View Full Version : 3rd Ed [3.5] Mounted combat and its charging weirdness
I think we all knew on some instinctual level that the mount rules are pretty messed up, but I hadn't realized until a recent project involving them just how messed up they are.
A few quotes from PHB pg. 158:
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 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.
[. . .]
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, page 154).
You can use ranged weapons while your mount is taking a double move, but at a –4 penalty on the attack roll. You can use ranged weapons while your mount is running (quadruple speed), at a –8 penalty. In either case, you make the attack roll when your mount has completed half its movement. You can make a full attack with a ranged weapon while your mount is moving. Likewise, you can take move actions normally, so that, for instance, you can load and fire a light crossbow in a round while your mount is moving.
Oooookay. Let's dig in.
First, it's clear that you (I'll be using "you" to refer to "the rider" because I'm all ridernormative up in here) are not the one spending the actions related to motion. That's black and white. Explicit, even.
Now, the next quoted line says "if your mount charges..." which indicates that the mount is the one taking the charge action, not the rider. Which, among other things, means that the mount should get to make an attack at the end of the charge.
The next sentence starts with "if you make an attack at the end of the charge," which indicates that hey, maybe you're not attacking while your mount is charging. Maybe you're just chilling, or maybe you're casting a spell, or whatever. You can choose to spend your action on an attack, and the text then says what happens in that case! But it also doesn't say that you can only make a basic attack, either. You've got your whole action free. You can't make a full melee attack because the text says you can't, but you could make a trip attack, or initiate a ToB maneuver, or something like that. A monk could take the full-round action for decisive strike, for example, since it says you can't full attack, not that you can't use an attack that takes a full-round action.
Is... everyone with me so far? Is this accurate? Any glaring errors so far? Seems to me like by RAW you, while mounted, can make any relevant melee attack (that consists of only a single attack) while your mount is charging. If you do, you get "the bonus received from the charge," which by default is a +2, and you take the AC penalty, which by default is a -2.
It doesn't actually say that a ranged attack wouldn't gain this bonus/penalty, by the way. It's also not clear what else counts as a "bonus received from the charge." For example, consider a character with the Flying Kick feat (CW): "When fighting unarmed and using the charge action, you deal an extra 1d12 points of damage with your unarmed attack." The rider is clearly not taking the charge action, but is that a "bonus received from the charge"? Hmm.
In that vein, let's get back to the PHB text. To repeat, "When charging on horseback, you deal double damage with a lance (see Charge, page 154)." So this sentence indicates that the devs thought that you, the rider, were charging even though it's pretty clear that your mount, not you, is the one taking the actual charge action. I submit this as evidence of RAI that you, the rider, are considered to be charging when your mount charges, at least if you then make a melee attack. Though by monks-aren't-proficient-unarmed-RAW I don't think that you're charging, since the charge rules specify that "you must move" to charge and you're not the one moving, as is clear from the first quoted sentence above.
I'm already exhausted but I don't think we're done. Stay with me. Again, am I making sense? This is ugly.
So if you're considered charging by implied RAI (when clearly by RAW you're not) if you're attacking after your mount takes the charge action, does that mean that this is basically a method of getting any melee attack that is only a single attack to count as a charge? I think that if you, like, use a ToB strike (with a single attack) with a lance after your mount charges, you'd probably be considered charging too and would probably do double damage, I think? Maybe? This is confusing.
If we want to really dig into implied RAI (which is extremely dangerous), we would probably need to consider what kind of action the devs thought the rider was spending when trying to use Spirited Charge or a similar "charge while mounted" thing. The text about ranged attacks while mounted ("you can take move actions normally") is consistent with the text that your mount is the one spending the action, so you've clearly got your full set of actions available, but what was the expectation for the action you'd spend? At least one application of the Ride skill (spur mount) is a move action, and maybe that was intended to be available to you, so that seems to point to the idea that you'd only spend a standard action on this. Maybe?
Let's make this worse, though! Back to RAW. Charge, pg. 154, says "First, you must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent." We've established that the mount is the one taking the charge action, so the mount has to move to the closest space from which the mount can attack the opponent. If the mount's reach exceeds that of the rider, then that would mean that the rider can't attack the target, right? Is the rider still charging, then?
What if the rider attacks a different target than the mount? That seems like it would still be subject to the same bonuses as attacking the same target as your mount. Nothing says otherwise.
What if the rider dismounts (a free action with a DC 20 Ride check) after the mount charges? Can the former rider then make a full attack? Presumably they're not considered charging at that point—that's far too deep into have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too land—but what happens, anyway? I think it's plausible that the "if your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only make a single melee attack" text still applies here since it doesn't say that it only applies to attacks you make while mounted, but what if you then, for example, spend your action making your own charge attack at a different target who's at least 10 ft away from the spot where you dismounted? Is that allowed? If so, it's absolutely hilarious and I want that to be a thing.
The mount is charging. You can make a bull rush as part of a charge. If the bull rush succeeds, the target is pushed back 5 ft and provokes, though they do not provoke from the creature who did the bull rush. But you are not your mount, so if your mount bull rushes someone and pushes them back, then you (the rider) would get an AoO against that target, wouldn't you? (Would THAT be considered a charge under the "you receive the bonus gained from the charge" text?) Would taking that AoO mean that you can't then make any other melee attacks, as per the "if your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only make a single melee attack" rule? If so, could you instead spend your action making a full ranged attack (assuming that you're equipped to do so while still threatening with a melee weapon of some kind), considering that you have your full action available? What if that ranged attack is with a lance via Throw Anything or a similar game element (remember that a lance is one-handed when mounted)—does that get double damage? I think it clearly would, since the text for the lance itself (PHB 118) says "a lance deals double damage when used from the back of a charging mount."
There are a lot of assumptions in the mounted combat rules and I don't care for most of those assumptions.
Let's discuss.
Troacctid
2021-02-27, 02:46 PM
The key is understanding that your mount is charging, not you, and the bonuses you get by attacking from the back of a charging mount are distinct from the bonuses you get from actually charging (unless you're a centaur). So, yes, you can use a strike maneuver and deal double damage with a lance. You can attack a different enemy other than the one your mount is charging. Your mount attacks at the end of the charge. And so on.
And yes, this means that Ride-By Attack is super weird.
Ride-by attack makes perfect sense. Your mount uses its move action for you to move. The horse charges and you make an attack. Therfore the benefit of the feat is letting you move similar to spring attack, but at double speed in a straight line.
The rules for mounted combat are permissive. You can make a melee full attack if the the mount doesn't move more than 5 feet. Otherwise you can make a melee attack. You can attack with a ranged weapon or full attack, both at a penalty. You can take move actions normally. You can cast a spell while mounted, but you have to declare your intent of the movement of the horse to determine the concentration check.
You have permission to take move actions, but do not have permission to simply take any action. I could see maneuvers working if you take a ride check to stand on the mount though.
Gruftzwerg
2021-02-28, 01:56 AM
I think we all knew on some instinctual level that the mount rules are pretty messed up, but I hadn't realized until a recent project involving them just how messed up they are.
...
Is... everyone with me so far? Is this accurate? Any glaring errors so far? Seems to me like by RAW you, while mounted, can make any relevant melee attack (that consists of only a single attack) while your mount is charging. If you do, you get "the bonus received from the charge," which by default is a +2, and you take the AC penalty, which by default is a -2.
So far this looks 100% RAW yeah ;)
It doesn't actually say that a ranged attack wouldn't gain this bonus/penalty, by the way. It's also not clear what else counts as a "bonus received from the charge." For example, consider a character with the Flying Kick feat (CW): "When fighting unarmed and using the charge action, you deal an extra 1d12 points of damage with your unarmed attack." The rider is clearly not taking the charge action, but is that a "bonus received from the charge"? Hmm.
This one is a bit iffy. But lets get this done.
1. The "bonus received from the charge" sadly only refers to the associated modifiers. (Bonus is defined (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm)as modifier to a dice roll in 3.5) As such it doesn't help us out here.
but..
2. "When charging on horseback" clearly states that we are considered as "charging" on horseback. This is the important sentence here that qualifies you as "charging" for all purposes. This counts for any "abilities/feats/items.." that "alters/makes use of" charging rules.
We have a clear RAW positive statement for "charging on horseback"!
This is a specific exception to general "charge" rules (similar to how pounce changes general Charge rules).
I'm already exhausted but I don't think we're done. Stay with me. Again, am I making sense? This is ugly.
So if you're considered charging by implied RAI (when clearly by RAW you're not) if you're attacking after your mount takes the charge action, does that mean that this is basically a method of getting any melee attack that is only a single attack to count as a charge? I think that if you, like, use a ToB strike (with a single attack) with a lance after your mount charges, you'd probably be considered charging too and would probably do double damage, I think? Maybe? This is confusing.
If we want to really dig into implied RAI (which is extremely dangerous), we would probably need to consider what kind of action the devs thought the rider was spending when trying to use Spirited Charge or a similar "charge while mounted" thing. The text about ranged attacks while mounted ("you can take move actions normally") is consistent with the text that your mount is the one spending the action, so you've clearly got your full set of actions available, but what was the expectation for the action you'd spend? At least one application of the Ride skill (spur mount) is a move action, and maybe that was intended to be available to you, so that seems to point to the idea that you'd only spend a standard action on this. Maybe?
As said above, you are considered as "charging" by RAW. It's just that you still have all your actions to use as you want. It's just limited by the "single attack" rule (unless you have pounce) and that the attack(s) has to be made at the end of the charge (as such, ranged attack don't profit from the charge, since those have to be done in the middle of your movement. But the rider still takes the AC penalty).
Let's make this worse, though! Back to RAW. Charge, pg. 154, says "First, you must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent." We've established that the mount is the one taking the charge action, so the mount has to move to the closest space from which the mount can attack the opponent. If the mount's reach exceeds that of the rider, then that would mean that the rider can't attack the target, right? Is the rider still charging, then?
You keep asking about shady rules..^^ Well, lets give it a try..
The rider is still considered as "charging on horseback". He could attack a nearby other enemy in his reach. Or use a reach weapon as it is common for mounted charger ;)
Finally, you can exploit "Ride-by-Attack" for this. The mount may move after its attack and the rider is still considered charging. You (rider) could even kill the the enemy and proceed riding in a line. Or if your mount killed the first enemy, you could ride up to a 2nd enemy in line to charge him as rider.
IIRC you don't have to "declare" your entire turn, nor is the "declaration" set into stone. The rules never require you to declare the actions you take. You just take em as you see it fit at any given moment. Examples where the rules reflect this are:
After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out. If you’ve already taken a 5-foot step, you can’t use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.
Note that be the wording of the rule text doesn't imply that this is a specific exception. It's worded like it is commonly expected to solve actions like this. It gives examples how actions can be "used" (not declared!).
You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones.
Both rules imply that by general rules you aren't forced to "plan" your entire turn beforehand. You take "actions" as they come. Until your mount has resolved his action you are free to re-declare what the rider intends to do.
What if the rider attacks a different target than the mount? That seems like it would still be subject to the same bonuses as attacking the same target as your mount. Nothing says otherwise.
yes.
What if the rider dismounts (a free action with a DC 20 Ride check) after the mount charges? Can the former rider then make a full attack? Presumably they're not considered charging at that point—that's far too deep into have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too land—but what happens, anyway? I think it's plausible that the "if your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only make a single melee attack" text still applies here since it doesn't say that it only applies to attacks you make while mounted, but what if you then, for example, spend your action making your own charge attack at a different target who's at least 10 ft away from the spot where you dismounted? Is that allowed? If so, it's absolutely hilarious and I want that to be a thing.
If you dismount, you aren't riding your mount anymore and thus aren't considered "charging on horseback" anymore.
But dunno, don't we have some kind of feat or prc ability to bypass this (not sure, but somehow I think there was something..)
The mount is charging. You can make a bull rush as part of a charge. If the bull rush succeeds, the target is pushed back 5 ft and provokes, though they do not provoke from the creature who did the bull rush. But you are not your mount, so if your mount bull rushes someone and pushes them back, then you (the rider) would get an AoO against that target, wouldn't you? (Would THAT be considered a charge under the "you receive the bonus gained from the charge" text?) Would taking that AoO mean that you can't then make any other melee attacks, as per the "if your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only make a single melee attack" rule? If so, could you instead spend your action making a full ranged attack (assuming that you're equipped to do so while still threatening with a melee weapon of some kind), considering that you have your full action available? What if that ranged attack is with a lance via Throw Anything or a similar game element (remember that a lance is one-handed when mounted)—does that get double damage? I think it clearly would, since the text for the lance itself (PHB 118) says "a lance deals double damage when used from the back of a charging mount."
There are a lot of assumptions in the mounted combat rules and I don't care for most of those assumptions.
Let's discuss.
The AoO as rider when your mount Bull Rushes is arguable. Imho the one who is Bull Rushing doesn't get the AoO because his threatened areas are moving with the target. But this is sole RAI imho. By RAW you can argue that the rider gets the AoO even if his threatened areas are also moving the same way.
AoO's are specific exceptions to your normal attacks per round. As such they aren't limited by the "single attack" rule for riders. Further, the next sentence after "single attack" explains that this limitation is only due to the distance the mount needs to overcome. This is not true in a AoO situation where you are already next to the target. Another indicator that it doesn't need to follow that rule.
There is a way to combine charge with thrown weapons and that is the Bloodstorm Blade prc. First it gives the "Throw anything" ability. Than it gives you the ability to threat "thrown attacks" as "melee attacks", allowing for any melee modifiers/abilities like charge, Power Attack and so on. If you are interested, I have can showcase you my ranged ubercharger builds: ShurikeNado (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?526875) and Hammerdin of Moradin (see signature)
Quertus
2021-02-28, 04:22 PM
And yes, this means that Ride-By Attack is super weird.
Why do you consider Ride-By Attack super weird?
Why do you consider Ride-By Attack super weird?
It assumes that the rider is taking the charge action, which by RAW doesn't seem to be the case.
Ride-By Attack [General]
Prerequisites
Ride 1 rank, Mounted Combat.
Benefit
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.
Special
A fighter may select Ride-By Attack as one of his fighter bonus feats.
But the fun part is that because of the way English works, this is basically almost entirely functional as intended if the mount takes the feat.
Troacctid
2021-02-28, 04:31 PM
Why do you consider Ride-By Attack super weird?
Because it has you actually take the charge action while mounted, instead of having your mount do it.
Because it has you actually take the charge action while mounted, instead of having your mount do it.
I'm not actually 100% convinced that it's possible, by the strictest of strict rules as written (i.e., the same level of strict that says that monks aren't proficient with unarmed strikes).
Your mount acts on your initiative count as you direct it. You move at its speed, but the mount uses its action to move.
When you charge, your mount has to charge too because it uses its actions to move as you want. You are the one moving using the mounts actions. Because of this, you and your mount can only ever charge in tandem.
Ride-By Attack let's you charge to a corner space, attack, and move again in a straight line without suffering an AoO when you leave a threatened square by the creature you attack. Think of it like a # with the target in the middle and you are to the north of the top left square. When you charge you head straight south into the top left square, make an attack, and you are permitted to continue on your journey south up to double speed. This maneuver allows you to pass by the creature without suffering from an AoO. This can also be combined with an overrun attempt with your mount to go through a creature, but the overrun attempt does provoke.
Gruftzwerg
2021-02-28, 11:56 PM
When you charge, your mount has to charge too because it uses its actions to move as you want. You are the one moving using the mounts actions. Because of this, you and your mount can only ever charge in tandem.
Sorry but I disagree here (I agree with what you said about Ride-by-attack btw.) ;)
You move at its speed, ...
This part of the sentence means 2 two things:
1. You are in control of the mounts movement
2. And the distance is limited by the mounts speed
...but the mount uses its action to move.
The second part of the sentence explains that the mount is expanding the movement actions and not the rider.
If your mount charges...
Here is the indicator that the mount is executing the charge action (under the rider's command).
If you make an attack at the end of the charge, ...
Another indicator that the mount is charging and not the rider. Because "charge" means that you attack at the end of your movement not at the end of the "charge". Further it is questioned if the rider makes an attack at the end of the charge or not. If the rider would be charging it could at best give the option to forfeit his attack at the end of his charge-movement, but that is not the chase here. The rider gets asked if he want to attack after the mounts charge attack.
... you receive the bonus gained from the charge.
Gives you the charge bonus for possible attacks: +2 to hit
When charging on horseback, ...
Indicates that the rules count the rider as charging. This lets the rider count as "charging" for all purposes as said.
If your mount charges, you also take the AC penalty associated with a charge.
This sentence gives you the charge AC penalty as soon as your mount charges. It doesn't care if you make a "charge attack" after the mount's charge or not.
When taking the charge action, you are given permission to not attack within the charge rules. The mount can charge, but you aren't forced to attack when you charge.
Mounted combat makes much more sense if makes player movement and mount movement the same. You are making the movement, but using the mount's actions. This how the line could be read. This makes it so there aren't questionable rules applications. It's not like it makes much difference. You aren't given permission to make special standard or full-round actions, and not charging with your mount means you don't get the double damage with your lance.
It fits ride-by attacks benefit and the charging mount rules like a well fitted glove.
When charging on horseback, you deal double damage with a lance (see Charge).
I take this line to mean that one is in a charge with their mount, not simply considered charging while having free reign to do as they wish. If this was intended, I believe there would have been special mention under the casting and ranged attack sections of the rules as they only mention rules for double movement, or running up to 4x speed. Charging is not a double movement. This means that one could make ranged attacks and cast spells at no movement penalty.
When the character initiates a charge it forces the mount to take the charge action, I don't see why the reverse should be any different.
Bronk
2021-03-01, 12:29 PM
Let's make this worse, though! Back to RAW. Charge, pg. 154, says "First, you must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent." We've established that the mount is the one taking the charge action, so the mount has to move to the closest space from which the mount can attack the opponent. If the mount's reach exceeds that of the rider, then that would mean that the rider can't attack the target, right? Is the rider still charging, then?
I think you're reading it backwards... the closest space from which you could attack the opponent would be the closest open square to the opponent, not the closest square from the charger's starting point.
Gruftzwerg
2021-03-01, 03:53 PM
When taking the charge action, you are given permission to not attack within the charge rules. The mount can charge, but you aren't forced to attack when you charge.
Mounted combat makes much more sense if makes player movement and mount movement the same. You are making the movement, but using the mount's actions. This how the line could be read. This makes it so there aren't questionable rules applications. It's not like it makes much difference. You aren't given permission to make special standard or full-round actions, and not charging with your mount means you don't get the double damage with your lance.
It fits ride-by attacks benefit and the charging mount rules like a well fitted glove.
I take this line to mean that one is in a charge with their mount, not simply considered charging while having free reign to do as they wish. If this was intended, I believe there would have been special mention under the casting and ranged attack sections of the rules as they only mention rules for double movement, or running up to 4x speed. Charging is not a double movement. This means that one could make ranged attacks and cast spells at no movement penalty.
When the character initiates a charge it forces the mount to take the charge action, I don't see why the reverse should be any different.
Imho you (the rider) doesn't "take" the charge action here. The rider commands his mount to charge. The rules further say that the rider get the charge bonus and penalty. Finally it assumes that the rider is "charging on horseback", confirming that the rider may profit from "charge" affecting effects.
Besides from the regular instructions every turn in combat to your mount (what to do next), the rider doesn't spend any actions (Combat While Mounted = free action Ride DC 5 check).
He can use his actions as he wants. Be it a single attack, with pounce a full-attack or something totally charge unrelated (using ranged weapon, casting a spell, do a full-round action..).
I think you're reading it backwards... the closest space from which you could attack the opponent would be the closest open square to the opponent, not the closest square from the charger's starting point.
It doesn't say "move to the closest space of your opponent and attack if you want".
It says:
First, you must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent.
"the closest square" | "from which you can attack the opponent"
It requires you to minimize your movement. You may not even move to an enemies side (from your perspective) and need to run centered towards him if (!) possible (if that centered square it occupied, then you may move to a side square for the charge).
You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles). Here’s what it means to have a clear path. First, you must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent. (If this space is occupied or otherwise blocked, you can’t charge.)
If someone is in your way you can't charge.
Imho you (the rider) doesn't "take" the charge action here. The rider commands his mount to charge. The rules further say that the rider get the charge bonus and penalty. Finally it assumes that the rider is "charging on horseback", confirming that the rider may profit from "charge" affecting effects.
Besides from the regular instructions every turn in combat to your mount (what to do next), the rider doesn't spend any actions (Combat While Mounted = free action Ride DC 5 check).
He can use his actions as he wants. Be it a single attack, with pounce a full-attack or something totally charge unrelated (using ranged weapon, casting a spell, do a full-round action..).
This is where we have to disagree. You move at the mount's speed and use the mounts move actions to do it. It seems very apparent to me that any movement done by you and the mount are the same. The mount uses charge, you move at a charge and are considered charging.
If you want to do it your way, I guess you gain a move action and can cast or use ranged attacks at 0 penalty. It doesnt make sense that this would be the intent of the designers.
Gruftzwerg
2021-03-04, 11:24 AM
If someone is in your way you can't charge.
This is where we have to disagree. You move at the mount's speed and use the mounts move actions to do it. It seems very apparent to me that any movement done by you and the mount are the same. The mount uses charge, you move at a charge and are considered charging.
If you want to do it your way, I guess you gain a move action and can cast or use ranged attacks at 0 penalty. It doesnt make sense that this would be the intent of the designers.
Point for you regarding "occupied space" ;)
Have a look at the Mounted combat rules again. It only talks about how your mount takes the Charge action and how the rider can profit from it. The rider still has the 1 attack limitation since the mount needs to move more than 5ft (unless he has pounce). But other than that, the text proceeds to call out that the rider also get the charge modifiers (-2 AC, +2 to hit with melee) and confirms that the rider is considered charging on horseback.
See Mounted Combat (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#mountedCombat):
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 can use ranged weapons while your mount is taking a double move, but at a -4 penalty on the attack roll. You can use ranged weapons while your mount is running (quadruple speed), at a -8 penalty. In either case, you make the attack roll when your mount has completed half its movement. You can make a full attack with a ranged weapon while your mount is moving. Likewise, you can take move actions normally
Casting Spells while Mounted
You can cast a spell normally if your mount moves up to a normal move (its speed) either before or after you cast. If you have your mount move both before and after you cast a spell, then you’re casting the spell while the mount is moving, and you have to make a Concentration check due to the vigorous motion (DC 10 + spell level) or lose the spell. If the mount is running (quadruple speed), you can cast a spell when your mount has moved up to twice its speed, but your Concentration check is more difficult due to the violent motion (DC 15 + spell level).
1. Notice that the charge part of the text doesn't mention any action costs for the rider, nor that he takes those actions.
2. While double move is often used in 3.5 to indicate the use of 2 move actions in a turn, it ain't a defined term. As such, counting the charge action as double move is imho plausible.
3. Spell cast is a bit shady by RAW, since it mentions single speed at the beginning and quadruple speed at the end. But the mid section only talks about the mount moving before and after you cast. It doesn't explain if the mount needs to use a double move "action" for this or if the double move from Charge does also fall into this category.
It is poorly worded, I'll admit that. But there aren't any indicators that you take/spend the action when your mount chargers. I only see indicators for the mounts actions and what you may do in the meanwhile.
Your mount acts on your initiative count as you direct it. You move at its speed, but the mount uses its action to move.
As I said, you are the one moving using your mount's actions. What you are quoting doesn't disprove this. By RAW, you cannot perform a charge without directing your mount to charge. Directing your mount to charge comes with its own restrictions:
Fight with Warhorse: If you direct your war-trained mount to attack in battle, you can still make your own attack or attacks normally. This usage is a free action.
A charge is a special attack. The ride check doesn't let you take actions like normal, just attacks. This seems to imply that when using the horse to attack you can't use actions other than attack or full attack. To say otherwise means that other actions are considered attacks which opens up a lot of nice interactions that martials could use.
With all of this, directing your mount to charge is the same as you charging.
Gruftzwerg
2021-03-05, 12:01 AM
As I said, you are the one moving using your mount's actions. What you are quoting doesn't disprove this. By RAW, you cannot perform a charge without directing your mount to charge. Directing your mount to charge comes with its own restrictions:
A charge is a special attack. The ride check doesn't let you take actions like normal, just attacks. This seems to imply that when using the horse to attack you can't use actions other than attack or full attack. To say otherwise means that other actions are considered attacks which opens up a lot of nice interactions that martials could use.
With all of this, directing your mount to charge is the same as you charging.
Lets play this out as an example.
Imho it looks like this:
1. The rider uses a free action to direct his mount to use the charge action.
2. The mount uses the charge action as commanded
3. The mount shares the -2 AC and +2 on melee attacks with the rider.
4. The rider is considered charging on horseback
5. The rider may make a charge attack at the end of the charge (or full attack with pounce)
Since the rider only did spent a free action so far and can attack optionally at the end of the mounts charge, he is free to decide what he does (under the restrictions of mounted combat). I see it as free action "charge-movement" with the option to use an action to perform a charge attack at the end. But you may still use your action for any other legal activity while mounted. You have yourself quoted that: the rider moves with the mount. The mount uses the move action and that it is a free action to direct your mount.
But you may still use your action for any other legal activity while mounted.
That's the issue. The only other action you can perform is an attack. Pounce would only work if the rider made the charge, the same as ride-by attack, unless the mount is pouncing. What other legal activity is there when the only thing permitted is making attacks and the only attack you can make is a melee attack because you are charging?
You have yourself quoted that: the rider moves with the mount. The mount uses the move action and that it is a free action to direct your mount.
This is where we disagree: the rider moves and the mount pays the action cost.
Gruftzwerg
2021-03-05, 01:06 AM
That's the issue. The only other action you can perform is an attack. Pounce would only work if the rider made the charge, the same as ride-by attack, unless the mount is pouncing. What other legal activity is there when the only thing permitted is making attacks and the only attack you can make is a melee attack because you are charging?
This is where we disagree: the rider moves and the mount pays the action cost.
The rider is considered "charging on horseback", which should qualify him to make use of any charge related effect (e.g. Pounce).
He only spends a free action to direct his mount and is offered to choice (!) to spend actions to make an attack at the end of the charge.
Now let me ask you this: Imagine you have a Belt of Battle and use all 3 charges at once to get another full-round action (FRA) for this turn. You spend your first FRA on charging/pouncing. Are you now restricted to use your second FRA for attacks only? No, you can use it as you like.
Same goes for the rider in our scenario. He uses a free action to let his mount charge. If he forfeits the opportunity for the charge (melee) attack, he still has his Full Round Action to spend (restricted by mounted combat rules). Why would he be restricted to only attacks? I don't see any reason for it.
The mount attacked, therefor you are limited to attacks as per the skill check description. I would say yes, you would be limited to attacks with your extra full-round action. If you don't charge/attack with the mount you could do what you want with your actions.
The rider is considered "charging on horseback", which should qualify him to make use of any charge related effect (e.g. Pounce).
He only spends a free action to direct his mount and is offered to choice (!) to spend actions to make an attack at the end of the charge.
If he benefits from charge related activations he should also suffer the limitations. Melee attacks only. Pounce activates if you make a charge, not your mount. Since you can't charge because you ordered your mount to charge (you can't move without your mounts actions) you can't pounce.
Gruftzwerg
2021-03-05, 12:06 PM
The mount attacked, therefor you are limited to attacks as per the skill check description. I would say yes, you would be limited to attacks with your extra full-round action. If you don't charge/attack with the mount you could do what you want with your actions.I don't see the rule text providing any indicators for that. You are considered charging. But as with a Belt of Battle, if you have remaining actions, you can use em as you wish. If you don't intend to attack at the end of the mounts charge, you still have your actions left to use as you like. You are just restricted by the regular mounted combat rules. Show me where the rule says that you may only use attacks at the end of "your mounts charge". You are considered charging (taking penalties to AC and get toHit for possible melee attacks) and have to option to wether or not you wanna spend your action on an attack.
If he benefits from charge related activations he should also suffer the limitations. Melee attacks only. Pounce activates if you make a charge, not your mount. Since you can't charge because you ordered your mount to charge (you can't move without your mounts actions) you can't pounce.
He takes the limitations. But the mounted combat rules allow him the choice to whether make use of this "charging on horseback" status for a melee attack (spend his actions on attack) or not (have his actions for something else).
1. The mounts charge lets "you count as charging" on horseback.
2. Since "you count as charging", you can make use of pounce. Because Pounce asks if you are (considered) "charging" and not what kind of "actions" lead to it. You can even pounce when you are limited to a single standard action that turn. Pounce doesn't care for the action type spend (free, standard, full round action). It only cares that at the end of a charge you can Full Attack. It doesn't matter if you charge yourself or on horseback for pounce, only that you are (counting as) charging.
I don't see why
RaiKirah
2021-03-05, 12:54 PM
I'll admit I've lost track of this discussion and I don't feel like re-reading it, so just to reiterate what I think I've gotten from this:
As long as you can control a mount as a free action (warhorse, warpony, high enough Ride check etc.) A charge leaves you with your move action left at the end of the round even though your mount is done, correct?
icefractal
2021-03-05, 03:02 PM
"the closest square" | "from which you can attack the opponent"
It requires you to minimize your movement. You may not even move to an enemies side (from your perspective) and need to run centered towards him if (!) possible (if that centered square it occupied, then you may move to a side square for the charge).This is what makes Ride-by Attack weird and somewhat crappy if you're going strictly RAW. I recall this caused somewhat of a stir in Living Greyhawk when it was ruled to work that way.
How most people assume Ride-by Attack would work, and how it should work:
You take a straight-line path which must take you within attack range of your target, who you attack as you pass them.
How it works RAW:
To actually get any benefit, you have to either:
A) Kill or Overrun the target, allowing you to move through their square.
B) Carefully pick the starting point of your charge such that reaching "the closest square" involves a straight line which will pass next to your foe rather than through them. Not impossible, but difficult to set up in an actual battle (and it doesn't work at all if not using a grid).
I'll admit I've lost track of this discussion and I don't feel like re-reading it, so just to reiterate what I think I've gotten from this:
As long as you can control a mount as a free action (warhorse, warpony, high enough Ride check etc.) A charge leaves you with your move action left at the end of the round even though your mount is done, correct?
That is what me and Gruftzwerg were disagreeing about. I was saying that you have to take the charge action when directing the mount to charge because the mount moves for you, not separately from you. Gruftzwerg is saying that the mount has actions completely separate from you and you can direct it to charge leaving you free to use your move and standard action as you see fit as you aren't charging, but somehow considered charging even though the text doesn't say you are.
Mine would leave you without any more actions while his leaves you with both your actions. Technically, you could charge again with this interpretation.
This is what makes Ride-by Attack weird and somewhat crappy if you're going strictly RAW. I recall this caused somewhat of a stir in Living Greyhawk when it was ruled to work that way.
How most people assume Ride-by Attack would work, and how it should work:
You take a straight-line path which must take you within attack range of your target, who you attack as you pass them.
How it works RAW:
To actually get any benefit, you have to either:
A) Kill or Overrun the target, allowing you to move through their square.
B) Carefully pick the starting point of your charge such that reaching "the closest square" involves a straight line which will pass next to your foe rather than through them. Not impossible, but difficult to set up in an actual battle (and it doesn't work at all if not using a grid).
The problem I have is the rules for a charge and overrun. When you charge you are moving to a specific square. Not moving beyond a creature. So, if you knock the creature prone you are stuck in their space. Another factor is that it doesn't take place of the attack at the end of a charge. I believe the RAI was that you can use an overrun attempt to bypass a single creature in order to charge. Allies and enemies can sidestep or the enemy can attempt to block you. If you fail the overrun it would be considered a single move or double move depending on how far you moved. If a single move, this leaves you with a standard action to stand up or attack.
Ride-by attack, just like spring attack was meant as a way to move in and out of a threatened square without provoking. An added benefit is that you can continue your movement after a charge which is normally impossible it is also the only way you can take advantage of fell trample from Cavalry Charger.
If you like Gruftzwerg's interpretation you could use your mount's movement to position yourself up to 2x-4x speed (double move or run) and then charge to take advantage of ride-by attack.
Gruftzwerg
2021-03-05, 09:47 PM
A) Kill or Overrun the target, allowing you to move through their square.
Sadly, you can't Overrun and Charge at the same time. The Errata ruled that option away:
Player's Handbook, page 148
It’s not possible to overrun as part of a charge.
Delete “or as part of a charge” from this paragraph.
That is what me and Gruftzwerg were disagreeing about. I was saying that you have to take the charge action when directing the mount to charge because the mount moves for you, not separately from you. Gruftzwerg is saying that the mount has actions completely separate from you and you can direct it to charge leaving you free to use your move and standard action as you see fit as you aren't charging, but somehow considered charging even though the text doesn't say you are.
Mine would leave you without any more actions while his leaves you with both your actions. Technically, you could charge again with this interpretation.
I'll try to show you that the remaining movement action after using a standard action to attack on a mount is RAW and RAI.
RAW:
You can use ranged weapons while your mount is taking a double move, but at a -4 penalty on the attack roll. You can use ranged weapons while your mount is running (quadruple speed), at a -8 penalty. In either case, you make the attack roll when your mount has completed half its movement. You can make a full attack with a ranged weapon while your mount is moving. Likewise, you can take move actions normally
The last sentence make clear that despite the mount may be running at full speed (x4), the rider still can take his move actions as normally!
This is a clear proof that the rider still has his movement action when the mount is commanded to use his movement action. The rider pays those actions that he uses. Note that there are movement action where you don't move. These are potential options here to (ab)use.
In chase of the mounted charge (on a war trained mount) you can direct it as free action. Unless you use the optional (!) attack at the end of the charge, you still have your full-round action to spend (under the restrictions of mounted combat).
RAI:
Rules of the Game Archive: All about Mounts Part 4 (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050215a)
The link provides an entire list of possible movement actions to take while riding. Not RAW, but it shows RAI by the designers.
I hope that I could clear your doubts here?
The problem I have is the rules for a charge and overrun. When you charge you are moving to a specific square. Not moving beyond a creature. So, if you knock the creature prone you are stuck in their space. Another factor is that it doesn't take place of the attack at the end of a charge. I believe the RAI was that you can use an overrun attempt to bypass a single creature in order to charge. Allies and enemies can sidestep or the enemy can attempt to block you. If you fail the overrun it would be considered a single move or double move depending on how far you moved. If a single move, this leaves you with a standard action to stand up or attack.
See above. ERRATA ruled the Charge + Overrun combo away for whatsoever reason..?!
Ride-by attack, just like spring attack was meant as a way to move in and out of a threatened square without provoking. An added benefit is that you can continue your movement after a charge which is normally impossible it is also the only way you can take advantage of fell trample from Cavalry Charger.
Imho you are mixing here something up (dunno). You can't use Overrun & Charge at the same time. Overrun doesn't have the charge limitations.
As a sidenote. Imho the real issue here are flying creatures that charge/dive. E.g. you have a flying mount & ride-by-attack. It is impossible to fly in a straight line if you dive on a grounded creature. And Fly-by-Attack ain't compatible with Charge/Dive...
Some birds are able to dive + catch/attack their prey + fly away in real life. This seems impossible under 3.5 (unless high TO is applied, and when I say high TO I mean high TO..).
If you like Gruftzwerg's interpretation you could use your mount's movement to position yourself up to 2x-4x speed (double move or run) and then charge to take advantage of ride-by attack.
I never implied that and imho we have restrictions against that:
1. Despite not having used your movement action you have moved already. You can spend the movement action for non-move actions (e.g. draw a weapon).
2. Even if you would try to combine the mounts movement with a Charge action (full round action and not a move action), the DM can easily intervene. The mount already needs almost the entire turn to move to the designated square, that leaves no time to move again within the same round for your character. This is a simple check that the DM is enforced to do even under normal circumstances. It's like when you try to talk more than a "free action" allows and your DM says "stop right there!" because he feels that this is the limit of that time/action span. Same here, the DM needs to make a sanity check for the combination of actions possible here.
icefractal
2021-03-05, 10:42 PM
Sadly, you can't Overrun and Charge at the same time. The Errata ruled that option awayAh, it's even worse than I remembered! So you really only can use it by either killing on the charge or being at a specific relative grid position.
I mean, nobody's doing organized 3E play any more, so the RAW doesn't matter as much, but that's some dysfunction right there.
Gruftzwerg
2021-03-05, 10:56 PM
Ah, it's even worse than I remembered! So you really only can use it by either killing on the charge or being at a specific relative grid position.
I mean, nobody's doing organized 3E play any more, so the RAW doesn't matter as much, but that's some dysfunction right there.
I never implied that RAW is perfect, nor that your table should forcefully apply it^^
It's just that we need RAW as base to start from so we can decide for ourselves (tables) if we go RAW or not.
Sadly, you can't Overrun and Charge at the same time. The Errata ruled that option away:
That's hilarious. Instead of making Overrun actually usable, they chose to make it practically worthless. Haa... I guess I tend to block out stupid, just like the eldritch blast errata.
Melee Attack: You can make a melee attack from your moving mount. If your mount makes a single move, you make your attack either before or after the movement. If your mount makes a double move, you can't make a melee attack unless you're charging. If your mount runs, you can't make a melee attack at all.
The article writer seems to agree with me, somewhat. He is a lot more strict on actions than even I am. I just think you charge simultaneously and one can attack unless a ride check is made for both to attack.
Ride-By Attack: This feat works something like the Spring Attack feat. You can charge a foe, attack, and then keep moving. The total distance you move cannot exceed twice your mount's speed. You and your mount's movements don't provoke attacks of opportunity from the foe you attack. Since you must charge in a straight line and you cannot move through another creature's space when charging, exactly how you use this feat is problematical. According to the D&D FAQ, you charge directly toward your target as normal. After your attack, you can change direction so you can move away in a straight line.
ROFL
I guess the FAQ has a point. The feat text doesn't say that you continue the straight line of the charge you just made, but could mean keep the concept of a "straight line" when making your second move so you can't swerve as you move. It's this kind of logic that allowed Overrun while charging to work. Oh well.
Gruftzwerg
2021-03-06, 01:53 AM
That's hilarious. Instead of making Overrun actually usable, they chose to make it practically worthless. Haa... I guess I tend to block out stupid, just like the eldritch blast errata.
IMHO they changed it because of the positioning issue due to charge (nearest square where you can attack including your reach). Overrun needs you to enter the enemies space and that was the reason for the change..
The article writer seems to agree with me, somewhat. He is a lot more strict on actions than even I am. I just think you charge simultaneously and one can attack unless a ride check is made for both to attack.
The single move example should be clear I guess.
The double move is imho referring to the limitations the DM might rule because of the time limitation within a turn. RAI suggests that when the mount charges you may only attack at the end. But I would argue that RAW supports that the rider could make a non-charge standard attack at the beginning of the turn and then use his free action to command his mount to charge. But as we can see in this designer notes, they suggest the DM to enforce the "time" argument here.
Take it as you like ..^^
ROFL
I guess the FAQ has a point. The feat text doesn't say that you continue the straight line of the charge you just made, but could mean keep the concept of a "straight line" when making your second move so you can't swerve as you move. It's this kind of logic that allowed Overrun while charging to work. Oh well.
Sadly this is not supported by RAW and just a homebrew advice to solve the issue..
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.
It doesn't say "and then move again in a/another straight line". It clearly states that you have to continue the straight line of the charge.
This causes differences due to your relative positioning on the battle map to each other (you and your target).
If you align either straight horizontally, vertically or diagonally you need to kill your enemy to make use of Ride-by-Attack. You need to be in a neighbor spaces of those spaces that either horizontal, vertical or diagonal align to your target. This way, you have a clear path after your attack.
Or to explain it in another way:
When you move diagonally, you need to try to hit your enemy either horizontal or vertical on the battle map.
And when you move non-diagonally on the map, you need to attack your enemy diagonally.
Without extra movement (extra actions, swift action teleport...) or Abilities (Stagger from Drunken Master 2), this is hard to pull off on a reliable base.
If you want a good solution: Change Charge to "move in a straight line to a square where you are in reach for a melee attack". This allows the charger some free room to pick the spot he wants to charge. Overrun can than again be used with Charge without causing problems. But that is just homebrew ;)
edit: changed a sentence to prevent misinterpretation. (Ride by Attack about the positions).
edit2: only a lil typo
Thanks to the terrible wording and lack of explanation, mounted combat is simply a mess of homebrew interpretations.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.