Dr. Jamgo's page

I think the sickened effect is for drinking two potions simultaneously.

Yes, but why? Why does it make me sickened?

I personally dont get why it must be a standard action.. If I can talk during combat for free, then I can suck on a tube.
I wouldn't be able to talk or use spells with a verbal comp. during that round, sure.

Dustboy's approach sounds legit. But why should you be sickened?

Who ever moved this post to the appropriate category: thank you! :-)

Had a similar idea..
I wonder what the Craft DC would be for such a thing.. Any GM with an idea?

@That Crazy Alchemist:
I already discovered that I've put it in the wrong category. I am not able to move it, I would if i could... :-(

@DrFwoosh:
Thank you for your contribution.. I appreciate it.

I'd only allow the small guy to have cover from the big guy if everyone the little guy attacks also has cover from the little guy. The big guy always being in front of the little guy blocks the little guys view.

Correct.. cover works in both directions. Since little guy will be a spellcaster, it wont impact him though. Just for spells with range touch or the kind.

And the saddle should occupy the big guys body or shoulder slot.

good point!

Other than that have fun and throw up a post letting us know how it went.

In order to try it out, me and my buddy have to die first in our running campaign. This combo is what we would build in that case.

@Magda Luckbender
Thanks for your reply, that truely sounds like fun. Great that you supported your group with this. I think stuff like this pays off.

Ugh...this again. I swear I see someone "come up with" this at least once a week...

Sorry for stealing your time..

...can't be done without homebrew rules...

Yes, thats what I am trying to do here.. want to contribute something?

If you a GM. Do you know the player and the table? Is he or anyone going to be upset at or abuse the power given to the player? Or will it be an primarily enjoyable experience for everyone involved.

No, I'm not the/a GM, just a player.. We are playing more then 2 years together now. And I guess we like weird/odd things to experience. And sure, the rules have to be crafted in a way in which it is neither overpowered, nor too limiting.

First, you can't be covered as you wouldn't have line of sight to your target etc, so you would have to be exposed.

by RAW, yes.. but picturing it.. I feel like the little guy shoud have 'some' cover..

regarding second and third:
Yes, concentrating must be pretty hard, but nothing one couldn't manage with feats n stuff.
But 'entangled' sounds a bit extreme, dont you think? nothing pulls his legs or arms..

Darn, did you create this thread just so you could criticize those who posted in it?

Uhm, no.. sorry if it seemd that way.

I was posting stuff from the rules which seemed like it might be relevant for one PC riding around on another, but I'll cut it out!

Yes you did.. you made a suggestion, and I told you why I think it does not apply in my scenario. Nothing personal.

You need to make a Ride check to attack when your mount attacks.

Its about a spellcaster as rider.. remember? And I would most likely not allow the small guy to attack, at all..

I now get, that my category os wrong maybe.. The "House Rules" is more appropriate I guess. (can anyone move this Thread?)

humanoids are nto suitable for riding vecause they stand upright

good point! Didn't think about that.. A Large/Small or Medium/Tiny combination would make life way easier!

In this case be upfront about the tactic and mention the downsides along with the upsides, this way the GM is much more likely to allow it.

True. downsides could be:

Regardless I would try and come up with some sort of rules to make it fun and work.

Thats what I try to do, (with a little advice from here). Our group is in generell very open about odd ideas to make the game interresting and fun.

Considering the fact that there's also a -5 penalty for not using a saddle

My Idea is that these to Creatures go through life together for years. So they would have a custom made harness or something, that fits way better than a average-joes saddle on a horse.

Regards,
Dr.

@mplindustries
I briefly searched the forum with keywords appearing in my caption and found nothing that appeared similar.. :-/
But thanks for the links, they are very helpfull.

The game is not designed to work well with this sort of mechanic.

True.. but it is (In this fantasy scenario) possible and thus I try to find rules to correspond to that.

Regards

if you're in a backpack, you are stuff, not able to take actions.

Backpack is not meant literally.. More like a harness like for babys.

It's sad that you dont see the appeal, roleplaying wise this is way more fun than a usuall riding dog.

Thanks for your oppinion guys, but my question aims at rules to implement that in a fair/realistic way, not ways to not do it at all. It is clearly not a necessity to have, we aggree on that! :-)

edit: short: whoever is agianst the idea in generall, skip this thread and move on, you are not helping ansering my question..

Hi guys,

So this is what a friend of mine and I came up with:
A strong, heavy melee combat class with a small sourcerer/druid/cleric in his backpack. I find the Idea terrific and i bet its fun to play..

I still stuggle a bit with creating a fair set of rules for such a combination. Does anyone maybe even know of an example, did anyone tried this before?

My first draft would be:
Small guy:
He applies rules as if he would be riding (technically he is) for concetration checks and such things
He has soft cover from any opponent because his big buddy allways faces opponents and protects him in that way. This applies only if not flanked (or prone).
Big guy:
No spezial rules, just a heavy backpack with a small dude in it :-)

Any rules that may be woven into that to make it more fun?

Regarding the roleplay aspect:
These two guys clearly have a strong bond. Small guy can even have a true disability like no legs which forced them into this.

What do you think about it, sounds fun to me?