D&D 5E In combat riding and movement

[Harzel]

In a recent game during a combat one of my players asserted that his familiar (an owl) was perched on his shoulder. (Fine so far.) Then he further asserted that he moved as far as he could and then his familiar took flight and moved its full movement (in addition to the distance that he had carried it.) I said no. My reasoning was that the fundamental resource being expended was time and that the familiar had essentially used up its movement time riding on the PC's shoulder. We moved on, but the player asked me to look into this further.

The closest analogy that I could think of was mounted combat, but those rules appear to me to be ambiguously silent on the matter of whether, for instance, a rider can move with his mount for the mount's full movement, then dismount and then move further on his own. (Dismounting only costs 1/2 of his movement.)

It sort of looks to me like strictly by RAW the additional movement would be allowed; however a) this grates hard on my sense of verisimilitude, b) I have a hard time believing that this is RAI, and c) it seems like the kind of loop hole that might be subject to some pretty wild abuse in the right situation.

Opinions?

 

[KahlessNestor]

In a recent game during a combat one of my players asserted that his familiar (an owl) was perched on his shoulder. (Fine so far.) Then he further asserted that he moved as far as he could and then his familiar took flight and moved its full movement (in addition to the distance that he had carried it.) I said no. My reasoning was that the fundamental resource being expended was time and that the familiar had essentially used up its movement time riding on the PC's shoulder. We moved on, but the player asked me to look into this further.

The closest analogy that I could think of was mounted combat, but those rules appear to me to be ambiguously silent on the matter of whether, for instance, a rider can move with his mount for the mount's full movement, then dismount and then move further on his own. (Dismounting only costs 1/2 of his movement.)

It sort of looks to me like strictly by RAW the additional movement would be allowed; however a) this grates hard on my sense of verisimilitude, b) I have a hard time believing that this is RAI, and c) it seems like the kind of loop hole that might be subject to some pretty wild abuse in the right situation.

Opinions?

It seems raw to me, and how I have had familiars run in other systems loke Pathfinder. Technically I believe the familiar (and animal companions ) get their own initiative count, which means they get their own full turn. Turn time has very little to do with verisimilitude anyway.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

[Shiroiken]

I think the Mounted Combat rules work perfectly. The mage carries the familiar on his turn, then the familiar can move on their turn. However, the familiar will still have to pay half its movement to Dismount (and half to Mount, if it happens in combat), so its not gaining that much extra movement.

 

[KahlessNestor]

I think the Mounted Combat rules work perfectly. The mage carries the familiar on his turn, then the familiar can move on their turn. However, the familiar will still have to pay half its movement to Dismount (and half to Mount, if it happens in combat), so its not gaining that much extra movement.

Does a bird have to "dismount" a branch? Now that seems more breaking of verisimilitude than just allowing the full movement. Dismounting takes half movement because of the difficulty. Flying from a shoulder isn't difficult at all.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

[Shiroiken]

Does a bird have to "dismount" a branch? Now that seems more breaking of verisimilitude than just allowing the full movement. Dismounting takes half movement because of the difficulty. Flying from a shoulder isn't difficult at all.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

Wasn't thinking of birds, tbh, but I could see an argument for it. Unlike a branch, which the bird can claw up without concern, to fly off a fleshy human without hurting it could conceivably take extra time. Admittedly, half movement feels like far too much (especially when most birds have 40-50 ft fly speed), but again 5E looks for simplicity. I would keep it the way it is, but I can't fault other DMs giving it full movement.

 

[Giant2005]

Your situation isn't the same as Mounted Combat due to both entities having their own turn (when mounted, the movement occurs on the rider's turn so if it were a complete parallel, the player would have to wait for the Owl's turn to move at all).
I'm not sure if the rules cover a situation like you described, but even if they do and rule against you, I still think you made the right ruling. An owl that spends 6 seconds on someone's shoulder and 6 seconds in flight, both within a single 6 second timeframe; is some kind of deific being that is powerful enough to be able to manipulate time. Player's cannot have gods as familiars by default.

EDIT: The grappling rules are probably more apt - the player can only move half of his movement while carrying the bird along for the ride. It makes a lot of sense too considering that owl is going to be flapping in his face like a maniac in order to maintain its balance and grip while the player is running. Half speed as compensation for that annoyance actually seems pretty generous.

 

[KahlessNestor]

Why is everyone so concerned with the 6 seconds? That's not a hard and fast time. A character can't even really accomplish a normal tirn in six seconds.

There also is no grappling involved, otherwise you need to make checks every time the familiar lands. You're making it way more difficult than it's intended to be, RAW or RAI.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

[Lanliss]

Your situation isn't the same as Mounted Combat due to both entities having their own turn (when mounted, the movement occurs on the rider's turn so if it were a complete parallel, the player would have to wait for the Owl's turn to move at all).
I'm not sure if the rules cover a situation like you described, but even if they do and rule against you, I still think you made the right ruling. An owl that spends 6 seconds on someone's shoulder and 6 seconds in flight, both within a single 6 second timeframe; is some kind of deific being that is powerful enough to be able to manipulate time. Player's cannot have gods as familiars by default.

EDIT: The grappling rules are probably more apt - the player can only move half of his movement while carrying the bird along for the ride. It makes a lot of sense too considering that owl is going to be flapping in his face like a maniac in order to maintain its balance and grip while the player is running. Half speed as compensation for that annoyance actually seems pretty generous.

It isn't in the same 6 seconds, by RAW. The owl is on a different turn from the PC, so it is 6 seconds on the shoulder during the players turn, then 6 seconds in the air on it's own turn.

Why is everyone so concerned with the 6 seconds? That's not a hard and fast time. A character can't even really accomplish a normal tirn in six seconds.

There also is no grappling involved, otherwise you need to make checks every time the familiar lands. You're making it way more difficult than it's intended to be, RAW or RAI.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

A round of combat is 6 seconds, page 189 of PHB.

 

[Harzel]

Why is everyone so concerned with the 6 seconds? That's not a hard and fast time. A character can't even really accomplish a normal tirn in six seconds.

I don't care about how many seconds it is, I just am confused about why the familiar should get to double-dip on movement - moving on the PC's turn and its own.

There also is no grappling involved, otherwise you need to make checks every time the familiar lands. You're making it way more difficult than it's intended to be, RAW or RAI.

I think grappling was intended as an analogy, not that there was an actual grapple.

 

[Lanliss]

I don't care about how many seconds it is, I just am confused about why the familiar should get to double-dip on movement - moving on the PC's turn and its own.



I think grappling was intended as an analogy, not that there was an actual grapple.

So, you find it unreasonable that someone can move with an owl on their shoulder, and then the owl can move by itself? Would it make more sense for the owl to be paralyzed by it's masters movement, stopping it from taking movement on its turn? Imagine it this way.

You are carrying a cat. You hold it tight against your chest, and run in a straight line for 6 seconds. For this, let's assume the cat is fine with this, as you are its arcane master. Now, after six seconds of you running, the cat changes its mind, and jumps out of your arms. Is it allowed to run away, or is it paralyzed?