| 5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can't seem to find this anywhere - what size does a creature have to be to be used as a mount? Does it need to be one size category larger than you, or can it be the same size category?
There are occasional references (such as in the ride skill) about a creature being "suitable as a mount"; is there any easy way to determine this? Does a normally unsuitable creature count as "suitable" if you buy it an exotic saddle?
These are questions I never thought I'd have to ask until my party's Druid told me he wants to ride his T-Rex animal companion...
I can't seem to find this anywhere - what size does a creature have to be to be used as a mount? Does it need to be one size category larger than you, or can it be the same size category?
There are occasional references (such as in the ride skill) about a creature being "suitable as a mount"; is there any easy way to determine this? Does a normally unsuitable creature count as "suitable" if you buy it an exotic saddle?
These are questions I never thought I'd have to ask until my party's Druid told me he wants to ride his T-Rex animal companion...
In 3.5 it was specifically mentioned (in the DMG I believe) that mounts must be at least 1 size larger.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050125a
I can't find the same rule in the Pathfinder Core Rulebook (although I am certain that was the intent, especially with the inclusion of the wording under the Horse entry on page 162.
|
It isn't spelled out (that I know of), but it is strongly implied by the descriptions of horse and riding dog in the equipment section. The implication is that the mount must be one size category larger than the rider (so a Medium-sized creature can ride a Large creature). The "suitable" part is GM fiat, but in general creatures with a horse-like shape (quadrupedal, longer than they are tall) qualify. Some bipedal things might qualify, if they're built for it (like if they have wings, or are straight big-assed). Some non-pedal things also might qualify, but IMO should be two size categories larger than their riders.
Pegasus
Griffon
Wyvern
T-rex
Pterodactyl
Ostrich (chocobo!)
Unicorn
Giant Ant
Giant Bee/Wasp
Giant Eagle
Giant Lizard
Giant Slug
Giant Snake
Dragon (True)
Roc
That is more or less what I had figured, however two things confused me:
1) Ponies (medium sized creature) are listed as appropriate mounts for Dwarves.
2) A large number of medium sized creatures are implied to be appropriate mounts for Cavaliers in the APG beta tests; I don't know if this assumes a small size Cavalier?
|
|
1) Ponies (medium sized creature) are listed as appropriate mounts for Dwarves.
If you're referring to the Bestiary entry on ponies (Horse, Pony), read the rest of that description; the last sentence says gnomes and halflings. I think the implication here is that as pack animals or beasts of burden, they serve any size race, but as mounts they follow the same implied size rule.
2) A large number of medium sized creatures are implied to be appropriate mounts for Cavaliers in the APG beta tests; I don't know if this assumes a small size Cavalier?
I would say that yes, they're referencing Small cavaliers.
It has to be at least one size larger, it also has to have the strength to carry it's rider with either light to medium encumbrance (I don't remember if that was an official rule or just one that I used when it came up). It has to be trained, and should have a saddle, especially if it is an exotic animal that would be hard to sit on like a dinosaur.
So a Human, sized-Medium, can't ride an Elephant, sized-Huge?
When they say, 'suitable' does that mean that you don't have a penalty? This implies that say a gnome could right a Heavy Horse but not "suitably."
|
So a Human, sized-Medium, can't ride an Elephant, sized-Huge?
When they say, 'suitable' does that mean that you don't have a penalty? This implies that say a gnome could right a Heavy Horse but not "suitably."
The SRD 3.5 rule was that an oversized mount (more than one category larger) could be ridden, but could not be used for fast mount/dismount.
|
|
Following the spirit of that post, i was wondering what was your thoughts about the following:
The party druid wildshape into mammoth(elephant) form (huge size), the rest of the party consisting in one small and 3 medium sized individual. Could the said wildshaped druid carry them around on his back, taking into account that said druid have the load capacity to carry them all and their gear.
And following that logic, how much medium or small creature can ride a huge or larger mount-like creature.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This topic interests me a lot, cos I have a gnome and a halfling between my PCs, and they are always riding light horses, but with a saddle made for humans!!... I planned to brought them an occasion to get smaller mounts but for now I don't know how to rule the case and what kind of malus I should apply to their ride tests...
Thx for your answers.
Well, a trained human child can ride a full-sized horse, so I don't see a halfling or a gnome having TOO much of a problem, if the tack chosen was suitable (can the stirrups be adjusted short enough, etc.).
The SRD 3.5 rule was that an oversized mount (more than one category larger) could be ridden, but could not be used for fast mount/dismount.So a Human, sized-Medium, can't ride an Elephant, sized-Huge?
When they say, 'suitable' does that mean that you don't have a penalty? This implies that say a gnome could right a Heavy Horse but not "suitably."
The Mammoth rider PrC gives you a huge mount without any special ability to ride it so mediujm riders seem to be able to ride huge mounts.
Later on the PrC gives you the ability to fast dismount your huge mount, so it seems it is still the same as in 3.5
Well, a trained human child can ride a full-sized horse, so I don't see a halfling or a gnome having TOO much of a problem, if the tack chosen was suitable (can the stirrups be adjusted short enough, etc.).
You got a point.
But what about (and I had the case) a halfling rogue mount a enemy horse in combat to sneak (first round of combat so the enemy was flat-footed, and no AO) him and then take control of the horse the second round as the human enemy was disabled because of the sneak... ?
Give him a minus 2 circumstance penalty to ride checks until he takes an action to adjust the stirrups and reigns to his size is the worst I'd do to him.
It's analagous to driving an automobile that's been adjusted for a driver who is significantly smaller or larger than you are. You can still do it, but the mirrors are wrong, the seat's wrong, the steering wheel (if adjustable) is wrong, the pedals (if adjustable) are wrong, etc. All easily changed, but it takes an action.
There is actually a new feat called Undersized Mount in the Advanced Class Guide.
You've learned techniques that allow you to ride beasts of smaller sizes than normal.
Prerequisite(s): Ride 1 rank.
Benefit: You can ride creatures of your size category, although encumbrance or other factors might limit how you can use this ability.
Normal: Typically a mount suited for you is at least one size category larger than you.
I would suggest that the -2 penalty that has been posted above is very appropriate in SOME cases if you don’t have this feat.
But if you are a druid with for an example a tiger animal companion, raised from a cub, I would suggest this size factor does not apply, if the tiger is to be raised as a mount eg:
Level 1-7 a Tiger is medium sized BUT
At levels 3 and 6 there is a +1 animal companion STR/DEX ability score increase.
The ability bonus at Level 4 could/should be +1 STR for the mount training.
The Druids Natures Bond, Handle Animal and Animal Empathy plus sensitive choice of light armour, or dark leaf hide armour would all go to negate any penalties that would be applied for a same sized mount (but not the encumberance penalties).
As always good role play caring for your mount optimising equipment for both you and your mount (consider bareback riding etc) should always tip the balance in the players favour.
It remains in the end a DM call.
|
Actually, no, you do not have to be smaller than your mount. Like others have said, it was true in 3.0/3.5, but it doesn't exist in PF. It was pointed out when the above Feat fist came out.
Essentially the Fat doesn't do anything. You can normally ride a mount of any size, and because the Feat doesn't A.) allow a Cavalier (who is restricted with their Mount) to ride a smaller Mount, or B.) boost a smaller Mounts Str/Carrying Capacity, it really doesn't do a dang thing.
Except for the Cavalier, all you really need is Muleback Cords.
"If you attempt to ride a creature that is ill suited as a mount, you take a –5 penalty on your Ride checks."
The whole paragraph reads
"You are skilled at riding mounts, usually a horse, but possibly something more exotic, like a griffon or pegasus. If you attempt to ride a creature that is ill suited as a mount, you take a –5 penalty on your Ride checks."
An ostrich is ill suited as a mount, but you could give it a go...
|
weight of a saddle for a small character on a medium mount (gnome cavalier, riding a wolf mount)
seems to me that a saddle should be sized for the rider (small in this case) and should therefore be weight modified per the rider(1/4 weight for gear, etc, like backpacks, food, etc.)
but herolabs and any searching only shows that the saddle and gear doesnt change, ie its 30 lbs for a human, or 30 lbs for a gnome.
which makes no sense for a 275 lb human (me) to have the same gear as a 35 lb gnome (same size as my 5 yo daughter).
please help
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
how much medium or small creature can ride a huge or larger mount-like creature.