Great to felling smash plus vital strike, I thought It woudl be ruled the other way :)
I recommend stephen to not post about mount charge + vital strike, not until he have everything crystal clear, otherwise it could be a forum stampede XD
Oh, I agree. I would rather get a right answer that clears up all these nagging questions. I try not to post off the cuff and have to back track.
"Yes, darling. Sorry. I'll be right there."
Off to watch some Walking Dead with the lady. Talk to you tomorrow, everyone.
So we're clear, THIS is specifically the text used to justify Vital Strike at the end of a mounted charge.
/popcorn
You are adept at attacking from upon a swift moving steed.Prerequisites: Ride rank 14, Mounted Combat, Trick Riding.
Benefit: If your mount moves its speed or less, you can still take a full-attack action.
Normal: If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only take an attack .
In other words, ruling against mounted Vital Strike would contradict RAW and a helluva lot of dev support from related rulings in these forums. That would be a mess. Anyway, looking forward to getting this thing tied off.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
/popcorn
You are adept at attacking from upon a swift moving steed.Prerequisites: Ride rank 14, Mounted Combat, Trick Riding.
Benefit: If your mount moves its speed or less, you can still take a full-attack action.
Normal: If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only take an attack .
That is fairly weak sauce if it is being used to justify the use of Vital Strike at the end of a charge. It still takes a move action to move the horse (or a full-round action if you fail the check) so it seems to be talking about that and maybe not considering the charge because, well, the rules are vague and maybe not well understood...the question really is whether charging with a horse is a charge action on your part or it is some kind of strange exception (as Sean argued in the post quoted above).
My guess is yes when you charge on horseback, you are making a charge action, but I will agree the mounted combat section is really unclear on that and to clarify it is worth an FAQ. Hence I will consult with the rest of the design team (read: Jason) and get the real answers. With that answer I can also answer a few of the other questions floating around. The real issues is a bunch of actions that use an attack (as I read an attack roll) for something other than the attack action, and the full-attack action, and where those instances sit in the action economy and how they interact with one another.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, and The Walking Dead is over, and the lady is on her computer doing work...so I figured I could do the same. What is good good for the goose is good for the gander, or so I'm told. ;)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think Stephen realized the kerfuffle when he made his initial comment. This topic gets the forums stirred up easily.
I know kerfuffles when I see them--I don't shy away from them. My original post stands. You can make a Vital Strike when you use the attack action (standard action). The rest is just a clarification of what are attack actions and what are not.
Forums stir. That's what they do. It is my job (or one of my jobs) to give folks answers, tempest in the proverbial teapot or not.
|
I know one big confusion is how many actions a mounted character may take when his mount moves.
The mount uses its actions to move. Riding a combat trained mount is not an action. However making a full attack is restricted if the mount moves more than 5 feet.
But many people still interpret that you can have your mount move, or even double move, and you still have your move/standard or full-round action remaining (except for making a full attack).
You can add that one to the list.
I don't think Stephen realized the kerfuffle when he made his initial comment. This topic gets the forums stirred up easily.I know kerfuffles when I see them--I don't shy away from them. My original post stands. You can make a Vital Strike when you use the attack action (standard action). The rest is just a clarification of what are attack actions and what are not.
Forums stir. That's what they do. It is my job (or one of my jobs) to give folks answers, tempest in the proverbial teapot or not.
It's much appreciated. As it stands now, since mount and rider have separate actions, and since many FAQs and developer posts have been made using that separation of action economy as a basis, you don't really charge when your mount does; you get the attack bonus as a special case due to the rule in the combat section under Mounted Combat. But a number of bits of text still refer to the character as charging rather than the mount. Then there's things like whether the mount needs Improved Overrun or whether the rider does, and so on.
Mounted combat is playable but very confusing to a lot of players and GMs once feats and the like enter the picture. Something that common in play probably shouldn't be prone to that much confusion. I wonder how PFS has handled it, since they hate table variation...?
Maybe a blog post akin to the ones on poison and intelligent animals would go far in alleviating confusion. It's an idea, anyway.
I don't think Stephen realized the kerfuffle when he made his initial comment. This topic gets the forums stirred up easily.
All topics get us stirred up easily.
I don't think Stephen realized the kerfuffle when he made his initial comment. This topic gets the forums stirred up easily.I know kerfuffles when I see them--I don't shy away from them. My original post stands. You can make a Vital Strike when you use the attack action (standard action). The rest is just a clarification of what are attack actions and what are not.
Forums stir. That's what they do. It is my job (or one of my jobs) to give folks answers, tempest in the proverbial teapot or not.
You are a brave hero, standing stalwart in the face of danger.
:)
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I wonder how PFS has handled it, since they hate table variation...?Players of mounted characters generally spend hours doing research, print out swaths of papers, explain their view to the GM before game, and, if all goes well, the mount is never needed during the scenario.
The bold part is mostly the case.
As to the Charging mount = rider charging. Until this thread and that post by SKR, I've always seen it ruled you both take the effects of charge including the action limitations.
Design Manager
|
I wonder how PFS has handled it, since they hate table variation...?Players of mounted characters generally spend hours doing research, print out swaths of papers, explain their view to the GM before game, and, if all goes well, the mount is never needed during the scenario.The bold part is mostly the case.
As to the Charging mount = rider charging. Until this thread and that post by SKR, I've always seen it ruled you both take the effects of charge including the action limitations.
Our group is the opposite. I've never seen a GM try to argue that you and your animal companion suddenly have fewer actions just because you sat on it. Similarly the mounted Vital Strike has been considered supported by RAW and dev clarification as long as I've been involved in PFS.
I also want to point out that ruling that the rider and mount are both charging, aside from re-opening the ragelancepounce issue, is an unnecessary nerf for the cavalier. As others have noted in this thread, the Cavalier tends to get stuck leaving the mount outside in a lot of scenarios, and that hurts for a class completely built around mounted combat. Getting amplified damage on your first strike from a charge combined with Mounted Skirmisher or being able to quaff a quick potion while your mount charges before performing a Vital Strike are things that make the Cavalier viable, not OP. Ruling the other way is a big buff for the Barbarian and a big nerf for every other mounted combatant.It also widens the gap between archery and melee combat styles, since mounted archers can always full attack on a moving mount without taking any feats at all.
The rules seem clear on the matter of charging to me. From the pfSRD, "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."
Your mount charges. You don't even have to make an attack at the end of that charge, you could cast a spell or something if you wanted. You get the bonus to your attack roll (should you take it), and suffer the AC penalty, but your mount charges.
Now, what's slightly less clear is whether or not your attack is considered an "attack action." The default ruling would be since you are spending your standard action to make the attack, then you must be using the "attack action," but it wouldn't fly in the face of the rest of the rules if Jason decided to say something to the effect of, "if you choose to attack at the end of your mount's charge, you use the charge action as well."
Now, as you said, this opens the door for pouncing on top of your mount, which seems thematically off and rewarding to, perhaps, the wrong class, but as a ruling in a vacuum it is not a bad rule. Personally, I think it should remain an attack action and allow Vital Strike, but I am no lead designer or developer.
|
Design Manager
|
Now, as you said, this opens the door for pouncing on top of your mount, which seems thematically off and rewarding to, perhaps, the wrong class, but as a ruling in a vacuum it is not a bad rule. Personally, I think it should remain an attack action and allow Vital Strike, but I am no lead designer or developer.
I agree (obviously!) that it should continue to be considered an attack action. Note that the mounted combat verbage predates the attack/attack action distinction, and that Mounted Skirmisher, written after that distinction was put in place, specifically calls it out as an attack action.
And all the stuff I noted about it being a serious and unnecessary nerf to rule the other way. You re-buff the guys who don't need further advantages (pouncing Barbarians, as well as a few other corner cases), you punish melee characters for being melee while rewarding archers for choosing the most powerful archery option available, and nothing about it serves to make the game better, or more balanced.
Archers can already full attack while mounted, and they don't need a single feat to do it. Barbarians already have a Pounce option. Cavalier's and other mounted melee combatants don't need to be pushed behind the curve.
I am in full agreement.
Thanks Stephen! However, he's talking about a literalist interpretation of charging on a mount where the rider is not considered to be taking the charge action so maybe is taking an attack action. It's based off Sean's FAQ on pounce with mounted lance (Sean ruled that the rider does not count as charging for the purposes of pouncing).Could you point me to that FAQ? I'm having a hard time finding the one you are talking about. It's not in the Bestiary pounce section.
Not sure if anyone's linked you it yet, but it's from this messageboard post.
I personally wasn't a fan of that explanation, since it seems that a lot of the cavalier abilities are written assuming the cavalier is the one charging (almost as if he is replacing his move speed with the mount's). But I'm a fan of FAQs in general, so even if it's just reaffirming what Sean said, I vote go for it :)
|
Design Manager
|
To elaborate on something I said earlier, mounted archers can already take a mounted move action and a full attack without any feats at all, and they do so with no penalties. It's only when taking a (mounted) double move that they need a feat to avoid penalties.
There's a lot of intricacies involved in this that are easily resolved with no negative consequences by leaving it at "When you're making a mounted charge, the mount is the one charging and you get the benefits. Feats referring to benefits gained during a charge while mounted obviously work."
If you start moving away from that there's a cascade of other things that need to be addressed. If the mount moves more than 5 feet but doesn't charge, what kind of action is it? If it's not an attack action, why not? Are we actually punishing people for choosing mounted combat by giving them fewer options than an unmounted character?
In that same note, why would we lower the action economy of mounted characters? A druid and their big cat companion can both pounce two separate targets but a Cavalier can't use Mounted Skirmisher or Vital Strike from the back of a charging mount? In what world does that even make sense?
When people quote the normal bit for mounted skirmisher it is correct. Why? Because it isn't discussing charging.
Ie normally if your mount moves more than 5 you can only take a standard acrion. Its not actually relevant to charge.
|
Design Manager
|
When people quote the normal bit for mounted skirmisher it is correct. Why? Because it isn't discussing charging.
Ie normally if your mount moves more than 5 you can only take a standard acrion. Its not actually relevant to charge.
It is relevant because it's directly referencing the line in the mounted combat rules that says "If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only make a single melee attack.'
Determining what type of action that attack normally is relevant to the entire Vital Strike discussion, because if it's not an attack action, as SRMF was talking about pondering, than a mounted character cannot move and Vital Strike at all. That's why I referenced it in the greater context of the entire conversation.
If a mounted character is considerd to be charging when his mount charges, than over half the mounted combat rules are superfluous, or directly contradictory.
If the mount is the one charging, the only real issue lies with the poor wording of one or two feats, which are easily clarified if everyone understands how a mounted charge works.
Except nothing in that line is discussing charging. I'm on my phone now but ill reread it all later. But its just telling you if your mount moves or double moves you normally can only take a standard action.
I'd have to reread to see how it connects ro charge.
By the rules, it looks like Vital Strike on a charge is a no go.
That said, if I was DMing, I'd personally allow it, an account of it not being that big of an issue.
|
Design Manager
|
Except nothing in that line is discussing charging. I'm on my phone now but ill reread it all later. But its just telling you if your mount moves or double moves you normally can only take a standard action.
I'd have to reread to see how it connects ro charge.
Reread the thread. SRMF was discussing whether the attack allowed after moving more than 5 feet was even actually an attack action, and Mounted Skirmisher is the reference point to clarify the wording in the original Mounted Combat rules. The rules have to be read as a whole.
Mounted combat also clearly states that a mount uses its action to move. If we know that the attack allowed after mounted movement is a standard action, and that the mount uses its action to move, we've clearly established that the rules don't reduce action economy when you're mounted. And why would they? That would be silly and unnecessary.
So if the mount is using its own actions, why on earth does the rider suddenly lose his actions if the mount charges? Particularly since that ruling would be different for a melee character than a ranged character. A druid could ride on the back of a charging lion or elk and still cas spells, aelven ranger can full attack with his bow while his horse full attacks right underneath him, but suddenly everything changes when you pick up a lance or sword? Why? Why nerf an already situational combat mode?
And as I said earlier, if the rider is also using a charge action somehow, than they may as well have not even written the mounted combat rules, since that interpretation makes them either unnecessary or blatantly contradictory.
Can Vital Strike be taken by critters using natural weapons?
Mr. Peluda from Kingmaker would like to know.
While we await the mounted ruling, I'll mention that Gravity Bow + Vital Strike + Sniping is a sweet sweet combo. You have to use a move action every round to hide after taking your shot anyway, so the Vital Strike is just gravy since you only get one shot per round anyway.
Snipers LUV them some Vital Strike!
Can Vital Strike be taken by critters using natural weapons?
Mr. Peluda from Kingmaker would like to know.
Yes, although the same restrictions apply.
Except nothing in that line is discussing charging. I'm on my phone now but ill reread it all later. But its just telling you if your mount moves or double moves you normally can only take a standard action.
I'd have to reread to see how it connects ro charge.
Reread the thread. SRMF was discussing whether the attack allowed after moving more than 5 feet was even actually an attack action, and Mounted Skirmisher is the reference point to clarify the wording in the original Mounted Combat rules. The rules have to be read as a whole.
Mounted combat also clearly states that a mount uses its action to move. If we know that the attack allowed after mounted movement is a standard action, and that the mount uses its action to move, we've clearly established that the rules don't reduce action economy when you're mounted. And why would they? That would be silly and unnecessary.
So if the mount is using its own actions, why on earth does the rider suddenly lose his actions if the mount charges? Particularly since that ruling would be different for a melee character than a ranged character. A druid could ride on the back of a charging lion or elk and still cas spells, aelven ranger can full attack with his bow while his horse full attacks right underneath him, but suddenly everything changes when you pick up a lance or sword? Why? Why nerf an already situational combat mode?
And as I said earlier, if the rider is also using a charge action somehow, than they may as well have not even written the mounted combat rules, since that interpretation makes them either unnecessary or blatantly contradictory.
I think what i was trying to say was missed. So i will give it another go.
Mounted Combat has a section explaining normal movement on horseback. It says you can make a standard attack. I was not aware this was ever in question.
The mounted Skirmisher stuff Supports this. It basically re-affirms what we already know that if you move more than 5 ft while mounted all you can do is take a standard attack.
What i was trying to stress is that, that in itself does not confirm that you can standard attack on a charge. Because the Section of mounted combat that talks about mounted charge goes into its own explanation of what you can and cannot do while charging... then proceeds to use poor wording and explain it horribly.
All mounted Skirmisher does is re-firm the normal move and combat rules for mounted combat. It doesnt confirm or deny the ability to use a standard action in a charge because it is not talking about charging.
Can Vital Strike be taken by critters using natural weapons?
Mr. Peluda from Kingmaker would like to know.
As Quintan said the same rules apply. Vital Strike actually seems to be tailor made for large creatures like dragons that can use flyby attack and i think its fairly universal as a standard feat for them.
|
Design Manager
|
Mounted Combat has a section explaining normal movement on horseback. It says you can make a standard attack. I was not aware this was ever in question.
It doesn't actually say you can make a standard attack. it says you may make "a single attack". Mounted Skirmisher came up because the type of action associated with that attack actually was questioned by SRMF, and Mounted Skirmisher is actually the only place that clarifies that that attack is an attack action.
I get what you're saying, but I was using Mounted Skirmisher to address a completely different point.
If your mount moves, and attacks, you are still entitled to a move and attack action of your own. This is what Mounted Skirmisher clarifies.
So then, to put that in the context of charging, why is it that if my mount moves and attacks I have my own set of actions, but there exists this divide where one side believes that changes if my mount charges? Particularly since that restriction would only apply to one specific form of mounted combat, and not apply to casters or ranged attackers.
Dot
/popcorn
You are adept at attacking from upon a swift moving steed.Prerequisites: Ride rank 14, Mounted Combat, Trick Riding.
Benefit: If your mount moves its speed or less, you can still take a full-attack action.
Normal: If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only take an attack .
That is fairly weak sauce if it is being used to justify the use of Vital Strike at the end of a charge. It still takes a move action to move the horse (or a full-round action if you fail the check) so it seems to be talking about that and maybe not considering the charge because, well, the rules are vague and maybe not well understood...the question really is whether charging with a horse is a charge action on your part or it is some kind of strange exception (as Sean argued in the post quoted above).
My guess is yes when you charge on horseback, you are making a charge action, but I will agree the mounted combat section is really unclear on that and to clarify it is worth an FAQ. Hence I will consult with the rest of the design team (read: Jason) and get the real answers. With that answer I can also answer a few of the other questions floating around. The real issues is a bunch of actions that use an attack (as I read an attack roll) for something other than the attack action, and the full-attack action, and where those instances sit in the action economy and how they interact with one another.
This post makes me wonder: is a charge an attack action or a full-round action? If the mount charges - can the player on the mount still use their move action?
|
Design Manager
|
That would be the question of the day. A Charge is a Full Round action. What kind of action the guy or gal riding the charging mount is taking is what everyone is discussing.
Based on the way I've always interpreted the rules and the way SKR has ruled on them, yes, the rider should have both a move and standard action.
If your mount moves, and attacks, you are still entitled to a move and attack action of your own. This is what Mounted Skirmisher clarifies.
So then, to put that in the context of charging, why is it that if my mount moves and attacks I have my own set of actions, but there exists this divide where one side believes that changes if my mount charges? Particularly since that restriction would only apply to one specific form of mounted combat, and not apply to casters or ranged attackers.
To be honest? the mounted combat rules make me want to gouge my eyes out. They are inconsistent use poor terminology and seem to split parts of the rules into the ride skill description. For example the check to make your mount attack is i believe mentioned in Ride but not mounted combat.
The 'non rule' answer to your question is Removing the option to do that other stuff puts mounted charging in line with charging on foot. However, This view somewhat clashes with the fact that spell casting and archery are given free reign to do whatever they want with some penalties.
My experience from playing is that If a mounted character is given the opportunity to charge, they render most opposition into a fine red mist. I dont think it matters if they get a standard attack or just 'an attack at the end of a charge' Either way the target is likely dead. The only difference is allowing Vital strike probably gives the charging combatant the chance to render BBEG into a fine red mist.
In short.. im not sure it really matters which way the PDT rules as long as the wording is consistant and makes sense within itself im fine.
As an Aside my group only had one PC do the mounted thing in our group over 3 years ago. He was a half ling on a wolf order of the star cavalier who fed fly and spider climb potions to his intelligent wolf mount. Using the 'no standard action just role an attack' model the only thing stopping hm from killing most enemies was walls and we were trying to figure out how to get him a lance with pass wall to solve that issue.
| 17 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, folks, after some long and illuminating talks about this issue, I have answers.
First, I learned that the Core Rulebook I use at home is woefully out of date, so I got myself a shiny new home copy to help answer after-hours rules questions. The Spring Attack issue I noted last night has, of course, been fixed in later printings of the book. I know you are all excited. ;)
Second, my suspicions and knowledge of the rules were correct. Vital Strike can only be used when you make an attack action. It cannot be used with any other actions (including those actions that happen to be standard actions) that allow you to make an attack roll as part of them (even if it is a single attack roll). It can’t be used as part of Spring Attack, as part of a charge (even if it is the standard action charge you can take if you are limited to only taking standard actions), Ride-By Attack, or even as part of the fleet charge champion strike in Mythic Adventures.
In short, if you want to use Vital Strike, you must take the attack action as describe on page 182 of the Core Rulebook. Attack rolls as part of another action and ability's will not do, unless there is an some exception involving Vital Strike written in that action and ability’s rules.
That, of course, brings us to the question of whether or not you are considered charging when making a mounted charge. After much discussion, some gnashing of teeth, and combing through the various rules bits involving mounted combat, we have decided to clarify that section of the Core Rulebook to state that when you charge on horseback you do so as a full-round action, and both you and your mount are considered charging.
There will be an official FAQ of that change to that clarification of mounted charge in the near future posted by the Design Team.
Also, keep in mind that while the design and development team does enjoy to interact with all of you, and even give our feedback to rules issues, off-the hip (and after hours) rules discussion by the staff should not be taken as an FAQ or errata for the game as a whole. If you are using random posts to justify your build in Pathfinder Society or as a player in other games…you really should cut that out. Just a bit of friendly advice from this designer.
Thanks for taking this on, Stephen. As always, the PDT's accessibility is very much appreciated.
That, of course, brings us to the question of whether or not you are considered charging when making a mounted charge. After much discussion, some gnashing of teeth, and combing through the various rules bits involving mounted combat, we have decided to clarify that section of the Core Rulebook to state that when you charge on horseback you do so as a full-round action, and both you and your mount are considered charging.
So to clarify further: If you want to charge while you are mounted both you and your mount must spend your full-round actions to do so?
Can you charge as a standard action while mounted? If yes, then do both of you have to be denied the ability to take a move action or can you do it if just your mount is unable to take a move action? If you can standard-action charge while only your mount is unable to take a move action, could you still take a move action, such as dismounting at the end of the charge?
When riding a mount, can you command the mount to charge while you yourself do not charge? If not, well, why not? If yes, do you lose your actions anyway, or can you spend them on doing something else? For example, if I'm riding a war-trained mount, can I not cast a spell on my mount (standard action) and then command the mount to charge after being buffed (or simultaneously while I buff it as the case of turn order may be)?
|
Design Manager
|
Also, keep in mind that while the design and development team does enjoy to interact with all of you, and even give our feedback to rules issues, off-the hip (and after hours)...
Stephen,
A couple things I'd like to touch on.First, there was a FAQ titled "What is ragelancepounce" that was a real and official FAQ, that has since disappeared from the FAQ listings, which covered everything SKR said in his post. I can find places where I sited the now mysteriously disappeared FAQ and link them to you if you'd like. So this wasn't just a "SKR said so in the heat of the moment" thing. It was, at one point, fully supported by FAQ and a valid interpretation of the rules.
I'd also like to point out, as I did earlier in this thread, that this ruling needlessly targets a narrow demographic of mounted combat users, cutting down their options, while boosting the options of the Barbarian and having no impact on spellcasters and ranged combatants. It means that the least efficient thing you can do if you want to climb on a horse is grab a lance. And that's not cool.
See some of the points Zeigander brought up as well. This ruling that you have announced is the one that needlessly complicates things, and leads to a cascade of other issues. I would ask you and the design staff to please reconsider this decision.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
So to clarify further: If you want to charge while you are mounted both you and your mount must spend your full-round actions to do so?
Correct.
Can you charge as a standard action while mounted? If yes, then do both of you have to be denied the ability to take a move action or can you do it if just your mount is unable to take a move action? If you can standard-action charge while only your mount is unable to take a move action, could you still take a move action, such as dismounting at the end of the charge?
Only if both you and your mount can only take standard actions (since you are both are charging and must conform to the charge rules when you make a mounted charge).
When riding a mount, can you command the mount to charge while you yourself do not charge? If not, well, why not? If yes, do you lose your actions anyway, or can you spend them on doing something else? For example, if I'm riding a war-trained mount, can I not cast a spell on my mount (standard action) and then command the mount to charge after being buffed (or simultaneously while I buff it as the case of turn order may be)?
Of course. The mount is charging, but it is not a mounted charge. In order for you to make a mounted charge (and get things like the bonus for using a lance or the effects of Spirited charge, you must make a mounted charge). The clarification will deal for what is a mounted charge and the effects are.
Has Fly-By Attack changed? I thought it specifically allowed a standard action during a move action. Does this mean you cannot Vital Stike while using the Beastial Leaper rage power?
|
Design Manager
|
Has Fly-By Attack changed? I thought it specifically allowed a standard action during a move action. Does this mean you cannot Vital Stike while using the Beastial Leaper rage power?
That was news to me as well. The standard action granted by Flyby Attack is just that, a standard action, which could presumably be used for anything. If we're now saying that it can't be used to take an attack action... Then there needs to be a much better definition of how someone can take an attack action.
Thank you for your answer it seems ro fall in line with how I have always viewed it. I suspect there will be gnashing over pounce again but that isn't an issue for my home game.
Has Fly-By Attack changed? I thought it specifically allowed a standard action during a move action. Does this mean you cannot Vital Stike while using the Beastial Leaper rage power?That was news to me as well. The standard action granted by Flyby Attack is just that, a standard action, which could presumably be used for anything. If we're now saying that it can't be used to take an attack action... Then there needs to be a much better definition of how someone can take an attack action.
Correct, Fly-By attack does give you a standard action, which you could take to make an attack action. Post modified to reflect.
Correct.
So to clarify further: If you want to charge while you are mounted both you and your mount must spend your full-round actions to do so?
Okay, thanks.
Only if both you and your mount can only take standard actions (since you are both are charging and must conform to the charge rules when you make a mounted charge).
Can you charge as a standard action while mounted? If yes, then do both of you have to be denied the ability to take a move action or can you do it if just your mount is unable to take a move action? If you can standard-action charge while only your mount is unable to take a move action, could you still take a move action, such as dismounting at the end of the charge?
Okay, so basically only if you are both able to act in the surprise round. That's rough, but seems fair, I guess. Often a rider will detect an ambush that his mount does not. He could fire off a ranged attack or perform some other standard action, but he could not charge, which is limiting to some builds, but I suppose it does not come up in play so often as to be crippling.
Of course. The mount is charging, but it is not a mounted charge. In order for you to make a mounted charge (and get things like the bonus for using a lance or the effects of Spirited charge, you must make a mounted charge). The clarification will deal for what is a mounted charge and the effects are.
When riding a mount, can you command the mount to charge while you yourself do not charge? If not, well, why not? If yes, do you lose your actions anyway, or can you spend them on doing something else? For example, if I'm riding a war-trained mount, can I not cast a spell on my mount (standard action) and then command the mount to charge after being buffed (or simultaneously while I buff it as the case of turn order may be)?
Phew. That's good. Thanks, Stephen!
Disallowing Vital Strike with Fly-By Attack seems counterintuitive to me too. Though of course if that's the ruling then that's the ruling.
But I'm glad my sniper can still Vital Strike and snipe!
The rest of the ruling is a fairly restrictive ruling, but as a rules purist and conservative, I like that. We don't need no stinking power inflation! :-)
Thanks very much, Stephen, for the clarification! Hugely appreciated!