And what do you think I'm wrong about?
Your interpretation of the mount movement rules where you assert that mounts are limited to their rider's speed. A reading that would make more narrative sense if
the rider were bearing the mount.
Heck, the first line of Mounted Combat says:
Player's Handbook said:
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 ali enjoy the benefits of speed and mobility that a mount can provide.
Why would it say that if riding a mount
doesn't increase your movement speed?
The difference between a controlled mount and an independent mount isn't that a controlled mount is limited to it's rider's movement, it's that
only trained mounts can be controlled mounts. That's why controlled mounts are mechanically so much better than independent mounts. If an independent mount is intelligent (like a dragon or a giant) then you can work together, but normally independence is not a useful trait in an animal mount.
There is no statement on PHB p198 that supports your interpretation. It is -- at best -- left unstated. However, lacking a specific rule for the movement rate of a mount, the more general rules of the movement rate of the creature and the carrying capacity rules should apply. After all, all the other game statistics carry over when a creature is mounted; why
wouldn't movement rate? You're saying that a horse carrying 400 pounds of gold moves a speed of 60, but the same horse carrying 250 pounds of dwarf moves 25? And if the same horse bore a Str 10 halfling that wore Full Plate (well under 150 pounds), the horse would be limited to move 15? What happens if our halfling climbs on an trained elephant? And if that halfling falls asleep the elephant can suddenly move faster? Are vehicles similarly limited? Are ships piloted by halflings slower than ships piloted by wood elves? What if a halfling joins the elven crew? This doesn't make any sense.
I've been play testing 5th edition since it's been called D&D Next.
Which means you've been misreading the rules for longer than anyone?
Look, if you're arguing that age implies authority, well, no edition of D&D going all the way back some 43 years to 1974 has ever restricted the movement of a mount to the movement of the rider.
Look in the front of Xanther's Guide about DM's, it says exactly what I've been saying all along. The DM has final say in everything. They are not beholden to the rules like the players.
Just because you can house rule your table doesn't mean your reading of the rules is the generally accepted reading of the rules. I can assure you that nobody here cares what you do at your own table since none of us are at your table. Really, nobody cares. The rest of us are happy with move 60 horses limited by lift and carry rules or the optional encumbrance rules at our own tables. All people are saying is, "That reading isn't supported by the text even if you squint, and it doesn't make narrative sense, either."
