Mounts and Auras

11 posts / 0 new
Last post
The rules for mounts and rider (p. 253), under the space entry, prohibit the origin square of powers from changing to the mount's size. Fair enough for melee, ranged, close and area attacks ... but NOT for auras. In the case of auras, this affects an Essentials defender's ability to defend while on a mount. What happens is, as an example:

AAA
MDA
MMA

In any case, the Cavalier or the Knight on horseback only has 5 squares of available aura! He wastes 3 squares by being mounted, and has a glaring weak spot.

Surely this is not intentional. After all, a defender with marks, say, an original Fighter with Combat Challenge, can still make his CC attack using any square of a mount he's riding. Why should the E-defender be punished in this way?

Either the entry for space (p. 253) or the entry for aura (p. 116) needs to be changed so that auras become the exception, i.e. so that auras DO change their origin squares to the mount's size. Otherwise E-defenders are in a world of hurt. Especially the Cavalier.
Can't say as I agree with this assessment; 5 space aura is not bad, 8 is very nice (but not really overpowered, I don' t think), but 12 spaces of aura would be too much, IMO.  With larger mounts it could get ridiculous.
======= Balesir
AAA
MDA
MMA

Okay... What about the old fighter Litigation ? The Warden the Battlemind ?

Unless i forgot something, a core Fighter in this exemple would not be better. Without Reach, he would not mark those beyond his Mount space since he would not be able to attack them and with Reach, he would, but CC would not Trigger off since they would not be adjacent to him neither.

Problem is not Auras alone. Problem is that most Defenders need adjacency to defend and punish...

And extending it from a Large space (4x4) would now cover a much larger area than 8 squares. It would cover 12 squares. A Huge mount would even be bigger. I am not sure it's a good idea.


Okay... What about the old fighter Litigation ? The Warden the Battlemind ?

Unless i forgot something, a core Fighter in this exemple would not be better. Without Reach, he would not mark those beyond his Mount space since he would not be able to attack them and with Reach, he would, but CC would not Trigger off since they would not be adjacent to him neither.

Problem is not Auras alone. Problem is that most Defenders need adjacency to defend and punish...



From the mounted combat compendium entry:

Space: The rider and mount both occupy the mount’s space. However, the origin squares of the rider’s powers and other effects do not change to the mount’s size. Whenever the rider uses an effect that has an origin square (such as a melee, a ranged, an area, or a close power), the rider first picks where that square is located in the mount’s space, and the effect uses that origin square.



Basically, mark-based defenders work properly, whereas auras are screwed. Since the PC occupies the mount's (large) space, any square adjacent to the mount would count as adjacents to the PC for purposes of triggering Opportunity Attacks, Combat Challenge, and similar attacks. When you resolve these attacks, you'd need to pick a square as the origin, but nothing stops you from selecting one that is adjacent to the target (but still in the mount's space), so you can attack in melee without reach.

The rule of origin spaces not changing is probably intended to prevent close burst abuse, which is fine by me, but breaks auras as a side effect.

I'd like to point out that, regardless of power level concerns, this interaction of auras and mounted combat rules is extremely messy and confusing. I don't think having an aura that affects 12 squares instead of 8 is that big of a balance issue (though it IS strong), but it sure looks cleaner than other solutions. 
My blog about 4e rules and news: Square Fireballs The Magic Item Reset: A standalone set of items for 4E
Oh yeah forgot that thanks pikus.

So once an Auras is activated you first pick a square which becomes your origin square for it, while others Powers you uses will have their Origin Square selected whenever you'll use them.

But taking on the Mount's space would make the Defender's Aura cover significant more ground. How should it be handled ?



But taking on the Mount's space would make the Defender's Aura cover significant more ground. How should it be handled ?


That's exactly what it ought to do. Just as a Fighter on a mount can CC any marked enemy next to his mount, using any square of his mount, as psikus explained. (And even 1 square under his mount, if his mount flies.)
Can't say as I agree with this assessment; 5 space aura is not bad,


No, it's terrible. And it leaves 3 squares next to the mount where the enemy is perfectly safe to act.

but 12 spaces of aura would be too much, IMO.  With larger mounts it could get ridiculous.


Just like Fighters, Wardens and Battleminds against marked enemies adjacent to their mounts! Oh, wait.
Just like Fighters, Wardens and Battleminds against marked enemies adjacent to their mounts! Oh, wait.

Fighters, at least, need to attack to apply their mark.  They cannot do that all around their mount at the same time, ergo they cannot be "sticky" all around the mount.  Why should Essentials defenders get that ability?
======= Balesir
Fighters, at least, need to attack to apply their mark. They cannot do that all around their mount at the same time, ergo they cannot be "sticky" all around the mount.


Hi Kirre's Roar!

Why should Essentials defenders get that ability?


Because E-defenders were designed to defend the whole space around them, as opposed to the classical mark-based defenders. When they're mounted, they lose their key advantage over mark-based defenders.
Because E-defenders were designed to defend the whole space around them, as opposed to the classical mark-based defenders. When they're mounted, they lose their key advantage over mark-based defenders.



They still are affecting all the squares around them, nothing's changed.  Working as intended.
Sorry WOTC, you lost me with Essentials. So where I used to buy every book that came out, now I will be very choosy about what I buy. Can we just get back to real 4e? Check out the 4e Conversion Wiki. 1. Wizards fight dirty. They hit their enemies in the NADs. -- Dragon9 2. A barbarian hits people with his axe. A warlord hits people with his barbarian. 3. Boo-freakin'-hoo, ya light-slingin' finger-wigglers. -- MrCelcius in response to the Cleric's Healer's Lore nerf
Dragon9 is correct.

Seclucid pointed out in the Rule Q&A that Auras have no Origin Square and thus should not be affected by Mount restrictions on them.

community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...

Aura's don't have origin squares, they fill every square you occupy (RC pg 116) and then a set distance out from those squares. Since you occupy every square that your mount does, while on a dragon your a knight's aura occupies 16 squares. 

Powers granting auras generally don't have origin squares either. Range Personal doesn't specify an origin square either (though the glossary does mention all powers have origin squares).

Page 253 specifically calls out effects that have origin squares "such as melee, a ranged, a close, or an area power". Page 253 does indicate that you occupy all the squares of your mount, which is necessary to determine what squares your aura affects. 

Auras != close bursts. They are governed by different rules. 

Sign In to post comments