| 6 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The grammar of the RAW suggests you cannot do so since the relevant, seemingly permissive sentence is second from the end of a paragraph whose context concerns a mount double-moving or running, and, elsewhere, the "normal" text of Mounted Skirmisher (a 9yo APG feat) is absolutely unambiguous that you cannot.
(FAQ button futilely thwapped in these dark days of PF1 decline, because I was politely "dared" to.)
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's my take on this, written so that both sides are represented.
TLDR:
- Melee: you can full-attack only if your mount moves 5ft or less, unless you also possess the Mounted Skirmisher feat.
- Ranged: you can always full attack. If your mount double-moves, the attacks occur in the middle of the total movement, with a -4 penalty to hit. If your mount runs, the attacks occur in the middle of the total movement, with a -8 penalty to hit. The Mounted Archery feat halves these penalties. Mounted Skirmisher does not apply.
Long version:
When you attack a creature smaller than your mount that is on foot, you get the +1 bonus on melee attacks for being on higher ground. 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. Even at your mount’s full speed, you don’t take any penalty on melee attacks while mounted.
Here we learn that you can full-attack, in melee, only if your mount moves 5ft or less. This sentence is quoted by the Mounted Skirmisher feat as the "Normal" case. The following sentence expands on the reasoning behind this rule, which revolves around proximity: you can't full-attack, if you have to wait for your mount to approach the target. Again, proximity is a problem for melee attacks, definitely not ranged ones. The paragraph then ends.
The new paragraph specifically refers to ranged combat, and in no way refers to the melee case: therefore there is no reason to believe that anything that was said before about melee attacks would apply to ranged combat as well.
You can use ranged weapons while your mount is taking a double move, but at a –4 penalty on the attack roll. You can use ranged weapons while your mount is running (quadruple speed) at a –8 penalty. In either case, you make the attack roll when your mount has completed half its movement. You can make a full attack with a ranged weapon while your mount is moving. Likewise, you can take move actions normally.
The paragraph is composed of 5 sentences. From each one we learn that:
- when the mount is double moving, you can full-attack at -4 penalty to hit- when the mount is running, you can full-attack at -8 penalty
- when double-moving or running, the full-attack occurs at mid-movement (dependent on the previous two sentences)
- in general, you can full attack while your mount is moving (boldfaced, no reference to the previous sentences)
- in general, you can do both standard and move actions when your mount is moving (dependent on the previous sentence)
From this we conclude that you can already full-attack at range when the mount is moving. Therefore, the Mounted Skirmisher feat does not apply to ranged combat, and only applies to the melee case. Hence, both the Benefit and the Normal sections only apply to the melee case (which is why "melee" was not explicitly mentioned, although it should have been for clarity's sake).
Saying otherwise would imply that the Mounted Skirmisher feat either renders the aforementioned boldfaced sentence useless, or completely contradicts it, making the feat an actual Errata (which I don't think it is).
I think this summarizes all the relevant rules involved. You are welcome to upvote this reply if you feel in agreement with it, otherwise please point out where the reasoning is flawed.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can use ranged weapons while your mount is taking a double move, but at a –4 penalty on the attack roll.
You can use ranged weapons while your mount is running (quadruple speed) at a –8 penalty.
In either case, you make the attack roll when your mount has completed half its movement.
You can make a full attack with a ranged weapon while your mount is moving.
Likewise, you can take move actions normally.
This says we can move and full attack. It also talks about double moving and running. Each thing is separate. We can move and full round. We can double move and full round at -4. We can run and full round at -8.
"Each thing is..." NOT "...separate. They (the "things", or sentences) are in a paragraph. A paragraph is a writing discourse construct which provides context (such as, for pertinent example, ridden animals performing a double-move). Later sentences in a paragraph are, or at least should be, dependent upon the context established by preceding sentences within the paragraph. If your paragraphs aren't grouping by context (i.e, you're simply using them to make your prose look pretty by introducing periodic, aesthetically-pleasing carriage-return breaks), then you're not Englishing well.You can use ranged weapons while your mount is taking a double move, but at a –4 penalty on the attack roll.
You can use ranged weapons while your mount is running (quadruple speed) at a –8 penalty.
In either case, you make the attack roll when your mount has completed half its movement.
You can make a full attack with a ranged weapon while your mount is moving.
Likewise, you can take move actions normally.
This says we can move and full attack. It also talks about double moving and running. Each thing is separate. We can move and full round. We can double move and full round at -4. We can run and full round at -8.
You can use ranged weapons while your mount is taking a double move, but at a –4 penalty on the attack roll. You can use ranged weapons while your mount is running (quadruple speed) at a –8 penalty. In either case, you make the attack roll when your mount has completed half its movement. You can make a full attack with a ranged weapon while your mount is moving. Likewise, you can take move actions normally.
The context, established by the first sentence of the paragraph, is archery from double-moving or running mounts. The sentence "You can make a full attack with a ranged weapon while your mount is moving" is dependent upon the context of its paragraph. You're not permitted to simply to simply assume that you're entitled to full-attack archery in situations outside of the paragraph's context. --If you're going to do that, then why not also ignore the -4/-8 penalties while you're at it, since they don't appear in the sentence? (It wouldn't surprise me at all, at this point, to learn that many players are.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, in a core-only game, you can do that, but when APG is allowed, you suddenly can't because a f$*@ing normal line in the latter overrules the CRB?
The Paragraph is about mounted archery. That's the context. The paragraph isn't about double-movement, it's about mounted archery. They address single attacks first because those're explained in the actions in combat-rules first.
You wanna talk about poor reading habits? The sentence literally before the one in question says "In either case, you make the attack roll when your mount has completed half its movement." That is how a sentence shows that it only applies in the context of what's writen before. Please point out where a similar indicator is in the sentence "You can make a full attack with a ranged weapon while your mount is moving."
As I've said in the other thread, the normal line for Potion Glutton proves that normal lines can indeed be erroneous. As proven by the relevant FAQ, when a rule and a normal line clashes, it's the rule that stands. Which is exactly what's happening in this case - the normal line should only apply to melee attacks, because ranged attacks have a different rule.
The Paragraph is about mounted archery. That's the context.
That's an assumption blatantly at odds with the first sentence of the paragraph. Its context, established in the first sentence, is archery from double-moving or running mounts.
The context of a paragraph is established by its initial sentences. If you're insisting the context is something else (such as a context more broad than was established in the initial sentences), and not only that, but that your interpretation is also what the writers also originally meant (i.e., in opposition to what proper grammar would imply, or RAW) -- then you're essentially maintaining that (a) Paizo's English-fu is crappy, and (b) players must be able to read crappy in order to account for it and thereby glean the one, true intent.
While the GM in me would like to support Slim Jim's interpretation, I don't think the "normal" text in the Mounted Skirmisher feat is sufficient to override what seems to be pretty clear in the CRB .
More broadly, I think this is an example of one of all too many of Pathfinder's self-inflicted wounds. The Paizo design team's poor quality control, apparent unwillingness or inability to address rules issues such as this, and pivot towards PF2 (whatever that might turn out to be) continue to mar what could have been a much, much cleaner and easier to use game system.
Just here to point out that the mounted combat text was lifted unchanged from D&D (identical word-for-word), and mounted skirmisher was never a part of that.
Just here to point out that the mounted combat text was lifted unchanged from D&D (identical word-for-word), and mounted skirmisher was never a part of that.
Which is, to some degree, the root source of this problem. The CRB is essentially a copy and past of the 3.5 OGL. However, it didn't include important non-OGL 3.5 material such as that found in the DMG or Skip Williams' Rules of the Game, http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/arch/rg . Paizo never took the opportunity to fully revise and rewrite the CRB so that it incorporated concepts from sources such as these or otherwise filled in the holes in the OGL rules.
FWIW, the Rules of the Game All About Mounts (four) is very explicit that one can make a full ranged attack from a moving mount. While this is not Pathfinder official, it would guide my reading of the Pathfinder CRB.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Paragraph is about mounted archery. That's the context.That's an assumption blatantly at odds with the first sentence of the paragraph. Its context, established in the first sentence, is archery from double-moving or running mounts.
The context of a paragraph is established by its initial sentences. If you're insisting the context is something else (such as a context more broad than was established in the initial sentences), and not only that, but that your interpretation is also what the writers also originally meant (i.e., in opposition to what proper grammar would imply, or RAW) -- then you're essentially maintaining that (a) Paizo's English-fu is crappy, and (b) players must be able to read crappy in order to account for it and thereby glean the one, true intent.
Derklord is more on the money than you are Slim Jim. If we were to follow your suggestion of assuming the opening sentence determines the context, we'd be looking at the paragraph on melee attacks and concluding that the prohibition on full attacks only applies when attacking smaller creatures that are on foot. Since that doesn't make any sense, we're forced to conclude that the paragraph on melee combat from a mount is a mixed bag of rules that all apply to mounted melee combat - much like we're arguing for mounted ranged combat.
Bottom line, there's an explicit allowance to take a full attack while a mount is moving in the Core Rulebook. It fits with the explained rationale for disallowing the same with melee combat two paragraphs earlier. Taken together, it's fairly obvious that mounted archers can take multiple attacks even if their mount moves more than 5'.
First off, no one in my group ever really fights while mounted, so it has never come up. I'm not here to put in my 2 cents, but I've been reading a couple of threads where this has come up and I'm curious about something. I was trying to ask my group if they ever thought about it and what was the rule, but I was having trouble framing the initial inquiry.
Is the OP saying that you can get a full attack with ranged while your mount has taken a 5 foot step, a double move, or a run, but not a normal move?
For example, if my mount as a 60' MR, I can get a full ranged attack if he moves: 5', 120', or 240', but not 60'?
I'm just curious and if this question derails the discussion, feel free to ignore. Thanks! :)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Given the blatant contradiction, the most likely possibility is that the writer/editor of Mounted Skirmisher forgot that ranged attacks were a thing when finalizing the feat text. I'll take the Combat text over supposed stealth-erratum in a feat. You can full-attack with ranged attacks while your mount moves, and the penalty applied depends on how much your mount moves. Mounted Skirmisher doesn't do anything for ranged attacks.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is the OP saying that you can get a full attack with ranged while your mount has taken a 5 foot step, a double move, or a run, but not a normal move?
For example, if my mount as a 60' MR, I can get a full ranged attack if he moves: 5', 120', or 240', but not 60'?
Yes, that is what the OP is saying, which is why most of us think he is nuts.
|
|
Given the blatant contradiction
I agree with what you said, I just wanted to point out that, in my opinion, the contradiction is only apparent, and it disappears the moment we realise that the whole scope, or area of effect, of Mounted Skirmisher is already melee mounted combat alone. Hence, there is no need to specify "melee" in the feat, as it is implied by the scope of the feat.
From this we conclude that you can already full-attack at range when the mount is moving. Therefore, the Mounted Skirmisher feat does not apply to ranged combat, and only applies to the melee case. Hence, both the Benefit and the Normal sections only apply to the melee case (which is why "melee" was not explicitly mentioned, although it should have been for clarity's sake).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I Copied these from the SRD:
You may still use your move action should you desire before/during/after the mounts move.
A 5 Foot Step action can still only be taken once a turn regardless of mounted or dismounted.Melee:
If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only make a single melee attack.
You can direct your mount to attack in battle using its Standard Action (see combat while mounted below).
Should both you and the Mount have their Full Attacks available and only moved 5 feet in total then both can take their full attacks.Ranged:
You can take all available ranged attacks if your mount has moved.
If you take your attacks as the mount is moving you may your attack when it has completed ½ its movement.
You take a penalty to all Ranged Attacks while mounted depending on how much the mount moved.
Mount Single Move: No penalty
Mount Double Move: -4
Mount Ran: -8
The Paragraph is about mounted archery. That's the context.That's an assumption blatantly at odds with the first sentence of the paragraph. Its context, established in the first sentence, is archery from double-moving or running mounts.
The context of a paragraph is established by its initial sentences. If you're insisting the context is something else (such as a context more broad than was established in the initial sentences), and not only that, but that your interpretation is also what the writers also originally meant (i.e., in opposition to what proper grammar would imply, or RAW) -- then you're essentially maintaining that (a) Paizo's English-fu is crappy, and (b) players must be able to read crappy in order to account for it and thereby glean the one, true intent.
Derklord is more on the money than you are Slim Jim. If we were to follow your suggestion of assuming the opening sentence determines the context, we'd be looking at the paragraph on melee attacks and concluding that the prohibition on full attacks only applies when attacking smaller creatures that are on foot. Since that doesn't make any sense, we're forced to conclude that the paragraph on melee combat from a mount is a mixed bag of rules that all apply to mounted melee combat - much like we're arguing for mounted ranged combat.
Bottom line, there's an explicit allowance to take a full attack while a mount is moving in the Core Rulebook. It fits with the explained rationale for disallowing the same with melee combat two paragraphs earlier. Taken together, it's fairly obvious that mounted archers can take multiple attacks even if their mount moves more than 5'.
Essentially, you're stipulating that since the writers don't English well when it comes to the grammatical purpose of paragraphs, that it is then up to their customers to expect that and to get into the habit of deliberately reading badly in order to compensate and reverse-engineer what it is that they assume was the original intent, which is the opened-ended assumption floodgates every power-gamer craves. I can easily envision players arguing that their full-attack archery atop a moving mount is not even subject to -4 penalties if the mount doesn't exceed a single move -- because why not ignore everything in the paragraph and cherrypick out that one sentence that's concentrated awesome-sauce? I mean, if context is something to be cavalierly discarded whenever desired. (In other words, the exact sort of theory-crafting that the idea of RAW is conceptually intended to rein in.)
In combination with the near-universal forgetfulness involving soft-cover ranged-attack penalties, it's not wonder archery is held to be so dope.
(Out of almost 8 billion people IRL, there are maybe a hundred that could shoot more than one arrow in six seconds from the back of a galloping horse and manage to hit an also moving target smaller than a cement truck, and 95 of them are probably Mongols, Hungarians, or Japanese with decades devoted to mastering traditional historical combat techniques. I.e., a rough approximation of the high-level requirements of Mounted Skirmisher, etc.)
Myeh.
Of non-pertinent curiosity, what's the wording in either Starfinder or PF2?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I Copied these from the SRD:You may still use your move action should you desire before/during/after the mounts move.
A 5 Foot Step action can still only be taken once a turn regardless of mounted or dismounted.Melee:
If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only make a single melee attack.
You can direct your mount to attack in battle using its Standard Action (see combat while mounted below).
Should both you and the Mount have their Full Attacks available and only moved 5 feet in total then both can take their full attacks.Ranged:
You can take all available ranged attacks if your mount has moved.
If you take your attacks as the mount is moving you may your attack when it has completed ½ its movement.
You take a penalty to all Ranged Attacks while mounted depending on how much the mount moved.
Mount Single Move: No penalty
Mount Double Move: -4
Mount Ran: -8
Could you please link your source containing these precise wordings?
Google: No results found for "You can take all available ranged attacks if your mount has moved".
Google: No results found for "You take a penalty to all Ranged Attacks while mounted depending on how much the mount moved".
Here is a link to the AonPRD section.
I believe however, the quote you have there involved Kujaku not properly closing his quote tags and include his personal summary in the quote.
|
@Slim Jim
You should look at the rules about full attacks first.
The only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step. You may take the step before, after, or between your attacks.
A rider isn't taking any movement. It is the mount that moves. The movement or your vehicle or mounts don't count, or no one would be able to take any full actions as the Golarion move in space.
The mounted combat rule modifies that general rule, but none of them say that you can't take a full attack with a ranged weapon while riding, while there is one that says that you can't take a full attack with a melee weapon if your mount moves more than 5'.| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do you ever assume if you are the only one arguing a point that you might be the wrong one?
Like this isn't an opinion, everyone else in the thread is saying you are wrong. This is not a situation where the opinion of the masses is incorrect.
Just walk away man. You are wrong.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Given the blatant contradictionI agree with what you said, I just wanted to point out that, in my opinion, the contradiction is only apparent, and it disappears the moment we realise that the whole scope, or area of effect, of Mounted Skirmisher is already melee mounted combat alone. Hence, there is no need to specify "melee" in the feat, as it is implied by the scope of the feat.
From this we conclude that you can already full-attack at range when the mount is moving. Therefore, the Mounted Skirmisher feat does not apply to ranged combat, and only applies to the melee case. Hence, both the Benefit and the Normal sections only apply to the melee case (which is why "melee" was not explicitly mentioned, although it should have been for clarity's sake).
I agree. It would have been nice if they'd explicitly established that scope in the feat, though.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Essentially, you're stipulating that since the writers don't English well when it comes to the grammatical purpose of paragraphs, that it is then up to their customers to expect that and to get into the habit of deliberately reading badly in order to compensate and reverse-engineer what it is that they assume was the original intent, which is the opened-ended assumption floodgates every power-gamer craves.
Welcome to the real world, pal, where game rules are 99.99% of the time written by humans instead of logic engines. You are expected to bring your brain to the table when reading the rules text.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I had an IRL Wish, I'll use it to get an official answer, telling you that you are wrong (because you clearly are),then i ll start mining.
Now it's just the galileo syndrome: "everyone tells me im wrong but that s proof i m right". And calling everyone who can read correctly a power gamer cause you are unable to accept that you are wrong it is cherry on the cake.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In fairness to Slim Jim, part of his confusion on this is a result of how the general tone and the game rules have evolved. Prior to 3.0, D&D was a much more free form system, with GM interpretation being a lot more key to everything. 3.0 changed to codify a lot more, and become more rules focused and that direction has continued. It would be very difficult to have a organized play like PFS in AD&D, for example, because table variation is so baked into the system.
3.0 was very much a transition piece though, and the mounted combat is evidence of that. It is much more a series of guidelines and afterthought and not nearly as heavily worked out as the rest of the system (as an example, how charge interacts with both mount and rider has remained something of a mess) and mounted combat has remained an afterthought. In fact, the Pathfinder rules mounted combat is virtually word for word what was in 3.0.
If written now, I would expect it to be written differently and be more clear as well as more detailed. And the mounted skirmisher feat certainly doesn't help clarify anything.
That said, he is still wrong and doesn't understand grammar as well as he thinks he does.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
When you attack a creature smaller than your mount that is on foot, you get the +1 bonus on melee attacks for being on higher ground. 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. Even at your mount’s full speed, you don’t take any penalty on melee attacks while mounted.
If your mount charges, you also take the AC penalty associated with a charge. If you make an attack at the end of the charge, you receive the bonus gained from the charge. When charging on horseback, you deal double damage with a lance (see Charge).
You can use ranged weapons while your mount is taking a double move, but at a –4 penalty on the attack roll. You can use ranged weapons while your mount is running (quadruple speed) at a –8 penalty. In either case, you make the attack roll when your mount has completed half its movement. You can make a full attack with a ranged weapon while your mount is moving. Likewise, you can take move actions normally.
It honestly couldn't be more clear.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Essentially, you're stipulating that since the writers don't English well when it comes to the grammatical purpose of paragraphs, that it is then up to their customers to expect that and to get into the habit of deliberately reading badly in order to compensate and reverse-engineer what it is that they assume was the original intent, which is the opened-ended assumption floodgates every power-gamer craves. I can easily envision players arguing that their full-attack archery atop a moving mount is not even subject to -4 penalties if the mount doesn't exceed a single move -- because why not ignore everything in the paragraph and cherrypick out that one sentence that's concentrated awesome-sauce? I mean, if context is something to be cavalierly discarded whenever desired. (In other words, the exact sort of theory-crafting that the idea of RAW is conceptually intended to rein in.)
No, I'm expecting the reader to engage their brain and read and understand the rules in whole context rather than read like a bot only able to apply limited logic to the situation. That whole context makes the rule pretty clear.
By the way, it's easy to envision a player arguing their full attack archer atop a moving mount isn't subject to the -4 if the mount doesn't exceed a single move... because that penalty is only applied the mount taking a double-move. Frankly, I'm beginning to think we're being trolled.
The problem is he's conflating some rules.
If you move (which uses up a move action) of course it prevents making a full attack. Being moved while mounted doesn't use up your move action, it explicitly uses the mount's.
Now the rules also state that specifically melee attackers can't take multiple attacks because "essentially they have to wait". Which doesn't say anything about ranged attacks.
You can use ranged weapons while your mount is taking a double move, but at a –4 penalty on the attack roll. You can use ranged weapons while your mount is running (quadruple speed) at a –8 penalty. In either case, you make the attack roll when your mount has completed half its movement. You can make a full attack with a ranged weapon while your mount is moving. Likewise, you can take move actions normally.It honestly couldn't be more clear.
I disagree on that.
You can make a full attack with a ranged weapon while your mount is moving. You can use ranged weapons while your mount is taking a double move, but at a –4 penalty on the attack roll. You can use ranged weapons while your mount is running (quadruple speed) at a –8 penalty. In either case, you make the attack roll when your mount has completed half its movement. Likewise, you can take move actions normally.
Would indeed be more readable and easier to quickly understand. It would be a better organized paragraph and better written. Where Slim Jim goes wrong though, is that while the second organization is better, it isn't any different at all in meaning. Grammatically they are identical.
1: If the mount makes a single move, what are the penalties to my ranged full attack? Or am I suddenly disallowed to?
The latter would be ridiculous if ranged full attack is allowed on a longer move.
No penalty is listed for a single move, so there are no penalties.2: If the mount makes a move action and takes a standard action (say the mount decides to aid another my ranged attack, or cast Entangle because it can) does this prevent the rider from making a full attack?
Unless there is a quote saying otherwise, the mount taking a standard action does not interfere with the rider's combat abilities.
3: If the mount makes a move and then does a melee attack, does that interfere with the riders ranged attack? Can he still perform a full attack?
See 2.
4: If the mount makes a charge, which is a double move + attack, can the rider still make a ranged full attack half way to the mount's target?
Excellent question.
You can use ranged weapons while your mount is taking a double move, but at a –4 penalty on the attack roll.
If you use two move actions in a round (sometimes called a “double move” action), you can move up to double your speed.
Charging is a special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action.
The RAW suggests that a Charge is not a Double Move. So a GM could reasonably rule (a) No penalty, (b) No firing allowed, or (c) Just treat is as a double move for accuracy penalties.
'No firing allowed' is probably the most consistent with the idea that the rider is also charging during a charge.
I don't think the first three of these necessarily need to be addressed.
@1: Penalties are only stated for double moving and for running, nothign else. Nothing overrules the default rule on whether you can or can't make a full attack
@2: Apart from charging, nothing says that the mount doing anything effects whether you can make or not make ranged attacks.
@3: Dito.
@4: As per this FAQ, when the mount is charging, so is the rider, and charge doesn't usually allows any ranged attacks. Which means that Paizo has admitted that it should be addressed.
There is a rule that says "You can make a full attack with a ranged weapon while your mount is moving.", and unless something make a limitation to that rule, it stands. It doesn't matter if the Mount is doing a somersault, balancing on the tip of of one hoof, swimming, jumping, or producing horse droppings, as long as you can stay in the saddle and no more specific rule says otherwise, you can make a ranged full attack. Because that is how the rules work, if you have a standing rule, you need another rule to override it.
If the erroneous normal line in mounted Skirmisher didn't exist, would anyone even come up with the idea that you can't full attack when your mount moves?
I do think the section could be cleared, but it's not actually that bad.
Edit: Ninja'd by 17 seconds!
Quote the 'standing rule'.
"You can make a full attack with a ranged weapon while your mount is moving." THat's the standing rule for anything that involves the mount, well, moving. For other cases, the rules on full attacks in the combat section (pg. 187) in combination with the rules for iterative attacks and those of the options that grant you additional attacks (e.g. Rapid Shot).
One paragraph says if you move less than 5' you can make a full attack.
That one's about melee attacks and thus utterly irrelevant.
A reasonable alternative interpretation is that you go from 5' with no penalties, to -4 if the mount moves anywhere between 10' and double its move, and the mount is forced to take 2 move actions.
It's not a reasonable interpretation, because it's not an interpretation at all, it's an extrapolation. The sentences talking about penalty explicitly say "double move" and "running", respectively. There is no general penalty on ranged attacks for a mount moving, only for those two specific types of movement.
Why would this be reasonable? Because mounted archery is difficult. You are on a constantly jostling platform that impedes your aim.
Real life reasoning, thus irrelevant.
It could be that spell casting, attacks, or other standard actions do or don't have an effect on the rider's ranged attacks.
If there was, there'd be a rule that says so.
RAW only addresses not moving more than 5', a double move or a double run.
This is wrong. Because "You can make a full attack with a ranged weapon while your mount is moving." encompasses all movement, no matter the distance. That sentence could say 'You can make a full attack with a ranged weapon while your mount is either taking a double move or running.', but it doesn't.
you seem to have quoted the quote that you're asking for
Combat while Mounted
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.
When you attack a creature smaller than your mount that is on foot, you get the +1 bonus on melee attacks for being on higher ground. 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. Even at your mount’s full speed, you don’t take any penalty on melee attacks while mounted.If your mount charges, you also take the AC penalty associated with a charge. If you make an attack at the end of the charge, you receive the bonus gained from the charge. When charging on horseback, you deal double damage with a lance (see Charge).
You can use ranged weapons while your mount is taking a double move, but at a –4 penalty on the attack roll. You can use ranged weapons while your mount is running (quadruple speed) at a –8 penalty. In either case, you make the attack roll when your mount has completed half its movement. You can make a full attack with a ranged weapon while your mount is moving. Likewise, you can take move actions normally.
I continue to be confused as to why people think that preceding sentences in a paragraph narrow the scope of a paragraph.
"We should not call other posters stupid. We should not call other posters imbeciles. We should treat other people with respect."
That paragraph is not an argument that it is acceptable or respectful to call another poster a 'jerk.' It is, in fact, the opposite.
That "you can make a full attack with a ranged weapon..." quote is after the part where it talks about making a double move or a double run. In context it refers to the previous three sentences in the paragraph.
You can use ranged weapons while your mount is taking a double move, but at a –4 penalty on the attack roll. You can use ranged weapons while your mount is running (quadruple speed) at a –8 penalty. In either case, you make the attack roll when your mount has completed half its movement. You can make a full attack with a ranged weapon while your mount is moving.
The previous three sentences are talking about penalties to hit. There's no reason to think that the other sentence is only saying you can make full attacks when you are suffering one of those two penalties. If that was the case, (a) it would be a stupid rule, because then you could fire more arrows per round on a fast-moving horse than on a slow-moving horse, which would serve neither realism nor gameplay, and (b) it would be terrible writing, because there's no rule anywhere stopping you from making ranged full-attacks on a single-moving mount.
A more plausible assumption is that someone deleted a paragraph break to fit things more neatly onto the page, and this created the apparent 'context'.
I disagree on that.You can use ranged weapons while your mount is taking a double move, but at a –4 penalty on the attack roll. You can use ranged weapons while your mount is running (quadruple speed) at a –8 penalty. In either case, you make the attack roll when your mount has completed half its movement. You can make a full attack with a ranged weapon while your mount is moving. Likewise, you can take move actions normally.It honestly couldn't be more clear.
Hooray! A second champion for English is found!
You can make a full attack with a ranged weapon while your mount is moving. You can use ranged weapons while your mount is taking a double move, but at a –4 penalty on the attack roll. You can use ranged weapons while your mount is running (quadruple speed) at a –8 penalty. In either case, you make the attack roll when your mount has completed half its movement. Likewise, you can take move actions normally.Would indeed be more readable and easier to quickly understand. It would be a better organized paragraph and better written. Where Slim Jim goes wrong though, is that while the second organization is better, it isn't any different at all in meaning. Grammatically they are identical.
Even though the sentences are the same, the paragraphs are not grammatically identical because paragraphs are about establishing context and dependance (i.e., in the same manner as software coding produces different output if lines are reordered); the "alternate paragraph" above clearly establishes its context in its first sentence to clearly state that full ranged attacks are always available while mounted. It is indeed the way the paragraph should have been written...if that is actually what the writers originally intended. But in the existing, Paizoese version, a cart-blanche ability to ranged full-attack while mounted can only be inferred by cherry-picking a desirable tertiary sentence out of the rear-end of the paragraph and mounting it on a pedestal for solitary worship impervious to any grammatically implied IF>THEN dependency context.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
And now, for the segue into Mailbox Murder!
* You'll need a convertible car (because what could be more fun rental on a fresh spring day, and also, nobody knows how to ride a horse anymore, so we must go with what we know)...and a yard stick, as well as a friend who is not too suicidally minded. You, Ser Keniggut, will be the rider of this trusty, full-plated steed wearing Horseshoes of Speed.
* With your mount accelerated to approximately 35mph (let's call that a normal rate of move, with 70 being a double-move, etc), hold your yardstick out as you zoom past a stand of mailboxes. Clang! Clang! Clang! Clang! Clang! --Bully you: ya nailed every one on your very first try! Five in one go...what was your BAB again? You didn't have Cleave, did you? And how is it that the last one wasn't any harder to hit than the first? Weird, right?
In the Paizoverse, this is impossible. Without Mounted Skirmisher, you will not get a full melee attack on those mailboxes even though you, a miserable BAB0, 1st-level commoner with one rank in "Drive", can easily pull this off on mudball Earth (as opposed to Golarion), even though the mailboxes are size "Tiny" (albeit stationary) objects mounted on posts. Said waif (you) could probably still accomplish this even if you mount were being difficult to control (i.e., your passenger was tasked with jiggling to wheel a little bit, keeping your right arm occupied correcting your course.)
But now lets alter our motoring experiment slightly -- to one which purportedly is possible, according to apparently prevalent interpretations of Paizoese:
* Instead of your +1 longsword of mailbox-slaying, you are now wielding a bow. Because you need both hands, you will be multitasking like boss, and "guiding" your mount with lower appendages. Per above procedure, your passenger will simulate mount-control difficulties.
* Driving at a modest distance from them (one ranged increment for a composite longbow is 110ft, right?), you will now attempt to shoot each mailbox with an arrow as you drive by.
How many years do you think it'll be before you master this?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
To be sure, the game features quite a lot of improbable nonsense at the mundane level (e.g., killer housecats and squirrels, etc), but none, I think, are as credulity-defying at this.
But now lets alter our motoring experiment slightly -- to one which purportedly is possible, according to apparently prevalent interpretations of Paizoese:
* Instead of your +1 longsword of mailbox-slaying, you are now wielding a bow. Because you need both hands, you will be multitasking like boss, and "guiding" your mount with lower appendages. Per above procedure, your passenger will simulate mount-control difficulties.
* Driving at a modest distance from them (one ranged increment for a composite longbow is 110ft, right?), you will now attempt to shoot each mailbox with an arrow as you drive by.
It sounds like you are saying that a full attack with a bow should be impossible while the horse is moving, but I thought your original premise was that you could only do it when your mount moves 5', double move (70mph in your example), or runs (140mph in your example), but NOT at a normal move (35mph in your example).
So which is it? Should mounted archers only get one attack if the mount moves at all (not counting a 5' step) or should they get a full attack if the mount double moves or runs, but not if the mount only does a single move?
|
|
Even though the sentences are the same, the paragraphs are not grammatically identical because paragraphs are about establishing context and dependance (i.e., in the same manner as software coding produces different output if lines are reordered); the "alternate paragraph" above clearly establishes its context in its first sentence to clearly state that full ranged attacks are always available while mounted. It is indeed the way the paragraph should have been written...if that is actually what the writers originally intended. But in the existing, Paizoese version, a cart-blanche ability to ranged full-attack while mounted can only be inferred by cherry-picking a desirable tertiary sentence out of the rear-end of the paragraph and mounting it on a pedestal for solitary worship impervious to any grammatically implied IF>THEN dependency context.
The paragraphs are grammatically identical. The absence of any conjunction referring to the previous sentences makes the phrase "You can make a full attack with a ranged weapon while your mount is moving" grammatically independent from the previous ones. Therefore, you can rearrange its position within the paragraph without altering the overall meaning.
"I can read while jogging, but it's difficult. I can read while running, but it's very difficult. I can read while walking."
is grammatically and semantically the same as
"I can read while walking. I can read while jogging, but it's difficult. I can read while running, but it's very difficult"
and neither of the two suggest that reading while walking is a difficult task for the speaker.
Speaking of context:
The context, established by the first sentence of the paragraph
this is just plain wrong. The context of a text should never be inferred only from the first sentence, but from the entirety of the text. And the context here is "actions you can do at range when your mount is moving", not "double-moving and/or running", since clearly not the whole text refers to that.
Please accept the fact that this time you're wrong, that your ability to understand written language may not be as impeccable as you think it is, despite your unnecessarily verbose examples.
Also, let's stop misrepresenting consensus:
So if the mount takes a single move...ranged attacks aren't defined. Some people argue for no penalty.
If the mount takes a single move, you can full-attack at range at no penalty. This is not what "some people argue": this is the general consensus, the way RAW is applied in the majority of home and organized games. At the moment the only person who thinks otherwise is Slim Jim, with Meirril giving him the benefit of the doubt.
So let me get this straight. Despite everyone saying you are wrong, SLImJIm refuses to cede the point in any way shape or form?
I dont see a point in continuing the discussion. You are wrong SJ. If you wont believe literally everyone else, and we all know you are just wrong...
Might as well just move on lol
...and we all know you are just wrong....
"We", asserted Richard Gere's gerbil, whom Snopes hastens to assure me never existed.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The definition of a paragraph is
1.a distinct section of a piece of writing, usually dealing with a single theme and indicated by a new line, indentation, or numbering.
Would you agree, or not agree, that the sentence "You can make a full attack with a ranged weapon while your mount is moving." meets that definition? --If yes, then that sentence should be leading its own paragraph, not be buried at the back end of another paragraph concerning the corner-case of eating a penalty to get off a shot during a gallop.
But it wasn't, and therefore isn't stand-alone, but dependent upon the "theme" (i.e., or the context, that synonymous term I employed previously) of the paragraph it is part of, but does not lead.