Using animal companion for a mount

[Bics]

Why can a animal companion atack on its own if you use an action to command it but if you are riding it you have to share attack penalty? That ruins mounts. Its way to punitive for getting to share a move action. Who would ride into combat then get off their mount so they are not totaly poned in combat. Makes no sense. I get a clean attack then my mount is heavily penalized on his cool advanced attack cuz Im sitting on him but if he is standing next to me he isnt penalized. What the F? That just kills mounted combat. Nobody is going to take that trade. What is the rational for this?

[Baarogue]

Bics wrote:

Why can an animal companion attack on its own if you use an action to command it but if you are riding it you have to share attack penalty? That ruins mounts. It's way too punitive for getting to share a move action. Who would ride into combat then get off their mount so they are not totally pwned in combat? Makes no sense. I get a clean attack then my mount is heavily penalized on his cool advanced attack cuz I'm sitting on him but if he is standing next to me he isn't penalized. What the F? That just kills mounted combat. Nobody is going to take that trade. What is the rationale for this?

Which animal companion with the mount special are you so mad about? Because I just checked and all but one I saw on AoN, or two if you can ride wolves, have adv. attacks that cost two actions so you wouldn't be able to use them after moving. Are you just mad that you can't get 4 actions worth of attacks at no/low MAP while mounted when you start next to an enemy? Because that's probably what their rationale is ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Dr. Frank Funkelstein]

Mounted combat offers you a lot of movement and potentially very helpful support actions, like making your target frightened 1 without a save, giving you cover against all attacks, disrupting 25% of manipulate actions and many more.

[SuperBidi]

Bics wrote:

Why can a animal companion atack on its own if you use an action to command it but if you are riding it you have to share attack penalty? That ruins mounts. Its way to punitive for getting to share a move action. Who would ride into combat then get off their mount so they are not totaly poned in combat. Makes no sense. I get a clean attack then my mount is heavily penalized on his cool advanced attack cuz Im sitting on him but if he is standing next to me he isnt penalized. What the F? That just kills mounted combat. Nobody is going to take that trade. What is the rational for this?

If you are mounted, moving costs a single action for both you and your mount (and with the free action your mount gets at level 4 it's not even an action). So it's a very interesting action compression option and part of a lot of optimized builds. In PF2, being mounted is less about maximizing your mounts attacks but helping with mobility.

[Bics]

If my wolf didnt have to use a move action, say after moving into combat on the first round, it would be able to knockdown with its second action if it hits with its first action but thats a lot harder because my sprite is sitting on it supposedly. In this scenario I am not even getting the free move action and like I said that is overly punitive.

[Bics]

If Im mounted on my animal companion we share map. If Im not mounted on it we dont share map. If we start a round mounted and next to an enemy I dont even get the free move action but me or my animal companion is still penalized with sharing map just because I am sitting on it. So the rules in effect force you to dismount or one of you suffer a 25% penalty on their first attack

[Bics]

If you are mounted, moving costs a single action for both you and your mount

I spend an action to command my mount/animal companion and it gets 2 actions. I dont spend a move action when it moves if I am sitting on it.

[Claxon]

Bics wrote:

If Im mounted on my animal companion we share map. If Im not mounted on it we dont share map. If we start a round mounted and next to an enemy I dont even get the free move action but me or my animal companion is still penalized with sharing map just because I am sitting on it. So the rules in effect force you to dismount or one of you suffer a 25% penalty on their first attack

I feel like I should point out, that you still get the free move action, however you maybe don't want to use it because you're next to an enemy already.

Animal companions when used as a mount, as used for the extra mobility and the support benefit. And in fact it can only use the support benefit on turns it didn't move (unless it has the mount quality). The support benefit is often a decent benefit.

Riding animal companions isn't meant to allow provide you a big damage benefit, which is why you share MAP.

If you want your companion to deal damage, you shouldn't plan on riding them. If you plan to ride them, don't concern yourself with their damage capabilities (although looking at their support benefits for yourself is important).

Bics wrote:

If you are mounted, moving costs a single action for both you and your mount

I spend an action to command my mount/animal companion and it gets 2 actions. I dont spend a move action when it moves if I am sitting on it.

Eventually, animal companions get actions without you having to spend an action. That's really when the benefits of having them as a mount kick in, that's the "free move" that people are referring to.

[NorrKnekten]

Yes, you may also be able to benefit from cover from your companion while mounted. You also threaten more squares as you are effectively occupying every space that your mount is when you make attacks. Being a tiny or even small sprite this matters immensely as you may now be able to strike 12 squares in melee once your wolf becomes a large creature.

The mount will also gain a free action to strike or stride if you don't command it once you turn it into a mature companion. So even if you yourself use all 3 actions the wolf can disengage for you. It can move you into combat and you still get all 3 actions. If this was not the case then it would also not have Takedown as that is a level 8 feature when it becomes savage or nimble.

Especially in this situation the shared MAP is so inconsequential, You have a hit, automatic knockdown. The creature is now prone so if you strike at it yourself its only at an effective -3(-2 with agile). If you were a flurry ranger you would basically have no MAP at this point.

You are effectively gaining a 4th action and a whole lot of benefits with the only penalty being that you and your mount now share MAP. Which in most cases only mean that you will use non-attack options more often.

Even if we disregard the level 4 and 8 features of the advanced maneuver and the free action when not commanded you still have 4 actions between you and the mount, If you don't want to move you still have support benefits, Trip/grab, other non-attack options. Or you can spend 3 actions on yourself as normal with no additional penalties while still enjoying the mounted benefits.

[pH unbalanced]

Bics wrote:

Who would ride into combat then get off their mount so they are not totaly poned in combat.

A dragoon.

[Bics]

The wolf support benefit is not good and the wolf has to hit to get the good benefit. I am calling riding the mount a free action in this case whether the mount gets it from a feat or using one of its actions I gave it using command. I would ratherspend a extra move action than share map. The size of the mount does not matter either, in fact I rather it stayed medium cuz its easier to move around in combat and size doesnt factor in when you are next to an enemy. Cover, never gonna use that either. The map is the real meat on the bone here and the wolf has to hit to do its takedown and most fights you dont need to move much so I have to disagree with you all so far. Nothing personal.

[Claxon]

Yeah, unfortunately not all animal companions are equal. Especially so when it comes to being a mount.

A wolf doesn't simply make a good mount.

Conversely, antelopes make great mounts with a nice support benefit (if you just want bonus damage).

Bics wrote:

The wolf support benefit is not good and the wolf has to hit to get the good benefit. I am calling riding the mount a free action in this case whether the mount gets it from a feat or using one of its actions I gave it using command. I would ratherspend a extra move action than share map. The size of the mount does not matter either, in fact I rather it stayed medium cuz its easier to move around in combat and size doesnt factor in when you are next to an enemy. Cover, never gonna use that either. The map is the real meat on the bone here and the wolf has to hit to do its takedown and most fights you dont need to move much so I have to disagree with you all so far. Nothing personal.

What I see here, is you're stuck on the wolf for whatever reason. I get that it may be RP purposes. If so, then you need to accept that wolves simply make bad mounts. I don't suggest riding them.

Animal companions as mounts is pretty much an all in proposition. You either go all in on it, or you don't do it all. And by all in, I mean choosing a companion that is good for riding (and understanding they're not going to be good at attacking).

The wolf is (to your point) the opposite of that. They are not a good mount. Don't ride it.

Either choose a different companion or realize that riding your wolf isn't great.

[Bics]

You all getting in the weeds with poor excuses for this game mechanic. I will leave you with a solution and I will start dismounting when I get next to a bad guy so Im not nerfed compared to other animal companion users.

If your companion moved on it current turn it shares map. If it did not move on its current turn it does not share map

Also a mount still can count as cover even if you are not riding it and it can be a flank buddy if you are not mounted on it. So these things go both ways...give and take

Read all my replys before you comment anymore please and thank you

[TheFinish]

If you'd rather spend an extra move action than share MAP, then just dismount (1 action), Command (1 Action) -> Wolf Strike; Takedown (if they hit) -> You attack (at no MAP).

There, you've spent an extra move action to not share MAP. Once you've closed with the enemy you really don't need to be mounted unless your weapon has the Jousting trait. And if it does have the jousting trait, the wolf is not going to be Biting much since you're basically going to do hit and runs.

Because aside from Jousting and the faster movement, there's no benefit to being mounted. It is in fact a detriment: you lose Reach if you're on a Large mount, it's harder to maneuver (as you pointed out) and you share MAP.

And the reason you share MAP is simply game balance, and nothing more. The mount gives you a 4th action, effectively, so once you were close to an enemy you could do Strike (no MAP) + Strike (-5) + third action (raise shield, or intimidate, or something) + free mount strike (no MAP).

That's 2 MAPless strikes every round if you don't need to move, except you can also turn one of them into a free move. If you're not mounted you can get the MAPless strikes, but the move is only for your companion, so if you end up in a bad situation you'll have to spend more actions to get away.

[Claxon]

Bics wrote:

You all getting in the weeds with poor excuses for this game mechanic. I will leave you with a solution and I will start dismounting when I get next to a bad guy so Im not nerfed compared to other animal companion users.

If your companion moved on it current turn it shares map. If it did not move on its current turn it does not share map

Also a mount still can count as cover even if you are not riding it and it can be a flank buddy if you are not mounted on it. So these things go both ways...give and take

Read all my replys before you comment anymore please and thank you

You have a misunderstanding above.

If you are mounted, you share MAP with your mount. Doesn't matter if they moved or not.

In order to avoid shared MAP, you would need to spend an action to dismount.

[NorrKnekten]

Bics wrote:

If your companion moved on it current turn it shares map. If it did not move on its current turn it does not share map

I take one good look at Inventor or something like Scorpion bundled with anything similar to double slice/vicious swing, and realize that implementing this is downright scary and absurd. I for sure would not allow beastmaster or cavalier if that was the case. But you do you.

TheFinish wrote:

Because aside from Jousting and the faster movement, there's no benefit to being mounted. It is in fact a detriment: you lose Reach if you're on a Large mount, it's harder to maneuver (as you pointed out) and you share MAP.

Considering the situation in question is of a sprite, Would they not need a reach weapon to begin with in order to even make mounted melee strikes? Unless they are the heritage that makes them small instead of tiny ofcourse.

[TheFinish]

NorrKnekten wrote:

TheFinish wrote:

Because aside from Jousting and the faster movement, there's no benefit to being mounted. It is in fact a detriment: you lose Reach if you're on a Large mount, it's harder to maneuver (as you pointed out) and you share MAP.

Considering the situation in question is of a sprite, Would they not need a reach weapon to begin with in order to even make mounted melee strikes? Unless they are the heritage that makes them small instead of tiny ofcourse.

Correct, but what I mean is more that on Large mounts, 5ft and 10ft Reach both can only attack within 5 feet. This is dumb, and the reasons developers have put forth in the past for why they do it don't really make any sense, but it is what it is.

If you're a Tiny sprite with a Reach weapon your Reach is 5 feet so mounted or unmounted makes no real difference.

[NorrKnekten]

TheFinish wrote:

Correct, but what I mean is more that on Large mounts, 5ft and 10ft Reach both can only attack within 5 feet. This is dumb, and the reasons developers have put forth in the past for why they do it don't really make any sense, but it is what it is.

If you're a Tiny sprite with a Reach weapon your Reach is 5 feet so mounted or unmounted makes no real difference.

I believe it simply has to do with the amount of squares you threathen on a large(or larger) creature while having reach not be limited. Quite different going from 12->32 on a large mount or 16->40 on a huge mount. Especially in relation to Reactive Strike.

Edit: Actually after writing this the Beastmaster in my campaign asked me how Whirlwind Strike would work while mounted.

[TheFinish]

NorrKnekten wrote:

TheFinish wrote:

Correct, but what I mean is more that on Large mounts, 5ft and 10ft Reach both can only attack within 5 feet. This is dumb, and the reasons developers have put forth in the past for why they do it don't really make any sense, but it is what it is.

If you're a Tiny sprite with a Reach weapon your Reach is 5 feet so mounted or unmounted makes no real difference.

I believe it simply has to do with the amount of squares you threathen on a large(or larger) creature while having reach not be limited. Quite different going from 12->32 on a large mount or 16->40 on a huge mount. Especially in relation to Reactive Strike.

Edit: Actually after writing this the Beastmaster in my campaign asked me how Whirlwind Strike would work while mounted.

That is one of the concerns, but the thing is, there is no difference between a medium guy on a Large mount and just...a Large guy. Or a Huge guy.

When a Minotaur Fighter can just start the game with a Reach weapon and have 0 trouble threatening all those squares, or a Giant Instinct Barbarian can threaten out to 15 feet (5 base, +5 from Stature + 5 from Reach Weapon) at Level 6, I see no real point in arbitrarily constraining Mounted characters.

I get the idea that the Animal Companion is more easily accesible, but it also requires a lot more feat investment to keep relevant, so I just allow normal Reach in my games. It hasn't really been a huge power boost.

As for Whirlwind Strike, it would work without any issues, I'd think. You make an attack vs everyone within your Reach, no MAP until you finish.

[pauljathome]

I'll point out that the Cavalier Archetype helps address some of your issues. It gives access to the Quick Mount skill feat (which, despite the name, can also be used for Quick Unmount). This means that some of the time you don't have to pay the Action cost to mount/dismount.

Note that it is unclear in the rules what happens to your MAP if you attack and THEN mount or dismount. Do you still share MAP? I like the interpretation that you only share MAP if you are currently mounted AND were mounted at the point the previous attack was made but it is unclear.

For what it is worth, I find the current rules ok. I've had a spell caster use his mount for (essentially) his 3rd action. I've had a martial with the Cavalier archetype use the mount for lots of movement when that is useful and extra attacks when that is useful (using the interpretation above).

[NorrKnekten]

TheFinish wrote:

NorrKnekten wrote:

TheFinish wrote:

Correct, but what I mean is more that on Large mounts, 5ft and 10ft Reach both can only attack within 5 feet. This is dumb, and the reasons developers have put forth in the past for why they do it don't really make any sense, but it is what it is.

If you're a Tiny sprite with a Reach weapon your Reach is 5 feet so mounted or unmounted makes no real difference.

I believe it simply has to do with the amount of squares you threathen on a large(or larger) creature while having reach not be limited. Quite different going from 12->32 on a large mount or 16->40 on a huge mount. Especially in relation to Reactive Strike.

Edit: Actually after writing this the Beastmaster in my campaign asked me how Whirlwind Strike would work while mounted.

That is one of the concerns, but the thing is, there is no difference between a medium guy on a Large mount and just...a Large guy. Or a Huge guy.

When a Minotaur Fighter can just start the game with a Reach weapon and have 0 trouble threatening all those squares, or a Giant Instinct Barbarian can threaten out to 15 feet (5 base, +5 from Stature + 5 from Reach Weapon) at Level 6, I see no real point in arbitrarily constraining Mounted characters.

I get the idea that the Animal Companion is more easily accesible, but it also requires a lot more feat investment to keep relevant, so I just allow normal Reach in my games. It hasn't really been a huge power boost.

As for Whirlwind Strike, it would work without any issues, I'd think. You make an attack vs everyone within your Reach, no MAP until you finish.

There is a difference though, A medium guy with a reach weapon only hits adjacent squares when mounted, a large PC with a reach weapon hits all 32

I can see your point, But at the same time Large PCs wasnt a thing until Howl of the Wild, Any other size increase was purely from a temporary spells or features so I can absolutely see why they decided to limit the reach when mounted already in the CRB as a means to stop characters from having the increased presence as a permanent thing. Even if it aged poorly.

For whirlwind, yeah I agree but I can also see how a GM could argue that you select a square to be the base of your 'whirl' and strike anyone in reach of that square thats neither here nor there though.

[Easl]

Bics wrote:

Who would ride into combat then get off their mount so they are not totaly poned in combat.

The Han dynasty used this all the time.

In the bronze age some Greek hoplites used horses to ride to a battle, dismount, then form up in a phalanx. Because phalanxes were how they trained to fight.

Germanic troups would double up; put two people on a horse, ride to the battle, then one or both would dismount to fight.

Moving forward in time, perhaps you've heard of Dragoons? Those units were basically a type of advanced mounted infantry. Actual 'mounted infantry' was a thing too, though generally not as well trained (the dragoons could switch hit as light cavalry and do some fighting from horseback; mounted infantry refers to units that always dismounted)

IOW, this was a real thing from the stone age through the early use of gunpowder.

Quote:

Makes no sense.

In RL, a well-trained horse was expensive. Not all horses could even stay calm in battle. Moreover, training someone to fight from horseback is sort of an expert thing. So for many different types of historical troops, horses were used for their primary purpose i.e. troop transport. Most could not be used as 'tanks' because either the riders didn't know how to do that or the horse didn't (...or both). If you have an expensive troop transport vehicle, it makes perfect sense to leave it well behind the battle lines so it isn't destroyed in the battle.

Now, this is not a simulationist game. I expect the rules for riding and fighting were playtested with balance in mind and not any sort of verisimiltude. And as a fantasy game, you should feel free to make it as unrealistic as your table wants to get. After all, you're playing a sprite riding on a wolf - verisimilitude isn't a concern. :) However, what pauljahome mentions - i.e. the Cavalier archetype solves some of the action cost problems - seems pretty much on the money with RL: to create a PC who is really effective at mounted combat, they have to train (i.e. use build options as they level) to become a mounted combatant. Simply learning how to swing a sword or shoot a bow does not grant you that skill. Heck, simply learning how to shoot a bow AND knowing how to ride, does not necessarily grant you that skill: doing both together is a different thing than doing one then the other separately. So, if a PC is trained in melee and takes an animal combatant, that's like being mounted infantry. Want to become a truly effective cavalry fighter? Take the cavalry archetype.

Now, are the current rules balanced? Do they make riding ACs worthless? Would your changes make them just fine, or would those changes make them too strong? I dunno, I haven't tried them. Clearly, you think they're too conservative. But I'd welcome some feedback from other folks who have used them too. Unfortunately, I can't really comment on the balance question.

[pH unbalanced]

pauljathome wrote:

I'll point out that the Cavalier Archetype helps address some of your issues. It gives access to the Quick Mount skill feat (which, despite the name, can also be used for Quick Unmount). This means that some of the time you don't have to pay the Action cost to mount/dismount.

Note that it is unclear in the rules what happens to your MAP if you attack and THEN mount or dismount. Do you still share MAP? I like the interpretation that you only share MAP if you are currently mounted AND were mounted at the point the previous attack was made but it is unclear.

For what it is worth, I find the current rules ok. I've had a spell caster use his mount for (essentially) his 3rd action. I've had a martial with the Cavalier archetype use the mount for lots of movement when that is useful and extra attacks when that is useful (using the interpretation above).

Just want to say that I've put a lot of playtime into a Cavalier (Ruffian Rogue w/longspear) and it really does work quite well. Rogues are so dependent on positioning that it's a great toolset.

I'd have a hard time recommending Cavalier without Free Archetype, but with FA it is a lot of bang for the buck.

[NorrKnekten]

Easl wrote:

But I'd welcome some feedback from other folks who have used them too. Unfortunately, I can't really comment on the balance question.

My experience with mounted combat typically comes in the form of Rangers, Inventors and druids who all use the companion differently. Being mounted many times is effectively the same as being hasted but with some caveats.

And yes I did miss the point about MAP being shared for the longest time and didnt realize it until after remaster. Making me believe that people complained about beastmasters power because of the ability to mount. Especially since it effectively is haste but two of your actions typically being strike and disengage/engage and strike or a two action ability.

For the classes in general;
Druids may probably be the more interesting one as their options include save spells, Side by Side ensures you are always flanking adjacent targets making melee spell attacks more effective.

Inventors too are a blast to play with a mounted construct. Being able to give the construct 3 actions is real handy considering all the 2-action options that it will get over the course of the campaign. Construct shell to give permanent lesser cover and be able to use explode while riding without targeting oneself, Ignoring the shared MAP as you give all actions to the construct and either use Tamper,Overdrive Ally or Lock-On.

Flurry rangers are well known to just not care about MAP to begin with but any martial picking up Beastmaster in FA is going to have a good time with the new creature specific feats, mounted or not.

Currently I GM for a Champion that swaps between riding a horse or fighting side to side with a crocodile. The last mounted Beastmaster I played was a starlit span magus using a terror bird. Using hit and run tactics while tossing out Void Warp and Arrows. Having fun with beastmasters Running Kick feat to get both strikes and flanking setup for allies. It wasnt ideal and I probably would've had better time with a Laughing Shadows but it was fun.

Before and After realizing MAP is shared, I can absolutely say that both I and the vast majority of my players agree. Something like
Command(Move, Megaton strike) + Mapless Strike
is a bit to much when the unmounted alternative would've been;

Move,Command(Move, strike),mapless strike.
Or
Move,Command(Move, Megaton)

You could also just use another mounted alternative.
Command(Move,Explode/Megavolt), Mapless strike.

A animal companion would be using skill actions or support benefits as suitable for the chosen animal. I've seen strength characters get around this by Assurance/Athletics too, So it isnt like shared MAP is a nerf as much as it is something one has to play around and consider when selecting the type of animal. But to not do shared MAP is effectively letting someone get away with cheating out actions for free.