Mounts - Some Important Questions

[bobcat_grad]

A) I'd use the Standard to move the mount away and let the player dismount as a move action. This doesn't nerf the dominate effect and allows the player to dismount.

B) Since you're dazed and limited to the one action, you can take 1 action or command your mount to perform one action.

C) Dismount lets you move adjacent to the mount. So if the mount is immobilized it's not an issue. If you're immobilized, by RAW, you can't dismount. I'd allow it and require the mount to be moved adjacent to your suare.

D) Mounts are monsters so they have 1 HS per tier. Most have no way to spend them in combat, without help, and therefor require a short rest to do so.

A) I'd disagree with you. Mounting/Dismounting is explicitly a Standard Action in the DMG - not a move action. So, if you're dominated, I'd say as the DM, I can control your action (and therefore your mount - CHARGE!.... or maybe he'd try to throw you). The real question of what to do is when your mount is dominated an you aren't. On your turn, do I as the DM get to use one action (as the mount) and you get the other two? Or since the mount is dominated by a monster, is it really no longer a mount but rather just some enemy NPC that you happen to be on the back of (meaning you get all 3 actions - one of which should probably be a standard to get off the dominated mount)?

B) Your answer works if the character is dazed. But what if only the mount is and you have zero effects on you? I guess as long as you don't rely on the mount's actions to do two things, you'd be fine taking one action as the mount, and the other two as your own? Meaning a dazed mount can't move and then charge, but he could move and let you take a standard action to attack. Not sure about this....

C) I think with immobilized, you're stuck if you're the one immobilized and not the mount. If the mount is immobilized, well, then, just hop off (standard action) and go about your business leaving your immobilized mount where it is.

D) Completely forgot about the 1 healing surge per tier. So unless a PC power allows a mount to spend a surge, they must wait until a short rest.

 

[JiggleFloyd]

Yes, yes, yes.

Thanks Klaus, but could you provide some explanation for a noobie like me to why you answered yes on all three questions? Also, please look at my post #8.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

1) Can a PC decide to use a move action while on a mount (and move the PC's speed)? This is normally less effective, but can you do it? If so, then that means mounts can move with the PC's voluntary movement. If not, then that means it is impossible for a PC to use a move action while riding a mount, which may be the case, I don't know.

The only time a mount would not be able to move with a PC voluntarily is if it were immobilized or slowed or something. Teleportation would also not work unless the mount could normally teleport; the voluntary movement would have to be something possible for the mount to do in other words.

Thoughts?

My opinion is that if you're mounted you're stuck with the movement modes of the mount and its speed, etc. In whatever ways the mount is superior it helps you, and in whatever ways the mount is inferior it limits you.

Again I might be willing to say allow a rogue with Deft Strike to have the mount move 2 squares and then the PC makes an attack. I think that kind of thing is at least well within what the rules seem to intend. I base that on the fact that you can charge while mounted and that your actions are shared. I think a DM would be well within his rights to not allow that as it isn't clearly the mount or the player taking the action though.

Overall my impression is the mounted combat rules are designed to be relatively simple and work well enough for situations where parties happen to run into an encounter while mounted or a rare kind of "special" situation. They aren't bullet proof though and I get the impression the designers really weren't interested in nailing everything down tight since they probably hadn't playtested it to death and were leery of roping DMs into unworkable mechanics. They may well revisit mounted combat in a supplement or something at some point and flesh some of this out a bit more.

For now I'd say go with what makes sense in the given situation and is fun.

 

[Klaus]

1) You share actions with your mount. You get an extra action, you share it with your mount, no limits.

2) The actual rules are silent on the matter, but in the DMG, under Mounted Combat/Forced Movement, it says that if you are targeted by an attack that moves you but not your mount you can choose for your mount to be affected. It'd be odd that you could do that when attacked but could not under your power, no? If you want to place a limit on this, you can say that only a creature with the "mount" keyword and a character with the Mounted Combat feat can do this.

3) You share your actions with your mount. If you get a "free" action (like a power-induced shift), you share it with your mount. Once again, no limits. If a warlord uses Commander Strike to give you a free melee basic attack, you could use your mount's melee basic attack.

Re: Dominate: A dominated mount is guided by the dominating creature's actions (usually a minor action).

 

[JiggleFloyd]

1) You share actions with your mount. You get an extra action, you share it with your mount, no limits.

2) The actual rules are silent on the matter, but in the DMG, under Mounted Combat/Forced Movement, it says that if you are targeted by an attack that moves you but not your mount you can choose for your mount to be affected. It'd be odd that you could do that when attacked but could not under your power, no? If you want to place a limit on this, you can say that only a creature with the "mount" keyword and a character with the Mounted Combat feat can do this.

3) You share your actions with your mount. If you get a "free" action (like a power-induced shift), you share it with your mount. Once again, no limits. If a warlord uses Commander Strike to give you a free melee basic attack, you could use your mount's melee basic attack.

Re: Dominate: A dominated mount is guided by the dominating creature's actions (usually a minor action).

Thanks for the explanation Klaus. That's the same reasoning I have for the questions, but you worded it in a different and more precise way.

 

[JiggleFloyd]

My opinion is that if you're mounted you're stuck with the movement modes of the mount and its speed, etc. In whatever ways the mount is superior it helps you, and in whatever ways the mount is inferior it limits you.

Again I might be willing to say allow a rogue with Deft Strike to have the mount move 2 squares and then the PC makes an attack. I think that kind of thing is at least well within what the rules seem to intend. I base that on the fact that you can charge while mounted and that your actions are shared. I think a DM would be well within his rights to not allow that as it isn't clearly the mount or the player taking the action though.

Overall my impression is the mounted combat rules are designed to be relatively simple and work well enough for situations where parties happen to run into an encounter while mounted or a rare kind of "special" situation. They aren't bullet proof though and I get the impression the designers really weren't interested in nailing everything down tight since they probably hadn't playtested it to death and were leery of roping DMs into unworkable mechanics. They may well revisit mounted combat in a supplement or something at some point and flesh some of this out a bit more.

For now I'd say go with what makes sense in the given situation and is fun.

Thanks for your input AbdulAlhazred. I think this discussion makes it clear that the rules are not 100% defined for questions 2 and 3, and that there is some room for interpretation. Ultimately, issues that are even slightly ambiguous are decided by the DM.

Klaus and I seem to have the same reasoning and proofs for our interpretations; mainly, that if you have the choice to move with your mount for involuntary (forced) movement it only makes sense that you can do so for voluntary movement under your own power. A lot of powers that allow a PC to shift, slide, teleport, etc. are usually considered free actions or immediate reactions, both of which are shared by you and your mount.

Your reasoning makes sense in that if you mount you give up your right to move actions; you benefit from the mounts movement abilities in some ways and are hindered in other ways. But given the game mechanics, using that same reasoning would lead to a different conclusion for the ruling on forced movement. If someone forces a PC to move, it doesn't necessarily make sense that the mount would move with the PC all the time, however this is what the rules state.This is probably in order to simplify things for the DM and PCs and make mounted combat more appealing. I for one would never choose to have a mount if I could be forced to dismount that easily, one forced slide and I'm down, especially since it takes a standard action to mount again.

 

[bobcat_grad]

Regarding some of the other questions discussed in this thread, I'm going to pose what I think is the big issue with conditions and characters/mounts.

The only real issue if you stick to the mount rules in the DMG (page 46) is the 'What happens when effects limiting/controlling movement or actions effects one member of the mount/character combination?" And if those are the only questions, I propose the following ideas to handle those situations:

Mount is immobilized/Character is not - This one's pretty simple. The character could dismount (standard), move on his own, and use a minor. Or use a standard from the mount, and a minor - skipping movement (unless the character could teleport off the mount to somewhere).

Character is immobilized/Character is not - I'd say you could make use of the mount's movement, but the character would be stuck in one of the 4 spaces the mount was originally in. So the mount would move, and the character is immediately dismounted and immobilized.

Mount is dazed/Character is not - Here's one of the difficult ones. I'd rule that the character can use all three actions, but only command the the mount for 1 of them. Meaning, you could use the mount to move, but not move and charge.

Character is dazed/Mount is not - Again with the dazed... I'd say that if the character is dazed, they are only able to command their mount to do 1 thing. So, in this case, a dazed effect on the character really does daze both.

Mount is dominated/Character is not - Wheeee! This one could get ugly. To keep it simple, I think I'd let the character know at the beginning of his turn which action I will use. I'd say, "Monster A will move your horse this turn" and let the player decide if he wants to use the standard and minor before or after I resolve the move. I won't tell you where the horse is going though until you tell me to move it.

Character is dominated/Mount is not - It's so much easier when the character is affected and the mount isn't. Here, since the character is the one commanding the mount, and the monster is commanding the character, then the monster gets to use the mount as part of whatever action available.

Thoughts?