Let's say you have someone riding an elephant... how does it work?
1) Considering that that an elephant takes a 3-by-3 square area, or 15ft., where's the rider? On a horse, he's on the back, but on an elephant... is he on the middle?
2) How does that same rider even attack? An elephant has a 10-ft reach, meaning that even with a lance, the rider cannot attack unless the opponents are directly in front of the elephant. But wait, what about height? Ok, an elephant isn't 15-foot tall, but still. If the rider sits in the middle of an elephant's 15ft. area at say 10 feet high, does this mean he can only attack opponents on the ground, and sides, using reach weapons? The way I see it, the rider cannot use a non-reach weapon unless the opponent is Large or larger.
3) Any way to make these problem easier to solve? I... can only see a polearm master fighter using a sarissa, which is a 15-foot long spear presented in the Giant Hunter's Handbook... or using a ranged weapon, but still, I'm looking for melee combat tips as well.
The reason I'm asking this is simple: you can fight NPCs on the back on elephants or triceratops (regular war mounts, not companions) or you can end up fighting or becoming a Mammoth Rider, which has a Huge mount. How do you use them effectively?
|
This should answer all of those
Mounted Combat
These rules cover being mounted on a horse in combat but can also be applied to more unusual steeds, such as a griffon or dragon.Mounts in Combat: Horses, ponies, and riding dogs can serve readily as combat steeds. Mounts that do not possess combat training (see the Handle Animal skill) are frightened by combat. If you don't dismount, you must make a DC 20 Ride check each round as a move action to control such a mount. If you succeed, you can perform a standard action after the move action. If you fail, the move action becomes a full-round action, and you can't do anything else until your next turn.
Your mount acts on your initiative count as you direct it. You move at its speed, but the mount uses its action to move.
A horse (not a pony) is a Large creature and thus takes up a space 10 feet (2 squares) across. For simplicity, assume that you share your mount's space during combat.
1) a rider is in all the squares as his mount.
assume that you share your mount's space during combat
2) if the rider has a lance he threatens 10ft out from the edges of the mount, which will be the same range as the reach from the mount
2.b) the rider has height advantage, which is a +1 to attack rolls I think. but he could attack a snake on the ground with a club if he wanted to. He couldn't attack at it if it was next to him with a reach weapon, as the first 5ft are skipped.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.
3)There are no problems.
So... let me get this straight:
1) My Medium rider can be at any square within a 3-by-3 square area at any given round. I assume that once per round, I can pick in which square I decide to be until my next turn.
7 - 8 - 9
4 - 5 - 6
1 - 2 - 3
So in round 1, I can choose to be at square 2 and on the next round, I can be at square 9. Assuming that the elephant's head is in row 1 to 3, if I'm on any of these squares, I can attack opponents within my weapon's reach.
2) An elephant, being taller than 5ft., gives me the higher ground advantage.
So if I throw an alchemist's fire at a tarrasque's foot, the guy on its back takes splash damage, too? I mean, that rule doesn't differentiate between horizontal and vertical space. ;P
So if I throw an alchemist's fire at a tarrasque's foot, the guy on its back takes splash damage, too? I mean, that rule doesn't differentiate between horizontal and vertical space. ;P
This is correct
I know it is, just pointing out where the rule gets a tad silly. ;)
If Rules As Written were always the answer, we'd be playing a video game. As it happens, the game is designed with improvisation in mind.
I'd say it makes sense to just limit the rider to a 10x10 square of "space" while he's riding a larger creature. If he wants to make melee attacks while mounted, you might require him to make Ride or Acrobatics checks to climb around on his pet dragon's back.
I can visualize an epic duel not unlike this scene (I really wish I could find a better image).
Yes, the game is designed to be changed. But ask yourself what's to be gained by each change vs how much of a pain it would be to actually implement (if the answer is "realism, nothing more" and anything more than "no pain at all", you probably shouldn't do it).
And with this change, remind me never to play a Mammoth Rider in your games.
Employing the odd bit of inconvenient realism makes the game more interesting and challenging, encouraging players to think creatively to solve their problems. It also gives the mammoth rider a huge advantage in that he can no longer be threatened in melee by a dozen enemies at once, and has a much easier time avoiding the AoE spells and bombs that are catching all his friends. ;)
EDIT: Note that I'm not saying he has to be at the center of his mount's square. I'm saying he's in a 10x10 square, the location of which he can shift with Ride or Acrobatics checks (I like the flavor of Acrobatics, but Ride works, too). A sensible mammoth rider just puts himself at the front of his mount when making a charge. If people start taking advantage of this to run circles around him? He gets creative. Historically, people riding elephants have had trouble with mobile fighters. Hopefully, he and his allies have planned for that.
That said, I'd encourage Gargantuan creature riders to either get good at range or reach. Or focus on fighting other huge enemies. But Mammoth Riders' mounts don't get that big. :P
The mounted combat rules only address the standard combination of medium creature and large mount i.e. man on horse or something very close to that in size. The DM can and should make alterations for more extreme rider/mount size differentials. i.e. man/elephant or anything more extreme. A Huge mount may very well make attacking medium creatures that are on the ground simply impossible with anything other than ranged attacks. If you're riding on the Jolly Green Giant's shoulder, you're not going to be hitting anyone with your longsword.So... let me get this straight:
1) My Medium rider can be at any square within a 3-by-3 square area at any given round. I assume that once per round, I can pick in which square I decide to be until my next turn.7 - 8 - 9
4 - 5 - 6
1 - 2 - 3So in round 1, I can choose to be at square 2 and on the next round, I can be at square 9. Assuming that the elephant's head is in row 1 to 3, if I'm on any of these squares, I can attack opponents within my weapon's reach.
2) An elephant, being taller than 5ft., gives me the higher ground advantage.
I assume that they only address medium riders on large creatures, the rider being one size smaller than the mount, because that's the most common thing. You see more humans on horses, halflings on dogs and hill giants on elephants... even if history has shown us that humans have been riding and attacking on the back on an elephant.
Here's my take:
- True, you're sharing the mount's space, but since there are 9 squares, as opposed to 4, it can get pretty confusing pretty fast. On a horse, you're within range regardless of where you sit on any of the 4 squares. On an elephant, you're not. It would make more sense if you had to move on the saddle in order to attack, like taking the equivalent of your 5-foot adjustment, but only within the mount's area. Furthermore, at the beginning of each round, you get to select another square, once again like a 5-foot adjustment, but that you can pick 2 squares, like going from 4 to 6... and you're still within the mount's area. As for being attacked, it would make sense that if you move from one side to the other, they can't target you.
- Depending on where you are, your 10-foot reach weapon can work.
- An elephant is... what... 10 feet tall? So you're getting the height advantage.
- Finally, well... an elehpant, at least can have more than 1 rider, 5 to be exact: 4 on its back and 1 on its neck. That does limit your movement, but it follows the same rules.
BTW, if you're "riding" on a giant's shoulder, pretty should that 1) you can't move from it and 2) you can't attack from that height.
By the way, there's kind of this stigma against "realism" in fantasy games.
Look, realism is debateable, but it's linked to a much more important quality. I know that we're playing with elves and dragons and wizards and owlbears, but without consistency, the suspension of disbelief is constantly being challenged.
There's a difference between unrealistic things like a guy being able to shoot ten arrows in six seconds (each time firing with full force and range) and things that just plain can't be visualized. So when me and my buddy are on opposite sides of the T-Rex, on the ground, we can both reach the goblin described as riding on the creature's head?
Realism isn't important, but if the abstractions get in the way of visualizations, they are hurting the suspension of disbelief. Because even before we're able to try to imagine a world with elves and dragons, we have to try to imagine that that hobbit on the oliphant is basically stretched across the entire creature's back down to its legs. Or imagine that the archer on top of the dragon is willingly allowing himself to be put in arm's reach of everyone within fifteen feet, above and below.
Alice in Wonderland, absurd as it was, had Alice behave fully in-character throughout the tale. Loki may have had weird genderswapping horse sex, but that made sense for his character and was fully believable in the setting (that's what gods are for).
Realism gets a bad rap because people see it as a binary term—either we're playing Dungeons & Dragons or Subways & Secretaries, with no room in between. But we need some logical limits—realism, internal consistency, call it what you will—to make even the most fantastical story work.
So, and I'm not totally addressing this to you, Jeff, let's stop with the "harhar, 'realism'? I have a magic sword!" comments. They're just silly.
/rant
|
Strangely enough I am looking at this thread because I play a Druid who occasionally rides a Huge T-Rex, given the saddle requirements and such, and assuming the necessary gear is sized and cost adjusted for this circumstance. And the idea of medium creatures on the ground using touch attacks against me (which very nearly killed the druid last game) is absurd. Of course I had this same discussion regarding the fact that a Paladin and his mount could both attack a creature flying directly over the Paladin's head because they 'share space'. So at the risk of becoming a rules lawyer, can we PLEASE get an errata or an addition or something that states that attacking to or from a riding position on a mount larger than medium and more than one size category larger than the rider requires the attacker to have 5' of additional reach per size category? (I realize this isnt the perfect wording, but you get the idea).