Paizo hates mounts; changes to mounted combat


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 248 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:


Nothing in the rules allows for that interpretation. Ride checks cover things the rider does, Handle Animal checks cover things the mount/AC does. I welcome you to go reread the appropriate skills.

Charging is an attack, regardless of whether you swing a hoof, or a sword, or nothing at all at the end of it, it is still an attack. Again, go check the Combat section of the CRB and you'll see that it is specifically listed as such. The only way to command an animal to perform an attack is with the Handle Animal skill, which takes a move action if it is not an animal companion.

Nothing in the rules allows for that interpretation? This doesn't suggest that at all?

d20pfsrd on Ride skill wrote:
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.

I'm not sure I know what to say about your assertion. It seems crystal clear to me that the ride skill allows a character to control that mount in battle.

I might agree that you need animal handling if you aren't riding the horse yet still want it to kick the orc's head in. But that's not charging in riding a horse.


deusvult wrote:


So, in the case of non-reach charging, per the FAQ, a rider can still charge but must forfeit his mount's attack on the charge turn unless he can handle animal AND perform a full round action in the same turn.

Its a trained combat animal. It is set to defend its owner against attacks. It just saw its owner whack the soldier/orc/ peasant worth the 1 xp he needed to level.

It attacks. Using the defend trick doesn't take an action.

Grand Lodge

Ssalarn wrote:
It's specifically listed under "Special Attacks". Did you miss that?

Congrats, you've found yet another spot where the Pathfinder RPG rulebook was copy/pasted from earlier editions and could use a little clarification and rewording.

Yes, the topic of "charging" is organized under the heading "special attacks". Probably because it used less ink than "a mixture of actions that may or may not use attack rolls and have special rules that we need to discuss".

If simply being organized under a "special attacks" heading made charging an attack, then "casting spells while mounted" and the ride check you make if your mount falls in battle would also be attacks.

Also, no need to be hostile.

Sovereign Court

BigNorseWolf wrote:
deusvult wrote:


So, in the case of non-reach charging, per the FAQ, a rider can still charge but must forfeit his mount's attack on the charge turn unless he can handle animal AND perform a full round action in the same turn.

Its a trained combat animal. It is set to defend its owner against attacks. It just saw its owner whack the soldier/orc/ peasant worth the 1 xp he needed to level.

It attacks. Using the defend trick doesn't take an action.

Unfortunately, using any trick IS indeed a move action. (barring class abilities that change the rule)

PRD Handle Animal entry wrote:


Action: Varies. Handling an animal is a move action, while “pushing” an animal is a full-round action. (A druid or ranger can handle an animal companion as a free action or push it as a move action.) 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.

So in that the doom and gloomers are right; they were just missing that a charging mount is under no requirement to attack, thus there's no requirement for handle animal to even come into play.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

This entire thread is based on a "change" that has not happened. The FAQ that is causing some grumbling makes sense as far as it was meant to go. Did it say "No charging you non-A/C classes!" ? No. Give the topic a break, and we might actually see some real clarifications on a sub-system that missed out on being "Pathfinderized" from 3.5 (i.e. improved and streamlined).

Also.. you don't need to issue a command to Attack every time an animal attacks someone. So as long as you've already ordered your mount to attack someone, they can attack at the end of a charge. They still move as you direct them.

Scarab Sages

deusvult wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
deusvult wrote:


So, in the case of non-reach charging, per the FAQ, a rider can still charge but must forfeit his mount's attack on the charge turn unless he can handle animal AND perform a full round action in the same turn.

Its a trained combat animal. It is set to defend its owner against attacks. It just saw its owner whack the soldier/orc/ peasant worth the 1 xp he needed to level.

It attacks. Using the defend trick doesn't take an action.

Unfortunately, using any trick IS indeed a move action. (barring class abilities that change the rule)

PRD Handle Animal entry wrote:


Action: Varies. Handling an animal is a move action, while “pushing” an animal is a full-round action. (A druid or ranger can handle an animal companion as a free action or push it as a move action.) 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.
So in that the doom and gloomers are right; they were just missing that a charging mount is under no requirement to attack, thus there's no requirement for handle animal to even come into play.
Quote:
Defend (DC 20) The animal defends you (or is ready to defend you if no threat is present), even without any command being given.Alternatively, you can command the animal to defend a specific other character.

The defend trick allows the animal to attack on its own with no action made by you. You would only need to make the action if you command it to defend someone else.

Paizo Employee Developer

6 people marked this as a favorite.

The intention of Monstrous Mount is to give characters with a companion animal or mount class feature the ability to select a non-animal as the creature that advances with them as they level up. It is important, however, to ensure that characters don't gain access to abilities that most other character can't receive for several levels (such as the ability to fly before 5th level). The mounts granted by this feat end up being more powerful than the base creatures, as they continue to level up along with the cavalier who selects them, but before their full abilities are unlocked, they are "nerfed" to maintain balance.

The existence of this feat does not preclude a character from gaining a standard magical beast and training it as a mount. You can still raise a hippogriff as a mount and use it with all the normal rules. It just won't advance with you as you level up. You could take a griffon as a cohort, however, so that it would advance with you, but you can't take Leadership until 7th level.

Monstrous Mount was never intended to replace the existing methods of using a magical beast in mounted combat, flying or not. It is simply another set of options for a cavalier who wants to have the same mount from 4th level, even if he can't fly on the beast until such abilities are appropriate for a character of his level.

Needless to say, I fail to see how hyperbolic claims that Paizo "hates" mounted combat are supported with evidence of us providing more options for mounted combatants.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

deusvult wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:


It's specifically listed under "Special Attacks". Did you miss that?

No. A charge attack, when made, is a special attack. fine.

You're willfully ignoring that a charge MAY include an attack. "May" means it is not mandatory.

There is a difference between "charging" and moving. You have two options:

Charging is a type of attack, and that's why it's listed under the special attacks. It's a move action to Handle Animal and command an animal to charge.
Or
Charging is a special type of undefined full round action unique to itself. Since there's no specific command to charge, you have to Push an animal to do it and it's impossible to make a mounted charge ever by anyone.

Grand Lodge

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Aberrant Templar wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Even then, your horse probably has the defend trick (or can be pushed into defending you) and if it sees you going near something with a sharp pointy object, is going to put a hoof to its head if it has the chance.
True, but it would have to wait until the next round since the charging eats up its full round action.

Hmmm? Little confused

If you're doing this with a sword, the horse attacks too. A charge is a move and an attack for both you and the horse. I don't see why the horse would have to wait.

One way to read the new FAQ is that both the horse and rider have to take a charge action in order to charge. Which is a full-round action for both parties.

In that case, if the horse wanted to attack at the end of the charge the rider would need to make a Handle Animal check to "handle" the horse and make him perform the "attack" trick. Which is a move action ... which would prevent the rider from also taking a full round action to charge.

So the horse would have to charge (a full round action) and not attack at the end. The rider would also charge (a full round action) and attack at the end. Both parties would get the penalty to AC as a result of the charge. Technically they'd both get the bonus to attack as well, but only one party would be in a position to take advantage of it.

The other way of reading the FAQ is that if one party charges both parties receive the benefits/penalties. Which would free up a move action for the rider but otherwise wouldn't change anything. The mount would have already taken a full-round action, so it wouldn't have any actions left to spend even if the rider made a move check to handle it into attacking. And if you attack as part of a charge you can only take one attack, so the rider wouldn't be able to full-attack even if they had the option of attacking as a full-round action.

Quote:
Of course, after you ride up and lance the monster you'll be standing right next to it with your horse, and both of you can now attack to your heart's content.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
The lance has reach, the horse doesn't. So the rider has to stop 10 feet out to lance, and the horse just stops.

Aah, yes. This is me falling into the trap of not realizing that rules have been changed. I was under the impression that as a medium sized creature riding a large creature you could pick what square of the mount's space you were attacking from. If you attacked from the "back" space then your 10' reach weapon would leave your mount adjacent to the enemy.

Well, in this case the mount would have to move and attack on the second round. Each would get one attack (since the rider is spending a move action to handle the mount's attack). On the THIRD round of combat you could conceivably end up in a position where the mount could full-attack and the rider could single attack. If the animal had the defend trick than the rider could full attack starting on the second round, and both could full-attack on the third.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Moreland wrote:


Monstrous Mount was never intended to replace the existing methods of using a magical beast in mounted combat, flying or not. It is simply another set of options for a cavalier who wants to have the same mount from 1st level, even if he can't fly on the beast until such abilities are appropriate for a character of his level.

Then it fails in in that goal, as you cannot take Monstrous Mount as a feat until fifth level due to prerequisites.

Liberty's Edge

Mr Moreland the problem people have is that these mounts take 2 feats to use and even then their abilities are still not the same as a regular flying mount who has not been bonded and is supposed to be better than their standard brethren.

when compared to a wizard who only has to cast a single spell as ssalarn pointed out at 9th level to fly for 9+ hours, has scrolls to let him do it for a further time duration it seems to some in the community (my self as well) that this is another example of punishing martials for wanting to do cool things while casters can do them with a single spell.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Swatkat wrote:
So in the recent advent of the paizo nerfing mounted combat to the point of being useless.

I'm gonna need a reason to keep reading after this, as it's working just fine for me.


Mark Moreland wrote:

The intention of Monstrous Mount is to give characters with a companion animal or mount class feature the ability to select a non-animal as the creature that advances with them as they level up. It is important, however, to ensure that characters don't gain access to abilities that most other character can't receive for several levels (such as the ability to fly before 5th level). The mounts granted by this feat end up being more powerful than the base creatures, as they continue to level up along with the cavalier who selects them, but before their full abilities are unlocked, they are "nerfed" to maintain balance.

The existence of this feat does not preclude a character from gaining a standard magical beast and training it as a mount. You can still raise a hippogriff as a mount and use it with all the normal rules. It just won't advance with you as you level up. You could take a griffon as a cohort, however, so that it would advance with you, but you can't take Leadership until 7th level.

Monstrous Mount was never intended to replace the existing methods of using a magical beast in mounted combat, flying or not. It is simply another set of options for a cavalier who wants to have the same mount from 4th level, even if he can't fly on the beast until such abilities are appropriate for a character of his level.

Needless to say, I fail to see how hyperbolic claims that Paizo "hates" mounted combat are supported with evidence of us providing more options for mounted combatants.

The problem my group and I have with this is not with the feats itself giving access to more. its the problem that the mastery doesn't give it the same power as if it was a normal creature of its type such as a griffon being able to fly its fly speed with a rider if it would be considered a light load. a griffon can carry 400 lbs and be considered light. a knight even heavily armed would only be the rider's weight+ armor which would be at most ~+80lb?

the second problem and why I make that claim is because of the recent patch in the faq that depending on reading makes mounted combat without it being a class feature useless. Clarification would be nice in that regard.

My problem is that unlike the recent evolutions of meta damage due to things like vital strike to warriors on foot, the same kind of love hasn't been shared to mounted characters and there is a gap in the damage capabilities between the two. mounted combat the way the system speaks right now is only viable as an archer.


blahpers wrote:
Swatkat wrote:
So in the recent advent of the paizo nerfing mounted combat to the point of being useless.
I'm gonna need a reason to keep reading after this, as it's working just fine for me.

you don't have to keep reading. not gonna force you


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Swatkat wrote:
its the problem that the mastery doesn't give it the same power as if it was a normal creature of its type such as a griffon being able to fly its fly speed with a rider if it would be considered a light load.

This is news? Do you think a druid's T-rex companion should have the stats of a Bestiary T-rex at level 1?

Swatkat wrote:
the second problem and why I make that claim is because of the recent patch in the faq that depending on reading makes mounted combat without it being a class feature useless. Clarification would be nice in that regard.

Ah, I see. This thread is Ssalarn's mounted combat thread barrage continued. I'd like to see more material clarifying mounted combat, but I don't feel that it is broken at present due to a fundamental difference in the way I read Handle Animal and Ride. Since the way I read it--fully within RAW--allows combat to work, and the way Ssalarn reads it--also fully within RAW--does not, I'll stick to my reading and play the game instead of rallying torches and pitchforks over it.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yep, there are valid ways to interpret the mounted combat rules so that they still work just fine. Moving your mount doesn't require any check. The defend trick lets your mount attack without being given a command. It just seems deliberately obtuse to insist that the rules be interpreted in the exact way that breaks mounted combat while discounting all the ways that allow it to function.

TBH, I'd never heard before this recent kerfluffle any vague implication that any skill other than Ride was required to control a mount. When there are two ways to interpret RAW, and one of them breaks the system, I know which interpretation I go with.

As far as the new feats go, they add something to the game that wasn't already there. If you don't think it's worth spending two feats to get a flying mount that advances with you, then don't spend the feats on this. Achieve flight through some other method.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Bill Dunn wrote:

Nothing in the rules allows for that interpretation? This doesn't suggest that at all?

d20pfsrd on Ride skill wrote:
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.

I'm not sure I know what to say about your assertion. It seems crystal clear to me that the ride skill allows a character to control that mount in battle.

I might agree that you need animal handling if you aren't riding the horse yet still want it to kick the orc's head in. But that's not charging in riding a horse.

That rule doesn't mean what you think it does. Notice how it applies specifically to mounts not trained for combat? It's referring to this: "Mounts that do not possess combat training (see the Handle Animal skill) are frightened by combat. If you don't dismount, you must make a DC 20 Ride check each round as a move action to control such a mount."

And even if that did apply to what you seem to think it does, you'll notice it still requires a move action and would make it impossible for anyone to perform a mounted charge.

ryric wrote:
Yep, there are valid ways to interpret the mounted combat rules so that they still work just fine.

I agree 100%. If you ignore the RAW and make up your own house rules, you can make it work just fine. If you actually want to follow the rules as they are written in the CRB and FAQs though, only characters with animal companions can perform mounted charges.

Sovereign Court

Ssalarn wrote:

And even if that did apply to what you seem to think it does, you'll notice it still requires a move action and would make it impossible for

Except that right after that, it says that mounts that ARE combat trained require no ride check at all.

And honestly, if you're riding a non-combat trained horse and trying to lance things, you deserve to have it not work.

Imbicatus wrote:
The defend trick allows the animal to attack on its own with no action made by you. You would only need to...

Indeed it does; but that's crossing over into 'turn after the charge' territory. I was just talking about how, in the post-faq world, a charging (non animal companion) mount could attack the same turn its rider could.

I don't think it can. I just disagree with those who share Ssalarn's view that the faq also puts charging outside the reach of a mounted rider's action economy.


Ssalarn wrote:


That rule doesn't mean what you think it does. Notice how it applies specifically to mounts not trained for combat? It's referring to this: "Mounts that do not possess combat training (see the Handle Animal skill) are frightened by combat. If you don't dismount, you must make a DC 20 Ride check each round as a move action to control such a mount."

And even if that did apply to what you seem to think it does, you'll notice it still requires a move action and would make it impossible for anyone to perform a mounted charge.

No, I'm pretty sure it does mean what I think it means. Mounts trained for combat are exempted from needing to make that check - no need to make the check means no need to take the move action to make that check.

Plus, consider other things you can do under the ride skill like:

Ride skill again wrote:


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.

That one's a free action. Charging, that's something you do while fighting, so there you go.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

deusvult wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:

And even if that did apply to what you seem to think it does, you'll notice it still requires a move action and would make it impossible for

Except that right after that, it says that mounts that ARE combat trained require no ride check at all.

And honestly, if you're riding a non-combat trained horse and trying to lance things, you deserve to have it not work.

Right, they don't require a ride check because combat training keeps them from being frightened in combat and you don't have to waste the action controlling them. Which is why I linked to the relevant rules and pointed out that that rule does not say what the person I was responding to seemed to think it did.

Bill Dunn wrote:


Plus, consider other things you can do under the ride skill like:
Ride skill again wrote:


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.
That one's a free action. Charging, that's something you do while fighting, so there you go.

Once again, it doesn't say what you think it does. Read it again.

"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."

As I've said previously, Ride covers what you can do, Handle Animal covers what your animal does. That use allows you, the rider, to make an attack if you have directed your war-trained mount to attack in battle. It does not allow you to command your war-trained mount to attack in battle, that is still the purview of the Handle Animal skill. This check would be to allow you, the rider, to make an attack in the same round as your pouncing mount.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
blahpers wrote:
Smart stuff

Guys - it's over. If I'm agreeing with blahpers, you must be wrong.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Majuba wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Smart stuff
Guys - it's over. If I'm agreeing with blahpers, you must be wrong.

No, the problem is that the design team decided to make a ruling that didn't actually take into account the existing rules. Mounted Combat has been murky for pretty much the entire length of 3.5 and Pathfinder. It was okay though, because there were a few workable interpretations. When the design team issued this FAQ in response to the fact that they didn't like riders being able to Vital Strike from the back of charging mounts, they removed some of the murkiness but left a situation where only a very specific subset of characters could still utilize the full range of mounted combat feats. That subset of course being characters with Animal Companions.

Even the people intelligently arguing the other position acknowledged that the rules are murky and need to be cleaned up, because right now they're incredibly restrictive. Numerous people have actually asked a couple times for a blog post or more extensive rewrite of the relevant rules and skills, because this FAQ is a dirty bandaid on the shotgun wound that is mounted combat. We currently have a situation where mounted combat actually works better for people the less they know the rules and teh more they use their own houserules. While that's mostly fine, it isn't a good solution here, where it bleeds over into organized play and other environments where the rules are important.

It doesn't need to be complex; as anyone who thought they'd been doing mounted combat right all along will tell you, the simplest solution is usually the best.


Not sure if osmebody mentoned it, but the prerequisites of the monstrous mount feat sucks a lot. Forget about fighter having a flying mount, obviosuly nice thigns are for other calsses.


Ssalarn wrote:


If you want to play a mounted combatant with a flying mount, just play a Summoner and drop a trait or something to get a lance.

Options are only Ok if youa re a spellcaster.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
Not sure if osmebody mentoned it, but the prerequisites of the monstrous mount feat sucks a lot. Forget about fighter having a flying mount, obviosuly nice thigns are for other calsses.

Just grab Leadership...

Or do like me and ignore any errata about balancing martial options. Really, your game will be better off that way.

You should know that by now! Paizo has a long-standing tradition of creating awesome books and awful erratas.


Ssalarn wrote:
deusvult wrote:
You don't need to perform animal handling checks to make a mount (animal companion or otherwise) perform a charge.
Charging is an attack. It's specifically listed as such. Commanding an animal to attack requires the Handle Animal Skill, specifically a move action if it's not your animal companion. There is nothing in the Ride skill that overrides or precludes anything in the Handle Animal skill. Go check. They're specifically complementary, one does not override the other, instead, each covers specific types of actions. Ride generally covers actions performed by you the rider. Handle Animal covers actions performed by the mount.

I don't see it that way. A war trained mount can be commanded to attack as free action by the person riding it, technically you don't even have to be riding it. If the mount is not war trained they you need to make ride check a move action to get it to attack or could use Handle Animal as well if it is trained to attack.

"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 Fight with combat trained mount is a free action. So if you direct your mount to attack that is a free action under ride.

Normally with out ride this would be move action using handle animal but ride allow you do it as free action as long as the mount is war trained. Otherwise you are back to move action under ride for the exact same DC of 20.


blahpers wrote:
Swatkat wrote:
its the problem that the mastery doesn't give it the same power as if it was a normal creature of its type such as a griffon being able to fly its fly speed with a rider if it would be considered a light load.

This is news? Do you think a druid's T-rex companion should have the stats of a Bestiary T-rex at level 1?

Swatkat wrote:
the second problem and why I make that claim is because of the recent patch in the faq that depending on reading makes mounted combat without it being a class feature useless. Clarification would be nice in that regard.
Ah, I see. This thread is Ssalarn's mounted combat thread barrage continued. I'd like to see more material clarifying mounted combat, but I don't feel that it is broken at present due to a fundamental difference in the way I read Handle Animal and Ride. Since the way I read it--fully within RAW--allows combat to work, and the way Ssalarn reads it--also fully within RAW--does not, I'll stick to my reading and play the game instead of rallying torches and pitchforks over it.

Blahpers, did I ever EVER say a bestiary t-rex is ok at level 1? No. What I was arguing is that, ok fine burn the second feat. The creature is still a limited version of what it would be able to do otherwise is where I am saying its not right. hell even burning the second feat when spell casters can take improved familiar and a mephit which is not nerfed at all and gain all their bonuses to it as well.

That is where I draw the line in the sand. I don't mind 2 feats to do it. so long as its equal whether caster OR martial. Not to mention this set of rules screws fighters hard core.


Lemmy wrote:
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
Not sure if osmebody mentoned it, but the prerequisites of the monstrous mount feat sucks a lot. Forget about fighter having a flying mount, obviosuly nice thigns are for other calsses.

Just grab Leadership...

+

That would work if you did not have to wait until level 7.


Problem with all of this, is that Paizo needs to separate Non-Martial and Martial mounted combat users. There is no incentive to play a Martial Mounted Combat user, because a Non-martial can do it better and with less feats.

Where as a Mounted Combat Martial user will have so many flaws and negatives that effect their ability to play. (Paizo Modules included, try and play a mounted user that is Medium sized)If Paizo wanted this balanced, they should just use the same as an Animal companion for the Monstrous Mounted Feats, combat, etc. Fewer penalties, etc

Paizo Employee Design Manager

voska66 wrote:


I don't see it that way. A war trained mount can be commanded to attack as free action by the person riding it, technically you don't even have to be riding it. If the mount is not war trained they you need to make ride check a move action to get it to attack or could use Handle Animal as well if it is trained to attack.

"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."

Normally with out ride this would be move action using handle animal but ride allow you do it as free action as long as the mount is war trained. Otherwise you are back to move action under ride for the exact same DC of 20.

I Pointed it out earlier, but that doesn't say what you think it says. Read it again.

"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."

That allows you, the rider, to attack in the same round as your mount. You still have to actually make the command for your mount to attack, and the only way given to do that is the Handle Animal check.

Let me make something clear. I AM NOT TRYING TO ARGUE WITH PEOPLE. I think the rules should work in such a way that you don't have all of these weird little issues. The problem is that they don't, and instead of taking a comprehensive overhaul and making all of the rules and associated skills into account, we got this little bandaid fix that only leaves a very narrow selection of options viable.

The rules are at best unclear and contradictory at points without clear instruction on when Ride supersedes Handle Animal or if it's even supposed to. At worst, they're incredibly restrictive.

I'm not telling people the rules don't say what they assume they say because I want to be a jerk, I'm pointing it out so that people see the problem and ask for it to get fixed.

Majuba wrote:

This entire thread is based on a "change" that has not happened. The FAQ that is causing some grumbling makes sense as far as it was meant to go. Did it say "No charging you non-A/C classes!" ? No. Give the topic a break, and we might actually see some real clarifications on a sub-system that missed out on being "Pathfinderized" from 3.5 (i.e. improved and streamlined).

This is the kind of thing that gets me all worked up. It boils down to "Yes the FAQ prevented one thing, but it only incidentally stops the other thing and probably wasn't on purpose so if we all stop talking about it maybe they'll fix it". You don't fix things that everyone pretends aren't broken. It's why global warming is still a thing. You fix things by finding the problem, pointing out that it is, in fact, a problem, and asking the people with the power to fix it to do so.

I get that the design team is busy. I get that this is an extensive issue and probably takes a while to address properly. What I don't get is saying "My houserules work fine so I'll just go with those. Problem solved!" and acting like there isn't, in fact, a problem that needs to be solved.

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Moreland wrote:
Needless to say, I fail to see how hyperbolic claims that Paizo "hates" mounted combat are supported with evidence of us providing more options for mounted combatants.

(heh) I was wondering about this too, Mark. Tell me, do you & James & the rest of the gang wake up each morning, put on your long black robes, and cackle to each other, "It is a good day... to hate!"

(Because if so, I want in!)


Imbicatus wrote:
Mark Moreland wrote:
Monstrous Mount was never intended to replace the existing methods of using a magical beast in mounted combat, flying or not. It is simply another set of options for a cavalier who wants to have the same mount from 1st level, even if he can't fly on the beast until such abilities are appropriate for a character of his level.
Then it fails in in that goal, as you cannot take Monstrous Mount as a feat until fifth level due to prerequisites.

Yarr, probably better ways to handle it too. Something crazy like a scaling feat that gives bonuses at a particular level or animal companion that gains power or growth at fourth or 7th.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Moreland wrote:
Needless to say, I fail to see how hyperbolic claims that Paizo "hates" mounted combat are supported with evidence of us providing more options for mounted combatants.

Here's my hyperbolic, sarcastic, and hypothetical analogy of what these new options mean to me...

Once upon a time, there was a feat called Weapon Specialization that only fighters got:

Quote:

Weapon Specialization

Prerequisites: Proficiency with selected weapon, Weapon Focus with selected weapon, fighter level 4th.

Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus on all damage rolls you make using the selected weapon.

But the DM found it unfair that only Fighters got all the fun, so in his benevolence, he created a new feat so everyone could benefit from it!

Quote:

Poor Man's Weapon Specialization

Prerequisites: BAB +10, Proficiency with selected simple weapon, Weapon Focus with selected weapon.

Benefit: Select a simple weapon. You gain a +2 bonus on all damage rolls you make using the selected weapon.

Now all the non-fighters using simple weapons could have the same benefit as Fighters! But, what about everyone else who uses better weapons? In his wisdom, the DM thus made another feat.

Quote:

Improved Poor Man's Weapon Specialization

Prerequisites: BAB +13, Proficiency with selected weapon, Weapon Focus with selected weapon, Poor Man's Weapon Specialization with any weapon.

Benefit: You gain a +1 bonus on all damage rolls you make using the selected weapon.

Now after spending 1 more feat than the Fighter, anyone who's using non-simple weapons can receive half the benefit of a Fighter who did the same!

What a great idea the DM had, this gave every non-Fighter class more options that are just as powerful as the Fighters'... except that any non-warrior classes can't easily meet the prerequisites for it and any warrior classes that could meet it, wouldn't want it because he either ends up worse off with a weapon that's sub-par, or a feat bonus that's sub-par.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MrSin wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
Mark Moreland wrote:
Monstrous Mount was never intended to replace the existing methods of using a magical beast in mounted combat, flying or not. It is simply another set of options for a cavalier who wants to have the same mount from 1st level, even if he can't fly on the beast until such abilities are appropriate for a character of his level.
Then it fails in in that goal, as you cannot take Monstrous Mount as a feat until fifth level due to prerequisites.
Yarr, probably better ways to handle it too. Something crazy like a scaling feat that gives bonuses at a particular level or animal companion that gains power or growth at fourth or 7th.

Have to agree on this point; scaling the feat over time seems like a much better solution for making sure it doesn't allow for flight too early than setting up arbitrary pre-requisites and somewhat excessive feat taxing. The fact that flying mounts cap out at half speed is especially annoying, given that other flying companion options don't have that limitation.

Really, if the feat had been akin to Beast Rider I don't think there would be any complaints. Instead, it's charging two feats with higher prerequisites for a weaker effect than Beast Rider.


Snappyapple wrote:
What a great idea the DM had, this gave every non-Fighter class more options that are just as powerful as the Fighters'... except that any non-warrior classes can't easily meet the prerequisites for it and any warrior classes that could meet it, wouldn't want it because he either ends up worse off with a weapon that's sub-par, or a feat bonus that's sub-par.

Would it be fair to say its not just the options you give but the quality of those options.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Chengar Qordath wrote:


Have to agree on this point; scaling the feat over time seems like a much better solution for making sure it doesn't allow for flight too early than setting up arbitrary pre-requisites and somewhat excessive feat taxing. The fact that flying mounts cap out at half speed is especially annoying, given that other flying companion options don't have that limitation.

Really, if the feat had been akin to Beast Rider I don't think there would be any complaints. Instead, it's charging two feats with higher prerequisites for a weaker effect than Beast Rider.

I noted that earlier as well. There's already at least half a dozen ways to get flying mounts at relatively low levels in Pathfinder:

Be a 7th level half-orc or orc and take Beast Rider
Play a small race druid and choose a Giant Wasp as your AC from 1st level
Play a small race druid and choose a Roc as your AC from 1st level
Play a small race Beastmaster Ranger and choose a Roc as your AC
from 1st level
Play a small race Beastmaster Ranger and choose a Giant Wasp as your AC
from 1st level
Play a small Summoner and you can have a flying mount at 5th level, or a medium Summoner and have one at 8th.

The one feat probably would have done it, especially considering you can't take it until 5th level. You could have just given the critters a bit of a hit to their STR so they wouldn't be able to fly with a heavily armored rider until their 7th level advancement.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:
Prove it.

You can't prove a grey area in the rules one way or another. But I can lay out reasoning and support it by citing the rulebook.

Ssalarn wrote:
You're saying "A charge is a move, duh". Prove it.

I'm not saying "A charge is a move".

I'm saying "a charge is not necessarily an attack. A charge is a special full-round action that may or may not involve an attack."

Ssalarn wrote:
Here's the test. If a charge is not an attack, what is it?

"Charging is a special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action."

Ssalarn wrote:
Where does it say that?

In the Combat section of the Core Rulebook, under the rules for Charging. The very first paragraph, quoted above, explains what a charge is.

Ssalarn wrote:
How do I command my mount to charge?

You don't. At least not in any mechanical way that requires you to make a specific skill check or take a specific action.

The player says "I make a mounted charge" or something to that effect. The horse and rider each take a full round action. Mount moves and doesn't attack. The rider moves and attacks. Both parties suffer the penalties to AC from charging. Both parties get the bonus to hit, although that doesn't matter from the mount's perspective.

Ssalarn wrote:
Where does it say that?

The same place it says that you have to take a specific action or make a specific check in order for your mount to charge. Nowhere.

The Handle Animal skill says that you have to make a check (and take a move action) to command an animal to attack, but the attack trick just says:

"The animal attacks apparent enemies. You may point to a particular creature that you wish the animal to attack, and it will comply if able."

Attack is a specific type of action you'll find listed under Standard Actions. There are also several actions that require "Attack Rolls" that you could reasonably extend this to ... but charging doesn't necessarily require an attack roll. Attack rolls are defined as "represent(ing) your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round." Charging doesn't necessarily involve an attempt to strike an opponent. It could just mean that you're moving toward them in a very specific manner.

So if you're charging and not attacking, then all you're doing is moving in a restricted manner. There are no Handle Animal tricks or Ride tasks that cover "special full round actions" like charging.

TL;DR there are absolutely no rules that say you need to make a check or take an action in order for your mount to charge.

If you want to say that charging is an attack, there are no rules that specifically prove you wrong or right.

If you want to say that charging is not an attack, there are no rules that specifically prove you wrong or right.

But, for the record, of the two positions the second option is better supported by the rules.


Swatkat wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Swatkat wrote:
its the problem that the mastery doesn't give it the same power as if it was a normal creature of its type such as a griffon being able to fly its fly speed with a rider if it would be considered a light load.

This is news? Do you think a druid's T-rex companion should have the stats of a Bestiary T-rex at level 1?

Swatkat wrote:
the second problem and why I make that claim is because of the recent patch in the faq that depending on reading makes mounted combat without it being a class feature useless. Clarification would be nice in that regard.
Ah, I see. This thread is Ssalarn's mounted combat thread barrage continued. I'd like to see more material clarifying mounted combat, but I don't feel that it is broken at present due to a fundamental difference in the way I read Handle Animal and Ride. Since the way I read it--fully within RAW--allows combat to work, and the way Ssalarn reads it--also fully within RAW--does not, I'll stick to my reading and play the game instead of rallying torches and pitchforks over it.

Blahpers, did I ever EVER say a bestiary t-rex is ok at level 1? No. What I was arguing is that, ok fine burn the second feat. The creature is still a limited version of what it would be able to do otherwise is where I am saying its not right. hell even burning the second feat when spell casters can take improved familiar and a mephit which is not nerfed at all and gain all their bonuses to it as well.

That is where I draw the line in the sand. I don't mind 2 feats to do it. so long as its equal whether caster OR martial. Not to mention this set of rules screws fighters hard core.

Ack, sorry, I see, you're referring to the second feat for the mastery level stuff. Hadn't seen that yet.

This thing looks even weirder than the Sable Company Marine post. Are all of these mounts still considered "animals"? If so, well, there's gonna be some house-ruling going on here.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Incorrect. There are very specific rules for how you get an animal to do anything. They're listed under the Handle Animal skill.

Your defense is now "there's no rules for it, so my thing works". But there are rules for it. Ignoring those rules doesn't make your position more tenable. All your defense does is put you on the side of the argument that says "it doesn't work at all". I know that's not what you believe you're arguing, but it is. If a charge doesn't fall intot the attack category or any other category, the only way to have a mount do it is to Push it, which means no one gets to make mounted charges.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

How does "charge" being listed as a "special attack" not prove it is an attack?

How is any other option "better supported by the rules?"


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Why aren't people assuming that the charge action includes telling the mount to charge?

The logic I see being used would also keep someone from full attacking, because they only get one standard action.

It's flawed logic.


deusvult wrote:


Unfortunately, using any trick IS indeed a move action. (barring class abilities that change the rule)

This is incorrect.

1) You can easily read the free control mount as a free action to allow the rider to control the mounts attacks

2) Defend (DC 20): The animal defends you (or is ready to defend you if no threat is present), even without any command being given. Alternatively, you can command the animal to defend another specific character.

You don't command the horse? that's fine. It still defends you. Hoof to the head!


Ravingdork wrote:

Why aren't people assuming that the charge action includes telling the mount to charge?

The logic I see being used would also keep someone from full attacking, because they only get one standard action.

It's flawed logic.

Because nothing in the rules even hints at that.

And, huh?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

There is a rule that says attacking is a standard action. There is another rule that says you can make multiple attacks.

Ergo, the latter rule doesn't work.

Except nobody plays it that way because we're not simpletons who rely on flawed logic.

Now, we have one rule that says you can get your mount to do what you say as a move action, and another rule that says you and your mount can charge as a full round action.

Using the above logic sequence would lead you to believe that you cannot charge while mounted.

However, nobody really truly believes that. It is assumed that you are telling your mount to charge as part of the charge action, just like we assume you can attack multiple times because the rules say you can.

Does that help?

51 to 100 of 248 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Paizo hates mounts; changes to mounted combat All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.