Abusive Halfling Mounted Combat

[Mochan]

I was thinking of silly builds to try with my next PC and this is what I came up with. I'd like to ask if this makes sense RAW or if I'm abusing the rules too much.

Lightfoot Halfling Beastmaster 3/Rogue 2

So I use the Beastmaster to get a Flying Pteranodon as my animal companion. Since it's Medium, I use it as my mount.

I take Mounted Combat, which gives me the ability to force all attacks targeting my mount to me.

On my turn, I attack with my bow or whatever. The Pteranodon does a flyby and we escape back into the air.

Then, I use Cunning Action to Hide behind my Pternadon, using Halfilng's Naturally Stealthy Trait.

With this, I am hidden from my enemies, so all attacks targeting me are at a Disadvantage. As an added bonus, my next attack will also have Advantage and Sneak Attack damage.

If the enemies try to hit my pteranodon, I force all attacks to target me instead with Mounted Combat.

And since I'm covered by the Pteranodon's body, I have at least 3/4ths cover, so my AC is +5 -- even if I fail my Hide check. With halfling dexterity and a breastplate this should easily bring my AC up to 23 or so.

So that means any attacks trying to hit me or us will likely be at Disadvantage against AC 23.

Any AOEs trying to hit my mount will miss completely on a successful Dex Save, and my mount has my prof bonus on saves. Once I hit Rogue 7, I'll have the same benefit.

So with this, it makes me and my dino bird very hard to hit and kill, and I can just rain death from above with impunity.


Does this sound about right? Or is there a flaw somewhere?

[clash]

Well it is crafty but there is a few things that logically don't add up:

1) If you are forcing an attack to target you instead of your mount, then you are making yourself obvious so as a dm I would definitely rule that you are no longer hidden. (ie no disadvantage or advantage on next attack. This makes it harder to sneak attack after you protect your mount.

2) Again if you are forcing them to target you I would say you are positioning yourself to provide cover for your mount not the other way around so unfortunately I would rule you lose the ac bonus when your mount is attacked and you take the hit.

3) If they attack you and miss because of the cover(+5) to ac but would normally hit you then I would rule they hit your cover which is in this case your mount.

At that point you just have a flying mount because your defensive bonuses are mostly gone, which is more balanced and arguably as intended.

[Mochan]

At that point you just have a flying mount because your defensive bonuses are mostly gone, which is more balanced and arguably as intended.

Gotcha, I guess this is one of those "ask the DM" situations, RAW it's definitely abusable as written but for sure RAI it's just broke abuse.