|
You've got a few combinations with the potential to complicate things.
That the mount is squeezing potentially makes things worse for the rider.
Is the mount a bonded animal or similar, or a regular mount? Potentially makes a difference, based on its magicalness/specially-bondedness.
But the way I'd rule it makes those questions moot. I'd say the rider needs to perform the withdrawal, and the mount will execute. So yes, they both withdraw or else the rider is vulnerable to AoO.
I'd say this based on comparing it to a charge- the mount can't make a charge while allowing the rider to make a full attack after the mount's charge.
The wording of the withdraw action is pretty specific, referencing the "first square" of movement. So the good news is that the squeezing condition doesn't impact the mount. It can withdraw up to double its move but obviously since it's squeezing it's going to go half as far, meaning 5ft should be easy.
Then comes the rider. The mount does the movement.
If a mounted rider went past an opponent, that opponent should get an AoO on the rider and the mount even though the rider isn't conducting a movement action of their own at that moment. The mount is causing the movement and the rider inherits the same condition.
What if a hypothetical rider had his mount take a 5ft step? The rider doesn't provoke in that scenario despite the fact that the rider hasn't actually taken a 5ft step action of their own. Again the rider inherits the consequences and nature of his mount's movement.
I'd use those two scenarios, one provoking and one avoiding provocation as the basis for my ruling at a table. If the mount can withdraw, the rider is also withdrawing.
Further, the rider actually can't perform a withdraw action of their own any more than they could take a 5ft step while their mount is. The rider doesn't perform an action, the horse does. As such I'd consider it legal for the horse to withdraw and the rider to use any actions they have remaining after directing the mount in any way they see fit, including attacking.
I'd say this based on comparing it to a charge- the mount can't make a charge while allowing the rider to make a full attack after the mount's charge.
Just to be clear, the rules on mounted charges are that you can only take one melee attack if your mount moves more than 5ft in a round. It goes on to say you can't full attack, which ropes ranged attacks into the same penalty. It doesn't say the rider actually loses any actions. By the rules the rider could take an attack as a standard action and still do something else such as dismount as a move-equivalent action.
In Mok's scenario, by RAW the mount has only moved 5ft. At the same time, because of squeezing, the mount has consumed 10ft of its movement. A DM has to balance those two factors.
I'd agree that the rider shouldn't get a full attack at the end of his mount's 5ft squeezing withdraw. But they should be able to still get a full round of actions as long as it's not used for a full attack.
|
|
Under what rationale would a non-withdrawing rider of a withdrawing mount be immune to AoOs?
Lets take the squeezing etc out of the situation. Best case scenario. Open ground, horse can 5 foot move freely, etc.
Mount withdraws and moves away. Mount is clearly immune to first AoO provoke of the non-reach, adjacent NPC.
The rider, per mounted combat rules, "Your mount acts on your initiative count as you direct it. You move at its speed, but the mount uses its action to move."
The rider is moving (at the mount's speed) but not spending an action to move. If he does not also withdraw for that movement, he's provoking AoO.