In the game I am currently playing in I am running a cleric/monk who fights from horseback. According to the rules, I can do this just fine and dandy and even get a +1 to my attacks as long as the opponent is smaller than my mount due to higher ground. He is riding a Light Warhorse, btw, before anyone tries to point out the dynamics of mounted combat with non-war-trained mounts. However when put into practice, my DM ruled that I am unable to reach down that far to hit my opponent without a DC 20 ride check to avoid falling out of the saddle. I see where he is coming from and we compromised that once I get the Mounted Combat feat and if I am using a Military Saddle I can pull this off without a hitch, but I am just wondering what everyone else thinks about the mechanics of unarmed strikes while in mounted combat. Mechanically with the way the rules are now, I can do it no problem, however in practice I admit it will be a rather strange feat of riding to accomplish. The way the Monk class is, they get Ride as a class skill, suggesting that Monks should be able to Ride and do Unarmed Strikes. Perhaps it should be errata'ed that:
As it is:
Combat while Mounted: With a DC 5 Ride check, you can guide your mount with your knees so as to use both your hands to attack or defend yourself. This is a free action.
When you attack a creature smaller than your mount that is on foot, you get the +1 bonus on melee attacks for being on higher ground. If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only make a single melee attack. Essentially, you have to wait until the mount gets to your enemy before attacking, so you can't make a full attack. Even at your mount's full speed, you don't take any penalty on melee attacks while mounted.
"Both hands free," "don't take any penalty on melee attacks while mounted." From reading it, keeping in mind what I wanna do as a Mounted Monk, it seems completely within the rules that I can punch people from my mount. However I wouldn't have any problem if it was errata'd to something of this nature:
Combat while Mounted: With a DC 5 Ride check, you can guide your mount with your knees so as to use both your hands to attack or defend yourself. This is a free action.
When you attack a creature smaller than your mount that is on foot, you get the +1 bonus on melee attacks for being on higher ground. If you are using a light weapon while Mounted, including unarmed strikes, you can only hit creatures that are within one size category of your mount or make a DC 20 Ride check to be able to stay in the saddle while performing this maneuver. Monks with ranks in the Ride skill and/or players with the Mounted Combat Feat can instead make a DC 10 Ride check to accomplish this maneuver. If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only make a single melee attack. Essentially, you have to wait until the mount gets to your enemy before attacking, so you can't make a full attack. Even at your mount's full speed, you don't take any penalty on melee attacks while mounted.
I made it all light weapons in addition to unarmed strikes because if a player had trouble with a unarmed strike they will also have the same issue with a short sword and a dagger, among other things. I put that they will be able to hit a creature within one size category, but if anyone thinks that it should be ANY creature smaller than your mount and therefore possibly out of reach, feel free to chime in. Let me know what you all think about this issue. I look forward to hearing what you all think.
Its a tricky situation but I think you've covered it quite nicely. smaller creatures such a goblins would be harder to hit from atop a steed.
Its a tricky situation but I think you've covered it quite nicely. smaller creatures such a goblins would be harder to hit from atop a steed.
Basically. So nobody else has any opinion on this matter?
Remember -- you don't have to do an unarmed strike with your hand. A kick from horseback would work just fine, I think (and wouldn't require you to lean wa-a-a-a-ay over to punch someone).
Remember -- you don't have to do an unarmed strike with your hand. A kick from horseback would work just fine, I think (and wouldn't require you to lean wa-a-a-a-ay over to punch someone).
Well what if you are doing a strike with a magical gauntlet, the modifiers on the gauntlet won't transfer to your boots/sandals/toes. And kicking still doesn't cover what you'd do with a dagger or sickle from horseback.
|
okay deathcon00, this is my argument against what you were attempting last Tuesday. i.e. attempting an unarmed strike from horseback, on a large horse, against a medium boar (long, not tall).
1. the spirit of the rules should be followed especially when the letter of the rules is unclear, they should not be taken advantage of. the rules were written to emulate the real world physics and history. of course, magic and special powers are the things that allow for permutations on the rules.
2. being on horseback removes a martial artists from what makes martial arts effective: being in contact with the ground, leverage, torque, low center of gravity, etc. being on horseback and in a saddle limits your movement and flexibility. you need to use your hands and/or legs to steer the animal.
3. historically, melee weapons developed for mounted combat were made longer and to take advantage of the horses height and the fact that the rider must rely on the horses strength and speed. ranged weapons were made shorter to not get in the way (composite short bows and carbine rifles for example).
4. in order to make the melee attack you'd need to lower yourself to the ground by taking the "cover" position. you'd have to steer with one hand while hanging on using your legs. you couldn't flurry. you couldn't rely on your own strength because your not drawing power up from your feet.
it would require a massive ride check and in the balance all that a mounted attack gives you is a +1 to hit. its seems a bit of an exercise in futility to build a character design around mounted unarmed combat.
So... did you completely read my opening post? I agree that unarmed strikes from horseback should be errata'd which is why I made the possible change idea and asked for your opinion on that. Unless you think that unarmed strike should simply be an impossible thing from horseback.
|
|
because ride is on the monk skill list does not suggest that they can unarmed strike while mounted. it suggests that monks might rely on riding as transportation.
a military saddle has high sides in front and back to wedge the rider into the saddle. its harder to dismount them as its more likely you'll injure their backs against the backing of the saddle. its not made for trick riding.
http://www.americanmilitarysaddle.com/medieval.html
monks are skilled in the use of spears and it would seem that they could use them from horseback.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sohei
"Sohei were quite varied in their armament. The naginata is the weapon most often associated with them, though in legend as well as history many warrior monks are known to have been proficient with everything from bow and arrow to tanto and wakizashi (dagger and shortsword). Many fought on horseback, and many with the O-yoroi armor of the samurai."
"The most traditional weapon of the monk, however, was the naginata, a weapon much like the European glaive or halberd."
http://www.taots.co.uk/content/view/32/27/
Unarmed Strike doesn't specify what appendage, but a kick from a normal mounted position would likely not hit a Small Humanoid standing up. A Medium opponent is enough of a stretch already (certainly for 'diagonal' squares). Honestly, the RAW aren't really specific enough to cover this without DM improvisation... And a Dagger (or Shield Bash) doesn't really give any more reach than Unarmed Attacks, so they should be just as penalized.
For "Medium" Creatures that are low to the ground (Boars, etc), the RAW are unclear, but I feel it's the DMs prerogative to treat them as a different Size Category where it makes sense (Snakes are a more extreme example of how Size Category can breakdown with proportions far from the average assumption)
If the Rider wants to/has the ability to hang off the side to make the attack, and can pass the skill check, they should be able to. I don't think Flurry of Blows actually requires both hands (i.e. a 1-armed Monk could still Flurry), so they could do this (requiring a Ride Check to avoid having the hanging-off-saddle count as Move Action), though they're basically "Climbing" at this point, and should have penalties as such.
Tangentially, does anybody know if in situations where you are denied DEX bonuses to AC, do you also lose DEX bonuses to ATTACK if you have Weapon Finesse? It would make sense, but I'm not sure what the RAW say, and I don't think it's ever come up in any games for me.
Well the naginata was not designed to be used on horseback rather a deterrent to mounted combatants. Now on to the subject at hand I firmly am of the mind if there is no rule it is DM discretion, that being said yes the game was made to emulate real world physics and fantasy why would you want to penalize a player for thinking outside the box especially when there are no rules that say if wielding a light weapon you can't atk a small creature or low to ground med creature in mounted combat. Also they would need to introduce facing into the game because you could not atk a creature directly in front or behind your mount and that is a level of complexity that is not needed in the game. I say let it go this is not something that breaks the balance of the game and the game does not need extra rules to complicate a non balance issue.
because ride is on the monk skill list ...
...like the European glaive or halberd."
http://www.taots.co.uk/content/view/32/27/
OK I get it, you have a lot of internet resources about what happened in our history, cool, but this is a fantasy world. A military saddle made here doesn't neccessarily need to be the same as the ones the Americans used in the Civil War. But that's not the point, I was hoping we could discuss a possible modification to the current rules like I talked about in my first thread, but you seem bent on going on about how punching from a horse is not monklike in your opinion.
Tangentially, does anybody know if in situations where you are denied DEX bonuses to AC, do you also lose DEX bonuses to ATTACK if you have Weapon Finesse? It would make sense, but I'm not sure what the RAW say, and I don't think it's ever come up in any games for me.
I think its a matter of being able to move your limbs or not, if you are flat-footed because you are leg-less but your amrs are free, you should still be able to use finesse, if a rogue improved feinted you causing you to be flat-footed for a round, your arms are still free even if you are stumbling around looking stupid or in the wrong direction.
Well the naginata was not designed to be used on horseback rather a deterrent to mounted combatants. Now on to the subject at hand I firmly am of the mind if there is no rule it is DM discretion, that being said yes the game was made to emulate real world physics and fantasy why would you want to penalize a player for thinking outside the box especially when there are no rules that say if wielding a light weapon you can't atk a small creature or low to ground med creature in mounted combat. Also they would need to introduce facing into the game because you could not atk a creature directly in front or behind your mount and that is a level of complexity that is not needed in the game. I say let it go this is not something that breaks the balance of the game and the game does not need extra rules to complicate a non balance issue.
I think the rules change that I proposed solves the problem in a simple yet practical way.