Mounts and mounted combat

[StoneAxe]

Full Attacks

I believe that the reason that you make all ranged attacks at the middle of your move is to allow for a simple method of applying range bonuses and penalties.

 

[kreynolds]

Sure you could swing your dagger 4 times while you're moving, but unless your target is really, really big, it's not going to be in range for the whole move..

Exactly, which I already stated is why I don't agree with his interpretation. The end result doesn't make any sense, as range doesn't make a bit of a difference with ranged attacks.

 

[Vinyafod]

Exactly, which I already stated is why I don't agree with his interpretation. The end result doesn't make any sense, as range doesn't make a bit of a difference with ranged attacks.

Range does matter. Rangeincrements! To stay with the Dagger having a 10ft. increment it can make a whole lot of a difference how far your mount moves.

It is clear that could throw 4 Daggers while your mount is moving. The fact that the PHB says the attack takes place after half of the mounts move is for simplification I think. In order to have a simply rule of thumb for calculating range increments. Think of it.
You let your mount run (let's assume medium load, light warhorse) thats 160 feet for that round. Now you do a full attack action (let's assume 4 attacks) with your shortbow. Your target ist at 200 feet distance at the start of your round.
If you use the PHB rule you shoot all four arrows at 120 feet distance to your target. Easy and fast to calculate.

Think of the math you'll do when calculating the distance to your targets if you spread out the shots over that whole distances moved.
First shot at 20ft., next at 60ft., third at 100ft and at 140ft the last? Not hard to calculate but slowing down the game. With your shortbow you'll have 4 shots at 4 diffenrent attackmodifiers due to the rangeincrement.

 

[Artoomis]

Exactly, which I already stated is why I don't agree with his interpretation. The end result doesn't make any sense, as range doesn't make a bit of a difference with ranged attacks.

Interpretation??

It's not an interpretation - it's the rules.

Now if you think the rules should be changed, well, then, that's a different conversation all together.

By the rules, if your mount is moving more than 5' you get one melee attack. You could instead take all your ranged attacks, but you roll these attacks at mid-movement for the mount. These are the rules.

Of course, you are free to change them to whatever makes sense to you, but, again, that's a different conversation.

In either case you could take one attack plus a move-equivalent action, as the mount is providing your movement. That's the rules. No interpretation.

 

[kreynolds]

Interpretation??

Yes. I think that's your interpretation. Is there something wrong with me disagreeing with you?

It's not an interpretation - it's the rules.

I disagree. Your interpretation doesn't make much sense, as I already illustrated above.

Now if you think the rules should be changed, well, then, that's a different conversation all together.

Why are you getting all bent out of shape? Simple because I disagree, pointing out the flaws in your argument, now I am simply changing the rules? If you don't want to participate in a discussion, then don't.

By the rules, if your mount is moving more than 5' you get one melee attack.

It also states that you can guide your horse with your knees, thus use both hands "to attack or defend yourself", and it later states you can take a full attack action, which uses both hands.

Of course, you are free to change them to whatever makes sense to you, but, again, that's a different conversation.

Of course, you are welcome to your opinion, but again, I simply disagree with you, for the aforementioned reasons.

In either case you could take one attack plus a move-equivalent action, as the mount is providing your movement. That's the rules. No interpretation.

Wrong. That is not your only option. It also states that you can take a full-attack action. Why are you ignoring this?

 

[kreynolds]

It is clear that could throw 4 Daggers while your mount is moving. The fact that the PHB says the attack takes place after half of the mounts move is for simplification I think.

I know. I already addressed this.

 

[Artoomis]

Wrong. That is not your only option. It also states that you can take a full-attack action. Why are you ignoring this?

I am not stating opinion anywhere. I am stating the rules as written, without opinion or interpretation. Just the facts.

You are taking the "full attack action" statement out of context. It applies to ranged weapons only, not melee weapons. Fact. See below.

Once again:

Fact 1: Addressing melee combat:

"If you mount moves more than 5', you can only make a partial attack. Essentially, you have to wait until the mount gets to your enemy before attacking, so you can't make a full attack."

Fact 2: Addressing Ranged combat

"..In either case you make the attack roll when your mount has completed half its movement. You can even exercise the full attack option while your mount is moving..."

There really is just no way to reasonably read the rules and come to your conclusion. In fact, I'm not sure how it could have been written any clearer.

You are free to disagree, of course, but you are way out in left field on this one.

 

[Artoomis]

When you guide with your knees you get both hands free - this lets you use a bow, load a crossbow, use a shield, use two weapons, etc. It does not do anything about one attack vs. a full attack action.

I wish it did, but it does not.

 

[kreynolds]

When you guide with your knees you get both hands free - this lets you use a bow, load a crossbow, use a shield, use two weapons, etc.

And you can't use two weapons unless you can take a full-attack action, and it states, within this poorly organized and worded passage, that you can take a full attack action. Perhaps the error is the mentioning of the full attack action. That, I could understand, but it makes no sense how you can take a full-attack action for ranged and not melee, especially given how abstract attacking on a horse is treated anyway.

 

[kreynolds]

I am not stating opinion anywhere. I am stating the rules as written, without opinion or interpretation. Just the facts.

This is how it works; You state what you believe the rules mean. I agree or disagree. If I disagree, then I am disagreeing with your opinion as to what the rules mean. Are you claiming you are infallible? That there is no possible chance that you could be wrong? If so, then you're finished with this discussion, as you are not having a discussion anyway.

You are taking the "full attack action" statement out of context. it applies to ranged weapons only, not melee weapons.

Which doesn't make any sense what-so-ever, which is why I'm going with my interpretation. I don't think I'm taking the statement out of context. I think I'm piecing together a poorly worded passage.

There really is just no way to reasonably read the rules and come to your conclusion.

If it doesn't make any sense at all, then there must be another answer. If there's another answer that makes more sense, then its possible that answer could be the right one. I could be wrong, and I never said that I knew for certain, 100%, I was right. I simply haven't been convinced by your argument.

You are free to disagree, of course, but you are way out in left field on this one.

There's that infallible thing again. Come on, dude. If you don't want to discuss this, then don't.