After reading through the rules section on mounts and the ride skill I wanted to know if a small creature can ride a medium creature riding a large creature. If they are all ‘suitable mounts’ for each other would there even be a penalty?
If it does work:
Are they adjacent to the creatures on top/below them, or possibly in some strange manner the whole stack as for you are treated as being in your mounts tile, so in the example above would a small creature be treated as occupying the same space as the large creature because the medium creature is treated as occupying a large space?
Its my turn to play after Dming Kingmaker (our group rotates between another player and myself for the duty) and so after working with the group paladin I had this idea: Druid Paladin Leaning Tower of Pain
Wildshaped Eagle Druid riding Paladin riding Special Paladin horse mount riding enlarged druid animal companion animal Bear Companion (huge size), all of which have teamwork feat Paired Opportunist to gain extra attacks of opportunity and the druid has a few levels of hungry ghost monk for Viscous Stomp feat and the ability to knock opponents prone with monk kick. Essentially if an opponent would provoke an AoO from one member of the tower, all of components could attack. (The horse has 5ish int and the Bear has 3 with stat bonus so everyone has ranks in ride skill)
o.O Awesome!
Wait. So the Druid is riding the Paladin, the Paladin is riding the horse, and the horse is riding the bear? How does a horse ride a bear, even a huge-sized one? This sounds interesting, but the horse riding a bear thing puts me off a bit. It's confusing.
Wait. So the Druid is riding the Paladin, the Paladin is riding the horse, and the horse is riding the bear? How does a horse ride a bear, even a huge-sized one? This sounds interesting, but the horse riding a bear thing puts me off a bit. It's confusing.
The bear is clearly not suitable as a mount for a horse, so the horse would suffer a -5 to ride checks. I assume you could get a special saddle made for the while its a large sized bear (pony saddle) which would enlarge with the bear when you cast enlarge animal to become a horse saddle.
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.
Of course with something as silly as that I would expect some DM's to veto, but I believe that it works by the rules.
No my favorite is the Mounted Rager from APG
Pixie Barbarian mounting a gnome barbarian mounting a human barbarian mounting an ogre barbarian mounting a war elephant.
With the Mounted Rager you grant your mount the benefits of your rage so yeah...
Dotting for continued lulz
No my favorite is the Mounted Rager from APG
Pixie Barbarian mounting a gnome barbarian mounting a human barbarian mounting an ogre barbarian mounting a war elephant.
With the Mounted Rager you grant your mount the benefits of your rage so yeah...
Do they stack? If so, that's 4 rages on the elephant.
That's one VERY angry elephant!
I count at least nine children on this elephant, and pixies are probably smaller.No my favorite is the Mounted Rager from APG
Pixie Barbarian mounting a gnome barbarian mounting a human barbarian mounting an ogre barbarian mounting a war elephant.
With the Mounted Rager you grant your mount the benefits of your rage so yeah...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know what this reminds me of? The time Butthead wanted to get a tattoo of a butt. And he wanted a tattoo of another butt on that tattoo of a butt. And he wanted it tattooed to his butt.
Also of how my buddy Jim waited years to see a tow truck being towed by a bigger tow truck.
Difference is those things make sense. My problem with all of this is, how can you take Ride checks on something you're not riding? Because if only the mount at the bottom is doing any actual running or walking, then only the rider immediately atop him (whom I assume is in control of him) is actually riding. Everybody else is just balancing on a really superfluous and dangerous Janga tower.
I am sure this would be quite a spectacle. But one I'd be quite over by the second time, as GM. And sick of by the third time. Too many checks to be made. And can a horse even use its hoof attacks while lying atop a running bear?
Edit: Oh good! Another sentence probably never uttered or written before in all of history.
No my favorite is the Mounted Rager from APG
Pixie Barbarian mounting a gnome barbarian mounting a human barbarian mounting an ogre barbarian mounting a war elephant.
With the Mounted Rager you grant your mount the benefits of your rage so yeah...Do they stack? If so, that's 4 rages on the elephant.
That's one VERY angry elephant!
Unfortunately no, same type bonuses don't stack. Also, the ability says that you have to pay an additional round of rage every round to keep your mount raging. What you could do just to be silly is have the pixie with ferocious mount and greater ferocious mount so that its gnome mount (and his mount, and all the way down the line) don't have to be barbarians. Though I think the pixie ends up burning 16 rounds of rage to keep everyone raging for one round.
I disagree. The gnome is the pixie's mount, but the gnome's mount is not the pixie's mount.
On the other hand, because you are considered to occupy the space of your mount, and your mount is considered to occupy the space of his mount, then the smallest creature would be considered to occupy the largest mount's space.
Difference is those things make sense. My problem with all of this is, how can you take Ride checks on something you're not riding? Because if only the mount at the bottom is doing any actual running or walking, then only the rider immediately atop him (whom I assume is in control of him) is actually riding. Everybody else is just balancing on a really superfluous and dangerous Janga tower.I am sure this would be quite a spectacle. But one I'd be quite over by the second time, as GM. And sick of by the third time. Too many checks to be made. And can a horse even use its hoof attacks while lying atop a running bear?
Edit: Oh good! Another sentence probably never uttered or written before in all of history.
Ah I see I made an error earlier. A bear max size as animal companion would be medium, large with animal growth. So for every mention of bear previously replace it with your favorite large druid animal companion including the Ape, Camel, Big Cat, Horse (horse riding a horse), snake, wolf, ect. I will now assume a druid horse companion.
This is why I'm asking the question because much like you I too find the concept confusing and am unsure if it would work. According to the rules, a mount does not need to be doing any actual motion itself; for instance a man could 'ride' a horse that is itself standing perfectly still on a moving conveyer belt. Is the man still riding? Or as you say 'balancing'? Movement is not the issue for mounted rules. Another way of looking at it is you direct your mount to move, but to move he has to direct his mount; alternatively because the entire tower is intelligent you could broadcast your intention, using compass points.
As for the spectacle, yes it would be funny. Particularly because first round Paladin Mounts horse and moves into combat. On druid turn cast enlarge animal on his horse, AC horse moves in. Second round, horse paladin team (body) mount druid horse(legs) while eagle druid fly's up then dives down to mount paladin's helmet (head). The head would then control the entire stack as it would all move on the druid's next initiative. The ride checks wouldn't however be any more complicated then having three people fight mounted combat. Same type of checks, stay in saddle, fight with combat mount. Just you'd have 2 players make those checks, twice for paladin and once for druid, so not that many more rolls.
lets suppose that the Paladin somehow becomes unconscious, yet his military saddle allows him to stay on the horse. As he would no longer be in control, the chain of command breaks and the horse now controls the larger horse(remember the horse has 5 int).
Another scenario; the druid horse gets knocked unconscious, collapsing causing EVERYONE to fall on the ground, possibly prone.
From prd:
If your mount falls, you have to succeed on a DC 15 Ride check to make a soft fall and take no damage. If the check fails, you take 1d6 points of damage.
to keep the bear in the equation one could have the horse turn huge, enlarge paladin to large, have the bear ride the paladin and the eagle the bear - I do not think its smart though, as it requires too many actions.
Lastly have the tower charge and watch the d20's rain from the heavens. If you can find a way to give everyone in the tower pounce turn rain into hailstorm of fun.
as to if a horse can make hoof attacks while riding a bear my only advice is ask your DM. I think it could still make kicking motions and since it only has two hoof attacks, you could assume the back hoofs are held in by straps much like a person’s feet, and the body of the horse could lie atop the bears. Thus freeing the front hooves for attacking whilst maintaining some balance. I'm not saying in real life this would or could ever work (intelligent 2000 lb 15 foot long bear? Let it eat the horse and RUN)
I disagree. The gnome is the pixie's mount, but the gnome's mount is not the pixie's mount.
On the other hand, because you are considered to occupy the space of your mount, and your mount is considered to occupy the space of his mount, then the smallest creature would be considered to occupy the largest mount's space.
I agree about the gnomes mount not being the pixies. As to occupying space I thought that might be the case and its good to hear I'm not completely off base. This means that the pixie could be attacked from any of the tiles the horse occupies making it a much 'larger' target for things like placing AoE spells.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
~Twitch~
I was expecting something along the lines of an eagle companion riding the wizards outstretched arm while he in turn rides his horse.
You could do that but remember that then the wizard and horse would move on the eagle initiative, and that the eagle could try to use some of the ride skill checks on the wizard (I doubt he would listen, but picturing the eagle attempting to 'spur mount' by clawing at the wizard face makes me smile)
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a good point: Druids should all vie for Small animal companions, who ride them, and maximize the Ride skill and take Mounted Combat. Then the animal companion can negate an attack on the Druid every round.
mountception. we must go deeper...
Unfortunately no, same type bonuses don't stack. Also, the ability says that you have to pay an additional round of rage every round to keep your mount raging. What you could do just to be silly is have the pixie with ferocious mount and greater ferocious mount so that its gnome mount (and his mount, and all the way down the line) don't have to be barbarians. Though I think the pixie ends up burning 16 rounds of rage to keep everyone raging for one round.No my favorite is the Mounted Rager from APG
Pixie Barbarian mounting a gnome barbarian mounting a human barbarian mounting an ogre barbarian mounting a war elephant.
With the Mounted Rager you grant your mount the benefits of your rage so yeah...Do they stack? If so, that's 4 rages on the elephant.
That's one VERY angry elephant!
Actually, the way i read it was, The pixie spends rounds to get the gnome to rage, the GNOME would then be raging thus giving the bonuses to his mount and so on.
so the pixie expends 2 rounds the gnome expends 1 to grant HIS mount and so on
|
this kinda reminds me of the discussion my group had a while ago, basically reduce person + permanency on my gnome sorcerer, enlarge person and permanency on the dwarf fight, acquire a special helmet that would allow my gnome to sit top of the dwarf. suddenly spells are flying from the dwarf fighter who already was capable of destroying a lot of things
Mountception?
Unfortunately no, same type bonuses don't stack. Also, the ability says that you have to pay an additional round of rage every round to keep your mount raging. What you could do just to be silly is have the pixie with ferocious mount and greater ferocious mount so that its gnome mount (and his mount, and all the way down the line) don't have to be barbarians. Though I think the pixie ends up burning 16 rounds of rage to keep everyone raging for one round.No my favorite is the Mounted Rager from APG
Pixie Barbarian mounting a gnome barbarian mounting a human barbarian mounting an ogre barbarian mounting a war elephant.
With the Mounted Rager you grant your mount the benefits of your rage so yeah...Do they stack? If so, that's 4 rages on the elephant.
That's one VERY angry elephant!
Actually, the way i read it was, The pixie spends rounds to get the gnome to rage, the GNOME would then be raging thus giving the bonuses to his mount and so on.
so the pixie expends 2 rounds the gnome expends 1 to grant HIS mount and so on
Gentlemen, we have discovered something.
Greater Ferocious Mount grants your mount of any Rage Power that is constant in effect when the Barbarian is Raging.
Ergo, Greater Ferocious Mount grants Greater Ferocious Mount to your mount, and would grant itself all the way down the stack. Our top-level creature, who in my opinion MUST be a high-level Barbarian, grants his constant Rage Powers to everyone.
While I disagreed that every mount was considered the pixie's mount, I will also put this forward: "While raging and mounted, the barbarian's mount also gains the benefits of rage (including greater rage and mighty rage)...."
So for the rest of the stack, we should in my opinion go with at least one level of barbarian for the rest of the party. The top-level barbarian grants Greater Ferocious Mount to the rest of the stack, and gives them all Mighty Rage. The next creature down causes his mount to gain 'the benefits of rage' (including mighty rage) by spending an additional (total of 1) rage per round. So it could be argued that Mighty Rage can be granted down the entire stack.
What I'm -unsure- about is whether or not the entire stack should be higher-level barbarians or not. I suggest we take a look at all of the constant-effect Rage powers in the books that we could slap on the bottom creature (and some of the above creature) and see if it's more powerful than, say, having a Bard/Inquisitor/Cavalier team.
Oh my. Greater Beast Totem would give the whole stack Pounce.
Oh my. Greater Beast Totem would give the whole stack Pounce.
That is really creative; I never thought about using a barbarian. I can picture it though; barbarian standing atop a pile of his comrades.
The Lunge feat can help square things a little bit, although not for attacks of opportunity. Can Tiny- characters benefit from Reach weaponry?
The Lunge feat can help square things a little bit, although not for attacks of opportunity. Can Tiny- characters benefit from Reach weaponry?
Yeah, they gain a 5ft reach, allowing them to attack foes adjacent to their space.
No, just, just no........
No.
The notion that they are a stack of mounts is wrong.
Funny, and I grant big lulz, but no.
If a mount isn't moving, and is just sitting on another creature, is it really a mount? Do ride checks even count?
(...) Small animal companions, who ride them, and maximize the Ride skill and take Mounted Combat. Then the animal companion can negate an attack on the Druid every round.
Actualy a standard animal might be trained (or animal talked)to do something like that. I would see it very nice for a small snake on a Mesusa (see the bestiary illustration) that could also take AoO!
No.
There are enough reasons why not that I just say No.
Best laugh all day, thanks!
Please note, any GM with a little respect for Gary G. will instantly manifest an epic horde of stack rider slayers, whom inerringly will slay all in the stack, no save, no ressurection, Please go reroll. A bit like a female gnome bard.
Man, I thought I was wierd...
Applause to Fox and the others in this thread for the Leaning Tower of Pain. Actually the first ridiculous-broken build I've known to warrant its own name in Pathfinder, like 3.x's Pun-Pun or Fusion Lich. Still, perhaps I'm just ignorant of PF's discoveries ...