| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a character in my game who specializes in mounted combat. The nature of his mount and the character, however make it to where he can be mounted in a dungeon and its not a rare occurrence. I say this to emphasis the following.
We are 14th level.
He is Cavalier(Gendarme and Beast Rider) 7, Fighter (Dragoon) 7
He has the following feats:
-Vital Strike
-Devastating Strike
-Ride-by-attack
-Spirited Charge
-Power Attack
He uses a spear for a small character (1d6 damage) and he has a strength mod of +3, or +4 since he uses both hands with the spear.
He averages 90 damage if everything lines up.
As you can see, that seems a tad bit high. Are we doing this correctly or is there something we are missing?
I realize that Vital Strike doesn't work with a charge, but the rules for mounted combat are ambiguous. In effect, the mount is charging, but the rider gains the benefits and penalties, but is not charging himself? (Core 202)
Only 90? I can do an average of 103.5 with a 20pt buy Halfling Cavalier at level 9 during a challenge. Emissary archetype with Order of the Sword.
LINK to my build in another thread.
Level 9 damage: 3.5(avg Lance damage) +2(magic) +6(2handed str) +9(2handed power attack) +5(boar strength) +9(challenge) = 34.5*3 (spirited charge) = 103.5avg damage (76.5 without challenge)
Level 14 damage: 3.5(avg Lance damage) +4(magic) +10(2handed str) +12(2handed power attack) +6(boar strength) +14(challenge) = 49.5*3(spirited charge) = 148.5avg damage (106.5 without challenge)
This is assuming a +4 weapon and +6 belt of Giant Strength (both reasonable at level 14). Also, that is without buffing up the boar via magic items, something I would probably do for at least 3-6 more points of damage and better overrun abilities.
- Gauss
You cannot combine vital strike with charge, and devastating only activates when vital is used, so it's one or the other. But assuming on a charge:
3.5 average for the weapon
+4 for strength
+9 for power attack
+1 weapon training
21
all of that doubled for spirited charge:
42
You didn't mention, but:
probably specialization? another +4 (after doubling for spirited)
gloves of dueling, if you're ruling they work with spear training, another +6 (again, when doubled)
Assuming challenge - +14 (doubled)
The weapon is presumably at least a +3, so +6 doubled
That's another 30 for 72
Since it seemed like you were letting him combine vital strike and devastating strike with the double damage from spirited charge, that's another 3.5 for the vital and another 6 (after doubling) for the devastating charge which puts the average at 81.5.
So yeah you were doing 1 thing wrong - but if he had just chosen to use a lance instead of the spear, you'd be looking at a legitimate 108 average since everything above would be added on a second time.
Thomas Long 175, you are indeed charging or you wouldn't also suffer the attack bonus and the AC penalty while in a charge with your mount.
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).
- Gauss
The problem we have is RAW. It says that when you are charging on a mount, the mount is performing the charge, but you get all numbers associated with it as well (but you aren't charging?)
So, if your mount charges, are you considered charging or not?
It really doesnt matter if you are charging. You direct your mount to charge and the mounted combat rules say you get a sing attack. Trying to argue semantics is pointless.
If you charge you get... a single attack.. if your mount charges...a single attack. Ergo no vital strike.
Thomas Long 175, thanks for the FAQ quote.
The first point of that FAQ is to call out that you must be mounted to gain the extra damage of a lance. It does not make a statement that you riding a charging mount means you are not charging. Although I concede that may be the intent.
I also see the rules calling out that you are charging on horseback as you did.
So, I still think that yes, the character on a charging horse IS also considered charging.
The problem is, if the character is NOT charging then a number of feats are not possible to use AND Vital Strike is now possible to use on a mounted charge.
Using the interpretation that a mounted character is not charging when the mount is here is am incomplete list of invalidated feats:
Benefit: 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.
Benefit: When mounted and using the charge action, you deal double damage with a melee weapon (or triple damage with a lance).
Benefits: When charging an opponent while mounted and wielding a lance, resolve the attack as normal. If it hits, you may immediately make a free bull rush attempt in addition to the normal damage. If successful, the target is knocked off his horse and lands prone in a space adjacent to his mount that is directly away from you.
And the charge rules:
Lances and Charge Attacks: A lance deals double damage if employed by a mounted character in a charge.
When charging on horseback, you deal double damage with a lance (see Charge).
Summary: If you are not charging when your mount does then a number of feats and rules are written incorrectly and cannot be used as written. The simpler solution is to accept that yes, the rider is also using the Charge Action and is in fact charging. That does not validate Rage-Lance-Pounce though due to point two of the RLP FAQ.
- Gauss
Thomas Long 175, if the rider is making an attack at the end of his mount's charge, what action is he using to make that attack? If the rider is not charging then it is not a charge action.
Assuming that the rider is not charging then that leaves only the Standard Attack Action and the Full Attack Action. Since the rider cannot use the Full Attack Action while his mount is charging then that only leaves the Standard Attack action. Thus, using the interpretation that the rider is not charging, yes, he does get to Vital Strike since the only action available under that interpretation is a Standard Attack action.
Again, I believe the rider must be burning his charge action in concert with the horse. Too many mechanics seem to be predicated upon that and if Rage-Lance-Pounce had not come along this would never have been a problem.
- Gauss
Again, what is the action being burned?
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).
It does not say you get a melee attack. It states IF you make an attack at the end of the charge. So again, what action are you burning to make your attack? It is not a Full Round since the first paragraph limits you to 1 attack (it also does not GIVE you an attack, it just limits your options).
Based on the interpretation that you cannot make a Charge attack while mounted it is not a Charge action so exactly what action are you spending to make your attack while your mount is charging?
- Gauss
Edit: I get that you are just trying to follow what the Devs have indicated. But, there is no FAQ that states that mounted characters riding a charging animal are not charging. The FAQ you quoted does not state that although from Dev comments elsewhere it may be implied.
What I am saying is that, while it is understood you cannot ride a charging animal and get Vital Strike, based on the Dev comments regarding mounted characters not charging the logic is inescapable that yes, you CAN.
Why? Because there is NO OTHER OPTION. The ONLY attack action available to a character on a charging mount is a Standard Attack. Thus, Vital Strike can be performed.
Wind Chime, could you point out where the FAQ specifically states that the rider is not charging? Because if it is the same FAQ as earlier quoted it does NOT state that. (However, it may imply it.)
One, because a lance only deals extra damage when you’re riding a charging mount—not when you are charging.
Nothing in that line states you are not charging while riding a charging mount.
All it states is that a lance only deals bonus damage while you ride a charging mount and not when you charge. (Again, that may be the implied intent.)
- Gauss
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is it too much to ask the devs to rewrite the entire mechanics of mounted combat to be less convoluted? Even a list of feats that do/do not work while mounted (or only work if the mount has them). The feats are inconsistently worded, which is the primary reason for these debates.
For example, Greater Overrun on the rider works (via ride by attack) *if* the rider is considered charging, since you can do an overrun as part of a charge. Otherwise, if the mount gets Greater Overrun, it is effectively the same as Trample, except the mount can use a non-hoof attack.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
The problem, IMO:
the FAQ states the mount is charging not the rider.
If the rider isn't charging then he gets either a full round or standard attack at the end of the charge.
If he gets a full round action he doesn't get the lance charge bonus and also can't Vital strike but if he makes a single attack he gets both.
Except he's charging and can't Vital Strike except he's mountend and not charging except he's using a lance while mounted so its a charge except (repeat the circle until brain bleeds).
Its a neat little circle and one that can really only be broken by yet another FAQ to clarify the issue.. again.
-S
Gauss is right, the FAQ doesn't say that you are not charging because you are on a mount that is charging. It only talks about how a lance cannot gain the benefit of you charging without a mount, EVER.
Thomas Long 175, that bolded section does NOT state you get a melee attack. It is a limit, not a 'you get this'.
Let me put it this way (again). Your mount takes a move action, you make an attack. What action are you using?
When you can answer that question we can continue the discussion.
- Gauss
Is it actually mounted combat if your mount does no combat and you don't take a +1 to attack? Then you would just be riding a mount, right? Isn't that exactly how fighting with two weapons differs from two weapon fighting?
My take is that the rules are poorly written. I believe the RAI gives you three distinct advantages:
1) Replace your movement speed with the mounts movement speed
2) Gain a +1 to melee attacks or allow ranged fighters to attack and move
4) Allow you to make move actions other than moving, during the mounts movement. If it makes two move actions, you get two also.
I do not believe there are any disadvantages to being mounted other than injury to the mount or you for falling off.
While the RAW lends itself to believe that you cannot take a standard attack action, I do not believe that is the intent. It doesn't make sense that you can do any other type of standard action.
James - RAW, it is impossible to answer your well put questions. As a DM, I would rule that both charge attacks happen at their normal place (10' then 5' away respectfully).
As to the spell, wow, that is a really good question. Using RAI as I see it, I would rule that he cannot cast a spell. I would do so because I feel that the mount just changes out your movement, and if it charges, so do you. You cannot charge and cast a spell in the same round (barring many special abilities of course).
James, I would not allow a rider to cast a spell while charging because you cannot cast (standard or full-round action) AND charge (full-round action).
I will once again state that the FAQ does not actually state that you are not charging when your mount is charging. Until such a time when it does then I believe the rules state that you are charging and my statements are predicated upon that.
As for mounted character reach + mount no reach, this is also place where the charge rules are badly written. I would allow you to make a lance attack and then the mount make to move that last distance and make it's attack.
As written, reach weapons (including the lance) cannot be used in a mounted charge because the mount must stop adjacent to the opponent and you cannot get an attack in a mounted charge until the mount is at the end of it's movement.
Many elements of the Mounted Combat rules do not work as written and require common sense to adjudicate.
- Gauss
Because the rules do not support that James. They seem to indicate that if the mount charges, you are also charging.
But, I can see your point..the mount is charging but you are not using the charge action to perform a charge attack. I guess that could be considered. The rules are unclear enough to allow GM fiat in this case.
- Gauss
|
I do not see how Gauss was being rude there...
I played a cavalier up to level 14 in kingmaker. The way we took it as, was that when mounted, my character and horse acted as a single unit. We were both still constrained by the same movement and actions that a single unit would allow for.
People seem to think that the two are completely separate in initiative, or that the rider is suddenly piggy backing on the horse's movement and can now full attack every single round, but this seems extremely overpowered and is likely not intended.
We always took it as such:
Though movement is increased, our movements are now tied together, if the horse spends a move action, the character has also now spent a move action. I cannot make my mount do a full move, then hop off my horse and take a move action after that. Logic follows that I spent the time in that round atop my horse as it was moving, thus my movement for that round was also used up.
If I decide to charge an enemy with reach, my attack at reach goes first, I can then decide to stop my charge and negate my horse's attack, or I can charge directly up to the enemy and my horse can then also make a charge attack. We are both charging, and both gain the benefits and detriments.
We also decided that I could not attack someone atop my mount, then make a move action beyond 5 feet and then my horse attack, as my horse had to spend its action waiting and doing nothing when I spent my attack action.
What I'm getting at, is that a mount and its rider are one. *Queue disney music*
As for pounce, I would not believe that a rider with iterative attacks qualifies for this, as the mount has multiple attacks usually through multiple limbs, whereas a rider typically is repeatedly attack with the same weapon. If you can get pounce as a feat through your class however, I do not see why both your mount and yourself could not pounce on something, though it may certainly look awkward.
Mounts are still super awesome though, as often if your mount gains a feat, you reap the benefits of it too (in some cases), and you get awesome movement and beastly full attack actions.
Thomas Long 175
Regarding point 1, could you point out the sentence or phrase that was rude? I try rather hard to scrub any posts I make of any emotional content. They are simply rules discussions, facts, and opinions. Nothing in them is personal.
What I have done is ask you several times what action the rider is taking while the mount is charging. This is in response to you stating that the rider of a charging mount is making an attack but you do not state what action that rider is taking.
Until I receive an answer I do not feel there is anything to discuss. That is not rude, just a fact. You made an assertion, I asked what you were basing it on. I have yet to get an answer.
Regarding point 2, you are saying that it is no action? A melee attack without an action attached?
So, the mount charges, and the rider, without spending an action, is allowed to make an attack?
- Gauss
By that logic, you can use a lance and get x2 for the charge and VS with it too.
Wheeeeee
-S
James Maissen, that is what I thought too, but he wont state that. He keeps stating it is a melee attack but will not state what action type is being used. IF it is Standard Action then due to some people's interpretation of the FAQ (such as Wind Chime's) you are not using the charge action when your mount charges.
So we examine that:
1) Mount charges: check
2) You make an attack:
What kind of action is used?
Charge action? No, prevented by one interpretation of the FAQ and backed up by comments by SKR.
Full-Attack? No, prevented due to the rules on moving mounts (and charging is a form of movement).
Standard Attack? That is all that is left, so you must be making a standard attack.
3) Since you are making a standard attack then you are allowed to use Vital Strike.
Now we get into the flipside of this.
4) Using the interpretation that the mounted character is not charging can you use Ride by Attack or Spirited Charge? No, they require that you be charging while mounted.
So, the interpretation that a mounted character is not charging when the mount is charging means that yes, you can use Vital Strike and no, you cannot EVER use Ride-by-Attack or Spirited Charge or any other feat or ability that states 'while mounted and using the charge action' or similar language.
Unless someone else posts new material I don't think I have anything left to add to this discussion.
It boils down to this:
Either you believe that the FAQ and SKRs posts combine to state that you cannot take a charge action while mounted, in which case you just prevented yourself from using a number of really good feats and open up Vital Strike as an option while charging.
OR
You believe the FAQ is a statement that you cannot Rage-Lance-Pounce and does not alter the mounted combat charge mechanics (because it would have to alter them since they are based on a character using the charge action). In which case you cannot combine Vital Strike with a mounted charge.
- Gauss
First, I disagree that you stated that before I made the statement you took offense to. Second, even when you did state it you did it in such a roundabout fashion that I still don't understand your statement. (See below for my attempt at clarification.)
Second, I am sorry you interpreted that line that way but that is not how I intended it. I asked the question several times and got what I can only consider to be evasive answers. I simply had nothing further to say until you answered the question as to what action is being used so I stated that.
I still haven't gotten a simple answer. Are you or are you not using a Standard Action to make an attack?
Finally, this line doesn't make sense at all to me.
That they tell you specifically what you can do with it. So no, no vital strike, because they have said "a melee attack."
A "melee attack" is not an action designation. It is a statement without an action and thus may still be combined with any form of action that makes "a melee attack". A Standard attack action using a melee weapon is a "melee attack" so Vital Strike qualifies.
- Gauss
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I don't understand why people think you are not charging when the mount is charging.
The line in the FAQ just says you don't get bonus damage from the lance when you are charging WITHOUT A MOUNT.
That is not equal to "you are not charging when your mount is charging."
And the rest of the FAQ says that you can't get the charge bonus more than once because you can't back up and charge again.
My player uses a spear, so the damage won't be that max compared to a lance, but he doesn't want to use a lance.
Anyway, this is an unfortunate lack of clarity for the rules that may just come down to me disappointing the player in question, which he might not take very well, or disappointing other players by letting the mounted character taking a decisive and constant presence on the battlefield.
Either way, unless I can get a clear response (which seems increasingly unlikely), I will not have a happy player.
I don't understand why people think you are not charging when the mount is charging.
The line in the FAQ just says you don't get bonus damage from the lance when you are charging WITHOUT A MOUNT.
That is not equal to "you are not charging when your mount is charging."
And the rest of the FAQ says that you can't get the charge bonus more than once because you can't back up and charge again.
SKR made it a bit more explicit when he expanded on the reasoning behind the ruling here
If YOU are mounted, the MOUNT is making the charge, YOU are NOT making a charge.
I don't understand why people think you are not charging when the mount is charging.
The line in the FAQ just says you don't get bonus damage from the lance when you are charging WITHOUT A MOUNT.
That is not equal to "you are not charging when your mount is charging."
And the rest of the FAQ says that you can't get the charge bonus more than once because you can't back up and charge again.
SKR:
If YOU are mounted, the MOUNT is making the charge, YOU are NOT making a charge.So you are not Charging when your mount is charging.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There was another thread where this was discussed in some detail, but the summation is: You can Vital Strike from the back of a charging mount, and the devs had it made it clear that any feat that references a mounted charge means "when you are on the back of a charging mount...." shortened to "when charging on a mount" to conserve word count.
So yes, your Greater Vital Striking, Spirited Charging, Supreme Charging cavalier does 10x weapon damage + 7x static mods + everything else.
It's pretty nice.
Well, that would make it much more confusing.
Thanks for pointing all of that out, Chengar and Starbuck.
The more I play this game, all the way back to the alpha, the less comfortable I am with my understanding of the rules.