|
FIRST! The Relevant text.....
RIDE-BY ATTACK [GENERAL]
Prerequisites: Ride 1 rank, Mounted Combat.
Benefit: When you are mounted and use the charge action, you may move and attack as if with a standard charge and then move again (continuing the straight line of the charge). Your total movement for the round can’t exceed double your mounted speed. You and your mount do not provoke an attack of opportunity from the opponent that you attack.
Special: A fighter may select Ride-By Attack as one of his fighter bonus feats.
CHARGE
Charging is a special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action. However, it carries tight restrictions on how you can move.
Movement During a Charge: You must move before your attack, not after. You must move at least 10 feet (2 squares) and may move up to double your speed directly toward the designated opponent. You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles). Here’s what it means to have a clear path. First, you must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent. (If this space is occupied or otherwise blocked, you can’t charge.) Second, if any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through a square that blocks movement, slows movement, or contains a creature (even an ally), you can’t charge. (Helpless creatures don’t stop a charge.)
Now here is my issue with all this, if I am mounted and decide to do a ride-by-attack, by definition I have to charge(move directly toward the opponent) which will leave me in the square before the opponent, then in order to "continue the straight line of the charge" I would have to move through the opponent. That doesn't work.
By RAW you could never(or almost never) Ride-by-attack because of the wording of Charge and Ride By Attack. Is there something I am missing? I understand that I can figure out a houserule to fix it but I think I have to be missing an important bit of text that fixes this.
Is there something I am missing?
I've not really experienced the rule in practice but I've certainly seen complaints about it being impossible to follow before. Have you checked to see if the errata or FAQ have a fix?
If not your down to house ruling.
Now here is my issue with all this, if I am mounted and decide to do a ride-by-attack, by definition I have to charge(move directly toward the opponent) which will leave me in the square before the opponent, then in order to "continue the straight line of the charge" I would have to move through the opponent. That doesn't work.
By RAW you could never(or almost never) Ride-by-attack because of the wording of Charge and Ride By Attack. Is there something I am missing?
Yes, there is something you are missing. Let's return to the charge description and we see this line that you didn't bold.
First, you must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent. (If this space is occupied or otherwise blocked, you can’t charge.)
The closest space, not the most direct square, so take the following situation (A=attacker, D=defender):
A########
####D####
then if they charged they would attack (assuming a non-reach weapon):
###A#####
####D####
And if they had ride-by attack, they could end:
########A
####D####
But you are right, if you are already in line with them already, then generally you wouldn't benefit from Ride-by attack [EDIT: see an example below to see how you could still make it work]. Of course their are some instances that could still help, both mount and rider are incorporeal, perhaps there is 3-dimensional combat and so they are a different vertical level, the rider and mount, or the defender are 3 sizes larger. Perhaps this could be combined with overrun or bull rush (without looking I think at least bull rush requires a standard action so probably not [unless the mount did the bull rush, maybe?]).
But the above example is probably the most typical use of the ride-by attack. Coming at a foe to a square that could count as the "closest" to make an attack, but that would allow movement past the target in a straight line.
EDIT: As an alternative example, remember it must be the closest (how you define that may not be based on real world factors but game factors, for example I base it on how far you move). So you could have a situation like:
A###D####
#########
#########
And if the attacker charged to the following location to attack from which is the same distance as the square right in front of the defender:
####D####
###A#####
#########
Then they could finish their movement, assuming ride-by attack of course:
####D####
#########
######A##
|
I suppose by a literal reading of RAW, it wouldn't be possible. But think of a Ride-By Attack as knights jousting. They are charging, but not right directly at each other, and ride by each other afterwards.
But you don't have to charge to the square directly in front of your opponent. According to the charge description, you must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent [italics mine]. While this is normally the square in front of someone, for a Ride-By Attack, this could also be an adjacent square, thus allowing continued movement after the charge.
EDIT: pres man beat me to it, but the problem is created by forcing real movement to a grid. By RAW, if you are in direct line with an opponent, you wouldn't be able to Ride-By Attack, as the closest square would be directly in front. Of course, with real movement, you could charge your opponent at a slight angle and still be able to attack and ride by. But any other spacing, using diagonal movement on the grid, should be enough to allow Ride-By Attack.
|
|
Ok, I see. That clears it up somewhat, but what about a huge or bigger foe? If I stand 3 squares away from it with both of us having the same wall running next to us, a 10' charge straight ahead or 15' to charge on an angle to pull off the Ride-by, further if the creature is larger than huge. How would that be justified?
Ok, I see. That clears it up somewhat, but what about a huge or bigger foe? If I stand 3 squares away from it with both of us having the same wall running next to us, a 10' charge straight ahead or 15' to charge on an angle to pull off the Ride-by, further if the creature is larger than huge. How would that be justified?
Ride-by attack is fairly useless if you're in constricted areas (like, with walls and stuff) that impede your line of movement. I think the idea is that you're out in the open, with room to gallop around.
Ok, I see. That clears it up somewhat, but what about a huge or bigger foe? If I stand 3 squares away from it with both of us having the same wall running next to us, a 10' charge straight ahead or 15' to charge on an angle to pull off the Ride-by, further if the creature is larger than huge. How would that be justified?
Ok, let's assume a medium sized rider and a large mount.
If the target is colossal, then the attacker can ride right through his square. So in that case it would be totally justified (think of the scene in Return of the King with the riders of rohan and the oliphants.
Square Occupied by Creature Three Sizes Larger or Smaller: Any creature can move through a square occupied by a creature three size categories larger than it is.
A big creature can move through a square occupied by a creature three size categories smaller than it is.
But you're right, in that very constrictive set up that you describe, I don't believe it would be possible to get the benefit from ride-by attack, since you have to move to a square that has to qualify as the "closest" to make an attack from (you can get make one diagonal with no extra movement counted, but you can't make two). Ok, so in some situations you can't use ride-by attack. That hardly makes it worthless though. That just means that you should probably use a reach weapon, and work a little harder getting into a good position (i.e. not standing next to a wall with a huge or bigger creature only 15 ft away).
Hey I have another question that is related....
On a Ride by Attack would my rhino get his gore attack also?
I would say ... no? From my reading of the feat, I get the impression that it is only the rider that gets to actually attack, though your mount could perhaps attack another foe past the first one (in the same line). But I get the feeling that if your mount attacks, you stop your movement, otherwise I think your mount needs spring attack.
So if the Rhino got spring attack he could attack at the same time as me in a ride by attack?
That's how I'd rule it as a DM, though even if your mount didn't attack, I would still give it the penalty to AC for the charge.
So if the Rhino got spring attack he could attack at the same time as me in a ride by attack?
For some reason I had to chuckle when I thought of a Rhino with Spring Attack . . . probably because I usually picture it as a person bouncing around like Yoda in the prequels when they attack and move on.
Hm . . . Dancing Rhino Charge . . . that could be a good name for a power in . . . ah, nevermind.
|
Just remember that Spring Attack doesn't let a creature go faster than its move speed(as opposed to Ride-By Attack allowing you to go no faster than double your mount's move speed), therefore, Spring Attack used by your mount in conjunction with you using Ride-By would cut the overall distance you travel in a single round by half. At least, it should as a method of balance.
Not to mention the DC 10 ride check for staying on the mount while it fights....that would be embarrasing to fail...but at least it is a free action...
The ride check is to see if you can attack when your mount attacks, not to stay in the saddle (which is a different check).
Just remember that Spring Attack doesn't let a creature go faster than its move speed(as opposed to Ride-By Attack allowing you to go no faster than double your mount's move speed), therefore, Spring Attack used by your mount in conjunction with you using Ride-By would cut the overall distance you travel in a single round by half. At least, it should as a method of balance.
Good catch. Technically speaking, you can't charge and use spring attack simultaneously.
When using the attack action with a melee weapon, you can move both before and after the attack, provided that your total distance moved is not greater than your speed.
Attack actions are a special kind of standard action and distinct from a charge. So I'm afraid, no dice on that account. But, Pres Man, can you give a little clarification on your ruling re: Ride-By-Attack? I think I'm coming to a different conclusion than you, and would like to understand your thought process more before proceeding.
|
|
Actually, now that I've read up on it all really well, I gotta disagree. I think the Rhino does get an attack during a Ride-by.
From mounted combat-
Combat while Mounted: With a DC 5 Ride check, you can guide your mount with your knees so as to use both hands to attack or defend yourself. This is a free action.
When you attack a creature smaller than your mount that is on foot, you get the +1 bonus on melee attacks for being on higher ground. If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only make a single melee attack. Essentially, you have to wait until the mount gets to your enemy before attacking, so you can’t make a full attack. Even at your mount’s full speed, you don’t take any penalty on melee attacks while mounted.
If your mount charges, you also take the AC penalty associated with a charge. If you make an attack at the end of the charge, you receive the bonus gained from the charge. When charging on horseback, you deal double damage with a lance (see Charge).
And from Ride-By-Attack-
RIDE-BY ATTACK [GENERAL]
Prerequisites: Ride 1 rank, Mounted Combat.
Benefit: When you are mounted and use the charge action, you may move and attack as if with a standard charge and then move again (continuing the straight line of the charge). Your total movement for the round can’t exceed double your mounted speed. You and your mount do not provoke an attack of opportunity from the opponent that you attack.
Nothing stating that the mount doesn't attack, plus I am not charging. The mount is.
"If your mount charges, you also take the AC penalty associated with a charge. If you make an attack at the end of the charge, you receive the bonus gained from the charge. When you are mounted and use the charge action, you may move and attack as if with a standard charge and then move again (continuing the straight line of the charge)."
Nowhere in the text of any of the relevant actions/feats does it exclude the mount's Charge attack. If fact it states that the action is a charge and that the mount is performing the action but that I can continue the line of movement. If the mount doesn't get an attack then the movement wouldn't be classified as a charge.
I have presented the facts and I really can see no grounds to rule that my mount wouldn't get an attack in the Ride-By-Attack action.
|
This could have been covered, but I have always ruled that you charge in a straight line, but you can attack any square you threaten at the end of the charge (for a medium creature, this is the square in front of them and to the left and right of that square).
Thus, no problem with ride-by-attack.
On a similar note, did you know a "line" effect of a spell works out to 10 feet wide on the battle grid (ie. two creatures side by side get hit by a breath weapon going between them)?
Now you know.
EDIT:
have presented the facts and I really can see no grounds to rule that my mount wouldn't get an attack in the Ride-By-Attack action.
Well, technically since your mount does not have the ride-by-attack or spring attack feat, it cannot execute the move you describe. And as far as I can tell, ride-by does not cancel the effects of charging on you (it does not provide a clear exception to the normal rule you mentioned).
|
|
Now here is my issue with all this, if I am mounted and decide to do a ride-by-attack, by definition I have to charge(move directly toward the opponent) which will leave me in the square before the opponent, then in order to "continue the straight line of the charge" I would have to move through the opponent. That doesn't work.
By RAW you could never(or almost never) Ride-by-attack because of the wording of Charge and Ride By Attack. Is there something I am missing? I understand that I can figure out a houserule to fix it but I think I have to be missing an important bit of text that fixes this.
Is there something I am missing?
You are correct.
There is a FAQ entry which derives from a question I sent to the Sage laying out the same considerations. That FAQ entry suggests an effective house rule that lets the rider make a shift in the line of the charge so he does not have to pass through the target creature's square.The main objection you will get to their being a problem is people insisting that "directly towards" is an irrelevant bit of fluff text, and all you need to do is go by the shortest route possible, allowing you to sideswipe a target at will. I pointed out that if you ignore the entire first paragraph as "flavor text", you can functionally charge if you have a reach weapon by moving away from a target, since the only factor there is getting to the first square you can attack the opponent from.
... you can functionally charge if you have a reach weapon by moving away from a target, since the only factor there is getting to the first square you can attack the opponent from.
Interesting, could you give a better description as to what you mean? Because most reach weapons have 10' of reach. If you are adjacent to a creature you would have to take a 5' step away to attack, I don't see how you could charge in that case (you need to move at least 10' to charge).
|
|
Edit: Sorry, I misread the post originally. I somehow missed the part where you stated being adjacent to the creature. I'll leave my statement in because of the funny image evokes, though. :)
... you can functionally charge if you have a reach weapon by moving away from a target, since the only factor there is getting to the first square you can attack the opponent from.Interesting, could you give a better description as to what you mean? Because most reach weapons have 10' of reach. If you are adjacent to a creature you would have to take a 5' step away to attack, I don't see how you could charge in that case (you need to move at least 10' to charge).
Well, since this is a charge, the mose logical place to attack would be 10' to the sides in front of you, as having your mount stop, hop back 5', attack, then continue the charge would just be silly and look weird.
|
|
Interesting, could you give a better description as to what you mean? Because most reach weapons have 10' of reach. If you are adjacent to a creature you would have to take a 5' step away to attack, I don't see how you could charge in that case (you need to move at least 10' to charge).
Oops, I forgot one element:
You have to be large. (Or larger of course.)If you are large and have a reach weapon, you now have a reach of 15 feet. If you start next to your target, you have to move a minimum of 10 feet to get to the closest square you can attack from. Since you only have to move 10 feet to charge, you can do a quick step 10 feet away to the minimum distance of your reach weapon, and "charge" your opponent.
Stupid? Of course it is. But that is what happens by a strict RAW if you dismiss the first paragraph of "Movement During a Charge" as just "flavor text" or "fluff". Since "directly toward" is only mentioned there, and in fact is never defined anywhere, people like to ignore it.
If you can get people to accept it, I use the diagram example from the D20 Modern rulebook. I believe that demonstrates intent quite clearly. A number of people I have discussed this with violently reject that as a relevant source.
|
|
Oh, and another note:
If you believe you are going to be charged there is a ludicrously simple way to become totally immune.
Just ready an action to step 5 feet forward when the attacker is within striking range. Since you are now no longer in the first square he can attack from, he cannot make the attack at all.
That is right. The way to completely counter a charging knight with a lance is to hold your ground until the last minute, then step right up in front of his horse. You are too close from him to hit, and because his horse cannot overrun as part of a charge, he cannot keep going forward.
Now I know it makes sense that you can just ready to do a move action to the side, "jumping" out of the way at the last minute. It is much more fun to just make the rules cry by stepping up in front of the multi-ton charging behemoth with a 5 foot step and take an attack of your own instead.
Or, you know . . .
Have the DM house rule that back to something rational.
;)
|
|
If you can get people to accept it, I use the diagram example from the D20 Modern rulebook. I believe that demonstrates intent quite clearly. A number of people I have discussed this with violently reject that as a relevant source.
They violently reject the source material? Have you tried violently introducing them to it?
|
|
They violently reject the source material? Have you tried violently introducing them to it?
That gets you violently banned from the WotC forums. I like my single account and single screen name there. :-D
For those in person I simply shrug, and point out that they will not be charging any differently at any table I run, whether they approve of me using the D20 Modern diagram or not.|
|
This would all make more sense if facing was in the game!
EDIT: Deleted some text after reading argument above further. By RAW, charge doesn't work the way I envision it.
FURTHER EDIT: I still believe you can justify interpreting "directly toward" to mean "the target must be in the three squares you are facing when completing the charge". This avoids the whole "attacking while facing away" problem, and fixes ride-by. It also balances charging on angles with charging along the grid, as each has an equal number of valid target squares.
But, Pres Man, can you give a little clarification on your ruling re: Ride-By-Attack? I think I'm coming to a different conclusion than you, and would like to understand your thought process more before proceeding.
Which ruling do you mean? I will say that spring attack would only allow you to move one movement at the speed of your mount, that doesn't necessarily mean that it can't be used in conjunction with ride-by attack. For example, if the mount has a speed of 60, it could easily go 10 ft and then another 50 ft. Though there may be technical issues with it, it was more of an option for allowing an attack by the mount then a RAW ruling (the whole attack action versus charge issue).
Nothing stating that the mount doesn't attack ...
Right, because you don't prove negative statements. If you want to say the mount gets an attack, you have to prove that. Notice in the description:
When you are mounted and use the charge action, you may move and attack as if with a standard charge and then move again (continuing the straight line of the charge). Your total movement for the round can’t exceed double your mounted speed. You and your mount do not provoke an attack of opportunity from the opponent that you attack.
Notice the difference. "You and your mount do not ...", "that you attack". If they had meant for both you and the mount to attack they would have said that. The fact that the attack is always described as "you" seems pretty clear that the mount was not meant to get an attack in this special case.
Of course in the end all that really matters is how the individual group interprets it.
|
|
This would all make more sense if facing was in the game!
I agree. :-P
EDIT: Deleted some text after reading argument above further. By RAW, charge doesn't work the way I envision it.
FURTHER EDIT: I still believe you can justify interpreting "directly toward" to mean "the target must be in the three squares you are facing when completing the charge". This avoids the whole "attacking while facing away" problem, and fixes ride-by. It also balances charging on angles with charging along the grid, as each has an equal number of valid target squares.
To a large degree, that is the problem. On both accounts.
You can, very reasonably, interpret "directly toward" that way. And it solves the problem.The issue arises when you consider the diagram in D20 Modern as a source for RAI. The Sage Advice/FAQ entry supports that as well.
Naturally they failed to clarify this in the Rules Compendium, and 4E changed charged completely so it is not useful as a source for RAI.
In the end, I would go with what Skip Williams suggested and just houserule a direct change to Ride-By Attack. (Or even a general overhaul of mounted combat just to be sure.)
Nothing stating that the mount doesn't attack ...Right, because you don't prove negative statements. If you want to say the mount gets an attack, you have to prove that. Notice in the description:
When you are mounted and use the charge action, you may move and attack as if with a standard charge and then move again (continuing the straight line of the charge). Your total movement for the round can’t exceed double your mounted speed. You and your mount do not provoke an attack of opportunity from the opponent that you attack.Notice the difference. "You and your mount do not ...", "that you attack". If they had meant for both you and the mount to attack they would have said that. The fact that the attack is always described as "you" seems pretty clear that the mount was not meant to get an attack in this special case.
Of course in the end all that really matters is how the individual group interprets it.
That's what I was referring to. I don't think "you" is such a definitive statement in this instance. Case in point:
When you are mounted and use the charge action, you may move and attack....
The way I read this, "you" must refer to both the mount and the rider because the action described requires the pronoun to apply to both if it is to remain at all sensical. More specifically, it speaks about "you" moving and attacking, but the text must be including the mount with that "you." Thus, the authority and exact meaning of the word "you" is impuned.
But you have a good point about not proving negatives. So, my conclusion is that at this fine a level of examination, the language of the text is not precise enough to yeild an authoritative answer. It must then fall to the consensus of individual DMs and their players to decide which interpretation they will accept.
|
|
To a large degree, that is the problem. On both accounts.
You can, very reasonably, interpret "directly toward" that way. And it solves the problem.
The issue arises when you consider the diagram in D20 Modern as a source for RAI. The Sage Advice/FAQ entry supports that as well.
Naturally they failed to clarify this in the Rules Compendium, and 4E changed charged completely so it is not useful as a source for RAI.In the end, I would go with what Skip Williams suggested and just houserule a direct change to Ride-By Attack. (Or even a general overhaul of mounted combat just to be sure.)
I don't disagree with your ruling on the RAW (I think it is 100% correct, and the rule is messed up). But I would like to see the Modern diagram to confirm if it shows what I think it shows, as I am curious. Obviously you wouldn't mention it if it was similar to the PHB diagrams, so any chance it is online somewhere?
I think your solution (by extension, Skip's) is workable. I also think it would be more realistic to rule that the mount can make an overrun as part of the charge (maybe with a Ride check on your part or else you are unhorsed when you collide with the opponent, after your attack). Much more in the flavour of cavalier-style combat.
I wonder if Jason will address this in PRPG, has anyone heard anything? There are a bunch of good solutions here if he needs them, and as far as I can tell, Alpha 3 made no changes to Ride or Mounted Combat.
That's what I was referring to. I don't think "you" is such a definitive statement in this instance. Case in point:
When you are mounted and use the charge action, you may move and attack....The way I read this, "you" must refer to both the mount and the rider because the action described requires the pronoun to apply to both if it is to remain at all sensical. More specifically, it speaks about "you" moving and attacking, but the text must be including the mount with that "you." Thus, the authority and exact meaning of the word "you" is impuned.
While I agree it is not totally clear, I would find it strange if in "you are mounted" counted for both the rider and the mount. I mean if they are both mounted ... then I think charging someone is probably the least of your concerns. And the "double your mounted speed" likewise would be quite a strange situation if it related both to the rider and the mount.
While I agree it is not totally clear, I would find it strange if in "you are mounted" counted for both the rider and the mount. I mean if they are both mounted ... then I think charging someone is probably the least of your concerns. And the "double your mounted speed" likewise would be quite a strange situation if it related both to the rider and the mount.That's what I was referring to. I don't think "you" is such a definitive statement in this instance. Case in point:
When you are mounted and use the charge action, you may move and attack....The way I read this, "you" must refer to both the mount and the rider because the action described requires the pronoun to apply to both if it is to remain at all sensical. More specifically, it speaks about "you" moving and attacking, but the text must be including the mount with that "you." Thus, the authority and exact meaning of the word "you" is impuned.
Wholehearted agreement. What I was getting at is that the text seems to switch from using "you" to refer to the PC and using "you" to refer to both the PC and the mount, without any further clarification provided. So, except in cases in which it would be ludicrous for the pronoun to refer to both (such as those you have provided), there seems to be equal grounds for both arguments.
Not that it's really relevant, but I would hazard that either the designers all knew what they were after and thus didn't thoroughly consider how an outsider might approach the text, or figured (correctly or not) that mounted combat was never going to be that popular and thus spent less time on it than other areas of the game. But that's just a speculative afterthought with no real bearing on the question at hand.
The more I look at it the more it seems to be talking almost exclusively about the rider. Here is how I am seeing it:
When you [the rider] are mounted and use the charge action, you [the rider] may move and attack as if with a standard charge and then move again (continuing the straight line of the charge). Your [the rider's] total movement for the round can’t exceed double your [the rider's] mounted speed. You [the rider] and your mount [the mount] do not provoke an attack of opportunity from the opponent that you [the rider] attack.
It isn't really talking about the mount at all (except to note that it does not draw an attack of opportunity). I mean obviously your mount is going to move as well, but the feat does not seem to be making a deal about that because that is not the point of the feat. Maybe I am just seeing what I want to see. Well, whatever play how you want.
|
|
I don't disagree with your ruling on the RAW (I think it is 100% correct, and the rule is messed up). But I would like to see the Modern diagram to confirm if it shows what I think it shows, as I am curious. Obviously you wouldn't mention it if it was similar to the PHB diagrams, so any chance it is online somewhere?
I think your solution (by extension, Skip's) is workable. I also think it would be more realistic to rule that the mount can make an overrun as part of the charge (maybe with a Ride check on your part or else you are unhorsed when you collide with the opponent, after your attack). Much more in the flavour of cavalier-style combat.
I wonder if Jason will address this in PRPG, has anyone heard anything? There are a bunch of good solutions here if he needs them, and as far as I can tell, Alpha 3 made no changes to Ride or Mounted Combat.
The D20 Modern diagram shows tracing the charge path as effectively drawing a line from the center of the starting square to the center of the target's square, and then considering the squares that the line passes through.
It does not have a thread-width line, such as in Squad Leader, but it also does not have a figure base or square width line.One specific effect that it shows is that when you are not on a direct row with your target, you cannot just move down the row you are on, even if places you next to the target, and even if it is the same distance as sideslipping one row over. The direct path continues through the target, which is shown, and that means the square you must end in is one row over.
And to note, that should be "Skip's solution, by extension mine" since he stated it in response to my question, and I am willing to accept it barring any other resolution.
And yes, I would hope Jason would address it. It is a rather minor side note though, and he may not believe it is an issue because of what I noted previously. Of course, just saying that would be a clarification/change to the rule anyway.
The D20 Modern diagram shows tracing the charge path as effectively drawing a line from the center of the starting square to the center of the target's square, and then considering the squares that the line passes through.
It seems if you were charging a larger target, that this would force you to possibly move a farther distance. Since you'd have to move towards the center instead of just any square in which you could attack from.