1 and 4 should both be handled using the mounted combat rules.
2 is simple - Can the PC lift the weight? Does he have free hands? How encumbered does it make the lifter? My Dragon Disciple once ran out of a haunted house with one unconcious elf over one shoulder, the other unconcious elf over the other shoulder, and a dwarf riding piggy-back style. He used enlarge person to make it happen, which made the image even more epic in my head.
3 Do a search on this one. There are at least a few threads dedicated to this one. If I recall correctly, there are no rules for this and most people go with something along these lines: Is the tossee a light load for the tosser (maybe medium is also appropriate, can't recall right now), if so you can throw him x far (usually measured in a number of range incriments, assuming a range of incriment of 10 ft for a non-proficient thrown weapon) using the rules for a thrown splash weapon.
The Bull Rush or Drag maneuver can be used to move an ally -- handily, they explicitly do not receive attacks of opportunity for their movement (that is the domain of the higher-tier maneuver feats). The Grapple maneuver may also be used to move an ally, as selected instead of 'deal weapon damage.' In fact, if you have Reach, you may move your ally adjacent to yourself just by initiating the grapple successfully. As per normal, your ally may choose to fail these checks (and has no choice if they are onconscious, I believe).
If you and your ally both take the Swap Places (Teamwork) feat from Advanced Player's Guide, you may swap places quickly and effectively.
I'd basically treat 1 and 4 as Mounted Combat, with 1 being a very ineffective form. I've had personal experience with PCs riding other PCs as mounts, and I very highly suggest that it should be difficult and generally disadvantageous;
It causes one PC to begin acting as a damage buffer for another PC simply by using a low-level feat (Mounted Combat) that is designed more as a feat tax and as a way for a mounted character to prevent their character from being killed by 21~ points of damage to a horse;
It assures a much higher chance that an enemy combatant will be eating Attacks of Opportunity just for approaching half the party members -- maybe more than one, since many mounted characters enjoy using lances; similarly, an enemy is even more 'locked down' than before from taking actions that provoke, since it often incurs two if it wants to drink a potion or disengage;
It maximizes the benefits that players receive from mobility effects; a single Fly now results in two characters flying and ignoring water effects, most difficult terrain, most trap triggers ...
It is very, very prone to annoying arguments such as "I wasn't the one who Charged, so I should get multiple attacks because I'm adjacent to the enemy now" or "I still gain the benefits of Charge even if I didn't burn my action to perform it, so now I'm adjacent to the enemy, I get my triple damage and I still have a Move action" ...
Before I continue, let me state simply that it is my belief that the Pathfinder mounted combat rules assume a NPC creature under a PCs' control; and that simply allowing a fellow PC to act as a mount and independently of the rider without further modifications causes it to become game-disruptive.
As per normal, your ally may choose to fail these checks
Citation?
You can willingly fail a saving throw, I don't see anywhere that lets you willingly fail a CMD check.
I'm pretty interested in #4, as my wife and I are considering having her play a Mounted Fury Barbarian while I take on a Quadruped Synthesist Summoner for our next characters.
We mulled over the details a bit, but what stuck out for me was Initiative order. Does the Synthesist's iniative score even matter, when he's functioning as a mount? Or is it simply the Barbarian rider's score that matters, for turn action.
And man don't give me sass about serving as a mount.
Shut up.
*sobs*
I have no citation.
However, you may willingly allow an ally to 'strike' you with the melee touch attacks for spells (typically Cure Light Wounds, where you may opt to force them to make a roll if you wish, as is often the case with Undead).
I would leverage the same logic to say that a character can allow themselves to be grabbed, or pushed, or dragged if they wish to. Although one may leverage an argument that heavy creatures may be difficult to move even if they are willing, I feel these are already covered in the general size category limitations in Combat Maneuvers and limits of Encumbrance based on Strength/Size statistics.
You can willingly fail a saving throw, I don't see anywhere that lets you willingly fail a CMD check.
Is there even a thing like a CMD check? All I remember are CMB checks vs. CMD.
I'd see no problems in not applying your BAB, Str, Dex or Dodge bonus to CMD if you actually want to be affected... but, in my opinion, the base 10 plus any size modifier won't go away... and I am kind of on the fence regarding Sacred and Luck bonuses.
.
.
.
.
.
Scenario #1:
"I'm totally going to grab you!"
"Hell no!"
(CMB vs. CMD)
Scenario #2:
"I'm totally going to grab you!"
"Okay!"
(No check, or a check just to make sure the grabber doesn't slip and fall on his/her face or not get a good grip or something?)
However, you may willingly allow an ally to 'strike' you with the melee touch attacks for spells (typically Cure Light Wounds, where you may opt to force them to make a roll if you wish, as is often the case with Undead).
Touch Spells in Combat: "You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll."
They're not lowering their AC to let you touch them, you're just touching them without ever making an attack roll.
Is there even a thing like a CMD check? All I remember are CMB checks vs. CMD.
I phrased that inexactly: "I don't see anywhere that lets you allow an ally to automatically succeed at a combat maneuver against you."
I'd see no problems in not applying your BAB, Str, Dex or Dodge bonus to CMD if you actually want to be affected...
I'm not saying it's bad to allow it, I'm just saying it's not actually in the rules anywhere that I can find.
I've seen willing repositions save characters a couple times now, even in PFS. Maybe it steps on the toes of the Swap Places feat a little, but it doesn't seem like that big of a deal since it uses up a standard action. It would be nice to have an official rule, especially for maneuvers where there are varying levels of success depending on how much you exceed the CMD.
@Lamontius -
The Mounted Combat rules state the following, "Your mount acts on your initiative count as you direct it. You move at its speed, but the mount uses its action to move."
The Ride skill states the following, "<i>Fight with a Combat-Trained Mount (DC 10)</i>: If you direct your war-trained mount to attack in battle, you can still make your own attack or attacks normally. This usage is a free action."
So you as the mount take your actions during the same turn as your rider, but only after being directed. If your rider moves you, that consumes your move action (not the rider's). If you are successfully directed to attack, then you may do so using your available attack options, and your rider may attack using their available attack options.
From there, I think it would be up to your GM to decide whether or not you can take actions without being directed first. I'd say "no" because you are willingly giving up your ability to freely perform actions to serve as a mount. Mounted combat works because the rider is in control and can anticipate the mount's actions. If a mount acts on its own, then I'd say that the rider can't act effectively. Can you effectively shoot a bow or swing a sword if your horse randomly and unexpectedly starts kicking or bucking? Again, I'd say "no".
Otherwise, the two rules above should be enough for you and your GM to make the necessary decision on the matter.
can a mounter archer attack and his mount ready an action to move if somebody try to charge them?If the mount is intelligent enough to make rational, tactical decisions (AKA; has an Intelligence score of 3 or higher), then yes... but at that point the mount is acting on its own, not at its rider's command, and as such wouldn't really benefit from any of the rider's mounted combat feats and skills.
Mounted combat is underdetailed in Pathfinder. So, the more you get into it, the more you're going to have to house rule.
Now, for me? The thing is that the mounted combat feats are intended to be used by smart riders on animals. Animals aren't capable of complex tactics, and complex tactics are what the various mounted combat feats are meant to represent. So... once a mount is smart enough to make its own decisions, it shouldn't be able to benefit from a rider's feats.
This is MOSTLY because I don't like the idea of opening up a situation where a wizard's familiar starts taking Mounted Combat and similar feats so that while riding the wizard the familiar gets to help him dodge attacks. That's not what those feats are intended for.
In my games, I generally require mounts to be completely subserviant to the rider, down to and including their actions in combat being tied to the rider's initiative and all that. They're pretty much there to do exactly what the rider wants if they want to gain the benefit of those feats.
All I see for automatic success on CMB stuff is...
"If your target is immobilized, unconscious, or otherwise incapacitated, your maneuver automatically succeeds (treat as if you rolled a natural 20 on the attack roll)."
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/combat.html
--> Combat Maneuvers -> Performing a Combat Maneuver
So in that I ask myself... can willing passivity fit that criteria?
====================
Next up, there's another approach:
CMD = 10 + Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + Dexterity modifier + special size modifier
BAB is an application of combat skill, in this case applying combat skill to resisting a combat maneuver. A willing target is not applying skill to resistance.
Strength in this calculation is for resisting. Willingness is not resisting, so drop strength modifier.
Dexterity in this calculation is for resisting. Willingness is not resisting, so drop dexterity modifier.
The base 10 may or may not be a matter of resistance. Let's keep it to be safe.
Size modifier sure makes sense to keep; it's harder to bull rush, trip or grapple big things, willing or not.
So a willing target's CMD would be 10 + size modifier.
Personally, I prefer using this to describe a willing target, and the one moving/grappling rolls normally... but that's a house rule I merely recommend.
=====================
That all said, I personally LOVE the idea of moving allies around on your turn. For example, picture a level 9+ Wizard or 10+ Sorcerer using Telekinesis to Bull Rush willing allies into advantageous positions. It's an idea I've enjoyed for a few years now, but haven't had the pleasure of making it happen in a game (yet).
@ Sellsword2587 -
Yeah, I'm pretty much there with you on all of that, that's pretty much the same conclusions my wife and I came to, when hashing out the rough concept. Other than that, my only issue was how to handle spellcasting on the part of the synthesist.
Grick, I've thought about it some more and ended up coming up with a counter-argument.
It seems fairly obvious that if you don't dodge, then you may be affected by a touch spell. It's the same logic that a DM uses when he doesn't force a PC to succeed an attack roll to touch a brick wall.
In criticism of my original perspective, Combat Maneuvers are about more than just making physical contact -- much like how attacks are about more than just touching the target, but also finding weak points to deal damage.
For example, if an opponent is Helpless, one can't simply deal damage to it without a check. One may make an attack against the opponent, and IIRC their Dex bonus is instead treated as a -5 -- but one must still succeed versus AC. Not counting a coup de grace.
With that in mind, I can better respect the position of requiring a check to perform a combat maneuver on a willing ally during combat. I'm still not sure about what would be required -- after all, Size bonuses and Deflection bonuses would theoretically apply to touch attacks, and beneficial spells don't suddenly require them.
Where the books fail to explain a DM must rule, so from here I'm probably going to either allow characters to use them freely, or at the most restrictive, force CMD checks where the defender can give up almost all of his bonuses. I'm currently trying to decide if Deflection bonuses can be 'given up' or if they're sort of a force field that you can't necessarily drop for an incoming attack any more than you can press a button to make your platemail vanish. Criticism appreciated.