View Full Version : Mounted Combat Sucks
Trask
2018-05-14, 06:55 PM
Without the feat that is
Why is that? Why are mounts so pointless in this game unless you have a feat? Every character has basic competence for horse riding and if you know how to fight, and you know how to ride a horse, it should confer some kind of real advantage to you. Historically speaking, horses were a tremendous advantage in battle, and chopping or stabbing down at someone is easier for you to do than for them to defend against. Also, the horses' ability to trample should be allowed to take place simultaneously with a lance attack, i dont know if it already is able to do that but it should.
My solution.
>Give advantage on melee attacks if you are riding a horse.
>Allow a horse to perform its trampling charge attack with your attack action if you are using a lance.
To compensate the feat, give Mounted Combatant +1 to Attack and Damage rolls and AC for you and your horse.
This would make the horse good for something other than just moving faster. But the problem still remains of how weak horses are, and how they die extremely easily without mounted combatant. I dont really have a good fix for this besides just making mounted combatant baseline which I dont feel should be the case.
One fix, which is not mechanical, is for DMs out there to play your intelligent enemies intelligently, they wouldnt kill the horse if they could avoid it. Horses are very valuable.
sophontteks
2018-05-14, 06:58 PM
Probably because you are underestimating the mobility advantage, carrying capacity, and increased marching speed. Those are really what put horses over the edge and they are in the game. Sadly, horses did tend to die a lot. I believe most horsemen brought with them several horses.
Trask
2018-05-14, 07:05 PM
Probably because you are underestimating the mobility advantage, carrying capacity, and increased marching speed. Those are really what put horses over the edge and they are in the game. Sadly, horses did tend to die a lot. I believe most horsemen brought with them several horses.
The increased mobility is good, but its basically all you get if you dont use the variant rule for carrying capacity. The normal rule way too generous if you want encumbrance to matter at all.
Horses did die a lot, but mostly to barrages of arrows or pikes. If i charge in with my horse into battle, it would not take too many attacks by a regular CR 1/8 soldier to take it down. Horses were not that easy to kill up close. I know that characters are expected to become much tougher than something like a horse, but I question the usefulness of a horse in even a battle between low cr soldiers. Unless you expect that every single horseman ever has mounted combatant.
Crgaston
2018-05-14, 07:21 PM
And, as far as I recall, they don’t actually improve your daily travel speeds, either. At least not in the game I’m currently playing. I’d love for that to be wrong.
TheCleverGuy
2018-05-14, 07:34 PM
My party started talking about buying mounts last session. I'm in no hurry. As a new player, the whole idea of mounted combat seems too complicated for little benefit, though admittedly I've only skimmed that section of the PHB. Besides, we mostly have been dungeon-diving and horses would be impractical in those situations anyway.
My party started talking about buying mounts last session. I'm in no hurry. As a new player, the whole idea of mounted combat seems too complicated for little benefit, though admittedly I've only skimmed that section of the PHB. Besides, we mostly have been dungeon-diving and horses would be impractical in those situations anyway.
In the dungeon, yes. But you'll need something to haul the treasure back to town, and horses or mules are great for that. Leave them outside the dungeon entrance, with a couple of your hired mercenaries to watch them.
The mastiff, of course, goes into the dungeon with you.
Unoriginal
2018-05-14, 07:50 PM
Without the feat that is
Why is that? Why are mounts so pointless in this game unless you have a feat? Every character has basic competence for horse riding and if you know how to fight, and you know how to ride a horse, it should confer some kind of real advantage to you.
Without the feat that is
Why is that? Why are mounts so pointless in this game unless you have a feat? Every character has basic competence for horse riding and if you know how to fight, and you know how to ride a horse, it should confer some kind of real advantage to you. .
It *does* gives real advantages, though:
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.
A mount can give you a free Dash or a free Disengage.
That enemy caster in the back? You're in range thanks to your mount's charge.
Don't want to end your turn next to the Fire Giant, but you still want to attack and don't want to risk the AoO? Your mount can get you in contact, then out of reach, without costing you any action or bonus action or reaction.
That's quite a big advantage.
It *does* gives real advantages, though:
A mount can give you a free Dash or a free Disengage.
That enemy caster in the back? You're in range thanks to your mount's charge.
Don't want to end your turn next to the Fire Giant, but you still want to attack and don't want to risk the AoO? Your mount can get you in contact, then out of reach, without costing you any action or bonus action or reaction.
That's quite a big advantage.
If the mount Disengages or Dodges do the benefits of those actions apply to the rider as well, or just the mount? If they apply to the rider, that's a huge advantage. Even if they don't, they'll still go a long way toward keeping your mount alive.
sophontteks
2018-05-14, 08:03 PM
If the mount Disengages or Dodges do the benefits of those actions apply to the rider as well, or just the mount? If they apply to the rider, that's a huge advantage. Even if they don't, they'll still go a long way toward keeping your mount alive.
Yep.
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/06/09/mount-disengage/
Probably not dodge though.
Yep.
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/06/09/mount-disengage/
Probably not dodge though.
Ah, that makes sense. I think you're right that it wouldn't apply to Dodge. Still, having the mount Dodge while you attack would definitely help it stay alive.
And, as far as I recall, they don’t actually improve your daily travel speeds, either. At least not in the game I’m currently playing. I’d love for that to be wrong.
Maybe it's flavor text. For your campaign how long it takes to get somewhere doesn't mean anything important. Riding horses is just an expression to convey the party travels.
ImproperJustice
2018-05-14, 08:18 PM
Fighting on horseback trivializes encouters with melee focused enemies, especially if you have magic or can shoot.
I know my Alchemist enjoys riding his Mechanical Spider onto the cieling and deploying alchemist fire/ acid to hapless foes below.
Crgaston
2018-05-14, 08:29 PM
Maybe it's flavor text. For your campaign how long it takes to get somewhere doesn't mean anything important. Riding horses is just an expression to convey the party travels.
No, we’re under constant time pressure with the overland travel due to invading armies and such. We bought horses thinking it would help but nope, still 30 miles/day without risking exhaustion.
sophontteks
2018-05-14, 08:40 PM
No, we’re under constant time pressure with the overland travel due to invading armies and such. We bought horses thinking it would help but nope, still 30 miles/day without risking exhaustion.
Who's risking exhaustion though?
Grear Bylls
2018-05-14, 08:44 PM
Paladins make excellent Mounted combatants. You get better saves for your mount (i.e. Durability), and it costs nothing if you don't want barding. My character Nick has had a mount for two sessions in AL, but the DM I've been with sucks with player agency and keeps turning nicks Rudolph into a joke, even though I waste slots on it. If you have a good DM, Mounted combat is pretty lit. If you want to play a Mounted character, why DONT you have the feat. It's the center point of the build.
Just my view and 2 cents on this whole thing
No, we’re under constant time pressure with the overland travel due to invading armies and such. We bought horses thinking it would help but nope, still 30 miles/day without risking exhaustion.
Sounds like a DM issue instead of mount rules issue. The DM wants you at a particular place at a particular time and you will be there precisely then and no sooner.
It *does* gives real advantages, though:
A mount can give you a free Dash or a free Disengage.
That enemy caster in the back? You're in range thanks to your mount's charge.
Don't want to end your turn next to the Fire Giant, but you still want to attack and don't want to risk the AoO? Your mount can get you in contact, then out of reach, without costing you any action or bonus action or reaction.
That's quite a big advantage.
Just keep in mind, the mount still has its own turn; though the mount and rider act on the same initiative, they don't have interchangeable turns. So either the mount rides you in, then ends its turn there, and then the rider's turn starts; or the rider attacks, then ends their turn and the mount's turn begins.
So it can't ride you in, you attack, then it rides you out, in one round.
Malifice
2018-05-14, 09:29 PM
If the mount Disengages or Dodges do the benefits of those actions apply to the rider as well, or just the mount? If they apply to the rider, that's a huge advantage. Even if they don't, they'll still go a long way toward keeping your mount alive.
Disengage yes, because its the mount that moves (meaning the rider doesn't move) and forced movement doesn't provoke AoO's.
A rider on a horse is never subject to AoO's from the horses movement.
If your horsey moves and provokes an AoO, that AoO can only target the horsey. Horsey needs to take the disengage action if it doesn't want to wear an attack when it moves.
With Dodge, that's something your Horsey can do when its not [disengaging] or [dashing] i.e. when it's adjacent to an enemy the rider is hitting in the face with a longsword.
The rider takes the Attack action and the Horsey takes the Dodge action (dramatically increasing the Horseys survivability).
The rider doesn't get the benefit of the Dodge action, only the steed.
Disengage yes, because its the mount that moves (meaning the rider doesn't move) and forced movement doesn't provoke AoO's.
A rider on a horse is never subject to AoO's from the horses movement.
If your horsey moves and provokes an AoO, that AoO can only target the horsey. Horsey needs to take the disengage action if it doesn't want to wear an attack when it moves.
With Dodge, that's something your Horsey can do when its not [disengaging] or [dashing] i.e. when it's adjacent to an enemy the rider is hitting in the face with a longsword.
The rider takes the Attack action and the Horsey takes the Dodge action (dramatically increasing the Horseys survivability).
The rider doesn't get the benefit of the Dodge action, only the steed.
Actually, AoO can target mount or rider if triggered by the mount
Finieous
2018-05-14, 11:15 PM
Just keep in mind, the mount still has its own turn; though the mount and rider act on the same initiative, they don't have interchangeable turns. So either the mount rides you in, then ends its turn there, and then the rider's turn starts; or the rider attacks, then ends their turn and the mount's turn begins.
So it can't ride you in, you attack, then it rides you out, in one round.
This might be RAW but it's so dumb I'd never be able to utter the words to a player with a straight face. It would make jousting (or any use of the lance, for that matter) really comical, though.
BW022
2018-05-14, 11:55 PM
Why is that?
Mechanically, it is because mounts have so few hit points and can't attack. The feat is the only think which can keep our mount alive in most fights long enough to be useful. However, by even 3rd-level, most monsters can one-shot a horse and by 5th most couldn't survive the opening round vs. a fireball, magic missile, multiple bow shots, etc.
If you are asking why the designers made it so... it is because in 3.5 mounts often dominated the game. As soon as PCs could afford warhorses, they did more damage and were tougher than most fighters. They also wasted lots of table time and distributed unfairly. A druid or ranger with a tiger would easily be making 8+ rolls. In many cases, standard monsters had no defense -- a tiger with three attacks, free grapple attempts, and massive strength... could easily grapple and hold virtually any humanoid.
IMO, designers gave up on historical realism to apply game balance. Characters should be roughly equal in power and should not be able to gain a massive advanced merely by buying horses (or having animal companions). Hence, horses are weak, strict action economy (mounts and companions can't attack in addition to you), weaker animal companions (no large size), etc.
My solution.
I don't see this an a solution. One fireball spell easily kills all the horses as does a good hit from an ogre, let alone a hill giant.
I asking opponents not to attack horses is pretty stupid. Ignoring most monsters wouldn't care about the horse or want it as "treasure", if a horse did give a serious threat, no reason and intelligence foe would allow you to repeatedly get advantage, when one spell, sword swing, etc. would end that. I am sure PCs would immediately take out horses if foes were getting advantage against them.
If you wish to make mounted combat more meaningful...
1. Give players options for better mounts (either advanced hit points, etc.)
2. Make them useful outside of combat (long distance travel, carrying weight/equipment, etc.) Allow them perception checks.
3. Give them a historical/setting value.
4. Include encounters not based on per combat. A race, distance, speed, etc.
5. Allow aspects of the mounts to be useful in specific combats. For example, an open area where the PCs can move and then use ranged attacks against creatures with limited ranged.
6. Use them in a specific level range (say 3rd to 5th) were big combats aren't likely to be pitted against them.
I've run a 3E and 5E campaign in a 'nomad' setting where horses were important -- trade, travel distances, status, etc. However, 5E is just not as mechanically useful as 3E.
Malifice
2018-05-15, 12:07 AM
Actually, AoO can target mount or rider if triggered by the mount
No it cant. See JC's tweet above.
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/06/09/mount-disengage/
If I climb onto the barbarians back, and the barbarian moves on his turn, the barbarian provokes the attack, not me.
You cant target me on his back with the attack, only the barbarian. See page 195 of the PHB.
Just like with any other forced movement (like falling, being pushed, spells that move you etc). You don't provoke the attack of opportunity, and cant be attacked.
If your Horsey moves without taking the disengage action, IT can be attacked with an AoO, but the rider cant be.
If your Horsey moves without taking the disengage action, IT can be attacked with an AoO, but the rider cant be.
That's not correct. The rule in the PHB is:
In either case, if the mount provokes an opportunity attack while you're on it, the attacker can target you or the mount.
The "either case" here refers to either you controlling the mount or the mount acting independently.
Malifice
2018-05-15, 01:05 AM
That's not correct. The rule in the PHB is:
The "either case" here refers to either you controlling the mount or the mount acting independently.
Missed that last section. Nice catch.
This might be RAW but it's so dumb I'd never be able to utter the words to a player with a straight face. It would make jousting (or any use of the lance, for that matter) really comical, though.
Jousting is easy. The horses run past one another and the riders both ready an action to attack as soon as their opponent gets within range. It doesn't matter which horse's turn it is when they pass, since both riders are using their reaction to attack.
I don't see a specific rule about what happens when two characters both ready an action with the same trigger, but having them go in initiative order would seem to make sense.
Finieous
2018-05-15, 01:38 AM
Jousting is easy. The horses run past one another and the riders both ready an action to attack as soon as their opponent gets within range. It doesn't matter which horse's turn it is when they pass, since both riders are using their reaction to attack.
I don't see a specific rule about what happens when two characters both ready an action with the same trigger, but having them go in initiative order would seem to make sense.
That works, and it eliminates Extra Attack on ride-by attacks, which was also a bit odd and maybe a bit too strong. I like it.
That works, and it eliminates Extra Attack on ride-by attacks, which was also a bit odd and maybe a bit too strong. I like it.
Also, if you let people shove on a readied action, that works well for a formalized joust where the aim is simply to dismount your opponent, not to actually hurt them.
CircleOfTheRock
2018-05-15, 01:58 AM
Who's risking exhaustion though?
And therein lies the problem with obeying RAW to the letter.
Beelzebubba
2018-05-15, 02:40 AM
Sounds like a DM issue instead of mount rules issue. The DM wants you at a particular place at a particular time and you will be there precisely then and no sooner.
Well, from what I've read into, it says (in the DM's guide IIRC) that going really fast on horses is mostly a feature of having the ability to change them out for fresh ones at regular intervals, as they succumb to exhaustion. So, it's useful within a civilized area, especially with characters with the Noble, Soldier, or similar Background.
Otherwise, yeah, there is no rules distinction between walking and mounted long distance travel between other than carrying capacity.
I think it's just them trying to keep thing simple, so long travel in a campaign sense doesn't turn into 'Party A departs from Blazgorath on horses. Party B departs Neo Yorko on foot, with a Dwarf. Party C departs the Sylvan Forest on foot, but they're all Wood Elves. When does each one arrive at Plot Event?' and forcing a bunch of terrible math. (The real reason for most gaming groups is 'they arrive at the speed of Plot' anyway. True Grognard logistics-driven gaming is rare in the new generation.)
I also think this was all done with a similar mindset of Apple - i.e. 'The thing we design is capable, fun, and simple. If individual groups want to add a bunch of complexity, we are completely OK with that, but we won't burden everyone else with it.'
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.