How do you use Ride-By Attack?

[Ravingdork]

This thread for FAQing purposes.

Charge Rules wrote:

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 must charge directly at your target...

Ride-By Attack Benefit wrote:

When you are mounted and use the charge action, you may move and attack as if with a standard charge and then move again (continuing the straight line of the charge). Your total movement for the round can't exceed double your mounted speed. You and your mount do not provoke an attack of opportunity from the opponent that you attack.

...then how are you supposed to keep moving after making an attack in a Ride-by Attack? Wouldn't your target be in the path of the straight line of your charge, and thus disrupt the movement?

How is Ride-By Attack supposed to function, how is it to be adjudicated?

[Driver_325yards]

I will hit the FAQ, but the answer is simply going to be that the target of the attack does not count as an obstacle for the purposes of the feat.

Whenever given a choice between a simple intended solution and destroying the feat, they are going to pick the simple intended solution.

[Ravingdork]

Wouldn't the simple solution be to errata Ride-by Attack to allow an exception to the "you must charge directly at your foe" rule? That would allow you to charge alongside, rather than directly at 'em.

It would also keep from raising additional questions similar to "if he doesn't count as an obstacle, and I still have to charge right at him, do I trample him?"

[Driver_325yards]

The feat has been working in many households without those questions arising. Most people allow the intended exception for the purposes of this feat only and do not extend it to every other "what if" in the game.

You keep the requirement to charge directly at the target. You ignore the target for the purposes of moving forward pass the target. No, you do not trample or do anything else that the feat does not say that you do.

[VRMH]

Driver_325yards wrote:

You keep the requirement to charge directly at the target. You ignore the target for the purposes of moving forward pass the target.

Wouldn't that allow you to bypass a creature who'd otherwise block a narrow passage?

[Qaianna]

VRMH wrote:

Driver_325yards wrote:

You keep the requirement to charge directly at the target. You ignore the target for the purposes of moving forward pass the target.

Wouldn't that allow you to bypass a creature who'd otherwise block a narrow passage?

Looks like it would. I honestly prefer the image of charging along the side of someone. Just get your homies together in a carriage, cruise by your rival gang's hood, ranged weapons ready, and start ... wait, that's not quite the ride-by you're talking about.

Although another question is whether this was intended to be 'free overrun on a charge' as a feat. If so, then it might work.

[VampByDay]

I have a character who uses Ride-By attack and basically what makes the feat work is reach, and a little bit of hand-waving by the GM.

So basically, you have to charge to the 'closest available square.' Using pathfinder rules, count the distance. What really saves your bacon is reach (which gives you more options of where to attack from) and the fact that ever SECOND square counts as an additional 5 feet. So the following scenarios are equadistant (according to pathfinder mechanics.) It is a bit Janky, but it is the only way the feat works.

*= blank space
- = path taken
X= Enemy
P=PC
Each square is the closest square due to pathfinder rules:

*X*
*-*
*-*
Same as
*X*
-**
*-*
Same as
*X*
**-
*-*

Putting this into practice:

****-*
**x*-*
****-*
****-*<Attack from this square
****-*
****-*
****P*

Note how there are a couple 'closest squares,' so you get to choose the one most advantagous to you.
Here's another setup:

***-**
**x-**
***-**
***-**<Attack from this square
***-**
***-**
***P**

New 'attacking on diagonal rules allow both situations to work.

Now, follow the logic:
***-**
**x-**
***-**
**-***<Attack from this square
**-***
**-***
**P*** Note how you are technically charging in a straight line (For every 15 feet forward, you move five feet diagonally. This is a straight line, (as long as you maintain the pattern, every 15 feet you move forward, you move diagonally five feet), and you are also attacking at the earliest possible point.

This seems to be what most GMs go for. Hope this helped.

[Gauss]

It seems to me that the issue that needs FAQing is the actual wording for charge rather than Ride-By Attack. Admittedly, it is Ride-By that shows the problem, but SKR's solution, to read "closest space from which you can attack", to mean that you cannot move past the target and THEN attack makes perfect sense.

In any case, this has been a long standing issue with Pathfinder, FAQd.

[Driver_325yards]

VRMH wrote:

Driver_325yards wrote:

You keep the requirement to charge directly at the target. You ignore the target for the purposes of moving forward pass the target.

Wouldn't that allow you to bypass a creature who'd otherwise block a narrow passage?

This is exactly what the feat allows you to do. Is it too powerful - maybe. Is it ambiguous - no. Does it work as worded - yes.

Let's take a look at the wording of Ride By Attack again.

Quote:

Benefit: When you are mounted and use the charge action, you may move and attack as if with a standard charge and then move again (continuing the straight line of the charge). Your total movement for the round can't exceed double your mounted speed. You and your mount do not provoke an attack of opportunity from the opponent that you attack.

So the action order is as follows: Charge (move + attack) and move again.

The restrictions for not being able to charge if there is an obstacle in your way only applies to the charge action (as stated in the charge rules).

However, the continuation move is not a charge. It is just a continuation move. It is not restricted like the charge action is. In fact, Ride By Attack specificly says that you can continue your movement after the charge which necessitate that you can move through obstacles. Heck, I would even say that you can move over difficult terrain after the charge attack. The only restriction on the movement is that it must be in a straight line.

With that said, I will admit that it looks and feels like a nerf is a comin.

[Driver_325yards]

The only problem I have with the feat is that it allows you to Ride by the target even if the attack misses. So I say either take that ability away or just make Ride-By-Attack like Fly-By-Attack.

[hoshi]

Driver_325yards wrote:

The only problem I have with the feat is that it allows you to Ride by the target even if the attack misses. So I say either take that ability away or just make Ride-By-Attack like Fly-By-Attack.

Why would you stop if you miss your target?

[Avoron]

I think Driver's issue with it is that even if you miss, you still avoid any attacks of opportunity from the target.

Flyby Attack just doesn't protect against attacks of opportunity in general. It also differs in allowing any standard action, not just an attack. That's what makes it great fun for incorporeal spellcasters.

[Byakko]

The Ride-By Attack feat has been non-working since at least 3rd edition.

It's great that so many people have come up with creative solutions to the problem that this feat is, but in the end, it flat out doesn't work as written for the vast majority of cases.

Let's just FAQ this one, okay?

[Driver_325yards]

Byakko wrote:

The Ride-By Attack feat has been non-working since at least 3rd edition.

It's great that so many people have come up with creative solutions to the problem that this feat is, but in the end, it flat out doesn't work as written for the vast majority of cases.

Let's just FAQ this one, okay?

It works, as I explained. The question is does it need an eratta.

[Byakko]

Driver_325yards wrote:

Byakko wrote:

The Ride-By Attack feat has been non-working since at least 3rd edition.

It's great that so many people have come up with creative solutions to the problem that this feat is, but in the end, it flat out doesn't work as written for the vast majority of cases.

Let's just FAQ this one, okay?

It works, as I explained. The question is does it need an eratta.

Your explanation is faulty.

"However, the continuation move is not a charge. It is just a continuation move. It is not restricted like the charge action is."

You overlooked the bolded part:

"...you may move and attack as if with a standard charge and then move again (continuing the straight line of the charge)."

Your "continuation move" must continue in the straight line of the charge, which is typically not possible.

[Nefreet]

SKR had a beautiful depiction of charge lines a while back that gave me a new appreciation for the mechanic, and for adjudicating Ride-By Attack. As VampByDay explained above, there is usually more than one path that you can choose from during a charge (with each being equidistant). I don't consider that reasoning "janky" at all. Often times you'll have two paths for Ride-By Attack, and many paths to choose from with Wheeling Charge.

I'm in favor of any interpretation that makes the game work. Overly pedantic reasoning that creates dysfunctional scenarios and prevents gameplay just doesn't make sense to me.

[Byakko]

Even with SKR's lax interpretation of "closest square", having these perfectly lined up scenarios can sometimes be rare. Even more so, when you consider the standard mount (the horse) is large, making things even trickier.

I agree this is something the GM should use common sense and a bit of flexibility on, but it would be a very good thing to have a FAQ or errata clarifying all these mounted combat rules so it doesn't feel like we're house ruling stuff all the time.