D&D 5E Jousting

[halfling rogue]

The mount can use it's action to Disengage for the round and non of it's movement provokes attacks of opportunity for that turn.

If the mount doesn't provoke an AoO neither does the rider, because movement that doesn't use your movement, action, or reaction doesn't provoke.

Sorry, it certainly could be me just not understanding here....

Let's say this plays out at the table: Mount and Rider charge an unmounted enemy. Move 15ft, hit for damage, Mount opts Disengage, Moves 15ft beyond enemy to end turn.

Two questions arise for me: 1) Is it "legal" RAW for the Mount to use Disengage in this way? Because an unmounted character could not move/attack/disengage/move without using a bonus action, no? So the Rider technically couldn't Disengage, but I'm curious whether or not the Mount can. 2) If the Mount can legally Disengage in such a way, I would assume the Rider would provoke an opportunity attack upon himself?

Currently I'm not seeing how to justify that the Mount gets a Disengage. I could be wrong though. Is it possible for the Mount/Rider to move to the enemy, the Rider attack with a weapon and the Mount attack with hooves, and then move again? Or should the Mount and Rider be considered as acting in unison?

 

[Paraxis]

Sorry, it certainly could be me just not understanding here....

Let's say this plays out at the table: Mount and Rider charge an unmounted enemy. Move 15ft, hit for damage, Mount opts Disengage, Moves 15ft beyond enemy to end turn.

Two questions arise for me:

1) Is it "legal" RAW for the Mount to use Disengage in this way? Because an unmounted character could not move/attack/disengage/move without using a bonus action, no? So the Rider technically couldn't Disengage, but I'm curious whether or not the Mount can.

Yes Disengage is one of the 3 actions a mount can take. The rider isn't using an action to Disengage the mount is.

2) If the Mount can legally Disengage in such a way, I would assume the Rider would provoke an opportunity attack upon himself?

No the rider doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity because the rider didn't use his movement, action, or reaction to move. If a mount provokes an AoO the attacker can target the rider, but in this case the mount doesn't and neither does the rider.

Currently I'm not seeing how to justify that the Mount gets a Disengage. I could be wrong though. Is it possible for the Mount/Rider to move to the enemy, the Rider attack with a weapon and the Mount attack with hooves, and then move again? Or should the Mount and Rider be considered as acting in unison?

The mount can't attack unless it is independent and that is a completely different thing than being a controlled mount.

 

[halfling rogue]

Thanks for the input [MENTION=13009]Paraxis[/MENTION] . I guess it just feels loopholey to me that a Mount can't independently attack on it's own, but can Disengage on its own. If it is a controlled mount, I would assume the Mount and Rider were jointly acting in unison as far as movement/action goes. Giving the Mount a disengage option added to the Rider's move/attack/move, so that an opportunity attack is not invoked, seems a bit wiggly. If I were DMing I'm not sure how I would rule. My gut says, no disengage if the Rider has fulfilled his actions, but the rules do leave it open for your interpretation. I wish I could word this clearer so I could submit it to twitter for a response.

 

[Paraxis]

[MENTION=6779182]halfling rogue[/MENTION] I don't see the confusion, I can understand how someone might not want to use the rules as they are written for whatever reason, and as always people are free and even encouraged to homebrew stuff, but the RAW seems clear here.

Below are the key rules for a controlled mount.

The initiative of a controlled mount changes to match yours when you mount it.

The rider and mount share an initiative but do not share actions, they both just go on the same initiative count.

It moves as you direct it, and it has only three action options: Dash, Disengage, and Dodge.

The rider controls where it moves and "it" the mount has three action options, that use it's action.

A controlled mount can move and act even on the turn that you mount it.

This further breaks down that the riders movement and the mounts movement like actions are not shared. If you have 30' of movement you can move 15' of it before getting on your mount or after dismounting since those things use up half your movement.

If the mount provokes an opportunity attack while you're on it, the attacker can target you or the mount.

This part is needed because you the rider don't provoke opportunity attacks from your mount moving, since your mount is not using your movement, actions, or reaction to move. This also means that if your mount takes the Disengage action it doesn't provoke and therefore no attacks of opportunity are made.

So there you have it. Your mount has it's own movement and action every turn, there are just limits to what it can do with the action. The rider still has all his own movement and actions for his turn as well.

 

[GSHamster]

Thanks for the input [MENTION=13009]Paraxis[/MENTION] . I guess it just feels loopholey to me that a Mount can't independently attack on it's own, but can Disengage on its own.

I think the idea is that the Mount still gets its action. But because it is being ridden, the range of actions it can take is limited. Being hampered by the rider is like having your hands tied behind your back. You can still run around, but you can't really attack.

That's the "simulationist" justification, in any case. The real reason is game balance, and avoiding giving extra attack actions to a character.

You might have a house rule where the Mount can attack, but the rider needs to make a check to avoid being thrown.

 

[halfling rogue]

[MENTION=6779182]halfling rogue[/MENTION] I don't see the confusion, I can understand how someone might not want to use the rules as they are written for whatever reason, and as always people are free and even encouraged to homebrew stuff, but the RAW seems clear here.

Below are the key rules for a controlled mount.

The initiative of a controlled mount changes to match yours when you mount it.

The rider and mount share an initiative but do not share actions, they both just go on the same initiative count.

It moves as you direct it, and it has only three action options: Dash, Disengage, and Dodge.

The rider controls where it moves and "it" the mount has three action options, that use it's action.

A controlled mount can move and act even on the turn that you mount it.

This further breaks down that the riders movement and the mounts movement like actions are not shared. If you have 30' of movement you can move 15' of it before getting on your mount or after dismounting since those things use up half your movement.

If the mount provokes an opportunity attack while you're on it, the attacker can target you or the mount.

This part is needed because you the rider don't provoke opportunity attacks from your mount moving, since your mount is not using your movement, actions, or reaction to move. This also means that if your mount takes the Disengage action it doesn't provoke and therefore no attacks of opportunity are made.

So there you have it. Your mount has it's own movement and action every turn, there are just limits to what it can do with the action. The rider still has all his own movement and actions for his turn as well.

Ah, now I see. I was getting confused because I was assuming that once the PC was riding the mount, their actions became one in the same way their initiative becomes one. I was reading more into the syncing of initiative than I should have. Your explanations cleared it up and it makes sense. Thanks.

 

[halfling rogue]

I think the idea is that the Mount still gets its action. But because it is being ridden, the range of actions it can take is limited. Being hampered by the rider is like having your hands tied behind your back. You can still run around, but you can't really attack.

That's the "simulationist" justification, in any case. The real reason is game balance, and avoiding giving extra attack actions to a character.

You might have a house rule where the Mount can attack, but the rider needs to make a check to avoid being thrown.

Thanks. Like I said above, I think my confusion came in when both Rider and Mount initiative synced. I was assuming action's synced in the same way.