D&D 5E Phantom Steed.

[jaelis]

So the falicy of this statement is that strawberries are not the only fruit. If I suggest a blueberries over strawberries, the smoothie could be equally delicious or better.

No one is arguing this point. We all agree that you can and should play with the rules that work best for your table. And you can and should drink blueberry smoothies if you like them better.

The point, which I guess you are not going to acknowledge, is that the rules you play by are not the rules in the book. And the smoothie recipe you use is not, say, the recipe in Martha Stewart's cookbook. If someone asks a question about the rules in the book, then it is objectively wrong to answer with how your table plays and then claim your answer agrees with the "Rules as Written."

But if you don't care to accept that, then that is your choice as well.

 

[neogod22]

No one is arguing this point. We all agree that you can and should play with the rules that work best for your table. And you can and should drink blueberry smoothies if you like them better.

The point, which I guess you are not going to acknowledge, is that the rules you play by are not the rules in the book. And the smoothie recipe you use is not, say, the recipe in Martha Stewart's cookbook. If someone asks a question about the rules in the book, then it is objectively wrong to answer with how your table plays and then claim your answer agrees with the "Rules as Written."

But if you don't care to accept that, then that is your choice as well.

Ok I'll tell you what. If you can show me in the book where a CONTROLLED MOUNT can take INDEPENDENT ACTIONS while being CONTROLLED. I'll admit I'm wrong.

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

 

[5ekyu]

So the falicy of this statement is that strawberries are not the only fruit. If I suggest a blueberries over strawberries, the smoothie could be equally delicious or better.

The Green Eggs And Ham defense doesn't work, because at the end, when Sam-I-Am actually tried them, he found out he loved them.

On a serious note when questions like this are asked, the OP should state whether they are a player or DM. If they are a player, the correct answer should always be, "ask you DM." If they are a DM, the correct answer should always be "rule it to your understanding." There should be no debate on rules between a player and DM, even if you feel the DM is wrong. As a DM, you need to be strong enough to tell the players this is how it's going to be. If not, then you will lose control of your game.

In both of my groups, the Playtest, and the AL, we rotate DMs. One thing I learned is, everyone has their own style, and when I'm not DMing, I have to not argue with the DM over rules. Whether or not I agree with a rule, I agree with it and allow the DM to do his job. When I'm the DM, I run my style and they have to deal with me. It's actually great this way because no one should be getting burnt out DMing, it allows us to level characters when we are playing, and we can learn from each other's strength and weaknesses.

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

Sorry but the answer of ask your gm and if you are gm then whatever you want are basicalky useless.

Someone asking for how does this work is usually not looking for folks to recite rule zero, rule two or so forth in the rog mantra.

Most of the time they have reached a part of the complex rules where they dont know the ins and outs.

Thats why tags like RAW, RAI and RAF exist among others.

Telling someone the default RAW is that aoe do not cross total cover is not telling them they have to do it or the gm cannot change that... Its just giving tgem the baseline... They can then decide otherwise, no big deal.

But if the answers of do what you want as gm and ask your gm were sufficient in and of themselves, the phb would be a lot thinner.

All imo of course.

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

 

[Aenorgreen]

Ok I'll tell you what. If you can show me in the book where a CONTROLLED MOUNT can take INDEPENDENT ACTIONS while being CONTROLLED. I'll admit I'm wrong.

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

Not that I expect this to work, but let me try.

You can control a mount only if it has been trained to accept a rider. Domesticated horses, donkeys, and similar creatures are assumed to have such training. The initiative of a controlled mount changes to match yours when you mount it. It moves as you direct it, and it has only three action options: Dash, Disengage, and Dodge. A controlled mount can move and act even on the turn that you mount it.

Note that IT can take actions. IT can act on the turn you mount it. Not your actions, its own actions.
There is no mention that it shares actions with you, like the beastmaster companion says. You are adding things that are not there. Can you show where it says that it uses your move action or your action to command it? If not, why do you assume it does?

 

[neogod22]

Not that I expect this to work, but let me try.

You can control a mount only if it has been trained to accept a rider. Domesticated horses, donkeys, and similar creatures are assumed to have such training. The initiative of a controlled mount changes to match yours when you mount it. It moves as you direct it, and it has only three action options: Dash, Disengage, and Dodge. A controlled mount can move and act even on the turn that you mount it.

Note that IT can take actions. IT can act on the turn you mount it. Not your actions, its own actions.
There is no mention that it shares actions with you, like the beastmaster companion says. You are adding things that are not there. Can you show where it says that it uses your move action or your action to command it? If not, why do you assume it does?

So you bolded "it has 3 actions," but purposely left out the word "options" that is directly after actions with no period, or parenthesis, no coma. It's part of the same thought, and therefore changes the context of the sentence. If they had put "it can take one of 3 actions on each of its turns: Dash, Disengage, or Dodge." Then you would be right.

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

 

[Aenorgreen]

I didn't bold it because it doesn't change whose action is used, just which choices they have. PC's have limited actions options also. It is more than 3, but still only about 10. Does that mean they cannot take their own actions, but something else must? A familiar is unable to take attack actions, yet it has its own actions. You never showed anywhere that says the mount uses the rider's action. Can you specify where it would say that? Where does it say they do not follow the general rule of having their own actions in a round?

 

[jaelis]

Ok I'll tell you what. If you can show me in the book where a CONTROLLED MOUNT can take INDEPENDENT ACTIONS while being CONTROLLED. I'll admit I'm wrong.

Page 189: "During a round, each participant in a battle takes a turn."
Same page: "On your turn, you can move a distance up to your speed and take one action."

Those are the general rules. Nothing in the Mounted Combat section supercedes them.

(That said, the mount doesn't get "independent actions" in the sense that you, not the mount, chooses what to do. But that doesn't mean the mount doesn't have actions, just like a dominated creature.)