Riding mounts and Attacks of Opportunity

[Michael Milburn]

So, I have a guy in my campaign who has a halfling wiz. He shrinks himself down to tiny and then rides his familiar around like a mount. Question is. If the familiar (with halfling aboard) flies thru a threatened space can the monster get an attack of opportunity against the character? Of course he can against the mount but if combat reflexes ... can the monster attack both? Rules are vague on this. As the mount is using the "move action" and not the character.

[Quandary]

AoO rules don't care what ACTION you use, it doesn't care if you are using an action or even causing the movement yourself,
it triggers vs MOVEMENT: move action only being 1 example of movement, as is charge etc.
Meaning in your case the rider who is moving on mount definitely provokes just as much as mount does,
likewise as a falling creature using no actions also provokes AoOs (even if they are unconscious).
Bullrush explicitly states the movement it creates DOESN'T provoke AoOs (unless using Greater Bullrush Feat)
which affirms the general rule is movement always provokes UNLESS otherwise stated (as in case of Bullrush).

[Anguish]

I think that the halfling wizard gets soft cover from his mount, and therefore can't be subject to AoO for movement.

But it's late and I'm tired, so could easily be misremembering.

[Name Violation]

Anguish wrote:

I think that the halfling wizard gets soft cover from his mount, and therefore can't be subject to AoO for movement.

But it's late and I'm tired, so could easily be misremembering.

That's actually a use of the ride skill

[Voadkha]

If he is merely tiny riding 'in the open' on the back of a small familiar then the monster can definitely take an AOO at the Wizard.

I vaguely remember there being a rule in 3.5 about a small (or tiny?) person riding a huge (or large; i.e. 3 size categories different) mount gaining actual cover... and it was the all the rage for halflings to ride elephants.

[Sam Phelan]

Moved to Pathfinder RPG Rules Questions.

[_Ozy_]

Moving provokes AoOs. 'Being moved' does not. If you are riding an animal, you are 'being moved,' just as if you're in a wagon or on a boat. If a boat or wagon is moving you past an enemy, do they get an AoO, or do you get one since, relatively, they are moving past you?

The thing that decides who is 'moving' past the other is the one that is taking the action to move, which is what provokes.

[MaxWar]

This is an annoying one.

Strictly RAW it seems the rider would not provoke: The AoO rules in the CRB seem to imply that you need to make an action to provoke. In game terms, the rider is not making an action when being ''carried'' by the mount. All the rider does is use ''Guide with knees''. A DC 5 skill check that is specified as not being an action in the CRB.

But I have a feeling that is not RAI. Is it not possible that the word ''action'' was used in a generic way and not in a game keyword specific way?

I think that allowing the rider to not provoke when mounted might open a can of cheese. I feel that the best way to rule this is by letting the unit making the attack of opportunity choose whether it attacks the rider or the mount. But it cannot attack both at the same time, even with combat reflexes, unless you provoke twice. Such as when moving through more than one threatened squares in a row.

[pjrogers]

Since the mount rules (like much of the rest of the CRB) is essentially a cut paste of the 3.5 OGL, I think it's often useful to look at Skip Williams' Rules of the Game. In All About Movement (Three), he wrote...

"Ride

Though your steed actually does the moving, much of what you do with the Ride skill counts as move action or as movement (or both) for you.

Since your mount takes you along with it when it moves, a move for your mount also counts as a move for you (you're not propelling yourself, but you still spend time moving). So, for example, if you and your mount move, neither you nor your mount can take a 5-foot step during the same turn."

From this, I would infer that the tiny halfling riding his familiar is subject to AoOs.

[_Ozy_]

Except you can do a full ranged attack action while your mount is moving, so clearly you aren't taking any move actions at all using the ride skill to have your mount move. In fact, there's nothing in the rules against your mount taking a full move action, you using the ride skill to dismount as a free action, and then taking a double move yourself.

Let's look at some of the uses of the ride skill:

Quote:

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.

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.

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.

So most of the time when you're using a mount in combat, unless that mount isn't combat trained, you aren't using a move action to do so. I'm not really sure what Skip was getting at since it doesn't seem accurate according to RAW. And there certainly doesn't seem to be any prohibition against dismounting and taking move actions to move after your mount has completed its movement.

[Thedmstrikes]

The rule set is unfortunately silent on the subject of AOOs against riders. Bear in mind that if your mount is not trained for combat, that means a lot of ride checks in combat. Cover is listed as an option, but it prevents you from doing anything while the mount moves, costs you an immediate action (presumably during the mounts movement action) and then a move action to right yourself at the beginning of your turn (since you are prevented from doing any actions while in the "cover" position). What is clear is the mount is using a move action and that triggers an AOO from anything that threatens against it.
There is always the possibility of making a ready action to attack the wizard as he rides through a threatened area.
Everything else becomes house rule territory (to include adopting 3.5 rule augmentations).
One could create a case citing the special rule of the rider adopting the AC penalty and attack bonus of a charge initiated by the mount.

[Matthew Downie]

The Ride-by Attack feat says:

Quote:

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.

This implies that the rider would provoke an attack of opportunity if they tried something similar without the feat.

I know feats aren't the most reliable sources of general rules, but in the absence of anything clearer, it seems like a reasonable indication of intent.

[_Ozy_]

Do passengers provoke if they are also riding, but not controlling the mount?

[Evilserran]

I know I play a lot of PFS, and can't quite cite the rules as well as some of the others, but with my three years of PFS legal play, I have had several characters that ride into battle. We have always done it as the creature can attack 1, rider or mount, and only one, because its the same movement action, so combat reflexes would not be applicable. (that part hadnt seemed to be addressed yet)

[Wheldrake]

The mounted combat rules are predicated on the notion that the rider and his mount are working as a single entity. When the mount moves, you move. Sure, there are several exceptions, like ranged combat where you can still do a full attack with your bow. Nowhere do the rules speak about your character "being moved" by your mount and thus being exempt from AoOs or other consequences of movement.

The Mounted Combat feat allows you to make a ride check to "negate" a hit against you, the implication being that without this feat you are attacked normally.

The notion of "soft cover" is only possible if you "drop down and hang alongside your mount, using it as cover".

FWIW, the mounted combat rules are disorganized and spread all over the place. But they are all predicated on the notion (inherited from DD3.x) that the rider and mount act as one creature. Anyone telling you anything else is blowing smoke up your backside.

[blahpers]

Wheldrake wrote:

The mounted combat rules are predicated on the notion that the rider and his mount are working as a single entity. When the mount moves, you move. Sure, there are several exceptions, like ranged combat where you can still do a full attack with your bow. Nowhere do the rules speak about your character "being moved" by your mount and thus being exempt from AoOs or other consequences of movement.

This is incorrect. The mount uses their move action to move. When the mount moves, the rider is moved. The rider still has their own move action. The only time the mount and rider share the action is when charging.

Quote:

The Mounted Combat feat allows you to make a ride check to "negate" a hit against you, the implication being that without this feat you are attacked normally.

This is also incorrect. The Mounted Combat feat allows the rider to make a Ride check to negate a hit against their mount, not against them.

Quote:

The notion of "soft cover" is only possible if you "drop down and hang alongside your mount, using it as cover".

This is 100% correct.

Quote:

FWIW, the mounted combat rules are disorganized and spread all over the place. But they are all predicated on the notion (inherited from DD3.x) that the rider and mount act as one creature. Anyone telling you anything else is blowing smoke up your backside.

The mounted combat rules are almost entirely located in one clearly-labeled section of the Combat chapter. The only thing missing is the mounted charge FAQ, and that only applies to mounted charges and was supposed to be integrated into future CRB printings (I have no idea if whether that ever happened). That's everything you need to run mounted combat if the rider has no relevant feats. If the character does have such feats, the feat descriptions contain the additional rules needed. What's clear is that as long as you are not charging, you and your mount act as two separate creatures.

Please do not insinuate that anyone who contradicts your understanding of the rules is acting with malice, especially if your own understanding of said rules is less than perfect.

[Wheldrake]

My bad on the few inconsistencies, particumlarly on the Mounted Combat feat. Too much of a hurry.

Nevertheless, I maintain my assertion that the entire system of mounted combat rules are predicated on the idea that the rider and his mount act as a single entity, particularly regarding movement and melee combat. I don't have time right now to look at the old threads referencing specific rules, but no other interpretation works. And nowhere in the rules regarding riding do we find the notion that "When the mount moves, the rider is moved. The rider still has their own move action."

If that were true, you could have your mount do its full move, even a double move, and then have the rider do a full attack action, which isn't the case.

Again, apologies for the "blowing smoke" comment, which was inappropriate, but it doesn't make the notion that a rider retains his move action when the mount moves right.

[Cavall]

I have to admit the idea of not getting a full attack because you need to take time to move and yet somehow you could even if a pet double moves seems really odd.

[Matthew Downie]

Wheldrake wrote:

And nowhere in the rules regarding riding do we find the notion that "When the mount moves, the rider is moved. The rider still has their own move action."

There is no need for an explicit rule saying the rider still has their move action; by default things don't cost actions unless they say so. Moving the mount is a free action. Therefore it is not a move action.

Quote:

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.

Wheldrake wrote:

If that were true, you could have your mount do its full move, even a double move, and then have the rider do a full attack action, which isn't the case.

The rules say:

Quote:

If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only make a single melee attack. Essentially, you have to wait until the mount gets to your enemy before attacking, so you can’t make a full attack.

If the rule was "you must use your move action to move your mount more than five feet" it would say so.

You can still use your move action while waiting for your mount to arrive at your foe, and then use your standard action when you get there. What you can't do is wait six seconds for your mount to arrive at its destination, and then take six seconds' worth of attacks, all in the same six seconds.

And if your mount moving cost your move action, this rule would make no sense:

Quote:

You can make a full attack with a ranged weapon while your mount is moving.