Failing a spot check here, where is this rule?


Pathfinder Society

1 to 50 of 81 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Secane wrote:

There was a mounted summoner playing in some local games in my area for a while too.

He wasn't using his eidolon as a mount, but was riding a flying bat. Usually for recon or to stay out of trouble, while his pets do the fighting.

Of note - technically that's not PFS legal. Per the PFS rules - you're only ever allowed one animal/pet etc which includes animal companions, eidolons etc. This is to keep the game flow going as they don't want too many extra things on the table.

I just scoured the latest player's guide looking for rule and cannot find it. Is this an actually rule or an unwritten one?

Dusting off my summoner and converting him to unchained, which I bought a riding dog for after the last time I played him.

Grand Lodge 4/5

FAQ: How many animals can I have at any given time?

edit: If you have an eidolon active, you can't also ride a dog in combat. The FAQ allows you a mount as a non-combat animal but once combat starts it does not participate at all. However this rule doesn't restrict summoning further creatures, so I believe using a riding dog plus the summoner's summon monster class ability would work.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Which means you're fine with the riding dog and your eidolon. But the poor riding dogs have the life expectancy of mayflies after a while

Grand Lodge 4/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Which means you're fine with the riding dog and your eidolon.

The dog would be active in combat and provide a combat advantage in increased movement and carrying capacity. Unfortunately I've had to pull up a player on this specific combination. (Even more unfortunately, I was a player at the next session and he brought it out unchanged for the next GM.)


Note the 'pets' from a summon monster spell or ability, are not a part of that mix. So if he did have a mount, he could still throw summoned critters and stay out of reach.

@BNW isn't a mount considered a combat animal? Especially if it allows one to fly overhead? EDIT: Starglim answered my question.


Starglim wrote:

FAQ: How many animals can I have at any given time?

If you have an eidolon active in a scenario, you can't also ride a dog. However this rule doesn't restrict summoning further creatures, so I believe using a riding dog plus the summoner's summon monster class ability would work.

That FAQ is from 2011, shouldn't that rule have made it into the player's guide by now?

This part of the faq though leads me to believe that both the dog and eidolon are fine:

FAQ wrote:
In general, a mount, a familiar or mundane pet, and your class-granted animal(s) are acceptable, but more than that can be disruptive.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Geoffrey DeWan wrote:

This part of the faq though leads me to believe that both the dog and eidolon are fine:

FAQ wrote:
In general, a mount, a familiar or mundane pet, and your class-granted animal(s) are acceptable, but more than that can be disruptive.

They're acceptable as non-combat animals.

5/5 5/55/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starglim wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Which means you're fine with the riding dog and your eidolon.
The dog would be active in combat and provide a combat advantage in increased movement and carrying capacity. Unfortunately I've had to pull up a player on this specific combination. (Even more unfortunately, I was a player at the next session and he brought it out unchanged for the next GM.)

In general, a mount, a familiar or mundane pet, and your class-granted animal(s) are acceptable, but more than that can be disruptive.

Emphasis mine

Note the and. The riding dog, well, assuming its being ridden, is a mount. So he can have the mount and the combat pet eidolon. If he has the dog running around on its own THEN its not.

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Geoffrey DeWan wrote:
That FAQ is from 2011, shouldn't that rule have made it into the player's guide by now?

That's not how the FAQ system works.

Imagine how thick the Guide would become if every FAQ was reprinted in there.

The Exchange 5/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Starglim wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Which means you're fine with the riding dog and your eidolon.
The dog would be active in combat and provide a combat advantage in increased movement and carrying capacity. Unfortunately I've had to pull up a player on this specific combination. (Even more unfortunately, I was a player at the next session and he brought it out unchanged for the next GM.)

In general, a mount, a familiar or mundane pet, and your class-granted animal(s) are acceptable, but more than that can be disruptive.

Emphasis mine

Note the and. The riding dog, well, assuming its being ridden, is a mount. So he can have the mount and the combat pet eidolon. If he has the dog running around on its own THEN its not.

Blast but I hate to say this, but I agree with BNW here.

Darn it, now I feel the need for a shower...

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber

The "and" there is key. If he's using the mount's full attack, then I'd push for reigning him in a bit - but only if it's actually disruptive, as its within the realm of legality for the FAQ cited.

5/5 Venture-Agent, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East aka Pirate Rob

I disagree. I think there are 2 separate things that FAQ is saying:

1: "you may have one combat animal and as many noncombat animals as you like. "

2: "In general, a mount, a familiar or mundane pet, and your class-granted animal(s) are acceptable, but more than that can be disruptive."

You can only have 1 pet participate in combat.
The second part of the FAQ is saying keeping your class features and a single pet around is okay, but driving around 3 goats, 2 camels, a horse, your familiar and your eidolon may be inappropriate, not that you may have 2 combat pets.

5/5 5/55/55/5

The and makes a distinction between a mount and a combat pet. A riding dog could be used as either, but if the summoner is just using it as a movement booster its a mount. Sending it into combat would make it a combat pet.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

*facepalm*

The Exchange 5/5 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Texas—Dallas & Ft. Worth aka Belafon

I think there is some overreading and picking at nits going on in some quarters. That FAQ is about the disruptive effects that multiple animals can have (slowing down the scenario and having one person hog game time). A mount doesn't add time because it's just moving with you.

Recent example: a group of level 3-4 characters were on a long journey. We wanted to get there quickly so we all bought mounts even though only one of us was any good at Ride and only the two pet classes (pets too small to ride) were trained in Handle Animal. We got ambushed. None of the mounts were combat trained so everyone used their first move action to dismount or try to guide the mount in battle so we could actually fight.

If we go with the "can't have a mount and a pet in battle" reading, that means the Druid and hunter would actually have had a big advantage. Their mounts would have disappeared from under them since they "can't use them in battle." The classes without pets would still have needed to use a move action to dismount.

That's clearly not the intention.

Spoiler:
Yes I know about fast dismount. It isn't relevant to this point, especially to a bunch of untrained level 2s wearing armor.


Movement and positioning are a big part of combat. Anything altering movement positioning affects combat. I'm not saying disallow any mount just because a 'combat critter' is already designated. Disruption is the baseline though. A dwarf with 40 ft. movement, a firsty who can always fly, a fighter carrying a balista, the barbarian with Ride-by-attack are more disruptive than a goat-riding farmer.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Curaigh wrote:
Movement and positioning are a big part of combat. Anything altering movement positioning affects combat. I'm not saying disallow any mount just because a 'combat critter' is already designated. Disruption is the baseline though. A dwarf with 40 ft. movement, a firsty who can always fly, a fighter carrying a balista, the barbarian with Ride-by-attack are more disruptive than a goat-riding farmer.

In the context of that FAQ, I believe "disruptive" means "takes annoyingly long turns", not "is more effective".

Dark Archive

Yeah, I would not personally interpret a mount as significantly problematic in that regard, since generally they modify how the PC acts, rather than chucking another character onto the map; at most, the tack another attack or two onto the PC's attack sequence, which shouldn't take long to resolve if they're paying attention. I believe the intention was to avoid a single PC consistently having 3+ minis on the map outside summon spells.


Ascalaphus wrote:
Curaigh wrote:
Movement and positioning are a big part of combat. Anything altering movement positioning affects combat. I'm not saying disallow any mount just because a 'combat critter' is already designated. Disruption is the baseline though. A dwarf with 40 ft. movement, a firsty who can always fly, a fighter carrying a balista, the barbarian with Ride-by-attack are more disruptive than a goat-riding farmer.
In the context of that FAQ, I believe "disruptive" means "takes annoyingly long turns", not "is more effective".

Fair enough.

I take disruptive to mean anything ruining other player's fun. While my examples don't necessarily equate to fun-ruin, I would be paying closer attention to other player's reactions (fun) in cases like these.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

What's more disruptive: "I'm mounted, so my speed is 40ft." or "You can't have an eidolon and a mount. There's a rule. Well, not a rule, a FAQ. Hang on, I'll pull it up. It will just take a minute. Okay, no. Wait. Here it is. Yeah, it does say and, but that's not what it means."

Tsriel wrote:
*facepalm*

100% this.^^^

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

Curaigh wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
Curaigh wrote:
Movement and positioning are a big part of combat. Anything altering movement positioning affects combat. I'm not saying disallow any mount just because a 'combat critter' is already designated. Disruption is the baseline though. A dwarf with 40 ft. movement, a firsty who can always fly, a fighter carrying a balista, the barbarian with Ride-by-attack are more disruptive than a goat-riding farmer.
In the context of that FAQ, I believe "disruptive" means "takes annoyingly long turns", not "is more effective".

Fair enough.

I take disruptive to mean anything ruining other player's fun. While my examples don't necessarily equate to fun-ruin, I would be paying closer attention to other player's reactions (fun) in cases like these.

So it's not okay to have above-average mobility and a pet? But what about if you used Longstrider? You're not using a mount to be more mobile, so are you suddenly no longer making the game less fun for other players?

It's not nice to be completely overshadowed, but it's rather hard for campaign leadership to draw the line on that. What particular ability is so overshadowing that it shouldn't be allowed?

A mount that lets you be more mobile than normal for your race/armor cconfiguration, I don't think that's crossing that line. Because there's so many other ways to achieve more speed that see regular use (barbarian/monk fast movement, Wildshape, Haste, Longstrider,mithral armor, to name a few).

Now, a player effectively taking multiple turns because he's got many pets, that's something you can clearly point out as being excessively time-consuming and therefore disruptive.

Therefore, I think it's fine to have both a pet and a mount, but then the mount can't make attacks, just cart you around. If it's making attacks of its own, then it's clearly also participating in combat, and the FAQ doesn't allow that.

In conclusion, I do think this FAQ should just be added to the GtOP. It creates a new rule out of the blue, rather than clarifying something from the GtOP or CRB or such. The proper place for it then is the PFS rulebook aka GtOP.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Agent, Nevada—Las Vegas aka kinevon

Ascalaphus wrote:
Curaigh wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
Curaigh wrote:
Movement and positioning are a big part of combat. Anything altering movement positioning affects combat. I'm not saying disallow any mount just because a 'combat critter' is already designated. Disruption is the baseline though. A dwarf with 40 ft. movement, a firsty who can always fly, a fighter carrying a balista, the barbarian with Ride-by-attack are more disruptive than a goat-riding farmer.
In the context of that FAQ, I believe "disruptive" means "takes annoyingly long turns", not "is more effective".

Fair enough.

I take disruptive to mean anything ruining other player's fun. While my examples don't necessarily equate to fun-ruin, I would be paying closer attention to other player's reactions (fun) in cases like these.

So it's not okay to have above-average mobility and a pet? But what about if you used Longstrider? You're not using a mount to be more mobile, so are you suddenly no longer making the game less fun for other players?

It's not nice to be completely overshadowed, but it's rather hard for campaign leadership to draw the line on that. What particular ability is so overshadowing that it shouldn't be allowed?

A mount that lets you be more mobile than normal for your race/armor cconfiguration, I don't think that's crossing that line. Because there's so many other ways to achieve more speed that see regular use (barbarian/monk fast movement, Wildshape, Haste, Longstrider,mithral armor, to name a few).

Now, a player effectively taking multiple turns because he's got many pets, that's something you can clearly point out as being excessively time-consuming and therefore disruptive.

Therefore, I think it's fine to have both a pet and a mount, but then the mount can't make attacks, just cart you around. If it's making attacks of its own, then it's clearly also participating in combat, and the FAQ doesn't allow that.

In conclusion, I do think this FAQ should just be added to the GtOP. It...

But where do you draw the line? Using a class ability or spell to get faster movement, or a mount so that you get faster movement and full attacks after having the mount move you into combat?

Is that participating in combat, even if the mount doesn't make any attacks of its own?

How about the extra time to track the mount's hit points, saving throw numbers, etc. since, if you are on it, it can be a subject to AoE spells and effects. Not to mention attacks on it specifically to lower your mobility. At that point, too, it is participating in combat, and changing the way combat happens.

The Exchange 5/5

wait, something caught my eye in this statement above....

"But where do you draw the line? Using a class ability or spell to get faster movement, or a mount so that you get faster movement and full attacks after having the mount move you into combat?"

(bolding mine)... what? if you use a mount to move you - then it counts as your move action and you DON'T get a full attack action... so what are we talking about here?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Just remember to keep track of the relative position between eidolon and master. Remember what happens if it goes beyond 100 feet.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's not uncommon that people try to pull the "the mount moved and I haven't used any actions" thing to get full attacks after mount movement. Not sure how it actually works by rules (does "guide with knees" require a move action? How about an Eidolon that is intelligent enough that you don't need to directly guide it at all?), but has always seemed cheesy to me since a round represents a quantum of time, and if you spend 6 seconds getting moved there by your mount, it doesn't make much sense that you'd also have the full 6 seconds at the end of that to spam attacks, with all of that fitting into the same 6 actual seconds - all sorts of wibbly wobbly timey wimey stuff going on there.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Akari Sayuri "Tiger Lily" wrote:
It's not uncommon that people try to pull the "the mount moved and I haven't used any actions" thing to get full attacks after mount movement. Not sure how it actually works by rules (does "guide with knees" require a move action? How about an Eidolon that is intelligent enough that you don't need to directly guide it at all?), but has always seemed cheesy to me since a round represents a quantum of time, and if you spend 6 seconds getting moved there by your mount, it doesn't make much sense that you'd also have the full 6 seconds at the end of that to spam attacks, with all of that fitting into the same 6 actual seconds - all sorts of wibbly wobbly timey wimey stuff going on there.

This is actually very easy to answer, and is in the prd under combat.

prd wrote:

Combat while Mounted: With a DC 5 Ride check, you can guide your mount with your knees so as to use both hands to attack or defend yourself. This is a free action.

When you attack a creature smaller than your mount that is on foot, you get the +1 bonus on melee attacks for being on higher ground. If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only make a single melee attack. Essentially, you have to wait until the mount gets to your enemy before attacking, so you can't make a full attack. Even at your mount's full speed, you don't take any penalty on melee attacks while mounted.

The Exchange 5/5

Akari Sayuri "Tiger Lily" wrote:
It's not uncommon that people try to pull the "the mount moved and I haven't used any actions" thing to get full attacks after mount movement. Not sure how it actually works by rules (does "guide with knees" require a move action? How about an Eidolon that is intelligent enough that you don't need to directly guide it at all?), but has always seemed cheesy to me since a round represents a quantum of time, and if you spend 6 seconds getting moved there by your mount, it doesn't make much sense that you'd also have the full 6 seconds at the end of that to spam attacks, with all of that fitting into the same 6 actual seconds - all sorts of wibbly wobbly timey wimey stuff going on there.

ah... that's because you don't have "a full 6 seconds at the end of that to spam attacks", you actualy only get an action - and then only if your mount only took a single move action. If your mount took a full round action to double move, your turn is done.

edit: well, except for free actions and swift, etc.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
nosig wrote:

ah... that's because you don't have "a full 6 seconds at the end of that to spam attacks", you actualy only get an action - and then only if your mount only took a single move action. If your mount took a full round action to double move, your turn is done.

edit: well, except for free actions and swift, etc.

Incorrect.

PRD wrote:
Your mount acts on your initiative count as you direct it. You move at its speed, but the mount uses its action to move.

The Mounted Combat section goes into this in depth. You do get your own full complement of actions, and the mount gets its own. Any movement is done with your mount's actions, leaving your own actions open for other things.

As Jayden22 quoted, you can't full attack if your mount moves more than 5 feet, because you have to wait to get within range to attack. It does, however, go on to state:

PRD wrote:
You can use ranged weapons while your mount is taking a double move, but at a –4 penalty on the attack roll. You can use ranged weapons while your mount is running (quadruple speed) at a –8 penalty. In either case, you make the attack roll when your mount has completed half its movement. You can make a full attack with a ranged weapon while your mount is moving. Likewise, you can take move actions normally.

So yes, you can perform a full-round action while your mount moves, so long as it isn't a full-attack action with a melee weapon. Anything else is fair game.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Agent, Nevada—Las Vegas aka kinevon

Quote:
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.

Yet more from the various sections on Riding in the PRD/CRB that makes it confusing.

Like Potion Making, Mounted Combat seriously needs to have everything pulled into a single section, so that it can be properly cross-referenced and unified into something that doesn't confuse the casual reader.

And, yes, yet more legacy confusion from making multiple books into a single book without better consolidation of the overlapping material from multiple books.

5/5 5/55/55/5

James Wygle wrote:
So yes, you can perform a full-round action while your mount moves, so long as it isn't a full-attack action with a melee weapon. Anything else is fair game.

While, but not after. You can't full attack at the end, You can't free action dismount and then full attack, or fast action dismount and run past your... running horse.

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

And don't forget the Mounted Skirmisher feat. Rangers, Slayers, and Sohei Monks can get it early.

Shadow Lodge

BigNorseWolf wrote:
While, but not after. You can't full attack at the end,

You're right, you can't full attack at the end, and here's why:

PRD wrote:
You can use ranged weapons while your mount is taking a double move, but at a –4 penalty on the attack roll. You can use ranged weapons while your mount is running (quadruple speed) at a –8 penalty. In either case, you make the attack roll when your mount has completed half its movement. You can make a full attack with a ranged weapon while your mount is moving. Likewise, you can take move actions normally.

If you make a ranged attack while your mount moves, you make the attack(s) at the mid-way point, as stated above; this applies even when full-attacking with a ranged weapon.

But as the rules also say...

PRD wrote:
If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only make a single melee attack. Essentially, you have to wait until the mount gets to your enemy before attacking, so you can't make a full attack.

So you can't full-attack with a melee weapon after your mount has moved more than five feet.

So for full-attacking while mount moves > 5 feet:
1. Ranged: Yes, at the mid-point of the mount's movement (not at the end).
2. Melee: No.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
You can't free action dismount and then full attack,

Well, you can't have the mount move more than five feet, fast dismount, and then full attack (due to the clause above), but if you mount hasn't gone anywhere, you sure can, because you have the action required to do so, and there aren't any other rules to preclude it.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
or fast action dismount and run past your... running horse.

As strange as it seems, yes, you can. The rules do not say anything to restrict the character's movement after dismounting in any way, so the character is free to spend any available actions they have after dismounting to move however much they want.

I understand that it may seem like it shouldn't work to you, but your statements here are completely unsupported by the rules. Please, review the mounted combat rules before making any more assertions about what you can and cannot do in relation to mounts.

5/5 5/55/55/5

James Wygle wrote:
I understand that it may seem like it shouldn't work to you, but your statements here are completely unsupported by the rules. Please, review the mounted combat rules before making any more assertions about what you can and cannot do in relation to mounts.

Please take your own advice.

Your mount acts on your initiative count as you direct it. You move at its speed, but the mount uses its action to move.

Unless taking one of the other actions specifically allowed by mounted combat you are moving at its speed on your turn. You moving on horseback takes actions the same way you moving on legs takes actions, the same way if the mount charges you are effectively charging.

Nothing in mounted combat comes out and says that you don't have to use your actions to move: merely that while moving you may take other actions. If that seems rules lawyery remember which one of us is arguing for the ejector saddle.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Agent, Nevada—Las Vegas aka kinevon

BigNorseWolf wrote:
James Wygle wrote:
I understand that it may seem like it shouldn't work to you, but your statements here are completely unsupported by the rules. Please, review the mounted combat rules before making any more assertions about what you can and cannot do in relation to mounts.

Please take your own advice.

Your mount acts on your initiative count as you direct it. You move at its speed, but the mount uses its action to move.

Unless taking one of the other actions specifically allowed by mounted combat you are moving at its speed on your turn. You moving on horseback takes actions the same way you moving on legs takes actions, the same way if the mount charges you are effectively charging.

Nothing in mounted combat comes out and says that you don't have to use your actions to move: merely that while moving you may take other actions. If that seems rules lawyery remember which one of us is arguing for the ejector saddle.

Try reading what you quoted.

WHILE MOUNTED, and your mount is moving, you move at it speed, on its move action. So, you use the free action guide with knees, your mount moves its 40'.
You free action dismount with a DC 20 check.
Once you are on the ground, you still have your Standard and Move actions.
You then move your normal movement, whether that is 15', or 90', then use your Standard action to attack. Unless you are saying that, after a PC dismounts, he uses his move action to move at his mount's speed, instead of his speed?

Heck, done right, you can still charge on your feet after getting closer on your mount, or using it to get to a clear charge lane on that move action.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wrong. So very wrong. You need to read all of the stuff on mounted combat, not just part of it. You cannot perform a full attack action if your mount moves unless it is ranged.

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

...or if you have Mounted Skirmisher...

Shadow Lodge

BigNorseWolf wrote:


Nothing in mounted combat comes out and says that you don't have to use your actions to move: merely that while moving you may take other actions. If that seems rules lawyery remember which one of us is arguing for the ejector saddle.

Perhaps you should look at the text immediately after what you bolded, which quite literally says that it is the mount that use its action to move.

It then goes on to explain how full attacking works while your mount is moving, which wouldn't be possible if you also had to spend actions to move.

The "but the mount uses its action to move" clause clearly means only the mount must spend actions to move.

5/5 5/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.

What's a spot check?

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

Indeed.

The only option unavailable is full attacking with a melee weapon if your mount moves more than five feet.

All other full round options are still available.

The Exchange

Here's a monkey wrench for the works. Can I make a melee full attack if my mount moves more than five feet and my opponent is within my reach the entire time?

5/5 5/55/55/5

James Wygle wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:


Nothing in mounted combat comes out and says that you don't have to use your actions to move: merely that while moving you may take other actions. If that seems rules lawyery remember which one of us is arguing for the ejector saddle.

Perhaps you should look at the text immediately after what you bolded, which quite literally says that it is the mount that use its action to move.

It then goes on to explain how full attacking works while your mount is moving, which wouldn't be possible if you also had to spend actions to move.

The "but the mount uses its action to move" clause clearly means only the mount must spend actions to move.

It doesn't say that you don't have to use your actions. Merely that the mount has to use theirs.

None of you, just the mount, or both of you using your actions to move are possibilities. I say its both of you unless you take an action listed in the mounted combat section. which is definitely rai. You can make A melee attack at the end, cast a spell, make a ranged attack, or full ranged attack (or one of the options thats listed there), or possibly something else you can extrapolate from the list. Thats it. They wouldn't need to spell out or limit your options while mounted otherwise.

From the old 3.5 articles, which used the exact same words as far as I can see

When you and your mount move, the two of you use your mount's speed rating, adjusted for the mount's encumbrance and the terrain. Because your mount takes you along with it when it moves, a move for your mount also counts as a move for you. (See Rules of the Game, All About Movement for notes on what constitutes movement.) Even though you're not propelling yourself, you still spend time moving. So, for example, if you and your mount move, neither you nor your mount can take a 5-foot step during the same turn.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Nefreet wrote:

Indeed.

The only option unavailable is full attacking with a melee weapon if your mount moves more than five feet.

All other full round options are still available.

So you think you can have the mount run , then fast dismount, and run yourself? Somethings screwy there

I'd say you moving at the mounts speed means its burned your movement, if not your actions.

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

Indeed.

The only option unavailable is full attacking with a melee weapon if your mount moves more than five feet.

All other full round options are still available.

So you think you can have the mount run , then fast dismount, and run yourself? Somethings screwy there

What, exactly, is "screwy"?

I'm missing what the problem is.

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Lawrence of Qadira wrote:
Can I make a melee full attack if my mount moves more than five feet

(intentionally shortened)

No.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Nefreet wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

Indeed.

The only option unavailable is full attacking with a melee weapon if your mount moves more than five feet.

All other full round options are still available.

So you think you can have the mount run , then fast dismount, and run yourself? Somethings screwy there

What, exactly, is "screwy"?

I'm missing what the problem is.

Racer A: Mount runs 160 feet.

Racer B: Mount runs 160 feet. Rider fast dismounts. Runs 120 feet for a total of 280 feet of movement. He's going faster by getting off of the horse.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
I'd say you moving at the mounts speed means its burned your movement, if not your actions.

You would be wrong.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
I'd say you moving at the mounts speed means its burned your movement, if not your actions.
You would be wrong.

Could be, but its by far the saner option.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

That's one opinion.


Ascalaphus wrote:

...Now, a player effectively taking multiple turns because he's got many pets, that's something you can clearly point out as being excessively time-consuming and therefore disruptive....

I wonder if rules arguments about mounted actions count as being excessively time-consuming and therefore disruptive? [/tongue-in-cheek] :)

FWIW I do not argue that mounts are disruptive. I do argue that using them in combat (since 'you move at their speed'), makes a mount count as a combat critter.

1 to 50 of 81 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Failing a spot check here, where is this rule? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.