Active Users:1162 Time:23/11/2024 01:32:09 AM
Your DM was being a dick. Kotagg Send a noteboard - 16/06/2010 02:08:17 AM
So I have two questions:

1) Has anyone tried this in a game?

2) How was it handled?

I think if I had been running the game I'd have allowed it. I'd treat the leap from the window as a charge and any attempt to stay on the creature would have been dex based (balance or ride with super secret DM modifiers). In the second scenario, a strength check would be needed to hold onto the axe handle while it flings you about trying to remove you from its back.


There's absolutely no reason not to allow it. First of all it's awesome and it's about having fun, and second of all there's no reason that through physics you couldn't do it.

We've done all manner of similar things in our games. And based upon the rules, it's entirely legit. Here's how it would be handled in 3.5 and Pathfinder (I don't play 4th Edition as it is terrible):

If you chose to attack axe-first, it would be treated as a charge attack for purposes of attacking. You and the beast would both take damage from the impact, based upon the damage tables for falling damage and falling objects. At that point I would make it a Strength check to hold onto the handle, likely at DC 20. For further rounds, I would require a Ride or Balance (Acrobatics) check of DC 20 to stay on the creature's back. It is huge, after all, and bucking around once it realizes you're there.

If you chose to not attack but simply jump onto the creature, again you would both take applicable impact damage. At that point I would have you make a DC 15 Ride or Acrocatics check per round since you have all hands open and usable. From that point you could also make Climb checks to get closer to the creature's head if need be.

The key here that your DM needs to learn is that the rules exist to make the story happen. The story does not exist so that rules can be employed.

This message last edited by Kotagg on 16/06/2010 at 02:09:06 AM
Reply to message
Riding a hostile creature - 15/06/2010 09:58:07 PM 643 Views
Your DM was being a dick. - 16/06/2010 02:08:17 AM 589 Views
Don't forget the roll to make sure he lands on the creature. - 16/06/2010 08:59:42 AM 614 Views
And if you are playing 4th ed, which kicks 3.5's ass ( ), then you'd do something similar. - 16/06/2010 09:33:10 PM 544 Views
mm. two things that bother me about 4th edition - 17/06/2010 05:16:07 AM 535 Views
Yep. - 18/06/2010 12:28:08 AM 478 Views
I don't much mind 4th edition, wasn't trying to make a big argument - 18/06/2010 01:09:01 PM 523 Views
Oh, I know. - 18/06/2010 06:19:05 PM 496 Views
Also: I'm confused by what you mean when you say "core" classes. - 18/06/2010 04:26:59 AM 479 Views
I'm talking about the classes which DnD has always associated with as "Core" - 18/06/2010 01:27:27 PM 530 Views
Those ARE all in the Player's Handbook 1. - 18/06/2010 06:16:45 PM 505 Views
Yah, I was just signing on to say that they seem to have fixed that - 19/06/2010 06:07:43 AM 545 Views
Well... 3rd edition had about a million books. So that's not exactly a new trend *NM* - 19/06/2010 03:56:20 PM 216 Views
yah i know... - 21/06/2010 08:29:29 AM 483 Views
Agreed. Ihaven't DM'd since 2nd edition, but : - 18/06/2010 09:25:41 AM 566 Views
depending on how complicated you wanted to make it... - 18/06/2010 01:30:37 PM 517 Views
Indeed. The number 1 rule for any DM: never say no. If a player wants to do something, let them try. - 18/06/2010 06:31:20 PM 517 Views
you should make them make a charisma check - 19/06/2010 06:09:21 AM 476 Views
Rule -1: Without players, the DM is powerless. - 21/06/2010 06:54:15 PM 709 Views
Bad DM.....bad boy! *NM* - 16/06/2010 06:06:03 PM 211 Views

Reply to Message