MachOneGames's page

The link that Ssalern provided works best if you envision mounted combat combined actions as occurring in two impulses. Mount and rider can each act in the first (move or standard), and likewise they can both act in the second.

I like that way of thinking. I couldn't get the Hasbro links to work for me.

Yeah, mounted combat is all manner of confounding. In the case of Archery the attacks clearly happen throughout the round (fire from the middle of the movement). Why should the attack be any different?

Before people compare it to Ride-by-Attack -- that only applies to charging (which I find completely maddening) -- I suggest that they should have made the same proviso on melee attacks. They should happen anywhere along the trajectory of the movement. However, mounted attacks should be full-round actions. You have to time your strike to the opponent's distance and control the mount.

Movement is particularily vexing and abstract in Pathfinder and mounted combat just amplifies those problems. When I play I get grief for trying to execute sensible mounted actions; but am able to abuse the rules to do stupid over-powered things.

Thanks Ssalarn. That makes sense. What about alternating actions between mount and rider? Where do you sit on that question?

Alternately...

- Mount Rides 30' (Move Action)
- Mount readies a Standard Action (Rides 50') immediately after the rider's attack (Standard Action -- already used the move)
- Character Attacks with reach(Standard Action)
- Character Draws something from his belt(Move Action)

Is there any prohibition against an animal companion or mount readying?

Does anyone know the official answer for whether you can alternate actions between the mount and the character?

- Mount Rides 30' (Move Action)
- Character Attacks with reach(Standard Action)
- Mount Rides 50' (Standard Action -- already used the move)
- Character Draws something from his belt(Move Action)

I always took "acted on the same initiative" to be an interchangeable action set -- am I wrong?

It's reasonable that you could flap your wings and hover (assuming a medium creature with wings can actually hover, but we don't want to go down that road).

Smirk. Yeah, what did they calculate the wingspan of a small pony-pegasus needed to be in order to fly? I think it was something like 40ft.

You can't take actions that involve two hands when grappled.

Does that mean that you can't flap both wings? Maybe.

Face it; the rules don't tell us. Claxon imagines a telekinetic force around the body, legs, or arms. With this interpretation the beastie can flap and flap to stay aloft like a bird on a kite string.

Tiny Coffee Golem (cool name) imagines that the force has entangled the wings.

If you want to argue -- argue the premise not the conclusion. I would posit that because your size actually does affect the grapple; I imagine a force effect no larger than the caster wrapping up the target.

The CMD normally adds both Strength and Dex. As the caster has substituted Int for one of these (Strength or Dex) then the caster would still get to apply the other to the CMD (normally dex).

So the CMD is 10 + Dex Modifier higher than the CMB.

Rules as written it seems that the size modifier would apply as well if you had a small caster, or a tiny familiar. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense but that is how it parses out to me. So casting "enlarge Person" on yourself increases your CMB for Telekinesis.

@MachOneGames

One's a class feature, the other's a feat. It pretty clearly states "the spell can target only the warpriest, even if it could normally affect other or multiple targets." It does not state that the spell becomes Range: Personal. It states that the warpriest is the only applicable target.

In addition, the casting spell on self part of Improved Spell Sharing states that you cast a spell on yourself as part of the usage of the feat - not the other way around.

Sorry, I don't think I was being clear enough. I believe that they should work together since the ISS feat seems to kick in after you have cast a spell on yourself. The Fervor class feature allows you to cast a spell as a swift action so long as it only targets you.

So, you cast a spell on you (using fervor); then, you have a feat that can adjust that action. ISS alters spells that are cast on you . I wouldn't make it any more complicated than that.

Imagine that you had a ability that could only put gold in blue buckets and an ability that allowed you to instantly move gold from a blue bucket into a yellow one. You wouldn't argue you couldn't use the first ability because the gold isn't going to end up in a blue bucket. You use the first ability, then you use the second.

From the nature's oracle bonded mount feature.

Bonded mounts have an Intelligence score of at least 6.

Adding the celestial template is not germaine.

"you can cast a spell on yourself"

There is no specific vs. general here. You have two feats.

Them seem to combine just fine because the ISS has you cast the spell on yourself... then let ISS divide the duration. You still cast on yourself and meet the requirement from fervor.

You are the target of the spell; it gets shared after it is cast according to the wording.

If an enemy is firing at archers behind an invisible wall with arrow slits what bonus would the defenders get? +8AC with a 50% miss chance?

+8AC for the arrow slit
Add a 50% miss chance for the invisible nature of the wall?

What about if the slits were shuttered with an iron shutter? A wizard could use an open/close cantrip to shutter-up the slits immediately after the friendly archers fire.

MachOneGames wrote:

Ssalarn wrote:

...assuming you have early access to Mounted Skirmisher, by dipping Sohei or something similar).

You are right that between levels 7-13 you kinda yearn for it.

How would the dip help? The feat has a skill rank requirement. Is there something about the Sohei that I missed as far as qualifying for the feats?

Monks ignore prereqs for their bonus feats, and the Sohei can grab mounted feats as bonus feats. So you can snag Mounted Skirmisher right out the gate and flurry from horseback if you want.

Okay, that's cool. It seems a bit cheesy. Act in the surprise round, +2 on all saves and a 14th level feat early without having to take trick riding. Sacrifice a BAB and level-dependent abilities. Hmm.

...assuming you have early access to Mounted Skirmisher, by dipping Sohei or something similar).

You are right that between levels 7-13 you kinda yearn for it.

How would the dip help? The feat has a skill rank requirement. Is there something about the Sohei that I missed as far as qualifying for the feats?

I'm just not certain if the game actually allows for breaking up a movement like that, or if it's all considered one move[/url].

If you have any clear ruling I'd love to hear about it. It makes sense to split it up to me, but I know that it sounds discordant to others.

... so there isn't really any way to have both rider and mount attack in the middle of a movement.

I agree. It seems goofy to try to attack with the mount from both a rules and simulationist point of view. There are times when it is warranted, but mostly it seems cheesy.

I often attack a creature at range, and if the mount has only taken one move, I command it to guard -- so that if an enemy steps up towards it a bite/trip is triggered.

If you have lunge you can attack from 15' with a reach weapon. You threaten range 1 and 2, while your mount threatens range 0 and 1. An enemy can no longer 5' step to get past your reach; if they charge they trigger the wolf's readied action and may get bitten and tripped. If they get tripped the charge ends and the movement provokes an attack from the rider.

Your mount moves on your initiative. Most GM's assume that you can interchange actions.

If your mount has a move of 50' do the following with mounted skirmisher:

1) Have your mount use a move action to move 25'
2) Make a full attack with your rider.
3) Have your mount use a move action to move 25'

The rules for mounted skirmisher say "if your mount moves its speed or less" not "takes only one move action."

Get some horseshoes of speed and take the racer archetype and you have a fast-moving striker.

Now you can't use this in conjunction with any charge feats because charging is a full-round action.

Instead of double-damage and +2 on to hit you get the ability to move-in, full-attack, and withdraw.

I'd take 2,3,or 4 attacks (albeit at a lower attack) over a single ride-by attack. Again, at the risk of upsetting people, I am advocating against charge feats.

...you aren't capable of strategic thought...Might be wise to stop practicing your snide smirk and focus on learning how to think tactically.

I am sorry that I suggested a different approach. It seems to have upset you. I have been successfully playing a mounted character (halfling with wolf) without any charge feats for a while.

The reasons why the charges don't work with a small character with a reach weapon have been documented elsewhere.

I don't care to convince you. I put it out there to encourage others that movement and action economy have advantages that don't jump off the sheet. I prefer to play my characters than build them.

Iron Giant's concept seems really strong. And he has some helpful suggestions.
" Trying to do anything interesting like Wheeling Charge with a mount in a PFS game is going to be a real headache."

Yes, that was where I was coming from when I decided to ditch the whole feat tree and focus on other stuff. It works fine for me but not for Ssalarn -- but he is obviously smarter than me.

Charging only requires a 10 foot line and there are numerous ways to deal with things like difficult terrain.

ONLY requires two open spaces directly between you and the opponent you want to attack? Shortest route between you and a target 20' from you is 1 or two routes; the possible routes are about 60. Not being constrained to a direct route is thirty times more useful. If you only do half as much damage it doesn't matter because you can do it twice. You pick who you are fighting, not the other way around.

In giving up your charge you are sacrificing your ability to stay competitive in melee in exchange for some extra movement that isn't going to actually matter all that much if you're in an area where charges are so infeasible.

Yes, the extra movement matters because you can turn and jump through your movement.

Again, ride around the front line opponents and hit the caster and ride back to safety. The enemy is forced to move to get to you, or forced to ready actions to react to your next assault. Carry a silenced item into the middle of the casters... the possibilities are endless.

Just because you do less damage than a front-line fighter doesn't make the tactic less effective. The front-line fighter is exposed to damage. You can assail the enemy and force them to follow you into the ambush of your allies.

Learning how to effectively execute your charge and navigate dungeons with a mount is going to pay off far better than just deciding to ignore the most effective component of mounted melee combat.

Smirk. On your turn there is either a legal charge or there isn't. It isn't really a question of "learning" anything. If your enemy is aware of the charging rules they will negate your ability to make the charge. Sometimes on the first round you may have the opportunity to charge the melee-focused opponents. Again, it isn't something you can take credit for.

In normal dungeon scenarios most of the feats that people associate with mounted combat don't work. There are too many ways to disrupt a charge and too many rules surrounding them.

My advice is to give up on everything that relates to charging and build your mounted characters around movement. The charge mechanic is just too frustrating, but moving your character 100' or more in a round and swatting at things is fun. Especially when you ride into an area, make an attack, and ride out.

Why build feats around ride-by-attack when it is nerfed by not being able to charge? Your mount can double-move; and you can attack once without investing any feats. Spend your feats on things that help you do damage and lunge. Lunge is an essential feat for a mounted character.

Building a character around six feats that can be nullified by a 5 degree turn in the middle of a 100' move doesn't make any sense. Players get too excited by the "potential" for damage to realize that every monster in the game knows how to disrupt those feats.

Get rid of charging and you will have fun playing a mounted character.

Are you really trying to say this is an issue?

No. I suppose I should have prefaced a disclaimer. Something like "the following statement is patently absurd..."

How I feel: A character using the ride skill to perform an action like "mounted combat" ought to be astride some kind of creature suitable to be ridden and in a generally conscious and upright position. I don't believe that you should be able to make ride checks when your mount is dead, unconscious, paralyzed, swimming, or otherwise unable to respond to your commands.

I think a halfling jumping on the back of an ally to deflect incoming attacks is absurd. It is even more silly if the ally is unconscious or paralyzed and sounds like Monty Pathfinder's Flying Circus.

Sorry for the confusion. :)

I was making two separate points in my previous points.

Point 1) Mounted combat should be the action of the rider controlling the mount; not intercepting attacks without the connection of the mount. Otherwise it wouldn't rely on your riding skill, but your blocking skill.

Point 2) Mounted builds are not expensive. 1 skill rank in a class skill is sufficient for a mounted character. Use your mounts speed and utilize a reach weapon. No feats required.

So, how about a halfling "riding" on a human's shoulders and using the ride check to negate hits on them?

Better still if the tactic still works if the human mount is incapacitated. It is much easier to get a high ride skill than a high AC.

"Mounted combat is a risky endeavor, requiring fairly extensive investment of both feats and skills."

Heavy investment? Skip all of the charge feats because charging is stupid; and you have mounted combat, skill focus (ride), trick riding, and mounted skirmisher left as worthwhile. Of these you don't require any. Mounted Combat isn't a bad feat. Trick riding is the gateway to Mounted skirmisher.

Get a ride skill of 4 and you are ok -- typically an investment of one skill point. Invest 1 skill point into a class skill and you can't fail the "guide with knees" check.

Get a reach weapon and use your speed to ride past your opponent and hit them. Don't bother trying to get your mount to attack; forget trying to charge. These worthless tactics are easily nullified. Just use your increased speed and action economy. You use your move action to draw a potion or do something, ready an attack, then as a free action get your mount to double move. when you get into range your free action triggers and then your mount rides away. Rinse and repeat. You can't fail the ride check (DC 5) if you have 4 skill.

A mounted character should not be built the same way as a front-line fighter.

I don't mean to come off as a prick; but I want to sternly encourage you to accept that intuition is part of the game. It won't be better when you wring the last bit of ambiguity out of it. It will be sterile and dead.

The game doesn't belong to the ruling class.

Think about it.

I expect that the ride skill would have to apply to a conscious mount capable of moving; just like the swim skill would require that the water would not be frozen; or, the reading skills would require the writing to be visible. You won't find any of those exceptions listed in the rule-book.

I don't think even the most ardent RAW-player would approve paralyzed mounts being directed out of harm's way. I would caution that if you are able to read a rule and parse it into "descriptive" and "functional" text, then you may be on the path to "the dark side."

Rules form a skeleton -- but a living, breathing game requires all the squishy bits like organs and skin. Every game table benefits from a good rules-lawyer and a good narrativist. Don't spend all your time trying to separate one from the other. You need both. Stop crushing your own intuition.

I see that someone has marked this for FAQ. How in the hell can this be an FAQ candidate? Seriously, can I direct a paralyzed mount?

Sigh.

D&D is not and has never really been a simulator game

It used to sit at the cross-roads between a story and a game. When the grognards get together and pine for "good 'ol fashioned D&D" they don't want the old ruleset back -- they want a table where Simulation, Narrative, and Game all co-exist.

Respect the Rules.
Care about your Character.
Imagine the Story.

I used to teach martial arts and weapon arts. Power comes from the legs and body moving together. The arms are used at the end. Thrust, push-cut, and pull-cut are all driven by the whole body. Having four arms would not be twice as effective as two. You would be interfering with your own lines of attack.

This is one of those few instances where the rules make a bit of sense to a simulationist. Capping the total strength bonus at 1.5 seems to make sense. You can't move in four directions at once.

If I had a four-armed character I would put two short defensive weapons in my bottom set of hands - probably bucklers. I would use these extra hands to grab when the opportunity arose.

A four armed character could be an incredible grappler.

Hodor is a great example of an int 3 creature.

Not really a good example at all. Walder likely has expressive aphasia and can only say one word... "Hodor". He is able to take commands and we have no way of knowing how much he understands. There could be a wide disparity between his language use and comprehension.

Not a good candidate for an example of a scale.

The name "Cavalier" means horseman. Caval...Cheval...horse. In fantasy we can expand the horseman to mean a mounted on a steed. It would be funny to have a horseman that didn't ride anything. Dropping the idea of the mount is like suggesting that there are non-religious Clerics.

I think you are in the "right." The mechanics would be slightly different I think, but the gist is correct from Narrative, Simulationist, and Gamist perspective.

I would treat dropping the bomb as a readied action... Ie. when I die I let go of the bottle. The bomb falling is a free action, but the effect is the same. Is there someone close enough to catch the bomb?

If they haven't taken any actions to mitigate the threat I don't see that they should be able to thwart it. It sounds like they are too smug in the rules to read the situation. Pathfinder is a game really weak on tactics. Players can get hypnotised by the "Bash-him-till-he-is-dead" mindset.

Just a quick question on how Improved Share Spells and Spell Sponge interact...

Share Spells: The wizard may cast a spell with a target of “You” on his familiar (as a touch spell) instead of on himself. A wizard may cast spells on his familiar even if the spells do not normally affect creatures of the familiar's type (magical beast).

Improved Share Spells: Any non-instantaneous spell (but not any spell-like ability) you cast on yourself can also affect a creature bonded to you (such as an animal companion, eidolon, familiar, or special mount).

As a follow up, share spells allows me to cast a spell on my familiar that I normally couldn't. Improved share spells allows me to cast on myself and have it function on my familiar if she stays within range.

Why does the improved version switch the target from the familiar to the caster? Note that share spells is not one of the requirements for Improved Share Spells. The only relationship they seem to have is the name. Wouldn't it be more consistent to cast the spell on the familiar and you get the benefit if you stay within range?

Would you allow a caster to designate the target of the spell as either the caster or the familiar -- a choice they have at the "share spells" level?

Just a quick question on how Improved Share Spells and Spell Sponge interact... how do you calculate the duration of those spells? Spell sponge doubles the duration on your familiar. Improved share spells forces you to divide the duration between you and your familiar. So, which math is done first?

In the example of a wizard casts a ten round spell it would normally, with Improved share spells, last 5 rounds each. However, the Spell sponge increases the duration on the familiar.

1) 5 rounds on the Wizard; 10 on the Familiar? Apply share spells first, then apply spell sponge.

2) 10 rounds on each? Wizard casts the spell on the familiar. Spell sponge kicks in and doubles the duration to 20; then it is divided amongst them according to Improved Share Spells.

3) 7 rounds on each? One would last 10, the other would last 20; so you average it to 15 and divide them.

I think I would go with reading 1. I'm playing the wizard in question and I think that reading 2 is a bit cheesy. Especially since I'll be employing a double-telekinesis tactic to push things into my pits.

She's got the Tongues curse, and she thinks it's a blessing that prevents her from being mind controlled by demons and devils, since they'll have no common language. (Yeah, she's a bit naive. It's a lot of fun to play her.)

I like that. Kudos.

Dual-cursed Oracle is a good class to dip in for 7 or 8 levels. You can pick four good revelations and then get out to find a prestige class to finish off with: Nature's Warden, Divine Scion.

I wish there was a better selection of revelations too. If there were it would be a decent class to stay in. But you are 100% on point. It is not that great of a class to stick around in.

The build I am considering is Pally (2), Oracle (8), Divine Scion (10). You pick up the deity and weapon as a Pally following a God; you have a life-altering mystical divine experience that changes the way you view your divinity; then you become a scion of that God -- seeing things in a way that no others from your religion do.

You get 18 levels of casting, excellent saves, and the scion gives your character some punch. You have to be careful to pick a domain with spells that you will cast a lot to get the benefit of the healing.

My other thought is Pally(2),Oracle(8), Ranger Warden(1), Monk Sohei(1), Nature Warden (8). If you have the nature oracle and the boon companion feat, your mount will be at full power; your saves are ridiculous; your casting is reasonable (15th); and you have a big bag of tricks -- acting in the surprise round, Misfortune, Nature's Whispers, Friend to Animals (to improve the saves of those Silver-clawed animals you summon), and favoured terrain. Make her a halfling with the ability to lend a saving throw and you have a phenomenal support character.

Yeah, they could do with some better curses.

Ravenous/hungry curse
Nervous curse
Faceless curse
Unreliable curse
tardy curse
unlucky curse
untrusted curse
enigmatic curse
anathema curse

it makes you want to forgo the whole curse mechanism, but I like the concept.

MachOneGames wrote:

If I was pushed by a player I would suggest that creatures don't typically roll d20's. It is a player or a GM who did the rolling -- on behalf of a creature. Creatures mostly take actions and stuff. But, if you see one rolling a d20, have at it!

This is flat out horrible. It makes the ability absolutely useless. If you don't want them using it, just say it and let them ditch the archetype.

That was tongue and cheek. At some point GM's have to take responsibility for their games. My point was that there is always a stupid way to read a rule. Just because I can successfully argue a point doesn't mean I should. You have to look at the context of the game and an ability. Others have made this point.

Nerfed: Only applies to creatures who are rolling dice.
Moderate: Forces a creature's(enemy) controller to re-roll a good result.
Good: Forces any creature's (enemy or ally)controller to re-roll any result.
Cheesy: Allow the Oracle player to re-roll for their own character.

Rules-as-written favours cheesy. I don't want cheesy at my gaming table. I encourage players to get the most out of a game, not get the most out of the wording of a rule.

Maybe you even strike a compromise -- have it level up at fifth/seventh level to work on allies or some such.

Again, the most salient point has already been made. If you read it that way it makes the 5th Level Revelation Fortune very weak indeed.

MachOneGames wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

Castarr4 wrote:

Yes, you can use it on yourself. It's very powerful. You'll always be wishing for more immediate actions though.

Can you provide some rules basis for that interpretation?

"you can force a creature" does not read like it works on oneself.

I can force myself to eat cabbage.

And that is written as "you can force any creature, including yourself" to eat cabbage.

Laughed out loud.

Castarr4 wrote:

Yes, you can use it on yourself. It's very powerful. You'll always be wishing for more immediate actions though.

Can you provide some rules basis for that interpretation?

"you can force a creature" does not read like it works on oneself.

I can force myself to eat cabbage.

RAW -- I would go with yes. You are a creature. You are within 30feet.

However, I would always rule No if I was GMing.

If I was pushed by a player I would suggest that creatures don't typically roll d20's. It is a player or a GM who did the rolling -- on behalf of a creature. Creatures mostly take actions and stuff. But, if you see one rolling a d20, have at it!

Hey, there's a kangaroo companion. It's a bit underwhelming power-wise, though.

Are you looking for a bunny that boxes, kicks, headbutts, or bites?

I think that is a really close fit. Having had rabbits I can assure you that they kick, headbutt, and bite. Never seen them box though. :) I saw a great video online of a kangaroo putting a choke-hold on another one and knocking it out cold. Did you also know that kangaroos are good swimmers? When they are confronted by dingos they will swim out a bit, turn around, and then drown the dingos by holding them underwater. Kangaroos have massive arms -- I don't know why PF gave them a STR of 11. Anyhow -- I like your bunny-rider.

I'd use the kangaroo stats too. I think they fit giant bunny better than kangaroo anyhow.

Damn. Should have picked the over, thought this thread would be locked by 150.

It was really off-putting when they shut down the last discussion. I get into animated conversations with my family and friends all the time. It isn't a sign of disrespect to disagree.

I thought locking the thread was more disrespectful than anything that was said. It's kind of like saying "you guys aren't talking about anything important." Which is funny because the thread morphed directly into -- what is a set of rules for an RPG; which is a pretty central question. At the risk of getting banned or shunned or whatever they do in Paizo-world, it seems really juvenile to lock a thread like that.

Is there a middle ground that Malachi and Mr. T. share philosophically, or is the pursuit pointless -- are there two games? Big stuff. Inflammatory stuff. Interesting stuff to me.

There's no Ride commnad that would allow your mount to attack though, and the "Attack" command is specifically taught to Combat Trained mounts. Combat Training is, of course, frequently referenced in the Ride skill. Are we assuming that the intent there was that horses should be doubling as guard dogs that respond to an actual pointed finger and attack command?

Point doesn't actually require a finger. Since there's not a definition in game, you use the dictionary definition:

verb (used with object)
61. to direct (the finger, a weapon, the attention, etc.) at, to, or upon something.
62. to indicate the presence or position of (usually followed by out ): to point out an object in the sky.
63. to direct attention to (usually followed by out ): to point out the advantages of a proposal.
*
75. to indicate position or direction, as with the finger.
76. to direct the mind or thought in some direction; call attention to: Everything points to his guilt.
*

I think there's plenty of room in there for a definition of "point" that doesn't actually involve leaning over the mount's neck with a finger extended.

Sure, I'd concede that point. Who would have thought that there were 76 entries in the dictionary for "point"?

I agree with you that it seems to be more of a guard-dog wording -- "go get him spot!" or "Sick 'um Silver!" Which was my point (not finger but view). It is worded as a guarding command not as a riding command.

Skills don't automatically fail on a 1. If you have at least +4 on ride checks this shouldn't be happening to you.

Thanks guys! I owe you a beer.

I run into this a lot in a game where I play a samurai wolf-riding halfling.

It is a DC 5 to control with the knees. I wield a naginata (two handed reach weapon) so I cannot attack at 5'. I have ride maxed right out. However it is a 5' step to get to range. If I roll a 1 I fail my guide-with knees check and loose all my attacks for the round ( I need two hands to weild the naginata).

I roll a lot of 1's on this check. Sometimes 3 times in a combat. It nullifies my character pretty well. I can't use an equestrian belt or trick riding to pass the DC 5 ride check because they were written for light and medium armor. Although the samurai does not get an armor penalty for heavy armor -- it is still heavy armor and eliminates me from taking those options.

I never charge. Charging is so messed up that I prefer to ride around and take my one attack, or hold the line. That 5' step of my wolf screws me up in almost every combat.

I have thought about ditching the naginata in favour of the katana that I could still wield one-handed. I've thought about ditching my armor to save the ride check. In the end it takes a lot of fun out of a character concept I really like.

So, this is why I went on these forums to look for solutions to reach, riding, etc. If anyone has any suggestions I would sure be open. Whatever you suggest will be rule-lawyered to hell at the other end of the table, so it has to be a RAW solution.

Help my fierce little halfling ride into battle... thanks!

@MOG

Actually, if you look at the Ride and Handle Animal skills, there's very little overlap between them. Ride is pretty much always something you do while mounted, and Handle Animal covers things you want the animal to do. Just read the skills. Ride = you do stuff , Handle Animal = the animal does stuff.

I also don't think "pointing" with the reins is a crazy idea by any stretch of the imagination.

Not crazy. I just think that "pointing with your reins" is normally called riding. :)

If you were on the back of a war elephant can you point to the target of the attack? No. Is there a way to command an elephant to attack in Pathfinder in your interpretation without some elaborated mirror-mechanism?

It seems as if the handle animal rules are written with the expectation that you direct your commands so that the animal can see both you and the target. This excludes riding.

"You may point to a particular creature that you wish the animal to attack, and it will comply if able."

Two skills -- one for your abilities (based on Dex) and one for your ability to control the animal (based on CHA) -- makes sense. I'm not saying you are wrong, but I read it differently.

That reminds me; it was mentioned earlier that the square root of nine has two valid answers: +3 and -3.

You have nine oranges. Arrange them into a square. How many oranges are in each row? Is 'minus three' a valid number of oranges in a row?

I haven't noticed any Pathfinder or other d20 system rule based on the mathematics of quantum physics. A non-weapon object either threatens or it doesn't.

Minus three is not a valid answer. One and two are valid answers also. I can arrange a square so that the first row has one orange, the second row has two, the third row has three, the fourth row has two, and the fifth row has one.

Sometimes things that we think only have one answer... have many.

"I'm pretty sure you can point in such a way as to let your mount see what you're pointing at."

Can I see a drawing or picture of what that would look like?

The mount has to be able to trace the path of your finger to the target. Horses have eyes on the sides of their head. You might be able to get the animal to see your finger, but that isn't nearly the same thing. In the cases that you could wouldn't you be distracting your horse? Forcing it to turn its head up and expose its neck to the enemy.

This is the kind of absurd argument people make when they cling to an idea. You direct your horse by riding not pointing.

the rules for directing animals and mounts are detailed in the Handle Animal skill,

If the "Handle Animal" is meant to apply to mounts, just because they are animals, how do they know where you are pointing?

"You may point to a particular creature that you wish the animal to attack, and it will comply if able. "

If you are on top of a mount it will not see what you are pointing at. Rules-As-Written you therefore cannot command a mount to attack unless you dismount, get in the line-of-sight, and direct it with pointing.

My 2 cents is that use of handle animal is not meant for riding. You use handle animal to train your mount; you use ride to ride it. If you are not on top of your mount you would use handle animal to direct it.

This seems natural, logical, and consistent with the rules.

I mentioned that you only have two hands to wield weapons with, and that all weapons with a weapon size require a set number of hands, and an appropriately sized longspear is a two-handed weapon, thus you cannot wield an improvised weapon at the same time as you wield it as a longspear. Blackbloodtroll claimed this was incorrect, and a bunch of people favorited his post, so I posted this with my reasonings and quotes from the FAQ and developer in support of that rule. After that it got quiet; I don't know if BBT has newer information that supercedes this and just hasn't seen my rebuttal, or if the FAQ and Mark Morelands comments are the most relevant rule.

Note though, that regardless of how this is ruled, threatening both reach and adjacent simultaneously is incredibly easy regardless. Just wield a small longspear in one hand and you have a hand free for using a spiked armor or boot blade or dagger or whatever light or one-handed weapon you want to use. You get a -2 on the spear attacks, but no penalty on the other attacks, so it also is generally more beneficial than -4 on the adjacent attacks for improvising the longspear; there is no balance issue here.

So, are you suggesting that you should threaten both simultaneously? I am inferring this from your case you are making about game balance.

I'll have that discussion with you.

My first "gut" instinct is that you are either threatening 5' improvised, or threatening with reach at the end of your turn. Someone else brought that up a few pages ago and it seems reasonable to me.

Yes, at this point we are just making up rules. In the way I play I do that all the time. Besides, this is the "Rules" forum; not the "Rules-as-Written" forum right?

Note how some weapons can do slashing and piercing damage... there the rules indicate that weapon statistics already encompass all uses.

We've already seen the longsword brought up (slashing not piercing damage). Does that mean that in the Pathfinder world nobody gets stabbed with swords? In reality that would make plate armor incredibly effective. In order to pierce plate you would have to half-hand against the weak spots. Slash all day long -- it won't do a thing.

You see the gamists like paragraph one and hate paragraph two. The simulationists like paragraph two and hate paragraph one. In general.