Can a Mount be Surprised When the Rider is Not?

[Atavar]

Hey there,

I had a big disagreement with one of my players last session. I called for spot checks to see who would be surprised at the start of a battle, and I asked one player to make a spot check for his mount. He insisted that he didn't need to make one because his character was not surprised and his mount acts on his character's turn. So, if the character is not surprised, neither is his mount.

I, on the other hand, insisted that of course his mount could be surprised when he isn't. It would simply mean that in the surprise round his character could act but that his mount could not. If the character tried to get his mount to act (e.g. move) the mount would not be able to in the surprise round.

Since I am the DM we went with my ruling. It was moot that time because his mount made a high enough spot check roll and was not surprised, either. However, I know it will come up again, and he insists that I am hella wrong on this.

I don't see the "your mount acts on your turn" rule to mean that if you can act, so can your mount. I see it as, if your mount can act then he acts on your turn. If he cannot act...like if he is surprised and in a surprise round...then he cannot act, whether or not it is your turn.

So, what do you think, EN World? Am I hella wrong, hella right, or somewhere on between?

Later,

Atavar

P.S. Please don't mind all of the "hellas." I am in a Cartman mood today.

A.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I would agree with you.

And, really, so long as the ruling is consistent, there's no call for the player to be arguing about it.

RC

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

I treat the mounted rider and horse as one entity when it comes to intitiative, to include spot checks. IMO the horse doesn't need to Spot anything to react to the rider's directions...

On the flip side, an uncontrolled mount acts on thier own initiative and could be the one acting in the surprise round {by bolting} while the rider has no clue

But I agree with RC.. consistancy is key, altho the ruling does negatively impact on a PC simply because he/she is mounted.
..Don't forget to roll Spot checks for the NPC mounts as well...

 

[Drowbane]

"Mount acts on your turn" is simply a common house rule so players don't have multiple critters acting on different rounds

Your Player is 100% wrong here. Smack 'em with some XP loss until he respects your author'a'tai!

 

[Patlin]

If you have an intelligent sword, you can swing it at someone even if it's "surprised." I'd treat the horse in the same way: as a tool, rather than as an entirely independent entity. The mounted character may choose to move by directing the horse, even if the horse failed its spot check.

Just my opinion, I'm not aware of an on point rule.

 

[billd91]

I agree that consistency is important but I would have ruled the other way. If the horse is surprised, so what? It is trained to respond to the rider's commands and does not need to be aware of the same things the rider is. It merely needs to be aware of the rider's commands to carry them out.

 

[IanB]

If you are requiring mounts to make spot checks to avoid surprise, separate from their riders, then you should probably also be requiring them to make separate initiative rolls.

Mounts are a weird case because they act half like creatures and half like objects, really. I would never make the ruling you made, I don't think. It needlessly complicates mounted combat and disadvantages mounted characters, in a system that already doesn't work very well for them.

 

[ThirdWizard]

"Mount acts on your turn" is simply a common house rule so players don't have multiple critters acting on different rounds

Not true at all.

Your mount acts on your initiative count as you direct it. You move at its speed, but the mount uses its action to move.

The mount does indeed act on the rider's own initiative.

 

[azhrei_fje]

If the horse is surprised, so what? It is trained to respond to the rider's commands and does not need to be aware of the same things the rider is. It merely needs to be aware of the rider's commands to carry them out.

Hmm. This is an interesting question.

I would roll a surprise check for the mount. If it's surprised, and the PC wants the mount to act, I would apply a -4 modifier to the initiative, but only for the surprise round. This represents that while the rider can indeed control the mount, the mount is not expecting it and will react a little more slowly.

My reasoning is that because, until recently, the mount was being told to simply walk along, or stand still, or whatever; and the mount can't necessarily change actions on a dime like that. What if the mount had been galloping and the PC then tells the mount to stop? Do the PC get pitched from the saddle?

Obviously, D&D doesn't provide for enough realism in movement to account for all of the possibilities. So a blanket adjustment of -4 to initiative for the surprise round seems like a reasonable response. But then the mount and the rider both gain their "surprise" action.

 

[calypso15]

If you have an intelligent sword, you can swing it at someone even if it's "surprised." I'd treat the horse in the same way: as a tool, rather than as an entirely independent entity. The mounted character may choose to move by directing the horse, even if the horse failed its spot check.

I can't help but feel that, if the rider gets the benefit of the horse, regardless of it being surprised or not, then it shouldn't get a spot roll to begin with. If it truly is just a tool at the complete control of the character, then it shouldn't get a Spot check.

It just sounds like the player wants the best of both worlds: two spot checks instead of one, with no downside if one or the other fails.

Calypso