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?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 might be misremembering there being a FAQ on that (it might've just been a forum post, or a hallucination) as the only one I can find previously is the one you quoted earlier in the thread. But that is the one that was just recently changed, and the removal of the bit about "lances only work when riding a charging mount, not when you charge" is pretty telling on the subject of Pounce.
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.
Ok, yeah, that's what my long post that got eaten was about.
I don't have the willpower to type it all over right now, but the jist of it was that there never really was a ragelancepounce faq. That's just what we called that faq.
The wording of the faq question omitted any reference to a mount, so the now removed line that was interpreted as meaning that a pc on a charging mount doesn't count as charging probably actually never meant that.
Guess this NPC can't do what its statblock says it does during combat
Or maybe the ride skill does the same thing it has always done.
Design Manager
|
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.
Is that the 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? Couldn't "normally" 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.
**small edits to above quote to keep it friendly up in hurr**
This is my understanding of this as well. Many of the Ride skills detail or allude to their own failure consequences directly in the check. Succeeding at the "fight with a combat trained mount" check, allows you to attack in the same round your mount has, something which per the same check, you wouldn't normally be able to do.
It makes sense thematically, anyone who's spent time on horseback can easily imagine how hard it would be to actually hit someone with a weapon while that half-ton murder machine is flailing its hooves and biting chunks out your enemies.
@Grimmy
The original name of that FAQ was specifically "What is RAGELANCEPOUNCE". I swear to you, that was actually specifically what the FAQ was titled when it was originally posted. So there really was a RAGELANCEPOUNCE FAQ.
Guess this NPC can't do what its statblock says it does during combat
That's correct, this FAQ means that that NPC can no longer do what its stats say it can do, unless you assume it has some kind of special archetype. Note the fact that they specifically detailed his Handle Animal skill since it would be important to controlling his mount in combat.
**EDIT**
Actually, to be fair, nothing in that stat block says that the rider ever uses their griffon to attack, or that they don'tspend two rounds "queuing up" their Spirited Charge attacks by spending a round giving commands. So the NPC still works fine as written, it just doesn't do the things you'd expect it to do, like actually taking advantage of combining Ride-by Attack and Spirited Charge every round. There's not actually anything in its tactics that conflicts with the RAW of the current interpretation.
Guess this NPC can't do what its statblock says it does during combat
Yes. That's the whole point of discussion here, that such a character now can't do the things they are supposed to be able to do. It's why this is such a heated discussion, because it makes tons of existing rules and material unworkable.
Or maybe the ride skill does the same thing it has always done.
Which is what exactly? What is it you think the ride skill has always done?
**small edits to above quote to keep it friendly up in hurr**
Sorry, I haven't gotten any sleep in over 24 hours and am dealing with people who seem determined to ignore the rules as they please while simultaneously telling me how the rules work.
Guess this one can't do what its stat block says either
Wild Lancer
Keep in mind a barbarian in rage can't use any intelligence, dexterity(except for a few), or charisma based skills (not that that he has any ranks in handle animal anyway). What skill could he possibly be using for his mounted charge attacks?
|
Design Manager
|
Guess this one can't do what its stat block says either
That's correct again. Thanks for helping tag down all of the places these rules created issues, I know my list was far from comprehensive.
On the upside, the really good news here is that you've solved the RAGELANCEPOUNCE issue. A barbarian cannot make Handle Animal checks while Raging, and they only get Pounce when they Rage, so that's one problem out of the way. Although I guess they could still use Moment of Clarity or make their check and then Rage...
This also creates some issues with the Mad Dog Barbarian archetype which definitely didn't take that little issue into account.
So one problem kind of halfway solved and a whole new problem identified.
@Grimmy
The original name of that FAQ was specifically "What is RAGELANCEPOUNCE". I swear to you, that was actually specifically what the FAQ was titled when it was originally posted. So there really was a RAGELANCEPOUNCE FAQ.
Now that you mention it I kind of remember that.
Still, when you look at the answer in light of what was actually asked:
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.
The question never mentions being mounted. Now the whole community may have been very familiar with the ragelancepounce combo and very aware that this question was meant to determine if that particular combo was legal, but I always thought it looked like SKR was answering the question in a vacuum exactly as it was put to him, without the context of the greater debate.
Maybe he did this innocently (question pops up in faq que, gets considered at face value) or maybe he was being a little sly. Who knows, but the answer only seems to make sense to me if it is addressing the question that was actually asked rather then the question we all knew was intended.
The question asks about a barbarian with pounce charging with a lance but it never mentions a mount at all. Do the iteratives get the multiplier? SKR's answer, to me, just read "no, of course not, lances only multiply if you're on a charging mount."
I realize he later went on to make remarks that explicitly stated a pc on a charging mount wasn't charging, but he didn't say so in this FAQ, if you look at it closely. The rest was just message board comments that he probably didn't consider the implications of carefully enough.
I don't blame anyone for arriving at their own conclusions about the implications of his remarks but I also don't really think the dev team is flip-flopping here so much as they are just clarifying how they have envisioned it to work all along.
Hmh. Since Ride is specifically called out as an exception to the "can't use Int/Wis/Cha skills during a rage", I'd suggest that the expection of the rules writers in general is that you only need to use Ride when riding, and not Handle Animal, even though that's not actually specified anywhere.
Sorry, I haven't gotten any sleep in over 24 hours and am dealing with people who seem determined to ignore the rules as they please while simultaneously telling me how the rules work.
Tons? You gots one, maybe. The griffin rider sez "The fighter flies above the battlefield taking passes with her lance, never flying lower than 10 feet above the ground." where does it say they charge? Even so the FAQ doesnt say they can't charge. Not even close.
Unless you're pinning your whole idea on Handle Animal? Don't need it with the Figurine "The creature obeys and serves its owner. Unless stated otherwise, the creature understands Common but does not speak."
|
Design Manager
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmh. Since Ride is specifically called out as an exception to the "can't use Int/Wis/Cha skills during a rage", I'd suggest that the expection of the rules writers in general is that you only need to use Ride when riding, and not Handle Animal, even though that's not actually specified anywhere.
Which is why I've said several times that this requires a further FAQ. Ride doesn't actually allow you to make any of the commands that you can make with Handle Animal, and often references Combat Training, which is a specific packet of Handle Animal tricks.
I've said it a bunch of times now, but Mounted Combat didn't need one little FAQ that addressed one specific action. It needed massive reconstructive surgery that addressed all of the ancillary items, including the Ride and Handle Animal skills, followed by nice comprehensive blog post that went over how they envision it working at length.
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?...
I suppose I was trying to find a way within the rules to make everyone happy by keeping the handle animal check and the ability to make a mounted charge on a non-animal companion, as earlier parts of the thread had me believe that, for instance, the dragoon wouldn't be able to work without it. Double-checking the Dragoon, none of its class actually features require a mounted charge, so that's a moot point.
But just to elaborate on the thought processes behind my babble: The other uses of the ride skill offer an alternative outcome of a rule or consequences described elsewhere (spur mount increases speed beyond what its stats says) or spell out the consequences of failing (if you fail to control your mount in battle, your entire turn is wasted).
The only exceptions to this are stay in saddle and fight with a combat-trained mount. It should maybe be obvious that it means that you can't take any attacks after directing your mount if you fail that check, but the words "as normally" threw me off and had me think that maybe the text was to be taken as contradicting a more general rule. Seeing nothing to imply that you normally can't attack after directing your mount to attack, the only thing that fit the bill was to say that it refers to "attacking normally as if you hadn't directed your mount".
Maybe fighters just weren't meant to make mounted charges... what a sad reality to be facing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IMO, Paizo would be better served by making the mounted charge it's own action, rather than trying to blend it with the standard charge rules. Have it so to charge while mounted (et al), you merge actions of the rider and mount (so it isn't two actions but only 1). I believe this is intent of the "act in unison" part of the FAQ clarification. The next step is to clarify which traits/feats/class features that affect mounted charges and how. For example, which feats work and don't work unless the rider or mount has them, etc.
Guess this NPC can't do what its statblock says it does during combat
Yes. That's the whole point of discussion here, that such a character now can't do the things they are supposed to be able to do. It's why this is such a heated discussion, because it makes tons of existing rules and material unworkable.
Or maybe the ride skill does the same thing it has always done.Which is what exactly? What is it you think the ride skill has always done?
**small edits to above quote to keep it friendly up in hurr**Sorry, I haven't gotten any sleep in over 24 hours and am dealing with people who seem determined to ignore the rules as they please while simultaneously telling me how the rules work.Tons? You gots one, maybe. The griffin rider sez "The fighter flies above the battlefield taking passes with her lance, never flying lower than 10 feet above the ground." where does it say they charge? Even so the FAQ doesnt say they can't charge. Not even close.
Unless you're pinning your whole idea on Handle Animal? Don't need it with the Figurine "The creature obeys and serves its owner. Unless stated otherwise, the creature understands Common but does not speak."
Thanks, Dr Deth.
|
Design Manager
|
DD, could you repair your quote? It looks like I'm the one saying "Sorry, I haven't gotten any sleep in over 24 hours and am dealing with people who seem determined to ignore the rules as they please while simultaneously telling me how the rules work" when that's actually not the case. Thanks!
Guess this one can't do what its stat block says either
That's correct again. Thanks for helping tag down all of the places these rules created issues, I know my list was far from comprehensive.
On the upside, the really good news here is that you've solved the RAGELANCEPOUNCE issue. A barbarian cannot make Handle Animal checks while Raging, and they only get Pounce when they Rage, so that's one problem out of the way. Although I guess they could still use Moment of Clarity or make their check and then Rage...
This also creates some issues with the Mad Dog Barbarian archetype which definitely didn't take that little issue into account.
So one problem kind of halfway solved and a whole new problem identified.
The issue still remains, if you have to use handle animal to charge, then a raging barbarian can't do this. The FAQ didn't change this. If this actually was a problem (it's not), then it would have been a problem a long time ago.
|
Design Manager
|
The issue still remains, if you have to use handle animal to charge, then a raging barbarian can't do this. The FAQ didn't change this. If this actually was a problem (it's not), then it would have been a problem a long time ago.
Go read the pages and pages of threads on mounted combat. It was a problem a long time ago, and as is readily apparent from even a casual perusal, even the devs don't all agree on how it works. The only problem is that even more stuff is now unusable, contradictory, or has some other issues associated with it. It is readily apparent that SKR firmly believed that the mount was the one charging, not the rider, and SKR had as much experience in game and rules design as any other Paizo staffer, if not more. If a guy who has worked on the game for a couple decades believed the thing to be true and had rules and FAQs backing it up, and then a compeltely different interpretation is announced, that's pretty indicative of a systemic issue. I will also note that every player I've played with thought it was blatantly obvious that the mount was the one charging and the rider had their own actions, and I've played with a lot of very savvy people, and quite a few not-so-savvy people.
The issue still remains, if you have to use handle animal to charge, then a raging barbarian can't do this. The FAQ didn't change this. If this actually was a problem (it's not), then it would have been a problem a long time ago.Go read the pages and pages of threads on mounted combat. It was a problem a long time ago, and as is readily apparent from even a casual perusal, even the devs don't all agree on how it works. The only problem is that even more stuff is now unusable, contradictory, or has some other issues associated with it. It is readily apparent that SKR firmly believed that the mount was the one charging, not the rider, and SKR had as much experience in game and rules design as any other Paizo staffer, if not more. If a guy who has worked on the game for a couple decades believed the thing to be true and had rules and FAQs backing it up, and then a compeltely different interpretation is announced, that's pretty indicative of a systemic issue. I will also note that every player I've played with thought it was blatantly obvious that the mount was the one charging and the rider had their own actions, and I've played with a lot of very savvy people, and quite a few not-so-savvy people.
Even if you separate the mount and rider's actions, that doesn't change the fact that you don't use handle animal to control your mount in battle. If you did then the rage powers for mounts that were released in APG are unusable and have always been unusable since the barbarian can't control his mount due to his inability to use the handle animal skill while raging.
|
Design Manager
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yep, Barbarians can't charge on mounts. Which at a glance is pretty bad, but maybe it was intended as a balancing factor. Or maybe the intent was that Mounted Fury barbs would use their free action to command their mount to charge before raging and then use moment of clarity if they needed to give additional commands. Or maybe the mounted combat system was, is, and has been so convoluted that even many of the writers don't really get how they're supposed to work, or overlooked things like the fact that Barbarians can't make Handle Animal checks in combat, like they forgot with the Mad Dog. It certainly wouldn't be the first mistake they made. I've got a copy of the NPC Codex you've been linking to that shows characters combining Vital Strike and Spring Attack, and there had been a FAQ on that for years before the book was even written.
Yep, Barbarians can't charge on mounts. Which at a glance is pretty bad, but maybe it was intended as a balancing factor. Or maybe the intent was that Mounted Fury barbs would use their free action to command their mount to charge before raging and then use moment of clarity if they needed to give additional commands. Or maybe the mounted combat system was, is, and has been so convoluted that even many of the writers don't really get how they're supposed to work, or overlooked things like the fact that Barbarians can't make Handle Animal checks in combat, like they forgot with the Mad Dog. It certainly wouldn't be the first mistake they made. I've got a copy of the NPC Codex you've been linking to that shows characters combining Vital Strike and Spring Attack, and there had been a FAQ on that for years before the book was even written.
Not talking about Mounted Fury. Talking specifically about the rage powers for mounts. Ferocious Mount, Ferocious Trample, Spirit Steed. Let me guess, those rage powers are only usable by the Mounted Fury archetype? Please...
The mounted fury can also put one of the mount's ability increases into int. This unlocks the potential for the animal to understand language, and after a single skill rank placed in linguistics to teach it common, or whichever language you prefer, you can just tell it what to do without handle animal.
|
Design Manager
|
Or a barbarian using Moment of Clarity, yeah. Your defense of your stance seems to be "it doesn't work otherwise" which is pretty much the same point we're making. It doesn't work, it hasn't worked, it's worse now than ever, and it needs to be fixed.
Why are you being rude and derogatory to people who are trying to fix what's broken? Just because you don't think there's a problem doesn't mean that many more people recognize an issue and want it repaired, for everyone's benefit. If you really think Ride does something that nothing in the rules says it does, you'd think you be just as eager for an answer to prove you right.
Should we just get this over with and FAQ it? I think we've reached the point where we are getting nowhere.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Using common sense to overlook obvious peccadillos in the system is what we were doing before. SKR ans JJ showed us how. Now a ruling comes up combined with a stern warning to rely only on official cannon, not forum posts no matter who they come from. Now, we're being told, "Please, use common sense." Uh, sure, lemme get right on that.
|
Design Manager
|
Incorrect. A charge is a "special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action." However, the rules are very clear: "after moving, you may make a single melee attack." There is no obligation to make the attack, and a charge is not an attack action or any variation thereof, it is a "special full-round action."You can charge without attacking, you can order your mount to charge without ordering it to attack. Period.
Period nothing. Go open up your CRB or the PRD and go to the Combat section, then flick over to the section labeled "Special ATTACKS". The first item listed is Charge. You know what else Charge has to have? A target. Hard to target something if you're not making an attack.
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.
What.
Using common sense to overlook obvious peccadillos in the system is what we were doing before. SKR ans JJ showed us how. Now a ruling comes up combined with a stern warning to rely only on official cannon, not forum posts no matter who they come from. Now, we're being told, "Please, use common sense." Uh, sure, lemme get right on that.
You speak as if "only use book text and offical FAQs as official rules text, not forum posts" and "use common sense when adjudicating the rules" are somehow mutually exclusive. They aren't.
+1 for using the word "peccadillo", though. : D
Should we just get this over with and FAQ it? I think we've reached the point where we are getting nowhere.
Yes. It's certainly more productive than making dozens of posts whining about it. (Note: Not directed at anybody in particular.)
+1 for using the word "peccadillo", though. : D
*blush*
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know, the "it's totally obvious. Just use common sense" were a number of the reactions to the first FAQ.
I suspect, that some of those same people, are saying the exact same thing, with this FAQ.
The worst, are those few who do it, on high horse, with nothing but mocking and snide remarks for those who are confused.
Hell, those same guys, were saying the exact same thing when the Free Action FAQ came out, and that thing got changed in less than a week, with a full on Dev apology.
|
Period nothing. Go open up your CRB or the PRD and go to the Combat section, then flick over to the section labeled "Special ATTACKS". The first item listed is Charge.
Incorrect. A charge is a "special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action." However, the rules are very clear: "after moving, you may make a single melee attack." There is no obligation to make the attack, and a charge is not an attack action or any variation thereof, it is a "special full-round action."You can charge without attacking, you can order your mount to charge without ordering it to attack. Period.
Wait, seriously? You're using Section Headings as your rules text? While ignoring the actual rules text? Ohhhhhkay.
Well no, actually, it isn't the first item listed. The first item is Aid Another, which is rather explicitly more than just an attack. I also note the presence of the Feint action in that section, which is also not an attack. So I'm really not sure what you're proving with this approach.
You know what else Charge has to have? A target. Hard to target something if you're not making an attack.
No wonder no one likes it when I cast cure light wounds on them. I thought it was because I was calling them weenies for needing healing, but it was actually that I was making an attack on them! It all makes so much sense right now!
...
Yeah, okay. Have fun tilting at your windmill, sir. I hope you get whatever it is you are looking for.
|
Design Manager
|
Aid another is a Special Attack. It's under the special attacks section and other abilities even refer to it as such. In fact, the Tactician Fighter archetype specifically states "When using the Aid Another special attack..."
So, yeah, charging is an attack. That's why it's in the combat section with the other special attacks, and that's why it has to have a target. If you tried to use Cure Light Wounds against an unwilling opponent, you know what that would be? Also an attack. So unless your argument is that you can charge a willing creature and it's not an attack because they want it... I'm not certain I see your point.
Fortunately, my Don Quixote is a Cavalier with ranks in Handle Animal, so when he goes for that windmill, it'll actually be with a mounted charge. Thank goodness he's not a dragoon....
You know what else Charge has to have? A target. Hard to target something if you're not making an attack.No wonder no one likes it when I cast cure light wounds on them. I thought it was because I was calling them weenies for needing healing, but it was actually that I was making an attack on them! It all makes so sense!
Not an apt comparison at all. Was this just meant to be cute?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
ok. here is the "head of the nail" that i see everyone swinging a hammer at and missing. except 1 person, Ssalarn, who keeps nailing the sucker (at least from where i am sitting):
people keep assuming that making a ride check would allow you to command your mount to attack. (weather this was the intent or not is irrelevant) it does not. it allows you to still be able to attack. to tell any creature to attack, including a mount, the only skill that states that you can use it to do so is Handle Animal.
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.
nowhere in that part of the ride skill does it say that directing your mount to attack is part of that check. it only says that when you succeed that check you, the rider, can attack as normal. it does not include directing your mount as part of the check. the check to "direct your mount to attack" is listed under handle animal, here:
and then goes on to list this trick:
further, the skill states the following:
Varies. Handling an animal is a move action, while “pushing” an animal is a full-round action. (A druid or ranger can handle her animal companion as a free action or push it as a move action.) For tasks with specific time frames noted above, you must spend half this time (at the rate of 3 hours per day per animal being handled) working toward completion of the task before you attempt the Handle Animal check. If the check fails, your attempt to teach, rear, or train the animal fails and you need not complete the teaching, rearing, or training time. If the check succeeds, you must invest the remainder of the time to complete the teaching, rearing, or training. If the time is interrupted or the task is not followed through to completion, the attempt to teach, rear, or train the animal automatically fails.
now: given that all those rules have NOT changed with the new FAQ, what HAS changed, is that when you wish to take an attack and receive the bonus to it granted from the mount when it charges, you are now also charging. this is important because
1) a charge is a special attack listed under attacks in the combat section, and thus to command your mount to charge, you are commanding it to attack, which is a move action.
2) if you wish to take the bonus from your mount charging, you must also be considered charging, and as per the rules on charging, you can only do so with a full-round action which you no longer have because you wasted a move action on commanding your mount to charge.
the only possible way to make this rules legal (action economy wise) is by somehow having an additional move action within the round such as granted by the 'Quick Runners Shirt'.
EVEN IF you were NOT trying to charge, but still wanted your mount to charge while you took a full round action to, say, shoot a bow, now you cannot do so unless you can make the above mentioned handle animal check as a free or swift action.
so to summarize the argument: in order to "Fight with a Combat-trained Mount" as per the rules (which have not changed) you need two checks, First a Handle Animal Check, THEN a Ride check. this has ALWAYS been the case, it has never changed. but what HAS changed is that you now CANNOT make the handle animal check and be "considered charging" because you legally do not have the action economy to do so.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
people keep assuming that making a ride check would allow you to command your mount to attack. (weather this was the intent or not is irrelevant) it does not. it allows you to still be able to attack. to tell any creature to attack, including a mount, the only skill that states that you can use it to do so is Handle Animal.
This is correct. It's a little clumsily written (as are the rules), but here's what it means-
If you have the appropriate ride skill and a combat trained mount, when you spend a Move action to direct your Mount to attack you effectively get your move action back if you succeed the check.
If you fail the check, you still spend your move action, and basically lose it.
That's the perk of being well trained in mounted combat.
So, if you direct your mount to attack and succeed the, you still have your full round action left.
If you fail, you're down to just a standard left.
It's weird, but that seems to be the way it works. Hopefully the Dev team will revisit this issue so that it is less convoluted, or explain it better to reduce the confusion.
people keep assuming that making a ride check would allow you to command your mount to attack. (weather this was the intent or not is irrelevant) it does not. it allows you to still be able to attack. to tell any creature to attack, including a mount, the only skill that states that you can use it to do so is Handle Animal.This is correct. It's a little clumsily written (as are the rules), but here's what it means-
If you have the appropriate ride skill and a combat trained mount, when you spend a Move action to direct your Mount to attack you effectively get your move action back if you succeed the check.
If you fail the check, you still spend your move action, and basically lose it.
That's the perk of being well trained in mounted combat.
So, if you direct your mount to attack and succeed the, you still have your full round action left.
If you fail, you're down to just a standard left.
It's weird, but that seems to be the way it works.
that is on HELL of a 'reading into' that you are doing....perhaps you should bold the text in that rule where is makes mention of "getting your move action back"...
|
Design Manager
|
He is the second person to reach that conclusion though, which really underscores who out of whack the rules are. You're looking at three different interpretations, at least, all with varying degrees of validity and rules support. The funny thing about that interpretation is that it actually has the most rules support for a reading that actually makes the system functional.
Not that it has the most rules support period, but that it does the best job of trying to find a solution in the existing rules that makes mounted combat viable.
I don't see many people agreeing with that though, as it is a fairly big leap.
So let me get this straight, every time you guys make a mounted charge you roll handle animal to make the horse charge (with the attack trick?), then you make a ride check to see if you can still make your own attacks?
That's a lot of rolls. In my games a mounted charge, charge while mounted, and attack from the back of a mount is all the same thing. Double move and make an attack at the end, +2 to hit, double damage with a lance. Works fine for us.
We use handle animal when we want the horse to actually bite or hoof stomp something.
So let me get this straight, every time you guys make a mounted charge you roll handle animal to make the horse charge (with the attack trick?), then you make a ride check to see if you can still make your own attacks?
That's a lot of rolls. In my games a mounted charge, charge while mounted, and attack from the back of a mount is all the same thing. Double move and make an attack at the end, +2 to hit, double damage with a lance. Works fine for us.
We use handle animal when we want the horse to actually bite or hoof stomp something.
That's a very reasonable house rule, but this is the forum for discussing the official RAW.
I understand that he wants the rules to work, and thus reads the rules in a way that makes them work, but you still can't make a magic missile cause a nuclear explosion just because it uses the word "missile" in the spell. You have to use the English language to interpret the words. The fact still remained that "fighting with a combat-trained mount" doesn't include any wording about directing your mount to attack. He is implying that it does without any proof. I want mounted charging and mounted everything in pathfinder to work just like everyone else, but adding things into the rules with fiat is not how to do it. The rules need to work on their own before you start changing them to suit your own game and play style with fiat.
So let me get this straight, every time you guys make a mounted charge you roll handle animal to make the horse charge (with the attack trick?), then you make a ride check to see if you can still make your own attacks?
That's a lot of rolls. In my games a mounted charge, charge while mounted, and attack from the back of a mount is all the same thing. Double move and make an attack at the end, +2 to hit, double damage with a lance. Works fine for us.
We use handle animal when we want the horse to actually bite or hoof stomp something.
I think perhaps you are failing to understand that if your mount charges, not only can you make an attack from its back, but it ALSO attacks at the end of the charge...that's how it has always worked. If you agent taking an attack for the mount when charging while mounted, you are gimping yourself in damage output...
[Edit] if the dev's wanted you and your mount to combine action economy while making a mounted charge so that the mount does the moving and you do the attacking, they could have worded it that way, they did not, which leads to the reasonable determination that that was not how they wanted it to work.
How then does ride-by attack work with a mounted charge O.o?
Simple, it changes WHEN in the charge you make YOUR attack. It doesn't clarify weather this feat modifies when the mounts attack occurs, nor does it state that the mount is even making a charge, only that you are.
There was no issue with that before because before you could be charging while your mount was not and vice versa.
|
Design Manager
|
So let me get this straight, every time you guys make a mounted charge you roll handle animal to make the horse charge (with the attack trick?), then you make a ride check to see if you can still make your own attacks?
That's a lot of rolls. In my games a mounted charge, charge while mounted, and attack from the back of a mount is all the same thing. Double move and make an attack at the end, +2 to hit, double damage with a lance. Works fine for us.
We use handle animal when we want the horse to actually bite or hoof stomp something.
Generally my players (or myself) ensure that we invest enough in our skills and equipment that we don't actually have to roll except maybe during the first couple levels, but yeah, if there's a chance of failure we make the Handle Animal check followed by the Ride check. Fortunately, if you have an animal companion you get a +4 to the handle animal checks. The Cavalier gets a further bonus of half his level thanks to Expert Trainer, so it's usually not an issue. It's a little bit harder for the classes that don't have an Animal Companion or don't class bonuses, so they generally end up actually having to roll a bit more often.
Generally my players (or myself) ensure that we invest enough in our skills and equipment that we don't actually have to roll except maybe during the first couple levels, but yeah, if there's a chance of failure we make the Handle Animal check followed by the Ride check. Fortunately, if you have an animal companion you get a +4 to the handle animal checks. The Cavalier gets a further bonus of half his level thanks to Expert Trainer, so it's usually not an issue. It's a little bit harder for the classes that don't have an Animal Companion or don't class bonuses, so they generally end up actually having to roll a bit more often.So let me get this straight, every time you guys make a mounted charge you roll handle animal to make the horse charge (with the attack trick?), then you make a ride check to see if you can still make your own attacks?
That's a lot of rolls. In my games a mounted charge, charge while mounted, and attack from the back of a mount is all the same thing. Double move and make an attack at the end, +2 to hit, double damage with a lance. Works fine for us.
We use handle animal when we want the horse to actually bite or hoof stomp something.
bet even still, if you arnt making the checks because its not possible to fail, you still cant alter the action required to use it. so a handle animal check of 20 when your modifier is 24 is still a move action for telling your mount to charge.
|
Design Manager
|
bet even still, if you arnt making the checks because its not possible to fail, you still cant alter the action required to use it. so a handle animal check of 20 when your modifier is 24 is still a move action for telling your mount to charge.
That's correct. Even if you can auto-pass the check you still have to spend the appropriate actions.
Ok I was just curious because that seems like it would bog things down a bit too much for the tastes of my group but I'm running a PbP where I've been trying to stick mostly to RAW so everyone's on the same page.
So mounted combat focused characters generally get those skills up to auto-success levels so there isn't a headache inducing number of rolls involved, that makes sense.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People need to read the mounted combat rules, as well as the skill.
Your mount acts on your initiative count as you direct it. You move at its speed, but the mount uses its action to move.
There is no skill or action needed to direct a combat trained mount in combat.
|
Design Manager
|
Ok I was just curious because that seems like it would bog things down a bit too much for the tastes of my group but I'm running a PbP where I've been trying to stick mostly to RAW so everyone's on the same page.
So mounted combat focused characters generally get those skills up to auto-success levels so there isn't a headache inducing number of rolls involved, that makes sense.
Yeah, the DCs are generally pretty low, so it's super easy for classes that are intrinsically intended to do it (Cavalier, Druid, Ranger, etc.) since they get all kinds of built in bonuses, and usually Fighters either have a feat to spend on Skill Focus or pick those two skills to focus on.