You could always have the mount and rider target different opponents. The rider hits enemy A at the midpoint of the charge, the mount pounces enemy B at the end of the charge.
Agreed that Ride-by Attack does not allow the mount to attack and move.
Yeah that can be used, but can be very situational to use depending on the formation of the enemies as well as environment or terrain/obstacles you have to deal with. Not to mention what your gm/dm will let you get away with.
|
Yeah, mounted combat and its related subsystems like Ride and Handle Animal are all a hot mess right now, and each attempt at a spot fix only breaks something else, or emphasizes another issue. It'd be nice if they did a blog FAQ for it, or a Player Companion with complete and streamlined mounted combat rules. Something that says "Ride overrides Handle Animal" or "You need both Ride and Handle Animal" (currently this is unclear in the rules, and strict RAW means it's impossible to perform a mounted charge without an animal companion), some definitions of charge lanes, examples of how standard mounted charging can work on a grid, how feats like Ride-by Attack interact with companion abilities like Pounce or Leaping Charge, etc.
So my question for you guys is: if you accept that when ride by attack says you may move and move again, it applies to the mount, why, when it says attack that it doesn't? Or is there some other reason? I simply can see in the feat where it eliminates the mounts ability to attack.
Simply put the ride-by feat only lets the rider move, attack, move during a mounted charge no more no less. If you want the benefits of the feat then you have do what the feat says to the letter. If you allow your mount to attack during the charge, then regular charge rules kick in and your mounted charge ends after you and your mount make the attack. I don't agree with this, its just how the rules are worded, and alot or your dm/gm(s) go with RAW or read as written.
|
|
So my question for you guys is: if you accept that when ride by attack says you may move and move again, it applies to the mount, why, when it says attack that it doesn't? Or is there some other reason? I simply can see in the feat where it eliminates the mounts ability to attack.
The rules on mounted combat were posted earlier. "Your mount acts on your initiative count as you direct it. You move at its speed, but the mount uses its action to move." It's your movement, using the mount's speed and action. There's no such allowance for attacks, and Ride-by Attack is your feat, allowing you, and only you, to attack.
Basically, it works for movement because the rules say so, it doesn't work for attacks because they don't have any such allowances.
So my question for you guys is: if you accept that when ride by attack says you may move and move again, it applies to the mount, why, when it says attack that it doesn't? Or is there some other reason? I simply can see in the feat where it eliminates the mounts ability to attack.The rules on mounted combat were posted earlier. "Your mount acts on your initiative count as you direct it. You move at its speed, but the mount uses its action to move." It's your movement, using the mount's speed and action. There's no such allowance for attacks, and Ride-by Attack is your feat, allowing you, and only you, to attack.
Basically, it works for movement because the rules say so, it doesn't work for attacks because they don't have any such allowances.
Very well said
|
So, I couldn't understand how you thought that, then all of a sudden it kind of clicked, and I saw where you're coming from. But I don't think that's right. If you're charging while mounted, your mount is charging, so you both get an attack. That's the standard for charging, and Ride-By-Attack says it works like a standard charge. It dictates what you can do, but doesn't mention anything about the mount, so there really aren't any special limitations put to the mount. But then again, I've already agreed the feat doesn't work, because it doesn't state that it allows the mount to move.
Also want to point out I wasn't trying to be sarcastic or insulting with that first comment, I really did just have one of those moments where something all of a sudden makes sense.
Well, SKR had some great posts about how you don't have to charge directly at your opponent with ride-by-attack that fixed a lot of things. Then he came back and said that he was wrong and that's not how charging works, and now we do need wheeling charge or overrun to use ride-by-attack, unless you can get in the perfect charging lane that allows you to move right beside the target and keep moving.
I don't understand why people think this at all other than being overly pedantic about having to move directly toward the target. All you have to do is draw a line past the charge target. From where you are, you're still pretty much running directly toward them. There's no rule that directly toward requires you to point your center directly at the target's center, mandating an overrun for ride-by to work.
And then you attack from the first square that gives you the opportunity to do so.
|
|
Well, SKR had some great posts about how you don't have to charge directly at your opponent with ride-by-attack that fixed a lot of things. Then he came back and said that he was wrong and that's not how charging works, and now we do need wheeling charge or overrun to use ride-by-attack, unless you can get in the perfect charging lane that allows you to move right beside the target and keep moving.
I don't understand why people think this at all other than being overly pedantic about having to move directly toward the target. All you have to do is draw a line past the charge target. From where you are, you're still pretty much running directly toward them. There's no rule that directly toward requires you to point your center directly at the target's center, mandating an overrun for ride-by to work.
And then you attack from the first square that gives you the opportunity to do so.
You can't just create a line behind the target and charge in that lane. That's what I was talking about with the SKR posts. That's how he interpreted the charging rules, and everything worked fine. Turns out that's not how it works and you must move to the closest space you can attack from. Sometime this is fine and you can ride straight past your opponent. Sometime it means you ride straight at them. It's a problem that ride-by-attack should solve, since if you have to charge at your opponent, and you have to continue in a straight line, means you're either going over them, or not continuing the movement. That's just how charging works, according to the rules.
Well, SKR had some great posts about how you don't have to charge directly at your opponent with ride-by-attack that fixed a lot of things. Then he came back and said that he was wrong and that's not how charging works, and now we do need wheeling charge or overrun to use ride-by-attack, unless you can get in the perfect charging lane that allows you to move right beside the target and keep moving.
I don't understand why people think this at all other than being overly pedantic about having to move directly toward the target. All you have to do is draw a line past the charge target. From where you are, you're still pretty much running directly toward them. There's no rule that directly toward requires you to point your center directly at the target's center, mandating an overrun for ride-by to work.
And then you attack from the first square that gives you the opportunity to do so.
Charging Rules:
Charging is a special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action. Charging, however, carries tight restrictions on how you can move.
You must move before your attack, not after. You must move at least 10 feet (2 squares) and may move up to double your speed directly toward the designated opponent. If you move a distance equal to your speed or less, you can also draw a weapon during a charge attack if your base attack bonus is at least +1.
You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles). You must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent. If this space is occupied or otherwise blocked, you can't charge. If any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through a square that blocks movement, slows movement, or contains a creature (even an ally), you can't charge. Helpless creatures don't stop a charge.
If you don't have line of sight to the opponent at the start of your turn, you can't charge that opponent.
You can't take a 5-foot step in the same round as a charge.
If you are able to take only a standard action on your turn, you can still charge, but you are only allowed to move up to your speed (instead of up to double your speed) and you cannot draw a weapon unless you possess the Quick Draw feat. You can't use this option unless you are restricted to taking only a standard action on your turn.
After moving, you may make a single melee attack. You get a +2 bonus on the attack roll and take a –2 penalty to your AC until the start of your next turn.
A charging character gets a +2 bonus on combat maneuver attack rolls made to bull rush an opponent.
Even if you have extra attacks, such as from having a high enough base attack bonus or from using multiple weapons, you only get to make one attack during a charge.
Lances and Charge Attacks: A lance deals double damage if employed by a mounted character in a charge.
Weapons Readied against a Charge: Spears, tridents, and other weapons with the brace feature deal double damage when readied (set) and used against a charging character.
Basically standard charge set up
1. Point A is you.
2. Point B is the closest space from which you can attack the opponent
3. The shortest distance between Point A and Point B is a straight line.
4. So the path created by both points A and B will always end up going through the square occupied by the enemy because it is straight line.
No way to argue this. Sorry.
Basically standard charge set up
1. Point A is you.
2. Point B is the closest space from which you can attack the opponent
3. The shortest distance between Point A and Point B is a straight line.
4. So the path created by both points A and B will always end up going through the square occupied by the enemy because it is straight line.No way to argue this. Sorry.
I disagree. If you encounter a rule that seems to invalidate another rule (without directly supplanting it with the "more specific over general" principle) then it's more likely been a failure in communication than intentional. And I think this is the case here. I'd argue that the spirit of step 2 above is met by moving to the closest point on the charge path to the target and attacking from there.
I understand that's now how this has historically been treated, apparently the FAQ for 3.5 handled it by allowing ride-by attackers to shift direction after the attack, but I think it works.
Basically standard charge set up
1. Point A is you.
2. Point B is the closest space from which you can attack the opponent
3. The shortest distance between Point A and Point B is a straight line.
4. So the path created by both points A and B will always end up going through the square occupied by the enemy because it is straight line.No way to argue this. Sorry.
I disagree. If you encounter a rule that seems to invalidate another rule (without directly supplanting it with the "more specific over general" principle) then it's more likely been a failure in communication than intentional. And I think this is the case here. I'd argue that the spirit of step 2 above is met by moving to the closest point on the charge path to the target and attacking from there.
I understand that's now how this has historically been treated, apparently the FAQ for 3.5 handled it by allowing ride-by attackers to shift direction after the attack, but I think it works.
Disagree or not, it all comes down to this little phrase from the charge rules, you must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent. This is from regular charge rules and not mounted combat. Alot of your gm/dm(s) will stick to RAW. Although I could understand a house rule for the ride-by attack feat when it concerns the path of the charge as you have stated(I as well as many others have stated what a mess the mounted combat rules are). Otherwise in order to fully utilize the ride-by attack feat you would have to take other feats. One is Charge Through, which requires another feat, Greater Overrun. And this is up for debate given the overrun rules as pointed out in another thread I just read. The other way is to take the wheeling charge feat. And debating the mechanics of this is a headache. Again the rules for mounted combat need some tweaking.
Disagree or not, it all comes down to this little phrase from the charge rules, you must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent. This is from regular charge rules and not mounted combat. Alot of your gm/dm(s) will stick to RAW. Although I could understand a house rule for the ride-by attack feat when it concerns the path of the charge as you have stated(I as well as many others have stated what a mess the mounted combat rules are). Otherwise in order to fully utilize the ride-by attack feat you would have to take other feats. One is Charge Through, which requires another feat, Greater Overrun. And this is up for debate given the overrun rules as pointed out in another thread I just read. The other way is to take the wheeling charge feat. And debating the mechanics of this is a...Basically standard charge set up
1. Point A is you.
2. Point B is the closest space from which you can attack the opponent
3. The shortest distance between Point A and Point B is a straight line.
4. So the path created by both points A and B will always end up going through the square occupied by the enemy because it is straight line.No way to argue this. Sorry.
I disagree. If you encounter a rule that seems to invalidate another rule (without directly supplanting it with the "more specific over general" principle) then it's more likely been a failure in communication than intentional. And I think this is the case here. I'd argue that the spirit of step 2 above is met by moving to the closest point on the charge path to the target and attacking from there.
I understand that's now how this has historically been treated, apparently the FAQ for 3.5 handled it by allowing ride-by attackers to shift direction after the attack, but I think it works.
But wait there is a third option, did somebody say flying mount. Now this is getting into fiat territory. lol
Disagree or not, it all comes down to this little phrase from the charge rules, you must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent.What if there are three spaces tied for "closest"?
Your question is kinda redundant, even if there are spaces that tie for which nearest space you can attack from. The path created from the point you originated the charge to the point you attack which is the nearest space you can attack from will still create a path or line the goes right through the enemy if you try to keep moving after the charge. Keep in mind it is the the closet space from which you can attack the opponent that creates the path not the path that creates the closet space from which you can attack the opponent.
If I am 4 squares (20ft) away from my opponent, and perfectly lined up on the grid (vertically or horizontally), then there are 3 spaces tied for "closest".
2 of those give me a path to Ride-by.
Your logic is flawed. I guarantee the two squares that you are talking about the distance between them is slightly greater than compared to the one actual true closest space you can attack from given the point of where you originate your charge. This doesn't have anything to do with the alignment of the grid. This is simply mathematics and geometry my friend. Think of the point you originate your charge from as the tip of a triangle. Now think of the three spaces of where your claiming you can attack from as being the bottom of the triangle. Connect the dots my friend to form a triangle. Point A is the point from where you charge from. Points B and D are for the outside of the triangle or the other two tips of the triangle per say with point C being in the middle of B and D. Now if you connect all points together you will find the line connecting point A and C is slightly shorter than the lines of A and B and A and D. This is stuff they taught you in elementary school bro.
I believe you're one of the people that likes to claim "RAW" as your defense.
Where in Pathfinder is what you've just explained?
Because, as far as Pathfinder is concerned, all three of those spaces are exactly the same distance from where I started.
Really, RAW is my defense all you got. I at least try to back my debates/arguments with facts, from what I see all you are using is your interpretation of the rules. Even if your mount takes up more than 1 space per say you still have to pick one of it's spaces to attack from, that determines your starting point for the charge and the closest space you can attack from. Saying that all three of those spaces are exactly the same distance from your starting point is mathematically impossible.
If you can prove me wrong then I will admit that I was wrong, heck I would be glad to be proven wrong on this. But keep in mind you must put your theories to the test lest they get holes poked through them.
|
Larger mounts do make this more difficult to pull off. Not disputing that. But it's not impossible, either. When you attack, you choose the most beneficial corner of your square to attack from. For simplicity's sake, I'll stick with a Medium opponent (X) and a Small creature riding a Medium mount (Y):
OOOOO
XOOOY
OOOOO
If Y was attacking X with a bow, it doesn't matter which of the two corners nearest to X they use to determine their attack. Each attack travels the same distance.
If Y was charging X with a sword, just move each of those two points from earlier up 3 squares. You'll find it's the exact same distance.
It doesn't matter which math you use, whether it's geometry or Pathfinder, your charge and the points you're attacking from are all equal distance.
Isn't math fun?
|
|
If you disagree with my approach, that's fine. I disagree with yours, so we're even. As a compromise, let's go with interpreting the rules in a way that causes a functional reaction. I prefer to believe that abilities were created with the intention of working rather than not working.
So, which of our two explanations makes Ride-by Attack work?
Now if you connect all points together you will find the line connecting point A and C is slightly shorter than the lines of A and B and A and D. This is stuff they taught you in elementary school bro.If I am 4 squares (20ft) away from my opponent, and perfectly lined up on the grid (vertically or horizontally), then there are 3 spaces tied for "closest".
2 of those give me a path to Ride-by.
No, they are all exactly 15ft away. Because it's a game. In fact, since you measure corner to corner, they are the same lines.
Basically standard charge set up
1. Point A is you.
2. Point B is the closest space from which you can attack the opponent
3. The shortest distance between Point A and Point B is a straight line.
4. So the path created by both points A and B will always end up going through the square occupied by the enemy because it is straight line.
The bolded isn't necessarily true, even if my comments above aren't taken into account. Especially as the sizes of the combatants scale up, and if the rider is using a reach weapon. You can pick any corner of any square you occupy as your origin and any corner of any square you threaten the enemy from to figure out what's closest. It's actually rather easy to find a line that doesn't send you through the occupied square in most cases, as my Samurai/Shining Knight discovered.
Considering you've got a reach weapon, you're probably not hitting, unless the target is large and you can target a square 10' away.
IMO, and I'm almost positive I read this in a FAQ somewhere, you can't choose which square to attack. Just because a creature is large doesn't mean you can hit it with a reach weapon while your adjacent. The ruling went something like "you must always attack the closest square. Oh you can't? Then you can't attack."
IRT the issue at hand:
Attacking is part of a charge. If you can't attack, you can't charge. The way I interpret this feat is both CAN and indeed MUST attack if and only if that attack occurs at the same time. If they have different ranges, the rules of charging (move to the closest square and make an attack) preclude one of the attacks.
I think the idea that they're charging in tandem allows the rider's attack to satisfy the attack requirement of the charge rule. At least, that's how I've always played it.
Larger mounts do make this more difficult to pull off. Not disputing that. But it's not impossible, either. When you attack, you choose the most beneficial corner of your square to attack from. For simplicity's sake, I'll stick with a Medium opponent (X) and a Small creature riding a Medium mount (Y):
OOOOO
XOOOY
OOOOOIf Y was attacking X with a bow, it doesn't matter which of the two corners nearest to X they use to determine their attack. Each attack travels the same distance.
If Y was charging X with a sword, just move each of those two points from earlier up 3 squares. You'll find it's the exact same distance.
It doesn't matter which math you use, whether it's geometry or Pathfinder, your charge and the points you're attacking from are all equal distance.
Isn't math fun?
Your trying to use the rules for determining cover as the basis of your argument. I am arguing the distance you have to actually physical travel on the map to launch your melee attack. Do yourself a favor go get a mapping tool, we use one for our pathfinder games. Or simply yet go get your self a pencil, a ruler, and a blank piece of paper. Those three points you were talking about and the point from which you are going to charge from treat them like dots measure them out and get back to me on it.
|
|
Since we're not going to convince each other, what did you have to say about this?
I prefer to believe the game was intended to work.
Your trying to use the rules for determining cover as the basis of your argument. I am arguing the distance you have to actually physical travel on the map to launch your melee attack. Do yourself a favor go get a mapping tool, we use one for our pathfinder games. Or simply yet go get your self a pencil, a ruler, and a blank piece of paper. Those three points you were talking about and the point from which you are going to charge from treat them like dots measure them out and get back to me on it.
You can't cast spells in Pathfinder, because you can't cast spells in real life. The rules are obviously wrong. [/sarcasm]
There are no fractional distances in Pathfinder combat mechanics. Everything is exactly 5n ft away where n is defined as all positive integers. The actual distance between the representative points on the grid are irrelevant.
Your trying to use the rules for determining cover as the basis of your argument. I am arguing the distance you have to actually physical travel on the map to launch your melee attack. Do yourself a favor go get a mapping tool, we use one for our pathfinder games. Or simply yet go get your self a pencil, a ruler, and a blank piece of paper. Those three points you were talking about and the point from which you are going to charge from treat them like dots measure them out and get back to me on it.You can't cast spells in Pathfinder, because you can't cast spells in real life. The rules are obviously wrong. [/sarcasm]
There are no fractional distances in Pathfinder combat mechanics. Everything is exactly 5n ft away where n is defined as all positive integers. The actual distance between the representative points on the grid are irrelevant.
I was wrong it my approach, but you brought this on yourself.
Measuring Distance
As a general rule, distance is measured assuming that 1 square equals 5 feet.
Diagonals: When measuring distance, the first diagonal counts as 1 square, the second counts as 2 squares, the third counts as 1, the fourth as 2, and so on.
You can't move diagonally past a corner (even by taking a 5-foot step). You can move diagonally past a creature, even an opponent.
You can also move diagonally past other impassable obstacles, such as pits.
Closest Creature: When it's important to determine the closest square or creature to a location, if two squares or creatures are equally close, randomly determine which one counts as closest by rolling a die.
|
|
IMO, and I'm almost positive I read this in a FAQ somewhere, you can't choose which square to attack. Just because a creature is large doesn't mean you can hit it with a reach weapon while your adjacent. The ruling went something like "you must always attack the closest square. Oh you can't? Then you can't attack."Considering you've got a reach weapon, you're probably not hitting, unless the target is large and you can target a square 10' away.
Actually it says right in the reach special ability in the equipment section "You can use a reach weapon to strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can’t use it against an adjacent foe." Whereas the attack action indicates that "With a typical reach weapon, you can strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can’t strike adjacent foes (those within 5 feet)."
So, you can definitely read that as not being able to attack if they are adjacent. But nothing in the attack description says you can target squares, but other sections say that you can, so I feel there's enough there that someone could argue they could target a square 10' feet away, that's why I included it.
Also, I too believe you should be able to move diagonally on a charge if the distance is equal. But I've had 5 star PFS GMs tell me I couldn't. So I'd be hesitant to rely on that to get my ride-by-attack to work.
|
Closest Creature: When it's important to determine the closest square or creature to a location, if two squares or creatures are equally close, randomly determine which one counts as closest by rolling a die.
I would never imagine a random roll would supplant player choice.
I believe that rule is in place for determining what happens when it's not clear what square something would land in, or determining which creature a confused character charges towards.
If a GM told me to roll a d3 to determine which square my charge ended in, I would probably choose a different table to play at.
Closest Creature: When it's important to determine the closest square or creature to a location, if two squares or creatures are equally close, randomly determine which one counts as closest by rolling a die.I would never imagine a random roll would supplant player choice.
I believe that rule is in place for determining what happens when it's not clear what square something would land in, or determining which creature a confused character charges towards.
If a GM told me to roll a d3 to determine which square my charge ended in, I would probably choose a different table to play at.
You have answered some of my mounted combat questions in the past Nefreet, can ride-by attack be used the way Dallium and Valor Axeflail are claiming it can be. I refer to your judgement since you are a more experienced when it comes to the rules and mechanics of pathifnder.
As for the closet creature part of the movement rules, I don't see how that relates to a standard charge. I just posted the movement rules so everything was the there and bolded the part of how moving diagonally was measured. Cause that is what I found relevant to the distance of the charging part.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The alias Valor Axeflail is my Oread Cavalier in PFS. I often post under an appropriate alias so it's easier to find related threads in the future, or for when (in this case) I ever sit down with my Cavalier and want to go over the common rules issues with the GM.
So, yes? I totally agree with him =P
The alias Valor Axeflail is my Oread Cavalier in PFS. I often post under an appropriate alias so it's easier to find related threads in the future, or for when (in this case) I ever sit down with my Cavalier and want to go over the common rules issues with the GM.
So, yes? I totally agree with him =P
My hat is off to you nefreet/valor axefall. I wish I could get my dm that runs our runelords campaign, to run the mounted combat rules the way you see them. I am a man of my word and I am conceding this debate to you. I know you are a four-star pfs gm, so unless someone who is 5-star gm or maybe one of the paizo developers decides to get in on this thread and say otherwise, I was proven wrong.
My hat is off to you nefreet/valor axefall. I wish I could get my dm that runs our runelords campaign, to run the mounted combat rules the way you see them. I am a man of my word and I am conceding this debate to you. I know you are a four-star pfs gm, so unless someone who is 5-star gm or maybe one of the paizo developers decides to get in on this thread and say otherwise, I was proven wrong.The alias Valor Axeflail is my Oread Cavalier in PFS. I often post under an appropriate alias so it's easier to find related threads in the future, or for when (in this case) I ever sit down with my Cavalier and want to go over the common rules issues with the GM.
So, yes? I totally agree with him =P
As long as nefreet's conditions are met those three points are equal distance according to how movement is measured in pathfinder. Very circumstantial, but not impossible. As along as your charge line doesn't shift more than 1 square over you can pull off the ride-by attack without any additional feats. Gotta say after looking at a grid and taking into how movement is measured it just clicked. Sorry for all the trouble I caused, but hey thanks to the debate we had my understanding of the rules just went up.
Closest Creature: When it's important to determine the closest square or creature to a location, if two squares or creatures are equally close, randomly determine which one counts as closest by rolling a die.I would never imagine a random roll would supplant player choice.
I believe that rule is in place for determining what happens when it's not clear what square something would land in, or determining which creature a confused character charges towards.
If a GM told me to roll a d3 to determine which square my charge ended in, I would probably choose a different table to play at.
After agreeing with you, about being right, I am being to see why you highlighted or noticed this little rule. Can that even be applied to charging. I hope not.
Actually it says right in the reach special ability ... "With a typical reach weapon, ... you can’t strike adjacent foes (those within 5 feet)."