Riding Humanoids?

[nekomata2]

In my game an anthro cat has tried to ride the party warforged. After trying to find a rule one way or the other, I can't find anything that says he can't specifically do this. So does the Playground know anything about whether or not this is doable and any rules regarding it. If it is relevant, the warforged doesn't have a saddle.

[The Dark Fiddler]

If you attempt to ride a creature that is ill suited as a mount, you take a -5 penalty on your Ride checks.


If you are riding bareback, you take a -5 penalty on Ride checks.

These seem to be the most relevant rules, which seem to point to "yes, but with a penalty".

Of course, I'd say "ill suited" changes based on who the rider is, as well. Is it that difficult for a cat to ride a lager humanoid? Maybe. Talk about it with your DM.

[nekomata2]

Well I am the DM, and I said no initially, but my players basically wouldn't accept that, so I was trying to find a rule to cite.

[Ranos]

Well I am the DM, and I said no initially, but my players basically wouldn't accept that, so I was trying to find a rule to cite.

There are none. But yes, you can give them a penalty with the rules cited above. If this is something they do on a regular basis, you can expect them to get or craft a custom cat-saddle though (it's only 30GP), so it'll only be a -5 ride penalty.

[The Dark Fiddler]

In that case, I have a question about what the player(s) was/were attempting to do. Was the cat going to treat the warforged as an actual mount, or just sit on his shoulder for easier traveling? If the later, there's not really any problem with allowing that... which makes me suspect it's the first.

[LOTRfan]

There are rules for Goblins riding Ogres in A&EG. It can probably be used to extrapolate the rules for humanoids riding larger humanoid-shaped creatures.

[An Enemy Spy]

I played a gnome once who liked to ride on top of our human fighter's shoulders. The idiot always dropped me.

[Andraste]

If you attempt to ride a creature that is ill suited as a mount, you take a -5 penalty on your Ride checks.

If you are riding bareback, you take a -5 penalty on Ride checks.
These seem to be the most relevant rules, which seem to point to "yes, but with a penalty".

Of course, I'd say "ill suited" changes based on who the rider is, as well. Is it that difficult for a cat to ride a lager humanoid? Maybe. Talk about it with your DM.

You skipped the part of that rule that specifically applies here.


If you attempt to ride a creature that is ill suited as a mount (such as most bipedal creatures), you take a -5 penalty on your Ride checks.
(emphasis mine)

[nekomata2]

In that case, I have a question about what the player(s) was/were attempting to do. Was the cat going to treat the warforged as an actual mount, or just sit on his shoulder for easier traveling? If the later, there's not really any problem with allowing that... which makes me suspect it's the first.

Well he did it in the first round of combat, so I suspected it was going to be the first, but he didn't actually do anything with it. I do suspect in the future he might try to take Mounted Combat feats or do this in combat, which might make me want to punch him in the nose. I'll probably just tell him no, but my players will want rules for why....

[The Dark Fiddler]

You skipped the part of that rule that specifically applies here.


(emphasis mine)

Just because humanoids are oddly shaped for serving as a mount for other humanoids doesn't mean they're oddly shaped for say... an aberration. Which is honestly unlikely if the PCs are the ones trying to ride other humanoids, but still.

[Ranos]

I do suspect in the future he might try to take Mounted Combat feats or do this in combat, which might make me want to punch him in the nose.
Why ?
Seriously, this isn't that big of an issue.

[dextercorvia]

You skipped the part of that rule that specifically applies here.


(emphasis mine)

Probably because the SRD leaves that bit out.

[The Dark Fiddler]

Why ?
Seriously, this isn't that big of an issue.

The only thing I can think of would be sitting on the wizard or something and improving his armor class, because it's easier to pimp skill checks than it is armor class, usually.

I'm sure there's more, and ones that actually matter. Or maybe it's just too ridiculous for him.

[dextercorvia]

There is also "spurring." The big one is action economy. It doesn't require an action to direct the Warforged, so the Cat gets to perform a full round's worth of actions, while moving. Granted some of that is true already, with a standard mount and a pimped out Ride check.

[John Campbell]

Why ?
Seriously, this isn't that big of an issue.

Given how full of holes and fuzziness and inconsistencies and bizarreness and things that just don't work right the mounted combat rules are, especially once you get beyond the very simplest cases, my personal response to a PC trying to ride another PC would involve Lovecraftian entities crawling out of the angles of reality to devour them.

We have enough weird issues come up just with me riding my animal companion, because it gets its own feats and isn't a horse, neither of which the people who wrote the mounted combat rules appear to have ever even considered the ramifications of.

Here's just one thing to consider: The mount gets its own actions, but acts during the rider's turn. What does it do to the initiative order if the cat mounts the warforged in the middle of combat? How about if kitty then dismounts? There are certainly reasonable answers to this, but you're in uncharted territory already...

[Ranos]

Here's just one thing to consider: The mount gets its own actions, but acts during the rider's turn. What does it do to the initiative order if the cat mounts the warforged in the middle of combat?
Well then the warforged acts on the cat's turn, right ? He's the rider.


How about if kitty then dismounts?
Then he acts on his own turn. I don't think this particular example is fuzzy at all. That's how a regular mount would work as well.


There is also "spurring." The big one is action economy. It doesn't require an action to direct the Warforged, so the Cat gets to perform a full round's worth of actions, while moving. Granted some of that is true already, with a standard mount and a pimped out Ride check.
The kitty needs to invest heavily in ride to be effective while riding despite the -5 malus. Plus, possibly mounted combat feats. It's a decent trade, the cat is paying with his own abilities to boost his warforged ally. I'm all for teamplayers, plus I wouldn't stop a non-caster from finally getting nice things.

[dgnslyr]

Well, IIRC, a mount doesn't get to act on it's own initiative anymore, so it's really just the wizard calling the shots. The cat isn't really riding the warforged and using him as a mount, he's just sitting on him, from the sound of it. I guess you can give him the chance to leap off as an instant action, letting him dodge a hit, while making the warforged take a nasty strike to the face.

Actually using the guy as a mount, in the intended sense, would be silly and unnecessarily complicated, because then you get a character who doesn't really get to do much of anything anymore, because he doesn't have his own initiative count anymore.

[Drork]

The first problem with riding a mount that is a PC is in the feat mounted combat.
Having someone else to perform a ride check to avoid an attack.
If your players wish you to give them a rule for the base. Point them towards page 6 of the DMG. Tell them the warforge can carry another party member but he can not be ridden because the rules for riding are not designed to be applied to the situation. If they can not accept your judgement throw at them the halfling rogue mounted on a human monk mount (it can actually go faster than a normal mount). Monk runs up rogue tumbles over to the far side sneak attacks from the other side.

[Ranos]

The first problem with riding a mount that is a PC is in the feat mounted combat.
Having someone else to perform a ride check to avoid an attack.
If your players wish you to give them a rule for the base. Point them towards page 6 of the DMG. Tell them the warforge can carry another party member but he can not be ridden because the rules for riding are not designed to be applied to the situation. If they can not accept your judgement throw at them the halfling rogue mounted on a human monk mount (it can actually go faster than a normal mount). Monk runs up rogue tumbles over to the far side sneak attacks from the other side.
This would require a DC 25 ride check to fast dismount. Just to flank some guys. Keep in mind that ride is a cross-class skill for rogues.
Yeah, I've seen deadlier tactics, and sounder investments of skill points.

[John Campbell]

Well then the warforged acts on the cat's turn, right ? He's the rider.

Then he acts on his own turn. I don't think this particular example is fuzzy at all. That's how a regular mount would work as well.

What if the warforged has already taken his turn? Does he get another set of actions on the cat's turn? (This is what the rules imply, which is potentially very, very broken.) Or does the cat have to wait until the warforged's turn comes up again?

If the warforged has really crap initiative and the cat's is really good, can the cat boost the warforged's initiative by doing a quick-mount? (Improved Initiative sharing!)

Does the warforged's initiative count remain affected by any of this if the cat then dismounts?

(Note that the wrong combination of answers here results in the warforged getting a full set of actions twice a round, every round, and the cat not only gets to bum off his movement, it doesn't cost him anything as long as he can reliably make a DC 25 Ride check. (I bet anthrokitties have pretty good Dex bonuses...))

This is equally undefined for regular mounts, but very seldom actually an issue, because they're not typically doing much if they're not being directed by a rider anyway. This is not the case when a PC is riding another PC.

[Ranos]

Hm, good point. I guess that would require DM adjudication, and that's always a bad thing. Not that hard in that one case, but it does make things complicated when you have to make rulings all the time.

Maybe those articles will clarify the whole thing. I haven't read through them yet, but there's a paragraph on part 5 about intelligent mounts as well.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050125a
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050201a
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050208a
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050215a
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050222a