Medium Rider, Large Mount, Lance, Charge - Official Ruling?


Rules Questions


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

I've spent the morning searching the boards for a clear ruling on exactly how a large mount charging with a lance works, and can't find a consistent ruling.

Does the mount stop 5' away for the lances reach?

Can the rider strike when the mount is adjacent due to sharing the two squares of the mount?

Does the mount get its attack?

Is it some other process?

I apologize if this was cleared up somewhere I can't find, but everything I've found today is inconsistent or confusing.

Thanks!


I don't think that there's anything official.

I think that baring ride by attack, you stop when the rider lances.

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar 2013 Top 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.

FAQ

You and your mount charge simultaneously. You occupy all squares of your mount, and must stop at the limit of your reach (10 feet for a normal medium rider with a lance). If your mount also has 10 foot reach then it can also make a charge attack, otherwise it can't.

Dark Archive

There is no official clarification to the mounted combat rules on this. It is interesting that if you charge so does your mount Link . As the mount is the one moving , it should not stop it's charge until has moved to a legal space and it attacks. Having RBA does make this a moot point. I would rule the charge would end with your mount in a location that makes a legal charge, either adjacent to the enemy, or at reach if it has reach.

When I play amounted character I find mounted combat is handled differently from table to table, so I like to talk to the GM before the game to know what to expect.

Dark Archive

Michael Eshleman wrote:

FAQ

You and your mount charge simultaneously. You occupy all squares of your mount, and must stop at the limit of your reach (10 feet for a normal medium rider with a lance). If your mount also has 10 foot reach then it can also make a charge attack, otherwise it can't.

The FAQ does not state you stop at your reach.

FAQ wrote:
Both charge in unison, suffer the same penalty to AC, the gaining the same bonus to the attack rolls and following all other rules for the charge

That last part tells me the mount must make a complete charge as well.


And herin lies my confision, seems like there is still debate.

Ill go with the assumption of stopping 10' away on a charge for the lance being correct, it makes sense logically.

Sczarni

You were probably unable to find any discussion on it here because this is the Forum for Pathfinder Society, not general Pathfinder.

I'll go ahead and flag your post for the Rules Questions Forum, where you're most likely to find the answer you're seeking.


I believe what he wants is an official PFS answer.

PFS doesn't have a more official than anything else response to this though


BigNorseWolf wrote:

I believe what he wants is an official PFS answer.

PFS doesn't have a more official than anything else response to this though

Yeah. I searched all the forums and mostly found threads submitted for FAQ without clarification to the abovementioned (and linked FAQ)

I came here to ask because if there was a standardized ruling, it would undoubtedly be known by the PFS folks.

Or so I believed.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Remnar wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

I believe what he wants is an official PFS answer.

PFS doesn't have a more official than anything else response to this though

Yeah. I searched all the forums and mostly found threads submitted for FAQ without clarification to the abovementioned (and linked FAQ)

I came here to ask because if there was a standardized ruling, it would undoubtedly be known by the PFS folks.

Or so I believed.

It's a contentious point. And since it's a generic rules discussion, with no special interaction with PFS issues, the PFS leadership is most likely leaving the ball in the generic developers' court.

Personally I think the best way forward would be similar to Underwater Adventures: a book that spends about 60% on describing the impact of mounts on various areas of Golarion, and 40% on cleaning up the rules for it and putting them all in a single book.

There's plenty of mounted things in Golarion that could fill a book:


  • Lastwall Knights
  • Hongal tribes
  • Qadiran light cavalry/camel riders
  • Taldan heavy knights
  • Absalom's hippocampus-riding harbor guard
  • Korvosa's griffin cavalry
  • Mammoth Riders from the north

A book that takes a serious look at how to set up a mounted campaign would be neat. It could look at plots that really exploit the PCs mobility and ability to cover a large territory (as opposed to tight dungeons). Also, at how to handle classes that don't get mounts by default (since mundane mounts get fragile at higher levels).


Lau Bannenberg wrote:
Remnar wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

I believe what he wants is an official PFS answer.

PFS doesn't have a more official than anything else response to this though

Yeah. I searched all the forums and mostly found threads submitted for FAQ without clarification to the abovementioned (and linked FAQ)

I came here to ask because if there was a standardized ruling, it would undoubtedly be known by the PFS folks.

Or so I believed.

It's a contentious point. And since it's a generic rules discussion, with no special interaction with PFS issues, the PFS leadership is most likely leaving the ball in the generic developers' court.

Personally I think the best way forward would be similar to Underwater Adventures: a book that spends about 60% on describing the impact of mounts on various areas of Golarion, and 40% on cleaning up the rules for it and putting them all in a single book.

There's plenty of mounted things in Golarion that could fill a book:


  • Lastwall Knights
  • Hongal tribes
  • Qadiran light cavalry/camel riders
  • Taldan heavy knights
  • Absalom's hippocampus-riding harbor guard
  • Korvosa's griffin cavalry
  • Mammoth Riders from the north

A book that takes a serious look at how to set up a mounted campaign would be neat. It could look at plots that really exploit the PCs mobility and ability to cover a large territory (as opposed to tight dungeons). Also, at how to handle classes that don't get mounts by default (since mundane mounts get fragile at higher levels).

I would love such a thing. A mounted campaign would ve really neat, IMO.

Sczarni

Remnar wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

I believe what he wants is an official PFS answer.

PFS doesn't have a more official than anything else response to this though

Yeah. I searched all the forums and mostly found threads submitted for FAQ without clarification to the abovementioned (and linked FAQ)

I came here to ask because if there was a standardized ruling, it would undoubtedly be known by the PFS folks.

The place to find answers to rules questions would be the Rules Questions Forum. That's literally all it's there for. Rules Questions are not FAQ'd anywhere else.

It really is in your best interest to have the thread moved over there. Nobody here will be able to give you a more "official" answer.

The answer for PFS would come from your table GM. If your question seems to be handled differently from GM to GM, THIS is how Campaign Leadership recommends that you go about getting it resolved (which, again, requires posting your question in the Rules Questions Forum).

Scarab Sages

Remnar wrote:
Lau Bannenberg wrote:
Remnar wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

I believe what he wants is an official PFS answer.

PFS doesn't have a more official than anything else response to this though

Yeah. I searched all the forums and mostly found threads submitted for FAQ without clarification to the abovementioned (and linked FAQ)

I came here to ask because if there was a standardized ruling, it would undoubtedly be known by the PFS folks.

Or so I believed.

It's a contentious point. And since it's a generic rules discussion, with no special interaction with PFS issues, the PFS leadership is most likely leaving the ball in the generic developers' court.

Personally I think the best way forward would be similar to Underwater Adventures: a book that spends about 60% on describing the impact of mounts on various areas of Golarion, and 40% on cleaning up the rules for it and putting them all in a single book.

There's plenty of mounted things in Golarion that could fill a book:


  • Lastwall Knights
  • Hongal tribes
  • Qadiran light cavalry/camel riders
  • Taldan heavy knights
  • Absalom's hippocampus-riding harbor guard
  • Korvosa's griffin cavalry
  • Mammoth Riders from the north

A book that takes a serious look at how to set up a mounted campaign would be neat. It could look at plots that really exploit the PCs mobility and ability to cover a large territory (as opposed to tight dungeons). Also, at how to handle classes that don't get mounts by default (since mundane mounts get fragile at higher levels).

I would love such a thing. A mounted campaign would ve really neat, IMO.

I've toyed with the idea of a mounted campaign for a long time, but the Rules are vague and contentious to the point that I'd have to write core rules as well as a plot - and that's just a little too much work for me. Which is a right shame, because it'd be cool as hell.

Grand Lodge

I feel like I must be missing something here.

Since you're both charging, would you not just resolve your attack at 10 ft, then your mount would continue its charge and resolve it's attack adjacent to the creature?

I guess it really comes down to how you interpret the "You must move before your attack, not after." clause of charging. Personally, I think it's referring only to you moving yourself. Thus your mount could still move with you on it to finish it's own charge.

Either way, it would seem that Ride by Attack solves the issue.


Jurassic Pratt wrote:

I feel like I must be missing something here.

Since you're both charging, would you not just resolve your attack at 10 ft, then your mount would continue its charge and resolve it'd attack adjacent to the creature?

I guess it really comes down to how you interpret the "You must move before your attack, not after." clause of charging. Personally, I think it's referring only to you moving yourself. Thus your mount could still move with you on it to finish it's own charge.

Either way, it would seem that Ride by Attack solves the issue.

I agree with you for what it's worth, but I feel like it's a less popular interpretation of the rules.

Silver Crusade

Michael Eshleman wrote:

FAQ

You and your mount charge simultaneously. You occupy all squares of your mount, and must stop at the limit of your reach (10 feet for a normal medium rider with a lance). If your mount also has 10 foot reach then it can also make a charge attack, otherwise it can't.

I come to the same conclusion as Michael, and have flagged this thread for a move to the correct forum.

Answers like this are very desirable but are best suited to be answered by the rules team or as Lau suggested in a book about the subject.

Shadow Lodge

I got myself a mount with reach so I cold avoid the question.


Jurassic Pratt wrote:

I feel like I must be missing something here.

Since you're both charging, would you not just resolve your attack at 10 ft, then your mount would continue its charge and resolve it's attack adjacent to the creature?

I guess it really comes down to how you interpret the "You must move before your attack, not after." clause of charging. Personally, I think it's referring only to you moving yourself. Thus your mount could still move with you on it to finish it's own charge.

Either way, it would seem that Ride by Attack solves the issue.

Charge has a lot of very tight movement restrictions.

Including:
Quote:


You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles). You must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent.

A charge action is a full round action (usually). You move to the nearest square (that allows you to make an attack), make the attack - and that completes your full round action.

You cannot continue to move by. You cannot take a 5 ft step.

Sczarni

Often times, though, "the closest space from which you can attack the opponent" still has multiple options.

For example, with an opponent directly 20 feet away, a small-sized rider on a medium Mount has three possible squares they can end on that all needed only 15 feet of movement.

Depending on diagonals you may only have two.

This is basically required if you're to ever use Ride-by Attack.


It is often argued that it has multiple squares. I believe that position was confirmed as incorrect by SKR, and that he would lobby for change.

If you read this thread: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l5b9&page=2?Mounts-with-attacks-and-the-Ri deByAttack-Feat

You will see that SKR starts with the assumption of the 3.0 version of charge, but a page thereafter or so confirms that the 3.5 version requires the person to move "directly" at the opponent, and thereby, in many board configurations is broken and does not work with Ride By.

I don't know any later updates to that position, although there may be.


As near as I can tell, the mounted combat rules in the Core book are lifted pretty much directly from 3.5 (compare this with the Core rules).

The only FAQ or other official statement on the mounted combat rules that I'm aware of is the Mounted Charge FAQ. I would be happy to be shown to be wrong, but other than this, it seems that there have been no other official responses from the design team to multiple questions about and threads on mounted combat.

As I result, I've ended up following the suggestion by Howie23 from 2013 and using this old series of articles to understand how mounted combat works and to clear up points of uncertainty in the official rules.

I'm aware this is not an official source but it seems to be the best material on this topic that is currently available.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
GreySector wrote:

FAQ

You and your mount charge simultaneously. You occupy all squares of your mount, and must stop at the limit of your reach (10 feet for a normal medium rider with a lance). If your mount also has 10 foot reach then it can also make a charge attack, otherwise it can't.

I believe this interpretation is what happens with the simplest reading of the rule. If one wants to get more into it, my suggestion is to either get a undersized Lance (so it would not have reach) or a weapon without reach, or have a mount with reach. Otherwise, I believe the Rider would have to choose between him or the mount to attack rather than having two charges (Reach then adjacent).

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Medium Rider, Large Mount, Lance, Charge - Official Ruling? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.