PDA

View Full Version : I need help



Superglucose
2010-04-29, 12:20 AM
I need help understanding what my GM's objection is.

Here, basically, is the exchange:

Me:
EDIT OOC:
We have 2 sets of horses: the horses that we bought a long time ago and the mounts from the Mount spell. Those mounts will last another eight hours traveling (or be caught by our pursuers) while we run off in a different direction alltogether. That gives us the opportunity to escape.

In addition, I'd like to point out to the GM that when Usurian asked what the weather of today would be, he did say "rainy" which is why Usurian prepped Call Lightning.

Him:You're going to need a handle animal check to get the horses to do that, so the action is going to pause. Feel free to talk or cogitate, but pause action.

Me: I can't just smack their asses and get them to run off by being the big, bad Troglodyte?

Him: Nope. You're the one that summoned them, remember? They like you.

Me: And I can't make them not like me?

Him: What you want to do with them is already well beyond the spell description, which is summon horses to ride. I'll think on it for a few days.


Please, tell me how I am using mount well beyond the spell description.

The Rabbler
2010-04-29, 12:24 AM
strictly speaking, the spell Mount is supposed to be used to provide you with something to ride. your DM could be objecting to using it as bait rather than as a mount.

or maybe he doesn't want you to escape. maybe he doesn't want you to get away from his encounter. maybe I'm interpreting this incorrectly.

BobVosh
2010-04-29, 12:32 AM
I would have allowed it, as mount states it summons a living horse. If it works like summon they obey you, if it doesn't it should react like a horse.

Gerrtt
2010-04-29, 12:47 AM
The spell does say it serves willingly, but it also says it serves as a mount.

I'd require the handle animal check, and by the rules of handle animal this would fall under "Push an Animal" because I'm sure that your summoned horses don't know the trick "Run away from me and act as bait" (which strikes me as fairly complicated trick anyways). Takes a full-round action from you. It also takes a DC of 25, unless your summoned horses are wounded, which means a 27. Kinda steep depending on your level.

However, in your case, I'd say startling the horses in some way (because they are still horses) could make them run from you in a random direction, especially if you don't attempt to regain control over them. But in this scenario you don't get to pick where the horses run. Could put a dampener on your whole plan.

Either way, it seems to me that your DM is just reading the spell as literally as possible and only planned on you riding your horses, not using them as draft animals, bait, or snacks.

Superglucose
2010-04-29, 12:54 AM
What if the only thing I wanted it to do was "Go that way." where "that way" was any direction but ours? It's not as if I summoned them to use as bait, I summoned them to flee, and now they are a liability and I want to get rid of them.

EDIT: I'm not asking who's right or wrong, I'm asking, "What does he mean by "it's way beyond the spell's description."" I can see that we're making some progress, and I'm not angry with him or anything I just don't understand how to talk to him about this because I don't understand what he's objecting to or why.

EDIT the Second: Hell, I'd be fine with "random direction" because I can always pick the direction I travel. But if these animals never spook, that's important to know.

gdiddy
2010-04-29, 01:00 AM
A tracker can tell the difference between a horse heavy with a rider and an empty fleeing mount.

If you're being followed by amateurs, that is a very clever plan. Definitely would have allowed it, opposed to your trackers' survival check before they caught on.

Superglucose
2010-04-29, 01:01 AM
We're being followed by dogs.

gdiddy
2010-04-29, 01:05 AM
The dogs may follow either one, depending on their survival check. (They get one, too. They're pursuing your scent, presumably.)

Tell your DM that you think he's reading it too literally and that you think it's cool that your characters thought of that, even if it doesn't work.

Shhalahr Windrider
2010-04-29, 08:56 AM
This strikes me as a bit like saying you can’t use fireball as part of a fireworks show to entertain the masses because you aren’t striking anything for fire damage.

The spell summons a horse which is willing to serve as a mount. There’s nothing special about the horse beyond that. Whatever happens after that happens as it would to any other horse trained as a mount.

Anxe
2010-04-29, 09:00 AM
It looks like it's up to interpretation to me if you need a Handle Animal check or not to do it. Maybe an Intimidate check instead would make more sense.

valadil
2010-04-29, 09:19 AM
Releasing the mounts seems fine. I'd object to your ability to order them to go in one direction. I think the horses would run for a couple hundred yards and then get bored and meander around. Your trick would buy you a few minutes while the pursuers figured out which tracks to follow. If they fall for your trick, I'd give them 10-15 minutes of tracking until they figure out that the horses were set free. It'll buy you some time, but not a total escape.

If your GM objects to that, he's just trying to force you to get caught and is unwilling to alter his plans around your ingenuity.

Saph
2010-04-29, 09:27 AM
EDIT: I'm not asking who's right or wrong, I'm asking, "What does he mean by "it's way beyond the spell's description."" I can see that we're making some progress, and I'm not angry with him or anything I just don't understand how to talk to him about this because I don't understand what he's objecting to or why.

Mount allows you to summon a horse for riding. It doesn't, however, provide any ability to communicate with the horse.

What your GM is saying is: "The spell summons a horse to ride. You have a horse to ride. The spell doesn't give you any special ability to communicate with the horse to make it do anything other than serve as a mount, so you'll have to use the normal skill for making animals do things, which is Handle Animal."

It's pretty much the same ruling I'd make, to be honest, except that I'd also play it for comedy value.

Biffoniacus_Furiou
2010-04-29, 09:27 AM
It summons a mundane light horse or pony, its intended purpose to serve as a mount. That means it's most likely trained in the Riding purpose described in Handle Animal, which includes the tricks Come, Heel, and Stay. After looking over the Handle Animal skill, I see that there is no trick to order an animal to leave. It is however clearly possible to make an animal leave, so it should be a given that every animal would react normally to an attempt to run it off.

"The steed serves willingly and well." This does not indicate that it likes you, only that it is compelled to follow your orders. If you order it to leave, it will do so willingly and well. The spell description is not intended for a DM to rule that the summoned creature is limited to only serving as a mount.

It looks to me like he's intended for you to get caught, regardless of your actions, and he's resisting your idea of a diversion because it will probably work. I think your DM is being unreasonable, and that he's only making this ruling about the Mount spell because it disrupts his poor planning.

JeenLeen
2010-04-29, 09:29 AM
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/mount.htm

Since it's a Conjuration (Summoning) spell, they are real creatures summoned. They are summoned "to serve you as a mount," but they are horses. It makes sense that they would act as "a light horse or a pony" would, which includes not being well in battle and running if slapped to go in a general direction.

I can see the DM being strict on them only knowing how to be mounts. They are, in effect, particularly trained and otherwise very stupid horses, with no instincts. (Which is plausible for a summon spell.) That could also disrupt the Handle Animal check idea. As summoned animals, but still animals, it might require a Speak with Animals spell to command them, as, IIRC, you can only give commands to summoned creatures if they can understand you. (A summoned earth elemental fights for you, but can only be commanded if you know terran, for example.)

So, your DM may have a case.


If he still sticks to the horses staying with you, Mount is dismissable. A creuler way of 'dismissing' them is to kill them or tie them up and let the dogs kill them. That might actually give you some more time, especially if the mounts run from the dogs and they pursue, then get back on your track. (As summoned creatures, they do not die and just go back to where summoned from, so the only moral qualm is any pain they may feel. But I imagine summoners usually don't care about that.)

Galdor Miriel
2010-04-29, 09:37 AM
Your GM does not know how to deal with skill checks obviously. You are in an escape skill test situation, you came up with a clever idea which is totally valid and should get a +2 on a skill check to escape (or give a -2 to the survival check the dogs make to try and track you.

The purpose of D&D is not verisimilitude, it is story creation. Your actions fit nicely into those of a hero in a book or film fleeing a pursuer and should be encouraged not discouraged. If the purpose of D&D for your group is to model reality, then a discussion of the spell, and the behavior of summoned beasts might be appropriate, otherwise not.

You could suggest the above bonus, as it makes the DMs ruling on this straightforward, and it is an excellent model to use for all such skill related situations, whatever the edition of D&D you are playing in.

GM

misterk
2010-04-29, 09:47 AM
For it to be effective, the horses would have to go a long way. To try and communicate this to them, and for them not to ride off for a while, get bored, and possibly even come back to where they started, I'd definitely require a check. Thats not an easily taught trick! You could of course hurt said horses to drive them off I suppose...

shadowkiller
2010-04-29, 10:07 AM
My group did this exact same thing a while ago. I think I required a DC 10 or 15 handle animal check which the fighter in the group was able to easily do. I had a diviner in the group tracking them so it didn't work but I think it might have worked with only a tracker with a bad check.

jiriku
2010-04-29, 02:36 PM
+1 to Saph's response. What you're attempting to do is to get the mount to follow a specific instruction for many hours, even if you're not present to guide the animal and keep it on task. Further, you don't have a common language and the creature has an Int of 1.

Look at it from a different direction. Suppose you get on your mount and guide it along a path. You've clearly communicated to the horse, via bit and spurs, that you expect it to follow the path. Now you take a nap for five hours. When you wake up, you might find yourself five hours down the road. Or you might find yourself in a field somewhere with your horse munching clover. That's why people stay awake when they ride if they can manage it - you never know what the horse will do if you aren't minding it.

Now you might argue that a spell-summoned horse performs more reliably than that, but that's a judgement call, and it's the DM's job to make that call.

P.S. How many mount spells do you have prepped? Nothing throws 'em off the scent like an extra half-dozen horses going in a third direction.

Superglucose
2010-04-29, 02:40 PM
No, no no... I think you don't understand. It's not that I want them to follow a specific direction, it's that I want them to go "thataway" which is "not here." They might wander back later, they may not. I just want them to leave... hell I'll make them leave and then dismiss the spell and let them go, "Hmmmm... the horses disappeared?" before someone goes "Oh right, mount spell!"

Optimystik
2010-04-29, 02:55 PM
I would take "Serve you as a mount" to mean "it follows your directions as long as you're riding it." If you're not sitting on it, it's not a mount anymore, it's just a horse.

Starbuck_II
2010-04-29, 02:59 PM
No, no no... I think you don't understand. It's not that I want them to follow a specific direction, it's that I want them to go "thataway" which is "not here." They might wander back later, they may not. I just want them to leave... hell I'll make them leave and then dismiss the spell and let them go, "Hmmmm... the horses disappeared?" before someone goes "Oh right, mount spell!"

Do you have intimidate?
If so you can scare them to leave you alone.
Even if the DM says they are still friendly, perfect, after a few minutes they become unfriendly so will leave you alone.

It is win/win. Eating your cake and still having it too.:smallcool:

Grollub
2010-04-29, 03:55 PM
I think thats an ingenious way to use the spell.. even if it wasnt what the spell was intended for.

I think I would allow you to send the horses off. ( even with a handle animal check , just to see how well they follow that command )

I would also allow the pursuers a chance ( via survival skill check ) to try to figure out some mounts had no riders.

If it's just dogs chasing you, /shrug.. maybe just have a 50/50 chance which trail they follow. I'm sure a pack of dogs could catch up over a few days. ( not to mention the party hearing the dogs baying in the night getting closer to build more suspense ).

goken04
2010-04-29, 04:44 PM
I have to say that, while it's a great idea, a Handle Animal check seems only fair.

Saph
2010-04-29, 04:48 PM
No, no no... I think you don't understand. It's not that I want them to follow a specific direction, it's that I want them to go "thataway" which is "not here."

It's a horse. It doesn't understand "thataway", it doesn't understand "not here". You need some way of communicating what you want it to do, which is Handle Animal by default.

Lapak
2010-04-29, 04:59 PM
I have to say that, while it's a great idea, a Handle Animal check seems only fair.I agree with this completely. If I were running the game, I probably wouldn't set a hard DC, but instead give you a variable degree of success (and your pursuers a variable penalty or delay) based on how well you rolled. Something like:

Base DC to chase the horses off at least a couple of hundred feet: 5

- Chasers need to roll a tracking check at a DC of:
base track DC to follow you
+ 5 for hiding trail
+ [1 for every 5 points you made over the base DC]
to determine which path is correct at the point you drove off the mounts.

- For every 5 points over the base DC you make, the delay of following the wrong track will cost them X time if they fail. (I'd need to think, probably 10 minutes or an hour per increment.)

So yeah, I'd pretty much have called for a check, but given it a decent chance of doing some good. That's a pretty clever use of the spell.

Superglucose
2010-04-29, 05:06 PM
It's a horse. It doesn't understand "thataway", it doesn't understand "not here". You need some way of communicating what you want it to do, which is Handle Animal by default.
*Slashes it with a sword* ?

It's like saying I'd need a handle animal check to spook a rabbit.

Saph
2010-04-29, 05:12 PM
*Slashes it with a sword* ?

Did you tell the GM, "I slash the horse with a sword"? It doesn't sound that way from your OP.

Superglucose
2010-04-29, 05:18 PM
As I've described and said several times, I do not care about the why or how: I want those horses to go away from me.

As I have said in the op, I am fine with a handle animal check (though I think it's excessive for this purpose).

I'm here trying to understand how it is way beyond the scope of the spell to not want to ride horses from Mount?

EDIT: Also, relevant sections

Me: I can't just smack their asses and get them to run off by being the big, bad Troglodyte?

Him: Nope. You're the one that summoned them, remember? They like you.

Me: And I can't make them not like me?

Saph
2010-04-29, 05:38 PM
I'm here trying to understand how it is way beyond the scope of the spell to not want to ride horses from Mount?

Probably because the DM read the Mount spell and saw that the first line says: You summon a light horse or a pony to serve you as a mount. But if you want to know exactly what your DM meant, why don't you go to your DM and ask him? Honestly, I think you're spending way more time thinking about this than it really needs. If you don't care about the whys or hows of this kind of ruling, then why are you trying to analyse it?

nedz
2010-04-29, 07:01 PM
If you are only being followed by dogs, just try the summoned horses up and let them be eaten.