Got you on a technicality...


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 74 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I had this thought so i checked up on it and sure enough, it's supported by RAW.

You can according to RAW use the Disarm combat maneuver to forcibly dismount an opponent. If you Disarm the Horse (Griffin, Dragon, Etc...), it Drops whatever its carrying.

Disarm wrote:


You can attempt to disarm your opponent in place of a melee attack. If you do not have the Improved Disarm feat, or a similar ability, attempting to disarm a foe provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver. Attempting to disarm a foe while unarmed imposes a –4 penalty on the attack.

If your attack is successful, your target drops one item it is carrying of your choice (even if the item is wielded with two hands). If your attack exceeds the CMD of the target by 10 or more, the target drops the items it is carrying in both hands (maximum two items if the target has more than two hands). If your attack fails by 10 or more, you drop the weapon that you were using to attempt the disarm. If you successfully disarm your opponent without using a weapon, you may automatically pick up the item dropped.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Your rules-fu is weak. A creature is not an item.


IF you use a definition of "carry" clearly not used by the ability. Fail.

Shadow Lodge

Since Paizo has not chosen to define the term Item within the context of the game rules (like in the glossary for instance), we're forced to go by the textbook definition:

TheFreeDictionary.com wrote:

item

n
1. a thing or unit, esp included in a list or collection
2. (Accounting & Book-keeping) accounting an entry in an account
3. a piece of information, detail, or note: a news item.
4. two people having a romantic or sexual relationship
vb
5. (tr) an archaic word for itemize
adv
6. (Literary & Literary Critical Terms) likewise; also
[C14 (adv) from Latin: in like manner]
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

A rider can in fact be an item.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Wrong again. There isn't a glossary listing of "item", but we do have a functional definition based on other rules.

For example: the Combat chapter says that a creature can pick up an item as a move action and drop a carried item as a free action, but a mount can do neither of these things to a rider. Ergo, a rider is not an item carried by the mount, as far as the rules are concerned.


I personally think that by RAW it works out perfecty. Its an odd quirk, and probably something a DM would rule again, but I don't see a reason why it wouldn't work in terms of RAW, and personally its a fun addition to a disarm ability.

I mean, lets have a look at Jiggy's reasoning against it. Say, the mount has a saddle bag on the saddle. It is very clearly carrying the saddle bag and the saddle bag is without a doubt an item. Yet, the mount is unable to drop a carried saddlebag as a free action. Maybe if it is sapiant it could, but most mounts aren't sapiant. So, I don't think Jiggy's reason holds water.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fury of the Tempest wrote:
I mean, lets have a look at Jiggy's reasoning against it. Say, the mount has a saddle bag on the saddle. It is very clearly carrying the saddle bag and the saddle bag is without a doubt an item. Yet, the mount is unable to drop a carried saddlebag as a free action. Maybe if it is sapiant it could, but most mounts aren't sapiant. So, I don't think Jiggy's reason holds water.

Wrong, a saddlebag is worn, not carried. (This is the same distinction that keeps a buckler from getting disarmed.) So although a saddlebag is an item, it's worn rather than carried, and therefore has no conflict with the rules I cited about dropping items, and in turn does not in any way contradict the conclusions I drew about a rider not being a carried item.

Mini-rant:
This is one of my pet peeves. Someone who's not actually very skilled at understanding complex rules mistakenly thinks that X is rules-legal when it's not. They tell other people about it, and those people aren't any better at rules parsing, and therefore fail to see that it's not actually rules-legal. They then add it to their mental tally of reasons why "the rules clearly say X" shouldn't hold any weight at their tables, then eventually end up in the Advice forum asking what to do about a table full of so-called "rules lawyers" (who are actually just people who understand the game better than they do). Try to advise the person about how the rules actually work and it's "No no, I've seen what happens when you follow RAW, so clearly the situation is not that I'm getting something wrong, but rather that my players haven't reached this level of enlightenment yet, so the advice I need is how to get them to understand they need to let go of rules in order to play the game as it was intended."

Liberty's Edge

This is just silly. A horse cannot carry anything unless it holds it in its mouth. A horse is sometimes said to be "carrying" its rider, but that is the same as a person with a backpack. You aren't carrying your backpack, you are wearing it. The horse is wearing tack and the rider is sitting on the tack. Good luck with trying to enforce that on your players or trying to get a DM to go with it. It's this kind of word-mongering that creates rule reading chaos. Paizo does not need to define "item" so as it does not include a PC or creature.

Silver Crusade

As far as I am aware, there are no rules for forcibly dismounting somebody. Which means that it is up to the GM.

Personally, I think I'd require two grapple checks (one to grab, one to move). Probably with a penalty to the latter for a military saddle. But I could certainly see a GM saying it was a single combat maneuver check, or an attack roll combined with some opposed check, or several other possibilities. A disarm check on the horse seems a poor choice but not totally silly. I've probably made dumber choices of mechanics in the heat of the moment. Heck, Paizo's choice to use [insert mechanic you think really, really silly here. We all have at least one] is worse than that.

So, I agree this isn't RAW. But its not as silly as you're all making it out to be


Master of Shadows wrote:

I had this thought so i checked up on it and sure enough, it's supported by RAW.

You can according to RAW use the Disarm combat maneuver to forcibly dismount an opponent. If you Disarm the Horse (Griffin, Dragon, Etc...), it Drops whatever its carrying.

Disarm wrote:


You can attempt to disarm your opponent in place of a melee attack. If you do not have the Improved Disarm feat, or a similar ability, attempting to disarm a foe provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver. Attempting to disarm a foe while unarmed imposes a –4 penalty on the attack.

If your attack is successful, your target drops one item it is carrying of your choice (even if the item is wielded with two hands). If your attack exceeds the CMD of the target by 10 or more, the target drops the items it is carrying in both hands (maximum two items if the target has more than two hands). If your attack fails by 10 or more, you drop the weapon that you were using to attempt the disarm. If you successfully disarm your opponent without using a weapon, you may automatically pick up the item dropped.

In 3.5, you could do that with a Trip Maneuver. I don't think Disarm is the thing.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

pauljathome wrote:
So, I agree this isn't RAW. But its not as silly as you're all making it out to be

I think the "this is silly" stuff is not being directed at the idea of forcibly dismounting someone, but at the idea that the disarm maneuver covers it "by RAW".

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Master of Shadows wrote:
A rider can in fact be an item.

At best we are at "Table Variance". A rider is never an item or object unless he is dead at any table I'm GMing.

Grand Lodge

pauljathome wrote:
As far as I am aware, there are no rules for forcibly dismounting somebody. Which means that it is up to the GM.

THIS is the only defined way that I'm aware of to accomplish it.


Having rules to forcibly dismount someone isn't silly, though we don't currently have any rules covering it except this item:

Quote:

Lance of Jousting

This ornately designed +1 lance streams with ribbons and small favors, allowing a wielder to more effectively knock an opponent from his mount. A successful hit with a lance of jousting on a mounted opponent forces the target to make a Ride check (DC 10 + damage dealt) to avoid being knocked from the saddle. Although used in combat to remove a mounted foe's advantage, use of a lance of jousting in a tournament or similar contest is generally considered a dishonorable form of cheating.

Edit: Apparently there is also the feat Unseat, posted above. These are the only options by RAW. However, seems like bull rush or reposition as their normal actions types would probably allow you to knock someone off their mount. End Edit.

Forcibly dismounting someone is something that should be able to be done, but currently we don't have rules for it. Personally I would just run it as a Combat Maneuver check versus the targets CMD. With a military saddle adding it's bonus to stay in the saddle against such attempts. Technically, one could use reposition to get them out of the saddle assuming removing them from the saddle didn't put them in an inherently dangerous square.

However, this idea of using disarm and consider people as objects....it's ridiculous and blatantly disingenuous. When people make these sorts of arguments all they do is set themselves up as individuals who cannot be trusted to have useful understandings of the rules, either through extreme misunderstanding or willful perversion of the rules.


Stay in Saddle: You can react instantly to try to avoid falling when your mount rears or bolts unexpectedly or when you take damage. This usage does not take an action.

Another way to dismount.
Not a good way, but it's there.


Claxon wrote:

Having rules to forcibly dismount someone isn't silly,...

However, this idea of using disarm and consider people as objects....it's ridiculous and blatantly disingenuous. When people make these sorts of arguments all they do is set themselves up as individuals who cannot be trusted to have useful understandings of the rules, either through extreme misunderstanding or willful perversion of the rules.

Well, let's say King Kong and Godzilla were fighting, and King Kong is holding Fay Wray. If Godzilla wants to make King Kong drop Fay Wray, is a Disarm attempt inappropriate? I guess so. If the Froghemoth has your buddy on it's tongue, the appropriate maneuver is Grapple to Aid Another to assist in your friend escaping. I suppose you could Grapple a Knight off a horse.

But still, it's an overstatement to call it disingenuous, ridiculous, or silly.

Then again, maybe not.

Meanwhile, I think the King Kong example is telling. Fay Wray is in King Kong's hand. The knight is not in the horse's hand. If the knight were an item, it would be an unattendeded item on the horse's person (?????), and therefore the appropriate Maneuver would not be Disarm, but Steal.

The idea of people being items reminds me of playing Munchkin. The Robot and Talking Car sidekicks are both items, so therefore someone with the Theft Ability can steal them.

It is not the horse holding the knight, though. It is the knight holding the horse, and it should be the Knight's CMD or whatever that needs overcoming.

Claxon wrote:
Having rules to forcibly dismount someone isn't silly, though we don't currently have any rules covering it

Well, there is the Unseat Feat. And in 3.5, you used to be able to use the Trip maneuver to pull a rider off his horse. That made sense: lots of Trip weapons are based on weapons people used historically to pull riders off their horses. The Halberd comes to mind.


I don't think it is possible to forcibly dismount someone, unless you begin the situation by being actually mounted on that someone.

Now, causing another to be forcibly dismounted is another question...


Both of the official methods above are optimized for people who are already mounted (the feat requires it, the weapon is a lance, which is a weapon that is really only meant for mounted use). What is wanted I think is a way for someone on foot with a hook or halberd or something to be able to unseat mounted opponents to level the playing field?

Edit: I think a Trip Combat Maneuver against the rider is a good way to handle it.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Terquem wrote:
I don't think it is possible to forcibly dismount someone, unless you begin the situation by being actually mounted on that someone.

Now, where'd that "Succubus in a Grapple" thread get to...?

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
Terquem wrote:
I don't think it is possible to forcibly dismount someone, unless you begin the situation by being actually mounted on that someone.
Now, where'd that "Succubus in a Grapple" thread get to...?

I hope it got deleted as it doesn't actually belong in the rules forum.


I would think that the reposition combat maneuver would be dandy for forcibly dismounting a rider.

I also think that grappling then moving the grappled rider would work as pauljathome has indicated.

I also think that bull rush could be used, although an acrobatics check may be needed by the bull rusher to get some elevation when trying the bull rush.


Or you could trip the horse.


Jiggy wrote:
Terquem wrote:
I don't think it is possible to forcibly dismount someone, unless you begin the situation by being actually mounted on that someone.
Now, where'd that "Succubus in a Grapple" thread get to...?

Still going strong


claudekennilol wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Terquem wrote:
I don't think it is possible to forcibly dismount someone, unless you begin the situation by being actually mounted on that someone.
Now, where'd that "Succubus in a Grapple" thread get to...?
I hope it got deleted as it doesn't actually belong in the rules forum.

Could you even possibly be more of a buzzkill? That thread is fantastic.

Grand Lodge

CampinCarl9127 wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Terquem wrote:
I don't think it is possible to forcibly dismount someone, unless you begin the situation by being actually mounted on that someone.
Now, where'd that "Succubus in a Grapple" thread get to...?
I hope it got deleted as it doesn't actually belong in the rules forum.
Could you even possibly be more of a buzzkill? That thread is fantastic.

I could. It's a huge waste of space and takes space from threads that actually deserve to be in the rules forum.


Couldnt you just sunder or disarm the saddle to make the rider fall off without questionable interpretations?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Or use the Drag combat maneuver to pull the rider out of his mounts space.


Criminies, man, are you people tough, and rude.

Did you ever, even once, consider just asking the rider to get down from the horse first?

Sheesh, people, man.

Shadow Lodge

...wait, that WORKS?


I have a +14 on my diplomacy checks...

Worth a shot, don't you think?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
claudekennilol wrote:
CampinCarl9127 wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Terquem wrote:
I don't think it is possible to forcibly dismount someone, unless you begin the situation by being actually mounted on that someone.
Now, where'd that "Succubus in a Grapple" thread get to...?
I hope it got deleted as it doesn't actually belong in the rules forum.
Could you even possibly be more of a buzzkill? That thread is fantastic.
I could. It's a huge waste of space and takes space from threads that actually deserve to be in the rules forum.

Go to thread, hit "Hide", problem solved.

Besides which it takes up just as much "space" as any other thread. The single line block that tells the title of it. Clearly this is an issue.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Waglinde wrote:

I have a +14 on my diplomacy checks...

Worth a shot, don't you think?

Can you survive the ten rounds it takes to complete your check?

Shadow Lodge

In some cultures, A mounted combat would have to yield the seat and fight his opponent on even footing if both were of equal social standing, or if the one asking had a higher social standing. Rules of Chivalry and what not.

Ultimately this thread was a bit of a lark, and responses have been quite entertaining. It has served the purpose of bringing to light several "Legit" ways to Unhorse an opponent. Sundering the Saddle Strap being probably the closest to the original intent of disarming the horse of its rider. Feat use and all aside, it's mechanically identical to disarm up until the point of dealing damage to the object.


Baval wrote:
Couldnt you just sunder or disarm the saddle to make the rider fall off without questionable interpretations?

No, probably not. Saddles aren't required to stay on the mount, they just make it more comfortable and easier. If you sunder the saddle the rider should probably get a Ride check to stay on the mount. Currently there are no rules to cover what should happen if you sunder the saddle and it would need to be made up.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Probably best to just cast disintegrate on the horse.

Grand Lodge

Claxon wrote:
Baval wrote:
Couldnt you just sunder or disarm the saddle to make the rider fall off without questionable interpretations?
No, probably not. Saddles aren't required to stay on the mount, they just make it more comfortable and easier. If you sunder the saddle the rider should probably get a Ride check to stay on the mount. Currently there are no rules to cover what should happen if you sunder the saddle and it would need to be made up.

Admittedly at +5 DC (for riding bareback)


Master of Shadows wrote:
Ultimately this thread was a bit of a lark

Mmk. I bet.


claudekennilol wrote:
pauljathome wrote:
As far as I am aware, there are no rules for forcibly dismounting somebody. Which means that it is up to the GM.
THIS is the only defined way that I'm aware of to accomplish it.

Trip + Ki Throw is also a rules-legal way to do it, though not explicit like Unseat.

Silver Crusade

Master of Shadows wrote:


Ultimately this thread was a bit of a lark, and responses have been quite entertaining.

I guess its refreshing when somebody openly admits he was trolling?


FLite wrote:
Claxon wrote:
Baval wrote:
Couldnt you just sunder or disarm the saddle to make the rider fall off without questionable interpretations?
No, probably not. Saddles aren't required to stay on the mount, they just make it more comfortable and easier. If you sunder the saddle the rider should probably get a Ride check to stay on the mount. Currently there are no rules to cover what should happen if you sunder the saddle and it would need to be made up.
Admittedly at +5 DC (for riding bareback)

more than that i would think. Without the straps youd end up with a piece of leather between you and the horse, making it much harder to grip with your knees, especially since youre now not only trying to keep yourself up, but the weight of the saddle and anything attached to it as well.

For example, this saddle is only loose and not even heavy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bi9J5iopwD0


You can also just bull rush the rider.

Hit him, move him 1 square, he's no longer on the horse.


Does disarm even work when the target actually doesn't have "hands"?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gwen Smith wrote:
Does disarm even work when the target actually doesn't have "hands"?

My first BBEG that I ever wrote was a war cleric of Zon-Kuthon who "disarmed" people by ripping their arms off.


Baval wrote:
FLite wrote:
Claxon wrote:
Baval wrote:
Couldnt you just sunder or disarm the saddle to make the rider fall off without questionable interpretations?
No, probably not. Saddles aren't required to stay on the mount, they just make it more comfortable and easier. If you sunder the saddle the rider should probably get a Ride check to stay on the mount. Currently there are no rules to cover what should happen if you sunder the saddle and it would need to be made up.
Admittedly at +5 DC (for riding bareback)

more than that i would think. Without the straps youd end up with a piece of leather between you and the horse, making it much harder to grip with your knees, especially since youre now not only trying to keep yourself up, but the weight of the saddle and anything attached to it as well.

For example, this saddle is only loose and not even heavy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bi9J5iopwD0

Well, unfortunately for you, you are incorrect.

Ride Skill wrote:
Special: If you are riding bareback, you take a –5 penalty on Ride checks.

The penalty is only a -5 to ride checks, so a worse case scenario is basically a DC 10 to stay in the saddle.


Claxon wrote:
Baval wrote:
FLite wrote:
Claxon wrote:
Baval wrote:
Couldnt you just sunder or disarm the saddle to make the rider fall off without questionable interpretations?
No, probably not. Saddles aren't required to stay on the mount, they just make it more comfortable and easier. If you sunder the saddle the rider should probably get a Ride check to stay on the mount. Currently there are no rules to cover what should happen if you sunder the saddle and it would need to be made up.
Admittedly at +5 DC (for riding bareback)

more than that i would think. Without the straps youd end up with a piece of leather between you and the horse, making it much harder to grip with your knees, especially since youre now not only trying to keep yourself up, but the weight of the saddle and anything attached to it as well.

For example, this saddle is only loose and not even heavy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bi9J5iopwD0

Well, unfortunately for you, you are incorrect.

Ride Skill wrote:
Special: If you are riding bareback, you take a –5 penalty on Ride checks.
The penalty is only a -5 to ride checks, so a worse case scenario is basically a DC 10 to stay in the saddle.

The rider would not be riding bareback. They would be riding on a destroyed saddle. The rules are silent on this particular possibility.


I like the idea of just tripping the horse... but does that work with large sized/four limbs?

Really, why even waste the action? Unless it is a paladins mount/animal companion, just kill the damn horse.


alexd1976 wrote:

I like the idea of just tripping the horse... but does that work with large sized/four limbs?

Really, why even waste the action? Unless it is a paladins mount/animal companion, just kill the damn horse.

If you have ki throw, you trip the rider and move him to another square that's adjacent to you...unless you're Mongo, that is.

1 to 50 of 74 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Got you on a technicality... All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.