Grapple a mounted opponent

[Jhulae]

We were talking about Improved Grab because it allows a free grapple attack.....I still stand on what I said earlier about that Special Attack.

However, as I thought about this a bit more - Jhulae makes sense. The action is "I want to dismount the rider" not "I want to jump on the horse, grapple the rider then pull him from his horse."

We should really consider the OUTCOME of the action to find the appropriate rule instead of beginning with the player's description and working towards the rule. It's a fine art yes, but that's the first question every DM unconsciously (or consciously) asks himself when behind the screen.

If I were judging this (and now here comes the groan from my player who has the grappling monk) I would agree that the attack is a trip attack.

Actually, it's not even as complcated as determining the outcome and deciding the action in this situation. It's specifically presented in the rules.

Tripping a Mounted Opponent

You may make a trip attack against a mounted opponent. The defender may make a Ride check in place of his Dexterity or Strength check. If you succeed, you pull the rider from his mount.

 

[SgtHulka]

So best I can get from RAW:
Without improved grab,
the grappler does steps 1-3 normally. After that if he performs step 4 he draws an AoO from the mount. At that point he is probably considered to be co-mounted. Not sure after that if the mount could attack the grappler or not.

Neither Guide with Knees nor Fight with Warhorse are among the "if you are grappling" options.

So although the mount would get an attack of opportunity during step 4, it wouldn't get any further AO's in future rounds because it would no longer be under the control of the rider. It would also only move under the DM's discretion, for the same reason. The simplest and most logical thing would be to have it stand there until the grappling is resolved. But a rat-bastard DM would be within his rights to have it bolt, leaving the grapplers behind, or carrying them with it, depending on its size and the DM's inclination.

 

[kjenks]

If the player really leapt at the rider, it's a move action - make a Jump or Ride to get on the horse).

A Jump check gets you OVER the horse. You don't normally need to make a Ride check to mount a horse, but you can make an optional Ride check DC 20 to mount as a free action.

Then he makes his trip attack to dismount the rider. If he misses, the rider gets a trip attack against the attacker. If the rider succeeds, the attacker is thrown from the horse. Failure means both attacker and grappler are mounted on the back of the horse. This latter result may collide with the attacker/defender in same square rule, but two people ride horses all the time - logistically so can enemies (see DMG p29 under Mixing it Up, first paragraph). In this case I would ignore that rule because it makes "cinematic sense." Eventually someone will fail a ride check when they are attacked (and hit) or they will get thrown from the horse by their opponent.

The Ride skill description also requires a Ride check DC 5 to stay in the saddle if you're injured while riding. This would become important for low-Dex characters with few or no ranks in Ride.

Also the mount can attack within its own space, and thus can attack a rider with a bite, but not hooves. Now, if someone was thrown from the horse, it could use hooves or bite.....oh and only a warhorse gets a bite attack.....

Strangely enough, the mount can make hoof attacks on the rider without restriction. Picturing this cinematically is fun, if a bit goofy.

 

[brehobit]

Strangely enough, the mount can make hoof attacks on the rider without restriction. Picturing this cinematically is fun, if a bit goofy.

Where are the rules for attacking someone in the same space that you aren't grappling? Is there any modifier for this?

 

[kjenks]

There's nothing special about attacking a creature in the same square (like a human attacking a housefly or some such). There are no modifiers, cover or miss chances.

Edit: I found the SRD rule.

SRD
===
BIG AND LITTLE CREATURES IN COMBAT
Creatures smaller than Small or larger than Medium have special rules relating to position.
Tiny, Diminutive, and Fine Creatures: Very small creatures take up less than 1 square of space. This means that more than one such creature can fit into a single square. A Tiny creature typically occupies a space only 2-1/2 feet across, so four can fit into a single square. Twenty-five Diminutive creatures or 100 Fine creatures can fit into a single square. Creatures that take up less than 1 square of space typically have a natural reach of 0 feet, meaning they can't reach into adjacent squares. They must enter an opponent's square to attack in melee. This provokes an attack of opportunity from the opponent. You can attack into your own square if you need to, so you can attack such creatures normally. Since they have no natural reach, they do not threaten the squares around them. You can move past them without provoking attacks of opportunity. They also can't flank an enemy.
===

I added the italics.

 

[brehobit]

There's nothing special about attacking a creature in the same square (like a human attacking a housefly or some such). There are no modifiers, cover or miss chances.

Edit: I found the SRD rule.

SRD
===

Tiny, Diminutive, and Fine Creatures:

<clip>
You can attack into your own square if you need to, so you can attack such creatures normally.
===

I added the italics.

Yeah I'd seen this, but it only seems to apply to tiney, diminutive and fine creatures as I read it...


Mark