|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm making this thread in response to the recent discussion in the Vital Strike thread, which had developer input and eventually led to the newest FAQ on the mounted combat system.
I am kind of hoping for the mounted combat system to be cleaned up a bit more, I believe it would make Pathfinder an even better game than it already is.
So...
1. What are the issues with the mounted combat system, including the handle animal skill, ride skill, feats, abilities (such as class abilities and item abilities), and rules regarding mounted combat?
2. How have you, in your actual games, dealt with said issues?
The latest FAQ
The thread containing the conversation that led to the FAQ
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here are some of the negative consequences I have noted about this FAQ:
The only person who gained an option by this ruling was the Barbarian. Everyone else, particularly Cavaliers, mounted Fighters, and the Sohei, lost options, because they lost action economy, and they lost ways to utilize their actions.
During a mounted charge, Fighters and Cavaliers can no longer use the move actions previously available to draw and drink potions, or swap weapons, making them even more reliant on the rest of the party just to stay in the game.
Feats like Cleave, Vital Strike, Crushing Blow, Death or Glory, Gorgon's Fist, MOunted Skirmisher, Scorpion Style, and Cockatrice Strike can no longer be combined with a mounted charge. Opening Volley cannot be used in a single round in conjunction with a mounted charge.
The Charging Hurler/Raging Hurler combo is now unavailable to mounted charging barbarians, meaning that barbarians who don't take Beast Totems have actually lost options.
Any Combat maneuver that is normally a standard action, like Dirty Trick, can no longer be done as part of a mounted charge, decreasing martial versatility.
The Emissary cavalier archetype can no longer use both aspects of his Mounted Dervish ability together when performing a mounted charge.
Magus' who chose to use the Mount or Phantasmal Steed spells can no longer do mounted charging Spellstrikes unless they want to spend the first turn doing nothing.
Shielded Fighters who choose mounted combat can no longer use Shield Buffet after a mounted charge to "tank up" and lock enemies down.
Two-Handed Fighters cannot use Piledriver as part of a mounted charge.
An Undead Scourge Paladin can no longer use Undead Annihilation as part of a mounted charge.
All Paladins can no longer use Detect Evil in the same round they want to perform a mounted charge.
It is now impossible to make a mounted charge on a mount that isn't combat trained.
Characters without Animal Companions can no longer use the Handle Animal skill during a mounted charge, severely limiting their options (and technically making it impossible since a Charge is a type of attack and they can't both command it to attack (move action) and use the charge action (full round action).
You cannot now use the Ride skill to Spur your mount as part of a mounted charge. Seriously. You cannot spur your mount as part of a mounted charge.
I could go on at some length on how many options were taken away by this ruling, but understand that this ruling takes away far too many options.
Questions, which could have been easily resolved by a simple statement supporting the existing rulings, have instead been made more complex.
There was an easy fix to this solution that would have had absolutely no negative impact on any existing games or characters. Instead, a FAQ was issued that invalidated numerous options and abilities that players had every reason to believe were perfectly legitimate and legal. This FAQ also fails to actually say what thje developers said it was going to say, and fails to do what they said it was going to do. The wording of the FAQ fails to match the intent, and the intent further breaks numerous options and entries in multiple publications.
This could have been fixed with one simple FAQ that was consistent with the rulings and developer insight given up to this point, and which would have required little, if any, actual reprinting. That FAQ also would have kept both halves of their player base able to continue with their games unchanged. Players who were operating under the understanding that the mount (only) was the one charging would have continued on exactly as they had been, and players who believed that both were charging would have gained some new possibilities without losing any of their build's validity.
Instead they've chosen an answer which requires multiple other FAQs to support it before it can work, requires reprinting of multiple items in multiple books that have been core since the game released, invalidates previous rulings both official and unofficial, and invalidates a large number of feats and options.
I have defended the decisions of the design staff on multiple occasions, and have always tried to see things from their perspective. Go back over the last several years of posting history and you can easily see that this is the case. But this is a bad ruling.
It's bad for any and all of the following reasons-
1)It changes the rules needlessly. What evidence is there that Vital Striking Cavaliers and Fighters were breaking the game?
2) It discriminates needlessly against a specific group of players. These were players who were going off the interpretation supported by an entire paragraph of the CRB that they're now replacing and by statements from both JJ and SKR. There was an easy solution that would not have invalidated anyone's characters or builds, and there was no good reason to choose this over that.
3) It does not solve the problem it is supposed to address, and creates numerous other issues. As has been pointed out, the FAQ does not say what the design team said it was supposed to say. Instead, when the mount charges the rider is automatically charging. That's one thing if everyone is being treated equally, but this is directly at odds with what SRMF said the FAQ was going to allow. Further, it takes issues related to the Ride and Handle Animal skills that were basically academic before and makes them points of immediate concern. RAW characters without Animal Companions cannot perform a mounted charge. No character can use the Ride skill when charging on a mount to Spur their mount. And numerous other issues.
4) It takes a narrow and highly conditional combat type (mounted) and restricts it even more, allowing fewer options for players. This is a big one. How is it a good idea to take away fun and flavorful options from a segment of players who already have issues with getting to regularly use their mounts and mounted abilities, both in PFS and in home play?
One sentence "Feats and abilities which refer to charging or using a charge action while mounted refer to your mount using the charge action while you are mounted" would have solved every single issue. Instead they have to ammend FAQs, tell us that we cannot take them at their word unless it's posted in a FAQ or errata and even then it's subject to change, cut and paste entire paragraphs in the CRB, and change the equipment entries for lances in every book they appear in. They're also going to have more FAQs and changes to make to supporting mechanics before this actually becomes a functional change.
How can anyone argue that the latter option was the correct course? Why is a solution that invalidates play options and creates more issues than it solves preferable to one that had no negative impact on anyone's characters and actually opened up more options in the game?
|
|
As noted by F9F in another thread, the FAQ has been changed from
"Mounted Combat: When making a charge while mounted, which creature charges? The rider or the mount?
Both charge in unison, suffer the same penalty to AC, the gaining the same bonus to the attack rolls and following all other rules for the charge. The mounted combat rules are a little unclear on this. Replace the third paragraph under the "Combat while Mounted" section on page 202 with the following text. Note that a "mounted charge" is synonymous with a "charge while mounted."
A mounted charge is a charge made by you and your mount. During a mounted charge, you deal double damage with your first melee attack made with a lance or with any weapon if you have Spirited Charge (or a similar effect), or you deal triple damage with a lance and Spirited Charge.
This change will be reflected in future printings of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook"
To
"Mounted Combat: When making a charge while mounted, which creature charges? The rider or the mount?
Both charge in unison, suffer the same penalty to AC, the gaining the same bonus to the attack rolls and following all other rules for the charge. The mounted combat rules are a little unclear on this. Replace the third paragraph under the "Combat while Mounted" section on page 202 with the following text. Note that a "mounted charge" is synonymous with a "charge while mounted," and that when a lance is "when used from the back of a charging mount" it is during a mounted charge not when only the mount charges.
A mounted charge is a charge made by you and your mount. During a mounted charge, you deal double damage with your first melee attack made with a lance or with any weapon if you have Spirited Charge (or a similar effect), or you deal triple damage with a lance and Spirited Charge.
This change will be reflected in future printings of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook"
Which underscores just how much of the existing material is being changed to accomodate this new ruling, a reality that somewhat flies in the face of the many statements they've made that they will keep FAQS and ruling as small and as close to the original wording as possible to avoid invalidating the printed materials of their longest standing customers.
There's been some confusion regarding mounted maneuvers, particularly Overrun. To me, it's always been obvious that the mount performs the Overrun maneuver, not the rider. The objection seems to be that Improved Overrun isn't readily available to mounts unless they are either an Animal Companion or Cohort, so those player's want to use their PCs' feats and CMB for this. I think it's clear that this roll uses the mount's stats, but I've felt things were clear before (e.g., the Vital Strike thread that prompted this one), but then came the curve ball, so now all bets are off. There have been contentious discussions without resolution, so it deserves mention. Plus, now that we have this thing called Mounted Charge (boooo!), the issue is even more contentious.
Which underscores just how much of the existing material is being changed to accomodate this new ruling, a reality that somewhat flies in the face of the many statements they've made that they will keep FAQS and ruling as small and as close to the original wording as possible to avoid invalidating the printed materials of their longest standing customers.
I would have liked to be a fly on the wall when they made the decision to rule this way. It's too late now. Even though IMHO it makes sense to scratch the ruling and reevaluate in the wake of very reasonable objections, they won't call their credibility into question by publicly doubting their own rulings. Too bad, because they really should. Oh well. Onward!
|
|
There's been some confusion regarding mounted maneuvers, particularly Overrun. To me, it's always been obvious that the mount performs the Overrun maneuver, not the rider. The objection seems to be that Improved Overrun isn't readily available to mounts unless they are either an Animal Companion or Cohort, so those player's want to use their PCs' feats and CMB for this. I think it's clear that this roll uses the mount's stats, but I've felt things were clear before (e.g., the Vital Strike thread that prompted this one), but then came the curve ball, so now all bets are off. There have been contentious discussions without resolution, so it deserves mention. Plus, now that we have this thing called Mounted Charge (boooo!), the issue is even more contentious.
Right, that's actually a very weird result of this ruling. This ruling actually creates a scenario where both the rider and the mount can make separate Overrun and Trample (or other attacks), against the same opponent.
Sooo, you could make an Overrun check with your stats and the mount makes one with its stats.... What happens if you succeed at your overrun but the mount fails? Do you end up on the opposite side of the enemy straddling air and wondering what the hell happened to your mount? Do you get two chances to Overrun with separate but stacking effects depending on whether one or both of you succeed?
|
|
I think this serves to highlight that there are not many feats or options aimed at charging characters. Lots of support for full attacks, and quite a bit for standard action attacks. But let's name some classes for which charging the enemy is pretty iconic:
Barbarians
Cavaliers
Fighters
Paladins
Now lets name the ones that benefited from this ruling in any way:
Barbarians (but only the ones with Pounce)./end list.
Mounted Fighters, Cavaliers, and Paladins get shafted, in some cases really, really bad, to curb the power of mounted characters.
Wait a minute....
Who was actually complaining about mounted characters? A quick search of the forums shows hundreds of posts of "The Cavalier sucks because you never get to make a mounted charge", and very few defending him.
In fact, almost every post defending the Cavalier is someone who used SKR's interpretation of the rules.
The last real legitimate complaint about mounted combatants was the ragelancepounce issue, which they've actually re-enabled as a result of this FAQ. So they took all of the mounted builds that weren't causing issues and nerfed them, while empowering the only build that ever actually caused problems and unbalanced. "Sorry, no, knights can't make single powerful focused attacks or switch weapons during a mounted charge (along with a huge number of other things), but if you want to play a frothing barbarian who gets the equivalent of 6 attacks with a lance and maybe a few natural attacks for good measure, that's cool".
but if you want to play a frothing barbarian who gets the equivalent of 6 attacks with a lance and maybe a few natural attacks for good measure, that's cool".
If it makes you feel better the pouncing barbarian only gets his extra lance damage on the first hit... yeah, I'm not really comforted by that either.
Yeah, pretty much. Though I'm loathe to indulge my petty impulse to snark, it is really, really difficult to remain gracious in the face of this very poor ruling. I am playing a mount-focused character in Kingmaker (Dragoon 2 / Paladin 10), an AP which is touted as being very mount friendly, and I still rarely get the chance to lance charge. If I had not invested in Horseshoes of a Zephyr, it would be even rarer. No one has ever raised an eyebrow at the damage output. But the other week when I brought out a large sized crossbow, then enlarged, then used a wand to cast gravity bow, then loaded my huge bolt into my now huge crossbow, and finally shot off a gargantuan bolt using Vital Strike, then we had a little discussion. But my super great charge? Not an issue.
|
|
but if you want to play a frothing barbarian who gets the equivalent of 6 attacks with a lance and maybe a few natural attacks for good measure, that's cool".If it makes you feel better the pouncing barbarian only gets his extra lance damage on the first hit... yeah, I'm not really comforted by that either.
That's why I only said 6 instead of 12. Somehow the Barbarian only being two or three times as good an option for mounted combat instead of four or five times as good does not make me feel better.
So...
1. What are the issues with the mounted combat system, including the handle animal skill, ride skill, feats, abilities (such as class abilities and item abilities), and rules regarding mounted combat?The latest FAQ
The thread containing the conversation that led to the FAQ
Other than it's complexity?
I was in the process of making a cavalier and looking for tips or ideas for how to build him. I came across this thread and am about to change my mind altogether.
I really think they should have spent a lot more time on mounted combat, clarifying things, and making it overall more accessible.
That, or they should have never made classes based around it in the first place. Because those classes didn't make it any more clear or easier.
Wow... I never even thought of that Magus thing and now my dream will die before it began...
It may seem strange to say in the wake of these threads, but it's not that complicated. It is, unfortunately, poorly packaged and presented. I'd love to see a product called something like Ultimate Mounts that gathers the rules in one convenient place, in addition to other goodies that would make mounts more fun, approachable, and flavorful.
In seeming contradiction to what I just said, I have yet another unresolved issue with mounted combat. I can't seem to find in the Pathfinder rules where it specifies that a mount's movement must end when the rider attacks, absent feats that forgo the assumed requirement of course. Skip Williams' guide covers it, so that's what I go by, but I don't see it in the Pathfinder rules.
It may seem strange to say in the wake of these threads, but it's not that complicated. It is, unfortunately, poorly packaged and presented. I'd love to see a product called something like Ultimate Mounts that gathers the rules in one convenient place, in addition to other goodies that would make mounts more fun, approachable, and flavorful.
In seeming contradiction to what I just said, I have yet another unresolved issue with mounted combat. I can't seem to find in the Pathfinder rules where it specifies that a mount's movement must end when the rider attacks, absent feats that forgo the assumed requirement of course. Skip Williams' guide covers it, so that's what I go by, but I don't see it in the Pathfinder rules.
I'd buy that. Especially if it included alternate features for classes that are almost entirely reliant on their mount.
......I have a problem... Does this new ruling mean that the Dragoon and Rough Rider can't charge anymore?
By RAW, yes. Because you're spending your move action to handle the animal you're riding.
Action
Varies. Handling an animal is a move action, while “pushing” an animal is a full-round action. (A druid or ranger can handle her animal companion as a free action or push it as a move action.) For tasks with specific time frames noted above, you must spend half this time (at the rate of 3 hours per day per animal being handled) working toward completion of the task before you attempt the Handle Animal check. If the check fails, your attempt to teach, rear, or train the animal fails and you need not complete the teaching, rearing, or training time. If the check succeeds, you must invest the remainder of the time to complete the teaching, rearing, or training. If the time is interrupted or the task is not followed through to completion, the attempt to teach, rear, or train the animal automatically fails.
Nothing in the Dragoon or Rough Rider descriptions say they gain the ability to Handle Animal as a free action.
If you ignore the Handle Animal skill, then you can just do Ride checks, but only with animals that have been "combat trained."
Control Mount in Battle: As a move action, you can attempt to control a light horse, pony, heavy horse, or other mount not trained for combat riding while in battle. If you fail the Ride check, you can do nothing else in that round. You do not need to roll for horses or ponies trained for combat.
It's my understanding that:
- They're defining a new type of action
- This means that anything usable on a charge is usable during a Mounted Charge (new action type)
- This means that anything not normally usable on a charge is not usable during a Mounted Charge (new action type)
- Feats like overrun still work as they can be used as part of a charge. However, we're still not clear who makes the roll.
...is that about where we're at?
If you ignore the Handle Animal skill, then you can just do Ride checks, but only with animals that have been "combat trained."Control Mount in Battle: As a move action, you can attempt to control a light horse, pony, heavy horse, or other mount not trained for combat riding while in battle. If you fail the Ride check, you can do nothing else in that round. You do not need to roll for horses or ponies trained for combat.
This part would seem to make a certain amount of sense. Most animals aren't going to want to charge head-long towards an enemy (you can easily spook a horse with a flapping plastic bag) and will tend to spook. Being able to have the animal do so seems as though it would logically fit underneath combat training and be a benefit thereof.
I'm still trying to sort through this ruling, myself.
|
|
If you ignore the Handle Animal skill, then you can just do Ride checks, but only with animals that have been "combat trained."Control Mount in Battle: As a move action, you can attempt to control a light horse, pony, heavy horse, or other mount not trained for combat riding while in battle. If you fail the Ride check, you can do nothing else in that round. You do not need to roll for horses or ponies trained for combat.
This part would seem to make a certain amount of sense. Most animals aren't going to want to charge head-long towards an enemy (you can easily spook a horse with a flapping plastic bag) and will tend to spook. Being able to have the animal do so seems as though it would logically fit underneath combat training and be a benefit thereof.
I'm still trying to sort through this ruling, myself.
Note that "ignoring the Handle Animal skill" is not a good way to handle things consistently. Also note the consequences of failing the Ride check to "control a mount not trained for combat in battle". This check does not allow you to give your mount commands, it allows your mount to do anything. Failure to make the check means your mount is so freaked out that you both lose your actions. If you make the check, or if your mount is combat trained, you can command it as normal. And how do you command it as normal? Using the appropriate Handle Animal checks.
Note that combat training for a mount is nothing more than a packet of tricks taught with the Handle Animal skill:
"Combat Training (DC 20): An animal trained to bear a rider into combat knows the tricks attack, come, defend, down, guard, and heel. Training an animal for combat riding takes 6 weeks. You may also “upgrade” an animal trained for riding to one trained for combat by spending 3 weeks and making a successful DC 20 Handle Animal check. The new general purpose and tricks completely replace the animal's previous purpose and any tricks it once knew. Many horses and riding dogs are trained in this way."
In answer to an earlier question in this thread, yes, this means that Rough Riders and Dragoons cannot make mounted charges unless they spend two feats on the Nature's Ally chain from a non-core splat book.
It also invalidates several of my favorite characters, like my mounted Magus and my Sohei who performs martial arts tricks from his mount's back.
Well so much for Unavoidable Onslaught and Leaping Lance... Thanks for killing my mounted characters...
|
|
I mentioned it before, but the worst thing about this FAQ wasn't just the end result, it was all of the other consequences.
There was a very simple way to resolve this that kept all of the materials consistent, required no major editing of existing materials, and allowed the widest number of options to remain available for play.
Instead, they chose an option that created or perpetuated inconsistencies in the existing material and invalidated numerous builds that were previously available. Before this FAQ is useable, they now need to do another FAQ or amend the Ride and Handle Animal skills to make all the mounted archetypes that don't get Animal Companions work they way they did previously, they need to update lance entries in the CRB and Ultimate Equipment and anywhere else it's been printed, and they've undermined their own credibility. Not only have they said that the things they say can't be trusted unless they're in a FAQ, but they had to amend an existing FAQ. If their rulings can't be trusted unless they're in a FAQ, and their FAQs can't be relied upon because they're subject to change, there's nowhere to go for reliable rulings.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If their rulings can't be trusted unless they're in a FAQ, and their FAQs can't be relied upon because they're subject to change, there's nowhere to go for reliable rulings.
...this and previous posts more read to me as though you've a horse in the race (haha) and have gotten a little focused on it to the point where not just "one" thing seems wrong but...the whole system now is. Stepping away from this for the rest of the weekend would not be a bad move.
I don't mean to be insulting, Ss. I mean that more, from this keyboard, the posts seem to be spiraling and beginning to sound...like a break might be a good idea.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If their rulings can't be trusted unless they're in a FAQ, and their FAQs can't be relied upon because they're subject to change, there's nowhere to go for reliable rulings....this and previous posts more read to me as though you've a horse in the race (haha) and have gotten a little focused on it to the point where not just "one" thing seems wrong but...the whole system now is. Stepping away from this for the rest of the weekend would not be a bad move.
I don't mean to be insulting, Ss. I mean that more, from this keyboard, the posts seem to be spiraling and beginning to sound...like a break might be a good idea.
It is what it is. Can you point to which part of that quote isn't accurate?
Of course I have a horse in this race, but it's because I'm a fan of mounted combat. I've got a lot invested in the mounted combat system, and this ruling was devisive. I've got 3pp materials I purchased that don't work like they used to, in addition to all of the Paizo core products that now need to be updated - these are $50+ books that are having entire paragraphs replaced.
And not just "one thing" is wrong. I've listed many of the things that have been impacted, and it's a substantial list which requires more system FAQs before it becomes useful.
There's also been some arguments that this isn't a change. I think that's false on several fronts. As I've noted, if you have to remove entire paragraphs from the CRB and amend every lance entry in multiple books, that's clearly indicative of a change. As to PFS characters, the precedent has been that messageboard rulings from developers are to be trusted. So the statement that "just because they said it doesn't mean they meant it" creates issues with the people who were actively trying to achieve consistency in their games, including organized play. The same is doubly true of amending existing FAQs, particularly ones that have been in place for a while, not just a few days. The ragelancepounce FAQ which was amended isn't even marked as a recent addition, so people using it, either GMs or players, to support interpretations of the mounted combat rules don't even have a way to recognize that things have changed unless they know about a thread that barely blipped on the radar before making a change that massively impacted the entire mounted combat system.
So yeah, if we're referring to the mounted combat system or the FAQ/errata system as a system that is now "wrong", then it is. Saying so doesn't make me crazy or belligerent. I honestly think it's important for people to recognize what all of the ramifications of this decision are, not just so their can be some understanding of what still needs to happen going forward to make this ruling work, but so that the ramifications of it can be fully understood. I'm not some "hater" raging against the design staff; go look at the last several years worth of my postings in their entirety and you'll see that I've often been amongst the first to defend decisions made by the design staff and look discuss the issues fully from both sides. I've had staff members defend me against posters who called me a "fanboy" and I've specifically reached out to designers asking for clarifications on issues, and made sure to ass along the announcement even when that decision conflicted with my interpretation.
None of that changes the fact that this decision creates or reinforces issues entirely out of proportion with any it may have solved and undermines customer's ability to trust in the reliability of insights and clarifications offered by the staff, up to and including official clarifications made in FAQ.
I also noted that there were two possible resolutions for this issue, one of which could have solved this and and the vast majority of the ancillary issues without impacting anyone's characters, requiring substantial rewrites, or conflicting with prior rulings and entire paragraphs of the CRB. Instead, the other resolution was chosen, the one which invalidated builds that were made following existing FAQs and clarifications on the matter, requires rewrites or amendments to multiple publications, and which now requires even more FAQs before the system actually works.
I have yet another unresolved issue with mounted combat. I can't seem to find in the Pathfinder rules where it specifies that a mount's movement must end when the rider attacks, absent feats that forgo the assumed requirement of course. Skip Williams' guide covers it, so that's what I go by, but I don't see it in the Pathfinder rules.
Sorry to bump so soon, but I'd really like to know if this is covered in the Pathfinder materials. As written, with totally separate action economies between mount and rider, the rider can attack in the middle of the mount's movement, basically imitating Spring Attack except that AoO's still apply.
|
|
No, you have to make a Handle Animal check to command an animal to attack (a charge is a type of attack) and that takes a move action. The rule you're quoting is to allow you to give an untrained animal any commands at all. Read the description. That check just prevents an animal not trained for combat from freaking out and costing both you and it all of your actions. If you make the check, it allows you to command the mount as normal, which is done with Handle Animal. The Rough Rider, the Dragoon, the Sohei, and anyone else who doesn't get an Animal Companion has to use a move action to command the animal to attack, which prevents them from making a mounted charge since that requires a full round action on their part.
Notice that even under the most generous reading of the rules, assuming that Ride supersedes Handle Animal, you still cannot perform a mounted charge under the new ruling. Read what was quoted:
"Control Mount in Battle: As a move action, you can attempt to control a light horse, pony, heavy horse, or other mount not trained for combat riding while in battle. If you fail the Ride check, you can do nothing else in that round. You do not need to roll for horses or ponies trained for combat."
That only allows you to bypass the roll. You still have to take the move action, nothing in the ability prevents that. So Rough Riders and Dragoons cannot perform a mounted charge even if you assume that Ride somehow supersedes Handle Animal, despite there being nothing in the book that says it does.
Oh, yeah, you're right. I didn't notice that. Yeah, mounted combat bitten the metaphorical bullet it sounds like.
|
|
Anyways, so there's confusion about the latest FAQ. Another point to bring up in that regard is how a mount and a rider with a reach weapon can charge the same opponent...
Another issue is the overrun maneuver, particularly who needs to get what feats.
Another nice thing to add is what would happen if your mount was grappled, or started a grapple? Such a case would be good to know for the tiger mount.
I posted this in the other thread but I'll post it here too:
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 even if your interpretation is correct, you can direct your mount to charge as a move action, make an attack at the end of the charge as a standard action, and gain all the benefits and penalties of a charge attack, which is essentially the same thing.
Ride DCs are trivial; basically, the only reason to put ranks in Ride is for use with the Mounted Combat feat (i.e. negating an attack versus your mount).
|
|
I posted this in the other thread but I'll post it here too:
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 even if your interpretation is correct, you can direct your mount to charge as a move action, make an attack at the end of the charge as a standard action, and gain all the benefits and penalties of a charge attack, which is essentially the same thing.
As F9F pointed out, that entire paragraph is being deleted as a result of the FAQ, and a mounted charge now requires a full round action on the part of both the rider and the mount, which in some cases is just flat out impossible, and in others takes an extra round to "queue up".