Mounted Combat: Handle Animal to attack or not?

[jodyjohnson]

Odds are Skip covers this in Article 3 next week.

Looks like I lost that bet.

Given Skip didn't list a Handle Animal check as a Move Action one performs while mounted I'd grant that War training is sufficient to direct a mount to attack (as no action) and the Ride check is there to have the rider attack in addition. Just as you do not need any Ride skill to use the mounts movement. Handle Animal is just a bonus (for the synergy) and used to train the animal for war originally.

Which leaves the move action for directing a trained animal to non-mount animals. Animal companions are directed as a free action (with a +4 bonus from Link). Paladin mounts and familiars have Int 3+ and can be directed by speech as a free action (or even no action due to Empathic Link)

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Looking it over, I'd say that a Handle Animal check is indeed required while riding, if you want your mount to attack. The big kicker, IMO, is that it takes a move action to do this. Rangers and Druids can do it as a free action, and a paladin's mount is smart enough that it's not necessary, but mounted fighters lose out a bit. No more Move Actions while also moving, if you want your mount to attack.

It is a bit ambiguous, but I would allow the rider to make that Handle Animal check while the mount is moving. The Ride check to direct the mount is a free action.

This does mean that you may not swap targets for the mount and still get a full iterative attack for the rider.

By my reading of the RAW, yes, the Handle Animal check is required. I think this was just an overlooked detail and the Ride check should be sufficient. And the Ride skill should call that out explicitly. Handle Animal seems more intended for training the animals, and directing already trained attack dogs and such.

 

[TheEvil]

It would have been nice if Skip had spelled it out explicitely. Granted, it wouldn't have changed any minds and would have lead to more calls that Skip doesn't know what he is talking about...

I suppose it isn't that suprising that he DIDN'T address it...