D&D 5E Mounted Beastmaster

[Adb0782]

I was thinking about the pteranodon (or vulture if my DM will be stingy lol) as campanion of a small race ranger. The campaign should get till lv 10, i suppose at lv 4 shapeshooter is kinda mandatory (so till lv 8 it wil stay with a +3 Dex) for hit from more far and for damage boost, as archery fighting style too (i was thinking also about lance and shield with dueling, but i suppose it cant cast in that way so i abbandoned this idea). I have a doubt about the help action: can the pteranodon while mounted go at 5 ft from an enemy, perform the help action as bonus action (from lv 7) and fly at reach for a ranged attack without it and the ranger get any opportunity attacks? Or even mounting something with flyby the ranger can still be targetted by opportunity attacks?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I think the Ranger would get OA, though as a DM I’d make the attack at disadvantage.

What’s happening in fiction is clearly a swooping attack designed to make the the target vulnerable.

 

[Adb0782]

Uhm...than for play with advantage is better a no flying creature. A giant poisonus snake can make a good job with 10 ft reach and poison boost to damage, unluckly being a small race he cant use reach weapons for what i understand, but a bow with shapeshooter is fine as well and it still allow the snake to make the help action (from lv 7) and get lots of OA (and till lv 7 thats the one thing it will do except carry the ranger and at low levels attack when the targets are not resistent to poison, as it should be better than the ranger attack), while the ranger shoot with his bow (or croossbow if at lv 8 it go for crossbow expert too) from 10 ft, its not a safe distance but anyway behind the tank and the frontline.

Ps Im thinking also that shapeshooter at lv 4 mean hit with just +2, dealing a similar damage the snake does (if enemies are not immune/resistent to poison) with a +6 to hit (1d6 +4 + 2 (proficiency bonus) + 10 (poison) is even bettetr than 1d6 + 1d4 (favored foe) +3 (dex) + 10 (SS), even adding hunter's mark the things seem dont change too much, probably i can use the ranger for some ensnaring strike instead than deal damage, but except against things immune or resistent to poison (that are ayway a lot) seem it can get mounted combat first at lv 4 and than eventually SS at lv 8...but at this point im thinking if its not worth go for a more thematic thrown weapon fighting style, Str based with javelins and shield, and so dont get SS at all for pick something else at lv 8, even +2 str. What do you think about? Considering that the end level for this campaign is 10/11.

 

[Blue]

The thing about companion mounts is that there are two sets of rules in the PHB about mounts. One is for controlled mounts, and they have a very limited set of what they are allowed to do, but you move them during your initiative. The other is for independent mounts - they do whatever they do, but they have their own initiative. So you can't, for instance, have your moutn swoop down and you attack something normally. Because the swoop is on it's turn and the attack action on yours. You can Ready on your turn to attack on a swoop, but that means no extra attack and it uses your reaction. The only good thing is it's not your movement so you can't be opportunity attacked, only your mount.

 

[Adb0782]

The thing about companion mounts is that there are two sets of rules in the PHB about mounts. One is for controlled mounts, and they have a very limited set of what they are allowed to do, but you move them during your initiative. The other is for independent mounts - they do whatever they do, but they have their own initiative. So you can't, for instance, have your moutn swoop down and you attack something normally. Because the swoop is on it's turn and the attack action on yours. You can Ready on your turn to attack on a swoop, but that means no extra attack and it uses your reaction. The only good thing is it's not your movement so you can't be opportunity attacked, only your mount.

I just went to read about it in the PHB. I always used controlled mounts (horses mostly) so i didnt know so much about this. My interpretation is that the companion is a controlled mount (The Beast Master chapter in the PHB say that the companion act with the BM initiative and that for move need the BM verbally comand it, it act indipendetly only when the ranger is incapacitated. To me this mean that the companion cant be an indipendent mount, also because it would mean it can attack in its own turn plus attack again in the ranger turn and this dont seem the way the class should work), but as it is also the BM companion and as the BM companion can use the BM action or bonus action (so its not the companion actions to be used, the controlled mount still dont use any not allowed actions, its the ranger using its action and bonus action to make it perform something) to perform attacks and other actions, he can perfrom the help action or attack action even being mounted and acting with the ranger initiative. Im not sure this is the right way to read it, but it seem the one making sense to me. Am i missing something?

edit: At the same time other interpretation can be that as it is a controlled mount, if it is used as a mount he cant attack or perform the help action, but this seem limitate the BM regarding other mounted warriors as seem clear from the description of the companion that it cant be used as an indipendent mount.

 

[Blue]

I just went to read about it in the PHB. I always used controlled mounts (horses mostly) so i didnt know so much about this. My interpretation is that the companion is a controlled mount (The Beast Master chapter in the PHB say that the companion act with the BM initiative and that for move need the BM verbally comand it, it act indipendetly only when the ranger is incapacitated. To me this mean that the companion cant be an indipendent mount, also because it would mean it can attack in its own turn plus attack again in the ranger turn and this dont seem the way the class should work), but as it is also the BM companion and as the BM companion can use the BM action or bonus action (so its not the companion actions to be used, the controlled mount still dont use any not allowed actions, its the ranger using its action and bonus action to make it perform something) to perform attacks and other actions, he can perfrom the help action or attack action even being mounted and acting with the ranger initiative. Im not sure this is the right way to read it, but it seem the one making sense to me. Am i missing something?

edit: At the same time other interpretation can be that as it is a controlled mount, if it is used as a mount he cant attack or perform the help action, but this seem limitate the BM regarding other mounted warriors as seem clear from the description of the companion that it cant be used as an indipendent mount.

Your edit has the point - it's clearly written (not an interpretation) what a controlled mount can do, and that excludes much of what you could have it do just as a companion.

The uncontrolled mount still is contained by the rules for the companion, that it can't attack without your bonus action.

Basically, all of the rules apply. Both companion rules and controlled mount rules apply restrictions - they aren't contradicery any more than with a normal mount who would have attacks and possibly special actions.

 

[Adb0782]

Your edit has the point - it's clearly written (not an interpretation) what a controlled mount can do, and that excludes much of what you could have it do just as a companion.

The uncontrolled mount still is contained by the rules for the companion, that it can't attack without your bonus action.

Basically, all of the rules apply. Both companion rules and controlled mount rules apply restrictions - they aren't contradicery any more than with a normal mount who would have attacks and possibly special actions.

ok, but than an uncontrolled mount companion have 2 possible scenaries:

1) it act before the ranger, so it can simply move and do nothing else, than in the ranger turn, with the ranger's bonus action and action, it can perform the help action or attack action being not controlled anymore. But if it use the help action first turn is kinda lost, so i suppose when it act before the ranger its action will mostly be attack much more than help.

2) it act after the ranger. Here we have the real problem i suppose, because the ranger cant move without dismounting, but he can simply dismount (5ft movement with mounted combat), verbally ask the companion to move in range for an attack (and it have 10 ft reach so shouldnt be a huge problem), move near the companion, let the snake attack with his action, than end its movement mounting the snake again (5 ft movement). If this is correct its probably a false problem (probably my Dm would rule it just assuming no dismounting but a -10 ft movement), do you think it work in this way?

Ps other thing i was noticing is that thrown weapon fighting deal very few damage, 2d4 + 4 + 2 its around 10 damage even considering favored foe (13/14 till when he can use a bonus action for hunter's mark), even with things with poison resistance would be better use the snake lol (1d4 + 4 + 3d6 (or half on a successful save) + proficiency bonus x2)...this make me think that maybe use nets with the ranger for utilities to party and just easnaring strikes (some minis later on, summon beast 2nd lv and conjure animals for 8 swarm meatshields for 3rd lv spell), leaving the damage part to the snake when targets are not resistant/immune to poison can be a better idea, even with defense fighting style, because i see no way for boost the ranger damage (except poison lol), while the snake deal a not bad 20/24 per attack.

There are some tactics i should know in combat?

 

[Adb0782]

I still have some doubt about the rules anyway.
I saw many DM ruling it different.
For what i got till now, other interpretation of this is:

According to Ranger's Companion rules, "It takes its turn on your initiative. On your turn, you can verbally command the beast where to move (no action required by you). You can use your action to verbally command it to take the Attack, Dash, Disengage, or Help action. If you don’t issue a command, the beast takes the Dodge action."

As such, regardless of whether the companion is a controlled or uncontrolled mount it is going to take its turn on your initiative, and in fact its turn will overlap with your own, since your action determines what action it takes or can take.

According to the Mounted Combat Rules, a controlled mount "moves as you direct it, and it has only three action options: Dash, Disengage, and Dodge". So, if you controlled your mount, you could use your action to verbally command it to take the Dash or Disengage actions, and if you don't command it with your action, it takes the Dodge action. However, since the actual benefit of controlling your mount is that its turn partly merges with your own, and since your companion's turn already does this, there is no reason to control your Ranger Companion.

According to the Mounted Combat Rules, an uncontrolled mount bearing you "puts no restrictions on the actions the mount can take, and it moves and acts as it wishes." So, if you leave the companion independent, you actually still have all the benefits of a controlled mount by virtue of the Ranger Companion rules.

Said in few words:

• when you mount something you can choose to control it for it share your same initiative, but losing some of the mount possible actions
• The ranger animal companion already share your initiative, so have no sense to control it.

Any mount dont normally share initiative with their master, so the master need to control them for get it, but the ranger companion does it, so even uncontrolled (even not mounted) it will keep doing it. I dont know if this is correct but seem make more sense to me. Is it wrong?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Your edit has the point - it's clearly written (not an interpretation) what a controlled mount can do, and that excludes much of what you could have it do just as a companion.

The uncontrolled mount still is contained by the rules for the companion, that it can't attack without your bonus action.

Basically, all of the rules apply. Both companion rules and controlled mount rules apply restrictions - they aren't contradicery any more than with a normal mount who would have attacks and possibly special actions.

Except that the mount could move on your turn, and thus “swoop”, it just couldn’t attack while doing so, making it only really useful for melee attack by the ranger without staying in melee range.

 

[Adb0782]

Except that the mount could move on your turn, and thus “swoop”, it just couldn’t attack while doing so, making it only really useful for melee attack by the ranger without staying in melee range.

Sorry but im not really sure to had understand what you mean.

Assuming a character mounting something, we know he have separete initiative with the mount, except the mount is trained and the character mounting it decide to control it. If he control it, the mount share its initiative with him, but it can only take the disangage, dash or dodge action.

The animal companion of a beastmaster share its initiative with the ranger because of its own rules, and this make a huge difference with other mounts in my opionion, as anyone CAN choose to control a mount for benefit of a shared initiative (as they normally dont have a shared initiative with their mount), but as the beastmaster companion already share its initiative with the ranger, he dont need to control it, because they already share initiative as a companion rule, even not controlling the companion they will keep sharing initiative.

I found nothing against it and it seem have more sense to my eyes than be forced to control it even if they already got the one benefit of controlled mounts by other rule, or to say that if he choose to dont control it than it lose the shared initiative (that is right for anyone else, because they have no other source of shared initiative, but the beast master share its initiative with the companion indeed because thats his companion, not because he is controlling it).

Also reading it: "The initiative of a controlled mount changes to match yours when you mount it." The initiative of the companion dont change, its already the same initiative of the ranger.

And also "An independent mount retains its place in the initiative order", its place in the initiative order is the same place of the ranger, no where it say an independent mount cant share the initiative with the ranger if it already does so by other rule, it just say that its place in the order dont change, and indeed it dont change: its the same place of the ranger in the initiative order, as before mounting it.