Mounted Combat.

[SirVladamir]

My players have recently started to ride mounts into combat and the the very basic written rules leaves a lot of room for adjudication (by design I suppose) Just wondering how some of you run it.

The way I read the rules the mount can move and dash and the player can also move and attack without any penalty. Do any of you require animal handling checks? What about shooting a longbow?
Or the player could move the mount 30 feet, attack, use mounts disengage, move 30 more feet away, without any AoO.

What DCs do you use for controlling a mount in different situations, especially a mount not trained for combat.

[Man_Over_Game]

My players have recently started to ride mounts into combat and the the very basic written rules leaves a lot of room for adjudication (by design I suppose) Just wondering how some of you run it.

The way I read the rules the mount can move and dash and the player can also move and attack without any penalty. Do any of you require animal handling checks? What about shooting a longbow?
Or the player could move the mount 30 feet, attack, use mounts disengage, move 30 more feet away, without any AoO.

What DCs do you use for controlling a mount in different situations, especially a mount not trained for combat.

For Mounts, there are two things you need to pay attention to:


You and your Mount have seperate turns. However, since they have the same initiative, the rider may choose what order they go in each round.

This technically could mean that you could Ready your attack to attack the next enemy that's adjacent to you, end your turn, have your mount Disengage and move up to an enemy for you to attack the enemy with no retaliation.


There are two ways to ride a mount:

Controlled: The mount does exactly as the player commands it, can only Dash, Disengage and move.
Uncontrolled: The mount does what it would do as if not ridden. It can attack and do whatever it can normally do, and being ridden applies no penalty, but most non-combatant mounts will flee from combat.



There are no RAW penalties for attacking a giant monster while on a mount, using a ranged weapon, or many other things, but adding those things is pretty easy:


Ranged Attacks further than 30 feet have disadvantage without Mounted Combatant, unless you have your Mount's speed reduced to 0 this turn.
When the mount moves within 5 feet of a Medium or larger hostile creature, or when the mount takes damage and has less than half of its health, the mount becomes Frightened by the hostile creature and Uncontrolled at the start of its turn unless you use your Reaction to make a DC 10 Animal Handling check. If you fail by 5 or more, you are bucked off of the mount. The mount will remain Frightened until the source of the effect is no longer in view, unless you use your Reaction at the start of the mount's turn to attempt another Animal Handling check to calm it down. Each larger size increment of the hostile creature increases this DC by 5, and combat-trained mounts reduce this DC by 10.

[GlenSmash!]

Unless they have the Mountad Combatant Feat, mounted combat has a pretty big drawback. Last night I was using a mount in a fight with Giants, until a giants thrown rock obliterated my horse.

But yes. Moving a Horse it's full 60ft, unloading all my attacks, having the horse disengage, and moving 60ft away is a great strategy in a lot of situations.

[Man_Over_Game]

Unless they have the Mountad Combatant Feat, mounted combat has a pretty big drawback. Last night I was using a mount in a fight with Giants, until a giants thrown rock obliterated my horse.

But yes. Moving a Horse it's full 60ft, unloading all my attacks, having the horse disengage, and moving 60ft away is a great strategy in a lot of situations.

Technically, you can't separate the horse's maneuver into two parts.

You can go:

Horse Turn
Player Turn

And then next turn go:

Player Turn
Horse Turn


And you can even go:

Player Turn > Ready action for something that happens during Horse Turn
Horse Turn
Player's Ready Action triggers



But you can't go:

Player Turn
Horse Turn

Player's Turn
Horse Turn


Even if the Horse held its action, it technically cannot ready both movement and an action, so it'd be unable to Disengage after it had a turn in the same round.
Unless the mount had some kind of passive disengage ability, like Flyby

This means that the most you'd be able to do is to Ready an Action and make a single attack during the Horse's turn during its Disengage movement.


Now, a DM can houserule whatever he thinks is best, but I just wanted to express what the intent of the rules are.

[GlenSmash!]

Technically, you can't separate the horse's maneuver into two parts.

You can go:

Horse Turn
Player Turn

And then next turn go:

Player Turn
Horse Turn


And you can even go:

Player Turn > Ready action for something that happens during Horse Turn
Horse Turn
Player's Ready Action triggers



But you can't go:

Player Turn
Horse Turn

Player's Turn
Horse Turn


Even if the Horse held its action, it technically cannot ready both movement and an action, so it'd be unable to Disengage after it had a turn in the same round.
Unless the mount had some kind of passive disengage ability, like Flyby

This means that the most you'd be able to do is to Ready an Action and make a single attack during the Horse's turn during its Disengage movement.


Now, a DM can houserule whatever he thinks is best, but I just wanted to express what the intent of the rules are.

Good points.

[PeteNutButter]

Technically, you can't separate the horse's maneuver into two parts.

You can go:

Horse Turn
Player Turn

And then next turn go:

Player Turn
Horse Turn


And you can even go:

Player Turn > Ready action for something that happens during Horse Turn
Horse Turn
Player's Ready Action triggers



But you can't go:

Player Turn
Horse Turn

Player's Turn
Horse Turn


Even if the Horse held its action, it technically cannot ready both movement and an action, so it'd be unable to Disengage after it had a turn in the same round.
Unless the mount had some kind of passive disengage ability, like Flyby

This means that the most you'd be able to do is to Ready an Action and make a single attack during the Horse's turn during its Disengage movement.


Now, a DM can houserule whatever he thinks is best, but I just wanted to express what the intent of the rules are.

I like to point out that this "horse turn thing" is one of those things that is commonly accepted because it is what was "clarified" by the designers after the fact. It is not at all explicit in the rules as written. In fact, my quick google search found that prior to 2018, the commonly accepted opinion appears to be that the mount sharing your initiative means you can do things like move, attack, move and what not.

Just check the various forums, you'll see the answers prior to 2018 are more in line with allowing the rider to completely share their turn with the mount. I put clarified in quotes above because I am of the opinion that this was not a clarification, but rather a soft errata where JC felt the need to either nerf mounted characters for some reason (perhaps because they can easily avoid all OAs), or that the separate turns makes more sense in the rules to him.

IMO this phrase from the mount section, "A controlled mount can move and act even on the turn that you mount it." Gives lie to the idea that the original intent was for mounts to have a separate turn. If they can act on the turn you mount them, then they are acting on your turn.

If you follow all the sage advice tweets (good luck), then the mount is on its own turn. If not, ask your DM (or just make a ruling if you are the DM).

[MaxWilson]

I like to point out that this "horse turn thing" is one of those things that is commonly accepted because it is what was "clarified" by the designers after the fact. It is not at all explicit in the rules as written. In fact, my quick google search found that prior to 2018, the commonly accepted opinion appears to be that the mount sharing your initiative means you can do things like move, attack, move and what not.

Just check the various forums, you'll see the answers prior to 2018 are more in line with allowing the rider to completely share their turn with the mount. I put clarified in quotes above because I am of the opinion that this was not a clarification, but rather a soft errata where JC felt the need to either nerf mounted characters for some reason (perhaps because they can easily avoid all OAs), or that the separate turns makes more sense in the rules to him.

IMO this phrase from the mount section, "A controlled mount can move and act even on the turn that you mount it." Gives lie to the idea that the original intent was for mounts to have a separate turn. If they can act on the turn you mount them, then they are acting on your turn.

If you follow all the sage advice tweets (good luck), then the mount is on its own turn. If not, ask your DM (or just make a ruling if you are the DM).

FWIW, I think the Sage Advice tweets are completely off-base, because of exactly the PHB text that you quote here. Instead of "commonly accepted" I'd say it's "controversial, ask your DM."

Mounted Combat is too strong by RAW, by which I mean "unreasonably effective compared to game fiction/real life and a near-dominant choice in any scenario where it is usable," but forcing the horse and rider onto separate turns is a terrible fix, because it makes the weak scenario weaker (melee-centric mounted combat) while leaving the strong scenario very strong (mounted combat for spellcasters and archers).

Let's put it this way: when moving through 5'-wide corridors, you can either use your own two feet to walk 30' per combat round and shoot arrows/whatever, or you can ride a Phantom Steed 50' per combat round (100', halved to 50' for a Large mount Squeezing Into Smaller Spaces) PLUS a free Dash/Disengage and still shoot arrows/whatever. It's bonkers that mounted combat is mechanically such a no-brainer even in tight quarters.

[PeteNutButter]

FWIW, I think the Sage Advice tweets are completely off-base, because of exactly the PHB text that you quote here. Instead of "commonly accepted" I'd say it's "controversial, ask your DM."

Mounted Combat is too strong by RAW, by which I mean "unreasonably effective compared to game fiction/real life and a near-dominant choice in any scenario where it is usable," but forcing the horse and rider onto separate turns is a terrible fix, because it makes the weak scenario weaker (melee-centric mounted combat) while leaving the strong scenario very strong (mounted combat for spellcasters and archers).

Let's put it this way: when moving through 5'-wide corridors, you can either use your own two feet to walk 30' per combat round and shoot arrows/whatever, or you can ride a Phantom Steed 50' per combat round (100', halved to 50' for a Large mount Squeezing Into Smaller Spaces) PLUS a free Dash/Disengage and still shoot arrows/whatever. It's bonkers that mounted combat is mechanically such a no-brainer even in tight quarters.

I totally agree on all points. A simple "fix" might be to have you, the rider, still provoke OAs when your mount disengages. That way its a movement speed boost at the cost of the risk of getting the thing killed out from under you, instead of permanently ignoring all OAs without so much as a bonus action invested. It undermines so many other features like the mobile feat, cunning action, etc.

[MaxWilson]

I totally agree on all points. A simple "fix" might be to have you, the rider, still provoke OAs when your mount disengages. That way its a movement speed boost at the cost of the risk of getting the thing killed out from under you, instead of permanently ignoring all OAs without so much as a bonus action invested. It undermines so many other features like the mobile feat, cunning action, etc.

Another even simpler fix could be to say actively controlling a mount requires your action. It would put centaurs and cavalrymen on a more equal footing.

5E's rules for provoking opportunity attacks could use some rewriting in general, not just for mounted combat. It makes no sense at all that stepping backwards five feet after attacking results in you getting stabbed, but being dragged backwards five feet by your buddy doesn't. Which of those scenarios is more likely to interfere with your personal defense, hmmm? (Eyeroll.)

[HappyDaze]

ough 5'-wide corridors, you can either use your own two feet to walk 30' per combat round and shoot arrows/whatever, or you can ride a Phantom Steed 50' per combat round (100', halved to 50' for a Large mount Squeezing Into Smaller Spaces) PLUS a free Dash/Disengage and still shoot arrows/whatever. It's bonkers that mounted combat is mechanically such a no-brainer even in tight quarters.

How tall is the ceiling of that 5'-wide corridor? Mounted combatants need to worry about head clearance in tight quarters.

[Galithar]

You could also simply remove the ability for a mount to take any action other then Dash or Ready (movement only) when controlled. I see no reason a horse should be able to make the precision movements I imagine are required to keep your guard up enough to prevent someone from taking a swing at you.

[MaxWilson]

How tall is the ceiling of that 5'-wide corridor? Mounted combatants need to worry about head clearance in tight quarters.

I deliberately wrote "5' wide" instead of "5' x 8'" specifically to avoid that particular debate about medieval building interior dimensions and the squeezing rules. You're welcome to have that debate but I'm not going to join it.

[Malifice]

If your mount is controlled, either it takes its turn first or you do.

The mount cant take the Ready action (it's limited to Dash, Disengage and Dodge) but you can.

So you can go first, ready an Attack action and take it whenever you want during the Mounts turn (as it Dashes, Dodges or Disengages, and moves).

Or you wait for the mount to finish its turn, then take yours.

So if you want to yo-yo or kite via: [Horse moves] you Attack [Horse Disengages] [Horse moves again], you need to be happy making only a single attack.

[Potato_Priest]

Mounted Combat is too strong by RAW, by which I mean "unreasonably effective compared to game fiction/real life and a near-dominant choice in any scenario where it is usable," but forcing the horse and rider onto separate turns is a terrible fix, because it makes the weak scenario weaker (melee-centric mounted combat) while leaving the strong scenario very strong (mounted combat for spellcasters and archers).

Let's put it this way: when moving through 5'-wide corridors, you can either use your own two feet to walk 30' per combat round and shoot arrows/whatever, or you can ride a Phantom Steed 50' per combat round (100', halved to 50' for a Large mount Squeezing Into Smaller Spaces) PLUS a free Dash/Disengage and still shoot arrows/whatever. It's bonkers that mounted combat is mechanically such a no-brainer even in tight quarters.

I think that that second scenario might become a bit more complicated when you run over the party members because you're riding a horse in a 5ft corridor.

Also, from a lore perspective, in a world of medieval weapons technology, shouldn't mounted combat be a near-dominant choice whenever it's available and usable? I think its realistic effectiveness would only be enhanced in a world of spellcasters, where closing territory/getting out of dodge is even more important. Further, one of cavalry's historically effective counters -the pike square and other tight formations of spears- become dramatically less valuable due to AOE magic, further enhancing the value of the horse.

[Dark Schneider]

If you are in middle of combat, the Dodge action is very useful. But it is Dodge for the mount itself, not for you, you have to do your own Dodge.

[DevilMcam]

The disengage action makes no sense for a mount to me.

What the action usually describe is people keeping a combat stance and agressive weaponry (meaning NOT TURNING YOUR BACK) while backing away to prevent people from taking a "free" swing at you.
HOW in the world is a horse able to do that. It can technically walk backward, but efinitely not at a 60ft or similar speed.

In a similar way, dodge is ehh.

I would definitelya allow that if the rider take these action they extend to the mount though

[Darkstar952]

The disengage action makes no sense for a mount to me.

What the action usually describe is people keeping a combat stance and agressive weaponry (meaning NOT TURNING YOUR BACK) while backing away to prevent people from taking a "free" swing at you.
HOW in the world is a horse able to do that. It can technically walk backward, but efinitely not at a 60ft or similar speed.



You have obviously never seen a horse rear up and kick, believe me from personal experience, when it does you get the hell out of the way, I'm not sure I'd want to risk it even if I was wearing armour.

So to me a horse disengaging is rearing up and kicking causing the opponents to back up or flinch and then bolting away while they are distracted/off balance

[Man_Over_Game]

You have obviously never seen a horse rear up and kick, believe me from personal experience, when it does you get the hell out of the way, I'm not sure I'd want to risk it even if I was wearing armour.

So to me a horse disengaging is rearing up and kicking causing the opponents to back up or flinch and then bolting away while they are distracted/off balance

But having the balance for the player to attack with 100% effectiveness 2-3 times at the same time the horse is rearing up is pretty hard to see narratively.

My suggestion is to have the Horse provide its speed instead of yours for the pair's movement, but while having no actions of its own. So the Mount effectively just gives you enhanced mobility, but not free utility. Rather than giving you Disengage as often as you want or Dashing as often as you want, the player has to invest into gaining that benefit by spending their own actions.

This does mean that Monks and Rogues have a bias towards riding mounts, since they can Dash/Disengage as a bonus action, but I don't think that's a huge problem. For the Rogue, treat it as them being more controlled, and Monks wouldn't gain much benefit from using a Mount in these rules in the first place, since they already have high mobility.

This also addresses MaxWilson's concern of mages/ranged attackers having too effective mounts, since this only means that the ranged attackers only gain about +20 speed rather an effective +70, and melee combatants are usually the ones that would have access to Disengage-esc abilities that synergize with mounts.

[MaxWilson]

I think that that second scenario might become a bit more complicated when you run over the party members because you're riding a horse in a 5ft corridor.

Why wouldn't they all be riding horses? Aside from the ludicrous game fiction which is precisely what I'm criticizing.

[MaxWilson]

My suggestion is to have the Horse provide its speed instead of yours for the pair's movement, but while having no actions of its own. So the Mount effectively just gives you enhanced mobility, but not free utility. Rather than giving you Disengage as often as you want or Dashing as often as you want, the player has to invest into gaining that benefit by spending their own actions.

Snip

This also addresses MaxWilson's concern of mages/ranged attackers having too effective mounts, since this only means that the ranged attackers only gain about +20 speed rather an effective +70, and melee combatants are usually the ones that would have access to Disengage-esc abilities that synergize with mounts.

I think that's workable and simple enough. A mage can still be incredibly mobile on a Phantom Steed mount (especially thanks to Expeditious Retreat) but at least it is cavalry and centaurs at near-parity and neatly solves the indoor cavalry problem (no net benefit unless your own move is less than 30' due to e.g. heavy armor).

[PeteNutButter]

But having the balance for the player to attack with 100% effectiveness 2-3 times at the same time the horse is rearing up is pretty hard to see narratively.

My suggestion is to have the Horse provide its speed instead of yours for the pair's movement, but while having no actions of its own. So the Mount effectively just gives you enhanced mobility, but not free utility. Rather than giving you Disengage as often as you want or Dashing as often as you want, the player has to invest into gaining that benefit by spending their own actions.

This does mean that Monks and Rogues have a bias towards riding mounts, since they can Dash/Disengage as a bonus action, but I don't think that's a huge problem. For the Rogue, treat it as them being more controlled, and Monks wouldn't gain much benefit from using a Mount in these rules in the first place, since they already have high mobility.

This also addresses MaxWilson's concern of mages/ranged attackers having too effective mounts, since this only means that the ranged attackers only gain about +20 speed rather an effective +70, and melee combatants are usually the ones that would have access to Disengage-esc abilities that synergize with mounts.

I like this.

For controlled mount. You may use your movement to direct your mount to move up to it's speed. Taking the dash action while mounted allows you direct your mount to move up to its speed. The mount takes no other actions as long as you control it. Your mount provokes opportunity attacks only when you do.

For most characters that results in +30 ft movement speed at the risk of it getting killed out from under you. Since it uses your action or movement you now qualify for OAs. You may want to limit it to "if you use your action to take the dash action," if you don't like the idea of rogues triple moving on their mount, as that would kill the cunning action dash for mounts (but not the cunning action disengage).

The last line keeps it working with various things like disengage, mobile, swashbuckler, etc..

[Man_Over_Game]

I think that's workable and simple enough. A mage can still be incredibly mobile on a Phantom Steed mount (especially thanks to Expeditious Retreat) but at least it is cavalry and centaurs at near-parity and neatly solves the indoor cavalry problem (no net benefit unless your own move is less than 30' due to e.g. heavy armor).

One note of importance is that Phantom Steed, while accessible for mages, disappears upon taking a single point of damage. Mundane mounts are either much more expensive or much less mobile.

[Malifice]

But having the balance for the player to attack with 100% effectiveness 2-3 times at the same time the horse is rearing up is pretty hard to see narratively.

My suggestion is to have the Horse provide its speed instead of yours for the pair's movement, but while having no actions of its own. So the Mount effectively just gives you enhanced mobility, but not free utility. Rather than giving you Disengage as often as you want or Dashing as often as you want, the player has to invest into gaining that benefit by spending their own actions.

This does mean that Monks and Rogues have a bias towards riding mounts, since they can Dash/Disengage as a bonus action, but I don't think that's a huge problem. For the Rogue, treat it as them being more controlled, and Monks wouldn't gain much benefit from using a Mount in these rules in the first place, since they already have high mobility.

This also addresses MaxWilson's concern of mages/ranged attackers having too effective mounts, since this only means that the ranged attackers only gain about +20 speed rather an effective +70, and melee combatants are usually the ones that would have access to Disengage-esc abilities that synergize with mounts.

Why is the Horse 'rearing up' when it disengages?

Moving 9and opportunity attacks) are kind of abstract (as is the cyclic turn based action resolution of 5E's combat rounds in any event). You could narrate a Horse moving in such a way as to deny a creature a chance to stab it as it does so, a million different ways.

The horse that 'yo-yos' could (and probably should) be narrated as wheeling around the target for example.

[MaxWilson]

One note of importance is that Phantom Steed, while accessible for mages, disappears upon taking a single point of damage. Mundane mounts are either much more expensive or much less mobile.

Technically it takes a full minute to disappear (unless you have a DM sane enough to override the spell text :)), and is accessible to mages AND all their friends, but I agree with your basic point: attacking the mount is a valid tactic.

[Man_Over_Game]

Why is the Horse 'rearing up' when it disengages?

That was someone's narrative for how a horse disengages. I was just using the same narrative with trying to play out how the image comes to life to me.



Mostly, for me, it's a balance concern. Mounts are better than a lot of magical items, are much cheaper, and are found easily. Steal one when nobody notices, it's not like there are tracking numbers on them.

But a Monk gets a lot of benefits that are trumped by someone buying a 50g mount, for instance.



A mount, by default, provides either +70 movement a turn or +20 movement a turn with Disengage movement.

Consider the fact that the Mobile feat gives +10 movement a turn with Disengage movement but only against creatures you make a melee attack against.

Mounts are almost x2 as good as one of the best feats in the game. Sure, it's not applicable in a dungeon, but when is Mobile going to be useful when a mount isn't?

[Malifice]

Mostly, for me, it's a balance concern. Mounts are better than a lot of magical items, are much cheaper, and are found easily. Steal one when nobody notices, it's not like there are tracking numbers on them.


There are brands on them though.

And remind me again of the historical punishment for stealing a horse? Being hung isnt it?

The problem with horses is, you know, 'dungeons'. It's why the cavalier class (or any class that relies on being mounted) typically has issues. Not insurmountable issues, but they're (mounts) situational.

Really, all a horse does is increase the PCs maneuverability and speed.

[Man_Over_Game]

The problem with horses is, you know, 'dungeons'. It's why the cavalier class (or any class that relies on being mounted) typically has issues. Not insurmountable issues, but they're (mounts) situational.


I think that's a common misconception with the Cavalier. It mentions mounts with only one feature, and that simply just prevents him from falling off. All of his other abilities work just fine on foot, and his biggest class feature (his marking ability) requires him to constantly stay adjacent to a target, which is exactly what a mount prevents you from having to do.

So he's slightly better with using a mount, he's good at tanking, but they don't synergize. He can't actually perform his job any better on a mount.



And while mobility doesn't sound like a major deal, keep in mind that besides punching, that's all the Monk class does. An easy Disengage/Dash is the very reason people take a few levels into Rogue. It's Expeditious Retreat without Concentration, roughly the equivalent of a level 2-3 spell that costs no combat resources.


Horses are good, and they should be, but I feel like the reward is much smaller than the risk/investment required in this example. You might not need the mobility in a dungeon, but that's true for any source of mobility in those circumstances, yet Monks still have mobility as one of their biggest class features.

[JackPhoenix]

Technically it takes a full minute to disappear (unless you have a DM sane enough to override the spell text :)), and is accessible to mages AND all their friends, but I agree with your basic point: attacking the mount is a valid tactic.

Funny thing about that: it takes the mount a minute to disappear after it takes damage, but the spell's duration is over at that point. And you can only ride the mount for the duration. Which means that while the mount is still there, fading away, you can't ride it anymore. Somehow.

Now, put some caltrops in those 5' corridors: the mount would have to slow down to 25' of movement (half speed to avoid caltrops, and every feet moved costs extra thanks to squeezing) or face DC 15 Dex save (at disadvantage, thanks to squeezing) to avoid taking the 1 damage.

[MaxWilson]

Funny thing about that: it takes the mount a minute to disappear after it takes damage, but the spell's duration is over at that point. And you can only ride the mount for the duration. Which means that while the mount is still there, fading away, you can't ride it anymore. Somehow.

Yep, it's a weird effect, which is why a sane DM will just rule that the mount "pops" as soon as it takes damage. It's just simpler.


Now, put some caltrops in those 5' corridors: the mount would have to slow down to 25' of movement (half speed to avoid caltrops, and every feet moved costs extra thanks to squeezing) or face DC 15 Dex save (at disadvantage, thanks to squeezing) to avoid taking the 1 damage.

I love me some caltrops in 5' corridors. PCs tend to benefit more than monsters because they have better ranged attacks and better options for avoiding the caltrops (e.g. wall-running monks).

As an aside, 5' corridors are unreasonably wide for a dwelling-place. 3'-4' hallways are quite common in real life (3' is a common minimum standard, and 4' feels rather spacious) and should be common in any fantasy world.

[Malifice]

I think that's a common misconception with the Cavalier. It mentions mounts with only one feature, and that simply just prevents him from falling off. All of his other abilities work just fine on foot, and his biggest class feature (his marking ability) requires him to constantly stay adjacent to a target, which is exactly what a mount prevents you from having to do.

So he's slightly better with using a mount, he's good at tanking, but they don't synergize. He can't actually perform his job any better on a mount.



And while mobility doesn't sound like a major deal, keep in mind that besides punching, that's all the Monk class does. An easy Disengage/Dash is the very reason people take a few levels into Rogue. It's Expeditious Retreat without Concentration, roughly the equivalent of a level 2-3 spell that costs no combat resources.


Horses are good, and they should be, but I feel like the reward is much smaller than the risk/investment required in this example. You might not need the mobility in a dungeon, but that's true for any source of mobility in those circumstances, yet Monks still have mobility as one of their biggest class features.

I wasnt referring to the 5e Cavalier (it was an intentional design decision not to tie its class features into a horse for the exact reasons I described above).

More the issue with 'Mounted combat' classes like the Cavalier in other editions.

In 3.P most Cavaliers you tend to see are Halflings or Gnomes riding medium sized animals to get around the 'dungeon' issue. Which renders the kind of archetypal knight in shining armor concept kind of moot.

[MaxWilson]

I think that's a common misconception with the Cavalier. It mentions mounts with only one feature, and that simply just prevents him from falling off. All of his other abilities work just fine on foot, and his biggest class feature (his marking ability) requires him to constantly stay adjacent to a target, which is exactly what a mount prevents you from having to do.

So he's slightly better with using a mount, he's good at tanking, but they don't synergize. He can't actually perform his job any better on a mount.

I should note that because the Cavalier's signature ability (guarding other PCs) relies on hitting enemies with melee attacks, and Mounted Combatant grants advantage on melee attacks against targets smaller than your mount, the Cavalier has a lot of incentive to take the Mounted Combatant feat.

[Waterdeep Merch]

In 3.P most Cavaliers you tend to see are Halflings or Gnomes riding medium sized animals to get around the 'dungeon' issue. Which renders the kind of archetypal knight in shining armor concept kind of moot.
I preferred it back when horses were considered 5x10' so that they could at least travel down hallways normally. I'd be willing to work with a player to do this, too, but they're all too good about not asking for preferential treatment and stick to hoofing it. Even my shorties.

I mean, movement speed is a cool advantage, but it's already hampered straight to hell in dungeon corridors. And horses aren't exactly adamantine when it comes to surviving traps or monsters that have had quite enough of the paladin's shenanigans. Anything to vary up their tactics more.

[Malifice]

I should note that because the Cavalier's signature ability (guarding other PCs) relies on hitting enemies with melee attacks, and Mounted Combatant grants advantage on melee attacks against targets smaller than your mount, the Cavalier has a lot of incentive to take the Mounted Combatant feat.

Their class features also help them mess with people who go after their mount (drawing free attacks against creatures that swing at the Horse, plus forcing attacks at the horse to be made at disadvantage, plus Warding attacks off the horse with warding manouver etc).

They're designed to protect party members, but work just fine when its the Cavalier and the Horse together as well.

[Amdy_vill]

My players have recently started to ride mounts into combat and the the very basic written rules leaves a lot of room for adjudication (by design I suppose) Just wondering how some of you run it.

The way I read the rules the mount can move and dash and the player can also move and attack without any penalty. Do any of you require animal handling checks? What about shooting a longbow?
Or the player could move the mount 30 feet, attack, use mounts disengage, move 30 more feet away, without any AoO.

What DCs do you use for controlling a mount in different situations, especially a mount not trained for combat.

I run mounts of a modification to the player. you gain there speed and an action. that action can be use to do things that the mount can do such as dash or make a hove attack and then i just run them like a normal character.

[Ding]

I preferred it back when horses were considered 5x10' so that they could at least travel down hallways normally.

I know, right? Representing a horse as a 10'x10' square in 5e has always seemed a little ridiculous to me. I can't help but imagine my paladin sitting atop a cube-shaped horse whenever I'm in combat.

[Potato_Priest]

I preferred it back when horses were considered 5x10' so that they could at least travel down hallways normally. I'd be willing to work with a player to do this, too, but they're all too good about not asking for preferential treatment and stick to hoofing it. Even my shorties.

How did the facing of the horse work back in this time period? I'd love to implement different shape monsters, and older editions might be good for guidance.

[Rowan Wolf]

That whole 10x10 on large creatures is also an issue with animal companions on beast master ranger as they are worried about the space control for players having a 10x10 at all times. Though they completely forgot they gave that to some druids at level 2.

[JoeJ]

Mostly, for me, it's a balance concern. Mounts are better than a lot of magical items, are much cheaper, and are found easily. Steal one when nobody notices, it's not like there are tracking numbers on them.

But a Monk gets a lot of benefits that are trumped by someone buying a 50g mount, for instance.

The monk can also buy a mount, however. And having NPCs and humanoid monsters routinely showing up with mounts of their own generally won't come across as the DM trying to screw over the players, because in the real medieval world people who could travel mounted usually did so.


Consider the fact that the Mobile feat gives +10 movement a turn with Disengage movement but only against creatures you make a melee attack against.

Mounts are almost x2 as good as one of the best feats in the game. Sure, it's not applicable in a dungeon, but when is Mobile going to be useful when a mount isn't?

As you yourself point out, mounts are not terribly useful in dungeons (or really, indoors at all). They also don't gain hp when you go up in level and start facing tougher monsters.