Cavalier with reach weapon + mount with pounce = ?


Rules Questions

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

I asked this question in a previous thread and 90% of the replies were "I'd houserule ____" Or "If it were my table, I'd say _____ due to it defying ____ and _____ laws of physics." All I want to know is if it's legal RAW so I can run it in PFS.

So, basically....if you are mounted and using a reach weapon (lance) and you're riding a mount with pounce, can you charge, strike with the rider's lance, and then continue the charge one square further to place the target within the mount's reach so it can full attack with pounce?

This is assuming you have ride-by attack.


In my opinion, RAW for this setup would be supported.

Mounted combat rules mention that the movement of a mount counts as their action, and a mount can charge as that action. You are allowed to attack at the end of the movement.

Ride-by Attack mentions that you may charge on a mount and attack, then continue to move after the attack (upto maximum of double the mounts speed).

Pounce says that a creature with this special attack makes a charge, it can make a full attack (including rake attacks if the creature also has the rake ability).

The real question is, whether the mount can only make a move action (thus allowing you to move only) or it possesses both a move & standard action thus allowing the full attack action.


RAW is unclear which is why you get the "at my table..." answers. It can easily be ruled both ways
As a player I would avoid this at PFS and wield a non-reach weapon, or accept the inevitable table variation.
As a GM, I... have yet to truly settle on an answer I am happy with. both options have compelling arguments, but in my opinion it is likely that the closest to RAI is only one of you gets to attack, I am just not 100% convinced that is the answer I will settle on.

On the other hand pounce on it's own is powerful, charge with a lance on it's own is powerful - don't be too upset if GMs don't want both together.


Mounted Combat rules are a mess. Most of it doesn't work, conflicting with rules from other parts of the game.

But yes, with Ride By Attack you should be able to make your attack and have your mount continue to move and be able to attack.

Grand Lodge

Thanks for the input guys. Disappointing that there isn't a definitive answer but between the two threads, there's been more for it being RAW than against. My entire build is built around the concept so hooooopefully it'll go through.

If anyone else chimes in maybe we can get a majority ruling.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

With ride by attack, yes. Absolutely.

Without ride by attack, no. Absolutely not.

Pretty clear IMHO.

If I were you I would have the books ready to be opened for mounted combat rules and ride by attack. If you think your build will be questioned, be prepared to provide hard evidence at a moment's notice. GMs are far more likely to listen and be understanding if you are well educated in your build and prepared to present rules support. Like a summoner who has printed out stat sheets for his summoned critters.


In that vein, I would suggest reading through threads about mounted combat and the contradictions it has so you understand the finer points about why mounted combat doesn't work by the rules and all the problems that creep up with it.

I don't have a specific thread I can point you too, but maybe someone else can help you out.


Mounted combat by RAW Doesn't work and maybe works maybe? So there is no clear safe guarantee of how mounted combat works outside of what the GM thinks.
If you have a common group you PFS with, ask a handful of the GMs there what they think, if they all pretty much agree on something then that's probably pretty safe.


EnginBear wrote:

In my opinion, RAW for this setup would be supported.

Mounted combat rules mention that the movement of a mount counts as their action, and a mount can charge as that action. You are allowed to attack at the end of the movement.

Ride-by Attack mentions that you may charge on a mount and attack, then continue to move after the attack (upto maximum of double the mounts speed).

Pounce says that a creature with this special attack makes a charge, it can make a full attack (including rake attacks if the creature also has the rake ability).

The real question is, whether the mount can only make a move action (thus allowing you to move only) or it possesses both a move & standard action thus allowing the full attack action.

I agree with this with one exception. To get an animal to attack is a Handle Animal check. If you have levels in a class that allow you to do this as a free action (i.e. druid) or some similar game mechanic is in play then yes it will work. If you have to spend a standard action to get the mount to attack then no it will not.


gnrrrg wrote:
EnginBear wrote:

In my opinion, RAW for this setup would be supported.

Mounted combat rules mention that the movement of a mount counts as their action, and a mount can charge as that action. You are allowed to attack at the end of the movement.

Ride-by Attack mentions that you may charge on a mount and attack, then continue to move after the attack (upto maximum of double the mounts speed).

Pounce says that a creature with this special attack makes a charge, it can make a full attack (including rake attacks if the creature also has the rake ability).

The real question is, whether the mount can only make a move action (thus allowing you to move only) or it possesses both a move & standard action thus allowing the full attack action.

I agree with this with one exception. To get an animal to attack is a Handle Animal check. If you have levels in a class that allow you to do this as a free action (i.e. druid) or some similar game mechanic is in play then yes it will work. If you have to spend a standard action to get the mount to attack then no it will not.

Any class that grants an animal companion or mount grants the ability to handle that animal as a free action, as all of them reference the druid ability (either directly or indirectly) I believe. I don't know of any exceptions, but there might be one.

The point of which is to say, so long as you are given a mount by class features instead of trying to purchase a mount you will be fine.


I agree that it's pretty clear that the rules allow you to do this. But I've encountered enough GMs who don't agree that my Cavalier has a longsword as a backup weapon.


Abraham Z. wrote:
But I've encountered enough GMs who don't agree that my Cavalier has a longsword as a backup weapon.

That doesn't even make sense. If you have it on your character sheet and paid for it why would they say you don't have?

With a mount it's not like you need to worry about carrying capacity, and a normal longsword is super cheap after you gain any levels at all.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

As a separate thing, I did just think of one of the contradictions of mounted combat that I mentioned earlier.

For instance, it was ruled (via FAQ?) that both the mount and rider take the charge action when performing a mounted charge. However this poses a problem. A rider is assumed to be in all squares that his mount occupies. And charge tells you that you must attack from the first square you are able to. A lance being a reach weapon can attack from 10ft away, but most mounts only have 5ft reach. Without Ride By Attack, the mount can't even reach the enemy to attack because the rider has to have the mount stop to make his attack and the mount can't continue moving. Which means the mounts charge wasn't validly completed, so it can't do it. Which would by a strict reading of the rules imply that you can't make a mounted lance charge without Ride By Attack (without having a mount with 10ft reach), but that seems like nonsense. Further, even with Ride By Attack you would lock yourself into forcing your mount to attack because it's taking the charge action (and must make an attack by charge rules) which would mean you can't do the iconic "hit with lance and charge by the enemy, so you can set yourself up for another charge and also so the enemy can't hit you" which is also clearly nonsense.

As I said earlier the mounted combat rules are honestly a mess, mostly because of the rules for charging. You really have to go more with the spirit of the rules with Mounted Combat than the actual strict rules. Because otherwise it just doesn't work like it should.


Claxon wrote:


Any class that grants an animal companion or mount grants the ability to handle that animal as a free action, as all of them reference the druid ability (either directly or indirectly) I believe. I don't know of any exceptions, but there might be one.

The point of which is to say, so long as you are given a mount by class features instead of trying to purchase a mount you will be fine.

True, but any class can own a "mount" that is not a part of their class features. The thread does specify a cavalier, so it's not a problem in this example, but it is best not to let someone read this thread and think that their fighter can do all this fancy stuff just by buying a horse.


Claxon wrote:
Abraham Z. wrote:
I agree it works. But I've encountered enough GMs who don't agree (that it works), that my Cavalier has a longsword as a backup weapon to not have to deal with this reach issue.
That doesn't even make sense. If you have it on your character sheet and paid for it why would they say you don't have?

I'm pretty sure he meant this: (also "elaborated" in his quote)

Since I have encountered this issue with reach, pounce, charging, mounts and enough of the GMs that encountered this have ruled that it doesn't work or don't agree that it works, that I carry a longsword to be able to charge and not have reach to be able to ignore the issue when a GM disagrees.


Chess Pwn wrote:

I'm pretty sure he meant this: (also "elaborated" in his quote)

Since I have encountered this issue with reach, pounce, charging, mounts and enough of the GMs that encountered this have ruled that it doesn't work or don't agree that it works, that I carry a longsword to be able to charge and not have reach to be able to ignore the issue when a GM disagrees.

Ohhhhhh.......that makes a lot of sense.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Cavalier with reach weapon + mount with pounce = ? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.