I saw this subject come up in another thread:
Yes, but it's the mount that's charging, not the wielder. The restriction to a single melee attack (although allowing the wielder a regular move action as well) makes sense, but that's not a restriction on charge. For example, in PF RPG, a mid-level mounted lancer could use Vital Strike, something he couldn't do at the end of his own charge.
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.
So per RAW, Mounted Charge does indeed only limit you to a 'single melee attack' (which an attack action is), without restriction as to action typing (i.e. 'as a standard action, make a single melee attack' like all other non-attack action attacks use).
Just checking on this one, because this was never mentioned by Jason or anybody else at Paizo when Vital Strike questions were answered previously.
My two cents: if your mount charges, you have two options. Either you can take the charge action as well (in which case you could benefit from Spirited Charge, but not Vital Strike), or you can take a normal attack action at the end (in which case you could benefit from Vital Strike, but not Spirited Charge).
Personally, I think you should be able to use Vital Strike on any turn when you only make a single attack (whether it's a charge, a Spring Attack, or whatever). But that's just me.
My two cents: if your mount charges, you have two options. Either you can take the charge action as well (in which case you could benefit from Spirited Charge, but not Vital Strike), or you can take a normal attack action at the end (in which case you could benefit from Vital Strike, but not Spirited Charge .
But you do get the normal charge bonus while Vital Striking with a Lance, incl. bonus damage dice?
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).
Lances and Charge Attacks: A lance deals double damage if employed by a mounted character in a charge.
It's kind of a matter of what is "the bonus gained from the charge"?
Is it just the to-hit bonus? Or does it include the doubled damage dice?I guess the "when charging on horseback" and "a mounted character in a charge" COULD mean you yourself must be charging (to get the double damage vs. just the attack bonus), but that part isn't 100% clear to me... ('special' abilities like Spririted Charge that require YOU to be Charging seem pretty clear)
It's pretty clear you should be able to make a Vital Strike'd attack action at the end of a Mounted Charge, I'm just not sure if you could also add the double damage for a Mounted Charge Lance attack on top of that (or whether that would be a discrete option INSTEAD of a Vital Strike'd attack action).
I'm just bringing this up because they're doing the Update for the next printing, and if the RAW could be clarified at all, now's the time to do it.
We play it that any time you attack you can use vital strike.
Personally, I think you should be able to use Vital Strike on any turn when you only make a single attack (whether it's a charge, a Spring Attack, or whatever). But that's just me.For what it's worth, that's the way my table plays too and it works just fine.
yep, that's how it works in our game as well.
|
RULES as written: vital strike can be used at the end of a spirited charge as the charge uses an attack action at the end of the double move. the dice of damage is doubled before applying vitial strike so vit strike damage is the same damage dice and amount.
to not allow would have to be house rules as far as i can find psrd dows not deny ability/
-sending from mobile
RULES as written: vital strike can be used at the end of a spirited charge as the charge uses an attack action at the end of the double move.
Huh? By my interpretation, either the rider is "using the charge action" (a full-round action) as required by the Spirited Charge feat, or he's "us[ing] the attack action" (a standard action) as required by the Vital Strike feat. You can't do both with a single action, as far as I can tell.
Yeah, thanks for your input midnight, but I suggest that you check out the FAQ at d20pfsrd.com. "Attack action" and attack or melee attack are definitely not one and the same thing in Pathfinder.
My two cents: if your mount charges,
Fair and reasonable, but not RAW. (I was recently looking this up for a character idea...)
In the Combat section, under Mounted Combat > Combat 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)
((I wish there was a better way to link to the PfSRD, best link is Combat.))
So, when your mount charges, you charge. No options.
I stand corrected then -- you can never do a Vital Strike during a mounted charge.
That's the issue though, it DOESN'T say you must make a charge attack,
it says you gain the bonus and penalty associated with a charge.
If it meant your melee attack was limited to the Charge action, why not say that?
If you can make a (non-Charge) Attack Action during the middle of your Mount's Charge (Readied if necessary), why can't you make an Attack Action at the end (or actually, just before the end, given the Lance's superior Reach)?
As far as I can tell, you're only limited by the 'one melee attack' which Attack Action qualifies as, simply gaining the bonus and penalty associated with Charging. Even if a rider is CASTING A SPELL (which is obviously not a Charge action), they still receive the AC penalty associated with Charge and the attack bonus (if the spell involves an attack they make at the end of the Mount's Charge). So I can't see any reason to disallow making a Vital Strike at the end of your Mount's Charge, and ANY such attack at the end of the Mount's Charge would seem to gain the attack bonus from Charging.
The question for me is regards Lance damage doubling, whether and require you to take the Charge action yourself (precluding the Attack Action), or if a Rider on a Charging Mount who wants to make a Vital Strike Lance attack at the end is counted as "charging on horseback" or "in a charge" (or instead is just receiving the bonus and penalty associated with Charge, but not the damage doubling).
This is the specific language that I think could be cleaned up a bit, to distinguish ACTUAL Charges from non-Charge attacks, the only difference being whether Lances double their damage given that the attack/AC mods apply even if you aren't making any attack in the first place, much less a charge attack.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
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)
So, when your mount charges, you charge. No options.
I'm afraid I don't read that the same way, Disenchanter. If you see any mistakes in the following ruling, I'd appreciate an explanation of where I'm going wrong.
Here's how I understand it: Sieur Warvek the Cavalier is riding his destrier Argent, and takes up a lance and a horseman's flail. He spurs Argent on toward a hideous ogre.
If Argent moves at lest 10', Sieur Warvek cannot take the full attack action. He can only take an attack action (like Vital Strike) and a move action.
If Sieur Warvek were armed with a shortbow, he could attack as normal.
When Argent charges the ogre, Sieur Warvek shares the penalties for AC, and for attack bonus, as if he were charging as well. But he's not; Argent is moving, and he's just going along for the ride.
In the same way, if Sir Warvek were in a chariot being pulled behind Argent, he could perform actions that a normal charging character couldn't, because he's on a moving platform, rather than running.
I admit, the grammar of the last sentence you quote is in conflict with this interpretaton of the other sentences. But I don't see any other sensible way to adjudicate the situation. (For example, imagine Argent being shot out from under him during the charging advance. He needs to make an Ride roll to land well, something specifically allowed in the rules) but that would be impossible if he were committed to charging.
If Sieur Warvek attacks with his lance during that charge,(a) he gets 1.5 x strength damage, because the lance is a two-handed weapon (that's my position from another thread, and is currently in contention) and then (b) the entire damage is doubled.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
The question for me is regards Lance damage doubling, whether and require you to take the Charge action yourself (precluding the Attack Action), or if a Rider on a Charging Mount who wants to make a Vital Strike attack at the end is counted as "charging on horseback" or "in a charge".
We can't rely on the first quoted passage, because we know it's incomplete. "You're charging on a hippogriff? Sorry; you need to be on horseback."
Personally, I think you should be able to use Vital Strike on any turn when you only make a single attack (whether it's a charge, a Spring Attack, or whatever). But that's just me.
That's how we rule it in our games as well. It works fine.
We can't rely on the first quoted passage, because we know it's incomplete. "You're charging on a hippogriff? Sorry; you need to be on horseback."
But what if that hippogriff is CALLED "Horse" by it's friends? :-)
We can't rely on the first quoted passage, because we know it's incomplete. "You're charging on a hippogriff? Sorry; you need to be on horseback."But what if that hippogriff is CALLED "Horse" by it's friends? :-)
Or just skin the back of a horse and use it as a saddle blanket on whatever you want to ride. :D
|
|
i stand corrected---
Clarification
The benefit of this feat can be read as the following, as it is clearer on how Vital Strike functions:
Benefit: As a standard action, you can make a single attack at your full base attack bonus, increasing the damage of the attack by its base weapon damage dice (a light crossbow would gain +1d8, a greatsword would gain +2d6). This bonus damage is not multiplied on a critical hit (although other damage bonuses are multiplied normally).
straight from the d20pfsrd.com under vital strike
You got it midnight, the ONLY benefit to using specific 'attack action' terminology and not doing it how you paraphrased it, is facilitating 'special maneuvers' allowing an Attack Action as part of them (like 3.5 Spring Attack) to also be compatable with Vital Strike. Though obviously any such cases could just say "a single melee attack, including a Vital Strike" and save alot of confusion. Unfortunately (until we see an Update...SOON) PRPG Spring Attack doesn't even mention any action typing at all (it's basically like Mounted Charge, just saying 'one melee attack', though Mounted Charge isn't relying on the Rider's own actions to move, while Spring Attack is (yet doesn't clarify the action cost to do so)), so there's not much of a point at the moment.
When Argent charges the ogre, Sieur Warvek shares the penalties for AC, and for attack bonus, as if he were charging as well. But he's not; Argent is moving, and he's just going along for the ride.
In the same way, if Sir Warvek were in a chariot being pulled behind Argent, he could perform actions that a normal charging character couldn't, because he's on a moving platform, rather than running.
Okay... I see now. It never occurred to me to consider having all of the penalties of a "condition" (for want of a better phrase) as well as the benefits, without actually being in that "condition."
The language could be a bit clearer.
As far as chariots go... "Moving platform" is a very gray area of the rules. I could very well have missed it, but I do not believe there are any separate rules for it. In that case, I'd have to say default to the Mounted Combat rules.
Thinking it through though, Sir Warvek would only gain a potential move action above and beyond a creature charging on foot. What would that really give him, and is it too much of an advantage to give a mounted combatant? (Being mounted should give advantages over being on foot after all.) Looking up the Move Actions, there aren't a whole lot that Sir Warvek could reasonably performed over Frank Foot Soldier.
- Direct or redirect an active spell
- Load a hand crossbow or light crossbow
- Open or close a door
- Move a heavy object
- Pick up an item
- Sheathe a weapon
- Stand up from prone
- Ready or drop a shield
- Retrieve a stored item
I left off options Frank Foot Soldier could perform during his charge, and options that are only available while mounted anyway.
The only one that might overdo it is "Direct or redirect an active spell." All the others either won't come into play - unless the game has really weird physics going on, or do not benefit Sit Warvek in any meaningful way.
(For example, imagine Argent being shot out from under him during the charging advance. He needs to make an Ride roll to land well, something specifically allowed in the rules) but that would be impossible if he were committed to charging.
That isn't so much a problem with the mounted combat and charging rules, as much as a problem with the way d20 handles "interrupt actions" and initiative. Under the majority of cases, Argent would never be "shot out from under" Sir Warvek. Despite of the realistic chances of it happening. I could give you off hand rulings, but that is all they will be. And that isn't what you are looking for.
Did anyone clarify whether damage is quadrupled if someone on horseback charges with a lance and uses Vital Strike? Or is that another thread?
Again, I don't think you can use the full-round charge action and make a standard attack action at the same time, so it's a moot point.
Did anyone clarify whether damage is quadrupled if someone on horseback charges with a lance and uses Vital Strike? Or is that another thread?
Vital Strike adds the base weapon damage again and can never be modified to deal more. This has been pointed out many times on these threads.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Thanks for the post.
1. Your mount moves on your initiative and under your direction.
The horse has no volition in this matter - and the character is actively directing the horse.
Not in the games I play. Your horse is an NPC. It moves according to the tricks it knows and the Handle Animal roll you make. (If it's not a warhorse, it's chancey as to whether you can make it charge in the first place.) It has an independent mind, and independent hit points.
Once it does charge, your mount may decide to attack as well.
Besides which, if your horse is moving, you still get an entire round of, say, missile fire.
To repeat, there is nothing disallowing an attack action in the middle of your mount's charge, you are simply limited to one melee attack if your mount moves more than 5', no further restrictions on melee attacks or action types are given. Nothing stops you from making an Attack Action against an opponent in range of your Mount's Charge line, via a Readied Action if in mid-course of it's Charge, or normally at the end of it's Charge.
The rules go out of their way to transfer certain effects (the Charge bonus/penalty) from the Charging Mount to the Rider, which would be superfluous if there was any sort of 1:1 correlation between Rider and Charging Mount's actions. The Mount's own (obedient) actions are not affected by it's Rider's actions, whether Full-Attacking with a bow, Readying an Attack Action mid-course, making an Attack Action at the end of the Mount's Charge, making their own Charge Attack at the end of the Mount's Charge, making their own Charge Attack mid-course (via Ride by Attack), or Casting a Spell, nor do they affect the Rider's choice of actions beyond the restriction to melee of only one melee attack (specific action undetermined).
Except there is no requirement that "your enemy" is the same enemy as your Mount's Charge target. Your Mount's targets are chosen independently (if obediently usually) by your Mount. If you are charging down a 10' hallway and Orc A and B are at the end shoulder to shoulder, there is no reason you could not Charge Orc A while your Mount Charges Orc B right next to them. Placing Orc A half-way along the hall-way doesn't change that, and Readied Actions (like attacking the nearest Orc when it gets in range) don't STOP the actions/situations they were triggered by.
Ride By Attack is about avoiding AoOs, as well as enabling Charge bonuses and damage which wouldn't apply if using a Readied Attack Action against a target mid-way along your Mount's charge to a different opponent (or simply movement, like Run). Like I said, there's much more direct ways to enforce identical Rider/Mound actions than the RAW. I can't imagine why anybody would go to the trouble of explicitly transferring conditional bonuses if their intent was just to enforce the identical 'condition' (action). Again, nothing is stopping you from casting Burning Hands at Orc B while your Triceratops Mount is on it's way to Charging Orc C, and no reason according to RAW why single melee attacks should be further restricted than such Spellcasting.
I don't know why you're wasting your time 'drawing' diagram illustrating how Charge-lines can be blocked. Likewise, your assertion than Mounts are not NPCs when being ridden (great, Mounts can't "do what they want", virtual immunity to Dominate Monster!)
So per RAW, Mounted Charge does indeed only limit you to a 'single melee attack' (which an attack action is), without restriction as to action typing (i.e. 'as a standard action, make a single melee attack' like all other non-attack action attacks use).
Just checking on this one, because this was never mentioned by Jason or anybody else at Paizo when Vital Strike questions were answered previously.
Uh, this is no different than normal charges, and I mean that in every sense.
Attacking on a Charge: After moving, you may make a single melee attack.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
cp, we all agree that the wording in that final sentence doesn't match the others.
The Pathfinder rules are literally ambiguous, implying first one thing (spurring your horse on to a charge is a free action that imposes particular limitations to the rest of your actions this round) and then another (spurring your horse on to charge is a full-round action which may end with a single, simple melee attack). No interpretation of them will square with all the text.
Incidentally, cp, I wanted to thank you, explicitly, for disagreeing agreeably. Your posts have been a model of patience and courtesy.