Does mounted combat with a lance even work as written?


Rules Questions

51 to 71 of 71 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Sczarni

deusvult wrote:
additionally, handle animal doesn't even come into play. Issuing orders to one's mount is completely covered by the Ride skill, but that's a whole different tangent.

You're confusing things.

A Ride check allows *you* to attack.

A Handle Animal check is needed for your mount.

Though I do agree that this is a tangent discussion.


deusvult wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

Can your Axebeak understand your spoken words?

Usually there's just Handle Animal. You issue the command to attack, and charge.

You'd need another command to get it to stop.

Why would it have to?*

If you don't give it the command to attack, it shouldn't attack. It doesn't automatically attack everything that comes in reach while you ride around afterall. Not if it's properly trained, anyway.

If the rider intends to charge some target and doesn't give his axebeak the command to attack (verbally or otherwise) its reach should be irrelevant, and from a meta-view is reach should objectively NOT prohibit the rider from coming into his 5' reach since it's not an option for him to come up short. 10' reach is irrelevant when the declared charge attack is 5' reach, is it not?

The problem is that this isn't the mount performing normal movement, it's the mount using the charge action—which involves making an attack.

Sovereign Court

Chengar Qordath wrote:
deusvult wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

Can your Axebeak understand your spoken words?

Usually there's just Handle Animal. You issue the command to attack, and charge.

You'd need another command to get it to stop.

Why would it have to?*

If you don't give it the command to attack, it shouldn't attack. It doesn't automatically attack everything that comes in reach while you ride around afterall. Not if it's properly trained, anyway.

If the rider intends to charge some target and doesn't give his axebeak the command to attack (verbally or otherwise) its reach should be irrelevant, and from a meta-view is reach should objectively NOT prohibit the rider from coming into his 5' reach since it's not an option for him to come up short. 10' reach is irrelevant when the declared charge attack is 5' reach, is it not?

The problem is that this isn't the mount performing normal movement, it's the mount using the charge action—which involves making an attack.

No, charge actions involve combining movement with the option to attack. The attack is not mandatory. If you want to take what is effectively a double move with restrictions on where you can go and what terrain you can cross and suffer a -2 AC for the bother, you're completely free to do so.

In the case of a rider without reach and a mount with reach, it's actually got meaningful benefit in doing so.


When on an axe beak, use a lance. When on a horse, use a weapon without reach.

If you think that's a silly limitation (because it is) house rule it.


bigrig107 wrote:
Deighton Thrane wrote:

With a lance on an axebeak, both of you could attack.

No, god no. On a regular Charge you only get one attack. If you're mounted and you Charge, you and your mount are considered one unit. That means one attack, either the Axebeak could get his attack, or you could attack with the Lance.. either/or, not both.


Deighton Thrane wrote:
It says you must move to the closest square. If you don't end your movement in that square, you have not moved to that square. You have moved to some other square.

Not true, actually. You've moved to that space. And a space after that. And a space after that. Moving beyond the space doesn't actually invalidate that you went to the closest space.

I feel people are adhering too closely to an idea of closest space to be measured in feet instead of spaces. All adjacent spaces are closest, no matter how far you had to move to get there.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Neonpeekaboo wrote:
bigrig107 wrote:

With a lance on an axebeak, both of you could attack.

No, god no. On a regular Charge you only get one attack. If you're mounted and you Charge, you and your mount are considered one unit. That means one attack, either the Axebeak could get his attack, or you could attack with the Lance.. either/or, not both.

I'm curious how you came to this conclusion, as it's not supported by the rules in any capacity. You're never considered to be the same creature as your mount, except for the purposes of determining what space you're in.

Liberty's Edge

GM_Arrule wrote:
Deighton Thrane wrote:
It says you must move to the closest square. If you don't end your movement in that square, you have not moved to that square. You have moved to some other square.
Not true, actually. You've moved to that space. And a space after that. And a space after that. Moving beyond the space doesn't actually invalidate that you went to the closest space.

I can't for life of me understand how "you must move to the closest square" can be misconstrued as "You must include the closest square in your movement". The rules for movement during a charge have a set of rules for the path (straight line, no obstructions) and the destination (closest square you can attack from). The only thing that changes this are feats.

GM_Arrule wrote:
I feel people are adhering too closely to an idea of closest space to be measured in feet instead of spaces. All adjacent spaces are closest, no matter how far you had to move to get there.

It's the closest square from your current location, not closest square to the opponent, so how far you had to move does matter.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Mounted Combat with a Lance works exactly as it's labeled.

It's not Mounted Combat with a Lance,Paw, and Bite.

Liberty's Edge

LazarX wrote:
It's not Mounted Combat with a Lance,Paw, and Bite.

Well, it can be if you're riding a large size Allosaurus.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Deighton Thrane wrote:
LazarX wrote:
It's not Mounted Combat with a Lance,Paw, and Bite.
Well, it can be if you're riding a large size Allosaurus.

I'm not sure you'd be able to hold a lance low enough to strike. :)


So to add a new dimension to this thread: Why does the rider have to be in the front half of the horse's squares? Why can't the rider be in the back half, such that both the horse and rider can attack during a charge?


Mn, you're not really in the front half or the back half.

You count as being in all the squares your mount is... you've effectively changed your base size.

I guess you're going to want a rules quote for that. Crap. Guess I'll go google something for ya.


(Page 202 of the CRB: A horse (not a pony) is a Large creature and thus takes up a space 10 feet (2 squares) across. For simplicity, assume that you share your mount’s space during combat.)


Jeff Merola wrote:
Neonpeekaboo wrote:
bigrig107 wrote:

With a lance on an axebeak, both of you could attack.

No, god no. On a regular Charge you only get one attack. If you're mounted and you Charge, you and your mount are considered one unit. That means one attack, either the Axebeak could get his attack, or you could attack with the Lance.. either/or, not both.
I'm curious how you came to this conclusion, as it's not supported by the rules in any capacity. You're never considered to be the same creature as your mount, except for the purposes of determining what space you're in.

Therein is the problem. Where does it say you get two attacks? If youre mounted, and it charges, you're both charging both take the penalty to AC.. if youre NOT considered one unit for the Charge itself.. then youre implying the mount, and only the mount, is charging.. which, we can all agree on, is not the case.. because youre charging, and barring Pounce, or pounce-like abilities, means you can make one attack at the end of a charge. Not two, which is what youre saying is possible.

I understand the mount is actualy its own unit, and if youre not charging, sure you could control it to move and you both take youre standard action to attack... but charging is a specific and special circumstance.

It is simply the best reasoning that makes the most sense, it still grants all the benefit/penalty of charging without unbalancing it. Tryimg to tear into it any more than that, and its a purposeful attempt to get more out of.. ie. An extra attack.


the tearing into it to get more and more out of it, is really the only reason there's so much confusion surrounding it.

Mounted combat is really simple. people make it more complicated than it needs to be, for the sole purpose of getting more out if it than should be reasonably expected.

Grand Lodge

Neonpeekaboo wrote:
Jeff Merola wrote:
Neonpeekaboo wrote:
bigrig107 wrote:

With a lance on an axebeak, both of you could attack.

No, god no. On a regular Charge you only get one attack. If you're mounted and you Charge, you and your mount are considered one unit. That means one attack, either the Axebeak could get his attack, or you could attack with the Lance.. either/or, not both.
I'm curious how you came to this conclusion, as it's not supported by the rules in any capacity. You're never considered to be the same creature as your mount, except for the purposes of determining what space you're in.
Therein is the problem. Where does it say you get two attacks?

Here.

Neonpeekaboo wrote:
If youre mounted, and it charges, you're both charging both take the penalty to AC.. if youre NOT considered one unit for the Charge itself.. then youre implying the mount, and only the mount, is charging.. which, we can all agree on, is not the case.. because youre charging, and barring Pounce, or pounce-like abilities, means you can make one attack at the end of a charge. Not two, which is what youre saying is possible.

You're ignoring a third option, which is what's actually happening. Both rider and mount charge, using the rules for charging, and gaining all benefits and drawbacks of it. One of said benefits is getting to attack.

Neonpeekaboo wrote:
I understand the mount is actualy its own unit, and if youre not charging, sure you could control it to move and you both take youre standard action to attack... but charging is a specific and special circumstance.

Both rider and mount are charging. Both get to attack. This isn't that hard.

Neonpeekaboo wrote:
It is simply the best reasoning that makes the most sense, it still grants all the benefit/penalty of charging without unbalancing it. Tryimg to tear into it any more than that, and its a purposeful attempt to get more out of.. ie. An extra attack.

You're applying rather strange logic to arrive at a conclusion that is completely unsupported by the rules.


Jeff Merola wrote:
Neonpeekaboo wrote:
Jeff Merola wrote:
Neonpeekaboo wrote:
bigrig107 wrote:

With a lance on an axebeak, both of you could attack.

No, god no. On a regular Charge you only get one attack. If you're mounted and you Charge, you and your mount are considered one unit. That means one attack, either the Axebeak could get his attack, or you could attack with the Lance.. either/or, not both.
I'm curious how you came to this conclusion, as it's not supported by the rules in any capacity. You're never considered to be the same creature as your mount, except for the purposes of determining what space you're in.
Therein is the problem. Where does it say you get two attacks?

Here.

Neonpeekaboo wrote:
If youre mounted, and it charges, you're both charging both take the penalty to AC.. if youre NOT considered one unit for the Charge itself.. then youre implying the mount, and only the mount, is charging.. which, we can all agree on, is not the case.. because youre charging, and barring Pounce, or pounce-like abilities, means you can make one attack at the end of a charge. Not two, which is what youre saying is possible.

You're ignoring a third option, which is what's actually happening. Both rider and mount charge, using the rules for charging, and gaining all benefits and drawbacks of it. One of said benefits is getting to attack.

Neonpeekaboo wrote:
I understand the mount is actualy its own unit, and if youre not charging, sure you could control it to move and you both take youre standard action to attack... but charging is a specific and special circumstance.

Both rider and mount are charging. Both get to attack. This isn't that hard.

Neonpeekaboo wrote:
It is simply the best reasoning that makes the most sense, it still grants all the benefit/penalty of charging without unbalancing it. Tryimg to tear into it any more than that, and its a purposeful attempt
...

nowhere in that faq does it say you get two attacks. It says you both charge in unison. ie. As one. Yes, you both get the benefit, and penalty. If the mount makes the sinvle attack allowed at the end of a charge, it gets +2. If you make the single attack allowed at the end of a charge, you get +2 to attack. Since youre both charging in unison, you both take -2 to AC, regardless of which one takes the attack.

Its not that im using strange logic to come to conclusion not supported by the rules. its that im using the simplest logic supported by the rules, and not overthinking it to try and get an extra attack that isnt supported by the rules. ie. Nowhere ive seen does it say at the end of a mounted charge that you AND your mount get an attack.


You show me THAT, and ill gladly concede and change any future rulings i make in my games accordingly. :)


Both character's are charging, both resolve the charge on their own. Thus there are two attacks, one per character charging.


The rules explicitly say that with an appropriate Ride check, the rider and his mount may both attack in a single round. The charge rules have language saying that they 'charge in unison' NOT 'charge as one unit'. 'Unison' means 'together', that is, at the same time, even though it sounds as if it could be a synonym for 'as one unit'. Given that a charge may have an attack at the end of it, and a rider and his mount may both attack in a round, there would have to be an explicit rule disallowing both attacking in order to prevent it.

51 to 71 of 71 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Does mounted combat with a lance even work as written? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.