Okay so I have a level 4 variant human fighter, who has taken the cavalier martial archetype from the Xanathar's rule book. I need clarification on this very hilarious and also very effective combo that I am planning on utilizing, unless I find out I am misreading/misinterpreting the 5e rules. I really want to make sure I'm using the game rules as intended.
The combo requires the cavalier 3rd level ability "born to saddle" , the mobile feat, a mount and a melee weapon.
So, how it works is assuming you start combat on your horse, you now have access to both your actions, and your horse's. (Because I'm using a riding horse I will demonstrate with this type of mount but it should work on any mount assuming your target is on the ground). So, you command your horse to dash, doubling it's speed, and allowing you to move a total of 120 ft with the horse this turn. So, you expend the *horses movement*(preferably 60 ft) to get 15 feet away from your target. Then, you dismount, expending 5 of *your movement* (only 5 due to the cavalier ability). Assuming you have 30 ft base, and an additional 10 from mobile, you will now be able to expend your movement to get in melee range of attacking your target, attack, run back to your horse(without getting hit by an opportunity attack because of the mobile feat), and mount, expending 5 more movement, meaning your character no longer has movement this turn. However, your mount still does. Now with the remainer of distance your horse can move this turn, you move far out of range of your target, where you will end your turn, and repeat the process next turn.
I understand this is still weak to ranged spell attacks/ archers and bow users, but if used against melee enemies, then you should be able to reposition 60 ft away from them each turn, meaning they would have to dash to get to you, so you could just disengage with your horse and continually kite the enemy untill your other PC's widdle them down.
I especially need clarification on mounting/dismounting on the same turn and if any rules don't allow that, but any feedback would help.
Thanks!
TL;DR : Mobile feat plus 3rd level cavalier allows for a character to, every turn, move 75 ft towards an enemy, attack, and move 75 ft away from an enemy without taking any opportunity attacks, allowing an infinite kite on melee enemies.Need feedback on understanding of rules.
I've seen very little detail in the rules on mounts and interactions- the bit that I always find awkward is initiative and turns when dealing with a companion/mount.
The rules for mounting state, "The initiative of a controlled mount changes to match yours when you mount it." however ... your character and the mount don't share a turn and this is critical for understanding how the interaction works.
Each round, you get to decide who takes their full turn first - the character or the mount.
In your example above, it all works absolutely fine until your character jumps back on the mount, at which point the mount is unable to move away because it already finished its turn before your character took their turn.
Each round, you get to decide who takes their full turn first - the character or the mount.
In the very same link you posted Jeremy Crawford said that the initiative order is decided when a tie first occurs (meaning you don't decide every turn) unless your DM decides otherwise.
I especially need clarification on mounting/dismounting on the same turn and if any rules don't allow that, but any feedback would help.
Well looking at the PHB it says that you can either mount OR dismount ONCE during your movement. So to me it sounds like you can't do both on one turn. In my opinion this makes sense considering one round is only 6 seconds long.
Mounting and Dismounting
Once during your move, you can mount a creature that is within 5 feet of you or dismount.
I LOVE this idea, and tho it seems like it might not entirely work RAI, I have a workaround that, while still running into issues due to the mount/dismount ONCE per movement thing, could be perhaps a happy middle ground for stricter DMs.
My idea is generally the same, have the horse move close, you attack, mount and run away. The only difference being that instead of dashing in its turn, the horse readies an action to Dash away the moment you’re done attacking, thus you can run to catch up and mount and disengage as usual.
it’s definitely not perfect, but considering the extra required setup to make it work perhaps DMs might be slightly more lenient due to the fort involved in pulling this off.
I don't get it, for simplicity's sake, why not just attack with a lance, have your mount Disengage, then move the mount away at max speed? Doesn't that work without the fiddly mount-then-dismount-on-the-same turn hatsy patsy?
I LOVE this idea, and tho it seems like it might not entirely work RAI, I have a workaround that, while still running into issues due to the mount/dismount ONCE per movement thing, could be perhaps a happy middle ground for stricter DMs.
There's simply no rule that you can only mount or dismount once per movement. The only RAW limit is that mounting and dismounting both cost half your speed.
My idea is generally the same, have the horse move close, you attack, mount and run away. The only difference being that instead of dashing in its turn, the horse readies an action to Dash away the moment you’re done attacking, thus you can run to catch up and mount and disengage as usual.
A controlled mount can't take the Ready action. An uncontrolled mount lacks access to shenanigans that change the mount's initiative.
I don't get it, for simplicity's sake, why not just attack with a lance, have your mount Disengage, then move the mount away at max speed? Doesn't that work without the fiddly mount-then-dismount-on-the-same turn hatsy patsy?
That limits your mount's movement because your mount isn't Dashing, but yes, if you are already 10' away from your target when your turn begins and you're mounted, you can stab with the lance, then not move, then have your mount Disengage, then have your mount move its speed. On the flip side, you can Ready an action to stab with the lance, then have your mount go, have your mount Disengage, then (assuming you Readied intelligently) stab what you intended to stab in combination with your mount getting its movement speed free of AoOs.
There's simply no rule that you can only mount or dismount once per movement. The only RAW limit is that mounting and dismounting both cost half your speed.
I guess that depends on how you interpret this sentence.
Once during your move, you can mount a creature that is within 5 feet of you or dismount.
My instinctual interpretation would be that you could thus only do one or the other. Can't say I care much either way though so rule as you see fit.
Is it OP though? If you're running away afterwards it just seems like making a ranged attack with a lot of extra steps. Can't a warlock do this with Eldritch Blast?
I am not certain what the rules state on this but as a GM my first question would be
Ok so you are telling me you run your horse forward at a full gallop and then you willingly jump off of it.
A human has a running speed of 10-15 mph and a horse at a gallop is 25 - 30mph .
So either your character has to slow the horse down to a slow canter so that when you jump off you are travelling a speed your legs can move at or you need to take an acrobatics or athletics check with a steep penalty to keep from wiping out and taking damage. To me that would make common sense but that does not mean the rules have to follow that so that I won't speak too that.
The question I have is why would your character want to dismount. In real life fighting from horseback can be extremely effective as a rider strafes by a target using the momentum of the speed to slash or bludgeon for greater effect not to mention the power of a lance. It would seem to me the game rules would somehow make this type of attack effective as well.
There's simply no rule that you can only mount or dismount once per movement. The only RAW limit is that mounting and dismounting both cost half your speed.
I guess that depends on how you interpret this sentence.
Once during your move, you can mount a creature that is within 5 feet of you or dismount.
My instinctual interpretation would be that you could thus only do one or the other. Can't say I care much either way though so rule as you see fit.
Specific rules trump again (I think) :
Finally, mounting or dismounting a creature costs you only 5 feet of movement, rather than half your speed.
It says that you can get off and then on again with 10 ft. of movement rather than specifically half of it
Either way I'm not too sure
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[roll]7d6[/roll]
Every post these dice roll increasing my chances of winning the yahtzee thread (I wish (wait not the twist the wish threa-!))
The thing that I struggle with is what's happening narratively here? Horses aren't really known for being able to stop from a gallop and then turn on a dime; personally I'd want to look at some form of shove aside type action (maybe without the disadvantage if the target is Medium?) so that you can make a proper "charge through" type attack, as this would make a lot more sense narratively.
It's always worth keeping in mind that just because something strictly is (or might be, with a bit of effort) possiblemechanically, doesn't mean that your DM has to allow it if it makes no narrative sense, as the purpose of a DM is to adjudicate on what it is that you're trying to do narratively, and make it line up with the rules (or override them if they feel the need).
Personally I would say there's no need for this weird juggling; just charge in, make your attacks (mount first, then rider), then attack again (rider -> mount) and move away (or through) on your next turn. I know the rules and rules query answers on the ordering is a bit vague, but I've always assumed you can just choose who goes first each round, otherwise it becomes a nightmare to actually run in practice. If your DM agrees that the enemy would be shocked by a charge, or busy trying to get out of the way, then they have the necessary tools to represent this on their end if you want to avoid return attacks; just talk to them about it, it's what they're there for!
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
There's simply no rule that you can only mount or dismount once per movement. The only RAW limit is that mounting and dismounting both cost half your speed.
I guess that depends on how you interpret this sentence.
Once during your move, you can mount a creature that is within 5 feet of you or dismount.
My instinctual interpretation would be that you could thus only do one or the other. Can't say I care much either way though so rule as you see fit.
Specific rules trump again (I think) :
Finally, mounting or dismounting a creature costs you only 5 feet of movement, rather than half your speed.
It says that you can get off and then on again with 10 ft. of movement rather than specifically half of it
Either way I'm not too sure
I would tend to disagree ..
1) "Once during your move, you can mount a creature that is within 5 feet of you or dismount."
2) "Finally, mounting or dismounting a creature costs you only 5 feet of movement, rather than half your speed."
The first says that in a turn you can either mount or dismount a creature that is within 5' of you but you can't do both.
The second says that instead of costing 1/2 your speed to mount or dismount it only costs 5' of movement.
The second does not say that you can mount or dismount more than once. It just says it costs you less movement if you decide to mount or dismount. The first still limits mounting OR dismouting to one/turn.
Consider that if mounting or dismounting cost 1/2 your speed then without (1) a character could still hop off their mount, use an object interaction to pick something up off the ground and hop back on their horse. Rule (1) prevents that. In addition, a character taking the dash action with a controlled mount could dismount, move, pick something up, move back and mount all in one turn except (1) says that they can only mount or dismount (not both) in a single turn. (Similarly, a rogue with a bonus action dash could dismount, move, attack, move back to the house and mount again, except that the first rule limits mounting or dismounting to once/turn.)
So, I would say that a clause that reduces the movement cost of mounting or dismounting does not remove the rule that you can only mount or dismount in a turn, not both.
A notable disadvantage to these honestly unnecessary shenanigans is that, since you make the attack off of the horse, you can't gain any benefit from the Mounted Combatant feat, nor can you use Dual Wielder to attack with two lances. Honestly, just stay on the horse. It's not like tanking is a bad thing. Cavaliers don't have any main stats besides Strength and Con, so they're more than able to take some hits, and the horse will be fine as long as the rider has Mounted Combatant.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
TL;DR at bottom
Okay so I have a level 4 variant human fighter, who has taken the cavalier martial archetype from the Xanathar's rule book. I need clarification on this very hilarious and also very effective combo that I am planning on utilizing, unless I find out I am misreading/misinterpreting the 5e rules. I really want to make sure I'm using the game rules as intended.
The combo requires the cavalier 3rd level ability "born to saddle" , the mobile feat, a mount and a melee weapon.
So, how it works is assuming you start combat on your horse, you now have access to both your actions, and your horse's. (Because I'm using a riding horse I will demonstrate with this type of mount but it should work on any mount assuming your target is on the ground). So, you command your horse to dash, doubling it's speed, and allowing you to move a total of 120 ft with the horse this turn. So, you expend the *horses movement*(preferably 60 ft) to get 15 feet away from your target. Then, you dismount, expending 5 of *your movement* (only 5 due to the cavalier ability). Assuming you have 30 ft base, and an additional 10 from mobile, you will now be able to expend your movement to get in melee range of attacking your target, attack, run back to your horse(without getting hit by an opportunity attack because of the mobile feat), and mount, expending 5 more movement, meaning your character no longer has movement this turn. However, your mount still does. Now with the remainer of distance your horse can move this turn, you move far out of range of your target, where you will end your turn, and repeat the process next turn.
I understand this is still weak to ranged spell attacks/ archers and bow users, but if used against melee enemies, then you should be able to reposition 60 ft away from them each turn, meaning they would have to dash to get to you, so you could just disengage with your horse and continually kite the enemy untill your other PC's widdle them down.
I especially need clarification on mounting/dismounting on the same turn and if any rules don't allow that, but any feedback would help.
Thanks!
TL;DR : Mobile feat plus 3rd level cavalier allows for a character to, every turn, move 75 ft towards an enemy, attack, and move 75 ft away from an enemy without taking any opportunity attacks, allowing an infinite kite on melee enemies.Need feedback on understanding of rules.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersI've seen very little detail in the rules on mounts and interactions- the bit that I always find awkward is initiative and turns when dealing with a companion/mount.
Here's the rules in the PHB:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/compendium/rules/phb/combat#ControllingaMount
The rules for mounting state, "The initiative of a controlled mount changes to match yours when you mount it." however ... your character and the mount don't share a turn and this is critical for understanding how the interaction works.
Each round, you get to decide who takes their full turn first - the character or the mount.
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2018/03/14/rider-on-controlled-mount-wants-to-attack-mid-move-do-rider-and-mount-share-one-turn/
In your example above, it all works absolutely fine until your character jumps back on the mount, at which point the mount is unable to move away because it already finished its turn before your character took their turn.
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
Dang, that kinda sucks, but thanks for the help!
In the very same link you posted Jeremy Crawford said that the initiative order is decided when a tie first occurs (meaning you don't decide every turn) unless your DM decides otherwise.
Well looking at the PHB it says that you can either mount OR dismount ONCE during your movement. So to me it sounds like you can't do both on one turn. In my opinion this makes sense considering one round is only 6 seconds long.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersAha, thanks for the further clarification. :)
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
I LOVE this idea, and tho it seems like it might not entirely work RAI, I have a workaround that, while still running into issues due to the mount/dismount ONCE per movement thing, could be perhaps a happy middle ground for stricter DMs.
My idea is generally the same, have the horse move close, you attack, mount and run away. The only difference being that instead of dashing in its turn, the horse readies an action to Dash away the moment you’re done attacking, thus you can run to catch up and mount and disengage as usual.
it’s definitely not perfect, but considering the extra required setup to make it work perhaps DMs might be slightly more lenient due to the fort involved in pulling this off.
I don't get it, for simplicity's sake, why not just attack with a lance, have your mount Disengage, then move the mount away at max speed? Doesn't that work without the fiddly mount-then-dismount-on-the-same turn hatsy patsy?
There's simply no rule that you can only mount or dismount once per movement. The only RAW limit is that mounting and dismounting both cost half your speed.
A controlled mount can't take the Ready action. An uncontrolled mount lacks access to shenanigans that change the mount's initiative.
That limits your mount's movement because your mount isn't Dashing, but yes, if you are already 10' away from your target when your turn begins and you're mounted, you can stab with the lance, then not move, then have your mount Disengage, then have your mount move its speed. On the flip side, you can Ready an action to stab with the lance, then have your mount go, have your mount Disengage, then (assuming you Readied intelligently) stab what you intended to stab in combination with your mount getting its movement speed free of AoOs.
I guess that depends on how you interpret this sentence.
My instinctual interpretation would be that you could thus only do one or the other. Can't say I care much either way though so rule as you see fit.
Is it OP though? If you're running away afterwards it just seems like making a ranged attack with a lot of extra steps. Can't a warlock do this with Eldritch Blast?
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I am not certain what the rules state on this but as a GM my first question would be
Ok so you are telling me you run your horse forward at a full gallop and then you willingly jump off of it.
A human has a running speed of 10-15 mph and a horse at a gallop is 25 - 30mph .
So either your character has to slow the horse down to a slow canter so that when you jump off you are travelling a speed your legs can move at or you need to take an acrobatics or athletics check with a steep penalty to keep from wiping out and taking damage. To me that would make common sense but that does not mean the rules have to follow that so that I won't speak too that.
The question I have is why would your character want to dismount. In real life fighting from horseback can be extremely effective as a rider strafes by a target using the momentum of the speed to slash or bludgeon for greater effect not to mention the power of a lance. It would seem to me the game rules would somehow make this type of attack effective as well.
Specific rules trump again (I think) :
It says that you can get off and then on again with 10 ft. of movement rather than specifically half of it
Either way I'm not too sure
[roll]7d6[/roll]
Every post these dice roll increasing my chances of winning the yahtzee thread (I wish (wait not the twist the wish threa-!))
Drummer Generated Title
After having been invited to include both here, I now combine the "PM me CHEESE 🧀 and tomato into PM me "PIZZA🍕"
The thing that I struggle with is what's happening narratively here? Horses aren't really known for being able to stop from a gallop and then turn on a dime; personally I'd want to look at some form of shove aside type action (maybe without the disadvantage if the target is Medium?) so that you can make a proper "charge through" type attack, as this would make a lot more sense narratively.
It's always worth keeping in mind that just because something strictly is (or might be, with a bit of effort) possible mechanically, doesn't mean that your DM has to allow it if it makes no narrative sense, as the purpose of a DM is to adjudicate on what it is that you're trying to do narratively, and make it line up with the rules (or override them if they feel the need).
Personally I would say there's no need for this weird juggling; just charge in, make your attacks (mount first, then rider), then attack again (rider -> mount) and move away (or through) on your next turn. I know the rules and rules query answers on the ordering is a bit vague, but I've always assumed you can just choose who goes first each round, otherwise it becomes a nightmare to actually run in practice. If your DM agrees that the enemy would be shocked by a charge, or busy trying to get out of the way, then they have the necessary tools to represent this on their end if you want to avoid return attacks; just talk to them about it, it's what they're there for!
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I would tend to disagree ..
1) "Once during your move, you can mount a creature that is within 5 feet of you or dismount."
2) "Finally, mounting or dismounting a creature costs you only 5 feet of movement, rather than half your speed."
The first says that in a turn you can either mount or dismount a creature that is within 5' of you but you can't do both.
The second says that instead of costing 1/2 your speed to mount or dismount it only costs 5' of movement.
The second does not say that you can mount or dismount more than once. It just says it costs you less movement if you decide to mount or dismount. The first still limits mounting OR dismouting to one/turn.
Consider that if mounting or dismounting cost 1/2 your speed then without (1) a character could still hop off their mount, use an object interaction to pick something up off the ground and hop back on their horse. Rule (1) prevents that. In addition, a character taking the dash action with a controlled mount could dismount, move, pick something up, move back and mount all in one turn except (1) says that they can only mount or dismount (not both) in a single turn. (Similarly, a rogue with a bonus action dash could dismount, move, attack, move back to the house and mount again, except that the first rule limits mounting or dismounting to once/turn.)
So, I would say that a clause that reduces the movement cost of mounting or dismounting does not remove the rule that you can only mount or dismount in a turn, not both.
A notable disadvantage to these honestly unnecessary shenanigans is that, since you make the attack off of the horse, you can't gain any benefit from the Mounted Combatant feat, nor can you use Dual Wielder to attack with two lances. Honestly, just stay on the horse. It's not like tanking is a bad thing. Cavaliers don't have any main stats besides Strength and Con, so they're more than able to take some hits, and the horse will be fine as long as the rider has Mounted Combatant.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)