|
i don't think most jousters / knights wanted to stop with their mount within reach of the enemy. it might behoove them to not have the mount attack on a charge, but to just be the delivery vehicle for your charge.
If your character is a mercenary, they would want to gain every advantage they could over a foe. This would include having their mount bite an enemy.
It is also important to know where the mount and rider end up after a lance charge. If they end up adjacent, they will provoke attacks of opportunity if the enemy they charge has reach. If they end up at the reach of the lance, they will avoid provoking attacks of opportunity from the enemy's reach weapon.
Furthermore, if they end up adjacent to the enemy they may also trigger a readied attack of the enemy if that readied attack did not have reach.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
These rules are contradictory in the sense that, for RAI to work, RAW would have to allow exceptions. The problem is that the functionality of the rules changes the moment you're mounted.
Why? Because the rules are affecting three different "things" at the same time. You, your mount, and the thing that is created when you and your mount are together.
The Charge in question belongs to all three "things" which creates the conflict. The easiest way to solve this problem is to break down the charge into the three "things".
You:
You have to move up to the closest space you can attack. This being one space away. For you, this IS the end of your charge, therefore you get the bonus and penalty from the charge.
Mount:
It has to move up to the closest space it can attack. Your charge is over, its charge is still going. It ends up adjacent to the enemy and can attack if able.
Two-Headed Monster:
This thing needs to move up to the closes space it can attack. It has TWO requirements for it (here arises the conflict). First, it needs to end up one space away. That half of it can then get its attack since that half of it is at the end of the charge. Next, the other half of it still needs to move to finish the charge. To complete the charge, this half needs to move up adjacent to the foe. Once that charge is complete, the Two-Headed monster's is complete.
-----------
That's how I look at it. The rules affect you, your mount, and the thing created from your fusion separately. If you "pause" one space away and attack, and your mount stops and attacks adjacently, then the requirements for the charge of all three entities are fulfilled.
The main problem is how the rules treat you as, "You" and as "The combination of you and your mount" and sometimes just "your mount".
So whose charge is it really?
"If your mount charges, you also take..."
"When you are mounted and use the charge action..."
So we're both charging, but he is, but I am. So then why is he exempt from the rules of charging? But he takes the penalties too, but he doesn't get to attack? But then isn't he breaking the rules of the charge?
Hence, treat yourself as two entities as one with two sets of requirements.
The only question I still have is, can you end a charge early? If not, then you actually have to get adjacent to your foe at the end of the charge because your mount needs to complete his.
And thus is a need for a refinement in mounted combat rules. It might require removing/revising existing feats and class features, but I'll take that over the current state any day.
This sums up the problem. The rider and mount need to end up in two different squares for the lance charge to work!
Two-Headed Monster:
This thing needs to move up to the closes space it can attack. It has TWO requirements for it (here arises the conflict).
Pretty much. The entire discussion boils down to "whose requirements do we fulfill?". Just fulfill both.
If you're on horseback with an 8 foot lance and charging at someone, you will stab them just before your horse tramples them to death.
How would it work if you stated
"i ready my action to attack until my mount is 10' away from its charge target"
Would you attack at 10' away and receive charge benefits for you being atop your charging mount and then once that is resolved your mount continues on to complete its charge. Once adjacent to your charge target you would then no longer be able to attack with your lance as you are now 5 foot away
|
|
How would it work if you stated
"i ready my action to attack until my mount is 10' away from its charge target"
Would you attack at 10' away and receive charge benefits for you being atop your charging mount and then once that is resolved your mount continues on to complete its charge. Once adjacent to your charge target you would then no longer be able to attack with your lance as you are now 5 foot away
This is answer b. The problem with this is it requires a loose interpretation of "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 has been argued that at 10 foot away, you are not at the end of the charge.
Maybe the answer to my original question is that you can use interpretation a or b, depending on what you ask your mount to charge.
Its really your charge, because despite how the rules can be read you're the important one the horse is just a means of transportation.
Its really your charge, because despite how the rules can be read you're the important one the horse is just a means of transportation.
Agreed. It's like saying a weapon is the attacker, not the person, because it is the weapon that makes contact with the target.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its really your charge, because despite how the rules can be read you're the important one the horse is just a means of transportation.Agreed. It's like saying a weapon is the attacker, not the person, because it is the weapon that makes contact with the target.
The rules don't care about who is subjectively important. What about if the mount is the important one? Then is it suddenly their charge and not the rider's charge?
Moreover, why is your mount considered charging when you DON'T have reach, but is suddenly no longer charging when you DO have reach?
A charge is a charge.
"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)."
You're both charging.
|
The designers say otherwise.
You're both charging.
If YOU are mounted, the MOUNT is making the charge, YOU are NOT making a charge.
This thread may also provide a little additional designer insight.
The designers say otherwise.
You're both charging.
If YOU are mounted, the MOUNT is making the charge, YOU are NOT making a charge.This thread may also provide a little additional designer insight.
While I agree that the charge belongs to the mount, RAW clearly and specifically call it your charge as well. Multiple erratas are needed. Until then I consider the charge as belonging to both you and your mount (except in the case where you have Pounce since that is meant to emulate you basically jumping on them).
Ride-By Attack
"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."
Spirited Charge uses the same language and the language from my previous post regarding mounted charges describes it as you charging.
Then you have language like for a Lance that describes them both as "being part of a charge" and "from a charging mount".
"Lances and Charge Attacks: A lance deals double damage if employed by a mounted character in a charge."
"A lance deals double damage when used from the back of a charging mount. While mounted, you can wield a lance with one hand."
--------------------
RAI according to Sean may be it is the mount's charge and you just get the benefits associated, but RAW is that it belongs to both. Hence, both should get to attack during a charge.
Although, I really don't trust Sean's rulings from that thread since a good number of them completely, 100% conflicted with RAW as was shown. What he was saying makes sense from an errata perspective because the rules are faulty and conflict with themselves, but within the confines of current RAW they were not legal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Errata* are not needed. If the design intent, as well as the idea that the mount is making the charge while the player merely benefits from it, is followed, it is clear enough how mounted combat works in 95% of the cases that will come up, which is about as clear as anything in the game. You can edit the text as you read it since it's apparent that the writers either forgot how mounted charging works (unlikely), imported much of the text from 3.5 without sufficient review (quite possible, given the metric lodestone of rules that had to be reviewed and altered), or simply assumed that the average reader would understand that "you making a charge while mounted" technically meant "your mount making a charge while you benefit from it" and wrote it that way because it was easier to understand at a glance.
In any case, since you're all over RAW, the fact is that (barring other abilities) there simply is no way for both rider and mount to get to attack during a mounted lance charge. If you want to mount-charge with a sword instead, then by all means go nuts. But if there's no endpoint to the charge where both you and your mount can legally attack, then you simply aren't going to both attack.
*The plural of erratum. Erratas is nonsensical.
|
The mounted combat rules received few changes (mainly for the ride skill) when PF was written. SKR's contributions in Ssalern's cited post above included information that he never made the switch for mounted combat between 3e and 3.5.
As written, and with SKR's clarification post that states that it is the mount only who charges, it calls into question whether a rider can charge with a lance at all without RBA, in those cases where the mount has different reach than the rider. I think it is fairly clear that this isn't the RAI. Note: I'm not advocating this, just spelling out the consequences of unclear rules combined with accepting a developer's post as holding the force of rule.
|
Alright, I have a hobgoblin fell rider cavalier whose mount makes an overrun charge... are we both charging, or just the mount? If I want to use my 'deadly rampage', do *I* have to make the charge?
I'm also a bit confused about charge and overrun... if I use overrun, do I still get to attack at the end of the charge, or do I just get +2 to my overrun attempt and that's it... no attack? Because the rules say "as a standard action", which would suggest that my overrun attempt replaces the attack roll?
Can I combine charge and/or overrun to ride-by attacks?
If YOU are mounted, the MOUNT is making the charge, YOU are NOT making a charge.
Thanks, now i hope people stop their esoteric interpretations about "importance" and understand what rules clearly say.
Thanks, now i hope people stop their esoteric interpretations about "importance" and understand what rules clearly say.If YOU are mounted, the MOUNT is making the charge, YOU are NOT making a charge.
That ruling is nonsensical for all but one case. It only makes sense if the mount is expected to make an attack at the end of the charge.
IMO, SKR has the charge logic backwards. IMO, SKR didn't think through the possibilities, and went with a (perhaps?) popular usage of having the mount and rider both attack a target with a charge. I would agree with his ruling only when both are attacking, but not if only the rider is. There are clearly multiple variants of a mounted charge action.
I would rarely have such an expectation for a mounted charge. Most often, the mount is simply supplying additional speed and mass for the rider's attack. Hence, the rider is charging, and using the mount to assist. What if the "mount" was a magic carpet or vehicle? Do we need separate "vehicular charge" rules as well as mounted charge rules, or should we just have streamlined mounted combat rules that include charging and/or using vehicles? I would prefer the latter.
The designers say otherwise.
You're both charging.
If YOU are mounted, the MOUNT is making the charge, YOU are NOT making a charge.This thread may also provide a little additional designer insight.
Thats tossing the baby out with the bath water. It makes lances not work, it makes reach weapons not work at all.
What if the mount uses overrun while the lancer attacks?
An overrun can be used as part of a charge, so under the current rules the mount could overrun/attack independently of the rider.
It does not make lances not work. If you must be pedantic about it, you can always pick a square as your "target" (hey, for all you know, there's an invisible creature in it), charge it, and choose not to take your attack. In effect, this is what the mount does when you mounted-charge with a lance. Problem solved.
It does not make lances not work. If you must be pedantic about it, you can always pick a square as your "target" (hey, for all you know, there's an invisible creature in it), charge it, and choose not to take your attack. In effect, this is what the mount does when you mounted-charge with a lance. Problem solved.
Unless you want to attack with both your mount and your lance...
Although, your work around isn't legal in the first place.
"If you don't have line of sight to the opponent at the start of your turn, you can't charge that opponent."
You do not have line of sight to an invisible opponent as far as I understand. Even if you did though:
"You can't attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies."
So at the very most, you could charge up to a square next to your enemy and attack air.
Thats tossing the baby out with the bath water. It makes lances not work, it makes reach weapons not work at all.The designers say otherwise.
You're both charging.
If YOU are mounted, the MOUNT is making the charge, YOU are NOT making a charge.This thread may also provide a little additional designer insight.
Indeed. It's another example of the Paizo dev team changing a core mechanic (mounted combat) to address a single overpowered build (RageLancePounce). It's been something of a running problem, lately.
|
|
Thats tossing the baby out with the bath water. It makes lances not work, it makes reach weapons not work at all.The designers say otherwise.
You're both charging.
If YOU are mounted, the MOUNT is making the charge, YOU are NOT making a charge.This thread may also provide a little additional designer insight.
It was a goblin baby anyway...
It does not make lances not work. If you must be pedantic about it, you can always pick a square as your "target" (hey, for all you know, there's an invisible creature in it), charge it, and choose not to take your attack. In effect, this is what the mount does when you mounted-charge with a lance. Problem solved.Unless you want to attack with both your mount and your lance...
Although, your work around isn't legal in the first place.
"If you don't have line of sight to the opponent at the start of your turn, you can't charge that opponent."
You do not have line of sight to an invisible opponent as far as I understand. Even if you did though:
"You can't attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies."
So at the very most, you could charge up to a square next to your enemy and attack air.
You can attack a square. You and your horse presumably have line of sight to the square in front of a hobgoblin. Your horse can charge the square--and even make an attack on it, if it likes--and you can attack the meatbag one square behind that with your lance, receiving the benefits and drawbacks of the mount's charge. (Note: Nothing in the mounted combat text states that your attack at the end of the mount's charge must be against the same target the mount designated as the opponent of the charge; it only states that you receive the bonuses and penalties of the charge.)
|
|
Alright, I have a hobgoblin fell rider cavalier whose mount makes an overrun charge... are we both charging, or just the mount? If I want to use my 'deadly rampage', do *I* have to make the charge?
Deadly Rampage (Ex): At 11th level, a mounted fell rider no longer provokes attacks of opportunity when he attempts to overrun a creature.
This ability should be read as "At 11th level, a mounted fell rider [and his mount] no longer provokes attacks of opportunity when he [(i.e. his mount)] attempts to overrun a creature."
I'm also a bit confused about charge and overrun... if I use overrun, do I still get to attack at the end of the charge, or do I just get +2 to my overrun attempt and that's it... no attack? Because the rules say "as a standard action", which would suggest that my overrun attempt replaces the attack roll?
Can I combine charge and/or overrun to ride-by attacks?
The mount makes the overrun, not you, but I don't know how or when the rider makes his lance attack. Maybe someone else can help?
I think you can combine charge and overrun with Ride-by Attack, but in one of the threads linked by Ssalarn, Sean K Reynolds implies that the mount doesn't get an attack in Ride-by Attack, and this would mean it can't overrun...
Sean K Reynolds said "If you want to move, have the mount attack, and move, the mount has to have Spring Attack. Ride-By Attack lets you attack in the middle of moving; it doesn't change the attack sequence for your mount (it doesn't mention your mount attacking at all)."
However, this appears to be a house rule by Sean K Reynolds.
Uh, yeah, not a house rule. It follows from your mount being a separate creature with its own feats and action economy.
|
|
Uh, yeah, not a house rule. It follows from your mount being a separate creature with its own feats and action economy.
To add more context from the original thread:
Sean, would you please answer us the following questions:- Can a mount attack at a ride by attack?
- If not, can a mount with spring attack attack at a ride by atack
1) No, because the mount is doing all the work moving. If the mount is to attack, it needs to use Spring Attack.
2) Without rereading all of the mounted combat rules, I think so.
Sean K Reynolds seems to imply that your mount needs Spring Attack to be able to attack during a Ride-by Attack. The problem is that Spring Attack cannot be combined with a charge...
If on a mounted 'standard charge' your mount moves and attacks, then I think it would follow that with Ride-by Attack your mount can move, attack and then move again.
This is why I wanted an FAQ on what a mounted 'standard charge' is. If the rules for a mounted 'standard charge' are not clear, you have no hope of deciphering how Ride-By Attack works.
Ride-By Attack:
Ride-By Attack (Combat)
While mounted and charging, you can move, strike at a foe, and then continue moving.
Prerequisites: Ride 1 rank, Mounted Combat.
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.
|
|
Your mount does not have Ride-by Attack, so your mount doesn't get to make an attack and keep moving. With Ride-by Attack, your mount can charge and you can make an attack at a point along the line of movement. The only place your mount can make an attack is at the end fo the charge. And you're right, Ride-by Attack and Spring Attack are not compatible, so if your mount were using Spring Attack, your mount would be the one who could attack in the middle of the movement, not you. Those two feats do not contain a combination where both of you get to attack in the middle of the movement.
2) Without rereading all of the mounted combat rules, I think so.
He was mistaken here (which is no big deal). A mount cannot use Spring Attack and provide the charge needed for the rider to benefit from Ride-By Attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo fixed a LOT of problems from 3.5. The rules are far simpler and yet allow for greater variation of action with relatively few rules snafus getting in the way. A few ambiguities regarding mounted combat--ambiguities that are easily resolved by a GM--are no big deal.
Paizo developed their implementation of d20. It can be assumed as a default position that RAW is RAI unless there is convincing evidence otherwise, such as patent absurdity or designer commentary or rulings.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A few ambiguities regarding mounted combat--ambiguities that are easily resolved by a GM--are no big deal.
Huh? The entire mounted combat subsystem is overly complicated and convoluted. If any aspect of it was "easily resolved by a GM", I seriously doubt there would long threads like this one discussing the issue.
IMO, PF would be best served by a complete overhaul/streamlining of the mounted combat rules, including charging while mounted. This would force a re-examination of all the related traits, feats, and class features, but I think it would vastly improve the quality of the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, that's just not going to happen in this edition. The system is not that convoluted, but dealing with the broken interactions with all of the various feats and other abilities would be.
Seriously, the only time I've ever had trouble adjudicating mounted combat during a game was the very first time, and that was because I just hadn't read the rules on the subject. The vast majority of the time, it's straightforward to deal with. Stealth is a much bigger pain.
|
|
Your mount does not have Ride-by Attack, so your mount doesn't get to make an attack and keep moving. With Ride-by Attack, your mount can charge and you can make an attack at a point along the line of movement. The only place your mount can make an attack is at the end fo the charge. And you're right, Ride-by Attack and Spring Attack are not compatible, so if your mount were using Spring Attack, your mount would be the one who could attack in the middle of the movement, not you. Those two feats do not contain a combination where both of you get to attack in the middle of the movement.
I think this is how Ride-by Attack works:
There are two separate parts of Ride-by Attack - a 'standard charge', followed by a move. These two parts of Ride-by Attack should be considered separately and resolved separately.
Therefore, you and your mount make a 'standard charge'. You and your mount get your attacks from the 'standard charge'.
There is nothing to say that your mount doesn't get its attack from the 'standard charge'. If however, the 'standard charge' doesn't allow for your mount to attack, it doesn't get an attack with Ride-by Attack either.
After the 'standard charge' has been resolved, your mount may 'move again'. This movement has two restrictions on it - your 'total movement for the round can't exceed double your mounted speed' and you must continue along 'the straight line of the charge'.
But I could be wrong...
If we can get a definition of a 'standard charge', we will be better able to resolve just how Ride-by Attack works.
The phrase "as if with a standard charge" is straightforward--it means "as if you were making a charge without this feat". The rest of the sentence, then goes on to spell out the difference between "a standard charge" and this feat. (If you want to know what a charge is, see the Combat section; it's quite detailed.)
A charge allows the charging creature to make an attack at the end of the charge. Mounted combat allows you to take the modifiers for the mount's charge but restricts you to attacking at the end of the charge should you wish to reap those modifiers. And Ride-By Attack allows you to attack during the mount's charge instead of at the end and still gain the effects of the mount's charge (e.g., bonus to hit, penalty to AC, extra damage for a lance).
It's pretty straightforward. You pretend like you're just doing a normal charge up till the end of your turn, then make another move action that can't allow your total movement to exceed double your mount's movement speed.
In other words, any leftover movement not used by your charge can be used after your attack.
The more I look at the feat, the more it seems like the only problem is that whoever wrote it simply didn't know how a charge works. The only time this feat can possibly work is on an overrun or on a flying mount, which obviously isn't the exact usage they intended...
|
|
The phrase "as if with a standard charge" is straightforward--it means "as if you were making a charge without this feat".
If a 'standard charge' with a mounted lance on a horse was 'straightforward', there would be no need for this thread.
The solution may be that the horse charges a square adjacent to the enemy that you attack, but this solution is somewhat counter-intuitive and not obvious when reading the rules for mounted combat and charge. It requires a great deal of interpretation and lateral thinking.
If this is a 'standard charge', I think it should be clarified as such in a FAQ.
And Ride-By Attack allows you to attack during the mount's charge instead of at the end and still gain the effects of the mount's charge (e.g., bonus to hit, penalty to AC, extra damage for a lance).
No, it doesn't - you make a lance attack as per a 'standard charge'. You still have to follow the rules of the 'standard charge', which includes attacking at the end of your mount's charge. After this occurs, your mount moves again.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
ILLEGAL!
You cannot use a lance and charge. Charge says:
"You must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent."
You are on a charging mount. The mount is charging, NOT YOU! You gain the benefits of charging, as well as the disadvantages from your mount' movement, not yours. Your mount is required to move to the closet square to which it can attack from. If it doesn't, it doesn't qualify as a charge.
Hence, reach weapons don't work with a charge.
Which is wrong. Add a new line "While on a charging mount, you may use reach weapons for the granted attack at the end of the charge regardless of minimum ranges".
The phrase "as if with a standard charge" is straightforward--it means "as if you were making a charge without this feat".
If a 'standard charge' with a mounted lance on a horse was 'straightforward', there would be no need for this thread.
The solution may be that the horse charges a square adjacent to the enemy that you attack, but this solution is somewhat counter-intuitive and not obvious when reading the rules for mounted combat and charge. It requires a great deal of interpretation and lateral thinking.
If this is a 'standard charge', I think it should be clarified as such in a FAQ.
No, it doesn't - you make a lance attack as per a 'standard charge'. You still have to follow the rules of the 'standard charge', which includes attacking at the end of your mount's charge. After this occurs, your mount moves again.
And Ride-By Attack allows you to attack during the mount's charge instead of at the end and still gain the effects of the mount's charge (e.g., bonus to hit, penalty to AC, extra damage for a lance).
Fair enough, that last bit is true. It's a meaningful distinction with respect to the mount's attacks, but not so muh with respect to the rider.
As for the "straightforwardness" of "as if with a standard charge", I think you're overanalyzing the feat a bit and having a forest vs. trees moment when reading the feat description. Standard charge = charge.
A bit of a side issue here concerning the mammoth rider.
At 7th level the steeds reach improves to 15', meaning it stops its charge 15' away to make its attack so you are now out of range yet the MamRid's 8th level ability mentions making an attack during a charge, something that it can no longer do (unless ride-by attack)
Surely the intent was for both the mount and rider to attack the same subject but is this ever possible? Is MamRide a trap prestige class at 7th level?
|
|
A bit of a side issue here concerning the mammoth rider.
At 7th level the steeds reach improves to 15', meaning it stops its charge 15' away to make its attack so you are now out of range yet the MamRid's 8th level ability mentions making an attack during a charge, something that it can no longer do (unless ride-by attack)
Surely the intent was for both the mount and rider to attack the same subject but is this ever possible? Is MamRide a trap prestige class at 7th level?
Nope, it's just one that you pretty much need Ride-by Attack and Overrun or trample utilize. Or a size bump on yourself. The class actually assumes that you'll have access or get to an ability like trample (it's mentioned in the Pulverizing Assault ability). Alternatively, you get to make a gigantic charge applying 1/2 your mount's STR to the damage (which will then get multiplied via the lance's ability, Spirited Charge, and/or anything else you may have going), and then you still are sitting on a big ol' mount threatening a 15 foot reach. You and your mount don't have to target the same thing, and lots of abilities and fighting styles have "feat taxes" that are necessary but not specifically called out as such. Nothing says an archer has to have Precise Shot, but she doesn't work very well if she doesn't. Same thing with melee fighters and Power Attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Such a house rule negates multiple feats and removes action economy from both mount and rider. I don't think I'd use that as a house rule, as mounted combat already has enough disadvantages.
Besides, none of this helps people with RAW/RAI questions.
A bit of a side issue here concerning the mammoth rider.
At 7th level the steeds reach improves to 15', meaning it stops its charge 15' away to make its attack so you are now out of range yet the MamRid's 8th level ability mentions making an attack during a charge, something that it can no longer do (unless ride-by attack)
Surely the intent was for both the mount and rider to attack the same subject but is this ever possible? Is MamRide a trap prestige class at 7th level?
Having 15' natural reach doesn't mean that the mount stops the charge 15' away. As far as I know, unless the mammoth rider rules have an overriding statement, the mount must still stop adjacent to the target of the charge.
|
|
As for the "straightforwardness" of "as if with a standard charge", I think you're overanalyzing the feat a bit and having a forest vs. trees moment when reading the feat description. Standard charge = charge.
I realise a standard charge is a the same as a charge, I just don't know how a mounted lance charge on a mount without reach works.
If the rules for a mounted lance charge are unclear, it is impossible to understand Ride-by Attack, which references a 'standard charge'.
|
|
A bit of a side issue here concerning the mammoth rider.
At 7th level the steeds reach improves to 15', meaning it stops its charge 15' away to make its attack so you are now out of range yet the MamRid's 8th level ability mentions making an attack during a charge, something that it can no longer do (unless ride-by attack)
Surely the intent was for both the mount and rider to attack the same subject but is this ever possible? Is MamRide a trap prestige class at 7th level?
There are multiple ways to increase your reach to 15 foot - enlarge person would work, and so would lunge.
You are right, though - with just a 10 foot reach, a mount with a 15 foot reach is undesirable as the rider would not have enough reach to attack anything the mount charged.