Fast Dismount & Full Attack?

[StreamOfTheSky]

I understand if you were mounted, moved while mounted more than 5 feet, and then fast dismounted, you could full attack. My question: What if you start your round standing next to your mount? can you fast mount it, and then full attack with the +1 bonus for higher ground? I assume you can, but what about: your mount moves up towards you (does it matter if it's a single or double move, maybe even charge attack on the enemy?), can you fast mount as above, full-attacking with the +1? Cause a unicorn mount goring the BBEG, followed by the PC hopping on it's back and full attacking with higher ground would be pretty bad-a@@.

 

[Caliban]

I understand if you were mounted, moved while mounted more than 5 feet, and then fast dismounted, you could full attack.

You cannot. See my first post.

My question: What if you start your round standing next to your mount? can you fast mount it, and then full attack with the +1 bonus for higher ground?

Yes, as long as your mount doesn't move more than 5 feet.

I assume you can, but what about: your mount moves up towards you (does it matter if it's a single or double move, maybe even charge attack on the enemy?), can you fast mount as above, full-attacking with the +1? Cause a unicorn mount goring the BBEG, followed by the PC hopping on it's back and full attacking with higher ground would be pretty bad-a@@.

Yes.

 

[TheGogmagog]

I agree with those that conclude you cannot move more than 5' on your mount and then full round attack. The odd thing I find is that it doesn't take a move action. So it might allow some other full round action, or you could fast dismount and then move and then make a single attack.

I'd probably rule you can only take a standard action, but have to admit it is outside RAW.

 

[Dross]

It's silly, though. You can't make a full attack while mounted after you've moved, but once you're not mounted, that doesn't seem to be a restriction anymore. Heh.

Actually I would think that the "it takes time to get there" part of the rules would cover this situation (no full attack). That's how I would run it.

The question I see is: mount 5' step, rider fast dismounts then 5' step then full attack.

Would you allow this?

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

You cannot. See my first post.

Sorry, I meant "could not," typing error.

 

[moritheil]

And people who insist on presenting arguements like that with a straight face is why I find the "RAW only, context is meaningless" arguements so "distasteful" (to borrow a phrase) these days.

"Insert multi-paragraph diatribe that bores even me."

Duly noted. Though you are, in fact, doing what I was doing in our previous conversation - disagreeing with someone who seeks to limit the scope of some rules based on their interpretation of when those rules apply. Some might call it ironic.

Now, an anal-retentive gamer could say that this restriction only applies to 'combat while mounted,' and if you're not mounted, then you can full attack regardless of how far you've moved. I mean, if you're not mounted, then you don't have a 'mount,' so it doesn't matter whether or not the horse next to you moved 5 ft. or 60.

Have you not used your move action, then?

 

[Caliban]

Duly noted. Though you are, in fact, doing what I was doing in our previous conversation

I don't think this is the same thing at all.

- disagreeing with someone who seeks to limit the scope of some rules based on their interpretation of when those rules imply.

This doesn't actually make any sense. Perhaps you meant "apply"?

Some might call it ironic.

You could call that that. Doesn't make it true.

 

[moritheil]

I don't think this is the same thing at all.

Last time, I objected to your dismissal of rules based on your interpretation of them as not applying to that scenario. This time, RW brought up a theoretical objection based on interpreting rules as not applying to this scenario, and you are not pleased with it.

I see parallels.

This doesn't actually make any sense. Perhaps you meant "apply"?

Yes. That's what I get for typing quickly!

 

[Caliban]

Last time, I objected to your dismissal of rules based on your interpretation of them as not applying to that scenario. This time, RW brought up a theoretical objection based on interpreting rules as not applying to this scenario, and you are not pleased with it.

I see parallels.

Last time, you called my point of view distasteful without actually addressing it. This is apparently acceptable.

I simply pointed out that you had ignored my point, and got a warning for it.

Forgive me if I don't actually find any useful parallels in the situation. I simply find it "distasteful".