Epic Mount!

[Loki Eremes]

well, i come with this just now talking with my friend.
Although it sounds like a joke, im asking seriously xD.

we are lvl 16 PCs, a Halfling and a half-Drow
Im a mobility fighter with dervish features
an the halfling is a master thrower + whisper knife (lots of daggers on a full attack)

Halfling moves at = 40ft
Drow moves at = 70ft

Now, drow has easy travel from MiC (basically it lets you carry medium weight as light)

So
Drow carries = 153 lb
Halfling weights = 50 lb


Where im going to?
Simple. Did you know any rulez for mounting party members? :thog:


(its funny i know but try to think about it xD)

[Gabe the Bard]

A little while ago I asked a similar question here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=173607).

However, I didn't go through with it because our DM decided that if the character I was riding took damage or was hit by spells (including targeted spells), then I would be affected as well. I suppose that's reasonable, but it sort of put a damper on the whole thing.

[Coidzor]

Don't forget to figure in the weight of the drow's gear and the halfling's gear as well.

Rules of the game (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050125a) has clarifications in regards to being mounted on intelligent creatures/NPCs. There's the first of five articles.

Article 5 (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050222a) has the section on intelligent mounts. which refers to article 2
(http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050201a) on aggressive mounts.

However, I didn't go through with it because our DM decided that if the character I was riding took damage or was hit by spells (including targeted spells), then I would be affected as well. I suppose that's reasonable, but it sort of put a damper on the whole thing.

...No, that's not really reasonable at all, certainly not as an interpretation of the rules rather than a houserule. AoE sure, but targeted spells? That's unfair, as mounts are not effected if the guy on top of them gets shot, and others in a grapple aren't effected by someone else in the grapple being enervated.

Unless he changed the rules in regards to all such situations of physical contact...

[Loki Eremes]

Read your thread Gabe.
But only appears rules for Ride checks.

What im asking here is rules 'bout penalties for the mount or the "jockey".
im saying "penalties" because he would be riding a drow, on his shoulders, not a horse, so i think is kinda akward and would impose penalties for AR and DEX based skills (wont be doing this all the time tough xD)

[Coidzor]

It's not addressed AFAIK. Except for the penalties you'd take for riding without a saddle. Which becomes negligible once you're high enough level to negate the penalty, which is... mainly to ride checks, I believe.

The only time I've seen saddles brought up for humanoid creatures was in the Arms and Equipment Guide, which despite the lack of facing in 3E normally, put it as a sort of backpack with the rider facing backwards.

If you really wanna take a penalty though, I'm sure you can get the DM to eyeball something.

[Loki Eremes]

another thing i was thinking about this are each player actions

for example, i dervish dance full attacking while moving 70ft, my turn ends.
halfling turn begins. "oh my gosh i haz full round actionz!" sooo.. full attack? :belkar:

[Coidzor]

another thing i was thinking about this are each player actions

for example, i dervish dance full attacking while moving 70ft, my turn ends.
halfling turn begins. "oh my gosh i haz full round actionz!" sooo.. full attack? :belkar:

Did you read the pertinent parts of the article, especially the one that covers Aggressive Mounts?

If you're asking whether your mount's movement counts against your ability to take a full-round action...


If your mount isn't trained for war but chooses to fight with you aboard, you can just give the mount its head. You and your mount make separate initiative rolls. Because there are some full-round actions you cannot perform while your mount moves (see Parts Three and Four), you must delay until after your mount's turn to use such actions if your mount's turn in the initiative order comes before your own turn comes. Even then your mount's movements could keep you from performing your intended action.

When it's finally your turn to act, you must succeed on a DC 10 Ride check to adjust your actions to fit your mount's uncontrolled movements. The check is a move action for you, but it does not provoke attacks of opportunity. (You're looking after yourself, not your mount.) If you fail, your mount's movements keep you from taking any actions this round. If you succeed, you can use a standard action. Just remember that you're allowing your mount to take you where it will, so your options might prove limited.
From the first part:

*Your mount handles movement for you.

When your mount moves, you move along with it, which means that you're using your mount's speed rating. Your mount, however, is actually doing the moving, and that leaves you free to do something else while your mount moves, such as making a ranged attack. You can't always act effectively while your mount moves, however. For example, if your mount moves more than 5 feet and you make a melee attack in the same round, you can make only a single attack.

[Loki Eremes]

so let me understand this.
If I Full Attack while dancing, then he has to do a ride check (DC10) as part of the move action and if he passes it he still got a standard action?

[SilverLeaf167]

That sounds right. So, no full-attacking. And he would also need Mounted Archery if he wanted to be a proper thrower while riding on you.

[Loki Eremes]

A new Warhorse is born....

[Gabe the Bard]

...No, that's not really reasonable at all, certainly not as an interpretation of the rules rather than a houserule. AoE sure, but targeted spells? That's unfair, as mounts are not effected if the guy on top of them gets shot, and others in a grapple aren't effected by someone else in the grapple being enervated.


It was indeed a houserule. I think it had mostly to do with action economy. I was basically trying to get free movement around the battlefield, because my bard was using up all his move actions on extra bardic music (via the Harmonize spell).

[Coidzor]

It was indeed a houserule. I think it had mostly to do with action economy. I was basically trying to get free movement around the battlefield, because my bard was using up all his move actions on extra bardic music (via the Harmonize spell).

Except you don't get free movement from being mounted anyway, so if that was the case, then the houserule was unnecessary and born out of a misinterpretation of the rules.

[Loki Eremes]

the only thing that changes is your rider's movement speed, at the cost of going where the mount goes