Why is it assumed that a player does not need to undertake specific training to ride a mount, especially a flying mount. Back in the day, training was required to do this successfully while in combat. Is that the case in 5e or newer versions or am I missing something?
The rules state only that a controlled mount needs to be trained to accept a rider. They make no mention of the rider needing any training of their own.
It's part of the basic curriculum at Adventurer School.
Or, basically, it's abstracted and/or left to the GM. It's not really any stranger than how hit points work, or spells (there's literally no requirements for learning how to do magic), fire siege engines even fight with sword and shield effectively.
So while I agree that such rules might be good - it's not like it's the only thing the rules gloss over with an absentminded hand gesture.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Ultimately it’s a reduction in the crunch both to avoid the DM and player both having to jump through hoops to set it up and to avoid forcing players to sacrifice capacity in other areas for a niche option.
Feat like Mounted Combattant represents a talent or an area of expertise that gives a character special capabilities and embodies training, experience, and abilities beyond what a class provides.
Basic mounted combat notion is presumably acquired during formative period, just like reading and writing do.
Adventurers are assumed to be able to these things without additional investment.
.. to avoid forcing players to sacrifice capacity in other areas for a niche option.
I'm guessing primarily this. You can't easily bring your noble steed on most adventures, so being able to use one effectively shouldn't be a major investment.
I've played many, many paladins. I can't really easily recall ever using my paladins mount for anything. Just as an example.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Part of that problem is that most mounts have or had problems with maneuvering in dungeons and dark cave systems. The two that didn’t suffer these problems were the mule and the donkey. But is a bit odd to see a L15 Paladin ridi;g around on a 15 GP mule I guess.
The other problem with mounts is that unless you can convince the GM to use the Sidekick rules for them, they just don't have the durability needed for play once you start hitting tier 2.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Why is it assumed that a player does not need to undertake specific training to ride a mount, especially a flying mount. Back in the day, training was required to do this successfully while in combat. Is that the case in 5e or newer versions or am I missing something?
The rules state only that a controlled mount needs to be trained to accept a rider. They make no mention of the rider needing any training of their own.
Need help with D&D Beyond? Come ask in the official D&D server on Discord: https://discord.gg/qWzGhwBjYr
Yeah, unfortunately. Guess it is time to make a new house rule....
It's part of the basic curriculum at Adventurer School.
Or, basically, it's abstracted and/or left to the GM. It's not really any stranger than how hit points work, or spells (there's literally no requirements for learning how to do magic), fire siege engines even fight with sword and shield effectively.
So while I agree that such rules might be good - it's not like it's the only thing the rules gloss over with an absentminded hand gesture.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Ultimately it’s a reduction in the crunch both to avoid the DM and player both having to jump through hoops to set it up and to avoid forcing players to sacrifice capacity in other areas for a niche option.
Feat like Mounted Combattant represents a talent or an area of expertise that gives a character special capabilities and embodies training, experience, and abilities beyond what a class provides.
Basic mounted combat notion is presumably acquired during formative period, just like reading and writing do.
Adventurers are assumed to be able to these things without additional investment.
I'm guessing primarily this. You can't easily bring your noble steed on most adventures, so being able to use one effectively shouldn't be a major investment.
I've played many, many paladins. I can't really easily recall ever using my paladins mount for anything. Just as an example.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Part of that problem is that most mounts have or had problems with maneuvering in dungeons and dark cave systems. The two that didn’t suffer these problems were the mule and the donkey. But is a bit odd to see a L15 Paladin ridi;g around on a 15 GP mule I guess.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
The other problem with mounts is that unless you can convince the GM to use the Sidekick rules for them, they just don't have the durability needed for play once you start hitting tier 2.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.