CRB p. 202: "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."
While this isn't specifically about charging, as a GM this is what I would rule for the situation you describe, including that your shot(s) would be executed at the halfway point of the move, with all that might imply about cover.
Note that the Mounted Charge FAQ implicitly introduced a distinction between a "mounted charge" and being mounted on something that is charging. In the former case, both rider and mount are charging together, with all that implies. In the latter case, the mount is charging while the rider does something else (such as shoot a bow).
Regarding the quoted rules regarding ranged attacks on mounts, I would consider the charge to be a lot more in common with running than double moving. You should be able to full attack even while your mount is doing this, but that -8 is, I feel, going to be a brutal penalty.
I believe your mount can charge without you also charging (for the purposes of having to make a melee attack), though you might take the -2 penalty to AC anyways.
The rules aren't particularly clear on the subject.
If the mounted combat rules clearly state you can shoot while standing still, while moving, while double-moving, or while running, doesn't that preclude the option to shoot while charging, which is explicitly not mentioned as even being an option?
You cannot full attack if your mount moves more than 5 feet without the Mounted Skirmisher feat (which allows you to do exactly that), which seems to be contradicted by the rules I quoted above. FAQ-worthy?
CRB p. 202: "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."
While this isn't specifically about charging, as a GM this is what I would rule for the situation you describe, including that your shot(s) would be executed at the halfway point of the move, with all that might imply about cover.
Note that the Mounted Charge FAQ implicitly introduced a distinction between a "mounted charge" and being mounted on something that is charging. In the former case, both rider and mount are charging together, with all that implies. In the latter case, the mount is charging while the rider does something else (such as shoot a bow).
Actually, the FAQ stated that they are synonymous (the same thing).
Mounted Combat: When making a charge while mounted, which creature charges? The rider or the mount?
Both charge in unison, suffer the same penalty to AC, the gaining the same bonus to the attack rolls and following all other rules for the charge. The mounted combat rules are a little unclear on this. Replace the third paragraph under the "Combat while Mounted" section on page 202 with the following text. Note that a "mounted charge" is synonymous with a "charge while mounted," and that when a lance is "when used from the back of a charging mount" it is during a mounted charge not when only the mount charges.A mounted charge is a charge made by you and your mount. During a mounted charge, you deal double damage with your first melee attack made with a lance or with any weapon if you have Spirited Charge (or a similar effect), or you deal triple damage with a lance and Spirited Charge.
This change will be reflected in future printings of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook
If your mount is charging then you are charging (and using a charge action). This is clearly indicated in the FAQ by the question (who charges, the rider or the mount) and then the answer (both charge in unison).
Prior to this FAQ there were a number of threads arguing this topic and people were trying to come up with all sorts of 'my mount is the one charging, not me so I can do X' options.
Actually, it looks like you're getting it a bit mixed.
"Charge while mounted" is not the same thing as "mounted on something that is charging". The FAQ you quoted is clear that if you charge, your mount also charges, but that doesn't mean that if your mount charges, that you are also charging!
It seems perfectly valid for your mount to charge while you don't do so. You won't gain the benefits for charging, but you shouldn't be forced to accept the drawbacks.
Saethori, the entire purpose of the FAQ was to put an end to the 'my mount charges but I am not charging' problem. You have to read it in that context.
If your mount charges you are charging.
So no ranged attacks from the rider while the mount is charging then?
Saethori, the entire purpose of the FAQ was to put an end to the 'my mount charges but I am not charging' problem. You have to read it in that context.
If your mount charges you are charging.
Frankly, then, it fails as a FAQ. It constantly uses the term "charge while mounted", and I can't see that as meaning anything but "[you] charge while [you are] mounted", the language heavily suggesting the rider being the one charging in this circumstance.
Even knowing I'm supposed to read it in the context of preventing the rider from not charging, I can't find any language in it to actually prohibit what it's meant to prohibit!
Saethori, the entire purpose of the FAQ was to put an end to the 'my mount charges but I am not charging' problem. You have to read it in that context.
If your mount charges you are charging.
I'd be very interested to see some support for this interpretation because I have read it to mean a) if the rider charges then the mount also charges; b) if the mount charges the rider can also charge, but the rider can also do something else (cast a spell, make ranged attacks, drink a potion, whatever). I also believe that I saw some support from one of the Devs for my interpretation, though I'm not sure now that I can find it again.
|
So no ranged attacks from the rider while the mount is charging then?
The rules for attacking after a charge seem to preclude this:
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.
This is one of those scenarios, like Flanking, where a melee attack is expressly called out.
So I guess your best bet is to have your mount make a single move and you make a full attack with your bow without any penalties.
Frankly, then, it fails as a FAQ!Seems clear to me:
If my mount charges, am I? From that snip, yes you are as you charge in unison.Combat: When making a charge while mounted, which creature charges? The rider or the mount?
Both charge in unison
+1
Couldn't be clearer.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except that quote has, as the entire basis of the question, "when making a charge while mounted". That's the question being proposed and answered in the FAQ.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say the actual ruling is false. But the question was "when I [A], does he [B]?" And they answered that whenever you [A], he does in fact [B]. But there is no presumed question, nor assumed answer, for "when he [B], do I [A]?"
"both charge in unison" encompasses both "I charge..." and "my mount charges..." type scenarios. It is pretty comprehensive with very little wriggle room left.
Saethori, this was all hammered out years ago.
This FAQ closed the very loophole you are arguing is still open (the "my mount is charging but I am not charging loophole).
There was never an issue with the rider charging but the mount not charging. That was never a thing. It was always the mount charging and the player trying to claim that the rider was not charging that caused problems and necessitated the FAQ.
This FAQ closed the very loophole you are arguing is still open (the "my mount is charging but I am not charging loophole).
Even knowing I'm supposed to read it in the context of preventing the rider from not charging,
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say the actual ruling is false.
I can't say I'm very happy that not a single person understood what it was I was trying to get at. And I certainly don't like that I was giving the impression of somebody who was trying to naysay a ruling despite evidence to the contrary. But if that's what's happening, I see little reason to continue trying to explain my point.
You guys have fun.
Regarding the quoted rules regarding ranged attacks on mounts, I would consider the charge to be a lot more in common with running than double moving. You should be able to full attack even while your mount is doing this, but that -8 is, I feel, going to be a brutal penalty.
Man...even a Samurai with Mounted Combat would still have a -4...
That's nasty.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Charge while mounted" is not the same thing as "mounted on something that is charging". The FAQ you quoted is clear that if you charge, your mount also charges, but that doesn't mean that if your mount charges, that you are also charging!
It seems perfectly valid for your mount to charge while you don't do so. You won't gain the benefits for charging, but you shouldn't be forced to accept the drawbacks.
According to the FAQ, charge while mounted does = mounted on something that is charging.
You both charge in unison.
I understood what you were trying to get at. I think Gauss understood what you were trying to get at.
I think this is exactly what other people were trying to get at before the FAQ explained that there is no distinction. It's both are charging, or neither are charging.
You can ask the question 10 different ways, but the answer is always, according to the FAQ, "you both charge in unison".
Now I'm not saying I completely agree with this. I can imagine a few legit role play scenarios where a distinction is merited, but at that point it's a house rule. YMMV, consult your GM.