Mounts with attacks, and the Ride-By-Attack Feat


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 104 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

12 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. 4 people marked this as a favorite.

I have been unable to fully understand this for quite some time. Say you have a mount with a natural attack like a boar or a wolf. Does ride by attack let it attack on a charge and continue moving? Is it the mounts charge or yours?

Option a) mounted halfling with a spear on a wolf charges a target. Wolf makes an attack as part of its charge, halfling makes readied attack, wolf carries on with the rest of his charge move

Option b) mounted halfling with a spear on a wolf charges a target. Halfling makes an attack as part of his charge, wolf carries on with the rest of the charge move.


As written, only the character gets to attack. The mount is making a double move, and so has no actions left to attack with.


Ender_rpm wrote:
As written, only the character gets to attack. The mount is making a double move, and so has no actions left to attack with.

Why is the mount making a double move? A move is considered part of a charge:

"Charging is a special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action."
The ride-by attack isn't increasing the distance you are allowed to move just allowing that attack to happen in the middle of the move not the end of it. If you did a regular charge the mount would be allowed an attack, so I think this feat would grant the mount an attack too. I think this is the mount equivalent of spring attack.


AlQahir wrote:
I think this is the mount equivalent of spring attack.

Nope, it's the MOUNTED equivalent of spring attack. [And Spring attack only allows your normal move, not a double, so not really equivalent, more of a cognate really....] Charging while mounted is kind of a special case, where the mount double moves but the PC generally attacks. I'd agree on a "normal" charge the mount would get an attack (if it has the reach), but in this case, unless you get the mount the feat, I'd say no attacks for horsey.

Or medium dragons....


Ender_rpm wrote:
I'd agree on a "normal" charge the mount would get an attack (if it has the reach), but in this case, unless you get the mount the feat, I'd say no attacks for horsey.

So why wouldn't the mount get an attack with ride-by attack? Originally you said it was because it is taking a double move, but the movement distance is the same. So the only reason it doesn't get an attack is because the action goes:

move --> attack --> move
instead of
move--> move --> attack?

Quote:
Or medium dragons....

There is no reason to drag medium dragons and their halfling riders into this . . .


Glutton wrote:

I have been unable to fully understand this for quite some time. Say you have a mount with a natural attack like a boar or a wolf. Does ride by attack let it attack on a charge and continue moving? Is it the mounts charge or yours?

Option a) mounted halfling with a spear on a wolf charges a target. Wolf makes an attack as part of its charge, halfling makes readied attack, wolf carries on with the rest of his charge move

Option b) mounted halfling with a spear on a wolf charges a target. Halfling makes an attack as part of his charge, wolf carries on with the rest of the charge move.

you're walking into a mine field, and trust me it gets worse if you give the mount spring attack.


The Mounted Combat feat line is supposed to affect what the Rider gets.
This is a bit muddied with the Trample feat, which lets you get hoof attacks against people you overrun... but that feat is just worded poorly (what about large wolf mounts.. do they get "hoof" attacks?).

So yeah.. it's saying you can make an attack during the animal's charge. The animal charges, doing up to 2x movement and attacking at the end. The rider gets to attack someone partway through.

At least, that's how I read it.


AlQahir wrote:

So the only reason it doesn't get an attack is because the action goes:

move --> attack --> move
instead of
move--> move --> attack?

Yes, that's exactly the reason. That's the whole point behind the feat!!!!

AlQahir wrote:
There is no reason to drag medium dragons and their halfling riders into this . . .

Just trying to head this one off at the pass, New DM is scared enough by you maniacs.


Kaisoku wrote:

The Mounted Combat feat line is supposed to affect what the Rider gets.

This is a bit muddied with the Trample feat, which lets you get hoof attacks against people you overrun... but that feat is just worded poorly (what about large wolf mounts.. do they get "hoof" attacks?).

So yeah.. it's saying you can make an attack during the animal's charge. The animal charges, doing up to 2x movement and attacking at the end. The rider gets to attack someone partway through.

At least, that's how I read it.

Well I guess this is a nice work around. If the mount can't attack in the middle at least it can still attack at the end. It seemed weird that taking a feat would actually cost you attacks.


Well, a charge is a charge is a charge. The only thing in question is whether the mount attacks in the middle or the end. If it wasn't a charge, it'd be a move or double move.

So yeah.. I can see a more open interpretation allowing the mount to attack in the middle. It just sounds weird that it's a "charge"... some things activate on a charge that would seem weird if you are just running past (from the mount's point of view).

Contributor

13 people marked this as a favorite.

If you want to move, have the mount attack, and move, the mount has to have Spring Attack. Ride-By Attack lets you attack in the middle of moving; it doesn't change the attack sequence for your mount (it doesn't mention your mount attacking at all).


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
If you want to move, have the mount attack, and move, the mount has to have Spring Attack. Ride-By Attack lets you attack in the middle of moving; it doesn't change the attack sequence for your mount (it doesn't mention your mount attacking at all).

So if you charge and attack with a reach weapon, like a lance, you should be able to attack from 10 feet away, close the distance, and then have your mount attack?

A huge problem with trying to use this feat is that in order to charge you must move directly towards your opponent and you must go to the nearest square from whence you can attack your opponent. You must then continue the line of the charge. Due to the first two conditions, the line of the charge usually winds up running smack through the opponent... and you can't move through his space. What makes this particularly annoying is that even though you and the opponent (two ppoints) always make a strait line whether or not you can actually use this feat to charge and keep going by them is dependent on your positions on an arbitrary grid.

Contributor

5 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
A huge problem with trying to use this feat is that in order to charge you must move directly towards your opponent and you must go to the nearest square from whence you can attack your opponent. You must then continue the line of the charge. Due to the first two conditions, the line of the charge usually winds up running smack through the opponent... and you can't move through his space. What makes this particularly annoying is that even though you and the opponent (two ppoints) always make a strait line whether or not you can actually use this feat to charge and keep going by them is dependent on your positions on an arbitrary grid.

Y = Y

E = enemy
| = path of your charge

Y
|
|
|
|E
|
|
|
|

I'm not going to try creating a reasonable line in this text interface, but if you can draw a straight line on a grid from point A to point B, which passes next to your enemy, you should be able to use Ride-By Attack against that enemy. And if you can't draw such a line, then you're not in a position to be using RBA, and you should either be using a charge action at them or learn Trample so you can go right through.


You also have the option of having your mount Overrun the target.
Y-----E----- (Using Sean's system)
So you have Ride-by Attack and want to charge past your enemy and he's right in front of you. You just charge right at him, making your attack when he's in reach, and then you run him over. If you have trample, your horse can make an attack if the maneuver succeeds.

Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mauril wrote:

You also have the option of having your mount Overrun the target.

Y-----E----- (Using Sean's system)
So you have Ride-by Attack and want to charge past your enemy and he's right in front of you. You just charge right at him, making your attack when he's in reach, and then you run him over. If you have trample, your horse can make an attack if the maneuver succeeds.

Hmm, unless I'm forgetting something, I don't think you can overrun and make an attack in the same round. Overrun is a standard action taken during your move or as part of a charge. That's why I suggested Trample, which lets you overrun and your mount can make a hoof attack.


Overrun wrote:

Overrun

As a standard action, taken during your move or as part of a charge, you can attempt to overrun your target, moving through its square. You can only overrun an opponent who is no more than one size category larger than you. If you do not have the Improved Overrun feat, or a similar ability, initiating an overrun provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver. If your overrun attempt fails, you stop in the space directly in front of the opponent, or the nearest open space in front of the creature if there are other creatures occupying that space.

When you attempt to overrun a target, it can choose to avoid you, allowing you to pass through its square without requiring an attack. If your target does not avoid you, make a combat maneuver check as normal. If your maneuver is successful, you move through the target's space. If your attack exceeds your opponent's CMD by 5 or more, you move through the target's space and the target is knocked prone. If the target has more than two legs, add +2 to the DC of the combat maneuver attack roll for each additional leg it has.

I could be wrong (and will defer to Sean on this) but the way that I am reading the feat is that it says that overrun can be used during a charge. Since you can't take a standard action during a charge, I read it as that the overrun (which takes place during the movement) replaces the attack. Since it is actually the mount that is taking the charge action, I assumed it made the overrun attempt (in the same way that it can attack at the end of a charge). The rider can then use Ride-by Attack to make a single attack during the movement, gaining any bonuses from attacking from a charging mount. Again, I could well be mistaken in my reading of this interaction, but that is the reason that I suggested an overrun.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Thanks Sean, but to clarify:

1) How does the mount having Spring Attack help in a charge situation? Spring Attack allows a melee attack, charge is at least a standard.

2) Can a rider and mount attack in the same round if the rider has Ride-By Attack, and the mount has Pounce (and/or Spring Attack if it works).

*edit* 3) Also, when it says you can overrun as part of a charge, if you have Trample and Charge Through feats, can you Overrun multiple opponents and then charge a creature at the end of your movement? What if you have Pounce?

Cheers again.


I have read both rules (Mounted Charge and Ride by Attack) once more:

Mounted Charge:
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).

-> It's your mount which does the charge, you get only the boni/mali

Ride by Attack:
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.

-> you may move and attack as with a standard charge -> No difference in Attacks between Ride-by-Attack and Mounted Charge

Seems logical to me.

Greetings
Stephan


Stephan Neufang wrote:

I have read both rules (Mounted Charge and Ride by Attack) once more: No difference in Attacks between Ride-by-Attack and Mounted Charge

heres the difference:

If you make an attack at the end of the charge , you receive the bonus gained from the charge

You can't make an attack in the middle of your movement normally, when you attack with a regular mounted charge you have to STOP because its the end of the charge. with ride by attack you can keep going


Except that you can overrun during a charge. An overrun requires that you continue to move through an opponent's square, so you can't make the perfectly allowed overrun attempt at the end of the charge, but instead somewhere in the middle. Even if that overrun attempt is one square before the end of the charge, it wasn't at the end.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Hmm, unless I'm forgetting something, I don't think you can overrun and make an attack in the same round. Overrun is a standard action taken during your move or as part of a charge. That's why I suggested Trample, which lets you overrun and your mount can make a hoof attack.

Sean, overrun was errata'd in 3.5 to exclude charge. IIRC, the rationale had to due with overruning your friendly in front of you, maybe.

However, the 3.5 errata were never released as OGC and the SRD was never updated to include them. As a result, there are many 3.5 errata that didn't make it into Pathfinder which moved forward from the SRD, but appears to not been diligent in getting the non-OGC errata represented. That's been my assumption about why many of these experienced retrograde motion. I'm providing the background more than others than for you; I assume you have a much better understanding of the systems process than do I.

The net result is that overrun is available during a charge again.

Contributor

Ah, I was neglecting the "as part of a charge" aspect of it. :)

Liberty's Edge

This is a great thread. I hope I'm not throwing a monkey wrench in this by asking how aerial mounted combat and feats would work. Can you charge with a flying mount or can you only dive? Would snatch be usable with ride by attack? My inner DM is shaking his head.


So I admit the intersection of mounted combat, movement and attacks has always been rather opaque to me as well.

Why would you even need this feat, to start with? Why not just ready an action to attack as your mount double-moves (or charges) past the enemy?


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Stephan Neufang wrote:

I have read both rules (Mounted Charge and Ride by Attack) once more: No difference in Attacks between Ride-by-Attack and Mounted Charge

heres the difference:

If you make an attack at the end of the charge , you receive the bonus gained from the charge

You are right, besides:

Ride by attack: move and attack as if with a standard charge and then move again

-> It says that you move and attack like the standard charge (-> Normal mounted charge for mount and rider) and after the charge you are allowed to move again

Liberty's Edge

Coriat wrote:
Why would you even need this feat, to start with? Why not just ready an action to attack as your mount double-moves (or charges) past the enemy?

I think that it is largely seen as a non-standard interpretation of readied action to issue a readied action to attack on given circumstances and to subsequently continue your actions in the turn. Your animal acts on your initiative. Your readied action effectively ends your turn waiting for the trigger to take place.

I recognize some might see this as creativity. I don't.

Liberty's Edge

Sean K Reynolds wrote:


Y = Y
E = enemy
| = path of your charge

Y
|
|
|
|E
|
|
|
|

I'm not going to try creating a reasonable line in this text interface, but if you can draw a straight line on a grid from point A to point B, which passes next to your enemy, you should be able to use Ride-By Attack against that enemy. And if you can't draw such a line, then you're not in a position to be using RBA, and you should either be using a charge action at them or learn Trample so you can go right through.

Sean, I think that the problem for many of us is that this sets a condition on being able to charge entirely within the confines of the orientation of the grid, which by definition is arbitrary.


Howie23 wrote:
Sean, I think that the problem for many of us is that this sets a condition on being able to charge entirely within the confines of the orientation of the grid, which by definition is arbitrary.

I don't think Sean's ruling is grid-dependent. He says if you can draw a straight line that passes next to your enemy, you can use RBA along that straight line. I believe this results in a mostly grid-independent use of the feat.

Liberty's Edge

AvalonXQ wrote:
Howie23 wrote:
Sean, I think that the problem for many of us is that this sets a condition on being able to charge entirely within the confines of the orientation of the grid, which by definition is arbitrary.
I don't think Sean's ruling is grid-dependent. He says if you can draw a straight line that passes next to your enemy, you can use RBA along that straight line. I believe this results in a mostly grid-independent use of the feat.

I'd be happy to have his confirmation as to which. RBA calls for a charge. A charge is to a defined square (or a couple of options in some cases based on the geometry). When approaching off the grid lines, the target almost always interfers with the continuation of the charge if made to the defined square. The choices of interpretation are:

1) you can only RBA when the grid cooperates,
2) you can always RBA if there are no obstacles, and doing so sometimes results in permitting a non-standard charge line that is not directly to the target.

I understand him to have said 1). You understand him to have said 2).

I could explain why I understand him to have said this, but it really doesn't matter; we would then merely be debating what the designer said to clarify the rules debate, which seems rather pointless. :)

Contributor

10 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 38 people marked this as a favorite.

Many, many times I say while running a game, "don't let the squares on the map tell you what is or isn't a straight line."

I just can't draw a straight line in the message boards except in 45-degree-angle increments. :p

Here's a diagram I put together. All four of the charge paths shown (gray, yellow, green, and orange) are perfectly valid charge attacks. The red asterisk shows the "closest space from which you can attack your opponent" according to the charge rules. If you don't have RBI, you have to stop there as the end of your charge; if you do have RBI, you can keep moving past that (as the arrow does).

Hello, I am a link to a charge diagram.


Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Many, many times I say while running a game, "don't let the squares on the map tell you what is or isn't a straight line."

I just can't draw a straight line in the message boards except in 45-degree-angle increments. :p

Here's a diagram I put together. All four of the charge paths shown (gray, yellow, green, and orange) are perfectly valid charge attacks. The red asterisk shows the "closest space from which you can attack your opponent" according to the charge rules. If you don't have RBI, you have to stop there as the end of your charge; if you do have RBI, you can keep moving past that (as the arrow does).

Hello, I am a link to a charge diagram.

I agree that it's possible to draw straight lines that go through the "closest space from which you can attack your opponent" and continue in a straight line (without going through that opponent). The asterisks in your diagram, however, do not indicate the closest space in any of the cases.

The purple one, for example, should have the asterisk directly above or diagonally above and left of the enemy. Those two squares are 55 feet from the hero while the one you've marked is 60 feet.


Tem wrote:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Many, many times I say while running a game, "don't let the squares on the map tell you what is or isn't a straight line."

I just can't draw a straight line in the message boards except in 45-degree-angle increments. :p

Here's a diagram I put together. All four of the charge paths shown (gray, yellow, green, and orange) are perfectly valid charge attacks. The red asterisk shows the "closest space from which you can attack your opponent" according to the charge rules. If you don't have RBI, you have to stop there as the end of your charge; if you do have RBI, you can keep moving past that (as the arrow does).

Hello, I am a link to a charge diagram.

I agree that it's possible to draw straight lines that go through the "closest space from which you can attack your opponent" and continue in a straight line (without going through that opponent). The asterisks in your diagram, however, do not indicate the closest space in any of the cases.

The purple one, for example, should have the asterisk directly above or diagonally above and left of the enemy. Those two squares are 55 feet from the hero while the one you've marked is 60 feet.

He meant the closest square considering the path you take. If he would have charged to the other side then the astersik would have been on that side. Charging does not force you to the left or right if both options are open.

Contributor

Yeah, not closest in terms of distance from your starting point, but in terms of "this is the first square along my path where I could attack this guy."

Liberty's Edge

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Many, many times I say while running a game, "don't let the squares on the map tell you what is or isn't a straight line."

I just can't draw a straight line in the message boards except in 45-degree-angle increments. :p

Here's a diagram I put together. All four of the charge paths shown (gray, yellow, green, and orange) are perfectly valid charge attacks. The red asterisk shows the "closest space from which you can attack your opponent" according to the charge rules. If you don't have RBI, you have to stop there as the end of your charge; if you do have RBI, you can keep moving past that (as the arrow does).

Hello, I am a link to a charge diagram.

Sean, thanks for the reply. However, these are not the charge rules as I have ever heard anyone describe them. H must charge to the "closest space from which you can attack the opponent." Everyone I have ever discussed this with identifies this as the closest square to H, since any square from which you could attack E is each the same distance from E.

In addition, you must have a four clear lines from each of H's corners to the target square's corners; if any of these go through an obstacle or creature, you can't charge. In the case of your diagram, there are no obstacles between H and E. However, RBA requires "continuing the straight line of the charge," which is almost always interpretted as needing to maintain the clear charge lines, which E almost always prevents.

****************************

In all four diagrams, you have placed the asterix in a square that is not the closest space from which you can attack the opponent.

In the case of the grey line, the square with the red asterix is 5 feet farther away from H than either of the two squares to the left of the asterix. If charging to the square two to the left, RBA is possible. If charging to the square one to the left, RBA would take H through E's square.

In the case of the chartreuse line, the closest square is strictly the square two to the left of the asterix. Continuing the charge lines (extended from each of the four corners of H to the target square), moves through E's square.

In the case of the green line, the closest square is strictly the square one to the left of asterix. Continuing the charge line is dead into E.

In the case of the orange line, the closest square is strictly the square to the left of asterix. Continuing the charge line is once more into E.

********************

I don't think anyone has said anything about the grid determining a straight line. Rather, that charging along the the grid is the only condition in which you can both move to the closest square and not subsequently move through E and thus satisfy the RBA requirements.

I'm finding this discussion very helpful. But the resolution to me is looking like it requires an errata to RBA to permit a charge to a square other than the closest space. The issue of dragging the charge lines through E then becomes moot; H selects the asterix for gray and chartreuse, but needs to select the square to the right for both green and orange.


wraithstrike wrote:
He meant the closest square considering the path you take. If he would have charged to the other side then the astersik would have been on that side. Charging does not force you to the left or right if both options are open.

I agree that you could still go to the right or left of the opponent, but the wording seems pretty clear that you would need to make your attack from the closest square. You can still end up going past on either side of the opponent in any example. I just question the marked squares in the diagram.

Otherwise, why couldn't any character just charge taking any straight line they would like as long as they could attack the target at the end of their movement? You would end up with some very silly charges in that case (particularly if you consider reach).


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Yeah, not closest in terms of distance from your starting point, but in terms of "this is the first square along my path where I could attack this guy."

Does this apply to all charge attacks, or just with Ride-by-Attack?

Contributor

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 11 people marked this as a favorite.

It's not literally the closest square from you to them (that would generally require you to charge right at them), it's the closest square in your path from which you could make an attack against them. In other words, you can't charge *past* someone and then attack them... when you move, whatever your path is, as soon as they're in striking range, that's when you have to make your attack, otherwise you're not attacking them that round.
. spacer
. spacer
. spacer
. spacer

Y = You
E = enemy
| = path of your charge

Y
|
|
F
|E
|
|
G
|X

The square marked with an F is the first square in your path that you could attack E. If you don't attack from F, you can't attack E that turn... if you move beyond F, you're just doing a charge *past* them... say, with the intent of attacking enemy X from square G (G being the first square where you could make an attack against X).


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Tem wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
He meant the closest square considering the path you take. If he would have charged to the other side then the astersik would have been on that side. Charging does not force you to the left or right if both options are open.

I agree that you could still go to the right or left of the opponent, but the wording seems pretty clear that you would need to make your attack from the closest square. You can still end up going past on either side of the opponent in any example. I just question the marked squares in the diagram.

Otherwise, why couldn't any character just charge taking any straight line they would like as long as they could attack the target at the end of their movement? You would end up with some very silly charges in that case (particularly if you consider reach).

You are supposed to take any straight path. I have reread the rules, and I can see how it can be interpreted that way, and it may need errata or an FAQ clarification at the least. I have never played it that way though, nor have I seen it played that way.

I guess it could read once you select your path you must attack from the closest square along that path, or some similar wording.

Contributor

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tem wrote:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Yeah, not closest in terms of distance from your starting point, but in terms of "this is the first square along my path where I could attack this guy."
Does this apply to all charge attacks, or just with Ride-by-Attack?

That applies to all charge attacks. That's the normal rule for charge.

RBA is fancy because normally when you charge, you stop in the 1st square in your path from which you can attack that enemy, but when you have RBA you can keep moving after attacking from that square.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber
Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Many, many times I say while running a game, "don't let the squares on the map tell you what is or isn't a straight line."

I just can't draw a straight line in the message boards except in 45-degree-angle increments. :p

Here's a diagram I put together. All four of the charge paths shown (gray, yellow, green, and orange) are perfectly valid charge attacks. The red asterisk shows the "closest space from which you can attack your opponent" according to the charge rules. If you don't have RBI, you have to stop there as the end of your charge; if you do have RBI, you can keep moving past that (as the arrow does).

Hello, I am a link to a charge diagram.

Nice diagram! I've always taken the lazy way out and instead of figuring the "true path", always played PCs with reach (i.e. lance)! :)

Liberty's Edge

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
It's not literally the closest square from you to them (that would generally require you to charge right at them), it's the closest square in your path from which you could make an attack against them. In other words, you can't charge *past* someone and then attack them... when you move, whatever your path is, as soon as they're in striking range, that's when you have to make your attack, otherwise you're not attacking them that round.

Sean, if this is the intent of the charge rule, then the charge section is opaque on the scale of clarity. :)

As written:
1) You must move directly to your target.
2) You must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent.
3) If this space is occupied or otherwise blocked, you can't charge.

In aggregate, these statements appear to be designed to make sure the intent is never understood. ;)

If the intent is that you can choose any charge line that is straight and brings you within reach, then this results in all sorts of clothesline charges with lances at a fairly steep angle to the line of attack, particularly when dealing with large and bigger critters.


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Tem wrote:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Yeah, not closest in terms of distance from your starting point, but in terms of "this is the first square along my path where I could attack this guy."
Does this apply to all charge attacks, or just with Ride-by-Attack?

That applies to all charge attacks. That's the normal rule for charge.

RBA is fancy because normally when you charge, you stop in the 1st square in your path from which you can attack that enemy, but when you have RBA you can keep moving after attacking from that square.

Wow - ok, that completely changes how I thought charges worked. Even when you attack from the closest square along your line, you could be mostly past the opponent. This gets exaggerated when you have reach.

I'll probably continue to houserule that you must actually charge to one of the closest squares from your initial position. I don't think I like the idea of people charging with lances and making their attack more than 90 degrees off to the right or left.

Since I don't know how to draw those nice diagrams, I'll try to explain how that's possible:

Hero (with a reach weapon) is in column A at the top of the diagram while the enemy is in column D further down. The hero can only attack the enemy from column B, but if you draw a line so that the only such square is past (south) of the enemy, it would be the closest square from which he could make an attack along that line. In the limit, the angle of the attack compared to the direction of travel approaches 135 degrees.

Liberty's Edge

Tem wrote:
Wow - ok, that completely changes how I thought charges worked.

PF doesn't have all the clarifying text and diagrams to illustrate the same rules text as the 3.5 PHB had. The PHB is pretty clear that you have to make the shortest charge. From the diagram on PHB 154: "When charging, a character ore creature moves... along the shortest path to the closest space...."

So different game here, with the same rules text, from which is supposed to be derived a different intent.

Contributor

Tem wrote:
I'll probably continue to houserule that you must actually charge to one of the closest squares from your initial position. I don't think I like the idea of people charging with lances and making their attack more than 90 degrees off to the right or left.

Well, if you look at my diagram, you'll note that most of those paths mean you attack at about a 45 or 60 degree angle from your attack vector. Only the yellow path puts you at a steeper angle, and that's probably because it's debatable whether or not you should be counting the square to the left of the asterisk--the line passes right through the intersection of four squares northwest of that asterisk, so if you ruled that the hero passed through the square west of the asterisk as part of his charge, that square would be the closest square from which the hero could attack, in which case even the yellow path's attack angle would be about 45 degrees.

A handy thing about being a creature with bendy arms is that even if your weapon is long and rigid (like a lance), your body lets you hold it at an angle from your movement vector; don't let the grid confuse you into thinking that the situation is any different than two jousters approaching each other on parallel separate paths. Take away the grid and look at the approach... it's still a guy charging and hitting someone in a square he could reach with the weapon if he were standing still (i.e., if the Hero could hit an Enemy from an asterisk square in the diagram when he's not charging, he should still be able to do it when he's charging).


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Tem wrote:
I'll probably continue to houserule that you must actually charge to one of the closest squares from your initial position. I don't think I like the idea of people charging with lances and making their attack more than 90 degrees off to the right or left.

Well, if you look at my diagram, you'll note that most of those paths mean you attack at about a 45 or 60 degree angle from your attack vector. Only the yellow path puts you at a steeper angle, and that's probably because it's debatable whether or not you should be counting the square to the left of the asterisk--the line passes right through the intersection of four squares northwest of that asterisk, so if you ruled that the hero passed through the square west of the asterisk as part of his charge, that square would be the closest square from which the hero could attack, in which case even the yellow path's attack angle would be about 45 degrees.

A handy thing about being a creature with bendy arms is that even if your weapon is long and rigid (like a lance), your body lets you hold it at an angle from your movement vector; don't let the grid confuse you into thinking that the situation is any different than two jousters approaching each other on parallel separate paths. Take away the grid and look at the approach... it's still a guy charging and hitting someone in a square he could reach with the weapon if he were standing still (i.e., if the Hero could hit an Enemy from an asterisk square in the diagram when he's not charging, he should still be able to do it when he's charging).

In general, I have no problem with making attacks where the angle is within reason and indeed, when you are forced to move to the closest space from your initial position, you are sometimes still attacking at 45 degrees or even slightly more.

My issue is that by removing the condition of charing to the nearest square from your initial position you can now charge and make attacks at greater than 90 degrees which really isn't possible in real life with weapons like lances (for example). The example I try to give above shows that we can approach 135 degrees. None of this really depends on the grid system at all.

I'm not exactly sure I agree with your comment:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
if the Hero could hit an Enemy from an asterisk square in the diagram when he's not charging, he should still be able to do it when he's charging

If you're running full out and trying to attack someone, in order to gain the benefit of your foward movement you should have to be attacking someone in front of you (or within say ~45 degrees). On the other hand, he could move slightly more cautiously (giving up the +2 attack from the charge and only moving up to your speed rather than double) to get to some point then stop, turn and attack from an obtuse angle.

In your diagrams they are certainly reasonable but without needing to charge to the nearest square, it is very easy to construct unreasonable situations.


Tem wrote:
stuck about what makes sense

Don't let realism get in the way of balance. Swing the lance out as Sean suggest is a lot more realistic than getting 6 or more shots off with a longbow accurately, or a number of other things that happen in a game. I am not telling you how to play, just bringing some perspective to the situation.

Another example is small characters with reach weapons being able to hit someone 10 feet away. My 3 year old newphew is not two much smaller than some halfings. He might even be bigger than a few, but either way he won't be able to balance a 10 foot long anything. He would need at least one hand close to the center of the pole, and his arms are just to short for that.

Liberty's Edge

In 3.0, you had to charge in a straight line, but there was no requirement that you charge directly at your target.

In 3.5, it was added that you have to charge directly at your target.

In PF, it is retained that you have to charge directly at your target.

Charging in a manner that is not directly at your target is using the old 3.0 rule.


Yeah - I'm not as much of a stickler for "reality" as my posts above might suggest. I guess my point can be summerized as: you can still do everything you could want or expect to do, even when you require people to charge to the nearest square from their starting position (including running past with ride-by-attack). So why remove this condition? I don't see how it affects balance either way and it only seems to adversly affect the intuition regarding how charging works.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Can a mount attack during a ride-by-attack?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Greetings, fellow travellers.

A really informative thread. I am beginning to see, why some players in my group started arguing about RBA.
I think, I am kind of stuck between Tem and Sean.
Charging needs a straight line. Your attack has to issue from a square which has your enemy standing more or less in a continuation of that straight line (approx. 45 to 60° off is fine). Than you ride by your opponent and stop at the end of your mount's (double) movement rate.
If you want to perform an overrun manouver that's fine with me, but it needs a separate CMB/CMD roll, well, follows the rulings as laid out in the PFSRD.

Concerning your question, Zen: I think that was answered early in the thread, also by Sean. Your mount has to have the feat spring attack to do so. This is the ruling I stick to, at least.

Ruyan.

1 to 50 of 104 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Mounts with attacks, and the Ride-By-Attack Feat All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.