PDA

View Full Version : Two-Weapon Fighting and Ride-by-Attack



kpenguin
2007-05-30, 12:50 PM
I'm finally getting the oppurtunity to step out from behind the screen and become a player. Granted, it'll be in a month or so at earliest, but I'm excited. Since we're in Eberron, I'm planning to build a halfling ranger with clawfoot mount with TWF combat style. Yes, I know that Archery would be more effective, but I decided take it so for various reasons. My idea is to get Two-Weapon Pounce (which allows you to attack with both weapons during a charge) rather than Improved Two-Weapon Fighting at level 6 and combine it with Ride-by-Attack (which allows you to move again after attacking during a charge while mounted) and Spirited Charge (which gives you double damage during a mounted charge). Will this combination work and what tactics/items/feats would work well in combination with this?

Lycanthromancer
2007-05-30, 12:54 PM
I wouldn't think so, since you can't Ride-by Attack AND charge on the same turn, without some serious tweaking. If you had a psychic warrior and used Hustle, then...perhaps.

But then, it's generally not a good idea to have a Small character in melee unless they have some way to boost their attack damage (rogues are great for this). They tend to use smaller weapons and have much lower Strength scores, so they tend to be rather bad at physical combat. They do much better as spellcasters or manifesters, or rogues.

Fax Celestis
2007-05-30, 12:56 PM
Ride-By Attack is different from Spring attack:


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

That being said, that does appear to be a good plan.

Lycanthromancer
2007-05-30, 12:59 PM
My mistake. Sorry.

kpenguin
2007-05-30, 01:01 PM
By the way, I intend to use a kukri/scimitar combination for the high crit range and because they look cool:smallsmile:

Matthew
2007-05-30, 01:12 PM
Unfortunately, your Character is not actually charging when his Mount Charges, he simply enjoys some of the benefits:


Mounted Combat

Horses in Combat
Heavy warhorses, light warhorses and warponies can serve readily as combat steeds. Light horses, ponies, and heavy horses, however, are frightened by combat. If you don’t dismount, you must make a DC 20 Ride check each round as a move action to control such a horse. If you succeed, you can perform a standard action after the move action. If you fail, the move action becomes a full round action and you can’t do anything else until your next turn.

Your mount acts on your initiative count as you direct it. You move at its speed, but the mount uses its action to move.

A horse (not a pony) is a Large creature and thus takes up a space 10 feet (2 squares) across. For simplicity, assume that you share your mount’s space during combat.

Combat while Mounted
With a DC 5 Ride check, you can guide your mount with your knees so as to use both hands to attack or defend yourself. This is a free action.

When you attack a creature smaller than your mount that is on foot, you get the +1 bonus on melee attacks for being on higher ground. If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only make a single melee attack. Essentially, you have to wait until the mount gets to your enemy before attacking, so you can’t make a full attack. Even at your mount’s full speed, you don’t take any penalty on melee attacks while mounted.

If your mount charges, you also take the AC penalty associated with a charge. If you make an attack at the end of the charge, you receive the bonus gained from the charge. When charging on horseback, you deal double damage with a lance.

You can use ranged weapons while your mount is taking a double move, but at a -4 penalty on the attack roll. You can use ranged weapons while your mount is running (quadruple speed), at a -8 penalty. In either case, you make the attack roll when your mount has completed half its movement. You can make a full attack with a ranged weapon while your mount is moving. Likewise, you can take move actions normally

Casting Spells while Mounted
You can cast a spell normally if your mount moves up to a normal move (its speed) either before or after you cast. If you have your mount move both before and after you cast a spell, then you’re casting the spell while the mount is moving, and you have to make a Concentration check due to the vigorous motion (DC 10 + spell level) or lose the spell. If the mount is running (quadruple speed), you can cast a spell when your mount has moved up to twice its speed, but your Concentration check is more difficult due to the violent motion (DC 15 + spell level).

If Your Mount Falls in Battle
If your mount falls, you have to succeed on a DC 15 Ride check to make a soft fall and take no damage. If the check fails, you take 1d6 points of damage.

If You Are Dropped
If you are knocked unconscious, you have a 50% chance to stay in the saddle (or 75% if you’re in a military saddle). Otherwise you fall and take 1d6 points of damage.

Without you to guide it, your mount avoids combat.

This may effect whether your Character can use Two Weapon Pounce whilst Mounted (I suspect that he cannot).
Scimitar is probably a good idea, it all depends if you want to make use of Power Attack.

kpenguin
2007-05-30, 01:16 PM
:mitd: Awwww maan

Ah well, the next DM generally trusts my opinion on rules. I can alway convince him otherwise. :smalltongue:

Dizlag
2007-05-30, 01:36 PM
Matthew,

Look at the feats Ride By Attack (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#rideByAttack) (what Fax quoted) and Spirited Charge (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#spiritedCharge). Ride by Attack says you'll be attacking as if with the standard charge action, so he would be able to use the Two Weapon Pounce feat for this attack.

Dizlag

EDIT: clarified by description of Ride By Attack

Matthew
2007-05-30, 01:45 PM
A good point, and you will notice that it actually contradicts the rules for Mounted Combat, as a Character who is mounted does not use the Charge Action, his Mount does (indeed, a strict reading of those Feats could potentially render them meaningless). Looks like a potentially grey area. Any clarification in the FAQ, I wonder?

The intention is clear, but in both instances the specification refers to 'when mounted'. Two Weapon Pounce has no such specification (and in fact refers specifically to the Character charging).

Fax Celestis
2007-05-30, 01:57 PM
Combat while Mounted

With a DC 5 Ride check, you can guide your mount with your knees so as to use both hands to attack or defend yourself. This is a free action.

When you attack a creature smaller than your mount that is on foot, you get the +1 bonus on melee attacks for being on higher ground. If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only make a single melee attack. Essentially, you have to wait until the mount gets to your enemy before attacking, so you can’t make a full attack. Even at your mount’s full speed, you don’t take any penalty on melee attacks while mounted.

If your mount charges, you also take the AC penalty associated with a charge. If you make an attack at the end of the charge, you receive the bonus gained from the charge. When charging on horseback, you deal double damage with a lance.

You can use ranged weapons while your mount is taking a double move, but at a -4 penalty on the attack roll. You can use ranged weapons while your mount is running (quadruple speed), at a -8 penalty. In either case, you make the attack roll when your mount has completed half its movement. You can make a full attack with a ranged weapon while your mount is moving. Likewise, you can take move actions normally

I would venture to say that "bonus gained by the charge" in this instance can include the effects of Two-Weapon Pounce.

Matthew
2007-05-30, 02:02 PM
Haha. Yeah, I could go along with that, though probably not if they were attempting to use two Lances. Really, the issue is that the RAW regarding the feats and Mounted Combat contradict one another. A close reading of Ride By Attack (ignoring the fact that it is the Mount that is charging and not the Character) would allow you to treat the Charge as a 'Standard Charge', which would also let you get away with it.

Dizlag
2007-05-30, 02:02 PM
You are correct that in the Mounted Combat section it says your mount is charging. It also says you're getting the benefit and drawback of charging as well. That's effectively saying you're charging, so those feats wouldn't be meaningless.

Dizlag

EDIT: Simupost. The benefit I was thinking of is the +2 on attack, but I like your interpretation as well Fax.

Fax Celestis
2007-05-30, 02:06 PM
Haha. Yeah, I could go along with that, though probably not if they were attempting to use two Lances. Really, the issue is that the RAW regarding the feats and Mounted Combat contradict one another. A close reading of Ride By Attack (ignoring the fact that it is the Mount that is charging and not the Character) would allow you to treat the Charge as a 'Standard Charge', which would also let you get away with it.

It's a case of exception. The Mounted Combat section is primary source for fighting on horseback. The Mounted Combat feat tree, however, overwrites those rules in much the same way that the TWF feat tree overwrites the rules for fighting with two weapons.

Matthew
2007-05-30, 02:13 PM
Oh, oh. Not that again. I don't recall you being on the side of evil in that debate. The Two Weapon Fighting Rules do not overwrite every aspect of the combat rules that refer to them (i.e. the Character must use the Full Attack Action to use them). I agree that the intention is for these Feats to work with the Charging Mount, because the idea is that the Character and Mount are both charging as a single unit. It has simply been worded poorly (a not uncommon phenomonen in D&D, as you well know). Is it the intention for Two Weapon Pounce to work with this? I doubt the writer considered it, but in the interests of consistancy it probably should.

Fax Celestis
2007-05-30, 02:29 PM
Oh, oh. Not that again. I don't recall you being on the side of evil in that debate. The Two Weapon Fighting Rules do not overwrite every aspect of the combat rules that refer to them (i.e. the Character must use the Full Attack Action to use them). I agree that the intention is for these Feats to work with the Charging Mount, because the idea is that the Character and Mount are both charging as a single unit. It has simply been worded poorly (a not uncommon phenomonen in D&D, as you well know). Is it the intention for Two Weapon Pounce to work with this? I doubt the writer considered it, but in the interests of consistancy it probably should.

They do not overwrite entirely, no, but they do augment and alter. The Mounted Combat tree does the same here.

As for Intent? TWP probably wouldn't work here, but mechanically it does.

Matthew
2007-05-30, 02:34 PM
But the condition under which Ride By Attack works (as with Spirited Charge)is this "When you are mounted and use the charge action", since you are not using the Charge Action, how can it overwrite the rule? Hell, maybe you can use the Charge Action when you are mounted, I don't know...

As an aside, I have always wondered about having the Mount Move, the Character dismount (via a Free Action) and then makeing a Charge... there must be some rule against it?

[Edit] Does Two Weapon Pounce say 'when Charging' or 'when using the Charge Action'? If the former, then it works anyway.

Fax Celestis
2007-05-30, 02:43 PM
But the condition under which Ride By Attack works is this "When you are mounted and use the charge action", since you are not using the Charge Action, how can it overwrite the rule? Hell, maybe you can use the Charge Action when you are mounted, I don't know...

As an alternative, I've always wondered about having the Mount Move, the Character dismounting (via a Free action) and then Charging... there must be some rule against it?

I'll be honest. No idea.

Dizlag
2007-05-30, 02:59 PM
Matthew,

I just had an image of a halfling barbarian, a war dog, and Leap Attack! Whoa! :smalleek:

How does one adjudicate something like that? Is it possible? A ride check followed by a jump check?

Dizlag

Fax Celestis
2007-05-30, 03:04 PM
Matthew,

I just had an image of a halfling barbarian, a war dog, and Leap Attack! Whoa! :smalleek:

How does one adjudicate something like that? Is it possible? A ride check followed by a jump check?

Dizlag

I'd say your mount makes the jump check.

Dausuul
2007-05-30, 03:39 PM
Haha. Yeah, I could go along with that, though probably not if they were attempting to use two Lances. Really, the issue is that the RAW regarding the feats and Mounted Combat contradict one another. A close reading of Ride By Attack (ignoring the fact that it is the Mount that is charging and not the Character) would allow you to treat the Charge as a 'Standard Charge', which would also let you get away with it.

The way I read the mounted combat thing, there's no contradiction. Remember that mounts can attack with hoof and bite, and indeed that's one of the big benefits to having a warhorse at low levels.

So if your warhorse makes a charge attack (using a hoof), you suffer the -2 to your AC as well. And if you choose to attack at the same time, you also get the +2 bonus. Note that it says "if you attack at the end of the charge," so clearly it's your mount charging, not you; if you were the one charging, it wouldn't be a question whether you were attacking, since attacking is part of a charge by definition.

If you make a mounted charge, that's distinct from your mount charging. One implication of this is that if you use, say, Ride-By Attack to make a move-attack-move, your mount does not get to attack at the same time.

Matthew
2007-05-30, 03:54 PM
Matthew,

I just had an image of a halfling barbarian, a war dog, and Leap Attack! Whoa! :smalleek:

How does one adjudicate something like that? Is it possible? A ride check followed by a jump check?

Dizlag
Dunno, that's part of the problem, I suppose. Sounds physics defying, but what's new? I suspect that the intention of the rules is to not allow the Mount to Move and then the Character, since they are fairly strict about when certain actions take place during a Mount's Double Move. I cannot even begin to interpret that RAW for this, as it appears to be a bit of a mess. Where's that beholder when you need him?


The way I read the mounted combat thing, there's no contradiction. Remember that mounts can attack with hoof and bite, and indeed that's one of the big benefits to having a warhorse at low levels.

So if your warhorse makes a charge attack (using a hoof), you suffer the -2 to your AC as well. And if you choose to attack at the same time, you also get the +2 bonus. Note that it says "if you attack at the end of the charge," so clearly it's your mount charging, not you; if you were the one charging, it wouldn't be a question whether you were attacking, since attacking is part of a charge by definition.

If you make a mounted charge, that's distinct from your mount charging.

I do think that might be the intention somewhere along the line. the only problem is that there is no 'Mounted Charge Action'. Either you allow a Character to take a Move Action and then a Standard Action during the Mount's Charge or you force both to take Charge Actions (which would make sense). As I say, it's all a bit of a mess and it seems like this has to be House Ruled to make sense (as with several other aspects of the game).

Dausuul
2007-05-30, 03:59 PM
Dunno, that's part of the problem, I suppose. Sounds physics defying, but what's new? I suspect that the intention of the rules is to not allow the Mount to Move and then the Character, since they are fairly strict about when certain actions take place during a Mount's Double Move. I cannot even begin to interpret that RAW for this, as it appears to be a bit of a mess. Where's that beholder when you need him?

I do think that might be the intention somewhere along the line. the only problem is that there is no 'Mounted Charge Action'. Either you allow a Character to take a Move Action and then a Standard Action during the Mount's Charge or you force both to take Charge Actions (which would make sense). As I say, it's all a bit of a mess and it seems like this has to be House Ruled to make sense (as with several other aspects of the game).

From the mounted combat rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm):

Your mount acts on your initiative count as you direct it. You move at its speed, but the mount uses its action to move.

In other words, you can charge using a regular charge action. When you do so, you move at your mount's speed, and your mount uses its action to move. If you have Ride-By Attack, you can do the special move-attack-move maneuver, and you can combine that with Pouncing Charge (or, for that matter, with the White Raven maneuvers from Tome of Battle that give bonus damage on a charge).

It does need some cleanup, but the basic rules appear to be there.

Matthew
2007-05-30, 04:03 PM
Also from the Mounted Combat Rules:


If your mount charges, you also take the AC penalty associated with a charge. If you make an attack at the end of the charge, you receive the bonus gained from the charge. When charging on horseback, you deal double damage with a lance.

I agree what the intention is, but there obviously is a distinction between Mount and Mounted with regard to a Charge Action. When the Mount Charges, the Mounted is Charging, but he did not take the Charge Action, which is where the problem lies, as he has to take the Charge Action to use the Ride By Attack and Spirited Charge Feats.
The FAQ or Errata needs to clear this up, otherwise we're just House Ruling.

Dausuul
2007-05-30, 04:08 PM
Also from the Mounted Combat Rules:

I agree what the intention is, but there obviously is a distinction between Mount and Mounted with regard to a Charge Action. When the Mount Charges, the Mounted is Charging, but he did not take the Charge Action, which is where the problem lies, as he has to take the Charge Action to use the Ride By Attack and Spirited Charge Feats.
The FAQ or Errata needs to clear this up, otherwise we're just House Ruling.

Not exactly.

When the mount charges, the mounted gets the bonuses and penalties normally associated with charging, but is not actually charging.
When the mounted charges, he uses the mount's move speed, and the mount uses its action to move.

In other words, you can charge, and your mount can charge, but you can't both charge at the same time. Either your mount charges and you "pseudo-charge," or you charge and your mount just moves.

Matthew
2007-05-30, 04:15 PM
I don't think so, but it could well be the case that a Mounted Character can use a Charge Action to propel both Mount and Mounted, but I think it's a bit of a stretch. There's nothing about the status of the Mount when the Mounted uses the Charge Action, but there is about the status of the Mounted when the Mount Charges. This rather implies that whilst the latter is possible, the former is not.
I rather doubt that a Mounted Character is not considered to be charging when the Mount is, but it is one way to read it.

Either way it works, it is horribly unclear.

Dausuul
2007-05-30, 04:26 PM
I don't think so, but it could well be the case that a Mounted Character can use a Charge Action to propel both Mount and Mounted, but I think it's a bit of a stretch. There's nothing about the status of the Mount when the Mounted uses the Charge Action, but there is about the status of the Mounted when the Mount Charges. This rather implies that whilst the latter is possible, the former is not.
I rather doubt that a Mounted Character is not considered to be charging when the Mount is, but it is one way to read it.

Either way it works, it is horribly unclear.

The rules as written place no restrictions on what a mounted character can do. It does not say you can't charge; therefore, by RAW, you can. It does say, however, that you use your mount's movement speed, and your mount uses its action to move. So far, it all seems pretty straightforward to me.

Where it gets sticky is that this would technically preclude your mount from doing anything except moving. So the mount couldn't charge at all, regardless of what you decide to do. There is obviously an intent that your mount can do things besides move, but the rules don't spell out how that works in any clear and consistent fashion.

Matthew
2007-05-30, 05:08 PM
Well, absence of evidence isn't evidence, but I see what you mean. I wouldn't be inclined to use that interpretation, but the whole thing is a hell of a mess, so I'd have to really think things through in any case.

Either:

Mount uses Charge Action and Mounted uses Charge Action = Successful Charge

or

Mount uses Charge Action and Mounted uses Standard Attack Action = Successful Charge

but I don't think:

Mount uses Move Action and Mounted uses Charge Action = Successful Charge

It is possible, though.

Person_Man
2007-05-31, 02:28 PM
Well if Matthew and Fax can't come to an agreement about the rules, then you know there's a problem.

kpenguin, might I suggest the Cavalier, Halfling Outrider, or Kishi Charger prestige classes. They specifically grant you a full attack as part of a mounted charge. In particular, a Ranger 6/Halfling Outrider X seems to be almost perfect for what you want to do (though sadly, it requires Mounted Archery as a pre-req).

Also, Leap Attack specifically requires that "you cover at least 10 feet of horizontal distance with your jump" which means YOU clearly have to be the one jumping, not your horse. I even emailed Cust Serv and specifically asked if Leap Attack can be used as part of a mounted charge, and they said no. Though Cust Serv is often wrong, it seems in this case that the text of the feat is clear. Besides, with Spirited Charge and a lance wielded two handed, you're already getting a +6/-1 Power Attack bonus.

JaronK
2007-05-31, 02:34 PM
Of course, you could always do the supermount thing...

But anyway, if you're going to do two weapon fighting with high crit range weapons, get thee to Blood in the Water, either via the Martial Stance feat or a level of Warblade.

JaronK

Fax Celestis
2007-05-31, 02:38 PM
Well if Matthew and Fax can't come to an agreement about the rules, then you know there's a problem.

How true is that?

NEO|Phyte
2007-05-31, 02:40 PM
But anyway, if you're going to do two weapon fighting with high crit range weapons, get thee to Blood in the Water, either via the Martial Stance feat or a level of Warblade.

I concur, BitW is the proverbial win in regards to two/multiweapon fighting with high crit range weapons.

kpenguin
2007-06-01, 12:33 AM
Alright, since the game is probably only going up to level 10 and we're going to start at around lvl 5 or 6, I'm thinking of taking the Natural Bond (Complete Adventurer) feat to get that mount early. I'm also thinking of taking the Wild Plains Outrider class because of the animal companion progression, skill points, and ability to share hide with your mount (kind of).

Matthew
2007-06-06, 09:36 PM
Well if Matthew and Fax can't come to an agreement about the rules, then you know there's a problem.

How true is that?
True enough, it would seem... Where is that Beholder?

Anywho, I had a thought about this the other day, which I thought might be worth adding into the dead ended discussion. It is important that the Mount and the Rider act on the same initiative (a normally impossible thing). So, I think their actions have to overlap. With that in mind, I think now that the most straight forward interpretation is for a Charge to be successful, both the Mount and Rider should be using the Charge Action. It's not RAW, but it seems to make the most sense.
I would expect that all the Feats that require the Character to be Charging or using the Charge Action would then be valid, but only under those conditions. Any further thoughts?

kpenguin
2007-06-06, 09:58 PM
I believe that a mount acts on its rider's initiative count unless the mount is intelligent. Since I'm going for a normal clawfoot mount, it shouldn't be a problem.

Matthew
2007-06-06, 10:05 PM
Interesting. Any idea where the rule that is the source for that belief may be found?

kpenguin
2007-06-06, 11:21 PM
From the SRD:



Horses in Combat

Heavy warhorses, light warhorses and warponies can serve readily as combat steeds. Light horses, ponies, and heavy horses, however, are frightened by combat. If you don’t dismount, you must make a DC 20 Ride check each round as a move action to control such a horse. If you succeed, you can perform a standard action after the move action. If you fail, the move action becomes a full round action and you can’t do anything else until your next turn.

Your mount acts on your initiative count as you direct it. You move at its speed, but the mount uses its action to move.

A horse (not a pony) is a Large creature and thus takes up a space 10 feet (2 squares) across. For simplicity, assume that you share your mount’s space during combat.

I assume that it applies to non-horses as well.

Dizlag
2007-06-06, 11:22 PM
Matthew,

I agree with your assessment in that both the rider and mount would be considered charging. Thus, all the feats and such would apply.

From the Mounted Combat (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#mountedCombat) section of the SRD.



Combat while Mounted

With a DC 5 Ride check, you can guide your mount with your knees so as to use both hands to attack or defend yourself. This is a free action.

When you attack a creature smaller than your mount that is on foot, you get the +1 bonus on melee attacks for being on higher ground. If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only make a single melee attack. Essentially, you have to wait until the mount gets to your enemy before attacking, so you can’t make a full attack. Even at your mount’s full speed, you don’t take any penalty on melee attacks while mounted.

If your mount charges, you also take the AC penalty associated with a charge. If you make an attack at the end of the charge, you receive the bonus gained from the charge. When charging on horseback, you deal double damage with a lance.

You can use ranged weapons while your mount is taking a double move, but at a -4 penalty on the attack roll. You can use ranged weapons while your mount is running (quadruple speed), at a -8 penalty. In either case, you make the attack roll when your mount has completed half its movement. You can make a full attack with a ranged weapon while your mount is moving. Likewise, you can take move actions normally.


Again, notice my emphasis in the above quote. It would seem both mount and rider are "connected" in this case when the mount is charging. The rider gets all the bennies and negatives from his mount charging. I would rule as well that the rider could make a charge action while his mount moves up to double movement for the charge. Also, a "Ride-By-Attack" could NOT be made as part of a charge action because during a charge (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#charge) you cannot move after your attack. But, we all know that anyways. :smallcool:

Dizlag

kpenguin
2007-06-06, 11:26 PM
um... no

From the SRD:


Ride-By Attack [General]
Prerequisites

Ride 1 rank, Mounted Combat.

Benefit

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

A fighter may select Ride-By Attack as one of his fighter bonus feats.

A charge is the only time you get ride-by attack.

Matthew
2007-06-06, 11:49 PM
Kpenguin: Does that quotation support your view that intelligent mounts act on their own initiative?

Dizlag: So, what do you think about a Mount Charging, whilst the Character uses a Move Action to (do something) and then a Standard Action to Attack? I'm thinking he technically counts as Charging, but hasn't used the Charge Action, so cannot use Feats that stipulate he does (such as Ride By Attack and Spirited Charge).

kpenguin
2007-06-06, 11:54 PM
Kpenguin: Does that quotation support your view that intelligent mounts act on their own initiative?

I believe that the DMG mentioned something of the sort. *scurries off to check*

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-06-07, 04:09 AM
Mounts act on the riders initiative or in case of intelligent (2+ Int) mounts I guess you could say that rider and mount act on the same initiative.

If you (the rider) want to charge while mounted you have to use the charge action and your mount would be charging as well.
The mount could charge while you do something else, but you cannot charge without having the mount charge as well.

The mounted combat rules are obviously written for the player (and assumes an animal as a mount), but they do not place any restriction on the mounts actions, such as preventing it from charging while the rider sit backs and polishes his sword etc.
This does not mean that the rider can impart feats on the mount while not taking the action required by the feat, such as in the case of Ride-by Attack.

For additional notes on mounted combat I recommend the RotG article series (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/arch/rg).

Matthew
2007-06-07, 06:21 AM
Good point. I should have taken a look at those earlier. You would agree that the Rider, when not using the Charge Action, gains the benefits outlined in the Mounted Combat Section when making a Standard Attack Action at the end of the Mount's Charge, though?

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-06-07, 07:09 AM
Yes, I would. Further elaboration and clarification would of course have been nice, but I think they rules are reasonably clear or easy to interpret in a sensible way in this case.

Matthew
2007-06-07, 07:30 AM
I would say the rules are reasonably easy to interpret, but, in the context of other D&D 3.x rules, I would say they are unreasonably unclear! I'm probably just overlooking all the other confusing incidents that have been answered by Errata or the FAQ, though. :smallwink:

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-06-07, 07:56 AM
I'm probably just overlooking all the other confusing incidents that have been answered by Errata or the FAQ, though. :smallwink:

I think so :smalltongue:

Or maybe I am just having a "glass half full" day. :smallamused:

BardicDuelist
2007-06-07, 08:10 AM
On the issue of intelligent mounts:

They act at the same time as the rider. I'm not sure whose initiative modifier would be used, but the "unit" acts at the same time (so as to not allow a rider to move with the mount, jump off and move again in the same round).

I think this was covered in the 3.0 eratta (which would be valid unless expressly contradicted by a 3.5 source), but I may be mistaken.

Dizlag
2007-06-07, 09:39 AM
kpenguin: I had a brainfart there for a moment about Ride-By-Attack. Thanks for pointing that out to me.

Yeah, the Rules of the Game clears this all up. I can't believe I forgot to read those before as well. Thanks for reminding me Lord Silvanos. Hahaha

Part Four (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050215a) of the RotG explains charging while mounted as just the same as on foot but you use your mount's speed for movement. Now, after reading that is doesn't specifically state your mount is "charging" but just moving. What I'm getting at is, do you think the mount would get the -2 AC / +2 attack when a rider takes the charge action? If I choose not to let my mount attack during a charge, the mount shouldn't be penalized for just moving.

It seems like there are two cases here ... a mount charges a foe, ending it's move next to the foe like someone on foot would do and then the rider gets an attack as if he/she was charging. Another, is a rider using the charge action and ONLY using the movement of the mount.

One more question, something to think about and not clear in the SRD or RotG articles ... during a "Ride-By-Attack", would a mount get an attack as well or just the rider? My ruling would be only the rider would get an attack because the rider is using the mount to move and not to attack. What do you all think?

On intelligent mounts: They are treated as an ally and use the Aggressive Mounts rules in Part Two (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050201a). And yes, they do act on the same initiative.

Dizlag

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-06-07, 11:54 AM
One more question, something to think about and not clear in the SRD or RotG articles ... during a "Ride-By-Attack", would a mount get an attack as well or just the rider? My ruling would be only the rider would get an attack because the rider is using the mount to move and not to attack. What do you all think?


If the rider uses the charge action the mount has to do the same. If the mount is just double moving it is not charging and the rider is not charging either.

It is hard to find a feat that allows an attack in the middle of a charge.
If the mount had ride by attack it would be possible, but the prerequisites may be hard to meet.

Matthew
2007-06-07, 11:56 AM
I would tend to agree. If the Rider Charges, so must the Mount, but not vice versa.

The Mount would, of course, not benefit from taking Ride By Attack, unless itself Riding something...

Charity
2007-06-07, 12:17 PM
I would tend to agree. If the Rider Charges, so must the Mount, but not vice versa.

The Mount would, of course, not benefit from taking Ride By Attack, unless itself Riding something...

I think that might be a different sort of 'riding' Matthew.

Matthew
2007-06-07, 12:50 PM
Arggh, images of promiscuous Dragon Mounts taking the Ride By Attack Feat exploding in my head....