I'm having problems with this. Combat maneuvers for instance, if you have them, can you use with your mount? If your mount has it, can he use it?
Can your mount attack as you attack?
Can it use it's feats?
What CMB and CMD are used at a Bull rush for instance?
I got the basics, but there isn't anything else to go for a real rider type...
I do realize that with the cavalier coming up it's possible that some rules are added, but maybe there is something I didn't see already there.
Thanks a bunch.
I'm having problems with this. Combat maneuvers for instance, if you have them, can you use with your mount? If your mount has it, can he use it?
Everyone can use combat maneuvers. There is no "have" or "not have." There is only having the maneuver feats to make you "better" at them. You can use combat maneuvers while mounted. For example, you could ride up and trip someone with your guisarme. Having your mount trip on the other hand, is another matter.
Can your mount attack as you attack?
If you make the appropriate ride check, then yes. Your mount cannot do so, however, if it moves more than its speed in the round (as it is subject to all the same combat rules you are). Your mount cannot take the full attack action if it has moved more than 5 feet (just like you).
Can it use it's feats?
Any creature can make use of the feats that it has.
What CMB and CMD are used at a Bull rush for instance?
That depends on who is doing the bull rush. You? Or the horse? Whoever performs the maneuver makes the check.
I got the basics, but there isn't anything else to go for a real rider type...
I'm sure there will be more in the Advanced Player's Guide coming out soon.
I do realize that with the cavalier coming up it's possible that some rules are added, but maybe there is something I didn't see already there.
The biggest benefit to mounted combat is that your mount's actions are not your own. For example, your mount could double move while you make a full attack with your bow. There are other advantages as well (such as expanding your reach), but I'm sure you can find those out for yourself.
Thanks RD. But I'm still confused. It says that it uses it's action to move, doesn't say if it's a move action, but I'll say yes.
So for instance, can I charge with my mount, attack the guy and my mount can also attack?
Thanks RD. But I'm still confused. It says that it uses it's action to move, doesn't say if it's a move action, but I'll say yes.
So for instance, can I charge with my mount, attack the guy and my mount can also attack?
All the combat rules apply to your mount in the same way they apply to you. When it says "it uses its action to move" it is indeed referring to a move action.
You can indeed charge on your mount. This counts as a full round action for your mount, you both can attack (which costs you a standard action), and you both gain the penalties and bonuses for the charge. This is specifically mentioned in the mounted combat rules.
Thanks RD. But I'm still confused. It says that it uses it's action to move, doesn't say if it's a move action, but I'll say yes.
So for instance, can I charge with my mount, attack the guy and my mount can also attack?
All the combat rules apply to your mount in the same way they apply to you. When it says "it uses its action to move" it is indeed referring to a move action.
You can indeed charge on your mount. This counts as a full round action for your mount, you both can attack (which costs you a standard action), and you both gain the penalties and bonuses for the charge. This is specifically mentioned in the mounted combat rules.
I'm getting blind dude...
So, I know it has been ruled that Vital Strike can be used with Spring attack, how about a charge?Even if it can't since the rider isn't charging himself as you said, and is able to make a standard action at the end of the charge, he van VS... you see where I'm going with this?
I'm getting blind dude...
So, I know it has been ruled that Vital Strike can be used with Spring attack, how about a charge?
Even if it can't since the rider isn't charging himself as you said, and is able to make a standard action at the end of the charge, he van VS... you see where I'm going with this?
Last I checked, using vital strike with spring attack was debatable (the game designers themselves were going back and forth on the issue).
In any case, as far as I can tell, there is no reason you could not use vital strike on a charge WHILE MOUNTED.
Normally you can't use it on a charge because charging is a full round action whereas vital strike is an attack action, but I guess you already knew that.
As of 3/7/10...
Q: But in PF#30 Sharx Veskandi(page 42) lists using Vital Strike and Spring Attack as her favorite tactics?
A: (James Jacobs 3/7/10) Because it's a good tactic. And because when I'm developing an adventure, I go with my gut more often than a micro examination of every single rule... because that's the only way to get APs out on a monthly schedule. And because, as I've mentioned above, letting Spring Attack and Vital Strike work together is cool. Since you found precedence where the two feats work together in print, LET THAT BE THE LAW! Vital Strike and Spring Attack were made to be together, after all.
A couple entries down you will find...
Q: Can you charge and use Vital Strike?
A: (Jason Bulmahn) Charge is a special full-round action (excluding partial charge). You cannot currently combine a charge and vital strike.
Personally, I think that a dude charging and Vital striking with a lance is awesome. But things get a tad out of hand if you factor in crits and elemental special enhancements and such.
Thanks for the clarification!
Personally, I think that a dude charging and Vital striking with a lance is awesome. But things get a tad out of hand if you factor in crits and elemental special enhancements and such.
It's no more out of hand than a fighter archer making a full attack and dealing tons of damage without even having to move.
As of 3/7/10...
Q: But in PF#30 Sharx Veskandi(page 42) lists using Vital Strike and Spring Attack as her favorite tactics?
A: (James Jacobs 3/7/10) Because it's a good tactic. And because when I'm developing an adventure, I go with my gut more often than a micro examination of every single rule... because that's the only way to get APs out on a monthly schedule. And because, as I've mentioned above, letting Spring Attack and Vital Strike work together is cool. Since you found precedence where the two feats work together in print, LET THAT BE THE LAW! Vital Strike and Spring Attack were made to be together, after all.A couple entries down you will find...
Q: Can you charge and use Vital Strike?
A: (Jason Bulmahn) Charge is a special full-round action (excluding partial charge). You cannot currently combine a charge and vital strike.Personally, I think that a dude charging and Vital striking with a lance is awesome. But things get a tad out of hand if you factor in crits and elemental special enhancements and such.
If a guy can spring attack, he should be able to charge.
Just to be exact. How much damage does a guy with spirited charge and a lance deals on a crit?
Thanks for the clarification!
Personally, I think that a dude charging and Vital striking with a lance is awesome. But things get a tad out of hand if you factor in crits and elemental special enhancements and such.It's no more out of hand than a fighter archer making a full attack and dealing tons of damage without even having to move.
This, I was about to post that instead of comparing it to a standard attack charging on a mount with spirited charge or what not should instead be considered against a full attack from a fighter (of some flavor). The damage is generally a little less than the full attack (at higher levels) and the charge is an all or nothing prospect -- either you hit for a lot or you get nothing. The full attack spreads the damage out more, but gives more chances for getting it to stick.
Two feats I recommend for mounts are nimble moves and acrobatic steps. Since these make it so you can ignore 20 feet of difficult terrain it will help you charge much more often.
EDIT to answer Xum:
x5 in pathfinder x3 + x3 = x5 damage.
If a guy can spring attack, he should be able to charge.As of 3/7/10...
Q: But in PF#30 Sharx Veskandi(page 42) lists using Vital Strike and Spring Attack as her favorite tactics?
A: (James Jacobs 3/7/10) Because it's a good tactic. And because when I'm developing an adventure, I go with my gut more often than a micro examination of every single rule... because that's the only way to get APs out on a monthly schedule. And because, as I've mentioned above, letting Spring Attack and Vital Strike work together is cool. Since you found precedence where the two feats work together in print, LET THAT BE THE LAW! Vital Strike and Spring Attack were made to be together, after all.A couple entries down you will find...
Q: Can you charge and use Vital Strike?
A: (Jason Bulmahn) Charge is a special full-round action (excluding partial charge). You cannot currently combine a charge and vital strike.Personally, I think that a dude charging and Vital striking with a lance is awesome. But things get a tad out of hand if you factor in crits and elemental special enhancements and such.
I agree, but dem's da rules. Convince your GM to houserule it if you so desire.
Thanks for the clarification!
Personally, I think that a dude charging and Vital striking with a lance is awesome. But things get a tad out of hand if you factor in crits and elemental special enhancements and such.It's no more out of hand than a fighter archer making a full attack and dealing tons of damage without even having to move.
I see your point, but typically a skirmishing character such as a ranger or an archery-specialized fighter wants to keep mobile to avoid getting stabbed. For a lancer, being able to unload a damaging attack AND move is a bonus. It limits enemies who run up to you to being able to only make a single attack.
Not to mention that the archer suffers from to-hit penalties associated with iterative attacks or rapid shot. So against high AC enemies, the lancer is more likely to be successful because a successful hit (at his highest BAB + relevant bonuses) will do roughly the same amount of damage as the archer who somehow manages to hit with all attacks. More than likely the archer will only hit about 50% of the time against a high AC, and if the archer rolls a 1 then it's all over.
Now, mind you, I'd love to see the lancer get vital strike on a charge. I've always been fond of mounted types. I'm just playing Devil's advocate to reveal why some folks might think it might be iffy, and why "having to move" is actually a really good thing if you have the space to do it.
Well I would respond with all the problems that come with spirited charge, namely:
need for a mount (that doesn't die easily)
need for a charge line
need to get to melee range
need for extra equipment (for the mount)
need for more space (especially for medium characters on large mounts)
I've fiund that hitting as an archer isn't so hard -- and that AC isn't such a problem for them.
I see your point, but typically a skirmishing character such as a ranger or an archery-specialized fighter wants to keep mobile to avoid getting stabbed. For a lancer, being able to unload a damaging attack AND move is a bonus. It limits enemies who run up to you to being able to only make a single attack.
Not to mention that the archer suffers from to-hit penalties associated with iterative attacks or rapid shot. So against high AC enemies, the lancer is more likely to be successful because a successful hit (at his highest BAB + relevant bonuses) will do roughly the same amount of damage as the archer who somehow manages to hit with all attacks. More than likely the archer will only hit about 50% of the time against a high AC, and if the archer rolls a 1 then it's all over.
Now, mind you, I'd love to see the lancer get vital strike on a charge. I've always been fond of mounted types. I'm just playing Devil's advocate to reveal why some folks might think it might be iffy, and why "having to move" is actually a really good thing if you have the space to do it.
Fighters often have an attack bonus far exceeding what is needed to hit a CR-appropriate target. They can afford to put some of it into things like Rapid Shot, Power Attack, and similar abilities.
What's more, a fighter archer is far superior to your charging lancer in nearly every way as he can move AND make a full attack from a safe distance for tons of damage while riding his own horse.
Also I want the reference to the archer rolling a natural 1 explained.
x5 in pathfinder x3 + x3 = x5 damage.
It would be X4, the lance does double damage while mounted, not triple. Furthermore "Charging on a mount" isn't a full attack action for you as it would normally be, you can't take a full attack action because you have to wait for your mount to reach the opponent(Pg. 202). So I would allow a vital strike charge for a mounted combatant.
Finally, the summoner's eidalon would make for an excellent mount starting at level 6 (when you can make them large sized) especially since the summoner gets 3/4 BAB and a d8 HD.
...the summoner's eidalon would make for an excellent mount starting at level 6 (when you can make them large sized) especially since the summoner gets 3/4 BAB and a d8 HD.
Rumor has it that when the APG comes out you won't be able to ride your mount due to their shifty natures without spending 2 points on a "riding evolution."
I hadn't heard that, but I think I would still spend those two points just for my "Dragon Rider" concept (Easier than trying to get a real dragon...)
Well I would respond with all the problems that come with spirited charge, namely:
need for a mount (that doesn't die easily)
need for a charge line
need to get to melee range
need for extra equipment (for the mount)
need for more space (especially for medium characters on large mounts)I've fiund that hitting as an archer isn't so hard -- and that AC isn't such a problem for them.
As far as the mount goes, the Paladin gets a pretty tough beastie. It would be harder to get a reliably tough mount as a fighter, though. Unless your GM let you use non-standard mounts.
As far as the charge line goes...we're sort of assuming similar conditions to compare both characters; an open field. Sure, you can pick specific environments that gimp the lancer to bolster the argument. I can pick heavy winds that deflect the archer's arrows. *shrug*
With melee range...well hopefully you're using Ride By Attack and continuing the move past the charge, so that you're not sticking around for the full attacks. Anyone going after you only gets one attack. The whole idea is hit and run tactics.
Extra equipment....I mean, what other are you going to get other than barding? The ranger could just as easily give his AC barding and items as well to help his survivability.
More space....again, we're assuming an environment that does not actively gimp one of the characters. An open field.
As far as reliably hitting goes....I've played a couple archers in my day, and my personal experience is that they rarely hit with all their attacks. Maybe it's my bad luck or high AC enemies, but they have never really reached their full damage potential.
What's more, a fighter archer is far superior to your charging lancer in nearly every way as he can move AND make a full attack from a safe distance for tons of damage while riding his own horse.
Well yeah, of course the full attacking horse archer is getting the best of both worlds. But the archer still has to hit with all of his attacks to get his full potential. Not to mention that the horse archer has even more penalties while doing so unless he has the feats to spare. :)
Also I want the reference to the archer rolling a natural 1 explained.
In our game, if you roll a natural 1 during a full attack, your turn is over. So if I roll a 1 early on in my series of iterative attacks, I'm screwed. Of course, the lancer could roll a 1 too and not do any damage, but my point is that an archer has more chances to screw up Big Burst O'Damage than the lancer because he's rolling more, whereas the lancer only has to hit once.
Edit: I wrote the following with the comparison of a lancer and foot archer in mind. The horse archer is obviously superior to the foot archer (with the right feats), but the basic argument over big burst damage vs. more reliable smaller damage is still valid.
The ability to both do a Big Burst O'Damage and move is awesome. The lancer can keep charging around and has the chance to do a bunch of damage. If the archer is pressed by his opponents, he has to keep moving to avoid full attacks, which means he can fire only one arrow.
In short, the lancer is better in...
1) Mobile combat situations. (Gets to move and do lots o'damage)
2) Fights against high AC opponents, IMO. (The archer's likelihood to hit fades dramatically after the first and second iteratives, whereas the lancer only needs to hit once to bring the full amount of pain)
While the archer is better...
1) When he isn't being pressed by enemies and can sit still.
2) Against lower AC opponents.
3) When you need a source of reliable but lower damage. (The lancer is by definition, hit or miss. Probably not the best when you need reliability.)
As far as the mount goes, the Paladin gets a pretty tough beastie. It would be harder to get a reliably tough mount as a fighter, though. Unless your GM let you use non-standard mounts.
Or maybe your GM allows you to use the cohort from the Leadership feat as a mount; then you could get a Griffon, or a Celestial Pegasus etc.
As far as the mount goes, the Paladin gets a pretty tough beastie. It would be harder to get a reliably tough mount as a fighter, though. Unless your GM let you use non-standard mounts.Or maybe your GM allows you to use the cohort from the Leadership feat as a mount; then you could get a Griffon, or a Celestial Pegasus etc.
I'm pretty sure that with the Cavalier comming up and the "need" of lots of people to get awesome mounts, there will be something like a feat for everyone to get a fantastic mount at higher levels. There is already improved familiar for instance and Companion figurine.
Your speculation about mounted archery is good, but bear in mind that there is a steep penalty for firing on horseback, it is worth it, but complicated to say the least.
On a side note, it is important to remember that although a mount is awesome to keep it that way is feat expensive and, you won't be able to have your mount with you the whole time.
I'm just hoping there are some pretty good rules about companions and mounts when the APG come up.
x5 in pathfinder x3 + x3 = x5 damage.It would be X4, the lance does double damage while mounted, not triple.
Incorrect. Nowhere in the rules does it say a lance does only double damage on a critical while mounted. It states you can use a lance one handed while mounted, but nothing else. A lance is a two handed* martial weapon that does 1d8 with reach that threatens on a 20 and deals x3 damage on a critical hit.
*can be used one handed while mounted.You are right the charge only eats up your standard action -- however that still means that you can't full attack. Yes you can vital strike (1~3extra d8s of damage) but in the end you still have to compare it to full attacking because that's what you are choosing not to do in order to make the spirited charge.
Also I want the reference to the archer rolling a natural 1 explained.In our game, if you roll a natural 1 during a full attack, your turn is over. So if I roll a 1 early on in my series of iterative attacks, I'm screwed. Of course, the lancer could roll a 1 too and not do any damage, but my point is that an archer has more chances to screw up Big Burst O'Damage than the lancer because he's rolling more, whereas the lancer only has to hit once.
However you brought this up as a point of contention -- while correct for your campaign that doesn't mean it's correct by the universal rules of pathfinder -- as such it's useless in a rules debate without establishing this first.
(even then it's a rule that punishes the players more than anything else)
x5 in pathfinder x3 + x3 = x5 damage.It would be X4, the lance does double damage while mounted, not triple.Incorrect. Nowhere in the rules does it say a lance does only double damage on a critical while mounted. It states you can use a lance one handed while mounted, but nothing else. A lance is a two handed* martial weapon that does 1d8 with reach that threatens on a 20 and deals x3 damage on a critical hit.
*can be used one handed while mounted.You are right the charge only eats up your standard action -- however that still means that you can't full attack. Yes you can vital strike (1~3extra d8s of damage) but in the end you still have to compare it to full attacking because that's what you are choosing not to do in order to make the spirited charge.
Excuse me for interfering, but I think that Abraham didn't notice that the charger has the "spirited charge feat" this is why he said x4 instead of x5. At least this is what I understood from your conversation :-)
The ability to both do a Big Burst O'Damage and move is awesome. The lancer can keep charging around and has the chance to do a bunch of damage. If the archer is pressed by his opponents, he has to keep moving to avoid full attacks, which means he can fire only one arrow.
In short, the lancer is better in...
1) Mobile combat situations. (Gets to move and do lots o'damage)
2) Fights against high AC opponents, IMO. (The archer's likelihood to hit fades dramatically after the first and second iteratives, whereas the lancer only needs to hit once to bring the full amount of pain)While the archer is better...
1) When he isn't being pressed by enemies and can sit still.
2) Against lower AC opponents.
3) When you need a source of reliable but lower damage. (The lancer is by definition, hit or miss. Probably not the best when you need reliability.)
A mounted archer can have his horse take the run action and still fire off a half dozen arrows. He is actually MORE mobile than the lancer!
In addition, it has already been proven than making multiple attacks, even at decreasing iteratives, is better because you are pretty much guaranteed to do at least SOME damage EVERY round, rather than "putting all your eggs in one basket."
Furthermore, a lancer loses most of his effectiveness and big damage whenever he ends up in a situation where mounts are impractical (such as in a dungeon). An archer might lose a bit of his maneuverability in such a situation, but he can still do the big buckets o' damage.
A few problems with this:
1st Wild swings favor the underdog. Reasonable spikes can favor the side that gets them early. A lancer with a decent chance of hitting and killing in round 1 is better than a moderate damage that's almost certain of killing in round 3 or 4.
2nd Dedicated mounted combatants tend to have means to be mounted in those 'impractical' situations that you describe. A good number of mounted fighters are small sized to begin with. Those that are not will have potions of both reduce animal & person to handle things.
3rd A mounted archer is nice, but will have many of the same issues that a normal archer will have. They are more mobile in many situations than a typical archer is all. They too can face the issues that a lancer will in terms of mount size, while they tend to 'suck it up' more than the other. This might change as pathfinder archers can be small sized without loosing as large a percentage of damage as their 3.5 counterparts did.
-James
1st) I will agree with you at low, low levels where the archer would only have a single attack like the lancer. However, once the archer has Rapid Shot and/or multiple attacks, his ability to out damage the lancer regularly far out ways the lancer damage multiplier (since at high levels the lancer is still only making a single attack with his charges). Even at low, low levels the archer remains more versatile and safe as he is a ranged attacker.
2nd) I didn't know there was a "reduce animal" spell. In any case, enclosed spaces and other areas where mounts aren't feasible effect the archer in the same ways as they effect the lancer. Likewise they both can employ the same or similar methods to overcome such obstacles.
3rd) How does a mounted archer "suck it up" more than the lancer? Any methods the lancer can employ to get more mount versatility, the archer can take as well.
The ability to both do a Big Burst O'Damage and move is awesome. The lancer can keep charging around and has the chance to do a bunch of damage. If the archer is pressed by his opponents, he has to keep moving to avoid full attacks, which means he can fire only one arrow.
In short, the lancer is better in...
1) Mobile combat situations. (Gets to move and do lots o'damage)
2) Fights against high AC opponents, IMO. (The archer's likelihood to hit fades dramatically after the first and second iteratives, whereas the lancer only needs to hit once to bring the full amount of pain)While the archer is better...
1) When he isn't being pressed by enemies and can sit still.
2) Against lower AC opponents.
3) When you need a source of reliable but lower damage. (The lancer is by definition, hit or miss. Probably not the best when you need reliability.)A mounted archer can have his horse take the run action and still fire off a half dozen arrows. He is actually MORE mobile than the lancer!
In addition, it has already been proven than making multiple attacks, even at decreasing iteratives, is better because you are pretty much guaranteed to do at least SOME damage EVERY round, rather than "putting all your eggs in one basket."
Furthermore, a lancer loses most of his effectiveness and big damage whenever he ends up in a situation where mounts are impractical (such as in a dungeon). An archer might lose a bit of his maneuverability in such a situation, but he can still do the big buckets o' damage.
First of all I think you missed the part where I said...
"I wrote the following with the comparison of a lancer and foot archer in mind. The horse archer is obviously superior to the foot archer (with the right feats), but the basic argument over big burst damage vs. more reliable smaller damage is still valid."
With that in mind, one must remember that a mounted archer will have even more difficulty hitting, especially if they do not have the Mounted Archery feat. Like I said the argument between damage spike vs. trickle of damage is still valid. If you need a constant source of damage, then you need an archer. If you need LOTS of damage against a single target then you need the lancer.
Secondly, you are still bringing up the cramped maneuverability argument when I have repeatedly said that for the sake of comparison, we are assuming the terrain does not actively penalize either character.
Yes, horse archers are awesome. But using your own argument, in a dungeon where they can't move around they are just a foot archer sitting on a horse.
Kierato wrote:Abraham spalding wrote:
x5 in pathfinder x3 + x3 = x5 damage.
It would be X4, the lance does double damage while mounted, not triple.
Incorrect. Nowhere in the rules does it say a lance does only double damage on a critical while mounted. It states you can use a lance one handed while mounted, but nothing else. A lance is a two handed* martial weapon that does 1d8 with reach that threatens on a 20 and deals x3 damage on a critical hit.
*can be used one handed while mounted.You are right the charge only eats up your standard action -- however that still means that you can't full attack. Yes you can vital strike (1~3extra d8s of damage) but in the end you still have to compare it to full attacking because that's what you are choosing not to do in order to make the spirited charge.
Excuse me for interfering, but I think that Abraham didn't notice that the charger has the "spirited charge feat" this is why he said x4 instead of x5. At least this is what I understood from your conversation :-)
You're right, I didn't notice spirited charge, which boosts it to X5, sorry. Without the feat it's X4 (X2 while mounted, X3 critical).
All is good and well with that discussion, but my doubts haven't been answered yet mates.
So, how does combat maneuvers work in mounted combat? Overrun and Bull rush mostly, which abilitites do we use? The rider? The horse? Both?
How about feats as sugested earlier to ignore difficult terrain? If the rider has it, can the mount benefit from it?
The way you guys say it, seems like they become mostly one single creature in a way, how does that work? If the rider uses bull rush or gets triped does he get the bonus from the extra legs?
The mount would have to perform the overrun combat maneuver (but see the Trample feat from the mounted combat tree as an alternative), but either the mount or the rider could do the bull rush (but see the Unseat feat of the mounted combat tree).
The mount would need the nimble moves/Acrobatic steps feats to benefit from them.
Excuse me for interfering, but I think that Abraham didn't notice that the charger has the "spirited charge feat" this is why he said x4 instead of x5. At least this is what I understood from your conversation :-)
Look at my post. I specifically put x5 on the it -- I was the one that originally stated that the critical hit with spirited charge and a lance would do x5 damage. He is the one that suggests otherwise.
And I corrected myself and admitted you were right(see above).
Xum wrote:
All is good and well with that discussion, but my doubts haven't been answered yet mates.
So, how does combat maneuvers work in mounted combat? Overrun and Bull rush mostly, which abilitites do we use? The rider? The horse? Both?
How about feats as sugested earlier to ignore difficult terrain? If the rider has it, can the mount benefit from it?
The way you guys say it, seems like they become mostly one single creature in a way, how does that work? If the rider uses bull rush or gets triped does he get the bonus from the extra legs?
The mount would be attempting the overrun and bull rush, so use the mount's abilities.
Mount does not benefit from abilities like this of the rider, unless they have an express way of doing so.
They do not become centaurs.. ;)
-James
I disagree about the bull rush maneuver, see my above post.
And I corrected myself and admitted you were right(see above).
Agreed -- I was clarifying because the previous poster suggested that I was the one that said x4 on a critical hit with a lance and spirited charge.
Not that you hadn't seen what was being said but that they had incorrectly assigned statements. :D
I disagree about the bull rush maneuver, see my above post.
You say this because of bull rush as a pre-req for unseat, yes?
First of all I think you missed the part where I said...
"I wrote the following with the comparison of a lancer and foot archer in mind. The horse archer is obviously superior to the foot archer (with the right feats), but the basic argument over big burst damage vs. more reliable smaller damage is still valid."
What was your argument about big burst VS reliable smaller damage again?
The way I see it, you stating an archer damage as being "small" is itself wrong. Round for round, I'm willing to bet that a focused archer build's damage output will beat out a focused lancer build's damage at most levels.
With that in mind, one must remember that a mounted archer will have even more difficulty hitting, especially if they do not have the Mounted Archery feat. Like I said the argument between damage spike vs. trickle of damage is still valid. If you need a constant source of damage, then you need an archer. If you need LOTS of damage against a single target then you need the lancer.
It is true that a mounted archer will have more difficulty hitting (over a grounded archer), but only when they are moving a LOT. On a typical horse, an archer can move up 50 feet without any penalties at all. I don't imagien there are too many situations in which you would need to move much faster than that.
Even when moving very fast (and incurring said penalties to hit) the penalties become a moot point when you are hitting anyways. If your attack bonus is so high that you can afford to eat those kinds of penalties and still reliably hit your target, it's almost as if the penalties cease to exist. A hit is still a hit, after all.
I have rarely seen a fighter that didn't, at a certain point, have an excessive amount of "to hit." A fighter's attack bonus keeps getting higher as he levels, procures magic items, and selects feats and weapon groups. On the other hand, a monster's AC often stops increasing at a certain point. Around the CR 10 or 15 point, monsters seem to stop caring about AC and instead rely on DR for protection (which if you are using a proper +5 weapon, you will usually bypass entirely). Most fighters at those levels almost can't seem to miss. In fact, their attacks are so high compared to the opposed AC that their iteratives are extremely likely to hit as well, and they can afford to dump their attack bonus in return for other benefits without really changing their overall round by round damage output (since their is no difference between hitting by 1 or hitting by 10).
(I would like to make it clear that I am under the current assumption that we are discussing straight-classed fighters as opposed to other class possibilities and that the individual archetype is relatively focused and optimized in its chosen combat style.)
Secondly, you are still bringing up the cramped maneuverability argument when I have repeatedly said that for the sake of comparison, we are assuming the terrain does not actively penalize either character.
That I DID miss. I must have misread your post. It sounded like you (or perhaps it was another poster) was saying that cramped situations penalized the lancer less than the archer (or else was more easily overcome), when I saw that it effected both archetypes equally (and that both had an equal ability to overcome).
Yes, horse archers are awesome. But using your own argument, in a dungeon where they can't move around they are just a foot archer sitting on a horse.
Absolutely true.