D&D 5E Shadow Sorcerer + Warcaster + Polearm Master + Eye of Darkness = Is It insane?

[ECMO3]

double post

 

[ECMO3]

"risky maneuver."

Jumping a river?

I think I'm not clear in saying that there is no risky maneuver as the Shadow Sorcerer has full vision and control it.
Why would the Shadow Sorcerer put Steeds in any risky maneuver since he can fully see everything around him?

You need to read the rules on mounted combat. "Controlling a mount" is an actual term in the rules. It means the mount takes ITS action on your turn and that action is limited to dash, disengage or dodge. But it is the mount that is taking this action, it is not the sorcerer taking the action and the fact the sorcerer can see is irrelevant because the mount can't. It is the mount running through the battlefield, not the sorcerer. Essentially all the sorcerer is doing is telling the mount what to do and where to go.

The player that makes the horse jump a river is "controlling" him too and I would say a horse galloping blinded is at least as risky as a horse jumping across a 15 foot river. Here are the rules from mounted combat:

"The initiative of a controlled mount changes to match yours when you mount it. It moves as you direct it, and it has only three action options: Dash, Disengage, and Dodge. A controlled mount can move and act even on the turn that you mount it."

If you compare this to driving a car, this is the same as putting a blinded person in the driver's seat and the passenger next to him telling the blind driver to "turn right ... turn left ..... gas ..... brake" and expecting him not to hit anything.

The prone creature will be devoured by the Hound, the entire melee party will have advantage and you can simply cast a Saving throw spell that the enemy will have a disadvantage (the hound) or simply send a fireball or any spell other than a direct attack. Prone means you are in serious trouble.

That is not how prone works. Prone causes DISADVANTAGE on all attacks from outside of 5 feet. The only people attacking with advantage are those within 5 feet who are not using ranged attacks and who can see the enemy.

If the hound is in darkness it does not have advantage on the proned enemy, even if it is within 5 feet.

Sure you can fireball him (and your hound), and he would have disadvantage assuming he is within 5 feet of the hound, but that is not a sure thing. If the enemy goes between the hound and the sorcerer in the initiative order there is a fair chance he won't be within 5 feet (and in darkness the hound would not even get an OA if he leaves without disengaging).

There is also nothing at all to prevent the enemy from using shove to knock your horse prone when you get close to him, if his strength is higher than 16 he has better than a 50 percent chance of being successful and in the darkness he would make that shove check WITHOUT disadvantage, even if he is prone.

 

[Hohige]

You need to read the rules on mounted combat. "Controlling a mount" is an actual term in the rules. It means the mount takes ITS action on your turn and that action is limited to dash, disengage or dodge. But it is the mount that is taking this action, it is not the sorcerer taking the action and the fact the sorcerer can see is irrelevant because the mount can't. It is the mount running through the battlefield, not the sorcerer. Essentially all the sorcerer is doing is telling the mount what to do and where to go.

The player that makes the horse jump a river is "controlling" him too and I would say a horse galloping blinded is at least as risky as a horse jumping across a 15 foot river. Here are the rules from mounted combat:

"The initiative of a controlled mount changes to match yours when you mount it. It moves as you direct it, and it has only three action options: Dash, Disengage, and Dodge. A controlled mount can move and act even on the turn that you mount it."

If you compare this to driving a car, this is the same as putting a blinded person in the driver's seat and the passenger next to him telling the blind driver to "turn right ... turn left ..... gas ..... brake" and expecting him not to hit anything.

You are the driver. the horse are the car (It dashes, move, maneuver, but can it see?). The car dashes (its action), but who controls it? the driver.

Can the car see? who controls the car? the driver! who can see risky maneuver? the driver.

A controlled mount works as a car. The rider is a driver.
The car doesn't need see. The driver needs.
The Warhorse is trained enough to a war fighting.
for me it's clear as water.
It's "blinded" car and a full vision driver.

It isn't driver and the passenger.



"There is also nothing at all to prevent the enemy from using shove to knock your horse prone when you get close to him, if his strength is higher than 16 he has better than a 50 percent chance of being successful and in the darkness he would make that shove check WITHOUT disadvantage, even if he is prone."


and if the sorcerer uses firebolt, has he lost his turn? it seems like a bad idea to do that.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

You are the driver. the horse are the car. The dashes, but who controls it? the driver.

The car can see? who controls the car? the driver? who can see risky maneuver? the driver.

A controlled mount works as a car. The rider is a driver.
The car doesn't need see. The driver needs.
The Warhorse is trained enough to a war fighting.
for me it's clear as water.

Yes, the fact that you think horses work like cars is exactly what I think a lot of us object to in how you think mounted combat should work. Riding and controlling a horse has very little in common with driving a car in the real world, and to the extent that they can be played working "like cars" in D&D that is a failure of design, not something to be embraced. Or else it is a decision to leave the complicated matter of figuring out how a horse would behave in various circumstances to rulings not rules, and you can't expect the rulings to be in favor of "horses should work like cars" because most people are aware that they are different.

 

[Hohige]

Yes, the fact that you think horses work like cars is exactly what I think a lot of us object to in how you think mounted combat should work. Riding and controlling a horse has very little in common with driving a car in the real world, and to the extent that they can be played working "like cars" in D&D that is a failure of design, not something to be embraced. Or else it is a decision to leave the complicated matter of figuring out how a horse would behave in various circumstances to rulings not rules, and you can't expect the rulings to be in favor of "horses should work like cars" because most people are aware that they are different.

Controlled is controlled. It's pretty simple. That why a Warhorse can fight on a war. Because It's trained enough to follow the rider's commands.
It's pretty clear that a controlled mount will follow the full vision rider commands and it isn't risky maneuver, not even close. Because the rider is who controls it.

 

[ECMO3]

You are the driver. the horse are the car. The dashes, but who controls it? the driver.

No a car is not a creature. The horse is taking the action (dash) just like the blinded driver of the car is taking the action (interact with an object). You are "controlling" the driver and directing how he takes his action, just like you are controling the mount.

The car can see? who controls the car? the driver? who can see risky maneuver? the driver.

The car is not a mount, it is an object. You need to read the rules and understand the difference between a creature and an object. This is fundamental to the game.

controlled mount works as a car. The rider is a driver.
The car doesn't need see. The driver needs.
The Warhorse is trained enough to a war fighting.
for me it's clear as water.

There are actually rules on this. READ THE RULES!

Objects you drive make you use your action to control them. They are objects and are completely different from a mount that gets its own action. Objects you drive are not mounts and do not use the mounted combat rules. Unlike your horse they do not get actions and mounted combat does not apply when riding on one. The driver of a Demon Grinder for example uses his action to control it.

If your sorcerer is driving a Demon Grinder or Scavanger then sure he can see fine and drive it all over the battlefield in his patch of darkness just fine. But that uses his action, and he can't use his action to make any attacks or cast any spells and it is not the same as riding a horse or a Griffon or a dragon or any other creature.

Now if I was DM and you were riding in the demon grinder and had a blinded ally you were telling where to go who was driving, absolutely I would make him roll not to run into things, flip it etc.

Here are the rules for driving from Descent into Avernus:
"Drive. While the infernal war machine’s engine is on, the driver can use an action to propel the vehicle up to its speed or bring the vehicle to a dead stop. While the vehicle is moving, the driver can steer it along any course.
If the driver is incapacitated, leaves the helm, or does nothing to alter the infernal war machine’s course and speed, the vehicle moves in the same direction and at the same speed as it did during the driver’s last turn until it hits an obstacle big enough to stop it."

Those are WOTC published rules and there is nothing in there suggesting this is the same as mounted combat with a controlled mount.

 

[Hohige]

No a car is not a creature. The horse is taking the action (dash) just like the driver of the car is taking the action (interact with an object).



The car is not a mount, it is an object. You need to read the rules and understand the difference between a creature and an object.




There are actually rules on this. READ THE RULES!

Objects you drive make you use your action to control them. They are objects and are completely different from a mount that gets its own action. Objects you drive are not mounts and do not use the mounted combat rules. Unlike your horse they do not get actions and mounted combat does not apply when riding on one. The driver of the Demon Grinder for example uses his action to control it.

If your sorcerer is driving a Demon Grinder or Scavanger then sure he can see fine and drive it all over the battlefield in his patch of darkness just fine. But that uses his action, and he can't use his action to make any attacks or cast any spells.

Here are the rules for driving from Descent into Avernus:
"Drive. While the infernal war machine’s engine is on, the driver can use an action to propel the vehicle up to its speed or bring the vehicle to a dead stop. While the vehicle is moving, the driver can steer it along any course.
If the driver is incapacitated, leaves the helm, or does nothing to alter the infernal war machine’s course and speed, the vehicle moves in the same direction and at the same speed as it did during the driver’s last turn until it hits an obstacle big enough to stop it."

Those are WOTC published rules and there is nothing in there suggesting this is mounted combat with a controlled mount.

A rider with full vision does not put his controlled mount into risky maneuver.
If your DM disagrees, so, i'm ok with it.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

Controlled is controlled. It's pretty simple. That why a Warhorse can fight on a war. Because It's trained enough to follow the rider's commands.

It is trained to operate on a battlefield following commands, with full use of its vision. It is not trained to be able to not trip in sudden complete darkness.

Now if a player wanted to spend downtime training a horse to be more surefooted in and not be spooked by magical darkness I'd certainly allow them to make some rolls to do so, and (with luck on some ability rolls) I'd let it work out and they could then ride their horse through the Darkness spell or whatever without having to make checks for it. I assume most DMs would reward that sort of investment, at least if the dice landed your way on the animal handling checks or whatever.

 

[Hohige]

It is trained to operate on a battlefield following commands, with full use of its vision. It is not trained to be able to not trip in sudden complete darkness.

Now if a player wanted to spend downtime training a horse to be more surefooted in and not be spooked by magical darkness I'd certainly allow them to make some rolls to do so, and (with luck on some ability rolls) I'd let it work out and they could then ride their horse through the Darkness spell or whatever without having to make checks for it. I assume most DMs would reward that sort of investment, at least if the dice landed your way on the animal handling checks or whatever.

It is trained to operate on a battlefield following commands, with full use of its vision. It is not trained to be able to not trip in sudden complete darkness.

"with full use of its vision. It is not trained to be able to not trip in sudden complete darkness"
It is just your premises and just your opinion. you created limitation of your head. Nowhere said they don't obey commands in the dark.


Trained Mounts can indeed be trained to obey commands in total darkness.

 

[ECMO3]

A rider with full vision does not put his controlled mount into risky maneuver.
If your DM disagrees, so, i'm ok with it.

The mount is the one taking the action.

This is exactly like the blinded driver example I gave you. You are "controlling" the mount the same way you are "controlling" the blinded driver.