Nefreet |
additionally, handle animal doesn't even come into play. Issuing orders to one's mount is completely covered by the Ride skill, but that's a whole different tangent.
You're confusing things.
A Ride check allows *you* to attack.
A Handle Animal check is needed for your mount.
Though I do agree that this is a tangent discussion.
Chengar Qordath |
Nefreet wrote:Can your Axebeak understand your spoken words?
Usually there's just Handle Animal. You issue the command to attack, and charge.
You'd need another command to get it to stop.
Why would it have to?*
If you don't give it the command to attack, it shouldn't attack. It doesn't automatically attack everything that comes in reach while you ride around afterall. Not if it's properly trained, anyway.
If the rider intends to charge some target and doesn't give his axebeak the command to attack (verbally or otherwise) its reach should be irrelevant, and from a meta-view is reach should objectively NOT prohibit the rider from coming into his 5' reach since it's not an option for him to come up short. 10' reach is irrelevant when the declared charge attack is 5' reach, is it not?
The problem is that this isn't the mount performing normal movement, it's the mount using the charge action—which involves making an attack.
deusvult |
deusvult wrote:The problem is that this isn't the mount performing normal movement, it's the mount using the charge action—which involves making an attack.Nefreet wrote:Can your Axebeak understand your spoken words?
Usually there's just Handle Animal. You issue the command to attack, and charge.
You'd need another command to get it to stop.
Why would it have to?*
If you don't give it the command to attack, it shouldn't attack. It doesn't automatically attack everything that comes in reach while you ride around afterall. Not if it's properly trained, anyway.
If the rider intends to charge some target and doesn't give his axebeak the command to attack (verbally or otherwise) its reach should be irrelevant, and from a meta-view is reach should objectively NOT prohibit the rider from coming into his 5' reach since it's not an option for him to come up short. 10' reach is irrelevant when the declared charge attack is 5' reach, is it not?
No, charge actions involve combining movement with the option to attack. The attack is not mandatory. If you want to take what is effectively a double move with restrictions on where you can go and what terrain you can cross and suffer a -2 AC for the bother, you're completely free to do so.
In the case of a rider without reach and a mount with reach, it's actually got meaningful benefit in doing so.
Neonpeekaboo |
Deighton Thrane wrote:With a lance on an axebeak, both of you could attack.
No, god no. On a regular Charge you only get one attack. If you're mounted and you Charge, you and your mount are considered one unit. That means one attack, either the Axebeak could get his attack, or you could attack with the Lance.. either/or, not both.
GM_Arrule |
It says you must move to the closest square. If you don't end your movement in that square, you have not moved to that square. You have moved to some other square.
Not true, actually. You've moved to that space. And a space after that. And a space after that. Moving beyond the space doesn't actually invalidate that you went to the closest space.
I feel people are adhering too closely to an idea of closest space to be measured in feet instead of spaces. All adjacent spaces are closest, no matter how far you had to move to get there.
Jeff Merola |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
bigrig107 wrote:No, god no. On a regular Charge you only get one attack. If you're mounted and you Charge, you and your mount are considered one unit. That means one attack, either the Axebeak could get his attack, or you could attack with the Lance.. either/or, not both.With a lance on an axebeak, both of you could attack.
I'm curious how you came to this conclusion, as it's not supported by the rules in any capacity. You're never considered to be the same creature as your mount, except for the purposes of determining what space you're in.
Deighton Thrane |
Deighton Thrane wrote:It says you must move to the closest square. If you don't end your movement in that square, you have not moved to that square. You have moved to some other square.Not true, actually. You've moved to that space. And a space after that. And a space after that. Moving beyond the space doesn't actually invalidate that you went to the closest space.
I can't for life of me understand how "you must move to the closest square" can be misconstrued as "You must include the closest square in your movement". The rules for movement during a charge have a set of rules for the path (straight line, no obstructions) and the destination (closest square you can attack from). The only thing that changes this are feats.
I feel people are adhering too closely to an idea of closest space to be measured in feet instead of spaces. All adjacent spaces are closest, no matter how far you had to move to get there.
It's the closest square from your current location, not closest square to the opponent, so how far you had to move does matter.
Neonpeekaboo |
Neonpeekaboo wrote:I'm curious how you came to this conclusion, as it's not supported by the rules in any capacity. You're never considered to be the same creature as your mount, except for the purposes of determining what space you're in.bigrig107 wrote:No, god no. On a regular Charge you only get one attack. If you're mounted and you Charge, you and your mount are considered one unit. That means one attack, either the Axebeak could get his attack, or you could attack with the Lance.. either/or, not both.With a lance on an axebeak, both of you could attack.
Therein is the problem. Where does it say you get two attacks? If youre mounted, and it charges, you're both charging both take the penalty to AC.. if youre NOT considered one unit for the Charge itself.. then youre implying the mount, and only the mount, is charging.. which, we can all agree on, is not the case.. because youre charging, and barring Pounce, or pounce-like abilities, means you can make one attack at the end of a charge. Not two, which is what youre saying is possible.
I understand the mount is actualy its own unit, and if youre not charging, sure you could control it to move and you both take youre standard action to attack... but charging is a specific and special circumstance.
It is simply the best reasoning that makes the most sense, it still grants all the benefit/penalty of charging without unbalancing it. Tryimg to tear into it any more than that, and its a purposeful attempt to get more out of.. ie. An extra attack.
Jeff Merola |
Jeff Merola wrote:Therein is the problem. Where does it say you get two attacks?Neonpeekaboo wrote:I'm curious how you came to this conclusion, as it's not supported by the rules in any capacity. You're never considered to be the same creature as your mount, except for the purposes of determining what space you're in.bigrig107 wrote:No, god no. On a regular Charge you only get one attack. If you're mounted and you Charge, you and your mount are considered one unit. That means one attack, either the Axebeak could get his attack, or you could attack with the Lance.. either/or, not both.With a lance on an axebeak, both of you could attack.
If youre mounted, and it charges, you're both charging both take the penalty to AC.. if youre NOT considered one unit for the Charge itself.. then youre implying the mount, and only the mount, is charging.. which, we can all agree on, is not the case.. because youre charging, and barring Pounce, or pounce-like abilities, means you can make one attack at the end of a charge. Not two, which is what youre saying is possible.
You're ignoring a third option, which is what's actually happening. Both rider and mount charge, using the rules for charging, and gaining all benefits and drawbacks of it. One of said benefits is getting to attack.
I understand the mount is actualy its own unit, and if youre not charging, sure you could control it to move and you both take youre standard action to attack... but charging is a specific and special circumstance.
Both rider and mount are charging. Both get to attack. This isn't that hard.
It is simply the best reasoning that makes the most sense, it still grants all the benefit/penalty of charging without unbalancing it. Tryimg to tear into it any more than that, and its a purposeful attempt to get more out of.. ie. An extra attack.
You're applying rather strange logic to arrive at a conclusion that is completely unsupported by the rules.
Neonpeekaboo |
Neonpeekaboo wrote:Jeff Merola wrote:Therein is the problem. Where does it say you get two attacks?Neonpeekaboo wrote:I'm curious how you came to this conclusion, as it's not supported by the rules in any capacity. You're never considered to be the same creature as your mount, except for the purposes of determining what space you're in.bigrig107 wrote:No, god no. On a regular Charge you only get one attack. If you're mounted and you Charge, you and your mount are considered one unit. That means one attack, either the Axebeak could get his attack, or you could attack with the Lance.. either/or, not both.With a lance on an axebeak, both of you could attack.
Neonpeekaboo wrote:If youre mounted, and it charges, you're both charging both take the penalty to AC.. if youre NOT considered one unit for the Charge itself.. then youre implying the mount, and only the mount, is charging.. which, we can all agree on, is not the case.. because youre charging, and barring Pounce, or pounce-like abilities, means you can make one attack at the end of a charge. Not two, which is what youre saying is possible.You're ignoring a third option, which is what's actually happening. Both rider and mount charge, using the rules for charging, and gaining all benefits and drawbacks of it. One of said benefits is getting to attack.
Neonpeekaboo wrote:I understand the mount is actualy its own unit, and if youre not charging, sure you could control it to move and you both take youre standard action to attack... but charging is a specific and special circumstance.Both rider and mount are charging. Both get to attack. This isn't that hard.
Neonpeekaboo wrote:It is simply the best reasoning that makes the most sense, it still grants all the benefit/penalty of charging without unbalancing it. Tryimg to tear into it any more than that, and its a purposeful attempt...
nowhere in that faq does it say you get two attacks. It says you both charge in unison. ie. As one. Yes, you both get the benefit, and penalty. If the mount makes the sinvle attack allowed at the end of a charge, it gets +2. If you make the single attack allowed at the end of a charge, you get +2 to attack. Since youre both charging in unison, you both take -2 to AC, regardless of which one takes the attack.
Its not that im using strange logic to come to conclusion not supported by the rules. its that im using the simplest logic supported by the rules, and not overthinking it to try and get an extra attack that isnt supported by the rules. ie. Nowhere ive seen does it say at the end of a mounted charge that you AND your mount get an attack.
Paladin of Baha-who? |
The rules explicitly say that with an appropriate Ride check, the rider and his mount may both attack in a single round. The charge rules have language saying that they 'charge in unison' NOT 'charge as one unit'. 'Unison' means 'together', that is, at the same time, even though it sounds as if it could be a synonym for 'as one unit'. Given that a charge may have an attack at the end of it, and a rider and his mount may both attack in a round, there would have to be an explicit rule disallowing both attacking in order to prevent it.