Horses and movement in combat.

[Rhaegar]

How do people handle horse movement in combat?

I'm new to DMing and my players just bought riding horses. For movement I proposed using the rules on page 190 of the PHB for Breaking up your move, using different speeds: If you have more than one speed such as your walking speed and a flying speed, you can switch back and forth betwen your speeds during your move. Whenever you switch, subtract the distance you've already moved from the new speed. The result determines how much farther you can move. If the result is 0 or less, you can't use the new speed during the current move.
For example, if you have a speed of 30 and a flying speed of 60 because a wizard can cast the fly spell on you, you could fly 20 feet, then walk 10 feet, and then leap into the air to fly 30 feet more.

This to me seems like a good way to handle it. One of my players is arguing that movement speeds are separate for the horse and the character, and this rule is only for different speeds for a single character, and that he should be able to move the horses full movement, and then use his full movement on top of that. The problem is that you can get into some ridiculous situations this way. My argument is that time in fact passes while riding a horse, and even using the moving using different speeds rule in the PHB you could still use your full movement after the horse using half his move, which seems generous enough to me. But that if the horse uses his full movement, to much time has passed for you to do any further movement yourself.

Using what my player wants to do you could theoretically take my Goliath barbarian riding a horse dismounts and carries our human paladin in his arms dropping the paladin who then runs carrying our halfling rogue who then sprints carrying our druid and polymorphed mage in her pockets, the druid changing into a giant eagle carrying the polymorphed mage and his familiar, where the familiar than carries the polymorphed mage. And all of a sudden the mage went over 500 feet in one 6 second round. If each persons movement is independent of the other you get ridiculous results. You also end up with a person who dismounts gaining a lead on a person who stays on a horse which seems silly.

How do others handle horses moving in combat situations?

[Slipperychicken]

PHB 198 has you covered. Mounting and dismounting both cost half your speed. Also, characters can only mount or dismount once during a round. I cannot mount a horse, make it move 60 feet, then dismount in the same turn.

[Rhaegar]

PHB 198 has you covered. Mounting and dismounting both cost half your speed. Also, characters can only mount or dismount once during a round. I cannot mount a horse, make it move 60 feet, then dismount in the same turn.

Dismounting taking half your turn, and yes you can only mount and dismount once per turn. But if you let a horse use it's full movement and a player use his full movement, If you start mounted you could use the horses full movement, dismount and use your full movement, If on your next turn you than run and mount a second horse that is waiting ahead of you, and use the horses full movement, this makes it so that if you strategically place horses at perfect intervals a person who repeatedly dismounts and mounts every other round would always outpace someone who stayed on their mount, which just seems silly to me.

[Flashy]

I think the key answer here is that a creature's movement isn't some bizarre supply of movement that it keeps stored up and can use on demand, it's a representation of how far they can go in a six second round. If they spend that six seconds riding another creature then that exhausts their movement for the turn, because it exhausts the time they could have spent moving.

[Sitri]

Looking over the mounted sections of the PHB it looks to me like it supports the player's reading, however I also think that is stupid. Your idea of shared movement speeds seems very reasonable to me.

Mount rules seem kind of phoned in. In addition to creating the funny situations you described, it looks like you could use a variant of the old peasant cannon to get a horse to travel at unlimited speed. Have a bunch of riders all in a line spaced out.

Horse runs to rider
Rider mounts and resets the horse's initiative,
Horse runs to another rider who knocks off the first,
Rider mounts and resets the horse's initiative,
Horse runs to another rider who knocks off the first,

Repeat as desired to have horse and whatever it is carrying travel an unlimited distance in one round.

[Tanarii]

If your players start taking riding horses into combat, they're going to lose them quickly. Probably in the first encounter. They're AC 10 with 13 hps. 1-2 blows from typical enemies can take them down easy at the level you can first afford them, usually around 3rd level, assuming you're not upgrading (or saving to upgrade) armor.

But yes, you can move up x2 mounts speed (if it uses its action to Dash) + dismount and 1/2 PCs speed, all in one round. Plus the PC gets his normal action.

[MaxWilson]

If your players start taking riding horses into combat, they're going to lose them quickly. Probably in the first encounter. They're AC 10 with 13 hps.

Phantom Steed to the rescue!

[Tanarii]

Hahaha yeah that's true :)

Takes eveln minutes to cast (as a ritual) for each party member. Each hour, or time one gets killed. You might end up in a phantom steed summoning / wandering monster battling loop. ;)

[Slipperychicken]

if you strategically place horses at perfect intervals a person who repeatedly dismounts and mounts every other round would always outpace someone who stayed on their mount, which just seems silly to me.

If someone has access to a line of horses all placed exactly 135 feet away from one another, then over the course of about 260 feet or more, he can move up to 12.5% (15/120) faster than someone riding normally. That is such an extreme corner-case that I'm not even sure if it's worth worrying about. Most grids aren't even wide enough for that to happen. At that point, you can safely veto the idea.



Horse runs to rider
Rider mounts and resets the horse's initiative,
Horse runs to another rider who knocks off the first,
Rider mounts and resets the horse's initiative,
Horse runs to another rider who knocks off the first,

Repeat as desired to have horse and whatever it is carrying travel an unlimited distance in one round.

I'd say changing initiative does not restore the mount's movement or actions, if they were already taken. It already had its turn.


If your players start taking riding horses into combat, they're going to lose them quickly. Probably in the first encounter. They're AC 10 with 13 hps. 1-2 blows from typical enemies can take them down easy at the level you can first afford them, usually around 3rd level, assuming you're not upgrading (or saving to upgrade) armor.

Each attack enemies make against a mount is one they're not making against the rider, so that's a win. Also, the mounted combat feat is specifically made to keep attacks off the mount. Personally, I'd be more worried about AoEs. Even then, once you get out of low levels, the cost of a good horse is pocket-change. That's if you even have to pay for your mount, which you don't in the case of spells like Phantom Steed and Find Steed.

[MaxWilson]

Each attack enemies make against a mount is one they're not making against the rider, so that's a win. Also, the mounted combat feat is specifically made to keep attacks off the mount. Personally, I'd be more worried about AoEs. Even then, once you get out of low levels, the cost of a good horse is pocket-change. That's if you even have to pay for your mount, which you don't in the case of spells like Phantom Steed and Find Steed.

This seems like a good place to mention that in games where Paladin/Warlock is a thing (somehow), Find Steed + Armor of Agathys lets you double the total damage output from each AoA while simultaneously keeping your mount alive longer. If you're relatively lucky you could inflict up to 150 HP total damage from a single Armor of Agathys V, more if you Blade Ward.

[Tanarii]

Each attack enemies make against a mount is one they're not making against the rider, so that's a win. Also, the mounted combat feat is specifically made to keep attacks off the mount. Personally, I'd be more worried about AoEs. Even then, once you get out of low levels, the cost of a good horse is pocket-change. That's if you even have to pay for your mount, which you don't in the case of spells like Phantom Steed and Find Steed.for sure, depending on your level, that's a very expensive or relatively cheap way to avoid blows. 75 gp per attack avoided is about 1-1/2 level's worth of gold for the first five levels. Only about 1/13th of a level's gold at 6-10. So yes, I was assuming low level, a potentially incorrect assumption based on the OP's statement that the PCs had just bought mounts. And yeah, AoEs would definitely be a bigger problem than direct attacks.

But despite my talk about costs, the main reason it'd suck would be not having a mount until you can find a way to replace it. (Spells notwithstanding since we're specifically talking about buying riding horses.)

[Rhaegar]

for sure, depending on your level, that's a very expensive or relatively cheap way to avoid blows. 75 gp per attack avoided is about 1-1/2 level's worth of gold for the first five levels. Only about 1/13th of a level's gold at 6-10. So yes, I was assuming low level, a potentially incorrect assumption based on the OP's statement that the PCs had just bought mounts. And yeah, AoEs would definitely be a bigger problem than direct attacks.

But despite my talk about costs, the main reason it'd suck would be not having a mount until you can find a way to replace it. (Spells notwithstanding since we're specifically talking about buying riding horses.)

The players just reached level 4 during the last play session when they bought their mounts. The price was not trivial for them. They bought riding horses and not war horses for a reason, not enough money.

Now that you mention it I can easily see many of the horses dying if they face any AoE opponents.

Also if I put enough animal handling checks on them to control the riding horses in combat situations, they may quickly realize that taking simple riding horses into battle against large monstrosities isn't the best of ideas. I could always fireball all the horses and be done with it. Though that would be a bit mean.

[Tanarii]

I was going to suggest the Animal Handling checks thing for a riding horse in combat, but couldn't find the rules support for requiring it in the rules. That's not to say you shouldn't if you think it's appropriate ... just that I didn't want to get a bunch of posters jumping all over me saying it wasn't RAW. ;)

[Slipperychicken]

As for animal handling, a mount may simply flee combat if it isn't actively being controlled. For controlled mounts, I think checks would be appropriate if the mount is not trained for war. Perhaps one at DC 10 to keep it calm at the start of combat (DC 15 if it's something especially frightening), and another such check each time it takes damage. If the check fails, it might get the frightened condition, try to run, or even attempt to buck the rider off. While riding a spooked mount, an action and check from the rider to re-assert control seems fair to me.


for sure, depending on your level, that's a very expensive or relatively cheap way to avoid blows. 75 gp per attack avoided is about 1-1/2 level's worth of gold for the first five levels.

If at levels 1-4, every attack is hitting AC 10 for 13 damage, and your enemies are all swinging for the harmless horse instead of the rider who is stabbing them, then you've got bigger problems. After level 4 or 5, it is more realistically getting one-shotted. If it helps your immersion, Arthurian myth had horses die or collapse in pretty much every fight worth mentioning.

But if you really want to never be dismounted, I'd suggest either having a spell to summon it, the Mounted Combat feat, good barding for its AC, and/or cast something like the Aid spell on your horse to beef up its hit points. It would also help to have a backup mount or two. Maybe you could get those retainers from the Noble background to keep some fresh mounts ready.

[Daishain]

the mount's movement is technically occurring during the same time frame as the player's movement. So if the PC spent 6 seconds riding on a horse in a particular round, they have 0 seconds left over in that same round to use their own two feet.

The breaking up your move rules apply here quite well. Just treat the mount's movement like you would a fly or burrow speed for the PC.

[Sitri]

I'd say changing initiative does not restore the mount's movement or actions, if they were already taken. It already had its turn.



Well we can, and in this case should make up rules to prevent stupid things like this from happening. But I really hate the need to. I like games to be a RAW as possible, but I am finding that 5e makes that hard.

[Flashy]

If at levels 1-4, every attack is hitting AC 10 for 13 damage, and your enemies are all swinging for the harmless horse instead of the rider who is stabbing them, then you've got bigger problems.

CR 1/2 orc hits AC 10 on a 5 or higher, and deals 9 average damage with its greataxe. CR 1/2 hobgoblin hits AC 10 on a 7 or higher, and deals 12 average damage as long as there's another hobgoblin within 5 feet of the target. CR 1/2 giant wasp hits AC 10 on a 6 or higher, and deals 15 average damage if the creature fails the constitution saving throw. CR 1/2 warhorse skeleton hits AC 10 on a 4 or higher, and deals 11 average damage. CR 1 half ogre hits AC 10 on a 5 or higher, and deals 10, 12, or 14 average damage depending on weapon configuration. Literally every one of those enemies is a reasonable encounter in that level range which is more likely than not to hit the horse and has a decent chance of dealing 13 or more damage to it.

It's also totally a sensible tactic when someone big and scary is riding around on a horse to try to kill the horse first. I'm not saying that every enemy should do it, but it's not unreasonable for hobgoblin archers or orc raiders to try to cut the horse out from under a dangerous rider.

I agree that saying that's the horse works out to 75 gp per attack avoided is a bit of an exaggeration, but even in the most average of games it's totally plausible that you run into enemies who cut through your mounts pretty quickly.

[Rhaegar]

While a lot of a lot of enemies could one shot it to the ground, it wouldn't be immediately dead would it. It'd just be KOd like a player, making death checks, or are animals different. And enemies would likely move on to other targets when the horse falls giving the healer a chance to heal the horse. Though if a horse ends up getting KOd every time you take it into battle, it may become increasingly less likely to want to ride into battle with you.

The horse might not be the best damage sink considering if it crumbles to the ground beneath you, you'd have to succeed on a dex check to not fall prone, and enemies have advantage to melee you when you're prone.

[hymer]

While a lot of a lot of enemies could one shot it to the ground, it wouldn't be immediately dead would it. It'd just be KOd like a player, making death checks, or are animals different.

PCs get death saves. NPCs only get death saves if the DM wants them to have death saves. Anyway, getting struck for 26 damage becomes increasingly likely as you advance in levels. An average ogre (CR 2) crit is 21 points of damage. It only needs to roll a little better, or against a somewhat injured horse, to slay it outright.

In a 3.5 campaign I'm currently running, goblin archers engaging mounted foes shoot at horses first as a matter of course. It keeps the enemy from hunting you if you need to run, or keeps them from escaping as easily if the goblins decide to run (as goblins often do). They will sometimes switch targets after they see what their enemies are really capable of, however. Spellcasters in easy range are high priority.
Still, the PCs need to take care of their mounts.

[Maxilian]

Dismounting taking half your turn, and yes you can only mount and dismount once per turn. But if you let a horse use it's full movement and a player use his full movement, If you start mounted you could use the horses full movement, dismount and use your full movement, If on your next turn you than run and mount a second horse that is waiting ahead of you, and use the horses full movement, this makes it so that if you strategically place horses at perfect intervals a person who repeatedly dismounts and mounts every other round would always outpace someone who stayed on their mount, which just seems silly to me.

Well dismounting take half of your move (so its mounting) so if you start mounted, i think you could move 60, dismount and move 15 feet

[Rhaegar]

the mount's movement is technically occurring during the same time frame as the player's movement. So if the PC spent 6 seconds riding on a horse in a particular round, they have 0 seconds left over in that same round to use their own two feet.

The breaking up your move rules apply here quite well. Just treat the mount's movement like you would a fly or burrow speed for the PC.

That's what I proposed, it seemed initially like a fairly reasonable, non-controversial solution to me. However I ended up getting a several page essay over several emails and 2 hour in person briefing as to why it makes reasonable sense to chain them back to back and get the full move of both. In short there were details about the average speed of horses, the average speeds of professional athletes, average time it takes to do various actions. (No I'm not joking, or exaggerating in the slightest)

[Daishain]

That's what I proposed, it seemed initially like a fairly reasonable, non-controversial solution to me. However I ended up getting a several page essay over several emails and 2 hour in person briefing as to why it makes reasonable sense to chain them back to back and get the full move of both. In short there were details about the average speed of horses, the average speeds of professional athletes, average time it takes to do various actions. (No I'm not joking, or exaggerating in the slightest)
Somehow I doubt their argument is valid, but if they want to play it that way, inform them that mounting will from now on take an action and ALL movement for both rider and horse (IE mounting time itself takes ~6 seconds).

The same goes for dismounting, unless the players want to jump off, in which case it doesn't take an action or the mount's movement but does takes half of their movement and they have to make an athletics check vs bludgeoning damage and prone condition.

Speaking from personal experience with riding horses, this is considerably more realistic. Even professional horse riders don't just hop up and go (not claiming to be one, amateur at that particular activity, but I've worked with such on multiple occasions).

You could also start introducing rules simulating momentum. A horse takes a fair bit of time to get up and down from full speed. Probably give them 30 feet of speed from a cold start, only give them the full amount if they've been going in something resembling a straight line for more than one turn, sharp turns or reversals drop the speed down to 30 again.

Don't let them bully you around with real world statistics when the game is already very unrealistic in ways that greatly favor them.

[Slipperychicken]

Well we can, and in this case should make up rules to prevent stupid things like this from happening. But I really hate the need to. I like games to be a RAW as possible, but I am finding that 5e makes that hard.

I agree. Where the rulebooks fail to give proper guidance, it falls to us as players to use our judgement and create sensible rulings.


A big failing of the 3rd edition community (myself included) was in its slavish adherence to RAW. We can do better by using our brains and not allowing the books' imperfections to interfere with our games.

[Sitri]

I agree. Where the rulebooks fail to give proper guidance, it falls to us as players to use our judgement and create sensible rulings.


A big failing of the 3rd edition community (myself included) was in its slavish adherence to RAW. We can do better by using our brains and not allowing the books' imperfections to interfere with our games.

But issues arise when brains, like Rhaegar's and his player's, lead them to very different conclusions. In general, defer to your DM is decent enough advice, but having played under maybe a little under 100 in my life, I know sometimes that is **** advice.

[Vogonjeltz]

How do people handle horse movement in combat?

I'm new to DMing and my players just bought riding horses. For movement I proposed using the rules on page 190 of the PHB for Breaking up your move, using different speeds: If you have more than one speed such as your walking speed and a flying speed, you can switch back and forth betwen your speeds during your move. Whenever you switch, subtract the distance you've already moved from the new speed. The result determines how much farther you can move. If the result is 0 or less, you can't use the new speed during the current move.
For example, if you have a speed of 30 and a flying speed of 60 because a wizard can cast the fly spell on you, you could fly 20 feet, then walk 10 feet, and then leap into the air to fly 30 feet more.

This to me seems like a good way to handle it. One of my players is arguing that movement speeds are separate for the horse and the character, and this rule is only for different speeds for a single character, and that he should be able to move the horses full movement, and then use his full movement on top of that. The problem is that you can get into some ridiculous situations this way. My argument is that time in fact passes while riding a horse, and even using the moving using different speeds rule in the PHB you could still use your full movement after the horse using half his move, which seems generous enough to me. But that if the horse uses his full movement, to much time has passed for you to do any further movement yourself.

Using what my player wants to do you could theoretically take my Goliath barbarian riding a horse dismounts and carries our human paladin in his arms dropping the paladin who then runs carrying our halfling rogue who then sprints carrying our druid and polymorphed mage in her pockets, the druid changing into a giant eagle carrying the polymorphed mage and his familiar, where the familiar than carries the polymorphed mage. And all of a sudden the mage went over 500 feet in one 6 second round. If each persons movement is independent of the other you get ridiculous results. You also end up with a person who dismounts gaining a lead on a person who stays on a horse which seems silly.

How do others handle horses moving in combat situations?

Substituting the rules on 190 for mounted movement invalidates the entire purpose of having a mount, greater speed. This is borne out by the extremely clear movement rules for mounts that are covered on page 198 under "Controlling a Mount". (*as noted by Slipperychicken)
Controlled mount: "A controlled mount can move and act even on the turn that you mount it."
Independent mount: "Bearing a rider puts no restrictions on the actions the mount can take, and it moves and acts as it wishes."

Your player is correct (as shown on 198).

For the last example, each character would have to be able to carry the associated weight of the other characters and all their gear, as would the horse, and they would have to have the correct initiative order, and doing this trick cost the Wizard a 4th level spell slot(!) and the Druid both uses of Wild Shape.

The first requirement however, pretty well rules all this out. The human alone (gear excluded) could be virtually outside the carrying capacity of a strength 20 character.

In any event, the cost of the spell slot means that the Wizard would have been better off just casting Dimension Door, in which case he also could have brought a friend.


the mount's movement is technically occurring during the same time frame as the player's movement. So if the PC spent 6 seconds riding on a horse in a particular round, they have 0 seconds left over in that same round to use their own two feet.

The breaking up your move rules apply here quite well. Just treat the mount's movement like you would a fly or burrow speed for the PC.

Except the rules are quite clear that it's not the character's movement, it's the mounts movement.


Well we can, and in this case should make up rules to prevent stupid things like this from happening. But I really hate the need to. I like games to be a RAW as possible, but I am finding that 5e makes that hard

You really don't need to worry about such a thing. To actually do it for even one leg would require:
1) Precise consecutive initiative order by all characters. As initiative order is randomized and static, this won't be occurring.
2) Exact spacing of characters along a given route, all of whom are in combat. This isn't happening unless the DM wills it (in which case you are the architect of your own irritation).
3) Each successive character winning the contest to knock the previous one off the mount. Again, this is randomized and repeat successes reach astronomical levels of improbability quite quickly.

[Sitri]

You really don't need to worry about such a thing. To actually do it for even one leg would require:
1) Precise consecutive initiative order by all characters. As initiative order is randomized and static, this won't be occurring.
2) Exact spacing of characters along a given route, all of whom are in combat. This isn't happening unless the DM wills it (in which case you are the architect of your own irritation).
3) Each successive character winning the contest to knock the previous one off the mount. Again, this is randomized and repeat successes reach astronomical levels of improbability quite quickly.

Such a thing shouldn't happen, but it could be contrived by RAW. Suppose a DM gives some type of time constraint that starts at the players leisure (not insanely odd) they could build this and have the rules to back them. I don't think the DM should allow it. But I think this sucks because I hate to override the book without forewarning.

The circumstances required to allow a lessor version of it to transport something the horse is carrying to get double or triple distance will eventually happen if players actively use mounts.

[hymer]

I ended up getting a several page essay over several emails and 2 hour in person briefing as to why it makes reasonable sense to chain them back to back and get the full move of both. In short there were details about the average speed of horses, the average speeds of professional athletes, average time it takes to do various actions. (No I'm not joking, or exaggerating in the slightest)

I assume you're exaggerating, but still: When people get this worked up about RPGs, I start thinking about ways to give them a little break. A few months, perhaps. Because that sort of energy level can't be good for you, and it's extremely annoying to people around you.
Also, the DM needs to be able to cut through and state how the game runs. If players try to fight it with long-windedness, they're doing everyone a disservice.

[Rhaegar]

My ultimate concern is that if in characters turn, the expend all of their movement dismounting, moving towards a target, use their action, and bonus action, that is supposed to represent 6 seconds. All turns within one round are supposed to essentially all be happening at the same time, within the same 6 second interval. If a character spent 6 seconds moving acting and bonus acting, where does the time come from to ride their horse to the destination where they dismounted. It just seems to me that there should be something taken up when moving on a horse, that it shouldn't be 100% free of charge without some sort of time penalty whether it be in the form of movement cost or action cost.

[Daishain]

Except the rules are quite clear that it's not the character's movement, it's the mounts movement.
The rules say nothing on this particular subject, all they confirm in that respect is that the mount moves just as swiftly with or without a rider. The assumption that riding a mount takes up the time that could otherwise be used to walk around is not contradicted by RAW.

Furthermore, it makes FAR more sense, as all turns are supposed to occur simultaneously. If a PC spent the entire horse's turn (all 6 seconds of it) being carried around, simple continuity states that he has zero seconds left in which to act this round. Frankly, only restricting movement and not actions at that point is quite generous.

The biggest reason to say no, is that this kind of mechanics abuse is exactly that, abuse. It belongs in the same category as the commoner railgun or using a mount to double cone of cold. It is perhaps less egregious than those examples. but still.

[Rhaegar]

After talking with a second of my players, who is much more in line with my logic. I believe we'll be using the multiple movement rules, however also allow the players to either dismount using movement, or dismount by expending their action. This gives them somewhat more flexibility in movement capabilities without violating causality by essentially assuming the player is in two places at once.

[Slipperychicken]

The rules say nothing on this particular subject, all they confirm in that respect is that the mount moves just as swiftly with or without a rider. The assumption that riding a mount takes up the time that could otherwise be used to walk around is not contradicted by RAW.

The encumbrance rules are quite clear on the matter. Bearing 180lbs of weight drops a warhorse's speed by 10ft (to 50 feet), while 360lbs drops it by 20ft (to 40 feet), and anything over 540lbs is simply more than the mount can bear on its back. That same beast could instead drag a weight of up to 1,080lb behind it, whether on a cart or carriage, although more than 1,080lb drops its speed down to 5 feet.

One can extrapolate that a human-sized armored rider with the average PC's equipment load would easily top 360 pounds, and call it heavy encumbrance. That means the mount goes 40 feet while bearing such a rider, and 60 feet unencumbered. A lighter rider, or one clever enough to leave his adventuring supplies on a separate mount or wagon, might get the total load lower than 360lb, and thus eke out an 'extra' 10 or 20 feet of movement.

[Rhaegar]

The encumbrance rules are quite clear on the matter. Bearing 180lbs of weight drops a warhorse's speed by 10ft (to 50 feet), while 360lbs drops it by 20ft (to 40 feet), and anything over 540lbs is simply more than the mount can bear on its back. That same beast could instead drag a weight of up to 1,080lb behind it, whether on a cart or carriage, although more than 1,080lb drops its speed down to 5 feet.

One can extrapolate that a human-sized armored rider with the average PC's equipment load would easily top 360 pounds, and call it heavy encumbrance. That means the mount goes 40 feet while bearing such a rider, and 60 feet unencumbered. A lighter rider, or one clever enough to leave his adventuring supplies on a separate mount or wagon, might get the total load lower than 360lb, and thus eke out an 'extra' 10 or 20 feet of movement.

Where is it in the PHB that it discusses horses movement in regards to encumbrance, I tried looking for it once and couldn't find it.

[Slipperychicken]

Where is it in the PHB that it discusses horses movement in regards to encumbrance, I tried looking for it once and couldn't find it.

Page 176, the encumbrance rules. A warhorse has 18 strength and is a large creature. I calculated these figures as normal. Remember that being large doubles the carry capacity.


Also page 157, the "mounts and other animals" features the simplified carry capacity (15xstrength, x2 for each size category over large). That figure is what would be used if the encumbrance rules are not in effect.

[Vogonjeltz]

Such a thing shouldn't happen, but it could be contrived by RAW. Suppose a DM gives some type of time constraint that starts at the players leisure (not insanely odd) they could build this and have the rules to back them. I don't think the DM should allow it. But I think this sucks because I hate to override the book without forewarning.

The circumstances required to allow a lessor version of it to transport something the horse is carrying to get double or triple distance will eventually happen if players actively use mounts.

But such a contrivance would require the players to be in combat. That simply isn't happening, they'd be dead or the combat likely would be over by the time the players had moved themselves into position...and even then each player could have simply done that in the first place.

This is a useless theoretical trick.


My ultimate concern is that if in characters turn, the expend all of their movement dismounting, moving towards a target, use their action, and bonus action, that is supposed to represent 6 seconds. All turns within one round are supposed to essentially all be happening at the same time, within the same 6 second interval. If a character spent 6 seconds moving acting and bonus acting, where does the time come from to ride their horse to the destination where they dismounted. It just seems to me that there should be something taken up when moving on a horse, that it shouldn't be 100% free of charge without some sort of time penalty whether it be in the form of movement cost or action cost.

It's not free of charge, each rider is going to have to save or be knocked prone, which costs half their movement next turn and in the meantime makes them vulnerable to melee, plus the horse and rider draw opportunity attacks, so there is a risk.

[Rhaegar]

It's not free of charge, each rider is going to have to save or be knocked prone, which costs half their movement next turn and in the meantime makes them vulnerable to melee, plus the horse and rider draw opportunity attacks, so there is a risk.

Where is the save or knocked prone situation, or opportunity attacks. In my example none of that was happening. For riding horses there would be an animal handling check to have the horse not be spooked sure, but that wouldn't be the case for a war horse.

For me it comes down to the fact that each round represents 6 seconds. Each persons turn represents what they do within that 6 second turn. If you chain the horses turn and the players turn back to back with no shared movement in time then the player is by definition of the combat round rules in two places at once.

[Vogonjeltz]

Except the rules are quite clear that it's not the character's movement, it's the mounts movement.The rules say nothing on this particular subject,

PHB 198: "It moves as you direct it" + "A controlled mount can move and act even on the turn that you mount it."

It may move. Not you, it.


Where is the save or knocked prone situation, or opportunity attacks. In my example none of that was happening. For riding horses there would be an animal handling check to have the horse not be spooked sure, but that wouldn't be the case for a war horse.

For me it comes down to the fact that each round represents 6 seconds. Each persons turn represents what they do within that 6 second turn. If you chain the horses turn and the players turn back to back with no shared movement in time then the player is by definition of the combat round rules in two places at once.

No, that's true, your example had other costs, expended resources that would have achieved the same effect, stringing characters out over a wide distance (in combat no less!) and so forth. Sitri's was an attempt to reach unlimited travel distance, but it would result in prone characters each time one was shoved off the mount.


I'd say changing initiative does not restore the mount's movement or actions, if they were already taken. It already had its turn.

Agreed, if the creature has taken their turn that round, then they wouldn't have any movement remaining until the next round. A change in initiative count wouldn't impact that.

Problem solved! Good thinking.

[Sitri]

But such a contrivance would require the players to be in combat. That simply isn't happening, they'd be dead or the combat likely would be over by the time the players had moved themselves into position...and even then each player could have simply done that in the first place.

This is a useless theoretical trick.



It's not free of charge, each rider is going to have to save or be knocked prone, which costs half their movement next turn and in the meantime makes them vulnerable to melee, plus the horse and rider draw opportunity attacks, so there is a risk.

Let me reiterate in case you missed it. In the unlimited movement situation; I can only imagine this being needed if a DM puts a time limit on something the players can choose when to start; such a task may likely make a DM want to be running initiative anyway. If not, a contriving player, the type we are talking about, can generate an initiate required situation where there is no real threat.

In the limited abuse version, I can see this happening by natural circumstances quite easily.

The rules are weak in this matter.....and several others.

[Vogonjeltz]

Let me reiterate in case you missed it. In the unlimited movement situation; I can only imagine this being needed if a DM puts a time limit on something the players can choose when to start; such a task may likely make a DM want to be running initiative anyway. If not, a contriving player, the type we are talking about, can generate an initiate required situation where there is no real threat.

In the limited abuse version, I can see this happening by natural circumstances quite easily.

The rules are weak in this matter.....and several others.

With no real threat there is no combat, with no combat there is no initiative. One flows from the other.

This is all mooted by Slipperychicken having noted that changing intiative does not grant a second turn. (PHB 189)

[Daishain]

PHB 198: "It moves as you direct it" + "A controlled mount can move and act even on the turn that you mount it."

It may move. Not you, it.
Congratulations on missing the point so badly I'm wondering if we're having the same conversation.

We are speaking of potentially limiting the character's movement due to said character spending time making use of the mount's movement. The rules do not cover the case in question, leaving it in the realm of DM fiat. The fact that the mount is indeed moving under its own power is entirely irrelevant and never in question.

I and others did indeed mention treating the mount's speed as part of the mounted PC's speed. But this is simply the easiest method of modeling the limitations. Far simpler than introducing new rule mechanics.

[Rhaegar]

PHB 198: "It moves as you direct it" + "A controlled mount can move and act even on the turn that you mount it."

It may move. Not you, it.



If it's moving but not you, than it moves beneath you, leaving you behind. The fact that you're coming along for the ride means that you have in fact moved. If you're not moving than you are either instantly telephoning, or in two places at once.

What it ultimately comes down to is if there is no cost to moving with the horse in terms of either movement cost or action cost, then the character is in two places at once in the round. The round is 6 seconds, each creatures turn represents what they do within that 6 seconds. If a Horse transports you across the field for 60 feet, and you still get your full 6 second turn, than you effectively instantly teleported, since at time zero of the round you are at both the starting point for the horse, when the horse does it's 6 second turn within the round, and you are simultaneously at the point in space where the horse finishes moving at time zero. Since your 6 seconds of activity in the round would technically be starting before the horse actually reached it's destination.

[Vogonjeltz]

Congratulations on missing the point so badly I'm wondering if we're having the same conversation.

We are speaking of potentially limiting the character's movement due to said character spending time making use of the mount's movement. The rules do not cover the case in question, leaving it in the realm of DM fiat. The fact that the mount is indeed moving under its own power is entirely irrelevant and never in question.

I and others did indeed mention treating the mount's speed as part of the mounted PC's speed. But this is simply the easiest method of modeling the limitations. Far simpler than introducing new rule mechanics.

The rules specify the mount moves on its own speed and that is separate from (doesn't impact) the character's speed. My comment could not have been more relevant or on point.


If it's moving but not you, than it moves beneath you, leaving you behind. The fact that you're coming along for the ride means that you have in fact moved. If you're not moving than you are either instantly telephoning, or in two places at once.

What it ultimately comes down to is if there is no cost to moving with the horse in terms of either movement cost or action cost, then the character is in two places at once in the round. The round is 6 seconds, each creatures turn represents what they do within that 6 seconds. If a Horse transports you across the field for 60 feet, and you still get your full 6 second turn, than you effectively instantly teleported, since at time zero of the round you are at both the starting point for the horse, when the horse does it's 6 second turn within the round, and you are simultaneously at the point in space where the horse finishes moving at time zero. Since your 6 seconds of activity in the round would technically be starting before the horse actually reached it's destination.

It's the same as if the characters were on a boat. The boat moving doesn't reduce count as the character's speed, preventing the characters from moving around on the boat, or getting off and moving. What you have outlined makes no sense.

If the horse is controlled (it being a horse, the answer is probably, yes) means it has the same initiative count as the player, so no, there's no point in time where the player is in two places at once.

If the mount weren't controlled, the character is conveyed on the mount's turn. This movement is no different than if the character were moved somewhere outside the bounds of their own control. In no way does that reduce the character's movement for their turn.

[Daishain]

The rules specify the mount moves on its own speed and that is separate from (doesn't impact) the character's speed. My comment could not have been more relevant or on point.The rules specify that the mount moves using its own speed, period. Everything else is speculation on your part. That first statement was never in question, and the rule appears to exist to allay any confusion about how fast a mount goes while bearing a rider.



It's the same as if the characters were on a boat. The boat moving doesn't reduce count as the character's speed, preventing the characters from moving around on the boat, or getting off and moving. What you have outlined makes no sense.While being carried along by a mount or boat, there's no reason to limit movement relative to the mount or boat. The matter of remaining time left in which to move during a particular round only becomes relevant when you get off.


If the horse is controlled (it being a horse, the answer is probably, yes) means it has the same initiative count as the player, so no, there's no point in time where the player is in two places at once.That doesn't change the problem. A speed of 30, or 80, or whatever is simply how fast one can go within 6 seconds. Use all or an appreciable part of that speed, and you use all or an appreciable part of that time frame. If the mount spends 6 seconds running around, then the player spent six seconds being carried around. If they somehow still have 6 seconds within which to move, then yes, they are indeed in two places at once from the perspective of 'real' time, moving from point A to B in the same time frame they are moving from point B to C. Either that, or you are effectively giving them a free pseudo round in which no one moves except for them (and anyone else who's stacking speed scores).


If the mount weren't controlled, the character is conveyed on the mount's turn. This movement is no different than if the character were moved somewhere outside the bounds of their own control. In no way does that reduce the character's movement for their turn.Entirely correct, and yet still irrelevant. Such movement is typically in the form of short bursts, perhaps taking up a quarter of a second worth of real time. Even if people were inclined to mess with equating the two forms of movement (which I don't think anyone is) 5E's KISS philosophy doesn't exactly jive with the idea of reducing speed by 2 feet every time someone gets shoved with an eldritch blast, or however much one decided it would be worth.

The principle exception, dragging someone else around, actually represents a major argument in favor of the approach I advocate. Otherwise you allow some pretty ridiculous shenanigans, such as the human fighter closing a 90 foot gap using a speed boost from the monk.

[Sitri]

With no real threat there is no combat, with no combat there is no initiative. One flows from the other.

This is all mooted by Slipperychicken having noted that changing intiative does not grant a second turn. (PHB 189)

I am sure you can get the peasants to throw rocks at each other as they get into position, pick a fight with someone incompetent and pull your punches or any number of things.......I will agree that this is irrelevant as it would and should be overruled. My main argument is that it could happen and the lessor version will happen.

That isn't explicated stated, but I think it is the most reasonable extrapolation. I think an argument could be mounted against it using the text in the book, but agree with you this is the best answer. Thank you for taking the time to pull a page number.