Pathfinder 1E The Escape Route feat in mounted combat

[John Blackport]

Tactical feats can be shared with one's mount through the Tactician ability of the cavalier (or the fighter tactician build, and probably some other ways I haven't thought of). It seems that sharing Escape Route with one's mount would make both mount and rider able to gallop through some heavy melee without provoking AoO's.

You, as the rider, would have to blow a feat on Escape Route: ok, this is to be expected. And normally, you could make this a permanent, constant arrangement by having your mount take the feat as well -- but this would require your increasing the mount's Int to 3, which in most cases robs you of the ability to increase Str, Dex or Con. You could start out with a special mount --- you know, a dragon or a sleipnir or a dragon horse or something -- but that will normally cost you another feat slot for Leadership.

If you don't give the feat to your mount, you would have to rely on the Tactician ability to "share" the feat, which probably would limit your ability to do this for 1-2 battles a day, until you reach high level. It's a great thing to have, but it can only be used that rarely you wouldn't want to be too "cavalier" about using the ability --- after all, you can also use it to rescue a squishy spellcaster ally who find dangerous enemies directly in their face.

By my reading, this interpretation does seem to comply with the RAW. I last looked this up in the "Giant in the Playground" forum, where the best counters to this seemed to be:

The Escape Route feat only protects from AoO's that both you and your ally (in this case, the mount) actually "threaten", which means "squares that you threaten at the beginning of your turn". If this is the case, then sharing the Escape Route feat --- by the Tactician ability, or by having your mount take the feat --- only protects you and your mount from AoO's on the FIRST SQUARE of your movement.

BUT --- If that's the case, the feat is pretty useless for this purpose, since you can already protect
yourself (and/or your mount) from movement-triggered AoO's by: a) taking a 5' step or b) taking the withdraw action...

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

 

[Zil]

As written, I think that the folks countering in the GiTP forum have it correct. This feat would only allow the two people with the feat to move through squares that the other threatens in order to avoid attacks of opportunity. If a mount and rider both had the feat, it wouldn't have nearly the same benefit because they are both in the same square.

I guess the main benefit of this feat for two players is that it would allow them to retreat at full movement rate instead of half during a withdrawal and still avoid attacks of opportunity. It also has the possibility of allowing a player to retreat/move through multiple threatened squares.

 

[John Blackport]

That reminds me... I should've posted a link!

No wonder it took so long for someone to reply! Sorry bout that...

Anyway, whenever the Escape Route feat is shared (or possessed) by any two creatures occupying the same square who move together, don't they enjoy an (arguably overpowered) immunity to movement-triggered AoO's?

I mean, if they occupy the same square, they (most likely) threaten the same squares... Or at least, *many* of the same squares.

And this wouldn't apply only to mounts and riders. It could apply to casters and familiars; or a size L ogre PC carrying a armed halfling PC ally (they both threaten squares within 5', right?).

By this reading, two human fighters trying to escape a horde of enemies surrounding them actually become *more effective* *more effective* if one gives the other a piggyback ride! That doesn't sound right to me.

Either the feat's poorly written, or I'm missing something fundamentally obvious (again)!

 

[John Blackport]

The DM just ruled that "Escape Route" will not work for movement where the creature using it to avoid provoking AoO's by moving *intends to attack later in the round at the time of the movement* . . . in other words, they're not currently intending to "escape."

Sub-optimal, but I see the point.