A wide variety of polearms like bill hooks, halberds and glaives (or was that glaive-glaive-guisarme-glaives?) were specifically designed and used to dismount mounted adversaries, so this should really be a standard part of the mounted combat rules.
Sadly, what passes for mounted combat rules in PF is fragmentary and contradictory at best.
IMHO, a trip maneuver should be at least as viable as a bull rush or reposition. Sure, since the target is sitting in his saddle, the functional definition of a "trip" is slightly different, but it's the closest thing we've got. In most cases, a footman is trying to pull the horseman out of his mounted position far more often than he is trying to push him off, with the exception of a mounted lance or a spear set vs charge.
So let players use trip to unseat a mounted character, and let the formerly mounted guy use his ride skill (or perhaps acrobatics as an alternate) to avoid taking damage from the fall. Let them also use bull rush or grappling when desired as well. No need to limit player options on this score.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Trip is arguably the most powerful combat maneuver already. I think removing a mounted combatant, especially one with ranks in ride and mounted combat feats, should require much more effort than a maneuver that can take the place of an attack.
The mechanic should also give some serious bonuses to the rider as he or she is in a very sound tactical position.
I'd say it's a basic Trip roll vs. the horses CMD, not the riders. If the Trip is successful than the rider should receive a Ride check to safely dismount into an adjacent square, or fall prone himself.
Don't creatures with extra legs gain like +4 or +8 against being tripped, or is that some old rule I'm thinking of?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This came up about a week ago in my game. The rider was hit by a wolf with the built in trip.
My initial thought was to rule the rider was knocked prone, but still in saddle if the mount moves. Basically he's hanging from the saddle, requiring a move to reorient himself or he continues to suffer the prone penalties.
After quick deliberation, we went with an opposed ride check to avoid which he succeeded due to his military saddle adjustment.
In retrospect, there is nothing prohibiting a sitting person being knocked prone so I think my initial reaction was the correct one as it doesn't interfere with Unseat feat territory, or Grant immunity to trip. If you do rule it dismounts, then ride checks to land on feet come up which didn't make sense either.
I'd say it's a basic Trip roll vs. the horses CMD, not the riders. If the Trip is successful than the rider should receive a Ride check to safely dismount into an adjacent square, or fall prone himself.
Don't creatures with extra legs gain like +4 or +8 against being tripped, or is that some old rule I'm thinking of?
I just got this image in my head of someone leg sweeping your war buffalo.
|
Actually being prone on a mount is what you do to help avoid ranged attacks... So I would allow you to be tripped into that position personally.
Yeah, I would say it would most likely put you into a similar position to the Immediate action use of the Ride skill - cover bonus, but cannot attack (including AOO) without taking a move action to recover your seating, which does not provoke. Not quite as highly debuffed as a standard Prone, but some effects, it would seem to strike a reasonable balance. Perhaps permit pulling the rider entirely off the mount with a second trip. That would be entirely in house rule territory though.
The method used to attempt to unmount the rider should reflect the maneuver used.
If you grab his leg and try to pull him off, that's a grapple. Maybe you use a CMB opposed by a ride check to establish, and if successful then the next round grapple roll will be the roll to actually pull him off.
If you use a polearm or whip with the trip ability, it's a trip attack. What's the difference between using the weapon to unbalance someone from the top vs the bottom? No, they're not standing, but that's not much different than someone sitting in a chair and pulling the chair over. Give them high ground and let the trip happen. Give the rider a ride check to dismount into a square next to the mount instead of falling prone in a square next to it if the trip is successful.
If the druid' s animal companion jumps up to knock the rider off, that's a bull rush. Again use the high ground and ride check to not fall prone as above.
The ol' rope across the road at neck height is Craft Trapmaking, and a trap has a chance to be seen and a reflex save to avoid.
Can you trip a riding person?
I would say no just as you cannot trip a flying creature. Since the rider is not being supported by their legs on the ground they cannot be tripped.
The MOUNT could be and that may result in the rider falling out of the saddle.
Although I would think you could bull rush, reposition or grapple a rider out of the saddle/off their mount.
Trip is arguably the most powerful combat maneuver already. I think removing a mounted combatant, especially one with ranks in ride and mounted combat feats, should require much more effort than a maneuver that can take the place of an attack.
The mechanic should also give some serious bonuses to the rider as he or she is in a very sound tactical position.
I would give the rider of a large mount the higher ground advantage vs a medium CMB. Of course they would get the bonus from the military saddle.
I am unsure if I would give a bonus to CMD for ride ranks or use a ride check instead of the CMD. I might just allow whichever is the higher total.
First, press the FAQ button please!
Secondly, there are a few issues here, some of which are mentioned above:
* Pathfinder does not model mounted combat in as much detail as unmounted combat, because it's a game about individual heroes and not a simulation of mounted armies.
* there is no mechanic which allows for a rider to be pulled from his horse RAW, although there are several that come close.
* "prone" doesn't automatically mean "on the ground". If you are tripped on a hill, you don't automatically roll off that hill to the ground; similarly, while riding, it does not automatically follow that you fall off your horse (especially given the rules about saddles and military saddles).
* it should be harder to pull someone from a mount (when they are wearing a saddle, have two legs wrapped around their mount, etc.) than it is to trip someone
* the rider and mount are not standing still when you make your trip attack - they are in constant motion, and only the game makes it look like it is.
* a rider actually has a lot in common with someone who is grappled by their mount; they can't move independently, for example.
* the CMB/CMD mechanic in Pathfinder (especially trip) is MUCH more powerful than it should be compared to regular weaponry.
If I had to rule right now, I'd probably go with a trip attack forcing a ride check to stay in the saddle, and a grapple check being opposed by the mount to see who keeps ahold of the rider. Or, maybe the mount's Str/Dex/BAB/Size get added to (or used instead of) the rider's.
I don't think a single CMD by a peasant with a bill should be able to nullify an armored knight's charge - yes, historically it was tried, but it took a lot of peasants to bring down one knight.
There are lots of ways to trip that don't involve leg sweeps. Try "clotheslining" them, for example. In fact, that's a metaphor that describes a very common way of dismounting someone.I disagree that trip is the appropriate maneuver because the target is sitting. Granted, I am interpreting the description of the trip maneuver as an attack that targets an opponents legs in order to knock them prone.Can you trip a riding person? Trip is a combat maneuver to knock a target prone. The target is riding, meaning sitting down.Right. And if you want to move someone from sitting down, on a mount, to prone, on the ground (a very common and useful tactic, historically) trip is the appropriate maneuver.
Maybe I'm arguing semantics, someone clotheslines a rider, I still wouldn't rule it a trip attack. I would handle it as a Bull Rush in which the end result is the rider being knocked to their back, possibly off their horse depending on what their ride check was and how the clothesline was administered.
* "prone" doesn't automatically mean "on the ground". If you are tripped on a hill, you don't automatically roll off that hill to the ground; similarly, while riding, it does not automatically follow that you fall off your horse (especially given the rules about saddles and military saddles).
Actually, the first sentence of the prone condition is 'The Character is lying on the ground.' And I'm not sure what you mean with the hill reference. Most hills are made of ground...
The method used to attempt to unmount the rider should reflect the maneuver used.
If you grab his leg and try to pull him off, that's a grapple. Maybe you use a CMB opposed by a ride check to establish, and if successful then the next round grapple roll will be the roll to actually pull him off.
If you use a polearm or whip with the trip ability, it's a trip attack. What's the difference between using the weapon to unbalance someone from the top vs the bottom? No, they're not standing, but that's not much different than someone sitting in a chair and pulling the chair over. Give them high ground and let the trip happen. Give the rider a ride check to dismount into a square next to the mount instead of falling prone in a square next to it if the trip is successful.
If the druid' s animal companion jumps up to knock the rider off, that's a bull rush. Again use the high ground and ride check to not fall prone as above.
The ol' rope across the road at neck height is Craft Trapmaking, and a trap has a chance to be seen and a reflex save to avoid.
Gravity is the difference. In a normal trip, if you kick my legs out from under me, even for a split second, I will go down. I have nothing to grab on to. I have nothing holding me up. My only defense is to avoid your action or reposition quickly enough before gravity takes its tole.
If I am sitting on a pillar that I can wrap my legs around and hold on to, you will find it much, much more difficult to knock me down. Gravity will help me stay in place as much as it will help you knock me down. If you move one of my feet, it does not matter as I am not balancing on my foot. If you move both feet, again, it does not matter as I will still stay in position. If you push or pull me, I will use my legs and hands to stay in place. All of this takes place when you are completely stretched out just so you can reach me.
Knocking someone off of an object that they can wrap their legs around AND hold on to with their hands is no where near equivalent to pulling a leg out from under them in the middle of an open field. They are wrapped AROUND the horse with a device that is specifically meant to hold them in place while moving 25-30 miles per hour on average, with top speeds over 50 mph. They are not standing on top of it.
The main problem with trip being the maneuver is that you can do it multiple times per round. So much more effort is required that it must take more of an action economy than an attack action. I really think it should be a standard action. All of the maneuvers that move someone require a standard action (Bull Rush, Reposition, Grapple). Unhorsing someone would require moving them to a different square.
So basically if you use trip, you are gaining all the benefits of Reposition from a target that should be harder to move, and you are making it so you can do it multiple times per round. I really think this is against the action economy of the maneuvers in the game.
Actually, the first sentence of the prone condition is 'The Character is lying on the ground.' And I'm not sure what you mean with the hill reference. Most hills are made of ground...
* "prone" doesn't automatically mean "on the ground". If you are tripped on a hill, you don't automatically roll off that hill to the ground; similarly, while riding, it does not automatically follow that you fall off your horse (especially given the rules about saddles and military saddles).
Right, so if you are tripped on a ship in the middle of the ocean, where do you go? A ship's deck is not made of ground.
His point was that you fall in place, not that you fall to the lowest possible point that gravity can take you to.
Trip is not valid. But reposition is.
And I'm recalling from something that trip weapons also provide a bonus to reposition, can anyone confirm that?
Grabbing onto a hooking someone with a bill or other weapon to dismount a rider is a valid action. But calling it a trip is not, nor should trip specific feats apply here.
Drag, reposition, bull rush are all appropriate in different ways.
Unfortunately we have no specific rules for how to dismount a rider from a horse, but I think that trip specifically is not valid.
Based on the Unseat feat bulrush is the most appropriate.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unfortunately for the Trip idea, the correct idea is likely Bullrush.
My evidence? The Core Rulebook feat Unseat
The feat gives a free bullrush attempt. What is interesting for this discussion is what the bullrush attempt does, namely move the target off the horse and knock them prone.
The method used to attempt to unmount the rider should reflect the maneuver used.
If you grab his leg and try to pull him off, that's a grapple. Maybe you use a CMB opposed by a ride check to establish, and if successful then the next round grapple roll will be the roll to actually pull him off.
If you use a polearm or whip with the trip ability, it's a trip attack. What's the difference between using the weapon to unbalance someone from the top vs the bottom? No, they're not standing, but that's not much different than someone sitting in a chair and pulling the chair over. Give them high ground and let the trip happen. Give the rider a ride check to dismount into a square next to the mount instead of falling prone in a square next to it if the trip is successful.
If the druid' s animal companion jumps up to knock the rider off, that's a bull rush. Again use the high ground and ride check to not fall prone as above.
The ol' rope across the road at neck height is Craft Trapmaking, and a trap has a chance to be seen and a reflex save to avoid.
Gravity is the difference. In a normal trip, if you kick my legs out from under me, even for a split second, I will go down. I have nothing to grab on to. I have nothing holding me up. My only defense is to avoid your action or reposition quickly enough before gravity takes its tole.
If I am sitting on a pillar that I can wrap my legs around and hold on to, you will find it much, much more difficult to knock me down. Gravity will help me stay in place as much as it will help you knock me down. If you move one of my feet, it does not matter as I am not balancing on my foot. If you move both feet, again, it does not matter as I will still stay in position. If you push or pull me, I will use my legs and hands to stay in place. All of this takes place when you are completely stretched out just so you can reach me.
Knocking someone off of an object that they can wrap their legs around AND hold on to with their hands is...
I can partially agree, but I'm not talking about wiggling your foot around, I'm talking about grabbing you by the leg and trying to drag you off and away from or push you up over, well within a medium character's reach, small characters, no. Sure it's not super easy but not impossible either. I grew up riding horses and if you lose one leg from the stirrup it becomes impossible to grip the flanks, and hence much harder to stay in the saddle, more so if that leg is being manipulated, and even more so again if the horse isn't a statue and is actually moving around. A horse isn't a pillar,it's a living, moving creature, and you can only grip at the flanks, not wrap completely around them. The seat of the saddle is the most steady, the stirrups are very mobile.
If you're armed and carrying a shield, you have no hands to steady yourself unless you drop something. If you're heavily armored your center of gravity is much higher as well. Gravity isn't glueing you in the saddle and doesn't help as much as you might think when your base, the horse, is in constant motion, believe me from personal experience. The saddle still help you stay on the horse in normal riding and working, but it isn't an active restraint system, there aren't seat belts, and you can be pulled from the saddle. I know,I have been. That's why I described this kind of action as a grapple. The rider has higher ground and the saddle does help, but you ain't glued to that horse.
Also, from my many years of karate, aikido, and iaido, I can tell you unequivocally that where the head goes, the body follows. You can just as effectively "trip" someone by moving their head until their center of gravity moves outside their balance's "base" as you can by removing the "base", one or both feet or the horse, in the first place. I could go with calling this a grapple as well. Know too that you don't always even have to touch someone to make them fall over. When your hand comes at their face faster than they can change stance and reposition their base, they will first try to move their head out of the way, and keep moving it to avoid you, usually up to the point where they fall.
Maybe it's better to call these grapples than trips. Or as Claxon said, Drag would be very appropriate. I may even like that better.
Obviously the Unseat is a bull rush, you're just using a lance to do it with. I would say it is also a bull rush if a wolf were to jump up and try to knock you off, or if someone jumps off the roof to try and drag you out of the saddle.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right, I absolutely believe that you should be able to knock people off of a horse, but trip isn't the tool.
Moving one's head, lifting them up, and grabbing them are not leg sweep type actions.
If I body-slam someone, they go prone. That does not mean I tripped them.
Right, I absolutely believe that you should be able to knock people off of a horse, but trip isn't the tool.
Moving one's head, lifting them up, and grabbing them are not leg sweep type actions.
If I body-slam someone, they go prone. That does not mean I tripped them.
My research is rudimentary, but it appears that only Trip and Overrun give an opponent the prone condition. While I fall in the camp of letting the player describe how they unseat the rider and then choose the combat maneuver that most closely fits that description, I do this from a mechanics point of view. Consider that the name "Trip" does not automatically mean "makes a leg-sweeping-type action".
If your body slam is not a trip, but it makes someone go prone, what is it? Grapple? Reposition? How is bending the rules to fit the action for these different than is being suggested with Trip?
|
|
Right, I absolutely believe that you should be able to knock people off of a horse, but trip isn't the tool.
Moving one's head, lifting them up, and grabbing them are not leg sweep type actions.
If I body-slam someone, they go prone. That does not mean I tripped them.
My research is rudimentary, but it appears that only Trip and Overrun give an opponent the prone condition. While I fall in the camp of letting the player describe how they unseat the rider and then choose the combat maneuver that most closely fits that description, I do this from a mechanics point of view. Consider that the name "Trip" does not automatically mean "makes a leg-sweeping-type action".
If your body slam is not a trip, but it makes someone go prone, what is it? Grapple? Reposition? How is bending the rules to fit the action for these different than is being suggested with Trip?
Have you read the definition of trip? Pathfinder didn't redefine it so why would we assume it means anything other than the dictionary definition?
Have you read the definition of trip? Pathfinder didn't redefine it so why would we assume it means anything other than the dictionary definition?
Yes? Dang, I had this funny post all set up where I replaced "trip" with "smooch" in the rules of Trip. But that's not relevant, as it turns out. Instead, let me suggest that grapple is not the dictionary-perfect definition in the game. It covers more than a dictionary definition, because the rules have to leave room for interpretation. In fact, the dictionary definition of grapple is arguably vague in what the combatants are doing other than fighting without weapons.
If we get so extremely technical that everything needs an exact, and fitting, name- where will the minutiae end?
- where will the minutiae end?
Technically isn't this entire thread really arguging over a form of minutiae?
Until a FAQ, expect table variation. RAW does not adequately address this situation.
Regarding Unseat, the feat specifically is a free action added to an attack when charging while mounted and with a lance. That is hardly an exhaustive discussion of the options available.
My point was that trip causes prone, and that prone does not mean it was a trip. The goal of all of this is not to make someone prone, although it is a likely outcome, it is to unhorse them.
I have no idea what the action for a body slam would be. It could be emulated with Ki Throw, which uses the trip mechanic, but requires an additional feat. And maybe that is the answer, using the trip mechanic with an additional feat.
It was just to illustrate that forcing someone prone does not have to come from trip. Legal ways to knock someone prone in Pathfinder include Knockout, Shield Slam, Punishing Kick, Pistol Whip, Targeting, Twin Shot Knockdown, and Spinning Throw. Those are just a few ways that I just found via search.
|
|
Have you read the definition of trip? Pathfinder didn't redefine it so why would we assume it means anything other than the dictionary definition?Yes? Dang, I had this funny post all set up where I replaced "trip" with "smooch" in the rules of Trip. But that's not relevant, as it turns out. Instead, let me suggest that grapple is not the dictionary-perfect definition in the game. It covers more than a dictionary definition, because the rules have to leave room for interpretation. In fact, the dictionary definition of grapple is arguably vague in what the combatants are doing other than fighting without weapons.
If we get so extremely technical that everything needs an exact, and fitting, name- where will the minutiae end?
Grapple is also way more defined in the rules because it's more complex. If trip were supposed to be as simple as "anything that causes prone" it would say so because that's incredibly simple to say.
Legal ways to knock someone prone in Pathfinder include Knockout, Shield Slam, Punishing Kick, Pistol Whip, Targeting, Twin Shot Knockdown, and Spinning Throw.
Also, it's RAW that if you take lethal damage after falling, you end up prone. That's what would happen if a rider fell from their horse for other reasons and failed the "soft fall" Ride check.
I think that people are envisioning someone being un-horsed and imagining them sprawling to the ground, but it's not necessarily the only way it could play out. After being knocked off their mount, a rider should get to make a check of some sort (either the soft-fall Ride check or an Acrobatics check), and if they succeed, they manage to land on their feet or roll onto their feet without taking falling damage. From the perspective of the attacker, mission accomplished: the rider is off their mount, although there wasn't the additional gravy of the rider taking falling damage and ending up prone.
So, that puts me in the camp who feel that Trip against the rider isn't the right combat maneuver to get a rider out of their saddle. Ending up prone is a possible side-effect of being un-horsed, but not the primary aim of the maneuver.
The goal of all of this is not to make someone prone, although it is a likely outcome, it is to unhorse them
Besides being a nice reminder of the point of the thread, it takes us back to the OP's question; can Trip be performed to do this? My answer is, because the rules are not explicit, describe to me how you're unhorsing them. If it most closely fits Trip's mechanics, then use Trip. I only want to open minds to the possibility that a Trip maneuver might not look exactly like hooking someone's heel while they are standing.
Grapple is also way more defined in the rules because it's more complex. If trip were supposed to be as simple as "anything that causes prone" it would say so because that's incredibly simple to say.
I'm reading some contradiction in those statements that I'm failing to be able to accurately put into text, but I'll try:
Grapple is more defined because it covers many things [that cause grappled condition].If trip covered many things that caused the prone condition, it would be a simple rule that just said as much.
I still think I see what you're saying, but it's very all-or-nothing in interpretation. I fall very in the middle, and here's another example of why:
If wolves (always the wolves in these threads, I know) can trip, what is the flavor text the GM describes when that happens? Are they swiping a paw at the character's feet? No. I think it's reasonable to assume that they are grabbing ahold of the character as part of the attack. There could be other flavor interpretations of the chaos of battle to explain why a character falls prone after a wolf attack. The fact that it is treated as a trip rather than a grapple boils down to mechanics: the designers wanted to apply a prone condition and trip was the most closely resembled the end result they wanted(or how they saw it in their heads).
Apply the same to an attempt to unhorse someone. If Trip most closely resembles it, mechanically, don't be hampered by the title of the maneuver. That's all I'm saying.
I would submit that you cannot trip a riding character for the same exact reason you cannot trip a prone character: Neither one are standing and are therefore not valid targets.
I'd let you trip someone but then you've just knocked the saddle sideways or gotten them halfway out of the stirrup.
The prone condition and the "not on your horse anymore" condition aren't the same thing. You need to get someone out of the squares for that
|
This thread seem to be splitting up into the 'vivid' camp and the 'Method intended' camp when arguing about what maneuver one should allow.
I am for both but think that one should follow the Rules as written, which tend to favor 'method intended' arguments.
I think we all can agree on excluding 'Overrun', 'Disarm', 'Sunder' and 'Dirty Trick' as available combat Maneuvers for unseating a mounted foe.
That leaves us 'Bull Rush', 'Drag', 'Grapple', 'Reposition' and 'Trip'.
-Grapple has sooo many sources and rules applying to it so I'll skip discussing it.
From 'Combat' 'Combat Maneuvers'
-Bull Rush
"You can make a bull rush as a standard action or as part of a charge, in place of the melee attack. You can only bull rush an opponent who is no more than one size category larger than you. A bull rush attempts to push an opponent straight back without doing any harm. If you do not have the Improved Bull Rush feat, or a similar ability, initiating a bull rush provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver."
...
"You cannot bull rush a creature into a square that is occupied by a solid object or obstacle."
_________________
From Advanced new combat Maneuvers
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advanced/advancedNewRules.html
And from 'Combat' 'Combat Maneuvers'
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat#TOC-Combat-Maneuvers
Combat Maneuvers:
-Drag
"You can attempt to drag a foe as a standard action. You can only drag an opponent who is no more than one size category larger than you. The aim of this maneuver is to drag a foe in a straight line behind you without doing any harm. If you do not have the Improved Drag feat or a similar ability, initiating a drag provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver."
...
"You cannot move a creature into a square that is occupied by a solid object or obstacle."
________________
-Reposition
"You can attempt to reposition a foe to a different location as a standard action. You can only reposition an opponent that is no more than one size category larger than you. A reposition attempts to force a foe to move to a different position in relation to your location without doing any harm. If you do not have the Improved Reposition feat or a similar ability, attempting to reposition a foe provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver. You cannot use this maneuver to move a foe into a space that is intrinsically dangerous, such as a pit or wall of fire."
...
"You cannot move a creature into a square that is occupied by a solid object or obstacle."
_______________________
-Trip
"You can attempt to trip your opponent in place of a melee attack. You can only trip an opponent who is no more than one size category larger than you. If you do not have the Improved Trip feat, or a similar ability, initiating a trip provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver.
If your attack exceeds the target's CMD, the target is knocked prone. If your attack fails by 10 or more, you are knocked prone instead. If the target has more than two legs, add +2 to the DC of the combat maneuver attack roll for each additional leg it has. Some creatures—such as oozes, creatures without legs, and flying creatures—cannot be tripped."
__________________
From the Ride Skill Description:
"Special: If you are riding bareback, you take a –5 penalty on Ride checks.
If you use a military saddle you get a +2 circumstance bonus on Ride checks related to staying in the saddle."
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/skills/ride.html
_____________
Based on all above quoted rules (be free to post rules that contradicts this), I'd rule like this:
-Grapple
Too big for me to argue on.
----------------------
-Bull Rush
Now the rules state that you move your target back without causing harm. And Bull Rush is limited in that way that you (normaly!) may not push enemies into solid objects (but they don't mention hazard locations such as bull rushing foes into mid air. (I believe it is legal on ships in Skulls & Shackles).
Bonus stuff:
So Bull Rush should work for making the enemy move into the air behind the horse. Follow normal procedure with acrobatics and falling damage afterwards since the target now will fall from whatever height his horse carried him to. (Large=5ft off ground and Huge=10ft?) (Feather Fall?)
-------------------
-Drag
Drag as worded seems to be intended as to not inflict any damage on it's target while you drag your target. Since it is impossible for the target to land prone on the ground without taking falling damage, I'd rule that Drag cannot be used to unseat any target with the intention of drawing them off their mounts so they fall prone.
But I'd allow anyone to try to unseat their target with the 'drag' maneuver if they planned on keeping the target standing stilled dragged behind them after been dragged off their mounts.
((Visually- dragged through the earsnib or the like.))
-------------------------
-Reposition
|
|
(the previous post couldn't be further edited nor deleted)
This thread seem to be splitting up into the 'vivid' camp and the 'Method intended' camp when arguing about what maneuver one should allow.
I am for both but think that one should follow the Rules as written, which tend to favor 'method intended' arguments.
I think we all can agree on excluding 'Overrun', 'Disarm', 'Sunder' and 'Dirty Trick' as available combat Maneuvers for unseating a mounted foe.
That leaves us 'Bull Rush', 'Drag', 'Grapple', 'Reposition' and 'Trip'.
-Grapple has sooo many sources and rules applying to it so I'll skip discussing it.
From 'Combat' 'Combat Maneuvers'
-Bull Rush
"You can make a bull rush as a standard action or as part of a charge, in place of the melee attack. You can only bull rush an opponent who is no more than one size category larger than you. A bull rush attempts to push an opponent straight back without doing any harm. If you do not have the Improved Bull Rush feat, or a similar ability, initiating a bull rush provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver."
...
"You cannot bull rush a creature into a square that is occupied by a solid object or obstacle."
_________________
From Advanced new combat Maneuvers
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advanced/advancedNewRules.html
And from 'Combat' 'Combat Maneuvers'
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat#TOC-Combat-Maneuvers
Combat Maneuvers:
-Drag
"You can attempt to drag a foe as a standard action. You can only drag an opponent who is no more than one size category larger than you. The aim of this maneuver is to drag a foe in a straight line behind you without doing any harm. If you do not have the Improved Drag feat or a similar ability, initiating a drag provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver."
...
"You cannot move a creature into a square that is occupied by a solid object or obstacle."
________________
-Reposition
"You can attempt to reposition a foe to a different location as a standard action. You can only reposition an opponent that is no more than one size category larger than you. A reposition attempts to force a foe to move to a different position in relation to your location without doing any harm. If you do not have the Improved Reposition feat or a similar ability, attempting to reposition a foe provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver. You cannot use this maneuver to move a foe into a space that is intrinsically dangerous, such as a pit or wall of fire."
...
"You cannot move a creature into a square that is occupied by a solid object or obstacle."
_______________________
-Trip
"You can attempt to trip your opponent in place of a melee attack. You can only trip an opponent who is no more than one size category larger than you. If you do not have the Improved Trip feat, or a similar ability, initiating a trip provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver.
If your attack exceeds the target's CMD, the target is knocked prone. If your attack fails by 10 or more, you are knocked prone instead. If the target has more than two legs, add +2 to the DC of the combat maneuver attack roll for each additional leg it has. Some creatures—such as oozes, creatures without legs, and flying creatures—cannot be tripped."
__________________
From the Ride Skill Description:
"Special: If you are riding bareback, you take a –5 penalty on Ride checks.
If you use a military saddle you get a +2 circumstance bonus on Ride checks related to staying in the saddle."
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/skills/ride.html
_____________
Based on all above quoted rules (be free to post rules that contradicts this), I'd rule like this:
-Grapple
Too big for me to argue on.
----------------------
-Bull Rush
Now the rules state that you move your target back without causing harm. And Bull Rush is limited in that way that you (normaly!) may not push enemies into solid objects (but they don't mention hazard locations such as bull rushing foes into mid air. (I believe it is legal on ships in Skulls & Shackles).
Bonus stuff:
So Bull Rush should work for making the enemy move into the air behind the horse. Follow normal procedure with acrobatics and falling damage afterwards since the target now will fall from whatever height his horse carried him to. (Large=5ft off ground and Huge=10ft?) (Feather Fall?)
-------------------
-Drag
Drag as worded seems to be intended as to not inflict any damage on it's target while you drag your target. Since it is impossible for the target to land prone on the ground without taking falling damage, I'd rule that Drag cannot be used to unseat any target with the intention of drawing them off their mounts so they fall prone.
But I'd allow anyone to try to unseat their target with the 'drag' maneuver if they planned on keeping the target standing stilled dragged behind them after been dragged off their mounts.
((Visually- dragged through the earsnib or the like.))
-------------------------
-Reposition
Now reposition is a bit different than the other maneuvers, it is explicitly called out that the maneuver cannot be used to reposition an enemy into a dangerous environment. So you cannot reposition the enemy like you can with a bull rush (since midair would defenately count as a pit). The maneuver 'Reposition' has some clarification about it that it is supposed to move an enemy without causing them harm/damage, so I'd rule that you cannot use 'reposition' to make the mounted target drop prone as it would include falling damage.
Though I would approve the use of this maneuver against a mounted target if the user reposition the target to a standing position on the ground (no longer sitting on the horse).
-Trip
Mechanicly, trip is the combat maneuver that allows a target to suffer the 'prone condition' and falling would involve that condition. The trip maneuver does not spell out a limitation towards causing damage as part of the maneuver either, so also in that regard, it should work to unseat a target with the 'Trip' maneuver. But!
The rules explaining who can and cannot be tripped goes on and explains that you cannot trip flying creatures nor creatures without legs.
From my interpretation, it seems like those who cannot be tripped are those that do not touch the ground with their feet and those who do not have feet. And since a rider do not use their feet to stand, they cannot be tripped. (they are flying - since they have 'another means of transportation than their feet').
Odd interpretation.
To understand this you first need to look at this with a new 'ground' in mind. Being prone might mean that a character is flatly pressed/lying/crawling along the surface. Can't a horseback be that surface?
For example, is a character who managed to 'stay in the saddle' after being knocked unconscious sitting straight or lying down ontop of the mount?
With this interpretation, you can trip a rider so that he lies ontop of the horseback. Getting back into 'sitting position' would be (by this definition) a move action.
-----------------
There are alot of additional and odd interpretations we all can make so I'll stop myself before making too many.
_______________________
-Hitting The Maneuver!
So lets assume we've chosen which Combat Maneuver we'll make then we'll need to start calculating our bonuses and penalties.
I have not quoted this but it can be found in the Core Rulebook about 'Combat Maneuvers' and you'll need to complement it with a bunch of ruleclarifications by the developers to get the whole picture. (a bunch of feats and such can change and/or add to this)
A combat maneuver is calculated: CMB=BAB+StrengthMod+SizeMod+(ANY Attack bonus/penalty)
Attack bonus/penalty involves any Bonus or penalty you'd have if you'd tried to swing your weapon (cover, charge etc)) ((only add weapon bonuses if you actually use the weapon as part of the maneuver))
SizeMod = Opposite of SizeMod for AC. (Small=+1AC, but -1CMB)
--------------
To Consider:
Will a Riding Saddle add +2 to the DC of any attempt to unseat the rider?
The feat 'Unseat' makes no mention of such a benefit, neither does the mounted rules or the Ride skill rules I've found. In my opinion I'd like to see it give a bonus but the rules don't support it, so I would rule it as 'it gives no bonus to resist Combat Maneuver attempts to unseat'.
____________
It started so well but in the end this post became somewhat of a wall of text.
But I hope the quoted rules (RAW) will shed some light about the 'Maneuvers.
! Beware that anything not quated is RAI (Rules as interpreted). Which basicly starts from half page to this very last sentences. The RAI can be treated as creative guidelines.
The grappling rules remain to be discussed concerning unseating riders.
- where will the minutiae end?Technically isn't this entire thread really arguging over a form of minutiae?
Aren't all rules discussions arguing over minutiae? I like to think of it as a thought exercise. In the absence of explicit rules, in the end it will be whatever makes sense to the GM running the game. After all, that's who has the final say.
Every potential method we are discussing is a Combat Maneuver roll, the only difficulties are which one people want to call it, do any situational modifiers apply, and is the result going for the Prone condition or just removal from the mount. That's the true minutiae.
My research is rudimentary, but it appears that only Trip and Overrun give an opponent the prone condition. While I fall in the camp of letting the player describe how they unseat the rider and then choose the combat maneuver that most closely fits that description, I do this from a mechanics point of view.
This approach is new to me. Most characters don't have the feats to be good at multiple combat maneuvers, so if you rule that what they're trying to do isn't the one they're good at, does that mean they provoke an AoO unintentionally?
Aren't all rules discussions arguing over minutiae? I like to think of it as a thought exercise. In the absence of explicit rules, in the end it will be whatever makes sense to the GM running the game. After all, that's who has the final say.
Every potential method we are discussing is a Combat Maneuver roll, the only difficulties are which one people want to call it, do any situational modifiers apply, and is the result going for the Prone condition or just removal from the mount. That's the true minutiae.
Manwolf has it right. The root problem is that most of the combat rules, including maneuvers, don't consider for an instant the possibility that it could include mounted opponents and what the consequences for mounted adversaries might be. The relevant details are scattered and unorganized.
Unhorsing or dismounting an opponent shouldn't require a special feat. It's a standard part of mounted combat, be it on the battlefield or in the lists. Peasants using improvised peasant polearms would try to unhorse an enemy knight, if only because it was their only chance to survive the fight. It shouldn't take any special training, but by the same token it shouldn't be easy, especially against a trained horseman.
What's really needed is a specific combat maneuver, and not a feat. Of course, that would move our discussion to the house rules section. But stop and think for a moment what an "unhorse maneuver" would look like:
1) What action would it take? Probably a standard action rather than simply an attack action as with trip.
2) Would it provoke? Yes, I'd say you're definitely leaving yourself open to attack from the horseman, and perhaps his mount as well.
3) Should there be an improved version to negate provoking? Perhaps, but I'm unhappy about the need for a feat to give an improved version of combat maneuvers at all, so IMHO it's a toss-up: create a new feat "improved unhorse", allow another improved feat to apply, or just not allow it.
4) How should the rider resist being unhorsed? For simplicity I'd want to keep it to a single roll, probably just use CMD + circumstance bonusses, or ride skill + circumstance bonusses, whichever is higher. Or use a special CMD where you add the raw ranks in ride.
5) What are the consequences of being unhorsed? Prone, adjacent or behind the mount, depending on the source of the maneuver. Save using your ride skill vs the adversary's maneuver roll, or take 1d6 damage.
Unhorsing or dismounting an opponent shouldn't require a special feat. It's a standard part of mounted combat, be it on the battlefield or in the lists. Peasants using improvised peasant polearms would try to unhorse an enemy knight, if only because it was their only chance to survive the fight. It shouldn't take any special training, but by the same token it shouldn't be easy, especially against a trained horseman.
But dismounting an opponent does not take special training. All the combat maneuvers can be done by anyone.
Special training (feats) simply allows you to do some combat maneuvers more safely and effectively.
It seems to me that that there has been a pretty clear agreement from everyone in this thread the combat maneuvers that move the target from their squire into a different square will move a rider off his mount into that square and by doing so dismount them.
There is even precedent for using bull rush from the wording in the 'Unseat' feat that allows you to do a charging bull rush to knock a foe out of the saddle and still do damage with your lance as opposed to just doing a normal charging/bull rush to knock a foe out of the saddle but doing no damage.
No combat maneuver REQUIRES a special feat. They are just much easier and safer to do if you HAVE the relevant one/s but there are enough different ones that your usually not going to be able to always have the right one for every occasion.
I am guessing that those medieval peasants often tried to gang up a lot on those horsemen. One or two of them might take it in the face from the rider but with all the 'aid others' they would have a fearsome bonus to drag that guy off his horse, wrestle him to the ground or push/pull him off one or the other sides.
Those actions in game can be easily replicated with Bull Rush, Drag, Grapple or Reposition Maneuvers.
Or you could try to trip or pull down his horse but in the old days that was seriously bad form.
But that action too could be done by a group of peasants and that could be replicated in game by Trip or Grapple, again with a lot of aid others from the additional peasants.
Generally I am against requiring feats to even attempt something and with the existing combat feats already in the game and a sensible GM I think unmounting a rider has been well covered by the existing game rules.
After all every time you make a feat required to do a specific pidgeon hole task you take that task and limit how it can even be used. If a feat gets too specific in it's use then it is not worth taking for the vast majoroty of people unless it somehow synergises well with other feats somehow.
@TorresGlitch. How about sundering the saddel. Or using dirty trick to make the hores throw of its rider(a kick in the nut) or turning the saddel.
There's a set DC for staying mounted while your mount rears, it's DC 5, so good luck knocking a trained rider off with that.
But dirty trick claims to be the go to catch all maneuvre and there is nothing in that suggesting that you should put all sorts of skill check in between the maneuvre and the result.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a set DC for staying mounted while your mount rears, it's DC 5, so good luck knocking a trained rider off with that.
From the Ride skill Description:
Stay in Saddle:"You can react instantly to try to avoid falling when your mount rears or bolts unexpectedly or when you take damage. This usage does not take an action."
'Rears' refers to the Mounts combat feared state and how it effects the rider.
'Bolts unexpectedly' could refer to a horse with it's own will, mind and decisionmaking who takes a decision the rider wasn't aware of.
'When you take damage' refers to if the rider is hit with a damaging attack meant to deal damage.
A DC 5 rideskill does not allow you to evade an attack and neither does it in any way hamper or stop a combat maneuver against the mount's rider.
From my perspective the Ride DC5 check for staying in the saddle only applies when the Mount is the cause of troubles or if a damaging attack (that has no other intention than to simply hit and damage) strikes the rider so he need to double check if he falls off.
I base this off these two skills below and how they interact when the target is damaged while not standing on solid ground.
The Fly skill has a DC10 Fly check that the flying creature makes if hit in air. On failure, the target drops 10ft.
And acrobatics has it's own DC when you stand on slippery or non-stable ground. (Bad Ex. Grease spell).
Fly Skill:
"Attacked While Flying: You are not considered flat-footed while flying. If you are flying using wings and you take damage while flying, you must make a DC 10 Fly check to avoid losing 10 feet of altitude. This descent does not provoke an attack of opportunity and does not count against a creature's movement."
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/skills/fly.html
The 'attacked while flying' and 'stay in saddle' are so similar that I by RAI would refer to the fly skill about how to handle it when riding (falling prone or dropping 10ft is essentially identically results at that height)
____________
@TorresGlitch. How about sundering the saddel. Or using dirty trick to make the hores throw of its rider(a kick in the nut) or turning the saddel.
-Dirty Trick
"You can attempt to hinder a foe in melee as a standard action. This maneuver covers any sort of situational attack that imposes a penalty on a foe for a short period of time. Examples include kicking sand into an opponent's face to blind him for 1 round, pulling down an enemy's pants to halve his speed, or hitting a foe in a sensitive spot to make him sickened for a round. The GM is the arbiter of what can be accomplished with this maneuver, but it cannot be used to impose a permanent penalty, and the results can be undone if the target spends a move action. If you do not have the Improved Dirty Trick feat or a similar ability, attempting a dirty trick provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver.If your attack is successful, the target takes a penalty. The penalty is limited to one of the following conditions: blinded, dazzled, deafened, entangled, shaken, or sickened. This condition lasts for 1 round. For every 5 by which your attack exceeds your opponent's CMD, the penalty lasts 1 additional round. This penalty can usually be removed if the target spends a move action. If you possess the Greater Dirty Trick feat, the penalty lasts for 1d4 rounds, plus 1 round for every 5 by which your attack exceeds your opponent's CMD. In addition, removing the condition requires the target to spend a standard action."
The rules about Dirty Tricks state that the penalty may not be permanent. (well the enemy isn't prone forever and he isn't unable to jump back on his Mount again.)
The penalty for removing the condition should be a moveaction (so you cannot both unseat him and make him prone. But you could perhaps unseat him so that he might fall prone.)
Then we have two contradictory lines; "This maneuver covers any sort of situational attack that imposes a penalty on a foe for a short period of time." and "The penalty is limited to one of the following conditions: blinded, dazzled, deafened, entangled, shaken, or sickened."
The first line allows Dirty trick to do whatever you want with it (as long as the penalty is not permanent and can be recovered from as a move action).
The latter limits Dirty Trick in such a way that you may only use Dirty trick to inflict the conditions it has written out ("blinded, dazzled, deafened, entangled, shaken or sickened"). 'Floating in air' and 'unseated' are not even specified conditions, even less spelled to be allowed through 'Dirty Trick'. And 'prone' is not included among the conditions you can inflict an enemy with through the use of 'Dirty Trick'.
So by the second statement, Dirty Trick cannot be used to unhorse the rider.
Rule Lawyer bonus:
Mounting is a move action.
But if you ignore the second statement and argue that the first statement implies that you can indeed use it to penalize your enemy in any way you want then you can use Dirty Trick to unseat the rider (since you move them off their horse. It isn't your fault they can't fly - and drops prone.)
(How this would work with increased duration on Dirty Trick, I have no idea.)
_______________
And finally, I'll answer the question about: if it is possible to gut/sucker punch the horse so that the rider falls off?
((Quoting the text about Dirty Tricks.))
"If your attack is successful, the target takes a penalty"
The maneuver must be against the rider since he is the target you're after.
Clever Method:
But if you trip the horse, then it ain't your fault the rider falls off, landing prone as well (it is a lovely 'butterfly effect'/'Chain Reaction').
And what if you sunder the saddle?
From the Ride Skill description:
"Special: If you are riding bareback, you take a –5 penalty on Ride checks."
From the 'Broken' condition text:
"If the item is a tool needed for a skill, any skill check made with the item takes a –2 penalty."
So if you damage the saddle to half HP, they take a -2penalty on Ride checks.
If you damage it so much it is destroyed then they lose the whole benefit of the saddle and are considered to be riding bareback (-5penalty to ride). Next time the rider is damaged he will find it alot harder to 'stay in saddle'.
Odd bonus
I found no rules at all on this but you might want to rule that a destroyed item aside from obviously no longer granting any benefits, also remains in the way, so the carrier suffers the penalty from the broken condition as well or perhaps the entangled condition.
What's really needed is a specific combat maneuver, and not a feat. Of course, that would move our discussion to the house rules section. But stop and think for a moment what an "unhorse maneuver" would look like:
1) What action would it take? Probably a standard action rather than simply an attack action as with trip.
2) Would it provoke? Yes, I'd say you're definitely leaving yourself open to attack from the horseman, and perhaps his mount as well.
3) Should there be an improved version to negate provoking? Perhaps, but I'm unhappy about the need for a feat to give an improved version of combat maneuvers at all, so IMHO it's a toss-up: create a new feat "improved unhorse", allow another improved feat to apply, or just not allow it.
4) How should the rider resist being unhorsed? For simplicity I'd want to keep it to a single roll, probably just use CMD + circumstance bonusses, or ride skill + circumstance bonusses, whichever is higher. Or use a special CMD where you add the raw ranks in ride.
5) What are the consequences of being unhorsed? Prone, adjacent or behind the mount, depending on the source of the maneuver. Save using your ride skill vs the adversary's maneuver roll, or take 1d6 damage.
1. Standard action, agreed
2. Yes it would provoke, but would it provoke if you use a reach weapon, not like a creature with reach where there is still a body part to retaliate against, but a polearm or whip?3. Sure, what harm is there in creating another useless feat that makes you able to act without any consequences?
4. CMD + circumstance bonuses, nothing special, it's only a Combat Maneuver
5. Consequences are you fall off your mount and must make a Ride check DC 15 for "Soft Fall". This is already taken care of under the Ride skill. Soft Fall: You negate damage when you fall off a mount. If you fail the Ride check, you take 1d6 points of damage and are prone. This usage does not take an action.
And finally, I'll answer the question about: if it is possible to gut/sucker punch the horse so that the rider falls off?
Are we talking Mongo punching a horse here a la Blazing Saddles? That should be a feat. I would take that feat.
2. This is already handled. If you are not within reach of your target when you provoke, they cannot hit you with an AoO. It doesn't matter if you used a weapon or limb when you made the action that provoked.
I would like to see Ride play into the CMD. Maybe something like a +2 to the "Unhorse" CMD if a target has 5 or more ranks in ride. This is similar to how Acrobatics can affect Fighting Defensively.
@ TorresGlitch, if you mean about my comment about the Mongo punch, that was meant to be a joke, not a comment on rules interpreted or written. Sadly, I would never make it as a professional comedian.
@ Komoda, I agree, the synergy bonus would be appropriate, and representative how it would be more difficult to unseat an experienced rider.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I misread the title as can you 'trap' a riding person, and immediately imagined a horse failing a pit trap save and the rider succeeding, thus resulting in a cartoon scene of the horse falling and leaving the rider in mid-air for a moment.
3.5 Apparently had a tripping rule in the core for mounted combatants. Pathfinder, interestingly, does not.
Indeed. And they can substitute their ride skill for dex or str in the defending roll.