|
People are over thinking all of this. First, assume the rules were written to work without animal companions then assume ride does exactly what it says it does, that you can make a check to direct your mount to attack and attack yourself.
Except that's not what the rules say. You want them to say that, because then the FAQ didn't break things without resolving anything, but they don't.
There is no Ride check that allows you to command an animal to attack as a free action.
There is a Ride check that allows you to attack if you have commanded your mount to attack, which can be done as a free action, and there is the much disputed "Control a mount not trained for combat in battle". I maintain that it doesn't do what some people are saying it does and automatically gives your mount commands, it is instead intended to allow you to control a non-combat trained mount at all, but even if you read it that way it still requires a move check.
Or think of it this way Knights do not need handle animal. That is what they have squires for.Except not every knight in Pathfinder is actually running around with a squire on hand, and they specifically gave the Handle Animal skill to every class that has or even might have a mount, including the Fighter.
You use Handle Animal to give commands to an animal, and you use Ride to stay on your mount and do all the things you want to do from horseback. The two go hand-in-hand. Charging is an attack and it takes a move action with the Handle Animal skill to command a mount to attack.
So yes, even if you assume the section of Ride ride referring to non-combat trained mounts actually applies to all mounts and supersedes Handle Animal, the new ruling still means that a Roughrider, Dragoon, Sohei, or any class not granted an animal companion cannot make a mounted charge, whereas they could under the previous...
The FAQ specifically deals with mounted riders who declare that they are going to charge. Look at the FAQ question. It doesn't say "When my mount charges...", it says "when making a charge while mounted". Stop dragging the FAQ into other discussions for which it is not relevant.
|
Totally, I'm not here saying it doesn't need to be addressed, or let's just bury our heads in the sand and it will go away. I get that this affects people's builds and particularly in organized play that can mean a huge investment of time, with no other place to get resolution but here. I'm not trying to stifle the discussion, what interests me is the possibility that there's a disconnect between the way the devs are thinking about the rules and writing them (and approaching faq's) versus the way a segment of the player base is reading and interpreting the rules and faq's.In other words, let's all make sure we're not talking past each other.
I don't disagree with what you're saying Grimmy, and I've said this before but:
I think this was a bad ruling, but that does not mean I think the staff is incompetent or anything of the sort. They're designers who also serve in a customer service capacity, and in my experience thsoe two worlds often collide. For example, Microsoft has made numerous products that they new would create frustration or come with a steep learning curve, because their studies showed that this method of execution for the process woud ultimately be the most effective. Nintendo has a tendency to worry less about technology advancement and instead just cranks out more of the stuff that people have proven they love and will consistently crank out money for (how many Mario Parties are there now?).
There's always this balance of where you focus your time and energy, especially for a company like Paizo which has a small staff and a narrow profit margin, but an absolutely huge amount of material to mediate.
I'm not here to complain (though there may be a little bit of that since I did have characters in organized settings that were impacted by this), I'm trying to explain that there are issues with this ruling that maybe weren't considered because it's not immediately obvious where the discrepancies are. Mounted Combat is huge, and its been rolling along with some vague parts for long enough that there aren't a lot of "easy" fixes. Unfortunately, this particular option that was decided on accentuates instead of solving a lot of the long running issues, like the Ride vs. Handle Animal debate. It also conflicted with prior rulings and dev commentary, which meant that anyone who'd gone off the old RAGELANCEPOUNCE FAQ and SKR's input could be in a position where an entire character concept or build doesn't work the way it was intended, such as the mounted Spellstrike Magus, several forms of mounted martial arts characters, and more that I've mentioned previously.
I'm certainly not just trying to rage against "the man"; I'm trying to make it clear that this fix was putting a dirty band-aid on a shotgun wound, and we need surgery before infection sets in.
|
|
If you're using Handle Animal to command your mount to charge, what trick are you using?
"Attack" just tells the animal to attack which then is adjudicated by the GM. Animal Archives added more tricks to get animals to do special combat actions like "Flank," "Maneuver" and "Aid." But there is no charge trick. So by your reasoning, nobody can charge on a mount since you have to push the animal with a full round (non mount/AC) or move action. So this FAQ is meaningless for non-bounded mounts because they never could have charged anyway.
Were you making a DC 25 Handle Animal check to make your munt charge before this ruling?
Or, the Ride skill supersedes the Handle Animal skill for mounted actions.
There is nothing that states Ride supersedes Handle Animal, and indeed, the two do not even cover the same situations.
Your mount moves as you direct it. Charge is a special attack. There is no issue with using the "Attack" action under the Handle Animal skill to order your mount to attack.
And unless you missed one of the numerous times I pointed it out, even if you use the very optimistic and non-RAW interpretation that the Ride skill supersedes the Handle Animal skill, it's still a move action, and under that interpretation not only are characters without animal companions prevented from mounted charging, but characters with animal companions cannot perform the mounted charge action either.
Ssalarn, you have been following this for a long time, do you know at what point they changed the wording of this faq?
Because I remember when it said this:
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.
Two, even if you have an unusual combination of rules that allows you to ignore the above limitation, it doesn’t makes sense that those iterative attacks gain the damage bonus. To make that second attack, you have to pull the lance back and stab forward again, and that stab doesn’t have the benefit of the charge’s momentum. (The Core Rulebook doesn’t state that you only get the damage multiplier on the first attack with a lance because when the Core Rulebook was published, there was no way for a PC to charge and get multiple attacks with a weapon in the same round, so that combination didn’t need to be addressed.)
—Sean K Reynolds, 03/01/12
Note that a "mounted charge" is synonymous with a "charge while mounted," and that when a lance is "when used from the back of a charging mount" it is during a mounted charge not when only the mount charges.
Just posting this because I think it bears repeating.
There is a difference between:
Mounted Charge/Charge while Mounted (unfortunate phrasing necessary due to existent usage)
and
Riding a charging mount.
You can still, as you always could, ride a charging mount but not yourself accept the benefits of that charge. You therefore would not be charging or partaking in a "Mounted Charge".
This FAQ is really only addressing what happens when the rider wants to benefit from the charging mount by increasing Lance damage or by using Spirited Charge, etc.
|
|
Note that a "mounted charge" is synonymous with a "charge while mounted," and that when a lance is "when used from the back of a charging mount" it is during a mounted charge not when only the mount charges.Just posting this because I think it bears repeating.
There is a difference between:
Mounted Charge/Charge while Mounted (unfortunate phrasing necessary due to existent usage)and
Riding a charging mount.
You can still, as you always could, ride a charging mount but not yourself accept the benefits of that charge. You therefore would not be charging or partaking in a "Mounted Charge".
This FAQ is really only addressing what happens when the rider wants to benefit from the charging mount by increasing Lance damage or by using Spirited Charge, etc.
It doesn't describe the circumstances that that happens under though, and the very first thing it says in answer to the question " When making a charge while mounted, which creature charges? The rider or the mount? " is "Both charge in unison, suffer the same penalty to AC, the gaining the same bonus to the attack rolls and following all other rules for the charge". The FAQ itself isn't even complete for dealing with the specific set of circumstances it was intended to address, aside from all of the other issues.
It doesn't describe the circumstances that that happens under though, and the very first thing it says in answer to the question " When making a charge while mounted, which creature charges? The rider or the mount? " is "Both charge in unison, suffer the same penalty to AC, the gaining the same bonus to the attack rolls and following all other rules for the charge". The FAQ itself isn't even complete for dealing with the specific set of circumstances it was intended to address, aside from all of the other issues.Note that a "mounted charge" is synonymous with a "charge while mounted," and that when a lance is "when used from the back of a charging mount" it is during a mounted charge not when only the mount charges.Just posting this because I think it bears repeating.
There is a difference between:
Mounted Charge/Charge while Mounted (unfortunate phrasing necessary due to existent usage)and
Riding a charging mount.
You can still, as you always could, ride a charging mount but not yourself accept the benefits of that charge. You therefore would not be charging or partaking in a "Mounted Charge".
This FAQ is really only addressing what happens when the rider wants to benefit from the charging mount by increasing Lance damage or by using Spirited Charge, etc.
when a lance is "when used from the back of a charging mount" it is during a mounted charge not when only the mount charges.
This is how you know they're distinguishing. Since they mention that the Lance special ability doesn't function when only the mount charges, you know that they intend for you to be able to ride a charging mount but not be considered charging yourself.
|
|
So we're back into the RAI vs. RAW. The FAQ conflicts with itself and still needs to be clear, just to address the one issue it was intended to, before even touching on the numerous other issues that it created/accentuated.
The very first thing the FAQ says is that when the mount charges, the rider charges. Then it mentions in an off-hand manner there a situation might exist where the mount charges but the rider doesn't, without any insight into what that situation might be.
If they wanted to make this the standard ruling, they needed to revise the Ride and Handle Animal skills, review the numerous mounted archetypes, rewrite the Mounted Combat section, and probably discuss the changes in a comprehensive blog post (which I'm still hoping could happen).
As I stated earlier, this FAQ is like throwing a used bandaid on a shotgun wound: insufficient to the task at hand and making things worse instead of better.
As someone who has been trying to follow all of this, let me just say.
I'm hopelessly confused.
Maybe Pazio could have examples?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A FAQ was made to prevent people from being able to use vital strike from a charging mount and now people are trying to pick apart the ruling to try and get it overturned. Same thing that happened when they ruled that you can't use armor spikes and a two handed weapon at the same time.
Also note, you do not have to command an animal to attack every round. Once you say "sick em" it keeps going. Getting them to stop is the down command.
I just wrote by far the longest post I've ever written and it got eaten.
x_x
This makes cohort mounts that much more attractive. Since they are considered NPC's and therefore self-motivated and typically able to take verbal commands (considering they're intelligent) from their riders anyway, I expect they are not subject to all these annoying checks.
Until the recent update, there was a FAQ that said that the rider didn't count as charging (they simply received the same bonuses and penalties), which prevented Pounce from working. That FAQ has since been removed, so Pounce is back on the table for mounted characters.Which FAQ is that? The one regarding the lance hasn't changed.Doesn't this sort of go against the FAQ, intended to counter the "RAGELANCEPOUNCE" combo?You may have missed it, but "ragelancepounce" is a thing again and they changed that FAQ to accomodate this new one.
I think I missed that one altogether somehow. Does anyone know a thread where it was quoted so I can read it just to fill in the history?
I just wrote by far the longest post I've ever written and it got eaten.
x_x
Lazarus for firefox has helped me not punch the keyboard in frustration more times than i can count.
|
|
So we're back into the RAI vs. RAW. The FAQ conflicts with itself and still needs to be clear, just to address the one issue it was intended to, before even touching on the numerous other issues that it created/accentuated.
The very first thing the FAQ says is that when the mount charges, the rider charges. Then it mentions in an off-hand manner there a situation might exist where the mount charges but the rider doesn't, without any insight into what that situation might be.
If they wanted to make this the standard ruling, they needed to revise the Ride and Handle Animal skills, review the numerous mounted archetypes, rewrite the Mounted Combat section, and probably discuss the changes in a comprehensive blog post (which I'm still hoping could happen).
As I stated earlier, this FAQ is like throwing a used bandaid on a shotgun wound: insufficient to the task at hand and making things worse instead of better.
Uh...no, the first thing the FAQ says is that "they charge in unison", not "if the mount charges, the rider charges". Those are two vastly different things. You're reading into something that isn't there.
There is a distinct difference between "I charge while mounted" and "I'm riding a charging mount". The FAQ is specifically referencing the former, while you are claiming that it applies to the latter.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A FAQ was made to prevent people from being able to use vital strike from a charging mount and now people are trying to pick apart the ruling to try and get it overturned. Same thing that happened when they ruled that you can't use armor spikes and a two handed weapon at the same time.
It's not just about getting it overturned at this point, it's about the fact that tha FAQ as currently written creates or amplifies more problems than it solves (and there's no evidence it was causing problems), and leaves even more questions unanswered.
It has been the expressed opinion of people who believed either way prior to this ruling that Mounted Combat needed surgery, not a bandaid. This FAQ is a bandaid, and a dirty one at that.
They should have sat down and reviewed all of the moving pieces and the classes and archetypes associated with mounted combat and made an in depth conversation about it, or at least a comprehensive blog post. Mounted combat is both one of the most complex subsystems in the game, and one of the ones most often either ignored in its entirety or hand-waved/house-ruled into simplicity.
The FAQ addressed one piece of mounted combat, and "fixed" it in a way that was not consistent with the mounted combat rules that have been in place since the first printing of the CRB or the developer commentary that had been given up to that point. They even amended the existing FAQs for being "misleading". If the mounted combat rules were so misleading that someone who has been playing the game for decades and who worked for both WotC and Paizo for pretty much as long as there has been a Paizo came to a different conclusion than this FAQ, that should be a pretty clear case for the fact that there is a systemic issue in the subsystem.
At this point it's not about whether or not the rider should be considered charging when the mount is, or how often and under what circumstances that should be the case, it's about making the entire subsystem functional, with rules that are both clear and consistent. The FAQ does not make the rules clear and consistent, nor is it comprehensive enough to make mounted combat feasible without houserules or cruising the forums to try and get a workable solution, something SRMF, the dev who posted the FAQ, specifically said shouldn't be necessary.
So we're back into the RAI vs. RAW. The FAQ conflicts with itself and still needs to be clear, just to address the one issue it was intended to, before even touching on the numerous other issues that it created/accentuated.
The very first thing the FAQ says is that when the mount charges, the rider charges. Then it mentions in an off-hand manner there a situation might exist where the mount charges but the rider doesn't, without any insight into what that situation might be.
If they wanted to make this the standard ruling, they needed to revise the Ride and Handle Animal skills, review the numerous mounted archetypes, rewrite the Mounted Combat section, and probably discuss the changes in a comprehensive blog post (which I'm still hoping could happen).
As I stated earlier, this FAQ is like throwing a used bandaid on a shotgun wound: insufficient to the task at hand and making things worse instead of better.
Uh...no, the first thing the FAQ says is that "they charge in unison", not "if the mount charges, the rider charges". Those are two vastly different things. You're reading into something that isn't there.
There is a distinct difference between "I charge while mounted" and "I'm riding a charging mount". The FAQ is specifically referencing the former, while you are claiming that it applies to the latter.
So this means that a mounted archer could have his horse charge, and make a full attack during the mounts movement?
*Not that they couldn't before, but it's always been unclear what happens when a mount charges. Now it seems to divorce your action from the mounts action completely, except to say that you could simultaneously be counted as charging while your mount is charging and be affected as if you had charge yourself, with the exception of certain special feats and abilities that depend on being part of a mounted charge. Did I miss anything?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Uh...no, the first thing the FAQ says is that "they charge in unison", not "if the mount charges, the rider charges". Those are two vastly different things. You're reading into something that isn't there.There is a distinct difference between "I charge while mounted" and "I'm riding a charging mount". The FAQ is specifically referencing the former, while you are claiming that it applies to the latter.
I posted the exact wording from the FAQ already, but let me do it again.
"When making a charge while mounted, which creature charges? The rider or the mount?"Answer:
"Both charge in unison, suffer the same penalty to AC, the gaining the same bonus to the attack rolls and following all other rules for the charge".
This FAQ is supposed to make it easier for people to understand mounted combat without digging through forums to try and discern intent. Any average player who pulls up the FAQs and reads that is going to come to the very obvious conclusion that if the mount charges, they're both considered charging.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am not very fond of the flipping back and forth with the rules on Mounted Charges.
One was to remove the ability for the rider to use Pounce, and now it's to remove the rider's ability to use Vital Strike.
How long before they flip back again?
I really think, that there is going to be some future powerful build, that takes advantage of the current ruling, and "whoops, we are changing it again".
There is also the writers of feats and archetypes, that may have a understanding of how it currently works, and write them with that in mind, and then, it changes.
With this in mind, there is even more likely that some weird super build will be borne, because writers will have completely different understandings of how the Mounted Charge works.
|
|
Edit:
I am not very fond of the flipping back and forth with the rules on Mounted Charges.
One was to remove the ability for the rider to use Pounce, and now it's to remove the rider's ability to use Vital Strike.
How long before they flip back again?
If I had to pick between them, I'd honestly prefer Vital Strike to be usable on a charge rather than the rider getting to use Pounce.
Also, I wonder if this change in ruling has anything to do with SKR leaving Paizo, since he was the one to make the previous ruling.
Agreed. There were far fewer problems with the interpretation of the the rider having his normal complement of actions. ANd I've never heard anyone complain about a Vital Striking Cavalier ruining their game or causing issues, while there are most definitely well documented cases of mounted RAGELANCEPOUNCE being a problem at tables. It's a solution to a problem that I'm not certain existed, which created new problems and accentuated existing ones.
I'm personally a bit upset that the best mounted warrior in the game is the barbarian. There's lots of historical, literary, and pop culture precedent for mounted warriors ramming a lance through an opponent before drawing a sword and leaping off their mount (something you can no longer do in a single round), but remarkably less precedent for a guy getting so angry he stabs someone 4 times with a lance while charging.
One thing i thought of, although it appears the distinction isnt in the rules. I always viewed the difference between handle animal vs ride int hat, If i tell fido to fetch i give the command and then fido on its own figures out how to fetch. Ie In theory the Animal is acting autonimously on its own to follow the command.
But with Ride, the Animal basically isnt making any decisions on its own its doing exactly what its told moving where its told etc and basically not given a chance to think on its own.
With that view, it seems issuing a handle animal command to ones horse would result in going from rider to passenger. But i realize this distinction doesnt seem to be in the rules.
|
|
I posted the exact wording from the FAQ already, but let me do it again.
"When making a charge while mounted, which creature charges? The rider or the mount?"
Answer:
"Both charge in unison, suffer the same penalty to AC, the gaining the same bonus to the attack rolls and following all other rules for the charge".This FAQ is supposed to make it easier for people to understand mounted combat without digging through forums to try and discern intent. Any average player who pulls up the FAQs and reads that is going to come to the very obvious conclusion that if the mount charges, they're both considered charging.
Any average player will read the response as a whole, including the question, instead of reading individual sentences.
|
|
an average player would more or less see that nothing has changed ..
Riders and mounts have generally always shared move actions ..
ppl I know have always interpreted it the way the FAQ States ... mount Charges and rider charges
Maybe. That changed with one FAQ, then changed with another.
As far as the "average player" goes, my experience has been that the rules are confusing on the issue, and many different interpretations have come from reading the Mounted Combat rules.
|
|
So this means that a mounted archer could have his horse charge, and make a full attack during the mounts movement?
*Not that they couldn't before, but it's always been unclear what happens when a mount charges. Now it seems to divorce your action from the mounts action completely, except to say that you could simultaneously be counted as charging while your mount is charging and be affected as if you had charge yourself, with the exception of certain special feats and abilities that depend on being part of a mounted charge. Did I miss anything?
I don't see why not. The Mounted Combat rules specifically say that you can make a full attack with a ranged weapon while the mount is moving. I don't see anything that would prohibit it just because that movement is made as part the mount's charge. The caveat being that you gave it the Attack order in a previous round (assuming not a Druid or ranger), and made the relevant Ride checks.
Guys, could we please stop with the "assuming not a druid or ranger" and instead use "assuming the mount isn't a companion"? It is rather misguiding to say that only druids or rangers get to handle their mounts as a free action when in fact the same applies to: Paladins, Cavaliers, Samurai, Nature Oracles, Mounted Fury Barbarians and probably a few other class options/archetypes that I am not currently aware of.
Thank you, that is all. I shall go back to lurking now.
Uh...no, the first thing the FAQ says is that "they charge in unison", not "if the mount charges, the rider charges". Those are two vastly different things. You're reading into something that isn't there.There is a distinct difference between "I charge while mounted" and "I'm riding a charging mount". The FAQ is specifically referencing the former, while you are claiming that it applies to the latter.
I posted the exact wording from the FAQ already, but let me do it again.
"When making a charge while mounted, which creature charges? The rider or the mount?"
Answer:
"Both charge in unison, suffer the same penalty to AC, the gaining the same bonus to the attack rolls and following all other rules for the charge".This FAQ is supposed to make it easier for people to understand mounted combat without digging through forums to try and discern intent. Any average player who pulls up the FAQs and reads that is going to come to the very obvious conclusion that if the mount charges, they're both considered charging.
"When making a charge while mounted" -> Meaning, when the rider is charging. The only way the rider can charge is if the mount also charges, because the rider doesn't move on its own.
So, if the rider wants to charge, the mount also must charge. Thus, they are charging in unison. If the rider does not want to charge, that does not prohibit the mount from charging.
Again, there is a difference between charging from the back of a mount (rider is charging, rider shares in the benefits and drawbacks of charging, rider must share in the action economy of charging) and simply riding a mount which itself is charging (rider is not charging, rider does not get the benefits nor the drawbacks of charging, rider need not expend its full action on charging). This is directly inferable from the FAQ language - it mentions charging while mounted and most importantly explicitly discusses a situation where the mount charges but the rider does not.
It's not an RAI v. RAW thing; it's directly in the language. If the rider isn't getting the benefits of the charge, it isn't a "Mounted Charge" nor is it a "Charge while Mounted"; it is a rider sitting atop a mount which is charging.
Lazarus for firefox has helped me not punch the keyboard in frustration more times than i can count.I just wrote by far the longest post I've ever written and it got eaten.
x_x
Chrome has saved me more than once, too. I've gotten into the habit of Ctrl-A, Ctrl-C before I preview any long posts and then submit them.
|
|
Any average player will read the response as a whole, including the question, instead of reading individual sentences.
And come to the conclusion that when your mount charges, you are also charging barring some sort of special ability. Don't believe me? Walk into a PFS session a bit before gaming starts and hand them print-outs the rules on Mounted Combat, Ride, Handle Animal, and the FAQ. Then, without saying anything to them, ask them any of the many questions listed in the threads on the subject. You will get almost as many different answers as people you survey. I know, because I did it.
The rules were poorly laid out before, and flat-out contradictory and confusing now. And of course, there's many people who actually read the rules, saw that mounts use their action to move, or read the rules and the forum where SKR flat out said it's your mount who's charging, not you, and were entirely certain that the rules worked differently than detailed in this FAQ.I know of multiple PFS and other Pathfinder groups in Washington state who all understood that the mount was charging and the rider just got certain benefits from riding a charging mount. Those same groups also recognize that there is a big issue with the break between what this FAQ was intended to do, and what it actually did, both in and of itself and in the context of the subsystem as a whole.
The FAQ itself does not do a good job of distinguishing the difference between a mounted charge and a charge being done by a mount while someone who isn't charging happens to be sitting on it. Even if you get that there's supposed to be a difference, there's the underlying issue that the skills for handling a mount don't mesh and a lot of options that obviously should work just plain don't (in addition to all the options that used to work and don't any longer).
This is no longer a one FAQ and done issue, which it could have been. Mounted Combat needs extensive review and probably an entire blog post explaining how it's supposed to work. The Ride and Handle Animal skills also need clarification, and possibly rewrites.
There is no Ride check that allows you to command a mount to attack. Ride often refers to Combat Training, which is specifically a packet of Handle Animal commands. RAW, very little of mounted combat works at all right now.
Since there's no Handle Animal trick to command an animal to charge--merely to attack--I must conclude that Handle Animal cannot be used for this purpose.
What does that leave us?
|
|
Since there's no Handle Animal trick to command an animal to charge--merely to attack--I must conclude that Handle Animal cannot be used for this purpose.
What does that leave us?
Charge is a type of attack, listed as such specifically in the combat section. The Attack command combined with the pre-FAQ mounted combat rules are perfectly suitable for this purpose.
As noted earlier, even if someone assumes that the text from the "Control a non-combat trained mount in combat" use of the Ride skill supersedes Handle Animal (despite the fact that it has nothing to do with that, and instead is referring to the fact that all non-combat trained animals are automatically frightened in combat), you're left with the same issue as before, because that is still a move action.
Controlling a trained mount in battle is a free action. If it wasn't then this wouldn't be possible:
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.
All that's happening right now is you are stubbornly trying to prove that "Fight with a Combat Trained Mount" does not do what it obviously does.
|
|
Controlling a trained mount in battle is a free action.
No, it isn't. Or better yet, show where in the game it says that. I'll give you a hint: it doesn't. Rangers, Cavaliers, Paladins, and other characters who get animal companions get the ability to make Handle Animal checks as a free action, (previously) allowing them to command their mounts and still take a full complement of actions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Controlling a trained mount in battle is a free action.No, it isn't. Or better yet, show where in the game it says that. I'll give you a hint: it doesn't. Rangers, Cavaliers, Paladins, and other characters who get animal companions get the ability to make Handle Animal checks as a free action, (previously) allowing them to command their mounts and still take a full complement of actions.
Fight with a Combat-Trained Mount: If you direct your war-trained mount to attack in battle, you can still make your own attack or attacks normally. This usage is a free action.
That action, right there, lets you attack as if you hadn't just spent your move action to direct your mount to attack. You may now charge.
Controlling a trained mount in battle is a free action.No, it isn't. Or better yet, show where in the game it says that. I'll give you a hint: it doesn't. Rangers, Cavaliers, Paladins, and other characters who get animal companions get the ability to make Handle Animal checks as a free action, (previously) allowing them to command their mounts and still take a full complement of actions.
Then how do you make a full attack while your mount is moving if you have to spend a move action each round to control your mount?
|
|
All that's happening right now is you are stubbornly trying to prove that "Fight with a Combat Trained Mount" does not do what it obviously does.
First of all, please don't tell me what my motivations and characteristics are.
Secondly, read the skill. It doesn't say what you want it to say."Fight with a Combat-Trained Mount: If you direct your war-trained mount to attack in battle, you can still make your own attack or attacks normally. This usage is a free action."
This allows you, the player, to make your own attacks, if you direct your mount to attack. It doesn't allow you to command your mount to attack, that's what the Handle Animal skill is for. This check has nothing to do with the mount, it has to do with what you, the rider, can do or cannot do under a specific set of circumstances.
Then how do you make a full attack while your mount is moving if you have to spend a move action each round to control your mount?Controlling a trained mount in battle is a free action.No, it isn't. Or better yet, show where in the game it says that. I'll give you a hint: it doesn't. Rangers, Cavaliers, Paladins, and other characters who get animal companions get the ability to make Handle Animal checks as a free action, (previously) allowing them to command their mounts and still take a full complement of actions.
You literally just quoted the answer.
***
Controlling a trained mount in battle is a free action.No, it isn't. Or better yet, show where in the game it says that. I'll give you a hint: it doesn't. Rangers, Cavaliers, Paladins, and other characters who get animal companions get the ability to make Handle Animal checks as a free action, (previously) allowing them to command their mounts and still take a full complement of actions.That action, right there, lets you attack as if you hadn't just spent your move action to direct your mount to attack. You may now charge.Fight with a Combat-Trained Mount: If you direct your war-trained mount to attack in battle, you can still make your own attack or attacks normally. This usage is a free action.
Just to be sure I'm understanding this, you're saying that your interpretation of that rule would play out as follows:
1) Spend move action to command mount to charge via Handle Animal skill.
2) Make Ride check to perform "Fight with a Combat Trained Mount"
3) If successful, "regain" move action per the "make attack or attacks normally clause" and either full attack with bow or perform mounted charge.
Is that right? It's certainly an.... inventive interpretation, but one that actually stands up to a little bit of scrutiny. I suspect most people are going to say "Normally, if you have a standard action you can only make one attack and you can't perform full-round acions", so this still needs additional FAQ.
Fight with a Combat-Trained Mount: If you direct your war-trained mount to attack in battle, you can still make your own attack or attacks normally. This usage is a free action.That action, right there, lets you attack as if you hadn't just spent your move action to direct your mount to attack. You may now charge.
Except, no, that's not at all what it says, you are deliberately reading into it what you want. For it to do what you think it should it would need to say something more like,
You direct your war-trained mount to attack in battle. You may still make your own attack or attacks as normal. This usage is a free action.
But unfortunately it doesn't read that way. Can everybody stop ignoring the one, in this case extremely important, word that completely invalidates the direct your mount as a free-action argument? Please?
Fight with a Combat-Trained Mount: If you direct your war-trained mount to attack in battle, you can still make your own attack or attacks normally. This usage is a free action.That action, right there, lets you attack as if you hadn't just spent your move action to direct your mount to attack. You may now charge.Except, no, that's not at all what it says, you are deliberately reading into it what you want. For it to do what you think it should it would need to say something more like,
But unfortunately it doesn't read that way. Stop ignoring one, in this case extremely important word.
You direct your war-trained mount to attack in battle. You may still make your own attack or attacks as normal. This usage is a free action.
I am not ignoring the if. I refer you to Ssalarn's post for a breakdown of my proposed reading, as he grasped it nicely.
I am not ignoring the if. I refer you to Ssalarn's post for a breakdown of my proposed reading, as he grasped it nicely.
Fight with a Combat-Trained Mount: If you direct your war-trained mount to attack in battle, you can still make your own attack or attacks normally. This usage is a free action.That action, right there, lets you attack as if you hadn't just spent your move action to direct your mount to attack. You may now charge.Except, no, that's not at all what it says, you are deliberately reading into it what you want. For it to do what you think it should it would need to say something more like,
But unfortunately it doesn't read that way. Stop ignoring one, in this case extremely important word.
You direct your war-trained mount to attack in battle. You may still make your own attack or attacks as normal. This usage is a free action.
Ah, I see. Well, in that case it still doesn't work. You don't get to charge in a round that you spent your move action. You could still make a standard action attack, normally, which is why the rule entry specifies making either an attack or attacks plural. If you can't handle an animal as a free action, then you only get one attack if you have directed your mount to attack.
So, now you're twisting the rules to say what you want them to mean instead of ignoring them. Not any better, I'm afraid.
Ah, I see. Well, in that case it still doesn't work. You don't get to charge in a round that you spent your move action. You could still make a standard action attack, normally, which is why the rule entry specifies making either an attack or attacks plural. If you can't handle an animal as a free action, then you only get one attack if you have directed your mount to attack.
So, now you're twisting the rules to say what you want them to mean instead of ignoring them. Not any better, I'm afraid.
You know, I haven't found anywhere that says that you can't take a standard action to attack after directing your animal companion as a move action unless you make the fight with a combat-trained mount check. I saw a dispute in here, looked at the rule that said that you can "make your attack or attacks as normally"... as opposed to what? And then I applied it here.
I'm personally a bit upset that the best mounted warrior in the game is the barbarian. There's lots of historical, literary, and pop culture precedent for mounted warriors ramming a lance through an opponent before drawing a sword and leaping off their mount (something you can no longer do in a single round), but remarkably less precedent for a guy getting so angry he stabs someone 4 times with a lance while charging.
Total aside, but in "Le Morte d'Arthur", it frequently talks about knights becoming enraged and "doubling their blows". Enough so that I would expect every Arthurian knight had some Barbarian levels, if you statted them out in Pathfinder.
|
|
I'm personally a bit upset that the best mounted warrior in the game is the barbarian. There's lots of historical, literary, and pop culture precedent for mounted warriors ramming a lance through an opponent before drawing a sword and leaping off their mount (something you can no longer do in a single round), but remarkably less precedent for a guy getting so angry he stabs someone 4 times with a lance while charging.Total aside, but in "Le Morte d'Arthur", it frequently talks about knights becoming enraged and "doubling their blows". Enough so that I would expect every Arthurian knight had some Barbarian levels, if you statted them out in Pathfinder.
I giggled at the thought of Lancelot as a Cavalier 10 / Mounted Fury Barbarian 10 using Pounce to annihilate his opponents on the battlefield. It was weirdly appropriate.
"By God Arthur, look at yon warrior upon the battlefield! 'Struth but he just struck four blows with his lance upon yon villains in a single charge! And are those claws I see 'neath his gauntlets....?"
Ah, I see. Well, in that case it still doesn't work. You don't get to charge in a round that you spent your move action. You could still make a standard action attack, normally, which is why the rule entry specifies making either an attack or attacks plural. If you can't handle an animal as a free action, then you only get one attack if you have directed your mount to attack.
So, now you're twisting the rules to say what you want them to mean instead of ignoring them. Not any better, I'm afraid.
You know, I haven't found anywhere that says that you can't take a standard action to attack after directing your animal companion as a move action unless you make the fight with a combat-trained mount check. I saw a dispute in here, looked at the rule that said that you can "make your attack or attacks as normally"... as opposed to what? And then I applied it here.
What are you babbling on about? Directing your mount to attack is a move action. Once you have used your move action, you have a standard action left as part of your turn. So, as normal, you may use that standard action to attack. OR, if you can handle your mount as a free action, you could make multiple attacks, plural, because you still have your full round of actions to take and can use the full attack action, a special sort of full-round action.
Are you seriously suggesting that because it says, "normally," that it must be normally as opposed to... something nebulous ... profit? Is that your whole argument? That you can already make a single attack normally, so that the Ride skill must be talking about something different, even though it doesn't say it is, and also that that something that's different clearly means that you gain your full round of actions back enabling you to charge? Really? Did it never occur to you that "normally" could simply mean as opposed to being mounted? Normally when a character makes an attack (or attacks) they aren't mounted, but after you direct your animal to attack, if you succeed on the Ride check, you can make your attack or attacks normally, or, rather just like you could if you were not mounted. NOTE: Before you go warping my words, when you aren't mounted you don't get to charge in a round in which you had a move action and spent it, so, no, being able to make your attack or attacks just like you could if weren't mounted still doesn't allow you to charge.