PDA

View Full Version : What penalties for sharing same space?



Frosty
2010-06-23, 03:00 PM
Ok, so let's say you've got a spiked-chain tripper or grappler or Setting Sun swordsage or whatever and you're against a mounted opponent. You use your techniques to basically drag/throw/trip thr enemy off his horse and onto the ground...and now the enemy is sharing space with the horse without riding it.

What penalties are imposed upon the horse and former rider at this point?

Hague
2010-06-23, 04:04 PM
He is prone. Once he gets up from prone he has to move to a free space nearby. If he can't, he must remain prone or move through other spaces while prone, provoking AoO. He could share a space with the mount if he were a size category smaller or the mount a size larger. This is of course, assuming you're dealing with a medium rider and a large mount.

Put simply, he cannot end a turn occupying the space of something only one size category larger than himself without being prone. So he takes falling damage and prone penalties.

Frosty
2010-06-23, 05:10 PM
So...he is required to use his actions to move to a legal location? His mount is a horse, which is technically larger (occupies 5 by 10 I think).

Greenish
2010-06-23, 05:13 PM
(occupies 5 by 10 I think).10 by 10. No facing rules means everyone is a cube.

Frosty
2010-06-23, 05:16 PM
10 by 10. No facing rules means everyone is a cube.

Really makes no logical sense... :smallsigh:

But anyhow, until the rider can take its turn and move to a legal square, does it suffer any penalties besides being prone?

Siosilvar
2010-06-23, 05:20 PM
I would say he doesn't have to move, but he is prone and counts as squeezing (which is a -4 to hit and AC on top of prone effects). The horse is fine, but will move to another space (possibly running away).

Hague
2010-06-24, 12:39 AM
According to the rules, he either has to stand and move or remain prone. You can apply the squeezing rules if you'd like, but by RAW, he either has to move or stay prone. He can remount the animal with a Ride check to fast mount (free action) as his remaining standard action (after the move action to stand) counts as a remaining move action, which would probably be the best course of action.

Defiant
2010-06-24, 12:56 AM
By all RAW technicality, he can stand up, but if he doesn't move out of the square, he falls prone. So what Hague is saying is true.


10 by 10. No facing rules means everyone is a cube.

I've been doing it wrong all along!

2xMachina
2010-06-24, 01:06 AM
He can go grapple the mount. He'd share the space with little penalties.

Mastikator
2010-06-24, 01:17 AM
Usually when someone falls off a horse they land beside it, not under it. So the target should fall on the side of the horse. Which side depending on how you tripped it.
Which may or may not require facing rules.

Also, mounting a horse means you're sitting. Can you even trip someone who isn't standing?

Hague
2010-06-24, 01:24 AM
You can trip people that are flying, I don't see why you can't trip someone that's mounted.

Frosty
2010-06-24, 01:38 AM
Usually when someone falls off a horse they land beside it, not under it. So the target should fall on the side of the horse. Which side depending on how you tripped it.
Which may or may not require facing rules.

Also, mounting a horse means you're sitting. Can you even trip someone who isn't standing?

What's wrong with wrapping your chain around his torso and then pulling?

Curmudgeon
2010-06-24, 01:55 AM
Also, mounting a horse means you're sitting. Can you even trip someone who isn't standing?
You certainly can. If you refer to the Armor Class Modifiers Table (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm#tableArmorClassModifiers) you'll see that there are different (worse) penalties for being prone than for sitting. Tripping, if successful, always makes someone prone.

Hendel
2010-06-24, 11:44 AM
10 by 10. No facing rules means everyone is a cube.

Guys this changed back with 3.0 to 3.5 in 2003!


Usually when someone falls off a horse they land beside it, not under it. So the target should fall on the side of the horse. Which side depending on how you tripped it.
Which may or may not require facing rules

There are no facing rules in D&D (except apparently when flying) so the medium creature that is grappling a large creature can pick ANY adjacent square to the large creature to be in if the grapple ends. In this case if the DM ruled the tripped medium character to be adjacent to his mount and not in the same squares, the tripped player would decide in which of the twelve squares adjacent to the mount that he would land prone.

In the more likely scenario where the DM would rule the character prone in the same squares as the mount, it would go like this. First, the medium character is considered to be occupying all four squares while mounted so he would get to decide which of the four squares he will now occupy as he is no longer mounted. If he were not helpless, the character must remain prone, attempt to grapple the mount, or leave the space at the first opportunity.

If the character was tiny or smaller then he could remain in the occupied square as long as he wants. Regarding size, many people mix up the idea that a tiny, diminutive, or fine can move through or into an occupied square (this does provoke AoO). That creature could remain in the occupied square. This is how a caster and their familiar share squares.

Creatures that are small or larger may move through an occupied square but may not remain in it (free for a friendly square with tumbling for an enemy square). If there is a size difference of three or more categories then those creatures can move through each others squares but they still canNOT stop in the occupied square (of course various AoO might occur here as well).

Susano-wo
2010-06-24, 12:05 PM
I think people are saying that you would have to use optional facing rules (like the ones in UA :P) to do some of the things like have a 5 by 10 mount, or have the rider fall to the rear of the mount, etc.


And the bizarre thing about flying that I never thought of until now...there is no facing, but you are forced to move in a certain direction depending on maneuverability, etc....this means that, technically, a flying monster like a giant eagle goes --->, but could turn to attack someone in the opposite direction while doing so ^ ^;

Curmudgeon
2010-06-24, 12:30 PM
And the bizarre thing about flying that I never thought of until now...there is no facing, but you are forced to move in a certain direction depending on maneuverability, etc....this means that, technically, a flying monster like a giant eagle goes --->, but could turn to attack someone in the opposite direction while doing so ^ ^;
Not quite as simple as that. Facing doesn't exist, but there are still movement constraints. An eagle has only average maneuverability, so turning is going to take up both space and time. The Tactical Aerial Movement (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/movement.htm#tacticalAerialMovement) treatment can provide more insight.

Frosty
2010-06-24, 12:36 PM
Hendel: As the person with the spiked chain and doing the pulling, shouldn't YOU get to decide where the rider lands? Logically, in most likelihood the rider would land in a square adjacent to you right? You're pulling the rider towards you and off the horse.

2xMachina
2010-06-24, 12:42 PM
Not quite as simple as that. Facing doesn't exist, but there are still movement constraints. An eagle has only average maneuverability, so turning is going to take up both space and time. The Tactical Aerial Movement (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/movement.htm#tacticalAerialMovement) treatment can provide more insight.

Well, depending on how you see it. As facing is not defined... Technically, all those constraints only force you to move forward/use speed to turn in THAT round. Next round, you declare you're facing the other way and fly forward at max speed.

QuantumSteve
2010-06-24, 02:29 PM
Where are you getting he has to move or fall prone? I only see this:


Accidentally Ending Movement in an Illegal Space

Sometimes a character ends its movement while moving through a space where it’s not allowed to stop. When that happens, put your miniature in the last legal position you occupied, or the closest legal position, if there’s a legal position that’s closer.

I would seem that if he doesn't move, he gets auto-moved (for free) to a legal position. A strict reading would seem to imply he winds up back on his horse! :smallbiggrin:

Snake-Aes
2010-06-24, 02:48 PM
Where are you getting he has to move or fall prone? I only see this:



I would seem that if he doesn't move, he gets auto-moved (for free) to a legal position. A strict reading would seem to imply he winds up back on his horse! :smallbiggrin:

Yeah yeah, throw him on the previous square.

Hague
2010-06-24, 02:53 PM
But he's not ending his turn there. He's been knocked down. He was legal at the end of his turn, he is now prone in a space that is occupied by a Large creature, which is still legal. However, he cannot stand in that space, there simply is no room for him there. To even stand, he'd have to move from the square, crawling, and then stand. The reasoning is as follows:

Since the rider is not more than 3 sizes categories different than the mount, he cannot occupy the square because both medium and small critters occupy 5 ft squares and even a 2 category difference only means that all the spaces that the large mount occupies are considered to be 2.5ft in size instead of 5ft. This means that a human cannot even squeeze into a square occupied by a large creature (because he's only one size category apart from the large mount) but a halfling or gnome could squeeze because they are two size categories apart from Large. If the mount were huge a human could squeeze to stand, or go prone, and a small creature could stand without penalty. Of course, this would only apply if the mount were not considered allied. If it is considered allied, then the rider could move freely through the space but could not end turn there without being prone. Also, you don't get "free moves" you simply stop short of entering the too-occupied-to-enter square.

Snake-Aes
2010-06-24, 02:59 PM
So, summing up: Trip on a rider and rider falls prone on the ground. Either him or the mount must move before he stands, and all common penalties associated with the movements involved accrue.

Hague
2010-06-24, 03:02 PM
Yes, assuming that the mount isn't considered 'allied' whereby the mount would "block" the space. That's a call on the DM's part.

Edit: Changed 'wouldn't' to 'would'

Snake-Aes
2010-06-24, 03:04 PM
My personal take on that is that a combat ready mount will be fine, but an unbroken mount will not count as such, maybe even trampling the rider to get out of there.

Frosty
2010-06-24, 03:05 PM
A horse might just get spooked after having its rider dragged off. Migth start considering everyone an enemy and start kicking...

Susano-wo
2010-06-24, 03:20 PM
Curmudgeon, what I was saying is that the eagle can still attack any adjacent square, so it could attack someone next to them in the square directly opposite their direction of movement, thus essentially turning around to attack them. ^ ^

(and I am pretty sure that the Flight rules track movement between rounds, not just that round)

Curmudgeon
2010-06-24, 03:30 PM
Curmudgeon, what I was saying is that the eagle can still attack any adjacent square, so it could attack someone next to them in the square directly opposite their direction of movement, thus essentially turning around to attack them. ^ ^
I understand that viewpoint, but it's just not the way a game without facing models things. There's no turning to face someone if there's no facing, so turning is strictly a term used to model changes in movement paths. D&D eagles fly without needing to point their beaks in the direction of travel. :smallconfused:

Susano-wo
2010-06-24, 03:34 PM
I understand that viewpoint, but it's just not the way a game without facing models things. There's no turning to face someone if there's no facing, so turning is strictly a term used to model changes in movement paths. D&D eagles fly without needing to point their beaks in the direction of travel. :smallconfused:

That's what I was getting at, yeah. I don't think we are disagreeing :P

Hague
2010-06-24, 03:35 PM
As long as the eagle has the reach, it still threatens all those squares. Most people don't consider that reach extends above you and around you. For instance, consider that you threaten directly above your opponents head. For instance, you can throw, bullrush or grapple and jump an enemy over your allies heads and provoke absurd numbers of AoOs with flight abilities. Of course, this tactic is dangerous unless you use a throw maneuver.

Edit: Well, let's break it down. At average maneuverability and worse you have to spend at least one move action every round to avoid stalling. Which implies forward movement from the start of your turn. No need to know facing yet or relative direction yet. Hover means you can stand still from the start of your turn. No direction still. Reverse... Now here's something. This implies that you have a direction that you face when you started your turn. This doesn't necessarily mean you have to have a facing, it just means we have to know which direction you came from since your last move action. Functionally, we need to know trajectory since it's supposed to model lift in many situations. Of course, then if you consider where you move after you reverse, then facing becomes an issue, since you are essentially 'backpedaling,' not turning. So yes, facing is an issue, but it's not a combat issue, it's a movement issue. You still threaten all the squares you'd normally threaten. Except now you threaten in 26 directions instead of 17 like on the ground. Which is why you should be scared of gargantuan fliers with combat reflexes.

Susano-wo
2010-06-24, 04:50 PM
Theoretically, if you can see through solid objects for some reason, and have some sort of immaterial weapon, you could threaten 26 directions on the ground too :smallyuk:

Hague
2010-06-24, 04:53 PM
Yeah, ring of x-ray vision and brilliant energy weapon against earth-gliders, for instance.