Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Cynric 03-21-07, 03:50 AM	Just a thought I have and was wondering if anyone can help me sort it out. If I am riding a mount that has improved grab, say a tiger, and it grabs an opponent, what happens to me? Am I considered to be part of the grapple? If I am not part of the grapple, then what do I do, fall prone next to the grapple? Is there a ride check to dismount.? Would this require a standard action or a free action? The only indication I can see comes from halfling outrider where it says something about a ride check as a move or standard action to dismount, but it is not really clear on how this should be worked, or even if you could do a similar manouver without the class. Then to complicate things, What if the mount is acting on its own iniative, like someone elses animal companion? Would I have to delay until after the animal has moved? Then what happens to the issue of riding a grappling creature? Any help would be appreciated greatly.
Timlagor 03-21-07, 08:01 AM	If it's your mount then it acts on your initiative. If it's merely an animal that you're sitting on top of then you can't use any of your mounted feats or control where it goes. A DC20 ride check would allow you to dismount as a free action. You could choose to join the grapple Expect table variation on the rest.
kjenks 03-21-07, 10:29 AM	If I am riding a mount that has improved grab, say a tiger, and it grabs an opponent, what happens to me? Am I considered to be part of the grapple? If I am not part of the grapple, then what do I do, fall prone next to the grapple? Is there a ride check to dismount.? Would this require a standard action or a free action? The only indication I can see comes from halfling outrider where it says something about a ride check as a move or standard action to dismount, but it is not really clear on how this should be worked, or even if you could do a similar manouver without the class. The grappling and riding rules don't mix well. This is an area that's not represented very well in the rules so you're often in the area where each DM must exercise some judgement. As far as I can tell, no matter who initiatiates the grapple, the rider, the mount or the opponent, the grappler can't complete Step 4, so the grapple ends automatically. This also prevents the use of Improved Grab by any of the combatants. The only exceptions to this seem to be (a) if the rider dismounts as a free action, as Timlagor says -- and then you're not in the three-way grapple (rider, mount, opponent) any more and (b) if the opponent can mount up as a free action. Case 1: Rider grapples opponent. In order to remain mounted and grappling, the rider must somehow complete Step 4. This is difficult because the mount would have to either complete Step 4 on the opponent at the same time as the rider or must join the grapple at the same time. Case 2: Mount grapples opponent: In order to remain mounted and grappling, the rider must somehow complete Step 4. This is difficult because the rider would have to either complete Step 4 on the opponent at the same time as the mount or must join the grapple at the same time. Case 3: Opponent grapples mount: The opponent can't complete Step 4 on the mount because he can't move into the same square as the rider. Case 4: Opponent grapples rider: The opponent can't complete Step 4 on the rider because he can't move into the same square as the mount. Nobody falls prone as a result of grappling. The grapple and Improved Grab rules don't make any provision for automatically dismounting a rider; the only way to dismount an enemy rider is to make a Trip attack. Then to complicate things, What if the mount is acting on its own iniative, like someone elses animal companion? Would I have to delay until after the animal has moved? Then what happens to the issue of riding a grappling creature? The mount always acts on the rider's initiative, even if it's an animal companion or summoned creature from another character. SRD === Your mount acts on your initiative count as you direct it. === Some initiative strangeness can happen if your buddy summons a critter, it gets its full actions, then you mount up and start riding it. There are no rules for that -- it's a DM call what happens to the mount's initiative. Expect table variation on the rest. Heh. Expect table variations on ALL of the grappling rules. There are so many variations, I don't know of any two DMs who run the grapple rules exactly the same way.
Kilbia 03-21-07, 12:11 PM	...carp. Thanks for the warning. No, I'm not saying why.
Fleetfang 03-21-07, 01:13 PM	I have a similar puzzler that I came up with months ago... the reverse of Cynric's OP. Let's say that a Paladin rides into combat against a big bad evil grappler with improved grab, which we'll call the BBEG. The BBEG hits the paladin and thus gets a free grapple check to pull the paladin into his square. Whose grapple modifier do I use to oppose this? The Paladin's or the mount's? What if the mount is intelligent? Shouldn't it at least get to aid it's rider in resisting the grapple? I can see how none of this can get resolved without rewriting the grappling rules to accomodate pulling a rider from his mount. It's unfortunate, since most mounted PCs are going to run into an assassin vine or a behir or some other giant grappler at least once in their careers!
kjenks 03-21-07, 01:53 PM	This won't work under the current grapple rules. The only rules for pulling a rider from his mount are to use a trip attack. Grappling won't do it. The way I see it, the grappler (or grabber) trying to grapple (or grab) a rider simply fails, as I described above (Case 4). Similarly, the Improved Grab opponent can't simply drag the rider into is squares because it can't unseat the rider (a trip attack) in the same attack action that it's using to grab. But this is a DM call, and there is no consistency between DMs.
Fleetfang 03-21-07, 02:51 PM	Sweet. Immunity to grapple attacks: One more reason why Cavaliers kick butt! :w00t: :fight!: :w00t:
kjenks 03-21-07, 03:38 PM	There's a reason why my Avatar on these boards is a mounted combat guy.
Howie23 03-21-07, 05:45 PM	This won't work under the current grapple rules. The only rules for pulling a rider from his mount are to use a trip attack. Grappling won't do it. The way I see it, the grappler (or grabber) trying to grapple (or grab) a rider simply fails, as I described above (Case 4). Similarly, the Improved Grab opponent can't simply drag the rider into is squares because it can't unseat the rider (a trip attack) in the same attack action that it's using to grab. But this is a DM call, and there is no consistency between DMs. Trip can unseat a rider, but that doesn't mean it's the only way to unseat a rider. What is the argument that Improved Grab cannot unseat the rider? Improved Grab means that the critter has pulled him into its square, how is that prevented by the mount? Trying to understand the argument, having run into it a few times, as I suppose we all have. I currently don't have a "this is the way it works" approach, and find myself ruling based upon the circumstances each time. David
King Kashue 03-21-07, 06:11 PM	Trip can unseat a rider, but that doesn't mean it's the only way to unseat a rider. What is the argument that Improved Grab cannot unseat the rider? Improved Grab means that the critter has pulled him into its square, how is that prevented by the mount? Trying to understand the argument, having run into it a few times, as I suppose we all have. I currently don't have a "this is the way it works" approach, and find myself ruling based upon the circumstances each time. David Indeed...The "there aren't specific rules for it" argument seems to fall flat in this instance (as it often does). At least to my mind, the reason there are specific rules for tripping is that it wouldn't otherwise seem reasonable to trip someone sitting down on a mount, therefore an explicit rule allowing it is necessary. Grabbing someone sitting down is perfectly reasonable, therefore no additional rule is necessary to specify it's allowable.
kjenks 03-21-07, 10:34 PM	There is another, easy way to unseat a rider while grappling (or Improved Grabbing) him: The rider fails his Ride check. Every time you get damaged while riding, you're supposed to make make a Ride check, DC 5, to Stay in Saddle: SRD === Stay in Saddle: You can react instantly to try to avoid falling when your mount rears or bolts unexpectedly or when you take damage. This usage does not take an action. === If you fail this check, you fall off. But this Ride check is so easy to make that a rider with any skill and/or Dex to speak of will make it automatically. So unless (a) the rider fails this Ride check, or (b) the attacker uses a Trip attack to unseat the rider, or (c) the rider is dead or unconscious and falls out of the saddle, the rules seem to say that he'll stay in his saddle. Since grappling (and grabbing) don't give you condition (a), (b) or (c), the rider stays in and the grapple fails.
cycloptic_squirrel 03-21-07, 11:58 PM	So unless (a) the rider fails this Ride check, or (b) the attacker uses a Trip attack to unseat the rider, or (c) the rider is dead or unconscious and falls out of the saddle, the rules seem to say that he'll stay in his saddle. Since grappling (and grabbing) don't give you condition (a), (b) or (c), the rider stays in and the grapple fails. Wow! I now realize that I can't fall out of my saddle when upside down, bull rushed, or any other million things not explicitly covered by (a), (b), or (c)! *sarcasm off At any table I'm running, I'd probably call for an additional ride check vs grapple check in step 4; rider wins means the grappler must go into into the rider's space, if the grappler wins the guy is pulled from the mount. That's just my call though. Ultimately, the rules are there to be used, but common sense has its place too. As an example, I was recently enlarged and I jumped up to grapple a human wizard standing on a 20 foot cauldron. I easily won, wanted to continue, and the rules indicated that I should move into the wizard's space. The DM and I agreed that it would be ludicrous for a 150 pound wizard to remain stable enough for a 1600 pound guy grabbing his leg to pull himself up (which I had the climb check for). We moved the wizard into my space, I landed, fight continued.
King Kashue 03-22-07, 02:25 AM	There is another, easy way to unseat a rider while grappling (or Improved Grabbing) him: The rider fails his Ride check. Every time you get damaged while riding, you're supposed to make make a Ride check, DC 5, to Stay in Saddle: SRD === Stay in Saddle: You can react instantly to try to avoid falling when your mount rears or bolts unexpectedly or when you take damage. This usage does not take an action. === If you fail this check, you fall off. But this Ride check is so easy to make that a rider with any skill and/or Dex to speak of will make it automatically. So unless (a) the rider fails this Ride check, or (b) the attacker uses a Trip attack to unseat the rider, or (c) the rider is dead or unconscious and falls out of the saddle, the rules seem to say that he'll stay in his saddle. Since grappling (and grabbing) don't give you condition (a), (b) or (c), the rider stays in and the grapple fails. Because staying in the Saddle should only take a DC 5 check when a Gargantuan Advanced Bullette hits you with an Improved Grab Grapple Check of 67? :rolleyes: Grapple checks aren't damage, so that section of the SRD is irrelevant. Ken, you're limiting the situations in which a rider can be unhorsed without an explicit reason to do so. Just because the rules specify that certain things can unhorse a rider does not mean that other things cannot (You're committing a false dilemma fallacy). Especially considering the few things that are spelled out are things that might not be intuitive (e.g. tripping someone who isn't standing up, an action you normally cannot take). There is nothing in the rules to say a normal grapple attempt fails, because there is no rule saying the grappler cannot enter the same square as the mount (I don't know upon what rule you're basing that claim earlier on, what rule says another character can't be in the mount's square? The FAQ allows for multiple people on a mount in general). And there is nothing in the rules to say a grappler with improved grab cannot snatch you from the saddle. Now, if a DM allowed a Ride check in opposition to the grapple, that would make sense, but the claim that "The only way to dismount a rider is a trip check because that's spelled out in the trip section" is a false dilemma...
Timlagor 03-22-07, 09:08 AM	At any table I'm running, I'd probably call for an additional ride check vs grapple check in step 4; rider wins means the grappler must go into into the rider's space, if the grappler wins the guy is pulled from the mount. I like this but I'd limit it to only one check: The rider can choose to use Ride instead of a Grapple check to resist the grapple if he so desires.
kjenks 03-22-07, 09:48 AM	Wow! I now realize that I can't fall out of my saddle when upside down, bull rushed, or any other million things not explicitly covered by (a), (b), or (c)! *sarcasm off At any table I'm running, I'd probably call for an additional ride check vs grapple check in step 4; rider wins means the grappler must go into into the rider's space, if the grappler wins the guy is pulled from the mount. That's just my call though. Ultimately, the rules are there to be used, but common sense has its place too. As an example, I was recently enlarged and I jumped up to grapple a human wizard standing on a 20 foot cauldron. I easily won, wanted to continue, and the rules indicated that I should move into the wizard's space. The DM and I agreed that it would be ludicrous for a 150 pound wizard to remain stable enough for a 1600 pound guy grabbing his leg to pull himself up (which I had the climb check for). We moved the wizard into my space, I landed, fight continued. It's common sense to call for an additional ride check or to disregard a core rule about grappling just because you feel and the DM feel like it? Bad call.
kjenks 03-22-07, 10:31 AM	Because staying in the Saddle should only take a DC 5 check when a Gargantuan Advanced Bullette hits you with an Improved Grab Grapple Check of 67? :rolleyes: Hey, I don't write these rules. I just read 'em. If you're the DM and your Gargantuan Advanced Bullette tries to drag me out of my saddle like that, I'd appeal to the Senior GM and show him the PH rules. Grapple checks aren't damage, so that section of the SRD is irrelevant. I'm sorry, I didn't completely state my reasoning. When getting grappled, your character gets damaged in Step 3; that's where he'd have to make his DC 5 Ride check to avoid falling out of the saddle. Step 4 comes next. Or when hit by an attack with Improved Grab, the monster damages your character first; that's where he'd have to make his DC 5 Ride check to avoid falling out of the saddle. The free action to initiate a grapple comes next. In either case, if he fails the DC 5 Ride check to stay in his saddle, the rider could fall out of his saddle just before the attacker moves into his square (grapple) or just before the rider moves into the attacker's squares (Improved Grab). The Ride rules don't say which square you end up in when you fall from your mount. Most DMs let you choose any adjacent square, but there's no rule for it so it's a DM call. Ken, you're limiting the situations in which a rider can be unhorsed without an explicit reason to do so. Just because the rules specify that certain things can unhorse a rider does not mean that other things cannot (You're committing a false dilemma fallacy). I think I've just shown that an unskilled rider can indeed be unseated by a grapple or Improved Grab attack (by taking damage and failing the DC 5 Ride check). If you're complaining that it's too easy for a skilled rider to avoid being unseated, that's a different thing. Especially considering the few things that are spelled out are things that might not be intuitive (e.g. tripping someone who isn't standing up, an action you normally cannot take). Intuitive or not, the trip rule is pretty explicit: SRD === Tripping a Mounted Opponent: You may make a trip attack against a mounted opponent. The defender may make a Ride check in place of his Dexterity or Strength check. If you succeed, you pull the rider from his mount. === There is nothing in the rules to say a normal grapple attempt fails, because there is no rule saying the grappler cannot enter the same square as the mount (I don't know upon what rule you're basing that claim earlier on, what rule says another character can't be in the mount's square? The FAQ allows for multiple people on a mount in general). Well, there is this little rule saying exactly that: SRD === Moving through a Square ... Ending Your Movement: You can’t end your movement in the same square as another creature unless it is helpless. === The attacker could end up in the mount's square if he takes a move action to mount up (or a DC 20 Ride check to Fast Mount). There's no rule preventing a hostile creature from riding your mount. And there's no rule preventing two creatures from riding at the same time. And there is nothing in the rules to say a grappler with improved grab cannot snatch you from the saddle. Well, actually, that's what I've been trying to tell you. There's no rule saying that a grappler or Improved Grabber CAN snatch you from the saddle. As far as I can tell from the rules, you can only get snatched from the saddle if you're a lousy rider (and can't make a DC 5 Ride check). When I'm the DM, I'd love to see some rules that specifically allow my monsters to snatch a rider from his saddle, even after he's made his pitifilly low DC 5 Ride check to stay in saddle. Have you found anything that I've missed? Now, if a DM allowed a Ride check in opposition to the grapple, that would make sense, but the claim that "The only way to dismount a rider is a trip check because that's spelled out in the trip section" is a false dilemma... Er, I don't know how to break this to you, Your Majesty, but the DM is only supposed to allow that Ride check in opposition to a trip attack, not a grapple attack. If you're trying to use a grapple attack to unseat a rider, you're using the wrong attack form. Use a trip instead, then follow up with a grapple. Trying to use a grapple attack to take an expert rider off his mount is in the same category, rule-wise, as trying to use a disarm attack on the mount to disarm that loosely-secured rider he's wielding. The rules just don't work that way. Use a trip attack instead.
Timlagor 03-22-07, 12:20 PM	It's common sense to call for an additional ride check or to disregard a core rule about grappling just because you feel and the DM feel like it? Bad call. The D&D rules expect a DM to rule appropraitely when the RAW fails to model the situation well. This is clearly a sitaution that isn't well modelled by the RAW.
kjenks 03-22-07, 01:44 PM	I wish they'd said it better, instead of letting us find the interactions between the mounted combat and grapple/grab rules on our own, but I think this situation (grappling a mount or grappling a rider) really is pretty well covered in the rules. Here's how I see it: Get the rider off the mount first then you can grapple the rider or the mount. If you can't get the rider off the mount first, you can't grapple either one. You can get the rider off the mount with a trip attack, or by damaging the rider so that he fails his DC 5 Ride check, or by knocking the rider or mount unconcious, or by teleporting or dominating or otherwise coercing such movement. Depending on such factors as how skilled the rider is and how tough the mount is, one of these options might be easier than the others. I'm not trying to force anybody to follow my point of view, here. I'm just trying to share what I've gleaned from delving deeply into these rules -- and to come to a new understanding of them while we discuss them. For example, during this discussion, I realized something fun about that Stay in Saddle check. One of the big drawbacks of making a mounted charge attack at high levels is that you are then wide-open to a full attack in return, as your opponent can take a 5 ft. step then hit you lots of times. My mounted combat character could deliberately fail that DC 5 Ride check to stay in the saddle, hopefully falling off the other side of the mount, so he only gets hit once during a full attack. As we discussed before, the grapple rules are so complicated that no two DMs ever seem to run them the same way, and their interaction with the mounted combat rules is certainly NOT obvious. So you can expect table variations at every single table.
King Kashue 03-22-07, 03:33 PM	Ken, your entire argument is based on a flawed premise. You're beginning with the claim "only those situations explicitly mentioned in the rules are possible", and that premise is demonstrably false in myriad other situations. There are dozens if not hundreds of things that are possible that are not explicitly spelled out, and you have provided no reasoning to show why this situation should be different. However, if you really want to persist in reasoning based on your premise: You say "there's no specific rule allowing a grappler to dismount a rider"...Well I say "there is no specific mention in the ride skill allowing a rider to resist a grapple". Evidently, since there's no specific rule (as there are for other situations to stay mounted), there's no way for your rider to do it...Funny that... As for your specific examples: Well, there is this little rule saying exactly that: SRD === Moving through a Square ... Ending Your Movement: You can’t end your movement in the same square as another creature unless it is helpless. === The attacker could end up in the mount's square if he takes a move action to mount up (or a DC 20 Ride check to Fast Mount). There's no rule preventing a hostile creature from riding your mount. And there's no rule preventing two creatures from riding at the same time. There's also a rule preventing moving, attacking, then moving again (without spring attack), however, that movement is free in the grapple rules (and since the movement onto the horse would also be "moving into an opponent's square"), your example is subject... Trying to use a grapple attack to take an expert rider off his mount is in the same category, rule-wise, as trying to use a disarm attack on the mount to disarm that loosely-secured rider he's wielding. The rules just don't work that way. Use a trip attack instead. Except disarming a weapon and disarming a person are clearly different... Whereas grabbing a person and grabbing a person are identical... Your example is a false analogy... All that's ancillary though. Until you address your underlying premise, there's nothing further to say.
Samwise 03-22-07, 03:49 PM	Why do I have to dismount the rider? I grapple the rider, I either enter his space (joining him on the saddle) or he enters mine (letting him drag his horse along if he sees fit with his ultimate Ride skill ability), and that is that. Nowhere does it say that the Ride skill allows you to avoid a grapple. And just as you don't automatically wind up prone when in a grapple, there is no direct reason to assume you can not remain in your saddle and be grappled.
kjenks 03-22-07, 03:51 PM	Well I say "there is no specific mention in the ride skill allowing a rider to resist a grapple". Ride check. DC 5. Stay in Saddle.
DonShard 03-22-07, 04:07 PM	Ride check. DC 5. Stay in Saddle. Wouldn't that just mean he's grappled, but still in the saddle?
King Kashue 03-22-07, 04:32 PM	Ride check. DC 5. Stay in Saddle. Hrm, does that rule explicitly mention grapples? "Stay in Saddle: You can react instantly to try to avoid falling when your mount rears or bolts unexpectedly or when you take damage." (PHB. 80). Not only does it not mention grappling at all, it's not even listing examples. It's giving two specific circumstances that you might fall from the saddle... Being pulled from the saddle is not "falling", and the ability doesn't mention grappling. Therefore, no explicit rule to stay in the saddle when grappled exists, so you can't do it (unless you actually want to admit your premise is flawed)...
Howie23 03-22-07, 04:46 PM	Hrm, does that rule explicitly mention grapples? "Stay in Saddle: You can react instantly to try to avoid falling when your mount rears or bolts unexpectedly or when you take damage." (PHB. 80). Not only does it not mention grappling at all, it's not even listing examples. It's giving two specific circumstances that you might fall from the saddle... Being pulled from the saddle is not "falling", and the ability doesn't mention grappling. Therefore, no explicit rule to stay in the saddle when grappled exists, so you can't do it (unless you actually want to admit your premise is flawed)... You cannot grapple someone to dismount him. It isn't one of the things grapple allows. You can, however, trip to dismount him. Should a newbie say, "I wanna pull him off his horse," that should be adjudicated as a trip, not a grapple. Improved grab is a separate issue. Improved grab allows the attacker to move a target to it. Being mounted does not provide any defense to being grabbed. The Ride Check DC5 is to avoid an inadventant and undesirable response, by the rider, to the action of another, which in itself is having a secondary effect. Improved grab is intentionally moving the target somewhere against his will; when failing the grapple check that resulted in the grab, the target already had his active chance to resist. The Ride Check DC5 to stay mounted doesn't apply against this deliberate and already successful action. Accidentally falling off the mount is not comparible to being ripped off the mount in the maw of a behir. David
King Kashue 03-22-07, 04:55 PM	You cannot grapple someone to dismount him. It isn't one of the things grapple allows. You can, however, trip to dismount him. Should a newbie say, "I wanna pull him off his horse," that should be adjudicated as a trip, not a grapple. Improved grab is a separate issue. Improved grab allows the attacker to move a target to it. Being mounted does not provide any defense to being grabbed. The Ride Check DC5 is to avoid an inadventant and undesirable response, by the rider, to the action of another, which in itself is having a secondary effect. Improved grab is intentionally moving the target somewhere against his will; when failing the grapple check that resulted in the grab, the target already had his active chance to resist. The Ride Check DC5 to stay mounted doesn't apply against this deliberate and already successful action. Accidentally falling off the mount is not comparible to being ripped off the mount in the maw of a behir. David Sorry for not being more specific, I was assuming Improved Grab (or snatch) for the examples, since those are the only abilities by which a grapple could move the target. You're obviously correct though for a normal grapple.
Cynric 03-22-07, 08:23 PM	So back to the original qyestion. Lets see if I can summarise everyones answers. If I am mounted on anything, it moves on my initiative. If it charges, hits and wins the grapple from improved Grab, but I do not charge, then I can dismount as a free action with a DC 20 ride check. If I can time this right with the grapple, or even do it before the creature hits, I end up in my chioice of square adjacent to the mount. This may put me within meelee range of the opponent. If the opponent loses it's grapple check and is grappled by my former mount, it is denied it's dex to me and I may make a full attack (free action to dismount). This means I get to full attack after the greature is grappled. Can anyone say sneak attack goodness?
King Kashue 03-22-07, 08:55 PM	So back to the original qyestion. Lets see if I can summarise everyones answers. If I am mounted on anything, it moves on my initiative. If it charges, hits and wins the grapple from improved Grab, but I do not charge, then I can dismount as a free action with a DC 20 ride check. If I can time this right with the grapple, or even do it before the creature hits, I end up in my chioice of square adjacent to the mount. This may put me within meelee range of the opponent. If the opponent loses it's grapple check and is grappled by my former mount, it is denied it's dex to me and I may make a full attack (free action to dismount). This means I get to full attack after the greature is grappled. Can anyone say sneak attack goodness? I think you've got a few issues (or at least semi-issues). -If it charges, how are you not charging? You move with it, you're charging as well (it's movement is your movement). -You've got some sticky rules splitting actions like that. Since as soon as you dismount, it's no longer your mount, and you no longer act together. So charging, you dismounting, then the animal finishing its attack, then you attacking is not provided for in the rules. If your mount is intelligent, it could single move, ready for you to dismount, then grapple, then allow you to full attack. If it's not intelligent, I wouldn't allow such a complex manipulation of the rules (though some DMs might). -You're full attacking after moving more than five feet on your mount? 8th Level Halfling Outrider? -Finally, I've got it in my head there's a reference that says you cannot begin a grapple after a charge, but I cannot for the life of me find it (so I might just be imagining it, which would be nice for my grappler :D)
kjenks 03-22-07, 11:03 PM	Improved grab is a separate issue. Improved grab allows the attacker to move a target to it. Being mounted does not provide any defense to being grabbed. The Ride Check DC5 is to avoid an inadventant and undesirable response, by the rider, to the action of another, which in itself is having a secondary effect. Improved grab is intentionally moving the target somewhere against his will; when failing the grapple check that resulted in the grab, the target already had his active chance to resist. The Ride Check DC5 to stay mounted doesn't apply against this deliberate and already successful action. Accidentally falling off the mount is not comparible to being ripped off the mount in the maw of a behir. David The Improved Grab ability does not specify that the grabber dismounts a mounted opponent. The trip attack can specifically dismount a mounted opponent. Which one do you think you should use to dismount a mounted opponent? The answer is pretty clear to me.
Howie23 03-22-07, 11:24 PM	The Improved Grab ability does not specify that the grabber dismounts a mounted opponent. The trip attack can specifically dismount a mounted opponent. Which one do you think you should use to dismount a mounted opponent? The answer is pretty clear to me. If the intent is to dismount the guy (get him off of the mount and into an adjacent square), you should trip. If the intent is to pick something up with you mouth or limbs and pull it you and hold on, you should grab. Improved Grab neither allows, nor disallows, dismounting a target (separating him from the mount). It does allow moving the target into the attacker's square. There is nothing about being mounted that prevents that. This is different than grapple because of the need to move into the square that is occupied by the mount. Given that improved grab grants the ability to move the attacked figure, without any specific considerations about the target being mounted, and the rider has no way to specifically prevent it, I don't see any argument at all for stopping the grab. What I've heard so far is, "It doesn't specifically that you can." I don't find that sufficient to overcome "IG says I can grab you, and nothing about being mounted says that I can't." David
Samwise 03-22-07, 11:24 PM	The Improved Grab ability does not specify that the grabber dismounts a mounted opponent. The trip attack can specifically dismount a mounted opponent. Which one do you think you should use to dismount a mounted opponent? The answer is pretty clear to me. And I repeat: Fine, so you are not dismounted. You are now grappled while mounted. Where is there any rule that says you can not be both grappled and mounted at the same time?
Howie23 03-22-07, 11:35 PM	And I repeat: Fine, so you are not dismounted. You are now grappled while mounted. Where is there any rule that says you can not be both grappled and mounted at the same time? His question was about grab. As to grapple, the issue is that you cannot occupy the square with the mount unless you grapple it; this is on the assumpion that the horse is an enemy. You have proposed that the attacker mounts along with the target. This takes a move action (even w/fast mount, you have to have the move action available to convert). The step 4 movement is a bonus movement, but is not a move action. I'd also suggest that doing so still has you occupying the space w/an enemy who is not grappled (the horse who wants to bite you for triggering it's defend command, if nothing else). Somewhere, a judge has to make a call. This get's back to Ken's original statement that there WILL be variance. David
kjenks 03-22-07, 11:42 PM	Where is there any rule that says you can not be both grappled and mounted at the same time? That rule is grapple Step 4 combined with the standard movement rules. SRD === Step 4: Maintain Grapple. To maintain the grapple for later rounds, you must move into the target’s space. (This movement is free and doesn’t count as part of your movement in the round.) Moving, as normal, provokes attacks of opportunity from threatening opponents, but not from your target. If you can’t move into your target’s space, you can’t maintain the grapple and must immediately let go of the target. To grapple again, you must begin at Step 1. === SRD === Ending Your Movement: You can’t end your movement in the same square as another creature unless it is helpless. === As you can see, the attacker can't complete Step 4 on a rider because he can't end his movement in the same square as the mount. There is an exception: if the attacker still has a move action left, he can mount up on the rider's mount. This would allow him to end his movement in the same square as the mount. And if he can make a DC 20 Ride check, he can make this a free action instead of a move action.
Samwise 03-22-07, 11:51 PM	Then you just can't maintain the grapple, you can still do steps 1-3. And I'm sure someone can come up with a way to treat the horse as non-hostile.
kjenks 03-22-07, 11:56 PM	Treating the horse as non-hostile isn't enough. You can't even end your movement in a square occupied by a friendly horse -- unless you're grappling the horse or mounted on it or, as describe above, it's helpless.
kjenks 03-23-07, 12:05 AM	Improved Grab neither allows, nor disallows, dismounting a target (separating him from the mount). It does allow moving the target into the attacker's square. There is nothing about being mounted that prevents that. Yes, there is; you can use the Ride skill to Stay in Saddle. That task specifically prevents the rider from being dismounted by taking damage. And the name (Stay in Saddle) sure implies to me that you can use this task to... stay in your saddle.
bitznarf 03-23-07, 12:10 AM	Only for the stated purpose Ken, staying despite taking damage, not staying for any purpose whatsoever.
Howie23 03-23-07, 12:16 AM	Yes, there is; you can use the Ride skill to Stay in Saddle. That task specifically prevents the rider from being dismounted by taking damage. And the name (Stay in Saddle) sure implies to me that you can use this task to... stay in your saddle. I responded to that already in #24: Improved grab is a separate issue. Improved grab allows the attacker to move a target to it. Being mounted does not provide any defense to being grabbed. The Ride Check DC5 is to avoid an inadventant and undesirable response, by the rider, to the action of another, which in itself is having a secondary effect. Improved grab is intentionally moving the target somewhere against his will; when failing the grapple check that resulted in the grab, the target already had his active chance to resist. The Ride Check DC5 to stay mounted doesn't apply against this deliberate and already successful action. Accidentally falling off the mount is not comparible to being ripped off the mount in the maw of a behir. David
cycloptic_squirrel 03-23-07, 12:22 AM	SRD === Ending Your Movement: You can’t end your movement in the same square as another creature unless it is helpless. === As you can see, the attacker can't complete Step 4 on a rider because he can't end his movement in the same square as the mount. Funny thing... I could be wrong, but according to a strict reading of the rules maintaining a grapple is practically impossible unless you're throttling a creature that is tiny (or smaller) or three sizes smaller than you. I can't find anything in the grappling rules that allow you to overcome the restriction on ending your movement that you quote. I'm pretty sure that not what the designers intended, but Senior GM forbid I run my game in any way that contadicts the rules exactly as written. Any deviations in a clear cut case like this would simply be a 'bad call'. I guess grappling at my tables is now an obsolete option. C'est la vie.
King Kashue 03-23-07, 01:25 AM	Funny thing... I could be wrong, but according to a strict reading of the rules maintaining a grapple is practically impossible unless you're throttling a creature that is tiny (or smaller) or three sizes smaller than you. I can't find anything in the grappling rules that allow you to overcome the restriction on ending your movement that you quote. I'm pretty sure that not what the designers intended, but Senior GM forbid I run my game in any way that contadicts the rules exactly as written. Any deviations in a clear cut case like this would simply be a 'bad call'. I guess grappling at my tables is now an obsolete option. C'est la vie. The grapple rules themselves explicitly allow for two creatures to be in the same space (and allow for ending in the same square). The issue is when you add the mount, which isn't part of the grapple (yet) but is in the same space...
cycloptic_squirrel 03-23-07, 01:38 AM	The grapple rules themselves explicitly allow for two creatures to be in the same space (and allow for ending in the same square). The issue is when you add the mount, which isn't part of the grapple (yet) but is in the same space... I might just be glancing over it, so quote it for me. It's pretty obvious that's what the intent is, but I can't find where it explicitly says you can. I realize what the issue is, but I'm trying to show that taking the rules at thier literal value without any interpretation leads to ludicrous results obviously not intended by the designedrs. I assert that if one dissallows the continuation of a grapple against a mounted opponent, simply because the grappler cannot occupy the same space as a mount, the same reasoning can be used to show that multi-round grappling itself is allowed in relatively few situations.
Samwise 03-23-07, 01:50 AM	Hah! I knew there was at least one exemption somewhere out there. DMG, page 29, Mixing it Up If you are at least three sizes larger than the affected critter, you can share a space freely. So a gargantuan creature could grapple a halfling and occupy the same space with the halfling's riding dog without grappling it. Or a huge creature could grapple the halfling's dog while ignoring the halfling. Likewise a gargantuan creature could grapple a human's horse and ignore the human for the moment. Yes, that's going to be pretty danged useless because of rarity, but it is a start. :D
King Kashue 03-23-07, 02:13 AM	I might just be glancing over it, so quote it for me. It's pretty obvious that's what the intent is, but I can't find where it explicitly says you can. I realize what the issue is, but I'm trying to show that taking the rules at thier literal value without any interpretation leads to ludicrous results obviously not intended by the designedrs. I assert that if one dissallows the continuation of a grapple against a mounted opponent, simply because the grappler cannot occupy the same space as a mount, the same reasoning can be used to show that multi-round grappling itself is allowed in relatively few situations. Oh, I agree that Ken's reasoning is poor (as I've said, his entire argument is based on a flawed premise). Interestingly, going through a reading stuff precisely, the rule says that you cannot end "your movement" in an occupied square, not that you can't end the turn in an occupied square. And the movement in a grapple says of the free movement into the opponents square "This movement is free and doesn't count as part of your movement in the round"... Of course, this could all be fixed if we stopped trying to pursue lines of reasoning based on a blatantly flawed premise :D
cycloptic_squirrel 03-23-07, 02:47 AM	Interestingly, going through a reading stuff precisely, the rule says that you cannot end "your movement" in an occupied square, not that you can't end the turn in an occupied square. And the movement in a grapple says of the free movement into the opponents square "This movement is free and doesn't count as part of your movement in the round"... Huh. Good catch. It's a technicality, but so's the whole situation. Of course, this could all be fixed if we stopped trying to pursue lines of reasoning based on a blatantly flawed premise :D Meh. I might disagree with Ken, but I won't deny him his right to his opinion. At his table I'll play with whatever way he sees the rules and I'd expect him to return the favor. Given that he's 1000 miles away I doubt I'll ever have that privilege. (Anyone who comes up with intentionally falling off his horse has to be fun!) I figure if one person on the forums think a certain way, they won't be the only ones and it could come up in a game. Any of these forum discussions I view as valuable from the point that when it comes up at the table, I've already thought about it, I have determined my opinion, and I can sum up my reasoning in a minute instead of ten paging through rulebooks. The DM always has the final say, but I figure he/she's more likely to agree with me if my argument is clean, thought out, and is backed by PHB passages. So even though it's a flawed premise to you and I, it's obviously not as clear to everyone else. Besides, following trains of thought sometimes lead to hypothetical situations that amuse me. I couldn't get the rules to support it, but I had been contemplating buying a large block of lead, putting a saddle on it, using shrink item, then at some point rebiggify it, saddle up, and just remain in the middle of battle, immune to grapples, bull rushes, and all sorts of other stuff that makes no sense. :dancin:
King Kashue 03-23-07, 02:55 AM	Meh. I might disagree with Ken, but I won't deny him his right to his opinion. Neither will I... But his premise isn't a matter of opinion, the structure of an argument is what it is. That's the beauty of a syllogism, the structure and logic isn't fuzzy, even if the constituent parts are :D Without demonstrating where his premise comes from, it's a fallacy of false dilemma.
Cynric 03-23-07, 08:27 AM	Oh well. I guess I will have to go back to another idea I had. No rogue riding my animal companion for a cohort.
Zanzibax 03-23-07, 11:58 AM	Why do I have to dismount the rider? I grapple the rider, I either enter his space (joining him on the saddle) or he enters mine (letting him drag his horse along if he sees fit with his ultimate Ride skill ability), and that is that. Nowhere does it say that the Ride skill allows you to avoid a grapple. And just as you don't automatically wind up prone when in a grapple, there is no direct reason to assume you can not remain in your saddle and be grappled. You know me...I'd grapple the horse...every time...and pin it. Now, it's the rider's turn.
King Kashue 03-23-07, 12:37 PM	You know me...I'd grapple the horse...every time...and pin it. Now, it's the rider's turn. Ah, but Ken says you can't grapple the horse either, because you can't move into the rider's square... If a DM wanted to be really insistent on the "No Explicit Rule = Can't Do it" premise, I'd just full attack the mount...Most mounts don't have the 100+ hp my grappler can do with a full attack :D I'd also watch the DM for any "inferred rules", since we can't be applying that premise unequally, can we? (Nevermind the fact that we already do, in dozens of situations) ;)
Zanzibax 03-23-07, 01:05 PM	Ah, but Ken says you can't grapple the horse either, because you can't move into the rider's square... If a DM wanted to be really insistent on the "No Explicit Rule = Can't Do it" premise, I'd just full attack the mount...Most mounts don't have the 100+ hp my grappler can do with a full attack :D I'd also watch the DM for any "inferred rules", since we can't be applying that premise unequally, can we? (Nevermind the fact that we already do, in dozens of situations) ;) The rider only takes up one square...so do I...and most mounts take up 2...no...4 squares now with 3.5e. I'd be in a square with the mount without a rider...I have 3 of 4 to choose from...right? Or am I missing another rule?
Zanzibax 03-23-07, 01:10 PM	In any case...there's clearly some merit to being mounted...now...where's my wife? :evillaugh She deserves to know *why* at least.
bitznarf 03-23-07, 01:11 PM	SRD: "For simplicity, assume that you share your mount’s space during combat."
Zanzibax 03-23-07, 01:15 PM	SRD: "For simplicity, assume that you share your mount’s space during combat." Darling, you've gained weight! :rofl:
King Kashue 03-23-07, 01:15 PM	The rider only takes up one square...so do I...and most mounts take up 2...no...4 squares now with 3.5e. I'd be in a square with the mount without a rider...I have 3 of 4 to choose from...right? Or am I missing another rule? SRD: "For simplicity, assume that you share your mount’s space during combat." Yeah, when you're mounted, you're considered to be in all four squares simultaneously (The FAQ makes this explicit as well).\ That's also the case when grappling (if one of the grapplers is larger than medium).
Zanzibax 03-23-07, 01:19 PM	Yeah, when you're mounted, you're considered to be in all four squares simultaneously (The FAQ makes this explicit as well).\ That's also the case when grappling (if one of the grapplers is larger than medium). Ah...so the opponent seeking to use her grapple against a mounted rider (for whatever reason) would be operating against a size (L) rider who is the same size as herself (M) if he didn't have a large creature under him...(assuming there's no side-saddle rules in LG ATM)
King Kashue 03-23-07, 01:50 PM	Ah...so the opponent seeking to use her grapple against a mounted rider (for whatever reason) would be operating against a size (L) rider who is the same size as herself (M) if he didn't have a large creature under him...(assuming there's no side-saddle rules in LG ATM) Um...sort of? :D The reason why grappling the mount is an issue, is the same as why grappling a rider is an issue. Grappling the rider means you're in the mount's square as well (and the mount is not yet involved with the grapple). Grappling the mount also means you're in the rider's square, since the rider is considered to be in all four mount squares. The resolution is one of two things: 1. It's a situation that's poorly modeled in the rules, and since holding on to the rider (or the mount) isn't unreasonable, we ignore the odd fact that mounted combat creates a conflict with the "can't share space" rule. 2. Since the rules don't explicitly say a mounted character can be grappled, we assume that they're somehow entirely immune to grappling (which is what Ken is saying, the only reasoning being "there's no rule saying you can"). The interpretations themselves are just that, interpretations... The premises upon which each is based however are easy to examine. :D
Jay_Ibero_911 03-23-07, 02:10 PM	Okay, let me see if I my understanding of this matches up with everyone else: 1)Medium rider on large mount, monk tries to grapple rider or mount with just improved grapple, can't complete grapple because can't move into the space of one without also occupying the square of the other. 2)Medium rider on large mount, monk tries to dismount rider with trip and then follow up with grapple. This appears to be the only situation spelled out in the rules. 3)Medium rider on large mount, creature with improved grab hits rider, then with successful grapple check can pull rider off mount and into it's square as normal with improved grab. 4)Medium rider on large mount, creature with improved grab hits mount, succeeds on grapple check, tries to pull mount into its square. What happens to rider and can this grapple actually be completed? 5)Medium rider on large mount, rider tries to grapple enemy with improved grapple. Rider wins grapple and moves into enemy square as normal. 6)Medium rider on large mount, mount tries to grapple enemy with improved grapple. Mount wins grapple, and tries to move into enemy square. What happens to rider and can this grapple actually be completed? 7)Medium rider on large mount, mount tries to grapple enemy with improved grab. Mount wins grapple and tries to pull enemy to its square. What happens to rider and can this grapple actually be completed? Ok...I think that covers all the possible grappling scenarios, with all the known information included. Since there doesn't seem to be any benefit to remain mounted on a creature that is grappling, it would probably be easiest just to dismount and let your mount do it's thing.
Zanzibax 03-23-07, 02:12 PM	I believe that Dungeons and Dragons...in all of it's incarnations...is an open form game. The rules help you know what you can do, but must explicitly tell you what you cannot do. Therefore, by default, UNLESS there is a rule against something...you can do it. Ken's logic, indeed ANY logic based on the premise that if there is no rule allowing anything it cannot be done, is incorrect for this reason.
Jay_Ibero_911 03-23-07, 02:19 PM	I believe that Dungeons and Dragons...in all of it's incarnations...is an open form game. The rules help you know what you can do, but must explicitly tell you what you cannot do. Therefore, by default, UNLESS there is a rule against something...you can do it. Ken's logic, indeed ANY logic based on the premise that if there is no rule allowing anything it cannot be done, is incorrect for this reason. Well, that's one opinion. You are a loose constructionist, whereas Ken is a strict contructionist. Neither is wrong, though in a living campaign it is generally safer to stick with more conservative rulings to reduce table variation.
Zanzibax 03-23-07, 02:20 PM	Okay, let me see if I my understanding of this matches up with everyone else: 1)Medium rider on large mount, monk tries to grapple rider or mount with just improved grapple, can't complete grapple because can't move into the space of one without also occupying the square of the other. Check. (This is a rules problem more than a grapple problem.) 2)Medium rider on large mount, monk tries to dismount rider with trip and then follow up with grapple. This appears to be the only situation spelled out in the rules. Check. 3)Medium rider on large mount, creature with improved grab hits rider, then with successful grapple check can pull rider off mount and into it's square as normal with improved grab. No...the successful grapple check is not *quite* as normal. It treats the rider as a Large mount. Right? 4)Medium rider on large mount, creature with improved grab hits mount, succeeds on grapple check, tries to pull mount into its square. What happens to rider and can this grapple actually be completed? Hmmm...Does the monster feat "Improved Grab" have any similar wording the way grapple does? I think the monster can't do it unless the Rider is unseated. Again...a problem with the rules. 5)Medium rider on large mount, rider tries to grapple enemy with improved grapple. Rider wins grapple and moves into enemy square as normal. I don't think it's as normal. There may be some Ride check (DC 20 for a free action?) or falling damage involved (for the rider or the target...not sure). 6)Medium rider on large mount, mount tries to grapple enemy with improved grapple. Mount wins grapple, and tries to move into enemy square. What happens to rider and can this grapple actually be completed? I think both exceptions to the rules for occupying the same square are met in this case. Mounted? exception met....grappler moving into square? exception met. 7)Medium rider on large mount, mount tries to grapple enemy with improved grab. Mount wins grapple and tries to pull enemy to its square. What happens to rider and can this grapple actually be completed? I think this operates as 6...it will work. Ok...I think that covers all the possible grappling scenarios, with all the known information included. Since there doesn't seem to be any benefit to remain mounted on a creature that is grappling, it would probably be easiest just to dismount and let your mount do it's thing. Nope...you forgot one... Medium rider on large mount. Rider tries to grapple enemy with improved grab. Rider wins grapple and tries to pull enemy into mount's square. What happens? ...and I think it's OK as per 6.
Zanzibax 03-23-07, 02:23 PM	Well, that's one opinion. You are a loose constructionist, whereas Ken is a strict contructionist. Neither is wrong, though in a living campaign it is generally safer to stick with more conservative rulings to reduce table variation. Hmm...I thought it was obvious from the nature of the game. In chess...white always goes first...each piece has a structured movement...there is a defined an unitary goal. In this game...it is impossible to say what will be done, or what will happen, at any given time. This does bring up a matter for a new thread though...thanks for the reminder. My DM turned purple until I retracted the action...for his health.
King Kashue 03-23-07, 02:39 PM	Okay, let me see if I my understanding of this matches up with everyone else: 3)Medium rider on large mount, creature with improved grab hits rider, then with successful grapple check can pull rider off mount and into it's square as normal with improved grab. Ken says this is impossible, since the improved grab/snatch rules don't specify you can remove a rider from the saddle. According to him, if a roll must be made to resist, it's the DC5 "stay in saddle" check, which specifies only the horse rearing and taking damage (and does not cite them as examples, but specific triggers), and does not mention grapples at all. 4)Medium rider on large mount, creature with improved grab hits mount, succeeds on grapple check, tries to pull mount into its square. What happens to rider and can this grapple actually be completed? Ken says no. Well, that's one opinion. You are a loose constructionist, whereas Ken is a strict contructionist. Neither is wrong, though in a living campaign it is generally safer to stick with more conservative rulings to reduce table variation. It's not just narrow vs. broad interpretation. The premise of Ken's argument is "If no rule exists explicitly allowing something, it cannot be done". It's a premise that falls victim to false dilemma, and it's a premise that is contradicted many places within the rules. It doesn't matter how sound his reasoning is if it's based on a flawed premise.
bitznarf 03-23-07, 05:33 PM	As much as I would like to be immune to grappling while mounted, I don't think that the premise Ken's argument is based on has any merit, as King Kashue has said. It's entirely possible that I have misunderstand Ken's premise (if no rule exists explicitly allowing something, it cannot be done), and if so, please let me know Ken.
King Kashue 03-23-07, 07:58 PM	One other thing I just noticed. The rule regarding tripping a mounted character to dismount them is in the rules for tripping, not the rules for mounted combat. This is yet another factor that to me suggests that it's a explication of a non-intuitive use of tripping (i.e., tripping a seated person) and not a limitation on how one may be dehorsed (as Ken is claiming). If the rule were saying "this is the only way a rider can be dehorsed", then it would be in the mounted combat section.
katrick 03-24-07, 09:50 AM	if i grapple someone and somebody else joins the grapple don't we all end up in the same occupied square? cant the horse\dog\rider just join the grapple too? PHB pg157 Multiple Grapplers you can have four opponents involved in the same grapple each size category changes this number- one size smaller=half same size=1 one size larger=2 two or more=4 so the mentioned behir being huge can grapple the horse=1\2 the rider =1\2 the behir can grapple both at the same time or could grapple 4 mounted riders and their mounts at the same time and if he has improved grab can drag all of them into his squares of course this would require 4 rounds each round making two simultaneous grapples(horse and rider) if the rider has a masterwork military saddle he probably couldn't fall out even if he wanted to i think its 75% chance Katrick who likes to read a little further rather than debate exact meanings of statements brought about by grammer and english which are generally very poor and completeley different from country to country apparently this can't happen as behirs grapple with their bite attack! oops
kjenks 03-25-07, 08:11 PM	As much as I would like to be immune to grappling while mounted, I don't think that the premise Ken's argument is based on has any merit, as King Kashue has said. It's entirely possible that I have misunderstand Ken's premise (if no rule exists explicitly allowing something, it cannot be done), and if so, please let me know Ken. I didn't say that. You can grapple a rider. Here are several ways to do it, all within the rules. (1) Force the rider to dismount first then grapple. Trip, teleportation effects, command/domination, damaging a rider who then fails to make the Ride check to Stay in Saddle -- all of these can forcibly dismount a rider. You can even do that last one by damaging the rider in Step 3 of your grapple attack. (2) Make the horse (or whatever it is) helpless then grapple. (3) Mount up on the same horse then grapple the rider. Failing those tactics, as far as I can tell, you cannot grapple a rider and maintain the grapple because you can't end your movement in an illegal square (specifically, the squares occupied by the horse) so you can't complete Step 4. (Here's the rule background behind tactic (3). By the Mounted Combat rules, you can end up in the same square as the horse if you're riding it, too. The Ride skill and Mounted Combat rules give rules for mounting up on a horse. There are rules for AoOs when entering the square of a hostile creature. There are no rules against mounting up on a hostile horse.) I'm quite willing to change my position if there's evidence to the contrary. I haven't seen any rules that contradict this interpretation. King Kashue says there's a false dilemma involved here. I don't see a dilemma at all, much less a false one. I think the dilemma he's referring to involves Improved Grab, which is different from grapple in that the rider would get dragged out of his saddle. Here's what he said originally, Ken, you're limiting the situations in which a rider can be unhorsed without an explicit reason to do so. Just because the rules specify that certain things can unhorse a rider does not mean that other things cannot (You're committing a false dilemma fallacy). I observe that some parts of the rules allow certain things, and other parts of the rules disallow certain things. The set of things allowed is not all-inclusive; you're not specifically allowed to do all sorts of things that we know are perfectly reasonable to do. Likewise, the set of things disallowed is not all-inclusive; for example, there's no rule stating that you can't keep fighting after you're dead. But the melee attack forms have specific functions in the game. You can't disarm a rider from the back of a horse by making a disarm attack on the horse. You can't use a bull rush attack to trip anybody. You can't use a trip attack to grapple. And you can't use a grapple attack to trip someone. One of the functions of the trip attack is to dismount a rider. That function is not included in the grapple or Improved Grab attack, so I think it's not allowed just by the grapple or Improved Grab attack forms. You can dismount an unskilled rider by inflicting damage, and that IS part of the grapple and Improved Grab rules. So you're not immune to grappling/Improved Grab while mounted, and your mount is not immune, either, but the rules combine to make it really, really hard to do.
kjenks 03-25-07, 08:16 PM	if i grapple someone and somebody else joins the grapple don't we all end up in the same occupied square? cant the horse\dog\rider just join the grapple too? Yes, you can have multiple grapplers. The rules in the PH show how to do it. But the horse and rider are not grappling each other, so an attacker trying to grapple either the horse or the rider can't just join an existing grapple, so I don't think those rules don't really help us here.
King Kashue 03-25-07, 08:22 PM	King Kashue says there's a false dilemma involved here. I don't see a dilemma at all, much less a false one. It's the name of the logical fallacy you're committing. You're declaring "if not A then B. Not A, therefore B." Except, you've not substantiated the premise ("If not A then B") and created what's called a false dilemma, you've artificially limited the choices without providing the support necessary to do so. You're saying "unless it's not explicitly allowed, it's forbidden", except that's not a valid claim for the D&D rules. Until you support that premise, you can't build valid arguments upon it...
kjenks 03-25-07, 08:37 PM	One other thing I just noticed. The rule regarding tripping a mounted character to dismount them is in the rules for tripping, not the rules for mounted combat. This is yet another factor that to me suggests that it's a explication of a non-intuitive use of tripping (i.e., tripping a seated person) and not a limitation on how one may be dehorsed (as Ken is claiming). If the rule were saying "this is the only way a rider can be dehorsed", then it would be in the mounted combat section. As we discussed earlier, the Improved Grab rules do allow you to damage your mounted opponent, which could cause him to fall out of his saddle if he fails the DC 5 Ride check, then you can continue your Improved Grab attack and start your grapple as a free action. But it appears that you want to add a SECOND way for Improved Grab to unseat a rider. So, King, what do you think should happen if an untrained rider, a cleric with Dex 8 and no ranks in Ride, riding bareback (-5) an ill-suited mount (like a human on a pony) (another -5), gets hit by a Gargantuan Advanced Bullette with Improved Grab? SRD === RIDE (DEX) If you attempt to ride a creature that is ill suited as a mount, you take a –5 penalty on your Ride checks. ... Special: If you are riding bareback, you take a –5 penalty on Ride checks. === Let's go through it step by step. The Gargantuan Advanced Bullette makes his melee attack roll. Presumably, he hits the poor cleric. The attack causes damage. This forces the cleric to make his Ride check, DC 5, to Stay in Saddle. Because of all of the penalties (-11), the cleric needs to roll a 16 or better to stay. Let's assume he makes the roll. Now what? Do you think the Gargantuan Advanced Bullette should be able to yank him out of his saddle anyway? Even after he made the skill check? What rule makes you think that's possible?
King Kashue 03-25-07, 09:27 PM	Now what? Do you think the Gargantuan Advanced Bullette should be able to yank him out of his saddle anyway? Even after he made the skill check? What rule makes you think that's possible? The fact that the Stay in Saddle rule doesn't apply to the situation to begin with (as has already been pointed out). You might as well say "he made his perform check", since neither rule applies. The rule is how to stay in the saddle when the horse bucks or when taking damage. It's not how to stay in the saddle in general. The horse bucking and taking damage are the two situations for which the DC 5 check comes into play, not examples of a class of situations (read the rule, they're not examples of "such as" situations, they're specifically limited situations). You can react instantly to try to avoid falling when your mount rears or bolts unexpectedly or when you take damage (PHB p.80) If your mount bolts or if you take damage, you're required to make a DC5 check to stay in the saddle. Those aren't examples, those are the two situations in which the DC 5 check is necessary. Don't make it, and you fall. Falling and getting wrenched from the saddle are exceedingly different... It says absolutely nothing about any other situations in general, much less resisting a gargantuan creature that can swallow both you and your mount whole using nothing more than a DC5 ride check.
kjenks 03-25-07, 10:26 PM	The way I see it, the rules already provide a way for Improved Grab to dismount an opponent (as outlined above with the cleric vs. Gargantuan Advanced Bullette). This is a specific example showing exactly how to use the Stay in Saddle rule, exactly as you say, when taking damage. So, do you think there is another way for Improved Grab to yank the rider out of the saddle? If so, what is it? Where's the rule?
bitznarf 03-25-07, 10:47 PM	You didn't outline the grapple in any way Ken. All you seemed to have said, is that with a DC5 Ride check, that only relates to avoiding falling when you take damage, the cleric has somehow avoided being grabbed out of the saddle.
King Kashue 03-25-07, 11:03 PM	So, do you think there is another way for Improved Grab to yank the rider out of the saddle? If so, what is it? Where's the rule? The rule is for improved grab. There's nothing to say it functions any differently for a target riding a horse than it does for a target standing on the ground (or a target flying in the air, swimming in the water, whatever). You're taking a rule that is about falling from the saddle when your horse bolts and claiming it keeps you in the saddle when wrenched from it by a gargantuan creature. It's neither reasonable, nor the explicit rules. You're the one saying "If the rules don't say it, it can't be done". Well then, again I ask where that rule says you can use it to prevent being grabbed from the saddle.
kjenks 03-25-07, 11:19 PM	I wasn't trying to outline a grapple. I was trying to outline an Improved Grab attack. I obviously failed. I'll try again. There's an untrained rider, a cleric with Dex 8 and no ranks in Ride, riding bareback (-5) an ill-suited mount (like a human on a pony) (another -5). Total Ride penalty -11. There's a 27-HD Gargantuan Advanced Bulette with Improved Grab on his bite attack. He has +51 on grapple. He also has, say, +35 on his bite attack and it inflicts 3d8+12 damage (advancing from Huge to Gargantuan). (I don't know how a bulette managed to acquire Improved Grab, but, hey, let's run with it.) The bulette wins initiative. It bites the cleric. It hits. It causes 27 HP of damage. (Given the cleric and bulette above, that all seems perfectly reasonable.) Now we have to look at the Improved Grab rule to see the exact order of things. SRD === Improved Grab (Ex): If a creature with this special attack hits with a melee weapon (usually a claw or bite attack), it deals normal damage and attempts to start a grapple as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity. No initial touch attack is required. ... === Okay, so the bulette has to take an action to start that grapple. But before he can do that, we have to resolve that damage on the cleric. When the pony-riding cleric takes damage, all sorts of things could happen to him. He could die. He could have a Contingency spell activate, teleporting him out. Or he could fail his Ride check to Stay in Saddle. But any of those things would be resolved before the bulette takes his free action. First, let's say the cleric falls out of his saddle. Now the bulette can take that free action. He rolls his grapple check and wins. The cleric is grabbed, yanked into the bulette's squares, and he's probably dead unless someone gets him out. End of story. Second, let's see what happens if the cleric MAKES that Ride check after taking damage. He stays in his saddle, for now. What can the bulette do now? He could try to take the free action to initiate a grapple attack, but grapple attacks don't specifically yank the rider out of his saddle. The Improved Grab ability does not say that it yanks a rider out of his saddle, either. It makes no mention of mounted combatants. At my table, the cleric stays in his saddle and the grapple fails. At King Kashue's table, he does something different, I guess. He hasn't actually said what he'd do or what rules he'd use.
kjenks 03-26-07, 12:03 AM	The rule is for improved grab. There's nothing to say it functions any differently for a target riding a horse than it does for a target standing on the ground (or a target flying in the air, swimming in the water, whatever). You're taking a rule that is about falling from the saddle when your horse bolts and claiming it keeps you in the saddle when wrenched from it by a gargantuan creature. It's neither reasonable, nor the explicit rules. You're the one saying "If the rules don't say it, it can't be done". Well then, again I ask where that rule says you can use it to prevent being grabbed from the saddle. I never said that. You're putting words in my mouth then damning me for them. That doesn't seem fair, and I wish you'd stop doing it. There is no rule preventing you from using Improved Grab to pick your nose or disarm a holy symbol or whatever other odd use you might come up with. The rules say what you CAN do with Improved Grab. They also say what things you can do with trip. One of those things is to dismount an opponent. Why is it that you think you CAN perform a function of a trip attack -- dismounting an opponent -- with an Improved Grab attack? Is there some wording in the Improved Grab ability that makes you think you can? Let's take your bulette a slightly different direction. Instead of using its full attack to bite/claw/claw the poor cleric, let's say it makes a trip attack first, then using its other 4 iterative attacks (+27 BAB) it tries to grapple and pin the dismounted cleric. I have no trouble with that. Since the bulette likely has greater reach than the cleric, it can probably do this without any pesky AoOs. Cleric is lunch. Problem solved. My point in this alternate trip-grapple-pin-eat scenario is that there's more than one way to grapple a rider. I think you should choose the way that works best within the rules, not a way of grappling the rider that relies on making up new uses for existing attack forms. Use trip to dismount him, not Improved Grab. So, King, what do you think should happen if an untrained rider, a cleric with Dex 8 and no ranks in Ride, riding bareback (-5) an ill-suited mount (like a human on a pony) (another -5), gets hit by a Gargantuan Advanced Bulette with Improved Grab?
King Kashue 03-26-07, 12:38 AM	Why is it that you think you CAN perform a function of a trip attack -- dismounting an opponent -- with an Improved Grab attack? Is there some wording in the Improved Grab ability that makes you think you can? Because the text of the Improved Grab ability says that if the target loses the grapple it gets pulled into the attacking creature's square. And there's nothing anywhere to suggest otherwise (except your reading of the ride skill which makes no mention of the ability you're suggesting). So, King, what do you think should happen if an untrained rider, a cleric with Dex 8 and no ranks in Ride, riding bareback (-5) an ill-suited mount (like a human on a pony) (another -5), gets hit by a Gargantuan Advanced Bulette with Improved Grab? Exactly what the gorram rules say. If he loses the grapple, he gets pulled into the attacker's square. If he wins the grapple, he stays where he is. There is absolutely no reason to bring in any other rules (especially rules that make no mention of it), because the rules as written cover it. As for what you're saying or not, I'm not quoting you. That's the premise you're assuming. If you weren't assuming the premise, it wouldn't be an issue.
kjenks 03-26-07, 12:46 AM	Wow! I now realize that I can't fall out of my saddle when upside down, bull rushed, or any other million things not explicitly covered by (a), (b), or (c)! *sarcasm off Since you mentioned bull rush (and since I'm repeating myself on that Improved Grab stuff), it wouldn't hurt to look at those rules, too. Let's say you want to forcibly dismount a human from his horse using a bull rush attack. First of all, as I've been saying, you should use the trip attack for this kind of stuff -- that's what it's there for. But let's see what happens when you TRY to bull rush a rider without using trip. SRD === BULL RUSH You can make a bull rush as a standard action (an attack) or as part of a charge (see Charge, below). When you make a bull rush, you attempt to push an opponent straight back instead of damaging him. You can only bull rush an opponent who is one size category larger than you, the same size, or smaller. Initiating a Bull Rush: First, you move into the defender’s space. Doing this provokes an attack of opportunity from each opponent that threatens you, including the defender. (If you have the Improved Bull Rush feat, you don’t provoke an attack of opportunity from the defender.) Any attack of opportunity made by anyone other than the defender against you during a bull rush has a 25% chance of accidentally targeting the defender instead, and any attack of opportunity by anyone other than you against the defender likewise has a 25% chance of accidentally targeting you. (When someone makes an attack of opportunity, make the attack roll and then roll to see whether the attack went astray.) Second, you and the defender make opposed Strength checks. You each add a +4 bonus for each size category you are larger than Medium or a –4 penalty for each size category you are smaller than Medium. You get a +2 bonus if you are charging. The defender gets a +4 bonus if he has more than two legs or is otherwise exceptionally stable. Bull Rush Results: If you beat the defender’s Strength check result, you push him back 5 feet. If you wish to move with the defender, you can push him back an additional 5 feet for each 5 points by which your check result is greater than the defender’s check result. You can’t, however, exceed your normal movement limit. (Note: The defender provokes attacks of opportunity if he is moved. So do you, if you move with him. The two of you do not provoke attacks of opportunity from each other, however.) If you fail to beat the defender’s Strength check result, you move 5 feet straight back to where you were before you moved into his space. If that space is occupied, you fall prone in that space. === The first thing I notice here is that you can only bull rush one opponent at a time. There are no rules for doing this to more than one opponent. "Initiating a Bull Rush: First, you move into the defender’s space." This seems to be where you run into difficulty because it's not just the defender's square you're moving into. It's also the mount's square. This isn't an insurmountable difficulty. The rules don't really say you can't ENTER an opponent's square (like the horse's squares). Instead, they say, "You can’t move through a square occupied by an opponent, unless the opponent is helpless." There seems to be a difference between entering a square and moving through a square. Maybe. The rules seem to give the horse an AoO on you as you leave a threatened square and enter his square (with a 25% chance of hitting his rider). Then, if you "accidentally" end your movement in an illegal square, you get bumped back. So let's say you win the opposed roll and push the rider back 5 ft. Now what happens? He was sharing four squares with his size-large horse, right? What's he doing now, sharing two squares? Does he still occupy four squares? Is he still mounted? If not, why not? And what happens to you? You end up standing in the horse's square, so it looks like you get bumped back. Let's say you REALLY win the opposed roll and you push the rider back 10 ft. NOW what happens? Does he "shrink" back down to one square? Which square? Is he still "mounted," with one foot in the saddle? Did you shove the horse along with him? If not, you end up standing in the horse's square, so it looks like you get bumped back, but this time, the previous square is also occupied by the horse, so instead, you get bumped to the nearest legal square. But wait -- you can't really bull rush the rider back 10 ft. Remember, we used a loophole in the rules earlier, claiming that there's a difference between entering an opponent's square and moving through a square occupied by an opponent, allowing us to enter the horse's square to shove the rider back 5 ft. But if we want to shove the rider back 10 ft., the bull rush rules seem to imply that the attacker must also move another 5 ft. after entering the defender's square. And that's a problem because we can't move THROUGH the horse's square. So the best you could do is shove the rider to the rear of his four squares then get bumped out. That doesn't seem to have accomplished anything at all. This is a real mess. We have similar problems when trying to bull rush the mount out from under the rider -- and he's probably harder to shove around since he's large and four-footed (for that +4 stability bonus). To me, this confirms my suspicion that these special attack rules (specifically bull rush and grapple) were not intended to be used on mounted combatants; it tells me that there's a reason why the game designers specifically allowed for a way to unseat a mounted opponent. Bull rush doesn't work at all well on a mounted combatant. Just as with the grapple attack, I'd say that you should use trip to unseat the rider before trying to bull rush him.
kjenks 03-26-07, 01:19 AM	Because the text of the Improved Grab ability says that if the target loses the grapple it gets pulled into the attacking creature's square. And there's nothing anywhere to suggest otherwise (except your reading of the ride skill which makes no mention of the ability you're suggesting). Exactly what the gorram rules say. If he loses the grapple, he gets pulled into the attacker's square. If he wins the grapple, he stays where he is. There is absolutely no reason to bring in any other rules (especially rules that make no mention of it), because the rules as written cover it. Well, I see that no amount of logic and example will sway your firmly-held opinion, so I'll stop trying. You run it your way, I'll run it mine. (Ain't that always the thing that happens with grappling anyway?) As for what you're saying or not, I'm not quoting you. That's the premise you're assuming. If you weren't assuming the premise, it wouldn't be an issue. So your misquoting me in posts #10, #13, #19, #47, #54, #60, #66, #68 and #71 was a metaphor or something? And here I was thinking it was just a flawed argumentative style. Seriously, dude, when we're having a discussion, don't tell me what I'm saying and don't tell me what I'm assuming. That doesn't win you any points. The right way to do that is to ask, "I think you're saying this, (stuff). Is that right?" or to ask, "Are you saying (stuff)?" And then try to digest the answer. If you're gonna quote me, quote me right.
King Kashue 03-26-07, 03:58 AM	Well, I see that no amount of logic and example will sway your firmly-held opinion, so I'll stop trying. That's pretty much what I'm thinking about you (I actually had never even considered the issue before this thread. You, on the other hand, told us this is one of the reasons you play a mounted character, who is likely to have a "firmly-held opinion"?). Or just count the number of people saying virtually the same thing I am, that you're assuming a premise you haven't supported. And now count the people who fully agree with your reading; there aren't any. Now speculate on the probabilities: Who is more likely to be holding on to a "firmly-held opinion", and who is being logical? On whether a mounted character can be grappled, there is a matter of interpretation. You are correct, the rules are quite poorly modeled. However, your resolution of the conflict, i.e., to interpret the mounted rider somehow immune to grapple, seems the less reasonable of the two to most everyone here (though this is indeed an issue for interpretation). As for the improved grab situation, you're pulling in a rule that explicitly has nothing to do with it. How that's the reasonable resolution, I'm at a loss. So your misquoting me in posts #10, #13, #19, #47, #54, #60, #66, #68 and #71 was a metaphor or something? And here I was thinking it was just a flawed argumentative style. Seriously, dude, when we're having a discussion, don't tell me what I'm saying and don't tell me what I'm assuming. That doesn't win you any points. The right way to do that is to ask, "I think you're saying this, (stuff). Is that right?" or to ask, "Are you saying (stuff)?" And then try to digest the answer. If you're gonna quote me, quote me right. Wow... It's the premise at the center of your reasoning. The whole damn time I (and a few others) have been asking you to address it, but you've refused. I don't need to ask what your premise is when it's quite apparent to most everyone in the thread. And you have said it... "The only rules for pulling a rider from his mount are to use a trip attack." "So unless (a) the rider fails this Ride check, or (b) the attacker uses a Trip attack to unseat the rider, or (c) the rider is dead or unconscious and falls out of the saddle, the rules seem to say that he'll stay in his saddle." etc... -You're assuming the premise without support... -You're claiming the trip rule is the only way to dehorse a rider, except it's part of the trip rules section (explicitly allowing a non-intuitive use of the skill) not the mounted combat rules section (limiting the ways of dehorsing someone). -You're using a section of the ride skill that is explicitly limited to two situations and doesn't at all mention the situation you're describing. I'll ask one more time, since you've ignored me the other two times: Other than the section of the Ride skill which makes absolutely no mention of anything other than preventing a fall from the saddle, what suggests Improved Grab would not function exactly as written?
Zanzibax 03-26-07, 09:26 AM	To me, this confirms my suspicion that these special attack rules (specifically bull rush and grapple) were not intended to be used on mounted combatants; it tells me that there's a reason why the game designers specifically allowed for a way to unseat a mounted opponent. Bull rush doesn't work at all well on a mounted combatant. Just as with the grapple attack, I'd say that you should use trip to unseat the rider before trying to bull rush him. But it should work against a mounted combatant. I think that WotC simply forgot or didn't think through, rules interactions. I've performed this action in real life. (Pushing a horse and rider against the side of a stall so the rider could get off the hostile animal with a relative level of safety.) Yes...you can also grab a horse's head and haul it down to keep it from rearing with an inexperienced rider who could be killed if thrown that way. This is your "grapple". The rules should have a FAQ to reflect these possibilities in a game where the impossible *is* possible, to reflect something that really is *possible* but impossible due to a poorly thought-out rule.
kjenks 03-26-07, 09:42 AM	You are correct, the rules are quite poorly modeled. However, your resolution of the conflict, i.e., to interpret the mounted rider somehow immune to grapple, seems the less reasonable of the two to most everyone here (though this is indeed an issue for interpretation). You did it again, putting words in my mouth. That's really obnoxious. You oughta stop that. Other than the section of the Ride skill which makes absolutely no mention of anything other than preventing a fall from the saddle, what suggests Improved Grab would not function exactly as written? It does function as written. It just doesn't do anything else. Improved Grab does not say it functions like an automatic trip attack that's automatically successful to drag a rider out of his saddle. Improved Grab does not say it automatically causes a rider to fail his DC 5 Ride check.
Madfox11 03-26-07, 10:43 AM	You do realize kjenks that there is no rule that says non-spellcasters have to sleep a specific amount of time, just that they need to sleep. So you are also arguing that PCs do not need sleep? I have to agree with the others, I don't see any rule that prevents dismounting by a creature with the improved grapple ability (although I would find it very reasonable if a rider could choose to use a Ride check in place of a Grapple check). After all, the creature draws the target into ITS square and not the other way around. The rules concerning normal grapple are much less clear, and I actually agree that you would need to mount the mount or dismount the rider before you can grapple the rider. Even the RL example of pushing the horse to the wall support this, since in this particular case the rider was not hostile towards the grappler and hence the grappler can move into its square. As for bull rush, the mounted combat tactical feat in the Complete Warrior specifically discusses Bull's Rush in regards to dismounting the rider. Considering it requires a specific feat to do so, strongly suggests a regular bull's rush would not work. Mind you, I would allow a bull's rush to push back the mount AND the rider.
kjenks 03-26-07, 11:59 AM	You do realize kjenks that there is no rule that says non-spellcasters have to sleep a specific amount of time, just that they need to sleep. So you are also arguing that PCs do not need sleep? See, King K, that's how to do it. Ask me if that's what I'm saying. No, I didn't say anything about sleeping. And I didn't claim that the rules are all-inclusive. And I didn't start with a premise that anything that's not specifically permittied is forbidden, nor with the premise that anything that's not specifically forbidden is allowed. Neither of those premises seems to fit these rules. I try to figure out what the rules say and what they don't say. I base my judgement on that. My premise here is that the game designers put these game mechanisms (trip, grapple and Improved Grab) into the rules for well-considered reasons, and that we should try to use the attack form that gives rules for what we're trying to do. If you're trying to disarm, use the disarm attack. If you're trying to unseat a rider, use the trip attack. If you're trying to grapple, use the grapple attack. Don't try to use the wrong game mechanic, like bull rush or grapple to unseat a rider; it just doesn't work. Do you agree with that premise? Or do you think the game designers had something else in mind? If the latter, what do you think they had in mind? What's your evidence and reasoning? I have to agree with the others, I don't see any rule that prevents dismounting by a creature with the improved grapple ability (although I would find it very reasonable if a rider could choose to use a Ride check in place of a Grapple check). After all, the creature draws the target into ITS square and not the other way around. But does this mean that you'd allow an Improved Grab attack to make a free, automatically successful trip attack for dismounting the opponent? Or does it mean that you'd add "dismount the opponent" to the set of things that Improved Grab does? I can't see what rule you'd use to justify that. Perhaps you could tell me. (Parenthetically, I find nothing in the rules that would allow a rider to make your "very reasonable" Ride check. That kind of thing is, of course, included in the trip attack. If you want to use Ride to oppose being dismounted, use that game mechanism instead.) Why is there this insistance that Improved Grab removes a rider from the saddle when the ability description says nothing about this? Is it because that's the way you've always done it? Or because you don't want to "nerf" Improved Grab by requiring a trip attack first? Or do you think that the Improved Grab ability really does say that it automatically dismounts a rider?
Jay_Ibero_911 03-26-07, 12:48 PM	Just to thow in some new information into this rules blender...The Calvary Charger tactical feat from complete warrior has a tactic that specifically allows you to bull rush a rider off his mount after you make a successful charge attack. Unhorse: To use this maneuver, you must be mounted and charge a mounted foe. If your charge attack hits, you may make a free bull rush attempt. If the bull rush attempt succeeds, you move you foe normally, but his mount remains where it was. To me this suggests that you cannot normally dismount someone with a bull rush attempt, especially because they specifically note that the rider moves and the mount remains. Of course, this can get VERY messy when trying to reconcile this with the standard bull rush rules, however in my interpretation at least, I don't think you actually have to move into your opponent's square for this special bull rush, as it seems to be the force of your blow that is knocking him out of his seat and it's just being resolved with a bull rush roll.
bitznarf 03-26-07, 01:43 PM	Ken, you seem to be saying that you believe that the only way to get a rider off his horse (short of other explicit text such as from Cavalry Charger) is with a trip attempt. In my opinion, if this was the intent of the game designers, it would be stated under the mounted combat rules, not the trip rules. Just because a mechanic to do something is presented in one part of the book, does not mean that it is not possible to do something similar (yet different) with a different mechanic. But does this mean that you'd allow an Improved Grab attack to make a free, automatically successful trip attack for dismounting the opponent? Improved Grab doesn't rely on "a free, automatically successful trip attack for dismounting the opponent", it "pulls the opponent into its space". In one way this is similar to the results of a successful trip attempt in that the defender is no longer in the saddle. However, none of the other results of a trip attempt have any bearing on the situation. The defender is not prone, and if the attacker has Improved Trip he does not get a free attack. Instead, the defender is pulled into the attackers space and is grappled. Does it make sense that being mounted helps resist this sort of thing? I think so. Enter the DM's best friend, the circumstance modifier. At this point, the rest of the process is moot for the purpose of our discussion. What I'm getting at, is that Improved Grab doesn't care if you are mounted or not for its purposes. You may as well be super glued to the side of a cliff. It doesn't matter. Sure, being super glued would probably provide a circumstance modifier to the defenders grapple check, but that doesn't mean that being super glued prevents Improved Grab from working entirely. In short, just because the rules give a mechanic to do something in one fashion, doesn't mean something that is similar in some respects cannot be done with a different mechanic. Edit: this would probably be a good topic for a future FAQ entry.
kjenks 03-26-07, 02:10 PM	Ken, you seem to be saying that you believe that the only way to get a rider off his horse (short of other explicit text such as from Cavalry Charger) is with a trip attempt. In my opinion, if this was the intent of the game designers, it would be stated under the mounted combat rules, not the trip rules. Well, the game designers did express some of their intent through the Stay in Saddle task in the Ride skill rules. Is that close enough to being included in the mounted combat rules? It's clear to me that they wanted it to be really easy (DC 5) to Stay in Saddle under the listed conditions. (When they want something to be hard, they seem to make it DC 20 or more, like it says in the DMG.) And I showed above (cleric vs. bulette) how an attacker can Improved Grab someone out of his saddle if he fails that Stay in Saddle check, so you can see that I'm not claiming that "that the only way to get a rider off his horse (short of other explicit text such as from Cavalry Charger) is with a trip attempt." I recognize that there are exceptions. I just don't see that the Improved Grab rules explicitly or implicitly provide the same kind of saddle-extraction function as is explicitly described in the Cavalry Charger bull rush ability that Jay_Ibero_911 mentions. I think if the game designers meant for Improved Grab to work that way, they would have mentioned it. Since they didn't mention it, I think we should use the trip attack for that saddle-extraction function instead of grapple or Improved Grab. Which would you rather use to extract a rider from his saddle, the attack form that explicitly includes a saddle-extraction function (trip) or an attack form that doesn't (Improved Grab)?
kjenks 03-26-07, 02:18 PM	Edit: this would probably be a good topic for a future FAQ entry. I suspect that it depends on how the question is worded. "There's a monster who wants to eat a rider. Should I use Improved Grab or Trip to extract the rider from his saddle? Does the Improved Grab attack give the monster a free Trip attack that automatically succeeds in unseating the rider? Does the Ride skill task Stay in Saddle (DC 5) prevent the rider from coming out of his saddle when he's damaged by during Improved Grab attack?" That slanted wording on the question might get a different answer than this: Let's say that a Paladin rides into combat against a big bad evil grappler with improved grab, which we'll call the BBEG. The BBEG hits the paladin and thus gets a free grapple check to pull the paladin into his square. Whose grapple modifier do I use to oppose this? The Paladin's or the mount's? What if the mount is intelligent? Shouldn't it at least get to aid it's rider in resisting the grapple?
King Kashue 03-26-07, 02:21 PM	You are correct, the rules are quite poorly modeled. However, your resolution of the conflict, i.e., to interpret the mounted rider somehow immune to grapple, seems the less reasonable of the two to most everyone here (though this is indeed an issue for interpretation). You did it again, putting words in my mouth. That's really obnoxious. You oughta stop that. Really, you didn't say the rider can't be grappled? As far as I can tell, no matter who initiatiates the grapple, the rider, the mount or the opponent, the grappler can't complete Step 4, so the grapple ends automatically. Oh look at that...That's exactly what you said...Any grapple involving a mounted rider ends automatically. To say that's not immunity is to say "well, all fire spells against you automatically fail, but you're not immune"...Just because you used synonymous terminology doesn't mean "you didn't say it"... The only words I'm "putting in your mouth" are the one's you've chosen to type in your posts... See, King K, that's how to do it. Ask me if that's what I'm saying. I don't need to ask. I'm capable of reading (as is everyone else who's read your comments and interpreted them the same way). What's obnoxious is you claiming you haven't said what you've clearly said...You oughta stop that... It does function as written. It just doesn't do anything else. Improved Grab does not say it functions like an automatic trip attack that's automatically successful to drag a rider out of his saddle. Improved Grab does not say it automatically causes a rider to fail his DC 5 Ride check. Would that be the DC 5 ride check from the skill that makes absolutely no mention of the situation you're describing? "Exactly as written" includes drawing the target into the attacker's square. The only reason you're providing for that not happening is a DC 5 ride check to avoid falling when your horse bucks or when you take damage. A skill that doesn't make any mention of any other situations, much less the one you're describing. Ken, you seem to be saying that you believe that the only way to get a rider off his horse (short of other explicit text such as from Cavalry Charger) is with a trip attempt. In my opinion, if this was the intent of the game designers, it would be stated under the mounted combat rules, not the trip rules. Thanks Biznarf, with the way Ken has repeatedly decided not to address this point, I was beginning to wonder if I was actually writing it all those times... Anyhoo, I'm done. Pretty much everyone in here has been willing to alter their positions based on the arguments of others (I didn't previously realize the funky grapple [not improved grab] mounted combat overlaps, so I learned something), or at the very least have been willing to recognize the arguments of others... Ken however hasn't budged a micrometer from his position, and is now just ignoring several points people keep bringing up (though he's willing to clarify his position on sleep, despite the fact Madfox is bringing it up as an example of the implications of his approach, not as an actual rules issue)...There's no use in a discussion where one side won't even address the points of the other...
King Kashue 03-26-07, 02:27 PM	Well, the game designers did express some of their intent through the Stay in Saddle task in the Ride skill rules. Is that close enough to being included in the mounted combat rules? It's clear to me that they wanted it to be really easy (DC 5) to Stay in Saddle under the listed conditions. (When they want something to be hard, they seem to make it DC 20 or more, like it says in the DMG.) Except "the listed conditions" don't include anything other than your horse bucking and you taking damage. The rule says nothing about any other situations, does not list those two as examples but rather as limited situations, and says nothing about resisting improved grab. It lists two situations that would normally cause you to fall off your horse, and allows a ride check to not fall on your ass. The way the RAW interacts with an Improved Grab attempt would be, hit, damage, ride check to avoid falling, free grapple check, pulled into square if you lose. Anything beyond that is your interpretation that rather goes against the explicit content and the grammar of the rules. There is nothing in that skill use that suggests it can be used for anything other than not falling when the horse bucks and when you take damage. It really seems that your entire argument on this point is the name of the skill use, and has nothing to do with the actual rules text. Seriously, if you're seeing something I'm not, please point it out. (and barring an answer to that request, I'm done :D)
bitznarf 03-26-07, 02:43 PM	Well, the game designers did express some of their intent through the Stay in Saddle task in the Ride skill rules. Is that close enough to being included in the mounted combat rules? It's clear to me that they wanted it to be really easy (DC 5) to Stay in Saddle under the listed conditions. (When they want something to be hard, they seem to make it DC 20 or more, like it says in the DMG.) The section you are referring to only applies to staying in the saddle "when your mount rears or bolts unexpectedly or when you take damage." This in no way has anything to do with Improved Grab or trip. And I showed above (cleric vs. bulette) how an attacker can Improved Grab someone out of his saddle if he fails that Stay in Saddle check, so you can see that I'm not claiming that "that the only way to get a rider off his horse (short of other explicit text such as from Cavalry Charger) is with a trip attempt." I recognize that there are exceptions. Once again, the 'Stay in Saddle' check has no bearing on the situation, that of Improved Grab (possibly) moving the defender into the creatures space, and thus completing a grapple. I just don't see that the Improved Grab rules explicitly or implicitly provide the same kind of saddle-extraction function as is explicitly described in the Cavalry Charger bull rush ability that Jay_Ibero_911 mentions. Thats just it, Improved Grab doesn't care, as my super glue analogy was intended to help portray. I think if the game designers meant for Improved Grab to work that way, they would have mentioned it. Since they didn't mention it, I think we should use the trip attack for that saddle-extraction function instead of grapple or Improved Grab. Which would you rather use to extract a rider from his saddle, the attack form that explicitly includes a saddle-extraction function (trip) or an attack form that doesn't (Improved Grab)? I would rather use the RAW, that of Improved Grab doing exactly what it says: moving a 'grabbed' defender into the attackers space, as spelled out in the Improved Grab description. Nowhere (unless I am missing something) does the RAW say that being mounted provides any immunity to Improved Grab. I suspect that it depends on how the question is worded. I've sent the question in to CustServ in the hope that it makes it into a FAQ in the future. As such, I tried to form a 'neutral' question if you will, and came up with this: "If a creature with Improved Grab, such as a behir, hits with its bite attack on a mounted defender, can the behir pull the defender off his mount as part of the 'grab'?" We shall see what happens.
Jay_Ibero_911 03-26-07, 02:49 PM	I'm mostly typing this out to clarify my own thought process to myself, so if it sounds like a rant, don't worry, it is. The mounted combat rules themselves don't include any provisions whatsoever for being removed from you mount. There is the possibility of FALLING off your mount when taking damage or when you mount rears, and this is negated with a DC 5 ride check as mentioned in the ride rules. Under trip attacks, it specifically mentions you can trip a character off their horse. No such mention of being able to remove a rider from their mount is made in any other section of the rules in the PHB, including under the grapple section. Improved grab, however, is a special type of grappling, and doesn't appear under the normal grapple rules to begin with, so it wouldn't be there for an exception to be listed for it. Also there is the matter of the difference of what trip is doing compared to what improved grab is doing when removing a rider from their mount. Trip is basically flipping the rider off their horse and causing them to FALL and land prone somewhere next to their mount. Improved Grab is grabbing the rider and PULLING him into the grabbing creature's square, with no falling involved. Ultimately though, because it's not explicitly spelled out, it becomes an argument of "why I can" vs. "why I can't" with both sides relying entirely on what they assume the designers intentions to be. Did they intend for trip to be the only way to remove a rider from their mount (along with anything else expicitly saying it can)? And was it just poor orginization that lead to this not being mentioned in the mounted combat or ride rules? Or did they intend for any rules method that can work to work, and add an exception for trip because it normally would not work without the exception (It would just cause the rider to be prone on the mount, and normal grapple and bull rush don't work because of the movement rules, whereas improved grab would work because it avoids any other potential rules conflict)?
Jay_Ibero_911 03-26-07, 06:11 PM	Here's an interesting bit of information. The spell Sticky Saddle from spell compendium. Basically makes it take a DC 20 strength check to forcibly remove you from the saddle. If Trip was the only thing that can remove you from the saddle, this spell would be pretty worthless, especially since you can oppose that trip check with a ride check, which will usually be way higher than the opposing creature's trip check. So it seems to have been designed to prevent alternative means of being removed from the saddle, such as being grabbed out of it by a creature with improved grab.
bitznarf 03-26-07, 06:15 PM	Good find, thanks.
King Kashue 03-26-07, 06:23 PM	Good find, thanks. Indeed. :D
Lupo 03-26-07, 07:59 PM	Here's an interesting bit of information. The spell Sticky Saddle from spell compendium. Basically makes it take a DC 20 strength check to forcibly remove you from the saddle. If Trip was the only thing that can remove you from the saddle, this spell would be pretty worthless, especially since you can oppose that trip check with a ride check, which will usually be way higher than the opposing creature's trip check. So it seems to have been designed to prevent alternative means of being removed from the saddle, such as being grabbed out of it by a creature with improved grab. lately my druid was thrown out the saddle with a telekinesis spell. i so would have loved that spell :( ciao martin m.
bitznarf 03-26-07, 08:01 PM	I just looked it up, its Paladin only :(
bitznarf 03-27-07, 05:30 PM	I've sent the question in to CustServ in the hope that it makes it into a FAQ in the future. As such, I tried to form a 'neutral' question if you will, and came up with this: "If a creature with Improved Grab, such as a behir, hits with its bite attack on a mounted defender, can the behir pull the defender off his mount as part of the 'grab'?" We shall see what happens. And we have an answer. Not one that helps up much. Nor one that is binding in LG. But for what its worth (not much) here is CustServ's answer. I'm just hoping it will make it into a future FAQ. Hi there Dale, Thank you for contacting Wizards of the Coast game support. Obviously the rules don't specifically cover what is supposed to happen in such an encounter, so I cannot point out a specific rule that says this is possible. But it is not an unreasonable extrapolation of the existing rules to allow this to work. Take Care and Good Gaming! :) This is what I am getting out of this answer: 1: There is no specific rule one way or the other on this issues, something that we all seem to agree on. 2: CustServ believes that it is a reasonable extrapolation to rule that the behir (or other critter) can pull a rider out of the saddle with Improved Grab, without other hijinks involved. Not something we all agree on. 3: An alternate solution is not proposed by CustServ. I have no idea if they ever do provide an alternate solution, this was my first question to them. 4: Assuming that CustServ would provide an alternate solution, if one was available that followed the RAW, it follows that the lack of an alternate solution means something. In short: The rules don't specifically say that Improved Grab can pull a rider out of the saddle, nor do they say that Improved Grab cannot. Thus, a ruling would need to be made, and it is a reasonable ruling that Improved Grab can indeed pull a rider out of the saddle. As for the way Ken rules on this issue, I see one gapping hole at the moment. His argument seems to be based on the premise that if something can be done with one mechanic, a similar result cannot be obtained using a different mechanic (unless the second mechanic lays out the exact circumstance). And thus, as always, expect table variation.
kjenks 03-28-07, 08:01 AM	I sent my question to Ask Wizards. They usually ignore me.
bitznarf 03-28-07, 09:39 AM	Well, if they are similar to the one you poisted in this thread earlier, I can understand why.
cycloptic_squirrel 03-28-07, 03:30 PM	I sent my question to Ask Wizards. They usually ignore me. I'm not immediately seeing the question. Or rather I'm not exactly which version. Would you mind reposting Ken? I'm just curious. Thanks.
kjenks 03-28-07, 04:24 PM	"There's a monster who wants to eat a rider. Should I use Improved Grab or Trip to extract the rider from his saddle? Does the Improved Grab attack give the monster a free Trip attack that automatically succeeds in unseating the rider? Does the Ride skill task Stay in Saddle (DC 5) prevent the rider from coming out of his saddle when he's damaged during the Improved Grab attack?"
Zanzibax 03-30-07, 09:18 AM	Y'all are arguing about grappling a mount. I'm laughing my butt off...because I really only see Larry the Cable Guy making the attempt. "Hey! What are you DOING to those sheep?!" :dancin: