Escape Route question


Rules Questions


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I encountered this yesterday as a GM, and I have a thought that I'd like to raise here. There has been a lot of discussion about whether the feat Escape Artist works for a rider and his/her mount. However, there's another aspect of the feat that doesn't seem to have been discussed, can one move in any direction one desires while using this feat or is one limited to "escap[ing]" and "tactical withdraws," language drawn directly from the title and description of the feat.

After looking at the feat and reading the discussion here, I don't have any problems with this being used by a mount and rider. However, I don't think one could use the feat while charging (clearly not a "tactical withdrawal"). Further, I think that someone using this feat should designate an enemy that they're "escap[ing]" from and must end their move further away from that enemy than they were when they started.

Thoughts on this interpretation and restrictions?


No I wouldn't allow the use of the feat with any type of action other than Withdraw which is a specific action. By RAW iirc (I can't check atm) nothing is stated about the direction (away from or most direct path etc.) the character doing the withdrawing must move. Withdraw only negates aoo for the first square of movement. No designation required and while that seems somewhat logical the withdrawing character may very well be using it to "escape" a square threatened by multiple foes and limiting it to a single foe would be very detrimental as well as not so logical. So no I wouldn't recommend "designating" as a house rule (at least without a lot of additional caveats) even though it seems like a good idea. I'd just make sure the foes made it a good idea that when a character withdraws they really are needing it to get away and not abusing the concept behind the mechanics.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

By RAW it works for a rider and mount, exactly as you appear to have encountered it.

I would say it's not unreasonable to disallow that option as a GM, but I wouldn't limit it to "escaping" actions. One of the main reasons to take this feat is to provide a path for your allies to come within reach of a large enemy without provoking. However you rule on it, any change to the rules should allow the player to swap the feat changed for something else if they wish to.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Kayerloth wrote:
No I wouldn't allow the use of the feat with any type of action other than Withdraw which is a specific action.

Thanks, I hadn't thought of this, and it makes more sense that my somewhat cumbersome way of seeing the rule. The feat does explicitly refer to "withdraws" (I think they meant "withdrawals"), so I can easily see limiting it's use to the withdraw action.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Never used or read the feat prior to this thread, but by RAW Mr Charisma is correct you could use it to allow another ally who also has the feat to rather aggressively and offensively get in closer to a foe with lots of reach (usually, therefore, also lots of size as well). And while the text implies using it as a getaway, the 'benefit' portion of text makes no mention of having to use it exclusively that way. Considering the feat investment (all the characters attempting to use it need it) necessary to use it I be fine with it used in an offensive manner. The text could use some clarity in that respect, it's the desciptive portion that introduces the ambiguity. And I do agree with Mr C if you make the ruling I would allow the character to exchange out the feat if they feel it is no longer worth choosing. If its a home campaign maybe consider modifying the text and or introducing the offensive version as another feat choice

PS: it's a bit like the spell "Expeditious Retreat", it rarely is used for actually retreating and far more often to rapidly and offensively maneuver despite its name.


Quote:
Benefit: An ally who also has this feat provokes no attacks of opportunity for moving through squares adjacent to you or within your space.

RAW, per the wording of the feat, it works on any movement through the relevant squares.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
willuwontu wrote:
Quote:
Benefit: An ally who also has this feat provokes no attacks of opportunity for moving through squares adjacent to you or within your space.
RAW, per the wording of the feat, it works on any movement through the relevant squares.

The RAW description of the feat explicitly states that it applies to allies making “withdraws.” That seems pretty clear to me.


pjrogers wrote:
The RAW description of the feat explicitly states that it applies to allies making “withdraws.” That seems pretty clear to me.

RAW means "Rules-as-Written", which is what is written in the 'Benefit' paragraph. Flavor text aren't rules.

The flavor text certainly indicates that the RAI (Rules-as-Intended) is that Escape Route wouldn't apply to someone charging an enemy, but I think you're severely restricting the feat and going against RAI if you think only the specific 'Withdraw' action should be affected.

The feat is literally made so that you don't have to take the Withdraw action to escape threatened areas as long as your friends protect your back.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"Okay squad here's the plan: Bob and Mike will move in first and tie up those pikes so the rest can get in position without getting skewered."

Using teamwork that lets you cover your allies in dangerous spots offensively. You are significantly nerfing that feat if you limit it to withdrawals only.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As the rider in question, I spent a good deal of time looking into it, to ensure it worked that way, as it does seem amazing for mounted characters (especially hunters that ride their mounts like i do) If it were changed to only allowing it to be used for withdraws, i sure wouldn't have taken it, and i don't know many people that would. That being said, I feel ishould make note based on a few responses that i think this might be a request looking for a society based answer.

Also i want to note, I have no bias against the question in either way. If it can be proven in either direction i am fine with it, as a hunter i always have the option to swap out a teamwork feat :)


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

According to the CRB (p. 113), Feats are described in the following manner:

Feat Descriptions:
"The following format is used for all feat descriptions.
Feat Name: The feat’s name also indicates what subcategory, if any, the feat belongs to, and is followed by a basic description of what the feat does.
Prerequisite: A minimum ability score, another feat or feats, a minimum base attack bonus, a minimum number of ranks in one or more skills, or anything else required in order to take the feat. This entry is absent if a feat has no prerequisite. A feat may have more than one prerequisite.
Benefit: What the feat enables the character (“you” in the feat description) to do. If a character has the same feat more than once, its benefits do not stack unless indicated otherwise in the description.
Normal: What a character who does not have this feat is limited to or restricted from doing. If not having the feat causes no particular drawback, this entry is absent. Special: Additional unusual facts about the feat."

This would seem to indicate the text under the feat name is important. It is a "basic description of what the feat does." It does not appear to be "flavor text."

In this case, "the basic description of what the feat does" reads as follows:

"You have trained to watch your allies’ backs, covering them as they make tactical withdraws (sic)."

Maybe limiting this feat's use only to Withdraw actions is too restrictive, but I do think it shouldn't be useful for charging or other forms of closing with an enemy.

If you can move anywhere you want without fear of AOO, this is equivalent to always having the 2nd level cleric spell grace going, and that strikes as fairly OP and probably not the intent of the feat's creator(s).

I'm open to Evilserran's suggestion of asking about this on the PFS if there seems to be a lack on consensus here.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

So in your games, if somebody takes Improved Initiative, do they get a bonus on AC and Reflex saves? Because the flavour text of the feat says
"Your quick reflexes allow you to react rapidly to danger." which, at least to me, means that it should help you with both dodging blows and making saves. Do you think the bonus should be +1, +2 or +4?

You might want to consider your answer very carefully, because I can point out a myriad of feats where you could interpret their flavour text as granting any bonuses (or penalties) that aren't explicitly covered in the rules text.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:

So in your games, if somebody takes Improved Initiative, do they get a bonus on AC and Reflex saves? Because the flavour text of the feat says

"Your quick reflexes allow you to react rapidly to danger." which, at least to me, means that it should help you with both dodging blows and making saves. Do you think the bonus should be +1, +2 or +4?

No, because it doesn't say ALL danger. Combat is a form of danger and Improved Initiative allows one to react more rapidly in/to this particular form of danger.

The text describing "what the feat does" for Escape Route explicitly says "make tactical withdraws (sic)." In order to make such "withdraws," the player can make use of the Benefit described for the feat.

I'm open to a discussion of what constitutes a "tactical withdraw." However, it seems pretty clear to me that the use of Escape Route is limited to these "tactical withdraws," because this is part of the text that describes "what the feat does."

Grand Lodge

The withdraw action specifically calls out that you do not need to use it to withdraw from combat despite it's name. CR pg 188. The withdraw is a full round action to not provoke in your first square of movement.

Personally, I would rule it works exactly as the benefits portion states.

The description is a basic description of what the feat does, not game effects. The benefits section defines the mechanics. In the core rulebook it states "this is what is allows you to do". Descriptions like those just behind the name are flavor text.

Paired with the fact that withdraw already says you don't have to move away, its intention is clear that it applies to movement in combat regardless of what direction.

Any time you move regardless of type of movement. It does not states that you need to use the withdraw action to use its benefits, and if this was the intention, it should have said that.

This is also a teamwork feat meaning that in order for it to have any benefit, at least two characters have sunk a feat into it.


The english definition of "tactical withdraw" is a synonym for retreat. This is true both in venacular and dictionary defintions.

Withdrawl wrote:
A withdrawal is a type of military operation, generally meaning retreating forces back while maintaining contact with the enemy. A withdrawal may be undertaken as part of a general retreat, to consolidate forces, to occupy ground that is more easily defended, or to lead the enemy into an ambush.

In pathfinder the withdraw action can be used offensively. Such as, to break free from the enemy's front line in order to harass the enemy spell caster in the back. Even the rules state that the name of the action shouldn't be taken literally.

Withdraw Action wrote:
Note that despite the name of this action, you don’t actually have to leave combat entirely.

As for feats, the "flavor text" a the beginning can at most give you an idea of what's intended. Even then it can be very misleading.

case in point, Hand’s Autonomy. The flavor text states

Hand’s Autonomy wrote:
Your possessed hand can act independently.

So, does this mean that i can make two full attacks in one round? reading the rest of the feat you'll find this isn't even remotely possible.

As a DM you can impose whatever rules you want. But it seems poor form to impose limitations just because it "fits" the flavor of the feat. The flavor should be subjective, not restrictive.

If I wanted to build a finesse warrior that is very lucky but extremely clumsy I might take weapon finesse because mechanically it makes sense for the character. It shouldn't be disallowed just because the flavor of the feat is all wrong. Mechanically I might even give said character a high dex just because there is no "luck" stat in pathfinder but I end up with something that mechanically does what I want. The DM shouldn't have an issue if I have an alternative reasoning behind why the character can do what they can do. Especially if the net result is identical to what's normal.


RAW is clear that it prevent aoo from any movement while in reach of others with this feat.
the fact it's pretty powerful in builds that give their team feat to others (and more so if they ride them as mounts) is why i set up a limit to it. like how spring attack doesn't provoke aoo from the person you attack (but does from others), i changed this feat so that the user must pick one target each turn, that he help defend against, and that target get no aoo. but if there are more then one who threat, the rest get aoo as usual. (it made sense that some protection can be set but going through an entire army with this feat without provoking at all seemed a bit overpowered to me)

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This feats means that anyone can be immune to AoOs due to movement as long as they get on a mundane mount with a Horsemaster's Saddle.

Now, of course this is the Rules section, so we can go on ad infinitum on the eternal dichotomy between RAW and RAI, but if you're just looking for a quick and dirty way to avoid this shenanigan without denaturing the feat, then just interpret "movement" as "relative movement".

If the rider and the mount move together, it's the whole unit moving: the rider is not moving through squares adjacent to the mount (since they are moving dynamically with the mount), nor within the mount space, since the rider is consider to occupy all the mount's squares at once.

Again, I'm not here to discuss the RAW.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

It's obvious that a major point of disagreement here is whether or not the initial description of "what the feat does" is purely flavor or whether it has an actual game impact. I think the phrase "what the feat does" is pretty clear, and if the designers had intended the initial text to be purely flavor, they could have said so.

Certainly, elements of this initial are often flavor, but because there is a significant element of flavor in these descriptions does not mean all of the text is flavor with no game impact.

In the case of Escape Route, the initial text is clear that the feat is to be used for "tactical withdraws," and the benefits state how one makes such a "tactical withdraw." To use just the language from the Benefits section and then use the feat to charge or otherwise advance toward an enemy is, to my mind, a clear and explicit violation of "what the feat does."

The example of Hand's Autonomy was given, but I'm not sure of the point of this example. The description of "what the feat does" is clear, "Your possessed hand can act independently." The Benefits section then shows the ways in which "Your possessed hand can act independently." Similarly, Escape Route says you can use it for a "tactical withdraw" and then the Benefits section shows the manner in which it can be used for this purpose.


The short description of the feat is just a summary. If I skip the summary and dive directly into the benefits part of the feat I shouldn't come to a different conclusion on how the feat works. If the feat can only be used in certain circumstances that should be identified in the benefits section.

You're suggesting that the summary portion is more descriptive then the description portion.

if I remove all of the flavor from the escape routes feat I get the following.

Feat (Combat, Teamwork)
Prerequisite: none

Benefit: An ally who also has this feat provokes no attacks of opportunity for moving through squares adjacent to you or within your space.

Now, certainly you could say that this feat isn't balanced when used by a mounted character whose mount also has this feat. That's fine, but saying it should only work when I take action Y just because it has Y in the name doesn't make sense. What if I re-flavor the feat to the following:

Coordinated Movement (Combat, Teamwork)
You and your allies are able to protect each other while advancing on sword wielding bandits.

Prerequisite: none

Benefit: An ally who also has this feat provokes no attacks of opportunity for moving through squares adjacent to you or within your space.

I suppose this new feat only works against AoO that are provoked from enemies that have the bandit archetype provided they are wielding swords when we are moving toward them. Rather then simply working identically to the feat escape route.


Tbhere quite a few traits/feats that have similar hiccups, so I don't even think you can make this an example of its own thing, for example, http://aonprd.com/TraitDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Rider%20of%20Paresh

Rider of Paresh:(name)
(Source) Inner Sea Primer pg. 17, Qadira, Gateway to the East pg. 9
Category Region
Requirement(s) Qadira
Decscription: You call the Plains of Paresh home, whether you were born among the plains’ tribes or in the glittering towers of Katheer. The horses are your kin.

Effect: When mounted and making a charge, your mount’s speed is increased by 10 feet. You must have the Mounted Combat feat to take this trait.

Based on some of you, you would require this to only function on a horse. What if the rider of Paresh was halfling with a pony? Sure, some of you are now going to make exceptions because that's reasonable, but then say there's a wayang from Paresh who rides a dire bat, some of you now say that's silly, but the trait doesn't require it to be a horse... Now is that truly a fair assertation with no bias? Therein lies the rub, of trying to decide whether something is correct. RAI vs RAW perhaps it was not intended to be used in those manners, but as written is entirely valid.


pjrogers wrote:

According to the CRB (p. 113), Feats are described in the following manner:

CRB wrote:

Feat Descriptions: 

"The following format is used for all feat descriptions. 
Feat Name: The feat’s name also indicates what subcategory, if any, the feat belongs to, and is followed by a basic description of what the feat does. 
Prerequisite: A minimum ability score, another feat or feats, a minimum base attack bonus, a minimum number of ranks in one or more skills, or anything else required in order to take the feat. This entry is absent if a feat has no prerequisite. A feat may have more than one prerequisite. 
Benefit: What the feat enables the character (“you” in the feat description) to do. If a character has the same feat more than once, its benefits do not stack unless indicated otherwise in the description. 
Normal: What a character who does not have this feat is limited to or restricted from doing. If not having the feat causes no particular drawback, this entry is absent. Special: Additional unusual facts about the feat."

Escape Route wrote:

Escape Route (Combat, Teamwork)

You have trained to watch your allies’ backs, covering them as they make tactical withdraws.

Prerequisite: none

Benefit: An ally who also has this feat provokes no attacks of opportunity for moving through squares adjacent to you or within your space.

I'm not getting how the header: "Benefit" doesn't tell you exactly what you're looking for.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
LordKailas wrote:

Coordinated Movement (Combat, Teamwork)

You and your allies are able to protect each other while advancing on sword wielding bandits.

Prerequisite: none

Benefit: An ally who also has this feat provokes no attacks of opportunity for moving through squares adjacent to you or within your space.

I suppose this new feat only works against AoO that are provoked from enemies that have the bandit archetype provided they are wielding swords when we are moving toward them. Rather then simply working identically to the feat escape route.

And if the text that "describes what the feat does" was written as you describe, then it would be clear that the feat is only intended to work when in combat with "sword wielding bandits." If we decide to just ignore whatever text there is indicating "what the feat does," then we're picking and choosing which parts of the rules we want to use and which we want to ignore.

Evilserran wrote:

Rider of Paresh:(name)

(Source) Inner Sea Primer pg. 17, Qadira, Gateway to the East pg. 9
Category Region
Requirement(s) Qadira
Decscription: You call the Plains of Paresh home, whether you were born among the plains’ tribes or in the glittering towers of Katheer. The horses are your kin.

Effect: When mounted and making a charge, your mount’s speed is increased by 10 feet. You must have the Mounted Combat feat to take this trait.

Based on some of you, you would require this to only function on a horse. What if the rider of Paresh was halfling with a pony? Sure, some of you are now going to make exceptions because that's reasonable, but then say there's a wayang from Paresh who rides a dire bat, some of you now say that's silly, but the trait doesn't require it to be a horse... Now is that truly a fair assertation with no bias? Therein lies the rub, of trying to decide whether something is correct. RAI vs RAW perhaps it was not intended to be used in those manners, but as written is entirely valid.

It seems clear to me that this feat was intended for folks from a specific place, Paresh, riding a specific kind of mount, a horse. It's from a splatbook on Qadira, so it makes perfect sense to view the feat in such a context.

MrCharisma wrote:
I'm not getting how the header: "Benefit" doesn't tell you exactly what you're looking for.

And I'm not getting how the phrase "describes what the feat does" doesn't tell you the same.

If I hear from an authoritative source, such as one of the design team, that the descriptive text is purely flavor and should have no game effect, then I'll treat as such. Until then, all I can do is follow the rules which state that this text "describes what the feat does."


There was an FAQ request put in for this very problem and nothing ever came of it (as far as I can tell).

These two responses in a thread requesting said FAQ, I think summarize the situation well.

excerpt 1

excerpt 2

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
LordKailas wrote:

There was an FAQ request put in for this very problem and nothing ever came of it (as far as I can tell).

These two responses in a thread requesting said FAQ, I think summarize the situation well.

excerpt 1

excerpt 2

Uh oh you just gave the OP a massive headache ;-)


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:
LordKailas wrote:

There was an FAQ request put in for this very problem and nothing ever came of it (as far as I can tell).

These two responses in a thread requesting said FAQ, I think summarize the situation well.

excerpt 1

excerpt 2

Uh oh you just gave the OP a massive headache ;-)

No, I'm actually very appreciative of this link to a thread that I hadn't previously been aware of. My main takeaway from the linked-to thread is that many (most?) of the feats are badly written, and we the players and GMs have to muddle through as best we can.

While Michael Sayre does indicate that he views the descriptive text purely as fluff, he also wrote "Now, that's just me" indicating his response is a personal, not an institutional one.

It's also interesting that the thread ended up being locked, so I suspect there is no right answer to this question, only endless disagreement. With that in mind, I'll bid adieu to the debate and apologize for reopening this particular wound.


Paizo's initial feat descriptions are consistently illogical or poorly edited, only look at the benefit (which are rarely poorly edited, even if commonly pointless).

Look at the Psychic Virtuoso feat, which claims "You can use all of your occult skill unlocks more often and you are more talented at using them." Alas, the benefit section only provides rules for being more talented at using them - a bonus to skill checks when using occult skill unlocks.

Compare to the Psychic Maestro feat, whose initial line reads "You can use two occults skill unlocks more often." And indeed, the benefit section confirms this with specific and actionable rules.

We can speculate what process led to this incompetent outcome, but it doesn't really matter, and the problem crops up plenty - you can't ever rely on (or believe) the first line of the feat, only the benefit section and prerequisite section have any rules validity.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
pjrogers wrote:


No, I'm actually very appreciative of this link to a thread that I hadn't previously been aware of. My main takeaway from the linked-to thread is that many (most?) of the feats are badly written, and we the players and GMs have to muddle through as best we can.

While Michael Sayre does indicate that he views the descriptive text purely as fluff, he also wrote "Now, that's just me" indicating his response is a personal, not an institutional one.

It's also interesting that the thread ended up being locked, so I suspect there is no right answer to this question, only endless disagreement. With that in mind, I'll bid adieu to the debate and apologize for reopening this particular wound.

Oof, the excitement of seeing things you wrote before you worked for Paizo returning with your Paizo ID tagged to them :P

I'd like to think I can be a bit more temperate with my language after four years of growth.

Still not a member of the design team, but my understanding of Escape Route and the way I've run it at home, in PFS, and here in office games is that its benefits apply to both mount and rider (as long as they're sharing the feat or both have it, of course) and that no specific action like a withdraw is required to trigger its benefits. We've also used it as a way to create paths through thickets of enemies to allow e.g. the party barbarian to dash through our protected territory and smack down an enemy spellcaster at the rear of the enemy formation.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Michael Sayre wrote:
Still not a member of the design team, but my understanding of Escape Route and the way I've run it at home, in PFS, and here in office games is that its benefits apply to both mount and rider (as long as they're sharing the feat or both have it, of course) and that no specific action like a withdraw is required to trigger its benefits. We've also used it as a way to create paths through thickets of enemies to allow e.g. the party barbarian to dash through our protected territory and smack down an enemy spellcaster at the rear of the enemy formation.

Thanks, this is very helpful, and I'll defer to your understanding. I do still think this is an exceptionally powerful interpretation. As I noted above, it gives the equivalent of a permanent grace spell. For hunters, characters with a valet familiar, and perhaps others, it can be done for the cost of just one feat.


MrCharisma wrote:
By RAW it works for a rider and mount, exactly as you appear to have encountered it.

I argue that it does not work with a rider/mount. When mounted a rider and its mount share a space. They do not each have their own space and therefore cannot move through their ally's space or through a space adjacent to their ally's space(i.e. mount) because they share a single space.

I am totally fine with it being used for something other than a withdraw action however.


HalifaxDM wrote:
MrCharisma wrote:
By RAW it works for a rider and mount, exactly as you appear to have encountered it.

I argue that it does not work with a rider/mount. When mounted a rider and its mount share a space. They do not each have their own space and therefore cannot move through their ally's space or through a space adjacent to their ally's space(i.e. mount) because they share a single space.

I am totally fine with it being used for something other than a withdraw action however.

The feat specifies within reach, not adjacent. Are you claiming that something in your square is not within your reach?


thorin001 wrote:
HalifaxDM wrote:
MrCharisma wrote:
By RAW it works for a rider and mount, exactly as you appear to have encountered it.

I argue that it does not work with a rider/mount. When mounted a rider and its mount share a space. They do not each have their own space and therefore cannot move through their ally's space or through a space adjacent to their ally's space(i.e. mount) because they share a single space.

I am totally fine with it being used for something other than a withdraw action however.

The feat specifies within reach, not adjacent. Are you claiming that something in your square is not within your reach?

That wouod appear to be incorrect.

Source Ultimate Combat pg. 100

You have trained to watch your allies’ backs, covering them as they make tactical withdraws.

Benefit: An ally who also has this feat provokes no attacks of opportunity for moving through squares adjacent to you or within your space.

Has this changed? I thought the same as thorin001.

Re: HalifaxDM: Is there a reason we've re-opened this thread?
- It's almost 7 months since the last person posted.
- Everyone was in agreement.
- We had input from someone on Paizo's staff to corroborate what we thought.
That's as close to an FAQ as you're going to get, it seems weird to re-open a rules thread that's been answered so thoroughly.

If the text HAS changed then maybe we should start a new thread?

EDIT: It looks like it hasn't changed (at least not recently), a few people up-thread quoted the feat with the word "adjacent". I guess we just read the feat incorrectly.


MrCharisma wrote:
thorin001 wrote:
HalifaxDM wrote:
MrCharisma wrote:
By RAW it works for a rider and mount, exactly as you appear to have encountered it.

I argue that it does not work with a rider/mount. When mounted a rider and its mount share a space. They do not each have their own space and therefore cannot move through their ally's space or through a space adjacent to their ally's space(i.e. mount) because they share a single space.

I am totally fine with it being used for something other than a withdraw action however.

The feat specifies within reach, not adjacent. Are you claiming that something in your square is not within your reach?

That wouod appear to be incorrect.

Source Ultimate Combat pg. 100

You have trained to watch your allies’ backs, covering them as they make tactical withdraws.

Benefit: An ally who also has this feat provokes no attacks of opportunity for moving through squares adjacent to you or within your space.

Has this changed? I thought the same as thorin001.

Re: HalifaxDM: Is there a reason we've re-opened this thread?
- It's almost 7 months since the last person posted.
- Everyone was in agreement.
- We had input from someone on Paizo's staff to corroborate what we thought.
That's as close to an FAQ as you're going to get, it seems weird to re-open a rules thread that's been answered so thoroughly.

If the text HAS changed then maybe we should start a new thread?

EDIT: It looks like it hasn't changed (at least not recently), a few people up-thread quoted the feat with the word "adjacent". I guess we just read the feat incorrectly.

All fair points. However I saw no harm in stating my view.

To me it seems pretty clear cut.

The Mounted Combat rules says to assume that you share your mount’s space during combat. To me that implies they have a single space and not each have their own space that shares the same squares. (In fact you could argue that if they did each have their own space both mount and rider would provoke an AoO when moving through a threatened square allowing an opponent with Combat Reflexes to take an attack against each one.)

The Escape Route feat, while it does not explicitly say so, heavily implies the two creatures who have the feat would each have to occupy their own distinct space to allow the interaction (i.e the "moving through squares adjacent to you or within your space.) required to gain the benefit.

Anyway, I did not see the harm in putting my view out there. Obviously for PFS using 1E rules my view would not be the table stance but in my home games that would be how I would (and have) rule(d).


HalifaxDM wrote:
In fact you could argue that if they did each have their own space both mount and rider would provoke an AoO when moving through a threatened square allowing an opponent with Combat Reflexes to take an attack against each one.

What makes you think they don't?

A creature with combat reflexes could make attacks against both.

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). Your total movement for the round can’t exceed double your mounted speed. You and your mount do not provoke an attack of opportunity from the opponent that you attack.

Ride by attack has that line for a reason.


willuwontu wrote:
HalifaxDM wrote:
In fact you could argue that if they did each have their own space both mount and rider would provoke an AoO when moving through a threatened square allowing an opponent with Combat Reflexes to take an attack against each one.

What makes you think they don't?

A creature with combat reflexes could make attacks against both.

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). Your total movement for the round can’t exceed double your mounted speed. You and your mount do not provoke an attack of opportunity from the opponent that you attack.
Ride by attack has that line for a reason.

Well I can see how it could be interpreted that way. I could also see how that could just careful wording to ensure it was clear that an AoO could not be made on the mount even though it is not the creature with the feat.

That be said, I concede the point.

I apologize for stirring the coals. I missed the conversation earlier and was genuinely intrigued.


All good.
It's always good to engage in healthy discussion, we're all probably just a little paranoid about the unhealthy discussions =P

For the record, I agree with you completely that this is almost certainly how it was intended, but it's not how it ended up being written. In any game I run I would play it your way, and I would talk to my GM before bringing this to a game as a player.

Also it's good for you to learn that a mount absolutely DOES provoke its own AoOs for moving through threatened squares. Many players and GMs have a gentlemens' agreement about mounts, it goes something like this: If the mount is merely used for movement then it's (mostly) off limits as far as being murdered is concerned, but if the mount becomes a combatant (starts making attacks of its own) then it's fair game.

If you're playing a mounted character then remember that MOUNTED COMBAT is not just a prerequisite for other things.


I've never felt this feat allowed a mount total movement freedom on a battle field. The rider is hardly escaping because the mount happens to be going along the same path as he. Nor are either one moving through each other.

It rubs me wrong to read it otherwise.

Again like grey warden I'm not really interested in the "RAW it technicallys"
To me it doesnt seem close to accurate to allow total freedom based on the fact you're moving WITH someone. Not within. Not through.

I'm only here to chime that in, although I know I may be in the minority.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Escape Route question All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.