Lances capable of doing 2x damage on full attacks?


Rules Questions

101 to 122 of 122 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Omelite wrote:
Can you tell me where it says that you can't?

Can you show where it says that lightning bolts do not fly out of my nose and smite those that displease me? No.

You don't judge what you can and cannot do by what the rules don't say, you judge it by what they DO say.

The rules on mounted combat are actually quite simple: Your mount moves, you don't, but BECAUSE you are carried along with the mount, the effect is the same as if YOU were moving in the vast majority of circumstances. The only exception they make is in mounted missile fire.

Now look at charging: the description of the lance says 'charging mount' because the mount is charging, not the rider, but the effect is the same. It takes the whole round for the mount to charge, and hence just as when if your mount moves 5' it restricts you to a single attack, so being on a charging mount restricts you to the one attack at the end, because you have spent the entire round sat on a charging animal just getting to the target. Ride-by Attack is available for when you may have a little time left after the attack that is enough time for your mount to move a bit more, but it isn't enough for you to attack.

Now look at Mounted Skirmisher: it's effectively a pounce on horseback. It makes moving and attacking a bit easier. It does not say that you can attack mid-movement, it says you can make a full attack if you move your mount's movement distance or less. To attack mid-movement is Ride-by Attack - if you had both feats, I would say yes, it would be logical that you can make a series of attacks as you ride along on different targets, charging or not.

Now look at the lance: why do you do double damage? Because you have the momentum and power of the mount to drive the lance home. However, that could only ever count for one attack, after that attack is made, the momentum is used up. That's logical, you can only make one attack at the end of a charge anyway.

Now combine with Mounted Skirmisher: You can move and full attack. A charge is movement, so you charge less than full movement for your mount to the target. You attack - lance says you get double damage so you do on the first attack. However, charge ends in a SINGLE attack, and common sense says that the momentum of the lance has been used up, so you are no longer charging, you are now just in front of your foe, hitting him. You no longer have the advantages of charging, but you do get your extra attacks. It's an improvement on just moving and attacking, or on just charging, so your feats are not wasted, but it's not over the top.


Kaisoku wrote:
Omelite wrote:
You can, however, take actions simultaneously with your mount's actions, because you have different sets of actions. At least that's how it seems to me.

[...] You aren't spending the time doing anything, but that doesn't mean you have enough time to do a full attack that split second you are next to an enemy before the end of your mount's movement.

RAW there is no ruling against this. Ordinarily the only rule that prevents this sort of thing is the bit about only being able to make 1 attack if the mount takes more than a 5ft move, however, that rule is overturned for a rider with mounted skirmisher.

Obviously it would be a little ridiculous to address this situation by adding to the mounted combat rules, since this is a situation only made possible by a certain feat. I suppose it would make the most sense to simply reword the feat to limit it to the intended use cases.

I'll go ahead and respond to some of your train of thought now.

Quote:
The rules state that if your mount is charging, you are forced to take a penalty to AC. This means you are, in effect, charging.

No, it doesn't. Here's the actual text: "If your mount charges, you also take the AC penalty associated with a charge." It does not say "if you're mount charges, you are charging as well." It says you take the AC penalties which are associated with charging.

An analogy for you. There's an AC bonus associated with wielding a tower shield. If I had a feat which allowed adjacent allies to gain the AC bonus associated with wielding whatever shield I'm wielding, that does not mean they are actually wielding a tower shield. They simply have the same bonus that they would have if they were. Likewise, when my mount charges, that does not mean I am charging, even though I might get some or all of the bonuses associated with charging.

Quote:
If you intend to use the Mounted Skirmisher feat and attack at the end of the mount's charge, you are attacking at the end of the charge, and thus it's a charge attack

No. An attack is a charge attack if it's part of the charge action. If I do not use the charge action, I'm not charging, since charging is a special full-round action and it's not one I'm using.

Also, to the rider, the movement he is experiencing is just that - movement. He's not attacking at the end of a charge as far as he's concerned, he's attacking at the end of some movement. Or rather more precisely, he's attacking 5 feet before the end of some movement (and thus missing out on the attack bonus associated with a charge) unless his mount has a 10ft reach.


Dabbler wrote:
but BECAUSE you are carried along with the mount, the effect is the same as if YOU were moving in the vast majority of circumstances.

With one incredibly important exception - you don't use up move actions. And thus, doing a "spring-actiony type thing" doesn't have to be the illegal "move action+standard action+move action" it would be - it can just be a single standard action, which is allowed.

Quote:
and hence just as when if your mount moves 5' it restricts you to a single attack, so being on a charging mount restricts you to the one attack at the end, because you have spent the entire round sat on a charging animal just getting to the target.

I completely agree with you that the rules say that. That's why you need mounted skirmisher, which negates the entirety of that rule.

Quote:
To attack mid-movement is Ride-by Attack

No. To attack mid-movement is to attack mid-movement. One way to do that, which additionally counts as a charge and also doesn't provoke AoOs from movement, is ride-by-attack.

Quote:
However, charge ends in a SINGLE attack, and common sense says that the momentum of the lance has been used up, so you are no longer charging, you are now just in front of your foe, hitting him.

Charge ends when the person charging attacks. In this case, that's the mount, not the rider. The rider is not the one charging, and so his attacks do not end the mount's charge. I agree that it doesn't make sense that you'd still have the momentum after the first hit. I'm just saying what I think the rules state.

The disagreement we seem to have is whether or not you can attack mid-movement per the rules. I think the only thing stopping you from doing that ordinarily is that you can only use one action at a time (i.e. you can't use a standard action in the middle of your move action, you have to take one after the other). On horseback it's much different - all you have to do is use a standard action while the mount uses a move action, which is perfectly legal (as far as I can tell).


Omelite wrote:
Charge ends when the person charging attacks. In this case, that's the mount, not the rider. The rider is not the one charging, and so his attacks do not end the mount's charge. I agree that it doesn't make sense that you'd still have the momentum after the first hit. I'm just saying what I think the rules state.

The can't be true since ride by attack specifically allows you to continue moving after the attack. If you could do so anyway the feat would have no value.

There is also this post which has yet to be refuted. We do have a contradiction with the charge rules, but the rider charging also seems to have the numbers, and with the support of the 3.5 rules. Before you dismiss them there is the backwards compatibility issue so if the rules are to be changed then the wording also has to change. You can't have the same wording, but now say the meaning has changed without a pathfinder developer backing it. Well you can do it, but your case will not be strong.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Omelite wrote:
With one incredibly important exception - you don't use up move actions. And thus, doing a "spring-actiony type thing" doesn't have to be the illegal "move action+standard action+move action" it would be - it can just be a single standard action, which is allowed.

Yes, you do.

PFCR page 202 wrote:
"If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only make a single melee attack. Essentially, you have to wait until the mount gets to your enemy before attacking, so you can’t make a full attack."

You do have to use up those move actions waiting for your mount to get where it's going. You can spend them doing other stuff like reloading, changing weapon etc. but they still take up time. If you want to leave your mount time to move on after moving up to your target, you can't take a standard action to attack while you are there.

Just as you have to sit around on your mount waiting for it to get where it is going, logically it has to stand around waiting for you to do what you are doing.


Quote:
No. To attack mid-movement is to attack mid-movement. One way to do that, which additionally counts as a charge and also doesn't provoke AoOs from movement, is ride-by-attack.

umm no, otherwise combat maneuvers would be pointless, I would delay until we had the same initiative count and when you tried to grapple I would attack, because according to you as long as we share the same turn I can do things in the middle of your action.


Shadow_of_death wrote:
Quote:
No. To attack mid-movement is to attack mid-movement. One way to do that, which additionally counts as a charge and also doesn't provoke AoOs from movement, is ride-by-attack.
umm no, otherwise combat maneuvers would be pointless, I would delay until we had the same initiative count and when you tried to grapple I would attack, because according to you as long as we share the same turn I can do things in the middle of your action.

I don't see any reason why this wouldn't be legal. It isn't very smart because your ready action would have to state that you are waiting until he tries to grapple you, which means he will almost certainly do something else. You would also be wasting a full round action in order to do that one standard action.

Edit: The rules specifically outline waiting until someone casts a spell, that is pretty analogous to your example.


Ready is a standard action. He said delay.

He means, you delay your action until the same initiative, and pull off a full attack right as he goes for the grapple, interrupting his turn, because "you are acting simultaneously".

This is why he said delay instead of ready. You are correct about the stuff about ready, but that isn't what was being talked about. If anything, you've only proven why it's not possible, because we have rules like Readying an action to cover the exact situation.

Note that readying an action is a standard action, similar to making "a single attack". It appears that if you are doing something similar to waiting until a certain moment to interrupt (or at least perform simultaneously) with an action, it's limited to a standard action (a single attack).

And since charge specifically calls out limiting iterative attacks, and mounted skirmisher is only giving iterative attacks, I think I'd need to hear a better case that you aren't charging when your mount is to allow anything like that.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

That is not how delay works. You cannot come out of delay and interrupt someones action. Those are "immediate action" types. You can delay until before someone's action (before it is declared). If said person says they are going to grapple, you cannot say that you come out and interrupt it. You already did not decide to take your action before they began committing actions on their turn, so your soonest time to come out of delay is AFTER they act. You would have had to "ready" your action with the condition "he tries to grapple"

PRD wrote:


Delay

By choosing to delay, you take no action and then act normally on whatever initiative count you decide to act. When you delay, you voluntarily reduce your own initiative result for the rest of the combat. When your new, lower initiative count comes up later in the same round, you can act normally. You can specify this new initiative result or just wait until some time later in the round and act then, thus fixing your new initiative count at that point.

You never get back the time you spend waiting to see what's going to happen. You also can't interrupt anyone else's action (as you can with a readied action).

Kaisoku wrote:

Ready is a standard action. He said delay.

He means, you delay your action until the same initiative, and pull off a full attack right as he goes for the grapple, interrupting his turn, because "you are acting simultaneously".

This is why he said delay instead of ready. You are correct about the stuff about ready, but that isn't what was being talked about. If anything, you've only proven why it's not possible, because we have rules like Readying an action to cover the exact situation.

Note that readying an action is a standard action, similar to making "a single attack". It appears that if you are doing something similar to waiting until a certain moment to interrupt (or at least perform simultaneously) with an action, it's limited to a standard action (a single attack).

And since charge specifically calls out limiting iterative attacks, and mounted skirmisher is only giving iterative attacks, I think I'd need to hear a better case that you aren't charging when your mount is to allow anything like that.


Shar Tahl wrote:
That is not how delay works. You cannot come out of delay and interrupt someones action. Those are "immediate action" types. You can delay until before someone's action (before it is declared). If said person says they are going to grapple, you cannot say that you come out and interrupt it. You already did not decide to take your action before they began committing actions on their turn, so your soonest time to come out of delay is AFTER they act. You would have had to "ready: your action with the condition "he tries to grapple"

Exactly. This is what Shadow was saying. He's saying that to allow someone to attack mid-mount-movement is similar to letting Delay interrupt an action. It's using the same concept of simultaneity.

If delay doesn't work this way, then neither should this.

Go up three posts and read Shadow_of_death's post for the full context on this.


Kaisoku wrote:

Ready is a standard action. He said delay.

He means, you delay your action until the same initiative, and pull off a full attack right as he goes for the grapple, interrupting his turn, because "you are acting simultaneously".

This is why he said delay instead of ready. You are correct about the stuff about ready, but that isn't what was being talked about. If anything, you've only proven why it's not possible, because we have rules like Readying an action to cover the exact situation.

Note that readying an action is a standard action, similar to making "a single attack". It appears that if you are doing something similar to waiting until a certain moment to interrupt (or at least perform simultaneously) with an action, it's limited to a standard action (a single attack).

And since charge specifically calls out limiting iterative attacks, and mounted skirmisher is only giving iterative attacks, I think I'd need to hear a better case that you aren't charging when your mount is to allow anything like that.

This is correct, for some reason I was still thinking about readying.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

got it. I see that now. sorry about that!

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Dabbler wrote:


You don't judge what you can and cannot do by what the rules don't say, you judge it by what they DO say.

This is the heart of a lot of debates, and could not be put better. As I have said before, the books with be massive volumes if they put every possible instance of every possible situation that could happen in any game. You have to go with what it says you can do, or there would be very few bounds. This is why the legal system has so many regulations and rules, because it works off what you specifically can't do. Every once in a while, someone does something crazy, then they gotta make a rule about that. it never ends. Game systems should not have to deal with that kind of nonsense. It will bog things down and make no one want to DM and regulate that craziness. It's already a lot of work as it is.


Omelite, in case Paizo is reading this, can you re-iterate the other related problem,
namely different abilities triggering of slightly different situations,
e.g. one requiring you use the Charge action, one being on a Charging mount.

I forget what it was, but it basically established a differential trigger, i.e. it wasn´t the same trigger, thus one should be able to separately trigger BOTH damage bonuses, e.g. double dmg from one source, and double damage from the other, which is very over-powering, and LIKELY contra to the RAI.

I´m just hoping they deal with all these Errata issues together, and might as well get that one too.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Shar Tahl wrote:
Dabbler wrote:


You don't judge what you can and cannot do by what the rules don't say, you judge it by what they DO say.

This is the heart of a lot of debates, and could not be put better. As I have said before, the books with be massive volumes if they put every possible instance of every possible situation that could happen in any game. You have to go with what it says you can do, or there would be very few bounds. This is why the legal system has so many regulations and rules, because it works off what you specifically can't do. Every once in a while, someone does something crazy, then they gotta make a rule about that. it never ends. Game systems should not have to deal with that kind of nonsense. It will bog things down and make no one want to DM and regulate that craziness. It's already a lot of work as it is.

Very much so. This is why DM's get frustrated by Rules Lawyers who begin their argument with "The rules do not say that I can't ..." If you ever raise this with a DM, Omelite, lay it all out clearly before the game starts, let him make his call on it, and and abide by it without argument.

Personally, I think that the "You get x2 damage on the first attack, you can make your iterative attacks but they are normal ones without a charge bonus or the double damage" is as good as you can reasonably expect to get.

I wouldn't even go there on your move-attack-move interpretation of the rules on mounted combat. If your actions and the mounts are simultaneous, that means it's round and your round starts and ends at the same time.

Your mount moves up to the foe (move action). You can't do anything in this, your mount is carrying you there, so you in effect lose the move action (unless you can do something with it while mounted like draw a weapon).

You make an attack (standard action). The mount can also make a standard action as long as it stays next to the foe, but because it's actions and yours are simultaneous, it cannot move because that would take you away from the target of your attack.

Move action plus standard action = full round. Unless you or the mount have a swift action you can do, the round is now over, and the mount therefore cannot move away.


Minor detail here... A lot of people are getting hung up that you can't attack because the mount can't stop its charge until its adjacent. Well, for medium size characters, they need a large (5x10) mount. Since the rider is considered to be sharing the space with the mount, can't you just consider the rider to be on the "far" half or the mounts size? This makes the most sense to me, as then he doesn't get an arbitrarily larger threatened range just because he got on a horse. This also allows the mount to attack (with the adjacent front half) while the rider (on the 5' away back half) can hit with his lance.

This is not raw, I know that. Raw is that the 5x5 human suddenly merges with his 5x10 horse for space concerns. I do think that any effect that effects a square of the horse (front or back half) should still also affect the rider.


Tarantula wrote:

Minor detail here... A lot of people are getting hung up that you can't attack because the mount can't stop its charge until its adjacent. Well, for medium size characters, they need a large (5x10) mount. Since the rider is considered to be sharing the space with the mount, can't you just consider the rider to be on the "far" half or the mounts size? This makes the most sense to me, as then he doesn't get an arbitrarily larger threatened range just because he got on a horse. This also allows the mount to attack (with the adjacent front half) while the rider (on the 5' away back half) can hit with his lance.

This is not raw, I know that. Raw is that the 5x5 human suddenly merges with his 5x10 horse for space concerns. I do think that any effect that effects a square of the horse (front or back half) should still also affect the rider.

There is no 5x10 in pathfinder. And with this house rule, small creatures on mounts are still unable to use lances.


Dabbler wrote:
Very much so. This is why DM's get frustrated by Rules Lawyers who begin their argument with "The rules do not say that I can't ..." If you ever raise this with a DM, Omelite, lay it all out clearly before the game starts, let him make his call on it, and and abide by it without argument.

How did you ever get the impression that Omelite was some sort of munchkin player who was planning to pull this off in some game? I had the impression he was at least as likely to be a GM himself as a player. He clearly was addressing the issue as a rules issue per se, i.e. posting it so that it could be clarified by Paizo for the betterment of the game, NOT to get his jollies off by pulling off some overpowered combo.

Why is it when people try to bring up issues with the RAW that may lead to unbalanced situations, they are always accused of being some unrespectable munchkin, disparaging the validity of the issue they bring up as something only such munchkin trash would ever think about? ...Rather than the response that, yes, in a game where rules mean things, and PFS expects you to follow those rules, badly written rules should be fixed...?


Braden wrote:
There is no 5x10 in pathfinder. And with this house rule, small creatures on mounts are still unable to use lances.

You're right, my bad. Frankly, I'm tired of all the halfling/gnome builds for mounted characters because they can ride medium creatures (flying druid mounts from lvl 1) and because they have no problems with "fitting" places. So yes, I'm perfectly fine with there being an advantage to riding a large horse as a medium creature over riding a medium dog as a small creature.


Sorry to beat a dead horse thread, but I noticed some misconceptions about things that I thought were clear.

1) If your mount moves in any fashion, you are still allowed your move action, but it may not be movement. YOU move at ITS speed, but it uses its action.

Mounted Combat wrote:
Your mount acts on your initiative count as you direct it. You move at its speed, but the mount uses its action to move.

2) Your actions occur at the same time as the mounts.

Mounted Combat wrote:
You can use ranged weapons while your mount is taking a double move, but at a –4 penalty on the attack roll. You can use ranged weapons while your mount is running (quadruple speed) at a –8 penalty. In either case, you make the attack roll when your mount has completed half its movement. You can make a full attack with a ranged weapon while your mount is moving. Likewise, you can take move actions normally.

3) It is the mount which charges, not the rider. However, the rider directs the mount to charge.

Mounted Combat wrote:
Your mount acts on your initiative count as you direct it... 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

4) The text stating that you make a attack either at the beginning or end of a mount's movement has been removed in Pathfinder (as far as I can tell). Meaning the attack could be made any time. (Though the rules don't seem to really expect this, it is what they seem to say). Ride-by-Attack then is referring to the mount, not the rider. It also relieves the rider from having to attack at the end of the charge to gain it's bonus.

5) Seeing the above info, it seems to me that Mounted Skirmisher allows a rider to direct his mount to charge and if the movement is within the limits, he can still full attack.


As long as we're digging this up... it has been addressed in the FAQ.

http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9p1k wrote:

Lance: If I have the pounce ability and I charge with a lance, do my iterative lance attacks get the lance's extra damage multiplier from charging?

No, for two reasons.

One, because a lance only deals extra damage when you’re riding a charging mount—not when you are charging.

Two, even if you have an unusual combination of rules that allows you to ignore the above limitation, it doesn’t makes sense that those iterative attacks gain the damage bonus. To make that second attack, you have to pull the lance back and stab forward again, and that stab doesn’t have the benefit of the charge’s momentum. (The Core Rulebook doesn’t state that you only get the damage multiplier on the first attack with a lance because when the Core Rulebook was published, there was no way for a PC to charge and get multiple attacks with a weapon in the same round, so that combination didn’t need to be addressed.)

—Sean K Reynolds, 03/01/12


Tarantula wrote:

As long as we're digging this up... it has been addressed in the FAQ.

http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9p1k wrote:

Lance: If I have the pounce ability and I charge with a lance, do my iterative lance attacks get the lance's extra damage multiplier from charging?

No, for two reasons.

One, because a lance only deals extra damage when you’re riding a charging mount—not when you are charging.

Two, even if you have an unusual combination of rules that allows you to ignore the above limitation, it doesn’t makes sense that those iterative attacks gain the damage bonus. To make that second attack, you have to pull the lance back and stab forward again, and that stab doesn’t have the benefit of the charge’s momentum. (The Core Rulebook doesn’t state that you only get the damage multiplier on the first attack with a lance because when the Core Rulebook was published, there was no way for a PC to charge and get multiple attacks with a weapon in the same round, so that combination didn’t need to be addressed.)

—Sean K Reynolds, 03/01/12

So SKR seems to be of the mind that the first mounted skirmish attack would be multiplied but not the rest. This is how I saw to best fix the situation also.

101 to 122 of 122 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Lances capable of doing 2x damage on full attacks? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.