| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
In this post, I will explain why ride-by attack does not work, regardless of your interpretation of the charge rules, and am adding 3 solutions to fix the problem (2 houserules and 1 RAW solution). Until we get an FAQ on ride-by attack or charging, players will have to use one of these solutions, or a similar one, if ride-by attack is to work.
Interpretation #1- Charging to "the closest square from which you could make a melee attack... DIRECTLY at the opponent" means the charge lane must pass through not only one of the closest squares, but also must pass through the opponent, so a ride-by always runs into the opponent (and the feat is completely nonfunctional).
Interpretation #2- Some say that "directly toward" doesn't mean a charge lane can't pass by the opponent, as long as the lane passes through one of the "closest squares from which you could make a melee attack." This allows a ride-by to work, unless every lane passing through the closest squares also passes through the opponent, in which case a ride-by runs into the opponent (so ride-by attack occasionally doesn't work).
Houserules: 2 common houserules to make ride-by attack work are: 1. to allow players to phase through opponents like kitty pride. 2. D&D 3.0 charge rules. The 3.0 charge rules allowed you to choose any charge lane that passed through a square from which the charger could attack the opponent, and the charger had to end the charge at the first square along that path from which he could attack them (so ride-by always worked). Some GMs might add that you can only charge to the closest side, or must pass by a square adjacent to the enemy even if you have reach.
RAW Solution: The wheeling charge feat allows you to make a turn during your charge movement (or during the ride-by movement after the charge attack). It is up to GMs to decide how turning before a charge attack interacts with the "directly towards" and "closest square" requirements of the charge rules.
I would also like to explain why I think a mount can attack before a ride-by. The feat simply says that after the rider completes his charge, he can move again (via the mount). It does not restrict the mount from taking actions it normally could. Some say the mount doesn't have a feat to move-attack-move. By that logic, one could argue that the mount needs a feat to move-don't attack-move, which would mean the rider could only use ride-by to move if he dismounted, since the feat does not allow the mount to move twice.
By that logic, one could argue that the mount needs a feat to move-don't attack-move
Anyone can take two move actions in a turn.
This has been weighed in on by developers several times already.
Here is an in-depth discussion in which Sean K. Reynolds, a Paizo developer at the time, gave a detailed account of the intent behind the rules.
It's 1. Directly towards means if you were to keep going you'd hit them.
Ride by attack can let you attack at reach and then have the mount be able to keep moving for his attack.
By that logic, one could argue that the mount needs a feat to move-don't attack-moveAnyone can take two move actions in a turn.
I should have been more specific. According to the faq, the only way to get the damage multipliers from a lance and spirited charge is for both mount and rider to charge. Charging is a full attack with movement ending in front of an opponent. So additional movement could not be a move action. Either ride-by grants post-charge movement to the rider and mount as a free action, or it isn't usable when both charge.
Ride by attack can let you attack at reach and then have the mount be able to keep moving for his attack.
Technically, on a mounted charge where mount and rider with different reaches are charging, they have to end the charge in different squares, which isn't possible. If partial charges existed, this seems reasonable to allow.
The Trample feat also provides the ability to literally charge THROUGH your target, which is another great utility for sidestepping the interpretations about charge rules wording.
Trample prevents the opponent from avoiding the rider's (not the mount's) overrun attemps and gives the mount a hoof attack if you beat their cmb by 5 or more. The rider cannot overrun AND attack an opponent during a charge, as overrun can only be used in place of the charge attack, not during the charge movement (see the feat "charge through").
Ride by attack can let you attack at reach and then have the mount be able to keep moving for his attack.Technically, on a mounted charge where mount and rider with different reaches are charging, they have to end the charge in different squares, which isn't possible. If partial charges existed, this seems reasonable to allow.
normal rules that's what you run into, them needing to end in different squares.
ride by lets you keep moving after you make the attack of your charge, thus letting you not needing to end your turn in the square you attack from but continue moving to the square the mount attacks from.
I should have been more specific. According to the faq, the only way to get the damage multipliers from a lance and spirited charge is for both mount and rider to charge. Charging is a full attack with movement ending in front of an opponent. So additional movement could not be a move action. Either ride-by grants post-charge movement to the rider and mount as a free action, or it isn't usable when both charge.By that logic, one could argue that the mount needs a feat to move-don't attack-moveAnyone can take two move actions in a turn.
That being said, from a strict RAW the feat doesn't even work, since it only lets "you" move after the charge, but RAI its obvious the feat allows both mount and rider to move post-charge. The question is whether RAI the feat prevents the mount from attacking. RAI it seems the feat is supposed to act like a joust, in which the rider attacks during the mount's continuous movement (even though mechanically the mount is actually stopping to let the rider attack). Therefore, a houserule that the mount cannot attack during a ride-by is perfectly reasonable. Here's a great thread on the subject.