| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
You are not only skilled at controlling a horse in combat;
you can make it look like art.
Prerequisites: Ride 9 ranks, Mounted Combat.
Benefit: While wearing light or no armor, you do not
need to make Ride skill checks for any task listed in the
Ride skill with a DC of 15 or lower. You do not take a
–5 penalty for riding a mount bareback. You can make
a check using Mounted Combat to negate a hit on your
mount twice per round instead of just once.
When wearing Medium or Heavy armor are you still allowed to roll twice and ride a mount bareback? Or does the light/no armor requirement is only for the first sentence?
I have no idea really.
I can only say that passage COULD have easily be written 110% clearer:
Either list the `general` stuff first, and the `armor restricted` stuff second (which makes it more clear that it only applies to one part), if all parts aren`t supposed to use the armor restriction.
Or if they ARE all supposed to use the armor restriction, the sub-abilities should all be more clearly associated with the armor restriction, thru strategic usage of commas, ands, alsos, etc.
My interpretation is that the armor restriction applies to all of it.
It could be clearer, but since there isn't anything that specifically suggests that the restriction only applies to part of it, the logical assumptions is that it apllies to all.
Folding armour ftw!
My interpretation is that the armor restriction applies to all of it.
It could be clearer, but since there isn't anything that specifically suggests that the restriction only applies to part of it, the logical assumptions is that it apllies to all.
I don`t agree, that isn`t the logical assumption.
The sentences are not written in the correct way if you wish to apply the restriction to all of them, they all work as independent sentences. There are standard ways to subject multiple clauses to a single requirement, and those weren`t used here.The only assumption I make here is that the passage is badly written, because there are better ways to either logically connect all the clauses to the restriction, or structure the text so as to emphasize that all clauses aren`t connected (which can be as little as putting the restriction and it`s single clause AFTER the other sentences), which is pretty much the standard for `well written, easy to understand English`. But the current text does NOT conform to any admonission to apply the restriction of one sentence to the other independent sentences.
** spoiler omitted ** (APG 173)
When wearing Medium or Heavy armor are you still allowed to roll twice and ride a mount bareback? Or does the light/no armor requirement is only for the first sentence?
I would say the armor restriction applies to all of the benefits.
** spoiler omitted ** (APG 173)
When wearing Medium or Heavy armor are you still allowed to roll twice and ride a mount bareback? Or does the light/no armor requirement is only for the first sentence?
Written to exclude all benefits when wearing medium or heavy armor, the feat should be worded this way:
Benefit: You do not need to make Ride skill checks for any task listed in the Ride skill with a DC of 15 or lower. You do not take a –5 penalty for riding a mount bareback. You can make a check using Mounted Combat to negate a hit on your mount twice per round instead of just once.You can benefit from this feat only while wearing no armor or light armor.
Or this way:
Benefit: While wearing light or no armor: you do not need to make Ride skill checks for any task listed in the Ride skill with a DC of 15 or lower; you do not take a –5 penalty for riding a mount bareback; and you can make a check using Mounted Combat to negate a hit on your mount twice per round instead of just once.
I can't speak to what the design intention of the feat was (I didn't write it), but in general, exceptions only apply where they show up. Because the exception is only on the Ride check for DCs of 15 or lower, it only applies to that particular benefit.
Personally, I think Trick Riding applies as written, and as written, I read it to say that if you're in medium or heavy armor, you still make your DC 15 or lower checks, but get the other benefits. Otherwise, you've wasted a feat on the way to Mounted Skirmisher. ;)
I'm resurrecting this thread since I still haven't found anything to definitively support either interpretation.
I know how I would rule it, namely the way Mr Cortijo would. I am just curious to see what the actual intention was because I will be talking to my GM about it.
I'm resurrecting this thread since I still haven't found anything to definitively support either interpretation.
I know how I would rule it, namely the way Mr Cortijo would. I am just curious to see what the actual intention was because I will be talking to my GM about it.
GM says: Because it's also a prerequisite for Mounted Skirmisher, and feat trees should never make you take an entirely useless feat, I vote with Cortijo. And with Quandary - it's poorly structured.