Paizo hates mounts; changes to mounted combat


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 248 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Ravingdork wrote:

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?

No it doesn't help. It would be nice if it worked like that, but nothing except for what we want indicates that it does work that way.


The change to charge action are not a problem because even if it is true that mounted charge no longer work no body ever would play like that.

By the other hand, the expenditure of two feats to have a gimped flying mount and hte fact htat fighters have deny that option via overrestrictive prerequisites is bad, I mean BAD.

Seriously, Every spellcaster can take wahtever metamagic feat, but the suppsoed master of all combat have this option prohibited to them.

It is just sad.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

*Speak very slowly*

You are welcome to play it --however-- you like.


You know... I really like Ravingdork's interpretation of the mounted charge rules. It makes sense and the game is more functional that way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:

*Speak very slowly*

You are welcome to play it --however-- you like.

[Sigh]

Alright, let's try this one more time, bullet point style:

- The FAQ makes mounted charging not work.
- We use houserules to make it work.
- However, we would like Paizo to actually, you know, clean it up so that it functions.
- The above bullet point is called 'having standards' and it's part of taking pride in one's work.

Are we clear now? Is there any confusion left? Sweet zombies, I never thought I'd miss Giant in the Playground. The standards are higher, which is a sick joke since the standards there are abysmally low.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Prince of knives wrote:


The FAQ makes mounted charging not work.

I don't think this is the case.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Obviously, neither do I.


Prince of Knives wrote:
I never thought I'd miss Giant in the Playground

Careful, that's playing with fire. Lets just not get into that and all take a short break from this sort of thing.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Are people really telling me riders need to spend a move action every round directing their mount?


MrSin wrote:
Prince of Knives wrote:
I never thought I'd miss Giant in the Playground
Careful, that's playing with fire. Lets just not get into that and all take a short break from this sort of thing.

Roland and I have never had issues. I've been burninated by him before and every time it's happened I've deserved what was coming to me. Other mods, who will remain nameless, have burninated me unjustly but even still, I've had more positive experiences than negative ones.

Shadow Lodge

Prepare for another experience then.


TOZ wrote:
Prepare for another experience then.

Ominous Cloak action!

Back on topic, could someone give me a nutshell of the mount rules form their point of view? I don't think I've ever been on a mount in pathfinder. At best been ridden by a Halfling, but that's another story altogether about how stilts may be required for tall water and shoulders are a suitable substitute.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:

*Speak very slowly*

You are welcome to play it --however-- you like.

Have you read your own threads?


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Are people really telling me riders need to spend a move action every round directing their mount?

No.


MrSin wrote:


Back on topic, could someone give me a nutshell of the mount rules form their point of view?

You move using the mount speed...

Bah, I suppsoe is far complicated than that, specially seeing hte disparity between mounted melee and mounted archery.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Are people really telling me riders need to spend a move action every round directing their mount?

No, just to make it do things that would require a Handle Animal check, such as commanding it to attack. Basic movement is pretty well covered by the Guide with Knees and mounted combat rules.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

So what is the action to get it to charge with you? And if you have already commanded it to attack on a previous round, does that change anything?

Paizo Employee Design Manager

TriOmegaZero wrote:
So what is the action to get it to charge with you? And if you have already commanded it to attack on a previous round, does that change anything?

A charge, being an attack, requires a Handle Animal check. For characters with animal companions, that's a free action. For characters without, it's a move action.

How prior commands interact with that is... unclear. In looking at the Handle Animal skill it seems that it would require an additional check to designate a specific enemy to charge if you wanted to go after someone other than the nearest target. If you spent the action to attack on round one, and the next round you wanted to charge the next nearest enemy, there's probably enough room in RAW to allow you to skip the check since you've already established the initial command.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

What if it doesn't attack? Is that still a charge?

Paizo Employee Design Manager

TriOmegaZero wrote:
What if it doesn't attack? Is that still a charge?

It has to be, yeah. Both have to charge for them to be using mounted combat per the FAQ, so even if the mount doesn't swing a hoof or take a bite at the end, he's still using the charge special attack with everything that entails.

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Yeah, I can't agree with all that. You can say it's a houserule all you want, but I see the support for the alternate interpretation in the rules and that's good enough for me.


Given this is a rule that really only affects GM's and some corner case players. I as a GM will happily do what I've always done when silliness approaches me like this. I ignore it and let my npc's happily trample all over the pc's. :)

Ironically me and Cheapy made the argument that it worked exactly like this ages ago.


In the case of monsterous mount I don't really have an issue except... why is the worg medium? And stuck there?

The flight issue aside I like the other mounts.


Mojorat wrote:
In the case of monsterous mount I don't really have an issue except... why is the worg medium? And stuck there?

I'm curious why my talking dog can't be Scooby doo morality.

More seriously, orcs can't ride them. What's up with that? Also! normal worgs are medium apparently, unless its an elder worg, which is a 9hd creature. Or at least that's what I found when I looked it up anyway. I think its only meant to be a goblin mount in pathfinder? Maybe he's the bear of this group of new kids on the block.

Of course the new mounts aren't extra balanced looking either. The worg looks a lot like an intelligent(but not very) wolf with his bite trip and never going beyond medium, and the griffon is a flying pounce charger. Then again animal companions weren't very balanced with each other to begin with.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aberrant Templar wrote:

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.

I agree that there's no rules that makes it clear about whether a charge that ends without an attack being made falls under the intent of "attack" in the Attack trick, however I wholly disagree that your position is any better than the other side.

The basis of your reasoning is that the Attack action specifies an Attack Action, or at least one that involves making an attack roll, and thus a Charge action being taken without making an attack roll is not supported by the rules as falling under the provisions of the Attack trick.

Extending that logic, the Attack trick could not be used by a Druid, for example, to direct his animal companion to move across the battlefield to strike an opponent once within range, as that would involve moving, an action that does not fall under the definition of an Attack.

IMO, the definition of the Attack trick implies a level of autonomy in a similar vein to how the Defend trick was cited as before. If not directed towards any target in particular, your animal companion will advance and combat any opponent in an order and manner that your DM deem appropriate by the nature of your animal companion (and won't stop attacking until otherwise directed, or the conditions cited in the Down trick is met). If you direct it to attack a specific creature, it would also be logical that you may direct the method of attack used to a degree, whether how it be how many attacks to make, or using a special attack the animal companion possesses (barring those attacks covered by other tricks like Aid, Bombard, Maneuver, etc. which although hasn't been stated explicitly before, were added because these are methods of attack that don't come naturally to an animal and designers probably wanted to clarify, or exclude from the umbrella of the Attack trick from previous editions).

Coming back to the beginning, the rules aren't explicitly clear on a number of actions regarding mounts, such as: making a charge action with an attack, withdraw, run, readying an action, etc.

Of course, reading that many DM would just hand wave things like withdraw or run as falling under "Your mount acts on your initiative count as you direct it. You move at its speed, but the mount uses its action to move." But, again, taking the literal interpretation of what's in the rulebook, it only covers the mount's use of the Move action. Having something like "It's a free action to direct an animal to use movement-only actions," would be quite enough to settle many things here.

What's unclear is unclear, that's great if you've got a hundred house rules to make the game work as you run it, it's better than being bogged down over small things. But, that doesn't make it wrong to ask for improvements or clarifications officially.


MrSin wrote:
Mojorat wrote:
In the case of monsterous mount I don't really have an issue except... why is the worg medium? And stuck there?

I'm curious why my talking dog can't be Scooby doo morality.

More seriously, orcs can't ride them. What's up with that? Also! normal worgs are medium apparently, unless its an elder worg, which is a 9hd creature. Or at least that's what I found when I looked it up anyway. I think its only meant to be a goblin mount in pathfinder? Maybe he's the bear of this group of new kids on the block.

Of course the new mounts are extra balanced looking either. The worg looks a lot like an intelligent(but not very) wolf with his bite trip and never going beyond medium, and the griffon is a flying pounce charger. Then again animal companions weren't very balanced with each other to begin with.

Orcs have never ridden worgs in dnd or pf that is tolkien. But the worg being medium makes no sense.


MrSin wrote:
Of course the new mounts are extra balanced looking either. The worg looks a lot like an intelligent(but not very) wolf with his bite trip and never going beyond medium, and the griffon is a flying pounce charger. Then again animal companions weren't very balanced with each other to begin with.

The griffon does make a pretty mean flying pouncer that makes the feat worthwhile for a battle buddy, if not so great for a mount.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Technically, you can't charge while mounted at all. The rules say that you have to move at least ten feet. So you're gonna have to get off your horse, charge ten feet, then spend a Hero Point to ready an action to re-mount your house when it follows you and immediately attack so you can charge while mounted.

Except that breaks, like, three other rules. Can I just be a bard?

EDIT: You think that's a typo? You think I typoed there?


Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Technically, you can't charge while mounted at all. The rules say that you have to move at least ten feet. So you're gonna have to get off your horse, charge ten feet, then spend a Hero Point to ready an action to re-mount your house when it follows you and immediately attack so you can charge while mounted.

Except that breaks, like, three other rules. Can I just be a bard?

EDIT: You think that's a typo? You think I typoed there?

Nah, that just brings up more wonderful questions like "Does movement taken when I'm mounted count towards me moving, and does that allow me to gain the benefit of abilities like Skirmisher?" XD


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Actually...

Free Action: Fast dismount.
Standard Action: Charge ten feet to enemy (we'll say it's an orc).
Hero Point "Standard" Action: Ready action for when horse moves up.

Horse moves up normally, TRIGGERING:

Free Action: Fast mount.
Standard Action: ATTACK!

You've charged and attacked (while mounted) in the same round, so it works! Double damage lance! There, it's legal an' everything!

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Ride skill wrote:
Typical riding actions don't require checks.

To me, charging on a combat-trained mount is a typical riding action. No check. Full stop. No need for Handle Animal to control, you're done with this one line in Ride. Having a war-trained horse move around and attack things while you sit on it is pretty much what it's for. If those aren't typical actions then I'm not sure what is.

^This interpretation is just as supported by RAW as the "Mounted combat is totally broken!" interpretation. Except that it doesn't require an overly legalistic reading of the rules and also has the advantage of allowing the game to be functional.

You don't need to be a master animal trainer in order to ride an already trained mount.

As far as the feats go, there is a ranger archetype which gets them as style feats at 2nd and 6th level. So this archetype can have its griffin at level 2 and fly at level 6.

It's always been tough to get a scaling flying mount for a Medium character.


So there are at least 3 different perfectly legal paths to make charging mounts work. If you think its broken its because of how you choose to read it.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Actually...

Free Action: Fast dismount.
Standard Action: Charge ten feet to enemy (we'll say it's an orc).
Hero Point "Standard" Action: Ready action for when horse moves up.

Horse moves up normally, TRIGGERING:

Free Action: Fast mount.
Standard Action: ATTACK!

You've charged and attacked (while mounted) in the same round, so it works! Double damage lance! There, it's legal an' everything!

I can't be the only one imagining the horse yelling "You forgot me!" as he tries to catch up to his owner.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

BigNorseWolf wrote:
So there are at least 3 different perfectly legal paths to make charging mounts work. If you think its broken its because of how you choose to read it.

List them and include your quotes please, because I have yet to see one that doesn't involve having an animal companion or preparing the action over multiple turns.

Sovereign Court

Ssalarn wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
So there are at least 3 different perfectly legal paths to make charging mounts work. If you think its broken its because of how you choose to read it.
List them and include your quotes please, because I have yet to see one that doesn't involve having an animal companion or preparing the action over multiple turns.

The main one you're missing/ignoring is the description of how a charge works. That description not only types a charge as an action (not an attack) it also explicitly says an attack is an option following charge movement during a charge action.

That rule, specifically being about charges, trumps* general categorizations such as a reference elsewhere saying "charges are special attacks".

*= trumps logically, at any rate. If you want to ignore the rules about charges and insist a reference elsewhere renders them invalid, that's on you. Most of us wouldn't consider that a sound reading, however.


A few questions, if anyone can clarify:

1. Once you have used a move action handle animal check to direct your attack trained animal to attack, do you have to use another move action to direct it to attack the following round? Or will it continue to attack until you give it new instruction?

2. If an animal is currently attacking, do you have to use a move action handle animal check to direct it to attack a new target? And what if its current target falls/dies? Will it stop attacking and stand still until given new direction, requiring a new move action handle animal check?

Basically, what I really want to know -- Assuming Ssalarn and other doomsayers are correct (I don't, but still), does that mean::

3A. A NPC "Knight" riding a non-AC mount must make a move action handle animal check at the start of combat to direct his mount to attack, and thereafter can make charge attacks normally.

or

3B. A NPC "Knight" riding a non-AC mount must make a move action handle animal check every round in which he wishes his mount to make an attack, and therefore can never make a charge normally.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
So there are at least 3 different perfectly legal paths to make charging mounts work. If you think its broken its because of how you choose to read it.

While I won't spend time debating on the validity of one side over the other (doesn't seem to be working for anyone else here). I don't think the number of different ways to interpret a rule which share a commonality in one point makes it any more valid than the same interpretation(s) of the opposite.

As it stands it's still the same to me: someone clearing up the rules a bit would be really nice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snappyapple wrote:
As it stands it's still the same to me: someone clearing up the rules a bit would be really nice.

I wouldn't mind that either. Would be nice to get a lesson in how mounted combat works anyway.


The Crusader wrote:

A few questions, if anyone can clarify:

1. Once you have used a move action handle animal check to direct your attack trained animal to attack, do you have to use another move action to direct it to attack the following round? Or will it continue to attack until you give it new instruction?

2. If an animal is currently attacking, do you have to use a move action handle animal check to direct it to attack a new target? And what if its current target falls/dies? Will it stop attacking and stand still until given new direction, requiring a new move action handle animal check?

Basically, what I really want to know -- Assuming Ssalarn and other doomsayers are correct (I don't, but still), does that mean::

3A. A NPC "Knight" riding a non-AC mount must make a move action handle animal check at the start of combat to direct his mount to attack, and thereafter can make charge attacks normally.

or

3B. A NPC "Knight" riding a non-AC mount must make a move action handle animal check every round in which he wishes his mount to make an attack, and therefore can never make a charge normally.

Unclear, but it might be neither, you could check my previous post that started with a response to Aberrant Templar for what I thought about the level of implied autonomy of the animals after being issued a command to perform a Trick though.


ryric wrote:
Ride skill wrote:
Typical riding actions don't require checks.

To me, charging on a combat-trained mount is a typical riding action. No check. Full stop. No need for Handle Animal to control, you're done with this one line in Ride. Having a war-trained horse move around and attack things while you sit on it is pretty much what it's for. If those aren't typical actions then I'm not sure what is.

^This interpretation is just as supported by RAW as the "Mounted combat is totally broken!" interpretation.

Well, this has less support than either of the other readings being advanced here, requires reading directly against the rest of the text, and in general is obviously wrong.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't know. From the letter of the FAQ, I think Ssalarn has it right. However, given the responses, this looks like the old "weapon type vs. AC modifier" table from 1st edition: yeah, it's technically in the rules, but it's almost universally ignored, so it might as well not be.

A rule that's universally ignored by the players is one that should really be stricken or amended. But even barring that, it's not going to bother most people, and within a year or so most people probably won't even remember that it exists.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So much anger. Come on, guys! Look on the bright side! Griffons and Hippogriffs and Wargs as Animal Companions/Mounts in PFS! How cool is that? Assuming, it is PFS legal, which I would hope! :D

I posted this exact thing about a month ago and I have been waiting for this book since someone mentioned it might have rules for it! Now my fiance and I can roll up some Sable Company marines or something and it will be totes be the bee's knees! Who cares about the feat tax or whatever. Hippogriffs!

Paizo Employee Design Manager

deusvult wrote:

The main one you're missing/ignoring is the description of how a charge works. That description not only types a charge as an action (not an attack) it also explicitly says an attack is an option following charge movement during a charge action.

That rule, specifically being about charges, trumps* general categorizations such as a reference elsewhere saying "charges are special attacks".

*= trumps logically, at any rate. If you want to ignore the rules about charges and insist a reference elsewhere renders them invalid, that's on you. Most of us wouldn't consider that a sound reading, however.

You aren't quoting any rules. You've made up your own interpretation that Charge isn't still a special attack action if you don't execute an attack roll at the end. This is your own house-rule and has no rules support anywhere, and several things working against it. A charge is still a charge, even if you don't make an attack roll at the end, otherwise you don't get the bonuses to attack and the penalty to AC, because you aren't charging anymore, you're just moving.


Koujow wrote:
Who cares about the feat tax or whatever.

As a guess: everyone who can't afford it, or doesn't have access to it?


I'm not sure if this will help or hinder anyone's stance, but going back a bit in time to D&D 3.0 and 3.5, things worked a bit differently and some wordings that exist in PF now may very well be just a relic of that time.

Looking at my SRD of then, the Handle Animal skills didn't cover the command of all animal companions and mounts like it did now. The rules for commanding animal companions and using tricks were listed separately under their own section, and the Ride skill for various tasks involving mounts were a separate thing that wasn't so integrated with that, as mundane or Paladin mounts were treated as different things altogether.

From the rules back then we can find the original use of the Ride skill task Fight with a Warhorse that existed back then. As some people wondered, "If this task isn't there to for the Rider to direct his mount to attack, then it has no other use in Pathfinder since having a mount attack doesn't hinder the rider's ability to do so normally, therefore it must be for that purpose." Well, back in 3.0 and 3.5 this wasn't the case, as under the Warhose entry it reads "A heavy warhorse can fight while carrying a rider, but the rider cannot also attack unless he or she succeeds at a Ride check (DC 10)."

With the removal of this line in Pathfinder, I suspect this use of the Ride skill to be an obsolete one.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Kirth Gersen wrote:

I don't know. From the letter of the FAQ, I think Ssalarn has it right. However, given the responses, this looks like the old "weapon type vs. AC modifier" table from 1st edition: yeah, it's technically in the rules, but it's almost universally ignored, so it might as well not be.

A rule that's universally ignored by the players, while still technically a rule, is one that should really be stricken or amended. But even barring that, it's not going to bother most people, and within a year or so most people probably won't even remember that it exists.

This is pretty much my point. Just because everyone ignores the rules or hand picks a few that match how they want it to work, doesn't change what the rules actually say or obviate the fact that they need to be fixed so that the people who actually do want to be able to use them consistently can do so. Organized play is a very real and very big thing, and I have yet to see two GMs come to the exact same interpretation of the mounted combat rules. Some are really strict on the skill checks, some have decided its too big a pain to try and nail all the rules down and just wing it and only step in when something seems out of hand, and yet others (and this is really the worst result of the poor communication and organization fo the rules) just run modules where they can deny characters their mounts so they don't have to deal with it.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

Coriat wrote:
ryric wrote:
Ride skill wrote:
Typical riding actions don't require checks.

To me, charging on a combat-trained mount is a typical riding action. No check. Full stop. No need for Handle Animal to control, you're done with this one line in Ride. Having a war-trained horse move around and attack things while you sit on it is pretty much what it's for. If those aren't typical actions then I'm not sure what is.

^This interpretation is just as supported by RAW as the "Mounted combat is totally broken!" interpretation.

Well, this has less support than either of the other readings being advanced here, requires reading directly against the rest of the text, and in general is obviously wrong.

While I could agree on the less support statement, I don't see what text is being read against or why it's "obviously wrong."


Is the charge not a full round action? A move action a least 10 feet, followed by an attack action at highest base attack +2? So mounted charge should work the same. Move action to move mount, followed by a single attack.

This answer brought to you by Mr. Fishy's functioning brain, BoB.

As for the feat for an exotic mount. Prereqs should be ride/handle 4 rank or animal companion/mount class feature not both. The feat could have a level req like improved familiar or leadership. You must be this level to have this mount. Leadership allows cohorts that are monsterous and saddle ready. Intellgent mounts could require a teamwork feat... if rider and mount both have the feat they get bonuses to mounted attacks.

101 to 150 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.