Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Gwumph 10-16-06, 01:26 AM	Hey Folks I have read the PH and checked with FAQ, nothing solves my situation. I have a mounted PC and last game session something came up. It is this. I had my mount make a double move and in the middle of the double move, my PC madea single standard attack with a lance (I was not charging). The DM on reading the PH concluded that while it specifically allows a Ranged attack on a double move, It did not specifically say that a PC could take a single attack in the middle of a mounts double move. i.e. Mount moves 40 feet, PC makes single attack, Mount conitinues to move another 40 feet after PC attack. Is this allowed, what is the rulling, Please cite reference book and page # Thanks a bunch Gwumph
Lupo 10-16-06, 07:35 AM	Hey Folks I have read the PH and checked with FAQ, nothing solves my situation. I have a mounted PC and last game session something came up. It is this. I had my mount make a double move and in the middle of the double move, my PC madea single standard attack with a lance (I was not charging). The DM on reading the PH concluded that while it specifically allows a Ranged attack on a double move, It did not specifically say that a PC could take a single attack in the middle of a mounts double move. i.e. Mount moves 40 feet, PC makes single attack, Mount conitinues to move another 40 feet after PC attack. Is this allowed, what is the rulling, Please cite reference book and page # Thanks a bunch Gwumph as far as i know it isn't allowed. you try to get the benefits of a "spring attack" or "flyby attack" without having the feat. it might work if you AND your mount have the feat "spring attack" or for a flying mount "flyby attack" ciao martin m.
kjenks 10-16-06, 07:58 AM	I just re-read the Mounted Combat rules. It looks like it's allowed. Do you see any rules preventing this maneuver, Martin?
Lupo 10-16-06, 09:54 AM	I just re-read the Mounted Combat rules. It looks like it's allowed. Do you see any rules preventing this maneuver, Martin? as ranged combat is explicitely covered and melee combat isn't, it is the standard to assume that everything that isn't mentioned isn't allowed. FAQ is silent on it as well. i know that there was an article on mounted combat, maybe the article gives some hint, i just can't find it at the moment, and as usual it is only advice, nothing more. (yea, i know, breathing isn't explicitely allowed as "no-action", so all our characters suffocate ;)) especcially when there are feats to allow this - "ride-by-attack", "spring attack" and "fly-by-attack" - i wouldn't let someone get it for free. in addition PHB p.157, <snip> your mount acts on your initiative count as you direct it. you move at its speed, but the mount uses its action to move.<snip> i admit that this paragraph is somehow vage, but i would see the "you move at its speed" as an move action for both, rider and mount, so the sequence "move in - attack - move out" would summ up to two move actions and one standard action for the rider, therefore not allowed. (and yes, i know that the ruling on scout skirmish damage DOES NOT COUNT the mount's movement for triggering the skirmish condition.) ciao martin m.
kjenks 10-16-06, 10:25 AM	as ranged combat is explicitely covered and melee combat isn't, it is the standard to assume that everything that isn't mentioned isn't allowed. I disagree with your statement about "the standard," but instead of arguing about philosophy, let's look at what the rules cover and what they don't. Here's the main body of it: SRD === MOUNTED COMBAT [...] 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. Even at your mount’s full speed, you don’t take any penalty on melee attacks while mounted. [...] 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 only restriction on melee attacks I see in there is, "If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only make a single melee attack." That rule's not violated in the "mount moves, rider attacks, mount moves" sequence. As we can see from these ranged weapon rules allowing the rider to take a full attack with a ranged weapon (a full-round action) while the mount is running (a full-round action), it's clear that both the mount and the rider have a full round of actions available to them. In the "mount moves, rider attacks, mount moves" sequence, the mount can use its move action to move, then use its standard action to ready an action to move away after the rider attacks. The rider uses a standard action to make his single melee attack. This triggers the mount's readied action. (The rider actually has a move action available to draw a weapon or whatever.) Your DM may decide that an unintelligent mount is incapable of readying that action or that an animal would need a "trick" for this or that the rider must use the Handle Animal skill to "push" the mount, but those are different issues than whether or not the actions by mount and rider are allowed.
kjenks 10-16-06, 10:52 AM	There's another way to account for the actions in the "mount moves, rider attacks, mount moves" sequence: The rider readies an action to hit the opponent when he's within reach. The mount spends its entire round moving near the opponent then moving away again. This triggers the rider's readied action. (The rider has a move action available to draw a weapon or whatever.) This sequence doesn't require the mount to ready an action, just move under the rider's direction.
amnuxoll 10-16-06, 01:14 PM	That sure is an odd little loophole! Clearly the intent of the rules is that having a mount doesn't get you Spring Attack for free but I agree there's nothing specifically preventing it. It's something that should end up in the FAQ. Gwumph: I recommend you send this one to WotC's help desk as well as sageadvice@paizo.com. :AMN:
clik_ml 10-16-06, 01:42 PM	Clearly the intent of the rules is that having a mount doesn't get you Spring Attack for free but I agree there's nothing specifically preventing it. That's odd, I thought the intent was clearly that you can do stuff while riding except these things: 1)Take a full melee attack 2)Fire a bow at full attack without penalty Doing a ride-attack-ride doesn't seem against that in any way, shape or form, including the intent or spirit of the rules to me. And it isn't spring attack "for free". You have to be mounted and have room and terrain suitable to riding. Not to mention that spring attack is hardly awesome, so it is not like you're breaking anything at all. Heck if spring attack was a normal combat maneuver available sans feat, I'd still barely ever want to use it. Ken laid it out pretty well and there really shouldn't even be table variation on this. Heck I was surprised this was even an issue. I guess it usually just doesn't come up since mounted folks are either charging or using ranged attacks.
Lupo 10-16-06, 02:40 PM	That's odd, I thought the intent was clearly that you can do stuff while riding except these things: 1)Take a full melee attack 2)Fire a bow at full attack without penalty Doing a ride-attack-ride doesn't seem against that in any way, shape or form, including the intent or spirit of the rules to me. And it isn't spring attack "for free". You have to be mounted and have room and terrain suitable to riding. Not to mention that spring attack is hardly awesome, so it is not like you're breaking anything at all. Heck if spring attack was a normal combat maneuver available sans feat, I'd still barely ever want to use it. Ken laid it out pretty well and there really shouldn't even be table variation on this. Heck I was surprised this was even an issue. I guess it usually just doesn't come up since mounted folks are either charging or using ranged attacks. simple basic rule: page 135 movement <snip> you can take a move action before or after a standard action on your turn in a round.<snip> an unitelligent mount should not be a substitute for spring attack, as you still have to guide the mount. the only exception might be things like two casters with dim door. sequence is: everyone delays for after the first caster, except second caster who delays after last melee character. first caster dim doors everyone in, every fighter takes a complete swing of attacks, second caster dim doors everyone out. ciao martin m.
kjenks 10-16-06, 03:04 PM	an unitelligent mount should not be a substitute for spring attack, as you still have to guide the mount. This move-hit-move sequence is not a substitute for having the Spring Attack feat since the movement still provokes AoOs on both the rider and the mount, and in this scenario, the mount isn't attacking at all. If the rider uses a reach weapon, he may be able to avoid that AoO by having more reach than his opponent. Here's a similar situation that is pretty clearly documented in the rules: casting a spell in the middle of your mount's movement: SRD === 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). === So since you can explicitly "have your mount move both before and after you cast a spell," don't you think you could have your mount move both before and after you make your single melee attack? This is exactly what you'd do if you are casting a touch spell, right? Guiding a war-trained mount does not require a seperate action on the rider's part. Guiding a non-war-trained mount does require the rider to take a move action and make a DC 20 Ride check to "Control Mount in Battle" (as described in the Ride skill description), but in both of the scenarios I outlined above, the rider has a move action available to do this. SRD === Control Mount in Battle: As a move action, you can attempt to control a light horse, pony, heavy horse, or other mount not trained for combat riding while in battle. If you fail the Ride check, you can do nothing else in that round. You do not need to roll for warhorses or warponies. ===
kjenks 10-16-06, 03:08 PM	That's odd, I thought the intent was clearly that you can do stuff while riding except these things: 1)Take a full melee attack 2)Fire a bow at full attack without penalty You can make a full attack with melee weapons while riding -- as long as your mount doesn't move more than a 5 ft. step. You can make a full attack with ranged weapons without penalty while riding -- as long as your mount doesn't move more than a single move.
Lupo 10-16-06, 03:25 PM	This move-hit-move sequence is not a substitute for having the Spring Attack feat since the movement still provokes AoOs on both the rider and the mount, and in this scenario, the mount isn't attacking at all. If the rider uses a reach weapon, he may be able to avoid that AoO by having more reach than his opponent. Here's a similar situation that is pretty clearly documented in the rules: casting a spell in the middle of your mount's movement: SRD === 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). === So since you can explicitly "have your mount move both before and after you cast a spell," don't you think you could have your mount move both before and after you make your single melee attack? This is exactly what you'd do if you are casting a touch spell, right? Guiding a war-trained mount does not require a seperate action on the rider's part. Guiding a non-war-trained mount does require the rider to take a move action and make a DC 20 Ride check to "Control Mount in Battle" (as described in the Ride skill description), but in both of the scenarios I outlined above, the rider has a move action available to do this. SRD === Control Mount in Battle: As a move action, you can attempt to control a light horse, pony, heavy horse, or other mount not trained for combat riding while in battle. If you fail the Ride check, you can do nothing else in that round. You do not need to roll for warhorses or warponies. === ok, mounted melee fighhters, boost your concentration skill ;) let's see whether the FAQ gives more insight, some day . . . . . ciao martin m. ps: my dire bat riding druid would love your ruling :D
clik_ml 10-16-06, 03:26 PM	Originally Posted by clik_ml That's odd, I thought the intent was clearly that you can do stuff *while riding except these things: You can make a full attack with melee weapons while riding -- as long as your mount doesn't move more than a 5 ft. step. You can make a full attack with ranged weapons without penalty while riding -- as long as your mount doesn't move more than a single move. :rolleyes: *while riding your mount as it executes a double move Apologies for not spelling it out ultra-explicitly.
kjenks 10-16-06, 03:37 PM	ps: my dire bat riding druid would love your ruling :D My dire-bat-riding druid 9 has +18 Concentration and his advanced dire bat has Flyby Attack. My level 14 fighter mutt does mounted lance charges on his Figurine of Wondrous Power (Ebony Fly). So I've had occasion to look up these mounted combat rules more than a few times.
ShinAkuma2 10-16-06, 03:54 PM	Clearly the intent of the rules is that having a mount doesn't get you Spring Attack for free but I agree there's nothing specifically preventing it. It's not Spring Attack, since both you and your mount will provoke AoOs along the way.
jstorrie 10-16-06, 05:56 PM	It's not Ride-By Attack either, since you and your mount provoke and you don't get the charging bonus.
Gwumph 10-16-06, 11:32 PM	Thanks for all your comments folks. As some people mentioned mounted PC usually charge so this doesn't come up often. My couple of comments: Ride-by-attack is completely different. For ride by you must charge and u must continue in a straight line past the enemy. Ditto for fly-by-attack As for reasons why not, the only one I have seen so far is that it is not mentioned in the book. Which is a major oversight since it then mentions both ranged and casting attacks during double moves of mounts. Oh well I have asked they sage and will post his reply when I receive it. If anyone has anything new to add to the above discussions I welcome their insight. Cheers Gwumph
Ramacass 10-17-06, 04:15 AM	Hi, I was the DM at that table. The rules don't specifically mention this. I read it as that if you move more than 5 feet you can only make a single attack at the end of your mounts move. But I think a very strong argument has been made for it being legal. But what about this, stay with me here.... Lets take the ready vrs attack range idea. Could you ready vrs attack range with a non-mounted character say with a glaive and then use your move action to move past an orc at a range of 10 feet and take your readied action as you pass continuing your move. It could start to get ridiculous. on a side not Spring Attack rocks!!!!! and if you wouldn't even use it if it were a free combat action requiring no feats maybe we aren't reading the same feat
Gwumph 10-17-06, 04:39 AM	LOL Rama good to see you finally get onboard at the forums. In response to your post, How do you explain the ability to cast a spell or make a range attack during a mounts double move. Both are attack actions. and the ranged attack even if the mount does a run (4X)move. So the way it is right now you are allowed to make a ranged attack and a spell attack during a mounts move, but not a melee attack. That seems strange. Also your example with the glaive doesn't hold water since you are citing a non-mounted PC. Cheers Gwumph p.s. U know I love you Bro, I just enjoy a good debate. Outside of game time!!
clik_ml 10-17-06, 08:53 AM	on a side not Spring Attack rocks!!!!! and if you wouldn't even use it if it were a free combat action requiring no feats maybe we aren't reading the same feat Well, Spring Attack lets you take a single move and make an attack somewhere in the middle of that move, and not draw an AoO for leaving the square afterwards. So what does that give you? At best, trading one for one attacks with the enemy. Except that you have teammates, and they are likely not dancing around, and *they* are going to be the ones soaking a full attack, while the spring attacker dances around wasting everyone's time. You may have a special ability to throw on attacks like stunning fist, but if your stun actually worked then you don't want to spring attack anyway, you'd rather just slug it out. At low levels Spring Attack is more attractive since you might only have 1 attack anyway, so you aren't missing out on anything, whereas a monster may have many natural weapon attacks. But once you have even one more iternative attack available, you probably ought to stop wasting your time with Spring Attack. That Spring Attack costs 3 feats and needs +4 BAB really hinders one's ability to profit from it much in the low levels as well. There just aren't a lot of good combat options that are made better by spring attacking. I really have to strain to find an instance where it is good tactics to use spring attack in a balanced team battle once multiple attacks enter the equation (and with TWF and flurry, that can be pretty darned early). And this is with the generous notion that if it were free, and not costing 3 feats which could absolutely be put to much better use. To try and conceive of a case where spring attack is worth the 3 feats it takes to get *and* use... oy. Of all my current LG characters (cavalry, tank/archer, wizard, gish, rogue, bard) I think only one would ever consider using spring attack if it didn't cost any feats and that's my Bard since he can't take a beating very well but can dish some out (and once he gets his second iterative attack, then spring attack can totally be chucked to the wayside). For every other character, they are better off taking their charge attack, multiple attacks, spells, or otherwise slugging it out instead of trying to trade 1 for 1 normal attacks.
Ramacass 10-18-06, 01:45 AM	[QUOTE]Well, Spring Attack lets you take a single move and make an attack somewhere in the middle of that move, and not draw an AoO for leaving the square afterwards. Not exactly, spring attack lets you name one opponent and then move, attack and move again without drawing attacks of opportunity from said opponent. As long as you don't move farther than your speed. So what does that give you? More than you think. Aside for the obvious of letting you get around AoO of creatures with greater reach it gives you remarkable combat mobility. At best, trading one for one attacks with the enemy. I don't agree with the "at best" part but I do agree trading one for one attacks is a benifit of spring attack. Lets take a 4th level fighter/barbarian (common meleeclass mix) with Spring Attack vrs a brown bear (think it's a CR4 off the top of my head) I would trade a one for one attack with a brown bear any day of the week as opposed to my one attack vrs its claw/claw/bite Now give this fighter barbarian a reach weapon and every time the bear has to close you get an AoO. So we turned a one weapon attack vrs claw/claw bite into two weapon attacks vrs one claw attack. And were not finished lets use a net or a tangle foot bag to cut the bears movement in half(even if he makes the save his movement is still cut in half and he can't charge for 2d4 rounds) and just spring/attack/spring on it with our 40 foot movement for 2d4 rounds while it can do nothing to defend itself Except that you have teammates, and they are likely not dancing around, and *they* are going to be the ones soaking a full attack, while the spring attacker dances around wasting everyone's time. You may have a special ability to throw on attacks like stunning fist, but if your stun actually worked then you don't want to spring attack anyway, you'd rather just slug it out. I think this is a good point and illistrates why spring attack is not the best option for tanks, yet still not a bad one. But the same could be used for archer types or arcane blasters or any build that doesn't sit on the front line and soak up damage is wasting everyones time. At low levels Spring Attack is more attractive since you might only have 1 attack anyway, so you aren't missing out on anything, whereas a monster may have many natural weapon attacks. But once you have even one more iternative attack available, you probably ought to stop wasting your time with Spring Attack. That Spring Attack costs 3 feats and needs +4 BAB really hinders one's ability to profit from it much in the low levels as well. I think I covered thatwith the bear example, but at higher levels you just use power attack with spring attack, to maximise damage. Trading chance to hit on your extra attacks for extra damage on your main attack for is nothing new as anyone who uses power attack can tell you. There just aren't a lot of good combat options that are made better by spring attacking. I really have to strain to find an instance where it is good tactics to use spring attack in a balanced team battle once multiple attacks enter the equation (and with TWF and flurry, that can be pretty darned early). And this is with the generous notion that if it were free, and not costing 3 feats which could absolutely be put to much better use. To try and conceive of a case where spring attack is worth the 3 feats it takes to get *and* use... oy. I think there are plenty of good combat options with spring attack and even at higher levels when you have three attacks per round and your fighting a dragon with ridiculous AC in some dungon I would much rather give up my extra attacks that have a snowballs chance of hitting to go one for one on attacks with the dragon rather than take all seven or so attacks. So maybe I'd only last a few rounds before the dragon kills me and goes after my friends thats still a few rounds longer my friends get to prepare as opposed to the guy who goes toe to toe with the dragon and goes down in one round
Gwumph 10-18-06, 04:12 AM	Topic boys Topic!!! Start a new thread for spring attacks and argue it out there. (I am as many attacks as possible guy myself, except my mounted PC which is a bit of anamoly,"a single attack and Lawful Good" must of been hung over that day:P ) Gwumph
Timlagor 10-18-06, 08:54 AM	Your mount moves on your initiative. 'Readying' an action ends your turn -so your mount can't move while you are 'ready'. Well that's my view of that bit anyway. **************************************** ******* I would not allow move-attack-move while mounted.
kjenks 10-18-06, 09:29 AM	Readying an action does not end your turn. You can use your standard action to ready then use your move action for something else, like guiding a recalcitrant mount.
paigeoliver 10-18-06, 09:37 AM	Plus, it is sort of sheer madness to think that a warrior cannot guide his mount past someone and take a smack at them. Sure the mounted combat tree makes you really good at it, but ruling that it is impossible to ride a horse past someone full throttle and swing is ignoring reality. It isn't rules abuse, it isn't making things up, it is something anyone capable of riding a horse can do. That (and trampling) is the reason why horses were so powerful on ancient battlefields.
Iswald 10-18-06, 10:59 AM	I don't agree with the "at best" part but I do agree trading one for one attacks is a benifit of spring attack. Lets take a 4th level fighter/barbarian (common meleeclass mix) with Spring Attack vrs a brown bear (think it's a CR4 off the top of my head) I would trade a one for one attack with a brown bear any day of the week as opposed to my one attack vrs its claw/claw/bite Now give this fighter barbarian a reach weapon and every time the bear has to close you get an AoO. So we turned a one weapon attack vrs claw/claw bite into two weapon attacks vrs one claw attack. And were not finished lets use a net or a tangle foot bag to cut the bears movement in half(even if he makes the save his movement is still cut in half and he can't charge for 2d4 rounds) and just spring/attack/spring on it with our 40 foot movement for 2d4 rounds while it can do nothing to defend itself I don't see how this helps in LG. In a home game, quite possible. Anyhow, I'd have to say that making a single attack while your mount is moving would work. You may be able to avoid an AoO when using a reach weapon. Your damage is going to be lower than charging. After you use it once, it may become much less effective as NPCs can ready to 5' step inside your reach and full attack you.
kjenks 10-18-06, 04:29 PM	After you use it once, it may become much less effective as NPCs can ready to 5' step inside your reach and full attack you. You can only ready a standard action, not the full-round action needed to make a full attack.
clannagh 10-19-06, 02:57 AM	just to muddy the waters even further some GM's argue that the errata concerning "no charging as part of a bullrush" effectively makes the ride by attack feat useless .. the logic being ride by attack requires you charge in a straight line directly at the opponent and continue in a straight line after teh attack .. which basically requires a bull rush .. however bullrushing as part of a charge is not allowed i tend to ignore that sillyness and play ride by attack the same as always
kjenks 10-19-06, 05:50 AM	I'm pretty sure you mean "overrun" instead of "bull rush" there. In LG, most of us play Ride-by Attack by the rules in the FAQ, which modify the rules in the PH to the point where RBA is actually useful.
Samwise 10-19-06, 01:48 PM	Said FAQ entry confirming that indeed, you could not otherwise use ride by attack.
clannagh 10-19-06, 07:02 PM	yes i was thinking of over-run my mistake, I don't normally play mounted characters so thanks for the pointer to the FAQ meanwhile it seems to me the original questioner would be better off just taking ride-by-attack this does cost a feat, but qualifies you for a level of hospitaler that gives you a free fighter feat at first level
clannagh 10-19-06, 10:08 PM	Ok, I have read the FAQ and am still confused !! Let me see if i have got this correct : 1. You need to move 5 feet after you attack 2. You cannot pass through the opponents space 3. When charging directly at the opponent and using a lance this will allow both you and your mount to get an attack in as you move a further 5 feet closer after the lance attack allowing the mount to attack (normally charging with a lance puts your mount out of threat range) 4. The only other time ride-by-attack is useful is if your CLOSEST square to attack from is a corner square positioned in such a way that your charge takes you past rather than into the opponents occupied square. This seems in practice to only occur in one rare situation when you are facing on a line precisely 5 feet to one side of the opponents occupied squares. Assuming normal reach (not a lance) .... T E x T T M E=enemy x=closest square that threatens enemy T = other squares that threaten enemy M=mounted attacker Is this correct ?
kjenks 10-19-06, 10:36 PM	Unfortunately, another FAQ entry says that RBA doesn't help your mount attack. So apparently the FAQ prevents your mount from attacking on a RBA unless your mount has the Flyby Attack feat. (This seems to contradict the PH rules for RBA.) Under the FAQ rules for RBA, you do not charge directly toward your opponent. Instead, you charge to a square from which you can attack your opponent and continue in a straight line.
clannagh 10-19-06, 10:47 PM	Except in this situation, you hit with the lance as part of your rideby and move another 5 feet and have now finished the ride by attack move with the mount in a position to attack normally. Not that it makes a big difference either way but it seems you could argue that the ride-by is a rider feat and is completed thus leaving the mount free to finish its charge attack as per normal.
Gwumph 10-19-06, 11:07 PM	yes i was thinking of over-run my mistake, I don't normally play mounted characters so thanks for the pointer to the FAQ meanwhile it seems to me the original questioner would be better off just taking ride-by-attack this does cost a feat, but qualifies you for a level of hospitaler that gives you a free fighter feat at first level As the orginal questioner, the reason I am asking this question is I couldn't (also didn't want to) to do a RBA. Since a RBA must be used as part of a charge and a charge isn't always possible. For myself the big honcho had 3 ranks of flunkies infront of him, so I wanted to ride in, make a single attack on one of the flunkies and then use the rest of my movement to circle around the flank for a charge on the big honcho next round. Which worked perfectly I might add with my charge being a critical smited spirited charge hit on the 2nd round of combat. It was all clean-up after that Cheers Gwumph
paigeoliver 10-19-06, 11:25 PM	You can jump as part of a charge, with a hasted horse you can usually clear a rank of flunkies by jumping right over them.
Gwumph 10-20-06, 05:03 AM	The Jump is a big thing,I know. But that is taking it a bit far. lets do the math. The PH states that for a long jump height, at mid-point you are 1/4 high of total distance travelled. Now mid-point for me would be best at the second rank of flunkie (i still must clear third ranks flunkie and big honcho) So I need to clear first rank of flunkie which is a 6 foot high creature. If second rank is mid-point and 1/4 of total distance travelled, I would as a DM say that your height at the first rank would about 2/3 of the mid-point 1/4 So aiming for 6 feet at first rank that would put my mid-point at at 9 feet which times by 4 equals 36. So for a running jump check I would need to beat a DC of 36. On a Warhorse i have +12 to jump so it is pretty much impossible unless hasted. If on a wardpony like myself even hasted i have +18, so I need to roll a 18 or better. Those are not good odds. It is very very difficult to jump over people, rough terrian no problem, short crates is possible, people very very hard.
paigeoliver 10-20-06, 05:34 AM	A stock light warhorse has a jump of +19 with a 20 foot start (+3 for STR, +12 for movement rate, +4 for having the run feat), +31 if hasted. Animal companion's can get better jump checks than even that, since they have beefed STR, have skill points to put in jump, and can get feats from hit die bumps, such as Skill Focus Jump. Now jumping 3 ranks would be terribly hard, but jumping one rank is quite doable. I have generally ruled DC 24 to clear a single human sized figure, since 6 feet tall covers most humans. Although by the square system they are actually all 5 feet tall.
kjenks 10-20-06, 07:40 AM	Except in this situation, you hit with the lance as part of your rideby and move another 5 feet and have now finished the ride by attack move with the mount in a position to attack normally. Not that it makes a big difference either way but it seems you could argue that the ride-by is a rider feat and is completed thus leaving the mount free to finish its charge attack as per normal. That's how the PH rules read to me, but this pesky FAQ entry seems to change things. (It's probably an accident, but it says what it says.) FAQ === Suppose you have a flying mount: a griffon. What do you have to do to use the ride-by tactic in the air or in swooping down on a target? Do you need to take the Flyby Attack feat? Or does the Ride-By Attack feat cover flying mounts as well? For the mount to make a single attack when riding or flying by, does it also need to somehow gain a feat? If so, which one? If the example rider wants to make attacks while flying by foes, she needs the Ride-By Attack feat and needs to charge (and fly) in a straight line (see the next question). For the mount to attack in the same situation, it would need the Flyby Attack feat. The rider’s Ride-By Attack feat won’t help the mount attack, and the mount’s Flyby Attack feat does not help the rider attack. Note that you have to have a fly speed to take the Flyby Attack feat. If you merely ride a flying mount, you don’t meet the prerequisite for the feat. If you can meet the prerequisite, your flying mount still doesn’t benefit from your Flyby Attack feat (although it’s possible that a feat or class feature might allow you to share the feat). === I added the italics. A DM may decide that this doesn't apply at all to ground-pounder mounts, only to flying mounts. But it does muddy the waters a bit when trying to figure out whether the mount can attack as part of a RBA and where that attack occurs in the straight-line movement of the charge + extra move.
clannagh 10-21-06, 07:35 PM	That's how the PH rules read to me, but this pesky FAQ entry seems to change things. (It's probably an accident, but it says what it says.) FAQ === Suppose you have a flying mount: a griffon. What do you have to do to use the ride-by tactic in the air or in swooping down on a target? Do you need to take the Flyby Attack feat? Or does the Ride-By Attack feat cover flying mounts as well? For the mount to make a single attack when riding or flying by, does it also need to somehow gain a feat? If so, which one? If the example rider wants to make attacks while flying by foes, she needs the Ride-By Attack feat and needs to charge (and fly) in a straight line (see the next question). For the mount to attack in the same situation, it would need the Flyby Attack feat. The rider’s Ride-By Attack feat won’t help the mount attack, and the mount’s Flyby Attack feat does not help the rider attack. Note that you have to have a fly speed to take the Flyby Attack feat. If you merely ride a flying mount, you don’t meet the prerequisite for the feat. If you can meet the prerequisite, your flying mount still doesn’t benefit from your Flyby Attack feat (although it’s possible that a feat or class feature might allow you to share the feat). === I added the italics. A DM may decide that this doesn't apply at all to ground-pounder mounts, only to flying mounts. But it does muddy the waters a bit when trying to figure out whether the mount can attack as part of a RBA and where that attack occurs in the straight-line movement of the charge + extra move. Even in the flying case I am inclined to rule in my games that if the mount finished its move in threat range it is not actually making a flyby attack and hence does not need the feat. The FAQ clearly must apply when the mount wants to make an attack in the middle of its move .... but it is not at all clear it should apply if the mount finishes its move in a threatening square that allows it to attack. Otherwise you get the odd situation of a mount charging up to attack, getting into position ready to bite/claw/gnash/chew and then simply not attacking because the rider got in first with a reach weapon. Not that the ride by attack rules have ever approached anything resembling sensible.
kjenks 10-21-06, 08:57 PM	Otherwise you get the odd situation of a mount charging up to attack, getting into position ready to bite/claw/gnash/chew and then simply not attacking because the rider got in first with a reach weapon. That's another FAQ entry. FAQ === When you make a mounted charge, must you stop once you are in melee range of your target? Or do you continue past the opponent? If you don’t have the Ride-By Attack feat, your movement for the turn you perform a charge ends when you attack. You must make the attack as soon you can. ===
clannagh 10-21-06, 09:20 PM	indeed .. very true I was only hypothesising about one very specific situation. Mount charges at monster. Rider passes ride test to attack as well as mount and opts to use ride by attack to hit with lance at 10 feet reach. Mount continues 5 feet further as per required by ride-by-attack feat. Ride by attack of rider is now complete. Mount then has its attack as per normal from its charge. Its not a big issue, I just found it curious as it seems to be the one exception to the overall rule preventing the mount and rider both attacking.
kjenks 10-22-06, 08:35 AM	Mount charges at monster. Rider passes ride test to attack as well as mount and opts to use ride by attack to hit with lance at 10 feet reach. Mount continues 5 feet further as per required by ride-by-attack feat. Ride by attack of rider is now complete. Mount then has its attack as per normal from its charge. And that is exacly what I believe is allowed by the PH rules but disallowed by the poorly-worded "Flyby Attack" FAQ entry.
_m_ 10-23-06, 01:57 AM	simple basic rule: page 135 movement <snip> you can take a move action before or after a standard action on your turn in a round.<snip> an unitelligent mount should not be a substitute for spring attack, as you still have to guide the mount. the only exception might be things like two casters with dim door. sequence is: everyone delays for after the first caster, except second caster who delays after last melee character. first caster dim doors everyone in, every fighter takes a complete swing of attacks, second caster dim doors everyone out. ciao martin m. not mounted, but... if you had 2 casters with baelfull transposition: caster 1 casts it on the fighter beside him, moving the fighter into the group of enemy mobs, and one of the mobs over to him fighter 1 has readied an action to hit when he's in range, gets transposed by caster one into combat. whirlwinds or some such to hit the group he just went into. caster 2 has readied to cast baelful transposition when fighter one has attacked, teleports the mob back to the start point, and the fighter back out of combat. not sure what the point is... but i think technically it could be done.
Samwise 10-23-06, 02:26 AM	A bit excessive. And it allows a save. Try: Super-Tumbler pops in, avoids all AoOs automatically, and hits something. Benign Transposition on him and the tank, who has just been delaying and unloads the hasted full attack. If anything is standing, just wait for him to finish killing it next round, or repeat the same trick with the tumbler and your healer to make sure the tank doesn't go down. That can also be done with the charging, raging barbarian being switched with the tank. That has the added advantage that if the tank remembers to 5' step to one side, the barbarian can charge again next round to finish off whatever is somehow still standing. If you really have the spell-slingers to spare: Summon a critter into the middle of the bad guys. Benign transpose it with your choice of cleaving killer. Of course, the real problem with either is that both benign and baleful transposition are limited spells, and can't be relied on to be available.
_m_ 10-23-06, 06:57 PM	Of course, the real problem with either is that both benign and baleful transposition are limited spells, and can't be relied on to be available. *grinning from ear to ear* got access to BOTH in a game last night, by shear co-incidence :D lucky me.
Samwise 10-23-06, 08:02 PM	*grinning from ear to ear* got access to BOTH in a game last night, by shear co-incidence :D lucky me. :weep: Just to note, that's why I'm advocating regroup be put on the Restricted list. Also note, authors can put that in for bad guys. And if they don't think of it, their reviewer has. :devil:
_m_ 10-23-06, 08:25 PM	we had a combat in a maze with mobs using transposition. it was really ANNOYING. the combat took an hour and a half longer than it should have. bit off topic though im affraid. as for mounts... if you were riding say, a unicorn, or maybe a blink dog, could it move in as its move action, you hit the mob with a readied, then the mount teleports back out as a standard action>?
Some_call_me_Tim 10-27-06, 03:45 PM	i.e. Mount moves 40 feet, PC makes single attack, Mount conitinues to move another 40 feet after PC attack. Is this allowed, what is the rulling, Please cite reference book and page # The best reference I can find is Rules of the Game article: All About Mounts (Part Three) (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050208a). [I know not offical...blah...blah...blah] 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. I would go with this ruling, while I have to admit the rules don't explicitly prevent this, neither do they explicitly allow this. Just like you can't normally make an attack during your movement you shouldn't be able to make an attack during your mount's movement. You can do certain other things but melee attack isn't one of them.
kjenks 10-27-06, 03:53 PM	Those Rules of the Game articles are notorious for changing the rules and making house rules without telling you about it. This is one of those cases. As you can see from the discussion above, the PH rules for mounted combat do not prohibit this tactic. You obviously know that you should not use a Rules of the Game article in LG.
PaulH 10-28-06, 02:30 PM	Hi Actually, you could use RBA without moving INTO the targets square. (Bullrush, etc). You simply move in a straight line adjacent to the target, make your attack, then move on. After all - when you charge you don't have to move into targets square, just next to it. Did just that in a non LG game recently with a St 18 Barbarian/Druid 2 combo with Gt Club. (Shillelagh 6d6+7 damage)! Cheers Paul H
Samwise 10-28-06, 02:53 PM	Actually, when you charge you must move directly towards the target, not merely next to it, or even adjacent. And moving directly towards means, continuing on a straight line, your next step is into the target's square. Even while changing the rules for RBA, the Sage Advice recognized this as the rule for charge. You can not "sideswipe" a target with a charge.
kjenks 10-28-06, 03:35 PM	Actually, when you charge you must move directly towards the target, not merely next to it, or even adjacent. And moving directly towards means, continuing on a straight line, your next step is into the target's square. Even while changing the rules for RBA, the Sage Advice recognized this as the rule for charge. You can not "sideswipe" a target with a charge. The FAQ rules for RBA say you can. FAQ === When using the Ride-By attack feat, you must conduct your charge so that you move in a straight line toward the closest square from which it is possible to attack your chosen foe, so long as it is a square that allows you to attack and then continue on in the straight line of the charge. === That's a sideswipe. If you're a halfling-on-a-dog paladin at square A2 and you're doing a mounted lance charge RBA on an orc in square F2, you can charge to square D1, D2 or D3, make your lance attack, then continue on in a straight line. All three "charge squares" (D1, D2 and D3) are the same distance (3 squares or 15 ft.) from the starting place (A2). You can stop toe-to-toe with the orc or you can continue to the north or south side of him, maintaining that straight line. As usual, a straight line along any diagonal on a battle grid takes you through a stair-step of squares. BTW, in this particular tactical situation, the FAQ rules for RBA are in agreement with the PH rules for RBA. In both sets of rules, squares D1, D2 and D3 all count as "the closest square from which it is possible to attack your chosen foe" (FAQ rules) and "directly toward the designated opponent" (PH rules).
Samwise 10-28-06, 03:57 PM	Hence the "Even while changing the rules for RBA" bit. And no, the three squares example ignores the "directly towards" requirement of charge. You can not go to either side and have a valid charge. By the FAQ, RBA does not use the standard rules for a charge, and so is not in accord with the PH rules for RBA and charge. This has been acknowledged by WotC, they simply haven't classified it as the errata that it is.
kjenks 10-28-06, 05:16 PM	And no, the three squares example ignores the "directly towards" requirement of charge. You can not go to either side and have a valid charge. Ah, Samwise, you should look at the forest, not the tree. That "directly toward the designated opponent" part is in the summary at the beginning of the section. The rest of the section clarifies what that means. SRD == Movement During a Charge: You must move before your attack, not after. You must move at least 10 feet (2 squares) and may move up to double your speed directly toward the designated opponent. 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.) Second, if any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through a square that blocks movement, slows movement, or contains a creature (even an ally), you can’t charge. === As we can see, "directly toward the designated opponent" is defined as "must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent." In my example above, all three squares (D1, D2 and D3) meet that criterion.
Haro 10-28-06, 05:26 PM	*grinning from ear to ear* got access to BOTH in a game last night, by shear co-incidence :D lucky me. The mod you are talking about only gives access to ONE of them if you look closely. My Conjurer chose Baleful rather than Benign. :-) Joe
Samwise 10-28-06, 05:48 PM	Ah Ken, you should look at the forest and the trees, as they are all interfering with your charge path. That passage reads: "Here’s what it means to have a clear path." Not: "Here's what it means to move directly toward the designated opponent." So no, moving directly towards the designated opponent is not defined the way you assert. Only a clear path is defined that way. Those are two different things. If you want a diagram of what "directly toward the designated opponent" means, pick up the D20 Modern book. And before you claim that isn't valid, neither is the SRD. The FAQ is though, and the FAQ acknowledges that RBA is not possible with the rules for charge as written in the PHB because of what "directly toward the designated opponent" means. And, though I know people will complain about that too, I specifically asked CustServ about the illustration in D20 Modern, and was assured it depicts the absolute intent of the rule. I also referred to your example, and the response was that it was not correct. You can not sideslip on a charge. Ride By Attack, by the changes laid out in the FAQ, no longer uses the standard rules for a charge. No forest or trees involved.
kjenks 10-30-06, 11:45 AM	Ah Ken, you should look at the forest and the trees, as they are all interfering with your charge path. That passage reads: "Here’s what it means to have a clear path." Not: "Here's what it means to move directly toward the designated opponent." So no, moving directly towards the designated opponent is not defined the way you assert. Only a clear path is defined that way. Those are two different things. That passage is obviously refering to the previous sentence which says, "You must have a clear path toward the opponent[.]" So these rules define the clear path toward an opponent as "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 you want a diagram of what "directly toward the designated opponent" means, pick up the D20 Modern book. And before you claim that isn't valid, neither is the SRD. The FAQ is though, and the FAQ acknowledges that RBA is not possible with the rules for charge as written in the PHB because of what "directly toward the designated opponent" means. And, though I know people will complain about that too, I specifically asked CustServ about the illustration in D20 Modern, and was assured it depicts the absolute intent of the rule. I also referred to your example, and the response was that it was not correct. You can not sideslip on a charge. Ride By Attack, by the changes laid out in the FAQ, no longer uses the standard rules for a charge. No forest or trees involved. You know we can't use d20 Modern in LG, even if CustServ says it applies. Can you post the CustServ query/response so we can all see what they said?
Samwise 10-30-06, 12:44 PM	That passage is obviously refering to the previous sentence which says, "You must have a clear path toward the opponent[.]" Obviously? Not in the least. The phrases are completely different. You are trying to apply the rules for "clear path" to "directly toward." So these rules define the clear path toward an opponent as "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.)" No, they define clear path. They say nothing about directly toward. You know we can't use d20 Modern in LG, even if CustServ says it applies. If a CustServ response is valid in LG, then their pointing to that as a valid example means it can be. Can you post the CustServ query/response so we can all see what they said? There were three responses, as there were repeated issues to clarify. I will try to stack the questions and replies in proper order. Also note that several responses appear to be contradictory, mostly because of the change to RBA. I will highlight what I see as critical, though I'm sure others will point to other statements. 1) What does it mean that you have to charge "directly towards" your target? A) You have an unobstructed straight line to get to them, with out veering, turning, or going through anyone's squares. Followup 1)How do you determine a straight line? Is it from the center of your square to the center of the target's square? Is it from one or more corners of your square to one or more corners of the target's square? Is it from your square to the square you attack the target from? Is it some other method? And having determined a straight line, how do you determine what squares must be entered while moving if the path is not down a direct line of squares? A) The diagrams in both the Player's Handbook and the d20 Modern sourcebook are perfect examples of the charge action. A straight line is determined by whether your entire mini can move directly to your target, from the square you are in to the closest square to you that you can attack your target from, without encountering any obstacles or making any turns. Followup) If you look closely, you will note that those diagrams are not identical. (The PH path appears to trace directly to the end square, while the D20 Modern path traces directly through the target square.) And yes, this is how I interpret the rules, and the diagrams. A) They are the same thing, the D&D one just did not specify the actual tile count. 2) What does it mean that you have to go to the "closest square" from which you can attack? It means that you cannot choose to go further than the first square you could possibly attack your target from. Followup: Yes, but closest in relation to what? Closest to me? Closest to my target? Closest along a direct path? (However we might determine that direct path.) A) You have to go the route that uses the least amount of squares to get from where you start your charge, to where you can make an attack from. Followup) Again for clarification, is this a simple count of squares, or the count of movement used? (As moving diagonally twice is 2 squares in "number" but 3 squares of "movement.") A) Count of movement used. 3) How does this interact with Ride-By Attack? (Can you actually do a ride-by attack since a direct line towards a target would go through the targets square, and you are not allowed to do an overrun as part of a charge?) I direct line toward a target can also be to the square on either side of the target. Towards your target also means towards the square you can attack from. Followup: Then if I have a reach weapon I could conceivably charge by moving directly away from the target I intend to hit since I would be moving towards the square I can attack from. That can't be right. As another possibility, if a target is on a straight line of squares with you, would this allow you to charge to a square to the left or right of the target? That seems to completely contradict the intent of charge to be directly at then through a target rather than some sort of clothes-line maneuver. A) No you cannot, because the rules say you must move at least 10 feet directly towards your opponent. If you are already in a square that you can attack your opponent from, then you are in the closest square to your opponent and could not charge away to a square that you can attack from. In a regular charge, if you are in a direct line, you could not go to the right or left of the target, but in a ride-by-attack you can choose to go to the left or right of your target so that you may move past after attacking. 4) How does this interact with Fleet of Foot which allows a single turn of 90 degrees during a charge? It does not interact with the Ride by Attack feat. Followup: I mean for charge in general. How far off a direct line of charge can I go while using fleet of foot? A) This would be up to your DM as the rules just specify that you may make a single 90 degree turn during your charge. 5) How do size and reach affect charge? Well, it is reach that could affect the charge. If I have a 10 foot reach I can stop out of your reach and make my charge attack from there. Followup: Actually, size will affect charge as well, since you would have two or more squares to trace the starting point of the charge from, and two or more squares to calculate where the closest point to the target is. It will also affect how you can continue moving past the target with the ride-by attack feat. A) I thought you meant how it affects the mechanics of the charge, i am sorry. Of course size will affect the path being clear or not since you could not squeeze between things and still charge. Followup) Right. And my concern is that with reach weapons on a 10 ft. square creature against a 10 ft. square target, the "closest" space you can attack from and still past the creature can result in very peculiar paths for the charge. That is why I am asking for clarification on any limits to such a path. A) If you can find more than one shortest route, as in there are a few routes that use the same number of squares, you can choose either of those routes as they are all the same distance. So you might be able to be on the side of the target or directly in front and so long as both possible moves are tied for using the fewest squares to get there either would be a valid choice. Again, note particularly the followups to 1) and the first followup to 3). As a side note, I included a specific, repeated, request for all of this to be put into the errata, and not left as just something in the FAQ and CustServ replies. And, just to be clear, I don't care if they change the rule to allow "clothesline" charges. Overall, that would be easiest, given so much else. But until they do, that simply isn't how the rules read for charge. RBA has an exemption now. Regular charges still require that straight line.
_m_ 10-30-06, 06:09 PM	cheers samwise, that was very well presented and conclusive (at least i thought so). good stuff.
Puggle Halfwine 10-30-06, 07:17 PM	Very interesting. I might swap out my dire-bat companion for a leopard or cheetah then, if you can do 'sideswipe' charges... very interesting stuff!
_m_ 10-30-06, 07:37 PM	is there a non mounted equivalent to ride by side swiping? cause me and a friend just worked out a level 9 toon with a 130 base land speed. could you spring attack something like, 65 feet away from you, then end up back where you started, and stay out of a standard 30 foot movement guys charge range?
budleiser 10-30-06, 09:52 PM	Edit: Delete
kjenks 10-30-06, 10:49 PM	is there a non mounted equivalent to ride by side swiping? cause me and a friend just worked out a level 9 toon with a 130 base land speed. could you spring attack something like, 65 feet away from you, then end up back where you started, and stay out of a standard 30 foot movement guys charge range? This is what the Spring Attack feat is for.