D&D 5E Rogue’s Aim+Mount

[Guest 6801328]

Depends. If the argument is purely based on the simulationism aspect (it's not realistic for a rogue to be able to do that), then I'm not going to argue the point, because I simply don't care about what other people view as realistic.

If the argument is that this is a balance "loophole" (as the term the OP used), then I feel more comfortable weighing in. I mean, we already know the rules for mounted combat are finicky and subject to a fair amount of DM fiat, this is just one more corner case.

Sorta neither for me. It’s more about the spirit of the rules. The idea behind the feat seems to be that it’s an alternative to hiding as a bonus action, which isn’t always available. But it comes with a restriction. Trade-offs are what make games games.

Arguing that being mounted negates the restriction strikes me as mere gamism and rules lawyering.

 

[Fenris-77]

That makes a lot of sense but excludes probably 99% of Rogues. Maybe allow them to buy a warhorse that has been bred for a very smooth gait and trained for mounted archery. At least it's a good money sink for the PC.

That would be in a campaign where the players would have known that capability on horseback mattered before they created their characters. I wouldn't focus on it without making that part of the campaign pitch, and if it isn't a focus but rather an occasional occurrence then I'm happy to handwave it.

 

[thom_likes_gaming]

What subclass / variant / whatever would this be?

"This action can be used only to take the Dash, Disengage, or Hide action."

 

[Fenris-77]

What subclass / variant / whatever would this be?

"This action can be used only to take the Dash, Disengage, or Hide action."

It's from the Unearthed Arcana on Class Features.

 

[FrogReaver]

Cunning Action: Aim
2nd-level rogue feature (enhances Cunning Action)
You gain an additional way to use your Cunning Action: carefully aiming your next attack. As a bonus action, you give yourself advantage on your next attack roll on the current turn. You can use this bonus action only if you haven’t moved during this turn, and after you use the bonus action, your speed is 0 until the end of the current turn.

Now if I ride a donkey, can I move and attack still? You can use this bonus action only if you haven’t moved during this turn, part of the wording makes it seem like you can’t move before taking Aim, but after you use the bonus action, your speed is 0 until the end of the current turn. part makes it seem like the mount should be able to move since it’s you that can’t move, the mount still can. Did I read this right or did I create a loophole that isn’t there to begin with?

I see no reason why you couldn't. I also don't see what it really hurts. Your source of movement can be killed - can't go into buildings or dungeons, etc.

I mean it's not really any more powerful than a DM allowing a rogue to cunning action hide stealth most all the time.

 

[Helldritch]

I would not allow this. A rogue with SS would pretty much ensure himself of a nice bypass of the -5 to hit on his first attack. With advantage, the trigger of the sneak attack damage is almost certain. +10 damage is nothing to sniff at especially in the early levels. No move means no move. From any source. And yes, I have seen my share of rogues with SS.

 

[TwoSix]

Sorta neither for me. It’s more about the spirit of the rules. The idea behind the feat seems to be that it’s an alternative to hiding as a bonus action, which isn’t always available. But it comes with a restriction. Trade-offs are what make games games.

Arguing that being mounted negates the restriction strikes me as mere gamism and rules lawyering.

What if the mount is independent (independent mounts have their own initiative)? What if the rogue is a halfling, and the half-orc picks him up on the half-orc's turn and physically moves him? Would you have to retcon the attack to no longer have advantage, since the halfling has now moved?

To my mind, the spirit of the rule is that the rogue does not move, not that the rogue cannot be moved. Arranging something else to move the character is simply planning around your weaknesses, which seems rogue-like to me.

 

[Guest 6801328]

What if the mount is independent (independent mounts have their own initiative)? What if the rogue is a halfling, and the half-orc picks him up on the half-orc's turn and physically moves him? Would you have to retcon the attack to no longer have advantage, since the halfling has now moved?

To my mind, the spirit of the rule is that the rogue does not move, not that the rogue cannot be moved. Arranging something else to move the character is simply planning around your weaknesses, which seems rogue-like to me.

Because I interpret the rule to mean that if you remain very still you can aim very carefully. The implication would be that a mount could move more smoothly and evenly than a rogue could.

Ever ridden a horse?

Sorry but I find this to be cheesy exploitation of the language, not good faith gaming.
I could imagine another Feat that would allow this. Or a 3-level dip into Cavalier

 

[TwoSix]

Sorry but I find this to be cheesy exploitation of the language, not good faith gaming.

Thanks, man. I appreciate being ascribed motives rather than just thinking I have a different interpretation of the intent of the rules.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Also, if "being moved" (as opposed to voluntarily moving) didn't affect Aim, then if somebody else held their action to either shove or cast gust when the rogue tried to shoot then it wouldn't affect the shot. Not that there's any RAW that says it would, but I would count either of those as positive examples of clever application of the rules, whereas using the mount is (in my opinion) pure exploit.

And, don't get me wrong, I don't think allowing the mount trick is going to break the game. It's not making the rogue too powerful, and there are a thousand ways to neutralize the strategy if the rogue overuses it. For me it's 100% about the spirit of the game.

AND...at the same time I can appreciate that others might find this sort of tinkering with the rules to be part of the fun. That's cool; have at it. It's just not how I like to play.