Mounts & Movement

[I'm A Banana]

I'm futzing about with a potential mounted character in 4e, but coming to a weird intersection of the rules, and I'm looking mostly for what RAW would say (but also reasonable interpretations of intent):

• If the rider takes a move action, and the mount takes a standard action, does the mount move with the rider? At the rider's speed? Or is the only move action the rider can take become "dismount"?
• If the rider uses an action that grants the user movement (such as an attack that allows a shift), can the mount take that movement? Or does making such an action simply mean the rider cannot benefit from that part of the action?
• Does the mount count as an ally? So that when the mount is adjacent to an enemy, both the rider and one of the rider's allies is adjacent? Would this mean that the mount can benefit from Leader-style powers that grant movement or attacks to allies? If so, and the mount moves, does the rider move with it?
• Does the player get to decide what actions the mount takes? That is, if I want my warhorse to trample, can I as the rider/player make my mount do that? Or because the mount is an NPC, does the DM make that decision? Is the Mounted Combat feat useful at all in a game where the DM says mounted creatures don't want to attack?
• Do Aura effects change to emanate from the mount while mounted (since they "share the same space"), or is it similar to a blast/burst in that the user must "choose" an origin square (effectively making the aura happen only on one side of the mount, plus on the mount itself)?
• Is acquiring new/upgraded mounts mostly an issue of things that happen in the campaign? So my 30th level fighter might be buying a new Warhorse after every encounter due to the things in those fights being able to eat warhorses for a light afternoon snack? No guarantee of having an "appropriate" mount for your level?

I cain't for the life of me parse out what even the intent here is. If my character basically doesn't benefit from any powers that grant movement while mounted, this seems to get rid of a HUGE swath of powers from a LOT of classes, even archetypally mounted classes (like fighters). Having paper-thin mounts in comparison to PC's seems totally..."un-4e" to me. Not in the spirit of "you can always do the things you can do." / avoiding accidental suck. Can I make my mount kick or trample, or is that something my mount only gets to do when I'm not riding it? If I take Warlord powers that grant attacks and movements, and I move when the mount moves, could I grant the action to my mount (and thus myself)? Does my mount benefit from special movement modes, or is it essentially a dead weight I need to drag along if I want to play that kind of character?

I know the stock response to this is, "Don't play a mounted character in 4e, doofus!", but I'm trying to get a sense for what such a character could do/be capable of in 4e, it's just hard to tell if the mount is ever really an asset or mostly just a handicap.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I'm futzing about with a potential mounted character in 4e, but coming to a weird intersection of the rules, and I'm looking mostly for what RAW would say (but also reasonable interpretations of intent):

[*] If the rider takes a move action, and the mount takes a standard action, does the mount move with the rider? At the rider's speed? Or is the only move action the rider can take become "dismount"?

The rider and mount share actions. The rider could "take a move action" but it's better for the mount to do so, usually. I suppose an eladrin could take a move action to teleport off their mount... Or a rider could take a "move action" to dismount.

[*] If the rider uses an action that grants the user movement (such as an attack that allows a shift), can the mount take that movement? Or does making such an action simply mean the rider cannot benefit from that part of the action?

I assumed the mount would take the action. (This could get funny if you have a cunning bard in the party.) Note that the mount doesn't gain the rider's abilities; if the rider is an elf, the mount cannot ignore difficult terrain while shifting. (Unless it's a Valenar elf NPC that specifically allows this.)

[*] Does the mount count as an ally? So that when the mount is adjacent to an enemy, both the rider and one of the rider's allies is adjacent? Would this mean that the mount can benefit from Leader-style powers that grant movement or attacks to allies? If so, and the mount moves, does the rider move with it?

Yes.

The damage of an equal-level brute mount is actually kind of ridiculous. I also think a warlord using a lazy power on a horse is ludicrous, but by RAW, I don't see anything preventing it.

[*] Does the player get to decide what actions the mount takes? That is, if I want my warhorse to trample, can I as the rider/player make my mount do that? Or because the mount is an NPC, does the DM make that decision? Is the Mounted Combat feat useful at all in a game where the DM says mounted creatures don't want to attack?

Unlike in 3e, I don't see any rules for "animal handling". I would let the PC make that decision. Of course, if the mount is particularly passive, then no. (A particularly passive mount should really be a minion.)

Even a passive horse gives a bonus to damage when charging. I don't think having the horse attacks makes sense (although considering how much damage a horse might do compared to a low-Strength rider, it might make sense mechanically).

[*] Do Aura effects change to emanate from the mount while mounted (since they "share the same space"), or is it similar to a blast/burst in that the user must "choose" an origin square (effectively making the aura happen only on one side of the mount, plus on the mount itself)?

The latter.

[*] Is acquiring new/upgraded mounts mostly an issue of things that happen in the campaign? So my 30th level fighter might be buying a new Warhorse after every encounter due to the things in those fights being able to eat warhorses for a light afternoon snack? No guarantee of having an "appropriate" mount for your level?

I use companion-like rules for horses, rather than the official monster rules. The horse would level-up with the PC and have healing surges. Of course, a level 30 horse is still kind of a joke.

I also add "Shared Actions" as a trait so the player can read the rules right away, instead of having to go digging. For "passive" mounts I also give them the "Clumsy Attacker" trait so they have no opportunity attacks. (I think having your horse make opportunity attacks for you is silly.)

I cain't for the life of me parse out what even the intent here is. If my character basically doesn't benefit from any powers that grant movement while mounted, this seems to get rid of a HUGE swath of powers from a LOT of classes, even archetypally mounted classes (like fighters).

The horse can move instead. This is specifically called out in the Rules Compendium, IIRC. There's even rules for if the mount or rider is subjected to forced movement.

Having paper-thin mounts in comparison to PC's seems totally..."un-4e" to me. Not in the spirit of "you can always do the things you can do." / avoiding accidental suck.

For obvious reasons, DMs are generally reluctant to let one feat make a character very powerful. If horses did less damage, DMs could relax. I don't want the horse's attack to do more damage than the fighter's, but in the rules (if they're the same level) that is precisely the case. I do want the mount to not die though.

Can I make my mount kick or trample, or is that something my mount only gets to do when I'm not riding it?

You can have the mount kick or trample (by giving up your standard action). I think the former should be discouraged, and the latter is perfectly fine. (Mounted Combat is basically giving you a free encounter power called "Trample".)

If I take Warlord powers that grant attacks and movements, and I move when the mount moves, could I grant the action to my mount (and thus myself)?

Technically yes.

Does my mount benefit from special movement modes, or is it essentially a dead weight I need to drag along if I want to play that kind of character?

Which movement modes are you talking about here? The horse can still run or (technically) crawl while someone is riding it. But it can't teleport, burrow, or fly, even if the rider can. Which yes means the horse might often be dead weight. (Worse, imagine having to pay extra to perform the Water Breathing ritual on the horse. But I think someone could perform Water Walking on it fine. Just don't fall off!)

I know the stock response to this is, "Don't play a mounted character in 4e, doofus!", but I'm trying to get a sense for what such a character could do/be capable of in 4e, it's just hard to tell if the mount is ever really an asset or mostly just a handicap.

The rules have lots of unclarities or unintended effects. I'm not sure if a warlord should be able to boost their mount or someone else's mount. There should be a feat for that.

I think the mount should gain levels with the riders. A level 30 fighter doesn't want a level 1 horse. You want one that will survive the same kinds of things you can. Note that a horse is always far less flexible than the rider. It might have trouble charging up a set of stairs, much less exploring an underwater cavern, even with magic.

I don't think the mount should be making attacks for the riders. Not unless it's a carnivorous mount, and even then, it's damage should be similar to PC damage. (The companion horses I've built are still based on the Monster Vault horse, and monsters do more damage with their at-will attacks than PCs, usually. Worse if the rider isn't a striker.) But by RAW this isn't just possible, but a good idea!

 

[I'm A Banana]

The rider and mount share actions. The rider could "take a move action" but it's better for the mount to do so, usually. I suppose an eladrin could take a move action to teleport off their mount... Or a rider could take a "move action" to dismount.

If the rider takes a move action, does the mount move with them? (Typically, mounts have more speed, but tell that to my thri kreen monk with a Speed of 10. )

I assumed the mount would take the action. (This could get funny if you have a cunning bard in the party.) Note that the mount doesn't gain the rider's abilities; if the rider is an elf, the mount cannot ignore difficult terrain while shifting. (Unless it's a Valenar elf NPC that specifically allows this.)

...but if I'm a monk and I use a movement technique, do the mount and I both move? So suddenly my camel makes those acrobatic leaps? Or if I'm a fighter using Tide of Iron, the mount and I both get to move into the unoccupied square?

....and now I'm kind of wondering how these interact with stealth...

The damage of an equal-level brute mount is actually kind of ridiculous. I also think a warlord using a lazy power on a horse is ludicrous, but by RAW, I don't see anything preventing it.

Curious. Brain is percolating with warlord/beastmaster ranger ideas for making my dire tiger do all the dirty work...

Unlike in 3e, I don't see any rules for "animal handling". I would let the PC make that decision. Of course, if the mount is particularly passive, then no. (A particularly passive mount should really be a minion.)

Even a passive horse gives a bonus to damage when charging. I don't think having the horse attacks makes sense (although considering how much damage a horse might do compared to a low-Strength rider, it might make sense mechanically).

Hurm. Going from the RAW, it would seem that, for instance, the rider could make a warhorse trample as "their" standard action for the round. Kind of a useful power to have. Especially if a particularly mobile rider transferred that mobility to the mount.

The latter.

Man, in 4e, the trope of a "mounted knight" REALLY does not work with mounts, or with the knight subclass....

I use companion-like rules for horses, rather than the official monster rules. The horse would level-up with the PC and have healing surges. Of course, a level 30 horse is still kind of a joke.

And if I'm a level 30 fighter and I roll into town and I want to buy a new horse...?

I also add "Shared Actions" as a trait so the player can read the rules right away, instead of having to go digging. For "passive" mounts I also give them the "Clumsy Attacker" trait so they have no opportunity attacks. (I think having your horse make opportunity attacks for you is silly.)

Aaaah, useful references all in one place!

The horse can move instead. This is specifically called out in the Rules Compendium, IIRC. There's even rules for if the mount or rider is subjected to forced movement.

The forced movement thing I get, but I was less clear on if the rider's action allowed the mount to take the movement, because that can get kind of weird kind of quick. Shifts and 1-square adjustments, sure, but there's a lot of effects that an agile character can get that, if transferred to the mount, suddenly make your 1,000 pound quadruped a highly agile ballerina. I mean, kind of cool in an absurd way, but just a really odd visual.

For obvious reasons, DMs are generally reluctant to let one feat make a character very powerful. If horses did less damage, DMs could relax. I don't want the horse's attack to do more damage than the fighter's, but in the rules (if they're the same level) that is precisely the case. I do want the mount to not die though.

One of those areas of 4e where "the rules for PC's and monsters are different!" could have come in handy. If we had horses as, say, a piece of equipment or something it might be clearer what they can do and how to use them (your sword usually doesn't break, your horse usually doesn't die; you can use weapon powers through your sword, you could use mount powers through your horse; etc.). Giving me interesting ideas....

You can have the mount kick or trample (by giving up your standard action). I think the former should be discouraged, and the latter is perfectly fine. (Mounted Combat is basically giving you a free encounter power called "Trample".)

Even that feels like a pretty big power boost for a character (especially a low-level one). And if this is the case, then by RAW, you can make your horse trample without the feat, too (the feat just improves the attack rolls).

Technically yes.

Heh. There's a lot of wackiness there...

Which movement modes are you talking about here? The horse can still run or (technically) crawl while someone is riding it. But it can't teleport, burrow, or fly, even if the rider can. Which yes means the horse might often be dead weight. (Worse, imagine having to pay extra to perform the Water Breathing ritual on the horse. But I think someone could perform Water Walking on it fine. Just don't fall off!)

Mostly, I was having a hard time imagining the idea that, for instance, a monk on a horse using Eagle Claw Strike's movement technique just makes a frickin' horse fly through the air....but I guess that's the intent?

The rules have lots of unclarities or unintended effects. I'm not sure if a warlord should be able to boost their mount or someone else's mount. There should be a feat for that.

I think the mount should gain levels with the riders. A level 30 fighter doesn't want a level 1 horse. You want one that will survive the same kinds of things you can. Note that a horse is always far less flexible than the rider. It might have trouble charging up a set of stairs, much less exploring an underwater cavern, even with magic.

I don't think the mount should be making attacks for the riders. Not unless it's a carnivorous mount, and even then, it's damage should be similar to PC damage. (The companion horses I've built are still based on the Monster Vault horse, and monsters do more damage with their at-will attacks than PCs, usually. Worse if the rider isn't a striker.) But by RAW this isn't just possible, but a good idea!

It sounds like the only thing that might be more DM dependent here is the idea that the mounts gain levels with you. So maybe if I'm playing under a more RAW-leaning DM with a mount-focused character, I need to invest in a herd of mustangs to make sure I always have the horse I need. Or possibly (again with the Warlord synergy) some defensive abilities that protect the mount. Hurm....

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

If the rider takes a move action, does the mount move with them? (Typically, mounts have more speed, but tell that to my thri kreen monk with a Speed of 10. )

That's one of the unclarities, yes. I wasn't aware you had a monk. (Your other responses often mentioned them.) A thri-kreen couldn't fit on a horse, even though a kreen is only Medium. Also, a kreen wouldn't ride a horse because that's "playing with your food". And I don't see why a monk would ride a horse in combat (in flavor terms). But yes, mechanically, this is just mushy...

...but if I'm a monk and I use a movement technique, do the mount and I both move? So suddenly my camel makes those acrobatic leaps? Or if I'm a fighter using Tide of Iron, the mount and I both get to move into the unoccupied square?

I want to say no to the former and yes to the latter, but the horse is technically capable of shifting or just moving at speed +2...

....and now I'm kind of wondering how these interact with stealth...

I think I'd use whichever roll is worse. (Or group skill check? With the horse as an extra participant?)

Curious. Brain is percolating with warlord/beastmaster ranger ideas for making my dire tiger do all the dirty work...

All those warlord powers should only work on creates that can see and understand you... but they don't. By RAW you can do it.

Hurm. Going from the RAW, it would seem that, for instance, the rider could make a warhorse trample as "their" standard action for the round. Kind of a useful power to have.

Yes. It's like a theme.

Especially if a particularly mobile rider transferred that mobility to the mount.

0

So if a wizard is riding a horse and casts Fly...

Man, in 4e, the trope of a "mounted knight" REALLY does not work with mounts, or with the knight subclass....

The designers obviously didn't put a lot of thought into this out of the box. That's why I had to consult the Rules Compendium. (Currently one of my PCs rides a climbing lizard. Last session, someone dominated the lizard, which made shared actions kind of weird. I decided that the shared actions trait was lost while it was dominated...)

Cavalry are high-offense, low-defense anyway. I'm not sure how useful a mounted bodyguard is in real-life, so it doesn't bother me that a mounted "knight" isn't a good defender. Frankly I ignore class names anyway. (For my game, the generic knight has an ability similar to the caravan guard, where it selects a "liege" ahead of time. If you attack the liege, the knight gets to charge you as a reaction. Worse, if it uses a lance, it also knocks you prone. But my PCs never got to face any yet. This might be more important than it looks: I often create "monsters" that have abilities taken straight out of PC abilities. So NPC "knights" [who are more likely to be commoner mercenaries in flavor terms] often have a Defender Aura and can use Threatening Glower. My players hate that ability so much!)

And if I'm a level 30 fighter and I roll into town and I want to buy a new horse...?

It's like a 30th-level fighter walking into town and hiring a henchman. You should get someone who won't instantly die on the first adventure.

Aaaah, useful references all in one place!

The forced movement thing I get, but I was less clear on if the rider's action allowed the mount to take the movement, because that can get kind of weird kind of quick. Shifts and 1-square adjustments, sure, but there's a lot of effects that an agile character can get that, if transferred to the mount, suddenly make your 1,000 pound quadruped a highly agile ballerina. I mean, kind of cool in an absurd way, but just a really odd visual.

The rules just aren't clear on this. At some point, the DM has to use common sense. Or tell a player that sorry, your character can't do that. (IMO, a horse shouldn't be able to use a Movement Technique, regardless of RAW. Still, I'm pretty sure a rogue riding a horse could use Tumble on the horse. Or Tactical Trick. *Sigh* )

One of those areas of 4e where "the rules for PC's and monsters are different!" could have come in handy. If we had horses as, say, a piece of equipment or something it might be clearer what they can do and how to use them (your sword usually doesn't break, your horse usually doesn't die; you can use weapon powers through your sword, you could use mount powers through your horse; etc.). Giving me interesting ideas....

I really like this idea. As far as I'm concerned, a horse should only do two things in combat: give you a speed boost (or maybe just a charge/run speed boost) and give you bonus damage on a charge. Maybe 1/encounter Trample. I don't want it attacking, making opportunity actions, doing things a horse can't do, listening to people other than the rider, etc.

Even that feels like a pretty big power boost for a character (especially a low-level one). And if this is the case, then by RAW, you can make your horse trample without the feat, too (the feat just improves the attack rolls).

I think you can prompt the use of Trample. But I'm not 100% sure, as I haven't read Mounted Combat in a while.

Mostly, I was having a hard time imagining the idea that, for instance, a monk on a horse using Eagle Claw Strike's movement technique just makes a frickin' horse fly through the air....but I guess that's the intent?

Another unclear area.

It sounds like the only thing that might be more DM dependent here is the idea that the mounts gain levels with you. So maybe if I'm playing under a more RAW-leaning DM with a mount-focused character, I need to invest in a herd of mustangs to make sure I always have the horse I need. Or possibly (again with the Warlord synergy) some defensive abilities that protect the mount. Hurm....

Or buy better mounts. IIRC more powerful mounts have the same cost as a magic item of their level. Sadly, they don't get healing surges. Maybe magic healing barding?

 

[D'karr]

I think that the intent for the "rules" for mounted combat, like most rules in 4e, is to give guidance that as much as possible prevents/reduces abuse. They appear in the DMG and the Rules Compendium. The rules, however, leave questions as to what happens with powers interacting with the mount kind of open to interpretation by the DM. In cases like this say, "yes, and" or "yes, but" seem to be a suitable guiding factor.

[MENTION=1165](Psi)SeveredHead[/MENTION] covered the majority of this rather well.

A PC rider and a mount share initiative and actions (standard, move, minor, opportunity, triggered). Mounts have unlimited free actions. Monster Riders are different and both mount and rider can act independently.

Mounts attack at -2 penalty which is eliminated by the mounted combat feat, and have specific Mount Actions that it can use.

Mounted combat feat also allows the mount to use skill modifier from the rider instead of their own for skill checks (Athletics, Acrobatics, Endurance, or Stealth)

As for auras this is covered in the rules, select origin square of aura. If aura affects creatures instead of only enemies, the mount can be affected.

When it comes to allowing the mount to take actions when a power "affects" it, I don't see why not, as long as the action economy is not violated. A mount can move and shift so if a power allows you to shift as part of an attack then possibly the mount could take the shift. Then again the power itself is descriptive in name and description text. As a DM that is what I'd use as a gauge for feasibility of use. For example a rogue power like "Handspring Assault" has a description that says, . "Springing forward with feline agility, you lash out, cut deep, and roll away to safety." Rolling away seems to like something the rogue could easily do, but a mount might have much more difficulty. So I might rule that this power cannot be used by the mount. Then again if the PC has spent a feat for Mounted Combat, I'd be more inclined to allow it. If the PC could actually describe the action in a way that made sense I'd also allow it. That is what a DM is there for anyway.

The reason I'm almost certain a mount can be affected by, for example, Commander's Strike is that there is a feat called "Spirited Rider" which allows a rider to use Commander's Strike to have the mount make the attack, if the attack hits it also pushes 1 Sq. So if a separate warlord from you (the rider) decided to use Commander's Strike on you I imagine that you could instead have the mount make the attack. I would not allow the warlord to use the effect on the mount without the rider's consent though. Since they share actions.

Trample is a standard action encounter power for a horse and other creatures. The rider can decide to use that as his standard action when mounted. If the mount has that action as a move instead then the mount can trample and the rider can attack, I have not found a mount that had this, but I did not look deep enough. A hippogriff doesn't have Trample as an attack but has Diving Overrun. The rider could decide to use that as his standard action attack instead of his own.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Mostly, I was having a hard time imagining the idea that, for instance, a monk on a horse using Eagle Claw Strike's movement technique just makes a frickin' horse fly through the air....but I guess that's the intent?

Correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm no great expert on 4E, but doesn't common sense still apply? I would expect that the DM would say you're being silly, if you tried to use one of your powers to make a horse climb a wall or tumble or fly. Isn't the obvious solution that, when you use a movement-based power while mounted, it necessitates you dismounting? If you used Tide of Iron, then you could push an enemy but you couldn't follow unless you chose to dismount?

 

[Manbearcat]

All of the other questions have been addressed so I'll just make a suggestion for you on the scaling mount question. Have you thought about proposing a companion character concept to your GM? @Morrus; hit the nail on the head in that it works well in play assuming the decision-points you have aren't terribly complex and you are proficient at expediting its suite of actions on its turn. The only long-term mount I had in play was a Silver Dragon companion character mount for a Legendary Sovereign Paladin and it was awesome. Further, having a companion character makes it so you aren't spending important PC build resources that aren't going to be in play but half of the time (or less). If you guys adventure somewheres where the mount couldn't be involved, boom, mount is left behind and the encounter budgeting just ratchets down one PC.

I could easily come up with a nifty mount companion character for your Thri-Kreen that you could present to your GM. I'd just need level and role that you're wanting it to assume.

 

[pemerton]

My game sees quite a lot of mounted action, but the mounts are 1 hp Phantom Steeds and so they tend not to last past the first round or two . . .

On [MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION]'s action resolution questions, I think the biggest two are (1) does a movement effect on the rider affect the mount and (2) can the mount take free actions?

The answer to (2) is Yes (Rules Compendium, p 254).

The answer to (1) is not entirely clear, but I think the default is No. From Rules Compendium, pp 252-4:

Mounts offer . . . advantages to riders: They are faster than most humanoids, [and] they can offer alternative movement modes such as flight and swimming . . .

The rider and mount both occupy the mount's space . . .

An adventurer and his or her mount have a shared set of actions . . .

Most commonly, the mount takes a move action to walk or shift . . .

When the rider charges, the rider and mount move up to the mount's speed and then the rider makes the charge attack. When the mount charges, it follows the normal rules for a charge . . .

If the mount's movement provokes an opportunity attack, the attacker choose to target either the mount or the rider, since the two of them move together. . .

If the mount is pulled, pushed or slid, the rider moves with it. If the rider is pulled, pushed or slid and the mount isn't, the rider can have the two of them move together.​

To me, this all seems to be predicated on the assumption that the rider is taking advantage of the mount's movement. Nothing there suggests that the mount can take advantage of the rider's movement, with the exception of the forced movement caveat (to make it a bit harder to dismount a rider than it otherwise would be).

One consequence of this is that rogues and monks may not work that well on mounts. I don't know that I want to say that that's deliberate, but it has a certain thematic sense to it. Conversely, warlords would seem to work very well both on and with mounts, and that likewise makes plenty of sense.

I think a feat for (say) a ranger or a barbarian that let it confer its movement to its mount - or even letting Mounted Combat do this - would make sense. Less so for rogues and monks, for the sorts of reasons that [MENTION=336]D'karr[/MENTION] mentioned.

On the equipment/level issues, Adventurer's Vault comes close to treating mounts as equipment, but doesn't quite make it all the way. As well as the companion character option, there are also the hireling options in Mordenkainen's Magnificane Emporium that you might want to look at.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm no great expert on 4E, but doesn't common sense still apply? I would expect that the DM would say you're being silly, if you tried to use one of your powers to make a horse climb a wall or tumble or fly. Isn't the obvious solution that, when you use a movement-based power while mounted, it necessitates you dismounting? If you used Tide of Iron, then you could push an enemy but you couldn't follow unless you chose to dismount?

I think the biggest two are (1) does a movement effect on the rider affect the mount and (2) can the mount take free actions?

The answer to (2) is Yes (Rules Compendium, p 254).

The answer to (1) is not entirely clear, but I think the default is No.

Yeah, that is contra to [MENTION=1165](Psi)SeveredHead[/MENTION] 's interpretation. Which is a bit what I was worried about -- I don't want to make the DM make a lot of judgment calls just so I can use my character.

I was actually looking at the mount in trying to make an "agile mounted character" -- all fast mount and spears and javelins and bows. Not unlike the Valenar elves in Eberron, or the Unicorn clan in Rokugan, or the Amazon kit from 2e. I picked up on Ranger as a good class fit, and particularly on the melee/ranged Ranger build that has a lot of powers that grant movement (things like Shoot And Stab), or the Beastmaster ranger for someone with a particularly close bond with their horse. There's even a theme that works with that kind of archetype.

But if [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION] and [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] are right, then a lot of my powers would be basically useless, or at beast telling the DM to decide if this works or not. The DM's a bit of a newbie, so I don't really want to chuck a lot of weirdness his way. But in making the character I realized that whichever circumstance is true is...not great. Either you CAN grant a power's movement to your mount, in which case mounts can tumble and fly with their users (kind of cool, if absurd, but 4e is no stranger to that what with ooze tripping and whatnot), or you CAN'T, in which case the idea of a character using things like Shoot and Stab or Tide of Iron on a mount...becomes meaningless, and a character who wants to make use of a mount is going to be, ironically, the LEAST mobile character on the battlefield with that weight dragging them down. Which lead me to ENWorld to see if anyone had alternate interpretations or stuff I overlooked.

What I might try to do in a few hours is whip up mounts-as-equipment, and see how that floats. I might not get the DM to accept it, but it might at lest scratch that game design itch I have when I encounter a system that doesn't quite work.

Now for a perfect storm of weird 4e rules, I should totally have this character be hybrid/multiclassed as an assassin and have them trying to stealth all the time...

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION]: Pre-errata Throw and Stab will work fine, because that allows the ranger to charge, and charging uses the mount's movement. I don't think the errata to Throw and Stab was intended to change this (it was about reining in charge-optimised builds) and so (depending on how reasonable and intelligent your GM is, even if new) you've probably got a good case there.

But a lot of the other powers will be fiddly, I agree.

Have you looked through any of the Mount or Companion items to see if they help with the issue?