Need some DMing Advice

[Eremis]

Running a new campaign, trying to stick with standard Pathfinder ruleset (no homebrew). Wasn't sure how to resolve this issue that came up during gameplay.

The party is in a cornfield, riders with torches are trying to set fire to the field to flush them out into an ambush.

A 2nd lvl Ninja states that she is going to use her ninja trick "Acrobatics Mastery" to leap at one of the horsemen and knock him out of the saddle.

I wasn't sure what the DC should be on something like that, and I felt like she would have to make two rolls, one for the acrobatics check and one to do a grapple or something similar to pull the horseman from the saddle. Much arguing ensued and for the sake of expediting gameplay I allowed her maneuver with just the acro check.

Advice on what the proper disposition of that situation would be?

Thanks
E

[kiligir]

I would have rolled an opposed Ride check to her Acrobatics, maybe required a melee touch Attack to make sure she actually grabbed him.

[Bacon666]

I would consider it a bull rush combat manoeuvre.... Using her ninja abilities might grant her a bonus...

[Chess Pwn]

Closest thing to rules here is you breaking it down to skills and actions that make sense. An acrobatics for the jump. a grapple or bullrush or some other combat maneuver you see fit. Maybe let the rider choose between his CMD or a Ride check? Also, if just an acro check, there should be a major penalty, like the size of his ride at least.

Also, You're the DM, let your players know that Any decision you make at the table in a game is how it's going down for that time. Then afterwards players can talk to you and you can look into it without the pressure of moving gameplay along. Let the player change his action if he decides he doesn't want to do all that you said he would need to succeed.
EX.
P: I jump and knock him off.
DM: that's an acrobatics and a grapple.
P: I don't want to make the grapple.
DM: well either you make a grapple to succeed or do something else.

[Victor Zajic]

It would be a acrobatics check to make the jump, and then a bull rush CMB check to knock him out of his saddle.

As the GM, you have the power to make the ruling you see fit. You shouldn't put up with players argueing with you like that durring game. Just explain that you're willing to talk to them about it after game, but your ruling stands for right now. If you cave under pressure from the players like that, it just teaches them to pitch a fit when things don't go their way.

[Eremis]

Thanks for the advice. All good stuff. And many of you who have commented on not allowing players to dictate policy are absolutely right and I generally push back hard when it happens. I didn't in this case for a variety of reasons (none of which matter at all) but moving forward any fit-pitching will be met with bad results. ;)

Thanks again! Glad i found these boards.
E

[Pizza Lord]

I would say Trip or Bullrush would work, bullrush if they had a way to reach the rider like a good jump (which your ninja does.) Even so the rider counts as being large size and would still get a +1 higher ground bonus for applicable checks.

Additionally I'd likely let it make a Ride check in place of its CMD with any bonuses to staying in the saddle applying (such as having a military saddle.) By that I mean, its Ride check replaces the CMD target for the ninja, not that the rider just needs the easy DC 5 Ride check to negate the attack.

But that's just advice.

[Gregory Connolly]

There are mostly two kinds of rules lawyers out there. The first kind, which nobody likes, will simply argue that they should always win. It can be difficult to admit that someone is being this type of player, especially when the players are also friends. These people need to be reformed or kicked. The other type, which is much more controversial, is obsessed with how things "should" work. Whether they have a gamist or simulationist bent these players will speak up any time anyone gets any rules wrong. Some GM's love these players and some hate them, but as the behavior is in good faith it usually doesn't result in hard feelings, and they will often voluntarily leave groups that they fit poorly in.