I have marked this thread as wrong forum, as it should probably be moved to Advice instead of General Discussion.
Alright, that out of the way:
In order for your player to jump on a Wyvern, barring some special ability, they're going to have to ready an action to jump on the wyvern when they are close enough, unless they can jump far enough during their own turn (unlikely, as high jumps are hard unless you're a monk). You would have to ready because the wyvern is only getting close enough (probably) when it's not the players turn. After that...they're honestly kind of SOL. Realistically at that point they would need to grapple the wyvern to stay on them, but ready doesn't actually allow for that many actions (jumping and then grapple) but as a GM I might allow it since it's going to be hard to pull off in the first place. Assuming the rogue can actually jump adjacent to the wyvern, and then grapple it successfully (to not fall off), the wyvern needs to make a check to not fall while flying, and assuming that is successful, the next turn the rogue could attack (but need to maintain the grapple, releasing the grapple would cause them to fall off).
The honest short answer here is, the game wasn't really designed to deal well with people trying to do these creative things. And they're not going to be very effective in general.
That's why I suggested that while the rules wouldn't normally allow you to ready an action to jump and grapple, I would allow it since it's probably just worse than doing a more straight forward attack.
Vexing dodger might be a good place to look for inspiration, but it doesn't work well against flying creatures since they're unlikely to be adjacent. Well in the specific case of the wyvern it only has 5ft reach despite being large.
Another thing that might have to be looked at, and where this might actually be good, is if the wyvern can carry (has sufficient strength) to consider the rogue as a "light load". IIRC flyers can't fly with more than their light load.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My advice, as Claxon has gone over everything pretty well, is to make use of the Climb skill to see how well the character can stay "on" on the creature as it flies. You should probably require a touch attack or CMB check in order to get a hold in the first place.
Grapple isn't really necessary unless you are trying to control its movements or imposed the grappled condition. The DC is going to be at least 20 or 25 based on how 'easy' it is to get a handhold and the character is going to have to hold one with one hand if they want to attack. You should restrict such an attack to light or one handed weapons only.
|
the vexing dodger archetype does what the rogue is looking for. works especially well with a single level dip of swashbuckler with the mouser archetype
the vexing dodger archetype does what the rogue is looking for. works especially well with a single level dip of swashbuckler with the mouser archetype
That would do a lot of what is being asked for in a scenario of the rogue fighting a larger (non-flying) creature.
For flying creatures, it's harder because they actually have to get close enough to you to jump onto or grab.
I also have the feeling the player may not want to dedicate their character to this specific tactic, and just wanted to be able to do this on the fly. And will do something different in the next encounter.
Unfortunately, Pathfinder (especially PF1) isn't good at facilitating these kind of cinematics actions directly within the rules, without also having specific character selections that directly support it (making it somewhat inflexible).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the most important parts of being a GM is being able to keep the game in balance. Often a player may want to do something that runs counter to keeping the game in balance and the GM needs to reign in the player. It is one thing when a player wants to build his character to do certain things. When the character is taking feats or archetypes, he should be able to do something most if not all other characters cannot. But when he wants a vanilla character to be able to do the same thing that is something that the GM needs to address.
Spring attack lets you move-attack-move, so that covers some of what is wanted. Letting her kick off the bad guy and back to solid ground with an acrobatics check as part of the spring attack should cover most of the rest of it.
Pathfinder just does not handle sharing squares or riding the bad guys.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also have the feeling the player may not want to dedicate their character to this specific tactic, and just wanted to be able to do this on the fly. And will do something different in the next encounter.
That is exactly right. Maybe she won't try doing sth completely different. But as you said my question was about handling those cinematic actions in general and not about finding a way to specialize her character over the course of the next level ups.
But all your answers definitely helped me figuring this out way better. Thank you! :)
To that extent...and I had to admit this, the way I usually handle it is with "Yes, but..."
And usually the "but" is all of the negatives that I'm going to put onto the action to do something not allowed/supported by the rules, or that steps on the toes of existing archetypes/abilities/feats. Usually when presented with all the ways in which the "cinematic" actions are going to cost them, my players tended to just stick to the things supported by the rules.