If a Gnome is riding a Dragonborn who is riding a horse, who can be targeted when the horse provokes an opportunity attack?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
$begingroup$
We have a gnome fighter and a dragonborn bard in our campaign. The gnome sometimes gets in a makeshift sling on the dragonborn's back to shoot arrows at enemies during combat. Thus far I've considered the dragonborn an independent mount when opportunity attacks (OAs) arise, and have also granted the gnome cover as applicable.
Recently the dragonborn received a horse. Now the gnome is on the dragonborn's back and the dragonborn is on the horse. If the horse is a controlled mount and it provokes an OA then the attacker can choose to attack the horse or the dragonborn. On mounts the PHB states (198):
... if the mount provokes an opportunity attack while you’re on it, the attacker can target you or the mount.
This seemed straightforward at first but then we realized the dragonborn, not the horse, is the gnome's mount. However the dragonborn will never provoke an opportunity attack on its own because the rule on opportunity attacks states (PHB 195):
You also don’t provoke an opportunity attack when you teleport or when someone or something moves you without using your movement, action, or reaction.
In this case neither the dragonborn nor the gnome can provoke an opportunity attack because they are not moving using their movement, action, or reaction. Only the horse can provoke an opportunity attack.
If the attacker cannot attack the gnome in this case, then the gnome is completely safe from OAs.
If the horse provokes an opportunity attack can the attacker decide between the dragonborn, the horse, and the gnome?
dnd-5e combat opportunity-attack mount targeting
edited Feb 13 at 13:47
Rubiksmoose
57.9k10281430
asked Feb 12 at 7:38
lightcatlightcat
4,6591855
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
We have a gnome fighter and a dragonborn bard in our campaign. The gnome sometimes gets in a makeshift sling on the dragonborn's back to shoot arrows at enemies during combat. Thus far I've considered the dragonborn an independent mount when opportunity attacks (OAs) arise, and have also granted the gnome cover as applicable.
Recently the dragonborn received a horse. Now the gnome is on the dragonborn's back and the dragonborn is on the horse. If the horse is a controlled mount and it provokes an OA then the attacker can choose to attack the horse or the dragonborn. On mounts the PHB states (198):
... if the mount provokes an opportunity attack while you’re on it, the attacker can target you or the mount.
This seemed straightforward at first but then we realized the dragonborn, not the horse, is the gnome's mount. However the dragonborn will never provoke an opportunity attack on its own because the rule on opportunity attacks states (PHB 195):
You also don’t provoke an opportunity attack when you teleport or when someone or something moves you without using your movement, action, or reaction.
In this case neither the dragonborn nor the gnome can provoke an opportunity attack because they are not moving using their movement, action, or reaction. Only the horse can provoke an opportunity attack.
If the attacker cannot attack the gnome in this case, then the gnome is completely safe from OAs.
If the horse provokes an opportunity attack can the attacker decide between the dragonborn, the horse, and the gnome?
dnd-5e combat opportunity-attack mount targeting
edited Feb 13 at 13:47
Rubiksmoose
57.9k10281430
asked Feb 12 at 7:38
lightcatlightcat
4,6591855
$endgroup$
16
$begingroup$
Are you sure that it isn't tortles all the way down?
$endgroup$
– KorvinStarmast
Feb 12 at 13:43
16
$begingroup$
In one of previous editions, Paladin had a spell called Heal Mount. It was full blown heal (to max hp), on a lot lower spell level - but worked only on his mount. Cue Paladin riding on almost-dead friend for long enough for DM to stop laughing and accept him as being 'mount' enough for spell to work.
$endgroup$
– Artur Biesiadowski
Feb 12 at 15:15
1
$begingroup$
Somehow this reminds me of Mimiron, a boss in World of Warcraft, whose head, torso, and lower propulsion unit are all separately targetable.
$endgroup$
– Lee Mosher
Feb 12 at 15:17
4
$begingroup$
Next up: Clown pyramid attack formation versus AoO and reach.
$endgroup$
– Mindwin
Feb 12 at 16:59
2
$begingroup$
Reminds me of an island in a lake on an island in a lake on an island
$endgroup$
– Martin
Feb 12 at 23:03
add a comment |
$begingroup$
We have a gnome fighter and a dragonborn bard in our campaign. The gnome sometimes gets in a makeshift sling on the dragonborn's back to shoot arrows at enemies during combat. Thus far I've considered the dragonborn an independent mount when opportunity attacks (OAs) arise, and have also granted the gnome cover as applicable.
Recently the dragonborn received a horse. Now the gnome is on the dragonborn's back and the dragonborn is on the horse. If the horse is a controlled mount and it provokes an OA then the attacker can choose to attack the horse or the dragonborn. On mounts the PHB states (198):
... if the mount provokes an opportunity attack while you’re on it, the attacker can target you or the mount.
This seemed straightforward at first but then we realized the dragonborn, not the horse, is the gnome's mount. However the dragonborn will never provoke an opportunity attack on its own because the rule on opportunity attacks states (PHB 195):
You also don’t provoke an opportunity attack when you teleport or when someone or something moves you without using your movement, action, or reaction.
In this case neither the dragonborn nor the gnome can provoke an opportunity attack because they are not moving using their movement, action, or reaction. Only the horse can provoke an opportunity attack.
If the attacker cannot attack the gnome in this case, then the gnome is completely safe from OAs.
If the horse provokes an opportunity attack can the attacker decide between the dragonborn, the horse, and the gnome?
dnd-5e combat opportunity-attack mount targeting
edited Feb 13 at 13:47
Rubiksmoose
57.9k10281430
asked Feb 12 at 7:38
lightcatlightcat
4,6591855
$endgroup$
We have a gnome fighter and a dragonborn bard in our campaign. The gnome sometimes gets in a makeshift sling on the dragonborn's back to shoot arrows at enemies during combat. Thus far I've considered the dragonborn an independent mount when opportunity attacks (OAs) arise, and have also granted the gnome cover as applicable.
Recently the dragonborn received a horse. Now the gnome is on the dragonborn's back and the dragonborn is on the horse. If the horse is a controlled mount and it provokes an OA then the attacker can choose to attack the horse or the dragonborn. On mounts the PHB states (198):
... if the mount provokes an opportunity attack while you’re on it, the attacker can target you or the mount.
This seemed straightforward at first but then we realized the dragonborn, not the horse, is the gnome's mount. However the dragonborn will never provoke an opportunity attack on its own because the rule on opportunity attacks states (PHB 195):
You also don’t provoke an opportunity attack when you teleport or when someone or something moves you without using your movement, action, or reaction.
In this case neither the dragonborn nor the gnome can provoke an opportunity attack because they are not moving using their movement, action, or reaction. Only the horse can provoke an opportunity attack.
If the attacker cannot attack the gnome in this case, then the gnome is completely safe from OAs.
If the horse provokes an opportunity attack can the attacker decide between the dragonborn, the horse, and the gnome?
dnd-5e combat opportunity-attack mount targeting
dnd-5e combat opportunity-attack mount targeting
edited Feb 13 at 13:47
Rubiksmoose
57.9k10281430
asked Feb 12 at 7:38
lightcatlightcat
4,6591855
edited Feb 13 at 13:47
Rubiksmoose
57.9k10281430
asked Feb 12 at 7:38
lightcatlightcat
4,6591855
edited Feb 13 at 13:47
Rubiksmoose
57.9k10281430
edited Feb 13 at 13:47
Rubiksmoose
57.9k10281430
edited Feb 13 at 13:47
Rubiksmoose
57.9k10281430
57.9k10281430
asked Feb 12 at 7:38
lightcatlightcat
4,6591855
asked Feb 12 at 7:38
lightcatlightcat
4,6591855
asked Feb 12 at 7:38
lightcatlightcat
4,6591855
4,6591855
16
$begingroup$
Are you sure that it isn't tortles all the way down?
$endgroup$
– KorvinStarmast
Feb 12 at 13:43
16
$begingroup$
In one of previous editions, Paladin had a spell called Heal Mount. It was full blown heal (to max hp), on a lot lower spell level - but worked only on his mount. Cue Paladin riding on almost-dead friend for long enough for DM to stop laughing and accept him as being 'mount' enough for spell to work.
$endgroup$
– Artur Biesiadowski
Feb 12 at 15:15
1
$begingroup$
Somehow this reminds me of Mimiron, a boss in World of Warcraft, whose head, torso, and lower propulsion unit are all separately targetable.
$endgroup$
– Lee Mosher
Feb 12 at 15:17
4
$begingroup$
Next up: Clown pyramid attack formation versus AoO and reach.
$endgroup$
– Mindwin
Feb 12 at 16:59
2
$begingroup$
Reminds me of an island in a lake on an island in a lake on an island
$endgroup$
– Martin
Feb 12 at 23:03
add a comment |
16
$begingroup$
Are you sure that it isn't tortles all the way down?
$endgroup$
– KorvinStarmast
Feb 12 at 13:43
16
$begingroup$
In one of previous editions, Paladin had a spell called Heal Mount. It was full blown heal (to max hp), on a lot lower spell level - but worked only on his mount. Cue Paladin riding on almost-dead friend for long enough for DM to stop laughing and accept him as being 'mount' enough for spell to work.
$endgroup$
– Artur Biesiadowski
Feb 12 at 15:15
1
$begingroup$
Somehow this reminds me of Mimiron, a boss in World of Warcraft, whose head, torso, and lower propulsion unit are all separately targetable.
$endgroup$
– Lee Mosher
Feb 12 at 15:17
4
$begingroup$
Next up: Clown pyramid attack formation versus AoO and reach.
$endgroup$
– Mindwin
Feb 12 at 16:59
2
$begingroup$
Reminds me of an island in a lake on an island in a lake on an island
$endgroup$
– Martin
Feb 12 at 23:03
16
16
$begingroup$
Are you sure that it isn't tortles all the way down?
$endgroup$
– KorvinStarmast
Feb 12 at 13:43
$begingroup$
Are you sure that it isn't tortles all the way down?
$endgroup$
– KorvinStarmast
Feb 12 at 13:43
16
16
$begingroup$
In one of previous editions, Paladin had a spell called Heal Mount. It was full blown heal (to max hp), on a lot lower spell level - but worked only on his mount. Cue Paladin riding on almost-dead friend for long enough for DM to stop laughing and accept him as being 'mount' enough for spell to work.
$endgroup$
– Artur Biesiadowski
Feb 12 at 15:15
$begingroup$
In one of previous editions, Paladin had a spell called Heal Mount. It was full blown heal (to max hp), on a lot lower spell level - but worked only on his mount. Cue Paladin riding on almost-dead friend for long enough for DM to stop laughing and accept him as being 'mount' enough for spell to work.
$endgroup$
– Artur Biesiadowski
Feb 12 at 15:15
1
1
$begingroup$
Somehow this reminds me of Mimiron, a boss in World of Warcraft, whose head, torso, and lower propulsion unit are all separately targetable.
$endgroup$
– Lee Mosher
Feb 12 at 15:17
$begingroup$
Somehow this reminds me of Mimiron, a boss in World of Warcraft, whose head, torso, and lower propulsion unit are all separately targetable.
$endgroup$
– Lee Mosher
Feb 12 at 15:17
4
4
$begingroup$
Next up: Clown pyramid attack formation versus AoO and reach.
$endgroup$
– Mindwin
Feb 12 at 16:59
$begingroup$
Next up: Clown pyramid attack formation versus AoO and reach.
$endgroup$
– Mindwin
Feb 12 at 16:59
2
2
$begingroup$
Reminds me of an island in a lake on an island in a lake on an island
$endgroup$
– Martin
Feb 12 at 23:03
$begingroup$
Reminds me of an island in a lake on an island in a lake on an island
$endgroup$
– Martin
Feb 12 at 23:03
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Note up-front that allowing PC to ride another PC is already up to DM discretion as to whether the PC (the dragonborn in the case) has the "appropriate anatomy" to be a mount. Playing around with this can allow fun things like your gnome/dragonborn duo but also things like centaur stacks. The rules also clearly are not written to handle mounted stacks. But I will give you first a purely rules-based ruling and then what I consider to be a more reasonable ruling.
First, I will clear up a confusion about the rules that greatly affects the discussion.
Mounted riders can be targeted by OAs provoked by mounts, but do not provoke themselves
There is a clear delineation in the rules between provoking an OA and being the target of an OA. Normally, a creature that provokes the OA is the only available target for an OA. However the mounted combat rules creates an exception to this:
if the mount provokes an opportunity attack while you’re on it, the attacker can target you or the mount.
Note the language used. The mount "provokes" and you can be "targeted". If they intended to say that the rider also provoked OAs then they would have simply said:
if the mount provokes an opportunity attack while you’re on it, you also provoke an opportunity attack.
But they made a decision not to do so, instead just allowing the attack to be directed at mount or rider. So, as written, the rider does not provoke OAs as indicated by the general rule for OAs which is not overridden by any aspect of the above rule:
You also don’t provoke an opportunity attack when you teleport or when
someone or something moves you without using your movement, action, or
reaction.
You can see a direct impact of this ruling here.
RAW is unclear if the gnome can be targeted — DM decision
if the mount provokes an opportunity attack while you’re on it, the attacker can target you or the mount.
The rules create a hierarchy in which a mount has a rider. The rider of the mount can be targeted by opportunity attacks that the mount provokes. However it is not clear whether the gnome would be considered a rider of the horse as well as of the dragonborn or just a rider of the dragonborn. Thus the RAW has two possible interpretations. As a DM, you have to decide how you want to rule it. I will discuss both and outline how they work out.
Option 1: Gnome is a rider of both mounts
if the mount provokes an opportunity attack while you’re on it
This has a bit of very specific support in that it seems that you are considered a rider of a mount if you are "on it". While that is not defined, it is hard to argue that the gnome is not "on" the horse even though they are not directly riding on the saddle.
If you rule this way, then the gnome is a valid target if either the dragonborn or the horse provokes an OA.
However, this ruling is messy and doesn't make a ton of sense intuitively. It also means you have to deal with the fact that the gnome is mounted on two things and any rules that affect mounts or their riders could create complicated interactions.
Option 2: Gnome is a rider of only the dragonborn
In this interpretation, the gnome is considered to be a rider only of the dragonborn and the gnome is not affected by anything that affects the riders of the horse (but not the riders of the dragonborn).
In this case, the gnome is a not a valid target if the horse provokes.
Reasonable ruling: just consider them both mounted only on the horse
The gnome gains no benefit to being mounted on the dragonborn while also being mounted on the horse. All this does is add needless convolution and confusion for no added benefit for anyone. As a DM, a very reasonable ruling that simplifies matters for you is to just consider them both as mounted on the horse while the dragonborn is mounted. That means that (like RAW option #1) the gnome would also be a valid target for OAs that the horse provokes. This makes sense from a narrative perspective and simplifies the rules because you avoid the ambiguities that mount stacking has entirely. As soon as the dragonborn dismounts simply consider the gnome mounted to the dragonborn again.
Considering reach
Of course, being able to be targeted by an attack is still limited by the reach of the attack. It might be worth noting that depending on how and if you track the vertical height of this mounted stack, the gnome might be out of reach for most attacks with a range of 5 feet.
answered Feb 12 at 13:47
RubiksmooseRubiksmoose
57.9k10281430
$endgroup$
5
$begingroup$
I have retracted my answer in favour of yours. However I will mention again that the DM should consider that the Gnome is likely more than 5ft away from a creature on the ground, and may be out of reach.
$endgroup$
– frog
Feb 12 at 13:57
7
$begingroup$
@frog this is a good point. I'm still trying to figure out if and how to integrate it into this (already long) answer. One thing for sure is that 5e does not handle the vertical dimensions well at all.
$endgroup$
– Rubiksmoose
Feb 12 at 14:00
3
$begingroup$
I think the "both are mounted on the horse" approach is the simplest and most elegant solution.
$endgroup$
– Ryan Thompson
Feb 12 at 16:52
1
$begingroup$
@Gandalfmeansme yeah I meant the latter sorry. But I have removed that specific detail as I think it is confusing. Really it is just a note to the DM to make sure they are still in range.
$endgroup$
– Rubiksmoose
Feb 12 at 17:50
1
$begingroup$
@lightcat as I point out in the answer, the RAW is actually unclear on that point. They could benefit from such a ruling if the DM chose to allow it.
$endgroup$
– Rubiksmoose
Mar 1 at 11:35
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
Multiple creatures riding each other is not covered in the rules, so a GM will have to make their own ruling if allowing this.
The rules don't account for Matryoshka-style mounting, so of course the rules break down when it is allowed. Looking at the spirit of the rules, it seems the intent is that rider(s) should be targettable by OA triggered by their mount(s). I would allow the enemy to attack any of the 3 targets.
Long story short, if a GM is allowing this, you should also look to them for the OA rules associated.
answered Feb 12 at 13:59
IfusasoIfusaso
11.2k1967
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The horse and Dragonborn can both be hit.
The Dragonborn, while on the horse, is using their own movement to control the horse--this is not a wild horse which has its own turn in combat and is making its own decisions about how and where to move using its own movement, the Dragonborn's movement got delegated to the horse they're riding. So the Dragonborn + horse set should be treated like a mounted pair as per the rule on p. 198.
The gnome + Dragonborn set, however, falls under the general rule on p. 195, as the gnome is not controlling their own movement (or delegating it). The gnome's movement is entirely at the control of the Dragonborn; they might have input or suggestions, but ultimately they're being carried and have no control over their own movement. So, while the Dragonborn is dismounted, they would be provoking (and taking) the OA, while the gnome would not.
Together, in this case, that means that the mounted-Dragonborn-carrying-a-gnome situation here means horse + DB can be targeted due to moving of their own volition, gnome cannot be.
If the gnome were to jump out of the sling to get further away while the horse + DB were still in melee, and didn't Disengage first, then the gnome could be targeted for an OA .
edited Feb 13 at 4:23
V2Blast
23.7k376150
answered Feb 12 at 13:37
MissMisinformationMissMisinformation
1297
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
The rule on PHB pg 198 actually states the rider can be the target of an OA "in either case", referring to whether the mount is controlled or uncontrolled.
$endgroup$
– frog
Feb 12 at 13:44
2
$begingroup$
"The Dragonborn, while on the horse, is using their own movement to control the horse" This is not correct. A mount either independent of controlled uses its own movement and actions to do things, not those of the rider. The only difference between them is that controlled mounts have a limited set of actions and explicitly take their commands from the rider. However, they do not use the rider's movement or actions to carry them out.
$endgroup$
– Rubiksmoose
Feb 12 at 14:04
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "122"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f140960%2fif-a-gnome-is-riding-a-dragonborn-who-is-riding-a-horse-who-can-be-targeted-whe%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Note up-front that allowing PC to ride another PC is already up to DM discretion as to whether the PC (the dragonborn in the case) has the "appropriate anatomy" to be a mount. Playing around with this can allow fun things like your gnome/dragonborn duo but also things like centaur stacks. The rules also clearly are not written to handle mounted stacks. But I will give you first a purely rules-based ruling and then what I consider to be a more reasonable ruling.
First, I will clear up a confusion about the rules that greatly affects the discussion.
Mounted riders can be targeted by OAs provoked by mounts, but do not provoke themselves
There is a clear delineation in the rules between provoking an OA and being the target of an OA. Normally, a creature that provokes the OA is the only available target for an OA. However the mounted combat rules creates an exception to this:
if the mount provokes an opportunity attack while you’re on it, the attacker can target you or the mount.
Note the language used. The mount "provokes" and you can be "targeted". If they intended to say that the rider also provoked OAs then they would have simply said:
if the mount provokes an opportunity attack while you’re on it, you also provoke an opportunity attack.
But they made a decision not to do so, instead just allowing the attack to be directed at mount or rider. So, as written, the rider does not provoke OAs as indicated by the general rule for OAs which is not overridden by any aspect of the above rule:
You also don’t provoke an opportunity attack when you teleport or when
someone or something moves you without using your movement, action, or
reaction.
You can see a direct impact of this ruling here.
RAW is unclear if the gnome can be targeted — DM decision
if the mount provokes an opportunity attack while you’re on it, the attacker can target you or the mount.
The rules create a hierarchy in which a mount has a rider. The rider of the mount can be targeted by opportunity attacks that the mount provokes. However it is not clear whether the gnome would be considered a rider of the horse as well as of the dragonborn or just a rider of the dragonborn. Thus the RAW has two possible interpretations. As a DM, you have to decide how you want to rule it. I will discuss both and outline how they work out.
Option 1: Gnome is a rider of both mounts
if the mount provokes an opportunity attack while you’re on it
This has a bit of very specific support in that it seems that you are considered a rider of a mount if you are "on it". While that is not defined, it is hard to argue that the gnome is not "on" the horse even though they are not directly riding on the saddle.
If you rule this way, then the gnome is a valid target if either the dragonborn or the horse provokes an OA.
However, this ruling is messy and doesn't make a ton of sense intuitively. It also means you have to deal with the fact that the gnome is mounted on two things and any rules that affect mounts or their riders could create complicated interactions.
Option 2: Gnome is a rider of only the dragonborn
In this interpretation, the gnome is considered to be a rider only of the dragonborn and the gnome is not affected by anything that affects the riders of the horse (but not the riders of the dragonborn).
In this case, the gnome is a not a valid target if the horse provokes.
Reasonable ruling: just consider them both mounted only on the horse
The gnome gains no benefit to being mounted on the dragonborn while also being mounted on the horse. All this does is add needless convolution and confusion for no added benefit for anyone. As a DM, a very reasonable ruling that simplifies matters for you is to just consider them both as mounted on the horse while the dragonborn is mounted. That means that (like RAW option #1) the gnome would also be a valid target for OAs that the horse provokes. This makes sense from a narrative perspective and simplifies the rules because you avoid the ambiguities that mount stacking has entirely. As soon as the dragonborn dismounts simply consider the gnome mounted to the dragonborn again.
Considering reach
Of course, being able to be targeted by an attack is still limited by the reach of the attack. It might be worth noting that depending on how and if you track the vertical height of this mounted stack, the gnome might be out of reach for most attacks with a range of 5 feet.
answered Feb 12 at 13:47
RubiksmooseRubiksmoose
57.9k10281430
$endgroup$
5
$begingroup$
I have retracted my answer in favour of yours. However I will mention again that the DM should consider that the Gnome is likely more than 5ft away from a creature on the ground, and may be out of reach.
$endgroup$
– frog
Feb 12 at 13:57
7
$begingroup$
@frog this is a good point. I'm still trying to figure out if and how to integrate it into this (already long) answer. One thing for sure is that 5e does not handle the vertical dimensions well at all.
$endgroup$
– Rubiksmoose
Feb 12 at 14:00
3
$begingroup$
I think the "both are mounted on the horse" approach is the simplest and most elegant solution.
$endgroup$
– Ryan Thompson
Feb 12 at 16:52
1
$begingroup$
@Gandalfmeansme yeah I meant the latter sorry. But I have removed that specific detail as I think it is confusing. Really it is just a note to the DM to make sure they are still in range.
$endgroup$
– Rubiksmoose
Feb 12 at 17:50
1
$begingroup$
@lightcat as I point out in the answer, the RAW is actually unclear on that point. They could benefit from such a ruling if the DM chose to allow it.
$endgroup$
– Rubiksmoose
Mar 1 at 11:35
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
Note up-front that allowing PC to ride another PC is already up to DM discretion as to whether the PC (the dragonborn in the case) has the "appropriate anatomy" to be a mount. Playing around with this can allow fun things like your gnome/dragonborn duo but also things like centaur stacks. The rules also clearly are not written to handle mounted stacks. But I will give you first a purely rules-based ruling and then what I consider to be a more reasonable ruling.
First, I will clear up a confusion about the rules that greatly affects the discussion.
Mounted riders can be targeted by OAs provoked by mounts, but do not provoke themselves
There is a clear delineation in the rules between provoking an OA and being the target of an OA. Normally, a creature that provokes the OA is the only available target for an OA. However the mounted combat rules creates an exception to this:
if the mount provokes an opportunity attack while you’re on it, the attacker can target you or the mount.
Note the language used. The mount "provokes" and you can be "targeted". If they intended to say that the rider also provoked OAs then they would have simply said:
if the mount provokes an opportunity attack while you’re on it, you also provoke an opportunity attack.
But they made a decision not to do so, instead just allowing the attack to be directed at mount or rider. So, as written, the rider does not provoke OAs as indicated by the general rule for OAs which is not overridden by any aspect of the above rule:
You also don’t provoke an opportunity attack when you teleport or when
someone or something moves you without using your movement, action, or
reaction.
You can see a direct impact of this ruling here.
RAW is unclear if the gnome can be targeted — DM decision
if the mount provokes an opportunity attack while you’re on it, the attacker can target you or the mount.
The rules create a hierarchy in which a mount has a rider. The rider of the mount can be targeted by opportunity attacks that the mount provokes. However it is not clear whether the gnome would be considered a rider of the horse as well as of the dragonborn or just a rider of the dragonborn. Thus the RAW has two possible interpretations. As a DM, you have to decide how you want to rule it. I will discuss both and outline how they work out.
Option 1: Gnome is a rider of both mounts
if the mount provokes an opportunity attack while you’re on it
This has a bit of very specific support in that it seems that you are considered a rider of a mount if you are "on it". While that is not defined, it is hard to argue that the gnome is not "on" the horse even though they are not directly riding on the saddle.
If you rule this way, then the gnome is a valid target if either the dragonborn or the horse provokes an OA.
However, this ruling is messy and doesn't make a ton of sense intuitively. It also means you have to deal with the fact that the gnome is mounted on two things and any rules that affect mounts or their riders could create complicated interactions.
Option 2: Gnome is a rider of only the dragonborn
In this interpretation, the gnome is considered to be a rider only of the dragonborn and the gnome is not affected by anything that affects the riders of the horse (but not the riders of the dragonborn).
In this case, the gnome is a not a valid target if the horse provokes.
Reasonable ruling: just consider them both mounted only on the horse
The gnome gains no benefit to being mounted on the dragonborn while also being mounted on the horse. All this does is add needless convolution and confusion for no added benefit for anyone. As a DM, a very reasonable ruling that simplifies matters for you is to just consider them both as mounted on the horse while the dragonborn is mounted. That means that (like RAW option #1) the gnome would also be a valid target for OAs that the horse provokes. This makes sense from a narrative perspective and simplifies the rules because you avoid the ambiguities that mount stacking has entirely. As soon as the dragonborn dismounts simply consider the gnome mounted to the dragonborn again.
Considering reach
Of course, being able to be targeted by an attack is still limited by the reach of the attack. It might be worth noting that depending on how and if you track the vertical height of this mounted stack, the gnome might be out of reach for most attacks with a range of 5 feet.
answered Feb 12 at 13:47
RubiksmooseRubiksmoose
57.9k10281430
$endgroup$
5
$begingroup$
I have retracted my answer in favour of yours. However I will mention again that the DM should consider that the Gnome is likely more than 5ft away from a creature on the ground, and may be out of reach.
$endgroup$
– frog
Feb 12 at 13:57
7
$begingroup$
@frog this is a good point. I'm still trying to figure out if and how to integrate it into this (already long) answer. One thing for sure is that 5e does not handle the vertical dimensions well at all.
$endgroup$
– Rubiksmoose
Feb 12 at 14:00
3
$begingroup$
I think the "both are mounted on the horse" approach is the simplest and most elegant solution.
$endgroup$
– Ryan Thompson
Feb 12 at 16:52
1
$begingroup$
@Gandalfmeansme yeah I meant the latter sorry. But I have removed that specific detail as I think it is confusing. Really it is just a note to the DM to make sure they are still in range.
$endgroup$
– Rubiksmoose
Feb 12 at 17:50
1
$begingroup$
@lightcat as I point out in the answer, the RAW is actually unclear on that point. They could benefit from such a ruling if the DM chose to allow it.
$endgroup$
– Rubiksmoose
Mar 1 at 11:35
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
Note up-front that allowing PC to ride another PC is already up to DM discretion as to whether the PC (the dragonborn in the case) has the "appropriate anatomy" to be a mount. Playing around with this can allow fun things like your gnome/dragonborn duo but also things like centaur stacks. The rules also clearly are not written to handle mounted stacks. But I will give you first a purely rules-based ruling and then what I consider to be a more reasonable ruling.
First, I will clear up a confusion about the rules that greatly affects the discussion.
Mounted riders can be targeted by OAs provoked by mounts, but do not provoke themselves
There is a clear delineation in the rules between provoking an OA and being the target of an OA. Normally, a creature that provokes the OA is the only available target for an OA. However the mounted combat rules creates an exception to this:
if the mount provokes an opportunity attack while you’re on it, the attacker can target you or the mount.
Note the language used. The mount "provokes" and you can be "targeted". If they intended to say that the rider also provoked OAs then they would have simply said:
if the mount provokes an opportunity attack while you’re on it, you also provoke an opportunity attack.
But they made a decision not to do so, instead just allowing the attack to be directed at mount or rider. So, as written, the rider does not provoke OAs as indicated by the general rule for OAs which is not overridden by any aspect of the above rule:
You also don’t provoke an opportunity attack when you teleport or when
someone or something moves you without using your movement, action, or
reaction.
You can see a direct impact of this ruling here.
RAW is unclear if the gnome can be targeted — DM decision
if the mount provokes an opportunity attack while you’re on it, the attacker can target you or the mount.
The rules create a hierarchy in which a mount has a rider. The rider of the mount can be targeted by opportunity attacks that the mount provokes. However it is not clear whether the gnome would be considered a rider of the horse as well as of the dragonborn or just a rider of the dragonborn. Thus the RAW has two possible interpretations. As a DM, you have to decide how you want to rule it. I will discuss both and outline how they work out.
Option 1: Gnome is a rider of both mounts
if the mount provokes an opportunity attack while you’re on it
This has a bit of very specific support in that it seems that you are considered a rider of a mount if you are "on it". While that is not defined, it is hard to argue that the gnome is not "on" the horse even though they are not directly riding on the saddle.
If you rule this way, then the gnome is a valid target if either the dragonborn or the horse provokes an OA.
However, this ruling is messy and doesn't make a ton of sense intuitively. It also means you have to deal with the fact that the gnome is mounted on two things and any rules that affect mounts or their riders could create complicated interactions.
Option 2: Gnome is a rider of only the dragonborn
In this interpretation, the gnome is considered to be a rider only of the dragonborn and the gnome is not affected by anything that affects the riders of the horse (but not the riders of the dragonborn).
In this case, the gnome is a not a valid target if the horse provokes.
Reasonable ruling: just consider them both mounted only on the horse
The gnome gains no benefit to being mounted on the dragonborn while also being mounted on the horse. All this does is add needless convolution and confusion for no added benefit for anyone. As a DM, a very reasonable ruling that simplifies matters for you is to just consider them both as mounted on the horse while the dragonborn is mounted. That means that (like RAW option #1) the gnome would also be a valid target for OAs that the horse provokes. This makes sense from a narrative perspective and simplifies the rules because you avoid the ambiguities that mount stacking has entirely. As soon as the dragonborn dismounts simply consider the gnome mounted to the dragonborn again.
Considering reach
Of course, being able to be targeted by an attack is still limited by the reach of the attack. It might be worth noting that depending on how and if you track the vertical height of this mounted stack, the gnome might be out of reach for most attacks with a range of 5 feet.
answered Feb 12 at 13:47
RubiksmooseRubiksmoose
57.9k10281430
$endgroup$
Note up-front that allowing PC to ride another PC is already up to DM discretion as to whether the PC (the dragonborn in the case) has the "appropriate anatomy" to be a mount. Playing around with this can allow fun things like your gnome/dragonborn duo but also things like centaur stacks. The rules also clearly are not written to handle mounted stacks. But I will give you first a purely rules-based ruling and then what I consider to be a more reasonable ruling.
First, I will clear up a confusion about the rules that greatly affects the discussion.
Mounted riders can be targeted by OAs provoked by mounts, but do not provoke themselves
There is a clear delineation in the rules between provoking an OA and being the target of an OA. Normally, a creature that provokes the OA is the only available target for an OA. However the mounted combat rules creates an exception to this:
if the mount provokes an opportunity attack while you’re on it, the attacker can target you or the mount.
Note the language used. The mount "provokes" and you can be "targeted". If they intended to say that the rider also provoked OAs then they would have simply said:
if the mount provokes an opportunity attack while you’re on it, you also provoke an opportunity attack.
But they made a decision not to do so, instead just allowing the attack to be directed at mount or rider. So, as written, the rider does not provoke OAs as indicated by the general rule for OAs which is not overridden by any aspect of the above rule:
You also don’t provoke an opportunity attack when you teleport or when
someone or something moves you without using your movement, action, or
reaction.
You can see a direct impact of this ruling here.
RAW is unclear if the gnome can be targeted — DM decision
if the mount provokes an opportunity attack while you’re on it, the attacker can target you or the mount.
The rules create a hierarchy in which a mount has a rider. The rider of the mount can be targeted by opportunity attacks that the mount provokes. However it is not clear whether the gnome would be considered a rider of the horse as well as of the dragonborn or just a rider of the dragonborn. Thus the RAW has two possible interpretations. As a DM, you have to decide how you want to rule it. I will discuss both and outline how they work out.
Option 1: Gnome is a rider of both mounts
if the mount provokes an opportunity attack while you’re on it
This has a bit of very specific support in that it seems that you are considered a rider of a mount if you are "on it". While that is not defined, it is hard to argue that the gnome is not "on" the horse even though they are not directly riding on the saddle.
If you rule this way, then the gnome is a valid target if either the dragonborn or the horse provokes an OA.
However, this ruling is messy and doesn't make a ton of sense intuitively. It also means you have to deal with the fact that the gnome is mounted on two things and any rules that affect mounts or their riders could create complicated interactions.
Option 2: Gnome is a rider of only the dragonborn
In this interpretation, the gnome is considered to be a rider only of the dragonborn and the gnome is not affected by anything that affects the riders of the horse (but not the riders of the dragonborn).
In this case, the gnome is a not a valid target if the horse provokes.
Reasonable ruling: just consider them both mounted only on the horse
The gnome gains no benefit to being mounted on the dragonborn while also being mounted on the horse. All this does is add needless convolution and confusion for no added benefit for anyone. As a DM, a very reasonable ruling that simplifies matters for you is to just consider them both as mounted on the horse while the dragonborn is mounted. That means that (like RAW option #1) the gnome would also be a valid target for OAs that the horse provokes. This makes sense from a narrative perspective and simplifies the rules because you avoid the ambiguities that mount stacking has entirely. As soon as the dragonborn dismounts simply consider the gnome mounted to the dragonborn again.
Considering reach
Of course, being able to be targeted by an attack is still limited by the reach of the attack. It might be worth noting that depending on how and if you track the vertical height of this mounted stack, the gnome might be out of reach for most attacks with a range of 5 feet.
answered Feb 12 at 13:47
RubiksmooseRubiksmoose
57.9k10281430
edited Feb 13 at 13:54
answered Feb 12 at 13:47
RubiksmooseRubiksmoose
57.9k10281430
answered Feb 12 at 13:47
RubiksmooseRubiksmoose
57.9k10281430
answered Feb 12 at 13:47
RubiksmooseRubiksmoose
57.9k10281430
57.9k10281430
5
$begingroup$
I have retracted my answer in favour of yours. However I will mention again that the DM should consider that the Gnome is likely more than 5ft away from a creature on the ground, and may be out of reach.
$endgroup$
– frog
Feb 12 at 13:57
7
$begingroup$
@frog this is a good point. I'm still trying to figure out if and how to integrate it into this (already long) answer. One thing for sure is that 5e does not handle the vertical dimensions well at all.
$endgroup$
– Rubiksmoose
Feb 12 at 14:00
3
$begingroup$
I think the "both are mounted on the horse" approach is the simplest and most elegant solution.
$endgroup$
– Ryan Thompson
Feb 12 at 16:52
1
$begingroup$
@Gandalfmeansme yeah I meant the latter sorry. But I have removed that specific detail as I think it is confusing. Really it is just a note to the DM to make sure they are still in range.
$endgroup$
– Rubiksmoose
Feb 12 at 17:50
1
$begingroup$
@lightcat as I point out in the answer, the RAW is actually unclear on that point. They could benefit from such a ruling if the DM chose to allow it.
$endgroup$
– Rubiksmoose
Mar 1 at 11:35
|
show 4 more comments
5
$begingroup$
I have retracted my answer in favour of yours. However I will mention again that the DM should consider that the Gnome is likely more than 5ft away from a creature on the ground, and may be out of reach.
$endgroup$
– frog
Feb 12 at 13:57
7
$begingroup$
@frog this is a good point. I'm still trying to figure out if and how to integrate it into this (already long) answer. One thing for sure is that 5e does not handle the vertical dimensions well at all.
$endgroup$
– Rubiksmoose
Feb 12 at 14:00
3
$begingroup$
I think the "both are mounted on the horse" approach is the simplest and most elegant solution.
$endgroup$
– Ryan Thompson
Feb 12 at 16:52
1
$begingroup$
@Gandalfmeansme yeah I meant the latter sorry. But I have removed that specific detail as I think it is confusing. Really it is just a note to the DM to make sure they are still in range.
$endgroup$
– Rubiksmoose
Feb 12 at 17:50
1
$begingroup$
@lightcat as I point out in the answer, the RAW is actually unclear on that point. They could benefit from such a ruling if the DM chose to allow it.
$endgroup$
– Rubiksmoose
Mar 1 at 11:35
5
5
$begingroup$
I have retracted my answer in favour of yours. However I will mention again that the DM should consider that the Gnome is likely more than 5ft away from a creature on the ground, and may be out of reach.
$endgroup$
– frog
Feb 12 at 13:57
$begingroup$
I have retracted my answer in favour of yours. However I will mention again that the DM should consider that the Gnome is likely more than 5ft away from a creature on the ground, and may be out of reach.
$endgroup$
– frog
Feb 12 at 13:57
7
7
$begingroup$
@frog this is a good point. I'm still trying to figure out if and how to integrate it into this (already long) answer. One thing for sure is that 5e does not handle the vertical dimensions well at all.
$endgroup$
– Rubiksmoose
Feb 12 at 14:00
$begingroup$
@frog this is a good point. I'm still trying to figure out if and how to integrate it into this (already long) answer. One thing for sure is that 5e does not handle the vertical dimensions well at all.
$endgroup$
– Rubiksmoose
Feb 12 at 14:00
3
3
$begingroup$
I think the "both are mounted on the horse" approach is the simplest and most elegant solution.
$endgroup$
– Ryan Thompson
Feb 12 at 16:52
$begingroup$
I think the "both are mounted on the horse" approach is the simplest and most elegant solution.
$endgroup$
– Ryan Thompson
Feb 12 at 16:52
1
1
$begingroup$
@Gandalfmeansme yeah I meant the latter sorry. But I have removed that specific detail as I think it is confusing. Really it is just a note to the DM to make sure they are still in range.
$endgroup$
– Rubiksmoose
Feb 12 at 17:50
$begingroup$
@Gandalfmeansme yeah I meant the latter sorry. But I have removed that specific detail as I think it is confusing. Really it is just a note to the DM to make sure they are still in range.
$endgroup$
– Rubiksmoose
Feb 12 at 17:50
1
1
$begingroup$
@lightcat as I point out in the answer, the RAW is actually unclear on that point. They could benefit from such a ruling if the DM chose to allow it.
$endgroup$
– Rubiksmoose
Mar 1 at 11:35
$begingroup$
@lightcat as I point out in the answer, the RAW is actually unclear on that point. They could benefit from such a ruling if the DM chose to allow it.
$endgroup$
– Rubiksmoose
Mar 1 at 11:35
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
Multiple creatures riding each other is not covered in the rules, so a GM will have to make their own ruling if allowing this.
The rules don't account for Matryoshka-style mounting, so of course the rules break down when it is allowed. Looking at the spirit of the rules, it seems the intent is that rider(s) should be targettable by OA triggered by their mount(s). I would allow the enemy to attack any of the 3 targets.
Long story short, if a GM is allowing this, you should also look to them for the OA rules associated.
answered Feb 12 at 13:59
IfusasoIfusaso
11.2k1967
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Multiple creatures riding each other is not covered in the rules, so a GM will have to make their own ruling if allowing this.
The rules don't account for Matryoshka-style mounting, so of course the rules break down when it is allowed. Looking at the spirit of the rules, it seems the intent is that rider(s) should be targettable by OA triggered by their mount(s). I would allow the enemy to attack any of the 3 targets.
Long story short, if a GM is allowing this, you should also look to them for the OA rules associated.
answered Feb 12 at 13:59
IfusasoIfusaso
11.2k1967
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Multiple creatures riding each other is not covered in the rules, so a GM will have to make their own ruling if allowing this.
The rules don't account for Matryoshka-style mounting, so of course the rules break down when it is allowed. Looking at the spirit of the rules, it seems the intent is that rider(s) should be targettable by OA triggered by their mount(s). I would allow the enemy to attack any of the 3 targets.
Long story short, if a GM is allowing this, you should also look to them for the OA rules associated.
answered Feb 12 at 13:59
IfusasoIfusaso
11.2k1967
$endgroup$
Multiple creatures riding each other is not covered in the rules, so a GM will have to make their own ruling if allowing this.
The rules don't account for Matryoshka-style mounting, so of course the rules break down when it is allowed. Looking at the spirit of the rules, it seems the intent is that rider(s) should be targettable by OA triggered by their mount(s). I would allow the enemy to attack any of the 3 targets.
Long story short, if a GM is allowing this, you should also look to them for the OA rules associated.
answered Feb 12 at 13:59
IfusasoIfusaso
11.2k1967
edited Feb 12 at 15:45
answered Feb 12 at 13:59
IfusasoIfusaso
11.2k1967
answered Feb 12 at 13:59
IfusasoIfusaso
11.2k1967
answered Feb 12 at 13:59
IfusasoIfusaso
11.2k1967
11.2k1967
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The horse and Dragonborn can both be hit.
The Dragonborn, while on the horse, is using their own movement to control the horse--this is not a wild horse which has its own turn in combat and is making its own decisions about how and where to move using its own movement, the Dragonborn's movement got delegated to the horse they're riding. So the Dragonborn + horse set should be treated like a mounted pair as per the rule on p. 198.
The gnome + Dragonborn set, however, falls under the general rule on p. 195, as the gnome is not controlling their own movement (or delegating it). The gnome's movement is entirely at the control of the Dragonborn; they might have input or suggestions, but ultimately they're being carried and have no control over their own movement. So, while the Dragonborn is dismounted, they would be provoking (and taking) the OA, while the gnome would not.
Together, in this case, that means that the mounted-Dragonborn-carrying-a-gnome situation here means horse + DB can be targeted due to moving of their own volition, gnome cannot be.
If the gnome were to jump out of the sling to get further away while the horse + DB were still in melee, and didn't Disengage first, then the gnome could be targeted for an OA .
edited Feb 13 at 4:23
V2Blast
23.7k376150
answered Feb 12 at 13:37
MissMisinformationMissMisinformation
1297
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
The rule on PHB pg 198 actually states the rider can be the target of an OA "in either case", referring to whether the mount is controlled or uncontrolled.
$endgroup$
– frog
Feb 12 at 13:44
2
$begingroup$
"The Dragonborn, while on the horse, is using their own movement to control the horse" This is not correct. A mount either independent of controlled uses its own movement and actions to do things, not those of the rider. The only difference between them is that controlled mounts have a limited set of actions and explicitly take their commands from the rider. However, they do not use the rider's movement or actions to carry them out.
$endgroup$
– Rubiksmoose
Feb 12 at 14:04
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The horse and Dragonborn can both be hit.
The Dragonborn, while on the horse, is using their own movement to control the horse--this is not a wild horse which has its own turn in combat and is making its own decisions about how and where to move using its own movement, the Dragonborn's movement got delegated to the horse they're riding. So the Dragonborn + horse set should be treated like a mounted pair as per the rule on p. 198.
The gnome + Dragonborn set, however, falls under the general rule on p. 195, as the gnome is not controlling their own movement (or delegating it). The gnome's movement is entirely at the control of the Dragonborn; they might have input or suggestions, but ultimately they're being carried and have no control over their own movement. So, while the Dragonborn is dismounted, they would be provoking (and taking) the OA, while the gnome would not.
Together, in this case, that means that the mounted-Dragonborn-carrying-a-gnome situation here means horse + DB can be targeted due to moving of their own volition, gnome cannot be.
If the gnome were to jump out of the sling to get further away while the horse + DB were still in melee, and didn't Disengage first, then the gnome could be targeted for an OA .
edited Feb 13 at 4:23
V2Blast
23.7k376150
answered Feb 12 at 13:37
MissMisinformationMissMisinformation
1297
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
The rule on PHB pg 198 actually states the rider can be the target of an OA "in either case", referring to whether the mount is controlled or uncontrolled.
$endgroup$
– frog
Feb 12 at 13:44
2
$begingroup$
"The Dragonborn, while on the horse, is using their own movement to control the horse" This is not correct. A mount either independent of controlled uses its own movement and actions to do things, not those of the rider. The only difference between them is that controlled mounts have a limited set of actions and explicitly take their commands from the rider. However, they do not use the rider's movement or actions to carry them out.
$endgroup$
– Rubiksmoose
Feb 12 at 14:04
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The horse and Dragonborn can both be hit.
The Dragonborn, while on the horse, is using their own movement to control the horse--this is not a wild horse which has its own turn in combat and is making its own decisions about how and where to move using its own movement, the Dragonborn's movement got delegated to the horse they're riding. So the Dragonborn + horse set should be treated like a mounted pair as per the rule on p. 198.
The gnome + Dragonborn set, however, falls under the general rule on p. 195, as the gnome is not controlling their own movement (or delegating it). The gnome's movement is entirely at the control of the Dragonborn; they might have input or suggestions, but ultimately they're being carried and have no control over their own movement. So, while the Dragonborn is dismounted, they would be provoking (and taking) the OA, while the gnome would not.
Together, in this case, that means that the mounted-Dragonborn-carrying-a-gnome situation here means horse + DB can be targeted due to moving of their own volition, gnome cannot be.
If the gnome were to jump out of the sling to get further away while the horse + DB were still in melee, and didn't Disengage first, then the gnome could be targeted for an OA .
edited Feb 13 at 4:23
V2Blast
23.7k376150
answered Feb 12 at 13:37
MissMisinformationMissMisinformation
1297
$endgroup$
The horse and Dragonborn can both be hit.
The Dragonborn, while on the horse, is using their own movement to control the horse--this is not a wild horse which has its own turn in combat and is making its own decisions about how and where to move using its own movement, the Dragonborn's movement got delegated to the horse they're riding. So the Dragonborn + horse set should be treated like a mounted pair as per the rule on p. 198.
The gnome + Dragonborn set, however, falls under the general rule on p. 195, as the gnome is not controlling their own movement (or delegating it). The gnome's movement is entirely at the control of the Dragonborn; they might have input or suggestions, but ultimately they're being carried and have no control over their own movement. So, while the Dragonborn is dismounted, they would be provoking (and taking) the OA, while the gnome would not.
Together, in this case, that means that the mounted-Dragonborn-carrying-a-gnome situation here means horse + DB can be targeted due to moving of their own volition, gnome cannot be.
If the gnome were to jump out of the sling to get further away while the horse + DB were still in melee, and didn't Disengage first, then the gnome could be targeted for an OA .
edited Feb 13 at 4:23
V2Blast
23.7k376150
answered Feb 12 at 13:37
MissMisinformationMissMisinformation
1297
edited Feb 13 at 4:23
V2Blast
23.7k376150
edited Feb 13 at 4:23
V2Blast
23.7k376150
edited Feb 13 at 4:23
V2Blast
23.7k376150
23.7k376150
answered Feb 12 at 13:37
MissMisinformationMissMisinformation
1297
answered Feb 12 at 13:37
MissMisinformationMissMisinformation
1297
answered Feb 12 at 13:37
MissMisinformationMissMisinformation
1297
1297
2
$begingroup$
The rule on PHB pg 198 actually states the rider can be the target of an OA "in either case", referring to whether the mount is controlled or uncontrolled.
$endgroup$
– frog
Feb 12 at 13:44
2
$begingroup$
"The Dragonborn, while on the horse, is using their own movement to control the horse" This is not correct. A mount either independent of controlled uses its own movement and actions to do things, not those of the rider. The only difference between them is that controlled mounts have a limited set of actions and explicitly take their commands from the rider. However, they do not use the rider's movement or actions to carry them out.
$endgroup$
– Rubiksmoose
Feb 12 at 14:04
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
The rule on PHB pg 198 actually states the rider can be the target of an OA "in either case", referring to whether the mount is controlled or uncontrolled.
$endgroup$
– frog
Feb 12 at 13:44
2
$begingroup$
"The Dragonborn, while on the horse, is using their own movement to control the horse" This is not correct. A mount either independent of controlled uses its own movement and actions to do things, not those of the rider. The only difference between them is that controlled mounts have a limited set of actions and explicitly take their commands from the rider. However, they do not use the rider's movement or actions to carry them out.
$endgroup$
– Rubiksmoose
Feb 12 at 14:04
2
2
$begingroup$
The rule on PHB pg 198 actually states the rider can be the target of an OA "in either case", referring to whether the mount is controlled or uncontrolled.
$endgroup$
– frog
Feb 12 at 13:44
$begingroup$
The rule on PHB pg 198 actually states the rider can be the target of an OA "in either case", referring to whether the mount is controlled or uncontrolled.
$endgroup$
– frog
Feb 12 at 13:44
2
2
$begingroup$
"The Dragonborn, while on the horse, is using their own movement to control the horse" This is not correct. A mount either independent of controlled uses its own movement and actions to do things, not those of the rider. The only difference between them is that controlled mounts have a limited set of actions and explicitly take their commands from the rider. However, they do not use the rider's movement or actions to carry them out.
$endgroup$
– Rubiksmoose
Feb 12 at 14:04
$begingroup$
"The Dragonborn, while on the horse, is using their own movement to control the horse" This is not correct. A mount either independent of controlled uses its own movement and actions to do things, not those of the rider. The only difference between them is that controlled mounts have a limited set of actions and explicitly take their commands from the rider. However, they do not use the rider's movement or actions to carry them out.
$endgroup$
– Rubiksmoose
Feb 12 at 14:04
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Role-playing Games Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f140960%2fif-a-gnome-is-riding-a-dragonborn-who-is-riding-a-horse-who-can-be-targeted-whe%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
16
$begingroup$
Are you sure that it isn't tortles all the way down?
$endgroup$
– KorvinStarmast
Feb 12 at 13:43
16
$begingroup$
In one of previous editions, Paladin had a spell called Heal Mount. It was full blown heal (to max hp), on a lot lower spell level - but worked only on his mount. Cue Paladin riding on almost-dead friend for long enough for DM to stop laughing and accept him as being 'mount' enough for spell to work.
$endgroup$
– Artur Biesiadowski
Feb 12 at 15:15
1
$begingroup$
Somehow this reminds me of Mimiron, a boss in World of Warcraft, whose head, torso, and lower propulsion unit are all separately targetable.
$endgroup$
– Lee Mosher
Feb 12 at 15:17
4
$begingroup$
Next up: Clown pyramid attack formation versus AoO and reach.
$endgroup$
– Mindwin
Feb 12 at 16:59
2
$begingroup$
Reminds me of an island in a lake on an island in a lake on an island
$endgroup$
– Martin
Feb 12 at 23:03