Mounted Combat?

[Feilith]

So looking over the rules of mounted combat:
From SRD

Mounted Combat [General]
Prerequisite
Ride 1 rank.

Benefit
Once per round when your mount is hit in combat, you may attempt a Ride check (as a reaction) to negate the hit. The hit is negated if your Ride check result is greater than the opponent’s attack roll. (Essentially, the Ride check result becomes the mount’s Armor Class if it’s higher than the mount’s regular AC.)

Special
A fighter may select Mounted Combat as one of his fighter bonus feats.

I feel like there's a loophole, the attacker can choose to target the rider instead of the mount. At lower levels where this feat is in its hay day this is a viable option for making this feat completely useless.

I thought the ride check was for either you or your mount until i reread the feat recently.

Is there a way for the rider to force the attacker to target the mount instead of the rider?

[eggynack]

Mounted combat is mostly just to eliminate your mount as a point of weakness. Otherwise, the first enemy to come along could trivially kill your mount, and you would lose access to whatever you're trying to accomplish by being mounted. You are usually going to be less fragile than your mount, which makes the feat mounted combat far from absolutely worthless.

[Deox]

Manticore Parry maneuver, direct the incoming attack towards your mount, then use your ride check instead of the mount's AC.

First thing off the top of my head. I'm sure there are way more.

[KillianHawkeye]

Well considering that the normal mounted character is assumed to be something like an archetypical knight in shining (heavy) armor, possibly with a shield and a lance, it's pretty likely that the character's own AC will be much higher than the mount's. So having the enemies attack you rather than your horse is actually part of the plan. Mounted Combat just gives an extra layer of security in case somebody gets wise and wants to stop you from using all your Mounted Combat feats. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0437.html)

[GutterFace]

I don't know if manticore parry will work since it says you can deflect the incoming attack to an adjacent target. since the mount occupies your space im not sure if that would qualify...hence why you can turn the attack right back on your attacker.

but if it does that's a genius idea.

mounted combat gets great when you have Ride By Attack. get in and out of combat in a hurry so they cant get at you or your mount

note on the funny: Ashworm Dragoon.

[Ravens_cry]

So looking over the rules of mounted combat:
From SRD


I feel like there's a loophole, the attacker can choose to target the rider instead of the mount. At lower levels where this feat is in its hay day this is a viable option for making this feat completely useless.

Not really. You are taking the hit, not the mount. Your mount not getting hit is the point of the feat. If they target you, mission accomplished,

[Deox]

I don't know if manticore parry will work since it says you can deflect the incoming attack to an adjacent target. since the mount occupies your space im not sure if that would qualify...hence why you can turn the attack right back on your attacker.

Manticore does stipulate that it must be redirected to an adjacent target. Mounted combat says you share your mount's space for simplicity.

I would think that you are adjacent to something below you. Adjacent can be adjoined, and adjoined can be joined with.

I'm now envisioning the epic use of ride to use the mount as cover, parry an attack that some how slips on, and make another ride to deflect.

[holywhippet]

I love how abusive this can potentially be. The enchanted item rules allow you to make skill increasing items that cost skill bonus ^ 2 * 100 GP. So a ring that gives you +20 on your ride check will cost 40,000 gold. So that's +20 to AC if you make sure all attacks are coming at your mount.

[GutterFace]

Manticore does stipulate that it must be redirected to an adjacent target. Mounted combat says you share your mount's space for simplicity.

I would think that you are adjacent to something below you. Adjacent can be adjoined, and adjoined can be joined with.

I'm now envisioning the epic use of ride to use the mount as cover, parry an attack that some how slips on, and make another ride to deflect.

i would tend to agree, but i feel may others would not.

sadly you would always still be open to Ranged and attacks and Magic.

[Slipperychicken]

I figure that attacking the mount is usually pointless. Chances are, the rider is the one dealing damage, and neutralizing him usually means the mount ceases to be relevant too.

Even if the guy's a Paladin or Cavalier or something and has to cry for 30 days every time his favorite horse dies, that's not going to give you much of an advantage in that combat. Even so, he can just buy another horse to use for a month until he can get another one.

If it's a level-scaling mount which gets full progression (or if you're at low levels), it's actually going to be somewhat tanky, and directing attacks toward it will usually be inefficient because it will take a few hits to KO while the really threatening combatants can still wail on you (i.e. don't autoattack the tank!).

If the guy just picked up some run-of-the-mill 100gp horse, then killing it isn't going to be much of a problem aside from reducing his speed maybe dealing 1d6 damage to the rider. Even so, speed matters little in most fights. If you're trying to keep the guy from running away, shooting the mount is a good idea.

[Joe the Rat]

Heck, get yourself a Small or Tiny cohort with Mounted Combat and an insane Ride check to be your rider. It's Ride checks make you inwincible (once per round)!

[GutterFace]

i forget the book. (drat) but you can get a Lesser, Nightmare as a mount you can buy. do it. its hilarious. i had a Marshal that did that. great stuff.

[eggynack]

I figure that attacking the mount is usually pointless. Chances are, the rider is the one dealing damage, and neutralizing him usually means the mount ceases to be relevant too.

Even if the guy's a Paladin or Cavalier or something and has to cry for 30 days every time his favorite horse dies, that's not going to give you much of an advantage in that combat. Even so, he can just buy another horse to use for a month until he can get another one.

If it's a level-scaling mount which gets full progression (or if you're at low levels), it's actually going to be somewhat tanky, and directing attacks toward it will usually be inefficient because it will take a few hits to KO while the really threatening combatants can still wail on you (i.e. don't autoattack the tank!).

If the guy just picked up some run-of-the-mill 100gp horse, then killing it isn't going to be much of a problem aside from reducing his speed maybe dealing 1d6 damage to the rider. Even so, speed matters little in most fights. If you're trying to keep the guy from running away, shooting the mount is a good idea.
I think that there are two problems with this argument. First, mounts have more utility than just speed boosting. Some mounted characters rely on their mounts for a fair chunk of their damage, like mount based uberchargers. It's one of the best reasons to get a mount, actually. The other best reason to buy a mount is to get access to flight, and if the target is relying on the mount for flight, shooting out the mount isn't the worst idea. You might deal falling damage, or more likely, you'll just cut down on their maneuverability. These are the reasons you'd get a mount, so it's pretty likely that they'd be factors.

Second, and it's related to the first issue, the durability of mounts isn't always directly related to their utility to the rider. You might be a fighter, riding a completely normal pegasus, and that pegasus could be the key to both of the above strategies, but that doesn't improve the pegasus' defense all that much. Mounted combat is what allows you to have such a build, with a low defense mount with high utility. I'm not a particular fan of mounted builds, but if you have a mount, I've gotta figure that you do for some reason, and you might want to protect that reason.

[holywhippet]

I don't know if it's in 3.5, but in the Arms and Equipment guide for 3.0 there were some awesome/hilarious monster mounts. Ever wanted to ride a gelatinous cube into battle? A rust monster? A hydra?

[Slipperychicken]

I think that there are two problems with this argument. First, mounts have more utility than just speed boosting. Some mounted characters rely on their mounts for a fair chunk of their damage, like mount based uberchargers. It's one of the best reasons to get a mount, actually. The other best reason to buy a mount is to get access to flight, and if the target is relying on the mount for flight, shooting out the mount isn't the worst idea. You might deal falling damage, or more likely, you'll just cut down on their maneuverability. These are the reasons you'd get a mount, so it's pretty likely that they'd be factors.

Second, and it's related to the first issue, the durability of mounts isn't always directly related to their utility to the rider. You might be a fighter, riding a completely normal pegasus, and that pegasus could be the key to both of the above strategies, but that doesn't improve the pegasus' defense all that much. Mounted combat is what allows you to have such a build, with a low defense mount with high utility. I'm not a particular fan of mounted builds, but if you have a mount, I've gotta figure that you do for some reason, and you might want to protect that reason.

Thing is, it's hard to tell how important a mount is to an opponent's effectiveness, and it's even more difficult to tell how tanky a mount is before you start targeting it. If the mount is either tanky or nonessential, then actions taken against it would be better spent elsewhere.

Unless it's something like a pegasus-rider 200ft in the air, it's going to be difficult to determine whether attacking the mount is worthwhile. And in most circumstances, the rider remains a threat even after his mount falls.

The rider, however, is almost always more important than the mount, and is a safer target as a result.

[eggynack]

Thing is, it's hard to tell how important a mount is to an opponent's effectiveness, and it's even more difficult to tell how tanky a mount is before you start targeting it. If the mount is either tanky or nonessential, then actions taken against it would be better spent elsewhere.

Unless it's something like a pegasus-rider 200ft in the air, it's going to be difficult to determine whether attacking the mount is worthwhile. And in most circumstances, the rider remains a threat even after his mount falls.

The rider, however, is almost always more important than the mount, and is a safer target as a result.
Well, y'know, the guy riding the pegasus is the person choosing whether to take the feat, so it could easily work out that way. Flight is one of the better reasons to go mounted, apart from the charging thing. Mounted combat isn't the best thing, either as a style or a feat, but it's not really completely useless.