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.
According to the rules for movement in combat, you may move through a space occupied by a non-hostile creature, but not end your movement there.
You can also break up your movement between attacks/actions. So the way I'm reading it, you can move into the space of your ally, attack, move out of the space to not end your movement in an occupied space. This would provoke an opportunity attack, which in this particular case could be avoided by nimble escape.
Agreed that this may not work at every table, and may not have the same utility for different creatures, so you are right, that this may come up as an advantage.
Thank you for pointing it out, I did not consider that.
Even so, I'd consider that an edge case, which does not make the mount/rider PC combo overpowered (and which a DM can circumvent by making the tunnel narrow and low).
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.
Depending on if you are playing on a grid or theatre of the mind, the outcome of this question is different.
The diagonal of a square on a grid is 5 feet, which leads to square circles. If the goblin is at the square 5 feet 'up', they can reach the square 1 below, the one on the same level, and the square 1 above. Meaning that a dagger attack against a prone target not only is possible, but also gains advantage for the target being prone.
However, if I was following your description, it would be a drawback of the rider/mount PC combo and an argument that you don't need to nerf it to become viable.
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.
That's fine, the big trick is working out for which mounts you want your limitations to apply to (and what you want those limitations to be). Many many many non-humanoids have the same body shape as humanoids; for example, a steel defender can explicitly be bipedal.
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.
Depending on if you are playing on a grid or theatre of the mind, the outcome of this question is different.
The diagonal of a square on a grid is 5 feet, which leads to square circles. If the goblin is at the square 5 feet 'up', they can reach the square 1 below, the one on the same level, and the square 1 above. Meaning that a dagger attack against a prone target not only is possible, but also gains advantage for the target being prone.
However, if I was following your description, it would be a drawback of the rider/mount PC combo and an argument that you don't need to nerf it to become viable.
And therein lies the rub.
A typical "attack", or turn, allows for a char to dodge and weave, thrust and parry, and move within the 5 feet of space they occupy. Hex or square does not matter. But a Goblin, strapped into some kind of saddle, that is another matter. They don't have nearly the freedom of movement they would on the ground, nor even the freedom of movement they would on a horse.
Though I would say that chars on even traditional mounts should have more limitations on their movement and actions than those described by RAW.
Basically every argument I've read since yesterday is a problem with the mounting in general and little to nothing to do with riding a PC. If you don't like it, don't do it, but it IS allowed, so stop arguing about it.
The biggest argument I could see against a PC mounting a PC is the Mounted Combatant feat. It makes the mounted PC immune to attacks, and combos incredibly well with things like sentinel.
RAI, PCs aren't intended to be eligible mounts, but the DM is given just enough flexibility to allow it if they think it makes sense. I think that as long as your PCs aren't intending to abuse it, you won't break anything. In the OP's case, they are probably fine.
Basically every argument I've read since yesterday is a problem with the mounting in general and little to nothing to do with riding a PC. If you don't like it, don't do it, but it IS allowed, so stop arguing about it.
I'm sorry, it is only allowed if the DM says so, as the rule is clear: "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."
As there are no more rules than this, any DM can decide that a half-orc does not have the appropriate anatomy to serve as a mount for a goblin. Personally, as a DM, I would rule that it does not have an appropriate anatomy, head and limbs are badly placed and would get in the way, not to mention equilibrium problems (there is a reason for all mounts to be quadrupeds in the rules, for example, stability and the position/direction of limbs).
That's where this thread is at since page 1 ;)
The OP is the DM of the campaign and wanted to know if it was possible (which it is, if they as DM want to allow it)...
Basically every argument I've read since yesterday is a problem with the mounting in general and little to nothing to do with riding a PC. If you don't like it, don't do it, but it IS allowed, so stop arguing about it.
I'm sorry, it is only allowed if the DM says so, as the rule is clear: "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."
As there are no more rules than this, any DM can decide that a half-orc does not have the appropriate anatomy to serve as a mount for a goblin. Personally, as a DM, I would rule that it does not have an appropriate anatomy, head and limbs are badly placed and would get in the way, not to mention equilibrium problems (there is a reason for all mounts to be quadrupeds in the rules, for example, stability and the position/direction of limbs).
I didn't realize all mounts were quadrupeds. Should someone tell the devs (an official bipedal mount)?
Basically every argument I've read since yesterday is a problem with the mounting in general and little to nothing to do with riding a PC. If you don't like it, don't do it, but it IS allowed, so stop arguing about it.
I'm sorry, it is only allowed if the DM says so, as the rule is clear: "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."
As there are no more rules than this, any DM can decide that a half-orc does not have the appropriate anatomy to serve as a mount for a goblin. Personally, as a DM, I would rule that it does not have an appropriate anatomy, head and limbs are badly placed and would get in the way, not to mention equilibrium problems (there is a reason for all mounts to be quadrupeds in the rules, for example, stability and the position/direction of limbs).
I didn't realize all mounts were quadrupeds. Should someone tell the devs (an official bipedal mount)?
Good point. But as any kid knows, parents are basically bipedal mounts.
RAW, I don't think there are any rules about the difference between a mount's suitability for travel or combat. Otherwise, you would need to ensure you bought a horse specifically trained in combat use, because a normal horse would probably throw you off or flee in a combat situation.
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.
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.
Which part of me saying I used to carry my kids on my back does not equate to me carrying a kid on my back?
Likewise there are numerous examples of creatures being able to share a space - a specific rule which trumps the general. But as per usual, it is utterly pointless debating with you. Your mind was made up before you posted anything.
RAW, I don't think there are any rules about the difference between a mount's suitability for travel or combat. Otherwise, you would need to ensure you bought a horse specifically trained in combat use, because a normal horse would probably throw you off or flee in a combat situation.
This applies to any time you buy a creature though. If you buy a wild animal, you have bought a wild animal. Do not expect to be able to simply treat them as a piece of equipment. Sure there are DM's who might let you do so but do not assume it and do not be shocked or angry if a DM takes a more realistic view.
I don't think it's close to as straight forward as this. If you walk into a reasonably well off village, you are likely to find several horses. Most will accept a rider and perform brilliantly in transporting that rider from one place to another. However, put that horse in a combat situation and it is most likely to bolt. Even the most skilled rider is probably going to need all of their effort to be focused on keeping their mount under control, with little to nothing left for actually fighting.
However, in D&D there is no real distinction. It is said that it is assumed that a horse or similar creature you acquire has been trained to accept a rider, but not that it is battle trained. There is nothing in RAW which would stop you using the mount in combat without penalty or restriction. Nobody can argue that they have suitable anatomy for being a mount, and this makes them usable for mounted combat by RAW. There is no RAW distinction between a mount which is suitable for travel and one which is suitable for combat, except possibly that the creature must be willing (the horse wanting to bolt could be seen as unwilling to carry the rider in combat). But this doesn't apply to the OPs situation: If the half orc is willing and is a suitable mount for travel, he is suitable for combat.
I am sure the perpetually offended will lose their minds on this, but another point should be added to the mix: Does the Goblin have Animal Handling as a skill? There is no particular skill that talks about operating under combat conditions in a saddle, and no one can dispute that Mounted Fighting takes far more expertise in a saddle than a simple saunter on a horse trail. Animal Handling is the skill that is best suited to emulate that expertise, regardless of whether the mount is considered a PC or not.
Giant Eagles have an Int of 8, which is the same for many a PC. But I would never ever let a player jump on the back of an Eagle and immediately begin combat operations. Such a thing requires a symbiotic relationship between the mount and rider. That requires skill and practice. And that skill is Animal Handling.
RAW, I don't think there are any rules about the difference between a mount's suitability for travel or combat. Otherwise, you would need to ensure you bought a horse specifically trained in combat use, because a normal horse would probably throw you off or flee in a combat situation.
This applies to any time you buy a creature though. If you buy a wild animal, you have bought a wild animal. Do not expect to be able to simply treat them as a piece of equipment. Sure there are DM's who might let you do so but do not assume it and do not be shocked or angry if a DM takes a more realistic view.
I don't think it's close to as straight forward as this. If you walk into a reasonably well off village, you are likely to find several horses. Most will accept a rider and perform brilliantly in transporting that rider from one place to another. However, put that horse in a combat situation and it is most likely to bolt. Even the most skilled rider is probably going to need all of their effort to be focused on keeping their mount under control, with little to nothing left for actually fighting.
However, in D&D there is no real distinction. It is said that it is assumed that a horse or similar creature you acquire has been trained to accept a rider, but not that it is battle trained. There is nothing in RAW which would stop you using the mount in combat without penalty or restriction. Nobody can argue that they have suitable anatomy for being a mount, and this makes them usable for mounted combat by RAW. There is no RAW distinction between a mount which is suitable for travel and one which is suitable for combat, except possibly that the creature must be willing (the horse wanting to bolt could be seen as unwilling to carry the rider in combat). But this doesn't apply to the OPs situation: If the half orc is willing and is a suitable mount for travel, he is suitable for combat.
So, you figure you go to any given ranch and every horse there is normally broken in? If the DM describes it as a riding horse, rather than as 'a horse,' sure, but a horse is not automatically a riding horse, is not automatically a warhorse, or a draft horse, or a show horse, or a race horse or a good jumper.
There is a distinction in RAW between 'a (wild) horse,' 'a riding horse' and 'a warhorse,' but if the players declare 'we steal a horse,' the DM is not obligated for that horse to be any specific variety unless it has been clear in character knowledge beforehand.
Similarly, a DM is not obligated to agree that any given character is a suitable mount for any purpose.
You can control a mount only if it has been trained to accept a rider. Domesticated horses, donkeys, and similar creatures are assumed to have such training.
So, by RAW, it is assumed that a domesticated horse that you find and steal has been trained to accept a rider. If that is the case, it is usable in combat whether it has been trained for such or not. The only part of the rules which would change this would be to say it was no longer willing to be a mount in combat.
There is no RAW case for a mount having a suitable anatomy for mounted travel and not for mounted combat. It it has a suitable anatomy for being a mount, RAW that is true whether in combat or travelling. Restricting this further is homebrew, and we all know that we shouldn't be discussing homebrew in the Rules and Game Mechanics forum...
Edit: You are correct that a DM is under no obligation to agree that any creature either has a suitable anatomy to be a mount or that it is suitable for any specific purpose. However, if you have agreed that the anatomy is suitable to being a mount, it is very much homebrew to say that it is unsuitable for mounted combat.
I am sure the perpetually offended will lose their minds on this, but another point should be added to the mix: Does the Goblin have Animal Handling as a skill? There is no particular skill that talks about operating under combat conditions in a saddle, and no one can dispute that Mounted Fighting takes far more expertise in a saddle than a simple saunter on a horse trail. Animal Handling is the skill that is best suited to emulate that expertise, regardless of whether the mount is considered a PC or not.
Giant Eagles have an Int of 8, which is the same for many a PC. But I would never ever let a player jump on the back of an Eagle and immediately begin combat operations. Such a thing requires a symbiotic relationship between the mount and rider. That requires skill and practice. And that skill is Animal Handling.
Given that the rules specifically allow for an independent mount, the half orc (or, in my mind, the giant eagle) doesn't need to be handled. They act independently from the character riding them, possibly with communication if they share a language, but the rider doesn't need to direct them as they would with a controlled mount like a domestic horse.
The Goblin would need some skill and practice, but I would not say that the skill they need is Animal Handling.
"Jeremy Crawford (09:36): Normally when we think of a creature with appropriate anatomy, we're thinking of something that is quadrupede, or it could be something that is giant and worm-like."
RAW, I don't think there are any rules about the difference between a mount's suitability for travel or combat. Otherwise, you would need to ensure you bought a horse specifically trained in combat use, because a normal horse would probably throw you off or flee in a combat situation.
This applies to any time you buy a creature though. If you buy a wild animal, you have bought a wild animal. Do not expect to be able to simply treat them as a piece of equipment. Sure there are DM's who might let you do so but do not assume it and do not be shocked or angry if a DM takes a more realistic view.
I don't think it's close to as straight forward as this. If you walk into a reasonably well off village, you are likely to find several horses. Most will accept a rider and perform brilliantly in transporting that rider from one place to another. However, put that horse in a combat situation and it is most likely to bolt. Even the most skilled rider is probably going to need all of their effort to be focused on keeping their mount under control, with little to nothing left for actually fighting.
However, in D&D there is no real distinction. It is said that it is assumed that a horse or similar creature you acquire has been trained to accept a rider, but not that it is battle trained. There is nothing in RAW which would stop you using the mount in combat without penalty or restriction. Nobody can argue that they have suitable anatomy for being a mount, and this makes them usable for mounted combat by RAW. There is no RAW distinction between a mount which is suitable for travel and one which is suitable for combat, except possibly that the creature must be willing (the horse wanting to bolt could be seen as unwilling to carry the rider in combat). But this doesn't apply to the OPs situation: If the half orc is willing and is a suitable mount for travel, he is suitable for combat.
So, you figure you go to any given ranch and every horse there is normally broken in? If the DM describes it as a riding horse, rather than as 'a horse,' sure, but a horse is not automatically a riding horse, is not automatically a warhorse, or a draft horse, or a show horse, or a race horse or a good jumper.
There is a distinction in RAW between 'a (wild) horse,' 'a riding horse' and 'a warhorse,' but if the players declare 'we steal a horse,' the DM is not obligated for that horse to be any specific variety unless it has been clear in character knowledge beforehand.
Similarly, a DM is not obligated to agree that any given character is a suitable mount for any purpose.
You can control a mount only if it has been trained to accept a rider. Domesticated horses, donkeys, and similar creatures are assumed to have such training.
So, by RAW, it is assumed that a domesticated horse that you find and steal has been trained to accept a rider. If that is the case, it is usable in combat whether it has been trained for such or not. The only part of the rules which would change this would be to say it was no longer willing to be a mount in combat.
There is no RAW case for a mount having a suitable anatomy for mounted travel and not for mounted combat. It it has a suitable anatomy for being a mount, RAW that is true whether in combat or travelling. Restricting this further is homebrew, and we all know that we shouldn't be discussing homebrew in the Rules and Game Mechanics forum...
Edit: You are correct that a DM is under no obligation to agree that any creature either has a suitable anatomy to be a mount or that it is suitable for any specific purpose. However, if you have agreed that the anatomy is suitable to being a mount, it is very much homebrew to say that it is unsuitable for mounted combat.
There is also no RAW case for a mount having suitable anatomy to carry a human but not a centaur. What is your point here? There is nothing saying that a great sword cannot be used to perform brain surgery. It is a sharp blade, after all....
As I've said before, personally, I'd add restrictions beyond RAW. However, if we ever go beyond discussions of RAW in this forum, certain members jump up and down saying that we shouldn't, so I'm keeping my comments strictly to RAW.
By RAW, if a creature has suitable anatomy to be a mount and is willing, it can be used for mounted combat. Saying it is usable for travel only, not combat, is a homebrew restriction, which "shouldn't be discussed in the rules and game mechanics forum".
I am sure the perpetually offended will lose their minds on this, but another point should be added to the mix: Does the Goblin have Animal Handling as a skill? There is no particular skill that talks about operating under combat conditions in a saddle, and no one can dispute that Mounted Fighting takes far more expertise in a saddle than a simple saunter on a horse trail. Animal Handling is the skill that is best suited to emulate that expertise, regardless of whether the mount is considered a PC or not.
Giant Eagles have an Int of 8, which is the same for many a PC. But I would never ever let a player jump on the back of an Eagle and immediately begin combat operations. Such a thing requires a symbiotic relationship between the mount and rider. That requires skill and practice. And that skill is Animal Handling.
There has been mentioned other appropriate ability checks in this thread. Also, you don't really need animal handling to ride. It just makes it easier. :)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
According to the rules for movement in combat, you may move through a space occupied by a non-hostile creature, but not end your movement there.
You can also break up your movement between attacks/actions. So the way I'm reading it, you can move into the space of your ally, attack, move out of the space to not end your movement in an occupied space. This would provoke an opportunity attack, which in this particular case could be avoided by nimble escape.
Agreed that this may not work at every table, and may not have the same utility for different creatures, so you are right, that this may come up as an advantage.
Thank you for pointing it out, I did not consider that.
Even so, I'd consider that an edge case, which does not make the mount/rider PC combo overpowered (and which a DM can circumvent by making the tunnel narrow and low).
More Interesting Lock Picking Rules
Depending on if you are playing on a grid or theatre of the mind, the outcome of this question is different.
The diagonal of a square on a grid is 5 feet, which leads to square circles. If the goblin is at the square 5 feet 'up', they can reach the square 1 below, the one on the same level, and the square 1 above. Meaning that a dagger attack against a prone target not only is possible, but also gains advantage for the target being prone.
However, if I was following your description, it would be a drawback of the rider/mount PC combo and an argument that you don't need to nerf it to become viable.
More Interesting Lock Picking Rules
That's fine, the big trick is working out for which mounts you want your limitations to apply to (and what you want those limitations to be). Many many many non-humanoids have the same body shape as humanoids; for example, a steel defender can explicitly be bipedal.
And therein lies the rub.
A typical "attack", or turn, allows for a char to dodge and weave, thrust and parry, and move within the 5 feet of space they occupy. Hex or square does not matter. But a Goblin, strapped into some kind of saddle, that is another matter. They don't have nearly the freedom of movement they would on the ground, nor even the freedom of movement they would on a horse.
Though I would say that chars on even traditional mounts should have more limitations on their movement and actions than those described by RAW.
Basically every argument I've read since yesterday is a problem with the mounting in general and little to nothing to do with riding a PC. If you don't like it, don't do it, but it IS allowed, so stop arguing about it.
The biggest argument I could see against a PC mounting a PC is the Mounted Combatant feat. It makes the mounted PC immune to attacks, and combos incredibly well with things like sentinel.
RAI, PCs aren't intended to be eligible mounts, but the DM is given just enough flexibility to allow it if they think it makes sense. I think that as long as your PCs aren't intending to abuse it, you won't break anything. In the OP's case, they are probably fine.
That's where this thread is at since page 1 ;)
The OP is the DM of the campaign and wanted to know if it was possible (which it is, if they as DM want to allow it)...
More Interesting Lock Picking Rules
I didn't realize all mounts were quadrupeds. Should someone tell the devs (an official bipedal mount)?
Good point. But as any kid knows, parents are basically bipedal mounts.
RAW, I don't think there are any rules about the difference between a mount's suitability for travel or combat. Otherwise, you would need to ensure you bought a horse specifically trained in combat use, because a normal horse would probably throw you off or flee in a combat situation.
Which part of me saying I used to carry my kids on my back does not equate to me carrying a kid on my back?
Likewise there are numerous examples of creatures being able to share a space - a specific rule which trumps the general. But as per usual, it is utterly pointless debating with you. Your mind was made up before you posted anything.
I don't think it's close to as straight forward as this. If you walk into a reasonably well off village, you are likely to find several horses. Most will accept a rider and perform brilliantly in transporting that rider from one place to another. However, put that horse in a combat situation and it is most likely to bolt. Even the most skilled rider is probably going to need all of their effort to be focused on keeping their mount under control, with little to nothing left for actually fighting.
However, in D&D there is no real distinction. It is said that it is assumed that a horse or similar creature you acquire has been trained to accept a rider, but not that it is battle trained. There is nothing in RAW which would stop you using the mount in combat without penalty or restriction. Nobody can argue that they have suitable anatomy for being a mount, and this makes them usable for mounted combat by RAW. There is no RAW distinction between a mount which is suitable for travel and one which is suitable for combat, except possibly that the creature must be willing (the horse wanting to bolt could be seen as unwilling to carry the rider in combat). But this doesn't apply to the OPs situation: If the half orc is willing and is a suitable mount for travel, he is suitable for combat.
I am sure the perpetually offended will lose their minds on this, but another point should be added to the mix: Does the Goblin have Animal Handling as a skill? There is no particular skill that talks about operating under combat conditions in a saddle, and no one can dispute that Mounted Fighting takes far more expertise in a saddle than a simple saunter on a horse trail. Animal Handling is the skill that is best suited to emulate that expertise, regardless of whether the mount is considered a PC or not.
Giant Eagles have an Int of 8, which is the same for many a PC. But I would never ever let a player jump on the back of an Eagle and immediately begin combat operations. Such a thing requires a symbiotic relationship between the mount and rider. That requires skill and practice. And that skill is Animal Handling.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/phb/combat#MountedCombat
So, by RAW, it is assumed that a domesticated horse that you find and steal has been trained to accept a rider. If that is the case, it is usable in combat whether it has been trained for such or not. The only part of the rules which would change this would be to say it was no longer willing to be a mount in combat.
There is no RAW case for a mount having a suitable anatomy for mounted travel and not for mounted combat. It it has a suitable anatomy for being a mount, RAW that is true whether in combat or travelling. Restricting this further is homebrew, and we all know that we shouldn't be discussing homebrew in the Rules and Game Mechanics forum...
Edit: You are correct that a DM is under no obligation to agree that any creature either has a suitable anatomy to be a mount or that it is suitable for any specific purpose. However, if you have agreed that the anatomy is suitable to being a mount, it is very much homebrew to say that it is unsuitable for mounted combat.
Given that the rules specifically allow for an independent mount, the half orc (or, in my mind, the giant eagle) doesn't need to be handled. They act independently from the character riding them, possibly with communication if they share a language, but the rider doesn't need to direct them as they would with a controlled mount like a domestic horse.
The Goblin would need some skill and practice, but I would not say that the skill they need is Animal Handling.
In this Dragon Talk: Sage Advice on Mounted Combat, Jeremy Crawford specifically addresses the question. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99tX6tmc73Q
"Jeremy Crawford (09:36): Normally when we think of a creature with appropriate anatomy, we're thinking of something that is quadrupede, or it could be something that is giant and worm-like."
As I've said before, personally, I'd add restrictions beyond RAW. However, if we ever go beyond discussions of RAW in this forum, certain members jump up and down saying that we shouldn't, so I'm keeping my comments strictly to RAW.
By RAW, if a creature has suitable anatomy to be a mount and is willing, it can be used for mounted combat. Saying it is usable for travel only, not combat, is a homebrew restriction, which "shouldn't be discussed in the rules and game mechanics forum".
There has been mentioned other appropriate ability checks in this thread. Also, you don't really need animal handling to ride. It just makes it easier. :)