The mount is the only one using a move action.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmmmm, seems Horselord should be the ultimate expert on this subject, no?
It's splitting hairs, but Scavion is right: you are actually not moving here; you are being moved. There is a difference. The AoO says:
"Moving out of a threatened square usually provokes"
It doesn't say:
"Being moved out of a threatened square usually provokes"
Ergo, only the horse provokes.
Splitting hairs (horse hairs?), but that's as close as I can find to anything RAW. And as Horselord sayd, there are other precedents for being moved such as Bull Rush and Grapple by creatures with reach and they don't provoke when the victim is "being moved".
Based on the hair-splitting and precedent-setting, I'd say that should be enough.
But I thought that if you get pushed back by a bull rush that you provoked an AoO? That would be as passive as traveling mounted. I may be misremembering.Hmmmm, seems Horselord should be the ultimate expert on this subject, no?
It's splitting hairs, but Scavion is right: you are actually not moving here; you are being moved. There is a difference. The AoO says:
"Moving out of a threatened square usually provokes"
It doesn't say:
"Being moved out of a threatened square usually provokes"
Ergo, only the horse provokes.
Splitting hairs (horse hairs?), but that's as close as I can find to anything RAW. And as Horselord sayd, there are other precedents for being moved such as Bull Rush and Grapple by creatures with reach and they don't provoke when the victim is "being moved".
Based on the hair-splitting and precedent-setting, I'd say that should be enough.
When bull rushed you only provoke an AoO if the bull rusher has the Greater Bull Rush feat, without that feat it doesn't provoke.
Moving: Moving out of a threatened square usually provokes attacks of opportunity from threatening opponents.
That is a RAW.
Bull Rush movement dont provoke AoO by RAW written in the maneuver description (with Greater BR you do by RAW). Same for the Reposition and Drag combat maneuver.
Trip dont provoke AoO by RAW because you fall to the ground but you dont leave a threatened square = no movement (with Greater Trip you provoke by RAW).
Grapple and mounted movement dont have a RAW exception like BR, Reposition or Drag. In this case the general rule comes in play. There is no RAW exception but there is a general rule.
I'm going to take a contrary position. For many rules purposes, a mount and rider act and count as one creature. That is, both mount and rider provoke, but you only get one AoO so you must choose witch of the two to attack with your AoO. I'm not certain if Combat Reflexes changes that answer.
Pathfinder missed an opportunity to clean up the mounted combat rules. But since they didn't, most of what's in the old "All About Mounts" articles applies.
I posted links to them here.
Agreed. Both provoke, but a single attacker only has the time to pick one target.
But what if the attacker has Combat Reflexes and two weapons?
I'm going to take a contrary position. For many rules purposes, a mount and rider act and count as one creature. That is, both mount and rider provoke, but you only get one AoO so you must choose witch of the two to attack with your AoO. I'm not certain if Combat Reflexes changes that answer.
Pathfinder missed an opportunity to clean up the mounted combat rules. But since they didn't, most of what's in the old "All About Mounts" articles applies.
I posted links to them here.
However, if they are acting as one creature, how would one creature provoke two AoOs for one action? Even a single creature can only provoke an attack by movement once a round per attacker.
|
I'm going to take a contrary position. For many rules purposes, a mount and rider act and count as one creature. That is, both mount and rider provoke, but you only get one AoO so you must choose witch of the two to attack with your AoO. I'm not certain if Combat Reflexes changes that answer.
Pathfinder missed an opportunity to clean up the mounted combat rules. But since they didn't, most of what's in the old "All About Mounts" articles applies.
I posted links to them here.
The link you posted contains some interesting rulings, such as only the mount charges - the rider pseudo-charges (he gains the bonuses/penalties of charging without actually charging). There was also mention that the rider gets carried along for the ride and is not actually moving himself.
These two points led to thoughts of full-attacking on a charge if the rider can direct his mount as a swift action (which was shot down - Mounted Skirmisher permits it though) and using Vital Strike on a mounted charge (which was verified).
The fact the rider and mount are treated differently indicates they are not "one entity" and as the rider does not move himself it further indicates only the mount provokes - making Mounted Combat very useful.
I remember reading somewhere that the general rule that movement forced upon an individual did not provoke AoOs was a design philosophy (with specific exceptions) but I have no idea where I read it.
|
I'm going to take a contrary position. For many rules purposes, a mount and rider act and count as one creature. That is, both mount and rider provoke, but you only get one AoO so you must choose witch of the two to attack with your AoO. I'm not certain if Combat Reflexes changes that answer.
Pathfinder missed an opportunity to clean up the mounted combat rules. But since they didn't, most of what's in the old "All About Mounts" articles applies.
I posted links to them here.
This is actually an excellent point, as the Rider instructs the Mount where to go and cannot actually take movement himself. Therefore the Mount becomes his "legs" sort of.
There are many sides for this one :)
I'm going to take a contrary position. For many rules purposes, a mount and rider act and count as one creature. That is, both mount and rider provoke, but you only get one AoO so you must choose witch of the two to attack with your AoO. I'm not certain if Combat Reflexes changes that answer.
Pathfinder missed an opportunity to clean up the mounted combat rules. But since they didn't, most of what's in the old "All About Mounts" articles applies.
I posted links to them here.
The link you posted contains some interesting rulings, such as only the mount charges - the rider pseudo-charges (he gains the bonuses/penalties of charging without actually charging). There was also mention that the rider gets carried along for the ride and is not actually moving himself.
These two points led to thoughts of full-attacking on a charge if the rider can direct his mount as a swift action (which was shot down - Mounted Skirmisher permits it though) and using Vital Strike on a mounted charge (which was verified).
The fact the rider and mount are treated differently indicates they are not "one entity" and as the rider does not move himself it further indicates only the mount provokes - making Mounted Combat very useful.
I remember reading somewhere that the general rule that movement forced upon an individual did not provoke AoOs was a design philosophy (with specific exceptions) but I have no idea where I read it.
The links clarify further that you moving with the mount tends to qualify as your move action. That is, if you move more than 5', etc. with your mount that you cannot full attack.
It gets dense in some places, but it is comprehensive. It also mentions that both mount and rider suffering AoOs--but for simplicity, it encourages the DM to use an optional rule to treat them as a unit for purposes of provoking. That's in part 2.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I remember reading somewhere that the general rule that movement forced upon an individual did not provoke AoOs was a design philosophy (with specific exceptions) but I have no idea where I read it.
You can sort of see the philosophy in the rules regarding combat maneuvers that force movement; they normally do not provoke AoOs.
However - and I should note that by no means can I offer an answer to the original question - is it wholly valid to conflate rules regarding not provoking when you are forcibly moved, and when you are moving on the back of a mount?
You are leading the horse; it moves under your direction. You are not being 'forcibly' moved, because you're going exactly where you intended to go - you just arne't using your own movement action to get there. Thematically, that seems very different.