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.
1. I am a parent, and as the dad it was my 'job' to carry both my little ones around, as a piggy back or completely on my shoulders. It could be tricky when they were little but once they got a bit older and had decent balance it was easy enough. I live in the UK, lots of castles, I climbed the tower of Castle Coch's circular stairwell to the top with my daughter on my shoulders once maybe 40-50 feet at a very steep (felt like straight up) angle.
2. As an ex-soldier I would train to go into battle with rifle, helmet, full webbing and pack, I was a combat medic so my gear was often heavier than the infantry guys due to all the medical kit I carried on top of the regular gear. The British Army combat fitness test was 8 miles in full equipment, they would weigh your kit in training to make sure people didn't cheat.
If you are going to make statements like that, at least make sure you know what you are talking about.
Not certain about your characters but mine tend to have the equivalent of full kit already. If someone suggested that your combat unit could maximize it's firepower by having half the unit carry the other half on their shoulders, even without full kit, would you have taken the idea seriously? Now consider that suggestion further, where both soldiers in each pair are additionally carrying full kit. So, you, with full kit, carrying another soldier on your shoulders, who also has full kit?
Sure, a halfling or gnome is only about 40 pounds, but their gear is another matter. Meanwhile the suggestion is going into battle like this. Even with just a rifle, where are you resting the stock when you fire? Against your shoulder? There is a leg there. Melee weapon? Good luck managing a proper swing with those legs there. Can't swing over your head either, there is a torso there. And as for the character on top, how, exactly, are they bracing?
Further to this "it might be RAI" versus RAW, I will circle back to my very first statement. RAW is unequivocal on this: Two PC's (and in this case, a PC and NPC), cannot occupy the same space when a turn ends. This entire argument becomes completely moot, unless this very basic tenant of 5e RAW is thrown out.One PC can't even attack a target while sharing the same space as another PC. That is as fundamental as when to roll a D20 versus some other die.
One of the most fundamental rules of 5e is that specific overrides general. The mounted combat rules are more specific than the general combat rules.
And if that rule is going to ignored, this entire discussion belongs in the House Rules/ Homebrew section, not in the section that discusses actual game mechanics.
But skip all that logic for a moment. Kotath has made it abundantly clear how silly the concept is, from a practical perspective.
It is one thing to say "I carry about a pack during combat training that weighs 60 pounds, and carry it for hours." I have done my share of camping/ canoeing/ portaging where we did those very things. The very first thing you did was ensure the pack's center of mass was at the very least balanced, with as much mass as possible near the hips / lower to mid mack. The pack was also "packed" so stuff did not shift.
Those that persist to argue that carrying a 40 pound child/halfling/goblin, which is likely carrying 20-40 pounds of gear, and moving around, constantly shifting its center of mass, especially under combat conditions, is anything like carrying a static pack have no basis in reality. And yeah, I have carried kids on my shoulders. And yeah, after a couple hours it is exhausting and murder on the neck, shoulders, and lower back. These kids were not swinging a sword.
The examples given only really show that a human has a suitable anatomy.
A normal horse which hasn't been conditioned for it will probably struggle to carry a fully loaded adventurer. If a horse is found in a random village which is used to carrying a single, light villager for short, easy journeys, would probably end up exhausted pretty quickly carrying a half orc fighter in full plate, with all their gear, swinging a heavy battle axe. They still have a suitable anatomy.
These are adventures, not middle aged dad's. They are stronger and fitter than a normal human, just as a horse used by an adventure in combat is going to be stronger and fitter than the average horse.
This thread is not a debate over whether finesse is RAW or not. It is RAW. Humanoid PC's being mounts is not RAW.
Strictly, you are wrong:
"A willing creature that is at least one size larger than you and that has an appropriate anatomy can serve as a mount"
There is no RAW definition of "appropriate anatomy", and plenty of examples have been given of smaller humanoids using larger humanoids as mounts, so this all comes down to a DM decision. To say it is not RAW is just plain incorrect.
I would doubt that it was RAI, and I would impose additionally restrictions and penalties, but nothing in RAW strictly disallows a humanoid being a mount.
When there is no RAW that says it definitely works, then it is not RAW that it definitely works. 'Might work' applies to everything, since even where something is spelled out clearly in RAW, it is also RAW that the DM can rule otherwise.
Finesse, on the other hand, is clearly described in RAW as to what it applies to.
Firstly, riding another willing creature with appropriate anatomy is specifically allowed by RAW. Without a written rule specifically clarifying what a suitable anatomy is, especially with various real world examples given, one humanoid riding another is within RAW, as long as the DM doesn't decide to use a different definition of appropriate anatomy.
This is a case of the roles being unclear. If read one way, it is RAW. If read another way, it is not. There are 2 valid interpretations of the written rule, which IMHO makes both RAW (similar to optional rules) and it's up to the DM to decide which to use.
Of course finesse is clearly written. I was only using it as one of several examples of where one rule or own allows you to circumvent another rule.
Equating a clear example with an unclear example is a false equivalency. It becomes a semantic 'gotcha in a mistake!' argument rather than anything meaningful.
Riding piggyback might be RAW whereas Finesse is RAW. That is a significant difference one cannot simply gloss over.
When finesse was brought up, it was not even an argument around one player riding another. It was specifically aimed at the claim that Vince didn't allow players to make items which circumvented a rule. I was pointing out that many items throughout the game specifically circumvent rules, including the very basic finesse weapons. Dnd is designed around the concept of one rules circumventing another, so creating homebrew items which do so is very much in line with this. It's following the template of what already exists.
Now, if Vince was actually saying there are no homebrew items in his game, or that he doesn't allow players to create or suggest homebrew items for his game, then that's different. Neither have any bearing on the discussion around one PC riding another, only on the suggestion that a special saddle/harness could be made.
See above post. This discussion is about breaking one of the very fundamental rules of the game, and is being discussed in the "Rules and Game Mechanics" section, not the "Homebrew and House Rules" section. The very concept of one PC occupying the space of another one renders the entire conversation moot, and then you top it off by talking about a Homebrew item to help circumvent the rules.
You talked of homebrew items in this thread, specifically that you didn't allow players to create them to circumvent a rule. I responded to this specific point which you made in this thread. That's what happens in a discussion. If you don't want me to challenge your position on homebrew in a thread in rules and game mechanics, them don't discuss your position on homebrew in a thread on rules and game mechanics.
This thread is not a debate over whether finesse is RAW or not. It is RAW. Humanoid PC's being mounts is not RAW.
Strictly, you are wrong:
"A willing creature that is at least one size larger than you and that has an appropriate anatomy can serve as a mount"
There is no RAW definition of "appropriate anatomy", and plenty of examples have been given of smaller humanoids using larger humanoids as mounts, so this all comes down to a DM decision. To say it is not RAW is just plain incorrect.
I would doubt that it was RAI, and I would impose additionally restrictions and penalties, but nothing in RAW strictly disallows a humanoid being a mount.
When there is no RAW that says it definitely works, then it is not RAW that it definitely works. 'Might work' applies to everything, since even where something is spelled out clearly in RAW, it is also RAW that the DM can rule otherwise.
Finesse, on the other hand, is clearly described in RAW as to what it applies to.
Firstly, riding another willing creature with appropriate anatomy is specifically allowed by RAW. Without a written rule specifically clarifying what a suitable anatomy is, especially with various real world examples given, one humanoid riding another is within RAW, as long as the DM doesn't decide to use a different definition of appropriate anatomy.
This is a case of the roles being unclear. If read one way, it is RAW. If read another way, it is not. There are 2 valid interpretations of the written rule, which IMHO makes both RAW (similar to optional rules) and it's up to the DM to decide which to use.
Of course finesse is clearly written. I was only using it as one of several examples of where one rule or own allows you to circumvent another rule.
Equating a clear example with an unclear example is a false equivalency. It becomes a semantic 'gotcha in a mistake!' argument rather than anything meaningful.
Riding piggyback might be RAW whereas Finesse is RAW. That is a significant difference one cannot simply gloss over.
When finesse was brought up, it was not even an argument around one player riding another. It was specifically aimed at the claim that Vince didn't allow players to make items which circumvented a rule. I was pointing out that many items throughout the game specifically circumvent rules, including the very basic finesse weapons. Dnd is designed around the concept of one rules circumventing another, so creating homebrew items which do so is very much in line with this. It's following the template of what already exists.
Now, if Vince was actually saying there are no homebrew items in his game, or that he doesn't allow players to create or suggest homebrew items for his game, then that's different. Neither have any bearing on the discussion around one PC riding another, only on the suggestion that a special saddle/harness could be made.
See above post. This discussion is about breaking one of the very fundamental rules of the game, and is being discussed in the "Rules and Game Mechanics" section, not the "Homebrew and House Rules" section. The very concept of one PC occupying the space of another one renders the entire conversation moot, and then you top it off by talking about a Homebrew item to help circumvent the rules.
You talked of homebrew in this thread, specifically that you didn't allow players to create them to circumvent a rule. I responded to this specific point which you made in this thread. That's what happens in a discussion. If you don't want me to challenge your position on homebrew in a thread in rules and game mechanics, them don't discuss your position on homebrew in a thread on rules and game mechanics.
Huh? I don't even know what to do with "logic" like that. I have made it clear that Homebrew discussions are bad in this section. There is nothing more to say on that. And as for Mounts being a special case that over-rides the fundamental space rule of 5e, I will say it again: PC's are not mounts. They can't be treated as mounts.
Huh? I don't even know what to do with "logic" like that. I have made it clear that Homebrew discussions are bad in this section. There is nothing more to say on that.
Then why did you start discussing your position on homebrew items?
However, if you wish, I'll stop discussing the comments you made, specifically, on homebrew in this thread.
And as for Mounts being a special case that over-rides the fundamental space rule of 5e, I will say it again: PC's are not mounts. They can't be treated as mounts.
Please point me to the specific rule which says that PCs cannot be mounts. All I've seen is the rules on mounted combat, which say nothing of the sort. If you can point me to a role which says that PCs cannot be mounts, then I'm happy to agree with you and admit that I'm wrong.
Okay okay, everyone calm down. The primary message I'm picking up from y'all is that as a DM, I can allow the "piggyback" rules, so long as I apply appropriate drawbacks to keep it from being OP, whilst still being a fun combat/roleplaying tool. It is still worth mentioning that the rider would be a SIDEKICK, which was created and is controlled by the player who'd end up being the mount.
In short, yeah. Just make sure all the rules for mounting is met (size difference, using movement, how targeting works, etc) and account for carry weight limit.
This thread is not a debate over whether finesse is RAW or not. It is RAW. Humanoid PC's being mounts is not RAW.
Strictly, you are wrong:
"A willing creature that is at least one size larger than you and that has an appropriate anatomy can serve as a mount"
There is no RAW definition of "appropriate anatomy", and plenty of examples have been given of smaller humanoids using larger humanoids as mounts, so this all comes down to a DM decision. To say it is not RAW is just plain incorrect.
I would doubt that it was RAI, and I would impose additionally restrictions and penalties, but nothing in RAW strictly disallows a humanoid being a mount.
When there is no RAW that says it definitely works, then it is not RAW that it definitely works. 'Might work' applies to everything, since even where something is spelled out clearly in RAW, it is also RAW that the DM can rule otherwise.
Finesse, on the other hand, is clearly described in RAW as to what it applies to.
If that’s the stance you want to take, then horses being used as mounts is also not RAW, which, while true if we accept your usage of RAW, doesn’t feel very useful?
Horses are specifically listed as mounts. Given that, on what basis are you insisting that it is not RAW that they are useable as mounts?
In order to be used as a mount, the creature in question must have the appropriate anatomy. That’s the requirement for using a creature as a mount, not finding it listed as a mount.
Is it RAW that a centaur PC can ride a horse? Or is it RAW that the GM must decide whether or not the anatomy is appropriate when the question is raised at the table? I contend that it is the latter.
In order to be used as a mount, the creature in question must have the appropriate anatomy. That’s the requirement for using a creature as a mount, not finding it listed as a mount.
Is it RAW that a centaur PC can ride a horse? Or is it RAW that the GM must decide whether or not the anatomy is appropriate when the question is raised at the table? I contend that it is the latter.
Ok, fine. It does not say that the weapons listed as simple melee weapons count as simple melee weapons for proficiency purposes either. Rations are merely described as foods suitable for extended travel. It does not actually say they have any nutritional value or are actually edible at all. A tent is described as sleeping two. It says nothing about being able to sleep less than two.
If one starts getting that strict in their interpretations of the rules, I am sure that there are all sorts of other absurdities that can be discovered.
It is a bit off topic, but you seem to be doing a good job of advancing my thesis that common sense is an aspect of RAW.
You seem to have misunderstood my post in an attempt to take some cheap shots that aren’t really relevant. I’ll invite you to reread and consider the question I actually asked.
When finesse was brought up, it was not even an argument around one player riding another. It was specifically aimed at the claim that Vince didn't allow players to make items which circumvented a rule. I was pointing out that many items throughout the game specifically circumvent rules, including the very basic finesse weapons. Dnd is designed around the concept of one rules circumventing another, so creating homebrew items which do so is very much in line with this. It's following the template of what already exists.
Now, if Vince was actually saying there are no homebrew items in his game, or that he doesn't allow players to create or suggest homebrew items for his game, then that's different. Neither have any bearing on the discussion around one PC riding another, only on the suggestion that a special saddle/harness could be made.
There is quite a difference though between finesse weapons existing and making new finesse weapons that do not already exist in the rules.
I agree. However, seeing as items often "circumvent a rule" in one way or another, them if you are going to allow special items to be made you are almost always going to have to allow them to "circumvent" one rule or another. If you are going to allow any homebrew items, magical or otherwise, at your table, then it's going to be near impossible to stick to not allowing ones which "circumvent" rules. In short, the declaration that items cannot be made at his table which circumvent the rules is pretty much saying no homebrew items, while making it sound like he isn't saying that and is saying something more reasonable.
And having a bearing on whether a special saddle could be made or not is relevant to the viability of the overall idea.
As for "The examples given only really show that a human has a suitable anatomy," no, they show that a human has suitable anatomy to manage this for some specific circumstances. You have not made the case that mounted combat is such a circumstance.
As I pointed out, a standard horse (say a plough horse) is unlikely to be a suitable mount in combat. It would probably be fine carrying a humanoid at a sedate speed for travelling. However, take it into combat, and it is likely to panic, and unlikely to cope well with the constant changes in positioning etc. Such things are generally built up by training and conditioning, but it doesn't make their anatomy unsuitable for being a mount. A humanoid can mount and ride them, and that makes them suitable for being a mount.
Now, if you want to consider training and conditioning, I'm pretty sure that two humanoids could train and condition themselves to be effective in combat with one on the other's shoulders, just as a horse and rider can be trained and conditioned to be effective in combat.
In order to be used as a mount, the creature in question must have the appropriate anatomy. That’s the requirement for using a creature as a mount, not finding it listed as a mount.
Is it RAW that a centaur PC can ride a horse? Or is it RAW that the GM must decide whether or not the anatomy is appropriate when the question is raised at the table? I contend that it is the latter.
Ok, fine. It does not say that the weapons listed as simple melee weapons count as simple melee weapons for proficiency purposes either. Rations are merely described as foods suitable for extended travel. It does not actually say they have any nutritional value or are actually edible at all. A tent is described as sleeping two. It says nothing about being able to sleep less than two. (Edit: It also does not say two what. Two flies fall asleep in your tent and you can no longer fit inside it, but two dragons or even two tarrasques can sleep comfortably therein, provided no one else is inside).
If one starts getting that strict in their interpretations of the rules, I am sure that there are all sorts of other absurdities that can be discovered.
It is a bit off topic, but you seem to be doing a good job of advancing my thesis that common sense is an aspect of RAW.
The problem is that what is "common sense" to one is not to another. Some people will state forever and a day that there is one and only one possible reading of a set of rules, and another person will look and see the complete opposite. They are both using their common sense, but applying it in different ways.
The truth is that there are often multiple ways to read RAW, given the natural language used to write 5e. In that case, many will only see one as being "common sense", and there will be disagreements. Both sides will argue that the other is being silly, trying to exploit the rules, but they are not. Both honestly and legitimately see their own interpretation of the wording as making sense, and honestly feel that the other is not sensible.
Now, in this case with the mounts, I have agreed that I think allowing this with no constraints is an exploit and definitely not intended, but I think there is a strong case that it is RAW. At my own table, I would place extra restrictions on a sidekick using a PC as a mount in this way, and I'd make it very clear that it would be restricted even further if I felt it too powerful. But I wouldn't disallow it completely because my players world's find it fun, and it isn't completely ridiculous. This is why you need a DM to interpret and arbitrate these things. Just because something is RAW, doesn't mean it should automatically be allowed if it doesn't make sense.
Please point me to the specific rule which says that PCs cannot be mounts. All I've seen is the rules on mounted combat, which say nothing of the sort. If you can point me to a role which says that PCs cannot be mounts, then I'm happy to agree with you and admit that I'm wrong.
Please point me to the specific rule which says that PC's cannot declare themselves greater deities and it suddenly be so simply from said declaration, then declare that they have slain all the other deities and now reign supreme and that be so.
Please point me to the rule in Monopoly which says that a player cannot buy a dozen packs of monopoly money and use it in game. Or cannot keep a duplicate set of Community Chest and Chance cards, then when they would normally draw one, place one from their private deck on top of the pile before drawing a card as the normal rules require them to do? Or even make up their own such cards entirely, which name them specifically as a recipient of good things and the other players of bad and place that on top of the normal decks? After all, the rules do not actually say you cannot do such a thing.
Something not being explicitly prohibited by the rules does not make that thing explicitly allowed by them.
Kotath makes a very good point here. The rules (of any game) seldom tell you what you can't do, they only tell you what you can do and the limitations for doing it.
In this case, the rules for mounted combat require the mount to (in order):
Be willing
Be a creature
Be at least 1 size larger
Have appropriate anatomy (someplace to sit, as determined by DM)
So for goblin riding ally half-orc: half-orc is willing, is creature, is 1 size larger, and has shoulders that goblin can sit on (especially with backpack as additional support). All requirements met, so the rule that allows it to be a mount applies.
And that brings us back to the point of Urth' s comment: unless there is some other rule that excludes PCs from being mounts, we can only go by the rules that include PCs as being mounts.
Thus, you both must be agreeing that PCs can be mounts, because you are both pointing out that there are no rules preventing PCs from being mounts, stop arguing.
Please point me to the specific rule which says that PCs cannot be mounts. All I've seen is the rules on mounted combat, which say nothing of the sort. If you can point me to a role which says that PCs cannot be mounts, then I'm happy to agree with you and admit that I'm wrong.
Please point me to the specific rule which says that PC's cannot declare themselves greater deities and it suddenly be so simply from said declaration, then declare that they have slain all the other deities and now reign supreme and that be so.
Please point me to the rule in Monopoly which says that a player cannot buy a dozen packs of monopoly money and use it in game. Or cannot keep a duplicate set of Community Chest and Chance cards, then when they would normally draw one, place one from their private deck on top of the pile before drawing a card as the normal rules require them to do? Or even make up their own such cards entirely, which name them specifically as a recipient of good things and the other players of bad and place that on top of the normal decks? After all, the rules do not actually say you cannot do such a thing.
Something not being explicitly prohibited by the rules does not make that thing explicitly allowed by them.
Kotath makes a very good point here. The rules (of any game) seldom tell you what you can't do, they only tell you what you can do and the limitations for doing it.
In this case, the rules for mounted combat require the mount to (in order):
Be willing
Be a creature
Be at least 1 size larger
Have appropriate anatomy (someplace to sit, as determined by DM)
So for goblin riding ally half-orc: half-orc is willing, is creature, is 1 size larger, and has shoulders that goblin can sit on (especially with backpack as additional support). All requirements met, so the rule that allows it to be a mount applies.
And that brings us back to the point of Urth' s comment: unless there is some other rule that excludes PCs from being mounts, we can only go by the rules that include PCs as being mounts.
Thus, you both must be agreeing that PCs can be mounts, because you are both pointing out that there are no rules preventing PCs from being mounts, stop arguing.
Given that a centaur has the body of a horse, and horses are acknowledged to have suitable anatomy to be mounts, we have at least one situation where a PC would be fairly undeniably able to be a mount unless there is a specific rule disallowing this.
This also brings us to yet more complication. Horses are specifically listed as mounts, but can a centaur ride a horse?
There is one and only one rule which can get in the way of a PC being the mount for another PC is the "appropriate anatomy" rule. However, without a written rule defining this, any creature the DM decides has an appropriate anatomy is able to be a mount, RAW.
While I am in Kotath's corner on this thing, I will make my final comment.
I went to my favourite RAW source, where they brook no rules of cool, or any other nonsense. The consensus was that yes, a PC CAN be a "willing" Mount for another PC IF the condition of a suitable anatomy is met. And unfortunately, what defines "suitable anatomy" is DM Fiat in this case. I was wrong. God, I hate saying that.
Now, I will argue to the cows come home that a Half-Orc is NOT suitable, no matter what Homebrew saddle is introduced. But if the DM in this game says "Sure, I will allow it", there is is nothing that Kotath and I can say about it within the strictures of RAW. It is really weak DM'ing to allow it, in my opinion, but unfortunately that can only be treated as such, an opinion.
While I am in Kotath's corner on this thing, I will make my final comment.
I went to my favourite RAW source, where they brook no rules of cool, or any other nonsense. The consensus was that yes, a PC CAN be a "willing" Mount for another PC IF the condition of a suitable anatomy is met. And unfortunately, what defines "suitable anatomy" is DM Fiat in this case. I was wrong. God, I hate saying that.
Now, I will argue to the cows come home that a Half-Orc is NOT suitable, no matter what Homebrew saddle is introduced. But if the DM in this game says "Sure, I will allow it", there is is nothing that Kotath and I can say about it within the strictures of RAW. It is really weak DM'ing to allow it, in my opinion, but unfortunately that can only be treated as such, an opinion.
Thank you. That's pretty much all I was saying. I agree with everything you say here, except for it being "weak DM'ing", but that's your opinion and you are entitled to it. I'm of the opinion that you are an overly strict DM that would, for me and my players, result in a game which we didn't enjoy very much. However, that doesn't make your opinion or play style wrong any more than mine is, they are just different.
I'm going to draw a line under this now, seeing as we all seem to be roughly on the same page.
If someone suggested that your combat unit could maximize it's firepower by having half the unit carry the other half on their shoulders, even without full kit, would you have taken the idea seriously? Now consider that suggestion further, where both soldiers in each pair are additionally carrying full kit. So, you, with full kit, carrying another soldier on your shoulders, who also has full kit?
Who said anything about maximizing firepower?
Even without adding homebrew limitations, using the mount rules like this isn't really gaining an advantage. All you gain is allowing one character to keep up with another despite (presumably) having 5ft less movement speed. All at the cost of:
the other character's STR and size (basically some "surplus" carrying capacity)
they'll always be in grenade fireball formation, and take extra actions to split up
the cost of some custom harness or sadle
the usual negative effects of mounts (getting knocked prone in certain circumstances, etc.)
Neither of them is getting a damage boost, extra actions, or anything else crazy like that. This whole discussion is an argument about so very little.
While I am in Kotath's corner on this thing, I will make my final comment.
I went to my favourite RAW source, where they brook no rules of cool, or any other nonsense. The consensus was that yes, a PC CAN be a "willing" Mount for another PC IF the condition of a suitable anatomy is met. And unfortunately, what defines "suitable anatomy" is DM Fiat in this case. I was wrong. God, I hate saying that.
Now, I will argue to the cows come home that a Half-Orc is NOT suitable, no matter what Homebrew saddle is introduced. But if the DM in this game says "Sure, I will allow it", there is is nothing that Kotath and I can say about it within the strictures of RAW. It is really weak DM'ing to allow it, in my opinion, but unfortunately that can only be treated as such, an opinion.
Well, people have already pointed out that you were wrong, but good for you to admit it for once. :)
And no, a DM is not "weak" for playing the game different from you. Following RAW is not a sign of weakness. Not following RAW is also not a sign of weakness.
Now, I will argue to the cows come home that a Half-Orc is NOT suitable, no matter what Homebrew saddle is introduced. But if the DM in this game says "Sure, I will allow it", there is is nothing that Kotath and I can say about it within the strictures of RAW. It is really weak DM'ing to allow it, in my opinion, but unfortunately that can only be treated as such, an opinion.
As someone who remembers being a small human that rode on the shoulders of a medium human, I would argue that a half-orc (assuming they have shoulders like humans do) does have suitable anatomy to be a mount even without a special saddle. From personal experience.
And it is not weak DMing to allow the players to do something that is both allowed in the rules and actually done by average people in real life.
Now, I will argue to the cows come home that a Half-Orc is NOT suitable, no matter what Homebrew saddle is introduced. But if the DM in this game says "Sure, I will allow it", there is is nothing that Kotath and I can say about it within the strictures of RAW. It is really weak DM'ing to allow it, in my opinion, but unfortunately that can only be treated as such, an opinion.
As someone who remembers being a small human that rode on the shoulders of a medium human, I would argue that a half-orc (assuming they have shoulders like humans do) does have suitable anatomy to be a mount even without a special saddle. From personal experience.
And it is not weak DMing to allow the players to do something that is both allowed in the rules and actually done by average people in real life.
I am still wondering about your (or anyone else's) memory of that small human riding on the shoulders of a medium human in combat situations where doing so was in any way a net benefit.
What benefit is mounting a PC anyway? This thread is very much not about power gaming and more about "can I do this fun thing?"
Now, I will argue to the cows come home that a Half-Orc is NOT suitable, no matter what Homebrew saddle is introduced. But if the DM in this game says "Sure, I will allow it", there is is nothing that Kotath and I can say about it within the strictures of RAW. It is really weak DM'ing to allow it, in my opinion, but unfortunately that can only be treated as such, an opinion.
As someone who remembers being a small human that rode on the shoulders of a medium human, I would argue that a half-orc (assuming they have shoulders like humans do) does have suitable anatomy to be a mount even without a special saddle. From personal experience.
And it is not weak DMing to allow the players to do something that is both allowed in the rules and actually done by average people in real life.
I am still wondering about your (or anyone else's) memory of that small human riding on the shoulders of a medium human in combat situations where doing so was in any way a net benefit.
What benefit is mounting a PC anyway? This thread is very much not about power gaming and more about "can I do this fun thing?"
It depends on how the DM adjudicates this. But the whole thing screams "exploit". Does the Goblin suddenly have the ability to reach up to 10 feet? How does movement work for both chars? How do attacks work? If the DM assigns severe penalties on this rule of cool, maybe it works. But what those penalties are, that is the key question.
What benefit is mounting a PC anyway? This thread is very much not about power gaming and more about "can I do this fun thing?"
It depends on how the DM adjudicates this. But the whole thing screams "exploit". Does the Goblin suddenly have the ability to reach up to 10 feet? How does movement work for both chars? How do attacks work? If the DM assigns severe penalties on this rule of cool, maybe it works. But what those penalties are, that is the key question.
If we are just going by RAW:
Goblin range stays normal. Mounts move, riders ride. Attacks can target either the mount or the rider (even opportunity attacks), Mount and rider attack normally.
Literally this only has the effect of 2 creatures occupying the same space except 1 can't move on their turn. It is far from an exploit, and does not need penalties.
It only becomes a problem when you have two Player Characters controlled at the same time by one Player. A Sidekick gets all the benefits a normal Player Character gets. They can have a class, levels, feats, and what-not. Even at first level, that's a problem. The example I used was fairly silly so try this.
Half-Orc Fighter. Goblin Sidekick Fighter. Each with two weapons, Rapier and Dagger. They can both take An Action, a Bonus Action, and a Reaction if triggered. That means they can attack *six* times against the same target if their target tries to get away. The Half-Orc even get to move and neither the Half-Orc or the Goblin are hindered in any way. How exactly the Goblin manages to reach the target as it flees, with a Dagger, is beyond me. The rules do not require the Goblin to *throw* the dagger, so it must have very long arms.
One of the most fundamental rules of 5e is that specific overrides general. The mounted combat rules are more specific than the general combat rules.
The examples given only really show that a human has a suitable anatomy.
A normal horse which hasn't been conditioned for it will probably struggle to carry a fully loaded adventurer. If a horse is found in a random village which is used to carrying a single, light villager for short, easy journeys, would probably end up exhausted pretty quickly carrying a half orc fighter in full plate, with all their gear, swinging a heavy battle axe. They still have a suitable anatomy.
These are adventures, not middle aged dad's. They are stronger and fitter than a normal human, just as a horse used by an adventure in combat is going to be stronger and fitter than the average horse.
You talked of homebrew items in this thread, specifically that you didn't allow players to create them to circumvent a rule. I responded to this specific point which you made in this thread. That's what happens in a discussion. If you don't want me to challenge your position on homebrew in a thread in rules and game mechanics, them don't discuss your position on homebrew in a thread on rules and game mechanics.
Huh? I don't even know what to do with "logic" like that. I have made it clear that Homebrew discussions are bad in this section. There is nothing more to say on that. And as for Mounts being a special case that over-rides the fundamental space rule of 5e, I will say it again: PC's are not mounts. They can't be treated as mounts.
Then why did you start discussing your position on homebrew items?
However, if you wish, I'll stop discussing the comments you made, specifically, on homebrew in this thread.
Please point me to the specific rule which says that PCs cannot be mounts. All I've seen is the rules on mounted combat, which say nothing of the sort. If you can point me to a role which says that PCs cannot be mounts, then I'm happy to agree with you and admit that I'm wrong.
In short, yeah. Just make sure all the rules for mounting is met (size difference, using movement, how targeting works, etc) and account for carry weight limit.
In order to be used as a mount, the creature in question must have the appropriate anatomy. That’s the requirement for using a creature as a mount, not finding it listed as a mount.
Is it RAW that a centaur PC can ride a horse? Or is it RAW that the GM must decide whether or not the anatomy is appropriate when the question is raised at the table? I contend that it is the latter.
You seem to have misunderstood my post in an attempt to take some cheap shots that aren’t really relevant. I’ll invite you to reread and consider the question I actually asked.
I agree. However, seeing as items often "circumvent a rule" in one way or another, them if you are going to allow special items to be made you are almost always going to have to allow them to "circumvent" one rule or another. If you are going to allow any homebrew items, magical or otherwise, at your table, then it's going to be near impossible to stick to not allowing ones which "circumvent" rules. In short, the declaration that items cannot be made at his table which circumvent the rules is pretty much saying no homebrew items, while making it sound like he isn't saying that and is saying something more reasonable.
As I pointed out, a standard horse (say a plough horse) is unlikely to be a suitable mount in combat. It would probably be fine carrying a humanoid at a sedate speed for travelling. However, take it into combat, and it is likely to panic, and unlikely to cope well with the constant changes in positioning etc. Such things are generally built up by training and conditioning, but it doesn't make their anatomy unsuitable for being a mount. A humanoid can mount and ride them, and that makes them suitable for being a mount.
Now, if you want to consider training and conditioning, I'm pretty sure that two humanoids could train and condition themselves to be effective in combat with one on the other's shoulders, just as a horse and rider can be trained and conditioned to be effective in combat.
The problem is that what is "common sense" to one is not to another. Some people will state forever and a day that there is one and only one possible reading of a set of rules, and another person will look and see the complete opposite. They are both using their common sense, but applying it in different ways.
The truth is that there are often multiple ways to read RAW, given the natural language used to write 5e. In that case, many will only see one as being "common sense", and there will be disagreements. Both sides will argue that the other is being silly, trying to exploit the rules, but they are not. Both honestly and legitimately see their own interpretation of the wording as making sense, and honestly feel that the other is not sensible.
Now, in this case with the mounts, I have agreed that I think allowing this with no constraints is an exploit and definitely not intended, but I think there is a strong case that it is RAW. At my own table, I would place extra restrictions on a sidekick using a PC as a mount in this way, and I'd make it very clear that it would be restricted even further if I felt it too powerful. But I wouldn't disallow it completely because my players world's find it fun, and it isn't completely ridiculous. This is why you need a DM to interpret and arbitrate these things. Just because something is RAW, doesn't mean it should automatically be allowed if it doesn't make sense.
Kotath makes a very good point here. The rules (of any game) seldom tell you what you can't do, they only tell you what you can do and the limitations for doing it.
In this case, the rules for mounted combat require the mount to (in order):
So for goblin riding ally half-orc: half-orc is willing, is creature, is 1 size larger, and has shoulders that goblin can sit on (especially with backpack as additional support). All requirements met, so the rule that allows it to be a mount applies.
And that brings us back to the point of Urth' s comment: unless there is some other rule that excludes PCs from being mounts, we can only go by the rules that include PCs as being mounts.
Thus, you both must be agreeing that PCs can be mounts, because you are both pointing out that there are no rules preventing PCs from being mounts, stop arguing.
This.
Also, https://www.dndbeyond.com/races/centaur
Given that a centaur has the body of a horse, and horses are acknowledged to have suitable anatomy to be mounts, we have at least one situation where a PC would be fairly undeniably able to be a mount unless there is a specific rule disallowing this.
This also brings us to yet more complication. Horses are specifically listed as mounts, but can a centaur ride a horse?
There is one and only one rule which can get in the way of a PC being the mount for another PC is the "appropriate anatomy" rule. However, without a written rule defining this, any creature the DM decides has an appropriate anatomy is able to be a mount, RAW.
While I am in Kotath's corner on this thing, I will make my final comment.
I went to my favourite RAW source, where they brook no rules of cool, or any other nonsense. The consensus was that yes, a PC CAN be a "willing" Mount for another PC IF the condition of a suitable anatomy is met. And unfortunately, what defines "suitable anatomy" is DM Fiat in this case. I was wrong. God, I hate saying that.
Now, I will argue to the cows come home that a Half-Orc is NOT suitable, no matter what Homebrew saddle is introduced. But if the DM in this game says "Sure, I will allow it", there is is nothing that Kotath and I can say about it within the strictures of RAW. It is really weak DM'ing to allow it, in my opinion, but unfortunately that can only be treated as such, an opinion.
Thank you. That's pretty much all I was saying. I agree with everything you say here, except for it being "weak DM'ing", but that's your opinion and you are entitled to it. I'm of the opinion that you are an overly strict DM that would, for me and my players, result in a game which we didn't enjoy very much. However, that doesn't make your opinion or play style wrong any more than mine is, they are just different.
I'm going to draw a line under this now, seeing as we all seem to be roughly on the same page.
Who said anything about maximizing firepower?
Even without adding homebrew limitations, using the mount rules like this isn't really gaining an advantage. All you gain is allowing one character to keep up with another despite (presumably) having 5ft less movement speed. All at the cost of:
grenadefireball formation, and take extra actions to split upNeither of them is getting a damage boost, extra actions, or anything else crazy like that. This whole discussion is an argument about so very little.
Well, people have already pointed out that you were wrong, but good for you to admit it for once. :)
And no, a DM is not "weak" for playing the game different from you. Following RAW is not a sign of weakness. Not following RAW is also not a sign of weakness.
As someone who remembers being a small human that rode on the shoulders of a medium human, I would argue that a half-orc (assuming they have shoulders like humans do) does have suitable anatomy to be a mount even without a special saddle. From personal experience.
And it is not weak DMing to allow the players to do something that is both allowed in the rules and actually done by average people in real life.
What benefit is mounting a PC anyway? This thread is very much not about power gaming and more about "can I do this fun thing?"
It depends on how the DM adjudicates this. But the whole thing screams "exploit". Does the Goblin suddenly have the ability to reach up to 10 feet? How does movement work for both chars? How do attacks work? If the DM assigns severe penalties on this rule of cool, maybe it works. But what those penalties are, that is the key question.
If we are just going by RAW:
Goblin range stays normal. Mounts move, riders ride. Attacks can target either the mount or the rider (even opportunity attacks), Mount and rider attack normally.
Literally this only has the effect of 2 creatures occupying the same space except 1 can't move on their turn. It is far from an exploit, and does not need penalties.
It only becomes a problem when you have two Player Characters controlled at the same time by one Player. A Sidekick gets all the benefits a normal Player Character gets. They can have a class, levels, feats, and what-not. Even at first level, that's a problem. The example I used was fairly silly so try this.
Half-Orc Fighter. Goblin Sidekick Fighter. Each with two weapons, Rapier and Dagger. They can both take An Action, a Bonus Action, and a Reaction if triggered. That means they can attack *six* times against the same target if their target tries to get away. The Half-Orc even get to move and neither the Half-Orc or the Goblin are hindered in any way. How exactly the Goblin manages to reach the target as it flees, with a Dagger, is beyond me. The rules do not require the Goblin to *throw* the dagger, so it must have very long arms.
<Insert clever signature here>