Design Manager
|
| 27 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to clean this up into the actual questions at hand:
Does the Ride skill replace or work in concert with the Handle Animal skill while mounted?
If so, can we get a FAQ or further clarification stating such?
Can the Rider use the Ride skill to command a mount to attack, or does that require the Handle Animal skill?
Is a charge an attack?
If both the rider and mount are charging, is it possible for both the rider and mount to make an attack if the rider is using a lance? Why or why not?
If a rider has used their move action already in a turn (say, drawing or sheathing a weapon or other item) can they still direct their mount to charge and gain the benefits of a charge, similarly to how one can use a standard action to charge in a surprise round?
You forgot an important one:
If a rider has used their move action already in a turn (say, pulling out a weapon -- let's suppose they can't draw during a charge due to being first level +0 BAB) can they still direct their mount to charge and gain the benefits of a charge?
|
Design Manager
|
You forgot an important one:
If a rider has used their move action already in a turn (say, pulling out a weapon -- let's suppose they can't draw during a charge due to being first level +0 BAB) can they still direct their mount to charge and gain the benefits of a charge?
Added to my post!
FAQ'd.
My own analysis leads me to believe that unless the mount has reach, ride-by attack is required to attack with a lance in the same round as a mount attacks.
FAQ'd.
My own analysis leads me to believe that unless the mount has reach, ride-by attack is required to attack with a lance in the same round as a mount attacks.
Same at my table. But the new Mounted Charge rules make it problematic either way. We'll likely keep our houserules until this is ironed out. As I mentioned earlier, this is a lot easier if your mount is a cohort and treated as an NPC. Or maybe it's a lot harder. I'm probably wrong either way, for some reason or other.
I hit FAQ.
Faq'd. The rules should just work.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've FAQed this, both of the first two posts. I'll let the devs figure out what's important. This area is long overdue to be addressed, and I welcome the carnage caused by the current FAQ as a mechanism to address it.
It should work. This is the pithiest thing that Dan be said about it behaving attempted to tackle it a few times myself, I totally appreciate that it's a tough subject to handle. Please do so anyway.
That's a lot of questions for a single FAQ, but I do hope the design team responds. FAQ'd.
|
Design Manager
|
That's a lot of questions for a single FAQ, but I do hope the design team responds. FAQ'd.
It's hard to break it into a single FAQ question, because they're all inter-related. As was seen with the recent Mounted Charge FAQ, making one FAQ to address one particular aspect of mounted combat is a very bad idea. Mounted combat needs to be addressed in its entirety so that they don't address one piece and break 4 more.
Yay someone finally did it. FAQ'd.
FAQ'd.
my 2cents:
1)directing the move of a mount in combat = move action with Ride check OR free action if the mount is combat-trained.
2)directing the mount to Attack = move action with the Handle Animal check. (or a free action of the mount is also an animal companion)
3)Charge = an attack that requires a full-round action.
4)when "charging on a mount" (as per the new FAQ), both the rider and mount are making a charge which requires a full-round action for each (which is is not possible because the rider does not have a full-round action to use. see #2)
5)when the rider directs the mount to charge, or is "charging on a mount", the mount gets an attack on the target of the charge just as if it were charging alone. this attack can be made from any square the mount occupies, and thus the issue of reach for the rider doesn't exist because the mount can just attack from "the other" square.
I guess thats 5 cents, but whatever...
|
FAQ'd.
My own analysis leads me to believe that unless the mount has reach, ride-by attack is required to attack with a lance in the same round as a mount attacks.
Ride-by Attack wrote: "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)."
Nothing here allows you to attack with your mount if it could not already attack when you made your 'standard charge'.
After reading the new rules for a lance charge, in the case of a mounted lance charge from horseback, I interpret that the rider charges until the rider performs their lance attack at reach. The rider's charge finishes at this point. However, this does not stop the horse from finishing its charge. After the rider's charge is resolved, the horse completes its charge which results in the horse ending up adjacent to the target, which the horse can then also attack.
If the rider has Ride-By Attack, the mount can then continue to move if it is able, continuing the straight line of the charge, and providing the mount's total movement for the round is not double its speed.
I am also of the opinion that you do not need to use Handle Animal when you are riding, I believe that the Ride Skill alone is used.
The rules for mounted combat are very open for interpretation. The entire mounted combat needs a rewrite and proper explanation, so the rules are easy to understand.
PS FAQ'd
After reading the new rules for a lance charge, in the case of a mounted lance charge from horseback, I interpret that the rider charges until the rider performs their lance attack at reach. The rider's charge finishes at this point. However, this does not stop the horse from finishing its charge. After the rider's charge is resolved, the horse completes its charge which results in the horse ending up adjacent to the target, which the horse can then also attack.
During a mounted charge, the rider and mount are counted as "charging in unison." To me that means when it ends for one, it ends for the other. We rule that Ride-By-Attack allows the mount to continue its charge after the lance attack (normal: movement ends when either party makes their charge attack. Whatever though. I've given up trying to do it by RAW, which I'd always insisted was possible, and now feel resigned to devising a house system that feels balanced and follows as many rules as possible. Anyway, that's how I see Mounted Charge working with and without Ride-By-Attack.
|
|
After reading the new rules for a lance charge, in the case of a mounted lance charge from horseback, I interpret that the rider charges until the rider performs their lance attack at reach. The rider's charge finishes at this point. However, this does not stop the horse from finishing its charge. After the rider's charge is resolved, the horse completes its charge which results in the horse ending up adjacent to the target, which the horse can then also attack.During a mounted charge, the rider and mount are counted as "charging in unison." To me that means when it ends for one, it ends for the other. We rule that Ride-By-Attack allows the mount to continue its charge after the lance attack (normal: movement ends when either party makes their charge attack. Whatever though. I've given up trying to do it by RAW, which I'd always insisted was possible, and now feel resigned to devising a house system that feels balanced and follows as many rules as possible. Anyway, that's how I see Mounted Charge working with and without Ride-By-Attack.
Fair enough. Any interpretation will ignore some part of the rules. RAW is simply inadequate.
I don't see why the rider's charge ending would halt the horse's charge, but I can't point to any rule to support this position. I suppose I could argue that they are "charging in unison" until the rider attacks, and then the horse continues to charge but somebody else will probably refute this. At end of the day, every table has to decide how Mounted Combat works. I just threw out a suggestion to promote discussion.
What the intent of the Mounted Combat rules is anyone's guess. I think the problem is that nobody, including the developers, understands how Mounted Combat is meant to work.
I disagree, I think the developers know precisely how mounted combat works. But I also think they failed to infuse this understanding into the words that went on the page. That isn't entirely their fault. Many times you can type something out on paper and read it back to yourself and it is clear and concise to you because the connections between points a-b-c-d are already in your head, so refrencing what relates to what when you think a single sentence isn't complete is a no brainer.
Take for example this line in the ride skill:
Fight with a Combat-Trained Mount
If you direct your war-trained mount to attack in battle, you can still make your own attack or attacks normally. This usage is a free action.
The author obviously knew which "usage" he was referring to when he wrote it, and didn't bother to elaborate because he felt it was obvious what he was talking about. But as we have seen within the discussions about this topic, some think its referencing the handle animal skill check, others the ride skill check, and still, other believe its only referencing this particular part of the ride check.
Its never as simple for someone to understand written words as it was for the person who wrote them.
Ok, sure.
I disagree, I think the developers know precisely how mounted combat works.
I nominate this "Quote of the Thread."
I disagree, I think the developers know precisely how mounted combat works.I nominate this "Quote of the Thread."
Thank you for proving my point. You took what I was saying in that post completely out of context based on just that one sentence and your own interpretation of what I meant by it.
My argument still stands. They know how it works, but we don't because it isn't written as clearly as they think it is, simply because they can understand what they wrote far better than we can ever hope to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you for proving my point.I disagree, I think the developers know precisely how mounted combat works.I nominate this "Quote of the Thread."
Glad to help.
But seriously, up until this FAQ, two devs provided guidance on how to use the mounted combat rules. This new FAQ overturns those interpretations. That alone tells me that they each may have their own ideas. A clear understanding of how it's supposed to work isn't in evidence. Like others, I'm glad for the attention it's getting. I'd like to see this as a short-term snag before a more satisfying development.
Sorry to make a little fun, but those were some very quotable passages.
|
|
Now here is the problem...
No character can command its mount to make a charge in the same round per RAW and FAQs. The reason why, is that to begin the whole process the ride rust expend a Move Action to make the Handle Animal check to initiate the attack. And the Charge itself is a Full Round Action, so the rider cannot take both a Move Action and a Full Round Action.
A rider could make the Handle Animal check and then Charge on the next round by RAW and FAQs. But that essentially means the rider must take two rounds to make a charge.
However, this is the way I propose it be handled.
1) The knight uses his Move Action to attempt a DC 10 Handle Animal check. If successful the horse makes a Charge down the field.
2) The movement and charge are part of the horse's action allotments. Full Round Action to Charge
3) The knight must attempt a DC 5 Ride check to guide the horse with his knees. If he fails he must choose which hand to use to guide the horse. Using the primary hand means not making the attack attempt. Using the secondary had means lowering his shield, reducing his AC. This is not an action.
4) Assuming success the knight must now make a DC 10 Ride check to be able to make his attack. This is a Free Action
5) Assuming another success, he then makes a single attack "as if he were the one making the charge himself." That is he incurs the -2 AC penalty and gains the +2 bonus to hit, and if using a lance, it deals triple damage. This would be handled as a Standard Action.
6) The horse also makes an attack, with -2 penalty to AC and bonus +2 to hit. This is the free attack the horse gets as part of its Charge.
7) After the attack, the knight has been hit. He must attempt a DC 5 Ride check to Stay in the Saddle, otherwise he falls from his horse. This is not an action.
Now we can try this same scenario in a slightly different way. Instead of the knight attacking with lance, he is attacking with bow and arrow.
1) The knight uses his Move Action to attempt a DC 10 Handle Animal check. If successful the horse makes a Charge down the field.
2) The movement and charge are part of the horse's action allotments. Horse's full round action
3) The knight must attempt a DC 5 Ride check to guide the horse with his knees. If he fails he must choose which hand to use to guide the horse. Either way he cannot make his bow attack as both hands are needed to make the attack. If the knight fails the Ride check it would be logical to use the primary hand, allowing him to use his secondary had, and its buckler for defense. This is not an action.
4) Assuming success the knight must now make a DC 10 Ride check to be able to make his attack. This is a Free Action.
5) Assuming another success, he then uses a standard action to make a single attack . He fires his bow. He does not gain the +2 bonus to hit, nor the -2 penalty to AC because the knight himself is not using the charge action. This is a standard action, but gains no penalties or bonuses from the Charge.
6) The horse makes its attack that was part of the charge attack. The horse gains +2 to hit, but suffers -2 to AC. This is the free attack part of the Charge.
7) After the attack, the knight has been hit. He must attempt a DC 5 Ride check to Stay in the Saddle, otherwise he falls from his horse. This is not an Action.
Those are essentially the steps and rolls that I would use to make either a charge, or attack while the mount is charging in mounted combat. Both scenarios require 7 steps, and are the same, except for step 5. It is a pain in the a$$ if you ask me.
To clear this all up, Handle Animal must be modified to change the action type necessary to have an animal attack. To be honest in the case of a Mounted Charge, or Mounted Combat in any form, I would drop the Handle Animal check (unless the animal was not combat trained). I would also add the damage taken to the Ride check to Stay in the Saddle when damage has been taken.
That's exactly it: we need a clear example of how this is supposed to work -- something that's not spread over five different page references.
I'm guessing you don't have to use handle animal unless you actually want your mount to make an attack roll.
|
Design Manager
|
I'm guessing you don't have to use handle animal unless you actually want your mount to make an attack roll.
'S why I added the "Is a charge an attack" question to the list. I think by intent, you're probably right, but by RAW I don't think it actually works that way.
I suppose I should have phrased it "Is a charge always an attack?".
Yeah I'm just making a guess. More of a guess about intent than a prediction too, I'm less sure what the verdict will be.
I see a trend of these FAQ requests pressing the designers towards more precision of language than was ever even a goal of the writing style used in the rules.
That's not necessarily a bad thing, as long as all parties involved are on the same page.
Has anyone ever seen a pc using mounted combat use handle animal? I've never seen it done.
Basically I'm not sure every round of combat the rider is expected to make 3 to 5 skill checks like people seem ro be implying.
Yeah I'm just making a guess. More of a guess about intent than a prediction too, I'm less sure what the verdict will be.
I see a trend of these FAQ requests pressing the designers towards more precision of language than was ever even a goal of the writing style used in the rules.
That's not necessarily a bad thing, as long as all parties involved are on the same page.
Normally I'll argue in favor of the GM using her brain to fill in the gaps. Mounted combat, however, generates more than enough confusion to warrant some attention--probably more than can be provided by a simple FAQ. But the FAQ system is the primary means of exposing weak points in the rules, so here we are.
This isn't to say that mounted combat isn't playable, but it's confusing enough that reasonable people can disagree without deluding themselves, and such a common combat situation ought to have rules that are easier for a new GM or player to process than, say, grappling. Worse, the snags in mounted combat aren't immediately obvious until someone asks the right questions. It seems almost trivial the first time you read the mounted combat section, but once you start putting two and two together regarding different skills and action economy, it becomes apparent that the section really doesn't describe the situation adequately.
And this is speaking as someone who has little trouble actually running mounted combat--because I've already decided which way to interpret the ambiguous parts of the text, and the result makes everything basically playable. That doesn't save my players from confusion, though.
Yeah, I agree.
Can you describe the interpretation you settled on?
|
Design Manager
|
Has anyone ever seen a pc using mounted combat use handle animal? I've never seen it done.
Basically I'm not sure every round of combat the rider is expected to make 3 to 5 skill checks like people seem ro be implying.
I'd noted before, but most mounted characters choose classes that come with Animal Companions. A single rank in Handle Animal gives them a +8 right out the gate. If they have any charisma to speak of, they never actually need to roll, and the command is a free action.
For people who acquire mounts through purchase, any group that remembers that the Handle Animal check exists has always required it for mounts, though again, most people drop enough ranks in that it's a non-issue and dig around for some way to turn their acquired mount into an animal companion via feats or multi-classing, if for no other reason than to stop having to buy a new one of every couple combats.
Normally I'll argue in favor of the GM using her brain to fill in the gaps. Mounted combat, however, generates more than enough confusion to warrant some attention--probably more than can be provided by a simple FAQ. ***
Worse, the snags in mounted combat aren't immediately obvious until someone asks the right questions. It seems almost trivial the first time you read the mounted combat section, but once you start putting two and two together regarding different skills and action economy, it becomes apparent that the section really doesn't describe the situation adequately.
***
I made a comment in the other thread that mounted combat is actually easier to run the less you understand it. I think almost every group I know has their own set of unwritten houserules to mediate mounted combat and make it easy to run.
I made a comment in the other thread that mounted combat is actually easier to run the less you understand it. I think almost every group I know has their own set of unwritten houserules to mediate mounted combat and make it easy to mediate and run.
Normally I'll argue in favor of the GM using her brain to fill in the gaps. Mounted combat, however, generates more than enough confusion to warrant some attention--probably more than can be provided by a simple FAQ. ***
Worse, the snags in mounted combat aren't immediately obvious until someone asks the right questions. It seems almost trivial the first time you read the mounted combat section, but once you start putting two and two together regarding different skills and action economy, it becomes apparent that the section really doesn't describe the situation adequately.
***
I'd have to agree with that. My own experience has been that as long as a mounted combat character is trying to do something that everyone at the table thinks is reasonable/realistic, nobody bothers checking the rules. In my experience, the same apples to most other actions in a Pathfinder game; nobody gets overly fussed about checking the rules so long as everything fits the table's definition of reasonable.
Yeah, I agree.
Can you describe the interpretation you settled on?
Rider and mount act separately unless charging. Ride supersedes Handle Animal for movement and attacks (or, rather, they are different options that sometimes can accomplish the same goal). That takes care of most of the issues.
In light of some recent discussion, I've considered requiring Handle Animal for mount attacks, but you can charge without attacking, so this shouldn't be a problem for lance-chargers.
...still no answer huh? Bump?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It can take months, Chaotic Fighter. There are some issues with a hundred FAQ requests (Such as the question involving double dipping the same stat, and what "same source" refers to). They are very busy right now with the publishing of a new book, it's not easy being a developer, they work a lot, and often put their soul into the game, and I bet not paid all that much, just to have a forum point out holes in their logic and wording. If more people bought Paizo products, I bet they'd be able to hire another person to help with the load of dealing with us: The Rules Forum.
But note that fixing old products isn't as profitable as making new ones :). (Even though customer support is an important thing, sometimes moving on is better)
As I see it, there are three possible conditions a mount and a rider can be in when they are moving and attacking in combat:
1) The mount is charging, and the rider is not. In this case, the mount gets an attack at the end of the charge, but the rider doesn't. Here, the rider is just directing with the mount and could make a Ride check to do something else in that round.
2) The rider is charging, and the mount is not. In this case, the rider attacks at the end of the charge, but the mount does not. Here, the mount is only moving the rider into position, and if the mount moves less than its speed, it should be able to do something else that round.
3) Both the rider and the mount are charging. In this case, both the rider and the mount make an attack at the end of the charge, and both are committed for the full round. Here, there is a problem with small characters wielding reach weapons from the back of a medium mount.
It's clear that the devs intend the "double damage on a lance" and other benefits of a mounted charge (e.g., Spirited Charge) to apply only to case 3. However, I don't whether they just meant to restrict the special term "mounted charge" to case 3 or whether they intended to eliminate case 1 and case 2 completely.
Case #1 is pretty much the default condition for a "mounted party buffer" build: the rider uses his action to buff the mount/party, then the mount charges in to attack. It's probably the most common tactic used by mounted Druids, Cavalier-Bard combos, Battle Heralds, etc.
|
Design Manager
|
It can take months, Chaotic Fighter. There are some issues with a hundred FAQ requests (Such as the question involving double dipping the same stat, and what "same source" refers to). They are very busy right now with the publishing of a new book, it's not easy being a developer, they work a lot, and often put their soul into the game, and I bet not paid all that much, just to have a forum point out holes in their logic and wording. If more people bought Paizo products, I bet they'd be able to hire another person to help with the load of dealing with us: The Rules Forum.
But note that fixing old products isn't as profitable as making new ones :). (Even though customer support is an important thing, sometimes moving on is better)
They're also in the middle of replacing one of their most experienced and longest term designers who was the only one willing to step into the morass that is mounted combat before SRMF decided to take a stab at it.
So you've got training the new guy, getting a major release ready, ensuring that the AP and regular monthly releases are continuing on schedule, getting ready for PaizoCon which is only 3 months out...
Plus the weather on this side of Washington has been a bit chilly and dismal in the mornings lately, which always takes a nibble out of productivity.
I want them to get this resolved as much as anyone, but I also really want them to take the time to do it right, and I understand if that might be a bit.
I know it takes time. I've waited on them before believe me... I'm just hoping to stimulate some more clicks of the FAQ button.
|
|
It can take months, Chaotic Fighter. There are some issues with a hundred FAQ requests (Such as the question involving double dipping the same stat, and what "same source" refers to). They are very busy right now with the publishing of a new book, it's not easy being a developer, they work a lot, and often put their soul into the game, and I bet not paid all that much, just to have a forum point out holes in their logic and wording. If more people bought Paizo products, I bet they'd be able to hire another person to help with the load of dealing with us: The Rules Forum.
But note that fixing old products isn't as profitable as making new ones :). (Even though customer support is an important thing, sometimes moving on is better)
They're also in the middle of replacing one of their most experienced and longest term designers who was the only one willing to step into the morass that is mounted combat before SRMF decided to take a stab at it.
So you've got training the new guy, getting a major release ready, ensuring that the AP and regular monthly releases are continuing on schedule, getting ready for PaizoCon which is only 3 months out...
Plus the weather on this side of Washington has been a bit chilly and dismal in the mornings lately, which always takes a nibble out of productivity.I want them to get this resolved as much as anyone, but I also really want them to take the time to do it right, and I understand if that might be a bit.
I don't think training will take all that long, if it even is needed. The "New guy" really isn't all that new, he's been a part of the team for awhile.
|
There is a book on Mounted Combat specifically which might help. It also offers some alternate rules to make mounted combat better/smoother.
Yeah, I agree.
Can you describe the interpretation you settled on?
Rider and mount act separately unless charging. Ride supersedes Handle Animal for movement and attacks (or, rather, they are different options that sometimes can accomplish the same goal). That takes care of most of the issues.
In light of some recent discussion, I've considered requiring Handle Animal for mount attacks, but you can charge without attacking, so this shouldn't be a problem for lance-chargers.
That sounds pretty much like my table.
No handle animal check for a mounted charge, we see the mount as more of a mode of conveyance, although we do recognize that it counts as charging in the sense that it gets the AC penalty and the attack bonus if it does in fact attack.
This is very anecdotal though, because it's not the norm in my group for the mount to make it's attack routinely on mounted charges. I don't know what historical accuracy and simulationism would support but a horse that standardly bites opponents as it's rider bears down on them just doesn't seem to fit with the scenes that we have seen played out in our imaginations or on screen or in fiction.
I think we do roll handle animal when the mount attacks, but it's usually more like a full attack with hooves when the mounted character is surrounded by goblins, or something like that.
Anyway that's purely anecdotal.
