Mounted Combat Questions

[lkwpeter]

Hey,

yesterday we had a situation, on that we had to fight while mounted on "normal" travel horses. We came to a discussion concerning the following points.


1.) The rider's actions require no ability checks for riding:

Problem: Some of our group took the view that taking actions while mounted would/should require special ability checks. E.g. using an object or attacking would require a DC X check to succeed, because it seems harder to succeed on these actions while riding at the same time.

My interpretation: For dependend mounts (like travel horses are) PHB 198 states that you can direct it. Directing a mounts costs no action (otherwise the rules would say so). The mount can use its own action to Dash, Dodge, Disengage. So the rider still has all his actions left to use. There are no rules about restrictions on the rider's actions. Furthermore there are several situations on that you have to succeed a DC10 check to not fall off your mount (I don't want to go into that). But nothing says the rider needs to succeed a check for a normal attack, drinking a potion, grabbing a rope, etc. Again: There are no restrictions, except maybe for risky maneuvers that do not guarantee success (like everything else that would require a normal ability check). So in my opinion you do not need to make riding checks, unless you do some extra ordinary maneuvers or the rules explicitly say so. You can cast, use objects and attack (even with 2 handed weapons).

Is this correct?



2.) Type of horse / horses actions:

Problem: We were kind of unsure which type of mount a "normal travel horse" is. The MM 336 includes a "Riding Horse" that seems to fit perfectly for our usage. But the description says it has a special action called "Hooves" (special attack), although mounts can only Dash, Dodge or Disengage while directed.

My interpretation: The horse can only use its "Hooves" action while not being mounted. While directed by a rider its actions are restricted to Dash, Dodge, Disengage. So the riding horse seems to be the "correct" horse, unless you ride a war horse. This has nothing to do with it's "Hooves" action. Correct?



3.) Mount fleeing from combat:

Problem: So if the Riding Horse is the correct horse we somehow end up with the starting question again: Does a "domesctic" riding horse have to make special ability checks while directed(!!) to see, if it's going to panic and flee from combat? Or isn't that a real option in a "normal" fight, unless there is something extra terrifying happening that would require a ordinary WIS-DC (like Fear or other spells)?

My interpretation: No, it does not flee from combat, only because it is not a war horse. Otherwise the rules would say so. So unless the horse doesn't get affected by a spell or condition that let's it run away/flee (like the Fear spell) this is not happening. Concerning this riding horses and war horses follow the same rules, but war horses additionally benefit from specific rules like higher stats and being able to wear armor.



4.) Can War Horses act independendly?

As I have described before (what - of course - may be wrong) directed mounts can only Dash, Dodge, Disengage. The War Horse has a feat called "Trampling Charge" that allows it too shove creature prone after moving 20 feet and attacking. So because I can only direct a horse to dash, dodge and disengage: When would it be able to use this action? Can it act independendly or are there any rules for directing a war horse that I missed?


Okay, so that a lot of writing. I tried to find answers via Google, Sage Advice, Twitter, but unfortunately I wasn't able to find some. So I would be happy about some clarification and I will update this first post and add a summary of all the answers posted to help people in the future.

Thanks in advance!
Peter

[JackPhoenix]

1) RAW, correct, but the GM can require checks if he thinks it's appropriate

2) Correct. Stats in MM are for the creatures on their own, Mounted Combat rules are a special case that modifies what the mount can do

3) Up to the GM. You should control the horse, but it's an NPC/creature and it can be startled and ignore your orders if he thinks it's appropriate.

4) It could use its actions however it wants when it's not controlled by the rider, just like any other NPC/creature

[Ninja_Prawn]

4.) Can War Horses act independendly?

I agree with JackPhoenix's points. On number 4, my feeling as a DM is that a creature needs an Int score greater than 3 to act independently of its rider. Therefore, a warhorse can't. Also, would you really want your horse wandering off under its own initiative, and not being able to move on your own turn without dismounting?

Corner case: the spell Awaken raises some interesting possibilities here.

[Maxilian]

I don't really have anything else to say to you OP, you got answers and i quite agree with it


I agree with JackPhoenix's points. On number 4, my feeling as a DM is that a creature needs an Int score greater than 3 to act independently of its rider. Therefore, a warhorse can't. Also, would you really want your horse wandering off under its own initiative, and not being able to move on your own turn without dismounting?

Corner case: the spell Awaken raises some interesting possibilities here.

Also.... Find Steed also open the same doors (with less risk)

[Feuerphoenix]

I don't really have anything else to say to you OP, you got answers and i quite agree with it



Also.... Find Steed also open the same doors (with less risk)

Mhhh...my DM argued, that you can not expect a paladin steed to be independent, because it follows your orders (" it serves you as a mount, in and outside of combat") and by this, it can never act independent, even if I order the steed to "attack this enemy!" And the let it act independent.

[lkwpeter]

Thanks for all your answers! I am happy that my interpretations seem to be right in their essentials.

One last question concerning ability checks:

Problem: We talked about animal handling checks to control the mount (e.g. to prevent it from fleeing). But I guess not any check that is related to riding a mount has to be an animal handling check, right? In one situation a character of our group wanted to ride one field next to a foe that was holding an orb in his hands into the air. He wanted to grab that orb using the "Use an Object" action and ride away afterwards. The problem was that he announced his action with the following words: "I am grabbing that orb while riding past the cultist holding that orb. My mount uses the disengage action to not get attacked." He expected an ability check for the grabbing (e.g. Sleight of Hands) contested by the cultist. But the DM called for an animal handling check, because he found that it was a tricky maneuver (leaning out of the saddle to grab the orb).

My interpretation: In my opinion an animal handling check is not needed in this situation, because the cultist was on the field next to the rider and attacking the cultist also wouldn't have required an animal handling check (except the situations we already talked about). I think there are several things to separate: 1.) Controlling the mount. Using the movement of the mount shouldn't require a check. 2.) Doing tricky things while riding (leaning out of the saddle). As long as the person holding the orb is one field next to the rider that should also not require a check for the maneuver for the same reason as said before: If you can attack an enemy one field next to you while riding, you should also be able to grab something. And if you do some risky maneuvers like standing on the saddle to jump to a tree while riding that would have nothing to do with controlling the mount in first line (if you would be able to hold the reins), but athletics or acrobatics to not fall down. 3.) In that specific situation it should be a contested dexterity check to see, if the character is successful trying to grab the orb. Consider that he could also have ridden next to the foe -> use half his movement to dismount -> grab the orb -> use the other half of his movement to mount again -> ride away. So this situation would also have asked for a contested check instead of an animal handling check.

Do you aggree?

[Maxilian]

Mhhh...my DM argued, that you can not expect a paladin steed to be independent, because it follows your orders (" it serves you as a mount, in and outside of combat") and by this, it can never act independent, even if I order the steed to "attack this enemy!" And the let it act independent.

If that were the case it would not be considered an "Intelligent" creature.

Is like saying that an Automaton is an intelligent being when its just doing the programmed actions

[Maxilian]

Thanks for all your answers! I am happy that my interpretations seem to be right in their essentials.

One last question concerning skill checks:

Problem: We talked about animal handling checks to control the mount (e.g. to prevent it from fleeing). But I guess not any check that is related to riding a mount has to be an animal handling check, right? In one situation a character of our group wanted to ride one field next to a foe that was holding an orb in his hands into the air. He wanted to grab that orb using the "Use an Object" action and ride away afterwards. The problem was that he announced his action with the following words: "I am grabbing that orb while riding past the cultist holding that orb. My mount uses the disengage action to get attacked." For the grabbing he expected an ability check for the grabbing (e.g. Sleight of Hands) contested by the cultist. But the DM called for an animal handling check, because he found that was a tricky maneuver (leaning out of the saddle to grab the orb).

My interpretation: In my opinion an animal handling check is not needed in this situation, because the cultist was on the field next to the rider and attacking the cultist also wouldn't have required an animal handling check (except the situations we already talked about). I think there are several things to separate: 1.) Controlling the mount. Using the movement of the mount shouldn't require a check. 2.) Doing tricky things while riding (leaning out of the saddle). As long as the person holding the orb is one field next to the rider that should also not require a check for the maneuver for the same reason as said before: If you can attack an enemy one field next to you while riding, you should also be able to grab something. And if you do some risky maneuvers like standing on the saddle to jump to a tree while riding that would have nothing to do with controlling the mount in first line (if you would be able to hold the reins), but athletics to not fall down. 3.) In that specific situation it should be a contested dexterity check to see, if the character is successful trying to grab the orb. Consider that he could also have ridden next to the foe -> use half his movement to dismount -> grab the orb -> use the other half of his movement to mount again -> ride away. So this situation would also have asked for a contested check instead of an animal handling check.

Do you aggree?

We can all agree that your DM uses the Animal Handling checks in really weird moments (the mount should be an advantage nor a problem), but yes, you're right, the only check that should have been made its the Dex / Str (at the PC option) to take the orb vs the Dex / Str of the NPC.

But its not like there doesn't exist a case where you may be forced to make a Animal Handling check, like if the area the mount its going to cross by an enemy that its holding something that may be.... bad for the mount.

[Feuerphoenix]

If that were the case it would not be considered an "Intelligent" creature.

Is like saying that an Automaton is an intelligent being when its just doing the programmed actions

Is there any official source that reads intelligence starts with 6 int? Or did you argue against my point?

[Maxilian]

Is there any official source that reads intelligence starts with 6 int? Or did you argue against my point?

Just going by what the spell says, not trying to talk just to go against anyone (What would be the point of that?)

You summon a spirit that assumes the form of an unusually intelligent, strong, and loyal steed, creating a long-lasting bond with it. Appearing in an unoccupied space within range, the steed takes on a form that you choose, such as a warhorse, a pony, a camel, an elk, or a mastiff. (Your DM might allow other animals to be summoned as steeds.) The steed has the statistics of the chosen form, though it is a celestial, fey, or fiend (your choice) instead of its normal type. Additionally, if your steed has an Intelligence of 5 or less, its Intelligence becomes 6, and it gains the ability to understand one language of your choice that you speak.

Note: I would understand if you don't agree with this interpretation

Note2: You're right when you said that a Paladin mount can't act as an independent creature while being mounted (because of how the spell wokrs -It makes you "In simple words" the same creature for this small details) but you could dismount and let it act as an independent creature (with its own initiative and all)

[JackPhoenix]

Snip

Technically, there are no skill checks in 5e, only ability checks, some of which allows you to add your proficiency (Skills). What you describe sounds like Dexterity (Animal Handling) check, meaning you roll Dex and add your proficiency bonus if you're proficient in Animal Handling.

[lkwpeter]

Technically, there are no skill checks in 5e, only ability checks, some of which allows you to add your proficiency (Skills). What you describe sounds like Dexterity (Animal Handling) check, meaning you roll Dex and add your proficiency bonus if you're proficient in Animal Handling.

Yeah, I know that. It's just, because I've been playing 3.5E for such a long time that I am still calling it "skill check". ;) But animal handling is actually a Wisdom check, not dexterity! If you start dissecting the main categories of skills you end up in a situation where both DM and players are not able to rely neither on RAW nor on their experiences. So in my view you can either ask for a Wisdom (Animal Handling) check to see, if the player is able to keep controlling the mount or for a Dexterity (Acrobatics) / Strength (Athletics) check to see, if the character is able to lean out of the saddle (STR = pushing his knees into the saddle; DEX = doing some extra ordinary exercises on the horse). Finishing my thought I would only call for those checks, if the action wouldn't guarantee success. But as I said: If you can fight a foe one field next to you without having to make a check, you should be able to grab something as well. The grabbing could involve a contested check (like it would without riding), but I can't see any reason to ask for a additional check for the riding component.

[JackPhoenix]

Yeah, I know that. It's just, because I've been playing 3.5E for such a long time that I am still calling it "skill check". ;) But animal handling is actually a Wisdom check, not dexterity! If you start dissecting the main categories of skills you end up in a situation where both DM and players are not able to rely neither on RAW nor on their experiences. So in my view you can either ask for a Wisdom (Animal Handling) check to see, if the player is able to keep controlling the mount or for a Dexterity (Acrobatics) / Strength (Athletics) check to see, if the character is able to lean out of the saddle (STR = pushing his knees into the saddle; DEX = doing some extra ordinary exercises on the horse). Finishing my thought I would only call for those checks, if the action wouldn't guarantee success. But as I said: If you can fight a foe one field next to you without having to make a check, you should be able to grab something as well. The grabbing could involve a contested check (like it would without riding), but I can't see any reason to ask for a additional check for the riding component.

Using different ability for ability checks associated with skills is a thing, PHB 175. It's a variant, but we're in the realm of rulings and house rules anyway, so... It's both RAW, and it pretty much depends on what's logical, so it fits with the players' experiences better than strictly following rules.

Str (Animal Handling): dunno, pushing the animal to do something against its will?
Dex (Animal Handling): riding tricks
Con (Animal Handling): nah
Int (Animal Handling): figuring out why is some animal behaving oddly?
Wis (Animal Handling): default ability score associated with the skill
Cha (Animal Handling): calming down hostile guard dog or a scaring a wild animal away

And you're making a check to fight the enemy, it's called attack roll.

[lkwpeter]

Using different ability for ability checks associated with skills is a thing, PHB 175. It's a variant, but we're in the realm of rulings and house rules anyway, so... It's both RAW, and it pretty much depends on what's logical, so it fits with the players' experiences better than strictly following rules.

Str (Animal Handling): dunno, pushing the animal to do something against its will?
Dex (Animal Handling): riding tricks
Con (Animal Handling): nah
Int (Animal Handling): figuring out why is some animal behaving oddly?
Wis (Animal Handling): default ability score associated with the skill
Cha (Animal Handling): calming down hostile guard dog or a scaring a wild animal away

And you're making a check to fight the enemy, it's called attack roll.


Hm...sorry, but I think you are exhausting the possibilities. First of all I like the variant, so I am not aguing against it in general! The PHB 175 states:



Variant: Skills with different Abilities
Normally, your proficiency in a skill applies only to a specific kind of ability check.
Proficiency in Athletics, for example, usually applies to Strength checks. In some situations,
though, your proficiency might reasonably apply to a different kind of check. In such cases,
the DM might ask for a check using an unusual combination of ability and skill, or you might
ask your DM if you can apply a proficiency to a different check. For example, if you have to
swim from an offshore island to the mainland, your DM might call for a Constitution check to
see if you have the stamina to make it that far.


The example given is very plausible and I think it is a good way to make checks more specific. But you have to take something into consideration: In my view you can indeed use several ability scores for a specific skill, but what you should not do is replacing existing skills!

Example 1) Action = Action: Let's take the example given in the rules. Strength (Athletics) is replaced by Constitution (Athletics). The action is still swimming. The ability check has been modified, because swimming a long distance better fits constitution than strength. The point is that both actions are still swimming and the skill is still athletics. Only the attribute has been changed.

Example 2) Action = Different Action: Let's take your example for doing some tricks on the horse while riding. You advise calling for a Dexterity (Animal Handling) check. For what reason? In contrast to the prior example you are doing something completely different than the animal handling skill is intended for. And the even more important point is: There is already a skill for doing acrobatics. So why would you change Wisdom (Animal Handling) to Dexterity when there already exists a Dexterity (Acrobatics) skill? You also wouldn't call for a Dexterity (Nature) check for doing acrobatics on a tree, would you? You would call for acrobatics/athletics as well. Doing acrobatics on a mount is in first place - of course - doing acrobatics and not handling an animal. There might be very rare situations in that a DM might ask for an additional check for animal handling while doing acrobatics. But for the acrobatics it stays an acrobatics check.

Furthermore I think there is no need to replace the ability score of Wisdom (Animal Handling) to Intelligence for finding out the behavior of your mount or change it to Charisma for calming down a dog. The actions you describe actually fit very well into what animal handling is intended for. Its major attribute is wisdom, because it's not relied on intelligence or charisma, but intuition.