Humanoid Mount?

[7h39]

Hi! i, as a dm have to handle this strange situation: i have a Small Sized Cleric character that wants as a mount another character ok i'll say it... an Anthropomorphic Bat riding an Anthropomorphic Whale, Baleen.... 

Is this possible? what kind of rules should i invoke/use to handle (mechanically) this?

Thx

[Mystos]

I personally would allow it and make the rider make a ride check with a hard dc like around 30(especially if there isnt a harness or saddle) and make the mount make two checks: strength to see if he can carry the guy and constitution to see how long he can last carrying it

[brujon]

I'd allow it, but the "mount" character has full control on direction, etc... A custom made harness would also need to be made, and since it's exotic i'd price it at maybe 4x the cost of a regular harness for an animal of that size. Encumbrance, of course, needs to be applied as well, but since carrying someone usually shifts balance and makes you more clumsy, i'd go with an ad-hoc to-hit penalty and dex-based checks penalty. This off of the top of my head right now, YMMV.

The character who's riding would still need to make riding checks to avoid falling over, and for fighting in combat while mounted, and i'd also raise the DC like Mystos said, though not to such a high DC, maybe increase the normal DC's +5 more or less.

[Mystos]

I also think that if the rider crit fails an attack roll that he should have a 20%chance of hitting his mount but i may just be being mean

[Jackinthegreen]

There is no need to make a strength check because Carrying Capacity is very, very clearly defined.

Ride has some comments about odd mounts, namely that you take a -5 on ride checks concerning something that is ill-suited as a mount (such as the anthro whale).
Here is some mount equipment information.  You'd certainly need an exotic saddle, if the "mount" is okay with that of course.

Here is an example of one of the Diablo 2 monsters that is bipedal and basically a mount for another creature.

[kitep]

You can start with the ride skill, PHB, p80

RIDE (DEX)
You can ride a mount, be it a horse, riding dog, griffon, dragon, or
some other kind of creature suited for riding. If you attempt to ride a
creature that is ill suited as a mount (such as most bipedal creatures),
you take a –5 penalty on your Ride checks.

Arms & Equipment has some stuff in it too, too much to repost here.
A&E, p91 - Humanoid-Shaped Mounts (Girallon, Gray Render, Ogre) - doesn't have much that helps in the rules area, but does establish that riding a humanoid is possible (at least in 3.0)
Hmmm....reading it again, the section on mounts doesn't seem to be very helpful at all.

Looking back at the Ride Skill
Guide With Knees - ignore this, as the "mount" will direct himself
Stay In Saddle - keep this and add the -5 penalty for ill-suited mount
Fight With Warhorse - ignore, as there is no need to direct your mount - both the mount and rider get their attacks
Cover - allow
Soft Fall - Allow and add the -5 penalty for ill-suited mount
Leap - Disallow.  The mount will decide when to jump and when not to
Spur Mount - Disallow.  Otherwise, people will start using this just to get more speed
Control Mount In Battle - disallow - the mount decides what she will and will not do
Fast Mount or Dismount - allow and add the -5 penalty for ill-suited mount
Special: -5 penalty for riding bareback - Allow

As for initiative - I would make both roll as normal.  The high roll can volunteerilary lower his initiative to go on the same turn as the lower roll, if she so decides.

Good luck!

[brujon]

Seems my ad-hoc feelings were kind of correct. I'd still give a penalty to the carrying character at least on dex checks, because carrying something, especially in two legs, screws up your balance something fierce.

[Frogman55]

Someone has to say it.

[phaedrusxy]

The rules actually cover this pretty explicitly (see kitep's post). I'd just go with the rules as written, and ignore cries to slap on more penalties and make up shit...

[kitep]

Seems my ad-hoc feelings were kind of correct. I'd still give a penalty to the carrying character at least on dex checks, because carrying something, especially in two legs, screws up your balance something fierce.

I think the PHB covers this through carrying capacity.

PHB, p161

    Weight: If you want to determine whether your character’s gear
is heavy enough to slow him or her down more than the armor
already does, total the weight of all the character’s items, including
armor, weapons, and gear. Compare this total to the character’s
Strength on Table 9–1: Carrying Capacity. Depending on how the
weight compares to the character’s carrying capacity, he or she may
be carrying a light, medium, or heavy load. Like armor, a character’s
load affects his or her maximum Dexterity bonus to AC, carries a
check penalty (which works like an armor check penalty), reduces
the character’s speed, and affects how fast the character can run, as
shown on Table 9–2: Carrying Loads. A medium or heavy load
counts as medium or heavy armor for the purpose of abilities or
skills that are restricted by armor. Carrying a light load does not
encumber a character.
    If your character is wearing armor, use the worse figure (from
armor or from load) for each category. Do not stack the
penalties.

PHB, p162

Table 9–2: Carrying Loads
              Max Check    –—— Speed —–—
Load      Dex Penalty  (30 ft.) (20 ft.)        Run
Medium  +3     –3        20 ft.   15 ft.           x4
Heavy    +1     –6        20 ft.   15 ft.           x3

Honestly, assuming the character is riding his mount like a little kid rides his dad, it's not really that awkward.  Except for sudden moves that you do in combat, which the ride skill already covers.

[Necrosnoop110]

Someone has to say it.

+1 

[Unbeliever]

The rules actually cover this pretty explicitly (see kitep's post). I'd just go with the rules as written, and ignore cries to slap on more penalties and make up shit...

This.  Why go out of your way to punish this idea?  This is a setting where riding a flying half lion/half eagle carries no ad hoc penalties.  There is no need for arbitrary "how dare you ride these!" restrictions. 

[vaz]

Part 1). Get lots and lots of Fiendish Vermin, the smaller the better, especially if they have high HD.
Part 2). Because they have Intelligence, they can learn skills, likely only 1. Teach them Ride via Psychic Reformation.
Part 3). Likewise, give them Mounted Combat. Teach them Ride via Psychic Reformation.
Part 4). Use them to provide their Ride check result as your AC.

Congratulations, you have armour made of fleas.

[brujon]

I feel piggybacking someone in combat should carry a penalty, because it is much different than carrying a load.

A load does not move on it's own, a load doesn't shift it's body weight in unexpected directions very often while you are doing the same thing, etc...

I still think this is a whole different beast than what carrying capacity was made for and warrants it's own penalties.

[kitep]

In a big way it is.  Normally a load isn't wriggling around, swinging swords, and doing who knows what.

But then again, a regular mount has a rider moving about and suffers no penalties.

In its section on Mounts, Arms & Equipment has a sidebar about optional training for intelligent mounts.  It might not be a bad idea that for a mount that isn't built to be a mount, there are penalties until training is completed.  Or maybe have the "mount" make a balance roll at the same DC as the rider's ride roll when the rider makes a sudden movement.

[Leviathan]

One thing that's been left out of this discussion is that the mount, being sentient, can communicate with the rider. Though the person acting as the mount has (probably) not been trained for that role, the mount and rider can still coordinate their actions by talking to each other. Especially if mount and rider are used to each other in combat (even in a non-mount situation), this should mostly make up for the mount's lack of training.

[brujon]

Really not sure about that. I don't know the name of the game... But when you're in a pool, two persons piggybacking two more, and the ones that are being carried are trying to knock the other over. Ever played it? Most of the time, it was a boy carrying a girl, because strengths and weight and whatnot. More often than not, all it took was a single mistake by the one you're carrying, and you'd be knocked over by the shifting weight... Verbal communication existed, but it didn't solve anything. You'd really have to train this over pretty hard to get to a point where both of you fight as a single unit, just like people train for years to become good at riding horses - and horses are quadrupeds, much more fitted to carrying persons on their back, and they're stupid strong and stable because of four legs distributing the weight - much harder to make horse lose it's balance... After all we're talking about a 110~150 pound rider and a 1200 pound horse.

[Stratovarius]

Which is roughly the same situation we're talking about here, at least according to D&D rules - a small creature riding a medium creature (if a bit of an odd one). And the rules account for all of that, given Ride increases as you "train" (level up), there's adjustments for using something not really designed as a mount, and there's rules for weight carrying penalties.

Bluntly, there might be some logic basis for your position, but there isn't a rules basis, there isn't an effectiveness problem (it's almost certainly worse than the two characters fighting separately), and there isn't a fun basis.

[Garryl]

I don't think it's been mentioned yet, but under the D&D 3.5 rules, a mount needs to be at least 1 size category larger than the rider. That alone all but ensures enough strength and mass (about 2-4x the carrying capacity and 8x the weight) to make a non-issue of the mount being toppled by the rider's fall.

As for carrying another person of the same size, that would probably fall under carrying capacity rules for the most part. The weight of another person is usually enough to put anyone under 16 Strength into heavy encumbrance (-6 ACP, +1 Max Dex to AC, 2/3 move speed and only x3 run speed; roughly the same limitations as wearing full plate armor). Anyone under 13 Strength can easily be beyond their max load, which means that while they can carry the other person, they're denied Dex to AC and can only move 5 feet as a full-round action while doing so. Both of the above are assuming that neither person has anything on them that adds any weight, like weapons or armor or a backpack filled with gear. I don't remember if it's still around, but 2nd edition's PHB had a rule about bulky or improperly stowed items counting as greater than their weight to determine encumbrance because they were that much harder to carry as a result.

Really not sure about that. I don't know the name of the game... But when you're in a pool, two persons piggybacking two more, and the ones that are being carried are trying to knock the other over. Ever played it? Most of the time, it was a boy carrying a girl, because strengths and weight and whatnot. More often than not, all it took was a single mistake by the one you're carrying, and you'd be knocked over by the shifting weight...

Riders with 0 ranks, maybe +1 due to Dex. Unsuited mount means -5, and bareback means another -5. Call it a total modifier of -9 to make a DC 5 Ride check to avoid falling whenever the mount "mount rears or bolts unexpectedly" or when the rider takes damage (only a 35% success rate). Sounds about right, other than the size rules making this technically not work.

Which is roughly the same situation we're talking about here, at least according to D&D rules - a small creature riding a medium creature (if a bit of an odd one). And the rules account for all of that, given Ride increases as you "train" (level up), there's adjustments for using something not really designed as a mount, and there's rules for weight carrying penalties.

Bluntly, there might be some logic basis for your position, but there isn't a rules basis, there isn't an effectiveness problem (it's almost certainly worse than the two characters fighting separately), and there isn't a fun basis.

Hear, hear!

[kitep]

and there isn't a fun basis.

And fun is a VERY important point.  How many times have we heard that a caster can do something because "it's magic", but melee has to be "realistic"?