With a flood of questions in this part of the forum, as well as the Advice one, you would be right in thinking I have been giving a lot of thought to a Cavalier build.
In my research I have seen the teamwork feat Escape Route suggested multiple times. Then without asking, a conversation in my group comes up about this combo and the DM says that it does not work
Does it work? If so, how/why?
|
I know that opinions diverge and the Devs never made a FAQ about it (mounted combat had always been a neglected area in Pathfinder/3.X).
My opinion is that it doesn't work with your munt as you occupy all of your mount squares and move at the same time as your mount. Essentially you and your mount act as a single unity.
But, AFAIK, that is an opinion. At your table, I would default to your GM opinion.
It works.
A mount and its rider are distinctly separated. A mount wouldn't get to ignore difficult terrain if its rider has Dragon Style, and it wouldn't get an AC increase if its rider had Mobility.
They are two creatures occupying the same space. Not one. Escape Route applies to that situation. You can of course make the observation that it is a lot better for mounted builds that always move in tandem with an ally, but this is exactly how the feat works.
If your DM says that Escape Route doesn't work, because you're not distinct creatures, then you should definitely be able to make a case that your Barracuda Dash tactic should work without any investment of the mount's side.
Hello, the GM in question here, obv am leaning more towards Diego's interpretation if not essentially the same. My specific reasons are two fold.
1) The actual text of the feat says that allies don't provoke "for moving through squares adjacent to you or within your space." The implication is you don't provoke while going around or directly through your allies (usually for retreating to safe cover behind your melee allies), as normal you can't start inside someone's square. Even though there are ways to share space with an ally without mounted combat (e.g. both being forced to squeeze in a single 5ft square), it isn't the intent for the feat to be full and free repositions from any location, especially when breaking away from ally formations. When you are mounted, you actually do share space, and threaten with exception to when the rider is using a reach weapon. Technically you even threaten into/share your own space, again with exception to reach weapons, and you are your own ally for effects, so why would you even need the mount with the teamwork feat for this to work, if leaving your own space was all that was needed to prevent the threaten. Instead, the ally needs to have separate and distinct space from your for this to make any function sense. There also is some implication that the guy covering you has some level of threatening themselves and isn't simply face-checking the AoO that would happen, but it's time to get to the other point.
2) The feat nullifies/makes obsolete several other feats clearly intended for this exact circumstance of "mounted character moving", the main one being Mounted Combat (as anything but a feat tax). If you never provoke, why would you ever not ride-by-attack and stop within (move+)melee reach of someone who could attack your mount. The point of the mounted combat feat is to avoid being hit (or more specifically negate the first of whatever attacks actually do hit) when your mount provokes AoO, as that would usually be the larger source of incoming attacks against the mount than attacks by enemies on their turn, from all the cycle-charging around the map you're doing.
So again, it is clearly against RAI for you to be moving as part of the same effective unit on the map completely without provoking. And further, the barracuda argument doesn't hold: you can get the second charge off while mounted even without the mount needing to move again, by either riding through the first enemy to be able to hit a second enemy in a straight line, or even by simply making the DC 20 ride check to free action dismount and begin your second charge free of the mount who might be unable to continue.
And further, the barracuda argument doesn't hold: you can get the second charge off while mounted even without the mount needing to move again, by either riding through the first enemy to be able to hit a second enemy in a straight line, or even by simply making the DC 20 ride check to free action dismount and begin your second charge free of the mount who might be unable to continue.
I propose you read the 2014 FAQ on mounted combat.
Neither of those solutions would count as a "Mounted Charge" for the purpose of Lance/Spirited Charge, since the mount and rider both need to charge the creature.
1)
Technically you even threaten into/share your own space, again with exception to reach weapons, and you are your own ally for effects, so why would you even need the mount with the teamwork feat for this to work, if leaving your own space was all that was needed to prevent the threaten. Instead, the ally needs to have separate and distinct space from your for this to make any function sense.
You are only your own ally for an effect unless it wouldn't make sense or be impossible. Teamwork feats falls within that exception.
Furthermore, even though you share space with your mount, your mount is still within your space, and vice versa. It's not a single space. It's two spaces overlapping.
For example, if someone attempts to use Acrobatics to move through your space, that creature would have to perform two checks. One for the mount, one for the rider.
2)
The feat nullifies/makes obsolete several other feats clearly intended for this exact circumstance of "mounted character moving", the main one being Mounted Combat (as anything but a feat tax).
Mounted Combat is not comparable because it's by design not meant to be an AoO solution. Even if you negate the attack against your mount with Mounted Combat, the rider still provokes AoOs from movement. Which makes it an awful tool for AoO negation.
You've confused "RAI" with how relatively powerful Escape Route is. AFAIK there are at least 3 feats that grant you +4 to AC vs AoOs from movement. Escape Route blows them all out of the water whenever you fulfill the requirements.
Is it "intended" that Mobility is worthless compared to what Escape Route can give you? -yes
Does that make it "intended" for the feat to turn itself off if you manage to guarantee that you'll get its effect? -no
And further, the barracuda argument doesn't hold: you can get the second charge off while mounted even without the mount needing to move again, by either riding through the first enemy to be able to hit a second enemy in a straight line, or even by simply making the DC 20 ride check to free action dismount and begin your second charge free of the mount who might be unable to continue.I propose you read the 2014 FAQ on mounted combat.
Neither of those solutions would count as a "Mounted Charge" for the purpose of Lance/Spirited Charge, since the mount and rider both need to charge the creature.
Well the first solution was still staying on the mount, and would still count for the spirited charge/etc. rules. The second one could easily be assumed as the same, as you are carrying momentum of the horse without properly stopping when you break from it's back; the rules never expected this exact overlap, but it's very easy to add a single line of text in the headcanon to account for it (especially when it's intended for underwater, where you don't need to be able to run at speed like on land). The point here is more that the limitations of Barracuda Style are different than the limitations of moving yourself in the context of Escape Route, so one can be invalid while the other is not.
1)
Technically you even threaten into/share your own space, again with exception to reach weapons, and you are your own ally for effects, so why would you even need the mount with the teamwork feat for this to work, if leaving your own space was all that was needed to prevent the threaten. Instead, the ally needs to have separate and distinct space from your for this to make any function sense.You are only your own ally for an effect unless it wouldn't make sense or be impossible. Teamwork feats falls within that exception.
Furthermore, even though you share space with your mount, your mount is still within your space, and vice versa. It's not a single space. It's two spaces overlapping.
For example, if someone attempts to use Acrobatics to move through your space, that creature would have to perform two checks. One for the mount, one for the rider.
So both you and the mount dropping your guard to move but still perfectly covering each other without an additional party member to cover you doesn't seem impossible/makes sense? Sadly this is another casualty of Piazo wanting it both with overly anal wording then further arbitrated by feel. And again if teamwork feats fall within that exception, then it shouldn't still work if you are moving as a unit.
It simply doesn't. You have the same space, you dont pick a corner of the mount and draw everything from there, your spaces are the same single space. There is no extra ally covering you, because you both move together.
I agree with the acrobatics example but only partially: the rider is subsumed into the mounts space, only the mount can stop the foe if it fails to beat CMD+5, but failing to beat rider CMD+2 would also mean the rider can take the AoO as well. In either case, this is irrelevant to the fact that you can't cover yourself with ER, except that it stems from the same reason.
2)
The feat nullifies/makes obsolete several other feats clearly intended for this exact circumstance of "mounted character moving", the main one being Mounted Combat (as anything but a feat tax).Mounted Combat is not comparable because it's by design not meant to be an AoO solution. Even if you negate the attack against your mount with Mounted Combat, the rider still provokes AoOs from movement. Which makes it an awful tool for AoO negation.
You've confused "RAI" with how relatively powerful Escape Route is. AFAIK there are at least 3 feats that grant you +4 to AC vs AoOs from movement. Escape Route blows them all out of the water whenever you fulfill the requirements.
Is it "intended" that Mobility is worthless compared to what Escape Route can give you? -yes
Does that make it "intended" for the feat to turn itself off if you manage to guarantee that you'll get its effect? -no
Mounted combat will be used for stopping an AoO far more times than otherwise, by the nature of being a highly mobile class. Also it doesn't matter that the rider would provoke as well, as it's not a "called" negation like parry/riposte, you decide to roll as soon as you are hit (maybe it should be but it isn't). (I also disregard the "errata", along with much of the other questionable changes to Mounted RAW, where the rider also provokes for a move action they didn't take. They aren't dropping their guard to move let alone even spend the action, they are simply following the mount who did. Really odd place to overrule normal raw and insert something new that gimps an already weak option (after you take out the pounce charging).)
The problem is you always fill the requirements by the RAW of ER and by being mounted, which is clearly not RAI. Mobility would still be useful if you are caught out on your own, too bad that isn't an issue while mounted. And if AoO's are never an issue, why would you ever stop somewhere that someone can reach you and attack you after a ride-by, unless they're a ranged character; this virtually eliminates mounted combat as anything but a feat tax as well, as most ranged combatants are usually made to be weaker threats in any encounter (lest they snipe anyone in the party with impunity, including the squishy wizard in the back).
They are two creatures occupying the same space.
Yes, and also no. If someone moves past my mount, it provokes from both my mount and me. Even though I should only be in one of my mounts squares, and not all 4 at once I still get an AoO regardless of which provoking square the enemy moved through. eg, I get to share all 4 spaces of my mount as though we were one unit. But both the mount and I get separate AoO's as though we were separate units.
Similarly, in combat do the rider and mount act on separate initiatives? Or as one unit? If separate, how do feats like mounted archery work? Your mount is not taking a double move during your turn - it is only taking a double move during its turn. What if its turn comes after yours? Do you have to track that so that on your next turn you take a attack penalty?
Given the rules don't clarify, a GM has to determine in which instances the two are separate units, and in which instances the two are treated as the same unit. Personally, while mounted, I treat them as the same unit for purposes of teamwork feats unless those teamwork feats specifically call out an animal companion and sharing its space (pack attack for example). There might be some others that I'd make an exception for, but again I would need to make that ruling at the time a player had a mount and wanted to take for both them and the mount a specific teamwork feat.
ER is certainly better than mobility and the like. And ER every time all the time is even better than that - and very likely not the intended result. The intent (IMO) is that in the right circumstances you get to avoid AoOs for movement completely, and not you get to avoid them all the time.
(I also disregard the "errata", along with much of the other questionable changes to Mounted RAW, where the rider also provokes for a move action they didn't take. They aren't dropping their guard to move let alone even spend the action, they are simply following the mount who did. Really odd place to overrule normal raw and insert something new that gimps an already weak option (after you take out the pounce charging).)
Well, if we are fully ignoring parts of RAW because we don't like it, then we are already in rule 0 territory and there is nothing more to be discussed about the actual rules of it. Your the GM, call it how you want. (I would have called it the same way in my game as you are in yours).
Well the first solution was still staying on the mount, and would still count for the spirited charge/etc. rules.
Sure, if we allow a Mounted Charge to trigger when the rider/mount is targeting different creatures for their charges. Bit of a weird precedent but whatever. The second example I vehemently disagree with as it lacks any kind of basis in the rules, but you'd be free to houserule that in your game.
The point here is more that the limitations of Barracuda Style are different than the limitations of moving yourself in the context of Escape Route, so one can be invalid while the other is not.
Well that was, as I said in my original post, in the event that you disallow Escape Route because you treat mount+rider as a single creature.
===
Re 1)
So both you and the mount dropping your guard to move but still perfectly covering each other without an additional party member to cover you doesn't seem impossible/makes sense? Sadly this is another casualty of Piazo wanting it both with overly anal wording then further arbitrated by feel. And again if teamwork feats fall within that exception, then it shouldn't still work if you are moving as a unit.
You are trying to equate the "Own Ally" clause (which you apparently didn't know about before I pointed it out) to a situation completely unrelated to anything it applies to. Escape Route can't be used on your own because it is a teamwork feat, not because I think it wouldn't make sense to "drop your guard to move" and still get the benefit. Please don't bring up the Own Ally FAQ again because it has nothing to do with this.
It simply doesn't. You have the same space, you dont pick a corner of the mount and draw everything from there, your spaces are the same single space. There is no extra ally covering you, because you both move together.
I agree with the acrobatics example but only partially: the rider is subsumed into the mounts space, only the mount can stop the foe if it fails to beat CMD+5, but failing to beat rider CMD+2 would also mean the rider can take the AoO as well. In either case, this is irrelevant to the fact that you can't cover yourself with ER, except that it stems from the same reason.
It's like you're bouncing between two positions here. Are you saying that ER can't be used because they're both moving (patently false) or because the rider apparently isn't considered to possess a space of their own while mounted?
===
Re 2)
Allow me to repeat my earlier statement:
You've confused "RAI" with how relatively powerful Escape Route is.
In your opinion mounted ER is too strong for the reasons you've listed. That has absolutely no impact on whether mounted ER works or not. I suggest you just nerf it with a houserule if that's how you want it.
Yes, and also no. If someone moves past my mount, it provokes from both my mount and me. Even though I should only be in one of my mounts squares, and not all 4 at once I still get an AoO regardless of which provoking square the enemy moved through.
They are two creatures occupying the same space.
Y-yeah?
I don't know what gave you the impression that I disagree with that. But for clarification's sake, you'd definitely threaten from every square of your mount's.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
The feat specifies that you are "covering [your ally] as they make tactical withdraws". If you are riding the mount, you are not covering the mount, but you are making a tactical withdraw yourself. Therefore I agree that this combo does not work.
That said, it is clearly ambiguous and up to table variation and GM judgment.
Yes, and also no. If someone moves past my mount, it provokes from both my mount and me. Even though I should only be in one of my mounts squares, and not all 4 at once I still get an AoO regardless of which provoking square the enemy moved through.
They are two creatures occupying the same space.
Y-yeah?
I don't know what gave you the impression that I disagree with that. But for clarification's sake, you'd definitely threaten from every square of your mount's.
You missed the main point. Sometimes mount and rider and considered separate and unique creatures. Sometimes they are considered to be the same creature. The rules don't clarify which context to use for various circumstances. It is not RAW that they are separate creatures for purposes of ER. It is also not RAW that they are the same creature for purposes of ER. I would argue that RAI, for ER they are the same creature. You might (seem to be) arguing the opposite. That's all fine. But each individual GM will have to make that determination on their own. There is no RAW answer to whether ER works for a mount and rider.
|
|
Honestly, the reason Escape Route does not trigger is that it requires you move around or through an ally. While you are mounted you do not move around or through your mount, you move with your mount.
Good point. It is more RAI than RAW, but it shows very well the limits of RAW when using the mounted combat rules.
Escape route would work when you are not mounted.
Yes, if you are on foot and move through your mount squares it works.
It's like you're bouncing between two positions here.... In your opinion mounted ER is too strong for the reasons you've listed. That has absolutely no impact on whether mounted ER works or not. I suggest you just nerf it with a houserule if that's how you want it.
I'm using two positions that both point to the RAW not being ER works on a mount and rider alone. And I have "nerfed" ER to an acceptable level, except it's not a houserule because a houserule isn't needed, as I have explained above. And "your ally" FAQ is 100% relevant when "you" are moving as a single unit with a mount.
Well, if we are fully ignoring parts of RAW because we don't like it, then we are already in rule 0 territory and there is nothing more to be discussed about the actual rules of it. Your the GM, call it how you want. (I would have called it the same way in my game as you are in yours).
The one about the rider provoking is the only one I ignore that is tangentially related to this discussion. And I think a dubiously put together FAQ that ignores many of it's own function and otherwise existing standard rules is about as important as any argument for Rule 0 in RAW. Basically, you'll have to run through the whole gamut of what is wrong with mounted combat whenever you want to do mounted combat, so it doesn't quite matter whatever anyone does or doesn't adopt as a default from the FAQ.
3) The wording of the feat is a little... odd. It describes what your ally can do, rather than you. Actually makes it a little suspect for working with inquisitors' solo tactics, but that is irrelevant here.
There are actually a lot of teamwork feats that have this similar problem, and thus by RAW wouldn't be valid (read beneficial) for Inquisitor to take. And then there's ones like Trade Initiative where everyone can basically steal each others initiative bonus and start ooc table fights over who goes first (instead of only one person being in charge of who gets what). Silliness in rules should be outlawed.[/montypython]
Is the mount an ally? Check. Does the mount have this feat? See above, but for this case, check! Is the mount moving through spaces adjacent or within your space? Check! Escape route activates for your mount, and it does not provoke.
Reverse this to be from the mount's perspective, and it comes down to whether or not you decide the rider is moving. If rider is moving, then feat works and the rider doesn't provoke. If the rider is not moving, because he is on the mount, then guess the rider will provoke, but can make a DC 15 ride check for cover and take the defense action for +8 to ac as the mount drags him through the gauntlet. Yay!
Of course,
>Raging barbarian uses unexpected strike to ruin cavalier's day<
(This is for Unchained Barbarian) The same permissive allowance that a mount can move through its own space (again the rider counts as part of the mount's space) would also mean that when the mount (and rider) both enter the barbarian's threaten, the barbarian isn't only threatening one thing and thus can't unexpected strike. But again, the rider's space is (not located in) the mount's space, either of them is moving through their own space (and rider's shouldn't be provoking for their mount's movement anyway) when they move, and they shouldn't be protected by the feat unless someone else has it and the mount is moving through them. That said, I'm not sure if it would allow the strike either way, as again you are still two creatures sharing a single space, and even if it did, if you would get to attack either or just the mount.