Paizo hates mounts; changes to mounted combat


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 248 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

So in the recent advent of the paizo nerfing mounted combat to the point of being useless. I have come to discuss how these nerfs affect those poor knights and even the random npcs that fight on a mount.

Currently they have started to nerf flying mounts that were quite capable and without this new forced feat could do just fine.

what feat you ask?
Monstrous mount

Sure the feat sounds cool and you should be able to get something really cool having to burn a feat right? Not really, it allows you to pick up a griffon, hippogriff, worg or hippocampus. While this is fine on its own, but when you read more into the feat it denies their abilities that they had before this feat's creation.

Now to make this "balanced" they incorporated another feat called monstrous mount mastery. which grants these creatures their abilities that before these two feats had the ability to do.

IF that wasn't enough...
NPCS cannot do mounted charges, if you can't do mounted charges you cannot do spirited charges or ride-by attacks or anything. which leads to the question of why would a country want a cavalry?

No seriously, why would you want to spend the money to board a horse, train a soldier to ride it for a grand total of... +1 attack.

So if anyone reads this, preferably the people remaking the mounted combat rules. Please keep these points i've made in mind. There is a reason that cavalries changed warfare and made history the way it is now.

To everyone, what are your thoughts about this new development? hope to hear from everyone if they have insights, more concerns or even better explanations for these changes.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

You'd think with the number of things that Paizo clearly hates they shouldn't have bothered printing out a new rule set.


17 people marked this as a favorite.

On the other hand, your casters can still zip around the battlefield with an all-day duration, throwing fireballs and whatever else, with NO feat investment at all.

Because Martials Can't Have Nice Things. Ever. And if it looks like they might, Paizo will nerf the hell out of them to underline the point.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you're familiar with any of the threads on the subject, you probably know exactly how I feel about the changes to the mounted combat rules.

What's this Monstrous Mount feat? What book is it from? I'm unfamiliar with it.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Inner Sea Combat. It lets you have a griffon, hippogriff, hippocampus, or worg mount. And only by taking a second feat (Monstrous Mount Mastery), can you fly on your griffon or hippogriff.


http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/monstrous-mount
ou have learned how to tame and ride exotic beasts.

Prerequisite(s): Handle Animal 4 ranks; Ride 4 ranks; divine bond (mount), hunter's bond (animal companion), or mount class feature with an effective druid level of 4.

Benefit(s): You can select an exotic beast from the list of monstrous mounts to serve as your animal companion or special mount. You acquire and advance this creature in the same way as the mount or animal companion detailed in the class feature used as a prerequisite for this feat. You can also dismiss the creature as dictated by your class feature.

You must meet additional prerequisites to choose a creature with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher, as described in each creature's entry.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/monstrous-mount-mastery
Your monstrous mount has developed an ability that only its wild kin would normally possess.

Prerequisite(s): Monstrous Mount, character level equal to or higher than that listed in your mount's Mastery entry.

Benefit(s): Your monstrous mount gains the abilities and bonuses listed under Mastery in its stat block. You must be of at least the indicated level for the mount to use these abilities, so if you dismiss a mount and gain a new mount of a different type, you retain the feat but might not yet be of sufficient level for the new mount to gain its Mastery benefits.

Normal: A monstrous mount is unable to use its Mastery abilities regardless of its advancement.

Sczarni

One way around that is to be an aasimar and burn the 2 feats to where you have wings at 10th level or later. But you have to wait to 10th/11th level to get it.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

Paizo unnecessarily overnerfing a perfectly balanced and functional option for martial characters?

I'm shocked...

/sarcasm

Paizo Employee Design Manager

7 people marked this as a favorite.

I about threw a chair at the wall.

"Here you go, have a large flying griffon! But it can't actually carry you unless you take another feat, and doing so cuts its speed in half".

Really? Really right now? You finally make flying mounts available but then dangle them along for a couple levels and charge another feat to actually be able to use them? It's a little ridiculous. You have to invest 5 ranks in two skills and spend 2 feats to allow your mount to do what a small druid can do with a roc or wasp from 1st level. These guys already need to have the class feature just to get a mount at all, was this really necessary?

I'm over being mad at this, I'm just disappointed now. The cost for a Ranger or Cavalier to do something really cool or iconic that other classes can do with a fraction of the resource is ridiculous.

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. By 8th level you can have a flying, pouncing mount with 4 claws, a bite, a 40 foot fly speed, and improved natural armor. Doesn't cost you a single feat or skill point. And since you're a spellcaster, odds are really good that you'll only get cool new things as the game progresses instead of having your toys broken, taken away, or given back with a ridiculous cost mark up.


Well I think that monstrous mount feat is for when a character with a special mount wants something off the lists but wants it to keep the power advancing with an animal companion.

There is nothing stopping NPC's from training these animals with handle animal and riding them with all their abilities. They just won't advance with the rider

Though I do agree the mastery feat is excessive

Edit: and this is one of the cases I'm surprised they just didn't tale the 3.5 you can take these (insert list here of more powerful mounts) however they count at -2 level or something on the animal companion advancement chart


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

Guess I missed my chance to play a Sable Company Marine back when I actually could without pointless feats.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Flamephoenix182 wrote:

Well I think that monstrous mount feat is for when a character with a special mount wants something off the lists but wants it to keep the power advancing with an animal companion.

There is nothing stopping NPC's from training these animals with handle animal and riding them with all their abilities. They just won't advance with the rider

Though I do agree the mastery feat is excessive

NPC's can't charge on a mount. Charging is a full round action for both mount and rider since the last FAQ, and using Handle Animal to command a mount to attack is a move action. THat's what the OP was getting at when he said NPCs couldn't use Spirited Charge and the other charge based abilities.


Ssalarn wrote:
Flamephoenix182 wrote:

Well I think that monstrous mount feat is for when a character with a special mount wants something off the lists but wants it to keep the power advancing with an animal companion.

There is nothing stopping NPC's from training these animals with handle animal and riding them with all their abilities. They just won't advance with the rider

Though I do agree the mastery feat is excessive

NPC's can't charge on a mount. Charging is a full round action for both mount and rider since the last FAQ, and using Handle Animal to command a mount to attack is a move action. THat's what the OP was getting at when he said NPCs couldn't use Spirited Charge and the other charge based abilities.

Ah I have not looked on the latest FAQ. That is crazy... I guess I'll just have to make all NPC warriors into Cavaliers now... or I could just add this to the pile of stupid FAQ stuff I ignore... Ya I'll do that.

Definitely messes with pathfinder society players/GM's though


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

And all a spellcaster needs to have a flying mount is a 3rd-level spell.


I can't tell if this thread is being serious, or very well done satire.

I mean, seriously. Someone who actually seems to believe that Paizo hates martials. How rich is that! And someone saying that mounted combat is now useless!

It's gotta be satire.


Cheapy wrote:

I can't tell if this thread is being serious, or very well done satire.

I mean, seriously. Someone who actually seems to believe that Paizo hates martials. How rich is that! And someone saying that mounted combat is now useless!

It's gotta be satire.

Is your quote serious?


You know its weird but the saddest thing to me about the monstrous mount feat is that it doesn't let me ride a unicorn and it has so many arbitrary pre requisites. Well that, and that wargs are apparently only allowed to be evil, so my plans to play with Scooby doo are apparently out.

Also, could someone catch me up on the big changes to mounts and how they were before?

Cheapy wrote:

I can't tell if this thread is being serious, or very well done satire.

I mean, seriously. Someone who actually seems to believe that Paizo hates martials. How rich is that! And someone saying that mounted combat is now useless!

It's gotta be satire.

What is the saying, take it with a pinch of salt? Its a legitimate criticism, if a little extreme at moments. Would be nice to see functional and balanced options for martials and one of the big things that was a bother was the lack of options for mounts with the mounted archetypes and classes. The fact it comes with a rather steep cost and is still a little on the limited side isn't exactly the most heartwarming moment.


Swatkat wrote:


IF that wasn't enough...
NPCS cannot do mounted charges, if you can't do mounted charges you cannot do spirited charges or ride-by attacks or anything. which leads to the question of why would a country want a cavalry?

I'm lost at sea on this. Why specifically NPCs?

Paizo Employee Design Manager

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Cheapy wrote:

I can't tell if this thread is being serious, or very well done satire.

I mean, seriously. Someone who actually seems to believe that Paizo hates martials. How rich is that! And someone saying that mounted combat is now useless!

It's gotta be satire.

To be fair, I just think they dropped the ball on "fixing" the mounted combat system and then followed it up with a feat that seems cool but comes with a bag of ridiculous pre-reqs. This doesn't even jive with their earlier material (it only takes 1 feat for a half-orc cavalier to get a pteranodon mount), and it sets weird precedents by saying the creatures need to have the rider take an additional feat to do things the creatures should already be able to do.

I, personally, don't think Paizo hates martials, but I think they've made some calls lately that just don't jive well with the greater context of the game. Particularly the mindset that "if something can do it all day, it's 100 times more valuable than someone who has limited uses of it". That's.... just not something that matches well with the reality of the game. a 9th level Wizard (which is before the level a Ranger can gain the griffon as a flying mount) can fly for 9+ hours a day off of a single spell slot, and he's got a built in class ability to make sure he can always have at least 1 or 2 of those scrolls tucked away.
When the Cleric and Wizard are out of spells, the party doesn't push on because the Fighter can still swing a sword. Their day is over. The very nature of a cooperative game means that there is intrinsically very little value in an ability being unlimited (unless it's healing), since it's close to a guarantee that at least 50% of the party (probably 75% or more) are going to be running on limited resources.

The cost valuation of martial abilities vs. caster abilities seems to be very off. Crane Wing goes bye-bye, but emergency force sphere and numerous other caster abilities that allow for high probabilities of evading or avoiding attacks all still exist. The action economy of mounted combatants takes a heavy blow but casters can still fire a quickened spell, a standard spell, and draw a wand or rod while their mount performs a pounce.

The perception in this design philosophy seems to be that martial capabilities that perform at the same level as spells need to be heavily restricted because they don't have time limits on them, and in my experience that lack of a time limit restriction just isn't worth the accompanying costs that always seem to be imposed.

I, as a mounted combatant, am still limited by the well being of my mount. The poor little bastard has, at most, 12 hit die. And he's subject to every hail of arrows, pit of acid, and exploding ball of fire I am. My ability to perform in mounted combat is very much running on a limited resource, it just happens to have a name and a certain amount of renewability. That renewability is generally contingent upon rest, and the divine recuperative powers of my allies, which means that my ability to "go all day" generally ends exactly 1 encounter after my healer runs out of resources.


as explained by ssalarn, the latest faq update makes mounted combat this:
NPC's can't charge on a mount. Charging is a full round action for both mount and rider since the last FAQ, and using Handle Animal to command a mount to attack is a move action. THat's what the OP was getting at when he said NPCs couldn't use Spirited Charge and the other charge based abilities.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Zenogu wrote:
Swatkat wrote:


IF that wasn't enough...
NPCS cannot do mounted charges, if you can't do mounted charges you cannot do spirited charges or ride-by attacks or anything. which leads to the question of why would a country want a cavalry?
I'm lost at sea on this. Why specifically NPCs?

See my note above. Classes with animal companions can Handle Animal as a free action. For everyone else it is a move action, and in order to perform a mounted charge both the rider and the mount now need to be able to take a charge action (which is a full round action except for under very specific circumstances).


As I read it, these feats only apply to replacing an animal companion or paladin mount with an exotic creature. I don't see anything stopping a normal NPC or PC from still ride these creatures without needing the feats. The feats would only be needed if you wanted the creature to gain the benefits of being an animal companion or paladin mount.


So... what's to stop a PC from buying a trained hippogriff or other non-traditional mount and flying around on them as long as that aren't making that creature the focus of their mount or animal companion class feature?

(ninjaed by PeachBottom who must type faster than I)


Ssalarn wrote:
Zenogu wrote:
Swatkat wrote:


IF that wasn't enough...
NPCS cannot do mounted charges, if you can't do mounted charges you cannot do spirited charges or ride-by attacks or anything. which leads to the question of why would a country want a cavalry?
I'm lost at sea on this. Why specifically NPCs?
See my note above. Classes with animal companions can Handle Animal as a free action. For everyone else it is a move action, and in order to perform a mounted charge both the rider and the mount now need to be able to take a charge action (which is a full round action except for under very specific circumstances).

Oh I see now. Never enforced that rule myself. I wonder if tables actually rule it that way.


You can, but the mounted combat changes make it an extremely bad option.


Yes. Yes it does

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Bill Dunn wrote:

So... what's to stop a PC from buying a trained hippogriff or other non-traditional mount and flying around on them as long as that aren't making that creature the focus of their mount or animal companion class feature?

(ninjaed by PeachBottom who must type faster than I)

Which is where other weird inconsistentcies resultign from this come in. An NPC elven archer who wants to fly around firing his bow just needs to drop some cash on a griffon and an exotic saddle. As long as he doesn't want his griffon to join him in combat, he doesn't need anything.

Reginald the 20th level Griffon-riding Cavalier however, with Goldfeathers, his kingly lord of griffons, forgot to take Monstrous Mount Mastery and needs to stop and dismount if he wants Goldfeathers to be able to take to the air :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm sorry, is this the "slight change in the wording for charging mounts that people misread as not letting you charge " faq or something new?


Bill Dunn wrote:

So... what's to stop a PC from buying a trained hippogriff or other non-traditional mount and flying around on them as long as that aren't making that creature the focus of their mount or animal companion class feature?

(ninjaed by PeachBottom who must type faster than I)

The fact that your hippogriff is always going to be a CR 2 creature with 3 hit dice. Basically any area of effect attack or attack targeted against your mount will send you plummeting to the ground with a dead mount.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm guessing the nerf to mounted combat change in question is this faq entry?

I must be missing something because I don't understand what makes spirited charges unworkable. You don't need to perform animal handling checks to make a mount (animal companion or otherwise) perform a charge*.. it's a ride check instead and if the mount is combat trained, it doesn't even eat an action.

*= after posting I suspect I see the problem.. you're assuming you want the mount to attack the target as well via attack trick. Well, if you're using a lance a standard mount won't get the attack anyway b/c it doesn't have reach. Just move the horse, it gains the charging condition because it must when the rider is charging, via the faq, and bam you skewer something with a lance. If you spirited charge with a non-reach weapon, take your x2 damage with a non-lance and consider the nerf just saying the horse may not also attack. It's still a win.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:
Reginald the 20th level Griffon-riding Cavalier however, with Goldfeathers, his kingly lord of griffons, forgot to take Monstrous Mount Mastery and needs to stop and dismount if he wants Goldfeathers to be able to take to the air :P

I think its sort of like how Katana-ka from the katana family of the Katana people from the land of the katana's where no one knows how to use or seen a greatsword but everyone uses katanas, still treats the katana as an exotic weapon but the greatsword as a martial one.


deusvult wrote:

I'm guessing the nerf to mounted combat change in question is this faq entry?

I must be missing something because I don't understand what makes spirited charges unworkable. You don't need to perform animal handling checks to make a mount (animal companion or otherwise) perform a charge.. it's a ride check instead and if the mount is combat trained, it doesn't even eat an action.

I think the hyper literal way of reading it is that your mount can't charge because you have a lance and you're going to stop 10 feet out, and then the mount can't charge, so it has to break time or something and go back where it started.

Which is not only overly literal but also has a lot of unknown assumptions thrown into it. (like what the heck happens when an action becomes illegal in the middle of doing it)

Paizo Employee Design Manager

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.

Sovereign Court

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 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.

But if the mount isn't attacking, it can't possibly be using the attack trick. In fact, ride DOES indeed cover the case of maneuvering the mount:

PRD 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.

The only reason a horse is considered charging when a lance-wielding rider is charging is because the faq said so, making that explicit change in the rules covering 'attacks'. Not because the horse is actually making any attack, thus no handle animal check was ever necessary.

but perhaps with all the variations on the meaning of the word attack, you're right in that my post should have been worded better.

Consider me to instead be saying:

You don't need to perform animal handling checks to make a mount (animal companion or otherwise) perform the movement necessary for the rider to perform a charge.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

1 person marked this as a favorite.
deusvult wrote:


But if the mount isn't attacking, it can't possibly be using the attack trick.

The only reason a horse is considered charging when a lance-wielding rider is charging is because the faq said so, making that explicit change in the rules. Not because the horse is actually making any attack, thus no handle animal check was ever necessary.

These are all things you want to be true that have no backing in the rules. Prior to the change, the only developer insight was in the form of ancillary comments in the Ragelancepounce FAQ (since removed to accomodate the new FAQ), and commentary from SKR, commentary which specifically said the mount was the one charging.

Now, you and your mount both need to take the charge action to perform any of the mounted charge abilities. Charging is specifically an attack, even if you don't actually execute an attack roll with a weapon at the end of it. Just go read the Combat section of the CRB. There is only one way provided in the rules to make an animal perform an attack, and that is to command it via the Handle Animal skill (there's probably a spell or something that'd let you do it too, but that's beside the point).

Unless Paizo finishes the job of rewriting mounted combat that they started with that FAQ, there is no way for a character that does not have an animal companion to perform a mounted charge. You can say that doesn't really make sense (and it doesn't really) but those are the rules. Anything else is a house-rule.

Sovereign Court

Ssalarn wrote:
deusvult wrote:


Now, you and your mount both need to take the charge action to perform any of the mounted charge abilities.

This is where one of us is wrong. Admittedly, it could be me, but here's where I'm coming from.

The faq isn't saying the mount must also make the charge action.

The faq is saying that if one of them, either the rider or the mount, performs a charge, the other suffers the same consequences/gains the 'I'm charging this turn condition' (such as -2 AC, cannot make a full attack, so on)

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Swatkat wrote:

IF that wasn't enough...

NPCS cannot do mounted charges, if you can't do mounted charges you cannot do spirited charges or ride-by attacks or anything. which leads to the question of why would a country want a cavalry?

No seriously, why would you want to spend the money to board a horse, train a soldier to ride it for a grand total of... +1 attack.

So if anyone reads this, preferably the people remaking the mounted combat rules. Please keep these points i've made in mind. There is a reason that cavalries changed warfare and made history the way it is now.

If the rules change prevents an NPC knight from performing a mounted charge, then someone's going to have to break it down for me because I don't see it.

Charging atop a mount and attacking something with a lance/sword doesn't require you to make a Handle Animal check. That would be covered (at most) by a Ride check.

You only need to make Handle Animal checks to make an animal perform a trick/task, and there is a fairly specific list of actions that fall into that category. Making your horse move, or spurring it to charge isn't a trick. That's just movement.

The only way you'd need to make a Handle Animal check is if the horse also attacks at the end of the charge. Which it doesn't have to do, since the attack part of charging is optional.

So a knight charging atop a horse with a lance can happen just fine. A particularly skilled knight (with PC classes) can charge with a lance AND have their mount attack too. Everyone else can just charge with a lance.

Historical cavalry works just fine.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

deusvult wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
deusvult wrote:


Now, you and your mount both need to take the charge action to perform any of the mounted charge abilities.

This is where one of us is wrong. Admittedly, it could be me, but here's where I'm coming from.

The faq isn't saying the mount must also make the charge action.

The faq is saying that if one of them, either the rider or the mount, performs a charge, the other suffers the same consequences (such as -2 AC, cannot make a full attack, so on)

Nope, the rules said that before. This FAQ was specifically put in place because the Paizo design team felt that both the mount and the rider should be using their full round charge action as part of a mounted charge. The mount is specifically charging. The rider is also, specifically charging and both are expending the appropriate action economy to do so.


Aberrant Templar wrote:
The only way you'd need to make a Handle Animal check is if the horse also attacks at the end of the charge. Which it doesn't have to do, since the attack part of charging is optional.

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.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Aberrant Templar wrote:


If the rules change prevents an NPC knight from performing a mounted charge, then someone's going to have to break it down for me because I don't see it.

Charging atop a mount and attacking something with a lance/sword doesn't require you to make a Handle Animal check. That would be covered (at most) by a Ride check.

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.

Sovereign Court

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.

Actually I think you've sunk your own argument. As Aberrent Templar pointed out, an actual attack is an optional conclusion to a charge ACTION.

PRD wrote:


Charge

Charging is a special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action. Charging, however, carries tight restrictions on how you can move.

...

Attacking on a Charge: After moving, you may make a single melee attack. You get a +2 bonus on the attack roll and take a –2 penalty to your AC until the start of your next turn.

There is no requirement to attack when making a charge action. Hence, no requirement to make a handle animal check (since ride would satisfy controlling the mount's charge movement that was not followed by a melee attack). And since there's no handle animal check, there's no wasted move action that precludes the rider performing a full-round charge action in concert with the mount's full round charge action.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:
Charging is an attack. It's specifically listed as such.

This statement is incorrect.

[QUOTE-"PRD Combat Section"]Charging is a special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action.

Charging is not an attack. It is an action with special rules that lets you both move and attack. The attack part is optional.

PRD Combat Section wrote:
Attacking on a Charge: After moving, you may make a single melee attack.

Emphasis mine. You MAY make an attack. You don't have to. Now, there isn't much of a reason for you to charge someone without attacking normally. Without the attack, a charge is just a heavily restricted full round of movement. Two move actions would cover the same distance with more flexibility.

But the horse carrying the rider into combat can charge without attacking (which would require a Handle Animal check) just fine.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:

So... what's to stop a PC from buying a trained hippogriff or other non-traditional mount and flying around on them as long as that aren't making that creature the focus of their mount or animal companion class feature?

(ninjaed by PeachBottom who must type faster than I)

Which is where other weird inconsistentcies resultign from this come in. An NPC elven archer who wants to fly around firing his bow just needs to drop some cash on a griffon and an exotic saddle. As long as he doesn't want his griffon to join him in combat, he doesn't need anything.

Reginald the 20th level Griffon-riding Cavalier however, with Goldfeathers, his kingly lord of griffons, forgot to take Monstrous Mount Mastery and needs to stop and dismount if he wants Goldfeathers to be able to take to the air :P

So... the cavalier who previously had horses, camels, boars, dogs, ponies, and wolves on his class mount list and couldn't actually have a griffin in that class feature anyway (at least not without the GM kitting something up) now, thanks to the presence of a couple of feats, have rules to do so so they not only have a flying mount but one that advances with their class feature? Those dirty bastards at Paizo - how the hate flows from their keyboards!

Grand Lodge

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. 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.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

deusvult wrote:
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.

Actually I think you've sunk your own argument. As Aberrent Templar pointed out, an actual attack is an optional conclusion to a charge ACTION.

PRD wrote:


Charge

Charging is a special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action. Charging, however, carries tight restrictions on how you can move.

...

Attacking on a Charge: After moving, you may make a single melee attack. You get a +2 bonus on the attack roll and take a –2 penalty to your AC until the start of your next turn.

There is no requirement to attack when making a charge action. Hence, no requirement to make a handle animal check (since ride would cover moving the mount in combat). And since there's no handle animal check, there's no wasted move action that precludes the rider performing a full-round charge action in concert with the mount's full round charge action.

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

Sovereign Court

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.


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.

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.

The lance has reach, the horse doesn't. So the rider has to stop 10 feet out to lance, and the horse just stops.

Grand Lodge

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.

I did read the rules. I even quoted them in my previous post.

Charging is not an attack. Charging is an action. It's a full round action. It's listed under the rules for "special actions". It is not "an attack". It's a special full round action that lets you move and (if you so choose) attack.

Here, let me quote some more rules:

PRD wrote:
Typical riding actions don't require checks. You can saddle, mount, ride, and dismount from a mount without a problem

That's one of the first sentences of the Ride skill. "Riding" a horse doesn't require a check. If the horse is combat trained then you can ride it into a fight without making any checks. At most you'd need to make a "guide with knees" Ride check to fight with a lance and shield. At most.

You would need to make a Handle Animal check to make your mount attack an enemy, but charge is not synonymous with attack. The only time you'd need to make a Handle Animal check to charge is if you wanted the horse to also attack at the end of the charge.


Bill Dunn wrote:

So... the cavalier who previously had horses, camels, boars, dogs, ponies, and wolves on his class mount list and couldn't actually have a griffin in that class feature anyway (at least not without the GM kitting something up) now, thanks to the presence of a couple of feats, have rules to do so so they not only have a flying mount but one that advances with their class feature? Those dirty bastards at Paizo - how the hate flows from their keyboards!

The problem is more that they nerfed the abilities of the mount such as fly speed on top of the encumbrance rules for the mount.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

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.

Because having the horse following thru with an attack after concluding the charge movement constitutes an 'attack', which is not covered under the actionless ride skill and requires usage of an animal handling check (attack trick) instead.

For most riders, that costs a move action, and ruins the full round action for the rider.

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.

This isn't at all the same doom and gloom as insisting that a charge movement not being followed by an attack also must be covered by the handle animal skill, thus (by this reading) rendering any charging at all impossible by the rider unless he can handle animal and still perform a full round action.

1 to 50 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.