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.
Okay, but all of that is just as true if the two characters are just standing next to each other? DxJxC is totally right. There’s nothing to exploit here.
I don't have a problem if two different people are involved, plus the DM. It's only when one person is playing two characters that you get trouble.
Ok. But that personal hangup doesn't really have to do with using PCs as a mount. A sidekicks have their own initiative, they don't share a turn or anything, mechanically it is the same as if there were 2 players as well.
The 'mount' PC can be built for dex, and with the Mounted Combat feat take half or no damage from anything requiring a dex save. With the feat, you can also decide who takes any given hit, 'mount' or 'rider.' And if it is some sort of backpack arrangement, you end up with arguments over the cover rules, with the rider forcing the opponent to swing at the rider despite the mount giving them 50% cover as well. And then even with the optional rule on hitting cover, as long as the mount had AC equal or better than that of the rider (or even just one better) then it would be pure benefit.
And the rider could dismount on their turn and move up to half their movement, in addition to any movement they had gained from the mount.
Now we are finally starting to get into possible exploits (I can't believe it took 102 comments). Well, except the large section about cover. Mounts don't give their riders cover like adjacent creatures do.
Mounted combatant does help protect the mount. Does nothing to protect the rider, Attacks at the rider can't be redirected to the mount, so doesn't let you fully decide who takes the hit. The mount needs to carry 2 inventories and a creature, so I doubt a dex build could do it. Basically, all this does is cost a feat to make riding a PC actually worth it (because without it, mounting is mostly downsides).
As for having half your speed after dismounting, so? The advantage of a little extra moment is pretty negligible. Especially in this case because enemies will know where the mount ended their turn at. Not to mention this will remove the benefits of mounted combatant that you just mentioned. Plus you could have had an ally drag you at half speed for the same effect without dealing with mounting at all.
Basically, without building a character specifically around riding, there is no way to make mounting a PC advantageous let alone exploitive. But you can build around anything and make it powerful.
Small note: The "Dismounting and moving half your speed" exploit? Ignoring the usefulness of such, it's actually pointless the way I'm imagining the system. What I mean by this is that the "saddle" would have straps. The straps would make prevent the rider from falling off the mount (With the penalty that the mount may have to make STR saves to prevent from falling over when rider takes a heavy blow), but the straps would take an action to fasten or unfasten. So if you wanted to dismount, move half your speed, and attack, you would have to unstrap the turn before or simply not strap in at all. So in other words, it would take two rounds to get an extra 15 feet of movement, assuming you don't fall off between turns. The primary advantage of the mounting system would be distributing damage across two characters, increasing the tank power of the mount and protecting the rider.
Small note: The "Dismounting and moving half your speed" exploit? Ignoring the usefulness of such, it's actually pointless the way I'm imagining the system. What I mean by this is that the "saddle" would have straps. The straps would make prevent the rider from falling off the mount (With the penalty that the mount may have to make STR saves to prevent from falling over when rider takes a heavy blow), but the straps would take an action to fasten or unfasten. So if you wanted to dismount, move half your speed, and attack, you would have to unstrap the turn before or simply not strap in at all. So in other words, it would take two rounds to get an extra 15 feet of movement, assuming you don't fall off between turns. The primary advantage of the mounting system would be distributing damage across two characters, increasing the tank power of the mount and protecting the rider.
Ignoring your big homebrew nerf for a second...
At the end, what protection does the rider get? Are you homebrewing some benefits to offset the needs?
If the 'mount' has Mobility, there is an obvious advantage in that if their movement does not trigger AoO's . Two mobilities for the price of one.
With an independently-moving mount, the rider having mobiliity doesn't matter. Generally, if something else moves you, you don't draw an AoO. But, "if the mount provokes an opportunity attack while you’re on it, the attacker can target you or the mount."
So giving the mount mobility does, technically, prevent AoOs on the rider, but only because it had a special rule to have them there in the first place...
Mounts aren't cheesy, in general. They're not very powerful. I think the main thing OP would be gaining from this is "usually not needing to track a separate token for their sidekick."
I don't have a problem if two different people are involved, plus the DM. It's only when one person is playing two characters that you get trouble.
Ok. But that personal hangup doesn't really have to do with using PCs as a mount. A sidekicks have their own initiative, they don't share a turn or anything, mechanically it is the same as if there were 2 players as well.
The 'mount' PC can be built for dex, and with the Mounted Combat feat take half or no damage from anything requiring a dex save. With the feat, you can also decide who takes any given hit, 'mount' or 'rider.' And if it is some sort of backpack arrangement, you end up with arguments over the cover rules, with the rider forcing the opponent to swing at the rider despite the mount giving them 50% cover as well. And then even with the optional rule on hitting cover, as long as the mount had AC equal or better than that of the rider (or even just one better) then it would be pure benefit.
And the rider could dismount on their turn and move up to half their movement, in addition to any movement they had gained from the mount.
Now we are finally starting to get into possible exploits (I can't believe it took 102 comments). Well, except the large section about cover. Mounts don't give their riders cover like adjacent creatures do.
Mounted combatant does help protect the mount. Does nothing to protect the rider, Attacks at the rider can't be redirected to the mount, so doesn't let you fully decide who takes the hit. The mount needs to carry 2 inventories and a creature, so I doubt a dex build could do it. Basically, all this does is cost a feat to make riding a PC actually worth it (because without it, mounting is mostly downsides).
As for having half your speed after dismounting, so? The advantage of a little extra moment is pretty negligible. Especially in this case because enemies will know where the mount ended their turn at. Not to mention this will remove the benefits of mounted combatant that you just mentioned. Plus you could have had an ally drag you at half speed for the same effect without dealing with mounting at all.
Basically, without building a character specifically around riding, there is no way to make mounting a PC advantageous let alone exploitive. But you can build around anything and make it powerful.
Mounts do not normally provide cover, no. However that does not stop someone from arguing the question. If one can hide behind a mount using it as cover then presumably being carried in a backpack howdah arrangement would likewise provide some cover. Or at least there is an argument there.
If the 'mount' has Mobility, there is an obvious advantage in that if their movement does not trigger AoO's . Two mobilities for the price of one.
Oh and the dex build could be achieved with a good set of rolls or with a girdle of giant str.
With two characters in a single space, attackers are forced to choose between the rider or the mount to attack. With attacks being spread across two characters, each receives less damage than they would normally. Yes I’m aware that this is mechanically identical to just having two characters on the field, but I can’t help but feel that a tanking character could potentially benefit from having a sidekick occupying the same space. The sidekick receives a similar benefit, as they can’t be isolated and singled out, due to the far more intimidating orc protecting them.
Well, somehow I thought this would have settled down by now. Silly me...
Yes, there are some situations where one PC using another as a mount could lead to an advantage. I think the most obvious is that, when in a narrow (5ft wide) corridor, both PCs would be able to get within normal melee range of an enemy, which would not be possible otherwise. Similarly, it has the potential to increase the number of PCs or allies who can fit around an enemy. The pair only provoke a single OA on leaving an enemy range, and some feats and abilities can be used to great effect.
That said, many abilities carry strong situational advantages. Here, they also carry disadvantages, and many have even said on here that they would impose additional homebrew nerfs (a type of homebrew which seems to be much more acceptable to some). On balance, I don't think it would be very difficult at all for a DM to deal with, nor that they would be ridiculously overpowered.
If the 'mount' has Mobility, there is an obvious advantage in that if their movement does not trigger AoO's . Two mobilities for the price of one.
With an independently-moving mount, the rider having mobiliity doesn't matter. Generally, if something else moves you, you don't draw an AoO. But, "if the mount provokes an opportunity attack while you’re on it, the attacker can target you or the mount."
So giving the mount mobility does, technically, prevent AoOs on the rider, but only because it had a special rule to have them there in the first place...
Mounts aren't cheesy, in general. They're not very powerful. I think the main thing OP would be gaining from this is "usually not needing to track a separate token for their sidekick."
Mounts are normally limited by the fact they are normally not levelled. A PC as a mount is considerably tougher and more powerful than most conventional mounts.
A Goblin can ride a Pony or a Mastiff into battle. A Mastiff has 5 HP, a Pony has 11. A Half-Orc sidekick.....well, way way more. And it will be armoured, so vastly superior AC to any Mount. But hey, this was always about "rule and cool", and "being creative", never about exploiting the game rules.....
I am sure the DM won't mind when the medium sized 6th level Paladin decides that he wants a 6th level Side Kick Golaith in Full Plate as a Mount, with what, a 18 Con, and maybe 50 HP?
If the 'mount' has Mobility, there is an obvious advantage in that if their movement does not trigger AoO's . Two mobilities for the price of one.
With an independently-moving mount, the rider having mobiliity doesn't matter. Generally, if something else moves you, you don't draw an AoO. But, "if the mount provokes an opportunity attack while you’re on it, the attacker can target you or the mount."
So giving the mount mobility does, technically, prevent AoOs on the rider, but only because it had a special rule to have them there in the first place...
Mounts aren't cheesy, in general. They're not very powerful. I think the main thing OP would be gaining from this is "usually not needing to track a separate token for their sidekick."
Mounts are normally limited by the fact they are normally not levelled. A PC as a mount is considerably tougher and more powerful than most conventional mounts.
A Goblin can ride a Pony or a Mastiff into battle. A Mastiff has 5 HP, a Pony has 11. A Half-Orc sidekick.....well, way way more. And it will be armoured, so vastly superior AC to any Mount. But hey, this was always about "rule and cool", and "being creative", never about exploiting the game rules.....
I am sure the DM won't mind when the medium sized 6th level Paladin decides that he wants a 6th level Side Kick Golaith in Full Plate as a Mount, with what, a 18 Con, and maybe 50 HP?
I know I wouldn't mind, as the DM. That would cripple the party, because the goliath would count as a full member for CR purposes, but contribute significantly less. As a general rule, sidekicks make the game harder.
Friendly reminder warhorses are proficient in barding, so anyone with money can just buy an AC 18 mount with uncrippled rolls.
Second friendly reminder warhorses are fully qualified to be warrior sidekicks.
If the 'mount' has Mobility, there is an obvious advantage in that if their movement does not trigger AoO's . Two mobilities for the price of one.
With an independently-moving mount, the rider having mobiliity doesn't matter. Generally, if something else moves you, you don't draw an AoO. But, "if the mount provokes an opportunity attack while you’re on it, the attacker can target you or the mount."
So giving the mount mobility does, technically, prevent AoOs on the rider, but only because it had a special rule to have them there in the first place...
Mounts aren't cheesy, in general. They're not very powerful. I think the main thing OP would be gaining from this is "usually not needing to track a separate token for their sidekick."
Mounts are normally limited by the fact they are normally not levelled. A PC as a mount is considerably tougher and more powerful than most conventional mounts.
A Goblin can ride a Pony or a Mastiff into battle. A Mastiff has 5 HP, a Pony has 11. A Half-Orc sidekick.....well, way way more. And it will be armoured, so vastly superior AC to any Mount. But hey, this was always about "rule and cool", and "being creative", never about exploiting the game rules.....
I am sure the DM won't mind when the medium sized 6th level Paladin decides that he wants a 6th level Side Kick Golaith in Full Plate as a Mount, with what, a 18 Con, and maybe 50 HP?
I know I wouldn't mind, as the DM. That would cripple the party, because the goliath would count as a full member for CR purposes, but contribute significantly less. As a general rule, sidekicks make the game harder.
Friendly reminder warhorses are proficient in barding, so anyone with money can just buy an AC 18 mount with uncrippled rolls.
Right..sure. And said Golaith, with 50 plus HP, swinging a sword, doing everything that a PC can do, is on the same level as a 29 HP Warhorse?
As for the CR rating, I am sure the rest of the party will be thrilled with not only the CR encounter going up, but also the time per round for all chars and NPC's to do what they do goes up. The Sidekick was created for small parties that needed chars to get it to 4 functional PC's/NPC's. Not to create uber-mounts for the players, effectively doubling the amount of entities in the game.
Lastly, how does a Half-Orc Side Kick for the Goblin not "cripple the party", while the same scenario for the other players does?
I think the goblin should have disadvantage while attacking since he'd be really high up for his short reach. I also think saddles are out as too silly, unless he was riding like a centaur...
I think the goblin should have disadvantage while attacking since he'd be really high up for his short reach. I also think saddles are out as too silly, unless he was riding like a centaur...
Being out of reach would make the attack illegal to even attempt, not be at disadvantage, and you're 100% right in general, that you measure attacks from the rider, not the mount. If you look at the statblock of e.g. an Ogre Howdah, you can see this coming up in practice (that's 4 goblins riding an ogre).
I can't imagine any scenario where a PC mount/rider combination is better than the same PCs side by side. Your opponents still have to decide which to attack, the PCs still have the same number of attacks.
I even would not *want* to do that, as you can't use flanking when both PCs are in the same space. The goblin cannot even effectively use their nimble escape feature when mounted. That plus both PCs 100 % of the time being caught in the same AoE attacks makes this choice less advantageous from an optimizer pov. I even consider it a nerf to the sidekick.
If the player was asking for a sidekick rider, just to add the sidekick as additional support, I could understand the discussion, but it is the other way around. The sidekick is already on scene, and already contributing.
I think the goblin should have disadvantage while attacking since he'd be really high up for his short reach. I also think saddles are out as too silly, unless he was riding like a centaur...
Being out of reach would make the attack illegal to even attempt, not be at disadvantage, and you're 100% right in general, that you measure attacks from the rider, not the mount. If you look at the statblock of e.g. an Ogre Howdah, you can see this coming up in practice (that's 4 goblins riding an ogre).
Now you bring up a very good point. The Small Creatures riding in that Howdah MUST use Reach Weapons to attack anything within 5 feet of the Ogre. However, the Half-Orc is Medium, while the Ogre is Large. How does the DM adjudicate this? There is no way a Goblin riding 5 feet off the ground can reach down and attack something close to the ground (or Prone) with a Dagger, or a Short Sword. And if the Goblin needs a longer weapon, where is this weapon stored? How much space does is there on this Half-Orc's backs?
The entire concept brings up many many logistical questions for the DM.
I think the goblin should have disadvantage while attacking since he'd be really high up for his short reach. I also think saddles are out as too silly, unless he was riding like a centaur...
Being out of reach would make the attack illegal to even attempt, not be at disadvantage, and you're 100% right in general, that you measure attacks from the rider, not the mount. If you look at the statblock of e.g. an Ogre Howdah, you can see this coming up in practice (that's 4 goblins riding an ogre).
Now you bring up a very good point. The Small Creatures riding in that Howdah MUST use Reach Weapons to attack anything within 5 feet of the Ogre. However, the Half-Orc is Medium, while the Ogre is Large. How does the DM adjudicate this? There is no way a Goblin riding 5 feet off the ground can reach down and attack something close to the ground (or Prone) with a Dagger, or a Short Sword. And if the Goblin needs a longer weapon, where is this weapon stored? How much space does is there on this Half-Orc's backs?
The entire concept brings up many many logistical questions for the DM.
Yes, but they're not germane to this discussion specifically - they apply to any mounted combatant engaging in mounted combat. A goblin riding a half-orc needs to answer this question just like they do for riding a mastiff and just like they do for riding a horse. Nothing about the half-orc makes the situation unique or different.
I think the goblin should have disadvantage while attacking since he'd be really high up for his short reach. I also think saddles are out as too silly, unless he was riding like a centaur...
Being out of reach would make the attack illegal to even attempt, not be at disadvantage, and you're 100% right in general, that you measure attacks from the rider, not the mount. If you look at the statblock of e.g. an Ogre Howdah, you can see this coming up in practice (that's 4 goblins riding an ogre).
Now you bring up a very good point. The Small Creatures riding in that Howdah MUST use Reach Weapons to attack anything within 5 feet of the Ogre. However, the Half-Orc is Medium, while the Ogre is Large. How does the DM adjudicate this? There is no way a Goblin riding 5 feet off the ground can reach down and attack something close to the ground (or Prone) with a Dagger, or a Short Sword. And if the Goblin needs a longer weapon, where is this weapon stored? How much space does is there on this Half-Orc's backs?
The entire concept brings up many many logistical questions for the DM.
Yes, but they're not germane to this discussion specifically - they apply to any mounted combatant engaging in mounted combat. A goblin riding a half-orc needs to answer this question just like they do for riding a mastiff and just like they do for riding a horse. Nothing about the half-orc makes the situation unique or different.
Precisely.
Many humans mounted on horses would be unable to attack a creature who was prone on the ground, especially with a shorter weapon like a dagger. This situation is no different whether it is a human on a horse or a goblin on a half orc. I doubt most DMs would force a PC to dismount in order to attack a prone enemy, even if they were using a dagger.
If you have a problem with sidekicks, you have a problem with sidekicks. OP, the DM, already has a player with a sidekick, and seems completely OK with it. The mount rules aren't the issue, and using the mount rules to give the sidekick a piggyback ride isn't giving the sidekick undue advantage.
I can't imagine any scenario where a PC mount/rider combination is better than the same PCs side by side. Your opponents still have to decide which to attack, the PCs still have the same number of attacks.
Having 2 creatures attacking from the same "space" can have some definite advantages. The easiest to consider is where an enemy is in a 5ft wide space, like a corridor/passage/tunnel. Normally, only 1 creature could get within normal melee range, but with the goblin on the half orcs shoulders they can both do so.
I think the goblin should have disadvantage while attacking since he'd be really high up for his short reach. I also think saddles are out as too silly, unless he was riding like a centaur...
Being out of reach would make the attack illegal to even attempt, not be at disadvantage, and you're 100% right in general, that you measure attacks from the rider, not the mount. If you look at the statblock of e.g. an Ogre Howdah, you can see this coming up in practice (that's 4 goblins riding an ogre).
Now you bring up a very good point. The Small Creatures riding in that Howdah MUST use Reach Weapons to attack anything within 5 feet of the Ogre. However, the Half-Orc is Medium, while the Ogre is Large. How does the DM adjudicate this? There is no way a Goblin riding 5 feet off the ground can reach down and attack something close to the ground (or Prone) with a Dagger, or a Short Sword. And if the Goblin needs a longer weapon, where is this weapon stored? How much space does is there on this Half-Orc's backs?
The entire concept brings up many many logistical questions for the DM.
Yes, but they're not germane to this discussion specifically - they apply to any mounted combatant engaging in mounted combat. A goblin riding a half-orc needs to answer this question just like they do for riding a mastiff and just like they do for riding a horse. Nothing about the half-orc makes the situation unique or different.
If the player, and DM, are going to get into rule of cool to make a custom saddle to allow a Goblin to ride a Half-Orc int battle, the questions are very germane to the discussion. I completely agree that a human riding a Warhorse should not be able to use a Dagger against a Prone target.
But a Goblin on a Mastiff, that makes enough sense as both are low enough to the ground, and the Goblin does have some freedom of movement in a saddle. But the same Goblin, in some sort of contraption on a Half-Orc, no, the Dagger and Short Sword just won't work. The Goblin won't have that freedom of movement, for starters.
I have accepted that by RAW it is DM Fiat for allow a Goblin to ride a Medium sized Humanoid. I still reject the entire premise that this rule of cool does not place severe limitations on both the rider and mount.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Okay, but all of that is just as true if the two characters are just standing next to each other? DxJxC is totally right. There’s nothing to exploit here.
I don't have a problem if two different people are involved, plus the DM. It's only when one person is playing two characters that you get trouble.
<Insert clever signature here>
Ok. But that personal hangup doesn't really have to do with using PCs as a mount. A sidekicks have their own initiative, they don't share a turn or anything, mechanically it is the same as if there were 2 players as well.
Now we are finally starting to get into possible exploits (I can't believe it took 102 comments). Well, except the large section about cover. Mounts don't give their riders cover like adjacent creatures do.
Mounted combatant does help protect the mount. Does nothing to protect the rider, Attacks at the rider can't be redirected to the mount, so doesn't let you fully decide who takes the hit. The mount needs to carry 2 inventories and a creature, so I doubt a dex build could do it. Basically, all this does is cost a feat to make riding a PC actually worth it (because without it, mounting is mostly downsides).
As for having half your speed after dismounting, so? The advantage of a little extra moment is pretty negligible. Especially in this case because enemies will know where the mount ended their turn at. Not to mention this will remove the benefits of mounted combatant that you just mentioned. Plus you could have had an ally drag you at half speed for the same effect without dealing with mounting at all.
Basically, without building a character specifically around riding, there is no way to make mounting a PC advantageous let alone exploitive. But you can build around anything and make it powerful.
Small note: The "Dismounting and moving half your speed" exploit? Ignoring the usefulness of such, it's actually pointless the way I'm imagining the system. What I mean by this is that the "saddle" would have straps. The straps would make prevent the rider from falling off the mount (With the penalty that the mount may have to make STR saves to prevent from falling over when rider takes a heavy blow), but the straps would take an action to fasten or unfasten. So if you wanted to dismount, move half your speed, and attack, you would have to unstrap the turn before or simply not strap in at all. So in other words, it would take two rounds to get an extra 15 feet of movement, assuming you don't fall off between turns. The primary advantage of the mounting system would be distributing damage across two characters, increasing the tank power of the mount and protecting the rider.
Ignoring your big homebrew nerf for a second...
At the end, what protection does the rider get? Are you homebrewing some benefits to offset the needs?
With an independently-moving mount, the rider having mobiliity doesn't matter. Generally, if something else moves you, you don't draw an AoO. But, "if the mount provokes an opportunity attack while you’re on it, the attacker can target you or the mount."
So giving the mount mobility does, technically, prevent AoOs on the rider, but only because it had a special rule to have them there in the first place...
Mounts aren't cheesy, in general. They're not very powerful. I think the main thing OP would be gaining from this is "usually not needing to track a separate token for their sidekick."
With two characters in a single space, attackers are forced to choose between the rider or the mount to attack. With attacks being spread across two characters, each receives less damage than they would normally. Yes I’m aware that this is mechanically identical to just having two characters on the field, but I can’t help but feel that a tanking character could potentially benefit from having a sidekick occupying the same space. The sidekick receives a similar benefit, as they can’t be isolated and singled out, due to the far more intimidating orc protecting them.
Well, somehow I thought this would have settled down by now. Silly me...
Yes, there are some situations where one PC using another as a mount could lead to an advantage. I think the most obvious is that, when in a narrow (5ft wide) corridor, both PCs would be able to get within normal melee range of an enemy, which would not be possible otherwise. Similarly, it has the potential to increase the number of PCs or allies who can fit around an enemy. The pair only provoke a single OA on leaving an enemy range, and some feats and abilities can be used to great effect.
That said, many abilities carry strong situational advantages. Here, they also carry disadvantages, and many have even said on here that they would impose additional homebrew nerfs (a type of homebrew which seems to be much more acceptable to some). On balance, I don't think it would be very difficult at all for a DM to deal with, nor that they would be ridiculously overpowered.
A Goblin can ride a Pony or a Mastiff into battle. A Mastiff has 5 HP, a Pony has 11. A Half-Orc sidekick.....well, way way more. And it will be armoured, so vastly superior AC to any Mount. But hey, this was always about "rule and cool", and "being creative", never about exploiting the game rules.....
I am sure the DM won't mind when the medium sized 6th level Paladin decides that he wants a 6th level Side Kick Golaith in Full Plate as a Mount, with what, a 18 Con, and maybe 50 HP?
I know I wouldn't mind, as the DM. That would cripple the party, because the goliath would count as a full member for CR purposes, but contribute significantly less. As a general rule, sidekicks make the game harder.
Friendly reminder warhorses are proficient in barding, so anyone with money can just buy an AC 18 mount with uncrippled rolls.
Second friendly reminder warhorses are fully qualified to be warrior sidekicks.
Right..sure. And said Golaith, with 50 plus HP, swinging a sword, doing everything that a PC can do, is on the same level as a 29 HP Warhorse?
As for the CR rating, I am sure the rest of the party will be thrilled with not only the CR encounter going up, but also the time per round for all chars and NPC's to do what they do goes up. The Sidekick was created for small parties that needed chars to get it to 4 functional PC's/NPC's. Not to create uber-mounts for the players, effectively doubling the amount of entities in the game.
Lastly, how does a Half-Orc Side Kick for the Goblin not "cripple the party", while the same scenario for the other players does?
I think the goblin should have disadvantage while attacking since he'd be really high up for his short reach. I also think saddles are out as too silly, unless he was riding like a centaur...
Being out of reach would make the attack illegal to even attempt, not be at disadvantage, and you're 100% right in general, that you measure attacks from the rider, not the mount. If you look at the statblock of e.g. an Ogre Howdah, you can see this coming up in practice (that's 4 goblins riding an ogre).
I can't imagine any scenario where a PC mount/rider combination is better than the same PCs side by side. Your opponents still have to decide which to attack, the PCs still have the same number of attacks.
I even would not *want* to do that, as you can't use flanking when both PCs are in the same space. The goblin cannot even effectively use their nimble escape feature when mounted. That plus both PCs 100 % of the time being caught in the same AoE attacks makes this choice less advantageous from an optimizer pov. I even consider it a nerf to the sidekick.
If the player was asking for a sidekick rider, just to add the sidekick as additional support, I could understand the discussion, but it is the other way around. The sidekick is already on scene, and already contributing.
More Interesting Lock Picking Rules
Now you bring up a very good point. The Small Creatures riding in that Howdah MUST use Reach Weapons to attack anything within 5 feet of the Ogre. However, the Half-Orc is Medium, while the Ogre is Large. How does the DM adjudicate this? There is no way a Goblin riding 5 feet off the ground can reach down and attack something close to the ground (or Prone) with a Dagger, or a Short Sword. And if the Goblin needs a longer weapon, where is this weapon stored? How much space does is there on this Half-Orc's backs?
The entire concept brings up many many logistical questions for the DM.
Yes, but they're not germane to this discussion specifically - they apply to any mounted combatant engaging in mounted combat. A goblin riding a half-orc needs to answer this question just like they do for riding a mastiff and just like they do for riding a horse. Nothing about the half-orc makes the situation unique or different.
Precisely.
Many humans mounted on horses would be unable to attack a creature who was prone on the ground, especially with a shorter weapon like a dagger. This situation is no different whether it is a human on a horse or a goblin on a half orc. I doubt most DMs would force a PC to dismount in order to attack a prone enemy, even if they were using a dagger.
If you have a problem with sidekicks, you have a problem with sidekicks. OP, the DM, already has a player with a sidekick, and seems completely OK with it. The mount rules aren't the issue, and using the mount rules to give the sidekick a piggyback ride isn't giving the sidekick undue advantage.
Having 2 creatures attacking from the same "space" can have some definite advantages. The easiest to consider is where an enemy is in a 5ft wide space, like a corridor/passage/tunnel. Normally, only 1 creature could get within normal melee range, but with the goblin on the half orcs shoulders they can both do so.
If the player, and DM, are going to get into rule of cool to make a custom saddle to allow a Goblin to ride a Half-Orc int battle, the questions are very germane to the discussion. I completely agree that a human riding a Warhorse should not be able to use a Dagger against a Prone target.
But a Goblin on a Mastiff, that makes enough sense as both are low enough to the ground, and the Goblin does have some freedom of movement in a saddle. But the same Goblin, in some sort of contraption on a Half-Orc, no, the Dagger and Short Sword just won't work. The Goblin won't have that freedom of movement, for starters.
I have accepted that by RAW it is DM Fiat for allow a Goblin to ride a Medium sized Humanoid. I still reject the entire premise that this rule of cool does not place severe limitations on both the rider and mount.