Pounce and Ride-By-Attack


Rules Questions

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

While talking to one of the regular GMs in my PFS lodge I brought up the desire to make a mounted character that rode a Lion/Tiger/Big Cat of choice that utilized Ride-By-Attack with the mounts Pounce. I have looked through the forums been unable to find an official ruling that said this does or does not work. However he insisted that he would never allow it in PFS, and likely most the other GMs in the lodge would also rule against it, unless I had a developer or official rules response that it does work together.

So I am trying to get a ruling on this before I invest a ton of time into a character that then does not work. I am not sure if this should be in the rules forum or not, but because it is for a PFS character I figured I would post here.


How are you thinking it would work? Cause at first glance it seems like for sure it doesn't work. But I'm interested to your case and reasoning for thinking they do work together.

Dark Archive

Thomas Hutchins wrote:
How are you thinking it would work? Cause at first glance it seems like for sure it doesn't work. But I'm interested to your case and reasoning for thinking they do work together.

Easy, there is no rules that claim it does not work. When your mount charges you charge. Both Pounce and Ride-By-Attack change the rules for charging to operate differently.

Pounce wrote:
When 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).
Ride-By-Attack wrote:
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.

A regular mount can make a charge attack when you do, even with Ride-By-Attack. Pounce says that when the creature charges, it gets to full attack. Ride-By-Attack says after making the charge attack, you can move again in a straight line. There is no wording that says a Pounce ends the mounts movement.


Ride-by-attack only affects the rider, the one with the feat. It doesn't do anything to change the mounts rule.
So you charge, you make an attack at reach, continue moving, and then your animal companion makes their full attack and you're both done.


No official ruling, I'd say no.

Expect table variation

NEXT!!

Grand Lodge

RSX Raver wrote:


Pounce wrote:
When 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).
A regular mount can make a charge attack when you do, even with Ride-By-Attack. Pounce says that when the creature charges, it gets to full attack. Ride-By-Attack says after making the charge attack, you can move again in a straight line. There is no wording that says a Pounce ends the mounts movement.

Actually, it does. Emphasis above. A charge is a "movement to closest available unoccupied square within your range of attack, with atleast 10 ft of movement."

When your mount Pounces, they stop moving once they get into range of an enemy. You are replacing your typical Charge attack with a special action that negates your Ribe-by-attack.


I'm not sure if you'll get many or any that say yes. But I do think you'll get a handful of different reasons why people say no.


If your mount is pouncing, it surely is not riding by. Pounce pretty much means... full stop, I'm getting my full round of attacks here. If you're going to do anything besides hang on for deal life, it's time for that DC 20 Ride Check.

Dark Archive

Thomas Hutchins wrote:

Ride-by-attack only affects the rider, the one with the feat. It doesn't do anything to change the mounts rule.

So you charge, you make an attack at reach, continue moving, and then your animal companion makes their full attack and you're both done.

By your reasoning, you could never Ride-By-Attack, as the feat only affects the rider. Also I never stated using a reach weapon. If I charge with a longsword when using ride-by-attack, my mount gets to also make an attack as part of the charge, I then get to move again on the mount past the target in a straight line, so long as the total move for the turn does not exceed double the mounts movement. Pounce augments that attack the mount takes, the same way Ride-By-Attack changes the rules of the charge having to end with an attack.

All of the arguments against this working would break how mounted combat works. Unless someone can point out that your mount does not get to attack with ride-by-attack, I do not see a rule that stops this from working. The problem is that the mounted combat rules are not well written in these regards, because I found plenty of people supporting this working in other threads. Hence why I want an official response and not just opinions, because we can go back and forth all day.


Ride-by-attack only affects the rider, the one with the feat. It doesn't do anything to change the mounts rule.
So you charge, you make your attack and your animal companion makes their full attack and then you can continue moving but your mount cannot.

You're very likely not to get an official response for 2 reasons.

1) This isn't a PFS specific ruling or clarification, nor getting a "FAQ" for a splat-book. This is the core rule-book question, and thus PFS will defer to the PDT to make a FAQ answering this.

2) mounted combat is a mess that no one official seems to want to deal with.

So most likely the only official thing you could hope for was John or Tonya coming in saying that this isn't something they rule on and to get it FAQ'd.


I think your mount would need spring attack to hit and move, and the wording seems incompatable with a pounce.


spring attack would be needed to move hit move, but then you can't be charging.

Lantern Lodge

I'm not saying that there is a "right" or a "wrong" answer to this, but both 'pounce' and 'Ride-By-Attack' change the already complex and no- entirely-functional mounted charging rules. If I had to make a gut ruling, I'd say you cannot do both because both modify the same set of rules. (As in, you can replace the "normal charge" with either of the two options, but both simultaneously doesn't grok in my head.)

I typically default to the "make it make sense" when mounted combat is an issue. ("A guy on a horse should be able to do what a guy on a horse can do.")

Dark Archive

I feel ride-by-attack is SA for charges, but you are probably right that because the mess that is mounted combat never gets ruled on, there will be no official ruling.

Sad but I think this will be more frustrating then not to deal with table variation, so I should probably scrap this one and figure something else out. Maybe it is time to ride a giant scorpion and grapple things with it...


RSX Raver wrote:
Thomas Hutchins wrote:

Ride-by-attack only affects the rider, the one with the feat. It doesn't do anything to change the mounts rule.

So you charge, you make an attack at reach, continue moving, and then your animal companion makes their full attack and you're both done.

By your reasoning, you could never Ride-By-Attack, as the feat only affects the rider. Also I never stated using a reach weapon. If I charge with a longsword when using ride-by-attack, my mount gets to also make an attack as part of the charge, I then get to move again on the mount past the target in a straight line, so long as the total move for the turn does not exceed double the mounts movement. Pounce augments that attack the mount takes, the same way Ride-By-Attack changes the rules of the charge having to end with an attack.

All of the arguments against this working would break how mounted combat works. Unless someone can point out that your mount does not get to attack with ride-by-attack, I do not see a rule that stops this from working. The problem is that the mounted combat rules are not well written in these regards, because I found plenty of people supporting this working in other threads. Hence why I want an official response and not just opinions, because we can go back and forth all day.

What you're neglecting Raver is that the mount isn't just attacking... it's POUNCING which means it's making a full series of attacks. There is no Ride-By going on here as the mount isn't just passing by it's stopping and making a full series of attacks.

The person riding the mount CAN attack IF the Ride check is made. He'll get one attack. But Ride-By doesn't come into play as the mount isn't riding by.

Dark Archive

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
RSX Raver wrote:
Thomas Hutchins wrote:

Ride-by-attack only affects the rider, the one with the feat. It doesn't do anything to change the mounts rule.

So you charge, you make an attack at reach, continue moving, and then your animal companion makes their full attack and you're both done.

By your reasoning, you could never Ride-By-Attack, as the feat only affects the rider. Also I never stated using a reach weapon. If I charge with a longsword when using ride-by-attack, my mount gets to also make an attack as part of the charge, I then get to move again on the mount past the target in a straight line, so long as the total move for the turn does not exceed double the mounts movement. Pounce augments that attack the mount takes, the same way Ride-By-Attack changes the rules of the charge having to end with an attack.

All of the arguments against this working would break how mounted combat works. Unless someone can point out that your mount does not get to attack with ride-by-attack, I do not see a rule that stops this from working. The problem is that the mounted combat rules are not well written in these regards, because I found plenty of people supporting this working in other threads. Hence why I want an official response and not just opinions, because we can go back and forth all day.

What you're neglecting Raver is that the mount isn't just attacking... it's POUNCING which means it's making a full series of attacks. There is no Ride-By going on here as the mount isn't just passing by it's stopping and making a full series of attacks.

The person riding the mount CAN attack IF the Ride check is made. He'll get one attack. But Ride-By doesn't come into play as the mount isn't riding by.

If we use real life as an example, my cat will run up to my other cat, pounce for like 3 seconds, and then jump up again and sprint away. Effectvely a ride-by-attack (which as I mentioned earlier, is the spring attack of charging). So I have actual examples in real life of this working, not to mention we are playing in a fantasy world of the impossible being possible, it is not a stretch as to being something that can happen.

Still, as mentioned, the mounted combat rules are a mess. The only line about charging on a mount talks about if the mount charges you are effectively charging without saying the words "you are also charging". Instead opting for vague wording, this probably will be fine in a home game where I can work it out with the GM but for PFS seems to muddy to deal with. Like I said, giant scorpion shenanigans, with some sort of hunter teamwork feat hijinks maybe.


He we go with real life scenarios in a fictional game that has different planes. Then lets stick to time.

One round is equal to or about six seconds of combat. And your turn is only a fraction of that. SOOOOOOO. Your cat did not ride by attack. It pounced and then did a withdrawl action the next turn.

As I said, table variation

Please do not bring real life into a game, most people use this game t escape real life.

EDIT:Reduction of tone. Thanks Lamplighter. I was actually trying to quote a meme. Maybe I should if hyperlinked it. I was saying next to the argument, as in next person, or next reason please. And by no means would I think my title would make or break the rules.


While I agree with the sentiment, there's no need to be dismissive. Venture-Agent =/= final arbiter of discussion here.

And I may be wrong, but I believe that your turn *is* 6 seconds. It happens *almost* simultaneously with everyone else's turn, but that makes a difficult game, so it's staggered into sequence.

EDIT: for clarity

Dark Archive

GM Lamplighter wrote:

While I agree with the sentiment, there's no need to be dismissive. Venture-Agent =/= final arbiter of discussion here.

And I may be wrong, but I believe that your turn *is* 6 seconds. It happens *almost* simultaneously with everyone else's turn, but that makes a difficult game, so it's staggered into sequence.

EDIT: for clarity

You are correct lamplighter, a round happens almost simultaneously for everyone involved. Like you said, that would be very difficult to manage from an organizational stand point, so making it go in sequence is the workaround.

Zachary, your tone is really not helpful or appreciated, and I could care less if you are a VA or not. I was bringing in an easy to understand example to clarify to Drahliana how I viewed the pounce+ride-by-attack. If you can not be constructive and polite in your replies, then refrain from them at all.

Dark Archive

The rider gets 1 atttack per ride by. The mount gets no attacks.
Only the rider is granted an attack. The mount is continuing the move. Not stopping to attack.
Thats how i would rule it.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I don't care for the idea of getting a pounce out of a charge and then ride by on top of that. So i'll go with...

ride by attack wrote:
attack as if with a standard charge

I would argue pounce has modified the attacks, therefore a pounce charge is not a standard charge.


Normal: standard (attack) action + move action or move action + move action (double move) or full-round action.
Special (Charge): double move + standard action.
Special (Pounce): charge + full attack.
Special (Ride by Attack): move action + standard + move action

Pounce is an ability that makes a standard charge into a special attack, and that ride-by-attack requires a standard charge.

RSX Raver wrote:
Pounce wrote:
When a creature with this special attack makes a charge, ....
Ride-By-Attack wrote:
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 ....

EDIT: ninja'd by Andrew.

However the reason a reach weapon gets mentioned above, is because the rider would make an attack from the first possible square one square before the mount (presuming the mount does not also have reach). A halfling with a lance on a medium tiger for example. Within table variation this part works for me, though you do end next to the target still.

Another consideration. Pouncing pets already have a bad reputation at many PFS tables for stealing the player's limelight. At my table, even if I allowed it, I would ask this combo to politely let the rest of the table play after it worked the first time. I forget how this rule is officially worded in PFS, but don't be a jerk.


I have also wished for more clarification on mounted combat. Perhaps a Mounted Combat Toolbox splat book is called for? I'd buy it. :)

One question that I have seen debated is whether it is even intended that a mounted charge allows for an attack by both the mount and the rider. I would suggest yes, so long as you and your mount both can attack from the same closest square because both attacks would follow from a standard charge. I feel that Ride-By-Attack would permit you to attack from a different square than your mount if you have different reach values because it permits movement both before and after the attack, but I could see where a GM could rule that Ride-By-Attack allows for the rider to move-attack-move but says nothing about modifying the charge rules for the mount. Because of this, my mounted characters typically do not even try to have their mounts attack during a Ride-By-Attack (x3 damage from the lance is often enough anyway). That said, as a GM, I would not allow both a Ride-By-Attack and Pounce at the same time because they both modify the charge action in different ways (i.e., as soon as one feat is applied, the action is no longer a standard charge and so the other feat cannot be applied).


Let's put all the rules side-by-side, shall we?

Combat While Mounted wrote:
If your mount charges, you also take the AC penalty associated with a charge. If you make an attack at the end of the charge, you receive the bonus gained from the charge. When charging on horseback, you deal double damage with a lance (see Charge).
Ride-by-Attack 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.
Pounce wrote:
When 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 way you rule here will come down to your interpretation of the ride-by-feat. The ride-by-feat says you (the rider) must take a charge, but says nothing about whether your mount is considered to be charging with you. If you rule that the mount is also charging then the pounce ability is pretty unambiguous and the mount should get its full attack. If you rule no then the mount gets no attack at all (it isn't charging) and only the rider gets to attack.

I'd also concur that the mounted combat rules have a lot of unaddressed edge cases and could use some clean-up. Certainly any time mounts are involved you can presume table variation.


Chess Pwn wrote:

Ride-by-attack only affects the rider, the one with the feat. It doesn't do anything to change the mounts rule.

So you charge, you make your attack and your animal companion makes their full attack and then you can continue moving but your mount cannot.

You're very likely not to get an official response for 2 reasons.

1) This isn't a PFS specific ruling or clarification, nor getting a "FAQ" for a splat-book. This is the core rule-book question, and thus PFS will defer to the PDT to make a FAQ answering this.

2) mounted combat is a mess that no one official seems to want to deal with.

So most likely the only official thing you could hope for was John or Tonya coming in saying that this isn't something they rule on and to get it FAQ'd.

2 is the big issue, since every time Paizo has issued an FAQ on how mounted combat has worked in the past it wound up making things even more broken and confusing than they were before. At this point it's probably one of those issues the PDT just doesn't want to touch, much like "wielding" and "hands of effort." Can't be fixed without basically scrapping everything and starting over, and doing that while retaining reverse-compatibility and not messing up the wordcount/spacing is just about impossible.


yeah, the FAQ that when one charges both are charging makes ride-by-attack work less well. Before I'd have done what LoPan says, say the mount can just be the legs for a rider and let the rider charge and the mount just be moving. Now that they both are charging ride-by-attack only works for when your range is different than your mounts. Which still leaves broken what happens when you charge and you have different reach than your mount normally.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dasrak wrote:

Let's put all the rules side-by-side, shall we?

Combat While Mounted wrote:
If your mount charges, you also take the AC penalty associated with a charge. If you make an attack at the end of the charge, you receive the bonus gained from the charge. When charging on horseback, you deal double damage with a lance (see Charge).
Ride-by-Attack 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.
Pounce wrote:
When 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 way you rule here will come down to your interpretation of the ride-by-feat. The ride-by-feat says you (the rider) must take a charge, but says nothing about whether your mount is considered to be charging with you. If you rule that the mount is also charging then the pounce ability is pretty unambiguous and the mount should get its full attack. If you rule no then the mount gets no attack at all (it isn't charging) and only the rider gets to attack.

I'd also concur that the mounted combat rules have a lot of unaddressed edge cases and could use some clean-up. Certainly any time mounts are involved you can presume table variation.

There is a FAQ that states if either the mount or the rider is using the charge action, so is the other one.

So because of that, ride-by-attack requires both you and the mount to charge, and once your charge action is complete you would move again. Because Pounce augments the charge attack for the mount to full attack, I do not see why this does not work. Otherwise they are saying you can not ride by attack.

The real problem is, people hate Pounce. It is considered too powerful and that makes GMs rule against this out of personal opinion that it would be too good, even though the rules do support it. Because Paizo will not rule on it officially we will not get an answer.

I agree that we need a mounted combat splat book, I would be all about buying that.


RSX Raver wrote:


There is a FAQ that states if either the mount or the rider is using the charge action, so is the other one.

Well, then that clears it up then. Ride-by-attack definitely lets your mount pounce.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies, Representative - D20 Hobbies

I think this subject will have high table variance.

There are no direct FAQ or even unofficial posts by PDT regarding pounce combined with ride by attack.

Considering there isn't likely an official answer, and your lodge has concluded it doesn't work for likely the same reasons the general consensus in here says it doesn't work. Why continue to press the issue?


RSX Raver wrote:
The real problem is, people hate Pounce. It is considered too powerful and that makes GMs rule against this out of personal opinion that it would be too good, even though the rules do support it. Because Paizo will not rule on it officially we will not get an answer.

Yeah, part of the reason the mounted combat rules became such a mess is that on top of already being problematic in 3.5, Paizo tossed out several off-the-cuff rulings to try and limit things which they thoughts were overpowered, including Mounted Pounce. They ultimately had to walk back that particular ruling, since saying that the rider didn't count as charging while doing a mounted charge broke more than it fixed (Plus it allowed stuff like vital strike and cleave on the mounted charge).


The mount is charging opponent A, and passes by opponent B. Rider uses ride-by-attack to attack opponent B. Mount finishes charge and full-attacks opponent A.

What's the problem?

Dark Archive

Chengar Qordath wrote:
RSX Raver wrote:
The real problem is, people hate Pounce. It is considered too powerful and that makes GMs rule against this out of personal opinion that it would be too good, even though the rules do support it. Because Paizo will not rule on it officially we will not get an answer.
Yeah, part of the reason the mounted combat rules became such a mess is that on top of already being problematic in 3.5, Paizo tossed out several off-the-cuff rulings to try and limit things which they thoughts were overpowered, including Mounted Pounce. They ultimately had to walk back that particular ruling, since saying that the rider didn't count as charging while doing a mounted charge broke more than it fixed (Plus it allowed stuff like vital strike and cleave on the mounted charge).

Yeah, it is unfortunate that it ended up being such a mess.

In regards to James Risner, my lodge did not make a ruling this was spawned from me talking to one of my friends who GMs regularly. I also did not have the FAQ to show him at the time. As PFS is RAW, if I show it works RAW then it is not up to GM discretion.

Ultimately though, it comes down to how much it matters and is it worth the headache to repeatedly have the discussion, or risk having my character not function over the poorly written mounted rules. And the answer to that is, not really worth it. Instead I can be He-Man and just rage with my animal and have us spirited charge+pounce combo instead. I HAVE THE POWER!

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies, Representative - D20 Hobbies

_Ozy_ wrote:

The mount is charging opponent A, and passes by opponent B. Rider uses ride-by-attack to attack opponent B. Mount finishes charge and full-attacks opponent A.

What's the problem?

That makes a presumptions not detailed in the rules:

Since both are charging can they charge different targets?

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies, Representative - D20 Hobbies

RSX Raver wrote:

if I show it works RAW then it is not up to GM discretion.

Ultimately though, it comes down to how much it matters and is it worth the headache to repeatedly have the discussion, or risk having my character not function over the poorly written mounted rules. And the answer to that is, not really worth it. Instead I can be He-Man and just rage with my animal and have us spirited charge+pounce combo instead. I HAVE THE POWER!

+1 on RAW. But what FAQ covers your question? There are a ton of table variance issues all over this desired action.

  • Can you even Ride by Attack at all? I say the rules support it (and use SKR's examples image) but others say it doesn't and say he admitted it didn't work.
  • Can you charge a different target than your mount? FAQ only says you are both charging and doesn't touch on whether or not it's different targets. The presumption is that it would be the same or they'd have said "which may be different targets" in the FAQ.
  • Can you combine Pounce and Ride-By-Attack anyway? Pounce is all about go there, cause a fuss. Ride-by-Attack is go there, attack, and leave.
  • Your mount can't move if you are charging, so no Spring Attack-Attack mount and you charge. Also no mount just double moves.
  • Many more general mounted combat table variances.

So the way I see it, there is so much table variance that I'd never object to a GM ruling this didn't work for a number of reasons why. I'd support their RAW view.


James Risner wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:

The mount is charging opponent A, and passes by opponent B. Rider uses ride-by-attack to attack opponent B. Mount finishes charge and full-attacks opponent A.

What's the problem?

That makes a presumptions not detailed in the rules:

Since both are charging can they charge different targets?

1) why not? I see no rules saying that they much charge the same target

2) where does ride-by attack say that you must attack the target of the charge?

3) Is this such a broken maneuver that it really even matters?

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies, Representative - D20 Hobbies

_Ozy_ wrote:

1) why not? I see no rules saying that they much charge the same target

2) where does ride-by attack say that you must attack the target of the charge?

3) Is this such a broken maneuver that it really even matters?

1) Actually, I see no wording saying you can charge different targets. So in context, they must be the same target without the use of the word "same".

2) In the feat.

3) Ask your GM to do whatever he likes, but don't tell your GM he is not following RAW if he doesn't read the rule the way you read it.


Hrm. This is actually an interesting one and I don't know what the answer would be. I'mma start with ride by attack.

da SRD 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.

Okay, so the question then becomes can your mount attack on a standard charge. Let's check mounted combat.

da SRD wrote:
If your mount charges, you also take the AC penalty associated with a charge. If you make an attack at the end of the charge, you receive the bonus gained from the charge. When charging on horseback, you deal double damage with a lance (see Charge).

I checked the Charge rules but it just explains how everything works. There's also the errata about how if it's charging you're also charging for effects, but that was covered earlier.

Finally, Pounce. Pounce alters a standard charge by making it so that that if you do attack on a charge you get the full attack.

The questions then are thus:

>is the hypothetical tiger mount charging?
Yes. Thus they are able to take their attack as though it is a standard charge, provided you make your DC 10 ride check to spur them to attack.

>does pounce alter the standard charge attack?
Yes. This would allow the tiger to get a full attack while spurred along.

>does Ride-By Attack still proc?
Yes. The pounce is the mount's 'standard charge attack' due to pounce modifying what this means to our resident tiger or whatever. A greater beast totem barbarian on a tiger would be able to full attack with both creatures.

In short, you are that guy from every samurai movie of all time, where you dash by the guy and slide to a stop with your lance held out to the side and there's a pause for a second and then eight or ten or so hits all take effect all at once and the enemy is cleaved in half.

That's definitely working as intended.

Dark Archive

My biggest complaint with everyone that says this does not work, is that there is no rule they are stating that backs up the claim it does not work. There are however several rules that clearly support it as possible, and have been stated here.

Basically, it comes down to this. On a normal mounted charge (not with a reach weapon) me and my mount charge the same target, my lion pounces and I get 1 swing.

RBA changes that action to, we charge, we do attacks, then we move in a straight line past the target up to a total of double the mounts movement for the entirety of the charge.

Per the FAQ if I am charging then so is my mount, and a charge includes an attack, and for a creature with pounce that is a full attack.

All of that is RAW, so not sure why there is so many opposed to it, except for the fact pounce gets so much hate.


RSX Raver wrote:
All of that is RAW, so not sure why there is so many opposed to it, except for the fact pounce gets so much hate.

I would agree with you. Certainly there's nothing wrong with disliking the rules or even houseruling at your own table, but we're talking about PFS so "I don't like it" is an unreasonable basis for a ruling. The rules in question here are pretty cut and dry, which is rarely the case when talking about mounted charges. This is standard rules transitivity; pounce applies to all charges, ride-by-attack works like a charge, and the FAQ eliminates all doubt that the mount is also charging. Barring explicit rules text to the contrary (something along the lines of "ride-by-attack does not function with other abilities that modify the charge action") it works.


Ride by attack doesn't grant the mount the ability to move after it attacks. It grants you the ability to keep riding after your attack.
That's RAW.

So RBA doesn't care about pounce or not, it doesn't let the mount move after your attack.


Chess Pwn wrote:

Ride by attack doesn't grant the mount the ability to move after it attacks. It grants you the ability to keep riding after your attack.

That's RAW.

So RBA doesn't care about pounce or not, it doesn't let the mount move after your attack.

Huh? The mount isn't attacking during the ride by, the mount attacks a different target at the end of the charge using pounce. At least I'm assuming that's what people are claiming.

If people are saying both the pounce and the ride by attack are used on the same target, then the pounce attack will stop the movement.

Note, you don't actually have to keep moving after you make your ride-by-attack, but then it's really no different than a normal charge.


I guess there's one corner case which might make a difference. The opponent and the rider have reach, but the mount does not.

In that case, if the rider uses ride-by-attack to attack before the mount moves in for a pounce, technically it would prevent the AoO.

Dark Archive

Chess Pwn wrote:

Ride by attack doesn't grant the mount the ability to move after it attacks. It grants you the ability to keep riding after your attack.

That's RAW.

So RBA doesn't care about pounce or not, it doesn't let the mount move after your attack.

Per the mounted rules, you use your mount to move. So yes, it does let your mount keep moving.

Where is your support that it works differently?


Honestly, the problem is that Ride By Attack wasn't written with the "When you charge your mount charges too" FAQ in mind, and quite possibly without considering the possibility that players would want their mount to attack. Whoever originally designed the feat in 3.0 was probably only thinking of people riding horses.


Chess Pwn wrote:
Ride by attack doesn't grant the mount the ability to move after it attacks.

This ruling would make no sense in light of the FAQ discussed earlier:

Mounted Charge FAQ wrote:

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.

A mounted charge involves both the mount and its rider charging. There is no distinction. If only the rider benefits from ride-by-attack then the feat literally does nothing; the mount must make an attack at the end of its charge, and per the normal charging rules that would ends its movement. Since you're mounted this would also end your movement, hence ride-by-attack would not function.

Now, if that FAQ were missing then you could make the argument that only the rider charges and the mount is not charging. However, that FAQ is the nail in the coffin. If you are charging then the mount is also charging, and if ride-by-attack is to function at all then the mount must benefit from it.

Chengar Qordath wrote:

Honestly, the problem is that Ride By Attack wasn't written with the "When you charge your mount charges too" FAQ in mind, and quite possibly without considering the possibility that players would want their mount to attack. Whoever originally designed the feat in 3.0 was probably only thinking of people riding horses.

Yes, it's no secret that that the mounted combat rules have plenty of holes. More than a few times in this thread it's been mentioned that a rules supplement to clear it all up would be greatly appreciated. Until such time as that exists, though, the RAW situation is a patchwork of disparate rules and FAQ's. Given those current rules it's pretty obvious that ride-by-attack allows your mount to benefit from pounce.

Dark Archive

The simple solution to this would be to have an official post that clearly states either:

A. Your mount does get to attack on a RBA.

or

B. Your mount foregoes any attacks on a RBA.

One would hope that at least that would be within reason to get.


ride by attack for a ride with the same reach as mount can charge without provoking from their target.
if the rider has more reach than their mount then they can attack and then keep moving to let their mount attack.

the feat does something

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Pounce and Ride-By-Attack All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.