Mounts and Movement Modes

8 posts / 0 new
Last post
I'm reading through the DM, and the PC Mounts section is fairly skinny, not even really covering a full 2 pages. My RC isn't handy, so I hope someone has a quick answer.

- As a move action, I can teleport/slide/jump/something other than simply "move." 

- As part of an attack, I get to slide away right after. 

- I kill an enemy, and am allowed to teleport x squares.

Does my mount come with me? And in which instances? I do NOT have Mounted Combat as a feat, for the sake of this question. 

58286228 wrote:
As a DM, I find it easier to just punish the players no matter what they pick, as I assume they will pick stuff that is broken. I mean, fight after fight they kill all the monsters without getting killed themselves! What sort of a game is this, anyway?

 

An insightful observation about the nature of 4e, and why it hasn't succeeded as well as other editions. (from the DDN General Discussions, 2014-05-07)

Rundell wrote:

   

Emerikol wrote:

       

Foxface wrote:

        4e was the "modern" D&D, right?  The one that had design notes that drew from more modern games, and generally appealed to those who preferred the design priorities of modern games.  I'm only speculating, but I'd hazard a guess that those same 4e players are the ones running the wide gamut of other games at Origins.

       
        D&D 4e players are pretty much by definition the players who didn't mind, and often embraced, D&D being "different".  That willingness to embrace the different might also mean they are less attached to 4e itself, and are willing to go elsewhere.

    This is a brilliant insight.  I was thinking along those lines myself.  

 

    There are so many tiny indie games that if you added them all together they would definitely rival Pathfinder.   If there were a dominant game for those people it would do better but there is no dominant game.  Until 4e, the indie people were ignored by the makers of D&D.

 

Yep. 4E was embraced by the 'system matters' crowd who love analyzing and innovating systems. That crowd had turned its back on D&D as a clunky anachronism. But with 4E, their design values were embraced and validated. 4E was D&D for system-wonks. And with support for 4E pulled, the system-wonks have moved on to other systems. The tropes and traditions of D&D never had much appeal for them anyway. Now there are other systems to learn and study. It's like boardgamegeeks - always a new system on the horizon. Why play an ancient games that's seven years old?

 

Of course, not all people who play and enjoy 4E fit that mould. I'm running a 4E campaign right now, and my long-time D&D players are enjoying it fine. But with the system-wonks decamping, the 4E players-base lost the wind in its sails.

Addendum: For non-teleport powers, my rules text reads "may move up to my speed" or "may shift up to my speed." 

IF the answer to the above questions is "yes," does that "up to my speed" turn into "up to my mount's speed?" 

58286228 wrote:
As a DM, I find it easier to just punish the players no matter what they pick, as I assume they will pick stuff that is broken. I mean, fight after fight they kill all the monsters without getting killed themselves! What sort of a game is this, anyway?

 

An insightful observation about the nature of 4e, and why it hasn't succeeded as well as other editions. (from the DDN General Discussions, 2014-05-07)

Rundell wrote:

   

Emerikol wrote:

       

Foxface wrote:

        4e was the "modern" D&D, right?  The one that had design notes that drew from more modern games, and generally appealed to those who preferred the design priorities of modern games.  I'm only speculating, but I'd hazard a guess that those same 4e players are the ones running the wide gamut of other games at Origins.

       
        D&D 4e players are pretty much by definition the players who didn't mind, and often embraced, D&D being "different".  That willingness to embrace the different might also mean they are less attached to 4e itself, and are willing to go elsewhere.

    This is a brilliant insight.  I was thinking along those lines myself.  

 

    There are so many tiny indie games that if you added them all together they would definitely rival Pathfinder.   If there were a dominant game for those people it would do better but there is no dominant game.  Until 4e, the indie people were ignored by the makers of D&D.

 

Yep. 4E was embraced by the 'system matters' crowd who love analyzing and innovating systems. That crowd had turned its back on D&D as a clunky anachronism. But with 4E, their design values were embraced and validated. 4E was D&D for system-wonks. And with support for 4E pulled, the system-wonks have moved on to other systems. The tropes and traditions of D&D never had much appeal for them anyway. Now there are other systems to learn and study. It's like boardgamegeeks - always a new system on the horizon. Why play an ancient games that's seven years old?

 

Of course, not all people who play and enjoy 4E fit that mould. I'm running a 4E campaign right now, and my long-time D&D players are enjoying it fine. But with the system-wonks decamping, the 4E players-base lost the wind in its sails.

- As a move action, I can teleport/slide/jump/something other than simply "move."

- As part of an attack, I get to slide away right after.

- I kill an enemy, and am allowed to teleport x squares.

Does my mount come with me? And in which instances? I do NOT have Mounted Combat as a feat, for the sake of this question


If you teleport, the mount does not come with you (RC, p.255)

If you undergo forced movement, say, a slide, you can take the mount along with you (RC, p.254)  

It's not forced movement, it's my movement.

I'm a scout with Aspect of the Cunning Fox. Look away. Look back. I'm on a horse. My horse moves up to its speed, and I miss with my attack.

I should get to shift 2 for missing that. But it's not me shifting, since I'm riding a horse. But since we share a set of actions, can I shift using my horse, or do I lose my shift because it's not me shifting?

Expediency would say just let me shift. But I'd prefer to be clean on the rules before I treat my DM to this kind of trick, and get shot down because he has a different interpretation of the rules.

(EDIT: For the sake of argument, assume I can take a "stance" in the saddle. Just so we don't get too sidetracked on that.) 

58286228 wrote:
As a DM, I find it easier to just punish the players no matter what they pick, as I assume they will pick stuff that is broken. I mean, fight after fight they kill all the monsters without getting killed themselves! What sort of a game is this, anyway?

 

An insightful observation about the nature of 4e, and why it hasn't succeeded as well as other editions. (from the DDN General Discussions, 2014-05-07)

Rundell wrote:

   

Emerikol wrote:

       

Foxface wrote:

        4e was the "modern" D&D, right?  The one that had design notes that drew from more modern games, and generally appealed to those who preferred the design priorities of modern games.  I'm only speculating, but I'd hazard a guess that those same 4e players are the ones running the wide gamut of other games at Origins.

       
        D&D 4e players are pretty much by definition the players who didn't mind, and often embraced, D&D being "different".  That willingness to embrace the different might also mean they are less attached to 4e itself, and are willing to go elsewhere.

    This is a brilliant insight.  I was thinking along those lines myself.  

 

    There are so many tiny indie games that if you added them all together they would definitely rival Pathfinder.   If there were a dominant game for those people it would do better but there is no dominant game.  Until 4e, the indie people were ignored by the makers of D&D.

 

Yep. 4E was embraced by the 'system matters' crowd who love analyzing and innovating systems. That crowd had turned its back on D&D as a clunky anachronism. But with 4E, their design values were embraced and validated. 4E was D&D for system-wonks. And with support for 4E pulled, the system-wonks have moved on to other systems. The tropes and traditions of D&D never had much appeal for them anyway. Now there are other systems to learn and study. It's like boardgamegeeks - always a new system on the horizon. Why play an ancient games that's seven years old?

 

Of course, not all people who play and enjoy 4E fit that mould. I'm running a 4E campaign right now, and my long-time D&D players are enjoying it fine. But with the system-wonks decamping, the 4E players-base lost the wind in its sails.

Oh ok, your attack power also allows you to shift 2 squares.  Here is what the Rules Compendium has to say on the matter:

Actions (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. The adventurer and the mount also share a single
immediate action each round and a single opportunity action each turn. If the
adventurer dismounts, the two still share one set of actions on that turn, but
have separate sets of actions thereafter.
  
The text does not speak to this specifically, so you'll have to draw your own conclusions unfortunately.  

Since you are allowed to move with your horse if an enemy push/pull/slides you (or the horse), it makes sense that you are allowed to move with your horse if your attack power also allows you some kind of movement on the side.

There is no rule which allows your own shift to affect your mount.  Since no rule exists, you cannot do it unless your DM wants to use a house rule. 

The fact that the mount rules do not mention this means you use the normal movement rules, there are no special rules regarding shifting while mounted.
- As a move action, I can teleport/slide/jump/something other than simply "move." 

- As part of an attack, I get to slide away right after. 

- I kill an enemy, and am allowed to teleport x squares.

Does my mount come with me? And in which instances? I do NOT have Mounted Combat as a feat, for the sake of this question. 

In all of the above cases, if the power or ability says that "you" can move, then it applies only to you.  The mount does not come with you.

If you're mounted, and command your mount to move, then you're limited to the movement modes available to the mount.

I'm disappointed. These interpretations make the idea of mounted combat significantly less awesome. 

58286228 wrote:
As a DM, I find it easier to just punish the players no matter what they pick, as I assume they will pick stuff that is broken. I mean, fight after fight they kill all the monsters without getting killed themselves! What sort of a game is this, anyway?

 

An insightful observation about the nature of 4e, and why it hasn't succeeded as well as other editions. (from the DDN General Discussions, 2014-05-07)

Rundell wrote:

   

Emerikol wrote:

       

Foxface wrote:

        4e was the "modern" D&D, right?  The one that had design notes that drew from more modern games, and generally appealed to those who preferred the design priorities of modern games.  I'm only speculating, but I'd hazard a guess that those same 4e players are the ones running the wide gamut of other games at Origins.

       
        D&D 4e players are pretty much by definition the players who didn't mind, and often embraced, D&D being "different".  That willingness to embrace the different might also mean they are less attached to 4e itself, and are willing to go elsewhere.

    This is a brilliant insight.  I was thinking along those lines myself.  

 

    There are so many tiny indie games that if you added them all together they would definitely rival Pathfinder.   If there were a dominant game for those people it would do better but there is no dominant game.  Until 4e, the indie people were ignored by the makers of D&D.

 

Yep. 4E was embraced by the 'system matters' crowd who love analyzing and innovating systems. That crowd had turned its back on D&D as a clunky anachronism. But with 4E, their design values were embraced and validated. 4E was D&D for system-wonks. And with support for 4E pulled, the system-wonks have moved on to other systems. The tropes and traditions of D&D never had much appeal for them anyway. Now there are other systems to learn and study. It's like boardgamegeeks - always a new system on the horizon. Why play an ancient games that's seven years old?

 

Of course, not all people who play and enjoy 4E fit that mould. I'm running a 4E campaign right now, and my long-time D&D players are enjoying it fine. But with the system-wonks decamping, the 4E players-base lost the wind in its sails.