|
6 months ago ::
Dec 02, 2012 - 10:01AM
#12931
|
Date Joined:
Oct 28, 2010
|
The other argument against it would be that the Pixie could use his ally as a mount - but they would both be subject to the mounted combat rules, which would be bad.
It's not worth the rules arguments to bother, TBH.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 02, 2012 - 10:45AM
#12932
|
Date Joined:
Mar 28, 2010
|
but my pixie WANTS to ride the half-orc barabarian into combat ! 
"Non nobis Domine Sed nomini tuo da gloriam" "I wish for death not because I want to die, but because I seek the war eternal"
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 02, 2012 - 11:07AM
#12933
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2004
|
The other argument against it would be that the Pixie could use his ally as a mount - but they would both be subject to the mounted combat rules, which would be bad.
Why?
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 02, 2012 - 11:47AM
#12934
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
Need to dismount before you can move yourself?
I don't know, never had a mount^^
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 02, 2012 - 12:45PM
#12935
|
|
|
The other argument against it would be that the Pixie could use his ally as a mount - but they would both be subject to the mounted combat rules, which would be bad.
Why?
Because the rider and mount share a single set of actions, meaning you've effectively cut both PCs in half in terms of what they're capable of accomplishing.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 02, 2012 - 12:57PM
#12936
|
Date Joined:
Oct 28, 2010
|
The other argument against it would be that the Pixie could use his ally as a mount - but they would both be subject to the mounted combat rules, which would be bad.
Why?
Because the rider and mount share a single set of actions, meaning you've effectively cut both PCs in half in terms of what they're capable of accomplishing.
Bingo. He may want to ride the barbarian, but the barbarian absolutely does not want to be ridden.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 02, 2012 - 2:09PM
#12937
|
|
|
Hm.. k..
Then i guess we played dragging your unconcious allies around wrong all this time (we never grabbed them beforehand)
Grabbing an unconcious ally is a minor and you can just move them.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 02, 2012 - 10:44PM
#12938
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
The other argument against it would be that the Pixie could use his ally as a mount - but they would both be subject to the mounted combat rules, which would be bad.
Why?
Because the rider and mount share a single set of actions, meaning you've effectively cut both PCs in half in terms of what they're capable of accomplishing.
Not necessarily - if you award the barbarian an equal share of the experience, then both mount and rider can get their full set of actions.
PCs riding PCs is definitely allowed.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 02, 2012 - 11:21PM
#12939
|
Date Joined:
May 12, 2009
|
Hm.. k..
Then i guess we played dragging your unconcious allies around wrong all this time (we never grabbed them beforehand)
Grabbing an unconcious ally is a minor and you can just move them.
Got a source ?
Grabbing a creature is always a standard action unless noted otherwise. Its true that Moving A Grabbed Target is an automatic success if the target is a Helpless ally but it is also a standard action to do so.
Yan
Montréal, Canada
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 03, 2012 - 12:36AM
#12940
|
|
|
PHB, under the grabbed section. Helpless (and of course an unconcious ally is helpless in most cases) allies can be "picked up and moved like an object." Picking up objects is a minor.
|
|
|
