Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Gwumph 02-01-07, 10:53 PM	Oohhhh What i would give for a search engine on these forums!!!! Anyways since mounts were being talked about. What happens when a non-mounted person tries to grapple a PC that is mounted. please cite rules and pages. Cheers Gwumph
Alpha_Nerd 02-01-07, 11:16 PM	I've asked this question before and it appears there is no real awnser.
Munkwunk 02-01-07, 11:58 PM	Step one: AOO (avoided if grappler has Improved Grapple) Step two: Touch attack Step three: Opposed check Step four: Grappler enters target's square(s) I suppose this is where it ets funky, but it really shouldn't be cause for confusion: because the target of the grapple is mounted, he is assumed to take up all of his mount's squars (let's assume a heavy horse, which takes up four squares). Therefore, the grappler enters all four squares as well. The same would be true for a Medium-sized grappler who grapples a Large sized creature with 10' space. Proceed as normal. If it helps you to picture it in your head, the grappler climbs aboard the mount (which I suppose means you need to figure out the new weight the mount is carrying, since it may slow down the horse) and the two proceed to wrestle in the saddle. There are no rules (not to my knowledge) that handle this situation. You simple proceed with the grapple as normal. The rider is probably unable to make Ride checks due to limited mobility, though there are no hard and fast rules which state this specifically (but we can determine this by the fact taht a person being grappled can do little else, especially with his hands, such as retrieve items or, likely, control a horse). If you want to get cinematic, the horse will get agitated and try to buck the rider and the grappler. There are no rules which state this is the case. Your biggest concern, really, is that of the horse's carrying capacity. If the newly added weight causes the horse to be encumbered, it will incur the normal penalties. I think it comes down to a matter of suspension of disbelief. The rules don't cover this because it's such a rare case (until someone gets the bright idea to go and do this every time he sees a mounted character). My suggestion would be to not hurt your head trying to come up with on-the-fly house rules and just proceed with the grapple as normal.
Gwumph 02-02-07, 12:14 AM	Ahhh But that is where it does get funky If you are getting grappled, the grappler enters your space. But if your space is already occupied by another creature, then can he enter?? If he can't enter then the grapple is broken (says quite specifically that a person starting a grapple cannot enter the space the grappled then the attempt is broken) If he can enter the space (lets say medium mount, small pc, medium grappler) then would your mount be consider part of the grapple (as in multiple grapplers) Also what happens if its improved grab?? that says the PC being grabbed is dragged into the monsters square. but it says it takes a trip attempt to dismount at mounted charater, so a grapple would not dismount a PC so if a pc can't be dragged into the monsters space then by grapple rules the grab is broken. Does the mount loan its various bonuses to the PC grapple check? If the mount is dragged into the grapple as well, is it considered multiple grapplers as well??? Lots and lots of uncertain rules
JamesMaissen 02-02-07, 01:37 AM	Ahhh But that is where it does get funky If you are getting grappled, the grappler enters your space. But if your space is already occupied by another creature, then can he enter?? I would say that he could, but others will differ. To me it's a question of whether or not he could remain in the square. And if he is then shunted off the mount, does the rider go as well? If he can enter the space (lets say medium mount, small pc, medium grappler) then would your mount be consider part of the grapple (as in multiple grapplers) Definately not. Also what happens if its improved grab?? that says the PC being grabbed is dragged into the monsters square. but it says it takes a trip attempt to dismount at mounted charater, so a grapple would not dismount a PC He's pulled from the mount. Likewise when the rider is made unconcious he can fall off without a trip attempt. More entertaining questions would be what happens if either the mount or the rider has improved grab? Does the mount loan its various bonuses to the PC grapple check? Lots and lots of uncertain rules Nope. In a home campaign I think I would let a rider use his ride check in place of his grapple check (much like a trip attempt), but that would be a house rule. I will agree that grapple is very annoying ruleswise. It suffers from the start in that mostly monsters grapple, yet the rules don't consider them during the basic grapple rules thus scattering rules all over the place and leaving lots of holes and uncertainties. -James
RedKnightofKet 02-02-07, 10:12 AM	Would this allow the mount an AOO because you are entering its space? That seems logical to me...
Gwumph 02-02-07, 04:16 PM	Well if the mount doesn't break the attempt and is not considered part of the grapple, then the mount would most definitly get an AoO as would any allies. Even though its 5 ft of movement it is not a 5ft step and is expressedly triggers an AoO
Grantor 02-02-07, 05:34 PM	Oohhhh What i would give for a search engine on these forums!!!! On most browser toolbars you can type "Search Words site:boards1.wizards.com" into the search field for Google or Live Search or whatever search engines you use. It will then only search the pages found on the forums. Works surprisingly well!
Cynric 02-03-07, 07:28 AM	On a related note. What if you are mounted and your mount intiates a grapple, say a druid riding his tiger into battle. Do you automatically fall off? Do you make a ride check to dimount, assuming free action as fast dismount. Do you dismount before or after the grapple is initiated, and therefore possibly end up standing right next to the foe who is grappled by your animal companion?
Lupo 02-03-07, 08:57 AM	On a related note. What if you are mounted and your mount intiates a grapple, say a druid riding his tiger into battle. Do you automatically fall off? Do you make a ride check to dimount, assuming free action as fast dismount. Do you dismount before or after the grapple is initiated, and therefore possibly end up standing right next to the foe who is grappled by your animal companion? just ask your DM beforehand, and adjust your tactics. one DM ruled that the tiger and the foe are grappling but my halfling druid was fine riding the tiger. another DM didn't like the idea, so the halfling dismounts before attack sequence of tiger (as a move action as tiger = large, halfling = small). anyway any DM that is picky with this should be at least consistent, what about a character on a tiger (or an enlarged tiger???) in a field of evard's? are the tentacles able to actually grapple the rider - as he is supposed to share all 5-ft cubes with the mount? or not, as a rider is clearly atop the mount - as he needs a dismount action to get down. the whole tiger improved grab is tricky anyway, but WHEN the tiger grapples something it is not a real issue, as the SOMETHING tends to be shredded to pieces quite fast;). ciao martin m.
Cynric 02-04-07, 04:02 AM	Main reason I was asking was the thought of taking leadership and get a rogue cohort to ride my tiger. Think of the carnage. :D
clannagh 02-04-07, 05:34 PM	Main reason I was asking was the thought of taking leadership and get a rogue cohort to ride my tiger. Think of the carnage. :D that concept was discussed just yesterday at a gamesday in Brisbane .. the downside seems to be that druids tend to be unsuited for cohorts as druids take negtives becasue they have a companian and generally have low charisma .. but the obvious benefit is that the cohort is only around when the druid is .. so the cohort always gets a good mount for free and does not need to waste levels on paladin or beastmaster as far as the original discussion goes .. the mounted situation doesnt seem greatly different to me from a 3 way grapple where one creature is large
GrahamWills 02-06-07, 12:23 PM	As a monk who can charge 100' to trapple a rider, this is a very common tactic for my main character. Every GM has allowed it, because bascially it is realistic, cinematic and fun. Disallowing it on the grounds that you can't occupy the same space as the horse would be like forbidding a tiny creature to attack a small character carrying a familar and another tiny animal (under the rules, the tiny creature must move into the square to attack, but cannot do so as there are already the maximum number of tiny creatures allowed in that square. Sillyness). Here is the way it has played out for me, several times, several regions, different GM styles: 1) Run up and make the grapple touch attack and make the grapple roll 2) Move into the rider's squares (basically onto the horse) 3) The horse is now carrying you, effectively, but you do not control it ... 4a) The target breaks the grapple and has to leave the horse to do so (per rules, must leave my square) 4b) I drop him from the saddle unconcious 5) I now have to control the horse. The horse has never taken an AOO on me, since it has not been given an action. However, the latest info posted on animals tends to make me think a war-trained animal should take an AOO on its own, as a 'natural' thing for it to do. These actions are the consequences of following the standard grappling rules and applying common sense to gray areas. The uniformity of GM application indicates that it's reasonable.
Japangirl 02-06-07, 01:06 PM	As a monk who can charge 100' to trapple a rider, this is a very common tactic for my main character. Every GM has allowed it, because bascially it is realistic, cinematic and fun. Disallowing it on the grounds that you can't occupy the same space as the horse would be like forbidding a tiny creature to attack a small character carrying a familar and another tiny animal (under the rules, the tiny creature must move into the square to attack, but cannot do so as there are already the maximum number of tiny creatures allowed in that square. Sillyness). Here is the way it has played out for me, several times, several regions, different GM styles: 1) Run up and make the grapple touch attack and make the grapple roll 2) Move into the rider's squares (basically onto the horse) 3) The horse is now carrying you, effectively, but you do not control it ... 4a) The target breaks the grapple and has to leave the horse to do so (per rules, must leave my square) 4b) I drop him from the saddle unconcious 5) I now have to control the horse. The horse has never taken an AOO on me, since it has not been given an action. However, the latest info posted on animals tends to make me think a war-trained animal should take an AOO on its own, as a 'natural' thing for it to do. These actions are the consequences of following the standard grappling rules and applying common sense to gray areas. The uniformity of GM application indicates that it's reasonable. This makes sense to me and isn't overly complicated. I like it.
Howie23 02-06-07, 03:08 PM	What happens when a non-mounted person tries to grapple a PC that is mounted. A couple of related cases I have experienced: A) Monk riding a horse attempts to grapple an opponent. Monk had already used move action, and was unable to dismount into opponent's square. B) Large Centaur grapples large size mount ridden by small size rider, who was blind. I've been of the mounted grapple issues, but have not codified how I would handle in all situations. A) I ruled that Monk grappled, but was unable to maintain grapple into next turn, as he could not enter the square. Others might have the mount move in. Player wanted to fall off the horse for free. B) I ruled that Centaur could enter the large mount's space and that rider remained mounted. Player wanted to rider ejected from square. Option was discussed and rejected that small rider prevented centaur from entering. Rider was blind, so AoO was moot. For reference, I try to make consistent rulings (the benefit the player receives in a given circumstance is not one he would consider unfair if the roles were reversed). I also aim toward a fairly tactical game and don't personally value cinematography as a rationale for making rules decisions. David