There is no rule saying that they lose their dex bonus, but then there are no rules dealing with multiple riders at all, so it's a GM call.
Personally I would look at the fact that there is no general rule about losing dex bonuses when in awkward situations and say they keep it.
Probably I would apply to both riders the penalty for being squeezed.
Normally, they'd be sharing a large space. Plenty of room for two mediums.
|
By RAW the non mounted person can't end his movement sharing a square with another creature.
If the non mounted person somehow ends up in the sharing a space with a large (and another medium creature) then the squeezing penalty very much seems to be the correct effect.
If this is a particularly spacious mount (capable of fitting extra passengers without penalty) then you should probably treat it as a vehicle instead of mount.
Common sense kind of trumps all this, so rule 0 should apply. Two people riding a horse is not unreasonable, although it will encumber the horse further.
There is no rule that a rider looses their dexterity bonus when mounted. I guess it is assumed that the rider can dodge to some extent. I see no difference if their is a second rider.
|
|
Rescuing the all prisoners in the adventure the mage was given access to a cauldron of resurrection for free which he rejected leaving the table without a word…
Sad, I hope he will accept his character death.
I stay of my opinion: the characters are squeezed. Or count as grappled if you prefer.
Neither denies you dex bonus to AC, they only reduce it.
|
|
Common sense kind of trumps all this, so rule 0 should apply. Two people riding a horse is not unreasonable, although it will encumber the horse further.
I find the idea that 2 people can ride and fight from a horse without any difficulty similarly unbelievable. I think you'll find a reason most calvary units throughout history have gone with 1 rider per horse. Once they start carrying their dismounted comrades their fighting ability was considerably diminished.
The idea that having 2 human sized creatures on horseback fighting with less penalties than 2 human sized creatures fighting within a 5 foot square I find beyond the pale. If a military wanted multiple fighting men per horse, they almost invariably went with vehicles.
No one here really said anything to the contrary before you brought it up. I only pointed out that it was unreasonable of you to say that two people could not ride a horse during combat due to a game rule.
As to your second comment, there are no rules about two people fighting from the same horse, so it would be up to the GM to decide how to handle it...but if it was me, I would probably give the riders a penalty to hit and defend. Maybe -2 or -3 on both and see how it goes.
|
|
On Squeezing the rules state: To squeeze through or into a space less than half your space's width, you must use the Escape Artist skill. You can't attack while using Escape Artist to squeeze through or into a narrow space, you take a –4 penalty to AC, and you lose any Dexterity bonus to AC.
Rescuing the all prisoners in the adventure the mage was given access to a cauldron of resurrection for free which he rejected leaving the table without a word…
Sad, I hope he will accept his character death.
I stay of my opinion: the characters are squeezed. Or count as grappled if you prefer.
Neither denies you dex bonus to AC, they only reduce it.
There is a "bit" more text than that:
Squeezing: In some cases, you may have to squeeze into or through an area that isn't as wide as the space you take up. You can squeeze through or into a space that is at least half as wide as your normal space. Each move into or through a narrow space counts as if it were 2 squares, and while squeezed in a narrow space, you take a –4 penalty on attack rolls and a –4 penalty to AC.When a Large creature (which normally takes up 4 squares) squeezes into a space that's 1 square wide, the creature's miniature figure occupies 2 squares, centered on the line between the 2 squares. For a bigger creature, center the creature likewise in the area it squeezes into.
A creature can squeeze past a creature while moving but it can't end its movement in an occupied square.
To squeeze through or into a space less than half your space's width, you must use the Escape Artist skill. You can't attack while using Escape Artist to squeeze through or into a narrow space, you take a –4 penalty to AC, and you lose any Dexterity bonus to AC.
I referring to this part: "while squeezed in a narrow space, you take a –4 penalty on attack rolls and a –4 penalty to AC."
If you share the space on a riding beast meant to accommodate a single rider with another creature you are both in a area that is "as least half as wide as your normal space" but that isn't meant to accommodate two creatures.
Using those modifiers can be a possible solution.
So all variants in the debate so far (grapple, squeeze and pinned) would have all triggered that the dex bonus was not applicable.
A grappled creature don't lose his dexterity bonus, and you admit to knowing that. Squeezed, only if you are squeezed in a space that is less than half your normal space, a large mount for 2 medium person is hardly that. Pinned is pinned and you can do very little when pinned.
it seem that you purposefully choose the worst interpretations possible.
It was a camel not a horse...
Still a large animal.
And 2 persons riding a camel seem pretty comfortable in this image
Actually, it seem failry common
No. There is no penalty in the game, so there is no need to add one. They are not considered squeezed as the game deals in abstractions and even when huddled together, they are considered to be in their own separate squares.