Mounted Combat and Full Attack With Bow

[jeffman]

I'm weak on the mounted combat rules.

A mounted PC starts his round in the threatened area of an enemy. His horse does a withdrawal action to not provoke an AoO from leaving the threatened square. He decides to take the full round to rapid shot a the opponent he's moving away from with his bow.

Besides taking -4 to his attack rolls from his mount moving, would he provoke an AoO from using his ranged weapon?

Thanks

 

[Hypersmurf]

Since "you make the attack roll when your mount has completed half its movement", I'd check at that point to see if you're in a threatened square. If yes, AoO provoked. If no, no problem.

-Hyp.

 

[brehobit]

Since "you make the attack roll when your mount has completed half its movement", I'd check at that point to see if you're in a threatened square. If yes, AoO provoked. If no, no problem.

-Hyp.

I'd would however argue that the rider would provoke when he moved away. The horse may be withdrawing, but the rider isn't. That provokes:

Moving

Moving out of a threatened square usually provokes an attack of opportunity from the threatening opponent. There are two common methods of avoiding such an attack—the 5-foot step and the withdraw action.

The rider is moving and not withdrawing. So unless something else prevents the AoO, the rider would provoke. I realize this isn't exactly what the OP was asking, but I think it is what he was trying to get at.

Mark

 

[Hypersmurf]

I'd would however argue that the rider would provoke when he moved away. The horse may be withdrawing, but the rider isn't.

So, what happens when the horse takes the Withdraw action?

The square you start out in is not considered threatened by any opponent you can see...

So we know that:
a/ The rider is considered to occupy the same square as the horse; therefore the square the horse starts out in is the square the rider starts out in.
b/ The square the horse starts out in is not considered threatened by any opponent the horse can see.

Combining a/ and b/ yields:
The square the rider starts out in is not considered threatened by any opponent the horse can see.

So if the horse can see the opponent, the rider is in an unthreatened square when the horse begins to Withdraw. The rider would only provoke an AoO for leaving a threatened square, which he is not doing.

(This is all complicated by the fact that the horse - and therefore the rider - occupies mor than one square, but that's an issue even if the horse had no rider.)

The key point is that what Withdraw affects is the threatened status of the square (and thus, indirectly, the creature), rather than the creature directly.

-Hyp.

 

[jeffman]

Rereading The Rules is Useful

Since "you make the attack roll when your mount has completed half its movement", I'd check at that point to see if you're in a threatened square. If yes, AoO provoked. If no, no problem.

-Hyp.

Hm, when I first read that section of the rules, I thought that was referring to when making a single attack. Now I am not so sure. It seems weird that at the middle of the horse's movement the character suddenly takes two shots.

Do people really think that the horse taking the withdraw action is not sufficient for the rider to not provoke AoO from the horse moving him out of a threatened? That thought hadn't crossed my mind.

 

[Jhulae]

I'd would however argue that the rider would provoke when he moved away. The horse may be withdrawing, but the rider isn't. That provokes:



The rider is moving and not withdrawing. So unless something else prevents the AoO, the rider would provoke. I realize this isn't exactly what the OP was asking, but I think it is what he was trying to get at.

Mark

That's just such a bizarre ruling, since the rider and mount are moving together. I'm glad I don't play under such odd rulings as that.

 

[Artoomis]

Hmmm...

"Your mount acts on your initiative count as you direct it. You move at its speed, but the mount uses its action to move."

"If your mount charges, you also take the AC penalty associated with a charge. If you make an attack at the end of the charge, you receive the bonus gained from the charge."

"You can use ranged weapons while your mount is taking a double move, but at a -4 penalty on the attack roll. You can use ranged weapons while your mount is running (quadruple speed), at a -8 penalty. In either case, you make the attack roll when your mount has completed half its movement. You can make a full attack with a ranged weapon while your mount is moving. Likewise, you can take move actions normally"

This is interesting. It appears that you take the penalties/bonuses associated with the mounts movement. It also does appear the the attack roll comes at the halfway mark, so definately no AoO from shooting the bow, unless you are being threatened at that point.

However, do you get to get the best of both worlds here and avoid the movement-generated AoO AND get to attack?

That depends.

1. No AoO and an attack: The horse movement does not provoke (edit for Hyp: or, if you like, the "square" is unthreatened because the mount is withdrawing) and therefore you are okay. The attack does not provoke because the attack is not rolled until halfway through the movement. This one "feels" like a loophole because of poorly written mounted combat rules.

2. No AoO and no attack: Since you have to abide by pros and cons of the horse's movement (witness the -2 AC and +2 attack for charge), you get no attack if the horse withdraws, as you, too, are withdrawing. This one is a little weak as you normally get move actions when the horse is moving, but, well, it's supportable, just weak.

3. AoO and attack: The horse indeed provokes no AoO but the rider is not withdrawing and therefore provokes no AoO as he is leaving a threatenend square (for him).

There you have it. Three possibilities, all supported by the rules. Number one may the most technically correct for rules laywers, while number 3 feels most like the intent of the rules. It really seems wrong to be able to withdraw and still get full actions, but, then, the mounted combat rules are pretty weak.

Once again, more than one right answer. This is why this game has DMs.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Three possibilities, all supported by the rules.

I'd say No AoO, and attack just fine, but not for the same reason as your number 1...

Whether or not the horse's movement provokes is irrelevant. For example, if your horse has ranks in Tumble, and uses the skill to move past an opponent without provoking an AoO, this would not protect you from provoking an AoO for leaving a square threatened by that opponent.

The reason you incur no AoO is because the horse's Withdraw action causes the square you're in to not be considered threatened, so you can leave it with no problem. The fact that this also causes the horse to not provoke an AoO has no bearing on whether or not you do.

-Hyp.

 

[brehobit]

I'd say No AoO, and attack just fine, but not for the same reason as your number 1...

Whether or not the horse's movement provokes is irrelevant. For example, if your horse has ranks in Tumble, and uses the skill to move past an opponent without provoking an AoO, this would not protect you from provoking an AoO for leaving a square threatened by that opponent.

The reason you incur no AoO is because the horse's Withdraw action causes the square you're in to not be considered threatened, so you can leave it with no problem. The fact that this also causes the horse to not provoke an AoO has no bearing on whether or not you do.

-Hyp.

Hyp,
I'll agree that what you've stated is RAW, but I really don't think the intent is to make it so that no one threatens the square because you are withdrawing. I mean, how long would that last? Consider the following:

XYZ
Where X is a baddy with 10' reach and Y and Z are two PCs.
Say Y readys an action on Z moving 5' back. Z withdraws. In the middle of that withdraw (5' back) Y withdraws. Is the claim that if Y withdraws through Z's space no AoO is granted as X doesn't threaten Z's old space?

My rule of thumb is that the mount and the rider are two beings for all AoO issues. Both provoke on a move which would provoke. If you want to withdraw, you both have to or the one that doesn't (usually the rider) provokes.

 

[brehobit]

That's just such a bizarre ruling, since the rider and mount are moving together. I'm glad I don't play under such odd rulings as that.

I'm actually pretty sure it is both right and balanced. I think Hyper would agree that in normal movement if the mount's movement provokes, both the mount and the rider draw an AoO. To me it is the same principle.

Mark