Mounts and Escape Route

[TheFloodedLand]

I've seen this debated back and forth, so I'm making a thread to see if a general consensus has been reached since those years-old threads have been posted.

Does a rider and mount each possessing the Escape Route feat prevent them from taking movement-based AoO's as long as the rider is on the mount?

[Gauss]

Yes, they are in each other's space. They are effectively immune to movement base AoOs. Cheesy, but it's the rules.

P.S. I was unable to find any threads where people stated that the RAW is other than 'yes it works'. There are plenty of people who say it is probably not RAI and is probably a badly worded feat.

Could you link the dissenting threads/posts?

[TheFloodedLand]

Gauss wrote:

Yes, they are in each other's space. They are effectively immune to movement base AoOs. Cheesy, but it's the rules.

P.S. I was unable to find any threads where people stated that the RAW is other than 'yes it works'. There are plenty of people who say it is probably not RAI and is probably a badly worded feat.

Could you link the dissenting threads/posts?

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2nbaq?Escape-Route-and-Mounts-Movementprovoked

https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder_RPG/comments/40s5e5/if_you_and_your_mou nt_have_escape_route_are_you/

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?358704-The-Escape-Route-feat-in -mounted-combat

A few of them in which people are iffy as to whether or not this combo is legal

[The Raven Black]

Just checked the PRD and its wording for mount and rider sharing their space is very similar to that used in the feat.

So I would say it is not only RAW but likely also RAI from its creator

I understand why it seems counterintuitive to many, but IMO it is pretty clear cut

[dragonhunterq]

The arguments against this working are easily refuted.
I couldn't see anything in those threads any more substantial to indicate it doesn't work other than some "I don't think it should work that way" rationalisation.

It works. I don't even think it's that cheesy.

[TheFloodedLand]

Thank you for the responses. My GM believes this combination falls into exploitative/munchkin territory and doesn't want to allow it at his table. At the end of the day he gets to make the call, I was just wondering if my argument even held any water.

[Claxon]

It's legal. I've used it. It is a little cheesy but more a mild cheddar than a limburger, but I've mostly used it on mounted archers who stay out of combat so it doesn't come up much.

For what it's worth, if your GM thinks it's cheesy there is probably no convincing him otherwise. Just accept that it's not going to happen and move along, it's better than dwelling on it.

[Drahliana Moonrunner]

TheFloodedLand wrote:

Thank you for the responses. My GM believes this combination falls into exploitative/munchkin territory and doesn't want to allow it at his table. At the end of the day he gets to make the call, I was just wondering if my argument even held any water.

It does, but while your argumnent may hold a quart of water, your DM's holds a gallon. Assuming that an animal with an Int of 1 or 2 can take leadership feats is dancing on some very thin ice, special class mechanics notwitsthanding.

[TheFloodedLand]

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

TheFloodedLand wrote:

Thank you for the responses. My GM believes this combination falls into exploitative/munchkin territory and doesn't want to allow it at his table. At the end of the day he gets to make the call, I was just wondering if my argument even held any water.

It does, but while your argumnent may hold a quart of water, your DM's holds a gallon. Assuming that an animal with an Int of 1 or 2 can take leadership feats is dancing on some very thin ice, special class mechanics notwitsthanding.

I'm taking Monsterous Mount for a Griffon, which has a base int of 5, so it can legally take the feat no problem

[Dromer Greyskin]

It's a popular choice for Valet Familiars, too ^_^

[kricothebarbarian]

This doesn't work, and I think we can get a good understanding of the feat by thinking past the possibility of never having an AO while mounted to 'what does this look like'?

Here's the wording of the feat:
"You have trained to watch your allies’ backs, covering them as they make tactical withdraws.

Prerequisite: none

Benefit: An ally who also has this feat provokes no attacks of opportunity for moving through squares adjacent to you or within your space."

Examples
Arcus and Barcus are allies; Barcus is fighting Xakko in a 15' x 15' room. We grid the room A-C, 1-3. The door is at B3. Xakko is at B2.

Example 1
Barcus is at C2 (B=Barcus). X = Xakko
A B C
1
2 X B
3

Barcus is low on hp, so Arcus enters at B3, and Barcus leaves through Arcus' space, and does not provoke an AO, even though he is passing through Xakko's threatened space. Arcus' aggressive action forced Xakko to leave Arcus' alone, because Xakko had to turn his attention to Barcus, not Arcus - it's what they trained as a team to do! Arcus buys Barcus the second needed to escape.

Example 2
Xakko again is at B2, Barcus again at C2. Arcus enters at the door at B3. He passes through B3, moving to A2 to flank Xakko. He does not provoke an AO, because B3 is adjacent to Barcus, and he is not moving through A2, he stops there. We again imagine that Barcus makes an aggressive action that protects Arcus' from Xakko's AO - they're a team!
(Side note: The GM rule matters most, so if the GM says when Arcus moves from B3 to A2 he takes an AO, because it's not an adjacent square to Barcus, that's his call. I would say that Arcus is safe at A2 because he moves to it, not through it; he takes no AO for leaving B2 because any move only provokes 1 AO, and the AO that would normally be provoked for moving through B2 [negated by the feat] also covers the AO that would be provoked for moving out of B2.)

Example of Mounted Combat
Xakko is in a 15'x15'. The door is at B3. Cavvo the Cavalier enters on her mount, Ponyius Rex (PRex), at B3. They can't time it so that one moves and the other distracts, because they move together, as seen: when Cavvo moves to A2, Cavvo can't make an aggressive move so that PRex can move safely, first because Xakko can pay attention to both of them at the same time - because they occupy the same space. Second, because when PRex moves, Cavvo moves, so the threat Cavvo presented is gone, and is no longer the threat needed to protect PRex. (The same applies to PRex.) I think the clearest way to say it is they can't work the timing so that one moves to a new space while they other distracts.

I strongly dislike resorting to the RAW, the GM has the final word. In the front of the book it says this clearly; there are reasons for it - the GM gets people together, and provides settings, and plays the monsters, and you have fun advancing your character. You should not rules-lawyer your GM, you should ask, respectfully accept their rulings, and often say 'thanks for GMing'.

If you really want it, tho, it's also clear this doesn't work from the RAW. When Cavvo moves to A2, she moves; when Cavvo moves, PRex moves; when PRex moves, PRex's adjacent squares all change - because PRex moved. Since they move at the same time, PRex cannot provide an escape route, because Cavvo never moves through her adjacent square. Instead, she moves through the exact same squares, which changes the adjacent squares at each point in time. For the same reason, Cavvo never moves through squares "within your [PRex's] space" - because Cavvo always moves through the exact same squares, she stays within PRex's space, does not move through it.

[Tarantula]

Its just as easy to imagine a smart (int 3+ to take the feat) trained supernatural mount, like an animal companion, or other class enhanced mount, could feasibly cover while moving. In fact, consider the mount is the one moving (the PC on top happens to move with) and it is the PC covering the mounts movement with swings and such.

Mounted combat is an unclear mess anyway, this prevents at most 2 AOOs per turn per creature (one for each move action). Not cheezy or overpowered, just weird to visualize.

[Ascalaphus]

Escape Route wrote:

Benefit: An ally who also has this feat provokes no attacks of opportunity for moving through squares adjacent to you or within your space.

CRB > Combat > Mounted Combat wrote:

For simplicity, assume that you share your mount's space during combat.

At all times you're in the same spaces as your mount, so at all times you satisfy the positioning requirements of the feat. It's very neatly written. Cheesy perhaps, but the rules are clear.

It also works with a (possibly Valet) familiar riding on your shoulder.

[Dromer Greyskin]

Or a sentient tumor attached to your neck.