Mounted Combat Concepts

[ES Curse]

I've done a bit of research and come up with several ways to play with mounted combat mechanics:
-Paladins, Bards (preferably Lore), and BM Rangers (small only) can get a fairly reliable steed without paying
-Small characters can take mounts into most dungeons, but aren't as effective with the Mounted Combatant feat due to their size. What is more useful, reliably using your mount indoors or being really good in open spaces?
-Horseback Archery is a thing, right? Definitely with shortbows, but what about longbows and crossbows?
-Speaking of weapons, how viable is the lance as a standard-issue weapon? I know it's amazing while mounted, but suffers from big drawbacks on foot due to requiring 2 hands and forcing disadvantage at arm's reach. Are there ways to circumvent it beyond "get a longsword"? I was thinking about using grapples at close range (synergizes with the lance's reliance on STR) and possibly claiming it as an "improvised weapon" when at close range.

What classes/races/weapons/tactics would work well for a mounted combat specialist?

[JackPhoenix]

Small characters with Summon Steed can do both, actually: Summoning something smaller (pony, riding dog) for dungeons and warhorses for outside.

Unlike 3.5, rules don't say anything about forbidding longbows on a horse. However, I would likely rule that you either can't use heavy weapons from a horseback, or that you suffer disadvantage because they are too unwieldy (you can't really draw a large bow, heavy crossbow would likely be impossible to reload (the rules are silent about what loading mechanism they use, though), though firing one should be fine, you don't have enough room to swing a greataxe, and the pike is balanced differently from a lance, even though they are both similar weapons.)

Large mount and Mounted Combatant feat mitigate the disadvantage lance suffers in close range, at least against medium and smaller targets. As an infantry weapon, I can't really recomend it, you would be better off using a sidearm (you can't use lance in one hand on foot, so if you use it with a shield while mounted, you would either need to drop the shield (as an action), or draw a longsword (object interaction) when you dismount)

[PeteNutButter]

The problem with mounted combat in 5e is that it took a heavy hit from the oversimplification of rules. Resulting in ways that are RAW that attempt to make it viable but seem unrealistic. You mentioned using a longbow on a mount RAW legit. Also there is the DW feat TWFing with lances. Seems cheesy, but RAW legit. What about riding an elephant? It is size huge giving advantage to 95% of enemies you face. It seems cheesy, but its RAW. Why on earth is it cheaper than a warhorse/even in the phb?

About taking a mount into a dungeon... well most dungeons have rooms, and things can squeeze, so depending on the size of the dungeon you could totally walk around just be a bit in the way of the party. Summon Steed intelligent mounts get around the old DM excuse mounts don't wanna go into dungeon etc...

Basically because 5e didn't put a lot of effort into mounted combat, it becomes a game of cheese and DM nerfing the RAW. It's really sad that so many DMs look to nerf it based on what makes sense in real world, because it's never OP, and will always struggle to keep up with the GWM. Seriously why take a feat if your DM hand waives that it'll only be able to be used 50% of the time, because the other half your in the dungeon? Polearm master, sentinel, GWM, are all vastly superior and don't give the DM easy ways to gimp them.

I've always loved playing mounted characters, but of all the DMs I've ever played with each of them has said at some point, "You can't take your mount in here." In 5e it's just not good enough to make up for those times. :(

Anyways, halfling beastmaster is popular, likely archer. It can be a nice add on to a good build, such as taking GWM and then mounted combat on your paladin to farm advantage. The feat's usefulness is directly impacted by how often your DM will have encounters that allow usage of the mount.

As for using lance(s) its a difficult process, which combines best with ways to mitigate the AoO of leaving 5ft reach creatures. If the battlefield is large enough you might rely on your speed to ride by and poke, hoping the enemies go after other targets. Cunning action could work since you can also give your mount the disengage command, but the sneak attack is wasted on a lance. Mobile is another feat investment, putting you further behind... Attacking enemies next to you that are smaller than your mount is a wash, which isn't horrible.

Best way I see using this is with another PC. Ride the Moon druid, and give him your huge AC and evasion, or be small and master blaster your half-orc. That way the feat isn't waste when you don't get advantage, you are still helping your teammate's low AC.

[Slipperychicken]

I've done a bit of research and come up with several ways to play with mounted combat mechanics:
-Paladins, Bards (preferably Lore), and BM Rangers (small only) can get a fairly reliable steed without paying
-Small characters can take mounts into most dungeons, but aren't as effective with the Mounted Combatant feat due to their size. What is more useful, reliably using your mount indoors or being really good in open spaces?
-Horseback Archery is a thing, right? Definitely with shortbows, but what about longbows and crossbows?
-Speaking of weapons, how viable is the lance as a standard-issue weapon? I know it's amazing while mounted, but suffers from big drawbacks on foot due to requiring 2 hands and forcing disadvantage at arm's reach. Are there ways to circumvent it beyond "get a longsword"? I was thinking about using grapples at close range (synergizes with the lance's reliance on STR) and possibly claiming it as an "improvised weapon" when at close range.

What classes/races/weapons/tactics would work well for a mounted combat specialist?

Lances are made to use the power of a charging horse. You're not supposed to use them on foot. You read any book about knights fighting, you know that once they hit the ground they drop the lance and take out a sword instead. It's a highly specialized weapon, and I think that the PHB conveys that idea through the special rules for lances.

Also, there's nothing stopping you from just riding a horse without a special feat or class feature. Riding is a huge speed buff (easily twice your speed, or even more if you're a slow race), it improves your weight limit a lot, the mount can dash or disengage even while you do your own actions ('Controlling a Mount', PHB 198), and the mount may even tank some hits for you. As for leaving it outside the dungeon, I've been looking at the use of retainers or servants to watch the animals (from the Noble background, since I don't trust NPC hirelings), but I've yet to test that in play.


Using ranged attacks while mounted (not just archery!) is fantastic for the reasons I've listed above. When someone gets too close and imposes disadvantage on your shots, you can have the mount disengage you away while you keep shooting from relative safety. In between attacks, you can easily dip behind a corner where you're hard to reach. Kiting is great in theory, but its use is sharply limited in practice because your party is unlikely to take advantage of it. In 5th edition, there is currently no restriction on what weapons can be used while mounted.

[Doug Lampert]

Lances are made to use the power of a charging horse. You're not supposed to use them on foot. You read any book about knights fighting, you know that once they hit the ground they drop the lance and take out a sword instead. It's a highly specialized weapon, and I think that the PHB conveys that idea through the special rules for lances.

The English Knights and Men-at-arms of the hundred years war, who ROUTINELY used lances on foot would be impressed by these alleged real books that insist they couldn't or wouldn't do it.

A lance on foot is a shorter version of a pike, if you shorten your grip enough you can even use it one handed. It's not designed for infantry use, but ultimately, it's basically long spear.

[Slipperychicken]

The English Knights and Men-at-arms of the hundred years war, who ROUTINELY used lances on foot would be impressed by these alleged real books that insist they couldn't or wouldn't do it.

A lance on foot is a shorter version of a pike, if you shorten your grip enough you can even use it one handed. It's not designed for infantry use, but ultimately, it's basically long spear.

I'm not saying it can't be used like that, or that no-one ever did. All the fiction I've seen, and I admit that it is fiction, has portrayed these heavy cavalrymen switching weapons once dismounted. That indicates that a sword is preferable when not mounted.

[tieren]

Also keep in mind you can use the mount to gain movement speed types your character may lack, like swimming, burrowing, climbing or flying.

I've also looked at protection fighting style to keep the mount alive instead of or in conjunction with the feat.

[Orion3T]

I ran an encounter last night where I suddenly realised my son's character happened to be mounted (on a normal Riding Horse), and found the rules a bit unclear. I stuck with the simplest (and most powerful) interpretation to keep things running smoothly but wanted to see how close I was to how others play it.


Also, there's nothing stopping you from just riding a horse without a special feat or class feature. Riding is a huge speed buff (easily twice your speed, or even more if you're a slow race), it improves your weight limit a lot, the mount can dash or disengage even while you do your own actions ('Controlling a Mount', PHB 198), and the mount may even tank some hits for you.

Yes, this is how he used it. However it didn't occur to me to make him do animal handling checks - he has land vehicle proficiency which seemed sort of relevant but the thought occurrs he should have made some check to urge a basic riding horse to charge into combat, even if it was just DC5-10. Given the advantages you list above I suspect I was a little over-generous letting him get the mounted combat advantages pretty much for free and without risk other than the possibility of getting dismounted and falling prone should the mount be killed or frightened.


Using ranged attacks while mounted (not just archery!) is fantastic for the reasons I've listed above. When someone gets too close and imposes disadvantage on your shots, you can have the mount disengage you away while you keep shooting from relative safety.

When you say 'disengage you away' do you interpret it that the mount taking a disengage action means the enemy gets no Opportunity Attack against either the mount or the rider? Same question for Dodge - do attacks on the rider get disadvantage or just the mount?

I let the mounts actions apply to the rider as well - since they all relate to mobility, it seems logical that a mount trying to avoid attacks will grant the same benefit to the rider. A compromise would be that the rider make an animal handling check each time the mount uses such an action. A failure would mean the rider doesn't maintain good enough control to get the same advantage as the mount does.

Searching these forums gives a lot of results but I couldn't see a clear consensus on these questions. Perhaps one has emerged by now?

Thanks. :smallsmile:

[PeteNutButter]

I ran an encounter last night where I suddenly realised my son's character happened to be mounted (on a normal Riding Horse), and found the rules a bit unclear. I stuck with the simplest (and most powerful) interpretation to keep things running smoothly but wanted to see how close I was to how others play it.



Yes, this is how he used it. However it didn't occur to me to make him do animal handling checks - he has land vehicle proficiency which seemed sort of relevant but the thought occurrs he should have made some check to urge a basic riding horse to charge into combat, even if it was just DC5-10. Given the advantages you list above I suspect I was a little over-generous letting him get the mounted combat advantages pretty much for free and without risk other than the possibility of getting dismounted and falling prone should the mount be killed or frightened.



When you say 'disengage you away' do you interpret it that the mount taking a disengage action means the enemy gets no Opportunity Attack against either the mount or the rider? Same question for Dodge - do attacks on the rider get disadvantage or just the mount?

I let the mounts actions apply to the rider as well - since they all relate to mobility, it seems logical that a mount trying to avoid attacks will grant the same benefit to the rider. A compromise would be that the rider make an animal handling check each time the mount uses such an action. A failure would mean the rider doesn't maintain good enough control to get the same advantage as the mount does.

Searching these forums gives a lot of results but I couldn't see a clear consensus on these questions. Perhaps one has emerged by now?

Thanks. :smallsmile:

Depending on your world riding a horse could be something that everyone knows how to do because it's a basic life skill, or it could be something only experts can do in combat. To make the horse go in combat could in theory take a check, but is that interesting for anyone?

Riding horses, maybe, but I'd avoid making a player on a warhorse have trouble handling his mount. Riding can be very powerful but there is nothing stopping a foe from killing(or knocking out) the mount out from under a PC without the feat, likely causing him to fall on his rump and take 1d6 falling damage.

When your mount takes the dodge or disengage actions, these actions only affect it. The disengage option exists so that if you as a mounted player wish to disengage, your mount doesn't still provoke. The dodge action exists to help prevent what I was talking about above (killing epona).

[Orion3T]

Depending on your world riding a horse could be something that everyone knows how to do because it's a basic life skill, or it could be something only experts can do in combat. To make the horse go in combat could in theory take a check, but is that interesting for anyone?

It's Hoard of the Dragon Queen so set in Forgotten Realms. I don't actually know the default assumption there, but riding a horse seems a relatively safe bet in a relatively high fantasy setting for anyone planning to travel long distances - and adventurers seem to fit in that category. A check could be interesting - if it fails, the horse refuses to charge and the player needs to decide whether to dismount or not. Could significantly affect the progress of the battle that's for sure.

But I certainly take the point and that's probably why I didn't ask for one at the time. I just wondered afterwards if I should, but that was once taking into account how powerful I allowed it to be.


Riding horses, maybe, but I'd avoid making a player on a warhorse have trouble handling his mount.

Yes in retrospect I agree. A relatively easy check should be required for an untrained horse on initial charge and if something significant occurs that might frighten it. I would agree a Warhorse should be well trained and equipped (blinkers etc) enough to avoid such things unless it takes significant damage.


Riding can be very powerful but there is nothing stopping a foe from killing(or knocking out) the mount out from under a PC without the feat, likely causing him to fall on his rump and take 1d6 falling damage.

When your mount takes the dodge or disengage actions, these actions only affect it. The disengage option exists so that if you as a mounted player wish to disengage, your mount doesn't still provoke. The dodge action exists to help prevent what I was talking about above (killing epona).

Yeah, this makes sense, at least mechanically. Without specific training (mounted combat feat etc) it grants a significant speed boost and might distract some blows, but the rider might get dismounted at a bad time and left vulnerable. The mount's actions mitigate this risk but don't directly benefit the rider.

That makes mechanical sense, but I suppose it seems odd to me thematically that the horse is dodging without the rider going with it though, and some people (like the quotee in my previous post) seem to interpret it the differently than you do.

[PeteNutButter]

...it seems odd to me thematically that the horse is dodging without the rider going with it though, and some people (like the quotee in my previous post) seem to interpret it the differently than you do.

RAW and RAI it doesn't help the rider. I'd say normally when something takes the dodge action, it actively tries to avoid being it. A horse will react to an orc swinging an ax at it, by moving out of the way (staying in his 10x10 space), while it isn't too concerned with things hitting that heavy thing on its back.

If that's too much of a stretch for your table, just disallow the dodge action for mounts. It's way too imbalancing to give mounted PCs the dodge action as a free action with no cost beyond the few hundred investment of a horsey.

Basically its a mechanical balance, that horses can do it, but the rider DEFINITELY doesn't get the benefit.

[Naanomi]

How about a chariot? No lance, but probably get some cover...

[Slipperychicken]

Yes, this is how he used it. However it didn't occur to me to make him do animal handling checks - he has land vehicle proficiency which seemed sort of relevant but the thought occurrs he should have made some check to urge a basic riding horse to charge into combat, even if it was just DC5-10. Given the advantages you list above I suspect I was a little over-generous letting him get the mounted combat advantages pretty much for free and without risk other than the possibility of getting dismounted and falling prone should the mount be killed or frightened.

I think animal handling should be necessary if the mount was not trained for combat. But once you've got a strong, trained mount and you're not in a confined space, there really aren't many disadvantages to riding in combat. Historically, if you were going to fight in an open space and could afford to ride in combat, that's what you did.



When you say 'disengage you away' do you interpret it that the mount taking a disengage action means the enemy gets no Opportunity Attack against either the mount or the rider? Same question for Dodge - do attacks on the rider get disadvantage or just the mount?

That's right. Disengage works for both, but dodge only helps the mount. I'll just quote the text again because while people enjoy forming opinions without reading the book, the rules (both written and intended) are pretty clear once you take time to read them.



While you're mounted, you have two options. You can either control the mount or allow it to act independently. Intelligent creatures, such as dragons, act independently.

You can control a mount only if it has been trained to accept a rider. Domesticated horses, donkeys, and similar creatures are assumed to have such training. The initiative of a controlled mount changes to match yours when you mount it. It moves as you direct it, and it has only three action options; Dash, Disengage, and Dodge

A controlled mount can move and act even on the turn that you mount it. An independent mount retains its place in the initiative order. Bearing a rider puts no restrictions on the actions the mount can take, and it moves and acts as it wishes. it might flee from combat, rush to attack and devour a badly injured foe, or otherwise act against your wishes.

In either case, if the mount provokes an opportunity attack while you're on it, the attacker can target you or the mount.

Note that it's the mount's movement that provokes one AoO that can be against mount or rider. This is instead of them both provoking separately. If the mount disengages, then the mount won't provoke that AoO, which means it won't be used against the rider either.


Some people will tell you that it takes the rider's action to control a mount's movement. The book does not say that anywhere (you can look if you want to; I've already checked), and it violates common sense. If that was the case (if making a mount dash did cost the rider's action), then a mounted charge would be impossible because you'd have to slow down to a trot before hitting anything. The only conclusion that makes sense is that the rider's actions are not restricted or consumed by riding.

[Specter]

A Halfling or Gnome can put the Beastmaster to great use. You get at-will flight at level 3, and with Pass Without Trace and Darkvision at level 5 you're essentially a stealth helicopter, the best outdoor scout.

[Orion3T]

I think animal handling should be necessary if the mount was not trained for combat. But once you've got a strong, trained mount and you're not in a confined space, there really aren't many disadvantages to riding in combat. Historically, if you were going to fight in an open space and could afford to ride in combat, that's what you did.

Yeah that all makes sense, and I think is how I would rule it in future.


That's right. Disengage works for both, but dodge only helps the mount. I'll just quote the text again because while people enjoy forming opinions without reading the book, the rules (both written and intended) are pretty clear once you take time to read them.

You and PeteNutButter seem to agree on Dodge (which is good) but not on Disengage. While I understand your reasoning, and don't see where Pete explains his, you both seem equally confident but of different opinions.


Note that it's the mount's movement that provokes one AoO that can be against mount or rider. This is instead of them both provoking separately.

I think this must be the correct interpretation, though for slightly different reasons - the enemy only gets one reaction, so even if you both provoked OAs each enemy can still only target one or the other. The mount cannot leave the enemy's reach without the rider also doing so, and they only get one reaction to use their opportunity attack. So while I don't think the rules make this clear at all, I deduce from this that you must be correct.


Some people will tell you that it takes the rider's action to control a mount's movement. The book does not say that anywhere (you can look if you want to; I've already checked), and it violates common sense.

I have read the Mounted Combat section several times and on this point I agree - I don't see it stated or even implied that the mount's actions cost the rider anything.

Thanks to you both for helping to hash this out.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Climb Onto A Bigger Creature maneuver.

I mean, technically you are mounting the creature... Just because you are a Halfling Fighter and the mount is a Goliath Barbarian shouldn't really mean too much... :smallwink:

[PeteNutButter]

Yeah that all makes sense, and I think is how I would rule it in future.
You and PeteNutButter seem to agree on Dodge (which is good) but not on Disengage. While I understand your reasoning, and don't see where Pete explains his, you both seem equally confident but of different opinions.

Slipperychicken's right. His assessment on the rider not having to disengage if the mount does is based on this portion of the text which he quoted from the phb. "In either case, if the mount provokes an opportunity attack while you're on it, the attacker can target you or the mount."

That sentence does not explicitly say the rider doesn't himself provoke opportunity attacks, so I incorrectly assumed he was jumping to a false conclusion. BUT if one digs further to the opportunity attack section on page 195 it states that you don't provoke opportunity attacks unless you use your movement, action, or reaction. Since its technically the mount's movement, your off Scott free.

That is RAW, although IMO it's pretty imbalancing as it makes any mounted PC slippery than a rogue, without even having to use their bonus action to disengage. Maybe I'll drudge up one of my mounted builds...


I have read the Mounted Combat section several times and on this point I agree - I don't see it stated or even implied that the mount's actions cost the rider anything.

Thanks to you both for helping to hash this out.

Cheers, and good luck. If the PC gets out of hand, I'd recommend homebrewing a feat or some such allowing people to set their pike against his charge. Or just, you know, sentinel feat with a pike. :smallbiggrin:
...Although if they target the rider, or the rider has Mounted Combatant(to force it), sentinel wouldn't stop him, since his mount is the one moving. Literally the slipperiest tactic in game.

[Slipperychicken]

...Although if they target the rider, or the rider has Mounted Combatant(to force it), sentinel wouldn't stop him, since his mount is the one moving. Literally the slipperiest tactic in game.

If someone with sentinel and/or polearm master struck a charging rider with an opportunity attack? RAW be damned, I'd want to rule that as unhorsing the guy while his mount continues running. Maybe give him a strength save or something to remain mounted, but unless it would trivialize a boss-fight I'd just have him knocked clean off his horse because that would be awesome.

[BW022]

I've done a bit of research and come up with several ways to play with mounted combat mechanics:

[quote]
-Paladins, Bards (preferably Lore), and BM Rangers (small only) can get a fairly reliable steed without paying


The advantage of find steed are beyond cost. Most creatures can easily be killed in combat or you have issues transporting them (dungeons, ladders, small spaces, ships, inns, etc.) Find steed simply resummons the creature to you. Buying an expensive blind dog, bear, or giant eagle... is pointless if someone tosses a fireball at the party.



-Small characters can take mounts into most dungeons, but aren't as effective with the Mounted Combatant feat due to their size. What is more useful, reliably using your mount indoors or being really good in open spaces?


Small characters may be able to. They still have issues with ladders, openings, ropes, rivers, trees, etc. Plus issues with bringing animals in inns, cities, palaces, etc. However, most DMs run most combats in smallish areas. It is Dungeons and Dragons, so most combats tend to take place in caves, temples, cities, buildings, on ships, etc. rather than large flat open areas. Most DMs also use battle-maps or aids which tend to limit distances.



-Horseback Archery is a thing, right? Definitely with shortbows, but what about longbows and crossbows?


In theory... yes. In practice... no. Again, ignoring that most combats tend to be in smallish confined areas or even mid-sized battle maps (200'x200' or so) areas... that tactic doesn't work unless everyone else in your party agrees and is able to do it. In reality... this might help 'you', but the monsters will simply ignore you and kill your fellow party members. Any damage you aren't taking or attacks you aren't facing... will be landing on other party members. You might not be hit... but that won't help the rest of your party.

In practice... your goal isn't to keep yourself from ever being hit at the expense of other party members.




-Speaking of weapons, how viable is the lance as a standard-issue weapon? I know it's amazing while mounted, but suffers from big drawbacks on foot due to requiring 2 hands and forcing disadvantage at arm's reach. Are there ways to circumvent it beyond "get a longsword"? I was thinking about using grapples at close range (synergizes with the lance's reliance on STR) and possibly claiming it as an "improvised weapon" when at close range.


A lance is viable for opening attacks, or if you are going to keep moving. If you want to hold your ground... attack with the lance and then drop it and take out another weapon. Or... attack and then move away. Two hands isn't a major disadvantage other than if you need to take out a shield.


What classes/races/weapons/tactics would work well for a mounted combat specialist?

In practice... none. Most tactics don't work due to the limitations of your other party members, typical encounters, or limitations of the areas you are likely fighting in. For any non-summoned mount... they are often more of a liability as size, transport, etc. makes them unsuitable for areas most adventurers find themselves in. Their primary use is for carrying goods, extra attacks, and mobility for smaller characters. If you can get a special mount (say a giant eagle or dolphin) they might be useful in specific campaigns, non-combat encounters, or just roleplaying.

[PeteNutButter]

I've done a bit of research and come up with several ways...
A lance is viable for opening attacks, or if you are going to keep moving. If you want to hold your ground... attack with the lance and then drop it and take out another weapon. Or... attack and then move away. Two hands isn't a major disadvantage other than if you need to take out a shield.


Sound points in all, but I will say in response to the lance topic. After what we established above, horseback is essentially permanent free disengage, so you can just back up, attack and move back forward to continue filling the hole.

Also, the squeezing rules are pretty clearly defined. They only punish you if you are attacking or being attacked while squeezing. So as long as you just use the mount's massive movement speed to position yourself (via squeezing past whomever) you should usually be able to find somewhere to stand and poke, just "land" wherever there is space.

Ladders and other terrain still make summoned mounts best option.

[Orion3T]

Useful info, thanks.

So one viable tactic is to have your PC ready an attack action to be triggered when an enemy enters their reach. Then the mount runs past the target using its action to disengage. The rider gets their attack action as they run past, and get to effectively maintain distance, and keep carrying out 'charge past' attacks.

There are some disadvantages to this though I think. You can only ready one action, so if you usually attack with a bonus action you would only get to use it if the PC starts their turn next to another enemy. I suppose in that case they can attack with both Attack and Bonus actions, then use the mount's disengage and movement. In the case where the rider is using the mount's speed to keep away from enemies, they are likely to lose the use of a bonus attack action.

There is also the possibility for potential targets to ready their actions so they can use their attacks on the rider (or mount) as they pass. So they might not get OAs but it's not like the rider and mount cannot be hit even if the mount is too fast for them to run after and engage.

Of course a mounted ranged attacker seems a whole different beast... RAW I see no penalty for shooting while mounted although one would expect aiming from a moving position to be considerably more difficult. I might be inclined to rule disadvantage in that case, which Mounted Combat would effectively negate.



As something of an aside I'm really liking the variety of possibilities with this system. My Mount query was prompted by my son's party encountering a caravan under siege by hobgolbins on the road. Rather than beating about the bush he simply charged in on his horses at full speed while the sorceress took out the hobgobs on the other side of the road with ranged AoE spells like Shatter. Another time they were attacked by 2 perytons - the Sorceress fell unconscious in the 2nd round due to their diving attack, by which time one peryton was down. The not being very good with ranged stuff and hating those diving attacks, his barbarian Battlerager managed to grapple the remaining peryton to the floor and wail it to death with his spiked armour and the handaxe in his free hand. The encounters made a refreshing change from the usual 2-dimensional Cultists & Kobolds he had been cleaving with his greatsword up to that point. :smallsmile:

[danhass]

Mounts are silly good... until they die quickly. :(

[Slipperychicken]

Useful info, thanks.

So one viable tactic is to have your PC ready an attack action to be triggered when an enemy enters their reach. Then the mount runs past the target using its action to disengage. The rider gets their attack action as they run past, and get to effectively maintain distance, and keep carrying out 'charge past' attacks.


This is possible, but a readied action is not necessary. A controlled mount acts on the same initiative as its rider, meaning that the rider can use his action to attack as normal. Also bear in mind that while disengaging, the mount can only move up to its speed. For a warhorse, this means 60 feet. That may or may not be enough to clear an enemy's range,


What you really want, assuming an open battlefield and an enemy with 5ft reach, is to charge within 10 feet of the enemy (such that you never enter his reach), attack with a lance or other reach weapon, then move outside his move speed so he would have to dash to reach you next turn. That means you don't have to disengage at all, allowing your mount to dash up to 120 feet.

And yes, this is a plausible tactic that can be very effective because it doesn't give the enemy a chance to retaliate. It is, however, of limited usefulness because dnd fights generally take place in confined spaces, and enemies often have access to your squishier allies when you don't interpose yourself between them.

[BW022]

So one viable tactic is to have your PC ready an attack action to be triggered when an enemy enters their reach. Then the mount runs past the target using its action to disengage. The rider gets their attack action as they run past, and get to effectively maintain distance, and keep carrying out 'charge past' attacks.


Not really. Again, in practice (even in the 1 in 10 encounters you have the room to do this repeatedly)... most creatures quickly realize what is happening, ignore you, and go beat on the other PCs. After a few rounds of the wizard or cleric being pounded on... you might as well ride up to them and attack normally.

This is the same problem as most "avoid" tactics on martial-types. Fly, blink, greater invisiblity, rogues with high movement rates, etc. can all easily (area permitting) simply avoid being hit... and the monsters simply beat on the other PCs which they can hit. The problem for martial types is that the rest of the party usually isn't able to absorb that damage.

[Orion3T]

This is possible, but a readied action is not necessary. A controlled mount acts on the same initiative as its rider, meaning that the rider can use his action to attack as normal. Also bear in mind that while disengaging, the mount can only move up to its speed. For a warhorse, this means 60 feet. That may or may not be enough to clear an enemy's range,

Well that's one of the things I was hoping to clarify. Sure, the mount moves on the rider's initiative. But RAW the mount and rider still have distinct and seperate turns, right? So the rider must interrupt the mount's movement, which means they must use their reaction by readying their attack. So far as I can tell RAW doesn't allow for what you describe here, but maybe I'm missing a crucial rule?

I understand it doesn't get to dash but moving 60ft is enough to get out of range of anything with less than 30ft of movement. So sure, I get that this might not be the best option against faster enemies. The idea of using reach makes sense of course, but could equally be applied to ranged attacks and spells which don't require the rider or mount to enter the enemies' reach.


What you really want, assuming an open battlefield and an enemy with 5ft reach, is to charge within 10 feet of the enemy (such that you never enter his reach), attack with a lance or other reach weapon, then move outside his move speed so he would have to dash to reach you next turn. That means you don't have to disengage at all, allowing your mount to dash up to 120 feet.

Sure, this makes sense in some situations.


And yes, this is a plausible tactic that can be very effective because it doesn't give the enemy a chance to retaliate. It is, however, of limited usefulness because dnd fights generally take place in confined spaces, and enemies often have access to your squishier allies when you don't interpose yourself between them.

Sure - by engaging them in melee you discourage them from attacking others, and not allowing them to hit you means they are likely to attack someone else who is less able to handle it. For a tanky character avoiding attacks altogether might not be the best option, and teamwork needs to enter into the equation.

I'm just trying to be clear on what is and isn't allowed by the rules at this point.

[Orion3T]

Not really. Again, in practice (even in the 1 in 10 encounters you have the room to do this repeatedly)... most creatures quickly realize what is happening, ignore you, and go beat on the other PCs. After a few rounds of the wizard or cleric being pounded on... you might as well ride up to them and attack normally.

This is the same problem as most "avoid" tactics on martial-types. Fly, blink, greater invisiblity, rogues with high movement rates, etc. can all easily (area permitting) simply avoid being hit... and the monsters simply beat on the other PCs which they can hit. The problem for martial types is that the rest of the party usually isn't able to absorb that damage.

Sure - but if it's a duo, and the mage also has a horse, they can be doing the same thing. Ready a spell, have their mount ride into range of their target creature/point, cast then have the mount ride them back out. Enemies may still get to attack but odds are their ranged attacks are weaker than their melee attacks. If not (e.g. archers or rogue enemies which you don't want to lose sight of) then sure, it's better to have someone engage them directly.

As I mention above, I'm mostly trying to be clear on what's allowed by the rules rather than casting a judgement call on which tactics are best in any given situation. I understand that because something is allowed doesn't mean it's always a good option. :smallsmile:

My comment about the variety was more of a general observation of a feat I like - the players actually have a lot of options open to them especially if you allow them to take advantage of the flexible skill system and their environment to gain advantage etc.

[CrackedChair]

I just realized something about lances just now.

They don't have the heavy and two-handed property.

Which gives me the stupid idea of taking the dual wielder feat and taking 2 lances on a horse.

This essentially makes me Gaia the Fierce Knight.

Man, that's a glorious mental image.

[RickAllison]

I just realized something about lances just now.

They don't have the heavy and two-handed property.

Which gives me the stupid idea of taking the dual wielder feat and taking 2 lances on a horse.

This essentially makes me Gaia the Fierce Knight.

Man, that's a glorious mental image.

1) This isn't a new discovery.
2) Yes, it is an awesome image.
3) You are thinking too small. Get a dragon:
http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/yugioh/images/6/62/GaiatheDragonChampion-YGLD-EN-C-1E.png/revision/latest?cb=20151114161633

[CrackedChair]

1) This isn't a new discovery.
2) Yes, it is an awesome image.
3) You are thinking too small. Get a dragon:
http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/yugioh/images/6/62/GaiatheDragonChampion-YGLD-EN-C-1E.png/revision/latest?cb=20151114161633

Now to get that polymerization card...

Ahem, speaking of dragons, how practical would it be to actually find a Wyvern in a D&D setting and train it to serve as a mount? Wyverns are known to be rather temperamental anyways, and with that poison they secrete it must be very unsafe.

I mean, I know they did it with the Elemental Evil story, but would anybody be willing to tell me the exact things I need to know to make sure I don't die horribly from training a wyvern?