Talk:Shoulder Riding (3.5e Feat)

Balance
What do you think of the balance of this feat? The Dire Reverend 08:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I've really been stymied for a couple days on what exactly I should say about this article. I'm torn about a lot of things on it, so I guess I should just say a bunch of stuff then. For starters, I get the feeling that anyone could get carried around by anyone else if they really wanted, so, the actual riding part isn't a benefit of the feat. The benefits are the provoking attacks of opportunity and the soft cover option. The melee weapon nixing business is a huge downer and I'm not sure why that was added. If the idea is to prevent some sort of ogre/dwarf four-armed asura-of-hammers and fit more with a mold for what you had intended as specific flavor, then you did that I guess. I suppose that's a petition for greater usage for what this feat could do for character building.
 * Next, I really gotta mention the opener flavor stuff. It bugs me because it's so specific to humanoid bodies that again, it's very limiting and certainly isn't needed. When I imagined shoulder riding upon seeing the title in the recent changes, the first thing that popped into my head was Master Blaster from that movie Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome. Somewhere down the line, the less DnD-styled (though certainly easier to imagine for those not familiar with the movie) image of a kid riding on his father's shoulders came up, which is nixed by this feat.
 * I'm starting to lose my concentration on this at the moment, so I'll just make a few final comments. Make the details short, simple and sweet, taking a note from the grapple rules (now there's something that sounds really odd to say). Anyways, have it be something like "When riding on a creature of at least 3 Intelligence, you work together as a team. You no longer threaten squares and you lose your Dexterity bonus (if any) to your AC. Your companion rolls any required Reflex saves for the both of you. You may make a DC 10 Tumble check to immediately dismount and make a Reflex save. As a benefit, you gain attacks of opportunity against any target in your reach which attacks your companion instead of you and vice versa. In addition, you gain Soft Cover and are considered occupying the same space as your companion so long as your companion is your size or larger."
 * Anyways, there's probably some problems with that too, but it does address a few things, like the intelligence of your companion (a creature of animal intelligence or lower can't exactly agree to take a penalty. You should have Soft Cover at all times. If you're loosing your potential Dex bonus to AC and your companion has to put up with all your weight, you might as well get Soft Cover for spending the effort of a feat. Also, just to drive this home, not mentioning humanoid body shape standards is a big deal. Finally, you'll really need to adjust the improved version of this as well. I'm not going to mention a balance point yet before changes (it does need changes and you don't have to use my suggestions), but both this and the improved version will need them listed. Sorry for so much rambling text. --Ganteka Future 20:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I was trying to explain that you don't have any penalty or need to take any checks to be on someones back (or have someone on your back) while in combat. I could see a DM requiring players to take a penalty, so it makes it clear that there isn't a penalty. I am not sure why I did the no-melee thing, it sounded like a good idea when I wrote it out. As for limiting it to humanoids because of the text, I wrote it that way to make it so that the person riding in the back could only use one hand. I should write out under the special section that it is up to the DM if a nonhumanoid creature is capable of riding on someone's back (for example, I would find it hard to imagine a centaur riding on someone. Maybe I can re-write the fluff to make it so that the character can be on the back of the creature in whatever fashion they wish, as long as the DM says it's fine. For the attack of opportunity, I think it would be overpowered if they both gain attacks of opportunity when the other is hit. I think that only the creature being ridden can make an attack of opportunity if someone attacks the rider, I was imagining the rider being protected. I can address the other things too, but I would like to hear your opinions on what I've stated so far. The Dire Reverend 04:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, why is it a good idea to make the rider lose his/her dex bonus to AC? The Dire Reverend 06:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Alrighty, I'll address that last question first, since it leads into some other stuff. Having the rider lose his Dexterity bonus was basically to keep things consistent with "two creatures occupying the same space" sorta thing as mentioned in the grapple rules. Now, these are both friendly, coordinating creatures (instead of grappling foes), so there could likely be some difference. My first inclination was to just have it be treated like riding, but riding is where the mount is under the will of the rider for control and action purposes, so again, that makes this a bit different. So really, let's dissect what this really is in game terms and work up from there. Shoulder Riding: Two creatures of at least Intelligence 3, one stacked on the other, working together. Right? It doesn't matter if one is a centaur and the other is a hill giant were-tyrannosaurus (or even a geode on a wergard), as long as the carrier can lift the weight of his rider. Both creatures should benefit mutually from their coordination, though with the primary benefit going to the creature who invested in the feat, and a smaller side benefit going to the carrier as per their circumstance together. If the carrier isn't gonna benefit, he's got little reason to want to participate in the tactic during life-and-death struggles in combat. If you're gonna go the attack of opportunity route, you could alternately grant a bonus on such attacks.
 * Really, you should always avoid saying "it's up to the DM" in any rule. It's lazy and leaving things open to interpretation causes problems (and bickering), and that's... no good. Besides, DMs already have final call on everything.
 * The part in my suggestion above about gaining attacks of opportunity when the companion in the riding duo was attacked was really to emphasize that the carrier gets something out of it and that if the rider no longer threatens squares normally, at least he can get attacks of opportunity in somehow. Focusing too much on this mechanic might over-skew plans for characters to treat the feat as mainly for getting into melee. If you want other sorts of riding duos (like archers, casters, support), downplay that sort of tactic. If the carrier is supposed to act mostly as a bodyguard of sorts, play that up a bit, but remember that the rider is the one with the feat, and the feat should be a reflection of the rider's training as such. Now I'm just really not sure at all what to recommend doing for this feat. Anyways, do some research and some brainstorming and figure some stuff out. --Ganteka Future 21:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)