Yes, I realize that this has been discussed before, but the replies in the previous thread about this subject do not denote very good understanding of the argument, IMO. Here is the previous thread for reference: Please read my post before saying my argument is redundant.
I know that under no circumstances may you use Vital Strike when your character is charging. But a mounted rider does not technically charge when his mount charges. I will quote a few rules from the core here.
1: "If you don’t dismount, you must
make a DC 20 Ride check each round as a move action
to control such a mount. If you succeed, you can perform
a standard action after the move action. If you fail, the
move action becomes a full-round action, and you can’t do
anything else until your next turn."
2: "Your mount acts on your initiative count as you direct it.
You move at its speed, but the mount uses its action to move."
3: "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. Even at your mount’s full speed,
you don’t take any penalty on melee attacks while mounted.
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)."
Reading these rules, it appears that when a mounted rider makes an attack at the end of a charge, he is using the "attack action" standard action. In fact, in many circumstances it appears the rider is limited to a standard action, since he is using his move action to control his mount (of course certain class features such as the cavalier's make the ride check unnecessary).
So I would like to be told in what way the attack that a mounted combatant makes at the end of his mount's charge is anything other than a standard action to attack (meaning the attack action).
If you cannot, then I believe that validates the idea that vital strike may be used with a mounted charge, and in turn makes the questions of the original thread pertinent again.
I like your arguments, they look valid.
If the rider enjoys a +2 to attack and a -2 to AC, he's charging.
And what's more, as OP quoted above:
When charging on horseback, you deal double damage with
a lance (see Charge).
If your mount charges and you attack, then you have charged as well. Otherwise, you wouldn't get the benefit of the 2X lance damage since that only happens when charging.
Developer
|
If the rider enjoys a +2 to attack and a -2 to AC, he's charging.And what's more, as OP quoted above:
If your mount charges and you attack, then you have charged as well. Otherwise, you wouldn't get the benefit of the 2X lance damage since that only happens when charging.When charging on horseback, you deal double damage with
a lance (see Charge).
Except I can take a move action to direct my mount, which I can't do if I'm charging.
Move+standard allows vital strike, cleave and any other standard action.
Even grappling... oddly enough.
If the rider enjoys a +2 to attack and a -2 to AC, he's charging.And what's more, as OP quoted above:
If your mount charges and you attack, then you have charged as well. Otherwise, you wouldn't get the benefit of the 2X lance damage since that only happens when charging.When charging on horseback, you deal double damage with
a lance (see Charge).Except I can take a move action to direct my mount, which I can't do if I'm charging.
Move+standard allows vital strike, cleave and any other standard action.
Even grappling... oddly enough.
The actual directing a mount language is:
Control Mount in Battle: As a move action, you can attempt to control a light horse, pony, heavy horse, or other mount not trained for combat riding while in battle. If you fail the Ride check, you can do nothing else in that round. You do not need to roll for horses or ponies trained for combat.
So, for a combat trained mount, you don't need to make a check (except maybe to guide with knees, which is a non-action), so you can charge anyways.
If we follow the strict RAW on charging, then it requires that YOU (not your mount) move, which means again that mounted charges for lance damage will never happen as they are illegal.
Instead, it seems much more in keeping with the intent of the rules that if your mount charges and you attack, that is considered a charge for you and follows all the usual restrictions besides you having to move and action expenditure (if you had to spend a move action to get the mount to charge). It does not make sense to say that if your mount charges and you attack then you take all AC penalties and to-hit bonuses associated with the charge, and get the benefit of the lance's special 2X damage, but aren't restricted by other things controlling what actions you can take on a charge.
What is implied however is that you need only have a standard action left in order to charge, and that you need not even attack when your mount charges.
For example, a Summoner mounted on an eidolon mount may at his option cast a spell while mounted, and then order his eidolon to charge. RAW and RAI, that should be possible. He need not make an attack at the end of that charge, and thus he is not necessarily considered charging, though he still takes the penalty to AC without benefit. It is not because he charged however.
I will agree that all of the wording about making a "mounted charge" is confusing, but it would be tedious if each time they had to explain each time that a mounted charge was "when you are mounted and your mount makes a charge action and you decide to make an attack action at the end of that charge action". Instead, it is expected that someone making a mounted charge read up on how that works, as the rules work in a special way regarding a mounted character who wishes to "charge". Honestly, I'm not sure what the RAI is with this, and I'm not going to claim I do. So I am not going to argue about it, and instead continue arguing my point from a RAW perspective. If someone who actually wrote the rules wants to come in and describe their intention, then so be it.
Until then, tell me how this situation is incorrect RAW:
A cavalier is mounted on his horse and sits, without weapon drawn, 30 ft. away from an enemy (good, empty terrain). It is the cavalier's initiative, and thus simultaneously the horse's initiative. The cavalier uses a move action to draw his weapon, say, a longsword. His horse then makes a charge attack, ending in a hoof attack. The cavalier uses his remaining standard action to make an attack action. The Cavalier applies vital strike to that attack.
It seems utterly incorrect to say that when the cavalier has his mount make a charge, the cavalier in fact must use a standard action to make a charge attack that simply amounts to making an attack on the back of a charging mount (if he indeed wishes to attack).
Again, I will agree that most feats have a confusing wording in regards to mounted characters, and seem to treat the character as if he has fused with his mount and they are the same character, when they aren't. However, I believe that they belie how exactly mounted combat works in general, not vice-versa.
What is implied however is that you need only have a standard action left in order to charge, and that you need not even attack when your mount charges.
For example, a Summoner mounted on an eidolon mount may at his option cast a spell while mounted, and then order his eidolon to charge. RAW and RAI, that should be possible. He need not make an attack at the end of that charge, and thus he is not necessarily considered charging, though he still takes the penalty to AC without benefit. It is not because he charged however.
I will agree that all of the wording about making a "mounted charge" is confusing, but it would be tedious if each time they had to explain each time that a mounted charge was "when you are mounted and your mount makes a charge action and you decide to make an attack action at the end of that charge action". Instead, it is expected that someone making a mounted charge read up on how that works, as the rules work in a special way regarding a mounted character who wishes to "charge". Honestly, I'm not sure what the RAI is with this, and I'm not going to claim I do. So I am not going to argue about it, and instead continue arguing my point from a RAW perspective. If someone who actually wrote the rules wants to come in and describe their intention, then so be it.
Until then, tell me how this situation is incorrect RAW:
A cavalier is mounted on his horse and sits, without weapon drawn, 30 ft. away from an enemy (good, empty terrain). It is the cavalier's initiative, and thus simultaneously the horse's initiative. The cavalier uses a move action to draw his weapon, say, a longsword. His horse then makes a charge attack, ending in a hoof attack. The cavalier uses his remaining standard action to make an attack action. The Cavalier applies vital strike to that attack.
It seems utterly incorrect to say that when the cavalier has his mount make a charge, the cavalier in fact must use a standard action to make a charge attack that simply amounts to making an attack on the back...
What's wrong with it is this:
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. Even at your mount’s full speed,
you don’t take any penalty on melee attacks while mounted.
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.
Notice that it says "You can only make a single melee attack" not "You can only take the standard attack action." You don't get a standard action to attack. You only get a single attack which is a non-action, because you aren't making a standard action to attack, you are taking a charge action.
The summoner could cast his spell (after making the concentration check), but if the cavalier wants to attack, his only option is to charge. Again, the second bolded section is that if the mount charges and the cavalier attacks at the end of it, it gets the benefits of a charge. Logically, that should indicate that it is a charge, but even though that isn't spelled out, it is spelled out that it isn't a standard attack action attack.
Notice that it says "You can only make a single melee attack" not "You can only take the standard attack action." You don't get a standard action to attack. You only get a single attack which is a non-action, because you aren't making a standard action to attack, you are taking a charge action.
The summoner could cast his spell (after making the concentration check), but if the cavalier wants to attack, his only option is to charge. Again, the second bolded section is that if the mount charges and the cavalier attacks at the end of it, it gets the benefits of a charge. Logically, that should indicate that it is a charge, but even though that isn't spelled out, it is spelled out that it isn't a standard attack action attack.
You see I don't think that is correct. What you are saying is that if a mount moves that a player with a weapon may make an attack as a non action, which seems totally incorrect. It must take some sort of action, or else you could do it after having made a standard action, which seems totally incorrect.
What I interpreted that section as meaning was that you can't have your mount move while having the mounted character make a full attack (with a melee weapon). That seems to be all it effectively says rules-wise. The language saying that "you may only make a single attack" doesn't mean anything really, since you may obviously make multiple different kinds of standard actions, such as casting spells and using skills. It seems to me that it was simply presenting the only other normal option for attacking, which is a single attack. I can't think of any other obvious way to make a single attack (without charging yourself) other than the attack action.
It is not the cavalier's only option to charge. He could simply have his mount move (or even double move) and make a single attack action, which would not doubt grant vital strike. Explain to me how this is so much different, actions wise, than making a single attack at the end of the charge. Where do the cavalier's actions go when his mount does make a charge? If he, say, intimidates an opponent before his mount charges, does he get to make a single attack at the end of that charge? What about if he casts a spell? I'm honestly not sure how the attack at the end of a mounted charge being a "no action" even makes sense.
@CP: Jason came in and said "that is correct" in regards to being unable to use a charge and vital strike in the same turn. He didn't really address the underlying issue, probably because the OP didn't present the underlying issue clearly.
I have already replied about the wording in multiple feats referring to performing a "mounted charge".
As far as casting spells while mounted, that section does not prohibit actions. It simply outlines certain actions, and neglects to explain others. If you are saying that one can not cast a spell while a mount does something other than normal movement, then you have basically invalidated the mounted summoner entirely.
Notice that it says "You can only make a single melee attack" not "You can only take the standard attack action." You don't get a standard action to attack. You only get a single attack which is a non-action, because you aren't making a standard action to attack, you are taking a charge action.
The summoner could cast his spell (after making the concentration check), but if the cavalier wants to attack, his only option is to charge. Again, the second bolded section is that if the mount charges and the cavalier attacks at the end of it, it gets the benefits of a charge. Logically, that should indicate that it is a charge, but even though that isn't spelled out, it is spelled out that it isn't a standard attack action attack.
You see I don't think that is correct. What you are saying is that if a mount moves that a player with a weapon may make an attack as a non action, which seems totally incorrect. It must take some sort of action, or else you could do it after having made a standard action, which seems totally incorrect.
What I interpreted that section as meaning was that you can't have your mount move while having the mounted character make a full attack (with a melee weapon). That seems to be all it effectively says rules-wise. The language saying that "you may only make a single attack" doesn't mean anything really, since you may obviously make multiple different kinds of standard actions, such as casting spells and using skills. It seems to me that it was simply presenting the only other normal option or attacking, which is a single attack. I can't think of any other obvious way to make a single attack (without charging yourself) other than the attack action.
It is not the cavalier's only option to charge. He could simply have his mount move (or even double move) and make a single attack action, which would not doubt grant vital strike. Explain to me how this is so much different, actions wise, than making a single attack at the end of the charge. Where do...
My reply was perhaps awkwardly worded. If your mount double moves, you do your single attack. That's a standard action.
If your mount charges, however, then you get all the benefits of a charge as well. It does not make sense, then, that you would not take the similar restrictions (not being able to vital strike). The difference between a mount double moving and a mount charging is that during the second, the mount is rearing back and attacking and generally being more difficult to stay on at the end of it's movement. This restricts what you are able to do.