|
***
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.
Note what I pointed out earlier about the difference between Ride and Handle Animal. Ride covers functions you perform while mounted. Handle Animal covers things the animal does. There's actually very little overlap at all between the two, other than the fact that Ride frequently references Combat Training, which is a specific packet of Handle Animal tricks.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Is there any precedent on using Handle Animal to command your mount to attack before this ruling?
I remember the SKR ruling. Ssalarn and I argued over it quite a bit, at least as much as this. But needing to use Handle Animal to command your mount to attack was never mentioned as a factor.
If we look at this thread, needing to use HA to command your mount to attack is apparently the cornerstone of mounted combat. If so, why wasn't it brought up years ago? It's not mentioned in the official 3.5 rules explanations Howie23 links. (In fact, Handle Animal shows up exactly twice in the 4 articles explaining 3.5 mounted combat, both times referencing the "Combat Trained" part of Handle Animal as making it easier/possible to use the Ride skill to control a mount in battle.) It was never mentioned in the Rage-Lance-Pounce thread or any of the others that SKR's ruling spawned. Wouldn't needing to use Handle Animal to command a mount to charge have been an easier way to eliminate ragelancepounce, since a Barbarian must be raging in order to pounce but cannot use Cha based skills while raging? So why wasn't Handle Animal brought up then? (And where are the FAQ requests on the Barbarian mounted rage powers regarding Handle Animal?) There's no "Charge" trick in Handle Animal, and the "Attack" trick surely doesn't allow you to tell an animal when to charge and when not to, per Ultimate Campaign's section on companions: "You can direct them using the Handle Animal skill, but their specific behavior is up to the GM."
It wasn't an issue in 3.5, the PF rules didn't make any explicit changes regarding how a mount is controlled, and it hasn't been brought up in the past 4 years as an issue in PF.
So, where did this concept come from? Does anyone have any references to needing to use Handle Animal to...
It's as new to you as it is to me. I have never seen anyone make or require a handle animal check for mounted combat, nor have I required a Handle Animal check for mounted combat in my games. It has always been ride checks. Absent any official word to the contrary I will continue to run mounted combat the way I always have, as a free action to fight with your mount.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
It's new to me too. Do they do this in PFS? I've only played PFS a few times and never with mounted PC's.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
It's new to me too. Do they do this in PFS? I've only played PFS a few times and never with mounted PC's.
I've been playing PFS for over a year now and I've never seen it. Rarely is a ride check even rolled since it is DC 10 and after first level it is very easy to have a +9 modifier making it impossible to fail. If your mount doesn't attack it's DC 5 to guide with knees that's it.
|
|
There's no Ride commnad that would allow your mount to attack though, and the "Attack" command is specifically taught to Combat Trained mounts. Combat Training is, of course, frequently referenced in the Ride skill. Are we assuming that the intent there was that horses should be doubling as guard dogs that respond to an actual pointed finger and attack command?
Point doesn't actually require a finger. Since there's not a definition in game, you use the dictionary definition:
verb (used with object)
61. to direct (the finger, a weapon, the attention, etc.) at, to, or upon something.
62. to indicate the presence or position of (usually followed by out ): to point out an object in the sky.
63. to direct attention to (usually followed by out ): to point out the advantages of a proposal.
*
75. to indicate position or direction, as with the finger.
76. to direct the mind or thought in some direction; call attention to: Everything points to his guilt.
*
I think there's plenty of room in there for a definition of "point" that doesn't actually involve leaning over the mount's neck with a finger extended.
|
The only thing handle animal would be used for is to direct the mount itself to attack. If you never direct the mount to attack, you would never have a reason to use the handle animal skill. Even if you do, the only other time you might need it is to direct the mount to stop attacking. Otherwise, everything else is handled with the ride check (if one even needs to be made: guide with the knees to use a two-handed melee weapon or a bow, to be able to attack yourself if you have directed your mount to attack, take damage, etc.). If you're going to charge a target, put your spurs in its side, guide with the reins, and charge. No ride check (or handle animal check) needed—assuming a combat trained mount, of course.
|
|
It's new to me too. Do they do this in PFS? I've only played PFS a few times and never with mounted PC's.I've been playing PFS for over a year now and I've never seen it. Rarely is a ride check even rolled since it is DC 10 and after first level it is very easy to have a +9 modifier making it impossible to fail. If your mount doesn't attack it's DC 5 to guide with knees that's it.
I've seen it brought up by several PFS GM's in the Washington area, though most players just ensure that they have enough ranks or bonuses in both Ride and Handle Animal that they don't actually have to roll the checks.
The problem with the system is that it's so often hand-waved. I've been in PFS groups where GMs completely forgot that Animal Companions have their own initiative, or that Druid's who've dumped their CHA can actually fail Handle Animal checks and need to be rolling for most commands. The rules for Handle Animal in general and mounted combat in particular are so convoluted that I very much doubt any group can actually say they follow them 100% RAW. Most groups, even in organized play, seem to use the rules as a loose framework that they hang whatever interpretation works best or most efficiently for themselves on.
|
I run into this a lot in a game where I play a samurai wolf-riding halfling.
It is a DC 5 to control with the knees. I wield a naginata (two handed reach weapon) so I cannot attack at 5'. I have ride maxed right out. However it is a 5' step to get to range. If I roll a 1 I fail my guide-with knees check and loose all my attacks for the round ( I need two hands to weild the naginata).
I roll a lot of 1's on this check. Sometimes 3 times in a combat. It nullifies my character pretty well. I can't use an equestrian belt or trick riding to pass the DC 5 ride check because they were written for light and medium armor. Although the samurai does not get an armor penalty for heavy armor -- it is still heavy armor and eliminates me from taking those options.
I never charge. Charging is so messed up that I prefer to ride around and take my one attack, or hold the line. That 5' step of my wolf screws me up in almost every combat.
I have thought about ditching the naginata in favour of the katana that I could still wield one-handed. I've thought about ditching my armor to save the ride check. In the end it takes a lot of fun out of a character concept I really like.
So, this is why I went on these forums to look for solutions to reach, riding, etc. If anyone has any suggestions I would sure be open. Whatever you suggest will be rule-lawyered to hell at the other end of the table, so it has to be a RAW solution.
Help my fierce little halfling ride into battle... thanks!
Skills don't automatically fail on a 1. If you have at least +4 on ride checks this shouldn't be happening to you.
The only thing handle animal would be used for is to direct the mount itself to attack. If you never direct the mount to attack, you would never have a reason to use the handle animal skill. Even if you do, the only other time you might need it is to direct the mount to stop attacking. Otherwise, everything else is handled with the ride check (if one even needs to be made: guide with the knees to use a two-handed melee weapon or a bow, to be able to attack yourself if you have directed your mount to attack, take damage, etc.). If you're going to charge a target, put your spurs in its side, guide with the reins, and charge. No ride check (or handle animal check) needed—assuming a combat trained mount, of course.
This sounds like what we do too.
... I've been in PFS groups where GMs completely forgot that Animal Companions have their own initiative...
That one is news to me too! I guess there are some house-rules you get so used to that you forget they are house-rules.
I always thought animal companions acted on your initiative.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Note what I pointed out earlier about the difference between Ride and Handle Animal. Ride covers functions you perform while mounted. Handle Animal covers things the animal does. There's actually very little overlap at all between the two, other than the fact that Ride frequently references Combat Training, which is a specific packet of Handle Animal tricks.***
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.
You believe that you need HA for all things you direct an animal to do that you could do with HA. I don't believe that; by my reading Ride allows you to direct your mount to do a lot of those things, provided you're currently riding it.
As I understand it, once the horse is trained and has been mounted, that's pretty much the end of the HA use. Ride takes over. Otherwise the lack of any reference to HA in the Ride description makes no sense.
The existence of Guide With Knees supports this: you're guiding your mount with one hand unless you made your GWK check for the round. This means you have an alternative method of controlling the mount that HA normally doesn't have.
HA costs actions because you have to gesture, speak or whistle to direct an animal you're not physically directing as a rider. And some classes have a low-grade telepathic link to their AC, so they also benefit from such closer contact, decreasing the action cost.
|
|
... I've been in PFS groups where GMs completely forgot that Animal Companions have their own initiative...That one is news to me too! I guess there are some house-rules you get so used to that you forget they are house-rules.
I always thought animal companions acted on your initiative.
Nope! Only if they're being used as a mount. Every home group I've ever been in house-rules it that way for convenience though.
You believe that you need HA for all things you direct an animal to do that you could do with HA. I don't believe that; by my reading Ride allows you to direct your mount to do a lot of those things, provided you're currently riding it.
As I understand it, once the horse is trained and has been mounted, that's pretty much the end of the HA use. Ride takes over. Otherwise the lack of any reference to HA in the Ride description makes no sense.
The existence of Guide With Knees supports this: you're guiding your mount with one hand unless you made your GWK check for the round. This means you have an alternative method of controlling the mount that HA normally doesn't have.
HA costs actions because you have to gesture, speak or whistle to direct an animal you're not physically directing as a rider. And some classes have a low-grade telepathic link to their AC, so they also benefit from such closer contact, decreasing the action cost.
The only thing that is taken over is control of movement. Nothing in the Ride skill actually says that it replaces the Handle Animal checks, and in fact, it references Combat Training several times, which is specifically a packet of Handle Animal tricks including Attack, Come, Defend, Down, Guard, and Heel.
|
|
***If you're going to charge a target, put your spurs in its side, ***Probably want to be careful with the terminology. Remember that Spurring your mount is a specific action under the Ride skill, and it takes a Move action.
Sure, but the fact that you're pointing it out goes to show you know what I was talking about. ;-)
|
|
Sure, but the fact that you're pointing out goes to show you know what I was talking about. ;-)***If you're going to charge a target, put your spurs in its side, ***Probably want to be careful with the terminology. Remember that Spurring your mount is a specific action under the Ride skill, and it takes a Move action.
Just want to be clear, there's a difference between me arguing that the rules should work one way, and arguing that they do work one way.
The rules, currently, are confusing, contradictory, and incomplete. The whole point of the discussion is that they need to do a thorough cleaning of the mounted combat rules and the associated skills like Handle Animal and Ride.
Should Ride supercede Handle Animal? Probably, that would make sense. Does Ride supersede Handle Animal? Nope, nothing says it does, and in fact there's a good bit of evidence to the contrary.
The FAQ was a dirty bandaid on a shotgun wound that needed intensive surgery. The sheer fact that we've been going at this for 6 pages with people all chiming in with their own interpretations, or various versions of the existing ones, shows how badly this needs clean up. Mounted Combat is kind of perverse in that it's actually easier if you don't know all the rules, because then you just run with the little bit that makes sense and call it good. Dredging through all of the existing materials and trying to forge them into a cohesive whole that works as written is a path into spiraling insanity. Not good.
Note what I pointed out earlier about the difference between Ride and Handle Animal. Ride covers functions you perform while mounted. Handle Animal covers things the animal does. There's actually very little overlap at all between the two, other than the fact that Ride frequently references Combat Training, which is a specific packet of Handle Animal tricks.***
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.
You believe that you need HA for all things you direct an animal to do that you could do with HA. I don't believe that; by my reading Ride allows you to direct your mount to do a lot of those things, provided you're currently riding it.
As I understand it, once the horse is trained and has been mounted, that's pretty much the end of the HA use. Ride takes over. Otherwise the lack of any reference to HA in the Ride description makes no sense.
The existence of Guide With Knees supports this: you're guiding your mount with one hand unless you made your GWK check for the round. This means you have an alternative method of controlling the mount that HA normally doesn't have.
HA costs actions because you have to gesture, speak or whistle to direct an animal you're not physically directing as a rider. And some classes have a low-grade telepathic link to their AC, so they also benefit from such closer contact, decreasing the action cost.
I agree. Once you have a Combat trained mount and are riding it Ride takes over.
|
|
Sure, but the fact that you're pointing out goes to show you know what I was talking about. ;-)***If you're going to charge a target, put your spurs in its side, ***Probably want to be careful with the terminology. Remember that Spurring your mount is a specific action under the Ride skill, and it takes a Move action.Just want to be clear, there's a difference between me arguing that the rules should work one way, and arguing that they do work one way.
The rules, currently, are confusing, contradictory, and incomplete. The whole point of the discussion is that they need to do a thorough cleaning of the mounted combat rules and the associated skills like Handle Animal and Ride.
Should Ride supercede Handle Animal? Probably, that would make sense. Does Ride supersede Handle Animal? Nope, nothing says it does, and in fact there's a good bit of evidence to the contrary.
The FAQ was a dirty bandaid on a shotgun wound that needed intensive surgery. The sheer fact that we've been going at this for 6 pages with people all chiming in with their own interpretations, or various versions of the existing ones, shows how badly this needs clean up. Mounted Combat is kind of perverse in that it's actually easier if you don't know all the rules, because then you just run with the little bit that makes sense and call it good. Dredging through all of the existing materials and trying to forge them into a cohesive whole that works as written is a path into spiraling insanity. Not good.
If you don't mind, could you point me to the evidence that you feel shows that ride doesn't "supercede" handle animal? I'm of the opinion that handle animal isn't so much as superseded, rather it's just not used except in specific circumstances (directing your mount to attack a target, for example), so I'm not understanding what you're claiming. Knowing what you're using as your evidence might help me understand where you're coming from.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To the question as to whether there has ever been prior discussion about Handle Animal while riding: Yes, there has. I've been involved in a number of these conversations going back to 2005. It was discussed on the old Infinite Monkeys yahoo group as well as in the the WotC forums. For those who saw my post in the PFS forum saying that the FAQ was opening a new can of worms, the handle animal check for charging is one of the things I had in mind.
It's an often overlooked area, but in a lot of groups so is Handle Animal for companions as well. And, the perspective that Ride substitutes for HA or otherwise is the only needed skill when mounted is common; I'm pretty sure that there is a JJ post from a few years ago that says this, for example.
Mounted Combat has always been a problem. The FAQ brings focus on it and by formally saying its both mount and rider who are charging, it kills the wiggle room that has been there before. Similarly with the problem for when mount and rider have different reach.
To the question as to whether there has ever been prior discussion about Handle Animal while riding: Yes, there has. I've been involved in a number of these conversations going back to 2005. It was discussed on the old Infinite Monkeys yahoo group as well as in the the WotC forums. For those who saw my post in the PFS forum saying that the FAQ was opening a new can of worms, the handle animal check for charging is one of the things I had in mind.
It's an often overlooked area, but in a lot of groups so is Handle Animal for companions as well. And, the perspective that Ride substitutes for HA or otherwise is the only needed skill when mounted is common; I'm pretty sure that there is a JJ post from a few years ago that says this, for example.
Mounted Combat has always been a problem. The FAQ brings focus on it and by formally saying its both mount and rider who are charging, it kills the wiggle room that has been there before. Similarly with the problem for when mount and rider have different reach.
Requiring Handle Animal to charge is a new concept that was dredged up by people who didn't like the FAQs mounted combat. I have never been at a table where people used handle animal for mounted combat and even ssalarn used ride for charging before the FAQ came out for ragelancepounce.
There's actually nothing that says that. He's not attempting to pounce from a mount, he's having his mount pounce and taking his normal attack. A fighter with Mounted Skirmisher can have his mount charge and make his full attack at the end of it, attacking in concert with his mount as discussed in the Ride skill under "Fight with a combat trained mount". Without the feat he could still take a standard attack action and have his mount attack as well. That's specifically covered in the rules. If the mount has Pounce, it can full attack at the end of that charge, so that's good to go as well.
The one thing that he has wrong is that only the base weapon die+STR+Enhancement in this particular equation are multiplied. Additional die outside of the base weapon die are never multiplied. So it should be 2d8+6+1d6.
How about we just keep using ride the way it has been used for 10+ years?
To the question as to whether there has ever been prior discussion about Handle Animal while riding: Yes, there has. I've been involved in a number of these conversations going back to 2005. It was discussed on the old Infinite Monkeys yahoo group as well as in the the WotC forums. For those who saw my post in the PFS forum saying that the FAQ was opening a new can of worms, the handle animal check for charging is one of the things I had in mind.
It's an often overlooked area, but in a lot of groups so is Handle Animal for companions as well. And, the perspective that Ride substitutes for HA or otherwise is the only needed skill when mounted is common; I'm pretty sure that there is a JJ post from a few years ago that says this, for example.
Mounted Combat has always been a problem. The FAQ brings focus on it and by formally saying its both mount and rider who are charging, it kills the wiggle room that has been there before. Similarly with the problem for when mount and rider have different reach.
Most of your post is right on-target, but I must call out that 3.5 discussions are irrelevant. PF handles mounted combat differently than 3.5. Pathfinder players and GMs should not be expected to have any 3.5 experience in order to play the game. If it isn't in Pathfinder RPG text, it just doesn't apply.
I agree that the rules for mounted combat haven't gotten enough love from the designers. It's perfectly playable, but it shouldn't require resolving so much confusion--it should just work out of the box. Regardless of anyone's individual interpretation, the fact that this has spawned so many threads on the subject over the years means that it needs a full-on Paizo blog post at the least. A single FAQ just isn't going to cut it.
|
|
Ah yes, a quote from me two years ago, discussing a class that gets an animal companion. You realize that that has nothing to do with the question at hand, right?
I was specifically talking about the rider's ability to make a full attack at the end of the charge using the Ride skill, which is consistent with what I've said all along. The Handle Animal check wasn't pertinent to the conversation at hand, and we were talking about a class that got an Animal Companion and could make the checks as free actions. We were talking about the Mammoth Rider (which has an animal companion), which was brand new at the time, and a poster argued that only you or your mount could attack, not both. I responded that the Ride skill specifically allows the rider to attack even if his mount does.
You are trying desperately to put words in my mouth, and it's pathetic. You do realize how desperate it makes you look to try and read things that aren't actually being said into 2 year old posts to make a point, right?
Ah yes, a quote from me two years ago, discussing a class that gets an animal companion. You realize that that has nothing to do with the question at hand, right?
I'm talking about the rider's ability to make a full attack at the end of the charge using the Ride skill, which is consistent with what I've said all along. The Handle Animal check wasn't pertinent to the conversation at hand, and we were talking about a class that got an Animal Companion and could make the checks as free actions.
You are trying desperately to put words in my mouth, and it's pathetic. You do realize how desperate it makes you look to try and read things that aren't actually being said into 2 year old posts to make a point, right?
A fighter with Mounted Skirmisher can have his mount charge and make his full attack at the end of it
Not possible with your current interpretation.
|
|
Ah yes, a quote from me two years ago, discussing a class that gets an animal companion. You realize that that has nothing to do with the question at hand, right?
I'm talking about the rider's ability to make a full attack at the end of the charge using the Ride skill, which is consistent with what I've said all along. The Handle Animal check wasn't pertinent to the conversation at hand, and we were talking about a class that got an Animal Companion and could make the checks as free actions.
You are trying desperately to put words in my mouth, and it's pathetic. You do realize how desperate it makes you look to try and read things that aren't actually being said into 2 year old posts to make a point, right?
A fighter with Mounted Skirmisher can have his mount charge and make his full attack at the end of itNot possible with your current interpretation.
The conversation was about the Mammoth Rider Prestige Class, which has an animal companion. It also has a prerequisite of 9 ranks in Handle Animal, making it impossible to fail the free action Handle Animal check. It was new at the time and everyone was talking about it. Stop breaking the most important rule of the forums. You are trying to take an incomplete section of a response on an entirely different subject taken out of context and use it to back your argument. It's just childish, particularly since it's very obvious that I was not saying what you really wish I was.
**EDIT** I take it from your long response time that you're desperately trying to find another post that will hopefully help you prove that one time I said something that contradicts with what I'm saying now. You realize that reflects really badly on you, right? Even if you manage to dig something up, what have you proved? That at one time I had a different understanding of the rules? That happens all the time on the forums. I would be shocked and amazed if any new player understood the rules the same way 2 years after they started visiting the forums. There are very respected posters and even designers who learn new things about the rules every day.
|
Ah yes, a quote from me two years ago, discussing a class that gets an animal companion. You realize that that has nothing to do with the question at hand, right?
I'm talking about the rider's ability to make a full attack at the end of the charge using the Ride skill, which is consistent with what I've said all along. The Handle Animal check wasn't pertinent to the conversation at hand, and we were talking about a class that got an Animal Companion and could make the checks as free actions.
You are trying desperately to put words in my mouth, and it's pathetic. You do realize how desperate it makes you look to try and read things that aren't actually being said into 2 year old posts to make a point, right?
A fighter with Mounted Skirmisher can have his mount charge and make his full attack at the end of itNot possible with your current interpretation.The conversation was about the Mammoth Rider Prestige Class, which has an animal companion. It also has a prerequisite of 9 ranks in Handle Animal, making it impossible to fail the free action Handle Animal check. It was new at the time and everyone was talking about it. Stop breaking the most important rule of the forums. You are trying to take an incomplete section of a response on an entirely different subject taken out of context and use it to back your argument. It's just childish, particularly since it's very obvious that I was not saying what you really wish I was.
**EDIT** I take it from your long response time that you're desperately trying to find another post that will hopefully help you prove that one time I said something that contradicts with what I'm saying now. You realize that reflects really badly on you, right? Even if you manage to dig something up, what have you proved? That at one time I had a different understanding of the rules? That happens all the time on the forums. I would be shocked and amazed if any new player understood the rules the same way 2 years after they started visiting the forums. There are very respected posters and even designers who learn new things about the rules every day.
No offense Sslaran, but you might be taking all of this a little too personally. Chillax. Tis a game. If people don't appreciate your input, then just don't input. Nothing lost, especially at this point when the issue has been laid bear by many posts for the developers to see.
|
|
I'm not the one digging up two year old posts and trying to chop them up so it looks like somebody said something they didn't. I'm chill, I just don't appreciate Robert's consistent efforts to try and pull a "gotchya!" on me. It's blatantly rude, and spreads falsehood. I'd like to know how you interpreted me as the one getting personal in that exchange. My arguments in this thread aren't the ones that devolved from rules discussions into blatant personal attacks and misrepresentations.
From this thread, that recent mounted charge FAQ is starting to look a lot like the earlier free actions FAQ, which eventually did get fixed. Hopefully we will see the same here.
|
|
Sure, I'd concede that point. Who would have thought that there were 76 entries in the dictionary for "point"?I agree with you that it seems to be more of a guard-dog wording -- "go get him spot!" or "Sick 'um Silver!" Which was my point (not finger but view). It is worded as a guarding command not as a riding command.
Hah! Punny, very punny... I was a little surprised at how far down I had to go to get to "point" as a verb as well.
|
|
I just started a new thread to try and get some of the checks/action issues out of the way. Here is a link
Feel free to check it out and give your input.
I popped over and posted the pertinent questions in the format the FAQ thread asks for and then FAQ'd it. Granted, I put them all together instead of breaking them up in to individual items, but I think most of us can agree that they are intertwined enough that they really need to be addressed as a group.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
With respect to HA when charging being new in response to charging: no, it isn't new , as I've indicated. I haven't provided links, but the reference is there for people who want to look into it. Whether Ssalarn has changed his stance is immaterial to that point. He's serving as the point person on this discussion. His personal position is irrelevant, as is whether he's changed his position. The rules text is what is material. The entire area of mounted combat, which is a bastard child of the rules, is poorly understood. Ssalarn's observation that it is easier to run the less it is understood is dead on. The FAQ merely brings it into focus. This is a good thing.
We're talking about an area of the rules where SKR, one of the designers of 3.5 as well as PF, acknowledged years ago that he was effectively using the 3.0 version of the rules, even within the PF era, much less the 3.5 era. I don't have the link handy, but it's in this forum on the topic of Ride By Attack.
Getting an animal to move requires no action requires no action. Getting an animal to attack requires an HA skill check. A charge is a special action to attack. An animal charging therefore requires an HA check to attack. The Ride skill does not obviate this; the Ride check to attack with a mount has to do with the rider's ability to attack along with the mount. It doesnt address the requirement for the mount's attack at all. These are the RAW.
How did we get to this point where we have an FAQ that makes stuff impossible that shouldn't be? Simply put, the designers inherited the rules and don't personally play in a style that requires intense knowledge of this area. Mounted combat rarely comes up on everyday games. It DOES come up in PFS, where specialized builds are common. Your experience may be different. Mine is not. In LG days, I had a handout that I provided to players for mounted combat because the subject was so poorly understood. Talking about it highlights the problem, so that it can be addressed. This is a good thing. It will result in a better game. What we are dealing with right now is just the transition. Saying that there is no problem just perpetuates a problem that has existed since 2003 and needs to be addressed. Digging your heals in and saying that this isn't an issue is counterproductive.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Requiring Handle Animal to charge is a new concept that was dredged up by people who didn't like the FAQs mounted combat. I have never been at a table where people used handle animal for mounted combat and even ssalarn used ride for charging before the FAQ came out for ragelancepounce.
The reason it's suddenly important now is because the new FAQ clearly states that both the mount and the rider are charging simultaneously. That means you have to command the mount to attack, because it can't charge if you don't. Charge is an attack.
You didn't have to do that before. Or at least, it wasn't explicit that you did. But now you absolutely do.
The argument can be made that the mount doesn't have to attack at the end of its charge, but that only possibly waives the move action required to command it to attack. Charge is listed as an attack, and it might be considered one even if you choose not to attack at the end of it. We can't know for sure until the Pathfinder designers weigh in on this.
Likewise, the argument can be made that, possibly, the Ride skill supersedes the Handle Animal skill in that, once you're riding the animal you don't have to make Handle Animal checks to direct it to attack, but there is no printed evidence to support this. Maybe this is the way the designers intended for the skills to work, but we can't know for sure until the Pathfinder designers weigh in on the subject.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the topic of the relevance of 3.5 to PF: I understand this perspective and it has become more common as the player base has migrated from 3.5 players who have adopted 3.5 to players who are new to d20 via 3.5.
However: my post was in response to people posting that this wasn't an issue in 3.5. It was. It was just one that was poorly understood, had not changed, and yet the FAQ makes worse. The fact is that the PF rules are based on the 3.5 rules. Mounted combat is an area that has very little change from those rules, other than through various FAQ entries. The distance grows as time goes on. And, while some players don't have 3.5 experience, many do. Highlighting the problems in this area of the rules, and indicating that the problem goes back to 3.5 days, serves to point out that this is a long standing problem. For me, personally, having a deep understanding of how problematic the 3.5 mounted combat rules were, the lack of addressing them in PF was a big disappointment. I understood why: they are obscure.
For everyone saying this is a non problem: look at the text. See the problem instead of projecting your own assumptions. Call for change. Call for a better game.
|
|
Requiring Handle Animal to charge is a new concept that was dredged up by people who didn't like the FAQs mounted combat. I have never been at a table where people used handle animal for mounted combat and even ssalarn used ride for charging before the FAQ came out for ragelancepounce.The reason it's suddenly important now is because the new FAQ clearly states that both the mount and the rider are charging simultaneously. That means you have to command the mount to attack, because it can't charge if you don't. Charge is an attack.
You didn't have to do that before. Or at least, it wasn't explicit that you did. But now you absolutely do.
The argument can be made that the mount doesn't have to attack at the end of its charge, but that only possibly waives the move action required to command it to attack. Charge is listed as an attack, and it might be considered one even if you choose not to attack at the end of it. We can't know for sure until the Pathfinder designers weigh in on this.
Likewise, the argument can be made that, possibly, the Ride skill supersedes the Handle Animal skill in that, once you're riding the animal you don't have to make Handle Animal checks to direct it to attack, but there is no printed evidence to support this. Maybe this is the way the designers intended for the skills to work, but we can't know for sure until the Pathfinder designers weigh in on the subject.
IF THE RIDER DECLARES THAT HE IS THE ONE MAKING THE CHARGE. If you declare that you are going to charge that goblin over there, the horse you are riding charges with you because the horse is your method of conveyance. If said goblin has a spear readied against your charge, it can attack either you or your horse, and both have a -2 to AC. This is why both you and your mount are considered charging when you declare that you, the rider, are making a charge.
IF THE RIDER DECLARES THAT HE IS THE ONE MAKING THE CHARGE. If you declare that you are going to charge that goblin over there, the horse you are riding charges with you because the horse is your method of conveyance. If said goblin has a spear readied against your charge, it can attack either you or your horse, and both have a -2 to AC. This is why both you and your mount are considered charging when you declare that you, the rider, are making a charge.
no one is arguing the "why" of the FAQ. you are entirely correct in that statement. but this doesn't change the fact that the FAQ now requires the mount to make an attack, a Charge, if you - the rider - want to make a charge. because this is now a MUST, it forces the rider to make a handle animal check to command the horse to do so. before the FAQ, it was perfectly withing the rules to say "i, the rider, am making a charge using my mounts movement speed, but the mount is not." you can no longer do this. weather you WANT your mount to attack the opponent or not is entirely irrelevant. it now has no choice in the matter. it MUST make an attack.
no one is arguing the "why" of the FAQ. you are entirely correct in that statement. but this doesn't change the fact that the FAQ now requires the mount to make an attack, a Charge, if you - the rider - want to make a charge. because this is now a MUST, it forces the rider to make a handle animal check to command the horse to do so. before the FAQ, it was perfectly withing the rules to say "i, the rider, am making a charge using my mounts movement speed, but the mount is not." you can no longer do this. weather you WANT your mount to attack the opponent or not is entirely irrelevant. it now has no choice in the matter. it MUST make an attack.
IF THE RIDER DECLARES THAT HE IS THE ONE MAKING THE CHARGE. If you declare that you are going to charge that goblin over there, the horse you are riding charges with you because the horse is your method of conveyance. If said goblin has a spear readied against your charge, it can attack either you or your horse, and both have a -2 to AC. This is why both you and your mount are considered charging when you declare that you, the rider, are making a charge.
Yes. Exactly. Calm down, HF. If the rider wants to charge, then so MUST the mount. That's correct. And that's why you must use handle animal to command your mount to make an attack. And this is precisely why everything is such a clusterf~~@.
Using Handle Animal to do so when you wanted to charge before the FAQ was never an issue. You just didn't have to if you didn't want to, just as Shimesen said. But now you have to, because if you want to charge, then your mount also has to charge. THAT'S why this is being brought up now and it has never been brought up before (or at least was only rarely ever brought up before). It wasn't a big deal before. Now it breaks mounted combat entirely for many characters.
^this is the problem in a nut shell^
Glad it only took us 292 posts to get here...
before the FAQ, it was perfectly withing the rules to say "i, the rider, am making a charge using my mounts movement speed, but the mount is not."
No it wasn't. If anything, it was the opposite. Some say it was unclear, but "perfectly within the rules"? That's at least an overstatement, if not incorrect.