Overlapping Riders

[Spook205]

Alright, another goofy rider question from me.

Riders occupy the same space as their mount for purposes of attacks, reach and whether they are threatened, etc.

Now, some mounts are large enough that they can accomodate multiple riders. Assuming that the 'rider and mount' bypass the usual rules over occupying the same space, how does this work when you have multiple riders occupying the same space (the mount)?

What if these individuals are hostile (IE: Two people riding on the back of a horse fist fighting)?

[Tarantula]

There are no rules for allowing more than 1 rider on a mount. Whatever you want to do is house-rules territory.

[Lincoln Hills]

I believe if a creature is large enough you can put "passengers" on the mount, but they aren't the "rider" in terms of controlling the mount: they add to encumbrance, etc. but cannot use Ride/Handle Animal checks or mounted combat feats unless they're the one in control of the beast.

Someday I suppose Paizo will release an adventure with one fight scene taking place in the howdah of a Vudran elephant or atop a roc's back, but here are a few off-the-cuff ideas you can try in the meantime: For Huge and larger critters you can create a separate grid (2x2 for Huge, 3x3 for Gargantuan, 4x4 for Colossal) representing the space atop the beast for those - hopefully rare - occasions where multiple people aboard are battling each other, and indicate one corner square as the "pilot" square - that's where the actual rider has to be to guide the mount. These little squares can be put somewhere near the corner of the map for purposes of placing minis and conducting the battle, although in actuality the squares travel about wherever the creature does. Successful bull rushes and so forth drop the victim into a square on the edge of the map adjacent to the creature (in some cases this might result in a trample check made by the mount against a passenger that was just shoved in front of its path of travel.)

You can also adapt the rules for vehicle combat that you'll find in a couple of 3.5 accessories - Arms & Equipment Guide and Stormwrack have some options.

[Spook205]

Keen that's really helpful.

I'm still curious regarding the 'spacing' issue though. I've got a cleric and wizard who like to ride tandem on the cleric's mount. The Cleric directs it and rides it, but the question arises of where points of origins on spells should come from, the bounds of the large mount, or the wizard who occupies one of the squares within.

Thus far we've been operating with them both being effectively the mount's spacing. It works to an extent, but something about it also kind of bugs me, particularly as the mage isn't guiding the mount and therefore seems to have all of his actions intact for the low-low price of having to make a nigh impossible to fail concentration check.

[Some call me Tim]

Spook205 wrote:

Thus far we've been operating with them both being effectively the mount's spacing. It works to an extent, but something about it also kind of bugs me, particularly as the mage isn't guiding the mount and therefore seems to have all of his actions intact for the low-low price of having to make a nigh impossible to fail concentration check.

What circumstance penalties are you applying to the concentration check for crowding on the back of the cleric's horse? How does the extra rider affect the cleric (and his mount)?

This is also one of the cases where logic, yes two people can ride the same horse, becomes problematic in game terms because the in-game benefit outweighs any cost and the pair gain an advantage.

Ask yourself why, if this works so well in the game world, it isn't seen in the real world. Very seldom did two riders fight from the same horseback.

[Spook205]

I've been weighing the options and they come up this way.

1.) The cleric and wizard do little actual 'fighting' instead focusing on spellcasting. I've been applying the standard 'riding a bucking steed' concentration penalty. I am debating applying a "no swirling arms around when riding 'b*@+$' on the pegasus" rule though.

2.) As the mount is a /pegasus/ I am going to look into the carrying capacity issue (but again, cleric and wizard are fairly light). But even with the quadrapedal benefit, they might be pushing the thing out of its light encumberance range (I didn't want to bog down the fight at the time with encumberance tables.)

Thats the specifics. I've also been considering the academic issue of two medium spellcasters riding a huge dragon (which would almost turn the thing into an airborne magical buff-a-ship) and the like.

[Howie23]

The rider and mount sharing space thing is a compromise made with respect to reducing complexity and in accordance with the lack of facing. Adding a second rider stretches the already thing mounted combat rules and might require some degree of houseruling to accommodate the stretch.

In addition to the 3.5 rules sources mentioned above, I think Ultimate Combat has some vehicular stuff.

[Lincoln Hills]

Just a thought - as an ad-hoc house rule you might rule that people riding double on a creature only one size category larger than them (such as humans on a horse) suffer the same "squeezing" penalty as somebody passing through a narrow tunnel.

[Spook205]

Squeezing doesn't really do anything to a non-melee type riding tandem, unless they use ray spells or get attacked directly.

I admit I like the idea of a concentration check, but the trick is figuring out a fair calculation for it.

[Tarantula]

Since casting from a moving mount is normally vigorous motion (dc 10+spell level) you could upgrade it to violent motion (dc 15+spell level). If the horse is galloping (normally violent) i would upgrade it by the same amount to DC20 + spell level.

[Spook205]

Which still admittedly has the concentration check (even with a 15) being nigh pointless. A 10th level caster (who admittedly could be flying/air walking on his own), could make the concentration check on single digits.

Part of me wants to make it like defensive casting, but that seems a bit steep given the person is ostensibly next to an ally. THere really isn't a concentration check mechanic I can see for 'casting in contorted situations,' like trying to do somantic components while crammed into a broom closet, or the like.

[yeti1069]

Some call me Tim wrote:

Spook205 wrote:

Ask yourself why, if this works so well in the game world, it isn't seen in the real world. Very seldom did two riders fight from the same horseback.

I think it comes down to 3 reasons:

1) It's uncomfortable
2) If you're planning on fighting from a mount, having someone else right up against your back is going to seriously hamper your ability to attack and defend yourself.
3) If you aren't planning on fighting, you're probably planning on riding a fair distance, in which case, the extra weight and odd placement of that weight are going to take a toll on your mount.

In PF, there are no rules for the first or second of those points at all, really, while the third isn't representative of reality. I'd definitely rule that two people FIGHTING from horseback would incur some penalties due to being right on top of each other, but casting? I don't think so. Maybe increase the Concentration check by 2 or 5, tops.

Then again, the mounted combat rules in D&D are incredibly weak. For instance, if you aren't wielding a weapon with reach you shouldn't be able to attack someone standing in front of your mount.