D&D 5E Shadow Sorcerer + Warcaster + Polearm Master + Eye of Darkness = Is It insane?

[Hohige]

The mount is the one taking the action.

This is exactly like the blinded driver example I gave you. You are "controlling" the mount the same way you are "controlling" the blinded driver.

Action controlled by the rider. It's clear on rules. Horses work as car, not blinded driver. the driver gives commands, the car takes dash actions.

If your DM agree with you. I'm fine.

 

[ECMO3]

Action controlled by the rider. It's clear on rules. Horses work as car, not blinded driver. the driver gives commands, the car takes dash actions.

If your DM agree with you. I'm fine.

NO. You did not even bother to read the earlier post you replied to where I actually posted the rules on driving.

There are rules on driving in D&D and it is NOT mounted combat with a controlled mount. The horse is the driver, he is the one taking the action.

READ THE RULES!

 

[Hohige]

NO. You did not even bother to read the earlier post you replied to where I actually posted the rules on driving.

There are rules on driving in D&D and it is NOT mounted combat with a controlled mount. The horse is the driver, he is the one taking the action.

READ THE RULES!

OK, for the D&D rules, the mount actions is totally controlled by the rider,, because a Warhorse is trained for it, it's rules. Yes, It's mount's action, but, controlled by the rider on rider's turn.

I strongly disagree with your interpretation.

 

[ECMO3]

OK, for the D&D rules, the mount actions is totally controlled by the rider, it's rules. Yes, It's mount's action, but, controlled by the rider
But, i strongly disagree with you.

READ THE RULES ON DRIVING. I posted them several posts above. The rules for riding a horse are not the same as the rules for driving in D&D they are not the same thing.

This is the same as a blind driver and someone sitting next to them and "controlling" him and telling him what to do. If you actually read the rules on driving this will be clear.

 

[Hohige]

READ THE RULES ON DRIVING. I posted them several posts above. The rules for riding a horse are not the same as the rules for driving in D&D they are not the same thing.

This is the same as a blind driver and someone sitting next to them and "controlling" him and telling him what to do. If you actually read the rules on driving this will be clear.

if you bealive that a full vision rider can't control his controlled and trained mount on dark. I'm ok, but I strongly disagree.
ask your DM before do it.

 

[ad_hoc]

OK, for the D&D rules, the mount actions is totally controlled by the rider,, because a Warhorse is trained for it, it's rules. Yes, It's mount's action, but, controlled by the rider on rider's turn.

I strongly disagree with your interpretation.

This is what the rules say explicitly:

"When there is any question whether you can...keep a mount from getting spooked..."


People have called it into question which abides by the qualification of 'any question'.

 

[ECMO3]

if you bealive that a full vision rider can't control his controlled and trained mount on dark. I'm ok, but I strongly disagree.
ask your DM before do it.

As in tell it what to do, yes. As in make it do it flawlessly as if you were its familiar and it could see through your eyes, no.

How about this. Let's say you cast Dominate Person on a creature who is blinded. According to the description of the spell you have "precise control" over the target.

So if you command that dominated person to attack another creature, does it have disadvantage because it is blinded or does the fact that you are "controlling" it change it so that it is no longer blind?

Let's take this a step further. Let's say an enemy sorcerer has the spell dominate person and devils sight he casts dominate person on one of his own soldiers and sends that soldier into attack you inside your sphere of darkness. Does the soldier have disadvantage to attack your warlock? After all he is being "controlled" by someone that sees you.

Just because you are "controlling" the mount does not mean you are moving its legs!

Finally, RAW in order for a creature to be a mount at all it has to be "willing". If it is not willing you can not control it like a mount. Do you think it is safe to assume it is going to be willing to continue being your mount when you blind it?