Looking for a rule: What can be ridden?

[Greenfield]

We have a Petal character in our game (MM III) who wants to use a Cohort (Leadership feat) Pseudodragon as a mount.

Petals are Tiny in size (usually 18 inches tall, about 3 pounds). Our PC's player wanted his Petal to be taller, 24 inches, which would increase his weight to about 6.5 pounds.

The Pseudodragon is also a Tiny creature.

So, while I can spot a lot of objections, such as the need for a Tiny exotic saddle, etc, is there a hard rule anyplace about riding another creature that's the same size category as the character?

To clarify how ridiculous this idea is: The Petal is two feet tall, the Pseudodagon is about one foot of body and another foot of tail. It weighs seven pounds, the Petal weighs a shade over 6.5, before equipment.

Even so, by the book, the Pseudodragon (Strength 6, size Tiny) has a Medium carry capacity of 11 to 20 lbs, which is more than enough to carry the Petal.

So I'm looking for a hard rule someplace to put an end to this foolishness.

 

[MJS]

Physics is a bit tossed due to magic in the first place - dragons shouldn't fly at all - but, this Petal is acting as a (relatively) giant rudder. There is no way for stable flight to occur. Also, STR carrying capacities do not have to correlate to airborne carrying capacitites.

 

[Greenfield]

General rule for flying creatures is that they can fly with up to a medium load, so the "carrying capacity" issue isn't an issue, per se. With a 6 Strength, the Light load would be 20 lbs or less, Medium would be 21 to 40 lbs, and Heavy would be 41 to 60 lbs.

Tiny size cuts that by half. If we rule the Pseudodragon to be a quadruped, then the load is only cut by 25% instead of 50%. I'd rule that it ain't quadrupedal when flying, so I'll probably fail to mention the quadruped aspect.

Even so, Light load would be up to 10 lbs, medium from 11 to 20.

As for the "giant rudder" aspect, aerodynamics are never considered when it comes to magical beasts.

So, while your arguments are good, it's already pretty well established that this is a ridiculous idea. What I'm looking for is a hard rule, from the books, that says it's not just silly, it's illegal. Common sense isn't nearly common enough. Written rules, on the other hand, while they may be flawed or even silly, are relatively inarguable.

On that note: In D&D 4e, it's possible to Trip an ooze. If you do, it's prone until its next action. I have no idea how you would know when it's "getting up", or whether it's on it's back or front, but the rules say it's possible, therefore... (This is an entry from our "The Stupidest Rule I've Ever Seen" competition.)

<Tangent> There's a children's cartoon called Pearlie, about a group of fairies. The mean/evil one is called Saphira, and she has a Bat named Ludwig as a servant. She frequently rides him, and the animation shows him struggling to fly while carrying his "Beloved mistress".

The visual of this comes to mind with the idea of the Pseudodragon carrying the Petal who's bigger than he is. If I ever DM this team, I'm going to give the Pseudodragon a cartoonish German accent. Just because. </tangent>

 

[Greenfield]

Sorry, double post

 

[delericho]

Generally speaking, I would allow a character to ride a mount of at least one size larger than he is himself, assuming a suitable anatomy. In the case of intelligent creatures (eg dragons), the mount would have to agree to be ridden in this manner; while mounts of animal intelligence would need to be trained to accept a rider.

I'm not sure if the rules ever explicitly address this - you might try the "Rules Compendium".

Edit: with regard specifically to a flying mount, IIRC a creature can fly only if it is at "light" encumbrance or less. So, work out how much the creature can carry due to Strength, size, and whether it is a quadruped, compare this with the weight of the rider (plus all his gear), and if this is enough to reduce the creature's movement rate then it cannot fly. (But it's possible I'm wrong about this - I'm about to run out the door, so don't have time to verify with a cite.)

 

[Kinak]

If you're looking for the RAW justification, it's on page 204 of 3.5 DMG, saying that a suitable mount is "At least one size category larger than the character. Also, a flying mount can carry no more than a light load aloft."

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[MJS]

As for the "giant rudder" aspect, aerodynamics are never considered when it comes to magical beasts.

they just were considered, in this very thread. Its an obvious answer, but please dig through your books some more.

if that doesn't help, you may just have to....wing it....

 

[Greenfield]

they just were considered, in this very thread. Its an obvious answer, but please dig through your books some more.

if that doesn't help, you may just have to....wing it....

But not in the rules, which is what I'm asking about.

 

[Greenfield]

If you're looking for the RAW justification, it's on page 204 of 3.5 DMG, saying that a suitable mount is "At least one size category larger than the character. Also, a flying mount can carry no more than a light load aloft."

Cheers!
Kinak

This is exactly what I was looking for. Thank You!

 

[Celebrim]

Same problem player, huh?

General rule for flying creatures is that they can fly with up to a medium load, so the "carrying capacity" issue isn't an issue, per se.

Here you are butting your head against game mechanics that are somewhat reasonable - carrying capacity as a percentage of body weight increases as the creature decreases in size. 'Ants are proportionally 80 times stronger than humans' is a well known example.

I think you are going to be stuck allowing this by the rules. Personally I'd rule that there isn't room on the steeds back to ride it with a saddle (site 'suitability of mount' rule. However the pseudo-dragon could carry you in a basket beneath it. However, you may not want to mention the basket option.