"What do you mean I can't...?"

[Mouseferatu]

Do dragons have good enuff manuverability to spin around? Even so you chould've allowed a check(grapple/grab), fort save maybe, for the PC to keep holding on.

She did get a roll to hang on. She failed it. Both characters took a decent amount of damage, too.

And it doesn't take all that much maneuverability to do a barrel-roll. The dragon didn't change direction, after all.

 

[Glyfair]

I considered later asking if the DM actually had a damage total in mind for the TAIL where it would be damaged enough to no longer be supporting the full weight of a grappled humanoid and another clinging on, but never bothered... :\

Somethings in the game system, from my point of view, shouldn't be allowed because they go against core assumptions of the game. Location shots are one of them (at least when you expect specific effects from location shots). The D&D damage system isn't designed to deal with that

For example, say an opponent has one arm and a sword that is deadly to your party. You might want to damage the arm so that his attacks get a big penalty. However, why don't standard attacks have a chance to hit that arm and cause a penalty to hit? Because it's not part of the system.

Then again, I think some problems can be solved by looking at what the player wants to do and seeing if there is something to cover it. In your case, you clearly want him to drop something he is carrying by targetting his tail. To me, that sounds like you want to disarm him, so I might adapt something based on the Ranged Disarm rules. Of course, if you didn't take the Ranged Disarm feat, then you obviously don't have the skills where there is any significant chance of it working.

 

[Li Shenron]

Anyone can do this. It takes two rounds unless you have a special feat. In the first round you move and attack. On the next round you move.

I immediately thought the same thing about how to solve that.

I think the game should and does allow a character to do anything that its player could do in the real world. It only takes the DM to choose the closest thing in the rules, or give an appropriate circumstance penalty (maybe even an AoO) if the action seems more difficult that standard (much like the rules do with sunder etc.).

To me IIRC it never happened as a player to have an attempt banned (it might have happened, but in that case I must have forgotten...), but it happened as a DM to be asked something outside the rules.
I actually think that on the 1st round of the very 1st adventure I've ever run (3.0) a player declared it wanted to shoot a zombie in the eye or something. Beside the fact that I think I told him it wouldn't have worked in this specific case (immune to criticals), I explained everyone that their characters are all the time trying to hit the enemies in painful places, and when it happens they score a critical.

Another case was a surrounded PC who wanted to rotate his axe to hit everyone around. I told him yes, I let him roll a single attack, and then I rolled a dice to check which opponent he has hit. His PC was indeed trying to hit everyone, but without a special tecnique (cleave, whirlwind attack, or even just at least BAB +6/+1) the best outcome would always be to hurt one - that is to say, I could actually describe the scene of him hitting everyone, but damaging only one.

Just remember that there is also a lot of power in descriptions. You don't need to have an actual rule to tell you that you can do it (Manyshot: you can shoot two arrow at the same time), when you can just do it with existing rules (BAB +6/+1 or Rapid Shot: shoot two arrows at the same target in the same round, and pretend you're shooting both at the same instant). It's a good way to allow characters more flavorful thing without complicating the game.

 

[The Cardinal]

yep, that's why I (and most of my players) prefer GURPS4e combat...

 

[Pinotage]

Huh. See, to me, that's an obvious tactic.

Last time something similar happened, I just required a Jump check followed by an attack roll. The character succeeded, and was clinging to the dragon.

She would have gotten bonuses to hit the next round, except that I'm a big believer in the notion that if the players are going to use unorthodox tactics, so are the (intelligent) monsters. So the dragon, which was already making a flyby attack on the party, just spun in mid-air so that the character clinging to its back slammed full-force into one of the other party-members.

I had a similar case where a character spider climbing wanted to jump onto a flying critter. As they were the same size, I simply considered it a grapple. Touch attack to hit, and if you succeed at the grapple, you hold on, otherwise you get flung off. I can see that for larger creatures grapple wouldn't be as appropriate as jump or balance.

Pinotage

 

[diaglo]

Huh. See, to me, that's an obvious tactic.

Last time something similar happened, I just required a Jump check followed by an attack roll. The character succeeded, and was clinging to the dragon.

should be a jump check followed by a grapple check and provoke an AoO if you don't have the right feat.


i do it all the time playing a Small character fighting Large Giants.

 

[diaglo]

Do dragons have good enuff manuverability to spin around? Even so you chould've allowed a check(grapple/grab), fort save maybe, for the PC to keep holding on.

to keep holding it falls under the Balance skill.

 

[diaglo]

Try Sunder.

can't sunder armor by RAW only weapons and shields

 

[diaglo]

She did get a roll to hang on. She failed it. Both characters took a decent amount of damage, too.

And it doesn't take all that much maneuverability to do a barrel-roll. The dragon didn't change direction, after all.

there's no facing in this edition. up, down, left, right, backwards, forwards... you threaten until obstructed.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Of course, if you didn't take the Ranged Disarm feat, then you obviously don't have the skills where there is any significant chance of it working.

which, honestly, is my problem with the feat system - it takes things which are just a matter of applying your current ability and skills and introduces the perposterous idea that you need special training to even attempt it. I put feats in three classes - Feats that improve your ability to do something, feats thats add a truely special (often supernatural) ability to your character, and feats which restrict a straightforward tactic from those that don't take it. The third class of feats SUCK, and they are way too common.

OK, sidetrack rant over.