Mounted Combatant and Mounted DEX Saves

[Easy_Lee]

There's been some discussion lately about whether / when the evasion-esque bonus from mounted combatant applies to the rider. For the uninitiated, one of the benefits of mounted combatant is that if your mount would take half damage on a successful DEX save, it instead takes none.

The questions:
Q1: How does this work?
Q2: Does it benefit the rider in any way?
Q3: Does it make sense for rider and mount to have separate DEX saves?

My personal opinion is that it seldom makes sense for rider and mount to make separate saves. Anything the mount avoids, the rider would have to avoid by virtue of being attached to the mount. For the sake of argument, consider three common DEX saves:

S1: Pit fall - DEX save to avoid falling
S2: Fireball - DEX save to avoid half the damage (or all of it for characters with evasion)
S3: Dart trap - DEX save to avoid getting poisoned

S1: if the mount avoids the pit fall, so does the rider. If the mount fails, the player is going in unless the DM gives him a save to quickly dismount, Mario-jumping-off-yoshi style. There is no question that if something is carrying you, then you go where it goes.

S2: How does one avoid a fireball? It explicitly fills the area. The only conceivable way to avoid it is by getting out of the way (diving into water, jumping over it, getting behind someone else to lessen its impact on you, etc). The fact that nobody actually moves in the process of dodging is a limitation of the system (imagine trying to write the rules).

So what happens when a mount succeeds on its save? This is a DEX save; the mount didn't just get lucky, it did something to avoid the blast. Lucky would have been not getting fireballed in the first place. Logically, just about anything one can do to avoid a blast will extend to what it's carrying. Your pack doesn't catch fire when your rogue dodges a fireball.

But should a mount extend its evasion? Well, consider Q1; where does evasion come from? Is the nonmagical rider somehow magically protecting his mount, but not himself? More likely the rider is just keeping an eye out for danger and steering his mount clear of it. Once again, I don't see how the rider can get hit when the beast he's on avoided the fixed-area blast.

S3: probably the strongest case of the three for rider and mount making separate checks. A mount might crouch to avoid the darts, but fail to safeguard its rider.

What do you guys think? I'm curious to hear the discussion.

[Anxe]

S1 The mount could save, but in avoiding the pit trap, unbalance the rider and possibly toss her into the pit.
S2 The mount could save by blocking the main part of its body from the blast with the rider.
S3 You already mentioned how the rider gets hit but the mount doesn't here.

I'd agree with giving a bonus to the rider if the mount avoids the effect, but not completely nullifying the save.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

RAW: either the effect is targeting the mount - in which case it never has a direct effect on the rider - or it's targeting both, in which case you both need to make and resolve saves seperately.

S1: I'd rule the pit trap is only 'targeting' the mount. The player is only affected if they fall off the mount.
S2: Anything caught in the AOE needs to roll a save.
S3: Similarly, both must roll their own saves.

i can see the argument for unified dex saves - the sweet fleet mount is pretty nice. But i kinda doubt mounted combatant was balanced with that house rule in mind.

i would rule you can choose to make a unified evasion roll, but you must make a dexterity check to stay mounted if you do so.

[Galen]

S1: Pit fall - DEX save to avoid falling
...

S1: if the mount avoids the pit fall, so does the rider. If the mount fails, the player is going in unless the DM gives him a save to quickly dismount, Mario-jumping-off-yoshi style. There is no question that if something is carrying you, then you go where it goes.
Not gonna argue the rule, but in this case all scenarios are possible, fluff-wise at least.
a. Both fall: straightforward.
b. Both avoid: straightforward.
c. Only rider falls: horse stops short before the pit. The rider, being the clutz he is, goes over the horse's head and plunges into the pit. Actually a common situation in competitive riding, when a horse stops short before an obstacle.
d. Only horse falls: horse goes down, rider hangs on for dear life at the edge of the pit.

So if indeed the rule allows individual saves for mount and rider, there's no need to "fix" this rule to "match common sense". Just a bit of imagination on the DM's part describing the scenario.

[Easy_Lee]

Stuff.

So every time the mount succeeds on a save that the player doesn't, the player falls off his mount? Even if he's strapped into the saddle, such as a drow riding a lizard? So the player was not only damaged by the fireball, but removed from his mount (in essence, punished for taking the feat and having his mount pass its save).

I'm curious to hear your answer to question 1. If the rider is such a klutz, how did he grant his mount evasion by virtue of riding it? Is he less aware of the danger, or aware but simply unable to hang on? This is a trained athlete we're talking about, and he's not using one of the short, crouch-stand-in-it saddles used in competitive riding.

Edit: one more point: hanging on is a lot easier than making the dodge yourself.

[Galen]

I don't know, and frankly don't care, about every single corner case scenario you can come up with. The point I'm trying to convey is that constantly tinkering with the rules just because you can't, at a moment thought, find a fluff justification for event X to happen is not the way to go. Just think harder about your narration.

I would, if I had to actually DM the situations you describe.

[Easy_Lee]

I don't know, and frankly don't care, about every single corner case scenario you can come up with. The point I'm trying to convey is that constantly tinkering with the rules just because you can't, at a moment thought, find a fluff justification for event X to happen.

1) It's not a corner case scenario for a mounted combatant to get hit with a fireball or potentially fall in a pit. That's pretty common.
2) I came up with logical "fluff" reasons that benefit the player. You came up with fluff reasons that punish the player. Creativity has nothing to do with it; that's a fundamental difference of style.

[Sartharina]

In the case of a pit trap, I'd say only the mount has to try and save. It's the one moving, after all. But in the case of an AoE - both have to save. In the case of a targetted spell, the target has to save.

[jkat718]

As far as your issue regarding whether someone can fall of their horse if they are strapped in, why not port in the military/combat saddle from earlier editions? We already have the exotic saddle. This could give you the ability to use your mount's DEX save, but make your own (possibly with Disadvantage) if it fails. Fluff-wise, this makes sense: if your mount dodges, it pulls you with it. If your mount gets hit, you can try to dodge, but it's more difficult because you are strapped to it. Of course, this is probably unbalanced (depending on cost) and there is probably a better solution out there, but I personally like the idea of military saddles.

[Easy_Lee]

As far as your issue regarding whether someone can fall of their horse if they are strapped in, why not port in the military/combat saddle from earlier editions? We already have the exotic saddle. This could give you the ability to use your mount's DEX save, but make your own (possibly with Disadvantage) if it fails. Fluff-wise, this makes sense: if your mount dodges, it pulls you with it. If your mount gets hit, you can try to dodge, but it's more difficult because you are strapped to it. Of course, this is probably unbalanced (depending on cost) and there is probably a better solution out there, but I personally like the idea of military saddles.

That's more or less what I was thinking. Your mount geta a DEX save, but you don't. Unless it's a targeted attack, you just use the mount's. That made the most sense to me, and it's quicker than separate rolls.

[Socko525]

Well considering my thread sparked this debate, I figure I'll chime in.

I'd argue that the pitfall situation is fairly straight forward. If the mount suceeds, both avoid the trap. If the mount fais and falls, I'd say they both do. You actively decided to take the mount and know the risks/benefits associated with. I figure being forced to fail if the mount fails counteracts the passing if the mount passes. Considering the Dex mod of the common mounts found in the game is fairly low, I don't think this situation is really worth arguing over.

The second situation with the fireball is more interesting. The way a fireball is described, I honestly don't see how having a Dex save would allow to take half damage, period. But considering that that's how the game mechanic is, I would rule that the mount's save would count for the rider. If the rider is somehow able to, through whatever means, allow it's mount to dodge and do no/half damage, I would argue the rider would benefit as well.

For the dart trap, i feel that falls into the realm of single target type attacks like scorching ray...it targets a specific creature, so that creature makes the save.

As with everything in 5e though, it all comes down to the DM. When I explained the feat to my DM, he agreed to the points I made above without question, as to him "It just makes sense".

I feel I'm going to elevate this and email WotC and see what official ruling they'll give on this.

[jkat718]

That's more or less what I was thinking. Your mount geta a DEX save, but you don't. Unless it's a targeted attack, you just use the mount's. That made the most sense to me, and it's quicker than separate rolls.
What's your opinion on allowing the rider to make a disadvantaged save if the mount fails, to simulate dodging in a saddle?


*snip* I feel I'm going to elevate this and email WotC and see what official ruling they'll give on this.

Thanks, Socko.

[Easy_Lee]

What's your opinion on allowing the rider to make a disadvantaged save if the mount fails, to simulate dodging in a saddle?

That'd be a fine rule, too. To me, what ought to happen depends a lot on the situation. If a player makes a save that his mount failed, it's possible he had to jump off (dragon breath, fireball, pitfall). The rules don't get into that degree of complication, but things like that can be handled at the table.

I'm tempted to just say player chooses what it will be when they get in the saddle. Either they strap themself in and trust the mount's save, or they ride loose so they can make their own. I like to keep things as simple and intuitive as possible. But additional saves at disadvantage when the mount fails seems reasonable (just like you might give the gnome wizard a save to jump out of the barbarian's backpack before the latter goes over a cliff).

Notably, it's hard to imagine riding certain mounts at all without being strapped in (such as mounts with a climb speed).

[Safety Sword]

S2 as you're calling it is not going to have a logical conclusion for mounted combat.

If you're at the epicenter of a fireball effect and you "use your reflexes" to "save" yourself, the only explanation is the you cover up vital areas or you're lucky (We're assuming you're not able to actually shift positions to avoid the effect, which no save has ever given you the ability to do).

I think everyone can see this when a character is on foot. The iconic image of a well timed dive to the ground under a fireball. Whatever.

On a mount, well... umm... I've never seen a horse dive onto the ground. Comical images come to mind of spreadeagled horses. And then they get up. The rider might cover with a shield, using his own DEX save. The mount has no such opportunity.

The whole concepts of "saves" is a catchall for explaining the inexplicable survival of events that should kill you.
The evasion component of mounted combat is just so that you don't have to get a new horse every time you fight a wizard. Mounts are bound to have a limited hit point totals in comparison to the character on the back. It's purely a game mechanical construct to help with mount survival.

Stop trying to make the rider and mount one creature. It's not a thing.

[Socko525]

What's your opinion on allowing the rider to make a disadvantaged save if the mount fails, to simulate dodging in a saddle?

I suppose that could work, but I'd still be ok with the rider failing, as the benefit for it succeeding is quite strong.

As with just about everything this edition...I'd say it'd be up to your DM

[Sartharina]

The way a fireball is described, I honestly don't see how having a Dex save would allow to take half damage, period.It's the ability to cover your more vital spots before you get scorched, I think. Unless your horse has evasion. Then your horse dances in circles within the fire dodging it all (Or just dancing and singing '**** yeah, I'm a horse, of course!" and other horse-magic things). You both save individually, though - just because your horse decides it's immune to enemy shenanigans doesn't give you a free pass as well.

[Easy_Lee]

It's the ability to cover your more vital spots before you get scorched, I think. Unless your horse has evasion. Then your horse dances in circles within the fire dodging it all (Or just dancing and singing '**** yeah, I'm a horse, of course!" and other horse-magic things). You both save individually, though - just because your horse decides it's immune to enemy shenanigans doesn't give you a free pass as well.

See that's the thing, though. At no point, anywhere, does the PHB say any of what you just suggested. "How does all of this crap work?" "I dunno, just accept it. Don't try and interpret anything."

I'd much rather just interpret things in an intuitive, simple way and avoid exactly the kind of thing you suggested. I'd rather not have to break my willing suspension of disbelief every time a fireball hits a rider but not the horse. And the last thing I want to do is say to my players "them's the rules, accept them. Don't think too hard about them."

[Safety Sword]

See that's the thing, though. At no point, anywhere, does the PHB say any of what you just suggested. "How does all of this crap work?" "I dunno, just accept it. Don't try and interpret anything."

I'd much rather just interpret things in an intuitive, simple way and avoid exactly the kind of thing you suggested. I'd rather not have to break my willing suspension of disbelief every time a fireball hits a rider but not the horse. And the last thing I want to do is say to my players "them's the rules, accept them. Don't think too hard about them."

The simple way to think about this is as follows:
There's a rider, he's on a horse. When they get hit by bad stuff, they save individually because they're not the same or magically merged. The PHB does say that your horse can avoid all damage from an AoE effect. It doesn't say that about you just because you're on a horse but you aren't a horse. The rules are pretty clear except in cases where people are trying to read too much into them and twist the interpretation to gain added advantage.

Why this is the rule might not make sense, but I think your brain will tell you that getting the ability to dodge fire because you sit on a horse is counter intuitive.

I see another error. You're trying to be intuitive about the magic elf game. Stop it. You'll only hurt yourself.

Try these suggestions:
It's magic.
A wizard did it.
Horses are really magical fire dodging phantasms that degrade themselves to let you ride them.
Horses have the "fire passes through me on a save" background.

If you want to make it simple for yourself just use the rule as it is without trying to change it into something else and then adding confusion trying justify it as "it's intuitive". Experience will tell you that if they wanted to add evasion to your character from taking mounted combat there are any number of sentences they could have constructed and printed in the PHB to achieve that.

[Easy_Lee]

they save individually because they're not the same or magically merged.

They aren't magically merged, they're physically merged by the rider being strapped to the mount. In D&D terms, "it works in an anti-magic field."


The rules are pretty clear except in cases where people are trying to read too much into them and twist the interpretation to gain added advantage.

People don't criticize chess players for using pins, or boxers for using feints. So why is it that doing anything the least bit clever in D&D catches scorn? Either way, this has nothing to do with a clever interpretation of mechanics, it has to do with a mechanic that either shouldn't be there (because it doesn't make sense) or should apply to the rider (because he's strapped to the horse). You still have failed to find any way that makes sense.


I see another error. You're trying to be intuitive about the magic elf game. Stop it. You'll only hurt yourself.

A world should make sense in its own context. As a writer, I can tell you that simple rule is one of the top ten of writing fiction. When they don't, we call it a consistency error, plot hole, fridge logic, or any of a variety of terms for the same thing. Fantasy writers always want their worlds to make sense where possible. To insult someone for analyzing a fantasy world is to insult every fantasy author in the world.

How do you suppose someone like Isaac Asimov would have felt about being told that being "intuitive" (thinking) about his worlds is a bad thing? Is D&D somehow exempt from analysis because it's based in a LOTR-esque universe, instead of a sci-fi one? You're out of line if you think trying to understand and make sense of a fictional universe, any fictional universe, is wrong.


Experience will tell you that if they wanted to add evasion to your character from taking mounted combat there are any number of sentences they could have constructed and printed in the PHB to achieve that.

Rule #0, Safety. You've already all but admitted my interpretation makes more sense than the one written. So why shouldn't I use it in my own games?

If you really want to be a jerk to players, and rule against them every chance you get (and I suspect that's exactly what many are trying to do), the simplest thing to do would be to exclude that line from mounted combatant altogether. Keeping and eye open and directing your mount away from danger? That makes sense, but it benefits the players. Just argue "magically granting your steed evasion is dumb" and take it away.

But I don't run my games like that. I try to build a cohesive, believable world. Unless you have suggestions as to how to do that, or how to interpret this feat in a way that doesn't involve "it's a fantasy elf game", I really would appreciate it if you didn't try to talk down to me.

[Socko525]

If your mount uses the dash action, you don't have to use up your movement speed to along with it. Because you're strapped to it, when it moves you move. Seems like the same thing to me with the evasion concept as well...

Either way I wrote up and submitted a rule clarification question to WotC. In my experience with other rule questions I have asked them, I got an answer within 24-48 hours, so we'll wait and see

[Safety Sword]

They aren't magically merged, they're physically merged by the rider being strapped to the mount. In D&D terms, "it works in an anti-magic field."

No, they do not become one creature. They have their own game statistics that apply to them. Use them. That would be my suggestion.




People don't criticize chess players for using pins, or boxers for using feints. So why is it that doing anything the least bit clever in D&D catches scorn? Either way, this has nothing to do with a clever interpretation of mechanics, it has to do with a mechanic that either shouldn't be there (because it doesn't make sense) or should apply to the rider (because he's strapped to the horse). You still have failed to find any way that makes sense.

It's not clever to try and gain undue advantage in a role playing game rule. It's essentially cheating. Always reading the rule the most favorable way and only the parts that give your character an advantage is poor behaviour.


A world should make sense in its own context. As a writer, I can tell you that simple rule is one of the top ten of writing fiction. When they don't, we call it a consistency error, plot hole, fridge logic, or any of a variety of terms for the same thing. Fantasy writers always want their worlds to make sense where possible. To insult someone for analyzing a fantasy world is to insult every fantasy author in the world.

How do you suppose someone like Isaac Asimov would have felt about being told that being "intuitive" (thinking) about his worlds is a bad thing? Is D&D somehow exempt from analysis because it's based in a LOTR-esque universe, instead of a sci-fi one? You're out of line if you think trying to understand and make sense of a fictional universe, any fictional universe, is wrong.

We're not talking about a world. We're talking about a game rule. It is an error in consistency to give game characters extra abilities that are not stated in the rules. It's not wrong to try and make sense of everything. It just isn't strictly necessary either.




Rule #0, Safety. You've already all but admitted my interpretation makes more sense than the one written. So why shouldn't I use it in my own games?

If you really want to be a jerk to players, and rule against them every chance you get (and I suspect that's exactly what many are trying to do), the simplest thing to do would be to exclude that line from mounted combatant altogether. Keeping and eye open and directing your mount away from danger? That makes sense, but it benefits the players. Just argue "magically granting your steed evasion is dumb" and take it away.

But I don't run my games like that. I try to build a cohesive, believable world. Unless you have suggestions as to how to do that, or how to interpret this feat in a way that doesn't involve "it's a fantasy elf game", I really would appreciate it if you didn't try to talk down to me.

The world can be anything you want it to be. Use whatever interpretation you like. Your game is not my game. I just think it's incorrect to always read in favour of a player, to the point where you're giving them unintended abilities. It will annoy other players at your table and they will have good cause to gripe. Or everyone will take the feat to gain evasion, which is too strong. That's not being a jerk, that's running the game with the rules for consistency.

Some of these abilities are purely from the magical game balance fairy. I would suspect that mounts being able to totally avoid AoE damage on a reflex save is purely so you can move on with your game and not have to worry about it. Your mount isn't the star of the story. Hand wave the damage so it never dies and destroys a player's investment in mounted combat. Again, I wouldn't do it that way, but it's a valid way to do it. Anything is.

I'm not trying to talk down to you. And I resent the fact that now you make me defend myself. We obviously have different opinions on how the game should be run. It's fine, I don't even take it personally that you select out the bits you like to quote me on to base your arguments on, it is after all consistent on how you're reading the rules of the game. Whatever. Another opinion is all I'm giving you. And I'm not the only one it seems, for whatever that is worth to you.

[Sartharina]

The ability for a rider to negate the damage his mount takes on a save is extraordinary, and mostly exists to keep horses from being killed underneath the rider. It's for balance, not simulationism. Evasion is similar.

Without Evasion and Mounted Combat, it makes sense for both to have to roll their saves independently - one may be riding the other, but they're flinching/twisting independently.

[MukkTB]

As DM I would rule that the pit trap targets the mount. If the mount fails the pit trap then targets the rider.

The fireball and darts target both simultaneously. The RAW is unclear on the pit trap, but the aoe stuff is pretty straightforward. This situation is truly up to the
dm. This edition can be frustrating, but when its up to the DM its really up to the DM. In this particular case the DM points at something and declares that is the thing that has to save. Then the rule about evasion comes into play. Argue with the DM if you want, but arguments over fluff won't change the RAW no matter what your DM finally decides. The RAW is that there is no answer and each DM comes up with their own.

[jkat718]

I suppose that could work, but I'd still be ok with the rider failing, as the benefit for it succeeding is quite strong.

As with just about everything this edition...I'd say it'd be up to your DM

I am my DM. :smalltongue: I'm looking for solutions to run this rule in my campaign.

[Safety Sword]

I am my DM. :smalltongue: I'm looking for solutions to run this rule in my campaign.

In that case, take all of the opinions here (because that's all they really are) and swirl them around for a while and pick one that you want. Base that decision on whatever criteria you like.

My only caution to you is that you should carefully weigh the options and then once you make your decision you should stick to it for that campaign. Try to think of the implications for game play at your table for those who are affected by the changes. That's everyone at the table. Including you, as you have to live with it too.

You can clearly see that people reading the same rules can read them with different intentions or perspectives to get the "ruling".

[Socko525]

Can't say I expected anything less, but but here's the OFFICIAL response from WotC

"Hello Ted,

Thank you for contacting us.

In regards to the Mounted Combatant Feat and specifically the Dexterity savings throw, you would want to check with your DM on how they wish to apply the rule, if they wish to apply it on a case by case basis depending on the situation or a blanket rule is up to them."

[Easy_Lee]

Thanks for the effort Socko. Yeah, I guess we all should have expected it. I'll rule case-by-case, with most things being a single check, if it comes up in my game.

[Safety Sword]

Can't say I expected anything less, but but here's the OFFICIAL response from WotC

"Hello Ted,

Thank you for contacting us.

In regards to the Mounted Combatant Feat and specifically the Dexterity savings throw, you would want to check with your DM on how they wish to apply the rule, if they wish to apply it on a case by case basis depending on the situation or a blanket rule is up to them."

I read this as:
Why are you asking us? It's your game, do what you want. I'm too busy for your incessant questioning. I have cat videos to watch on the internet.

[bain08]

I'm just commenting and necroing to say how much I appreciate OP owning Safety Sword.

TLDR of that was "I don't want to follow rules that don't make sense just because they're rules"
The response to which is "YEAH BUT THEY THE RULES"

Fantastic.