| 9 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Reading the RAW it looks to me like one can get 2x damage with lance attacks on a full attack. That seems too OP, which is why I'm clarifying the rules here.
By my reading of the RAW, it seems that only a few things are required.
1. Rider is on a mount.
2. Rider is wielding a lance.
3. Rider has the Mounted Skirmisher feat.
4. Mount is charging, but moving no faster than 1x its speed.
5. Rider is full-attacking as per mounted skirmisher.
Lance: "A lance deals double damage when used from the back of a charging mount."
Mounted Skirmisher: "If your mount moves its speed or less, you can still take a full-attack action."
Mounted Skirmisher allows for the rider to full attack while the mount charges, so long as the mount does not exceed 1x speed. The text description for the lance says that lance attacks while riding a charging mount do 2x damage, with no requirement that the rider is also making a charge attack.
It's true that elsewhere in the rules it's noted that charging with a lance while mounted does 2x damage, but that does not contradict the Lance weapon description - it merely provides another slightly different means of doing 2x damage with a lance.
What do you guys think?
lance only gets it on a charge. mounted skirmished does not I'n any way interact with charge.
at least I do not think it does.
Mounted skirmisher can't be used on a charge.
A pouncing beast totem mounted fury barbarian, on the other hand, can easily use spirited charge.
I did not indicate that the rider charges in the scenario I laid out. The rider does not charge. The mount charges and while it does so the rider full attacks.
I was mostly asking for the purpose of getting a bunch of extra damage out of smite evil, which is why I wasn't considering a barb.
lance only gets it on a charge. mounted skirmished does not I'n any way interact with charge.
at least I do not think it does.
Lance: "A lance deals double damage when used from the back of a charging mount."
Seems to indicate that if the mount charges but the rider does something else [like a full attack via mounted skirmisher], the lance will still do 2x damage, as it's still being "used from the back of a charging mount."
I'm not saying that one can charge with mounted skirmisher, I'm saying that one can do 2x damage without charging as long as one's mount is charging, as that seems to be what the lance description says.
I think the point you'll need to prove is that your mount can charge without you getting the charge bonus/penalty.
Because that's what needs to happen to trigger the lance description (2x damage on charging mount) without triggering the charge restriction (one attack).
As a DM, I'd have to say that if you made your mount move so quickly as to charge, that you are now getting AC penalties and attack bonuses from it, and thus you are limited to the one attack.
Making it a short distance doesn't make it any reckless of movement.
|
Charge and full attack are different types of full round actions. Mounted skirmisher allows you to make a full attack.
Spirited Charge (Combat)
Your mounted charge attacks deal a tremendous amount of damage.
Prerequisites: Ride 1 rank, Mounted Combat, Ride-By Attack.
Benefit: When mounted and using the charge action, you deal double damage with a melee weapon (or triple damage with a lance).
So a character with spirited charge and a lance would deal x4 damage?
I think the point you'll need to prove is that your mount can charge without you getting the charge bonus/penalty.
Because that's what needs to happen to trigger the lance description (2x damage on charging mount) without triggering the charge restriction (one attack).
As a DM, I'd have to say that if you made your mount move so quickly as to charge, that you are now getting AC penalties and attack bonuses from it, and thus you are limited to the one attack.
Making it a short distance doesn't make it any reckless of movement.
I don't think the charge restriction of 1 attack is due to having AC penalties or attack bonuses due to reckless movement. I think the reason for 1 attack is that you're moving more than 5 feet and attacking. Normally, whether on the ground or on horseback, you can only get one attack if you move more than 5 feet. However, mounted skirmisher eliminates this restriction for mounted combatants, and I don't see why, by the RAW at least, that shouldn't apply to a scenario where a mount is charging.
Charge and full attack are different types of full round actions. Mounted skirmisher allows you to make a full attack.
I agree with that. I never said that a particular combatant could take both types of actions in the same round. I said that it's possible for a mount to charge while a rider full attacks. The rider cannot full attack and use the charge action, but I never said he uses the charge action.
So a character with spirited charge and a lance would deal x4 damage?Spirited Charge (Combat)
Your mounted charge attacks deal a tremendous amount of damage.
Prerequisites: Ride 1 rank, Mounted Combat, Ride-By Attack.
Benefit: When mounted and using the charge action, you deal double damage with a melee weapon (or triple damage with a lance).
Spirited charge is incompatible with mounted skirmisher because it requires that the rider use the charge action and thus not the full attack action.
|
|
Spirited charge is incompatible with mounted skirmisher because it requires that the rider use the charge action and thus not the full attack action.So a character with spirited charge and a lance would deal x4 damage?Spirited Charge (Combat)
Your mounted charge attacks deal a tremendous amount of damage.
Prerequisites: Ride 1 rank, Mounted Combat, Ride-By Attack.
Benefit: When mounted and using the charge action, you deal double damage with a melee weapon (or triple damage with a lance).
Of course it is. But that was not what I was trying to imply.
If Spirited Charge has different triggers than a lance, a character with both would deal x4 damage on a charge.And the restriction of charge to one attack is based on not having pounce. It has nothing to do with the ability to make full attacks. A character with pounce is even able to get all his attacks as a standard action if he's staggered.
Spirited charge is incompatible with mounted skirmisher because it requires that the rider use the charge action and thus not the full attack action.So a character with spirited charge and a lance would deal x4 damage?Spirited Charge (Combat)
Your mounted charge attacks deal a tremendous amount of damage.
Prerequisites: Ride 1 rank, Mounted Combat, Ride-By Attack.
Benefit: When mounted and using the charge action, you deal double damage with a melee weapon (or triple damage with a lance).
Of course it is. But that was not what I was trying to imply.
If Spirited Charge has different triggers than a lance, a character with both would deal x4 damage on a charge.
I suppose you're right there. Of course, that just says that there's something wrong with the RAW.
Even without spirited charge, the RAW seems to allow for 3x damage if you and your horse are both charging.
"A lance deals double damage when used from the back of a charging mount."
"When charging on horseback, you deal double damage with a lance."
I think these should be changed to be consistent with one another, preferably requiring that the actual character is using the charge action so that it's not so simple to get full 2x damage attacks by RAW.
And the restriction of charge to one attack is based on not having pounce. It has nothing to do with the ability to make full attacks. A character with pounce is even able to get all his attacks as a standard action if he's staggered.
Not really relevant, since I'm not talking about using charge and multiple attacks. I'm talking about using the full attack action while the mount is charging, so there should be no requirement of pounce.
If your mount is charging then you are charging, that is why you still get the penalty to AC and the +2 to attack.
In the Mounted Combat rules:
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).
To me, that sounds like when your horse charges, you are charging too. Specifically the "you also take the AC penalty associated with a charge" and the "When charging on horseback", both seem as implicit language that indicates "you" are charging.
You can decide not to benefit from the charge (don't make an attack at the end), but you are taking a penalty no matter what, so you must be charging.
Which brings us to the whole "can't charge and skirmish at the same time" problem.
Note again, I wouldn't allow it as a DM.
Thinking about this ...
The lance from a charging mount inflicts double damage because it's driven into the foe at the end of the charge with all the force of the charging mount, because while it may not cover the distance of a double move, that's how fast it's going at the point of impact.
Mounted Skirmisher is your mount carrying you to the enemy who you full attack on arrival. It has to be a short distance to let you get all those attacks in when you arrive.
By RAW, the mount isn't moving it's move distance or less, it's charging. Charging has to be in a straight line, it's a double move (in terms of speed if not in distance), and it has to end at a foe you get a single attack on. Just because you cover less distance than a double move doesn't change this, you have still charged. Once that attack is made you are no longer charging. However, double moving the distance of less than one normal move means you have covered it quickly, logically you should still have time to get in a full attack if you have the Mounted Skirmisher feat.
What I would rule myself is that if you have Mounted Skirmisher, you can charge with a lance for double damage as normal. If the total distance charged was less than your mount's normal speed, this was your first attack of a full attack, and the charge has now ended; you can then attack normally for the remainder of your attacks. You still suffer all the penalties for charging, but you get some mileage out of Mounted Skirmisher too. You don't get double damage from the lance for the follow-up attacks, because your charge has ended with that first attack.
Reasonable?
By RAW the mount charges, and gives the rider the benefits of the charge. Both mount and rider have a full-round action or standard and move action for the round.
Core, 202, "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)."
Now, with mounted skirmished things get a little more iffy.
APG, 165, "Benefit: If your mount moves its speed or less, you can still take a full-attack action."
Okay, pretty basic, but it doesn't say "if your mount charges its speed or less" it says "if your mount moves". That takes charge out of the equation. Even without this limitation, core also limits this:
Core, 202, "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."
If you make AN attack, you get the bonus. If you do not make a single attack, you do not get the bonus.
Do note, as I said at the start, the rider still can take his move action to do something (ready a lance, ready a shield, retrieve an item, etc) and attack at the end of the charge.
By RAW the mount charges, and gives the rider the benefits of the charge. Both mount and rider have a full-round action or standard and move action for the round.
Core, 202, "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)."
Now, with mounted skirmished things get a little more iffy.
APG, 165, "Benefit: If your mount moves its speed or less, you can still take a full-attack action."
Okay, pretty basic, but it doesn't say "if your mount charges its speed or less" it says "if your mount moves". That takes charge out of the equation. Even without this limitation, core also limits this:
Core, 202, "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."
If you make AN attack, you get the bonus. If you do not make a single attack, you do not get the bonus.
Do note, as I said at the start, the rider still can take his move action to do something (ready a lance, ready a shield, retrieve an item, etc) and attack at the end of the charge.
I don't agree with this analysis.
1. A charge is not taken out of the equation due to the wording of Mounted Skirmisher. Moving (differing from a move action) is a generel term for, well when you move. Moving is a requirement of making a charge, so if you make it, you are most certainly moving for the sake of the feat.
2. The being limited to a single action at the end of a charge action, is not rule which comes into play in this case. The rule that matters, and is the 'normal' which mounted skirmisher is written up against, is the fact that you cannot make more than one attack if your mount moves more than 5 ft.
The fact that you counts as charging for AC penalty and Attack bonus, does not entail that you are limited by the attack action in any other sense.
As such, by RAW I think it is legal to combine mounted skirmisher and a lance.
Leaving RAW for what little it is worth on this subject, as a GM I would rule that the character would get the damage multiplier for the lance only on the first attack, as the momentum is used up at that time.
No matter what, I don't think it is much of an issue balance-wise. It might give you a few attacks with very high damage, but you need to expend 3 feats which are highly situational (need to be riding space) and it cannot be done until level 14.
I don't agree with this analysis.
1. A charge is not taken out of the equation due to the wording of Mounted Skirmisher. Moving (differing from a move action) is a generel term for, well when you move. Moving is a requirement of making a charge, so if you make it, you are most certainly moving for the sake of the feat.
Move in this context is ambiguous. I agree with that. I believe it was meant "move" as in "move action" while you believe any movement works. I can accept that.
2. The being limited to a single action at the end of a charge action, is not rule which comes into play in this case. The rule that matters, and is the 'normal' which mounted skirmisher is written up against, is the fact that you cannot make more than one attack if your mount moves more than 5 ft.
The fact that you counts as charging for AC penalty and Attack bonus, does not entail that you are limited by the attack action in any other sense.
As the quote I provided states, you only get the bonus of charging if you make AN attack. Not if you make multiple attacks. I'm not saying you can't make a full-attack after your mount charges, but that you will not get the +2 charge bonus for the attacks.
As such, by RAW I think it is legal to combine mounted skirmisher and a lance.
Leaving RAW for what little it is worth on this subject, as a GM I would rule that the character would get the damage multiplier for the lance only on the first attack, as the momentum is used up at that time.No matter what, I don't think it is much of an issue balance-wise. It might give you a few attacks with very high damage, but you need to expend 3 feats which are highly situational (need to be riding space) and it cannot be done until level 14.
I do think this is very important rules wise, as mounted combat overall is horribly written, very unclear, and when combined with biped eidolons with many many arms can get quite absurd. I stand by my earlier assessment that by making more than 1 attack after the charge, you lose the charge bonus on the attacks (and thus the extra damage from a lance).
As the quote I provided states, you only get the bonus of charging if you make AN attack. Not if you make multiple attacks. I'm not saying you can't make a full-attack after your mount charges, but that you will not get the +2 charge bonus for the attacks.
Well there is a quite substantial distinction between 'an attack' and 'one attack'. The latter is explicitly limiting to a single action, the first is not. You can see similar wording for trip/disarm, "... in place of a melee attack". Despite it referring to an attack, it is not limiting to one.
Furthermore you have to consider that at the time the core rules were written the feat in question did not exist, so at that time there were no means to get multiple attacks at the end of a mounted charge.
I agree that the rules are muddied (despite that I don't se a balance-wise problem) and some clearing up could do wonders. But I don't think there is basis on making a ruling on whether the mounted skirmisher is limited to one attack to get a charge bonus, just because they've used the generel term 'an attack'.
Well there is a quite substantial distinction between 'an attack' and 'one attack'. The latter is explicitly limiting to a single action, the first is not. You can see similar wording for trip/disarm, "... in place of a melee attack". Despite it referring to an attack, it is not limiting to one.
The word "an" limits it to a single attack. If it said "an attack action" then it would not limit it. Similar wording is not the same. trip/disarm replace a melee attack with the combat maneuver. Each use of trip/disarm replaces only a single melee attack.
Furthermore you have to consider that at the time the core rules were written the feat in question did not exist, so at that time there were no means to get multiple attacks at the end of a mounted charge.
In this case, then the writer of the feat changing the existing rules should have explicitly clarified it with something like, "Benefit: Allows you to make a full-round attack if your mount moves less than its speed (even on a charge)."
I agree that the rules are muddied (despite that I don't se a balance-wise problem) and some clearing up could do wonders. But I don't think there is basis on making a ruling on whether the mounted skirmisher is limited to one attack to get a charge bonus, just because they've used the generel term 'an attack'.
An attack is very specific in that it is one attack. If they wanted to leave it open to other uses, they would have said "an attack action".
|
What do you guys think?
Prerequisites: Ride rank 14, Mounted Combat, Trick Riding.
Benefit: If your mount moves its speed or less, you can still take a full-attack action.
Normal: If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only take an attack action.
I think that Mounted Skirmisher allows the mount to move it's speed or less (as a move action, not a charge), and allows the rider to full attack. The mount could also make a standard attack before or after moving. I don't read the text for Mounted Skirmisher obviate the conditions of a mounted charge. In particular, the Normal clause of the feat references the game mechanics interaction of moving more than 5 feet in a round and attacking. It does not reference the mechanic of the charging action.
I agree that the mounted combat rules are wonky; the fact that they weren't fixed in PF is unfortunate. It results in people taking different points of view regarding what action is required for a rider to get the benefit of a charge when mounted. Both this, and ambiguity regarding whether the benefit text refers to any movement, such as charge, or only a move action, and you'll get variance in the opinions.
For the PFS minded crowd, the 14 ranks of ride as a prerequisite means it only comes into play in sanctioned modules of 14th level or higher under the current offerings.
The word "an" limits it to a single attack. If it said "an attack action" then it would not limit it. Similar wording is not the same. trip/disarm replace a melee attack with the combat maneuver. Each use of trip/disarm replaces only a single melee attack.
I can only repeat that "an attack" it not interchangeable with "a single attack" or "one attack".
If I am making multiple attacks, each of these are still "an attack".While "an attack" is singular, the language of "if you make an attack.." does not impose any limits to whatever else you might do. To impose the limit you propose it would have to state either "a single attack" or "one attack".
Developer
|
The feat calls out movement only. It does not specify a move action, it only puts a limit on the distance. Your mount can spring attack (if it has the feats) and you'd gain the benefits. Your mount could flyby attack. Your mount can charge. All you need do is move a distance equal to or less than your mount's speed. Any other reading is adding text that isn't present. You can add this text in your home game, but "move action" is not written in the feat.
When your mount is charging, though you gain the benefits and penalties, you are not necessarily charging. You can drink a potion while you mount charges. You can cast a spell (with a concentration check). You can start bardic music. You can do any other combination of move+standard+swift+(free^x), but if you make melee attacks they are at +2 and your AC is -2 until your next turn.
As written, Mounted Skirmisher seems to allow you to deal double damage on every attack during a full attack, so long as your mount does not charge farther than its speed.
For those who think the section is poorly worded, it may be. Adjust it in your game, but what is written does not forbid this from working.
I do think this is very important rules wise, as mounted combat overall is horribly written, very unclear, and when combined with biped eidolons with many many arms can get quite absurd. I stand by my earlier assessment that by making more than 1 attack after the charge, you lose the charge bonus on the attacks (and thus the extra damage from a lance).
This looks like the best suggestion to me.
|
Developer
|
As for "an attack," here are other instances specifying that.
Fury's Fall says when you make "a trip attack" you add your DEX to your CMB.
Ki Throw only works on "a successful trip attempt."
Improved Trip only stops you from suffering an attack of opportunity when performing "a trip combat maneuver."
These are feats, the benefits of each I am inclined to apply to every trip attack made (or successful trip for Ki Throw).
It seems pretty accepted that you can make more than one trip attack a round, even though trip says "You can attempt to trip your opponent in place of a melee attack."
I think if the wording was to limit it to a single attack, it would call out the attack action, or specify the first attack made, like furious focus. The rules do not, ergo "an attack" is "when making any attack" not when "making one attack."
Otherwise I cannot see any of the above trip instances (and likely disarm, too) being allowed more than once a round.
"If you make an attack at the end of the charge, you receive the bonus gained from the charge." Is a vaguer wording, and I feel that RAI meant that you make one attack, but the RAW does not bear this out. I'd houserule that you get the benefit only on your first attack, but it's a houserule.
As others have stated, the feat was written after the mounted rules, and they do not mesh well. GMs should adjust it to a way they feel comfortable.
In the Mounted Combat rules:
You can decide not to benefit from the charge (don't make an attack at the end), but you are taking a penalty no matter what, so you must be charging.Which brings us to the whole "can't charge and skirmish at the same time" problem.
Note again, I wouldn't allow it as a DM.
By your reading, the player is already "charging" without taking any actions. Since he's not using the charge full round action, he's free to make whatever normally allowed actions he wants, since he's made no actions in the round. Normally he is unable to full attack in this circumstance due to explicit text that you can't full attack if your mount moves more than 5 feet, which it must to charge.
The PC might count as "charging" when riding a charging mount, but he is not using the charge full round action and thus has his actions free to do with as he wishes.
By RAW, the mount isn't moving it's move distance or less, it's charging.
it doesn't say "if your mount charges its speed or less" it says "if your mount moves". That takes charge out of the equation.
Mounted Skirmisher allows the mount to move it's speed or less (as a move action, not a charge)
Here's what's wrong with these statements.
"Charging is a special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed"
Charging is moving, it's just not a move action. Mounted skirmisher requires movement; it does not specify that it must be a move action, so the movement from charging counts.
If it is a mount that is charging (as you read it) then you can never use a lance anyway because the charge will end adjacent to the target (unless you have a weird mount) and a lance is a reach weapon.
RAW, since the PC is not using any actions, he could still attack with a reach weapon during the mount's charge, it just wouldn't qualify for the +2 bonus to attack since it's not at the end of the charge. If being on top of a charging mount is enough to qualify as "charging," even though it requires no actions (i.e. charging without a charge action), then this satisfies both text descriptions of how to get x2 damage with a lance while mounted. If a charging mount does not make the rider "charging" then there are 2 different descriptions of how to get x2 damage mounted with a lance and one of them is fulfilled.
|
|
The feat calls out movement only. It does not specify a move action, it only puts a limit on the distance. Your mount can spring attack (if it has the feats) and you'd gain the benefits. Your mount could flyby attack. Your mount can charge. All you need do is move a distance equal to or less than your mount's speed. Any other reading is adding text that isn't present. You can add this text in your home game, but "move action" is not written in the feat.
I agree that move action is not in the text. Point taken. I'll retract it.
When your mount is charging, though you gain the benefits and penalties, you are not necessarily charging....but if you make melee attacks they are at +2 and your AC is -2 until your next turn.
Agreed. You are not necessarily charging. However, sometimes you are. To Gain the benefit of charging with a lance, you are charging on horseback. To gain the benefit of Spirited Charge, you are charging.
While the single melee attack after 5 feet is negated by the Normal clause of Mounted Skirmisher, the extra damage from a lance requires that you are charging on horseback.
If you are charging, you may make a single melee attack. This is not negated by the Normal clause of Mounted Skirmisher. It is an additional restriction associated with charging. Since it isn't negated, it is still in place.
The subject of this sentence is you, the rider. The rider gains double damage with a melee weapon or triple damage with a lance when the rider is mounted and when the rider is using the charge action. The rider who is using Spirited Charge and Mounted Skirmisher is subject to those normal requirements and restrictions that are not negated. Mounted Skirmisher negates the 1 attack if more than 5 feet. It doesn't negate the single melee attack at the end of a charge.
This section uses "charging mount." The section on Combat While Mounted requires that you are "charging on horseback." To gain the damage benefit from the lance, the rider is charging on horseback, from the back of a charging mount. Both are required. The single melee attack from the Charge action still applies; it is not negated by Mounted Skirmisher.
As written, Mounted Skirmisher seems to allow you to deal double damage on every attack during a full attack, so long as your mount does not charge farther than its speed.
For those who think the section is poorly worded, it may be. Adjust it in your game, but what is written does not forbid this from working.
I can see a position that you can full attack at the end of a mount's single move charge. But if so, you are not charging and thus don't gain the damage benefit of the lance.
If I've detracted from the conversation with a bad turn down the move action road, my apologies. The primary focus of my position is with regard to the Normal clause of Mounted Skirmisher.
Folks who disagree that the rider must be charging to gain the benefit of the lance damage bonus after looking at all of the consolidated material will disagree.
Folks who disagree that the rider must be charging to gain the benefit of the lance damage bonus after looking at all of the consolidated material will disagree.
The lance text description uses unambiguous language that states you get 2x damage if your mount is charging and you attack with a lance.
Yes, text in the mounted combat section says something else, but it does not negate the text in the lance description. If these pieces of text give different conditions for getting 2x damage, they should stack to 3x damage if both conditions are met. Obviously RAI are for the sections to say the same thing, but RAW they are simply different conditions for the same effect.
It's possible to interpret the conditions as more or less identical if a charging mount makes the rider qualify as "charging" [even though he's not using the charge action - though he still has the AC penalty and potentially the attack bonus], and the mount moving for the rider to charge counts as "charging" even if it does not use the charge action.
|
|
Mounted Skirmisher allows the mount to move it's speed or less (as a move action, not a charge)Here's what's wrong with these statements.
"Charging is a special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed"
Charging is moving, it's just not a move action. Mounted skirmisher requires movement; it does not specify that it must be a move action, so the movement from charging counts.
Yeah, I've retracted the my quote above. You ninja'd me. :)
The movement from charging counts, but to get the lance benefit on a charge, the rider is also charging as I outlined in my last post. Mounted Skirmisher negates the 1 attack if move more than five feet, but doesn't negate the single attack on a charge. Both are in effect; only one is negated.
However, as I pointed out before if your mount is the one charging (and assuming you are riding a horse or other standard long (wide)) mount than you can not normally attack with a lance because the mount will end adjacent to their target making you therefore adjacent and unable to use the lance.
This is clearly not the RAI, but it is part of the problem when you separate out the charging mount from charging rider.
I already responded to you on that. The section on attacking while the mount is charging states that you get the +2 charge bonus if you attack at the end of the mount's charge. It does not state that you cannot attack before the end of the charge, so it's possible to attack five feet before the charge ends.
The rules also only state that you can't make a full attack [without mounted skirmisher] while the mount moves more than 5 feet; it does not state that this attack has to be at a specific point during this movement.
RAW the mount can charge, and the rider can attack with the lance when he's 10 feet away from the target [during, not after, the movement portion of the mount's charge action]. This satisfies "attacking with a lance from the back of a charging mount," and so via the Lance description it's 2x damage. This does not, however, confer the +2 attack bonus to the rider, at least not RAW, as the attack is not at the end of the mount's charge.
As for "an attack," here are other instances specifying that.
Fury's Fall says when you make "a trip attack" you add your DEX to your CMB.
Ki Throw only works on "a successful trip attempt."
Improved Trip only stops you from suffering an attack of opportunity when performing "a trip combat maneuver."
These are feats, the benefits of each I am inclined to apply to every trip attack made (or successful trip for Ki Throw).
It seems pretty accepted that you can make more than one trip attack a round, even though trip says "You can attempt to trip your opponent in place of a melee attack."
I completely agree with you on these feats and how they work. The feat references that the bonus applies to a singular trip attack, because it applies to each singular trip attack, not just the first one.
I think if the wording was to limit it to a single attack, it would call out the attack action, or specify the first attack made, like furious focus. The rules do not, ergo "an attack" is "when making any attack" not when "making one attack."
I think if the wording was to allow it to apply to a full attack, it would call out the attack action, or specify it applies to all attacks made, like power attack. The rules do not, ergo "an attack" is "when making a single attack" not "when making any attack".
Otherwise I cannot see any of the above trip instances (and likely disarm, too) being allowed more than once a round.
"If you make an attack at the end of the charge, you receive the bonus gained from the charge." Is a vaguer wording, and I feel that RAI meant that you make one attack, but the RAW does not bear this out. I'd houserule that you get the benefit only on your first attack, but it's a houserule.
As others have stated, the feat was written after the mounted rules, and they do not mesh well. GMs should adjust it to a way they feel comfortable.
The problem is this. If it said "If you attack at the end of the charge" I would fully agree with you. It says "If you make an attack" which heavily marks it to be a singular attack. To support this, I offer a definition of "an" from dictionary.com: "an
indefinite article, "one, lone," also used as a prefix an- "single, lone;""
The mount handles the movement for you, but it still counts as your move action or charge unless Paizo changed the words from 3.5. If the words are the same then the meaning of the same until Paizo changes their interpretation or the words themselves.
The mount handles the movement for you, but it still counts as your move action or charge unless Paizo changed the words from 3.5. If the words are the same then the meaning of the same until Paizo changes their interpretation or the words themselves.
Nothing says the mount's action counts as yours. As others have stated above, your mount can move, and you still retain your standard+move or full-round action.
If you could attack at any point in the charge, what is the point of the ride by attack feat?
First, it makes it count as a Charge action for the player, conferring the +2 charge bonus to attack rolls. Second, it prevents the mount and the player from provoking attacks of opportunity. Also, to attack while the mount is charging, it would have to be going right for an enemy, and would not end its turn out of harm's way. You could ordinarily attack while the mount is moving normally [if nothing else, using your standard action to ready an action to attack when in range]. The mount could simply do two move actions to imitate a ride-by attack, with the readied action going off in the middle, but it would not confer a charge bonus, neither giving the +2 on attack or the x2 on lance damage, and it would provoke attacks if you got in range of the foe.
Nothing in the rules allows you to interrupt the mounts turn to make an attack.
Good point. Readied action seems to be the only way if this is correct. It's not really clear how moving on the same initiative works. Whether or not you're using a reach weapon this would prevent the rider from charging when the mount charges, as the rider's turn would either be before or after the mount's charge.
This interpretation of initiative sharing does prevent a full attack via skirmisher on the mount's charge, as you can't ready a full attack and you can't otherwise act in the middle of the mount's action. This seems to prevent the possibility of x2 lance full attacking.
The mount handles the movement for you, but it still counts as your move action or charge unless Paizo changed the words from 3.5. If the words are the same then the meaning of the same until Paizo changes their interpretation or the words themselves.
Any reference on the mount's movement counting as the rider's move action?
I completely agree with you on these feats and how they work.As for "an attack," here are other instances specifying that.
Fury's Fall says when you make "a trip attack" you add your DEX to your CMB.
"A" means the same thing as "an." By your interpretation, Fury's Fall should only apply to making a lone trip attack, rather than applying to all trip attacks.
Either each trip attack in a round cannot be considered "a" trip attack, or every attack at the end of a charge can be considered "an" attack.
My real issue is that the lance entry says "charging mount" when I believe they mean "mounted charge" if that is the case than it is clear you can't do the full attack and you don't need your mount to do a legal charge.
Either way, there is other text which indicates that charging while mounted with a lance also provides the x2 lance bonus, even though the mount is not using a charge action but rather the rider is.
RAW, it looks like these two separate ways to get the x2 bonus should stack to x3 if both conditions are met [charging from the back of a charging mount]. Clearly RAI is either that the conditions be the same, or that either condition should work but they should not stack if both apply.
Actually, it might be impossible to get both conditions to apply, given that you and the mount possibly can't simultaneously use the charge action.
I think actually a little confusing how the rider would charge at all using your interpretation of shared initiative, since movement has to be part of the rider's charge action but the movement can only happen during the mount's turn. This seems to only leave room for a readied action to attack at the end of the charge [or before then]. Or maybe attacking after the charge would count as "at the end of the mount's charge" and thus confer the +2 bonus on attack rolls (but not the x2 lance damage since it's no longer a charging mount and it's not a charging rider).
"A" means the same thing as "an." By your interpretation, Fury's Fall should only apply to making a lone trip attack, rather than applying to all trip attacks.
Either each trip attack in a round cannot be considered "a" trip attack, or every attack at the end of a charge can be considered "an" attack.
No. By my interpretation, fury's fall applies on each trip attack you make. Since a full-round attack action allows you make multiple trip attacks, fury's fall applies to each singular trip attack.
The difference is in the wording.
Fury's Fall, SRD: "Benefit: When making a trip attack, add your Dexterity bonus to your CMB."
This states when you are making an attack that is a trip combat maneuver. You can get multiples of those via a full-round attack action, and is not comparable with mounted combat.
Mounted Combat, SRD: "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)."
This states that if you make an attack at the end of the charge, not "a full-round attack" or "multiple attacks" or "an attack action" but a single attack.
Lets go at this another way...
Core, 181, "Standard Action: A standard action allows you to do something, most commonly to make an attack or cast a spell."
We all know standard actions are single attacks.
By my interpretation, fury's fall applies on each trip attack you make. Since a full-round attack action allows you make multiple trip attacks, fury's fall applies to each singular trip attack.
I'm going to reply to your statements with modifications of your other statements to demonstrate your inconsistency.
A full-round attack action allows you to make multiple attacks, and the mounted combat bonus applies to each singular attack if they are at the end of a charge [only possible via mounted skirmisher].
The difference is in the wording.
Fury's Fall, SRD: "Benefit: When making a trip attack, add your Dexterity bonus to your CMB."
This states when you are making an attack that is a trip combat maneuver. You can get multiples of those via a full-round attack action, and is not comparable with mounted combat.
This states that if you make a trip attack, not 'a full-round attack with multiple trip attacks' or 'multiple trip attacks' or 'an attack action used for a trip attack' but a single trip attack.
[I disagree with the above, but it's representative of what you said about attacks at the end of a charge]
Mounted Combat, SRD: "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)."
This states that if you make an attack at the end of the charge, not "a full-round attack" or "multiple attacks" or "an attack action" but a single attack.
This states that you are making an attack that is at the end of the mount's charge. You can get multiples of those via a full-round attack action if you have mounted skirmisher.
[I agree with the above. "An attack" can refer to a single attack or it can refer individually to each of many attacks.]
Lets go at this another way...Core, 181, "Standard Action: A standard action allows you to do something, most commonly to make an attack or cast a spell."
We all know standard actions are single attacks.
Yes, a standard action lets you make AN attack. No one is disputing that.
A full round attack action, if you have iterative attacks, allows you to make multiple attacks, each of which is considered AN attack on its own. You admitted as much when you said you can get multiple of "an attack that is a trip combat maneuver" when you full attack.
By my interpretation, fury's fall applies on each trip attack you make. Since a full-round attack action allows you make multiple trip attacks, fury's fall applies to each singular trip attack.I'm going to reply to your statements with modifications of your other statements to demonstrate your inconsistency.
A full-round attack action allows you to make multiple attacks, and the mounted combat bonus applies to each singular attack if they are at the end of a charge [only possible via mounted skirmisher].
Again, the wording is different. Fury's fall states When making a trip attack. Mounted combat states: If you make an attack. Not If you make multiple attacks.
Fury's fall allows for it to apply on every trip attack made every time. Mounted combat allows for it only to apply on a single attack made at the end of a charge.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I´m with Omelite on the RAW of this, and unfortunately it really is pretty much a problem with the RAW...
Even if it was legacy wording from 3.5, that doesn´t make it accurate, ESPECIALLY
when readers are now expected to make more specific RAW readings ala Vital Strike / Attack Action
(never mind all general attack rules, e.g. ranged, crit, natural, are a sub-set of the Attack Action specifically)
The rules GO OUT OF THEIR WAY to say that when you mount charges, you gain the AC penalty NO MATTER WHAT, and IF YOU CHOOSE TO can make a single charge attack with relevant benefits. Nothing ´forces´ a correlation between your Mount´s and your own actions. For one, you should be able to Full Attack with a Bow while your Mount does whatever else, including Charging. If the ability MEANT to say ´if your Mount takes a Move Action´ it could/should have said that... Lots of other abilities have min/max distance triggers, and most of them don´t care about the Move Action type AFAIK. This one certainly doesn´t say what it needs to if it´s meant to care about Action TYpe.
But this is just another problem with the Mounted Charge rules... There´s alot of other stuff about nearest squares, moving in straight lines, needing to attack from the same squares as your mount(even though reach may be different), and probably other stuff I´m forgetting but that has been brought up on the boards several times before. I´m pretty sure I remember somebody mentioning SOME of these problems during the Beta playtest (not this one) but it didn´t get fixed.
Hopefully they could all be fixed together in one batch, that´s really the way that makes the most sense.
I don´t think If/When can really be relied on here to signify whether the stated trigger is indefinitely repeatable (or within 1 round) or only once per round... That gets at the crux of Tarantula´s reading I think, but I don´t think this use of normal English grammar actually implies that specific of a distinction, especially since rounds/turns aren´t inherent to the English language. What Tarantula is trying to do it try and read an ACTION restrition into the ability... WHich if it mean ´Charge Attack´ or ´Attack Action´ or ´Standard Action´, or even ´a single attack´, IT COULD HAVE SAID SO, just like other abilities actually do when they want to appropriately restrict something.
If/When is more just a matter of sentence voice, and whether the triggered clause directly affects the triggering event or not. Certainly it´s unreasonable to say the RAW is just fine and one just needs to properly discern If/When´s meaning.
Maybe the ability should be Errata´d to specify only working when the Mount takes a Move Action (but not 2),
but that reading isn´t apparent from the current RAW. Plenty of abilitis have min/max distance triggers/conditions, and don´t care one whit about what actions accomplish that distance. Likewise, I don´t see why one couldn´t be riding one´s Grappling Bear Mount who uses a Maintain Grapple Action to move 20´, while you Full Attack whoever you want.
|
|
RAI and with any semblance of logic, I can't see the double damage happening on more than one attack, regardless of how many are being made. It is getting the extra damage because it is a weapon designed to use the momentum of the mount to drive it home. After the first attack, the momentum advantage is lost, as with any bonus damage associated with said momentum. All further momentum from the skirmishing fighting style is moving away from the target, not towards it. This seems a lot like "it doesn't say I can't" munchkinism.
Again, the wording is different. Fury's fall states When making a trip attack. Mounted combat states: If you make an attack. Not If you make multiple attacks.Fury's fall allows for it to apply on every trip attack made every time. Mounted combat allows for it only to apply on a single attack made at the end of a charge.
Nothing in that If-sentence denies making more than one attack.
There is the triggering event "if you make an attack...".
If I take a full-attack action, the trigger is fulfilled and the effect should take place.
Turning it around, what you are claiming, is that if take a full-round action then "I am not making an attack". This would be incorrect as the language is constructed.
You argument rests on the words "an attack", but that statement does not in itself hold any limit. "An attack" is a generel statement, and can only be limiting in quantity if specified as such, or if it is used as a trigger (such as provoking an AoO lets the enemy make an attack).
Shartahl: Munchkinism?, or asking a question on the rules forum as to the RAW, and whether there is a problem with them (read: Errata issue)? The OP himself calls it overpowered in the very first post, it´s simply that that´s the direct implication he gets from reading RAW. So if he doesn´t willfully ignore rational conclusions, he´s branded a Munchkin now?
Likewise, people brought up that Double Smite damage on all BigEvils was OP´d, when that was explicitly and uncontroversially how the first printing rules worked.... And guess what, Paizo ´fixed´ (changed) that.
I suggest anybody else also hit the FAQ button on the top post so Paizo
can decide if they want to Errata it .
Obviously, people can make their own choices in home-games, but PFS has the burden of hewing to RAW,
so hi-lighting any potential problem which could be fixed can only help PFS.
(I know Paizoans have already expressed that the Charge/Mounted Charge rules have problems in other areas, so there´s a good chance they could all get fixed in one go if Paizo´s aware of the issue)
I´m with Omelite on the RAW of this ...
The rules GO OUT OF THEIR WAY to say that when you mount charges, you gain the AC penalty NO MATTER WHAT, and IF YOU CHOOSE TO can make a single charge attack with relevant benefits.
This is exactly what I am saying. You can have your mount charge, you can make a single attack at the end of that charge if you want, you get the charge bonus on that attack. You do not get that bonus if you somehow get more than one attack. Do you agree with that?
Nothing in that If-sentence denies making more than one attack.
There is the triggering event "if you make an attack...".
If I take a full-attack action, the trigger is fulfilled and the effect should take place.
Turning it around, what you are claiming, is that if take a full-round action then "I am not making an attack". This would be incorrect as the language is constructed.
You are not making "an attack". You are making multiple attacks. If you had a coupon for a free beer, would you show up, and say "I'd like 5 free beers, my coupon says I get a free beer." Do you expect them to give you 5 free beers?
You argument rests on the words "an attack", but that statement does not in itself hold any limit. "An attack" is a generel statement, and can only be limiting in quantity if specified as such, or if it is used as a trigger (such as provoking an AoO lets the enemy make an attack).
Lets see another use of "make an attack" in the rules.
If You Are Grappled, Core, 201, "Instead of attempting to break or reverse the grapple, you can take any action that requires only one hand to perform, such as cast a spell or make an attack with a light or one-handed weapon against any creature within your reach, including the creature that is grappling you."
So you can make full-round attacks at the person grappling you? It doesn't prevent you from using any actions, merely limiting them to a single hand. As long as you're only using a one-handed weapon, this should be fine?
Yeah, and I´m pretty sure you can find a Paizo quote on Full Attacking while Grappled if you want.
That isn´t even controversial... just search Grapple + Full Attack if you want.
A plurality does not mean it´s units are not individual attacks...
Otherwise would violate 1+1=2 and identity 1=1.
¨Using Full Attack, I make an attack vs. Ogre A, then I make an attack vs. Ogre B¨ is completely rational...
You ´made an attack´ twice, because that´s what Full Attack or Cleave let you do.
Likewise, this is exactly how Maneuvers work, namely Trip and others usable ´in place of an attack´,
i.e. ANY attack including the multiple attacks granted by Full Attack.
There are several very easy and 100% clear wording possibilities if Paizo wanted to convey an action restriction or attack/round restriction... As per above, Paizo specifically used EXACTLY the wording of ´in place of an attack´ to signify any and every attack (not limited) vs. action-limited Maneuvers.
There is no fixed number of beer tickets here. And like I wrote before, IF you believe so, given the line clearly doesn´t mention anything about rounds or turns, do you believe that a character can use this combo ONE time in their entire life, and never after, because they used the beer ticket?
Anyways, I´m not going to check this thread again, just hit the FAQ button.