Mounts and mounted combat

[kreynolds]

This same fighter sitting on a horse moves 20ft. to his target an can do a full attack action?
Is that what you're saying kreynolds?

According to Artoomis, the fighter can take a full attack action only if he is making ranged attacks. If he is making melee attacks, he only gets on attack. Basically, on horseback, the full attack action is exempt except for ranged attacks.

The way I read the passage on page 138, I interpret it and chalk it up to poor organization and wording. I'm trying to keep an open mind though, as Jotun made a good argument.

 

[kreynolds]

For melee weapons, if the mount moves more than 5', you only get one attack instead of a full attack action because you are not next to your opponent for the whole round.

True, but the concession given for ranged attacks using this interpretation is fubar'ed, as the target is not within the same range during the move. I can understand the argument that maybe that's what the -4 and -8 penalty are for, to possibly simulate the varying ranges between you and your target during the move of your mount, but even still, this hamstrings melee attacks for no apparent reason.

For ranged weapons, the above is not true because you don't need to be next to your opponent for the whole round to make a full attack with a ranged weapon. What this means is that if you don't move, but you are moving anyway (as in this case when you mount provides your movement), you can take a full attack action. For the sake of convenience (only one range, line of sight issues, etc.), all your attacks are rolled for at the point of mid-movement for the mount.

This, I get, and I somewhat concur, but it still doesn't explain the nerfing of mounted combat. From my perspective, this interpretation makes mounted combat jacked up enough that it must be wrong.

Perhaps I am wrong, but I would hope not. I'm hoping that the intent of the rules regarding mounted combat are on my side here, but that may not be the case.

 

[Murrdox]

I agree that this rule is completely nuts-o.

To my knowledge, this is the only time where they decided to insert a mechanic for allowing attacks WHILE moving, instead of before, after, or between.

Every other instance of moving while attacking involves either moving then attacking, attacking then moving, or in certain situations, moving, attacking, and moving again.

I believe what these mounted rules are TRYING to accomplish is the following:

A round lasts 6 seconds. You have a mounted archer (A), and a mounted swordsman (S), and their targets (T). The distance between them measured in -. Assume each attacker normally gets 3 attacks.

T - - - - - - - - - - A

T - - - - - - - - - - S

Now, both riders charge towards their target. Over the course of 6 seconds, A is allowed to fire arrows WHILE riding his horse. This means that over the course of 6 seconds, he can continuously attack. S, however, must spend a good portion of his time NOT attacking. Thus, when he gets next to his opponent, he doesn't have a full 6 seconds to swing his sword 3 times.

X represents when the riders attack the target.

T - - X - - X - - X - A

T X - - - - - - - - - S

The mechanic of using the "halfway" point for A is simply for convenience's sake. He's meant to be firing multiple arrows as he rides. IMO, this is broken, and doesn't make any sense, especially when part of your movement might be OUT of range of the target, for things like throwing weapons that don't go too far.

 

[Jotun]

So if shooting your arrows at the halfway causes problem like being out of range, what solution do you propose? In my games, I want to do more roleplaying and less table-consulting and mathematical computations. That's why just being quick and streamlined with the "fire at 1/2 distance" works well for me. Hey, if someone can come up with a fair and balanced way to do this that doesn't take very long, then I'm all for it. DND 3E isn't a perfect system, but it's a whole lot of fun and much better game than I could make up.

 

[Murrdox]

Jotun, I definitely agree with you on this one. I think when it comes to this rule and certain situations... I'd rule 0 them on an individual basis.

For example, an archer on horseback firing arrows at his foes as he gallops after them in hot pursuit (which is what I think this rule is meant to allow) would be just fine.

However, if you got into a situation where you have a hasted horse with horseshoes of speed, where the horse is going to move 200 feet, and the character is using throwing knives as his ranged weapon, I'd probably disallow the full attack.

However, I don't really see a time when something that crazy would come up. We rarely use mounted combat in my group.

For 90% of the cases, which will just be fighters shooting two or maybe three arrows as they ride, the 1/2 distance rule is just fine, and I'd just use it as is.

 

[Aithne]

We will be using mounted combat more as the group that I am playing with are mostly knights. Now I have read the rules and all of the posts. I am going to agree with the rules as written which is that the mounted swordsman gets one partial melee attack if the mount moves more than 5ft. That was the issue here for me.

Thanks!

Aithne

 

[dcollins]

My reading of the rules also agrees with Artoomis.

I even think it make total sense as a reasonable designer simplification. Melee attacks have to occur at the end of movement, so a half-action is taken away from you -- ranged attacks can occur throughout movement, so we pick the midpoint and resolve all attacks from there.

- "If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only make a partial melee attack." By implication, you can make a mounted melee full attack -- but only if your mount moves 5' or less.

- "You can use ranged weapons... You can even exercise the full attack action while your mount is moving." That option is definitely isolated in the ranged attacks section.


(As a side note, reading carefully, most of the ranged section presumes only a single shot. The "shoot at midpoint" clause comes before the option of a full attack is presented. Arguably the door might be open for a DM to interpolate mounted ranged full attacks equitably throughout the move, but that's not something I'd touch in play with a monkey-gripped polearm.)

 

[Endur]

Full Mounted Attack

The Cavalier's Best Ability (he gets at level 6 I think) is "Full Mounted Attack." Its the only way a mounted character can perform a full attack while the horse is moving.

That makes me wonder...is there a super-duper version of Spring Attack out there? Something like Strafe Attack?

 

[mikebr99]

Re: Full Mounted Attack

The Cavalier's Best Ability (he gets at level 6 I think) is "Full Mounted Attack." Its the only way a mounted character can perform a full attack while the horse is moving.

Doh!... things that make you go... Holy F**k!

Why did it take this long for this little tidbit to pop up?

Mike

 

[kreynolds]

Re: Full Mounted Attack

The Cavalier's Best Ability (he gets at level 6 I think) is "Full Mounted Attack." Its the only way a mounted character can perform a full attack while the horse is moving.

He can't make a full attack. He can attack as a standard action instead of a partial action. Unless there is errata (which I'm not aware of) he cannot attack using the full attack action.

But, after looking at the class, looks like I'm gonna have to concede on this one and admit that according to the rules, mounted combat does indeed suck. Man I hope that's something they fix (doubt they will though).