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.
Well, I think a lot of the problems stem from the fact that whenever someone finds a rules oversight that allows for a powerful combination (like RageLancePounce or Greatsword+Armor Spikes) the Paizo devs tries to find a way to bend and twist the existing RAW to disallow it instead of just errata-ing the problem away.
Well, I think a lot of the problems stem from the fact that whenever someone finds a rules oversight that allows for a powerful combination (like RageLancePounce or Greatsword+Armor Spikes) the Paizo devs tries to find a way to bend and twist the existing RAW to disallow it instead of just errata-ing the problem away.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.
Actually no: due to being unusual
a. Rage pounce might be power but they banned it due to being unusual as well.b. Greatsword + Armor Spikes isn't banned due to power, but again unusual.
Well, I think a lot of the problems stem from the fact that whenever someone finds a rules oversight that allows for a powerful combination (like RageLancePounce or Greatsword+Armor Spikes) the Paizo devs tries to find a way to bend and twist the existing RAW to disallow it instead of just errata-ing the problem away.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.
Actually no: due to being unusual
a. Rage pounce might be power but they banned it due to being unusual as well.b. Greatsword + Armor Spikes isn't banned due to power, but again unusual.
True, although I would note that part of the problem with Greatsword + Armor Spikes is that while it's not that powerful when you run the numbers and look at the long term, it looks really powerful.
That said, there is a definite legacy issue, when it comes to allowing powerful things. A lot of the most overpowerd things in Pathfinder are that way because they were broken in previous editions of D&D too.
I find these arguments fruztrating. You can do the exact same thing at the end of a mounted charge as a normap charge it isn't rocket science. Charging attacks supported by feats are already instant death for the target in most cases. They don't meed to gp higher.
Are the rules poorly worded? Maybe but the non mointed charge gives us a clear idea of what the rules expect as far as attacks at the end of the charge.
Mojorat, while I agree with your concept that you can do the exact same thing (and personally, I think the book agrees too) there was an unclear FAQ followed by Dev clarification that the rider does not perform a charge.
The ramifications of that statement are unclear at best. Prior to such a statement I think everyone would have figured the rider is burning a charge action to charge with his mount. But, apparently that is the element the Devs consider broken when it comes to Rage-Lance-Pounce.
I think they could've just gone with an errata stating charge bonuses are only on the first hit if you get multiple attacks.
- Gauss
|
I, personally, never thought that the rider was the one using the charge action. That would have made many of the clarifications in the mounted combat section superfluous and redundant.
And as I mentioned here, what you can do on a mounted charge is definitely different than what you can do when you are charging sans mount. Which, I think, is exactly how it should be. Considering the limitations of mounted combat, it should have some sweet perks other than just double damage with a lance.
I, personally, never thought that the rider was the one using the charge action. That would have made many of the clarifications in the mounted combat section superfluous and redundant.
And as I mentioned here, what you can do on a mounted charge is definitely different than what you can do when you are charging sans mount. Which, I think, is exactly how it should be. Considering the limitations of mounted combat, it should have some sweet perks other than just double damage with a lance.
Yet, why doesn't Paizo divide the actions into "charge" and "mounted charge" (as offical terms), then have the related feats/class features errata'd to explain any differences/restrictions for each version of charge? Pounce can be errata'd to say "cannot be performed while mounted", etc. The different combat maneuver feats can receive similar errata as needed, or the entire section on combat maneuvers can include a clause like "the following maneuvers cannot/can only be performed while mounted", etc.
|
|
Yet, why doesn't Paizo divide the actions into "charge" and "mounted charge" (as offical terms), then have the related feats/class features errata'd to explain any differences/restrictions for each version of charge? Pounce can be errata'd to say "cannot be performed while mounted", etc. The different combat maneuver feats can receive similar errata as needed, or the entire section on combat maneuvers can include a clause like "the following maneuvers cannot/can only be performed while mounted", etc.
Because then you're actually limiting what players can do, instead of increasing the options. Right now, a character with the right build can Vital Strike from the back of a Pouncing Lion. And that's cool. Chopping up the action types like you suggest actually limits options instead of opening/enhancing them.
Yet, why doesn't Paizo divide the actions into "charge" and "mounted charge" (as offical terms), then have the related feats/class features errata'd to explain any differences/restrictions for each version of charge? Pounce can be errata'd to say "cannot be performed while mounted", etc. The different combat maneuver feats can receive similar errata as needed, or the entire section on combat maneuvers can include a clause like "the following maneuvers cannot/can only be performed while mounted", etc.Because then you're actually limiting what players can do, instead of increasing the options. Right now, a character with the right build can Vital Strike from the back of a Pouncing Lion. And that's cool. Chopping up the action types like you suggest actually limits options instead of opening/enhancing them.
Not if done properly. Personally, I think being able have mount and rider act independently should not be available until later levels (perhaps via feat, or just minimum Ride skill ranks). Have the default behavior be sharing actions. Either they both charge (as a full round action), or neither does. Being able to vital strike AND pounce puts skews specific mount types too much. There should be benefits/tradeoffs for every mount type. Not perfect balance, but some semblance of balance to promote variety.
Let's think this through for a moment regarding Pounce. If the rider is using a reach weapon such that their attack hits the target before mount's pounce, wouldn't that effectively destroy the momentum of the pounce? Perhaps if the weapon was of compatible length, both could take effect. IMO, the mount should get at most a single attack on any round the rider takes other actions (excepting AoOs).
Ssalarn, the problem is, right now we have only SKR's statements (which are not a FAQ) indicating that the actual FAQ means that rider who is mounted is not charging.
If that is the case then the thing needing the errata is almost the entire mounted combat section and feats related to mounted combat since they are all predicated on the wording that the rider is charging while mounted.
Note: right now you CANNOT Vital Strike from a pouncing lion since you are also charging. Only SKR's word contradicts the rules in this regard. There is NO FAQ that states that riders do not charge. Period. The FAQ people claim states this does NOT state this.
In any case, it is unnecessary. Just change Pounce, one change, and leave the entire mounted combat section alone.
- Gauss
|
|
Ssalarn, the problem is, right now we have only SKR's statements (which are not a FAQ) indicating that the actual FAQ means that rider who is mounted is not charging.
If that is the case then the thing needing the errata is almost the entire mounted combat section and feats related to mounted combat since they are all predicated on the wording that the rider is charging while mounted.
Note: right now you CANNOT Vital Strike from a pouncing lion since you are also charging. Only SKR's word contradicts the rules in this regard. There is NO FAQ that states that riders do not charge. Period. The FAQ people claim states this does NOT state this.
In any case, it is unnecessary. Just change Pounce, one change, and leave the entire mounted combat section alone.
- Gauss
The whole team has chimed in on this at one point or another JJ and JB have also made pretty much the same point, that those feats work from the back of a charging mount per the rules on mounts using their own movement etc.
If you see the thread I linked in earlier, where this was discussed to death at some length, you'll see that there's only actually one feat that even uses the wording "when you are charging on a mount....". The rest are already worded to simply "when charging on a mount". Since mounts use their own actions, that's a simpler and more word conserving way of saying "when on the back of a mount who is taking the charge action". Mounted Combat has always worked this way. It isn't that they're changing things, just that they're clarifying somewhat confusing wording that's been in place for a couple of decades.|
|
Not if done properly. Personally, I think being able have mount and rider act independently should not be available until later levels (perhaps via feat, or just minimum Ride skill ranks). Have the default behavior be sharing actions. ***
And then you're hampering people who already have a difficult time achieving maximum effectiveness. A druid and their animal companion get two separate pools of actions, but it makes more sense for that to suddenly stop when the druid hops on her lion's back? The cavalier, whose fighting style already requires him to have even terrain and room to maneuver to remain effective should have less capability than a ranger and his wolf working together in combat?
I think further limiting a fighting style that already has pretty stern limitations is a step in the wrong direction. When I play, I want more options, not less, and I don't want to have to wait until high levels to start exploring them.
Ssalarn, Both Ride-By Attack and Spirited charge call out using the charge action.
When you are mounted and use the charge action
When mounted and using the charge action, you deal double damage with a melee weapon (or triple damage with a lance).
While Spirited Charge does not start with 'you' it still means that since it does not state 'your mount is using the charge action'. Feats are, by default, written from the perspective of the user.
The Devs may have stated repeatedly that the rider is not using the charge action but if they want to stick with that then they MUST either FAQ or Errata the text to match. Until then it is opinion and not rule. While I respect their opinions, they made the game, I cannot accept it when it runs so contrary to established rules.
Ulrimately, it does not matter. My lack of acceptance doesn't mean anything since I rarely play PFS.
- Gauss
|
|
Ssalarn, Both Ride-By Attack and Spirited charge call out using the charge action.
When you are mounted and use the charge actionWhen mounted and using the charge action, you deal double damage with a melee weapon (or triple damage with a lance).While Spirited Charge does not start with 'you' it still means that since it does not state 'your mount is using the charge action'. Feats are, by default, written from the perspective of the user.
The Devs may have stated repeatedly that the rider is not using the charge action but if they want to stick with that then they MUST either FAQ or Errata the text to match. Until then it is opinion and not rule. While I respect their opinions, they made the game, I cannot accept it when it runs so contrary to established rules.
Ulrimately, it does not matter. My lack of acceptance doesn't mean anything since I rarely play PFS.
- Gauss
Mounted combat already specifies that your mount uses it's actions for movement. That should be enough to clarify that it is your mount which is charging, especially since the mounted combat rules go into such careful specification to clarify what benefits/penalties you take when your mount charges. When you look at the rules as a whole instead of grabbing line text from feats with a very small maximum word-count allowed, the intent should be pretty clear, especially when nearly every member of the development team has stated how they work. That's not opinion, that's reading comprehension with the benefit of being enhanced by direct insight from people directly involved in creating/translating/presenting the rule-set. Rules don't exist in a vacuum, and every feat or ability tied to mounted combat should be being read in the context of the mounted combat rules.
Fine, but the mounted combat rules themselves state that when "charging on horseback". Now, that can be read either way. It is far from clear.
My point is that the charge rules do not state this in any direct way one way OR the other. So I disagree that it is enough to clarify that. So then we go to the other rules and look for clarification and viola! We have it. Two feats state that you are the one charging.
This is not me looking at two tiny rules and trying to apply that to the entire thing. This is me looking at the mounted combat rules, seeing that they are not conclusive, then looking at the ENTIRE PICTURE, which includes mounted feats, and seeing that the entire picture states that YOU are using charge action on a charging mount.
My reading comprehension is fine. If the Mounted Combat rules were clear people would not be debating this for months.
Regarding what the Devs have stated, that is fine that they have given their considered opinions. But, until they FAQ or Errata it, those opinions are still contrary to the rules.
Summary: General mounted combat rules are vague while specific rules (feats) are not vague and state that the rider is using a charge action.
The Devs would need to change the specific feats rules to bring them into line with their statements.
Normally I would be the first in line to accept the Devs rulings. But in this case it would require a re-write of some of the mounted combat feats.
- Gauss
|
|
I still disagree. I think one feat, Ride-by Attack, is somewhat misleading.
I think that when the rules say:
"Your mount acts on your initiative count as you direct it. You move at its speed, but the mount uses its action to move."
and
"A lance deals double damage when used from the back of a charging mount"
and goes through the effort of stating that "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)."
Then it's pretty clear that your mount is the one charging, and you just reap certain benefits.
I wasn't trying to denigrate your reading comprehension, just stating that I believe the information necessary to come to the conclusion that your mount is the one taking the charge action has always been available, but that it requires reading Mounted Combat related feats and abilities in the context of the rules as a whole, specifically the Mounted Combat rules which cover those particular interactions.
That's how you know that "When mounted and using the charge action" is short form for "When seated on a mount which you have used the Ride or Handle Animal skill to cause to take a charge action..." It's cumbersome and you have to maintain word count, so you have to read those feats in the context of the Mounted combat rules, as listed above.
Well, I still think the mounted combat rules are unclear on that and I don't think we are going to convince each other but that's ok. :)
- Gauss
I think the majority of the misconception still comes from people confusing the word 'attack' with the 'attack action'. Mounted charging specifically states you get a single attack, it does not say you get an attack action (which is a specific type of standard action, and what vital strike requires). Once you can spot the difference between an attack and the attack action the rules for mounted combat become very clear.
Except for the fact that you can take just about every other standard action possible.
Or even full round actions like Death or Glory that are used to deliver a single attack ;)Except for the fact that you can take just about every other standard action possible.
How do you figure? The wording in mounted combat states you get a single attack, not an attack action, a standard action, or a full round action. Are you citing an obscure FAQ? Because otherwise you're reading too much into the rule.
Okay, let me just take a passing swat at this.
My understanding is that the mount charges, the rider may take a standard action to attack (and a free action to use the Fight With Combat Trained Mount application of the Ride skill). There's a "wasted" move action in there that I use all the time for various things.
I'd say the rider can vital strike, because it's a standard action.
Is it balanced? I think so. Spirited Charge is okay, and it actually does more, but under more restrictive circumstances. Spirited Charge (x2), charge-lancing (x2), and vital strike (x2) altogether only net you x4 damage on a set up charge, and your non-variable damage is still only x3. That makes the lance and spirited charge the better half of the damage, and they're more restricted.
Basically, as a GM, I would allow this. If it got to be a huge problem, I would activate the many, many restrictions on mounted combat available to me. The player then has Vital Strike as a consolation prize when NPCs start plugging up their open charge lanes.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How do you figure? The wording in mounted combat states you get a single attack, not an attack action, a standard action, or a full round action. Are you citing an obscure FAQ? Because otherwise you're reading too much into the rule.Or even full round actions like Death or Glory that are used to deliver a single attack ;)Except for the fact that you can take just about every other standard action possible.
The rules for mounted combat in the CRB do not in any way limit what actions the rider can take. They state " If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only make a single melee attack." This limits the number of attacks you can make, it does not limit your actions. Attacks and Attack actions are two different things. This would mean you could not, for example, use a standard action that gave you multiple attacks (like Cleave) but could use a full round action like Death or Glory that delivers only a single melee attack. And of course, you can utilize your normal standard action attacks, Vital Strike, etc.
Which of course makes no sense. Which we disagree on, I know. But which is why I say it is confusing and not as perfectly clear as some people think.
A horse moves 10' WAY faster than a human does, but now the human less 'time' and can't take a normal standard action, except for spells and ranged attacks and any other standard action that doesn't trigger a second attack.
If the human fast dismounted, horse moved, human moved, human fast mounted, then human could take standard action like cleave.
A horse moves 5' through a snowy dense underbrush forest floor (cost 40' of movement) but rider can still full attack.
I don't mean it doesn't make sense in real life, I mean the rules don't match up.