Mounted Combat, Charging w / Lance, and Ride-by-Attack


Rules Questions

Liberty's Edge

Hello,

Well, I tried to search for a definitive answer to my question, but I had a hard time coming up with one. Therefore, I hope people can clarify the following question for me: If I charge an enemy, while mounted, and while using a lance (reach weapon), then how can I use the Ride-by-Attack feat?

It seems to me by the RAW, I have to draw an exact straight line from me to the target, and since I can't go through the target (only in an overrun), then I should be able to charge in oblique angles, relative to the target-as long as the charge would be within the reach of my weapon. In this case, I could hit the target and then continue on a straight line past the target.

As to the overrun issue, I don't think I should have to overrun the target since it does not mention having to do so within the description of Ride-by-Attack.

I appreciate all of the the feedback in advance and I thank you for the help.

Lantern Lodge

As you mentioned, it doesn't work RAW without an overrun.

The intent of ride by attack should be that you can "ride by" your opponent, or ride to the side of it. In home brew games, that's how it should be handled, where you don't pass through the opponent's square but next to it (at least in my humble opinion).

There's debate as to what should happen, and I know the mounted combat system is in shambles at the moment, but we just have to live with it (Sorry, especially if your wanting to know for the sake of PFS).

Liberty's Edge

FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:

As you mentioned, it doesn't work RAW without an overrun.

The intent of ride by attack should be that you can "ride by" your opponent, or ride to the side of it. In home brew games, that's how it should be handled, where you don't pass through the opponent's square but next to it (at least in my humble opinion).

There's debate as to what should happen, and I know the mounted combat system is in shambles at the moment, but we just have to live with it (Sorry, especially if your wanting to know for the sake of PFS).

Yes, I would like a clarification, especially for PFS because it really does not make sense. However, thanks for the input.


Lances have reach... Even without a lance you attack from the sq. Next to some thing so you pick a path that moves you by your target not through it.

Liberty's Edge

qutoes wrote:

Lances have reach... Even without a lance you attack from the sq. Next to some thing so you pick a path that moves you by your target not through it.

Yes, lances have reach, but the description of charging states you have to charge in a direct straight line from your origin square to the target square, without crossing any obstacle or occupied square, friendly or otherwise. Unfortunately, it does not state that you can charge next to the enemy if you have a reach weapon. Therefore, charging and the Ride-by-Attack feat are incongruousness with one another.

In the end, I was hoping for a FAQ ruling or someone to point me in the right direction. I am trying to play with some common sense and charge in an oblique line so that I can hit with my lance and then "ride by" my target.

Thank you for the input.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

To be clear the charge rules say, '"you must move to the closest space from which you can attack your opponent."

That means with a reach weapon like a lance you complete your charge from 5' away. With a weapon that lacks reach you just need to line up properly so that the closest space is along a line where you can continue your ride by.


I have a question:

Since the mount is charging, not the rider, can you use vital strike on a charge?

It seems like the answer is yes, because guiding the mount with kness is a free action, and as a cavalier, if I want the mount to attack it is also a free action for handle animal.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

CWheezy wrote:

I have a question:

Since the mount is charging, not the rider, can you use vital strike on a charge?

It seems like the answer is yes, because guiding the mount with kness is a free action, and as a cavalier, if I want the mount to attack it is also a free action for handle animal.

Yes, that's correct.

Also, in regards to the main subject, karkon is absolutely correct. You don't have to charge directly at your opponent, you have to charge in a straight line to the closest space from which you can attack your opponent. For a guy with a lance this is a non-issue; for a guy with out a reach weapon, you just pick a square to the diagonal left or right of your target (these are generally the same distance unless you're charging from very close range). The straight line reference doesn't mean a straight line of squares, it literally means that you should be able to take a ruler, lay it on the grid, and draw a straight line to the point you're attacking from. SKR went into some detail about this in another thread (I'll try and dig it up) but you can even look at the definition of a line in the area of effects rules for combat and see that this the case.


CWheezy wrote:

I have a question:

Since the mount is charging, not the rider, can you use vital strike on a charge?

It seems like the answer is yes, because guiding the mount with kness is a free action, and as a cavalier, if I want the mount to attack it is also a free action for handle animal.

No, Vital Strike is a standard action

Attacking on a Charge: After moving, you may make a single melee attack. You get a +2 bonus on the attack roll and take a –2 penalty to your AC until the start of your next turn.
Mounted Combat wrote:

Combat while Mounted: With a DC 5 Ride check, you can guide your mount with your knees so as to use both hands to attack or defend yourself. This is a free action.

When you attack a creature smaller than your mount that is on foot, you get the +1 bonus on melee attacks for being on higher ground. 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).

You can use ranged weapons while your mount is taking a double move, but at a –4 penalty on the attack roll. You can use ranged weapons while your mount is running (quadruple speed) at a –8 penalty. In either case, you make the attack roll when your mount has completed half its movement. You can make a full attack with a ranged weapon while your mount is moving. Likewise, you can take move actions normally.

Even with Pounce or Mounted Skirmisher, all you get is a full attack, not a standard action (+move action).

This is not to say that you can't take a standard action while mounted(such as casting), but it's very clear that you cannot take one to use a melee attack after your mount moves more than 5ft.
You should still be able to VS with a ranged weapon since a full attack is allowed.

Lantern Lodge

There's a very specific FAQ on vital strike and charging. No can do.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:
There's a very specific FAQ on vital strike and charging. No can do.

That FAQ has nothing to do with Vital Striking from the back of a Charging Mount. It just specifies that using Vital Strike is an attack action, which is a type of standard action, and charging is a special full round action. However, when you are attacking from a mount, the MOUNT is the one taking a charge action, YOU are not. You still retain your full complement of actions. You can, in fact, Vital Strike from the back of a charging mount.

In this FAQ SKR makes it clear that a lance only does double damage from the back of a charging mount. In this quote SKR specifically states "If YOU are mounted, the MOUNT is making the charge, YOU are NOT making a charge".
We also know from the Mounted Skirmisher feat that normal is "If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only take an attack action".
the Vital Strike FAQ says " Vital Strike can only be used as part of an attack action, which is a specific kind of standard action."

What does that mean? It means you still have your full complement of actions, you can Vital Strike with a lance from the back of a charging mount, and you can do:
Vital Strike + Spirited Charge= 3x weapon Spirited charge + 1x weapon Vital Strike + 3x STR and Enhancements + precision and weapon properties

or

Greater Vital Strike + Spirited Charge= 3x weapon Spirited Charge + 3x weapon Greater Vital Strike + 3x STR and Enhancement + precision and weapon properties.

Further, there are only three places where people seem to have trouble with the mounted combat rules:

Ride-by Attack and Spirited Charge which both say "When you are mounted and use the charge action"

and the section in Mounted combat that says "When charging on horseback, you deal double damage with a lance (see Charge)."

The lance is clarified in it's own equipment entry where it says "A lance deals double damage when used from the back of a charging mount" and since SKR has already clarified that when your mount is charging, you are not the one taking the charge action, we know that these feats are triggered by being on the back of a charging mount. Problem solved, everything works, no other contradictions or issues.


The actual written rules are a mess. The crb seems to imply you get a single melee attack which would preclude vital strike. The problem is to prevent ragelancepounce they muddled things.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Mojorat wrote:
The actual written rules are a mess. The crb seems to imply you get a single melee attack which would preclude vital strike. The problem is to prevent ragelancepounce they muddled things.

From the CRB: "If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only make a single melee attack."

From MountSkirmisher "Normal: If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only take an attack action."

Vital Strike FAQ: "Vital Strike can only be used as part of an attack action, which is a specific kind of standard action."

CRB states you can make only a single attack. Mounted Skirmisher in the APG clarifies that this an Attack Action, and the Vital Strike FAQ states that Vital Strike can be used with an Attack Action. Seems like you can Vital Strike from the back of a charging mount to me.


Yes mounted skirmisher is refering to the general rule that if your mount moves more than 5 feet etc. That really actually has nothing to do with a discussion about charge. What mounted combat says about charge is what matters. And sadly mounted combat really says bupkiss about it.

That aside somone in another thread suggested that when you ride by attack after you attack the charge ends and you can move as normal. As interpetations go that works for me.


No, Mounted Skirmisher says "a full attack action". Strictly RAW, you can't split that back out into a standard+move to take your VS.

You obviously want to split hairs about "what is a charge?", but you take the penalty and gain the bonus if your mount charges, you are effectively charging too. The attack at the end is part of the mounted charge action and does not allow the standard action for VS.(and I'm confident SKR would say this too. The specific thing he's trying to shutdown is RAGELANCEPOUNCE because he wants it to cost an extra 3 feats, I guess? I'm not convinced that a FAQ would confirm his opinion.)

A non charge attack from the back of a mount may qualify, but the rules are attempting to model the time you "wasted" letting your mount move for you. (which is why you can take a full attack with ranged weapons, you are shooting on the move)

I don't think they intend any of them to be a VS, but I could be wrong.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Mojorat wrote:

Yes mounted skirmisher is refering to the general rule that if your mount moves more than 5 feet etc. That really actually has nothing to do with a discussion about charge. What mounted combat says about charge is what matters. And sadly mounted combat really says bupkiss about it.

That aside somone in another thread suggested that when you ride by attack after you attack the charge ends and you can move as normal. As interpetations go that works for me.

"If your mount charges, you also take the AC penalty associated with a charge". Seems unnecessary if you're also using a Charge action.

"If you make an attack at the end of the charge, you receive the bonus gained from the charge." Again, only necessary if it is understood that mount and rider have two separate action pools, as of course they should. They're two separate creatures, right? Why would a horse suddenly become staggered just because there's a person on it?

Ride-by Attack. This is admittedly a little confusing out of context. What needs to be understood through context is that "When you are mounted and use the charge action" is shorthand for "When you are mounted on a mount which is using the charge action". That's extra verbage which should be unnecessary in context. You and your mount are two separate creatures with two separate action pools; when your mount charges, you gain the benefits of that charge. So abilities that refer to mounted charge actions and mounted movement are referencing what occurs when you are mounted on a creature and command it to use the charge/move action(s).


Archaeik wrote:
No, Mounted Skirmisher says "a full attack action". Strictly RAW, you can't split that back out into a standard+move to take your VS.

He wasn't talking about the use of Mounted Skirmisher, but rather the "non-use" explained in the "Normal:" section of the feat.

You've convinced me Ssalarn.

For the OP:

T = Target, H's = Horse-mounted rider

Before charge:
ooooTooooo
ooooooooHH
ooooooooHH

Attack During charge (w/reach):
ooooTooooo
ooooooHHoo
ooooooHHoo

After charge:
ooooTooooo
HHoooooooo
HHoooooooo

You're specifically riding straight for the closest square to attack from, not the target. In fact, if it could be further if you did charge directly at the target. The angles get funny with this kind of thing, but mathematically and logically (if not RAWly), you can always charge 5 feet 'off-center' of your target to be able to ride-by after the charge.

Liberty's Edge

Majuba wrote:
Archaeik wrote:
No, Mounted Skirmisher says "a full attack action". Strictly RAW, you can't split that back out into a standard+move to take your VS.

He wasn't talking about the use of Mounted Skirmisher, but rather the "non-use" explained in the "Normal:" section of the feat.

You've convinced me Ssalarn.

** spoiler omitted **

Hello,

Excellent comments and examples by everyone so far-I really appreciate it. Also, thank you Majuba for taking the time to do the diagram. I think I can now present a arguement for being able to charge and do a Ride-by-Attack. However, I do strongly encourage Pathfinder to FAQ the whole mounted combat section and to officially clarify all of these questions.

In the mean time, I will present the logic of the arguements presented to jusify the actions of my character. Again, all of the responses help immensly and please take care and have fun.

Lantern Lodge

Sslaran, I don't like the current rules either, I think the mount should be the one charging. But until further clarification, current raw trumps SKR's quote, at least in PFS. There's a lot of stuff that muddles mounted combat. The design team needs to rewrite/clarify a lot of it. The current understanding is that you are charging, which is the most conservative understanding. Outside PFS you can rule otherwise in your own games.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:
Sslaran, I don't like the current rules either, I think the mount should be the one charging. But until further clarification, current raw trumps SKR's quote, at least in PFS.

This is actually 100% wrong. Developer clarifications are binding in PFS. Also, SKR is not changing any rules, he's just re-iterating what the rules already say (admittedly not as well as they could). As I pointed out earlier in the thread, the core rules for Mounted Combat are actually written to explain what benefits being on a charging mount give you, because they specifically assume you are not the one charging.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

I also wanted to note that, for my group at least, SKR's clarification in no way changed what we were doing. For all of the reasons I listed above, we always understood the rules to be that the mount was the one charging. That's a pretty evident conclusion from the mounted combat rules. Why else would the rules specify the benefits you recieve if your mount charges? Why would you and the mount have actions mysteriously disappear when you ride it?

That's not to say the rules couldn't be more clearly defined, but all of the pieces are there if you know where to look.

Dark Archive

I must input this one thing. At the beginning of your turn, if you plan on attacking on the same round of your mount, you must make a DC 10 ride check. If they fail only the horse gets to attack. Also most people forget that a charging horse makes an attack.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Titania, the Summer Queen wrote:
I must input this one thing. At the beginning of your turn, if you plan on attacking on the same round of your mount, you must make a DC 10 ride check. If they fail only the horse gets to attack. Also most people forget that a charging horse makes an attack.

You may attack on a charge. After moving, you may make a single melee attack. The horse does have a choice. And if you fail the Ride check, it's an either/or thing, either the horse attacks, or you do. The check doesn't need to be made at all if you don't have teh mount attack.

Dark Archive

You do not have to attack the same target as your horse which allows ride by attack just fine. Your horse is just so happening to make an overrun attempt 10 ft from the Guy your targeting with the lance. The thing your horse is overrunning just happens to not exist. So the horse doesn't hit. And keeps on running.

Dark Archive

Ssalarn wrote:
Titania, the Summer Queen wrote:
I must input this one thing. At the beginning of your turn, if you plan on attacking on the same round of your mount, you must make a DC 10 ride check. If they fail only the horse gets to attack. Also most people forget that a charging horse makes an attack.
You may attack on a charge.After moving, you may make a single melee attack. The horse does have a choice. And if you fail the Ride check, it's an either/or thing, either the horse attacks, or you do. The check doesn't need to be made at all if you don't have teh mount attack.

Show me where it says a charge doesn't have to include an attack at the end of it?

Dark Archive

I reread your post. May is an interesting word.

Dark Archive

Nope i go by previous thoughts i went to the page and did a search for "may make" it came up 3 times nothing to with a charge

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Titania, the Summer Queen wrote:
Nope i go by previous thoughts i went to the page and did a search for "may make" it came up 3 times nothing to with a charge

Wait, what?

It's right in the Charge rules "Attacking on a Charge: After moving, you may make a single melee attack. You get a +2 bonus on the attack roll and take a –2 penalty to your AC until the start of your next turn." Me thinks your reading things is broken....

Dark Archive

I believe your right. My phone does not pick up the paizo STD very well.

Lantern Lodge

Ssalarn, I apologize :) for being a little unclear. I shouldn't be posting in the middle of CS class, I'm too distracted.

The part I am mentioning is not the FAQ or errata. Those are fully sanctioned, and are so followed in PFS, as you quoted from the FAQ. The way a venture captain explained it to me though makes it seem that anything else is not necessarily PFS law.

So, the FAQ you quoted is good. The quote from SKR about the mount being the one to charge isn't in the FAQ, and so it's not PFS sanctioned as far as I know. Is there an errata or FAQ that mentions that the mount is the one charging? It's a great thing to go by, as I mentioned, but I don't think it's quite set in stone yet.

The RAW I mentioned wasn't necessarily the mounted combat section only, while that in and of itself needs to be reworded for clarification. I am also pointing to feats that specifically mention "Charging while mounted". Phrases like those make it seem that the intent was that the rider AND the mount were charging. Without liberal interpretation, those phrases point to the PC charging.

Sorry about the confusion!

Lantern Lodge

Titania, I hope your phone doesn't get ANY STD's!!!!

Dark Archive

FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:
Titania, I hope your phone doesn't get ANY STD's!!!!

LOL that should of been srd.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:

Ssalarn, I apologize :) for being a little unclear. I shouldn't be posting in the middle of CS class, I'm too distracted.

The part I am mentioning is not the FAQ or errata. Those are fully sanctioned, and are so followed in PFS, as you quoted from the FAQ. The way a venture captain explained it to me though makes it seem that anything else is not necessarily PFS law.

So, the FAQ you quoted is good. The quote from SKR about the mount being the one to charge isn't in the FAQ, and so it's not PFS sanctioned as far as I know. Is there an errata or FAQ that mentions that the mount is the one charging?

You mean like this one? "Lance: If I have the pounce ability and I charge with a lance, do my iterative lance attacks get the lance's extra damage multiplier from charging?

No, for two reasons.

One, because a lance only deals extra damage when you’re riding a charging mount—not when you are charging."

There you go, an official FAQ that backs up everything else I've linked and posted, clearly delineating that there is a difference between attacking from a charging mount, and taking the charge action yourself.

When the mount charges, you just gain certain benefits from the charge, as laid out in the mounted combat rules. You yourself retain your normal compliment of actions. And as noted in my references earlier in the page, if your mount moves more than 5 feet (which it has to to charge) you can make only a single melee attack, which is made via the attack action, which is a type of standard action, which is compatible with Vital Strike.

Also, I apologize if I'm sounding snarky, I'm just trying to lay this out as clearly, concisely, and completely as I can.

Dark Archive

I think people understand where you're coming from.

Lantern Lodge

Ah darn it, mistake again... though it's not too terribly clearly noted, so it's easy to just glance by. I will go and shoot myself in the foot!

Rules Forum Seppuku!

Dark Archive

Hey, if you falter can I cut off your head?

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Mounted Combat, Charging w / Lance, and Ride-by-Attack All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.