|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
The scenario:
Let's say a quick witted rogue ends up on the back of a flying Drake, and the Drake wants to get rid of said rider on his turn by flying through some trees.
In this scenario, we ended up with a fly check… but thinking back on it, I think I should have made it some sort of combat maneuver.
________
The questions:
Does this constitute a ride (or fly I guess) check? What kind of DC does one give that?
Or does is this a combat maneuver for the Drake - akin to breaking a grapple. (and what modifiers apply?)
________
My thoughts:
The combat maneuver feels more appropriate to me, because it give the drake an active part in his turn. Modifiers should probably be for relative size of rider to flyer, and also what kind of terrain he has to scrape the rider off onto. The rider's fly (or ride) skill could be a negative modifier also.
Thoughts?
-L2112
The Ride rules do not cover this. The most appropriate rules for this would be the grapple rules.
1) The Rogue must perform a grapple check to initially grapple the Drake.
2) On the Drake's turn the Drake can attempt a grapple check to gain control of the grapple.
3) Assuming the Drake was successful, on the Rogue's turn the Rogue can attempt a grapple check to regain control or escape the grapple.
4) On the Drake's next turn and if the Rogue has not regained control the Drake can then make a grapple check. If successful the Drake can move at half speed bringing the Rogue with it.
Following the movement the drake can spend a free action to release the grapple which will have the effect of dropping the rogue.
Moral of the story: You better have a high CMB/CMD if you want to grapple a flying creature if you do not have fly or else it will reverse the grapple and probably drop you at whatever height it chooses.
Why not both a ride and a fly check? Have the rogue roll a ride check (give him a bonus [+2-6], as I doubt he has any ranks in it, if he's holding onto something), and make the DC equal to the drake's fly check. If he gets hit by some trees, make him roll a strength check with a DC of 15, increase the DC by 1-2 for every 1d3/6 points of damage he/she takes.
Make up a check that the rogue have a fair chance of making and let him be epic if he makes it.
That is what i would do at least.
I would stick with the grapple rules. Fly isn't really used for controlling mounts, even flying ones. It would be a ride skill. However, that DC for staying on a mount that rears or bolts unexpectedly is only about 5 and that's way too low to allow any creature to be purposefully trying to shake a rider (as opposed to an involuntary startling or fear in battle).
As for applying the creature's Fly skill to the difficulty, I would be hesitant to allow that because you're basically allowing a creature to use a movement action where it would normally cost a standard. Unless there was a good reason, I wouldn't let a normal PC break a grapple just because they moved and made a Jump or Tumble check.
Pizza - I was more thinking to use the rider's fly or ride skill as the modifier, not the flyer's fly skill.
Cap - I agree. I encourage daring, or as you say "epic", maneuvers in my worlds... so I want a system that is balanced to give him a reasonable shot.
Gauss - I agree that ride seems woefully inadequate.
For a frost drake:
Base Atk +8; CMB +15; CMD 26
For a 9th level rogue should look something like:
Base Atk +6/+1; CMB +6; CMD 20
So he's got a fair chance to make it on, but slim chance of staying on.
____________
And how are there not rules for this? It seem something that happens in every dragon movie at some point.
___________
Also, I ruled that any attack he made from the back of a creature you're flying on gets the sneak attack bonus. It just seems like a sufficiently vulnerable position to be in for the flyer.
You could allow the ride check, but modified by the appropriate bits..
"If you attempt to ride a creature that is ill suited as a mount, you take a –5 penalty on your Ride checks."
and
"Special: If you are riding bareback, you take a –5 penalty on Ride checks."
Right off the bat there is a -10 modifier to riding an uncooperative drake, for a DC 15 check just to stay in saddle.
This would be a round by round check until flung off, is my guess.
The problem with grapple, is neither is now moving, or moving half speed if the drake wins, I suppose.
I would say that the rogue can try, but he is going to have to use grapple to stay on the Drake. I would also guess the Drake will fly upside down and do everything in his power to get thr rogue off, so a simple ride check to stay on wont work. Flying mounts should have custom saddles to keep riders planted firmly in their seat. Without a saddle, I don't think a ride check should even apply. The rogue is hanging on for dear life, or taking a long fall.
As far as using foilage to try to knock the rogue off? Lets just see if he can hang on first to see if it remains relevant.
Besides which, if what you have posted is accruate the rogue needs to roll a natural to beat the Draje's CMD of 26. Which can't be right because you show a BAB of 6, unless the rogue has no strength bonus at all. In any event, if that is right there is basically no chance of the rogue succeeding, and the drake is almsot certain to succeed against CMD 20 to shake him off and cause him to fall to the ground.
Lannister2112 wrote: I was more thinking to use the rider's fly or ride skill as the modifier, not the flyer's fly skill. Ride skill, maybe. Fly skill no. As far as I can tell, Fly is only used to make aerial maneuvers by a flying creature, not to ride a flying creature. Ride is used for both normal and aerial mounts.
I still would rather not use a Ride skill, as that generally has low DCs or at least, can reasonably be passed with no chance of failure in many cases. To me that doesn't seem reasonable, anymore than a monkey jumping on a character's back couldn't be removed if it just kept making climb or ride checks.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
This is a grapple.
Ride doesn't come into play here.
As I think on it more as a grapple, perhaps there should be a bonus to the rogue for staying on. He's not trying to fully control the drake, just hold on. I think something like a +2 to +5 modifier would be apt.
Why would there be a bonus? It is a simple grapple situation. The Rogue is not riding the Drake. The Rogue is holding onto the Drake.
There are no rules for riding an unwilling creature. The closest you are going to get is grapple.
Simply follow the steps I outlined above.
There is no real hard thought that needs to be done - the rules for grappling are spelled out plainly, and can be applied to this easily:
1) Character jumps on drake: Grapple CMB (character) vs CMD (drake), Standard Action without Improved Grapple feat; Move Action with.
2) On Drake's turn, Drake bucks: Break Grapple CMB (drake) vs CMD (character), Standard Action
3a) Character maintains grapple of Drake without Improved Grapple: Maintain Grapple CMB +5 (character) vs CMD (drake), Standard Action
3b) Character maintains grapple of Drake with Improved Grapple: Maintain Grapple CMB +5 vs CMD (drake), Move Action
3c) Character maintains grapple of Drake with Improved Grapple and attacks with weapon: Maintain Grapple CMB +1 (+5 Circumstance for Maintaining, -4 for attempting Maintain with 1 hand) vs CMD (drake), Move Action; Attack Action with weapon at -2, Standard Action
4) Repeat steps 2-3a/b/c until Character releases Drake, Drake successfully Breaks Grapple and bucks the Character off, or the encounter ends somehow and both are still moving.
Gauss wrote: Why would there be a bonus? It is a simple grapple situation. The Rogue is not riding the Drake. The Rogue is holding onto the Drake.
There are no rules for riding an unwilling creature. The closest you are going to get is grapple.
Simply follow the steps I outlined above.
He is right, you do get a bonus.
However, he doesn't need to mull over what the bonus should be; it's spelled out in black and white in the rules for grappling:
CRB wrote: If your target does not break the grapple, you get a +5 circumstance bonus on grapple checks made against the same target in subsequent rounds.
...
Humanoid creatures without two free hands attempting to grapple a foe take a –4 penalty on the combat maneuver roll
chbgraphicarts, that is a specific bonus for maintaining a grapple and not the miscellaneous GM assigned bonus he was actually referencing.
The bonus for maintaining a grapple does not apply to the Drake reversing the grapple.
Sidenote, Improved Grapple does not reduce the action to grapple from Standard to Move. You require Greater Grapple for that.
Gauss wrote: Sidenote, Improved Grapple does not reduce the action to grapple from Standard to Move. You require Greater Grapple for that. Knew something looked wrong when I was writing that - yeah, Greater Grapple would be required.
Also, I know the +5 only happens after the first time the player Maintains the grapple, but adding 3 more steps seemed really unnecessary, when the point was that there IS, in fact, already a rule regarding bonuses to maintain a grapple.
The rules I posted there - hell, the Grapple section in the CRB - explain how rounds of grapple occur; it's just a matter of detailing them.
I also wanted to point out the -4 penalty in case the player wanted to also attack from the back of the drake, as well, and how it interacted with Maintaining, since it bears mentioning; better to learn how to do it now than be unprepared when a similar situation comes up again in the future.
So lets assume just for the sake of argument that instead of a drake, it was a horse he jumped onto the back of.
Would it then be a grapple or a ride check?
Would the lack of a saddle change this other then to impose a -5 penalty?
Lets assume the Drake had a saddle on it, and the rogue got into the saddle.
Would this change it to ride?
I would say it's a ride check if the horse is a willing mount. A grapple check otherwise.
Seems pretty easy.
You are either Riding a willing creature, or Grappling an unwilling creature.
He is not trying to grabble the thing he just want to hang on. Do you guys use the grabbeling rules for ridning a untrained horse? Stay in saddel is a DC 5 ride check i think that is a bit on the easy side but he is not trying to grabble the drake to the ground either.
It still uses the rules for grappling.
Nobody jumps on a PC's back, and uses a Ride check to keep you from flinging them off.
That is a grapple check.
Cap. Darling wrote: He is not trying to grabble the thing he just want to hang on. Do you guys use the grabbeling rules for ridning a untrained horse? Stay in saddel is a DC 5 ride check i think that is a bit on the easy side but he is not trying to grabble the drake to the ground either. 1) It's "graPPle" not "graBBle"; the second isn't even a word.
2) Ride is used specifically for any mount that aren't actively trying to throw you; even the check to not be bucked using Ride is specifically for if the mount is scared and rears, without ill-intent meant to the rider.
The key term to all this is an UNWILLING creature. Unwilling - meaning it doesn't want you on its back, and/or wants you dead.
Friendly would use Ride.
Neutral, like jumping on the back of a Brachiosaurus that couldn't care less, would use Ride.
Unfriendly, like a Drake that's not only trying to kill you, but sure as hell doesn't want you on its back, would be a Grapple Check, because that is exactly what Grappling is for: grabbing onto and holding onto another creature that doesn't want you to be grabbing onto it.
The Ride skill never mentions anything about friendly or unfriendly/hostile mounts.
The grapple maneuver says "you can attempt to grapple a foe, hindering his combat options." Also, while grappled, a creature cannot move. Therefore a flying creature would fall, and a creative and awesome PC maneuver ends up doing nothing like what it ought to do.
In this scenario, the PC isn't trying to restrain the drake and wrestle it to the ground (probably in part because that would be essentially impossible). He's trying to grab hold of it and, well, ride it. I would probably say that it's more like climb than ride, honestly. The most important thing here is that the size of the creature shouldn't make it harder to leap onto and grab- the entire point is that you would only use this sort of maneuver on something at least two sizes bigger than you. At the same time, it's not as though the rouge is in any way seriously hindering the drake's mobility.
It's a maneuver that we all know *should* work, but due to it's potential power and grapple being somewhat similar, nothing official has been put out to deal with this sort of scenario. But it's just so cool, and it feels like a missed opportunity for epic things to happen, which is just too bad...
Whatever it is, it shouldn't be a straight grapple check (maybe a modified one that discounts the creature's size bonus to CMD, but even that is clunky). You'll probably have to just house-rule it when something like this comes up, because it's just too cool to let the lack of actual rules interfere with. We all know what we're shooting for, here, right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnQF7IxPCpI (Just skip to about 2:50)
On the subject of house rules... Well, in 3.5 for a similar situation I used a climb check (I guess you could use ride, but I would say that then the "bareback" penalty would apply) opposed by the creature's grapple check (without the size modifier). Once on, the creature could use it's action (should probably be a move action, so it can still at least fight a bit) to try to shake you off, or attack you if it's body would allow this in a reasonable way (If you're on an elephant's back, it can't really gore you). Shaking off was a similar roll- skill vs grapple without size, but of course it could just ignore you (it's not grappled), or roll around on the floor if it wants, crushing you to death (hello, auto-hitting slam attacks if you don't let go). If you're ignored, it's a much easier climb or ride check to stay on (up to DC 20 or so for climbing around on the back of a fast, flying creature like a dragon). Fail by more than 5 and you fall (just like climbing), fail by 5 or less and you just cling on for the round. I would say that it's flat footed, and I would probably give a circumstance bonus to hit, but using a weapon that takes up your hands would give you a penalty (much like grappling without two free hands), and I would say that to sneak attack, you have to get at least one round of "movement" on the creature's back first (to reach the vital area and get into position).
But that's all just me. Official rules on the subject of leaping onto an unwilling dragon's back (and *not* trying to restrain the beast) would be a godsend.
You grab an enemy creature, you are grappling.
It doesn't matter what you are trying to do.
You want to ride it, hug it, choke it, or prevent it from moving?
You are grappling it.
You can create a multi-step complicated house-rule, or a houserule that allows Ride checks to bypass the investment it takes to grapple, but those are still just that.
House rules.
Grappling "hinders" a foe. Restraining is completely different (that's a Pin). Grappling also doesn't discriminate based on size, unlike Trip.
Grappling a Great Wurm Red Dragon is perfectly legal. Nigh-impossible if you're medium sized, even for lv20 characters, but legal.
The FAQ also points out that nothing prevents your opponent from making a full attack, and a GWRD is not only NOT going to give a damn about being grappled, but can also very likely fling your squishy little body off it it whenever it sees fit
A grappled creature is definitely being restrained...
"A grappled creature is restrained by a creature, trap, or effect. Grappled creatures cannot move and take a –4 penalty to Dexterity. A grappled creature takes a –2 penalty on all attack rolls and combat maneuver checks, except those made to grapple or escape a grapple. In addition, grappled creatures can take no action that requires two hands to perform. A grappled character who attempts to cast a spell or use a spell-like ability must make a concentration check (DC 10 + grappler's CMB + spell level), or lose the spell. Grappled creatures cannot make attacks of opportunity."
Though "restrained" isn't a technical term in the game, the first thing the grappled condition says is that "A grappled creature is restrained...". Also, a grappled creature can't move, and not being able to move is *definitely* being restrained in the everyday sense. A creature that can't move can't fly (at least not with wings) and should fall, but I don't see that anywhere in the fly skill at the moment, which is odd. I'm pretty sure not being able to move would mean that the drake would fall under normal circumstances, thus not doing what the PC intended.
RAW, there's still nothing saying you can't use the ride skill on a hostile creature, so technically that's the house rule. Furthermore, as I stated, a grappled creature cannot move (though you can move it, but that's totally different). This seems to preclude the idea that riding a hostile creature would be a grapple. Now, using the ride skill for this purpose is totally broken by RAW, because a DC 25 or 30 check would allow you to control a GWRD (So long as a dragon can be considered a mount, the Control Mount in Battle function of Ride never says that the mount needs to be friendly to you, you just... control it in combat as a move action, somehow)... But those are the rules as written. Which shows why house rules and GM rulings are necessary for the continued verisimilitude and general playability of this sort of game, no?
Since both of these approaches are unworkable, the obvious conclusion is that the rules simply don't support the maneuver described (didn't I just say that?). As I said, it would be nice if there were some official rules to allow characters to do this, as it is a cool thing, but those rules just don't exist yet. So, if you want to allow this particular cool thing to happen in your game, for the moment, you have to house-rule it, full stop. That or allow ride to work on a hostile creature, which is pretty silly, especially when that creature is intelligent.
A grappled flying creature does not fall unless it fails a fly check to hover (which is not an action and does not qualify as moving since it does not go anywhere. After all, people on the ground being held up by legs do not fall over because they are grappled do they? It's basically the same thing.
In the following example we have a player Wild Shaped into a Roc (has Grab) goes to grapple a Dragon in midair.
Sequence:
Roc moves to Dragon (move action) and moves his speed. No fly check required since he is moving at greater than 1/2 his speed.
Roc makes attack on Dragon and hits (standard action). The Dragon has to make a DC10 fly check for being hit while flying.
Roc succeeds on Grab (grapple) check (free action) and the Dragon is now grappled.
On the Dragon's turn it performs a full attack on the Roc. However, because it has not moved a DC15 fly check is required unless it has hover.
Sidenote: there is no listed penalty for failing a Hover fly check.
There are NO rules stating that a creature cannot fly while grappled.
Everyone else is welcome to adopt their own; but this will be the house rule we will play test the next time it comes up.
I think will allow for the rogue to ride the drake and give him a shot at doing something epic, while giving the drake an active roll on his turn.
Pay attention Killian!
Special grapple - The Hold On Only Grapple
Starts with a grapple check at +3 to the grappler if he has both hands free; -5 if he is trying to do this one handed (ex. with weapon in hand); -10 if trying to do this hands free (ex. shield and weapon in hands).
Grapple rules proceed as normal, excepting that the guy trying to hold on to the creature (flying or no) keeps the bonus / penalties above. And only if he is trying to just hold on.
The creature can attack others as normal, if it is not trying to actively shake the "rider". The creature being grappled is now encumbered, but not otherwise hindered (in terms of game mechanics). We can either calculate the encumbrance for the creature and check his movement rate... but in all likelihood, I'll use the following rules of thumb to keep the game moving:
Reduced movement to 1/4 speed if the same size category
Reduced to 1/2 speed if 1 size larger
No speed reduction if 2 sizes larger.
(if the guy in full plate tries this, we may have to stop and look at encumberance).
Firstly, I appreciate your efforts, Lannister 2112. I would probably not allow this to happen to a creature of the same size as the grappler/hold oner, and as mentioned earlier, I like the idea of negating the size bonus to CMB, but that's just me.
Moving along... "A Fly check doesn’t require an action; it is made as part of another action or as a reaction to a situation."
If you can't move, you can't make the fly check as part of the action to move, right? And that would be the standard action that a fly check would be "part" of, I imagine. Hovering (with wings) while grappled seems pretty outlandish to me, but you're right, Gauss, that the Fly skill doesn't list a penalty for failing to hover. Nor does it call out the inability to hover while grappled. It also doesn't say anything about Hovering except that it's DC 15. But for every entry that the book bothers to describe, they mention that you are "flying" in the first sentence... And one assumes in the first place that you cannot use the Fly skill unless you are capable of flying (or at least gliding)somehow. I wonder what "flying" means?
"Fly
verb (used without object), flew or for 11, 19, flied, flown, flying.
1. to move through the air using wings."
There are other definitions for Fly, of course, but in the case of a Dragon/Drake flying, I assume this definition is fine. So... To fly is to move. To be unable to move is to be unable to fly. And the more general description of the Fly skill bears this out...
"You generally need only make a Fly check when you are attempting a complex maneuver. Without making a check, a flying creature can remain flying at the end of its turn so long as it moves a distance greater than half its speed. It can also turn up to 45 degrees by sacrificing 5 feet of movement, can rise at half speed at an angle of 45 degrees1, and can descend at any angle at normal speed. Note that these restrictions only apply to movement taken during your current turn. At the beginning of the next turn, you can move in a different direction than you did the previous turn without making a check. Taking any action that violates these rules requires a Fly check. The difficulty of these maneuvers varies depending upon the maneuver you are attempting, as noted on the following chart."
A *flying* creature can do all these things. Since Pathfinder does not supply a technical definition of "Flying," we have to use the normal sense of the word. A flying creature is, by the normal definition, moving. Cannot move implies cannot fly. Cannot fly means you aren't "flying" and so cannot use the Fly skill, and thus cannot hover (Unless, I suppose, you spend your action to move while grappled and thus stay airborne, but a GWRD with some guy trying to craw around on it's back shouldn't really have to do that).
Why is it so hard for so many people to accept that the rules just don't cover this? Why try to shoehorn this into the standard grapple maneuver, when that clearly represents something much more restrictive?
It is not a shoehorn.
It's a reflavored grapple.
I thought flavor was the point?
You can still houserule.
Okay let's make this a clear question, to FAQ'd.
I will post this next. If you want an answer, then FAQ it.
|
13 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
|
Can you use the Ride skill to Ride an unwilling mount?
The purpose isn't to restrain the foe, at least not it's movement. That's the fundamental difference from grappling, because grappling implies restraining. So... Would you say that for a reduced effect (that is, a grapple that doesn't prevent movement), you should have to make the standard check? Given that the standard check is basically impossible for most normal-sized characters, this is not optimal for doing cool things that seemingly *shouldn't* be impossible for heroes. Maybe I'm wrong about what heroes should and shouldn't be capable of in this game- that's always possible. But Grapple as-is does more than this PC wants it to.
If we are being exclusive about the RAW (that is, you can only do things the rules explicitly say you can do), it seems to me the answer isn't "It's a grapple," so much as "You just can't do it."
Edit: FAQ'ed. This post was written while you posted the FAQ request. :p
Cyrus, not moving is not an action. If you are not moving when you are flying then you are hovering. Thus, you make a hover fly check.
There is nothing in the rules that states a grapple removes the ability to fly. Grappling in Pathfinder is not wrestling. It is not pinning the creature. It is holding onto a piece of the enemy such as the leg, arm, or an article of something being worn.
Why would holding onto a Drake's leg prevent it from flapping it's wings to Hover?
But fly checks are made as part of an action, usually a move action one assumes. You can't hover as part of the non-action of simply not moving because...
"Action: None. A Fly check doesn’t require an action; it is made as part of another action or as a reaction to a situation."
As in, it's not a free action that you can just take "because." Now, I proposed that most of the time you would be making that fly check as part of a move action to, well, move - even if, in the case of Hover, you aren't actually moving any distance.
Hovering with wings ought to take at least as much effort as moving with wings, which is to say, a move action to move. Maybe you could rule that it could roll a fly check as part of a full attack action, but that seems strange to me - doesn't it seem strange to you?
Anyway, by definition, if you cannot move, you cannot fly. Now, there's technically nothing in the fly skill that outright says you can't use it without a fly speed (the "check" section seems to imply it strongly, but again, if you can't move, by definition you cannot fly), though most uses of the fly skill don't make sense without a fly speed - but hover does. So, either not being able to move prevents use of the fly skill (including hover), or I don't need a fly speed to hover, right?
But the truly strange part is this: On your reading, the grappled drake cannot use its fly speed to move (because being grappled prevents movement), but rather must hover (or fall), which it can do as part of some other action that it presumably takes. Considering that it can't use its wings to move, it stands to reason that the wings must be restrained somehow... So how can it use those same wings to hover?
Cyrus Lanthier wrote: But the truly strange part is this: On your reading, the grappled drake cannot use its fly speed to move (because being grappled prevents movement), but rather must hover (or fall), which it can do as part of some other action that it presumably takes. Considering that it can't use its wings to move, it stands to reason that the wings must be restrained somehow... So how can it use those same wings to hover? The same way a creature with a wing attack could attack with a restrained wing in a grapple. It's a tough call.
Cyrus,
If you are flying and you do not move then you must make a fly check to Hover.
If you do not move then you are not taking a "Move" move action.
But, according to you, you cannot Hover without burning a move action?
By definition if you cannot move you can still fly. There is nothing in the rules that states you cannot hover.
The flaw in your logic is that you believe it cannot use its wings to move. However, that is an incorrect premise. The correct premise is that nobody can move while grappled without making a grapple check (if in control of the grapple). This has nothing to do with fly, swim, climb, or normal movement speeds.
In any case, this is the rules forum and either you can Hover without using a move action or you cannot. Grapple has nothing to do with it.
Perhaps you should make a FAQ request on what action is required to Hover. I am guessing you will find that the answer is "None, it is not acting (except upon skill check failure when X happens)."
It is not like people need to expend an action to remain standing upright.
Also, according to you this also means a flying creature can NEVER use a full-attack action or cast a full-round spell because it must always burn a move action to hover.
Do you also believe that standing up from prone is a form of movement? Hint: it is not. You have traveled zero distance.
Pizza Lord wrote: I would stick with the grapple rules. Fly isn't really used for controlling mounts, even flying ones. It would be a ride skill. However, that DC for staying on a mount that rears or bolts unexpectedly is only about 5 and that's way too low to allow any creature to be purposefully trying to shake a rider (as opposed to an involuntary startling or fear in battle). Actually, I would call it more like "control a (frightened) mount in combat"--DC 20.
"Stay in saddle" requires that you are already riding the creature, and it does a single, unexpected move.
"Bucking and flailing like a maniac to get this thing off my back" seems more like trying to control a mount that desperately does not want to be here.
Overall, the only places I can find some implication of riding an unwilling mount are these two:
Mammoth Rider "Wild Coercion" ability:
"A mammoth rider gains the wild empathy ability; this is exactly like the druid ability of the same name. For the purposes of this ability, her class level stacks with all other classes with the wild empathy ability. In addition, a mammoth rider can use her wild empathy to demoralize an animal or magical beast, or force it to be friendly to her, as if using Intimidate rather than Diplomacy."
Beast Rider trait:
"You have a knack for breaking animals to your will, though you know little of civilized training methods. You gain a +2 trait bonus on Ride checks, but should you ever be forcibly dismounted in combat, your mount attacks you to the best of its ability."
Gauss, by any reasonable measure, hovering (at least using wings) takes more effort than continuing to fly/glide along, which you can't do while grappled. Continuing to fly is a move action, so it seems reasonable that a hovering creature couldn't make a full attack.
Again, you are correct that hovering is not an action; you have again neglected, however, the text that says that you take it as *part of* another action. I have proposed (repeatedly) that the usual action that hovering (or any other fly skill check use) would be part of is a move action to fly (that is, to utilize your fly movement rate). Again, the rules for the fly skill are vague at best (ALL we know about hover is that it's DC 15). Otherwise, I will continue to assert that I can hover without a fly speed (show me the rule that says I can't) with a simple DC 15 fly check.
Sometimes, you have to use a bit of common sense. From your own example, Gauss, explain to me, in the game world, why it can't use fly to move when I am holding onto its leg? Sure, it can fly to move if it makes a standard action to do so, and wins a grapple check, but that still implies that grappling is restricting its wings (that's a lot more effort than without being grappled), which still isn't the maneuver the OP described. Also, the grappled condition still does say you can't move (as quoted above), so it's not like I am pulling this out of thin air.
Hovering with a DC 15 fly check and no fly speed is technically possible, but doesn't actually do anything for you. It's in the fly skill. Fly wrote: Note that this skill does not give you the ability to fly. And Hover is just defined as the ability to halt your movement while flying, from the Hover feat Hover wrote: Benefit: A creature with this feat can halt its movement while flying, allowing it to hover without needing to make a Fly skill check. So if you're not already flying, hovering doesn't make you fly. It just allows you to stop your movement while flying. Please note that "falling" is not the same thing as "flying".
Also you're only partially quoting Fly. It says Fly wrote: Action
None. A Fly check doesn’t require an action; it is made as part of another action or as a reaction to a situation.
The situation is "I am unable to move and therefore fly normally". The reaction is "I attempt to hover instead of falling".
Grappling is as abstraction. Please explain to me how any grapple prevents movement. You can grapple a dragon on the ground and he's utterly prevented from moving, even if he's 30 feet tall and you're 3 feet tall. That toe is apparently a super pressure point or something. Replace dragon with giant, tarrasque, Rovagog, golem made of a castle, whatever. There's no size limit on grapple and it always prevents movement in ways that science (and even magic) really can't explain.
|
1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
|
I just want to know exactly what happens when someone Dominates your mount.
Please FAQ my above post.
Actually, Bob Bob Bob, my reading of the hover feat (which seems pretty clearly implied), is that if *you* halt your movement while flying, you can hover. If your movement is halted against your will (i.e. because you are grappled), then *you* haven't halted your movement, have you? The voluntary nature of your not moving is very important.
"I am unable to move and therefore fly normally" shouldn't be reacted to with "I attempt to hover." I of course agree that a wizard with ranks in Fly can't hover just "because" - hover implies the ability to fly (normally?). If you can't fly (which implies moving) then you can't hover. This reaction would allow you to hover despite inability to fly.
To put it another way, the Fly skill tells us some situations in which the fly skill is used as as a reaction, such as when you take damage or collide with an object. It does not tell us that we can hover as a reaction, ever. As reactive abilities are extraordinarily powerful, that's one more reason to assume that hover is one of those "part of an action" moments.
BlackBloodTroll- yes, this is the perfect question to be asking to resolve the OP's issue. I'm FAQing this as well.
Edit: Thanks for posting the Hover feat, Bob Bob Bob- I only vaguely remembered it's existence, and so didn't think to look there for pathfinder's technical definition of hovering.
Grapple seems like a good idea for determining control. After that Fly/ride checks would determine whether the dragon could scrape the rogue off, or if the rogue could ride the dragon around based on which was in charge of the grapple at the time.
Cyrus Lanthier wrote: Actually, Bob Bob Bob, my reading of the hover feat (which seems pretty clearly implied), is that if *you* halt your movement while flying, you can hover. If your movement is halted against your will (i.e. because you are grappled), then *you* haven't halted your movement, have you? The voluntary nature of your not moving is very important.
"I am unable to move and therefore fly normally" shouldn't be reacted to with "I attempt to hover." I of course agree that a wizard with ranks in Fly can't hover just "because" - hover implies the ability to fly (normally?). If you can't fly (which implies moving) then you can't hover. This reaction would allow you to hover despite inability to fly.
To put it another way, the Fly skill tells us some situations in which the fly skill is used as as a reaction, such as when you take damage or collide with an object. It does not tell us that we can hover as a reaction, ever. As reactive abilities are extraordinarily powerful, that's one more reason to assume that hover is one of those "part of an action" moments.
BlackBloodTroll- yes, this is the perfect question to be asking to resolve the OP's issue. I'm FAQing this as well.
Edit: Thanks for posting the Hover feat, Bob Bob Bob- I only vaguely remembered it's existence, and so didn't think to look there for pathfinder's technical definition of hovering.
If you could provide a quote for the action for hover I'd agree (I know you can't, since I could barely find an actual definition of hover). As it is I can't see any way hover is part of a movement. The definition of hover is "don't move". If this required that you spend a move action to do it, what are you doing? Flying in really tiny circles so you don't provoke for movement or leave your square?
Fly wrote: Without making a check, a flying creature can remain flying at the end of its turn so long as it moves a distance greater than half its speed. This very clearly says that if you don't make a fly check you need to move greater than half your speed. The only two fly checks for not moving half your speed are DC 10 for move less than half speed and DC 15 for hover. Where's the extra +5 DC coming from? Because 0 feet is less than half your speed (guaranteed) but not moving from your square requires a DC 15 hover check instead of the DC 10 check. Additionally, I think this means you can make a Fly check as part of a 5-foot step (and the easier DC 10 check instead of the DC 15 hover). If the DC 10 lets you full attack, why doesn't the DC 15 where you move even less?
Cyrus Lanthier wrote: Gauss, by any reasonable measure, hovering (at least using wings) takes more effort than continuing to fly/glide along, which you can't do while grappled. Continuing to fly is a move action, so it seems reasonable that a hovering creature couldn't make a full attack. No, it is not reasonable. If a creature does not move (regardless of movement mode) it is not expending an action. Hover is the lack of movement and therefore is not an action. This is not based on reality, it is based on the rules.
Again, you are correct that hovering is not an action; you have again neglected, however, the text that says that you take it as *part of* another action. I have proposed (repeatedly) that the usual action that hovering (or any other fly skill check use) would be part of is a move action to fly (that is, to utilize your fly movement rate). Again, the rules for the fly skill are vague at best (ALL we know about hover is that it's DC 15). Otherwise, I will continue to assert that I can hover without a fly speed (show me the rule that says I can't) with a simple DC 15 fly check. You keep ignoring the rules. Fly states it is not an action to use the fly skill but that it is part of something else such as an action or reaction. This is reacting to not moving the proper distance and thus falls under the rules. An action (such as move action) is not required to Hover.
Cyrus Lanthier wrote: Sometimes, you have to use a bit of common sense. From your own example, Gauss, explain to me, in the game world, why it can't use fly to move when I am holding onto its leg? Sure, it can fly to move if it makes a standard action to do so, and wins a grapple check, but that still implies that grappling is restricting its wings (that's a lot more effort than without being grappled), which still isn't the maneuver the OP described. Also, the grappled condition still does say you can't move (as quoted above), so it's not like I am pulling this out of thin air. Why? Because it is anchored to the creature controlling the grapple and the rules state only the creature controlling a grapple can move the pair.
This does not imply it is restricting it's wings any more than it implies it is restricting a land creatures legs or a swimming creatures fins (or whatever). What it is implying is that you are anchored to another creature and that only the creature in control of the grapple has the option of moving you and itself anywhere.
The problem here is that you have completely missed the point of grapple and how movement under a grapple operates. It has nothing to do with the movement mode of walking, flying, swimming, or climbing. You keep overlooking or deliberately ignoring this fact. Take flying out of the equation, get familiar with how moving under a grapple operates and THEN apply flying back into the equation. The result is no difference in the rules except for a flying creatures need to hover if not moving.
BTW, I suggest in the future you avoid implying a lack of common sense in others lest you be seen the same way. It is insulting and not conducive to a debate.
Edit: I missed it on the first pass, Gauss. I was wrong to imply a lack of common sense. That was discourteous of me and I apologize.
The difference between choosing not to move and not being able to move is what really matters here for the question of weather a grappled flier falls, IMO. My logic is this; You can't move, Therefore you can't fly (flying is a kind of movement). This puts you in the same boat as someone who can't fly for lack of wings, as far as I am concerned. So, why can one entity that can't fly hover (that is, a grappled drake), while another can't (a random dude with ranks in the fly skill)?
Hovering is harder than moving through the air, also called "flying"(the DC tells us this). You can't move, yet you can you hover?
That definition of hover that you found says that *you* can halt your movement to hover. If you don't have movement, how can you halt it? If you can't halt your movement, can you hover?
What's happening in the game world that the drake can hover in place but not fly around? In terms of being restrained, the drakes wings don't even have to move in order to glide about. But it can't do that. So, how does it have enough control over it's wings to move them constantly in order to hover? By comparison, it's easier to stand in place than to walk around, so denying movement to a human doesn't generally mean that they fall down.
Strangely, the 5 description of a 5 foot step does not tell us what sort of action it is. I imagined it would be a free action, but it doesn't say that, so it may be no action at all. If it *is* no action at all, then it wouldn't qualify as an action that you could make a fly check as part of. But this whole paragraph is beside the point, because the debate is about what happens to a grappled flying creature, and that creature clearly can't take a 5 foot step. The greater debate (that is to say, the OP's question) is what happens when you try to ride an unwilling creature. I don't think that the grapple rules represent this action in a satisfactory way, and to be honest, even *if* the drake could hover while grappled, that would still be an unsatisfactory representation, as the rogue in the example isn't trying to restrict the drakes movement. So, I think that we should all agree to start another thread about what happens when a flying creature can't move, and use this thread to FAQ Blackbloodtroll's very good and succinct questions. I'll make the new thread now.
Thank you for the apology.
The thing is, you can always use your limbs unless you are helpless (such as paralyzed) or you are stated you cannot use them. Grappled in earlier editions might have done this but in Pathfinder it does not. Pathfinder grapple is 'I grab your shirt, shoulder, whatever'. It is not a wrestling equivalent of a body hug.
Anyhow, we can continue this in the other thread.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
