And I think you should ask a few parents how it goes carrying a 40 pound kid on your shoulders ALL DAY, and then operating under combat conditions. Humanoids were NOT designed to carry other humanoids around, especially around their upper body, for any length of time.
That's very... speciesist? Shapeist? Look, plenty of playable characters have body shapes totally dissimilar to a human's in ways that may invalidate a comparison you're drawing, and that applies here in spades. Any creature with "powerful build" (especially centaurs) has a body shape explicitly better than a human's at carrying things, not to mention the carried critter may be particularly easy to carry.
Like I mentioned earlier in this thread, the one time I booped this meme myself, my character's carrying capacity was 1200 pounds. That's combat carrying capacity - you could strap a 1200 pound suit to him and tell him to box, and he'd duck and weave with the rest of them. If you applied the variant encumbrance rules, he'd still be at max agility at 400 pounds. That's a lot stronger than any human - and he was built nothing like a human! His forearms were pretty explicitly gorilla-long relative to his body, meaning he could carry things more easily if he needed to by bracing a hand against the floor without crouching. We haven't even gotten to how broad his shoulders were, or how tiny his cargo.
Attached is video evidence of a creature actually comparable to a bugbear carrying a creature actually comparable to a goblin. Note the lack of humans in this video, and the ease of carrying. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FLK1IjwG6E
And I think you should ask a few parents how it goes carrying a 40 pound kid on your shoulders ALL DAY, and then operating under combat conditions. Humanoids were NOT designed to carry other humanoids around, especially around their upper body, for any length of time.
A combat is usually over within 5 rounds, which is 30 seconds. I've spent hours straight with over 40 pounds on my shoulders. It's not undoable.
And I think you should ask a few parents how it goes carrying a 40 pound kid on your shoulders ALL DAY, and then operating under combat conditions. Humanoids were NOT designed to carry other humanoids around, especially around their upper body, for any length of time.
A combat is usually over within 5 rounds, which is 30 seconds. I've spent hours straight with over 40 pounds on my shoulders. It's not undoable.
And you felt the pain. We all do. And combat conditions include swinging a sword, ducking, running, with 40 pounds of a fighting Goblin, plus all its stuff, balanced around your shoulders and neck. Nope. Not happening. A 4 legged mount, sure. They are designed for it. Not an upright humanoid. And no, don't say "but but Golaith", which not a Half-Orc.
It's your game, you are the DM, so if you like it then go for it. I have played in games where it has happened, and I have run games where it has happened. I have no issue with it. It can be a lot of fun.
Ignore Vince, he demands that everybody absolutely has to follow the letter of the law completely and utterly. Unless it's a rule he dislikes, and changes.
It is absolutely true I change rules that I don't like. And in every case, the rules I change that make the game harder, not easier. And I don't change something so intrinsic to the game as two PC's occupying the same space. Mounts are a special case to the general. Players don't get to make special apparatus to circumvent rules in my games.
Are they allowed adamantine armour? You know, the one which lets you circumvent the critical hit rule...
Can they use finesse weapons? The ones which let you circumvent the rule about using strength for melee weapon attacks?
What about an artificer, making a repeating crossbow to get around the loading and ammunition rules?
All of these are items which circumvent one rule or another, and one is even made by the PC.
Strictly speaking, there isn't any rule which prevents one PC riding another. All the rules say is that "A willing creature that is at least one size larger than you and that has an appropriate anatomy can serve as a mount, using the following rules", and it can be argued that a humanoid has appropriate anatomy to be ridden by a smaller by watching parents with their kids, so if anything the rules people have suggested here make the game harder by adding extra limitations than in the official rules.
In answer to your questions:
No one has acquired the cash for Adamantine armour as it is one the most valuable substances in my game, and there are an exceptional few smiths capable of working with it.
So you don't follow the rules for Adamantine armour?
Finesse weapons work as designed in my game. There is no rule, never has been a 5e rule as you describe.
In the way that Urth describes? Sure there is. It's the "Finesse" property.
No, Artificers are not allowed in my game because they belong in the Eberron setting and the very example you give is one of the reasons they are OP.
No, not really.
And I think you should ask a few parents how it goes carrying a 40 pound kid on your shoulders ALL DAY, and then operating under combat conditions. Humanoids were NOT designed to carry other humanoids around, especially around their upper body, for any length of time.
Humans aren't designed for anything. At all. Also, don't think anyone has mentioned walking around with someone on their backs "ALL DAY" but if anyone could do it, it's probably a high strength D&D character with an unrealistic carrying capacity. ;)
Come on guys, he's on my ignore list for a reason. I don't feel like having this thread devolve into discussions of another user's quirks at the expense of the actual topic of the thread.
Okay okay, everyone calm down. The primary message I'm picking up from y'all is that as a DM, I can allow the "piggyback" rules, so long as I apply appropriate drawbacks to keep it from being OP, whilst still being a fun combat/roleplaying tool. It is still worth mentioning that the rider would be a SIDEKICK, which was created and is controlled by the player who'd end up being the mount.
Is suggest the collaborative common sense approach: tell the player you want to try it out and that you'll tone it down if necessary. Then start with RAW and see where it takes you.
It doesn't sound like your player wants to game the system, they just like to horse around ;)
So you don't follow the rules for Adamantine armour?
In the way that Urth describes? Sure there is. It's the "Finesse" property.
No, Artificers are not allowed in my game because they belong in the Eberron setting and the very example you give is one of the reasons they are OP.
No, not really.
And I think you should ask a few parents how it goes carrying a 40 pound kid on your shoulders ALL DAY, and then operating under combat conditions. Humanoids were NOT designed to carry other humanoids around, especially around their upper body, for any length of time.
Humans aren't designed for anything. At all. Also, don't think anyone has mentioned walking around with someone on their backs "ALL DAY" but if anyone could do it, it's probably a high strength D&D character with an unrealistic carrying capacity. ;)
Adamantine armour is in the rules and is normally exceedingly rare in campaigns (as it seems to be in Vince's campaign). False equivalency. Plus it is RAW so it is a specific exception specifically described in the rules.
Similarly the finesse property is described specifically in the rules. One could argue there is a formally described 'mount' property in that there is a list of mounts. Humanoids are not on said list.
The Eberron setting is a specific setting. It is not a given that it is appropriate to all settings. There are arguments that aspects of the class are problematic (and there are threads debating this. It being setting specific means it is an optional rule that neither he nor anyone else is obligated to use in their campaigns. That choice is also RAW.
If humans (and the humanoid form) were not designed for anything, they would be capable of nothing. Fair counter-argument that a short term in-combat use is different from strategic use but there are still significant logistical issues, even in combat. Maybe your campaign is ok with that. That does not mean it is a concept that fits with most campaigns or one that should be simply declared acceptable in most campaigns.
Not all 'rule of cool' suggestions are bad, but there is still a line between 'reasonable' and 'exploit.' To me, a lot of the arguments presented here in favour or piggybacking lean more towards the exploit side of that scale.
My point with those items was to make it clear that there are many official D&D items which fall into the category of "special apparatus to circumvent rules". In fact, that's pretty much what magic items are much of the time. When home-brewing items, it makes sense to follow the principals of the existing ones, so it would be perfectly acceptable, in principal, to "make special apparatus to circumvent rules".
Humans were only designed for something if you believe they we're created in their present form, or of that's the case within the setting you run. If that's the case in your game, you are welcome to consider the reasons fort the creators design decisions to answer that question, but that will be inference at best, as I am unaware of any setting book which goes into that much detail over the intents of the gods. I'm also not going to go into that, myself, because we play in a homebrew setting with no concrete knowledge of the existence of gods etc.
When it comes to one person carrying another IRL, my brother will often carry his daughter for an hour or longer, doing many normal things without a significant problem. He's not that fit, doesn't do any specific exercise and has a belly, although he is a car mechanic so had reasonable strength. He's certainly not an adventurer-level strong or fit.
Back to one PC riding another, I agree that it's almost certainly not the intent of the rules and is an exploit, RAW or not. However, that's why most are suggesting adding limitations. We all understand that it could easily be OP to just allow this without some form of limit or penalty, but we can see the fun it could bring to the game if done right. Isn't that worth a bit of work and experimentation to find a way to balance it? Especially if the player is open to changing the rules over time off and when balance issues occur.
So you don't follow the rules for Adamantine armour?
In the way that Urth describes? Sure there is. It's the "Finesse" property.
No, Artificers are not allowed in my game because they belong in the Eberron setting and the very example you give is one of the reasons they are OP.
No, not really.
And I think you should ask a few parents how it goes carrying a 40 pound kid on your shoulders ALL DAY, and then operating under combat conditions. Humanoids were NOT designed to carry other humanoids around, especially around their upper body, for any length of time.
Humans aren't designed for anything. At all. Also, don't think anyone has mentioned walking around with someone on their backs "ALL DAY" but if anyone could do it, it's probably a high strength D&D character with an unrealistic carrying capacity. ;)
Adamantine armour is in the rules and is normally exceedingly rare in campaigns (as it seems to be in Vince's campaign). False equivalency. Plus it is RAW so it is a specific exception specifically described in the rules.
Adamantine armor in "uncommon", so you are simply wrong on that point.
Similarly the finesse property is described specifically in the rules. One could argue there is a formally described 'mount' property in that there is a list of mounts. Humanoids are not on said list.
And the way finesse is described is comletely in lines with what Urth is arguing.
The Eberron setting is a specific setting. It is not a given that it is appropriate to all settings. There are arguments that aspects of the class are problematic (and there are threads debating this. It being setting specific means it is an optional rule that neither he nor anyone else is obligated to use in their campaigns. That choice is also RAW.
You aren't obligated to use any rules in aany campaign. That doesn't mean that the artificer is OP for the reasons vince claimed.
If humans (and the humanoid form) were not designed for anything, they would be capable of nothing.
Have you not heard about evolution?
Fair counter-argument that a short term in-combat use is different from strategic use but there are still significant logistical issues, even in combat. Maybe your campaign is ok with that. That does not mean it is a concept that fits with most campaigns or one that should be simply declared acceptable in most campaigns.
Don't think anyone has said anything of the sorts, but sure.
Not all 'rule of cool' suggestions are bad, but there is still a line between 'reasonable' and 'exploit.' To me, a lot of the arguments presented here in favour or piggybacking lean more towards the exploit side of that scale.
So you don't follow the rules for Adamantine armour?
In the way that Urth describes? Sure there is. It's the "Finesse" property.
No, Artificers are not allowed in my game because they belong in the Eberron setting and the very example you give is one of the reasons they are OP.
No, not really.
And I think you should ask a few parents how it goes carrying a 40 pound kid on your shoulders ALL DAY, and then operating under combat conditions. Humanoids were NOT designed to carry other humanoids around, especially around their upper body, for any length of time.
Humans aren't designed for anything. At all. Also, don't think anyone has mentioned walking around with someone on their backs "ALL DAY" but if anyone could do it, it's probably a high strength D&D character with an unrealistic carrying capacity. ;)
Adamantine armour is in the rules and is normally exceedingly rare in campaigns (as it seems to be in Vince's campaign). False equivalency. Plus it is RAW so it is a specific exception specifically described in the rules.
Similarly the finesse property is described specifically in the rules. One could argue there is a formally described 'mount' property in that there is a list of mounts. Humanoids are not on said list.
The Eberron setting is a specific setting. It is not a given that it is appropriate to all settings. There are arguments that aspects of the class are problematic (and there are threads debating this. It being setting specific means it is an optional rule that neither he nor anyone else is obligated to use in their campaigns. That choice is also RAW.
If humans (and the humanoid form) were not designed for anything, they would be capable of nothing. Fair counter-argument that a short term in-combat use is different from strategic use but there are still significant logistical issues, even in combat. Maybe your campaign is ok with that. That does not mean it is a concept that fits with most campaigns or one that should be simply declared acceptable in most campaigns.
Not all 'rule of cool' suggestions are bad, but there is still a line between 'reasonable' and 'exploit.' To me, a lot of the arguments presented here in favour or piggybacking lean more towards the exploit side of that scale.
My point with those items was to make it clear that there are many official D&D items which fall into the category of "special apparatus to circumvent rules". In fact, that's pretty much what magic items are much of the time. When home-brewing items, it makes sense to follow the principals of the existing ones, so it would be perfectly acceptable, in principal, to "make special apparatus to circumvent rules".
Humans were only designed for something if you believe they we're created in their present form, or of that's the case within the setting you run. If that's the case in your game, you are welcome to consider the reasons fort the creators design decisions to answer that question, but that will be inference at best, as I am unaware of any setting book which goes into that much detail over the intents of the gods. I'm also not going to go into that, myself, because we play in a homebrew setting with no concrete knowledge of the existence of gods etc.
When it comes to one person carrying another IRL, my brother will often carry his daughter for an hour or longer, doing many normal things without a significant problem. He's not that fit, doesn't do any specific exercise and has a belly, although he is a car mechanic so had reasonable strength. He's certainly not an adventurer-level strong or fit.
Back to one PC riding another, I agree that it's almost certainly not the intent of the rules and is an exploit, RAW or not. However, that's why most are suggesting adding limitations. We all understand that it could easily be OP to just allow this without some form of limit or penalty, but we can see the fun it could bring to the game if done right. Isn't that worth a bit of work and experimentation to find a way to balance it? Especially if the player is open to changing the rules over time off and when balance issues occur.
Go to page 221 of Mord's Tome, and look at the Ogre Howdah.
That is an Ogre, that stands 9-10 feet high, weighing 1000 pounds, as per the MM, not some Half-Orc that is 6 foot plus and 250 pounds. Now look at the limitations put on those MONSTERS riding another MONSTER. Those are not PC's and NPC's. This entire concept is not about fun, unless "fun" = finding ways to break hard and fast rules.
Oh, and BTW, if you follow any evolutionary biology, you would know that the present form of Homo Sapien evolved to be able to walk upright (not sprint at high speed) for extended distances, to track prey. Tack on an increased brain pan and opposable thumbs, you come up with a clever problem solving creature, but one entirely unsuited for high energy, high strength activities.
Humans do a couple things really well but we don't carry around other creatures that are making all kinds of unexpected movements throwing off our center of balance even more than this weight around our neck already is.
So you don't follow the rules for Adamantine armour?
In the way that Urth describes? Sure there is. It's the "Finesse" property.
No, Artificers are not allowed in my game because they belong in the Eberron setting and the very example you give is one of the reasons they are OP.
No, not really.
And I think you should ask a few parents how it goes carrying a 40 pound kid on your shoulders ALL DAY, and then operating under combat conditions. Humanoids were NOT designed to carry other humanoids around, especially around their upper body, for any length of time.
Humans aren't designed for anything. At all. Also, don't think anyone has mentioned walking around with someone on their backs "ALL DAY" but if anyone could do it, it's probably a high strength D&D character with an unrealistic carrying capacity. ;)
Adamantine armour is in the rules and is normally exceedingly rare in campaigns (as it seems to be in Vince's campaign). False equivalency. Plus it is RAW so it is a specific exception specifically described in the rules.
Similarly the finesse property is described specifically in the rules. One could argue there is a formally described 'mount' property in that there is a list of mounts. Humanoids are not on said list.
The Eberron setting is a specific setting. It is not a given that it is appropriate to all settings. There are arguments that aspects of the class are problematic (and there are threads debating this. It being setting specific means it is an optional rule that neither he nor anyone else is obligated to use in their campaigns. That choice is also RAW.
If humans (and the humanoid form) were not designed for anything, they would be capable of nothing. Fair counter-argument that a short term in-combat use is different from strategic use but there are still significant logistical issues, even in combat. Maybe your campaign is ok with that. That does not mean it is a concept that fits with most campaigns or one that should be simply declared acceptable in most campaigns.
Not all 'rule of cool' suggestions are bad, but there is still a line between 'reasonable' and 'exploit.' To me, a lot of the arguments presented here in favour or piggybacking lean more towards the exploit side of that scale.
My point with those items was to make it clear that there are many official D&D items which fall into the category of "special apparatus to circumvent rules". In fact, that's pretty much what magic items are much of the time. When home-brewing items, it makes sense to follow the principals of the existing ones, so it would be perfectly acceptable, in principal, to "make special apparatus to circumvent rules".
Humans were only designed for something if you believe they we're created in their present form, or of that's the case within the setting you run. If that's the case in your game, you are welcome to consider the reasons fort the creators design decisions to answer that question, but that will be inference at best, as I am unaware of any setting book which goes into that much detail over the intents of the gods. I'm also not going to go into that, myself, because we play in a homebrew setting with no concrete knowledge of the existence of gods etc.
When it comes to one person carrying another IRL, my brother will often carry his daughter for an hour or longer, doing many normal things without a significant problem. He's not that fit, doesn't do any specific exercise and has a belly, although he is a car mechanic so had reasonable strength. He's certainly not an adventurer-level strong or fit.
Back to one PC riding another, I agree that it's almost certainly not the intent of the rules and is an exploit, RAW or not. However, that's why most are suggesting adding limitations. We all understand that it could easily be OP to just allow this without some form of limit or penalty, but we can see the fun it could bring to the game if done right. Isn't that worth a bit of work and experimentation to find a way to balance it? Especially if the player is open to changing the rules over time off and when balance issues occur.
Go to page 221 of Mord's Tome, and look at the Ogre Howdah.
That is an Ogre, that stands 9-10 feet high, weighing 1000 pounds, as per the MM, not some Half-Orc that is 6 foot plus and 250 pounds. Now look at the limitations put on those MONSTERS riding another MONSTER. Those are not PC's and NPC's. This entire concept is not about fun, unless "fun" = finding ways to break hard and fast rules.
Except that no-one is talking about letting four creatures ride on the half-orc. And it's simply a lie to imply that this is about "finding ways to break hard and fast rules".
Oh, and BTW, if you follow any evolutionary biology, you would know that the present form of Homo Sapien evolved to be able to walk upright (not sprint at high speed) for extended distances, to track prey. Tack on an increased brain pan and opposable thumbs, you come up with a clever problem solving creature, but one entirely unsuited for high energy, high strength activities.
Evolution is not design, you do realize that, don't you?
Humans do a couple things really well but we don't carry around other creatures that are making all kinds of unexpected movements throwing off our center of balance even more than this weight around our neck already is.
So you don't follow the rules for Adamantine armour?
In the way that Urth describes? Sure there is. It's the "Finesse" property.
No, Artificers are not allowed in my game because they belong in the Eberron setting and the very example you give is one of the reasons they are OP.
No, not really.
And I think you should ask a few parents how it goes carrying a 40 pound kid on your shoulders ALL DAY, and then operating under combat conditions. Humanoids were NOT designed to carry other humanoids around, especially around their upper body, for any length of time.
Humans aren't designed for anything. At all. Also, don't think anyone has mentioned walking around with someone on their backs "ALL DAY" but if anyone could do it, it's probably a high strength D&D character with an unrealistic carrying capacity. ;)
Adamantine armour is in the rules and is normally exceedingly rare in campaigns (as it seems to be in Vince's campaign). False equivalency. Plus it is RAW so it is a specific exception specifically described in the rules.
Similarly the finesse property is described specifically in the rules. One could argue there is a formally described 'mount' property in that there is a list of mounts. Humanoids are not on said list.
The Eberron setting is a specific setting. It is not a given that it is appropriate to all settings. There are arguments that aspects of the class are problematic (and there are threads debating this. It being setting specific means it is an optional rule that neither he nor anyone else is obligated to use in their campaigns. That choice is also RAW.
If humans (and the humanoid form) were not designed for anything, they would be capable of nothing. Fair counter-argument that a short term in-combat use is different from strategic use but there are still significant logistical issues, even in combat. Maybe your campaign is ok with that. That does not mean it is a concept that fits with most campaigns or one that should be simply declared acceptable in most campaigns.
Not all 'rule of cool' suggestions are bad, but there is still a line between 'reasonable' and 'exploit.' To me, a lot of the arguments presented here in favour or piggybacking lean more towards the exploit side of that scale.
My point with those items was to make it clear that there are many official D&D items which fall into the category of "special apparatus to circumvent rules". In fact, that's pretty much what magic items are much of the time. When home-brewing items, it makes sense to follow the principals of the existing ones, so it would be perfectly acceptable, in principal, to "make special apparatus to circumvent rules".
Humans were only designed for something if you believe they we're created in their present form, or of that's the case within the setting you run. If that's the case in your game, you are welcome to consider the reasons fort the creators design decisions to answer that question, but that will be inference at best, as I am unaware of any setting book which goes into that much detail over the intents of the gods. I'm also not going to go into that, myself, because we play in a homebrew setting with no concrete knowledge of the existence of gods etc.
When it comes to one person carrying another IRL, my brother will often carry his daughter for an hour or longer, doing many normal things without a significant problem. He's not that fit, doesn't do any specific exercise and has a belly, although he is a car mechanic so had reasonable strength. He's certainly not an adventurer-level strong or fit.
Back to one PC riding another, I agree that it's almost certainly not the intent of the rules and is an exploit, RAW or not. However, that's why most are suggesting adding limitations. We all understand that it could easily be OP to just allow this without some form of limit or penalty, but we can see the fun it could bring to the game if done right. Isn't that worth a bit of work and experimentation to find a way to balance it? Especially if the player is open to changing the rules over time off and when balance issues occur.
Go to page 221 of Mord's Tome, and look at the Ogre Howdah.
That is an Ogre, that stands 9-10 feet high, weighing 1000 pounds, as per the MM, not some Half-Orc that is 6 foot plus and 250 pounds. Now look at the limitations put on those MONSTERS riding another MONSTER. Those are not PC's and NPC's. This entire concept is not about fun, unless "fun" = finding ways to break hard and fast rules.
Oh, and BTW, if you follow any evolutionary biology, you would know that the present form of Homo Sapien evolved to be able to walk upright (not sprint at high speed) for extended distances, to track prey. Tack on an increased brain pan and opposable thumbs, you come up with a clever problem solving creature, but one entirely unsuited for high energy, high strength activities.
Humans do a couple things really well but we don't carry around other creatures that are making all kinds of unexpected movements throwing off our center of balance even more than this weight around our neck already is.
Fair enough, you do you.
However, not all of your justifications have either game, setting or real world relevance, and they come down to how you want to play the game. This is not going to fit everybody's play style, and many would not find the game as you describe it fun. If you and your fellow players so, that's great, it's a perfectly acceptable way to play, but it's not the only way to play and allowing one PC to ride another is not wrong if the players and DM enjoy it.
And I think you should ask a few parents how it goes carrying a 40 pound kid on your shoulders ALL DAY, and then operating under combat conditions. Humanoids were NOT designed to carry other humanoids around, especially around their upper body, for any length of time.
1. I am a parent, and as the dad it was my 'job' to carry both my little ones around, as a piggy back or completely on my shoulders. It could be tricky when they were little but once they got a bit older and had decent balance it was easy enough. I live in the UK, lots of castles, I climbed the tower of Castle Coch's circular stairwell to the top with my daughter on my shoulders once maybe 40-50 feet at a very steep (felt like straight up) angle.
2. As an ex-soldier I would train to go into battle with rifle, helmet, full webbing and pack, I was a combat medic so my gear was often heavier than the infantry guys due to all the medical kit I carried on top of the regular gear. The British Army combat fitness test was 8 miles in full equipment, they would weigh your kit in training to make sure people didn't cheat.
If you are going to make statements like that, at least make sure you know what you are talking about.
This thread is not a debate over whether finesse is RAW or not. It is RAW. Humanoid PC's being mounts is not RAW.
Strictly, you are wrong:
"A willing creature that is at least one size larger than you and that has an appropriate anatomy can serve as a mount"
There is no RAW definition of "appropriate anatomy", and plenty of examples have been given of smaller humanoids using larger humanoids as mounts, so this all comes down to a DM decision. To say it is not RAW is just plain incorrect.
I would doubt that it was RAI, and I would impose additionally restrictions and penalties, but nothing in RAW strictly disallows a humanoid being a mount.
This thread is not a debate over whether finesse is RAW or not. It is RAW. Humanoid PC's being mounts is not RAW.
Strictly, you are wrong:
"A willing creature that is at least one size larger than you and that has an appropriate anatomy can serve as a mount"
There is no RAW definition of "appropriate anatomy", and plenty of examples have been given of smaller humanoids using larger humanoids as mounts, so this all comes down to a DM decision. To say it is not RAW is just plain incorrect.
I would doubt that it was RAI, and I would impose additionally restrictions and penalties, but nothing in RAW strictly disallows a humanoid being a mount.
When there is no RAW that says it definitely works, then it is not RAW that it definitely works. 'Might work' applies to everything, since even where something is spelled out clearly in RAW, it is also RAW that the DM can rule otherwise.
Finesse, on the other hand, is clearly described in RAW as to what it applies to.
If that’s the stance you want to take, then horses being used as mounts is also not RAW, which, while true if we accept your usage of RAW, doesn’t feel very useful?
This thread is not a debate over whether finesse is RAW or not. It is RAW. Humanoid PC's being mounts is not RAW.
Strictly, you are wrong:
"A willing creature that is at least one size larger than you and that has an appropriate anatomy can serve as a mount"
There is no RAW definition of "appropriate anatomy", and plenty of examples have been given of smaller humanoids using larger humanoids as mounts, so this all comes down to a DM decision. To say it is not RAW is just plain incorrect.
I would doubt that it was RAI, and I would impose additionally restrictions and penalties, but nothing in RAW strictly disallows a humanoid being a mount.
When there is no RAW that says it definitely works, then it is not RAW that it definitely works. 'Might work' applies to everything, since even where something is spelled out clearly in RAW, it is also RAW that the DM can rule otherwise.
Finesse, on the other hand, is clearly described in RAW as to what it applies to.
Firstly, riding another willing creature with appropriate anatomy is specifically allowed by RAW. Without a written rule specifically clarifying what a suitable anatomy is, especially with various real world examples given, one humanoid riding another is within RAW, as long as the DM doesn't decide to use a different definition of appropriate anatomy.
This is a case of the roles being unclear. If read one way, it is RAW. If read another way, it is not. There are 2 valid interpretations of the written rule, which IMHO makes both RAW (similar to optional rules) and it's up to the DM to decide which to use.
Of course finesse is clearly written. I was only using it as one of several examples of where one rule or own allows you to circumvent another rule.
And I think you should ask a few parents how it goes carrying a 40 pound kid on your shoulders ALL DAY, and then operating under combat conditions. Humanoids were NOT designed to carry other humanoids around, especially around their upper body, for any length of time.
1. I am a parent, and as the dad it was my 'job' to carry both my little ones around, as a piggy back or completely on my shoulders. It could be tricky when they were little but once they got a bit older and had decent balance it was easy enough. I live in the UK, lots of castles, I climbed the tower of Castle Coch's circular stairwell to the top with my daughter on my shoulders once maybe 40-50 feet at a very steep (felt like straight up) angle.
2. As an ex-soldier I would train to go into battle with rifle, helmet, full webbing and pack, I was a combat medic so my gear was often heavier than the infantry guys due to all the medical kit I carried on top of the regular gear. The British Army combat fitness test was 8 miles in full equipment, they would weigh your kit in training to make sure people didn't cheat.
If you are going to make statements like that, at least make sure you know what you are talking about.
Not certain about your characters but mine tend to have the equivalent of full kit already. If someone suggested that your combat unit could maximize it's firepower by having half the unit carry the other half on their shoulders, even without full kit, would you have taken the idea seriously? Now consider that suggestion further, where both soldiers in each pair are additionally carrying full kit. So, you, with full kit, carrying another soldier on your shoulders, who also has full kit?
Sure, a halfling or gnome is only about 40 pounds, but their gear is another matter. Meanwhile the suggestion is going into battle like this. Even with just a rifle, where are you resting the stock when you fire? Against your shoulder? There is a leg there. Melee weapon? Good luck managing a proper swing with those legs there. Can't swing over your head either, there is a torso there. And as for the character on top, how, exactly, are they bracing?
Further to this "it might be RAI" versus RAW, I will circle back to my very first statement. RAW is unequivocal on this: Two PC's (and in this case, a PC and NPC), cannot occupy the same space when a turn ends. This entire argument becomes completely moot, unless this very basic tenant of 5e RAW is thrown out.One PC can't even attack a target while sharing the same space as another PC. That is as fundamental as when to roll a D20 versus some other die.
And if that rule is going to ignored, this entire discussion belongs in the House Rules/ Homebrew section, not in the section that discusses actual game mechanics.
But skip all that logic for a moment. Kotath has made it abundantly clear how silly the concept is, from a practical perspective.
It is one thing to say "I carry about a pack during combat training that weighs 60 pounds, and carry it for hours." I have done my share of camping/ canoeing/ portaging where we did those very things. The very first thing you did was ensure the pack's center of mass was at the very least balanced, with as much mass as possible near the hips / lower to mid mack. The pack was also "packed" so stuff did not shift.
Those that persist to argue that carrying a 40 pound child/halfling/goblin, which is likely carrying 20-40 pounds of gear, and moving around, constantly shifting its center of mass, especially under combat conditions, is anything like carrying a static pack have no basis in reality. And yeah, I have carried kids on my shoulders. And yeah, after a couple hours it is exhausting and murder on the neck, shoulders, and lower back. These kids were not swinging a sword.
This thread is not a debate over whether finesse is RAW or not. It is RAW. Humanoid PC's being mounts is not RAW.
Strictly, you are wrong:
"A willing creature that is at least one size larger than you and that has an appropriate anatomy can serve as a mount"
There is no RAW definition of "appropriate anatomy", and plenty of examples have been given of smaller humanoids using larger humanoids as mounts, so this all comes down to a DM decision. To say it is not RAW is just plain incorrect.
I would doubt that it was RAI, and I would impose additionally restrictions and penalties, but nothing in RAW strictly disallows a humanoid being a mount.
When there is no RAW that says it definitely works, then it is not RAW that it definitely works. 'Might work' applies to everything, since even where something is spelled out clearly in RAW, it is also RAW that the DM can rule otherwise.
Finesse, on the other hand, is clearly described in RAW as to what it applies to.
Firstly, riding another willing creature with appropriate anatomy is specifically allowed by RAW. Without a written rule specifically clarifying what a suitable anatomy is, especially with various real world examples given, one humanoid riding another is within RAW, as long as the DM doesn't decide to use a different definition of appropriate anatomy.
This is a case of the roles being unclear. If read one way, it is RAW. If read another way, it is not. There are 2 valid interpretations of the written rule, which IMHO makes both RAW (similar to optional rules) and it's up to the DM to decide which to use.
Of course finesse is clearly written. I was only using it as one of several examples of where one rule or own allows you to circumvent another rule.
Equating a clear example with an unclear example is a false equivalency. It becomes a semantic 'gotcha in a mistake!' argument rather than anything meaningful.
Riding piggyback might be RAW whereas Finesse is RAW. That is a significant difference one cannot simply gloss over.
When finesse was brought up, it was not even an argument around one player riding another. It was specifically aimed at the claim that Vince didn't allow players to make items which circumvented a rule. I was pointing out that many items throughout the game specifically circumvent rules, including the very basic finesse weapons. Dnd is designed around the concept of one rules circumventing another, so creating homebrew items which do so is very much in line with this. It's following the template of what already exists.
Now, if Vince was actually saying there are no homebrew items in his game, or that he doesn't allow players to create or suggest homebrew items for his game, then that's different. Neither have any bearing on the discussion around one PC riding another, only on the suggestion that a special saddle/harness could be made.
This thread is not a debate over whether finesse is RAW or not. It is RAW. Humanoid PC's being mounts is not RAW.
Strictly, you are wrong:
"A willing creature that is at least one size larger than you and that has an appropriate anatomy can serve as a mount"
There is no RAW definition of "appropriate anatomy", and plenty of examples have been given of smaller humanoids using larger humanoids as mounts, so this all comes down to a DM decision. To say it is not RAW is just plain incorrect.
I would doubt that it was RAI, and I would impose additionally restrictions and penalties, but nothing in RAW strictly disallows a humanoid being a mount.
When there is no RAW that says it definitely works, then it is not RAW that it definitely works. 'Might work' applies to everything, since even where something is spelled out clearly in RAW, it is also RAW that the DM can rule otherwise.
Finesse, on the other hand, is clearly described in RAW as to what it applies to.
Firstly, riding another willing creature with appropriate anatomy is specifically allowed by RAW. Without a written rule specifically clarifying what a suitable anatomy is, especially with various real world examples given, one humanoid riding another is within RAW, as long as the DM doesn't decide to use a different definition of appropriate anatomy.
This is a case of the roles being unclear. If read one way, it is RAW. If read another way, it is not. There are 2 valid interpretations of the written rule, which IMHO makes both RAW (similar to optional rules) and it's up to the DM to decide which to use.
Of course finesse is clearly written. I was only using it as one of several examples of where one rule or own allows you to circumvent another rule.
Equating a clear example with an unclear example is a false equivalency. It becomes a semantic 'gotcha in a mistake!' argument rather than anything meaningful.
Riding piggyback might be RAW whereas Finesse is RAW. That is a significant difference one cannot simply gloss over.
When finesse was brought up, it was not even an argument around one player riding another. It was specifically aimed at the claim that Vince didn't allow players to make items which circumvented a rule. I was pointing out that many items throughout the game specifically circumvent rules, including the very basic finesse weapons. Dnd is designed around the concept of one rules circumventing another, so creating homebrew items which do so is very much in line with this. It's following the template of what already exists.
Now, if Vince was actually saying there are no homebrew items in his game, or that he doesn't allow players to create or suggest homebrew items for his game, then that's different. Neither have any bearing on the discussion around one PC riding another, only on the suggestion that a special saddle/harness could be made.
See above post. This discussion is about breaking one of the very fundamental rules of the game, and is being discussed in the "Rules and Game Mechanics" section, not the "Homebrew and House Rules" section. The very concept of one PC occupying the space of another one renders the entire conversation moot, and then you top it off by talking about a Homebrew item to help circumvent the rules.
So you don't follow the rules for Adamantine armour?
In the way that Urth describes? Sure there is. It's the "Finesse" property.
No, Artificers are not allowed in my game because they belong in the Eberron setting and the very example you give is one of the reasons they are OP.
No, not really.
And I think you should ask a few parents how it goes carrying a 40 pound kid on your shoulders ALL DAY, and then operating under combat conditions. Humanoids were NOT designed to carry other humanoids around, especially around their upper body, for any length of time.
Humans aren't designed for anything. At all. Also, don't think anyone has mentioned walking around with someone on their backs "ALL DAY" but if anyone could do it, it's probably a high strength D&D character with an unrealistic carrying capacity. ;)
Adamantine armour is in the rules and is normally exceedingly rare in campaigns (as it seems to be in Vince's campaign). False equivalency. Plus it is RAW so it is a specific exception specifically described in the rules.
Adamantine armor in "uncommon", so you are simply wrong on that point.
Similarly the finesse property is described specifically in the rules. One could argue there is a formally described 'mount' property in that there is a list of mounts. Humanoids are not on said list.
And the way finesse is described is comletely in lines with what Urth is arguing.
The Eberron setting is a specific setting. It is not a given that it is appropriate to all settings. There are arguments that aspects of the class are problematic (and there are threads debating this. It being setting specific means it is an optional rule that neither he nor anyone else is obligated to use in their campaigns. That choice is also RAW.
You aren't obligated to use any rules in aany campaign. That doesn't mean that the artificer is OP for the reasons vince claimed.
If humans (and the humanoid form) were not designed for anything, they would be capable of nothing.
Have you not heard about evolution?
Fair counter-argument that a short term in-combat use is different from strategic use but there are still significant logistical issues, even in combat. Maybe your campaign is ok with that. That does not mean it is a concept that fits with most campaigns or one that should be simply declared acceptable in most campaigns.
Don't think anyone has said anything of the sorts, but sure.
Not all 'rule of cool' suggestions are bad, but there is still a line between 'reasonable' and 'exploit.' To me, a lot of the arguments presented here in favour or piggybacking lean more towards the exploit side of that scale.
OK.
The rarity descriptions of items are nigh garbage and do not describe the actuality of most campaigns. Perhaps in your campaign adamantium gear is standard issue for combat troops (or even for 25% of regular soldiers) but good luck finding many campaigns like that.
Just because you don't agree with RAW doesn't mean that the RAW isn't, case in point, RAW. According to the rules, adamantine armour is uncommon, not rare or "exceedingly rare" which isn't even a thing, if we go by the books. So again, you are just plain wrong.
Vince said two things that you said 'No, not really' to. He said that it is Eberron specific and he does not use that setting and he argued that the class is OP. The first of those is a simple fact and even with respect to his opinion that they are OP, 'No, not really' is contradiction, not an argument.
No, it's a statement. Artificer's aren't Eberreon excluisve and they aren't OP.
This thread is not a debate over whether finesse is RAW or not. It is RAW. Humanoid PC's being mounts is not RAW.
Nor is it a discussion about adamantine armour yet people still brought that up. And as Urth mentioned, humanoids (not Humanoid PCs, read the OP) as mounts is RAW.
Semantic arguments over the definition of the word 'design' are likewise not valid arguments.
Lol. That's not what the word semantic means. XD
There are no campaign police enforcing anything.
Glad you realized that. Can we get back on topic now?
All arguments here, pro and con, are arguments over whether this is a good idea generally or not.
Really? Then why did you bring up "Humanoid PC's[sic!] being mounts is not RAW" as an argument?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That's very... speciesist? Shapeist? Look, plenty of playable characters have body shapes totally dissimilar to a human's in ways that may invalidate a comparison you're drawing, and that applies here in spades. Any creature with "powerful build" (especially centaurs) has a body shape explicitly better than a human's at carrying things, not to mention the carried critter may be particularly easy to carry.
Like I mentioned earlier in this thread, the one time I booped this meme myself, my character's carrying capacity was 1200 pounds. That's combat carrying capacity - you could strap a 1200 pound suit to him and tell him to box, and he'd duck and weave with the rest of them. If you applied the variant encumbrance rules, he'd still be at max agility at 400 pounds. That's a lot stronger than any human - and he was built nothing like a human! His forearms were pretty explicitly gorilla-long relative to his body, meaning he could carry things more easily if he needed to by bracing a hand against the floor without crouching. We haven't even gotten to how broad his shoulders were, or how tiny his cargo.
Attached is video evidence of a creature actually comparable to a bugbear carrying a creature actually comparable to a goblin. Note the lack of humans in this video, and the ease of carrying. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FLK1IjwG6E
A combat is usually over within 5 rounds, which is 30 seconds. I've spent hours straight with over 40 pounds on my shoulders. It's not undoable.
And you felt the pain. We all do. And combat conditions include swinging a sword, ducking, running, with 40 pounds of a fighting Goblin, plus all its stuff, balanced around your shoulders and neck. Nope. Not happening. A 4 legged mount, sure. They are designed for it. Not an upright humanoid. And no, don't say "but but Golaith", which not a Half-Orc.
So you don't follow the rules for Adamantine armour?
In the way that Urth describes? Sure there is. It's the "Finesse" property.
No, not really.
Humans aren't designed for anything. At all. Also, don't think anyone has mentioned walking around with someone on their backs "ALL DAY" but if anyone could do it, it's probably a high strength D&D character with an unrealistic carrying capacity. ;)
Come on guys, he's on my ignore list for a reason. I don't feel like having this thread devolve into discussions of another user's quirks at the expense of the actual topic of the thread.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Okay okay, everyone calm down. The primary message I'm picking up from y'all is that as a DM, I can allow the "piggyback" rules, so long as I apply appropriate drawbacks to keep it from being OP, whilst still being a fun combat/roleplaying tool. It is still worth mentioning that the rider would be a SIDEKICK, which was created and is controlled by the player who'd end up being the mount.
Is suggest the collaborative common sense approach: tell the player you want to try it out and that you'll tone it down if necessary. Then start with RAW and see where it takes you.
It doesn't sound like your player wants to game the system, they just like to horse around ;)
More Interesting Lock Picking Rules
My point with those items was to make it clear that there are many official D&D items which fall into the category of "special apparatus to circumvent rules". In fact, that's pretty much what magic items are much of the time. When home-brewing items, it makes sense to follow the principals of the existing ones, so it would be perfectly acceptable, in principal, to "make special apparatus to circumvent rules".
Humans were only designed for something if you believe they we're created in their present form, or of that's the case within the setting you run. If that's the case in your game, you are welcome to consider the reasons fort the creators design decisions to answer that question, but that will be inference at best, as I am unaware of any setting book which goes into that much detail over the intents of the gods. I'm also not going to go into that, myself, because we play in a homebrew setting with no concrete knowledge of the existence of gods etc.
When it comes to one person carrying another IRL, my brother will often carry his daughter for an hour or longer, doing many normal things without a significant problem. He's not that fit, doesn't do any specific exercise and has a belly, although he is a car mechanic so had reasonable strength. He's certainly not an adventurer-level strong or fit.
Back to one PC riding another, I agree that it's almost certainly not the intent of the rules and is an exploit, RAW or not. However, that's why most are suggesting adding limitations. We all understand that it could easily be OP to just allow this without some form of limit or penalty, but we can see the fun it could bring to the game if done right. Isn't that worth a bit of work and experimentation to find a way to balance it? Especially if the player is open to changing the rules over time off and when balance issues occur.
Adamantine armor in "uncommon", so you are simply wrong on that point.
And the way finesse is described is comletely in lines with what Urth is arguing.
You aren't obligated to use any rules in aany campaign. That doesn't mean that the artificer is OP for the reasons vince claimed.
Have you not heard about evolution?
Don't think anyone has said anything of the sorts, but sure.
OK.
Go to page 221 of Mord's Tome, and look at the Ogre Howdah.
That is an Ogre, that stands 9-10 feet high, weighing 1000 pounds, as per the MM, not some Half-Orc that is 6 foot plus and 250 pounds. Now look at the limitations put on those MONSTERS riding another MONSTER. Those are not PC's and NPC's. This entire concept is not about fun, unless "fun" = finding ways to break hard and fast rules.
Oh, and BTW, if you follow any evolutionary biology, you would know that the present form of Homo Sapien evolved to be able to walk upright (not sprint at high speed) for extended distances, to track prey. Tack on an increased brain pan and opposable thumbs, you come up with a clever problem solving creature, but one entirely unsuited for high energy, high strength activities.
Humans do a couple things really well but we don't carry around other creatures that are making all kinds of unexpected movements throwing off our center of balance even more than this weight around our neck already is.
Except that no-one is talking about letting four creatures ride on the half-orc. And it's simply a lie to imply that this is about "finding ways to break hard and fast rules".
Evolution is not design, you do realize that, don't you?
You don't have children, do you? ;)
Fair enough, you do you.
However, not all of your justifications have either game, setting or real world relevance, and they come down to how you want to play the game. This is not going to fit everybody's play style, and many would not find the game as you describe it fun. If you and your fellow players so, that's great, it's a perfectly acceptable way to play, but it's not the only way to play and allowing one PC to ride another is not wrong if the players and DM enjoy it.
1. I am a parent, and as the dad it was my 'job' to carry both my little ones around, as a piggy back or completely on my shoulders. It could be tricky when they were little but once they got a bit older and had decent balance it was easy enough. I live in the UK, lots of castles, I climbed the tower of Castle Coch's circular stairwell to the top with my daughter on my shoulders once maybe 40-50 feet at a very steep (felt like straight up) angle.
2. As an ex-soldier I would train to go into battle with rifle, helmet, full webbing and pack, I was a combat medic so my gear was often heavier than the infantry guys due to all the medical kit I carried on top of the regular gear. The British Army combat fitness test was 8 miles in full equipment, they would weigh your kit in training to make sure people didn't cheat.
If you are going to make statements like that, at least make sure you know what you are talking about.
Strictly, you are wrong:
"A willing creature that is at least one size larger than you and that has an appropriate anatomy can serve as a mount"
There is no RAW definition of "appropriate anatomy", and plenty of examples have been given of smaller humanoids using larger humanoids as mounts, so this all comes down to a DM decision. To say it is not RAW is just plain incorrect.
I would doubt that it was RAI, and I would impose additionally restrictions and penalties, but nothing in RAW strictly disallows a humanoid being a mount.
If that’s the stance you want to take, then horses being used as mounts is also not RAW, which, while true if we accept your usage of RAW, doesn’t feel very useful?
Firstly, riding another willing creature with appropriate anatomy is specifically allowed by RAW. Without a written rule specifically clarifying what a suitable anatomy is, especially with various real world examples given, one humanoid riding another is within RAW, as long as the DM doesn't decide to use a different definition of appropriate anatomy.
This is a case of the roles being unclear. If read one way, it is RAW. If read another way, it is not. There are 2 valid interpretations of the written rule, which IMHO makes both RAW (similar to optional rules) and it's up to the DM to decide which to use.
Of course finesse is clearly written. I was only using it as one of several examples of where one rule or own allows you to circumvent another rule.
Further to this "it might be RAI" versus RAW, I will circle back to my very first statement. RAW is unequivocal on this: Two PC's (and in this case, a PC and NPC), cannot occupy the same space when a turn ends. This entire argument becomes completely moot, unless this very basic tenant of 5e RAW is thrown out.One PC can't even attack a target while sharing the same space as another PC. That is as fundamental as when to roll a D20 versus some other die.
And if that rule is going to ignored, this entire discussion belongs in the House Rules/ Homebrew section, not in the section that discusses actual game mechanics.
But skip all that logic for a moment. Kotath has made it abundantly clear how silly the concept is, from a practical perspective.
It is one thing to say "I carry about a pack during combat training that weighs 60 pounds, and carry it for hours." I have done my share of camping/ canoeing/ portaging where we did those very things. The very first thing you did was ensure the pack's center of mass was at the very least balanced, with as much mass as possible near the hips / lower to mid mack. The pack was also "packed" so stuff did not shift.
Those that persist to argue that carrying a 40 pound child/halfling/goblin, which is likely carrying 20-40 pounds of gear, and moving around, constantly shifting its center of mass, especially under combat conditions, is anything like carrying a static pack have no basis in reality. And yeah, I have carried kids on my shoulders. And yeah, after a couple hours it is exhausting and murder on the neck, shoulders, and lower back. These kids were not swinging a sword.
When finesse was brought up, it was not even an argument around one player riding another. It was specifically aimed at the claim that Vince didn't allow players to make items which circumvented a rule. I was pointing out that many items throughout the game specifically circumvent rules, including the very basic finesse weapons. Dnd is designed around the concept of one rules circumventing another, so creating homebrew items which do so is very much in line with this. It's following the template of what already exists.
Now, if Vince was actually saying there are no homebrew items in his game, or that he doesn't allow players to create or suggest homebrew items for his game, then that's different. Neither have any bearing on the discussion around one PC riding another, only on the suggestion that a special saddle/harness could be made.
See above post. This discussion is about breaking one of the very fundamental rules of the game, and is being discussed in the "Rules and Game Mechanics" section, not the "Homebrew and House Rules" section. The very concept of one PC occupying the space of another one renders the entire conversation moot, and then you top it off by talking about a Homebrew item to help circumvent the rules.
Just because you don't agree with RAW doesn't mean that the RAW isn't, case in point, RAW. According to the rules, adamantine armour is uncommon, not rare or "exceedingly rare" which isn't even a thing, if we go by the books. So again, you are just plain wrong.
No, it's a statement. Artificer's aren't Eberreon excluisve and they aren't OP.
Nor is it a discussion about adamantine armour yet people still brought that up. And as Urth mentioned, humanoids (not Humanoid PCs, read the OP) as mounts is RAW.
Lol. That's not what the word semantic means. XD
Glad you realized that. Can we get back on topic now?
Really? Then why did you bring up "Humanoid PC's[sic!] being mounts is not RAW" as an argument?