One character mounted on another.


Rules Questions


Paladin in the party has mounted combat and ranks in ride. Druid in the party can change into a dire tiger, and typically stays in that form through most encounters. Is there any reason why the paladin can't ride the druid like a mount? If he does, how do those mechanics work?


No reason they can't. Things are simplest if they share an initiative.


Yup. You should read the ride skill and the mounted combat section of combat chapter in CRB.
You can do a single attack if the mount moves more than 5 ft. and unless the mount has pounce then the mount can't do more than 1 attack either. If you are within reach of the target after the mount moves a maximum of 5 ft. then you can both full attack per the rules.
You shouldn't have to do a ride check to make the mount act in combat even though it isn't actually combat trained, because the mount isn't actually an animal. You might be required by your GM to make the Ride check to guide the mount in combat, but that would be slightly silly.
AFAIK there aren't anything in RAW disallowing it.


Could the rider negate one attack to the mount per round by making a ride check?


As it is not a mount technically I would not allow that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

From the title I thought this thread was headed someplace much dirtier.


What defines "mount", technically?


A mount is either an Animal or Magical Beast capable of carrying a rider as well as being trained ot do so. See also the PRD on all mentions of mount - always in conjunction with animal or magical beast or a single type of creature.

A wildshaped Druid or other caster using beast shape/elemenal body/plant shape/form of the dragon does not get the appropriate creature type - he stays whatever creature type he had before.


There's no actual definition of mount. There is a list of purchasable animals titled mounts in a late splat book, and there are some abilities that give an animal companion from a restricted list titled mount, but there is no definition. A mount is whatever the character with the ability containing the term is riding unless the ability referencing a mount is a class ability from a class that has a mount class feature.

Mounted Combat in particular predates every single mount class feature and the mount list in Animal Archive. Neither can be used to limit its scope.


This is happening one way or another. The question is, what feats apply, what rules apply, etc. And then I'll need at least some justification for it beyond just that's not the way it was intended to be used. I can understand the one standard action if the druid moves. That makes sense.

Liberty's Edge

The GM has to decide.

If I was the GM, the Druid would have to decide at the beginning of his round whether he will behave as a mere mount or try anything different (ie, that a normal mount would not do, such as casting a spell).

If mount, then follow all the rules.

If not, then none of the rules apply, except for those I want to (like asking the Paladin for a ride check to stay in the saddle).

Way I see it, you should not have the benefits from being both a mount AND a PC.


martryn wrote:
This is happening one way or another. The question is, what feats apply, what rules apply, etc. And then I'll need at least some justification for it beyond just that's not the way it was intended to be used. I can understand the one standard action if the druid moves. That makes sense.
Quote:
If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only make a single melee attack. Essentially, you have to wait until the mount gets to your enemy before attacking, so you can't make a full attack. Even at your mount's full speed, you don't take any penalty on melee attacks while mounted.

This quote was taken from CRB page 202, the section called "Combat while mounted". So even if your players disagree that it is sensible you can now show them the specific rule.


I'd give the character serving as the mount a -2 penalty on attack rolls and other physical things, as there is a humanoid now perched on their back, and that is assuredly foreign to them. And probably call for ride checks from the...rider, when regularly appropriate.


If a mount is not rigidly defined, can a small character ride on a medium character in his regular shape? For example, a hobbit paladin on the back of a human monk?


What is this hobbit you speak of? AFAIK no such race exists :P

I'd say the situation of a small humanoid form riding on a medium humanoid form isn't really the same as a medium humanoid form riding on a large quadrupedal animal form.
Technically speaking by RAW where no actual requirements are made of a mount all you really need is the carrying capacity to hold the rider. The size category thing was mentioned in 3.5 but is never actually spelled out in pathfinder (although it is strongly implied).

EDIT: I would say however that I would never actually allow same size mount and rider, and I would probably require a quadrupedal form OR a specific mention in the rules of it being suitable as a mount.


Matthew Downie wrote:
If a mount is not rigidly defined, can a small character ride on a medium character in his regular shape? For example, a hobbit paladin on the back of a human monk?

My main issue (in my mind) with that would be the leg-count of the mount. Are there other two-legged mounts?

Regardless, I would personally allow it. The halfling would essentially lost some of his versatility (being tied to the monk's movement) in exchange for greater speed. If the monk makes an acrobatics check, though, I think I'd make the halfling take a ride check to not fall off.

Liberty's Edge

BetaSprite wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
If a mount is not rigidly defined, can a small character ride on a medium character in his regular shape? For example, a hobbit paladin on the back of a human monk?
My main issue (in my mind) with that would be the leg-count of the mount. Are there other two-legged mounts?

Ostriches

Shadow Lodge

Actually there IS two legged mounts. The Cavalier Beast Rider can take a T-Rex as a mount. They are two legged.


there may be no defination of mount but a druid is not trained to take commands from the rider, so i would assume he moves on his own and does what he wants instead of being lead by the rider.

mounted combat wouldn't apply since the "mount" isn't trained to take commands from the rider so will not respond when urged thus avoiding that attack.

now if the druid was raised to be a mount and broken like one you can ride him as a mount =D


Lifat wrote:
You shouldn't have to do a ride check to make the mount act in combat even though it isn't actually combat trained, because the mount isn't actually an animal. You might be required by your GM to make the Ride check to guide the mount in combat, but that would be slightly silly.

Handle Animal checks and "pushing" rolls wouldn't apply, but I would absolutely make the rider make most Ride checks. To me, in-combat Ride checks are equally about keeping your ass in the saddle, staying balanced, getting your body positioned to make an attack, etc. as they are about making the mount do what you want it to.

After all, a paladin still has to make ride checks even if his mount has a 12+ Int--and even in those all-too-common cases where the mount is more intelligent than the rider.


Just remember to follow the encumbrance rules on this. Even a small paladin in Heavy armour, with his weapons and gear, will weigh quite a bit. This would totally impact the combat effectiveness of the PC 'mount'. Remember that ride checks are super important, the penalties for ill suited mounts (.which would could a biped PC), as well as the need for a saddle (where is it kept?) or else more penalties will accrue.


Blindmage wrote:
Just remember to follow the encumbrance rules on this. Even a small paladin in Heavy armour, with his weapons and gear, will weigh quite a bit. This would totally impact the combat effectiveness of the PC 'mount'. Remember that ride checks are super important, the penalties for ill suited mounts (.which would could a biped PC), as well as the need for a saddle (where is it kept?) or else more penalties will accrue.

Hmm. This is a good argument for having a Dwarf as your mount. They aren't slowed down by encumbrance!

A Dwarven cleric of the god of Travel would be even better.

Saddle up!


martryn wrote:
Paladin in the party has mounted combat and ranks in ride. Druid in the party can change into a dire tiger, and typically stays in that form through most encounters. Is there any reason why the paladin can't ride the druid like a mount? If he does, how do those mechanics work?

To be honest, it's a very gray area. Mounts are generally defined as Animals or Magical Beasts. In addition, most creatures being treated as mounts would have saddles, barding, etc. to account for the rider, and would be trained for it.

If the Druid has such equipment on while Wildshaped (another issue is if the Wildshaped Druid is considered an Animal/Magical Beast instead of their original race for purposes of effects affecting them), it would be allowed no questions asked. If not, it could be permissible, but not without penalties. Regardless, the Druid PC would be burdened with the Rider, signifying that they can't really cast spells, or if they were, they'd have to make Concentration Checks for Violent Motion and the like.

In addition, there would be penalties to both the Rider and the Druid Mount due to the awkwardness/difficulty to maintain being Mounted Combatants without the proper tools (I'd estimate a -4 for improvisation).

Other than that, should be legal across the board. If the Druid Wildshapes to a Large-sized Animal or Magical Beast for the Medium-sized Paladin, there wouldn't be any problems.


So a person riding, say, a Dragon, wouldn't get the benefit of Mounted Combat because a Dragon is a seperate category of creature and not an Animal or Magical Beast?

What about someone riding a Clockwork Creature version of a horse? Or a goblin on a giant spider? How about an Awakened Horse with Barbarian levels?

It's also worth noting that when a Druid Wildshapes into a Dire Tiger, for the duration of the effect, the Druid *is* an Animal.

The idea that a Mount is dependent on anything other than "a creature that is being ridden by another creature" is kinda silly.


When we discuss rules here and you aren't stating RAW, but rather what you think it should be and/or what you think is RAI please state that what you are writing isn't RAW.
AFAIK by RAW anything able to carry you could be a potential mount, because "mount" hasn't been defined (it has been hinted at, but hinting doesn't change RAW).

By RAW the feat "Mounted Combat" does not specify that the mount has to have any training, so you could technically utilize the feat to negate the first hit on the mount (even if that mount is the shapeshifted druid).

By RAW, Guide with Knees & Control Mount in Battle are the two ride checks I wouldn't call for, because you don't need to guide the mount so both your hands are free anyway. And Control Mount is only for non-combat trained mounts that scare easily because of combat. A PC-mount wouldn't be scared and run away just because of fighting nearby. The rest of the ride checks I'd still have you make when they apply.

By RAW not having a saddle doesn't actually mean you get any penalties to anything, so it wouldn't arbitrarily add penalties when on an unusual mount.

I would not run this situation by RAW. I would require that the PC mount take on a form that is suitable for riding on. What is a suitable form is DM fiat of course, but I'd say as a general guideline that anything a size category larger that has four legs would suffice, of course other animal/magical beast forms that have been mentioned as mounts would also be suitable forms. Not sure how to go with judging "mounted combat" feat and the rest of it.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
martryn wrote:
Paladin in the party has mounted combat and ranks in ride. Druid in the party can change into a dire tiger, and typically stays in that form through most encounters. Is there any reason why the paladin can't ride the druid like a mount? If he does, how do those mechanics work?

To be honest, it's a very gray area. Mounts are generally defined as Animals or Magical Beasts.

[snipping a lot of good comment]

I wonder if you're thinking of the Mount class feature here rather than "a critter that a character rides around"? If you can acquire a critter, get a saddle for it, and somehow get it to carry you, you have a mount. It's only if the critter advances as you level up and gives you special abilities that it counts as a Mount.

But you are correct to say that Mounts are restricted to certain types of allowable critters. A plain old riding critter is only restricted by your GM's mood and your character's pocketbook.


BetaSprite wrote:
Are there other two-legged mounts?

Axe Beak.

My thought is 'Yes, a player can act as a mount' and apply the mounted combat rules.


BetaSprite wrote:
Are there other two-legged mounts?
Gwen Smith wrote:

[...]

But you are correct to say that Mounts are restricted to certain types of allowable critters. A plain old riding critter is only restricted by your GM's mood and your character's pocketbook.

I'm not sure if those are all correct, but I guess the following list compiles most bipedals that could serve as a mount:

Axe Beak, Roc, Pteranodon, Giant Vulture, Quetzalcoatlus (avian, 2 legs)
Iguanodon, T-Rex*, Allosaurus*, Pachycephalosaurus, Parasaurolophus (bipedal dinosaurs) and Deinonychus* or Velociraptor* (if you are small)
Kangaroo (if you are small)

Odd note: The Beastrider Archetype has a sentence that conflicts prior written items, namely half of the Dinos that are named in the archetype (and have a *):

Quote:
A beast rider cannot choose a mount that is not capable of bearing his weight, that has fewer than four legs, or that has a fly speed (although the GM may allow mounts with a swim speed in certain environments).

Grand Lodge

It is more than possible to have a bipedal and intelligent mount.

Neither of those two are troublesome factors.

Things like initiative, and whatnot, are troublesome.


Just have the person with the higher initiative delay their action until they are on the same action as the lower init person.

People in my groups do this all the time when they need to coordinate.


Doing some necro.

I was thinking about this and thought I share my opinion on this topic. The problem I see is that the PC being used as a mount has to act like a mount for both to gain the bonuses and to be able to use the feats.
The reason is: If the "mount" does what he likes the rider will not be able to protect him from attacks by giving commands, for example.

Should the "mound" decide to let the rider command him, designate targets etc. they should be able to apply the bonuses from mounted combat feats.

A strong party for this idea would be a druid with an AC usable as a mount, a sohei monk and either a roughrider fighter or a barbarian with the furious mount rage power.

If the druid is a half-orc and dips 1 level into barbarian both the barb and the druid could take the amplified rage teamwork feat to be even stronger.

Sovereign Court

I've been thinking about this too. Specifically, the case of a halfling using a plain old ordinary dwarf as a mount.

I haven't been able to find any rule saying this isn't allowed. It has some up- and downsides though;

+ Use Mounted Combat to protect your dwarf.
+ Dwarf is not slowed down by encumbrance.
- The other effects of encumbrance (ACP, max Dex to AC) still apply however. Fortunately halflings are pretty light.
- Dwarves probably count as "ill suited as a mount" for a -5 to Ride checks. That might at low levels actually hinder your Guide With Knees ride check.
- Might be hard to find a saddle. That's a -5 to Ride checks for riding bareback. Maybe there's an exotic saddle available.
- If the dwarf attacks, you have to succeed at the DC 10 "Fight with a Combat-Trained Mount" check to also be able to attack.
+ You can give your dwarf the spurs for a +10 movement.
+ Dwarf PCs have much better armor proficiencies than other mounts, and level alongside you much faster than ordinary animal companions.
+ Shenanigans where you use a lance to Trip people without AoO, and then the dwarf comes into range and beats up the prone opponent.
+/- Always stuck at the same initiative count together.
(+) Maybe you can enhance your dwarf with horseshoes of the zephyr... Edit: needs to be an animal for that
+ Easier to amp up the dwarf's speed, by dipping into Barbarian Fast Movement, Travel Domain/Longstrider etc.
- No Share Spells
+ One PC that's always in range of touch spells
+ Don't need to take fleet-footed halfling, so you can take Warslinger instead.

Ridiculous? Maybe. More ridiculous than halflings in general? Perhaps. More ridiculous than Gimli in LotR? Barely. Fun in a game? Probably.

I guess the main obstacle would be finding a fellow player who doesn't feel humiliated by playing a mount. Otherwise there's still Leadership...


This is a scenario that may well come up in my game. Darksol the Painbringer pretty much says what I would have done on the mechanics - the 'mount' would have no saddle or tack and both mount and rider would have to train extensively together to avoid quite severe penalties.

In our game, my Druid/Barbarian is actually an Okami (wolf-based kitsune variant) and has Dire Wolf as one of her three basic racial forms, not (just) as a Wild Shape option. In addition she has a Dire Wolf Animal Companion and likes to shape into a giant crocodile and mastodon (it's a thematic thing).

One suggestion from the party was that she could be used as long-distance transport. Now character objections aside (but she might be talked round), there are no mechanical reasons why it wouldn't work. The GM has already demonstrated a willingness to hand-wave current size/STR rules (my 20 STR Druid/Barbarian with INA:Bite shaping to an enormously strong man-killing squirrel was too much for him), so any encumbrance problems will probably be hand-waved.

I have already had the AC Dire Wolf allow a party member to hang onto his back to negotiate a climb up some treacherous rocks, and would certain allow a similar situation for the PC Dire Wolf. Both my Companion and PC have good climbing and swimming skills, something that the other party members have naturally neglected somewhat (Clerics, Sorcerers and Paladins not having Skill Points to spare).

Ride skill wouldn't really work, though. It might come into play as a test to stay mounted, but all those commands and 'reading' the animal mount are irrelevant when the mount is a sentient being, and certainly when it is a PC.

Would I be happy being used a combat mount? No, probably not, the end result would be far less than the characters working as individuals. As a transport or way to get through water or difficult terrain? Yes, almost certainly (albeit with some IC wrangling and persuading).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What is a devastatingly effective combination is a Synthesis Summoner, being ridden by a Teenage Shining Knight Paladin with a Lance and the feat to do triple damage on a charge the modifiers start to stack up and when a crit is achieved those are big damage numbers. The Synthesist summoner of course has Pounce so it is lance charge combined with multiple other attacks.
I have allowed use of Mounted combat to enable the mount to take a hit for the rider as he has a lot more hit points.
For those with more unusual minds the Mount has many tentacles and the Paladin is also the lover of the Summoner, I am just glad I run a PG rated game otherwise we would be straying into unusual anime territory

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / One character mounted on another. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.