I don't have an opinion on this, but here's the Sage Advice answer:
http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/11/04/controlled-mount/
http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/11/04/controlled-mount/
D&D 5E Phantom Steed.
You don't need ride by attack in this edition. Your mount can move on your turn, you can attack, your mount can use its action to disengage and use any remaining movement to get you out of there or you can risk an opportunity attack if you need the extra distance and just have your mount do a dash.
jodyjohnson
Adventurer
Thanks for clearing that up. It helps to know that you are really interpreting it like I hoped you weren't.
It's like a Ranger's Animal Companion but worse... at your table.
Why would a mount be better than a ranger's animal companion?
Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk
jodyjohnson
Adventurer
This is one of the reasons Beastmaster Ranger receives such low marks for player satisfaction in the surveys. The rules grant mounts a better action economy than the PHB Beastmaster Animal Companion (it does get better Hit Points eventually, and improves later in the game).
Let's make the case:
PHB, Chapter 9 Combat, p.189, paragraph 2, sentences 3 & 4.
Chapter 9: Combat said:
This establishes the baseline for what is being referenced when the rules in the Combat section address 'you'. The DM or player makes decisions for playing out the activities of the creatures in the game, more specifically in an encounter.
The 5th sentence means that when it says 'you' these rules apply to every monster or character in the game. This is the 'General' rule. (The rules design lays out general rules and then gives specifics that over-rule the general rule.)
Upon re-reading this section I was dismayed to see that only characters and monsters get to use these rules, and thus there might be a third category of creatures that were neither monsters or characters (player or nonplayer). One might say that animals companions, mounts, or familiars are not 'Monsters' and are thus not able to use the rules in the rest of Chapter 9.
Fortunately the introduction in the Monster Manual steps in.
Monster Manual, p.4, Introduction, "What Is a Monster?".
If it has stats we can kill it ... um, actually the reverse, if it can be killed it is a 'monster'. If it has stats it is a 'monster' and thus all the rules in Chapter 9 apply as a general rule. For brevity I will refer to all monsters and characters as 'creatures' moving forward.Monster Manual said:
So what rules from the Combat section apply in general to all creatures?
Firstly, everything under "Your Turn" on PHB p.189.
1. Move and take one action. Emphasis in the original. Generally, all creatures get to move and take an action.
2. Take bonus actions if a rule or ability gives the creature one.
3. Take Reactions as a response granted by a rule or ability.
4. Complete other activities on your turn.
Since all creatures generally get movement and actions in combat the next two sections apply to all creatures. The healing rules apply as well (Short rest and long rest Hit Point recovery). In fact there is no distinction between characters and monsters until PHB p.198.
Monsters and Death said:
So in this one very specific area, the DM preference is RAW. (Obviously the DM can choose to rule differently on any of the rules per Rule 0). Most DMs will kill your mount at 0 hp, most DMs will kill your Animal Companion at 0 hp, most DMs will kill your Squire and Servants at 0 hp. Fortunately, 'most' is not 'all'.
So anywho ...
The general rule is that all combat rules apply to all creatures. So what Specifics trump the general?
1. Familiars (PHB p.240): Find Familiar Own initiative. Acts on its turn but may not attack (I'm going to assume it can't attack with its Reaction either), disappears at 0 hp. Otherwise, moves, acts, and can be told what to do by the caster without costing movement, actions, reactions, or a bonus action. (Special case: Chain pact Warlock - caster can trade an attack to the Familiar which uses the Familiar's reaction).
2. Animated Undead or Objects (PHB p212-3): Animate Dead, and Animate Objects Requires a bonus action to issue a command which is ongoing which it does during its next turn. No restrictions on movement, actions, reactions, or bonus actions. Initiative is not defined.
3. Conjured Creatures (PHB p.225-6): Roll own initiative, obey verbal commands (no action by the caster). No restrictions on movement, actions, reactions, or bonus actions.
4. Animal Companions (PHB p.93): Same initiative. Doesn't take actions unless verbally commanded as an Action by the Ranger. Commanding movement costs no actions. Can take reactions and can act normally if the Ranger is incapacitated or absent. (If you are paralyzed, stunned, petrified, Tasha'd, Hypnotic Patterned, or unconscious your companion can act on its own.)
5. Mounts (PHB p.198): Initiative changes to match rider. Moves as directed and only has 3 action option: Dash, Disengage, and Dodge. No cost is assigned to directing movement or the limited pool of actions. Unmounted a mount acts on its own.
6. Numerous spells or abilities have effects to limit actions and movement for affected creatures. These are all instances of the specific rules over-riding the general (status effects, custom creature abilities, custom spell descriptions, etc.).
Your alternate description of the Mount action economy is very reminiscent of the 4th edition rules (which I saw merit in) but they are not the RAW rules on 5th edition actions and movement. All creatures can move and act unless a specific rules changes that.
And the Unearthed Arcana Conclave Ranger Animal Companion makes large changes in this area making it much more popular.
Last edited:
You have some good points except again when it comes to mounted combat. It does not say at all the player gets to have the mount perform any action free of charge where as all other instances it specifically says how to control the creature. It only says that while mounted the action options are limited. Here is why. In the player's handbook under mounts players can buy, the elephant is an option (in places the DM deems available). Elephants are CR 4 creatures and have pretty powerful attacks. Also, in other areas in future expansions, they may introduce dinosaurs as mounts, and again for the same reasons, you can't command them to attack. Everyone who argue that a mount should be better than the ranger's companion must be players who try and find every loop-hole they can to try and cheat, which is really sad.
Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk
Saeviomagy
Adventurer
"Anyone who disagrees with me is a cheat". If you don't actually have a logical argument, then don't make an argument. Don't try to substitute ad-hominem attacks in place of logic.
Meanwhile:
* The rules refer to the mount taking actions, and do not mention the rider spending an action to control the mount.
* The writers of said rules agree that the rules do indeed mean that a controlled mount does not use the rider's action, and can take actions.
And your own argument:
* Since the rules don't mention it, it takes the riders action to control a mount (or something? You just say that you can't take an action and control the mount as well, so maybe you're saying it takes your entire round to ride a mount?)
* Also otherwise beastmaster rangers suck.
The problems with your argument:
* You don't actually have a rule reference for what kind of action controlling a mount is. I know this, because there isn't one.
* Beastmaster rangers suck even if you make everyone else's use of a mount slightly worse.
jodyjohnson
Adventurer
I'm just glad we get an elephant in the thread. Even if he can't attack while controlled.
Maybe I need to make a Battlemaster, buy an elephant and use Commanders Strike to get an attack out of him.
I could see doing it with a Warhorse for sure.
Maybe I need to make a Battlemaster, buy an elephant and use Commanders Strike to get an attack out of him.
I could see doing it with a Warhorse for sure.
There actually is no argument. If you're a DM run the game the way you want, but if you're a player at my table. The game is gonna be ran the way I run it. There is no debate, if you can't handle it, go cry at someone else's table. I couldn't care less. I'm an adult and I expect everyone at my table to conduct themselves as adults. If I say no, then it's no. It's the same when I'm a player and another DM makes a judgement call, I tell them ok, and continue with the game.
If you are not DM your argument is invalid. If you do run games and you let players exploit your game, good for you, you have to deal with it, not me.
Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk
Similar Threads
