The FAQ broke mounted characters. Do these archetypes even work anymore?


Rules Questions

151 to 200 of 243 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Grimmy wrote:

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.

of course. would you play a stealthy rogue or ninja that has a terrible stealth check? of course not. every sneaky character i've ever played has been unable to fail a stealth check past level 5 because hes bumped his modifier up so high (and is usually using invisibility to add +20) that any roll he makes could be a 1 and still succeed.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

FLite wrote:

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.

That covers movement and movement only. It doesn't account for commanding it to attack or perform other actions (Charge specifically being an attack).

As I pointed out earlier, there's other weird issues as well, like the fact that you can't spur your mount during a charge. How bonkers is it that you can't spur your mount during a charge?


Shimesen wrote:


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...

We had one player who used to have his horse attack at the end of the charge but everyone would always groan and he eventually stopped.


Grimmy wrote:
Shimesen wrote:


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...

We had one player who used to have his horse attack at the end of the charge but everyone would always groan and he eventually stopped.

why? because the rest of the group didn't like it? that doesn't mean it wasn't perfectly legal...


FLite wrote:

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.

if you are taking the above bolded part of what you said literally, then please explain to me how "Fight with a combat-trained mount" has a DC 10 ride check associated with it...

like Ssalarn said, directing the mount only involves movement, not attacks.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Grimmy wrote:


We had one player who used to have his horse attack at the end of the charge but everyone would always groan and he eventually stopped.

I remember in PFS when my horse consistently out-performed my Fighter in and out of combat due to the general awesomeness of horses and some bad rolls. The horse was always the one freaking out because of making Perception checks to detect things like wild animals stalking us, and two hoof attacks at level one from a critter with the same Strength score as an optimized Fighter is pretty solid.

On the mount making attacks in general though, remember that that is actually very historically accurate. Those bastards are death machines, and there's probably been at least as many men killed by hooves as there have been by lances in the history of the world.


Ride Skill wrote:


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 indicates that if you make a successful DC 10 Ride check, directing a mount to attack is a free action.

How do you direct a mount to attack? By making a Handle Animal check.

Using the Handle Animal skill is normally a Move action, but if you succeed on a DC 10 Ride check, it becomes a Free action.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shimesen wrote:
FLite wrote:

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.

if you are taking the above bolded part of what you said literally, then please explain to me how "Fight with a combat-trained mount" has a DC 10 ride check associated with it...

like Ssalarn said, directing the mount only involves movement, not attacks.

because fight with combat trained mount does what it says in the rules. If you direct your mount to attack, you need to make a skill roll to attack as well.


Yeah there was some general protesting about "why is this horse the best member of the party" at low levels but that was actually more of a running joke and source of amusement.

The reaction illicited by the bite attack with the mounted charge was different though, those were more like "party foul" groans.

No one claimed it was illegal, or even cheesy, something about it just felt wrong as a routine occurrence.


Doomed Hero wrote:
Ride Skill wrote:


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 indicates that if you make a successful DC 10 Ride check, directing a mount to attack is a free action.

How do you direct a mount to attack? By making a Handle Animal check.

Using the Handle Animal skill is normally a Move action, but if you succeed on a DC 10 Ride check, it becomes a Free action.

the bold parts after the period (this usage is a free action) is referring to the usage of the ride check, not the handle animal skill. if it were the latter, it would be worded like so:

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 of the Handle Animal Skill is a free action.


Riddle me this, what trick do you use to get your mount to move in combat without attacking. What trick makes your mount move 20 feet in a specific direction?


Robert A Matthews wrote:
Riddle me this, what trick do you use to get your mount to move in combat without attacking. What trick makes your mount move 20 feet in a specific direction?

Ahh my friend, now you are beginning to grasp the difference between handle animal and ride as desperate skills. Directing your mount to move in combat is not a handle animal trick, its a ride check. This is a check you also do not even have to make if your mount is combat-trained...


Shimesen wrote:
Robert A Matthews wrote:
Riddle me this, what trick do you use to get your mount to move in combat without attacking. What trick makes your mount move 20 feet in a specific direction?
Ahh my friend, now you are beginning to grasp the difference between handle animal and ride as desperate skills. Directing your mount to move in combat is not a handle animal trick, its a ride check. This is a check you also do not even have to make if your mount is combat-trained...

Ok which use of the ride skill are you using. What is the DC to make your mount move 20 feet in a specific direction?

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Grimmy wrote:

Yeah there was some general protesting about "why is this horse the best member of the party" at low levels but that was actually more of a running joke and source of amusement.

It's a common joke. I've also heard it a lot at PFS events where the pregens are commonly used. The Samurai's mount is the best pregen in the bunch :)

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Robert A Matthews wrote:


Ok which use of the ride skill are you using. What is the DC to make your mount move 20 feet in a specific direction?

It's actually not even a Ride check, it's a general disclaimer under the mounted combat section of the CRB. Directing your mount to move, just normal movement, is not any kind of check at all.


Ssalarn wrote:
Robert A Matthews wrote:


Ok which use of the ride skill are you using. What is the DC to make your mount move 20 feet in a specific direction?
It's actually not even a Ride check, it's a general disclaimer under the mounted combat section of the CRB. Directing your mount to move, just normal movement, is not any kind of check at all.

Oh? Could you quote the relevant text that says that?

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Robert A Matthews wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
Robert A Matthews wrote:


Ok which use of the ride skill are you using. What is the DC to make your mount move 20 feet in a specific direction?
It's actually not even a Ride check, it's a general disclaimer under the mounted combat section of the CRB. Directing your mount to move, just normal movement, is not any kind of check at all.
Oh? Could you quote the relevant text that says that?

Yep. "You move at its speed, but the mount uses its action to move." You get to dictate the movement, but the mount uses its action.


Ssalarn wrote:
Robert A Matthews wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
Robert A Matthews wrote:


Ok which use of the ride skill are you using. What is the DC to make your mount move 20 feet in a specific direction?
It's actually not even a Ride check, it's a general disclaimer under the mounted combat section of the CRB. Directing your mount to move, just normal movement, is not any kind of check at all.
Oh? Could you quote the relevant text that says that?

Yep. "You move at its speed, but the mount uses its action to move." You get to dictate the movement, but the mount uses its action.

"Your mount acts on your initiative count as you direct it. You move at its speed, but the mount uses its action to move."

It acts as you direct it. If having your mount attack requires a handle animal check then why no handle animal check for movement?


Robert A Matthews wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
Robert A Matthews wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
Robert A Matthews wrote:


Ok which use of the ride skill are you using. What is the DC to make your mount move 20 feet in a specific direction?
It's actually not even a Ride check, it's a general disclaimer under the mounted combat section of the CRB. Directing your mount to move, just normal movement, is not any kind of check at all.
Oh? Could you quote the relevant text that says that?

Yep. "You move at its speed, but the mount uses its action to move." You get to dictate the movement, but the mount uses its action.

"Your mount acts on your initiative count as you direct it. You move at its speed, but the mount uses its action to move."

It acts as you direct it. If having your mount attack requires a handle animal check then why no handle animal check for movement?

You keep passive aggressively trying to get us to arrive at the answer you want, but it's not working. No handle animal check is required for movement, because the rules don't require a handle animal check for movement, and they definitely, specifically do for making your animal attack. You're not going to get, "because ride supercedes handle animal," because the rules don't say that.

@Thymus Vulgaris: I'm sorry I was so snippy and rude earlier. Like I told Ssalarn, no sleep. Plus I thought you were just trolling, I didn't realize you were trying to find a way to make mounted combat work and thought instead you were just trying to pass off your suggestions as how it does work.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Robert A Matthews wrote:


It acts as you direct it. If having your mount attack requires a handle animal check then why no handle animal check for movement?

Exactly, it acts as you direct it, and the rules for directing animals and mounts are detailed in the Handle Animal skill, and to a lesser extent the Ride skill. Fortunately they put that second sentence in there to clarify that you direct the movement and the mount uses its action, otherwise there'd be a bit of a hole there, wouldn't there?


Shimesen wrote:
Doomed Hero wrote:
Ride Skill wrote:


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 indicates that if you make a successful DC 10 Ride check, directing a mount to attack is a free action.

How do you direct a mount to attack? By making a Handle Animal check.

Using the Handle Animal skill is normally a Move action, but if you succeed on a DC 10 Ride check, it becomes a Free action.

the bold parts after the period (this usage is a free action) is referring to the usage of the ride check, not the handle animal skill. if it were the latter, it would be worded like so:

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 of the Handle Animal Skill is a free action.

I really hope you are right. I want you to be right. That would make everything a lot simpler, and in my games that is absolutely the way I will do it.

I'm pretty sure that for PFS it's going to be a different story once this is all sorted out.


Ssalarn wrote:


the rules for directing animals and mounts are detailed in the Handle Animal skill,

If the "Handle Animal" is meant to apply to mounts, just because they are animals, how do they know where you are pointing?

"You may point to a particular creature that you wish the animal to attack, and it will comply if able. "

If you are on top of a mount it will not see what you are pointing at. Rules-As-Written you therefore cannot command a mount to attack unless you dismount, get in the line-of-sight, and direct it with pointing.

My 2 cents is that use of handle animal is not meant for riding. You use handle animal to train your mount; you use ride to ride it. If you are not on top of your mount you would use handle animal to direct it.

This seems natural, logical, and consistent with the rules.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MachOneGames wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:


the rules for directing animals and mounts are detailed in the Handle Animal skill,

If the "Handle Animal" is meant to apply to mounts, just because they are animals, how do they know where you are pointing?

"You may point to a particular creature that you wish the animal to attack, and it will comply if able. "

If you are on top of a mount it will not see what you are pointing at. Rules-As-Written you therefore cannot command a mount to attack unless you dismount, get in the line-of-sight, and direct it with pointing.

My 2 cents is that use of handle animal is not meant for riding. You use handle animal to train your mount; you use ride to ride it. If you are not on top of your mount you would use handle animal to direct it.

This seems natural, logical, and consistent with the rules.

Unless you're really, really tiny, I'm pretty sure you can point in such a way as to let your mount see what you're pointing at.


"I'm pretty sure you can point in such a way as to let your mount see what you're pointing at."

Can I see a drawing or picture of what that would look like?

The mount has to be able to trace the path of your finger to the target. Horses have eyes on the sides of their head. You might be able to get the animal to see your finger, but that isn't nearly the same thing. In the cases that you could wouldn't you be distracting your horse? Forcing it to turn its head up and expose its neck to the enemy.

This is the kind of absurd argument people make when they cling to an idea. You direct your horse by riding not pointing.


Anyone who's ever ridden a horse can tell you that its not hard to lean forward and point in front of a horses head. Is it "easy" to do? No. Buts possible, and we are arguing about a well trained horse with a highly trained rider. Also you are not taking into account that not all mounts have a horse like shape. A gryphon has a much shorter neck and its head would be much closer to you and therefore easier to defect in this way.

As to the relevant text for directing a mounts movement, its here:

Control Mount in Battle
As a move action, you can attempt to control a light horse, pony, heavy horse, or other mount not trained for combat riding while in battle. If you fail the Ride check, you can do nothing else in that round. You do not need to roll for horses or ponies trained for combat.

Notice what while you are using the mounts speed to move, you are still using your move action to make it do so. The exception is a combat trained mount. It then is no longer needed to roll and is auto-success. This is relevant because it now allows you to have the horse move and still direct it to attack with your move action via handle animal. To have a non-combat trained mount both move and attack in the same round, it requires a double move action which means the rider cannot attack.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

@MOG
Actually, if you look at the Ride and Handle Animal skills, there's very little overlap between them. Ride is pretty much always something you do while mounted, and Handle Animal covers things you want the animal to do. Just read the skills. Ride = you do stuff , Handle Animal = the animal does stuff.

I also don't think "pointing" with the reins is a crazy idea by any stretch of the imagination.


Shimesen wrote:

Anyone who's ever ridden a horse can tell you that its not hard to lean forward and point in front of a horses head. Is it "easy" to do? No. Buts possible, and we are arguing about a well trained horse with a highly trained rider. Also you are not taking into account that not all mounts have a horse like shape. A gryphon has a much shorter neck and its head would be much closer to you and therefore easier to defect in this way.

As to the relevant text for directing a mounts movement, its here:

Control Mount in Battle
As a move action, you can attempt to control a light horse, pony, heavy horse, or other mount not trained for combat riding while in battle. If you fail the Ride check, you can do nothing else in that round. You do not need to roll for horses or ponies trained for combat.

Gryphons also have an int of 5 and can understand common.


This is why I just prefer to ride party members.


Edited my last post and added a paragraph.


Shimesen wrote:

Anyone who's ever ridden a horse can tell you that its not hard to lean forward and point in front of a horses head. Is it "easy" to do? No. Buts possible, and we are arguing about a well trained horse with a highly trained rider. Also you are not taking into account that not all mounts have a horse like shape. A gryphon has a much shorter neck and its head would be much closer to you and therefore easier to defect in this way.

As to the relevant text for directing a mounts movement, its here:

Control Mount in Battle
As a move action, you can attempt to control a light horse, pony, heavy horse, or other mount not trained for combat riding while in battle. If you fail the Ride check, you can do nothing else in that round. You do not need to roll for horses or ponies trained for combat.

Notice what while you are using the mounts speed to move, you are still using your move action to make it do so. The exception is a combat trained mount. It then is no longer needed to roll and is auto-success. This is relevant because it now allows you to have the horse move and still direct it to attack with your move action via handle animal. To have a non-combat trained mount both move and attack in the same round, it requires a double move action which means the rider cannot attack.

If you have to spend a move action to control your mount in battle using the ride skill AND you have to spend a move action to use handle animal, then how is it that you ever get any actions while mounted since it apparently costs 2 move actions per round to make your mount do what you want?

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Chaotic Fighter wrote:
This is why I just prefer to ride party members.

Right? They get to use your initiative and you can always slap the Fighter upside the head and point at the enemy if they fail their Perception check.

Plus, you can always give them that extra little nudge with the "Spur your mount" command. It's like a free buff spell!


Robert A Matthews wrote:
Shimesen wrote:

Anyone who's ever ridden a horse can tell you that its not hard to lean forward and point in front of a horses head. Is it "easy" to do? No. Buts possible, and we are arguing about a well trained horse with a highly trained rider. Also you are not taking into account that not all mounts have a horse like shape. A gryphon has a much shorter neck and its head would be much closer to you and therefore easier to defect in this way.

As to the relevant text for directing a mounts movement, its here:

Control Mount in Battle
As a move action, you can attempt to control a light horse, pony, heavy horse, or other mount not trained for combat riding while in battle. If you fail the Ride check, you can do nothing else in that round. You do not need to roll for horses or ponies trained for combat.

Notice what while you are using the mounts speed to move, you are still using your move action to make it do so. The exception is a combat trained mount. It then is no longer needed to roll and is auto-success. This is relevant because it now allows you to have the horse move and still direct it to attack with your move action via handle animal. To have a non-combat trained mount both move and attack in the same round, it requires a double move action which means the rider cannot attack.

If you have to spend a move action to control your mount in battle using the ride skill AND you have to spend a move action to use handle animal, then how is it that you ever get any actions while mounted since it apparently costs 2 move actions per round to make your mount do what you want?

Because with a combat trained mount you no longer have to use a move action to direct it to move. See here:

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.

The free action mentioned here is in reference to the ride check normally used to direct movement with the ride skill.


People riding combat trained mounts are not pointing, they are controling with their knees or the reigns. They say a word and hit the spurs and the horse rushes forward. no pointing involved

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Mojorat wrote:

People riding combat trained mounts are not pointing, they are controling with their knees or the reigns. They say a word and hit the spurs and the horse rushes forward. no pointing involved

Note that "hitting the spurs" is specifically listed as a move action under the Ride skill and is not compatible with a mounted charge.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

How about this:

-Handle Animal covers directing animals in all situations ever
-Ride covers animals when you are sitting on one, only

Ride is a more specific rule, so it supercedes Handle Animal in the situation where you are mounted. Specific overrides general.

Ride wrote:
Typical riding actions don't require checks. You can saddle, mount, ride, and dismount from a mount without a problem. The following tasks do require checks.

Followed by a list of things that require ride checks and possibly actions.

Moving and attacking with your mount aren't on that list, so they don't require the rider to spend actions or checks. unless you think moving and attacking with a war-trained mount aren't typical riding actions.

I agree with FLite above. I also think it's a bit weird that the rules interpretation that:
-allows mounted combat to work
-doesn't require all characters be expert animal trainers in order to ride a horse

is considered the interpretation that's against common sense.

While I don't think you're going to find eanything more explcit in the rules, I'd bet money that Ride superceding Handle Animal when mounted is one of those "unwritten rules" built into the game.


Shimesen wrote:
Robert A Matthews wrote:
Shimesen wrote:

Anyone who's ever ridden a horse can tell you that its not hard to lean forward and point in front of a horses head. Is it "easy" to do? No. Buts possible, and we are arguing about a well trained horse with a highly trained rider. Also you are not taking into account that not all mounts have a horse like shape. A gryphon has a much shorter neck and its head would be much closer to you and therefore easier to defect in this way.

As to the relevant text for directing a mounts movement, its here:

Control Mount in Battle
As a move action, you can attempt to control a light horse, pony, heavy horse, or other mount not trained for combat riding while in battle. If you fail the Ride check, you can do nothing else in that round. You do not need to roll for horses or ponies trained for combat.

Notice what while you are using the mounts speed to move, you are still using your move action to make it do so. The exception is a combat trained mount. It then is no longer needed to roll and is auto-success. This is relevant because it now allows you to have the horse move and still direct it to attack with your move action via handle animal. To have a non-combat trained mount both move and attack in the same round, it requires a double move action which means the rider cannot attack.

If you have to spend a move action to control your mount in battle using the ride skill AND you have to spend a move action to use handle animal, then how is it that you ever get any actions while mounted since it apparently costs 2 move actions per round to make your mount do what you want?

Because with a combat trained mount you no longer have to use a move action to direct it to move. See here:

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.

The free action mentioned here is in reference to the ride check normally used to direct...

What Ssalarn has been saying since page 1 (and apparently you are agreeing with it) is that using the "Control Mount in Battle" use of the ride skill requires a move action even with a combat trained mount and you have to make this check in order to be given the opportunity to make a handle animal check to get your mount to attack. Handle animal also requires a move action. If this interpretation is correct, then you will never get any actions while mounted because you must spend two move actions each round: one to control your mount, and one to give your mount a command. Obviously this interpretation doesn't make sense and mounted combat has worked since 2003 when 3.5 was released as far as I can tell.


What if my mount have 3+ int and know common?


While this is a great way to interpret the rules to make the system "not broken", the fact the "riding" a mount has nothing to do with telling it to attack. It has to do with staying on it when it does so. Which is why you still need handle animal to make it attack.


Robert A Matthews wrote:
What Ssalarn has been saying since page 1 (and apparently you are agreeing with it) is that using the "Control Mount in Battle" use of the ride skill requires a move action even with a combat trained mount and you have to make this check in order to be given the opportunity to make a handle animal check to get your mount to attack. Handle animal also requires a move action. If this interpretation is correct, then you will never get any actions while mounted because you must spend two move actions each round: one to control your mount, and one to give your mount a command. Obviously this interpretation doesn't make sense and mounted combat has worked since 2003 when 3.5 was released as far as I can tell

Not true. The ride check becomes a free action if you have a combat-trained mount. Without one, yes, you need two move actions...I believe I already said that...

Sovereign Court

Shimesen wrote:
Robert A Matthews wrote:
Riddle me this, what trick do you use to get your mount to move in combat without attacking. What trick makes your mount move 20 feet in a specific direction?
Ahh my friend, now you are beginning to grasp the difference between handle animal and ride as desperate skills. Directing your mount to move in combat is not a handle animal trick, its a ride check. This is a check you also do not even have to make if your mount is combat-trained...


Shimesen wrote:
Robert A Matthews wrote:
What Ssalarn has been saying since page 1 (and apparently you are agreeing with it) is that using the "Control Mount in Battle" use of the ride skill requires a move action even with a combat trained mount and you have to make this check in order to be given the opportunity to make a handle animal check to get your mount to attack. Handle animal also requires a move action. If this interpretation is correct, then you will never get any actions while mounted because you must spend two move actions each round: one to control your mount, and one to give your mount a command. Obviously this interpretation doesn't make sense and mounted combat has worked since 2003 when 3.5 was released as far as I can tell
Not true. The ride check becomes a free action if you have a combat-trained mount. Without one, yes, you need two move actions...I believe I already said that...

Quote from page 1:

Ssalarn wrote:

There's been some argument that the Ride skill supersedes the Handle Animal skill (despite the fact that there's nothing that says it does), because of this usage of the Ride skill:

"Control Mount in Battle: As a move action, you can attempt to control a light horse, pony, heavy horse, or other mount not trained for combat riding while in battle. If you fail the Ride check, you can do nothing else in that round. You do not need to roll for horses or ponies trained for combat."
Here's the thing. If you look at the consequences of failing the check, neither you, nor your mount can take any actions. This doesn't mean you get to skip giving your mount commands, it just means that you get the opportunity to give your mount commands. You still use the normal rules for giving a mount commands, which is making the appropriate Handle Animal checks.

If you agree with this line of thinking then you must use two move actions each round: one to control your mount in battle, and one to give your mount a command to attack. This interpretation would have made mounted charging impossible in 3.5.

Liberty's Edge

Thymus Vulgaris wrote:

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.

FWIW, I originally stated something to the effect of "Druids, Rangers, Cavaliers, or anyone else with that type of class ability" but dropped it for brevity. Perhaps I should say "Druids, et alia" instead.

Grand Lodge

Robert A Matthews wrote:

Quote from page 1:

Ssalarn wrote:

There's been some argument that the Ride skill supersedes the Handle Animal skill (despite the fact that there's nothing that says it does), because of this usage of the Ride skill:

"Control Mount in Battle: As a move action, you can attempt to control a light horse, pony, heavy horse, or other mount not trained for combat riding while in battle. If you fail the Ride check, you can do nothing else in that round. You do not need to roll for horses or ponies trained for combat."
Here's the thing. If you look at the consequences of failing the check, neither you, nor your mount can take any actions. This doesn't mean you get to skip giving your mount commands, it just means that you get the opportunity to give your mount commands. You still use the normal rules for giving a mount commands, which is making the appropriate Handle Animal checks.
If you agree with this line of thinking then you must use two move actions each round: one to control your mount in battle, and one to give your mount a command to attack. This interpretation...

I'm honestly not seeing what the problem is with not being able to ever do a mounted charge on a mount that's explicitly not trained for combat (I bolded the relevant part of your quote).


Jeff Merola wrote:
Robert A Matthews wrote:

Quote from page 1:

Ssalarn wrote:

There's been some argument that the Ride skill supersedes the Handle Animal skill (despite the fact that there's nothing that says it does), because of this usage of the Ride skill:

"Control Mount in Battle: As a move action, you can attempt to control a light horse, pony, heavy horse, or other mount not trained for combat riding while in battle. If you fail the Ride check, you can do nothing else in that round. You do not need to roll for horses or ponies trained for combat."
Here's the thing. If you look at the consequences of failing the check, neither you, nor your mount can take any actions. This doesn't mean you get to skip giving your mount commands, it just means that you get the opportunity to give your mount commands. You still use the normal rules for giving a mount commands, which is making the appropriate Handle Animal checks.
If you agree with this line of thinking then you must use two move actions each round: one to control your mount in battle, and one to give your mount a command to attack. This interpretation...
I'm honestly not seeing what the problem is with not being able to ever do a mounted charge on a mount that's explicitly not trained for combat (I bolded the relevant part of your quote).

I have no problem with that either. What I do have a problem with is that people are saying that you still have to use a move action using the ride skill even with a combat trained mount. Ssalarn has been saying this since page 1 and it is flat out wrong. If this is the correct interpretation then mounted charging was never possible, not even in 3.5.

Liberty's Edge

Ssalarn wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
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...

I'm not saying things couldn't be written more clearly, but to say that the FAQ leads to a question about whether the rider charges if the mount charges is disingenuous because the FAQ doesn't even deal with that subject (at least not directly). The FAQ question is about the rider charging. Period. Charge while mounted. Charge while mounted. Charge while mounted. There is absolutely nothing contradictory about this FAQ if you read the answer in context with the question that prompted it. This is why you are having a disconnect.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Robert A Matthews wrote:
Jeff Merola wrote:
Robert A Matthews wrote:

Quote from page 1:

Ssalarn wrote:

There's been some argument that the Ride skill supersedes the Handle Animal skill (despite the fact that there's nothing that says it does), because of this usage of the Ride skill:

"Control Mount in Battle: As a move action, you can attempt to control a light horse, pony, heavy horse, or other mount not trained for combat riding while in battle. If you fail the Ride check, you can do nothing else in that round. You do not need to roll for horses or ponies trained for combat."
Here's the thing. If you look at the consequences of failing the check, neither you, nor your mount can take any actions. This doesn't mean you get to skip giving your mount commands, it just means that you get the opportunity to give your mount commands. You still use the normal rules for giving a mount commands, which is making the appropriate Handle Animal checks.
If you agree with this line of thinking then you must use two move actions each round: one to control your mount in battle, and one to give your mount a command to attack. This interpretation...
I'm honestly not seeing what the problem is with not being able to ever do a mounted charge on a mount that's explicitly not trained for combat (I bolded the relevant part of your quote).
I have no problem with that either. What I do have a problem with is that people are saying that you still have to use a move action using the ride skill even with a combat trained mount. Ssalarn has been saying this since page 1 and it is flat out wrong. If this is the correct interpretation then mounted charging was never possible, not even in 3.5.

...you realize that the quote you used as evidence of Ssalarn claiming that does not, in fact, show that he claimed it?

Now, I might of missed something, but in reading through the thread I can't find any post of Ssalarn's that actually makes the claim that you have to spend a move action to use the Ride skill in addition to the move action for the Handle Animal skill.


No, to move with a combat trained Mount its is a free action. To tell it to attack is a move action. This means that in your turn, you have now used 1 free and 1 move. This STILL keeps you from making a charge, because you no longer have a full-round action.

If your mount is NOT combat trained, its not even possible for you, the rider, to attack. Ever.


Jeff Merola wrote:
Robert A Matthews wrote:
Jeff Merola wrote:
Robert A Matthews wrote:

Quote from page 1:

Ssalarn wrote:

There's been some argument that the Ride skill supersedes the Handle Animal skill (despite the fact that there's nothing that says it does), because of this usage of the Ride skill:

"Control Mount in Battle: As a move action, you can attempt to control a light horse, pony, heavy horse, or other mount not trained for combat riding while in battle. If you fail the Ride check, you can do nothing else in that round. You do not need to roll for horses or ponies trained for combat."
Here's the thing. If you look at the consequences of failing the check, neither you, nor your mount can take any actions. This doesn't mean you get to skip giving your mount commands, it just means that you get the opportunity to give your mount commands. You still use the normal rules for giving a mount commands, which is making the appropriate Handle Animal checks.
If you agree with this line of thinking then you must use two move actions each round: one to control your mount in battle, and one to give your mount a command to attack. This interpretation...
I'm honestly not seeing what the problem is with not being able to ever do a mounted charge on a mount that's explicitly not trained for combat (I bolded the relevant part of your quote).
I have no problem with that either. What I do have a problem with is that people are saying that you still have to use a move action using the ride skill even with a combat trained mount. Ssalarn has been saying this since page 1 and it is flat out wrong. If this is the correct interpretation then mounted charging was never possible, not even in 3.5.

...you realize that the quote you used as evidence of Ssalarn claiming that does not, in fact, show that he claimed it?

Now, I might of missed something, but in reading through the thread I can't find any post of Ssalarn's that actually makes the claim that you have...

My mistake, I snipped it out when I quoted him, here it is bolding mine:

Ssalarn wrote:

There's been some argument that the Ride skill supersedes the Handle Animal skill (despite the fact that there's nothing that says it does), because of this usage of the Ride skill:

"Control Mount in Battle: As a move action, you can attempt to control a light horse, pony, heavy horse, or other mount not trained for combat riding while in battle. If you fail the Ride check, you can do nothing else in that round. You do not need to roll for horses or ponies trained for combat."
Here's the thing. If you look at the consequences of failing the check, neither you, nor your mount can take any actions. This doesn't mean you get to skip giving your mount commands, it just means that you get the opportunity to give your mount commands. You still use the normal rules for giving a mount commands, which is making the appropriate Handle Animal checks.
Even if you ignore that and assume that this use of the Ride skill does more than it says it does, it still leaves the Dragoon, Roughrider, and Sohei out in the cold, because it is always a move action to use this use of the Ride skill. Giving your mount combat training (which is just a packet of Handle Animal commands) allows you to skip the roll but does not negate the move action requirement.

Sovereign Court

I think it's significant that the Ride skill doesn't mention the Handle Animal skill at all. It doesn't say "If you direct your mount to attack using the Handle Animal skill..."

One problem with the Fight With Mount option is that it's a bit vague what happens if you fail that check.
A) Your mount doesn't attack, but you can attack "normally", whatever that is.
B) Your mount attacks, but you can't, because you have spent an unknown amount of actions to direct your mount. If this was only a Move action to Handle Animal, why can't you make a Standard attack "normally"? Could you still cast a spell?
C) Your mount attacks, which involves rearing, kicking, biting etc., and it gets in the way of you attacking. And no amount of skill can overcome this hindrance. You can probably cast a spell though, although there will be a concentration check for violent motion.

I'm leaning towards option C, leaving in the middle whether you have to use Handle Animal as a Move to request an attack, or whether Ride suffices.

Personally I think Handle Animal isn't required, because Ride doesn't mention HA. There's a weird disconnect between the two skills; serving as a mount doesn't take up a trick either.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Robert A Matthews wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:

There's been some argument that the Ride skill supersedes the Handle Animal skill (despite the fact that there's nothing that says it does), because of this usage of the Ride skill:

"Control Mount in Battle: As a move action, you can attempt to control a light horse, pony, heavy horse, or other mount not trained for combat riding while in battle. If you fail the Ride check, you can do nothing else in that round. You do not need to roll for horses or ponies trained for combat."
Here's the thing. If you look at the consequences of failing the check, neither you, nor your mount can take any actions. This doesn't mean you get to skip giving your mount commands, it just means that you get the opportunity to give your mount commands. You still use the normal rules for giving a mount commands, which is making the appropriate Handle Animal checks.
I have no problem with that either. What I do have a problem with is that people are saying that you still have to use a move action using the ride skill even with a combat trained mount. Ssalarn has been saying this since page 1 and it is flat out wrong.

Charging includes movement, so it's an either or check. You can use Handle Animal to command it to charge (a move action for anyone without an animal companion), or you can argue that the "Control Mount in Battle" Ride check applies for controlling your mount (even though it's actually referring to the fact that all non-combat trained mounts are frightened in battle and must be controlled lest you both lose all your actions). If you go under the interpretation that that Ride check allows you to actually direct your mount, then that means that directing your mount always requires a move action, because nothing in that skill description ever negates the need to spend a move action. I've actually been saying since page 1 that that ability doesn't work that way, and that people are trying to apply a use to it that it's not intended for. Moving your mount is a non-action that's already accounted for in the mounted combat rules.

Stop misrepresenting and misattributing what I'm saying. You're using the same quote where I'm saying that that is an incorrect interpretation of the rules to try and say that I'm supporting that interpretation of the rules.

151 to 200 of 243 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / The FAQ broke mounted characters. Do these archetypes even work anymore? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.