Design Manager
|
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.
Which brings us around to the actual point of this particular tangent of the conversation: The recent FAQ says that both the mount and the rider must spend a charge action to perform their newly defined "mounted charge". A charge is a full round action. If you have spent a move action commanding your mount, you no longer have a full round action available. You can still have your mount charge and make a normal attack at the end, but it doesn't gain the benefits of a mounted charge for things like Spirited Charge and Lance damage per the new FAQ. So, you need an Animal Companion, which can be commanded as a free action, if you want to perform the new "mounted charge" action and receive the appropriate benefits.
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.)
There is no valid interpretation that turns "If you have Skittles, you can fly" into "When you want to fly you always have Skittles". The exact same sentence structure is used in FIght With a Combat Trained Mount. Saying "If you command your mount, then X happens" does not mean "You can command your mount so that X happens". Those are two completely separate sentences, and the phrasing of one does not mean or imply the other.
Unfortunately here is where it shows up. BNW is part of the group of people who do not argue rules in good faith, because they believe that many rules questions are being proposed by no good dirty powergamers looking for an advantage, rather than people trying to figure out how the rules actually work :(
not with this many geeks pouring over it for combat advantage.
On the contrary, I do argue the rules in good faith precisely BECAUSE I believe that many rules questions are being proposed b no good dirty power gamers. I've been pretty clear here that there are two ways to read the raw here and that the deciding factor for me is which one makes more sense and which one the authors have said they were trying to convey. A looser approach to exegesis is not a less valid one, particularly when you explicitly point it out as your reasoning.
|
There is no valid interpretation that turns "If you have Skittles, you can fly" into "When you want to fly you always have Skittles". The exact same sentence structure is used in FIght With a Combat Trained Mount.
That's because you are using a skewed example to support your interpretation and say that mine is invalid.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Found under the "ride" skill not handle animal a different skill.
Guide with your knees, found in the ride skill allows you to "command" your mount. It does not state the nature of the commands; however, combat is stated in the description.
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. Free action order Fluffy to kill.
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.
Two abilities of the RIDE skill that allow a player to control a mount in combat without any actions. Freeing up a full round action perfect for charging.
|
Design Manager
|
There is no valid interpretation that turns "If you have Skittles, you can fly" into "When you want to fly you always have Skittles". The exact same sentence structure is used in Fight With a Combat Trained Mount.That's because you are using a skewed example to support your interpretation and say that mine is invalid.
It's the exact same grammatical structure. "If you command your mount, then X happens" does not mean "You can command your mount so that X happens". Those are two completely separate sentences, and the phrasing of one does not mean or imply the other.
Found under the "ride" skill not handle animal a different skill.
Guide with your knees, found in the ride skill allows you to "command" your mount. It does not state the nature of the commands; however, combat is stated in the description.
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. Free action order Fluffy to kill.
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.
Two abilities of the RIDE skill that allow a player to control a mount in combat without any actions. Freeing up a full round action perfect for charging.
I've pointed like 50 times that fight with a Combat Trained Mount does not say one single word about allowing you to give your mount commands. See the Skittles examples.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is no ride or handle animal check required to move a combat trained mount around during battle. Ride says everything stuff doesn't take a check. You just move where you want.
The issue is with the attack. Handle animal has the attack trick. It requires a move action for a non-companion or other situation where it is a free action.
The fight with war-trained mount section in the ride skill grammatically identifies what you need to do to fight with your mount. "If you direct your war-trained mount to attack...." How does one direct a mount to attack? It says right in Handle Animal how....with a trick. Having done so, "....you can still make your own attack..." How do you do this? You make a Ride check. This usage of the Ride check, the topic of the passage, is a free action. What does it do? It allows you to attack along with your mount, who has been directed to attack via HA.
The idea that the attack at the end of a charge doesn't work to solve the problem vcharge is an integrated action that includes an attack. The animal must be commanded to attack before it can charge. Getting it NOT to attack at the end of a charge actually requires an ADDITIONAL command, the down trick. Likewise, defend doesn't do the job because of the need to issue the active attack that is part of the charge.
The idea that the ride skill replaces the need for varied HA tricks is invented out of whole cloth. It does not exist in the rules. The idea exists because of the nature in which rules are learned, which is mainly from others. We have repeatedly seen the idea of viral rules...where an influential player gets an entire community off on the wrong track via a misunderstanding. This is an example of the same process.
Please quote the rules you feel justifiy your stance.
Mr. Fishy has quoted from the SRD a rule. Please do the same.
No you're wrong is not a valid arguement.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Found under the "ride" skill not handle animal a different skill.
Guide with your knees, found in the ride skill allows you to "command" your mount. It does not state the nature of the commands; however, combat is stated in the description.
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. Free action order Fluffy to kill.
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.
Two abilities of the RIDE skill that allow a player to control a mount in combat without any actions. Freeing up a full round action perfect for charging.
Are you suggesting that you can command a mount with your knees to do so you couldn't do while using one hand on the reins? Guiding with knees is a rider's ability to substitute knees for a hand to allow that hand to be used in other ways. Guiding with knees grants no command capability that doesn't already exist. It just changes the medium of command.
Fight with a combat trained mount has been discussed in detail. It isn't a free action to order Fluffy to kill. Rather it is a free action for the rider to fight, given that the mount already is doing so.
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.
With all due respect, please do not confuse my statement with ssalarn's. I know that in an ongoing discussion like this people's point tend to blend in the memory after a while, but I don't recall having argued from the position of being pedantic about grammar in this discussion.
I understand that this kind of confusion comes about easily in this situation, but I don't appreciate the sneery remarks when I've been nothing but cordial in my discussion so far.
|
Design Manager
|
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.With all due respect, please do not confuse my statement with ssalarn's. I know that in an ongoing discussion like this people's point tend to blend in the memory after a while, but I don't recall having argued from the position of being pedantic about grammar in this discussion.
Ouch dude. Is saying "This thing does not say what you're trying to say it does" really pedantic? This isn't a "Can I vs. May I" thing, this is a "That thing literally does not contain words which mean what you're saying they mean" thing.
|
|
Please quote the rules you feel justifiy your stance.
Mr. Fishy has quoted from the SRD a rule. Please do the same.
No you're wrong is not a valid arguement.
If that's directed at me, it so egregiously mischaracterizes my post as to be meaningless. I provided a rules quote. I broke it down with commentary.
What exactly do you think I have asserted that isn't supported? I'm sorry, but posting from a phone carries a few limitations and it is my only way to post these days. I can't copy and past selected passages, and there are limits to what I'm going to type out.
Ouch dude. Is saying "This thing does not say what you're trying to say it does" really pedantic? This isn't a "Can I vs. May I" thing, this is a "That thing literally does not contain words which mean what you're saying they mean" thing.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.With all due respect, please do not confuse my statement with ssalarn's. I know that in an ongoing discussion like this people's point tend to blend in the memory after a while, but I don't recall having argued from the position of being pedantic about grammar in this discussion.
It wasn't a shade on your argument ssalarn, but apparently that's what some people think what you said is doing, and somehow I'm being attributed the same.
People are arguing to death over RAW and grammar themselves about how to read Fight with a Combat-Trained Mount, I provide a background that gives explicit RAW usage of the exact same rules in previous editions, which also strongly implies the intent of the same rules in this edition, and somehow I'm being hinted as being contradictory or hypocritical? That doesn't make sense nor makes me a happy apple, tbh.
That doesn't make sense nor makes me a happy apple, tbh.I find that to be the time to leave people to their arguments.
Maybe it is. Sadly, I can see the possible comebacks that will be laid against me from this, should people keep up this attitude.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As more than one other person mentioned, one side in this debate has used an overly focused reading of the Rules As Written to arrive to the conclusion that something that was once very common is now, in fact, impossible for the vast majority of PCs and NPCs. The other side is citing the same rules, but has arrived to the conclusion that you still can, in fact, do this very common thing.
Absent any indication that the Paizo game designers are sadists, I'm going to go with the latter crowd. That is, I'll assume their intent here is along the lines of their intent for the Magus and Spell Combat/Spell Strike (hint: it wasn't to say Magi can't do a thing).
Something else. A lot of the argument being brought forth by those who believe charging can no longer be done seems to focus on the idea that the use of the Handle Animal skill (in this case, constituting a move action) is mandatory to the mounted charge process. Personally, I think that's where a lot of the misunderstanding begins.
Handle Animal is a skill that enables a character to teach animals certain tricks and/or to have them perform said tricks. I can't shake the feeling that, while Ride is a skill that always involves a character riding a mount, Handle Animal can involve most any animal, regardless of whether it is acting as the character's mount or not while performing a trick. While only some of the tricks outlined under Handle Animal could feasibly (or logically) be performed by a mount while it is ridden by its master, all of them could be performed by a non-mounted animal.
Handle Animal makes it clear that commanding a trained animal to attack is a move action. This would leave the animal's master with the ability to make a single attack (a standard action) and perhaps some other minor actions. Ride, however, makes it clear that directing one's trained mount to attack in battle is a free action, and that the rider can still their attack or attacks normally. I think this qualified distinction makes it clear that Ride, and not Handle Animal, is the skill that governs the actions a character and their mount can and cannot make in combat.
That is to say:
1. Handle Animal allows a character without the Animal Companion feature to use a move action to order a trained, I don't know, bear to attack someone. While they're at it, the character could also swing an axe at the person they're ordering the bear to attack.
2. That same character would use Ride to direct their heavy horse to attack an adjacent opponent as a free action, and would also be able to swing his axe one or more times (depending on their BaB) as well.
3. That very same character would use Ride, and not Handle Animal, when determining anything involved with a mounted charge.
I am reconciled to the fact that an overly nuanced reading of game rules will always enable individuals to find fault somewhere. I don't disagree that, in a lot of cases, the rules could be written better or more clearly. In this case, however, I have a very hard time agreeing with the OP's point of view.
People are arguing to death over RAW and grammar themselves about how to read Fight with a Combat-Trained Mount, I provide a background that gives explicit RAW usage of the exact same rules in previous editions, which also strongly implies the intent of the same rules in this edition, and somehow I'm being hinted as being contradictory or hypocritical? That doesn't make sense nor makes me a happy apple, tbh.
I'm not confusing you with someone else.
On one hand you have that the mounted combat is not supposed to allow the rider to handle the animal because of author intent.
On the other hand you have the authors intending to let the rider and mount charge together. But then the authors intent doesn't matter.
|
Design Manager
|
Umm, overly nuanced nothing. It takes a ridiculous amount of nuance to come to the conclusion that any of the rules mentioned outside of Handle Animal allow you to give commands. Nuanced as in "inferring things that aren't actually stated or written because that means things do what I want them to do".
I don't want to force the rules to say something they don't, I want the rules to say something that opens mounted combat up for easy access with clear rules and rulings that all work together smoothly.
People are arguing to death over RAW and grammar themselves about how to read Fight with a Combat-Trained Mount, I provide a background that gives explicit RAW usage of the exact same rules in previous editions, which also strongly implies the intent of the same rules in this edition, and somehow I'm being hinted as being contradictory or hypocritical? That doesn't make sense nor makes me a happy apple, tbh.I'm not confusing you with someone else.
On one hand you have that the mounted combat is not supposed to allow the rider to handle the animal because of author intent.
On the other hand you have the authors intending to let the rider and mount charge together. But then the authors intent doesn't matter.
This is indeed one of the responses I was expecting. "If you ever argue against the intent that "Games are supposed to work", then you cannot use RAI at all in a rules discussion without being a hypocrite."
Well, I'll leave people to judge that as they will.
If RAI helps to fill in missing pieces of RAW to make it work naturally, then it's fine. If RAI needs to overturn RAW to make it work, it's not fine. (Somebody will probably analyze this sentiment to death and rebuff me again) And in this case, to you and those who said "RAI and RAW from Fighting with a Combat-Trained Mount support our interpretation", there's enough arguments going on between you guys and Ssalarn on RAW in this case, and I pointed out that RAI does not support that argument either, as cited from previous editions.
|
|
I'm reversing my position on the meaning of the Fight with War-Trained Mount. I am doing so on the basis of the following passage from the 3.5 RotG articles on mounted combat ca link can be found in my profile. The link in question is to the second article.
This isn't a decision made lightly. This has been a topic I've debated since 2005. During the last days of 3.5, the RotG articles were modified to conform with the FAQ, Rules Compendium, and other sources. In some cases, Skip's original take on things was seen as an addition to rules and/or WotC's developers had found them to create problems. I suspect this was an area where there was a change in the last days and I haven't noticed it before.
It is my opinion that the RotG articles provide the closest thing that we have to a standard interpretation. While I'm not a fan of what this means to my sense of approaching the rules from the perspective of system mastery, I'm also of the opinion that a level of consistency is important and is worth making compromise.
The passage in question:
"Fight Along with Your Mount: Make a DC 10 Ride check as a free action. If you succeed, you can direct your mount to attack a foe and you also can attack as well. See the section on attacking while mounted for details. If you fail this check, or don't bother to make it, either you or your mount can attack this turn, but not both of you."
Edit: typo
I'm reversing my position and the meaning of the Fight with War-Trained Mount. I am doing so on the basis of the following passage from the 3.5 RotG articles on mounted combat ca link can be found in my profile. The link in question is to the second article.
This isn't a decision made lightly. This has been a topic I've debated since 2005. During the last days of 3.5, the RotG articles were modified to conform with the FAQ, Rules Compendium, and other sources. In some cases, Skip's original take on things was seen as an addition to rules and/or WotC's developers had found them to create problems. I suspect this was an area where there was a change in the last days and I haven't noticed it before.
It is my opinion that the RotG articles provide the closest thing that we have to a standard interpretation. While I'm not a fan of what this means to my sense of approaching the rules from the perspective of system mastery, I'm also of the opinion that a level of consistency is important and is worth making compromise.
The passage in question:
"Fight Along with Your Mount: Make a DC 10 Ride check as a free action. If you succeed, you can direct your mount to attack a foe and you also can attack as well. See the section on attacking while mounted for details. If you fail this check, or don't bother to make it, either you or your mount can attack this turn, but not both of you."
This is something I could stand behind, an update to clarify the use of that skill in 3.5, and possibly support the RAI interpretation of what the people have been saying about Fight with a Combat-Trained Mount. Though it being from the RotG didn't make it an official ruling, at least it showed the some sort of designer intent during that era of the game.
Umm, overly nuanced nothing. It takes a ridiculous amount of nuance to come to the conclusion that any of the rules mentioned outside of Handle Animal allow you to give commands. Nuanced as in "inferring things that aren't actually stated or written because that means things do what I want them to do".
And yet that's precisely what Ride purports to do:
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.
You seem to interpret the above text as stating the following:
"If you direct your war-trained mount to make an attack as a free action, you can still make your own attack or attacks normally. This usage of the Ride skill is a free action, BUT prior to directing your mount to do so, you must nonetheless make a successful Handle Animal check to command your mount to perform the Attack trick, which in turn requires you to expend a move action."
To arrive at your conclusion, you have to assume that the two Skills are contradictory to each other: that a free action (directing a trained mount to attack) is actually a free action on top of a move action.
Am I missing something? If so, you have my apologies! :)
You seem to interpret the above text as stating the following:"If you direct your war-trained mount to make an attack as a free action, you can still make your own attack or attacks normally. This usage of the Ride skill is a free action, BUT prior to directing your mount to do so, you must nonetheless make a successful Handle Animal check to command your mount to perform the Attack trick, which in turn requires you to expend a move action."
To arrive at your conclusion, you have to assume that the two Skills are contradictory to each other: that a free action (directing a trained mount to attack) is actually a free action on top of a move action.
Am I missing something? If so, you have my apologies! :)
I believe it is more like "If you direct your war-trained mount to make an attack this round (through another skill/action), you can still make your own attack normally by using a free action to make this Ride check."
This is because in 3.0/3.5, an entry in the warhorse stats stated that if you directed your mount to attack, you couldn't make your own attack without using that specific application of the Ride skill.
Although, it's been pointed out by Howie23, that in the last errata/faq of 3.5, one of the designers clarified it to mean that you may use this skill to both direct your mount to attack, and allow yourself to attack in the same round. Although the last part of the sentence "If you fail this check, or don't bother to make it, either you or your mount can attack this turn, but not both of you," implies that you could still make your mount attack on its own without the use of this skill, weirdness. *shrug*
Okay, I'm not sure what my position is on the whole mounted combat issue, but it's getting really tiring seeing the "guide with knees" issue being brought up every five posts, and always getting the exact same answer. Seriously, people...
Whaaaaaaat? What do you mean can't afford 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?
You get only 1 feat per 2 levels. If you've used them on other stuff that you sort of need to be able to do, then you don't have 3 of them left over for this sort of thing (and you don't have 3 of them anyway unless you're at least 5th level or human).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anyway, is it just me, or would the whole riding thing be a LOT clearer if they merged the Handle Animal skill with the Ride skill and simply had one set of internally-consistent rules?
|
Design Manager
|
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.Am I missing something? If so, you have my apologies! :)
Yeah, you're missing the fact that that doesn't say you can direct your mount as part of that check. It (and I've said this like 50 times) says that you can make a check to do something if another set of criteria are met, but does not allow you to complete said criteria as part of the check. Howie did an excellent job of posting the late 3.5 errata that reflects what that skill should say to do what you want it to do.
It would be great if Paizo could do their own errata to update their version which reflects the old cumbersome version of 3.5 that did not allow Ride to perform functions covered by Handle Animal, or collapsed the Ride and Handle Animal skills together into one cohesive unit. Given that the latter option is very unlikely, an errata to the Ride skill similar to that done back in 3.5 would definitely suffice.
Anyway, is it just me, or would the whole riding thing be a LOT clearer if they merged the Handle Animal skill with the Ride skill and simply had one set of internally-consistent rules?
Frankly, no. Ride and Handle Animal aren't really the problem. Mounted Combat is a massive patchwork of cut-and-paste from 3.5, situational rules that don't make sense in any other type of combat, revisions and patches to address balance/realism issues, and FAQ's/Errata to mitigate gaping loopholes open to abuse.
To become clear, they basically need to raze them to the ground and rebuild them from the basic foundation of "Rules that Also Apply to Everything Else."
Start with "What space does the rider occupy on a large-sized mount?" "What is the rider's reach with a normal weapon? with a reach weapon?" "How do feats apply if the rider has them and mount does not? if the mount has them and the rider does not?" "Who needs to meet prerequisites, the rider or the mount, or both?" "Do rider and mount have the same initiative? or separate? If separate who's do they act on?"
Crusader, you're posing something of a false dilemma. All the things you recommend would help. So would merging the two skills into a coherent mechanic. It's not a case of either/or.
Kirth,
So should the merged skill be based on Charisma or Dexterity? I can't see how Dexterity helps you direct hounds, nor how Charisma lets you keep your balance on a bucking horse. Which is probably why they're still two separate skills, even though they're clearly related and have overlap.
If it matters, in a dream world skill checks would probably allow a choice between two attributes.
That said, I always thought whether a horse listens to you is more up to the horse than how fast you pull its reins or how well you talk to it... They tend to be neigh sayers you know.
More seriously, ride skills tend to be more about the riders ability to actually stay on, handle animal is about your ability to train animals or tell them what to do. Both probably need a revamp if you ask me(no one did though!) because handle animal is pretty clunky and I never see ride used. Then again maybe mount and animal companion rules need a revamp... but that's probably asking for a lot and something totally different.
Crusader, you're posing something of a false dilemma. All the things you recommend would help. So would merging the two skills into a coherent mechanic. It's not a case of either/or.
I'm not seeing the false dilemma. The Ride skill covers how you control a mounts movement, and how you handle yourself while mounted. The Handle Animal skill covers controlling the other things an animal can do, and how they learn to do them.
Combining them into one skill would certainly save some of my characters some skill points. But, it wouldn't make Mounted Combat any clearer.
Yeah, you're missing the fact that that doesn't say you can direct your mount as part of that check.
I get where you're coming from. I really do. I admit my intent in re-citing that rule could have been more clear. Let me try again:
Fight with a Combat-Trained Mount implies you can make your own attack or attacks normally in a round when you direct your war-trained mount to attack in battle. You claim that you can do so after taking the equivalent of a move action - the use of the Handle Animal skill. I contend that the use of Handle Animal is incorrect precisely because it's a move-equivalent action, which would preclude the rider from taking a full attack action, which is what making attacks (plural) would require.
The crux of this debate-within-a-debate is whether Ride allows you to do things more quickly/efficiently than Handle Animal does. Handle Animal requires you to take a move action to command an animal to perform the Attack trick. On that, we both agree. I contend that Ride allows you to essentially do the same thing (order an animal to attack) as a free action. I can live with that because the rider and his mount act very much in concert with each other, whereas Handle Animal covers a broader range of situations.
There are other reasons why I can't wrap my head around use of Handle Animal being a prerequisite for uses of Ride. The only time Handle Animal is directly referenced in regards to Mounted Combat is in page 201 of the Core Rulebook:
Mounts that do not possess combat training (see the Handle Animal skill) are frightened by combat.
Every other action related to Mounted Combat directly references the Ride skill. More importantly, in every instance that one skill interacts with another skill (e.g., Bluff and Sense Motive), the relevant second skill is specifically named. The same applies to feats and spells that affect the usage of a skill. This is not the case with Ride and Handle Animal.
Furthermore, I couldn't bring myself to agree with your contention that Ride covers the actions of the rider, whereas Handle Animal covers the actions of the mount. A more accurate take, in my humble opinion, would be:
"The Ride skill covers actions that a rider can take or that his mount can take at his command, while the Handle Animal skill covers actions that an animal can take at a character's command."
The Leap task under the Ride skill is what I had in mind where this point is concerned:
Leap: You can get your mount to leap obstacles as part of its movement. If the ride check to make the leap succeeds, make a check using your Ride modifier or the mount’s jump modifier, whichever is lower, to see how far the creature can jump. If you fail your Ride check to make the leap, you fall off the mount when it leaps and take the appropriate falling damage (at least 1d6 points). This usage does not take an action but is part of the mount’s movement.
It would be great if Paizo could do their own errata to update their version which reflects the old cumbersome version of 3.5 that did not allow Ride to perform functions covered by Handle Animal, or collapsed the Ride and Handle Animal skills together into one cohesive unit. Given that the latter option is very unlikely, an errata to the Ride skill similar to that done back in 3.5 would definitely suffice.
I'm with you on that, but only insofar as it would serve to prevent what I consider to be (please don't take this the wrong way) pointless arguments. On the basis of your last paragraph, it seems to me that we both agree that Ride should cover the applications and actions in question. Absent a spelled out qualifier, though, you believe they should fall under Handle Animal, instead. I mean you personally no offense, but I just don't see the point of reading into the text so selectively as to arrive to a conclusion that something common and reasonably easy suddenly becomes unnecessarily complex, unreasonably difficult, or outright impossible.
In closing, I concede that some additional F.A.Q.ing and text amendments might settle this debate... but had I never noticed this thread, I wouldn't have imagined a need for either it or the F.A.Q. item related to Mounted Charge.
Having read the FAQs, the commentary by the Devs, and listened to arguments from both sides, it seems like:
1. Nothing has really changed for a class that has an Animal Companion. They can utilize Handle Animal to command their mount to do a trick it knows as a free action, and charge just as confusingly as ever.
2. Classes without an AC can still charge while mounted, but their mount will not make an attack unless and until the rider spends a move action and succeeds on a handle animal check. (I'm willing to concede that I might have this wrong. You may not be able to charge, if charging is actually an "attack", until you spend a move action and succeed on a handle animal check. But, it seems more likely to be the other way, to me.)
3. The monstrous mount feat line in Inner Sea Combat is probably a good thing for PFS, since it "allows" the mounts by rule. But, it's a terrible cost for low benefit against the way it's been played for years... I.e. DM decides. I will never use them, and I hope no DM I play with will either... unless I'm playing a wizard. Because, screw martials! [/jokingseriouslyjustjoking]
So should the merged skill be based on Charisma or Dexterity? I can't see how Dexterity helps you direct hounds, nor how Charisma lets you keep your balance on a bucking horse. Which is probably why they're still two separate skills, even though they're clearly related and have overlap.
Paul,
So, after a decade in Texas, I've declared myself an expert on horses (heh). Anyway, IMHO we'd stick with Charisma. Sure, Dex is needed for stuff like springing into the saddle from the ground while the horse is running like in the old Kirk Douglas movies, but that's arguably an Acrobatics check anyway, not a Ride check.When you're riding a horse, you want to make it do what you want it to do. You do this by making sure your personality dominates the animal's. There's really little to no Dex involved; it's all practice (i.e., skill ranks) and force of personality (i.e., Cha). Yeah, bucking broncos might have some Dex (and Str!) involved, but that's more something for a Rodeo Clown PrC, not something a guy riding his steed into battle or across the plains is going to really worry about.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I noticed neither ride or handle animal refer ro the other skill. Handle animal makes two references ro ride as an act in relation to tricks but not the skill. Mounted combat itself onky references handle animal once in conjunction to combat trained mount. Finally the onkly time mounted combat seems to imply the mount is attacking is charge.
Really I don't think the two skills interact outside of training the mount for combat.
I always saw handle animal as giving an order and then it autonimously makes decisions.
| 1 person 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.
This is how I like to approach things.
It (and I've said this like 50 times) says that you can make a check to do something if another set of criteria are met, but does not allow you to complete said criteria as part of the 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.Am I missing something? If so, you have my apologies! :)
Where exactly does Ride ever mention "criteria" for making a ride check? Hmm? So who is it that inferring things that aren't actually stated or written because that means things do what I want them to do?
No where does it say that directing your war-trained mount to attack in battle is an action or that it requires a separate skill check; no per-existing criteria or conditions are specified. It simply says "If you want your mount to fight, you can still fight too."
There is no If->Then clause being presented here. You're simply taking the 'If' out of context.
In anycase, as it's been pointed out, RAI are far more important and it's plainly obvious Paizo would not write their rules so vaguely that you could interpret them two completely different ways. Case in point? Read the rules for Charging, they're VERY specific.
|
|
So should the merged skill be based on Charisma or Dexterity? I can't see how Dexterity helps you direct hounds, nor how Charisma lets you keep your balance on a bucking horse. Which is probably why they're still two separate skills, even though they're clearly related and have overlap.Paul,
So, after a decade in Texas, I've declared myself an expert on horses (heh). Anyway, IMHO we'd stick with Charisma. Sure, Dex is needed for stuff like springing into the saddle from the ground while the horse is running like in the old Kirk Douglas movies, but that's arguably an Acrobatics check anyway, not a Ride check.When you're riding a horse, you want to make it do what you want it to do. You do this by making sure your personality dominates the animal's. There's really little to no Dex involved; it's all practice (i.e., skill ranks) and force of personality (i.e., Cha). Yeah, bucking broncos might have some Dex (and Str!) involved, but that's more something for a Rodeo Clown PrC, not something a guy riding his steed into battle or across the plains is going to really worry about.
Should staying in the saddle be an Acrobatics check too ?
Note that I could see it as a Reflex save, come to think of it ;-)
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
it's plainly obvious Paizo would not write their rules so vaguely that you could interpret them two completely different ways.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
it's plainly obvious Paizo would not write their rules so vaguely that you could interpret them two completely different ways.Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Well, maybe he meant to say Paizo wouldn't intentionally write their rules that way. That's the only sane explanation I can think of.
The lance has reach, the horse doesn't. So the rider has to stop 10 feet out to lance, and the horse just stops.
The whole point to lance charges is to use the momentum of the charging horse and rider to increase the damage done by the attack. So if you charge up and STOP, what happens to all that momentum?
Your instructor in "Mounted Lance 101" would smack you upside the head.