Mounted Charge + Martial Strike?

[AlexanderRM]

So, my D&D group is running a brief Epic campaign, and the person DMing it is our groups massive powergamer, who is re-making the NPCs (it started as a module) to be optimized, and has repeatedly informed us of how powerful the NPCs are, and has told us to make our chars as powerful as possible. He has in particular pointed out the low amount of mele ability in our group (my char is a Divine Caster/Martial Adept, the other 2 are full casters) and said that our lack of ability to consistently deal damage- the monsters apparently have relatively low ACs and high saving throws- will be an issue.


Anyway, I came up with the thought of making my character (who would be riding a dragon mount anyway) into an Ubercharger, and using that to multiply the added damage from Maneuvers (Strike of Perfect Clarity being the obvious one). I asked our DM about this and he pointed out that initiating a Maneuvers requires a standard action, and thus cannot be performed on a charge. I checked on the Mounted Combat rules, along with the rules for Spirited Charge and a Lance, which I'll link for ease of reference:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#mountedCombat
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#lance
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#spiritedCharge

So:
-Spirited Charge specifies "using the charge action"
-The Lance, in contrast, specifies "on the back of a charging mount". I, for one, found these to actually make a degree of sense, since Spirited charge is based on spurring your mount to make it's charge more, well, spirited, while a lance simply takes advantage of the momentum of a normal charge.
-The Mounted Combat rules discuss your mount charging (and indicate that this grants you the normal bonuses from a charge), which is consistent with rules for other actions like spellcasting and firing ranged weapons- you can take actions while your mount moves, the inability to full attack because you need to wait for your mount to get there.


Anyway, I pointed this out to the DM, who told me to ask this in a topic on GitP forums and see what people thought.
He also said to say we are doing this by RAW, though I'm not sure why I need to ask this in that case because most of these seem pretty clear by RAW.

Anyway, questions for people:

1. Can one use a martial maneuver after your mount charges, using a standard action towards the end of your mount's full-round action?

2. Do the damage multipliers for A: A Lance and B: Spirited Charge apply if your mount is charging?

3. Does the damage added by a Martial Maneuver get multiplied?


These seem pretty clear by RAW (though I'd lean toward no for Spirited Charge... except that it really has[I] to be your mount charging, there's no way [I]you can charge while mounted, at least not in a way that could be advantageous over charging normally).


Incidentally, while the end result of all this would seem ridiculous, I would like to point out that it wouldn't be nearly as bad in this campaign as it would in most- just from what I've been told, the foe's we'll be facing will include a full caster with over 500 hp and an AC above 80, an archer who shoots from thousands of feet away and teleports so as to prevent us from finding him, and in fact an NPC Ubercharger who I've been told could OHKO my mele-focused character.
(I am not, of course, suggesting that anyone not in a one-off, epic-level powergaming campaign try this.)

[Keld Denar]

1) MOST maneuvers are standard actions. If you spend your full round action charging, you don't have any "action" left to intiate a maneuver. Charging gives you a single attack at the end, not a standard action.

That said, there are a few maneuvers like Pouncing Charge or X-Leader's Charge that DO work as part of a charge, but that is explicitly spelled out in the maneuver.

2) Those multipliers ONLY factor in if your mount is charging (and you are charging on it).

3) Only static bonuses multiply. Extra dice would not, but bonus damage from manevuers like Warleader's Charge, the Leading the Charge stance, and static damage like Strike of Perfect Clarity would stack...except that you have to be able to use the maneuver as part of the charge, which only the X-Leader's Charge maneuvers allow.

[AlexanderRM]

1) MOST maneuvers are standard actions. If you spend your full round action charging, you don't have any "action" left to intiate a maneuver. Charging gives you a single attack at the end, not a standard action.


Yeah, that's what my DM thought (and I thought might be true at first), however, the whole point of this is that you are not spending your full-round action, your mount is. It never says that the rider has to expend actions when their mount moves; in fact, it quite clearly states otherwise for multiple types of actions.




That said, there are a few maneuvers like Pouncing Charge or X-Leader's Charge that DO work as part of a charge, but that is explicitly spelled out in the maneuver.


This is quite a good point. War Master's Charge lets you deal an extra 50 damage (plus giving all your allies a free charge and +25 damage, though in this campaign we'll only have 1 other ally with mele, my dragon mount), but if my interpretation of Spirited Charge and the Lance is correct, it would allow you to use both of those bonuses, giving 150 damage rather than 200 and also letting you multiply the rest of the damage, which should give you a LOT of additional damage at epic levels. I can also get it from Crusader rather than a cheesy dip in Swordsage.

[DarkestKnight]

for spirited charge and lance multipliers those damages are usually added on after multiplication, or at least within my groups games at least.

as for the mount charging, as much as it blows my mind, RAW you are right. however if you want your mount to charge and then you use a maneuver you give up your normal attack at the end of your mounts charge, which depending on your mount, may be a bummer. were I in your dm's spot i would rule that making a maneuver at the end of a mounted charge is fine, but that causing multiple charges from the same combatant (mount or mounted) is a no go. if you want to move you and Pony up then use warmasters charge, I'd have no problem with that. I'd also allow other on charge things to stack like warmasters and the cavaliers deadly charge, assuming the extra damage comes after multiplication. i would also demand that you yell out "FOR PONY!" whenever you charge...

[Darrin]

Yeah, that's what my DM thought (and I thought might be true at first), however, the whole point of this is that you are not spending your full-round action, your mount is. It never says that the rider has to expend actions when their mount moves; in fact, it quite clearly states otherwise for multiple types of actions.


The mounted combat rules were never adequately playtested, so there are some quirks in them that you'll have to iron out with your DM. Most notably, the "Ride-By Attack/Charge nearest square" conundrum, and these two sentences:

"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."

Unfortunately, the rules don't define what kind of action would be a "single melee attack", but we can probably reasonably conclude that they mean a "standard action". Thus, any other standard action, such as a martial strike, casting a touch spell, etc. should work as well.

You do get your normal allotment of actions while your mount moves, so you still get move + standard + swift, or full-round + swift (mounted Eldritch Glaive, anyone?), and so forth.

If your DM doesn't buy that argument, there's another way to get your strike in while mounted: ready an action so it triggers "when my mount attacks" or "when I get in range to make a melee attack".

[Fouredged Sword]

Someone needs to then play the UPS man and the Mail man rolled into one. Who needs to worry about saves!

[Keld Denar]

A mounted charge is an action performed by the rider and the mount. The mount double moves, you spend your full round action on the charge, and you make one attack. If your mount charges, you aren't making a mounted charge, and you don't recieve any of the benefits of the charge (but your mount does). You COULD ready an action to make a standard action strike when your mount moves you in range of the foe, but then it wouldn't be a mounted charge since charging is a full round action.

The rules for mounted combat are very poorly written, but not THAT poorly written.

Darrin, an attack can be made as a standard action, but an attack is NOT a standard action. An attack is just as it sounds. One attack roll. That attack can be a standard hit-for-damage attack, or it can be any number of attack replacable combat options such as attempting a trip, a grapple, or sunder. Saying that the mounted combat rules give you a standard action when they clearly indicate that they give you an attack is inaccurate. Contrast Ride By Attack with Fly By Attack which explicitly gives you a standard action in the middle of your move. If they had intended Ride By Attack to give a standard action, they would have made it the same as FBA.

[Darrin]

A mounted charge is an action performed by the rider and the mount. The mount double moves, you spend your full round action on the charge, and you make one attack.


From the SRD:

"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."

Nowhere in there does it state that when your mount charges that the rider must also use a full-round action to charge. As far as I can tell, you still get your full complement of actions while your mount is charging. You get the -2 AC penalty and the +2 attack bonus if your mount charges, and the rules say you can't full attack because you have to wait for your mount to close the distance. And I am well aware that an "attack" and standard action aren't the same thing, but if a full-attack isn't allowed, I'm assuming the attack at the end of your mount's charge is a standard action attack.



You COULD ready an action to make a standard action strike when your mount moves you in range of the foe, but then it wouldn't be a mounted charge since charging is a full round action.


The text states the rider gets the charge bonus/penalty from the mount charging, which would still apply on the rider's standard action/single melee attack.



Darrin, an attack can be made as a standard action, but an attack is NOT a standard action. An attack is just as it sounds. One attack roll.


I understand that, but since a full-attack is forbidden, and no mention is made that it's a free-action or no-action attack, that sort of leaves standard action by process of elimination. (If it isn't a standard action, then how would you classify it? It isn't identified as a non-action/free-action as an AoO or Cleave might be.)



The rules for mounted combat are very poorly written, but not THAT poorly written.


I disagree. Yes, they are THAT poorly written.



If they had intended Ride By Attack to give a standard action, they would have made it the same as FBA.

Ride-By Attack is nearly unusable as-is, but the designers appear to be seriously confused about who is actually using the charge action when a mounted charge occurs. As I understand it, the order of operations would be:

Rider on a War-Trained Mount
1) Rider and mount act on the same initiative count. Rider makes a Ride check DC 5 (no action) to "guide with knees". If this roll fails, the rider has to use one hand to direct his mount. I would assume if the rider already has a hand free and isn't doing anything else with it, he can skip this check. The action to actually direct the mount isn't specified... I'm assuming it's either a "no action" or "free action". Otherwise we have to start dealing with the Handle Animal rules (move action to direct it to attack), which makes this whole process even more klunky.

2) Rider makes a Ride check DC 10 to "fight as war mount attacks" (free action). No mention is made if this can be combined with the "guide with the knees" roll, but I would raise an eyebrow at a DM that insisted these rolls have to be separate.

3) Assuming the mount was directed to charge, it takes a full-round action to charge. Both the rider and mount get a -2 AC penalty and a +2 attack bonus per the mounted combat rules in the Combat section. The mount moves and resolves its attacks as a normal charge.

4) The rider now makes a single melee attack. No mention is made of what action is required, except that full-attack is forbidden. The rider still has his full complement of actions, so I'm assuming the only attack action available is a standard action.

5) The rider still has a swift and move action available, if he has anything he can do with those.

Rider on a Non-War-Trained Mount
1) Rider makes a Ride check DC 20 to control the mount (move action). Again, no mention is made if this can be combined with the "guide with knees" or if a separate roll is required to fight as your mount attacks. If the check fails, then the move action becomes a full-round action, which would prevent the rider from attacking.

2) Mount does it's charge-thing as a full-round action.

3) Assuming you made the DC 20 Ride check, the rider still has a standard action left, which can be your single melee attack.

Both Ride-By Attack and Spirited Charge seem to assume the charge action is performed by the rider, but I don't see any support for that in either the combat section or the Skills section or Combat section. I attribute this to confusion on the designers' part. The Combat section only mentions the mount charging, and the rider/mount getting both the bonus and penalty.


If I understand your argument, in order to charge, both the mount and rider would have to use full-round actions to charge (the rider getting his single melee attack per the charge rules rather than as a standard action), but I don't really see that supported anywhere in the rules.

[AlexanderRM]

for spirited charge and lance multipliers those damages are usually added on after multiplication, or at least within my groups games at least.


I admit, this both makes sense in the rules and has some arguable basis in RAW, though that requires getting rather pedantic about the exact phrasing of various maneuvers. Strike of Perfect Clarity does say something along the lines of "The attack deals an extra 100 damage on top of your normal mele damage", and I can't think of any particular bonuses which use that wording and would generally be expect to be multiplied.
This might be partly because most of the bonuses are equal to a certain variable number, so you couldn't really say it that way for things like Strength or Enhancement Bonus.




however if you want your mount to charge and then you use a maneuver you give up your normal attack at the end of your mounts charge, which depending on your mount, may be a bummer.
were I in your dm's spot i would rule that making a maneuver at the end of a mounted charge is fine, but that causing multiple charges from the same combatant (mount or mounted) is a no go.


I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to here... you don't get a normal attack when your mount charges anyway, and you still make a normal attack, you're just adding the effect of the maneuver to it. Also, for the second paragraph, are you referring to having both you and your mount charge (from War Master's Charge)? I'm not sure what else it could be... in that case, it would really be no different from making a Mounted Charge as per the "Your mount becomes your legs" interpretation.

[AlexanderRM]

A mounted charge is an action performed by the rider and the mount. The mount double moves, you spend your full round action on the charge, and you make one attack. If your mount charges, you aren't making a mounted charge, and you don't recieve any of the benefits of the charge (but your mount does). You COULD ready an action to make a standard action strike when your mount moves you in range of the foe, but then it wouldn't be a mounted charge since charging is a full round action.

The rules for mounted combat are very poorly written, but not THAT poorly written.


I didn't want to say this earlier because it would sound insulting, and no offensive intended by this, but have you actually checked the Mounted Combat rules? If so, could you point me to the place where it says that the rider must take a full-round action for the mount to charge?

While it technically never says that this *isn't* the case, it's pretty clear that the mount can make normal moves and even run (the same speed as on the moving part of a charge, which thus logically should be no different) while the rider can perform their full actions. It also explicitly states that you can guide your mount as a free action, and staying in the saddle is an outright nonaction, so there is no sane explanation for needing to do this.





Darrin, an attack can be made as a standard action, but an attack is NOT a standard action. An attack is just as it sounds. One attack roll.


I suppose that Darrin's interpretation wasn't quite correct there, and would be incorrect with the rules for making a charge oneself (which is not at all what's being discussed), however this clearly is not the intention for this rule; the reason for this restriction- both the explanation and the intent in-game is clearly stated in the same sentence that gives the restriction:
"you have to wait until the mount gets to your enemy before attacking, so you can’t make a full attack."
It is not because you have expended actions on getting your mount to move 10 feet (guiding your mount is basically a free action, as is staying on it), it's because part of your round occurred while your mount was moving and thus you can't spend all your actions at the point it ends up at.
As I've said repeatedly, the rules for using ranged weapons and casting spells (the later of which are equivalent to maneuvers) clearly state that you do not actually have to spend actions along with your mount.



Saying that the mounted combat rules give you a standard action when they clearly indicate that they give you an attack is inaccurate.


Are you by any chance thinking that Darrin was referring to the charging rules? The mounted combat rules do not give you a standard action (that would be ludicrous). You already have that standard action. The rules just prevent you from making a full mele attack at any particular point during the charge. The term "a single mele attack" is meant to distinguish it from multiple mele attacks, not from a standard action.

[Greenish]

The term "a single mele attack" is meant to distinguish it from multiple mele attacks, not from a standard action.How do you know that?

[Keld Denar]

You have to charge. It is identical to a charge in all regards except where noted.

Charging is a special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action. However, it carries tight restrictions on how you can move.
The exception is that instead of you moving up to twice your speed, your mount is moving up to twice its speed. In all other ways, its still a charge, and you still have to follow ALL of the other rules for charging.

Your mount acts on your initiative count as you direct it. You move at its speed, but the mount uses its action to move.

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.
No where there does it say that your mount has to charge if you do, only that if it is charging, you are treated as charging too (with all benefits and action costs associated). Most mounts don't make attacks at the end of their charges, which is because the mount isn't charging (but you are). The mount is simply moving twice its move speed, which you are allowed to do while charging. Charging on a mount is the same as charging on foot, except that you use the mount's move speed, the mounts actions (as well as yours), and you have to make the ride checks to make it do what you want it to do. Oh, and you get mega lance damage.

And as I said, not all attacks are standard actions. The attack during a Shot on the Run is not a standard action (or you could Multishot during it). The attack during a Spring Attack is not a standard action. Similarly, the attack made at the end of a charge (mounted or otherwise) is not a standard action. Its just an attack.

EDIT for clarification:

Possible combinations:
Neither you nor your mount charge.
You charge, but your mount doesn't.
You AND your mount charge.

Not possible combinations:
You don't charge, but your mount does. If your mount charges, you have to charge with it.

[AlexanderRM]

Also: Ninja'd by Darrin.
And sorry for the triple post, but they got pretty long, and I thought dividing them by posted responded to would make them a *lot* easier to read.




And I am well aware that an "attack" and standard action aren't the same thing, but if a full-attack isn't allowed, I'm assuming the attack at the end of your mount's charge is a standard action attack.

Technically, this logic is incorrect, as the rules for normal charging grant you a single attack which I'm pretty sure it not a standard action- thus, to use an example that would be around when the rules were written, you couldn't charge and cast a spell.
You could, however, cast a spell while your mount charged, as is very specifically stated in the text. This is because, as I said, the rules do not actually grant you an attack as with a normal charge, the attack is made using your normal standard action.





I disagree. Yes, they are THAT poorly written.

I have to actually disagree with you here (I'm saying they aren't THAT poorly written), though for different reasons. While other parts might be vague, the parts relevant to the discussion are written well enough that I can be pretty sure Keld Denar isn't reading the same set of rules that I am.

The rules specifically say that the mount has a separate set of actions:
"Your mount acts on your initiative count as you direct it. You move at its speed, but the mount uses its action to move."
Which it uses separately from yours. The rules listed for using ranged weapons and casting spells are based upon this premise, and the rules for mele attacks are entirely consistent with it. All of these sections also specifically state that your mount is the one moving, not you.

The Ride skill also states that it's possible to direct your mount as a free action with a DC 5 ride check, which can be made even on a natural 1 by a 1st level char with 10 dex or an untrained character with 18 dex.

It's true that they don't technically state that you can take a mele attack which requires a standard action after your mount moves, but one can't really blame them for that since at the time those were written, I can't think of many things one could do which were a mele attack but required a standard action to use. The only one I can think of is casting a touch spell- and it does specifically state that one can cast a spell while your mount moves.





Ride-By Attack is nearly unusable as-is, but the designers appear to be seriously confused about who is actually using the charge action when a mounted charge occurs.

It does sound like that. The designers of Ride-By Attack and Spirited Charge do refer to "you", the person riding, using the Charge action, which is not only contradictory to the clear theme of your mount charging in the rules, but your mount is clearly stated to use it's action to move. Thus, if the text is interpreted literally, it would be literally impossible to use those feats unless your character has absurdly long legs and is using them to charge, carrying the mount along with it. :D

I would say that the designers probably had not read the text on mounted combat recently and carefully either when they designed those feats. Is it possible that those feats were designed somewhat after that text was written, and whoever wrote them also got the impression that your mount just becomes your legs?





If I may modify (with my understanding of the separate actions, also cutting down talk about ride checks a trained rider can make even on a natural 1) the Order of Operations for a rider on a Rider on a War-Trained Mount, it should be:

Rider on a War-Trained Mount
1) Rider and mount act on the same initiative count. Rider (with at least 4 ranks in Ride) automatically makes a Ride check DC 5 (no action) to "guide with knees".

2) Rider (with at least 9 ranks in Ride) also automatically makes a Ride check DC 10 to "fight as war mount attacks" (free action). It doesn't matter if the ride checks are the same roll, since at 6th-level a rider with max ride won't need to roll for either of them.

3) Assuming the mount was directed to charge, it takes a full-round action to charge. Both the rider and mount get a -2 AC penalty and a +2 attack bonus per the mounted combat rules in the Combat section. The mount moves and resolves its attacks as a normal charge.

4) The rider can now make a single melee attack. The rider still has his full complement of actions, and uses his own standard action to do this. He can also use this mele attack as part of a maneuver, which he can initiate using his standard action.

5) The rider still has a swift and move action available, if he has anything he can do with those.

[DarkestKnight]

sorry for the confusion earlier. the point i was trying to make is that it is understandable to me to replace that charge attack the rider gets with a ToB maneuver as long as it doesn't create another charge move. why i couldn't phrase that coherently earlier is beyond me...

[AlexanderRM]

How do you know that?

Because... I've actually read that term in context, including the sentence following that statement, which everyone else has been ignoring in regards to that. It explicitly says the reason for this restriction. Also because there could not possibly be any other reason for this, since what the restriction does (as compared to if it was not there) is prevent the rider from making an entire full attack.
Seriously, I swear everyone else seems to think they're talking about the attack at the end of a charge. In fact, I'm sure Keld Denar thinks he's talking about the attack when making a charge, since he just went into great detail arguing that that attack is not a standard action, despite the fact that nobody in this thread has at any time claimed that it was. The "single mele attack" here has NO connection to the ability to attack during a charge.





@ Keld: thank you for proving that you have in fact read the rules for mounted combat, and giving enough of an explanation to let me figure out what the problem is.




Charging on a mount is the same as charging on foot, except that you use the mount's move speed, the mounts actions (as well as yours)


This seems to be the source of confusion. First of all, the rules for mounted combat make a very confusing statement:

"Your mount acts on your initiative count as you direct it. You move at its speed, but the mount uses its action to move. "

Now, anyway... the issue is that it talks about "you" moving, and in the same sentence makes a statement about the horse moving. It also inserts a "but" in between them to imply them to be contradictory.


The second issue is that you've inserted the statement "(as well as yours)" into this, which is not only never stated but in fact is CLEARLY not the case as shown, as I have said SEVERAL times, by the rules for making ranged attacks or casting spells while mounted. You still have your full set of actions regardless of what your mount does.
This interpretation also makes no sense from a common sense perspective of what the game rules represent. The rider is NOT expending any time or significant amount of effort on either directing the horse or staying in the saddle while it's moving, and thus there is absolutely NO reason why the horse moving would somehow prevent him from taking actions, any more than standing on the surface of a campaign world which is spherical and rotates would do so.


As to what the rule actually means... it is quite confusing, but I'm pretty sure the statement "you move at it's speed" is intended to mean that when the mount moves (using it's actions to do so). I think that the term "you" in that case is supposed to refer to you + the mount, and is intended to clarify that when the mount moves it moves at it's speed, not yours. To put it another way, when your mount takes an action that involves moving, the location of the rider changes in the same way.
Now, I admit I can't say why the writers thought it necessary to include such a horrendous statement, but that does seem to be both the simplest answer and the only one which either makes regular sense and fits with the rest of the rules, of which it does both.



A better and clearer way to write that would be:
"Your mount acts on your initiative count as you direct it. It uses it's own actions to move, and it moves at it's speed."

[AlexanderRM]

Anyway, can we please move on to the other two questions? I've just spent like 3 hours literally citing the exact same parts of the rules over and over again with a slightly different phrasing in response to the exact same statements and realized all this has just been the first one.



The one that really matters (isn't totally obvious) and doesn't involve quite as much pointless and endless arguing over the precise semantics of horribly-written stuff is #3- is the extra damage from martial maneuvers multiplied by mounted charge?

(If you think it doesn't matter b/c blah blah blah, just talk about whether the bonuses from charge-related maneuvers are multiplied, or whether they're multiplier for critical hits, but ignore any issues specific to either of those.)

[Keld Denar]

The second issue is that you've inserted the statement "(as well as yours)" into this, which is not only never stated but in fact is CLEARLY not the case as shown, as I have said SEVERAL times, by the rules for making ranged attacks or casting spells while mounted. You still have your full set of actions regardless of what your mount does.
This interpretation also makes no sense from a common sense perspective of what the game rules represent. The rider is NOT expending any time or significant amount of effort on either directing the horse or staying in the saddle while it's moving, and thus there is absolutely NO reason why the horse moving would somehow prevent him from taking actions, any more than standing on the surface of a campaign world which is spherical and rotates would do so.

NORMALLY, this is correct. If your horse is just prancing around while you are slinging spells around or performing a medieval drive-by, then you're mounts actions have absolutely 0 impact on your life. Exactly as you stated.

IF, however, you are performing a mounted charge, this changes. If your mount charges, or you charge while mounted, the rules state that you are considered charging. Since you are charging, you have to spend the full round action to do so (since nothing specifies otherwise).

Thats the only way I can figure out that the rules, as they are written, make sense. If you think about it, it kinda makes sense in real life. If you are performing a mounted charge, you are crouching down over your mount (lowering your center of gravity to get more leverage), utilizing the mount's momentum to put extra force behind your blow. You aren't just lollygagging around, staring up at the sky and waiting for your mount to get where it needs to go so you can attack. Charging with a lance is all about transfering the force of the blow through the lance, through the rider, through the saddle and stirrups, and into the massive weight of the horse, which likewise transfers its momentum through the saddle and stirrups into our body, and into the lance concentrating all of that momentum into a very small surface area.

My examples still hold.

Possible combinations:
Neither you nor your mount charge. (ie horse double moves while you cast a spell)
You charge, but your mount doesn't. (ie horse double moves, you spend full round action "charging")
You AND your mount charge. (ie horse moves up to 2x speed and attacks, you spend full round action "charging")

Not possible combinations:
You don't charge, but your mount does. If your mount charges, you have to charge with it.

That is the only possible combination I interpret from the rules. Its clearly spelled out that if your mount is charging, you are charging too. "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." You are charging. On horseback. Charging takes a full round action. You have to spend a full round action to charge, horseback or otherwise. Instead of YOU moving, the mount moves. Period.

Nothing in that line of reasoning negates the requirement to take a full round action to charge. If you charge, whether mounted or not, you have to spend a full round action. If your mount charges, you HAVE TO CHARGE WITH IT, and spend the appropriate action to do so. Its the only time a mount's actions dictate yours.

EDIT: I already answered that question. If the bonus damage is static, it multiplies. If the bonus damage is variable, it does not multiply.

Citation (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatStatistics.htm#multiplyingDamage)

Multiplying Damage

Sometimes you multiply damage by some factor, such as on a critical hit. Roll the damage (with all modifiers) multiple times and total the results. Note: When you multiply damage more than once, each multiplier works off the original, unmultiplied damage.

Exception: Extra damage dice over and above a weapon’s normal damage are never multiplied.

The bonus damage gained from Leading the Charge stance (+1 damage /2 ILs) would multiply. The bonus damage gained from Strike of Perfect Clarity (+100 damage) would multiply. The bonus damage from Punishing Stance (+1d6) would not multiply, nor would the +2d6 damage you get from Mountain Hammer. Multiplication is multiplication, regardless of whether it comes from a critical hit, a special combat manevuer, or any number of possible sources.

EDIT EDIT: If nobody has responded to your post, don't be afraid to edit if you want to add points or clarifications. Rules. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1)

[Gavinfoxx]

Just go for as many ubercharger things as you can manage. Of Shock Trooper, Power Attack, Battle Jump, Leap Attack, Gloryborn Weapon, Valorous Weapon, Weapon of Vaulting, etc. etc.

Dedicated characters can easily get their damage into the thousands on a charge... even with less, you should still be able to get some of this.

[Darrin]

Anyway, can we please move on to the other two questions?

2) The rules aren't clear on who is doing what, but it appears to me that the intent was when you (and your mount) are performing a mounted charge, you both count as charging for all intents and purposes. So yes, I'd say you get the multiplier for the lance and spirited charge.

3) ToB p. 43 mentions that you don't multiply damage from strikes on a crit, but then contradicts itself in the very next sentence:

"You do not multiply extra damage from a strike with a successful critical hit. You treat it just as you would extra damage from another special ability, such as sneak attack."

I think the issue here is when the designers wrote the first sentence, they assumed that most extra damage from maneuvers is extra damage dice, which in general are not multiplied. The second sentence is a reminder about how damage is multiplied in general, as specified in the Combat section:

a) extra damage dice beyond the normal weapon damage are not multiplied
b) static modifiers (Str bonus, PA bonus, favored enemy bonus, War Master's Charge, etc.) are multiplied

So, my recommendation is to follow the general rules.

[AlexanderRM]

EDIT: I already answered that question. If the bonus damage is static, it multiplies. If the bonus damage is variable, it does not multiply.

Citation (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatStatistics.htm#multiplyingDamage)

The bonus damage gained from Leading the Charge stance (+1 damage /2 ILs) would multiply. The bonus damage gained from Strike of Perfect Clarity (+100 damage) would multiply. The bonus damage from Punishing Stance (+1d6) would not multiply, nor would the +2d6 damage you get from Mountain Hammer. Multiplication is multiplication, regardless of whether it comes from a critical hit, a special combat manevuer, or any number of possible sources.


Ah, cool. Sorry, I saw that but didn't understand why that would be, and then got sidetracked with the whole mount charging debate.

Also, it turns out my D&D group has been doing multipliers wrong this whole time- we just roll the dice once, total it (before stuff like extra energy damage, of course) and then multiply it- rather than roll the dice for each multiplication. I'll try to change that if I remember.





Just go for as many ubercharger things as you can manage. Of Shock Trooper, Power Attack, Battle Jump, Leap Attack, Gloryborn Weapon, Valorous Weapon, Weapon of Vaulting, etc. etc.

Dedicated characters can easily get their damage into the thousands on a charge... even with less, you should still be able to get some of this.

Yeah, I was thinking of that, but I kinda liked actually coming up with my *own* awesome cheese rather than just using lists others have assembled.

Plus, if those first 4 are feats that would take nearly half my nonepic feats (9) even with flaws, not counting the normal Spirited Charge tree; I was also planning on my char being a Saint (3 Exalted feats), and getting Leadership (+ Epic Leadership, for the Dragon). I've already given up Divine Metamagic Persist Spell, so I really only have about 1 spare feat I could spend, which I'll probably make Quicken Spell (Which I want b/c the campaign will apparently end with killing a Demigod and getting his divine ranks, so I can get Automatic Metamagic (Quicken Spell), which would be awesome).

But yeah. When I told my DM I was thinking of doing this, he said "This is by far not the most abusive thing you could do with charging". :)