How does Vital Strike work with Spirited Charge


Rules Questions

101 to 140 of 140 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Paizo Employee Design Manager

Akerlof wrote:
**some quotes and rude stuff**

I'm not combing Vital Strike with a charge, I'm using Vital Strike from the back of a charging mount. Also, don't be a jerk, it's unnecessary.


Ssalarn wrote:
Tom S 820 wrote:

**Stuff**

There are lots of builds that can one-hit level one challenges. Them's the breaks. A Vital Striking barbarian with an Earthbreaker can do 4d6+7 on every hit easily and 8d6+21 on a crit, which will also kill any CR 1 challenge and most CR 2's. It's how it impacts the balance of the game over the whole level spread that makes the difference, and in this case, it mostly just gets cavaliers back on par with the other powerful combat damage builds like Archers and Two-Handed Fighters.

You realy prove my point even more the bardian can not vital strike till level 6 where CR6 is the base 31 max damage on a shot will not one shot most CR 6.

Level 1 fighter 18 STR with a earth breaker dose 2d6+6 that 8 min, 13 average, and max 18.
CR Points taken table 1-1 Beastary 1 page 291 average HP for CR
1/2 10 Min 8 dose not kill average dose kill max dose kil
1 15 Min dose not kil averge dose not kill max dose kill
2 20 Min dose not kil averge dose not kill max dose kill
3 30 Min dose not kil averge dose not kill max dose not kill
4 40 Min dose not kil averge dose not kill max dose not kill

My point is still it BFM and mulitler that break the game not # of dice.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

There are only three places where people seem to have trouble with the mounted combat rules:

Ride-by Attack and Spirited Charge which both say "When you are mounted and use the charge action"

and the section in Mounted combat that says "When charging on horseback, you deal double damage with a lance (see Charge)."

The lance is clarified in it's own equipment entry where it says "A lance deals double damage when used from the back of a charging mount" and since SKR has already clarified that when your mount is charging, you are not the one taking the charge action, we know that these feats are triggered by being on the back of a charging mount. Problem solved, everything works, no other contradictions or issues.


Matthew Morris wrote:
So we're now at being unable to use pounce, ride by attack or spirited charge? Ok...

So I know what you're trying to say about the ride-by and spirited charge, but what about pounce? What's not working right about pounce?

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Tom S 820 wrote:
**stuff**

Tom, it's a reasonable concern that this might be a bit powerful, and at first level it certainly is potent. However, I've been running it this way for years now, and the many other weaknesses linked to having a mount have proved to be a good counter-balance. My players have known for years that they can do x6 damage on a single attack with a charge, and cavalier is still the least played class in my experience, both at home and in PFS.

A fighter with the noted feat chain is certainly a force to be reckoned with, but in the PFS modules I've run that fighter would deserve to one hit a baddy or two when he's actually on his mount, because there's a lot of situations when those feats just wouldn't see any use since his mount is tied up in the stables, unable to climb cliffs, or any of a number of other scenarios.
Smaller cavaliers might get more use out of the feats, but they would also suffer the decrease in damage. It handles itself fairly well.


Ssalarn wrote:
Akerlof wrote:
**some quotes and rude stuff**
I'm not combing Vital Strike with a charge, I'm using Vital Strike from the back of a charging mount. Also, don't be a jerk, it's unnecessary.

Yes, you're vital striking from the back of a charging mount. You don't charge when you're on a mount therefore you can't Ride By Attack or Spirited Charge since they require you to both be charging and mounted.

Even if you do somehow Ride By Attack or Spirited charge, they explicitly require you to take a charge action, which the FAQ explicitly states does not stack with Vital Strike.

I think the loss of mobility and the delay in acquisition of the extra damage are bigger than the gain of the extra damage dice at later levels, hence it's a Pyrrhic victor.

I also think it was a poorly thought out post, that SKR didn't think of the implications of ruling that you are not using a charge action when your mount is charging as well. Note that, while he could have used the "Your mount is charging, you are not" wording in the FAQ but didn't. Maybe he realized the implications when he thought more carefully on it before FAQing it?


Jason is the rules king. I think if his post isn't narrowly interpreted and just viewed in the context of the thread it is in, which is the point of making a post in a thread, the answer is clear.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Akerlof wrote:
***

Did you even see my earlier post? Look at the 3rd post above yours, where it's laid out nice and neat. There are only three places where the phrasing could indicate that you are expected to be taking the charge action, and SKR's clarification makes it clear that these feats should be being triggered by your mount taking the charge. The only other possible interpretation is that they're intended to be used by someone running across the back of a colossal mount, which is patently ridiculous and clearly not correct.


Akerlof wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
Akerlof wrote:
**some quotes and rude stuff**
I'm not combing Vital Strike with a charge, I'm using Vital Strike from the back of a charging mount. Also, don't be a jerk, it's unnecessary.

Yes, you're vital striking from the back of a charging mount. You don't charge when you're on a mount therefore you can't Ride By Attack or Spirited Charge since they require you to both be charging and mounted.

Even if you do somehow Ride By Attack or Spirited charge, they explicitly require you to take a charge action, which the FAQ explicitly states does not stack with Vital Strike.

I think the loss of mobility and the delay in acquisition of the extra damage are bigger than the gain of the extra damage dice at later levels, hence it's a Pyrrhic victor.

I also think it was a poorly thought out post, that SKR didn't think of the implications of ruling that you are not using a charge action when your mount is charging as well. Note that, while he could have used the "Your mount is charging, you are not" wording in the FAQ but didn't. Maybe he realized the implications when he thought more carefully on it before FAQing it?

Well the FAQ very strongly implied it anyway, and that was early this year. The comment where he came right out and said it was just now today.

Anyway the wording of these feats have to be reconciled with what he said somehow, right? We're not going to just have some feats and mechanics stop working because of a blog post.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

I'm bringing this forward for clraity and reference since I find myself re-posting it piece by piece every few dozen posts:

In this FAQ SKR makes it clear that a lance only does double damage from the back of a charging mount. In this quote SKR specifically states "If YOU are mounted, the MOUNT is making the charge, YOU are NOT making a charge".
We also know from the Mounted Skirmisher feat that normal is "If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only take an attack action".
the Vital Strike FAQ says " Vital Strike can only be used as part of an attack action, which is a specific kind of standard action."

What does that mean? It means you still have your full complement of actions, you can Vital Strike with a lance from the back of a charging mount, and you can do:
Vital Strike + Spirited Charge= 3x weapon Spirited charge + 1x weapon Vital Strike + 3x STR and Enhancements + precision and weapon properties

or

Greater Vital Strike + Spirited Charge= 3x weapon Spirited Charge + 3x weapon Greater Vital Strike + 3x STR and Enhancement + precision and weapon properties.

Further, there are only three places where people seem to have trouble with the mounted combat rules:

Ride-by Attack and Spirited Charge which both say "When you are mounted and use the charge action"

and the section in Mounted combat that says "When charging on horseback, you deal double damage with a lance (see Charge)."

The lance is clarified in it's own equipment entry where it says "A lance deals double damage when used from the back of a charging mount" and since SKR has already clarified that when your mount is charging, you are not the one taking the charge action, we know that these feats are triggered by being on the back of a charging mount. Problem solved, everything works, no other contradictions or issues.


It's definitely a valid reading to suggest that Spirited Charge + Ride by Attack need the character to be able to do a charge action in order to trigger. Sean's ruling is that the mount is making the charge action not the character so thus no charge means no spirited charge feat.

I think this clearly violates the intent of the feats and could easily be solved by revising the two feats in question to say that the PC gets the benefits while on the back of a charging mount.

I suspect that he'd also indicate that vital strike cannot be used from the back of a charging mount so that you can either do a mounted move action + vital strike or a mounted charge action + spirit charge but not both but that's just my gut feeling based upon past rulings that really limit the applicability of vital strike.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

vuron wrote:

It's definitely a valid reading to suggest that Spirited Charge + Ride by Attack need the character to be able to do a charge action in order to trigger. Sean's ruling is that the mount is making the charge action not the character so thus no charge means no spirited charge feat.

Clearly there is no intent for feats that don't work, and it can just as easily be interpreted to understand that it is your mount charging that triggers the feats. Given the current clarifications in fact, that is the only interpretation which works, and so the only one that can currently be used.

Which is not to say that cleaning up the verbage a bit isn't called for, just that there's only one working possibility given the rules and clarifications in place, and it's the one I laid out above. "The feats do nothing" is clearly not the solution.

Liberty's Edge

This isn't important for those who see no carry over from 3.5 to PF, but the Rules of the Game articles on mounted combat provide a pretty consistent system for using the poorly written mounted combat rules. There is a link to the articles in my profile.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Howie23 wrote:
This isn't important for those who see no carry over from 3.5 to PF, but the Rules of the Game articles on mounted combat provide a pretty consistent system for using the poorly written mounted combat rules. There is a link to the articles in my profile.

Hey Howie! Isn't that the link that addresses the whole "I have my mount move and then dismount as a free action and take my move" nonsense as well? As I recall it was very insightful and informative.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Akerlof wrote:


Even if you do somehow Ride By Attack or Spirited charge, they explicitly require you to take a charge action, which the FAQ explicitly states does not stack with Vital Strike.

That's not what the FAQ says. The FAQ says that Vital Strike takes the Attack standard action to use and that charging is a full-round action. Since my mount is the one charging, there is no conflict here, and I can reap the benefits of my mounts charge while using my action to Vital Strike. None of which violates anything in the FAQ.


Ssalarn wrote:
Akerlof wrote:
***
Did you even see my earlier post? Look at the 3rd post above yours, where it's laid out nice and neat. There are only three places where the phrasing could indicate that you are expected to be taking the charge action, and SKR's clarification makes it clear that these feats should be being triggered by your mount taking the charge. The only other possible interpretation is that they're intended to be used by someone running across the back of a colossal mount, which is patently ridiculous and clearly not correct.

Yeah that was nice and neat those are the main three places where I see wording that is completely at odds with what SKR said today. The Cavalier's Charge ability is another fairly salient one. What you aren't appreciating is that not every one will make this leap with you to believing it's "clear that these feats should be being triggered by your mount taking the charge." It looks more to me like these feats stop working all together if what SKR said today was official. And the running across the back of a colossal mount thing is not the only other possible interpretation. A far simpler interpretation is that when you are involved in a mounted charge, you count as charging, and Shawn's statement was incompatible with the way several things are written.

I think it's great if this vital strike thing works, hell I think it should work with all charges. And I definitely, definitely want to see ragelancepounce put to rest. So I'm fine with what SKR said. I just don't see anyway it could become official errata without cusing ripples so that several sections of the rules would require rewriting.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Grimmy wrote:

A far simpler interpretation is that when you are involved in a mounted charge, you count as charging, and Shawn's statement was incompatible with the way several things are written.

That particular interpretation is completely incompatible with the action economy presented by every other factor of Mounted Combat. It also makes the paragraph in mounted combat about how charging on a mount works completely nonsensical. It was clearly written the way it was to distinguish that your mount is charging, and you're gaining the benefit. It would be nice to get some Dev clarification up in this piece though.

Liberty's Edge

Ssalarn wrote:
Howie23 wrote:
This isn't important for those who see no carry over from 3.5 to PF, but the Rules of the Game articles on mounted combat provide a pretty consistent system for using the poorly written mounted combat rules. There is a link to the articles in my profile.
Hey Howie! Isn't that the link that addresses the whole "I have my mount move and then dismount as a free action and take my move" nonsense as well? As I recall it was very insightful and informative.

Yes, it does. Basically, it uses the idea that, although the mount and rider have their own sets of actions, those actions are happening concurrently and overlap in time (actions). Rider can do things during mount's movement, such as manipulate equipment, cast spells, and use ranged combat, but cannot do things that extend the combined actions beyond the normal move-std or full-round-action time frame.

The mounted combat rules are not well written. The RotG articles provide a system that works, regardless of its source. There are very few differences between the 3.5 and PF mounted combat rules, making them pretty plug-and-play.


Ssalarn wrote:
Akerlof wrote:
***
Did you even see my earlier post? Look at the 3rd post above yours, where it's laid out nice and neat. There are only three places where the phrasing could indicate that you are expected to be taking the charge action, and SKR's clarification makes it clear that these feats should be being triggered by your mount taking the charge. The only other possible interpretation is that they're intended to be used by someone running across the back of a colossal mount, which is patently ridiculous and clearly not correct.

Yes I read your post. You say "...since SKR has already clarified that when your mount is charging, you are not the one taking the charge action, we know that these feats are triggered by being on the back of a charging mount..."

But SKR only clarified that your mount is charging. He said nothing about Ride By Attack and Spirited Charge and they are written "when you use the charge action." Not your mount, you.

So maybe that's RAI, but that's certainly not RAW. You're also asserting the phrasing in an equipment description trumps the specific phrasing of the charge rule for that piece of equipment, AND the phrasing of two feats. I do not find that convincing.

You want Vital Strike to work to stack with Spirited Charge, but you do not have the RAW to support it. You have SKR's ruling that a mount charges but you don't, so yes, Vital Strike works in that scenario. But it is still RAW that Spirited Charge requires you, not your mount, to use the charge action so Vital Strike cannot be used with them, and SKRs ruling does not change that fact.

Quote:
That's not what the FAQ says. The FAQ says that Vital Strike takes the Attack standard action to use and that charging is a full-round action. Since my mount is the one charging, there is no conflict here, and I can reap the benefits of my mounts charge while using my action to Vital Strike. None of which violates anything in the FAQ.

Spirited Charge requires you to use the charge action, therefore no Vital Strike. Plain, simple, RAW. Regular charge on a mount does not, per SKR, take a charge action, so it can be combined with Vital Strike. Until the text of Spirited Charge is changed, it requires a charge action.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Akerlof wrote:

Yes I read your post. You say "...since SKR has already clarified that when your mount is charging, you are not the one taking the charge action, we know that these feats are triggered by being on the back of a charging mount..."

But SKR only clarified that your mount is charging. He said nothing about Ride By Attack and Spirited Charge and they are written "when you use the charge action." Not your mount, you.

No they're not. They say " When mounted and using the charge action"

There's no "you" in there anywhere.

Akerlof wrote:

You're also asserting the phrasing in an equipment description trumps the specific phrasing of the charge rule for that piece of equipment, AND the phrasing of two feats. I do not find that convincing.

As addressed in my previous sentence. The feats and abilities say "When mounted and using the charge action" which is clarified by both SKR's post and the description of the item in the equipment section as "when used from the back of a charging mount"

Akerlof wrote:

You want Vital Strike to work to stack with Spirited Charge, but you do not have the RAW to support it.

I disagree, and have laid out pretty clearly why.


Ssalarn wrote:
Akerlof wrote:

Yes I read your post. You say "...since SKR has already clarified that when your mount is charging, you are not the one taking the charge action, we know that these feats are triggered by being on the back of a charging mount..."

But SKR only clarified that your mount is charging. He said nothing about Ride By Attack and Spirited Charge and they are written "when you use the charge action." Not your mount, you.

No they're not. They say " When mounted and using the charge action"

There's no "you" in there anywhere.

Reread the text of Ride By Attack.

Even for Spirited Charge, what makes you think "when (you are) mounted and (your mount) is using the charge action" is more likely than "when (you are) mounted and (you are) using the charge action?" Especially since the prerequisite feat used the latter conditions?

Vital Strike would be really cool to tack onto Spirited Charge. But everything else I've seen, especially the 11/30 Vital Strike ruling, makes me think that they're not intended to be used together.


Sprited Charge is a full round actions because you are charging. You do not get to charge and make a standard action also.

Quote:

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).

There is nothing written here that says you get an exception to the rules which allow you get charge and get a standard action.

You being able to attack while moving is a part of the charge action(full round action). It is not a separate action unto itself.


Then Spirited Charge and Ride-By-Attack doesn't work at all in its current written form. I can't charge as I don't have a clear path(mount blocking my way) and I'm not even touching the ground.

@Akerlof
If the Mounted Combat section on charging with a lance is the way it works on getting bonus damage with a lance, then it can only work with using a horse mount, as that's the only way to be on horseback.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

wraithstrike wrote:


There is nothing written here that says you get an exception to the rules which allow you get charge and get a standard action.

You being able to attack while moving is a part of the charge action(full round action). It is not a separate action unto itself.

Hey Wraith, back up and check out my earlier post from SKR where he specifically says "If YOU are mounted, the MOUNT is making the charge, YOU are NOT making a charge". I've basically laid out the whole thing in the post 12 up from yours. your action economy is unaffected by your mount's charge, allowing you to gain the benefits of his charge as laid out in the mounted combat section of the combat chapter. He's charging, you're taking a standard action (and a move if you feel like it).


wraithstrike wrote:


There is nothing written here that says you get an exception to the rules which allow you get charge and get a standard action.

You being able to attack while moving is a part of the charge action(full round action). It is not a separate action unto itself.

Yeah, that's how I understood it, too. Your mount uses a charge action, and you do, too (using the mount's movement to fulfill charge's distance requirement.)

However, a couple hours ago over in the ragelancepounce threat Steven K Reynolds ruled that you don't charge when your mount charges, you just get the benefits and penalties of a charge and get to make one attack:

Sean K Reynolds Designer, RPG Superstar Judge 4 hours, 46 minutes ago wrote:


GBT gives you pounce.
Pounce allows YOU to make a full attack when YOU make a charge.
If YOU are mounted, the MOUNT is making the charge, YOU are NOT making a charge.
The mounted combat rules specifically say that you only get ONE attack if your mount charges.
GBT does NOT say "when the barbarian is mounted and the MOUNT makes a charge, SHE may make a full attack."

So, after that ruling, mounted characters don't charge and therefore they can't Ride-By Attack or Spirited Charge. On the up shot, they might be able to vital strike on charges now, unless their "ONE attack" is ruled to be something different than a standard action style attack action.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Akerlof wrote:

***

Even for Spirited Charge, what makes you think "when (you are) mounted and (your mount) is using the charge action" is more likely than "when (you are) mounted and (you are) using the charge action?"***

The fact that SKR, who's been developing this game through multiple editions and companies for years now, came out and specifically said "If YOU are mounted, the MOUNT is making the charge, YOU are NOT making a charge". This clarification means only the first interpretation works.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Akerlof wrote:
So, after that ruling, mounted characters don't charge and therefore they can't Ride-By Attack or Spirited Charge. On the up shot, they might be able to vital strike on charges now, unless their "ONE attack" is ruled to be something different than a standard action style attack action.

The only one of those that is even really arguable is Ride-by attack, which does say "When you are mounted and use the charge action". Given SKR's clarification though, that could easily mean "When you are mounted and use the charge action (via your mount)" which works just fine. Spirited Charge doesn't even have the "you" in it and works fine as is. Stop misrepresenting this as an ironclad case for those two feats not working, when it's just your interpretation of what they're saying. It's one thing to say "I believe those feats don't work because...", another to act as though there's some mandate that's already backed your opinion without any references from the RAW or devs.

I personally think the part in Mounted Combat that says "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" covers things pretty nicely.
Did my mount charge? Yep. Did I decide to make an attack? Sure why not. So I get the bonus to hit and damage from charging and having Spirited Charge or what-have-you.

Liberty's Edge

SKR also was unaware until a couple years ago that the ride by attack language was a problem because he had been using 3.0 mounted combat rules. I respect SKR and this isn't bashing him. It is, rather a voice of caution when appealing to authority in arguments.

The fact remains that mounted combat rules are not well written, arguments about them are destined for failure to agree, and will invariably wind up with contradictions and things that don't make sense.

Our system of logic assumes that we are dealing with a consistent domain of subject matter. The rules, particularly don't meet that threshold and it thus logical approach will lead to contradictions and opposing positions demonstrating the failure of the other side.

About time for me to retreat back to my cave, I fear.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Howie23 wrote:

SKR also was unaware until a couple years ago that the ride by attack language was a problem because he had been using 3.0 mounted combat rules. I respect SKR and this isn't bashing him. It is, rather a voice of caution when appealing to authority in arguments.

The fact remains that mounted combat rules are not well written, arguments about them are destined for failure to agree, and will invariably wind up with contradictions and things that don't make sense.

Our system of logic assumes that we are dealing with a consistent domain of subject matter. The rules, particularly don't meet that threshold and it thus logical approach will lead to contradictions and opposing positions demonstrating the failure of the other side.

About time for me to retreat back to my cave, I fear.

Thanks for your contribution to the discussion Howie, and for letting us know where to find the expanded discussion on the Mounted Combat rules.


@Ssalarn

So, you are happy with:
a mount charging,
mount attacks an opponent,
player does a fast dismount (DC20 free action if successful),
player takes a 5' step,
player gets full round attack on opponent,
player gets +2 to each attack, -2 to ac as his mount charged?

He might not get last line as he is technically no longer mounted which is why we are arguing he can full round attack (in this example) in the first place.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Treesmasha Toothpickmaker wrote:

@Ssalarn

So, you are happy with:
a mount charging,
mount attacks an opponent,
player does a fast dismount (DC20 free action if successful),
player takes a 5' step,
player gets full round attack on opponent,
player gets +2 to each attack, -2 to ac as his mount charged?

He might not get last line as he is technically no longer mounted which is why we are arguing he can full round attack (in this example) in the first place.

"If you make an attack at the end of the charge, you receive the bonus gained from the charge. "

If you dismount and attack, its not at the end of the charge it is after the charge


Well, I would argue it is clearly at the end, but technically you are no longer mounted at that time. However, my main point is not about the charge bonus; rather about the ability to move on a charging mount, dismount, and do a full round action.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Treesmasha Toothpickmaker wrote:
Well, I would argue it is clearly at the end, but technically you are no longer mounted at that time. However, my main point is not about the charge bonus; rather about the ability to move on a charging mount, dismount, and do a full round action.

You may want to take a look at Howie's linke to the Mounted Combat discussion from 3.5. It clarifies what the intent of the various mounted combat rules was, and since they came over to PF largely unchanged, it's very applicable.

Basically, it uses the idea that, although the mount and rider have their own sets of actions, those actions are happening concurrently and overlap in time (actions). Rider can do things during mount's movement, such as manipulate equipment, cast spells, and use ranged combat, but cannot do things that extend the combined actions beyond the normal move-std or full-round-action time frame.

Mounted Skirmisher allows you to make a full attack from the back of your mount, which is the method someone should be using to full attack during mounted combat.


@Ssalarn,

Basically, if we read it as you intend, we have to make several exceptions to rules. This is why I believe that it would be fundamentally better just to look at is as if the mount charges, you charge. SKR's comments aside.

However, I have enjoyed the discussion.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Treesmasha Toothpickmaker wrote:

@Ssalarn,

Basically, if we read it as you intend, we have to make several exceptions to rules. This is why I believe that it would be fundamentally better just to look at is as if the mount charges, you charge. SKR's comments aside.

However, I have enjoyed the discussion.

I don't view it as making exceptions to the rules, but clarifying how the rules work under a specific set of circumstances. Either way, thanks for participating in the discussion :)

Paizo Employee Design Manager

I saw another thread on this topic and was curious. Still no dev clarification?

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Still no dev input on this one?


Wow this a topic is really crazy. Let me see if I can lay out the basics of what is going on here.

We all agree that you when on a mount it charges you do not charge. This allows vital strike. Basically you can do any standard action you want. You may even be able to use cleave or doublestrike to gain a second attack if your mount moves more the 5 feet. I base that one specific trumping general. Full attacks still not allowed because that source is not more specific then the mounted combat section while class features and feats are.

You can not use pounce while mounted based on what skr said in several posts and an FAQ. The language that is used in pounce is "When a creature with this special attack makes a charge, it can make a full attack (including rake attacks if the creature also has the rake ability)." This does not specify that you have must you the charge action but skr's post meant that you do and that you can not use this or anything else with similar language.

Now I will go into my interpretation.

From this I find I go the hurling charge class feature that reads "While raging and making a charge attack,..." That leads to believe there is a special kind of attack that you make when you use that charge action, a charge attack. I would also infer that you can not use anything that refers to charge attack while mounted on a charging creature. This would mean that you can not use radiant charge or Minotaur's charge.

Rhino hide reads as follows "... any successful charge attack made by the wearer, including a mounted charge." There would be no reason for such language if mounted charges were charge attacks.

Ride by attack reads "When you are mounted and use the charge action, you may move and attack as if with a standard charge and then move again (continuing the straight line of the charge). Your total movement for the round can't exceed double your mounted speed. You and your mount do not provoke an attack of opportunity from the opponent that you attack."

The only place I can find language that actual calls out the charge action itself is in ride by attack, spirited charge, and wheeling charge. This language has to special because we know that things that normally work with a charge do not work with a mounted charge.

Some seam to think that it means you can not use any of these feats because you can not take charge action while mounted. This is utter nonsense! One does not have feat that explicitly does nothing. Especial not in the same book that contains the rules that would make it do nothing and when that book is central book in the game.

So what else could in mean?

1. That when you make a mounted charge and have this feat it changes the standard charge on mount to include moving after the charge.
That would mean that everything Ssalarn has said it correct.

2. That this feat modifies the standard charge to allow you to use a charge action while mounted. In addition to that it allows you move after a charge.
This would solve the issues with wheeling charge and spirited charge but that is really a non-issue because they use the same language so would be find under either interpretation. An point in its favor is that it would allow a cavalier to to use cavalier's and devastating charge class abilities witch are phrased like pounce instead of ride by attack.
On the other hand if that is how it works then once you have this feat you use anything works with a charge from a mount and I am fairly sure that is not intended.
It also does not say that your mount must use that charge action when you use ride by attack. In order to move before and after you attack on mount your mount would use its standard and move actions to allow this. It actually not charge under this interpretation and the only way that it could attack is if it had spring attack and then it would be a normal attack with none of benefits of charging.
Once could never combine vital strike and spirited charge. Mounted skirmisher would allow mounted double lance damage on there first attack but could not be combined with ride by attack or spirited charge even on the first attack. I am not sure if that is a good or bad thing.
It brings back in ragelancepounce but only for 1 attack in the routine. Pretty sure that is bad.

I think that Ssalarn is correct but that would leave the cavalier class features in a lurch.
We would need a ruling that says any time anything refers to mounts and is related to a charge it should read when your mount charges you gain X benefits and does not imply that mounted charges are charge attacks or that the rider must use the charge action.

A reasonable house rule might allow a PC to make charge action if wants to when his mount charges. That would allow for the activation of all ground based charge powers and that ride by attack allows your mount to move after its charge as well. It would allow all the mounted feats to work, you could add in any other charge goodness you have, mounted skirmisher would not combine with the the ride by attack line of feats, cavalier class features could be made to work and would combine with ride by attack, and ragelancepounce works but only one the first attack. It think that all in all that would be the best way to run it.


Greg Wasson wrote:

So, in conclusion, I would say that Vital Strike cannot be combined with Spirited Charge. Despite Mounted Skirmisher.

Too bad, I wanted this to work :P

I agree with Wasson here. If we begin to delve deep into the rules to become gamebreaking, we can assume that a character who uses their Mount to Charge, they could also make a Charge themselves, or a Sunder, or even Fly if they have it. Hell, they could preform a Heal Check, they could play their banjo to cast spells, they could craft a friggen wagon wheel.

If we address that it's the Mount who is Charging, and not the player, than this infers that the player is able to do anything they want. That's game-breaking.

The player could do set a handstand (Balance DC probably 10) as a Standard Action and moonwalk it to the horses ass as a Move Action, then spank it as a Free Action.

If you want to get super technical, if it's the Mount who is Charging, the player could initiate an Overrun. So the Mount Charges, but doesn't move through an opponent's square, yet the player does? So what, the Mount stops immediately and the player flys like a person through a windshield?

Damn, the player could make a Stealth Check while on the Mount. What, the bandits see the giant lumbering pony but not the man with the huge f***ing lance?

Give me a break. It's utterly gamebreaking. I understand the concept; It's the Mount's momentum - the reason you deal extra damage - but it's your precision which counts - Vital Strike. I understand this. And I agree fully and wholly.

Except for one thing. You, as a PC, are using the Sprinted Charge ability. It is your special ability, thus your special action. Vital Strike only applies when you make a single attack as a Standard Action, not as a Special Action. If that were the case, you could use Vital Strike during a Sunder, which you can't.

If your idea is to work, I would argue your Mount must have Sprinted Charge. After all, it's your Mount who is doing all the legwork. This frees you up to line up a Vital Strike, rather than spending all your energy and focus on riding.

I see how mechanically it all works, but realistically I disagree.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

This was all sorted out like 6 months ago when they did the FAQ. Really didn't need the necro.

101 to 140 of 140 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / How does Vital Strike work with Spirited Charge All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.