Riding DC against wild dragon?

[MissGrim]

This is my first post to this forum, although I've lurked off and on. I've been playing in a new campaign/group for a month (once a week) and while the group is made up of friends and coworkers I've not actually gamed with any of them before (aside from MMORPGs). In the last session we were faced with an adolescent blue dragon and one of the party members made a ride DC check to mount and remain on the dragon's back. I didn't really contest this at all, he was rolling high for each check (a couple of natural 20s) and wasn't trying to do anything I considered impossible. He then stated that he would make a DC check to steer the dragon where he chose, and this is the part that I considered to be far-fetched. There was no riding gear in place (the character couldn't even reach much farther than the heavily scaled base of the neck) and this was no mere animal-intelligence creature; it was an intelligent evil dragon intent on slaughtering the lot of us. His first statement even included the suggestion that he put a dagger in it's shoulder and use that to steer (a tiny dagger... steering a dragon?).

This portion of the 3.5 Players Handbook description of riding skill was cited:

"You can ride a mount, be it a horse, riding dog, griffon, dragon, or some other kind of creature suited for riding."

I'd always taken that to only include dragons (or other oppositely aligned, intelligent monsters) as cooperative, trained mounts, but the others in the group disagreed. Normally I'd have not extended this beyond the game-session discussion (I had pretty much forgotten it by the time I got home), but the other player has since then brought this to many of our common friends and now I'm frequently being met with "so you think -blank- about dragons and riding skill?". Just the other night I sat down next to a friend at a bar and he opened with that! =P

So, while I'm not keen on long, drawn-out arguments, and violently opposed to drama, *and* also recognize that in-game the DM's ruling is final, I'm getting a bit tired of being surrounded by this topic at all times merely because I held a different viewpoint. Since most of our common gaming friends have already been discussing this with the other player, I thought I'd finally get around to posting here and see what some other viewpoints might be.

I do realize that most of you might indeed think that the other player's take on riding skill is correct... I'm not trying to go online to people I don't know and prove myself right. I just have a hard time arguing my point effectively amonst my friends when their viewpoint has already been swayed by the other party and they're catching me at such inopportune times (like at the bar when I'm tired and intoxicated, heh). I'm simply hoping you guys will offer some alternative points and get me started in the right direction. *grin*

 

[Dross]

There is a "must be suitable as a mount and must be willing" clause somewhere (maybe not in the ride skill but try the combat section), along with an example, a gnome riding an ogre is a willing but not appropriate mount, while a tiger is an appropriate mount but is not willing. (caveate: i'm not sure if this example of 3.0 or 3.5 PHB).

There is a section under unitellegent mounts to control actions, but that is not applicable here.

An intellegent animal must be willing to be a mount for the rider to guide it's actions, since it has to AGREE to be a mount.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Welcome to the boards!

The Ride skill, as written, is quite good for handling riding cooperative, non-intelligent mounts. Not so good for non-cooperative or intelligent mounts.

Your question is how to handle riding a non-cooperative creature.

There is no RAW answer to your question.. its not even a footnote! Which leaves me to wander off into House Rule territory

The way I would handle the scenario is to require the PC to grab the Dragon {Touch attack and draws AoO} followed by an opposed STR check ala Grapple to hang on.

Then either a Climb check {if two sizes or more larger} or Ride skill check to get to the dragons back {DC pretty high, probably around 20} .

Once there, the dragon could either try to shake the PC off, forcing Ride checks to stay on {DC = dragons STR check, fail by 5 or more and PC falls off}, or attempt to scrape the PC off, grapple check to break a pin.

Assuming the PC could stay mounted, the next step in controlling the dragons flight can go one of two ways:

Convince the Dragon to be cooperative using Diplomancy or Intimidate. { at -10 for rushing and possible impossible to even communicate}

Force the Dragon by physically moving wings or neck.. required some sort of leverage and Grapple checks. Results in limited changes in direction, PC would have to Ready an action to get the change in direction done at the best times... kinda like on the new Beowulf movie.
Which, actually, is a pretty decent portrayal of how I think 'riding' a dragon would look like. {altho Beowulf is probably Epic level..}

Either way, the PC would need to spend a Move action each round to stay mounted, at a -5 for lack of saddle and possible circumstance modifiers for the Dragons movements. If the Dragon is medium sized, I would also add the -5 for ill-suited mount...its hard to ride something your own size...the normal grapple rules would be better for that.

I would not, in anyway shape or form, allow a PC to direct the movements of a non-cooperative, intelligent Dragon the same way they would a cooperative, animal intelligent horse that is trained to carry a rider... its just not the same thing

{This is how I would run any non-cooperative, intelligent critter bring ridden by a PC.. not just dragons}

You may want to talk to the player about how the Ride skill is to be used in your game and allow him/her to adjust the character build.

 

[MissGrim]

There is a "must be suitable as a mount and must be willing" clause somewhere

I do remember this clause, but since I have just about every version of D&D here my remembering it doesn't help me pin it down much, heh.

A friend did give me a great example tonight, though. Consider a trained rodeo rider, who would be highly proficient in riding skill (riding bareback, breaking untrained mounts, roping moving targets from horseback, mounting and dismounting while moving, etc.) attempting to ride a bull. Even with all of their proficiency, experts in that field are only able to ride the bull for around eight seconds, and are certainly not able to steer it wherever they like. And that's an animal-intelligence bull, not an intelligent and evil dragon.

Also, I forgot to mention in my original post that we're all only level four, so none of us can be incredibly proficient in anything, really (considering the level limits).

 

[Derren]

There is no way this character should be able to ride this dragon and actually steer it anywhere. This dragon is intelligent and can't be broken by simply ride checks.

I also think that ride check is not appropriate. This is a grapple and grapple checks should be made. That means in the next round the dragon will likely win the grapple check and either kill the character directly or throw him away. Or, when the PC so far isn't attacking the dragon from the back, the dragon might simply fly away dealing with this PC and then come back to deal with the rest of the party.

 

[MissGrim]

There is no way this character should be able to ride this dragon and actually steer it anywhere. This dragon is intelligent and can't be broken by simply ride checks.

Well, yes, of course when my fellow player stated this intention my first thought was: 0.o

But since this has been drug out and discussed with so many of our common friends, and not from the viewpoint of "What do you think about *blank*?" but more along the lines of "I think this about *blank* and isn't Julia wrong?" I feel obligated to come up with a better argument than "Orly?" *chuckle*

Like I said, normally I'd not have given it any thought past the end of the session (when is this particular situation likely to arise again, eh?). But because it's a new group and we're still establishing how we play together, and since the other player's reaction to my disagreement was so extreme, I feel somewhat obligated to better argue my point (if even on a merely "principle of the thing" level). Although I don't usually pay attention to such things (and they've never been an issue in past groups) the thought that I'm the only girl in the group and therefore might not be considered to have as much experience as they do has crossed my mind. Also, we all work in a nightclub where the other players are bartenders and management and I'm... erm... entertainment, and I would like to think that that doesn't come into play at all but you never really know. So, just this once I might have to show them that my wang really is as big as theirs. =P

That being said, I really appreciate the help so far. I'm kind of hoping that I'll show up at the game tomorrow and the other player won't even bring it up, but I doubt it. *laugh*

 

[The_Warlock]

While in the end, it's the DM's call on how he wants to inpterpret the rules, if the creature you've mounted has got an Int of 3 or more and hasn't been convinced to let you "drive", Ride might be the skill to "hang on", but it doesn't grant inviolate control over the creature you are on.

As other posters have said, grapple would be more appropriate to wing bind it and force it down with a pin. I would certainly allow a trained rider to make Ride checks to hang on and perhaps limit damage while they stabbed the dragon, but not direct it, since it is not a willing mount. Other than that, if it were me running that, the dragon would see how well the PC handles being scraped off with trees, cliffs, or the ground after a wingover.

In the end, the biggest statement against their interpretation is that Ride is designed to allow you to stay on and direct a creature that is trained to be a mount, trained to receive direction, and is willing.

You don't break a bronco with Ride. You break it with Handle Animal. Dragons, being intelligent, aren't animals, or even beasts. So, thanks for playing, but I'd advise the gent in question to re-read the manual.

Good luck in your discussions. Sounds like you have the better sense and instinct than the rest of them.

 

[MithrasRahl]

I think it's pretty clear that in the situation, according to the rules and common sense interpretations, a level 4 character mounting and riding an evil and (if by adolescent you mean Juvenile) Large dragon is out of the question. It should be a Grapple check to mount, since the dragon is not willingly allowing you to touch/mount it, and the Dragon has a +28 on it's grapple check.

For this to work, you'd have to make a successful grapple check to get on, then a round by round ride check of a ridiculous DC to stay on. Then you'd need to make a Knowledge check (that only the rider could make) to pin point the nerve that would control the wings, since the pain a 1d3/1d4 dagger would cause a 142 HP dragon is laughable. Then you would need to make a Climb check of a high DC that would also give a penalty to your next Ride check to reach the nerve, and then you would have to make an attack roll to hit the nerve, also providing a penalty to the Ride check.

The Ride check for "Controling a mount in Battle" is DC 20, and that is with your willing, unintelligent mount. An intelligent and unwilling mount that is stronger and faster than you would increase this DC to the impossible.

The Climb check for "A rough surface, such as natural rock or a brick wall" is DC 25, and the wall isnt moving.


Sadly, all of this is wasted when a group decides to follow what is funny/cool/awesome to see. Now, I have no general problem with this, but it is frustrating when something that clearly could never, ever happen gets allowed for whatever reason. It just shows that the DM is allowing out-of-game friendships/moods/etc to influence his decisions in game. While some of you may be ok with this, and even prefer it, it certainly is now how I enjoy gaming.

EDIT: And if you are riding bareback, you take a -5 to your Ride check

 

[mvincent]

He then stated that he would make a DC check to steer the dragon where he chose, and this is the part that I considered to be far-fetched.

Down that path lies madness. What is to stop him from jumping onto the back of anything and directing it's movement? Have some kobolds (with high ride skills) jump onto the back of the PC and direct his movement... see if he still thinks it's reasonable.

However (to encourage creativety) I personally would at least make steering possible via a variation of the "move a grapple" option (difficult, but not impossible with a dragon).

As for merely holding onto a dragon, the 3.5 FAQ says:
"What are the rules for leaping onto the back of a
dragon? What about leaping onto the back of a flying
dragon (such as from off a carpet of flying)?
Assuming you’re not talking about leaping onto the back of
your dragon mount (which is covered by the Ride skill), you’re
in uncharted territory. A Jump check seems like a good start
(you must jump high enough or far enough to get into position),
and after that it seems like you’re doing something much like
initiating a grapple (a dragon who doesn’t want you on its back
should get a chance to resist your attempt).
Whenever you’re trying something that doesn’t seem
covered in the game rules, start by looking for existing rules
that mimic what you’re attempting, rather than simply creating
a new rule from scratch. You may well find that existing rules
for similar actions get you most of the way there."

I personally think using grapple is too much for merely holding on (as that would make it impossible to hang on to really large creatures). I instead use a variation of this rule:
"Just Hanging On: Some combatants might not appreciate being grappled and dropped, especially if that means plummeting to earth afterward. If a dropped creature is at least two size categories smaller than the creature that dropped it, it can make a DC 20 climb check to avoid falling. If the Climb check succeeds, the dropped creature holds on somehow, and neither the creature that made the successful Climb check nor the creature to which it clings are considered grappled. The clinging creature, however, must hold on with at least one hand; it cannot use a shield, and loses its Dexterity bonus (if any) to Armor Class. If damaged while clinging, the creature must make a Climb check (DC 20) or fall.

If the larger creature moves during its action, the clinging creature moves along with it. The larger can throw off the clinging creature with a grapple (a standard action) opposed by the clinging creature's Climb check."

 

[MissGrim]

Well, sad to say this whole discussion is fairly moot at this point. I just called up the player in question and the DM and told them I was withdrawing from the group (after failing to point out to the player that perhaps his reaction to my disagreement was a bit extreme). It just seems like too much drama and inconvenience to me to play in a situation where this player is such a good friend of the DM and anytime I disagree with him I'm going to get a week of weird arguments. The whole thing gives me a vague "good old boys' club" feeling... taking a level four skill check disagreement into a *week* of RL argument and involving all sorts of other people is just dramatic and strange. *sigh*

I do appreciate the help, though, and will certainly come here first if I ever have another rules-related question. Had I actually wished to continue with the group and prove my (pretend) wang was bigger than his this would have been a tremendous help.

I've never done this before, but I hear rumors that people can find gaming groups made up of people they don't know using forums, bulletin boards at hobby shops, conventions, etc. - I think I will look into this. *grin*

I'm sure most of you have seen this already (it's as old as dirt) but if you're ever in a similar game-drama situation it can cheer you up immensely:

Pretendy Fun Time Games...

Edit: On a side note, and not to blame any of *you* for my non-gaming, you did help me come to this decision. I realized there were enough polite, level-headed gamers out there that I didn't have to settle for this, heh. I can keep looking, thanks. =P