Speaking as someone who's played the mount - I was a bugbear being ridden by a goblin - I can tell you it doesn't cause any rules issues not already caused by mounting, say, an awakened horse. There just aren't any problems.
Here are the biggest rules to remember:
1) The mount has to hold up the weight of the rider and the rider's gear in addition to their own gear.
2) When the mount provokes an OA, it can be taken on the rider.
3) Mounting and dismounting cost movement.
That's about it, really. I'll grant we never explored the weirdness of lances, but it was no more broken than riding the party druid, and who hasn't done that?
You can't throw lances and the things you mention about fighters and action surge has nothing to do with being mounted at all, really.
I am aware that Lances cannot traditionally be thrown weapons. There is no specific rule which prevents this.
As for Fighters and Action Surge, class and level is not mentioned in the Original Post. Both the Half-Orc and the Goblin could be Fighters of high enough level to use Action Surge and it seems relevant to mounted combat to me at least.
You didn't answer a single one of my questions. Not one. I never asked if Lances could be thrown.
I simply tried to point out that once you leave the rules behind things become complicated very quickly. This is the Rules And Game Mechanics forum.
Since your questions is at large irrelevant for this discussion there really is no need to answer them. Like I said, the "problems" you mention have nothing to do with the topic at hand but are all tied to character class.
Speaking as someone who's played the mount - I was a bugbear being ridden by a goblin - I can tell you it doesn't cause any rules issues not already caused by mounting, say, an awakened horse. There just aren't any problems.
Here are the biggest rules to remember:
1) The mount has to hold up the weight of the rider and the rider's gear in addition to their own gear.
2) When the mount provokes an OA, it can be taken on the rider.
3) Mounting and dismounting cost movement.
That's about it, really. I'll grant we never explored the weirdness of lances, but it was no more broken than riding the party druid, and who hasn't done that?
4) When the mount moves on its own, which it does under the rules since there is no provision for a PC holding their movement for someone else's initiative, the rider must make a dex check to stay seated.
If an effect moves your mount against its will while you’re on it, you must succeed on a DC 10 Dexterity saving throw or fall off the mount, landing prone in a space within 5 feet of it.
4) When the mount moves on its own, which it does under the rules since there is no provision for a PC holding their movement for someone else's initiative, the rider must make a dex check to stay seated.
There is absolutely no rule for needing a check to stay mounted, which is why military saddles are useless in 5E.
4) When the mount moves on its own, which it does under the rules since there is no provision for a PC holding their movement for someone else's initiative, the rider must make a dex check to stay seated.
There is absolutely no rule for needing a check to stay mounted, which is why military saddles are useless in 5E.
With due respect, you are incorrect. It is even in the basic rules although not quite as I remembered either.
"If an effect moves your mount against its will while you’re on it, you must succeed on a DC 10 Dexterity saving throw 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 saving throw."
So any successful shove or even a successful use of a gust cantrip can force a check to stay mounted.
How is "When the mount moves on its own" in any way, shape or form the same as "If an effect moves your mount against its will"?
4) When the mount moves on its own, which it does under the rules since there is no provision for a PC holding their movement for someone else's initiative, the rider must make a dex check to stay seated.
There is absolutely no rule for needing a check to stay mounted, which is why military saddles are useless in 5E.
With due respect, you are incorrect. It is even in the basic rules although not quite as I remembered either.
"If an effect moves your mount against its will while you’re on it, you must succeed on a DC 10 Dexterity saving throw 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 saving throw."
So any successful shove or even a successful use of a gust cantrip can force a check to stay mounted.
???
By definition, a save is not a check and a check is not a save. That's why Bards aren't half proficient in all saves (they are in all checks) and Paladins don't add their Charisma to all checks (they do to all saves).
4) When the mount moves on its own, which it does under the rules since there is no provision for a PC holding their movement for someone else's initiative, the rider must make a dex check to stay seated.
There is absolutely no rule for needing a check to stay mounted, which is why military saddles are useless in 5E.
With due respect, you are incorrect. It is even in the basic rules although not quite as I remembered either.
"If an effect moves your mount against its will while you’re on it, you must succeed on a DC 10 Dexterity saving throw 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 saving throw."
So any successful shove or even a successful use of a gust cantrip can force a check to stay mounted.
???
By definition, a save is not a check and a check is not a save. That's why Bards aren't half proficient in all saves (they are in all checks) and Paladins don't add their Charisma to all checks (they do to all saves).
[REDACTED] No, for purposes of the rules it is not an ability check. However it is still a check. Note that the Military Saddle says 'any checks' rather than 'any ability checks.' It is clearly intended to be relevant for this purpose.
For what purpose? You are still mixing up "When the mount moves on its own" with "If an effect moves your mount against its will".
I agree with the problematics of 5E's language though. At times that causes problems.
[REDACTED] No, for purposes of the rules it is not an ability check. However it is still a check. Note that the Military Saddle says 'any checks' rather than 'any ability checks.' It is clearly intended to be relevant for this purpose.
Again this is something that I absolutely hate about 5e, namely the tendency to rely on very precise definitions to the extent one cannot use a word normally without someone insisting it is being incorrectly used because it isn't 5E'nglish. One apparently cannot check to see if someone saved versus some hostile effect.....
The rules for saves never uses the word check once, and all the times "check" and "save" are used in the same sentence, it is to specify that they are different things. So...
There is definitely a case for this being inconsistent wording, but no case for it including saves. You never "check" a save.
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.
With due respect, you are incorrect. It is even in the basic rules although not quite as I remembered either.
"If an effect moves your mount against its will while you’re on it, you must succeed on a DC 10 Dexterity saving throw 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 saving throw."
So any successful shove or even a successful use of a gust cantrip can force a check to stay mounted.
???
By definition, a save is not a check and a check is not a save. That's why Bards aren't half proficient in all saves (they are in all checks) and Paladins don't add their Charisma to all checks (they do to all saves).
[REDACTED] No, for purposes of the rules it is not an ability check. However it is still a check. Note that the Military Saddle says 'any checks' rather than 'any ability checks.' It is clearly intended to be relevant for this purpose.
For what purpose? You are still mixing up "When the mount moves on its own" with "If an effect moves your mount against its will".
I agree with the problematics of 5E's language though. At times that causes problems.
I had corrected myself already and openly accepted my error in that respect. In my earlier post on this I had added "although not quite as I remembered either"
Yeah, that wasn't really that clear. But OK, we're on the same page.
[REDACTED] No, for purposes of the rules it is not an ability check. However it is still a check. Note that the Military Saddle says 'any checks' rather than 'any ability checks.' It is clearly intended to be relevant for this purpose.
Again this is something that I absolutely hate about 5e, namely the tendency to rely on very precise definitions to the extent one cannot use a word normally without someone insisting it is being incorrectly used because it isn't 5E'nglish. One apparently cannot check to see if someone saved versus some hostile effect.....
The rules for saves never uses the word check once, and all the times "check" and "save" are used in the same sentence, it is to specify that they are different things. So...
There is definitely a case for this being inconsistent wording, but no case for it including saves. You never "check" a save.
So what is the explanation of the military saddle then? 'Reasons?'
It does seem at least RAI that it would apply. I still maintain that saves are a special, specific kind of check. Even that they are not an ability check is handwaved since they are ability based and you do the same procedure as any ability check for that ability, merely with different modifiers. They have to twist language (or claim it a specific exception) to insist it does not apply.
All this talk about the saddle, military and never bothering to link to it... Fine, I'll do it myself.
There is definitely a case for it being inconsistent wording (I feel like I said that already). Looking at the rules, it is probably a typo and is supposed to apply to saves as well. Shame WotC can't afford to hire proof readers for their books. Maybe they will errata it if one of their staff gets told or notices it, since WotC also can't afford to have staff pay attention to the largest forums about their product.
Personally, I'd call this out as a mistake. Unless there are any specific effects someone can point to which would require an ability or skill check to stay in the saddle, as DM I would allow this item to provide advantage to the saving throw.
Mount rules specifically override general “can’t end in same space” rules when there’s mounting going on. OP’s idea is a bit silly, but it doesn’t break anything so if the players wanted to do it, I don’t think I’d have any issue with it?
I think this works as well. Certainly a goblin riding a centaur doesn't strike me as unusual, and I think the same logic could be applied to the half-orc.
Personally, I'd call this out as a mistake. Unless there are any specific effects someone can point to which would require an ability or skill check to stay in the saddle, as DM I would allow this item to provide advantage to the saving throw.
Trick riding, such as acrobatics on horseback or a running or vaulting mount. Skills do not list all possible applications of said skill. Also any attempt to knock the rider prone would normally involve a skill check, although that would only indirectly threaten staying in the saddle.
Ok, but are any actually called out in the official rules?
If not, I would say it is nearly certain that it is a mistake. If there is, it's still probably a mistake, but it's less certain.
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.
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.
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.
The big point here is that the DM wants to make it possible. So even if it was not RAW, they could. But they don't even need to. All they need to do to make it perfectly rules matching is to say that at their table, the requirement of 'appropriate anatomy' is fullfilled.
If you are the DM at your table, and you don't want PCs riding other PCs, then rule otherwise, it's in your purview.
A lot of official rules and such, but little advice or suggestion on how you might work it in, so I'll give it a go, as though players in my campaign wanted to try it.
When in the mounted arrangement, both have disadvantage on any Dex based saves. This is awkward, no matter HOW you try to do it, the body mechanics and physics do not work well. When in the mounted arrangement the mount has disadvantage on melee attack rolls. When mounted, the characters share a movement speed, that of the mount. If the characters are mounted and surrounded by enemies, the dismounting character will prompt OA from any enemy in range of the mount when dismounting. He/she will "land in the NEAREST adjacent space with 0 remaining movement for that turn.
I'd allow it, but would put a lot of "realism" into it, in order to prevent abuse. Allow it enough to make it potentially fun and interesting RP wise, but disallow anything that would obviously "break" encounters.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
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.
Finesse weapons work as designed in my game. There is no rule, never has been a 5e rule as you describe.
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.
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.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Speaking as someone who's played the mount - I was a bugbear being ridden by a goblin - I can tell you it doesn't cause any rules issues not already caused by mounting, say, an awakened horse. There just aren't any problems.
Here are the biggest rules to remember:
1) The mount has to hold up the weight of the rider and the rider's gear in addition to their own gear.
2) When the mount provokes an OA, it can be taken on the rider.
3) Mounting and dismounting cost movement.
That's about it, really. I'll grant we never explored the weirdness of lances, but it was no more broken than riding the party druid, and who hasn't done that?
Since your questions is at large irrelevant for this discussion there really is no need to answer them. Like I said, the "problems" you mention have nothing to do with the topic at hand but are all tied to character class.
More Interesting Lock Picking Rules
There is absolutely no rule for needing a check to stay mounted, which is why military saddles are useless in 5E.
How is "When the mount moves on its own" in any way, shape or form the same as "If an effect moves your mount against its will"?
???
By definition, a save is not a check and a check is not a save. That's why Bards aren't half proficient in all saves (they are in all checks) and Paladins don't add their Charisma to all checks (they do to all saves).
For what purpose? You are still mixing up "When the mount moves on its own" with "If an effect moves your mount against its will".
I agree with the problematics of 5E's language though. At times that causes problems.
The rules for saves never uses the word check once, and all the times "check" and "save" are used in the same sentence, it is to specify that they are different things. So...
There is definitely a case for this being inconsistent wording, but no case for it including saves. You never "check" a save.
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.
Yeah, that wasn't really that clear. But OK, we're on the same page.
All this talk about the saddle, military and never bothering to link to it... Fine, I'll do it myself.
There is definitely a case for it being inconsistent wording (I feel like I said that already). Looking at the rules, it is probably a typo and is supposed to apply to saves as well. Shame WotC can't afford to hire proof readers for their books. Maybe they will errata it if one of their staff gets told or notices it, since WotC also can't afford to have staff pay attention to the largest forums about their product.
Personally, I'd call this out as a mistake. Unless there are any specific effects someone can point to which would require an ability or skill check to stay in the saddle, as DM I would allow this item to provide advantage to the saving throw.
I think this works as well. Certainly a goblin riding a centaur doesn't strike me as unusual, and I think the same logic could be applied to the half-orc.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Ok, but are any actually called out in the official rules?
If not, I would say it is nearly certain that it is a mistake. If there is, it's still probably a mistake, but it's less certain.
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.
Good for you. :)
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.
The big point here is that the DM wants to make it possible. So even if it was not RAW, they could. But they don't even need to. All they need to do to make it perfectly rules matching is to say that at their table, the requirement of 'appropriate anatomy' is fullfilled.
If you are the DM at your table, and you don't want PCs riding other PCs, then rule otherwise, it's in your purview.
More Interesting Lock Picking Rules
A lot of official rules and such, but little advice or suggestion on how you might work it in, so I'll give it a go, as though players in my campaign wanted to try it.
When in the mounted arrangement, both have disadvantage on any Dex based saves. This is awkward, no matter HOW you try to do it, the body mechanics and physics do not work well.
When in the mounted arrangement the mount has disadvantage on melee attack rolls.
When mounted, the characters share a movement speed, that of the mount.
If the characters are mounted and surrounded by enemies, the dismounting character will prompt OA from any enemy in range of the mount when dismounting. He/she will "land in the NEAREST adjacent space with 0 remaining movement for that turn.
I'd allow it, but would put a lot of "realism" into it, in order to prevent abuse. Allow it enough to make it potentially fun and interesting RP wise, but disallow anything that would obviously "break" encounters.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
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.
Finesse weapons work as designed in my game. There is no rule, never has been a 5e rule as you describe.
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.
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.