D&D 5E Phantom Steed.

[Rub]

You know, I felt bad reopening this thread given how both you (neogod22) and everyone who had an opposing view seemed so adamant about your positions on the question of mounted combat movement. But looking back, I think I figured out where the difference of opinion came from. The first comment asks 3 questions. The 3rd question reads:

3. About mounted combat in general which seems a little fuzzy, it seems your mount moves on your initiative but counts separate from you so does that mean your mount can disengage or dash while still leaving your action free ?

neogod22 - your response was:

3. If you're riding an animal, you can use its movement as your movement, but it doesn't get separate actions. If you want the horse to do those kinds of actions, you must use your action to command it.

To me (and I assume everyone else on this thread) it seems your position is that is the way combat movement works AT ALL TIMES. But from your 2nd comment on though, it seems you were talking about a turn of movement involving a mounting or dismounting. However, up until now, I never saw that distinction - and I don't think I am alone as it would explain why everyone else was dismissive of your comments. Make sense?

 

[epithet]

...The game is gonna be ran the way I run it. There is no debate, if you can't handle it, go cry at someone else's table. I couldn't care less. I'm an adult ...

Ok, that's just hilarious right there.

 

[neogod22]

You know, I felt bad reopening this thread given how both you (neogod22) and everyone who had an opposing view seemed so adamant about your positions on the question of mounted combat movement. But looking back, I think I figured out where the difference of opinion came from. The first comment asks 3 questions. The 3rd question reads:

3. About mounted combat in general which seems a little fuzzy, it seems your mount moves on your initiative but counts separate from you so does that mean your mount can disengage or dash while still leaving your action free ?

neogod22 - your response was:


To me (and I assume everyone else on this thread) it seems your position is that is the way combat movement works AT ALL TIMES. But from your 2nd comment on though, it seems you were talking about a turn of movement involving a mounting or dismounting. However, up until now, I never saw that distinction - and I don't think I am alone as it would explain why everyone else was dismissive of your comments. Make sense?

What I was saying was, while you're mounted on a mount you control. You're not going to take the move action, instead, you command your mount to take its move action. If you want your mount to dash, or disengage, you must use your action to command it to take its action, unless for example you're a rogue, who has disengage or dash as bonus actions, you can use your bonus action to issue that command.

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

 

[Rub]

Oh boy. Well then, I was mistaken. I thought you were talking only during the mount or dismount round, and now you clarify you are saying the movement rules you think are correct are for all times.

You are wrong. I'm not going to quote anything or even attempt a discussion. Read through all the previous responses and if you have an open mind you will see you are mistaken. I don't think there is anyone anywhere who agrees with you. You are also wrong in that Phantom Steed can be anything other than a large creature. Play your games however you want with your house rules, but they are not they way the game is intended to be played. Good day sir.

 

[neogod22]

Oh boy. Well then, I was mistaken. I thought you were talking only during the mount or dismount round, and now you clarify you are saying the movement rules you think are correct are for all times.

You are wrong. I'm not going to quote anything or even attempt a discussion. Read through all the previous responses and if you have an open mind you will see you are mistaken. I don't think there is anyone anywhere who agrees with you. You are also wrong in that Phantom Steed can be anything other than a large creature. Play your games however you want with your house rules, but they are not they way the game is intended to be played. Good day sir.

You're presuming I'm wrong because my opinion on the rules disagree with the faceless masses on a forum who want to cheat? Ok buy Xanther's Guide and read page 5.

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

 

[jaelis]

"All my rulings are RAW because the rules say the DM has the final say."

That is not technically wrong, but it isn't what everyone else means by RAW.

 

[Bacon Bits]

Er, I don't think that is correct. I think it is always Large:
"A Large quasi-real, horse-like creature appears on the ground in an unoccupied space of your choice within range."

Does someone else want to take a stab at this? BTW, does anyone else who has been on this thread think neogod22 was correct in his earlier assumption? I mean it seemed pretty obvious to me he was wrong given all the citations, but just curious.

It is large, but I think that's totally irrelevant. I don't find any size category restriction on what can or can't be a mount. It looks like it's all based on the strength and carrying capacity of the mount. This makes sense. A human (medium) can ride an elephant (huge) or dragon (huge+). It makes sense that a small creature can mount a large creature. I suspect small creatures prefer ponies because they're cheaper to own and feed, and horse saddles for small creatures (with one longer stirrup or a rope to serve as a ladder) are probably less common. (Indeed, I think a medium creature could mount a small mount assuming the small mount had the strength to bear the medium creature. At least, there's no *size category* restriction on doing so.)

In any event, even if there is such a size category restriction, the spell also reads:

"For the duration, you or a creature you choose can ride the steed."

So it can be read that the spell explicitly grants the ability to ride it.

 

[neogod22]

"All my rulings are RAW because the rules say the DM has the final say."

That is not technically wrong, but it isn't what everyone else means by RAW.

The thing I find that most people in these forums don't understand is, this is a role playing game. The difference between a role playing game and a normal board game is that in a board game, the rules are clearly defined and limiting, "you can do this and only this." Whereas in a role playing game, the rules are a lot less defined to allow for freedom and creativity. Hence the reason for a Game Master. The Game Master is the story teller as well as the facilitator and judge of the rules. Rules are a guideline in an RPG not a defining factor.

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

 

[jaelis]

Sure. And no one here will say otherwise. But that doesn’t mean the rules say whatever you want them to say.

If you don’t like strawberries, leave them out of your smoothie. But if someone asks about the smoothie recipe, it would be wrong to deny that strawberries are listed.

 

[neogod22]

Sure. And no one here will say otherwise. But that doesn’t mean the rules say whatever you want them to say.

If you don’t like strawberries, leave them out of your smoothie. But if someone asks about the smoothie recipe, it would be wrong to deny that strawberries are listed.

So the falicy of this statement is that strawberries are not the only fruit. If I suggest a blueberries over strawberries, the smoothie could be equally delicious or better.

The Green Eggs And Ham defense doesn't work, because at the end, when Sam-I-Am actually tried them, he found out he loved them.

On a serious note when questions like this are asked, the OP should state whether they are a player or DM. If they are a player, the correct answer should always be, "ask you DM." If they are a DM, the correct answer should always be "rule it to your understanding." There should be no debate on rules between a player and DM, even if you feel the DM is wrong. As a DM, you need to be strong enough to tell the players this is how it's going to be. If not, then you will lose control of your game.

In both of my groups, the Playtest, and the AL, we rotate DMs. One thing I learned is, everyone has their own style, and when I'm not DMing, I have to not argue with the DM over rules. Whether or not I agree with a rule, I agree with it and allow the DM to do his job. When I'm the DM, I run my style and they have to deal with me. It's actually great this way because no one should be getting burnt out DMing, it allows us to level characters when we are playing, and we can learn from each other's strength and weaknesses.

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk