Does Spirited Charge double mount damage on charge?

[Gruftzwerg]

When mounted and using the charge action, you deal double damage with a melee weapon (or triple damage with a lance).

Do I see this right that the ability doesn't differentiate between "mounting something as rider" and "being mounted by something as the mount itself"?
Does the mount also get double damage with melee weapons on charge attacks?
Since English is my 3rd language I'm not really sure how far "mounted" can be used/stretched in the English language. I tried to google it, but I'm unsure about my results.

As far as I see it, the mount is also considered "mounted" with a rider on his back and uses the charge action together with his rider. Sadly, the English language doesn't differentiate between singular and plural with the use of "you"..
And the context seem to be lacking any indicators here. Or did I miss something?

[Zombimode]

Do I see this right that the ability doesn't differentiate between "mounting something as rider" and "being mounted by something as the mount itself"?
Does the mount also get double damage with melee weapons on charge attacks?
Since English is my 3rd language I'm not really sure how far "mounted" can be used/stretched in the English language. I tried to google it, but I'm unsure about my results.

As far as I see it, the mount is also considered "mounted" with a rider on his back and uses the charge action together with his rider. Sadly, the English language doesn't differentiate between singular and plural with the use of "you"..
And the context seem to be lacking any indicators here. Or did I miss something?

The mount is "being mounted". It the difference between active and passive.

[Twurps]

I agree with Zombimode.

And in addition: Even if we would go for the more lenient reading where we don't distinguish between the active and passive 'mounted'.
The passive 'being mounted' creature would still need to have this feat him/herself in order to have any benefits from it.

[Clementx]

English can be very ambiguous because the same letters represent different conjugations, so your confusion actually indicates you know more than you think, and you would understand a lot of humor and puns :)

As a general rule, D&D books assume your character is a humanoid doing medieval fantasy things. So mounted means the usual arrangement when a human and horse are fighting together.

[Gruftzwerg]

I agree with Zombimode.

And in addition: Even if we would go for the more lenient reading where we don't distinguish between the active and passive 'mounted'.
The passive 'being mounted' creature would still need to have this feat him/herself in order to have any benefits from it.
Lets assume that I agree with the "mounted part". I still have problems to see any indicator that "you" only refers to "yourself" and not "you both" (you & your mount). Imho both interpretations seem to fit:
1) you (alone) deal double dmg..
2) you (both) deal double dmg..
Where is the indicator that the "you" is used for singular and not plural? I mean it's not that the world is gonna break apart because an ability would give a benefit to a rider & his mount.



English can be very ambiguous because the same letters represent different conjugations, so your confusion actually indicates you know more than you think, and you would understand a lot of humor and puns :)

As a general rule, D&D books assume your character is a humanoid doing medieval fantasy things. So mounted means the usual arrangement when a human and horse are fighting together.

Yeah, sometimes it can be fun. But on other occasions it's just a nightmare^^
Same here: When "mounted" indicates the usual arrangement of a human(oid) and his (horse) mount fighting together, why should "you" only refer to the rider? What am I missing here?

[daremetoidareyo]

Lets assume that I agree with the "mounted part". I still have problems to see any indicator that "you" only refers to "yourself" and not "you both" (you & your mount). Imho both interpretations seem to fit:
1) you (alone) deal double dmg..
2) you (both) deal double dmg..
Where is the indicator that the "you" is used for singular and not plural? I mean it's not that the world is gonna break apart because an ability would give a benefit to a rider & his mount.




Yeah, sometimes it can be fun. But on other occasions it's just a nightmare^^
Same here: When "mounted" indicates the usual arrangement of a human(oid) and his (horse) mount fighting together, why should "you" only refer to the rider? What am I missing here?

I think the phrase would read “you both deal double damage” if it was designed to be mount inclusive. It’s a fantastic catch on the language of the first part of the feat though. So a void disciple or a mount that you can share a heroics spell with, or if you had a heart fire fanner in the party, you could get spirited charge on the mount itself, doubling the damage it does with its melee weapons, so consider investing in mounts with bites and some mouthpick lances for triple damage on a charge.

[Twurps]

Lets assume that I agree with the "mounted part". I still have problems to see any indicator that "you" only refers to "yourself" and not "you both" (you & your mount). Imho both interpretations seem to fit:
1) you (alone) deal double dmg..
2) you (both) deal double dmg..
Where is the indicator that the "you" is used for singular and not plural? I mean it's not that the world is gonna break apart because an ability would give a benefit to a rider & his mount.
here?

I know 'you' can be plural in english, but as it is the feat description, it would still apply only to the person actually having the feat. disregarding corner cases, (Dvati? sharing feats somehow?) that's usually just one person.

Unless you want to argue that things like 'two weapon Defense' or 'high sword low axe' taken by 1 party member apply to your entire party because 'you' is plural? They also have a 'When xxxx' clause that can be easily met by others. And if you really wanna go there, we could argue that in the absence of any such clause 'you' would apply to everybody you like. In which case 'weapon focus' just became a lot more useful.

[Gruftzwerg]

OK, lets resume this. I hope I got this right now:^^

When the mount itself would have access to Spirited Charge itself and have rider on his back, it would be able to profit from the feat (and deal double damage).

[Twurps]

OK, lets resume this. I hope I got this right now:^^

When the mount itself would have access to Spirited Charge itself and have rider on his back, it would be able to profit from the feat (and deal double damage).

well, then we're back to the active vs passive discussion. If 'when mounted' also covers the passive part (Being the Mountee, vs the Mounter), then yes, it would work for the mount.
And if you're die-hard RAW, it should probably work.

Arguing RAI is always difficult. I would say whoever wrote this probably didn't mean for this feat to work for the Mountee, but it seems reasonable enough to me to allow it anyway. If we consider this an appropriate feat for the 'mounter', there's little reason not to allow it for the 'mountee'.

[Remuko]

Lets assume that I agree with the "mounted part". I still have problems to see any indicator that "you" only refers to "yourself" and not "you both" (you & your mount). Imho both interpretations seem to fit:
1) you (alone) deal double dmg..
2) you (both) deal double dmg..
Where is the indicator that the "you" is used for singular and not plural? I mean it's not that the world is gonna break apart because an ability would give a benefit to a rider & his mount

i get what you mean here. we should bring "Thou" back into common parlance. Thou is singular, you is plural.

[liquidformat]

I agree with Zombimode.

And in addition: Even if we would go for the more lenient reading where we don't distinguish between the active and passive 'mounted'.
The passive 'being mounted' creature would still need to have this feat him/herself in order to have any benefits from it.

I think it might be useful to look at the mounted combat feats to see what language they use to see how 'you' should be interpreted.

Mounted Combat: Once per round when your mount is hit in combat, you may attempt a Ride check (as a reaction) to negate the hit.

Interestingly this feat doesn't seem to require being mounted just having a designated 'mount'. Though in this case it is pretty clear who it is referring to.

Trample: When you attempt to overrun an opponent while mounted, your target may not choose to avoid you. Your mount may make one hoof attack against any target you knock down, gaining the standard +4 bonus on attack rolls against prone targets.
This one is pretty screwy to read, this one seem to suggest 'you' is the rider; however if you look at the overrun rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#overrun) 'you' is clearly referring to the mount...

Valenar Trample: When you attempt to overrun an opponent while mounted on a Valenar horse, your target cannot choose to avoid you. Both you and your mount can make one attack (your mount with a hoof and you with a melee weapon) against any target you knock down, gaining the standard +4 bonus on attack rolls against prone targets.

I chose to add this one since it does clearly give 'Both you and your mount'.

Mounted Mobility: If you are mounted, you and your mount get a +4 dodge bonus to Armor Class against attacks of opportunity provoked when your mount moves out of a threatened square.

Another 'you and your mount' designation.

Spirit of the Stallion: While mounted on a Valenar horse, you receive a +1 circumstance bonus on melee attack rolls and melee weapon damage rolls.

This one again clarifies the 'you' to the rider.

Ride-By Attack: When you are mounted and use the charge action, you may move and attack as if with a standard charge and then move again (continuing the straight line of the charge). Your total movement for the round can't exceed double your mounted speed. You and your mount do not provoke an attack of opportunity from the opponent that you attack.

Again pretty clear in who does what.

In this case the only two feats use ambiguous language for the 'you' in the feat and given the wording of trample I think their is just as much of a RAW argument claiming the 'you' in the feat is the mount as there is for it to be the rider or both.


I know 'you' can be plural in english, but as it is the feat description, it would still apply only to the person actually having the feat. disregarding corner cases, (Dvati? sharing feats somehow?) that's usually just one person.

Unless you want to argue that things like 'two weapon Defense' or 'high sword low axe' taken by 1 party member apply to your entire party because 'you' is plural? They also have a 'When xxxx' clause that can be easily met by others. And if you really wanna go there, we could argue that in the absence of any such clause 'you' would apply to everybody you like. In which case 'weapon focus' just became a lot more useful.

That is a false equivalence since nowhere in either of those feats does it talk about multiple creatures, whereas, in the case of mounted combat feats unless you are a centaur none of them apply without having a mount and rider. Furthermore, as stated above you can be either plural or singular in English and to determine which it is you have to look at the sentence if not the paragraph as a whole. As such nothing can nor should be drawn from your comparison.

[InvisibleBison]

The feat description format (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#featDescriptions) explicitly says that "you" in feat descriptions means the character who has the feat.

[liquidformat]

The feat description format (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#featDescriptions) explicitly says that "you" in feat descriptions means the character who has the feat.

Please square that with the Trample feat...

[hamishspence]

The idea is that you are directing the mount - so you're making the overrun in that sense - but your mount is the one spending the actions, on your behalf. The mount makes the Strength check, not you.

[Gruftzwerg]

First let me all thank you for you great responses. At first I was unsure if the question even deserves its own thread (and maybe belongs in the simple RAW thread..^^), but it seems to have been the right decision.


The feat description format (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#featDescriptions) explicitly says that "you" in feat descriptions means the character who has the feat.
Wow. This is great. Thx for the link. A small but important detail in the rules.
So I guess we can at least agree that a strict RAW reading would allow a mount with the Spirited Charge feat to profit from it. (sadly not for both..^^)


The idea is that you are directing the mount - so you're making the overrun in that sense - but your mount is the one spending the actions, on your behalf. The mount makes the Strength check, not you.
Does the text imply that the mount has to spend "the standard action" too? Imho it seems as if only the rider is spending the standard action and the mount just needs to spend his movement action.

"If you attempt an overrun while mounted,..."
Imho, implies to me that "you" spend the standard action.

"your mount makes the Strength check to determine the success or failure of the overrun attack"
"your mount" here indicates that the former "you" has to be the ride (and thus confirms the link from InvisibleBison).
This only gives you the "specific exception" to use your mount's stats instead of yours for the rolls. I don't see any indicator that the mount needs to spend the same standard action for trample (only the necessary movement action). And the rules for mounted combat implies that a mount takes it own actions as normal for a separate creature. It just acts on the same "initiative turn" as its ride, but still its own sets of actions to use (and can work under commands^^).


compare with mounted charge:

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 (see Charge).
When mounts uses his actions on a charge, it doesn't cost the rider any actions either (only his single attack at the end if he wants for a standard action, not a full round action as charge). Similar situation just with changed roles.

[Nifft]

If we're talking good-faith interpretation usable at a table, then the active-passive thing is valid, "when mounted" means when you are on a mount, and "you" is the person who took the feat.

If we're talking bad-faith TO, then get a taxidermist and a Cleric involved, and have your own head mounted above your fireplace at home. Then you get a permanent bonus.


i get what you mean here. we should bring "Thou" back into common parlance. Thou is singular, you is plural.

Unironically agree.

[Twurps]

That is a false equivalence since nowhere in either of those feats does it talk about multiple creatures, whereas, in the case of mounted combat feats unless you are a centaur none of them apply without having a mount and rider.

Spirited charge doesn't talk about multiple creatures either. it gives criteria that 'you' have to meet.
When criteria you effect


Furthermore, as stated above you can be either plural or singular in English and to determine which it is you have to look at the sentence if not the paragraph as a whole.
Which was well established and acknowledged (at least by me, but without re-reading it all I think by everybody). It's actually the first words you quoted from me.
That is exactly why I mentioned the feats that I did. The first two feats I mentioned (Two weapon defence, high sword low axe) have the exact same sytax. Again it's 'When criteria you effect' And from reading those sentences/paragraphs as a whole, and comparing them with similar wordings (just as you did I might add), we can conclude that regardless of whether you is single or plural, 'you' is the person(s) having the feat.




If we're talking bad-faith TO, then get a taxidermist and a Cleric involved, and have your own head mounted above your fireplace at home. Then you get a permanent bonus.
LOL, I actually want to make this work now...

[Gruftzwerg]

If we're talking good-faith interpretation usable at a table, then the active-passive thing is valid, "when mounted" means when you are on a mount, and "you" is the person who took the feat.

If we're talking bad-faith TO, then get a taxidermist and a Cleric involved, and have your own head mounted above your fireplace at home. Then you get a permanent bonus.



Unironically agree.
It's for TO forum puroses, so no need to worry here ;)
I am just refining my arsenal of RAW exploits for that (maybe that is a reason to worry^^)


Spirited charge doesn't talk about multiple creatures either. it gives criteria that 'you' have to meet.
When criteria you effect


Which was well established and acknowledged (at least by me, but without re-reading it all I think by everybody). It's actually the first words you quoted from me.
That is exactly why I mentioned the feats that I did. The first two feats I mentioned (Two weapon defence, high sword low axe) have the exact same sytax. Again it's 'When criteria you effect' And from reading those sentences/paragraphs as a whole, and comparing them with similar wordings (just as you did I might add), we can conclude that regardless of whether you is single or plural, 'you' is the person(s) having the feat.



LOL, I actually want to make this work now...

I think InvisibleBison's quote made it clear that "you" only refers to the feat user/owner unless context gives a clear indicator for plural/multiple creatures. I guess we can agree on that now.

The problem is, if we agree that "When mounted,.." ain't specific enough to confirm a single interpretation, it covers multiple situations. As such, the feat description neither specifies in the "scenario requirements" (when mounted) nor in its "effect phrase" (you gain), whether or not it is singular or plural. A plural reading of the requirement seems imho not totally wrong (but maybe that is a to far stretched reading. I'll admit that^^).

[Nifft]

LOL, I actually want to make this work now...

After mounting yourself upon your mantelpiece, name all your henchmen "Lance" and have one of them ready an action to do a 3.0e partial charge when you use the Charge action. Since you're "charging with a lance", you get unlimited triple damage.

Note that this requires a DM whose head is also stuffed and mounted above a mantelpiece, but braindead DM + bad-faith misreading is the heart and soul of TO (respectively).

[Crake]

I generally find, in cases of ambiguity, take the most sensible reading of the ability and that's generally what is to be expected. It seems to be the case that when the most sensible reading is not what is intended, the ability in question includes clarifications to make it clear what they intend.

[Gruftzwerg]

I generally find, in cases of ambiguity, take the most sensible reading of the ability and that's generally what is to be expected. It seems to be the case that when the most sensible reading is not what is intended, the ability in question includes clarifications to make it clear what they intend.

I agree with that for balancing purposes and as general advice for actual play at tables.
But as we all now, the forum and RAW fanatics don't care that much about that ;)

I mean, the intend of the designer was clear to me in this chase before even opening this thread. The question here really just boils down for forum TO builds/exploits purposes and nothing more.

On the other hand, none of the RAW interpretations presented here would break the game. Dmg is still the worst optimization (even if you kill with each single attack and pounce every turn) compared to any other kind of optimization.
It's already easily possible to have enough dmg overkill potential, having some diversity options to pick up won't hurt anyone imho.

Finally, people who already dislike dmg optimization on their tables won't even consider this. So imho everybody will find the right answer for himself and his table.

[Elves]

i get what you mean here. we should bring "Thou" back into common parlance. Thou is singular, you is plural.

It'd be kinda hilariously appropriate for D&D too, a medieval game with a reputation for rules lawyering

[Gruftzwerg]

i get what you mean here. we should bring "Thou" back into common parlance. Thou is singular, you is plural.

I would be really happy about that, but how are we gonna tell that to the rest of the world? Social Media campaign?^^


It'd be kinda hilariously appropriate for D&D too, a medieval game with a reputation for rules lawyering
In most other languages "you" as plural is used to speak more formally or to someone higher. In medieval times for the royals. This makes roleplaying imho more fun, because you can either be polite or rude to royals/someone just by talking to him singular/plural.