The rules for combat whilst atop of an animal (Usually your animal companion), are not the clearest.
I want to play a Cavalier who charges twice a turn using Barracuda Dash
ou gain a swim speed equal to your base speed. When you attack on a charge in water or on land and the attack hits, you can immediately make a second charge attack against a second opponent. All the normal requirements for making a charge, such as moving at least 10 feet and moving in a straight line, apply to this second attack. The total distance of the two charge attacks cannot exceed the normal maximum distance for a charge (usually double your speed).
Now if my Cavalier has this, and the mount does not, can they make the 2nd Charge?
My understanding is that it can be done because the Rider can make a charge whilst the mount does not
I am using something Wonderstell wrote in February:
The FAQ states that a 'Mounted Charge' is when both mount and rider takes the charge action. But it also brings up the example of when only the mount charges, which means it is possible.
"Note that a "mounted charge" is synonymous with a "charge while mounted," and that when a lance is "when used from the back of a charging mount" it is during a mounted charge not when only the mount charges."
So we could potentially have three different charges going on.
Both charge: Counts as a 'Mounted Charge' for effects such as Spirited Charge and the Lance's special ability.
Only rider charges: Not very intuitive, but Ride-By Attack is such an example. It doesn't actually allow the mount to attack and has been clarified as such from designer input.
Only mount charges: Mount benefits from charging just as if the rider wasn't there. Pounce triggers, the AC penalty is applied. The rider does not take any penalties or benefits from charging (note that this is a direct change to the original rules).
The FAQ in question
So am I right in thinking that a Barracuda Dash Cavalier can charge twice whilst mounted?
Hello, it is I. The user of FAQs from February.
===
So to gain the effects of a mounted charge both cavalier and horse charges Enemy "A". The cavalier hits, and as per Barracuda Dash is allowed to perform another charge against an opponent that fulfills the normal charge requirements. We'll call them Enemy "B".
This works fine dismounted, but when you're mounted you rely on your mount's movement... to move. Your mount charged Enemy A and lost all their actions. They do not get to also make a charge against Enemy B since they lack Barracuda Dash which grants the extra action/movement.
===
Here's a workaround that relies on RAI.
Ride-by Attack isn't a mounted charge as per the FAQ linked. The mount never charges (it just double-moves) so RAW you don't fulfill the requirements of a mounted charge and would neither get the benefit of a Lance or Spirited Charge when you use Ride-By Attack.
Now I really don't think it was intended to have Ride-By Attack be completely incompatible with Spirited Charge which is the next feat in the feat path. That's just an unforeseen consequence of the mess that is mounted combat (and the resulting mess that happened when Paizo wanted to prevent any pounce-lancing from ever happening again).
So even though Ride-By Attack isn't a Mounted Charge, it is clearly meant to be a Mounted Charge. If you then used Ride-By Attack and Wheeling Charge, you could potentially manage to charge two foes while mounted.
First you charge Enemy A as per Ride-By Attack, then you use Wheeling Charge (if needed) to redirect your mount towards Enemy B and use the rest of the Ride-By movement to reach them.
===
Here's a workaround that relies on RAI.
Thank you. Would you say the mount can ride by attack again after the 2nd target?
You mean move after the rider hits the 2nd target?
If your mount got movement to spare, then yes.
So even though Ride-By Attack isn't a Mounted Charge, it is clearly meant to be a Mounted Charge. If you then used Ride-By Attack and Wheeling Charge, you could potentially manage to charge two foes while mounted.
Apologies for the potential semantics, but Ride-By Attack isn’t simply meant to be a mounted charge; it is a mounted charge—just a modified one. The benefits that feat provides are simply added to the mounted charge, in the same way that Spirited Charge adds damage and Wheeling Charge adds a 90-degree turn. It’s still a mounted charge… just better.
With that in mind, I’ll defer to you on any other relevant FAQs, but the most pertinent one that I’m aware of is the original: it qualifies that a mounted charge involves the rider and the mount charging in unison, incurring the same bonuses and penalties, and following all other rules for the charge. Crucially, Ride-By Attack, Spirited Charge, and Wheeling Charge all reference “you” making a charge while mounted and “your mounted speed.” By contrast, Barracuda Dash references just “you” and “your speed.” On that basis, it distinguishes, and makes itself incompatible—in my humble opinion—from those other three feats.
That, to me, is the RAI hurdle for the build in question..
Thank you. Would you say the mount can ride by attack again after the 2nd target?
Assuming your GM is on board with “your speed” and “your mounted speed” being synonymous, I don’t see why not—as long as your total movement for the round doesn’t exceed double your mounted speed, as per the Ride-By Attack feat.
With that in mind, I’ll defer to you on any other relevant FAQs, but the most pertinent one that I’m aware of is the original: it qualifies that a mounted charge involves the rider and the mount charging in unison, incurring the same bonuses and penalties, and following all other rules for the charge.
Well yes. Charging in unison.
And when you use Ride-By Attack your mount is not taking a charge action. It is taking two move actions and doesn't get to attack at all. (I linked the designer statement in my first post)
So Ride-By Attack is a charge action the rider performs while mounted, but it is not a Mounted Charge as outlined in the FAQ from 2014. They essentially broke Ride-By Attack when they changed the base rules so that it doesn't function as intended.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be honest, the differentiation between "charging but not getting an attack at the end/in the middle with RBA, and double moving in a straight line" is a beyond semantic one. A charge is a double move (but in a straight line) with an enemy at the end (or in the middle again if mounted+RBA).
And when you use Ride-By Attack your mount is not taking a charge action.
It is, though. Again, and with respect, it’s simply a modified charge action—one wherein the mount’s movement is changed and it trades an attack in exchange for itself and its rider avoiding an attack of opportunity.
It is taking two move actions and doesn't get to attack at all. (I linked the designer statement in my first post)
I read through that thread, but it predates the FAQ, and as best as I can tell it largely deals with Reynolds’ views on adjacent squares for the purposes of charging and ride-by attack, and Spring Attack being the only means of a mount moving, attacking, and moving again.
So Ride-By Attack is a charge action the rider performs while mounted, but it is not a Mounted Charge as outlined in the FAQ from 2014. They essentially broke Ride-By Attack when they changed the base rules so that it doesn't function as intended.
Ride-By Attack not being a mounted charge as outlined in the FAQ is no more a problem than Cleave contradicting the Multiple Attacks note under the Attack entry (under Standard Actions), as outlined in the Core Rulebook.
Beyond that, how does RIde-By Attack not function as intended? It does exactly what its intended to—it’s just not the same as a normal mounted charge.
|
To be honest, the differentiation between "charging but not getting an attack at the end/in the middle with RBA, and double moving in a straight line" is a beyond semantic one. A charge is a double move (but in a straight line) with an enemy at the end (or in the middle again if mounted+RBA).
And gives penalties to the charging creature(s) AC and bonuses to the charging creature(s) attack.
It is, though. Again, and with respect, it’s simply a modified charge action—one wherein the mount’s movement is changed and it trades an attack in exchange for itself and its rider avoiding an attack of opportunity.
Hey, don't shoot the messenger.
I'm well aware of how Ride-By Attack is meant to work. And I hope everyone plays it as such. But purely RAW RBA doesn't provide a "Mounted Charge" as outlined in the FAQ. The mount is never charging and the feat only mentions you taking the charge action. That isn't enough.
But again, I am in no way arguing that anyone is meant to play RBA as such. You're preaching to the choir when you're trying to convince me it grants a "Mounted Charge". I know. We know.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is, though. Again, and with respect, it’s simply a modified charge action—one wherein the mount’s movement is changed and it trades an attack in exchange for itself and its rider avoiding an attack of opportunity.Hey, don't shoot the messenger.
I'm well aware of how Ride-By Attack is meant to work. And I hope everyone plays it as such. But purely RAW RBA doesn't provide a "Mounted Charge" as outlined in the FAQ. The mount is never charging and the feat only mentions you taking the charge action. That isn't enough.
But again, I am in no way arguing that anyone is meant to play RBA as such. You're preaching to the choir when you're trying to convince me it grants a "Mounted Charge". I know. We know.
SKR post is a Dev comment, not a FAQ. It predates the FAQ by 4 years, so it doesn't take it into account.
The FAQ actually says:
"Mounted Combat: When making a charge while mounted, which creature charges? The rider or the mount?
Both charge in unison, suffer the same penalty to AC, the gaining the same bonus to the attack rolls and following all other rules for the charge."
Ride-by attack explicitly says it is a charge action:
"Benefit: When you are mounted and use the charge action,"
So, SKR post has been made obsolete by the subsequent FAQ. Both rider and mount are taking the charge action, but the mount can't take its attack in the middle of its move.
Does that break the normal rule about charging? Yes, because the mount isn't attacking the target of the charge. But it is normal for feats to supersede the normal rules.
That last sentence cuts to the heart of the matter, Diego. Spot on.
To be honest, the differentiation between "charging but not getting an attack at the end/in the middle with RBA, and double moving in a straight line" is a beyond semantic one. A charge is a double move (but in a straight line) with an enemy at the end (or in the middle again if mounted+RBA).And gives penalties to the charging creature(s) AC and bonuses to the charging creature(s) attack.
AC fair, but wasn't relevant to my moving point, but there's no bonus to attack if you don't take an attack. :P
Let me see if I get this straight.
You're saying that the FAQ means that whenever the rider takes a charge action, the mount charges as well and it is considered a Mounted Charge? Because that's the only way I can interpret what you're saying here.
That seems ripe for abuse but whatever, I'm not a player at your table.
You're saying that the FAQ means that whenever the rider takes a charge action, the mount charges as well and it is considered a Mounted Charge? Because that's the only way I can interpret what you're saying here.
“When making a charge while mounted, which creature charges? The rider or the mount? Both charge in unison, suffer the same penalty to AC, the gaining the same bonus to the attack rolls and following all other rules for the charge.”
With respect, I’m not sure how the quoted text could mean anything else. I wouldn’t be shocked if there were feats that were published post-2014 that contradict this FAQ, but—in my humble opinion—the intent behind it is as clear as I could hope for.
|
|
Let me see if I get this straight.
You're saying that the FAQ means that whenever the rider takes a charge action, the mount charges as well and it is considered a Mounted Charge? Because that's the only way I can interpret what you're saying here.
That seems ripe for abuse but whatever, I'm not a player at your table.
I am curious to see what abuse you think will happen.
RAW, yes, when the rider charges its mouth is forced into taking a charge action.Well, unless the mount is a kaju and the "rider" charges running along its spine.
|
Let me see if I get this straight.
You're saying that the FAQ means that whenever the rider takes a charge action, the mount charges as well and it is considered a Mounted Charge? Because that's the only way I can interpret what you're saying here.
That seems ripe for abuse but whatever, I'm not a player at your table.
I am curious to see what abuse you think will happen.
RAW, yes, when the rider charges its mouth is forced into taking a charge action.
Well, unless the mount is a kaju and the "rider" charges running along its spine.
I too am curious.
Provided no attempted action economy abuse happens, i don't see where its not the case.
Its actually worse since if you have reach and the mount doesn't then its potentially not a valid target for the mount to charge since it cant attack at the end.
I am curious to see what abuse you think will happen.
RAW, yes, when the rider charges its mouth is forced into taking a charge action.
That's not what I meant.
I asked if you believed that the mount would automatically be considered to be charging, not if it would be forced into taking the charge action. The former would allow you to spend all of the mount's actions and get a free charge on top of that, which I reacted to.
I've assumed that the mount is never 'forced' into a charge action, just that both rider and mount must take the charge action. A very minor distinction, but one that allows you to perform a charge action while mounted even if the mount doesn't charge. (Wouldn't get any increased dmg, tho)
As for RBA:
If I'm up to speed right now you disregard the SKR statement about double-moving, and RBA's real benefit is actually to allow your mount to perform a special charge that doesn't involve attacking.
It does not allow your mount to count as charging while double-moving, is incompatible with Spring Attack, and would impose the AC penalty on your mount.
Which is a logically consistent view as long as we ignore designer statements from 2010.
|
|
Charging is an action. I don't see why you would assume that the mount will be acting without spending its actions.
In his post SKR speaks of something different: your mount doesn't have RBA, so it can't attack mid-movement, but he doesn't speak at all about the mount charging.
Sean K Reynolds
If you want to move, have the mount attack, and move, the mount has to have Spring Attack. Ride-By Attack lets you attack in the middle of moving; it doesn't change the attack sequence for your mount (it doesn't mention your mount attacking at all).
Normally the mount will be unable to take the charge action if the target isn't at the end of its movement, but RBA, combined with the FAQ about charging while mounted, supersedes that as the rider has to make a charge, and that forces the mount into making a charge.
That allows the mount movement to "break" the normal charge rules and "charge" a point without nearby enemies.It could have been explained better? Sure. But it isn't so different from all other rules about mounted combat. Pathfinder is, mostly, a game of dungeon delving, and the rules cover way better movement and combat in limited spaces than riding, moving in formation, and so on.