D&D 5E Rogue’s Aim+Mount

[aco175]

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]

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.

 

[Flamestrike]

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).