I have a player whose character is a mounted archer. In a game earlier today, he encountered a small goblin "fort" with an 8-foot high wall. Due to the enclosure, he has had some difficulty getting line of sight to the goblins with his bow while they use a variety of secret passages and one-way murder holes to harass him and his steed rather effectively.
Due to the problem, the player opted to try something unusual and cool sounding: He wants to stand atop his saddle while riding around the fort, in order to get the height he needs to be able to shoot over the wall.
That leaves us with a 2-part question.
1) How should this be handled? Ride check? Acrobatics check? Or something else entirely?
2) What skill DCs would be appropriate for standing on a moving horse while trying to get off a few arrows?
Also, are there any rules for this kind of thing in Pathfinder or D&D v3.5 already that I could use as a basis?
Well, working from Pathfinder core only, I'd say that you'd have to make two checks, one acrobatics and one ride.
The ride check would be to direct the mount without the use of any body parts. Since the DC 5 "guide with knees" isn't really appropriate, as a DM I would choose the DC 20 "control mount in battle", since you are using your mount for something that it was not trained to do (be a Lipizzaner show horse).
You'd then need to make an acrobatics check to stand in the saddle. You'd start with the DC 5 1-3" surface, as the width of a horse back is somewhere around there. You'd then add +2 for "slightly sloped" since saddles aren't flat and +5 for "moderately unsteady" as the horse is moving. I'd probably also add the +5 for moving at speed, leaving you with a DC 17 Acrobatics check and the archer would be considered flat-flooted against all attacks, just as if he was balancing on a ledge.
Then you'd need to make sure to include the penalties for mounted archery.
He's sharing a space with a large creature. He counts as being in all of it's squares for his effects, so he doesn't need to stand to shoot over an 8' wall. He can draw his line for ranged attacks from the 10' top corner of the large box he counts as being.
Even if that works (I'm not entirely convinced) then the targets would still have cover or improved cover. A little more height might negate it altogether.
He's sharing a space with a large creature. He counts as being in all of it's squares for his effects, so he doesn't need to stand to shoot over an 8' wall. He can draw his line for ranged attacks from the 10' top corner of the large box he counts as being.
Although the simulationist in me likes Mauril's answer better, I think this would be more accurate to RAW.
He's sharing a space with a large creature. He counts as being in all of it's squares for his effects, so he doesn't need to stand to shoot over an 8' wall. He can draw his line for ranged attacks from the 10' top corner of the large box he counts as being.
Even from 10 feet, creatures up against the wall will have complete cover unless the rider is right up against the wall.
Even from 10 feet, creatures up against the wall will have complete cover unless the rider is right up against the wall.
Especially when you take into account that said creatures are small.
|
Even if that works (I'm not entirely convinced) then the targets would still have cover or improved cover. A little more height might negate it altogether.
Absolutely true! If the goblin was using a murder hole or the like though, not much could be done to prevent cover. All I'm saying is RAW he doesn't need to stand on his horse to get some kind of shot. If the goblin were adjacent to the wall he wouldn't have much to worry about in terms of getting hit by it either. :)
Though if he pulls it off he'd probably be resting on top of it's square? So 15' up in box terms.
He's sharing a space with a large creature. He counts as being in all of it's squares for his effects, so he doesn't need to stand to shoot over an 8' wall. He can draw his line for ranged attacks from the 10' top corner of the large box he counts as being.Although the simulationist in me likes Mauril's answer better, I think this would be more accurate to RAW.
Heh. I wasn't answering how you should shoot the goblins. I was answering what skill checks and DCs would you need to stand atop a moving horse firing your bow at goblins.
By RAW (in regards to horses being 10' tall) all medium and small creatures are 5' tall. RAW doesn't care that your character sheet says 6'7" and hers says 3'5", you are both 5' tall. RAW is also very silly.
|
|
Well, working from Pathfinder core only, I'd say that you'd have to make two checks, one acrobatics and one ride.
The ride check would be to direct the mount without the use of any body parts. Since the DC 5 "guide with knees" isn't really appropriate, as a DM I would choose the DC 20 "control mount in battle", since you are using your mount for something that it was not trained to do (be a Lipizzaner show horse).
You'd then need to make an acrobatics check to stand in the saddle. You'd start with the DC 5 1-3" surface, as the width of a horse back is somewhere around there. You'd then add +2 for "slightly sloped" since saddles aren't flat and +5 for "moderately unsteady" as the horse is moving. I'd probably also add the +5 for moving at speed, leaving you with a DC 17 Acrobatics check and the archer would be considered flat-flooted against all attacks, just as if he was balancing on a ledge.
Then you'd need to make sure to include the penalties for mounted archery.
Um at the very least you are dealing with severely unsteady when standing on the saddle of a moving horse. Especially since this is combat which means the horse is moving at a fast pace. Just to stand on the saddle while moving should be at least a DC 22 check. Then he has to make a ride check which I agree with your DC, finally I would apply a negative penalty to the shot as you are standing on a shifting surface, it's very hard to aim, so i would apply the negative penalty for using a ranged weapon even if he has the mounted archery feat, as he trained to fire a bow while sitting on a horse, not standing on it.
The reason I took the "moderately unsteady" DC was because the "severely unsteady" DC was for being in a hurricane. And you do still take penalties when firing mounted with the mounted archery feat, they are just halved.
The reason I took the "moderately unsteady" DC was because the "severely unsteady" DC was for being in a hurricane. And you do still take penalties when firing mounted with the mounted archery feat, they are just halved.
Standing on the back of a galloping horse has to be at LEAST as unsteady as being in a hurricane. For immediate local "unsteadiness" I'd say it's even more unsteady.
Wow. I'd be surprised if anyone ever tried anything creative in your games ever again. Some of you throw so many penalties at something that is otherwise fun and creative, that they might as well do something bland and straight-forward.
Not to mention, the more things you have the player do to see if he succeeds the slower things go.
having actually ridden a galloping horse before, I can't even imagine trying to stand on the back of one shooting a bow (and I have a very good sense of balance).
having actually ridden a galloping horse before, I can't even imagine trying to stand on the back of one shooting a bow (and I have a very good sense of balance).
Of that I have no doubt. The trick is so difficult, so over the top, that the movie Hot Shots even made a spoof of it once. Sounds perfect for a fantasy action game. :D
So do I understand that there are two checks one to stay on the horse, one to steer the horse and then attempt to fire a bow??
I assume those checks occur each time the PC tries to draw an arrow and fire......
I hope he rolls two ones in a row and fires into the air and the arrow comes down on him and his horse......................
No, there would be two checks per round. The same as every other movement based skill check. I would also rule that failing by 5 or less on the acrobatics check simply means that the archer cannot fire an arrow (things were too unstable) but that he is able to maintain his perch. Failing by 5 or more is when he falls. Failing the ride check to guide the horse simply means that it continues in a straight line and away from objects or creatures that might harm it. So, likely away from the goblin fortress in this case.
Wow. I'd be surprised if anyone ever tried anything creative in your games ever again. Some of you throw so many penalties at something that is otherwise fun and creative, that they might as well do something bland and straight-forward.
Not to mention, the more things you have the player do to see if he succeeds the slower things go.
There's a difference between something creative and something suicidal. Of course, he could be creatively suicidal :) And if he's that d@mn good, or at least that lucky, well he makes the checks and everyone is suitably impressed :D