Using a Huge or larger mount in combat

[dnd3dm]

We had some problems with an NPC villian mounted on the back of a gargantuan wyvern, who charged with a lance, at the last game I ran.

First, one player playing a druid/master of many forms tried to grapple the rider (the druid was not airbourne yet). I overrulled the grapple, saying the druid who was a large creature, could not reach the rider. Another player responded by quoting the rule that a rider is considered to be in any square that his mount occupies. But for the life of me, I can't see that rule making sense when a mount is two or more sizes larger than the rider, and the attacker isn't within at least one size category of the mount. If the druid was huge (tall), I might have let him have the grapple. Was this a poor rules call on my part?

Second: An arguement broke out that the lance that the rider of the gargantuan wyvern was using was not long enough to be able to reach past the mount's bulk on a charge or in melee. I went to the PHB and had a hard time finding out how long a lance was supposed to be. It only says that you can strike opponents who are 10 feet away, but you can't strike a creature in a square adjacent to you. BTW, the mounted villian on the wyvern had Mounted Combat, Ride-by Attack, Exotic Weapon Proficiency, and Monkey Grip among other feats (he was mostly classed as a fighter). He was a human with the half-dragon and half-fiend templates, plus gauntets of ogre power, and some other stuff that gave him a Strength of 32. He dididn't have a belt of giant strength because his weapons and armor were already really expensive (+5 total each, I believe). He also had a Barbarian level that brought his Strength to 36 when raged.

Yes, the game is high-level and I have power-gamers for players.

So do I need to make up something to explain how he could wield the lance and be able to hit something on the ground with it, or is there a way for me to do this in the rules? This won't be the last time that the PCs will face a rider on a creature that big or bigger, and I do not want to have a rules arguement for a half-hour every time I use a medium-sized foe mounted on a dragon or another huge, gargantuan, or colossal-sized creature.

Whatever happened to the days when high-level characters rode dragons and could charge with a lance without all these arguements cropping up?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Starglim]

To combine the two questions into one: If the rider's lance with 10 feet reach can hit the druid, then the druid with 10 feet reach can hit the rider. The bad guy obviously worked out the problem in order to get his attack, so he can't complain if he has put himself in a vulnerable position.

I'd have a bit more sympathy for a bow-wielding rider who merely urged his mount to attack in melee.

 

[Question]

I dont think the druid has 10 ft reach.

 

[The Forsaken One]

Hes got MONKEY GRIP, you yourself gave it too him. Just let him wield a 2 times oversized lance for 20ft reach. Whats the problem? Just take a -2 on attack thats all theres to it.

And for the rest theres no way in hell that Id let a large person grapple someone on a gargantuan mount. If he wants to know how you hit stuff, just give him an oversized lance like I said and explain to him that a wyvern can tilt/turn while flying in a straigth line using flyby ect to give his rider even a better position to strike if needed.

 

[brehobit]

By the rules he and the mount share the same squares. So yes to the grapple and yes to the lance. It is crazy silly when the mount is so big. I'd seriously consider just placing the rider in a square and treating the mount more as a craft (wagon or train or something). It would be a house rule, but a reasonable one. It makes for something of a mess because the "mount" has no facing. You'd just have to place the baddy in a square (perhaps as a 5' step) at the end of their movement each turn.

I'd say either way is fine. Just let the players know how you are doing it.

Mark

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

This could just be a classic example of when common sense needs to override the rules. And don't let some rules lawyer tell you otherwise!

 

[brehobit]

This could just be a classic example of when common sense needs to override the rules. And don't let some rules lawyer tell you otherwise!

This *is* a good example of when you should be careful though. It is pretty easy to make ad hoc rulings that are unfair to the PCs...

 

[Question]

A plausible explanation is the druid jumped onto the mount to grapple the rider.

I can picture a monk doing that perfectly fine

 

[Thanee]

Just have the druid snatch away the lance and pole vault up there.

Bye
Thanee

 

[mvincent]

From the Rules of the Game:
"A mount and rider share the same space on the battlefield.

For all game purposes, you and your mount function as a single unit on the battlefield. Your mount continues to use its own space and reach while carrying you. You effectively use your mount's space and your own reach (or whatever extended reach your weapon gives you) while mounted. While you're mounted, any attack that can reach a square in the space you and your mount jointly occupy can affect you or your mount (it doesn't make a difference which square). Likewise, you measure your reach for your melee attacks and the range for your ranged attacks from any square you and your mount jointly occupy. "

The reasoning for this is that the mount could conceivably twist itself to allow the rider to be in any portion of the occupied space in order to attack (and be attacked in return). It is also much simpler. The DM is of course free to make realistic adjudications though

i.e. the rule might be applicable for a gnome lancer mounted near the head of a gargantuan dragon, but not for someone sitting in a bunker mounted on the small of the dragon's back... the latter is more like freely occupying a space already occupied by a creater three or more sizes larger than you (also allowed by the rules).