log in or register to remove this ad

 

5E Rogue’s Aim+Mount


log in or register to remove this ad


TwoSix

The hero you deserve
Supporter
Also, if "being moved" (as opposed to voluntarily moving) didn't affect Aim, then if somebody else held their action to either shove or cast gust when the rogue tried to shoot then it wouldn't affect the shot. Not that there's any RAW that says it would, but I would count either of those as positive examples of clever application of the rules, whereas using the mount is (in my opinion) pure exploit.

And, don't get me wrong, I don't think allowing the mount trick is going to break the game. It's not making the rogue too powerful, and there are a thousand ways to neutralize the strategy if the rogue overuses it. For me it's 100% about the spirit of the game.

AND...at the same time I can appreciate that others might find this sort of tinkering with the rules to be part of the fun. That's cool; have at it. It's just not how I like to play.
Yea, that just seems like a stunt attempt to me, a defensive stunt like that I'd generally rule as like Dodge, but only on that target plus additional effects. But that's just pure DM adjudication.

I guess where you see "tinkering", I see an obvious attempt to maximize a feature. It's no more onerous, to my mind, than a character saying "Wow, this heavy armor doesn't slow me down at all as long I have a 15 Strength, I'm totally gonna wear heavy armor on my high Strength fighter and not worry about Dexterity!" But I'm perfectly willing to agree to disagree, so thanks.

Besides, we agree on the most important point, which is that there aren't really balance concerns. I mean, imagine being concerned about rogue balance...lol.
 

Fenris-77

Small God of the Dozens
Supporter
The 'being moved' argument doesn't really pass the smell test for me personally. If you're trying to carefully line up a shot and the Half Orc picks you up to put you on his shoulders you aren't aiming any more. It's not a steadi-cam. Same as the horse, you're bouncing up and down, not aiming. With training, or from a stationary mount, sure, no problem. This isn't meant as a criticism of anyone in particular, but I do find the 'being moved' exception kinda gamey. It feel like the opposite of RAI to me, and very much like a cheap RAW exploit. That's my take though, and everyone handles these things differently, and reads the rules differently.

As I said above, unless this was going to come up a lot I'll just allow the action and move on.
 

TwoSix

The hero you deserve
Supporter
The 'being moved' argument doesn't really pass the smell test for me personally. If you're trying to carefully line up a shot and the Half Orc picks you up to put you on his shoulders you aren't aiming any more. It's not a steadi-cam. Same as the horse, you're bouncing up and down, not aiming. With training, or from a stationary mount, sure, no problem. This isn't meant as a criticism of anyone in particular, but I do find the 'being moved' exception kinda gamey. It feel like the opposite of RAI to me, and very much like a cheap RAW exploit. That's my take though, and everyone handles these things differently, and reads the rules differently.

As I said above, unless this was going to come up a lot I'll just allow the action and move on.
Just to be clear, how would you handle it, mechanics-wise? Remember these are happening on different initiative counts, so the rogue has already fired. Or are you saying you wouldn't allow it if the rogue has been moved during the round prior to their turn?
 

Fenris-77

Small God of the Dozens
Supporter
Just to be clear, how would you handle it, mechanics-wise? Remember these are happening on different initiative counts, so the rogue has already fired. Or are you saying you wouldn't allow it if the rogue has been moved during the round prior to their turn?
That's right. If you want to aim, stand still, that's the trade off. If the difference maker is the type of mount, I think the idea has already gone off the rails for me. I don't strenuously disagree with your reasoning or anything, that's just the answer that works for me. Mostly because it makes sense, broadly speaking, and doesn't open itself up to a hundred contingent possibilities. Also, 'being moved' doesn't really meet my standards for not feeling artificial in terms of what the combat round is supposed to represent as an abstraction. I don't see the initiative steps as strictly sequential, no one is acting for six seconds and then standing around watching other people do stuff. That's actually the main reason I'd go with stand still period if you want to aim.
 

Oh, wait...are we talking about the mount moving on it’s own turn? I’m ok with that.

The turn system breaks simultaneity in a million exploitable ways. I’m not going to draw the line here.

EDIT: The language states clearly that the movement restriction is for the current turn. If it said, “until your next turn” I would reach a different conclusion.
 
Last edited:

So, patch.

Cunning Action: Aim
2nd-level rogue feature (enhances Cunning Action)
You gain an additional way to use your Cunning Action: carefully aiming your next attack. To use this ability, you cannot have moved since the end of your last turn or the start of combat (whichever is more recent). As a bonus action you can reduce your speed, your mount's speed and your vehicle's speed to 0, then your next attack this turn is at advantage. If your vehicle or mount refuses to reduce their speed to 0, you do not gain advantage.


I think that covers the mount/vehicle corner case.
 
Last edited:

While this is playtest material, this is a fine example of the difference between RAW vs RAI. By RAW, this absolutely works, since your mounts speed isn't 0 and you can control you mount as a free action during your turn (unless it's intelligent and/or has its own turn). However, this is quite obviously not the intent of the ability, which is to for the character to remain in place to take aim.
 

TwoSix

The hero you deserve
Supporter
While this is playtest material, this is a fine example of the difference between RAW vs RAI. By RAW, this absolutely works, since your mounts speed isn't 0 and you can control you mount as a free action during your turn (unless it's intelligent and/or has its own turn). However, this is quite obviously not the intent of the ability, which is to for the character to remain in place to take aim.
Which really just goes to show how important it is to put in some plain English developer sidebars for rules additions; to my mind, it's fairly obvious the intent is to restrict the rogue's current turn of movement, and that's it.
 

aco175

Hero
At first thought I think it goes too far to try and gain an edge on something. The way actions go in the game is not the same as real life so to take you actions and then say the mount will move me kind of feels in poor taste. Then I think about riding in a cart or ship and not being the one driving. I also think how often this would come up in my game.

I would likely allow in a wagon or on a mostly still ship, maybe sitting on a horse not moving. In my game though it most likely will only come up a few times a level or once a month of playtime, so I may just allow the whole thing. I do like the idea of using animal handling to do it normally.
 

Fenris-77

Small God of the Dozens
Supporter
Which really just goes to show how important it is to put in some plain English developer sidebars for rules additions; to my mind, it's fairly obvious the intent is to restrict the rogue's current turn of movement, and that's it.
Hah. Yeah, but I'd call that the whole round, not just the action that happens on the Rogues initiative step. I'm not losing any sleep over it, that was just made sense to me when I considered it for a bit. The whole round represents 6 seconds, and it didn't strike me as reasonable that the Aiming rogue should be able to voluntarily move (or be moved) at any point in that, regardless of source, if he wanted to line up his aimed shot. 🤷‍♂️ YMMV.
 

The point of Aim (from a gameplay, balance and simulationist perspective) is forgoing moving (which carries significant drawbacks) in exchange for advantage to hit. It's easier to resolve in game play than requiring repeated Hide actions and Stealth checks and then indexing them against Perception scores.

There is no way I would allow a mounted Rogue to move and Aim. If you're mounted, you can Aim but neither you nor the mount can willingly move and your speed is reduced to 0 for that turn (meaning if you're flying or riding a flying mount, unless you can hover, you cant Aim without falling from the sky, which also ruins the Aim).
 

Mythological Figures & Maleficent Monsters

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top