I've been fiddling with an idea, one that looks horribly unbalanced at first but can be quite busted when played to its strengths; Centaur Totem Warrior Barbarian 6 (bear)/Kensei Monk 14.
Start with a centaur barbarian, 17 Str, 13 Dex/Con/Wis, 10 Int/Cha. D12 hit die and Rage at 1st level helps counter the lower Con score.
This one's going to be feat-heavy, going for Athlete (+1 Str and counters centaur's climbing penalty), Mobile (more speed and harder to lock down), Tavern Brawler (+1 Con and can reliably throw around scenery) and a +2 Str ASI.
It's ultimately faster than most level 20 monks, carries more than most level 20 barbarians and can act as an independent mount for other party members. Heck, pull 3 tons of characters + stuff on a wagon train by yourself! DPR is somewhat low when compared to optimized DPR builds, but that's not the goal for this one.
EDIT: for those who are curious, after spending a couple of turns to set up Rage and 3-ki Sharpen the Blade, average DPR looks like just under 50 while factoring in Reckless Attack against 19 AC, but not Deft Strike; DS isn't very ki efficient to me except on a critical hit, and even then it's not as good as the additional attack from FoB (average 9 versus 4.5+7).
Sounds fun. Make your rider a pally with mounted combat feat and maybe think about changing tavern brawler to sentinel feat. Pally forces any attack on you to attack them and then you get a reaction attack because of sentinel.
I've considered Sentinel, but that's much better on a paladin or rogue setup; going 6 bear barb/2 monk/12 scout rogue would make that work nicely while sacrificing only 5 speed. Ki wouldn't really be needed except to make very far and/or high jumps.
A knight charging into battle on a warhorse, a wizard casting spells from the back of a griffon, or a cleric soaring through the sky on a pegasus all enjoy the benefits of speed and mobility that a mount can provide.
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.
"A willing creature" certainly could be a player character. "At least one size larger than you" is easy enough, gnomes or goblins or halflings or kobolds are small player races that should be able to get piggyback rides. "That has an appropriate anatomy" is interestingly ambiguous. That doesn't say quadraped, and indeed there are published mounts (see Clawfoot) which are bipedal. One can certainly picture how a small character could ride on the shoulders or in a basket on the back of a larger character... and the equipment talks about "exotic saddles" for unusual mounts. So what does "appropriate anatomy" mean? 'Has a place to sit that won't interfere with the mount's movement, due to anatomy or a saddle'? 'Medium, but also has Powerful Build or Equine Build'? Fuzzy, but there's probably some sort of plausible definition that a DM should agree to.
But once we've passed that hurdle, that medium characters can generally serve as mounts for small characters with the right sort of "saddle," we're still faced with the fact that the rules for mounts treat them more like equipment than independent creatures.
Whether a creature is a friend or an enemy, you can't willingly end your move in its space.
I think we can all agree that even though this is true, rules for Mounts must be operating as a specific exception to this rule, otherwise we have to start doing some real mental gymnastics about a rider occupying the 5 foot cube above its mount that we probably don't want to get into. You can freely move into and through an ally's space, but you can't end there, unless you've mounted it as a rider.
Mounting and Dismounting Once during your move, you can mount a creature that is within 5 feet of you or dismount. Doing so costs an amount of movement equal to half your speed. For example, if your speed is 30 feet, you must spend 15 feet of movement to mount a horse. Therefore, you can’t mount it if you don’t have 15 feet of movement left or if your speed is 0.
If an effect moves your mount against its will while you’re on it, you must succeed on a DC 10 Dexterity saving throw or fall off the mount, landing prone in a space within 5 feet of it. If you’re knocked prone while mounted, you must make the same saving throw.
If your mount is knocked prone, you can use your reaction to dismount it as it falls and land on your feet. Otherwise, you are dismounted and fall prone in a space within 5 feet it.
Mounting doesn't require any check or action on the part of your mount, climbing onto its back/shoulders/whatever is purely a function of the rider, costing half your speed score of movement. Forced movement/Prone for mount or rider has some special effects, nothing that looks too hard to arbitrate. While there's discussion of unwillilng movement for your mount , there's no discussion of unwilling movement for the rider : same check afforded to the mount character to stay with you as you're pulled/pushed, or are you just yanked off? Or the rider can make the check to drag their mount with them? Does it make a difference whether the forced movement is a push/pull effect, versus a mind control effect which forces them to use their movement on their turn, or which forces them to move not on their turn? The strictest RAW to me looks like the rider just gets pushed/pulled/scared off the saddle with no ability to stop it, which is fine, but the DM will just need to clear up how you'll arbitrate it ahead of time because it will come up.
Once we start mounting our willing humanoid allies, eventually the question is going to arise whether small PCs can mount unwilling enemies. There's already an optional rule in place for that kind of, found in the DMG Chapter 9.
Climb onto a Bigger Creature
If one creature wants to jump onto another creature, it can do so by grappling. A Small or Medium creature has little chance of making a successful grapple against a Huge or Gargantuan creature, however, unless magic has granted the grappler supernatural might.
As an alternative, a suitably large opponent can be treated as terrain for the purpose of jumping onto its back or clinging to a limb. After making any ability checks necessary to get into position and onto the larger creature, the smaller creature uses its action to make a Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check contested by the target’s Dexterity (Acrobatics) check. If it wins the contest, the smaller creature successfully moves into the target creature’s space and clings to its body. While in the target’s space, the smaller creature moves with the target and has advantage on attack rolls against it.
The smaller creature can move around within the larger creature’s space, treating the space as difficult terrain. The larger creature’s ability to attack the smaller creature depends on the smaller creature’s location, and is left to your discretion. The larger creature can dislodge the smaller creature as an action—knocking it off, scraping it against a wall, or grabbing and throwing it—by making a Strength (Athletics) check contested by the smaller creature’s Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check. The smaller creature chooses which ability to use.
So... its a little hand waivy, but it seems like a small PC can ride a willing PC by simply using its movement, or can ride (or, get in position to ride?) an unwilling enemy (larger? two or more sizes larger?) through some special variant grapple checks. We know a little bit about forced movement (at least for the mount, if not the rider), but... what does it mean to "ride" a mount, what happens once you're on a creature, especially when that creature is a player?
While you’re mounted, you have two options. You can either control the mount or allow it to act independently. Intelligent creatures, such as dragons, act independently.
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. The initiative of a controlled mount changes to match yours when you mount it. It moves as you direct it, and it has only three action options: Dash, Disengage, and Dodge. A controlled mount can move and act even on the turn that you mount it.
An independent mount retains its place in the initiative order. Bearing a rider puts no restrictions on the actions the mount can take, and it moves and acts as it wishes. It might flee from combat, rush to attack and devour a badly injured foe, or otherwise act against your wishes.
In either case, if the mount provokes an opportunity attack while you’re on it, the attacker can target you or the mount.
"Intelligent creatures act independently," so we don't need to worry about the "control" option at all. Independent mounts have their own place in the initiative order, and in no way restricts the mount's turn or actions. Presumably, doesn't alter the rider's turn or actions either, they can hop off with their movement on their turn whenever they want. OAs the mount provokes can target the mount or its rider, so we can mostly put aside complicated questions about which of the two is provoking an OA when they ride past an enemy because its a distinction without a difference.
We still have some little questions. Imagine the rider has been hit by a Booming Blade; when the (independent) mount carries it around, is it considered to have "moved willingly"? Either way the DM rules, no big deal... they aren't themselves using speed, but subjecting them to OAs for their mount's movement should emotionally prepare them to be subjected to BBs for their mount's movement without feeling too aggrieved. We never explicitly even have a rule that says "a rider moves wherever their mount moves", though we can probably presume that from the plain English meaning of what it means to ride and not worry too much about that.
Fourth Issue: Features and Abilities that Interact with Riding
So a small PC can probably ride a medium PC, especially with an exotic saddle. Hopping up requires the rider's movement, but once they're up there, riding doesn't restrict the independent mount PC or the rider PC's actions or movement or initiative in any way. OAs against the mount PC can target either character. And forced movement against the rider is probably a hard break on their ride, but the DM may or may not want to houserule to extend the same sorts of checks to the pair that are available when the mount is subjected to forced movement. But what happens if the Rider takes Mounted Combatant?
You are a dangerous foe to face while mounted. While you are mounted and aren't incapacitated, you gain the following benefits:
You have advantage on melee attack rolls against any unmounted creature that is smaller than your mount.
You can force an attack targeted at your mount to target you instead.
If your mount is subjected to an effect that allows it to make a Dexterity saving throw to take only half damage, it instead takes no damage if it succeeds on the saving throw, and only half damage if it fails.
This seems.... very strong, if the mount is PC. Free Evasion? Absolute ability to prevent any and all attacks from targeting the mount, with no reaction required? It isn't that these are mechanically unclear, it is simply that they are vastly overpowered when applied to a dangerous PC combatant instead of a dumb Warhorse. The power of this feat is single-handedly the reason that your DM probably won't get on board with Step 1 above.
This seems.... very strong, if the mount is PC. Free Evasion? Absolute ability to prevent any and all attacks from targeting the mount, with no reaction required? It isn't that these are mechanically unclear, it is simply that they are vastly overpowered when applied to a dangerous PC combatant instead of a dumb Warhorse. The power of this feat is single-handedly the reason that your DM probably won't get on board with Step 1 above.
But since Enemies should be able to do things that PCs cannot do, now I have me a fantastic idea for a Bugbear Cavalier with a Lance and Mounted Combatant who rides a Centaur Rune Knight with Mobile as a pair of Villains. 😁
NPCs don’t generally get feats, but yes, some sort of enemy knight on a fearsome mount whose mount cannot be attacked until the knight is dead would make a great two-stage boss battle!
NPCs don’t generally get feats, but yes, some sort of enemy knight on a fearsome mount whose mount cannot be attacked until the knight is dead would make a great two-stage boss battle!
They don’t?!? Shit, I been doin’ it wrong this whole time. No wonder combat actually challenges them! Oh well, I’ma keep doin’ it. Because that combo right there is the stuff D&D was made for, and I’ma let the players fight it because it would be totally, fully awesome!
A knight charging into battle on a warhorse, a wizard casting spells from the back of a griffon, or a cleric soaring through the sky on a pegasus all enjoy the benefits of speed and mobility that a mount can provide.
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.
"A willing creature" certainly could be a player character. "At least one size larger than you" is easy enough, gnomes or goblins or halflings or kobolds are small player races that should be able to get piggyback rides. "That has an appropriate anatomy" is interestingly ambiguous. That doesn't say quadraped, and indeed there are published mounts (see Clawfoot) which are bipedal. One can certainly picture how a small character could ride on the shoulders or in a basket on the back of a larger character... and the equipment talks about "exotic saddles" for unusual mounts. So what does "appropriate anatomy" mean? 'Has a place to sit that won't interfere with the mount's movement, due to anatomy or a saddle'? 'Medium, but also has Powerful Build or Equine Build'? Fuzzy, but there's probably some sort of plausible definition that a DM should agree to.
But once we've passed that hurdle, that medium characters can generally serve as mounts for small characters with the right sort of "saddle," we're still faced with the fact that the rules for mounts treat them more like equipment than independent creatures.
. . .
Fourth Issue: Features and Abilities that Interact with Riding
So a small PC can probably ride a medium PC, especially with an exotic saddle. Hopping up requires the rider's movement, but once they're up there, riding doesn't restrict the independent mount PC or the rider PC's actions or movement or initiative in any way. OAs against the mount PC can target either character. And forced movement against the rider is probably a hard break on their ride, but the DM may or may not want to houserule to extend the same sorts of checks to the pair that are available when the mount is subjected to forced movement. But what happens if the Rider takes Mounted Combatant?
You are a dangerous foe to face while mounted. While you are mounted and aren't incapacitated, you gain the following benefits:
You have advantage on melee attack rolls against any unmounted creature that is smaller than your mount.
You can force an attack targeted at your mount to target you instead.
If your mount is subjected to an effect that allows it to make a Dexterity saving throw to take only half damage, it instead takes no damage if it succeeds on the saving throw, and only half damage if it fails.
This seems.... very strong, if the mount is PC. Free Evasion? Absolute ability to prevent any and all attacks from targeting the mount, with no reaction required? It isn't that these are mechanically unclear, it is simply that they are vastly overpowered when applied to a dangerous PC combatant instead of a dumb Warhorse. The power of this feat is single-handedly the reason that your DM probably won't get on board with Step 1 above.
The rules for mounted combat in 5E are not very clear in the first place as you have pointed out. I think we have to view OP's build in the frame of someone playing in a campaign where the DM allows using other PC's as mounts. Also, the centaur as described in the Ravnica book is clearly designed to be usable as a mount for fellow PC's, so that should be possible. If the mounted feat it too powerful for PC mounts, handwave it to not apple to PC mounts or change it just like we had to handwave the rule about sharing spaces for a small PC to mount a medium pony to be allowed in the first place.
A note about Powerful/Equine Build: You count as a size category larger for the purpose of carrying and lifting. What happens when a rider hops onto a mount? The mount carries the rider. Because they count as a bigger creature for that purpose and are medium-sized, they should be able to carry other medium-sized creatures.
There are some ways for the DM to effectively counter mounts if they become problematic, and they're not even that hard to do. Low ceilings, enemies that can force movement or knock prone (just about anything can shove or grapple and drag away, thunderwave), social norms (would you let a horse into your house?), container limits (baskets only hold 40 pounds), etc.
That is not what Equine Build says. I mean, it's close, but the text is:
Equine Build
You count as one size larger when determining your carrying capacity and the weight you can push or drag.
While rules about the size of mounts might fit within the concept of "the purpose of carrying and lifting," it certainly doesn't fit within "determining your carrying capacity." Paraphrasing is dangerous!
Again, I agree that RAW PCs should be allowed to serve as mounts for other PCs, there is some rule ambiguity about sharing spaces there, but it's no worse than it is for mounting horses. If the DM doesn't get spooked by the power of Mounted Combatant, there are some great combos by having the mount take classes like Ancestral Guardian or Cavalier that punish nearby enemies for not attacking them, while the tanky rider refuses to allow anyone to attack them until he's removed from his saddle.
There seems to be an issue between RAW and RAI concerning PC centaurs: If Equine Build does not allow the centaur to carry medium-sized creatures as if they themselves were large-sized, then the whole point of it is effectively pointless.
Most small-sized characters don't weigh more than 80 pounds, so even without Equine Build a decently strong centaur could still carry it with ease, so long as their equipment doesn't overload the expected initial 240-pound 16-strength carry limit. A pony doesn't have or need a mule's Beast of Burden to be a mount for a halfling.
WotC felt that PC minotaurs didn't need Powerful Build, so why give it to centaurs if the plan wasn't to allow medium-sized riders?
If the issue was UA's centaur-stacking (having centaurs ride other centaurs), GGtR fixed that by giving centaurs a base weight of 600 pounds. This means a 20-strength centaur can't carry another centaur without first finding some way to further increase its load limit.
The answer to Centaur Stacking is for the DM to whap the two centaur players attempting it with a newspaper and say "NO. BAD."
If a DM allows two centaurs to go around the battlefield in Horse Mating Stance, that's their own heckin' problem. Some things break immersion so badly that it doesn't matter if it's "technically legal RAW" - you don't get to do it because it's just dumb.
The “point” of equine build is to do what it says: give Centaurs increased carrying capacity (like Powerful Build), but also a special horsey penalty on climbing.
Centaur stacking was never a problem, even under the old version of their race, because of the “appropriate anatomy” general restriction on mounting. But the limitation on creatures only being able to ride creatures larger than themself is hard coded into 5E, and didn’t really justify an exception for the race. Nobody is saying you can’t ride the horse-sized wild Centaurs, but the deer-sized player Centaurs aren’t large framed enough for medium creatures. It isn’t just an issue with Strength, it’s a size thing.
That said... if you wanted to houserule that Powerful Build/Equine Build treat you as larger for the sake of riding? I don’t see any real balance concerns, apart from the fact that medium riders more effectively use Heavy Lances, so I think you’d be fine making that call. Just do it with eyes wide open that it’s a house rule.
Edit: Lances aren’t heavy, never mind. Medium riders truly have no real advantage over small ones.
After giving it some thought, there is a container that can act as a platform for a small character to ride in on a normal humanoid, so long as it's made with straps; a chest. Chests can carry up to 300 pounds of stuff inside and have 12 cubic feet of space inside of it.
One could argue that, if Powerful/Equine Build allows a character to be counted as large for mount purposes, a centaur could carry a goliath, who has a chest backpack with a dwarf inside, who has his own chest backpack with a gnome.
As a DM, if everyone had the appropriate strength scores to do this, I'd rule they could, but they'd have disadvantage on all Dexterity checks and saves due to the horrible balance that would entail.
Or just get a vehicle. Why go up when you all can ride behind?
As far as riders go, arguably the best sort would likely be...a goblin. Given the goblin's Fury of the Small paired with Mounted Combatant, they'd have a tactical edge in any sort of engagement while riding on a mount. Throw in Cavalier fighter levels and we have quite a formidable pair!
This seems.... very strong, if the mount is PC. Free Evasion? Absolute ability to prevent any and all attacks from targeting the mount, with no reaction required? It isn't that these are mechanically unclear, it is simply that they are vastly overpowered when applied to a dangerous PC combatant instead of a dumb Warhorse. The power of this feat is single-handedly the reason that your DM probably won't get on board with Step 1 above.
But since Enemies should be able to do things that PCs cannot do, now I have me a fantastic idea for a Bugbear Cavalier with a Lance and Mounted Combatant who rides a Centaur Rune Knight with Mobile as a pair of Villains. 😁
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
If you go for DPS, rogue is a really good option because with an ally riding you, you always have an ally within 5 ft of an enemy so you always get sneak attack.
in theory, a very tanky character (some sort of fighter / paladin / war cleric) riding this centaur with the centaur being a rogue gives you the following options:
Scout Rogue: you get three sneak attacks a round (2 from sudden strike, 1 from sentinel reaction attack)
Arcane trickster: spellcasting + 2 sneak attacks.
for the mount, the D&D optimized youtube channel recommended going cavalier + sorcerer because you can twin haste and can force enemies to attack the mount character at disadvantage. Now you have insane move speed and extra attacks so the mount always gets as many sneak attacks in.
You could also go paladin here and still be good, just not as good at forcing enemies to attack you.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I've been fiddling with an idea, one that looks horribly unbalanced at first but can be quite busted when played to its strengths; Centaur Totem Warrior Barbarian 6 (bear)/Kensei Monk 14.
Start with a centaur barbarian, 17 Str, 13 Dex/Con/Wis, 10 Int/Cha. D12 hit die and Rage at 1st level helps counter the lower Con score.
This one's going to be feat-heavy, going for Athlete (+1 Str and counters centaur's climbing penalty), Mobile (more speed and harder to lock down), Tavern Brawler (+1 Con and can reliably throw around scenery) and a +2 Str ASI.
It's ultimately faster than most level 20 monks, carries more than most level 20 barbarians and can act as an independent mount for other party members. Heck, pull 3 tons of characters + stuff on a wagon train by yourself! DPR is somewhat low when compared to optimized DPR builds, but that's not the goal for this one.
EDIT: for those who are curious, after spending a couple of turns to set up Rage and 3-ki Sharpen the Blade, average DPR looks like just under 50 while factoring in Reckless Attack against 19 AC, but not Deft Strike; DS isn't very ki efficient to me except on a critical hit, and even then it's not as good as the additional attack from FoB (average 9 versus 4.5+7).
Sounds fun. Make your rider a pally with mounted combat feat and maybe think about changing tavern brawler to sentinel feat. Pally forces any attack on you to attack them and then you get a reaction attack because of sentinel.
I've considered Sentinel, but that's much better on a paladin or rogue setup; going 6 bear barb/2 monk/12 scout rogue would make that work nicely while sacrificing only 5 speed. Ki wouldn't really be needed except to make very far and/or high jumps.
PCs as mounts is a can of worms. Let's open it!
First issue: Who can be a mount?
In Chapter 9: Combat:
"A willing creature" certainly could be a player character. "At least one size larger than you" is easy enough, gnomes or goblins or halflings or kobolds are small player races that should be able to get piggyback rides. "That has an appropriate anatomy" is interestingly ambiguous. That doesn't say quadraped, and indeed there are published mounts (see Clawfoot) which are bipedal. One can certainly picture how a small character could ride on the shoulders or in a basket on the back of a larger character... and the equipment talks about "exotic saddles" for unusual mounts. So what does "appropriate anatomy" mean? 'Has a place to sit that won't interfere with the mount's movement, due to anatomy or a saddle'? 'Medium, but also has Powerful Build or Equine Build'? Fuzzy, but there's probably some sort of plausible definition that a DM should agree to.
But once we've passed that hurdle, that medium characters can generally serve as mounts for small characters with the right sort of "saddle," we're still faced with the fact that the rules for mounts treat them more like equipment than independent creatures.
Second issue: Mounting and Dismounting
Right out the gate, let's acknowledge: as a general rule, characters aren't allowed to be in each other's spaces:
I think we can all agree that even though this is true, rules for Mounts must be operating as a specific exception to this rule, otherwise we have to start doing some real mental gymnastics about a rider occupying the 5 foot cube above its mount that we probably don't want to get into. You can freely move into and through an ally's space, but you can't end there, unless you've mounted it as a rider.
Mounting doesn't require any check or action on the part of your mount, climbing onto its back/shoulders/whatever is purely a function of the rider, costing half your speed score of movement. Forced movement/Prone for mount or rider has some special effects, nothing that looks too hard to arbitrate. While there's discussion of unwillilng movement for your mount , there's no discussion of unwilling movement for the rider : same check afforded to the mount character to stay with you as you're pulled/pushed, or are you just yanked off? Or the rider can make the check to drag their mount with them? Does it make a difference whether the forced movement is a push/pull effect, versus a mind control effect which forces them to use their movement on their turn, or which forces them to move not on their turn? The strictest RAW to me looks like the rider just gets pushed/pulled/scared off the saddle with no ability to stop it, which is fine, but the DM will just need to clear up how you'll arbitrate it ahead of time because it will come up.
Once we start mounting our willing humanoid allies, eventually the question is going to arise whether small PCs can mount unwilling enemies. There's already an optional rule in place for that kind of, found in the DMG Chapter 9.
So... its a little hand waivy, but it seems like a small PC can ride a willing PC by simply using its movement, or can ride (or, get in position to ride?) an unwilling enemy (larger? two or more sizes larger?) through some special variant grapple checks. We know a little bit about forced movement (at least for the mount, if not the rider), but... what does it mean to "ride" a mount, what happens once you're on a creature, especially when that creature is a player?
Third Issue: What the turn looks like
PHB Chapter 9 tells us that there's two different ways to ride: controlling your mount, or allowing it to act independently.
"Intelligent creatures act independently," so we don't need to worry about the "control" option at all. Independent mounts have their own place in the initiative order, and in no way restricts the mount's turn or actions. Presumably, doesn't alter the rider's turn or actions either, they can hop off with their movement on their turn whenever they want. OAs the mount provokes can target the mount or its rider, so we can mostly put aside complicated questions about which of the two is provoking an OA when they ride past an enemy because its a distinction without a difference.
We still have some little questions. Imagine the rider has been hit by a Booming Blade; when the (independent) mount carries it around, is it considered to have "moved willingly"? Either way the DM rules, no big deal... they aren't themselves using speed, but subjecting them to OAs for their mount's movement should emotionally prepare them to be subjected to BBs for their mount's movement without feeling too aggrieved. We never explicitly even have a rule that says "a rider moves wherever their mount moves", though we can probably presume that from the plain English meaning of what it means to ride and not worry too much about that.
Fourth Issue: Features and Abilities that Interact with Riding
So a small PC can probably ride a medium PC, especially with an exotic saddle. Hopping up requires the rider's movement, but once they're up there, riding doesn't restrict the independent mount PC or the rider PC's actions or movement or initiative in any way. OAs against the mount PC can target either character. And forced movement against the rider is probably a hard break on their ride, but the DM may or may not want to houserule to extend the same sorts of checks to the pair that are available when the mount is subjected to forced movement. But what happens if the Rider takes Mounted Combatant?
This seems.... very strong, if the mount is PC. Free Evasion? Absolute ability to prevent any and all attacks from targeting the mount, with no reaction required? It isn't that these are mechanically unclear, it is simply that they are vastly overpowered when applied to a dangerous PC combatant instead of a dumb Warhorse. The power of this feat is single-handedly the reason that your DM probably won't get on board with Step 1 above.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
But since Enemies should be able to do things that PCs cannot do, now I have me a fantastic idea for a Bugbear Cavalier with a Lance and Mounted Combatant who rides a Centaur Rune Knight with Mobile as a pair of Villains. 😁
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
NPCs don’t generally get feats, but yes, some sort of enemy knight on a fearsome mount whose mount cannot be attacked until the knight is dead would make a great two-stage boss battle!
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
They don’t?!? Shit, I been doin’ it wrong this whole time. No wonder combat actually challenges them! Oh well, I’ma keep doin’ it. Because that combo right there is the stuff D&D was made for, and I’ma let the players fight it because it would be totally, fully awesome!
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
The rules for mounted combat in 5E are not very clear in the first place as you have pointed out. I think we have to view OP's build in the frame of someone playing in a campaign where the DM allows using other PC's as mounts. Also, the centaur as described in the Ravnica book is clearly designed to be usable as a mount for fellow PC's, so that should be possible. If the mounted feat it too powerful for PC mounts, handwave it to not apple to PC mounts or change it just like we had to handwave the rule about sharing spaces for a small PC to mount a medium pony to be allowed in the first place.
A note about Powerful/Equine Build: You count as a size category larger for the purpose of carrying and lifting. What happens when a rider hops onto a mount? The mount carries the rider. Because they count as a bigger creature for that purpose and are medium-sized, they should be able to carry other medium-sized creatures.
There are some ways for the DM to effectively counter mounts if they become problematic, and they're not even that hard to do. Low ceilings, enemies that can force movement or knock prone (just about anything can shove or grapple and drag away, thunderwave), social norms (would you let a horse into your house?), container limits (baskets only hold 40 pounds), etc.
That is not what Equine Build says. I mean, it's close, but the text is:
While rules about the size of mounts might fit within the concept of "the purpose of carrying and lifting," it certainly doesn't fit within "determining your carrying capacity." Paraphrasing is dangerous!
Again, I agree that RAW PCs should be allowed to serve as mounts for other PCs, there is some rule ambiguity about sharing spaces there, but it's no worse than it is for mounting horses. If the DM doesn't get spooked by the power of Mounted Combatant, there are some great combos by having the mount take classes like Ancestral Guardian or Cavalier that punish nearby enemies for not attacking them, while the tanky rider refuses to allow anyone to attack them until he's removed from his saddle.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
There seems to be an issue between RAW and RAI concerning PC centaurs: If Equine Build does not allow the centaur to carry medium-sized creatures as if they themselves were large-sized, then the whole point of it is effectively pointless.
Most small-sized characters don't weigh more than 80 pounds, so even without Equine Build a decently strong centaur could still carry it with ease, so long as their equipment doesn't overload the expected initial 240-pound 16-strength carry limit. A pony doesn't have or need a mule's Beast of Burden to be a mount for a halfling.
WotC felt that PC minotaurs didn't need Powerful Build, so why give it to centaurs if the plan wasn't to allow medium-sized riders?
If the issue was UA's centaur-stacking (having centaurs ride other centaurs), GGtR fixed that by giving centaurs a base weight of 600 pounds. This means a 20-strength centaur can't carry another centaur without first finding some way to further increase its load limit.
The answer to Centaur Stacking is for the DM to whap the two centaur players attempting it with a newspaper and say "NO. BAD."
If a DM allows two centaurs to go around the battlefield in Horse Mating Stance, that's their own heckin' problem. Some things break immersion so badly that it doesn't matter if it's "technically legal RAW" - you don't get to do it because it's just dumb.
Please do not contact or message me.
The “point” of equine build is to do what it says: give Centaurs increased carrying capacity (like Powerful Build), but also a special horsey penalty on climbing.
Centaur stacking was never a problem, even under the old version of their race, because of the “appropriate anatomy” general restriction on mounting. But the limitation on creatures only being able to ride creatures larger than themself is hard coded into 5E, and didn’t really justify an exception for the race. Nobody is saying you can’t ride the horse-sized wild Centaurs, but the deer-sized player Centaurs aren’t large framed enough for medium creatures. It isn’t just an issue with Strength, it’s a size thing.
That said... if you wanted to houserule that Powerful Build/Equine Build treat you as larger for the sake of riding? I don’t see any real balance concerns, apart from the fact that medium riders more effectively use Heavy Lances, so I think you’d be fine making that call. Just do it with eyes wide open that it’s a house rule.
Edit: Lances aren’t heavy, never mind. Medium riders truly have no real advantage over small ones.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
After giving it some thought, there is a container that can act as a platform for a small character to ride in on a normal humanoid, so long as it's made with straps; a chest. Chests can carry up to 300 pounds of stuff inside and have 12 cubic feet of space inside of it.
One could argue that, if Powerful/Equine Build allows a character to be counted as large for mount purposes, a centaur could carry a goliath, who has a chest backpack with a dwarf inside, who has his own chest backpack with a gnome.
As a DM, if everyone had the appropriate strength scores to do this, I'd rule they could, but they'd have disadvantage on all Dexterity checks and saves due to the horrible balance that would entail.
Or just get a vehicle. Why go up when you all can ride behind?
As far as riders go, arguably the best sort would likely be...a goblin. Given the goblin's Fury of the Small paired with Mounted Combatant, they'd have a tactical edge in any sort of engagement while riding on a mount. Throw in Cavalier fighter levels and we have quite a formidable pair!
I forgot to add that the Centaur is also wearing Horseshoes of Speed. 😂
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
There are also these for crossing things like say....rivers of lava.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/magic-items/horseshoes-of-a-zephyr
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Oohh... Even better!
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
If you go for DPS, rogue is a really good option because with an ally riding you, you always have an ally within 5 ft of an enemy so you always get sneak attack.
in theory, a very tanky character (some sort of fighter / paladin / war cleric) riding this centaur with the centaur being a rogue gives you the following options:
Scout Rogue: you get three sneak attacks a round (2 from sudden strike, 1 from sentinel reaction attack)
Arcane trickster: spellcasting + 2 sneak attacks.
for the mount, the D&D optimized youtube channel recommended going cavalier + sorcerer because you can twin haste and can force enemies to attack the mount character at disadvantage. Now you have insane move speed and extra attacks so the mount always gets as many sneak attacks in.
You could also go paladin here and still be good, just not as good at forcing enemies to attack you.