5
\$\begingroup\$

I am not asking if a Centaur can be used as a mount, such is in this question, I am asking if a Centaur can utilize a mount of its own, as in riding/mounting its own creature.

This may sound counter-intuitive, and I can conjure as many arguments anyone else can in favor of or against it as well, but disregard any assumed RAI, or questions as to why or how a Centaur may or may not be able to pull-off riding another creature. I'm interested in RAW answers only please, as I can't find anywhere written dictating whether a Centaur can or cannot use a mount of its own, and "safe to assume" is not something that satisfies my curiosity.

Can we also stay away from any unnecessary "mounting" innuendos, please?

For Reference, the Centaur race in 5th Edition is located within Guildmaster's Guide to Ravnica, pages 15 - 16. I am utilizing the rules from officially released guidebooks (so no Unearthed Arcana related answers please).

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ Related: Does the UA Centaur stack actually work? \$\endgroup\$ – V2Blast Sep 2 at 7:21
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ I only came here for the innuendos. Now I'm feeling sad. \$\endgroup\$ – Valorum Sep 2 at 19:38
  • \$\begingroup\$ Am I the only one that finds this question ironic given your moniker? \$\endgroup\$ – Slagmoth Sep 3 at 11:32
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Valorum I too love innuendos, but I know how out of hand the internet can get with them. Haha! \$\endgroup\$ – He Who Rules As Intended Sep 5 at 2:33
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Slagmoth No, you're not the only one. ; ) \$\endgroup\$ – He Who Rules As Intended Sep 5 at 2:34
10
\$\begingroup\$

Not unless the DM rules that the intended mount has "an appropriate anatomy"

The rules on mounted combat state (emphasis mine):

A willing creature that is at least one size larger than you and that has an appropriate anatomy can serve as a mount, using the following rules.

Now, finding a creature that's at least one size larger is pretty easy. The playable centaur race is size Medium, so any Large creature satisfies the first requirement. You might even find a willing one. But I think you would be hard-pressed to find a willing Large creature that has an "appropriate anatomy" to be ridden by a centaur.


Rules designer Jeremy Crawford unofficially addressed a semi-related question in a May 2018 tweet (though the question was about the UA version of the centaur race and whether they could be stacked):

Doesn't that still mean that a centaur can ride another centaur?

The rules on riding a mount specify that a mount must have a suitable size and anatomy for you to ride it (PH, 198). If the game makes an exception to part of that rule—about the creature's size, for instance—the other part of the rule still stands.

But who or what determines suitable anatomy? Cuz the way I see it is that a centaur would have suitable anatomy for another centaur BECAUSE they're the same shape. Have you stacked up cups in a cabinet or something? They're still the same size but they stack very effectively.

The DM decides.

As referenced in the tweet, the Equine Build trait in the UA version of the trait had made an exception (as the tweet mentions) to the size requirement of the mount rules: "Finally, a Medium or smaller creature can ride on your equine back if you allow it." However, as Crawford states, even if the size requirement is overridden, the "appropriate anatomy" requirement is not.

This exception to the size requirement was removed from the trait in the published version of the centaur that appears in the Guildmasters' Guide to Ravnica (p. 16). Thus, no exception is made at all to the rules on mounts. Even if you find a creature of a suitable size (Large, or larger), it must still have a suitable anatomy to be mounted.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ I like your answer solely based on "an appropriate anatomy" which can, in iteself, argue against Centaurs having next to no possible candidates, but only if this is how you interpret JC's answer. While this is indeed RAW, it is very vague, and one can only ASSUME RAI in this case, which can be argued that "an appropriate anatomy" was meant as anything quadrupedal with a solid enough build to carry someone/thing on it's back and traverse landscape at a reasonable pace. I feel this doesn't offer a very strong RAW solution based solely on this description of a mount. But, DM's call decideds all. \$\endgroup\$ – He Who Rules As Intended Sep 2 at 7:40
  • \$\begingroup\$ @BelynoldDayslayer: I think the rules on what counts as "appropriate anatomy" are intentionally left vague and up to DM discretion. \$\endgroup\$ – V2Blast Sep 2 at 7:55
  • \$\begingroup\$ Fair assessment, and I don't disagree. I just like to find the most concrete and indisputable answers, but if that's the best answer we've got, it's the best we've got. \$\endgroup\$ – He Who Rules As Intended Sep 2 at 7:56
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Aaaaand now I have an image of a large horse ridden by a medium centaur ridden by a small shetland pony... \$\endgroup\$ – PJRZ Sep 2 at 9:26
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Note that without implicit twitter errata you need only find a creature with the appropriate anatomy to be ridden, there's no requirement the anatomy be appropriate to any particular rider. Note also the UA equine build ability doesn't create an exception to a prohibition in the mounting rules (as twitter errata might seem to imply) but provides a new way to become mounted in addition to the one present in the PHB-- there are no prohibitions in the mounting rules but rather a specific list of requirements under which one can do a thing. \$\endgroup\$ – Please stop being evil Sep 2 at 22:23

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.