Paladin summons a spirit to take the form of any mount they can think of that the GM is cool with. No gear is present, like a saddle or basic bridle, but there are no "real" riding rules either. If the spirit is connected to the rider, more or less, psychically, and they act as one unit. Would you even need to remember to haul any of those items? The thought of a heavy armor wearing, lance weilding, spell slinging knight barreling down on you while riding a giant chicken without a saddle is possible to do within the RAW?
I am not recreating the 1982 game Joust as a campaign premise, but just thinking about how that would interact within the rules. The rules SORT OF give the impression that the rider and mount almost sync up, like some sort of weak, drift compatible, Pacific Rim reference. You think about a left turn and your mount and you are so intuitive of each other you both move seamlessly without threat of being dismounted. Unless something catches you both off guard, then there is a roll for that, Dex (10) I believe.
Is this a close approximation of that bond? I am just thinking about all paladins being a bunch of heavily armored knights with heavy gear riding bareback into the sunset. It is also similar to a familiar, but that reading has the familiar acting independently while always obeying your commands (non of that GM messing with the intent BS).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
IMHO, Earthdawn is still the best fantasy realm, Shadowrun is the best Sci-Fi realm, and Dark Sun is the best D&D realm.
The only stated requirement for saddles is for flying and aquatic mounts. They require an exotic saddle. Nowhere in the rules does it say a saddle is needed for a terrestrial/land based mount. A military saddle gives advantage to stay on the mount (the DeX save you mentioned), but nowhere does it say or imply that riding without a saddle gives disadvantage or any other negative consequences.
I recommend anyone looking to fight on a mount to check with their DM early in the adventure. What little rules on mounted combat there are leave a lot to be desired, and most DMs fill in the blanks with homebrew rules.
I am uncertain about needing a saddle for riding flying or aquatic mounts. That line of text follows the description of military saddles. I am not sure if it is poor structure on the part of the writers or person wants clouding my judgement. If we break the description apart:
Saddles:
A Military saddle braces the rider, helping you keep your seat on an active mount in battle. It gives you advantage on any check you make to remain mounted.
An exotic saddle is required for riding any aquatic or flying mount.
This break apart makes the fact you must have a saddle to ride them seem obvious, but then the second sentence could be referring to the modification of the military saddle needing to be purchased as an exotic item with appropriate mark-up. If not then the paragraph reads that you can buy a military saddle for any ground based mount (no matter the weirdness), but you could not have a military styled saddle for flying or aquatic mounts at all. No way of securing the advantage when you would actually need it while flying combat happens or pushing through a strong underwater current. Also of note, there is no basic saddle description. 5E definitely places a lot more emphasis on GM ruling and presents a lot of information simplified for that reason. I am under the impression this is one of those cases where mounted combat is usually minimal and the description may have been vetted for word count over clarity assuming it was inferred. Damn you proof readers.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
IMHO, Earthdawn is still the best fantasy realm, Shadowrun is the best Sci-Fi realm, and Dark Sun is the best D&D realm.
An exotic saddle is it's own separate item. The break doesn't imply anything about the military saddle or how it relates to the exotic saddle. Again, though, mounted combat was not a focus of 5e as you said, so DMs will interpret in different ways.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Paladin summons a spirit to take the form of any mount they can think of that the GM is cool with. No gear is present, like a saddle or basic bridle, but there are no "real" riding rules either. If the spirit is connected to the rider, more or less, psychically, and they act as one unit. Would you even need to remember to haul any of those items? The thought of a heavy armor wearing, lance weilding, spell slinging knight barreling down on you while riding a giant chicken without a saddle is possible to do within the RAW?
I am not recreating the 1982 game Joust as a campaign premise, but just thinking about how that would interact within the rules. The rules SORT OF give the impression that the rider and mount almost sync up, like some sort of weak, drift compatible, Pacific Rim reference. You think about a left turn and your mount and you are so intuitive of each other you both move seamlessly without threat of being dismounted. Unless something catches you both off guard, then there is a roll for that, Dex (10) I believe.
Is this a close approximation of that bond? I am just thinking about all paladins being a bunch of heavily armored knights with heavy gear riding bareback into the sunset. It is also similar to a familiar, but that reading has the familiar acting independently while always obeying your commands (non of that GM messing with the intent BS).
IMHO, Earthdawn is still the best fantasy realm, Shadowrun is the best Sci-Fi realm, and Dark Sun is the best D&D realm.
The only stated requirement for saddles is for flying and aquatic mounts. They require an exotic saddle. Nowhere in the rules does it say a saddle is needed for a terrestrial/land based mount. A military saddle gives advantage to stay on the mount (the DeX save you mentioned), but nowhere does it say or imply that riding without a saddle gives disadvantage or any other negative consequences.
I recommend anyone looking to fight on a mount to check with their DM early in the adventure. What little rules on mounted combat there are leave a lot to be desired, and most DMs fill in the blanks with homebrew rules.
I am uncertain about needing a saddle for riding flying or aquatic mounts. That line of text follows the description of military saddles. I am not sure if it is poor structure on the part of the writers or person wants clouding my judgement. If we break the description apart:
Saddles:
A Military saddle braces the rider, helping you keep your seat on an active mount in battle. It gives you advantage on any check you make to remain mounted.
An exotic saddle is required for riding any aquatic or flying mount.
This break apart makes the fact you must have a saddle to ride them seem obvious, but then the second sentence could be referring to the modification of the military saddle needing to be purchased as an exotic item with appropriate mark-up. If not then the paragraph reads that you can buy a military saddle for any ground based mount (no matter the weirdness), but you could not have a military styled saddle for flying or aquatic mounts at all. No way of securing the advantage when you would actually need it while flying combat happens or pushing through a strong underwater current. Also of note, there is no basic saddle description. 5E definitely places a lot more emphasis on GM ruling and presents a lot of information simplified for that reason. I am under the impression this is one of those cases where mounted combat is usually minimal and the description may have been vetted for word count over clarity assuming it was inferred. Damn you proof readers.
IMHO, Earthdawn is still the best fantasy realm, Shadowrun is the best Sci-Fi realm, and Dark Sun is the best D&D realm.
An exotic saddle is it's own separate item. The break doesn't imply anything about the military saddle or how it relates to the exotic saddle. Again, though, mounted combat was not a focus of 5e as you said, so DMs will interpret in different ways.