The more I read the rules...

[Dannyalcatraz]

the less I like RAW.

Basically, running 3.X (indeed, most RPGs) RAW seems like an excuse to stop thinking. That may not be true, strictly speaking, but it just seems that way to me. Then again, what I do for a living is read rules...

I'm wondering how others feel.

The latest example:

I'm contemplating designing a Halfling, Gnome, or other Small race mounted combatant. I was refreshing myself on the rules of mounted combat and came across the rules on mounted overruns.

During a mounted overrun, the mount can make a "hoof attack."

RAW, not claw or anything else, just a 'hoof attack." This, of course, sucks if your PC is riding a mount that doesn't have hooves, like a War Dog, or a Dire Shark.

 

[frankthedm]

I'm contemplating designing a Halfling, Gnome, or other Small race mounted combatant. I was refreshing myself on the rules of mounted combat and came across the rules on mounted overruns.

During a mounted overrun, the mount can make a "hoof attack."

RAW, not claw or anything else, just a 'hoof attack." This, of course, sucks if your PC is riding a mount that doesn't have hooves, like a War Dog, or a Dire Shark.

A medium dog running you over is simply is not that dangerous. I think it evens out since the rider of the dog is not in danger of suffering falling damage upon doggie's demise, the mount gets STR bonus x1.5 on it's bite and that there is a whole host of tactical benefits of having a mount that only take up 1 square of combat grid.

In my own game I do allow non hooved mounts to take that attack as a seconday natural attack [-5] that deals damage as an unarmed strike + 1/2 str bonus.

BTW There is no prone condtion underwater until one is walking on the bottom and the idea trying to get a dire shark to overrun rather than overeat sounds difficult.

Prone: The character is on the ground. An attacker who is prone has a a –4 penalty on melee attack rolls and cannot use a ranged weapon (except for a crossbow). A defender who is prone gains a +4 bonus to Armor Class against ranged attacks, but takes a –4 penalty to AC against melee attacks.

 

[Alzrius]

I voted for the first choice.

The thing I don't like about your example is that it seems to imply that sticking to the RAW means you'll always choose the most literal, strict interpretation every time, reading into the narrowest possible definition. I personally disagree with that - in the example of the "hoof attack," I don't think it's a modification of the RAW to say that applies to any similar attack that a non-standard mount could make.

It's not a modification to the rules as written if you follow what they actually mean.

 

[DarkKestral]

It's not a modification to the rules as written if you follow what they actually mean.

Sometimes, it very specifically IS. Sometimes RAW means one thing, and produces another. For example, the post nerf darkness spell...

 

[glass]

I am quite happy to modify the RAW for my games, but I like to understand what it is that I am modifying. Therefore I consider the RAW to be quite important, even where it is a little rediculous.

I'm not sure which category that puts me in on your poll, so I didn't vote.


glass.

 

[frankthedm]

I don't think it's a modification of the RAW to say that applies to any similar attack that a non-standard mount could make.

So what attack do you think a Canine could make in that situation? Halfling paladins and orc direwolf riders are both very curious.

The designers specified hoof attack with good reason IMHO, Canines get str 1.5 on thier bites and trip with those same bites.

A hoof, unlike claws and bites, can be performed crushing the target underfoot, almost as an afterthought. Claws, bites and most other natural weapons require more deliberate motions to deliver.

If you want the hoof attack with your mont for a halfling, then there is the war pony. It is a choice you make, hoof attack on an overun, or a nasty bite with trip if it hits.

PONY, WAR
Medium Animal
Hit Dice: 2d8+4 (13 hp)
Initiative: +1
Speed: 40 ft. (8 squares)
Armor Class: 13 (+1 Dex, +2 natural), touch 11, flat-footed 12
Base Attack/Grapple: +1/+3
Attack: Hoof +3 melee (1d3+2)
Full Attack: 2 hooves +3 melee (1d3+2)
Space/Reach: 5 ft./5 ft.
Special Attacks: —
Special Qualities: Low-light vision, scent
Saves: Fort +5, Ref +4, Will +0
Abilities: Str 15, Dex 13, Con 14, Int 2, Wis 11, Cha 4
Skills: Listen +5, Spot +5
Feats: Endurance
Environment: Temperate plains
Organization: Domesticated
Challenge Rating: 1/2
Advancement: —
Level Adjustment: —
Warponies are bred for strength and aggression, and are similar to light warhorses.

Combat A warpony can fight while carrying a rider, but the rider cannot also attack unless he or she succeeds on a Ride check.

Carrying Capacity: A light load for a warpony is up to 100 pounds; a medium load, 101–200 pounds; and a heavy load, 201–300 pounds. A warpony can drag 1,500 pounds.

 

[Jhulae]

Well, you're also forgetting some of the other major rules in what you're describing (the Mounted Overrun), and those few sentances do *not* support your position for anything but hooves. The mounted overrun is also known as a Trample.

Mounted Overrun (Trample)

If you attempt an overrun while mounted, your mount makes the Strength check to determine the success or failure of the overrun attack (and applies its size modifier, rather than yours). If you have the Trample feat and attempt an overrun while mounted, your target may not choose to avoid you, and if you knock your opponent prone with the overrun, your mount may make one hoof attack against your opponent.

So, the mount doesn't even *get* an attack unless it knocks the opponent over, at which time, it's under the mount's hooves. If a mount had a claw attack, I could see allowing a claw attack as well, but for a mount that doesn't have hoof (or claw) attacks, I can definitley see not allowing any other attacks.

 

[Alzrius]

Sometimes, it very specifically IS. Sometimes RAW means one thing, and produces another. For example, the post nerf darkness spell...

The thing about that is that I think the intent is quite clear, so the relatively poor wording shouldn't be held to make it mean something else. The darkness spell pretty clearly (IMHO) makes existing illumination "shadowy." It doesn't otherwise create any illumination.

Using an ultra-literal reading of the rules to produce meanings that were never intended isn't a problem with the RAW, it's a problem with the rules lawyer doing it.

So what attack do you think a Canine could make in that situation?

Whatever appendage-based attack they have there. If they have a claw attack, then they'd make that, etc. It's not that hard to understand. I can see why the RAW writers called it a "hoof attack," since it'd be more awkward to say the mount gets "any attack based on hitting the opponent with an appendage-based natural weapon."

 

[Dracorat]

I'm not convinced that Darkness is poorly worded. Just because you want it to work differently doesn't mean it was meant to work differently.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

I am in the 'avoid literal reading and apply the rules as they make sense' crowd..

An overrun is a trample, meaning the additional attack should come from the limbs of the creature doing the over-running. You could interpret that an overrun is a sucessful trip and allow the Improved Trip equiped mount to gain an attack that way.

As to prone, the flavor text does state ground, but there are rules that refer to flying creatures becoming prone..

Simply because the writer was focused on one narrow interpretation of the rule when he/she wrote the text that went with the rules doesn't force a literal interpretation.


YMMV.