A weird one. So it appears that RAW stipulates that when mounted upon a steed, said steed can't attack. Yet some foks claim that when you mount up you can choose if your mount is controlled or independent. If independent then steed can attack etc etc as per its stats. Some even hold that given the above indepence, a steed can even perform spell attacks. Is this a DM kinda thing or what? đ€Șđ€·ââïž
A player can choose whether or not a mount such as a horse acts on its own initiative or not; if it does, it can take any appropriate action on its turn. Any creature the DM deems âintelligentâ will always act on its own initiative.
I like that. I myself have never engaged in mounted combat, but from what I understand, in "reality" a warhorse would follow commands. yet would also independently decide to try and trample anybody who made it PO'ed.
IRL A trained war horse would not run from loud combat and often got excited at the prospect.
They would or could use their size to bash, run over, or knock aside any person or horse in its way. They would kick backwards if attacked from the rear. Often they would not leave their master/rider and would defend them as best they could. Not very well because sometimes they just knocked them down again or even stepped on them. But they tried.
Jousting was not the only battle field maneuver they were used for. More often than not it was just plain speed around the battle field. Melee combat was the normal form of combat for the rider. Often simply with longer weapons than footmen used. A rider could even kick footmen to keep them back.
Some of this should be able to be incorporated into the game.
IRL A trained war horse would not run from loud combat and often got excited at the prospect.
They would or could use their size to bash, run over, or knock aside any person or horse in its way. They would kick backwards if attacked from the rear. Often they would not leave their master/rider and would defend them as best they could. Not very well because sometimes they just knocked them down again or even stepped on them. But they tried.
Jousting was not the only battle field maneuver they were used for. More often than not it was just plain speed around the battle field. Melee combat was the normal form of combat for the rider. Often simply with longer weapons than footmen used. A rider could even kick footmen to keep them back.
Some of this should be able to be incorporated into the game.
That's what's covered under "acting on their own initiative". The warhorse does have a decent attack option. Now, you won't be controlling it directly per RAW, so you'd need to talk with your DM about using it.
A weird one. So it appears that RAW stipulates that when mounted upon a steed, said steed can't attack. Yet some foks claim that when you mount up you can choose if your mount is controlled or independent. If independent then steed can attack etc etc as per its stats. Some even hold that given the above indepence, a steed can even perform spell attacks. Is this a DM kinda thing or what? đ€Șđ€·ââïž
The big problem is âindependentâ is not explained in the rules. Can you say itâs independent, but you, the player still control it? At which point, it seems like a pretty cheesy and pointless distinction. Does independent mean the DM controls the mount? Like they donât have enough to do. Are you just supposed to roll random directions? Independent as an in game concept doesnât work, because in the end some person at the table has to decide what itâs going to do. So, it ends up being a DM thing, yes. Ultimately the DM will decide what player makes decisions for the independent mount.
Independent means the DM controls it by default. How that will play out in practice is up to them, but itâs arguably not markedly different from the Conjure Creature spells.
A weird one. So it appears that RAW stipulates that when mounted upon a steed, said steed can't attack. Yet some foks claim that when you mount up you can choose if your mount is controlled or independent. If independent then steed can attack etc etc as per its stats. Some even hold that given the above indepence, a steed can even perform spell attacks. Is this a DM kinda thing or what? đ€Șđ€·ââïž
A player can choose whether or not a mount such as a horse acts on its own initiative or not; if it does, it can take any appropriate action on its turn. Any creature the DM deems âintelligentâ will always act on its own initiative.
I like that. I myself have never engaged in mounted combat, but from what I understand, in "reality" a warhorse would follow commands. yet would also independently decide to try and trample anybody who made it PO'ed.
IRL A trained war horse would not run from loud combat and often got excited at the prospect.
They would or could use their size to bash, run over, or knock aside any person or horse in its way.
They would kick backwards if attacked from the rear.
Often they would not leave their master/rider and would defend them as best they could. Not very well because sometimes they just knocked them down again or even stepped on them. But they tried.
Jousting was not the only battle field maneuver they were used for.
More often than not it was just plain speed around the battle field. Melee combat was the normal form of combat for the rider. Often simply with longer weapons than footmen used. A rider could even kick footmen to keep them back.
Some of this should be able to be incorporated into the game.
That's what's covered under "acting on their own initiative". The warhorse does have a decent attack option. Now, you won't be controlling it directly per RAW, so you'd need to talk with your DM about using it.
The big problem is âindependentâ is not explained in the rules. Can you say itâs independent, but you, the player still control it? At which point, it seems like a pretty cheesy and pointless distinction. Does independent mean the DM controls the mount? Like they donât have enough to do. Are you just supposed to roll random directions? Independent as an in game concept doesnât work, because in the end some person at the table has to decide what itâs going to do.
So, it ends up being a DM thing, yes. Ultimately the DM will decide what player makes decisions for the independent mount.
Independent means the DM controls it by default. How that will play out in practice is up to them, but itâs arguably not markedly different from the Conjure Creature spells.
While I agree, it doesnât actually say that anywhere.
The DM controls everything the players donât, so by definition if something is independent of player control itâs controlled by the DM.