I have my DM submission ready (well, I think). If I can get on my computer later, I’ll put the link in his post.
EDIT:
And here it is! Blazeguard, a radiant sword that can melt into a whip of pure light! (The link to the whip form is in the comment section.)
Looks very cool!
I think you should allow the wielder to cast the spells that have a casting time of one action in place of one of their attacks. As it is, there is no reason ever for a level 15+ character to give up their entire action to cast a spell like flame strike or guiding bolt. However, if they instead can cast these spells as part of their attack action, they suddenly become quite decent. You could even say they automatically cast flame strike (without friendly fire) centered on the attack's target if they score a critical hit with an attack using the sword.
Another thing I would change is making reactive smite either related to the aura of light or an actual attack with the sword; and I would make the blindness an additional effect (or just in the form of the blinding smite that you can cause at any time by spending charges when you hit with the sword. For me it feels a bit weird that the light-sword can blind enemies for 1 minute, but to blind an enemy, you have to use a reaction in response ot their attack against an ally.
Finally I would increase the sword's DC to at least 19 or maybe even to 20 or 21 (scaling with the attuned creature's DC would be a good alternative, but that only works for spellcaster-exclusive items). 17 is way too low to be meaningful at level 15+, especially on Constitution saving throws and with no way to increase it (whereas other DCs can be increased by magic items that boost stats or directly increase the character's spell save DC). On the other hand I might remove the disadvantage on attack rolls from the aura of the sun, as it seems a bit much to me (regardless of the save DC).
Thanks for the feedback! You made some really good points. When I have time, I'll get to work applying your suggestions (or at least the majority of them).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Paladin main who spends most of his D&D time worldbuilding or DMing, not Paladin-ing.
PC Options: Toril Drift entry. Completed, version 1.0.
Rather than a feature for a PC to acquire - such as a background or a new piece of gear - this is intended as a replacement set of rules for the current rules we have for handling mounts.
General note for below: the rules below assume that if you attempt to Intimidate or otherwise coerce through fear a mount, it will instead panic, leading to consequences as the DM sees fit. That is why coercion through fear is not explicitly discussed below.
Falling: When you jump, you only begin to fall at the end of the jump.
You can mount or dismount any creature that is within 5 feet, but you can only mount willing creatures. In order to do so, you must cover a vertical distance equal to the width of the creature's space (e.g. 5 feet for a Medium mount, 10 feet for a Large mount, or 15 feet for a Huge mount) and half that horizontally. You can jump, climb, or use any other appropriate means at your disposal to do so. Note that mounting involves going "up" and dismounting involves going "down", so you can also achieve the vertical distance involved in dismounting by falling.
As part of your DM determining that a creature is suitable for a mount, your DM will determine (and tell you) what space you occupy while mounted. This space will generally be approximately in the middle of the mounted creature's space. If the space is large enough, you may move about inside it normally, without dismounting.
The standard DC required on a Persuasion or Animal Handling check to convince a creature to willingly let you mount it is 20 for a friendly creature and 30 for an indifferent creature; a hostile creature cannot be convinced to do so. A creature specifically trained to be a controlled mount will generally let anything it is friendly or indifferent to mount it. Designer's note: This is a direct import of the DMG rules for Social Interactions, in which DCs are always 0, 10, or 20 - I treated allowing the mounting as a "significant risk or sacrifice" because the mounted creature is basically trusting the mounter with its life, and I scaled the Indifferent DC up using the same scale the rest of the social tables do. As with all social interactions, the DCs of social checks are always set by the DM per any basis the DM sees fit.
If an effect moves your mount against its will while you’re on it, you must succeed on a DC 10 Acrobatics check or fall off the mount, landing prone in a space within 5 feet of it. If you’re knocked prone while mounted, you must make the same check. If your mount is knocked prone, you are dismounted; if you aren't prone, make the same check - on a success you land on your feet, while on a failure you land prone. Designer's note: In addition to making the forced dismounting rules consistent with both themselves and the rules for jumping into difficult terrain, this has the additional benefit of fixing saddles so that they actually function.
Controlling a Mount: Remove the rules for controlled mounts. Add these rules:
All creatures gain the ability to, when initiative is rolled, deliberately reduce their initiative to any number greater than or equal to -5. A creature trained to be a controlled mount that is mounted when initiative is rolled will automatically use this ability with its rider determining the reduction.
A creature trained to be a controlled mount will choose to move where its rider dictates, even if it disagrees where it ought to move. Likewise, it will take the Dash, Disengage, or Dodge action if its rider desires, even if it would rather do something else. If the mount is not trained as a controlled mount and/or anything else is requested of it, the rider must successfully Persuade or Handle it like any other ally.
For both of the above rules, if a mount has multiple riders, the DM decides how the mount interprets any contradictory orders it receives, should its riders disagree. Note that many mounts are only capable of "listening" to one rider at a time (e.g. if it is controlled via reins, only the 1 rider manipulating its reins is going to have overriding control over it), but if all else fails, a contested Persuasion or Animal Handling check may be appropriate - or perhaps the contesting orders confuse the mount and it obeys none of them, as the DM sees fit.
Training a creature to be a controlled mount requires the following, provided your DM agrees that a creature is suitable to be trained as a mount:
The creature must be at least Intelligence 2 and at most Intelligence 7. It must be at least Charisma 3 and at most Charisma 9. It must not be able to understand any languages and must be unaligned. It must need to eat, so that it can be rewarded when it does well. Designer's note: this should mean you cannot attempt to train Constructs or Undead, all of which should either not need to eat or not be unaligned.
Training the mount involves spending as many workweeks as it takes to achieve 10 successful Animal Handling checks. The DC is 10, but the trainer adds the mount's Intelligence and Charisma modifiers to their rolls. The trainer may roll once per week. Designer's note: Because higher Wisdom simultaneously makes the creature better able to understand the trainer and better at resisting mental pressure, its net effect on training is considered to be a wash - Wiser creatures are easier to convey things to but more stubborn, while less Wise creatures are more pliable but harder to convey things to.
Barding: A creature trained to be a controlled mount is trained to be proficient in light and medium barding; unless a mount can fly magically, it can't fly while in barding that would give it disadvantage on Stealth checks. A creature trained to be a controlled mount that can fly but does so nonmagically is accordingly not trained to be proficient in heavy barding. The listed cost and weight multipliers for barding are for a Large creature; the correct multipliers for barding for all creatures is as follows:
Tiny: Cost: x1, Weight: x1/2
Small: Cost: x1, Weight: x1
Medium: Cost: x1, Weight: x1
Large: Cost: x4, Weight: x2
Huge: Cost: x8, Weight: x4
Gargantuan: Cost: x16, Weight: x8
Saddles: Replace their rules text and listed costs and weights as follows:
Riding Saddle: Cost: 10 gp for a Small or Medium rider. Weight: 25 lbs for a Small or Medium rider. Multiply both by 1/2 for a Tiny Rider, x2 for Large, and x4 for Huge. The mount must not have a swim speed or a fly speed.
These can be combined, e.g. 2 Medium saddles can make 1 saddle that holds 2 Medium riders, for the same cost and weight as multiple saddles. For every hour a rider rides a mount without a riding saddle, the mount must make a DC 10 Constitution saving throw or suffer 1 level of exhaustion.
Upgrade: Military: +10 gp, +5 lbs (apply before scaling for size). A military saddle is a riding saddle which provides advantage on checks made to avoid being dismounted.
Upgrade: Exotic: +50 gp, +15 lbs (apply before scaling for size). An exotic saddle can accommodate a mount with a swim speed and/or a fly speed.
Additional training: Using the same rules as for training a mount to be controlled and wear barding - or, alternatively, by paying the cost to purchase the mount again - you can have a creature be trained to perform additional tasks. These are as follows:
Race: The mount becomes proficient in Constitution saving throws, Death saving throws, and Constitution checks. It can Dash as a bonus action.
Work: The mount becomes proficient in Strength saving throws and gains proficiency and expertise in Athletics. Ready is added to the list of actions it will perform without making its rider make a check, provided the Readied action is something it would also perform without the rider making a check.
Stunts: The mount becomes proficient in Dexterity saving throws and gains proficiency and expertise in Acrobatics. It can Disengage as a bonus action.
Hunt: The mount becomes proficient in Wisdom saving throws and gains proficiency in Perception and Survival. Search is added to the list of actions it will perform without making its rider make a check.
Cool rework! I think you are missing the most important point though: For a controlled mount, mount and rider should share their turn in initiative order, meaning the rider basicially uses the mount's movement (plus the mount's dash, disengage or dodge) as their own movement. Having the mount take its turn before or after the rider simply does not work with how action economy is designed in DnD 5e.
The standard DC required on a Persuasion or Animal Handling check to convince a creature to willingly let you mount it is 20 for a friendly creature and 30 for an indifferent creature; a hostile creature cannot be convinced to do so.
[snip]
…wow. These rules are so much better (and less confusing) than the ones we already have. Fantastic work.
Quick question on the DCs to allow players to mount: why are they so high? 20 for a friendly creature and 30 for an indifferent one seems a little high. I feel like 15 and 20 respectively would be a bit more manageable for lower-level characters. Judging from your designer notes, I’m sure there’s a good reason that I just happened to miss :)
Regardless, I’m totally using these next time my players acquire a mount. Thanks!
Thanks! As I noted above, it's still a WIP, so stuff like DCs are subject to change, but I added a designer's note explicitly explaining why the "stock" DCs are 20 and 30. You should feel free to modify these DCs the same way you would any social check - for example, perhaps the wild horse the party has encountered is particularly amenable to apples.
Cool rework! I think you are missing the most important point though: For a controlled mount, mount and rider should share their turn in initiative order, meaning the rider basicially uses the mount's movement (plus the mount's dash, disengage or dodge) as their own movement. Having the mount take its turn before or after the rider simply does not work with how action economy is designed in DnD 5e.
This is a feature, not an oversight. Controlled mounts are bad first and foremost because Ready only exists as an action because it is so deeply problematic to let initiative change during combat - and then lo and behold, the stock rules for controlled mounts let you do exactly that, which breaks the game very thoroughly in numerous ways. Whatever I do with initiative, I should not let it change during combat.
I go into more detail below on why melded turns are a rules atrocity, but suffice to say there's a reason I replaced all of that nonsense with having the mount instinctively reduce its initiative to match its rider and allowing the rider to reduce its initiative to match its mount so that they will always act sequentially but never simultaneously. Past that, the player needs to get good at action economy.
Melded turns are absolutely terrible for generic mounted rules both because they're incredibly overpowered compared to the "standard" approach of special companions from stuff like subclasses going immediately after their special person (which is itself an upgrade over independent initiative, like with most summoning spells) and because you need to account for exotic situations involving multiple riders and riders changing state mid-combat. Imagine this, with melding:
2 PCs start combat riding an elephant. We need to determine the elephant's initiative. What do we do? If we allow a full meld, so the 2 PCs meld into each other, we've radically up-gunned the PCs' ability to murder their enemies. If we meld it to 1 of the PCs, we have to pick one, which isn't a problem - we can just tell the PCs to decide for themselves, with the DM deciding if they take too long for the DM's liking - except now 1 of the riders has a non-melded turn and our assumption was that all riders need melded turns to function. Now let's make it worse: both PCs dismount mid-combat. What should happen to the elephant? If you've melded its turn, it has to stay melded for no apparent reason. Now let's make it even worse: a 3rd PC mounts the elephant, and is now stuck riding a mount that's pegged to some other PC's initiative. All we've done is add more and more rules complexity for no genuine benefit.
Cool rework! I think you are missing the most important point though: For a controlled mount, mount and rider should share their turn in initiative order, meaning the rider basicially uses the mount's movement (plus the mount's dash, disengage or dodge) as their own movement. Having the mount take its turn before or after the rider simply does not work with how action economy is designed in DnD 5e.
This is a feature, not an oversight. Controlled mounts are bad first and foremost because Ready only exists as an action because it is so deeply problematic to let initiative change during combat - and then lo and behold, the stock rules for controlled mounts let you do exactly that, which breaks the game very thoroughly in numerous ways. Whatever I do with initiative, I should not let it change during combat.
I go into more detail below on why melded turns are a rules atrocity, but suffice to say there's a reason I replaced all of that nonsense with having the mount instinctively reduce its initiative to match its rider and allowing the rider to reduce its initiative to match its mount so that they will always act sequentially but never simultaneously. Past that, the player needs to get good at action economy.
Melded turns are absolutely terrible for generic mounted rules both because they're incredibly overpowered compared to the "standard" approach of special companions from stuff like subclasses going immediately after their special person (which is itself an upgrade over independent initiative, like with most summoning spells) and because you need to account for exotic situations involving multiple riders and riders changing state mid-combat. Imagine this, with melding:
2 PCs start combat riding an elephant. We need to determine the elephant's initiative. What do we do? If we allow a full meld, so the 2 PCs meld into each other, we've radically up-gunned the PCs' ability to murder their enemies. If we meld it to 1 of the PCs, we have to pick one, which isn't a problem - we can just tell the PCs to decide for themselves, with the DM deciding if they take too long for the DM's liking - except now 1 of the riders has a non-melded turn and our assumption was that all riders need melded turns to function. Now let's make it worse: both PCs dismount mid-combat. What should happen to the elephant? If you've melded its turn, it has to stay melded for no apparent reason. Now let's make it even worse: a 3rd PC mounts the elephant, and is now stuck riding a mount that's pegged to some other PC's initiative. All we've done is add more and more rules complexity for no genuine benefit.
I do not really see any issue here at all? Mount and rider are one unit in initiative order, always acting on the rider's initiative. If a creature then gets mounted by a different rider who can use it as a controlled mount, then its initiative might change, some clarification for that would indeed be needed.
The intent of being mounted is to become mobile, to move in and out to deliver forceful attacks. Imagine a mounted character charging at their enemy with a lance, moving back and doing the same thing again, or continuing their charge towards another enemy after the first target died or fell prone. Each and every melee martial is splitting up their movement between attacks in combat, and they absolutely need to do that to work, to be able to target different creatures with their attacks - regardless of whether they are mounted or not. With your ruling, you are completely crippling these mounted melee martials such as the appropriately named Cavalier fighter and many others as they would no longer be able to move between attacks - which, again, is essential for them.
On the other hand, even with your ruling, a mounted archer or spellcaster still is completely fine, as all they need is having their mount move away from the enemy to establish or keep distance, then they can safely deliver their ranged attacks and spells. They have no issues when their mount is forced to move before (or after) they can take their turn as they do not need to be able to move inbetween their attacks.
Mounted combat is powerful, that is true, but most mounts are frail and die easily; and aside from buff spells like haste and magic items a mount is the only way for a melee martial character to keep up with faster and flying enemies at higher levels. A fighter at level 20 is stuck with the same 30 feet movement speed they had at level 1, but now they have to fight dragons with 80 ft fly speed, spellcasters with various teleports, many mosters with 40 ft. or more walking speed, monsters that create difficult terrain or reduce movement on a regular basis - without a proper mount or magic equipment, they would be screwed against those.
On top of that it is much easier to understand for both players and DMs when the mount moves on the player's turn and essentially acts as their movement speed - this is how one would instinctively run mounted combat.
(Yes, readied actions exist, but they are very, very weak and serve an entirely different purpose, where they work well enough for; although I would like to see some adjustments for them too, right now it is weird that a PAM fighter for example never uses a readied action to attack because it basicially is exactly the same for them as an opportunity attack triggered by the enemy moving within range).
To go back to your example, this is where clarifications would be useful for. One simple ruling is that one of the PCs is the rider who is controlling the mount and the elephant moves on their turn. When the elephant has no more rider, it either rolls initative (or uses a prerolled initiative) or just moves before or after the previously controlling player's turn. And once it gets re-mounted by a different player, its initiative changes to match the new rider's initiative; although if it already took a turn this round it cannot do so again. I really see no problem here. Yes, initiative changes, but you can just move the elephant to a different position in your turn tracker. It is not going to break anything, considering it is restricted to dashing, dodging or disengaging while acting as a controlled mount.
PS: I also disagree with allowing everyone to adjust initiative. This only delays the start of combat and makes balancing an absolute chore when the party always is guaranteed to have the most optimal initiative order for their builds and combos to work, it becomes way too gamey. As a player I like getting blessed by the cleric if he goes first, but if I am faster than him, then I have to deal with it. Either I remain close and risk getting caught in an AoE, or I move away from the others to avoid that, but then I might be out of bless range - it is a choice I have to do, one of many choices during combat, and a choice that would no longer exist if I could simply lower my initiative a bit to move after the cleric.
Ok here is my concept for a ranger subclass. I'm looking for feedback on the worthiness of this subclass and if it fits this category.
The Cloudweaver ranger. A ranger that manipulates a cloud companion to move himself and others around the battlefield (Think flying nimbus).
The cloud can move after the rangers turn and the ranger can command it with a bonus action or reaction. The cloud has several different abilities that grow as the ranger levels up. I wouldn't call it sentient in my view of the subclass but any other player could take it in that direction. It can attack your enemy by giving you advantage on one attack per turn (if it is on your enemy) and at higher levels, it can instantly travel to the target of your spell (hunters mark, advantage on the first attack, recall cloud with reaction or do some other stuff)
Why I think this fits the ranger. It seems to me that rangers have the shortest turns out of any class. They just hunter's mark and then fire their bow twice. They don't have many opportunities to use their bonus action (unless they are two-weapon fighting) and are usually too far away to get attacks of opportunity. I made the subclass to give the ranger a bunch of options with its other actions.
The cloud hovers 5 feet off the ground and the ranger can ride it. At its highest level the cloud can fully fly and the ranger can be carried by it.
I think this gives the ranger powerful tools that are fun and that will always be relevant. I think it fits a mount but it's very similar to the swarm keeper ranger and I don't know if we would call the swarm a mount.
I'm gonna finish the subclass soon but want some feedback on the concept.
Ok here is my concept for a ranger subclass. I'm looking for feedback on the worthiness of this subclass and if it fits this category.
The Cloudweaver ranger. A ranger that manipulates a cloud companion to move himself and others around the battlefield (Think flying nimbus).
The cloud can move after the rangers turn and the ranger can command it with a bonus action or reaction. The cloud has several different abilities that grow as the ranger levels up. I wouldn't call it sentient in my view of the subclass but any other player could take it in that direction. It can attack your enemy by giving you advantage on one attack per turn (if it is on your enemy) and at higher levels, it can instantly travel to the target of your spell (hunters mark, advantage on the first attack, recall cloud with reaction or do some other stuff)
Why I think this fits the ranger. It seems to me that rangers have the shortest turns out of any class. They just hunter's mark and then fire their bow twice. They don't have many opportunities to use their bonus action (unless they are two-weapon fighting) and are usually too far away to get attacks of opportunity. I made the subclass to give the ranger a bunch of options with its other actions.
The cloud hovers 5 feet off the ground and the ranger can ride it. At its highest level the cloud can fully fly and the ranger can be carried by it.
I think this gives the ranger powerful tools that are fun and that will always be relevant. I think it fits a mount but it's very similar to the swarm keeper ranger and I don't know if we would call the swarm a mount.
I'm gonna finish the subclass soon but want some feedback on the concept.
I reckon it sounds pretty nifty, but if it gets bonus actions does it mean its attacks can be... the perfect storm?
Likely I will make some updates to the statblock, and of course I am looking forward to some feedback to improve that statblock :-)
Just made a minor update fixing typos and stuff.
Also I completely forgot I also have the Sword Dancer, Darksong Knight and Silverhair Knight of Eilistraee, which also fit the theme as a group of monsters. Now I am struggling whether I should change my submission from Bahamut to the fellowship of Eilistrae... :-D
For my submission for the DM Category, I am putting forward a Supernatural Region (as outlined in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything). With the soon release of Spelljammer along with the theme for the DM category being stars and radiance, I wanted to make a region that draws upon the magic of the Astral Sea. In this way, I have also drawn from the free Spelljammer Monster Compendium released on D&D beyond for some of the possibilities. I will likely work to tweak this until the competition concludes.
Astral Stream
Supernatural Region
Wayfarers of the astral sea will sometimes slip into areas of concentrated cosmic energy, known to those familiar with this frontier as “astral streams.” These streams can become so powerful that they will pour over into the material plane as well, where unsuspecting travelers may find themselves surrounded by ghostly images of heavenly bodies. Others might find a way to “ride” this stream, gaining newfound guidance and enlightenment.
Consider rolling on the Astral Stream Effects table when the following circumstances occur in the region:
A creature fails a skill check made using Navigator’s Tools
A creature casts a spell which deals radiant or force damage
A creature casts a spell from the divination or dunamancy schools of magic
A creature uses an ability which allows it or another creature to reroll a d20 or replace its value (such as the Portent feature)
A creature activates an ability or magic item which uses dim light or darkness as part of its effect.
d100
Effect
01-09
A gargantuan meteor falls somewhere within the region. Any creatures within 120 feet of where it crashes must make a DC 15 Dexterity saving throw. A creature takes 8d6 bludgeoning damage on a failed save, or half as much on a successful one. The meteor, if inspected, is revealed to be an Asteroid Spider, which only has half of its maximum hit points after the crash. It only attacks if disturbed. Otherwise, it unfurls after 1d4 days and begins crafting its web.
10-18
A random creature within 120 feet is targeted by the Moonbeam spell (DC 15), with the cylinder centered on the target.
19-27
A meteor shower begins to rain down within the area for 1 minute. On initiative count 20 (losing ties) of each round, a random creature within 120 feet is targeted by a meteor. The target and each creature within 5 feet of it must make a DC 15 Dexterity saving throw. A creature takes 2d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.
28-36
1d6 + 1 Goon Balloon appear in nearby unoccupied spaces and attack other creatures at random.
37-45
The air vanishes within the region, if there is any to begin with, and all creatures which require air to breath must use their reaction to hold their breath. If it cannot do so or if it tries to speak while in this area, a creature begins to suffocate. After 1 minute, the air returns to normal. This does not affect any localized pockets of air, such as the air envelope of a Gadabout.
46-54
Starlight fades, and the area becomes enveloped in magical darkness for 1 minute.
55-63
Every creature within the region is treated as if affected by the Detect Thoughts spell for 1 minute.
64-72
1d4 Puppeteer Parasite appear within 60 feet and attack nearby humanoids at random.
73-79
A character can cast Find the Path once within the next hour. If the chosen destination is outside of this region, the effect ends early once they leave the region.
80-85
A random tree within the region transforms into a Yggdrasti. If found, this tree has 1d4 pieces of Primal Fruit growing from its branches. Picking the fruit causes the Yggdasti to attack.
86-90
A character gains the ability to cast Sunbeam once within the next minute (DC 15).
91-95
Each character gains a star-like mote which orbits their head. A character can use their mote to make a ranged spell attack, as outlined in the Crown of Stars spell after which the mote disappears. A character can either use their own spellcasting modifier, if they have one, or can otherwise make the attack with a +5 bonus to hit. An unused mote disappears after 1 hour.
96-00
Wishing on a shooting star, one character can name an object of up to 2000 GP in value that isnt a magic item. This object appears in an unoccupied space on the ground near the character.
Thanks for the feedback! You made some really good points. When I have time, I'll get to work applying your suggestions (or at least the majority of them).
Paladin main who spends most of his D&D time worldbuilding or DMing, not Paladin-ing.
And to you as well!
Paladin main who spends most of his D&D time worldbuilding or DMing, not Paladin-ing.
Here's Blazeguard, version 1.2.
Paladin main who spends most of his D&D time worldbuilding or DMing, not Paladin-ing.
I have a thoroughly unpolished brew which I can blow some ust off and get sorted for one of these!
As for the Inspirational one, I will have to be having some serious thoughts for that...
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
A suggestion: when you make an update, let us know but also edit your original post so that Kaboom doesn't need to change the link in the OP.
Ah, that makes sense. I’ll do that when I can get on my computer.
Paladin main who spends most of his D&D time worldbuilding or DMing, not Paladin-ing.
No worries, I have already updated the link to the new one. But keep it in mind for future submissions. Thanks
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Will do.
Paladin main who spends most of his D&D time worldbuilding or DMing, not Paladin-ing.
PC Options: Toril Drift entry. Completed, version 1.0.
Rather than a feature for a PC to acquire - such as a background or a new piece of gear - this is intended as a replacement set of rules for the current rules we have for handling mounts.
You can mount or dismount any creature that is within 5 feet, but you can only mount willing creatures. In order to do so, you must cover a vertical distance equal to the width of the creature's space (e.g. 5 feet for a Medium mount, 10 feet for a Large mount, or 15 feet for a Huge mount) and half that horizontally. You can jump, climb, or use any other appropriate means at your disposal to do so. Note that mounting involves going "up" and dismounting involves going "down", so you can also achieve the vertical distance involved in dismounting by falling.
The standard DC required on a Persuasion or Animal Handling check to convince a creature to willingly let you mount it is 20 for a friendly creature and 30 for an indifferent creature; a hostile creature cannot be convinced to do so. A creature specifically trained to be a controlled mount will generally let anything it is friendly or indifferent to mount it. Designer's note: This is a direct import of the DMG rules for Social Interactions, in which DCs are always 0, 10, or 20 - I treated allowing the mounting as a "significant risk or sacrifice" because the mounted creature is basically trusting the mounter with its life, and I scaled the Indifferent DC up using the same scale the rest of the social tables do. As with all social interactions, the DCs of social checks are always set by the DM per any basis the DM sees fit.
If an effect moves your mount against its will while you’re on it, you must succeed on a DC 10 Acrobatics check or fall off the mount, landing prone in a space within 5 feet of it. If you’re knocked prone while mounted, you must make the same check. If your mount is knocked prone, you are dismounted; if you aren't prone, make the same check - on a success you land on your feet, while on a failure you land prone. Designer's note: In addition to making the forced dismounting rules consistent with both themselves and the rules for jumping into difficult terrain, this has the additional benefit of fixing saddles so that they actually function.
Cool rework! I think you are missing the most important point though: For a controlled mount, mount and rider should share their turn in initiative order, meaning the rider basicially uses the mount's movement (plus the mount's dash, disengage or dodge) as their own movement. Having the mount take its turn before or after the rider simply does not work with how action economy is designed in DnD 5e.
Thanks! As I noted above, it's still a WIP, so stuff like DCs are subject to change, but I added a designer's note explicitly explaining why the "stock" DCs are 20 and 30. You should feel free to modify these DCs the same way you would any social check - for example, perhaps the wild horse the party has encountered is particularly amenable to apples.
This is a feature, not an oversight. Controlled mounts are bad first and foremost because Ready only exists as an action because it is so deeply problematic to let initiative change during combat - and then lo and behold, the stock rules for controlled mounts let you do exactly that, which breaks the game very thoroughly in numerous ways. Whatever I do with initiative, I should not let it change during combat.
I go into more detail below on why melded turns are a rules atrocity, but suffice to say there's a reason I replaced all of that nonsense with having the mount instinctively reduce its initiative to match its rider and allowing the rider to reduce its initiative to match its mount so that they will always act sequentially but never simultaneously. Past that, the player needs to get good at action economy.
Melded turns are absolutely terrible for generic mounted rules both because they're incredibly overpowered compared to the "standard" approach of special companions from stuff like subclasses going immediately after their special person (which is itself an upgrade over independent initiative, like with most summoning spells) and because you need to account for exotic situations involving multiple riders and riders changing state mid-combat. Imagine this, with melding:
2 PCs start combat riding an elephant. We need to determine the elephant's initiative. What do we do? If we allow a full meld, so the 2 PCs meld into each other, we've radically up-gunned the PCs' ability to murder their enemies. If we meld it to 1 of the PCs, we have to pick one, which isn't a problem - we can just tell the PCs to decide for themselves, with the DM deciding if they take too long for the DM's liking - except now 1 of the riders has a non-melded turn and our assumption was that all riders need melded turns to function. Now let's make it worse: both PCs dismount mid-combat. What should happen to the elephant? If you've melded its turn, it has to stay melded for no apparent reason. Now let's make it even worse: a 3rd PC mounts the elephant, and is now stuck riding a mount that's pegged to some other PC's initiative. All we've done is add more and more rules complexity for no genuine benefit.
I do not really see any issue here at all? Mount and rider are one unit in initiative order, always acting on the rider's initiative. If a creature then gets mounted by a different rider who can use it as a controlled mount, then its initiative might change, some clarification for that would indeed be needed.
The intent of being mounted is to become mobile, to move in and out to deliver forceful attacks. Imagine a mounted character charging at their enemy with a lance, moving back and doing the same thing again, or continuing their charge towards another enemy after the first target died or fell prone. Each and every melee martial is splitting up their movement between attacks in combat, and they absolutely need to do that to work, to be able to target different creatures with their attacks - regardless of whether they are mounted or not.
With your ruling, you are completely crippling these mounted melee martials such as the appropriately named Cavalier fighter and many others as they would no longer be able to move between attacks - which, again, is essential for them.
On the other hand, even with your ruling, a mounted archer or spellcaster still is completely fine, as all they need is having their mount move away from the enemy to establish or keep distance, then they can safely deliver their ranged attacks and spells. They have no issues when their mount is forced to move before (or after) they can take their turn as they do not need to be able to move inbetween their attacks.
Mounted combat is powerful, that is true, but most mounts are frail and die easily; and aside from buff spells like haste and magic items a mount is the only way for a melee martial character to keep up with faster and flying enemies at higher levels. A fighter at level 20 is stuck with the same 30 feet movement speed they had at level 1, but now they have to fight dragons with 80 ft fly speed, spellcasters with various teleports, many mosters with 40 ft. or more walking speed, monsters that create difficult terrain or reduce movement on a regular basis - without a proper mount or magic equipment, they would be screwed against those.
On top of that it is much easier to understand for both players and DMs when the mount moves on the player's turn and essentially acts as their movement speed - this is how one would instinctively run mounted combat.
(Yes, readied actions exist, but they are very, very weak and serve an entirely different purpose, where they work well enough for; although I would like to see some adjustments for them too, right now it is weird that a PAM fighter for example never uses a readied action to attack because it basicially is exactly the same for them as an opportunity attack triggered by the enemy moving within range).
To go back to your example, this is where clarifications would be useful for. One simple ruling is that one of the PCs is the rider who is controlling the mount and the elephant moves on their turn. When the elephant has no more rider, it either rolls initative (or uses a prerolled initiative) or just moves before or after the previously controlling player's turn. And once it gets re-mounted by a different player, its initiative changes to match the new rider's initiative; although if it already took a turn this round it cannot do so again. I really see no problem here. Yes, initiative changes, but you can just move the elephant to a different position in your turn tracker. It is not going to break anything, considering it is restricted to dashing, dodging or disengaging while acting as a controlled mount.
PS: I also disagree with allowing everyone to adjust initiative. This only delays the start of combat and makes balancing an absolute chore when the party always is guaranteed to have the most optimal initiative order for their builds and combos to work, it becomes way too gamey. As a player I like getting blessed by the cleric if he goes first, but if I am faster than him, then I have to deal with it. Either I remain close and risk getting caught in an AoE, or I move away from the others to avoid that, but then I might be out of bless range - it is a choice I have to do, one of many choices during combat, and a choice that would no longer exist if I could simply lower my initiative a bit to move after the cleric.
Ok here is my concept for a ranger subclass. I'm looking for feedback on the worthiness of this subclass and if it fits this category.
The Cloudweaver ranger. A ranger that manipulates a cloud companion to move himself and others around the battlefield (Think flying nimbus).
The cloud can move after the rangers turn and the ranger can command it with a bonus action or reaction. The cloud has several different abilities that grow as the ranger levels up. I wouldn't call it sentient in my view of the subclass but any other player could take it in that direction. It can attack your enemy by giving you advantage on one attack per turn (if it is on your enemy) and at higher levels, it can instantly travel to the target of your spell (hunters mark, advantage on the first attack, recall cloud with reaction or do some other stuff)
Why I think this fits the ranger. It seems to me that rangers have the shortest turns out of any class. They just hunter's mark and then fire their bow twice. They don't have many opportunities to use their bonus action (unless they are two-weapon fighting) and are usually too far away to get attacks of opportunity. I made the subclass to give the ranger a bunch of options with its other actions.
The cloud hovers 5 feet off the ground and the ranger can ride it. At its highest level the cloud can fully fly and the ranger can be carried by it.
I think this gives the ranger powerful tools that are fun and that will always be relevant. I think it fits a mount but it's very similar to the swarm keeper ranger and I don't know if we would call the swarm a mount.
I'm gonna finish the subclass soon but want some feedback on the concept.
I reckon it sounds pretty nifty, but if it gets bonus actions does it mean its attacks can be... the perfect storm?
I'll show myself out.
Frequent Eladrin || They/Them, but accept all pronouns
Luz Noceda would like to remind you that you're worth loving!
Just made a minor update fixing typos and stuff.
Also I completely forgot I also have the Sword Dancer, Darksong Knight and Silverhair Knight of Eilistraee, which also fit the theme as a group of monsters. Now I am struggling whether I should change my submission from Bahamut to the fellowship of Eilistrae... :-D
You've lost my vote....
Oh, I really shot myself in the foot, didn't I? But I guess every cloud has a silver lining.
Frequent Eladrin || They/Them, but accept all pronouns
Luz Noceda would like to remind you that you're worth loving!
For my submission for the DM Category, I am putting forward a Supernatural Region (as outlined in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything). With the soon release of Spelljammer along with the theme for the DM category being stars and radiance, I wanted to make a region that draws upon the magic of the Astral Sea. In this way, I have also drawn from the free Spelljammer Monster Compendium released on D&D beyond for some of the possibilities. I will likely work to tweak this until the competition concludes.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!