Mounted Charge [was this legal per R.A.W.?]

[Felix]

...the "twink" talk was getting under my skin...

It's not twinkish how you've built your character, but instead somewhat silly what you did all in one round. Rather, what your DM let you do in one round.

No one ever said our party rogue was twinked just because he put all his combat abilities into the shortbow.

Specialization /= Twink.
Bending or breaking rules combined with specialization renders twinkage.

 

[Greylock]

Specialization /= Twink.
Bending or breaking rules combined with specialization renders twinkage.

Coolness. I am still trying to wrap my head around 3.x combat rules. I don't claim to understand them well enough to bend/break them. Hence, my OP. I actually want to avoid mistakes, and it seemed like my got off a lot of actions.

Like I said in the OP, if it works, YAY! but if'n it don't, I want to know now before I make it a habit.

 

[frankthedm]

Frank...are you telling me that you believe Ride-By Attack was meant to force an Overrun check every time it's used?

I was only posting about the RAW. The posts nothing to do with what I believe, the OP was asking for RAW.

I suppose I'm guilty of assuming here. It has never occurred to me that perhaps the feat was not meant to allow exactly what it would seem to, to attack while riding by your foe.Another question: Do you truly believe that the OP's scenario is a "min maxed twink"?

Honestly the RAW is unforgiving on RBA and overrun, but that is what you asked for. Most DMs probably wouldn't split hairs to this level. Myself, i keep this stuff mentally prepared to stop min maxed twinks dead in thier tracks.

1. I was only talking about the RAW as i knew it. It is not surprising it needed to be FAQed over to be more usable.
2. I said why i know the techinicalties of the RAW on RBA. I did not call Greylock a twink.
3. I was off on the 3.5 definition of charging by a notch. I am glad though the random determination of "closest" is in the RAW, since to me "Charging" is about getting to your foe, not picking advantagous movement-IMHO.
4. Excuse me if the RAW is non lucid! just kidding.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

1. I was only talking about the RAW as i knew it. It is not surprising it needed to be FAQed over to be more usable.
2. I said why i know the techinicalties of the RAW on RBA. I did not call Greylock a twink.
3. I was off on the 3.5 definition of charging by a notch. I am glad though the random determination of "closest" is in the RAW, since to me "Charging" is about getting to your foe, not picking advantagous movement-IMHO.
4. Excuse me if the RAW is non lucid! just kidding.

Fair enough. Your earlier posts seemed to imply (to me) that you believed the OP was a twink for wanting Ride-By Attack to allow one to ride by and attack. I'm glad I was mistaken, and that wasn't what was meant at all.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Finally, I'd say that any talk of the mount NOT getting it's charge attack would hinge on terminology that suggests that to perform a ride-by attack, you have to dismount.

I think it's clear that is not true, and that therefore references to "you" charging and "you" moving within the feat MUST apply to the mount, if not as well, then instead.

 

[kjenks]

Main FAQ:

With the rules erratum that prohibits overruns as part
of a charge, the Ride-By Attack feat is now nearly useless.
You must use the charge action to use the Ride-By Attack
feat, and that requires you to travel in a straight line
toward your target. Using the example in the Player's
Handbook, this would appear to rather specifically mean
along a line from your entire square (or squares if riding a
horse or other mount with a space of 10 feet or greater), to
the target square. Ride-By Attack allows you to continue
moving along the straight line of the charge after your
attack. This would have to mean that at some point you
would enter the square (or squares) of the creature you
attacked. (At least I cannot conceive of any other way it
could be done). Since you cannot enter your foe’s space
unless the creature is already dead, Ride-By Attack is now
pretty much useless if you can’t also overrun the foe. Some
have suggested that you could charge in a manner that
would not bring you through the target creature’s square
(or squares). To do so, you would not be charging directly
toward the target and likely not moving by the shortest
route (also a charge requirement) or attacking it from the
first possible square (another charge requirement). In any
of these cases, you would be breaking the rules for a charge.
Am I wrong about any of this?

No, you’ve got it about right.
When using the Ride-By attack feat, you must conduct your
charge so that you move in a straight line toward the closest
square from which it is possible to attack your chosen foe, so
long as it is a square that allows you to attack and then continue
on in the straight line of the charge. You still must attack your
foe the moment you reach that square. (Although the feat
description doesn’t say so, you and your mount also must move
at least 5 feet after you make your attack to get the benefit of
the feat.) This is a special rule for charging when using the
Ride-By Attack feat. Note that the Flyby Attack feat (discussed
in the previous question) does not require you to move in a
straight line. You merely make a single move and take another
standard action at some point during that move.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

That seems like a pretty wierd way for a feat to work.

House-rules, away!

 

[Greylock]

When using the Ride-By attack feat, you must conduct your
charge so that you move in a straight line toward the closest
square from which it is possible to attack your chosen foe, so
long as it is a square that allows you to attack and then continue
on in the straight line of the charge. You still must attack your
foe the moment you reach that square. (Although the feat
description doesn’t say so, you and your mount also must move
at least 5 feet after you make your attack to get the benefit of
the feat.) This is a special rule for charging when using the
Ride-By Attack feat. Note that the Flyby Attack feat (discussed
in the previous question) does not require you to move in a
straight line. You merely make a single move and take another
standard action at some point during that move.

I am satisfied with that, as it's how I've already been using RBA. Makes complete sense, and does not render RBA useless, as requiring the Overrun rule does. It simply compensates for the Charge attack not taking adequate consideration of Mounted Charge. But cripes, Charge and Mounted Charge should have two completely different rule sets in the first place. Aerial combat has so many official rules and errata. Is it used that much more than plain ol' snortin' horse attack?