Surprising Rule Synergy

[mvincent]

You can charge with a war-trained mount and get its attacks as well. You cannot do this with a non-war-trained mount. The non-war-trained mount can move and you can attack, but it cannot charge and have you attack.

Charging is listed under the special attacks section, so, the non-war-trained mount cannot charge because it cannot attack while ridden.

Your interpretation seems to imply that horses cannot charge without attacking (which isn't correct). The rules say:
"Charging is a special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action."
"After moving, you may make a single melee attack."

I believe I understand why you concluded that a charge without attacking is still considered an attack for the horse, but I do not share that interpretation (and it's different from the reason given by franktheDM anyway). Your interpretation means that a mounted character would have to make a "Fight with warhorse" roll anytime they charge, even if the horse didn't make an attack as well. I have never seen anyone play this way, and I don't believe that is what the rules imply. Charging without your mount attacking (so that you don't have to make the extra roll to allow them to also attack) is fairly commonplace, and is the only way I've seen a ride-by attack handled (since the 3.5 FAQ says "The rider’s Ride-By Attack feat won’t help the mount attack")

For average and lower maneuverable creatures, the Minimum Forward Speed is half. If the creature is encumbered by medium or heavier barding and a rider, it is very difficult for it to charge successfully because it still has to move half of its speed. Frank's point was that minimum forward speed can easily creep up on you.

I'm unsure that was his point. Also, I'm unsure if your point was that it's difficult to meet the minimum speed with barding (which doesn't seem to be the case), or that it's difficult to meet the minimum speed when charging (which ride-by solves, and everyone with spirited charge already has ride-by.)

 

[Hypersmurf]

In D&D, damage that does x2 damage (like power attack) which is then tripled (by a spirited charge) only goes to x4, not x6.

Power Attack doesn't deal 'double damage' or 'x2 damage' with a two-handed weapon; rather, it gives a bonus of +2 per -1. +2 is a base, not an already-doubled +1; it is the +2 that is multiplied by 3, not a +1x2 multiplied by 3. Power Attacking with a two-handed weapon on an attack that deals triple damage will add +2x3 - +6 - for each -1.

Also, note that you can't use your lance two handed if you're also using a shield.

No, but he can use the lance while using a shield, as long as he's mounted... and the lance is a two-handed weapon. There are two circumstances in the Power Attack feat text where 2-for-1 damage is granted; when wielding a one-handed weapon in two hands (which he is not), and when wielding a two-handed weapon (which he is). Power Attack does not require that the two-handed weapon be wielded in two hands.

The text for two-handed weapons does require two hands, but the lance provides an exception to this while mounted.

I hadn't realized that practiced caster would work with a single-classed spellcaster.

Even more fun is realising that Natural Bond will work with a single-classed druid

-Hyp.

 

[KarinsDad]

Your interpretation seems to imply that horses cannot charge without attacking (which isn't correct). The rules say:
"Charging is a special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action."
"After moving, you may make a single melee attack."

"May" in this case can mean what you are allowed. Sure, you can take a specific reading of it to mean "may or may not", but the alternative interpretation is just as valid. In other words, that one "may not" make a full round attack.

The entire charging section discusses moving and attacking. Over and over and over again. It never once explicitly discusses moving and not attacking (unless you interpret "may" with your interpretation). For example:

You must move before your attack, not after. You must move at least 10 feet (2 squares) and may move up to double your speed directly toward the designated opponent.

The word "may" is not restricted to your interpretation. There is no explicit "you can if you want to, but do not have to" wording here.

I believe I understand why you concluded that a charge without attacking is still considered an attack for the horse, but I do not share that interpretation (and it's different from the reason given by franktheDM anyway). Your interpretation means that a mounted character would have to make a "Fight with warhorse" roll anytime they charge, even if the horse didn't make an attack as well.

Yes with this interpretation, it does mean that (even it you allow the horse to charge and not attack).

Why would someone assume that charging is a special movement action? It is a special attack action according to RAW.

But consider, would you allow the horse to do an Aid Another special attack action without making a Fight With Warhorse roll? How about a Bullrush?

What is special about the Charge special attack action that would allow the overall action to be a movement, but not an attack and hence not require a Fight With Warhorse roll?

I have never seen anyone play this way, and I don't believe that is what the rules imply. Charging without your mount attacking (so that you don't have to make the extra roll to allow them to also attack) is fairly commonplace, and is the only way I've seen a ride-by attack handled (since the 3.5 FAQ says "The rider’s Ride-By Attack feat won’t help the mount attack")

I do not disagree with you as to how this should work. I am merely indicating that RAW does not explicitly agree with a loose "warhorses (or light horses) can charge while not charging" type of interpretation.

Mounted combat is not really well defined in DND. There are a few holes.

I'm unsure that was his point. Also, I'm unsure if your point was that it's difficult to meet the minimum speed with barding (which doesn't seem to be the case), or that it's difficult to meet the minimum speed when charging (which ride-by solves, and everyone with spirited charge already has ride-by.)

Yes, my point was only concerning minimum speed while flying and charging. And sure, you can do this with a feat. We were discussing non-war-trained mounts, not PCs with special feats.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Wow, when I played a Gnome Paladin the charging rules were not that difficult to understand...

Personally, I have always played that if the mount charges, it has to attack. Unless it has Ride-By Attack. I was using a reach weapon at the time, and now I wonder if I was "legally" allowed to do this within the rules...

According to the rules on charging:

First, you must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent. (If this space is occupied or otherwise blocked, you can’t charge.)

If I am on a "war dog" and I am using a reach weapon, like a lance, and the war dog charges, what happens? According to KD, the dog has to make an attack when he charges, which means the war dog would have to be 5 feet next to the target. However, I have a reach weapon and by the rules, we have to move to the closest space from which I can attack the opponent, which would be 10 feet away. So what happens?

 

[Bront]

"May" in this case can mean what you are allowed. Sure, you can take a specific reading of it to mean "may or may not", but the alternative interpretation is just as valid. In other words, that one "may not" make a full round attack.

So, according to you, I must make an attack at the end of a charge or it's not a charge?

Why? If I choose to run up to someone recklasly (-2AC), am I forced to attack them?

Also, in that case, you could never charge with a lance, since your mount can't charge without attacking, and your reach prevents you from attacking any creature you can't threaten when you're next to it with reach.

 

[reanjr]

Spirited Charge/Smite Evil/Power Attack: Obviously this is going to be a powerful combination, but I had no idea how powerful until a few weeks ago. Of course, some people might inerpret some of this differently, but:

My paladin discovered that one when he one-shot a Pit Fiend at 13th level.

 

[Owen K.C. Stephens]

Power Attack doesn't deal 'double damage' or 'x2 damage' with a two-handed weapon; rather, it gives a bonus of +2 per -1.

the lance is a two-handed weapon.

Power Attack does not require that the two-handed weapon be wielded in two hands.

The text for two-handed weapons does require two hands, but the lance provides an exception to this while mounted.
-Hyp.

Thanks, Hyp! Those are exactly the responses I would have made, though perhaps less well stated, if you hadn't beaten me to it.

 

[KarinsDad]

So, according to you, I must make an attack at the end of a charge or it's not a charge?

Why? If I choose to run up to someone recklasly (-2AC), am I forced to attack them?

There are no rules for reckless attack.

There are rules for charging which includes movement and an attack.


Let me ask a counter question:

Attacking on a Charge: After moving, you may make a single melee attack. You get a +2 bonus on the attack roll. and take a –2 penalty to your AC until the start of your next turn.

This is the attacking portion of charge. Are you claiming that if your horse charges, but does not attack, that it does not get a -2 penalty on AC? Rather, only the rider who attacks with the charging horse gets the -2 penalty on AC?

If the penalty is applied, then how come it is not considered an attack (since it is in the attack section of charging) and requires the rider to do a "Fighting with a Warhorse"?

If the penalty is not applied, then how is it a charge? Why isn't it just normal movement for the mount?

 

[Bront]

There are no rules for reckless attack.

There are rules for charging which includes movement and an attack.


Let me ask a counter question:



This is the attacking portion of charge. Are you claiming that if your horse charges, but does not attack, that it does not get a -2 penalty on AC? Rather, only the rider who attacks with the charging horse gets the -2 penalty on AC?

If the penalty is applied, then how come it is not considered an attack (since it is in the attack section of charging) and requires the rider to do a "Fighting with a Warhorse"?

If the penalty is not applied, then how is it a charge? Why isn't it just normal movement for the mount?

No, actualy my arguement is why can't I chose to charge and not attack? There's no reason I can't charge forward, not attack, and leave myself vulnerable?

 

[frankthedm]

Also incorrect. The rules say:
"A creature with a fly speed can move through the air at the indicated speed if carrying no more than a light load. (Note that medium armor does not necessarily constitute a medium load.)"

Check the equipment section

MOUNTS AND RELATED GEAR
Barding, Medium Creature and Large Creature: Barding is a type of armor that covers the head, neck, chest, body, and possibly legs of a horse or other mount. Barding made of medium or heavy armor provides better protection than light barding, but at the expense of speed. Barding can be made of any of the armor types found on Table: Armor and Shields.

Armor for a horse (a Large nonhumanoid creature) costs four times as much as armor for a human (a Medium humanoid creature) and also weighs twice as much as the armor found on Table: Armor and Shields (see Armor for Unusual Creatures). If the barding is for a pony or other Medium mount, the cost is only double, and the weight is the same as for Medium armor worn by a humanoid. Medium or heavy barding slows a mount that wears it, as shown on the table below.

Base Speed
Barding (40 ft.) (50 ft.) (60 ft.)
Medium 30 ft. 35 ft. 40 ft.
Heavy 30 ft.1 35 ft.1 40 ft.1
1 A mount wearing heavy armor moves at only triple its normal speed
when running instead of quadruple.

Flying mounts can’t fly in medium or heavy barding.

Removing and fitting barding takes five times as long as the figures given on Table: Donning Armor. A barded animal cannot be used to carry any load other than the rider and normal saddlebags.