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.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.
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?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.
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.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?
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.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.
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.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.