Darn these mounted combat rules...
Say I have an Aurochs as a Beast Rider cavalier mount. The Aurochs has the Trample ability and the rider has the Trample feat. If I'm reading this correctly, I can use a full round action to Trample, but those recipients of the trample can't attempt to dodge it (and therefore get a reflex save). It can still take an AoO unless the mount has improved overrun or similar.
First of all, any mistakes here?
A few more:
1) The Aurochs doesn't have a slam attack, but the trample ability says slam damage. How much is that? 2d6?
2) The Beast Rider says, "Anytime a feat or ability allows a mount to make a hoof attack, it can make a claw, slam, or other analogous attack instead." The trample feat allows a Hoof attack. Would I be able to use the Auroch's Gore attack?
3) Nowhere does it seem to say I need to move in a straight line (unless I make it as a part of a charge) and the trample ability implies I can do this more than once per round. It also doesn't state how much movement I have, so I assume it's a standard move (40ft for an Aurochs) in any direction or double move if a charge (and therefore a straight line). Any appropriate creature trampled can also be attacked with the Hoof-equivalent. Any conflict in reasoning here?
Thanks for your help.
If I'm reading this correctly, I can use a full round action to Trample, but those recipients of the trample can't attempt to dodge it (and therefore get a reflex save). It can still take an AoO unless the mount has improved overrun or similar.
First of all, any mistakes here?
Not that I can see. I think that since Trample (Ex) says "attempt to overrun" that means it qualifies for the Trample feat, which only works when you overrun.
1) The Aurochs doesn't have a slam attack, but the trample ability says slam damage. How much is that? 2d6?
The Herd Animal, Aurochs statblock lists trample (2d6+9, DC 17).
2) The Beast Rider says, "Anytime a feat or ability allows a mount to make a hoof attack, it can make a claw, slam, or other analogous attack instead." The trample feat allows a Hoof attack. Would I be able to use the Auroch's Gore attack?
I don't see why not.
3) Nowhere does it seem to say I need to move in a straight line (unless I make it as a part of a charge)
Yep
and the trample ability implies I can do this more than once per round.
Trample (Ex) is a full-round action.
I think from the wording you're supposed to be able to trample multiple creatures, even though it says it's "just like the overrun combat maneuver" which is a standard action taken during movement.
It also doesn't state how much movement I have, so I assume it's a standard move (40ft for an Aurochs) in any direction or double move if a charge (and therefore a straight line). Any appropriate creature trampled can also be attacked with the Hoof-equivalent.
Sounds right to me. You might get quibbles about charging, but since charging is valid for overrun, and Trample (Ex) is "just like" overrun (with listed exceptions) it should work.
Thanks very much for your help, and yes I did mean "can you trample more than one creature each round" which you correctly surmised and answered. ^_^
I know, it's silly. Doesn't very much matter, since the rider is 8th level to start. Prior to that point it all gets very pear-shaped and confusing.
The purpose in this case is to have an waraxe wielding full-bearded dwarf with a blue painted Aurochs (Read: Ox) named Babe. Stories of his height have been greatly exaggerated.
Follow up question:
How much damage would Power attack do on the Hoof-Equivalent Gore attack and the damage from the Trample (ex) ability? (If any.)
How much damage would Power attack do on the Hoof-Equivalent Gore attack and the damage from the Trample (ex) ability? (If any.)
Good question!
Exotic Mount (Ex) actually replaces the granted attack: "Anytime a feat or ability allows a mount to make a hoof attack, it can make a claw, slam, or other analogous attack instead."
So the cow is actually making a gore, not a hoof-with-gore-dice.
So the question is: Does this mean the cow has multiple gore attacks? I think it must, since you can trample multiple creatures, thus making multiple attacks.
This means according to Natural Attacks it has only one type of attack, but has multiple attacks per round, which makes it a primary attack, but since it has multiple attacks (of the same type) it doesn't get 1.5xStr, it only gets normal strength.
Power Attack: "This bonus to damage is increased by half (+50%) if you are making an attack with a two-handed weapon, a one handed weapon using two hands, or a primary natural weapon that adds 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier on damage rolls. This bonus to damage is halved (–50%) if you are making an attack with an off-hand weapon or secondary natural weapon."
So when it makes the free Gore attack as part of attempting an overrun, it gets standard power attack, and 1xStr to damage. (Primary, Multiple)
When it actually succeeds at that overrun, and Tramples, it does 1.5xStr, but only standard power attack. This is because while it IS a melee damage roll, it's NOT a melee attack. Power Attack grants the bonus on all melee damage rolls, but it only increases by 50% when it's a melee attack (With further limitations).
Now, if my earlier conclusion is wrong, and making multiple Gores when overrunning does NOT count as multiple attacks, then you would get 1.5xStr and 1.5xPA on the free gore attacks when attempting to overrun (Primary, Single) but the goofy trample damage thing would still be the same.
This is, admittedly, super weird. Which makes me think that I might be wrong, but it seems to parse. I can't help but think the intent is probably something much more simple.
Snipped from Natural Attack: "If a creature has only one natural attack, it is always made using the creature's full base attack bonus and adds 1-1/2 the creature's Strength bonus on damage rolls. This increase does not apply if the creature has multiple attacks but only takes one. If a creature has only one type of attack, but has multiple attacks per round, that attack is treated as a primary attack, regardless of its type."
I think what it (bolded) means is that if you have a creature with a bite and two claws you can't just bite and get the strength*1.5 to damage. If as in this case it only HAS one natural attack, the 1.5 damage applies. The italic clause seems to be for cases in which it only has one natural attack and that attack is secondary, such as a single tentacle attack. I don't think it applies to this case.
It still only has, or owns, one Gore attack. However it has, or can use, more than one attack per round. Depending on your interpretation of the word "has", you'll get 1.5 * power attack damage.
I personally think that it still only "owns" one gore attack and therefore makes them all as though wielding two-handed. Would you similarly penalize a companion using Cleave when they only have a bite attack? Or when a companion with a single attack reaches 9th level and suddenly gains the lesser version Multiattack as something like an iterative attack? Does it suddenly not get the bonus when under the effect of haste? This doesn't make sense to me. It seems the less generous and further penalizes companion choices that are already subpar compared with animal companions that get three primary attacks per round.
There's probably something else to this I'm missing, or some other clause somewhere that would de-obfuscate this use of "has."
The italic clause seems to be for cases in which it only has one natural attack and that attack is secondary, such as a single tentacle attack.
I think the italic clause means if you have one type of attack, but multiple attacks of that type. In such a case, you treat it as primary, but it only gets normal (1x) strength bonus.
A combat trained horse, for example, has 2 hoof attacks. Since it only has one type of natural weapon, the hoofs are primary. But since it has multiple attacks, it only gets 1x strength to them, and this is the case even if it elects to only make one of those attacks.
As to whether being able to make multiple gores during a trample counts as multiple attacks or not, is unclear.
-edit- SKR on the horse example