D&D 5E Rogue’s Aim+Mount

Fenris-77 · May 23, 2020

I think that for a lot of campaigns it makes sense to go with the mostly hand-waving approach that's in the core rules. No real conditions and modifiers, with animal handling to cover fancy riding. If the campaign was going to be one where the party is often outdoors and for whatever reason will feature a lot of mounted combat, then I'd start thinking about some homebrew to flesh out the details. Same goes for ships really, I don't need complicated ship rules unless I'm running a nautical campaign.

the Jester · May 23, 2020

I think it's probably the intent that moving while mounted counts as moving for this rule; you might not being using your own movement, but you're still moving. I'd rule that you couldn't use the Aim cunning action option if you were on a moving vehicle or the like, either.

Paul Farquhar said:
The donkey can move, taking you with it. But the donkey moves on the donkey's turn, not your turn.

You and your mount share a turn, unless it is an intelligent creature that is acting independently. A donkey is specifically described as being a controlled mount, assuming it has been trained to bear a rider- so it shares your turn. A DM could allow it to act independently, but that's not the default.

Oofta said:
There are no rules for controlling a mount, it does not cost the PC any actions or movement. So by strict reading of the rules you could do this. Move, have the mount stop, fire, and continue moving would be technically legal.

There are indeed rules for controlling your mount- page 198 of the PH even has a section called "Controlling a Mount"- but you are correct that it doesn't take any of the rider's actions or movement.

Paul Farquhar · May 23, 2020

the Jester said:
You and your mount share a turn, unless it is an intelligent creature that is acting independently. A donkey is specifically described as being a controlled mount, assuming it has been trained to bear a rider- so it shares your turn. A DM could allow it to act independently, but that's not the default.

Unintelligent mounts may be controllable if trained, but are not not automatically controlled.

This is the quote from the rules:

While you’re mounted, you have two options. You can either control the mount or allow it to act independently. Intelligent creatures, such as dragons, act independently.

i.e. Animals act on their own turn unless controlled, dragons (etc) always act on their own turn.

So, if you cease to control your donkey it acts independently on it's own initiative.

In this situation though, it probably makes more sense to rule that moving spoils your aim. Mounted Archery deserves to be a separate feat.

Oofta · May 23, 2020

the Jester said:
I think it's probably the intent that moving while mounted counts as moving for this rule; you might not being using your own movement, but you're still moving. I'd rule that you couldn't use the Aim cunning action option if you were on a moving vehicle or the like, either.

You and your mount share a turn, unless it is an intelligent creature that is acting independently. A donkey is specifically described as being a controlled mount, assuming it has been trained to bear a rider- so it shares your turn. A DM could allow it to act independently, but that's not the default.

There are indeed rules for controlling your mount- page 198 of the PH even has a section called "Controlling a Mount"- but you are correct that it doesn't take any of the rider's actions or movement.

I said it wrong: there is no rule that says it takes a move or action to control a mount. There is no penalty for attacking either.

TwoSix · May 23, 2020

Not sure I see the problem here. Horse archery is already a thing, it's not like it wasn't already an "I win" against slow melee enemies and easily countered by anything else. It's totally OK for a fighter to shoot 3 arrows in 6 seconds from atop a horse, but a rogue can't concentrate and line up a shot?

Pauln6 · May 23, 2020

TwoSix said:
Not sure I see the problem here. Horse archery is already a thing, it's not like it wasn't already an "I win" against slow melee enemies and easily countered by anything else. It's totally OK for a fighter to shoot 3 arrows in 6 seconds from atop a horse, but a rogue can't concentrate and line up a shot?

I think the issue is that the description implies not.

Guest 6801328 · May 23, 2020

TwoSix said:
Not sure I see the problem here. Horse archery is already a thing, it's not like it wasn't already an "I win" against slow melee enemies and easily countered by anything else. It's totally OK for a fighter to shoot 3 arrows in 6 seconds from atop a horse, but a rogue can't concentrate and line up a shot?

Not if the ability that lets him do it requires not moving. At least, that’s how I would interpret RAI.

Also, you make it sound like the fighter is so much more potent than the rogue, but a rogue of the same level is adding 6d6 to his one arrow. 3 arrows in 6 seconds certainly sounds more epic, but numerically the rogue is about equivalent.

Fenris-77 · May 23, 2020

As a ruling, I'd probably let a Rogue with Animal Handling aim on horseback, but not one without the skill (assuming I wasn't just going to handwave the whole thing, which is a viable option). That seems closest to using the RAI and not creating additional entities. When I say RAI I mean both Aim and the AH skill. It would also make sense to rule that any character without AH has some sort of negative to shoot from horseback, although I'm not sure what context would warrant that ruling, or what additional bonuses might be needed to balance it out.

This is one of those places where having a success with complications component to the mechanics would be really useful.

TwoSix · May 23, 2020

Elfcrusher said:
Not if the ability that lets him do it requires not moving. At least, that’s how I would interpret RAI.

Also, you make it sound like the fighter is so much more potent than the rogue, but a rogue of the same level is adding 6d6 to his one arrow. 3 arrows in 6 seconds certainly sounds more epic, but numerically the rogue is about equivalent.

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.

tommybahama · May 24, 2020

Fenris-77 said:
As a ruling, I'd probably let a Rogue with Animal Handling aim on horseback, but not one without the skill.

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.

D&D 5E Rogue’s Aim+Mount

Fenris-77

Small God of the Dozens

the Jester

Legend

Paul Farquhar

Legend

Oofta

Legend

TwoSix

Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer

Pauln6

Hero

Guest 6801328

Guest

Fenris-77

Small God of the Dozens

TwoSix

Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer

tommybahama

Adventurer

Similar Threads