FAQ on Mounted Charge - How does a mounted lance charge work?

How does a mounted charge with a lance work?

More specifically:

1 . If you making a mounted charge and attack with a lance, does:

a. The charge of the mount stop at the reach distance of the lance (ie 10 foot away from the enemy), and then your PC makes a lance attack. Your mount gets no attack unless it has reach, or

b. You treat your lance attack as a readied attack. Your PC makes a lance attack when the charge brings the lance into reach (ie 10 foot away from the enemy). The mount's charge then continues "to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent" and your then mount attacks the enemy, or

c. Some other interpretation.

If you have an opinion, please post below. Either way please click on FAQ, as I think there is enough confusion to try and sort this out.

a. Unless you have Ride By Attack, which then means the mount can continue till adjacent.

a. Unless you have Ride By Attack, which then means the mount can continue till adjacent.

I agree the answer is A as far as I can tell.

Thanks for your answers.

I think there is two problems with answer A - firstly, the mount is making the charge - so shouldn't it actually be charging and attacking something? Secondly, I don't like the idea that a mounted charge with a lance works better if you have an exotic mount like an axe beak, rather than a dog or a horse.

However, please click on the FAQ button.

i don't think most jousters / knights wanted to stop with their mount within reach of the enemy. it might behoove them to not have the mount attack on a charge, but to just be the delivery vehicle for your charge.

I think there is two problems with answer A - firstly, the mount is making the charge - so shouldn't it actually be charging and attacking something? Secondly, I don't like the idea that a mounted charge with a lance works better if you have an exotic mount like an axe beak, rather than a dog or a horse.

A is how it works. It's not the mount making the charge, its more like BOTH the rider and the mount making the charge (rider gets the + to attack and the - to AC as well).

If you were going by any other interpretation, the book says "If you make an attack at the end of the charge, you receive the bonus gained from the charge." which if you changed the end of the charge to be where the mount and the target are base-to-base, then now you are too close to attack with a lance.

Like Avianfoo stated upthread, Ride-by-attack changes those rules.

Charging with a lance is already a buttload of damage. You don't need to add in the mount on top.

Also, much like exotic weapons are commonly more powerful than martial weapons, I don't see a problem with more exotic mounts being more powerful than the common, run-of-the-mill mounts.

If you were going by any other interpretation, the book says "If you make an attack at the end of the charge, you receive the bonus gained from the charge." which if you changed the end of the charge to be where the mount and the target are base-to-base, then now you are too close to attack with a lance.

but don't you share all the squares of your mount? so you can choose which square you're attacking with the lance from. so most likely you can also qualify to be charging , and attacking from that square.

i realized the other day that a medium creature riding a large mount, is like an Enlarge spell without going to a bipedal form. You get to share the squares of your mount, so essentially you become your mount. you don't gain any natural reach, so for most weapons you need to be adjacent to attack.

so i'm just wondering, can't you be lancing from the back corner square, where you've got the reach to target what your mount is charging adjacent to?

CRobledo wrote:

If you were going by any other interpretation, the book says "If you make an attack at the end of the charge, you receive the bonus gained from the charge." which if you changed the end of the charge to be where the mount and the target are base-to-base, then now you are too close to attack with a lance.

but don't you share all the squares of your mount? so you can choose which square you're attacking with the lance from. so most likely you can also qualify to be charging , and attacking from that square.

i realized the other day that a medium creature riding a large mount, is like an Enlarge spell without going to a bipedal form. You get to share the squares of your mount, so essentially you become your mount. you don't gain any natural reach, so for most weapons you need to be adjacent to attack.

so i'm just wondering, can't you be lancing from the back corner square, where you've got the reach to target what your mount is charging adjacent to?

You share the space of the mount. You are not riding in a car and choosing which seat to sit in. You don't choose which space you are in. For simplicity, you are now the size of the mount regarding space occupied, with your normal reach.

How does a mounted charge with a lance work?

More specifically:

1 . If you making a mounted charge and attack with a lance, does:

a. The charge of the mount stop at the reach distance of the lance (ie 10 foot away from the enemy), and then your PC makes a lance attack. Your mount gets no attack unless it has reach,

Yes.

b. You treat your lance attack as a readied attack. Your PC makes a lance attack when the charge brings the lance into reach (ie 10 foot away from the enemy). The mount's charge then continues "to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent" and your then mount attacks the enemy, or

No. Readied actions do not figure in at all.

If you have an opinion, please post below. Either way please click on FAQ, as I think there is enough confusion to try and sort this out.

The mounted combat rules aren't great. The 3.5 Rules of the Game article on the topic are pretty good, and the 3.5 and PF rules are very close. There is a link to the RotG articles in my profile.

CRobledo wrote:

so i'm just wondering, can't you be lancing from the back corner square, where you've got the reach to target what your mount is charging adjacent to?

I'm not really sure if you can do that. If you can, it would be a good solution for the horse, but irrelevant for the riding dog.

It would be a major advantage to have the benefit of genuine reach on horseback rather than what is granted by a reach weapon. It seems to good to be true however.

Since one can not actually charge while mounted I would tend think that the mount must actually base the creature with its charge if it does not have reach. Either you can make your attack 1 square earlier with a lance and gain charge benefits or no lance charges from mounts that do not have reach. If you pick witch square to attack from instead of just being your mount this would only prevent lance charges from medium mounts. I think it is pretty silly to say that one can not charge while mounted on a horse.

FAQed

Thanks for your answers.

I think there is two problems with answer A - firstly, the mount is making the charge - so shouldn't it actually be charging and attacking something?***

Reread the rules on Charging. They state that you may make an attack at the end of your charge, not that you must or do.

Also, A is correct in your original post.

Since one can not actually charge while mounted I would tend think that the mount must actually base the creature with its charge if it does not have reach. Either you can make your attack 1 square earlier with a lance and gain charge benefits or no lance charges from mounts that do not have reach. If you pick witch square to attack from instead of just being your mount this would only prevent lance charges from medium mounts. I think it is pretty silly to say that one can not charge while mounted on a horse.

FAQed

Thanks Mathius, I think this sums up my concerns.

Option "A" is how it currently works (until further errata or FAQ clarification).

Currently you must choose: either hit with the lance or have the mount attack. Not both. Unless you have Ride-by Attack. Then you can have your lance and mount attacks (add pounce to your mount for further fun). Any lancer worth his salt will have Ride-by Attack anyway.

Option "A" is how it currently works (until further errata or FAQ clarification).

Currently you must choose: either hit with the lance or have the mount attack. Not both. Unless you have Ride-by Attack. Then you can have your lance and mount attacks (add pounce to your mount for further fun). Any lancer worth his salt will have Ride-by Attack anyway.

Not sure how Ride-by Attack works either...

My problem is if the answer is A, the mount doesn't comply with this part of the charging rules:

The rules also state "If you make an attack at the end of the [mount's] charge, you receive the bonus gained from the [mount's] charge." The problem is that when the mount ends its charge, the lance is not threatening. This is why I suggest solution B, which assumes a more liberal interpretation of the phrase "end of charge".

Maybe there is a solution C?

Please click the FAQ button so we can sort it out.

Since the mounted combat rules state "For simplicity, assume that you share your mount's space during combat", can't you effectively threaten adjacent by "attacking" from one of your mount's squares not adjacent to the target, ending with your mount adjacent to the target?

Since the mounted combat rules state "For simplicity, assume that you share your mount's space during combat", can't you effectively threaten adjacent by "attacking" from one of your mount's squares not adjacent to the target, ending with your mount adjacent to the target?

No. The rider occupies all of the mount's space; he doesn't choose which square he's in.

Since the mounted combat rules state "For simplicity, assume that you share your mount's space during combat", can't you effectively threaten adjacent by "attacking" from one of your mount's squares not adjacent to the target, ending with your mount adjacent to the target?

Although I quite like this solution (is it solution C?), it has a few problems:

1. It would give the PC the ability to attack adjacent foes and foes 10 foot away, which is would be considered overpowered by many.

2. When attacking the PC, which square would the PC be in? (GM: I attack your PC; Player: I'm not in that square any more!)

3. This solution does not help a small character with a medium mount, such as a halfling on a riding dog.

I think Howie23 is right here.

Ssalarn wrote:

Since the mounted combat rules state "For simplicity, assume that you share your mount's space during combat", can't you effectively threaten adjacent by "attacking" from one of your mount's squares not adjacent to the target, ending with your mount adjacent to the target?

Although I quite like this solution (is it solution C?), it has a few problems:

1. It would give the PC the ability to attack adjacent foes and foes 10 foot away, which is would be considered overpowered by many.

2. When attacking the PC, which square would the PC be in? (GM: I attack your PC; Player: I'm not in that square any more!)

3. This solution does not help a small character with a medium mount, such as a halfling on a riding dog.

I think Howie23 is right here.

In answer to number 2, the rider is kind of amazing in that he's functionally occupying all squares and none simultaneously. You can't decide to not be in a square, but you're still a medium creature so I don't see why you couldn't declare an attack from one of the squares you occupy. Look at it the other way; a pixie can occupy a giant's space but doesn't suddenly threaten everything the giant does, and can't magically negate 20 feet of movement by entering its space on one end and then exiting the other because it occupied all those spaces. Similarly, would you allow someone with the Ride Skill to use a mastodon to traverse an additional 20 feet of ground using his own move action by fast mounting on one end and then fast dismounting on the opposite end, effectively moving 20 feet without spending any movement at all? You have to still be your own size while occupying the creature's space.

A.

It just does. Don't worry about it. The baby will go out with the bathwater.

It isn't new to me that mounted combat is a problem area in the rules once you start digging into it. But, I'm finding myself unwilling to really engage in the topic again, mainly because I think that the RAW breaks down pretty quickly in contradictions. It isn't particularly satisfying.

The rules section needs a rewrite and have since 2003, if not earlier. In the interim, I do not think it is possible to generate a consistent system that adheres to RAW in all aspects. Something has to give. And what gives will vary for different people, resulting in table variance in a PFS setting...sometimes in minor details, sometimes in more substantial ones. The more complexity that the player introduces in terms of what he's looking for from his mount, and the greater that variance will be.

It isn't new to me that mounted combat is a problem area in the rules once you start digging into it. But, I'm finding myself unwilling to really engage in the topic again, mainly because I think that the RAW breaks down pretty quickly in contradictions. It isn't particularly satisfying.

The rules section needs a rewrite and have since 2003, if not earlier. In the interim, I do not think it is possible to generate a consistent system that adheres to RAW in all aspects. Something has to give. And what gives will vary for different people, resulting in table variance in a PFS setting...sometimes in minor details, sometimes in more substantial ones. The more complexity that the player introduces in terms of what he's looking for from his mount, and the greater that variance will be.

This FAQ is to help highlight the fact that the mounted combat rules need clarifying. What I would really like to see is a blog post on the whole issue.

I agree that it seems impossible to stick to the current RAW in all aspects.

The whole point of PFS is that table variance is significantly reduced. I don't want to stop play for a rules discussion every time somebody wants to make a mounted charge.

The general consensus seems to be

"a. The charge of the mount stop at the reach distance of the lance (ie 10 foot away from the enemy), and then your PC makes a lance attack. Your mount gets no attack unless it has reach"

which brings up another question:

Not everybody has a reach weapon. So even if you know a mounted enemy is going to charge you, "set against charge" is not realistically possible.

What IS possibly, however, considering the mounted enemy may be too far to reach, is a ready action.

Now, if you ready an action "when he attacks me on a charge"(with a reach weapon such as the lance), and as action take the 5-foot step allowed if you did not previously move, then attack him, he's no longer in the proper "range" to carry out the reach attack.

I can see that as preparing for the charger, diving under the hit to slash(e.g.) at the rider, but it seems to make mounted combat even more awkward.

Unless you allow mounted reach weapons to threaten 5 feet and 10 feet range, or bring in some houserule to do an opposed CMB check to see who successfully pulls it off.

Or is there any reasoning, by raw, why readying an action against a charge would not utterly destroy mounted combat(at least the reach+charge-based one such as with lances...for the non-reach based ones you can attack and sidestep the charge in any instance where he's not in a cardinal or diagonal directions(since he has to charge to the closest space he can attack from in a straight line, which will always be a diagonal space unless cardinal direction, always allowing you to 5-foot step diagonally in a way that the charge will no longer be a straight line unless charging exactly diagonally)?

Now, if you ready an action "when he attacks me on a charge"(with a reach weapon such as the lance), and as action take the 5-foot step allowed if you did not previously move, then attack him, he's no longer in the proper "range" to carry out the reach attack.

See the other thread on 5 foot steps for why this won't work: Leads to too many timey whimey balls and immortal dancing kobolds.

Quote:

Now, if you ready an action "when he attacks me on a charge"(with a reach weapon such as the lance), and as action take the 5-foot step allowed if you did not previously move, then attack him, he's no longer in the proper "range" to carry out the reach attack.

See the other thread on 5 foot steps for why this won't work: Leads to too many timey whimey balls and immortal dancing kobolds.

Which thread is that? Last I checked, it worked fine.

Quote:

Now, if you ready an action "when he attacks me on a charge"(with a reach weapon such as the lance), and as action take the 5-foot step allowed if you did not previously move, then attack him, he's no longer in the proper "range" to carry out the reach attack.

See the other thread on 5 foot steps for why this won't work: Leads to too many timey whimey balls and immortal dancing kobolds.

you can even formulate it simpler here, not depending on the attack.

"If he is within his lances reach from me(that is, 10 feet away)" to move towards him with the 5 foot step and attack.

Again, the same result, you are inside his range with no fancy "but your attack never happened"-sauce. Only he's interrupted before he gets to make the attack, which, for mounted reach-characters, spells doom.

When you are mounted, your reach attack can originate from, and you can actually occupy any one of your mounts squares as desired, allowing both you and the mount to attack sometimes.

Also because the mount is actually charging, not the rider, if it can not fulfill all the requirements of making a charge, (moving in straight line, directly at target, make attack at first opportunit, etc) than it can not initiate the charge in the first place. The rider just sacrifices all their turn waiting for the mount to get in range of the target.

When you are mounted, your reach attack can originate form, and you can actually occupy any one of your mounts squares as desired, allowing both you and the mount to attack sometimes.

This isn't quite correct.

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.

You share ALL of your mounts space, not just 1 square at any point. If the front of your horse is right next to the kobold then you're too close to use the lance- You've effectively become a large creature.

Ill have to check books, but might be another thing that the left out from 3.5

i still think even though you're a large creature ( effectively ), you can still choose which square you're attacking from. it fits my picture of a rider slung low in the saddle and leaning back or leaning down. hell, the lance has to angle at some point down if you're striking a target on the ground that isn't large as well, but we mostly ignore height differentials rather than worry about calculating a hypotenuse with squares.

Exept its mount that makes charge and rider just "count as charging". And when making a charge you must go to closest sqare from wich you can attack (wich is near target for mount with reach of 5ft)

I dont think thats is what was intended even though it does look like the way Pathfinder does handle it. That would actually increase the lances reach, and give it to non-reach weapons.

It would also give you other bonuses and penulties like for CMB. What it actually says is that you effectively share the same space, where normally you can not occupy the same square even of ally unless they are 3 sizes larger or smaller, or by squeezing.

But, if it works the way you suppose, that a rider threatens at 5 feet AND 10 feet with a reach weapon, then thats too powerful.

You can just sit in your saddle with a glaive or halberd, and get the boni of a reach weapon.
Namely, i'm thinking of going next to ranged attackers or casters. Now you threaten them at 5-feet. Even if they 5-foot step away, you STILL threaten them.

That seems against the intended rules of reach weapons to EITHER threaten at 5-feet OR at 10-feet.

So either mounted reach combat seems broken because you can shut it down by diving inside the range, OR it seems broken because it can utterly shut down magic and ranged combat.(for magic: a move action away provokes an AoO and allows another charge afterwards, an archer is screwed either way unless he has feats to not provoke an AoO when using ranged weapons)

Exept its mount that makes charge and rider just "count as charging".

I've never liked that ruling, and think a charge action should apply to the rider only unless the mount intends to attack. But if I have no intention of having the mount attack, then the mount isn't charging, the rider is, IMO. Overcoming difficult terrain to allow the charge would require either feats like Nimble Moves (on the mount), or special gear like horseshoes of the zephyr, etc. The mount is simply supplying the movement and extra mass for the damage bonus, so it makes little sense to requiring the mount to charge and the rider literally goes along for the ride.

The other aspect of charging I'm not fond of is the charging attack bonus, especially while mounted. Running fast does not improve accuracy, in fact just the opposite. There should be a charge penalty with the damage bonus.

DarkPhoenixx wrote:

Exept its mount that makes charge and rider just "count as charging".

I've never liked that ruling, and think a charge action should apply to the rider only unless the mount intends to attack. But if I have no intention of having the mount attack, then the mount isn't charging, the rider is, IMO. Overcoming difficult terrain to allow the charge would require either feats like Nimble Moves (on the mount), or special gear like horseshoes of the zephyr, etc. The mount is simply supplying the movement and extra mass for the damage bonus, so it makes little sense to requiring the mount to charge and the rider literally goes along for the ride.

The other aspect of charging I'm not fond of is the charging attack bonus, especially while mounted. Running fast does not improve accuracy, in fact just the opposite. There should be a charge penalty with the damage bonus.

STR+ to atk with melee does not increase accuracy eather, it allow you to strike with force enough to penetrate thru enemy's armor, so does momentum of the charge.

Gherrick wrote:

DarkPhoenixx wrote:

Exept its mount that makes charge and rider just "count as charging".

...

The other aspect of charging I'm not fond of is the charging attack bonus, especially while mounted. Running fast does not improve accuracy, in fact just the opposite. There should be a charge penalty with the damage bonus.

STR+ to atk with melee does not increase accuracy eather, it allow you to strike with force enough to penetrate thru enemy's armor, so does momentum of the charge.

The momentum counts for the damage bonus, but penetrating armor is different than increasing accuracy. If anything, your description implies mounted charges should be a touch attack, or otherwise ignore some or all of the AC bonus from armor (natural or otherwise). I still think trying to do a charge attack while mounted is harder, not easier, from a net attack modifier. The trade off is the bigger damage when you hit.

i still think even though you're a large creature ( effectively ), you can still choose which square you're attacking from.

Whether it's realistic or not, I don't think it works that way. As far as I can tell, "you share your mount's space during combat" means you figure out your space, (and consequently) threatened squares, cover, etc. as any 10x10 ft. creature would. Your reach doesn't change, so you cannot attack squares adjacent to your 10 ft. space with a lance.

Position/space is quite abstract in combat. For example, when you drop down and hang alongside your mount to use it as cover, you don't have to / get to pick which side you're hanging - you get the AC bonus regardless of where your enemies are. Similarly, you don't get to choose which square you attack from. (Besides, if you attacked from a "back" square with a reach weapon, your mount would actually provide cover to your foe.)

but if you share your mounts space

FF
RR

and you charge up to an enemy ( O )

O
FF
RR

by sharing those X squares, if you can make an attack from any of them, by choosing which square to count reach from, you can attack the O from the rear RR squares.
it is wonky, and i'm trying to argue for it, but i'm not 100% convinced myself, whether sharing squares does make you basically Large, or sharing means you can choose to be in any one of the squares or all of the squares, whichever suits you best.

@ Serpent, posting from phone or Id post more links and quotes. :)

Thats exactly how it worked in 3E. The rider at any given time decided which square they occupied in the mounts space.

PF simply says they occupy the same space, which doesnt really mean anything in that regard. Just that unlike the normal rules for sharing a space, the mount and rider can without squeezing or needing to be pushed into an open square, or the rider being 15ft up in 3D combat.

What it does not say however is that the rider is large, is treated as large (or the size of the mount), or anything like that.

The mount is charging. The rider is "waiting until the mount gets to your enemy before attacking".

"If your mount charges, you ALSO take" shows it is the mount charging and the later "you recieve the bonus gained from charging" again confirms that is is not the rider that is charging but the mount, who then needs to follow the rules for making a charge.

yeah i guess i'm biased, playing through from 2, 3, 3.5 etc.
i may have some rules junk floating around in my head and not realize it doesn't apply anymore.
can't tell you how embarrassing comprehend languages was.

"If your mount charges, you ALSO take" shows it is the mount charging and the later "you recieve the bonus gained from charging" again confirms that is is not the rider that is charging but the mount, who then needs to follow the rules for making a charge.

so it might actually work then?

Please keep hitting the FAQ button, in double figures now!

@ Serpent, posting from phone or Id post more links and quotes. :)

Thats exactly how it worked in 3E. The rider at any given time decided which square they occupied in the mounts space.

PF simply says they occupy the same space, which doesnt really mean anything in that regard. Just that unlike the normal rules for sharing a space, the mount and rider can without squeezing or needing to be pushed into an open square, or the rider being 15ft up in 3D combat.

What it does not say however is that the rider is large, is treated as large (or the size of the mount), or anything like that.

The mount is charging. The rider is "waiting until the mount gets to your enemy before attacking".

"If your mount charges, you ALSO take" shows it is the mount charging and the later "you recieve the bonus gained from charging" again confirms that is is not the rider that is charging but the mount, who then needs to follow the rules for making a charge.

PF says you share your mount's space. "For simplicity" presumably means that it's much easier to adjucate effects when you count as being in all those squares rather than guessing which square you were in again, or having inconsistencies such as counting as being in one square for the purpose of attacking but being in all squares for other purposes. In my above post I did not say or imply that your size changes, only that your space _effectively_ becomes equal to that of your mount. Size and space are related concepts, but not the same thing. (Swarms, for example, are Fine/Diminutive/Tiny but have a space of 10 ft.)

If the intent was that you don't share all of your mount's space, I'm sure they would have used the old wording.

Regarding the question whether you are also charging when your mount charges or just receiving the benefits and drawbacks of a charge, I haven't given it a lot of thought. But there's an interesting bit of text there: "If you make an attack at the end of the charge, you receive the bonus gained from the charge." In other words, according to the rules, you have to make your attack "at the end of the charge" to get the benefits. If your mount continues moving after your attack (to make an attack of its own), you didn't make the attack at the end of the charge.

by sharing those X squares, if you can make an attack from any of them

A large creature cannot attack with his reach weapon from his back square to close the gap he threatens around himself from 10 feet down to 5 feet. A rider on a horse is not in ANY square he wants to be on on the mount the rider is in ALL of the squares the mount is because they share a space.

DarkPhoenixx wrote:

STR+ to atk with melee does not increase accuracy eather, it allow you to strike with force enough to penetrate thru enemy's armor, so does momentum of the charge.

The momentum counts for the damage bonus, but penetrating armor is different than increasing accuracy. If anything, your description implies mounted charges should be a touch attack, or otherwise ignore some or all of the AC bonus from armor (natural or otherwise). I still think trying to do a charge attack while mounted is harder, not easier, from a net attack modifier. The trade off is the bigger damage when you hit.

Not sure why you implying that attack bonus is acurracy. If i roll 17 against paladin in full plate then i still hit him, but it is miss because i was accurate enough to hit him but his +9 bonus to AC from plate mail have deflected by blow. Now if i have str 16 and bonus +3 i will add it to 17 and get 20 - my blow have so much strenght in it that kinetic energy is harming his flesh even thru armor. Thats why attack bonus and AC are collective number of many different aspects of attack and defense.

But you see it other way in your games, as long as you having fun.

Ok, after some thought, this may be a way to make the mounted lance charge work if the mount does not have reach:

The PC uses the free action ‘Fight with a Combat-Trained Mount’. The PC orders their mount to charge not at the enemy they want to hit with their lance, but rather designates a square adjacent to the enemy as the ‘opponent’ of the mount’s charge. The mount then charges up to that square, and can choose not to attack the square. The mount effectively forfeits its attack. The PC however makes ‘an attack at the end of the charge’ on the enemy, and the PC receives ‘the bonus gained from the charge’. There is no wording that states the attack of the PC has to be at the same enemy as the 'opponent' that the mount charges at.

This results in answer a.

This could then be the ‘standard charge’ referenced by the Ride-by Attack Feat.

This interpretation would allow you to use Ride-By Attack as per Sean K Reynolds’ Ride-By Attack Diagram.

Is this RAW? Is there a better interpretation? Please click FAQ if you don't know the answer :-)

Rules:

Gherrick wrote:

DarkPhoenixx wrote:

STR+ to atk with melee does not increase accuracy eather, it allow you to strike with force enough to penetrate thru enemy's armor, so does momentum of the charge.

The momentum counts for the damage bonus, but penetrating armor is different than increasing accuracy. If anything, your description implies mounted charges should be a touch attack, or otherwise ignore some or all of the AC bonus from armor (natural or otherwise). I still think trying to do a charge attack while mounted is harder, not easier, from a net attack modifier. The trade off is the bigger damage when you hit.

Not sure why you implying that attack bonus is acurracy. If i roll 17 against paladin in full plate then i still hit him, but it is miss because i was accurate enough to hit him but his +9 bonus to AC from plate mail have deflected by blow. Now if i have str 16 and bonus +3 i will add it to 17 and get 20 - my blow have so much strenght in it that kinetic energy is harming his flesh even thru armor. Thats why attack bonus and AC are collective number of many different aspects of attack and defense.

But you see it other way in your games, as long as you having fun.

I say accuracy because the attack roll is a binary result (hit or miss, with some hits upgrading to crits after confirmation). It doesn't matter if the result matches the target's AC or exceeds it by 20, it is still "just" a hit. Charging does add kinetic energy to the attack, and I see how you see it as an attack bonus to represent the improved ability to punch through armor.

Non-sequitur: I think, in general, I've become dissatisfied with the current d20 mechanic in regards to combat. I'd like to see an alternate combat system that perhaps uses AC as a threshold, and every X points it is exceeded by affects the damage. For example, perhaps have the touch AC equaling a minimum hit, where the normal AC is a standard hit, and every 10 points above the AC adds a crit multiplier.

Savage Worlds does what you describe; every 4 points over the target's parry value you roll on your attack roll adds a d6 to the damage roll. This is called a "raise".

It'd be nice to break down sneak attack into "rogues get class levelx2 bonus on attack rolls vs *whatever the requirement for sneak attacking is*" and stuff like that.

What did everyone think of my post two posts up?

Please keep pressing FAQ if you don't understand how the RAW of a mounted charge works!