Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="D'karr" data-source="post: 6297391" data-attributes="member: 336">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.</blockquote>

Verification