I'd say both take it... If I were feeling generous, I'd allow the rider to make a Ride check in place of the mount's Stealth check.
Then again, Stealth rules are not very clear... And neither are the rules for mounted combat, so mixing the two in the same charactet can't be good. :P
|
I'd say both take it... If I were feeling generous, I'd allow the rider to make a Ride check in place of thr mount's Stealth check...
Then again, Stealth rules are not very clear... And neither are the rules for mounted combat, so mixing the two in the same charactet can't be good. :P
Just tinkering with the idea of a mounted Ninja. Since ride and stealth share the Dex requirement, makes sense to at least consider a combination of the two.
I'm not a rider, but I imagine that not moving while riding is... challenging to say the least.
I rule that both rider and mount roll stealth checks and take the worst result.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the mount makes the Stealth check and the rider can make an Aid Another (Stealth) check to help.
Don't forget to add any Encumbrance modifiers to both.
I'd allow a Ride check to grant a +1 Circumstance bonus per 5 points the Ride check exceeds the mounts Stealth check.
My PC's Paladin cohort is mounted on a megaloceros and it is far more skilled in a lot of things the he is.
The first problem is how are you concealing your mount or yourself
Each creature makes its own Stealth check. Maybe one gets noticed, maybe both, maybe neither.
Does the mount take the test, the rider, or both? What modifiers apply?
They both have to take it. The one who fails, fails it for both.
|
|
Does the mount take the test, the rider, or both? What modifiers apply?They both have to take it. The one who fails, fails it for both.
So then if only one fails, both are instantly noticed? Seems iffy, I mean if the mount fails, would observers just notice a mount?
They could certainly assume the presence of the other.
The idea of a horse trying to tiptoe silently through a marble paved hallway while pressing into the shadows of the pillars makes me smile :)
Sounds like a great way to play psy-warfare...
Guard1: "Dude!, a Horse just walked out of the shady corner..."
Guard2: "What? I don't see anything..."
Guard1: "Oh wait! Now the horse is gone, but there is a grinning Half-Orc floating around in mid-air..."
Guard2: "OK, I think you need to lay off the pesh next time you show up for your shift..."
Although it does make me wonder... Are Stealth Sniping Spitting Camels a thing?
"Why's no one riding that horse?
"Must be a druid
If you don't actually ride the mount but just sort-of "hang on", you might be considered cargo and not have to make a Stealth check I guess. But you couldn't actually do anything at all while being transported that way.
|
|
If you don't actually ride the mount but just sort-of "hang on", you might be considered cargo and not have to make a Stealth check I guess. But you couldn't actually do anything at all while being transported that way.
In film, I've seen characters use a moving horse as total concealment while hanging to the side. Not really what I'm thinking, as the horse is moving normal speed in that example, so really it would be only the ninja in that instance.
Anyway, I'm not really thinking about horses. I'm thinking more along the lines of Medium mounts with Small riders. Given that size affect stealth rolls, I think that alone should be addressed.
Personally, I think it could reasonably run the mounted pair as one creature. Use either's ranks in steath, but treat as the larger of the two for size penalties. I'd also stack armor check penalties from both creatures, and load penalties (if any). But it would be one check, as the whole point of riding is them moving as one.
Anyway, as to the why, mostly I'm wondering if sneak attack is really an option via stealth from a mounted character. I mean, doesn't seem like the mount should automatically give away your position, but at the same time, it should be harder to stealth while mounted. Though it shouldn't be two stealth checks, as I think that is unrealistic.
Each creature makes its own Stealth check. Maybe one gets noticed, maybe both, maybe neither."Look! That man is floating on thin air!"
Or you see someone over some 5 foot high bushes and wonder if they're climbing or (since its a D&D universe) flying is a real option
Does the mount take the test, the rider, or both? What modifiers apply?They both have to take it. The one who fails, fails it for both.So then if only one fails, both are instantly noticed? Seems iffy, I mean if the mount fails, would observers just notice a mount?
They could certainly assume the presence of the other.
It wouldn't be any more "iffy" than the rogue being spotted because he was walking right next to mr. clankety clank platemail man. At some point, you do have to interpolate rules for the sake of consistency or logic.
You're not really being stealthy if you're engaging in non-stealthy behavior, and riding on top of a horse who's not being stealthy is an example of such.
Each creature makes its own Stealth check. Maybe one gets noticed, maybe both, maybe neither."Look! That man is floating on thin air!"
So the horse has Hide In Plain Sight?
Or are you suggesting that maybe a rider should be invisible because someone cast invisibility on their horse?
Separate rolls just makes sense. Just like party members. Just because your adjacency is in 3 dimensions doesn't change that there are two creatures involved.
I don't know about you, but if I have a wizard sneaking somewhere, I have their familiar roll Stealth too, because you never know when the cat sneezes inconveniently.