Is a mount considered an ally?

43 posts / 0 new
Last post
Is a mount considered an ally?
If you're playing Dungeons & Dragons and having fun, then you're playing it correctly.
Depends.  If it is a simple riding beast, it is neither an ally nor an enemy.  It is part of the PC's gear.  If the mount is a combatant, such as a war horse, then yes, it is an ally.

You have the free will to agree or disagree.
You have the ability to act freely on the above choice regardless of the consequences.

Is a mount considered an ally?

Yes.

Also, from the forum FAQ (if desired):
'Can I change allies/enemies in the middle of combat? Yes, with DM approval. The consensus is that, within reason, you can generally choose who you consider an ally/enemy (else mid-fight betrayals would be awkward), your choice affects your own powers, and other people may or may not reciprocate. Also, per RC p.106: "When a power defines a target as an ally, the ally is free to ignore the power's effect"'
I think answering the question is easier than saying what the mount is.

Nothing in the rules calls a mount an ally. The rules repeatedly say "creature" and treat it more like a creature that is equipment or terrain than an ally. It is really more like a sentient object you own/ride. My answer (and what I see at most of my LFR and home game tables) is No, a mount is not your ally.

I looked at what mvincent linked, but I don't see the logic in that quote, nor do I see consensus in that linked thread, to be honest.

The term "ally" is not really defined well, though the PHB says on p57 uses the word "teammates" (which a mount is not). "Willing target" also suggests some amount of intelligence (the ally must want the effect), with most mounts being unable to really provide some indication of willingness. We can assume, but then we are assuming.

Enemy is defined clearly as anything that is not your ally, even if it has not been hostile to you. That said, it makes no sense to call your mount an enemy.

Creature is defined clearly as allies and enemies, leaving nothing out.

wording in PH p57:

When a power’s target entry specifies that it affects
you and one or more of your allies, then you can take
advantage of the power’s effect along with your teammates.
Otherwise, “ally” or “allies” does not include
you, and both terms assume willing targets. “Enemy”
or “enemies” means a creature or creatures that aren’t
your allies (whether those creatures are hostile toward
you or not). “Creature” or “creatures” means allies and
enemies both, as well as you.


The term creature is used throughout the DMG (including errata) to describe the mount. Mounts appear in AV, a book for equipment. All of this seems to suggest that a mount is just a creature, but not an ally. It is not your enemy, so powers and the like targeting only enemies would ignore your mount. Powers and the like targeting allies would not affect your mount, because nothing in the game suggests your mount is an ally.

I've asked Greg Bilsland to review the issue, so perhaps future errata will clarify. From a balance perspective, making a mount an ally seems way too strong. Mounts are already pretty broken - for a fairly low cost you can ignore various terrain impediments, increase your movement, plus get some fairly strong attack benefits. Having a warlord grant his or her mount an attack, having PCs buff their mounts instead of other allies... this all seems detrimental to balance and to reduce play quality. Making them just creatures seems far more balanced and better for play.

To be clear, my bias is toward removing them from being purchasable items and making them more along the ideas of the DMG to be something the DM would provide for certain encounters/adventures. I find mounts themselves to be detrimental to play and mounts are one of my main pet peeves when I judge LFR.

Follow my blog and Twitter feed with Dark Sun campaign design and DM tips!
Dark Sun's Ashes of Athas Campaign is now available for home play (PM me with your e-mail to order the campaign adventures).

After I posted the original question, I went back to reading about specific mounts, and I found the following power of a Dire Wolf:

Pack Hunter (while mounted by a friendly rider of 5th level or higher; at-will) * Mount
The dire wolf's rider gains combat advantage against an enemy if it has at least one ally other than its mount adjacent to the target.

From this example, it appears that a mount is considered an ally.
If you're playing Dungeons & Dragons and having fun, then you're playing it correctly.
As Alphastream1 says, ally is not a well defined term (which is unfortunate considering how often it's used).  I disagree with his conclusion, however; the intent behind the term seems to me to be that anything on your side of a fight is an ally.  Enemy being defined as anything not your ally makes this the clear intent.  Free will, their own actions, or intelligence aren't requirements, since summons and beast companions are allies.
I seem to recall several previous conversations on this. The conclusions I remember were that you should be able to decide, for your own effects at least, your enemies/allies, since not being able to do so had oddities... besides being unintuitive and potentially unfun. Example: turning on someone during a fight.

Conversely, being able to decide your enemies/allies for yourself did not seem to have problems, since allies had to be willing targets anyways.
The mount is considered an ally to its rider and the riders' allies.

D&D Producer

Thanks, Greg. That clears it up for this thread, though it needs to be added to the Mounted Combat rules in the DMG or as an FAQ entry (errata would be better, since it is all in one place). Thanks, again!

Now I can hate mounts even more...

Follow my blog and Twitter feed with Dark Sun campaign design and DM tips!
Dark Sun's Ashes of Athas Campaign is now available for home play (PM me with your e-mail to order the campaign adventures).

After I posted the original question, I went back to reading about specific mounts, and I found the following power of a Dire Wolf:

Pack Hunter (while mounted by a friendly rider of 5th level or higher; at-will) * Mount
The dire wolf's rider gains combat advantage against an enemy if it has at least one ally other than its mount adjacent to the target.

From this example, it appears that a mount is considered an ally.




With this precedent in mind, I'd say the mount is considered an ally for all effects EXCEPT when the rider benefits from having an ally nearby.  In that case, the ally must be someone other than the mount if one is to get the benefit from having a nearby ally.
WotC_GregB is the guy who writes updates, so that makes it about as official as it can get for the thread. It will need to be in a valid source (FAQ, CS, Errata) to be legal for LFR, but I think any DM reading his post knows how to rule.

(I still urge everyone to not take mounts. Such horrid rancid broken cheese).

Follow my blog and Twitter feed with Dark Sun campaign design and DM tips!
Dark Sun's Ashes of Athas Campaign is now available for home play (PM me with your e-mail to order the campaign adventures).

WotC_GregB is the guy who writes updates, so that makes it about as official as it can get for the thread. It will need to be in a valid source (FAQ, CS, Errata) to be legal for LFR, but I think any DM reading his post knows how to rule.

(I still urge everyone to not take mounts. Such horrid rancid broken cheese).

We have to *walk* 50 miles to the next dungeon!?! :D
"At a certain point, one simply has to accept that some folks will see what they want to see..." Dragon 387
We have to *walk* 50 miles to the next dungeon!?! :D


Uphill, both ways. (Totally possible in D&D)

Follow my blog and Twitter feed with Dark Sun campaign design and DM tips!
Dark Sun's Ashes of Athas Campaign is now available for home play (PM me with your e-mail to order the campaign adventures).

We have to *walk* 50 miles to the next dungeon!?! :D



Uphill, both ways. (Totally possible in D&D)



With acrobatics checks to avoid slipping in the snow, of course. :P


Personally DMing in LFR so far I've had no problems with mounts except the Ebony Fly. And so far I haven't gotten indications of DMs having too much problems with my Dire Wolf even when I use it to pack attack solo (mount + animal companion + gnoll ranger). My ranger is certainly deadly, but not in any way that is out of line for a ranger, just more stylish. It's possible DMs are secretly wailing in anguish as soon as they're away from the table though. Or maybe it's the fact that my mount requires a Saddle of Strength and therefore doesn't have Impenetrable Barding to render it invincible.
Personally DMing in LFR so far I've had no problems with mounts except the Ebony Fly.



Ditto. For some reason I almost never see mounts in public games (and when I do the players only used it for non-combat purposes). I was thinking it's because they simply didn't want to bother procuring a miniature for it, but they could be deliberately restraining themselves (you know... because LFR players aren't really in to optimization ;))

I think in our area (mvincent and I are both in the same area) the players have chosen not to go there because it is just too much. The main problem with mounts is that the cost is fairly low but the benefit can result in trivializing much of the encounter design. The game places all these limits on things like flying, then undoes that control with a low-priced mount. Broken. A mount is almost a no-brainer at some levels if all you care about is wrecking encounters.

With the "ally" ruling, this encourages even more players to think of their PC as an island instead of part of a team. It encourages warlord builds where the PC grants attacks to his/her mount instead of other players, heals his/her own mount instead of players, buffs his/her mount instead of players, etc. Any leader class could end up on this route (Artificer, Bard, Ardent, etc.). Melee clerics, paladins, all can twist what should be about the team into a selfish exercise in broken.

That said, look, I know that many players choose mounts because it sounds like a cool PC concept. I dig that concept too. I just don't know of any good way to say "yeah, my PC really would be on a giant lizard, but I realize that would trivialize this encounter so I'll just say that it can't climb today" - that just doesn't make sense. It is easier just to not take mounts. Impenetrable barding is broken in many cases, plus any non-AoE power on a mount is an attack the party really should have taken. With something like the shaman, this is balanced. With a mount, it really can make a huge difference for PCs. The old rule in LG of increasing the difficulty for a mount would be worth considering, but DMs can't do that legally in LFR (while the DMG discusses the option, it is described as being used when the mount is allowed to have a full set of independent options).

Ebon Fly is a bit better in that players usually keep it for must-have situations. Also, it is pretty easy to kill. If it is a nuisance, most encounters can remove it very quickly.

Follow my blog and Twitter feed with Dark Sun campaign design and DM tips!
Dark Sun's Ashes of Athas Campaign is now available for home play (PM me with your e-mail to order the campaign adventures).

With the "ally" ruling, this encourages even more players to think of their PC as an island instead of part of a team.



+1

I must give kudos to Alphastream's ability to succinctly discuss topics. There is no other person I see with more "+1s" than him. 
Mounts are really vulnerable to monsters and don't scale well. Bringing down a PCs mount, especially with the much increased damage since MM3 is actually not a hard thing to do at all. Flying mounts though are a lot better than they were due to the changes to flying, but low level mounts have very little chance against anything that has solid burst and similar powers.
There's another sid eto the issue though.  Regardles sof whether it's an ally, the one thing that is up to the DM is whether said mount would stay and fight.  Why worry if it's an ally unless it's riderless?  Most animals listed as mounts are just beasts.  Many of which may prefer to bolt rather than stay and flank for their rider.  Obviously there are some exceptions, such as the Dire Wolf above I would expect it to continue to fight.  Dire animals are funny that way.  But riding horses, camels, lizards, etc., could easily be expected to get the heck out of dodge if they end up uncontrolled.

It's up to the Dm of course.  A player thinking that they can hop down off their camel and flank with it for the combat against a screaming horde of orcs waving pointy things at it is a bit silly IMHO.
Sorry WOTC, you lost me with Essentials. So where I used to buy every book that came out, now I will be very choosy about what I buy. Can we just get back to real 4e? Check out the 4e Conversion Wiki. 1. Wizards fight dirty. They hit their enemies in the NADs. -- Dragon9 2. A barbarian hits people with his axe. A warlord hits people with his barbarian. 3. Boo-freakin'-hoo, ya light-slingin' finger-wigglers. -- MrCelcius in response to the Cleric's Healer's Lore nerf
Personally, I'm glad this got clarified. I've been writing a guide to mounts and mounted combat in CharOp, and the sheer inadequacy of some of the mounted combat rules is staggering - I've dedicated entire paragraphs just on math fixing and usability of the rules. This lets me patch one of the holes I've had to poke at.

Thank you Greg, for clearing this one up! Smile
A Beginners Primer to CharOp. Archmage's Ascension - The Wizard's Handbook. Let the Hammer Fall: Dwarf Warpriest/Tactical Warpriest/Indomitable Champion, a Defending Leader. Requiem for Dissent: Cleric/Fighter/Paragon of Victory Melee Leader Ko te manu e kai i te miro, nona te ngahere. Ko te manu e kai i te matauranga e, nano te ao katoa. It's the proliferation of people who think the rules are more important than what the rules are meant to accomplish. - Dedekine
With the "ally" ruling, this encourages even more players to think of their PC as an island instead of part of a team.




+1

I must give kudos to Alphastream's ability to succinctly discuss topics. There is no other person I see with more "+1s" than him. 


Thanks for the kind words.  I think you meant to say "verbose" in there ;) , but I appreciate the sentiment and thank everyone that puts up with my long-winded opinionated posts. I try to give them some value, but I know sometimes it ends up being a lot of hot air. And, as this thread proves, I'm often wrong. Said to the tune of "Khan!!!!!" : "Greg Bilsland!!!!!!"

Follow my blog and Twitter feed with Dark Sun campaign design and DM tips!
Dark Sun's Ashes of Athas Campaign is now available for home play (PM me with your e-mail to order the campaign adventures).

Ebon Fly is a bit better in that players usually keep it for must-have situations. Also, it is pretty easy to kill. If it is a nuisance, most encounters can remove it very quickly.




The ebon fly allows the PC to make two move actions (potentially the 'run' action without suffering any penalties personally) as free actions every round using a fly speed of 10, or heck 15 overland flight (since the fly won't be doing anything other than move actions). As a conjured creature it follows a significantly different rule set than other mounts. Since you can fly 15 as a free action twice per turn it really helps for hit and run tactics if you are a ranged character, since you can move into the edge of your range to take pot shots then be 15 squares out of it again, and still have your move and minor action available for utility concerns. It's quite killable if it's anywhere near the range of your enemies, but depending on the encounter you may need to ready actions for the brief moment the fly is in range, and even then the sorcerer who brought my attention to it had acid orb, for ranged 20 at will, out ranging all of my monsters. While it had only 14 HP + one HS of temp HP, it also had resist 10 all because it is a creature with the mount keyword and thus had (paragon) impenetrable barding. I pretty much had to focus fire on it with an entire encounter for a round in a fight with a low ceiling to take it out, since otherwise it lasts for up to 8 hours and is thus usable in all encounters in a typical module.

I imagine that when I start encountering flying mounts I may have more opportunities to be bothered by 'I win' of similar style, but really paragon is where a wide variety of means to fly come out, and paragon encounters should not be written to assume the PCs can't fly. (Late paragon and epic encounters should probably assume that some or all PCs can fly but make provisions for the exceptional case of those who can't generate flight in some fashion. Perhaps lend them flying mounts. : ) If the monsters/NPCs can't fly they must have ranged engagement options, with a possible exception for low-ceiling encounters. Most means of PC flight require ending the move action and/or turn landed but not all do (and I don't just mean flying mounts which can at least be targetted and eliminated for the day), and encounter designers should take that into account. You can't account for everything but "Hey, some or all PCs may be able to fly in paragon" isn't too much.

(Of course Ebony Fly is a level 9 item so anyone can buy it in H3 or potentially find it in H2 if it's offered as a bundle, but I will forgive any module writer who doesn't think to account for flying PCs in H2/H3.)

The ebon fly allows...
 fly 15 as a free action twice per turn


The fly's movement should still use  the normal mounted combat rules (DMG p.46): "(Adventurers Only): An adventurer and his or her mount have one combined set of actions: a standard action, a move action, and a minor action. The player chooses how the two creatures use the actions on the adventurer’s turn. Most commonly, the mount takes a move action to walk or fly, and the adventurer takes a standard action to attack."

Since specific beats general, the conjured creature rules override. In compendium you can see them included in the ebony fly's entry.
The general conjured creature rule:
Every action it takes costs you a minor action (which you use to issue commands), and a conjured creature cannot exceed its normal allotment of actions (a standard, a move, and a minor action) during its turn. If you spend no minor actions on your turn to command the creature, it remains where it is without taking any actions on its turn

The more specific rule for conjured creature mounts:
Mount: If the conjured creature has the mount keyword, you can ride the creature and are considered to have the Mounted Combat feat while mounted on it. While mounted, you can command the creature using free actions, though the mount is still limited to its normal allotment of actions. You can choose to be mounted on the creature when it appears.

Since specific beats general, the conjured creature rules override.

Well, I wouldn't argue with a DM that allowed it... but it's pretty powerful. By strict RAW "you can command the creature using free actions" doesn't neccesarily override the mounted combat rules (i.e. both could be observed), and the limit on actions is specific just to adventurers (i.e. specific beats general).

Mind you, I actually agree with you on RAI... I just think the writer of the Figurines of Wondrous Power possibly wasn't completely aware of the mounted combat rules, creating an imbalance. I'd love to hear an official statement on the topic though (or even just more information or opinions). I freely admit I'm on shifty ground.
I think the conjured creature rules are pretty clear that they have their own set of actions, but can't use any actions without being commanded to do so (a minor action, or free if it has the mount keyword and you are riding it at the time). The mount rules at the time of publication did not allow for the mount to sometimes have its own actions and sometimes not as they do now (they were all or nothing at DM discretion, with the DM encouraged to add extra monsters to compensate if the mount had its own actions). The revision to the rules allows for mounts to sometimes have their own actions and sometimes not (when you dismount, your mount gets its own actions after that turn); I think that had this been the rule at the time it would better mesh with your idea.

I also think that your idea is better for balance. I just don't think it's legal. If I were a player and the DM said "no, you have to share your actions with your mount" I'd go with it even though it's clearly not the rules, even in LFR.. but then I also let a DM strike down my clearly legal Ravenous Blessing / Astral Seal out of combat healing trick even though we basically all agreed it was legal RAW. (He let me use it in combat though, fun stuff. Only case I know of in LFR where you have to ask permission to heal someone.) So.. yeah, while I can have fun getting out of line sometimes I don't mind reigning it in to keep the game fun.
The mount rules at the time of publication did not allow for the mount to sometimes have its own actions and sometimes not as they do now (they were all or nothing at DM discretion, with the DM encouraged to add extra monsters to compensate if the mount had its own actions).

The rules here are basically the same... they just clarified them a bit. The original DMG p.46-47 said:
"On your turn, you and your mount combined can take a normal set of actions—a standard action, a move action, and a minor action. You divide these actions as you wish. Most commonly, your mount takes a move action to walk or fly, and you take a standard action to attack. You and your mount also share a single immediate action. If you and your mount separate, you still share one set of actions on that turn."

The last sentence allowed for a mount to have it's own set of action when it's not being ridden (i.e. when it's no longer 'that turn'). Later text merely made this clearer with "If the adventurer dismounts, the two still share one set of actions on that turn, but have separate sets of actions thereafter". Also, the "separate actions while ridden" suggestion from DMG p.46 was simply a different option, separate from the above standard rules: "You can allow the PCs and the creatures they ride to get their own sets of actions, especially if a character rides a powerful, intelligent monster such as a dragon. However, at that point you have effectively added an additional member to the party. If you do this, add an additional XP value of monsters to the encounter..."

I think that had this been the rule at the time it would better mesh with your idea.

We might've just achieved a concord


Thanks for the kind words.  I think you meant to say "verbose" in there ;) , but I appreciate the sentiment and thank everyone that puts up with my long-winded opinionated posts. I try to give them some value, but I know sometimes it ends up being a lot of hot air. And, as this thread proves, I'm often wrong. Said to the tune of "Khan!!!!!" : "Greg Bilsland!!!!!!"



Eh, sorry, I have to be the guy who just plain totally disagrees

You can't really generalize about mounts. The ordinary land-bound types of mounts are mostly not a big deal. In some situations its advantageous to be mounted and in others it can be a definite disadvantage. There are many ways in which mounts can be limiting. They can't benefit from any effect which provides the PC with movement or improved mobility. A rogue can't Deft Strike while mounted for instance. These are important and useful effects. Powers which move your allies around CAN affect mounts, but they work equally well on unmounted allies. Its MUCH easier to be flanked when you're mounted, its harder to maneuver around on the battlefield when you want to get in close. Mounting and dismounting burn actions. Most monsters don't particularly move faster than PCs, so unless your tactics require you to outmove you enemy you don't really gain all that much. If you seriously outrange the monsters you can pretty easily snipe at them from long range mounted or not.

Flying mounts are obviously more of an advantage, but when exactly can you use them? Generally outdoors where flying enemies are likely to be encountered. Once you're fighting in the air basically things get a lot more dangerous quickly. Falling is no joke in 4e. If the alternative is every battle with flying creatures has the party stuck on the ground, boring! Flying mounts also have a lot of the same disadvantages as non-flying ones.

There are of course the oddball mounts like the spider and the lizard. The lizard was just plain broken, not really a mount issue. Giant spiders, I don't see a heck of a lot of them just lying around easy to acquire. Sure they have a cost in AV1, but that doesn't mean you can actually BUY one. In most settings this would at best be something available in higher level scenarios where the spider itself is actually trivially weak. Given that even low level PCs can climb pretty well and often have things like Spider Climb I don't really think a character on a spider is something that should break very many encounters.

My own experience with mounts is they add a tactical option to the game that is both fun and interesting. Sure, they can break an encounter now and then, but its really not the huge big deal IMHO your making it out to be. On the flip side mounts can be a pain for the PCs. They seem to be constantly getting them killed off or losing them, which can get expensive pretty fast. And they just plain don't work well for a lot of PCs. I can see your point about the 'self sufficient leader' but really is this a huge big problem? Maybe it is in LFR, I don't know, but if 4e is going to be written strictly as a tournament play system I don't think I want that.

Making it impossible to buy a horse? I can just see the look on my player's faces when I say to them "Yeah, 4th Edition doesn't include mounts, they're just too much trouble. Sorry, you can't buy one." This is throwing the baby out with the bathwater to say the least. Every DM worth their salt would just have to make up a price for one, and honestly I think its not unreasonable to expect the rules to include prices for fairly ordinary stuff. There's such a thing as taking the 4e theorem of controlling troublesome player abilities too far. Even if mounts were a problem I can name 5 things off the top of my head that would want to be done away with much sooner.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
WotC_GregB is the guy who writes updates, so that makes it about as official as it can get for the thread. It will need to be in a valid source (FAQ, CS, Errata) to be legal for LFR, but I think any DM reading his post knows how to rule.

Yeah, but he isn't always aware of the ramifications of his rulings.  For instance, a mounted avenger with censure of unity would always get the benefit of having an adjacent ally, and a bard with ode to sacrifice could take another ally's dazed-save-ends and slap it on the mount (which has no effect other than granting CA, because the mount doesn't have its own set of actions).  The latter is especially silly.

"Edison didn't succeed the first time he invented Benjamin Franklin, either." Albert the Alligator, Walt Kelly's Pogo Sunday Book  
The Core Coliseum: test out your 4e builds and fight to the death.

WotC_GregB is the guy who writes updates, so that makes it about as official as it can get for the thread. It will need to be in a valid source (FAQ, CS, Errata) to be legal for LFR, but I think any DM reading his post knows how to rule.


Yeah, but he isn't always aware of the ramifications of his rulings.  For instance, a mounted avenger with censure of unity would always get the benefit of having an adjacent ally, and a bard with ode to sacrifice could take another ally's dazed-save-ends and slap it on the mount (which has no effect other than granting CA, because the mount doesn't have its own set of actions).  The latter is especially silly.




That's why I think the better way to play it is

The mount is considered an ally for all effects EXCEPT when the rider benefits from having an ally nearby.  In that case, the ally must be someone other than the mount if one is to get the benefit from having a nearby ally.

Based upon the following precedent:

Pack Hunter (while mounted by a friendly rider of 5th level or higher; at-will) * Mount
The dire wolf's rider gains combat advantage against an enemy if it has at least one ally other than its mount adjacent to the target.

The fly's movement should still use the normal mounted combat rules (DMG p.46): "(Adventurers Only): An adventurer and his or her mount have one combined set of actions: a standard action, a move action, and a minor action. The player chooses how the two creatures use the actions on the adventurer’s turn. Most commonly, the mount takes a move action to walk or fly, and the adventurer takes a standard action to attack."

It should, but it doesn't.

I see no way to parse "While mounted, you can command the creature using free actions, though the mount is still limited to its normal allotment of actions" (AV, p. 180) as saying that the mount and rider have a shared set of actions.  It seems pretty clear to me that this sentence is stating that a rider and figurine-created mount are spending different sets of actions.

And, yes, I share the belief that having mounts as allies is a bad idea.  (And that's despite having actually used Ode to Sacrifice to move "stunned (save ends)" from another PC to his ebony fly.)
a mounted avenger with censure of unity would always get the benefit of having an adjacent ally


If the mount and his rider are sharing the same space, I don't believe they qualify for being adjacent to one another.

That's why I think the better way to play it is
The  mount is considered an ally for all effects EXCEPT when the rider  benefits from having an ally nearby.


Depending on the above interpreation, that just might be legit by RAW.
It should


That's mostly what I was trying to indicate.

I see no way to parse "While mounted, you can command the creature using free actions, though the mount is still limited to its normal allotment of actions" (AV, p. 180) as saying that the mount and rider have a shared set of actions.


Right, that statement cannot be parsed to say that, but (if desired) it can technically be parsed as not overriding the mount rules saying that.

a mounted avenger with censure of unity would always get the benefit of having an adjacent ally



If the mount and his rider are sharing the same space, I don't believe they qualify for being adjacent to one another.



The unity bonus is for having allies adjacent to your enemy, not to yourself, so it works.  It also means that you get twice the bonus for having mounted allies, since the ally and his mount will each trigger the bonus.
We just treat mounts as another character and adjust the combat encounters like we would if we had allied combatant NPCs in the party. This seems to be discouragement enough as the critters aren't as good as a PC and don't level.

In addition, they tend to behave in a "beastly" way outside of whatever specific training they have and the GMs are given the right to dictate critter actions when they aren't mounted or being handled/directed by a PC. Predatory mounts tend to provoke unwanted combats whenever they feel threatend or or see "food" or even something that looks like something else we've fought before.

In general they're too much trouble and drain our resources so we prefer to just do the ritual that creates flying horses that don't need to be taken care of later if we need to get somewhere in a hurry.
The fly's movement should still use the normal mounted combat rules (DMG p.46): "(Adventurers Only): An adventurer and his or her mount have one combined set of actions: a standard action, a move action, and a minor action. The player chooses how the two creatures use the actions on the adventurer’s turn. Most commonly, the mount takes a move action to walk or fly, and the adventurer takes a standard action to attack."


It should, but it doesn't.

I see no way to parse "While mounted, you can command the creature using free actions, though the mount is still limited to its normal allotment of actions" (AV, p. 180) as saying that the mount and rider have a shared set of actions.  It seems pretty clear to me that this sentence is stating that a rider and figurine-created mount are spending different sets of actions.

And, yes, I share the belief that having mounts as allies is a bad idea.  (And that's despite having actually used Ode to Sacrifice to move "stunned (save ends)" from another PC to his ebony fly.)



Frankly I find the rules for FoWP in general to be highly buggered. I don't think they were well thought out, I seriously wonder if the person writing them had a real grasp of the standard rules, and also remember that they were designed before any other significant rules for conjurations that did much (certainly before the massive PHB2 revamp of conjurations). There are numerous ways in which figurines fall into a sort of rules lala land. Are they really conjurations, or are they actually creatures?

Granted the rule you quote exists and can be implemented, but it still isn't clear exactly which rules apply, the mounted combat rules or the totally different rules in AV1. The AV1 rules certainly take precedence, but to what extent? Various difficulties rapidly ensue. Personally I wouldn't use the rules for FoWP to judge anything about the standard mounted combat rules by, they're just not the same thing entirely and FoWP are well overdue for a ground-up rewrite.

The mounted combat rules also say NOTHING about the results of conditions being applied to mounts or riders and how that interacts with the action mechanics of the mount/rider combination. I'd consider this an area that is completely up to DM interpretation. Thus it certainly doesn't violate any written rule for a DM to say that if your mount is stunned then it can't take actions at all and similar for dazed or other conditions as appropriate. That may not entirely get rid of Ode to Sacrifice kind of cheese, but it does help.

Honestly though, as RavenQueenBlade pointed out, mounts should be a big pain in the arse for PCs as a general rule. There's a reason why in the real world mounted warriors had a whole extra guy following them around to care for horse issues (among other things) and often a whole TEAM of people dedicated to routine horse care. It would be pretty reasonable to assume that monstrous types of mounts will be a LOT more difficult to deal with. Not many heroes are going to do well just flying into town on their trusty hippogriff and expecting to even be allowed IN the town while mounted or find anywhere to house their mount etc. I think if you apply common sense most of the time PCs will eschew mounts except in situations where they are really seriously advantageous, and you can anticipate those situations.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
Mr Mad Monk A.A.,

The following should be required viewing for players that want to have a "pet" monster.

animals.nationalgeographic.com/wild/tale...

If there's a better RL analog for a monster rider this is about as close as you're gonna come.

Note that Casey's Brown/Grisley is "only" 800-900lbs and the the guys life pretty much revolves around its care and feeding.

Look forward to the Rules Compendium. Cool There will be some changes to the mount rules in there.
A Beginners Primer to CharOp. Archmage's Ascension - The Wizard's Handbook. Let the Hammer Fall: Dwarf Warpriest/Tactical Warpriest/Indomitable Champion, a Defending Leader. Requiem for Dissent: Cleric/Fighter/Paragon of Victory Melee Leader Ko te manu e kai i te miro, nona te ngahere. Ko te manu e kai i te matauranga e, nano te ao katoa. It's the proliferation of people who think the rules are more important than what the rules are meant to accomplish. - Dedekine
Such as?
Such as?


I wouldn't know exactly, I'm not the one writing the book, but after reading my guide, Greg Bilsland asked me if I had any concerns and clarifications I'd like to raise for it, and I put forward those such as dazing, adjacency, teleportation, healing surges, and several more. I'm really looking forward to seeing what they change.
A Beginners Primer to CharOp. Archmage's Ascension - The Wizard's Handbook. Let the Hammer Fall: Dwarf Warpriest/Tactical Warpriest/Indomitable Champion, a Defending Leader. Requiem for Dissent: Cleric/Fighter/Paragon of Victory Melee Leader Ko te manu e kai i te miro, nona te ngahere. Ko te manu e kai i te matauranga e, nano te ao katoa. It's the proliferation of people who think the rules are more important than what the rules are meant to accomplish. - Dedekine
If the mount and his rider are sharing the same space, I don't believe they qualify for being adjacent to one another.



Point of fact, it does (as long as the mount occupies more than one square, which they almost always do.)

"Two creatures or objects are adjacent if one of them occupies a square adjacent to a square occupied by the other" -PHB p. 273

If a mount and his rider occupy squares A, B, C, and D:

AB
CD

The rider occupies square A which is adjacent to B.  The mount occupies square B.  Thus, they are adjacent.

RAW aside, how much more "adjacent" can you get than sitting on top of something?