|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Scene: In Mounted Combat, a mount can make a double move and rider make a full round action in the middle of the move action to make a range attack at -4 penalty.
Q: Does that means the rider MUST declare it's a double move action first?
Q: Can the Mount move, Rider Full Round and mount move again (After declaring it's a full round) - Basically means rider move ahead to scout, see enemy, full round and get the mount to retreat.
Scene: Mount and Rider acts in the same inits. Mount is an intelligent creature like an eidolon.
Q: Can the mount move, READY action to move again after rider full round attack? This will circumvent the -4 penalty. By right, Eidolon uses a separate inits
Additional Question: Can a mount charge and as the rider make a melee charge attack, the mount attack at the same time. Assuming both can reach the target after the charge.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the rider doesn't take a penalty to full-attack action shooting, the mount can't make a full round move. The penalty is inherent to the movement. So, if the penalty is not taken, the mount cannot continue moving.
Last question: yes, if one one of mount and rider charges, so does the other.
These questions really are general Pathfinder Rules questions. I have flagged this thread to be moved to that forum.
|
If you have a lance and you attack, you stop moving. Which means the mount stops moving.Unless you have Ride By Attack (which lots of mounted combat characters do because it's a prereq for other feats).
Ride By Attack would allow both to charge, attack, and continue moving after the attacks, to include anyvrider options on the charge (like pounce) for both the mount and rider.
|
|
Last question: yes, if one one of mount and rider charges, so does the other.I understand on this part, but could the mount attack? Say you are holding a lance. The mount has reach attacks and it can pounce (Cat).
Can you make a LANCE attack, followed by the mount going bite/claw/claw.
On mounted charges both people NEED to make an attack, otherwise they can't be legally charging.
|
|
On mounted charges both people NEED to make an attack, otherwise they can't be legally charging.
On a mounted charge with a lance both can't legally make an attack, without the guy on a lance hitting the kobold and stopping in mid air.
The RAW on mounted combat needs to give a little in a few places. The horse attacking is one of the best ones.
|
|
On mounted charges both people NEED to make an attack, otherwise they can't be legally charging.On a mounted charge with a lance both can't legally make an attack, without the guy on a lance hitting the kobold and stopping in mid air.
The RAW on mounted combat needs to give a little in a few places. The horse attacking is one of the best ones.
I agree with BNW on this one, otherwise it literally becomes impossible to charge with a lance while riding a horse. Lets not be so pedantic that things that must be possible suddenly become not possible.
|
|
I agree with BNW on this one, otherwise it literally becomes impossible to charge with a lance while riding a horse. Lets not be so pedantic that things that must be possible suddenly become not possible.
On mounted charges both people NEED to make an attack, otherwise they can't be legally charging.On a mounted charge with a lance both can't legally make an attack, without the guy on a lance hitting the kobold and stopping in mid air.
The RAW on mounted combat needs to give a little in a few places. The horse attacking is one of the best ones.
As shown there's plenty of RAW ways to do it, lunge, reach evolution, ride-by-attack to move after your hit.
Yes, someone with no investment can't do it, they can just move and attack.
|
|
yeah.. no. You don't need to grow a third arm on your horse or wait till 5th level to charge and hit something with a lance. PFS is not served well by cranking the persnicket level to unplayable.
Agreed. Mounted combat is supposed to work with standard tactics without needing anything special or any experience on your character. The lance and charge is a standard tactic.
An example of a situation or circumstance where a charge is still a charge even if you don't get to complete it:
Mounted charge moves through a character's threatened zone. Character decides to trip the mount and succeeds.
The mounted character's turn ends, because they had declared a charge. But they still receive the -2 to the AC, because they tried to complete a charge action.
|
|
yeah.. no. You don't need to grow a third arm on your horse or wait till 5th level to charge and hit something with a lance. PFS is not served well by cranking the persnicket level to unplayable.
Agreed. Mounted combat is supposed to work with standard tactics without needing anything special or any experience on your character. The lance and charge is a standard tactic.
An example of a situation or circumstance where a charge is still a charge even if you don't get to complete it:
Mounted charge moves through a character's threatened zone. Character decides to trip the mount and succeeds.
The mounted character's turn ends, because they had declared a charge. But they still receive the -2 to the AC, because they tried to complete a charge action.
Because they had legal conditions to start the charge. But since the ending space needs to be different for mount and rider then it's not a legal charge and thus you can't begin one.
I don't make the rules, I just enforce the clarifications that we've been giving for mounted combat. Rider and mount must be able to charge to do a mounted charge as both need to charge in a mounted charge. Charges stop in the first square, if you can't then you can't charge.
|
Leaving aside the question of whether a character with a lance can charge while riding a mount like a horse that doesn't have reach (I'm in the of-course-they-can camp), it appears from this discussion that people are interpreting the faq (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9ru6) to mean that if *either* rider or mount charges, then *both* must charge. But to me it reads as saying: if the rider charges, then the mount does too ("When making a charge while mounted, which creature charges?...Both charge in unison."), but that nothing prevents the mount from charging while the rider does something else. For example, a lunar oracle mounted on his tiger companion could cast a spell while the tiger charges. No?
|
|
yeah.. no. You don't need to grow a third arm on your horse or wait till 5th level to charge and hit something with a lance. PFS is not served well by cranking the persnicket level to unplayable.
Agreed. Mounted combat is supposed to work with standard tactics without needing anything special or any experience on your character. The lance and charge is a standard tactic.
An example of a situation or circumstance where a charge is still a charge even if you don't get to complete it:
Mounted charge moves through a character's threatened zone. Character decides to trip the mount and succeeds.
The mounted character's turn ends, because they had declared a charge. But they still receive the -2 to the AC, because they tried to complete a charge action.
Because they had legal conditions to start the charge. But since the ending space needs to be different for mount and rider then it's not a legal charge and thus you can't begin one.
I don't make the rules, I just enforce the clarifications that we've been giving for mounted combat. Rider and mount must be able to charge to do a mounted charge as both need to charge in a mounted charge. Charges stop in the first square, if you can't then you can't charge.
You aren't enforcing a rule. You are creating a false extrapolation that negated an otherwise legal action.
Just because I have a lance out does not mean I have to attack with it. I could choose at any time during the charge to drop it and draw a melee weapon.
|
|
After moving, you may make a single melee attack.You are not required to attack per the bolded word above. If you aren't required to attack, then whether on or the other could attack if one does is not a condition that makes a charge option unavailable.
Sure sure, but the main point is that you need to move to the closest space you could attack from, so yeah, actually making the attack isn't needed, but the position you would make the attack from is the important bit. And since both are charging in a mounted charge them using their attack or not doesn't change they they must be able to.
|
|
yeah.. no. You don't need to grow a third arm on your horse or wait till 5th level to charge and hit something with a lance. PFS is not served well by cranking the persnicket level to unplayable.
Agreed. Mounted combat is supposed to work with standard tactics without needing anything special or any experience on your character. The lance and charge is a standard tactic.
An example of a situation or circumstance where a charge is still a charge even if you don't get to complete it:
Mounted charge moves through a character's threatened zone. Character decides to trip the mount and succeeds.
The mounted character's turn ends, because they had declared a charge. But they still receive the -2 to the AC, because they tried to complete a charge action.
Because they had legal conditions to start the charge. But since the ending space needs to be different for mount and rider then it's not a legal charge and thus you can't begin one.
I don't make the rules, I just enforce the clarifications that we've been giving for mounted combat. Rider and mount must be able to charge to do a mounted charge as both need to charge in a mounted charge. Charges stop in the first square, if you can't then you can't charge.
You aren't enforcing a rule. You are creating a false extrapolation that negated an otherwise legal action.
Just because I have a lance out does not mean I have to attack with it. I could choose at any time during the charge to drop it and draw a melee weapon.
Sure, if you declare that that's your action and don't charge more than one movement so you can you're welcome to do that charge as it would be legal. But if you're wielding the spear and don't state that you plan to pull out a new weapon then you can't do the mounted charge as the positions would be different and illegal.
|
|
Sure sure, but the main point is that you need to move to the closest space you could attack from, so yeah, actually making the attack isn't needed, but the position you would make the attack from is the important bit. And since both are charging in a mounted charge them using their attack or not doesn't change they they must be able to.After moving, you may make a single melee attack.You are not required to attack per the bolded word above. If you aren't required to attack, then whether on or the other could attack if one does is not a condition that makes a charge option unavailable.
The point is, that when the charge is declared, they are able to move into the square adjacent and make an attack. That fact doesn't change until the lance attack of the rider. And until the rider actually attacks, negating the chance for the mount to continue moving and also attack, the ability of the mount to make a charge does not change.
It isn't appropriate to hold against the rider and mount what is most likely going to happen based on what hasn't actually happened yet.
And if you think they need to declare they are attacking with the lance before they start the action, you'd be wrong. Since they aren't required to actually attack at the end of a charge, then the outcome of the charge does not need to be revealed until they have a chance to actually attack. Once they make the choice to use their attack when they are first able (a requirement of making the attack while charging) they then negate the mount's ability to continue their charge and also attack. But since, in the moment, based on any innumerable circumstances based on AoO's, Swift, Free, and Immediate actions and potentially changing environment or even on a whim, a character may choose to not actually attack, thus allowing their mount to continue their charge action.
None of this needs to be fully decided before they start the charge action.
|
|
If you have a reach weapon wielded and declare a charge it totally does affect the charge as it changes which square they'll need to stop in, so unless you make it clear that you plan to swap wielded weapons on your charge I'm going to assume you aren't and thus you'll have an invalid charge.
So if you have a reach and your mount doesn't have reach then you know that the charge will end up invalid because of different ending squares required and thus one of you will be hindered in moving to the final square and thus illegal charge.
|
|
If you have a reach weapon wielded and declare a charge it totally does affect the charge as it changes which square they'll need to stop in, so unless you make it clear that you plan to swap wielded weapons on your charge I'm going to assume you aren't and thus you'll have an invalid charge.
So if you have a reach and your mount doesn't have reach then you know that the charge will end up invalid because of different ending squares required and thus one of you will be hindered in moving to the final square and thus illegal charge.
You really shouldn't persnicket a basic, straightforward, and iconic character ability to death with your weird rules interpretations. What the heck is someone supposed to think of pfs when they try to play with a cavalier and can't run at a kobold to hit him with a lance because the horse won't be able to hoof them?
|
|
If you have a reach weapon wielded and declare a charge it totally does affect the charge as it changes which square they'll need to stop in, so unless you make it clear that you plan to swap wielded weapons on your charge I'm going to assume you aren't and thus you'll have an invalid charge.
So if you have a reach and your mount doesn't have reach then you know that the charge will end up invalid because of different ending squares required and thus one of you will be hindered in moving to the final square and thus illegal charge.
So I'm unclear. Are you just arguing this because the mounted rules are ambiguous, wonky, and generally don't work if you read too far into RAW and thus are trying to make a point?
Or would you, in actual practice at the table, disallow a 2nd level Cavalier from Charging a Bugbear while using a lance and riding a horse?
|
|
If you have a reach weapon wielded and declare a charge it totally does affect the charge as it changes which square they'll need to stop in, so unless you make it clear that you plan to swap wielded weapons on your charge I'm going to assume you aren't and thus you'll have an invalid charge.
So if you have a reach and your mount doesn't have reach then you know that the charge will end up invalid because of different ending squares required and thus one of you will be hindered in moving to the final square and thus illegal charge.You really shouldn't persnicket a basic, straightforward, and iconic character ability to death with your weird rules interpretations. What the heck is someone supposed to think of pfs when they try to play with a cavalier and can't run at a kobold to hit him with a lance because the horse won't be able to hoof them?
That mounted combat really is unclear with basically contradicting rules in pathfinder and should be treated carefully and probably ignored. And that in PFS GMs rule according to their view of the rules and unless there's evidence to prove them wrong they are empowered to do so. That this is how I view all the clarifications and how they must work together per the rules.
Like if the DEVs made a rule change that you couldn't charge with a reach weapon if wearing heavy armor I'd enforce that too, even if it's seems to be "a basic, straightforward, and iconic character ability"
Devs say that mount and rider charge in mounted charges, charge requires you to move to a specific place, rider with reach and mount have different end squares and thus can't charge because it'd be illegal. Ride by attack and other means solve this issue.
I don't see how this is a weird interpretation when it seems very straightforward and the obvious result of all the rules we have for mounted combat and charging.
|
Thomas's reading of the rules is a valid interpretation (albeit not the only valid interpretation). The mounted combat rules are sufficiently broken that it is possible that mounted combat is impossible :-(.
If I sit down at a table with a totally unknown GM I'll ask him how he runs mounted combat. I believe once the GM had an interpretation that I was unable to live with (I don't think it was Thomas's, some other interpretation). I played a different character :-).
No biggy but the bottom line is that if you play a Mounted character expect some table variation. The biggest is what terrain the GM will let you charge over.
|
|
If you have a reach weapon wielded and declare a charge it totally does affect the charge as it changes which square they'll need to stop in, so unless you make it clear that you plan to swap wielded weapons on your charge I'm going to assume you aren't and thus you'll have an invalid charge.
So if you have a reach and your mount doesn't have reach then you know that the charge will end up invalid because of different ending squares required and thus one of you will be hindered in moving to the final square and thus illegal charge.So I'm unclear. Are you just arguing this because the mounted rules are ambiguous, wonky, and generally don't work if you read too far into RAW and thus are trying to make a point?
Or would you, in actual practice at the table, disallow a 2nd level Cavalier from Charging a Bugbear while using a lance and riding a horse?
I would actually in practice rules this way at the table because I feel it's the correct way to rule mounted combat because RAW on them are ambiguous, wonky, and generally don't work and this is how I am able to piece them together without breaking any. I don't need to convince anyone to change to mine, nor will I question a GM on their ruling, mounted combat rules are crazy.
|
|
Devs say that mount and rider charge in mounted charges, charge requires you to move to a specific place, rider with reach and mount have different end squares and thus can't charge because it'd be illegal. Ride by attack and other means solve this issue.
I don't see how this is a weird interpretation when it seems very straightforward and the obvious result of all the rules we have for mounted combat and charging.
you think that the obvious result is that you can't use a lance to charge from the back of a horse?
That is nuttier than squirrel poo.
If your interpretation of the rules... and thats what it is, your interpretation, breaks something as mundane , straightforward, and realistic as charging someone with a lance that's on you. You are breaking the game. And you are pretty close to breaking the rules.
Please, whatever paradigm you think you HAVE to follow here you don't. The last thing pfs needs is to justify the perception that its an inane raw obsessed rules lawerying hive of scum and villainy sucking the fun out of the game.
|
|
I would actually in practice rules this way at the table because I feel it's the correct way to rule mounted combat because RAW on them are ambiguous, wonky, and generally don't work and this is how I am able to piece them together without breaking any. I don't need to convince anyone to change to mine, nor will I question a GM on their ruling, mounted combat rules are crazy.If you have a reach weapon wielded and declare a charge it totally does affect the charge as it changes which square they'll need to stop in, so unless you make it clear that you plan to swap wielded weapons on your charge I'm going to assume you aren't and thus you'll have an invalid charge.
So if you have a reach and your mount doesn't have reach then you know that the charge will end up invalid because of different ending squares required and thus one of you will be hindered in moving to the final square and thus illegal charge.So I'm unclear. Are you just arguing this because the mounted rules are ambiguous, wonky, and generally don't work if you read too far into RAW and thus are trying to make a point?
Or would you, in actual practice at the table, disallow a 2nd level Cavalier from Charging a Bugbear while using a lance and riding a horse?
So you are making an active and informed choice to choose a ruling that makes mounted combat impossible.
Got it.
|
|
Thomas's reading of the rules is a valid interpretation (albeit not the only valid interpretation). The mounted combat rules are sufficiently broken that it is possible that mounted combat is impossible :-(.
If I sit down at a table with a totally unknown GM I'll ask him how he runs mounted combat. I believe once the GM had an interpretation that I was unable to live with (I don't think it was Thomas's, some other interpretation). I played a different character :-).
No biggy but the bottom line is that if you play a Mounted character expect some table variation. The biggest is what terrain the GM will let you charge over.
Exactly this. +1
|
|
I would actually in practice rules this way at the table because I feel it's the correct way to rule mounted combat because RAW on them are ambiguous, wonky, and generally don't work and this is how I am able to piece them together without breaking any. I don't need to convince anyone to change to mine, nor will I question a GM on their ruling, mounted combat rules are crazy.So you are making an active and informed choice to choose a ruling that makes mounted combat impossible.
Got it.
Mounted combat isn't impossible, you're still able to move and attack with higher ground and charge with a non-reach weapon with no investment. With some investment you are able to charge and either keep moving to allow your mount to reach the legal spot, or to have your mount have some way to reach to match your attack range.
Yes, this is my active and informed understanding of how mounted combat rules in Pathfinder work according to current clarifications on mounted combat. Not that I want it to be convoluted or unintuitive, but this is my understanding of what they are, so I follow.
|
|
I would actually in practice rules this way at the table because I feel it's the correct way to rule mounted combat because RAW on them are ambiguous, wonky, and generally don't work and this is how I am able to piece them together without breaking any. I don't need to convince anyone to change to mine, nor will I question a GM on their ruling, mounted combat rules are crazy.So you are making an active and informed choice to choose a ruling that makes mounted combat impossible.
Got it.
Mounted combat isn't impossible, you're still able to move and attack with higher ground and charge with a non-reach weapon with no investment. With some investment you are able to charge and either keep moving to allow your mount to reach the legal spot, or to have your mount have some way to reach to match your attack range.
Yes, this is my active and informed understanding of how mounted combat rules in Pathfinder work according to current clarifications on mounted combat. Not that I want it to be convoluted or unintuitive, but this is my understanding of what they are, so I follow.
I'm with BNW and think that your ruling is rather spurious. I think it is the responsibility of the rules masters of this game, to interpret them in such a way that it makes the game work and possible. Your ruling makes charging with a lance while riding a non-reach creature, without significant investment and levels, impossible.
That is irresponsible of you to actively choose a ruling that makes the game not work. (not even "not work in the way it was intended"--but straight up not work.)
|
|
Let me make myself clear on my position here:
I would not even consider asking a GM whether my 1st level cavalier could charge with a lance while riding a horse. I would just assume its possible, because really that's the only responsible way to read the rules on mounted combat.
There are so many other issues with mounted combat rules that we don't need to create more issues by issuing rulings that break the action.
So if I sat down at a table and the first time I hear of this type of ruling is in the middle of combat...
ME: Ok, I'm going to charge the bugbear with my lance! Eat Steel Fuzzy!
GM: Sorry, you are using a lance and your horse doesn't have reach.
ME: Eh what?!
GM: Yeah, the clarification says that both are charging and both creatures must be able to charge, and since you are using a lance and your horse doesn't have reach, he technically can't charge because he can't finish the action with an attack, therefore you can't charge with your lance on the back of the horse.
ME: Eh what?!
GM: That's the rules, sorry.
ME: <probably not actually this calm> Could you reconsider because your interpretation of the rules completely breaks the game.
GM: Nope, that's how I interpret it, sorry.
ME: <packs up my stuff and leaves the game--does not accept a chronicle sheet and sees the closest VO to complain to.>
EDIT: I removed an inflammatory phrase and added the following:
Thomas, we rarely seem to agree on anything. Usually, its you arguing a very permissive ruling and me arguing the more conservative one. You seem to feel like I take too much agency away from players and what they are allowed to do RAW with their characters.
So I feel like this discussion is highly ironic.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love mounted characters, but it is threads like this one that prevent me from using reach weapons in PFS play with my mounted builds.
One of the reasons that FAQ about both rider and mount are considered charging if either charges, was to prevent Vital Strike shenanigans that were going on. So it is unfortunate that it is now being used to prevent the most basic and common use of a lance.
I agree with many of the other GMs here, it is part of the GMs job to look at something as broken as the mounted combat rules and make the sensible rulings that will make it function as a legitimate build option.
|
|
Devs say that mount and rider charge in mounted charges, charge requires you to move to a specific place, rider with reach and mount have different end squares and thus can't charge because it'd be illegal. Ride by attack and other means solve this issue.
I don't see how this is a weird interpretation when it seems very straightforward and the obvious result of all the rules we have for mounted combat and charging.you think that the obvious result is that you can't use a lance to charge from the back of a horse?
That is nuttier than squirrel poo.
If your interpretation of the rules... and thats what it is, your interpretation, breaks something as mundane , straightforward, and realistic as charging someone with a lance that's on you. You are breaking the game. And you are pretty close to breaking the rules.
Please, whatever paradigm you think you HAVE to follow here you don't. The last thing pfs needs is to justify the perception that its an inane raw obsessed rules lawerying hive of scum and villainy sucking the fun out of the game.
If the game breaks something as mundane, straightforward, and realistic as charging someone with a lance that's on the game.
If the game were to do something similar officially saying that you could only have 2 free actions and that drawing ammo is a free action and that breaks something as mundane, straightforward, and realistic as using a full attack with a bow that'd be on the game too, and I'd enforce that rule as well.
The paradigm I "HAVE to follow" is ruling in a way that I feel comfortable in ruling, and I will continue following that. I will rule based on my best understanding of the rules and will adjust that as official clarification changes them.
Like all but Tallow's only counter to my view is "but then mounted combat is harder, you should just ignore the rules so that mounted combat works simply". Tallow has at least tried to make a rules argument for allowing it (and while I don't believe the rules line up that way, I can see why one would think that way and since we don't have official clarification both of us are currently allowed to keep our differing views and have them be correct at tables we run)
|
|
Any people saying to ignore the rules of the game and to just "houserule" working mounted combat shouldn't GM PFS since that needs to follow the rules and official clarifications of those rules, which we have for mounted combat.
Some people would argue that following cover rules with archery and reach weapons shouldn't be done in PFS. Some people would argue that following concealment rules for fighting in low light shouldn't be done in PFS. Some argue that making someone roll handle animal checks and giving commands to their animal and having the GM control the animal shouldn't be done in PFS. Some argue that initiative shouldn't be done separately for pets and PCs. Some would argue that GMs shouldn't control summoned creatures that you can't talk to. All these are situations that are defined by the rules how to handle and run them, these aren't ambiguous rules, yet people still advocate for ignoring these, and if you're the GM and decide such I don't make a deal out of it since it's the GM ruling how they view the rules to work.
There are tons of rules that some don't enforce/know of, but you shouldn't be criticizing someone for following the rules, especially in PFS where we're encouraged to try and follow the rules as much as possible. Yes mounted rules are a mess, YES the rules cause mounted combat to not work without some investment, NO following/enforcing these bad rules is not wrong.
|
|
I'm going to be not posting in this anymore. I feel I've stated my view and why I have it and I don't want to risk more me sharing my views and sticking to that view without official clarification telling me I need to change to be seen as "intentional baiting" again, and due to them never explaining what was seen as "intentionally baiting" and just basically saying, "it should be obvious", I can't be sure to avoid accidentally doing it again.
|
|
Any people saying to ignore the rules of the game and to just "houserule" working mounted combat shouldn't GM PFS since that needs to follow the rules and official clarifications of those rules, which we have for mounted combat.
Given that I'm about the only person supporting Thomas at all I want to reiterate that I think the above is going WAY too far.
There are many interpretations of the mounted combat rules. Thomas has a valid but extreme interpretation.
But it is DEFINITELY also valid to rule that the intent of the rules is clearly to allow a person to charge with a lance on a horse. Ot to go into some convoluted RAW argument. The usual rules shenanigans I've seen to justify that in a strict RAW sense is to play games with the fact that the rider is in all 4 squares and so, if he in a back square, his 10ft reach and the horses 5 ft reach intersect into the same square.
To be clear, I'm VERY firmly in the "can charge with a lance at L1" camp. I could justify it RAW if I felt the need (I don't). But, lots and lots of times, one just has to say "I don't CARE what a literal interpretation of the rules might say, its silly and I'll rule differently".
Even in PFS death stops all actions, perception checks outdoors allow you to see the sun, and a charge with a lance is possible.
But I still think Thomas is within his rights to rule as he is doing. He SHOULD be aware that he is making a very unusual warning and preemptively warn all characters at his table (especially any with mounts :-)). I know of a couple of somewhat unusual rulings that I make and I try very hard to warn new players of those in advance.
|
|
Whether its technically a legal interpretation of the rules is really besides the point.
Do you (figurative you) really want to be that GM that rules something so extremely that you alienate the players who want to play rather mundane mounted lancer builds? Risk alienating all players wondering what extreme ruling you are going to come up with next that might make their character impossible to play?