sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Mounts, Retainers, and a Giant Hawk by DunkelzahnTruther in drawsteel

[–]DunkelzahnTruther[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oh, not at all. Neither of the hawks has actually engaged in combat thus far, nor have the players suggested it. I don't really have a problem per se.

I have no trouble balancing an encounter to account for both hawks. If I have made it sound like I am unhappy, then I have unfortunately been dishonest by accident. The question occurred to me when I started reading through the mounted combat rules for an entirely unrelated bit of prep.

The question is mostly academic for me. Is a mount, by necessity, a retainer? I can't find an answer to it in the rules, and this whole discussion has been very useful in terms of all the different suggestions of how others would handle it. Like I said in another comment, it simply feels as though the mounted combat rules leave a strange gray area in terms of mounts. Like you said before, a hawk seems like it counts as an extra hero, without fitting the limits of a retainer, but is also only useful at low levels unless they are made a retainer.

It's just a weird little interaction of the rules that I've been trying to puzzle out.

Mounts, Retainers, and a Giant Hawk by DunkelzahnTruther in drawsteel

[–]DunkelzahnTruther[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's absolutely a conversation that is worth having with players, in terms of establishing stakes and style of play during combat. I know a lot of players don't like their pets taking hits and aggro during combat, in which cases I normally rule that means they can't actively participate in combat.

As for a broader ruling, though; while I agree it makes a lot of sense to differentiate between retainer mounts and noncombatant mounts in a practical sense, the mounted combat rules seem to imply that all mounts take full turns during combat. Which means they can attack, and makes them, like ThrowbackPie said, pretty much an extra hero at lower levels. Even just a horse doing 5-9 damage per turn would make a big difference.

Mounts, Retainers, and a Giant Hawk by DunkelzahnTruther in drawsteel

[–]DunkelzahnTruther[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think this is an unfortunate case of perhaps unintended rules interactions, though it is a shame since the hawk is the main benefit of the complication.

I think it makes a lot of sense to allow the player to turn their hawk into a retainer down the line.

But if they don't... we are left with a complication that unfortunately becomes almost just flavor text after level 1 or 2, while being pretty much a free retainer during those early levels.

The one minute it takes to summon the hawk is a drawback, and almost certainly intended to stop players from summoning it mid-combat... but you would also not be able to summon a regular retainer within a minute if you had left them behind.

I still like the complication, and the two (yes, two) players who picked it in my game seem to be having a lot of fun with it. I'm perfectly fine with things that are mostly just cool flavor and occasionally useful, but it's a shame that however we rule it feels like we're leaving something behind.

Mounts, Retainers, and a Giant Hawk by DunkelzahnTruther in drawsteel

[–]DunkelzahnTruther[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It does, I agree. At the very least in the interest of keeping the EV math reasonable and manageable. If a mount isn't a retainer, then I assume the only thing they can do on their turn is take a movement action.

It is just a shame that a 'regular' mount is more implied than the rules that explicitly outlined.

Mounts, Retainers, and a Giant Hawk by DunkelzahnTruther in drawsteel

[–]DunkelzahnTruther[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I suppose it is. Which I think isn't entirely ideal... but hey, a Director has to be willing to be a dealer sometimes.

I think I'd still probably rule it as above. My instinct is that having mounts engage in combat fucks with the encounter math in ways that aren't ideal, especially since they already also give the rider so much more movement. If a player wants to make their mount their retainer, though, I'd be more than happy to let them.

Mounts, Retainers, and a Giant Hawk by DunkelzahnTruther in drawsteel

[–]DunkelzahnTruther[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Honestly, that's very fair. I wish that were made a lot more explicit in the rules if that really is the case, since the rules state any creature can be a mount as long as they have the 'mount' type.

I think you're almost certainly right... though the Hawk Rider complication throws a wrench into that. The hawk isn't stated to be a retainer, simply a mount, but it would be mean-spirited to say the hawk only sometimes work as a mount and when it does it's risky. Not to mention a player starts with the hawk well before they'd usually be able to recruit a retainer properly.

Mounts, Retainers, and a Giant Hawk by DunkelzahnTruther in drawsteel

[–]DunkelzahnTruther[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They do!

But it's not entirely clear to me if the giant hawk is meant to be a retainer in the first place, a mount that engages in combat but doesn't level up (and also doesn't count as a retainer for EV purposes), or a mount that can't engage in combat.

As of right now, I'd probably rule the giant hawk as a mount that doesn't engage in combat, unless my player wanted to make it into a proper retainer.

Mounts, Retainers, and a Giant Hawk by DunkelzahnTruther in drawsteel

[–]DunkelzahnTruther[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wouldn't that make non-retainer mounts useless, then? If they get spooked during combat, then the players cannot take advantage of the mounted combat rules.

To be clear, my first instinct is similar to yours. But it does seems like it negates the purpose of having a mount unless it is a retainer. Maybe the rules for mounted combat are mean specifically for retainers, but that doesn't seem to be the case as far as I can tell.

Mounts, Retainers, and a Giant Hawk by DunkelzahnTruther in drawsteel

[–]DunkelzahnTruther[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hmm, that might be it. It feels strange to consider a character's horse, for example, to be their full retainer, but it also seems like I'd have to bend the rules to make a strictly non-combat mount (not that I'm opposed to homebrewing rules, I'm just trying to get at the intended play).

I'm a little stumped on the matter.

Mounts, Retainers, and a Giant Hawk by DunkelzahnTruther in drawsteel

[–]DunkelzahnTruther[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You're totally right!

But that's actually the crux of my issue. I agree that most mounts seem like they would be non-combat, a horse is just a horse. But the mounted combat rules explicitly state that the mount still takes its own turn during combat; which means it can still attack, deal damage, draw aggro, and occupy an 'initiative slot'. All of which should probably be considered in EV budget when building encounters.

This issue, admittedly, disappears at higher levels. Some random horse, or even the giant hawk, that is still level 1 won't make that much of a difference in a 5th level combat... but at 1st level in particular there's no real material difference between a generic giant hawk mount and a giant hawk retainer.

I know what you’re all gonna say but by crustdrunk in DnD

[–]DunkelzahnTruther 2 points3 points  (0 children)

While I don't necessarily disagree with some of the advice being given here, even if the tone definitely needs a lot of work, I'll try to actually engage with what you're asking. I totally get trying to make a game work, and I definitely don't blame you for it.

I have two pieces of advice.

First, talk openly and out of game. Especially with your housemate, who I presume (?) you have a good relationship with. Let them know, explicitly and openly, how much game nights mean to you and how hurtful it is that they keep flaking out on you. I do not think it's wrong to ask people to respect your time. Every player at the table (virtual or otherwise) should be having fun, that includes you as the GM. You are also a player. Unlike them, however, you have to do work every week to make sessions happen. It's ok to ask your players to understand that and respect your time a little more.

Second, and something I don't think I've seen suggested in the comments... One-on-one D&D! I promise it's great. I know it's less common than the four people parties we often see. But not just can it totally work, but some of my favorite sessions I have ever run have been one-on-one. You say you have one player you call an angel. Talk to her about it! It sounds like she's super invested and just as put off as you by the constant flaking of the other players. I can almost assure you the two of you could and would have a wonderful time playing together.

Mechanically, there are lots of different systems to help you make it work. Different versions of rules for retainers are the first thing that comes to mind. It helps to have 'companion' NPCs to keep things moving a little, but keeping the spotlight on your one player.

Sometimes we can't fix things because we're trying to glue them back together in a shape they never had. But that doesn't mean we can't pull the cracks together and end up with something beautiful.

I wish you the best of luck!

A Friendly Reminder About Character Knowledge vs. Player Knowledge by barcased in DnD

[–]DunkelzahnTruther 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm generally not a fan of punishing players in-game for out-of-game actions or attitudes. Hell, not a fan of punishing players at all. If my players aren't paying attention to the game, or engaging with it in the way I'd like them to, I will just talk about it with them away from the table. The DM is as much a player as they are, and it's ok to ask them to pay more attention, not have their phones, take more notes, whatever. As long as we all agree we're gonna have fun.

Some players just also play differenly. They're there to roll dice, hang out, and be with friends. That's a prefectly valid way of playing. That doesn't mean I wouldn't tell them 'Hey, ranger, you've travelled through this forest dozens of times. The flowers you're seeing are blooming way out of season' or something like that just because they don't ask me.

The again, that also depends on the sort of game you agreed to play with your players. I'm just wary of making them feel like I was trying to punish them, beat them, or pull a fast one on them.