|
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.
Trample is both a feat and a special ability that some mounts have. Trample as a special ability that mounts have takes a full round action. As the feat, it uses a standard action (It just gives you a free amount of damage if you overrun someone while mounted).
|
The rules for mounted combat can be a little confusing because they had to fit a lot of small interactions into a small amount of space.
When comes to moving and your mount: "Your mount acts on your initiative count as you direct it. You move at its speed, but the mount uses its action to move."
You and your mount act on the same initiative count (that is, both your actions are intertwined in the same 6 second block of time). You move at your mount's speed, but the mount uses its action to move means that your actual movement is tied in to your mount's; you cannot move on your mount and then dismount to move again, but you do get to keep your move action to utilize for other move-equivalent actions, like drawing a weapon, readying a shield, or retrieving a stowed item. Back in 3.5 they did a really good job of breaking down the assumptions they were trying to convey with the mounted combat rules; those are the exact same rules that Pathfinder carried over verbatim when they acquired the OGL, and the same rules we are using today.
Ssalarn, it is interesting you link the 3.5 Rules of the Game on mounted Combat. It indicates that while you use the mount's move speed you still burn a full-round action when charging on a mount.
Full-Round Actions
As with standard actions, you can sometimes perform a full-round action while your mount moves. Other times, your mount's movement interferes with the full-round action, especially when you have to be someplace in particular to perform the action. If a full-round action is shown on Table 8-2 but not included here, you can perform it from a moving mount. You complete the action after the mount completes its movement for the turn. Some full-round actions require some additional notes:
Full Melee Attack: A moving mount usually keeps you from using the full attack action for melee attacks because you spend part of your turn just moving along with your mount. You can make a full melee attack while mounted, however, if your mount moves no more than 5 feet during the turn. The rules don't say so, but common sense dictates that 5 feet of movement in this case constitutes a 5-foot step. If your mount uses the minimum movement rule to move 5 feet though (see page 149 in the Player's Handbook), the best you can manage on the same round is a single melee attack.
Full Ranged Attack: You can make a full ranged attack from your moving mount. If your mount makes a single move, you make all your ranged attacks either before or after the movement, and the rules assume your mount is stationary when you shoot. If your mount makes a double move, you can still make a full ranged attack, but you're shooting while the mount is moving and you take a -4 penalty on your attack roll. If your mount runs, you take a -8 penalty on ranged attacks. In either case, you make all your attack rolls when your mount has completed half its movement for the turn.
Charge: Performing a mounted charge works just like performing a charge on foot. You use your mount's speed rating. Remember that no creature can charge through an obstacle, another creature, or terrain that hampers movement. Due to its larger size, your mount might be unable to charge in a location where you could if on foot (see page 148 in the Player's Handbook).
If you're armed with a lance, you deal double damage when you perform a mounted charge.
This is why the Devs statements that you are not charging when your mount charges is so confusing. It goes against years of 3.X understanding without being clearly supported in the rules.
|
|
What you included still shows that they have two separate pools of actions; those actions just overlap in time. This means that you couldn't normally move forward on your mount and then complete a full attack action because there is an overlap of time between you and the mount and the mount's movement is occuring at the same time as your allotted pool of actions.
Nothing really changed other than the fact that Pathfinder has given player's more options within the mounted combat framework.
What I showed is that in 3.5 the rider burned a charge action when his mount charged. That is the whole point behind the debate.
Pathfinder has not changed that AT ALL. Not in print. Not even in the FAQ (not clearly at any rate). Only a few Dev comments clearly state it.
|
|
What I showed is that in 3.5 the rider burned a charge action when his mount charged. That is the whole point behind the debate.
Pathfinder has not changed that AT ALL. Not in print. Not even in the FAQ (not clearly at any rate). Only a few Dev comments clearly state it.
Except you didn't show that. Instead you showed that:
A) There have always been ways to use Full Round Actions at the same time your mount uses a Full Round Actionand
B) When you charge on a mount you follow all the normal rules for charging; i.e. "no creature can charge through an obstacle, another creature, or terrain that hampers movement. Due to its larger size, your mount might be unable to charge in a location where you could if on foot"
There is absolutely nothing in the text you referenced that says that you somehow lose action economy when your mount charges. You're inferring something that isn't there.
Did you even read the bolded sections?
The first bolded section talks about the list of full-round actions you are able to perform on a mount and then Charge is listed in that list. Charge is a Full-Round action.
The second states charging on a mount works like charging on foot except for movement.
So, yes, I did show that. If you cannot see that in 3.5 Charging on a mount used up the rider's full-round action I don't think I can help you with that.
|
|
Did you even read the bolded sections?
*****
I expect better of you than to stoop to questioning the intelligence of someone you're having a discussion with Gauss. That's no way to have a conversation.
I see where you are coming from, but that doesn't change the end result of net action economy and the fact that in Pathfinder the mount is the one taking a charge action and the rider is reaping certain specific benefits but maintaining his action economy; it also has nothing to do with the fact that you are arguing a subject that has little to do with the OP's post.
The OP asked about moving after moving on his mount; I pointed out the intent of the rules involving concurrent actions. You then brought up a completely different subject, i.e. "Who's the one charging".
This has nothing to do with the post at hand and has been discussed to death elsewhere. The answer however, is definitively "the mount".
At no point did I mention your intelligence. I asked if you had read the sections.
This has nothing to do with the OP's post. Where did I say it did?
I followed you from another thread where you cited the above post.
This is the post that linked back to the above post.
Perhaps I should have posted in that thread instead but I was responding to this particular post so I did it here. Ahhh well. :)
Alternately, perhaps you should not have linked to the above post if it is not relevant to the Charging thread.
|
|
At no point did I mention your intelligence. I asked if you had read the sections.
This has nothing to do with the OP's post. Where did I say it did?
I followed you from another thread where you cited the above post.
This is the post that linked back to the above post.
Perhaps I should have posted in that thread instead but I was responding to this particular post so I did it here. Ahhh well. :)
Alternately, perhaps you should not have linked to the above post if it is not relevant to the Charging thread.
It was more the first link that was relevant to the other conversation. But yeah, we should probably redirect over to that thread to continue this particular conversation.
How'd this thread end up being about 3.5...?