Is there any actual rule preventing this? It's an issue that's come up several times - it's incredibly beneficial for a character to get into combat along with an ally, not having to spend their own movement, etc. Obviously, the rules were not written with the assumption that Fizzbang the Gnome would strap an exotic saddle on Kragthor the Orc's back, but do the rules actually prohibit this?
It's implied that the rider chooses the actions of his mount - what happens when the mount is a player character?
Ignoring the silliness of one humanoid riding another, what happens when a druid wildshapes into a dire tiger and the fighter climbs onto their back?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is Fizzbang doing on Kragthor's back? Swinging his own sword at whoever Kragthor is fighting? I suppose that works, but riding checks might apply or he falls.
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.
As far as I'm concerned, every time Kragthor swings his greatsword, that counts as "rears or bolts unexpectedly". Lots of ride checks, possibly several times per round, and this is definitely not a Take-10 situation.
Don't forget:
If you attempt to ride a creature that is ill suited as a mount, you take a –5 penalty on your Ride checks.
Kragthor is the definition of ill-suited as a mount, so definitely apply this penalty. In fact, I might just make the GM-call that Kragthor standing still or moving gently is ill-suited but Kragthor ducking and lunging and hacking and charging in combat is extra ill-suited, probably to the point of doubling the penalty. Doubling the penalty is not RAW though, so use at your discretion.
Maybe Fizzbang is a spellcaster instead? In that case, he needs all the above AND he needs the following:
Violent Motion
If you are on a galloping horse, taking a very rough ride in a wagon, on a small boat in rapids or in a storm, on deck in a storm-tossed ship, or being pitched roughly about in a similar fashion, you must make a concentration check (DC 15 + the level of the spell you're casting) or lose the spell. If the motion is extremely violent, such as that caused by an earthquake, the DC is equal to 20 + the level of the spell you're casting.
I submit that Kragthor, in battle is extremely violent (by design, by definition, and by intention). So every spell requires DC 20+SL concentration check or the spell is lost for no effect.
Also, if Fizzbang is a caster occupying Kragthor's square while Kragthor is in melee with enemies, then most of the time Fizzbang will provoke AoOs every time he casts or does any other provoking thing. Casting defensively might work, but that makes two Concentration checks for every spell - that should discourage him.
And, frankly, any reasonably intelligent monster is going to hack that stumpy little bearded mage right out of his weird saddle long before he tries to take down the tower of muscle that's carrying him, so basically Fizzbang just rode on the mighty shoulders of Kragthor - right into his own bloody melee death.
That should get you started. I suppose if Fizzbang has high enough Ride and Concentration modifiers, and enough AC to actually survive being in melee range, then he should be allowed to do it - after all, he specced for this instead of alternatives.
The actual rule is "You can't end your movement in the same square as another creature unless it is helpless."
Mounts have an unwritten rule that this doesn't apply to them. Further, it says that you share your mounts space when mounted.
'Mount' isn't a fully defined term. We know that horses, ponies and riding dogs can be mounts. Some additional options seem apparent from equipment descriptions and animal lists, and of course some classes, such as Cavalier, have a mount feature with additional options and ways to expand that even further.
So what can be a mount isn't fully defined, but that doesn't imply that the list is endless. I know of no reason that a bipedal humanoid should be considered a valid mount choice.
A polymorphed humanoid would physically be able to act as a mount. I would assume though that that if that creature wanted to serve as a mount, it would have to act like one in all respects i.e. moving on the mounted characters initiative and acting as the mounted character directed, otherwise it isn't a mount, and instead is illegally occupying the same square as another creature.
Ignoring the silliness of one humanoid riding another, what happens when a druid wildshapes into a dire tiger and the fighter climbs onto their back?
This might actually work fairly well.
The fighter could just go FIND a dire tiger and train it (maybe his druid friend would help with this). In which case the druid does his own thing, the fighter does his mounted combat thing, and the dire tiger pounces happily all day long - three sets of actions, perfectly legit.
Ride checks apply.
But if the druid wants to be the fighter's mount, well, it's the same thing but only two sets of actions.
I don't see the harm in it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can see it now...
http://s1.postimg.org/o7p57devj/papoose.png
"TAKE ME CLOSER. I WISH TO HIT THEM WITH MY SWORDS."
The actual rule is "You can't end your movement in the same square as another creature unless it is helpless."
Mounts have an unwritten rule that this doesn't apply to them. Further, it says that you share your mounts space when mounted.
'Mount' isn't a fully defined term. We know that horses, ponies and riding dogs can be mounts. Some additional options seem apparent from equipment descriptions and animal lists, and of course some classes, such as Cavalier, have a mount feature with additional options and ways to expand that even further.
So what can be a mount isn't fully defined, but that doesn't imply that the list is endless. I know of no reason that a bipedal humanoid should be considered a valid mount choice.
A polymorphed humanoid would physically be able to act as a mount. I would assume though that that if that creature wanted to serve as a mount, it would have to act like one in all respects i.e. moving on the mounted characters initiative and acting as the mounted character directed, otherwise it isn't a mount, and instead is illegally occupying the same square as another creature.
I'm not sure this applies. It's just as easy to argue that Kragthor IS a mount as to argue that he is not.
Even if the players lose that argument, all this is solved by simply hitting Kragthor with Enlarge Person and Fizzbang with Reduce Person every time they want to do this. No more problem sharing squares.
I would assume though that that if that creature wanted to serve as a mount, it would have to act like one in all respects i.e. moving on the mounted characters initiative and acting as the mounted character directed, otherwise it isn't a mount, and instead is illegally occupying the same square as another creature.
Were you including this in 'not applies.'
Basically my core argument is that if you decide a creature is physically able to be a mount (which is fairly undefined) then if you wish to use the mount rules, that creature has to act like a mount in all respects. You can't just pick and choose the things you like.
Well, I'm not sure that backwards compatibility stretches to including other campaign worlds...but certainly mounts can be intelligent creatures with special powers. That is included in several obvious mount builds, Paladin's mount being perhaps the most obvious.
Presuming that they act on the riders initiative and act as directed (not necessarily with the ride or handle animal skill) I don't see how anything I said would preclude a Dragon as a mount.
You can put on an Equestrian Belt and automatically pass all those ride checks and more for a mere 3k.
If you really want to make that Half-Orc/Mount Happy, put on a Horsemaster's Saddle and pick up a few teamwork feats. (Paired Opportunist?)
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Have Fizzbang be sure to take that feat where he can make a Ride check in place of Kragthor's saving throws.
Edit#1: Indomitable Mount
I hear Barbarian Half-orcs have terrible Reflex and Will saves.
Edit#2: I almost forgot. If Fizzbang is a Sohei, then Kragthor can benefit from his Ki powers as well, including Evasion.
Just 1 level and Fizzbang can take Trick Riding, possibly preventing Kragthor from getting hit twice a round.
Oooooo Fizzbang can take Mounted Combat and give the Half-Orc the equivalent of the Snake Style feat for free. :)
Do mounts not need to be quadrupeds?
I think in one of the older 3.5, or even 3.0 items, it said a humanoid has to be 2 sizes larger to be a mount, what with the whole upright thing. I don't know if it'd carry over here, but the whole 'violent motion' thing would likely be an issue.
And now I'm imagining two barbarians doing this. Especially a halfling (not gnome, it's more fun to imagine a halfling barbarian) with the Mounted Fury archetype and trying to share rage stuff while his own mount's using his or her own rage.
But I think the 'must be 2 bigger' thing is a good compromise.
|
As I usually see it implemented gives the rider full attacks every round. Where is if he was on a standard mount (even a dire tiger) he'd only get movement and a standard attack (without significant feat/class feature support). So its often a significant power gain.
But if the druid wants to be the fighter's mount, well, it's the same thing but only two sets of actions.
I don't see the harm in it.
Why should it be any different than a normal mount in that regard? They'll both be acting on the same initiative count, as per the mounted rules.
I'm pretty sure a bipedal creature needs to be two-size categories larger than its rider to function properly, as opposed to the quadruped that only needs to be one. I'll see if I can find it, but I'm almost 100 percent positive that is the rule.
|
|
I'm pretty sure a bipedal creature needs to be two-size categories larger than its rider to function properly, as opposed to the quadruped that only needs to be one. I'll see if I can find it, but I'm almost 100 percent positive that is the rule.
Not in Pathfinder.
Otherwise the T-Rex and Axebeak couldn't carry their medium-sized riders.
I'm pretty sure a bipedal creature needs to be two-size categories larger than its rider to function properly, as opposed to the quadruped that only needs to be one. I'll see if I can find it, but I'm almost 100 percent positive that is the rule.
Actually there's not even a rule that any mount has to be larger than it's rider. As long as encumbrance isn't an issue then technically anything can ride anything via RAW.
This is why we have GMs to provide common sense before things get too goofy.
I'm pretty sure a bipedal creature needs to be two-size categories larger than its rider to function properly, as opposed to the quadruped that only needs to be one. I'll see if I can find it, but I'm almost 100 percent positive that is the rule.Not in Pathfinder.
Otherwise the T-Rex and Axebeak couldn't carry their medium-sized riders.
Hmm, well that settles that.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It seems to work fine for some people:
Who runs Bartertown? (youtube)
(They are even about the right size ratio for a halfling and a half-orc.)
Build the half-orc barbarian with Animal Totem, so he can get pounce, and give the halfling something (like vital strike) so he can maximize his single attack. (Or make the halfling an archer build so he can get full attacks on the move.)
|
It seems to work fine for some people:
Who runs Bartertown? (youtube)
(They are even about the right size ratio for a halfling and a half-orc.)
Build the half-orc barbarian with Animal Totem, so he can get pounce, and give the halfling something (like vital strike) so he can maximize his single attack. (Or make the halfling an archer build so he can get full attacks on the move.)
The halfling cannot use vital strike or a ranged attack while the half-orc mount is charging, as both rider and mount are charging in a mounted charge.
However, a small Sohei with pummeling charge on a beast totem barbarian would be a terrifying prospect.
|
|
Mounted Combat: When making a charge while mounted, which creature charges? The rider or the mount?Both charge in unison, suffer the same penalty to AC, the gaining the same bonus to the attack rolls and following all other rules for the charge. The mounted combat rules are a little unclear on this. Replace the third paragraph under the "Combat while Mounted" section on page 202 with the following text. Note that a "mounted charge" is synonymous with a "charge while mounted," and that when a lance is "when used from the back of a charging mount" it is during a mounted charge not when only the mount charges.
That seems to imply that a mounted charge is when you *and* the mount charge, but that you can have the mount charge (as per "directing it's movement") but not charge yourself.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
so... i'm in the interesting situation where i want to be the mount (and yes i'm of the appropriate shape to be a mount easily enough) and use leadership to get a rider... what happens?
It seems to work fine for some people:
Who runs Bartertown? (youtube)
(They are even about the right size ratio for a halfling and a half-orc.)
Build the half-orc barbarian with Animal Totem, so he can get pounce, and give the halfling something (like vital strike) so he can maximize his single attack. (Or make the halfling an archer build so he can get full attacks on the move.)
The halfling cannot use vital strike or a ranged attack while the half-orc mount is charging, as both rider and mount are charging in a mounted charge.
However, a small Sohei with pummeling charge on a beast totem barbarian would be a terrifying prospect.
just replace vital strike with lance
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure a bipedal creature needs to be two-size categories larger than its rider to function properly, as opposed to the quadruped that only needs to be one. I'll see if I can find it, but I'm almost 100 percent positive that is the rule.Actually there's not even a rule that any mount has to be larger than it's rider. As long as encumbrance isn't an issue then technically anything can ride anything via RAW.
This is why we have GMs to provide common sense before things get too goofy.
You've learned techniques that allow you to ride beasts of smaller sizes than normal.Prerequisite(s): Ride 1 rank.
Benefit: You can ride creatures of your size category, although encumbrance or other factors might limit how you can use this ability.
Normal: Typically a mount suited for you is at least one size category larger than you.
I'm pretty sure a bipedal creature needs to be two-size categories larger than its rider to function properly, as opposed to the quadruped that only needs to be one. I'll see if I can find it, but I'm almost 100 percent positive that is the rule.Not in Pathfinder.
Otherwise the T-Rex and Axebeak couldn't carry their medium-sized riders.
quadrupeds can carry stuff of one size category larger for their strength multiplier on encumbrance.
so a medium dog, can carry the same amount a large biped could i think. that's the only thing quadrupeds get more of in terms of riders.
Medium biped is 1x
Medium quadruped is 1.5x
Large Biped is 2x
Large Quadruped is 3x
oh, you're correct, well i've been doing it wrong for a long time then.
|
|
In 3.0 there was [url]this[/url]
Basically if the mount was willing it was a smooth ride and you didn't need to make ride checks. You also couldn't use ride checks to control them, you had to make diplomacy or wild empathy checks as appropriate.
If you wanted you could also just be a passenger, riding the intelligent creature as it went about its way, you rolled a separate initiative.
What smell? Gnomes should have Prestidigitation ready for occasions such as these.
Without appropriate (exotic) saddles, there would be heavy penalties but I have no problem with the idea of a small creature hitching a ride on a medium one. I have a lot of younger siblings, nieces and nephews and I know for a fact that it is possible to run around with a short person hanging on. My arms would be holding their legs and their arms would be holding my neck or shoulders but that's why you'd need a special saddle or backpack for them to be attached to. Once they're secured, there's no reason why we wouldn't be able to act independently.
|
|
In 3.0 there was [url]this[/url]
Basically if the mount was willing it was a smooth ride and you didn't need to make ride checks. You also couldn't use ride checks to control them, you had to make diplomacy or wild empathy checks as appropriate.
If you wanted you could also just be a passenger, riding the intelligent creature as it went about its way, you rolled a separate initiative.
Oops! Sorry Nefreet! 3.03.5 had this.
|
|
What smell? Gnomes should have Prestidigitation ready for occasions such as these.
Without appropriate (exotic) saddles, there would be heavy penalties but I have no problem with the idea of a small creature hitching a ride on a medium one. I have a lot of younger siblings, nieces and nephews and I know for a fact that it is possible to run around with a short person hanging on. My arms would be holding their legs and their arms would be holding my neck or shoulders but that's why you'd need a special saddle or backpack for them to be attached to. Once they're secured, there's no reason why we wouldn't be able to act independently.
Given that it's a medieval-esque fantasy world, without much in the way of indoor plumbing, they use external combustion as their main heat/cooking source, and the main mode of transportation is animal, I'm pretty sure all of Golarion has got a stink to it.
Well, I'm not sure that backwards compatibility stretches to including other campaign worlds...but certainly mounts can be intelligent creatures with special powers. That is included in several obvious mount builds, Paladin's mount being perhaps the most obvious.
Presuming that they act on the riders initiative and act as directed (not necessarily with the ride or handle animal skill) I don't see how anything I said would preclude a Dragon as a mount.
I agree this seems like the most sensible way to handle it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, this reminds me of a one-shot campaign I ran years ago.
I gave my players pregenerated Hill Giant PCs (IIRC Cleric, Ranger with a wolf, Barbarian with a Greatclub, and Fighter specialized in throwing rocks) and their task was to rescue their village from a Dwarven internment camp.
They were horrified to find their brethren beaten, tortured, and put to work quarrying stone. Those that rebelled had their fingertips cut off so they couldn't throw rocks.
But what really drove home the cruelty were the shoulder-strapped saddles that the Dwarves put on the giants' backs. They rode them around the camp on patrol, whipping them like mules and using them to chase down escapees. It wasn't a "funny" encounter. It was meant to enrage the actual players (who really empathized with the Giants).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is there any actual rule preventing this? It's an issue that's come up several times - it's incredibly beneficial for a character to get into combat along with an ally, not having to spend their own movement, etc. Obviously, the rules were not written with the assumption that Fizzbang the Gnome would strap an exotic saddle on Kragthor the Orc's back, but do the rules actually prohibit this?
It's implied that the rider chooses the actions of his mount - what happens when the mount is a player character?
Ignoring the silliness of one humanoid riding another, what happens when a druid wildshapes into a dire tiger and the fighter climbs onto their back?
Your mount moves as you direct it. If your friend doesn't want to give you his character sheet and have you dictate his actions, then he isn't a mount. If you haven't taught your friend the proper tricks via Handle Animal (which you can't, because he's not an animal) then he isn't a "combat-trained mount". Then you must make a DC 20 ride check whenever you direct him to move or else you spend your entire turn moving him.
So Claude your saying that if I'm riding lets say a giant eagle INT 10, that if for reasons of its own intelligance it refuses to go where i tell it that it ceases being a mount?
As for combat training that means that any non-animal mount is suffering A dc 20 check for riding in combat.
Mounted combat rules are often used for other scenarios where you're riding something in battle, like a flying carpet. They would apply for a PC riding a PC, too. The big difference is that you're dealing with an intelligent creature instead of an animal. As a result, you don't make any Ride or Handle Animal checks to direct them or control them--the other PC makes that decision. Encumbrance often deters a Small character using another PC as a mount. Quadruped creatures receive a huge bonus to carry capacity, a bonus a druid would receive when wildshaping. A gnome typically weighs about 40 pounds and likely will carry about 30 pounds of equipment.
For Fizzbang, he's riding an intelligent mount that must be directed/persuaded through roleplay (Diplomacy doesn't work on PCs). For Kragthor, he has a talking 70 pound weight on his back. If this causes him to carry more than a light load, he's going to suffer encumbrance effects.
In short, riding a PC increases one PC's mobility at the cost of another's PC's mobility. It likely won't be worth it unless the "mount" has a very high Strength or is already encumbered by medium armor.
What is there to stop a gnome from riding a half-orc as his mount?
The smell.