Flying and carrying another PC

[carborundum]

One that came up in game last night. One fighter, under the influence of a Fly spell, was transporting another fighter down a chute to a ledge. He wanted to descend using Total Defense and then a Fly move action.

I was more inclined to count them both as being in grapple and the discussion was a long one. (Since they unfortunately got attacked in mid-air).

The flying character is medium, well under light load and in light armour. He was carrying a medium barbarian (almost large but technically medium) and the combination put the flying character halfway into his medium load zone. We compromised and shelved the discussion.

Is there a rule anywhere? What would you do?

 

[NewJeffCT]

One that came up in game last night. One fighter, under the influence of a Fly spell, was transporting another fighter down a chute to a ledge. He wanted to descend using Total Defense and then a Fly move action.

I was more inclined to count them both as being in grapple and the discussion was a long one. (Since they unfortunately got attacked in mid-air).

The flying character is medium, well under light load and in light armour. He was carrying a medium barbarian (almost large but technically medium) and the combination put the flying character halfway into his medium load zone. We compromised and shelved the discussion.

Is there a rule anywhere? What would you do?

I did some looking and could not find a specific rule. Normally, a flying creature cannot carry a medium or heavy load, but the Fly spell is an exception. The Fly speed would be reduced to 40 from the normal 60, however.

One thing to note: When carrying a medium load, the PC's max DEX bonus is +3. (a heavy load is max DEX +1)

I would not count the characters as grappled. However, I would either not allow the barbarian to attack with more than a light weapon (as he or she is holding on to the flying PC) or not allow total defense for the flying PC, as he or she carrying an almost large barbarian and not able to use their dexterity to the best of their ability if they have to worry about a barbarian hacking away at somebody when flying.

 

[Physiker]

I'd say hold an other person uses up a standard action, so total defense shouldn't be awailable. But if the flyer wants, I'd let him use the Barbarian as Shield and would at least give him half covered. (Which would give him the desired +4 to AC)
The barbarian can act normaly or at least I'd let him

 

[Elethiomel]

I'd say hold an other person uses up a standard action

This doesn't work; either character can hold on to the other, so if the transported character is holding on the transporting character still has a standard action. Also, you get an inconsistency with grapple, where it does not cost actions to maintain the grapple. Why is it harder to carry a willing character than to hold on to a struggling enemy?

One character transporting another is a big hole in the rules. There's no rules for it (that I have been able to find when things like this has come up in my games) so you do have to make up your own - but making up rules that are consistent with the rest of the game would be good. Using the grapple rules is an option, but a poor one - grappling assumes opposition and has no rules for flying while grappling anyway. I have tended to run it very generously, because I find that going into too much fiddly detail with logistical stuff like transport sucks away game time like nothing else.

My ruling has been: Whoever holds on to the other uses both hands (or "all their gripping appendages" for Girallon's blessing, thri-kreen and the like) for this purpose. Other than that both characters have their full round of actions available to use as they please (with the obvious limitations that whoever is holding on can't use their hands for weapons, somatic components, etc. and whoever is being transported can't actually move under their own power while so transported).

 

[Vegepygmy]

First, I would make them explain how they're staying connected (flier holding onto rider with both hands, rider holding onto flier with both hands, secret-handshake-deathgrip, one belt cinched tight around two waists, or whatever). The consequences of that decision would have to be ruled on ad hoc. For example, if the rider is holding onto the flier with both hands, and the rider gets stunned, he's going to "drop" the flier and fall.

Second, I'd apply the consequences of medium encumbrance to the flier (obviously).

Third, I'd deny the rider any Dex bonus to AC (since he has almost no ability to move on his own), which means he could not benefit from any dodge bonus granted by such maneuvers as Total Defense.

That would about cover it for me.

 

[irdeggman]

Soft cover rules apply for any ranged attack by definition since someone is between the attacker and the defender at all times in this situation.

 

[El Mahdi]

I'd say hold an other person uses up a standard action, so total defense shouldn't be awailable. But if the flyer wants, I'd let him use the Barbarian as Shield and would at least give him half covered. (Which would give him the desired +4 to AC)
The barbarian can act normaly or at least I'd let him

I think this is the right way to adjudicate it.

Sorry Elethiomel, but I think you're wrong. The character carrying the other is not just "holding on", he's actively carrying and trying not to drop the other character. That requires active concentration and purpose, not just a passive "holding on". The very act of carrying denotes an action, IMO. Now the guy being carried can do total defense, or any other action he wants, since his role is passive.

I don't know if you can find an answer for this one in the RAW, but this is how I'd rule it.

 

[NewJeffCT]

El Mahdi - I think it depends on how the holding is being done. If the barbarian is being carried by the flying PC, then I think the barbarian can act normally, while the flyer must carry the barbarian. However, if the barbarian is holding on to the flyer's waist with 2 hands, then I think the flyer can act normally (albeit, at a speed of 40 instead of 60) and possibly use total defense. However, the barbarian can only hold on and maybe kick. If the barbarian holds on with one arm, I would have the barbarian make a STR or DEX check to continue holding on as a move action, and allow them 1 attack as a standard action.

 

[thedmstrikes]

Adaptive rules

Have you cosnidered using the mount rules? As the flying character is providing the movement for both, consider that character as a mount for the other. This is the base from which the many options for how they are moving come into play. Next, substitute the character's standard movement for the fly spell movement rates. Now, we have two characters in the same space moving at the same speed in the round. The "riding" character will have to delay their action to match that of the "mount" character. There is also the question of actions. Obviously, the "mount" character uses at least one action for movement (even if it is hovering). The "rider" character does not need to do such a thing, but if s/he has any mounted feats, they may come into play if they make sense based on the characters form of connection.

Let me delve into the connection for a moment. One of the two must hold onto the other, unless there is some form of riding utensil in use. Under basic rules for actions in the PHB, holding something is a non action action. Actions are spent in the getting of whatever is being held. So, common sense kicks in, if two hands are used for holding, then you have no hands to use for making actions. If one hand is used for holding, then I suggest you bring in the climbing rules for how to adjuticate the check to continue to hold while you complete the action you desire. Although it is not exactly the same, it is similar and makes a little sense. My example: both characters (one climbing and one holding on while flying) wish to make a simple attack during the round as part of their action. Would it not be similar for the flying character to grasp onto something while they swing that weapon as for the climbing character? Yes, there are two distinct differences (the climber is not moving and can use feet as an anchor point as well), but they are close. As DM, you can arbitrate a penalty that seems commensurate with the difficulty of not having the feet to use and for the moving part.

I would also like to address cover briefly. The only time cover will come into play, is if one of the two characters is physically obstructing the line of sight/effect to the other. If one is, then determine the percentage of cover and assess the AC bonus to the other character. If one is not "in the way" of the other from the source's (this would be a bad guy) point of view, then there is no cover granted. Cover is a situationally based bonus and in three dimensional combat, may not always come into play as a flat rate. It may need to be adjusted with each passing player or NPCs' turn.

There are many ways this situation can be handled. Once you have decided on a way, make sure it is consistant with any future situations that arise. It will be very space and time consuming to continue to puzzle this out without knowing exactly how the situation unfolded, but I have addressed some of the ways the rules can be adapted to support the situation in a logical way. Are they specifically for that situation? No, but they can make sense from a point of view and they lay down a framework to begin adjuticating how the actions support the situation. The rest is up to each DM to adjuticate the situation as it unfolds in their own game. All of these rules adaptations will probably bog down the combat a bit, so, you may want to consider informing the characters that you are assigning an abstract set of bonuses and penalties for both them and the bad guys to adjuticate how difficult the attempted maneuvers are in order to speed up the combat. Again, this is another decision for each DM to consider given the composition of their own group.

I hope this helps somewhat.

 

[irdeggman]

The flying character is medium, well under light load and in light armour. He was carrying a medium barbarian (almost large but technically medium) and the combination put the flying character halfway into his medium load zone. We compromised and shelved the discussion.

Size is actually immaterial here weight is.

Spell description says

The subject of a fly spell can charge but not run, and it cannot carry aloft more weight than its maximum load, plus any armor it wears.

What is the flyer's max load limit? (based on strength).

What does the barbarian weigh (including all of his gear)?

I have a strong feeling that the flyer's carrying capacity (PHB pg 161) has been exceeded here.