Mounted combat and Paralized Mount.


Advice


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Mounted Combat (Combat)
You are adept at guiding your mount through combat.

Prerequisite: Ride 1 rank.

Benefit: Once per round when your mount is hit in combat, you may attempt a Ride check (as an immediate action) to negate the hit. The hit is negated if your Ride check result is greater than the opponent's attack roll.

==========================================

I'm inclined to say that you can not use the mounted combat feat if your mount is paralized (stunned or dazed) due to the descriptive text, not sure though.


I expect that the ride skill would have to apply to a conscious mount capable of moving; just like the swim skill would require that the water would not be frozen; or, the reading skills would require the writing to be visible. You won't find any of those exceptions listed in the rule-book.

I don't think even the most ardent RAW-player would approve paralyzed mounts being directed out of harm's way. I would caution that if you are able to read a rule and parse it into "descriptive" and "functional" text, then you may be on the path to "the dark side."

Rules form a skeleton -- but a living, breathing game requires all the squishy bits like organs and skin. Every game table benefits from a good rules-lawyer and a good narrativist. Don't spend all your time trying to separate one from the other. You need both. Stop crushing your own intuition.

I see that someone has marked this for FAQ. How in the hell can this be an FAQ candidate? Seriously, can I direct a paralyzed mount?

Sigh.


I don't mean to come off as a prick; but I want to sternly encourage you to accept that intuition is part of the game. It won't be better when you wring the last bit of ambiguity out of it. It will be sterile and dead.

The game doesn't belong to the ruling class.

Think about it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

RAW - Yes, you can still use mounted combat when your mount is paralyzed unless your DM says otherwise.

RAI - Your DM should slap you over the head for even asking and say "of course not".

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was seeing it as also being able to quickly move in the saddle to deflect blows. Not RAI, but in fiction knights do sometimes defend their mounts that way.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Ride checks are typically either

A) actions taken specifically by the rider while mounted

or

B) actions taken by the rider which incorporate some element of the mount's actions.

A is far more common than B. In this instance, yes, the flavor text supports the idea that this is a combo action, but the actual mechanics do not incorporate that idea at all.

Mounted combat is a risky endeavor, requiring fairly extensive investment of both feats and skills. In addition, you have to keep what essentially amounts to a large(r than you) NPC alive, boosting its deficiencies with equipment purchased out of your WBL, with no stipend to account for this increased cost. Frankly, if the player wants to state that their use of Mounted Combat represents them flipping sideways in the saddle to interpose their shield between the mount and an incoming arrow/sword/ray, I say more power to them. The action is definitely supported by the mechanics of the feat, and I would wager the intent and flavor as well.


So, how about a halfling "riding" on a human's shoulders and using the ride check to negate hits on them?

Better still if the tactic still works if the human mount is incapacitated. It is much easier to get a high ride skill than a high AC.

"Mounted combat is a risky endeavor, requiring fairly extensive investment of both feats and skills."

Heavy investment? Skip all of the charge feats because charging is stupid; and you have mounted combat, skill focus (ride), trick riding, and mounted skirmisher left as worthwhile. Of these you don't require any. Mounted Combat isn't a bad feat. Trick riding is the gateway to Mounted skirmisher.

Get a ride skill of 4 and you are ok -- typically an investment of one skill point. Invest 1 skill point into a class skill and you can't fail the "guide with knees" check.

Get a reach weapon and use your speed to ride past your opponent and hit them. Don't bother trying to get your mount to attack; forget trying to charge. These worthless tactics are easily nullified. Just use your increased speed and action economy. You use your move action to draw a potion or do something, ready an attack, then as a free action get your mount to double move. when you get into range your free action triggers and then your mount rides away. Rinse and repeat. You can't fail the ride check (DC 5) if you have 4 skill.

A mounted character should not be built the same way as a front-line fighter.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

MachOneGames wrote:

So, how about a halfling "riding" on a human's shoulders and using the ride check to negate hits on them?

Better still if the tactic still works if the human mount is incapacitated. It is much easier to get a high ride skill than a high AC.

Congratulations, you just reinvented a pre-errata Crane Wing that requires two people to perform, requires the human to release control of his move action to the halfling and surrender his own initiative (potentially not an issue), requires you to keep pumping skill points into Ride, costs an immediate action to perform, and requires a party memeber or NPC to have an exotic saddle sized for him.

Are you really trying to say this is an issue? That this elaborately constructed scenario allowing a halfling to negate 1 attack on a human in exchange for the pair losing their autonomy and investing feats, skills, and cash for the purpose is somehow OP? I sure hope that human is combat trained, otherwise the halfling is going to need to make Ride checks every round just to control him in battle. Oops, just double-checked the skills, you can only use Handle Animal on animals, so as long as that halfling is riding the human only one of them can ever make an attack in combat since you can only fight with a combat trained mount.

That whole scenario is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard, and frankly if someone wanted to give up everything they needed to to do it, more power to them.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I have to say it... it's Paralyzed!

Sorry, it's been bugging me since I first saw this thread.


Paralyzed right off the bat leaves some room for interpretation. If a creature, for instance, is poisoned by something that causes paralysis, I think that it's heavily implied that the creature falls prone since paralyzed=helpless and helpless states "Melee attacks against a helpless target get a +4 bonus (equivalent to attacking a prone target)". Some people may argue that "Hold Person" may not knock a target prone based on the description, but that's open for interpretation. It seems to me that based on flying creatures falling from the spell, the spell it isn't a stasis-like effect, so the creatures can fall over.

If the mount does fall, the combat rules state "If your mount falls, you have to succeed on a DC 15 Ride check to make a soft fall and take no damage. If the check fails, you take 1d6 points of damage."

The rules for the ride skill describe "soft fall" as: "Soft Fall: You negate damage when you fall off a mount. If you fail the Ride check, you take 1d6 points of damage and are prone. This usage does not take an action."

So all of that adds up to paralyzed almost always making the mount fall prone, and the rider can't stay on the mount while it is prone. If the rider isn't on the mount, he can't use the mounted combat feat.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Iron Giant wrote:

Paralyzed right off the bat leaves some room for interpretation. If a creature, for instance, is poisoned by something that causes paralysis, I think that it's heavily implied that the creature falls prone since paralyzed=helpless and helpless states "Melee attacks against a helpless target get a +4 bonus (equivalent to attacking a prone target)". Some people may argue that "Hold Person" may not knock a target prone based on the description, but that's open for interpretation. It seems to me that based on flying creatures falling from the spell, the spell it isn't a stasis-like effect, so the creatures can fall over.

So all of that adds up to paralyzed almost always making the mount fall prone, and the rider can't stay on the mount while it is prone. If the rider isn't on the mount, he can't use the mounted combat feat.

I don't believe this is true. Helpless says the bonus is "equivalent to attacking a prone target", which would specifically imply that the target is not prone. Oranges are not equivalent to oranges, they are just oranges. The paralysis monster ability, which causes the paralyzed condition, specifically refers to the target as "rooted in place".

I think the rules actually indicate the opposite of your conclusion, that the target does not fall prone unless a separate effect is used after they are paralyzed to tip them over.


I'd tend to agree with you, but here is some food for thought: If a creature is reduced to negative hit points it has the "dying" condition, which gives the "unconscious" condition and therefore the "helpless" condition (quite the paper trail hehe). None of these conditions actually say that a character falls prone explicitly. If you interpret helpless the way you do, it implies that creatures are still standing when they are dying.
I'm not saying I'm right, but there is definitely some ambiguity in the paralysis effect.


Ssalarn wrote:
Are you really trying to say this is an issue?

No. I suppose I should have prefaced a disclaimer. Something like "the following statement is patently absurd..."

How I feel: A character using the ride skill to perform an action like "mounted combat" ought to be astride some kind of creature suitable to be ridden and in a generally conscious and upright position. I don't believe that you should be able to make ride checks when your mount is dead, unconscious, paralyzed, swimming, or otherwise unable to respond to your commands.

I think a halfling jumping on the back of an ally to deflect incoming attacks is absurd. It is even more silly if the ally is unconscious or paralyzed and sounds like Monty Pathfinder's Flying Circus.

Sorry for the confusion. :)

I was making two separate points in my previous points.

Point 1) Mounted combat should be the action of the rider controlling the mount; not intercepting attacks without the connection of the mount. Otherwise it wouldn't rely on your riding skill, but your blocking skill.

Point 2) Mounted builds are not expensive. 1 skill rank in a class skill is sufficient for a mounted character. Use your mounts speed and utilize a reach weapon. No feats required.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Mounted combat and Paralized Mount. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Advice