| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey, there. So...my favorite adaption of Mounted Combat rules came from Rules of the Game, published by WotC back in the ancient days. One of the things that RotG did was begin to tie together the mount and rider's actions.
Dire Destiny's excellent mounted combat rules also did that to some degree. It offered other excellent ideas, but the action tie-in simplified and contained the action economy immensely.
I was later able to use the action economy tie-in, conceptually, to help tame some of the intelligent weapon quirks--and therefore open intelligent weapons to more players, while giving fewer headaches to GMs. ...and have fewer initiative slowdowns.
So...I guess I'd like to make a plea for mount balance to include shared action economy from the start. Yeah, this caused some issues in PF 1.0, but if it's built as an expectation from the start, it shouldn't run into those same issues. Plus, it's easier for the player to pick up on, and helps simplify and speed up the initiative round.
If the mount is taking a move action, so is the rider. If the rider is stopped for a standard action, and so on. It's just easier for a new player to pick up, and doesn't slow things down so much.
Shared action economy, if it's worked out for mounts, could also provide a basis for approaching other character options in ways that don't slow down initiative. Maybe when a familiar is in "bonded mode" it gains the same restrictions as a mount, but gains other options as well. Perhaps it could be used to address intelligent weapon action economy issues.
Just tossing that out there. :D
This +1000
Yeah, there are a few core rules systems in Pathfinder that were badly under-detailed in the 1E CRB, and this is one of the worst of them. I'd love for them to fix mounted combat rules, both from a balance perspective and from a clarity perspective.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So long as my horse can stomp someone while I hit someone else with my mace, I'm fine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right now, lots of folks do things like ride their mount for a double move and then jump of the mount and take a double move themselves. The last time I played, the GM was OK with the player taking a double move on her mount and then making a standard melee attack (note, this was not a charge). I think the new rules clearly need to say that you can't do this sort of thing.
|
Right now, lots of folks do things like ride their mount for a double move and then jump of the mount and take a double move themselves. The last time I played, the GM was OK with the player taking a double move on her mount and then making a standard melee attack (note, this was not a charge). I think the new rules clearly need to say that you can't do this sort of thing.
The current rules and I believe an FAQ clearly say you can't do this thing.
But the mounted rules are really messy in many other ways. But this is not one of the ways.
This sounds like a good idea for all pets/companions/eidolons etc. If readying a shield takes an action, why shouldn't controlling a pet do so too? And it is still an advantage, as you avoid the multiple attack penalty you get if you put these actions into attacks of your own.
Right now, lots of folks do things like ride their mount for a double move and then jump of the mount and take a double move themselves. The last time I played, the GM was OK with the player taking a double move on her mount and then making a standard melee attack (note, this was not a charge). I think the new rules clearly need to say that you can't do this sort of thing.The current rules and I believe an FAQ clearly say you can't do this thing.
But the mounted rules are really messy in many other ways. But this is not one of the ways.
I’ve seen a lot of table variation on this, including tables with very eperienced GMs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I’ve seen a lot of table variation on this, including tables with very eperienced GMs.Right now, lots of folks do things like ride their mount for a double move and then jump of the mount and take a double move themselves. The last time I played, the GM was OK with the player taking a double move on her mount and then making a standard melee attack (note, this was not a charge). I think the new rules clearly need to say that you can't do this sort of thing.The current rules and I believe an FAQ clearly say you can't do this thing.
But the mounted rules are really messy in many other ways. But this is not one of the ways.
Your experience isn't being doubted. The point being made is that the rules weren't followed. I tend to fix that by sending the GM to the FAQ or copying and pasting it into roll20.
Now if he still wants to do things his way that is fine, but with something being stated by an official source he can't say "I didn't know" after I show him.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Regardless of precisely how the mounted combat rules shake out, it is clear that they need to be cleared up from the get-go.
Riding a horse into combat is an iconic part of the RPG experience, and clear rules governing all aspects of its use need to be set up. Including riding the wild variety of alternative mounts, and what they can or can't do.
Also, standard mounted combat tactics like ride-by attacks need to remain standard, and not locked behind feats or class abilities.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I’ve seen a lot of table variation on this, including tables with very experienced GMs.Right now, lots of folks do things like ride their mount for a double move and then jump of the mount and take a double move themselves. The last time I played, the GM was OK with the player taking a double move on her mount and then making a standard melee attack (note, this was not a charge). I think the new rules clearly need to say that you can't do this sort of thing.The current rules and I believe an FAQ clearly say you can't do this thing.
But the mounted rules are really messy in many other ways. But this is not one of the ways.
I always kinda chuckle when I hear a line like this. I'm an extremely experienced GM. I've been GM'ing since 1984. I have 350 GM credits under my belt in PFS, plus all the home stuff I GM for Pathfinder. I consider myself a master of the rules in pathfinder. And yet, I still make mistakes and find new rules nuggets that I've missed several times over the years reading the same paragraph.
The point being, just because an experienced GM makes a mistake, doesn't really mean its "table variation" in the sense of different GM's interpret ambiguous rules differently.
The point being, just because an experienced GM makes a mistake, doesn't really mean its "table variation" in the sense of different GM's interpret ambiguous rules differently.
Fair enough.
But the mounted combat rules in PF1.0 *are* fairly ambiguous and that does lead to a lot of table variation... as well as frequent strange discussions on these message boards over issues like charging and different actions for mounts and riders, and which skills are used to direct your mount.
I think they should make mounted combat turn off the animal. If you're mounted the animal gets no actions of their own and is just a movement form for the rider. This will really help clear up rules about it, pets can do things on their own or are non-fighters if ridden. Maybe opening up some new actions for the rider though like "have mount attack and it uses its own penalties" so you can attack at full and it can attack at full thus getting around the -5 for a second attack since it is from a different person.
I'm nervous that trying to keep them having their own actions while mounted will cause all sorts of misunderstanding like we have now.
|
|
If I could recreate my Sky Knight (Hunter on a Roc) without needing 6 books, 3 FAQs and a lesson on flight, mounted combat, english grammar & how charges work that'd be great. I like riding something (preferably something with teeth and wings) and it'd be nice if the rules were clear and coherent.
As for action economy, I've never really seen an issue with it - an extra move action has rarely even been useful - and a couple extra attacks sounds like a lot, but most mounts don't hit particularly hard (Respectable, but not amazing most of the time - and if they are amazing they come in at levels where they need to be that good).
I’m hoping they do a lot of fixing of Mounted Combat in PF2. Flying mounts, shared action economy, defining what sort of rolls are needed when, and more.
Right now, there is table variation over if a fighter mounted on a horse can charge an opponent and have both their lance attack and the horse make an attack.
Especially if the "horse" is a pouncing dire tiger or something else that has nasty attacks, nastier than a horse's hooves, at any rate. And it's linked to the charge and reach rules. A comprehensive rewrite of the mounted combat rules would clarify that:
- the mount and rider are considered as a single entity;
- the rider uses the ride skill (not the handle animals skill) to direct his mount and to allow or disallow the mount attacking in tandem with the rider;
- a mounted charge with a reach weapon begins with the reach weapon attack, and then the tandem rider and mount continue the charge into close range, allowing the mount to attack as well, assuming conditions are in place (combat trained mount, etc) for the mount to get an attack in the first place;
- if the equivalent of the Pounce feat still exists, there needs to be clarification whether that still works when the mount is mounted, or if the mount just gets a single attack.
This will also depend on how multiple natural attacks are handled, and how two-weapon or multi-weapon combat is handled.
It's currently a can of worms in PF1.0, due to the lack of text defining these points. It really wouldn't take much to straighten things out in PF2.0. Given the frequency with which these questions have been debated on the message boards, I feel fairly confident that our pals at Paizo are well aware that they need to deal with these issues once and for all.
Gotta be careful about over limiting mounted combat actions. It makes perfect sense to have The horse move its full speed while the rider shoots a bow.
Gotta be careful about over limiting mounted combat actions. It makes perfect sense to have The horse move its full speed while the rider shoots a bow.
They could still take a move, and then fire/attack at the end with a standard.
There's some give and take you can do with that, too. I'd be in support of the rider getting to use the mount's strength for certain combat maneuvers, whichever is greater. It just makes sense if you're doing something like Bull Rush.
That was allowed btw, in 3.5 under Rules of the Game. It was just "one of those things" that you looked at and went: yeah, okay.
Tying actions together made some wonderful balance for intelligent weapons, as well, which are and were notoriously difficult to balance in PF1e.
It also makes a crazily simple set of rules that you can then build on with feats--and class features/archetypes. Say, a mounted combat ranger or cavalier. If we have a straightforward base, it's less likely to break down the chain, and I'd love to see more features and options dedicated to mounted.
I miss my horses like you wouldn't believe.