G
Guest 6801328
Guest
Depends. If the argument is purely based on the simulationism aspect (it's not realistic for a rogue to be able to do that), then I'm not going to argue the point, because I simply don't care about what other people view as realistic.
If the argument is that this is a balance "loophole" (as the term the OP used), then I feel more comfortable weighing in. I mean, we already know the rules for mounted combat are finicky and subject to a fair amount of DM fiat, this is just one more corner case.
Sorta neither for me. It’s more about the spirit of the rules. The idea behind the feat seems to be that it’s an alternative to hiding as a bonus action, which isn’t always available. But it comes with a restriction. Trade-offs are what make games games.
Arguing that being mounted negates the restriction strikes me as mere gamism and rules lawyering.