Please Explain Mounted Rules and Combat

[Aluvial]

I wouldn't require the halfling riding behind the fighter to make a control mount check (DC 20) because the fighter is doing that. And whether the fighter makes of fails the check, the halfling has to make a DC 5 Ride check to use both hands (I am assuming he uses device-propelled missile attacks) at a -5 penalty for ill-suited mount (for him). Also, he would not get any bonus from a military saddle unless he had one specially made with two sets of stirrups (the back set shorter than the other) and the Animal Affinity feat and 5 ranks in Handle Animal would not help him (he is not controlling the mount), meaning he has to make a DC 10 ride check to fire his bow (or whatever). The attack would be normal on a single move and -4 on a double move (made at the mid-point of the move) or -8 when running (also at the mid-point of the move). With these restrictions, he could even make a full attack.

If you left the other combatants behind and continue to flee (and do not cast spells, shoot bow, etc.) then only the first Ride check is necessary. If the rider is still combatting his foes, he has to continue making the checks each round.

Of course, all of this is my opinion, not a hard-fast rule.

Ciao
Dave

Now we are talking toast... what do you think about the situation where the Fighter dismounts, leaving the halfling on an uncontrolled mount? -5 for ill-suited mount? I believe that it has something to do with the saddle/bridle/reigns. These are made for the Medium creature not for the Small one... I think the Small character is going to have more difficulty controlling the larger mount...

I reason like this.... what are the penalties (in the rules) for a Tiny creature who rides a Huge mount. None! But clearly this isn't right. A (riding) elephant (not made for war), is attacked... The elephant freaks... what does a Tiny creature do? There should definitely be a penalty to try and control the mount here!

Also, what about horses who are spooked? Do they try to buck their rider? Do they just stop cooperating (look like this is the rule)? Do they try and flee (most likely)?

This is what I'm considering.... Most of this is extrapolated from the rules. I wouldn't exactly call it made up...

LOGICALLY EXTENDED MOUNTED COMBAT RULES

1) Creatures usually use mounts that are one size larger then they are.

2) Creatures who are more than one size category smaller than their mount take a -5 penalty on applicable Ride checks (Control, Guide w/ Knees, etc) UNLESS, the mount is equipped with special saddle/bridle/reigns designed for the smaller size.

3) Creaturs who cast offensive spells from horseback (see invisibility for description of offensive spell) spook horses in the act of casting as if it were in combat. They must make a No Action Concentration check DC 10 + spell level to finish the casting of the spell. It would be natural to assume that at the finish of the spell that the horse becomes spooked (as if it were in combat).

4) Horse is spooked. I think that if you fail your first Ride check DC 20 to control your mount, it becomes Shaken (-2 to rolls) and will stay in the same space. If you fail a second check DC 20 to control your mount, it becomes Frightened (-2 to rolls and FLEES) possibly provoking Attacks of Opportunity for both horse and rider. A rider on a fleeing horse must make a No Action Ride check DC 5 (Stay in Saddle) each round or fall from your mount.

5) If you fall from a Medium or Large Mount the falling damage is 1d6. Larger mounts may require more dice if the fall is longer distance! A No Action Ride check DC 15 (Soft Fall) will negate the first 10' (1d6) of damage. A No Action Tumble check DC 15 will accomplish the same thing. Either way, you end up prone.

5.5) A Free Action Ride check DC 20 (Fast Dismount) requires that you have at least a Move Action left in the round. If you do, say after you make a No Action Stay in Saddle check (see 4) from the start of the round, you can try to Fast Dismount and land on your feet. Failure means that you take damage and fall prone. I would allow a No Action Tumble check DC 15 to negate 10' of falling damage at this point.

6) If you are on a Fleeing/Frightened mount, may as a Move Action may make a Ride check DC 20 to regain control of your frightened mount.

7) An unattended fleeing horse moves out of sight of combat and then continues to move for 1d4 rounds thereafter before stopping. For sake of ease, a rider can collect their horse in 1d4 minutes thereafter (after combat) with a DC 10 Survival check.

Good for a start I believe...

Aluvial

 

[irdeggman]

I wouldn't require the halfling riding behind the fighter to make a control mount check (DC 20) because the fighter is doing that. And whether the fighter makes of fails the check, the halfling has to make a DC 5 Ride check to use both hands (I am assuming he uses device-propelled missile attacks) at a -5 penalty for ill-suited mount (for him). Also, he would not get any bonus from a military saddle unless he had one specially made with two sets of stirrups (the back set shorter than the other) and the Animal Affinity feat and 5 ranks in Handle Animal would not help him (he is not controlling the mount), meaning he has to make a DC 10 ride check to fire his bow (or whatever). The attack would be normal on a single move and -4 on a double move (made at the mid-point of the move) or -8 when running (also at the mid-point of the move). With these restrictions, he could even make a full attack.
Dave

I would rule however that both are suffering penalties for sharing the same space though.

Seeing as how any type of sitting on a mount is pretty much restrictive in area available.

Also the halfing being "carried" does not have his hands free since his hands are being used to "hold on" to the character controlling the mount.

 

[Aluvial]

I would rule however that both are suffering penalties for sharing the same space though.

Seeing as how any type of sitting on a mount is pretty much restrictive in area available.

Also the halfing being "carried" does not have his hands free since his hands are being used to "hold on" to the character controlling the mount.

I agree with your first two points... but the latter he covered... basically the Ride 5 allows him to Guide with Knees, freeing his hands.

Aluvial

 

[irdeggman]

I agree with your first two points... but the latter he covered... basically the Ride 5 allows him to Guide with Knees, freeing his hands.

Aluvial

The halfling being carried is not guiding anything - he is going where ever the person in charge is directing the mount.

A mount can't take direction from two different riders only one of them can be "in charge" the other is merely "holding on". Consider him "baggage" without a tie down strap.

 

[Aluvial]

The halfling being carried is not guiding anything - he is going where ever the person in charge is directing the mount.

A mount can't take direction from two different riders only one of them can be "in charge" the other is merely "holding on". Consider him "baggage" without a tie down strap.

Then what's the DC of just "holding on?"

I think it is a DC of 5, just like Guide with Knee... is it the semantics of the term "Guide" that has got you?

Aluvial

 

[Ruslanchik]

1) Creatures usually use mounts that are one size larger then they are.

2) Creatures who are more than one size category smaller than their mount take a -5 penalty on applicable Ride checks (Control, Guide w/ Knees, etc) UNLESS, the mount is equipped with special saddle/bridle/reigns designed for the smaller size.

First, I think that riding a mount two sizes larger than you should not have a penalty, and certainly not -5. IRL human riders are able to handle Asian Elephants without much difficulty. Also, small characters spend their whole lives using instruments designed for medium characters. They should not incur a penalty for doing so here.

However, if you are going to give a penalty for size, I think it should be a cumulative penalty: -5 per size category smaller than the appropriate size for the mount. Using your assumptions, it would certainly be more difficult for a tiny character to control a large mount than a small one.

 

[Aluvial]

First, I think that riding a mount two sizes larger than you should not have a penalty, and certainly not -5. IRL human riders are able to handle Asian Elephants without much difficulty. Also, small characters spend their whole lives using instruments designed for medium characters. They should not incur a penalty for doing so here.

However, if you are going to give a penalty for size, I think it should be a cumulative penalty: -5 per size category smaller than the appropriate size for the mount. Using your assumptions, it would certainly be more difficult for a tiny character to control a large mount than a small one.

I had to make this up... The reason I was giving a -5 was because I copied the unsuitable mount penalty and I think that you should have the appropriate saddle to negate the penalty.

In your elephant example, I totally agree, but I would say that they have the appropriate saddle/baskets/gear on the elephants.

Now I have seen people ride bare-back on an elephant, but I think they have either have the equivalent of a high skill rating (something the game doesn't mention) or a feat...

If I were to give a scaling penalty, I would want to change it to something based on size...

Like the difference in the grapple size scores, or something like that...

Aluvial

 

[irdeggman]

Then what's the DC of just "holding on?"

I think it is a DC of 5, just like Guide with Knee... is it the semantics of the term "Guide" that has got you?

Aluvial

It is not a ride check at all.

A concentration check in order to do anything, A strength check to hold onto something. Something like that.

Someone in the back seat does not make a ride check. Remember that 5 ranks in Handle Animal gives a +2 bonuse to ride checks. There is a reason for this - it has to do with "controling the mount". Someone in the back can not be "controlling the mount" only the person in the saddle (or equivalent) or holding the reigns can do that.

 

[irdeggman]

Would you allow dragon riders?

If so, then how would the rule be so applied - since there is at least 2 size category difference there?

Be careful of the ramifications of making such a house-rule.

 

[Ruslanchik]

Would you allow dragon riders?

If so, then how would the rule be so applied - since there is at least 2 size category difference there?

Be careful of the ramifications of making such a house-rule.

If I'm not mistaken, Intelligent mounts are different as you are not required to control the mount. The size issue is important because a creature much to small for it's mount will not be able to physically impact a mount enough to control it. If the mount is intelligent you ca just tell it what to do.

Besides, if your dragon mount spooks when you cast a spell you'll have bigger issues that not being able to control it in combat.