I've seen this multiple times on the net, is it true that PCs with Animal Companions share the same Multiple Attack Penalty during the same turn?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you are mounted on your animal companion, yes. Otherwise, I don't see anything to make people think that.
Something that just never occurred to me before. Say a Ranger makes a Bow attack, then mounts their animal companion then orders it. On it's turn it moves then attacks. Does the Animal Companion suffer the MAP penalty from the ranger's bow attack even though the ranger wasn't mounted at the time?
I haven't seen this particular situation, but I could definitely see it happening.
Something that just never occurred to me before. Say a Ranger makes a Bow attack, then mounts their animal companion then orders it. On it's turn it moves then attacks. Does the Animal Companion suffer the MAP penalty from the ranger's bow attack even though the ranger wasn't mounted at the time?
I haven't seen this particular situation, but I could definitely see it happening.
Well in the case of an animal Companion it acts on the ranger's turn, doesn't it? A minion gets its "turn" when you use the action to command it.
I think by RAW a mount always shares it's rider's MAP regardless of when the attacks were made. What would be less clear is what happens if your rider dismounts and then attacks, or attacks then dismounts. Does the animal retain the MAP after its rider has left?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Something that just never occurred to me before. Say a Ranger makes a Bow attack, then mounts their animal companion then orders it. On it's turn it moves then attacks. Does the Animal Companion suffer the MAP penalty from the ranger's bow attack even though the ranger wasn't mounted at the time?
I haven't seen this particular situation, but I could definitely see it happening.
The mount doesn't have "its turn" because master and minion share initiative.
And when mounted, they share actions. They have three actions, split between mount and rider.
I agree the situation where there is a split between mounted and unmounted actions is ambiguous. Indeed, the whole minion-as-mount situation is ambiguous. But the only satisfactory way to play it is to treat minion and master as standard mounted combat rules.
So in your example:
action 1) Ranger fires
action 2) Ranger mounts his animal companion
action 3) Ranger and animal companion move as one unit
-- end of turn --
Any other interpretation is madness. PF2 goes to great lengths to prevent things like riding a giant tiger into battle which gets pounce and a full attack of bite and 4 claws, in addition to the PC's attacks. Now, when mounted, you have to choose: mount attacks or rider attacks or move together or something else.
But you animal companion could move and attack. It gets 2 actions after all. I was simply putting out that order of actions to illustrate the issue I see. Would the mounted animal companion make their attack at -5, even though the ranger wasnt mounted when he shot his bow?
It is pretty ambiguous.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, your animal companion gets 2 actions as long as it's acting on its own, at your direction. As soon as it becomes a mount, you need to use the mounted combat rules.
The RAW gives us no guidance on this question. Not yet, anyway. I've argued in another thread that you can't have it both ways. The mounted combat rules have to supercede the minion rules, or weird stuff happens that isn't consistent with the spirit of PF2.
So B, I can't say you are wrong "by the RAW". There isn't any RAW on this. If the companion attacked with the third action in the above sequence, I believe it would have to accept the MAP, since it's now acting as a mount, and mounted combat specifies that mount and rider share MAP.
Okay, so flip the situation around. What happens if a Mounted Ranger makes a bow attack, then dismounts and then commands his animal companion, who is no longer a mount. The Animal Companion then strides and strikes a target. This could be very relevant for say, a Goblin Wolf Rider character who likes to ride around on their wolf until combat begins.
Does it still suffer from the MAP generated by the Bow attack, or is it now free of that MAP?
What if that Ranger dismounted, then made an attack, then commanded his Animal Companion? Why should the end result be so different for 3 situations that, in all reality, aren't all that different.
I would love an FAQ for this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, so flip the situation around. What happens if a Mounted Ranger makes a bow attack, then dismounts and then commands his animal companion, who is no longer a mount. The Animal Companion then strides and strikes a target. This could be very relevant for say, a Goblin Wolf Rider character who likes to ride around on their wolf until combat begins.
Does it still suffer from the MAP generated by the Bow attack, or is it now free of that MAP?
What if that Ranger dismounted, then made an attack, then commanded his Animal Companion? Why should the end result be so different for 3 situations that, in all reality, aren't all that different.
I would love an FAQ for this.
It should be free of the MAP in this situation, as it has been commanded and is acting on it's own. The animal companion has not attacked as a mount in this turn.
The odd one would be where the ranger and companion are hasted. The companion and ranger strike, the ranger dismounts, then commands the animal companion.
But, that's such a strange and contrived circumstance that I'm okay leaving it to GM discretion. (I'd probably rule that further attacks are at full MAP)
Other weird interaction: mount attacks, ranger dismounts, commands mount, is the mount or ranger missing an action? Probably the mount.
Okay, so flip the situation around. What happens if a Mounted Ranger makes a bow attack, then dismounts and then commands his animal companion, who is no longer a mount. The Animal Companion then strides and strikes a target. This could be very relevant for say, a Goblin Wolf Rider character who likes to ride around on their wolf until combat begins.
Does it still suffer from the MAP generated by the Bow attack, or is it now free of that MAP?
IMHO, the MAP is now irrelevant. The animal companion has already acted twice in this turn, since the rider took two actions (ranged strike, dismoint) and he was mounted at the time, so his mount took two actions at the same time.
I would say the wolf wouldn't be able to act until the next turn. So the ranger shouldn't bother wasting an action to command the animal companion, since it's already acted and can't get another free turn full of actions.
However, the RAW do not explore this sort of special case in the mounted combat paradigm.
The problem was the same in PF1. The baseline assumption was that the mount and the rider act as a single entity, but this was never stated as such, it was just taken for granted. And some later feats and adventures "forgot" that this premise existed.
In PF2 it's glossed over very quickly.
You and your mount fight as a unit. Consequently, you share a multiple attack penalty.
It's the first short sentence that ought to have been developed further. But the examples they give show what it means to "fight as a unit".
You and your mount are one entity. This entity has 3 actions. Any one of those three actions can be a mount action (move, attack, etc) or a rider action (attack, dismount, etc). They do not each get their own pool of actions to take.
I do not believe this is the case actually. Even a mundane non-companion Horse can in fact have it's own actions if for instance it is Frightened.
Your
mount acts on your initiative. You must use the Command
an Animal action (page 249) to get your mount to spend
its actions.
You do have to spend an action to "Command an Animal" to get a mundane horse or other mount to use their actions, so I can see why you believe that you are "one entity with 3 actions" however this is not true so far as I can tell. If you are mounted on a Frightened and Fleeing horse for instance, and you fail to command it, it is going to run from the source of it's fear with all 3 of it's actions, regardless of what actions you used. The only thing that mounting a mundane horse changes is when it acts, from it's own initiative to your initiative.
Animal Companion's similarly require you to Command them in order to use their 2 actions. Hence why my proposed circumstances are so odd.
Side note, this is actually one of my least favorite things about PF2. An Animal Companion Horse will always be slower than a storebought mundane horse due to having one fewer actions to move with. Even accounting for Gallop, you can move a maximum of 100 feet with an Animal Companion, while a Mundane horse could triple move for 120 feet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Side note, this is actually one of my least favorite things about PF2. An Animal Companion Horse will always be slower than a storebought mundane horse due to having one fewer actions to move with. Even accounting for Gallop, you can move a maximum of 100 feet with an Animal Companion, while a Mundane horse could triple move for 120 feet.
In combat. Outside of encounter mode, there is no reason to believe an animal companion is slower. Also, in combat, the mundane horse is moving 120ft away from the fighting, while the animal companion is doing as ordered.
But, you see, the oddity of a minion only getting 2 actions, even when serving as a mount disappears if you begin with the assumption that the rider and mount act as a single unit, whether the mount is a minion or not, and that the mounted combat rules supercede the minion rules.
I see nothing to be gained by trying to separate the rider's actions from the mount's actions just because that mount is a minion. And it doesn't seem to be in line with the bit I quoted earlier from the PF2 mounted combat rules.
|
Honestly, I think it would work like this:
Ranger is mounted, takes attack, ranger and rider MAP both increase to 5, ranger dismounts, orders companion, and both then attack, both are then attacking at the 5, as they made the attack while mounted and increased both of their MAPs, but now they're independent.
Ranger isn't mounted, attacks, mounts, and orders companion to attack then attacks themselves. Rangers map is at 5, and they're sharing that while they're mounted, so the second attack is at 5 and third attack is at 10.
The one way I think you could avoid the whole situation is Ranger isn't mounted, ranger attacks, commands companion to attack, then mounts. each attack would be at 0, but after mounting, that would jump to 10.
I know, kinda odd, but that's probably how I'd rule it. Given that companions only get to act when commanded, there's not a good way to break this by splitting up moves/attacks (companion has to use both actions when commanded, correct?).
this makes sense as well and jives with the idea that they were "a single unit" at the time they were mounted.
The only issue I see is I believe Mounting and Dismounting are an action. So a Ranger would Ranged Strike, Dismount, Command an animal then he is out of actions.
His now independent Animal Companion could then move and strike at that -5 MAP.
Honestly, I think it would work like this:
Ranger is mounted, takes attack, ranger and rider MAP both increase to 5, ranger dismounts, orders companion, and both then attack, both are then attacking at the 5, as they made the attack while mounted and increased both of their MAPs, but now they're independent.
That's too many actions. Ranger attacks (1), dismounts (2) and orders companion (3). That's the end of the ranger's turn.
The mount/animal companion has already taken two actions by the time the ranger gives him orders. Are you suggesting the animal companion gets *two more* actions?
The second example is also too many actions.
I think the biggest takeaway from this thread is that the mounted combat rules are insufficiently explicit.
|
|
Honestly, I think it would work like this:
Ranger is mounted, takes attack, ranger and rider MAP both increase to 5, ranger dismounts, orders companion, and both then attack, both are then attacking at the 5, as they made the attack while mounted and increased both of their MAPs, but now they're independent.
That's too many actions. Ranger attacks (1), dismounts (2) and orders companion (3). That's the end of the ranger's turn.
The mount/animal companion has already taken two actions by the time the ranger gives him orders. Are you suggesting the animal companion gets *two more* actions?
The second example is also too many actions.
I think the biggest takeaway from this thread is that the mounted combat rules are insufficiently explicit.
The writing (to me) seems to indicate that the actions taken that are purely the rangers are not the animal companion's action as well (hence the strike, strike, strike example they mention in the CRB). The mounts actions just get wasted because it never gets commanded in such a scenario.
So if the ranger strikes, then dismounts, he has not used up his mounts actions, that can then be activated by command an animal.
Honestly, I think it would work like this:
Ranger is mounted, takes attack, ranger and rider MAP both increase to 5, ranger dismounts, orders companion, and both then attack, both are then attacking at the 5, as they made the attack while mounted and increased both of their MAPs, but now they're independent.
That's too many actions. Ranger attacks (1), dismounts (2) and orders companion (3). That's the end of the ranger's turn.
The mount/animal companion has already taken two actions by the time the ranger gives him orders. Are you suggesting the animal companion gets *two more* actions?
The second example is also too many actions.
Yes, the animal companion would get it's 2 minion actions. Nothing about mounted combat supercedes the following:
Your animal companion has the minion trait, and it
gains 2 actions during your turn if you use the Command
an Animal action to command it; this is in place of the
usual effects of Command an Animal.
In order for a mount to act, you have to use Command an Animal. This is clear in the mounted combat section, right? So if you command your Animal Companion, it get's it's 2 minion actions. Animal Companions per the rules cannot be commanded in the same way as a non companion animal.
So while the Ranger may be out of actions in that situation, the Animal Companion does in fact still have two actions to make. A rider acting is not the same as the mounted creature acting.