Mounts and mounted combat

[guido1999]

I just have to ask...what's the benefit of attacking as a standard action rather than a partial action, besides being able to take a move action (Which, if you are mounted, your mount is moving, not you)?

 

[kreynolds]

I just have to ask...what's the benefit of attacking as a standard action rather than a partial action, besides being able to take a move action (Which, if you are mounted, your mount is moving, not you)?

If you make a melee attack when your horse moves more than 5 feet, you do so with a partial action. Because a partial action does not include a move, you cannot take a move-equivalent action, such as get off your horse, after you make the attack. Your mount's movement does not count against you. Its moving. You aren't, but you're still limited to the partial action.

If making a melee attack when your mount moves more than 5-feet is a standard action, then you could attack and retrieve a potion from your backpack. If making a melee attack when your mount moves more than 5-feet is a partial action, you can't do anything after your attack, not even a move-equivalent.

Does this apply to ranged attacks? Not at all. Wierd, but that's it.

 

[pvandyck]

Our group also went rounds and rounds about this. We have an 8-page adjudication document (including all rules references we could find) about this.

In our group, it works like Artoomis says, too. However, I don't think mounted combat is as nerfed as kreynolds thinks. It's not great or even that cool for people who aren't geared for mounted combat, but when you are geared for mounted combat, it's cool.

You subsitute the move of the mount (which is much greater, for a horse) for your move. I've used this to be all over the battlefield, getting a single attack on anyone I chose. Remember, the mount can hustle, run or sprint all over the place for you, and you still get that one swing. If it moves more than a single move, it doesn't get it's attack (big deal).

Get a lance (which I have strapped to my horse, just in case) and you have automatic double damage with a charge. Not mention reach (which can get a little hairy, because of the horse taking up 2 squares, but we allow the lance to attack squares to the sides, not just in front of the horse - nothing says you can't, so...)

All melee attacks are at +1 for higher ground.

Combine these mundane tactics with the mounted-appropriate feats like Mounted Combat - Ride-by-attack, and high ride skill, and you can be very dangerous. Just not a Full Attacking dangerous. Which really, is okay. If you are fighting a high-level full attacking fighter, he'd have to ready an action (one swing) just to hit your ride-by-attacking, automatic-double-damaging, reach-weapon-wielding butt.

pvandyck

 

[Artoomis]

If you make a melee attack when your horse moves more than 5 feet, you do so with a partial action. Because a partial action does not include a move, you cannot take a move-equivalent action, such as get off your horse, after you make the attack. Your mount's movement does not count against you. Its moving. You aren't, but you're still limited to the partial action.

If making a melee attack when your mount moves more than 5-feet is a standard action, then you could attack and retrieve a potion from your backpack. If making a melee attack when your mount moves more than 5-feet is a partial action, you can't do anything after your attack, not even a move-equivalent.

Does this apply to ranged attacks? Not at all. Wierd, but that's it.

Not quite right, though this time there is a bit of room for interpretation.

"...a partial melee attack..." is what you get when attacking on horsebakc if the mount is moving. Note it most certainly does not say you are limited to a partial action, but uses a new term, "partial melee attack."

When I read the whole Mounted Combat section, I see that as meaning you get a single attack, which could be a charge or one single regular melee attack. This means you would still have a MEA aviable, unless you are charging. You might even argue a MEA is available even when charging, since the mount is providing the movement, but that might be stretching it a little.

The "Full Mounted Attack" being an attack as a standard action bit from the Cavalier is totally useless as written - it seems to me there was some explanation of that, but I don't know where, so I'll just start a new thread and ask, shall I?

 

[DrSpunj]

You subsitute the move of the mount (which is much greater, for a horse) for your move. I've used this to be all over the battlefield, getting a single attack on anyone I chose. Remember, the mount can hustle, run or sprint all over the place for you, and you still get that one swing. If it moves more than a single move, it doesn't get it's attack (big deal).

Get a lance (which I have strapped to my horse, just in case) and you have automatic double damage with a charge. Not mention reach (which can get a little hairy, because of the horse taking up 2 squares, but we allow the lance to attack squares to the sides, not just in front of the horse - nothing says you can't, so...)

All melee attacks are at +1 for higher ground.

Combine these mundane tactics with the mounted-appropriate feats like Mounted Combat - Ride-by-attack, and high ride skill, and you can be very dangerous. Just not a Full Attacking dangerous. Which really, is okay. If you are fighting a high-level full attacking fighter, he'd have to ready an action (one swing) just to hit your ride-by-attacking, automatic-double-damaging, reach-weapon-wielding butt.

I'll just throw in my 2 coppers here for the little guys. I'm currently playing a 2nd level Halfling Holy Warrior (BotR Paladin) marching up the Mounted Combat feat chain on a Riding Dog. So far I've only got Mounted Combat of course.

The only points I wanted to add were that using a Riding Dog (appropriate for Small PCs) means you lose the +1 for higher ground IMO if you're attacking a Medium-size opponent (since my 2'10" self on top of a Medium-sized Dog to me doesn't qualify as "higher ground") but it does kick in if attacking something smaller than Medium-size. Furthermore, you lose reach since Light Lances don't have reach.

These couple things don't take a lot of power away from the build, but they should be realized before someone goes this route.

The advantage of a Small PC on a Riding Dog? You can stay mounted almost all the time as the Dog can go almost everywhere the rest of the Medium-size PCs can (barring ladders, and when we faced this our DM allowed the use of a rope harness, though it didn't help in the midst of combat!). This lets you get the most of build if the entire campaign isn't centered around mounts like Aithne's is.

DrSpunj

 

[kreynolds]

Not quite right, though this time there is a bit of room for interpretation.

"...a partial melee attack..." is what you get when attacking on horsebakc if the mount is moving. Note it most certainly does not say you are limited to a partial action, but uses a new term, "partial melee attack."

The cavalier's ability, however, does state "partial action". I can say with quite a bit of confidence that it is the text in the PH that is in error by stating "partial melee attack", as such an action simply does not exhist.

The "Full Mounted Attack" being an attack as a standard action bit from the Cavalier is totally useless as written -

Actually, its not. It's just not as cool as the name of the ability implies. I'll explain further on the other thread.

 

[Artoomis]

The cavalier's ability, however, does state "partial action". I can say with quite a bit of confidence that it is the text in the PH that is in error by stating "partial melee attack", as such an action simply does not exhist.

While the misquoting of a PHB ruke in another WotC product is less than a convincing argument, I do agree that on this point there is room for rules interpretation. I think that, read as a whole, the mounted combat section intends to allow you a single melee attack from a moving mount, still leaving open the possibility for a move-equivalent action as well.

Given that partial actions will be gone in 3.5e, it will be interesting to see how this is re-phrased in the new PHB.

 

[Artoomis]

While the misquoting of a PHB rule in another WotC product is less than a convincing argument, I do agree that on this point there is room for rules interpretation. I think that, read as a whole, the mounted combat section intends to allow you a single melee attack from a moving mount, still leaving open the possibility for a move-equivalent action as well.

Given that partial actions will be gone in 3.5e, it will be interesting to see how this is re-phrased in the new PHB.

 

[Korin Tempest]

on the mounted melee.... has anyone considered that wotc probably intended, without actually stating, that the character is readying an attack for when the mount brings you into melee range with the target? if that is the case, which it probably is, you would only get the partial action/attack because you readied the action...
on the mounted range.... wotc probably wanted to simplify the math, for all of the attacks... during the course of the run, because of the timing of the attacks being spread out... yes you are firing as you're moving... basically, it's just averaging out the range penalties for each attack, so you don't have to worry about the math for both the iterative attack penalties and the various range penalties... this one i'm not definite on, but i wouldn't be surprised that that was what wotc intended... 3e for the most part has been about streamlining the abstract system, and i doubt you can get more streamlined than that..

just my two cents

 

[Barcode]

I believe Korin is on the money. It is the only interpretation that does not assume a massive inconsistency in either the PHB or S&F.

The Cavalier Full Mounted Attack (quite a misnomer since there is nothing full about the attack) ability is not a readied action, but is a normal, standard action that allows a MEA in the same turn.