Other Players Mounting You - What are the Rules?


Advice


Say you are a Centaur Katana Duelist Samurai, and the Human Rogue goes to mount you. Do you get separate turns? What modifiers apply when an enemy targets either you or your rider? What if you don't want that character to ride you because you're saving the saddle for the Dwarf Cleric? Can you do anything to make it easier for your rider to do whatever it is they're doing?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Tales Subscriber

First and foremost- are you allowing them to ride you?
If yes, proceed the section. If no, i'd rule it a CMD check to "jump onto you".
Every turn after, you'd try to shake them off- which would be a ride check, or acrobatics depending on the gm to stay on you. At that point, if you're not cooperating, you're both wasting turns.
If would take a move action for them to get off of you, unless they fail a ride or acrobatics check to stay mounted.

If you allowed them to ride you, then typically the Rogues turn gets "delayed" until your turn- since you're the one moving. You get your attack off, he gets his.

in regards to combat, both you and your rider have your own AC and enemies can target either of you. If your Rogue had the "Mounted Combat" feat, then it would be up to the GM if that feat would effective in regards to your own sentient PC.
Attack modifiers won't change- depending on who wants to do what.

Don't take my word for it, as this is just how i'd handle things and there's many ways to interpret how an intelligent creature that can be mounted, and the nuances of mounted combat.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

First dinner and a movie....0.O


Haha, right.

I guess this would be too corner-case for there to be any official ruling, vague or otherwise.


For a corner case, it sure comes up a lot. Players are the strangest people.

Shadow Lodge

Uh, consent?
I mean it in every sense: if the centaur PC and the, let's say, half-elf PC are both fine with it, use the mounted combat rules as normal, except the rider can't really make Ride checks to "guide the mount"; instead, the rider says, "Go for that one!" and the centaur gets to decide where they're going to go.
If the centaur charges, and the half-elf also wants to aim for the same target, then they're both charging, the half-elf attacking with the lance and the centaur attacking with whatever weapon. If they're attacking in tandem, you can presume rider delays until the mount's turn.
If one of them doesn't want to do that formation, then you'd have to ask for grapple checks, and tell them that they aren't being funny.


Starfinder Charter Superscriber

The thread title is one of my favourite ever! :)


Get your minds out of the gutter! Ugh, I really need to work on my phrasing...(I just now realized how dirty the title sounds)


That being said, any other suggestions?


I actively attempt to discourage players mounting players within my games. So take everything here with a grain of salt. I rule that riding a character is significantly different than riding a mount.

Mounts have been trained to obey and cooperate with their risers, and acting of their own volition in very limited and specific ways (attacking enemies). Having rode and competed in horsemanship events, I can tell you that there is a world of difference between riding a mount that is doing what you want it to and riding a mount that is doing what it wants to. And I'm not talking about the mount wanting you off and trying to buck, no, I'm just talking about it having an independent thought and doing something you were not anticipating. Yes, this is applying a real-world argument to an in-game problem, which makes it a weak argument.

More importantly. Having a character as a mount significantly changes the action economy of the game. Suddenly one character is moving around for free. I've seen many a wizard give up there turn to dimension door a rogue into position. That is the power boost this is giving to your characters, free dimension doors.

The action economy the character gain from mounting is similar to what they would gain from having a mount, but this is still very unbalanced; Characters can go places mounts can. Survivable mounts are rare, expensive, or are entire class features. In a crowded fight normal mounts take up valuable space, sometimes preventing multiple character from entering melee.

So, to allow characters to carry characters and maintain game balance. I rule that one character must use a standard action to hold on every round. So if you are riding on the barbarians shoulders, you must use your standard action to hold on every round, this is like a grapple check except that it is impossible to fail. Alternatively the barbarian can hold on to you to keep you steady, or be careful to make no abrupt moves to un-seat you and that would be their standard action.

I'm not interested in trying to change anyone's mind here, but these are some arguments and house rules to use if you wish.


Lazaryus wrote:
Get your minds out of the gutter! Ugh, I really need to work on my phrasing...(I just now realized how dirty the title sounds)
Lazaryus wrote:
That being said, any other suggestions?

if other players are mounting you (the player) then I think you must be winning at something. If other characters however are mounting your character that's a completely different situation.

In those cases, if the character being mounted is a quadraped (which is the case in your example), then I would treat it the same as someone trying to ride a wild mount if neither character has any sort of training.

My ruling would be as follows

As a full round action the "mount" can allow themselves to be maneuvered by the rider. This causes the mount's initiative to be delayed to be the same as the rider's initiative, otherwise the rider can not "make" the mount move on their turn. If the "mount" decides to stop being controlled by the rider they now go right before the rider.

If the mount attacks and the rider is not trained to fight with the mount they must make a check to stay on the mount. If the rider is trained but the mount is not they are treated as if they were attacking with an improvised weapon, if they are already using an improvised weapon then this penalty is doubled.

If the mount is not trained in mounted combat then they suffer an armor check penalty as if they were wearing heavy armor.

training would probably take the form of the mounted combat feat for both rider and mount if they want to reduce/remove penalties.


If a rogue mounts a sentient creature like a PC Centaur, the Ride check to avoid a hit using the feat Mounted Combat cannot apply. The enemy mob simply has to make an attack roll against the AC of the Centaur as normal.

It was covered in the Centaur-only Cavalier Archetype called Charger: "A charger can never gain the benefit of the Mounted Combat feat (or other similar feats or effects, such as Trick Riding) if ridden by another creature." I know it doesn't specifically say Katana Duelist Samurai here, but I would agree that this same rule applies to your situation.

I also believe everything in the Ride Check only applies to non-sentient animal riding, except the DC checks to "stay in saddle", "fight on a combat trained mount", and "fast mount/dismount" would apply to riding sentient creatures. Also, getting a military saddle could help the rogue's ride checks towards staying in the saddle, if he ever has to make any:

"Equipment: If you are riding bareback, you take a –5 penalty on Ride checks. If you have the Animal Affinity feat, you get a +2 bonus on Ride skill checks. If you have 10 or more ranks in Ride, the bonus increases to +4. If you use a military saddle you get a +2 circumstance bonus on Ride checks related to staying in the saddle."


Pathfinder Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber

I'm pretty sure the 3rd party Book of Passion covers everything you need to know.

Really, it depends on if the mount is submissive.

Wait, that came out wrong. It depends on if the mount player sacrifices their agency. If so, the rider would determine the movement, use their initiative for both entities, determine the actions of the mount (via verbal commands) and be able to use feats like Mounted Combat. If the mount maintains agency, then it moves on its own, and the rider merely uses it as a way to move between turns without consuming actions. However, due to a lack of synergy, I would not allow mounted feats to apply.

At least this is how I would run it as a GM.


...OH GAWD!


You read the book, didn't you...


YEEESSS!!!


I formed my own rules and wrote them here (at the bottom). What are your opinions?


It seems to heavily favor the steed, but I don't find that to be a problem. More than that, I can't really say.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder RPG / Advice / Other Players Mounting You - What are the Rules? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.