the charge don't need to be the same.
I don't think we're reading the same thing. Im using the charge action to target the second ennemy, all conditions are met.
I am let's say adjzcent to him but to the left, while the second guy is on the right. I move 10 ft on the right, this is actually the closest space in my path in which I can attack, since I would be using a reach weapon. Then my eidolon (mount) completes her charge by pouncing on the second one.
I don't see anything in what you quoted that would make it wrong, especially not the bold part, since I would actually be moving 10ft before attacking
Ride by attack lets you move attack move during the charge, the target of the attack and that of the charge don't need to be the same.
If you are using the charge action and targeting the second opponent you can't make an attack at the first opponent. When you make a charge you get a single attack against a single opponent, period. Ride-by just let's you continue moving after you make your one charge attack. You CANNOT make more than one attack on a charge.
The 'directly toward the designated opponent' seems to contradict your claim that the target of the charge and the target of the attack don't need to be the same.
what it sound like you are trying to do is 'Charge' target "B" and attack target "A"
Moving away from "A" to get the 10-ft movement qualifier, but he's still the one you are trying to damage with your attack. That is not a legitimate charge.
Additionally, the target of the attack IS the target of the charge. If you're not charging that target, then you are just running (double move or more)
I think you are mistaken Faskill.
Very Respectfully,
--Bacon
Thank you for your answers, I think I didn't explain myself clearly enough.
I don't want to attack twice during the charge, I'm not THAT crazy :p It would not only contradict the mounted combat rules but the charging rules.
What I want to do is make ONE attack at the guy adjacent to me while my eidolon pounces on the second one, which will be the target of the charge.
I read pretty much all posts on this forum and it was always considered legal to have the rider attack at the ride by attack target and the mount attack at another target at the end of the charging path. I'm not sure this can be contradicted but if you have any good arguments, I'm all ears.
I read pretty much all posts on this forum and it was always considered legal to have the rider attack at the ride by attack target and the mount attack at another target at the end of the charging path. I'm not sure this can be contradicted but if you have any good arguments, I'm all ears.
Can you show a source for that at all? Because I'm not convinced.
Ride By Attack allows you to charge a target, attack, and then move past that target. Never mind that you can only charge in a straight line and that you should have to move to the closest square which would then prevent you from continuing your straightline movement. We should assume the feat actually works and it's more like you actually charge to a square that would allow you to attack and continue moving straight past your target.
What it doesn't do is let you select a different target for the charge than for the ride by attack. All ride by attack says is you can move after making your charge, which you normally couldn't do.
In any event, now that you have more acurately described what you want to do I believe it is legal for you to make a single attack (no charge bonuses) against an adjacent target and have your mount charge (not a ride by attack, not you "charging") just your mount charge and attack something else.
The thing that interests me is to get, not the +2 that you get only at the end of the charge, but the double damage from the lance, as well as to avoid provoking aoos from the guy I'm adjacent to.
I'm aware I could just attack the guy next to me and charge the other one but it would provoke and I wouldn't get the X2 (or X3 with spirited charge) for the lance.
Nowhere in the Ride By attack feat does it say that you have to attack the target of the charge, it says you can attack "as with a standard charge", which means you can get an attack on your ride by attack target as if you were charging on him.
I realize that Ssalarn is the one that replies to the two first posts, but again he's running a successful PFS mounted summoner so I think he's right, what's more, I don't see anything in the rules that counter this interpretation.
Here are the post that I'm talking about
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2p6qc?Rideby-attack-and-pounce#1
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qm43?Mounted-Summoner-and-Ride-by-attack-Charg e#11
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qkxg?Help-with-summoner-mounted-combat-rules#6
The thing that interests me is to get, not the +2 that you get only at the end of the charge, but the double damage from the lance, as well as to avoid provoking aoos from the guy I'm adjacent to.
I'm aware I could just attack the guy next to me and charge the other one but it would provoke and I wouldn't get the X2 (or X3 with spirited charge) for the lance.
Nowhere in the Ride By attack feat does it say that you have to attack the target of the charge, it says you can attack "as with a standard charge", which means you can get an attack on your ride by attack target as if you were charging on him.
I realize that Ssalarn is the one that replies to the two first posts, but again he's running a successful PFS mounted summoner so I think he's right, what's more, I don't see anything in the rules that counter this interpretation.
Here are the post that I'm talking about
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2p6qc?Rideby-attack-and-pounce#1
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qm43?Mounted-Summoner-and-Ride-by-attack-Charg e#11
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qkxg?Help-with-summoner-mounted-combat-rules#6
To clarify, as far as the mount attacking a different target at the end of the charge I didn't have a problem with that. I was just interested for my own edification. I actually agree that you can target someone for a Ride By Attack and that your mount could attack someone else at the end of the charge. Eseentially Ride By Attack lets you attack in the middle of a striaght line movement instead of at the end. Fine.
But that doesn't affect what happens for you when you use Ride By Attack. Charge never lets you select to charge one opponent and attack another, it simply doesn't. And Ride By Attack no way implies that either.
You want to have you cake and eat it too. You want to avoid the attack of opportunity, you want to be able to charge an adjacent target, you want to get the damage multplier against that target for using a lance. You know how you can get those things? By actually charging and attacking that target. It simply not allowed. There is no rule stating this become most people felt it was pretty common sense and obvious that you attack the person you were charging. There was no need to clarify until now.
Honestly, I have difficulty understanding what you mean. In the first paragraph you say that I could ride by attack someone and that my mount could attack another opponent at the end of her charge, but then in the second paragraph you seem to be directly contradicting yourself.
I'm never using the charge action, my mount is, and while I'm mounted on her I make a Ride-By-Attack, I don't really see where the problem is.
"A lance deals double damage when used from the back of a charging mount."
It doesn't say against the charge target, neither that you have to be charging yourself, it just deals double damage.
I kind of feel like you're discriminating against my idea because it is out of the box, but by RAW this seems very legal to me.
Honestly, I have difficulty understanding what you mean. In the first paragraph you say that I could ride by attack someone and that my mount could attack another opponent at the end of her charge, but then in the second paragraph you seem to be directly contradicting yourself.
I'm never using the charge action, my mount is, and while I'm mounted on her I make a Ride-By-Attack, I don't really see where the problem is.
"A lance deals double damage when used from the back of a charging mount."
It doesn't say against the charge target, neither that you have to be charging yourself, it just deals double damage.
I kind of feel like you're discriminating against my idea because it is out of the box, but by RAW this seems very legal to me.
Look, this is legal as Sslarn describes it.
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-------------------BMR = 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.
Because you must by your ride by target and attack it and then continue on moving towards B, where you mount can attack it, with or without pounce.
As I understand it, what you want to do is:
A
MR-------------------B
MR = Eidolon and Summoner
A = not legal target for Summoner using Ride-by
B = legal target for pouncing Eidolon (and/or Summoner w/o Ride-by Attack)
You're not ride by attacking A, you're not charging A, you're already adjacent to A. You can't charge something you're adjacent to. Maybe this is a misunderstanding in positioning but you must attack the target of you ride by attack, and you must pass by that target, and you must start at least 10ft away from that target due to the rules of a charge. What you describing is basically you want to move 10ft away form a, turn back in the saddle and stab him while counting as charging against A when you're actually charging B.
Also, I resent the allegation that I don't like your idea because "it's outside the box". I don't like your idea because it's against the rules (when applying common sense).
To state it even clearer:
You are not charging at A therefore you do not do double damage on A.
If you ask a rules question and every answer is the same there is a good chance that those answers are correct. Restating the question repeatedly in the hopes that someone will give you the opposite answer (which you might then try to present to your GM to justify your position) is unlikely to work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Movement During a Charge: You must move before your attack, not after. You must move at least 10 feet (2 squares) and may move up to double your speed directly toward the designated opponent. If you move a distance equal to your speed or less, you can also draw a weapon during a charge attack if your base attack bonus is at least +1.
Just to put a fine point on it, moving away from an opponent is the exact opposite of moving towards and opponent. See the bold section of the quoted passage directly from the CRB. You get cannot ever get any kind of charge bonus against a target that you have not moved at least 10 feet directly towards.
First of all, thank you for your answers. Let me make it clear that I appreciate the debate and that I'm genuinely trying to understand why you are all arguing against it working. Stop depicting me as a munchkin who's trying his best to break the rules, that is actually quite offensive.
It is powerful enough with out trying to bend the rules into pretzel so you can dip in to some cheese.
I don't know whether we're playing the same game. I'm playing a mounted summoner which will be level 6 tonight, and I haven't used a mounted charge yet, and much less have been in a position to use ride by attack. The feat is so miss worded that it is very hard to use it properly, because of what I would call misconceptions, or maybe it's my interpretation that is too liberal.
I will try one more time to explain my point clearly.
As I understand it, what you want to do is:
A
MR-------------------BMR = Eidolon and Summoner
A = not legal target for Summoner using Ride-by
B = legal target for pouncing Eidolon (and/or Summoner w/o Ride-by Attack)You're not ride by attacking A, you're not charging A, you're already adjacent to A. You can't charge something you're adjacent to. Maybe this is a misunderstanding in positioning but you must attack the target of you ride by attack, and you must pass by that target, and you must start at least 10ft away from that target due to the rules of a charge. What you describing is basically you want to move 10ft away form a, turn back in the saddle and stab him while counting as charging against A when you're actually charging B.
To be more clear, what I want do to is more in the lines of :
--A--------------
MR--RB----------B
MR--RB----------B
Where RB is the point at which I will ride by attack, which is actually the nearest point in my charge path in which I can attack using my reach weapon.
Like I said before I am not charging A, neither is my mount.
I am indeed repeating the same points over and over again but it seems they are always overlooked.
My mount is declaring a mounted charge at B who is a legal target. Now stop quoting the charge rules, A does not need to be a legal charge target for me to ride by attack him .
My mount will begin her mounted charge, moving 10 feet to the point RB, at which point I will be using ride by attack on target A. My character wouldn't just be sitting straight in his saddle and waiting for that time to arrive, he will be following A with his lance, striking as soon as he can, that is actually common sense. The rider will prevent his mount from provoking by pointing his lance in A's face, striking as soon as he can.
He will not get a +2 bonus to his lance attack because the charging rules specifically say that this would apply only to an attack made at the end of the charge. However, the mount is still in the middle of the charge so he will get the X2 bonus from attacking while his mount is charging
Then she will pounce on B, her designated target, and try to rip him open.
That is how I see it, if I'm wrong, please correct my above quote so that I know which part you don't agree with. To finish answering the posts one by one :
To state it even clearer:
You are not charging at A therefore you do not do double damage on A.
A mounted charge has two components. Your mount using the charge action and you using the attack action against the same target as your mount. A lance only does double damage on a if you are getting charge benefits from your mounts charge. Those only apply to the target of its charge. I would allow you to attack A but not avoid the AoO or gain benefits. I would allow you to go past B and not provoke.
This is actually wrong, by RAW "A lance deals double damage when used from the back of a charging mount." . It doesn't say it has to be on the same target of the charge, basically you could get it on a regular ride by attack at least. I agree that it doesn't make sense in this case since you wouldn't be using the kinetic energy from the mount to increase your damage, but my point is that it is legal .
If you allow me to attack A, it means that I'm using the ride by attack feat, so I won't provoke and will be doing double damage since it has to be during the charge of my mount. You can't just say "eh well this doesn't seem right, I will let him attack but not get the other benefits". Either I get the ride by attack, not provoke and deal double damage, or I don't get to attack at all, since I can't attack before potion RB since I have reach.
Just to put a fine point on it, moving away from an opponent is the exact opposite of moving towards and opponent. See the bold section of the quoted passage directly from the CRB. You get cannot ever get any kind of charge bonus against a target that you have not moved at least 10 feet directly towards.
I'm not declaring A a charge target, and I'm not saying I would get the +2 charge bonus when attacking him. Emphasis mine, A is not my designated opponent
Anyway I thank you all for participating to this debate, I'm not trying to be a jerk I would just like you to recognize the points I'm making.
You say you're not being a jerk or a munchkin? The proof of that comes when you accept an answer you don't want.
I think that we have all understood what you want to do: none of us would allow you to get charge bonuses against a target that neither you nor your mount is charging.
You are wanting a clear rules statement as 'proof' that you are wrong: there is no such statement. There is also no statement that says you can do any such attack. In the absence of a clear statement we usually go with logic and common sense. Which means we have all said 'No you cannot do it.'
Move on.
Faskill, six different people have told you that what you are proposing is not legal. We fully understand what you are saying and you have explained yourself clearly and completely. And you are still wrong. You cannot target A with Ride-By nor lance attack A gaining the lance Charge bonus, only B who is the legal target of the Charge attack of your mount. You now have seven people telling you that you cannot do what you wish to do. Is that enough, or will you persist? :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I accept that the chances are very high I'm wrong and I thank you all for pointing me in the right direction.
What I don't get however is why I'm wrong, and more importantly which consequences stem from my being wrong.
The problem as I see it is that most of you, when contradicting the really original and mostly useless thing I want to do here, ( I mean how often do you think this'll come up in games?! ;) ) are also negating any use to the Ride-by-attack feat . This is why it is very hard for me to accept my being wrong.
Essentially it was "proven" at the beginning of this thead that I could ride by attack A and that my mount would be able to attack B when using Ssalarn's diagram. Now in this case, would you also argue against my getting double damage from my lance? If yes, WHY ? :'(
In this case, how is the case presented here different from that? Im essentially moving in the same direction, attacking in the closest square in which I can attack. That's what I really don't understand, and I will appreciate it if you would be so kind as to enlighten me.
The two diagrams are different. In your diagram you are not at any point or in any meaning charging towards A therefore you cannot get any sort of benefit from charging or a feat like ride by attack.
In the other case you would be charging towards and past A.
Now I am not going to answer this again. Accept it and move on.
Now that makes sense, I think you're right it shouldn't work, but can we agree that by pure raw it would be legal (even if 90% of the GMs would refuse it) since there is no limitation anywhere in what I see that A should be a legal charge target? I think that if I were to rule it by common sense only I would let the rider attack and not provoke since he does know how to ride past a target and not provoke, but not get the x2 on his lance. Does that seem fair?
That's what's been bothering me the whole time.
Lets think of it this way ignore what Ride By Attack does. All it does is allow you to move after you've charged and attacked.
So, for the diagram you provided lets just ignore Ride By Attack. It doesn't change anything about how charge functions except you can move after the charge. Now, without Ride By Attack, is A in your diagram a legal charge target? I hope you can easily see the answer is no. You cannot charge A because you're already next to him.
Ride By Attack is used to charge a target who is at least 10 ft away, attack him, and move past him. Which means you can get your double lance charge damage against that character and (hopefully, if you've got enough movement left) move more than 10ft past him. Which means if he wants to attack you he has to move at least 10ft. Which denies him the ability to make a full attack against you. Which, is pretty frickin' strong. If there is another enemy at the end of the mounts charge your mount could attack that enemy. And if your mount has pounce can make a full attack.
Also, please forgive my earlier impertinence. Despite my perception of your behavior, I should not have behaved in that manner.
Now that makes sense, I think you're right it shouldn't work, but can we agree that by pure raw it would be legal (even if 90% of the GMs would refuse it) since there is no limitation anywhere in what I see that A should be a legal charge target? I think that if I were to rule it by common sense only I would let the rider attack and not provoke since he does know how to ride past a target and not provoke, but not get the x2 on his lance. Does that seem fair?
That's what's been bothering me the whole time.
If you start adjacent to A, then move past A towards B, at what point are you moving directly towards A as the charge rules clearly state you must be doing? Never along that whole movement path are you moving directly towards A. If you are not moving directly towards A then you are not entitled to any charge bonuses of any kind no matter what feats you have.
maybe this will help a bit. the mounted combat charge rules and spirited charge etc use alot of rl physics to explain the gian boost in damage. the rules themselves then attempt to conform to the idea that horse and rider run at a single target really fast. wther rideby attack as written works doesnt matter as most people understand that after you hit the target you can move off after a loss of momentum.
wether well written or not that is the intent. Attacking somone in a different direction or even slightly to one side of the charged target is not possible.
Ok, actually the physics explanation does make sense, and I agree that it's common sense that its actually the kinetics of it that give you the x2 bonus to lance damage.
Now, I would disagree that attacking backwards would be impossible, since the mount is anyway stopping so that you can make the Ride by attack. And I would also think that the movement would not provoke, since you're basically moving through the same squares as Ssalarn diagram, and threatening the enemy with the lance while doing so.
The actions of the mount and the rider must and should be seen as separate, I don't see a contradiction, being a real life rider myself, in having my mount move forward, stop, allowing me to attack backwards, and then start to move again.
Again, it does not really matter, I don't think I will ever attempt to use such a maneuver in game in the light of the answers that my technique got here, it would be much too troublesome to try and get the GM to approve my point of view, if I can't even get a single person agree with me here, even if I persist in thinking that all this is legal.
What you describe here is not a charge nor a Ride-By Attack, it is a double move of your mount, with your attack in between. With a Ride-By Attack, your mount does not stop moving: it's charging at full speed. The benefit of the feat is that your mount can keep moving after the charge if it has remaining movement (and AoO avoidance). Try to picture two knights jousting: that's the idea. In my opinion, it is absolutely against both RAW and RAI to suggest that you can Ride-By Attack a foe in the opposite direction of the charge. Trying to get the damage benefits of the charge in top of that... well... it would never fly with any DM I know, including me.
We're gonna have to agree to disagree. The problem resides in the fact that you've got preconceived ideas about RBA. By pure RAW, there is nothing anywhere that says the RBA target must be a legal charge target. I've repeated this time and time again but people keep answering my earlier posts and ignoring my point.
That being said, I agree that a decent GM probably shouldn't let the x2 damage from the lance fly. But I think the rider should be able to make his RBA attack without provoking.
After all, he's exactly doing a ride by attack. If you are so concerned with his attacking backwards, I can have him attack after a 5' move by his mount with a non reach weapon
We're gonna have to agree to disagree. The problem resides in the fact that you've got preconceived ideas about RBA. By pure RAW, there is nothing anywhere that says the RBA target must be a legal charge target. I've repeated this time and time again but people keep answering my earlier posts and ignoring my point.
That being said, I agree that a decent GM probably shouldn't let the x2 damage from the lance fly. But I think the rider should be able to make his RBA attack without provoking.
After all, he's exactly doing a ride by attack. If you are so concerned with his attacking backwards, I can have him attack after a 5' move by his mount with a non reach weapon
There is no disagreeing here. Only you believe it works the way you want it to. I'm not sure why you don't understand, I'm not sure if you're being purposefully obtuse, but I'm really starting to believe that you're completely unwilling to accept any answer that doesn't agree with your preconceived notions about Ride By Attack.
The wording of the DAMNED feat implies that the target of a Ride By Attack must be a legal charge target. It doesn't outright state it because it was assumed that it was understood.
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.
How can it get any more damn clear than that? Seriously?
The problem resides in the wording of the feat I guess ("you [...] use the charge action, you may move [...] and then move again").
The rider is neither charging nor using a move action in this case, which is why it is really confusing to me. The mount is the one accomplishing the charge, while the rider only gets the benefit, and doesn't even use an action (when riding an intelligent mount). During the charge, he may choose to take an attack (normally at the end).
My reading of RBA is that you can move an attack in the same round, like in a normal charge. I'm not a native English speaker so that may be where the problem resides, but the "as if with a standard charge" doesn't seem to me to mean that it would restrict me to the same requirements as a charge. If not, it would mean that I would actually get +2 to my RBA attack which directly contradicts the mounted combat rules (you get the +2 only at the end of the charge)
If that reading is wrong, then you can't use RBA anyways because it would require you to move directly towards your opponent, whereas RBA needs you to move in a "sideways" manner in order to be able to continue your movement after hitting your opponent.
Because the thing is : the only charge requirement that isn't respected in my diagram (moving directly towards my opponent) is exactly the one that has been waived off by a developer as to how to use the feat correctly.
So really, I am not trying to be obtuse or anything, I'd just like to understand exactly what I'm doing when using RBA. It's kinda sad that not understanding someone's point would lead to the other person being aggressive. I think there's a general misunderstanding here and I'd rather have clears thoughts about the rules than let my ideas be in the mumbled state they are in right now.
I'm beginning to think we have a Troll on our hands, or at least a half-troll. No pure Human could be this obtuse. ;)
Regardless, I've said my piece. If he persists in wrong-headed thinking, so be it. I'm hiding this thread now, so it won't bother me anymore.
Joex, I suggest you ignore my posts like I have been ignoring yours, since you apparently haven't read half the discussion and don't even bother giving me anything but incomplete answers and flat out insults.
You can take your ironical comments and put them into where the sun does not shine as far as I'm concerned, they aren't and were never needed in this conversation.
No need to read the Rules Questions forum if you don't understand that some people won't understand the rules as fast as you apparently seem to think you do.
It's crazy to come here to ask a simple (EDIT: Ok, maybe I've widened the sense of "simple" a bit here) question that is purely theoretical, not to be satisfied with the answer and to receive that much blunt criticism and condescending remarks when asking for clearer explanations.
I'm done. I try not to get angry but every time I revisit this thread it's all that happens.
I've tried every way to describe how the feat functions and why you're wrong, but you just don't seem to understand. Perhaps the language barrier is the issue. In any event, I'm out. You are too frustrating for me to bother with any further. Whether you are doing it on purpose or you don't truly understand I no longer care.
If you get angry every time you look at this thread, you should probably not bother. You should probably not let a useless online thread such as this one get you down.
I appreciate that you've been trying to help me, but apparently you can't convey to me the reason I'm being wrong, or it may be I just can't understand it.
I will wait for someone who can answer point by point to one of my last posts and explain to me why my reasoning is so wrong. If not, I will accept that I'm wrong but not understand why, which is a shame since all I'm trying to do is get a good grasp of the mounted combat mechanics.
All right. I will bite. This is going to be rather long and I will try to avoid too much sarcasm and condescension.
1) you keep complaining that other people keep ignoring your point; it is even more annoying to have our answers ignored.
2) your English is good enough that we all assume that you understand our answers. I will try to explain clearly instead.
3) one of the main misunderstandings appears to be a logical fallacy (mistake) I believe you are making, which is leading you to keep claiming that what you are wanting to do is '100% legal' when it isn't. The mistake is to assume that the absence of a rule saying you cannot do something means that it is legal to do that thing. If there was a clear rule about it there wouldn't be a discussion at all, so stop claiming that you are correct - instead listen to what we are saying and why we are saying it. I am not claiming to be 100% correct either - this comes under 'gm's call'.
4) do you know what 'implicit' means? It's when something is not spelled out but the meaning is (supposed) to be clear? Here is an example: if you are offered something and you reply 'Thank you' in English that implies 'Yes thank you'. In Germany that same answer would mean 'No thank you'. It is implicit in the charging rules that they apply only to the target being charged and not to a target you begin next to.
Now that is hopefully clear I will continue with your actual question in the next post.
Right, your question was: I am next to Target A. My mount will charge Target B. Can I swivel in my saddle and hit A with my lance getting double damage because I am charging and avoid receiving an attack of opportunity back because I have Ride By Attack?
If I have misunderstood, say so.
Taking this in order of events:
1) your mount is charging B. This means that it is leaving A's threatened area which triggers an Attack of Opportunity, which you have a chance of negating with a successful ride check. Ride by Attack cannot apply because you haven't yet attacked and you have not fulfilled the requirements of riding towards and then past A.
2) your mount can then go on to charge B. This is not disputed.
3) but you still want to attack A. Neither you nor your mount are charging A so you do not get any bonus to hit A nor can you do double damage (see what I said about something being implicit in the previous post).
However you also did not have an AC penalty to A's earlier AoO. Why not? GM call. The penalty, in my opinion, comes from charging towards something and you aren't charging towards A.
So can you attack A? Yes you can. You could make an improvised attack using the butt of your lance before you move. Or you could attempt a tricky ride check to turn and try to hit A with the tip, like you wanted to. But you would get penalties. Why? GM's call. This is not covered in the rules so it is entirely up to the GM. I would apply the charging rules in reverse because you are charging away from A: -2 to your attack and half damage. If you made the ride check first.
Ride By Attack still doesn't apply, but having that feat implies that you are a skilled rider and might get a bonus to your ride check.
Does all that make matters clear for you?
The problem is that it goes both ways, by rereading the whole conversation it seems clear to me that the points each party are making are not being recocknized. I will say however, that the tone with which the discussion is being done is not suitable to mutual understanding because the second answer is already being aggressive to me, claiming that I want to break the rules, with the first answer being a flat out unexplained denial.
I will admit that this kind of atmosphere perhaps made me overlook some of the points made.
As to my mastery of the English language, it is very unlikely that it would lead to a lot of misunderstanding since I studied in UCLA and have got the SAT.
Im actually looking forward to your next post
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I got ninja'ed here.
Actually your explanation is the most concise and complete that's been posted in this thread, and I agree even with the "GM calls".
Just one thing though, would you say that the enemy could choose to aoo me instead of my mount?
|
its ins the first sentence of 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. of ride by attack
you have to be using the charge action to use the feat!
But you aren't using the charge action (and you cannot), your mount is. The feat presumes that rider and mount is a single unit called "you". It is badly misworded, and I fear that this miswording increases my confusion as to how to use it properly (or not use it actually)
I got ninja'ed here.
Actually your explanation is the most concise and complete that's been posted in this thread, and I agree even with the "GM calls".
Just one thing though, would you say that the enemy could choose to aoo me instead of my mount?
Yes. But usually a mount has a lower AC so it is a better target. And you should prefer it that way because you might be able to negate it.
It is again entirely up to the GM and how they play that creature.
Well thank you for overcoming my puzzlement anyway ;)
In my case, my mount is a 29 AC eidolon whereas I stand at 26 AC buffed. Ive actually never had the opportunity to use mounted combat because the creatures are always focusing me. Now that we're at it, do we agree that if my mount succeeds on her Acrobatics neither of us provoke?
Well thank you for overcoming my puzzlement anyway ;)
In my case, my mount is a 29 AC eidolon whereas I stand at 26 AC buffed. Ive actually never had the opportunity to use mounted combat because the creatures are always focusing me. Now that we're at it, do we agree that if my mount succeeds on her Acrobatics neither of us provoke?
As a GM I would normally say no you can't even attempt an acrobatics check while charging. Why?
1) it would delay the game unnecessarily while I checked the rules (no I don't know the correct answer to this question without checking right now) and;2) if a player in one of my games wanted to try this I would expect him/her to have already checked it in advance and they could then explain how it works and what the dc should be.
Then I would check the rulebook before the next session and make a ruling one way or the other and apply it in future.
I was not asking this in the case of a charge, but in fact its interesting... I wonder how that would work.
But for a regular acrobatics, would the rider need to make an acrobatics or just the mount?
As far as I know, you must move at half speed when using Acrobatics to avoid AoOs. I see that as incompatible with the double speed of a charge, but I can't check at the moment if it is specified in the rules. Edit: I just remembered that you can accept a +10 to the DC in order to move at your normal speed. Since a charge is not normal speed, I still think it is not possible.
Regarding your second question, my interpretation is that the one that does the move action is the one that has to check Acrobatics. However, I would ask the rider a Ride check to stay in the saddle, probably with the same DC of the Acrobatics check.
|
Moving out of a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity. A rider on a mount that leaves such a square provokes just as much as the mount does, so I would rule that both have to make the roll. However, and I'm pretty sure this is a house rule, I would allow the rider to make a ride check in place of the acrobatics check.
The rider gets a ride check to avoid the attack regardless of any acrobatics rules.
Without actually checking the rules (which I might do soon) the bit that worries me about using acrobatics is what happens to the rider while the mount is tumbling about? Crushed or thrown/jumps clear?
If I remember correctly, 3rd ed had a feat called 'tumbling charge' to allow a person to do this. Pathfinder doesn't but did it become something everyone can do? And how does it interact with being on a mount?