|
So, I'm just starting to fiddle around with some mounted combat and I've got a few questions about the order of operations when it comes to making skill checks for it and what players need to do to well, make the whole thing work.
1.) Does one make a Handle Animal check for things like moving, charging, and basically all other actions the mount is supposed to be making?
This seems like the case, but if so what does it do to action economy if you are well, not riding an animal companion?
2.) Ride checks to fight with your mount, do they only happen when it is going to attack or does it include things like when it is under the effect of status effects like nauseated?
I assume you would make a check in instances like that as you try to keep the mount from booking or bucking too much while you are trying to fight but this seems to be a bit unclear.
3.) When you charge on horseback, does the horse get to make an attack as well at the end of the charge or not?
Any help here would be greatly appreciated along with sources for any answers one gives.
|
Just be sure to familiarize yourself with the Ride and Handle Animal skills, for the most part. Read them each several times, because they appear at first to be similar but they really have nothing in common.
For instance, you need Handle Animal to command your Mount to attack, but you need to also make a Ride check so that *you* can fight with it. Often people interpret the section in Ride to mean that it can also be used to command your Mount to attack. A search of this Forum alone will discover that this fine point is debated often.
After you've succeeded at the appropriate skill checks, if you then want to charge, both you and your Mount are considered to be charging. This means that Steve the Fighter riding a store bought horse can't both command his Mount to attack and charge in the same round, since Steve requires a move action to use Handle Animal.
Both you and your Mount can attack at the end of a charge so long as you both have equal reach. A charge ends the moment you are able to make an attack. So if you're charging with a sword on horseback, both you and your horse can attack, but if you're wielding a Lance your horse wouldn't be able to reach its target, and similarly if your Mount had reach (like an Axebeak or something), you'd be unable to reach with a sword.
Mounted Combat can seem like a giant mess, but it's really just knowing all of the individual parts that matters.
1.) Does one make a Handle Animal check for things like moving, charging, and basically all other actions the mount is supposed to be making?
Nope.
First of all there's no handle animal "move over there" trick. (although you can make seek do that if you really need "go over there")
Your mount acts on your initiative count as you direct it. You move at its speed, but the mount uses its action to move.
2.) Ride checks to fight with your mount, do they only happen when it is going to attack or does it include things like when it is under the effect of status effects like nauseated?
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.
It says in battle, so if your horse is upchucking because you overdid it last night with the 50th encore of "whiskey for my men beer for my horses" you control its one move action fine.
So even if you just want the horse to move to a specific spot, you still need to control it because it really isn't happy with all of these yipping kobolds with spears being in so much as the general vicinity. If you don't want to make that check, the DM probably just says your horse runs away with you on it.
3.) When you charge on horseback, does the horse get to make an attack as well at the end of the charge or not?
Yes. As long as you and the horse have the same reach thats not a problem. if you use a lance though your charge stops too far out for the horse to get a hoof in.
|
3.) When you charge on horseback, does the horse get to make an attack as well at the end of the charge or not?
... if you use a lance though your charge stops too far out for the horse to get a hoof in.
I think that this is unclear and an area of table variation. I think your interpretation is the most common but there are others. Personally, I think one quite reasonable (from the point of view of what the rules say) interpretation is that charging with a lance is totally impossible. Clearly that is an unreasonable interpretation (and one that I've never seen a GM apply) but I think it can be argued to be correct RAW. The basic argument is that the mount and rider MUST charge together but, since they have different reach, they can NOT charge together since one gets to the opponent first. So, no charge is possible.
The Mounted Combat rules are a mess.
I think I gave that interpretation all of the attention it deserved in my post.
|
|
I think I gave that interpretation all of the attention it deserved in my post.
If you mean the "can't charge" interpretation I agree. I was just using it to point out how bad the rules currently are written.
But I HAVE seen GMs not allow the mount and rider to both attack, ESPECIALLY if the rider is small and the mount medium.
|
|
The basic argument is that the mount and rider MUST charge together but, since they have different reach, they can NOT charge together since one gets to the opponent first. So, no charge is possible.
A charge does not necessitate an attack.
You very specifically may attack (or may not).
After moving, you may make a single melee attack.
So charging with a Lance from horseback is unequivocally allowed.
This was discussed ad nauseum recently, and the crowd claiming it wasn't possible had zero evidence to support their argument.
|
|
Quote?Your mount could choose to not attack, and presumably you still have a move action?Not possible, because both Mount and Rider are expending their full round action to charge.
Page 202 of the Core Rulebook.
I referred to this up thread, but didn't quote it because it's been a rule for almost 4 years.
|
|
May I suggest a change of perspective?
If you have two people reading the same passage, and one interpretation results in a reasonable understanding (iconically charging from the back of a horse), while the other interpretation results in an unreasonable understanding (whatever it is you're arguing here), then it's not the text that's to blame.
It's how the people are choosing to interpret it.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I officially apologize for introducing the current nonsense on whether charging is actually possible to this thread.
As I said, I've NEVER seen a GM be such an A-Hat as to disallow charging (and yes, I believe a GM would be a total A-Hat to make that ruling). So, in practice, whether the rules can be interpreted that way is of no practical importance. We're just arguing for the sake of arguing (clearly a first for the net :-) :-)).