D&D 5E Sneak Attack question

[Oofta]

Weird how no one worries about a fighter getting 3 attacks with advantage while mounted.

In order to get that advantage you need to be attacking a medium or smaller opponent while riding a horse after having taken a feat that otherwise doesn't have much of a benefit.

I don't see a reason to be overly concerned about it. Mounted combat in 5E is pretty useless other than adding a bit of mobility.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Weird how no one worries about a fighter getting 3 attacks with advantage while mounted.

Weirder still because nothing stops said fighter from using GWM while mounted either.

But in our main game, our Paladin has mounted combatant and is on his steed much of the time we've been in Hell... so, since a majority of the devils are medium-size, he's been getting advantage a lot. Along those lines I am glad a Lance is not a Heavy weapon!!! Then our Paladin would be really bad.

Granted, as a Paladin he is only getting two attacks... but still the power is visible.

a feat that otherwise doesn't have much of a benefit.

I thought so, too, until our Paladin has been using it the last couple of months. His AC is great, so he always directs attacks towards himself, and his steed hasn't died because of that (and many things miss the Paladin of course, who also has much higher HP). The save for no damage to the steed thing has also kept it alive.

I agree it takes a focused build and opportunity to make it shine, but it does pretty well when everything is there.

 

[TwoSix]

In order to get that advantage you need to be attacking a medium or smaller opponent while riding a horse after having taken a feat that otherwise doesn't have much of a benefit.

I don't see a reason to be overly concerned about it. Mounted combat in 5E is pretty useless other than adding a bit of mobility.

I don't either, and yet it seems people are more worried about the rogue gaining sneak attack while mounted, even though sneak attack isn't nearly as problematic.

There's a segment of the playing population that overestimates the offensive capability of sneak attack, is the point I'm making. Rogues can get it 100% of the time and it isn't a problem, the only reason sneak attack is restricted is to encourage the rogue playstyle. (Using small weapons, and trying to be sneaky.)

 

[Li Shenron]

Sneak attack doesn't trigger off having one of your allies adjacent to the target. It triggers off having an enemy of the target adjacent to the target. If the mount is visibly aggressive towards the target, it should count as an enemy.

I would enable Sneak Attack if the mount is also fighting. I think the idea is that the target is subject to Sneak Attack when more than one enemy is nearby because its attention is divided.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

I don't either, and yet it seems people are more worried about the rogue gaining sneak attack while mounted, even though sneak attack isn't nearly as problematic.

Mounted sneak attack is not problematic mechanically. It's problematic because it's absurd.

I stand on the ground and stick you with a dagger: no sneak attack.
I mount my ancient, half-dead plow horse: sneak attack!

 

[MarkB]

Mounted sneak attack is not problematic mechanically. It's problematic because it's absurd.

I stand on the ground and stick you with a dagger: no sneak attack.
I mount my ancient, half-dead plow horse: sneak attack!

Would you allow sneak attack if the rogue was on the ground and the target was in combat against an ancient, half-dead plow horse?

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Would you allow sneak attack if the rogue was on the ground and the target was in combat against an ancient, half-dead plow horse?

Probably not. But that's because I don't use the sneak attack rule as written.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

However, one section where the rules are somewhat lacking is in describing how one goes about deliberately relinquishing control of a mount in order to allow it to act on its own. Can a player say "I take control of my mount" at the start of their turn, then take their full range of actions, then say "I now relinquish control of my mount" and allow it to take reactions and act on its own initiative (both literally and numerically)? Would it require an action or bonus action to make the transition? Or is the decision made at the start of combat, with no option to then amend it?

Yep, very lacking. I would say that at the start of your turn you choose whether to control your mount, and that lasts until the start of your next turn. That eliminates shenanigans and seems believable. I wouldn't require any action for it.

 

[MarkB]

Yep, very lacking. I would say that at the start of your turn you choose whether to control your mount, and that lasts until the start of your next turn. That eliminates shenanigans and seems believable. I wouldn't require any action for it.

A reasonable ruling. Myself, I'd say that it requires no action to relinquish control of the mount, but regaining control requires an action, and a successful Animal Handling check if the mount is adjacent to a non-incapacitated enemy.

 

[Li Shenron]

However, one section where the rules are somewhat lacking is in describing how one goes about deliberately relinquishing control of a mount in order to allow it to act on its own. Can a player say "I take control of my mount" at the start of their turn, then take their full range of actions, then say "I now relinquish control of my mount" and allow it to take reactions and act on its own initiative (both literally and numerically)? Would it require an action or bonus action to make the transition? Or is the decision made at the start of combat, with no option to then amend it?

I think the fact that the two options imply different initiative scores for the mount implies that the RAI is that you make one decision per combat and cannot change it.