Can a Mount be Surprised When the Rider is Not?
- Thread starter Atavar
- Start date
Matthias_Gloom
First Post
I wouldn't have the players roll for their mounts. It would be easier to drop a die behind the screen. If something is up and a horse bolts for 'no reason', it just adds flavour. Do you know what the horse is thinking? I think not. That's why you don't get to roll.
pressedcat
First Post
This is probably not RAW, but my inclination would be to have spot/listen rolled for both the rider and mount. If the mount fails its checks, the rider must pass a ride check in order to get the mount to move (or other passive actions) on his initiative in the surprise round if he is aware himself (such a check is a free action if i'm remembering correctly). Regardless of whether the rider succedes on this ride check or not (and so whether the mount gets to move passively), the mount still counts as flat footed as so is denied its dex etc.
Thus, an experienced rider not himself surprised will be able to control the mount well enough to make it move as he wants in the surpise round, whilst an inexperienced rider might struggle to get it to move. If the mount fails its spot/listen checks, it wont be able to act aggressively towards the enemy that it is unaware of and will be more vulnerable to its attacks whilst flat footed, but will still likely move as guided by its rider.
I figure this is a reasonably balanced solution, as a rider who's mount is surprised is not completely screwed in the surprise round, but neither does he get away with no consequencesfor failed checks. It might not be vital if you're riding a horse, but it would make much more difference if you happened to be riding a wolf etc at the time.
Thus, an experienced rider not himself surprised will be able to control the mount well enough to make it move as he wants in the surpise round, whilst an inexperienced rider might struggle to get it to move. If the mount fails its spot/listen checks, it wont be able to act aggressively towards the enemy that it is unaware of and will be more vulnerable to its attacks whilst flat footed, but will still likely move as guided by its rider.
I figure this is a reasonably balanced solution, as a rider who's mount is surprised is not completely screwed in the surprise round, but neither does he get away with no consequencesfor failed checks. It might not be vital if you're riding a horse, but it would make much more difference if you happened to be riding a wolf etc at the time.
Atavar, war horses don't act independantly of their rider so they aren't combatants. Untrained horses also act on the riders turn but it's more difficult to direct them thus requiring a move action whilst in combat. They can't be directed to attack.
In both cases the horses are not combatants. Only combatants can be surprised.
As for giving the horse a spot check i can see a few different outcomes:
warhorse:
rider passes, horse fails;both pass: Horse does what it is directed to do.
rider fails, horse passes: Horse wait's to be directed.
both fail: nothing happens
Untrained horse:
Rider passes, horse fails; both pass: Rider uses his action to control the horse.
rider fails, horse passes: normally nothing happen's. If ya want to be a RBDM then you can make the horse react on the player's initiative and have the player to surpised to control it. I can see this a being a grey area.
Both fail: nothing happens.
In both cases the horses are not combatants. Only combatants can be surprised.
As for giving the horse a spot check i can see a few different outcomes:
warhorse:
rider passes, horse fails;both pass: Horse does what it is directed to do.
rider fails, horse passes: Horse wait's to be directed.
both fail: nothing happens
Untrained horse:
Rider passes, horse fails; both pass: Rider uses his action to control the horse.
rider fails, horse passes: normally nothing happen's. If ya want to be a RBDM then you can make the horse react on the player's initiative and have the player to surpised to control it. I can see this a being a grey area.
Both fail: nothing happens.
Ridley's Cohort
First Post
Matthias_Gloom said:
On the contrary, some PCs could ask their mounts and expect to get useful answers.
Pagan priest
First Post
Mostly good, but I quibble with the rider fails and the horse passes. I see the possibility that the horse could emd up panicking, since it can detect an "obvious" threat to which its rider is not reacting. Even a war horse could panic at suddenly finding a snake in the grass.hazmat said:
ShadowChemosh
First Post
A Warhorse will not and could not panic by seeing a snake. A warhorse is trained to follow exactly what its rider tells it to do. If the rider guides the horse to a 200ft cliff face and directs it to jump the Horse JUMPS.Pagan priest said:
A warhorse is a specially picked Stallion that was breed to listen to its rider, but also to fight and have no fear of other creatures. No fear of other creatures is learned by having the horse kill other animals that are unable to fight back. They put the horse in with a wolf that has its mouth tide shut. The stallion kills the wolf and learns confidence it also learns about the smell of blood and fear. Later it learns to fight against things that can fight back. Its the same technique used to teach fighting dogs.
To the OP the player was 100% correct. A mount does not react or need to react to danger. Only the person sitting in the saddle reacts and directs the mount. Why does a mount care that it sees an orc or snake? How does it know the Orc is setting an ambush and should react to it? It can't this is something only the rider can do and if its a warhorse its spot check means even less as it WILL NOT do anything the rider does not tell it do first. The only thing a warhorse will do without direction is to defend itself.
The core rules are also in favor for the player.
Mounted combat in the SRD
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#mountedCombat
"Your mount acts on your initiative count as you direct it. You move at its speed, but the mount uses its action to move."
Specifically states that the mount moves as the rider directs it. No where does it say anything about the horse not making a surprise round check as it does not matter. The rider tells it to move the horse moves. Their is no reason to make Houserules or give -4 initiative checks or anything else. Simply use the rules as written.
I totally disagree with the claim that the RAW is clear on this issue.
I also disagree with the claim that the mount is not a combatant. Of course it is. It isn't a Mini Cooper. It's a creature, with stats, attack rolls, damage rolls, etc.
Do some of the posters' assertions rely on the assumption that the character was riding a warhorse? Well, he wasn't...he was riding a tiger (trained for war by House Vadalis in the Eberron setting). But that shouldn't matter...for a discussion on the RAW, it is a war-trained mount.
Anyway, the RAW does say that the mount acts on the rider's initiative count and moves as directed by the rider. But the unspoken assumption there is that the mount is capable of performing actions at the moment it is given direction. If it is paralyzed, stunned, dazed, etc., its actions are limited. Thus, my earlier post stating that "a mount acts on the rider's turn" does not mean "if the rider can act then the mount can act" but rather "if the mount can act then it acts on the rider's turn."
The RAW says that a creature can be surprised. The RAW does not say that the creature's ability to be surprised disappears because he has a rider on its back. Am I wrong here? If so, point out the RAW that says so.
I think that ruling that the mount doesn't need to make a surprise-related role is a valid ruling because it can make combat simpler. But I assert that it isn't RAW. I also think my ruling isn't RAW simply because I don't think the RAW addresses this issue directly. But I do think it fits in closer to what is (and what is not) written in RAW than does the "no mount surprise" ruling.
And please, no "not another RAW fanatic" talk. I just said my own ruling isn't RAW.
Bottom line, the issue is debatable, and what works best differs from campaign to campaign. But if you assert that I made a bad ruling that outright contradicts the RAW...then prove it.
Thanks,
Atavar
I also disagree with the claim that the mount is not a combatant. Of course it is. It isn't a Mini Cooper. It's a creature, with stats, attack rolls, damage rolls, etc.
Do some of the posters' assertions rely on the assumption that the character was riding a warhorse? Well, he wasn't...he was riding a tiger (trained for war by House Vadalis in the Eberron setting). But that shouldn't matter...for a discussion on the RAW, it is a war-trained mount.
Anyway, the RAW does say that the mount acts on the rider's initiative count and moves as directed by the rider. But the unspoken assumption there is that the mount is capable of performing actions at the moment it is given direction. If it is paralyzed, stunned, dazed, etc., its actions are limited. Thus, my earlier post stating that "a mount acts on the rider's turn" does not mean "if the rider can act then the mount can act" but rather "if the mount can act then it acts on the rider's turn."
The RAW says that a creature can be surprised. The RAW does not say that the creature's ability to be surprised disappears because he has a rider on its back. Am I wrong here? If so, point out the RAW that says so.
I think that ruling that the mount doesn't need to make a surprise-related role is a valid ruling because it can make combat simpler. But I assert that it isn't RAW. I also think my ruling isn't RAW simply because I don't think the RAW addresses this issue directly. But I do think it fits in closer to what is (and what is not) written in RAW than does the "no mount surprise" ruling.
And please, no "not another RAW fanatic" talk. I just said my own ruling isn't RAW.
Bottom line, the issue is debatable, and what works best differs from campaign to campaign. But if you assert that I made a bad ruling that outright contradicts the RAW...then prove it.
Thanks,
Atavar
pressedcat
First Post
I'd agree with you that rider aware does not equal mount aware in the surpise round, otherwise the mount is suddenly immune to sneak attack in this situation (which would be particularly unreasonable if the mount happened to be something like a tiger). Both rider and mount should be rolling spot and listen checks.
The rules aren't explicit on whether or not the rider could direct the mount to move (though i don't think anyone could support having the mount attack something it was not aware of). Whether or not the mount gets to move at the riders direction in the surprise round is probably more of a judgement call for you as it is not explicitly stated in the book. With an unintelligent mount that is used to being guided by its rider whether it understands the reason or not, it could be argued that in the surprise round the rider can simply command the mount to move as normal (though not charge or attack, as both of these require the mount to be aware of the foe). If you object to this, you could make the pc roll a ride check, but after a few levels this might become an auto pass anyway.
End of the day, its not covered in the book and its your call, but the player might feel unfairly penalised if he is the only person mounted and suffering from your restrictions.
The rules aren't explicit on whether or not the rider could direct the mount to move (though i don't think anyone could support having the mount attack something it was not aware of). Whether or not the mount gets to move at the riders direction in the surprise round is probably more of a judgement call for you as it is not explicitly stated in the book. With an unintelligent mount that is used to being guided by its rider whether it understands the reason or not, it could be argued that in the surprise round the rider can simply command the mount to move as normal (though not charge or attack, as both of these require the mount to be aware of the foe). If you object to this, you could make the pc roll a ride check, but after a few levels this might become an auto pass anyway.
End of the day, its not covered in the book and its your call, but the player might feel unfairly penalised if he is the only person mounted and suffering from your restrictions.
