Hi, idk how these forums work lmao, this is not first time using them
I'm currently playing a battle master and I've taken the Evasive Footwork feat. The name itself implies I'm on foot but the rules don't actually specify, I think I might be doing a lot of mounted combat in our next session so I was wondering if anyone has ever considered wether evasive footwork would work whilst mounted on a horse?
The problem is not the name but rather the "When you move." Since you are mounted, it is the mount that is moving (using its movement) and you are just along for the ride. Your movement isn't used so you are not "moving", if the mounted combat rules didn't specifically mention opportunity attacks on the mount can target the rider, you would not have be a valid target (because you aren't moving), and this follows the same logic.
It hasn't been made clear (by Sage Advice) whether that is correct or not, and your DM may rule differently, but that is how I interpret it.
Mounted Combat with a trained creature moves the mount's initiative to the rider's. If the mount gets a separate movement, then that would open up the possibility that the player could have the horse dash for 120ft and then hop off to run another 45ft+. However, since combat rounds are supposed to be simultaneous, I think the only rational interpretation of mounted combat is that the rider is using their movement to control the steed.
Aside from that, the rider is literally moving and it isn't forced movement. The rider is in control of the mount and choosing to take evasive maneuvers, which is what the feat is really about. The horse may be providing the locomotion, but you could easily drive it into a ditch. A well-trained horse is more "along for the ride" than the rider.
That's just the way I interpret the rules (the fact that the rules are not clear to begin with and requires interpretation is a real problem in itself).
The mounted rules don't say it is your movement, so that is the what I went with. And your argument is all based on the controlling the mount option (admittedly the optimal choice), would you make the same argument if the horse had its own initiative and moved how it likes? In both cases it is the mount that is moving and provoking the OA, so they should get the same ruling.
And is the movement really so bad? A tabaxi monk can move faster than that at level 2 (As could a tabaxi rogue or fighter).
In the second scenario, an independent mount isn't being controlled, and is taking its own actions on its own initiative. It's effectively a friendly NPC, rather than an extension of the player. The independent mount is the decision maker and isn't trained to be evasive. The movement abuse is more justifiable because the rider is subjected to forced movement and shouldn't lose the opportunity to act of their own accord.
Mechanically, the outcome may be the same, but the intentionality of it is important.
The effective speed isn't the problem, but rather it's the soft exploitation of the "Peasant Railgun". i.e. If you get a 1000 peasants who run their full movement and then hand a stone off to the next peasant, that stone ends up travelling at 6804 mph.
A player could ride 120ft, then dismount and mount another horse to travel 240ft in a round. Or just have a stack of successively smaller creatures that leap off and carry the rest as far as they can.
Hi, idk how these forums work lmao, this is not first time using them
I'm currently playing a battle master and I've taken the Evasive Footwork feat. The name itself implies I'm on foot but the rules don't actually specify, I think I might be doing a lot of mounted combat in our next session so I was wondering if anyone has ever considered wether evasive footwork would work whilst mounted on a horse?
Evasive Footwork requires "movement", but doesn't specify type of movement, which means it will apply to flying, swimming, climbing, etc.
Given that, it should work while mounted, so long as you are moving.
The problem is not the name but rather the "When you move." Since you are mounted, it is the mount that is moving (using its movement) and you are just along for the ride. Your movement isn't used so you are not "moving", if the mounted combat rules didn't specifically mention opportunity attacks on the mount can target the rider, you would not have be a valid target (because you aren't moving), and this follows the same logic.
It hasn't been made clear (by Sage Advice) whether that is correct or not, and your DM may rule differently, but that is how I interpret it.
Mounted Combat with a trained creature moves the mount's initiative to the rider's. If the mount gets a separate movement, then that would open up the possibility that the player could have the horse dash for 120ft and then hop off to run another 45ft+. However, since combat rounds are supposed to be simultaneous, I think the only rational interpretation of mounted combat is that the rider is using their movement to control the steed.
Aside from that, the rider is literally moving and it isn't forced movement. The rider is in control of the mount and choosing to take evasive maneuvers, which is what the feat is really about. The horse may be providing the locomotion, but you could easily drive it into a ditch. A well-trained horse is more "along for the ride" than the rider.
That's just the way I interpret the rules (the fact that the rules are not clear to begin with and requires interpretation is a real problem in itself).
The mounted rules don't say it is your movement, so that is the what I went with. And your argument is all based on the controlling the mount option (admittedly the optimal choice), would you make the same argument if the horse had its own initiative and moved how it likes? In both cases it is the mount that is moving and provoking the OA, so they should get the same ruling.
And is the movement really so bad? A tabaxi monk can move faster than that at level 2 (As could a tabaxi rogue or fighter).
In the second scenario, an independent mount isn't being controlled, and is taking its own actions on its own initiative. It's effectively a friendly NPC, rather than an extension of the player. The independent mount is the decision maker and isn't trained to be evasive. The movement abuse is more justifiable because the rider is subjected to forced movement and shouldn't lose the opportunity to act of their own accord.
Mechanically, the outcome may be the same, but the intentionality of it is important.
The effective speed isn't the problem, but rather it's the soft exploitation of the "Peasant Railgun". i.e. If you get a 1000 peasants who run their full movement and then hand a stone off to the next peasant, that stone ends up travelling at 6804 mph.
A player could ride 120ft, then dismount and mount another horse to travel 240ft in a round. Or just have a stack of successively smaller creatures that leap off and carry the rest as far as they can.