Failing a spot check here, where is this rule?


Pathfinder Society

51 to 81 of 81 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
5/5 5/55/55/5

Curaigh wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:

...Now, a player effectively taking multiple turns because he's got many pets, that's something you can clearly point out as being excessively time-consuming and therefore disruptive....

I wonder if rules arguments about mounted actions count as being excessively time-consuming and therefore disruptive? [/tongue-in-cheek] :)

FWIW I do not argue that mounts are disruptive. I do argue that using them in combat (since 'you move at their speed'), makes a mount count as a combat critter.

I would be hard pressed to explain how one could have a mount AND a combat critter if that were the case, which is explicitly allowed by the faq.

4/5 ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's easy, you have a mount, it's useful for overland travel, it's got cool flavor.

It also has no effect in combat if you also want another combat pet. I'm happy to let you cinematicly dismount at the start of combat, or otherwise remove the non-combatant mount from the battlefield in whatever sort of agreeable flavor makes you feel awesome.

You can also have a donkey and pimp it out to help mow the lawn to complete your faction quest.

Still only 1 pet participates in combat. Riding your mount in combat and gaining its mechanical effects breaks the 2 combat pets rule (assuming you also have another pet)

Once again I'll reiterate: I believe it's 2 separate rules.

Grand Lodge

So, if you have a Familiar, that sits in your pocket, but gives you bonuses for being close to you(such as the Alertness feat), you can't have another "pet" participate in combat?

Shadow Lodge

BigNorseWolf wrote:

It doesn't say that you don't have to use your actions. Merely that the mount has to use theirs.

None of you, just the mount, or both of you using your actions to move are possibilities. I say its both of you unless you take an action listed in the mounted combat section. which is definitely rai. You can make A melee attack at the end, cast a spell, make a ranged attack, or full ranged attack (or one of the options thats listed there), or possibly something else you can extrapolate from the list. Thats it. They wouldn't need to spell out or limit your options while mounted otherwise.

Okay, first of all, let's look at the exact wording again:

PRD wrote:
You move at its speed, but the mount uses its action to move.

I bolded that but right there the last time I quoted this, too, and for a specific reason: it exists to state that while you move at the mount's speed, the mount is the one that uses the actions. To me, that quite clearly indicates that the mount, and only the mount, use the action to move.

As to you "possibilities", that first one ("none of you") is just flat out impossible, seeing as that sentence quite clearly states the mount does, if nothing else. As to the other two, again, the "but" in that sentence alone is enough for me to read the intention of only the mount spending the action, but once you add in the rules continuing on to speak about how specific full-round actions work, it kind of cements it for me: only the mount spends the action.

Heck, at the end of the "Combat while Mounted" section, there's this little gem:

PRD wrote:
Likewise, you can take move actions normally.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

From the old 3.5 articles, which used the exact same words as far as I can see

When you and your mount move, the two of you use your mount's speed rating, adjusted for the mount's encumbrance and the terrain. Because your mount takes you along with it when it moves, a move for your mount also counts as a move for you. (See Rules of the Game, All About Movement for notes on what constitutes movement.) Even though you're not propelling yourself, you still spend time moving. So, for example, if you and your mount move, neither you nor your mount can take a 5-foot step during the same turn.

Okay, first things first, then I'll go over the contents of that article.

On 3.5 FAQs and articles:
I can show you a similar article about two-weapon fighting that explicitly states you can wield a greatsword in two hands, and use the two-weapon fighting rules to also attack with armor spikes, yet when the Pathfinder Dev Team answered the same question for their game, they not only stated that you couldn't, but that it violates an "unwritten design rule" to be able to two-weapon fight with a two-handed weapon.

And yet not one word of the relevant rules had actually changed from 3.5.

FAQs and other WotC articles from 3.5 do not apply to Pathfinder, so that article, while interesting from a historical standpoint, is completely irrelevant when it comes time to determine the way Pathfinder rules actually work, even if nothing has changed since 3.5. (Keep in mind, Paizo may have chosen to not have revise a given rule based on how they thought it worked, in contradiction to the official WotC ruling.)


Now, as to what that article actually says, I've read it over, and it doesn't contradict what I've said, so far as actions goes; in fact, it explicitly states that your mount using its actions to move frees you up to use your actions for something else.

What the section you quoted does say, however, is that movement you mount makes counts as movement for you, as well. This doesn't mean that you have to spend actions to make it, however; as it says, it means you couldn't take a five-foot step, for example. It also means that the movement could also make you provoke an Attack of Opportunity, as well as your mount (although since it comes from the same action, it would still only be one attack of opportunity, so they'd have to choose only one of you to attack).

Now, if Paizo were to respond to this with a FAQ that replicates all of that, I'd not only be okay with it, I'd be happy with it. But again, FAQs and articles from 3.5 do not apply to Pathfinder.

Grand Lodge

Perhaps this is being read wrong, but it makes a mounted Witch, impossible.

Silver Crusade 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

even better, it means my familiar cannot be targeted in combat, as long as I bring along another critter.

Witch: "Hi! this is Bruce, my combat chicken, and this is my familiar Wayne, a bat."
Judge: "Wha...?"
Witch: "Well, as long as I have Bruce along, my Bat familiar Wayne here, can't be effected in combat - so I can use him to scout, etc. but as soon as Init. is rolled - when combat starts - the bat can't be effected by, or effect, the combat."

yeah....

Silver Crusade 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Perhaps this is being read wrong, but it makes a mounted Witch, impossible.

nah - just makes her familiar safe in combat.

5/5 5/55/55/5

James Wygle wrote:


I bolded that but right there the last time I quoted this, too, and for a specific reason: it exists to state that while you move at the mount's speed, the mount is the one that uses the actions. To me, that quite clearly indicates that the mount, and only the mount, use the action to move.

Then why can't you simply make a full attack at the end of the move?

Essentially, you have to wait until the mount gets to your enemy before attacking, so you can't make a full attack

This tells you flat out that you don't get your full compliment of actions if you decide to get off the horse. You are burning actual time while the mount moves and its not as simple as getting the mount to move for you followed by your normal round. If you want to act WHILE the horse is moving you have all of your actions. if you want to act AFTER the horse your options have been limited.

Nowhere do the rules say that you still have all of your actions UNLESS they were curtailed there. That's an extrapolation you're making, one that doesn't bear out with the limitations on attacks, spell casting, and full attacks. It also leads to the absurdity of the ejector saddle. When an idea

-isn't in the rules
-isn't consistent with whats clearly written
-leads to some pretty absurd abuses
-is contradicted by statements from people who wrote the rules

Its pretty safe to say that you've done something wrong.

Do any absurdities pop out if you read it the other way and have the restrictions on attacks and full round actions to apply to other standard actions and full round actions? You have to wait for the mount to move and that eats into your actions.

Quote:
As to you "possibilities", that first one ("none of you") is just flat out impossible, seeing as that sentence quite clearly states the mount does, if nothing else. As to the other two, again, the "but" in that sentence alone is enough for me to read the intention of only the mount spending the action, but once you add in the rules continuing on to speak about how specific full-round actions work, it kind of cements it for me: only the mount spends the action.

Look again how full round actions work. They all work WHILE the horse is moving. Concurrently, while the horse is moving, not after the horse is done moving.

You shoot from horseback while the mount is moving. (or running). You have to make the attacks from the midway point and take penalties. If you still have your full compliment of actions why is this the case?

Casting. If the mount moves once and stops, you're fine, but if the mount double moves or runs it HAS to be done while the mount is moving. if you still have your full compliment of actions to take consecutively why can't the mount simply double move and then stop for you to cast the spell?

Your hypothesis that your and the mounts actions are entirely decoupled is in contradiction with every known way that your actions interact with the mounts.

Quote:
Heck, at the end of the "Combat while Mounted" section, there's this little gem:

Move actions. not movement. Draw a potion, draw a weapon, etc.

re 3.5 articles

You can't tell me that the people that wrote the rules explaining what they meant has no bearing. Yes, pathfinder has changed some of them, but baring pathfinder saying that they've changed something I'm going to go with the meaning I can extrapolate from whats written AND what the people that wrote the words explicitely saying they meant.

Quote:


Now, as to what that article actually says, I've read it over, and it doesn't contradict what I've said

The part I quoted for you directly contradicts what you're saying.

. Because your mount takes you along with it when it moves, a move for your mount also counts as a move for you.

It counts as a move for you, so the ejector saddle doesn't work. (because that would be moving 4 times)

Shadow Lodge

Okay, BNW, let me ask you to explain one thing, which up until now you seem to have intentionally ignored.

PRD wrote:
You can use ranged weapons while your mount is taking a double move, but at a –4 penalty on the attack roll. You can use ranged weapons while your mount is running (quadruple speed) at a –8 penalty. In either case, you make the attack roll when your mount has completed half its movement. You can make a full attack with a ranged weapon while your mount is moving. Likewise, you can take move actions normally.

Now, obviously I'm referring to the bolded sentence. The last word of that sentence is important; "normally" implies that there are no special exceptions going on, so you're subject to all the standard restrictions of taking move actions, including having to have the move action to spend it. Also, in context, this applies even if your mount is double moving or running.

Now, if you are correct, and the rider also spends actions for the mount to move, how can the rider spend a move action "normally" when the mount is using a full-round action for movement?

If you can give me a satisfactory answer to that, I'll go ahead and start a thread in the Rules Questions forum just to get this FAQ'd.

5/5 5/55/55/5

James Wygle wrote:
Okay, BNW, let me ask you to explain one thing, which up until now you seem to have intentionally ignored.

Its the same answer repeated a few times.

PRD wrote:
You can use ranged weapons while your mount is taking a double move, but at a –4 penalty on the attack roll. You can use ranged weapons while your mount is running (quadruple speed) at a –8 penalty. In either case, you make the attack roll when your mount has completed half its movement. You can make a full attack with a ranged weapon while your mount is moving. Likewise, you can take move actions normally.
Quote:
Now, obviously I'm referring to the bolded sentence. The last word of that sentence is important; "normally" implies that there are no special exceptions going on, so you're subject to all the standard restrictions of taking move actions, including having to have the move action to spend it. Also, in context, this applies even if your mount is double moving or running.

Its the likewise that makes it fit

You can make a full attack with a ranged weapon while your mount is moving. Likewise, you can take move actions normally.

Parses to

You can make a full attack with a ranged weapon while your mount is moving

Likewise [while your mount is moving] You can take move actions normally.

It doesn't spell out what happens if you try to do things once the mounts movement has ended, but all of the rules here point to the mounts movement taking time and forcing you to act while the mount is moving or have your actions reduced.

Quote:
Now, if you are correct, and the rider also spends actions for the mount to move, how can the rider spend a move action "normally" when the mount is using a full-round action for movement?

While the mount moves he can take his actions concurrently with the mount moving. If he doesn't do anything he's wasted his actions.

Every limitation this section puts on acting while mounted: full attacks, penalties to range, concentration checks would vanish completely if the mount and your action pools were completely uncoupled.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Here's a fun wrinkle.

The rules explicitly say that one thing you CAN do after your mount has double moved is make a single melee attack. That means that after a mounted double move, you still have a standard action left.

So what stops me from having my mount double-move, free dismount, and then use my standard action to move?

Scarab Sages

James Wygle wrote:


Now, if you are correct, and the rider also spends actions for the mount to move, how can the rider spend a move action "normally" when the mount is using a full-round action for movement?

If you can give me a satisfactory answer to that, I'll go ahead and start a thread in the Rules Questions forum just to get this FAQ'd.

List of move actions one could take while the mount is moving:

- Load a hand crossbow or light crossbow
- Retrieve a stored item
- Draw a weapon if your BAB isn't +1
- Direct or redirect an active spell
- Sheathe a weapon
- 3rd level alchemists could apply poison to their weapon
- I'm sure other move actions exist in class features that I can't think of

The point is, not all move actions require you move from the horse or mount of your choice

4/5 ****

Nosig: That is not the same conclusion I would come to.

Nosig:
I'm confused by your Auntie Baltwin alias use. Does that mean you've decided my position is so ridiculous you've given up on a serious discussion.

Even if you think my position is absurd I'd prefer to discuss it civilly rather than be mocked with what sounds like sarcastic absurdities to me.

That's a fairly simple issue to solve, if you want one of your pets to be able to go off scouting make that your combat pet.

5/5 5/55/55/5

MaxAstro wrote:

Here's a fun wrinkle.

The rules explicitly say that one thing you CAN do after your mount has double moved is make a single melee attack. That means that after a mounted double move, you still have a standard action left.

Could you cite that? Because I think its a mite more complicated than that.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Sure. We'll even assume that you are NOT controlling the mount as a free action.

Mounts in Combat wrote:

Horses, ponies, and riding dogs can serve readily as combat steeds. 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. If you succeed, you can perform a standard action after the move action. If you fail, the move action becomes a full-round action, and you can't do anything else until your next turn.

Your mount acts on your initiative count as you direct it. You move at its speed, but the mount uses its action to move.

So, I am mounted on a non-combat trained horse. I successfully make a DC 20 Ride check as a move action to control my mount. I then direct my mount to take a double move. I then make a DC 20 Ride check to fast dismount as a free action. Finally, I take my standard action (the one I can perform "after the move action" as the rules explicitly say) to move up to my speed.

Now, I will be the first to say that this is completely silly from a physics perspective and shouldn't work. But RAW, I think it does.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Max Astro wrote:
The rules explicitly say that one thing you CAN do after your mount has double moved is make a single melee attack. That means that after a mounted double move, you still have a standard action left.

I cannot find an explicit reference to being able to double move the mount and still attack. (its something i've been mulling over whether you could or not). I see references to "full speed" but no "double move"

Two possibilities occur to me

1) You can't

2) (more likely i think) the attack happens at the end of the second move with the mount.

When you had the horse double move you took a second move with it. If you don't act with the horse while its moving then you're out of actions.


MaxAstro wrote:

Here's a fun wrinkle.

The rules explicitly say that one thing you CAN do after your mount has double moved is make a single melee attack. That means that after a mounted double move, you still have a standard action left.

So what stops me from having my mount double-move, free dismount, and then use my standard action to move?

The rule for making an attack after your mount has moved is this

prd wrote:
If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only make a single melee attack. Essentially, you have to wait until the mount gets to your enemy before attacking, so you can't make a full attack.

This does not say, or mean that you still have a standard action left. It means what it says, that you can make a single melee attack after your mount as moved more than 5 feet. The rules show a similar example when charging

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

Just because you can make a single melee attack after a charge, doesn't mean you have a standard action. The same logic should apply to the single melee attack you get after riding your mount that has just moved more than 5 feet.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Please read the example I posted. The rules say I explicitly have a standard action left, and I don't see anywhere that it says that my mount's movement uses up that standard action.

Shadow Lodge

You know, every once in a while you say things like...

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Likewise [while your mount is moving] You can take move actions normally.

...which makes me start to think maybe we can find some common ground on this, but then you say things like...

BigNorseWolf wrote:
It doesn't spell out what happens if you try to do things once the mounts movement has ended, but all of the rules here point to the mounts movement taking time and forcing you to act while the mount is moving or have your actions reduced.

...or...

BigNorseWolf wrote:
While the mount moves he can take his actions concurrently with the mount moving. If he doesn't do anything he's wasted his actions.

...which come completely out of left field, without anything in the rules to codify them; you literally say "it doesn't spell out what happens if you try to do things once the mounts movement has ended", and then try to make up what the rule is.

But at least that post did clarify your position a little: it's not that you think the rider has to spend the action to do the movement, it's that you think if they don't use the actions during the movement, they lose them.

The problem with this is that the rules don't really support ruling that in PFS. They set limitations on melee attacks when your mount moves, and they specify that ranged attacks happen in the middle of your mounts movement. They set literally no other restrictions.

Granted, I'm perfectly okay with a GM using that melee full-attack rule to justify saying you can't use a full-round action after your mount double moves if said action requires you be at that destination the entire time you're doing it (such as interacting with an object at the destination). But other than that, no, there are no other limitations on how the rider gets to spend their actions.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Oh, here's another one:

Say I have my mount move up to it's speed and then attack. Do I have a standard action left then?

If yes, why, if move + attack takes the same amount of time as move + move?

5/5 5/55/55/5

James Wygle wrote:
...which come completely out of left field, without anything in the rules to codify them;

When the rules tell you that you can't full attack after the mount moves more than 10 feet, that you have to cast while the mount is moving, that you have to shoot while the mount is moving, it is hardly "out of left field" to say that to get the benefits of being mounted you have to do stuff while the horse is moving, not after. Especially when the section you were sure supported you specifically spells out that you have to take those actions WHILE the horse is moving.

The ejector saddle relies on the "out of left field" idea, not said anywhere, that you and the mounts actions are completely decoupled. It also relies on NOT taking your allotted actions while mounted, which is what you specifically have to do. It also allows exploits around every penalty and limitation in the mounted combat section, By your reasoning
Mount move mount move dismount Full attack. Is perfectly legal because the mount moved its actions to move leaving me with a full round of actions.

You have some really questionable interpretations that break the spirit of the rules and takes versimilitudes lunch money. Its up to you to provide an argument that they're legal, not up to me to absolutely disprove them.

Quote:
you literally say "it doesn't spell out what happens if you try to do things once the mounts movement has ended", and then try to make up what the rule is.

Yes, based on the rules we have and common sense, which is something you still need to do even in PFS. ESPECIALLY in pfs. If you can't full attack while mounted its a pretty fair bet that you can't have the mount double move, fast dismount, and then full attack yourself.

When full attacking in mounted combat you have to do it while the horse is moving.

When spell casting to gain advantage of the mounts double move you have to do it while the horse is moving.

So why is it such a big leap to say that to take advantage of the mounts increased move you have to do it while the horse is moving?

5/5 5/55/55/5

MaxAstro wrote:

Oh, here's another one:

Say I have my mount move up to it's speed and then attack. Do I have a standard action left then?

If yes, why, if move + attack takes the same amount of time as move + move?

Move with horse. Attack with horse. you're fine.

[edited for second question]

Because the horse is moving while you guddyup!, the horse is moving while you attack. All four actions occur concurrently= time for 2 actions.

Example 1

You______ Horse

Giddyup Move
Attack Move

Example 2: Ejector saddle

Giddyup Move
___?___ Move
Move. Looks at you funny

In the second one you're not acting while the horse is doing anything.

Shadow Lodge

BigNorseWolf wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:

Oh, here's another one:

Say I have my mount move up to it's speed and then attack. Do I have a standard action left then?

If yes, why, if move + attack takes the same amount of time as move + move?

Move with horse. Attack with horse. you're fine.

You didn't answer his second question, BNW.

Also, making up a rule is making up a rule, even if you think it's "common sense". Personally, I think it's common sense that if the rules were supposed to be that you lost actions while mounted if you didn't do things in a specific sequence, they'd darn well say so rather explicitly.

If you want to see this changed, please, take it to the Rules Questions forum and get it FAQ'd. In the mean time, please don't make up rules in PFS.

5/5 5/55/55/5

James Wygle wrote:
Also, making up a rule is making up a rule, even if you think it's "common sense". Personally, I think it's common sense that if the rules were supposed to be that you lost actions while mounted if you didn't do things in a specific sequence, they'd darn well say so rather explicitly.

THEY DO.

They tell you you have to attack in the middle of the move. If you wait too long you loose it.

They tell you you have to cast the spell from the middle of a double moving mounts move, or you lose it.

They tell you explicitly that you have to do things WHILE the mount is moving. It doesn't tell you you can do it after.

Quote:
If you want to see this changed, please, take it to the Rules Questions forum and get it FAQ'd. In the mean time, please don't make up rules in PFS.

If you want to see the ejector saddle made legal lobby to get the tech guide in, because it doesn't work by the rules. You shouldn't be enabling these sorts of exploits with less than questionable interpretation.

Shadow Lodge

BigNorseWolf wrote:
James Wygle wrote:
Also, making up a rule is making up a rule, even if you think it's "common sense". Personally, I think it's common sense that if the rules were supposed to be that you lost actions while mounted if you didn't do things in a specific sequence, they'd darn well say so rather explicitly.

THEY DO.

They tell you you have to attack in the middle of the move. If you wait too long you loose it.

They tell you you have to cast the spell from the middle of a double moving mounts move, or you lose it.

They tell you explicitely that you have to do things WHILE the mount is moving. It doesn't tell you you can do it after.

They explicitly call out those things. They call those things out specifically. If those restrictions, that are called out explicitly for those things applied to all things, they would have just stated a general rule, instead of just calling out those things.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:
If you want to see this changed, please, take it to the Rules Questions forum and get it FAQ'd. In the mean time, please don't make up rules in PFS.
If you want to see the ejector saddle made legal lobby to get the tech guide in, because it doesn't work by the rules.

I agree that it sure as hell shouldn't work, and that it certainly didn't in 3.5, due to that very same Rules of the Game article you linked, but when Paizo set the precedent that 3.5 FAQs no longer applied to Pathfinder, even when the written rules haven't changed, they opened the rules back up to allow it. To fully write that back out, they need to do their own FAQ to do so.

Dark Archive 5/5 5/55/5 ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

"There are... FOUR LIGHTS!!"

5/5 5/55/55/5

Darius Militis wrote:
"There are... FOUR LIGHTS!!"

None of them are at the end of the tunnel.

5/5

Robert Hetherington wrote:

Nosig: That is not the same conclusion I would come to.

** spoiler omitted **

That's a fairly simple issue to solve, if you want one of your pets to be able to go off scouting make that your combat pet.

Robert:
Auntie Baldwin IS nosig's witch, so she would be the alias to have the given dialogue. It didn't seem mocking to me in that light, he just posts from a character's point of view semi-frequently on the boards.
Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

I do the same thing (such as with my Hellknight alias above).

Character POV or just because it might relate to their build. Makes tracking comments easier.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
If you want to see the ejector saddle made legal lobby to get the tech guide in, because it doesn't work by the rules. You shouldn't be enabling these sorts of exploits with less than questionable interpretation.

Nor should you be forbidding them with questionable interpretations. There are specific restrictions against certain things while mounted. There are no restrictions against dismounting and moving after the mount has moved. Should there be? Certainly. Is there? No.

The Exchange 3/5

Nefreet wrote:
Lawrence of Qadira wrote:
Can I make a melee full attack if my mount moves more than five feet and my opponent is within my reach the entire time?
No.

(intentionally unshortened :P)

Mark Seifter agrees with both of us! I technically cannot, but the intent is that I can. Yay! :)

51 to 81 of 81 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Failing a spot check here, where is this rule? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Society