A question about a mounted charge.

[Lord Pendragon]

So a fighter is mounted on a heavy warhorse, and wielding a lance. The lance is a reach weapon, meaning the fighter can attack opponents 10' away from the warhorse's space. The warhorse, on the other hand, has a standard 5' reach, and can only attack adjacent foes.

Now the fighter and mount charge a bugbear. The fighter will be in range to attack at 10'. Can the mount continue to move 5' so that it can attack as well, and both benefit from the charge? Or does one of the two of them have to give up an attack?

 

[jodyjohnson]

Movement stops when you make your attack so yes, you'd have to use a non-reach weapon to have both the mount and rider attack on a charge (unless they were attacking 2 different opponents each in range at the same position).

Skip said something about covering Ride-by in Movement article 6 so he may cover this in a few weeks.

 

[glass]

Movement stops when you make your attack so yes, you'd have to use a non-reach weapon to have both the mount and rider attack on a charge (unless they were attacking 2 different opponents each in range at the same position).

When mounted, you are considered to occupy all the squares your mount occupies and can attck from any of them. Just attack from the back of your mount with your lance, and you will come into range at the same time your mount does.

At least, I think so.


glass.

 

[robberbaron]

When mounted, you are considered to occupy all the squares your mount occupies and can attck from any of them. Just attack from the back of your mount with your lance, and you will come into range at the same time your mount does.

At least, I think so.

glass.

Makes sense to me.
Look at any picture of a knight charging. The lance extends a couple of feet in front of the horse's nose so they would reach the target split seconds apart.

 

[jodyjohnson]

In 3.0 space and reach rules that would exactly be the case (5x10 facing for mount, rider in rear half).

3.5 does not have the same space rules and the rider shares the space (in effect becomes 10x10). Under that set of conditions the user of a reach weapon does not threaten the area within 5' of the mount since he is also allowed to threaten the area 10' away in every direction (since there is no facing).

It wouldn't be totally 'broken' to allow the rider to shift to different quadrants of the horse but it would be the equivalent of adding front/back/sides back into the equation. Which also implies some sort of turning cost in movement.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

3.5 does not have the same space rules and the rider shares the space (in effect becomes 10x10). Under that set of conditions the user of a reach weapon does not threaten the area within 5' of the mount since he is also allowed to threaten the area 10' away in every direction (since there is no facing).

Exactly. I recall a previous post where Hypersmurf pointed out the same thing, that the fighter occupies the 10'x10' space, so you can't choose to be sitting "in the back squares" for instance.

What I want to say is that both can attack. Basically, it's the mount that's actually providing the movement for the charge. It is charging to the opponent, so it's movement stops when it gets into attack range. The rider gets a single attack at any point in the mount's movement, which it takes at 10' away, and also benefits from the charge.

That's what I want to say, but I'd like some verification.

 

[jodyjohnson]

I'd allow a rider to attack during a mount's charge but then he wouldn't get the advantage of charging himself since his 'movement' continued after his attack.

Basically: lance charge/no attack from mount, or reach melee/mount charge, or melee charge/mount charge (since both are in range at end of movement).

 

[FireLance]

That's what I want to say, but I'd like some verification.

I would allow both the mount and the rider to attack on a charge, even if they have different reach. I don't recall any rule that explicitly says this, though.

 

[dcollins]

3.5 does seem to allow only the one lance attack by its more abstract facing rules. Frankly, that seems more realistic, since I don't see any movies or re-enactments in which the horse charges and smacks someone with a hoof at the same time as they get lanced. That can come a round later when the knight draws a sword and gets in close melee.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Frankly, that seems more realistic, since I don't see any movies or re-enactments in which the horse charges and smacks someone with a hoof at the same time as they get lanced.

I'm not sure movies are a good indication of what's realistic. Indeed, I can't think of a single fantasy-based movie where the action didn't seem unrealistic in one way or another. The horses in particular, I hesitate to suggest, wouldn't be actual trained warhorses, nor is Hollywood interesting in trying to portray a hoof attack because it may or may not have occurred in a historical context.

As far as movies are concerned, you never see a mounted charge stop at its target either, and yet lacking Ride-By Attack, we have exactly that scenario in D&D.

FireLance, wasn't there a rule that said a rider could take a single melee attack at any point in the mount's movement? Would this not suggest that the rider could take his charge attack earlier in his mount's movement for a charge? Or was this in reference to something else, like double-moving?