Mounted combat

[Jeivar]

As I mentioned in a recent thread I'm really tempted to take Mounted Combatant for my Paladin at fourth level. I like the idea of having advantage on attack rolls against anything smaller than a horse. I'm just wondering how practical mounted combat is in general. Does charging by an unmounted creature and attacking it still provide an attack of opportunity when leaving the threat range?

Also, does having a warhorse attack a creature count as an action for the player, or can I attack at the same time as the mount does?

[Daishain]

As I mentioned in a recent thread I'm really tempted to take Mounted Combatant for my Paladin at fourth level. I like the idea of having advantage on attack rolls against anything smaller than a horse. I'm just wondering how practical mounted combat is in general. Does charging by an unmounted creature and attacking it still provide an attack of opportunity when leaving the threat range?

Also, does having a warhorse attack a creature count as an action for the player, or can I attack at the same time as the mount does?
Both questions depend on DM interpretation

Case #1, the reasonable response is that yes, it still provokes AOO. But that isn't RAW, and a DM may decide that the AOO can only be directed at the mount

Case #2, the mount rules are screwy, and fail to elaborate on what happens when riding a creature that is not only sapient but in nigh perfect sync with the PC. I've always run it that you share initiative, but each have your own actions. (Powerful yes, but that's kind of the point of the paladins mount) If you are really unlucky, you might end up with a DM that insists on running it as an independent mount. Forcing you to ride to a point where you can attack on the mount's turn, then sitting around and hoping the enemy actually stays there. (hint, if this occurs, just find another table)

[Knaight]

As a GM I'd generally rule that you act on the same initiative, but you have to split attacks between you and your mount. The rules are fuzzy, and from a simulation perspective it makes some amount of sense that a rearing mount kicking something tends to throw off your weapon use a bit.

In practice, I don't see a lot of mounted characters and those that do tend to be archers, so it doesn't actually come up.

[The Tyler]

I felt the rules were pretty clear for the most part.

The mount moving out of reach of an enemy triggers an attack of opportunity. If you provoke an attack of opportunity, it can target you or the mount.

As for attacks, that depends. If you're directly controlling a mount, it cannot make an attack and acts at your initiative. If you allow it to act independently, it retains its own actions, including attacks and initiative, but you cannot control it.

The only unclear point is initiative with an independently acting mount. Since it retains its own initiative, you may not be a convenient place to take your action during your initiative. But that can be solved with a readied action or, if your DM allows it, carrying over the old 'delay' action and using it to take your action with your mount.

[Kurt Kurageous]

The RAW on mounted (horse) combat is inadequate IMHO because the laws of physics do not require a feat or a to-hit roll by a horse to work. The following observations are based on horses and perhaps should apply only to horses and other mounts with speeds of 60' and weights at or above 1000 pounds.

A horse and rider moving at full speed should have the flyby ability to move through an area of control without provoking an AOO. Just like the fliers, a horse and rider isn't there long enough for a normal action versus one target and a second one against a different and fast moving target. Further, I think all creatures with movements of 60' should get the flyby. The giant owl has it, but the hawk does not. One is large, the other tiny. You get two attacks on the tiny one. Maybe WotC will take that up someday.

Force = Mass times Velocity. A 1000 pound horse moving at only 4 MPH (walk)= 4000 units of force = a 10 pound sledgehammer moving at 400 MPH. A horse walking towards you and bumping you with it's shoulder delivers the same force as a sledgehammer swung faster than a driver in the hands of a golf pro. Admittedly, the impact is distributed over a larger area and so you don't get the same trauma. Just the same applied force.

What makes a rider and horse devastating is the moment when the mass and velocity of the horse is put into a small point of impact. A lance makes this happen with significant inefficiencies. The rider holding the lance uses their body pushing against the saddle. The rider can only hold the lance during impacts on things that cannot fully absorb the force of impact. Meeting an equal force (like hitting a castle wall?) would tear apart the rider's elbow/shoulder/wrist. The effects of a lance on things less sturdy than a castle wall (a human body) makes a charge of horses terrifying. This does not consider the possibility of the weapon missing you and the horse striking you with its' chest as it runs past.

A warhorse STR save or prone completely ignores physics. There is no way a humanoid with a mass of about 1/5 of a horse is going to be able to stand up to a horse. Grapple a horse running by you and wrestle it prone? Makes more sense to me than standing in the path of a horse without being knocked over.

A boulder rolling towards you doesn't need to hit. You'd probably try a DEX (acrobatics) save to get out of the way, fail and you take damage. So why must the horse make a to hit roll?

I think there should be a benefit to a featless but proficient mounted combatant besides speed. I suggest using either the horses' or the rider's STR modifier for to hit and damage when using a lance, and adding half the horses' STR modifier to the riders' for all other melee weapons. I also suggest that a mount with a move of 60' moving at least half speed can move through the space of any creature smaller than itself without provoking an AOO. The overrun creature must make a DEX save (DC 13 or 14, depending on the kind of horse and speed) to avoid being knocked prone.

That's what I think. What do you think?

[Dimcair]

I think your wall of text is forgetting that this is not a simulator.
/edit: to be fair, after reading it all, you do make sense, no question about that.

On topic: The rules are indeed wonky.

First things first. The big question is whether
your mount is independent or not. Independent mounts are supposed to be intelligent creatures, the phb gives a dragon as the only example. Therefore it is unlikely that your warhorse or even your paladin steed is meant to act independently. ESPECIALLY considering the Beastmaster situation of the ranger.

Now there are three actions your mount can take, and again it is unclear whether it takes any action resources from the rider. There is dash, disengage and dodge.

Which brings us to three, does your dm allow you to control your horse into DISENGAGING TOWARDS an enemy, negating all aoo FOR FREE once mounted up? You will have automatic immunity to all aoo just by sitting on something that qualifies as a mount.

It is my stance that disengaging is an action, therefore you will have to spend that action directing your horse away, or speeding it up, or letting it dodge. But that is only my take on it.

Other ways to handle that?

[jkat718]

@OP: The way I run it, OAs can target the rider, as well (but that's not RAW). I allow the rider to ready an Attack action with the trigger of "when my horse reaches a good target," allowing them a Reaction attack when their mount charges at someone. Alternatively (or additionally), the mount can ready the Dash action with the trigger of "when my rider makes their attack," allowing the mount to move away after the attack. It's a little confusing, but here's how it works in practice:

OPTION A: #Attack occurs on Rider's turn.
Mount uses movement towards Enemy.
Mount uses Ready Action to Ready a Dash Action away from Enemy (trigger is Rider's attack).
Rider uses Attack Action to attack Enemy.
Mount uses Reaction to Dash away from Enemy.
Enemy takes turn.

OPTION B: #Attack occurs on Mount's turn.
Rider uses Ready Action to Ready an Attack Action at Enemy (trigger is Mount's movement).
Mount uses movement to move to Enemy.
Rider uses Reaction to attack Enemy.
Mount uses Dash Action to move away from enemy.
Enemy takes turn.

Option C: #Attack occurs on Enemy's turn.
Rider uses Ready Action to Ready an Attack Action at Enemy (trigger is Enemy's Action OR Mount's movement).
Mount uses Ready Action to Ready a Dash Action towards Enemy (trigger is Enemy's Action).
Enemy takes turn.
Mount uses Reaction to Dash towards Enemy.
Rider uses Reaction to attack Enemy.

[Dimcair]

Here it is important to remember that control of the horse goes to the DM by RAW.
Since the mount is independent from you, it may just run off to eat some grass rather than charge the big ogre that wants to eat it.

[Rhaegar14]

People are forgetting that this is a Paladin's specially summoned mount with some of these arguments, which means two things:

1) It has Intelligence 6. It is not particularly smart but I'm pretty sure that makes it sentient.

2) The Paladin can telepathically communicate with the mount within a range of 1 mile.

It also says IN THE SPELL DESCRIPTION "and you have an instinctive bond with it that allows you to fight as a seamless unit."

Bearing these things in mind I'm pretty sure saying that the horse gets its own actions and does what you want it to isn't much of a stretch.

[Waazraath]

People are forgetting that this is a Paladin's specially summoned mount with some of these arguments, which means two things:

1) It has Intelligence 6. It is not particularly smart but I'm pretty sure that makes it sentient.

2) The Paladin can telepathically communicate with the mount within a range of 1 mile.

It also says IN THE SPELL DESCRIPTION "and you have an instinctive bond with it that allows you to fight as a seamless unit."

Bearing these things in mind I'm pretty sure saying that the horse gets its own actions and does what you want it to isn't much of a stretch.

+1 Really a shame it wasn't described more explicitly how this is supposed to work. For me, the spell suggests as well that fighting with this mount is easier then the rules as described for mounted combat, and I agree that getting the horse to do what you want and getting its own actions would be logical, but now it's up to every DM how to handle this.

[Daishain]

Here it is important to remember that control of the horse goes to the DM by RAW.
Since the mount is independent from you, it may just run off to eat some grass rather than charge the big ogre that wants to eat it.
A.) A trained war mount isn't going to do that
B.) A sapient celestial spirit that is masquerading as a trained war mount isn't at all afraid of the ogre (can't actually be killed), and probably doesn't even like eating grass

Stop trying to apply general rules for mounted combat to mounts that violate the rules.

[Kurt Kurageous]

I think your wall of text is forgetting that this is not a simulator.
/edit: to be fair, after reading it all, you do make sense, no question about that.

Thanks for the revision. I am not easily offended, and I AM wordy, so fair point.

I agree DnD version any is not a simulation, but it often tries for verisimilitude. That's what I'm going for.

What do you think of the rider using their interaction to communicate a command, and can use an action or bonus action to give a second command to the mount? The horse makes only reactions to the rider following it's training. A sentient animal or celestial one follows or even anticipates the commands and takes independent actions.

I assume Option Bt plays like Option B. Rider commands horse to move forward (interaction), rider prepares reaction attack when opponent is in range, rider reacts, then tugs rein/applies spurs (bonus action) to dash. Or disengage, if you think a horse moving at four times maximum human speed isn't fast enough for a flyby and provokes an AOO.

Add to this the passive bludgeoning/saving roll for anyone run down by a horse moving in a generally straight line or slight arc, and you have two "attacks" in a turn, one for horse, the other for rider.