D&D 5E Phantom Steed.

[jodyjohnson]

Mounts are one of those things different DMs like or don't like.

I like them so I'd probably allow more generous Phantom Steed but it is much more likely you can just buy a 75 gp Riding Horse and I'm not going to go out of my way to kill it. So spending the resources to create an Arcane version of Find Steed seems overkill because if you paid 400 gp for a Warhorse I'd let you keep it around and let it scale. I like them so much I wrote JoLydee's Beasts of Battle.

You might buy a warhorse or riding horse and the DM kills it but you really want to be mounted. So you're looking for spell options that guarantee you some mount use via Phantom Steed or another spell. But the root issue may be that the DM doesn't like mounted characters.

I wouldn't bother trying to research a spell around a DM preference. Just shelve it for another time with a different DM, or ... I suppose a conversation with the DM might resolve it but it might not.

On the flip side I know sometimes players can't have nice things because they get gamed. Players might use a version of a summon spell and just use them as meatshields or portable walls by gaming the mechanics.

 

[neogod22]

I appreciate the vigor of defending your argument when faced with quotes from the phb to the contrary. And in your home game you can use whatever rules you like.

However, Mounts are their own creatures, whose initiate is changed to match yours when you take control of them. A mount using its movement doesn't use the rider's movement.

Here is Jeremy Stating that a mount uses ITS OWN action to disengage, dodge, or dash.

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/06/18...se-its-own-action-to-dash-disengage-or-dodge/
http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/11/04/controlled-mount/

And here is Jeremy stating that the rider is being carried by another creature's movement (IE not his own)

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/06/09/mount-disengage/

It is also important to know that even tho the initiative is the same, it is still a different creatures, so complex interactions, such as the mount moving, the player attacking, and then the mount moving away, is not strictly RAW legal. Because you have to determine if the horse or rider is going first in initiative.

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/05/24...k-mid-move-do-rider-and-mount-share-one-turn/


I apologize if I was needlessly confrontational in my earlier post, my emphasis was to prevent disinformation from being spread. You need to understand that a mount and rider in DnD 5e are two separate creatures and interact with the game as such. The mount is just under the rider's control. It still has its own movement, actions, hp, and possible ongoing effects. The rider is just along for the ride.

I follow RAW not Sage Advice simply because they get it wrong a lot of times and players try and use that to their advantage. I play in AL anyway and Sage Advice is not legal there either. In AL it's RAW only with the exceptions of any rule changes they print in their player and DM guides. So I don't consider Sage Advice as anything more than an opinion and not valid for confirmation of the rules.

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

 

[thethain]

I follow RAW not Sage Advice simply because they get it wrong a lot of times and players try and use that to their advantage. I play in AL anyway and Sage Advice is not legal there either. In AL it's RAW only with the exceptions of any rule changes they print in their player and DM guides. So I don't consider Sage Advice as anything more than an opinion and not valid for confirmation of the rules.

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

Your house rule has nothing to do with RAW. I quoted you the entirety of raw on mounted combat. It says nothing about using player movement or actions to control the creature. You have invented those rules. Which is fine for home games. At this point I'm assuming you are trolling because there's tons of sources which clearly indicate how mounted combat works. I made my comments assuming you were mistaken, not choosing to error.



Sent from my A1P using EN World mobile app

 

[Satyrn]

I wouldn't bother trying to research a spell around a DM preference.

I Totally agree.

 

[neogod22]

Your house rule has nothing to do with RAW. I quoted you the entirety of raw on mounted combat. It says nothing about using player movement or actions to control the creature. You have invented those rules. Which is fine for home games. At this point I'm assuming you are trolling because there's tons of sources which clearly indicate how mounted combat works. I made my comments assuming you were mistaken, not choosing to error.



Sent from my A1P using EN World mobile app

You quoted the rules of mounted combat which are on which page of the player's handbook?

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

 

[neogod22]

Controlling a mount comes in 2 flavors, independent and domesticated. Independent does its own thing and the player does not control it, and domesticated says it moves as you direct it, and no where does it says it gets its own actions while you control it. So I call bulls***.

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

 

[jodyjohnson]

Controlling a Mount, paragraph 2, sentences 4 and 5.

All creatures get action and movement unless the rules state otherwise (in this case they have restricted actions).

 

[neogod22]

Controlling a Mount, paragraph 2, sentences 4 and 5.

All creatures get action and movement unless the rules state otherwise (in this case they have restricted actions).

It literally does not say that, you're interpreting the rules the way you want to view them, not what's written. If you're a DM and want to run that way, fine, but if you're a player, you follow the ruling if the DM.

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

 

[jodyjohnson]

It literally does not say that, you're interpreting the rules the way you want to view them, not what's written. If you're a DM and want to run that way, fine, but if you're a player, you follow the ruling if the DM.

Can you clarify what "A controlled mount can move and act even on the turn that you mount it." means?

"It moves as you direct it, and it has only three action options: Dash, Disengage, and Dodge."

I'm really looking for any rationale that 'Move' and 'act/action' in this context are not indicators that your controlled mount can indeed move and act (take actions).

 

[neogod22]

Let me explain this in a,manner in which you can understand.

When you are sitting on a mount, you are not going to move, dodge, disengage, or dash. When you are on a mount you can control, you command your mount to do those actions for you. You do not get to take an action and command your horse to do an action also, you can either command your horse or take your own action. If you are a character with a bonus action, such as a rogue, you can use your cunning action to command your horse to disengage or dash.

Independent mounts should be controlled by the DM. I say should because I know most DMs either don't know or won't want to control that too, but they act independently and you still won't be able to dash, dodge, or disengage while riding, you would have to have your mount do it.

A phantom steed follows controlled mount rules because it is an illusion, not a creature. It has no independent thought.

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk