Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Apocolypse_77 07-08-07, 11:47 PM	are centaurs considerd mounted?????
Crimson_Concerto 07-09-07, 12:02 AM	Is a centaur riding anything? No? Then why should it be? :confused: (Though, Races of Faurun says they qualify for Spirited Charge and can benefit as though they were mounted, but that's really it as far as I know... There might be something about Lances too...)
Apocolypse_77 07-09-07, 12:11 AM	What page is that on, i can't seem to find it. And personally i don't see why they would not be considerd mounted as all mounted people really are, are a person ontop of a 4 legged animal which it can control through use of a ride skill as if it was its own body. A centaur simply doedn't need the ride skill. That's the way i see it anyway.
snakeman830 07-09-07, 10:27 AM	Is a centaur riding anything? No? Then why should it be? :confused: (Though, Races of Faurun says they qualify for Spirited Charge and can benefit as though they were mounted, but that's really it as far as I know... There might be something about Lances too...) There is something about lances. First paragraph of the Combat section of the Centaur entry in the MM. Last scentence.
Crimson_Concerto 07-09-07, 04:00 PM	And personally i don't see why they would not be considerd mounted as all mounted people really are, are a person ontop of a 4 legged animal which it can control through use of a ride skill as if it was its own body. A centaur simply doedn't need the ride skill. That's the way i see it anyway.And you see it wrong. :) A person on top of a 4-legged animal is two separate entities with two separate minds, allowing one to concentrate on moving and the other to just give orders and do other things like attack, cast spells, etc. A centaur is a single consciousness. It doesn't just order its bottom half to move. It has to physically move itself, making it more difficult to both move and perform other actions. By your logic, a Human is nothing more than a person sitting atop an ostrich, and so a human should qualify as always being mounted as well. In conclusion, being mounted has nothing to do with how many legs are present, otherwise half the stuff in the Monster Manuel should be considered mounted. :)
riftdragon 07-09-07, 04:02 PM	But then what could be a mount for a centaur PC?
Shadowfax7 07-09-07, 04:04 PM	Not every PC can have a mount . . . for example, a Treant PC.
Pandapeep 07-09-07, 04:10 PM	And you see it wrong. :) A person on top of a 4-legged animal is two separate entities with two separate minds, allowing one to concentrate on moving and the other to just give orders and do other things like attack, cast spells, etc. A centaur is a single consciousness. It doesn't just order its bottom half to move. It has to physically move itself, making it more difficult to both move and perform other actions. By your logic, a Human is nothing more than a person sitting atop an ostrich, and so a human should qualify as always being mounted as well. In conclusion, being mounted has nothing to do with how many legs are present, otherwise half the stuff in the Monster Manuel should be considered mounted. :) True, but as a half horse creature the mechanics of it shooting arrows at a full trot, ride by attacking, ect are going to be similar to that of a man on a horse. Could a centuar Paladin make himself his holy mount? No.
Crimson_Concerto 07-09-07, 04:18 PM	But then what could be a mount for a centaur PC?I'm sure there's something... But nothing to my knowledge, I'm afraid... Nothing that wouldn't be really, really awkward anyways... :embarrass True, but as a half horse creature the mechanics of it shooting arrows at a full trot, ride by attacking, ect are going to be similar to that of a man on a horse.No, the mechanics are similar to any other creature using Shot on the Run or Spring Attack for the very reasons I already stated above: The centaur is one entity and a rider on a horse is two. It just so happens the centaur is a quadraped and is thus probably running a little faster during his shots or attacks. Could a centuar Paladin make himself his holy mount? No.Agreed. He's not his own mount, which only further proves my point. :)
Cartigan 07-09-07, 04:19 PM	And you see it wrong. :) A person on top of a 4-legged animal is two separate entities with two separate minds, allowing one to concentrate on moving and the other to just give orders and do other things like attack, cast spells, etc. A centaur is a single consciousness. It doesn't just order its bottom half to move. It has to physically move itself, making it more difficult to both move and perform other actions. So? It should still have the benefits of mounted combat but the penalties of a creature attacking while moving on its own power.
Crimson_Concerto 07-09-07, 04:21 PM	So? It should still have the benefits of mounted combat but the penalties of a creature attacking while moving on its own power.Care to give an explanation why it's special as compared to every creature out there that's a quadraped? or has any legs at all? or can move?
Orchomenos 07-09-07, 04:22 PM	And you see it wrong. :) A person on top of a 4-legged animal is two separate entities with two separate minds, allowing one to concentrate on moving and the other to just give orders and do other things like attack, cast spells, etc. A centaur is a single consciousness. It doesn't just order its bottom half to move. It has to physically move itself, making it more difficult to both move and perform other actions. By your logic, a Human is nothing more than a person sitting atop an ostrich, and so a human should qualify as always being mounted as well. In conclusion, being mounted has nothing to do with how many legs are present, otherwise half the stuff in the Monster Manuel should be considered mounted. :) :ahem: Lets make something clear. When a cavalier is holding a lance, mounted on the back of a warhorse, the damage it deals when it hits the target is similar to a giant bolt launched from a ballista. There's nothing to do with the fact that the horse just have to think about moving and the cavalier, about attacking. Strangely enough, the answer to this is present in the SRD, not on the Centaur entry, but in the ZELEKHUT (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/monstersHtoI.html#zelekhut-inevitable) entry: Feats: Due to its centaur-like construction, a zelekhut qualifies for feats as if it had the Mounted Combat feat. If the Zelekhut qualify because of his Centaur-like construction, so should a Centaur. But note that it qualifies for feats as if it had the Mounted Combat feat; he doesn't qualify for the Mounted Combat feat, nor for any benefits of the Ride skill.
Pyke_Moonshadow 07-09-07, 04:34 PM	Strangely enough, the answer to this is present in the SRD, not on the Centaur entry, but in the ZELEKHUT (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/monstersHtoI.html#zelekhut-inevitable) entry: Feats: Due to its centaur-like construction, a zelekhut qualifies for feats as if it had the Mounted Combat feat. If the Zelekhut qualify because of his Centaur-like construction, so should a Centaur. But note that it qualifies for feats as if it had the Mounted Combat feat; he doesn't qualify for the Mounted Combat feat, nor for any benefits of the Ride skill. But does the centaur entry say that? If it doesn't not then by RAW the centaur does not qualify.
Crimson_Concerto 07-09-07, 04:35 PM	:ahem: Lets make something clear. When a cavalier is holding a lance, mounted on the back of a warhorse, the damage it deals when it hits the target is similar to a giant bolt launched from a ballista. There's nothing to do with the fact that the horse just have to think about moving and the cavalier, about attacking.Actually, yes, yes it does. The horse just does the running, and the rider just aims his attack. Neither has to worry about the other, thus devoting themselves to individual tasks that accomplish a greater whole. It's a great example teamwork in action. THAT'S why we don't treat elves as people mounted on raptors. They're not the same, despite having the same number of limbs devoted to attacking, moving, etc. The key is that it's two separate creatures. Strangely enough, the answer to this is present in the SRD, not on the Centaur entry, but in the ZELEKHUT (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/monstersHtoI.html#zelekhut-inevitable) entry: Feats: Due to its centaur-like construction, a zelekhut qualifies for feats as if it had the Mounted Combat feat. If the Zelekhut qualify because of his Centaur-like construction, so should a Centaur. But note that it qualifies for feats as if it had the Mounted Combat feat; he doesn't qualify for the Mounted Combat feat, nor for any benefits of the Ride skill.Two responses to this actually, as it's come up before: 1) You certainly are correct that the Zelekhut is able to do this. HOWEVER, despite its wording, there is nothing to indicate anywhere that the centaur gets or ever should get the same benefit, weird as it may seem. If it helps you think about it more clearly, though, do note that the Zelekhut is a machine, and is thus capable of compartmentalizing different actions, accomplishing an inner-teamwork, like I was discussing earlier. (I don't necessarely agree, but it's the only way that it makes sense,so...) 2) Even if the Centaur DID have this ability, the consequence would be that for it to make any sense, again, every creature that could move and had extra limbs after those used for motion would have to be given the same benefit. EITHER WAY, the simple fact of the matter is that giving the Zelekhut an ability with that wording doesn't mean the centaur gets a similar benefit at all. But does the centaur entry say that? If it doesn't not then by RAW the centaur does not qualify.Yes, thank you. RAW doesn't say it, and RAW shouldn't say it.
V1zharan 07-09-07, 04:56 PM	1) You certainly are correct that the Zelekhut is able to do this. HOWEVER, despite its wording, there is nothing to indicate anywhere that the centaur gets or ever should get the same benefit, weird as it may seem. If it helps you think about it more clearly, though, do note that the Zelekhut is a machine, and is thus capable of compartmentalizing different actions, accomplishing an inner-teamwork, like I was discussing earlier. (I don't necessarely agree, but it's the only way that it makes sense,so...) If the Zelekhut is treated as having Mounted Combat for being able to compartmentalize different actions, why don't all machines have that? And why does the entry specifically state that it is because of it's centaur-like build if it really isn't? It's not RAW that centaurs are treated like that, but most people I think would house-rule that because it just makes sense that way, especially going by the Zelekhut entry. ~V1zharan~
Meep326 07-09-07, 05:17 PM	Agreed. He's not his own mount, which only further proves my point. :) But... then he can't qualify for the Wild Plains Outrider PrC, or any other class that requires you to have a mount.
Crimson_Concerto 07-09-07, 05:54 PM	If the Zelekhut is treated as having Mounted Combat for being able to compartmentalize different actions, why don't all machines have that?Why indeed. This is one of the most hottly contested conceptual inconsistancies in D&D. The fix to both the mechanics and the concept? Remove the Zelekhut's ability. It makes no sense conceptually and has mechanical consenquences that cause confusions such as these. Is this RAW? No, but neither is the Centaur being counted as mounted, and at least removing the Zelekhut's ability requires less work to make the game consistant and stay (relatively) balanced. And why does the entry specifically state that it is because of it's centaur-like build if it really isn't?Because it's stupid and makes no sense, really. Whoever designed that thing has a lapse in judgement thinking about the consequences of his writing, and here we are. Again, the solution is to remove that portion of the text, or if you would prefer to do even less work, change the reason the Zelekhut gets the ability to something other than its physiology. It's not RAW that centaurs are treated like that, but most people I think would house-rule that because it just makes sense that way, especially going by the Zelekhut entry. ~V1zharan~And most people don't realize that it makes absolutely no sense at all and that the Zelekhut is poorly explained. If you give centaurs this ability, then you need to give it to every creature with limbs beyond those used to locomotion to stay conceptually consistant (and yes, this includes humanoid races). Do you really want to change that game that much? Go for it, but I'd personally rather not have to rebalance the entire game around that... But... then he can't qualify for the Wild Plains Outrider PrC, or any other class that requires you to have a mount.Exactly. It never has been able to qualify by RAW, and even conceptually it shouldn't be able to, again, because it has no mount.
Aleolus 07-09-07, 06:43 PM	I would say they're probably only considered mounted for purposes of determining the outcome of a bull rush or charge attempt. Other than that, I would say probably not.
obrysii 07-09-07, 06:55 PM	They are only considered mounted for purposes of picking up feats--they get no benefit from having 'mounted combat' ... only that they do not need to have a mount in order to gain other mount-based feats. That's not much of an advantage, especially considering their ECL. And Races of Faerun elaborates on that notion, agreeing with the Zelekhut's description.
Crimson_Concerto 07-09-07, 06:56 PM	I would say they're probably only considered mounted for purposes of determining the outcome of a bull rush or charge attempt. Other than that, I would say probably not.Uh, okay, except that charging and bull rushing while mounted... is exactly the same as charging and bull rushing while not mounted. :confused: Maybe you mean trampling? If you do, there's a specific feat to allow centaurs to do that called Centaur Trample in Races of the Wild, or you could just take Improved Overrun. As for charging, the centaur is specifically given the ability by RAW to treat itself as mounted whlie charging for purposes of lance damage and for Spirited Charge. Either way, Centaurs count as mounted for charging only for those things. Does either make sense? Not really without a good explanation, but that's RAW for you... They are only considered mounted for purposes of picking up feats--they get no benefit from having 'mounted combat' ... only that they do not need to have a mount in order to gain other mount-based feats. That's not much of an advantage, especially considering their ECL.As far as I know, they're only considered as having Mounted Combat for picking up the Spirited Charge feat (or at least thats' what multiple people have claimed in these threads in the past. I don't have the book myself, so I wouldn't know.), and even that's conceptually questionable, though still RAW, so whatever, I can pretend it's for some reason I don't know that actually makes some kind of sense (however doubtful that may be, and I'd REALLY just rather house rule it out, but I won't without player consent, so at that point it doesn't matter anyways...)... And Races of Faerun elaborates on that notion, agreeing with the Zelekhut's description.And as I've already said, the Zelekhut's description makes no sense and is best kept out if you want any kind of conceptual consistancy, but either way, it has no bearing in RAW about what the centaur is able to do.
StruckingFuggle 07-09-07, 07:44 PM	Edit: Crap. Somehow I thought the thread stopped there and replied, but this has already been addressed, hours earlier. My bad. 1) You certainly are correct that the Zelekhut is able to do this. HOWEVER, despite its wording, there is nothing to indicate anywhere that the centaur gets or ever should get the same benefit, weird as it may seem. If it helps you think about it more clearly, though, do note that the Zelekhut is a machine, and is thus capable of compartmentalizing different actions, accomplishing an inner-teamwork, like I was discussing earlier. (I don't necessarely agree, but it's the only way that it makes sense,so...) If it was due to the compartmentalizing thing, wouldn't the ability say something about that, instead of saying it's due, specifically (since it's specified) to "its centaur-like construction"?
Crimson_Concerto 07-09-07, 08:14 PM	If it was due to the compartmentalizing thing, wouldn't the ability say something about that, instead of saying it's due, specifically (since it's specified) to "its centaur-like construction"?Oh, you misunderstand (or perhapse I didn't make my intention clear). I'm not saying what I said is the real reason. I'm saying it's an example of a reason that actually may make sense as opposed to the BS it actually says is the reason, if one would rather not just house rule the ability out entirely.
obrysii 07-09-07, 08:17 PM	I think that it is easy enough to say that all centaur-like creatures (driders, centaurs, zelekhuts, tauric creatures) should gain those benefits.
Crimson_Concerto 07-09-07, 08:25 PM	I think that it is easy enough to say that all centaur-like creatures (driders, centaurs, zelekhuts, tauric creatures) should gain those benefits.Yes, it's easy, but it doesn't make any sense. Like I've been saying but people keep ignoring, there is fundementally no difference between a centaur and human in basic physiology except for the fact that the centaur has four legs instead of two. If this is really enough to justify the ability to be treated as mounted, why don't we give the ability to every creature that has limbs free for attack after the limbs it uses for locomotion (which, by the way, would include humans)? People keep refering to the Zelekhut as the rule instead of the exception it really is, all because of a poor choise of wording in the things abilities.
obrysii 07-09-07, 08:34 PM	Wait. Then why would someone sitting on a horse magically acquire the ability to get those feats? Do you want to know why mounted combat is useful? For example, with a lance? It's the momentum of the combined weight of the rider and the horse--something a centaur would have. So a centaur does, in fact, have all of the advantages of a human on a horse inherently as part of its form.
Crimson_Concerto 07-09-07, 08:42 PM	Wait. Then why would someone sitting on a horse magically acquire the ability to get those feats? Do you want to know why mounted combat is useful? For example, with a lance? It's the momentum of the combined weight of the rider and the horse--something a centaur would have. So a centaur does, in fact, have all of the advantages of a human on a horse inherently as part of its form.As I've already said a few times, the centaur is missing a VERY key aspect that all rider/mount units share: two minds. It's a symbiotic relationship. The mount provides the mobility, and the rider provides the directions, attack, and defense. There are two minds concentrating on entirely different things, and so they're able to accomplish more. Mounted Combat and that entire feat tree are way of utilizing teamwork between the mount and rider to accomplish kind of a "whole greater than the sum of its parts" deal. It's the same reason we don't let a lone human do the things a mount and rider can do. A lone human can move and attack, sure, but it's concentrated on doing both things, because it doesn't have two minds to compartmentalize separate objectives, so it can't do them the same way. It can't move and take a full attack with a ranged weapon, for instance, at least not with much greater difficulty or other training. A centaur striking an enemy as it runs by is no different than a lone human striking an enemy as it runs by; they're both a Spring Attack, but a human on a horse is two entities and can thus accomplish the feat much more easily (the feat has fewer prerequisites); Ride-by-Attack. I'm really starting to get repetitive here, no?
Aryxbez 07-09-07, 09:12 PM	According to the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/centaur.htm) Combat A centaur employing a lance deals double damage when it charges, just as a rider on a mount does. So obviously you can lance people, Spirited charge might stack with it. However I doubt other feats like mounted combat do, because that would just be silly. Also, hasn't there been something on the FAQ on this subject?
snakeman830 07-09-07, 09:50 PM	May I suggest that we ignore Crimson_Concerto? he really is very stubborn and reppetitive. That said, most of the mounted feats do actually require having a mount to even believeably work (Mounted Combat, for example). The other mounted feats are similar/identical to non-mounted feats in their effect. Spirited Charge is the exception to this, and I honestly believe that centaurs qualify for this.
runestar 07-09-07, 10:18 PM	Not only that, but centaurs are specifically allowed to acquire the spirited charge feat without even having to meet its prerequisites. Which pretty much shows wotc's stance on just how "mounted" centaurs really are.:)
Crimson_Concerto 07-09-07, 11:04 PM	May I suggest that we ignore Crimson_Concerto? he really is very stubborn and reppetitive.Maybe I would be less repetitive if poeple would stop asking about questions I've already answered in this thread OR perhapse even offered an alternative explanation that actually makes any kind of sense. What exactly am I being so stubborn about that you feel like ignoring me? I'm not spreading any false information here. I've just been trying to explain why something do or don't work or make sense. I'm trying to explain why RAW is a certain way to people who don't understand why. What's your problem? I honestly don't know, and you're being kind of rude. :confused: That said, most of the mounted feats do actually require having a mount to even believeably work (Mounted Combat, for example). The other mounted feats are similar/identical to non-mounted feats in their effect.Which is EXACTLY what I'm saying. Spirited Charge is the exception to this, and I honestly believe that centaurs qualify for this.They do qualify for it, according to Races of Faerun, but this is the only mounted feat they qualify for. Not only that, but centaurs are specifically allowed to acquire the spirited charge feat without even having to meet its prerequisites. Which pretty much shows wotc's stance on just how "mounted" centaurs really are.:)WotC's stance is also that the Zelekhut gets to qualify for Mounted Combat feats because of it's centaur-like construction instead of some reason that actually makes sense. :rolleyes: I don't get what you're trying to say. :confused:
Shadowfax7 07-10-07, 01:28 PM	All the "Mounted feats" in the PHB are of no use to a Centaur except Spirited Charge, thus only an exception for that feat is needed. Mounted Combat - a Centaur is one creature, so whether it's horse-body or human-like body gets hit makes no difference. Mounted Archery - a Centaur taking a double move or running can't attack anyway, thus no penalties to ranged attacks. Ride-By-Attack - a Centaur could take Spring Attack. Trample - a Centaur could take Improved Overrun and use it's natural attacks.
snakeman830 07-10-07, 02:33 PM	Trample - a Centaur could take Improved Overrun and use it's natural attacks. Or, it could take Centaur Trample from Races of the Wild...
BaltotheJunkie 07-10-07, 02:58 PM	Care to give an explanation why it's special as compared to every creature out there that's a quadraped? or has any legs at all? or can move? Because a centaur is not a quadraped (4 feet, but by extension, limbs) but is really a hexapedal creature...
snakeman830 07-10-07, 03:19 PM	Because a centaur is not a quadraped (4 feet, but by extension, limbs) but is really a hexapedal creature... Ding Ding Ding!!! That's correct! Tell our contestant what they've won, Jonny! A half-eaten, no, completely eaten cookie! Here it is: . Enjoy! God I love it when people show that they really know what they're talking about (not just pretending).
DrRufio 07-10-07, 03:42 PM	May I suggest that we ignore Crimson_Concerto? he really is very stubborn and reppetitive. Yeah, I never read his posts.
Crimson_Concerto 07-10-07, 04:00 PM	Because a centaur is not a quadraped (4 feet, but by extension, limbs) but is really a hexapedal creature...Okay, fine, whatever, excuse my terminology. However, I fail to see how that makes any kind of point. It still stands that centaurs have limbs for locomotion and extra limbs for other things, the same way a human does. The centaur just happens to have two more limbs for locomotion. How are the two different? Ding Ding Ding!!! That's correct! Tell our contestant what they've won, Jonny! A half-eaten, no, completely eaten cookie! Here it is: . Enjoy! God I love it when people show that they really know what they're talking about (not just pretending).I can't tell whether that was sarcasm or you actually think he made any sort of point, and i fyou did think he made some kind of point, could somebody please fill me in on what that is? :confused: Yeah, I never read his posts.I don't even know how to respond to this other than by asking: Why? :confused:
BaltotheJunkie 07-10-07, 04:03 PM	Ding Ding Ding!!! That's correct! Tell our contestant what they've won, Jonny! A half-eaten, no, completely eaten cookie! Here it is: . Enjoy! God I love it when people show that they really know what they're talking about (not just pretending). Cheers, but I gave up cookies for the summer. Eaten, half eaten, or just drooled upon...
BaltotheJunkie 07-10-07, 04:10 PM	Okay, fine, whatever, excuse my terminology. However, I fail to see how that makes any kind of point. Otherwise, AGAIN, every creature that has limbs it moves around with and then extra limbs it can, say, attack with should be entitled to the same thing, which, AGAIN, includes humans and most humanoids who use two limbs to move around and two more extra to attack to do other things with. I can't tell whether that was sarcasm or you actually think he made any sort of point, and i fyou did think he made some kind of point, could somebody please fill me in on what that is? :confused: I don't even know how to respond to this other than by asking: Why? :confused: Well it obviously makes a difference. Terminology always makes a difference. The simplist difference, just off the top of the head means that an extra attack (either fore or rear hooves) is in the offing, as well as speed, stability, etc. AS to that other poster, I am also not sure. I chose to accept it as a rather odd compliment, rather than a feeble attempt at sarcasm. I find my life is easier if I assume that some people are just not always clear in what they say, rather than assume they are asinine idiots attempting to emulate wit... ;)
zorgling25 07-10-07, 04:20 PM	This argument has become essentially pointless. We've established that from the SRD, we know that centaurs get the mounted charging bonus. We also know that all mounted combat feats that could apply to centaurs either do (Spirited Charge), are not applicable to centaurs due to them only getting 1 person's worth of moves (Mounted Archery), or have foot-combat equivalents (Ride-by Attack). These two combined should mean that, whether the Centaur is considered mounted or not, in the end it doesn't make a difference! Now if the issue is about qualifying for PrCs like Wild Plains Outrider, the answer is no, the Centaur does not qualify, because the prerequisite is that they have a mount, not that they be mounted.
DocBeard 07-10-07, 04:33 PM	Now for the kicker: Could a Centaur scout ever skirmish, since (according to the Complete Adventurer errata, I believe) you cannot gain skirmish damage while mounted?)
Crimson_Concerto 07-10-07, 04:38 PM	The simplist difference, just off the top of the head means that an extra attack (either fore or rear hooves) is in the offing, as well as speed, stability, etc.Yes, but what I mean is how does it actualy affect the subject at hand: whether or not they should be considered mounted (as people keep claiming the Zelekhut entry implies). As I've already explained, centaurs have their locomotive limbs and then their extra limbs (used for attacking, casting spells, etc.). Humans and humanoids have the same setup: locomotive limbs plus some extra. The difference is that the centaur has four locomotive limbs instead of two, and yes, that gives the a speed and stability boost, but how does it make them qualify for mounted benefits when they're missing the most key components of the rider/mount combination? This argument has become essentially pointless.Unfortunately, it hasn't, because people still claim that the Zelekhut makes sense and/or has anything to do with the centaur... Also, I get the feeling this is now kind of moving towards whether the centaur should even qualify for the few mounted benefits it does by default... Now for the kicker: Could a Centaur scout ever skirmish, since (according to the Complete Adventurer errata, I believe) you cannot gain skirmish damage while mounted?)Yes, yes it could, because the centaur is not mounted.
zorgling25 07-10-07, 04:48 PM	The Zelekhut does not count as mounted. IIRC its entry says it qualifies for mounted combat feats, not that it counts as mounted. Lets assume that Centaurs qualify for mounted combat feats in the same way, what would be different: Ride-by Attack would replace Spring Attack Trample would replace Centaur Trample Mounted Archery would be irrelevant for reasons already stated. Even IF the Centaur had this quality "implied" by the Zelekhut, all it would gain is the ability to gain feats it already had access to equivalents of. What is the point of arguing this?
zelf_gale 07-10-07, 06:43 PM	In Living Greyhawk Campaign, to my knowledge, the Centaur only counts as mounted for the purposes of dealing damage with a lance and for the use of the Spirited Charge feat. While you certainly could take the Mounted Combat feat you'd probably have to be morphed into a form that could ride a mount to get any benefit. In addition, I have no reason to believe that the Spirited Charge feat is dependent on a symbiotic relationship with a mount or undivided focus on an attack or movement. While that is certainly an interesting interpretation, there is no flavor present in the feat's description to directly support it. I could just as easily see this flavor as completely dependent on the mount or completely dependent on the rider as needed without changing the mechanical effect. Your mount is spurn to greater speeds during a charge or you could swing your arm harder at the end of the charge, no mechanical change is necessary.
Dwarven_Jihad 07-10-07, 06:54 PM	but how does it make them qualify for mounted benefits when they're missing the most key components of the rider/mount combination? They *have* the key components. Two arms, four legs, and the intelligence to use them together. Have you ever been on a horse? A rider and mount are not engaged in some sort of mystical bond. It takes a lot of training on both on the part of the horse and the rider to learn what each needs and expects from the other. This requires communication during battle, hence the purpose of a ride skill. A centaur doesn't need that. They don't suffer the confusion, communication barrier, or contrariness between equine and humanoid halves that a rider and mount have. I would disallow only any mounted feats that physically require the mount and rider to be two separate entities, if any such exist. (Like, leaping from your mount or something of that nature. That wouldn't work out well for poor Mr. Centaur.)
Glitch28 07-10-07, 09:29 PM	its actually a really simple thing. mount = a creature mounted on another creature. if you wanna go into the nitty gritty of the subject, you guys should acutally read what crimson is saying. it does make sense if you wanna make sense of things.
runestar 07-10-07, 10:33 PM	its actually a really simple thing. mount = a creature mounted on another creature. if you wanna go into the nitty gritty of the subject, you guys should acutally read what crimson is saying. it does make sense if you wanna make sense of things. Yes, but it does not really make sense from a mechanical POV. I don't care if you do a real life dissertation on how mounted combat in historic jousts worked. Your thesis on 2 minds and all that is not supported anywhere in the rules. To me - it was stated clearly in a book without possible room for misinterpretation. That is good enough for me.:)
zorgling25 07-10-07, 10:50 PM	To me - it was stated clearly in a book without possible room for misinterpretation. That is good enough for me.:) Point me to the SRD entry that says that centaurs qualify for mounted feats the way Zelekhuts do. Centaurs get the bonus charging damage and Spirited Charge. That's IT. They don't get other mounted feats mainly because they don't NEED them. They get access to all the foot-based equivalents. As for prestige classes, they require that you own a MOUNT, not that you be MOUNTED. Owning a mount means you actually own a riding creature, not that you count as one for charging (though I don't know if it says you have to be able to ride the mount...).
runestar 07-10-07, 11:07 PM	Point me to the SRD entry that says that centaurs qualify for mounted feats the way Zelekhuts do. Centaurs get the bonus charging damage and Spirited Charge. That's IT. They don't get other mounted feats mainly because they don't NEED them. They get access to all the foot-based equivalents. It is in races of faerun, not the SRD. Basically, they are allowed to take spirited charge and trample feats without having to meet the requirements and apply them to their own melee attacks. In addition, they may qualify for the arcane archer prc, but I digress...:) As for prestige classes, they require that you own a MOUNT, not that you be MOUNTED. Owning a mount means you actually own a riding creature, not that you count as one for charging (though I don't know if it says you have to be able to ride the mount...). So that means that if I have taken a prc which requires me to "own a mount", and I borrow a mount from another PC because my old one got hit by a finger of death, I cannot use said prc as I do not own the mount I am riding on?:rolleyes:
zorgling25 07-10-07, 11:16 PM	It is in races of faerun, not the SRD. Basically, they are allowed to take spirited charge and trample feats without having to meet the requirements and apply them to their own melee attacks. In addition, they may qualify for the arcane archer prc, but I digress...:) Centaurs, reading from Races of Faerun, qualify for Spirited Charge and Trample. However, the book DOES NOT say that Centaurs qualify for Ride-by Attack, Mounted Archery, Mounted Combat, or any other mounted feats by virtue of their build (mainly because most of them are useless to them). So that means that if I have taken a prc which requires me to "own a mount", and I borrow a mount from another PC because my old one got hit by a finger of death, I cannot use said prc as I do not own the mount I am riding on?:rolleyes: That one would be up to your DM. A clearly mountless centaur though, would DEFINITELY not count.
runestar 07-10-07, 11:21 PM	Centaurs, reading from Races of Faerun, qualify for Spirited Charge and Trample. However, the book DOES NOT say that Centaurs qualify for Ride-by Attack, Mounted Archery, Mounted Combat, or any other mounted feats by virtue of their build (mainly because most of them are useless to them). And I have never recall claiming that it did... That one would be up to your DM. A clearly mountless centaur though, would DEFINITELY not count. Oh? And pray tell me what a suitable mount for a centaur might entail?:confused:
zorgling25 07-10-07, 11:27 PM	And I have never recall claiming that it did... Thats my mistake then, though there HAVE been plenty of posters saying that they DO count as mounted. Oh? And pray tell me what a suitable mount for a centaur might entail?:confused: As I said before, I don't think any such PrCs require that the Centaur be able to ride the mount. Just that he have a mount-type animal. (a slight loophole?) If you're a stricter DM than that, there do exist animals/beasts that a centaur can stand on all 4s on (dragon turtle? siege crab?).
runestar 07-11-07, 06:09 AM	Thats my mistake then, though there HAVE been plenty of posters saying that they DO count as mounted. They should count as mounted for a limited number of effects. As of the moment, I am still divided as to whether mounted prcs should be amongst them though.:P
Pyke_Moonshadow 07-11-07, 09:09 AM	Why is this still being argued? Outside of the FR centaurs qualify for no mounted feats by virtue of their physiology. Some prestige classes require a mount or to be mounted. Unless you qualify you cannot use it. Anything else would be house ruling, which you are free to do.
runestar 07-11-07, 09:46 AM	Why is this still being argued? Outside of the FR centaurs qualify for no mounted feats by virtue of their physiology. Some prestige classes require a mount or to be mounted. Unless you qualify you cannot use it. Because it is not clear if this provision in races of faerun is supposed to be a special exception to the norm made for FR campaigns, or meant as some sort of clarification to a rule which should always have been the case, just that it was never articulated properly before in the past.
zorgling25 07-11-07, 10:10 AM	Because it is not clear if this provision in races of faerun is supposed to be a special exception to the norm made for FR campaigns, or meant as some sort of clarification to a rule which should always have been the case, just that it was never articulated properly before in the past. Clearly the solution, then, is that everyone play FR to the exclusion of all other settings. :P
Pyke_Moonshadow 07-11-07, 01:39 PM	Because it is not clear if this provision in races of faerun is supposed to be a special exception to the norm made for FR campaigns, or meant as some sort of clarification to a rule which should always have been the case, just that it was never articulated properly before in the past. Is it in the monster manual errata? How about Races of the Wild? (I think it has centaurs in there.) If not then I would suspect that it is FR only.
Crimson_Concerto 07-11-07, 01:42 PM	Even IF the Centaur had this quality "implied" by the Zelekhut, all it would gain is the ability to gain feats it already had access to equivalents of. What is the point of arguing this?I answered that question in the post directly before yours. We AREN'T arguing about what the RAW says anymore. We already know what the RAW says. Now, we're arguing about what SHOULD be and/or HOW it all works and/or whether RAW's interpretation of the situation makes any conceptual sense. We're more arguing about the concept right now instead of the mechanics. In addition, I have no reason to believe that the Spirited Charge feat is dependent on a symbiotic relationship with a mount or undivided focus on an attack or movement.Actually, there IS pleanty of reason to believe that. The reason is simply that Spirited Charge requires Mounted Combat as a feat and can only be used while mounted. If it didn't have anything to do with being mounted, why wouldn't it just be open for any character to take regardless of mounted status? While that is certainly an interesting interpretation, there is no flavor present in the feat's description to directly support it.There doesn't have to be. I'm not telling you what the RAW is saying. I'm telling you why it says it. Either way, there's a reason that mounted characters gain special benefits, and the only one possible that non-mounted creatures such as the centaur don't share is the simple fact that there are two separate creatures working together. Your mount is spurn to greater speeds during a charge or you could swing your arm harder at the end of the charge, no mechanical change is necessary.The problem with those two theories is that they don't require a mount at all. If it's just about speed, why dont' we let any creature with a 50 ft. movement speed take it? If it's just about swinging your arm harder at the end of a charge, what, a prerequisite of Power Attack and 13 STR should cover it? Like I've been saying, there's a reason mounted characters have different benefits, and unless we want to open up mounted feats to absolutely everybody, that reason must stem from the fact that the rider/mount combination is all about two creatures working together. They *have* the key components. Two arms, four legs, and the intelligence to use them together.And this is where you have it all wrong. The mount/rider combination is NOT about having two arms and four legs. There are mount with 6 legs, 2 legs, or even no legs at all. Essentially, the mount is just the one that moves. IF we say that being mounted is about having a certain number of arms and legs, then is an Ostrich rider not mounted? And if he is, does having 2 arms and 2 legs make one qualify? I'm sure you see the problem that leads to... A centaur doesn't need that. They don't suffer the confusion, communication barrier, or contrariness between equine and humanoid halves that a rider and mount have.And a human doesn't suffer the confusion, communication barrier, or contrariness between a halfling and a ostrich. One again, being able to move via your own power instead of relying on another is something most creatures already do. A human has perfect control over both his arms and legs just as a centaur has perfect control over both his arms and legs. its actually a really simple thing. mount = a creature mounted on another creature. if you wanna go into the nitty gritty of the subject, you guys should acutally read what crimson is saying. it does make sense if you wanna make sense of things.Oh thank you God, I'm not the only sane person here! :) Yes, but it does not really make sense from a mechanical POV. I don't care if you do a real life dissertation on how mounted combat in historic jousts worked. Your thesis on 2 minds and all that is not supported anywhere in the rules. To me - it was stated clearly in a book without possible room for misinterpretation. That is good enough for me.:)Nobody is debating anymore what it says in the books, and nobody is writing any sort of dissertation on how historical jousts were performed. We know what it says in the books, and jousting isn't the point. We're not arguing about either. We're talking about the concepts behind the mechanics and whether or not they make any sense and how.
Banatine 07-11-07, 02:14 PM	Ok, i am going to make this simple for everyone. A centaur is half-horse and half-man. He possesses all of the neccessary components to use the mounted combat feats (the human component and the horse component). Zelekhuts count as having mounted combat for the purposes of acquiring other mounted combat feats "due to their centaur-like construction". Screw the RAW. If zelekhuts get it, centaurs get it. End of story. Bye bye. See ya later. P.S. I will not return to this thread, so don't make any replies to me expecting one in return.
Crimson_Concerto 07-11-07, 02:20 PM	He possesses all of the neccessary components to use the mounted combat feats (the human component and the horse component).If you would actually read anything that I've said, you'd know that wasn't true. P.S. I will not return to this thread, so don't make any replies to me expecting one in return.Be that as it may, on the off chance you change you mind and do decide to return, you'll know exactly why I object to your position.
Visigo7h 07-11-07, 03:20 PM	The problem here is that people are taking the exception and passing it as the rule. The reason that Spirited Charge is allowed without the prerequisites is that this one mounted feat is can be explaned by the physiology and the upbringing (meaning that because of the motor-limbs giving the extra speed and the manipulation-limbs giving a greater ability to thrust the weapon, along with training from their elders to do it correctly). It is more aptly described as a racial improvement on the feat Powerful Lunge form Sword and Fist. There is no reason that Zelekhuts have the ability to use the feats on them self as per the rules, making them another exception to the game rules. It just means that they are machines built to charge in combat. The wording they used was at best poorly chosen, and was more meant that because of the shape they have and other attributes of this mechanical race they can take advantage of these feats. Think of them more as a machine that has 2 processing units working together, one that covers there movement and another that manages there other appendages. Or another way to approach it is that because they are machines with 4 legs and 2 arms, that they simply can do things that the biological races cannot. And even IF you could apply all the mounted feats to yourself, the only one that would be worth it is Ride-by attack, and only if you were doing a pure charger build (I charge and you get no attack of opportunity, and then move away as to do it again next round). That being said, as a DM I would never allow a player to play something like that. And if you really wanted a mounted centaur (which I can’t see any real reason for, but that is just in my personal opinion) then you get a bigger creature that they can stand on the back of and attack from. This would also make the picking up of mounted feats, at there normal cost, make sense.
RobbyPants 07-11-07, 03:39 PM	Yes, it's easy, but it doesn't make any sense. Like I've been saying but people keep ignoring, there is fundementally no difference between a centaur and human in basic physiology except for the fact that the centaur has four legs instead of two. If this is really enough to justify the ability to be treated as mounted, why don't we give the ability to every creature that has limbs free for attack after the limbs it uses for locomotion (which, by the way, would include humans)? It's a grey area. Your way is one way to think of it. Another is to realize that much of the D&D combat system is designed with small and medium sized creatures as base-line. The reason a mounted combatant with spirited charge and a lance does so much damage is that it's taking advantage of the tremendous momemntum generated by riding on a large creature. By that logic, it would make sense to allow centaurs to take feats. Or course, that reasoning is also a slippery slope. Where do you draw the line? Can a minotaur or ogre take it because they're large? I'd say no. Is the cuttoff four legs and at least two arms? This might make more sense. You can argue this to death by sticking to one side of the argument or the other. At this point in the thread, I dobut anyone's going to reveal that inherent truth that will convince everybody. It's certainly something that's very easy to "fix", if the DM wants to allow it.
Apocolypse_77 07-11-07, 03:49 PM	its actually a really simple thing. mount = a creature mounted on another creature. umm i think you got your wording a little messed up. mount = a creature being mounted by another creature. and the rider is a creature mounted on another creature. I have read through this entire thread and have thought this over alot and i'm still on the fence. First off i will easily admit centaurs are not mounted. But i think the exception to the norm from centaurs to other 4 legged 2 armed monsters is that they are half of 1 creature and half of another, its 4 legs are on a part of its body which comes from an animal, and its 2 arms are on a part of its body which comes from a different humanoid. Whether or not this should constitute any difference i don't know. However structurally if you think about it a centaur would be physically able to perform all that is nescisary for a ride-by-attack, its horse legs would be able to move just as far in a round as an actual horse would, and its torso would be able to make its charge attack on the way by. To me the whole point of needing the feat is that you need training to hit a target while your mount is running by it, where as the normal charge simply requires you to line your mount up with the enemy, gain momentum and smash into him with your lance without having the horse stop. And if my interpritation of the logic of the feat is correct then a centaur should be able to do it aswell. On the other hand what crimson is saying does make sense to, which is why i am on the fence about the whole subject.
Dwarven_Jihad 07-11-07, 03:50 PM	If you would actually read anything that I've said, you'd know that wasn't true. I've read it, and your argument has no real point. Now, a horse can't hold a weapon and intelligently swing it at an enemy. A rider can't move as fast as a horse, nor does he have the mass. A centaur has both. So where's the hang-up? Your complaint that the centaur is not two separate beings so cannot take the "Mounted Combat" feat. I'll concede that (as well as any other feats that require physical separation between mount and rider)--but only because there is no rational reason to think they should need it Many feats are designed to allow characters to overcome their physical shortcomings. Humans have terrible natural weapons, but they can take Improved Unarmed Strike to compensate. They can't swing the club a giant can--unless they want to take Monkey Grip. They can't strike with the speed and power of a centaur, unless they take Mounted Combat. So why, I ask, does a centaur need an extra feat to do something that it is naturally equipped to do anyway? I still haven't seen an argument from you that has any meaning.
Visigo7h 07-11-07, 04:15 PM	Dwarven Jihad, a counterpoint to you is this… Does a Ogre Monk 3 Fighter X have the ability to apply the feats to himself? Or a Human Monk at level 10, say with items that gives him huge strength? The answer is no. Though they can be just as powerful and as fast (If not faster) it just doesn’t make sense. The argument is not really based on stats but on the shape of there body vs a human on horse back. And the big difference is the 2 minds. Crimson’s point is that the feats take advantage of the 2 beings working together. Now I can see the argument that you are making, but it also has to be rationalized (in my very messed up mind) that in the D&D world the grey areas should be entered with much caution. Allowing them to take these feats makes them more powerful, and as the RAW shows it shouldn’t be allowed. But in the spirit of the game it all really comes down to this. Does it make sense in your game? The points I made earlier are that it doesn’t for the way I view the worlds, so when I DM no they are not able to take them. It is that cut and dry. Crimson’s arguments is that in his opinion, and that of the RAW reading of the rules, they do not and for the reason that the feats are designed for the advantage of 2 creatures working together as opposed by 1 creature negating the need for a mount in how it evolved. In negating the need for a mount in movement is it not also possible that they limited themselves in other ways? Such as the lack of access to these feats. The key to all of this is, if how Crimson and the raw look at it make sense to you and the world you are in use it that way otherwise rule 0 it that they count as mounted. It is that simple.
Crimson_Concerto 07-11-07, 04:17 PM	It's a grey area. Your way is one way to think of it.I would absolutely love for somebody to present another way of thinking it that makes as much sense. Another is to realize that much of the D&D combat system is designed with small and medium sized creatures as base-line. The reason a mounted combatant with spirited charge and a lance does so much damage is that it's taking advantage of the tremendous momemntum generated by riding on a large creature. By that logic, it would make sense to allow centaurs to take feats. Or course, that reasoning is also a slippery slope. Where do you draw the line? Can a minotaur or ogre take it because they're large? I'd say no. Is the cuttoff four legs and at least two arms? This might make more sense.But here's the problem: Horses are not the only mounts, and they're certainly not the only mounts on which a character can use mounted combat feats. Small sized creatures can use medium size mounts, so where's the extra momentum there? Also, there are mount which have two legs such as some dinosaurs or birds, but mounted combat feats can still be used on them. And of course, there are even mounts such as an Ashworm witch have no legs at all, and there's still no problem. Clearly, the mounted feats cannot have anything to do with size, speed, or number of legs. But i think the exception to the norm from centaurs to other 4 legged 2 armed monsters is that they are half of 1 creature and half of another, its 4 legs are on a part of its body which comes from an animal, and its 2 arms are on a part of its body which comes from a different humanoid. Whether or not this should constitute any difference i don't know.The problem with thinking that this logic justifies any type of exception is that the centaur still controls all parts of its body with the same mind and is thus still limited to the same number of actions, and not all rider/mount combinations include two arms and four legs. However structurally if you think about it a centaur would be physically able to perform all that is nescisary for a ride-by-attack, its horse legs would be able to move just as far in a round as an actual horse would, and its torso would be able to make its charge attack on the way by.I agree. I they should indeed be able to do this just as a human could run by an enemy and attack it on the way: Spring Attack. To me the whole point of needing the feat is that you need training to hit a target while your mount is running by it, where as the normal charge simply requires you to line your mount up with the enemy, gain momentum and smash into him with your lance without having the horse stop. And if my interpritation of the logic of the feat is correct then a centaur should be able to do it aswell.But how is this any different than a non-mounted human being able to charge something easily but needing more training to run by and attack on the way? Yes, Ride-By-Attack and Spring Attack are similar, but they're not the same, particularly because Spring Attack is slightly more difficult to qualify for, if I recall correctly. Now, a horse can't hold a weapon and intelligently swing it at an enemy. A rider can't move as fast as a horse, nor does he have the mass. A centaur has both.So any large creature that's fast should be able to treat himself as mounted sor some stuff. Let's completely ignore that horses aren't the only mounts in existance and certainly not the only mounts on which mounted feats can be used, and so their size, weight, and speed have nothing to do with it at all, since, again, not all mounts have the same size, weight, and speed. So where's the hang-up?The hang-up is that centaurs are somehow able to qualify for any mounted benefits at all with the only justification being "they look just like a human sitting on a horse, only not..." If there were some kind of rational justification that would allow the centaur and only the centaur to do this, that would be fine. Hell, at this point, I'd even settle for something cultural, but that's not the case, is it? Many feats are designed to allow characters to overcome their physical shortcomings. Humans have terrible natural weapons, but they can take Improved Unarmed Strike to compensate. They can't swing the club a giant can--unless they want to take Monkey Grip. They can't strike with the speed and power of a centaur, unless they take Mounted Combat.I don't even see what kind of point you're trying to make here. Please clarify? Also, on a completely unrelated note, when did it become popular to press the space bar twice after a period? I've been seeing a lot of people do that lately... :confused: So why, I ask, does a centaur need an extra feat to do something that it is naturally equipped to do anyway?What exactly am I saying he needs to take a feat to do that he's supposedly naturally equipped to do? :confused: I still haven't seen an argument from you that has any meaning.What exactly about my arguments aren't you understanding? I'd love to clarify if you would point out something in particular you don't understand.
RobbyPants 07-11-07, 04:31 PM	But here's the problem: Horses are not the only mounts, and they're certainly not the only mounts on which a character can use mounted combat feats. Small sized creatures can use medium size mounts, so where's the extra momentum there? Also, there are mount which have two legs such as some dinosaurs or birds, but mounted combat feats can still be used on them. And of course, there are even mounts such as an Ashworm witch have no legs at all, and there's still no problem. Clearly, the mounted feats cannot have anything to do with size, speed, or number of legs. However, I don't feel that the deciding factor is that there are two minds, either. Again, I think that it's nothing more than an arbitraty set of abstract rules created with small and medium sized humanoid characters as the base metric. I have no problem with people saying that centaurs don't get to use those feats because it's not (core) RAW. I also have no problem with them allowing it because it's allowed in Ferun. It just seems like people are trying way too hard to justify each side of their argument with logic.
snakeman830 07-11-07, 04:32 PM	After a nice little pause to watch the argument develop, let's review what we've learned. 1. Centuars count as mounted for damage with lances. 2. Centaurs qualify for the Spirited Charge feat, but no other mounted feats as there feats available to all characters accomplishing the same thing (except in the case of trample where Centaurs have their own racial feat) 3.Centaurs can have ranks in ride, but it brings up questions (of varying sorts) around the game table. Whoops. #3 we haven't discussed (in depth) yet. Oh well, it's something we learned.
zorgling25 07-11-07, 04:46 PM	3.Centaurs can have ranks in ride, but it brings up questions (of varying sorts) around the game table. Centaurs can have ride. It is applicable to larger mounts that a Centaur can stand on its 4 hooves on (e.g. Dragon Turtles or Siege Crabs, even though those are VERY unconventional mounts).
snakeman830 07-11-07, 04:49 PM	Centaurs can have ride. It is applicable to larger mounts that a Centaur can stand on its 4 hooves on (e.g. Dragon Turtles or Siege Crabs, even though those are VERY unconventional mounts). Did I deny that at all? No. I just said it brings up questions (especially in my group when we'll have a male and a female centaur in the same party. I know it's coming).
zorgling25 07-11-07, 04:54 PM	Did I deny that at all? No. I just said it brings up questions (especially in my group when we'll have a male and a female centaur in the same party. I know it's coming). Ok, in that case, I COMPLETELY misnterpreted what KIND of questions it might bring up, which was what I was answering.
Crimson_Concerto 07-11-07, 05:00 PM	However, I don't feel that the deciding factor is that there are two minds, either.Then please, present an alternative that makes just as much sense. I would love to see one. Again, I think that it's nothing more than an arbitraty set of abstract rules created with small and medium sized humanoid characters as the base metric.But why just call it an abstraction of the rules when we have a perfectly good theory to explain all of it with sound reasoning? It just seems like people are trying way too hard to justify each side of their argument with logic.What else would you have me justify my argument with? :P After a nice little pause to watch the argument develop, let's review what we've learned. 1. Centuars count as mounted for damage with lances. 2. Centaurs qualify for the Spirited Charge feat, but no other mounted feats as there feats available to all characters accomplishing the same thing (except in the case of trample where Centaurs have their own racial feat)Yes, yes, we know. That's not the question anymore. The new question isn't whether or not they CAN; it's whether or not they SHOULD. 3.Centaurs can have ranks in ride, but it brings up questions (of varying sorts) around the game table. Whoops. #3 we haven't discussed (in depth) yet. Oh well, it's something we learned.We haven't discussed it becasue it because it doesn't relate to the debate. We're discussing how a centaur should be treated when he's not riding a mount, not when he is. Did I deny that at all? No. I just said it brings up questions (especially in my group when we'll have a male and a female centaur in the same party. I know it's coming).:mymy: EDIT: I'm sorry, but I have to... http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j52/Asylum-Rhapsody/lolcentaurs.jpg
KurenaiYami 07-11-07, 06:02 PM	Also, on a completely unrelated note, when did it become popular to press the space bar twice after a period? I've been seeing a lot of people do that lately... :confused: Just because this is the only question I can actually answer, it's proper typing form. You are supposed to double space after periods, question marks, exclamation points, and colons. Any modern keyboarding class should teach this. It's as commonplace as tabbing on the first line of a new paragraph, though it's true you don't see proper form as much in online forums.
RobbyPants 07-11-07, 08:13 PM	Then please, present an alternative that makes just as much sense. I would love to see one. But why just call it an abstraction of the rules when we have a perfectly good theory to explain all of it with sound reasoning? What else would you have me justify my argument with? :P Because you're asserting your Opinion as Fact. Just because you say that the two independant minds is what makes mounted combat so effective doesn't make it so. It is an abstraction. The rules are trying to explain something entirly ficticious that cannot be represented in real life. Thus, it's an abstraction. From dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abstraction): Abstraction. the act of considering something as a general quality or characteristic, apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances.
zorgling25 07-11-07, 08:16 PM	Just because you say that the two independant minds is what makes mounted combat so effective doesn't make it so. He's not saying that's necessarily true. He's saying that the way the rules are written, thats the only possible difference the authors could have been considering, regardless of how blatantly wrong it is.
RobbyPants 07-11-07, 09:02 PM	He's not saying that's necessarily true. He's saying that the way the rules are written, thats the only possible difference the authors could have been considering, regardless of how blatantly wrong it is. Possibly, I guess. I guess without reading the rules on it, I would have just house-ruled that they could use it, but I guess I'm just being to darn simple.
Luminosity 07-11-07, 09:45 PM	As I've already said a few times, the centaur is missing a VERY key aspect that all rider/mount units share: two minds. It's a symbiotic relationship. The mount provides the mobility, and the rider provides the directions, attack, and defense. Don't be ridiculous. It's much more difficult to control an animal than it is to move about on your own two legs, particularly when that animal is bearing down on a ****ing dragon. That's why there's a Ride skill but not a "use your legs" skill. The extra damage from lances and Spirited Charge are logically a result of momentum. Therefore, a DM should be ready to apply the additional damage to anything with the appropriate momentum, even if it has two legs.
Crimson_Concerto 07-11-07, 10:18 PM	Just because this is the only question I can actually answer, it's proper typing form. You are supposed to double space after periods, question marks, exclamation points, and colons. Any modern keyboarding class should teach this. It's as commonplace as tabbing on the first line of a new paragraph, though it's true you don't see proper form as much in online forums.Really? I was never taught that in any typing class, and I've never seen it anywhere until recently on these boards... Awkward... :uh-huh: Because you're asserting your Opinion as Fact.Not really. What I'm doing is asserting a theory (significantly different from an opinion), and I've yet to see another theory that explains as much of the evidence. Just because you say that the two independant minds is what makes mounted combat so effective doesn't make it so.And I'm not saying it is. I'm saying it's the only thing I've been able to come up with at all that makes sense. I've already said that if you have another theory that makes as much or more sense, please tell me. Also, if you see any holes in the theory, again, please point them out, but as of yet, nobody has been able to successfully do so. It is an abstraction. The rules are trying to explain something entirly ficticious that cannot be represented in real life. Thus, it's an abstraction.Yes, the rules are an abstraction, we know. We are all very aware. But what are they an abstraction of? I believe they are an abstraction of rider/mount teamwork. He's not saying that's necessarily true. He's saying that the way the rules are written, thats the only possible difference the authors could have been considering, regardless of how blatantly wrong it is.I agree, that's most certainly a valid way of looking at it. (edited for clarity of intent) Don't be ridiculous. It's much more difficult to control an animal than it is to move about on your own two legs, particularly when that animal is bearing down on a ****ing dragon. That's why there's a Ride skill but not a "use your legs" skill.It doesn't matter how difficult you happen to believe it is in real life. In concept, it's perfectly ligitimate and anything but ridiculous, particularly if the mount in question is trained for combat and knows how to follow orders, unlike mounts in real life (really, try guiding them towards anything remotely similar to a fire-breathing dragon ever). The rider gives the orders, the mount follows, the rider is free to deal with other stuff. That's why a ranged combatant can have his mount move and still use a full attack. The rider doesn't have to deal with it because the mount is. Please, do come up with a better theory that actually works if you think this one is so ridiculous. The extra damage from lances and Spirited Charge are logically a result of momentum.I've definitely already been over how this is not possible. If that WERE the actual reason, then your house rules about fast, strong, bipedal creatures wouldn't need to be a house rule.
zorgling25 07-11-07, 10:36 PM	I'm looking at it in a way that can hopefully get this argument to END!
zack8502 07-11-07, 10:43 PM	Maybe you guys should listen to crimson... I've read all of the posts, and he always seems to make sense... or maybe you guys should just drop it, because this isnt worth arguing over, let people play how they want to.
Pyke_Moonshadow 07-12-07, 08:03 AM	Now the argument is whether or not they should? Good grief, like there can be a concensus on that! Ask your DM. Problem solved.
RobbyPants 07-12-07, 08:57 AM	And I'm not saying it is. I'm saying it's the only thing I've been able to come up with at all that makes sense. I've already said that if you have another theory that makes as much or more sense, please tell me. Also, if you see any holes in the theory, again, please point them out, but as of yet, nobody has been able to successfully do so. That makes more sense to me. I guess I was misunderstanding the point you were trying to make. ;) Really? I was never taught that in any typing class, and I've never seen it anywhere until recently on these boards... Awkward... :uh-huh: This is based on typewiters and old fixed-spacing fonts. When I took a keyboarding class, we were taught to double space after periods. A decade later in college, we were told not to, as new fonts and word processors already take this into account. At least that's my understanding of it.
BlarbMaster 07-12-07, 12:30 PM	Hi. I thought I would give my personal opinion on the subject because this exact issue came up in a game of mine recently. The player actualy gave a pretty good argument as to why a Centaur might be considered mounted(for certain purposes anyway) Imagine this senario: There is a human armed with a lance about 25 feet away from a monster of some sort(doesn't realy matter what kind as long as it stayes in the same place) The human charges in a straight line at the monster, on foot, and strikes it with the lance. Now take that same human with the same lance charging in a straight line at the same monster from the same distance, only this time he is mounted on a horse. What is the difference between the two attacks? Well for the sake of argument say that force=damage. Force is velocity times mass and the only difference between the two attacks is that the one from on top of the horse is made with more mass behind it at a greter velocity which means more force. now the argument about two seperate minds in this case is irrelevant because the horse is simply running in a straight line(which i personaly believe would be harder to accomplish with two minds but as i said it doesnt really matter) so if a human being on top of a horse is considered mounted why would a centaur with exactly the same mass, shape, and velocity as the man and the horse not be considered mounted. as was already said, the rules state that it is and the question was should it be? I think that for this reason it should. A valid point was raised that using this logic any large fast creature should have the same benifits but i think in the end it is a fantasy game and not everything is going to make sense. In my game I let the Centaur have some mounted benefits because i think it makes sence for that creature to have them but not everyone is going to agree. I apologize for the long post.
zorgling25 07-12-07, 12:43 PM	Well for the sake of argument say that force=damage. Force is velocity times mass and the only difference between the two attacks is that the one from on top of the horse is made with more mass behind it at a greter velocity which means more force. Someone needs to retake their high school physics class because last i checked, Force = Mass x Acceleration. :P We've already debated this issue to a standstill. Centaurs already get the extra charging damage, by virtue of their ability to move as quickly as a horse/rider can. The thing is, if we give Centaurs every benefit of mounted combat, then we have to consider giving the same benefits to other creatures of similar builds (driders, for instance). I'm not going to summarize the entire thread for you. I understand Crimson_Concerto's posts are long, but please read the whole thread before commenting on something that may have already been completely debated through already.
DrRufio 07-12-07, 04:16 PM	I don't even know how to respond to this other than by asking: Why? :confused: It's not what you say, it is how you say it. (social skills)
ProjectA 07-12-07, 06:09 PM	edit: nevermind
Luminosity 07-13-07, 01:50 AM	It doesn't matter how difficult you happen to believe it is in real life. In concept, it's perfectly ligitimate and anything but ridiculous, particularly if the mount in question is trained for combat and knows how to follow orders, unlike mounts in real life (really, try guiding them towards anything remotely similar to a fire-breathing dragon ever). That certainly explains why horses have never been ridden to war in human history. The rider gives the orders, the mount follows, the rider is free to deal with other stuff. That's why a ranged combatant can have his mount move and still use a full attack. The rider doesn't have to deal with it because the mount is. That is a Rule That Should Not Be. I've definitely already been over how this is not possible. If that WERE the actual reason, then your house rules about fast, strong, bipedal creatures wouldn't need to be a house rule. I saw no logical dismissal of increased momentum causing increased damage.
Traszgo 07-13-07, 11:57 AM	You have to think of it in terms of historical progression. First there were weapons, better than natural attacks. Then there was running at things with weapons, better still. Then put the guy with the weapon on something heavy that runs even faster. DAYUM! that's intense! Hey, look at these Centaur guys, they are like guys on something heavy and fast already! And yeowch, it looks like they hurt like heck with that, too, same as our mounted-on-horses lancers! The halflings on their giant chickens see this, and emulate the situation. Not as well, because they are just little, but still, their damage goes up when they charge while mounted. And people buidling battlebots apply the same basic structure as the original knight that started the whole arms race, only in one unit to save materials and complexity. The ogre monk charging does lots of damage too, but not quite the same as a charging knight because he is going back to the original guy running at things with a weapon, he is not trying to be like the halfling on the giant chicken.
Crimson_Concerto 07-13-07, 12:50 PM	Imagine this senario: There is a human armed with a lance about 25 feet away from a monster of some sort(doesn't realy matter what kind as long as it stayes in the same place) The human charges in a straight line at the monster, on foot, and strikes it with the lance. Now take that same human with the same lance charging in a straight line at the same monster from the same distance, only this time he is mounted on a horse. What is the difference between the two attacks?... ...now the argument about two seperate minds in this case is irrelevant because the horse is simply running in a straight line(which i personaly believe would be harder to accomplish with two minds but as i said it doesnt really matter) so if a human being on top of a horse is considered mounted why would a centaur with exactly the same mass, shape, and velocity as the man and the horse not be considered mounted?I've already answered this, but I'll do it again anyways. Let's just modify your post, and it will really answer itself... Imagine this senario: There is a halfling armed with a lance about 25 feet away from a monster of some sort(doesn't realy matter what kind as long as it stayes in the same place) The halfling charges in a straight line at the monster, on foot, and strikes it with the lance. Now take that same halfling with the same lance charging in a straight line at the same monster from the same distance, only this time he is mounted on an ostrich. What is the difference between the two attacks?... ...now the argument about two seperate minds in this case is irrelevant because the ostrich is simply running in a straight line(which i personaly believe would be harder to accomplish with two minds but as i said it doesnt really matter) so if a halfling on top of an ostrich is considered mounted why would a human with exactly the same mass, shape, and velocity as the halfling and the ostrich not be considered mounted? That certainly explains why horses have never been ridden to war in human history.That wasn't quite the point I was trying to get accross. The point I was trying to get accross is that the Ride skill in D&D far surpasses human riding capabilities (like most things in D&D, really) in that mounts can be made to do exactly as told no matter how completely absurd and suicidal the situation is. Mounts are made very obediant, and so in D&D at least, controlling a mount is NOT that hard. That is a Rule That Should Not Be.If you feel that way, sure, but then what's the point of having a mount at all then? I mean, really, the entire point is that you use a free action to control the mount, the mount uses his action to move, and you're free to do other stuff with your turn in the mean time. That, of course, being part of the benefit of being two creatures with two minds. I saw no logical dismissal of increased momentum causing increased damage.In this specific context? I've already dismissed it before, and if you don't feel like looking back for it, just look at my response to BlarbMaster earlier in this very post. Hey, look at these Centaur guys, they are like guys on something heavy and fast already! And yeowch, it looks like they hurt like heck with that, too, same as our mounted-on-horses lancers!And Centaurs do get to use larger weapons and have a +8 STR bonus, so yes, they will do a greater deal of damage than a human anyways... so what? The halflings on their giant chickens see this, and emulate the situation. Not as well, because they are just little, but still, their damage goes up when they charge while mounted.Exactly! :) The ogre monk charging does lots of damage too, but not quite the same as a charging knight because he is going back to the original guy running at things with a weapon, he is not trying to be like the halfling on the giant chicken.And the centaurs not trying to be like the human on the horse, so... what? Really, people are making that same argument over and over again, and it STILL isn't working. What aren't you understanding about the human+horse:centaur::hafling+ostrich:hum an analogy? :confused:
Visigo7h 07-13-07, 04:43 PM	Ok… since it seems that this is going nowhere fast, and both sides are just endlessly repeating themselves, let me just try to sum up what is being said thus far. Centaurs should be able to apply Mounted combat Feats to themselves: 1. They have a comparable size speed and mass to a horse with a rider. Because of the force that they can put out (as represented by size speed and strength) they hit harder and are in effect as useful as mounted cavalry. 2. How combat evolved over time went from walking up with natural weapons, to having weapons, to running at them with weapons, the riding at them with weapons. Centaurs should not be allowed to apply mounted feats to themselves. 1. If you apply the ability to them, then you would need to allow any creature that has a resemblance to any mount and rider combo (examples include bipedal mounts with 2 armed riders, flying mounts with 2 armed riders, exedra) 2. Mounted combat is based on the idea of 2 species working together to accomplish a task. If I missed anything, don’t yell about it, but just say so. Now that being said, the question of should they be able to comes down to this: Is what makes mounted combat so effective the ability for transferring more momentum and energy into the thrust or the ability for the rider to take his time and aim where he is going to hit with the weapon? And in my mind the answer can only be, yes. It is because of both of these factors that mounted combat is so effective. To say that the 2 minds have nothing to do with the effect is disproved by Mounted Archery. This mounted feat is based on the principle that you have the mount concentrating on getting from point A to point B safely without falling face first over, let’s say an uneven path. Yes it takes a bit of extra work on the part of the rider to direct the mount, but the mount does the part of finding good footing as it moves. This allows the rider extra time to carefully aim his attack, well giving his mount the necessary information to get to that point. It also allows the rider to guide the horse for Ride by attack in a way that he can avoid ether himself or the horse being hit. However, as shown by the access to the feat Spirited Charge by Centaurs, there momentum also adds a bit more then normal humans would to the damage. But it is for those feats only for a reason. Do you really want a centaur PC with ride by attack, moving twice there speed at and then away from there enemy with out needing to even take the prereqs that face a spring attack character? They were given access to Spirited charge without the prereqs so they didn’t have to take feats that wizards did not want them to be able to use on themselves. The ogre monk charging does lots of damage too, but not quite the same as a charging knight because he is going back to the original guy running at things with a weapon, he is not trying to be like the halfling on the giant chicken. And isn’t for a Centaur there “mounted charge” Just them running at the enemy? The point I was making with that before is that it is not just based on energy transfer and mass that make the feats (normally) so effective.
snakeman830 07-13-07, 04:56 PM	Good sumurization. I am in agreement on the reasoning (mainly because it has been explained and not just stated). Now, may the argument DESIST!!!
zorgling25 07-13-07, 06:55 PM	If I missed anything, don’t yell about it, but just say so. Sure. Centaurs should not be given the benefit of mounted combat feats because they have access to all equivalents. Anyone arguing with you as a DM that they should is clearly trying to powergame in order to skip Dodge and Mobility to get to Spring Attack. :P
Cartigan 07-13-07, 11:26 PM	Care to give an explanation why it's special as compared to every creature out there that's a quadraped? or has any legs at all? or can move? Because how many other creatures are quadrupeds in addition to having half the body of a human?
JolanthusTrel 07-14-07, 12:25 AM	I stated off thinking yeah they should, but as I read on and started thinking about it. Would you allow these feats for a horse as is? Not really. Spirited charge and Trample are understandable but Mounted Archery, what is the centaur mountingto get mounted archery, not only that a Centaur can use A longbow, give him mounted Archery, he can only use a shortbow.
Crimson_Concerto 07-14-07, 12:30 AM	Is what makes mounted combat so effective the ability for transferring more momentum and energy into the thrust or the ability for the rider to take his time and aim where he is going to hit with the weapon? And in my mind the answer can only be, yes. It is because of both of these factors that mounted combat is so effective.I disagree. While a Human riding a Hippogriff does indeed have more momentum than a lone Human, it doesn't have more momentum than, say, a Griffon. The weight and speed are the same. As I've already repeated, momentum simply cannot be the answer. I mean, I think it's great that you're trying to find a compromise between those that think it's all about momentum and those who think it's about teamwork. The problem is that the teamwork argument can work with or without the momentum argument being present, and it only applies to mounted combat, but the momentum argument doesn't always apply to everything about mounted combat, and it can be used for things outside of mounted combat, which defeats the purpose of the argument. Because how many other creatures are quadrupeds in addition to having half the body of a human?I'm sorry if this sounds rude, but I have to ask: Did you even bother reading the entire thread before posting this question? :confused: I mean, it's already been covered to everybody's satisfaction that mounted combat has absolutely nothing to do with the number of arms and legs present, as evidence by the fact that not all mounts have four legs, some having many more (ex: monstrous spiders), fewer (ex: raptors), or even none at all (ex: ashworms).
darth_borehd 07-14-07, 01:09 AM	The FAQ says that when questions like this come up, whatever result that is best for the character is the default. If a centaur player can benefit from having mounted feats, then he should be allowed to take them. The same thing with PrCs like Wild Plains Outrider and the like. I don't foresee any game-breaking consequences in allowing it.
tenguroEd 07-14-07, 01:15 AM	But then what could be a mount for a centaur PC? a tarrasque! though it probaly wouldn't work out.
Crimson_Concerto 07-14-07, 01:42 AM	I don't foresee any game-breaking consequences in allowing it.Neither do I if the centaur in question can find himself a suitable mount, but if you're saying he should be able to apply the benefit to himself, what stops the human from wanting to take the same benefit, applying these benefits to himself even if he has no mount?
Visigo7h 07-14-07, 02:10 AM	I disagree. While a Human riding a Hippogriff does indeed have more momentum than a lone Human, it doesn't have more momentum than, say, a Griffon. The weight and speed are the same. As I've already repeated, momentum simply cannot be the answer. I mean, I think it's great that you're trying to find a compromise between those that think it's all about momentum and those who think it's about teamwork. The problem is that the teamwork argument can work with or without the momentum argument being present, and it only applies to mounted combat, but the momentum argument doesn't always apply to everything about mounted combat, and it can be used for things outside of mounted combat, which defeats the purpose of the argument. As I said it is not the one and only answer. Though if you break it down feat by feat, Momentum does explain a lot about why they get the ones they do. Mounted Combat: That is all about the skill of the rider. There is no question there. Mounted Archery: It is the skill of the rider that makes this feat work, compensating for the movement of the target in comparison to you. Think of it as shot on the run well on horse back (So more bounce making the ability to hit much harder) Ride-By Attack: That is about the skill of the rider to plan a safe rout well planning how to hit its target. And the skill of Mount to follow that path safely. Spirited Charge: Skill and Momentum play a big part in this. Doing more damage on a mount is done by hitting the enemy squarely in the body well using great speed and weight. The reason it does not give a +x bonus is because smaller sized characters can only effectively transfer just so much energy without risking dismounting, and or injuring themselves. The momentum can be explained by there size and speed, and the aiming skill can be explained away as something they were taught growing up, maybe it can even be explained away as a game they played as kids. Trample: That is just speed and the skill to eliminate escape routs of those you are going over. That is the best way I can think to explain it. Again, it may be something that they learned at young ages. I am not familiar with any from the other books, but I would guess that they are like this. Now as I said it is not the only reason, but it is a factor that does need to be taken into account. The FAQ says that when questions like this come up, whatever result that is best for the character is the default. If a centaur player can benefit from having mounted feats, then he should be allowed to take them. The same thing with PrCs like Wild Plains Outrider and the like. I don't foresee any game-breaking consequences in allowing it. There would not be for ones like Mounted Combat or Mounted Archery, and as they are already allowed to take Trample and Spirited Charge they are not game breaking to allow. The only one that is game breaking (to allow as written with the no pre-reqs <as allowed by centaur with Trample and Spirited Charge>) would really be Ride-by attack. It is a spring attack more or less. Instead of 1 move action its 2, but restricted to straight lines. Now I would allow Spirited Charge and maybe ride-by attack on non-mounted characters if other pre-requisites were put in place. Say a speed and str. requirement for normal characters using Spirited Charge. And a variation of ride by attack as an option instead of spring attack (normal movement for a charge but allowed before and after). But that is just me rule 0ing because it makes sense in my mind, which it might not in anyone else’s.
Cartigan 07-14-07, 10:21 AM	I'm sorry if this sounds rude, but I have to ask: Did you even bother reading the entire thread before posting this question? :confused: I mean, it's already been covered to everybody's satisfaction that mounted combat has absolutely nothing to do with the number of arms and legs present, as evidence by the fact that not all mounts have four legs, some having many more (ex: monstrous spiders), fewer (ex: raptors), or even none at all (ex: ashworms). Does that negate the point? Neither do I if the centaur in question can find himself a suitable mount, but if you're saying he should be able to apply the benefit to himself, what stops the human from wanting to take the same benefit, applying these benefits to himself even if he has no mount? Is a human mounted on anything? Do they move fast enough and have enough weight behind them? You have to make a human pretty big to get the same speed as a Centaur. A Centaur would qualify for a couple of feats that require Mounted Combat without needing a mount.
Luminosity 07-14-07, 10:28 AM	I've thought a bit more about this and I've changed my opinion somewhat. It is no longer my opinion that a creature of sufficient mass and speed should be able to deal double damage with a lance or triple damage with spirited charge, regardless of their number of legs. I think that creatures with a greater mass are going to have more strength and a larger weapon anyway and therefore are already getting the benefits of increased damage. It is now my opinion that the doubled/tripled damage is the product of additional momentum. A halfling on an ostrich has increased momentum because his mass (as a unit) has increased, but this increase in mass did not encumber him and therefore did not slow him down. As a result, his damage should increase. A man on two legs will deal more, on average, than a halfling on two legs because his weapon will be larger and strength will be greater, therefore there is no reason to increasing his charge/lance damage. Centaurs have large size and greater strength than a human and will therefore deal more damage on a charge anyway, so giving him the benefit of increased lance charge damage is unnecessary. I continue to reject the idea of this mystical bond provided by the Ride skill. The fact that it is a skill at all is evidence enough for me that it is always going to be harder than running about on your own two legs, and therefore it will take a greater portion of one's concentration. For this reason, I believe that the rules for taking actions on a mount are unrealistic. Logically speaking, they Should Not Be. However, if you are unlike me in that you are willing to suspend your disbelief in an effort to balance mounted combat and just hoofing it, then you should probably use WotC's rules on mounted combat because it makes it more effective. You will have no logical validation for doing so, however.
Crimson_Concerto 07-14-07, 02:09 PM	As I said it is not the one and only answer. Though if you break it down feat by feat, Momentum does explain a lot about why they get the ones they do...The only one you listed where you mention momentum at all is Spirited Charge, so I'll just skip down to that... ...Spirited Charge: Skill and Momentum play a big part in this. Doing more damage on a mount is done by hitting the enemy squarely in the body well using great speed and weight. The reason it does not give a +x bonus is because smaller sized characters can only effectively transfer just so much energy without risking dismounting, and or injuring themselves...I'm willing to agree that Spirited Charge has anything at all to do with momentum ONLY if we look at what Luminosity just said. It's a VERY brilliant explanation because it's the only way it would make sense at all for any momentum to be involved in a way that mounted creatures can qualify for that non-mounted creatures just can't, even with the same momentum. I'll clarify what I mean below when I get to responding to his post. ...the aiming skill can be explained away as something they were taught growing up, maybe it can even be explained away as a game they played as kids...These would be cultural justifications, and I've already said much earlier in the thread that I would have settled for that if that had been the default explanation, but since it's not, I'm looking for something a little bit more concrete than that. Does that negate the point?Actually, yes, yes it does. We've already explained that size, weight, and number of limbs have nothing to do with mounted combat, so your supposition that centaurs should get Mounted Combat feats becaue he has a similar mass, speed, and number of limbs as a human on a horse is completely invalidated by simply looking at a human who has similar mass, speed, and number of limbs as a halfling on an ostrich. As difficult as it may be to do sometimes, especially with very long threads, I highly recommend reading through a thread completely if there is any kind of debate involved before posting to avoid bringing up the same point over and over again that has already been discussed. Is a human mounted on anything?No, and neither is a centaur. That was my point. Do they move fast enough and have enough weight behind them?Actually, yes, yes they do, as compared to a halfling on an ostrich, another rider/mount combination that can make use of Mounted Combat feats. You have to make a human pretty big to get the same speed as a Centaur.But you only need an average-sized Griffon, and in fact, a flying griffon has a much greater speed than a centaur does and also has bite and claw attacks on limbs he's not using while flying. However, we all clearly see a Griffon doesn't qualify for Mounted feats, don't we? A Centaur already does more damage than a human by virtue of having a +8 STR and being able to use larger weapons. If size and speed were all we needed to consider, not only would Mounted Combat feats becomes open to a large fraction of creatures, but the halfling riding the ostrich would be angry about not being able to qualify for mounted feats. A Centaur would qualify for a couple of feats that require Mounted Combat without needing a mount.No, logically, it wouldn't, unless you feel like making most of the creatures out there (any with extra attacking limbs after those used for locomotion, uncluding humans) qualify as well. It is no longer my opinion that a creature of sufficient mass and speed should be able to deal double damage with a lance or triple damage with spirited charge, regardless of their number of legs. I think that creatures with a greater mass are going to have more strength and a larger weapon anyway and therefore are already getting the benefits of increased damage.Completely agreed! And it's a very good point for you to bring up that because of their increased and strength and base weapon damage, it would seem they're already taking advantage of their larger mass/momentum. It is now my opinion that the doubled/tripled damage is the product of additional momentum. A halfling on an ostrich has increased momentum because his mass (as a unit) has increased, but this increase in mass did not encumber him and therefore did not slow him down. As a result, his damage should increase. A man on two legs will deal more, on average, than a halfling on two legs because his weapon will be larger and strength will be greater, therefore there is no reason to increasing his charge/lance damage.This is a good point to bring up, and I wish I had thought of it, because it actually makes a lot of sense, and above, I even went as far as to call it "brilliant". Now, tell me if I've got this right: You're saying that a Human on a Horse actually gains access to things such as Spirited Charge and increased lance damage because now he's stepping up his damage potention with the extra momentum from his mount to match what a creature of siimlar momentum, such as a centaur, already does. Therefore, the centaur isn't trying to emulate the human on the horse. In reality, it's the human on the horse that is trying to emulate the centaur, and Spirited Charge and the like help him take advange of his increased momentum (compared to his usual, unmounted momentum) to accomplish this. Do I have that right? See, I like this explanation because everywhere above, I can replace human with halfling, horse with ostrich, and centaur with human, and it still makes perfect sense, and the human still can't take mounted feats. I continue to reject the idea of this mystical bond provided by the Ride skill.I think there's been some misconception about what I've been saying about the rider/mount combination. I'm not claiming there's some mystical bond, and I don't think anybody has (unless I missed something). The bond I keep referring to ordinary, everyday teamwork. Nothing mystical or supernatural about it. Overall, I mostly agree with the rest of what you said as well.
Cartigan 07-14-07, 03:19 PM	But you only need an average-sized Griffon, and in fact, a flying griffon has a much greater speed than a centaur does Run speed? No, logically, it wouldn't, unless you feel like making most of the creatures out there (any with extra attacking limbs after those used for locomotion, uncluding humans) qualify as well. Actually and logically, yes it would. Trample? Spirited charge?
Crimson_Concerto 07-14-07, 03:33 PM	Run speed?You can take the run and charge actions while flying, so yes, though the Griffon was only the first example that came to mind of a similarly sized creature of comparable speed. There are plenty of others. Actually and logically, yes it would. Trample? Spirited charge?Okay, really, do you have anything in particular to say other than to ascert your opinion, because unless you tell us why you think what you do, we can't actually have a discussion about it. It just becomes a discussion of "uh-huh" "nu-uh" "uh-huh" "nu-uh" "uh-huh" "nu-uh," and that gets us nowhere. I've given you the reasons and evidence for my opinion and theory, so give me yours if you have any. Spirited Charge is already being discussed at length, and you're not really adding anything to the discussion. You're not giving any reason to back up your so-called logic, so I really do have to wonder if you're reading the thread at all. (Oh, and centaurs can trample. There are two feats for it, in fact: Centaur Trample and Improved Overrun.)
Luminosity 07-14-07, 08:49 PM	Now, tell me if I've got this right: You're saying that a Human on a Horse actually gains access to things such as Spirited Charge and increased lance damage because now he's stepping up his damage potention with the extra momentum from his mount to match what a creature of siimlar momentum, such as a centaur, already does. Therefore, the centaur isn't trying to emulate the human on the horse. In reality, it's the human on the horse that is trying to emulate the centaur, and Spirited Charge and the like help him take advange of his increased momentum (compared to his usual, unmounted momentum) to accomplish this. Do I have that right? Yes. Also, this may help a few others: A centaur is different from a human on a horse because mounting a horse does not increase the human's Str. The increased potential for damage is already accounted for in the build of the centaur. With this in mind, I would rule as a DM that centaurs do NOT get double damage with a lance unless they're mounted, nor should they be considered as mounted for any purpose. I think there's been some misconception about what I've been saying about the rider/mount combination. I'm not claiming there's some mystical bond, and I don't think anybody has (unless I missed something). The bond I keep referring to ordinary, everyday teamwork. Nothing mystical or supernatural about it. You do not need to be citing a supernatural bond in order for me to disagree that controlling a mount is harder than moving about on your own legs.