mounted sneak attack

[Soranar]

-ok so island of blades (shadow hand stance) lets you flank anything you and an ally is adjacent to
-your mount and you share a space, meaning if one of you has that ability you're flanking anything you're next to
-craven adds 1 flat damage per character level so the typical mounted charge tricks (lance, spirited charge, rhino's rush) would also multiply that damage

my question concerns the halfling paladin Wayward Warden Substitution Levels

one ability says : you gain 1d6 sneak attack against larger foes you flank even if they're immune to flanking

would you consider this enough to qualify for craven since the class feature (sneak attack) is situational (only when you flank something bigger than you) but it's stated to be identical to a rogue's sneak attack

[Jervis]

-ok so island of blades (shadow hand stance) lets you flank anything you and an ally is adjacent to
-your mount and you share a space, meaning if one of you has that ability you're flanking anything you're next to
-craven adds 1 flat damage per character level so the typical mounted charge tricks (lance, spirited charge, rhino's rush) would also multiply that damage

my question concerns the halfling paladin Wayward Warden Substitution Levels

one ability says : you gain 1d6 sneak attack against larger foes you flank even if they're immune to flanking

would you consider this enough to qualify for craven since the class feature (sneak attack) is situational (only when you flank something bigger than you) but it's stated to be identical to a rogue's sneak attack

It calls out being a sneak attack die so I would say yes

[Gruftzwerg]

Agree with Jervis. It should work. And if your DM still has a problem with that, you might wanna look into Assasin's Stance (another stance from ToB) as alternate option to enter.

[Anthrowhale]

I agree it should work, as long as the opponent is larger.

The wording here is interesting, because it dovetails with Lightbringer Rogue. Hence with Craven, Double Team, Lightbringer Rogue 3, and Halfling Paladin 5, you always deal sneak attack damage to anyone larger than small that you and an ally both threaten---even if they are immune to sneak attack damage (per Lightbringer Rogue), even if they are immune to flanking (per Wayward Paladin), and even if they are not adjacent (per Double Team).

[fallensavior]

-ok so island of blades (shadow hand stance) lets you flank anything you and an ally is adjacent to
-your mount and you share a space, meaning if one of you has that ability you're flanking anything you're next to
-craven adds 1 flat damage per character level so the typical mounted charge tricks (lance, spirited charge, rhino's rush) would also multiply that damage

my question concerns the halfling paladin Wayward Warden Substitution Levels

one ability says : you gain 1d6 sneak attack against larger foes you flank even if they're immune to flanking

would you consider this enough to qualify for craven since the class feature (sneak attack) is situational (only when you flank something bigger than you) but it's stated to be identical to a rogue's sneak attack

Interesting RAW stuff.

Of course in actual play, as a DM, I would say that you can never be in a martial arts stance while mounted. And that Craven is a modifier to the sneak attack dice not the base damage (and so never multiplies).

I would allow you to take Craven with the conditional prereq, but then it only functions in when flanking a larger creature. (Or while in Assassin Stance if you go that route.)

[Fouredged Sword]

Interesting RAW stuff.

Of course in actual play, as a DM, I would say that you can never be in a martial arts stance while mounted. And that Craven is a modifier to the sneak attack dice not the base damage (and so never multiplies).

I would allow you to take Craven with the conditional prereq, but then it only functions in when flanking a larger creature. (Or while in Assassin Stance if you go that route.)

I would at least allow the character to use a martial stance while riding if they passed the DC 40 ride check to stand on their mount rather than ride in the saddle.

[Soranar]

Interesting RAW stuff.

Of course in actual play, as a DM, I would say that you can never be in a martial arts stance while mounted. And that Craven is a modifier to the sneak attack dice not the base damage (and so never multiplies).

I would allow you to take Craven with the conditional prereq, but then it only functions in when flanking a larger creature. (Or while in Assassin Stance if you go that route.)

Some mounts are intelligent, what if the mount is the one in the stance?

[Lapak]

I would at least allow the character to use a martial stance while riding if they passed the DC 40 ride check to stand on their mount rather than ride in the saddle.I'd allow it (well, aside from Stone Dragon types where you explicitly have to be standing) without that; fighting while mounted is a key element of martial arts in every culture that has horses. Which is not to say that either of you are wrong, because I can understand where you're coming from! I just think it's neat that we all come at this from such different angles.

[Fouredged Sword]

I'd allow it (well, aside from Stone Dragon types where you explicitly have to be standing) without that; fighting while mounted is a key element of martial arts in every culture that has horses. Which is not to say that either of you are wrong, because I can understand where you're coming from! I just think it's neat that we all come at this from such different angles.

Yes, but riding around standing on the saddle of your horse fighting with swords like some sort of madman is completely and totally wuxia. You can ether fluff the ToB to be more western or really lean into the crazy not quite magic sword fighter aspects. I like the later.

[Twurps]

I would at least allow the character to use a martial stance while riding if they passed the DC 40 ride check to stand on their mount rather than ride in the saddle.

I'm not a native english speaker, but to me 'stance' doesn't mean you have to be standing. A stance means a posture, like how you position yourself. Of course how you position yourself would often be standing up, but it could also be how you position yourself on a horse. Or how you position yourself crouched/kneeling behind an obstacle when trying to (ranged) sneak attack somebody (Assassins stance comes to mind here). I mean: how would 'Dance of the spider' (Stance that gives you a climb speed) even work, if you'd have to be actually standing for it?

[Beni-Kujaku]

I'm not a native english speaker, but to me 'stance' doesn't mean you have to be standing. A stance means a posture, like how you position yourself. Of course how you position yourself would often be standing up, but it could also be how you position yourself on a horse. Or how you position yourself crouched/kneeling behind an obstacle when trying to (ranged) sneak attack somebody (Assassins stance comes to mind here). I mean: how would 'Dance of the spider' (Stance that gives you a climb speed) even work, if you'd have to be actually standing for it?

The point isn't that every stance requires you to be standing, but that you can't ride on a horse in any stance except "sitting on the saddle, probably one leg on each side of the horse, more or less leaned on the horse", which is most definitely not a standard combat stance. And if you can ride while standing up, you could ride in any posture, really, including your combat stances.

[Fouredged Sword]

I'm not a native english speaker, but to me 'stance' doesn't mean you have to be standing. A stance means a posture, like how you position yourself. Of course how you position yourself would often be standing up, but it could also be how you position yourself on a horse. Or how you position yourself crouched/kneeling behind an obstacle when trying to (ranged) sneak attack somebody (Assassins stance comes to mind here). I mean: how would 'Dance of the spider' (Stance that gives you a climb speed) even work, if you'd have to be actually standing for it?

Yeah, it's not that you are not standing. It's that there is this big horse thing between your legs ensuring that whatever position you are supposed to be in is not achievable. You are not able to move freely. You can't even dismount freely without a skill check. You have to be able to move freely to use a stance and needing to pass a DC20 move check to dismount as a free action isn't freely. It's not VERY constrained, but it's still constrained.

Though this in of itself offers a RAW solution to the problem at a lower ride check. Fast mount/dismount is a free action at DC20. Hit a DC20 ride check on a 1 and you can drop off your mount, use your swift action to assume a stance, use your standard action to use an attack maneuver, fast remount, and then still have your move action.

Though it would be really cool if there was a maneuver set specifically for mounted combat, maybe with mixed melee and ranged options to allow you to essentially roleplay a wixua Mongol horseman.

The other solution to this is to take a couple of feats.

Adaptable Flankers lets you count as occupying any space you threaten for a specific target you designate with a swift action. So long as you are adjacent to the target you can pick any square you threaten and act like you are standing there for determining flanking bonuses for you and your allies.

This means if you have a spiked chain and the target is medium you can choose to act like you are standing on the opposite side of the target. You and your mount and thus flanking the target and you get the flanking bonuses.

[loky1109]

Of course in actual play, as a DM, I would say that you can never be in a martial arts stance while mounted.
I don't understand why. But it's your game and your rules.

[Twurps]

The point isn't that every stance requires you to be standing, but that you can't ride on a horse in any stance except "sitting on the saddle, probably one leg on each side of the horse, more or less leaned on the horse", which is most definitely not a standard combat stance. And if you can ride while standing up, you could ride in any posture, really, including your combat stances.

I know how one rides a horse (usually at least), but that's not the point. The point is that 'where your legs are' =/= 'stance'. For most combat stances I would think the positioning of your upper body is much more important. (take punishing stance for example, where you trade defense for offense). Some other stances are either fully mental, or can't be explained at all (martial spirit comes to mind), and some actually require you to not be standing. (Like 'Dance of the spider' as mentioned earlier).
So being mounted shouldn't matter, just as 'being airborn' shouldn't matter, or 'charging' (which leaves little other options that just putting one foot in front of the other like everybody else after all) shouldn't matter.
Finally: I would argue that 'being mounted' definitely is a standard combat stance for just about any medieval culture with access to horses (or elephants for that matter)

Back on topic: The one RAW issue I see with craven is that is requires the 'sneak attack class feature'. So under a very strict reading, just having sneak attack isn't enough and neither assassins stance nor 'Use Your Allies (Ex )' as the ACF is called would qualify. Seeing as 'use your allies' actually is a class feature though, and it does give sneak attack, I'd allow it. (and I won't go into the assassins stance, as there's a ton of threads already on that topic)

[NinjaGuy]

I was initially leaning towards the idea that one couldn't use a stance on a horse because, for those whom aren't native English speakers, a stance is literally a way one stands. But since the mention of the Dance of the Spider stance, I now think that you should be able to ride and use a stance without hitting a DC 40 ride check.

While Dance of the Spider and Martial Spirit are great examples of why, I think the most applicable example would be Wolverine Stance. If a stance applies during a grapple, they should definitely apply while mounted. You think standing or positioning yourself a certain way is too difficult to do when riding an animal trained to allow you to do so? Well they work when you're being contorted, possibly even while prone, while grappling against an enemy trying to submit you to their will...

But as with everything it's probably up to the DM's discretion, as there won't be any official ruling anytime soon.

[Pezzo]

imho everything in ToB is magic, like the bloodstorm blade's extraordinary ability to teleport objects as free actions. About stances the book says "Each stance is a particular fighting pose that grants a martial adept special benefits and options", I agree with Ninjaguy, if you can keep a stance while walking up and down stairs, on an incline or a cramped space, I can't see a reason to deny taking a stance while mounted.
Also island of blades is a supernatural ability, which means its immune to common sense

[Twurps]

good stuff

But as with everything it's probably up to the DM's discretion, as there won't be any official ruling anytime soon.

I can't argue with DM's descretion of course, but if by official ruling you mean RAW, than there shouldn't be any debate. There's RAW rulings for how you acquire a stance, and as long as you meet those requirements, you have the stance and have the benefit. Being 'Standing on the ground' isn't one of those. (Usually, there's a couple where it is a requirement, but that only strengthens the RAW. As it shows the writers didn't forget that clause, they choose not to put that restriction in.)

so to me this wasn't a RAW debate, but more a 'how does one explain this 'in universe' debate'.

[arkangel111]

Yeah, it's not that you are not standing. It's that there is this big horse thing between your legs ensuring that whatever position you are supposed to be in is not achievable. You are not able to move freely. You can't even dismount freely without a skill check. You have to be able to move freely to use a stance and needing to pass a DC20 move check to dismount as a free action isn't freely. It's not VERY constrained, but it's still constrained....

Sorry but I have to argue against your point. I certainly don't remember reading anywhere that you lose your stance if restrained, pinned or in any other way immobilized except unconscious or death. Even if it did, nowhere in the riding rules does it say that you are considered constrained or that you are limited on what class features you can use while riding. Aside from that, stance doesn't have to be literal. For instance I have taken the stance that you are wrong on your reading of the rules. Stance could mean that you are looking for certain opportunities to arise and then capitalizing on said opportunities, which is easily doable on horseback.

[NinjaGuy]

All true.

so to me this wasn't a RAW debate, but more a 'how does one explain this 'in universe' debate'.

True, and don't get me wrong, I like for things to make sense in the games I play in, but some groups need it to make sense and really frown upon anything that they deem doesn't, even in a game that takes place in our collective imaginations and includes magic and dragons.

I guess I was just hoping to help convince fallensavior not to punish his players for naming them stances instead of styles, or techniques etc. It seems that it's the word "stance" that's the hiccup, when standing isn't always involved.

I guess I added the last line as more to pad my word count... I mean, my essay was barely two paragraphs. In summation, I hereby agree. In fact I really, really, really, really, really, agree. Truly. Verily. Indubitably.