So there are at least 3 different perfectly legal paths to make charging mounts work. If you think its broken its because of how you choose to read it.List them and include your quotes please, because I have yet to see one that doesn't involve having an animal companion or preparing the action over multiple turns.
Option 1) The animal is set to defend. Defend explicitly doesn't need an action.
Defend (DC 20): The animal defends you (or is ready to defend you if no threat is present), even without any command being given. Alternatively, you can command the animal to defend another specific character.
Option 2) Commanding your mount to fight is a free action ride check
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.
Option 3)
Mounted Combat: When making a charge while mounted, which creature charges? The rider or the mount?
Both charge in unison.
This explicitly spells out that you can both charge
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Perfectly legitimate rules interpretation A means mounted combat doesn't work.
Perfectly legitimate rules interpretation B means mounted combat works.
Go with B already. No one is ever going to write A so that you CAN"T misread it.
|
Who cares about the feat tax or whatever.As a guess: everyone who can't afford it, or doesn't have access to it?
Whaaaaaaat? What do you mean can't afford it? If you want your super shiny new bird horse mount, you have to factor that in to your build then. So what if your charge damage drops from 100 per charge to 90 because you have to delay a feat or miss out on something. YOU HAVE A HIPPOGRIFF! How cool is that? Be happy! (Or a Warg. Or a Griffon. But not a Hippocampus. Because seriously, who would take that? :D )
I might be totally stark raving mad, but I think this is all super cool.
What if Mr. Fishy wants to play a mounted fighter. Mr. Fishy can beat a giant to death with a chicken wing but he can't ride a unicorn...what if Mr. Fishy has leadership? and picks a Giant Owl. Mr. Fishy's owl can't fly unless he pays the feat ransom?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You aren't quoting any rules. You've made up your own interpretation that Charge isn't still a special attack action if you don't execute an attack roll at the end. This is your own house-rule and has no rules support anywhere, and several things working against it. A charge is still a charge, even if you don't make an attack roll at the end, otherwise you don't get the bonuses to attack and the penalty to AC, because you aren't charging anymore, you're just moving.The main one you're missing/ignoring is the description of how a charge works. That description not only types a charge as an action (not an attack) it also explicitly says an attack is an option following charge movement during a charge action.
That rule, specifically being about charges, trumps* general categorizations such as a reference elsewhere saying "charges are special attacks".
*= trumps logically, at any rate. If you want to ignore the rules about charges and insist a reference elsewhere renders them invalid, that's on you. Most of us wouldn't consider that a sound reading, however.
I'm not making up that the PRD calls a charge an action and not an attack. It was quoted upthread, but hey posts are free so why not quote it again.
Definition of charge, per the PRD:
Charging is a special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action. Charging, however, carries tight restrictions on how you can move.
Bolded for emphasis.
The rules for Charging say that Charging is an action. Any mention elsewhere that charging is always considered an attack is in conflict with the rules that specifically govern how charges work.
Rules on attacking as part of a charge:
After moving, you may make a single melee attack. You get a +2 bonus on the attack roll and take a –2 penalty to your AC until the start of your next turn.
Including an attack in a charge action is specifically called out as being optional/not mandatory by the use of the word "may". This rule, combined with the definition of what a charge is, says that a charge is a special full round action that combines movement with the option to attack.
I'm not making up that the PRD calls a charge an action and not an attack.
So if its a canine it can't be a wolf?
|
|
I'm not making up that the PRD calls a charge an action and not an attack.So if its a canine it can't be a wolf?
Not an accurate analogy.
The rules call out actions and attacks as having specific meanings within the context of the rules that are distinct from common English usage.
Besides, your analogy is also not accurate on a logical level.
A wolf is a type of canine. An attack is a type of action.
Yet a canine does not have to be a wolf. An action does not have to be an attack.
So yes, a canine CAN be a wolf, just like a charge CAN be an attack.
Obviously a canine can also NOT be a wolf, just like a charge can also NOT be an attack.
Whenever I see a post or OP that seats off with "Paizo hates..." I know it can't have any meaningful discussion.
Whenever I see a post or OP that seats off with "Paizo hates..." I know it can't have any meaningful discussion.
As I said earlier, just take it with a grain of salt and think of it as legitimate criticism and it makes a lot more sense. Hate is a strong word, but some gems might pop up in the conversations and its always good to look at how people view things. Things can hold plenty of truths, even if they state it in an extreme way. Maybe not that paizo actually hates mounts, but that mount rules are a bit unclear and the new monstrous mount feat could use some touch-up.
|
So there are at least 3 different perfectly legal paths to make charging mounts work. If you think its broken its because of how you choose to read it.List them and include your quotes please, because I have yet to see one that doesn't involve having an animal companion or preparing the action over multiple turns.Option 1) The animal is set to defend. Defend explicitly doesn't need an action.
Defend (DC 20): The animal defends you (or is ready to defend you if no threat is present), even without any command being given. Alternatively, you can command the animal to defend another specific character.
Option 2) Commanding your mount to fight is a free action ride check
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.
Option 3)
Mounted Combat: When making a charge while mounted, which creature charges? The rider or the mount?Both charge in unison.
This explicitly spells out that you can both charge
Option 1 Says the animal defends you, not "the animal aggressively seeks out enemies to smash".
Option 2, and I've said this dozens of times, doesn't say what you seem to think it does. Read it again: "Fight with a Combat-Trained Mount: If you direct your war-trained mount to attack in battle, you can still make your own attack or attacks normally. This usage is a free action."
That lets you, the rider, attack. That does nothing for commanding your mount, and is even predicated upon you having some other to command your mount. It actually specifically supports an interpretation that there is some other way to command your mount (see: Handle Animal).
OPtion 3 says that you both have to charge for the action to be considered mounted combat. It is restrictive, not permissive.
You've shown at best that if you take huge liberties with the RAW and and ignore the actual words printed after the short name, it's possible to pretend the rules actually have a working interpretation. And I've said all along that you can make up stuff all you want and it works. It may even work better. But that doesn't magically change the words on the page to say something other than what they say, and that's the whole point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I've noticed is when areas of the rules are confusing you often get group concensus how they work. With a home game the dm likely decides and I assume within a regular ofs group there's some agrees upon conce sus. Even if its never vocalized.
That's how the game works and results in some group in florida using the same unwritten rules as I do in canada without anyone ever discussing it.
The key thing though is to never forget when rules are confusing someone else may disagree and their opinion is still legitimate.
What seems to have happened here is a lot of vocalbpeople solved the rules incongruities in mounted combst and decided they workes in a way that favoured something they wanted to do. Namely vital strike.
There's nothing wrong with that concensus I can see why they thought it workes that way. I always assumes it workes mostly Like the pdt ruling.
The part that frustrates me is somewhere alongbthe way the group upset forgot that mounted combat is one of the most fratmented part of the rules.
At the end of the dsy if your gming in pfs and tell the players they cant charge now then the rules are not the issue.
|
|
The rules for Charging say that Charging is an action. Any mention elsewhere that charging is always considered an attack is in conflict with the rules that specifically govern how charges work.
I'm just going to reiterate this point:
Saying that charge isn't an attack doesn't support your argument, it undermines it and makes the rules even more murky, since you have to perform a charge action, your mount must be commanded to perform actions, and if it's not an attack than it's an undefined action and can only be commanded by a Push, which means nobody gets to perform a mounted charge ever. If it's an attack action, as the actual rules in the book and FAQs would indicate, it at least still works with a specific subset of characters.
Not an accurate analogy.I'm not making up that the PRD calls a charge an action and not an attack.So if its a canine it can't be a wolf?
Its a perfect analogy.
Action is a broad category, attack is a subset. Your basing your entire argument around an either or fallacy that exists entirely in your own head.
The rules call out actions and attacks as having specific meanings within the context of the rules that are distinct from common English usage.
Besides, your analogy is also not accurate on a logical level.
A wolf is a type of canine. An attack is a type of action.
Yet a canine does not have to be a wolf. An action does not have to be an attack.
Pssst.. thats the point. Do you get it now?
Option 1 Says the animal defends you, not "the animal aggressively seeks out enemies to smash".
And if you direct the mount to move quickly towards the opponent the animal doesn't have to due the seeking. Its. right. there.
Option 2, and I've said this dozens of times, doesn't say what you seem to think it does. Read it again: "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."It actually specifically supports an interpretation that there is some other way to command your mount (see: Handle Animal).
Which you assume means use the handle animal skill to use the attack trick. Its not a bad assumption, but its not the assumption you have to use.
Conversely, if your argument doesn't let the mount and his rider charge then quite obviously your argument is wrong. So if your argument is based on this assumption, its wrong.
OPtion 3 says that you both have to charge for the action to be considered mounted combat. It is restrictive, not permissive.
This is a complete fabrication. Why do you WANT there to be a problem?
|
|
I actually read the FAQ and was part of the conversation leading up to it. Read it again: "Note that a "mounted charge" is synonymous with a "charge while mounted," and that when a lance is "when used from the back of a charging mount" it is during a mounted charge not when only the mount charges."
Two separate actions. The lance only get damage when you both charge, not when only the mount charges. The FAQ is restricitve, it doesn't permit you to do anything.
Of the three options listed the only one that kind of works is the Defend trick, which still requires the initial Handle Animal check.
I don't want it not to work, I want them to fix it so that it does, and so that it does so in a way that is logical and consistent and doesn't require rules experts stretching to come up with slightly forced uses for the Defend trick to make it viable.
Your assessment of number 2 doesn't contain anything pertaining to the actual rules text of number two. It says something that can be done based on a condition. It absolutely does not dictate how to establish that condition anywhere in that particular block of rules text. The only place that does establish how to establsih that condition is the Handle Animal section.
Why on earth would you argue that if the rules don't allow something they must be wrong? I say the rules are very specific, they're just currently very restrictive. Only characters with animal commpanions or some other ability to perform a Handle Animal check as a free action can perform the newly defined "mounted charge". The fact that you want it to be different does not change what the rules say. I want it to be different to, that's why I'm involved in this conversation. I want them to work, and I want them to do so without elaborate stretches of the Defend trick or assuming that there are entire "implied" sentences that aren't actually written anywhere.
Of the three options listed the only one that kind of works is the Defend trick, which still requires the initial Handle Animal check.
At 8 am. If the animal is trained for it even Stinkbeard the 5 charisma peasant with a -3 handle animal can set it to "Defend" himself and he's good all day.
I don't want it not to work, I want them to fix it so that it does, and so that it does so in a way that is logical and consistent and doesn't require rules experts stretching to come up with slightly forced uses for the Defend trick to make it viable.
It seems ONLY rules experts are having a problem with this. Everyone else gets on the horsie and lances stuff. The end.
Your assessment of number 2 doesn't contain anything pertaining to the actual rules text of number two. It says something that can be done based on a condition. It absolutely does not dictate how to establish that condition anywhere in that particular block of rules text. The only place that does establish how to establish that condition is the Handle Animal section.
or it is establishing the condition.
Why on earth would you argue that if the rules don't allow something they must be wrong?
If your microscoping reading of the rules is that a knight can't charge with his horse you've done something wrong. Its like winding up in a flipped over car in a ditch on fire and taking out the drivers manual and saying "But i did everything right!"
I say the rules are very specific, they're just currently very restrictive. Only characters with animal commpanions or some other ability to perform a Handle Animal check as a free action can perform the newly defined "mounted charge". The fact that you want it to be different does not change what the rules say.
The fact that the developers do want it to say something else does. RAW is a myth. There is no wording that can't be misinterpreted if you torture it enough (what is is?)
I want it to be different to, that's why I'm involved in this conversation. I want them to work, and I want them to do so without elaborate stretches of the Defend trick or assuming that there are entire "implied" sentences that aren't actually written anywhere.
They already re wrote it once. They're not going to re write it again.
|
|
Of the three options listed the only one that kind of works is the Defend trick, which still requires the initial Handle Animal check.At 8 am. If the animal is trained for it even Stinkbeard the 5 charisma peasant with a -3 handle animal can set it to "Defend" himself and he's good all day.
I don't want it not to work, I want them to fix it so that it does, and so that it does so in a way that is logical and consistent and doesn't require rules experts stretching to come up with slightly forced uses for the Defend trick to make it viable.It seems ONLY rules experts are having a problem with this. Everyone else gets on the horsie and lances stuff. The end.
Exactly. The more you know the rules, the less they work. That, in my opinion and that of the scores of other people who FAQ'd the thread discussing this very topic, is an issue. Speaking of which, we should probaly take this over there so we can join all the other people who are confused in trying to get a real answer.
Side note: They didn't rewrite it. They deleted a paragraph without addressing any of the connected materials and mechanics.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RAW is a myth.
I have to say, the tack resorted to in order to defend the rules in this post and a bunch of other places in this thread ("RAW is unknown and unknowable! If I can come up with some strained interpretation that works the way I want it to, it is equally as valid as every other!") speaks for itself as to the wretched quality of the rules in question (a judgment which it seems should include the current FAQ).
RAW isn't a myth, when the rules are well written.
It is possible to have clear, well-written rules that accomplish their intended purpose with a minimum of ambiguity.
There's no need to resort to dramatic declarations that clear rules can't exist, unless the rules suck.
From the observation that the main defense given to this FAQ is that reasonably clear and unambiguous rules that serve their intended purpose are an impossible or pointless goal (!?!?!), I conclude, that the FAQ is bad.
I'm a little unclear on why this is an issue.
To order an animal that is not your AC to attack is a move action. Fine. It always has been. But, once done, it's done. You don't have to continue expending move actions to engage the enemy.
So, even if the worst of the naysayers id correct... it is merely a move action handle animal check to order an attack. From that point forward, even if you order a charge, the animal is already attacking. This makes NPC's, or even PC's without AC's, slightly less good at mounted combat then PC's with AC's. That doesn't bother me at all.
On the other hand, if the opposing viewpoint is right, they can still charge without getting an attack at the end of the charge until they use their move action to handle animal. That makes NPC's and PC's without the AC feature slightly less good at mounted combat than PC's with AC's. I really fail to see the problem with either interpretation.
Though it would be nice to know which is officially correct.
RAW is a myth.I have to say, the tack resorted to in order to defend the rules in this post and a bunch of other places in this thread ("RAW is unknown and unknowable! If I can come up with some strained interpretation that works the way I want it to, it is equally as valid as every other!")
1) I find my interpretations less strained than the opposition and
2) given 2 equally strained positions the one that makes the most sense, doesn't break the game, and allows the game to work is the one you go with.RAW isn't a myth, when the rules are well written.
What system of RPG rules is well written?
It is possible to have clear, well-written rules that accomplish their intended purpose with a minimum of ambiguity.
not with this many geeks pouring over it for combat advantage.
There's no need to resort to dramatic declarations that clear rules can't exist, unless the rules suck.
Its less the rules, more the rules lawyers.
From the observation that the main defense given to this FAQ is that reasonably clear and unambiguous rules that serve their intended purpose are an impossible or pointless goal (!?!?!), I conclude, that the FAQ is bad.
I think its reasonably clear. Horsie charges, goblin goes Gerk. Roll d20, have fun.
Most of the archetypes in Inner Sea Combat are terribad.
Heck the Spellscar Cowboy cant even challenge with his gun!
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with Ssalarn's position regarding the different role that the rules identify for Handle Animal and Ride. I apologize that this post is long. If you care about the issue, please read it. I know I am pretty wordy.
I also understand that this is an unpopular position. It's my opinion that it stems out of how people want the rules to work rather than how the rules are written. Mounted combat is broken; that word gets thrown around a lot, so to be clear, it doesn't work as written. I think everyone has an idea of how it should work, even if those ideas are not the same. The FAQ seems simple, but when pealed back, it results in more problems than it solves.
Anyone seeking to make mounted combat work has to decide upon compromises that they will make in the rules to some degree. This was the case in 3.5 and it remains the case. Unfortunately, the FAQ is directly at odds with the set of compromises that is the closest thing we have had to date that describes a standard set of compromises, the 3.5 era Rules of the Game articles on mounted combat. ( see my profile for a link.)
Should it work? Yes. Ssalarn has done an excellent job, with an incredible degree of patience, of communicating the disconnect that the FAQ has created in something that should just plain work. The campaign he is on hopefully will result in future changes that will improve the game.
I encourage anyone who is interested in this topic to read the relevant mounted combat rules again, including the ride skill, handle animal skill, mounted comat section, FAQ entries, and related feats, with fresh eyes to see what they really say. Going so will result in additional voices communicating to the developers how bad the problem is, particularly with how the FAQ fits in. The various portions of the mounted combat system do not work together.
The biggest thing that I see in preventing people from seeing the rules as they are written is some variation on, "Handle Animal doesn't figure in when mounted; only the Ride skill matters." This is an invention. It doesn't exist in the rules. It is often supported by readings of the ride check to attack with a mount that relies on reading it differently than the words on the page. This isn't an attack or dome egotistical statement that I'm right and others are wrong. It is a recognition that reading comprehension can be influenced by what we think is fact before we read a passage in question.
It's a messed up area. Defending it as being just fine as is is a disservice to the game and prevents it from being fixed. Thank you for your patience in getting to the end of this post.
Whenever I see a post or OP that seats off with "Paizo hates..." I know it can't have any meaningful discussion.I was a bit perturbed at the latest changes because it strongly effects characters I have and for several games, Paizo's word is law. thats how my gms run this and effectively make my mounted characters just want to take their mounts and run into a volcano because that is all they're good for.
Maybe hate was indeed a strong word. maybe i should have said strongly dislike mounts. I don't know, but what I do know is that because of the recent changes I have a paperweight of a character and ultimately deciding whether or not to leave this system because I am no longer having fun being the knight on a white horse in the sunset and actually do stuff when a caster or archer can do the same thing so much better.
the way these new feats appear to me is, ok you can have something similar to the wizards now with an upgraded pet. oh look its still inferior to the wizards due to an extra feat that is needed and the mount is denied what it should be able to do.
That is what I'm seeing and that is why I state they hate mounts. when you put into comparison the toys other classes can get.
I will have some... qualified agreement with you, here. Qualified in the sense that I never really see them take the nerf bat to casters, but if a martial even approaches what a caster can do at an equal level, they drop it hard on them.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will have some... qualified agreement with you, here. Qualified in the sense that I never really see them take the nerf bat to casters, but if a martial even approaches what a caster can do at an equal level, they drop it hard on them.
This is a bit long-winded, but-
I talked a bit about this earlier in the thread. There's this skewed perception of value that says that "If someone can do it all day, it needs to be substantially less good than the comparative option for someone with limited resources.
The problem is how that plays out in real life. For example, the idea a flying mount needs to have this huge bundle of restrictions on it because once you've got it, you can fly all day long. There's a couple problems with that idea though:
1) You can't even get the flying mount until 5th level at the very earliest, and then you've got two more levels of waiting and another feat before you can fly on it. Overland Flight is available to Wizards at 9th level and lasts for 9 hours (or more) standard flight is available at 5th level and lasts for 5 minutes at a stretch (that's 50 rounds, btw). While I'm riding my flying mount, it is subject to every hail of arrows, every explosion, every torrential storm I am, and that little bugger caps out at 12 HD at 20th level. You better believe that resource is more limited than flight spells a wizard can write a few scrolls of for pocket change.
2) Adventuring is a cooperative game. I have yet to see a situation where the party pulled a 12 hour adventuring day and then said "You know what, we may be out of spells and consumables, but Johnny the Fighter still does 2d6+16 a swing, so lets push on. I'm sure we'll be good." Johnny has the most precious limited resource of all (hit points) and that resource is going to start getting scarce exactly one encounter after the healer runs out of recovery resources. The very nature of the game says that unlimited abilities are actually of very limited worth, because at any given time you're probably going to have 50% or more of your group running on limited resources that are essential to the group's survival. When those resources run out, it's rough.
3) Mounted Combat, aside from all of its other issues, is a close runner-up to Archery and Two Weapon Fighting as one of the most feat intensive combat styles in the game. If you want to be able to train your mount and ride it, you've got two skills you need to invest into, you need Mounted Combat, you need Trick Riding if you want to keep your friend alive while you keeping dashing into the mix of things, you're going to pick up Spirited Charge to keep your damage up, or Mounted Skirmisher if you want a non-charging option, and you need some way to get your mount to the enemy consistently through all levels of play. These new feats are an option for that, but they put additional requirements and feats into play that keep ratcheting the cost up for things others can do for free. For example, druids and Beastmaster Rangers already have two options for flying mounts that small characters can ride from 1st level and medium creatures can ride from 7th. A small Summoner can have a flying Eidolon mount by 5th level, and a medium one can have one from 8th. They don't have to spend a single feat or resource outside of the ones specifically designated to support that class feature, but on the other side of the fence you've got Cavaliers and standard rangers who are having to spend 2-3 feats just to get the mount, and still more to be able to take advantage of it.
There's just a very skewed equation here that has not been working out well for the non-spellcasting classes lately.
Option 1) The animal is set to defend. Defend explicitly doesn't need an action.
Defend (DC 20): The animal defends you (or is ready to defend you if no threat is present), even without any command being given. Alternatively, you can command the animal to defend another specific character.
Option 2) Commanding your mount to fight is a free action ride check
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.
I do have issues with two of your options though.
1) It is also in my opinion that Defend, and also many of the other tricks, imply a level of autonomy to the animal's actions once the command is given, which I mentioned in a post before. I'll assume Defend is used as an example by you mainly because this autonomy is explicitly specified in the trick. However, what that autonomy entails depends on how companions are controlled in your game, which there are no set rules for in Pathfinder. Like the examples given in Ultimate Campaign, the problem with giving player had full control of the mount, the player could decide that the mount charges exactly when she wants it to charge, aid another when she wants it do so, and basically completely negate the need for Handle Animal skills at all. Therefore, although this is technically a legal option, it first requires that this be a game where the players had complete or near-complete control of the actions of their animal companions.
2) I've also explained this in a post before that shows that this use of the ride skill is not meant to direct your mount to attack, but rather allows the rider to attack normally in the same turn that his mount did, by pointing out its origins in 3.0 and 3.5 where the rider could not attack at all if he directed his mount to, as stated explicitly in the description of the old Warhorse creature entry. With the removal of this limitation from PF mounts, this is likely an obsolete usage.
Guide with Knees: You can guide your mount with your knees so you can use both hands in combat. Make your Ride check at the start of your turn. If you fail, you can use only one hand this round because you need to use the other to control your mount. This does not take an action.[b]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 [b]attacks normally. This usage is a free action.
Did Mr. Fishy miss a page? Mr. Fishy doesn't have his book, but the srd is usual accurate.
Attacks require a full round action. and Guide with your knees is a no action on a failed roll you lose the use of one hand. Lances are one handed when mounted or has that changed?
I think that the title of this topic is funny, considering all the awesome stuff that was put into Inner Sea Combat to give Martials more love.
Erm... I don't have my copy yet, any other goodies? In particular for mounted types? I mean we have a theme here. I've seen a few of the archetypes, and like any other book sturgeon's law applies. Burn Rider for instance can see through fire and gets rage rounds for being on fire, but doesn't have the power to do either of those things on his own, and he gets a mount and the power to make it move faster, but he gets that in the opposite order. Its also once per rage. Ick.
Bro, I did not say Paizo hates the martials. What I am saying is that a subsect of martials are getting screwed hard core while others are getting everything they want with very little cost to themselves.I think that the title of this topic is funny, considering all the awesome stuff that was put into Inner Sea Combat to give Martials more love. Yet one option that the OP considers not good and suddenly, we forget the cool stuff they got and go "Hurr durr Paizo haets teh martials".
Typical.
Aye, two handed weapons take very little investment and are one of the top options.
|
|
Guide with Knees: You can guide your mount with your knees so you can use both hands in combat. Make your Ride check at the start of your turn. If you fail, you can use only one hand this round because you need to use the other to control your mount. This does not take an action.[b]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 [b]attacks normally. This usage is a free action.
Did Mr. Fishy miss a page? Mr. Fishy doesn't have his book, but the srd is usual accurate.
Attacks require a full round action. and Guide with your knees is a no action on a failed roll you lose the use of one hand. Lances are one handed when mounted or has that changed?
You apparently did miss a page. Fight with a Combat Trained Mount doesn't say what you think it says. Read it again. It allows you, the rider, to make attacks if you command your mount to attack in battle. Guide with Knees simply removes the need for you to have a hand on the reins when mounted. Neither provides a means of actually commanding your mount to attack or perform specific actions.
Ride covers thing you, the rider, do. Handle Animal covers things the mount does. Ride even specifically refers to the Handle Animal skill (go take a peek at what combat training actually is. It is literally just a collection of Handle Animal tricks which your mount has to know).
|
Attacks require a full round action. and Guide with your knees is a no action on a failed roll you lose the use of one hand. Lances are one handed when mounted or has that changed?
People are saying that the Ride skill does not override the Handle Animal skill, where it says directing a non-companion mount is a move action.
While I find that reading to be a valid interpretation, I choose to go with the same interpretation as you, no matter how people howl about it being a houserule.
Because I choose the interpretation that WORKS over the one that doesn't. All while entirely supporting the call for the devs to make a clarification for those that DON'T.
Guide with Knees: You can guide your mount with your knees so you can use both hands in combat. Make your Ride check at the start of your turn. If you fail, you can use only one hand this round because you need to use the other to control your mount. This does not take an action.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.
Did Mr. Fishy miss a page? Mr. Fishy doesn't have his book, but the srd is usual accurate.
Attacks require a full round action. and Guide with your knees is a no action on a failed roll you lose the use of one hand. Lances are one handed when mounted or has that changed?
I'm not sure what it is you meant with Guide with Knees, but on Fight with a Combat-Trained Mount:
I'm not sure if this will help or hinder anyone's stance, but going back a bit in time to D&D 3.0 and 3.5, things worked a bit differently and some wordings that exist in PF now may very well be just a relic of that time.
Looking at my SRD of then, the Handle Animal skills didn't cover the command of all animal companions and mounts like it did now. The rules for commanding animal companions and using tricks were listed separately under their own section, and the Ride skill for various tasks involving mounts were a separate thing that wasn't so integrated with that, as mundane or Paladin mounts were treated as different things altogether.
From the rules back then we can find the original use of the Ride skill task Fight with a Warhorse that existed back then. As some people wondered, "If this task isn't there to for the Rider to direct his mount to attack, then it has no other use in Pathfinder since having a mount attack doesn't hinder the rider's ability to do so normally, therefore it must be for that purpose." Well, back in 3.0 and 3.5 this wasn't the case, as under the Warhose entry it reads "A heavy warhorse can fight while carrying a rider, but the rider cannot also attack unless he or she succeeds at a Ride check (DC 10)."
With the removal of this line in Pathfinder, I suspect this use of the Ride skill to be an obsolete one.
On looking over rules from the past editions I strongly suspect Fight with a Combat-Trained Mount is an obsolete relic leftover from before, and has no real use in Pathfinder, and thus no real value in the discussion of the Mounted Combat rules.
Edit: To clarify, past edition rules explicitly support ssalarn's interpretation of the Fight with a Combat-Trained Mount usage, though this use of the skill is rendered pointless with the removal of this limitation in Pathfinder's new stats for the warhorse.
So explain because it says, "guide with knees/ This does not take an action." and "If you direct your war-trained mount to attack in battle, you can still make your own attack"
You quoted it Mr. Fishy quoted it is there a animals can't attack rule some where?
|
|
I strongly suspect Fight with a Combat-Trained Mount is an obsolete relic leftover from before, and has no real use in Pathfinder.I find a very good use for it right here in this thread myself. :)
If only it actually said anything remotely close to what you want it to say. It permits you, the rider, to do something under a specific condition. It does not include anything that allows that condition. I would not be averse to advocating that Paizo change it so that it does say what you want it to say though.
|
|
So explain because it says, "guide with knees/ This does not take an action." and "If you direct your war-trained mount to attack in battle, you can still make your own attack"
You quoted it Mr. Fishy quoted it is thier a animals can't attack rule some where?
Gee, lets just shift the bolding here...
"If you direct your war-trained mount to attack in battle, you can still make your own attack"
If, you command your mount, you can make an attack. This does not allow you to command your mount, it allows you to make an attack.
Lets try it with different subject matter.
"If you eat Skittles, you can fly like Superman".
That doesn't give you Skittles, it lets you know that you can do something if you do. You still have to go buy Skittles.
Similarly, you still have to use the normal methods for commanding an animal (Handle Animal) to actually command your mount to attack, at which point you can make this check to make an attack.
|
|
If only it actually said anything remotely close to what you want it to say.Oh, it does. You may not like it, but it does. But if you need a dev to tell you that, I heartily support your efforts in that direction.
It has nothing to do with what I like, it has to do with what it actually says. See my post above. The words, in the order they are presented, do not allow you to do what you want them to do. They absolutely do not say that. It's not a matter of opinion thing, it's a "These words in this order do not contain the grammatical connotations that mean what you want them to mean".
I would love it if they did, that's all I and at least 50 other people on these forums are really asking for. A set of rules that actually say something that is consistent and works without wishful extrapolation.
Right no, only people with animal companions can perform mounted charges by RAW.
|
|
It's not a matter of opinion thing, it's a "These words in this order do not contain the grammatical connotations that mean what you want them to mean".
And I find that they do. I entirely support the request that Paizo straighten them out further as well.
(Edit: To be fair, I find the words are able to be read both ways. English is funny like that.)
Gee, lets just shift the bolding here..."If you direct your war-trained mount to attack in battle, you can still make your own attack"
If, you command your mount, you can make an attack. This does not allow you to command your mount, it allows you to make an attack.
Lets try it with different subject matter.
"If you eat Skittles, you can fly like Superman".
That doesn't give you Skittles, it lets you know that you can do something if you do. You still have to go buy Skittles.
So your argueument, minus the requested rule quote, is Mr. Fishy needs two feats to eat the skittles in his hand.
Got it.Mr. Fishy doesn't need ride. He will max out handle animal and spend a move action to command his horse to carry him, no riding because that cost feats, into battle.
1) Like the examples given in Ultimate Campaign, the problem with giving player had full control of the mount, the player could decide that the mount charges exactly when she wants it to charge, aid another when she wants it do so, and basically completely negate the need for Handle Animal skills at all.
Handle animal checks are almost automatic right out of the gate anyway.
Therefore, although this is technically a legal option, it first requires that this be a game where the players had complete or near-complete control of the actions of their animal companions.
Or, the player and the dm could trust one another well enough To treat the mount as a separate character. I don't think its that much of a stretch for the behavior of a combat trained warhorse that when it sees its master smashing people in the face thinks "Its clobbering time!" and starts whacking things.
2) I've also explained this in a post before that shows that this use of the ride skill is not meant to direct your mount to attack, but rather allows the rider to attack normally in the same turn that his mount did, by pointing out its origins in 3.0 and 3.5 where the rider could not attack at all if he directed his mount to, as stated explicitly in the description of the old Warhorse creature entry. With the removal of this limitation from PF mounts, this is likely an obsolete usage.
Well thats an odd position to take. You want to argue explicit raw and the death of the author in some cases but here you're looking at the authors intent.