Mounted Charging FAQ Clarification


Rules Questions


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

In the FAQ, when discussing mounted charges, it says

FAQ wrote:
"Both charge in unison"

This sounds like there are two charges happening: The rider's and the mount's. Therefore, the rider can take her lance and charge within ten feet and attack. This ends her charge. The mount's charge (in unison) moves five feet further and bites. This ends her charge. If the rider has Ride-By-Attack, then they both can move away.

Is this an accurate reading of this FAQ?

Full FAQ:

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.


As the rules are written by and for bipedal humanoids, if there's a conflict on the humanoid or the mount charging its probably the humanoid that succesfully charges. I believe that the rider stops when he makes the lance attack unless he has ride by attack.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

If there is a difference in reach, the first attack stops the charge.

The Exchange

Umm. Don't you count as being in the most beneficial square while on a mount? So you could count as being in the back of the horse for a charge allowing the mount to hit also.


leonvios wrote:
Umm. Don't you count as being in the most beneficial square while on a mount? So you could count as being in the back of the horse for a charge allowing the mount to hit also.

Technically, the rules just say "assume that you share your mount's space during combat.". So, that would make you a large creature with standard reach for you weapon.


As I read it, with Ride By you can continue your charge after the rider makes his lance attack. You move one more square and then the mount makes its charge attack. Then the charge (and movement) ends. However, my experience with my mounted character is that every GM interprets things somewhat differently (understandably because the rules are somewhat inconsistent). My advice: ask your GM, be prepared to briefly explain the options, accept their ruling and adapt your play style accordingly.


leonvios wrote:
Umm. Don't you count as being in the most beneficial square while on a mount? So you could count as being in the back of the horse for a charge allowing the mount to hit also.

No, you count as being in all squares of the mount. Which means that if your horse is nose to nose with the bad guy you can't use the lance.


Ok, sounds like it is a ruling which has a lot of table variance. But, most people are interpreting the FAQ to mean that when "they both charge in unison" their charges combine into one maneuver.


Is the appropriate feat for both to attack ride by attack on the rider, lunge for the mount, or does either work?

Scarab Sages

Lunge does seem like it would fix a reach mismatch


Lunge sounds like it would fix it! So, at level 6 a mount should be able to attack.


I'd rule that you can't do a charge until you have lunge on the mount, or ride-by-attack if you have different reaches. charging isn't legal as you'd not have both people qualify for both of them charging.


Can't do a charge, or can't have both attack during the charge?


blahpers wrote:
Can't do a charge, or can't have both attack during the charge?

I'm saying they can't charge since it'd be an illegal act for one of them, and since they both have to charge together if it's illegal for one it's a no go for the other.

This also means that if you have a combat pet while riding a different animal as your mount I'd say you can't charge since the mount can only do move actions and thus it can't charge.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Chess Pwn wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Can't do a charge, or can't have both attack during the charge?

I'm saying they can't charge since it'd be an illegal act for one of them, and since they both have to charge together if it's illegal for one it's a no go for the other.

This also means that if you have a combat pet while riding a different animal as your mount I'd say you can't charge since the mount can only do move actions and thus it can't charge.

Well, you're welcome to make up a rule that makes mounted lance combat with regular (non-companion) combat-trained horses impossible. Have fun with that.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

You don't have to make an attack to charge. While charging is a type of attack, the actual attack at the end is optional-
"Attacking on a Charge
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 leaves the mount with the option to forego its attack while still fulfilling all other criteria, such as actually using the charge action, to facilitate a mounted charge.

Chess Pwn wrote:


This also means that if you have a combat pet while riding a different animal as your mount I'd say you can't charge since the mount can only do move actions and thus it can't charge.

RAW it is impossible to perform a mounted charge on anything other than an animal companion, but it's probably easier to ignore that than to try and fully integrate the FAQs and written rules into a cohesive playset.


Ssalarn wrote:
RAW it is impossible to perform a mounted charge on anything other than an animal companion

???


blahpers wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
RAW it is impossible to perform a mounted charge on anything other than an animal companion
???

He is saying that a person with a animal companion can make a handle animal check as a free action allowing the mount to charge as a full round action. However, a person without an animal companion has to spend a move action to perform a handle animal check, thus eliminating the ability for the mount to charge.


Driver_325yards wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
RAW it is impossible to perform a mounted charge on anything other than an animal companion
???
He is saying that a person with a animal companion can make a handle animal check as a free action allowing the mount to charge as a full round action. However, a person without an animal companion has to spend a move action to perform a handle animal check, thus eliminating the ability for the mount to charge.

"Fight with a Combat-Trained Mount" is covered by the Ride skill and is a free action.


blahpers wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Can't do a charge, or can't have both attack during the charge?

I'm saying they can't charge since it'd be an illegal act for one of them, and since they both have to charge together if it's illegal for one it's a no go for the other.

This also means that if you have a combat pet while riding a different animal as your mount I'd say you can't charge since the mount can only do move actions and thus it can't charge.

Well, you're welcome to make up a rule that makes mounted lance combat with regular (non-companion) combat-trained horses impossible. Have fun with that.

I'm not making up rules, this is the rules that have been published and this is the only way I see it working were no rules are broken.

Charge has to be a straight line to the target and requires you to move to the first space you could attack from and then stop. Nothing about mounted charge changes this. Nothing about not attacking changes this.
Mounted charge causes both characters to charge simultaneously thus you can't have one charge without the other.
Having different reach causes one or the other to not fulfill the requirement of charging and thus makes it an illegal action for them, and since both are required to charge for a mounted charge being illegal for one makes mounted charge an illegal option.

Unless you can provide some sort of rule that causes any of these rules to not be enforced please share. Otherwise you're just not following the rules that makes mounted lance combat with regular (non-companion) combat-trained horses impossible. It's not my fault or blame that they exist.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Chess Pwn wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Can't do a charge, or can't have both attack during the charge?

I'm saying they can't charge since it'd be an illegal act for one of them, and since they both have to charge together if it's illegal for one it's a no go for the other.

This also means that if you have a combat pet while riding a different animal as your mount I'd say you can't charge since the mount can only do move actions and thus it can't charge.

Well, you're welcome to make up a rule that makes mounted lance combat with regular (non-companion) combat-trained horses impossible. Have fun with that.

I'm not making up rules, this is the rules that have been published and this is the only way I see it working were no rules are broken.

Charge has to be a straight line to the target and requires you to move to the first space you could attack from and then stop. Nothing about mounted charge changes this. Nothing about not attacking changes this.
Mounted charge causes both characters to charge simultaneously thus you can't have one charge without the other.
Having different reach causes one or the other to not fulfill the requirement of charging and thus makes it an illegal action for them, and since both are required to charge for a mounted charge being illegal for one makes mounted charge an illegal option.

Unless you can provide some sort of rule that causes any of these rules to not be enforced please share. Otherwise you're just not following the rules that makes mounted lance combat with regular (non-companion) combat-trained horses impossible. It's not my fault or blame that they exist.

By your painful warping of the written word, nobody could ever charge while mounted because you're sitting on a horse and that impedes your movement. You know what the design intent is here. You know that running it the way you're talking about is patently ridiculous and liable to inspire player mutiny. Why would you run it that way other than to tee off your friends?

Paizo Employee Design Manager

blahpers wrote:
Driver_325yards wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
RAW it is impossible to perform a mounted charge on anything other than an animal companion
???
He is saying that a person with a animal companion can make a handle animal check as a free action allowing the mount to charge as a full round action. However, a person without an animal companion has to spend a move action to perform a handle animal check, thus eliminating the ability for the mount to charge.
"Fight with a Combat-Trained Mount" is covered by the Ride skill and is a free action.

Doesn't say what you think it does.

"Fight with a Combat-Trained Mount
If you direct your war-trained mount to attack in battle, you can still make your own attack or attacks normally. This usage is a free action."

If You direct your war-trained mount to attack in battle you may attack normally. This check is necessary for you to make an attack if your mount also makes an attack, and is contingent on you directing the mount to attack, which is a function of the Handle Animal skill. That's what the rules actually say.

Directing a mount to attack is usually a move action with Handle Animal, or a free action for an animal companion.


blahpers wrote:
By your painful warping of the written word, nobody could ever charge while mounted because you're sitting on a horse and that impedes your movement. You know what the design intent is here. You know that running it the way you're talking about is patently ridiculous and liable to inspire player mutiny. Why would you run it that way other than to tee off your friends?

What do you mean painful warping? I'm asking you what part of the rules aren't supposed to be followed and why we're able to ignore them. What rule am I referencing that I have the meaning wrong? It doesn't help to continuously say I'm not doing it right if you don't point out where I'm actually making a mistake or give the actual correct answer.

No I don't know that the design intent is different from what the rules say, do you have a design statement on how a mounted charge is supposed to be handled if you and the mount of different reach? Unless you do I need to assume that the rules are correct and are conveying the correct intent.

So I run it that way cause that's the only way I see the rules working. I be sure to tell people up front whenever I hear talk of mounted combat or if I see someone show up with a mounted combat guy.


As I said upthread, expect to find tons of table variation, for all the reasons on display here in this thread, and some others that haven't even come up yet. My mounted character is level 9 now and I think just about every single GM has had slightly different ways of interpreting the rules. Also, many GMs, if they haven't had a mounted character themselves, may not know all the nuances of these debates. As a player, it's your job to summarize succinctly so that your GM can make a ruling, and then have a fallback plan if your GM rules in a way that invalidates your original strategy.

For example, by my reading, as I stated above, Ride By Attack absolutely allows you to make a mounted charge, hit your target with your lance from 2 squares away, and then move 1 more square so your mount can make its charge attack (which in the case of some mounts could be mean 5 attacks from pounce/rake, so this is not a small issue). But I've run into some GMs who won't allow that, so although my lance is my primary weapon, I have a non-reach weapon (a longsword) to use as a fallback, so that if I'm playing at one of those GMs' tables and I don't want to lose my mount's 5 pounce attacks, I just use my longsword instead of my lance. It's not as great as the lance, but honestly between my attack and my mount's 5 attacks, I still do a lot of damage and the game can move forward.

And that's just one issue. Add in other details like Wheeling Charge or Dragon Style or the rider doing something else while the mount charges or Improved Overrun or Charge Through or etc etc, and things get very messy fast. If you are able to take 5 minutes with the GM before the game starts to ask for a few rules (and make your case for why your interpretation should prevail), you can still have a lot of fun with Mounted Combat, even though it's probably going to function slightly differently every time you play.


Ssalarn wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Driver_325yards wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
RAW it is impossible to perform a mounted charge on anything other than an animal companion
???
He is saying that a person with a animal companion can make a handle animal check as a free action allowing the mount to charge as a full round action. However, a person without an animal companion has to spend a move action to perform a handle animal check, thus eliminating the ability for the mount to charge.
"Fight with a Combat-Trained Mount" is covered by the Ride skill and is a free action.

Doesn't say what you think it does.

"Fight with a Combat-Trained Mount
If you direct your war-trained mount to attack in battle, you can still make your own attack or attacks normally. This usage is a free action."

If You direct your war-trained mount to attack in battle you may attack normally. This check is necessary for you to make an attack if your mount also makes an attack, and is contingent on you directing the mount to attack, which is a function of the Handle Animal skill. That's what the rules actually say.

Directing a mount to attack is usually a move action with Handle Animal, or a free action for an animal companion.

Brilliant. The rules worked better before the FAQ. Now they've literally broken charge (though still not in the bizarre way Chess seems to think).

Well, unless Paizo design decides to own up, screw the rules, I'm trying to run a game here.


Chess Pwn wrote:
blahpers wrote:
By your painful warping of the written word, nobody could ever charge while mounted because you're sitting on a horse and that impedes your movement. You know what the design intent is here. You know that running it the way you're talking about is patently ridiculous and liable to inspire player mutiny. Why would you run it that way other than to tee off your friends?

What do you mean painful warping? I'm asking you what part of the rules aren't supposed to be followed and why we're able to ignore them. What rule am I referencing that I have the meaning wrong? It doesn't help to continuously say I'm not doing it right if you don't point out where I'm actually making a mistake or give the actual correct answer.

No I don't know that the design intent is different from what the rules say, do you have a design statement on how a mounted charge is supposed to be handled if you and the mount of different reach? Unless you do I need to assume that the rules are correct and are conveying the correct intent.

So I run it that way cause that's the only way I see the rules working. I be sure to tell people up front whenever I hear talk of mounted combat or if I see someone show up with a mounted combat guy.

You honestly entertain the idea that the designers intended that nobody can charge with a lance and a horse? Not a druidy horselike magical beast, but an actual horse?

Grand Lodge

Chess, the mounted PC makes his lance attack as soon as he is in range and then stops. However, his mount then continues moving forward to complete it's charge and attack. Doesn't that solve your issue with it since the PC is not moving further, the mount is and the PC is just carried along?

Scarab Sages

blahpers wrote:
You honestly entertain the idea that the designers intended that nobody can charge with a lance and a horse? Not a druidy horselike magical beast, but an actual horse?

To use a lance it would seem he requires them to be human, or fighter 2, or level 3 to obtain both feats: Mounted Combat, Ride-by-attack.


As written, large amounts of mounted combat rules don't work.

For instance, but the rules you can't charge with your mount with a lance unless you have ride by attack. Your mount can't attack and move away without having spring attack.

Basically...the rules don't really work and you should just ask your GM how he wants to run things.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
blahpers wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Driver_325yards wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
RAW it is impossible to perform a mounted charge on anything other than an animal companion
???
He is saying that a person with a animal companion can make a handle animal check as a free action allowing the mount to charge as a full round action. However, a person without an animal companion has to spend a move action to perform a handle animal check, thus eliminating the ability for the mount to charge.
"Fight with a Combat-Trained Mount" is covered by the Ride skill and is a free action.

Doesn't say what you think it does.

"Fight with a Combat-Trained Mount
If you direct your war-trained mount to attack in battle, you can still make your own attack or attacks normally. This usage is a free action."

If You direct your war-trained mount to attack in battle you may attack normally. This check is necessary for you to make an attack if your mount also makes an attack, and is contingent on you directing the mount to attack, which is a function of the Handle Animal skill. That's what the rules actually say.

Directing a mount to attack is usually a move action with Handle Animal, or a free action for an animal companion.

Brilliant. The rules worked better before the FAQ. Now they've literally broken charge (though still not in the bizarre way Chess seems to think).

Well, unless Paizo design decides to own up, screw the rules, I'm trying to run a game here.

It is my belief that Ride is for mounts you are, riding, and Handle Animal is for creatures you are directing. So if you are on a mount, it would be ride. If you are on the ground point at the mount, it would be Handle Animal.

CRB p202 wrote:
Combat while Mounted: With a DC 5 Ride check, you can guide your mount with your knees so as to use both hands to attack or defend yourself. This is a free action.

What does that do if not give you the ability to make your mount do something as a free action?

And this:

CRB p104 wrote:
Control Mount in Battle: As a move action, you can attempt to control a light horse, pony, heavy horse, or other mount not trained for combat riding while in battle. If you fail the Ride check, you can do nothing else in that round. You do not need to roll for horses or ponies trained for combat.

What does having a war trained mount do if it is a move action to control one and a move action to control one that is not war trained? I do believe "attack with" means to use the mount to attack, whether it be the mount's attacks or just by the mount moving you into place. I liken it to "attack with a sword". Attacking with a sword does not mean to attack next to the sword that is also attacking.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Komoda wrote:
It is my belief that Ride is for mounts you are, riding, and Handle Animal is for creatures you are directing. So if you are on a mount, it would be ride. If you are on the ground point at the mount, it would be Handle Animal.

Ride is for things you do, Handle Animal is for telling creatures to do something. Anything else is house-ruling. Well, spur kind of treads the line, but that's it.

Komoda wrote:

Combat while Mounted: With a DC 5 Ride check, you can guide your mount with your knees so as to use both hands to attack or defend yourself. This is a free action.

What does that do if not give you the ability to make your mount do something as a free action?

Assuming words still mean what I think they do, that frees your hands up so you don't need to have one on the reins. It does not in any way allow you to command the mount beyond the ways the rules already allow. It's a "you" thing, not a "mount" thing.

Komoda wrote:

Control Mount in Battle: As a move action, you can attempt to control a light horse, pony, heavy horse, or other mount not trained for combat riding while in battle. If you fail the Ride check, you can do nothing else in that round. You do not need to roll for horses or ponies trained for combat.

What does having a war trained mount do if it is a move action to control one and a move action to control one that is not war trained?

It means that you can't do much in combat other than move and make one attack, either yourself or the mount, with a non-combat trained mount. That's why it's good to have a combat trained mount. Essentially order of capabilities-

1) Non-combat trained, non-animal companion mount. It's a move action just to control the mount in combat, so mounted charges are out the door. But since you've succeeded at your check and the mounted combat rules say the mount moves as you direct it, you can still move using the mount's action and attack with your standard action at the end of the movement, or use your second move action instead of a standard to command the mount to attack instead using Handle Animal.

2) Combat trained non-animal companion. No need to spend a move action to control it. This means that you have your full action economy if you want to use abilities like Mounted Skirmisher, but it's still a move action to command the mount to attack with Handle Animal. There is no Ride function that allows you to do this. So you can do basically everything except perform a mounted charge, RAW.

3) Non-Combat Trained Animal Companion. Unfortunately you're still eating a move action just to keep your mount from going wild, so no mounted charges. Basically the same as scenario #1, but since you can command the mount to attack as a free action, you can both command the mount to attack and use your standard action to make an attack of your own.

4) Combat-Trained Animal Companion. Can be commanded as a free action. No move action required to keep from going wild in combat. You are able to command it to perform an attack, such as a charge, as a free action, so this is the first point where you both have full round actions and can perform a mounted charge as defined in the FAQ, RAW.


Ssalarn

ride say this

''Fight with a Combat-Trained Mount: If you direct your war-trained mount to attack in battle, you can still make your own attack or attacks normally. This usage is a free action.''

so you do not have to use a move action to order your mount to attack, its like Komoda said, handle animal is when you are not on your mount and give it an order because you are not riding it, when you are on your mount you use the rules of ride and its a free action for combat trained mount.

so with mounted skirmisher if your mount charge and move to its move speed or less you can make a full attack action because its a free action to make your mount attack when you ride it


that ride skill is to let YOU fight when your mount is attacking, NOT to get your mount to attack.

If you direct your mount to attack then you make this free check and if you succeed you can make your own attacks too.

That's what that use is doing.


blahpers wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
blahpers wrote:
By your painful warping of the written word, nobody could ever charge while mounted because you're sitting on a horse and that impedes your movement. You know what the design intent is here. You know that running it the way you're talking about is patently ridiculous and liable to inspire player mutiny. Why would you run it that way other than to tee off your friends?

What do you mean painful warping? I'm asking you what part of the rules aren't supposed to be followed and why we're able to ignore them. What rule am I referencing that I have the meaning wrong? It doesn't help to continuously say I'm not doing it right if you don't point out where I'm actually making a mistake or give the actual correct answer.

No I don't know that the design intent is different from what the rules say, do you have a design statement on how a mounted charge is supposed to be handled if you and the mount of different reach? Unless you do I need to assume that the rules are correct and are conveying the correct intent.

So I run it that way cause that's the only way I see the rules working. I be sure to tell people up front whenever I hear talk of mounted combat or if I see someone show up with a mounted combat guy.

You honestly entertain the idea that the designers intended that nobody can charge with a lance and a horse? Not a druidy horselike magical beast, but an actual horse?

I don't assume to know the designers intent beyond what the rules say. Rules say "Do X" and so I assume that that's the designers intent for X to happen, unless there's a post stating that their intent was Y even though it says X I have no reason to assume what they wrote isn't their intent.

As Yuri Sarreth said, the rules allow a different reach charge if the rider has ride by attack to allow him to keep moving after his charge attack letting them move up so the mount can do it's stuff.

As per the rules about actions it takes to do stuff, The rules are there and I try to follow them. If prone shooter does nothing then it does nothing. If the rules say it takes a swift action to remove nauseated and that when nauseated you can only do a move and no swift then you can't remove nauseated from yourself even though your action is a larger action.

You keep saying I have a crazy twisted interpretation, but you continue to not provide any support to show why my interpretation isn't correct, even after repeated requests asking for it. It's beginning to seem that you don't have any reason to think my view is wrong though it's following the rules and that yours is correct, though it ignores lots of rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chess Pwn wrote:
If prone shooter does nothing then it does nothing.

That was a bug that needed fixing.

Chess Pwn wrote:
If the rules say it takes a swift action to remove nauseated and that when nauseated you can only do a move and no swift then you can't remove nauseated from yourself even though your action is a larger action.

That's by design (though I don't like that according to the FAQs you can't take free actions whenever you can take move actions; it feels counterintuitive).

Cavalier with a lance on a warhorse:

Chess Pwn wrote:
they can't charge since it'd be an illegal act for one of them

That's... dumb? Charging with a from horseback is what lances are for. If RAW says dead people can act, RAW is wrong.


Matthew Downie wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
If prone shooter does nothing then it does nothing.

That was a bug that needed fixing.

Chess Pwn wrote:
If the rules say it takes a swift action to remove nauseated and that when nauseated you can only do a move and no swift then you can't remove nauseated from yourself even though your action is a larger action.

That's by design (though I don't like that according to the FAQs you can't take free actions whenever you can take move actions; it feels counterintuitive).

Cavalier with a lance on a warhorse:

Chess Pwn wrote:
they can't charge since it'd be an illegal act for one of them
That's... dumb? Charging with a from horseback is what lances are for. If RAW says dead people can act, RAW is wrong.

But perhaps it's, "By design (though it feels counterintuitive)."

Like maybe lances are really good while mounted, but harder to get working while mounted than a sword since the reach issue, though it is possible using the very popular mounted feat ride-by-attack.

Unless you have actual comments explaining RAI being different than RAW, or have the actual RAW change, then I feel it's not fair to be spouting off stuff that goes against the rules.


a lance is easier to use while mounted than a sword, very easy, you just need to point your destination and then go there and voila you just put a hole on your enemies, even someone untrained can do it.

so if you really go by RAW to a point of ridiculous interpretation then someone dead should be able to take action since by RAW dead never say they can't do anything, it never state that they lose action or they should stay where they are, but we know by RAI that you can't

also if you want to go to RAW by saying since one can't reach then both can't charge, charge also say that if your movement is impede you can't charge, and being mounted you can't move its your mount moving and take you to another destination, so your movement are impede so impossible to charge for both of you since one of you can't charge, but we know by RAI you can still charge

so by RAI the important thing is that you can charge even if your mount can't attack or reach and even if you can't attack or reach you can still charge (but people will always take a mount that has at least the same reach as them not more)


John Murdock wrote:

a lance is easier to use while mounted than a sword, very easy, you just need to point your destination and then go there and voila you just put a hole on your enemies, even someone untrained can do it.

so if you really go by RAW to a point of ridiculous interpretation then someone dead should be able to take action since by RAW dead never say they can't do anything, it never state that they lose action or they should stay where they are, but we know by RAI that you can't

also if you want to go to RAW by saying since one can't reach then both can't charge, charge also say that if your movement is impede you can't charge, and being mounted you can't move its your mount moving and take you to another destination, so your movement are impede so impossible to charge for both of you since one of you can't charge, but we know by RAI you can still charge

so by RAI the important thing is that you can charge even if your mount can't attack or reach and even if you can't attack or reach you can still charge (but people will always take a mount that has at least the same reach as them not more)

That may seem true for your view, but that doesn't seem to be the case in pathfinder world via the rules.

"Creatures that have negative hit points and have not stabilized are dying. A dying creature can take no actions."
Dead never removes the dying condition and dying says you can't take actions. DONE! RAW makes fine sense and works far more often than people give it credit for.

Mounted rules say, "You move at its speed, but the mount uses its action to move." That means for a charge your movement is done by your mount and it's actions, so your charge's movement needs to be satisfied by the mounts movements, which needs to satisfy its own movement qualifications. Thus movement for a charge is handled.

Nothing about that gives some strange unsupported RAI that mounted charge ignores rules. That you're able to do a mounted charge if your mount isn't able to do a charge that he's required to do when you do a mounted charge. So again, unless you can provide some support to these claims of RAI, they are just your personal view of what you think the rules should have been.


Chess Pwn wrote:

That may seem true for your view, but that doesn't seem to be the case in pathfinder world via the rules.

"Creatures that have negative hit points and have not stabilized are dying. A dying creature can take no actions."
Dead never removes the dying condition and dying says you can't take actions. DONE! RAW makes fine sense and works far more often than people give it credit for.

Mounted rules say, "You move at its speed, but the mount uses its action to move." That means for a charge your movement is done by your mount and it's actions, so your charge's movement needs to be satisfied by the mounts movements, which needs to satisfy its own movement qualifications. Thus movement for a charge is handled.

Nothing about that gives some strange unsupported RAI that mounted charge ignores rules. That you're able to do a mounted charge if your mount isn't able to do a charge that he's required to do when you do a mounted charge. So again, unless you can provide some support to these claims of RAI, they are just your personal view of what you think the rules should have been.

first point. then again by your logic if you have die hard feat you can still do action even when dead, die hard let you act when you are dying by taking a point of damage everytime you take a standard action. so with that logic in point orc are immortal and can do whatever they want when dead with the deathless series of feat. everybody make half-orc to be invincible!!!!

second point. now you are doing some mental gymnastic because like i said your movement is still impede thus not able to charge, so you must respect your own logic and make it impossible to charge, yes you move at its speed because the horse is taking you to that point, its like when a golem take you to somewhere you are moving at its speed, because it take its own action to move and to make you move, you are not the one moving the horse is and you must go where you horse go


Diehard
"When your hit point total is below 0, but you are not dead..."
Being dead stops you from being able to activate diehard.

Like I said, the rules work if you actually use them. It's only when you start ignoring rules or not using all applicable rules do you get situations that seem funny and wrong. And since you missed the first line of the feat that shuts down your exploitation it shows that you're not actually looking at the rules but just trying to do something like a strawman to make my argument seem crazy and hoping that I don't bother to spend the time discrediting your erroneous claims.

Your movement isn't impeded since while on a mount your movement is handled differently, if you want to move you move your mounts speed and use its actions. So for you to charge your movement is handled by your mount also charging, your movement is its action.

I don't see why you're saying my rules would stop a charge. When you're mounted your movement is handled differently. Thus the status of being mounted and how you move in no way stops a charge.

Charge rules have rules on where you need to move, mounted rules have rules for how you move while mounted. So if you're mounted to charge you use your mounts charge to move you and that movement needs to be unimpeded.

Why are you trying to use non-mounted rules in a mounted combat situation?


Ssalarn wrote:
Komoda wrote:
It is my belief that Ride is for mounts you are, riding, and Handle Animal is for creatures you are directing. So if you are on a mount, it would be ride. If you are on the ground point at the mount, it would be Handle Animal.

Ride is for things you do, Handle Animal is for telling creatures to do something. Anything else is house-ruling. Well, spur kind of treads the line, but that's it.

Komoda wrote:

Combat while Mounted: With a DC 5 Ride check, you can guide your mount with your knees so as to use both hands to attack or defend yourself. This is a free action.

What does that do if not give you the ability to make your mount do something as a free action?

Assuming words still mean what I think they do, that frees your hands up so you don't need to have one on the reins. It does not in any way allow you to command the mount beyond the ways the rules already allow. It's a "you" thing, not a "mount" thing.

Komoda wrote:

Control Mount in Battle: As a move action, you can attempt to control a light horse, pony, heavy horse, or other mount not trained for combat riding while in battle. If you fail the Ride check, you can do nothing else in that round. You do not need to roll for horses or ponies trained for combat.

What does having a war trained mount do if it is a move action to control one and a move action to control one that is not war trained?

It means that you can't do much in combat other than move and make one attack, either yourself or the mount, with a non-combat trained mount. That's why it's good to have a combat trained mount. Essentially order of capabilities-

1) Non-combat trained, non-animal companion mount. It's a move action just to control the mount in combat, so mounted charges are out the door. But since you've succeeded at your check and the mounted combat rules say the mount moves as you direct it, you can still move using the mount's action and attack with your standard action at the end of the movement, or use your second move action...

It doesn't say it allows you to hold on with your legs so you can fight with your hands. It says you can GUIDE your mount. What exactly are you GUIDING your mount to do if you can't even GUIDE your mount to fight?


Komoda wrote:
It doesn't say it allows you to hold on with your legs so you can fight with your hands. It says you can GUIDE your mount. What exactly are you GUIDING your mount to do if you can't even GUIDE your mount to fight?

Guiding it to move, namely to move where you want it to go.

commanding it to attack is different than steering it places while you fight.


Chess Pwn, you are making a lot of good points.

If I'm following you, you're saying that...

A Cavalier riding a mount can only Charge an enemy if the mount can attack the enemy from the final point of movement.

So, the FAQ amends the RAW, adding the statement, "Both charge in unison". Not together but in unison. Unison means simultaneous performance of action. Per that definition, there are TWO charges taking place. They are just happening in unison.

So, per the FAQ'd RAW, the cavalier can charge ten feet away with a lance, fulfilling his charge. Simultaneously, the mount is charging five feet away, fulfilling his charge.

Please point out any logical holes in this understanding of RAW+FAQ.


Chess Pwn wrote:
Komoda wrote:
It doesn't say it allows you to hold on with your legs so you can fight with your hands. It says you can GUIDE your mount. What exactly are you GUIDING your mount to do if you can't even GUIDE your mount to fight?

Guiding it to move, namely to move where you want it to go.

commanding it to attack is different than steering it places while you fight.

But aren't you saying that guiding it to move is not a valid action since guiding it to move would be a move action under handle animal?

Why doesn't guiding mean controlling? Guiding doesn't just have to do with movement. I can guide you to the correct answer without any sort of physical movement.


EwokBanshee wrote:

Chess Pwn, you are making a lot of good points.

If I'm following you, you're saying that...

A Cavalier riding a mount can only Charge an enemy if the mount can attack the enemy from the final point of movement.

So, the FAQ amends the RAW, adding the statement, "Both charge in unison". Not together but in unison. Unison means simultaneous performance of action. Per that definition, there are TWO charges taking place. They are just happening in unison.

So, per the FAQ'd RAW, the cavalier can charge ten feet away with a lance, fulfilling his charge. Simultaneously, the mount is charging five feet away, fulfilling his charge.

Please point out any logical holes in this understanding of RAW+FAQ.

The rider needs to end his movement 10ft away for his charge, if he ends 5ft away then it wasn't a valid charge. And the way for him to meet movement conditions is through is mount, as per the mount rules.

While the mount needs to end in 5ft away for it's charge to be valid.

That's why you look at ride-by-attack, that says the one that has this can continue their movement after a charge. Thus that allows the rider to make their attack and then continue movement for the remaining 5ft that the mount needs for their attack.

That feat existing makes it clear that normally without that feat the rider CAN'T move after making his attack of his charge, which he'd be required to do so for the mount to be in his valid charge spot and what you suggest he do.

So regardless of "together" or "in unison" they both have to charge to charge and thus if one of them can't legally charge that'd stop the other since they CAN'T charge without charging in unison.


Komoda wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
Komoda wrote:
It doesn't say it allows you to hold on with your legs so you can fight with your hands. It says you can GUIDE your mount. What exactly are you GUIDING your mount to do if you can't even GUIDE your mount to fight?

Guiding it to move, namely to move where you want it to go.

commanding it to attack is different than steering it places while you fight.

But aren't you saying that guiding it to move is not a valid action since guiding it to move would be a move action under handle animal?

Why doesn't guiding mean controlling? Guiding doesn't just have to do with movement. I can guide you to the correct answer without any sort of physical movement.

First, I'm not REALLy the guy going on about the actions bit, that's a separate flaw in mounted combat than my main point about charging. And my view of how it plays together seems a little different from the guy that had it as their main point.

But to answer your question.
Guide with Knees: You can guide your mount with your knees so you can use both hands in combat. Make your Ride check at the start of your turn. If you fail, you can use only one hand this round because you need to use the other to control your mount. This does not take an action.

So we see here that this lets you control your mount with no hands, then we look at controlling a mount

Control Mount in Battle: As a move action, you can attempt to control a light horse, pony, heavy horse, or other mount not trained for combat riding while in battle. If you fail the Ride check, you can do nothing else in that round. You do not need to roll for horses or ponies trained for combat.

This seems to be about riding your mount in a battle.
Also look at the handle animal skills, nothing in there has anything to do with being a mount or riding or being guided where to move, thus there's no handle animal check to do that, which makes ride skill and controlling a mount/guide with knees.

Nothing in controlling your mount, nor guiding with knees talks about telling it to attack a foe.


Chess Pwn wrote:


The rider needs to end his movement 10ft away for his charge, if he ends 5ft away then it wasn't a valid charge. And the way for him to meet movement conditions is through is mount, as per the mount rules.
While the mount needs to end in 5ft away for it's charge to be valid.

You're right. I totally buy that. So, now let's look at the same scenario, with Ride-By-Attack.

Ride-By-Attack says: "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)."

So, when my mount and I make our charges in unison, I (the PC) "may move and attack as if with a standard charge". A standard charge allows me to move up to double my speed. When mounted, "you move at it's (your mount's) speed." So, I move to where I can attack (10 feet away with a lance). Ride-By-Attack then allows me to "move again". So, I move forward in a straight line. Meanwhile, in unison my mount charges. So, the mount moves to within 5 feet and attacks. Again, the Ride-By-Attack comes into play, allowing the mount to continue in a straight line. So, after both attacks, the PC and mount run away in a straight line, up to double the mount's movement.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
EwokBanshee wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:


The rider needs to end his movement 10ft away for his charge, if he ends 5ft away then it wasn't a valid charge. And the way for him to meet movement conditions is through is mount, as per the mount rules.
While the mount needs to end in 5ft away for it's charge to be valid.

You're right. I totally buy that. So, now let's look at the same scenario, with Ride-By-Attack.

Ride-By-Attack says: "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)."

So, when my mount and I make our charges in unison, I (the PC) "may move and attack as if with a standard charge". A standard charge allows me to move up to double my speed. When mounted, "you move at it's (your mount's) speed." So, I move to where I can attack (10 feet away with a lance). Ride-By-Attack then allows me to "move again". So, I move forward in a straight line. Meanwhile, in unison my mount charges. So, the mount moves to within 5 feet and attacks. Again, the Ride-By-Attack comes into play, allowing the mount to continue in a straight line. So, after both attacks, the PC and mount run away in a straight line, up to double the mount's movement.

Close but still not right. Ride-by-attack does nothing for the mount. So it's still forced to stop at the square it can attack from. RBA just lets it actually happen when you have more reach than your companion.


Chess Pwn wrote:

Diehard

"When your hit point total is below 0, but you are not dead..."
Being dead stops you from being able to activate diehard.

Like I said, the rules work if you actually use them. It's only when you start ignoring rules or not using all applicable rules do you get situations that seem funny and wrong. And since you missed the first line of the feat that shuts down your exploitation it shows that you're not actually looking at the rules but just trying to do something like a strawman to make my argument seem crazy and hoping that I don't bother to spend the time discrediting your erroneous claims.

Your movement isn't impeded since while on a mount your movement is handled differently, if you want to move you move your mounts speed and use its actions. So for you to charge your movement is handled by your mount also charging, your movement is its action.

I don't see why you're saying my rules would stop a charge. When you're mounted your movement is handled differently. Thus the status of being mounted and how you move in no way stops a charge.

Charge rules have rules on where you need to move, mounted rules have rules for how you move while mounted. So if you're mounted to charge you use your mounts charge to move you and that movement needs to be unimpeded.

Why are you trying to use non-mounted rules in a mounted combat situation?

die hard only say that about when not dead

''When your hit point total is below 0, but you are not dead, you automatically stabilize.''

there's a dot at the end to mark a new sentence with what you can do, and the reason when not dead is because when you are dead you no longer lose hit point.

second. if you really want to what it say when RAW it just say you move at its speed not you move with it, it never say you move with it, so by that case you need to use your own move action if we go by that logic.

and third with the golem taking you, you can order it to charge while it is holding you and you can attack, so you move at its speed too, because of that you would also need to be eligible to make a charge, but since in both case with the mount you can't move per se, your movement is impede thus unable to make a charge because the rule never say you are moving with it, just you move at its speed

and that's why you use a more logical reasoning and try to think what RAI might be to make it functional not a view of RAW so strict that its like you put a broom up your butt to move straight

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Mounted Charging FAQ Clarification All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.