Haste vs. mounted combat - general vs. specific

[Brother carc]

Trying to work out a rules interaction here, and specifically which set of ‘allowed actions’ takes precedence.

I am a level 10 swords bard and I have taken haste and find greater steed as my lvl. 10 Magic’s secrets. My steed is a sabretooth tiger.

Because of the secondary effect of find greater steed, if I cast haste on myself, this will also effect the sabretooth.

In combat, I am intending it to function as a ‘controlled mount’. So the sabretooth can follow the set of actions under controlled mount:

(1) - “The initiative of a controlled mount changes to match yours when you mount it. It moves as you direct it, and it has only three action options: Dash, Disengage, and Dodge. A controlled mount can move and act even on the turn that you mount it.”

But haste gives the sabretooth an extra action, which can be one of:

(2) - “It gains an additional action on each of its turns. The action can be used to attack (one weapon attack only), dash, disengage, hide, or use an object.”

Now it’s fairly clear to me that the sabretooth’s main action can only be used for (1), but haste specifically gives it an extra action that CAN be used to attack. So does the haste spell supercede the provision that a controlled mount cannot attack?

[Arelai]

Yes, it can use the extra action from haste to attack.

The mounted combatant stuff is a general rule, haste is more specific.

[Grimmnist]

I don't think it could attack because the text for controlled mount states: "it has only three action options: Dash, Disengage, and Dodge." Haste gives an extra action, all be it with some limitations, so you still could only pick from your action options.

[Man_Over_Game]

Trying to work out a rules interaction here, and specifically which set of ‘allowed actions’ takes precedence.

I am a level 10 swords bard and I have taken haste and find greater steed as my lvl. 10 Magic’s secrets. My steed is a sabretooth tiger.

Because of the secondary effect of find greater steed, if I cast haste on myself, this will also effect the sabretooth.

In combat, I am intending it to function as a ‘controlled mount’. So the sabretooth can follow the set of actions under controlled mount:

(1) - “The initiative of a controlled mount changes to match yours when you mount it. It moves as you direct it, and it has only three action options: Dash, Disengage, and Dodge. A controlled mount can move and act even on the turn that you mount it.”

But haste gives the sabretooth an extra action, which can be one of:

(2) - “It gains an additional action on each of its turns. The action can be used to attack (one weapon attack only), dash, disengage, hide, or use an object.”

Now it’s fairly clear to me that the sabretooth’s main action can only be used for (1), but haste specifically gives it an extra action that CAN be used to attack. So does the haste spell supercede the provision that a controlled mount cannot attack?

I'd probably say the (1) takes precedence, as doesn't mention all of the things it CAN'T do, only the things it CAN. It has an action that it normally would be able to attack with, it's just not allowed to do so.

But it's also a bit confusing.

RAW, a controlled horse should be able to make an Opportunity Attack, due all creatures getting their normal reactions (which include the option to use Opportunity Attacks), but many DMs may decide to not follow that RAW translation.

I'd make a ruling to say it doesn't get an attack, since it already has an option that allows it to attack (meaning being an uncontrolled mount), but RAW I'd read it that Haste would give it that special action that allows it to attack.

Unfortunately, the rules don't cover every edge case (and casting a buff spell on a mount to ignore mount rules is definitely an edge case) but what comes of it is really how your DM wants to run it.

----------

Although Find Greater Steed gives you a mount that follows your commands. There's no reason for it to be Controlled, since it will do what you want it to anyway. If you decide to "Control" it, it'll now use your initiative, and it becoming "uncontrolled" doesn't change its initiative order. So as soon as you mount it, it's can now use your initiative, and you can just have it act independently and fight with you with no issues.

[Brother carc]

Personally, my opinion is that the haste should take precedence, because it specifically gives an extra action, with the option of attack listed.

I think the specific haste spell overrides the general mounted combat rule

[Ganymede]

(2) - “It gains an additional action on each of its turns. The action can be used to attack (one weapon attack only), dash, disengage, hide, or use an object.”

Now it’s fairly clear to me that the sabretooth’s main action can only be used for (1), but haste specifically gives it an extra action that CAN be used to attack. So does the haste spell supercede the provision that a controlled mount cannot attack?

By deleting the word "only" from the spell ("That action can be used only to..."), you are accidentally turning the spell's restriction into a permission, which is incorrect.

Haste grants an extra action. It then applies limitations to how that action is used.

The mounted combat rule also applies limitations to how an action is used.

Both effects apply overlapping restrictions on how actions can be used. There is no specific-vs-general issue nor is there a problem with which effect applies first; mounted controlled animals are restricted by both sets of action limitations at the same time, and may only take actions are allowed by both Haste and the mounted combat rules.

[Grimmnist]

By deleting the word "only" from the spell ("That action can be used only to..."), you are accidentally turning the spell's restriction into a permission, which is incorrect.

Just googled the spell and the first result did not have the word 'only', however as soon as I checked the PHB (or roll20) there it was.

I agree with your interpretation. It wouldn't make sense if you could Haste something that couldn't attack like an Unseen Servant, take the attack action with it and crash the game.

[Damon_Tor]

Trying to work out a rules interaction here, and specifically which set of ‘allowed actions’ takes precedence.

I am a level 10 swords bard and I have taken haste and find greater steed as my lvl. 10 Magic’s secrets. My steed is a sabretooth tiger.

Because of the secondary effect of find greater steed, if I cast haste on myself, this will also effect the sabretooth.

In combat, I am intending it to function as a ‘controlled mount’. So the sabretooth can follow the set of actions under controlled mount:

(1) - “The initiative of a controlled mount changes to match yours when you mount it. It moves as you direct it, and it has only three action options: Dash, Disengage, and Dodge. A controlled mount can move and act even on the turn that you mount it.”

But haste gives the sabretooth an extra action, which can be one of:

(2) - “It gains an additional action on each of its turns. The action can be used to attack (one weapon attack only), dash, disengage, hide, or use an object.”

Now it’s fairly clear to me that the sabretooth’s main action can only be used for (1), but haste specifically gives it an extra action that CAN be used to attack. So does the haste spell supercede the provision that a controlled mount cannot attack?

1. "Can't" beats "Can" unless its explicit. If you have one thing saying you can do something, and another saying you can't, can't wins, unless the "can" effect specifically says it supersedes the other rules element. In this case, the rules for a controlled mount are effectively a "can't" effect which overrides the "can" effect of haste.

2. HOWEVER, there is almost never a good reason for a Find Steed/Find Greater Steed to be a controlled mount. You should always allow them to act independently because they explicitly follow your commands and are intelligent enough to do so reliably. And no, they don't have to be controlled mounts: Crawford went and took back the stupid stuff he said to the contrary.

[jdolch]

Personally, my opinion is that the haste should take precedence, because it specifically gives an extra action, with the option of attack listed.

I think the specific haste spell overrides the general mounted combat rule

What you call "general" and "specific" here is completely arbitrary. You can just as well say the specific rules for mounted combat trump the general rule of the haste spell.

In fact that is what I would say. The mounted combat rules are there specifically to keep the mount from being able to attack on its own, when already used as a mount. This takes precedence over the general rules of the haste spell. (It's not like the haste spell is made for mounted combat).

But
2. HOWEVER, there is almost never a good reason for a Find Steed/Find Greater Steed to be a controlled mount. You should always allow them to act independently because they explicitly follow your commands and are intelligent enough to do so reliably. And no, they don't have to be controlled mounts: Crawford went and took back the stupid stuff he said to the contrary.

Best ask the DM what s/he thinks.

[Ganymede]

I kinda already answered this question, you guys.

[jdolch]

I kinda already answered this question, you guys.

And we are all proud of you. Cookie?